All posts tagged “company

comment 0

When your Brand is Superficial


The term superficial comes from the Latin word superficialis meaning,  “not deep, or without thorough understanding.” We use this term all the time – mainly to challenge ideas that aren’t fully formed, reasoning that isn’t complete, or people who put a premium on appearance over personality.

Typically, we reject superficiality in this context. The implied reason is that there has to be something deeper below the surface in order to drive connection and understanding. As a single example of this in practice, when we view works of art, we’ll appreciate the way it looks, but equally try to dig into the artist’s motivations, experiences, or history to round out our understanding of their piece.

A brand is no different. All too often, companies will put a premium on the visual development of their brand. Yes, a good “look” is important. And further, it’s fun to tangibly see things coming to life. It’s easy for that excitement to cause shift focus from strategic progress towards further visual development… things like decorating the office, making swag, and presentation templates. These all are outward statements about your brand.

But if the efforts stop at the visual – or worse, becomes hyper-focused there – the resulting customer experience will end up being highly superficial. Customers will see the product and perhaps think it looks cool, but it will fail to understand what it stands for. And worse, it risks driving customers away because once they start to dig below the surface, they’ll know you can’t back up the statement these visuals attempt to make.

Or, to simplify the above – you’re brand will ring hollow, and trust with the consumer is lost.

Complete brands need to be well-rounded both in every aspect of communication. The values you uphold. How you communicate them. The customer experience. The unique expertise you offer.  All of these and more are what ultimately is the soul behind your brand. Visualization is an important part. But at it’s best, the visualization is merely equal to these.

So, how to do this. Soon I’ll be publishing a follow up to my article About Authenticity…It’s Dead. We’ll dive into the subject matter about how to build a brand that stands for something. Yes, visuals are a part of this along the way. But by priority, they come after developing a mission; after establishing the values the company will uphold; after studying the market to understand what your brand’s unique position is within the landscape; and after determining exactly how to communicate all of this to the world. Visuals are simply one means of that communication. And if there’s nothing driving that communication, then all you’ve crafted is a shallow, disconnected visual. It’s art with no reason. It’s purely superficial.

So ask yourself…is your brand superficial? Have you placed too much emphasis on the visual aspects of your brand?

comment 1

The Masses Are the Media

It wasn’t so long ago that brands held dominant sway over the media. Television, movies, radio, print… all of them were things the masses engaged with primarily as a result of there not being anything else. Our stories were implanted through those mediums, sometimes as adverts, other times through the work of our public relations teams.

Then the internet came of age. And more specifically, then Social Media came of age.

Now, the masses are the media.

Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, et al have all re-written the act of what ‘media’ means. The masses are constantly connected, both with each other, and with media from everywhere. Everyone is now a content publisher. Every platform is accessible. And this has fundamentally changed the way we need to market our brands.

The adverts that used to work are passed by as distraction. Just look at the declining success of display ads. Commercials are neutralized in the on-demand culture that surrounds television. Conventional product placement has been replaced by the concept of influencers. And marketing teams have whole new divisions to create content.

This drastic shift is a byproduct of the masses choosing what’s worthy. If it’s great, they share it. If it’s not, it’s smothered. Now, more than ever, the emphasis behind our brands must fall not only on being authentic to the mission and vision, but how we can best tell the stories of success and impact the brand has.

Further, this increased dichotomy between risk and reward has leveled the playing field. Well-known brands are forced to compete on the same playing field with the lesser-knowns. Quality, not caliber is placed at a premium. Half-efforts, which maybe once were easy to mask, are now immediately called out and shunned. But when brands succeed at creating quality stories that resonate, the reward is the masses spread the content viral.

This control means the Masses have now taken over as the media. We must turn our stories over to them, and they will be the final judge.


comment 1

You Need To Fail

Let me briefly set the table up front – this is not a post about how a life failure can send you on a new, stronger path… at least not in the grand sense of that.

I read a book some years back that did a study on how creativity works. It’s contents were fascinating, and the results were even more so.

We’re all familiar with the concept of right vs left brain thinking; the left hemisphere generally dominates logical reason, while the right hemisphere dominates relative reason. But this study went deeper than just understanding biological differences like this. It looked at the electrical and chemical signals occurring in the brain when presented with a challenge, and attempted to understand what goes on when people begin to think creatively.

When respondents were initially presented with a challenge, it was clear that a specific region in the left hemisphere was activated. This was true regardless of background or personality. This makes sense – a problem was met with the attempt at a logical solution.. no different than knowing that 1 + 1 = 2. But the goal of this study was to push the respondents past the point of where they could logically arrive at a conclusion… to basically force the respondents to failure. And it’s when the respondents self-reported reaching a willingness to give-up on the problem that the interesting stuff started happening.

Remarkably, at that moment, the subjects’ brain activity would begin to shift. The left hemisphere would decrease its activity, and the right hemisphere would activate intensely and with immediacy. After a few moments, rather than conceding failure to the challenge, most respondents would end up solving (or at least finding a solution) to the problem. It wasn’t a logical response…rather it was a relative one — derived from things that previously had no connections, but were creatively related to one another for this specific need.

The study continues, and there’s a lot of fascinating science within it. But to me what will always stand out most is the seeming need to fail at solving a problem to enable a more creative solution. Failure evokes the ability for our minds to think beyond what’s rational — it forces us to succumb to the limitations of what our individual capacity for reason is. In turn, it activates the innate ability for our minds to associate things. To think beyond the single moment and/or problem. To bring a new, imagined solution that seems to fit to the table.

So why do we fear writers block? Why is the blank canvas so scary? Maybe if we embrace the just getting going no matter how ‘bad’ the work may be…. Maybe if we willingly embrace that the first idea may be destined to failure…. Maybe then we’ll end up triggering the inspiration we so sought.

Maybe we just need to fail in order to succeed.


comment 0

Location, Location, Location

It’s the business idiom of idioms…”The three rules of success in business are Location, Location, Location.” Traditionally this meant finding a structure located in an area. Ensuring it was surrounded by an audience likely to have interest and/or consideration of your product. And that your product was offered within the store.

Oh how life has changed in the 2nd era of tech. We all know we’re in a global economy. Our addresses are transposed with a URL. Your product may only require a link to deliver – and is more likely a product of thought than true labor. And your potential audience is now limited only by the ability to find them. Entire industries have been created by this…jobs like Demand Gen, Data Analysts, etc.

So the easy question is does Location matter anymore? As should be obvious, in the literal sense: no.

But let’s say for a minute that we suspend the colloquial meaning of location. Your new location is your url. Your proximity is the extent of your outreach on every platform imaginable. Your consumers are more likely than ever to share and impact the opinions of future customers.

Put differently, location means voice. Location means social and content marketing. Location means the stance your company takes, and the impact it hopes to have. Location is redefined to mean the micro and macro of how your consumers interact with your product.

So let’s stop with the idiom as it was…and let’s re-write it to what the idiom should be for today’s world:

“The first three rules of success in business are Brand, Brand, Brand.”

comment 1

Flexibility vs Consistency

I read an interesting article on Valedictorians yesterday. The article studied those that graduated first in their class through the next 20 years that followed. Many were by the standard norms “successful”. They had good jobs. They were generally in power positions. They made good incomes.

But they also weren’t the leaders we might perceive. They were unlikely to be entrepreneurs. Unlikely to be millionaires. Unlikely to found companies based on innovation. By contrast, the successful people in these respects were more likely to have a 2.9 GPA.

There was a quantitative deduction done on this study to analyze this trend. And frankly it makes sense. Those that were Valedictorians proved they could be consistent in their executions. Consistent in their thinking. Consistent in following a laid-out process. But those who had the lower GPA’s tended to forget traditional learning. They were more commonly disruptors. They were less likely to go with the flow – preferring their way to the mainstream way. Their approach was flexible – worrying less about grades, and choosing to go real-world experience instead.

Think about this as it relates to your brand. Is your brand consistent? Is it checking boxes? Is it following a path laid in front of it?

Or is it flexible? Is it choosing to disrupt space and make the world a bit more unique?

Maybe asked differently: How successful is your brand? No, really?