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

One more thing. Again…

17374158_l-IEblogAppleI was giving a talk at Cal Lutheran University a fortnight ago and got some interesting looks when I mentioned that I thought that Apple may be on its first long-circuit around the drain.

Initially I thought this when the iPhone SE came out and almost blogged so, but I wanted to think about it more and subsequently realized that the “real beginning of the end” was the iPhone 6. And let me be clear, I don’t see Apple going out of business; but I do think that they are on the way to being just like other companies in their field such as Samsung. That’s a world of tighter margins and tougher competition. Samsung knows how to live in that world. Apple may not.

Back in 2010, Steve Jobs said, “no-one would want to buy a phone with a big screen.” To him, the iPhone 5 was the perfect size. (He was holding a 4 when he said it, but he had the 5 in development). Four years later, Business Insider ran a story about how wrong Jobs was, citing the huge sales of the 6 and 6 Plus.

But you know what? He was right.

I want the screen size of my 6s but I don’t want the size of the phone. It does not fit in my hand like my 5 did.

Soon after Steve Jobs died I wrote in my blog that “Now we’ll get to see if Apple is a great company or Steve Jobs was a great man.” My bet was on the latter. It’s coming to pass.

Ever heard the old story of Henry Ford saying, “If I’d asked people what they wanted, they’d have said a faster horse.” People would have bought those faster horses, too. But Ford was a visionary and he saw something better that people could not even think of. Steve Jobs was like that.

Currently Apple is run by engineers. People want bigger screens, so they get bigger screens. People want a smaller phone, so they get a smaller phone. That’s just how Samsung and everyone else does it. Samsung’s product line (and therein their brand) is just “a little bit of everything.” That is not the ethos that produces lines outside of stores…

Only in very rare cases does a brand evaporate overnight. But it can steadily erode if its underpinnings are removed. And although there is a lag, (the “Brand Gap”), sales will, in time, erode too.

I can see Steve Jobs pulling his engineers together and demanding, “I want the screen to be big when I look at it, but without making the phone any bigger!!!” And everyone would say, “there’s no way to do that” and then two years later the eyeball-tracking magna-screen would launch. –Or however he would have done it. But it would have happened. That was who he was. It’s what Apple was.

When the “One more thing” is showing something you’ve already made before, you have a problem.

Jobs wouldn’t have made the current 6 or the 6 Plus. And there’d be no-need for the SE or a bunch of phones in a bunch of sizes. There’d just be the Apple iPhone and it would be the coolest phone in the world. And you’d wait in line to get it. And you’d pay what it cost and be happy to do so.

Remember those days? They’re gone.

Today I had a meeting with an organization that does very important work with the economically disadvantaged. I had to remind them of just how special they are; how many people’s lives are better because of the work they do. We can get so busy responding to the market, that we forget the leadership and brilliance that got people to love us in the first place. Then you become a less interesting company: to buy from or to work for.

Take time to remember what defines your company. And regularly ask yourself if you are still living up to it.

— Simon Dixon

Golden State. Base metal plate.

blackcalifornia2Yesterday I gave in. I’ve always said that specialty license plates are a waste of money, but the new black California plates are going to have to go on my ’71 Buick Riviera. I cannot live in a world where (as I saw yesterday) a 2014 Honda Accord has the black plates and my Riv does not.

Which leads me to a thought…

A few years back I was in a meeting on one of the University of California campuses, which I was told was the first meeting where all 30+ deans were in one room. We were there to discuss the branding of the university as a whole vs. school by school. Dan Burnham, ex-CEO of Raytheon and at the time the head of the Trustees asked me, “Simon, we don’t have an unlimited budget for this, are there any things we could do that would be effective and not cost much money?”

I answered that actually, some of the things most important and most effective would almost certainly save them money. Back then, I had never been to a meeting at the university where 5+ people from the same department/school would have the same business card. And every PowerPoint seemed to be a custom creation. And so this tremendous university with many extremely accomplished faculty (including, a number of Nobel Laureates) had no unified message about its greatness. They would almost certainly save time and money by having all business cards and all PowerPoints created from the same template, but also, importantly, have them all pushing the same brand message. I have found this to be an all too common situation in large organizations.

And so back to license plates:
California still represents the American Dream to many people both in the U.S. and abroad. And the scintillating tagline that we choose to affix to the 13 million vehicles carrying California plates?

Wow. I guess we’ve decided that Californian governmental gridlock should be our defining feature. Also that our citizens have never heard of Google and so would need to walk out to their car to obtain the web address of the DMV. Perhaps it’s part of a state-sponsored plan to encourage web-browsing while driving.

So here we have it: a free mini billboard on every one of the 13+ million vehicles registered in California and it is just thrown away. I don’t even ask for originality, Governor Brown. Going back to using “The Golden State” would do the job just dandily. While you are at it, the blue and yellow or the black and yellow plate colours of old are also much better looking than the current colour scheme.

And here I saw maybe the flash of genius. Could it be that they make the standard plate so boring that the upcharged specialty plates become more alluring?

I don’t think so. It’s just that no one with the power to change it is thinking what messaging could be achieved by 13 million billboards.

Any suggestions?


— Simon Dixon


Did someone Trump?

shutterstock_355923599Ahhh…Donald Trump.

One day I wonder if he is a Machiavellian genius with a keen sense of what “just enough” people will vote for and the next day he reminds me yet again that “to trump” is UK slang for raucously passing gas.

But that Trump can attract strong numbers to his gatherings and polls should not surprise us. In truth, Trump is just extending his brand. Even if it were no-one else, people who would buy gaudy products or live in gaudy buildings with the TRUMP name emblazoned on them would find his similar approach to politics and leadership attractive.

If you have seen me talk, then you will almost certainly have heard me say, “better to be loved by some than thought of as ‘acceptable’ by many.” In most cases, people’s shopping lists for any particular product are one item deep. Which is how the polarizing lightning rod politician can score higher on the polls than any of the five fractionated flavours of “meh.” It’s also how Cadillac came back from the dead. Starting with the CTS, they stopped trying to be another German car and became something unabashedly American (plus well made). If you like that look (and I do) then you are not going to shop it against the German three that are rather interchangeable. A great move and it paid off.

Donald Trump actually stands for something. That you may not like it, even abhor it, nonetheless shows that you know what it is. He has done a good job of giving you enough information to make a choice. What does Jeb Bush stand for? Ted Cruz? Marco Rubio? Mostly, you’ve no idea. Neither much does anyone else, so traction is hard to come by.

Take all this and apply it to your own company and products. Do people know what you stand for? Do they at least think they do? If not, there is very little binding you to your customers (which means they are up for grabs) and people who would love you, have no idea who or what you are.

But with some work, it’s totally fixable. – Or, like the Donald, it’s certainly a problem you can over-comb!

— Simon Dixon

Will Hoverboards segue to Segway?

segway-peopleWith Hoverboard sales exploding (or the actual boards themselves, according to recent news reports) it has led me to wonder if we might see a related brand go through a metamorphosis. I remember way back around 2000, when I first heard of an invention code-named “Ginger” that was a personal transportation device. It certainly looked cool and the technology allowing a two-wheeled device to self-stabilize was truly cutting-edge. And then it launched as the Segway….

Many people have theorized why Segway never caught on. One thing I have learned over the course of my career in branding is that scientists and engineers often look sneeringly at branding. It can seem so silly and capricious to them. “Surely if it is a good product then people will see that and buy it” is essentially their position. There is an inherent dislike of the idea that something would need to be “sold.”  I think, largely, that Segway fell victim to that opinion. Segway could have been revolutionary but instead became the thing that dorks ride. I was on Maui last year and went on a Segway tour. It was tremendous fun, but I found myself rather glad that no one I knew could see me.

I remember Tina Fey referred to Segway on Saturday Night Live’s Weekend Update: “Scientists have said that Segway will revolutionize the way that people get killed by cars.” I loved that one. Segway has tended to blame authorities in various jurisdictions for Segway’s poor adoption because of laws passed curtailing their use on sidewalks, etc. but what really killed it was leaving the brand perception up to the masses and it didn’t go the way they assumed.

As I have often said, there will always be messages about you, your company, your product. The decision you need to make is whether you will be in charge of the message or someone else will. And the “someone else” may not be as kind as you. (Or perhaps, more benignly, just not aware of the compelling truths about your product.)

So back to Hoverboards. Right now they are the hot gift for Christmas 2015. (Immolation pun intended :)  If that stays true and people start riding them in numbers, it would be a great opportunity for Segway to reposition their brand. They have an opportunity to harvest the “cool” of Hoverboards and then burnish it with the superior capabilities of the Segway. (Although some hip redesign would not be out of order…)

If you find yourself on a Segway next year not praying that you won’t be recognized — thank the Hoverboard. It may turn out that you can indeed polish a… nerd.

#segway  #hoverboard  #polishanerd

— Simon Dixon

Swift Thinking

Negotiating with Apple about his next “spontaneous” selfie.

Negotiating with Apple about his next “spontaneous” selfie.

I may have imagined the whole thing, but tipped my hat in awe on what I perceived as a stage-managed “disagreement” between Taylor Swift and Apple as Apple Music launched. Taylor tweeted how she felt that Apple’s FREE 3-MONTH TRIAL!!! (my emphasis) (sort of) was unfair to artists who would not get royalties during that period.

Apple then issued a mea culpa about its FREE 3-MONTH TRIAL!!! and did an about-face and agreed to pay the royalties.

Taylor Swift then thanked Apple for its decision regarding its FREE 3-MONTH TRIAL!!!. And all was well and world peace reigned.

Oh, and the world’s biggest brand and the world’s biggest music star gave each other huge headlines….

I may have imagined it, but I’ll be sad if I did. It’s genius.

Today I saw a story that PETA is suing to give a macaque (which is a kind of monkey, unless like George Allen you want to lose an election…) the rights to some selfies it took. Rather a fun water cooler story.

To me it seems like a similar stroke of genius. If they can win a case giving copyright rights to a monkey, you know some talented attorney is going to use that precedence to try and seriously expand animal rights in other areas. (Good for her!)

It’s always worth it to stop for a moment and ask, “what else could be going on here?”

— Simon Dixon

What’s really bugging VW?

vw-splat-2There’s something I taught my son when he was around 8 and he still remembers well at 12. If I ask him, “how do you keep a secret?” he will reply, “tell no one.” Sounds rather simple. It is.

And yet here we are with the colossal blunder, (or errr… willful criminal fraud) that is the growing VW story. Somehow, the management of VW figured that a secret that tens, if not a hundred, people must have known about, would not see the light of day.

Bill Clinton could not keep a lid on the secret that was his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky and the people tasked with keeping that secret were actually called the Secret Service!

But there is a back-story here that I think is worth looking at. What is your driving force? You and your company?

Up until 2007, General Motors had led global car sales for 77 consecutive years. But slowly, the ramifications of a quote attributed to two different GM CEOs came home to roost. “General Motors is not in the business of making cars, it is in the business of making money.” In the purest mix of capitalism and altruism such a focus would lead to building the best vehicles possible to make the most money possible. But in the real world, that can easily lead to lowest common denominator decisions purely to wring out short term profit. (As GM learned from around 1972 to 2000.)

In the early 2000s the folks at Toyota had realized that GM’s hold on the global sales lead was tenuous and made the decision to do what it would take to assume the #1 position. They became #1, but what it took was a very public slip in quality control followed by deaths, investigations, recalls and a lot of damage to Toyota’s core brand identity which was built on quality. They had been gaining on GM for years by “simply” making the most reliable cars on the planet. But they switched their focus and paid the price.

Now it is VW that has “done what it takes” to wrest the global sales crown from Toyota (which it achieved just this year). I’m sure there was no management retreat where they white-boarded international fraud, but it can be the off-shoot of making your core identity about a sales number. As a result, they have left themselves wide open for crushing fines and lawsuits. (And perhaps jailed executives?) I doubt if VW will go bust, but perhaps someone might like the idea of buying a global car company for half-price…

So my question to all of you is: what is your focus? Is it still being the best purveyor of what you do? Or has it become doing what it takes to meet the numbers?

Ask yourself. Ask your employees. Ask your customers. Listen to the answers and adjust as necessary. One answer forms your decisions from the dark-side of you fighting for every quarter; the other forms decisions based on a radiant march to long-term success. (And happy customers and employees is a nice bonus!)

— Simon Dixon