Linda's Marketing Leverage Blog

The Sound of Silence: Knowing When to Stop Talking

It's now been a full week since Michael Jackson's demise and more than that since Mark Sanford's exploits were first revealed.

In the time since then, parties associated with both camps have filled much more than their reasonable share of airwaves (and bandwidth as well), giving us much more information about the details of these situations than we ever needed to know.

I don't need to know how many times Sanford met w/his mistress or how many other women he flirted with before, during and after. I also don't need to know every detail of Michael Jackson's will (somehow I doubt he left me anything), or whether or not his children were biologically his or someone else's (they're legally his and that's all that matters right now).

Just once it would be nice for someone involved in one of these situations to make a simple concise statement, say that's it, I'm done, and walk away. Too much detail doesn't do anyone any good. Hitchcock was the master of suspense, but how much gore and blood did he show on camera? What was captivating about his movies was that the important details were left to the imagination, rather than spelled out in high definition in excruciating detail.

This is true for all of us in business settings as well: Say what you have to say, then stop and wait. Listen to the silence. Give the other person a chance to absorb what you've said. Don't try to overcompensate by telling all the gory details. Let the other person use their imagination. Let them think for themselves. Appreciate the sound, and the power,  of silence.

Our Obsessions with Train Wrecks...Figurative as Much as Literal

It's been a busy week for news, between the exposure of a leading Republican's romantic escapades and the deaths of two pop icons.

It's interesting how the public grabs onto these events with a voyeuristic fervor that is hard to contain. All of today's technology is put to use to get to the bottom of these stories--whether it's publishing the back-and-forth passionate emails of Mark Sanford and his Argentinian mistress or broadcasting photographs of a comatose Michael Jackson intubated on his final trip to the hospital.

[Poor Farrah Fawcett had the bad luck to die in between these two stories, limiting the amount of attention on her passing.This is unfortunate, because during her valiant struggle with cancer she worked hard to educate people about a type of the disease with very low awareness. Of all these stories, this is the one that had the potential to help save others' lives.]

All of this far outpaced the REAL train wreck, which caused at least 9 deaths in a Maryland suburb when one commuter train plowed into another. And it's bumped the Iranian election protests, the event likely to impact the most people worldwide in profound ways, way off the front page.

What is it about our society that we are so taken with others' sexual acts and deviant behavior that we become obsessed with news like this, beyond any rational measure? We can blame the media, but in reality they are just delivering what they believe their audience wants to see and hear. The  audience of course validates this behavior by tuning in in droves. (Was the slowdown on the web yesterday afternoon right after Michael Jackson's demise a mere coincidence? Hmm.)

The accidents have happened, the crisis has passed. It's all up to the cleanup crews now. Let's leave the carnage behind and go on.

Things are Getting Better Day by Day

We've all had more than our fair share of doom and gloom, end of the world scenarios, fire and brimstone, the fall of American civilization as we know it, etc., etc., etc.

Here's a different take on things: It's not that bad AND it's going to get better sooner than the pundits predicted.

Right here in Silicon Valley I've seen some very positive signs just recently:

• Cisco Systems released better than expected quarterly earnings last week
• Intel's CEO Paul Otellini was quoted in today's Mercury News saying that the chip business has improved since April: "What we've seen so far is a little better than we had expected...so far, so good."
• Online restaurant site OpenTable announced today that it will price its IPO next Wed the 20th and is expecting to start trading the next day
• My 401K statement arrived with the news that it was in the black for 2009.

All these are signs that contrary to what you hear in the media, Silicon Valley is not dead, and in fact, there are companies who expect to do well and to thrive as the economy continues to improve.

Mark Twain said "the rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated." We need to focus on the fact that we've had a correction, we've likely hit bottom, and we're headed for a recovery.

The question is what organizations are doing to prepare for better days ahead. Are you ready for rebound? If not, you should be.

Today's Stem Cell Decision: A Victory for those who Value Saving Lives

As the parent of a child with type 1 diabetes, the daughter of a man who died of complications of type 2 diabetes, and the granddaughter of a woman who died of Alzheimer's disease, I was thrilled to see President Obama follow through on his promise to lift restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.

The restrictions on this research placed by the previous administration were meant to pacify religious special interests. Today's action was meant to help save lives.

Here's what happened over the last 8 years of the ban:

• Other countries continued to progress their own stem cell research, making this yet another area where US efforts were left behind.
• California voters passed their own initiative to fund stem cell research, creating the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM).
• Millions of people continued to suffer and die from diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, etc.--diseases that might be helped by the outcome of stem cell research. There are over 24 million people in the US suffering from diabetes alone and tens of millions more at risk for the disease.

Will this technology cure these horrible diseases? No one knows for sure. But we do know that there is incredible potential that cannot be found elsewhere. As a society, we have a responsibility to use the tools and technologies we have available to help improve living conditions for those amongst us who suffer from these diseases or injuries. We have a responsibility to allow scientific research to move forward unfettered. We have a responsibility to save lives.

The Talmud says, "He who saves one life is as if he has saved an entire world."  As of today, we're back on track to save millions of worlds.

New Podcast: How the Art of Corporate Resilience Impacts Marketing

Our newest interview in the Marketing Thought Leadership podcast series is now live.

Pamela S. Harper of Business Advancement  talks about why corporate resilience is so important in today's economy, and how marketing can play such a pivotal role in driving resilience.

Listen now.

Check out our other recent interviews:

• Ruth Ann Barrett of Earthsayer.tv on The Intersection of Sustainability and Web 2.0
• Lisa Orrell of The Orrell Group on Understanding the GenY Mindset for Increased Productivity and Retention
• Denise Shiffman of Venture Essentials on How to Create Engaging Customer Experience through Social Media

What We Want and What We Need

"You can't always get what you want. But if you try, you just might get what you need."

Rolling Stones

I can't help but think of this song today, Martin Luther King Day 2009. Here we are in the midst of the worst economic crises in almost a hundred years. The banking industry is in turmoil, jobless rates are rising, foreclosures are at an all-time high, the retail industry is at an all-time low.

Every time you turn around, you hear of another financial industry takeover/bailout or more retailers going out of business: Mervyns, Linens and Things, Circuit City, to name just a few. Detroit is in shambles; even Silicon Valley standbys like Google are cutting back.

For a long time we lived in a world where whatever we wanted or even thought we might possibly want, we could get. And we could get it in multiple shapes, colors and sizes from a variety of sources. Once we had that, there was something new we could buy to add on or complement or upgrade what we already had. On the housing front, we were encouraged to buy bigger and better houses, to improve the ones we had, or to enter the home ownership world even if we didn't really have the credit worthiness to do so.

Fast forward to today. When push comes to shove, we've learned that people don't need $4 cups of coffee from Starbucks several times a day--or even once a day. They don't need more home entertainment or computer equipment, or new clothes, or furniture, or a lot of other things.

Instead, we've started to focus on what we really need: A financial system that's trustworthy. An economy that creates jobs. Basic ways to handle transportation, housing, food, etc. Friends, family and connections. A government that works with us not against us.

How fitting that our new president-elect called for a national day of service today. How fitting that tomorrow we inaugurate a man as president who brings a new approach and a new outlook and a new focus on what's needed to move forward in this new world.

For a long time, we've had what we wanted. Now it's time to get what we really need.

Brand Obama: How Barack Obama Really Won the Presidency

There's been much discussion over the last two weeks of what exactly Barack Obama's campaign team did right to help him win the presidency of the United States.

In their November 17th Business Week column "Three Reasons Obama Won,"  Jack and Suzy Welch focus on lessons business leaders can take from McCain's loss and Obama's win. They make three points which they say business leaders can learn from:

• Start with a clear, consistent vision.
• Execute well.
• Have friends in high places.

While I agree that all three of these are true, they've missed something critical: in a very short time, Obama built a strong, powerful personal brand--basically from scratch.

I teach Branding Strategies at San Francisco State. I ask my students to tell us their favorite brands. We get the usual favorites: Apple, Nike, Target, Trader Joes, Coke, etc. In October, however, several students said their favorite brand was Barack Obama.

How interesting. For the last 18 months, I've had my students evaluate each of the candidates brands, tell me what they stand for and how well they are doing in delivering on their brand promise. This was a fascinating exercise in the early primary season when we had a varied cast of characters from Hillary Clinton to Rudi Guiliani, Mike Hucklebee to Mitt Romney, not to mention McCain and Obama.

In the early days, the candidates were often defined by their demographics (female, African-American, Mormon, ex-POW, divorced Catholic, etc.). But as time went on, it became clear that Barack Obama had done a tremendous job building a strong brand, based on change, hope, inclusion and making a difference for America. He did this using a combination of grass roots efforts, traditional media, and an outstanding use of new media, from websites and blogs to Facebook, MySpace and Twitter, from personalized donation emails to brightly colored logowear that was hot and hard to find.

As opposed to McCain, Obama did this by focusing on the future, on the potential for good, and on the positive--not by knocking the competition, shouting and screaming, or defending the current situation.  In doing so, he created a brand that people were proud to be involved with--a brand that transcended race, ethnicity, gender or age. He created the kind of brand all companies wish they had.

And that, as much as the three reasons the Welchs articulated, is the reason Obama won.

A New Beginning

Tonight marks the start of the Jewish new year, 5769. To everyone, including all my friends, relatives and colleagues who are celebrating the holiday, I wish you a sweet and joyful new year, filled with health and happiness, peace and prosperity.

What's nice about the High Holiday Season is that Jews treat this not just as a new year, but as a new beginning. Given what's going on in the world lately, it can't come a minute too soon.

I'd like to suggest that it really can be quite therapeutic for everyone to say enough is enough and start again anew. However, anew start is much more effective if you take the time to consider where we've come from and what we're leaving behind at the end of the year. Whether we're talking about business, personal life or the financial mess on Wall Street, if we don't understand what's worked and what hasn't, we are destined to repeat many of the same mistakes over and over again.

The good news is there's no reason you ever have to wait a full year for a new start.  You're all welcome to join us in starting over with the new year 5769 tonight. You still have the opportunity to start 2009  with the traditional New Years celebration on Dec 31st, or again later in January when we'll have a new presidential administration, and  the Lunar New Year at the end of the month.

So here is to a happy, healthy, peaceful and prosperous new year for everyone everywhere--starting about tomorrow sounds good to me.

Linda

The Branding of Our Candidates

As I watched the highlights of the Democratic National Convention, I can't help but focus on the brand called Barack Obama. This morning, after hearing about McCain's choice for vice president, I'm wondering about the brand called McCain as well.

Yes, Obama has a brand, McCain has a brand, and so do all of the other assorted candidates along the way. You and I have personal brands, too, though we likely put much less emphasis on understanding and promoting them.

In my Branding Strategies class at San Francisco State, we do an exercise where students are randomly divided up into groups and asked to evaluate the candidates brands: what are their brand promises, what do they stand for, and on a scale of 1 to 10, how well are they doing on delivering on those promises.

This was a much more interesting exercise when we had a full slate of potential candidates, including Hillary Clinton, Rudy Guiliani, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and others. This year, for the first time, we had a full range of choices when it came to gender, ethnicity, race, religion and marital status.

What's interesting is that over the last year or so, the class has consistently said that Obama stands for change and hope and doing things differently, and they've rated him fairly high on fulfilling his brand promise. They had a hard time, OTOH, getting their hands around what McCain's brand promise was, besides more of the same.

Brands are always evolving and adding features and benefits to supplement their current offerings. This week, Obama chose Joe Biden, who brings experience and foreign policy expertise to the Obama brand. McCain chose Sarah Palin, who brings youth, inexperience and a non-Washington perspective.

What do these choices mean for the 2 candidates' brands? It will be interesting to watch how the American public answers this question, but at this point, it looks like Obama has tried to supplement a known weakness in his brand (relative inexperience) by adding Biden. McCain has  addressed the weakness of age, by choosing someone very young and with virtually no experience. He's addressed diversity by including a woman, but I'm not quite sure yet what the McCain/Palin brand stands for?

By choosing Palin, it appears that McCain has done two things he may regret: He may have actually strengthened Obama's brand by making Barack look much more experienced than Palin, and he may have alienated many of Hillary's supporters who were on the fence, by choosing a running mate for her youth and gender and asking voters to accept her as an equal substitute for Hillary, who like her or not, brings a wealth of experience, maturity and seasoning to the table compared to Palin.

The jury's still out on this folks, but stay tuned. Things are just starting to get VERY interesting.

Driven to Distraction

In preparation for California's new hands-free cell phone law on July 1st, I finally broke down and bought a bluetooth wireless device.

Well, I actually bought my second bluetooth wireless device. I had bought one a couple of years ago, found it to be terribly annoying and not very useful and quite promptly lost it. This time I bought one of the more advanced models, the Jawbone, and I find it to be terribly annoying and not very useful. The good news is I haven't lost it yet.

For the last week or so, I've been walking around with this thing in my ear trying to get used to it. What I find is that I am significantly more distracted using this thing than I ever was either holding the phone in my hand or using the speakerphone. First I had to try two different earpieces and three different earbuds till I got a set that seems to sort of fit my ear somewhat. Then I have managed to either disconnect people who call, call people I don't mean to,  or try to talk out of the phone when the call goes to the headset or vice versa. I can't figure out how to make the volume go up and down in real time, and any advanced features are way beyond me.

This has got to be the law of unintended consequences to the max. Here's the story. I do believe there are some people who are very distracted when they talk on the cell phone, and many of these people talk and drive at the same time. I've seen them and so have you. However, I don't for a second believe that these folks will be any less distracted because they have this thing in their ear.

I also believe that these are the same people who long before cell phones were distracted by everything from the car radio to their kids in the back seat, reading the paper, looking at a map or GPS, etc. In other words, some people are just plain distracted. These are also the folks who probably can't multitask on even simple tasks. That's ok. They can work serially one task at a time.

The rest of us who can multitask fairly well and are even wired to perform better when we're multitasking are now stuck with a regulation that makes our lives more complicated and IMO less safe.

The CHP is supposedly sitting with baited breath just waiting to start citing people who are not hands-free next Tuesday. I just hope they will also take the time to stop all those people who are distracted by other things beyond cell phones, as well as those who are incapacitated and really shouldn't be driving in the first place.  But it might be too distracting to ask them to focus on more than one thing at a time.