FREEDOM OF CHOICE? NOT SO MUCH

Food shopping, to us, is always a plus and minus activity.

The minus part:  It’s gotta get done, usually during the time (i.e., on weekends) everyone goes supermarketing.

On the plus side, meandering down grocery aisles satisfies our need for visual stimulation.  There are always new products to pick up, packaging that grabs our eyes, and new claims to read and ponder. 

That’s where we invariably get lost.  Because with the amazing amount of products in store, it’s hard to choose, for instance, among 350-something types of toothpastes.  [And that number has been reduced by nearly 20 percent from the previous year, according to market research firm Spire LLC.]  We sigh and then pick the same-old same-old. 

Too many choices also afflict many of us who work in communications and design.  In our heads, there’s the tug between the new media and the tried and true, the weighing of short versus long content, the options provided by brand palettes, differences in tone and voice, use of metrics, just to mention a few.

When actual content is factored in, the number of “I don’t knows” expands exponentially.

So does bewilderment.  

How many retirement savings or health care plans will need to be understood – before employees pick their benefits?  Do senior managers truly care about three or four new identity alternatives?  Will decision makers be swayed or confused by all the options that might help realize more revenues, save costs, attract new customers?

Today, many marketers are beginning to recognize the wisdom of the fewer, the better.   Whether it’s foodstuffs or news channels, car models or restaurants, the consumer (and his/her wallet) decides.  Enough, after all, can be too much. 

As for us?  We just might vote for Hobson’s choice. 

AISLING FOR IDEAS

Pardon us while we indulge in one of our favorite pastimes:  Visual stimulation (also known as retail therapy).

Seriously.  Contrary to our loved ones’ opinions, we’re not exercising our shopping jones.  Rather, we’ve been deliberately spending time in our favorite retailers in search of something, well, inspiring. 

Today, our visual stimulation hobby has turned into a cache of ideas, many of which are extraordinarily relevant to the issues we’re solving today. 

Take some recent statistics about women buyers, for one, hailing from a Surrey, England, retail consultant.   Shoppers who use fitting rooms have a conversion rate of 67 percent; in other words, they eventually buy what they try.  Compare that rate with consumers who don’t try on clothes in store (10%).   [No chauvinism intended since men buy without using fitting rooms, for the most part.] 

Those findings have prompted the likes of Macy’s, Victoria’s Secret, Bloomingdale’s, Ann Taylor and others to spiff up back-of-store dressing areas, adding;

• Comfortable communal areas for waiting companions. 

•  Spacious rooms and great lighting. 

•  Buttons that alert ever-hovering sales associates to a specific request and call for one-on-one assistance.

Getting employees to engage with change – and the company - is not so dissimilar.  [Though we don’t advocate sprucing up media for design’s sake alone.]  Try these on … if you haven’t already: 

• Installing channels to answer requests and acknowledge concerns. 

• Ensuring that managers and influencers get the kind of help (read: information and face time) they need to inspire their staff and colleagues. 

• Showing them the change – not just in flattering light, but also from all angles, up, down, and sideways – so they make the right decisions. 

Our analogies can continue.  Old Navy now features quick-change areas and labels – e.g., “I love it” and “Not for me” – to help overloaded shoppers organize their haul during try-ons.  Finally, one we especially like:  Anthropologie writes consumers’ first names on the fitting room doors, so sales staff can start to engage more personally.

Next time you’re strolling in any aisle – supermarket or department store, warehouse club or discounter – compare those stimuli to your employees’ experiences.  Do they register? 

C'EST NE PAS UNE AGENCIE ...

Color us shades of oxymoronic.

Despite all the attention lavished on Mad Men, its depiction of ‘60s’ ad life, and millions of viewers (not to mention Netflix rentals, streaming options, and re-runs), professionals in and out of the agency business flat-out refuse to use the word “agency.”  Or as the trade pubs report:

“It doesn’t describe what we do in this digital age.” 

“We’re so much more all encompassing than just advertising.” 

“Our business is about ideas.” 

Part of the word’s repugnance today has to do with monetizing and revenues.  In the face of rocketing tech IPOs like LinkedIn and Facebook, the plain old agency, sans product and other non-service dollar streams, looks puny. 

Another revolt against the term centers on procurement’s increasing role in selection.  If we’re not actively promoting our chops in digital and word of mouth and PR and creative and broadcast, or so the thinking goes, we won’t make the short list.

Other reasons for eschewing the straightforward “agency” descriptor range from branding and an ever-increasing crowd of competitors to stockholder/analyst perceptions. 

Is this a ploy for publicity and extended notoriety or an honest complaint?  Give us a break.  Because few are focusing on the raison d’etre of firms, shops, studios, even consultancies.  Which is, without customers, we’re nothing.  

There’s no better feeling than nailing the right strategy (and creative) that will do a company good – and meet its goals.  Than figuring out, with the client, what tools best support its consumer conversations.  Than partnering with a whole bunch of talent, from digital and design to PR to broadcast and cultural anthropologists, to develop the right road to value, in and outside the company. 

To be fair:  My colleagues and I have considerable agency-side experience – in addition to our specialties.  Now, our joy and payback come from working with customers we respect and trust who share, listen, and do the appropriate thing for their companies.  That’s the heart of a service business, no matter what you call it.

Prefer more poesy in your moniker?  Then listen to Hillaire Belloc’s words:  “Be kind and tender to the Frog, And do not call him names, As 'Slimy skin', or 'Polly-wog' …”

LINKEDIN ... INSIDE

Now that the economy’s percolating a bit, the “gotta meetcha” dance has begun.

Or maybe it’s the spring onslaught of SpeedWorking (our term for the job-search waltz), business card exchange, and other tangible symbols of networking.  Bernanke and other gurus, after all, predicted that many who stayed in jobs for security reasons would be poised to move at the first signs of recovery.   

No question, many career moves are predicated on relationships – and long-term ones, at that.  On the other hand, many false steps are made when applicants get in touch so they can tout they’ve met so-and-so, ask to be introduced to such-and-such, or have divined the department’s long-term mission and, yes, are ready and willing to help.

That kind of networking isn’t our definition of an authentic relationship.

While thinking about true relationships, we’ve been increasingly drawn to the social architecture of LinkedIn and its applications inside.  The site clearly says you’ve somehow got to be connected – as friend, colleague, classmate, or other bond.  Otherwise, your introduction will be second-hand, through the kindness of a [check one] friend, colleague, classmate.  It’s a good way to ensure there’s a mutual benefit to Linking In.

The same is true for work relationships.  Connections matter.  More, better work gets done faster, say experts, with emotional ties that bond.  Gallup states that one measure of engagement is having a best friend at work. 

Which is why it’s so curious that facts and statistics, not emotions, seem to dominate many internal messages.  Rarely, in our experience, have we seen the type of rallying cry that resonates with the hearts, not just minds, of employees.  If there is some sort of appeal, it’s short term, limited to a specific initiative or project.  There appears to be little need, at least right now, to appeal to employees’ EQ into the future.

Once the market truly begins to offer plenty of new positions, we’ll watch with much interest what happens inside companies.   Productivity is tied to performance, which, in turn, is linked in part to forming and expanding the network of business friends.  Building on those relationships demands we, as staff, as managers, as leaders, and as consultants, open up, connect, and communicate with credibility, with empathy. 

Otherwise, we become the weakest links.