I stumbled across an interesting debate on a social networking site called Ecademy (if anyone wants to check it out). It's a bit like LinkedIn, but a lot more interactive.
The debate came about following an email from Penny Power (a business guru, from what I can gather) who wanted to tell me and a lot of other people about an 'excellent' event that she'd attended the night before. I didn't know who Penny was, but being naturally a little curious I followed the link to find out more. I have to admit that I did raise an eyebrow when I discovered that Penny was the speaker at this event, promoting her new book.
Reading on, it materialised that Power was extolling the virtues of social networking and their role in helping us to 're-boot' following the economic downturn. Penny's thinking is that times of hardship have made many of us realise the need for better, more humane values and that social networking is helping us achieve this.
Now I do appreciate these sentiments: there's nothing wrong with promoting a 'back-to-basics' approach to business and I agree wholeheartedly that it's missing from a lot of businesses. However, I couldn't help but notice the irony of expressing these sentiments through the use of social media in an act of blatant self-promotion. Particularly when you consider that the email I received appeared to be a personal message and then transpired to be a bit of PR.
I don't want to do Penny a disservice: in all fairness she was only doing what a lot of business people do - making the most of her available tools to promote herself and thereby keep the money rolling in. But I do think a more honest approach to the real value of social media would have prevented these sentiments sounding so hollow.
There is a triviality to social media that means when not handled carefully, it can be very much an inhumane (for want of a better word) form of communication. As I commented on Penny's blog , there is often a level of disconnect as a result of glib, frequent communication. There is most certainly, on both an organisational and personal level, a sense of brand building. Anyone remember Tom Peter's Brand You? (I think this is the only thing I remember from my university days...).
I am a frequent user of social media, for my sins. I like to dabble in a little Twitter, facebook and LinkedIn. But I'm not convinced just yet, that it has made I or anyone else more humane. Let's call a spade a spade and see it for what it is.
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Friday, 23 October 2009
25 years since Band Aid
I watched an interview with Midge Ure this morning on BBC news, talking about Band Aid and how the money they raised has helped farmers in Ethiopia. As a result of their aid, famers have been able to diversify their crops and look at new ways of sustaining food supplies even when drought hits.
There's a lot to say about the Ethiopian famine and Band Aid. One of the things that really impresses me is the way that this mass fund-raising effort caused a seismic shift in the way that we view others and our role in helping them. The en masse effort that went into raising money showed that giving isn't just done by terribly rich people in fur coats handing out pennies to the poor. It's something that needs to be done by everyone and is in fact a socially responsible thing to do.
As Midge Ure states, charity doesn't have to be about patronage and shouldn't be a way of exerting control or superiority over others. Giving, when handled well, concerns itself with enabling - acting as a conduit to better things. I believe Ure when he says that the Ethiopians he's met are incredibly hard-working people who want to do things for themselves - but they've been blighted by the unfortunate combination of traditionalist methods and climate change. The money raised can't change the latter, but it has gone a long way to addressing the fundamental way that Ethiopian farmers do things.
I think both of these points have relevance in business. Farming is of course a form of business and should tell us a lot about the way that we do things. More often than not it's only when things get into a difficult or unmanageable state that we start to ask ourselves: 'what went wrong?'; 'what happened?'. If only we had looked at the basic structures and principles that we base our business on at the outset, we could have avoided this situation. By that I mean, creating a platform that allows for change, evolution and growth and not restricting ourselves to the here and now. And don't be afraid to ask for help - venture capital and other fund-raising firms do offer support to businesses, to enable themselves to achieve growth.
In terms of social responsibility, most businesses could learn something from this too. Think about what impact your business behaviours have on employees and the community; spare a thought for lower energy consumption and recycling; encourage employees to take part in and even fund their time away on charity-based activities. But remember that charity starts at home - be good to your people and the rest will follow.
There's a lot to say about the Ethiopian famine and Band Aid. One of the things that really impresses me is the way that this mass fund-raising effort caused a seismic shift in the way that we view others and our role in helping them. The en masse effort that went into raising money showed that giving isn't just done by terribly rich people in fur coats handing out pennies to the poor. It's something that needs to be done by everyone and is in fact a socially responsible thing to do.
As Midge Ure states, charity doesn't have to be about patronage and shouldn't be a way of exerting control or superiority over others. Giving, when handled well, concerns itself with enabling - acting as a conduit to better things. I believe Ure when he says that the Ethiopians he's met are incredibly hard-working people who want to do things for themselves - but they've been blighted by the unfortunate combination of traditionalist methods and climate change. The money raised can't change the latter, but it has gone a long way to addressing the fundamental way that Ethiopian farmers do things.
I think both of these points have relevance in business. Farming is of course a form of business and should tell us a lot about the way that we do things. More often than not it's only when things get into a difficult or unmanageable state that we start to ask ourselves: 'what went wrong?'; 'what happened?'. If only we had looked at the basic structures and principles that we base our business on at the outset, we could have avoided this situation. By that I mean, creating a platform that allows for change, evolution and growth and not restricting ourselves to the here and now. And don't be afraid to ask for help - venture capital and other fund-raising firms do offer support to businesses, to enable themselves to achieve growth.
In terms of social responsibility, most businesses could learn something from this too. Think about what impact your business behaviours have on employees and the community; spare a thought for lower energy consumption and recycling; encourage employees to take part in and even fund their time away on charity-based activities. But remember that charity starts at home - be good to your people and the rest will follow.
Friday, 16 October 2009
Are you a verb yet?
I galvanised my thoughts this morning with a brief article on bbc news about Google's recent success. The latest figures show that the behemoth search engine reached an astonishing net profit of £1.64 billion in the third quarter. Eric Schmidt, chief executive for Google, reportedly said "The worst of the recession is clearly behind us." It's a wonder he could speak with his tongue wedged so firmly in his cheek.
Of course the billions in the bank are one clear indication that Google is doing rather well these days and far far ahead of its competitors. Or as one senior anaylst delicately put it, Google's success has left "...Yahoo withering on the vine..." one imagines that the chief exec of Yahoo may well disagree with Schmidt's sentiments on the recession.
But one thing that always strikes me as a clear marker of success, the one thing that says "That's right guys, we've got it firmly in the bag." is when you reach verb status.
By 'verb status' I mean when someone can use your name as a verb without being in danger of confusing anyone or sounding pretentious. For example, if you've ever referred to hoovering, or in this scenario, 'googling' someone. How wonderful to be so powerful that you deserve a place in the English language.
But it's worth considering that when a business reaches this ultimate arena of success, is when the real work needs to start. Being known well enough to become a verb is a great sign of status, but it's also when you risk simply merging into the collective unconscious. To continue with the hoover example, you may refer to the act of hoovering, but nowadays it's the Dyson that's the 'must have' vacuuming machine. Dyson may not quite be verbified, but there're very few people who wouldn't know what you meant if you talked about using the Dyson, or getting the dyson out. Or at least you'd hope so! I might use the word hoover, but it wouldn't make me buy one.
Such is my ignorance of hoover that I had to do a quick web search just to check that they're still trading (I was tempted to say 'google search' but let's face, they don't need my help). It turns out you can buy all sorts of hoover applicances that are entirely unrelated to dust - something that my lovely thumb indexed Oxford dictionary could not tell me. You see what I'm saying?
Well, just in case you don't, the thinking is this. We all want to reach a certain stage in business and we all have different ways of measuring success. To me the real accolade is verbification, but I'm sure that when the powers that be at Google discuss success over skinny lattes in the boardroom they won't be saying "Yes I know we made our 5oth billion yesterday, but are we a verb yet?". And when we reach that stage of success, whatever it may be, that's when we really need to start proving ourselves and continue to show that yes, indeed, we are the best.
Of course the billions in the bank are one clear indication that Google is doing rather well these days and far far ahead of its competitors. Or as one senior anaylst delicately put it, Google's success has left "...Yahoo withering on the vine..." one imagines that the chief exec of Yahoo may well disagree with Schmidt's sentiments on the recession.
But one thing that always strikes me as a clear marker of success, the one thing that says "That's right guys, we've got it firmly in the bag." is when you reach verb status.
By 'verb status' I mean when someone can use your name as a verb without being in danger of confusing anyone or sounding pretentious. For example, if you've ever referred to hoovering, or in this scenario, 'googling' someone. How wonderful to be so powerful that you deserve a place in the English language.
But it's worth considering that when a business reaches this ultimate arena of success, is when the real work needs to start. Being known well enough to become a verb is a great sign of status, but it's also when you risk simply merging into the collective unconscious. To continue with the hoover example, you may refer to the act of hoovering, but nowadays it's the Dyson that's the 'must have' vacuuming machine. Dyson may not quite be verbified, but there're very few people who wouldn't know what you meant if you talked about using the Dyson, or getting the dyson out. Or at least you'd hope so! I might use the word hoover, but it wouldn't make me buy one.
Such is my ignorance of hoover that I had to do a quick web search just to check that they're still trading (I was tempted to say 'google search' but let's face, they don't need my help). It turns out you can buy all sorts of hoover applicances that are entirely unrelated to dust - something that my lovely thumb indexed Oxford dictionary could not tell me. You see what I'm saying?
Well, just in case you don't, the thinking is this. We all want to reach a certain stage in business and we all have different ways of measuring success. To me the real accolade is verbification, but I'm sure that when the powers that be at Google discuss success over skinny lattes in the boardroom they won't be saying "Yes I know we made our 5oth billion yesterday, but are we a verb yet?". And when we reach that stage of success, whatever it may be, that's when we really need to start proving ourselves and continue to show that yes, indeed, we are the best.
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Lord Mandelson on government intervention
There's an interesting point that Lord Mandelson makes early on in his speech at the New Industry New Jobs conference, where he talks about a 'synthesis' between the 'interventionist' and 'pro-market' schools of thought i.e. using one approach doesn't necessarily preclude the other.
I like this way of thinking because it fits with my overall view of life and business: creating balance (you'll probably have noticed this theme running through a few of the other blog posts). Essentially what Lord Mandelson is saying, is that government shouldn't seek to dictate how business is done, or who's in the market, but it should provide assistance and skills drives where a lack of funding or knowledge could prevent necessary growth.
The example given is where the government has given funding for renewable chemical firms that have the skills in place, but not the capital they need to make their research a reality. This is what he terms 'capacity building'.
It might be conceited to say it, but at 2nd Head, capacity building is really what we're all about. Not just in the terms of providing financial support, but also through offering businesses the tools they need to support themselves in long-term growth, rather than simply rocking up and doing it for them - surely that's more about control than support. It's the microcosm to the government's macrosmic works, but each effort, regardless of scale, should go some way to making a difference to the market and keeping a sense of balance in place.
In such turbulent economic times that will hopefully come as a long-needed relief.
I like this way of thinking because it fits with my overall view of life and business: creating balance (you'll probably have noticed this theme running through a few of the other blog posts). Essentially what Lord Mandelson is saying, is that government shouldn't seek to dictate how business is done, or who's in the market, but it should provide assistance and skills drives where a lack of funding or knowledge could prevent necessary growth.
The example given is where the government has given funding for renewable chemical firms that have the skills in place, but not the capital they need to make their research a reality. This is what he terms 'capacity building'.
It might be conceited to say it, but at 2nd Head, capacity building is really what we're all about. Not just in the terms of providing financial support, but also through offering businesses the tools they need to support themselves in long-term growth, rather than simply rocking up and doing it for them - surely that's more about control than support. It's the microcosm to the government's macrosmic works, but each effort, regardless of scale, should go some way to making a difference to the market and keeping a sense of balance in place.
In such turbulent economic times that will hopefully come as a long-needed relief.
Monday, 12 October 2009
Lessons from Peep Show
It may seem a Friday bloggish thing to do, commenting on popular films and tv shows, but I'm going out on a limb to say: "If the theme is right, then comment anyway."
The latest series of Peep Show has covered quite a few topical business issues, not least redundancy and the consequences of office vandalism, but most recently: the importance of good branding.
Now I'm not even remotely suggesting that Peep Show offers a realistic, thought-provoking or debate-worthy insight into any of these topics. But like any good comedy, it does touch upon familiar, real-world scenarios, which is what makes them so funny. So you can see why sometimes when the nerve endings start to jangle, you might want to take a risk and use it for serious comment.
So, branding. The scenario that I'm thinking of is where Mark (the geeky one, for those of you unfamiliar with Peep Show) has been helping his ex-colleague/boss to set up a new consultancy business - operating from his boss' bedroom on a particularly insalubrious housing estate. Being an old-school salesman, his boss doesn't look for much guidance on business matters, simply throwing himself into the project with little thought for the finer details - one of which is the company's business name. Having toyed with 2 not especially imaginative ideas he finally decides to use them both and unbeknownst to Mark, prints up his business cards with both of them on it.
Even for people uninvolved in the branding process, it's apparently obvious why such a gungho approach is not the best route to business success. Partly because it implies little thought, decision-making skills or creativity, but mostly because it leaves your target audience uninspired and confused. If you don't know who you are, then how can you expect someone else to? And if people are unsure in any way about your business, then it reduces the likelihood that they will want to work with you.
While there must be very few businesses out there who would take the Peep Show approach, there will be plenty that struggle with a sense of corporate identity. Perhaps as the result of a merger or acquisition, where different cultures are coming together, or perhaps because they've been trading for so long that a real understanding of who they are and what they stand for has become lost. There's a myriad of reasons why it can happen, but it's a common scenario.
At start-up, most businesses will have a good sense of what they're about. This is largely to do with numbers. If you only employ a handful of people, largely made up of entrepreneurs then business ethos, even if not written down, is a daily and pressing concern. The problem is that if you don't articulate and define your business ethos at this stage then you're far more likely to encounter problems later on.
Assuming that you do take the time to capture your mission and vision statement, settle on the right tone of voice and transcribe your messaging, it's essential that you have processes in place that work to effectively communicate your values through each stage of the business. That means your 5th and your 50th employee should have exactly the same level of understanding about your business. It could be through induction plans, annual workshops or easy access to materials via the company intranet, but whatever you do, it must be consistent, highly visible and easy to understand.
Moreover, those who are involved in the recruitment process should work to identify who are the best fit candidates, in terms of ethos and personality, as well as their core business skills. Likewise, if you're in the process of making an acquisition, ensure that whoever you're acquiring has a good cultural fit with your business.
It may seem an idealistic vision to have everyone 'living the brand', but it's certainly something we should all be aiming for. Consider that your brand isn't just a business name, corporate colours and a strapline, it's not even about the numerous corporate documents that explain in fine detail what your brand represents. Your brand is the way in which your people work and communicate both internally and externally, it's the heart and mind of your business. So do what you can to keep it healthy.
The latest series of Peep Show has covered quite a few topical business issues, not least redundancy and the consequences of office vandalism, but most recently: the importance of good branding.
Now I'm not even remotely suggesting that Peep Show offers a realistic, thought-provoking or debate-worthy insight into any of these topics. But like any good comedy, it does touch upon familiar, real-world scenarios, which is what makes them so funny. So you can see why sometimes when the nerve endings start to jangle, you might want to take a risk and use it for serious comment.
So, branding. The scenario that I'm thinking of is where Mark (the geeky one, for those of you unfamiliar with Peep Show) has been helping his ex-colleague/boss to set up a new consultancy business - operating from his boss' bedroom on a particularly insalubrious housing estate. Being an old-school salesman, his boss doesn't look for much guidance on business matters, simply throwing himself into the project with little thought for the finer details - one of which is the company's business name. Having toyed with 2 not especially imaginative ideas he finally decides to use them both and unbeknownst to Mark, prints up his business cards with both of them on it.
Even for people uninvolved in the branding process, it's apparently obvious why such a gungho approach is not the best route to business success. Partly because it implies little thought, decision-making skills or creativity, but mostly because it leaves your target audience uninspired and confused. If you don't know who you are, then how can you expect someone else to? And if people are unsure in any way about your business, then it reduces the likelihood that they will want to work with you.
While there must be very few businesses out there who would take the Peep Show approach, there will be plenty that struggle with a sense of corporate identity. Perhaps as the result of a merger or acquisition, where different cultures are coming together, or perhaps because they've been trading for so long that a real understanding of who they are and what they stand for has become lost. There's a myriad of reasons why it can happen, but it's a common scenario.
At start-up, most businesses will have a good sense of what they're about. This is largely to do with numbers. If you only employ a handful of people, largely made up of entrepreneurs then business ethos, even if not written down, is a daily and pressing concern. The problem is that if you don't articulate and define your business ethos at this stage then you're far more likely to encounter problems later on.
Assuming that you do take the time to capture your mission and vision statement, settle on the right tone of voice and transcribe your messaging, it's essential that you have processes in place that work to effectively communicate your values through each stage of the business. That means your 5th and your 50th employee should have exactly the same level of understanding about your business. It could be through induction plans, annual workshops or easy access to materials via the company intranet, but whatever you do, it must be consistent, highly visible and easy to understand.
Moreover, those who are involved in the recruitment process should work to identify who are the best fit candidates, in terms of ethos and personality, as well as their core business skills. Likewise, if you're in the process of making an acquisition, ensure that whoever you're acquiring has a good cultural fit with your business.
It may seem an idealistic vision to have everyone 'living the brand', but it's certainly something we should all be aiming for. Consider that your brand isn't just a business name, corporate colours and a strapline, it's not even about the numerous corporate documents that explain in fine detail what your brand represents. Your brand is the way in which your people work and communicate both internally and externally, it's the heart and mind of your business. So do what you can to keep it healthy.
Friday, 9 October 2009
Cameron and the media
At the risk of rehashing some old arguments, I thought it might be worth thinking about David Cameron's comments on the impact that the media has on children.
In the article that I stumbled across on Brand Republic, the journalist makes reference to an ongoing feud between the Conservatives and magazines like Nuts and Zoo, although in his most recent comments Cameron hasn't specifically named any individual publication. Reading between the lines it would seem more probable that he is indeed referring to lads mags rather than Management Today or Computer Weekly.
Right/wrong? Good/evil? White/Black? Yes/No?
Goodness it's such an old argument I don't know where to start. The media has long since been blamed for its influence on young people, for triggering mental illnesses like anorexia, for encouraging heroin chic, objectification etc. etc. The liberal view point on this is most commonly: let them get on with it; there's much more at play than just the media; consider your other cultural and social influences e.g. the role of parenting, peers etc. In short: magazines don't appear in a vacuum.
The other side of the coin, to take the most extreme viewpoint, is that lads mags and the like are all just a form a extreme wickedness and the root cause of most social evils today. Use the word evil a lot and you'll just about get there.
I am your classic fence sitter. I don't necessarily like the peddling of nude images and yes I would judge someone over the age of 21 for regularly buying (or at all) the not quite top shelf publications. It's the rule of dad i.e. what would you think if your dad did it? You get what I'm saying. However, much as I don't like them, how damaging/responsible for corrupting young minds do I really hold them to be?
To be quite honest with you, unless things have changed dramatically since I was a girl, most young women aren't all that exposed to these sorts of images anyway, beyond a casual, slightly more than cursory glance in the local newsagent. Unless your dad does buy them of course.
For young men, again, these sorts of magazines do perpetuate a certain type of image and are to some degree responsible for the way that men, especially impressionable young ones, view women. But by the time most men or boys have had any kind of relationship, they soon realise that the reality is quite different. Yes they can desire whatever they want, but as to whether it actually exists is another matter.
This brings me to the more disturbing part of the argument. On the whole the artificial, air brushed, super undersize me images haven't worked - are we not either on the verge of or in the middle of an obesity endemic? But in some ways that's the whole point: we are starting to see a worrying dichotomy emerge, where children especially are either alarmingly thin or morbidly obese. A rather nasty struggle between the reality of an over-fed, consumerist landscape and that same landscape's guilty conscience. Which will it be?
There is much talk in general about the new pressures that children face, which reach much wider than whether they wear a size zero - let's not forget it's not just girls that we're talking about here. Only the other day the Sunday Times ran a feature about the pressure on young people to outdo their peers with their academic performance. 3 As at A-level is no longer the holy grail that it was once cracked up to be.
We see the same thing in business where young people are struggling to be noticed because there are now so many of them vying for the same roles and the problem is that they're all bright, competitive young things. It's no longer enough just to be a nice person with some decent GCSEs and a baden powell award. Ah, them were the days.
So what are we really looking at here? Well, to prevent myself from really going off on some super tangent - as if you weren't lost already... I'll bring it back to the magazines. The magazines and the pushy parents and the high cost of living and capitalism and anything else we'd like to blame it on. I'm keeping my position on the fence: it's not just the magazines we see, although they do play a part. To me it's about a lack of perspective. A submergence in a cauldron of unreality, a lack of faith in our own convictions, even too much social networking, dare I say it.
So it you are a parent, a school teacher, a friend, a politician or a business leader, try and remember the qualities that count. Because being a good scout, girl, boy or otherwise, should count for something.
In the article that I stumbled across on Brand Republic, the journalist makes reference to an ongoing feud between the Conservatives and magazines like Nuts and Zoo, although in his most recent comments Cameron hasn't specifically named any individual publication. Reading between the lines it would seem more probable that he is indeed referring to lads mags rather than Management Today or Computer Weekly.
Right/wrong? Good/evil? White/Black? Yes/No?
Goodness it's such an old argument I don't know where to start. The media has long since been blamed for its influence on young people, for triggering mental illnesses like anorexia, for encouraging heroin chic, objectification etc. etc. The liberal view point on this is most commonly: let them get on with it; there's much more at play than just the media; consider your other cultural and social influences e.g. the role of parenting, peers etc. In short: magazines don't appear in a vacuum.
The other side of the coin, to take the most extreme viewpoint, is that lads mags and the like are all just a form a extreme wickedness and the root cause of most social evils today. Use the word evil a lot and you'll just about get there.
I am your classic fence sitter. I don't necessarily like the peddling of nude images and yes I would judge someone over the age of 21 for regularly buying (or at all) the not quite top shelf publications. It's the rule of dad i.e. what would you think if your dad did it? You get what I'm saying. However, much as I don't like them, how damaging/responsible for corrupting young minds do I really hold them to be?
To be quite honest with you, unless things have changed dramatically since I was a girl, most young women aren't all that exposed to these sorts of images anyway, beyond a casual, slightly more than cursory glance in the local newsagent. Unless your dad does buy them of course.
For young men, again, these sorts of magazines do perpetuate a certain type of image and are to some degree responsible for the way that men, especially impressionable young ones, view women. But by the time most men or boys have had any kind of relationship, they soon realise that the reality is quite different. Yes they can desire whatever they want, but as to whether it actually exists is another matter.
This brings me to the more disturbing part of the argument. On the whole the artificial, air brushed, super undersize me images haven't worked - are we not either on the verge of or in the middle of an obesity endemic? But in some ways that's the whole point: we are starting to see a worrying dichotomy emerge, where children especially are either alarmingly thin or morbidly obese. A rather nasty struggle between the reality of an over-fed, consumerist landscape and that same landscape's guilty conscience. Which will it be?
There is much talk in general about the new pressures that children face, which reach much wider than whether they wear a size zero - let's not forget it's not just girls that we're talking about here. Only the other day the Sunday Times ran a feature about the pressure on young people to outdo their peers with their academic performance. 3 As at A-level is no longer the holy grail that it was once cracked up to be.
We see the same thing in business where young people are struggling to be noticed because there are now so many of them vying for the same roles and the problem is that they're all bright, competitive young things. It's no longer enough just to be a nice person with some decent GCSEs and a baden powell award. Ah, them were the days.
So what are we really looking at here? Well, to prevent myself from really going off on some super tangent - as if you weren't lost already... I'll bring it back to the magazines. The magazines and the pushy parents and the high cost of living and capitalism and anything else we'd like to blame it on. I'm keeping my position on the fence: it's not just the magazines we see, although they do play a part. To me it's about a lack of perspective. A submergence in a cauldron of unreality, a lack of faith in our own convictions, even too much social networking, dare I say it.
So it you are a parent, a school teacher, a friend, a politician or a business leader, try and remember the qualities that count. Because being a good scout, girl, boy or otherwise, should count for something.
Monday, 5 October 2009
The invention of lying
I was fortunate enough to have an afternoon foray to the cinema yesterday, to watch Ricky Gervais' latest film: The Invention of Lying. For anyone that hasn't seen the trailers, the film is about a world where lying simply doesn't exist. In Gervais' dystopia, not lying also requires brutally honest truth and as a result, no imagination or fantasy. As an example, the film industry is restricted to producing dry accounts of events in history, which necessarily entail no embellishment. Gervais is the luckless film writer, recounting depressing events that no-one can bear to hear about, such as the black plague. He is therefore quite openly and to his face, regarded as a 'loser'.
I won't give away much more than that about the plot itself, but one part of the film that is worth drawing attention to, is the scene that depicts a 'real world' coke advert. In the advert the CEO of Coca Cola explains that he is asking us to buy coke so that he can make a profit. He admits that too much coke can cause obesity and it is just flavoured water after all, but he'd still like us to buy it. Quite a world away from advertising as we know it.
Of course what the unflinching nature of this advert implies, is that marketing is in essence, lying. And that in fact all forms of imagination carry with them a level of deceit. It's an interesting thought and I'm sure one that has occurred to most people at some point. Marketing, by its very nature, is trying to dupe us into believing things that are more often than not, untrue.
To some degree this does hold water. If a company is trying to convince you that by using a particular brand of mobile phone you'll have better relationships with your friends, then of course that's not true. But it's worth bearing in mind that adverts very rarely tell us something as a direct lie: it's all implied. The line 'We're better. Connected' does leave us to believe that the mobile provider in question can bring more to our relationships, but there is a big difference between this strapline and saying 'We guarantee people will like you more when you use us.' Some marketeers do use the word 'guarantee' and that's where I feel the line has been crossed.
Marketing is fine when it's glossing things up for you; it's telling you what you want to hear. In fact, like anything that uses a bit of imagination, a lot of advertising is actually quite enjoyable. Not because people have been sucked into a world where they believe word for word what they are being told, but because there are many clever and amusing ideas in advertising. Take the award-winning 'compare the meerkat' campaigns. Many people like this advert because it's downright entertaining, not because they love the idea of comparing the market. At least I hope that's the case...
It is, however, somewhat galling when you do see companies taking things too far and using loaded words like guarantee. Online dating sites are often quite guilty of this, as are age reversal creams. As if a person would want to put themselves through the process of proving that they are not actually emotionally attached to someone, or showing that yes indeed, their skin is still looking old and haggard.
You can always argue that if someone is naive enough to believe what marketing tells them, then it's their own fault - but we need a balance here. Marketing should be aspirational, fun and intriguing, but it should not deliberately mislead or prey on people who are vulnerable to false advertising. With the advent of more socially responsible advertising, you can see how this works. As an example, drinkaware.co.uk is used on most alcohol adverts now, to encourage people to take a more realistic view of what alcohol does to them. You're still asked to believe that your life will be better if you drink Jack Daniels, Baileys etc. but there is a more balanced view creeping in.
I would never suggest that we should aim for the kind of advertising that I saw in 'The Invention of Lying' (much as it amused me). Marketing should paint a thousand pictures; it should be a kind of commercial poetry if you will. But lay off the hollow promises. We could all do without them.
I won't give away much more than that about the plot itself, but one part of the film that is worth drawing attention to, is the scene that depicts a 'real world' coke advert. In the advert the CEO of Coca Cola explains that he is asking us to buy coke so that he can make a profit. He admits that too much coke can cause obesity and it is just flavoured water after all, but he'd still like us to buy it. Quite a world away from advertising as we know it.
Of course what the unflinching nature of this advert implies, is that marketing is in essence, lying. And that in fact all forms of imagination carry with them a level of deceit. It's an interesting thought and I'm sure one that has occurred to most people at some point. Marketing, by its very nature, is trying to dupe us into believing things that are more often than not, untrue.
To some degree this does hold water. If a company is trying to convince you that by using a particular brand of mobile phone you'll have better relationships with your friends, then of course that's not true. But it's worth bearing in mind that adverts very rarely tell us something as a direct lie: it's all implied. The line 'We're better. Connected' does leave us to believe that the mobile provider in question can bring more to our relationships, but there is a big difference between this strapline and saying 'We guarantee people will like you more when you use us.' Some marketeers do use the word 'guarantee' and that's where I feel the line has been crossed.
Marketing is fine when it's glossing things up for you; it's telling you what you want to hear. In fact, like anything that uses a bit of imagination, a lot of advertising is actually quite enjoyable. Not because people have been sucked into a world where they believe word for word what they are being told, but because there are many clever and amusing ideas in advertising. Take the award-winning 'compare the meerkat' campaigns. Many people like this advert because it's downright entertaining, not because they love the idea of comparing the market. At least I hope that's the case...
It is, however, somewhat galling when you do see companies taking things too far and using loaded words like guarantee. Online dating sites are often quite guilty of this, as are age reversal creams. As if a person would want to put themselves through the process of proving that they are not actually emotionally attached to someone, or showing that yes indeed, their skin is still looking old and haggard.
You can always argue that if someone is naive enough to believe what marketing tells them, then it's their own fault - but we need a balance here. Marketing should be aspirational, fun and intriguing, but it should not deliberately mislead or prey on people who are vulnerable to false advertising. With the advent of more socially responsible advertising, you can see how this works. As an example, drinkaware.co.uk is used on most alcohol adverts now, to encourage people to take a more realistic view of what alcohol does to them. You're still asked to believe that your life will be better if you drink Jack Daniels, Baileys etc. but there is a more balanced view creeping in.
I would never suggest that we should aim for the kind of advertising that I saw in 'The Invention of Lying' (much as it amused me). Marketing should paint a thousand pictures; it should be a kind of commercial poetry if you will. But lay off the hollow promises. We could all do without them.
Friday, 2 October 2009
The rule of 10,000
At dinner last night one of my friends introduced the concept of the 10,000 hour rule. Basically the idea is that it takes 10,000 hours to master any particular skill. The examples given were Paula Radcliffe and Bill Gates. Obviously very different in their disciplines, but studies have shown that they each had to apply 10,000 hours before achieving the kind of success they're known for today.
Astonishing.
I had a little think this morning about the number of hours that I've been alive for. I have to admit, it was quite a humbling experience to realise that I've only been alive a paltry 262,800 hours (give or take an hour or two). Surely it must be in the millions by now! But what this does mean is that to be a master of any skill, I would have to have spent 4% of my life doing it. And sadly I think the only thing that comes close is sleep. I am a master of sleep! Bring on the sleep olympics.
So what am I trying to say? Well, firstly I like the idea of the 10,000 hour rule. I like the idea that through dogged hard work alone, you have a real chance of achieving great things.
Secondly, I hate this rule. Why on earth didn't I know about it sooner? It's going to take a hideous amount of time and effort, well, approximately a whole whopping 10,000 hours of it, if I'm even going to get close to being an olympic athlete. I'm just not convinced such levels of application are right for me. It's just a nagging thought.
The moral of this rule (if there can be such a thing), for us plebs who like to have a bit of work-life balance, is that hard work does get you somewhere. It can't get you everything, because luck, natural ability and 'sod' will get in the way at some point, but it's always worth a go. You never know where you might end up.
Enjoy your Friday everyone.
Astonishing.
I had a little think this morning about the number of hours that I've been alive for. I have to admit, it was quite a humbling experience to realise that I've only been alive a paltry 262,800 hours (give or take an hour or two). Surely it must be in the millions by now! But what this does mean is that to be a master of any skill, I would have to have spent 4% of my life doing it. And sadly I think the only thing that comes close is sleep. I am a master of sleep! Bring on the sleep olympics.
So what am I trying to say? Well, firstly I like the idea of the 10,000 hour rule. I like the idea that through dogged hard work alone, you have a real chance of achieving great things.
Secondly, I hate this rule. Why on earth didn't I know about it sooner? It's going to take a hideous amount of time and effort, well, approximately a whole whopping 10,000 hours of it, if I'm even going to get close to being an olympic athlete. I'm just not convinced such levels of application are right for me. It's just a nagging thought.
The moral of this rule (if there can be such a thing), for us plebs who like to have a bit of work-life balance, is that hard work does get you somewhere. It can't get you everything, because luck, natural ability and 'sod' will get in the way at some point, but it's always worth a go. You never know where you might end up.
Enjoy your Friday everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
