Welcome to the Revolution
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
I wrote this article as a guest columnist in the August 22nd issue of India Today.
A few years ago, the legendary Alyque Padamsee wrote that India needed to be re-branded. We were no longer the third-world country with striking images of poverty, but instead, he argued, the world’s Brain Trust. He suggested the political appointment of a Brand Ambassador who would be in charge of the communication elements that positioned India in the light in which it had found itself.
Whether Mr. Padamsee was vying for that job himself is a matter unimportant to the discussion. What’s relevant, however, is the sentiment behind his hypothesis: that first, in India’s healthy participation in scientific academia, and now in her burgeoning industry of outsourcing, we have found a proposition to re-position the country to the world.
The US private sector continues to find new ways to add to this panoply of low-cost outsourced services. It’s not just about call-centers and IT services anymore. Your medicine cabinet has drugs whose R&D now happens in India. Your local Pottery Barn has 95% of its furniture manufactured in India. Your live-chat representatives at Earthlink facing the orange glow of your frantic typing--they sit in India too. Accounting will follow, as will tax preparation. In fact, anything that doesn’t require physical proximity will one day work its way to a cheaper place. This is the ineludible stampede of work from paper blueprints to digital bitmaps.
The US has seen this cycle before. A hundred years ago, half the American population worked on farms. Those jobs migrated to manufacturing, and eventually to service. Now, those services jobs are migrating into management, design, architecture and planning jobs. Each of these migratory cycles has always had a happy ending. But they haven’t come without their share of angst, backlash and anxiety. And so while India’s outsourcing industry thrums with vibrant activity, a dark cloud of post-pink-slip American anger looms menacingly above.
For those displaced US workers, there is some solace in history. A few decades ago, there was another rapid migration that resulted in a massive loss of jobs, and the creation of an angst-ridden phase for the labor pool: the computer. As Chris Anderson of Wired puts it, yesterday’s “I was replaced by a computer” is today’s “They sent my job to India!” It is the nature of an industrial ecosystem to re-train itself. The continuum that is now disrupted by the advent of Indian knowledge workers shall once again be restored, albeit in a new direction, and with new tributaries.
But the real breakthrough is yet to come. In freeing up developmental dollars that were once spent in fixing issues and solving service problems, it is now possible for the global enterprise, courtesy of an efficient Indian machine, to spend those same dollars in innovation and research. Point releases give way to new product concepts. Statements of Work now give way to patent filings. Remote management of deliverables helps companies weed out potentially inept managers who have previously hidden behind disorganized masses of production propaganda. We are now freer to create.
Outsourcing, perhaps, is industrial evolution in its highest form. That evolutionary baton is now, happily enough, in India’s hand. And yet, for all our knowledge advancement, the infrastructural handicaps we work with remain: our cities teem with eager young programmers like hopeful starlets in Hollywood; our roads and sidewalks spill over with traffic; our basic utilities like water and electricity churn at the whim of random officials; and our politics seems to ignore the clearing in which we have found ourselves. It is India’s greatest irony that for a country that came together just fifty years ago to liberate itself with a conjoined battle-cry, we have migrated to an ecosystem in which each man is for himself.
Still, there is awe to be felt in watching the rapid ascension of India’s labor force. They’re at the hub of the world’s greatest economic disruption yet--the digital network that will comprise a modern corporation’s accounting, production, and analytical functions. Armed with nothing but a mouse and a keyboard, they’re the new warriors that have pulled the country out of its proverbial doldrums, dressed it up in its Sunday best, and like an army of Lilliputians, carried it forward into the global limelight.
Mr. Padamsee may not have known how rich India’s outsourcing future would become when he suggested that India be re-branded as the world’s Brain Trust. The reference, of course, comes from President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s group of diverse academic advisors during the early part of his presidency. But India is more than just academia. India has proven to be an efficient engine that processes information quickly and provides stellar, working deliverables. Perhaps Mr. Padamsee wouldn’t mind if we amended his suggestion.
Perhaps, India, with all she is currently armed with, is better positioned as the world’s Superbrain.
On Creating a TV Show
Thursday, August 11, 2005
I am completely smitten with the process of creating a TV show. You may remember that I wrote about my friend Adam Belanoff and I working on a show concept together. The process that we’ve gone through is completely new and fascinating to me—from the creation of the characters, to the development of the “arcs,” to working with the executive producers at Martin-Stein, to the pre-pitches we’ve been doing at ICM, all prepping for our big pitch to a television network—makes me wonder why I haven’t been in the entertainment business all along.
Adam’s a well-known name and a respected comedy writer in TV-land. He’s been a staff and head writer for shows like the Cosby Show and Murphy Brown. Incredibly detailed and thoughtful, he’s been able to take my stream of thoughts and ideas and make some coherent sense out of them. The most interesting aspect of working with someone who knows the business like Adam does is the focus on things that matter. For example, if I threw out an idea about (I’m making this up,) a couple searching for the perfect couch for their home, he would make me think about the emotional context of the purchase. Is it for their first home together? Is there conflict in what they both want? Is there sexual tension between the salesperson and one of them? Do they argue about if they can afford it? Later, in a meeting with Matt Solo, head of TV at ICM, and Joan Stein, partner at Martin-Stein, I was blown away by how something we had thought was fantastic was shown to still need a whole lot of work. In being our biggest supporters, they was also our harshest critics, and their insights added so much color to our existing concept.
The whole process has been like developing a deep, extensive marketing campaign. In marketing, we make decisions around channels, messages, venues, and context; here, we’re debating characters, connections, “handles”, and settings. In marketing, we craft emotional messaging, tone and brand; here, we create storylines, feel, tone, and “arcs”. In marketing, we discuss personnel, support and service issues; in developing a TV show, we discuss cast, location, and production values. And in marketing, we talk about nailing the right brand value proposition, and focusing single-mindedly on the customer; here, we talk about the perfect ”logline” and focusing on how to get audiences to really react well.
Conceptually, we’re pretty certain that there’s never been a show like what we’re creating. Stylistically, I’ve realized that in Hollywood, people use existing shows as a benchmark for what a new show’s handle might be. For example, “it’s like a fictional Bounty Hunter set in the digital world of Hackers.” Or, “the character’s like Kramer, only he’s smart as Monk.” Still, the big next step is making sure the networks like it. As I understand it, we get one single pitch to do it. This is, again, not unlike the agency business, where we get one shot to present a concept to a potential client.
I recently asked Joan Stein, if it made sense to use visual aides to make the presentation to the networks a little more professional. She gave me this piece of advice: “It’s all about performance. It’s all about being enthusiastic and believing in what you’re selling.”
And as I thought about that, I realized that even in our world, the agencies that consistently win aren’t necessarily the ones that bring elephants and models to a pitch; they’re the ones that, even if from a slide projector standing on an old filing cabinet, always deliver the goods.
This Day in History
Many of us forget, but today in history marks one of the most significant events to ever occur. It is from this day that the modern world saw the true nature of angst and hate, and what absolute power could be used to accomplish. Today in history forever changed politics, set in motion a devastating chain of events that would involve just about every capable country, and in a very real sense, was the day when modern international policy became a priority.
Today in history was significant for marketers as well. It gave us one of the most detestable and fascinating characters in human history. It gave us events to draw emotional context from, and create long-lasting metaphors about. Interestingly, a study commissioned in 1989 showed that at least $150 billion was spent on marketing, advertising, film-making and general promotion that used stories, subtexts and images related to the events that spawned from this day in history.
Today, in 1934, was when Chancellor Adolf Hitler became the absolute dictator of Germany, and took on the title of Führer.
What’s Your Name Worth?
I’ve spent the past few days naming a client’s business. They’re a high-end retailer in a very competitive category, and I’ve been driving myself batty crafting nomenclature for the business as well as for their services and product lines that fit with an overall value proposition to a very specific audience segment: style-conscious, upscale shoppers of a particular gender. (If you think I’m being vague, you’d be, um, right.)
It got me pondering about the nature of the naming business. Which, in case, you didn’t know, exists, and is one of the most ridiculously overpriced things you can buy from agencies crafty enough to sell it. My philosophy has always been that if nomenclature is required of a brand strategy project, it shouldn’t count exponentially over the other identity requirements. But I’m in a tiny camp, and the naming business thrives like you wouldn’t believe.
One of the craftiest perpetrators in the naming racket is Landor Associates, the company behind doozies such as Avaya, Avanade, astrium, and of course, the famous renaming of the Philip Morris holding company to, what else but, Altria.
But Landor’s greatest hit was a project that’s still snickered about in agency circles. When Hewlett-Packard decided to break-off its instrumentation division into a separate company to compete against arch rival Lucent, they hired Landor to find them a suitably grand name. Using processes momentously titled “Brand Alignment Process”, “BrandAsset Valuator”, “Random Visual Association Methodology,” they finally arrived a naming proposition that would allow the new company to be as strong as human nature—“indomitable and immutable.”
The name that all those lovely-sounding processes, 70 Landor executives, nine months, and $1,000,000 ended up with?
Agilent.
Hmm. Agilent.
If someone had paid me a million dollars, and asked me to create a company name that could compete against Lucent, Agilent sounds like a name I’d joke about. Here’s probably what happened at Landor.
“Hey, they’re ‘Lucent’, like a ‘lucid entity’, so how about we become something similar?”
“Yeah, like what?”
“Aw shucks, dunno, how ‘bout a “clear entity”, like Clearent, or an easily moving thing, like ‘fluid’, so perhaps we should call them Fluent.”
[Chuckling ensues.]
“Or a fast entity, like Fastent. No, no, wait… I have it. An agile entity, like Agilent.
[Loud laughter now.]
“Ha! I’d like to see you sell that baby in.”
“Oh, I bet I could.”
“Let’s bet on it.”
“What’re the stakes?”
“Tell you what Johnny boy. If you can sell Agilent in, I’ll let you name my new baby when Karen delivers in 7 months.”
Sadly, there’s now a little boy who toddles around, with the very Landor-like name of “Buoyant”.
Look, I’m not picking on Landor. I’m just pointing out that the ridiculous notion that you need to pay millions of dollars in fees and additional monies in extensive market research about a name for a major tech company is complete horse-poop. I understand research when your product needs to specifically tap into an ethnic or immigrant market, or if your name happens to be a word that might mean something in a language that’s offensive to people. I understand that, to a certain extent, you need to consider linguistics. And I understand completely that it now very difficult to find truly functional, usable names. Which is why people are now making up words like Jabberwocky, and JamCracker, and joining words together like Blue Nile and Raindance.
And of course, you need a name that doesn’t tread on other trademarks or copyrights. The legal implications of naming are truly frightening, and there are law firms that specialize in making sure you’re locked down and protected. Then of course, you have the added issue of the domain name being available. This was never truer in the US than for Nissan Motors, who decided to sit on their ass until 1996 before trying to register Nissan.com. In a battle they still haven’t won, they’ve been terrorizing Nissan Computer to give up the domain name.
But think about it.
If you were naming the most powerful software company in the world, would you call them Microsoft?
If you were naming a $13 billion environmental protection company, would you call it Waste Management?
If you were creating nomenclature for a country that wanted to change perceptions of being a haven for pedophiles and prostitutes, would you name it Thailand and Bangkok?
If you were naming the most powerful cable channel for teens and young people in the market today, would you call it Music Television?
If you were naming the world’s premier telecommunications company, would you call it AT&T? Wouldn’t you argue about whether the domain name was “guessable”?
My point is not that we should throw away our naming budgets and just come up with stuff without thought or research. All of the legal and cultural implications of names that I mentioned above are real, and need to be addressed. My point is that names, in the end, have very little to do with how brands eventually position themselves. PR, products, quality, imagery, brand associations, emotional context, messaging, and customer experiences have much more to do with the acceptance of a name than the name itself.
So, the next time you’re naming a product or service, spend a little less time arguing about whether everyone’s going to love the name, and a little more time thinking about how to make customers love your company and your service. And use the money you save in investing in better customer experience toolsets, both online and offline. You’ll thank me for it.
Fee-Based Job Sites: Make More Money (Guaranteed!)
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
There are dozens of businesses that provide fee-based services to senior executives looking to change jobs, careers or find employment while in transition. Generally, job sites that cater to non-executive positions do not charge and allow candidates to register, post their resume and find jobs at no cost to them. For several reasons, experts recommend that senior candidates spend the extra money signing up with a notable placement service, or with a pay-site like Marketing Ladder. Why? First, these free sites are inundated with candidates, and second, finding the really great executive positions on them can be like looking for a particular hair on a barber’s floor.
What I’m confused about is why most of these companies that depend on candidate registration and payment seem to be missing an essential ingredient, (in fact, an obvious one,) in their online experiences: emotional branding and persona-based paths.
The job search process, especially for senior folk in transition, is an overwhelming one. In today’s spending climate, not many people have the savings to withstand too many months of unemployment; in many cases, their experience is specialized, and they need specific responses to their needs. For candidates currently working, but looking to move on, privacy and security of their information is of the utmost importance. So why is it that most of the current executive job search sites that focus on self-help have such generic and bland emotional branding? Why do they all use generic imagery of suits sitting at some conference table? And why do most of them not focus on search tools that simulate what a good executive recruiter would do—ask a few simple questions that can get you to the right pool of job postings?
I have a hypothesis. I believe that very little brand and candidate planning goes into the development of these experiences. These sites are making the same mistake that the original eCommerce sites did: focusing too much on the merchandise (the jobs) and not enough on the customer (the candidate.)
One exception to this (though, Marc, if you’re reading this, my suggestions below will help you as well) is the The Ladders. They’re organized by how executive candidates generally view themselves: as marketers, as sales people, as finance geeks, as recruiters, and as general senior management. They’ve left out Operations, but perhaps that’s coming soon?
So, anyway...I’ll put my money where my mouth is. Below, I’ve listed five things most of these sites can do to increase their registrations, and therefore their revenue. Because I’m so sure that some of these ideas will work, I’ll guarantee that any site that implements all these suggestions will at least double their current conversion rates, over a period of three months (provided you maintain the same level of marketing as you had previously.) If you don’t, I’ll give you three full days of my consulting time, at no cost, to help you with your customer acquisition and general marketing plan.
- Create a “gift an account” section. It makes no sense that job search sites that depend on candidates for revenue should not follow a simple principle of eCommerce: each candidate has people who care about them, and who want to help. Allow them to help by creating an easy way to gift an account. Instead, most of the current sites have sections called “Refer a Friend.” If I’m looking for a job for myself, trust me, I’m not interested in referring a friend--I want to be the only one looking at a particular job. I might want to refer a friend after I’ve found a job, but not before. Just for fun, here’s a before and after using Marketing Ladder.
- Create a simple, rules-based filtering tool in addition to the current search mechanisms. Dell Canada has an alternative shopping mechanism they call Easy Buy that asks four simple questions to the novice computer buyer using a simulated salesperson that recommends a good-better-best set of of systems. Conversion rates are higher, and accessory-upsell is better.
- You’re an eCommerce site, so behave like one. Create tracking mechanisms for your various search and browsing mechanisms. Find out what the top search terms are, and use them to bubble content and jobs up to the surface. Run analyses on browse-paths and drop-off clicks. Refine your navigation and content based on this information. Personalize some parts of the experience based on what persona the user profiles into.
- Allow friends to browse for friends. Spouses and family browse for jobs for recently-unemployed candidates almost as much as some candidates do themselves. Take advantage of this. Meaning, create a browse-path that allows a well-wisher to describe who they’re looking to help find a job for, by asking a few simple questions. For example: What is his/her current title? What field/industry is he/she in? How much did he/she make at her last job? Then, allow the well-wisher to send a set of potential jobs to the candidate, along with a gift account for 7 days. Why would you give them a free account for seven days? Because you’re getting the email address of a real, looking-for-a-job candidate with information on their industry, position, and last salary range. You can’t buy real-time information like that.
- If a member has to relocate for a new job send her an email 30 days in, checking on her, asking if things are all right, and providing them the option of communicating with other people who have recently moved to the same city. Obviously, the people who she’s put in touch with have also accepted such an offer. This will not only provide you with the ability to update yourself on her progress, but create a like-minded community of former subscribers who can become evangelists for your business.
