If something was a solid product, they used to say it was “The real McCoy.” One story tied to that expression is of a man by the name of McCoy who had a reputation for well made inventions. The name became associated with quality and was used to build trust and value.
Our names are connected to our personal brand. What associations do people make when your name is mentioned? And do those qualities represent who you want to be in the world? Is it the real McCoy?
I have a daily routine that I operate within each morning. My routine is a sequence of events that I have crafted together after much trial, error and conscious effort. It’s a pattern of action that best helps me prepare for the day.
I used to have a great deal of resistance to a routine. I felt it would make my days seem too predictable and take the spontaneity and creativity away from life. In practice, my morning routine is the foundation that I build the rest of my day from. It allows me to be intentional about my creative efforts and offers me space so that I can visualize alternative possibilities.
A routine can seem like a dull existence, in reality, it’s the very thing that helps support productive creativity.
My parents celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary this year. The one story I’ve known about their wedding since my childhood is that my mom made her own wedding dress – It is the one detail that continues to sit with me.
A young bride taking the time to stitch her wedding gown is not a common occurence today. Our tendency is to find the best product on the market to fill a material need, with little thought given to the idea that we might make it ourselves.
The other day I started to create a piece of furniture from a piece of wood cut down from someone’s yard. There is a certain, unnamed joy in the task. As I learn about the different types of wood, tools, and processes, I realize these are things that I could never really appreciate without this experience. While I may never make another piece of furniture for my house, I imagine that this piece will remain special to me. There is no greater art than the things that are created by our own hands and creative inspiration. Which leads me to believe that maybe the best products can be homemade.
Engagement is not a direct correlation to the value of the information provided. It is dependent on several factors, one being:
Can the right people find the information?
This seems simple, however, it is a key factor that is often overlooked. A brand lacking engagement may assume it’s the result of them not providing a useful experience. With this misguided perception, they may alter their brand message to “increase” engagement. For example, compromising a brand message for more likes and shares is only a short-term solution that can do more damage to the brand objective in the end.
If a brand is lacking in engagement, an important question to ask is, “Can the right people find us?”
There used to be a time when I was a sports fanatic. As a little girl I would cry if my team lost their rivalry game and family events were often planned around “The big game.”
A while ago I stopped watching and listening to sports broadcasting and let go of the news headlines. At that point, I would DVR a game and play it back without viewing the pre and post game rituals. The only connection I had to my team was their performance during the game.
Cutting-off the sports media changed my enthusiasm dramatically and made me curious about the impact of the 24-hour news cycle on my own life. As I eliminated the “bubble” I lived in, my once favorite teams had virtually no influence over my life.
When we are all-consumed within an environment it’s hard to believe that another alternative may be available. I find great value in stepping back, silencing the feedback and determining what the root of an influence is. This practice widens my perspective and allows me to access life on my own terms.
You may have heard by now, Google announced that it has created a new parent company named Alphabet. This brand portfolio strategy will likely have an impact on revenue and profitability, but that is a lesson for another blog post. First, let’s focus on the strategically crafted letter titled “G is for Google”, posted on abc.xyz, the new web destination for Alphabet.
This letter reads like a deceivingly simple explanation for the change, which makes it intriguing (to me) and effective (for investors). While Google doesn’t explain what Alphabet is until the 5th paragraph, we’ll only need the first 3 paragraphs to illustrate their brand strategy.
To do this, I’ve highlighted only the most essential points in an excerpt from their letter below; removing the clutter so we can see beyond the words and narrow our focus.
G is for Google
As Sergey and I wrote in the original founders letter 11 years ago, “Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one.”
We did a lot of things that seemed crazy at the time. Many of those crazy things now have over a billion users, like Google Maps, YouTube, Chrome, and Android. And we haven’t stopped there. We are still trying to do things other people think are crazy but we are super excited about.
We’ve long believed that over time companies tend to get comfortable doing the same thing, just making incremental changes. But in the technology industry, where revolutionary ideas drive the next big growth areas, you need to be a bit uncomfortable to stay relevant.
Recapping the highlighted points, the letter could read…
Google is not a conventional company. We want to make smaller bets that may seem very speculative or strange in order to do important and meaningful things. We did things that have seemed crazy but now have over a billion users, and we haven’t stopped doing crazy things that we are super excited about. Companies get comfortable, but in the technology industry, you have to be uncomfortable to grow and stay relevant.
From this perspective, it is easier to understand that Google…
– Does not want to be perceived as conventional.
– Is a big company that wants to make smaller and speculative bets.
– Enjoys and has succeeded doing things that seem crazy.
– Does not want to get comfortable.
– Believes that they will have to be uncomfortable to grow and stay relevant.
My belief is that this is the same Google packaged in a new way. Like the original founders stated, they’ve always been unconventional. Their brand feels a need to reassert their unconventional position in a way that captures the attention of the internal team, investors, and users. As far as I can tell, Alphabet is the newer Google.
While streaming music online I commonly turn up the volume on songs I really like. It’s a habit that automatically happens, whether the volume is at its max already or not. If the song is a long time favorite, it takes me just a few seconds to complete this action. For newer songs, the action usually happens mid-way through the song.
Observing this habit made me think, wouldn’t my experience be improved if the music streaming service accounted for these actions? This feature enhancement could boost my music selection by accounting for this typical human interaction.
Algorithms could be created within the music streaming software so that…
– Songs I turn the volume up on would be treated as a favorite.
– The volume could automatically adjust back to a neural volume after a favorite song has completed.
– It may be possible to account for the level I like a song, based on how long it takes me to turn up the volume.
Accounting for human behavior can help us identify new ideas or envision ways to enhance already existing ideas.
What do you do when a song is really good? I turn it up.
I’ve written a few articles on the music streaming industry (follow the links below to read). The perceived competition between Spotify, Pandora, Apple Music, and Tidal, has captured my attention.
6.29.2015: Apple ignites human potential with the launch of Apple Music
6.30.2015: How a brand can have the best product or service and still lose
7.2.2015: Be yourself, it’s the reason we showed up in the first place
8.6.2015: Selling sound
The internet operates on a system of data collection. The amount of information input is directly related to the information we are able to output (access).
Let’s say for example…
A person provides personal data on a social media website. The site collects the data for other people to access and will store the data for future retrieval. In most instances, a brands perceived influence is directly related to the amount of information people want to access in relation to them.
With a brands influence hanging in the balance, let’s clarify some of the biggest misperceptions of the online data collection system…
Participation: This system does not require your permission to participate.
Dependent on the source: The input of information does not have to come from the source. While a brand may not choose to be part of the system, they are by default because of their connection to others.
Responsibility: It is beneficial to assign the responsibility of data input and management to someone with sufficient experience.
We should begin to look at our online environment as a data collection system, and understand the impact of our intentional involvement. Data will be collected for consumption, the question is, what information do we want to make available?
A Dr. told a patient who broke bones in their hand that they could have surgery or work the bones back in place the way the hockey players do it. The reference to hockey players was equivalent to the Dr. saying:
“This path to recovery should only be chosen if you’re tough and can handle excruciating, at times, unbearable pain.”
The patient, who I know well, decided to take the hockey player road to recovery, fully aware that it would be painful. This decision fit the perception I have of them as someone who is “tough” and takes the road less traveled. It is no surprise that when the path to recovery gets painful, they remind themselves that this is the way the hockey players do it, which seems to make the pain bearable.
The options could have been explained as surgery or non-surgery, but making the connection to hockey players creates a perception that people are familiar with. The Dr. used the power of connection to help the patient make a decision, possibly without realization of their brand technique.
My childhood lesson about fire was that it’s hot, dangerous, unpredictable, can burn and to stay away. The other day, someone shared with me another lesson on fire, one that they learned from their visit to Yellowstone National Park. After a large fire in 1988 that burned 63 percent of the total acreage at Yellowstone, scientist learned that:
– Temperatures of the fire were only high enough to kill less than one-tenth of the roots of plants.
– If water was available, new plant growth began within a few days.
– Plant growth was unusually lush in the first years after a fire.
I also learned that a number of plants need fire to survive because they rely on fire to release their seeds.
While our perception of fire is that it’s hot, unpredictable and dangerous, when can it also be a vehicle to help us thrive? Dulling the fire may keep us safe, but how does its suppression keep us from growing?