Jump the technology evolution

People in general and marketers in specific tend to think that 'evolution' is a progressive process without jumps.

True. 

But that doesn't mean that nature never jumps forward and neither does marketing and business. As soon as you introduce an advanced element that fits an environment that was closed before, you can create a jump forward.

Compare it to Australia that meandered through its existence untill some fools introduced rabbits.

Anyway, the BRIC-countries can be considered as former 'closed' markets by their political system or their economic arrears. However, the techno-economic parity that we're living in today, grants full access to these areas to techno-jump over the 'western' heads.

SPICE MOBILITY is one of these techno-jumpers. This Indian telecom-player states on their site: "With "Innovation" as the company’s mantra, Spice began the process of revolutionizing the Communication & Entertainment sector, with its new age technologically advanced state of the art mobile phones." 

Not only are they speaking of a 'mantra', putting their brand's spiritual dimension (cf. 4-D Branding) way ahead of the old approach, they're also actually doing it. Spice recently introduced the first 3D cell phone without 3D specs: "M-67 3D is bestowed with Auto-stereoscopic Display, which facilitate users to view three-dimensional images, enabling objects to appear more real & physical. The dedicated 3D shortcut key on the phone key lets users to switch amid 2D and 3D mode instantly. Further, the phone supports parallel version of 3D Image and Video format for that perfect viewing." And all that for under $100.

Wow.

Or what about the multi-SIM M-4580 that has enough battery to stay stand-by for 25 days. In short, while Europe is still fancying androïd apps and games (over 100.000 androïd apps since yesterday), India is winning the race. Best proof: Spice foresees 8 A&M's in the upcoming period...

I want more Spice in our market...

The GAP Story: 7 days to quickly forget.

DAY 0

October 4, 2010

GAP introduces its new logo on its site. No fuss, no fanfare, no event, just done.

Down With Design Blog reports the new logo is no good: “I really can’t understand the thinking behind this move.” In no time designers express their discontent on the bad design. Some even offer GAP a free redesign of their logo.

October 6, 2010

Kitsune Noir Blog reports: “There was a lot of brand equity in that big blue square and they didn’t move far away enough from the source for this logo to even begin to feel new or exciting.” Twitter explodes and someone (is it GAP?) starts a Twitter to defend the change: http://twitter.com/GapLogo. Gap gets a ro and contra Twitter. The internet community starts talking about Gapocalypse.

October 7, 2010

The logo gets the official name of ‘monstrosity’. GAP states/pretends the new logo is just a way to create buzz for their crowdsourcing project to find a new logo. Their Facebook page says:

“We know this logo created a lot of buzz and we’re thrilled to see passionate debates unfolding! So much so we’re asking you to share your designs. We love our version, but we’d like to... see other ideas. Stay tuned for details in the next few days on this crowd sourcing project.”

GAP is crowdsourcing for a new logo? No way. It’s just a bad PR recovery attempt the online community reacts. Since they want the world to create their new logo, where is the design brief?

Only the Time-NewsFeed seems to like the new logo. “NewsFeed personally does not mind Helvetica, and so this new logo brings to mind visions of a streamlined, technologically dominant future America where everyone wears white suits and cool glasses. Sure, it's generic, but don't you know that in the future everything looks alike?"

October 8, 2010

It takes GAP 2 days to react. Marka Hansen, President of GAP North America reacts in a column in the Huffington Post.

She states: “Our brand and our clothes are changing and rethinking our logo is part of aligning with that. We want our customers to take notice of Gap and see what it stands for today. We chose this design as it's more contemporary and current. It honors our heritage through the blue box while still taking it forward.”

She invites everyone to go into the dialogue and through their Facebook page people can send new proposals. How can she be defending a bad logo and at the same time invite people to make other proposals? One of the reactions says: “it (the logo) looks like something from a corporate powerpoint presentation”.

October 11, 2010

The GAP Facebook page end the story:

“Ok. We’ve heard loud and clear that you don’t like the new logo. We’ve learned a lot from the feedback. We only want what’s best for the brand and our customers. So instead of crowd sourcing, we’re bringing back the Blue Box tonight. “

Bye bye new logo, bye bye crowdsourcing, helo old logo.

Marka Hansen’s full statement:

"Since we rolled out an updated version of our logo last week on our website, we’ve seen an outpouring of comments from customers and the online community in support of the iconic blue box logo.

Last week, we moved to address the feedback and began exploring how we could tap into all of the passion. Ultimately, we’ve learned just how much energy there is around our brand. All roads were leading us back to the blue box, so we’ve made the decision not to use the new logo on gap.com any further.

At Gap brand, our customers have always come first. We’ve been listening to and watching all of the comments this past week. We heard them say over and over again they are passionate about our blue box logo, and they want it back. So we’ve made the decision to do just that – we will bring it back across all channels.

In the meantime, the website will go back to our iconic blue box logo and, for Holiday, we’ll turn our blue box red for our seasonal campaign.

We’ve learned a lot in this process. And we are clear that we did not go about this in the right way. We recognize that we missed the opportunity to engage with the online community.  This wasn’t the right project at the right time for crowd sourcing.

There may be a time to evolve our logo, but if and when that time comes, we’ll handle it in a different way."

Hell yea... I hope so.

 

DAY 7 - the new logo on the site is the old one.

PS: For the occasion the blog is posted in Helvetica ;-)

Is it customer love?

Brands are often referred to as a person. They have an identity, values, a specific style, a certain character and specialists tell us that ‘a brand is like a friend’. So we have brand relationships with love brands or even lovemarks. Marketers must create loyalty through conversation with the customer and consumer and not the brand as such nor its manager but the social surrounding decides on what reputation your brand has.

Now, personification is a damn good trick in brand management as people have learned through evolution to think in examples and very concrete ideas. Meaning that abstract ideas are too hard to understand and even if we understand them, it still remains difficult to actually do something with these abstract ideas. So indeed, it is a good thing to see brands as a person and create brand relationships.

Going further into that thought, it might be interesting to see what actually helps to create a so-called love relationship between people and brands. (Knowing that I’ve never seen a customer weep because his brand was delisted or completely disappeared from the world - but let’s play this ‘brand love’ game.) Love is created through 3 simple methods.

1. Frequency

The more frequent you meet a person, the more loyal you will be to that person. That is the reason why so many (extramarital) relationships start at work: at a certain point you see them more than your own wife or husband and show more loyalty to your colleagues than to your official relationship.

Brands need to create frequency in contact. Just don’t forget to make it a relevant contact.

2. Recognition

That’s why recognition is also important. Sure, you’ll find examples of relationships where there is no recognition from one of the persons involved, but I’m talking about healthy, non-psychopathic relationships. Recognition means that you show that you understand the world of your customer/partner and its attending issues. Relevance is one good way to make sure that you create recognition, but there are other possibilities.

Brands must learn to show recognition to their customers without denying their own characteristic property.

3. Extremes

This might be completely new to marketers, but research has shown that there is a simple way to create a ‘crush’. (And as we all know, being in love is a great start towards real love.) Put 2 people together and let them experience extreme situations together -with a happy ending of course- and chances are high(er) that they will have a crush on each other. Danger is an Aphrodisiac.

Now this is a more difficult one: brands must dare to create more extreme situations with their customers.  

Seen the period of brand courage implosion, I wonder whether brands are up to this…

The Pink Elephant of Soccer

The World Cup kicked off last week. Time for researchers to come up with tips and tricks to improve your favorite team’s score. One of the essential elements in World Cups are the penalties. The ball is placed 11 meters from the goal and the opponent tries to ‘fool’ the keeper in a medieval duel style. You might think that a bog hole of 7,32 by 2,44 meters should be big enough not to miss, but that is wrong. Regardless of the keeper, topscorers still manage to shoot wide and make the goalie unemployed.

How come?

For the same reason as the pink elephant in innovation processes. The pink elephant in innovation is the symbol of all the negative concept approaches. An example: if SlimFast launches an new product by telling that ‘this is not a diet’, the innovation will fail. Because the message mentioned the ‘bad word’ of diet.

The easiest way to demonstrate the strength of words planted in our minds is the pink elephant. Tell anyone ‘not to think of a pink elephant’ and they will think of one. By expressing the words, the damage is already being done. The same goes for penalties.

There are 2 main reasons why even topscorers miss penalties.

1. Stress: Research has shown that the team that is winning is the penalties scores 92% of the penalties. They’re already winning so the stress is less. The losing team only scores 60% of the penalties; the stress caused by the urge to make up arrears makes them miss far more. Furthermore, the score rate decreases as the number of penalties to take decreases. Almost 87% of the players score the first penalty, 82% score the second and only 79% the third. If you miss the first penalty, there’s still room to catch up. IF you miss the third, the damage is more difficult to recover thus the stress increases...

2. Pink elephant:   Even topscorers that are coached by mentioning the things not to focus on (don’t aim the keeper, don’t miss, don’t shoot wide...) don’t only take more time to take shoot but also have a lower hit rate than positively coached players (chose your angle, hit it hard...).

Add the annoying effect of the vuvuzelas in the South African World Cup and you have all reasons to avoid penalties. Euhm, all reasons 'to win in 90 minutes'. Let’s stay positive even when our mind is playing with us!

Research: University of Exeter, University of Amsterdam, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences

Admit it: you don't know what your customer wants!

But apparently most CEO's know it. At least, according to the IBM study I mentioned in my previous post. WHen asked for ther prediction of what customers want, 82% of them think they want organizations to better understand their needs to large/very large extent. This morning I had a meeting for a European project of a global and to my surprise they suddenly admitted that untill today they had always been very confident about their customer knowledge. That is, they had always been so condifent that they've always known what customers want without ever asking them or doing whatever piece of research. Untill today.

It's a small figure in the report but a huge mental step for brands and companies. Because indeed, most companies have lost their connection woth their customers and see them as an object in stead of a subject with a changing opinion, changing moods and changing needs. Untill the relevance and meaning crisis hit them.

So, if you think you know you know your customer, ask yourself the question what the 'deal' is that your brand makes with your customer. If you don't have an immediate answer, you're in trouble; your give-and-take dynamics between your offer and the customer aren't clear. Chances are high that your offer doesn't have too much meaning for your target. Time to learn about your customer...

Customer-Company gap global phenomenon.

Only  big names such as IBM are able to seduce by around 1.500 CEO's from big companies on a global level for a face-to-face interview. The advantage of this CEO profile is that not only do they have a pretty good view on their business but they also have a vision of what the future will bring. (Although this isn't a guarantee that will react accordingly.)

The results of the 2010 IBM Global CEO Study, called 'Capitalizing on Complexity' are just out and some graphs caught my attention. (I must admit that some kind of pitying feeling comes over me when I start reading this kind of reports, put I acknowledge that the times, they are changing.)

The first one is about the top priorities for companies for the next 5 years.

Number 1 priority by far is 'GETTING CLOSER TO THE CUSTOMER'. - 88%

88% of the global CEO's state that this will be their priority for the near future. As marketer and as consumer I hope they will keep that promise. I hope they will come out of their offices, get away from behind their one-way screens in research labs and start collecting true and usefull insights that are based on true (unmet) needs and aspirations. For the record, of those companies that stand out, the percentage of CEO's that esteem this as their top priority increases to 95%.

Their second priority is 'PEOPLE SKILLS'. - 81%

I rejoice at the finding that companies, after years of getting more efficient and more lean, have discovered the importance of not only their own people but also of the skills these people have. Not only because of the obvious conclusion that people without skills are a pain the ass of any company, but because skilled people are the kind of people that have more chances to get involved, to get the recognition the need and thus the kind of people that can find motivation from within theirselves, what they are doing and how they are doing it.

Third most important priority is 'INSIGHT AND INTELLIGENCE'. - 76%

Closely related to the two other priorities, 3/4 global CEO's implicitely admit that their insights and intelligence show a certain lag in solidity or at least isn't up-to-date. Companies, big and small, have difficulties keeping up the pace with the consumer's social evolution (although we and they are all consumers). Segmentations dilute, behavior becomes unpredictable and irrationality destabilizes most of the existing models. Time to regain true insights and build intelligence that can lead to clear, succesfull and applicable strategies.

All this makes me very optimistic for the future. From our own experience as consultants at Ziff-Jones, we also came to the conclusion that contrary to general expectations that smaller companies are more flexible, more outward oriented and closer to the consumer's reality, it are the big companies that are the first not only to draw lessons from the changes we live on a worldwide scale but also to draw the right conclusions. 

The biggest challenge for all of us will be to act and react accordingly and to keep an open mind that is ready to capture true changes without prejudice and without 'we know it all' arrogance. Anyway, IBM's report title 'Capitalizing on Complexity' couldn't be more right today! Apple loses this one...

If you're interested in the full IBM report, you can find it here.

Uw business is 'lean' - en uw land?

België is ontstaan als buffer tussen enkele eeuwig twistende grootmachten zoals Frankrijk en Duitsland. België is daardoor een mengelmoes van culturen en ideeën op het kruispunt van Europa. Historisch gezien toch. Sommige internationale bedrijven rekenen België dan ook terecht eerder bij hun Southern Europa afdeling dan bij het noorden van Europa zoals Nederland, Duitsland en Scandinavië. Feit is dat België een land is dat rijk is aan diversiteit. Niet toevallig gebruiken enkele belangrijke multinationals zoals Coca Cola, Zara, Women'Secret en Springfield het Belgenland dan ook als testmarkt. Als een product het haalt in onze diversiteit, dan heeft het alles om het elders ook te kunnen maken.

Maar midden op een kruispunt je huisje neerpoten, heeft ook een aantal nadelen. De complexiteit van het Belgische staatsbestel is helaas immens. Met regio's, gewesten, taalgemeenschappen enzovoorts -bovenop de klassieke provincies en gemeenten- met elk hun (gedeeltelijke) verantwoordelijkheid zorgt voor een dermatig kluwen dat doodgestudeerde specialisten in grondwettelijke aangelegenheden wekelijks ter hulp moeten komen om uit te klaren wat er nu correct is en wat niet. (Ongeacht of België in een periode zit met of zonder regering.) Die complexiteit zorgt er ook voor dat het bestuurorgaan van het land tot de meest indrukwekkende van de wereld behoort. Ongeveer 1 op de 5 Belgen werkt voor een overheidsorgaan, aldus het Planbureau. Volgens een andere bron, de werkgerversdenktank VKW Metena, zouden 1.400.000 Belgen rechtstreeks of onrechtstreeks werkzaam zijn voor de overheid; daarbij worden zogenaamde pseudo-overheidsdiensten zoals NMBS (spoorwegen) of De Post meegerekend.. Dat komt grofweg neer op maar liefst 43% van de actieve bevolking.

Bedrijfsmatig beschouwd vormt de overheid van een maatschappij de overhead van die maatschappij. Kortom, een overheid is de 'vaste kost' van een land die noodzakelijk is om de boel draaiend te houden. Nog maar weinig mensen, laat staan politici, bekijken de overheid op die manier, maar het klopt volledig. Welnu, gezien de onmetelijk complexe structuur van België en de daaraan gekoppelde reeks aan overheden, groot en klein, zorgen er voor dat het land van friet en bier een van de grootste overheidkosten ter wereld heeft. Tot die conclusie kwam Petercam toen ze de Human Development Index van de OESO analyseerde. Die bekijkt 53 criteria zoals demografie, gezondheidszorg, armoede en productiviteit om te komen tot een score qua levenskwaliteit. Een Belg is volgens die analyse iemand die weinig terugkrijgt in verhouding tot de investering in overhead-overheidskost. Maar liefst 44,3% van het bbp gaat naar overheidswerking. U kan dat vergelijken met een bedrijf waar bijna de helft van de financiën verdwijnt in overhead. Dat het bovendien nog altijd officieel crisis is, zou daarbij een effect moet hebben: zoals eerder al beschreven zien veel bedrijven hun heil in de lean methode waarbij optimale efficiëntie nagestreefd wordt en de kans op variatiefouten en afwijkingen tot een recordminimum beperkt wordt. Overheden reageren niet zo rationeel in tijden van crisis. De kans dat investeringen in infrastructuurwerken gehalveerd worden, is vele malen groter dan de kans dat de administratie van openbare werken gehalveerd wordt of dat de efficiëntie van de dienst verdubbeld wordt. Ter vergelijking: Zwitserland spendeert ongeveer 1/3 van haar bbp aan haar overheden. Nochtans is Zwitserland eveneens een land met veel culturen en talen, maar niet alleen hun uurwerken blijken efficiënt.

Aangezien de Belgen binnenkort toch voor de zoveelste verkiezing staan, is de tijd misschien rijp om een Lean Minister aan te stellen?!