This post is part of an ongoing series of primers (e.g., short posts, long articles, etc.) behind my Big Things F@$t™  methodology: a practical guide for aspiring leaders looking to deliver Incremental Value @ $peed™.

I enjoy a good water analogy.

From James Clear, “When rain falls, it flows downhill. If desired, you can collect the rain in a bucket and carry it uphill, but the natural tendency of water is to flow toward the lowest point. Most situations in life have a tendency—a direction in which things want to flow. You can choose to go against the flow (just as you can choose to carry water uphill), but your results tend to be better when you find a way to work with the gradient of the situation. Position yourself to benefit from the external forces at hand and you will get more from the same unit of effort. Energy is conserved and results are multiplied."

Reminds me of my favorite water analogy, “water is always appropriately engaged with its environment no matter the environment. Water never over or under reacts to anything. Simultaneously fluid and powerful.” 

I posit that these water analogies elegantly illustrate equanimity in the face of change. Especially the last one: water never over or under reacts to anything…it just flows, working its way through and/or around resistance as applicable. That mindset is critical if, like me, you have chosen to be, or are naturally drawn to be, an agent of change. 

It is well documented that all change will experience some form of resistance; the greater the change, the greater the resistance. This is especially true in large corporate enterprises; be it in the form of corporate inertia, innovation theater, or good ‘ole bureaucracy: change yields resistance.

Over time, change agents if not careful will get weary of this constant resistance. The way to manage through the mental and physical toil that change management professionals -- or any agents of change --  face is to better manage the inertia. Or as James puts it, “work with the gradient of the situation”...to maximize the return on effort and your energy. I agree. 

As someone who has a natural inclination to challenge orthodoxy, to experiment, and to drive change, I’ve drowned many times going upstream, or “fighting” inertia directly so to speak: I have expended energy disproportionately to the desired outcome. 

Over time I have learned that a more effective management of inertia necessitates three elements:

1. a steadfast internal drive that the logic behind, and the desired outcome for, the change is reasonable enough to act “now”, i.e., a strong bias for action;
2. a deliberately nurtured coalition of the willing; and
3. because “change happens at the level of the individual” (Scilla Ellworthy), a capability building / talent development element.

The unifying theme across the three elements, however, is a commitment to change course as the situation dictates; this commitment requires nuance, practice, and the disciplined application (and re-application) of critical thinking tools.

In sum, water displays Stoic-like equanimity in the face of resistance, and works with the gradient of the situation to conserve energy and make progress. Are you (do you want to be) a change agent? Be like water.

"Try to imagine a life without timekeeping. You probably can’t. You know the month, the year, the day of the week. There is a clock on your wall or the dashboard of your car. You have a schedule, a calendar, a time for dinner or a movie. Yet all around you, timekeeping is ignored. Birds are not late. A dog does not check its watch. Deer do not fret over passing birthdays. [Humans] alone measure time. [Humans] alone chime the hour. And, because of this, [humans] alone suffer a paralyzing fear that no other creature endures. A fear of time running out." (edited, source: James Clear)

Said simply, "Time is undefeated." (Rocky Balboa)

Upon reflecting on a little over a year of driving transformational change across a multitude of teams--tackling diverse growth challenges--around the world, a few insights consistently cut through: 

"Change is inevitable, growth is optional." (John Maxwell). The unlearning process is considerably more difficult than we imagine and yet is the single largest contributor to unlocking new behaviors and habits, which will inevitably lead to new (perhaps even better) outcomes. 

“Unfinished projects can’t compound.” (James Clear) We will unconsciously--and stubbornly--fill time with activities unrelated to the problem or opportunity at hand. This usually leads to unfinished projects that drag on with no end in sight; or worse, the tracking of said project becomes the job in and of itself. We then lose sight of why we started this work in the first place. To resolve, firm and aggressive time boxing is the key.

It's priority, not priorities. We unwittingly believe that by focusing on one thing we are ignoring, or somehow insulting?, the other things. As a result, we sub-optimize our time and output despite the multitude of research that shows the benefit of mono-tasking. 

Diagnose slowly so that you can execute efficiently. I have a tremendous bias for action and will get visibility frustrated when I observe teams getting bogged down in irrelevant details and/or bureaucracy. That said, I have learned the critical importance of precisely and deliberately diagnosing the problem while concurrently helping teams through the psychology of change. This is as much art as it is science as the default of most teams is analysis paralysis. I’ve found that breaking down the problem as small as possible (but not too small--focus on span of control and the ability to make impact within the agreed time box) provides teams the “scaffolding” (that will lead them to their desired outcome) and the autonomy to execute quickly. Red Team Thinking’s application of the Cynefin Framework is a useful tool. 

Growth requires skeptics and idealists. Anton Ego said it best, “In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and [themselves] to our judgment. ... But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new.” Change by its very nature introduces resistance; for some, this resistance is driven by a deep loss of control and/or a deep loss of identity, especially when the change program directly impacts their role. You need idealists and optimists--with their boundless energy--to help pull the team up the adoption curve while concurrently leveraging the superpowers of the skeptics to co-create a transformative fact-based solution. I have found, however, that there is a fine line between being productively critical versus unyieldingly, time-consumingly negative; thus, be mindful of cynics and dogmatic sycophants--they have already made up their mind and end up being time and energy vampires.

Finally, as cliche as it sounds, above all, mindsets & attitudes matter. I've been consistently amazed at the creativity, energy, humor, humility, and camaraderie of the individuals and teams I've had the privilege of working with--a testament to their commitment to delivering incremental value at speed. Proving that yes, change is hard, growth is even harder, but it is not impossible.

The clock is ticking...

​

Last month, I had the honor of being named to Brand Innovators 40 under 40 (Midwest) alongside some fantastic digital "thought" and "do" leaders.  As part of our selection, we were asked "to look ahead and identify top trends – things that will influence the market and impact the quest to connect to the ever-elusive consumer."  I highly recommend taking a look at all the Brand Innovators' proposed trends as I found the insights illuminating in that they are at once unique yet thematically similar, even across the years that Brand Innovators has been tracking.  For this particular post, however, I’ll be speaking only about my submission.

My Brand Innovators 40 under 40 trends:

1. Persistent economic bifurcation. Call it the dumbbell effect or the hourglass effect; whatever you call it, it’s here to stay and it is disrupting CPG brands’ strategy. Which leads to…
   
   
2. A bifurcated shelf. On the one hand, store brands are just brands; they continue to erase Points of Difference and earn their shelf presence, advocacy, and brand loyalty with high quality value. The “Private Label” or “Cheaper Store Brand” monikers no longer apply. And on the other hand, premium niche brands (the upper end of the scale) start from a focused loyal base and are specifically designed to cater to their tight segments. In both cases, traditional marketing/branding approaches focused on the middle seem outdated. Which demands…
   
   
3. Dispersed brand marketing and the disintermediation (longest word, I win!) of the traditional agency-advertiser model which was built to sell goods to the middle. Which should result in…
   
   
4. Scaled, efficient content everywhere developed by everyone for everyone (i.e. individualization and customization on a massive scale). A fluid environment where brands facilitate (not dictate) relationship building and communications among potential shoppers and brand advocates. An open environment where User Generated Content (UGC) and Crowdsourced Content become dominant vehicles of transparent and authentic communication.
   
   

As I shared the predictions and rationale and had subsequent conversations on the merits - or lack thereof in some cases - of my specific points, I was struck by how easily I could get head nods on points one and two but leery frowns on points three and four.  A particular conversation that comes to mind was one where I was discussing the need to disintermediate the current agency-advertiser model due to 1) the imbalance of working vs. non-working costs, 2) the lack of meaningful/measurable targeted brand data (beyond impressions or GRPs/TRPs), and 3) the prioritization of “tent-pole” campaigns vs. persistent agile content marketing.  Mindful of the barriers of my proposed disintermediation, the response was an incredulous “good luck” with a strong inference of “it will never happen.”

I’m arguing that it will, it has to.  The business/economic world is replete with examples of seemingly non-disruptable, deeply entrenched, and embattled with high fixed cost industries that were, of course, disrupted (music, print, phone, cable, taxi cabs readily come to mind); so why not the agency-advertiser model?  

Consumer attention spans are fleeting (and getting flightier); advertisements are being ignored; CPG brand budgets - even the “big dogs” that big agencies typically anchor their contracts to - are tighter and being scrutinized for every penny (nevermind every dollar); retailers are prioritizing store brands and mimicking traditional brands’ go-to-market strategies; mobile, mobile, mobile…this is what is happening now.  So while I’m not arguing for the outright dismantling of the traditional AOR model (yet), we need an evolution now (or an accelerated timeline at the very least) to meet the demands of a changed landscape for brand managers.  I, for one, don’t want my brand(s) to fade away into the world of obsolescence.

Next: How to accelerate the timeline.

Today’s Lens: How will a brand determine its marketing mix as consumer segmentation races to a consumer-of-one?

• The steady growth of micro breweries.
• The increasing number of local restaurants (some regional, few national) sourcing food and beverage exclusively from local providers and local farms.
• Rise of marketing / PR that communicates “buy local” (and the commensurate sales lift that comes with it).
• The mass efficiency of interaction and democratization of content delivered via social media.
• Upsurge of studios, boutiques, and personalized / customized services.
• Consumers’ increasing demands for authenticity and transparency.

Enough has been written about how the advent of the internet and social media has enabled consumers to interact with brands on-demand and in real time - where every consumer matters (or at the very least has the tools to behave as if they do).  This rise of the “consumer-of-one”, as I’m proposing here, presents brand managers with several questions (not exhaustive): Which of the multitude of touchpoints (media vehicles or platforms) best capture eye-share?  For which product/brand does “it” work best? For whom and when does “it” work best? And ultimately, will the resulting engagement translate to sales at the register (physical or online)? 

Despite the evolution of consumer behavior traditional CPGs, large-scale advertisers, and brand managers therein are struggling to gain traction generally due to two big obstacles: 1) How to segment the consumer-of-one and 2) how to efficiently structure media buys that engage the consumer-of-one?

I, Consumer

Consumer segmentation has become even more critical, and infinitely more difficult, than before.  Even as I write about it, the word “segmentation” may not work anymore.  More aptly named “consumer individualization”: where each consumer is a segment of one, where every consumer is demanding a unique experience, and where every consumer has the potential to engage and disrupt the brand's originally intended message.  And that is the challenge for brand managers and brand marketing professionals today: how do you “do marketing” at the individual level?  

The short answer is that you can’t.  It’s simply not cost effective to develop content or marketing campaigns for every single purchasing household in America; it’s even more frightening (or exhilarating) to think about the global consumer-of-one.  The answer I believe is dispersed brand marketing: where content marketing matters more (yes, I’m jumping on the bandwagon), where user generated and crowdsourced content matter more, where brands generate the stimulus and then get out of the way.

Granted, the concept of dispersed brand marketing basically puts me out of a job, but since consumers are making up their own mind (or not) about brands anyway, why not "give" the brands to them?  Let consumers use whatever platform they prefer to blast out the brand's promise, message, or character (aka brand communication strategy). 

Unfortunately, before a brand is able to release control, own less, and influence more, big box brands often then run into an advertising system that is also grappling with the consumer-of-one digitized consumption model.


Cannonballs, Bullets, Rocks, and Darts

Today’s advertising system faces a problem of inertia where it “has erected an ecosystem with ingrained systems, relationships and methodologies that are ill-equipped to fighting the challenges of the digital era.”  Traditional CPGs and large-scale advertisers especially struggle with how to invest in platforms and micro-targeted vehicles, versus the efficiency gained by large-scale bulk media buys recommended by their agencies of record. 

For example, at an industry expo/conference I attended a while ago, the concept of “bullets then cannonballs” was posited. Marc Pritchard, P&G’s Global Brand Building Officer, instructed all of the marketing professionals and brand managers in the theater to “shoot multiple bullets (small marketing campaigns) to see if we get any hits, then when we do, blast them with cannonballs (big marketing campaigns, scaled across multiple brands)”.  At the time, it made sense:  test often, scale the winners.  After reflection however, and given the rapid and constantly evolving consumer-of-one, I don’t think we need ever go to the cannonball phase for several reasons:

• Authenticity/Relevance.  The consumer-of-one is leery of and ignoring mass marketing scale vehicles altogether.
• Time.  By the time you align all the brands on the scale play, the consumer has moved on; i.e. if you were to shoot another bullet in that direction, you’d likely miss this time around.  Worse: The cannonball would fall on an empty field.
• Expensive.  Cannonballs are expensive, especially so if you miss (consumer has moved on) or lands on a target that’s already been hit (cluttered messaging).

Net, brands don’t need cannonballs; to continue the analogy, instead brands need a steady stream of bullets, rocks, and virus-tipped darts.  Furthermore, brands should consider giving the bullets, rocks, and darts to the consumers themselves. Big brands (and their big agencies) should carve out marketing dollars to experiment more with small campaigns co-created with and on platforms that the consumers dictate.  Brands can explode the advocacy moment of truth by ensuring consumers are able to engage with (and possibly co-create) every piece of content the brand publishes (beyond adding a “like us” or “tweet this” or “buy it now” button).  The empowered consumer-of-one will thank you for it figuratively (i.e. brand advocacy, amplification) and literally (i.e. sales).

Other thought nuggets:

• Consumer-of-one, meet product-for-you:  Will brands become obsolete when there’s a 3D printer in every home? I.e. why buy what a company produces when you can customize it for yourself?  Will the consumer-of-one continue to accelerate the digitization of the economy?  Will consumer-of-one “advertising” become easier with virtual reality shopping? Is there a time when a consumer makes a custom product on their 3D printer, the 3D printer regularly updates his/her social circle in real-time (opt-in of course), the consumer then “advertises” the completion of the product and friends are able to “place orders” via virtual or real currency?
• I, Employee: how will managers of the future deal with the employee-of-one?  We often forget that consumer behavior is carried into the workplace and employees now have similar expectations: employees-of-one are “eager to contribute, to have a voice, to add value; they want to make an immediate impact.”  Gone are the days of long apprenticeship where employees understood the trade-off of working in rote, top-down structures that rewarded them after a prescribed point of time elapsed (i.e. keep your head down and wait your turn).  The employee-of-one, like the consumer-of-one, is anxious to express him/herself and equally hungry for a unique experience that is tailored to and recognizes their unique skill set.

[This piece was inspired by & co-written with my BBF (big brain friend) Keith Knapp - @kknapp.]

Picture waves, currents, and boats.  Some waves/currents are big and some boats are big; commensurately, some waves/currents are small and some boats are also small.  The big boats navigate the small waves & minor currents relatively easy – and stay the course – while the smaller boats may feel the water as choppy and are forced to make changes in direction more often.  When the water isn't too choppy, and the undercurrents are minimal or known, the larger boats can usually get from Point A to Point B more efficiently, while the smaller boats may have to expend more energy as they travel with the changing currents.  Conversely, as major undercurrents begin to change the larger boats have a more difficult time tracking those changes until those changes are physically impacting their ability to sail smoothly; whereas the smaller boats, which by design are closer to the undercurrents, can feel or “sense” the major changes in direction sooner and can make adjustments sooner.  Therefore, travel from Point A to Point B in the most efficient manner is highly dependent on the size of the vessel and the environment in which it operates.

Now the big question: Is the big ship considered innovative when it starts to use a new tool that allows it to track the changes in the undercurrents sooner?  Consider this before answering:

• The water in which the large ship sails didn’t change, it is still water.
  
• The ship itself didn’t physically change; it is simply using a different, perhaps new, tool.
  
  

The not-too-subtle reframing of the question then becomes: Did the ship truly innovate with the use of the new tool or simply adjust/evolve to the macro-change in the currents?  Industry says, more often than not, the metaphorical ship (corporation) innovated.  Our argument is that companies - big and small - spend an enormous of energy, capital, and training on innovation when in fact they should be shifting their thinking and resources to evolution. Why evolution?

1. More achievable. Dreams / big ideas without action are simply that, dreams.  
   
2. More efficient. Executed ideas build onto themselves and generate more ideas.
   
   

Innovation thought leaders frequently counter with arguments proposing that evolutionary ideas may prohibit truly breakthrough or “innovative” ideas. However, we postulate that steady, incremental, iterative ideation yields far more results - and enables additional “innovation” - at a far greater rate than the proverbial home run.  James Dyson famously made 5,127 prototypes1 before arriving at the final design of the world-renowned bag-less vacuum cleaner.  Mark Zuckerberg, arguably, evolved from CourseMatch to Facemash to Facebook1, learning something from each successive evolution.  Dyson and Zuckerberg each captured the critical insight first (crappy bagged vacuums suck, or don’t, and desire for social connectedness, respectively) and then worked the evolutions...hard.

The bottom line is that we feel that the term innovation is being overused; whether it is during strategy sessions or within goal documents, the fact is that innovation, real innovation is very, very hard.  Organizations should instead be shifting the thinking away from lofty innovation goals and spend more energy toward delivering incremental, achievable - a.k.a. evolutionary - changes in their business models.  To be clear we’re not advocating that organizations should stop pursuing BHAGs; we’re saying that huge, game-changing ideas should be pursued but not at the expense of quickly adopting market-driven evolutions.  

While our proposal may seem like semantics - given that sometimes the “best” innovation is often described in terms of being linear and iterative - changing the dialogue from “go innovate” to “go evolve”, while subtle, can represent a very powerful mindshift.  


1. “Think like Zuck” by E.Walter

Other thought nuggets:

• By the time the Titanic realized what was going on, it was too late.
  
• Would the tools that small boat fisherman were using for eons helped the Titanic?
  
• Was the Titanic doomed from the outset due to size and “not invented here” hubris? What could leadership have done differently? Besides listen more.
  
• Large companies typically resort to spending more money (on the engine usually) to break through the turbulence of the waters (market); is that a good strategy?  What is?
  

• Can you credit an organization or brand with innovation if they / it eliminate(s) or reduce unnecessary clutter? Or is that simplification?

There’s plenty of buzz around Google’s latest marketing framework called ZMOT and I’m hooked.  Like others (here and here), I have been contemplating ZMOT and how it integrates into the existing FMOT & SMOT marketing concepts.  As such, I’d like to build on the discussion and introduce a new element: AMOT.

Who’s got the MOT?
Circa 2005, A.G. Lafley coined the terms First Moment of Truth (win consumers at the shelf) and Second Moment of Truth (delighting the consumer at home when the product exceeds her expectation).  This “stimulus -> FMOT -> SMOT” marketing process has guided the thoughts of many marketers over the years and has served as an excellent construct on how to engage and sell to consumers. 

Fast forward to today and Google has introduced the concept of Zero Moment of Truth, codifying that consumers are engaging with brands or products digitally before they ever step into the store or see the shelf.  “They learn from search results, user reviews, four-star ratings, text ads, image ads, news headlines, videos and even good old-fashioned official brand websites.”

Worth of Mouth = Advocate = AMOT
As Google illustrates above, consumers’ experiences (SMOT) and more importantly their ability to quickly share their experiences become the next person’s ZMOT; the cycle perpetuates and constantly influences purchase decisions – permanently changing the landscape for brands.  I, however, propose that consumers can advocate at any point in the consumer engagement timeline; we all have the potential to advocate anytime, anywhere.   McKinsey calls it “building touch-points”; Google calls it Word of MOT.  I call it Anytime Advocacy or the Advocacy Moment of Truth.  

Because consumers can be in AMOT 24/7, brands also have to think about their ZMOT perception, their FMOT & SMOT presence, their available digital tools, and overall message 24/7.  I.e. advocacy doesn’t happen just after SMOT.  

As Google states:  brands can no longer control the message.  I agree, brands are always "on air".  At any given point during the timeline, consumers can choose when, how, where, and to what level they choose to engage in, co-create, influence and – ideally – advocate for and amplify a brand’s message.  The question brands are now trying to figure out is how much to and when to listen, how to engage back, and ultimately, how to measure returns on those efforts.  

Seems A.G. was equally prescient when he constantly argued, “the consumer is boss.”  Now that the consumers can say whatever they want, when they want, about any brand in just about any forum...that sentiment rings truer today than ever before.