I have been a fly fisherman for 30-plus years. Even lived in Montana for a couple years and in Colorado for several more.

Yet, I’m still breathlessly average in every aspect of the craft.

As part of my mid-life journey, I’m currently reading Gary Borgor’s, Fishing the Film. I can do better than a C minus, right?

The film is the few molecules of skin that constitute the surface of the stream or body of water.

In general, trout feed on nymphs bouncing along the the bottom of the river. And on emerging insects a few inches below, in, or on the film:  the water’s surface.

Thus, the importance of the film for fly-fishers.

Insects start out as eggs at river’s bottom. As they mature,  they rise to the surface, eventually pushing their way through the film and becoming a full adult that sits on the surface and eventually flies away, if not eaten or crippled. To live for a few hours to mate. And then to die.

A short (unhappy?) life.

Predator’s advantage

Borgor says that the #1 job of a fly-fisher to think like a predator. In the animal kingdom, for example, lions become experts in their prey by watching their movements.

In contrast,  humans read, take a class, gape at a computer screen for a webinar. That’s helpful. But not nearly enough.

The most productive activity is to observe your prey. And thus the problem:  “Unfortunately, humans almost never want to spend time observing,” writes Borgor.

That requires patience. And a genuine interest in the subject.

What a prospect cares about

Borgor’s comment made me think of prospects. The application is not that prospects are prey. They are not. And if you think they are, you have bigger problems.

The takeaway is the importance of more deeply understanding the people who you want to join your cause or service. They don’t think like you. Nor are they thinking about how smart you are. Or that you “deliver results.” Or that your organization is “global.”

After years of meetings, proposals, and presentations, I have concluded that prospects are not thinking of me or my firm at all (at least not in the way I obsess about me!).

They think about themselves. Period.

And the more questions I ask, the more I am able to “observe” them.

A prospect recently paid me an off-handed compliment as we stood up to leave after lunch: “Normally I’m the one doing all the listening,”  he said. “Thanks for letting me talk today.”

Observing can lead to trust.

I like coffee, and I’m not a snob.

I enjoy Starbucks, but I’ll drink almost any other brand, including drip from a greasy spoon.

In recent years, I’ve stopped dreading our stops at McDonald’s for our kids while traveling to and from our vacations. When McDonald’s got serious about coffee a few years ago, it put Starbucks on notice. I read the recent Harvard Business Review interview with Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, and he had sharp words for his lower-cost competitors:

“… McDonald’s and Dunkin’ Donuts were on the very low end. Let’s characterize them as willing to do anything to capture or intercept customers – free coffee, coupons, say anything, do anything. We respect them as companies, but we didn’t respect their practices.”

I thought that part of the interview sounded a bit whiny. It is business, after all.

Recently, I witnessed McDonald’s “interception policy” firsthand while on a weekend getaway with my wife.

We stopped at an interstate oasis about a hour from our home. In addition to the gas station, the rest area had several shops, including Starbucks and McDonald’s. The two were less than a dozen steps from each other.

If you were standing in line at the Starbucks, however, you couldn’t see the McDonald’s counter, because it was around a corner.

But McDonald’s had put up a visually engaging menu on an empty wall that Starbucks customers saw while standing in line to order – its interception policy.

The first thing I observed: the latte that I planned to order from Starbucks was almost $1 less at McDonald’s!

See the two photos.

I would argue that McDonald’s creative for their menu is more enticing than is Starbucks’.

I toyed with the idea of stepping out of line at Starbucks to walk around a corner to McDonald’s but didn’t. I bought at the premium price. But as soon as I began drinking the latte, I thought, “What am I thinking? Why am I paying more for the same thing?”

I’m not sure that’s the power of a brand. It may simply be a testament to my laziness. Either way, Starbucks won that afternoon.

So can the premium (high cost, high perceived value) survive in a down economy?

Melissa Parks, CZ’s editorial director, thinks so: “The reason I would NEVER buy a latte from McDonald’s is because I associate everything that McDonald’s produces as artificial. Case in point: their Chicken McNuggets. That’s not real chicken. So, when I contemplate drinking a latte, I question if it’s going to be a real latte, or if it’s riddled with all that artificial stuff that keeps their costs down.

“Another reason I would never buy a McDonald’s coffee is because I look at the moms on the playground who drink it, and (I’m being completely honest here) I don’t associate with them. Their experience, based on my prejudice, is not my experience. If I began drinking McDonald’s coffee, I would belong to a different tribe – a discount tribe, and one I really don’t want to be part of. I like being part of the Starbucks tribe – even if it means not drinking a cup every day. I’d rather have a Starbucks latte a couple times a week than a McDonald’s latte every day.”

Customers in North America are finnicky, aren’t they?

I have a 13-year-old whom I love every other day.

I pray that someday my affection will get back on schedule, once pubescence wanes.

On the off days, he toys with my emotions. He messes with my head. I carp that he should quit skateboarding, since he broke his index finger in his pitching hand while trying to skateboard across the railroad tracks. Yes, the railroad tracks. He’s out for much of baseball season.

He counters that I should quit my business because it interferes with my coaching responsibilities for my 8-year-old son’s baseball team.

I am not able to follow his logic, but therein lies the problem: logic and a male 13-year-old do not go together. It is logical, however, for him to sneak a peek at himself as he walks by the dining room mirror.

The other night, in one of his “I’m smarter than you” modes, he asked, “Dad, how much did you pay for that web site you created?”

He was referring to the social media community for new nurses that our team from CZ designed and built several years ago.

I was about to say something fatherly and loving like “None of your business,” when he added, “By the way, I just created a web site for my English project. The teacher said we could create a website or a PowerPoint, and the web site looked easier. Take a look!”

I was reminded by the innocent hubris of my oldest that one of the biggest barriers to communicating on the web is gone. The tools of technology have been created for 13 year olds.

Now, contrast that with the fact that the law firm that created the incorporation documents for my business back in 2000 just sent me an enewsletter. Now how “old world” is that? It was the firm’s first digital communications in 9 years. Not all organizations are part of the sea change.

The real question with all marketing technology, of course, is always strategy. Should you really Twitter?

Or is it an exercise in narcissism? Are your thoughts worth 140 characters of attention?

Is the busyness of social media (monitoring a Facebook fan page, for example) really a good investment? Or, given the scarce resource of time, should your staff be calling your student prospects by phone?

The devil of technology is not so much in the details but in the strategy.

Over the past decade, I’ve digested pretty much every book and article and blog that you can imagine on the subject of branding and marketing.

I’ve also interviewed by phone or via email many best-selling authors on aforementioned topics.

I learn something new from each one.

I tend to take away more from the conversation with the author than I do reading his or her book. When you ask the author to clarify a point in the book or give a specific example, often you strip away the flabby writing from the nugget of insight. Most books should be only an article in length. But the publisher wants at least 250 pages, so authors write to fit the book-length medium.

In some marketing writing, though, there’s a common thread that annoys me:

It’s as if the authors all went to the same convention, identified all the “successful stories” and then starting writing. Here are a few of the wake-me-when-they-are-outdated marketing stories:

• Facebook (still looking to make some real money in social media);
• Google (the big dog on the block; who can argue with its success?);
• Starbucks (closing 600 stores soon; see our interview with John Moore: http://www.czmarketing.com/brand/);
• Apple (the brand with design panache);
• SalesForce.com (the clunky convenience of online CRM); and
• Kiva (the creative online micro finance nonprofit).

Before the above, there was:

• Krispy Kreme (now a not-so-hot stock);
• Dell (trying now to reinvent itself);
• Amazon (now just another boring stock); and
•Too many others to mention.

What’s hot is touted as the pinnacle of truth for marketing your organization: “Just follow the marketing principles of this hot company or you will become irrelevant and die a thousand deaths.”

No one writes those words, but that underlying schtick is occasionally assumed in the writing.

Here’s my grumpy point: Growing an organization is hard work. It’s tedious, sometimes monotonous. Not very sexy. And it takes much longer than you think. And just when you think you’ve got it figured out, the demographics or economics of your prospects change. Then you’re forced to regroup and make adjustments in real time.

No doubt Starbucks and Google and Apple have lots to teach the rest of the world. But it’s important to strip out the bravado from the principles and ask the real question: What, if anything, is really relevant to our situation?

Maybe the most important purpose of reading about today’s hot companies is to inspire hope. Growth is possible. Our future can be brighter than our past.

Several years ago on a late Saturday evening, my wife let out Cassidy, our golden retriever, into the backyard to do her business.

As part of her late-night liturgy, Cassidy scratched the door to be let back in, and when my wife opened the door, the dog flew past her into the family room. And so did a stench that burned the hairs in your nostrils. I arrived on the scene about 10 minutes later and I swear I could almost see a faint haze in the house. Cassidy had been sprayed by a skunk. In fact, as I gave the dog a bath in tomato juice and dishwashing soap 30 minutes later, I saw the stream of skunk fluid on the coat of Cassidy – a direct, close-up hit. Golden retrievers are not known for their intelligence.

By the time Jana got the dog back outside, the house had absorbed the smell. It took 2 weeks from that night for the smell to work its way out of the house, thanks mainly to lots of fresh air.

About a week into the 2-week ordeal, I awoke and sniffed and thought, “Hey, I think the smell is finally gone.” But when I returned at 6 PM later that day, after 10 hours at work, I entered our front door, greeted by skunk-smell. I suspect that even our clothes reeked of skunk for a time.

Here’s my point: The longer you’re in the house, the less you can smell the odor.

That’s also true of marketing. The longer you work at the same thing, the less you are able to see what’s not working. That’s why continuing education is so important. That’s why you outsource. That’s why you read. That’s why you hire staff with different experiences.

The attention of our prospective clients is in scarce supply these days. Arresting their attention requires that we don’t grow accustomed to the smell.

You can’t trumpet something you’re not. Or, rather, you can, but good luck. You won’t have much of it. There’s no befuddling your potential clients.

According to Harry Beckwith, author of, among others, Selling the Invisible, and You, Inc the positioning of your organization demands authenticity. CZ President Dave Goetz interviewed Beckwith on why consumers buy into “true stories” and how to position yours:

CZ: What does positioning entail?

Harry Beckwith: To establish your position successfully, you must consider two things—how you are seen and how you want to be seen. From there, you measure the gap between the two. Then you can determine how to get to your end goal. Positioning is about moving that perception.

How do you obtain the best position?

There’s no such thing as an inherently superior position. The tendency is to reach to be “the best.” The superior product. The superior service. You can’t because “the best” doesn’t exist. However, each position has strengths and weaknesses. Part of positioning is being mindful of your inherent weaknesses.

Take cell phones, for example. What’s a superior cell phone? To some people, it’s the iPhone, because it’s colorful and does a lot of stuff; it’s even prestigious. To others, the iPhone’s features represent a whole lot of things that can screw up their work. They don’t even want a camera in their cell phone.

So it’s about staking a desirable niche, in which people will catch something really positive—and giving up on this notion of superiority.

Can you change an established position?

Yes, but you can’t position yourself as something you’re not or cannot be perceived as. It’s a waste of energy.

The most vivid example is when Gerber tried to market adult food. The mind didn’t allow it. Frito Lay tried to do lemonade. They produce salty and crispy snacks, so your mind won’t allow you to drink Frito lemonade.

The stronger your identity and the stronger you’re identified with something, the less able you are to be perceived in any way different than that. So it really depends of how flexible your brand is. How far does it stretch?

How does branding relate to positioning?

Positioning is about your message being perceived in a consistent way—like “sexy,” “fast,” “reliable,” or “safe.” Branding reinforces that single message as well as the nuances and subtle sub-messages that come within that.

I always use branding to describe all of the activities you engage in to reinforce your message. And an enormous part of this is your internal activities. Your staff activities create a sense of authenticity. For instance, if you’re a wealth management firm and the assistants are cold and ruthless, then chances are a warm, friendly service message will hurt you rather than help. It will raise expectations, and you won’t meet them. You have to deliver that position—you have to do what you promised.

How often should you change your position?

Re-positioning yourself demands real changes, not just cosmetic ones. You need confidence in your investment so that you will stay with it for a long period of time. When that position succeeds, you continue to build on your investment.

Take, for example, a University with a well-established School of Optometry: “Okay, we are known for optometry, how might we grow from that? You start to consider adding specialties closely related to optometry—audiology, for example, or other subspecialties in health care. You might offer health care administration in the general university—in short, growing from your strength into closely related areas that expand your offering. Whatever you do, you must begin your strategy by asking, “For what are we known?” And then ask how you can build on that, add to it, and grow.

Good marketing is rooted in good communication: It is concrete, not general. If you’re general—a little of this, a little of that—you’re not strategic. You don’t have a bona-fide, authentic position—and people will perceive it that way.

Branding is no longer limited to groceries or cosmetics.

According to James Twitchell, professor of English and advertising at the University of Florida, nonprofits—even cultural or educational institutions—need to brand in the same way profits do. He discusses three specific nonprofits in his book Branded Nation: The Marketing of Megachurch, College Inc., and Museumworld.

B&S: What is Branded Nation‘s contribution to the concept of branding as storytelling?

James Twitchell: I’m an English teacher, so storytelling is different to me than it is in the commercial world. Essentially, storytelling generates feeling. Commercial storytelling applies this emotionality to a thing as opposed to a human character. It may be a story about Coke as opposed to Pepsi or McDonald’s as opposed to Burger King. But we’re connecting to sensations, not objects.

Do you agree with the notion that branding is first and foremost about the spirit of a product or service?

Yes, especially in relation to luxury products. They’re ordinary things that have been spiritualized. They’re just shoes, handbags, purses, scarves, ties—things you could buy at Kmart. “Luxury” is the only thing separating them (the quality might be superior, but not always).

Marketers have tapped into the human response to religion; owning these designer products feeds our need to feel special or redeemed.

Explain the Diderot Effect and how it relates to brand coherence.

According to the story, Dennis Diderot, a seventeenth century French philosopher, bought a new dressing gown. Since his old furnishings and clothes didn’t match his fancy new gown, he decided to buy new ones—and replaced everything from wallpaper to paintings to slippers.

This phenomenon is part and parcel with modern consumption. You buy the Armani shirt, and then you have to have the Louis Vuitton purse and the Prada shoes. In other words, things fit together in constellations and ensembles.

How do you recommend older nonprofit organizations rediscover the essence of their brand?

In the realm of branding, there’s no difference between colleges, museums, philanthropies, and Proctor & Gamble. As long as you have a large number of suppliers in the market, the process of branding inevitably follows. The story you tell is the experience you provide. You separate yourself not by the product, but by the spirituality, which is the branding.

I often write about how to rise above the noise in how you communciate with your clients or customers. This time, I thought I’d give you 4 ways to train your folks to ignore you:

1. Think along the lines of 1966: “We just need to send something out, it doesn’t matter what.” You would have thought this thinking would have died around the time of the Bay of Pigs debacle. It hasn’t.

2. Everything is important. That is, you refuse to prioritize what you want to communicate to your constitutency, so every message has the same sense of urgency. Or, rather, every message has the same non-urgency.

3. Use the web like it’s still 1996. Ignore more than 10 years of knowledge about how and why people use the web. A good example of this is adding a blog to your web site when you have nothing interesting to say. Gulp.

4. Expect branding to generate sales. Branding and positioning can give you focus. But you still have to do something. You still have to create a marketing plan. Hopefully, your new branding strategy will translate into DOING something differently. Branding alone, without a strategy to do something new, is an excercise in narcissism. Branding is a word that means nothing these days.