Comments

There must be some correlation between negative campaigning and snide advertising. Some element of the human psyche apparently responds much better to the negaitive than the positive. That said, I'd much rather be a part of a positive, creative message that motivates and inspires rather than a nasty one that plays to human failings and doubt.

Posted by Greg at February 26, 2008 4:13 PM

Unfortunately, while many of us mouth the phrase "customer dialogue", few of us are actually doing it. Most mass media today should be used to open the conversation but the temptation remains to try to close the sale with an overt, clumsy message. The Kinkos ad is a great example. I also think it is an attempt to try to show an immediate ROI for an expensive TV campaign. Patience, my friends, patience.

Posted by Bruce Bortree at February 26, 2008 5:04 PM

It'd be interesting if we could visit an alternative universe where hugely successful companies never advertised at all! (Oh, wait a minute, we live in that universe...) So much for Super Bowl ads.

I admit, I chuckle at some of the clever snide ads - but they don't make me want to buy whatever they're selling.

So, they cut through the clutter - that doesn't make for better customer relationships or more revenues.

Posted by Mary Schmidt at February 26, 2008 5:19 PM

Media, most notably for-profit media, has been talking down to consumers for decades. Cha?
And we have fallen for it. How many times have you looked at a printed ad or seen a commerical and said, "Mine never looked like that?" and wondered why.
Now, we have prime time television successfully (based on profits) reaching for the lowest common denominator.
The axiom "If no one watched, it wouldn't be there" is still very true.

The beer ads are highly creative, smart and make me laugh. I stop what I'm doing and watch. They are very cynical but it's disguised.
I would NEVER drink that stuff. Yuck!
But, plenty of other people will.

So, who's to blame?

Posted by nextgenradio at February 26, 2008 7:45 PM

I think there's an element of chicken and egg here. Do advertisers use snide humour because it's in fashion so the advert taps into the current mood and appears trendy? Or do people become snide because advertisers present it to them? I suspect the former has more to do with it while the latter might simply reinforce it.

I'd guess that most people who post on this site probably find snide adverts and humour rather unpleasant, although if we're honest about it a bit of a guilty pleasure in small doses! But the fact is that for a large number of people, snide, snarky "humour" is clever and the advertisers use it because it will appeal to them. The same people would probably reject our approach as boring and too clever by 1.6

What was it H L Mencken said: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the ... public."

Posted by Mark JF at February 27, 2008 4:14 AM

One question - does it work?

Posted by PaulH at February 27, 2008 7:48 AM

Doesn't the use of snide in advertising just reflect what the current trend is in entertainment? Look at some of the popular TV shows. Would House be entertaining if he was warm and fuzzy like Dr. Kildare? Would Scrubs be amusing without the sarcastic Chief Resident, or whatever he is? And if you listen to the conversations of the Gen Me'ers, you'll hear the same sarcastic one liners are an integral part of their speech. It's like they've been raised on these shows and think that's how people really communicate. So the ad agencies are really just reflecting what they think the current culture is.

And I agree with Mark JF - I'm guilty of getting a chuckle from the ads and the shows. I love a bit of well placed snark. And no one ever suggested that the media was a hotbed of innovative thinking. If it brings in the ratings, it will be aired.

Posted by Brian Tingley at February 27, 2008 10:10 AM

'So, they cut through the clutter - that doesn't make for better customer relationships or more revenues.'

Brilliant Mary - you sum up perfectly my thoughts with that sentence.

Integrity and Ethical actions on the other hand WILL make for better customer relationships and more revenues. Most important, those behaviours create results long term. I suspect customers are smarter than advertisers think and I don't believe customers are taken in by short term clever adverts. The brilliant drum playing Gorilla/Phil Collins TV advert we discussed a few months ago on this Blog didn't make me go out and buy chocolate but it was good entertainment. I would love to know if it made any difference whatsoever to sales figures for Cadbury’s chocolate. If not, what was the point … other than, I guess, the advertisers winning an award for the advert itself?

I know nothing about the advertising business so I may be way off the mark but that's my opinion.

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 27, 2008 5:01 PM

tompeters! is a brand - this website is and always has been an advertisement for that brand. For some years now it has done and excellent job - this site has enhanced tompeters! as a global brand. This site has worked a treat in the past - the key to its success was a combination of Tom' quirky commentaries and Erik's sensitive and yet insightful interviews with an eclectic mob of Cool Friends. But without Tom Peters this site sucks!

I agree with Steve Yastrow (who ever you are?) that:

.... "Customers — your customers — are scrutinizing, savvy, discerning, and self-reliant. They look beyond your promises, and consider every interaction with your company as a chance to evaluate you."

Bring back Tom - Please!

If you can bring back Tom in full flight and fury then all will quickly be forgiven. If you continue as you are on this site at present then you will totally destroy a once iconic brand...

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at February 27, 2008 6:36 PM

Advertising and campaigning must enforce a strong strategic alliance with the client. The objective is to COMMUNICATE the firm’s products, services, values, ethos in a transparent and accountable way. Zero distortion tolerance as to the messages disseminated.

Ad agencies cannot make up for the shortcomings of the business enterprise. Those shortcomings consequential of a core business sup-optimally managed. Get the business optimum first. Then, communicate it clearly, being sensible to the community at large.

A funny piece is one thing. To make fun of others is another (terrible). To be creative in the message is highly desirable. If the incumbent’s corporation has unique attributes and does great business, just say it comprehensibly without manipulating or over-promising.

Some day soon the subject matter on VALUES is going to be more than indispensable to keep global society alive. The rampant violations of the aforementioned values should be death-to-life matter of study by ad agencies without a fail.

The global climate change, the flu pandemia (to be), the geology (earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis), large meteorites, nuke wars are all among the existential risks. To get matters worse, value violations by the ad agencies, mass media, and the rest of the economy would easily qualify as an existential risk.

Humankind requires transparency and accountability the soonest.

Posted by Andres Agostini at February 27, 2008 8:34 PM

Great comments! Thanks. All are insightful.

Mary summed up a lot. First of all, her (Oh, wait a minute, we live in that universe...) line is priceless. And, Mary's "cut through the clutter" comment is the essence of what I'm saying. So what if people notice, if they are not moved by your message, and don't connect with it?

That's the problem with how much of advertising is practiced. It misses it's overall potential to contribute to the business, by focusing on its own limited purpose.

Brian's Scrubs comment, which I believe is about sarcastic, snide Dr. Cox (who is not the chief resident, but is senior attending physician and director of residency ... my kids are Scrubs nuts, and are complete experts on the show) captures the point: I can laugh at Dr. Cox's antics, but I wouldn't want to hang out with him.

However, another blogger, Mike Bawden, took issue with both me and Richard Rappaport's comments on his blog at bawden.wordpress.com. Mike thought that the issue is basically that snideness is more of a general trend, and he didn't like that I called the advertising busines "sick." I left him a comment and we traded some good emails. (Hey, not surprisingly, the only people I regularly tend to piss of are advertising people!) Mike also commented on his blog that the comments here disagreed with me, which didn't seem to be the case. Am I reading your comments wrong?(!)

Marketing is best when it helps your company relate to people in a way that people actually relate to each other. One way communication centered on snideness is generally not a good way to communicate. Andres's comment above is great: "Humankind requires transparency and accountability."

Posted by Steve Yastrow at February 27, 2008 9:48 PM

Actually, Steve, the point I tried to make is that the comments on Richard Rappaport's article (on AdAge.com) took issue with Mr. Rappaport's point-of-view and, by extension, some of the points you made in your post. I appologize if I wasn't clear (that's what you get when you post late at night, I suppose).

All in all, though, I appreciate the fact you have the nerve to bring up the issue of "civility" in communication - specifically advertising. Although the irony that we'd be discussing this issue via the blogosphere (a medium which seems to reward the snarky and obnoxious) hasn't passed me by, despite the hour.

Thanks again for the thoughtful post.

Mike Bawden
Brand Central Station

Posted by Mike Bawden at February 28, 2008 12:38 AM

I agree with the main idea that 'snide' sucks. Do we blame the agencies or the executives who they are trying to please. You are right about them trying too hard to cut through the clutter too quickly and end up losing sight of the fact that in some case they are trying to reinforce the existing bond between them and a prospect/customer.

Posted by Business Loans at February 28, 2008 12:39 AM

Steve - I think your summary gets to the nub of it where you say, "...snideness is generally not a good way to communicate..." Emphasis on "generally." Sometimes, then, it is an effective way to communicate.

Here's another heretical thought. In your post you say that all ads should, "...blend with all other contacts the customer has with the company..." I'd like to take a moment to challenge that. Why? I wonder if we buy in too quickly to that message and whether some creative friction can be a good thing. Maybe the occasional maverick item can, by contrast even, help to remind people about the brand's core values. Maybe it can throw up new opportunities and spin-off's. Maybe it just stops the brand from getting stale.

It's rather like when you hang out with the same bunch of people day in and day out: you turn into one of them. Sometimes you need to hang out with the company's outcasts or the neighbourhood maverick to get a fresh perspective.

Posted by Mark JF at February 28, 2008 3:28 AM

Beautiful, Mark JF. Thank you. You have, in fact, addressed my thought about iconic brands. The real beauty with this brand is that it births (even encourages) many variances, though the respect for the icon is apparent in the new brand - acknowledged or not. Who wants clones anyway? No creativity there? Another ironic thought...what we claim to value most i.e., independence, impermanence, oddities etc., is challenged with the absence of the iconic brand -- though the voice remains.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 28, 2008 7:53 AM

I recently purchased a wonderful new ‘toy’ – a SkyPlus Box. We now NEVER watch any programme on commercial TV ‘live’. We record the programme then watch it on a delay so that we can fast forward through adverts. Sorry folks I remain cynical about all this. I suspect those who create TV adverts do it for their own ego rather than any evidence based effectiveness. I have never met a single person who actually enjoys TV programmes being constantly interrupted by the boring stuff that most TV adverts consist of. But as I said before – what do I Know?

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 28, 2008 5:37 PM

Mark JF & Judith,

Here's a thought in response to your comments ... friction and blending are not at odds.

There is no doubt that interesting experiences/products/brands/companies have tension and interest among their components. That's what makes them interesting and gives them personality. I am a jazz musician, and have a special appreciation for rich harmonies that contain interesting dissonances.

People often say that a brand needs to be "consistent." (And then they often mention the consistent McDonald's experience ... yawn). Consistency isn't the issue ... being complementary is. The most interesting harmonies, in art or in business or in anything else, contain components that blend to tell an interesting story. Those components aren't always predictable and boring ... they are often beautiful due to their contrast. (Think of the character of Hamlet)

Your thoughts?

Posted by Steve Yastrow at February 28, 2008 11:10 PM

Steve...I agree with you about brand inconsistency. (Who, by the way, drives the brand? Who maintains the it? The creator or the customer?) More poignantly for me, however, is the response of other professionals in relations to the "iconic brand." I wonder how the iconic brand affects future brands. This idea was drawn from Richard Lipcombe's comment about the absence of TP and the current direction of the blog.

The focus was not the iconic brand but the legacy that such a brand influences and leaves upon those who purchase it both philosophically and monetarily. (The reference here is to both profesionals and customers.) As a musician, student of philosophy, art connoisseur, and chaplain, I understand well the beauty of dissonances in literature, art, religion, and music. One needs only to listen to Ella or Sarah for this confirmation.

The beauty of jazz greats can be found in the way in which they turn a traditional Cole Porter or George Gershwin song. Ella and Sarah were masters. And in the hands of the likes of Trane, Monk or Miles, the original tune can be all but unrecognized; only a sweet hint of the melody remains. Iconic brands inspire both dissonances and harmonies, similarities and differences. The key is the inspiration of iconic brands that cause future brands to be more creative, to create a voice of their own --although the iconic brand though "absent" is present. Thank you, TP.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 29, 2008 2:22 AM

Very interesting points about friction and blending - I guess the question is if it is intentional or not?

Given that most companies struggle to get anything even vaguely consistent in the usual friction of doing business - the thought of intentional friction and blending but within an overall framwork is probably a bit advanced.

Clearly there has to be some theme or values involved - how do companies approach this?

Posted by PaulH at February 29, 2008 3:14 AM

Steve - it's a good point and I'm guilty of assuming "blend" means "the same" rather than "includes contrasts to define and highlight the whole." I like that word "complementary" but clearly the problem with it is that my complementary ad is your off message ad. Which, in response to Judith's point about who drives the brand, can lead us back to centralisation and control. How many corporations would be prepared to define a framework and then let the business units work within it? It comes back to the loose / tight issue again...

Posted by Mark JF at February 29, 2008 3:56 AM

"I suspect those who create TV adverts do it for their own ego rather than any evidence based effectiveness."

Trevor, I can't speak for all advertising agencies but at DDB our reason for being is to provide better ideas that lead to better results for our clients. The EFFIES http://www.effie.org/about and IPA Effectiveness Awards http://www.ipaeffectivenessawards.co.uk corroborate that our ideas lead to results. They also prove that we're not just doing ads to make our reels look better.

Posted by Paul Ross at February 29, 2008 8:38 AM

It is interesting how the public percieves Ads (in relation to how the company sees them)

I can remember an American beer advert which showed all sorts of ways of improving football (soccer) and then ended with "on second thoughts we will stick to the Beer and you stick to the football.

My main thought was you are a poor quality beer and personally football is not my favourite game(sorry Trevor!) so I really wanted the beer company to stop producing beer and start trying to improve football...... I am not entirely sure that was the intention of the ad

Posted by PaulH at February 29, 2008 11:04 AM

PaulH - that's a great point about the real struggle for consistency. It might be a bit unrealistic to consider inconsistency as value added when the major struggle is to attain consistency in order to produce products and services. But I believe that this notion of inconsistency can first be a mindset as apposed to an actionable objective which, in fact, will produce action.

The proper mindset of inconsistency, which is essentially one of protyping, will spark creativity and interesting solutions. (With ads it might simply be testing the line or commerical on a diverse group -- not those in house -- prior to airing. I'm sure this is not novel. Being raised in a family of 11 siblings we had live ongoing tests all the time!) Mindset is key. I am so bent on the "how" of how we do what we do when we do it.

Blending is important for understanding and friction sparks variance. But "intentional friction" for friction sake will never work. Anything done for its own sake gets old and tired real fast. Friction has to evolve out of something, usually blending which is the typical mindset of the culture. The question would be the approach, the "how" of how we do what we do when we do it DURING creation and innovation. Create an enviroment of blending and experimentation. Results will follow.

This environment is so important; the result (product or service)is directly related to it. Humility and respect in the work environment itself and for the customer are keys here. These are also so important in advertising. Snide can be quite funny, but then it is a matter of how it is presented that makes the difference.

I'm not sure if I altogether buy the argument of art imitating life and vice-versa with regards to how we treat one another based on a TV program, although I do agree that TV can influence many. TV viewing can also purely be associated with viewer resentment or escapism that clearly distinguishes between what is acceptable and what isn't, and what's real and what isn't in culture en masse. If fantasy and snideness are presented, as thinking feeling human beings, we can choose to accept or reject it. (This does not refer to children. They need filters.)

Ads become popular with our acceptance and usally they are not those that are mean-spirited, though many poke fun at our univeral frailities or shortcomings. This we accept wholly. But if people chose to respond to us in some ways indicative of particular TV charcters, we would simply reject or ignore them as we often do with some ads. The question still remains of the value in sales for snide ads, not necessarily its affect on culture. Are these things synonymous?

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 29, 2008 11:41 AM

Hi Paul R - and thanks for the links to EFFIES and IPAE - it is clear there is plenty of evidence this stuff works so I WAS WRONG - thanks for putting me right. I guess it is a personal thing and I will continue to fast forward through TV ads – I just don’t enjoy them and for me they ruin the flow of a programmes. BUT having said that …. The other day 1 of our 2 recently acquired puppies had an 'accident' on the carpet and as I washed the offending stain … I started to sing to myself;

‘1001 cleans a big, big carpet for the less than half a crown’

Now I don’t really expect anyone on this Blog will remember that TV ad from here in the UK (from the late 1960’s I would guess) but I obviously DID remember it – so I am actually defeating my own argument :-)

Or maybe I just need to get out more!

My point is, I guess it did make an impression on me in my childhood because ‘half a crown’ disappeared decades ago …. and yet …. I even remember the tune.

You are clearly the expert in this - not me …… I appreciate your feedback Paul :-)

Paul H – I played football (soccer) until well into my 30’s at a fairly competitive level and my only comment is that drinking beer often seemed to help our performances in my teams!!! … Just joking of course … in case our old football coach reads TP Blog :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 29, 2008 11:45 AM

It is in centralization that control is both garnered and dispersed. There is always a receiving and relinquishing. Brands (even ads) only exist with the significance we (professionals and customers) give them. The control of the brand is then as good as its value to us. Mark JF's comment about corporations relinquishing control to business units is a running discussion on this blog. The framework for me -- as you have probably well guessed -- is talent.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 29, 2008 3:24 PM

Umm. I wonder Steve, if it's really as you say, or what you say is how you would like it to be. I apologise for taking a sceptical line, but I suspect there are still a whole lot of people out there who respond to this advertising JUST as the advertisers want. Take a look at the current crop of negative ads from the presidential primaries; apparently this stuff works, regardless of the "well they would say that wouldn't they" factor. I don't like snide anything as I think it's corrosive, but lots of people lap it up.

Posted by Rob at February 29, 2008 5:03 PM

Trevor, I for one remember the 1001 advert well. I tried explaining pre-decimal coinage to my kids once, and suddenly realised why it had to go (just too damned complicated), however beautiful it was. For those unfamiliar, half a crown was two shillings and sixpence, and there were eight of them to the pound. Good luck.

Posted by Rob at February 29, 2008 5:10 PM

Hi Rob - Thank God I'm not the only one who remembers :-)

Try explaining to youngsters 240 pennies made one pound .... AWWW!! memories

And by the way I love your comment - 'I don't like snide anything'

For me 'snide' is another word for 'contempt' and that borders on 'cynicism' which borders on 'negative' and as an eternal 'optimist' I don't like 'negative' anything.

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 29, 2008 6:11 PM

Tom Peters during his career was on about Brand You - he epitomized what that concept meant to me and many of my colleagues. tompeters! was an extension of his brand power - it had energy, surprise, anger, controversy, etc. and those elements gave it use value.

Without Tom the brand tompeters! is something very different - it is Steve Yastrow pointing to the ever increasing importance of relationships (eg Lovemarks). The "demonstration effect" of this is Trevor, Judith, Mark JF, et al having a "virtual chat" about a whole multitude of things that you all find interesting or important. This site is becoming a Second Life for some of you and that should be encouraged because good things can flow from your thinking, camaraderie, and commitment here.

Steve Yastrow says brands do not have to be consistent and that is true as "the colours of Beneton" advertisements proved last century. And again the Brand You that was Tom Peters (if I can speak of Tom Peters that way, forgive me Tom) was never consistent it was erratic, it was coarse, it was raw, it was exciting, it was full of itself, it was unpredictable, it was larger than life, and it was some times seen by others as being snide (ie because advertisements/marketing/branding is a creative process that results in works of art wherein the true value is determined in the eye of the beholder not the creator).

I miss our friend Tom and I miss Tom Peters - his Brand You!

I have written missive here before about the world moving on - I have taken Tom on on this very point several times and he always replied, correctly it seems for his business interests, that it had not move on that far for his customers. Tom always knew that he applealed to people frustrated with their lot - people who want to do more at work and in life - he always knew they came to him seeking some type of inspiration for change. Tom has always been a showman and he has always been about "change you can believe in...."

If this site represents tompeters! moving on to embrace the new world of work in 2008 and beyond then I am all for it. I am all for the customers being precisely where the action is in this new world. For me customers are the new frontliners - they are as Alvin Toffler says now pro-sumers (ie both a part of production and of consumption). I am all for the customers being acclaimed and celebrated. This is the future - it also the present for brands such as Google, eBay, Skype, Amazon, Wal-Mart, Barack Obama, Cleveland Clinic, etc.

In closing for the final final time I really promise you all! - I have just two things to say.

1) Tom Peters thanks for the memories and I miss you!

2) There was a new age customer orientated Brand in the late 1940 and early 1950s (it still exists to today so it was built to last! as our Cool Friend Jim Collins might say). This mob invented viral marketing (no it was not our Cool Friend Seth Godin) and they invented a form of direct sales that Amazon now replicates so well online today. This mob had innovative products - which were that way because the company listened to its customers and then innovated its products to suit their customers' needs and thus to deliver new levels of "use value". This mob introduced a marketing and sales revolution at the time and this led to its rise and rise. AND all this sales and marketing brilliance was developed by a woman - Ms Wise. She smashed through the concrete ceiling of the 1940s and 1950s. Yeah it is simply known to this day as Tupperware!

Good luck tompeters! I hope this new format and brand works for you all as well as it did for Ms Wise at Tupperware.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at February 29, 2008 6:43 PM

Richard Lipscombe -- thank you. How much of your "Second Life" did you take in writing your very astute comments? And from the looks of it you, though seemingly perturbed, have been reading and thinking in this "virutal chat about a whole multitude of things," even though we are "Lovemarks" of no less, Steve Yastrow, and not of THE MAN himself. Pray tell, what are you? A Hatemark? You know, young people today forever asks in situations where there is even a tinge of resentment "Why you hating?" Don't be a hater! Be a lover!

But I know that deep inside you are a lover. Your comments reveal that you too bring your particular brand, your thought expressed in your "demonstration affect," in response to the comments of others no less through comments like "because advertisements/marketing/branding is a creative process that results in works of art wherein the true value is determined in the eye of the beholder not the creator." I could NOT have said those words better. They do, however, seem terribly familiar, beautifully similiar. Thank you.

I loved you comment about "pro-sumers." To affirm that great minds think alike, even though I'm sure you would not like to be in such a category with me (what is beautiful to me appears at face value to be that which is not so to you...I hate this! True beauty to me is Kantian, though as expressed before, he may be turning over in his grave at the thought and Kantian purists subjecting me to Hell) according to your comments. Anyway, I was just thinking of the customer as being a part of the frontline, which is essentially the inference that could be easily drawn by my questions about what drives the brand and who manages it. It is also apparent in my reference to the "professional and customer" as being a part of the whole. The "pro-sumer" was for me the combination of the professional and customer. In my mind, however, I thought consumer. But the word had a connotation that I was not then ready to address -- probably soon, though.

viagra for sale without prescription and next day delivery

WOW, Richard, this "virtual chat" which you seem perturbed about works for me and seems to at the very least sparks something within you that propels you to write on and on as "in closing for the final final time I really promise you all!" I Love it! The current blog seemingly also sparked the memory of the work Alvin Toffler for you. Thank again. The mention of Mr. Toffler is an interesting one. I'll google him later. This "virtual chat" is working for me.

And finally...over the past nearly two weeks I have been working in Dallas with a client. The beautiful thing is that my actions with my client and the tremendous success that I am experiencing right NOW I can honestly in part contribute to the "virutal chat" which have enabled my to clarify my notions and to act upon them simultaneously. My clients are immensely pleased.

Thank you all for your comments here. They matter. And especially to you, Richard Lipscombe, a big round of applause for your terse snide comments that first got my blood curddling soon began flowing feely. Your words matter.

"In closing for the final final time I really promise you all!" - I loved your point about Ms Wise smashing through concrete ceiling of the 1940s and 1950s. Thank you.

And..finally...really...I miss TP posts too which I wrote about briefly some some weeks back. Do you think your outing him will indeed bring him out?

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 29, 2008 8:38 PM uk viagra no prescription

Excellent comments as ever from Richard. I’m a commenter since day 1 on TP Blog probably three yers ago – or maybe longer – time flies when you are enjoying yourself. I’ve read all the TP books since In Search of Excellence 25 years ago and I have the audios to enjoy on long (or short) car journeys. Most of the TP stuff is ageless as far as I can see - particularly about customers, front line staff, story telling and leadership – the stuff I love. Through TP Blog I have made many friends and associates – including Richard - I hope to make many more - long live interaction. I love the heavy exchanges and I love the lighter humorous stuff (I always say ‘It’s really not compulsory to be miserable at work’) Most of all I learn every time I visit TP Blog. The biggest thing I learn that I have so much more to learn. I learn that I am often wrong. I learn there are some terrific people contributing to the exchanges here who teach me. I love the disagreements because from those I learn more. This Blog is actually a classroom but only if we see it that way. Sure I miss Tom’s personal input but the guy deserves a break – no one can ever accuse TP of shirking work over the last 25 years since ISOE. His work ethic is staggering. He has a life too. Quite a few times in the last three years I have thought I will have a break from TP Blog but I keep coming back. When I feel the need to stop communicating and therefore stop learning I guess I will not return. My wonderful late Grandmother at 89 told me as she approached the end of her long life that she was learning every day so there’s every chance I will be visiting TP for a few more years.

Posted by Trevor Gay at March 1, 2008 3:47 AM

Yesterday, after packed client day, included hours of snow-delayed (mostly non-) flying, which got me to a family dinner just in time ... all of which means I didn't end up checking in here. What a pleasure to wake up and see these kinds of comments from yesterday. Wow.

Now, I'm off to a gig with my band (I wasn't kidding about my avocation), and I promise to create some interesting tension-filled harmonies on my guitar in honor of this conversation ... I can't wait to get back this afternoon and respond to these comments.

For more on this idea, see "Don't make your brand consistent" at www.yastrow.com.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at March 1, 2008 8:31 AM

Back from playing music ... this discussion was on my mind (in a good way) throughout the gig. I'm always focused on contrast and harmony, but today I consciously stayed aware of interesting contrasts - in terms of pitch, rhythm and texture. I paid attention to the contrasts and harmonies on my own guitar, and how I blended with my band mates. It helped me discover new, interesting rhythmic contrasts with the bass, even though Ari and I have played together for years. I tried new textures, playing familiar passages with new colors. (Judith ... I won't claim to have been at the level of Ella and Sarah, but certainly inspired by them and their cohort!)

This is exactly what happens when you create brand harmony with customers ... create interesting contrasts, not boring "consistencies."

Judith - your question (probably rhetorical, since I'm sure you know the answer!) about who drives the brand ... As I wrote in Brand Harmony, "You don't brand your customers, they brand you." That is one of my most fundamental business beliefs. And, following your comment about the beauty of jazz greats is in the way they turn a traditional tune ... I am an enemy of scripting in retail environments, and I've often used the jazz metaphor with clients to show them why scripting isn't necessary. I can meet jazz musicians and immediately start to improvise with them, because we understand the structure of the tunes and share musical idioms. Similarly, if employees know the underlying principles of the business and share beliefs, they can improvise in a way that blends in harmony with the actions of other employees who know the same principles and share complementary beliefs. (And, Judith, I think we all agree that "intentional friction for friction's sake" is not what we're talking about ... that's what creates snide ads!)

This is how PaulH's question is answered about intentionality and MarkJF's follow up comment: If people in the company all "get it," their actions will be more complementary. You don't need tight central control, you need tight, clear communication of the brand essence to come from the center, so people throughout the company can act in a complementary way.

Rob ... I don't think it's how I want it to be. I think it's how customer's want it to be! Yeah, some people do respond to ads in the traditional way, but it's becoming much more difficult to gain customers in that way.

Richard ... thanks for such thought-ridden comments! No need to add to them!

Posted by Steve Yastrow at March 1, 2008 8:46 PM

And ...

viagra on line sales

Richard Rapaport, the writer of the Snide Advertising article on the Ad Age site that started our conversation, gave me a call today. His article has received tons of play on the Internet, and he thought our discussion was really good, and among the most thoughtful. Let's look out for further insights and great thinking from Richard.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at March 1, 2008 8:50 PM

Steve -- thank you tons for sharing your performance experience with us and the appropos analogy to "Brand Harmony." For me, the beauty of your analogy lies largely in the brilliance that comes in the very moment of improvisation and the necessity of trust and freedom needed to break out of the mold, yet stay within the key and rhythm of the whole, while blending the richness of tonality, color and rhythm in the mind's eye. Friction and harmony is then produced individually and collectively simultaneously.

This blending of friction and harmony requires the kind of trust and freedom within constraints (yes...contraints!) that could substitute for "central control." (There is beautiful receiving and relinquishing here, a simple humbling necessary in both.) This is not to say, however, that I'm against central control. A sense of focal leadership (delegated authority) is essential. It remains important how we honor and respect leadership and managment.

My point about intentional friction for friction sake was simply to address the real important question of the "how" in how we do what we do when we do it that matters most. Essentailly, it is the approach that I tried to emphasize, as opposed to the need for a particular action. I tried to address mindset and the evolution of friction out of staid environment. I tried to address the act of improvisation in creating an environment of blending. Mindset is key. And there is nothing that could be more debatable than mindset. The "how" addresses mindset; it addresses intention.

In your jazz performance you would have had to have heard the melody and possibly seen the rich textures of an improvisition before the very act...even if in a split second. The mind's eye catches the phrase before it is played, hearing the syncopations, dissonances and harmonies. But this would not be possible without many hours of gigging. The trust and freedom you undoubtedly experienced evolved from a confidence in the group collectively and in your ability individually. The mind's eye is then both individual and collective.

The same is true in business; the whole process of production works in the same way. The final version has been seen in the mind's eye indivdiually and collectively many times before the product is produced, line spoken, or commercial ran. (The whole sees the same image: managers, talent, and consumers.) Scripting may not be advisible, but there is most certainly individual and collective imaging within constraints that allows for trust and freedom that produces great improvisation.

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 2, 2008 12:34 AM

Steve....I love this: "If people in the company all "get it," their actions will be more complementary. You don't need tight central control, you need tight, clear communication of the brand essence to come from the center, so people throughout the company can act in a complementary way."

What beauty! It is the "tight" that I missed earlier. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 2, 2008 1:13 PM

Judith ... have you read Brand Harmony?

Posted by Steve Yastrow at March 2, 2008 11:45 PM

Two years ago I had the absolute joy of attending a two hour masterclass by Professor Gary Hamel in Birmingham, England. As you would expect from such a legendary academic he summed up the challenge of customer care and advertsing in a wonderfully simple sentence that I now use at every opporunity I get. He said;

'Customers are more cynical – ‘They can smell bull**** a mile away’

I love that - thank you once more Prof Hamel for your great academic wisdom in curtting to the chase and destroying the myth of complexity :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at March 3, 2008 2:44 AM

Why is there (is there?) a linkage between being more cynical and being able to detect BS?

Posted by Mark JF at March 3, 2008 3:20 AM

Steve...I have not read Brand Harmony. Are you recommending it ? :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 3, 2008 7:06 AM

I don't know is the answer Mark JF. I think a better quote would be:'Customers are becoming SMARTER - they can smell bull**** a mile way' That, I would argue is 100% true.

Posted by Trevor Gay at March 3, 2008 11:58 AM

Judith - Steve is probably a bit too humble to recommend his own book...so I will ... A great read (and Steve is a fellow Michigander in the summer) Hope things are well...

Posted by Mike Neiss at March 4, 2008 12:35 PM

Mike...I'll pick up the book for sure. And it's way cool to know that Steve hangs out in Michigan in the summer. There is no State more beautiful, though many are equally as so. All is well. Best to you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 4, 2008 1:14 PM

This blog posting aligns closely with something I just read on the Business Week Website. The author, Steve McKee, wrote about avoiding advertisements that don't fit your brand (even when they may have shock or "news" value). In particular, he mentioned the disastrous Quiznos ad featuring the hideous singing "Spongmonkeys." When these ads ran, Quiznos actually experienced a significant drop in customer visits.

Posted by Stewart Clifford at March 13, 2008 10:23 AM

An ad campaign must be a project abiding by standards and ethics and values. Rule #1 is to be honest, not push/pressure your product/service at any cost (not just economically), not to incur into negative advertising. I agree that this is a mind-set and also an ingrained talent (born with).

viagra uk next day delivery

While managing the different pieces (components, elements, phases, contexts that stem from the system, namely the “ad campaign”), everything must be unimpeachably true, verifiable, and deliverable. Otherwise, What would the incumbent be doing to his branding strategy as the public at large become increasingly disturbed by this one company?

Creativity and innovation are invited to the utmost to make the ad so relevant. Soberness, at all times, is beyond crucial. Some basics are in due place. Former U.K. prime minister, Tony Blair officious words of his chief preference, “education, education, education.” To up quality, he/she must pay heed to this essential saying.

how to get viagra toronto

Whatever the ad message, What does the incumbent wish to accomplish? What EXPERIENCE does the exchange presented by the “live” ad take place? That answered, Where does he expect to be in his industry in the forthcoming 5 years? I wonder!

cheap viagra from india

Posted by Andres Agostini at March 14, 2008 2:29 PM

It seems that we live in a thankless world and this void seems most pronounced in day-to-day business. The ever increasing pace of commerce in the new millennium seems to leave little time for a thank you or even common courtesy. Global competitiveness seems to have sapped us of empathy and compassion. Yes, this is a cynical view of business today but I fear it is true. It is my opinion that we are mired in a deep dark thankless funk that rivals the world of Ebenezer Scrooge from Dickens lore.

For example, advertising is overwhelmingly negative. Charles Schwab, a brokerage company without analysts, ran ads a few years ago showing other brokers to be commission-hungry con artists, pushing a bad stock; in the advertisement a full commission broker joked about “putting lipstick on that pig.” The pressure of controversy seems to have gotten the better of them (i.e. Schwab). Although Merrill Lynch was shown by New York City prosecutors to have very similar internal email conversations, CBS, thinking it too controversial, refused to run the ad. (The ClickZ Network).

One only has to turn to YouTube or most anywhere on the web to read the smear campaigns that tear down political candidates in our 2008 Presidential primaries. Barack Obama is a victim of a Republican smear campaign which spread false information about his family history, religion, and background using a false Wikipedia citation. This is an example of negative advertising at its best with lies included. Regretfully, this negative viral message spread like crazy, misinforming thousands of readers.

Presuming that you buy into my harsh view of current affairs in the world, what should you do? I suggest that you do the opposite. Greet the world by saying thank you to your customers, colleagues, suppliers, and competitors. Be different than the rest and look for the good in things and be grateful. At the very least, it will make you feel better. I can only imagine the shock on people’s faces when you greet them cheerfully and express good tidings.

William Arthur Ward said that “Feeling gratitude and not expressing it is like wrapping a present and not giving it.” Give the gift of your gratitude. Give often.

Posted by John Bradley Jackson at March 15, 2008 12:21 AM