Category Archives: Reality checks

The Missile Crisis

With a presidential debate on foreign policy tonight, it’s interesting that today is the 50th anniversary (boy do I feel old) of the start of the international incident known as the Cuban Missile Crisis.

English:

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If you’re unfamiliar with this time, there is a great movie called Thirteen Days which captures that period in 1962 when the U.S. and the Soviet Union came very close to starting a nuclear war.  I vaguely remember the “duck and cover” drills in school but little else.  The basic facts are the we had deployed some missiles in Italy and Turkey; the Soviets retaliated by sending missiles to Cuba.  We implemented a naval blockade to stop the ships, the Soviets threatened to start a war if the blockade didn’t end.  Harsh words were exchanged and the  situation escalated into the unthinkable – a nuclear war that would wipe out 100,000,000 citizens of each country as well as create an environmental catastrophe for the entire planet.

What does this have to do with business (since that’s what we do here on the screed)?  Maybe you and a customer have a disagreement   Maybe your management team is aligned on goals but very far apart on how to achieve them.  Maybe you have a work team in which some folks do all the work while others get all the credit.  Those are just a few of the business situations which can escalate into the business equivalent of nuclear war.  Those situations usually involve lawyers, money, a lot of time, and most of your emotional energy.  They take away from the reasons you’re in business.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was solved by the parties realizing that they did share one goal – avoiding the mass casualties and planetary destruction that a nuclear war would bring.  Back-channel negotiations solved the problem in a way that accomplished that goal as well as each side’s own goals while saving face on both sides.  That’s how it gets done in business as well.  Obviously, the best situation is to anticipate things that could become problems and write careful agreements before the situations happen.  However, a lot of the time that’s not feasible  as in some of the cases above.  In those cases, the sides need to come together  identify the goals they DO share, and listen very carefully to the other side.  Avoid posturing – speak openly and honestly.  Think creatively.  Commit to solving the problem.

Few business issues (OK, none) are of the magnitude of those weeks 50 years ago but we can still learn from what occurred.  What thoughts do you have?  Ever gotten to “the brink” in your business life?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Reality checks, What's Going On

Are Brands As Bad As Politicians?

There’s another presidential debate this evening so I’ve got politics on my mind.  While the debates are focal points, the entire campaign season (a way too long season IMHO) has been filled with charges of factual distortion or outright lying by one candidate or another.  There are numerous non-partisan fact-checking sites so getting at the truth (or nearer to it anyway) isn’t as hard as one might think.  What the entire process does call into question, however, is how willing most of the participants are to stretch the truth, to use selective data points while ignoring others that don’t help them, or to fabricate allegedly factual statements out of whole cloth.

The unfortunate reality is that politicians aren’t alone in this.  In fact, one could say that they’re no worse than many marketers.  There is an interesting column this morning in a marketing blog that asks if CMO’s know when they’re lying:

As consumers’ ability and interest in monitoring corporate behavior intensifies, major brands like McDonald’s, Johnson & Johnson, and Coca-Cola are clearly injecting corporate-social-responsibility messages into marketing platforms as never before.  Trouble is, telling the truth has never been a marketer’s strong suit. In fact, we are still shaking our heads at how distorted some of these hybridized half-pitches, half-aren’t-we-a-good-company messages are.

No one over the age of 10 thinks french fries or sugary drinks are good for you so selling them with a nutrition message is just wrong.  If you saw a message like that you’d scoff.  But  how many marketers knowingly tell half-truths that are less apparent to the consumer?  No, I don’t expect that any brand will state “this is an OK product that will probably fall apart in a year but what do you want for a third of what you’d pay for the best?”.  However, how many food products add “natural” to the label to imply that an otherwise non-nutritious box of cereal is wholesome?  How many bad home loans were written on terms the lender knew the buyer was unable to afford by making it seem as if they could?  I’m sure you could add a few examples here.

We’re quick to criticize politicians (you can tell he’s lying because his lips are moving).  It might not be a bad thing to think about glass houses while we do so.

Thoughts?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Reality checks

Advertorials

If the internet has a downside, it’s that is has neither barriers to entry nor a filter.  Of course, that’s also part of what’s so good about it.  However, there is really no way to tell if what you’re reading is from a credible source that did research or if it’s just made up crap.  One way I think users can distinguish one from the other is by considering the source.  Legitimate news operations tend to have done their homework and there’s usually some sort of editorial control in place to assure that some writer’s fantasy doesn’t get put out there as fact.

That’s why I found the story in this morning’s Media Post so disturbing:

If there is a red line delineating the church and state of journalism, some big news publishers have just crossed it — introducing a spate of new “native” advertising formats that blur the line between advertising and editorial content in new ways, including brand-produced videos served directly in the news organizations’ video news players.

This is not a new phenomenon.  “Advertorials” have been around for a long time.  These are long-form ads written to appear as regular editorial and are designed to look like a legitimate and independent news story. It might be a TV piece that’s an “infomercial,” or as a segment on a talk show or variety show. In radio, it might be a discussion between the announcer and a brand representative.  The brand usually controls all of the content and there are subtile differences – a tiny “advertisement” written someplace – that make it hard for someone encountering the content to tell that it’s brand advocacy, not editorial.

I’m not a fan.  Obviously I’m a big fan of ad-supported media – I worked in it and sold it for decades.  I do think, however, that doing this in digital in particular is an issue since there is so much content out there and users’ expectations of editorial integrity as explained above are not met when the line is crossed.  It calls into question all of the legitimate reporting.  I get that people might ignore advertising but pay attention to this.  They need to know it’s not the same as other content.

The pressure for revenue can’t undermine the integrity of the news brand, and while it’s easy to rationalize including this sort of advertising, you’re ceding control to someone who may not meet the same sort of standards you set for your organization.  I don’t think that’s smart.

What do you think?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Reality checks, Thinking Aloud