You Brand

According to Wikipedia, laziness is ‘a lack of desire to expend effort’. Through the ages it has been denigrated as something bad. In Christian faith, laziness or sloth, as it’s called there, is one of the seven sins.

Whilst we have many arguments against laziness, we work very hard to achieve it. But then we give it a different name: We call it leisure. When it comes to products, we enjoy ease of use, functionality, convenience. In other words, we have an intense desire to expend less effort when using these products.

The invention of the wheel, which dates back to the 4th millennium BC, made life easier for mankind, as less effort was needed to perform many tasks. The wheel ultimately led us to the automobile, which is full of small innovations triggered by laziness: automatic transmission, power steering, power windows, power seats, cigar lighter, cruise control, climate control, navigation system etc. All of these little helpers make driving an automobile more and more effortless.

So Lech Walesa was right when he said “I’m lazy. But it’s the lazy people who invented the wheel and the bicycle, because they didn’t like walking or carrying things.”

Laziness is an important trigger of innovation and being lazy is human. TGIF

Posted via email from Achim Muellers

We know the value of the expiration date from groceries and medicines, at least we think we do.The expiration date marks the last date, on which the consumption of perishable goods is safe. Considering that consumption after that day may be hazardous to our health, we tend to give it the attention that it deserves.

Over the years marketing has been very successful in convincing us that all products have an expiration date. Actually 'classical conditioning' is a better word than 'convincing'. More and more frequently, I wonder why the Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov used dogs in his experiments.

In today's consumerist society, all products have to be perishable to ensure continued growth: shoes, smart phones, computers, cars, you name it. The shelf life is not determined by health considerations anymore, but by the purchasing prices. We can buy a smart phone more often than a car, hence the shelf life of the latter is longer.
 
Marketing makes us believe that consumption makes us feel good, thereby insinuating that it is good for our health as well. After all, it is difficult to argue that feeling good is detrimental to your health. Not only that, in a subtle way we are being conditioned to believe that using a product, which is beyond its shelf life, makes us outdated as well.

So we effectively behave like hamsters: The hamster runs in his exercising wheel and we consume in our consumption wheel. But the difference is that the hamster stops running when he is tired, whereas many of us will prefer to get into debt before stopping consumption.

Getting into debt ultimately means loosing our financial independence, our freedom. What's so healthy about that?

Posted via email from Achim Muellers

On April 20, 2010, the oil drilling rig Deepwater Horizon leased by BP plc sank in the Gulf of Mexico after an explosion. It resulted in the largest offshore oil spill in the history of the United States. The spill not only cost human lives, but also heavily damaged the ecosystem, which will take decades to recover. So far approximately 5 million barrels of oil have gushed into the ocean. Today BP will yet again try to finally close the well, as all previous attempts have failed.

Sure, BP have set aside money to pay for the spill and they've decided to replace the CEO. But what else?

Plans by BP to begin drilling for oil in other parts of the world, like off Britain's Shetland isles and the Libyan coast, continue. Politicians from the EU and Italy have called for a moratorium. However there is one major problem and that is the lack of any formal mechanism for nations to jointly agree a ban. As one BP manager sarcastically responded when asked about the possibility of a moratorium of the Libyan coast: "…and who is the authority for the 'Med'?…"

Not only does this underline BP's corporate culture problem, see my posted dated July 27th, it also highlights a, if not the, major challenge in the context of globalization: If there is no global political counterbalance to globally acting corporations, the world has a big problem.

So far, all political efforts have been pretty much unsuccessful. When looking at the results – if you can call them that – of the recent G20 meetings and climate conferences, we find no cause for rejoicing.

We the People do have the power to change things, but we have to engage. Remember the public uproar against Nike because of the sweatshops in the 1990ies?

"Nike, we made you. We can break you". This does not only apply to Nike and not only to the 1990ies!

Posted via email from Achim Muellers

Congratulations, your innovation has been approved. You convinced all the relevant people in your organization, you made it through all the meetings, against all odds you may even have gotten a budget. Now it's time to implement.

But what happens after the implementation?

Often innovators develop a very deep relationship with their innovation, too deep at times. They had the new idea, they cared for it, they developed it, they watched it grow, they fought for it and they implemented it. Normally it should end here, because once an innovation has been implemented, it's not an innovation anymore. It has become standard practice.

In some cases however, innovators can't let go, they literally get married to 'their' innovation, i.e. standard practice and so it becomes personal and counterproductive. By protecting their standard practice, they turn into an obstacle for future innovations.

Good innovators always question the status-quo, even if it is their own. They move on, once they've turned their innovation into standard practice.

Leave the wedding vow to the wedding. "I, innovator, take you, innovation, to be mine, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part." is not a good idea.

Posted via email from Achim Muellers

Unfortunately many brands still take a very isolated view when defining this. They cluster the market, define niches for their respective products and then proceed to determine the competitors. The market ends up being one big file-cabinet, with each drawer including a brand product, its ‘strategic’ competitors and the target group.

This method is as out-dated as the file-cabinet!

Brands have to be clear about what exactly they are competing for. Are they competing for customers? Hopefully they are, but customers and the environment, in which they live, have changed a lot in recent years.

The average customer, i.e. human being, is awake 1.020 minutes per day. During those 61.200 seconds he/she spends time with his/her family and friends, eats, works, is stuck in traffic, listens to the radio, watches TV, surfs in the Internet and the list goes on.

This means that brands are initially competing for their potential customers time and so is everybody else – family, friends, colleagues, bosses, news, entertainment, thousands of advertising messages – and not just the ‘strategic’ competitors. Brands have to get the attention from someone who is increasingly suffering from information overload. They are well advised to respect the fact that their potential customers time is extremely valuable.

Not only that, but more and more consumers don’t think in the old classification systems anymore: The competitors of a premium subcompact are not necessarily other premium subcompacts, it could very well be an iMac. Not only that, consumers will benchmark across product categories. Last but not least, who knows what new alternatives will hit the market tomorrow.

Difficult times ahead for brands, as competitors are everywhere but in the file-cabinet.

So why not get rid of it and the dusty thinking the comes along with it?

Posted via email from Achim Muellers

All to often, governments try to prevent the decline of industries and/or companies with subsidies, i.e. tax dollars. The decline is usually a result of unprofitable operations, for which there are two major reasons:

• Competition from abroad, which provides the same product and/or service at a better price.
• The availability of a new product and/or service, which is more popular with consumers.

Subsidizing the 'old' is tantamount to doping: Just as doping uses drugs to improve athletic performance, subsidizing uses money to improve business performance. In both cases the goal is to obtain an unfair advantage by distorting the competition. There is no room for that in a globalized economy.

By subsidizing, governments only procrastinate the necessary change. Instead of subsidizing yesterday's economy, governments must set the stage for a future-proof economy: Invest in education, research and retraining.

Everybody is good at something. The task is to find out what you're really good at, where you can add value, where you're competitive.

Living in the past is not an option and yesterday's laurels won't distinguish tomorrow's winners!

Posted via email from Achim Muellers

Today BP announced that the CEO Tony Hayward would leave his post in October and be replaced by Bob Dudley.

Will that solve BP's problems? I don't think so, because Tony Hayward is not the only one to blame for the disaster. I'm not saying that he didn't make any mistakes, because he did. But Tony Hayward is not BP, as BP is not a one-man show.

Questions remain: Where were his advisers? Did he have any? Did he listen to them? Or was he surrounded by apple-polishers?

Where were BP's press, PR and marketing departments?

BP needs to look at its organizational culture. Is it still old-style command and control? How about the empowerment of employees?

Replacing the CEO is not enough, BP is well-advised to adopt an entrepreneurial culture embracing all employees.

Posted via email from Achim Muellers

'Weil wenn sie gerade wäre, es keine Banane wäre.' = Eine Parabel auf die Einbahnstrassen-Kommunikation.

Wir könnten auch sagen 'Es ist so, wie es ist'. Genau das sagen, oder zumindest meinen, viele Unternehmen, wenn sie zu – und nicht mit – ihren Kunden sprechen. Gleiches gilt im Übrigen für viele Politiker, wenn sie zu ihren Wählern sprechen.

In Wahrheit ist es aber nicht so wie es ist, sondern es soll so sein, wie die Unternehmen bzw. Politiker es bevorzugen. Vor allen Dingen soll es auch so bleiben. Die Deutungshoheit zu behalten, heisst über falsch oder richtig zu entscheiden. Das wiederum bedeutet keine Veränderung der Machtverhältnisse. Zu Zeiten der Einbahnstrassen-Medien funktionierte dieses Prinzip nur zu gut.

Die Zeiten haben sich geändert. Wenn Kunden bzw. Wähler im Zeitalter des Internet eine Botschaft nicht nachvollziehen können, dann haben nicht sie, sondern der jeweilige Absender der Botschaft das Problem. Die Machtverhältnisse haben sich verändert, das Monopol der Deutungshoheit ist zerschlagen. Die Chance, etwas zu verändern ist da, die Menschen müssen sie nur nutzen.

Apropos Banane: Die Banane krümmt sich nach oben zum Sonnenlicht und dadurch entsteht die gebogene Form.

Was aber, wenn die Sonne nicht mehr automatisch von oben scheint?

Posted via email from Warum

Zugegebenermaßen sind Konzept und Kommunikation auf den ersten Blick etwas seltsam. Aber eben nur auf den ersten Blick, denn es ist aus meiner Sicht falsch, den E-Postbrief mit der E-Mail zu vergleichen. Keiner wird der Deutschen Post unterstellen, dass sie die Mechanismen des Internets nicht verstanden hat. Was steckt also dahinter?

Um diese Frage zu beantworten ist es, wie so oft, hilfreich, dem Geld zu folgen: Wer ist der Profiteur und wodurch profitiert er? Momentan bietet die Deutsche Post die Beförderung des E-Postbriefes zu den gleichen Konditionen wie den klassischen Brief an und positioniert ihn somit als Alternative. Was aber, wenn die Deutsche Post mittelfristig plant, mit dem E-Postbrief den klassischen Brief zu ersetzen, letzteren quasi aus dem Angebot zu nehmen?

In diesem Fall könnte die Deutsche Post nicht nur die Briefkästen abschaffen, sondern auch ihre Personalkosten reduzieren, denn der E-Postbrief macht den Briefzusteller überflüssig? Sie wissen schon, dass ist der gelbgekleidete Fahrradfahrer in der aktuellen Fernsehwerbung

Die Reduktion von Personalkosten sowie anderen Fixkosten kombiniert mit dem Einsatz von kostengünstigeren Technologien führt zu Verbesserung der Ertragssituation. Und darum geht es der Deutschen Post meines Erachtens und nicht um eine verbindliche, vertrauliche und verlässliche Alternative zur E-Mail.

Posted via email from Warum

Die Parallelen zwischen Fußball und Politik liegen auf der Hand. Nachdem sich viele Politiker in der jüngsten Vergangenheit als Fußballfans hinstellten, hätten wir eigentlich mit der ein oder anderen Erkenntnis rechnen können. Beim 1. FC CDU vermisse ich das bisher.

Nachfolgend einige persönliche Erkenntnisse von einem der 82 Millionen Fußballexperten in Deutschland

• Fußball ist ein Mannschaftssport und dazu gehören Teamgeist und Disziplin.

• Grundvoraussetzung für den Erfolg ist eine gute und intensive Vorbereitung.

• Die Mannschaftsaufstellung richtet sich nach der Strategie und nicht umgekehrt.

• Jeder muss auf und neben dem Platz seine Aufgabe kennen, akzeptieren und ausfüllen.

• Ein Star garantiert keinen Mannschaftserfolg. Spieler stellen sich nicht selber auf.

• Ohne Führung geht es nicht, das Spielfeld ist kein Diskussionsforum.

• Unmotivierte Spieler sind keine guten Spieler.

• Kampfgeist gehört dazu, der absolute Wille, jedes Spiel zu gewinnen.

• 'Blindes Verständnis' kann nur durch harte Arbeit und gegenseitiges Vertrauen entstehen.

• Überheblichkeit ist tödlich. Vergangene Titel sind kein Garant für den zukünftigen Erfolg.

• Wahre Führungsspieler geben nicht nur die notwendigen Impulse, sondern spielen auch mannschaftsdienlich.

• Spiele werden auf dem Platz und nicht vor den Kameras gewonnen. Es zählt das geschossene Tor und nicht die verbale Absichtserklärung.

• Wer nur durch die Mitte spielt und die Flügel vernachlässigt, wird nicht zum Erfolg kommen.

• Schlechte Chancenauswertung vorne kombiniert mit löchriger Abwehr hinten führen zur Niederlage.

• Zum Spiel antreten kann man nur mit einer Stammelf.

• Eine richtig bestückte Auswechselbank ist Voraussetzung, um ganz oben mitzuspielen.

• Man kann während eines Spiels nicht beliebig viele Spieler auswechseln.

• Die eigenen Fans sind mehr als der '12te Mann' auf dem Platz. Sie zu verlieren, heisst zu verlieren.

Zur Farbenlehre möchte ich nur anmerken, dass das beste Spielfeld immer noch grün ist. Mit der gelben Karte wird eine Verwarnung angezeigt und mit der roten Karte ein Platzverweis verhängt. Allerdings tragen die Schiedsrichter heute nicht mehr automatisch schwarz

Posted via email from Warum