"When you drink of clear water, must you foul the rest with your feet?”
- Ezekiel 34:18
Better late than never: The Green Bible
Dis ya version a no King James version.
I wonder if the Pope will read it? And weep?
More info >>
Prediction: 2009 will get "greenwashing" companies into hot water.
The danger in cause-related marketing is that it causes more harm to a company than good, especially when companies get involved in less than good faith.
This can happen, for example, when a company like P&G gets overzealous in its PR and engineers its own green awards.
And the slope gets slippery when the Sierra Club gets involved with Clorox.
Or when SC Johnson creates its own Greenlist(TM) process - and logo! Does anyone really believe that Windex is a green product?
Or when Dell claims it's carbon neutral.
The simple question for business is can we trust you?
The answer, so far, is no.
After eight years of laissez-faire, we are finally entering into a new phase of corporate accountability. And it's not just about greenwashing.
1. Will Obama fix the mess?
2. Who will replace Steve Jobs?
3. Will someone fix Yahoo?
4. Will anyone find/catch bin-Laden?
5. How many Bush regulations will be repealed?
6. Will Richard Branson start a Virgin Auto Company?
7. Will Google buy Twitter? Squidoo?
8. Netbooks! The $100 netbook is coming to disrupt the PC market... will it be from Google? or a Nokia?
9. How soon will we see a commercial mortgage collapse?
10. Will real unemployment hit 25%? 30%?
A similar tune from both Friedman and Krugman at the NYTimes...
Here's Friedman:
My fellow Americans, we can’t continue in this mode of “Dumb as we wanna be.” We’ve indulged ourselves for too long with tax cuts that we can’t afford, bailouts of auto companies that have become giant wealth-destruction machines, energy prices that do not encourage investment in 21st-century renewable power systems or efficient cars, public schools with no national standards to prevent illiterates from graduating and immigration policies that have our colleges educating the world’s best scientists and engineers and then, when these foreigners graduate, instead of stapling green cards to their diplomas, we order them to go home and start companies to compete against ours.
To top it off, we’ve fallen into a trend of diverting and rewarding the best of our collective I.Q. to people doing financial engineering rather than real engineering. These rocket scientists and engineers were designing complex financial instruments to make money out of money — rather than designing cars, phones, computers, teaching tools, Internet programs and medical equipment that could improve the lives and productivity of millions.
For all these reasons, our present crisis is not just a financial meltdown crying out for a cash injection. We are in much deeper trouble. In fact, we as a country have become General Motors — as a result of our national drift. Look in the mirror: G.M. is us.
and Krugman:
So what are the lessons for the Obama team?
First, the administration of the economic recovery plan has to be squeaky clean. Purely economic considerations might suggest cutting a few corners in the interest of getting stimulus moving quickly, but the politics of the situation dictates great care in how money is spent. And enforcement is crucial: inspectors general have to be strong and independent, and whistle-blowers have to be rewarded, not punished as they were in the Bush years.
Second, the plan has to be really, truly pork-free. Vice President-elect Joseph Biden recently promised that the plan “will not become a Christmas tree”; the new administration needs to deliver on that promise.
Finally, the Obama administration and Democrats in general need to do everything they can to build an F.D.R.-like bond with the public. Never mind Mr. Obama’s current high standing in the polls based on public hopes that he’ll succeed. He needs a solid base of support that will remain even when things aren’t going well.
Go Barack, Barack!
The science of shopping?
The article should've been called mind control in your local supermarket.
I agree with this: "despite all the new technology, simply talking to consumers remains one of the most effective ways to improve the 'customer experience'."
Too bad we can't spend the same kind of money on research figuring out the best way to teach Johnny how to read, write and do arithmetic...
Here's "Mind Control" from Stephen Marley:
China's advertising in Silicon Valley, trying to lure Asian-Americans to move to the "Most Aspiring City of Prosperity and Civilization in the Southeast of China."
Just another act in the global war for talent...
I just posted this on YouTube for JSB:
What appetite drives the proliferation of music to the point where the average American teenager spends 1½-2½ hours a day—an eighth of his waking life—listening to it?
My answer - Steel Pulse's Chant a Psalm:
I recently convinced Gaurav Bhalla, the global innovation director at Kantar-TNS, one of the world's largest market information and research companies, to start blogging.
His blog - GauravBhalla.com: The Practice of Customer-Driven Innovation - promises to be insightful and interesting all at once. See, for example, the post titled A.G. Lafley: The CEO as Commercial Anthropologist >>
Stay tuned...
1.) It will be a big year for applications that can play on big screens.
2.) The big news in the mobile world will be smart phone applications.
3.) The blush is off the China rose.
4.) Flash-based computing will really take off.
5.) Wall computing gets traction.
6.) Carry-along computers will be hot.
7.) LTE (Long Term Evolution) will be the preferred technology for 4G.
8.) The less developed world will finally see widespread availability of broadband.
9.) Voice recognition will finally work right.
10.) The Internet Assistant will be born.
Don't ask me, I'm simply reporting what Mark Anderson's saying.
The one I'm certain about is the "carry-along" computer. I want real laptop computing in the size of a Penguin paperback. Are you listening, Apple?
I wonder if Obama will get the fat-cats to put their own hides on the line...
Very interesting:
The book: Beyond HR: The New Science of Human Capital
Maybe we need to think about good old Pareto: What 20% of talent delivers 80% of the profits?
In my experience, the real problem with most companies is that HR is not viewed as a strategic function. And their most valuable assets are anything but...
"online advertising will continue to expand in the recession—just not as quickly as previously expected..."
Online advertising is 100% accountable, period. And what's more, campaigns can be optimized in real-time.
That said, there are ways to escape the tyranny of search. All it takes is ecosystem intelligence.
JH3 is a big fan of the 80/20 principle:
The 80/20 rule provides the foundation for a relatively simple exercise for executives. It involves answering the following questions:
* Which 20% of the products or services generate 80% of the profitability?
* Which 20% of the customers generate 80% of the profitability?
* Which 20% of the geographies generate 80% of the profitability?
* Which 20% of the assets generate 80% of the profitability?
These are powerful and revealing questions, yet few companies today are able to answer these questions given the way their accounting and information systems are set up.
I wonder if the same approach could be applied to the Federal Budget. Obama, are you listening?
The pareto questions might look something like this:
- Which 20% of our costs take up 80% of the budget?
- Which 20% of our services impact 80% of the tax-paying public?
- Which 20% of our geographies require 80% of our aid?
- Which 20% of our public generate 80% of our tax revenues?
Betcha these could be eye-openers!
Accenture is advertising How To Create A Culture Of High Performance.
I agree with them that "the central attribute of a successful leader is the ability to change the way people think."
But I completely disagree when they say that "Successful leaders get everyone to share the same mindsets."
I think the opposite is true: successful leaders bring together diverse points of view to challenge each other and present different alternatives, thus helping the leader make informed, effective decisions.
What Accenture is calling "mindsets" is really groupthink. Groupthink is a recipe for disaster, not high performance.
In the course of a two-year investigation, Accenture determined five "mindsets" which matter most in improving business performance:
Mindset 1: Maintain the Right Balance Between Market-Making and Disciplined Execution by Avoiding False Trade-offs and Committing to a Dual Focus on Present and Future.
Mindset 2: Identify and Multiply Talent by Investing a Disproportionate Amount of Time in Recruiting and Developing People.
Mindset 3: Use A Selective Scorecard to Measure Business Performance By Relying on a Simple, Memorable Way of Measuring Success and Using Every Occasion to Share Success Stories Throughout the Organization.
Mindset 4: Recognize Technology as a Strategic Asset by Investing in Technologies that Demonstrably Lead to Better Business Performance.
Mindset 5: Emphasize Continuous Renewal by Ensuring the Organization Understands What to Preserve and What to Jettison.
In my line work (consulting) I run into all kinds of executive mindsets. In the publishing world, however, these mindsets tend to be rather stodgy at best, reptilian at worst.
Publishers don't understand the web. And Seth Godin takes the New York Times to task, pointing out so many obvious misses and near-misses, that you have to ask why. Why don't publishers get it? Why do they insist on playing it safe, even as their ship sinks below them?
Godin's answer is right on target: "organizations are run by people who want to protect the old business, not develop the new one."
This is what VG talks about as well.
In just about any large company, the people running the show are great at yesterday's business, not tomorrow's.
Please read Godin's post >>
Bill George (yes, Medtronic's Bill George) gives us a few more lessons learned from the Obama victory:
• Obama created a grassroots movement by building an ever-expanding organization of empowered leaders, who in turn engaged people from their social networks like Facebook.
• The entire organization was aligned around a single goal—electing Obama as President—and operated with common values ("Offer messages of hope, don't denigrate our opponents, refuse to make deals").
• Campaign leaders subordinated their egos and personal ambitions to the greater goal. Those who deviated quickly exited.
• Obama set a clear, consistent tone from the top ("No Drama Obama"), and never wavered, even when things weren't going well.
• Obama's greater mission transcended internal goals, such as fund-raising, endorsements, and campaign events, but each of these areas had goals tied to the greater mission.
• The campaign team used the most modern Internet tools to communicate, motivate, and inspire people and to guide their actions. Each day, 5 million people received personal messages from campaign headquarters or even Obama himself. This organization collaborated across a wide range of geographies and campaign functions, all tightly integrated nationally and executed locally.
Finally, just in case you missed the other business lessons, here you go >>
Writes Zuboff in BusinessWeek:
"This column is dedicated to the top managers of American business whose policies and practices helped ensure Barack Obama's victory. The mandate for change that sounded across this country is not limited to our new President and Congress. That bell also tolls for you. Obama's triumph was ignited in part by your failure to understand and respect your own consumers, customers, employees, and end users. The despair that fueled America's yearning for change and hope grew to maturity in your garden."
Years ago I remember reading Zuboff's In the Age of the Smart Machine and thinking that no one in corporate management really wants real transparency... and that the information value-chain she described was doomed to failure.
Luckily, I was wrong. Now Obama will bring process transparency to government and business.
Asks Zuboff:
"...can we invent a business model in which advocacy, support, authenticity, trust, relationship, and profit are linked?"
"Yes, we must," she concludes.
Read the article >>
And read her book: The Support Economy: Why Corporations Are Failing Individuals and the Next Episode of Capitalism
>>
Tom Friedman made me laugh today:
"...somebody ought to call Steve Jobs, who doesn’t need to be bribed to do innovation, and ask him if he’d like to do national service and run a car company for a year. I’d bet it wouldn’t take him much longer than that to come up with the G.M. iCar."
The rest of his column is a bit more serious. But it's dead on!
What should the new President's priorities be? Here are some views from a few CEOs interviewed by BusinessWeek:
It's a cliche, but big business fears Democratic leaders. Turns out that Democratic presidents are better for the economy than Republicans! Details, details...
Jack Welch has his own take on why Obama succeeded: a clear vision, clean execution, and friends in high places.
A far more insightful piece comes from HBR blogger Umair Haque: Obama's Seven Lessons for Radical Innovators. I don't agree with all of his points (Obama did not "minimize strategy," he minimized tactics!) but I do commend Haque for his insights (see this post, for example, on why Obama is the Google of Politics.)
Bill Taylor has a fun post titled: How Obama Became CEO of the USA -- and What It Means for CEOs Everywhere
in which he argues that "being different makes all the difference."
John Quelch says it's all about better marketing.
Barbara Kellerman argues that Obama is a superior manager.
Gill Corkindale calls Obama The World's First 21st Century Leader
For Stew Friedman, it's authenticity.
My own view is that Obama is a true leader. And what we witnessed was the birth of Politics 2.0.
And in the end, it's still about results, and to that end, Obama has already taken the first step.
So what will Obama's innovation strategy look like? Here's a clue or two:
I finally got some sleep. The world has changed.
What a beautiful thing it is:
Steel Pulse teaches us the meaning of product versioning. See previous version here >>
We need a leader, a leader
To march on to Liberty
Get it Together
Vote Barack, Barack Obama...
MP3 here >>
Invest a little, learn a lot.
I've always enjoyed his work >>
See also: "How Productivity Killed American Enterprise"
I'm happy to see the Indians go for the moon, joining their Chinese and Japanese counterparts as they jockey for prestige and bragging rights.
Is it science or technonationalism? Both of the above, but somehow the politics outweighs the science.
Now let's all compete (or collaborate) to build green energy power generation projects!
The nerds at Bain give us a few reminders from history:
- Southwest Airlines surged ahead during the 2001 recession
- Intel pulled away from AMD (also in 2001)
- Johnson & Johnson, GE and IBM shifted focus on economically healthier regions in Q2/2008
- Bank of America gobbled up Merrill Lynch (the opportunity of a lifetime) - just a few days ago
So, where are your opportunities?
In this month's Harvard Business Review, authors John Hagel III, John Seely Brown and Lang Davison provide a road map for the daunting task of shaping strategy as technology-driven infrastructures constantly change.
The article is called: “Shaping Strategy in a World of Constant Disruption” and you can download it here (thanks Deloitte Consulting!) >>
In my view this is a very timely piece of thinking from my heroes JH3 and JSB (and Lang Davison). I'll dig into it later this month on ecosystemwatch.com...
Wait, there's more. Check out the podcast >>
Don't look now, but P&G is trying some direct selling online.
From the Financial Times:
Procter & Gamble is testing its ability to use the internet to sell its toothpaste, household cleaners and nappies directly to US households, in a potential long-term strategic challenge to its retail partners.
...The move brings P&G into direct brand competition with its retailers, underlining the extent to which e-commerce is contributing to changes in the way the two sides have traditionally worked with each other.
OK. The site is called theEssentials.com, but so far it looks like they have very little traffic.
Is this how they intend to fight the private label war? I'll talk about them later this month on ecosystemwatch.com
Looks like Rupert Murdoch's WSJ is thinking along the same lines we are (for a few seconds at least).
They've gone an dug up an old article Peter Drucker wrote for them: Planning for Uncertainty.
Here are some of the key questions:
- ...traditional planning asks, "What is most likely to happen?" Planning for uncertainty asks, instead, "What has already happened that will create the future?"
- "What do these accomplished facts mean for our business? What opportunities do they create? What threats? What changes do they demand -- in the way the business is organized and run, in our goals, in our products, in our services, in our policies? And what changes do they make possible and likely to be advantageous?"
- "What changes in industry and market structure, in basic values (e.g., the emphasis on the environment), and in science and technology have already occurred but have yet to have full impact?"
- "What are the trends in economic and societal structure? And how do they affect our business?"
- "What is this company good at? What does it do well? What strengths, in other words, give it a competitive edge? Applied to what?"
He ends with a serious warning for the bean-counters:
There is, however, one condition: that the business create the resources of knowledge and of people to respond when opportunity knocks. This means developing a separate futures budget.
The 10% or 12% of annual expenditures needed to create and maintain the resources for the future -- in research and technology, in market standing and service, in people and their development -- must be put into a constant budget maintained in good years and bad. These are investments, even though accountants and tax collectors consider them operating expenses. They enable a business to make its future -- and that, in the last analysis, is what planning for uncertainty means.
And don't forget his advice for retail strategy >>
In BusinessWeek:
Industry observers say that while those retailers can take 60 to 90 days or more to settle up, TJX typically pays within 30. These days, that's a critical selling point both to vendors, who are more concerned about finding funds to buy raw materials and pay expenses, and to the financers who act as middlemen in many of the deals. It could give TJX—which also owns discounters Marshalls and HomeGoods—an added advantage in getting a wider selection of items.
Makes sense. Can't sell something that's not on the shelf, Drucker used to say...
Read the article here>>
There's another very good reason to pay quickly: goodwill.
Your suppliers will take an extra step or two for you if they know they can count on you. This "trust" makes a giant difference in execution.
There's a software company I know which used to delay its vendor payments as much as possible as part of its strategy. While it may have gained a few bucks in capital, it lost in terms of responsiveness. Big time. Vendors would move extremely slowly to deliver value. It was frustrating on both sides. And all because a few "brilliant" bean-counters thought they had found a way to squeeze a few more pennies into the corporate treasury.
I have to say I was shocked when I saw the news about Michael Hammer. He was just sixty. Goes to show you how precious every second is. It may be that they need to do some process re-engineering up in heaven. Maybe make it more customer friendly or something...
Down here on Earth, process re-engineering isn't as fashionable as it used to be. And I wonder how many people got laid off because of Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution (Collins Business Essentials)
But Hammer was misunderstood. His ideas were abused by company executives and the management consulting industry. Today his ideas live on in the heads of IT nerds and companies like Zara.
Where do you (and your company) stand? Check out the maturity models he created:
1) for process maturity, and 2) for enterprise maturity.
Too bad we didn't see the one on leadership maturity.
Here are some fun links:
- Put Processes First: Make High Performance Possible Michael Hammer
- Michael Hammer: A Tribute to the Guru of Operations Anand Raman
- Remembering Michael Hammer Tom Davenport
In the end, process matters. Even our buddy Drucker acknowledged that.
BTW, the other process guru who is still (very) alive and kicking isTom Davenport.
One of the great things about the late Peter Drucker is that he can be summoned to solve just about any problem.
One of my clients is a web retailer. They're having serious issues with "customer hesitancy."
And of course the headlines are now full of bad news in retail.
So we had a long chat about customer hesitancy. What makes the customer hesitant? Is it really the news on TV? Is it the fact that they might be out of a job?
My first piece of advice to them was straight out of Drucker: Stop selling and start buying for the customer.
Are you buying for the customer? Really?
That line of reasoning led to these predictable questions: so exactly who is your customer? Are there segments you aren't serving that you should? Are there segments you should stop wasting your time with?
We were able to go and look at their historic web-sales data (for the past two years down to the last two weeks) to find out who their customers really were. And surprise, there was no customer hesitancy there!
All they needed was to focus on the right segment. We changed the website to do just that.
Listen to good old (in this case a younger, "1.0 version") Drucker:
The irrationally exuberant Robert Schiller is back with a book called The Subprime Solution
Don't have time for the book? Read the summary >>
Despite the downturn, there is evidence that consumers are interested in "purpose branding."
That's the spin from Procter & Gamble's Jim Stengel who (surprise, surprise) is leaving P&G at the end of the month to join a "purpose branding" consultancy.
Back-up data: In a study released this month, 26% of consumers expect companies to give more support to causes and nonprofits in an economic downturn, while 52% expect companies to maintain existing programs. Another 79% of consumers said if price and quality were similar, they would switch to a brand associated with a good cause.
OK, I'll buy it.
And if your company is looking to do some cause-related branding, here's a cool green company you should team up with: The Solar Electric Light Fund >>
And now, a survival guide from HBR.
My favorite entries:
- Why Entrepreneurs Love a Downturn
- How to Market in a Recession
- Staying Green in a Tough Economic Climate
- Three Steps to Innovating in Struggling Industries
- America’s Addiction and the New Economics of Strategy
- Beyond the Banking Crisis: A Strategy Crisis
- Hard Times Demand Teamwork -- Not an MVP
Non sequitur: What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick.
My opinion: Tom Friedman will win the bestseller race easily, but Peter Senge's book is more important. The good news? They're both serious about business and sustainability.
Here's Senge:
And here's his book: The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals And Organizations Are Working Together to Create a Sustainable World
Check out this interview with Senge>>
And this download>>
And here's Friedman's book pitch:
His book: Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America
His website>>
And finally, a little column from Friedman>>
Exxon, your days are numbered.
Coming soon at www.slackeruprising.com>>
Note: The download is only available to those residing in the United States and Canada. In order to receive the free download on September 23rd, you must confirm that you are a resident of the United States or Canada.
Will this change the movie business? Or better, will it change our government?
