Donna runs the Insights Group for ThisCompany. She is new to the company and is bringing in a lot of new ideas and the hopes, dreams and energy that it takes to implement new ideas. It’s a hard challenge and there are built-in constraints:

• It’s a business-to-business company. They are always more risk averse.
• It’s in a business category that, by its nature, is conservative.
• The company has been around a long time, so “doing things the way we always have” is deep  in the organizational DNA.
• There is, in reality, only so much money to fund various projects.

We are working on a proposal that promotes a very different approach to developing a marketing strategy. We want to uncover the underlying Emotivations™    – or the emotions that are inevitably at the heart of any decision-making in the category. And it’s not an inexpensive project to complete.

Underlying fears and concerns are emerging, from the get-go. Even from the very people who are working on the proposal and have a deep and successful history with the organization. There are comments like: “This is business. No one has emotions.” “People won’t share this with us.” “We already know what’s important we just want to validate what we already know.” “This is too expensive.” “This takes too much time.”

I’m imagining that if you are on the side of wanting to bring a change in an organization, these are very familiar comments. The challenge is how to overcome these pre-dispositions that have been ingrained for many many years. One of our partners on the potential project is worried we may have to sacrifice “doing something” for “doing what we want/think is the best.” I’m thinking this tension between doing something new and doing things the same will be a constant tug-of-war and it’s unclear which “force” will win or lose and where compromises will be made.

Personally I respect and support Donna for her commitment to doing what she thinks is right even though it might raise the hackles of people around her. I want to share with her what I know about doing things differently and work with her to get to that new place. And I recognize the risk is greater for her than for me because, when you dig right down to the bottom of this tunnel, this organization pays her salary and that is a force that is hard to reckon with.

This story will play out over the next few weeks. It is a personal story, yet one that I know is played out in different ways, with different people, in different organizations, every day. Stay tuned to see what happens next.

I don’t know about you, but I can’t draw. My stick figures don’t look like figures at all. They barely look like sticks. My handwriting is illegible even to me. But drawing, I learned from Jon Pearson’s program at CPSI doesn’t have to meet conventional standards of “good” to be incredibly useful.  Jon is an engaging speaker and story-teller and has put together a program called “Draw Power” that demonstrates why we should all be drawing (err, scribbling) more.

Jon explains why we are all so sensitive about our poor drawing skills (it has something to do with being thwarted as children. Remember teachers who insisted we color in the lines and others who said things like “but that doesn’t look like ____________________. You fill in the blank of whatever you were trying to draw).

Jon says it doesn’t matter what other people think of our drawings. In fact, he encourages us to put pencil to paper and just let it go. Can’t make a decision about where to go for dinner tonight, put pencil to paper and start drawing. Obsessing about whether or not to get married or have kids, start drawing. Struggling with a decision that could make or break your business, start drawing.

Divide a paper into nine squares, and tell your story in drawing. Be quick. Don’t think. Don’t care. Just go with it. The end result can look like a 1 year old’s scribbles. It really doesn’t matter.

When you are finished drawing, come back and tell the story and see what you discover.

It’s a very powerful process. There were probably about 50 people in the room where he was presenting.  We all obediently did what he told us to do. And then we talked about the experience.

What we all discovered for ourselves is what Jon told us in the first place. It does not matter what the drawing looks like. It’s unlocking the visual, emotional, more metaphor-driven part of your brain to tell a story and then experiencing that “aha” moment that means we’ve uncovered a new insight.

It works.

For more information, drop us a line. Or go directly to the source: Jon Pearson. His website is: www.createlearning.com.

Improv sessions show up frequently at creativity events because a) they are very fun and b) they reflect the essence of creative thinking: “yes and”. The idea of “yes and” – building on others ideas without judgment – is a powerful concept and one that doesn’t get enough attention in the business world.

This CPSI session was led by Rick DiBiasio. Rick is a certified financial planner (i.e., someone who does the very serious job of managing other people’s money) and a passionate improv performer. You can check out his work at www.middleagedcrazy.com.

Rick led a great session with about 30 people from around the world (translate: a large group, some of whom spoke English as a second language – a definite challenge in a group of improv beginners.)

First Rick reviewed the fundamental rules of improv, which struck me as good rules for business.

1. Improv is a team sport. You will look good only if you make your partner look good.
2. Don’t try too hard. Be yourself and stay in the flow. The harder you try to be funny, the less funny you will be. Funny comes out by itself. Just stick to your character and stick to the story. And avoid weird connections and dirty references.
3. Accept your partner’s offer. Always. Denial is the number one reason a scene goes bad.
4. Don’t ask your partner open ended questions. That puts all the burden on your partner.
5. Remember it’s about story-telling.

Then we set to work. The first exercise was just pairing off, having a partner make an offer, and then accepting the offer. (Anne: “let’s go to the beach.” Partner “yes”). This was a simple illustration of rule number 3 and great fun. Think about it: whatever you say, your partner says “yes”.

In the second exercise, we got in a circle and had to tell a story with a beginning, middle and end. The trick: we could only contribute one word. The warning: sometimes your contribution to the story will be the boring but necessary words like “the” and “and”. This is where things got tricky. Despite clarity around the rules of improv, some people couldn’t resist adding weird, disconnected or dirty details. And these additions always threw the story off.

The third exercise was amazing. Two people were given characters and told to start a scene. (Yes, this was a bit threatening and yet it worked beautifully). After a minute or two Rick would yell stop. The players would freeze. The next player, who had his/her back to the audience, turned around, tapped one of the players on the shoulder, assumed his/her position, and by virtue of the body position took the scene in a different direction. Each person dramatically changed the story. Watching the twists and turns people took was funny. And it was a vivid demonstration of what happens when we just stay in the moment and go with the flow.

Improv sessions are definitely lessons in life. Ninety minutes of improv demonstrate clearly that stories will work out better if the story teller is relaxed and just playing out the scene as it comes. Don’t try too hard. Don’t put too much pressure on yourself. Go with the flow and stay in the moment. Ideas to live by, for sure.

I’ve been reading Car Guys vs. Bean Counters, The Battle For The Soul of American Business by Bob Lutz, the frequently retired and re-hired super-senior executive of numerous automakers. I’m a Lutz fan (I have been since I read Guts way back in 2001 or so). But not everybody is. Car Guys feels self-serving in places and, heaven knows, Mr. Lutz does relish the words “I”, “me” and “mine” quite a lot. To call “Maximum Bob” an iconoclast is to call the Three Gorges Dam a sink stopper.

General Motors At The Brink of Irrelevance

I recommend the book because it’s a crystal clear examination of how a once massively-successful marketer, in this case, General Motors, can slowly, inexorably drift from a culture of creativity and innovation into one of predictability and process and what a wrenching thing it is to bring such a company back from the brink of irrelevance.

The point Lutz makes (repeatedly) about what happened to Mighty GM (and, by extension, American business in the broad sense) is that, before the reckoning came, they had a lot of people responsible for innovation but no one accountable for it. “Creatives” breathed rarefied air in “Concept Studios”, where they filled the walls with sticky notes embodying “out of the box” notions like a fully voice-controlled car (they built a prototype, Lutz test drove it and killed it). At the other end of the spectrum, “VLE’s” (Vehicle Line Executives) were held rigidly accountable for scheduling and budgets, but not for understanding what the car-consuming public really wanted. GM existed as a polarity. There were two bubbles and the twain seldom met.

And that brings me to my central question: How do we make organizations accountable for innovation and creativity? How do we make it a line item?

I’ve been to CPSI And I Am Changed

I’m pondering all this because I just got back from a week at a creativity conference in Atlanta where I was surrounded by several hundred people, many of whom had titles like “VP of Innovation” and “New Product Development Director”. They came from Fortune 1000 companies. They came from global brands. They came from the U.S., Canada, Brazil, Korea, Nigeria, Chile and Finland. They work in categories as diverse as consumer electronics, breakfast foods, cast iron valves, beauty, finance and missile defense systems.

These are smart, creative and important people who are responsible for budgets and other peoples’ careers. And I’m willing to bet that none has bottom-line profitability accountability in their companies (this is not for one second to diminish their importance to the operation, the fact they their roles exist is a good sign).

The World Needs Lutzness

Goodness knows, I don’t have an answer for this, but until some marketer somewhere finds a way to assign a line-item value to creativity, we’d better hope there are more Lutz-like individuals out there to shake things up from time to time.

Last week Drumcircle attended CPSI. CPSI (Creative Problem Solving Institute) is the world’s longest running conference on creative thinking and innovation. CPSI seeks to spread the word about the role of creative problem solving in innovation, decision-making, and life in general. The conference draws several hundred people from around the world.  We met people from the US, Europe, China, Singapore, India and Brazil.  We met people who work in large organizations (think Disney and Wells Fargo) as well as teachers, students, attorneys, people who work for non-profits and NGOs. The sheer diversity of attendees is mind-bending.

This year CPSI kicked off with a World Café, which is a technique for engaging large groups of people in meaningful conversation. The World Café process has been used all around the globe to allow people to discuss – and, where relevant, come to resolution – on all sorts of complex world challenges like global warming, the education of girls in Afghanistan, reducing crime in L.A., and even fixing the global economy. In the case of CPSI, the topic under discussion was “what is creativity and why is it important to the world.

Here’s how the process works:

• People sit at tables of 4. The tables are covered with white paper and markers are available.
• The leader of the group lays out a question for the tables to talk about. In this instance, the question was “what is creativity”.
• The participants talk and jot notes down on the table when they want to.
• After about 15 minutes, the leader asks 3 people at each table to move to different tables. One person remains as the table host. The conversation continues.
• After about 15 minutes, the leader asks people to switch tables again. This time he changes the topic a bit. In this instance, he asked people to discuss “why is creativity important to the world”
• After about another 15 minutes, the leader asked us to take 5 minutes, think about experience and write down our take-always.
• Then those who wanted to shared their insights.

As you can imagine, the conversations are fascinating. Sometimes they are deep and relevant; other times they are more frivolous. But by the end of the time period (in this case 45 minutes) people have all sorts of nuggets to share. In this case, people said things like:

“Violence is not a creative problem solving technique.”

“Everyone claims to be open to change – but are we open to being changed?”

“To a wise person, nothing is strange.”

“Co-creation means giving up control.”

“Being different is better than being the same.”

“Whenever I changed tables, the conversation got better.” (This from a 10-year-old child)

“What are the similarities between thinking and doing?” (This was also from a 10 year old)

We at Drumcircle are fascinated by the concept of the World Café because it truly fosters important interactions and leads to ideas for solving big challenges. Please let us know if any of you are interested in trying one in your organization or community.

All long distance trips start the same way. With the mundane boarding pass. This time we are boarding a Delta flight (thanks for the WIFI) to Atlanta to attend CPSI, the Creative Problem Solving Institute. This conference (or hands-on learning experience as they like to call it) is 57 years old and the longest running conference dedicated to teaching the practice of applied creativity in the world. It was conceived and launched by Alex Osborne (of BBDO. He is an icononic ad agency executive whose ideas transformed the business).

Bill signed on to take their foundational course: Springboard to Creativity. I think he is a reluctant participant and is already expressing his apprehension. He says he’s gotten too many emails from the CPSI folks with too many explanation points!!! “Feels like a cult”,  he says.

I’m signed up for a course in new business development (the scourge of small business owners) but I want to switch to a course in polarity management – that is figuring out how to manage two opposites at the same time. Increasingly I’m seeing polarities in all business challenges – ours and our clients. How do we continue to grow while budgets are shrinking? What do we do when our customers buy our unhealthy product while clamoring for more natural/healthy products. I want more time to play during my workday and more time to work on vacation. Fascinating to learn more about those tensions.

We’ll let you know how it goes.

I guess it’s official. The Super Bowl commercials created by Crispin Porter + Bogusky for Groupon are officially “offensive”. The New York TImes, Ad Age, CNN and The Wall Street Journal have all reported widespread outrage over the ads, which poke fun at celebrity endorsements of charitable causes.

I thought the commercials were darned funny (but then, I thought that the much vaunted Darth Vader spot for the VW Passat was cute but, as a selling message, utterly underserving of the praise that’s been heaped upon it). Groupon is not an easy product to explain in thirty seconds so, if the commercials elevate curiosity enough to get some new eyeballs over to www.groupon.com, then they’ve done most of their job.

Ms. Hurley waxes eloquent for Groupon and the plight of the rain forest.

Of course, if the commercials do actually offend people, then any curiosity they engender will be the “wrong kind”. People may visit the website, but they’ll do so with a metaphorical chip on their shoulders and will not go the desired next step of signing up for Groupon. Further, there’s every chance that a campaign that truly tweaks sensitive sensibilities can generate genuine ill will toward a brand.

University Study Shows Groupon is Great for Consumers, Less So for Businesses.

Here’s a link to a report on a recent study by Rice University’s Jesse H. Jones Graduate School of Business. Boiled down to the essential findings, what it shows is that Groupon promotions were profitable for 66 percent of the businesses surveyed, but were unprofitable for 32 percent. More than 40 percent of the businesses said they wouldn’t run a Groupon promotion again.

It makes sense. The Groupon user, like any user of conventional coupons, is a deal-seeker and a bargain hunter (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Once the deal is over, they’re probably going to go right back to doing and buying just what they did before the deal. To oversimplify the insights in the research, it seems “Grouponing” accomplishes the same thing couponing does; it creates transactions but does not promote relationships.

The report goes on to make several smart recommendations about how to overcome some of these challenges and use Groupon both strategically and tactically. So, for any marketer who’s really interested in potentially working with Groupon, you should read the whole thing.

If Great Advertising Can Make a Lousy Product Fail Faster…

Everybody’s heard the ancient proverb about how nothing kills off a bad product faster than good advertising. If that’s true, then perhaps Groupon’s “offensive” (let me reiterate, it’s not my opinion) advertising will end up being a good thing for the brand. Groupon is run by a bunch of real smart people. If they take the Rice study to heart, they’ll no doubt keep refining their offering and creating ways to use Grouponing to help marketers build bonds “beyond the deal” (By the way, Drumcircle has a history of helping marketers do exactly that. Uh-oh. Was that offensive?).

I had this big idea that I would watch the Super Bowl, take meticulous notes on how well each of the commercials reflected an understanding of Emotivations on the part of the advertiser, then blog about it, thereby adding my voice to the cacophony of Monday morning, marketing-industry quarterbacking. Along with three of four other couples, we were invited to a neighbor’s to watch the game and, over my wife’s objections, I took along my laptop and stationed myself a few feet from the screen, the better to record my stream-of-consciousness impressions.

Heaven help me, I was in the home of a Commercial Muter.

So, why isn’t this blog that blog? Because my non-marketing-industry host muted the television every time an ad came on. Muted it! And what were all the non-marketing-industry Super Bowl partiers doing instead of staring raptly at the pinnacle of our industry’s work? They were heading for the kitchen for wine refills and more smoked salmon. They were exclaiming over the excellence of the guacamole. They were asking our hostess for her chicken chili recipe. In other words, they were doing things that interested them.

It was a powerful reminder that people don’t sit around waiting to be marketed to, even when they’re sitting around watching the Super Bowl.

Some time ago, somebody said, “People don’t read ads. They read what interests them. Sometimes, that’s an ad.” The name of the actual author of that quote is lost in the swirling mists of time but it’s never been truer. All of the pre-game hype and YouTube previews could not make a roomful of “regular folks” interested enough to forego another fistful of tortilla chips long enough to watch Eminem glare on behalf of Chrysler or Elizabeth Hurley wax eloquent for Groupon or even a Mini-Vader unleash The Force on the family Passat (I have to say it; this is one seriously overrated commercial for a half dozen reasons, in my opinion, but I digress).

Here’s an offer; Drumcircle will give a 10% discount to any advertiser who contacts us before March 1, 2011 and tells us they want to discover the hidden emotions that really motivate behavior in their category and that, once they’ve gained those insights, they and their ad agency will use them to create a commercial to run in the 2012 Super Bowl.

We’d love to help you get peoples’ eyes off the boiled shrimp and back onto the TV where they belong.

How did so many people make so many bad decisions this year. I mean, if you are going to throw your money away, just give it to me. I’m talking to all those people who invented and paid for those Super Bowl commercials.

Pepsi Max: you spoke in a voice that was downright mean-spirited and misogynistic. Audi: I couldn’t follow the story. Motorola: that wasn’t a nod to 1984; it wasn’t borrowed interest. It was a commercial that reminded me how creative and unique the original 1984 spot really was and how you do not share Apple’s flair and creative leadership. A derivative ad reflects a derivative product. Group-On: well, I love your service but your commercial was, to say the least, in bad taste. And Go-Daddy. Really?

Chrysler: well, you might be confused with Chevy, but at 2 minutes, I had to take notice. And Eminem has power when he glares, no doubt about it.

A few commercials hit the mark. Well, maybe one, actually. Volkswagon: you win hands down with Darth Vadar. A dad empowering his little boy. Sweet, fun, creative. Might go buy the car because of it. And, of course, the Verizon/Apple spot. A fine exclamation point at the end of the game.

Before the Super Bowl, I was reading how this was one of the biggest years in NFL’s history, driven by the addition of female fans. I’m one of them. I love football. I love the stories, the athleticism, the toughness, the complexity, the excitement of the game. And I love the values of the Vince Lombardi trophy – although sometimes the players don’t represent the game as well Vince deserves. Big Ben: I’m talkin’ to you.

This year the advertising industry went more Roethlisberger (and Vick) than Vince. Agencies delivered bad ideas packaged too aggressively. Clients made poor decision-making, resorting to the type of bathroom humor preferred by not-very-nice 10 year old boys. Surely we can do better that this.

So, all you companies that reportedly spent $3,000,000 to air these poorly conceived (and expensively executed) commercials: next time come talk to us at Drumcircle. We can help you develop great ideas that will drive your business forward and excite grown-ups about your cars, your sodas, your on-line services and electronic devices.

What does it mean to have the right stuff and do you (or your brand) have the audacity to proclaim that you do? Tom Wolfe, who coined the term way back when, said “that no fighter pilot who had that elusive quality would ever think to say so”. And as individuals, in my experience, people rarely proclaim to have the right stuff. Instead they naturally show us that stuff.

Some of our leading brands take the show, don’t tell approach and we tend to think ofthem as the real deal, even if they aren’t always in the no. 1 spot. Think about the New England Patriots vs. the New York Jets. Audi vs. Mercedes and BMW. Or Starbucks. They make a damn fine cup of coffee and they don’t feel the need to keep telling us how great they are. Or even Hershey’s Kisses. I love how they tell us they are a little bit ‘ o love and not a great piece of chocolate.

Yet so many brands keep yelling at us about how great they are. As I was walking through an airport recently, I walked by 8 billboards in a row for various companies, including Arthur Anderson, IBM, Intel. Every single board contained one of these three phrases: we are bigger, we are smarter or we are faster. Is this money well spent? If you have to tell me you are smarter, I tend not to believe you very much. To me, it just sounds like boasting (at best) or bullying (at worse)

As another example, Brooks Brother has begun carrying Levis jeans – at a higher price point than anywhere else. Lou Amendola, the chief merchandising oofficer touts the combination, “For generations, nothing has conveyed the image of iconic style more than a pair of Levi’s jeans worn with a Brooks Brothers button-down shirt.” The vision of Levis with a BB button down is undeniably classic and appealing – it is at once casual and dressy as well as definitionally sexy. I don’t even have to see a picture; I can see it in my mind. Yet as soon as Mr. Amendola starts talking about conveying the image of iconic style”, he takes one step back from the authenticity of what the look is when it stands on its own. And by up-charging me for the look, he takes yet another step back from the authenticity of the jeans/shirt combination.

So what should marketers be doing instead of talking about how great they- and the images they convey – are. Maybe they should take their cue from the great fighter pilots and quarterbacks of our time – show us what you can do and let us draw our own (authentic) conclusions.