SPEED KILLS!

Okay, our headline was a cheap trick … but we hope we grabbed your attention.

When we talk “speed,” it’s referring to the amazing work sprint, the time spent, from start to finish, on any one project, any one deliverable.   That race applies to those of us in creative and consulting fields as well as our colleagues employed in manufacturing and retail positions.

The question then becomes:  Why?  In our humble opinion, it’s caused by what researchers call the confluence of events.  Think about it:

• Quite simply, digital means fast.  We’re accustomed to orders acknowledged in nano-seconds, to 140-character tweets, to FourSquare apps that immediately email receipts.  Why not for work?
• Industry and competitor pressures don’t help.  “First to market” seems to be the bible for many CPG and tech companies, with “fast follower” a close second.  [And you know what that means for all department heads and executives.]
• Business quicks.  A number of years ago, the giant SAP released its ASAP program … yes, shortcuts to implementing enterprise resource planning software (which typically eats money, and time, and resources).  Beyond IT, everyone is looking for the immediate or near-instant solutions, from home plumbing issues to worker productivity tools.

But what fast doesn’t allow is the ability to plan, to think, and to go with your gut.  In the creative biz, agencies are now competing against briefs completed in less than a day.  The time-honored RFP process is being shortened, not by days, but by weeks.  Sure, there are ways to stave off the speedy wolf at the door, but at what cost?

Here’s our call:  Set reasonable timeframes, realizing that everyone has his/her own pace.  Allow space for quality thinking … which can happen at any time, individually and in groups.  And recognize that the “Eureka!” moment, whether for product innovation or a campaign, works best in association with a multitude of other activities and thoughts.

LEARNING THE ROPES

Sitting through videos with facilitators. 

Filling out endless reams of paper … or doing so online, with interminable screens.

Lunching with peers and bosses.

Reviewing job descriptions, competencies, org charts, and the like.

Go home.  Repeat.

It’s all part of Day One on a new job.  An eight-hour-plus architecture where everything you ever wanted to know about your employer was sliced, diced, and presented with enough care to wow (and sometimes dull) the senses.

The real question:  Does orientation – and its longer-term cousin, onboarding – work? 

For executives, at least 40 percent fail within 18 months [though we can’t necessarily fault the getting-to-know-you process].  For workers, probably not – especially since 50 percent of HR professionals confess to having limited time to orient and onboard [courtesy of a 2011 SHRM survey]. 

What does work, say an increasing slew of studies, is attention to the individual, a personalized introduction to the company.  Programs range from scavenger hunts to small group conversations, from a limbo bar (no kidding) to company sweatshirts emblazoned with the newbie’s name.  Instead of orientation, it’s now called “organizational socialization,” intended to begin new hire engagement on Day One.  So paperwork (or links to Web sites) is sent in advance.  Ride-alongs and peer coaches give a good taste of reality, what it’s like working for Company ABC.  And initial results show that such personalization promotes higher job satisfaction, better job performance, greater organizational commitment – and reduction in stress and intention to quit.

Now that talent wars are back in force, with employers actively seeking the best and the brightest, it might make sense for us all – marketers and communicators, brand gurus and designers – to raise our hands and work together with HR to develop welcoming events and conversations that stick.  After all, learning the ropes doesn’t mean mastering hangman.

RANDOM ACTS OF COMMUNICATIONS

In holidays past, way past, those little green elves from the late, great Marshall Field’s store would run around Chicagoland and perform what were dubbed “random acts of kindness.”

Senior citizens, outside in the cold, would get stick lip balm.

Kids strolling along State Street were handed yummy hot chocolates.

Free ornaments would glitter in hands of passers-by.

Not to mention gifting those huggable Field’s teddy bears and British racing green shopping bags.

Though definitely not yet the season, we remembered these activities recently, after perusing a University of Rochester psych professor’s research findings.  About newlyweds, of all subjects.  The study?  How to show compassion.  The results?  That small selfless acts increase individual (and couple) happiness.

Well, duh … sorta.  What tantalizes us is the professional reciprocity:  In these busy, stressed days, when everyone takes everybody and everything for granted, these randomnesses might just work in our own worlds of communications and branding and design.

It’s all about TLC, you see, and articulating, usually through behaviors (rather than words), that the person(s) are appreciated and respected.  Further, that their needs and concerns are recognized.  Think about the apps …

Project teams, laboring on long and intensive initiatives, usually get honored by an end-of-project dinner.  Why not once a week, when it’s unexpected, hold a “complimentary” (deliberate spelling) lunch? 

Going above and beyond responsibilities deserves a spur-of-the-moment notice … notes to the manager of managers, even a half day off.

How about a broadscale communications, to the department, even division wide, about the great work that’s being done in marketing and design?  Even if it’s in process?

It’s important, the professor underscores, to be open to requests, accept without judging, and go out of the way to simply “be there.”  Sure sound like good principles for succeeding at what we do.

YOU SAY POTATO ...

Color us curious … always.

In a variety of ad rags and online media, the words “native advertising” are getting big headlines, the paid media’s latest effort to get more attention and click-throughs from consumers.  Pew Research, in fact, estimates that going native has already accounted for some $1.56 billion in spend, with a super-impressive growth rate of 39 percent each year.

Definitions are a-plenty, ranging from “stories, posts, videos, and photos produced by a brand” to “less intrusive ads that provide interesting and useful information.”  In many instances, native is sponsored content – whimsical videos of dogs and cats brought to you by Purina, as one – that blends into the Web site, feed, or other digital formats.

Right now, yes, it’s hot; IPG says native ads are viewed 53 percent more frequently than banner ads.  [In our opinion, anything would be watched more often than those Web displays.]  There are a couple of buts in that prediction.

The first “but”?  That the native spot fit seamlessly into what we’re watching or reading or listening to.  It can’t interrupt our flow, or disrupt the search.

The second “but” is one that a number of advertisers have already flaunted – and paid for dearly.  And that is the demand for authenticity and transparency.  If it is indeed a sponsored post or image, say so.  And do it upfront.  A number of platforms (and their users) scrutinize all things advertising, and have no hesitation in calling out those who don’t comply.

The third “but”:  Make this message worth our time.  Ensure that it’s high quality and relevant to what we’re doing right now.  If it’s boring or doesn’t  add value, we’ll quickly skip to something else.  Trust us.

And, the final “but”:  In the spirit of nothing’s new under the sun, native advertising smacks of old-fashioned advertorials, those two-page print spreads (sometimes longer) often appearing in popular magazines and labeled as ads (though written as editorials).  John Deere did that with The Furrow magazine for farmers, starting in 1895.  And Michelin, with its guide that launched in 1900.  What we fear for this latest trend is that, in our ADHD world, native will soon become an alien experience. Instead, we’d urge marketers and branding gurus and communicators to think well ahead, and deliver messages that anticipate the medium, with truth and transparency and no little intellectual vigor for all.

IS THE SKY REALLY FALLING?

A June headline in The Wall Street Journal has sparked some fierce academic debate. 

Its gist?  That – oh woe is us! – undergrad enrollment in the humanities is declining, while majors in more “practical” subjects, from engineering and mathematics to biology and chemistry, are on the upswing.  [These facts were gathered from reports out of Harvard, the Georgetown Public Policy Institute, U.S. Census Bureau, among others.]

The reasons for this trend should be crystal clear:  Ever-increasing cost of tuition.  Staggering student debt levels.  An economy that rewards hard knowledge, not softer skills.

There’s a but, and a big one:  Academics and statisticians alike point out:

• Compared to the increased numbers of Americans who do go to college today, the relative decline in English and philosophy and history majors is modest.
• What’s hurting now:  Graduate humanities education, along with its prestige and funding.

To us, the facts are merely fodder for what’s wrong, deep down.  Whether in The Chronicle of Higher Education or in The New York Times, few of these posts and editorials talk about the business need for liberal arts majors.  The crisis, it seems to us, is in proving that humanistic studies lead to critical thinking and writing skills.  Sure, corporations and many of us lament the decline in intellectual literacy, and often take it upon ourselves to improve our staff’s skillsets.  And definitely, we can point to many humanistically trained successful business people, from the late Stanley Marcus to Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs.  [Admission:  We too majored in English and philosophy and journalism.]

Yet:  Until we can show proof that liberal arts education impacts bottom lines, our employers and our clients will continue to look for those techies who just might need hours and hours of remedial training in writing and thinking.  And it will be up to us in marketing and communications to fix it.