Jason Bateman and Will Arnett -- the funny dudes from Fox's old show "Arrested Development," just launched the first "branded content" commercial from their new production company, DumbDumb. Will it go viral?
It's called "The Prom Date" and it's the first of three "Dirty Shorts" short clips the duo will make for Wrigley's Orbit gum brand. DumbDumb worked in conjunction with Energy BBDO (agency), IAC's/Ben Silverman's Electus production studio, and IAC's CollegeHumor to make the video.
We saw the clip -- very funny -- at a premiere party last night at IAC's Manhattan HQ. (Look out for party pics of Zach Galifianakis in shorts with a backpack.)
As of a few minutes ago, "The Prom Date" has 309 views on YouTube. Will it see 1 million? Read more: Business Insider
Showing posts with label Adcrowd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Adcrowd. Show all posts
Friday, June 11, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
wallydownundy: Silent Planning: Agency Management and “What If?”
Running a professional services firm is a constant guessing game of “What If?” While a vast majority of our clients are on retained programs, with set fees month after month, some are project-based. We are uncertain how the business will fluctuate month to month.
And as a growth business, we’re also engaged in a number of new business discussions. These are companies we’ve not worked with who wish to retain our services - or those of another firm. We need to plan the resources for each.
Our resource is the time of our professionals. And like any resource it is finite. There are so many hours int he day, and so many people working here. The math is quite simple. And before long, you run out of people and hours.
Like manufacturing, I can search for efficiencies. Less double-up in meetings. Smarter allocation of work from senior to junior professionals. Use of technology to suicken repetetive processes, whether that’s a report on the day’s newspaper headlines of a summary of work in a month.
But unlike manufacturing, I cannot pre-purchase machinery in advance of work orders. People aren’t as readily available and if they aren’t busy with clients, it’s a squandered resource. Yes, everyone can help with running and promoting the company. But that’s not the most effective use of valuable skills.
So most of the time managers in charge of an agency play “What If?” What if we secure the new client assignment? What if our existing client delays or cancels a major project? What if we have several people out sick? (Last week we lost seven people simultaneously to a virulent flu.)
Lately I’ve been silently planning for a major piece of new business. We’ve been preparing our strategy during the days, evenings and weekends. And initial signs are encouraging. That’s forced me to look at office space, technology, people, resources. In quiet I’ve found space for eight new desks, interviewed ten people and prepared a capital plan for new technology. And that’s all without the certainty of success.
The problem is, if you don’t play “What If?” then later down the track you’re forced to deal with “What Now?” In almost every instance I would prefer to be prepared. So it’s back to planning - but don’t tell anyone...wallydownundy
And as a growth business, we’re also engaged in a number of new business discussions. These are companies we’ve not worked with who wish to retain our services - or those of another firm. We need to plan the resources for each.
Our resource is the time of our professionals. And like any resource it is finite. There are so many hours int he day, and so many people working here. The math is quite simple. And before long, you run out of people and hours.
Like manufacturing, I can search for efficiencies. Less double-up in meetings. Smarter allocation of work from senior to junior professionals. Use of technology to suicken repetetive processes, whether that’s a report on the day’s newspaper headlines of a summary of work in a month.
But unlike manufacturing, I cannot pre-purchase machinery in advance of work orders. People aren’t as readily available and if they aren’t busy with clients, it’s a squandered resource. Yes, everyone can help with running and promoting the company. But that’s not the most effective use of valuable skills.
So most of the time managers in charge of an agency play “What If?” What if we secure the new client assignment? What if our existing client delays or cancels a major project? What if we have several people out sick? (Last week we lost seven people simultaneously to a virulent flu.)
Lately I’ve been silently planning for a major piece of new business. We’ve been preparing our strategy during the days, evenings and weekends. And initial signs are encouraging. That’s forced me to look at office space, technology, people, resources. In quiet I’ve found space for eight new desks, interviewed ten people and prepared a capital plan for new technology. And that’s all without the certainty of success.
The problem is, if you don’t play “What If?” then later down the track you’re forced to deal with “What Now?” In almost every instance I would prefer to be prepared. So it’s back to planning - but don’t tell anyone...wallydownundy
Business Insider: Facebook Has More Pageviews Than The Next 99+ Biggest Web Sites Combined
Facebook has 570 billion pageviews a month, says Google's Doubleclick.
* That's 8X as many pageviews as the No. 2 site in Google's list of the top 1000 web sites in the world, Yahoo (which has 70 billion).
* It's 15X as many as MSN (39 billion).
* It's 72X as many as Wikipedia (7.9 billion)
Anyone out there still think Facebook is going to go bust?
Anyone still think the recent privacy fracas means anything at all?
Read more: Business Insider
* That's 8X as many pageviews as the No. 2 site in Google's list of the top 1000 web sites in the world, Yahoo (which has 70 billion).
* It's 15X as many as MSN (39 billion).
* It's 72X as many as Wikipedia (7.9 billion)
Anyone out there still think Facebook is going to go bust?
Anyone still think the recent privacy fracas means anything at all?
Read more: Business Insider
Business Insider: Zuck: I Could Have Sold Facebook For $1 Billion At Age 22, So No, Revenues Are Not My Top Concern
[Editor's note: At Facebook's privacy press conference this week, CNBC's Julia Boorstin asked Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg: "How does this controversy and your new approach to privacy affect your approach to revenue and your business model?" Here is Mark's answer, as transcribed by The Facebook Effect author David Kirkpatrick.]
[When deciding on Facebook's new privacy settings] we didn't talk about revenue at all. And I think it's something that is maybe so different from how most people think about companies that it maybe is a little crazy for us that this is the approach that we take. But we just really care about what we're doing, and we need to build a good company in order to do it. But we've had...like this has been a really unique company, in how it's evolved.
I mean, there was this really pivotal moment for me when I was 22. And there's this book coming out, David Kirkpatrick's book now, that actually details this in more detail than i would probably like, but... when, you know, Yahoo and all these companies...Is that the book? Well...Have you read it? ...Alright...well, so...
So we had this episode where Yahoo and Viacom and all these companies were trying to buy the company. And it was this really kind of crazy time. Because we started the company as a dorm room project. Actually we started it specifically not as a company, just a project. And we had this whole conversation about whether we wanted to turn it into a company or a partnership or what, and we ended up deciding a company was the best way to go because that's the best way you can attract really good people and incentivize them to build something great.
We reached a point where, you know, me and my friends, we were 22 years old, people were offering us a billion dollars or more for the company, and it's like--what do you do? Right? So we didn't want to sell the company. Obviously we didn't sell the company.
But it was this really pivotal point for us, because when you're 22 and have an opportunity to sell something for that much money, you kind of reach this point where, like, you're not making decisions to maximize the amount of money that you're making. Where I mean, like, any amount of money would not be worth the, like, the last few years that we've spent building up the company. So, you know, the...and the time we were going to spend going forward building it up.
So, I mean, when we went through that whole, that whole period, we kind of got together and we made this decision that like, this is what we care about. Right? This is what we think that one of the most transformative things will be to build in the world, is something that helps people share information and stay connected. And helps make the world more open and connected. And that's what we're going to do.
So it might be kind of crazy... to people...I don't know. It might seem weird. I don't actually know exactly what the external perception of this is. But I always read these articles that are like "OK you guys must be doing this because it's going to make you more money." And honestly for people inside the company that could not ring less true. Because...
We are working on building an ad business, and that's a big part of what we do. But when we're building platform and when we're building these user ...and these services that we offer for people, it factors in like, not at all. So, anyhow, I...it's an interesting perspective, I think, because it just...to me, from the perspective of building the company, it's such a big disconnect, between what people think we're doing and how we actually perceive ourselves internally.
Read more: Business Insider
[When deciding on Facebook's new privacy settings] we didn't talk about revenue at all. And I think it's something that is maybe so different from how most people think about companies that it maybe is a little crazy for us that this is the approach that we take. But we just really care about what we're doing, and we need to build a good company in order to do it. But we've had...like this has been a really unique company, in how it's evolved.
I mean, there was this really pivotal moment for me when I was 22. And there's this book coming out, David Kirkpatrick's book now, that actually details this in more detail than i would probably like, but... when, you know, Yahoo and all these companies...Is that the book? Well...Have you read it? ...Alright...well, so...
So we had this episode where Yahoo and Viacom and all these companies were trying to buy the company. And it was this really kind of crazy time. Because we started the company as a dorm room project. Actually we started it specifically not as a company, just a project. And we had this whole conversation about whether we wanted to turn it into a company or a partnership or what, and we ended up deciding a company was the best way to go because that's the best way you can attract really good people and incentivize them to build something great.
We reached a point where, you know, me and my friends, we were 22 years old, people were offering us a billion dollars or more for the company, and it's like--what do you do? Right? So we didn't want to sell the company. Obviously we didn't sell the company.
But it was this really pivotal point for us, because when you're 22 and have an opportunity to sell something for that much money, you kind of reach this point where, like, you're not making decisions to maximize the amount of money that you're making. Where I mean, like, any amount of money would not be worth the, like, the last few years that we've spent building up the company. So, you know, the...and the time we were going to spend going forward building it up.
So, I mean, when we went through that whole, that whole period, we kind of got together and we made this decision that like, this is what we care about. Right? This is what we think that one of the most transformative things will be to build in the world, is something that helps people share information and stay connected. And helps make the world more open and connected. And that's what we're going to do.
So it might be kind of crazy... to people...I don't know. It might seem weird. I don't actually know exactly what the external perception of this is. But I always read these articles that are like "OK you guys must be doing this because it's going to make you more money." And honestly for people inside the company that could not ring less true. Because...
We are working on building an ad business, and that's a big part of what we do. But when we're building platform and when we're building these user ...and these services that we offer for people, it factors in like, not at all. So, anyhow, I...it's an interesting perspective, I think, because it just...to me, from the perspective of building the company, it's such a big disconnect, between what people think we're doing and how we actually perceive ourselves internally.
Read more: Business Insider
Business Insider: 10 Things You Need To Know This Morning
Good morning! Here's what you need to know:
The iPad is launching internationally! Long lines everywhere, but apparently the Japanese are particularly crazy about the device.
Paywalls? They just don't work, it seems.
The Google-AdMob deal has officially closed. Google has a nice blog post explaining what they're going to do with their new shiny toy.
Speaking of Google and piles of cash, they're opening their very own trading floor to manage the ginormous $26.5 billion of cash and securities on their balance sheet. Wow.
The publishing industry disruption continues: after Amazon, Apple is now letting authors sell directly on their iBookstore.
Trouble at Tesla! VentureBeat have great posts on why the electric car maker's deal with Toyota ain't all it's cracked up to be, and an investigation of founder, CEO and main backer Elon Musk's finances.
Just sold your startup for a hunk o' cash and don't know what to do with your millions? Gmail and FriendFeed inventor Paul Buchheit has some tremendous advice on his blog.
Apple supplier Foxconn promises a 20% wage hike as a response to the "wave" of suicides at the company, even though in reality suicides don't seem to be high
Pretty much every big Silicon Valley company has gone to bat for YouTube in its case against Viacom.
Funny video of the day! Check out the trailer Adrien Brody's new horror film.
Read more: Business Insider
The iPad is launching internationally! Long lines everywhere, but apparently the Japanese are particularly crazy about the device.
Paywalls? They just don't work, it seems.
The Google-AdMob deal has officially closed. Google has a nice blog post explaining what they're going to do with their new shiny toy.
Speaking of Google and piles of cash, they're opening their very own trading floor to manage the ginormous $26.5 billion of cash and securities on their balance sheet. Wow.
The publishing industry disruption continues: after Amazon, Apple is now letting authors sell directly on their iBookstore.
Trouble at Tesla! VentureBeat have great posts on why the electric car maker's deal with Toyota ain't all it's cracked up to be, and an investigation of founder, CEO and main backer Elon Musk's finances.
Just sold your startup for a hunk o' cash and don't know what to do with your millions? Gmail and FriendFeed inventor Paul Buchheit has some tremendous advice on his blog.
Apple supplier Foxconn promises a 20% wage hike as a response to the "wave" of suicides at the company, even though in reality suicides don't seem to be high
Pretty much every big Silicon Valley company has gone to bat for YouTube in its case against Viacom.
Funny video of the day! Check out the trailer Adrien Brody's new horror film.
Read more: Business Insider
Thursday, May 27, 2010
John Winsor: A V&S Update: The Jon Bond Interview
Last week Jon Bond became an investor, advisor and strategic partner with Victors & Spoils. In the last few months, Jon and I spent a lot of time talking about the future of advertising, not only between ourselves but also with dozens of clients. Jon has a clear, expansive vision for the future. I’m excited to be working with him. Here’s a conversation we had over the past couple of weeks. Buckle your seat belt. The future is at the doorstep.
John Winsor: Lately, we’re seeing some big culture shifts taking place. Just this past week, I was struck hearing that YouTube celebrated its 5th anniversary and reached a milestone of more than two billion views a day. It’s clear, as a society, we’re moving from a world of scarcity to one of abundance. Do you think it’s still possible for the agency models built on an old cultural paradigm to help clients survive (and thrive) in this new world?
Jon Bond: Traditional agencies are threatened by abundance and see it as yet another tool to commoditize their already tenuous position in the marketing hierarchy. They see abundance as simply over-supply, tipping the balance of supply and demand toward commoditization. But change also produces opportunities. The new generation of creative people who rise to define the job of "curator" will thank the advent of abundance for making this new profession possible, and in fact necessary. Traditional shops cannot easily adjust to this new age because it would mean enduring a painful transition. Their legacy issues are their weakness.
I love ad people and the ideas part of the business. It's the “business” of the business that really sucks and brings down the rest of it. Sometimes you have to destroy something you love in order to rebuild it again, and that is what the new models, like Victors & Spoils, will do. There will be pain. But there is no alternative to the slow, painful death that has been eating away at the soul of the business for the past 15 years.
JW: In our careers, we’ve both seen clients go to the big agencies of say 500 people to gain access to the 25 folks who are really pushing the work forward. Clients want the best creative work without having to pay for bloated agency infrastructures, but the current paradigm is built on a full time employee (FTE) compensation model. This means access to the top 25 talent comes with a price tag that includes the cost of the other 475 people at the agency. How will increasing client demand for higher quality at a fair price impact the current size and scope of agencies?
JB: In the current model the top talent are underpaid and the bottom people are overpaid. That is true commoditization. FTEs are commoditizers because they reward hours versus results and talent, which isn't advertising - it's the post office! If we want to regain the top talent we've lost, we need to take a tip from Hollywood and make the rewards of stardom spectacular.
JW: You’ve been out talking a lot to some of the most interesting and progressive CMOs. What are they saying?
JB: CMOS are about efficiency. They want it better, cheaper and faster, and if you can't do one of the three, you are out. Unfortunately, the only recourse has been to get shops to cut price, which only serves to drive more talent out of the business, make us worth less to clients and incentivize them to pay us even less. We need to embrace tools – technology, new models, etc. – that enable us to deliver more for less in less time, without making people work harder for less money. The old must die to make way for the new. And, the only alternative is outright extinction.
JW: It seems the whole concept of aggregating place-based assets under a global holding company is being threatened by the radical shifts taking place in society. In your opinion, what’s in the future for holding companies? Will they exist? If so, what do you think they’ll look like?
JB: Holding Companies? What is their true purpose? Businesses cannot exist without a purpose that serves a customer. I believe holding companies are the traditional agencies of the corporate world. They are generic because they try to be everything to every client. The holding companies of the future will be more specialized and will be great at something. For example, maybe Google will own the “data driven” holding company and Facebook will control the “people driven” one. Each will have a diametrically opposed view of the world, and an epic battle of ideologies will ensue, which will not be won by either side because they define the essential ways in which people differ by nature. There will always be a large market for both.
JW: You’ve got a big vision for the industry and the future of advertising. What’s your next move?
JB: My goal is to reinvent the industry by bringing the power back to the practitioners the way Hollywood has done it with DreamWorks and stars owning points in their movies, or having their own production companies. The advertising business sucks, so what are we afraid of losing at this point? Change is our friend and the more dramatic the better.
JW: Thanks, Jon. I’m stoked to be working with you to fulfill this vision. This is going to be fun...John Winsor
John Winsor: Lately, we’re seeing some big culture shifts taking place. Just this past week, I was struck hearing that YouTube celebrated its 5th anniversary and reached a milestone of more than two billion views a day. It’s clear, as a society, we’re moving from a world of scarcity to one of abundance. Do you think it’s still possible for the agency models built on an old cultural paradigm to help clients survive (and thrive) in this new world?
Jon Bond: Traditional agencies are threatened by abundance and see it as yet another tool to commoditize their already tenuous position in the marketing hierarchy. They see abundance as simply over-supply, tipping the balance of supply and demand toward commoditization. But change also produces opportunities. The new generation of creative people who rise to define the job of "curator" will thank the advent of abundance for making this new profession possible, and in fact necessary. Traditional shops cannot easily adjust to this new age because it would mean enduring a painful transition. Their legacy issues are their weakness.
I love ad people and the ideas part of the business. It's the “business” of the business that really sucks and brings down the rest of it. Sometimes you have to destroy something you love in order to rebuild it again, and that is what the new models, like Victors & Spoils, will do. There will be pain. But there is no alternative to the slow, painful death that has been eating away at the soul of the business for the past 15 years.
JW: In our careers, we’ve both seen clients go to the big agencies of say 500 people to gain access to the 25 folks who are really pushing the work forward. Clients want the best creative work without having to pay for bloated agency infrastructures, but the current paradigm is built on a full time employee (FTE) compensation model. This means access to the top 25 talent comes with a price tag that includes the cost of the other 475 people at the agency. How will increasing client demand for higher quality at a fair price impact the current size and scope of agencies?
JB: In the current model the top talent are underpaid and the bottom people are overpaid. That is true commoditization. FTEs are commoditizers because they reward hours versus results and talent, which isn't advertising - it's the post office! If we want to regain the top talent we've lost, we need to take a tip from Hollywood and make the rewards of stardom spectacular.
JW: You’ve been out talking a lot to some of the most interesting and progressive CMOs. What are they saying?
JB: CMOS are about efficiency. They want it better, cheaper and faster, and if you can't do one of the three, you are out. Unfortunately, the only recourse has been to get shops to cut price, which only serves to drive more talent out of the business, make us worth less to clients and incentivize them to pay us even less. We need to embrace tools – technology, new models, etc. – that enable us to deliver more for less in less time, without making people work harder for less money. The old must die to make way for the new. And, the only alternative is outright extinction.
JW: It seems the whole concept of aggregating place-based assets under a global holding company is being threatened by the radical shifts taking place in society. In your opinion, what’s in the future for holding companies? Will they exist? If so, what do you think they’ll look like?
JB: Holding Companies? What is their true purpose? Businesses cannot exist without a purpose that serves a customer. I believe holding companies are the traditional agencies of the corporate world. They are generic because they try to be everything to every client. The holding companies of the future will be more specialized and will be great at something. For example, maybe Google will own the “data driven” holding company and Facebook will control the “people driven” one. Each will have a diametrically opposed view of the world, and an epic battle of ideologies will ensue, which will not be won by either side because they define the essential ways in which people differ by nature. There will always be a large market for both.
JW: You’ve got a big vision for the industry and the future of advertising. What’s your next move?
JB: My goal is to reinvent the industry by bringing the power back to the practitioners the way Hollywood has done it with DreamWorks and stars owning points in their movies, or having their own production companies. The advertising business sucks, so what are we afraid of losing at this point? Change is our friend and the more dramatic the better.
JW: Thanks, Jon. I’m stoked to be working with you to fulfill this vision. This is going to be fun...John Winsor
Monday, May 17, 2010
Lowe Roche - Digital: This May 27th at 5:00 pm, bring your portfolio to 260 Queen...
This May 27th at 5:00 pm, bring your portfolio to 260 Queen Street West, Suite 301, and tell us why you want to spend your summer as our intern, rather than playing outside.
RSVP to iwantajob@loweroche.com - please see: Lowe Roche - Digital
RSVP to iwantajob@loweroche.com - please see: Lowe Roche - Digital
SID LEE: New Exhibition at Sid Lee Amsterdam
From today on you can experience the work of Brazilian artist Antonio Bokel at Sid Lee Collective Amsterdam. We promise you will be surprised. There are pig heads, garden gnomes, bits of broken glass and more. Our doors are open from Mo-Fr from 1 till 6 pm.SID LEE
Capital C: Digital Digs Brought to you by Capital C
A digest of what's new and emerging in marketing, technology and strategy.
Kill Your Facebook Page Backlash Gains Speed
Whisperings of a Facebook mass exodus are getting louder. And with good reason: people will only be pushed so far when privacy is an issue. Will brands be ready to follow the crowd?
Do What They Do
Diaspora: The Student-Made, Privacy-Respecting Facebook Alternative
Even if brands side with the people choosing to leave Facebook, what if that crowd won’t let brands go where they’re going? If Diaspora helps the masses hide from brands and the masses choose to stay hidden, what then?
Uninvited
SCVNGR Puts the Game Back in Location-Based Gaming
Though still only playable in the US, a new location-based game promises to get to the top by making a check in more than just a check in.
Addictive Outings
SBS Officially Broadcasting Some World Cup Matches in 3D
No talk of 3D advertising yet, but maybe something to start thinking about as the first wave of 3D television (live, at that) is set to hit 3D capable homes in just a few short weeks.
Live in 3D
Rivals Are Invading Its Patch, But Nintendo is Ready to Go to War
Apple is the new kid on the block when it comes to handheld gaming, but Nintendo isn’t taking it lying down. Pumping all its research and marketing money into fighting off Apple’s entry into handheld gaming, Nintendo hopes to stay on top of what they do best, before Apple does what they do and do it better.
This is the Game, Boy...please read here: Capital C
Kill Your Facebook Page Backlash Gains Speed
Whisperings of a Facebook mass exodus are getting louder. And with good reason: people will only be pushed so far when privacy is an issue. Will brands be ready to follow the crowd?
Do What They Do
Diaspora: The Student-Made, Privacy-Respecting Facebook Alternative
Even if brands side with the people choosing to leave Facebook, what if that crowd won’t let brands go where they’re going? If Diaspora helps the masses hide from brands and the masses choose to stay hidden, what then?
Uninvited
SCVNGR Puts the Game Back in Location-Based Gaming
Though still only playable in the US, a new location-based game promises to get to the top by making a check in more than just a check in.
Addictive Outings
SBS Officially Broadcasting Some World Cup Matches in 3D
No talk of 3D advertising yet, but maybe something to start thinking about as the first wave of 3D television (live, at that) is set to hit 3D capable homes in just a few short weeks.
Live in 3D
Rivals Are Invading Its Patch, But Nintendo is Ready to Go to War
Apple is the new kid on the block when it comes to handheld gaming, but Nintendo isn’t taking it lying down. Pumping all its research and marketing money into fighting off Apple’s entry into handheld gaming, Nintendo hopes to stay on top of what they do best, before Apple does what they do and do it better.
This is the Game, Boy...please read here: Capital C
The Home of Peter Shankman - Shankman.com: Survey: 32% of people have posted then regretted
Every once in a long while, someone pitches me something that’s surprisingly right on target. Today was one. Jennifer Jacobson at Retrevo sent me an interesting pitch about a survey they conducted – Turns out, I’m right to keep my Blackberry at home when I go out and know I’ll be drinking. Results below. Be careful out there, peeps.
Full story is here.
Study Highlights:
- 32% of people surveyed say they’ve posted something online they regretted
- Of that 32%: 3% say it ruined their marriage or relationship with someone. 6% of them said it caused problems at work or home.
- Of that 32%: 13% were able to remove the offending post
- 59% of iPhone users have posted something online they regretted
- 54% of people under 25 years old have posted something online they regretted
- Only 27% of people over age 25 have posted something online they regretted
The Home of Peter Shankman - Shankman.com
Full story is here.
Study Highlights:
- 32% of people surveyed say they’ve posted something online they regretted
- Of that 32%: 3% say it ruined their marriage or relationship with someone. 6% of them said it caused problems at work or home.
- Of that 32%: 13% were able to remove the offending post
- 59% of iPhone users have posted something online they regretted
- 54% of people under 25 years old have posted something online they regretted
- Only 27% of people over age 25 have posted something online they regretted
The Home of Peter Shankman - Shankman.com
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Andy Beal's Marketing Pilgrim: Oracle’s Larry Ellison Weighs In On CEO Blogging
This week one of the richest and most influential men in business and the world, Larry Ellison, founder and CEO of Oracle Systems, gave his opinion on corporate blogging. Well, at least he gave his opinion on one attempt at corporate blogging and it strikes right at the core of some things that the social media and Internet marketing communities claim as near and dear to their heart.
Ellison attacked what many have held up as one of the prime examples of a company creating content through executive blogs and more. In fact, he didn’t just attack it; he crushed it. Please continue reading @ Andy Beal's Marketing Pilgrim
Ellison attacked what many have held up as one of the prime examples of a company creating content through executive blogs and more. In fact, he didn’t just attack it; he crushed it. Please continue reading @ Andy Beal's Marketing Pilgrim
PR2.0: I Tweet Therefore I Am
The fascination with Twitter has less to do with the number of users and everything to do with the ability to observe and study a notable online community of passionate short-form content creators and consumers. This is of course, not just any online community. Twitter is quickly becoming the lens into all that moves us as individuals and also as a global society.
Twitter’s simplicity is part of its brilliance. The ability to interpret, analyze and in turn, predict behavior, currently sets it apart from most other social networks. Twitter has become a human seismograph, measuring and broadcasting the pulse of not just the Web, but also world and local events. News no longer breaks, it Tweets. And if you’re plugged-in to the human seismograph, you are part of a movement, one that defines trends and distributes information before the rest of the reverberations are felt across the rest of the world. You become part of the new information system.
In many ways, Twitter’s openness creates a new genre of digital anthropologists, sociologists and ethnographers. Twitter users reveal the state of all things captivating attention and inspiring action, all in real-time. As new found social scientists, we learn everything. Most notably, we can pinpoint how Twitter, as well as Facebook, is transforming popular culture and the behavior that defines it.
In every stone that shapes the Twitter monolith is a bit of each one of us. We, as individuals, bring to it the very essence and sustenance that brings Twitter to life. We are its denizens. We are its ambassadors. We are the keepers of the Twitter commonwealth.
There is empowerment to Twitter that is unlike that of any other social network. Perhaps, that’s why it lends to a unique social egosystem, but similarly, there are stages of personal growth that unfold with every Tweet we publish, each response or RT we engender, and every follower we earn.
I Tweet, therefore I am.
For many who have yet to grasp Twitter’s promise, you’re not alone. Twitter, as a company, doesn’t necessarily make it easy to embrace nor fathom. Yes, Twitter recognizes that the incentives for new users to join Twitter as well as the initial experiences or lack thereof are now indicative of its position in the technology bell curve of adoption. As it moves toward mainstream awareness and adoption, the motivators for willfully adapting one’s lifestyle is unique to this stage of change evaluation and is not at all similar to those early adopters who initially propelled Twitter into the statusphere.
As detailed studies emerge that dissect Twitter’s migration from relevance to omnipresence, we gain the insight necessary to comprehend its effects on humanity.
One such study recently captured and articulated that State of Twitter in the U.S. Edison Research and Arbitron Internet recently surveyed 1,753 Americans age 12 and over to peel back the layers of fervor and hype to reveal the very people using Twitter and defining a new era of communication. Please continue reading @ PR2.0
Twitter’s simplicity is part of its brilliance. The ability to interpret, analyze and in turn, predict behavior, currently sets it apart from most other social networks. Twitter has become a human seismograph, measuring and broadcasting the pulse of not just the Web, but also world and local events. News no longer breaks, it Tweets. And if you’re plugged-in to the human seismograph, you are part of a movement, one that defines trends and distributes information before the rest of the reverberations are felt across the rest of the world. You become part of the new information system.
In many ways, Twitter’s openness creates a new genre of digital anthropologists, sociologists and ethnographers. Twitter users reveal the state of all things captivating attention and inspiring action, all in real-time. As new found social scientists, we learn everything. Most notably, we can pinpoint how Twitter, as well as Facebook, is transforming popular culture and the behavior that defines it.
In every stone that shapes the Twitter monolith is a bit of each one of us. We, as individuals, bring to it the very essence and sustenance that brings Twitter to life. We are its denizens. We are its ambassadors. We are the keepers of the Twitter commonwealth.
There is empowerment to Twitter that is unlike that of any other social network. Perhaps, that’s why it lends to a unique social egosystem, but similarly, there are stages of personal growth that unfold with every Tweet we publish, each response or RT we engender, and every follower we earn.
I Tweet, therefore I am.
For many who have yet to grasp Twitter’s promise, you’re not alone. Twitter, as a company, doesn’t necessarily make it easy to embrace nor fathom. Yes, Twitter recognizes that the incentives for new users to join Twitter as well as the initial experiences or lack thereof are now indicative of its position in the technology bell curve of adoption. As it moves toward mainstream awareness and adoption, the motivators for willfully adapting one’s lifestyle is unique to this stage of change evaluation and is not at all similar to those early adopters who initially propelled Twitter into the statusphere.
As detailed studies emerge that dissect Twitter’s migration from relevance to omnipresence, we gain the insight necessary to comprehend its effects on humanity.
One such study recently captured and articulated that State of Twitter in the U.S. Edison Research and Arbitron Internet recently surveyed 1,753 Americans age 12 and over to peel back the layers of fervor and hype to reveal the very people using Twitter and defining a new era of communication. Please continue reading @ PR2.0
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Brand Mix: Six of the Best: Lies, Jobs, Strikes and Football all-video edition
Gosh. Ages since I did a "Six of the Best." No particular reason. An all-video edition this week: please view videos @ Brand Mix
Friday, May 14, 2010
Deirdre Breakenridge: My PR Advice to the Class of 2010
I thought one of the most important questions during the Wednesday night #PRStudchat Celebration of the Class of 2010 was, “What is your advice to the Class of 2010.” The response was overwhelming and advice was offered that touched on everything from how to network and excel in your career to PR accountability and ethics.
There were three special Graduation Speakers who took part in the celebration and I want to not only thank them personally for their participation, but also highlight their great advice.
First, @laermer, @PRsarahevans and @BrianSolis, thank you for your contribution to our #PRstudchat graduation. Your words of wisdom were deeply appreciated by our community.
Here’s what our Graduation Speakers had to say:
@laermer:
Believe in your own abilities. A lot of people think somehow others will ‘notice them’ but you have to show em. #prstudchat
Q3 Take a break from work every day. Even if you don’t think you need it. (Like a cleaning at the dentist==yearly.)
@PRSarahEvans:
The best advice I received as a new pro, “work like you’re not afraid to be fired.” I’ve kept it w/ me .. #prstudchat
You are not lesser than anyone in an organization because of experience. You bring valuable skills, creativity and promise! #prstudchat
@BrianSolis:
The distance between who I am & who I want to be is separated only by my actions & words http://bit.ly/a3tMKn #PRStudchat
I, too, offered advice to the students and it was short and sweet, although I have a lot more to say. My tweet said:
“Listen, learn and practice, then give back to the community!”
This little piece of advice is what I’ve done throughout my entire career (even as student and then as an intern). Let’s start with “Listen.” My very first mentor talked to me about listening. He said, “If you listen long and hard you will do very well in this business.” Of course, we talk a lot about listening today in the social sphere and it’s tremendous importance. But, when I say listen, I mean to all types of conversations, everywhere and in every situation. I started to hone my listening skills early on by writing everything down in company meetings, during phone conversations and when interacting with clients (I had a yellow pad and/or a notebook practically attached to me).
I found out quickly that listening takes time and requires great skills. It’s true that we only retain a small percentage of what we hear. I believe that sometimes when we think we’re listening, we’re really thinking about the next thing that we want to say or contribute to the discussion. Once that happens, we automatically stop listening. Hold that thought, wait and listen some more. It’s only when you are really listening that you can offer advice. You must have a complete picture in your mind and it has to match what’s being said, with all the pieces to analyze, in order to solve a challenge. If we only listen partially and then act too quickly, our solutions may end up purely reactive and temporary. Sometimes listening means sitting back and connecting the dots.
Listening also means “hearing” when no one else is paying attention. There were times, in the past, when I would be in a meeting and an executive would go on and on about a topic. Other employees would joke, “How many times are we going to hear this?” I figured out that if I could find the meaning in the repetition, while others were complaining (doodling or planning their shopping lists), then I would pick up some valuable knowledge about that executive or the message that he/she was really trying to get across to the team, even if it appeared repetitive. Note: The executive suite is looking for real listeners, who can interpret and solve their issues.
The “Learn” part of my advice for the Class of 2010 is what I call “the climb.” If I can offer any advice here, it’s don’t neglect that climb. There’s a reason why your supervisor wants you learn the ins and outs of day-to-day PR life or the nitty, gritty details of a new office software program (even if it appears to be mundane or busy work) or why that same supervisor sends you whitepapers and countless documents for you to review. Soak it all up and learn as much as you can. There’s also genuine logic as to why junior people start with research and monitoring (this used to be compiling the clip books) and helping with news releases and media alerts to hone their writing skills (of course, not the fluffy releases, but the really good stories). Your higher ups are not trying to punish you (whether it’s a manager or an executive), when they want you to know everything about PR. It’s the climb that teaches you and prepares you for everything that you’re about to experience.
I’ve always believed that you have to experience and master something yourself before you can teach someone else. When I put the pieces together about my own climb, there was a reason I enthusiastically set up our small NYC office every morning, before the executives arrived. I’m thankful that my office manager showed me what to do because I knew exactly what to do when it came time to run my own office, and when I had to show someone else. So many want to race past the climb to advance to a higher level, to take part in the strategy and present at the big client pitch. Whether it’s climbing the corporate ladder or moving up in rank at your agency, I still believe that it’s critical to learn all the steps in between and experience what you are going to be managing and/or supervising in the years to come.
The “Practice” part of my advice will never stop in your career. As PR is constantly changing, you always have to roll up your sleeves to be a part of the team to embrace a client’s challenges (getting involved in an account way beyond just the strategy and planning). The opportunity to practice every moving part should never leave you. Although you will grow in your career, with new approaches and the blending of PR, social media, marketing and Web, you may find yourself in the “trenches” with the team more often. This enables you to move to the next part of my advice, which is the “give back the most updated information to your community”. If you don’t continually experience all of the changes (especially the technology), and how they affect your client’s as well as your own brands, then how do you know what really needs to be set in place to be successful in today’s marketplace. By continuing to practice the very latest techniques (and I do mean by doing it yourself and working closely with your team) you will stay on top of your game and always be a valued asset in your organization.
Lastly, my advice focuses on giving back to the community. As you reach new PR heights, reflect on all of those special professionals who have helped you and in the spirit of community, and for all that you’ve received, take the very same approach. As you get, always give back, and the cycle will continue with someone else.
I wish all of the graduates the best of luck in their PR endeavors! Do you have any more advice for the Class of 2010? Deirdre Breakenridge
There were three special Graduation Speakers who took part in the celebration and I want to not only thank them personally for their participation, but also highlight their great advice.
First, @laermer, @PRsarahevans and @BrianSolis, thank you for your contribution to our #PRstudchat graduation. Your words of wisdom were deeply appreciated by our community.
Here’s what our Graduation Speakers had to say:
@laermer:
Believe in your own abilities. A lot of people think somehow others will ‘notice them’ but you have to show em. #prstudchat
Q3 Take a break from work every day. Even if you don’t think you need it. (Like a cleaning at the dentist==yearly.)
@PRSarahEvans:
The best advice I received as a new pro, “work like you’re not afraid to be fired.” I’ve kept it w/ me .. #prstudchat
You are not lesser than anyone in an organization because of experience. You bring valuable skills, creativity and promise! #prstudchat
@BrianSolis:
The distance between who I am & who I want to be is separated only by my actions & words http://bit.ly/a3tMKn #PRStudchat
I, too, offered advice to the students and it was short and sweet, although I have a lot more to say. My tweet said:
“Listen, learn and practice, then give back to the community!”
This little piece of advice is what I’ve done throughout my entire career (even as student and then as an intern). Let’s start with “Listen.” My very first mentor talked to me about listening. He said, “If you listen long and hard you will do very well in this business.” Of course, we talk a lot about listening today in the social sphere and it’s tremendous importance. But, when I say listen, I mean to all types of conversations, everywhere and in every situation. I started to hone my listening skills early on by writing everything down in company meetings, during phone conversations and when interacting with clients (I had a yellow pad and/or a notebook practically attached to me).
I found out quickly that listening takes time and requires great skills. It’s true that we only retain a small percentage of what we hear. I believe that sometimes when we think we’re listening, we’re really thinking about the next thing that we want to say or contribute to the discussion. Once that happens, we automatically stop listening. Hold that thought, wait and listen some more. It’s only when you are really listening that you can offer advice. You must have a complete picture in your mind and it has to match what’s being said, with all the pieces to analyze, in order to solve a challenge. If we only listen partially and then act too quickly, our solutions may end up purely reactive and temporary. Sometimes listening means sitting back and connecting the dots.
Listening also means “hearing” when no one else is paying attention. There were times, in the past, when I would be in a meeting and an executive would go on and on about a topic. Other employees would joke, “How many times are we going to hear this?” I figured out that if I could find the meaning in the repetition, while others were complaining (doodling or planning their shopping lists), then I would pick up some valuable knowledge about that executive or the message that he/she was really trying to get across to the team, even if it appeared repetitive. Note: The executive suite is looking for real listeners, who can interpret and solve their issues.
The “Learn” part of my advice for the Class of 2010 is what I call “the climb.” If I can offer any advice here, it’s don’t neglect that climb. There’s a reason why your supervisor wants you learn the ins and outs of day-to-day PR life or the nitty, gritty details of a new office software program (even if it appears to be mundane or busy work) or why that same supervisor sends you whitepapers and countless documents for you to review. Soak it all up and learn as much as you can. There’s also genuine logic as to why junior people start with research and monitoring (this used to be compiling the clip books) and helping with news releases and media alerts to hone their writing skills (of course, not the fluffy releases, but the really good stories). Your higher ups are not trying to punish you (whether it’s a manager or an executive), when they want you to know everything about PR. It’s the climb that teaches you and prepares you for everything that you’re about to experience.
I’ve always believed that you have to experience and master something yourself before you can teach someone else. When I put the pieces together about my own climb, there was a reason I enthusiastically set up our small NYC office every morning, before the executives arrived. I’m thankful that my office manager showed me what to do because I knew exactly what to do when it came time to run my own office, and when I had to show someone else. So many want to race past the climb to advance to a higher level, to take part in the strategy and present at the big client pitch. Whether it’s climbing the corporate ladder or moving up in rank at your agency, I still believe that it’s critical to learn all the steps in between and experience what you are going to be managing and/or supervising in the years to come.
The “Practice” part of my advice will never stop in your career. As PR is constantly changing, you always have to roll up your sleeves to be a part of the team to embrace a client’s challenges (getting involved in an account way beyond just the strategy and planning). The opportunity to practice every moving part should never leave you. Although you will grow in your career, with new approaches and the blending of PR, social media, marketing and Web, you may find yourself in the “trenches” with the team more often. This enables you to move to the next part of my advice, which is the “give back the most updated information to your community”. If you don’t continually experience all of the changes (especially the technology), and how they affect your client’s as well as your own brands, then how do you know what really needs to be set in place to be successful in today’s marketplace. By continuing to practice the very latest techniques (and I do mean by doing it yourself and working closely with your team) you will stay on top of your game and always be a valued asset in your organization.
Lastly, my advice focuses on giving back to the community. As you reach new PR heights, reflect on all of those special professionals who have helped you and in the spirit of community, and for all that you’ve received, take the very same approach. As you get, always give back, and the cycle will continue with someone else.
I wish all of the graduates the best of luck in their PR endeavors! Do you have any more advice for the Class of 2010? Deirdre Breakenridge
Umair Haque: Why Betterness Is Good Business
Lately, there's been a raging debate in the comments here. One camp's refrain: who is this snot-nosed idealist? Why is he telling us to do betterness instead of business, pursue awesomeness instead of innovation — and maximize good, instead of quarterly profits? What kind of expertise is that? We've got the hardest of noses — so where's the real-world evidence?
Here's the score: Striving to do more good is associated with greater profitability, equity and asset returns, and shareholder value creation. But that's still not good enough. Today, the bar is being raised: success is itself changing. Those are yesterday's metrics of success — more importantly, maximizing good lets companies outperform on tomorrow's measures of success. Increasingly, investors are using ethical/social investment criteria like the KLD score, corporate governance ratings, and other metrics we'll examine below. More and more, investors aren't just looking for near-terms financial returns: they're looking for financial returns *plus.* Why? Because the *plus* makes returns less risky, more defensible, and, the biggie, more meaningful. As the expectations of people, communities, society, and investors change, the definition of outperformance itself is changing.
Every year, the Ethisphere Institute identifies its most ethical companies and then tests their performance. In 2008, ethical leaders outperformed the growth of the S&P 500 by 40%. In 2009, again. In 2010, by 35%. Its drivers? CSR Magazine found a shareholder value performance gap of about 10% between, for example, the most and least transparent companies. No, neither are iron-clad tests. But they begin to hint at a relationship — one that, these days, most CEOs would give their eyeteeth for.
Here's a more powerful result. The mean Market Value Added of the top 100 Corporate Citizens is $36 billion, more than four times the Mean Market Value Added of the remaining companies — which is less than $8 billion, finds Curtis Verschoor of the SRI. In term's of Businessweek's ranking of Total Financial Performance — a composite of eight criteria, like sales growth, profit growth, and return on equity — the top 100 Corporate Citizens outperform by 10.4 percentiles. Both these relationships are statistically significant.
At Berkeley's Haas School of Business, Margarita Tsoutoura came up with even more interesting results: she found that companies who rated highly on the KLD rating score — socially responsible companies — had significantly higher profit margins, returns on equity, and returns on assets. Here's another pioneering study I like — one which, yet again, concludes responsibility fuels advantage, because it's risk management: better insurance against adverse future events. Those were a small studies; here's a huge one. Marc Orlitzky, Frank L. Schmidt, and Sara L. Rynes found that responsibility was significantly positively correlated with financial performance: "corporate virtue," in their words, "is likely to pay off." Their work was a meta-analysis of 52 studies, with over 33,878 total observations. Whew: that's a whole lotta outperformance.
In People and Profits?, a landmark book reviewing decades of research, Joshua Margolis and Jim Walsh found that "when treated as an independent variable, corporate social performance is found to have a positive relationship to financial performance in 42 studies (53%), no relationship in 19 studies (24%, a negative relationship in 4 studies (5%), and a mixed relationship in 15 studies (19%)". They say, pithily: "the findings might be encouraging for advocates of corporate social performance and problematic in the eyes of opponents and critics." In a recent interview, Margolis says: "there have been 80 academic studies in the last 30 years attempting to document the relationship between social enterprise activities and corporate financial performance. The majority of results (53%) point to a positive relationship, and only 5% of studies indicate a negative impact on the bottom line."
No wonder, then, that the alarm clock's going off for investors. At least 538 institutional investors use social criteria when making decisions that used to be purely financial. Social investors manage assets of $2.71 trillion, already more than 10% of the $25 trillion of the economy's total assets under management. And that's not a groundswell. It's an explosion: fifteen years ago, the number was just $640 billion.
The tectonic shift to social investing going mainstream is going to amplify the effects above as it gathers strength. It will ensure that every marginal bit of good creates even more shareholder value — and every marginal bit of bad destroys even more. It's nothing less than the retuning of the global economic engine itself.
Yet, the next thing Margolis says is "we caution against drawing hasty conclusions." Why? Well, "responsibility" can be, as Michael Porter argues, a vague, often meaningless concept — and so discovering "how" it fuels outperformance is complex. The studies above have methodological limitations. Here's a paper, for example, that argues that not investing in alcohol, tobacco, and nuclear power brings socially responsible investment returns down to market averages — hinting at that complexity. Here's a killer paper from Michael Toffel about whether responsibility ratings actually do measure social responsibility in the first place. It's not as simple, then, as fashion: merely signing up to the latest supplier standards, buying into the newest set of audits, and being included in the latest list of ethical companies.
That's why I took a different tack in my forthcoming book: considering not just whether companies are "responsible" in the sterile, often easily gamed terms above, but whether they're maximizing good: creating authentic economic value. My starting point wasn't just "social" outperformance — but, more deeply, antisocial underperformance: the, well, market itself. Business as usual is intellectually, ethically, and morally bankrupt. Surprise: it's also economically bankrupt. The S&P 500 created no value over the noughties Not a penny. If we factored in negative externalities, like, for example, the costs of the banking bailout? Trillions in value would have been destroyed. Over the last decade, business as usual is net negative in terms of creating authentic economic value.
In the starkest of contrasts, what I call Constructive Capitalists — a set of companies who meet a Mount Everest-level bar for good, not just "social responsibility" — have outperformed by hundreds of percent. While business as usual has been busy going economically bankrupt, in the middle of the most turbulent, volatile, and downright nasty decade in recent history, companies who are doing the stuff we discuss on this blog have thrived, disrupted, and prospered.
The future of advantage is never seen with perfect clarity. Yet, its shape is more and more visible. Economics ain't physics. The debate's not 100% resolved and perhaps it never will be. Yes, there is much work to be done untangling relationships, directionality, and causality. Here's the kicker. By the time the evidence is totally, irrefutably, conclusive? Well, by then, the great shift will, by definition, be over. Too late: you'll probably be one of the fatalities being studied by researchers. A Constructive Capitalist with a betterness model, pursuing awesomeness, doing radical good, who had your creaking industrial-era empire squarely in his or her crosshairs, will likely have already have dug your grave.
The evidence already strongly suggests that good is better. It's crucial to understand the nuance in that statement. Not just because it leads to better profits, equity returns, asset returns, and shareholder value, though it does. Today, those are just table stakes, an industrial-era definition of success that's increasingly out of date. Good is better also because companies are being judged against a whole new set of criteria, by customers, governments, communities, and investors. They're already asking, "So you made a profit — yawn — but did you actually have an impact?"
Good, the evidence suggests, is the very opposite of Utopian idealism. The real utopia? That was the one economists, bankers, and titans of industry promised: in a world of perfect markets and infinite leverage, companies who blindly maximized profit would lead everyone, ineluctably, to unstoppable prosperity. It didn't work out that way. Just ask Wall Street, Big Food, Big Media, Detroit, Greece, Spain, Dubai, or anyone from the American homeowner to the Chinese migrant worker. Today's real idealism is this: pretending that business as usual is good enough for companies, countries, the world, or the future. It isn't.
It's time to get real: good is as sharp as a razor, as hard as a hammer blow. That's what decades of research suggest. That's why companies as different as Google, Wal-Mart, Pepsi, Lego, Starbucks, Nestle, Apple, Patagonia, Timberland, GE, Tata, are all, in their own ways, taking steps small and large towards it — and why customers, governments, and investors are joining hands with them on the way. Welcome to 21st century business. It's a movement to do meaningful stuff that matters the most — and if you're not part of it, well, the hard-nosed chance is: you're kissing your future goodbye.
I don't advise you to do this stuff because I'm a communist. It's because I want you to outperform — today and tomorrow. And I know you can. Umair Haque
Here's the score: Striving to do more good is associated with greater profitability, equity and asset returns, and shareholder value creation. But that's still not good enough. Today, the bar is being raised: success is itself changing. Those are yesterday's metrics of success — more importantly, maximizing good lets companies outperform on tomorrow's measures of success. Increasingly, investors are using ethical/social investment criteria like the KLD score, corporate governance ratings, and other metrics we'll examine below. More and more, investors aren't just looking for near-terms financial returns: they're looking for financial returns *plus.* Why? Because the *plus* makes returns less risky, more defensible, and, the biggie, more meaningful. As the expectations of people, communities, society, and investors change, the definition of outperformance itself is changing.
Every year, the Ethisphere Institute identifies its most ethical companies and then tests their performance. In 2008, ethical leaders outperformed the growth of the S&P 500 by 40%. In 2009, again. In 2010, by 35%. Its drivers? CSR Magazine found a shareholder value performance gap of about 10% between, for example, the most and least transparent companies. No, neither are iron-clad tests. But they begin to hint at a relationship — one that, these days, most CEOs would give their eyeteeth for.
Here's a more powerful result. The mean Market Value Added of the top 100 Corporate Citizens is $36 billion, more than four times the Mean Market Value Added of the remaining companies — which is less than $8 billion, finds Curtis Verschoor of the SRI. In term's of Businessweek's ranking of Total Financial Performance — a composite of eight criteria, like sales growth, profit growth, and return on equity — the top 100 Corporate Citizens outperform by 10.4 percentiles. Both these relationships are statistically significant.
At Berkeley's Haas School of Business, Margarita Tsoutoura came up with even more interesting results: she found that companies who rated highly on the KLD rating score — socially responsible companies — had significantly higher profit margins, returns on equity, and returns on assets. Here's another pioneering study I like — one which, yet again, concludes responsibility fuels advantage, because it's risk management: better insurance against adverse future events. Those were a small studies; here's a huge one. Marc Orlitzky, Frank L. Schmidt, and Sara L. Rynes found that responsibility was significantly positively correlated with financial performance: "corporate virtue," in their words, "is likely to pay off." Their work was a meta-analysis of 52 studies, with over 33,878 total observations. Whew: that's a whole lotta outperformance.
In People and Profits?, a landmark book reviewing decades of research, Joshua Margolis and Jim Walsh found that "when treated as an independent variable, corporate social performance is found to have a positive relationship to financial performance in 42 studies (53%), no relationship in 19 studies (24%, a negative relationship in 4 studies (5%), and a mixed relationship in 15 studies (19%)". They say, pithily: "the findings might be encouraging for advocates of corporate social performance and problematic in the eyes of opponents and critics." In a recent interview, Margolis says: "there have been 80 academic studies in the last 30 years attempting to document the relationship between social enterprise activities and corporate financial performance. The majority of results (53%) point to a positive relationship, and only 5% of studies indicate a negative impact on the bottom line."
No wonder, then, that the alarm clock's going off for investors. At least 538 institutional investors use social criteria when making decisions that used to be purely financial. Social investors manage assets of $2.71 trillion, already more than 10% of the $25 trillion of the economy's total assets under management. And that's not a groundswell. It's an explosion: fifteen years ago, the number was just $640 billion.
The tectonic shift to social investing going mainstream is going to amplify the effects above as it gathers strength. It will ensure that every marginal bit of good creates even more shareholder value — and every marginal bit of bad destroys even more. It's nothing less than the retuning of the global economic engine itself.
Yet, the next thing Margolis says is "we caution against drawing hasty conclusions." Why? Well, "responsibility" can be, as Michael Porter argues, a vague, often meaningless concept — and so discovering "how" it fuels outperformance is complex. The studies above have methodological limitations. Here's a paper, for example, that argues that not investing in alcohol, tobacco, and nuclear power brings socially responsible investment returns down to market averages — hinting at that complexity. Here's a killer paper from Michael Toffel about whether responsibility ratings actually do measure social responsibility in the first place. It's not as simple, then, as fashion: merely signing up to the latest supplier standards, buying into the newest set of audits, and being included in the latest list of ethical companies.
That's why I took a different tack in my forthcoming book: considering not just whether companies are "responsible" in the sterile, often easily gamed terms above, but whether they're maximizing good: creating authentic economic value. My starting point wasn't just "social" outperformance — but, more deeply, antisocial underperformance: the, well, market itself. Business as usual is intellectually, ethically, and morally bankrupt. Surprise: it's also economically bankrupt. The S&P 500 created no value over the noughties Not a penny. If we factored in negative externalities, like, for example, the costs of the banking bailout? Trillions in value would have been destroyed. Over the last decade, business as usual is net negative in terms of creating authentic economic value.
In the starkest of contrasts, what I call Constructive Capitalists — a set of companies who meet a Mount Everest-level bar for good, not just "social responsibility" — have outperformed by hundreds of percent. While business as usual has been busy going economically bankrupt, in the middle of the most turbulent, volatile, and downright nasty decade in recent history, companies who are doing the stuff we discuss on this blog have thrived, disrupted, and prospered.
The future of advantage is never seen with perfect clarity. Yet, its shape is more and more visible. Economics ain't physics. The debate's not 100% resolved and perhaps it never will be. Yes, there is much work to be done untangling relationships, directionality, and causality. Here's the kicker. By the time the evidence is totally, irrefutably, conclusive? Well, by then, the great shift will, by definition, be over. Too late: you'll probably be one of the fatalities being studied by researchers. A Constructive Capitalist with a betterness model, pursuing awesomeness, doing radical good, who had your creaking industrial-era empire squarely in his or her crosshairs, will likely have already have dug your grave.
The evidence already strongly suggests that good is better. It's crucial to understand the nuance in that statement. Not just because it leads to better profits, equity returns, asset returns, and shareholder value, though it does. Today, those are just table stakes, an industrial-era definition of success that's increasingly out of date. Good is better also because companies are being judged against a whole new set of criteria, by customers, governments, communities, and investors. They're already asking, "So you made a profit — yawn — but did you actually have an impact?"
Good, the evidence suggests, is the very opposite of Utopian idealism. The real utopia? That was the one economists, bankers, and titans of industry promised: in a world of perfect markets and infinite leverage, companies who blindly maximized profit would lead everyone, ineluctably, to unstoppable prosperity. It didn't work out that way. Just ask Wall Street, Big Food, Big Media, Detroit, Greece, Spain, Dubai, or anyone from the American homeowner to the Chinese migrant worker. Today's real idealism is this: pretending that business as usual is good enough for companies, countries, the world, or the future. It isn't.
It's time to get real: good is as sharp as a razor, as hard as a hammer blow. That's what decades of research suggest. That's why companies as different as Google, Wal-Mart, Pepsi, Lego, Starbucks, Nestle, Apple, Patagonia, Timberland, GE, Tata, are all, in their own ways, taking steps small and large towards it — and why customers, governments, and investors are joining hands with them on the way. Welcome to 21st century business. It's a movement to do meaningful stuff that matters the most — and if you're not part of it, well, the hard-nosed chance is: you're kissing your future goodbye.
I don't advise you to do this stuff because I'm a communist. It's because I want you to outperform — today and tomorrow. And I know you can. Umair Haque
JWT AnxietyIndex: Acura rationalizes luxury with ‘Excuses’ campaign
We’ve noted how drastically the luxury category changed with the recession. Ostentation is out, practicality is in. And while recent research from Harrison Group found that affluent consumers are less likely to feel guilty about buying luxury goods today than they did a year ago, that doesn’t mean a return to the days of freewheeling spending.
Luxury automaker Acura does an excellent job tapping into today’s practicality ethos with a campaign promoting its spring sales event, dubbed “Driven by Reason.” Six spots feature affluent shoppers making bogus justifications for eccentric luxury purchases. In one spot, a man confidently describes the virtues of his Damascus steel watch—which features a “perpetual calendar with leap year” and over 680 handmade moving parts—and in another ad, the proud owner of a tube amp owner throws around phrases such as “crossover croaxial” but shruggingly admits he doesn’t know much about how it works.
These characters may be wealthy, but they are fools. A voiceover at the end of each spot explains, “There are excuses for spending money on luxury, and then there are reasons,” giving the target consumer permission to find sound justification for buying a new Acura. The spots are funny and should resonate with affluent shoppers, who are increasingly rethinking their frugal habits post-recession. Please click here to view video: JWT AnxietyIndex: Brand Answers for an Anxious World
Luxury automaker Acura does an excellent job tapping into today’s practicality ethos with a campaign promoting its spring sales event, dubbed “Driven by Reason.” Six spots feature affluent shoppers making bogus justifications for eccentric luxury purchases. In one spot, a man confidently describes the virtues of his Damascus steel watch—which features a “perpetual calendar with leap year” and over 680 handmade moving parts—and in another ad, the proud owner of a tube amp owner throws around phrases such as “crossover croaxial” but shruggingly admits he doesn’t know much about how it works.
These characters may be wealthy, but they are fools. A voiceover at the end of each spot explains, “There are excuses for spending money on luxury, and then there are reasons,” giving the target consumer permission to find sound justification for buying a new Acura. The spots are funny and should resonate with affluent shoppers, who are increasingly rethinking their frugal habits post-recession. Please click here to view video: JWT AnxietyIndex: Brand Answers for an Anxious World
Collective Conversation Feed : Agency Frustration
Let’s be honest, most consultants have felt it at one time or another . . . the frustration of having your counsel questioned in a way that evidences a lack of respect for your experience and expertise.
It seldom happens with lawyers, accountants, physicians and probably management consultants with McKinsey and Company; but often with communications consultants, web designers, advertising copywriters and creative directors.
So, thanks to Dave Fleet for pointing to a little lighthearted push back (especially the penultimate sentence) at Agency Smackdown.
Collective Conversation Feed by boyd.neil@hillandknowlton.com (Boyd Neil)
Lowe Roche - Digital: Adobe®: We Love Choice
The $600 Flash authoring tool is the only way to produce Flash applications.
The free Mac OS X Developer tools (that require an $800+ Mac computer) are the only way to produce iPhone and iPad applications.
Both systems are as closed as each other.
Adobe claims Flash is open.
Apple makes no such claims. If you want to make iPhone or iPad apps you use Mac OS and Xcode, take it or leave it.
If you choose to leave it the alternative is HTML. A truly open platform for which authoring is as simple as editing text. There’s many HTML rendering engine implementations, the best few are totally open source with Apple being the major contributor to the best one, WebKit.
Adobe: not open, claim to be.
Apple: not open, don’t claim to be, contribute heavily to that which is truly open.
We like it when someone points out the facts. Lowe Roche - Digital
The free Mac OS X Developer tools (that require an $800+ Mac computer) are the only way to produce iPhone and iPad applications.
Both systems are as closed as each other.
Adobe claims Flash is open.
Apple makes no such claims. If you want to make iPhone or iPad apps you use Mac OS and Xcode, take it or leave it.
If you choose to leave it the alternative is HTML. A truly open platform for which authoring is as simple as editing text. There’s many HTML rendering engine implementations, the best few are totally open source with Apple being the major contributor to the best one, WebKit.
Adobe: not open, claim to be.
Apple: not open, don’t claim to be, contribute heavily to that which is truly open.
We like it when someone points out the facts. Lowe Roche - Digital
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
