The 3 Needs

Having spent the last couple of posts focusing on self-improvement, I thought I’d transition back to the business side of things for a bit.

The past 2-3 weeks a few of my friends reached out to me regarding concepts that they’re working on, and as is usually the case, it got me thinking: assuming all else is equal (e.g. a great founding team, seed capital, discipline, a bit of luck etc.), what exactly makes for a viable business idea?

If you ask me, all great companies have one essential ingredient in common: they all address three fundamental needs.

Philosophical Need: On a macro level all companies, large and small, must address an overarching “philosophical” need. For Google, it’s ensuring that search is as intuitive as possible, even as content on the web continues to proliferate; for Twitter, it’s enabling people to broadcast what they’re doing whenever they want, wherever they want; for Boeing, it’s making flight as cost-effective, and safe as possible; for Toyota, it’s manufacturing more fuel-efficient automobiles without sacrificing standards; and for Ikea it’s providing consumers with quality furniture at a discount – just to name a few.

Practical Need: Of course, addressing a macro-level need, while powerful, is not nearly enough. There are practical considerations as well.

Take Twitter for example. The social media upstart would have never become a phenomenon, if its value proposition was solely predicated on enabling users to publish status-updates (i.e. answer the question, “What am I doing right now?”); after all, what’s the point in telling people what you are doing, if nobody is there to listen?

Thus, not surprisingly, it wasn’t until Twitter addressed an even more basic need – the need to integrate with existing social media applications (e.g. Facebook, AIM, gchat etc) – that it started to realize its potential as a tool that could empower people to concurrently reach out to an audience with a megaphone while engaging  individuals  in a “coffee-shop.”

Mechanical Need: Finally, no concept can truly succeed unless it addresses the most elemental (and forgotten) need of all:  the need for a simple mechanism that will make the philosophical and practical solutions feasible.

In Twitter’s case, the mechanism is obvious: SMS technology (i.e. text-messaging). However, what about more traditional companies like Ikea or Toyota?

If you think about it, they too have distanced themselves from the competition by addressing mechanical needs. Ikea is able to provide furniture at a discount (“philosophical need”) by using material comparable to its peers (“practical need”) because it transfers the majority of its assembly costs to its consumers by selling ready-to-assemble goods (“mechanical need”).

Toyota on the other hand is able to consistently manufacture top-of-the-line fuel efficient cars (“philosophical need”) by employing some of the automobile industry’s most advanced technology (“practical need”) because of its world famous Toyota Production System (“mechanical need”).

In short, when considering an idea, ask yourself one question: how many needs does it address?

Personal Brands

This afternoon Albert Maruggi, a PR thought leader with over 25 years of experience, hosted the first ever “Social Media Throwdown”, featuring a battle of wits between social media behemoth Geoff Livingston and brand strategy savant Hajj Flemings. The topic? The existence and importance of personal brands.

For his part, Livingston argues that personal brands are not only difficult to achieve, but that companies that promote the brands of their employees do themselves a disservice; whereas Hajj contends that “personal brands” are an integral part of what makes us human, and as such, one of the key reasons we provide value to teams and organizations in the first place.

Now while I don’t usually make it a point of stepping into the ring with two heavyweight champs (much less one!), I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that I agree with my man Hajj.

To illustrate why, let me address each one of Geoff’s “7 Corporate Pitfalls to Promoting Personal Brands,” in turn (I apologize in advance for the sports analogies):

1) The personal brand is a cost to the company.

Though I wholeheartedly agree that you must never let employees build their own brand at the expense of a company’s, I would argue that: a) the best organizations sustain their vision in large part by investing in the brand of their people (e.g. Google, Amazon etc) while b) the companies that impose their “personality” on employees’ creativity, intellect, passion, and moral compass are  more likely to “fail” (e.g. Lehman Brothers, AIG, General Motors etc).

2) The now popular employee is likely to get poached: a common concern I hear is that competitors can easily identify the stars, and hire away these folks…

That’s certainly a risk. But if you ask me, it’s one that companies absolutely have to take. For starters, an organization’s ultimate success is built on the collective and individual growth of all of its employees. Secondly, the more well-regarded a particular employee/manager is, the more well-regarded his/her organization becomes (e.g the Livingston Communication brand ironically, is reflective of Geoff Livingston’s stature). Finally, in an era of high turnover, stars are much more likely to leave  if they feel their wings have been clipped.

3) Employee exits leave a chasm to fill… after they’ve built up trust with the market using social tools, they leave the company, and a gap is left that the brand can’t fill.

I suppose, but I would contest that if you build an organization the right way and put the right processes in place you should be able to replenish your coffers rather easily. For instance: you think Pete Carroll of USC lost any sleep over the departures of Carson Palmer, Matt Leinart and Reggie Bush? I think, after 7 straight seasons of 11 or more wins that’s highly unlikely.

4) The personal brand has a human failing, which then gets aired out in the marketplace and tarnishes the company’s entire social media effort in process. Think this can’t happen? Let’s go to sports and Barry Bonds. His steroids use has permanently tarnished the records he carries and the entire era of MLB he dominated.

Sure, but I would counter that when you build an organization the right way from the ground up you are able to do two things: 1) prevent those sort of failings from happening and 2) overcome and thrive in spite of them. Thus, as much as I loathe Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, and Roger Clemens for instance, Bud Selig, his $18M salary, and his negligent testing procedures are far more culpable in my mind.

5) Similar to Risk 1: The company sacrifices building its own larger commitment to the marketplace by building a personality. In essence, building the personal brand is a distraction from the company’s real purpose, which is serving its stakeholders.

I agree that companies should never sacrifice a customer-centric approach for the individual glory its employees. However, by definition employees are stakeholders as well.  Therefore I would argue that their success is directly correlated to end-user satisfaction.

6) But how long until people realize that seeing individuals as the only voice of the company on the Internet is an indication that the company doesn’t really care about the social web?

Individuals should never be the sole voice of a company; nor should their voice overwhelm those of their peers and customers. But I also believe that a “star” employee who is given the freedom to connect with a target audience in a manner that is consistent with the company’s core principles is a powerful ally.

7) A solo personality can polarize customers, or push away potential prospects. A team offers different voices and tones for different stakeholders.

True, but a strong personality that acts in accordance with the larger principles and mission of a team (e.g. Barack Obama, Steve Jobs, etc) can also captivate and unite an audience on a monumental scale.

Lastly, in response to Livingston’s closing argument suggesting that “Teams win and stars lose:” I would contend that it just ain’t that simple:

1) First of all, while it is absolutely correct to say that stars can’t succeed without role players, last time I checked, role players can’t exactly succeed without stars either! Can you imagine the Bulls without MJ, the Cavs without LeBron, or the Colts without Peyton Manning? There’s a reason they were and are MVP candidates year in and year out. It’s because without them, their teams wouldn’t be very good.

2) On the best teams, even role players develop personal brands/identities that are consistent with the overall vision. For instance on the championship Bulls teams (since Geoff brought it up): Rodman was the pest/rebounder, Pippen was the lockdown defender, Steve Kerr was the 3-point specialist, and Toni Kukoc was the jack of all trades.

So, while there most certainly is no “I” in “team,” there isn’t necessarily an “I” in “personal brand” either.

Thoughts?

Mimicking Reality

It seems like everyone and their mother likes to make predictions around this time of year; and so clearly, being the fun-loving guy that I am ( really, I am!), I thought it only appropriate that I join the party. However, as is usually the case with me, there’s just one slight problem: a key prerequisite to making predictions is that you have to have something to make a prediction about in the first place! So okay, let’s see here. How about sports? Eh, considering Seattle just completed the worst year in sports history that’s not likely (seriously, Oklahoma Thunder?!). Fine, then how about women? Ha! Yeah, no I’m not touching that one, sorry mom.

*Sigh* so I suppose that wasn’t too hard after all. By process of elimination that leaves me with: web-based business, specifically as it pertains to social media. If you ask me, many of the largest and most reputable social media companies today have achieved critical mass because of one thing and one thing only: they mimic, consolidate, and expedite what we do on the web. For instance:

1) Facebook – If you really think about it Facebook and other social networks like it became ubiquitous because they enable people to connect and communicate with contacts from their past and present through one simple, yet powerful interface. Rather than through instant messenger and email, which are inefficient and fragmented mediums at best.

2) Digg – Next, Digg has become a phenomenon because it successfully leverages its large user base to create a repository of “interesting” content. So now, instead of browsing through sites and sharing content one at a time (which is what people used to do on the web), people can simply sign into their Digg account, and find/submit content for all their friends to see.

3) Twitter – Finally, for its part, Twitter capitalizes on the interconnectivity of the web/mobile phones to faciliate micro-blogging through multiple mediums (e.g. AIM, gmail, Facebook etc). So instead of updating their friends one person at a time and one medium at a time (which, again, is what we used to do), people can now chat with and provide real-time status-reports to all their “bffs” at once (e.g. “OMG. The Jonas Brothers are sooooooo HOT! xoxo”).

Of course, I’m oversimplifying things for the sake of brevity. Facebook, Digg, and Twitter each provide far more value than I give them credit for above. However, my sense is that at some point, if not in 2009 than shortly thereafter, mimicking the web (i.e. increasing the proximity of information) will simply not be enough; and in order to succeed, the next generation of social media companies must and will learn how to mimic reality.

For, as useful, wonderful, and mind-blowing as some of these current sites are, I predict that one day soon we’ll look up blurry-eyed from our monitors, iphones,  blackberries, blueberries and strawberries; and realize in a moment of (ironic) clairvoyance that there’s just no subsitute to engaging and impacting others in real-life.

Thoughts?

Taking the Plunge

It’s funny how life works. Sure, inspiration strikes when you least expect it; but who knew that inspiration strikes when you are least willing to accept it as well?

To illustrate, the other day I decided to message social media/marketing goddess Shannon Paul on a whim really, if only to make an introduction. She, being the gracious, wonderful person that she is, wrote back immediately offering words of encouragement and support: “…Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help you. Do you have a blog? If so, please send a link.”

In retrospect, my reply was rather embarrassing.  I wrote, and I quote, “Unfortunately, with [job-hunting] the way it is, I haven’t had a chance to put together a blog yet…” with the implicit assumption being of course that searching for a job was simply taking far too much of my “valuable” time to devote energy to writing (I mean come on, who DOES that?). Besides, I (stupidly) reasoned, what could I possibly say that would hold Shannon’s interest for more than 30 seconds!?

Ugh.

I kid you not: the second I clicked “send,” viscous black guilt started to seep into my lungs, effectively replacing all the “hot air” that I had let out until I couldn’t breathe (okay, so maybe I’m exaggerating  just a tad).  But was job hunting really taking that much of my precious time?  Did I really not have the mind-share to dedicate to a blog? Or was I just being a big wuss? Was I simply too afraid to admit to myself and to others that the real reason I had never decided to join the blogosphere was because I was terrified of what people might think? Petrified that I would not be thought-provoking or interesting enough…

Of course if you know anything about me, you would know that I could have gone on analyzing and rationalizing forever, and probably would have, had I not been slapped lovingly in the face by an epiphany: the point is not to be interesting, the point is to be interested. For, as uncomfortable and naked as you might initially feel, only in pursuing that which you are passionate about do you truly become relevant.

So there you have it. Here I stand on the precipice of the unknown, willing myself to take the plunge – all because some incredibly smart, kind soul guilt-tripped me. The nerve!