Archive for January, 1970

Design is…

January 1st, 1970

[Joy Stauber is the designer of our gorgeous banners (see more here) and one of our favorite people. Learn more about her at her site.]

I got an email this morning [08/24/09] with this Tom Peters quote: “Design is… an understanding that all the senses were created equal.”

It’s true. And it’s interesting to think about what that on earth that might really mean.

I was talking with a marketing colleague this morning about a potential project she has for a website aimed at moms. As a mom, I’m always very suspicious of any kind of “marketing to moms” because it’s often like other marketing to women… lots of pink and cuddly photos, as if that is all it takes to be relevant to me as a female consumer.

What does any of this have to do with “Design is… an understanding that all the senses are created equal.”?

It is this:

Design is not about making something look cool (or cute, or mom-like, or macho, or techie, or whatever it is you think the audience is).

Design is about making something relevant.
It is about making a connection with your audience.
Which means you have to truly understand them, and you have to have a clear communication strategy.
The messages need to be relevant to the audience.
The way in which they are delivered needs to be relevant.
Remember which senses to address. (Is the color palette friendly or serious? Is the nomenclature for website sections based on an internal organizational structure or does it support the user’s needs? Does the paperstock feel rough or smooth, heavy or light? How should all of these elements, and more, feel to the user/audience?)

Designing a website for moms, like any website, requires the integration of a site architecture with a communication strategy and a careful prioritizing of messages. (Written and/or visual messages.) Then the final design and all of the details of its execution (words and images used, color palette, type styles, and so on) supports the higher communication goals, serves the end user well, and tracks back to what you figured out needed to be done in the planning stages.

I wholeheartedly agree with Tom that “Design is… an understanding that all the senses were created equal.” Creators (marketers, designers, writers, technical developers, etc.) of websites or any type of communication have to remember that all of the senses truly are involved. The eyes, hands, heart, brain.. a website user or brochure reader takes in many elements and processes them via all of their senses. All of the elements require careful attention and need to be considered from a user’s point of view. If the visuals are strong but the naming of website sections isn’t right, the user won’t respond as well as they would otherwise. If the brochure copy is great but the typesetting makes it feel like a chore to read… oh no! All of the details need to work together in a holistic, integrated way to support each other and the user experience—and thus build a relationship with your brand.

Posted by Joy Stauber |
Comments?

To Mark His Passing

January 1st, 1970

All of us at tompeters.com would like to acknowledge the passing of an important man, Senator Edward M. Kennedy. We wish his family well, and we will miss his influence in the U.S. Senate.

To read more—and more eloquent—encomiums, see the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. If you find anything else that gives good insight into Ted Kennedy, please drop a link into the comments.

Posted by Cathy Mosca |
Comments?

Social Media as Mass Marketing … Not the Future

January 1st, 1970

“We’re on Facebook.”—Sign outside a nursery/garden center near my home

In 1994 I had the opportunity to work on the first hotel company website, when we pulled together 64 pages of brochure-ware for Hyatt Resorts. At that point, keyword advertising was years away and it would be another five years before Permission Marketing would be published. As people started to think of what marketing would be like on the Internet, mass marketing was the paradigm they used, because that was what they knew.

Looking back 15 years later, our mid-90s view of Internet marketing seems primitive. My opinion: In the future, our current view of social media is going to look similarly primitive, and this time we’ll get smart much more quickly.

Like early thoughts about Internet marketing, popular discussions of social media tend to use a mass marketing paradigm. “Wow, there are 250 million active Facebook users!” “Twitter grew 752% in 2008. Incredible!” People talk about Facebook and Twitter user numbers with the awe that is usually reserved for late-January new stories about the power of Superbowl advertising.

More of my opinion: The big numbers won’t be the big story in the future.

Already, the best uses of social media are not the mass uses. (Who cares if American Airlines has a Facebook fan page?) The best uses are the micro uses. Example: My 8th grade class, the 1973 graduating class of Lake Bluff Junior High School, has coalesced on Facebook and we’re having a reunion. Now that’s cool. I’ll bet most of you have similar stories.

We don’t know what social media’s most effective marketing uses will be in the future. But if you want to get a hint of what it will be like, here’s my suggestion: Don’t think mass marketing. Don’t think of advertising-type metrics, such as reach, frequency, big numbers, and “cutting through the clutter.” Think micro. Think relationships. Think of a customer saying, “What’s in it for me?” not a marketer saying, “Cool, I have another marketing tool!” Think of customers talking with each other, not companies adding social media to their “marketing mix.”

Executives feel a need to be “On Facebook and Twitter,” as if being “On” these sites signifies that they are up to speed on the latest marketing tools. But being “On” these social media sites doesn’t mean a thing. When your customers use social media to talk to each other about you … now that means something.

[Read more by Steve at Yastrow.com.]

Posted by Steve Yastrow |
Comments?

Carrot or Stick?

January 1st, 1970

Two key ingredients of Excellence in any professional pursuit are to master the relevant disciplines and to apply them at every opportunity. A recent choral singing experience has left me rather thoughtful about the leadership practices most likely to develop and deliver Excellence through others.

I have been a member of a 200-person amateur symphony chorus for nearly 20 years, and during that period, the chorus’s performance has steadily improved. For our latest concert, we were rehearsed by a stand-in chorus master whose approach was very different from that of the chorus master who has led us throughout my membership. Both men are equally well qualified and highly gifted musicians, and both expect equally high performance standards from their choirs. But we are used to a very critical and directive style of leadership which contrasted sharply with the stand-in master’s much “softer” all round approach.

For example, he regularly took the time to tell us what we were doing well, as well as correcting us when we were getting things wrong. He was often quite generous in his praise, in stark contrast to our regular master. He challenged us to perform one of the movements in the concert from memory—no mean feat when the text is in Polish! He assured us from the first rehearsal that we were good enough to take this on, and kept reminding us of this throughout the rehearsal sequence. He even provided us with some novel support materials to help us all to practice our Polish at home.

On the day of the concert he cancelled the normal pre event “warm up” session, which is usually quite an ordeal for us to get through just before a live performance. He said he had been more than satisfied with our performance at the dress rehearsal in the morning. This is totally unheard of!

Our performance was one of our best ever and acclaimed by the critics. The movement we had learned by heart completely stole the show. But … here’s my question … did the stand-in chorus master succeed because of the disciplines that had already been drilled into us by our regular leader? What would happen to our performance standards if we worked with the new chorus master in the long term? Would his approach result in a gradual reduction in standards?

I tried these questions out over a drink in the pub with my choir mates, and the opinion was divided 50/50. What do readers of this blog think?

Posted by Madeleine McGrath |
Comments?

In Your Next Sales Call, Don’t Go For The Close

January 1st, 1970

Most successful sales conversations don’t end by closing the sale.

This may not be true for you if you’re a timeshare salesman, a clerk in a retail store, or an airline reservations agent. But for most everyone else it is true.

Examples:

• You are an independent graphic designer and you meet someone at a party … the sales conversation is successful if the future customer enthusiastically remembers the conversation, and goes to your website to check it out when he returns home after the party.

• You sell large software projects and you have finally been invited to meet the CEO of a company you are trying to sell … the sales conversation is successful if the CEO tells his team he really likes you and your offerings, and tells them to move forward with you.

• You are a CPA, and you have breakfast with a long-term client … the sales conversation is successful if the client shares his fears about his own business, and gives you the name of a friend desperately in need of your services.

The common thread in each of these examples is that your relationship with the customer was better at the end of the sales conversation than it was at the beginning. Successful selling is usually not about going for the close. It’s about advancing your relationship.

Try it today … don’t go for the close!

[Read more by Cool Friend Steve Yastrow at his website.]

Posted by Steve Yastrow |
Comments?

Cool Friend #141: Kathleen Colson

January 1st, 1970

There is debate over the most effective way to eradicate poverty in Africa. Our new Cool Friend Kathleen Colson believes listening to Africans is the first step. She’s listened for years, and, as a result, founded the BOMA Fund to put what she’s learned into action. Through three programs, the Rural Entrepreneur Access Project (REAP), Agents of Change, and Cows For Kids, BOMA helps groups in northern Kenya learn how to run businesses, become leaders, and start on the road to self-sufficiency. In her interview, Kathleen discusses how foreign aid disrupts African markets and how helping to bring viable new trade to Kenya could lead to a brighter future for people there. Learn more by reading her Cool Friends interview or visiting the website of the BOMA Fund.

Posted by Cathy Mosca |
Comments?

Whole Foods in Unhealthy Situation

January 1st, 1970

We have been thinking a lot recently about the “permanent set” of changes that will remain when the world’s major economies come out of recession. If you trust the statistics, Germany, France and Japan already have. One thing that is with us for the duration is the influence of social networking sites on business.

A case in point: the firestorm that has followed Whole Foods Market founder and CEO John Mackey’s recent Wall Street Journal piece on heathcare reform. Whatever you think of the merits of President Obama’s proposals, or the UK’s National Health Service (please, no more folks!), you can’t argue with the fact that over 16,000 people (and growing) have signed up to and are actively rubbishing the Whole Foods business on Facebook as a result. Using social networking sites to respond to the actions of businesses and their leaders is a phenomena that is here to stay.

Goodness knows what it would have done to the career of the fledgling Sir Richard Branson when he was building his Virgin Group. Some of his public outpourings and political affiliations early on might have proved fatal to Virgin if Facebook, Twitter, and the like had been around at that time. I do think it is good to get insights into the personality of the people who are running our iconic businesses. Sadly, I suspect that Mr. Mackey and his ilk will be a bit more careful with their personal opinions in future.

Posted by Richard King |
Comments?

Link Roundup #5

January 1st, 1970

Howard Schultz/Starbucks
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_33/b4143028813542.htm
Visits 25 stores/wk, starting over small, the line.

8CR
http://blog.800ceoread.com/2009/08/06/my-favorite-business-book-by-you/
Cathy’s submission included

Posted by Shelley Dolley |
Comments?

Taking Stock of Woodstock

January 1st, 1970

The 40th anniversary of Woodstock this weekend is quite a life marker for many of us. (If that’s not true for you, it might be true for your parents.) I confess I didn’t attend the 3-day concert that reportedly drew up to a half million spectators to Max Yasgur’s farm in upstate New York. (I was playing in a young LA rock band that summer, the Berries, that was somehow overlooked for inclusion in the festival.) But the buzz spread quickly in the music community that something unique occurred that weekend. What is often forgotten, however, is that the Woodstock “era” – at least the peace-and-love hype – lasted less than 4 months. The violence of the Altamont concert in northern California headlined by the Rolling Stones and the Jefferson Airplane in December 1969 brought us back to reality. But from a business perspective, Woodstock put rock & roll concerts on the map as serious ventures. Woodstock wasn’t the first of the genre – the Monterey Pop Festival in 1967 gets that award – but Woodstock was the most newsworthy and of course spawned dozens since. The Isle of Wight Festival, the Summer Jam at Watkins Glen (that outdrew Woodstock in 1973), Live Aid, and Live 8 all owe their existence to Woodstock. Interestingly the Woodstock ’99 concert, with its attendant mayhem, forms a stunning contrast to the original, which was astonishingly peaceful given the unexpected crowd and overall lack of planning. Let me end with the obligatory query: if you’re old enough, what were YOU up to in mid-August 1969?

Posted by John O’Leary |
Comments?

Woodstock Remembered

January 1st, 1970

As the only member of Tompeters.com who went to Woodstock, I’ve been assigned to write the commemoration of its 40th anniversary. (Tom was too old, Erik was too young, and I was just right. Forget Shelley; that young talent was not even close to being born.) Also, I had a car to take me from my home in Massachusetts to the farmland of New York. And I had tickets, which as I left home with a friend, I had no idea would be irrelevant. What should we celebrate about Woodstock on this occasion? My choice is the shared optimism. It pervaded the gathering. Everybody spoke with everybody else as if they were old friends, or at least acquaintances. There was an all-encompassing air of “We’re in this together.” Sure, there were those who had “dropped out,” but even that was from a sense that there had to be a better way than the prevalent practices among adults we knew then. We thought we could change the world. And we did. Is your life now, at the age of __, what you thought it would be then, at the age of __, and as a member of Woodstock Nation? (Even if you didn’t get there.) And, if, like Erik and Shelley, you’re too young to have been there, do you approach your career as if you can Change the World? Every day?

Posted by Cathy Mosca |
Comments?

Live in London

January 1st, 1970

Last call for all UK-based Tom Peters aficionados! Tom has four half-day live presentations lined up in early September. He’s in Glasgow on the 1st, in Manchester on the 2nd, and in London for two sessions on the 3rd. Tom will be speaking about Excellence in Glasgow and Manchester. While in London, he’ll do a morning session on Talent and HR Excellence and an afternoon session on Leadership. Bookings are still being taken by the London Business Forum at prices that reflect these tough times! Hope to see you there.

Posted by Richard King |
Comments?

Design!

January 1st, 1970

sissy.jpg

(1) Nice touch! Award-winning chef Sissy Hicks has opened a wonderful take-out, 3-meal-a-day place 5 miles from my home!! (My wife and I haven’t cooked for weeks. Or, rather, I haven’t cooked in the three weeks since Susan broke her leg and I “took over”!)

The food is pure “Wow” at Sissy’s Kitchen, but I am always a sucker for the “little” touches—which of course aren’t little at all! Above, see the wonderfully colorful ribbon Sissy ties to every bag!!!

(2) Repeat! I wrote about this one years ago, but it deserves another nod. Pictured below is the marvelous little tool that removes the outer skin from garlic when you roll the clove inside the blue rubber tube!! (Hats waaaay off to Zak Designs!) (And … to Google for finding Zak Designs when I typed “thing to roll garlic in to remove outer skin.”)

(3) Design matters! Everywhere!

garlic.jpg

Posted by Tom Peters |
Comments?

Corporate Culture

January 1st, 1970

According to a recent profile of McKinsey in New York magazine, “Tom Peters and Robert Waterman pretty much invented the notion of ‘corporate culture’ in their book In Search of Excellence…” Ernest Svenson kindly pointed us to this piece about Netflix’s Freedom and Responsibility Culture. (If you’re short on time, just view the slide show.) It’s a remarkable approach and we’d love to hear what you think.

Posted by Shelley Dolley |
Comments?

Can Only Women Excel In Marketing to Women?

January 1st, 1970

There’s a false assumption that floats freely around that marketing to women “space”—that marketing to women must be handled by women. That may well keep a lot of more traditionally male-oriented industries or brands (or men in those companies) from taking the leap, and learning more about the ways women buy. Why should they bother if marketing to women is a woman’s thing? But, like I said, that is a false assumption. And recent media discussions of leadership and gender made me see some marketing team implications as well.

As Getting to 50/50 co-author Sharon Meers put it in a “Room for Debate” post on the New York Times blog:

So here’s the real question: How to make the positive qualities we see in female managers more common in men—and more useful to all? A new report from Catalyst shows how companies win when we escape the idea that men and women are so different and work harder to get on the same page—so that men and women bring out the best in each other sharing the same C-suite.

The same goes for building teams or finding leaders with regard to marketing to women. What you are looking for are those qualities women tend to have that make them “transformational leaders.” According to Gary N. Powell who also contributed his thoughts to that NYT blog post:

Transformational leadership includes charisma (communicating the purpose and importance of a mission and serving as a role model), inspirational motivation (exuding optimism and excitement about the mission’s attainability), intellectual stimulation (encouraging others to think out of the box), and individualized consideration (focusing on the development and mentoring of subordinates as individuals).

Are any of those things gender-specific? No. Men, indeed, have the potential to have charisma, exude optimism, be able to encourage others and be interested in mentorship programs. It just may mean training the right side of their brains into action a bit more (as per Daniel Pink in A Whole New Mind). Of course—there is the “vice versa” too—that women who lack some of the more typically male qualities of leadership can get the training or learn from colleagues, as well.

In marketing, smart people with years of experience in the field (and there are many) can see what works and why. If we leave gender out of the label for what the positive qualities are, we may more likely get men and women on the same page, and on the way to the same productivity levels with regard to their understanding of the women’s market.

So, no. It is not only women who can excel in marketing to women. Instead, those women may be where you go first to guide/educate others in the qualities that lead toward a better understanding of how women buy. Just like marketers should be guided and inspired by the women they serve (as in transparent marketing), so too should people in marketing be guided and inspired by the women who more naturally understand today’s marketplace. That’s how women and men working together will bring out the very best in their team’s marketing abilities.

Posted by Andrea Learned |
Comments?

Link Roundup #4

January 1st, 1970

Blogging has changed Tom’s life. Hear about that and a few other topics in the videos our Cool Friend Seth Godin posted last week. If you’re curious about Seth’s wildly successful blogging strategy, check out this interview he did with Advertising Age.

Tom has enthusiastically endorsed Bob Stone’s new book, The Ethics Challenge: Strengthening Your Integrity in a Greedy World. According to Tom, “your professional and family life alike literally depend on” reading this book. Let us hear what you think of the book.

This article on Diane von Furstenburg’s secrets to surviving a downturn is worth a read. (Point of interest: her staff is 97 percent women. “‘[T]he only men there are drivers and waiters.’”)

Find out why women are better managers from Carol Smith, SVP and Chief Brand Officer for the Elle Group.

For insights into marketing to women, don’t miss the book excerpt from Why She Buys in the Wall Street Journal.

The topic of healthcare has been ubiquitous in recent weeks. Here’s the story of an interesting approach to the issue: “Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida has opened an Apple Store-style outlet that offers health-insurance services. Could it be coming to a mall near you?”

On a lighter note, the Boston Globe recently profiled the Wagon Wheel restaurant in Gill, MA. Our ears perked up as Tom’s original blog about it started the wheel rolling (as it were) toward the book he’s in the midst of writing.

Posted by Cathy Mosca |
Comments?

AHA Redux:A Matter of Leadership!

January 1st, 1970

I began my remarks to the American Hospital Association last week with an outline of the situation as I saw it. I called the outline “Principal Management & Leadership (as opposed to Policy) Issues.” That is, it was-is my contention that hospital leaders have a choice; they are beset with constraints (aren’t we all?), but such constraints do not keep some enlightened folks from performing miracles—management and leadership miracles!

Herewith my outline, also included in the slides attached to my previous post:

1. Should we be doing what we’re doing? Will it work? How do we know? [In a surprising # of cases, it's not clear whether "X" or "Y" is the most effective treatment for a particular problem—e.g., my 2005 ablation vs taking a pill. "Evidence-based medicine" and "comparative effectiveness" research, ticketed to receive major federal funding, are part of the answer. And controversy is huge; i.e., who's to judge?]

2. Are we doing what we decide to do safely? [Various studies suggest that in the U.S. there are several hundred thousand preventable hospital deaths per year—again, some of the stats are very controversial.]

3. Do we do too much—are we in the “overuse” category as determined by agreed upon standards-measures? [It is "generally agreed" that perhaps $750 billion is spent annually on unnecessary tests and treatments—a "piecework" ethos, by the procedure payment, is the major culprit.]

4. Are we doing what we’re doing effectively? By local standards? By global standards (as determined by “best practices,” best hard evidence, and minimal internal variation) in terms of outcome, quality, safety, and cost? Do we aim, for example, to be “top quartile” in terms of measurable outcomes, quality, safety and “bottom quartile” in terms of cost? [This ought to be a "no brainer"—it's not. A revolution is required here—and it has damn little to do with the insurance payment process, though some would disagree.]

5. Is the institution systematically organized to very consistently deliver the goods in a more or less optimal fashion (low variation in outcome)? [There are a thousand experiments in process, but true systemically organized processes with clear measures and accountability are, alas, rare.]

6. Do all the bits talk to-engage-consult “obsessively” with the other bits? Is the delivery of services truly a turnkey team effort? [Cross-functional communication is arguably enterprise issue #1; in healthcare it's about as bad as it gets—the normal problems are compounded by the hospital "class system," with docs at the tippy-top, and no one else even a close second.]

7. Are the patient and the patient’s family at the epicenter of the universe? [Bizarrely, the answer is a resounding "no" in 9 cases out of 10.]

8. Is our institution acknowledged as a “best place to work”? [13 of the top 100 places to work in the U.S., per Fortune, are healthcare institutions—i.e., it is possible!!]

9. Do we acknowledge that people issues-capabilities involving the entire staff affect outcomes far more than capital-technology issues? [For lots of reasons, re-imbursement included, many hospitals are "technology crazy"—owning the latest stuff is more important than ascertaining its usefulness.]

10. Is sustained follow-up at least as much a priority as the “event” itself? [Post-op follow-up and chronic-care are both poor cousins in general in the hospital system setting. Again, the payment system is a culprit—but some manage to do it.]

11. Were we/Are we successful in terms of outcome-quality of life-patient satisfaction with the overall “experience”? [This obviously should be the primo concern—for a host of reasons it's not.]

12. Are all connected with all via an effective electronic network that extends from EMR to Social Networking? [Still not the norm!]

13. Do we acknowledge that most of the choices involved in executing items #1 through #12 are mostly within our discretion regardless of the nature of Obamacare? (And that Obamacare or its successor will almost surely eliminate piecework compensation—which drives the immediacy of much of the above.) [Of course, a health bill changes things—but, fact is, if the determination is there, and it is in some instances, a committed leadership team can move miles and miles down the road specified above.]

14. Do we acknowledge that throughout the system there are, today, enormous variations in outcome concerning every one of the above issues—which can mostly (almost entirely?) be explained in terms of institutional leadership effectiveness (vision, will, systems)? [SOME ARE DOING IT DAMN WELL UNDER TODAY'S CONSTRAINTS—AND THEY ARE IN AWFUL SETTINGS AS WELL AS BETTER OFF SETTINGS. "IT" CAN BE DONE—IT IS BEING DONE!]

Posted by Tom Peters |
Comments?

The Post-Customer-Service Age

January 1st, 1970

We have entered the post-customer-service age.

This doesn’t mean that customer service isn’t important. Of course it is. But customer service, like product quality, has become a basic, expected deliverable. Without it, you fail. With it, you are only at parity. Customer service is nothing more than basic business hygiene—the “brushing your teeth” of running a company.

If you try to differentiate your company through customer service, you will, at best, be a “me-too” company. Sure, you might have competitors that provide bad service, but your goal is not to be better than the worst. It is to be unique among the best.

Good customer service can help differentiate you only if it is a gateway to building relationships with customers. Customer relationships differentiate you from the competition in a way that customer service (or products) never can.

Aim high … beyond customer service.

Posted by Steve Yastrow |
Comments?

Health Forum/American Hospital Association

January 1st, 1970

On Thursday I had the great privilege of being a keynote at the Health Forum/AHA conference in my beloved San Francisco—putting “feet on the ground” there always sends my spirits soaring. While the health bill, or the likelihood of something, was on every mind, my job was to talk about leadership, regardless of the shape of any legislation. In fact I obsessed on the idea of “your choice”—the idea that incredible amounts of progress were possible in any case. Proof more or less positive is the variance that exists in the system we have today, in spite of existing ass-backwards incentives that reward “piece work” (pay-per-procedure) rather than outcomes and quality-safety. Organizations like Geisinger in Danville PA, Mayo in Rochester MN, Dartmouth-Hitchcock in Hanover NH, and Griffin in Derby CT do wonders already in terms of quality, safety, minimization of unnecessary tests and procedures, and putting the patient and patient’s family first.

[Get the PPT slides.]

Posted by Tom Peters |
Comments?

« Prev - Next »