Niko Herzeg Marketing » strategy

halfway between a lie and a truth: pt3

admin — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:59:31 +0000

This weekend has been good for various reasons: first of we said hola to Santiago during the night. She kindly said hola back. and then some.

Secondly, we survived our personal version of a Chilean bbq; grilled for over two hours by a VC; keeping the bad bbq analogies going, in the end he did not spit us out after chewing us up (and no he did not lick the plate either, you perverts). We are now labelled viable. Seems to be quite a thing in that world, so a small hurrah.

Sunday’s are a bit weird as that day is mostly spend not doing anything in Chile. But when in Rome ..and all that..

Looking ahead the week is busy but shaping up nicely; lot’s of meetings, system design sessions (no idea what that means, but is sounds nice), budget talks, some emergency cloth shopping and attending a proper Chilean wedding.

Anyways..as always..

the business end of innovation (client thoughts on social, co-… and other ideas agencies love to push)

admin — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 00:05:43 +0000

The great lesson in microeconomics is to discriminate between when technology is going to help you and when it’s going to kill you. And most people do not get this straight in their heads. But a fellow like Buffett does.

For example, when we were in the textile business, which is a terrible commodity business, we were making low-end textiles—which are a real commodity product. And one day, the people came to Warren and said, “They’ve invented a new loom that we think will do twice as much work as our old ones.”

And Warren said, “Gee, I hope this doesn’t work because if it does, I’m going to close the mill.” And he meant it.

What was he thinking? He was thinking, “It’s a lousy business. We’re earning substandard returns and keeping it open just to be nice to the elderly workers. But we’re not going to put huge amounts of new capital into a lousy business.”

And he knew that the huge productivity increases that would come from a better machine introduced into the production of a commodity product would all go to the benefit of the buyers of the textiles. Nothing was going to stick to our ribs as owners.

That’s such an obvious concept—that there are all kinds of wonderful new inventions that give you nothing as owners except the opportunity to spend a lot more money in a business that’s still going to be lousy. The money still won’t come to you. All of the advantages from great improvements are going to flow through to the customers.

Conversely, if you own the only newspaper in Oshkosh and they were to invent more efficient ways of composing the whole newspaper, then when you got rid of the old technology and got new fancy computers and so forth, all of the savings would come right through to the bottom line.

In all cases, the people who sell the machinery—and, by and large, even the internal bureaucrats urging you to buy the equipment—show you projections with the amount you’ll save at current prices with the new technology. However, they don’t do the second step of the analysis which is to determine how much is going stay home and how much is just going to flow through to the customer. I’ve never seen a single projection incorporating that second step in my life. And I see them all the time. Rather, they always read: “This capital outlay will save you so much money that it will pay for itself in three years.”

So you keep buying things that will pay for themselves in three years. And after 20 years of doing it, somehow you’ve earned a return of only about 4% per annum. That’s the textile business.

And it isn’t that the machines weren’t better. It’s just that the savings didn’t go to you. The cost reductions came through all right. But the benefit of the cost reductions didn’t go to the guy who bought the equipment. It’s such a simple idea. It’s so basic. And yet it’s so often forgotten.

A Lesson on Elementary, Worldly Wisdom As It Relates To Investment Management & Business, Charles Munger, USC Business School, 1994

strategy is a popsong

admin — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 00:59:07 +0000

“Don’t try and write rock songs, write a pop song and then rock it up or whatever else you wanna do, on top..”
Noel Gallagher

This equally applies to our work: First come up with the problem the brand can/wants/should address, that is rooted in actual consumer buying/using behaviour. Trace back to understand what has lead them to behave the way they do (as good as possible).

Figure out what barriers (now you layer it with thinking around tools, digital, npd, attitudes) stand in the way of them showing the future behaviour you need to achieve your goals.

Start making it possible to remove and to get people to move. If they move; spread the word.

Is it really that simple? Yes, but obviously not that easy to execute.

next time you blame others for the state of adland..

admin — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 04:55:19 +0000

One magazine;
Four advertisers;
Different agencies;
Same category.

No convention was harmed during the making of any of these campaigns.

artist state of mind beats state of the art tools

admin — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 04:36:26 +0000

As seen at Frankfurt Airport. Books that help you learn a foreign language by turning the learning into a “Who-done-it” novel. Best bit of gamification I’ve come across in a long time.

Yes new tools (slowly) change cultural practices of people. Yes we should be aware of the new. No, we should not jump on all bandwagons that come along.

In times of increasing technological development, decreasing time to explore its uses and potential, and evergrowing fear by people (both in business and just as citizens) of missing out on the latest trend, we should not forget that looking at what is already in use with a fresh pair of eyes can be just as effective (even more so if all the others are not doing anything with it)…

Why most of our work is not working?

admin — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 05:14:32 +0000

Harvard Thinks Big 2010 – Daniel Gilbert – ‘Global Warming and Psychology’ from Harvard Thinks Big on Vimeo.

Pretty good insight checklist in general:

Are you finding stuff in the lives of people that is:
Immoral
Imment
Intentional
Instanteneous

Obviously the creative translation does not (should not?) have to amplify that fear. But having a fear/problem to work of instead of the usual want/desire (as a starting point instead of end, where it communicates the solution to the previously found problem), might lead to different ways of approaching briefs that create impact through action.

Though obviously as I write this, somewhere someone is working on a brief that will disprove me. As it should be.

politics of imagination

admin — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 05:53:17 +0000

‘Utopia Now’ – Lecture by Stephen Duncombe from SKOR on Vimeo.

a great addendum to some of my thoughts written here and here

Note to self: face value is skin deep

admin — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 05:09:41 +0000

“Good heavens!” I cried. “Who would associate crime with these dear old homesteads?” “They always fill me with a certain horror. It is my belief, Watson, founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest alleys in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautiful countryside.”

“But the reason is very obvious. The pressure of public opinion can do in the town what the law cannot accomplish. There is no lane so vile that the scream of a tortured child, or the thud of a drunkard’s blow, does not beget sympathy and indignation among the neighbours, and then the whole machinery of justice is ever so close that a word of complaint can set it going, and there is but a step between the crime and the dock.

But look at these lonely houses, each in its own fields, filled for the most part with poor ignorant folk who know little of the law. Think of the deeds of hellish cruelty, the hidden wickedness which may go on, year in, year out, in such places, and none the wiser.”

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1892) Sherlock Holmes in “The Copper Beeches”

Only deception can stop segregation caused by the Age of Social

admin — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 04:33:15 +0000

A couple of things have been popping up on my radar interesting, or I think interesting, enough to warrant a hypothesis about business, communications, people and politics.

First there is:
This story. An entertainment channel for the conservative American.

What makes them interesting is the fact they seem to be focused on spreading content, the way the audience wants it (bypassing possible censorship) and they get that entertainment is still the biggest gateway towards culture shaping, because it allows them to say more under a veil of deceptive winking and smiling..

Of course the larger interesting question is the robustness of the hunger for segregrated media (loaded term perhaps, but BET did make billionairs out of the owners) that is still so strong in the USA (perhaps anglo/american cultural sphere in total). It seems something the vast majority of 2.0 land is not to keen on looking in to.

Secondly there is this:
http://www.mousemail.com/

MouseMail -> protect your kids -> advisor on board = Frank Luntz (GOP strategist) -> Bill Bennett = advisor (Form Bush/reagan administrator)

It seem that doing stuff instead of just rethoric seems to be finding it’s way more and more in the political arena. Is this the future of political campaiging?

Political branded utility and co-creation, while making money and creating voters out of consumers and consumers out of voters?

Looks the ultimate campaign moneymaker, bypassing any possible lobbylaws as the line blurs between voter and consumer and producer..

Thirdly there was this:

http://www.google.com/crisisresponse/egypt.html

Seems like a action guided by the State Department more than some internal mantra. Now if Google start doing stuff like this in countries like USA to give a voice to police brutality and other stuff, I will eat my words.

But they won’t..This flip flop picking of sides all the time is what politicians and celebs do. And it is gonna cost Google at some point. Net neutrality does not mean that the net is a-political.

On the contrary. Just like the web is one massive confession, it is also one massive vote based on values.

Google does Data, not social and all the human stuff that comes with it. They should not start now, or their Switzerland position (we just create good search results) is done and then all gloves will come off.

Things are gonna get interesting now that the business of social/and co-creation is demanding a show of (political) colour, which leads to the hypothesis about business, communications and politics for the coming decade:

Increased segregation under the veil of curation based on preference. Which will only be overcome by fooling people.

We are going to have to start bullshitting (again), to get passed the bullshit, if we want to get things done.

How Societies Fail-And Sometimes Succeed-

admin — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 05:18:21 +0000

Amongst the many things identified by Diamond, again we see the use of wrong analogies that frame our actions and perceptions of success, or lack thereof. The fact the talk is four years old, yet not dated, adds to its urgency, to me at least.

Howerever you like your tea, this talk should touch some of your interests/concerns. Again, it runs a bit long, but contains enough gems to keep you watching..