Mark Di Somma - Upheavals

The power of being purposeful

Mark Di Somma — Saturday, 11 February 2012

In an age where products are increasingly similar and of equal quality, the opportunities to compete just on the basis of what you sell are disappearing. In fact, I�d go further than that and say, they�re as good as gone. Even if you know that your product has some sort of technical advantage over that of a rival, the chances of you continuing to hold that advantage or of that advantage being of such significance that consumers actually care are as good as nil.

So given that � how do brands look to compete? By my book, as product parity rages, competition between brands in today�s world is increasingly waged between stories and intentions. Both inside and beyond the walls of the corporate owner.

That�s because, for customers, tell me what has been replaced by tell me why as the shelves overflow with look-alike products.

And for employees, tell me what to do has been replaced by tell me why we are doing this as rules give way to reasons.

In this context, purpose is no longer a lofty description of what you want to achieve as a business. It has to be a description of what you think must change, and it needs to provide inspiring reasons for staff to take that journey.

To build a successful purpose, I believe you need 5 things:

1. An enemy � something or someone to direct a whole lot of pent-up energy towards. That�s not necessary a competitor. It can, for example, be a situation. As Tom�s have shown, your enemy can be altruistic such as the fact that so many children are without shoes.

2. Motivation � something that is worth expending that high energy for.

3. Curiosity � the wish to probe what you do in order to find how you�re going to pull off the purpose you�ve set yourselves.

4. Authenticity � a culture that commits to being real and truly sharing.

5. Zag � a purpose that is noticeably and inspiring different to what everyone else says they are trying to do.

Get it right � and you have a cause that is powerful enough for hundreds of people to leap out of bed every weekday morning and get to work. They are quite literally looking to make a change to the world they believe in because, as Hugh MacLeod expressed it so perfectly, �Life is too short not to do something that matters�.

But there�s also another key role for purpose, and that�s in the marketplace. Professor Richard Ellsworth believes that purpose has a deep role to play strategically and competitively.

Purpose, he says, actually clarifies which decisions are critical and informs how such decisions should be made. If a decision does not tangibly shift the brand towards its purpose then it is essentially off-target or at least non-critical, and should be ruled on in that light. Furthermore, the purpose that a brand chooses is actually a significant point of differentiation. That purpose, he says, deeply affects how a company should choose to respond to the competitive forces around it and determines the degree that a brand�s strategies and goals can diverge from those of rivals who may be driven by different purposes.

In a world of increasing sameness, how you as a business intend to change the world, and the story you tell yourselves and others around that intention, is what will galvinise your people and distinguish you as a brand and a competitor from all the other brands claiming to be �good corporate citizens�.

I believe that the most powerful combination any brand culture can create is people who have a purpose to work to, a story that they agree on and a strategy that will help them get to where they need to be as a business.

So � four steps to becoming a purposeful culture and a purposefully competitive brand:

1. Give your people a purpose to fight for � something inspiring, something sustaining, something different from what every one of your competitors comes to work for.

2. Work as a business to build a story that will guide how you progress and that you can remind each other of, every day.

3. Create the strategy to get you from where you are to where you need to be, and put clear deliverables, action points, timelines and performance measures around each aspect of that shift.

4. Tell the world what your people come to work every day to change in the world. That way, your people will be more motivated than ever to making it happen � and your customers will support you because they too want to see it happen.

Sense and Serotonin

Mark Di Somma — Monday, 6 February 2012

Recently in response to a post by David Meerman Scott about the need to apply left and right brain thinking to content creation, I suggested in the comments that brands should apply that same approach to most aspects of marketing. As I pointed out at the time, blending right and left brain signals is critical to how brands engage with prospects and buyers because it ensures that people remain fascinated and justified as they make their way through the sales funnel.

Logic and magic.

I think most of us accept that consumers generally buy emotively and explain logically, so the ability to provide them with experiences that they enjoy and talk about, and at the same time to arm them with reasons that help them explain, to themselves and to others, what they are doing is critical.

It�s easy and tempting though to treat each hemisphere as separate: to apportion logical arguments for those who think that way or for times when they are needing to rationalise; and to ramp up the emotions and associatives for those who are more inclined to follow their hearts. We�ve tended to see them, in other words, as ideas that sit alongside each other, that co-exist, and that are accessed separately at different times, rather than as ways of thinking that are integrated.

Personally I think such a divide is too simplistic. I think the dichotomy is a construct that is convenient for marketers to believe because it allows us to build left and right-column strategies but it doesn�t actually address honestly how consumers make decisions.

Every marketer should thrive to inspire consumers to like their brand, rather than battering them with facts. At the same time, they need to qualify that emotive drive with this filter: Does it make sense for consumers to feel what the brand is asking them to feel?

The facts should exist as proof for the emotions � on the consumer�s terms. Because while the data may speak for itself to those who made the product, it cannot feel for others.

Increasingly I�m using two very simple questions to try and bridge what I�ve memed as Sense and Serotonin � and the way those questions are sequenced is critical.

The first question is one that regular readers wil know: What is the most wonderful thing we want people to feel (that they don�t feel already from any of our competitors)?

It�s focused on finding what I often refer as the �unexpected value� - the thrill that the brand provides that takes people by surprise and has them coming back for more.

The second question is new � but just as interesting: Where is the deepest proof that they should feel that (that they haven�t heard already from any of our competitors)?

That�s a hard one. It is about finding the �unexpected truth�, so it�s about formulating the sequence of fresh and compelling arguments that rationalises why consumers should allow themselves to feel the specific way the brand is asking them to feel.

�What are we going to do?�

Mark Di Somma — Friday, 3 February 2012

It�s been said on too many occasions that actions speak louder than words. Said so often in fact, that many brands today seem to have a disregard that borders on disdain for taking the time to really think through what could make them outstandingly competitive.

In today�s manic, results-driven world, fewer and fewer people, it seems, feel they have time to strategise where their company and their brand needs be heading, and how to retain their edge. It�s better instead, they believe, to just get on with the business at hand.

Everything happens now. And as a result, considered is an idea that seems to have passed its use-by date.

Execution is the mot du jour. The best way to solve any problem is to do something. In fact, not just something, lots of things. Kevin Roberts calls this, �ready, fire, aim�. I call it stupid. Looking to reaction and sheer activity to get you out of trouble relies on the fallacy that doing something has got to be better than doing nothing. In fact, they strike me as equally dumb, because chances are that if indeed you are in trouble, you are where you are because of what you have been busy doing up until now. Indulging in more of the same action parallels having another drink to try and cure alcoholism. It�s just as likely to deepen the problem as fix it.

Remember that lovely moment in the TV series Blackadder when the General says they�re going to throw more men over the top at the enemy and take them completely by surprise. Captain Blackadder queries the surprise element of repeating an action that the British undertook �last time � and the time before that � and the time before that .. and so on� Precisely, says the General, and that�s why it�s so clever. Because doing what we�ve always done is the last thing that the enemy will expect us to do again.

As Albert Einstein once said �The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.�

The philosophy of act and adapt as necessary only works if you do actually adapt. (Even the British High Command came to realise that.) And the key reason why adaption is so hard is because action is easier. People can concentrate on doing what they know, what they have within their frame of reference, what they�ve been doing for some time. Action. And reaction. Getting through workloads. Getting things done. Following the other guy. Or not following the other guy.

Some decision makers seem to believe that if they act, they will get better at what they have been doing (which, incidentally, is often not that dissimilar to what everyone else is doing). That will also satisfy their KPIs � which often are built around actions not competitive effectiveness. Do more. Be more effective.

Polaroid did that. They made a great product. And that�s what they focused on. They were on a roll until digital came along and took the wind out of their sails. Suddenly they were becalmed. They�d got very good at being Polaroid � the problem was that the world had moved on, and now the thing they were so good at wasn�t noteworthy anymore. Polaroid, it seems to me, never had a winning strategy for the digital age. But, like I said, they were very good at what they did. I call this redundant excellence.

Their competitor Kodak had the same issue. Brilliance in the analogue world of photography actively prohibited them from making the changes needed to stay competitive. I have no doubt that over the 15 years that Kodak slowly deteriorated, everybody there worked hard. I have no doubt either that many actions were taken. It�s just that they were the wrong actions in the end because they were based on old thinking about consumers� wants around their photos.

The irony is that Kodak were a first mover in the very market that would later kill them. In 1975, a Kodak engineer created the first digital camera, but for whatever reason they never took advantage of being first-out-of-the-blocks.

There�s a good chance both companies confidently met many of their KPIs along the way. But key performance indicators are not necessarily success indicators. They recognise actions the company thinks is important. But if those markers are out of alignment with what is required to actually be competitive, then a company may well meet its own goals at the expense of securing its future.

The ironies of this can be intriguing. One set of numbers � the financials � can be showing that things are not as they should be. Another set of measurements can be showing that people are doing all that is expected of them. When a management team is so close to what�s happening, it can be very challenging for them to agree that the expectations they set were wrong.

Market leadership: you can�t lead as a brand if you follow another brand.

Mark Di Somma — Wednesday, 1 February 2012

Looks to me from this article like Samsung are going down the same competitive route as others before them in their battle with Apple. They�re looking to out-do them and to build a reputation and loyalty for themselves that replicates the following that Apple has.

Here�s the thing. As soon as any brand does this, there�s a very real risk that what it is actually doing is fighting with its perceived nemesis on their terms and therefore, subconciously or not, by their strengths. Because of the underlying references, Apple also becomes a focus and therefore, by implication, an authority. And all this within time and space that Samsung is paying for and looking to own. Unless they are very careful, there�s a real risk here that Apple could be allowed to Occupy Samsung�s marketing real estate � by Samsung itself.

After all, Apple is very good at being Apple. And their consumers love them for the brand they are.

What does Samsung realistically believe it can change here by spoofing Apple customers? And how does it think it will do this?

It�s not smart brand strategy to address a strong brand competitor at their strongest points. If I were working for Samsung, in fact, I would be actively encouraging them to avoid any reference to their competitors. Rather, they need, in the words of Fleetwood Mac, to go their own way. The most powerful brand you can own and manage is one where you know and write the code � not one that takes its cues from where others are, or where you perceive them to be.

That�s not to say that any brand should ignore its competition. But rather, in my view, a brand like Samsung should use its competitive analysis to sort out things like the emotions that Apple and others don�t evoke and whether these represent opportunities for emotional equity.

The question is not, �what does Apple do well that we can do also?�. The question is �What can�t our competitors do that we can excel at?�

The real lesson that Samsung have taken and that they do need to pay attention to is that products are upgraded by repeat customers motivated as much by loyalty as technical introductions. Apple�s very good at that. But the way to beat them is not to look to emulate more of the same emotion.

In the tech world particularly, if Samsung is to have any hope of achieving its goal it will need to match technical innovation with emotional innovation.

Emotional innovation stems from finding what I term the �unexpected value�. It�s driven by this line of enquiry: �What is the most extraordinary feeling that people in this sector haven�t felt yet? And how will we deliver it to them?�

When you strategise and deliver a brand underpinned by unexpected value, you change the emotional landscape that you compete in and you sidestep the cluttered, increasingly emotive middle ground that your commoditising competitors are squabbling over. You also actively avoid reploughing the deeply owned and highly branded field of another. That�s how you build market leadership. That�s how you continue to lift brand equity. By owning and fuelling emotions that are increasingly and delightfully associated with you.

Thanks Todd for the heads-up.

For your information: why so many brands are not listened to

Mark Di Somma — Thursday, 26 January 2012

The insurance company wrote to me again. That can only mean it�s a bill or a change in policy. Either way it�s more expensive � literally, because I�m paying more, or metaphorically because I�m getting less for the money I do pay.

I�ve lost count of the number of meetings I�ve been to where marketing managers in the financial sector and in utilities have told me that they are keen to build closer relationships with their customers. They want more loyalty, they want customers to engage with them. Everyone nods.

But then their customer service teams keep sending out the same bills and policy changes, and they wonder why they don�t have more likeable brands. It�s not rocket science. In fact it requires something much more daunting. A change of heart.

In order to relate to customers as people, insurance companies need to start thinking of those customers as more than named policies, phone companies need to see them as more than accounts, electricity companies need to see the people who pay their bills as more than bill payers.

If brands in these sectors want people to associate them with more than just money, then they need to have conversations with them that extend beyond money. And for many organisations in these sectors that�s very, very difficult � they have nothing else to talk about, because their culture is honed to think about nothing less. It�s not that they are usually particularly greedy or even obsessive. It�s just how they have always talked to customers � as customers, rather than as people.

But the relationships between customers, services and experiences have shifted massively with the maturation of social media, and will continue to do so. Not long ago, people were sold services, and experiences were a value-add. Increasingly, people buy into the philosophies of likeable brands and then expect validation of that worldview when they purchase products. That validation comes through the experiences they receive when they buy and the ways that the brand itself looks to engage with its customers.The things it talks about socially. The causes it supports. The subjects it is interested in. The areas it engages with in the media.

In a pre-Google world, where it was so much harder to access data, brands provided information and people saw that as a cornerstone of the experience. We judged brands by their ads or their correspondence for example � because it was so much harder to judge them any other way. In an online-centric world, brands need to prove they are likeable and offer experiences that people are interested in across a wide range of fronts before anyone pays much attention to the information that brands want to send them.

And without that buy-in, the information itself is considered worthless. It�s something people �have no time for�. They�re too busy � read, they�re too busy to give whatever it is their time.

But engaging like this, in ways that encompass but also extend beyond the business relationship, are a massive disruption for conservative institutions. Imagine a general insurance company having to think about and talk about motorbikes for example instead of just focusing on motorbike policies. A specialist insurer might do that, but for a general deliverer, that seems too hard. Which is why these companies revert to what they do feel comfortable talking about and why customers revert to believing that�s all they want to talk about.

An explanation in writing, however nicely phrased, of why customers need to pay more for their policies is not a conversation. It�s not even interesting to the consumer. It�s just more correspondence. It's paperwork. It's another brand talking about itself on its terms. And that, consumers find, increasingly socially unacceptable, in the broadest interpretation of that idea.

What likeable brands recognise that other brands do not is that they need to earn the right to talk with people. They don�t automatically have that right. Or rather they may have it technically, but they and must keep earning it emotionally.

Likeable brands: Debating the value of Likes.

Mark Di Somma — Monday, 23 January 2012

If brand owners are buying Likes on Facebook, what are they actually worth?, asks Alexis Dormandy in this recent article in The Telegraph. �Can we really value a �Like� or a �Follow� when so many of them are bought rather than earned?�

Dormandy�s question goes to the heart of the marketing community�s ongoing fixation with volume and to the business world�s fascination with social metrics. With marketing managers under huge pressure to build and participate in scaled brand communities, perhaps it�s inevitable that fast-track approaches to ramp up fan bases have become more popular.

There�s good, bad and ironical news in this.

Let�s start with the good. Slowly a real value case for using social media seems to be emerging. In a recent post on the RICG blog, comScore's Linda Abraham and Buddy Media's Mike Lazerow reference research showing that a "share" on Facebook can lead to $2.10 in incremental sales, and drive up the average conversion rate to 10.2 percent per share.

A key reason Abraham and Lazerow give to factor social media into digital marketing programmes is that "social media is the No. 1 online activity today," accounting for almost 20 percent of the time consumers spend online.

They go on to say that there are three steps in social media marketing: 1. Cut-through, or the brand messages that fans receive in their news feed; 2. Engagement, or what fans say about a brand or product's news feed content; and 3. Amplification, where fans share the content they like with others in their network.

However, they also point out that �most brands skip over those "intermediary steps," and instead think the process only involves getting fans and then seeing a marketing ROI�.

And when getting fans involves buying their loyalty through incentives, that�s when Dormandy seems to believe the illusions of success start. Yes incentives and giveaways work, but as his article points out, generating Likes and Follows through mechanisms like contests rather than through unprompted affinity must beg the question: how much do consumers truly see these marques as likeable brands and to what extent are they more interested in the likeable giveaways?

That in itself raises a wider concern. The bad news.

With the introduction of marketing moves like Sponsored Stories and the use of incentives to gain community memberships, reviews and WOM, there�s a very real danger that authentic endorsement - the sort members of the online community truly value and want to share - is under threat. As Dormandy puts it so well: �for products, services and brands, the Facebook Like provides little indication of what your friends want or would recommend. In the quest to be endorsed on Facebook, brands have devalued those very endorsements. Buying a Like doesn�t mean you�re liked.�

So Like no longer means �like� in its defined sense. And Follow could easily mean Follow for Now, or until the competition ends. There�s a transience to that commitment that is disquieting because by extension endorsement no longer means endorsement either. It simply means participation.

If that�s the case, what are marketers buying beyond a momentary measure? What can they bank on?

And is the very fact that they continue to seek out Likes and Follows making Liked brands less reliable and Followed brands less charismatic?

Leading perhaps to this irony: the more consumers Like your brand online in the minute (because of the incentives you offer), the greater the risk that they might not actually value it over the longer term.

Not dissimilar in many ways to how consumers behave in sales � it isn�t the brand they are buying, it�s the discount. Only in this case, it�s not about the discount but rather the incentive.

The future of brands: 7 takes from Jim Stengel

Mark Di Somma — Monday, 16 January 2012

Recently, Jim Stengel, the former global marketing officer at P&G, opened up on his blog on what he perceives as the future of marketing. I very much liked what he had to say. My takes and comments.

1. Brands are becoming more important not just as identifiers in crowded markets but also as valuation mechanisms. As Stengel points out, 30 years ago, �almost none of the market capitalization of the S&P 500 could be attributed to brand equity; today it is above 30%.� Stengel sees that as a sign that marketing has become more important. I agree � certainly in the sense that brand can now be visibly seen to add value on the bottom line. I wonder though whether marketing itself has gotten more important or whether it has become increasingly important for marketers (with their heritage involvement in communications) to evolve their understanding of the value, performance and application of brands.

2. Marketing will be more and more about the behavior of the people behind the brand, not what the brand says. Absolutely. Last week�s post about �human marketing� centred entirely on this point. Increasingly brands are judged not just by what they deliver, but how they deliver it � and people are the key component in delivery. If your human marketing doesn�t cut it, nothing else will compensate.

3. Marketing will integrate and synthesize with other disciplines. And vice versa in my view. The globalisation of markets is being clearly mirrored by the globalization, convergence and integration of functions. Delivering �on brand� now involves not just everyone � human marketing again � but almost every aspect of the organisation�s intellectual and operational arsenal.

4. Competitiveness will increasingly be right-brained in its orientation. Stengel�s own words: �Empathy and artistry will get more important. Empathy is at the heart of marketing because it is the ability to see and feel through someone else�s perspective. Artistry is the intuition and creativity to invent something that offers something new and important for a customer� Yes. Yes. A thousand times yes.

5. We�ll all know more, so we better make sure that, as brands, we understand more. Hadn�t really seen the full implications of this one I have to say, but Mr Stengel�s absolutely right. �Big data and advanced analytics will profoundly impact how well we understand our business.� We tend to hear so much about the privacy concerns of big data, but this marketer�s point that it will also yield big insights is very true. The key seems to lie in what brands do with all the information that will flood their way. Those who percept and act will swim and win. Those who try to filter and wait will drown or be swept away.

6. Great brands will continue to �[upend] the business model�, questioning and reframing the frameworks, zones and channels within which they do their business. And they will do so, not for innovation�s sake, but because the changes they make to the ways they are organised will bring them closer to consumers. Great point, well made.

7. Finally, marketers will need to become more nimble and adaptive in how they present their brands and associated messages to communities of consumers who are no longer at their desktop. Instead those people will, in time, be moving rapidly, impatiently and individually, through areas of a city or town that they are highly familiar with. Getting their attention, remaining part of their conversation and attracting them to engage will require new approaches and new ways of thinking about media. Stengel quotes Eric Schmidt in saying that the future for brands will be �social, local and mobile�.

Plenty to think about here as we power into 2012.

Human marketing

Mark Di Somma — Friday, 13 January 2012

This highly informative post from James D. Roumeliotis on Customer Devotion introduces to me the expression �human marketing� which I am much taken with. Not only does it speak to the necessity for everyone within the organisation to think and act like a marketer, it�s also a reminder that, ultimately, people deliver some of our most powerful and memorable consumer experiences � and insights.

People have an instinct for people that simply cannot be duplicated any other way.

In the rush to mechanise and socialise, it�s easy to overlook the need for brands to continue to humanise their offering � to make it easier, more enjoyable, more fun etc for people to interact with.

Powerful brands feel human. There is a real sense of people behind what�s on offer. And that I think is Roumeliotis� key point: you can�t build and run a great brand if you don�t have a culture that loves people � as staff, as suppliers and as customers.

In that regard, while much is made of the need to monitor and track online interactions, the most powerful listening posts most brands have in the market are their people. The critical point here though is that while most people can listen, it requires people who love people to understand what to truly listen for, and what questions to ask in response.

If a client rings and asks about whether you offer online shopping and they�ve never shopped that way with you before, the traditional marketing response would be to offer them information on how to make a purchase through the internet. The �human marketing� response might be to enquire as to why they are interested in shifting to online shopping at this point.

And that�s the thing isn�t it. Metrics don�t talk to motivations. They only show the results of what the motivations have generated � which is why most marketers spend too much time trying to second guess what often appear to be random shifts in buying patterns.

Human marketing is driven by curiosity not just processes. It is about the search for customer happiness via the application of the Feynman principle to every aspect of customer interaction: question everything, especially those things you think you know, including those things you feel you are not being told.

It takes humanity to do that. But just as importantly, Roumeliotis reminds us, it takes everyone to do that, not just the marketing department.

Gazing into the tea leaves

Mark Di Somma — Monday, 2 January 2012

Happy New Year to you all. Over at Corporate Eye, Susan Gunelius references two JWT Intelligence reports just out that are predicting these five key trends for 2012. Here�s how I see what JWT are seeing.

1. Price Opportunities: Brands will introduce low-cost entry-point products into markets for price-sensitive consumers with �stripped down offerings� and smaller sizes.

My view: Agree. The combination of depressed consumer spending and the rise of house brands will see brands looking to diversify their price points. In many sectors, I think this will be accompanied by diversity in the service experience as well � with online increasingly offering lower prices and help-yourself service levels, and full-price, full-service reserved for physical outlets. 2. Shared Value: Companies will shift from simply donating money to charitable causes to integrating social causes into brand strategies.

My view: Inevitable, and in many ways mandated by both social media and the politicised consumer. Customers will want to see companies doing more than just talking about their social concerns or throwing dollars blindly at a problem in exchange for the feelgood and the publicity. They now want to see CSR applied in meaningful ways that affect real change. Management won�t disagree because this will make CSR initiatives themselves more measurable.

3. Interactivity: With a growing trend toward making screens interactive, brands will focus on finding new ways to engage consumers through touch screens and experiences.

My view: Inevitable. Interactivity may be a experience premium in places at the moment, but its effect is rapidly commoditising as consumers expect more and more engagement. Soon those companies that aren�t catering for highly mobile and tech-savvy consumers will literally be out of touch.

4. Redefining Age: �Old age� is changing with the term focusing on an older audience than ever and a more active older audience. Brands will find ways to better communicate with and target the aging audience.

My view: Yes, but this is just part of the equation. Western populations are not just aging, they are becoming increasingly dominated economically by women. That demographic shift will need to be addressed simultaneously if brands are to make competitive headway. The implications of �femonomics� in particular are far-reaching in terms of even marketing basics like sales models, experience planning and product ranging.

5. Tangible Add-ons: As more content and products become digital, brands will look for ways to add a tangible, tactile experience to those digital products and services and vice versa.

My view: yes and no. As per 1, I think that online will become the DIY access point for a range of products and services particularly in sectors where margins-per-serve are tight. At the same time, it�s easy to see that some digital and physical brands could mirror the developments that are currently occurring in manu-services and look to introduce tangible experiences and services across a range of platforms that add value to what they deliver and at the same time diversify their income bases.

OK, your turn. Drink up please and share - what do you see ahead?

Please don�t try to change your brand

Mark Di Somma — Wednesday, 28 December 2011

It�s that time of year when everyone�s head turns to changes � or more particularly resolutions of change. Most of us will lapse from whatever pledges we make, not because we want to necessarily but often because the habit of what we have done or know well is too comfortable for change to last.

Companies are no different. As Professor Robert Sull put it so well back in 1999 in a paper titled �Why Good Companies Go Bad�, organisations, just like individuals, tend to persist with established patterns of behaviour.

Sull dubbed this phenomenon �active inertia�, because companies keep themselves busy, but, despite what they may even think themselves, their energies are often directed towards continuing with variations of business as usual.

Professor Sull�s point was that such sustained patterns of behaviour degrade in value and contribution over time. Ironically, the very pillars that are meant to drive progress come to act as anchors to innovation as organisations turn inward. Strategic frames, he pointed out, become blinders; processes turn into routines; relationships devolve into shackles; and values transform into dogmas.

As a result, change programmes become the corporate equivalent of a fight in a paper bag.

You can of course try and fight this tendency to look inward (good luck!) or you can draw on it. One very effective way to do that is to take a serious look at the purpose flag under which you sail. In other words, channel the intense internal energy that most companies generate to reset your aspirations as a brand. Reframe your thinking so that the focus is less on �what we�re doing� and more on �why would we want to do that�. Taking the cue from Sull, the key issue for most organisations who recognise a need to move on from where they are competitively is not what they are doing or even what they are changing but what they need to become.

After reading Blue Ocean Strategy many years ago, I made this note: �Uncompetitive companies can sell out, tough it out or invent their way out of where they are.�

The last option daunts many, but it�s really not that difficult. It starts with this sentence: �What if we were �?�

Here are my five simple questions to help guide you from that imagination to some highly effective imaginactions.

1. Who do we most aim to be as a company? (What reputation would most excite us as a culture?)

2. As a consequence of that, what do we most need to do to gain that reputation? (irrespective of what others are doing or what we ourselves have been doing)

3. As a consequence of pursuing those actions, what will need to change?

And then the simplest but for many people the most telling questions of all:

4. Of all the major projects the brand has running at the moment, how many of them are helping to get us there?

5. Of all the work that our teams have on their desks at the moment, how much of that is helping to get us there?

So many change programmes start with the need to admit failure or defeat. The intention is to make the case for not doing more of the same. But I have watched such sessions quickly descend into a self-absorbing blame game that stirs those concerned to make bold commitments by way of redemption that, subsequently, wither and die under a number of guises.

Despite the promises and reassurances that many will give, if you are uncompetitive, you are where you are for a reason � and �active inertia� may well be your biggest threat. As Marshall Goldsmith so brilliantly observed, �What got you here won�t get you there�.

But, just like New Year�s resolutions, looking to make changes, however well intentioned or sincere, won�t necessarily get you anywhere. All you are doing in many cases is entering a very long, dark tunnel at speed with your fingers crossed.

To really succeed, you need to know what, why and where �there� is for your brand, and you need to be constantly and consistently measuring your progress towards that point, financially, perceptively and culturally.

Change must be a consequence of seeking to become that brand, not the other way round.