Build A Better Box

We all know these people. When you absolutely need an answer - and the right answer, we all have that favorite connection who can hook us up. Malcolm Gladwell calls these people "mavens." They usually have all the answers, right when you need them.

Are you this person? Are you the one who people call for expert advice or a great plan of attack? The one everyone knows to connect with when they need the right answer? If you aren't, then you have a new assignment: become that person in your field, and be sure your market is aware.

It's safe to say that if you have been in your line of work long enough, you've learned a thing or two. Why not use this as your best tactic for generating revenue and driving your business? One thing to remember is that ALL business is cemented by the relationships between supplier and customer, between service provider and client, between person and person. Your relationships can outlast any dip, swing, or trend in your industry and they are the #1 thing to be nurtured and protected. When your audience needs an answer, be the one they call. And if your business depends on your ability to service your ideas, and not merely dispense them, this is one of the best tactics to getting work in the front door.

Seth Godin recently wrote about video in its role as an educational tool, citing YouTube as a common forum for the masses to dispense know-how and information to one another.

The compelling power of video is something our company has been leveraging for decades, and the educational aspects of video are being talked about now more than ever before. The age of conversation we often discuss centers around the incredible techno-sociological movement we are experiencing, fueled by the Internet through use of blogging, dynamic Web sites, emails, chat rooms, and other social networking vehicles. And at the core of every conversation is someone's story waiting to be told, and information to be shared.

One of the most valuable things we offer - beyond our product or service - is our knowledge. For some, our knowledge is our core offering. And through imparting what we know, we all have the opportunity to position ourselves as experts in our respective industries - a key to leadership.

Everyone has something to share, and everyone something to learn. We are all simultaneously teacher and student. And each of us has the privilege to take part in the exchange of information and ideas through story - with video and interactive media among the most powerful viral mediums.

If you're in the market for a new home, would you call your agent and ask, "I want a house. How much?" And even if you did ask such a ridiculously framed question, typical responses might be, "How many bedrooms do you need? Do you want a water view? How much land would you like?" And of course there's the all-important, "What is your price range?" Well, guess what: the communications business is no different.

Telling a story - in any form - is a lot like real estate: there is market value and assessed value. Market value is what drives home prices, based on their particular neighborhoods, school districts, and plot of land, or proximity to airports, bus lines, or highways, and so forth. Assessed value is what the tax collector uses for grand list measurement; it is often largely based on replacement cost at a material level. In our business, assessed value is what scares us, and is often what our clients get caught up in. Market value is what we should be pursuing, as is often the biggest subjective crux of a proposal. But it's the part we need to focus on when we make our pitch.

Our good friend and head storyteller here at Moving Pictures, Tom Clifford, has much to say on this subject, as well.

Why do many clients live under the common misconception that marketing and advertising costs $29 a pound, $4 a square yard, or - for video budgeting - the oft-believed myth of $1000 per minute? (For the record, good video has never cost "$1000 a minute". Further, by this logic, could a client assume that a four-minute video can be had for half price by cutting it down to two minutes? NO. This makes as much sense as ripping the blueprints down the middle and expecting your new house for 50% less money.) The truth of the matter is that many of us are in self-exile. Guardianship of the model is our responsibility, and if it's broken, it's up to us to fix it - not the client. If we continue to perpetuate it, shame on us. And if we fail to educate our clients, double shame on us.

Here are typical scenarios that often play out:

1. client: "I have X number of dollars. What can I get?"

or:

2. client: "Here's my concept. How much will this cost?"

The problem with both of these situations is this: who or what is driving the budget? Where's the rationale and the strategy (if there is any) behind the assignment of the budget criteria? And who decides whether the proposed budget is 20% too high? Too high for what? For the value in telling their story properly? "Yeah, our company vision is just not worth that kind of money." Right. But that's often the communicated subtext, whether they realize it or not.

Here's the best scenario:

you, to client: "Here is the plan we propose to deliver, based on what we know about your customers, your competition, and your industry. Here's how we propose to do it, here's the timeline, and here's what it will cost." By shedding light on a situation and revealing a compelling case to the client, the actual price can become secondary to the value-based framework surrounding the budget. The pricing now has relevance and meaning to the client. (Mercedes' customers certainly need not explain why they sell cars to people who could just as easily buy a used Yugo down the street.)

Proper execution of an initiative cannot and should not be immediately commoditized. Can you assign a value to your own worth? How much would you spend and how far would you go to realize your vision? "I don't really need to be #1, or even #10. I'm cool with being #427." If a client focuses more on imaginary dollar figures rather than a value and investment-based model, then being #427 in their market is probably where they'll wind up. As the beloved CT Lottery slogan goes, You can't win if you don't play. True, indeed.

How does a "breakthrough" happen? And does innovation happen as a spontaneous epiphany, the sole effort of a single, genius moment from a single mind? Or does it happen through a more intertwined process, through artful and synergistic collaboration? In this morning's Hartford Courant newspaper, staff writer William Weir contributed an excerpt from an interview he conducted with author Scott Berkun on his book The Myths of Innovation. The book examines the complex and thought-provoking subject of what innovation really means and many common misconceptions surrounding innovation.

Berkun recants the story of Sir Isaac Newton (useless trivia: a distant cousin of mine) and his "discovery" of gravity. The story of the apple falling from the tree was an analogy Newton used to describe something that would otherwise be a complex explanation, but this metaphor has - over the course of history - been ascribed as a literal event. Berkun also reminds us that many great "Eurekas!" are often the result of a much longer process of exploration, research, discovery, learning - and, yes, collaboration.

Newton was not alone throughout his work. At a minimum, he was in concert with the physical cues from the environment - both the observable and hypothetical world around him. In each of our own lives, we might be inspired by others, or what we see and learn around us. And we've all experienced the creative horsepower generated through group think-tank sessions around the white board, the kitchen table, or the local pub after hours. The "1+1+1=6" analogy I use often describes the nonlinear power of a group effort. The energy resulting from great collaboration can be mind bending at times, and the process of formulating engaging and dynamic new ideas is catapulted exponentially beyond what a single person can often yield.

The real test of anything new is how well it resonates with an audience. If it does not, the idea is as good as dead and buried. Is a new product idea strong enough to capture the hearts of the marketplace? Is a new process or procedure sticky enough to engage the minds of the business community? Does the world want what they are being pitched? As both Guy Kawasaki and Tom Kelley have also both written about, innovation is a two-fold process: not only does it happen through a collaboration of energies, but it requires manifestation to become reality. Innovation is not merely a great idea hatched, only to sit on the proverbial drawing board or desk drawer. Only when it breathes life in the real world is it truly innovation in action.

_{(photo credit)}

It seems every day, more and more people are taking the plunge. They are starting their own blogs. Becoming as common as a diary to a 16-year-old girl in the '50s, blogs take the personal monolog to the public arena. We impart our thoughts, musings, and words of subjective wisdom to the masses - sometimes as much for our own edification as anything else. Blogs do at least three things: Give us a voice to the world; conversely, give the world something more from which to glean; and the original intent, to act as a dynamic draw through the search engines.

As I've written before, the technology of today allows closet artists, writers, and musicians to create and express themselves like never before. And this is both a bane and a boon. As all works of the creative mind are subject to interpretation, criticism, and judgment, some might argue that much of today's creative output would have best been left in the minds of the creators. So, too, might be the case with many blogs. Indeed, although anyone has the right to go forth and blog, the rest of the connected universe has zero obligation to read any of it, much less appreciate the effort set forth. Each time we create something, we take a crapshoot leap of faith that it'll resonate with someone. (Unless we create purely for self expression. And that's cool, too.)

But there's something that troubles me. And something that troubles many others, particularly a very important segment of our world: the almighty client. In the corporate world, most of these folks have their metaphoric hands and tongues tied. Open communication is often an oxymoron, as the watchful eye of Big Brother filters through nearly every piece of electronic correspondence. Compliance and legal departments have found new paranoia over the prospects of having to check the bazillion pages of employee-contributed blog posts, scrutinizing for anything that might be deemed inappropriate, unacceptable, nonfactual, damaging, slandering, or just plain uncool. Are the watchful eyes of The Man afraid his faithful servants would bring down the corporate house of cards with the power of words? Truly, the pen (virtual or otherwise) is mightier than the sword. And this scares the pants off corporate America. One thing that's sorely needed is an agreement between responsible action on part of the employee and trusting latitude on part of the employer.

Why is this so important? Because blogs are here to stay, and they are changing the world. How? By changing the way people communicate with one another - from Main Street to Wall Street - and it's people that constitute the fabric of business. Every company out there - small or large - is a box of people. And each and every box has the potential to connect to one another in the rapidly expanding social media network that is the blogosphere. This really should not be a foreign concept to any company who's already communicating and conducting business through the Internet.

It will be the wise and sensible companies that embrace blogging, perhaps instituting a formal plan of education for its employees on its power and potential. Encourage employees to share their knowledge, insights, and stories. Share their wisdom, and capitalize on the investment and equity a company has in its employees by allowing them to position themselves as experts and leaders.

Simply put, blogging in the corporate world is like tapping into the energy of the sun. It can instantly add a host of new brand ambassadors, from the mailroom to the boardroom. It takes people out of their cubicles and out into the community.

Recently, Drew McLellan wrote in his blog about why not to focus on demographics so heavily when marketing; to say a certain product, idea, or service is "targeted" to a group of, say, 25-39 year old men is ludicrous, says Drew - and he's right. NO man is "25-39"; they are either 25, 26, 27, or 32 or 34... or so on. ONE age, not a range. A man might be more aptly and specifically characterized as "John the 32-year-old engineer who enjoys flyfishing and building model ships, lives in New Bedford, Massachusetts, and has a wife and three daughters." This man has unique interests apart from the rest of the broadly sweeping demographic into which he might be lumped in some "quantitative" research effort.

Narrowcasting is a term used to describe a concentration on marketing to individuals as individuals, not as mirrors of some mass demographic pool. Any marketing effort that purports to "target market", while looking at any sort of demographic, is a bit of an oxymoron. That sort of targeting is akin to a sharpshooter using a slingshot and a bucket of butterflies. Real target marketing speaks to one person at a time, not to the masses - regardless of how small a demographic is defined. Anything bigger than an audience of one is a shotgun approach to communications. And while there are practical limitations to many traditional forms of communicating - TV, radio, mass print (even in niche magazines), etc - it is always important to remember that action is inspired one distinctive heart and mind at a time.

In today's paper, I read that the National Academy of Sciences published a paper on new research that shows that infants as young as the age of five months are more responsive to the sound of someone speaking their familiar native tongue. And they are also more likely to accept toys from them, as well. This is true even if the child is not yet able to speak on his or her own. Now the sarcastic part of me immediately thought, astounding! Who would have guessed this? A child actually preferring the sound of a familiar voice and language? Go figure. By I also realized how impressive it is that humans are capable of understanding and recognizing the sound of language at such an early age.

In business, we rely on our ability to sync with our clients at various levels; from addressing their unmet needs, to sharing like-minded creative approaches, to maintaining responsive and responsible relationships. We bank on the equity we nurture with our client skills, and we invest heavily in keeping our relationships alive. We feed them, care for them, love them. In short, we raise those relationships like children, and we work hard to teach trust and mutual love for us in return. These bonds with our clients are arguably the most valuable assets any of us can own.

Clients settle into a comfort level very early on with their chosen suppliers and business partners. And they recognize when those partners "speak the same language" as do they. They want to engage with those who truly work with them. Once the client is settled in with someone, and as the partnership continues to grow in strength and depth over time, the greater the amount of shared equity there is to both parties.

We all tend to latch on to people, things, places, and ideas - as well as our relationships to them - that strike a comfortable and familiar chord with us. When thinking about making first impressions in the marketplace, it is the smart business that understands the notion that clients are ultimately looking for an experience that resonates, and to a familiar voice that speaks to them, not at them.

As the peg and hole metaphor I recently wrote about suggests, one often can adapt to ones surroundings, as well as modify the surroundings to suit the individual. Any good self-reflexive business understands the importance of applying both tactics in particular situations.

Recently, I came across a photo of the momentous day Santa perhaps unwittingly forever changed my life through the gift of a drum set. And unbeknownst to Santa, he set it up configured for left-handed play (the snare drum position is key here.) Now while I do write left-handed, this is purely coincidental to my left-handed drum playing. Santa is solely to blame there! Over the years, I became aware of my largely ambidextrous nature; I use my right hand for scissors, screwdrivers, or a hammer, and also play guitar and golf righty. I use my left hand for throwing a ball and bowling, and using a spoon, fork, and toothbrush. I paint, play tennis, and bat equally well (poorly?) with both hands. Call it laziness or being adaptive; your choice. The reality is that I tended to use whatever was available to me when learning a new skill: I would not buy special "stuff" like lefty scissors when perfectly good righty ones were not far away. But things like baseballs, forks, or pencils are universal enough that using my left or right hand mattered not when learning to use them.

In the opposite camp from assimilation is differentiation. Brought to my mind is an irony of generational culture over the past few decades: from the hippies of the '60s, the disco crowd of the '70s, the heavy metalheads of the '80s, and the goths continuing through the '90s, each group considered themselves rebels against mainstream society. Yet, within each group, they all pretty much looked the same as one another. Exactly from whom were they really different? There was little distinction between one flower child to the next, or from one Marilyn Manson clone to another. And they all generally shopped in the same malls, attended the same schools, and lived in the same cities and towns as the very mainstream counterparts from which they strove to be different. What all these groups ultimately lacked was the very thing they sought: differentiation.

No business can completely fly in the face of convention and write their own rulebooks 100% of the time. But combining a certain degree of acceptable common practice with a strong mark of uniqueness is what represents balance in a good company. It means tempering diversity with assimilation. Adaptability with delineation. The same, yet different. Seek to be contextually relevant to the marketplace, yet distinct enough from the competition. And as we've said before, do not reduce yourself to a commodity. Sell your DNA - your unique brand essence that no one else has.

When you get in the ring, do you know who your competition is?

Before you hung the "open" sign in the door, before you took out the full-page display ad in the newspaper, and before you ordered the new letterhead and business cards, did you look around at your neighbors in the market to see what they are doing? Really check them out? Of course you did. (Right?)

But what if you didn't check out the competition at all, and one day you opened the Yellow Pages to see seven other ads for similar businesses all offering similar products or services? Would you just tell yourself, "That's it! We're packing up and going home. There are already people out there doing what we do!" Well, if that's the case, shame on you. It doesn't stop fourteen Chinese food restaurants from opening within three city blocks, and it shouldn't stop you, either. Why? Just as there are no two snowflakes alike, there are no two people who do things exactly the same way. And since we are all unique, so are our businesses. The key is to define your own differences in your market; identify your strengths, and capitalize on them.

The business who thinks it has nothing unique to offer might as well hang up the gloves. But the one who will emerge a winner is the business that recognizes that by the very nature of individuality, they offer something no one else can completely duplicate. It's recognizing and then promoting this individuality that will put that business in a class by itself.

NO business needs to reduce itself to a mere run-of-the-mill commodity; to do this is to become ones own worst enemy. To be a true contender in the marketplace is to understand that the only real competition is yourself.

_{(photo credit)}

Never before has the world had more opportunity to express its inner muse than today. The proliferation of attainable, accessible, and affordable resources makes it possible for nearly anyone with enough inclination to become the next rock star, best-selling author, philosopher, marketing consultant, or artist. Low cost computers and equipment allow a few guys with a couple guitars and a microphone to record an album at home; software now makes it possible to circumvent the "need" for a drummer, mastering engineer, or even vocal lessons. Affordable video editing programs and hardware allow every John Doe to pursue his dream of becoming the next Steven Spielberg.

A few of them make it, and deservedly so. Their work is often stunning and inspired, and they have the talent to mark them as gifted geniuses. And it's all enabled through the catalyst of electronics. Imagine how much of our art, music, and knowledge would not be as readily available - much less possible - without the aid of our wonderful stuff?

Is better music being created today? Or just more music? Is it a good idea to put a loaded weapon like a $1000 video editing system in the hands of anyone who wants to go make a movie? Is it cool that three kids with iMacs and a pile of music loops can express themselves by making songs and unleashing them to the masses on MP3.com? From the perspective of freedom of self-expression (and the First Amendment), I say YES. I think it's wonderful that anyone, anywhere, any time, is able to explore his or her creativity and express it in any way they see fit. But do the rest of us have to listen? NO. And will the music necessarily be any good? Well, that's subjective. Even the best symphonic music in the world has plenty of non-classical lovers scratching their heads and tuning out. It's an individual right to decide what is "good" and what is "bad" to our senses.

But counter to this, by enabling every street corner to have a home recording studio, video editing shop, or writer through use of a computer, there is a proliferation of providers and content flooding the market. For every "good" song to a listener's ears, there are 1000 more that the listener must sift through to find their own personal gems. Videos abound on YouTube. Blogs (yes, such as this one) fill the Internet. We have boundless access both to the experience of media as well as the creation of it.

So, just because you can do something, should you? If it's meant purely as self-expression, well, go for it - because that's about all that may ever come of it. There is never a guarantee that any audience will ever love what you do as much as you do. And that's the essence of art, in any form you choose: do it for yourself. But if you do it for a living, you best be good at it. This was true 100 years ago, and it's true now.

Which brings me to my ultimate point: even though the tools are getting cheaper and cheaper, good innate talent is still key. The cream will always rise to the top, regardless of the breadth and depth of the pool it emerges from, and that ultimately gets noticed and creates true meaning and impact in the world.