Tom's Soup

Here we get word that record labels plan to abandon the CD by the end of 2012. 

That got me thinking of all the music formats I've outlived (so far!):

1. Piano rolls - while we didn't own any of these, I did have cousins (in the wilds of Lowell, Massachusetts) who did have a player piano that fascinated me, providing an oasis of respite during our otherwise torturous visits to their home in my youth.
2. 78 RPM - These were a mainstay of my parents' music collection in the early 50s. I remember them as thick, heavy, scratchy and easily breakable. 
3. 45 RPM - Singles, with A and B sides, were one of the two mainstays of music during my youth. They were inexpensive and could be stacked up on spindles, forming the first playlists any of us ever created. Owned thousands of these, most of which were dispatched to the great unknown by my parents when they moved after I'd left for college. (We were that kind of family.) 
4. 33 1/3 RPM - These were the other preferred mid-20th century format. I've owned many hundreds of these and still have an embarrassingly large collection, despite no longer having a turntable on which to play them. Their covers, of course, are an art form in themselves.
5. 8 Track - I never owned an 8 track tape or player, but I think my daughter had one that played Winnie-The-Pooh, or something similar. 
6. Cassette - This was huge. I had thousands of these, both pre-recorded and home made. Still do. Have I played one in the last decade? Hmm...
7. CD - That brings us to the thousands of CDs that I now own, many of which are replicas of recordings I've owned in about four of the other formats listed above. 
8. MP3 - Well, I haven't outlived this one, yet, but I have a sneaky suspicion that it's not long for this world, given the pattern we see here. 

How about you? How many of these formats do you remember? And, what's next?

Please, don't even get me started on cameras...

you don't blog for a couple of months?

I say, "YES!"

Just a blogger who's been on hiatus!

But, who like this guy, will return!

The following is the latest edition of "The Weekly TrueTalker" Newsletter.

Subscribe here.

-----------------------------------------------

I got to thinking about the recent Alexander McQueen "Savage Beauty" exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art that closed about a week ago. The final tally showed that 661,509 visitors saw the saw since its opening on May 4, the most ever for the Met's Costume Institute. Only seven other special exhibitions—including those of works by Picasso and Van Gogh—ever surpassed this visitor total.

Why?

Why were so many people moved to wait in line, often for hours, for an exhibit of clothes by a Scottish-born designer who died a little over a year ago?

In the past few years, Alexander McQueen came to symbolize a certain style of creativity: restless, wild, unconcerned with commercialism, attached to deep archetypal forces. The antithesis of the mundane.

When one says that a dress is "a McQueen," it conjures up images of something challenging, subversive, puzzling. McQueen designed conceptual and visual conundrums. His work was not to be taken lightly. It was not to be fully appreciated at first glance. Its original purpose looked personally expressive; its consequence, to disturb thoughts and provoke feelings; the antithesis of fashion's "slickness."

From this paradox, celebrity flowed, making McQueen part of the fashion glitter world. As the recent sad case of John Galliano demonstrated, the consequences of being at the epicenter of that world can be dangerous. It feeds on itself voraciously. Ambivalence grows within it like mold in a dank cellar.

McQueen's suicide was the final alchemical element for archetypal myth-making. The artist who dies at her/his own hand enters a special cultural realm. Like insects encased in amber, Van Gogh, Rothko, Plath, Woolf, Hemingway, Cobain and now McQueen remain frozen in creative shells. Enigmatic. Timeless. Tragic.

And fascinating. We mortals recognize the rareness of this wild brand of creativity. We are drawn to its source. We want to be in its presence; to be close to what it produced. We want to feel the energy it captured. We intuit that being in proximity to these authentic power objects will be invigorating. They elicit in us a particular kind of awe and oddly silent reverence, perhaps akin to what millions a day experience as they line up before the gilded cases holding the icons of long dead saints. 

McQueen's death infused the show's items with a special power. There will be no more like them. His once living fingers crafted them, transformed them from mere materials to the embodiment of a savage spirit; transubstantiated tulle.

Yes, Kate Middleton wore a "McQueen" for her royal wedding but it was as if she were receiving the sacrament from one of the Apostles rather than attending the Last Supper. 

Here we were in the presence of the originals...tantalizingly close...

Few modern moments offer the prospects offer the prospect of experiences like these. And so, hundreds of thousands are drawn to them, however dimly aware we may be of the deep sources of their attraction. 

This morning, CNN Money ran the following story: 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Mike "the Situation" Sorrentino may have to find some new attire for his "gym, tan, laundry" routine.

On Tuesday, clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch (ANF) said it would offer "substantial payment" to MTV's The Jersey Shore's cast members to stop wearing the brand on air.

"We are deeply concerned that Mr. Sorrentino's association with our brand could cause significant damage to our image. We understand that the show is for entertainment purposes, but believe this association is contrary to the aspirational nature of our brand, and may be distressing to many of our fans," an Abercrombie & Fitch spokesperson said in a statement. "We have also extended this offer to other members of the cast, and are urgently waiting a response."

The reality show, currently in its fourth season, features hard-partying and hookups in locations ranging from the show's origin, the Jersey Shore to the current season in Florence, Italy.

The castmates have coined terms like "grenade"-- to refer to an unattractive woman -- and has come under fire for their liberal usage of words like "Guido" and "Guidette," which many have argued as adhering to Italian-American stereotypes.

Abercrombie & Fitch is also no stranger to controversy. The all-American retailer has come under fire in the past for a range of topics ranging from negative stereotyping to sexually explicit material and employment practices. 

Of course, the story turns out to be part of an Abercrombie & Fitch/MTV PR campaign.

Smart. And funny.

But it did get me thinking.

What if "blackmail marketing" really took off?

What combinations of celebrities and brands could make the most of this trend?

Suggestions?

We're up to our third post on brands and emotion.

Here's an overview of the series, then one on Fear and another on Anger.

Today's entry is on Disgust. 

Disgust, like all six primary emotions, is one we all recognize immediately. Here's Scott McCloud's depiction of the face of Disgust, from his most highly recommended Understanding Comics.

The word that immediately comes to mind when we see this face?

"Yuck!"

And, Yuck! is something we want to make go away as quickly as possible! 

From an evolutionary standpoint, it's safe to say that Disgust played an imporant role in enabling survival.

Simply put, eating rotten food is a very good way to live a shortened life. 

Disgust lets us know we are very close to Death. 

Notice the role of the nose in Disgust's facial expression. 

Again, no accident.

That's because our sense of smell is deeply connected with Disgust.

Disgusting things smell bad. That's a warning. Disgust makes this clear: things that smell bad are likely to kill you. 

In more ways than one. (Remember, in modern culture it's now possible to be "embarrassed to death.")

And, that's where brand marketing comes in.

Our current preoccupation with odors is not a modern trend. After all, perfume first appeared in civilizations about 4,000 years ago, undoubtedly to mask disgusting smells.

Sanitation technology, personal hygiene practices and refrigeration have all improved and become important elements in our battle with Disgust.

But, as an old graduate school professor of mine once reminded us: "where there's life, there's slime."

And slime, is Disgusting.

Therefore...Disgust is inevitable; unavoidable.

Ah, but we're not alone in our war with Disgust! We have allies!

Every product used to keep our various "environments" clean references Disgust in one way or another.

Some are subtle, tempered with humor.

Others, less so.

Here's a vintage ad that reflects a brand's early approach to helping us fight the social power of Disgust. 

Disgust is one of the four "negative" emotions (Fear, Anger, Disgust, Sadness). If given a choice, we'd rather not experience them.

Brands want us to feel Disgust and then to experience their product as a Hero, a means of protection from this horrible emotion that so reminds us, albeit unconsciously, of death.

As we've seen, any product that frames itself within the primordial structure of the Victim, Villain, Hero story taps into one of the deepest, most meaningful (and ubiquitous) narratives in human civilization. 

So, the next time you see something that makes you scrunch up your face and say, "Yuck!", remember that brands use Disgust to let you know that they're there to come to your rescue; that their Hero product will save you from the death that has just cast its unwelcome shadow on your workaday life! 

Seen any great examples of Disgust marketing recently? How about sharing one.

Remember Network? 

Thirty-five years ago Paddy Chayefsky and Sidney Lumet produced a masterpiece about media, madness and manipulation.

Here's the classic moment when Peter Finch's Howard Beale character finds his new voice:

Wow! That could have been a segment from last night's programming on CNN, MSNBC or FOX!

The scene's a perfect lead-in to the third in our series of posts about brands and emotions.

Not surprisingly, this one's on Anger.

You'll find the introduction to the series here and the post on Fear, here. 

That look of fury on Finch's face is one we humans have become very familiar with. In an instant we can both express our own Anger and perceive that of others around us. As with Fear and the other four primary emotions (i.e., Disgust, Sadness, Surprise & Joy), Anger is a deep element in our social toolbox.

Anger establishes boundaries and, perhaps most importantly, energizes us to action. Like Fear, Anger triggers our fight or flight mechanisms. That is, Anger energizes us to action.

And, brands want action. 

Mostly, they want your flight from their competitors and fight for them. 

Take, for instance, Jamie Oliver.

Oliver's trying to change the way America's children eat.

A great cause. I support him completely. 

His strategy?

Get parents angry.

Did you feel it? Did you feel the anger against the evil school board trying to keep those children from eating healthy food?

You probably did. (I know I did!)

That's because every brand that uses Anger is likely telling us a very familiar story: Victim, Villain, Hero (VVH).

In VVH, the lines are clear and the emotions powerful.

Someone is being wronged (Victim) usually by someone who has ulterior motives (Villain).

A perfect formula for Anger. Innate. In fact, even other primates become angry when presented with injustice.

Enter someone to right the wrong by defeating the Villain and rescuing the Victim (Hero).

Justice done.

World righted.

Anger gone.

Hero established. 

Anger is the engine of VVH and works like a charm. If you pay attention to ads you'll see in the next week, chances are you'll find 50 examples of VVH in action.

Some are more subtle than Oliver's (and, frankly, less worthy of the emotion they try to elicit—are you really that pissed off because you can't find the right size plastic container lid??) but the story arc will be the same.

And the product being sold will always be the Hero.

All of this happens because Anger ads work. 

Whether the emotion is "positive" or not isn't really important. What is important is that brands know how to touch us emotionally and how to use those emotions to spur us into action. 

Seen any good Anger ads recently? How about sharing them. 

A few weeks ago, Jeff Pulver was kind enough to invite me to speak at the #Fashion140 Conference at Lincoln Center. The topic was customer engagement. It was great fun, despite a couple of technical glitches and my natural inclination toward pedantic long-windedness!

Many thanks to Lilly Berelevich and her team at Fashion Snoops. 

Here's the video and here are the slides. 

5 Tom Guarriello from Lincoln Center on Vimeo.

A couple of days ago, I introduced the topic of brands and emotion. In that post, I listed the six basic human emotions: fear, anger, disgust, sadness, surprise and joy.

Each of the six emotions is immediately recognizable in the human face. This is one of the miracles of evolution. As social animals, we have developed the ability to express and perceive emotional states as a foundation of the communication required for social interaction. I'll use the wonderful illustrations of each emotion from Scott McCloud's very highly recommended Understanding Comics to demonstrate just how instantaneous our emotional perception is. 

We know that all brands strive to engage customers through storytelling and that emotions are at the heart of all great stories.

Let's take a look at each of the emotions to explore how brand marketers use them to form deeper connections between customers and products.

First is fear.

Why is fear first?

Because the ability to perceive, react to and warn others of danger is crucial to survival. Our neurophysiological reactions to fear include a wide array of hormonal and muscular activities, all designed to enable our "fight or flight" responses.

Physiologically and psychologically, fear instantly prepares us for action.  

And, more than anything, brand marketers want to cause action. 

Think about it. You're sitting on your couch, "watching" television, while simultaneously doing any of the ten other things we typically do when the TV is on. 

Suddenly, "Attention homeowners!" blares at you.

What happens?

First, your brain experiences the sound of the words and you look up at the TV from your iPad. 

Go ahead, try not to.

Hard, isn't it?

Then, in an instant, your brain, now bathed in a cocktail of adrenaline and other glucocorticoids, initiates a suite of stress responses. Heartrate, blood pressure, respiration, muscle tension and other funtions all increase as the bodily system snaps into action.

Meanwhile, because we're all well-conditioned members of our 21st century culture/economy, you're ready to hear the message that the alarm prepared you for: "Call now!"

As our culture has become more sophisticated and complex, the number of things that elicit fear has increased.

It's no longer necessary to see a tiger in the jungle to experience fear. Physical fears have been supplemented by fear of everything from bedbugs to hair loss. 

Today, we even fear losing our lady to a man who smells different.

(Wait, maybe we always feared that!)

What the Old Spice ad shows us is that brand marketers are now very sophisticated in their ability to use fear, but in clever, 21st century ways. Ironically half-mocking our insecurities doesn't matter to our brains; they respond first and make sense later. ("Look down! Back up!")

And that is one of the great lessons of emotional marketing: despite our logical, marketing saturated defenses, our body/brain systems respond emotionally to conditions designed to elicit those emotions. Nowadays, we're fond of calling this "neuromarketing," as if there's any other kind!

While fear may be classified as a "negative" emotion (that is, one we'd prefer not to experience...except when we're in a horror movie or on a theme park ride...hey, wait a minute...), its powerful "action potentiation," whether elicited in a tongue-in cheek way ("sadly...he's not me...") or more directly ("every 30 seconds someone dies of a heart attack") makes it a powerful piece in the brand marketer's toolkit. 

So, seen any good fear-based marketing recently?

Next up: Anger!

It's no secret that every marketer is trying to accomplish the same thing today: tell a story that connects their brand with the customer's emotions.

But, what emotions? If you're a marketer, which emotions are most powerful? If you're a customer, how do I know which emotions the marketer is trying to elicit?

We all experience our emotional lives as subtle and nuanced. Highly complex.

But, when it comes right down to it, there are only six primary emotions. Each of them is immediately recognizable in the human face. This means our evolutionary heritage has provided us with the neuropsychological equipment to both express and perceive these emotional states in an instant...immediately and unconsciously.

In other words, these emotions are hard-wired from birth. 

(The following images are from the highly recommended Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud.)

The six emotions are:

Fear:

Anger:

Disgust:

Sadness:

Surprise:

Joy: 

That's it. Six emotions. 

Interestingly, four of them (fear, anger, disgust, sadness) are "negative." One of them (surprise) is "neutral," and only one (joy) is "positive."

How do marketers tell stories that use these six states to get us to engage with their products and brands?

Over the next week or so, I'll take a look at each of the emotions individually and point out examples of marketing campaigns that focus on one or more of them to form powerful connections between us and brands.

Yesterday was Day One of this year's FUSE Design conference, in one of my favorite cities, Chicago. I'm here thanks to the School of Visual Arts, Masters in Branding program along with the program's co-founder, Debbie Millman, our amazing Jane of all trades, J'amie Cohen, and fellow faculty member, Pam DeCesare. About 15 of our students are attending and doing a bang up job of keeping the #FUSEDesign Twitter hashtag stream filled with great insights.
The morning Symposia were brim-filled with outstanding speakers and insights, from John Silva's overview of how great design ideas get ground down by corporate adoption processes to Mauro Pocini's extraordinarily insightful presentation of how design has transformed 3M into a product innovation perpetual motion machine; to Marco Beghin's homage to Moleskine's integration of the digital into the analog world of personal recollection; to Karim Rashid's expertly framed treatise on the de-materialization of the world and design's opportunity to break with the archetypes that still constrict our thinking concerning the everyday objects—think cameras and chairs—with which we live. Wonderfully stimulating stuff.
The afternoon speakers were no slackers, either! The highlights for me were Silva's session on the limitations of the focus groups (as it is most commonly utilized to evaluate rather than generate ideas) and Jennifer Westemeyer's most insightful work on the re-conceptualization, re-positioning and re-packaging of Kotex's U by Kotex. There were many, many important issues raised in Westemeyer's talk. Here are two: the depth of understanding of your customer is simply a matter of deep attention and appreciation; listening with your eyes, I think she called it. Second, getting their customer comfortable with saying the word "vagina" (which 72% were uncomfortable with at the beginning of their efforts) is an indication of the social transformations that brands can spur if the work is authentically resonant with the customer's life. Finally, Britton Taylor of Weiden + Kennedy's Old Spice team really brought the campaign to life with some fantastic insights about the thing that made that amazing series of creative decisions so successful. Humor. Understanding. Believing in the brand. Knowing and being the brand voice. Simple stuff...but definitely not easy.
Plenty more to say...but time to head off to Day One of the actual FUSEDesign Conference. More later...

This is Issue #8 of The Weekly TrueTalker. Hope you enjoy this issue. If you do, please encourage your friends to subscribe over there on the right!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

What characteristic is most important for success?

Sounds like a trick question, right?

Gotta be intelligence. 

At least that's what you'd think if you were one of those Martians we always imagine popping in on our world and giving us our annual performance review 

We go on about "smart" in just about every setting. From nursery school to investment banking, we use "smart" as the yardstick.

And, why not? Even broadly defined, the ability to analyze verbal and quantitative information, and to  quickly grasp and effectively articulate concepts pretty well discriminates the most from the least successful among us.

But all the intelligence in the world won't make you successful if you don't care.

Wait...what?

No matter what business you're in, you have to CARE to succeed.

Caring sounds so elementary; so simplemindedly obvious that it's hard to see, and even easier to overlook when you do. 

Think about this: who's your absolute favorite service provider? 

Maybe it's the woman who cuts your hair, or the guy who mows your lawn. Maybe it's the girl at the Apple Store who helps you figure out new software. Maybe it's your grandson's kindergarten teacher or the woman at Barney's you buy sweaters from. Perhaps it's your cardiologist. 

Whichever one it is, I bet the thing that makes them your favorite is the same thing: they really care about what they do. 

Most times, we don't focus on the caring. Instead, we notice caring's results. 

We all experience being "handled with care" deeply, but often will say things like: "oh, she's really patient with me when I don't understand a program"; or, "she always wants to be sure my hair looks just the way I want it"; or, "he trims the flower beds so neatly 'cause he knows how proud I am of them."

Superficial differences aside, each of these is a reflection of an individual approaching her/his work care-full-y; in a manner that is, literally, full of care.

Care yields magical results. It transforms the mundane into the extraordinary. creates powerful bonds. It is uniquely differentiated. It's brandable.

No one can duplicate the experience of having been handled carefully.

So, why do we focus so much on intelligence and so little on care?

Blame psychologists.

My discipline has done a great job creating tools that measure intelligence. Short, reliable, valid instruments allow us to quickly assess quantitative and verbal abilities. 

But, how do you measure caring?

Hmm...

See what I mean?

This leads us to behave like the guy who's crawling around on the ground beneath a lamppost on a dark night. A stranger wonders by and asks, "what are you doing?" "I'm looking for my house keys." The other guy joins in and after a minute says, "where did you see them last?" The first guy points to a driveway across the street and says, "over by my car." The second guy stops and says, "why are we looking for them over here?" First guy replies, "hell, the light's much better here!"

We look for intelligence because we have tools to help us assess it; the light's much better there. "Caring" feels too abstract, too hard to define, too touchy-feely.

But the fact is, you can evaluate caring. Remember this: we are passionate about the things we care about. 

So, in an interview, be sure to ask about passions. "What's the most important thing in your life?"; or "What do you do that you enjoy the most?" "What's the thing you're most proud of?"

When the interview is over, ask yourself, what does she care about? Do I know what's most important to her? When she talks about it, do I experience her passion? 

It doesn't matter if it's passion for flowers, physics or roasting chickens; genuine caring passion comes through. And, it doesn't need to be jump up and down, rah rah style passion, either; quiet, but powerful caring comes across, too.

And, remember this: caring is transferable energy. Passionately caring about cutting hair is much easier to develop when someone's already cared deeply about Buffy The Vampire Slayer! 

Now, I've definitely engaged in a classic "straw man" argument here: of course intelligence is an important factor for success. 

But in a world that demands extraordinary, "she really cares about the customer" is much more likely than "wow, she's so smart," to leave others feeling, well, cherished. 

Caring cherishes.

Imagine actually feeling cherished by a business: now, that would be extraordinary!

Yesterday, I asked, "why do you love Apple?" 

I asked because I'm thinking a lot about meaning. 

From September-December, I taught a class in the Masters of Branding program at the School of Visual Arts. The class was called, "The Meaning of Branded Objects In 21st Century Lives." We called it MBO for short.

When you first talk to people about what the objects in their lives mean, many will become dismissive, saying things like, "oh, I just buy things based on _________ ." 

The blank is usually filled in with functional characteristics, or "quality," "price," or "convenience."

But, if you can convince people to think about it for a minute (OK, maybe for more than a minute), you'll discover a whole other world living just beneath the surface of everyday objects.

The world of meaning.

When we do stop to think about what we find appealing about particular brands and the objects they make, we find that many are particularly significant to us.

They mean something to us; something greater than price or quality can explain. 

They're emotionally significant; personal. 

This discovery can be disconcerting. The idea that common objects are personally important to us is vaguely disquieting, as if having a personal connection with objects is an indication of a kind of "superficiality" or "shallowness."

After all, people are supposed to be "important" to us, not objects.

Brands know better.

Brands know that we form attachments with objects, some deep and abiding.

One of the most interesting aspects of my class was watching students discover their personal relationships with branded objects. 

Now, the meaning of branded objects is neither arbitrary nor accidental. 

Not at all.

In fact, branding is the manufacture of meaning.

All brands are, and must be in the meaning-making business today.

And that's where things get tricky.

There was a time when, if your goal was to make soap, all you had to do was to make soap.

Not today.

Today, you have to make meaningful soap. 

What kind of meaning?

Well, that depends. 

Do you want to make soap that says: "I am the soap that shows you're a tough but sexy man"? Or, one that says: "I'm the soap that real women use to build self-esteem"? Or, how about one that just says: "I am a pure American soap that stands for good clean fun"? 

OK, that's fine. Just make the soap and set up the ad campaign to sell it using those messages, right?

Ah, but that's just the beginning.

What about all the other meanings you have to reflect?

Other meanings? What other meanings?

Yeah, well, it's 2011, remember?

Besides making a soap that means the customer's a tough, sexy guy or real woman who's building her family's self-esteem or an American dedicated to good clean fun, you also have to be sure you mean (and don't mean) some other things.

For example:

• Green (what kind of packaging does your soap come in? Plastic!? What??)
• Honest (better list all those ingredients!)
• Not made in sweatshops (d'uh!)
• Social (you know, blogs, Facebook, Twitter kind of social)
• Good corporate citizen (what worthy causes do you donate to?)
• Etc.

And this is what I'm referring to as the "meaning arms race." 

Every year, the meaning stakes for brands get higher.

For example. Five Three years ago, did soap brands need to "have conversations" with their customers?

No. 

Do they have to today?

Well, not exactly. But if they don't, it means something; it means they're ___________ .

And that blank probably doesn't mean anything good for the brand's reputation and valuation.

The fact is, modern brands live in an escalating meaning/values context. 

The more choosy we become about the objects with which we associate ourselves (which we do every day through our more and more publicly accessible purchase decisions) the more brands need to clarify, embody and refine their meaning/value constellation.

If you're a brand today, you don't get to opt out of meaning creation. Like it or not, no matter what business you're in, you're also in the meaning business. 

And, just like in the post-War arms race between the US and Soviet Union, the cost and complexity of your arsenal will continue to rise.

Where will it end?

It won't.

The only thing you can do is to get used to it and get better at it. 

--------------

PS - As if on cue, as soon as I pushed the Publish button, I received this in an email from Trendwatching.com. You can now officially add "kind" and "human" to the meanings that your brand needs to create and express.  

Over the last 8 or so years, I've really come to love Apple products. 

Computers. iPods. iPhones. iPads. OSX. iOS. 

I love 'em all.

Why?

Ah...there's the rub.

It all starts off innocently enough: "Oh, I love the clean design"; or, "I love how the iPhone works"; or, "The iPad just feels so good in my hands."

But, I don't know...

I wonder if it isn't something else?

I wonder if that logo hasn't come to symbolize something bigger?

I wonder if some kind of alchemy hasn't taken place? 

I wonder if the meaning of Apple hasn't been transformed into something much deeper than any of the explanations we glibly give? 

I wonder if we could find out what Apple really means?

Of course we could!

Who wants to start? 

I'll be attending the Columbia Business School BRITE Conference on branding and technology this week.

I've been looking forward to it for weeks.

The problem is, I've been looking forward to the wrong date.

Let me explain.

Like most of us nowadays, I use an electronic calendar. I use Apple iCal and sync it with my iPhone.

Totally reliable.

Well, make that, totally technologically reliable.

Like the old adage says, garbage in...

And, in this case, I put garbage in.

When my attendance at BRITE was confirmed a few weeks ago, I went ahead and scheduled the dates in my calendar...March 1 and March 2.

I always feel great when I enter something in my calendar; set it and forget it!

The only problem is, the BRITE Conference dates are March 2 and 3.

Yup.

So, this morning, I boarded the 6:51 train in Stamford, BRITE and early (sorry), and headed to Columbia.

I got off at 125th street, grabbed a cab and arrived at 115th and Broadway.

I walked up to Lerner Hall ("wow, it's windy and colder than I thought it was going to be...should have worn my Arsenal scarf"). 

And...it was locked.

At 7:51.

Hmm...

The sign on the door said, "Hours: 8:00 AM - whatever"

Something was definitely not right.

Registration is supposed to begin at 7:45. 

Two students were standing there with me...neither of whom looked like they'd registered for BRITE. 

Whisky. Tango. Foxtrot!

Then, the mental clouds began to move in: "I am in the right place, right?"

Notice how my mind works: place before time. Being in the wrong place is something I'm used to; happened thousands of time before (I'm an old guy; you'll hit that number, too, if you're lucky).

Never even considered being in the wrong time. (Not a bad Heideggerian mash-up title, though.)

Ah ha! iPhone, to the rescue!

I opened Safari and Googled "BRITE Conference." Up came the home page. (Thank you, AT&T.)

"See...there it is, Registration 7:45 on WEDNESDAY MARCH 2!!"

In the words of the immortal philosopher: D'oh!!

The emotional impact of a moment like that one is definitely something to savor. 

Notice, I didn't say, "enjoy," but savor.

See, when it comes to learning and innovation, we constantly preach the gospel of "learning from your mistakes."

But, mistakes suck.

They make you feel dumb. 

Your (OK, my) first instinct is to find some rationale for them, deny them, or blame somebody else for them.

But, we (I mean, I) have to get better at embracing mistakes. As hard as that is, there's gold to be found there...if we can allow ourselves to mine it.

So, only now, four hours later, after a reverse commute from Grand Central back to Stamford, can I begin to absorb some of today's learning. And, by the way, this is the "four hour" learning. The four day, and four week and four month versions are still out there for me...if I'm patient enough to stick with them:

1. Don't blindly trust your technology - Yes, I know this is a form of blame-shifting, since "the technology" didn't put the wrong date in my calendar. But the seductive power of technological certainty makes it way too easy for me to assume that what's there, in bits, is correct. 
2. Print the ticket, stupid - Ah, yes. "Why didn't I print the electronic ticket that was sent to me?" Answer: I'm spoiled. "I can always check in when I get there." Had I bothered to print the ticket I might have (emphasis added) noticed the correct date!
3. Ask yourself: "What could go wrong?" - This is a question my business partner, Peggy, and I have trained ourselves to ask whenever we're preparing a presentation. Because, often enough, something goes wrong. It's led us to have multiple backups for everything from file transfer methods to cables. I now have to apply this question to a broader range of activities!
4. Stay humble - Yeah, this one is probably the most universally (and personally) beneficial when it comes to innovating and to mistakes in general. It's like, just when you think you've got it together...

You find yourself in the right place, at the wrong time!

I am, now even more than before, looking forward to today's tomorrow's BRITE Conference.

Hope to see you there.

Here's the latest edition of our newsletter, The Weekly TrueTalker. If you'd like this to show up in your emailbox, just subscribe over in the right hand column. 

As always, your thoughts are appreciated!

----------------------------------------------------

Our current goal is translate everything into 1s and 0s.

That’s pretty much what we’re down to at this point.

Every since ENIAC was unveiled in 1946 (the first Baby Boomer!), we’ve been on a relentless digitizing binge. 

It started out with the easy stuff…arithmetic, equations, calculus and the like. Those were easy because they already existed in the world of numbers and formulas. Turning numbers into binary bits was an impressive achievement, but relatively easy. 

Then, Moore’s Law kicked in, exponentially upping our computing power. 

And, we all got Pong!

One of the major lessons of these last 60-plus years has been that as hardware develops, software becomes more ambitious; more elaborate.

More interesting. 

Just four years after ENIAC, Alan Turing laid down the challenge: can we write code that makes it impossible for a human to know if one is interacting with another person or a machine? The “Turing Test.”

In a way, the Turing Test confronts one of civilization’s most ancient gulfs: the one between Apollo and Dionysus.

The Greek god Apollo brought order to the universe. Harmony, reason and clarity are Apollo’s province. Think of him as the first programmer. 

The Delphic oracle’s marching orders came from Apollo: “know thyself.” For Apollo, knowledge rules all.

His nemesis? Dionysus, the god of all that is irrational, impulsive, wild. The original artist. 

Dionysus’ charge: “be thyself.”

Warts, and all.

Traditionally, while both are depicted as Zeus’ sons, Apollo is traditionally associated with “maleness” and Dionysus with “femaleness.”

It’s not surprising that when IBM’s Watson system “appeared” on Jeopardy recently, the software was given a male voice.

Males have always been presented as the keepers of the rational, while females operate in the murky land of “intuition”; “women’s intuition.”

And, all that intuition makes women so damned unpredictable! 

But, not for long!

To me, it doesn’t take much to see the modern march towards 1s and 0s as the progressive “Appollonization” of the Dionysian. The goal: reduce all the uncertainty in the world to clarity. 

Intuition is simply a chain of logical steps that hasn’t yet been been encoded. 

Translating intuition into 1s and 0s is just a matter of figuring out the circuitry, tracing the complex algorithms that underlie the “feeling” we get when “something’s just not right”; or, the one we have when we’re just on the verge of a big idea, or meet someone we feel “destined” to be with. 

All of that Dionysian messiness, soon to be de-mystified, explained, de-coded and re-coded. 

Intuition, that ancient, primitive form of “thinking,” soon to be eliminated. 

This is progress.

Right?

Here's the latest edition of our newsletter, The Weekly TrueTalker.

Hope you enjoy it. If you'd like it delivered to your email box, please subscribe over there in the box on the top right!

-------------------------------

A just-released study tells us something we already know: American consumers are becoming more demanding.

Growing up in the late 50s and through the 60s, I was part of the generation that lived through the greatest commercial expansion in human history. The post-war boom saw the growth of suburbs, advertising and acquisition.

Everybody needed “stuff,” and was tickled to be able to buy it. The biggest “differentiation” most of us saw was the one that Sears famously created between its three grades of products: Good, Better or Best.

Then things changed.

The Japanese quality revolution, and the advent of cable television, made Al Ries and Jack Trout’s “differentiation and focus” a marketing mantra. 

Markets splintered and brands scrambled to claim territory they both desired and feared: “niches.” Niches were great for brands because they could “own” them; they were scary because they were narrow.

Owning a niche meant that a brand that paid attention could come to understand a group of customers better than anyone else. Branders could study the customer’s life, learn where their products fit, and tailor their offerings based on those preferences.

Think of this as the Cold War period of branding. 

Just as the United States and Soviet Union escalated the growth of their nuclear arsenals, brands now found themselves competing on two conflicting dimensions: cost and quality.  

It was no longer enough for a product to be functional; to do what it was supposed to do. No, products now needed to be of higher quality, too; work better than anything else in its category. Oh, and if it could cost less, too, that’d be great.

How could brands compete on those contradictory terms? 

Technology and global sourcing. Dresses that used to be made by hand on Manhattan’s Lower East Side were now mass produced in factories in the Far East. 

And we, the customers, loved it. 

But there’s one thing we know for sure about capitalism, as long as there’s a market, competition never stops. 

So, just as the two super-powers needed to continually innovate to maintain weapon superiority, brands added a new element to their armamentarium: “experiences.” 

Now, niche-focused, high-quality, inexpensive merchandise wasn’t good enough. Now, we all wanted the thing to make us something. 

Want a burger? How about going to McDonald’s. Not only will they sell us a palatable sandwich at a great price, they’ll also give us a place to let the kids run around and burn off some of that mid-winter energy. 

Need a cup of coffee? Starbucks’ll be happy to sell you one (made in any of 150 different combinations) at a price that makes it feel special in surroundings that make you feel special, too.

And on and on it’s gone like that. 

Throughout the 90s and the 00s, brands continued to drive up the stakes on those four key competitive elements: niche-centered product characteristics, price, quality and niche-tailored experience. (By the way, this competitive escalation was the source of the rise of “design” as a fundamental strategic business function.)

OK. So what? Why this walk down memory lane?

Well, all of this has created an extremely complex set of challenges for brands. 

And all of this is just the price of entry.

Build a great car?

Who cares. Will it wirelessly connect with my Facebook page?

Brew a nice bottle of beer?

Where’s it from? What’s the brewer’s name? What’s her story?

Good breakfast cereal you got there.

Big deal. How will you make the packaging disappear from landfills?

There has never been a time when building, growing and maintaining a brand has been more difficult. Your customer, with whom you now are expected to have individual, personal “conversations,” is not impressed by anything you do for very long. 

“Go ahead,” she says, as she watches you scramble to keep up with every new step in the accelerated arms race.

“I dare you to try and delight me. And if you don't, I know somebody else who will.” 

Don’t be fooled: there is no escaping these demands. 

Nothing is ever “good enough.” You might only “satisfy” on one of the four dimensions, but if you don’t excel in at least one of them, you’re through.

Today, it’s “delight or perish.”

Oh, for the days when “stuff” was just “stuff.”