Option B

A few years back, I gave one of my talks at a Ladies America conference in Washington, DC. Once I was offstage, a small line of people formed to ask me questions. One woman had in her hands a marketing mailer she had put together. She was planning on starting an executive coaching business and intended to send out the mailer to drum up business. Sadly, her mailer was not destined for success. It essentially played off the supposition that “you are failing” and that by hiring this woman, she could guide you from failure to success.

I pointed this out to her and said that it is never a good first step, on the way to a relationship, if that first step, for one of the parties, is to feel bad about themselves. In this case, a person had to agree that they were failing… as a first step to un-failing. I told her, “So let’s call that Option A: I am a failure and I give you my money. BUT there is an Option B: I don’t agree that I am a failure and I keep my money. I’m liking Option B; I feel better about myself and I keep my money.” (And, to be clear, for most people, most of the time, choosing Option B is unconscious – it just feels better.)

You’d be amazed how many relationships are offered this way. Commercial relationships and personal relationships. Too many offerors forget that the other person always has an “Option B” – and that it can be triggered by our words, positioning and brand.

Some time ago, I was hired to consult with a non-profit doing very valuable work around implicit bias and educational equity. They asked for my counsel because they were not having much success in soliciting donations from large donors. I explained to them that their name (which I am withholding) was provocative, in such that it suggested a line between doing good and not good and that people with money would see this organization as judging them to be on the not good side. Also, the way that they told the story of their constituents was one with significant guilt to be found for any listener with money and power. So, the Option A would be “I am guilty, perhaps even bad, and I give you money.” Option B would be, “I ignore your message and/or I blame your constituents for their predicament and I save my money.” (Or give it elsewhere). You know how that movie ends….

Much as the executive coach could have told her story with the idea of “would you like to have the tools to climb higher?” who’d say no to that? – this non-profit could tell a story about building a stronger workforce and stronger families – who’d be against that? Guilt and entitlements have many enemies and those enemies are not stopping to ask if the guilt is real or imagined, earned or incidental. The light-switch disconnect of Option B is both reflexive and easy.

In spite of all our personal work to make it otherwise, people are mostly just sacks of feelings, mated to a life-support system. And much of day-to-day, minute-to-minute life is navigated via what feels comfortable (which, sadly, can be very different from what is correct or healthy…) So when building relationships, whether it is with brand creation, a 30-second commercial or that delightful person you just met, be purposeful about what your Option A offering really is. And never forget that they always have an Option B.

— Simon Dixon

Your fake is my real

A couple of nights ago, at my history book club meeting, we had a spirited discussion comparing China vs. US from governmental, cultural and social perspectives. Not sure we came away with anything we collectively agreed as the “best way” but it certainly got me thinking – as I did throughout reading the book Age of Ambition: Chasing Fortune, Truth and Faith in the New China by Evan Osnos.

One thing we did agree on is the long-time reliable political ruse of finding an external enemy to take the public’s eyes off domestic issues. (China – South China Sea; Argentina – Falklands; US – North Korea; Take your pick – USA.)

Over a decade ago I started pointing out to clients that websites were a new leveler. Big companies can look small; small companies can look big (or vice versa). But websites also provided a new way to warp the truth. Promises can be made or implied that can be hard to suspect or disprove, except in the rear-view mirror.

I have written before about social media apps creating “micro-groups.” Now, we are seeing huge pushes toward “micro-nations” (e.g., Catalan, Kurdistan, California). By various means, we are pushing to surround ourselves only with other versions of “me.”

More than ever, “news” is part of the mix. Prior to the advent of the internet, the press that any one person was exposed to was small enough to read/watch and compare. It was further “contained” by accepted and pursued standards and ethics. The first weakening came with the rise of CNN and round-the-clock news. News started blurring the lines with entertainment in the search for content (and profit). Once news could be a money-maker, everyone wanted in. Now there is a deluge of news sources. But, just like micro-grouping, we pick the one that supports what we already “know;” one that supports our worldview.

Far from the standards of Brokaw and Jennings, whose legacies of integrity are fading day by day, people now demand only homeopathic concentrations of truth to support arguments and theories. We no longer search for truth; we search for validation. We have all the knowledge in the world available to us, but we seek just the parts that say we’re right.

This is leading to a world where small groups separate themselves from others via ideology, using manufactured or selective facts to support a view, and then demonizing everyone on the outside. It is happening in our Facebook feeds, our schools, our states, our nations. Dangerously, these groups (and don’t kid yourself, we’re all in them), see any form of compromise that asks the group to change, as a price too big to pay. And, those seen as doing the asking are often virulently attacked for it.

As someone who has spent his career in the study of psychographics, it is very interesting to watch. Outrage, that in times past may have dissipated after a quick water cooler chat, is now stoked and exponentially amplified by micro-group rage-athons.

From a marketing perspective, it is ever more important to identify (and deliver!) communications without hitting “triggers” that might bring down a firestorm of ill-will. I don’t mean creating fluff, I mean creating thoughtful and purposeful messages, delivered without detrimental distractions. Language, particularly the English language, is, and always has been, in constant evolution. Increasingly, we are in a time when fast and loose communications are an unforgiving minefield. — Your “gut feel” does not feel your neighbor’s gut.

Be careful out there…

— Simon Dixon

On a Mission


As I mentioned previously, a few weeks back I went to see a lecture given by General Stanley McChrystal, who made a name for himself by leading the development of a more informational and intelligence driven form of defense in Iraq and Afghanistan. He talked about how the world, from the industrial revolution up until recently, followed what he termed a “complicated” model, where the makeup of a company was too complicated for most to know it, but those at the top sent down orders to keep the various parts operating as they should.

The General posited that we now live in a world that, more than ever, follows “complex” and/or “chaotic” models where, in order to keep up with rapidly changing dynamics, decision making capability has to be pushed down to (in his case literally) front-line troops who can make decisions in real-time and need to decide if the orders they are receiving from the C-suite are, in fact, the correct decisions to follow. As General McChrystal said, “we tell our troops not to follow the order we gave, but the order we should have given.”

Well, you might ask, how the heck is a 24-year-old Sergeant supposed to know what order the 60-year-old General should have given?

The answer is simple: Branding.

When the people inside your organization truly understand and inculcate what the organization stands for, then they can make decisions that reflect that understanding. And the obverse is true: if your people don’t understand what you stand for, well, it becomes a crapshoot as to how they express their own particular understanding, and your brand gets dictated by whichever employee a customer happens to deal with.

Truly knowing what kind of company one works for can come in handy when deciding the best way to remove a passenger from an airplane, for instance…

This is the part where someone says, “We need a mission statement!”

No, you don’t.

In fact, if you have a mission statement hanging on the wall of your conference room, take a short break and go remove it and toss it (forcefully) in the trash can. I’d be happy to swing by and do it for you if you like; it always makes me feel good.

Maya Angelou said, “I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”

Your mission statement is what you say; your brand is how you make people feel. Guess which one people actually care about: the few broad and obvious platitudes your Board could agree on, or the actual way you move through the world?

A mission statement may be a handy internal planning tool, but externally facing, it is either a cure for insomnia or a petard from which to hang.

I often remind myself, “if someone cannot feel your love, then you are doing a lousy job of loving them.” So then, if someone cannot feel what you are trying to say in your mission statement in the way you treat customers and employees, in the language you use, in the deals you make, in the walk you walk, then that sign on the wall just reflects your hypocrisy — to your customers and your employees.

Ask one of your customers if they can guess what your mission statement is. See if it is close to what you would have written. If it is, thank your branding firm. If it isn’t, you’ve got work to do.

Either way, write your mission statement on your heart, not your wall.

— Simon Dixon

You, Robot.

A couple of years back, Jay Ruskey, developer of the “Stak Block” — a wonderful way to reduce a huge source of worldwide carbon emissions by turning waste rice straw into building blocks (BTW, someone needs to go and make a few million dollars selling this to the Indian government) — told me of a conversation he had when presenting his technology in China. From the US perspective, a major selling point was that the machinery they had developed, and the newer machinery that was under development, would increasingly reduce the manpower needed in the production of Stak Blocks. The Chinese representative protested, saying, “No, no, we want more people needed to do it, not less.”

Where the US view was looking to more efficiency and profits, the Chinese view was looking to social stability.

Last week I attended a talk given by General Stanley McChrystal at the Westmont University President’s breakfast. It was a thought-provoking talk.

The General touched on a fact that we are beginning to see play out more and more: that technology, in various ways, is taking over jobs traditionally done by people. It is a known fact that most jobs that have been lost in the US have not been lost to off-shoring, but to robots, efficiency and technology.

And it’s worth noting that these changes are only just beginning to pick up steam.

For instance, think of any job that involves driving: truck drivers, bus drivers, train drivers, etc. Estimates are that those jobs are all going away, perhaps within ten years. (That is approximately 6 million truck and bus drivers.)

I think many people (yours truly included) have found refuge in the idea that their job could not easily be done by a robot (or more correctly, Artificial Intelligence).

But what happens when we are the robots? Because I believe that is where we are heading.

THE FOLLOWING IS NOT A POLITICAL STATEMENT. (How’s that for the sign of the times!)

So our President made a speech to Congress recently. I think everyone agreed it was his most balanced, reasoned speech to date. Some of his previously most ardent fans worried that he was wavering on important issues; some of his bitterest opponents found hope in his words. (That may be the bell-weather for a good speech! :) What I found amazing is that the next day Van Jones completely reversed his opinion of Donald Trump based on that speech. I wanted to ask him, “So your recommendation is that our opinion of people should fluctuate based on how they acted for an hour yesterday, not on what they did for the previous year?”

What was glaring to me was that, in this “Kardashian” world of ours, we are more and more open to having our views and opinions moulded for us, and that the timeframe for our malleability is becoming very short.

The warm up act has been a general acceptance of product malfunctions in our current “technology age” that was never accepted in the engineering age that preceded it. Witness the almost blasé acceptance of fatal shortcomings in the Tesla self-driving technology vs. the backlash that was the exploding Ford Pinto or the crashing Chevrolet Corvair. And as AI gets more involved in our lives, with algorithms deciding which Google results pop up and what movies, songs or clothes are recommended for us, one might legitimately ask, “Who is in the driving seat, me or the AI?”

Is AI moving toward us, or are we moving toward it?

In the world of starlings (birds), they call it “murmuration” — when a flock of starlings change direction as one. They are not thinking the course changes; it’s an automatic subconscious process. Similarly, our technology is encouraging us to hand over more and more of our cogent work to be computed external to our own brains. I know Netflix says their recommendations are based on our preferences, but are they? And is that all they are based on? — My son tells me that Dr. Dre is regularly in his “recommended” list on Apple Music. Yet he has never listened to Dre on Apple; but Dre is a business partner of Apple…

Remember, a small rudder can turn around a super-tanker, given enough time, and the change of direction is so gradual that in the open-sea you might not notice that it happened. Yet you end up chugging in the opposite direction to your previous course.

Do you really know what “being you” means? Because if you don’t, then how could you possibly know whether “who you are” is being manipulated?

In 20 years, I probably won’t need to influence you directly, I will just need to influence the person in charge of the AI that influences you — if it even is a “person” at that point…

Some say that in 50 years, most jobs will be gone and the “basic living wage” will be enacted. And most of our choices will be made for us. At which point the question will be:

What is the point?

And I must admit that there, I’m rather lost for an answer.

— Simon Dixon


Who are we now?

istock-538165625_webAs I looked back over 2016, and really stopped to take in what a watershed year it was, there were a few things that really stood out to me going into 2017.

Aside from the election, one thing that got me pondering was the Chicago Cubs winning of the World Series. Their first since 1908.

In all the glee and hubbub over winning it, there is a question that looms in front of Cubs fans: Who are they now? What does it mean to be a Cubs fan? For as long as anyone can remember, being a Cubs fan meant wearing a special badge on your heart. “Long suffering”; “lifted up and dropped right down”; — a group of people bound together by pain and sorrow and the feeling that they are a special breed of “foul-weather” fans who will stand in allegiance no matter what.

But now what? None of that applies any more. Now, the Cubs are just the most recent team to win the World Series. No more being able to bond over “a century of heartbreak.” An identity that many Cubs fans may realize was their #1 coalescent catalyst is now gone. The icon of their identity is no more. A whole bunch of new conversations will need to be developed. What it means to be a Cubs fan will need to be reinvented.

Identities shift and we’d all be wise to pay attention. The way you talk to a group today may not be the way to talk to them tomorrow. Whether it is your company that is changing, or your customer base, or the market conditions, you need to stay alert to how your customers perceive you, your product, but especially themselves.

A question I have been spending a lot of time on, on behalf of clients, for the last year or so, is: “who am I asking someone to be, in order for them to do business with me?” And the obverse: “How must someone define themselves, to make us the answer?”

This came up huge in the 2016 elections. Groups that had not previously been under the same umbrella were presented with an identity (of themselves) which brought them together.

Quite abruptly, the questions of “who do I have to be, to vote Democrat?” and “who do I have to be, to vote Republican?” are being answered very differently.

So whether it is for a Cubs fan needing a new way to identify themselves, a voter seeking a new answer to address their most critical problems, or a prospective customer looking for a “fit” that feels right; we need to be asking: “who does somebody have to be, to be with me?”

If you’re asking them to be someone they don’t want to be, then you have a problem.

Optimally, someone gets to think better of themselves because they are “doing business” with you. — That they will arrive at, or are on the road to, a better destination because you are their travelling partner.

It’s not just about telling someone how great you are; it’s allowing them to imagine relevant greatness for themselves, too.

— Simon Dixon

Notes on the Galaxy…

479407900_fire-phone_fnlSamsung’s decision to terminate the Galaxy Note 7 smartphone is a huge decision and is worth a further look.

It takes a page from the Tylenol book of crisis management. In what has become the textbook (although rarely followed) response to a critical product flaw, back in 1982, Johnson & Johnson pulled every bottle of Tylenol in the U.S. off store shelves and made public appeals for customers to turn in their stocks for replacement. This in response to several deaths in Chicago caused by a man injecting cyanide into Tylenol bottles. The physical problem was in Chicago. The brand problem was nationwide. J&J correctly responded to the brand problem and replaced over $100M worth of product. Their brand came out even more respected than it had been, and the halo of J&J as a company that cared for people over products still adds luster to their brand today.

In the last 10 years we have seen a tremendous shift, driven by software companies, to “test on the road” i.e., go to market with a minimally viable product and deal with issues as they come up. It has been a seismic shift in what customers will accept. It was a similar approach to product introduction that brought the GM brand to its knees in the face of the relative perfection of Toyota and Honda. Yet these days, Tesla gets away with repair costs 2-3 times greater than those of GM and Ford. And people are still lining up for years to buy one. (More on this, next blog.)

The coolness of Tesla outweighs the fire of Samsung…

Now we have flaming Samsungs. Many feel that their push to leapfrog the iPhone in technology and (less likely) popularity, stretched their quality controls too thinly. Commercial airline pilots have recently been announcing to passengers that if they have a Notebook 7 on board, they need to power it down as a fire risk. Hard to imagine a worse branding problem.

You may have heard me define a brand as “the answer to the question: what do people think of, when they think about me?” For Apple, Toyota, Microsoft, Coke, you have responses that go beyond what they do and into what they represent to you, emotionally. Another guiding credo I offer clients: “no one cares about what you do; they care about what happens because of what you do.” By and large, that exists for the above companies, but not so much for Samsung. For the level of success Samsung wants for their phones and other products, it needs to become so.

So I have to respect the informed boldness of their response. Kill the Note 7. It is a wise move. Although Samsung is something of a blend between a “branded house” (e.g., Ford) and a “house of brands” (e.g., Proctor and Gamble), their brand is still weak enough that, for most people, the name Samsung does not really conjure up anything except their product lines.

Right now, in this case, they are making their brand deficit work for them. The phone is the focus, not the company, and killing the phone will take much of the negativity with it. And they also get to create and ride the PR bonus of “how Samsung takes care of its customers.” They are laying great groundwork to ensure that the Galaxy Note 8 (or better yet, some other name) is the phoenix that will rise from the ashes of the Note 7. And that their brand will come out burnished, not burnt.

For Samsung, just like for you, your brand is what truly attaches you to your customers. Do you have a Samsung-level of awareness of your brand’s position, so you can make thus informed decisions?

If the answer is no, do your homework and make your brand more fire resistant.

— Simon Dixon


Don’t trip over me.

Gadsden_flag2_IEI go to church. The church I go to would have people categorize me as evangelical Christian, although it’s not a label I would usually apply to myself. People are often surprised that I am a churchgoer. The way I dress, some of my laissez-faire viewpoints do not necessarily fit one’s “standard” idea of a Christian.

I am also in a history book club. At our last meeting we discussed Neil Maher’s book, Nature’s New Deal. We all really enjoyed the book, which looks at FDR’s Civilian Conservation Corps through the eyes of the socio-political issues of the time, (1930s & 40s). It gave rise to some great discussions.

One guy who was attending, a friend of the author (who was also in attendance – how cool is our book club!) said during discussion, “How can evangelical Christians support Trump? He is against their beliefs.” Common, smart rules of discussion would have advised me to leave that comment be… But I said, “I am an evangelical Christian and I don’t support him.” Luckily we extricated ourselves from that rabbit hole before we went too deep, but it really got me thinking.

There is a book called, What’s the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America that explores the idea that certain states the author feels should be voting Democrat (and used to reliably vote Democrat), are now solidly Republican. Part of what I realized from reading Neil Maher’s book was that these states originally used to be Republican, went Democrat as a (purposeful) result of the New Deal and now are moving back to the place from whence they came.

What does this have to do with marketing…?

Well, in the long and hard thinking about this that is my job and that Neil Maher’s book inspired, I really saw how often we decide for ourselves what groups other people should belong to. – At our peril.

The guy at book club thought evangelical Christians see themselves as that first and so should form their voting decisions based primarily on their religion. People who think Kansans should vote blue are deciding the citizens of that state should look at broad social-economic policy and decide that Democrats would offer more protection to populations living in areas in economic decline.

But more than ever before, we are seeing people feeling much more free to “identify” with groups that make sense to them but may not be the most obvious based on their surroundings, or gender or whatever.

The tools of this seminal change? The apps on our smartphones.

The most powerful force of social media is that it allows “me” to find other people just like “me” on a national and even global scale, whereas not too long ago, I’d have to decide whether I wanted to “belong” or “not belong” based on the people I would physically run into through the course of my day, week, year.

Not anymore.

Now I can feel like I belong, even if the group I belong to is spread out very widely in a geographic sense. However, in a communications sense we can be talking and reinforcing each other 24/7.

The old rules don’t fit. People are, less and less, part of a geographically-based groups. They are members of communication groups. It is people’s shared experiences and opinions that make them part of any group. Or a voting bloc. And those groups are now being defined by Facebook and Snapchat, etc., not by zip codes.

So be careful in defining people-groups the way you used to.

People are becoming less “Kansans” or “Christians.” They are “them.” A small (or large) collection of self-defined important viewpoints that become honed and hardened by largely talking only with others of the same viewpoints. And feeling very comfortable with being hostile to those with opposing viewpoints. (Just check out the comments section on any news site, YouTube or wherever commentary is allowed.) The drift would seem to be that instead of the collage of views and personality that any person has when you meet them in real-life, a social media relationship may only consist of the viewpoints you and “they” happen to mesh upon.

The internet has the power to bring people of widely disparate views together for discussion, but more and more it seems that the “melting pot” is reverting to a bowl of separate ingredients. (That may react violently when combined.) This can allow powerful specificity for communications strategies, but must be pursued thoughtfully.

Anyone who has seen me talk has heard me talk about conversing with potential stakeholders in a “resonant format” – i.e., in a way that makes sense to that group and identifies you as someone sensitive to that group. That is only going to get more important. Hardened “micro-groups” mean it can be easy to find people that “like” you. But it is also getting increasingly easier to step on communications land mines and face focused wrath as a result.

Tread carefully.

— Simon Dixon