No bigger idea than advertising?

In “A bigger idea than advertising” Kevin Roberts (June 26^th) wrote:

“Slowly. People are no longer interested in being preached to about functional benefits and features [of products]. In their lives they are looking for connections and that’s what they expect from brands they care about. We call those brands Lovemarks. We are heading from the Attention Economy to the Attraction Economy where Lovemarks thrive. In the Attraction Economy, advertising agencies have to step up and out, or be buried.”

My own view is that people have never been interested, whatsoever, about being preached to about anything, unless of course – and the BIG example here is religion – those people are fully engaged (read “connected” if you like) with a product in the first place (and I use the word product in the broadest possible sense).

It is not “slowly the people” but “slowly the advertisers”. It may well be “a bigger idea than advertising” but it is not Kevin’s, Saatchi & Saatchi’s or any other “ex”-advertising executives’ idea that people are looking for connections in their lives. If it were, some of the real social thinkers of this world (may I mention Weber?) might need to be reassessed! I think not!

Is it really a case of Kevin’s notion that:

“…it’s not about what brands can use to reach consumers, it’s about what consumers are prepared to engage with…”?

Or, is it merely a case of:

“…it’s about what brands can use to reach consumers WHO they BELIEVE are prepared to CONSIDER an engagement with them”?

I would contend that the concepts of Attention and Attraction Economies are not a feature of social evolution but a particular “social construct” of the “marketing world” itself. More accurately we could perhaps talk of Attention Marketing and Attraction Marketing. But then what is the difference behind these two signs?

Are we “grabbing” social attention or do we simply start with attention as a given? If we have attention we are in a de facto position of engagement, where the “consumer” is implicitly seeking more knowledge about “…functional benefits and features [of products]” Call this preaching to the converted if you may! As an “evolutionary process” we may look back in time and note that the “Attraction Economy” could simply be a reflection of a world in which far fewer products existed and where any product would, if highlighted to the consumer in some way, “demand attention”. In contemporary society where we now know everything, where we can now “buy” anything and everything, where the range of products, prices and quality create confusion no product “demands attention”.

The brand issue is, if we do not have attention, we must seek to attract!

The evolution? The evolution is the realization, within the marketing world – not the consumer – that before a consumer’s Kantian “disinterested” engagement with the brand’s world – they (the “marketers”) need to establish the “beauty” factor!

After the attraction, the engagment and the marriage! The brand's products, their “…functional benefits and features...” will be King. (Even if - in an increasingly dispoable society - they are King for only a day!). But before love comes beauty! And the cynic in me tells me that the sign “Lovemarks” is no more than a beautiful force for attracting agency clients as consumers of branding products. Beauty is, after all, axiomatically in the eye of the beholder!

"A Brown business world?" or "A view from a small business (2)"

So, Gordon Brown is “…poised to appoint a string of Britain’s most senior business figures to a new advisory committee to guide policy-making and to strengthen Labour’s relationship with the business world.” (The Times, June 28, 200)

Question! While the heads of the UK’s largest public companies are clearly well positioned to advise Gordon Brown on his policies and to point out areas where government action is hindering Britain’s competitiveness, is their perspective the only valuable one!

What about the smaller business?

In the UK, the SME sector is of great importance. The Department of Trade and Industry’s own information notes that we (the SME businesses of the UK-unite) account for around 60% of our GDP and around 58% of all employment. The larger firms (those employing over 250 people) – from whose leadership Gordon’s proposed committee is drawn – account for just 0.2% of the 4.3 million companies in the UK. We smaller firms (employing less than 50 people) account for around 99% of all firms. I would venture to suggest, here, that our (SME) views of the world of UK business and the requirements to improve our competitiveness are subtly different to the Amstrads, the Marks & Spencers, the Tesco’s and the Vodafones et al.

In my own sector of interest, the actions of the larger firms are destroying the competitive landscape for the SME. The disproportionate power wielded by the larger organizations, particularly in being able to negotiate better supplier rates, is corrosive to the survival prospects of the smaller firm, who now has to consider whether or not to become a potential acquisition target in a race for consolidation. Yet the larger organisations are frequently cited as the worst offenders in terms of maintaining service levels. Local suppliers serving local communities – a distributed model – often wins hands down in maintaining quality of service. There is clearly a balance to be struck. I neither advocate a world in which we only ever envisage a cottage industry mentality, nor do I advocate that the SME sector is merely relegated to a role as an incubator, developing yet more seedlings for the voracious appetite of the corporate machine.

There is a perennial cry concerning the competitiveness of the UK economy. If we, the SME sector are as important as the corporate sector, yet we are neither to be swallowed up nor allowed to dominate policy, then we should surely be part of Gordon’s consideration. Should we not?

But I have no answer here (yet)! I am, after all, an SME business owner, struggling with the day-to-day issues of the survival of an SME business in a highly competitive environment. What time is there, for any of SME owner to contribute to the debate that so effects us?

View from a small business (1)

Aside from my "freelance thinking", I am also a hands-on entrepreneur/business owner-manager. My own (service-sector) business has developed from a single-person consultancy – in which I provided project and risk management consultancy services under sub-contract to major European and UK-based engineering projects – to a specialist mergers and acquisitions business.

Together with the more philosophical posts on this blog, I also hope to bring some sense of an SME’s reality to the fore – a personally perspective of being “in business”. What is it that I, as a business manager, find to be of concern to me? Am I bothered about the amount of “red tape”? How did I go about some aspect of my business; how was it that I solved some particular issue? Here, in the spirit of co-operation and mutual support, I also welcome any comment on this thread in the form of a new question that invites an answer.

However, to close this initial post, at the launch of the Northern Leadership Academy I happened to meet with a most interesting individual. Our conversation turned to what I (and he) believed to be the most pressing concern of any small business trying to grow. How do I, as a small (unknown and perhaps unproven) business, attract the funds to develop new business ideas and concepts? This is not about leadership – unless one wants to examine who might lead in this case – it is about the raising of capital investment under conditions of risk. This particular individual commented that he had recently been involved with the establishment of a multi-million pound, grant-funded business development scheme. Such “venture finance” schemes are potentially the life-blood of innovation – certainly a potential contributor to any perceived economic “gap-closing” (regional or otherwise). Yet, where is the leadership required to develop innovation in the face of financial institutions and fund-managers that exhibit excessively risk-averse attitudes to investment? In the UK there is at least a perception that our venture finance sector can be so risk-averse that they collectively feel their first role is the protection of the funds against adverse risk.

In my own business I was able to secure finance under the Government-assisted Small Firms Loan Scheme (as administered by the major UK banks). However, although my “new” business was less than 2 years old at the time of borrowing, as a legal entity (a private limited company) the company had existed for over 5. Changes in the Small Firms Loan lending rules now mean that while my business (at the time of writing) is “technically” still less than 3 years old, the company is no longer eligible for further such financing. The increase in the use of set “protocols” for the determination of decisions reduces the opportunity for the “intelligent” application of reason. It is a symptom of a risk-averse society in which we are increasingly devaluing the contribution of individual thought. We are continually constrained by policies that are driven by generalised, empiric observation. Is a potential net-effect a society where we no-longer need leadership (in business or politics)?

Can an organisation dance?

I shall shortly be traveling to Vienna, to the 23^rd Colloquium of the European Group for Organizational Studies: Beyond Waltz – Dances of Individuals and Organization.

While I am not formally presenting at that colloquium, I am (as a newly qualified PhD) participating in a special early career scholars workshop. There, an essay I am currently working on will receive some critical review. I hope, either from Vienna or shortly after, to add some personal commentary on the proceedings and some thoughts about dancing organisations. Did Marx have a point?

“These petrified [social] conditions must be forced to dance

by singing to them their own melody.”

Marx

On leadership and the value of childhood...

On June 19th I attended the launch of the Northern Leadership Academy. My motivation for this visit was a mixture of my "alumni" connection with Lancaster University and a natural curiosity over what the NLA is to be about.

"The north is lagging behind economically and needs more, and better, leadership at entry level to help close this multi-billion pound productivity gap".

I believe that what is missing from this statement of need is the word "discuss".

If the academic world - into which the NLA is set - is to help provide answers to this statement of need, is it best to take the traditional approach of academic research and set about investigating - in some empiric detail - the economic activity of the North of England? From such a standpoint, or basis of objective knowledge, action plans might well be suggested to change... what exactly? The North is not the South. Apples are not Pears and Men are not the same as Women. This is not to suggest that the NLA is not going to be a very interesting, very innovative and very valuable resource for the North - I truly believe it is. But there is the word "discuss".

What if we now say "The north is lagging behind economically and needs more, and better, leadership at entry level to help close this multi-billion pound productivity gap; discuss." We are presented with creative opportunity. The essay is not empiric research, its principle aim is not the deconstruction of a situation; an essay invites the constructive possibilities of developing ideas that might, just, hint at developing a greater engagement with the very social strata the NLA is concerned with: "entry level" leadership. Here is an idea! What about a joint NLA/Industry sponsorship of a schools essay competition? As Picasso said, "...all children are artists...". We might encourage that (we might also employ them young while they still know everything!!! - but that is another subject). The wealth of plausible knowledge that exists in the young - unfettered as they are with too many preconceived notions of social truths - provides a rich ground for the exploration of ideas as candidates for new institutionalised narratives. New forms of knowledge might emerge.

As Kevin Roberts (Saatchi & Saatchi) notes in his blog, we might begin to "re-imagine the way universities interact with industry and government". But this also requires, I argue, an equal share of re-imagining the way industry and government interacts with universities. There is no sense in which I see anybody, including myself, argue that the traditional form of academic-business relationship has no future - I, at least, am not so evangelical. Rather my own argument is that we need also informal (and non-rigorous) channels of communication between two seemingly disparate worlds if we are each to gain from an engagement with the other.