Tom Fishburne: The Management Cartoonist

social media bandwagon

It's only fitting that I found inspiration for this social media cartoon from something I read on Twitter.  @KathySierra writes, "Please, businesses, don't DO 'social media'. Do 'user happiness', which may, or may not require use of social media tools."

It's interesting to watch the varying ways that business embraces social media.  For brands with the right mindset and something useful to say, social media can empower their most evangelical consumers.  See the frequent, personal, and transparent approach that innocent follows on facebook (including how they handle criticism on the recent investment by Coke).

As web 2.0 pundit/cartoonist Hugh Macleod says, social media is "a good way to make things happen indirectly, a point lost on many corporate types."

Too often, brand managers treat social media like direct marketing, with the goal of interrupting a demographic rather than contributing to a meaningful conversation.

See the Habitat faux-pas when they exploited Twitter hashtags to insert irrelevant marketing messages into conversations on the election in Iran.  That doesn't just show bad taste.  It shows a traditional marketing mindset at play in a social media world.

The pointer from Kathy Sierra on "user happiness" is exactly right.  In contemplating social media, the first question to ask is whether yours is a brand worth sharing.  If yes, then social media tools can enable that sharing.  If not, it's time to redirect your energy back to question number one.

This topic reminds me of this other cartoon I drew on buzz marketing a few years ago (which, I just saw from the footer, was the first cartoon I drew after our youngest was born).  Takes me back.

goliath envy

I gave a talk last week on challenger brand thinking, so I've had David and Goliath on my mind. I talked about the importance of changing the game when you're the little guy so that you're not playing by the rules of Goliath. Changing the game can level the playing field.

Last month, I read a fascinating article from Malcolm Gladwell on "How David Beats Goliath". Malcolm researched classic David versus Goliath match-ups in history and confirmed statistically that David triumphs over Goliath much more frequently when they change the game.

"In the Biblical story of David and Goliath, David initially put on a coat of mail and a brass helmet and girded himself with a sword: he prepared to wage a conventional battle of swords against Goliath. But then he stopped. “I cannot walk in these, for I am unused to it,” he said, and picked up those five smooth stones. When underdogs choose not to play by Goliath’s rules, they win, 'even when everything we think we know about power says they shouldn’t.'"

It reminded me of something that Eric always says at method: "you can't out-Clorox Clorox." This is essential in remaining a challenger brand. Method can't start to follow the same playbook as big brands or it loses exactly what put method on the map in the first place.

In "Eating the Big Fish", Adam Morgan calls this challenger brand archetype the "Scrappy David". But, as Scrappy David starts to grow up, there is pressure to start playing more conventional rules. Scrappy behavior can be inefficient and messy after all. It is certainly important to become more professional. But it is also important not to confuse growing up with imitating Goliath. It is important not to give up the slingshot and pick up the sword, even as you become more professional in your attack. From Malcolm's article:

"When an underdog fought like David, he usually won. But most of the time underdogs didn’t fight like David. Of the two hundred and two lopsided conflicts in Arreguín-Toft’s database, the underdog chose to go toe to toe with Goliath the conventional way a hundred and fifty-two times—and lost a hundred and nineteen times ... when the world has to play on Goliath’s terms, Goliath wins."

I think this "Goliath Envy" creates a real tension for small challenger brands that are maturing. Adam Morgan argues that challenger brands frequently evolve from the Scrappy David to eleven other challenger brand archetypes: The People's Champion (Virgin Atlantic), the Real and Human Challenger (Ben & Jerry's), the Missionary (JetBlue), etc. Adam actually puts method in The Visionary camp (not the Scrappy David), because it "sets out higher vision that transcends category nature."

These challenger brand archetypes offer guideposts on how to evolve your brand over time. But the key, I think, is not to evolve into Goliath itself (even if you are Goliath). I actually think that any brand (large or small) has the capability to think of itself as a challenger brand and find ways to break the conventional rules of doing things (finding your inner David). There is opportunity for any brand to change the rules.

But, when you're an underdog, it's absolutely essential.

where's waldo marketing

My friend Jon at online grocer Ocado nicely invited me to give a talk at their supplier conference this week.  I'm talking about how Ocado helps enable challenger brands because they break the rules of traditional retail.

To help prove my point, I'm showing this photo from a typical British grocery store.  I call this "Where's Waldo" merchandising because it's so hard to shop (particularly for a master brand like method because the store puts window cleaners in one section and bathroom cleaners in another, etc.)  "Where's Waldo" (known as "Where's Wally" in the UK) is that classic children's book showing a crowd of people on every page with Waldo hidden in plain sight.

There are 8 different method products on these shelves, but you'd never know it without a magnifying glass and a lot of time on your hands.  Certainly more time than the 4-5 seconds an average consumer spends at shelf.  In contrast, Ocado (as an online retailer) has intelligent merchandising and opportunities to tell your brand stories.

Ocado is smaller than most traditional retail chains in the UK.  As a result, many brands overlook them as an opportunity to build their business and instead put their major focus on their bigger customers.  Even though a thousand other brands are doing exactly the same thing.  For all that effort, these brands wind up treading water alongside their competitors in a big bowl of commodity soup.

I would much rather invest in a smaller opportunity where our brand can make a genuine impact than a bigger one where we just get lost in the clutter. 

It got me thinking that marketers live in a "Where's Waldo" world.  Many of the "tried-and-true" marketing tactics no longer work because everyone is doing them.  Like Waldo, many brands are hidden in plain sight. 

Instead of camoflaging your brand in the comfort of the crowd, find those overlooked opportunities where there isn't as much of a crowd, and make a name for yourself there.

twitter tooning

I always carry around a sketchpad and a pencil in my pocket to jot down cartoon ideas as they happen.  Sometimes just a quote I like.  Sometimes a situation I want to lampoon later.  These sketchpads are my foundation.  I flip through them later and ideas start to surface.  I always try to have a few cartoon ideas percolating in my sketchpads.

I've been a little reluctant to try twitter, because I worried I would lose all self control.  Like when my wife and I thought we would casually watch "24" and then found ourselves at 2 in the morning asking each other if we could watch just one more episode.

But then I realized twitter is kind of like my sketchpads.  I can just jot down cartoon ideas as I go.  And unlike my sketchpads, these rough ideas can be easily shared and added on by others.  I see it as a form of wikitooning.  So, I'm giving it a shot.  Hopefully you like it.  Follow me at tomfishburne if you'd like to peek in the sketchpads.  Bring your own pencil.

I found useful perspective from Tim Ferriss in his post on "How to Use Twitter without Twitter Owning You."  Top tip: "Don’t post unless you add more value than the attention you consume (both yours and others’)"

the tension of glocalization

I've thought a lot about "thinking global, acting local" since I moved to the UK to help launch an American brand two years ago.

It's a constant tug-o-war between global consistency and local adaptation.  Recently, I had coffee with Patrick Cairns, CEO of Plum Baby, who spent a lot of time in global roles with Unilever.  He described the standard dichotomy as being either "mindlessly global" or "hopelessly local". 

Far too often, the global brand manager assumes one-size-fits-all and the local brand manager assumes his or her particular market necessitates the creation of something completely unique.

I developed a visual storytelling project with a large global company recently, and we talked a lot about this theme.  In the process, we characterized the "mindlessly global" mindset as testing in three random markets like "Laos, Lesotho, and Luxembourg" and assuming the results would give you confidence in the rest of the world (thanks, Simon and Alastair).  I liked the line so much, I used it again in this cartoon.

Years ago, I interviewed with Apple and got in an argument with a director about the importance of taking local market needs into account (they love argumentative stress interviews at Apple).  He said that local customization was a cop-out and a sign of failure.  He argued that a consumer insight should be universal if you distill it far enough.  If your consumer insight isn't universal, it's not a good enough consumer insight.  In other words, being "hopelessly local" is lazy.

When I arrived in the UK, I was interested to see virtually the same Apple ads, but with local British actors (the guys in the middle).  Out of curiosity, I found the Japanese version (the guys on the right).  Same consumer insight, same campaign, right down to the slouching posture of the Mac guy. 

After two years of sliding along the global/local continuum, I think the goal involves inverting the standard dichotomy: being "mindfully global" and "selectively local". The problem is that this is really hard to do.  It takes a lot of discipline and coordination on both sides of the table.  When the two sides have very different priorities, each views the other as a cumbersome burden. 

Like most things in business, it's about progress, not perfection.  Becoming a global brand that resonates locally should feel like an opportunity not a burden.  But it involves thinking global up front, so you don't have to act local quite so much.

view from marketing

I've always loved that classic Saul Steinberg painting "View of the World from 9th Avenue", which The New Yorker ran as its cover in 1976. I love the detail of the first few streets, and then Los Angeles as a tiny speck in the distance.

This image popped to mind recently when I was thinking about the marketing ivory tower.  It's really easy for a marketer (particularly in a large company) to start wearing blinders and only see the immediate stimulus of the office around them.  There's such a steady diet of research reports, agency reviews, focus group results, and internal meetings that it's sometimes difficult to actually see the wider world.  You start breathing your own exhaust.

Some of the wider activities of the company (the factory, the sales team, the call center) can appear as specks in the distance.  Even further away appears the world outside the company, the retail shelves and actual consumers.

Mark Addicks, the CMO of General Mills, used to say the smartest member of the brand team is the one who has just joined.  Their eyes are still open, and they aren't filtering their own observations and insights through the deeply rooted company understanding of how the brand works.  They're willing to actually question the dogma of the brand.

Mark used to encourage everyone to write down all of their thinking and insights about a brand before they actually join a brand team.  Before they start drinking the Kool-Aid and parroting the same stock consumer archetype definitions and brand promise statements.  That notebook of virgin observations becomes a handy reminder to refer to later when you're fully embedded.

I also think it's useful to spend as much time in the field as you can.  But I don't mean the luxe Soho offices of the ad agency.  The real observations of the brand can be found by stocking shelves alongside a field sales rep, or talking to the store manager of a small Midwestern grocery chain, or spending a few hours answering calls in the call center, or putting on a hair net and hard hat and talking to a production line engineer as the 4am shift starts.  All of those activities can teach you a thing or two.  And all of them could become marketing tactics.

A few years ago, I interviewed someone for a supply chain role and asked what he would do personally to increase consumer advocacy.  Rather than shunt this question off as "not my job," he came up with an idea to print jokes on the sides of the brown corrugate cases that hold the products on the way to the store.  He thought that if your gave the stock room guys a rare chuckle, they would take particular care in stocking your product on the shelf.  This would lead to better merchandising in store.  And because you have to print on the cases anyway, it doesn't cost any more. 

The best brands are made up of a "1000 nice little touches" like these.  But you have to keep your eyes open to find them.

the agency bid

 
Several of my agency friends have complained that client negotiations have gotten more cutthroat recently.  As companies look for ways to trim expenses, many are putting agencies through the same purchasing wringer as their commodity suppliers, often using the same central purchasing team they use for things like catering and industrial bleach.

While I'm sure there's some efficiency to be found (particularly with agencies that work across many businesses within a large client), I think some of the heavy-handed tactics are short-sighted.

Unlike something like soybeans, agencies vary widely in ability, talent, and potential to help ignite your business.

If you treat your agency like a commodity, don't be surprised if you end up with commodity results.  All agencies have "A teams" and "B teams" (and even "C teams").  The "A teams" rarely go to accounts that shunt off the agency through centralized purchasing.

If you want your agency to deliver exceptional results, you have to treat your agencies exceptionally.  It is (and should be) a combined effort.  Clients are often quick to scapegoat the agency for mediocre work, but the first look should be in the mirror.

It reminds me of something I read by Adam Morgan a few years ago.  He was describing the phenomenon that one agency can produce provocative work for some clients while only producing safe and predictable work for others.  Sometimes the safe client complains that he never sees any provocative work.  Yet, when shown provocative work, that same client will water down the idea until it looks safe and predictable.

Adam compared this phenomenon to a kitchen, which inspired this other cartoon a few years ago.

urban spam

 
I was in Paris over the long weekend for the first time in eight years. It's my favorite city in the world and my favorite activity is to leisurely people-watch at the outdoor cafés.

In France, there's a lot of talk about the "American McDonaldization" of culture and I was curious to see what had changed in eight years. The last time I was here, we wondered if Starbucks would eventually take over and ruin the quintessential French café culture. While I only saw one or two Starbucks on this trip (and only in the touristy areas), what struck me was how many cafés have now resorted to advertising on every available surface. The French café has "Starbucked" itself; it didn't need Seattle.

This may not be new, but it surprised me to have an espresso in a quiet cafe overlooking an ancient market square, only to notice that my tabletop was composed of a loud consumer products ad for a sweetener now containing folic acid that can be found at your local supermarché.

As a marketer, I respected the connection between this coffee ritual and a sweetener brand, and that this would be a nice "aperture" to reach my target consumer. But, as a consumer (albeit a temporary one), I saw it as an unwelcome interruption. If the café had actually offered this sweetener in addition to the sugar, I might have appreciated the implied endorsement. But, it was just an ad like any other. It just happened to be on my table.

It all got me thinking about "urban spam", a term I discovered via Russell Davies (who had these cards designed to give out to urban spammers). In the land grab to advertise on every available space, it's a slippery slope to the the world feeling like a Ryan Air cabin. And because most of these ads are largely generic, they just add to the clutter.

When an ad feels like an unwelcome interruption or even just ambient noise, is it really doing the brand any favors? I think the key, like everything else, is to be remarkable in execution.

The beauty brand, Yes to Carrots, recently launched in Paris, and they executed a one-day stunt using media space that had never been used before. Paris has an automated system of bicycles that Parisians can rent by the hour to get around town. Each bike has a basket to use for groceries. The bikes are unbranded, but ubiquitous. A Yes to Carrots team turned up early one morning and filled every bicycle basket in Paris with free carrots and information on their launch in Sephora. It wasn't technically legal, so they rode bicycles over to the proper ministry afterwards to pay a fine (which was built into the cost of the promotion).

I found this stunt pretty remarkable. While it was a form of interruption, it feels like a welcome one. The free carrots were a gift (many Parisians use the bikes for grocery shopping anyway), and it was unexpected because it hadn't been done before.

Yet, it now becomes just one more media space frontier that has been crossed. Once Paris starts to officially sell bicycle media space, a bicycle basket ad alone will no longer be remarkable. Not intrinsically anyway. It will become as commonplace as advertising on a grocery cart basket. It will become even more "urban spam". The definition of what's remarkable is a moving bar. And if you can't be remarkable at it, I think you have to question whether it's really worth doing.

innovation and cartoons: the movie

A few days ago, I posted my presentation from a recent talk on innovation called, "everything I needed to know about innovation, I learned by drawing cartoons."  My brother-in-law Baird nicely took a video of the talk.  Here's a 25 minute excerpt.  I talk about where ideas come from and how to launch them, using cartoonist and business examples.  Enjoy!

Everything I needed to know about innovation, I learned by drawing cartoons from Tom Fishburne on Vimeo.

the marketing rosetta stone

I love that George Bernard Shaw quote about the UK and US as "two countries separated by a common language". 

I think that the same can be said of functions within companies.  And marketers are the worst offenders.  I doubt any function produces more jargon and buzzwords each year than marketers (in case you're wondering, here are the Top 100 Marketing Buzzwords for 2009).

I gave a talk last week about ways to get innovations through an organization, and I offered the advice that the audience stop talking like marketers.  Too often marketers commit "idea camoflage" and earn the reputation that they live in an ivory tower.

Poor communication simply hamstrings ideas in an organization.  Lack of understanding drives people to take the safest path.  Which is why so many stage gate meetings feel like Checkpoint Charlie.

It's ultimately the marketer's job to inspire everyone to respond to ideas and make them stronger and stronger at each step, not weaker and weaker.  Or discard the ideas entirely.  But, it's essential to avoid the mediocre middle path.

After my talk, someone asked how marketers should communicate.  I said that just using plain English was a good start.  I think that it is a good litmus test to share your positioning statement with a factory line worker or a field sales rep and see if it makes sense to them.  If it's too esoteric for them, it's probably too esoteric for the R&D Director you need to inspire.

I'm also a big fan of drawings (for obvious reasons).  I honestly believe that everyone can communicate with drawings in a business setting, independent of artistic talent.  Dan Roam recently published a wonderful book called "The Back of the Napkin" that is all about how to do this.  I met Dan in San Francisco last week and he inspired me with the potential of visual thinking in business.

A few years ago, I heard a talk by Chris Bangle, the former head of design for BMW.  He was an impressive guy, but what struck me most was that most of his slideshow presentation was composed of scribbled stick figures that could have been drawn by a ten-year-old.  He said that he'd communicated like that his whole career, even in the board room, because it simplified communication and had the power to disarm a roomful of critics.

I'll take a stick figure over a buzzword any day.