“The genie is out of the bottle,” says Bruce Philp branding guru to ING Direct and co-author of The Orange Code. “Advertising is not branding; it’s just a thing a brand does.” And mostly it’s just showmanship—and the dazzle isn’t enough to cause consumers to become loyal to your brand. 

The big question is: How does advertising fit into your marketing mix? Here, in the first of a series of interviews, Philp digs into the answer:

Brand & Strategy: What do you mean by “disingenuous” advertising?

Bruce Philp: Consumers know that you have chosen to don a costume and mount the stage to try to affect some sort of cognitive event. Advertising is, by its very nature, a contrivance. It’s not our brand’s voice, and everybody knows it.

So how should an organization integrate advertising into its plan?

Advertising has to work authentically within this consensual understanding and respect it. Marketers and advertising people both need to let go of the idea that a purchase decision is an event, and to think of it instead as the end of a process. Then remember what advertising is actually good for in marketing strategy terms.

And what is that?

With so many other ways to influence the consumer’s decision making process, advertising could hardly be said to sell anything–at least not very cost effectively (Snuggies aside). But it’s very good at beginning the dialogue that might lead to a sale (what advertising people rather dryly call “awareness”). Advertising can knock on the door, suggest an emotional promise relevant enough that the consumer might open it, and then be respectful and interesting enough that they’ll leave it open for the next opportunity to influence them.

I think that advertising should be purposed specifically with that in mind.

Any caveats about advertising?

We need to both expect more from advertising, and less: More in the sense that it can and should do better than just amuse people, and less in the sense that it shouldn’t presume to be able to go from zero to closing the sale in 30 seconds (Snuggies, again, aside).

If I were going to knock on your door to sell you a vacuum cleaner, I wouldn’t put on a puppet show in the hope that you’ll like me so much you’ll buy my Electrolux. Nor would I open by throwing the machine at you and screaming that your floors are filthy.

Advertising is a powerful and important tool for marketing. What’s changed in the last few years is that advertising is now a more specialized tool. Keep that in mind, and its inherently disingenuous nature will never be a problem.

The new consumer chooses your brand (product or service) if they believe what the brand is saying is true. It’s a selective—and an emotional—choice. Marc Gobé, author of Emotional Branding, Citizen Brand, and Brand Jam (www.emotionalbranding.com) discusses this historical shift and how your leadership style must change to accommodate different expectations. 

Brand & Strategy: We’re awash in brand clutter from the last three or four decades. How does that clutter shape the way people make buying decisions?

Marc Gobé: We are back to reality and normal branding, not excessive branding. The past six or seven years, there was an uncontrolled rush towards money with no principle whatsoever. I don’t think I saw any real branding for a few years. The money was there for the taker. Business upheld a ‘grab it’ strategy rather than trying to make an effort to bring consumers towards their brand.

One of the expressions of the excess was the illegal billboards in New York and L.A.

Is there a fundamental shift in the minds of consumers in how they approach spending?

As Baby Boomers head for retirement, they are going to be spending less. Right behind them is Generation X, comprised of 47 million, which has lost the buying power that Boomers had. The millennial generation brings a whole new set of values. Their concerns are going to be the environment, and they are clearly looking to conserve energy and buy less; they’ll be a lot more sensitive to the impact of their buying options.

People are choosy; they are not free-spenders. The challenge for businesses will be to give them freedom to buy their brand. That’s real branding. The biggest revolution, though, is people being able to talk to each other about brands.

How is that different from a generation ago?

The new media technology has made it so that the success of a brand is based on how open they are with these consumer communities. Consumers have a personal relationship with the brand; they have to believe what is being said.

In reading about the founders of Google and Twitter and Facebook, I found that these people all have one thing in common: They aren’t Jack Welsh – the iconic former GE leader! They got rid of the emperor complex. What’s interesting is that most colleges still train under the Jack Welsh theory.

What makes them different?

The new leaders expose themselves to criticism. They are open to dialogue. That is a new culture, which is the social media culture.

Take the CEO of Zappos.com, for example. At 31, he makes one dollar a year, even though he heads a large company. When he Twitters, he exposes himself: This is who I am, these are my finances, this is my business, and these are my values. He creates an open dialogue. He makes you feel like he knows you. He’s with his consumer. It’s a model of fairness, personal accreditation, and personal engagement.

Brands, then, are defined by authentic leadership?

Yes – where the reputation of the brand is strongly connected with the owner and how much people like them as individuals. It’s about humanizing the brand. That means a leader of the company Tweets: I’m locked out of my hotel room because I closed the doors behind me and I cannot get back into my room. That’s human, and we can relate to that.

The new generation seems to crave that, but what about the Boomers?

The Baby Boomers were trained to believe in any kind of dream that was offered up. They were told there were no limitations to dreams. It was about limitless opportunities. And they were willing to compromise their integrity for the acquisition of material goods, because those material goods defined who they were.

Now we are at a point of finding out that there are limits and that some of the dreams that were referred to us are unattainable. Hence, leadership has changed. People don’t want to hear that you’re going to take them to the moon. They just want you tell them who you are.

In a sense, brands have been lying to us for a long time.

Of course. But to be fair, everybody was on the same page. Somebody tells you, “I love you,” it’s not exactly true, but it’s kind of nice to hear. The game was played, and accepted–and it was good. And why not? Because really, there was not a lot of risk playing that game…until it got out of control. Think of the movie Wall-E: The younger generation is like robots trying to fix the mess. And consumers don’t want to be deceived anymore.

If you promote your company as green but at the same time you’re suing the state of California because you don’t want to abide by their emission standards, people are not going to buy your brand.

So how does an ordinary organization apply this shift to their marketing?

The new media technology has made it so that the success of a brand is based on how open they are with these consumer communities. Consumers have a personal relationship with the brand; they have to believe what is being said.

Who of us hasn’t heard employees and co-workers murmur, whine, or even holler, “Work sucks!”? 

To rally morale as well as results, consider a Results-Only Work Environment (or ROWE). In this environment, people can do whatever they want, whenever they want, as long as the work gets done. Work isn’t someplace you go to, it is something you do. And it doesn’t have to get accomplished from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Sound too good to be true?

Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson, authors of Why Work Sucks and How to Fix It, successfully led the Corporate Headquarters of Best Buy, a Fortune 100 corporation, through just such a change, which resulted in improved employee satisfaction, increased productivity, lower turnover rates, and greater efficiency.

In the last edition of Brand & Strategy, Ressler and Thompson discussed the benefits of – and the objections to – a Results-Only Work Environment. Click here to read the first interview.

Here Ressler and Thompson share how to face the challenges of adapting to a new work foundation–and why this radical system actually works.

Brand & Strategy: Why deconstruct the old foundation of work?

Ressler and Thompson: The old way doesn’t work.

With ROWE, we’re setting up a new foundation that actually fits with technology advancements and the demands of people’s lives in the 21st Century. The rules, guidelines, and processes in office environments today are relics of the 1950s. We’re holding onto them hard and fast, at the cost of people’s health, families breaking apart, stagnant business results, etc.

And for what? To ensure that people are following the rules and we can keep the paternalistic leadership structure in place.

Time to break it apart and create the new game.

How have organizations with paternalistic leadership responded to your “13 Guideposts for a Results-Only Work Environment”?

Upper management generally freaks out. And rightly so: the Guideposts were created to intentionally provoke this response. The statements are extreme and buck the status quo like nothing management in Corporate America has ever seen.

We like to say that ROWE is the litmus test for leadership in organizations. They’ve been talking until they’re blue in the face about how much they trust employees, want to support their work/life balance, set the right foundation for them to innovate, and on and on. Then when ROWE and the 13 Guideposts come at them, they back down and say they’re “not ready.”

It’s about “walking your talk”–and most leaders aren’t up for the challenge.

Who is up to the challenge?

It takes a strong, courageous, progressive leader to say yes to ROWE and the 13 Guideposts. We’re working with some of them now, and we know there are more out there. And they will be the leaders of the future.

Why doesn’t ROWE work for some organizations?

Anxiety and fear.

During the process of converting to ROWE it is possible for leadership to make the decision to not move forward. They let their anxiety about giving employees autonomy get the best of them, and they call everything off. This is a very poor decision.

Why?

The message to employees is loud and clear: “I don’t trust you.” Once employees know about ROWE and that they’re moving toward this liberation and freedom, you can’t rip the rug out from beneath them without serious consequences.

It can be extremely detrimental to morale, productivity, and ultimately the bottom line for a company.

However, for those teams that commit to the entire ROWE process and fully embrace it, there’s no going back to the old way. Brains are rewired, and it would decrease productivity to return to the old way.

How long does it take for an organization to adapt to ROWE?

The process for this adaptive change is very important. Each step is carefully timed to allow the culture to evolve at the right pace. Going too fast or too slow can have significant ramifications on the work environment and productivity.

So the timeline for this change really depends on the size of the organization.

Organizations of less than 100 employees can go through the ROWE migration process in two months. Organizations of 500 employees can go through the process in about four months. Larger organizations take an approach where they go department by department; it can take between a year and three years for organizations of 1,000 or more to go through the process.

Once teams have gone through the change strategy, it can take anywhere from 6 months to 18 months for individuals to feel like they are “ROWE.”

You talk about “Sludge” – the caustic comments made by coworkers when you walk in late or skip a meeting that reinforce old ideas about how work gets done. How do you eradicate Sludge?

The biggest hurdle to eradicating Sludge is actually fighting the internal Sludge we all have.

Surprisingly, the Sludge that exists among employees – “Can you believe John came in at 10:00 this morning?” or “There goes Nancy to pick up her sick kid – wish I had a kid!” – is the first to leave the environment as we implement the Environmental Sludge Eradication Strategy.

The Sludge that lingers feeds off the internal guilt people have about the way they should be working, where they should be at certain times of the day, and how they should be letting co-workers know where/when they’re working. We call this “should-ing on yourself.”

Why do we hold on to this “should-ing”?

Because of the years and years of work beliefs that have been drilled into us, it’s very uncomfortable to behave in a way that’s counter-culture. To go grocery shopping on a Tuesday morning goes against everything we’ve learned about how work needs to happen. To leave the office at 2:15 p.m. and not tell anyone is scary to most people. To sleep in and intentionally skip rush hour traffic (and not tell anyone) is very odd.

The internal Sludge of “I should be working right now” or “I should tell someone where I am right now” goes away slowly, but it takes time.

Dream jobs are as elusive as winning lotto numbers. Besides, in today’s economy, just having a job may be your greatest financial asset.

In this exclusive Brand & Strategy interview, Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson, authors of Why Work Sucks and How to Fix It, make the case for a new strategy for managing for results in your organization.

Brand & Strategy: You use the acronym ROWE. What is it?

Ressler and Thompson: ROWE stands for “Results Only Work Environment.”

It’s a strategy that gives employees freedom to work anywhere they want, without the constraints of a work schedule.

Sounds idealistic. What is the most common “Yeah, but…” argument to a ROWE?

“Yeah, but how will we know what our employees are doing in a ROWE?”

This question uncovers what we find in every office environment: No one actually has clear, measurable goals in place. The leaders think they do, but when time is taken away as a measure of employee efficacy, they’re completely lost.

The beautiful thing is that everyone in an office environment feels this pain. The entire environment hungers for clear, measurable goals.

So your vision for job flexibility actually forces organizations to set up measurable goals?

Yes, employees know they have to be able to show what they’ve produced rather than just how much time they’ve put in. Managers know their teams are going to be evaluated on results and results only.

Discussions about goals become two-way: both managers and employees work together to come up with them–and they have to be measurable. Performance discussions happen all the time instead of just being an event every six months or once a year.

How do you measure the success of a ROWE?

The key metrics include productivity, retention, engagement, and business growth.

The first non-profit in the county to migrate to a ROWE, Girl Scouts of San Gorgonio Council, saw improvements in all areas after six months. Key findings included:

• The percent of employees reporting “good” or “great” “work-life balance” increased from 18% pre-ROWE to 93% post-ROWE;
• The percent of employees reporting “good” or “great” “focus when working” increased from 54% pre-ROWE to 95% post-ROWE;
• The percent of employees reporting “good” or “great” “efficiency when working” increased from 54% pre-ROWE to 98% post-ROWE;
• The percent of employees who report that “ROWE makes me less likely to look for another job elsewhere” is 100%; and
• The organization’s voluntary turnover rate decreased from 16.25% to 9.75%, saving the company approximately $25,000 annually.

Are smaller and newer organizations more apt to give the autonomy ROWE promotes?

Ironically, many of these organizations have been started by people who left Corporate America. Without even knowing it, they set up their companies to operate just like the corporate environments from which they came.

We find that smaller organizations have many of the same cultural attributes and beliefs as larger companies: those employees that work long hours are more dedicated; the best relationships are built face-to-face; meetings are the default/best way to get work done; and, work happens in an office building from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, to name a few.

How has the economy affected organizations’ interest in, or experience of, ROWE?

ROWE has been proven to increase individual and team capacity, therefore dramatically increasing productivity. It’s also been proven to be a sustainable change, unlike other “flavor of the month” approaches that companies institute.

If there was ever a time to step outside your comfort zone and try something new, it’s now. What do you have to lose?

It’s a simple idea, but not simplistic.

“Audiences want to hear ‘the story’ of your facts,” says Garr Reynolds, author of Presentation Zen: Simple Ideas on Presentation Design and Delivery.

That takes restraint, preparedness, and creativity. Here Reynolds talks about how to connect to your audience through your presentation.

Brand & Strategy: What defines an effective presentation?

Garr Reynolds: I do not think in terms of performance, I think in terms of conversation–about how to best have a conversation or discussion about a subject with the audience.

The presentation is always about the message. The focus isn’t how I can make things easier for me; it’s how I can make the message more meaningful, relevant, and memorable for the audience.

Why do people fail at PowerPoint presentations? 

Because they hide behind a list of facts or talking points. Many do it in an effort to ensure they have covered every possible base. But this isn’t best for the audience.

Facts, data, and information are plentiful. But a successful presentation brings more to the table. You want to connect the topic to the audience. And to do this, you must provide analysis, insights, and stories that back up your data or your case.

Why does the narrative approach sometimes fall flat?

Because it is irrelevant or off-topic. All stories must come back to support your underlying message. We remember stories and examples, but if they are not relevant or are not understood, they are just noise.

Are videos effective?

Relevant video clips work very well. I often use them to bring in other people to the talk (via the large screen) or to show actual examples from the field. They help tell the story for me.

But they can’t be superfluous.

When appropriate, they effectively illustrate your point: showing examples, bringing in other voices, and breaking up your talk in a way that adds interest.

What’s your advice for giving presentations without technology—going “analog” as you call it?

The same principles of Presentation Zen apply. If the approach did not apply to analog presentations, it would not be much of an approach.

Always keep in mind: Restraint in preparation; simplicity in design (or structure); and, naturalness in delivery.

I often only use a whiteboard. Some of the best talks I have heard have been delivered with only a whiteboard (or no visuals at all).

If it is only a small gathering of people around a table, slides on a screen are usually not necessary. It depends on the situation and the objectives, but for smaller meetings, it is usually enough to have some handouts and a good conversation around the table.

If you need to illustrate an idea, then use the whiteboard.

So you must evaluate the audience before you develop a presentation?

Yes, understanding your audience is key. Before the presentation, get as much information as possible about the audience and their expectations.

I think one always has to be careful of making claims without evidence to back it up, but this is especially true if you’re dealing with an audience that is accustomed to “seeing the numbers”—or the proof.

It’s also important to understand the culture of your audience. If I am speaking to a Japanese audience, for example, I give lots of examples and I provide a lot of time to respond during discussions.

Make sure you know who you are speaking to.

It’s pretty, but is it effective? 

According to Peter Phillips, author of Creating the Perfect Design Brief, design should be less about aesthetics and more about successfully messaging to your target audience. Here Phillips offers advice on what you need to keep in mind when delivering design:

Brand & Strategy: What is the most common mistake made by the client when working with a designer?

Peter Phillips: Keeping the design professionals separated from the decision makers. It is common for business managers to think of design as a support service. But in a well-functioning organization designers are strategic partners in business.

Project managers do not know all the questions that need to be answered. Designers need to be interacting with project managers, sales people, the target audience, and final decision makers.

Keeping designers in the “back room” doesn’t lead to the best design solutions.

What is the ideal environment for producing great design?  

A good analogy would be that of a patient-doctor relationship. In order to find solutions to a health problem, a patient must tell their doctor everything and then trust the doctor—who has specialized training and experience—to recommend the best treatment plan. Clients need to partner with the designer—and then trust their expertise.

Does the design process change based on the design deliverable?

Absolutely. The process is different if you’re designing a product rather than a poster. “Web design” has become a term used to describe the work of web developers and coders- not design professionals. But nowadays, web design is more important than ever for all kinds of organizations as more people go to the Web to gather information and make purchase decisions.

How critical is it to design with feedback from your target audience?

You can’t rely upon the opinions of those within the organization. Immediate family members are not good judges of a baby’s beauty. They are simply too close.

You don’t need to spend a lot of time or money on market research and testing. Just tag along with your sales people or talk to customers who come into your establishment. Show them the design concepts you are developing and get their reaction. After all, those are the folks for whom your design project is intended.

You point out that aesthetic design isn’t necessarily the most effective design. What do you do if internal voices don’t “like” the most effective design?

You cannot allow personal opinions to drive the design process, because they are not relevant. You must determine what design is the most effective at addressing the business need.

If someone says, “But I don’t like red.” You must be prepared to make a case for why red is the most effective color to meet the business need (e.g. it evokes feelings of strength in the target audience).

How do you measure success?

At the end of a design project you cannot objectively measure the greatness of a design, but you can measure its effectiveness. A design that meets the business needs laid out at the beginning of a design project is a success!