You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Strategy’ category.
Thanks to David Armano
Great post on Hee-Haw marketing. Comforting to see more are seeing the change..
Please read it!
Here are some great parts out of that post:
So, the picture should be even clearer. Advertising is dead, but marketing isn’t. We’ve started to adapt to this new environment by doing the only thing we could do, stop advertising, and just embrace the humanity of it all.
Now, we’ve become conversationalists, trying desperately to elicit some response where before we simply ignored it. And that’s a good thing. The implication is that we no longer own it or control it. Now we earn it.
While “targeting” the right consumers is more important than ever, our focus is expanding to trust, to improving the lives of our customers. It’s evidenced when you hear ad:tech attendees like Carver say, “The first question that should be hardwired in our product skulls is how will this help someone do something better, or faster or with more enjoyment…my mom, myself, my friends, etc. If we didn’t believe in our technology and the effort then there would be no enjoyment in bringing an app to market. In the end today’s market and media should be about many levels of choice and the opportunity to participate at whatever level a person finds most rewarding.”
As Harold Mann of Mann Consulting said, “But those that definitely work to improve people’s lives tend to make money more easily. When the money is the byproduct of the work and not the reason for it, it is easier to sustain one’s career.”
If we are slowly moving to an Creative/emotion driven market, how can stockmarkets/financial institutions assess value? How can you predict and define value in such an abstract, emotional and human environment.
I asked a question in LinkedIn. Excellent tool! See the question and answers below..
Conclusion: We tend to have different believes…
What is the most important ingredient in the process of creation?
- The ability to suspend judgment and allow ideas to flow.
- A well defined problem. In advertising, the problem might be “Our product (company) is perceived as such and such, we want to change that perception to so and so. How do we do it?”
- Creativity … a defined problem and clarity are great, but you need to be able to go outside the box … often a long way when creating someting new …
- Passion and simplicity.
- Some people are better at creation than others. No mistake : all people are creative. But some have more passion, interest and talent for creation. Are willing to invest time in it, are taking the risks to experiment.
Further : the right mix of people in a creation process : different kinds of people can augment each others’ talents.
Environment : Differs greatly for different people, but Fear is the greatest enemy of creation. Boundaries, however, can help creation very well. I always like to think of the ideal creation environment as one where I would like to play a game in.
- Perseverence/persistence, visualization, trust and inner peace
- Trust! Theory of Social Constructivism: there is no one reality or there is only one reality, either is the same leading to us ourselves: the absolute top of creativity. Therefor it helps me to trust that coincidence does not exist as creation is creating reality.
- Me… or you?
- Well, based on my experience in creating mobile phones from idea to mass-market creation – mix of people, information (of market), experience, trial-error method and also perseverance to the issue at hand, and a bit of a madness as well…One of the most interesting concepts of a mobile phone was made in cellar of an old house purposefully – not within processes of full R&D engineers … At least, this is the way story goes 😎 .The process of innovation is naturally an interesting area where creativity is needed besides using it for advertising – where similar “propeller heads” are needed to create new campaigns…
- I’m going to have to go with water, an amino-acid rich watery soup, and radiant energy (preferably UV).
- Maybe this is too obvious, but it seems the answer is in the question: creativity. To drill down a bit, I’d say that means the ability to think in non-linear ways, to connect seemingly random ideas and (sometimes to one’s detriment) constantly live in the world of possibility. As with intelligence, though, I think there are a number of axes on which creativity can be measured (visual, verbal, etc.) (It has been postulated that the top 1% of creatives have characteristics that may put them at a psychological/functional disadvantage in the “real” world)
- Tough question. As someone in a continually creative position I would say the MOST important ingredient is going to vary… Some days, a problem is presented and a creative solution is required. The pressure of the situation will often force creativity (think of a brainstorming session) Some days, creativity happens as a result of having time and resources at hand. (Consider playing around with ideas because there is NO pressure) Some days, creativity will spring upon you unbidden (think of the brilliant middle of the night idea). I think a willingness to accept is probably the only ingredient that consistently carries through all these situations. (And I am equally certain that there are other situations that elicit creativity.
- Curiosity. That’s what gives me the ability to step into my client’s world. A strong desire to know or learn something that then becomes a product of my imagination
- Fantasy and dreams
Thanks to all that contributed!
Just reading the 8th habit of Stephen R. Covey. What a treasure.. So inline with my thoughts and believes. Finally I can reference to a book 😉
Big difference is that I am not placing primarily individuals in this process of transformation but rather “legal persons” or objects(products, brands).
So many things I wish to share about this book…
Googling a bit on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Somehow have the feeling that this law applies to corporations(closed systems, Entropy) aswell. Found the following post..enjoy! Nature is such an inspiration..
Evolution versus a basic law of nature
Scores of distinguished scientists have carefully examined the most basic laws of nature to see if Evolution is physically possible – given enough time and opportunity. The conclusion of many is that Evolution is simply not feasible. One major problem is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
- law of science: basic, unchanging principle of nature; a scientifically observed phenomenon which has been subjected to very extensive measurements and experimentation and has repeatedly proved to be invariable throughout the known universe (e.g., the law of gravity, the laws of motion). thermodynamics: the study of heat power; a branch of physics which studies the efficiency of energy transfer and exchange.1
Decaying buildings. Massive structures may appear to be capable of lasting almost forever, but they will not. The need for ongoing repairs stems, in part, from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. (Scene from the ORIGINS video series.)
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics describes basic principles familiar in everyday life. It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. Material things are not eternal. Everything appears to change eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing stays as fresh as the day one buys it; clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and ultimately returns to dust.2 Everything ages and wears out. Even death is a manifestation of this law. The effects of the 2nd Law are all around, touching everything in the universe. Each year, vast sums are spent to counteract the relentless effects of this law (maintenance, painting, medical bills, etc.). Ultimately, everything in nature is obedient to its unchanging laws.
- 2nd law of thermodynamics: Physicist Lord Kelvin stated it technically as follows: “There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work.” In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.3
Cells and blood vessels – scene from the ORIGINS video series.
It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. Outside forces can increase order for a time (through the expenditure of relatively large amounts of energy, and through the input of design). However, such reversal cannot last forever. Once the force is released, processes return to their natural direction – greater disorder. Their energy is transformed into lower levels of availability for further work. The natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become simpler and more disorderly with time.4
|Evolutionism claims that over billions of years everything is basically developing UPWARD, becoming more orderly and complex. However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) says the opposite. The pressure is DOWNWARD, toward simplification and disorder. (Illustration from the ORIGINS series)|
Thus, in the long term, there is an overall downward trend throughout the universe. Ultimately, when all the energy of the cosmos has been degraded, all molecules will move randomly, and the entire universe will be cold and without order. To put it simply: In the real world, the long-term overall flow is downhill, not uphill. All experimental and physical observation appears to confirm that the Law is indeed universal, affecting all natural processes in the long run.5
Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements.6 Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.7
However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world.
|Has the 2nd Law Been Circumvented? No, says expert Frank A. Greco:
No experimental evidence disproves it, say physicists G.N. Hatspoulous and E.P. Gyftopoulos:
- “There is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts the second law or its corollaries…” 9
Creationist Duane Gish comments:
- “Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd… The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life.” (Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley) 10
Emmett Williams, Ph.D:
- “It is probably no exaggeration to claim that the laws of thermodynamics represent some of the best science we have today. While the utterances in some fields (such as astronomy) seem to change almost daily, the science of thermodynamics has been noteworthy for its stability. In many decades of careful observations, not a single departure from any of these laws has ever been noted.” 11
If Evolution is true, there must be an extremely powerful force or mechanism at work in the cosmos that can steadily defeat the powerful, ultimate tendency toward “disarrangedness” brought by the 2nd Law. If such an important force or mechanism is in existence, it would seem it should be quite obvious to all scientists. Yet, the fact is, no such force of nature has been found. A number of scientists believe the 2nd Law, when truly understood, is enough to refute the theory of Evolution. In fact, it is one of the most important reasons why various Evolutionists have dropped their theory in favor of Creationism.
- open systems/closed systems: open thermodynamic systems exchange heat, light, or matter with their surroundings, closed systems do not. No outside energy flows into a closed system. Earth is an open system; it receives outside energy from the Sun.
Is Energy the Key? To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun’s energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?12
Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?
A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun’s energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers – all beginning from a single seed.
If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun’s energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?
What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.
The Ultimate Ingredient: Designed and Coded Information
Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith in the ORIGINS video series.
The distinguished scientist and origins expert, Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, puts it this way:
- “What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun’s energy can be taken and make the thing grow – increasing its order” [temporarily].13 teleonomy: Information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy involves the concept of something having a design and purpose. Non-teleonomy is “directionlessness,” having no project. The teleonomy of a living thing is somehow stored within its genes. Teleonomy can use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.14
Where did the teleonomy of living things originate? It is important to note that the teleonomy (the ordering principle, the know-how) does not reside in matter itself. Matter, itself, is not creative. Dr. Wilder-Smith:
- “The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules.”15
Creationists believe cells build themselves from carefully designed and coded information which has been passed from one life to the next since their original inception.
Currently I am working on basically a presentation linking it all together( well atleast for me). Wondering if I should share it all openly.. It starts to be, I believe, a powerful story..
The beauty is that what I am preaching I need to practice..
Arghh end of the week it is online…
My proposal for a ChangeThis Manifesto was approved. Currently my proposal is up for voting. When I have enough votes(I have no idea what enough is) it will be published.
Here is my proposal:
Value Creation: The RIGHT way
The coming years competitive advantage for corporations is created purely by right brain activities: creativity, intuition, emotion, communication and a holistic view of the world. This manifesto is about releasing the strength of the right side brain within businesses. It shows ways to create new value in an emotional driven world. This manifesto has the ambition to support companies to reach their true potential. Not through growth but through self actualization. “A company at best can be itself”
Thanks for voting for this manifesto!
More and more I gather evidence that the very core of a company is what I call the “Broad Thought”. The broad thought gives companies a sense of purpose. It is close to a religion. A beliefsystem. The Broad Thought influences the company culture and creates stability. The difference with a Mission Statement in my idea is that a Mission Statement is focussed on the functional excercise of the Broad Thought. An example of a Broad Thought is “Against Throwawayism” from Iittala
A well defined and effective Broad Thought has in my opinion a couple of characteristics:
1. It creates freedom to innovate(level of abstraction)
2. Not bound to function or form(so immaterial)
3. Emotionally charged(Fueled)
4. Passionately carried out by Top Management
5. Value focussed and not growth focussed
6. Defined from a serving(supporting) perspective
7. any ideas…?
The benefits of defining a Broad Thought are:
1. Bridges the gap between society and corporations
2. Offers roads to innovation (differentiation)
3. Creates room and guidance for CSR
4. Creates a subject for co-creation without the pressure of existing products
The biggest pitfall for a broad acceptance among employees of a Broad Thought is that it is communicated.. YOU SHOULD NOT COMMUNICATE THE BROAD THOUGHT… Here really comes to the big eye opener:
YOU SHOULD MAKE EMPLOYEES FEEL IT THROUGH EXPERIENCES..
More on the Broad Thought soon…
Just read an article written in 2002(!!) about the book The Support Economy. In this Harvard Business School article Shoshana Zuboff and James Maxmin discuss about the “rift between corporations and society”. Here some nice passages:
A century ago mass consumption was on the rise. People wanted more things. The answer was to produce more goods at an ever-lower cost—mass production. Corporations were organized around a managerial hierarchy invented to provide a tight inward focus on the increasingly complex processes of production and distribution. This was a massive innovation over the older model of a single owner who tried to oversee everything. Under managerial capitalism, ownership became dispersed, but control remained concentrated in the management group.
The evolution from one episode of capitalism to another is a normal historical process. Just as mercantile capitalism was displaced by proprietary capitalism, and that new form was later displaced by managerial capitalism, it makes sense that managerial capitalism will be displaced by a new, more comprehensive form that better serves today’s populations.
Capitalism’s capacity to evolve and its incredible versatility have proven to be the single most important source of its robustness and success. In fact, capitalism has avoided devastating crises not because it is fixed, but because it changes. Each historical episode of capitalism has a limited range of adaptation, however. As markets and technologies undergo historic change, so too must the current model of capitalism.
The new individuals have plenty of things. They have access to plenty of services. But they now yearn for something that corporations have not perceived, let alone put on offer: the kind of support that will enable them to live the lives they choose.
People’s desires, needs and wants have radically changed, but corporations have remained distant and indifferent to the true nature of this change. As a result, we have a business environment in which people are chronically disappointed and frustrated by their experiences as consumers and employees. We no longer trust large organizations to serve our needs. On every level, we are experiencing a divisive “us vs. them” mentality.
Each new episode of capitalism emerges from the complex interplay of three forces: (1) New human yearnings that create a new approach to consumption and new kinds of markets, (2) technologies capable of addressing the demands of the new markets, and (3) a new enterprise logic that can link employees, technologies, and markets in new ways.
The fire is laid. What’s needed is the match. Many people already sense that there must be a better and more relevant way of doing capitalism. The search is on for a new enterprise logic that will fundamentally alter the orientation, purpose, and economics of commerce. The Support Economy is intended to contribute to that search as it invites discussion of a new enterprise logic that we call distributed capitalism. Watch the flames when these three forces finally combine. That will mark the real discontinuity between the economy of the twentieth century and that of the twenty-first.[Note: I think it is happening now]
In our chapter called “Rediscovering the End Consumer, Over and Over Again” we show how most “new” business concepts are simply self-referring. They do not move beyond the rules of a certain way of doing capitalism, and therefore they cannot possibly alter the problems they target. Instead, just the opposite occurs—the status quo overpowers new ideas and turns them into variations on the same old themes. That is why every innovation from quality circles to reengineering to customer relationships turns out to be another road to cost reduction.
Deep support means “getting my life back.” In order to provide this, deep support means that commercial entities absorb both accountability and responsibility for every aspect of the consumption experience. Deep support enables psychological self-determination. It produces time for life. It facilitates and enhances the experience of being the origin of one’s life. It recognizes, responds to, and promotes individuality. It celebrates intricacy. It multiplies choice and enhances flexibility. It encourages voice and is guided by voice. Deep support listens and offers connection. It offers a collaborative relationship defined by advocacy. It is founded on trust, reciprocity, authenticity, intimacy, and absolute reliability.