That's what I see and hear when I look at packaging that says "New look. Same great flavor."
What that says to me is: "I spent hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to improve this product you bought but instead of making it better for you, I made it better for me."
In a few rare instances, packaging is updated because consumers that want to find the product simply cannot amidst the clutter of a typical retail shelf. (BTW, I'm referring to packaging graphics not the structure itself.) But most of the time, the packaging is updated so it practically screams at you from the shelf. Marketers will say things like "we've got to make sure the package has stopping power" or "make the package intrusive."
Well guess what? I don't want to be stopped. And I do not want to be intruded on.
When you play with packaging this way, you've resorted to gimmickry. You're not calling on the rational faculties of a consumer to try and assist in the purchase decision. Instead, you're preying on the irrational, the built in little cognitive and cultural biases we have that, generally, help us make better decisions but often lead us astray.
I have a better idea. Try this new line on your packaging: "Same old look. New improved taste." Make the damn chips taste better. Make the soda taste better. Make your product work better. Instead of trying to trick me with flashiness, convince me with true product benefits.
Oh, and consumers. I have a message for you too. See here's the thing. As one of my favorite people pointed out, these gimmicks work. Marketers do this because notwithstanding their cynicism and lack of respect for the consumer, these tactics do work. You know why? Because you allow yourself to be seduced by shiny objects rather than demanding better products. When you stop letting yourself be taken advantage of, when you start demanding from manufacturers that they truly respect you, then you will start seeing better tasting chips.
Until then, enjoy the new bag.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
Why I love innovation
Innovation produces many economic benefits. It generates many new products and creature comforts. On those merits alone it ought to be greatly valued.
But the truth is that although I enjoy these benefits of innovation, they are not the primary cause of my passion for innovation.
The reason I care so much about innovation is that innovation reflects the natural state of the human soul. (I'm using "innovation" as a verb here.) The human soul seeks to understand. It seeks to improve the world based on that understanding. It craves beauty, excellence, dignity and nobility. It pursues truth.
When people are stifled in their attempts to express the natural desire of their souls, they become depressed in a way. You can see them in their robotic drone-like state in many organizations. They become listless. They go through the motions but there is no real passion behind what they do. As Thoreau said "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." These people are more predictable. They are more easily managed. But they are barely human.
Setting up organizations to allow, or even encourage, people to pursue the natural desires of their souls leads to many salutary benefits. Most immediately, it breathes life and passion back into the quietly desperate. These newly energized people are happy. Not in some superficial sense of having the material comforts they need and a lack of external pressure. They are truly happy in the profoundest sense of the term. They are fully engaged. They are maximally productive. They might not be producing exactly what you wanted them to produce but, in the aggregate, they best contribute to human progress and towards the creation, development and maintenance of the most beautiful, noble, excellent and dignified world we can possibly have.
Oh yeah, they also turn out some really cool products and generate all that economic activity that makes the bean-counters happy.
But the truth is that although I enjoy these benefits of innovation, they are not the primary cause of my passion for innovation.
The reason I care so much about innovation is that innovation reflects the natural state of the human soul. (I'm using "innovation" as a verb here.) The human soul seeks to understand. It seeks to improve the world based on that understanding. It craves beauty, excellence, dignity and nobility. It pursues truth.
When people are stifled in their attempts to express the natural desire of their souls, they become depressed in a way. You can see them in their robotic drone-like state in many organizations. They become listless. They go through the motions but there is no real passion behind what they do. As Thoreau said "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." These people are more predictable. They are more easily managed. But they are barely human.
Setting up organizations to allow, or even encourage, people to pursue the natural desires of their souls leads to many salutary benefits. Most immediately, it breathes life and passion back into the quietly desperate. These newly energized people are happy. Not in some superficial sense of having the material comforts they need and a lack of external pressure. They are truly happy in the profoundest sense of the term. They are fully engaged. They are maximally productive. They might not be producing exactly what you wanted them to produce but, in the aggregate, they best contribute to human progress and towards the creation, development and maintenance of the most beautiful, noble, excellent and dignified world we can possibly have.
Oh yeah, they also turn out some really cool products and generate all that economic activity that makes the bean-counters happy.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
True in the soil vs. True in the heart
Some things are true because they just are. They are theoretically sound or necessary such as the proposition that 2+2=4. Or they have been shown to be true through rigorous empirical study. These things are true whether you like them or not. They are true regardless of your personal, political or sexual agenda. They are true whether you put on your socks before your shoes or you follow the sock-shoe, sock-shoe approach.
But there are other truths. There are things that are true because you believe they are. These truths start out as the glint in the soul of one individual. That glint grows and becomes a passion. Almost an obsession. And that person through sheer force of will, inspires others to believe. When that happens, this individual has created a movement. And there is very little a passionate movement cannot achieve.
Soil truths are fine. One ignores them at one's own peril. It is important to educate ourselves on these truths.
But let's not ignore heart truths. This is where the magic happens.
But there are other truths. There are things that are true because you believe they are. These truths start out as the glint in the soul of one individual. That glint grows and becomes a passion. Almost an obsession. And that person through sheer force of will, inspires others to believe. When that happens, this individual has created a movement. And there is very little a passionate movement cannot achieve.
Soil truths are fine. One ignores them at one's own peril. It is important to educate ourselves on these truths.
But let's not ignore heart truths. This is where the magic happens.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
On hetero vs. homogeneity
How alike should the members of your organization be? This is a really tough question. On one hand, we value diversity don't we? Haven't we all been told that diversity does all sorts of wonderful things for an organization? It brings together different experiences, ideas, style of thinking, etc. so that you not only get the very best of the lot but you go beyond and achieve that magical 1+1=3.
Yet we also know that there needs to be some commonality amongst members of a group. We all know, for instance, that common values are important. I just saw a great presentation from Netflix on their corporate culture and how they insure that their employees truly share their values.
So how heterogenous or homogenous should we be? Well let's start with the ends of that spectrum.
Pure heterogeneity would mean that there is complete and total difference. No two people within the organization are alike in any way. There are no shared values, beliefs or ideas. There are no shared experiences. Heck, no two people even speak the same language! Clearly that cannot work.
Pure homogeneity would mean that everyone is completely alike. There would be absolutely no diversity whatsoever. Obviously this doesn't work either.
I think the received wisdom is true. Heterogeneity and homogeneity are both needed.
Heterogeneity is needed because much as in biology, social and intellectual diversity lead to the most favorable outcomes over the long term. Differences of opinion, of thinking styles, of experiences - when managed properly - do lead to better outcomes because the organization has a richer database from which to pull its answers. Heterogeneity is valuable because it maximizes your chances that you will survive over the long term by insuring that people from within challenge your thinking so that you don't have to be challenged as much by people from the outside. Magic and brilliance are most likely to come from an unexpected clash of ideas - the sort of clash that requires diversity.
Homogeneity is needed because without it, there is no organization. Homogeneity is the glue that holds together what would otherwise be a mass of individuals. Organizational logic allows for e pluribus unum - out of many, one.
So how much do you need of each?
I would propose two principles though I believe I have not yet thought this issue through sufficiently and would welcome your thoughts:
1) When the nature of your output is inherently creative and novel then you should favor heterogeneity over homogeneity. Organizations that are constantly solving new problems for which there is no existing template should value heterogeneity more. This could include the arts, some kinds of marketing, technology... More physical professions that literally require people to be pulling in the same direction probably should value homogeneity more. Again, I've already pointed out that there must be a balance. I'm just trying to lay out a general framework and provide some guidance here.
2) You should, in general, try and insure homogeneity on as few variables as possible. I suspect common values and a shared sense of the objective will always need to be shared. If people cannot agree on what they're trying to achieve and share the broadest sense of the rules of the road, then I fail to see how they can ever work together. Certain professions may require common experiences like certain degrees or professional accreditations. But often, companies have an unspoken sense of how people should come across. They require that people speak a certain way, dress a certain way... When this becomes part of the culture it can be very toxic. Ask yourself very carefully: do we really need homogeneity around X in order to succeed. Not whether you like it. Not whether it makes you more personally comfortable. Ask yourself whether you really need people to share X. Because if you don't, don't let your culture form an unspoken rule that requires such homogeneity.
I think it is critical to carefully manage this balance. I believe successful strong cultures will do this very well. You want an organization that gives people a sense of belonging. In order to have that sense, they must know to what they belong. It must be obvious to insiders and outsiders what you stand for. But if you take this too far, your organization can quickly become stifling. In the absence of careful management of the criteria for being "one of us," the list will grow. And before long, your organization will have all of the color and vigor of the Soviet Union.
Yet we also know that there needs to be some commonality amongst members of a group. We all know, for instance, that common values are important. I just saw a great presentation from Netflix on their corporate culture and how they insure that their employees truly share their values.
So how heterogenous or homogenous should we be? Well let's start with the ends of that spectrum.
Pure heterogeneity would mean that there is complete and total difference. No two people within the organization are alike in any way. There are no shared values, beliefs or ideas. There are no shared experiences. Heck, no two people even speak the same language! Clearly that cannot work.
Pure homogeneity would mean that everyone is completely alike. There would be absolutely no diversity whatsoever. Obviously this doesn't work either.
I think the received wisdom is true. Heterogeneity and homogeneity are both needed.
Heterogeneity is needed because much as in biology, social and intellectual diversity lead to the most favorable outcomes over the long term. Differences of opinion, of thinking styles, of experiences - when managed properly - do lead to better outcomes because the organization has a richer database from which to pull its answers. Heterogeneity is valuable because it maximizes your chances that you will survive over the long term by insuring that people from within challenge your thinking so that you don't have to be challenged as much by people from the outside. Magic and brilliance are most likely to come from an unexpected clash of ideas - the sort of clash that requires diversity.
Homogeneity is needed because without it, there is no organization. Homogeneity is the glue that holds together what would otherwise be a mass of individuals. Organizational logic allows for e pluribus unum - out of many, one.
So how much do you need of each?
I would propose two principles though I believe I have not yet thought this issue through sufficiently and would welcome your thoughts:
1) When the nature of your output is inherently creative and novel then you should favor heterogeneity over homogeneity. Organizations that are constantly solving new problems for which there is no existing template should value heterogeneity more. This could include the arts, some kinds of marketing, technology... More physical professions that literally require people to be pulling in the same direction probably should value homogeneity more. Again, I've already pointed out that there must be a balance. I'm just trying to lay out a general framework and provide some guidance here.
2) You should, in general, try and insure homogeneity on as few variables as possible. I suspect common values and a shared sense of the objective will always need to be shared. If people cannot agree on what they're trying to achieve and share the broadest sense of the rules of the road, then I fail to see how they can ever work together. Certain professions may require common experiences like certain degrees or professional accreditations. But often, companies have an unspoken sense of how people should come across. They require that people speak a certain way, dress a certain way... When this becomes part of the culture it can be very toxic. Ask yourself very carefully: do we really need homogeneity around X in order to succeed. Not whether you like it. Not whether it makes you more personally comfortable. Ask yourself whether you really need people to share X. Because if you don't, don't let your culture form an unspoken rule that requires such homogeneity.
I think it is critical to carefully manage this balance. I believe successful strong cultures will do this very well. You want an organization that gives people a sense of belonging. In order to have that sense, they must know to what they belong. It must be obvious to insiders and outsiders what you stand for. But if you take this too far, your organization can quickly become stifling. In the absence of careful management of the criteria for being "one of us," the list will grow. And before long, your organization will have all of the color and vigor of the Soviet Union.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
No shoes
Something wonderful happened to me recently. It seemed too good to be true. And so I started thinking "when will the other shoe drop?"
So many of us spend far too much time wondering about when and how life will take a turn for the worse. This isn't healthy. And it's counterproductive.
Worrying about the future degrades your ability to live in the present. And not living well in the present degrades your future opportunities. So from a purely rational standpoint, it is far more productive to live your best now than to worry about the future. Let me be clear: I am not advocating an irresponsible worry-free life. This is not about "let us eat and drink for tomorrow we shall die." That is simply irrational escapism. It is no more intelligent than covering your eyes while driving so as to avoid an accident. What I am saying is that living life excellently will open up many doors to you and that you can only live excellently if you focus on what you are doing now. Distracting yourself with thoughts about future possibilities pulls you away from the very excellence that will ameliorate your future.
But worrying about the future does far more damage than simply to reduce your future value. Your present experiences are not just the keys to open doors you will chance upon in the future. Your present experiences become part of your soul. More accurately, your perceptions and interpretations of those experiences become part of your soul. When you are worrying about the possibility that there may be a chance that someday something bad might happen to you, you cast a shadow on everything you experience. You make it much more difficult to see beauty. And as life rolls on, your soul becomes gray and listless.
There is an alternative. You just refuse to focus on this. You take what comes your way and deal with it. When beauty crosses your path, you enjoy it. When you have occasion for laughter you grab it and shake loose every little peal. When love comes your way, you wrap yourself in it and luxuriate. And, when hard times come your way you deal with them too. But when you deal with them, you will be armed with a strong, vibrant soul.
And so, I have adopted a policy. The no-shoe policy. I will do my best to not think about or worry about any dropping shoes. I will live my life as best I can. Enjoy what the world graciously provides, try and accept whatever real limitations inhere in me or in nature. I will try and be smart and do what I can to create a better future but I will live in the world as it stands now and not in some imaginary world that might never come to be.
I invite you to adopt the no-shoe policy as well.
So many of us spend far too much time wondering about when and how life will take a turn for the worse. This isn't healthy. And it's counterproductive.
Worrying about the future degrades your ability to live in the present. And not living well in the present degrades your future opportunities. So from a purely rational standpoint, it is far more productive to live your best now than to worry about the future. Let me be clear: I am not advocating an irresponsible worry-free life. This is not about "let us eat and drink for tomorrow we shall die." That is simply irrational escapism. It is no more intelligent than covering your eyes while driving so as to avoid an accident. What I am saying is that living life excellently will open up many doors to you and that you can only live excellently if you focus on what you are doing now. Distracting yourself with thoughts about future possibilities pulls you away from the very excellence that will ameliorate your future.
But worrying about the future does far more damage than simply to reduce your future value. Your present experiences are not just the keys to open doors you will chance upon in the future. Your present experiences become part of your soul. More accurately, your perceptions and interpretations of those experiences become part of your soul. When you are worrying about the possibility that there may be a chance that someday something bad might happen to you, you cast a shadow on everything you experience. You make it much more difficult to see beauty. And as life rolls on, your soul becomes gray and listless.
There is an alternative. You just refuse to focus on this. You take what comes your way and deal with it. When beauty crosses your path, you enjoy it. When you have occasion for laughter you grab it and shake loose every little peal. When love comes your way, you wrap yourself in it and luxuriate. And, when hard times come your way you deal with them too. But when you deal with them, you will be armed with a strong, vibrant soul.
And so, I have adopted a policy. The no-shoe policy. I will do my best to not think about or worry about any dropping shoes. I will live my life as best I can. Enjoy what the world graciously provides, try and accept whatever real limitations inhere in me or in nature. I will try and be smart and do what I can to create a better future but I will live in the world as it stands now and not in some imaginary world that might never come to be.
I invite you to adopt the no-shoe policy as well.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Bald is beautiful
Well maybe not. But if you're going bald anyway, I highly recommend shaving your head. It's more honest, it feels great and I think generally, people dig it.
I had decided about a year ago that I might want to shave my head. Which I guess means I hadn't decided a damn thing. But I at least considered considering it. So over the course of a year I slowly had my hair cut shorter and shorter. I started with the #3 clippers and worked my way finally down to zero. No, zero doesn't mean no hair. You'd think it would, but, apparently, there is a quadruple zero. And even that doesn't mean you're bald.
Anyway, about a month ago I took the plunge and shaved my head. It's the way to go. The first few times I used a regular razor. But then someone told me about an awesome device made by HeadBlade. If you're going to shave your head, you must check out HeadBlade. The device they make does a much better job than the Gillette Fusion which is an expensive premium blade.
And, as a marketer, I love their brand. It feels like their stuff is made and marketed by guys for guys. It's a very cool brand.
If you're interested, click here and check out the products. I have the HeadBlade Sport and I also use their ClearHead product after I shave. If you buy using this link, you get 20% off your order and I get a 10% credit. Please use the following referral code when you place your order: 35609
And no, I'm not shilling for these guys. I love the stuff, I use it myself, the products are great and the company seems cool.
I had decided about a year ago that I might want to shave my head. Which I guess means I hadn't decided a damn thing. But I at least considered considering it. So over the course of a year I slowly had my hair cut shorter and shorter. I started with the #3 clippers and worked my way finally down to zero. No, zero doesn't mean no hair. You'd think it would, but, apparently, there is a quadruple zero. And even that doesn't mean you're bald.
Anyway, about a month ago I took the plunge and shaved my head. It's the way to go. The first few times I used a regular razor. But then someone told me about an awesome device made by HeadBlade. If you're going to shave your head, you must check out HeadBlade. The device they make does a much better job than the Gillette Fusion which is an expensive premium blade.
And, as a marketer, I love their brand. It feels like their stuff is made and marketed by guys for guys. It's a very cool brand.
If you're interested, click here and check out the products. I have the HeadBlade Sport and I also use their ClearHead product after I shave. If you buy using this link, you get 20% off your order and I get a 10% credit. Please use the following referral code when you place your order: 35609
And no, I'm not shilling for these guys. I love the stuff, I use it myself, the products are great and the company seems cool.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Kudos to the folks at NB Web Express
I'm a big fan of New Balance footwear and, particularly, the good folks at NB Web Express. I really enjoy shopping there. They always provide great advice, they know what will fit me based on my foot type and previous purchases.
In September 2008 they sent me a coupon code for $50. I had just spent a lot of money with them and they wanted to reward me. I was very appreciative. It felt really nice to be recognized as a good customer and treated accordingly. I kept their email with the coupon code in my inbox. I figured with a year to redeem (super generous BTW) I would have plenty of time.
But a year-long redemption period is no match for my procrastination skills. And a few days ago I realized that the coupon had expired.
I sent them an email asking if they would extend the coupon. Sure enough, they sent me an email graciously offering to do so. And, upon my request, they sent me a note with my recent purchase and some suggestions on other shoes that might work for me.
I just love these guys. And that is why when I need sneakers or hiking shoes, I go straight to NB Web Express. I don't even bother looking elsewhere. They are loyal to me. And I am loyal to them.
In September 2008 they sent me a coupon code for $50. I had just spent a lot of money with them and they wanted to reward me. I was very appreciative. It felt really nice to be recognized as a good customer and treated accordingly. I kept their email with the coupon code in my inbox. I figured with a year to redeem (super generous BTW) I would have plenty of time.
But a year-long redemption period is no match for my procrastination skills. And a few days ago I realized that the coupon had expired.
I sent them an email asking if they would extend the coupon. Sure enough, they sent me an email graciously offering to do so. And, upon my request, they sent me a note with my recent purchase and some suggestions on other shoes that might work for me.
I just love these guys. And that is why when I need sneakers or hiking shoes, I go straight to NB Web Express. I don't even bother looking elsewhere. They are loyal to me. And I am loyal to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)