Checkmate

Is Reading Still Fundamental?

Thu, 19 Jun 2014 15:24:00-0400

The words in "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" haven't changed in 130 years, but the experience of reading it sure has. I don't mean the sociological context; I mean the mechanics of reading the novel itself. Or any novel. What's changed is our brains. They seem different. That's because we're awash, day in and day out, in emails, tweets, Facebook posts, IMs, text messages, PowerPoint slides and Google results bits of information we need for a multitude of simultaneous tasks that are interrupted every five minutes. So after five days and at least 40 hours of this during the work week, it's asking a lot of our scattered minds to immerse themselves in a great American novel on the weekend. We make this challenge even steeper when we try reading it on a computer screen instead of in a traditional book with paper pages. Researchers are looking deeply into these issues problems focusing and the potential shortcomings of the digital reading experience. We at Brodeur are fascinated, too. We already explore on a daily basis how variables like people's sensory experiences make things more or less relevant to them. We also try to stay current on behavioral science, since we exist to help clients change the behavior of their customers, constituents and supporters. The feel of a good book Logically, a novel is the same thing whether bound in leather or digitized in a Kindle. You'll be reading the same words. But consider the sensory experience of a traditional paper-based book that is solid in your hands throughout the entire read versus an ephemeral digital image of pixilated text that vanishes when you scroll to the next paragraph. "What I've read on screen seems slippery," writes Brandon Keim in Wired. Ferris Jabr elaborates in Scientific American: In most cases, paper books have more obvious topography than onscreen text. An open paperback presents a reader with two clearly defined domains--the left and right pages--and a total of eight corners with which to orient oneself. A reader can focus on a single page of a paper book without losing sight of the whole text: one can see where the book begins and ends and where one page is in relation to those borders. One can even feel the thickness of the pages read in one hand and pages to be read in the other. All these features not only make text in a paper book easily navigable, they also make it easier to form a coherent mental map of the text. In contrast, most screens, e-readers, smartphones and tablets interfere with intuitive navigation of a text and inhibit people from mapping the journey in their minds. A reader of digital text might scroll through a seamless stream of words, tap forward one page at a time or use the search function to immediately locate a particular phrase--but it is difficult to see any one passage in the context of the entire text. As an analogy, imagine if Google Maps allowed people to navigate street by individual street, as well as to teleport to any specific address, but prevented them from zooming out to see a neighborhood, state or country. Although e-readers like the Kindle and tablets like the iPad re-create pagination--sometimes complete with page numbers, headers and illustrations--the screen only displays a single virtual page: it is there and then it is gone. Instead of hiking the trail yourself, the trees, rocks and moss move past you in flashes with no trace of what came before and no way to see what lies ahead. (Sorry that was so dense. You still with me?) That article, as well as this one in the Washington Post and Keim's in Wired, cite studies with varying implications for digital's effects on reading. Some suggest problems in the digital experience, others not really. Your brain on Twitter Book format aside, what have done to ourselves by disintegrating our days into micromoments? Can we really handle the cognitive burden of shifting gears from consuming small bytes of information during the workday to layers of lengthy narrative at night? Assuming we even still like books? "We're spending so much time touching, pushing, linking, scrolling and jumping through text that when we sit down with a novel, your daily habit of jumping, clicking, linking is just ingrained in you," Andrew Dillon, a University of Texas professor who studies reading, told the Post. "We're in this new era of information behavior, and we're beginning to see the consequences of that." Maryanne Wolf, author and Tufts University cognitive neuroscientist, put a fine point on it in the same article: "Will we become Twitter brains?" I think we will. At least I am. Or my brain is. I'm reading "Middlemarch," the celebrated Victorian novel, and I'm embarrassed to say how long it's taking, even accounting for its 900 pages and my naturally scattered brain. Let's just say months. You can't scan that novel, but that's exactly what my brain wants to do. While there's a lot more to study about reading in the 21st century, the questions alone have implications for communications. They hint at the limits of the time-honored white paper to sustain a reader's attention as it makes a patient, elegant case. They challenge the wisdom of relying on 1,500-word case studies to sell a prospect. They suggest that any content worth producing needs to be distilled along the way into Tweets, dramatic photos, infographics and short videos to meet its potential. These questions also suggest that we as marketers need to focus even more than ever on serving the interests of our audience. Obvious? Yes. Practiced? Sometimes. Blatantly self-serving communications, always cheesy, no longer stand a chance. And sadly, the mere sight of a dense essay, no matter how brilliant the writer and timely the topic, risks scaring "readers" away. Am I right? You still with me? Anyone?!

Our body parts, ourselves

Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:28:00-0400

Why do we clench our fists when we're angry but struggle to get out of bed when we're depressed? Why do we tingle all over when we're happy or in love? And do these bodily sensations actually help us figure out what we're feeling? Scientists are still working all that out, but a novel experiment from Finland may give us some clues. Researchers asked people from Finland, Sweden and Taiwan to think about emotions they've experienced and, on a screen, "paint" the areas of the body that feel stimulated (hot colors) and deactivated (cool colors) during those times [try it]. "Even though we are often consciously aware of our current emotional state, such as anger or happiness, the mechanisms giving rise to these subjective sensations have remained unresolved," says the paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. "Here we used a topographical self-report tool to reveal that different emotional states are associated with topographically distinct and culturally universal bodily sensations; these sensations could underlie our conscious emotional experiences. Monitoring the topography of emotion-triggered bodily sensations brings forth a unique tool for emotion research and could even provide a biomarker for emotional disorders." Why we care Although bodily sensation maps may never drive marketing decisions, we at Brodeur are deeply interested in the interplay of physical sensations and emotions. That's because it profoundly affects whether people, things or ideas are relevant. Relevance breeds action, which is important to marketers, leaders and causes. Relevance often starts with the sensory: Think of the first time you touched a smart phone, fell in love with it and bought one for yourself. Or when a candidate's warm handshake, as much as her policy, won your vote. Or when you hugged a sick friend, yearned to help, and found yourself donating more than you planned to find a cure. Our research uncovers sensory keys to consumer decision-making. In hotels, for instance, water pressure in the shower drives more conversation than bed comfort by a ratio of 2 to 1. Room noise is a hot topic, and breakfast offerings matter a lot more than lunch or dinner. Can senses affect business-to-business purchase decisions? We think so. If you're a chief information officer looking at storage solutions for your company, hard return on investment is certainly important. But won't you also gravitate toward a vendor who will keep your data center tidy, give you the sweetest-looking-and-feeling user interface, and convince you your head will hit the pillow at night without a worry-induced stomach ache? These are sensory concerns. As we've mentioned before, logic is just a small part of what prompts meaningful behavior. Sensations, emotions, values and social impulses quite often trump it.

How to defeat the ignorance of the crowd

Mon, 16 Sep 2013 10:37:00-0400

The wisdom of the crowd turns out to be more of an oxymoron than we thought. Not only can vendors game online "star" ratings to deceptively promote their books, restaurants or hotels; positive ratings may be dramatically inflated even when consumers bestow them in good faith. Specifically, positive ratings seem to trigger more positive ratings until the thing being rated is...well...wildly overrated. So suggests new research by scholars from MIT, Hebrew University and New York University. They collaborated with an unidentified news website and focused on the reader comment sections associated with each article. Each reader comment receives a numerical rating based on up and down votes that other readers have given that comment. Over five months, the researchers arbitrarily gave newly posted comments initial up or down votes, or left the comment alone, then watched what happened: The first [real] person reading the comment was 32 percent more likely to give it an up vote if it had been already given a fake positive score.... Over time, the comments with the artificial initial up vote ended with scores 25 percent higher than those in the control group. "That is a significant change," [co-author] Dr. [Sinan K.] Aral said. "We saw how these very small signals of social influence snowballed into behaviors like herding." (New York Times) Remember this the next time you visit a restaurant that Yelp promises will be a five-star experience. And if you're a vendor, don't assume your online reputation is as pristine as your star ratings. You may be getting absolutely ravaged elsewhere on the Internet. Look deeper A far better way to understand your own brand and market is to look at what people are actually saying, and do it methodically. For example, we recently analyzed online conversation around the hotel industry and went far beyond the numbers. With our partner MavenMagnet, we looked at more than 18,000 online hotel-related conversations between May 2012 and October 2012 across social networks, profiles, forums, news websites and blogs. We examined: "Buzz volume (how much conversation there was about each brand) "Positivity of that buzz (positive/negative ratio) "Impact of that buzz (e.g., the likes, links, mentions, retweets and conversation volume a comment attracted). Then we dug deeper, separating conversations of leisure travelers from business travelers. Then we drilled even deeper into leisure travelers, separating the comments of those traveling with children from those without. When we looked at all of these conversations, we analyzed not only practical considerations like cost and location but also guests' comments around their senses, values and social needs, which are the other dimensions of Brodeur's relevance model. (On the sensory side, for example, we discovered that that water pressure in the hotel shower actually eclipses even bed comfort in online attention.) We ultimately discovered that Hilton, Marriott and Four Seasons rated the highest in what we call Conversational Relevance". You can't game 18,000 online conversations. And when you work this hard and smart to understand where a brand stands, you don't get fooled. Here's our report. Do you ever wonder what people really think of your business?

Make this the Summer of Love 2.0

Fri, 28 Jun 2013 12:00:00-0400

Have you found your true love, your one and only, your match-made-in-heaven soul mate? Do you love unconditionally? Eternally? Is everyone in your loving family really loving one another right now? If you answered yes to any of this, congratulations. You might be the only one.

Love is not what the movies say it is, argues “Love 2.0: How Our Supreme Emotion Affects Everything We Feel, Think, Do, and Become,” a new book by Barbara L. Frederickson, PhD. Love is intermittent, fleeting and biological. It’s a “micro-moment” of “positivity resonance” that can be experienced with a stranger as easily as with a spouse. It opens you to the world and makes you grow. What could this mean for communications, branding and PR?

“I need to ask you to disengage from some of your most cherished beliefs about love … the notions that love is exclusive, lasting and unconditional,” Frederickson writes. “These deeply held beliefs are often more wish than reality in people’s lives. They capture people’s daydreams about the love-of-their-life whom they’ve yet to meet. Love, as your body defines it, is not exclusive, not something to be reserved for your soul mate, your inner circle, your kin, or your so-called loved ones. Love’s reach turns out to be far wider than we’re typically coaxed to imagine. Even so, love’s timescale is far shorter than we typically think. Love, as you’ll see, is not lasting. It’s actually far more fleeting than most of us would care to acknowledge. On the upside, though, love is forever renewable.”

Love stories

Here are three true stories that fit the Love 2.0 pattern.

One of my colleagues was battling cancer a few years ago. She was going from specialist to specialist as she put together a treatment strategy. “What brings you here?” the doctors would inevitably ask as if reading from the same script. Apparently, it’s a standard question that elicits a lot of information about the patient’s understanding and attitude. It doesn’t comfort. One day, a particular doc flipped that script. “I’m sorry we’re meeting under these circumstances,” he said, looking his new patient in the eyes. It was a small thing, certainly, but it made a lasting impact. “I still remember how that immediately put me at ease,” my colleague says. “It was kind and human and unclinical. He understood I was anxious and needed sympathy – not the handwringing kind of sympathy, but just some kind of assurance I was more than one more ‘case.’ It made a huge impact on me.”

Another colleague’s story goes back decades. “I was in college and visiting friends at their campus,” she recalls. “I wanted to leave a bar, but none of my friends did. A guy I’d never met, the roommate of one of my friends, kindly walked me home with no amorous intent at all. He tucked me into a safe bed and made sure I was okay. I’ve never seen him again, but I always remembered his kindness. Actually, I decided that night that if I ever had a son, I would name him Sam because of that experience. I did have a son. And his name is Sam.”

I was riding my bike to work one day and spotted an elderly woman using a walker and dragging her empty trash can across her front lawn. Since then, I’ve stopped by on garbage day and toted the empty can across the yard for her. I was doing this the other day and heard a knocking sound from her house. For the first time, she’d spotted me in the act. She was in the window waving and smiling. I smiled and waved back. A nice moment for both of us.

Love 2.0 is relevant

Micro-moments of positivity resonance (“Love 2.0 affairs?”) like these have tremendous implications for communications. This new love model affirms the bedrock premise of our strategic relevance platform, that humans yearn to connect with people, brands, ideas and causes. Love 2.0 also dovetails with our recent findings that more Americans label themselves as compassionate than any of the nine other adjectives we offered them. Compassionate isn’t something you can be alone. It implies a connection.

A fleeting connection can be a powerful one indeed and may even – at that particular micro-moment of positivity resonance – transcend all of the more important loves in a person’s life. That’s not to say it will be more profound or enduring or monumental than a family or marriage tie – just that it will matter a lot when it occurs. And it may leave a lasting impact.

The owner of my local wine store asks customers to tell him about the best wine they ever drank. They rarely tell him the grape variety, vintage or origin. They talk about the moment. “I was vacationing in France with my fiancée and the sun was setting over the Alps on our second-to-last night, and a local farmer walked up the porch and handed us a bottle without a label….”

Be a love machine

So how do you trigger Love 2.0? Storytelling is one way. You assemble random ideas in a way that enables brain patterns between storyteller and listener to converge, as the author says, in “a single act, performed by two brains.

We’d also suggest making sure your communications mine all four quadrants in our relevance model: not only logic (overrated), but senses, social impulses and values – all of which can help spark a Love 2.0 experience.

Meanwhile, the Love 2.0 paradigm helps explain some things we already know: that people are more interesting than things, that shaking hands and slapping backs works for politicians, that a hug can undermine decades of estrangement, that pictures are more powerful than words, that free samples work, and that for many, cat videos are like crack.

So, are you ready to have a Love 2.0 affair with your customers, followers or constituents? Can you deliver?

What makes a financial services firm relevant?

Fri, 31 May 2013 14:34:00-0400

Today's blog is posted by Jerry Johnson, executive vice president at Brodeur Partners. Money is a commodity. You won't find much difference between the dollar bill you have in your pocket today and the one that may show up next week. Indeed, even the physicality of money is disappearing. Now it is just a number on your banking app. But while money is a commodity, it is also a lightning rod. There are few things that spark more emotions and personal sensitivities than money. While this has always been true (remember, like politics, it isn't something to be talked about in polite company...), it is particularly true in today's environment where people lurch from one economic crisis and financial meltdown to another. We learned a lot about the topic when recently for a related project; we reviewed hundreds of financial services firms' advertising campaigns over a five-year period. The idea was simple. Companies spend billions pouring money into 30-second ads. We thought it reasonable, therefore, to assume that these ads are somehow reflective of what these companies assume is most relevant for their potential customers. We found that the campaigns tended to fall into one of five positioning "buckets: You can have confidence in us; our size makes us important; we are the intelligent choice; we cherish relationships; and we have values beyond the accumulation of wealth. And further, what we found was this: while historically financial institutions have focused on confidence, recently more and more financial institutions focus on the "softer" elements of relationships and values. In general, we're seeing institutions move from the colder elements of "big," "smart," and "bold," to the softer elements of "connections" and "ethics." For years, the most common theme in financial services was that of "confidence" and its sister emotion, "fear." Why? Because so few of us are confident and so many of us are fearful about money and our financial futures. We saw this 20 years ago in doing work with The Prudential. People want a "rock of Gibraltar." We see the counter confidence vs. fear in a series of ads from John Hancock (done by Hill Holiday) with two people texting and coming back to that lingering question ... "will we ever get through this thing called retirement?" There are many, many other examples of this (e.g. Ameriprise's "You Need a Plan" with the late Dennis Hopper), but it all is an interplay of confidence vs. fear. The idea is to gain relevance by providing confidence in an uncertain world. Then there is relevance through scale. That is, reminding folks that you are big and therefore important. Some 20 years ago, Riggs National Bank launched a famous commercial that touted the Washington DC institution as the "most important bank in the most important city in the world." Size, scale, heft is another primary theme that runs through financial services messaging. Back when too big to fail was still too big to fail, this was the natural evolution of a "fear" message. Don't be afraid, we're big. Moreover, with "big," you can do anything. "Big" is empowering. "Big" is macho. Taken to its extreme, you can see it played out in one of my favorite commercials, Anthony Hopkins' spot for Barclay's appropriately titled: Big. The "when E.F. Hutton talks ... people listen" campaign was the epitome of positioning a financial company as the smart, intelligent choice. Relevance comes by being the company with unique insight into what is a chaotic and scary world that of finance. State Street follows this approach. State Street's advertising features a dog who, in turn, signifies the intelligence and tenacity of the brand and "the need to be precise ... designed to please ... precise in a world that isn't." Of course that makes State Street the intelligent choice. But the trend is clearly moving away from fear, size and intelligence to those things that take a more human and humane form. We see a lot more focus on relationships. This runs counter to the popular notion that finance is cold and impersonal; that money comes first, people second. Financial companies often try and position themselves against this stereotype by showing that they put people before profits and actively seek to know their clients on a personal level (e.g. "every client is different"). It is relevance through relationships. No financial services brand has done more in this area than State Farm. It is their motto ... "like a good neighbor." We know it is based in part on their corporate franchise structure where offices are staffed by local professionals. [Note, in the aftermath of the recent recession, State Farm has drifted into the "values" campaigns. Their recent "back to basics" campaign is a great example.] This "everyone is different" approach is also at the heart of HSBC's advertising that takes the concept of "big" and applies it to the neighborhood. By showing the same image can mean opposite things, HSBC underscores its knowledge and understanding of the local market. Many regional banks, seeking to exploit their "smallness" as an asset, often use this relationship theme in their brand marketing. But what we see even more of as institutions and brands adjust to the new world of austerity and uncertainty is a focus on values. That is, convincing the public that despite the fact that you are a financial services firm, you actually have them (values, that is). The famous MasterCard series is a great example. The line "for everything else" tells you that MasterCard recognizes that what they do is small potatoes compared to what is really important. Recently, financial institutions have pitched this in a much more blatant manner. The Ally Bank series that accepts the central belief that banks have no values ... and then uses that to tell people what Ally is NOT. On the positive side are the current ads by Liberty Mutual showing that "caring is contagious." The "responsibility, what's your policy?" is a clear value statement that they want people to recognize when they think of Liberty Mutual. Values and finance. Many would label the two incongruous, especially since values deficits have contributed to debacles like the subprime mortgage crisis and raised pervasive doubts about the entire financial industry. Many consumers are now desperate to see evidence of solid values from their institutions, financial and otherwise. That's likely why values are increasingly relevant for financial services today. Just as acting on values is the right thing to do, demonstrating you're committed to values is a promising path to relevance. If you're in that business, try it.

Is 'The Academy' Losing Relevancy?

Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:17:00-0400

Today's blog is posted by Jerry Johnson, executive vice president at Brodeur Partners.

Late last fall, reporter Amanda Ripley wrote an article for TIME magazine with the ominous title “College is Dead. Long Live College!” It was the latest in a long litany of articles by reporters and pundits who have been doing a lot of rethinking lately about the institution long known as “the academy.”

Is the “academy” losing its relevancy? There’s evidence this may be the case with groups important to its future, notably parents, students, alumni and opinion leaders.

We’ve worked on numerous research projects with groups of people both inside and outside colleges and universities across the country. Everything suggests higher education faces significant challenges in three areas: financial, technological and institutional relevance.

Is the academy financially relevant? This question is being asked by both students and parents facing skyrocketing tuitions as well by alumni who, in light of the ever-increasing pressure for giving, are rethinking the utility of both annual giving and capital campaigns. Tuitions at many schools are out of the reach of the average family. That, in turn, has led to an unprecedented (and unsustainable) level of personal tuition loan debt. A recently released survey by The Princeton Review suggest that while in years past people’s primary worry was getting into the “right school,” today the primary worry is how to pay for whatever school you get in to.

On the other side of graduation, the academy is facing headwinds from alumni. The competition for gifts to “good causes” among affluent alumni is increasing. Moreover, the younger Gen X and Gen Y alumni show distinctly different attitudes and giving patterns to giving compared to their boomer counterparts. Add to this the declining government funding, and there are many nervous development officers wondering where the next funding dollar is going to come from.

Is the academy technologically relevant? Technology is fundamentally changing the academy the same way it changed the business of news media over a decade ago. As popular New York Times columnist wrote in a piece titled “The Campus Tsunami,” “what happened to the newspaper and magazine business is about to happen in higher education: a scrambling around the Web.”

Why go to a university when one can get a considerable amount of instruction on the Internet for free? Indeed, the global demand for access to knowledge and the emerging opportunities for innovative technology to deliver it presage dramatic changes in “the academy’s” value proposition. Innovations like Kahn University and the explosion of MOOCs are just the beginnings of what will likely be very fundamental structural changes.

Is the academy institutionally relevant? Perhaps the biggest challenge is an uptick of people questioning the very being of the academy. Rightly or wrongly, almost every important audience we talk to – particularly employers and opinion leaders – are seeing a “profound disconnect” between what young people are learning and the world they’re going into. As one public policy executive told us, “The public institutions are in a crisis of declining public support … they’ve been slow to come to the reality that this decline is permanent.”

We don’t think it has to be. Amidst all this, we do see many colleges and universities successfully navigating a critical time of change. They have at least three things in common.

First, they are taking risks and taking action. The challenges of financing and technology will not change over the short- and medium-term. Institutions are experimenting, innovating and taking needed risks to restructure funding and curriculum.

Second, many of the best institutions are focusing as much in the “how” as the “what.” With the commoditization of information, the premium for the education experience increasingly will go beyond the lecture hall and into the streets.

Finally, we see colleges and universities rethinking, restructuring and rebuilding their ties to key communities – everything from students and parents to alumni to the towns and business sectors that they serve.

Those within “the academy” that best navigate the “digital disruption” taking place in education will be those who are most likely to be relevant to the students and alumni of tomorrow.

Today's forecast: changing climate views

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:26:00-0400

We had a blizzard up here the other day, the second biggest in our history. Yet a few days before that, the thermometer was pushing 60 degrees. This certainly feels like global weirding.

Although I’m generally concerned about climate change, I worry more about the fate of this planet on days when the temperatures don’t match the season. When it’s balmy in February, that’s troubling.

On the other hand, when the snowbanks tower over my head, warming doesn’t seem to be an issue. Doubts chip away at my climate change convictions, notwithstanding the statements of NASA, NOAA, the United Nations, 34 science academies and countless other credible agencies.

I’m not the only one who’s fickle on climate.

A University of British Columbia study found a strong connection between weather and climate attitudes over the past two decades “with skepticism about global warming increasing during cold snaps and concern about climate change growing during hot spells.”

The University of New Hampshire came up with similar findings, especially among independent voters in the state. “Interviewed on unseasonably warm days, independents tend to agree with the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change,” said researchers Lawrence Hamilton and Mary Stampone. “On unseasonably cool days, they tend not to.”

Why do our attitudes change like this? Because despite what we know, we just can’t deny what we see and feel. Yes, sensory experiences do play a big role in what’s relevant to us, maybe more than we think. You can see it in our new Conversational Relevance study. Although hotel guests value location and recreational facilities for the kids, these highly rational concerns are only part of the mix. Guests also chatter online about water pressure in the shower and the view from the room, and about abstractions like a hotel’s culture and cachet.

The bottom line? When it comes to decision-making, whether it’s a hotel room or the destiny of the human race, logic is overrated. Think about it. Rationally, if you can.

Understanding the new compassion

Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:19:00-0400

“If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion.”

-The Dalai Lama

When I waited tables years ago, I learned you certainly could please a customer with a fine meal and attentive service. You could make a friend for life, however, if you righted a wrong. If the steak was overcooked and you apologized and showed the customer you really cared – expressed compassion for their plight – then returned with a fresh new meal, their experience was somehow even better.

When I was in the hospital following an accident a few years ago, there was some pain. But the more vivid memory is of the nurse who made sure I had everything I needed – and convinced me she really cared. There was also a doctor who jostled my jagged bones, then apologized in a way that convinced me he empathized with my searing pain. I liked that guy. I have only the vaguest, most neutral memories of the doctors who didn’t hurt me.

Compassion: it feels wonderful to get and wonderful to give. It’s no surprise, then, that 68 percent of Americans in our recent survey rate themselves in the 8 to 10 range on the compassion scale – the most popular of 10 labels we offered. It’s also a shining example of how logic is overrated in the formula of what makes a product, brand, candidate or cause relevant.

Compassion: it’s in us

It’s odd that the importance of compassion emerges during one of our bitterest times, as politicians spend billions to bash one another silly, a conversation so rancorous it made a little girl cry. At the same time, however, a devastating storm, Sandy, elicits the best in us as we reach out to help those who have lost their loved ones, their homes, their power and water.

It’s also odd that the image of the compassionate American flies in the face of our nation’s dominant mythology, individualism. Compassion generally involves comforting those who don’t have what they need – not celebrating the success of those who do.

The survey probably reflects our aspirations more than our true levels of compassion. Still, it’s clear: compassion is in us, and it’s a very powerful thing. The challenge for communicators is to tap into this rich vein of compassion. And that means honoring it.

Honoring compassion with sincerity

By that I mean making your compassion sincere. The only thing worse than lack of compassion is false compassion. Don’t fake it.

Domino’s compassion for customers sounded sincere when it confessed that its old pizza tasted like cardboard. Patagonia’s compassion for the planet sounded sincere when the company said it wants you to wear its clothes till they fall apart rather than waste resources buying new ones. BP did everything it could from a messaging perspective when it promised, in the wake of the Gulf oil spill, to “make this right.”

So if you are working with compassion in your communications program, be real.

What you should do

In a compassionate America, expect some consumers to choose the gadget made by the company that shows compassion for foreign laborers. Expect them to be cold toward the car that’s selling nothing but snob appeal. Expect them to like the restaurant that supports local farmers – not the one famous for its foie gras.

Expect business customers to lean toward the vendor that not only makes the best analytical business case but also makes their lives easier and their customers’ lives better. Of course we want our medical records systems to lower health care costs. Wouldn’t it be great if they also saved patients’ lives?

Expect voters to choose the candidate who… well, negative advertising isn’t going away anytime soon. Let’s hope politicians will at least see some wisdom in finessing it with compassion – “Joe Jones isn’t a bad guy; he just makes bad decisions.”

Expect activists to join the cause that gives them a way to directly exercise their compassion. While big checks may be the most effective means for feeding the hungry, causes will need ways to make supporters feel as good as if they were ladling out the soup themselves.

Ultimately, expect Americans to respond to people, ideas and things that help us prove that compassionate is more than a label we want, more than something we simply aspire to.

We want to be it.

Compassion: The (not so) secret ingredient to effective communications

Thu, 08 Nov 2012 10:26:00-0400

Today's blog is posted by Jerry Johnson, executive vice president at Brodeur Partners.

What is compassion and why is it so popular?

You noticed it during crisis and most recently during the tragedy that was Hurricane Sandy. We hear stories, see pictures, watch videos of those in distress and we feel for them. In some cases, we actually do something for them!

Put that in the long list of recent disasters –from Haiti to Katrina to 9/11. We see, we hear, and we are drawn into action because we feel compassion for another.

But if you look closely you will see “compassion” playing out in almost every form of effective communication. Sometimes, like in the case of emergencies, it is blatant. Other times the tug on the compassion thread can be ever so subtle.

The recent presidential campaign is but one example. Who cares more about all those “job creators”? Democrats? Republicans?

Do you pity the poor small business because it is burdened with regulation gone amok? Or do you have compassion on them because they are just looking for the same low interest loan to ride out the current economic downturn that the big banks get?

Or what about young people? Who cares for them? Are you sad for the young because they’ve been saddled with debt by profligate government waste? Or are you sad for them because instead of investing in education we’re sending all the tax breaks to wealthy businesses that would just as soon hire in Mombai, India, as they would in Mobile, Alabama?

In either case both campaigns are vying for the same thing: your compassion.

We like to dress up in compassion

In our new study, we asked people to review a list and assign labels to themselves. On that list were many admirable qualities some of which have defined American culture and history: idealistic, leader, ambitious, risk-taker, optimistic. There were ten in all. But from that list the label that people thought most applied to them by far was “compassionate.” Indeed, over two-thirds of Americans felt that this label not only applied to them but applied strongly applied to them.

Does this mean that these people are kind-hearted and caring? Not really. Rather it means that compassion is something that they like to associate themselves with. That is, compassion is something that they either think they are or would like to be.

Why are we so fixated with compassion and being compassionate? This question has long bedeviled the academy, from psychologists to neuroscientists. Compassion is a curious thing because it does not fit neatly into the prevailing paradigms of current evolutionary theory (survival of the fittest) or economic theory (pursuit of self-interest). A good testament to how hard compassion is to reconcile with the latter was President George Bush’s catchy notion of “compassionate conservatism.”

What is compassion and why do people want to associate themselves with it? For people of faith that answer draws back to their worldview of the divine and the inherent sanctity of life. Virtually every religious faith has a version of the “golden rule”.

But recently there has been a flurry of efforts by secular thinkers to explain compassion in an evolutionary sense, including theories by Sam Harris (“The Moral Landscape”) and Jonathan Haidt (“The Righteous Mind”). Their explanations suggest that compassion is indeed a “survival” skill not just for individuals but more importantly for communities, societies and nations. Within a group, compassion makes that group stronger.

Whatever side you may come down on, what is clear is that compassion is a driving force in how with think, believe, support, and attach ourselves to individuals, ideas, and organizations.

Some advice to marketers

We typically associate communications campaigns that pull on the thread of compassion with highlighting people at risk – preferably the innocent (a.k.a. Christian Children’s Fund, St. Jude’s Hospital).

But if you look very closely, you’ll find product purveyors embedding the idea of compassion in all sorts of messages.

Our products are “kinder” to the environment.
Buy these diapers because they are gentler to your baby.
If you care for your family’s safety, you’ll buy this car.
If you care about your family’s education, you’ll buy this technology.

If you really love your cat, you’ll buy our cat food.

So our advice to marketers: follow the compassion.

Unless you are marketing to sociopaths, compassion has to be a critical element of any brand, marketing and sales strategy. Identify how it is that what you do helps others. And then make it simple, easy and fun to bring other people along for that ride.

And don’t forget that genuine external communications begins from within your organization. That is, don’t forget to practice internally the compassion that you encourage externally.

Because everyone wants to think they are compassionate. We just need to help them get there.

Failure or Forward? The competing frames in the 2012 presidential campaign

Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:09:46-0400

Today's blog is posted by Jerry Johnson, executive vice president at Brodeur Partners.

You may have noticed there’s a presidential election underway. It is a contest between two candidates and two political parties, to be sure. But it’s more than that; a contest between two “frames” of how we view the current political and economic landscape.

The frame that Governor Romney and his campaign would like you to see through goes something like this:

The current presidential policies have failed. They have not produced the employment and economic growth that was promised and that we need. Worse, they continue the nation and society down an unsustainable path of big government and even bigger government deficits. The reason the President’s policies have failed is because they don’t follow the principles that historically have made our country and society strong – capitalism and free enterprise.

The campaign slogan for the Romney campaign is “Believe in America” but – arguably – the frame is “failure”. President Obama promised renewed growth, reduced unemployment, and reducing the deficit. That hasn’t happened. If you look at the presidency and politics from this vantage point, the bet is that you’ll vote for Governor Romney.

The frame President Obama and his campaign would like you to see through goes something like this:

We are slowly rebuilding from one of the worst economic crises in recent history – a crisis brought about by policies that favor the few at the cost of the working middle class. Now is not the time to go back to the policies that got us into this mess in the first place. We built our nation based on the principles of fairness and equal opportunity. That means moving forward with policies that invest in people.

The campaign slogan for the Obama campaign is “Forward.” This is also – arguably – the frame. Tax reductions for the rich only increased the gap between rich and poor. Indiscriminate deregulation led to the corporate hijinks that taxpayers ended up paying for. Given the struggles of the middle class and precarious state of the economy, now is not the time to slash investments in things like infrastructure, education and the environment. If that’s your frame, the Obama campaign is betting you’ll vote to re-elect the president.

Framing is not unique to politics. It is intrinsic to being human. It is how our brain organizes or “fits” what is going on around us in a manner that allows us to make sense of the world. The concept was made popular by cognitive linguist George Lakoff in his book Metaphors We Live By (later amplified for political communication in Moral Politics). The latest in neuroscience and behavioral research confirms this basic theory – that people are pattern seekers. We look for patterns and frames that help us make sense of both ourselves and those around us. Science writer Michael Shermer, in his book The Believing Brain, puts it this way:

The brain is a belief engine. From sensory data flowing in through the senses, the brain naturally begins to look for patterns, and then infuses those patterns with meaning.

Great communications is the perfect balance between tapping into existing people’s patterns and frames while identifying and introducing new ways of looking at things. Key to that is identifying personally relevant factors that can “change the frame.”

Sometimes it can be as simple as marrying two seemingly disparate elements that get people to rethink an old way of looking at things. A good example is the current American Cancer Society campaign (which Brodeur is part of) that frames the organization not around the disease of cancer but the ultimate goal of the organization – giving people more birthdays. Another example is a campaign recently launched by Pfizer with the surprising tagline “Get Old.” Together with nearly a dozen advocacy organizations, it is reframing the whole notion of aging and what it means to be “old.”

Most times, framing focuses on identifying an underlying feeling or emotion that can trigger or crystallize an action that you may already be predisposed to do. Rather than confront, the frame nudges you towards a desired behavior. In the case of the two presidential campaigns, the ultimate behavior is a vote on November 6th.

The winner will be more than just one of the two candidates. Beyond the candidates, the contest is between two different frameworks for political and economic action.

It will be a plebiscite on which frame is the most relevant and meaningful to voters.

India's exploding digital economy

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:06:42-0400

This blog was written by Jeffrey F. Rayport who is a member of the Brodeur Partners Advisory Board, a noted digital strategist and private equity investor. He was formerly on the faculty of the Harvard Business School.

Recently, I had the privilege of moderating a conference of global entrepreneurs and venture capitalists in Mumbai — an event called Founders Forum India. Founders Forum is a franchise started by two successful UK-based entrepreneurs, Brent Hoberman and Jonnie Goodwin, to stimulate US-style entrepreneurship in the European region, and now around the world. The event brought together some 250 entrepreneurs and investors for a series of panels, round tables, and a business plan competition. It also featured a showcase of hot new Indian start-ups.

What the event made clear — beyond the striking array of talent in the room assembled by our Indian host, Reliance Group’s Rajesh Sawhney — was a stunningly bright future for all things digital in India. Indeed, practically any statistic you might cite about Digital India suggests that something unusual is going on. And the impact will occur in the next 24 to 36 months, based on the following data and projections:

Let’s start with Internet access. Today, India’s population of Internet users is 80 million, which equals a penetration rate of just seven percent (or 17 percent of the urban population). That is about to change. The government is rolling out what it calls its National Broadband Plan, a $4.5 billion initiative to build a country-wide fiber optic network that will connect an additional 160 million Indians by 2014. An Indian investment bank, Avendus, projects 376 million Indian Net users by 2015.

Part of what’s fueling growth in Net penetration is an explosion in mobility. The Indian government sponsored the introduction of 3G services in 2011 with a $30 billion spectrum auction. Morgan Stanley projects that 3G penetration will reach 22 percent by 2015. Government and the private sector have spent something like $55 billion on related infrastructure. Further, we’ll see a roll-out of 4G wireless services across the country in 2012. While there are nearly 800 million mobile subscribers in India, very few use smart phones; most have feature phones that deliver, at best, premium text-based services. As unit economics enable ever cheaper smart phones (the lowest price in the market is now $65), their penetration will rise.

Fueling this explosion is a fact of national culture: Indians love media. No one aware of the nation’s obsession with “ABC” (Astrology, Bollywood, and Cricket) will be surprised to learn that the average Indian consumes 4.5 hours of media and entertainment a day, while 70 percent of the national population spends money on content, both online and off. Time spent online already comes to 40 minutes per capita per day.

Mobility will drive much of the expansion in Internet usage. One of every four Internet users in the country now accesses the Net using a mobile device. A leapfrog effect will mean that three of every four Net users will do so by 2015. Bye-bye to the clunkier and more costly PC.

One result of this expansion is that e-commerce is rapidly taking off. Granted, only 11 percent of Indian online users are transacting online. As in China several years ago, there’s a reluctance to pay for goods using the Web; most of today’s online transactions are in the travel industry (representing 87 percent of a $6.3 billion e-commerce sector, says Avendus). Still, Amazon lookalike Infibeam is growing sales handily. It’s a reflection of what’s happening in the domestic retail space more broadly. Infibeam’s founder projects growth of the retail economy from $400 billion today to $1 trillion by the end of the decade. Digital will inevitably play a starring role in propelling this growth.

At the same time, there is an abundance of local capital ready to deploy to feed new ventures. Consumer demand for innovative digital services, when executed ably, seems unquenchable; and that demand is stimulating capital flows. For this reason, one entrepreneur observed, “More companies [in India] die of indigestion than of starvation.” According to Mergermarket, the value of investment activity rose from $111 million in 2010 to $829 million in 2011, while the number of deals doubled from 33 to 66. This expansion isn’t just domestic. Indian entrepreneurs are feeling bullish about global markets. One publicly traded company, OnMobile, an operator of premium SMS services, now does business in 52 countries around the world.

Growing confidence among Indian entrepreneurs is related to one other market attribute: Indian consumers are extraordinarily demanding. Many at the conference articulated the idea simply. As they say in Manhattan, the Mumbai crowd averred, “If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere.”

Yes, there are challenges. There are at least 16 languages spoken throughout the country. There’s the question of how to develop robust legal, regulatory, and financial infrastructure (including payment systems). There’s the problem of sound policing of intellectual property rights. There’s an aversion to subscription-based offerings. And, as ever, there’s something else you cannot ignore: executional risk.

But it was hard for me, from a moderator’s perch, not to feel exhilarated by the dramatic upside for Digital India. The subcontinent seems on the cusp of amazing developments, only beginning with broadband Net access, high-speed mobility, and e-commerce. The idea that India — with its scale, its energy, its consumers — could become a digital laboratory and growth engine for the world struck me as both likely and inspiring.

Given that, is it any wonder many who attended the conference regard India’s digital opportunity in the next few years as greater than China’s?

Messaging for man - or machine?

Tue, 22 May 2012 14:36:09-0400

This blog was written by Brodeur Partners’ Jerry Johnson and Evan Parker. Jerry Johnson is head of Brodeur Planning. Evan Parker is head of Brodeur Digital.

We both spend a good part of our time at Brodeur helping clients figure out their messaging.

What are the key messages your audience needs to hear? What words, metaphors and images should you use to convey them? How do you structure your story so that it is relevant to the people you are talking to?

Recently, we were leading a client workshop going through an inventory of audiences.

It was a typical exercise. Who are our target audiences? What do they look like? Where do they hang out? What are the values and cultural norms that influence them? What matters to them? What do they find relevant?

As we moved through the exercise, we kept coming back to two questions: would the messaging be relevant to our target audience AND how would those ideas be filtered through the web “machine?”

Why? We interact with the digital world through its machines — specifically the search engines and web applications that people use to find our digital selves. Once found, you’ve only a few seconds to establish relevance and influence the individual – or your opportunity could be gone forever.

That got us thinking. What are the differences between messaging for people and messaging for machines? What do they have in common?

Both have dominant traits.

For people, emotion rules. We know from the latest behavioral science that emotion will always trump reason. Always. We are all less Spock and more Homer Simpson that we’d like to admit. So find the hot button. And step on it.

For machines, algorithms rule. Machines look for a “match” based on numbers and coefficients. For machines, you don’t appeal to the heart, you feed the formula. Decipher that and give it what it is looking for and your little bit of content will be found.

Both are predictable.

People, in the words of Daniel Aiely, are “predictably irrational.” They come to conclusions first and then look for facts and data to support them. At Brodeur, we map messaging through a relevance model built on the latest behavioral science where rationality is just one (small) part of how an individual responds to a word, an idea, an image.

Machines are predictably calculating. For them, predictive response is based on how fresh the content is, how well is it tagged, inbound and outbound links, etc. If you have the key characteristics of the content, you have a reasonable shot at predicting how well it will perform online.

Both can be “tricked.”

While you may not be able to fool everyone all the time, there’s no doubt that you can fool a lot of them for a short period of time. We live in Washington D.C. We know. We see it everyday. All tricks work, but few work for long.

The same is true for machines. Everyone knows the “10 ways to …” trick you can use to boost visibility of an article or post. Indeed all the search engines have a running battle with the SEO experts who are constantly trying to exploit the latest algorithms and then “trick” the search engines to get their content to the top of the list.

Both reward people who can “own” something.

In the world of branding, we refer to this as “differentiation.” We look for messages that will help establish some unique positioning of that brand in a person’s mind. In this differentiation, we make our case, and stake our claim in the landscape of thoughts, products and ideas.

Similarly, the online world rewards those who can establish an identity (or sometimes, a category) that makes you easily “findable.” For example, being found in the category of “marketing” is a big lift. Making a dent in the area of “search engine marketing” is more reasonable. And establishing a presence in the art of “tagging” in “search engine marketing,” even more so.

Both look for validation.

People generally don’t trust big institutions. Most hate marketing-speak. The most powerful messaging for people often is not from the brand, but is from a friend or colleague. Search does the same thing, but in a different way. Online, the validation comes from third-party links to your content, tweets, and references in blogs and chat rooms.

There is one big difference between man and machines. Machines don’t lead. They follow. Machines don’t make value judgments. They simply execute the algorithm. Machines typically don’t correct or pardon flaws, they expose them.

It is hard to get a machine to change its mind or form a new opinion. A good example is climate change. You can talk about climate change all you want, but if more people are searching for global warming, the web machinery can’t be relied upon to help people figure out the difference.

In today’s world we need to message for BOTH man and machine. If you don’t do it for the latter, you won’t be found. If you don’t do it for the former, you won’t be believed. Which means it’s time for us to dust off our 2000’s era passion for SEO, and rediscover the digital messaging age.

To differentiate, don't make these 7 mistakes

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:28:00-0400

Most companies make the same mistakes when trying to differentiate their brand, products and services:

They look inward, not outward – Differentiation isn’t about “making up” your company’s difference, it’s finding what objectively, authentically sets it apart. Understanding what customers / consumers need and discovering how your product / service fulfills them (or not) is the best place to start. Successful brands spur conversations and build movements.
They don't engage – Despite all the lessons learned from social media, only 16% of companies fully integrate social media. Actively engaging with customers/consumers in a two-way dialogue differentiates brands from static, one-way communicators.
They aren't bold – They pay homage to the God of Safe. Don’t speak colorfully. Never take risks. Don’t invest time expressing visually (with video, infographics, images). Why tell stories when you can recite facts? Always be business-like and never reveal a human side.
They shy away from competition – This one always surprises me because at the C-level – and in the sales trenches – companies constantly sweat the challenges of competition, winning and losing deals. But instead of acknowledging the existence of competition, most companies shy away, acting like theirs is the only candy in the shop. Facing up to competition doesn’t mean companies have to name names or be arrogant. There are many ways to communicate differences in a professional yet more meaningful way.
They aren't relevant – To become (and remain) relevant, brands need to fully engage sensory, social and emotional elements ... not just the rational. When something is relevant, the brand, product or cause becomes part of who we are. We self-identify and move from passive to involved, from indifferent to eager, and are willing (and eager) to act (buy, vote, recommend, etc.).
They don't prove it – It’s one thing to convey competence; it’s another to offer up proof. Getting customers/consumers to express their views about your company/service in first-person language has a profound impact: it enables prospects to relate because they interpret your brand through a more personal lens.
They don't focus on one thing – As companies attempt to zero-in on their customer-centric benefits, they compile long lists of capabilities and attributes. But they often fail to whittle all this down to one believable, sustainable advantage. Less is more – standing for one thing creates memorability.

8 lessons from Bruce Springsteen on staying relevant

Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:53:44-0400

I witnessed the fourth show of Bruce Springsteen’s new Wrecking Ball tour last night.

“Witnessed” is a carefully chosen word because it conjures the fervor of his concerts. He performs, yes, but he also testifies, and his adoring, faithful congregation (ranging from teens to octogenerians) responds in kind. It’s something to behold: a single hand movement from Springsteen yields an instant, intended response.

The dozen or so times I’ve seen him, I’ve marveled at the obvious: his energy level, powerful voice, under-appreciated guitar playing, engaging personality and songwriting. But this time – thinking back over the two hour and forty minute concert – I was struck by his relevance. Despite being 62 years old and having created 17 albums over forty years, he’s more relevant than ever. How does he do it? Here are eight relevance lessons from the Boss:

He’s a thought leader – read the cover story from the recent Rolling Stone magazine to discover a man who’s well connected with the world around him and not afraid to express a point of view. Bruce has tackled controversial topics throughout his 40-year career, sometimes stirring negative reactions, but he never backs down. He did it again last night when he played “American Skin” (41 shots), a song inspired by the police shooting death of Amadou Diallo in 2000. Speculation suggests he may have been making a statement about the recent shooting of Trayvon Martin.

His values define him – Bruce told Jon Stewart in RS, “In my music – if it has a purpose beyond dancing and fun and vacuuming your floor to it – I always try to gauge the distance between American reality and the American dream.” Bruce began this journey in 1972 when he signed his first record contract with Columbia; it continues today with Wrecking Ball, his latest album.

He’s social – Bruce doesn’t sit still, doesn’t keep to himself. He’s a social animal who enjoys camaraderie and conversation. In an age of social media where the word “community” is fast becoming cliché, Springsteen has sustained an avidly engaged community that keeps expanding. One measure (besides selling over 120 million albums) is his social media presence. He has 2,179,654 “likes” on Facebook and 157,843 Twitter followers. Bruce is keeping the conversation alive, staying current in a digital age. He’s no Lady Gaga (with 49 million Facebook likes) but he’s definitely in the game.

He’s sensory – Bruce may be a biological 62, but watching him perform, I marvel at his twenty-something dexterity, strength and flexibility. Whether it’s sliding across the stage on his knees or bending backwards to the floor while holding a floor stand microphone, this guy logs hours in the gym to remain physically relevant. He’s a best case example of how staying fit keeps us young.

He’s an innovator – a handful of artists were creative enough to continually transform their music, taking risks, pushing in new directions. The Beatles morphed in amazing ways over a too-short nine-year span; “I want to hold your hand” sounded nothing like “Day Tripper” which sounded nothing like “A day in the life.” Bruce is in this pantheon. The rambling lyrical style of “Greetings from Asbury Park” morphed into the tighter pop structure of “Born to Run,” which was re-shaped to “Nebraska” starkness and later to the Americana-influenced “We shall overcome: The Seeger sessions.” One of the new songs from Wrecking Ball – “Rocky Ground” – features a hip hop interlude, something Springsteen has never done.

It’s about us, not him – We brought two friends to the concert who had never seen him. I explained how Bruce feeds off the audience and exists to give each person a gift. “It’s never about him, it’s about you,” I said, explaining how Springsteen is passionate about making sure everyone has a good time, gets their money’s worth and leaves happy. When the show was over I said, “Now you’ve been baptized.” They grinned and understood.

He’s more than music – I’m not hung up on awards; sometimes the gods get it right, often they don’t. But Springsteen was robbed in 2003 when “The Rising” failed to win the Grammy for Best Album (he lost to Norah Jones). Inspired by the September 11 attacks, Springsteen had created an inspirational LP that helped us heal. It was musical catharsis; it was more than an album. His giving spirit has impacted a wide range of organizations, from Amnesty International to the Rainforest Foundation Fund to WhyHunger. He endorses a local charity at every concert: last night it was the Boston Food Project. He’s raised – and given away – millions.

He’s the best kind of brand – Great brands create a feeling, a meaningful personal connection that sticks. We want to associate with that brand because it’s part of who we are, how we view ourselves. That’s why he’s more relevant than ever

Do these 10 things to improve thought leadership

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:00:00-0400

Companies create thought leadership to forge a differentiated position for themselves. By developing compelling high-level ideas, the organization creates competitive advantage because the marketplace perceives its creator as a visionary seer and interpreter: a company shaping the agenda vs. responding. Great thought leadership campaigns create an offensive vs. defensive position and build brands.

Here’s what you need to know to become a thought leader:
1. Look outward, not inward – Begin by creating a big picture idea with relevance to targeted stakeholders. The idea isn’t myopically focused; it has appeal to others outside your company. While it doesn’t have to speak to a vast universe, it must resonate with a relevant market or market segment. Pervasive thought leadership platforms cleverly rise above (A) a company, (B) its products, (C) its technologies, and (D) its services. Ways you can develop thought leadership include: (a) talk to consumers/customers and uncover what they’re worried about/thinking about; (b) study your competition to find untapped content zones; (c) share what you know including lessons learned, marketplace insight and even a little IP; (d) discover the “unmet need” and forge a viewpoint on how to meet it; and (e) conduct original research.
2.Take a stance – If your organization is trying to get noticed, don’t be boring. Color and controversy are good things; you’re trying to catalyze an active, recurring conversation.
3.Create forward appeal – Memorable thought leadership isn’t a rehash of where things have been, it’s a brilliant definition of how things should be and where they should be headed. It’s a desired state with emphasis on benefits. It’s a new, fresh idea.
4.Have a long life – You’re not creating a short-lived advertising tagline or a bumper sticker …it’s a definitional stake-in-the-ground for sustained corporate messaging. IBM’s Smarter Planet is a great example – it has topical and distribution “legs,” and thus can last a long time.
5.Create compelling content regularly – Today’s effective thought leaders understand the power of creating a steady flow of original content that’s clever and can be distributed across traditional and social outlets. Look no further than McKinsey…they publish five journals on a regular basis including the McKinsey Quarterly. Content should be diversified…from video and blogs to events and website to images and advertising to research and published articles.
6.Push the ball up the floor – Great thought leaders don’t sit back and say, “Give me a call when you want to talk about this idea.” They’re bold, aggressive and in-your-face. They leverage social media and digital platforms to proliferate ideas, stimulate conversations and build community.
7.It’s people, not just ideas – Compelling thought leadership involves ideas and content, yes, but also people. Carefully chosen spokespersons personify thought leadership ideas and help gain traction. Klout.com made noise with its “Klout Scale” which measures online influence. People personify ideas, and in today’s digital age, they come in a wide variety:

8.Be open to envy – Effective thought leadership ideas are embraced (sometimes readily) by others. The ideas are so strong and compelling that direct competitors may overtly or indirectly respond to and co-opt the idea.
9.Make a difference - For the bold and socially minded, there’s an even higher state of thought leadership. Companies can rise above their own market niches (and self-interests) by authentically making their world a better place to live. Cases in point: TOMS Shoes, Stonyfield Farms and Brighter Planet. These for-profit entities give back and make a difference. Consumers, in turn, endorse these brands with their pocketbooks, preferring to do business with companies supporting a broader vision.
10.Don’t forget natural search and lead gen – Thought leadership is cannon fire; lead gen is rifle shot. As your organization is increasingly perceived as a thought leader, people will seek out your perspective and will be open to registering for content access. The two feed off each other.