I’m setting up a company that will provide specialist creative and execution of highly targeted, highly personalised marketing communications, integrated across multiple media. People have been working in this area for a while, and there are some fabulous case studies. But there aren’t many of them.
Turns out, that they are quite difficult to do.
Well, actually, they are difficult if you are trying to do them the way you do your other campaigns.
If you reorganise your resources and your structure properly, they become a lot more straightforward, and as a result a lot more fun to work on too. I’m aware that this is a challenge for many companies, but I don’t really understand why. All you need is good people, a clear mission, and an open, enabling culture. Which is not difficult at all, is it …
Periodic updates will follow.
Article in the ‘Guardian’ the other day (here) about the difference between the way that Senators Obama and McCain organise their volunteer networks. The Obama network gives the power to the local volunteers themselves on how to organise and what to do, whilst the McCain camp operates much more as ‘command and control’.
It takes some bravery to commit to the devolved model as Obama has done. It’s a lot easier though, when there is a clear vision behind which the volunteers can rally. The local teams can then interpret the vision to make it work on their ground. There’s also a great deal of hard work required to set up those local networks. However, it does seem to be working well at the moment …
Great fun watching the story of the sacking of London’s Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair. A lot of outrage coming from national politicans. Interestingly, the outrage seems to be less about the decision – by London’s new mayor Boris Johnson – than the manner of it (‘did not consult appropriately’, ‘did not follow process’). Yet for me the most significant aspect of the story so far, is that the mayor was prepared to take a decision – on his very first day as chair of the body to which the Commissioner reports – on a matter which has been festering for at least three years, which is hugely complex and highly politicial. Perhaps, after all, Boris has some of the important characteristics of a good leader.
Of course, it’s much too early to tell whether the decision was the right one. But that’s part of the challenge when you have that level of responsibility. You won’t necessarily know for a while whether you made the right choice; you just know you have to choose.
I recently started singing with a local choir. A vote was taken at the last rehearsal about dress code for performances. Talking to other members, it was clear that a debate about this had rumbled on for many months. In the end, the vote was to choose between ‘no change’ (all black), or going to a mandatory white blouse for the women.
It would be easy to satirise this. But it’s not easy to handle in real life. Everyone has an opinion, it’s all subjective, so how do you reach a decision? Consensus is difficult, a ‘leadership’ decision may not be acceptable (perversely because it’s not a very important issue), so what is the best course of action? Perhaps uncomfortable compromise is the occasional price of democracy.
There’s been a lot of talk in the UK about the Republican choice for Vice President in this year’s US elections (see here for one of the more interesting commentaries, especially about Ms Palin’s media training). Whilst there has been much debate about the maverick McCain (and ‘maverick’ is one of those words that’s supposed to be neutral but is almost always taken to be a negative), there’s one thing I’ve not seen mentioned.
McCain appears to have made a choice based on limited information, instinct, and the need to move things forward. And guess what, for much of the time in office, a leader operates in a complex and changing environment, with incomplete information. Instinct, experience, luck, call it what you will, but they cannot just sit there waiting for perfect data in a perfect world.
Mr McCain, I admire you for taking a lead, and a risk. I think that shows you qualify for the big job.
You might remember some of the old films about circuses, the crises, the leadership struggles, how it all comes together on the big night. I saw a circus show yesterday (wonderful, magical, just go and see it), and was struck by the sheer scale of the challenge of putting together and running the show. It’s not a permanent job (they only perform in what passes here for summer); many of the acts are small family teams from other countries, who decide to work with you for a season or two; the skill-sets are very different; language may be a barrier too. So the leadership challenge is formidable. These disparate teams are held together by the script, the design, and the vision. In fact they are held together by the energy and the vision of the leader. You can see it at work in this circus – the omnipresence, and force of personality, of the woman whose name is on the door.
Much talk at the moment about Gordon Brown’s leadership, and about the members of his cabinet who are openly supporting him, and those who are unavailable for comment. In commentary, Alan Sugar has said that everyone has to be onside for you to run a company (see here for the BBC story).
I don’t think you necessarily need everyone onside. You stand a better chance of long-term success if you have a way of tolerating, moderating and incorporating alternative views. What makes it difficult is when people are broadcasting their views to the outside world, and not discussing them internally. It’s more important to have everyone inside than onside.
Why is training and personal development so often neglected at work? Everyone agrees it’s a ‘good thing’, yet it’s very often the last thing that gets done.
Computer programmers expect training and education to be part of their employment package. In all probability, you will not be able to hire a good programmer unless they can see that you have sound plans for their continued professional development.
I have often been asked to justify this ‘extra’ expenditure on training. It’s not hard:
- they won’t join without it
- they will stay longer and be more useful with it
- their world keeps changing, and they need to keep up to date
- they will tell a good story about you to their peers
- they are going to leave you anyway at some point, and there’s a very good chance you will come across them again, maybe even as a client or prospect.
So which bit of this doesn’t apply to your entire organisation?
Well, maybe the first bit’s different. Good people may readily join you without a commitment to their continuing personal or professional development.
All the rest is the same though. And one day soon, you’re going to find that the very best candidates will have learned from the programmers, that personal development is not an option, it’s a requirement.
Heard a heartening story today about (real) estate agents. Not the usual joke about them all losing their jobs, ha ha. This time about how one firm has handled the uncomfortable reality of a downturn.
A friend of ours has worked for an agency for four years, and has been made redundant in the latest response to the changes in the UK housing market. She was unhappy, and requested a meeting with the Managing Director.
Not only did the MD meet her, he showed her financial reports and statistics – in confidence – to explain the background for the decisions; then he showed her the numbers and selection criteria used for those who would lose their job. Last, he gave her a personal reference, and his cell/mobile phone number.
Good to hear that somebody is doing the right thing in a difficult situation. Hats off to the man.