The Pitch

While on my unplanned and unannounced vacation (sorry!), I happened across a tv show I really found interesting. It's called 'The Pitch' and the premise is two different ad agencies in the final selection process for a client. I'd heard about it before, but thought it was more geared towards public relations. It's not.

So I managed to watch two episodes, and I found some strong similarities in the way ad agencies work. And then some other things, like the way the roles of communication impact teamwork. You could see which agencies felt the freedom to truly create, and which ones had locked down who could communicate and when. I noticed a funny thing, too. The ones that locked down who could communicate and when struggled more with their creative.

That may seem odd, but to me it didn't. If you have no real feel for what the potential client wants, and even if you do, but you have no freedom to explore an idea through to the end before having it shot down, I don't think you get the best creative. It just seems like a really bad idea to me. 

In the one episode, there was a young woman, moderately new to the agency, who came up with a great idea. It was the idea chosen to present, too, which was great. Then there was a long discussion about whether she should participate in the pitch to the client. What? One of the essential elements of persuasive communication, which is what an agency pitch to a potential client is, basically, is that the person who truly believes in the idea and owns the idea, is there to act as the idea's champion. Only that person can be so persuasive and so passionate because they know how they got from point A to point B, and the logic it took to get there. Someone who is just presenting the idea may well feel just as passionately about the idea, but if they didn't come up with it themselves, they may not understand some of the logic leaps.

The other episode I saw was fairly interesting from a communication stand point. The first agency brain stormed through the client's needs and came up with an idea they loved. It was great, but unfortunately already done for the same type of client. Instead of shutting down the creative, they went back to the drawing board as a team and came up with another idea. I was pretty impressed with the way they worked. It was clear they were accustomed to working with each other and had honed their interpersonal communication to optimize their results while reducing time on ideas they didn't want to pursue.

In that episode the other agency had a creative team come up with the idea and present it to the creative director and the rest of the decision making team. It seems like a difficult way to achieve the end result, but there were opportunities to explain the thought process. I'm sure large agencies don't have the time to work creative together, but going back to my earlier point, the most persuasive person to pitch the client is the person who owns it. Birthed the idea, if you will.  

You just have to let the creativity and communication shine through sometimes, and that makes persuasive communication the key to any great presentation or a winning pitch.

Aggressiveness in Business

I read recently a PR Daily article about whether you have to be ruthless to get ahead, and the article focused mostly on how it applies to women. It also found a recent trend for women who have been turned off by the behavior of contestants who believe that business is ruthless on tv shows.

I found it very interesting the image they chose to use was from the movie The Devil Wears Prada. I've worked for people who communicate in much the same ways as Meryl Streep's character, Miranda Priestly. You're lucky if you haven't. The one positive thing I can about that character is she expected perfection because she herself was a perfectionist. Unfortunately, she is one of those people who expect you to know everything and understand exactly what she's talking about without the benefit of all the years of experience.

That's just it, though, right? To Miranda, the communication was crystal clear. To everyone else around her, it was a puzzle. And most of the time they worked it out, so there was no reason Miranda would think her communication was at all unclear. It happens a lot in communication. How many times have you tried to tell someone something, only to find they don't have the same base of knowledge you have? It adjusts your perception of their abilities, underlined by your personal or professional bias, that same bias that allows you to say things like 'who doesn't know that'.

The benefit to working with someone like Miranda is that you pretty quickly discover you are on your own without any help from your boss, but the communication, to them, is crystal clear. If you can figure out the code consistently, you're probably going to be in good shape with your boss.So what happens when it's true ruthlessness at work?

By that I mean, when your boss needs to feel better than you, and will actively use passive/aggressive communication to make sure you don't succeed and feel defeated. I've always hated these types of communicators. It's really just awful. You think they're helping you out by explaining something, only to find in the meeting they have only explained half of what you needed to know and they make an excuse for you, in public, along the lines of 'We did discuss this something, and I was sure he/she understood, but clearly they we'll have to address this topic at a later date when we're more prepared'.

It sounds kind of nice, doesn't it? Your boss using the word we? Even though you look like an unprepared jackass to the others at the meeting. This is pretty aggressive behavior, and your boss is using your perceived lack of preparedness or knowledge to make themselves look better. Ruthless. but with a coat of sugar on it. So what can you do when you encounter someone who consistently says they are helping and providing necessary information for you to do your job, or live your life, well? Address it.

I was reading a post at Tiny Buddha about it, and while a handy overview about how to communicate clearly about what you need, don't expect to get it from a passive/aggressive boss. It's different when you are able to communicate as an equal, like you can with your parents, siblings, life partner or friends, than when you have to communicate with your boss, who can fire you. I did find an interesting tidbit in the article about anger and negativity. it makes sense. Anyone so angry at their life or their work, or so negative about the outcome of a particular project, is very likely to engage in passive/aggressive behavior to make them right. Which won't make them any happier, just so you know.

Your best bet here is to look to others on the project to clarify project deliverables and key project goals for you. By finding other, more trusted, routes of communication that help you rather than hurt you, you will likely succeed despite the lack of clear communication. Don't think that's going to make your boss any less ruthless, though, and the passive/aggressive communication isn't going to change. You'll just have to find workplace partners in crime who communicate clearly and are involved, even peripherally on projects you're working on.

Is Your Meaning Ever Lost in Translation?

I was watching the US Open last night and a Mercedes Benz commercial ran. Now, if I had recorded the US Open like a sane person, I could have just hit the fast forward button and skipped all the commercials, but I didn't. So I had to suffer through all the commercials.

As commercials go, this was a good one. It told the story of Mercedes Benz (true or not, up to you to believe) and was accompanied by shots of the theme in various car/racing endeavors featuring a Mercedes car. The story starts with the founder, who wrote his mantra down, and then followed it through the years to excellence. The mantra is 'The Best or Nothing'. 

That's fine as a mantra. Before fast fashion, I would have said everyone's mantra was to be the best. I guess fast fashion's mantra could be have the best cheap clothes, but I digress. In the voice over, there was a bit about making sure the meaning of the best or nothing was never lost. It got me thinking. How do you do that without stifling creativity? The reality for all product development, and the marketing that accompanies it, is that there are budgets. The flexibility of the budget is individual to the size of the company and the processes and procedures they follow, but you get the idea. At some point you have to decide it's the best or nothing, and that it represents the meaning of your brand.

Thinking about commercials, how many have you seen that are just plain awful? or a campy commercial addressing a serious topic? and my favorite, the 30 second mini drama? Do commercials you dislike or fast forward through really convey the best or nothing? I don't think so. In the brave new world of YouTube, Vine and other video upload sites, there are creative pieces for brands that leave a much more positive and lasting impression. How do you ensure that the meaning is not lost in translation? 

Taking it one step further, a commercial is a shorter version of communication with others. It's just on a larger scale than what people outside the advertising industry typically look for. I get that you can't make everyone happy with a commercial (think of the variety of Super Bowl commercials), and I think the same goes for conversational or business communication. Sometimes the meaning is lost in translation, and it depends very much on who the listener is and what their previous experiences and current prejudices lead them to believe. It goes to the fundamental heart of marketing, advertising and just plain basic communication skills - if you want to be the best or nothing, you have to know who your audience is so the meaning of your communication isn't lost.

Redefining Communication for a New Generation, or Freshening a Brand for the Old Generation

I do like Nike. Nike put Just Do It out there into the universe twenty some odd years ago, and clearly people bought into it without any additional definition from Nike. Of course there were the commercials, the merchandise and the celebrity endorsements. Everybody does it.

People embraced the concept, though. It didn't matter what they were doing, playing checkers or playing football, going to school or going to work, the Just Do it mantra was in their head. I'm pretty sure it gave rise to 'git 'er done'. This year they, meaning Nike and their ad agency, decided to freshen the brand.

What does that mean? Are they abandoning Just Do It? Well, not exactly. They seem to be expanding, but from a strong statement to a weaker one. Think about it. If someone tells you to Just Do It are you motivated? What about if someone tells you there are Possibilities? The new ad campaign is about possibilities. So is it the same thing?

I don't think so. Just Do It is a command, an exhortation to get out of your own way and succeed. Possibilities just says something is out there, and it could happen, but it also couldn't. It's just a possibility. In the same way it's a possibility I could be like Mike. The two phrases just don't mean the same thing, and one is much more inspirational to me than the other. The wording matters.

Marketing Yourself Effectively

I met Peter Shankman in probably 2000. Great guy - very funny and personable. So great, in fact, that I started keeping up with what he was doing using all the normal social media channels. One of those channels is his blog.

He recently wrote a blog post on networking, and it's one of the things I find solo shops and freelancers have a really hard time fitting in or making work for them. The first issue is time. Sometimes there really isn't enough time in the day, and I suspect the issue here is time management or over-commitment. Either way, if you don't network well, and don't take the opportunity to network no matter where you are, you should read his post. And then go out and buy the book You, Inc and take some of the advice there.

So what was so great about the post? It covers the fundamentals most of us learned in kindergarten or first grade and then progressively forgot. The first is that making friends is still as easy as 'Hi! My name is Jeannie. What's your name?'. It works great in networking situations and if you can stay away from business for a few minutes you just might make a great new, engaged contact for your network. A great opener is something along the lines of what Peter suggested, using items in your surroundings to engage in conversation, or you can ask what brought the person to the event you're at. You don't want to be the person there whose sole goal is to grab everyone's card after a cursory 'Hey, how are you? What do you do? I do this' approach. Pretty basic stuff, and something you've likely known for a long time.

The second is to remember to have fun. Peter just considers himself fortunate to be where he is in life, with everything he's accomplished. I know he works harder than most of the people I know, but it's kind of fun to read about how amazed he is at what he has achieved. Making new friends and attending networking events should be fun for you - whether it's a small dose, such as an hour, or the full course, like the whole event from open to close, go and have fun. Make new friends. And then for goodness sake, follow up!

That's the last thing that seems difficult for some. It's time consuming, I know. And throwing in the personal bits to make the follow up less about you and more about the relationship, well that just takes an honest interest in what other people are doing, but it also takes a minute. Sometimes more than the minute you have to keep up with your friends and family. Meeting people at networking events and handing them your card, making a connection...it's no good if you don't follow up and maintain the connection. You may as well have never gone to the event and spent the time with family and friends. Drop them a line, follow up with a call - see how you can help each other succeed. If you really had a good feeling about the person you met, it's nice to develop that kind of referral friendship. It pays dividends. Just look at what Peter has done over the years, just be being a great guy and knowing how to market himself effectively.

Does Forever 21 Have a PR Crisis, or a Communication Blip?

It's pretty easy to find yourself in the center of a social media firestorm these days. Between Bustle and the latest Swifties wrath, you'd think the Forever 21 memo would have slid right through. Wishful thinking.

It's pretty bad when greed, religion and politics all show up as the result of one communication. And by all accounts, the corp comm that went out was a fairly standard memo. That was before it was leaked and linked to Obamacare and underemployment. So was there a way to mitigate the message so the workers affected wouldn't lose their healthcare, and it wouldn't look so much like Forever 21 was just trying to save a buck or two?

Not helpful is the information coming out afterwards that in addition to downgrading employees from full time to part time, Forever 21 was projected to make $4 billion in 2012. HuffPo covered the story here. As I read the coverage, it became less about religion and more about a cost cutting move to save the company some money. Having read Overdressed: The Shockingly High Cost of Cheap Fashion, I was a little dismayed to discover that at the base of the move is greed. I do wonder whether it will impact their sales or their ability to hire part time teenagers (their target market).

I suspect the parents will care more than the teenagers about Forever 21's decision. And as a general rule, parents control spending, and for those kids who have access to unlimited money, I don't think they are in the Forever 21 target market. So let's take a look at the target market: teenagers 14-18 and probably young adults 19-24. Let's go out on a limb and decide the teenagers income is low, and the parents probably make between $50-75K, own a home and have more than one child. The young adults are working a little bit while in school and after school are looking at about $30-50K (if they can find a job).

Funnily enough, I think Forever 21's target markets are also probably working there as part time employees to make a little money to supplement their income, and more importantly, to get the clothing discount. If staying current with fashion or shopping regularly is important to you, as I suspect it is to the Forever 21 target markets, then that discount is much more important than working full time, Obamacare or pretty much anything else.

Add to the argument that the target markets don't likely need insurance, since they are either covered by their parents or by their first job, and the impact to Forever 21 in any meaningful way is negligible. Which is a little crazy. It would seem like their target market should care more. And there are definitely members of the target market who cannot afford to shop regularly and need the full time hours to make ends meet and help themselves or their family, but realistically, these are not people/shoppers Forever 21 is counting on to make $4 billion in profits.

So, unfortunately, at the end of the day, I think Forever 21 is suffering the backlash of a communication blip, and if they don't come right out and say something incredibly offensive they should be okay, and long forgotten by Labor Day.

The Bustle Mess: Where the Communication Failed

Not to belabor the point, but...written communication is much different than interpersonal communication. I read an article today at Business Insider about Bryan Goldberg's apology. What struck me most was what the writer had to say about the very public, very embarrassing, launch.

The writer described the attributes confidence, wit and smarts and applied the to Goldberg. The best way to find out things like that is to listen to someone speak in a conversational setting. Then the listener can hear the inflection of the voice, watch the non-verbal communication, like facial expression, and participate in the verbal cues of conversation, like laughter, instead of the written LOL.

It's possible Goldberg thought his written words were pithy, smart and conveyed the idea that got him the VC funding. Unfortunately for him, sarcasm and wit don't necessarily translate to paper in the same way as an interview might have. And he was crucified for it. Enter the apology. Offending your peers and your target market can kill a business, and in the majority of cases one would think that will happen to Bustle. That remains to be seen.

The second part of Goldberg's apology dealt with dissing the entire group of women's publications, online and offline. I know that if I had provided the marketing analysis of the competitive landscape for Bustle and then read the launch materials, I would have been very confused. His assertion that Vogue writers don't own part of their company came across and snarky and elitist when I read it, and he did apologize for attacking his competitors.

The key issue here is whether the written communication is now something one can trust. It's easy to correct a mistake with a cracker jack crises PR team, and, call me jaded, but after having their names splashed all over the internet as the idiot VC's who supported a guy who came off as the world's biggest misogynist jerk, I'm sure somebody made a call or two to rectify the situation and salvage some hope of getting their money back. But loss of trust is a lot to overcome, for me or for anyone else.

Bustle

I must confess. I read a lot of interesting articles I wouldn't normally otherwise because my friends post them on Facebook. I do read news, but I tend to focus on things that interest me, and that sometimes precludes items my friends find. They found an interesting article yesterday about a new online magazine called Bustle, and I spent a good hour trying to figure out whether the CEO believes any press is good press or he's just terribly misguided.

By-passing the fact that anyone under 30, maybe even 40, have no idea that a bustle is an undergarment worn by women during time periods requiring them to wear a dress with lift in the back every day (1910?). In fact, the first time many women hear about a bustle these days is when they go wedding dress shopping. Setting that aside and thinking maybe the founder was thinking hustle and bustle and it was already taken, I continued to read several articles implying he's a misogynist who should have his head examined.

One such article was on Slate, who I think covered the topic fairly well - new magazine exclusively addressing the fact that women like to read world news and celebrity gossip in the same sitting (HuffPo, anyone?) that was the only one of its' kind. Slate pulled out at least 15 feminist focused online magazines that do exactly the same thing as Bustle, and they launched 5-10 years ago. So what about this is new, or different for that matter? And why is this guy so impressed with himself and his product?

Bryan Goldberg founded the Bleacher Report, which covers sports news I assume he knows well and has an interest in. Clearly he has an interest in women, but I think he might be going about communicating that in a way designed to irritate and anger the very feminist women he is attempting to attract to his site. In fact, of all the sites I looked at yesterday, I never once went to Bustle to figure out if I'd even read it. I was too busy trying to figure out if, with the mountains of free time I have, the guy was enough of a jackass that I wouldn't want to support it.

Back to the news. When Forbes immediately publishes an article about whether Bustle just launched a $6.5 million dollar bust, you have to think - who gave this guy $6.5 million for this idea? Did it sound different when he pitched it? If it did, why didn't he use that pitch with the media? For most people, venture funding is hard to come by, and your idea is dissected before they agree to give money. I guess not in this case. Unless he managed to resurrect some really rich guys from oh, say, 1900 who had no idea women could write, much less be interested and understand the concepts of politics and fashion all in the same sitting.

CBC also posted something terribly funny and refreshingly balanced on the topic. They used the Twittersphere response to illustrate the backlash, and I learned a new word (mansplaining). The Globe & Mail also commented, and referred readers to a hilarious on-point piece at the Medium, which made me laugh out loud. The piece on Medium did something no other piece did, though - identified the VC's that ponied up the $6.5 mil.

By investing in what has become a laughingstock of a man's view of feminism and feminist issues that may as well have come from Elizabethan England and embarrassingly occurred yesterday, I have to wonder what they are communicating themselves. Do they believe all the nonsense Goldberg is spouting? Do they view their female customers the same way he does?

There were many more articles, written worldwide, about how badly the idea of Bustle has been communicated to the very people they view as their target market. The point here is communication matters. What you communicate directly (Bustle) or indirectly (Social+Capital Partnership, Time Warner Investment, Google Ventures, 500 Startups and Rothenberg Ventures), people listen and your target market develops perceptions about who you are.

Social Media on a Solo Mission

Businesses come in many different forms, and they all address the moving pieces of marketing differently. Large corporations tend to rely on large marketing departments and medium sized businesses either farm it out or work with a smaller marketing department that's frequently also part sales. So what about the solo entrepreneur or the small business who maybe doesn't do a lot of marketing because they are more focused on word of mouth or referral only?

I can't tell you how many solos I've run into recently who have decided that part of their job is to tackle social media. My advice, just like handling PR, is hand that off to a professional. It's not their job to know how to do everything, it's their job to know how to manage based on results. Results are often referred to as ROI, or return on investment. So you sit down with a professional, one who keeps up with the way Google measures analytics, one who understands what sending a newsletter will do for you, what the content calendar is and what to expect from said newsletter, and that not every social media opportunity is necessarily appropriate for your business, and you work out a plan.

It's a full time job for most marketing professionals to keep up with everything, it's even more important to assess what you want from social media before you spend the time and resources on it, and it's certainly not something a jewelry designer should have to keep up with in addition to creating their vision and learning new techniques. For instance, Polyvore is a great social tool for designers, stylists and other professionals in fashion, but not great for someone in the music industry. It's that type of knowledge the solo who decides social media is 'easy' and something the should 'handle on their own' misses out on.

And then there's the time factor. It takes time to manage social media, much less build a lead generation campaign. The same solos I meet who tell me they should be able to manage this on their own, are the same ones whose favorite response to just about everything is 'I'm just so busy'. So yes, I am mystified about the goals and expectations they have, and conversely, I wonder if these are the same people who tell everyone they know that they 'tried social media' and it 'just didn't work for them'.

So my advice, if you are a solo business owner or have less than say, twenty employees, budget for a marketing plan, including social media. Go out and have it professionally done. When you get it, pay the bill, read the plan, and then assign elements of the plan a priority based on what the plan estimates the ROI is, and what you can reasonably do yourself or have a member of your staff do. Keep track of how well you managed to complete the elements of the plan and evaluate at the end of the year. I think you'll be surprised at how much time and dedication it takes, and what the benefits were.