ThinkingSparks

Don’t blame the audience

Seth Godin wrote in interesting post on being a great audience.

I wonder why it should be a goal to be a great audience. The goal should be to learn something and through listening and interaction you may learn more. But what if these 8th graders did not want to learn from you? What if they did not find it interesting? (No offense Seth.) What if they could have chosen to be an audience at a topic of their interest? Everyone has interests. And who knows why they do not find it interesting. The list can be endless.

On the other side of being an audience and learning is presenting and teaching. Where people are learning, people are teaching. Where there is an audience, someone is doing something in front of that audience. Isn’t it the teacher or presenter who should make sure that it is interesting or pull the non-participants into the discussion? If the interaction is the goal? Do you really want everyone to interact? Sometimes there simply isn’t time or opportunity.

I teach a course at a university every year. And I think it is d**n hard. I read up on the subject of teaching. In one of the books it said that if students do not participate, do not blame the students, but find a way to involve them. They are customers too and although the teacher may decide on what the students have to learn, the way the message is delivered has to be effective. Adjust the media to the audience. That’s what you do in marketing. Why not apply it to teaching? A teacher or a speaker is really the marketer of his own message. Otherwise, all your efforts are in vain. Over the years I also learned that the people that never ask questions and just sit there leaning back, may surprise you in the end.

The other day I gave a guest lecture. Some people asked questions and we had a discussion. People were very attentive. It was really quiet at times. Some leaned forward, some leaned back. They applauded afterwards and one student sent me a very nice e-mail in which he summed up his take on my teachings. He didn’t say much during the lecture, but he was dead on.

I find Seth Godin’s post interesting, but there is more to it then just blaming (part of) the audience.

Citations and trackbacks make knowledge go round

In the university newspaper there was an article on the academics vs. pseudo academics. According to the author the problem is that university academics didn’t go out enough and pseudo academics are taking their place instead with books, articles and speaking opportunities.

The main concern was that these pseudo academics pretty much can say anything they want. Their work is not peer reviewed and so the quality of their work is not guaranteed. The concept of peer reviews in academic publishing consists of anonymous reviewers commenting and giving feedback on a paper that has been submitted for publication.

I can understand the frustration expressed in the university newspaper. The intended audience doesn’t listen, or in this case doesn’t read, but reads someone else’s work, being either brilliant or BS, instead. That probably happens a lot and not only in the academic world. Think of performers who really aren’t the best singers (Madonna) around, but become bigger stars than the talented singer/songwriter.

But how bad is it really to read material from authors that have not been peer reviewed? When something is not peer reviewed it doesn’t mean it is not worth reading. It just hasn’t gone through a peer review process. It also doesn’t necessarily mean that its contents are worthless. A lot depends on the reader(s) I would say. Eventually it is the reader who values the content or not. Of course not every reader is critical enough and I sometimes see authors being hyped while I don’t really get what the fuss is about. Sometimes I read publications or posts that I know to be wrong, while other people think it is just great and even spread the (faulty) word through trackbacks. Fact is that subjective quality is in the eye of the beholder. The beholder being the reader.

In academia, one of the ways to check for quality is the number of times an author’s work has been cited. Citations make the academic world go round as it is an indicator for the quality of the author, the article, the academic institution and the academic journal and its publisher. Academic publishers and libraries have been developing and offering access to citation indexes to subscribers and members of libraries.

Now Amazon apparently has such a feature too. Seth Godin posted on it. I think Godin is giving Amazon too much credit though. This feature is nothing more than an application of the principle of citation indexes that have been around in academic publishing for a long time. On Web of Science (subscribers only) I can check exactly how often mr. Godin is quoted. The good thing about this feature is that this indicator of quality is apparently applied in the non-academic world.

There still seem to be two worlds of knowledge though. In order to make that one world there should be interaction. Fact is that academics interact in their own world of academic publishing. This whole thing of academic publishing is an interesting thing. The idea behind it is that academics have a dialogue with each other through their papers in academic and scientific journals. Their university requires them to publish. They are rewarded when they do. Scientific publishers do not pay the academics for their work; they get the stuff for free. The publishers in turn sell their journals for $ 1000 a subscription to university libraries, who have to offer this material to their staff as well as their students. It is a circular supply chain really! This supply chain has been around for quite some time now. As I said: Citations make the world go round. Some parties have too much to lose.

The possibilities the internet offers so far haven’t seduced academics to break this chain and to directly interact with their audience instead. Even though blogging and trackbacks offer the same as academic publishing does. Trackbacks really are citations too. Both of them make knowledge go round!

Culture based brand or Brand based culture?

The other day I was reading an article in which the Dutch consultancy Business Openers was quoted. They call themselves the pioneers of Internal Branding in the Netherlands. I am not sure if they really are pioneers, but apparently they like to position themselves as such.

If I interpret them correctly, they use the brand as a basis for culture change. They call that ‘internal branding’. I agree with them that behavior has to match the promise, but I am not sure if I agree with their views on causality. I am also not sure if this is what internal branding is.

On their site (in Dutch) the working through this process with Albert Heijn (grocery retailer that is part of Ahold) is described. What struck me is that in the whole process the starting point is the external brand. From the external brand the brand values are inferred. These then are the basis for behavior. Hopefully resulting in a brand based culture.

I always wonder if that works. Everyone involved in change of (organizational) cultures knows that it may take some time to replace one set of values by another. An organizational culture already had a set of values driving behavior before the brand values where conceived. So unless an organization has a (soon to be) dysfunctional culture, why not do it the other way around: a culture based brand? Build on the good behavior that is already there. It has the same results of living up to the promise, it is authentic and you avoid the long period of the culture change process. And the pain and resistance that comes with change. Don't get me wrong. I am not against change. But if it ain’t broke why fix it?

I fear the incessant and continued internal branding process being fueled by external advertising or brand agencies, the changes in those, the changes in marketing or brand directors that each want to do it better, different than their predecessors. It is something that comes natural. And with every such change, the organization has to change along with it. It might keep ‘internal branding’ consultants busy but I am not convinced that it is the right way to align organizational behavior and brand promise.

Any insights anyone?

The term Internal Branding

Internal Branding, when I first heard it, sounded like a great term to wrap around all the stuff related to the internal and organizational side of the brand. The more I think about it, the more I think it is not an adequate term and actually a bit of strange term.

When talking about the history of branding the story of cattle literally being branded with the owners’ sign always comes up. A lot of the approaches to internal branding I find very instrumental and not very insightful into what drives human behavior or change. Some authors introduce with their views on internal branding a new brand of feudalism and employees in this scheme revert to the status of serfs. These approaches always invoke the image of a human replacing the cow or bull and being branded with a hot iron on his backside. The employee is asked to lower part of his or her pants, to bend over and gets the organizational logo burned on his or her right buttock. Ouch!!! Probably the same amount of pain and hurt that instrumental or feudalistic internal branding programs can cause.

When using “brand” it is not clear what it is we mean exactly. Do we mean “brand identity” or “brand image” or do we mean something else entirely? Which aspect of “brand” are we talking about? “Brand” as a term is applied to so many things, organization, product, services, organizational culture etc. etc. that it is starting to lose its meaning. I believe that what is going on is some kind of “definition contamination”. We are all using the same word to describe different things and it makes conversation on a whole lot of topics (being covered by the word brand) unclear. It may seem easy to call everything a brand, but in the end it is confusing and also somewhat annoying.

Definitions of “brand” state that the brand exists in the mind of the consumer or any other member of the target group for that matter. That is a long way from seeing a brand as a visual sign of ownership. If the brand exists in the mind of the consumer then what is the basis for an internal branding program? It seems to me that when looking at it from a perspective of causality the term internal branding is inadequate. If the brand exists outside of the organization, can the organization use it internally? How would the organization deal with all these different consumers having a different brand existing in their minds? It wouldn’t do that by using them as a basis to manage internal behavior, would it now? What an organization is trying to achieve is that the brand that exists within these consumers’ minds align with each other and with what the organization intended. But the intention is different from the brand existing within the minds. Just like identity and image are two different things. Some authors distinguish between brand identity and brand image. So would internal brand identifying be a correct term? Maybe, but it is a bit of a mouthful.

Why don’t we just call it quality management, managing organizational behavior, or managing organizational culture? Don’t they all have the same goal? Any naming suggestions, anyone?

Vote against sheepwalking bureaucrats!

Yesterday I wanted to cast two votes in the provincial government elections; for me and my partner. I could vote for myself without an ID, but in order to vote for my partner I had to ID myself. The polling station can ask for an ID, but are not required to. I forgot my ID so they wouldn’t let me vote for my partner. I could cast my own vote without any ID.

I saw noo point in trying to convince the sheepwalking bureaucrats that this is an illogical rule and serves – in my opinion – no use at all, I just cast the one vote yesterday. So this post is my vote against sheepwalking bureaucrats!

Is Internal branding just a sexier term for internal communication?

Last Thursday I was having a conversation on Internal Branding and how it really doesn’t go beyond internal communication in most cases. Then yesterday I opened Communicatie (magazine) and out fell an insert.

The insert was a booklet on the Internal Branding campaign for two insurance companies (Achmea and Interpolis) that had merged. Interesting stuff I thought and read it. The booklet had a foreword by the CEO and an interview with renowned academic Cees van Riel. The booklet was very well executed. After reading I was very disappointed though. What had been described was an internal communication campaign. From what I read, very well thought out and executed (although the results will really tell how good it was), but to me no more than an internal communication campaign to help easy the merging of these different companies.

After the read, too be honest, I was a bit miffed. Is internal branding nothing more than internal communication? Just like a normal bottle of whisky customized with a special edition gift box into an exclusive present? Or is it the agency that has upgraded itself from an internal communication agency to an internal branding agency? Do they want to be sexier? Maybe everyone involved wants to be sexier. They all bought into their concept of what internal branding is. They even spend a lot of money to tell the world through an inserted booklet how great their internal branding efforts are.

I have my doubts on this internal communications approach to internal branding. I have doubts on the term internal branding. I guess I am writing my thesis about this topic for a reasonJ.