To stand out in today’s marketplace, you need to be remarkable…
Seth Godin gives us a wonderful, insightful talk on the importance of – and what ‘s required for – being remarkable. And while the video says the taping of this presentation took place a few years back, the message is as fresh and valid as ever.
A recurring theme has been emerging in my world quite a lot lately. In talks over the past several months with colleagues, in twitter posts directed to Seth Godin’s blog, and most recently in a conversation over lunch this week with Milton Glaser who has unarguably seen and done it all, combining art and business with unparalleled success.
The theme? It’s all about relationships. Here’s my quick take on it, with regard to the graphic design business (or any business, for that matter):
………………………….
In this day and age of computer savvy, a glutton of designers and a climate of economic strife, it’s no wonder many artist’s and agencies are having a hard go of it lately. It could be there’s too much talent and not enough demand, as everyone – from individuals to families to small businesses and large corporations – is holding tight to their purse strings.
But in any business climate – whether it’s booming or equilaterally depressed – three key elements always reign supreme: creativity, quality, and relationship.
An unfortunate side effect of a distressed economic environment such as the one we’re experiencing now, is that some media-buying decision-makers may opt for mediocrity, somehow aligning their efforts with the mood of the times – the sense of “lack” or “needing to do without” – by shopping around for the lowest price, regardless of creativity, quality or relationship. It’s easy enough to do nowadays; just google graphic design and hundreds upon hundreds will come up.
What can also happen in this kind of situation though, is that while it’s still possible to find creativity, and still possible to find certain levels of quality, relationship may well be left out of the equation. And that particular absence can kill a project, or make people wish it did.
Despite all the wonders of online connecting, the enormous choices and competitive pricing available, if you don’t like the people you work with, it can be a miserable experience. It boils down to the old adage of being a pleasure to work with.
You can be as creative as DaVinci, with the quality and craftsmanship of a Frank Lloyd Wright; and likewise, you can be a brilliant business mind with a world-changing product. But regardless of whether wallets are open or whether they’re closed, at some point human nature always plays its card – and wins.
Some Artist’s Say “No Thanks.”
Who doesn’t love Google? It’s friendly, fast, smart, practical and has established itself as an indispensable tool. It’s the undisputed King of search engines. But in June, word spread about a Google offer that many top illustrators felt they could refuse.
Exploitation? Good business? A dishonorable trend? Welcome exposure? … What do you think?
Read about it here in the NY Times.
Mixed messages are rampant, and their effect is usually one of two things: confusion or fear. Both of which can lead to a state of suspended inaction. What are people to think these days? A little clarity please, would be nice, if not wise.
The jumble of words and images slung at people day after day begins to resemble a garden overgrown with weeds. Hopefully, most folks can clear away the tangled messaging and find some sense among the vines. Something that is what it is, and means what it means.
Here are a few tangled messages that come to mind:
There’s nothing to fear, but if we don’t fix this problem there could be disastrous effects.
My door is always open, just please call first and not between 8-4 or 5-9.
This new drug will cure your disease, but it may kill you.
Isn’t it fabulous? There are now 2545 channels on tv and you can watch them all day everyday, even all at once!
And then, perhaps thankfully, some mixed messages elicit humor. (What were they thinking?) Unfortunately, they still have the fear/confusion factor in play. (Apologies to Mr. Rothenberg, but one must admit this image hardly elicits optimism.)
I like a good riddle as much as the next person, but if it’s not meant to be a riddle, please don’t go there! A little extra thought is well worth the investment of time, especially if it avoids a tangled mixed-up message.
… thoughts for the uninitiated tweeter …
Twitter, Tweeting, Tweetchat, and Twerbose (my new favorite). It’s all the rage and has folks everywhere, well, all a-twitter.
I’m just getting my Twitter legs, but already I can see that it’s a pretty cool tool.
It took me a while to fully climb on board this latest and insanely popular networking train. I was among the many reluctant people who “don’t get it”, but still feel intrigued – or societally pressured – to find out what it’s about.
It can easily be seen as another time-waster, another thing on the to-do list, and for what purpose? And there’s the bit about “following” people, and they in turn following you, which basically means you can see what they’re up to via small word chunks. But really, besides friends and family, who honestly cares what I did today, or what I’m thinking or what I had for lunch?
Then folks began using it for business. Which made me wonder how anyone gets their work done between blogging, tweeting, linked-in-ing, facebook-ing, plaxo-ing and the scores of other online ways to connect.
Turns out though, it’s not the great intrusion I thought it might be. It’s actually a valid resource, as well as a way to expand contacts tremendously and easily. It’s a very open, uncomplicated place.
You can make short announcements, write brief words of wisdom, share a website, a book, a video – whatever is on your mind. You can use it to promote, learn, grab an idea. See what the President is up to. Receive inspiration. Chime in on tweetchats of interest. All very quickly. Because it caters to “soundbites” (small bits of info), it doesn’t take much time to update or to scour through others’ tweets.
Of course, you can ignore it, too. Up to you.
But one thing is for certain, tweeting is evolving. What started as a social mechanism has also become a business medium and a news medium. There are new uses being created by Twitter users all the time – which makes it feel very alive and adaptable.
Signing up is about as painless as it gets. Jumping in is a piece of cake. It’s what’s happening. And it’s actually pretty tweet.
http://twitter.com/saxtonstudio
I realize this entry may not win me many friends in the Pharmaceutical advertising world, but I just have to ask – is anyone else weary of pharmaceutical commercials on TV? Or is it just me? I find them incessant, often offensive, and insulting to one’s intelligence. Here’s why.
On the rare occasions when I do actually turn on the tube, 9 times out of 10 one drug ad or another is right there with me. Spewing an idea that if you haven’t already had a particular set of horrid symptoms related to some nasty ailment, you soon, undoubtedly, will. And then you will need such and such medication. Which may or may not make you feel better, and which is almost guaranteed to cause an interminable array of god-awful side effects, even death.
All the while, happy medication-takers are shown walking through sun-dappled gardens with ever-so-pleasant music splattering the background reminding us how wonderful we can feel if we take such and such drug – compared to how completely awful you must feel, or will inevitably feel, without taking said meds.
Number one, I’m irritated that these ads are on when I happen to turn on the TV, which isn’t often. Which causes me to think they must be on a lot more than I realize. They are incessant.
Secondly, I find the bulk of the messaging insulting. The messages, in essence, tell you that you have, or will have, one – or several – of a variety of problems. (Tapping into the aging boomer generation no doubt, convincing people of the inevitability of ill health that arrives with age.) You will most likely have this or that sickness. You will suffer. You will have to have medication. You need to see a doctor now before it becomes a reality. If you have a hang nail, it could be a serious sign of A, B , or C disease and if not treated, you will be one miserable old coot. It will be far worse to be plagued by the rampant discomforts these meds will induce than to suffer the fear that you may possibly succumb to one of these health dilemmas.
The insult is the assumption that you don’t have a mind of your own. That you don’t have a clue. That you are easily swayed and you will then surely develop the very symptoms they are suggesting. Maybe even sooner than expected.
This is good old advertising at its best. It’s called hypnosis. The power of suggestion. Persuasion. Repetitive messages delivered to reach your subconscious mind, so that doubt and worry set in. Placing the seed of need in your mind. It makes me so angry I could spit. (I’m not sure where that phrase originates, but it feels heated and angry, doesn’t it.) In a nutshell, they are basically selling dis-ease and ill-health.
I am not a fan. And it worries me that people are taken in, convinced. (The ads keep running – must be working?) They will not seek a healthy lifestyle; they will assume they are headed for the worst. They will not consider that the thoughts they think, and the fears they feel, can aid in the manifestation of unwanted experiences. They will believe that they are, or soon will be, very ill. They will need the cabinet full of pills. They will be miserable. Just like the ads’ said.
This presidential race has probably been the most dynamic in my lifetime. All the big stuff is on the table, and everything is important, globally and nationally. Our economy is disastrous, and the atmosphere in America is stressed, pulling between hopefulness and optimism, anger, fear and frustration. Most of us are just trying to live our lives, trying to make sense of the world while going to work, tending our families, paying ever-rising bills; maybe even hoping to make something of ourselves – and right now, hoping we vote in a new leader who will keep our country safe and prosperous, whom we can stand behind with honor; hoping we vote in new leader who will stand honorably behind us.
Also within that stressed climate is this great sense of division. The “left” and the “right”. This divide is killing us. In some circles, depending on whom you support for president, conversation is impossible. I would like to see conversation remain open and lively, not stilled by angry zealots OR by a government that feels it knows how to run our lives better than we do. I’ll leave it at that for now – suffice to say, it’s disturbing. That we need change is true. It’s the direction of that change that concerns me most.
Advocating “change”, along comes Obama. Undeniaby charismatic. Well-spoken, intelligent, strong. An appeal that’s very easy to understand. I like Obama’s sense of confidence, his steady, unflappable-ness. He has spoken about the divisions amongst us, the yearning for change – and one could imagine he might inspire a great surge of coming together, an upliftment to a sagging national spirit, a feeling-good about a strong, united USA. He’s that compelling and that likeable. But what he’s proposing, behind his engaging eloquence, does not speak to me of an uplifted, healthy America.
Here’s the thing. I’m a little nervous. It started with Obama’s beautifully produced “we can change” video several months back. I watched it and thought, wow – this is very cool, very powerful – and seen from the perspective of my designer eyes, some very slick marketing. The initial wow factor I’d felt was instantly replaced with a little distrust. In this age of marketing, packaging is everything. It’s all about branding (I know a thing or two about that), and Obama’s video was a well done, prime example. It was smart, attractive and clever. It was catchy – a simple message, repeated over and over in an engaging way. From a marketing standpoint it hit its mark. It got people’s attention, it reached its audience. I’d give it an A. But once you got past the rich production, the message felt very, well, elementary. …Change. Okay, what else? Change is essential, but change is also inevitable. We’re going to get change no matter who wins the election.
Still, I followed the race with an open mind, and continued to be impressed by Obama’s style. Maybe it’s an idealism I felt akin to. Or was I responding to the marketing of Obama? Or was it his speech-giving skills so blatantly superior to McCain’s (who is far more public servant than great orator). I wanted to know the meat behind his delivery, and the more I listened, I found my concerns growing. One concern being Obama’s lack of governing experience. That he has strong leadership qualities I don’t argue, but I believe he’s very naïve on foreign affairs, which is a lack I find discomforting. Should he be elected, hopefully he’ll have the good sense to surround himself with seriously experienced, savvy, knowledgeable people. And when it comes to his economic plans … I shudder. I shudder, not because there might be “change” – but because the change Obama speaks of does not, to me, reflect any sense of “the American dream”.
Millions of people have immigrated to the U.S. over the past few hundred years. They still flock here in droves, often risking their lives in the process. Sometimes to escape a life of horror or drudgery elsewhere, sometimes it’s to fulfill larger dreams. It’s always to be able to create a better life. It’s always about freedom. This is the land of opportunity, where you can arrive in rags and earn your way to riches. Come to think of it, “earn” is the key phrase there. Except for the elite few, success isn’t handed to anyone. (And even those born with a silver spoon in their mouths can fail.)
I think it’s worthwhile mentioning at this point that the term “riches” does not equal greed. That greed exists, is a cold reality of the ages. But having wealth, in and of itself, does not make someone bad. In fact, many of the wealthiest individuals and businesses in our country are the most generous. Organizations largely dependent on charity – like health and scientific research, public television and radio, educational advances, the list goes on – would suffer without the contributions and sizeable financial gifts from wealthy factions.
That all said, as I understand the basics of Obama’s economic strategy – tax breaks (which could mean any number of things…) would be given to anyone earning under $250,000 a year, and that every individual and business earning over that amount would be responsible to pay more tax then they currently do, to basically carry those who are less fortunate. The idea being that those who “have” should take care of those who “have not”. This might sound like a lovely concept, kind of like family taking care of one another. (And I would hope that we are a compassionate enough people to take care of those truly in need, which I feel is distinctly different from those who choose not to participate.) But there is a huge conceptual flaw as far as I’m concerned, and I feel it’s a damaging one. That flaw is that this is the government, not your family, and this tax plan penalizes people who do well, who’ve worked hard and earned their way to a certain level of stability, while at the same fostering a sense of entitlement and discouraging self-reliance and self-discipline.
I believe that most of us have been raised (whether directly or indirectly, and from whatever economic means we come from) to do our best, to be the best we can be, to use our abilities and achieve something for the betterment of ourselves, our families and our societies. Maybe even the world, if you’re so inclined. Now I hope upon hope that this is not the case, but it seems that a government under Barack Obama all but suggests abandoning any personal dreams of greatness and be content to be one of the flock. Because if you dream big, you might make it big, and then you will, in a sense, be punished. Punishment in the form of no longer having the choice to share your wealth, but being required to do so, and used at the government’s discretion. And on the other hand, if you do the bare minimum you will be rewarded by receiving money, via the government, from a neighbor who has fared better than you have. In my view, this can lead to, and possibly accomplish, an encouragement of mediocrity. And mediocrity is not the stuff of greatness.
Do the majority of Americans really look around and say, hmmm, I want what that person has, so I think they should share it with me? If this is true, then our country is truly becoming sadly and fundamentally troubled. I don’t think this is the case… but marketing can be a powerful tool, with a root interest in convincing people of some need, want, situation or belief. I think we should always be mindful of what we are presented with. And some of what I hear from Obama, though elegantly wrapped, feels like I’m being fed something my gut doesn’t like.
The best US stories are about those who came from nothing and made something of themselves through hard work, grit, passion and commitment. Some have even achieved greatness. Not necessarily a greatness measured by the size of a bank account, but by the elevation of themselves or those around them, whether it be through their minds, their hands, or their hearts. And while not measured by bank accounts, degrees of financial reward often follow. Reward for services rendered as a result of that hard work and commitment. The freedom to attain prosperity and financial stability – this is part of the American Dream, is it not?
And should it be your choice on how your financial reward is used, or should it be up to the White House? Does the government make you a better person by enforcing wealth-distribution? That kind of scenario is not freedom. It is control.
So, why this hard line of delineation proposed by Obama, which further exaggerates a “haves and have-nots” mentality? Instead of expecting Jack to pay for Joe, why not the simple method of contributing tax percentages based on our income levels, which in effect balances our tax input. (For those who do resent other’s prosperity, be comforted knowing that the wealthy already pay the bulk of taxes.) And hand in hand with taxes of any kind, the government needs to be accountable and more responsible with how it spends our money.
Instead of “re-distributing the wealth”, how about putting the focus on continuing to provide opportunity for excellent education and encouraging a social environment conducive to innovative thinking, personal growth and the possibility for all the citizens of the United States to excel, to achieve the American dream, to freely pursue life, liberty and happiness.
I think it’s right to encourage everyone’s best. Let them reach for the stars without Uncle Sam telling them what to do with their success.
Maybe it’s because it’s the end of a work week, but my head is really beginning to swirl. I just received some “must-have” information about LinkedIn – you probably know it, the online networking tool touting more than 20 million experienced professionals and ways to discover inside connections and potentially expand your business in untold ways. And the information I just received is intended to share all the fantastic ways you can make the most of the LinkedIn environment.
But I’m feeling struck by a seemingly raging river of marketing advice out there – mostly the marketing about marketing variety. And everybody, their uncles and maybe even their pets, are jumping on the bandwagon – make that rafts – and make that plural, rafts. I’m not making a negative judgment, because it is what it is, and probably needs to be what it is, but sometimes I get what I’ll call a “New York City” feeling: a sense of stimulation overload.
In this case it also arrives with a sensation similar to desperation, or perhaps anxiety – in the form of a message implying that if you don’t do these things you will not succeed. So you must do these things, and that is that. Join or lose. Fight and wriggle for your place amongst the million others vying for virtual attention. Do, do, do. Share, share, share. Express profundities and hope to be found. Blog it, video it, radio-blog it, webinar it, get the edge. Be everywhere. And the claims are promising; if you do this, and do that, and then do enough of that and that – and if you do all that over and over again – you’ll eventually hit gold.
Don’t get me wrong; the internet is a mind-boggingly wonderful medium. The opportunities for learning and the possibilities for connecting are pretty staggering. But once you dive in to the pool of all-the-marketing-you-need-to-be-doing, it can take a toll on not only your time, but may also take a little piece of your sanity. It’ll swallow you up if you don’t take a healthy break.
This raging river is partly because, of course, no one really needs to see anyone. They can work wherever. But the hope, of course, through all of this internet marketing-you-need-to-be-doing-so-you’re-not-left-behind, is that you do connect, and maybe you will meet, and in the end everyone can make wads of money and live happily ever after. I get that. I also get that people are yearning for connection.
Normally I love learning new tools, finding new and better ways to do things. So, call it Friday afternoon blues, semi brain-dead from filtering through all this stuff … but the onslaught of marketing to-do’s leaves me feeling compelled to simply avoid the frenzy, and approach it more from a zen-like place. Using the Chicken Soup mindset, or The Secret, or a Power of the Subconscious Mind place.
That’s where I’ll be this long-weekend. Not marketing, but “knowing”. Letting the zen of knowing take over, while digging my hands into a delicious bit of garden earth with joyful mindlessness – in between, of course, working feverishly on the illustrations for my next children’s book. (there; was that a good, if not round-about, touch of self-marketing?)
In the end, I know it’s smart to do both – the zen and the marketing. You have to pull back now and then, reflect, affirm your ground and define your goals. But you also have to “do the work”, and be a part of the changing way things are done.
Virtually speaking, that is.
And, yes, by the way, I am on LinkedIn. (Isn’t everyone?)
