Five Common Cliches (done wrong):

The early adapters will use it.
Actually, they're adopters, not adapters. The mistake in wording represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how most markets work. People don't adapt to what you make, they adopt it. They can't be forced to adapt, so they won't.

Half my advertising works, I just don't know which half.
Actually, it's closer to 1% of your advertising that works, at the most. Your billboard reaches 100,000 people and if you're lucky, it gets you a hundred customers...

Let's do a focus group, they'll decide.
A focus group is supposed to focus you, not them. It's supposed to lay out ideas and issues that mean little to the group and plenty to you. If you're not prepared to focus, better to not go.

That's a wacky idea.
Actually, doing what you're doing now is wacky. Because what you're doing now is certain to become obsolete, possibly sooner rather than later. Just ask my old boss!

We need a bigger marketing department.
Probably, you need everyone in the organization to do the marketing... from scratch. More brochures aren't the answer.

"Instead of examining the effect of advertising on sales, we examine how advertising affects the updating of market-wide sales expectations. The focus on expectations creates a valuable advantage. Our measure of expectations, which is derived from a stock market simulation, is an accurate predictor of sales."

Read that message attentively. Here you will find the internal news about ABCD. Please check this news. This information will be published on October 16. It is your chance to buy ABCD for the well price. ABCD going to rock the market and break it. GO ABCD NOW!!!

Recomendation: Read to the end and think after.

(The actual press release went here.)

P.S We will promote that st0ck till the end of the year and the price probability go up. People will buy it and they will earn big cash. Don't miss that and buy it now cause the price is low. After the 16 October the price will grow up to 1000%. Take it now!

"One thing I'd like to make clear is that I'm not anti-MBA. Far from it. I value my management education a great deal, and believe that an MBA provides individuals with very useful set of analytical tools, as well as the ability to thin-slice most business situations. However, I do think that the typical MBA program is mostly focused on becoming a master of business-as-usual, which is a critical body of knowledge when it comes to running a profitable organization. One way (and the best way, I believe) to learn how to engage in innovative behavior is to become a master of business-by-design, and that's what we're doing in our Business + Design classes at the Stanford d.school. Organizations need to know how to do both. And those organizations need doers and innovators who can bridge the worlds of business-as-usual and business-by-design."

- Diego Rodriguez (Metacool)

In an earlier post I said, "If you asked the head of a company which employee they'd prefer: the perfect team player who doesn't rock the boat or the one who is brave enough to stand up and fight for something rather than accept the watered-down group think that maintains the status quo (or makes things worse), who would they SAY they'd choose? Who would they REALLY choose?

In his book Re-imagine", Tom Peters says, "We will win this battle... and the larger war... only when our talent pool is both deep and broad. Only when our organizations are chock-a-block with obstreperous people who are determined to bend the rules at every turn..."

So yes, I'm thinking Mr. CEO of Very Large Company would say that their company should take the upstart whatever-it-takes person over the ever-compromising team player. "If that person shakes us up, gets us to rethink, creates a little tension, well that's a Good Thing", the CEO says. riiiiiiiiiight. While I believe most CEOs do think this way, wow, that attitude reverses itself quite dramatically the futher you reach down the org chart. There's a canyon-sized gap between what company heads say they want (brave, bold, innovative) and what their own middle management seems to prefer (yes-men, worker bees, team players). "

I'm not done with my horse-training-as-universal-metaphor phase, so here's another thing I learned from the Parelli Natural Horsemanship conference:

"Too many people fall into the my robot is better than your robot trap... and knock the exuberance out of their horse. What you're left with is a well-trained robot, not a curious, playful, mentally and emotionally balanced living creature."

"Hmmmm", I thought, "that sounds an awful lot like some of the companies I've worked for." Not that you'd ever in a million years get them to admit that. Possibly not even to themselves. But the proof is in their practices. Of course some argue that exuberance on the job is not necessarily a good thing. That too much passion leads to problems. I say BS on that one. Real passion means you love the profession, the craft, the domain you're in. And that may or may not happen to coincide with a passion for your current employer. When some folks talk about too much passion for a job, they're usually referring to something a little less healthy... the thing that lets your employer take advantage of you, having you work round the clock because of their bad scheduling, or because they refuse to say "no" to clients, or because you have a manager that wants to look good to his manager... and you're the lucky one chosen to be the "hero."

If you knock out exuberance, you knock out curiosity, and curiosity is the single most important attribute in a world that requires continuous learning and unlearning just to keep up. If we knock out their exuberance, we've also killed their desire to learn, grow, adapt, innovate, and care. So why do we do it?

Why Robots Are the Best Employees:

1) They don't challenge the status quo

2) They don't ask those uncomfortable questions

3) They're 100% obedient

4) They don't need "personal" days.

5)... because they don't have a personal life

6) They never make the boss look bad (e.g. stupid, incompetent, clueless, etc.)

7) They dress and talk the way you want them to

8) They have no strongly-held opinions

9) They have no passion, so they have nothing to "fight" for

10) They are always willing to do whatever it takes (insane hours, etc.)

11) They are the ultimate team players

12) They don't complain when you micromanage (tip: micromanaging is in fact one of the best ways to create a robot)

13) They don't care what their workspace is like, and don't complain if they don't have the equipment they need

14) They'll never threaten your job

15) They make perfect scapegoats

16) They get on well with zombies

Image shamelessly stolen from Kathy's post.

“It’s the key to being competitive,” explained Denise Dorman of Write Brain Media in Chicago. Dorman works with a variety of clients located around the country, helping them to spot the innovative and creative, then bringing it to people’s attention.

Her statement was echoed by several others survey participants. “Change can bring success on many fronts,” wrote one manager from a national retail chain. “Merchants, marketing and our stores have the responsibility (for innovation).”

But businesses must be careful to avoid innovation without reason. Product innovation without suitable backing of customer insights can lead to some unpleasant consequences.

Consultant, author and speaker, Reva Nelson puts it this way:

“… what happens with innovation gone wrong, innovation for its own sake?

It forgets its roots, it moves too far away from the main trunk, it tries to disconnect and communication gets shot to hell. There are some consultants, managers and CEO's who forget about connection and communication, and think innovation is an end to itself. It's not. All innovation, like all change, must be well-communicated. It needs to take its time, and stay connected to the source.”

* This is CGC (customer generated content) with a purpose. No "do our jobs for us", but rather "meet us halfway"

* Speaking of which, the agency found a great balance here in terms of working with consumers

* This speaks to all 3 new marketing roles for advertising, namely "to involve", "to empower" and "to demonstrate"

* It further speaks to the rise of product (or product as brand). In this campaign, the brand experience is all about the product in action and therefore in context.

It was bound to happen: I disagree with this one. (It may apply to Google, but it doesn't always work for other companies.) Data can be completely meaningless. It can be corrupted. It can be misinterpreted. Heck, it can be manufactured. (It's happened at one of the companies where I once worked. Not good.)

Gathering the right type of data in the right way can produce wonderful depths of insight that can help guide a decision, but data alone should never drive a solution. More often than not, the "data" that is presented to decision-makers is at best incomplete, and can easily be taken out of context. (Not to mention that data will usually pull designs back to the safe "middle" of the bell curve instead of the edgy remarkableness, where it belongs.)

Leadership isn't about hiring data monkeys to take a show of hands and hand over the most popular answer to a general question. Leadership is about vision, purpose and instinct.

(So I'm not saying data is worthless, but it isn't the end-all, be-all either.)

I would encourage comments like "I like it" or "I don't like it." (I prefer words like "love" and "hate," but that's a whole other story.) As long as you qualify your answer, there's a place for that kind of feedback. You cannot discourage emotions and tastes when it comes to feedback and project direction. It's a very bad idea.

Hey. When life gives you kernels, make pop corn.

Okay... that was lame. Or... not. But every project worth anything is going to contribute something to your company. It could be customer/user feedback. It could be market data. It could be discovering the limitations of a material or of your manufacturing capabilities, or of your design engineering's ability to problem-solve.

Every project yields lessons that should always be reviewed, shared, and applied. If you get far enough, some of the testing you do on prototypes and new designs can add a tremendous amount of bones to your knowledge bank. Even if the project is nixed, there should always be a mountain of invaluable info and insight associated with it up to that point. Use it.

Without fail, every design project I worked on in my career uncovered insight that helped improve other products that either shared parts or certain technical characteristics. Every project is a learning experience. (If a project isn't, then you are doing something wrong.)

"Most organizations rely on a system of checks and balances to ensure that (the) design adheres to some particular corporate strategy - that's the language MBAs understand. Trouble is, (graphic) design is inherently subjective. (...) Without a passionate advocate, a strong initial design may be nibbled away by bureaucrats, each eager to prove his worth with a tweak here and a nip there. (...) The key (is) having a client with both the vision to recognize good work and the power to pull the trigger. It's what Steve Jobs brings to Apple, or A.G. Lafley to Procter & Gamble."