Faux Radicalism - a money spinner for marketing authors and academics?

I received a promotional email this morning from an author who will shortly be publishing a book which they describe as 'a huge attack on the way the 4Ps is still being trotted out as a relevant model for modern day practitioners and students alike'.

Now I'm all for a good debate on marketing theory and believe we should continuously review theory and practice in order to achieve a better understanding, but what I don't advocate is 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater', particularly by those who appear to do so without 1) providing a credible alternative to fill the vacuum, or 2) providing any real evidence to back up their criticism.

It's very fashionable within marketing academia to dismiss the 4Ps as old fashioned or irrelevant to today's marketing environment.  Kotler is criticised endlessly for making his fortune from selling text books that codify marketing into a series of simplistic mnemonics and aide memoires. However, an equally lucrative 'Kotler-bashing' industry appears to have been built up by some who preach that we need a new radical aproach.  What that approach is seems unclear - and no doubt it will take many years of writing expensive books, taking on highly paid speaking engagements and general self-promotion (NB.  Promotion - one of the 4 Ps) to reach another set of mnemonics that the next generation can criticise.

What if the very core of marketing, what it's all about, is already clear?  What if it really is all about customers?  What if we accept that customer needs, wants, demands are difficult to understand and predict?  What if we just get on with the business of marketing using the tools and frameworks that work best for us as practitioners?  What if we teach our students to evaluate all the options and choose their own path?  If the 4Ps work for them, fine - if they don't, do it another way.  What we owe our students is to present them with the options as objectively as possible.  Yes, by all means share your opinion, but do not attempt to shape theirs.  What we should really be teaching them is to consider everything, question everything, and then to do what works for them.

Should we be preaching the 4Ps on University marketing degrees?  No.

Should we be teaching them?  Absolutely yes.  

Is the Internet dumbing us down? Time to take personal responsibility for how we use the web.

There was a problem with the network at the University today, which has meant no email, internet, or Tweetdeck for me all day.  Although the University is generally a quiet place during the students’ summer break, it has felt particularly so today, with only the telephone or a face-to-face conversation to connect me to colleagues.  Of course, there was plenty of work to be getting on with - not least the stack of reading I have to catch up on - but without the constant backdrop of regular email checks, browsing my Twitter feeds for industry news, or Googling, I have felt strangely uncomfortable.

Part of me welcomed the opportunity to focus intently on the close-reading of a journal article, thinking carefully about the issues raised and forming a personal response, but I admit I also found myself out of practice in terms of holding my concentration for a long period without any of my usual distractions. Thinking about this feeling of discomfort I asked myself ‘Do I have an Internet addiction?’
 
A new book by Nicholas Carr – ‘The Shallows: How the Internet is Changing the Way We Think, Read and Remember’ explores the impact the Internet has had on our brains, raising some important issues for those of us in academia.  Carr posits that the Internet has changed the way we read and comprehend texts; that it has changed our cognitive process, enabling us to take in an enormous breadth of information quickly, but to the detriment of the depth of our understanding and thinking (Carr, 2010).

The close-reading and interpretation of complex texts are key skills students at degree and postgraduate level are expected to master and demonstrate in their assessment.  As Universities we may reward breadth of research (i.e. a long list of credible references is often viewed positively by those marking academic assessments) but only if the student demonstrates a genuine understanding of the texts referred to.  Carr suggests that this ability to concentrate on the reading of a single text is one of the cognitive abilities being eroded by the Internet.  If this is indeed true, it raises a number of questions and concerns both for society as a whole and more specifically for those of us engaged in teaching and learning.

Carr is one of a growing number of writers (notably of physical books) expressing concerns about the impact the Internet is having on our lives  (e.g. Bauerulein, 2008; Jackson, 2009; Lanier, 2010). It is important that these voices speak out, and that we are aware of both the benefits and difficulties the Internet can bring in order to make a balanced judgement.

My view?  The Internet may be a runaway train, but it’s something we have to take individual, personal responsibility for.  It’s a revolution we can, and must, adapt and adapt to.  We are co-creators of the Internet and, as adults, we have to accept that we are responsible for our own relationship with it.    

Has the internet changed the way you read and think? 

References
Bauerlein, M. (2008) The Dumbest Generation, New York, Tarcher/Penguin.
Carr, N. (2010) The Shallows: How the Internet is Changing the Way We Think, London, Norton.
Jackson, M. (2008) Distracted: The Erosion of Attention and the Coming Dark Age, New York, Prometheus.
Lanier, J. (2010) You Are Not A Gadget: A Manifesto, London, Allen Lane.

Creative is not a noun...

One of my pet hates of the moment is the propensity for those engaged in professions or pursuits which require creativity to describe themselves as 'creatives'. 

Without doubt, creativity is something we have in spades here in the UK and it's something of which we are, quite rightly, extremely proud. However, the use of 'creative' as a noun in two particular ways give me cause for concern; and, despite the title of this post, my objection is not purely grammatical (although I admit the pedant in me is slightly indignant at the use of what any reputable dictionary will tell you is an adjective in this way). 

The first is a matter of simple self-aggrandisement.  Describing oneself as a 'creative' may sound impressive, set you apart from other, less glamourous, professions; but I have heard it used in a way that insinuates that anyone who is not a 'creative' is either 1) not creative or 2) somehow a lesser being.  In some ways it strikes me as a natural reaction of the arts to many decades of ridicule by the scientific disciplines who have often been viewed with greater respect by the establishment.  However, two wrongs don't make a right.

You may argue that to call oneself a 'scientist' is considered acceptable - and indeed it is (although scientists do not generally describe themselves as 'scientifics').  It is the appropriation and monopolisation of creativity that I object to.  In my view, scientists, artists, designers and every other job or profession can be engaged in creativity.

Perhaps the word 'creative' is being used to describe the multi-disciplinary creative work that many of us are now engaged in, and I do not object to its use in this form, but what I do object to strongly is the use of 'creative' as a way of excluding others.  Richard Florida identified what he describes as the 'creative class' in his 2003 book  'The Rise of the Creative Class', a label which, in my view, perpetuates a divisive approach to creativity in society.  Skip forward to 2008 and there are a slew of management gurus telling us how to manage 'creatives' (e.g. Torr, 2008), handling them with kid gloves as though they are somehow deserving of special treatment.  This is both patronising and pandering.

This leads to the second issue, the use of 'creative' as an excuse for unprofessional or downright bad behaviour.  Just because you are an artist, designer or musician, it does not give you the right to treat other people with disrespect, be lazy, or expect special treatment in the workplace.  Creativity is not an excuse for lateness, rudeness or petulance, and yet I have met people who have used it as such and have trained those around them to accept this behaviour.  Those people who pander to this bad behaviour are just as guilty in my eyes.  

My view is simple - there is no such thing as a creative class - we're all creative people in our own ways, and we are all capable of behaving in an adult, professional and respectful way.

So, if you describe yourself to me as a creative, don't be surprised if I say 'a creative what?'

Another results day, another media frenzy...

So, it's results day again. The same shrill voices decrying falling standards, the pass rates rising, the scramble for places.  It's a familiar picture, and in recent years the agenda for this day has increasingly been set by a media whirlwind, whipped up into a newspaper and bulletin-filling frenzy.  The excruciating sight of groups of young people receiving their results 'live' has become a feature of TV news bulletins, something which is (in my view) as voyeuristic and intrustive as rubber-necking at a car accident on a motorway.

Has it gone too far?  Or is it just symptomatic of our expectation to see every detail of our lives played out on-screen?  After all, these students have presumably agreed to take part in the broadcast of what may be a pivotal moment in their lives.  Have they been seduced by the glamour of the media and the chance of their 15 minutes of fame?  Are they mature enough to make that decision?  If not, where should the responsibility lie?  With the media?  Their parents?  Their School or College?

This raises a series of questions about ethics in the media, personal responsibility, and celebrity. In terms of the media, although there a plenty of positive examples of practical advice and support for University applicants in the national media, the price we pay is the sensationalism of the headlines.  My ethical questions to journalists on this issue are; does the coverage place unnecessary pressure on students (by showing groups of 'straight A' students and highlighting the squeeze on places for example)?  Does this result in unwarranted levels of panic and hysteria? Can this be justified?

Phrases such s 'X has sparked a debate' and 'Y has raised questions about', where the newspaper itself is the source of debate or question, are familiar devices used by journalists to bolster a story, but where are the ethical boundaries in placing enormous pressure on young people at a moment when they are extremely vulnerable?  Should we be concerned about the way the media presents 'results day' - the pantomime of joy and despair, the innumerable 'infographics'?  Like the general election, I fear some of the news media may have taken the interpretation (or manipulation) of statistics around this a little too far - to the detriment of the core story.  But, in a season where 'real' news is difficult to come by, can we blame our national media for seizing an opportunity to sell papers or increase ratings?  Is it demand for this information that is driving the supply?  Who knows.

What I do know is that this year, more than any in the past decade, things really are tough for those students who have applied to university.  The story is genuine, and there may indeed be many students who do not achieve their desired outcome, but there are always choices.  Every applicant has options, and in my view we should be focusing on helping these young people make calm, informed decisions about their future.  The message to the media? Stop the scaremongering and focus on showing all students that, no matter what their results, with determination and hard work they can still achieve amazing things.

How NOT to tweet during a crisis - 5 lessons we can learn from BP

So, BP has appointed a new Chief Executive, and in what was probably the best PR move they've made since the whole Gulf of Mexico oil leak disaster began, he's from Mississippi. Robert (Bob) Dudley certainly has a mess to clean up, and not just in the literal sense.   My view on BP's handling of this crisis in public relations terms is that it has been a disaster of similar proportions to the leak itself.  Although the handling of the issue by BP's communications team has been fatally flawed across the board, I'd like to focus here on their response on Twitter.

Not only were they parodied to the n'th degree by the spoof @BPGlobalPR Twitter account which quickly gained a huge online following , but their reaction to the whole episode was a combination of denial, whinging and ridiculously incomprehensible tweeting in response.  BP seems to have completely misunderstood not just the power of social media, but also the tone of it.

As an educator I love a good mnemonic.  So here are my 5 Hs of crisis management on Twitter (and how BP got them so wrong):


1. Honesty
Pretending that everything is ok when it's not will not win you any friends on Twitter.  Implying that things are moving quickly towards a solution has, in my view, been one of the worst failings of BP's Twitter communications.  Be honest, be open, be upfront and say sorry.  People will respect you all the more.

2. Humanity
Tweet like you're a human being (you are a human being aren't you?). BP's jargon filled 'infotweets' full of incomprehensible 'war on the leak' style language are not in the least engaging.  If you want people to be interested in your tweets it stands to reason that you have to make them interesting, and understandable, and appealing to the humans who will be reading them...

3. Humility
 Don't patronise us please...we're not fooled by the jargon and the 'we know what we're doing' speak; and don't throw your weight around just because you're a large blue-chip with deep pockets.  Trying to get the people at Twitter to disable the spoof @BPGlobalPR account was another nail in BP's coffin, making them appear petulant and too big for their corporate boots.  Respect the intelligence of your readers and try not to keep your corporate ego out of it...


4. Haste
Being quick off the mark is one of the key skills communications professionals need.  If you're not there right at the beginning, establishing your message as the issue emerges, you have little chance of clawing it back.  BP missed the boat on that front and they have been playing catch up ever since.  Be alert, as soon as a potential issue arises, set the agenda.

5. Help
Make sure you respond to replies and messages you get.  Give honest answers and show you care.  You're never too big to care about an individual, and by engaging in a dialogue with those in your online community you build trust and empathy.  Respond to everyone, say thank you, be kind.  It works..

In my view BP have failed, above all, to capture the public mood throughout this crisis, and failed to face the problem head-on.   What do you think? Have they done a good job?  What could they have done differently?  Does it matter?

Facebook's opengraph - should we be afraid of the new digital monopolies?

Watching Mark Zuckerberg deliver the keynote speech at last week's F8 Conference was an uncomfortable experience.  Not least because my innate British sense of embarrassment found the whole 'cool geek' thing cringeworthy in the extreme.  The high-five 'tag-team' handovers were particularly disturbing and self conscious...

Presentation aside, however, this was an extremely important speech.  The man who has 400million Facebook users and their data in the palm of his hand is ambitious.  He has a plan to weave Facebook so tightly into every aspect of our web experience that it becomes impossible to challenge its market position.  We are entering the age of the digital monopoly - Google, Apple, Facebook and Twitter are becoming ever more dominant forces in their fields pushing other services aside as they grow ubiquitous - and hence essential.  Is it wrong that such firms should be able to erect ever higher barriers to entry in their industries?  Should access to (and control of) the personal data of so many be trusted to commercial organisations?  Am I being paranoid?

As individuals we give information about the things that make us who we are, freely, in exchange for the ability to participate in the conversation, the privilege of connecting with 'the network' the sense of belonging.  But are we always fully aware of the implications of evealing so much of ourselves to the digital world?

Over the coming weeks and months you will begin to see 'like' buttons appear on all manner of web sites. You will also see your friends faces appearing on these web pages.  What facebook's opengraph means is that whenever a friend of yours clicks a 'like' button on a web site that has included the (very simple, very developer-friendly) piece of code that Facebook provides - you will see their face on the web pages they like.  Equally, if you click 'like' on a page your profile picture will appear.  This data about who and what you like will be public and available.  So should you be worried?

You do, of course, have the option not to participate, but the very simplicity of the the system and the sense that 'everybody's doing it so it must be ok' is likely to encourage many Facebook users to simply see it as an extension of their facebook profile.

I predict a swift and wide-reaching uptake of the opengraph.  Why?  Because Facebook have certainly got one thing right - they've made it easy  for us to participate.  Quick and simple to use, the like button doesn't interfere with our browsing experience and it plays upon our eagerness to define ourselves within an online community by our preferences.  Plus it's oh so simple for even the novice web page creator to apply - for those marketers amongst you,  that's a tick for both pull and push strategies...

Great work Facebook - as a marketer I think you've got a winning strategy.  As a human being and socialweb user, however, I admit I'm concerned.  My fear of having my real identity replaced by an online construct may seem far fetched - and I have to admit that this has been fuelled by reading Jaron Larnier's You are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto, a frightening treatise on the erosion of humanity through increasingly restrictive technology.

The bottom line?  I don't know what the future holds but from here it looks as though the online environment will be dominated by a few California corporations and the group of extraordinarily intelligent (and predominantly white male) executives who run them.  Are these our elected leaders? Are these the right people to shape human society in the 21st Century? Has the world even noticed the sheer weight of power we have gifted them? I fear not.

My advice to you?  Think it through before hitting the  'like' button...

Watch Mark Zuckerberg's Keynote here:   http://apps.facebook.com/feightlive/

Clarity, consistency and congruence - the cornerstones of a strong brand identity

I've just been taking a look at Brand New's Best and Worst Identities of 2009 - a round-up of some of the highs and lows of brand identity updates and developments over the past year.  There really are some shockingly bad examples of logo design in there, and some greats, but what makes a 'good' or 'bad' logo?  And, why on earth would a major company like AOL (Brand New's somewhat controversial choice for number 1) spend a fortune changing all of their materials, signage etc when they had a globally recognised logo already?

Brand identity is one of those tricky aspects of marketing that it's always difficult to pin down.  Just like advertising it's hard to measure the impact or value of a brand or logo. Many have tried, and there are plenty of complex models out there for valuing a brand, but these methods are still based on an element of conjecture.  So what does this mean for the smaller organisation trying to establish itself and gain recognition for its brands?

Well, in my view, there are three key aspects to successful branding:  Clarity, Consistency and Congruence.

Clarity - Ensuring your customers can clearly identify you and your brands.  you should be clear about how your different brands fit together and who they are aimed at.  Your visual identity should be unique and recogniseable.
Consistency - All your communications should use your identity in familiar and consistent ways.  Colours, fonts, layouts, furniture, uniforms, sounds, language and anything else that forms the impression your customers get of your company are included here.  Making sure everyone in your organisation is involved in this is vital.
Congruence - This is the key thing to get into place before tackling either of the above.  You need to look at your organisation and decide what makes it special - think of the words you'd like to hear your customers say when describing you, and use these as the basis of your brand personality.  Does the identity you are currently presenting match up to this?  If not you have work to do. 

Sounds simple doesn't it - well in some ways it is - but the really important thing is making sure you get the groundwork right, and for that you may need a bit of professional help from marketers and designers.  Find yourself some good people to work with and you'll reap the rewards in terms of happier, more loyal customers...