An article in the Harvard Business Review stated the following: Surveys have shown that 80% of Americans don’t trust corporate executives and–worse–that roughly half of all managers don’t trust their own leaders. Mergers, downsizing, and globalization have accelerated the pace of change in organizations, creating a crisis of trust that didn’t exist a generation ago.

Given all this uncertainty, trust has been at an all-time low.

When it comes to analyzing and facilitating trust, Brain Science is fascinating. In order to make Brain science interesting and easy to understand, we have to make the following statements:

1) The brain controls our actions,
2) We all have a brain,
3) As a leader you are not only managing people but you are also managing their brain. I know it’s an unorthodox way of looking at this but it’s extremely relevant and logical.

So far, so good. Problems start when you factor in how trust has broken down in your organization. Trust is broken down by fear (ex. losing one’s job, making mistakes, damaging or losing assets). Fear is that always-on emotion that is controlled by your amygdala. Your amygdala (a pair of small organs in the brain) is the fear and emotion center in your brain. It’s the area that prepares you eventually for ‘fight or flight’.

In its most simple terms if the amygdala is activated or overheating because of fear, this will also affect other parts of your brain such as the reward system, your gut feeling and another area called the ‘Accountant’ which essentially tells the ‘action brain’ either Go or No Go or in other words, to carry on a particular task.

According to a Brain Science leading authority Dr. Srini Pillay:
“Trust and fear are inversely related and affect the brain in opposite ways. Fear increases amygdala activation while trust decreases it. Developing a trusting work environment is important in similar ways to creating a non-fear based motivational space. It frees up the thinking brain to focus on relevant issues rather than using up thinking resources to resolve trust conflicts. Trust is also rewarding since it affects several components of the reward system. These components feed back to the action centers in the brain, preparing the brain to act. Without trust, action is inhibited or infused with fear; this compromises actions.”

So now we know that Trust frees up thinking resources in the brain by decreasing amygdala activation.

Armed with this scientific yet logical insight through your leadership style, you can address trust. By instilling trust in your organization you will notice a difference in staff performance and morale. It won’t happen overnight but it can become contagious if you follow some basic steps:

1) Be honest and sincere. Why? It only makes sense. People will feel that you are hiding things and will respect you as leader if you communicate without hesitation. By being direct, employees will stop the rumor mill and concentrate on the task at hand. Remember that for any news – good or bad, You need to communicate it! One of my CEO clients delegated the delivery of bad news to the HR Director. It bombed and created more fear! Staff needs to hear it from you.

2) Be appreciative. If you have fallen in the trap of not thanking people then you better change your approach. I don’t care what cultural background you are from. In the ten countries I have worked in, saying Thank You goes a long way. I challenge you: If you speak to one of your line staff and remember to say thank you, that person will go home that evening and tell his spouse or loved one that the boss thanked him/her…Imagine that!

3) Be open to feedback. Encourage feedback. Listen but remembering the most fundamental rule of encouraging feedback: You have 2 ears and one mouth…use them accordingly. Listen, acknowledge and don’t defend the idea/feedback since this is counterproductive.

4) Remain focused on the task at hand. You still need to sell, serve or create something. Employees need to be reminded of the obvious – the job has to get done. Remind them that their individual contributions matter to the organization.

5) Trial and error. It’s OK for employees to fail while trying. Implement an attitude of ‘trying without asking’. Then tell your staff member ‘if you mess up, that’s OK as long as you learn in the process’.

If you cannot empower your team members to make decisions without you, how will they ever succeed? Sometimes you need to let them try, fall flat on their faces and learn in the process. In my experience this is by far the strongest message of trust instilment you can deliver.

Trust is intangible. It can be a dark cloud or a motivator. By tapping into the brain of your team members you may discover that removing fear by instilling trust will give you an exponential effect on team morale and performance.

The post Trust in your organization appeared first on .

I heard the benefits a long time ago and decided last year to test it again and to see what works and what did not work. I tried different nap times, durations. In my case the best time was at 1930 or so for about 20 minutes max! Anything longer made me feel groggy for almost 45 minutes to an hour after the nap and I had difficulty to wake up or worse, decided to turn my power nap into deep slumber for the whole night – there goes the productivity I was looking to gain!

Less than 20 minutes for me was not enough since I was not completely sure that I dozed off. I also realized that if I had dreamt about something, it was sure way to know that I had in fact slept for a 20 minute period. Research tells us the ideal time is between 10-25 minutes but varies person to person.

Napoleon used to do it and so did many leaders through history including many of today’s athletes so why is that we don’t find the time if they are supposed to make us more productive?

First of all, maybe you need proof? I would encourage you to discover it on your own. First, set a time when you come home after work despite all the personal and family demands you may have – dedicate just 20 minutes. Set your alarm, shut the door and after 20 minutes you will see a difference, if of course you slept…just lying in bed for 20 minutes won’t do it.

Secondly, sleeping on the job is not exactly a great way to promote one’s career. Only a few employers encourage it which is a pity. Many studies have found that naps render employees more productive than conventional coffee breaks and that power naps are best taken in the afternoon. Even if your employer can’t help, you should test a power nap and enjoy the benefits in early evening.

If for the first time you did not feel or see the results, try taking a power nap 3 times that week. At first you may feel guilty or in denial to actually take a nap. Don’t get hung up on this since the time you gain by having a power nap will more than compensate at the other end in terms of added productivity that evening.

When you wake up, you will notice about 30 minutes later if you go back to fine tune some outstanding issues from your day, you will feel reenergized, you’ll wonder where this new found energy came from.

Rest is repair.

According to Brain Science leading authority, Dr. Srini Pillay, ‘Power naps are brief periods of sleep (15-30 minutes) that give the brain a chance to rest. It has been found that these brief naps may be rejuvenating and therefore help register and consolidate memories’

It’s also been proven that adequate sleep and daytime power naps are critical to faster, more efficient new learning.

A power-nap captures the benefits of the first two of the five stages in the sleep cycle. These first two stages take place in the first twenty minutes. In addition to making you feel more rested and alert, the electrical signals in your nervous system strengthen the connection between neurons involved in muscle memory, making your brain work faster and more accurately.

So there you have it. Historical leaders, today’s athletes and a leading Brain Science authority telling us that power naps make you more productive which has positive effects on your brain, learning and memory.

Want to get more work done in your day or get that extra little edge? You may find that giving your brain anywhere between 10-25 minutes of rest and by shutting down your system for a nap this may be the best investment in You.

The post Power naps. appeared first on .

Paul Renaud moderating an Evernote Meetup with Phil Libin, CEO of Evernote on November 7th, 2012

I get the chance to meet and moderate interesting people. Phil Libin, CEO or Evernote (www.evernote.com) was in town and I was asked to moderate an Evernote meetup. I like to get to meet/know my guests since I need to know a bit about their leadership style and values. This makes it more interesting for the audience which in this case, ‘is my customer.’
Evernote is a $1billon (USD) company based in Silicon Valley and currently have 40 million customers. Evernote is a solution that helps you remember and act upon ideas, projects and experiences across all the computers, phones and tablets you use.

I had asked Phil what were the reasons of Evernote’ s success and after a few push backs indicating to me a touch of modesty, he admitted one of his guiding principles.
‘Paul, I hire smarter people than me’. I smiled and I let him finish. He went on to say, ‘I need to hire smarter people so we can progress. If I don’t hire someone that is smarter than me, then I end up doing the job myself which is counter-productive’.

I later told Phil that I smiled because I agreed with him and I adopted this principle in the emerging countries I had worked. I also smiled since I remembered the look of shock on some of my managers’ faces when I told them they too, had to hire smarter people. Then the question came…Well, if I hire someone smarter than me he/she will take over my job!’ which is a normal reaction to the unknown. At this moment, I would explain the difference between Leadership and Management.
The difference between Leadership and Management is that ‘Management is doing things right; Leadership is doing the right things’. A Leader will do what is right for the organization by having the best possible talent and will hire smarter people. Leaders such as CEOs cannot manage every aspect and have the same deep level of knowledge of every facet of the organization.

Therefore the CEO must lead the experts in IT, technology, audit and product management in order for the organization to adapt, progress and win in the most efficient manner.

The Leader does exactly that…he leads. The Manager on the other hand, gets the job done.

Think about this distinction in your case. Are you a Leader or a Manager?
Are you doing what is right for your organization or are you managing the finite details?
Chances are your employer hired you to lead. Like Phil Libin, when you hire subject matter experts, this person understands that he/she was hired for their specialized skills and that you are the Leader, a fact that will remain.

Leaders don’t need to establish that they are in charge; ‘doing the right things ‘establishes them as Leaders!

http://evernote.com/

The post Hire smarter people than you are! appeared first on .

Peter A. Blackwell
Managing Partner at 4thought Marketing Consultants

His 20 years’ experience with some of the most successful and well-known Consumer Packaged Goods and Retail companies is drawn upon to lead organizations in the complex, yet essential goal of achieving full Marketing integration across all marketing channels, all parts of the marketing organization and its agencies and all other areas of the business.

What has he done?
Peter started as a Marketing summer intern and now he’s Managing Partner at 4thought Marketing Consultants.
He began his career in Brand Management at Adams Confectionery he oversaw brands like
Trident Gum and Halls Cough Drops – each $50mil brands in Canada, interfacing with teams in
Mexico, Brazil and Japan.
He then served as Director of Corporate Strategy for Kraft’s $3 bil Canadian business after
which he spent five years as VP Marketing for Canadian Tire – a 90 year old, $7billion Mass
Merchandising Retail icon and Canada’s most beloved retail brand. Peter was responsible for a
budget of $400 mil in Marketing spend, including a team of 130+ marketing colleagues working
with over 20 agencies.

What will you learn?
His innovative and unique approaches to solving business and people challenges will make you understand that a brand is not only a logo, a slogan or an advertisement. He will explain that a Brand is the sum of every experience a customer has with your business/organization, why it’s important to put Brand first in your business and he will help you assess if your brand is truly the heart & soul of your business.

Actionable learning for you to take home?
‘To succeed you must increase the practice of putting the Brand first – establishing a clear, compelling Brand Purpose followed by processes & policies that align, guide and inspire everyone in the company to deliver consistent, on-Brand, superior customer experiences at every single touchpoint – always! ‘
Join us at Leaders in Marketing on October 18, 2012 in Bucharest, Romania to hear more about Peter A. Blackwell and our roster of international Marketing heavyweights.

Leaders in Marketing
Get Smart …stay Smart!
Smart people welcomed

The post Leaders in Marketing: Speaker Profile appeared first on .

On a recent trip to Canada, a former boss and mentor (In fact to think about it…a lot of my former bosses are now friends and mentors!) shared this article with me which is really an interesting article about Brand building on the web, Facebook’s latest performance and companies like GM dropping Facebook. I mean c’mon now…GM dropping FB! Is this the beginning of a new trend? Is this the beginning of ‘Facebook bashing’?

Typically I would attach the link and wish you ‘good reading’ but this time with this article I thought maybe you‘d like to go through the same experience I did.

The fellow, Robert V. Green is writing about Marketing. So in order to make this interesting (no peeking) while you read this article, think about these questions:
1) Is this fellow a marketer? Either MBA or perhaps a Marketing prof? Perhaps he’s a CMO for a large multinational?
2) Do you agree with his belief on FB?
3) I would like to see attendees ask this question to our lineup of Marketing heavyweights at Leaders in Marketing in Bucharest, Romania on Oct 18, 2012. (http://leadersinmarketing.ro/). In fact, as moderator I intend to make this a topic of debate in one of our panels.

Hint: At the end of the article I will reveal what Robert V. Green does for a living.

In the meantime enjoy the article like I did. It’s a bit long yet thought provoking for anyone who considers him/herself a Marketing Pro.

Ahead of the Curve

Updated: 02-Aug-12 09:49 ET

Facebook and the Great Internet Advertising Dream

The collapse of Facebook since its IPO is generally being attributed to shares being overpriced originally. However, there may also be other reasons. Is there perhaps an extreme oversupply of advertising space, not just on the Internet, but in the media in general? How much advertising can we really absorb as consumers? Is Internet advertising even effective? Here are some thoughts, and how it applies to Facebook.

Advertising on the Internet – The Great Promise

Advertisers have always sought to direct their message to precisely the persons most likely to absorb the message and be motivated by it.
This concept is called targeting, which means that information about the type of person who is likely to see the message is known to the advertiser. The more accurate and more detailed the information about the user can be, the more effective the advertisement can be, presumably.
The great promise of the Internet, since the very early days, has been the idea that advertisers could accurately target their message to the user. The pursuit of this dream has been the foundation of many a startup company.
After all, the Internet is the greatest spying tool ever invented for advertisers. By tracking a user’s actions on the web, a detailed profile of the user can be created.
Television show audiences are measured by surveys of individual users that are extrapolated to a larger audience. The content of the show and the ratings metrics are then used to create a demographic profile of the entire viewing audience. This has always involved an element of uncertainty, which the Internet has promised to remove.
To date, the company that has done the best job of fulfilling this dream of the Internet as supreme advertising vehicle has been Facebook.
But is this dream actually real?

How Facebook Targets Advertising

Targeting an audience has always been important, even before the Internet.
The key elements for targeting an audience know the particular demographics of that audience, from which the likelihood of an ad being effective can be estimated.
DoubleClick was the first company to truly begin to target individual users by developing a detailed profile.
DoubleClick did this by tracking the surfing history of a user, recording each visit to a page where a DoubleClick ad was displayed. The ad is drawn from the DoubleClick database, but the database also records the unique ID of the user (stored in a cookie) and tracks the user over time.
DoubleClick’s value proposition was that improved targeting could be provided by the detailed profile created by a history of surfing. Using this profile, an ad most likely to appeal to that user could be displayed.
This value proposition was so strong that Google bought the company in 2007 for $3.1 billion.
DoubleClick’s value proposition was eclipsed by Facebook, however, as Facebook promised an even more detailed and more accurate profile.
This profile is created in part by the user themselves, as data such as birth date, education history, geographic location, and much more is actually given up freely by the Facebook user.
Furthermore, since the “like” button can be placed on other web sites, or persons can sign in to other sites with their Facebook profile, Facebook promises an even more precise profile than DoubleClick can create, since the user themselves has defined the details of their interests.
Add to this the incredible number of users that Facebook has been able to sign up – almost one-quarter of the adult persons on earth – and it seems like Facebook has finally cracked the problems faced by all advertisers.
At least, that is certainly what the advertisers buying space on Facebook believe, or are led to believe.
Does it actually work, though? Or is the Facebook promise more of an illusory dream of perfect advertising?
To answer this, it is first important to consider the various types of advertising.

The Types of Advertising

Historically, there have been three main types of advertising:
• Name recognition
• Sales generating
• Brand building

The Internet has created a fourth type, which can be called “traffic generation.”
Name recognition is simply the idea that the advertiser’s name becomes common and accepted in the potential customers perception of the everyday world. Little, if anything, is conveyed about the product, service, or company except the name.
Companies that purchase the naming rights for stadiums, for example, are not able to communicate anything about their product or service except for the idea that they are large enough to spend millions of dollars annually simply to place their name on the team’s stadium.
Name recognition is the least effective of all advertising in terms of generating revenue for the advertising purchaser. It is very difficult to measure the effectiveness of name recognition advertising.
Sales generating advertising is a very specifically targeted message that is intended to generate immediate revenue. Coupons are the most obvious example, although media advertising promoting lower prices or promotional financing rates are also in this category.
Sales generation advertising is generally easily measured, as the promotions usually have expiration dates and revenue during the sales promotion period can be compared to those before and after the promotion.
Brand building advertising is the most powerful form of advertising, although measuring the impact in precise metrics is difficult. Nevertheless, this type of advertising is considered the best-spent
Brand building advertising, however, requires the “telling of a story.”

Brand Building Advertising

This type of approach generally uses a story, of whatever level of detail, to communicate a particular feeling. This feeling is then associated with the product or company, sometimes by no more than displaying the brand name at the conclusion of the story.
The best example of this type of brand advertisement is Budweiser beer, particularly the advertisements developed for the Super Bowl. These ads usually tell a short, humorous story that either provokes laughter or warm-hearted empathy. The story is then associated with Budweiser simply by displaying the brand name at the end of the ad.
Although some of Budweiser’s ads include the beer within the context of the story, it is very rare for the ads to make any type of statement about the features or qualities of the beer itself.
It is enough to simply associate the good feeling created within the viewer with the brand name. The hope is that this same feeling is then regenerated in the viewer at the moment of decision at the liquor store, either consciously or unconsciously. The purchase decision then revives the good feeling created by the ad’s story, resulting in sales.
This is the core concept of brand advertising: the telling of a story that evokes a certain emotion that is then associated with the product, service, or company.
The effectiveness of brand advertising is difficult to measure, except by comparing regional sales with and without a particular ad campaign. However, most companies choose to purchase brand advertising when they can afford it, particularly if overall revenues have been, and continue to, rise.
Perhaps the purchase of quality brand building ads makes the advertising companies feel good about themselves as well, just as it is intended to make potential customers feel good about themselves.

Advertising on the Internet

Brand building advertising’s greatest media vehicle has historically been television.
On the Internet, however, we would argue that no one has – at least, not yet – created a meaningful vehicle for true brand building advertisements.
In fact, the bulk of Internet advertising since the beginning of the world-wide-web in 1994 has been banner ads, which are primarily either name recognition or sale generation advertisements. In recent years, the development of traffic generation ads has become important, but the difference between traffic generation and name recognition is blurry.
Measuring the effectiveness of banner ads has been much easier than other types of advertising, however, as the user’s reaction to ads can be instantly tracked and measured.
This measurement, over time, has led to the now-common practice of extremely low prices for banner ad placement, with a much larger payment made for a “click-through” — which means that the user has intentionally seen and reacted to the ad (unless the click-through was accidental).
The Internet has developed its own type of advertising category, which can be called “traffic generation.” This category is intended to guide a user to a particular web site where that site can make its own value proposition without having to pay someone else for displaying the message.
The greatest seller of traffic generation ads has been Google, who sells advertisements based upon the information typed in as a search string by the user. The purchaser of the ad intends to steer that potential user directly to their site as a result of the prominent placement of the ad in the search results.
The market for this type of traffic generation ad has been so strong that Google can actually price the ad’s placement in accordance to how prominent it appears on the page. Higher placement in the list of returned links costs more than placement of the ad’s link on the side of the search results.

No Brand Building Advertisement Vehicles on the Web

Almost the entire amount of advertising displayed on the Internet since 1994 has been in the traffic generation, sales generation, or name recognition category.
We would argue that there has been almost no brand building advertising on the Internet, at least in a historical sense.
Why?
It is simply difficult to “tell a story” in the current incarnation of the wide world web.
The only real attempts at this have been short ads that precede a video that the user has requested, such as are now appearing on YouTube and other video-based information sites.
However, in almost all cases, the user has the option to “opt-out” of the ad after a short time period. We are curious how many users do this. Certainly it could be easily measured, but we have seen little public information about this practice.
Perhaps the absence of data on this practice is telling in itself.

Where This Leaves Us

The Internet, therefore, is primarily a vehicle for the least effective types of advertising: name recognition, traffic generation, and sales generation.
Even though Facebook has done the best job of creating a detailed profile of users for advertisers, they still haven’t created a meaningful vehicle for brand building advertising.
Furthermore, the continual creation of new websites whose business model is advertising has led to an almost incredible overcapacity of advertising sites.
We wonder if venture capitalists have any interest in supporting a new Internet startup whose business model is based upon banner advertising. We would not be surprised if they didn’t.
After all, the total advertising budget of all advertisers put together isn’t growing. When the potential supply for placing ads increases, it simply reduces the prices that websites can command for advertisements, particularly banner ads, which fall in the least valuable category of all advertising.
Perhaps now is the time for some young entrepreneur to start pitching the “I’ve solved the brand building advertising problem on the web” idea to venture capitalists (whether they actually have solved it or not).

GM’s Dropping of Facebook

Perhaps the greatest clue in how the industry is viewing Facebook and Internet advertising in general was the announcement by GM, just weeks prior to Facebook’s IPO, that they were canceling all ads on Facebook.
GM simply discovered that Facebook ads just weren’t selling cars.
And since Facebook has no vehicle for creating brand building advertisements, GM found no reason to purchase ads on Facebook.
We think that the primary impact of GM’s decision was to prompt other advertisers to start asking the exact same question about their own advertising budgets.
We suspect most people who buy ads on Facebook also buy ads elsewhere, probably in other mediums as well, such as magazines and television.
How many of those advertisers bought ads on Facebook simply because it was the latest fulfillment of the advertisers dream?
How many of those advertisers have actually started to examine the effectiveness of those Facebook ads, as General Motors did?
We wonder.
Certainly if they haven’t yet done so, they will eventually. No business entity makes ineffective purchase decisions forever, although many certainly do for short periods of time.

Conclusions

The decline of Facebook stock’s value since its IPO is being attributed to the IPO being overpriced and oversold to poorly informed retail investors. Those investors associated Facebook’s explosive growth with a near-certainty of future revenue growth, and value.
We have begun to wonder if the decline in Facebook’s value is instead associated with an increasingly prevalent re-evaluation of advertising on the web in general.
Certainly, GM’s decision to stop purchasing advertising on Facebook had nothing to do with Facebook’s IPO pricing. It was simply an informed advertiser’s assessment of Facebook’s effectiveness.
We think that the decline in Facebook stock has as a lot to do with a widening reassessment of the value of Internet advertising in general and, in particular, the absence of true brand building advertising on Facebook.
If such a reassessment leads advertisers to view Facebook as other than the fulfillment of the ultimate advertisers dream, and instead to view Facebook as yet another Internet promise that just didn’t last, then Facebook stock probably is likely to drop much more over time.

Facebook (FB) August 2, 2012: $20.37 -0.51 (-2.4%)
Comments may be emailed to the author, Robert V. Green, at aheadofthecurve@briefing.com

Answer: Robert V. Green is a Senior Investment Strategist for Briefing.com (http://www.briefing.com/corporate/our-experts.htm), not a Marketing expert!
Paul Renaud

The post Facebook Bashing appeared first on .

The Coach was my friend’s father when I played Baseball and Hockey when I was 9 years old.
When I was 16, my Basketball Coach was closer to my age yet I still respected him since he was helping us work together and win.

Later it was my turn to Coach my sons at Hockey (it was better than sitting in a cold arena and waiting for an hour to pass). As it turns out those Coaching moments for me were some the most exhilarating and the most cherished for 2 reasons:

First, I was helping a bunch of 8-9 year olds play, have fun and work as a team.
Second, for that one hour I was focused on the game or practice, showing them their positions and how to score goals. I noticed that I was able to forget about my problems, issues and life for a while. What a cool experience that was -I highly recommend it!

As an Executive I needed to coach my staff and mentor since this is part and parcel of the job when you lead people.

Given my passion to help people and seek peak performance, I always considered myself a Coach. Recently however I got a much clearer view of what Coaching really means. In other words, I ‘got it ‘.
Change… Coaching implies a change. A Coach facilitates change.

You use a Coach to change something about your leadership style because:

1) You realize that you need to change,
2) You realize that you want to change,
3) You need help to make that change.

Changing is not easy. In fact a lot of us resist change. Changing makes you uncomfortable, uneasy and it’s a bit disorienting.

So why do people change or better still recognize that they have to change? Why is this a big deal?

A great book on Coaching and the need to change was written by Marshall Goldsmith and it’s called ‘What got you here won’t get you there’. The title is straightforward. If you are where you are today in your current position, you most probably got there because of your skills, hard work, the right environment, a nice break or even luck.

However as you strive to get to the next level you may have noticed that you are not reaching that new promotion or you are being bypassed. Why is this?
Perhaps the very reason that you got you there in the first place is preventing you from getting where you want to be.

This is where change comes in. The Coach can highlight your weaknesses and less than optimal behavior since it is virtually impossible to assess one’s behavior or style objectively and identify the reasons our career is on ‘stand by’. The Coach will identify areas that you need to change.

The good news is as adults, we can change. Our brains have enough neuroplasticity; in other words we can change the way we interact with people even if we’ve been leading in a certain way for many years. The brain can change, therefore we can change.

Goldsmith talks about 20 behaviors that are holding you back and perhaps alienating your peers, staff and clients. A few examples are ‘Playing favorites’, ‘Interrupting staff by not letting them speak and ‘Punishing the messenger’. These are all examples of where the Coach can help recognize these behaviors, re-wire your thinking and help you change.
Caution: Change requires commitment and time.

Given that we are all aware of the pace in which events and conditions are moving (markets, products, clients, competitors) and that ‘change’ is really the only constant that we can predict, isn’t it time that you give yourself a reality check to see what you need to change in order to adapt ?

The post Coach: Change Catalyst appeared first on .

I asked him – why the interest? He said ‘because Paul at your last speech you showed us the importance of setting objectives and your objective for 2012 was to read one book per month. I liked that idea and ever since hearing you I too, want to read more!’

What a nice compliment that my messages to reach out and help people had some traction and was actually working!

Another colleague suggested that I post my favorite book list. The benefit here is that I can emphasize the books that have helped me and perhaps help others learn, address change or improve their leadership skills.

What a great idea!
Here is my top 15 list with a short summary/reason as to why you should consider them:
1) What color is your parachute? Richard Nelson Bolles. This is a classic in identifying your skills. If you think you know what are your skills are, think again. Do the exercise that Richard suggests. It’s an investment in YOU and you won’t be sorry.

2) Influence, The psychology of persuasion by Robert B. Cialdini PhD. This is a great book for Sales and Marketing teams.

3) The power of Now, Eckart Tolle. This is a great book on spirituality without any religious overtones. Tolle gives you tips on how to get control of your life, outcomes and stress – I use his tips dally! If you like this book you will enjoy even more…

4) A new Earth, Eckart Tolle. Again spirituality with really cool hints on how to master your life. I strongly recommend both books; they are bit dry at the beginning but get useful once you get used to his style.

5) Rich dad, poor dad, Robert T. Kiyosaki. I like Robert’s modest style. This is not a ‘Get rich quick’ book or scheme. He fundamentally believes in raising the level of education when in comes to personal finance. Read this one first then…

6) Cashflow quadrant by Robert T. Kiyosaki, and Guide to Investing by Robert T. Kiyosaki.

7) Perfect pitch by Jon Steel, this is great for the Adverting agency crowd but not only – great book on how to make great client-winning presentations.

8) Super Freakonomics by Stephen D. Levitt and Stephen J.Dubner. Great book on trends and unusual statistics. It makes you go…Huh!? Fun read and certainly gives Marketing specialists some creative ways to get customer insights.

9) Your Brain and Business: The Neuroscience of Great Leaders, Srini Pillay M.D. Srini was my teacher and is a master and authority on Brain Science. Finally someone unlocks the code as why we behave in such ways in business (because of brain patterns) and he describes how to address change and to improve team performance.

10) Life Unlocked: 7 Revolutionary Lessons to Overcome Fear, Srini Pillay M.D. We all have self-doubt and fear. Srini’s second book unravels how to deal with fear, stress and anxiety, an area where Srini is recognized worldwide.

11) How to win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie. If you don’t know Carnegie, this will be a wonderful introduction to an icon. The book was written in 1936 and the concepts that he describes then are still ‘alive and well’ today. If you like this one you will certainly treasure another classic from the same author…

12) How to stop worrying and start living, Dale Carnegie

13) Smarter Pricing, Tony Cram. Good interesting tips on a somewhat dry topic – Pricing. He kept my interest and I have used his insights for the MBA classes I teach in Marketing.

14) Exponential Marketing by Paul Garrison. This is THE book in segmentation. Paul is CEO Garrison Group, novel writer and Ivy League Professor at Dartmouth University. Learn from this former exec at Coca Cola and P&G. 

15) 7 habits of highly effective people, Stephen R. Covey. No nonsense, no hype, plain common sense to effectiveness. I instructed my marketing team to read this book and to apply/follow his suggestions. I quote his book every time I present to audiences.

Finally. Here are some books on my radar:

1) Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman
2) Drive by Daniel Pink
3) The art of the start: Guy Kawasaki (former Apple soft evangelist)
4) The present, Spencer Johnson

I hope that these books help you find happiness, they help you improve your relationships and they guide you in finding meaning to your life.

It is what we think we know already that often prevents us from learning.
Claude Bernard (1813-1878)
Physiologist

The post Reading…food for the soul appeared first on .

Common integrated campaign pitfalls.
Pitfall #1: Media that don’t reinforce each other
Pitfall #2: Create a budget first, metrics second.
Pitfall #3: Awareness vs. sales
Pitfall #4: Delegate and forget
To close off this topic and as a continuation of my last post on the topic of campaign integration here’s pitfall number 4.

Pitfall #4: Delegate and forget
Another pitfall is when the Chief Marketing Officer decides to get involved, rolls up his/her sleeves with the team and assists them in launching his first campaign with the team then retreats to his/her management meetings leaving his deputy in full control of the subsequent campaigns.
Till then he or she sets the direction and tone of the Marketing plan (example)
“I want us to be positioned as the company whose real estate project owns the concept of European living standards such as providing large green space, offices, large employer complexes, schools, retail, professionals, fitness centers, public transport.”
He/She made sure the message was communicated efficiently by signing off on all ads, and held the Marketing department responsible for the success of their campaigns (“If we don’t generate revenues that are at least twice what this new Marketing program costs, I want it stopped”).
The campaign was a huge success, improving sales and raising the company’s presence to the point where it could demonstrate a correlation between sales and the advertising campaign.
Then he/she takes his eye ‘off the ball’, starts trusting the agency and then makes the decision that he/she would change from being an inspiration to becoming more involved in day-to-day management. He begins focusing exclusively on the dynamics of reporting systems and internal controls. Although he was a sale-and-Marketing pro who had built the Marketing department from the ground up, he/she now feels that time should be spent building an internal organization.
Soon enough Marketing was delegated to inexperienced staff that could go through the motions of creating Facebook pages, web-site banners, and the like, but who were lost without the leadership it takes to turn these elements into a powerful sales-building machine. No wonder revenues and earnings slowed down.
The team needs inspiration all the time. This means getting involved in all aspects if the Marketing leader wishes to see results while at the same time maintain the consistency of the message.
He/she is supposed to be diligent enough to have created a succession plan but rushing into management duties too fast is not going to help anyone especially when it comes to generating Top Line revenues with Marketing.

The post Of course the campaign is integrated… 4th and last pitfall appeared first on .

On the topic of integration, budgets and measuring results I have found that the following pitfalls are common when we think that the campaign is integrated.

Common integrated campaign pitfalls.
Pitfall #1: Media that don’t reinforce each other

Pitfall #2: Create a budget first, metrics second.
Pitfall #3: Awareness vs. sales
Pitfall #4: Delegate and forget

As a continuation of my last post on the topic of campaign integration here’s pitfall number 3

Pitfall #3: Awareness vs. sales
Marketing agencies that are ineffective i.e. that struggle to turn advertising, public relations, direct mail, and other initiatives into sales probably will never admit to being ineffective, otherwise they are risking their credibility as ‘creatives’. Think about it. Awards are given out based on an agency’s ‘creative’ talent. Other awards – ‘Effies’ are awards that have proven that a particular campaign had a positive effect in revenues.
Rather agencies like to talk in terms of “image or awareness Marketing”. They will insist that although you can’t measure the performance of what they do, you should rest assured that image is improving, the strategy is catering to your target audience, reach is attained, the awareness of the brand is improving because you selected them
Horse feathers! If you hear such baloney from an agency pitching for your business, instruct them to go pitch for your competitor.
It is possible to design Marketing so that the initiatives and tools you create can generate customer revenues.
What you are looking for in a good agency or in a candidate to run your Marketing department-is that they understand the importance of integrating all of your Marketing initiatives.
It’s normal for an agency to spend a lot of time on the creative, either to seize the newly found customer insight and to become unique in the way it intends to address that market or audience or its innovative way to communicate the message. After all, the client’s brief did say ‘we have to be different’.
By the time they have done the creative there is little time for execution or better still integration. So they go based on what they remember-what they did in the past, as a benchmark. In most cases, the benchmark or what they did in the past carries no tangible metric or measure that is, ‘when we used TV+ Social media we saw a sales report from the client that sales increased by 20%.’

Rather, they use what they remember, and this seems to be a comfortable fit for what they consider as an integrated campaign. As a result the integration part gets 10% attention of the planning time. No wonder since you too were swayed by the really cool creative that you may have completely forgotten to ask the obvious…how is this integrated?
It’s happened to me on many occasions. I too, got caught up in the ‘sizzle’ of the creative and forgot to ask about integration. Don’t get caught like I did!

The post Of course the campaign is integrated… 3rd pitfall appeared first on .

Common integrated campaign pitfalls.
Pitfall #1: Media that don’t reinforce each other
Pitfall #2: Create a budget first, metrics second.
Pitfall #3: Awareness vs. sales
Pitfall #4: Delegate and forget

Pitfall #1: Media that don’t reinforce each other
TV commercials are not always a success story, i.e. poor creative or a TV ad which was not sales actionable. At times if we are not careful, we can make the same mistake or worse, the TVC does not support other media used (ex. Radio and online). The messages have to be consistent and the choice of media needs to build a 1-2 punch and they must complement each other.
Now we can’t cover every potential combination of one medium plus another but I feel compelled to remind you that when an agency proposes 2, 3 or 4 types of media it begs the obvious question of:
Why combine these?
What proof do we have that the combination of these 4 media will give us maximum impact?

Hearing things such as:
‘In our opinion we felt that these were a good combination’ or
‘This combination always worked well for us in the past’ or
‘We tested this on another client and the results were great’.
These are not justifiable reasons and they are a sure sign that this combination was made in haste or random.

If you are still not convinced, ask the agency or the team making the proposal:
‘The TVC will complement online how?’ or
‘Prove to me that some customers will see the same message in 2-3 different media and therefore creates a call to action?’
‘Explain to me the link between Outdoor and the web banners?’
Here is an example of how various media work together as parts of a sum and feed into each other.
Let’s use a campaign example of a local real estate developer called PrimeProperties.com
In addition to print advertising, the agency convinced the company to place banner ads on real estate websites. Additionally, they prompted the company to test TV and radio advertising designed to serve as a lead generator for all segments (residential, commercial) as well as office space prospects, notaries, real-estate agents, bankers, and inspectors.
This broadcast approach served as a “Go-to-the-Web” driver (“Go to PrimeProperties.com now and receive…”) and helped to build a database of leads that could be pursued through telemarketing and mailings.
Instead of sending the prospects a single piece of communication, which is rarely enough to initiate relationships, the agency suggested a multifaceted campaign that called for prospects to receive a personalized introduction letter offering a “Prime customer” gift, a follow-up postcard focused on the property’s key benefits, a direct-response brochure and Go-to-Web card, and a telemarketing call.
Adding any combination of media is easy; getting them to work ‘in synch’ (and therefore generate revenues) is not.
There is still room for taking risks here and testing combinations but there has to be a rationale; assumptions need to be noted and written down as to why you are combining this medium to another at the outset and the corresponding objectives as to why you combined them in such a manner.
By documenting the rationale (memo, assumption or stated objective) you can always go back and validate if the combination of media was successful – this is part of the monitoring function.
If on the other hand the combination was haphazard, not documented and no post mortem was done, you are simply wasting valuable Marketing funds since you have no way or tool to consider the cause/effect of your media combination.

The post Of course the campaign is integrated… next pitfall appeared first on .