ChaosScenario

The Marketing of Conceit

"Toleration is not the opposite of intolerance but the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms: the one assumes to itself the right of withholding liberty of conscience, the other of granting it." -- Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

The longevity of the spurious concept of tolerance among smart people never ceases to amaze me. The brilliant Seth Godin, author of one of my favorite marketing books, planted his flag on Tolerance Hill today, and I'm guessing that, as with most of Tolerance's great advocates, no fierce bombardment of arguments could remove him from it.

Wisely, Godin was not specific or direct in his criticism, lest he alienate his fans. However, it's possible to infer, given the entire context of the article, that he was subtly ridiculing a Polish politician who articulated a position that maintained that sizeable public investments should produce sustainable returns.

People who wrap themselves in the Tolerance Flag are quick to pat each other on the back to congratulate themselves on how tolerant and open-minded they are. However, they often mistake the self-congratulatory applause for being right, and they are quick to eschew all reason that contradicts them. They are so enamored with their assumed virtues that they lack interest in hearing any argument that demonstrates contradiction.

"The nations...cling to their opinions as much from pride as from conviction. They cherish them because they hold them to be just and because they chose them of their own free will; and they adhere to them, not only because they are true, but because they are their own... It was remarked by a man of genius that 'ignorance lies at the two ends of knowledge.' Perhaps it would have been more correct to say that strong convictions are found only at the two ends, and that doubt lies in the middle." - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

Tolerance is not a virtue, and it is not superior to intolerance. Both of them are simply conceit, and neither of them deserve marketer's promotions.

If confronted with someone who doesn't value the same things you do, you may indeed attempt to sway his opinion and change his behavior (after all, as Godin essentially notes, this is what marketing is about), but keep in mind that with respect to the virtue of those beliefs, "[N]o earthly power can determine between you." - Cam Beck

Don't Panic. Just Lead.

At MPDailyFix, Beth Harte related a story about how a friend of hers, who is a senior-level marketer, was offered employment with junior-level pay. She goes on to explain some of the reasons this is happening and why she believes it will become more commonplace if marketers don't show their value. She's right. But if I can add my own perspective here, the problem Beth identifies can be understood economically and solved in the same terms.

Unemployment means there are too many people for too few jobs. In other words, there is a surplus of labor.

Surpluses tend to drive down prices.

The price of labor is measured in wages. Thus, when there is a labor surplus in any industry (like marketing), it tends to depress the wages of the people in that industry.

This is especially true when the hiring manager believes it doesn't matter from which part of the labor pool he chooses. One person is just as good as another -- or in Beth's words -- a commodity.

Being good -- being great -- these things don't matter unless we distinguish ourselves from the rest of the pack. It is the perception of our expertise and effectiveness that will enable us to demand higher wages.

Actual expertise can help drive perceived expertise, but it does not guarantee it. Now, more than ever, a marketer must be both good and an excellent self-promoter.

Doing this effectively is about all the things Beth mentioned. Among them:

• Be a leader.
• Measure.
• Document.
• Foster and nurture relationships.
• Continuously improve.

However, this effort shouldn't resemble a campaign -- which is temporary and smacks of insincerity. In order to assure others of our value, we must first strive to be valuable. We must both improve the product and promote the improvement.

Luckily, in our cases, the act of successfully promoting the improvement, in some ways, actually helps to improve the product -- especially when we're willing to make mistakes and learn from them.

Instead of curse the conditions that led to this difficulty, we must embrace it as an opportunity to revolutionize the way we practice marketing. And we can apply to our clients the wisdom we gained from the experience of practicing it on ourselves.

I'm afraid that this won't guarantee a happy ending for everyone -- even a lot of the good ones. However, being a jack of all trades (and more importantly, being the sort of person who can adapt to changing circumstances) all but promises that we'll find someplace to be of use. - Cam Beck

Who are you calling a sell-out?

Awhile back, I wrote about Anthony Bourdain's criticism of Rocco DiSpirito for what some of Bourdain's fans called "selling out." (Anthony Bourdain: Hypocrite ... or Genius?). I asked a Bourdain fan, who (about a year after I wrote the piece) came to criticize DiSpirito and praise Bourdain, exactly how "sell-out" is defined. His answer is revealing.

...but at one point he [DiSpirito] was a serious chef making good food ..then he made the decision of saying i want to become a "star" and ill do anything i can do get there. but i wont do it through my food, ill do it through a marketing machine...

This, he said, qualifies DiSpirito as a sell-out.

I thought about this conversation again when Senator Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania switched parties because, in his own words, he did not think he could win as a Republican.

I am unwilling to have my 29-year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate.

He also added, "I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans,"  but if that's the case I wonder why it took him so long to discover what the rest of the GOP has known for decades.

Like DiSpirito, Specter has been accused of being a sell-out. But also like DiSpirito, Specter simply made a calculated decision to do something that was in his own self-interests.

That alone doesn't make either of them a sell-out.

Even Specter's 2001 suggestion that representatives not be allowed to change parties between elections doesn't make him a sell-out. If you're tempted to call him one, it just means you have to better identify the principles that motivate him, not the principles that you think he should have.

Alan Keyes, the former Reagan diplomat, political candidate, and occasional contributor to WorldNetDaily, deftly points out the hypocrisy of Michael Steel, the RNC chairman, to denigrate Specter's action as entirely self-serving. [pargraph breaks added for readability]

Steele has no problem sacrificing principle in order to keep politicians like Specter in the GOP ranks. He sees them as the key to victory and he has made it clear that, as far as he's concerned, winning is the only thing that matters.

Unfortunately for him, Specter's switch is entirely consistent with that principle.

Specter has rightly concluded that Republican primary voters will reject him in 2010, as they would have in 2004 had it not been for the help he received from Rick Santorum and others who put party loyalty above their commitment to the nation's fundamental moral principles.

By running as a Democrat, Specter feels that he stands a better chance of winning the general election. As far as principle goes, the only difference between Specter and Steele is that Specter will now reach for victory while being true to his leftist views.

Meantime, the Michael Steele Republicans, as they fume over his desertion, further demonstrate their willingness to seek victory by betraying the party's supposed conservatism.

Similarly, DiSpirito's decision to sell something besides the food he personally cooks doesn't make him a sell-out. It just means that he is interested in doing something other than what some people (like Bordain) want him to do.

That's his freedom. That's his right. And certainly in DiSpirito's case, it's entirely harmless.

To be sure, no one on this earth always live up to the principles they say they hold dear, 100% of the time with 100% consistency. One can make a mistake with respect to those principles -- or a series of mistakes -- and not be a sell-out.

But be warned: If you disappoint or mislead people who mistakingly ascribe certain principles to you, you will sacrifice your own credibility with those people, and you may not recover from it.

It's risky to be transparent and authentic, but hopefully the risk will just motivate us to be a better people who can act, more often than not, consistently with principles we've promised we have. - Cam Beck

P.S. For a great piece on branding and authenticity, I suggest this letter from Mike Rowe of The Discovery Channel's Dirty Jobs.

Know your limits. And push them cheerfully.

One of the great things about having a toddler is the lessons they can teach you about the value of having the proper outlook on life.

This weekend we cleaned my son's room. And by "we," I mean my wife and my son, Avery. I brought my daughter, Faith, in there just to get in their way provide moral support.

Now, both Faith and Avery have a lot of stuffed animals, but Avery keeps his on top of a bookshelf and far out of reach of anyone who hasn't yet been through puberty.

Still, they're plainly visible to anyone, and of course Faith is still young enough to enjoy them. Finding one that struck her fancy, she pointed up at the stuffed animals on top of the book shelf and said hopefully, "Kitt-ee Cat? Mee-oooowww!"

Those of you with kids might expect that this wasn't a request or a question. She was going to get the stuffed animal she wanted. The problem was that Avery has no stuffed felines. I would have gladly gotten it for her for a "please," (which I would have gotten), but I didn't know exactly what she was asking for.

"No, sweetie. There are no kitty cats. Do you want the stuffed doggie instead?"

"I'we get it," she helpfully chimed. And with no hesitation, she leaped a good inch or two off the ground, coming a mere 5 feet shy of touching the nearest stuffed animal.

Everyone else in the room just lost it, and Faith was happy enough to join the fun (even though she likely didn't know why we were laughing).

I noticed something else, though: She only jumped once.

She didn't keep jumping, hoping the next time the result would be different. She jumped once, learned conclusively that this particular method of obtaining what she wanted was beyond her limits, and then she found another way.

Had I not gotten it for her, I wonder if she would have moved a chair into position to take another shot at it, but there are some things I'd prefer she not have to learn the hard way. - Cam Beck

Mike Rowe for President

If there's anything that can make you appreciate the people who create the illusion of civilized life, it's Mike Rowe's Dirty Jobs. I caught Rowe's TED presentation when I chanced upon this post at slide:ology. (Hat tip to David Armano). If you haven't seen it yet, take 20 minutes to watch it. Unless you cured cancer or some such thing (and in 20 minutes, no less), it may be the best 20 minutes of your week (though if you're a PETA member, it may make you a bit squeamish).

His delivery is flawless, but his point is profound and memorable. We have, he says, declared war against work. We marginalize it at best and quite often attack it outright with overly stringent regulations.

He makes the point more effectively than I can, so please watch the video and visit his new initiative, MikeRoweWORKS.com, including this brilliant, down-to-earth commentary about the AIG bonuses. - Cam Beck

Related posts:
Competence of Heroic Proportions
The World Is Just Awesome

Blog, Facebook, Twitter and Myspace: Managing Your Profile and Hedging Your Bets

As they say, the only two things that are certain are death and taxes. The rest is open to interpretation. This includes the suitability of a candidate for any given position. Therefore, whether you're looking for a job or looking for a good person to fill a job, you're putting something valuable at risk -- either your time or your money. If job hunting is a gamble, then why not hedge your bets a bit?

The following is part of an exchange between banking guru J.P. Morgan and a member of a congressional committee in the early 20th century.

Congressman: Is not commercial credit based primarily on money or property?
J.P.M.: No, sir. The first thing is character.
Congressman: Before money or property?
J.P.M.: Before money or anything else. Money cannot buy it.

Long résumés and walls full of degrees and commendations have their place, but in the pantheon of qualifications, I wouldn't rank them the highest. Like Morgan, I would put a premium on character. In fact, here's how I would rank the order of importance.

1. Character
2. Intelligence (general and specific)
   
3. Specific experience
4. Education

Why you should be all over the 'net

The problem is that character and intelligence aren't easy to put on a résumé. Some people get by with listing experience (especially pro bono work they've done) and education, but that will only get you so far. Although they're often a good starting point, companies know the story doesn't end there.

And increasingly, they know how to use Google.

Knowing this, you really have only two choices:

1. Ignore it and try to fly under Google's considerably effective radar, or
2. Embrace it and influence it as much as you can

Number 1 may work only if you have no friends or a name like "Abraham Lincoln." In the first case, even if you try to fly under the radar, your friends may have other ideas about your desire for anonymity, and if you're not actively telling your story, someone else may be. In the second case... let's face it... Companies would be hard-pressed to find information about you when they have to navigate through all the information about that other guy.

Number 2, on the other hand, gives you an opportunity to tell your side of the story before anyone else does. If you're a private person and are uncomfortable with being "out there," you have the ability to moderate your level of personal disclosure.

If you're prolific, you can ensure prospective employers (or clients, if you're self-employed) can become convinced that you may have the qualities they seek in a candidate. If they don't value those qualities, they're probably not a good fit for you anyway.

That way, if there are any issues (fairly or unfairly) that call your character into question (Remember those parties you attended when you were 25?) they will be drowned out by the story you'd rather they see.

Just make sure your online persona is consistent with the way you want others to see you. - Cam Beck

Pushing Past the 'Peter Principle'

The Peter Principle states that everyone in a hierarchy eventually rises to his own level of incompetence. It's a philosophy that is woefully deterministic and altogether pessimistic, but taken by itself, it leaves a couple of questions unanswered, including whether people are able to eventually achieve competence once they've been promoted to a position whose requirements they're initially unsuited to fulfill.

My story of incompetence

When the Marine Corps finished training me as an electronic switchboard technician, I spent some time in  a couple different units fixing things like telephones and radios, instead, and building "Near-Vertical Incidence Skywave" antennas so that we could talk over long distances with Marines we had in the field.

I was out of my specialty and therefore incompetent in my position, but I had to find a way to be useful anyway. So, I did what any reasonable person wishing to be useful would do. I learned how to do the job that was needed of me -- and that included doing something the unit had never done before.

Happily, under the tutelage of our new Communications Chief, Gunnery Sergeant Morris, we made some great strides that hopefully prepared -- through a chain of leadership and training passed from one Marine to the next -- other Marines to communicate and to solve problems in critical -- perhaps life-threatening -- situations.

Some positions are easier to train for than others.

Field-expedient antennas aren't hard to build with materials that can be found pretty readily at a military compound with a communications platoon. Once that knowledge is obtained, the trick is to know the people, the equipment, and the situation well to plan far enough ahead to have all needed personnel and items onhand at the right time.

Likewise, leaders who are responsible for filling other positions must know the requirements of those positions and determine if they will fill them from outside the organization or within.

Either one is risky. It's entirely possible (and assured at some point, if you subscribe to the Peter Principle) that a person will not be suited for the job at the time he is hired.

But can he get there? That's a question worth asking. - Cam Beck

Competence of Heroic Proportions

Author's Note: As of this writing, I am working under the assumption that the first reports regarding the US Airways Flight 1549 are more or less accurate, that the engines were knocked out by an unforeseeable and unavoidable flock of birds and the pilot did the only thing he could do to save the lives of the passengers and crew.

Have you ever wondered what it would feel like to crash-land on water? Thanks to the incredible story of yesterday's near-catastrophe, you may be able to ask someone. Or 155 someones, to be exact, all who miraculously survived a crash landing on the Hudson River.

"Everybody owes their life to that pilot," said passenger Bill Zuhowski. "Period."

While this sentiment is understandable from someone who just walked away from such an incident, let's not get too punctuation-happy just yet.

First, let's remember the flight crew and rescue workers who helped ensure everyone's survival.

However, we also should not forget the industrial designers, engineers, the manufacturers and quality management personnel of every flight component who likewise did such a competent job that they collectively, without knowing it would crash-land in water, designed and built an aircraft that could withstand a water landing.

While we're at it, let's remember the janitors who cleaned up for these people -- thereby freeing up their time and attention to put to their tasks so they could perform them better, the farmers who grow foods in large quantities so they didn't have to do it themselves, the truck drivers and train engineers who moved components, food, and everything else they needed in their work and their lives, and the laborers who loaded them for transportation.

The 155 people who survived that flight owe their lives to them, as well.

Of course, well-deserved praise is given to those at the point of the crash and rescue. The pilot, the crew, the rescue workers, and the passengers who helped get everyone out all should be honored in the coming days.

And for at least 155 people and their families and their descendants-to-be, they should be honored for several lifetimes to come.

They did their jobs and behaved like compassionate human beings, and that is laudable.

We should also admire their clear and focused presence of mind.

But for all we admire in the first group of people who are getting all of the accolades in how they did their jobs when they knew without a doubt what was on the line because they saw it, let's take a moment to reflect on the virtue of basic things like a commitment to do a good job even though their lives aren't at stake at the time they're required to do it.

Maybe it's not "heroic" in the strictest sense, but it is admirable, and it will deserve our appreciation long after the rest of the world forgets about this amazing story as they continue to pursue excellence in their own lives' work.

A job well done is often its own reward, but for the 155 who survived Flight 1549, it's so much more. - Cam Beck

How Will You Stay Relevant?

Yesterday I discussed some problems that might occur when those recognized as experts are either wrong on fundamental issues (on which they may or may not have any expertise) or become obsolete altogether in front of an audience that doesn't realize it. Today I was going to write about what it would take for experts to remain sharp and for nonexperts to become experts, and why it's important to do so -- particularly in an uncertain economy and higher unemployment.

As the market fluctuates, neither marketers in general nor agencies in particular are immune from its  effects. When this happens, oftentimes good, competent people lose their jobs for reasons that are not their fault. This can create a labor surplus, which is all unemployment really is.

When a surplus exists in a free-market economy (a relative term these days, I know), it tends to depress prices, or in the case of labor, wages. Many times, however, companies won't bother to reduce wages outright, but rather they will rid themselves of the people in their employ and hire new employees at a lower cost.

This is true insomuch as your expertise is only categorical, and you do not distinguish yourself in other ways that provide value to either your clients or your employers. Your best defense, I believe, is in providing value beyond your category of expertise.

Guy Kawasaki points us to a very good article by Kendra Van Wagner on About.com that tells us 10 techniques to become a more effective learner.

Recognizing the importance of delivering business intelligence to our clients, today I set myself on a course to learn more effective database modeling techniques. It's a fascinating subject, but I know I have my work cut out for me. I know I can learn it, but it is a risk, because it may not be the very best use of my time. All I can do is make a decision and follow through.

Knowing this, I wondered if anyone else was embarking on a similar journey -- not necessarily on the same subject, but in resolving to learn something new that will help you serve your clients and/or your employer better.

How will you stay relevant in 2009? - Cam Beck

The Day the Expert Died

While reading the memoirs of my anthropologist-archaeologist-former-priest great, great uncle, Luther Cressman, I came across an anecdote that reminded me of the times I've read various experts -- Seth Godin, Malcolm Gladwell, Chip and Dan Heath, etc. -- and disagreed vehemently with what they said, took note of it, and still was able to learn something useful without allowing that disagreement to soil my appreciation of them. Some aren't so lucky. There's a certain responsibility to being considered an expert in any field field, because there's a clear danger to the public when anyone's thoughts are not subjected to public examination.

Here's the (paraphrased) anecdote.

With his marriage to Margaret Mead on the rocks and having doubts about his involvement in the clergy and the church, Cressman ran across a man with whom he attended seminary and explained that he was planning to leave the priesthood.

The priest responded something along the lines of, "That's great. How I wish I could!"

In his book, Cressman reflected how, at the time, he was sympathetic to the priest's feelings, but ultimately he was even more sorry for the man's parishioners.

While I'm tempted to warn people to stick to what they know lest they become "dead experts" to those who had read them in the past, I concluded that it's fitting and proper that experts stretch themselves -- as long as they're intellectually honest enough to be open to be shown wrong -- especially when the area in dispute is foundational or categorical -- and to correct themselves when they are proved wrong.

The Expert Curse

It's possible to reach the right conclusion even if the premises are wrong. It happens probably more often than you think.

When it does happen, it can lead others to accept on faith that all the underlying principles are also correct, even though the expert doesn't really have any expertise or evidence to make a strong case for the premise. This premise becomes "common knowledge" and much of the world thinks about he underlying idea less critically, causing errors in fact and logic that lead to sometimes devastating mistakes in business and policy.

The answer isn't necessarily to shut out the experts entirely, but to remember to examine their assertions carefully and test them against both reason and experience.

These, along with will and courage, comprise our best defense against the designs of the experts and charlatans alike - even if they're the same group of people. - Cam Beck