Is ‘The Academy’ Losing Relevancy?

Jerry Johnson · March 31st, 2013

Late last fall, reporter Amanda Ripley wrote an article for TIME magazine with the ominous title “College is Dead. Long Live College!” It was the latest in a long litany of articles by reporters and pundits who have been doing a lot of rethinking lately about the institution long known as “the academy.”

Is the “academy” losing its relevancy? There’s evidence this may be the case with groups important to its future, notably parents, students, alumni and opinion leaders.

We’ve worked on numerous research projects with groups of people both inside and outside colleges and universities across the country. Everything suggests higher education faces significant challenges in three areas: financial, technological and institutional relevance.

Is the academy financially relevant? This question is being asked by both students and parents facing skyrocketing tuitions as well by alumni who, in light of the ever-increasing pressure for giving, are rethinking the utility of both annual giving and capital campaigns. Tuitions at many schools are out of the reach of the average family. That, in turn, has led to an unprecedented (and unsustainable) level of personal tuition loan debt. A recently released survey by The Princeton Review suggest that while in years past people’s primary worry was getting into the “right school,” today the primary worry is how to pay for whatever school you get in to.

On the other side of graduation, the academy is facing headwinds from alumni. The competition for gifts to “good causes” among affluent alumni is increasing. Moreover, the younger Gen X and Gen Y alumni show distinctly different attitudes and giving patterns to giving compared to their boomer counterparts. Add to this the declining government funding, and there are many nervous development officers wondering where the next funding dollar is going to come from.

Is the academy technologically relevant? Technology is fundamentally changing the academy the same way it changed the business of news media over a decade ago. As popular New York Times columnist wrote in a piece titled “The Campus Tsunami,” “what happened to the newspaper and magazine business is about to happen in higher education: a scrambling around the Web.”

Why go to a university when one can get a considerable amount of instruction on the Internet for free? Indeed, the global demand for access to knowledge and the emerging opportunities for innovative technology to deliver it presage dramatic changes in “the academy’s” value proposition. Innovations like Kahn University and the explosion of MOOCs are just the beginnings of what will likely be very fundamental structural changes.

Is the academy institutionally relevant? Perhaps the biggest challenge is an uptick of people questioning the very being of the academy. Rightly or wrongly, almost every important audience we talk to – particularly employers and opinion leaders – are seeing a “profound disconnect” between what young people are learning and the world they’re going into. As one public policy executive told us, “The public institutions are in a crisis of declining public support … they’ve been slow to come to the reality that this decline is permanent.”

We don’t think it has to be. Amidst all this, we do see many colleges and universities successfully navigating a critical time of change. They have at least three things in common.

First, they are taking risks and taking action. The challenges of financing and technology will not change over the short- and medium-term. Institutions are experimenting, innovating and taking needed risks to restructure funding and curriculum.

Second, many of the best institutions are focusing as much in the “how” as the “what.” With the commoditization of information, the premium for the education experience increasingly will go beyond the lecture hall and into the streets.

Finally, we see colleges and universities rethinking, restructuring and rebuilding their ties to key communities – everything from students and parents to alumni to the towns and business sectors that they serve.

Those within “the academy” that best navigate the “digital disruption” taking place in education will be those who are most likely to be relevant to the students and alumni of tomorrow.

Today’s forecast: changing climate views

Steve McGrath · February 27th, 2013

We had a blizzard up here the other day, the second biggest in our history. Yet a few days before that, the thermometer was pushing 60 degrees. This certainly feels like global weirding.

Although I’m generally concerned about climate change, I worry more about the fate of this planet on days when the temperatures don’t match the season. When it’s balmy in February, that’s troubling.

On the other hand, when the snowbanks tower over my head, warming doesn’t seem to be an issue. Doubts chip away at my climate change convictions, notwithstanding the statements of NASA, NOAA, the United Nations, 34 science academies and countless other credible agencies.

I’m not the only one who’s fickle on climate.

A University of British Columbia study found a strong connection between weather and climate attitudes over the past two decades “with skepticism about global warming increasing during cold snaps and concern about climate change growing during hot spells.”

The University of New Hampshire came up with similar findings, especially among independent voters in the state. “Interviewed on unseasonably warm days, independents tend to agree with the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change,” said researchers Lawrence Hamilton and Mary Stampone. “On unseasonably cool days, they tend not to.”

Why do our attitudes change like this? Because despite what we know, we just can’t deny what we see and feel. Yes, sensory experiences do play a big role in what’s relevant to us, maybe more than we think. You can see it in our new Conversational Relevance study. Although hotel guests value location and recreational facilities for the kids, these highly rational concerns are only part of the mix. Guests also chatter online about water pressure in the shower and the view from the room, and about abstractions like a hotel’s culture and cachet.

The bottom line? When it comes to decision-making, whether it’s a hotel room or the destiny of the human race, logic is overrated. Think about it. Rationally, if you can.

To be relevant, become family … or at least a friend!

Jerry Johnson · February 14th, 2013

Over twenty years ago, an upstart phone company (MCI) launched its “Friends and Family” campaign. The program, which could contain up to 20 MCI names, gave customers a discounted rate for calling those “friends and family.” It was an immediate success.

We know because it was modeled by just about every other competitor, including AT&T, who implored us to “reach out … reach out and touch someone.” The someone that they invariably referred to was a grandmother, aunt, sibling or spouse. That is, reach out and touch a friend or a family member.

Today it is hard to find any company that doesn’t have some “friends and family” promotion campaign. They take various forms, both online and offline, but the desire is always to be able to tap into someone’s “inner circle” and have them market your product or service to their “friends and family.”

Why were these campaigns so successful?

In part, because contrary to popular wisdom, we are not a “me” culture. We are a “family and friends” culture. Yes, the libraries and best selling lists may be lined with self-help books and advice on how to find personal meaning. But in a recent study, What Americans Value, we examined that element – finding personal meaning – and tested it against a battery of other things people found personally important in their lives. Those included money, meaning, love, health and recognition.

What towered over every element was friends and family. Not only that. What personally mattered most to people was “caring” for friends and family. That is, it wasn’t just the abstract notion of attachment to a clan or a group or a bloodline. It was the idea that we find personal meaning in nurturing and caring for those who matter most to us.

Our study suggests that while we may be a “me” culture on the outside – obsessed with our status, our looks and our oh-so-fragile egos – the more powerful driver of relevance is found in nurturing, specifically nurturing friends and family.

So the interesting question to ask is “who is family?” It could be mom and dad and the family you grew up with. It could be your “office” or “work” family. It could be that “family” that you see everytime you go to yoga class or play golf.

Indeed, the phrase “they’ve become part of the family” may be the most coveted phrase for anyone. It is a phrase that drives personal relevance. Because in becoming part of the ‘family,” one has the possibility of becoming more important than self – you become the object of affection and support for an entire group.

There are plenty of lessons here for marketers.

First, avoid the extremes of the completely introspective and self-indulgent. While they clearly strike a chord, it is a chord that is easily trumped. Our study shows the power not only of family but also of caring and compassion.

Second, avoid the other extreme of the global fantasy. While we may “like to teach the world to sing in simple harmony” – we’re much more focused on making sure the ones closest to us, our “family” or “clan,” is protected and cared for.

Finally, figure out how to make your brand, product or service part of an existing “family.” That family need not be the traditional nuclear family. It could be a social family, a work family, a sports family. This is why we have “official sponsors.” ”Official sponsors” have the opportunity, over time, to not only sponsor the family but become intrinsically identified with it. Perhaps ever more powerful, show how your brand, product or service enables someone to better care for their friends and family. How does it improve their lives, protect them from harm, expand their joy.

And there is where things begin to stick. Because that is where you get at the heart of being personally relevant.

Understanding the New Compassion

Steve McGrath · November 13th, 2012

“If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion.”

-The Dalai Lama

When I waited tables years ago, I learned you certainly could please a customer with a fine meal and attentive service. You could make a friend for life, however, if you righted a wrong. If the steak was overcooked and you apologized and showed the customer you really cared – expressed compassion for their plight – then returned with a fresh new meal, their experience was somehow even better.

When I was in the hospital following an accident a few years ago, there was some pain. But the more vivid memory is of the nurse who made sure I had everything I needed – and convinced me she really cared. There was also a doctor who jostled my jagged bones, then apologized in a way that convinced me he empathized with my searing pain. I liked that guy. I have only the vaguest, most neutral memories of the doctors who didn’t hurt me.

Compassion: it feels wonderful to get and wonderful to give. It’s no surprise, then, that 68 percent of Americans in our recent survey rate themselves in the 8 to 10 range on the compassion scale – the most popular of 10 labels we offered. It’s also a shining example of how logic is overrated in the formula of what makes a product, brand, candidate or cause relevant.

Compassion: it’s in us

It’s odd that the importance of compassion emerges during one of our bitterest times, as politicians spend billions to bash one another silly, a conversation so rancorous it made a little girl cry. At the same time, however, a devastating storm, Sandy, elicits the best in us as we reach out to help those who have lost their loved ones, their homes, their power and water.

It’s also odd that the image of the compassionate American flies in the face of our nation’s dominant mythology, individualism. Compassion generally involves comforting those who don’t have what they need – not celebrating the success of those who do.

The survey probably reflects our aspirations more than our true levels of compassion. Still, it’s clear: compassion is in us, and it’s a very powerful thing. The challenge for communicators is to tap into this rich vein of compassion. And that means honoring it.

Honoring compassion with sincerity

By that I mean making your compassion sincere. The only thing worse than lack of compassion is false compassion. Don’t fake it.

Domino’s compassion for customers sounded sincere when it confessed that its old pizza tasted like cardboard. Patagonia’s compassion for the planet sounded sincere when the company said it wants you to wear its clothes till they fall apart rather than waste resources buying new ones. BP did everything it could from a messaging perspective when it promised, in the wake of the Gulf oil spill, to “make this right.”

So if you are working with compassion in your communications program, be real.

What you should do

In a compassionate America, expect some consumers to choose the gadget made by the company that shows compassion for foreign laborers. Expect them to be cold toward the car that’s selling nothing but snob appeal. Expect them to like the restaurant that supports local farmers – not the one famous for its foie gras.

Expect business customers to lean toward the vendor that not only makes the best analytical business case but also makes their lives easier and their customers’ lives better. Of course we want our medical records systems to lower health care costs. Wouldn’t it be great if they also saved patients’ lives?

Expect voters to choose the candidate who… well, negative advertising isn’t going away anytime soon. Let’s hope politicians will at least see some wisdom in finessing it with compassion – “Joe Jones isn’t a bad guy; he just makes bad decisions.”

Expect activists to join the cause that gives them a way to directly exercise their compassion. While big checks may be the most effective means for feeding the hungry, causes will need ways to make supporters feel as good as if they were ladling out the soup themselves.

Ultimately, expect Americans to respond to people, ideas and things that help us prove that compassionate is more than a label we want, more than something we simply aspire to.

We want to be it.

Compassion: The (not so) secret ingredient to effective communications

Jerry Johnson · November 8th, 2012

What is compassion and why is it so popular?

You noticed it during crisis and most recently during the tragedy that was Hurricane Sandy. We hear stories, see pictures, watch videos of those in distress and we feel for them. In some cases, we actually do something for them!

Put that in the long list of recent disasters –from Haiti to Katrina to 9/11. We see, we hear, and we are drawn into action because we feel compassion for another.

But if you look closely you will see “compassion” playing out in almost every form of effective communication. Sometimes, like in the case of emergencies, it is blatant. Other times the tug on the compassion thread can be ever so subtle.

The recent presidential campaign is but one example. Who cares more about all those “job creators”? Democrats? Republicans?

Do you pity the poor small business because it is burdened with regulation gone amok? Or do you have compassion on them because they are just looking for the same low interest loan to ride out the current economic downturn that the big banks get?

Or what about young people? Who cares for them? Are you sad for the young because they’ve been saddled with debt by profligate government waste? Or are you sad for them because instead of investing in education we’re sending all the tax breaks to wealthy businesses that would just as soon hire in Mombai, India, as they would in Mobile, Alabama?

In either case both campaigns are vying for the same thing: your compassion.

We like to dress up in compassion

In our new study, we asked people to review a list and assign labels to themselves. On that list were many admirable qualities some of which have defined American culture and history: idealistic, leader, ambitious, risk-taker, optimistic. There were ten in all. But from that list the label that people thought most applied to them by far was “compassionate.” Indeed, over two-thirds of Americans felt that this label not only applied to them but applied strongly applied to them.

Does this mean that these people are kind-hearted and caring? Not really. Rather it means that compassion is something that they like to associate themselves with. That is, compassion is something that they either think they are or would like to be.

Why are we so fixated with compassion and being compassionate? This question has long bedeviled the academy, from psychologists to neuroscientists. Compassion is a curious thing because it does not fit neatly into the prevailing paradigms of current evolutionary theory (survival of the fittest) or economic theory (pursuit of self-interest). A good testament to how hard compassion is to reconcile with the latter was President George Bush’s catchy notion of “compassionate conservatism.”

What is compassion and why do people want to associate themselves with it? For people of faith that answer draws back to their worldview of the divine and the inherent sanctity of life. Virtually every religious faith has a version of the “golden rule”.

But recently there has been a flurry of efforts by secular thinkers to explain compassion in an evolutionary sense, including theories by Sam Harris (“The Moral Landscape”) and Jonathan Haidt (“The Righteous Mind”). Their explanations suggest that compassion is indeed a “survival” skill not just for individuals but more importantly for communities, societies and nations. Within a group, compassion makes that group stronger.

Whatever side you may come down on, what is clear is that compassion is a driving force in how with think, believe, support, and attach ourselves to individuals, ideas, and organizations.

Some advice to marketers

We typically associate communications campaigns that pull on the thread of compassion with highlighting people at risk – preferably the innocent (aka Christian Children’s Fund, St. Jude’s Hospital).

But if you look very closely, you’ll find product purveyors embedding the idea of compassion in all sorts of messages.

Our products are “kinder” to the environment.
Buy these diapers because they are gentler to your baby.
If you care for your family’s safety, you’ll buy this car.
If you care about your family’s education, you’ll buy this technology.
If you really love your cat, you’ll buy our cat food.

So our advice to marketers: follow the compassion.

Unless you are marketing to sociopaths, compassion has to be a critical element of any brand, marketing and sales strategy. Identify how it is that what you do helps others. And then make it simple, easy and fun to bring other people along for that ride.

And don’t forget that genuine external communications begins from within your organization. That is, don’t forget to practice internally the compassion that you encourage externally.

Because everyone wants to think they are compassionate. We just need to help them get there.

Failure or Forward? The competing frames in the 2012 presidential campaign

Jerry Johnson · October 17th, 2012

You may have noticed there’s a presidential election underway. It is a contest between two candidates and two political parties, to be sure. But it’s more than that; a contest between two “frames” of how we view the current political and economic landscape.

The frame that Governor Romney and his campaign would like you to see through goes something like this:

The current presidential policies have failed. They have not produced the employment and economic growth that was promised and that we need. Worse, they continue the nation and society down an unsustainable path of big government and even bigger government deficits. The reason the President’s policies have failed is because they don’t follow the principles that historically have made our country and society strong – capitalism and free enterprise.

The campaign slogan for the Romney campaign is “Believe in America” but – arguably – the frame is “failure”. President Obama promised renewed growth, reduced unemployment, and reducing the deficit. That hasn’t happened. If you look at the presidency and politics from this vantage point, the bet is that you’ll vote for Governor Romney.

The frame President Obama and his campaign would like you to see through goes something like this:

We are slowly rebuilding from one of the worst economic crises in recent history – a crisis brought about by policies that favor the few at the cost of the working middle class. Now is not the time to go back to the policies that got us into this mess in the first place. We built our nation based on the principles of fairness and equal opportunity. That means moving forward with policies that invest in people.

The campaign slogan for the Obama campaign is “Forward.” This is also – arguably – the frame. Tax reductions for the rich only increased the gap between rich and poor. Indiscriminate deregulation led to the corporate hijinks that taxpayers ended up paying for. Given the struggles of the middle class and precarious state of the economy, now is not the time to slash investments in things like infrastructure, education and the environment. If that’s your frame, the Obama campaign is betting you’ll vote to re-elect the president.

Framing is not unique to politics. It is intrinsic to being human. It is how our brain organizes or “fits” what is going on around us in a manner that allows us to make sense of the world. The concept was made popular by cognitive linguist George Lakoff in his book Metaphors We Live By (later amplified for political communication in Moral Politics). The latest in neuroscience and behavioral research confirms this basic theory – that people are pattern seekers. We look for patterns and frames that help us make sense of both ourselves and those around us. Science writer Michael Shermer, in his book The Believing Brain, puts it this way:

The brain is a belief engine. From sensory data flowing in through the senses, the brain naturally begins to look for patterns, and then infuses those patterns with meaning.

Great communications is the perfect balance between tapping into existing people’s patterns and frames while identifying and introducing new ways of looking at things. Key to that is identifying personally relevant factors that can “change the frame.”

Sometimes it can be as simple as marrying two seemingly disparate elements that get people to rethink an old way of looking at things. A good example is the current American Cancer Society campaign (which Brodeur is part of) that frames the organization not around the disease of cancer but the ultimate goal of the organization – giving people more birthdays. Another example is a campaign recently launched by Pfizer with the surprising tagline “Get Old.” Together with nearly a dozen advocacy organizations, it is reframing the whole notion of aging and what it means to be “old.”

Most times, framing focuses on identifying an underlying feeling or emotion that can trigger or crystallize an action that you may already be predisposed to do. Rather than confront, the frame nudges you towards a desired behavior. In the case of the two presidential campaigns, the ultimate behavior is a vote on November 6th.

The winner will be more than just one of the two candidates. Beyond the candidates, the contest is between two different frameworks for political and economic action.

It will be a plebiscite on which frame is the most relevant and meaningful to voters.

How to be happier at work

Leonard A. Schlesinger, Charles F. Kiefer and Paul B. Brown · July 17th, 2012

It would be nice to think that you’re going to be just as excited about going to work tomorrow as you were on your first day on the job.

But between increased workloads caused by your company’s reluctance to hire more people, or a change in management that has put less than stellar people in charge of your little corner of the universe, or maybe the fact that you have done the same job for a while now, you may be feeling….well, not exactly burned out, but fatigued.

What to do?

Telling yourself to get more excited about the same old thing isn’t going to work. (It never does.)

Retiring in place and simply going through the motions is not an option. (You’d be replaced a week from Thursday by someone who might not be better, but by a person who certainly has more enthusiasm.)

And while looking for another job is clearly a choice, terrific jobs are hard to come by in this limp-along economy and you may not be ready to undergo that kind of disruption.

Let us suggest another alternative: Start something. More specifically, start something outside of work.

It could be a new company — or at least something that could lead to starting your own company — but it also could be something artsy like writing a book, composing music or doing something for the betterment of your community (such as developing an idea for a new after-school program). Heck, it could even be something you’ve always wanted to do — like learning to play the piano or speak a new language — with absolutely no possibility of financial reward. You simply want to do it for the sheer enjoyment of it.

It doesn’t matter what it is. The key is to start, to take a small step toward what you think you want. You don’t have to make a commitment to see this fledgling notion through to the end. That would be silly — you simply don’t know if this new thing is something that you are really going to like.

The key is to get moving without much cost (either in time or in any other resource.) As with all new ventures, you want to stay within your acceptable loss.

Once you take that small, inexpensive step, see what you’ve learned. If you’re happy with the results, take another step toward your goal. Pause again to see what you’ve learned this time and, if it feels right, go take another step.

How is this going to make you happier at your job? That’s simple. Some of the enthusiasm you have for your outside venture is going to carry over into your work. Making progress on things you care about elevates your mood. You’ll come to work pleased with yourself and you’ll be less dour. Guaranteed. That could be enough to get you out of your funk — which is certainly a good thing both for you, your colleagues and your company.

And if it doesn’t cure your job fatigue, or it doesn’t for long, that’s not necessarily bad, either. By taking the step toward creating something outside of work, you have done two things, both of them good:

First, you may have started down the road that could lead to you starting your own business.

Second, because you have done it, you are in the process of proving to yourself that you know how to create something new. That will be a valuable skill to have no matter what you do next — start your own company, look for a new job or try to carve out a new sort of position in your current company.

Of course, there is an alternative, and you’ve probably met this person before. It’s the person who tells you about all the things they might do, but who never seems to take the first step toward any of their goals. You offer an idea. You offer encouragement and support. But nothing happens. Somehow this person seems more comfortable and even (ironically) pleased with dreaming about possibilities while remaining unhappy.

The remedy for this malaise is simple (although not often taken). It is to act. Every action causes a change in reality. Every action carries the potential for learning. Learning about your next step. Learning about what you like or don’t like. Every act can build momentum. Small desires grow. A small talent or expertise can be developed and honed. Before you know it, you can be on a new course. But only if you act.

So, as counter-intuitive as it seems, to be more excited about your job, go do something great outside of it.

Leonard A. Schlesinger is the president of Babson College. Charles F. Kiefer is president of Innovation Associates. Paul B. Brown is a long-time contributor to the New York Times. They are the coauthors of Just Start: Take Action, Embrace Uncertainty, Create the Future (HBR Press 2012). Learn more at juststartthebook.com.

India’s exploding digital economy

Jeffrey F. Rayport · June 25th, 2012

Recently, I had the privilege of moderating a conference of global entrepreneurs and venture capitalists in Mumbai — an event called Founders Forum India. Founders Forum is a franchise started by two successful UK-based entrepreneurs, Brent Hoberman and Jonnie Goodwin, to stimulate US-style entrepreneurship in the European region, and now around the world. The event brought together some 250 entrepreneurs and investors for a series of panels, round tables, and a business plan competition. It also featured a showcase of hot new Indian start-ups.

What the event made clear — beyond the striking array of talent in the room assembled by our Indian host, Reliance Group’s Rajesh Sawhney — was a stunningly bright future for all things digital in India. Indeed, practically any statistic you might cite about Digital India suggests that something unusual is going on. And the impact will occur in the next 24 to 36 months, based on the following data and projections:

Let’s start with Internet access. Today, India’s population of Internet users is 80 million, which equals a penetration rate of just seven percent (or 17 percent of the urban population). That is about to change. The government is rolling out what it calls its National Broadband Plan, a $4.5 billion initiative to build a country-wide fiber optic network that will connect an additional 160 million Indians by 2014. An Indian investment bank, Avendus, projects 376 million Indian Net users by 2015.

Part of what’s fueling growth in Net penetration is an explosion in mobility. The Indian government sponsored the introduction of 3G services in 2011 with a $30 billion spectrum auction. Morgan Stanley projects that 3G penetration will reach 22 percent by 2015. Government and the private sector have spent something like $55 billion on related infrastructure. Further, we’ll see a roll-out of 4G wireless services across the country in 2012. While there are nearly 800 million mobile subscribers in India, very few use smart phones; most have feature phones that deliver, at best, premium text-based services. As unit economics enable ever cheaper smart phones (the lowest price in the market is now $65), their penetration will rise.

Fueling this explosion is a fact of national culture: Indians love media. No one aware of the nation’s obsession with “ABC” (Astrology, Bollywood, and Cricket) will be surprised to learn that the average Indian consumes 4.5 hours of media and entertainment a day, while 70 percent of the national population spends money on content, both online and off. Time spent online already comes to 40 minutes per capita per day.

Mobility will drive much of the expansion in Internet usage. One of every four Internet users in the country now accesses the Net using a mobile device. A leapfrog effect will mean that three of every four Net users will do so by 2015. Bye-bye to the clunkier and more costly PC.

One result of this expansion is that e-commerce is rapidly taking off. Granted, only 11 percent of Indian online users are transacting online. As in China several years ago, there’s a reluctance to pay for goods using the Web; most of today’s online transactions are in the travel industry (representing 87 percent of a $6.3 billion e-commerce sector, says Avendus). Still, Amazon lookalike Infibeam is growing sales handily. It’s a reflection of what’s happening in the domestic retail space more broadly. Infibeam’s founder projects growth of the retail economy from $400 billion today to $1 trillion by the end of the decade. Digital will inevitably play a starring role in propelling this growth.

At the same time, there is an abundance of local capital ready to deploy to feed new ventures. Consumer demand for innovative digital services, when executed ably, seems unquenchable; and that demand is stimulating capital flows. For this reason, one entrepreneur observed, “More companies [in India] die of indigestion than of starvation.” According to Mergermarket, the value of investment activity rose from $111 million in 2010 to $829 million in 2011, while the number of deals doubled from 33 to 66. This expansion isn’t just domestic. Indian entrepreneurs are feeling bullish about global markets. One publicly traded company, OnMobile, an operator of premium SMS services, now does business in 52 countries around the world.

Growing confidence among Indian entrepreneurs is related to one other market attribute: Indian consumers are extraordinarily demanding. Many at the conference articulated the idea simply. As they say in Manhattan, the Mumbai crowd averred, “If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere.”

Yes, there are challenges. There are at least 16 languages spoken throughout the country. There’s the question of how to develop robust legal, regulatory, and financial infrastructure (including payment systems). There’s the problem of sound policing of intellectual property rights. There’s an aversion to subscription-based offerings. And, as ever, there’s something else you cannot ignore: executional risk.

But it was hard for me, from a moderator’s perch, not to feel exhilarated by the dramatic upside for Digital India. The subcontinent seems on the cusp of amazing developments, only beginning with broadband Net access, high-speed mobility, and e-commerce. The idea that India — with its scale, its energy, its consumers — could become a digital laboratory and growth engine for the world struck me as both likely and inspiring.

Given that, is it any wonder many who attended the conference regard India’s digital opportunity in the next few years as greater than China’s?

Jeffrey F. Rayport is a member of the Brodeur Partners Advisory Board, a noted digital strategist and private equity investor. He was formerly on the faculty of the Harvard Business School.

Messaging for man — or machine?

Jerry Johnson and Evan Parker · May 22nd, 2012

We both spend a good part of our time at Brodeur helping clients figure out their messaging.

What are the key messages your audience needs to hear? What words, metaphors and images should you use to convey them? How do you structure your story so that it is relevant to the people you are talking to?

Recently, we were leading a client workshop going through an inventory of audiences.

It was a typical exercise. Who are our target audiences? What do they look like? Where do they hang out? What are the values and cultural norms that influence them? What matters to them? What do they find relevant?

As we moved through the exercise, we kept coming back to two questions: would the messaging be relevant to our target audience AND how would those ideas be filtered through the web “machine?”

Why? We interact with the digital world through its machines — specifically the search engines and web applications that people use to find our digital selves. Once found, you’ve only a few seconds to establish relevance and influence the individual – or your opportunity could be gone forever.

That got us thinking. What are the differences between messaging for people and messaging for machines? What do they have in common?

Both have dominant traits.

For people, emotion rules. We know from the latest behavioral science that emotion will always trump reason. Always. We are all less Spock and more Homer Simpson that we’d like to admit. So find the hot button. And step on it.

For machines, algorithms rule. Machines look for a “match” based on numbers and coefficients. For machines, you don’t appeal to the heart, you feed the formula. Decipher that and give it what it is looking for and your little bit of content will be found.

Both are predictable.

People, in the words of Daniel Aiely, are “predictably irrational.” They come to conclusions first and then look for facts and data to support them. At Brodeur, we map messaging through a relevance model built on the latest behavioral science where rationality is just one (small) part of how an individual responds to a word, an idea, an image.

Machines are predictably calculating. For them, predictive response is based on how fresh the content is, how well is it tagged, inbound and outbound links, etc. If you have the key characteristics of the content, you have a reasonable shot at predicting how well it will perform online.

Both can be “tricked.”

While you may not be able to fool everyone all the time, there’s no doubt that you can fool a lot of them for a short period of time. We live in Washington D.C. We know. We see it everyday. All tricks work, but few work for long.

The same is true for machines. Everyone knows the “10 ways to …” trick you can use to boost visibility of an article or post. Indeed all the search engines have a running battle with the SEO experts who are constantly trying to exploit the latest algorithms and then “trick” the search engines to get their content to the top of the list.

Both reward people who can “own” something.

In the world of branding, we refer to this as “differentiation.” We look for messages that will help establish some unique positioning of that brand in a person’s mind. In this differentiation, we make our case, and stake our claim in the landscape of thoughts, products and ideas.

Similarly, the online world rewards those who can establish an identity (or sometimes, a category) that makes you easily “findable.” For example, being found in the category of “marketing” is a big lift. Making a dent in the area of “search engine marketing” is more reasonable. And establishing a presence in the art of “tagging” in “search engine marketing,” even more so.

Both look for validation.

People generally don’t trust big institutions. Most hate marketing-speak. The most powerful messaging for people often is not from the brand, but is from a friend or colleague. Search does the same thing, but in a different way. Online, the validation comes from third-party links to your content, tweets, and references in blogs and chat rooms.

There is one big difference between man and machines. Machines don’t lead. They follow. Machines don’t make value judgments. They simply execute the algorithm. Machines typically don’t correct or pardon flaws, they expose them.

It is hard to get a machine to change its mind or form a new opinion. A good example is climate change. You can talk about climate change all you want, but if more people are searching for global warming, the web machinery can’t be relied upon to help people figure out the difference.

In today’s world we need to message for BOTH man and machine. If you don’t do it for the latter, you won’t be found. If you don’t do it for the former, you won’t be believed. Which means it’s time for us to dust off our 2000’s era passion for SEO, and rediscover the digital messaging age.

This blog was written by Brodeur Partners’ Jerry Johnson and Evan Parker. Jerry Johnson is head of Brodeur Planning. Evan Parker is head of Brodeur Digital.

To differentiate, don’t make these 7 mistakes

Andy Beaupre · April 30th, 2012

Most companies make the same mistakes when trying to differentiate their brand, products and services:

They look inward, not outward – Differentiation isn’t about “making up” your company’s difference, it’s finding what objectively, authentically sets it apart. Understanding what customers/consumers need and discovering how your product/service fulfills them (or not) is the best place to start. Successful brands spur conversations and build movements.
They don’t engage – Despite all the lessons learned from social media, only 16% of companies fully integrate social media. Actively engaging with customers/consumers in a two-way dialogue differentiates brands from static, one-way communicators.
They aren’t bold – They pay homage to the God of Safe. Don’t speak colorfully. Never take risks. Don’t invest time expressing visually (with video, infographics, images). Why tell stories when you can recite facts? Always be business-like and never reveal a human side.
They shy away from competition – This one always surprises me because at the C-level – and in the sales trenches – companies constantly sweat the challenges of competition, winning and losing deals. But instead of acknowledging the existence of competition, most companies shy away, acting like theirs is the only candy in the shop. Facing up to competition doesn’t mean companies have to name names or be arrogant. There are many ways to communicate differences in a professional yet more meaningful way.
They aren’t relevant – To become (and remain) relevant, brands need to fully engage sensory, social and emotional elements … not just the rational. When something is relevant, the brand, product or cause becomes part of who we are. We self-identify and move from passive to involved, from indifferent to eager, and are willing (and eager) to act (buy, vote, recommend, etc.).
They don’t prove it – It’s one thing to convey competence; it’s another to offer up proof. Getting customers/consumers to express their views about your company/service in first-person language has a profound impact: it enables prospects to relate because they interpret your brand through a more personal lens.
They don’t focus on one thing – As companies attempt to zero-in on their customer-centric benefits, they compile long lists of capabilities and attributes. But they often fail to whittle all this down to one believable, sustainable advantage. Less is more – standing for one thing creates memorability.

Be Relevant, Stay Relevant

The Brodeur Blog

Get New Blog Posts via Email

Authors

Blogroll

Archives

Social