The Strategic Choice

What Are You Giving Yourself This Christmas?

noreply@blogger.com (Joanna aka Steelady) — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:23:00 +0000

http://myemail.constantcontact.com/What-Are-You-Giving-Yourself-This-Christmas-.html?soid=1102911955040&aid=V86AM15Z0Vs

Happy Holidays to all! What are you giving to yourself this Christmas? Did you do some planning in 2009 so that you could surprise yourself in 2010? Take a look at the attached newsletter and see if you think that the 'gifts' described in it are something you want for yourself.

If you start planning now, you could have one of these gifts for yourself in 2011. If you've made a strategic choice to get out of debt or find an alternative way of building a nest egg for yourself, then take a look at the Building Wealth e-news attached.

I made the strategic choice in 2009 to put and end to credit card debt and letting it run my life. I used a Self-Empowered Banking System to do and boy what a difference a year and a little planning makes in terms of financial freedom and control of my money and my financial destiny.

Give yourself the same gift in 2011 and make the strategic choice now to do the planning, make the changes and reap the rewards for Christmas next year! Ho Ho Ho -- warm wishes to all!

http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Celebrate-Volunteers---Children-.html?soid=1101830415767&aid=IZnj0dV1aRQ

noreply@blogger.com (Joanna aka Steelady) — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:21:00 +0000

http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Celebrate-Volunteers---Children-.html?soid=1101830415767&aid=IZnj0dV1aRQ

If you're not sure what to give the person who has everything this holiday season, why not make a donation to my favorite non-profit, The Pro Bono Project in New Orleans?

Take a look at their most recent newsletter and see why your donation is important to continue to help New Orleans and the surrounding area recover from Katrina and the BP Oil Spill!

Make a strategic choice and follow the links in the newsletter to give a gift now! Thanks for your support.

Happy Holidays to all!

Quality vs Quantity

noreply@blogger.com (Joanna aka Steelady) — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:33:00 +0000

For the past several weeks I’ve been doing some research on my own industry and what I’ve noticed is that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Yes, we have a lot more tools to work with thanks to technology. The Internet, Web 2.0, IM, texting and a whole slew of communication options that didn’t even exist just a few years ago have turned our lives upside down and then some.

But, in truth the fundamentals of the business have not changed: target the right message to the right audience using the right mix of methods and get the right results.

What disturbs me more than anything is the amount of information that’s out there that goes nowhere. Content may be king, but if nobody is reading it, then what’s the point?

When I mentioned this sort of “throw as much as you can at the wall and hope something sticks” mentality to a colleague, what I got back was, “that’s the way the 20-somethings like to get their information.” Considering that 20-somethings make up only 13.8% of the population, where does that leave the rest of us?

I love content, here I am publishing some more of it – but I have made a strategic choice not to throw as much as I can at the wall. It doesn’t make sense for me, my clients or potential clients. There’s only so much information we can take in and process on any given day.

As I browse the Web, I often see a company’s press release on multiple sites – yes, it’s out there, but who is reading it? I wonder how many of those releases that were sent out into cyberspace actually end up as a real news story reported by top tier media?

But, maybe I’m assuming that that’s what the client’s objective is and I could be wrong. Maybe they just want to be out there and don’t care if the audiences they want to reach actually get the message, just as long as somebody does. Whether there’s any action that happens is secondary to ‘being out there.’

Maybe, I’m old fashioned but I always thought that the point of communicating – of marketing a product, service or organization to potential customers – was about getting those prospects to take action of some sort? You know, like inquiring about or buying a product or a service or donating funds to support a cause among other actions?

Yes, I know it’s important to ‘be out there’ – I’m writing this blog aren’t I? But, being out there and actually getting people to respond and to act are two entirely different things.

With that in mind, if you’re ‘out there’ and nothing is happening, here are a few things to think about:

What’s the end result? It’s one of the first questions I ask my clients. When all is said and done, what do you hope to have achieved? If you’re not clear about that then you can’t get to it no matter what you do.

What’s the strategy? Great strategy produces great results. I don’t care how clever or creative you are, if you’re not using the right approach then all the creativity in the world won’t produce the end result. How often do you see a really funny or clever ad and then can’t remember the product or service?

Do you have a plan, no matter how simple, or are you just throwing information at the wall and hoping something sticks? If you don’t have a plan, then no telling where you’ll end up.

Are you talking directly to your audience and your influencers? Do you have the right target audience profile? I recently told a client that we would know if we had the right profile if the list we pulled had some of his current and past clients, plus people whom he had recently met networking. We found a few of each – profile confirmed.

Being out there is useful, it certainly adds to the level of awareness and it can be a lot of fun. But, if specific results are what you want, then the strategic choice is to target, target, target: the right audience + the right message + the right methods = the right results.

Raising Funds ...

noreply@blogger.com (Joanna aka Steelady) — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:14:00 +0000

Last night, as I did my usual after work unwind watching movies on TV, I was solicited to donate to just about every major cause of which you can think. Dying children, hungry children in the US, hungry children in the world, save the polar bears and other endangered species, save the abandoned dogs and cats and on and on and on. My mail also looks about the same.

But, it is that time of year, when people's hearts, and hopefully, wallets are a bit more open and the many non-profits representing a cause for everyone are eager to make up their annual shortfalls in funding. I've had quite a few non-profits as clients during my career and have created more than my share of end of year funding campaigns. In addition, I've supported their efforts wholeheartedly by providing pro bono services, lower hourly fees and usually an annual cash donation. But, I also had an emotional tie to each organization, which made me want to give my time, talent and treasure to support their missions and to encourage others to support them.

As I watched the commercials last night, each one tugged at my heart in some way, hoping that I would pick up my phone or run to my computer and make a donation. And, I started to wonder how effective these late night campaigns are at bringing in new donors and at what cost to the non-profit?

Sixty second national television advertising is not cheap no matter what time it plays and neither is direct mail. Even if some of these spots are donated, there is still a large cost involved in running these national campaigns. Although, I see these spots year-round, during the two or three weeks leading up to Christmas, the number of spots airing dramatically increases, as do the pieces of mail I receive. Additionally, most, but not all, have celebrity spokespersons, who may or may not be doing this at no charge.

As usual, this sparked a few thoughts about the strategic choice each of these non-profits is making. There are many more qualified professionals out there in the marketing and public relations world than me when it comes to non-profit fundraising. But, there are some fundamentals that don't change.

First, people give to people and those people are usually people who know each other. Most fundraising transactions are a result of one-on-one relationship building. Mary knows Bob, Mary sits on the Board of XYZ Non-Profit, Bob is the CEO of ABC Corporation -- bingo -- a fundraising opportunity in the making.

Second, people give to a cause because someone they know or have an emotional tie to is somehow connected to the cause. The Susan G Komen Foundation is a great example of a non-profit who has tapped into the relationship among women -- family and non-family -- in the effort to fund breast cancer research. But, again, it's the relationships that foster the fundraising prospects.

Third, people have a positive experience at a critical time with the non-profit organization and they become regular donors. The late actress Audrey Hepburn often cited her main reason for working with UNICEF was because they provided food and shelter to her as a child in Nazi-occupied Belgium. She never forgot that and eventually served as UNICEF's World Ambassador. The Red Cross in another organization that fits this funding scenario.

Finally, most funding for non-profits comes from individuals and not big organizations. Individuals giving $25, $50 or $100 fuel the vast majority of non-profits. Large gifts are few and far between and are usually the result of a long-term, highly cultivated and emotional relationship between donor and organization.

I have to think that the late night commercials I see for the non-profits I described above must be working or else why are they still doing them? But, are they creating relationships with the donors they pick up through this TV campaign or are these one shot hits -- they give this year, but never again? How do these non-profits continually engage these 'in the night' donors and at what rate are they able to convert them to long-term donors?

So much of fundraising is about engaging the potential donor's emotions and given the tone of the commercials I saw last night, that appears to be the strategic choice driving these campaigns. But, the cost of these campaigns is a high price to pay for such fleeting potential donors.

It seems to me that the money they are spending to reach a mass audience could be better spent in a more highly-targeted campaign aimed directly at their current donor base and the networks within and adjacent to that donor base. Consistent relationship building within and messaging to the donor base and various related networks would most certainly produce a higher return.

To undertake such an effort is a long-term strategic choice, that requires tremendous patience, an active Board, supportive/supported staff and expert communications counsel. If successful, its payoff is guaranteed by the relationships it creates between organization and donors and that's a strategic choice most non-profits can live with.

Are You Listening?

noreply@blogger.com (Joanna aka Steelady) — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:49:00 +0000

I had an interesting experience with Procter and Gamble (P&G) this week. It got me thinking about something I heard in a presentation a few weeks ago at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business (GSB).

What I heard Babs Ryan, author of America's Corporate Brain Drain ..., say in her remarks was that Corporate America had stopped listening to its customers. She noted a few examples of various companies that had adjusted procedures for their own convenience after customer research revealed a problem, and a potential solution that would resolve the customers' problem, but might create additional costs or inconvenience for the companies.

One example that Ms Ryan cited was the number of companies who have now disabled the 'zero out' function to get a live operator for help. Studies show more than 70% of women try to use this function and it would be more cost effective to go directly to an operator than use the endless menus. There is overwhelming data that customers don't want menu-driven customer teleservice. With the technology readily available to switch to the more cost-effective live operator system, why do companies continue to spend money altering their menu systems that customers don't want? Wouldn't the company who made the change inspire brand loyalty in its customers? As I listened to her, in my heart, and I'm sure the hearts of the 50 or so other attendees, I knew what she was saying was true.

This week, I am living proof of her assertion.

For several months now, I've experienced some problems with P&G's Glide Dental Floss. I finally became frustrated enough to fire off a complaint email to P&G's customer service. I received the obligatory auto-responder that told me someone would follow-up shortly. Indeed, within a matter of days, I received an email from customer service apologizing for the product's poor performance, assuring me that the information would be shared with the product development team and asking that I watch my mail for something from P&G. Oh boy, I could hardly wait!

On Monday, the P&G envelope arrived with the enclosed letter: Thanks for your recent email message. We appreciate your feedback. As promised, your comments have been shared with the rest of our team. Meanwhile, we hope you enjoy the enclosed. Sincerely...

What was enclosed, you ask? Two $2 coupons for their latest Venus razor product and a voucher for a free package of the exact same Glide Floss about which I had complained.

I was smacked in the face by P&G! I already have 5 unopened packages, which I will never use because of poor performance. Why would I want another one? I fired back an email asking if they were awake and listening, and have yet to hear back. I think they may not be listening so I don't expect a response, but you can guess what I'm sending their CEO for Christmas.

As a strategist, grounded in communications and marketing, I have to ask if this is a good strategy for P&G or for any company? Customers do not complain because they have nothing better to do (yes, there are some professional complainers out there) - but most people complain with good reason.

At what point will Corporate America and companies of all sizes begin to listen to their customers, and produce products and services that are about real quality and value to their customers -- whether B2B or B2C? To do that, it means assessing their vision, purpose and strategy for doing business. Not an easy task, but a doable one.

I contend that if companies worldwide stopped focusing on the bottom-line and the ever increasing need to push shareholder value through the roof, and paid more attention to the quality and value of the products and services they send to market, the customers will do the rest. Companies would never have to worry about the bottom-line or shareholder value again -- it would be there -- just as the leadership envisions it.

There are many companies out there doing just that and customers are flocking to their doors even in this current economy. Off the top of my head I can think of three examples -- Apple, Target and Harley Davidson -- but there are many more. Whether they are big giants like those three or 'mom and pop' shops, product quality and value for the money spent, sells.

The strategy that articulates this combination is a winner. Yes, it may take longer to reach that out of sight 'shareholder value' by executing this strategic choice, but remember who won the race in the Aesop fable of the Tortoise and the Hare.

Doing Homework ...

noreply@blogger.com (Joanna aka Steelady) — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 02:33:00 +0000

Been browsing blogs about public relations while taking a break from client work and there seems to be quite an uproar among bloggers about the value of public relations folks. The take-away that I got from all my reading was that PR folks need to do their homework, stop cluttering the space with canned messages, listen and connect appropriately.

In many ways, that's really nothing new. Those of us who've been in the business know that just sending press releases for the sake of being able to tell your client that you've sent the release to 1,000 different media outlets is not what strategic PR is all about. The client who expects that doesn't understand the true value of a PR pro.

I see hundreds of press releases posted everyday on the web -- there are so many more avenues of reaching out than in the past. But, of the many hundreds I see, only a handful actually seem to make it to key news organizations like CNN, NY Times, Business Week, WSJ, the AP, Reuters, etc.

The Internet has created an accessibility monster and just because you can doesn't mean you should. Before all this instant accessibility -- PR folks had to spend time a lot more time researching, talking, building relationships, making connections, etc. We also spent a lot more time telling our clients NO -- this is not newsworthy, there isn't a story here, there's no need for a press conference, etc. Sometimes less is more.

What I see is that with all the new media outlets, strategic thinking about what, when and how to disseminate information to the news media has gone out the window. Clearly, as the possibility increases that the perceptions and messages about a company and its stakeholders can be controlled by outside influencers, the need for good solid strategy in PR and communications becomes even more vital.

It's not enough to just throw a bunch of information at the wall and expect it to work in the client's favor -- in fact, most times it works against the client and the PR exec.

No matter how advanced technology gets, the basics must be in place if the communication is to be effective. That means doing the homework and making the strategic choice that works not just for the client, but for those audiences that the client wants to reach and who, in turn, want to provide input for the client.

Guns A Blazing v Watch and Wait? Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Joanna aka Steelady) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:20:00 +0000

I received a few emails from colleagues and blog readers asking why I hadn't done my Monday post on the election. My reply was that I did -- now here's Part 2.

We witnessed a historic event yesterday as the execution of two vastly different strategic choices came to fruition. The candidates, like Sunday's tennis pros, employed similar strategies -- Guns A Blazing versus Watch and Wait. The difference is that this time, the younger 'player' Barack Obama employed the Watch and Wait strategy and came out on top.

The Watch and Wait strategy is one that takes the high road and simply lets the Guns A Blazing player, in this case the veteran John McCain, beat themselves to death trying to get the other guy to depart from their strategy. Obama/Biden held fast and refused to change strategy or react to the high-risk tactics employed by McCain/Palin in the days leading up to the election. On this day and this time, the Watch and Wait strategy won.

As I said in my Monday post, I have seen both strategies used successfully on the tennis court, in politics and in business. What I and the entire country witnessed yesterday was proof positive that great strategy, driven by vision and purpose, and flawlessly and consistently executed, produces great results.

By being willing to stick to the strategy, choose long-term results over instant gratification, what seemed impossible only a few months ago became a reality last night that far exceeded expectations.

Guns A Blazing v Watch and Wait?

noreply@blogger.com (Joanna aka Steelady) — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:52:00 +0000

Guns A Blazing versus Watch and Wait ... which would you choose? These are two strategies that I saw perfectly executed on Sunday as I sipped my morning cup of coffee and watched the finals of the ATP's Masters Series in Paris. Tennis is a game of pure strategy, combined with the ability to execute consistently every three to five seconds from the serve through the rally until the point, game, set and match are won. It is a game of taking time away and applying pressure by executing strategy.

I have often heard the players respond when asked about the result of their day on the courts, " I just went out there and played my game." What they really mean is that they executed the strategy of choice -- and that strategic choice dictated every move they made from the time they stepped out on the court until the final rally. You rarely see them change strategy, though they might change tactics along the way, and it is only when the match is over that you know if the strategy succeeded.

Sunday's match was no different. The younger players these days often choose what I call the 'guns a blazing' strategy -- it's aggressive, edgy, very high-risk; more veteran players, especially when they haven't played their opponent before, tend to do a 'watch and wait' strategy -- watch, wait for the opportunity, then pounce. I have seen both strategies win and lose -- sometimes the younger player beats themselves to death trying to win through sheer power tactics; the veteran watches for too long, the opportunity slips by and the match is over.

On Sunday, 'guns a blazing' outplayed 'watch and wait' -- the tennis was brilliant by both players but the execution and the small nuances dictated by each player's strategy made all the different in the outcome. The strategic choice set the stage, the execution and the ability to adjust the execution play by play determined the outcome.

On this day I watched two great strategies produce vastly different results for each of the players -- one became the champion, the other just the runner-up. Did the runner-up choose the wrong strategy or did he just execute poorly?

In truth, all the runner-up needed was a very small percentage difference in one or two areas and the match would have gone the other way -- small tactical changes at certain moments throughout the match would have made the difference. Only he knows why he was unable to make those changes.

In business, it is no different -- the strategy sets the stage, the execution determines the outcome. But, it is the ability to be flexible -- to adjust, to respond in the moment -- to hold fast to the strategy, while adjusting the tactics -- that is what ultimately makes the difference in whether we succeed in realizing our vision and our purpose.

Boldness Has Genius ...

noreply@blogger.com (Joanna aka Steelady) — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:40:00 +0000

Today the Christian Science Monitor announced that beginning in April 2009, it would cease to publish its daily print edition and go strictly online except for a weekly print edition. It is the first national/international newspaper to do so and I expect that there will be a few more following this path if they can work out the revenue numbers.

I had dinner with an old college chum a few weeks ago who happens to be a well-placed executive in the newspaper publishing business and we couldn't help talk about the future of the newspaper business. In many cities, the presses are struggling to keep up with the Internet and newspaper executives are having to deal more and more with the realities of the Whiz Bang Age and trying to figure out the right moves.

It sort of feels like the transition from rail travel to air travel -- the railroads thought thought that airplanes were a fad and only rich people would be able to afford it and airplane travel would never become mainstream. Sticking your head in the sand won't do as a strategic choice -- the railroads did and they paid a heavy price.

The newspaper business did a great job of recognizing the power of television and how it could become their partner -- a voice and a picture of their reporting. Now, once again, it is up to the newspapers to recognize the power of partnership as a strategy for the new world of media and recognize that the Internet, Web 2.0, social media, etc are here to stay. Print is not dead -- unless it chooses to employ a 'let's stick our head in the sand strategy.'

The Christian Science Monitor has made a bold move and as Goethe said, "Boldness has genius, power and magic in it." It's the kind of strategic choice that I just bet the Monitor's founder, Mary Baker Eddy, would applaud.

Passive Campaigning

noreply@blogger.com (Joanna aka Steelady) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 22:07:00 +0000

Dr Stan Fish wrote a great post in his NY Times blog on Sunday about the power of passive campaigning. In it, he talked about how the McCain-Palin camp is busy slinging the arrows of outrageous fortune, while the Obama-Biden camp patiently sits by and watches -- choosing instead to continue to stay on message and talk to voters about what they are going to do for the citizenry.

This is a time-tested and well respected strategy called the principle of non-resistance. It takes a lot of guts and patience to employ this particular strategy. Typically, most folks would rather just punch the other guy in the nose, scream back even louder or justify their position.

I once had a cultural arts client who was being attacked on a call-in radio program because a certain group of people didn't like an exhibit the museum was hosting. The client called me in a dither. I listen briefly to the show and left to meet my client. The client, as you can imagine, was in an uproar -- the museum was just about to send its end of the year fundraising letters and was sure this would negatively impact the response they would get.

As the client calmed down, I suggested what Dr Fish would most likely agree was a "passive campaign" in response to the radio show. The client was invited to go on the show and justify the reasons for why they were showing this exhibit.

Instead, I recommended that they not go on the show and simply address the issue with the audiences who might be most impacted by the radio comments: their board and their biggest funders. I saw no point in trying to change the mind of people who were ranting and raving; who were clearly not constituents of the museum and had most likely never set foot in the place nor would they ever.

The client agreed with some fear and trepidation and within a few hours a package was prepared and sent to the board and funders, addressing the issues and asking for their continued support.

When the radio show began the next morning, the client had their running shoes on ready to sprint to the phone and justify their position. I stood firm and said that it would not be necessary and any comments would only prolong and agitate the situation further. The client stood by patiently, doubting the validity of my strategy, but agreeing to wait.

The announcer came on and told his audience that the museum representative would not be coming and asked his listeners for additional comments. We listened patiently and within 5 minutes, he moved on. No one had called to continue the fight. The client was relieved. Ultimately, it turned out to be one of the biggest end-of-the-year fundraising campaigns they ever had.

It was a strategic choice not unlike the one Senator Obama has made. When you offer no resistance, the attacker has nothing to push back against -- when they know they can't get a reaction, it makes them even crazier and allows you to take the high road. Eventually, the attacker moves on or just keeps getting crazier until they burn themselves out.

It's not an easy strategy to stick with, but those who can, receive the promise of great results.

How Would I Have Counseled Muhtar Kent?

noreply@blogger.com (Joanna aka Steelady) — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:26:00 +0000

As you can imagine, I received a few emails about how I would have counseled Coca-Cola's new CEO Muhtar Kent. (See Atlanta Journal Constitution article)

As outside PR counsel, my strategy for Mr Kent would be to "take the high road." Don't ignore the science, use it to Coca-Cola's advantage. I agree that obesity is a societal, lifestyle issue and that individuals have to take responsibility for their choices. And, so do corporations.

I recognize that Mr Kent's remarks followed a presentation by the Corn Refiners Association by design. Coca-Cola along with a host of beverage and food manufacturers are among their biggest customers.

But, who better than Coca-Cola, among others, to invite the Corn Refiners Association to find ways to lower the glycemic index of high fructose corn syrup -- to find a way to create a product that is absorbed into the blood stream more slowly so that the human body can handle the sugar intake in a more healthful manner?

What if Mr Kent's remarks offered the promise of a Coca-Cola that tasted the same, but contained an all natural sweeter with a lower, more manageable glycemic index?

Perhaps they are already working on this and Mr Kent's speech was ploy to throw off his competitors (the beverage industry is one of the most competitively fierce and interesting businesses in which to work). I don't know.

Mr Kent made a strategic choice, which may or may not pay off. Time will tell. Either way, I have no doubt Coca-Cola will weather the storm.

Who Counseled Coca Cola's Muhtar Kent?

noreply@blogger.com (Joanna aka Steelady) — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:54:00 +0000

Having worked for and counseled one of Coca-Cola regional CEOs, I was a bit surprised to read the news articles reporting on Coca-Cola's new CEO Muhtar Kent's recent presentation at Inter Bev 2008 in Las Vegas declaring that "sodas are not responsible for the obesity in this country." He followed a representative of the Corn Refiners Association, who in recent months has launched a campaign to tell us that high fructose corn syrup isn't part of our weight problem. See the Atlanta Constitution Journal article here.

I'm not sure if I was more surprised at Mr Kent's remarks or the communication professional who assembled the research and most likely wrote the content of the speech.

Let me set the record straight -- I grew up in the South and I am a big fan of Coca-Cola, having consumed more than my fair share in my life so far. As I have gotten older, I've cut way back on my consumption, as many adults have. But, I'm not here to discuss the science of the issue -- what portion of the blame do Coke and all high fructose beverages and foods share in the obesity problem -- there are many scientists, nutritionists and medical experts who can state the pros and cons.

I'd rather talk about the strategic thinking that went into this presentation by the communication professional working with Mr. Kent. How much choice did this person have in preparing this presentation? Were they unaware of all the research which supports taking a close look at the role sugar and its various derivatives play in our health and weight issues? Or, was the speechwriter totally aware but lacked the authority to challenge the approach to the issue?

There's a strategic choice to be made here on two-fronts -- by the communication professional and by Mr Kent, as CEO of one of the world's most recognizable and respected brands, particularly in light of the science.

I have no problem with Coca-Cola making a buck or two, I've helped them make plenty over the years -- but strategically, was this the best choice Mr Kent and his team could have taken to this issue? How could they have used this issue in a positive way to boost Coca-Cola sales instead of sounding a bit like Hamlet's Gertrude -- "the lady doth protest too much, methinks" ?

What do you think? Ah ... the pause that refreshes!