My Morning WalkNew day, uninterrupted thoughts

How many people out there are DOING social media, but perhaps aren’t building on a solid foundation? How many are, instead, “going with the flow” as if building on water or sand? Professional architects of the web are advising them to amend their plans—specifically to create and leverage a blog instead of a static website or Facebook page—in order to maintain an online presence that can stand the test of time.

If we’re into construction metaphors, perhaps an applicable one would be to envision building your business on a blog (concrete) instead of an arrangement of “Lincoln logs on top of a Jenga tower”…(Thank you, Marjorie). When concrete is first mixed, it’s placed in forms that are the shape of the structure you’re going to create. The thing is, the concrete is initially somewhat fluid and can be moved during the pouring process. Even though it takes a long time to harden, it creates a structure that remains intact for many, many years.

Compare this to who you are at the core—Not much can change who you eventually become, but how you got that way has been shaped by many experiences. Even though most of us are set in concrete today, a blog’s history serves as a consistent, documented proof source using stories from the heart supporting who we are and the values we represent.

What do you think? Time to go back to the drawing board, or are you ready to start construction on the penthouse suite? Whatever the case, please remember one very important point: Rome wasn’t built in a day. Your empire won’t be, either.

You say you want to do business in person or over the phone. Or at least that’s what your verbal cues state. Really? Then why are you on the Do-Not-Call/Do-Not-Solicit list? Why do you hide when the doorbell rings unexpectedly after 6 pm? Come on, folks, don’t be shy, I DO IT, TOO! Ask my wife what the first words out of my mouth are when the doorbell rings and I see something other than a neighbor’s friendly face or a young person standing outside waiting to sell me magazines for their school band trip. No offense to my clients at all, but if I could put my business on the do-not-call/do-not-solicit list, I’d do it in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, businesses aren’t allowed to sign up. One can only assume the reason being that businesses actually deserve to taste the unpleasant fruits of their own actions.

For years we’ve been conditioned to be traditionalists. Newspaper ads, television commercials, radio spots, traffic billboards, and web browser pop-ups have all attracted our attention by design. Forty years ago they were few and far between. Now they’re infinite and close together—and so LOUD and DISTRACTING that Congress is meeting about restricting their decibel levels…REALLY? So many people complain: “Why is Congress wasting their time on advertising noise when we have the highest unemployment in years and unemployment benefits are running out for millions of good people within the next 30 days?” I’d pose the question in a slightly different way: “Why SHOULD Congress HAVE to deal with advertising noise at all? Why can’t consumers litigate this situation on their own by promoting and supporting alternatives to interruptions and “noisy” ads?”

What differentiates the two? Answer: The perception of sales strategy.

“Calling something to the attention” of someone (advertising) is a passive sales strategy. TV, radio, Google, and newspaper ads are all just that: Advertisements. There is no real call to action for the viewer/reader. Ads create awareness that a product or service is available if the viewer decides to pursue the need or want. The only party with a financial interest at stake is the purchaser of the ad. It physically takes an additional interaction for the transaction to occur. This span of time could be called a “trust gap” or “investigation period” for the viewer to determine which service provider to use and is an opportunistic point in time for the social media activist.

Marketing is “the act or process of selling” and is an active sales strategy. It involves a transaction between a buyer and seller and usually the seller has at least an equal financial stake in the decision of the buyer. In this scenario, there is no investigation period prior to the intial interaction. So the question: “Will one or the other have a longer life span or will they both remain effective for the next century and beyond?”

Prediction: Advertising will survive. Marketing in its present form will be forced to evolve or become extinct. Why: Advertising is essentially harmless except for the attention factor. Marketing, on the other hand, interrupts, pushes, and closes. It creates a negativity that increases the awareness that competitors DO exist. When consumers get “closed” enough, they begin to look for alternate solutions.

No one can really predict the future, but the evolution of social media is bound to have a profound impact on both marketing and advertising. It will be interesting to see if either or both can withstand the knock-out punches ahead.

How do companies determine how many service providers/franchises/outlets/branches to place/allow into a community?  Do McDonald’s and Burger King use some sort of “magic formula” equivalent to their secret sauce recipes that no one else knows about but them?  And how much market penetration actually leads to an implosion of the traditional business model? 

What happens if someone detemines that one more is too many?  Do they keep it under their hat and hope that one or more members of their own organization fail so the decision-maker can save face through attrition?   Do they re-evaluate the situation and transfer one or two members to less-populous or competitive locations to allow for greater overall growth and productivity for all parties involved?  What are the criteria for determining the feasibility of a given market for a specific business purpose?   Do all of the standard models used throughout history still apply in the internet age? 

I’m interested in hearing some opinions.   For now, I’ll throw the SCUBA gear back on.

What happens when a company has stocked a large group of traditional salespeople to represent their brand then the market suddenly changes?  In the past the strategy of acquiring the best salespeople in the business moved a lot of product.  Those people who could sell ice to Eskimos made a great living and brought in a ton of revenue for their companies. 

Today’s consumer is loaded with choices and armed with information.  There are fewer “product experts” because everyone has the resources to be an expert themselves.  (How many “Do-It-Yourself” stores and TV programs are there to reinforce this??)  So, how are companies coping?  Better yet, are those salespeople making adjustments to their styles or just force-feeding old-school techniques to the new-age buyer?  How’s that working for you?  What’s the alternative?

Why do we do that?  All the money goes to very good places, right?  Schools, non-profits, etc.?  The odds of winning are slim to none, yet many still play with the hope of one day winning the jackpot.  What would you do with it if you won? 

I’ve had many a dream, many a conversation with several people…family members, friends, and co-workers and a majority tell me they would set aside a few million for interest income (2% on $10 million is $200,000 a year…That’s a pretty good income)  and loan (not give) a portion of the remainder to people at risk of losing their homes or deeply in debt for other reasons.  I’m sure many of the winners out there are well-intentioned people yet we never hear those stories.  Is it because they are so overwhelmed with their newfound wealth that they freeze and don’t know what to do?  Is it because they are totally bombarded with phone calls, e-mails, and SPAM requesting donations to every charity, legitimate or not, on earth? 

Admittedly they shouldn’t have to give away the reward for their persistence in buying the numbers every week, but what if they weren’t asked to DONATE or GIVE?  How much good could be done if they simply LOANED a portion of the money to middle class Americans who need a break to get out of debt, then get the loan repaid in a similar fashion as an annuity?  Do they really need to recoup the same interest as a bank or would it be better for the economy to contribute to restoring middle-class America to a position in which they could actually begin accumulating income instead of paying it out to banks in the form of interest?

Interestingly enough, my blog was bombarded by instant SPAM for the last month.  Fascinating how that works…to have it impact a fully functioning web address in a totally automated fashion is, well, ironic.  Now we’re back in the saddle, thanks to my friends at disEntropy, Inc.  More posts coming up in  the near future!

This is a tremendous paradox of just about everything in life.  For example:  How many people sit around and say:  “I’ll get a new roof WHEN hail destroys the old one” versus “I’ll get a new roof IF hail destroys the old one”?  How many fail to maintain their health (if it is within their control) and then ask the doctor to prescribe medication for the ailment when they are diagnosed?  If they did everything in their power to maintain their health, the likelihood of needing medication would diminish substantially.  Oddly enough, this is why insurance companies rate people based on their propensity to file claims. 

The person who says “when” appears to be expecting something to happen, whereas the person who says “if” is implying it could happen, but it will be beyond their control.  IF people did everything in their power to prevent losses, everyone’s rates would likely be much lower than they are today.  Insurance isn’t supposed to be about covering the PROBABLE…it’s suppsoed to be about covering the UNEXPECTED.  Ultimately, it’s the apathy of a few who cost the rest of the population a greater percentage of their income.

Ever thought about what it would be like to be assigned a spouse without considering an emotional atachment or dating relationship first?  What if they snore?  Arranged marriage is still a part of a few cultures around the world, but not so much in America.  Spouses in arranged marriages are very carefully chosen and much love goes into the decision-making process, but the fact remains that the partners themselves don’t have a huge amount of input on the final decision. 

Ever wonder what happens when you log onto a website for information?  I don’t exactly know, either.  What I do know is that the information you provide is distributed to representatives within the organization as lead lists to call you back and attempt to earn your business.  Let’s hold that thought:  Your name is distributed to representatives within an organization who then call you to attempt to earn your business.  The only choice you were in control of is what website you clicked on and provided with your (very basic) information.  After you exited, your name was assigned, in a very similar manner as an arranged marriage, to someone to “help” you.  You were looking for a transaction, right?  Most people say “yes”, but shouldn’t you at least LIKE who you’re going to spend the duration of that purchase and service experience with?

There used to be a game show on television when I was a kid called “Truth or Consequences”.  In every episode, the question and answer session ended with: “Would the REAL John Doe please stand up.”  Is that show still on the Game Show Network? 

How do people decide who to work with, who to support, who to “friend” or “connect with”?  Let’s hold everything PRODUCT-RELATED constant:  Price, features and benefits, customer service, and location/availability, etc.(Yeah, I know that’s not realistic, but we’ve got to have some basis for comparison.)  If all these factors were IDENTICAL, how would people decide who to work with for the products and services they need?

Would they choose WHO to work with on the basis of how they look, what they wear, what they drive, the size of house they live in,  who they are related to, what kind of charities they support, their political affiliation, what company they work for…. WHAT?  Some people get defensive when asked to look at my blog.  They ask where my “elevator speech” is and are surprised when I say there isn’t one.  That tells me they may not “get it”…That’s okay.  A lot of people don’t…yet.  The key to getting the word out about re-establishing the human trust factor in business is NOT elevator speeches.   Traditionally it was, but not any more. 

There’s a realtor in my town whose tag line is:  “So you don’t do anything stupid.”  Makes me laugh every time I read his traditional ad in the traditional newspaper.  People hate to feel stupid.  How does Elizabeth Edwards feel?  She’s one of the bravest people ever for how she is handling the physical and emotional pain she’s dealt with over the last 5 years and for how she is holding the family together.  And I actually thought her husband was a good guy when he donned the Spandex bike shorts and Livestrong bike jersey to ride a day of RAGBRAI with Lance Armstrong a few years back.  And how stupid do many people feel  who watched in awe as Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa hit ball after ball out of the park during the home run race a few years ago?  I fell for that one, too.   

And now, what are the consequences to those people for not only not telling the truth, but also living a lie?  Mr. Edwards moved out of his six million dollar mansion this week.  Mark McGwire could have his records erased from the books.  What happens to people who live a truthful life when what you see is what you get?  Jobs, careers, and business ventures may have an impact today, but they pale in comparison to the legacy our children will create because of the time we spend with them, as parents first, today. 

There’s no elevator speech good enough.   

Thank you for your attention.   I truly mean that.