My brand belief summed up in one song…

I’m a big believer in having a brand belief or idea, rather than a ‘brand strategy’. Having looked at a lot of military history, for example, a lot of planning and preparation goes into being successful, but adapting and flowing with the events as they happened was what led to victory or defeat (There are some good examples quoted in Blink for reference).

Or for the non-military, the amazing success of  Valentino Rossi has come partly from his talent as a test rider to develop motorcycles to win races (most notably when he switched to the unperforming Yamaha from Honda and immediately started winning), but also because he’s one of the very best at adapting to the changes in performance as tyres wear out during a race and fuel loads lighten. He’s also able to transfer his skills to driving rally cars, and is still in with a chance of a Formula One drive despite the fact he’ll be approaching his mid-30s by the time his motorcycle career ends.

So how to effectively sum up a brand belief or idea?

It could be a sentence, a paragraph, or even something like a photo or diagram. In this case, I’d just had a good breakfast meeting to discuss a future project when I put on a CD in the car, and realised how much the song I was listening to was aligned to many of my thoughts about my businesses – I sent a link to Youtube over with my suggestions to the project, and it seems like people got it straight away. And that was far more effective than writing hundreds of words in a 50-page document.

The song is ‘The Cause’ byAmerican punk band NOFX, and if you’re not a fan of loud punk rock, then take a look at the lyrics:

It isn’t for the money, no it isn’t for the fun
it’s a plan, a scam, a diagram
it’s for the benefit of everyone
you gotta have a little respect
subterranean ideals
traditional neglect
reflect on how you think it would make you feel
The cause – we’re just doing it for the cause
no it isn’t for the fortune, it isn’t for the fame
It’s a scheme, dream, a barterine
we want everyone to think the same
because you know what you feel is right
and you feel what you can’t ignore
and you try so hard to point the blame
ashamed – what do we do this for?
The cause – we’re just doing it for the cause
the cause – we’re just doing it for the cause
the cause – we’re just doing it for the cause
the cause – we’re just doing it for the cause

 

Job done, really.

 

The stopping power of simple and effective marketing

Before you click on the video below, which shows a very literal example of being simple and effective, I should point out that it does contain a very small amount of violence, that I know it’s from the film ‘Never Back Down’, and I also know it’s not an accurate reflection of the effectiveness of Capoeira as a martial art.

But still…

I’m not going to suggest that business strategy, marketing or writing are related to fighting or violence, although I do know that to excel in martial arts or any endeavour requires similar levels of focus, dedication and perseverance. What I wanted to point out is that the most effective route to a solution is quite often the simplest, and that’s something easily overlooked in a digital world which tends towards information overload and constant hype cycles around the latest startup and innovation.

 

The thing of it:

I’m not suggesting that you shouldn’t experiment, innovate and impress. But these should always come after your core business and marketing ideas. The hardest bit is often stripping back everything to the simplest expression of what you do and why you do it. In fact, you can often find business people will try to delay answering or avoid the question altogether, and I imagine that’s because they fear that actually there’s nothing there.

That’s never been true in my experience.

It’s simply about digging deeper and asking the right questions to find the one core element that will really resonate. Even the dullest business you can possibly imagine, which may have been set up purely to make a profit, will have something of interest in it, whether that’s something in the story of the founders or workforce, or in the history of the business, or in future ambitions. The trick is to find it, and this is something which is potentially a lot easier for someone like me to discover as an ‘outsider’ working on a freelance basis, who can take an overall honest view and then ask potentially career limiting questions if you were putting them to your boss.

I recently had an epiphany when trying to simplify the brand idea for a client, after losing myself in all the great functionality of their product, and struggling to explain a lot of detailed technical terms. I’d succumbed to selling the features, rather than the benefits. But looking at it from the angle of their potential consumers, I suddenly realised that the one key benefit was incredibly simple, and could be summed up in 6 words. Now that’s got potential as a strapline, message, brand idea and identity etc.

Image courtesy funtik.cat on Flickr (CC Licence)

 

It’s about simple messages:

Particularly in the early stages of a business, it’s about getting who you are, and what you do, across in the simplest, most comprehensible ways.

People are great at passing on information. They’re not always great at taking information in, processing it, and repeating it all accurately, and that diminishes as the amount gets bigger.

Imagine you’re at a party, and you’re introducing an old friend to someone. Would you tell them absolutely everything that you know about your lifelong friendship? Or would you be more likely to say ‘Here’s Dave, he works in marketing and I’ve known him since I was five.’

One of my favourite tricks when it comes to simple messaging is to think about the classic game know as ‘Telephone‘ in the U.S, and without wishing to cause offence, ‘Chinese Whispers’ in the UK. If your message isn’t simple enough to pass from the CEO of the company down to the receptionist without the basic gist of it remaining, then it isn’t simple enough.

Or just think about the companies and slogans you remember off the top of your head. There are plenty of examples which not only function as a simple and effective strapline, but go further in explaining what it is you do, e.g.

Making collaboration productive and enjoyable for people every day. 37Signals

That goes a bit further than the classic strapline. And if it passes down the line and comes out as ‘they make working together more fun’, then it still works.

And there’s another reason why it’s more important than ever:

If you’ve ever come across Gary Vaynerchuck, you’ll already known why ‘passions,hustle, wine and business’ is a great 4 word summary. Generally SEO advice is always about ranking for keywords, but that site description is what converts people to following up on the search results. And as search and social become more and more intertwined, then memorable and sharable become even more important.

Oh, and if you can keep it under 140 characters, that’s even better:

 

Practising what I preach:

Along with a lot of bloggers and commentators, I can often fall into the trap of talking a great game about other people, and failing to do it for myself.

That’s particularly true when I’ve spent a lot of time working on client projects – part of the reason I took up blogging was to have an outlet for writing which didn’t follow a traditional news structure (At the time I was writing a lot of online news). That probably explains why I tend to write lengthy posts whenever I get the chance.

But now that TheWayoftheWeb is increasingly a lead generator for my marketing and content business (which is continuing to grow and may well expand in the future), and I’m also responsible for the marketing and lead generation side of Jodanma design and development, I’m going to be able to show more of the process that goes into that simplicity. The current Jodanma holding page will be replaced by the full website shortly, and the initial attempt at conveying what we do isn’t anywhere close to what it should be.

So here begins a real journey to apply what I do for clients to my own two businesses, and explain what goes into it along the way…

The natural decay of business structures

I’ve been interested in how businesses organise themselves for a while, but working outside of a corporate structure has been allowing me to think more about what works.

As I previously posted, I’ve been reading PW Singer’s Wired for War recently, and nature is a huge influence on the world of robotics and AI – after all much of the work is finding automated equivalents to the brains and mechanisms of humans and other animals. But is was catching some of Professor Brian Cox last night in a programme about Destiny and time that sparked this particular idea (The show is currently on BBC iPlayer here)

Big piles of sand by cobalt123 on Flickr (CC Licence)

Basically in a section on entropy, the example used was a pile of sand, which could be re-arranged in a huge number of ways without really altering the structure of the pile, and therefore it demonstrated ‘high entropy’. By comparison, a sandcastle containing the same amount of grains would be changed significantly by even just a small re-arrangement, and therefore demonstrated ‘low entropy’.

So with an extremely limited knowledge of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, what on earth does this have to do with business?

Entropy, time, nature and businesses:

Well, entropy affects all things, and is really a measure of energy changes as things disperse – think of a block of ice melting. And these changes which can increase entropy can happen spontaneously.

So busineses which arrange themselves like a pile of sand should retain their broad shape through a far bigger number of changes. The prime example could be the branded venture capitalism of Virgin. By using a branded VC model, they’re able to get in and out of various industries and fields relatively quickly and painlessly, whilst the overall company values remain. And they can experiment with space flight, for example, without fear.

Technology companies seem to be more adept at this – the 20% Google time for engineers to work on pet projects in one example of expanding and changing whilst apparently staying somewhere within the Google values (e.g. ‘Do No Evil) – hence the search and advertising business also includes a range of other projects which tie-in to a greater or lesser extent.

And smaller businesses which follow these ideas seem to be growing – for instance, the virtual agency model which tends to be occurring more often in the creative and marketing disciplines (as opposed to the crowdsourcing model which can often be more akin to ‘spec work’ – i.e. you just post your demand and someone meets it for the lowest cost). The virtual agency should be a collaborative co-creation environment, and certainly the better ones seem to fit that build (Disclosure – I’m a member of both Blur Group and Guided Collective)

The natural end of the formal structure:

The entropy idea seems to suggest that initially you had small, local groups, which turned into large formal ones due to advances such as the Industrial Revolution etc. In terms of the impact, the change was massive, but in terms of the duration of the change, 200 years isn’t such a long time.

Which makes me think that the move towards collaborative groups coallescing, splitting and reforming may well be the most natural state, and the time for the large formal institutions really is at an end.

Ronald Coase is attributed with the idea that economic tasks are performed by firms when the transactional costs suggest it. (Cheers to @jobucks for succeeding where Google and my memory failed).The earliest reference to it via Wikipedia comes from John R. Commons:

It is this shift from commodities and individuals to transactions and working rules of collective action that marks the transition from the classical and hedonic schools to the institutional schools of economic thinking. The shift is a change in the ultimate unit of economic investigation. The classic and hedonic economists, with their communistic and anarchistic offshoots, founded their theories on the relation of man to nature, but institutionalism is a relation of man to man.

But the digital age seems to enable a shift back to commodities and individuals with a basis in natural and social relationships. If each grain of sand is an individual loosely linked to the others in the group on the basis of selling a commodity, then it can exist with high entropy and continue to retain its shape in the face of the majority of external forces. Whereas tight formal rules of an institution bind ‘man to man’, but mean spontaneous external forces are far more likely to blow it apart.

The risk of silence on your company news page or blog…

Content is an amazing way of building up a business, but there are certain requirements you need to meet for it to be successful. I wrote a while ago about the time it can take to build up a content site organically, and a key part of that is adding content on a regular and consistent basis.

The good news is that your competitors are handing you a massive advantage every day, week, month or even year that they leave their website dormant, particularly when it comes to news sections and blogs.

And in an emergency or crisis, the days of being able to keep quiet until an official statement can be prepared are pretty much gone. You really need to have a crisis communications plan in place right now – you’ll understand why if something goes wrong without it, and the option of waiting for an official statement to calm everything down has gone the same way as the daily news cycle. Even if your staff can’t give out full details and solutions, they should be trained and prepared to acknowledge events and provide whatever assistance and information they can.

silence is spoken here by Mr Kris on Flickr

'Silence is spoken here' by Mr Kris on Flickr (CC Licence)

Obviously there have already been a number of examples, such as Eurostar, but technology companies are no better. Take for instance, the recent New York Times article covering the ‘secrets of search’ which led to JC Penney dominating Google results for lots of top product purchases in what appears to be the largest example of linkbuying and other ‘black hat’ practices.

The bottom of the second page reveals that JC Penney has terminated its search engine consulting, SearchDex.

‘PENNEY reacted to this instant reversal of fortune by, among other things, firing its search engine consulting firm, SearchDex. Executives there did not return e-mail or phone calls.’

So someone at the firm is theoretically aware that the NYT is doing a story on the events surrounding JC Penney, and that article was published on February 12th, 2011.

So when you visit the news section of the SearchDex website on February 15th, 2011, you might do a double take -

Searchdex JCPenney News 2007

You can click to enlarge, but the latest news on the SearchDex website three days after the NYT published the JCPenney story online is the March 15, 2007 announcement that JCPenney has signed for a ‘an unprecedented 4th year of service’ – and goes on to say ‘JCPenney has trusted SearchDex to handle all of their organic search marketing efforts’.

That’s 4 years ago, and 3 days after a huge news story concerning the brand, with anyone involved in the search business taking a look. Just scroll down the first page of Google results for SearchDex and see what you find… #5, #7, #8 and #9 are discussing what is going on, and one of them is Doug Pierce, who shares all the data that uncovered what SearchDex was doing.

If SearchDex did decide to update their news, there are a number of routes they could take. They could deny all knowledge, blame a scapegoat, or debate the data.

Alternatively, and here’s where I’d really like your views, they could take a different tack. They could come clean and admit everything, perhaps referencing how competitive search rankings can be, the fact that they may have known they were being dishonest, but that digital marketing companies are often under pressure to deliver results and using dishonest tactics are hugely tempting. If that was followed by future transparency, would that alter your opinions of the company, in comparison to your views after reading the NYT piece?