I want to write about some things I have been learning about “marketing” but I don’t know how to frame the issue and information in a way that doesn’t turn people off.  That, historically, has been my reaction to “marketing” — makes me think of either high-dollar, high-glitz Madison avenue advertising campaigns or a slick (possibly slimey), fast-talking guy who gives you tips on how to sell people services or goods they don’t need and don’t really want.  (My apologies to my marketing consultants who are wonderful, warm people that don’t come anywhere near close to this description.)

But this weekend I read an article about the intersection of marketing and living in community — a viewpoint  which struck me as quite unique.  Dr. Bruce Howard is a professor of business and economics at Wheaton College (my alma mater) and he shares the following thoughts:

“In graduate school, I was surprised by the first course I ever took in marketing.  Like most people, I thought it would be about sales and advertising and learning how to convince people to buy your products.  I could not have been more wrong.  It turned out to be mostly about the practical arts of building community.  I was expecting a perspetive that was primarily individualistic and self-centered, but learned that true marketing always takes the spotlight off me and focuses it on others.”

Dr. Howard then cites Theodore Leavitt’s article, Marketing Myopia, from the Harvard Business Review in 1960 (yes, that date is correct), where Levitt states that business “is a customer-satisfying process, not a goods-producing process.”

This actually cross-sects with Michael Gerber’s statements on marketing in his best-selling The E Myth Revisited (the “e myth” is that most businesses are started by entrepreneurs; in fact, most businesses are started by technicians and service providers who think they can “do better”).

Gerber emphasizes two key aspects to marketing:  1) know who your customers (or potential customers) are (demographics);  and 2) know why they decide to buy (what he calls psychographics).  He restates the classic line, “Find a need and fill it” to “Find a perceived need and fill it.”  Gerber then argues that, for companies to be successful in marketing their products, companies must gather information about who their customers are and how they think about things.

He gets a bit intense when he states, “[I]t is absolutely imperative that you forget about your dreams, forget about your visions, forget about your interests, forget about what you want –forget about everything but your customer! When it comes to marketing, what you want is unimportant.  It’s what your customer wants that matters.  And what your customer wants is probably significantly different from what you think he wants.”

Now, back to Dr. Howard with his thoughts about marketing and living in community.  He states:

“I … discovered that building the business enterprise is about creating a community that is linked with other communities for the purposes of enhancing mutual welfare.  When people join a business, they don’t just want a job .. they want to be part of something greater than themselves.  They want to be part of a community.”

He then asks a key question:  “If business is supposed to be so community friendly, why does it feel so highly individualistic?”

He then discusses the current values driving much of the Western world’s marketplace — what is best for me (individually)? What costs the least for me (individually)?  Dr. Howard then argues that effective enterprises must also be intentional about the values they bring to the marketplace, including the value of community.
It reminds me of social entreprenuership — developing businesses that also have a positive social impact as part of their mission (for some great information on social entrepreneurship, go to www.socialimpact.com).

Part of my interest in “marketing” is how I see it all around us, in almost every sphere of life.

• The political process and all of the media communication surrounding Obama, McCain, et al.
• The bombardment of advertisements in virtually every “screen” media — the Internet, watching a movie, television, email.
• In people making daily life decisions — about cars, about food to eat, where to eat out, what movie to see, where to go to college, clothes to wear, where to go for professional services.

Secondly, I recently had an article in my community’s newspaper about a service I provide (a non-medication intervention for individuals with ADHD), and I was amazed at the amount of communication that resulted from this one “blip” on the marketing / information scene.  The story about a teenage girl who was significantly helped in her life by this approach seemed to touch people and they responded.

I guess I have a number of threads that are starting to come together in my mind (and don’t seem to be especially well-articulated yet!).  Marketing seems to be largely about the same things relationships are built on:  clear communication, understanding the other person and their point of view, trust in communication, providing accurate information, responding appropriately.  Maybe that is why, as I am coming to understand what marketing is, it intrigues me.

This weekend I had the privilege of facilitating a family meeting in Northern California with a family I have known for over six years, and we had a great time together. I returned home yesterday afternoon, and as part of my recuperation and re-entry into the family process, my family and I watched a movie together last night. For those of you who have been reading for a while, you know of my penchant for animated movies, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that we enjoyed a movie from that genre’ called Ratatouille.

After enjoying the movie together, I found an interesting clip on the special features of the DVD called “A Conversation with Brad Bird and Thomas Keller”. I hit the play button and we watched an interesting interview with Brad Bird, who was the screenwriter and director of the film and a leading animation movie producer for Disney, and Thomas Keller, the famous chef of The French Laundry restaurant in Napa, CA. What followed was a discussion with each of these successful creative entrepreneurs regarding the principles that they believe have led to their success. Some the principles were overtly stated, others are observations I gleaned from the discussion.

Early work experience. Both Mr. Bird and Mr. Keller described a period of time in their childhood and teenage years where they began working in their current area of expertise. Mr. Keller worked in the kitchen of his mother’s restaurant while growing up, and Mr. Bird entered a contest for animation when he was 11 years old. He won the contest, and with it, the opportunity to work alongside the animators at Disney studios.

Mentoring. Both men indicated that a crucial factor in their professional success was the process of being mentored by their elders in the profession. Mr. Bird’s mentoring occurred naturally with his work in the Disney studios, while Mr. Keller took proactive steps to seek out and work under successful artistes in his field, initially in the N.E. United States and then in Paris.

Commitment. Each man both verbalized directly and reported life stories about the level of commitment needed to be successful. Success does not come from a “hobby” approach to one’s profession, and requires the sacrifice of long hours and focus.

Emotional connection with clients. Interesting to me was the common factor of emotional connection cited by both professionals. Getting into the mindset of one’s clients was a key process in their creation of their products. They attempted to visualize and “be with” their clients in the experience of partaking of what they had created. And they wanted their clients to feel the passion and emotion they put into their creations. (Do they teach that in MBA programs?)

Quest for perfection. Mr. Bird and Mr. Keller distinguished between “perfection” and “the quest for perfection.” They gave numerous specific examples in their work where they were “gently demanding” of those with whom they worked. They try not to be purely demanding in an ogre-like manner, but do try to push their colleagues: “That’s great! But if we just …, I think it will be even better.”

Coaching others. Within their own creative processes, it was clear that neither of these pillars within their fields see themselves as an island, or that they had created the success on their own. Rather, they understand the necessity of working with team members collaboratively, and even more so, saw the need and responsibility to coach those with whom they work. Mr. Bird stated that the goal is to “coach those beneath you to bring out their greatness.”

Work with a sense of urgency. Even though both men are artists, they clearly did not espouse a laisse faire approach to the artistic process. They communicated the need to have an atmosphere of urgency within the workplace, and that this aura actually brings energy to the creative process. In fact, at Mr. Keller’s restaurant they have a sign posted in the kitchen which says: “Sense of Urgency.”

Don’t over-control the process. When working collaboratively with a team of professionals who are talented in their own right, it is important for the creative director (or business leader) not to over control the process. Mr. Keller and Mr. Bird cited the need to ask for and listen to the input of their colleagues, realizing that they do not hold the patent on all good ideas.

Find delight in what you do. Finally, (and this was their concluding thought), to be truly successful in what you do, you must enjoy it. You must seek to create a product (or service) that delights you. When you make something that brings you pleasure, then others will find delight in it, as well.

The movie (Ratatouille) itself is fun. But the lessons and hearing the passion in these men’s voices as they share the lessons they have learned is even more valuable. Enjoy and learn!

“Networking” is obviously not only about trying to use relational contacts to find a job or find a quality person for a position you are trying to fill.  We use our social networks for a variety of purposes — finding quality professionals or technicians for tasks we need to get done, locating charitable organizations that are good stewards of the monies given them, or learning about areas of life we have limited experience or knowledge.  Since my article / blog on networking, I have had a number of people talk to me about their own networking experiences, and I have had a couple of unique experiences as well.

I also remembered an issue of Forbes magazine, their 90th anniversary issue on May 7, 2007, which they dedicated to “The Power of Networking”.  However, they were discussing networking in the broader context of networking through the Internet (Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and other professional networks.)   One of the articles discussed some of the reasons people are reluctant to network.  I thought they were worth mentioning, along with some of my own observations.

People don’t like to network because:

  1.  It takes repetitive inititative.  Calling people, sending emails, going to social events to interact with others, setting up appointments — all take time and emotional energy.  And for some people (those who are more introverted) it can take a lot of energy.  It wouldn’t be as bad if we knew that the process was time-limited or defined according to a certain number of contacts.  One of the wearing aspects of networking is its open-ended nature and that we must continue reaching out to others repeatedly. 

  2. It can feel “fake”.  Networking can feel artificial and even manipulative when you are trying to connect with others for the sole purpose of getting your need met (finding a job, making a sale).  One antidote to this objection is to always include as part of your interaction to focus on what you can do for the other person.  Seeing how you can help them be more successful, or connecting them with resources you know, can normalize the interaction (and also build positive rapport that may be helpful to you at some later point in your life).

  3. There is a lot of anxiety associated with the whole experience.  Meeting with people outside of your normal social group challenges us in many ways.  We may not fully comprehend what they do, understand the language and acronyms they use, or feel competent in their social milieu.  Additionally, it is often awkward to ask for someone else’s time, knowledge and social connections, especially when we perceive the other person as important, successful or busy. 

  4. It is easier to network with those who are like you.  This is true, but generally speaking, meeting with people who are already in your larger social network will probably not be that productive in generating new and different types of connections that you wouldn’t be able to reach on your own.  If you are networking because you have a need, often your self-confidence is shaky, your emotional energy is low and it is more natural to make “easy” contacts rather than those that will stretch you, but which may yield greater benefits.

I myself, a highly social individual, get tired of meeting, greeting, social chit-chat, making requests, responding to requests, and reaching out to others.

The other night, at an awards banquet for non-profit organizations in our community, my 24 year old son sat at the table with my wife and I, and a number of business friends.  Our friends were asking Daniel about his thoughts on Facebook and MySpace — how they impacted relationships and his general impression of them as a social tool.  After sharing a variety of observations, he reported one of the challenges of the social network opportunities available now through the Internet is that “you can only keep up a certain number of relationships.”  This is a true statement, whether you are taking about Internet connections or face-to-face relationships.  Obviously, some people have more social capacity than others, but this is a limiting factor I think we need to keep in mind for ourselves (to help us have realistic expectations of ourselves) as we continue to connect with people in our daily life interactions.