Listening: A Strategy and Change Blog | Hosfeld & Associates

Noticing the gap between what consumers say and what they do.

Recently the radio industry was rocked by the results of using new listening measuring devices to monitor listener behavior. Called “People Meters,” the devices “listened” to the sound in the room of the person wearing them, and recorded what stations they picked up. Prior to the use of these devices, people kept journals of how many hours a day they listened to particular stations. What people reported was that they listened to National Public Radio stations and classical music stations. What the People Meters revealed however is they were actually tuning into easy listening , oldies and country western stations. This is something like reporting that you read National Geographic, Scientific American or Town and Country magazines, when in fact you’re actually reading People, Cosmopolitan or Seventeen.

The difference between what we know we should do and what we actually do is something that smart marketers have noticed for a long time. It’s a lesson many forgot in the dot.com bubble days when focus groups asked people to evaluate whether or not they would use a certain Web technology in the future.

The Hartmann Group, a Bellevue research firm, has explored the gap between our so-called “new thrift” and the actual purchase behavior of many consumers. We clip coupons for the grocery store, but then go out and buy an iPhone. This phenomenon helps us understand why people report that sustainability is very important to them, but their purchase behavior doesn’t necessarily confirm it.  Read more here.

“The greatest danger in times of turbulence is not the turbulence; it is to act with yesterday’s logic.”
— Peter Drucker

By Kathleen Hosfeld

Freeze and wait. That’s been the reaction of many to this time of economic uncertainty. While that works for animals who camouflage themselves in their surroundings until danger has passed, its wisdom only goes so far in the human marketplace.

This strategy assumes that the “danger” will indeed pass, and that things will “get back to normal.” Early signs, however, suggest that the old status quo has been disturbed permanently. How much consumer and corporate behavior will change for good remains to be seen. Many agree, however, that this crisis has changed them in fundamental ways.

In this time those that are thriving are doing something fairly counter-intuitive. They are moving in the direction of their hearts, and doing the things they long to do. As a result, they are stepping out of stagnant eddies into places where new energy and activity are flowing.

I recently watched a short film called Lemonade that tells stories of people in the advertising industry who used their layoffs as a call to action. By unleashing the power of what was meaningful to them, their lives and careers were redirected in important ways.

Around Thanksgiving 2009, I wrote a small blog article titled “Let the Beauty We Love Be What We Do.” It’s a challenge to counteract fear with a move toward what we love.  What do you feel called to do? Now is the time. Take your own career or your organization in a direction you have always longed to go. It may not make sense and yet it’s the right move.

Yesterday’s logic is to focus on the numbers – the numbers you can hit or the numbers you can earn. The new logic is to find the place where you can make a difference, the place that is meaningful to you, and let that energy carry you forward.

No-cost places to start include:

• Watch the Lemonade movie.
• Read the blog article I wrote and spend some time thinking about the beauty that you love.
• Reconsider your value propositions for key stakeholders.  Are they compelling to you? Do they speak to your desire to make a difference in the world?  Use our free value propositions worksheets for this exploration.
• Start a conversation in your workplace around the question: “How do we want to make a difference at this workplace, through this work, or using the assets and resources we have available to us?”

I’m interested to know what changes you decide to make. Let me know.

By Kathleen Hosfeld

By a small miracle, I took part in a recent phone survey conducted on behalf of a local grocery chain that has recently built a new store in West Seattle, where we live. I say it was a small miracle as I’m usually screened out right away because of our work.  For some reason, they didn’t ask, and I didn’t tell.

As a result, I offered what I hoped to be really helpful information for the survey. I was somewhat taken aback when the interviewer called me again minutes later to say that some of my answers “didn’t fit their categories,” and her supervisor wanted me to  please provide responses that fit their categories.

What they wanted to know is who had the 1) best bakery, 2) best produce, 3) lowest prices. The answers that I gave that didn’t fit their categories had to do with sustainability.  One of the things I told the interviewer is that I choose my grocery stores on how easily I can walk to them.   I told her that organic produce was important to me. One of the things I would also tell them – but didn’t have the chance — is that I choose my grocery store on its citizenship, its support of local farmers, and the amount of local produce it offers. None of these criteria fit their survey. Within walking distance of my home, I have three stores that offer great examples of these qualities. They have great bakeries and good produce. One has low prices.

I realize that I am what they call an “outlier” – someone not in the mainstream.  (Or maybe I am in the mainstream but no one is measuring what matters to me, so there’s no data to back this up.)The lesson for companies: listen to the outliers. Give them a chance to give you an answer you don’t expect.  By ignoring the unusual, you may be ignoring the new paradigm that will change your industry forever. You may be ignoring a chance to see where your market may be going before it’s too late.

By Kathleen M. Hosfeld

It’s not what Seth Godin may have said. It’s what someone else heard in what he said that I found intriguing. In a recent radio interview, a Seattle entrepreneur quoted Godin, a celebrated marketing author, as advising people to refine their strategies when times are difficult. He said Godin had written that it’s difficult to steer when one is going swiftly down-hill (i.e. when times are good). That much I’ve been able to confirm is Godin’s advice. The interviewee went on to say that it’s when you’re on the uphill climb (visualize riding a bike uphill)  it’s time to focus on the right destination. So far, I’ve not been able to find where Godin says this exactly, but I think the entrepreneur has the right idea.

Many of us are seeing signs that the economy is improving, although long-term forecasts for jobs and therefore consumer spending predict a long recovery process. For this reason, now may be an excellent time for companies to invest in clarifying their value propositions and refining their competitive strategies.

What’s your personal value proposition? What’s the value proposition of your firm or its products or services? The term value proposition, like many, gets tossed around fairly indiscriminately. When we use it we mean a value propositions formulated according to a defined process.  A formal value proposition can be a useful tool for clarifying and stating what you offer, who you serve, what benefit you create and how you are different from other resources available to customers. Clarifying the value proposition allows firms to identify what is extraneous, what can be cut without compromising what keeps customer relationships strong, and what strengths to leverage.

For those who may never have created a value proposition before, or those who need to refine theirs, we offer a worksheet to guide your reflection.

Research becomes useful in two key places of establishing or refining a value proposition. The first place is understanding the benefit or value you create for the audience. Many a company has mistakenly offered a benefit to an audience that the audience didn’t fully appreciate. Companies that failed during the dot.com bust offered a value proposition that users didn’t want. It’s important to use research to see from the audience’s perspective how the firm, individual, product or service can create value.

The second place research is valuable is in defining the difference between your offer and that of the competition or substitutes. Many service firms and service professionals don’t know how they are different. Some firms don’t know the importance of defining that difference. Sometimes it takes research or an outside evaluation to determine how you are different, or how to build more unique advantage into what you offer.

Social and environmental benefits or differences are emerging as important criteria to all stakeholders as the economy recovers.  If your prior value propositions have not addressed them, now is a good time to review and update them.

By Kathleen M. Hosfeld

Companies engage in sustainability initiatives in stages.  Starting small, and usually with operations-oriented steps, companies’ first experience with sustainability is focused on saving money.  Creating new revenues from sustainability happens at deeper stages of engagement.  At these deeper stages, marketing, which may have been only peripherally involved before, now plays a strategic role in creating new opportunities to fulfill sustainability’s potential to the company and to stakeholders.

We’ve written before about the various stage models of sustainability engagement and how marketing shows up at each stage. In the early stages, when companies are experimenting with waste, energy and resource management issues, their focus is on cost savings. This doesn’t translate well to marketing action, although in some rare cases, such as Cisco’s used equipment recycling program, it can become a new line of business.

Changes in the environmental features of products and services that occur in the middle stages of sustainability engagement can prompt marketing departments to redefine their respective value propositions. They can also activate marketing’s promotional, publicity and public affairs capacities to manage perceptions around green washing (allegations of superficial claims of environmental benefits).

At the deeper levels of sustainability engagement, where companies seek to fully integrate sustainability into product and service design and business model development, marketing plays a strategic role. At this stage, the ability to research and interpret customer wants and needs is essential to tapping the top line potential of the commitment to sustainability. It’s a significant opportunity for marketing to make a strategic contribution to the direction and focus of the organization.

Team-Based Innovation Planning: Baking it In

Up to this point, the changes the company has been undergoing are technical changes. You can hire a consultant to help you conduct a lifecycle analysis, measure your carbon footprint, advise on resource, energy and waste strategies.  But redesigning and re-imagining whole products, services and lines of business from a sustainability standpoint is “adaptive change.” At this stage, sustainability has been bolted on, now the task is to bake it in from scratch. It’s probably not something that anyone in the organization has done before. As a result, executives assembling and commissioning teams to do this work need to consider how best to convene, commission, guide and support them.

Start from the Future – In the September 2009 edition of Harvard Business Review, R. Nidumolu, C.K. Prahalad, and M.R. Rangaswami write about research they have conducted with 30 companies integrating sustainability into their operations. “Don’t start from the present,” they advise.  Rather, start from a desired future state and work back. When Hosfeld & Associates works with clients on these issues we like to start with the question: “What is the change we want to see in the world because of our work?” What business should we be in as a result?

Feed the Process With New Insights – At this stage of sustainability engagement, customers and other stakeholders can play a co-creative role. Effective design and implementation of customer and stakeholder research can tap insights that will feed the innovation process. Marketing specialists on the innovation team best help other departments interpret research and learn how to understand customer needs.  Great ideas can also come from anywhere in the organization.  Effective approaches to sustainability innovation will tap the hidden genius of the organization.

Build Engagement From the Start — The result of the planning process will be a strategy that must be implemented. As my colleague Ron Benton says “to be effective, strategy has to be constructed and owned by those who execute it.” This means creating cross-functional teams across organizational silos that can work together to solve complex problems. It also means creating opportunities for engagement during the planning process with those who may not participate directly in it.

Mitigate the Challenges of Change – As an adaptive process, strategic sustainability innovation has the potential to create anxiety. It’s important to anticipate the anxiety of change and provide innovation teams with new tools. Building the team’s capacity to have fearless, frank and authentic dialogue and move quickly through areas of disagreement is fundamental. This means using conflict and resistance as tools for learning. Clear objectives and metrics can also provide guidance and support for making good decisions, assuring engagement and supporting execution.

Keep It Moving – If the goal is competitive advantage, strategic sustainability innovation can’t get hung up on internal turf squabbles, or get squashed by the tyranny of day to day operations. Organizations seeking this type of advantage must support teams with clear direction and the resources to keep it a top priority.

——————

If you are interested in knowing more about how to integrate marketing’s capacity for innovation with your sustainability initiative, please contact us.

Check out the Sustainability and Innovation edition “How Green Will Save Us” Harvard Business Review

Sustainability and the Path to Transformed Marketing

By Kathleen M. Hosfeld

Many are the challenges facing today’s marketing practitioners as they seek to cultivate relationships with customers in a volatile economic climate.  As a chief point of contact between the company and its customers, marketing is a place where trust is either won or lost.  As many consumers cut back on spending, trust is one of the critical factors underlying purchase decisions. But research shows that decades of intrusive, coercive demand-creation efforts have created layers of resistance that are now compounding companies’ woes.

Is sustainability a business strategy than can transform marketing practice and begin the process of rebuilding trust? Sustainability, for the purpose of this article, is the management of an organization’s performance in service of financial, social and environmental objectives, with the intent of meeting “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (Brundtland World Commission).

Transformed marketing is the emerging model of marketing practiced by high-integrity organizations, a subject I wrote about in The Transformation of Marketing. The relationship between transformed marketing and sustainability depends on the ultimate goal of both initiatives – for businesses to operate profitably in ways that create benefit for many diverse stakeholders.  In early stages of sustainability adoption, however, this shared interest may not be quite as evident. As engagement with sustainability deepens, the qualities of transformed marketing begin to appear.

What are the Stages on the Road to Sustainability?

The notion that organizations implement sustainability in stages of increasing engagement is held by a variety of consultants and thought leaders.  The Leadership of Sustainability, a study authored by Pat Hughes, (to which I was a contributing analyst) offered a five-stage model of sustainability development based on interviews with leaders from diverse companies. The five stages in that model were:

• Stage 1: Values (Awareness) Develop the will to take action.
• Stage 2: Action (Experimentation) Begin with a single project or experiment.
• Stage 3: Deepen (Systems Thinking) Explore implications of sustainability for all operations and decisions.
• Stage 4: Sustain (Resource Commitment) Commit to comprehensive plan with resource allocation (management focus, money), tracking and reporting.
• Stage 5: Learning and Advocacy (Sharing) Leadership and advocacy in industry; continuous learning.

Since the publication of The Leadership of Sustainability, at least two other staged models have been published highlighting different aspects of organizational engagement with sustainability. Peter Senge’s organization offers a model that describes the emerging “drivers” that push organizations deeper and deeper into engagement. Avastone Consulting offers a model that describes similar stages of engagement from the perspective or organizational perspectives or “mindsets.”

While not in exact agreement, these three models offer a surprisingly congruent picture of increasing degrees of intention and engagement.

Marketing’s Transformation on the Sustainability Road

Each stage of engagement with sustainability presents its own marketing challenges and opportunities. See Diagram. Large Format PDF Early engagement with sustainability is focused primarily on operational and administrative changes that reduce waste and conserve energy. The primary goal of most companies in the early stages is to save money.

At the Awareness Stage, marketers become conscious of consumer interest in “green” products and the role of environmental and social issues in purchase decisions. There’s also increased interest in cause-related promotion events that may have an environmental or social justice focus.

At the Action Stage, companies’ experiments with sustainability may not yet translate well into promotional or brand messages. Still, marketers begin exploring how to leverage the value of these experiments for marketing purposes.  They start to explore “green marketing” techniques (those tactics that have an environmental impact) and  eco-branding (building environmental values into brand image). They may explore the process of publishing sustainability reports, and take more concrete steps toward refining product/service line value propositions based on social, environmental factors. At this stage, they are also concerned about accusations of “green washing,” in which companies are accused of promoting superficial efforts of sustainability merely for their image/PR benefits.

At the Deepen Stage, however, both the organization and its marketing team are invited into the initial stages of what may lead to deep change. At this stage, the leaders we studied began to see the interconnections between their operational waste and energy strategies and “everything else.” They started to see the impact of such changes on their vendors or suppliers.  They began to see the potential response from community partners. They start to see the opportunities for collaboration in the community and industry to accomplish sustainability goals. According to other models, at this stage, companies also begin to see the opportunity in developing entirely new business strategies that integrate sustainability. Here we see a form of stakeholder marketing start to take hold as companies realize they have to manage increasingly deeper levels of conversation with the community, vendors, suppliers, and industry colleagues, not to mention  customers.  New business opportunities begin to emerge as companies realize consumers’ interests in seeing social and environmental criteria integrated into the company’s core products and services.

As a result, marketers who step up to the challenge may find themselves with new opportunities to lead conversations about the redesign of products/services for social, environmental factors and articulation of new pricing strategies.  Design and pricing conversations lead invariably to engagement with standards and certifications that assure truthfulness in marketing claims. As they begin to appeal to customers with sustainability oriented values, they’ll also be challenged to re-evaluate marketing tactics that are perceived as coercive or intrusive. And as companies grapple with multiple stakeholders and holding financial, social and environmental values simultaneously, they may determine that the metrics they’ve historically used are no longer adequate.

The Shift from Technical Change to Adaptive Change

As companies and their marketers continue to deepen their engagement, the changes that they are asked to make move from technical change to adaptive change. In technical change, we don’t fundamentally alter how we work. We add knowledge; we make incremental improvements in what we are already doing; and we stick basically to the strategies we’ve been using.

On the journey to sustainability, as in the path to transformed marketing, there’s a point where we are asked to begin to think differently about how we work.  Fundamental assumptions are challenged. We embark on new initiatives and enter new territory where few have gone before us. We have to take risks and learn together.

At the Sustain level of engagement, for example, marketers that have never before had to account for externalities in their pricing or product design strategies must now reframe the entire cost/value proposition of products and brands. An externality is a cost that occurs as a result of a commercial transaction that is not directly paid for at the time of purchase (the cost of waste disposal of an obsolete machine is one such externality).

Embracing the rationale for why companies should account for externalities is the right thing to do is a radical reframe of the role of the business for many. At this stage, companies also commit resources to developing strategic partnerships and fostering internal and external collaborations that bring additional expertise to bear on specific tasks.

At the Learning/Advocacy stage, companies are beginning to hit their stride in sustainability and are thinking about their businesses in fundamentally different ways than they did at the beginning of the journey. Sustainability is not something they “do,” it’s part of their core identity. As a result, marketers are often engaged in processes to rebrand and reposition the firm and its offerings in light of this full commitment. Additionally, companies are increasingly seen and act as thought leaders in their industries – advocating for sustainability practices, and sharing knowledge about their experiences.  Creating open standards and sharing expertise, rather than protecting company secrets for competitive advantage, is one of the adaptive challenges  of this stage.

Arriving at Transformed Marketing

At the Deepen, Sustain and Learning/Advocacy stages, we see an acceleration of change that results concurrently in transformed marketing. Changes that took place prior to these stages were necessary precursors to the adoption of transformed marketing. These changes raise the three key issues we previously outlined in The Transformation of Marketing:

Embracing a Systems Perspective – Companies began to embrace a systems perspective at the Deepen stage. An emerging web of relations and interconnections – in customers and markets, in the dynamics between community groups and strategic partners – continues to unfold for them as they gain experience.

Creating Social Good – By this stage, sustainability is less about something the firm does to make money, and has become more a way of life. The intrinsic value of building social good into the purpose and mission of the organization has become self-evident.

Living the Brand – The alignment of values, strategies and operational practices has advanced much more deeply, and as a result the company’s brand and image has authenticity and integrity. Trust is often a core brand value, and the company’s promotional practices are measured against that value.

At this stage of engagement, the coercive, intrusive, unethical and wasteful practices that undermine marketing have been eliminated by engagement with the values of sustainability. Additionally companies have cultivated relationships with stakeholders that allow for timely feedback on whether company practices are compromising brand promises or shared values. This feedback allows the company to self-correct more quickly and restore balance and integrity to its marketing practices.

The Road Less Travelled

The current business and political interest in sustainability makes this path toward the transformation of marketing likely the road more travelled.  Some companies that currently practice high-integrity marketing did not get there via sustainability, but rather through an ethic of care for all people they touch in their day to day interactions.  As I wrote in The Transformation of Marketing “we are fortunate in this time that research… is confirming their collective hunch that a seemingly radical commitment to marketing that works for all also turns out to be a good way to make money. “

As always, we invite your comments, experiences and stories. Please write to us.

See the related article: Fulfilling Sustainability’s Potential: Growing the Top Line – about the role of marketing in creative strategic sustainability innovation.

By Kathleen M. Hosfeld

Creating improvement in performance, marketing or otherwise, usually involves change. Many of us are keenly interested in any thing that creates positive change faster and with lasting results. So, I was intrigued when I  read that the science of neuroplasticity has some implications for how individuals and organizations can change. The headline: Focus on Solutions Instead of Problems.

This is something I thought I already knew. In the spring of 2007, we worked with a non-profit board focused on generating earned income from events. In researching what would increase attendance at their events, we tapped market research that explored how similar organizations and similar events elsewhere managed to do well. But one board member was flummoxed. “Why didn’t you research why people don’t come?” he asked.

We had, in fact, studied the surveys that talked about reasons people don’t attend events like his. In fact, the Executive Director of the organization had ordered and studied three white papers on why organizations like theirs had failed. I read those, as well as national studies on the challenges of similar organizations.

In order to turn things around, we had chosen instead to look at best practices of what others had done to solve their problem. What solutions were out there? What was already working? Having practiced “appreciative” approaches like this to marketing for quite some time, I was pleased to learn this fall that the implications of neuroplasticity for creating change in organizations supports this approach. The study of neuroplasticity concerns how the brain can and can’t be “rerouted” to support new ways of thinking and behaving.

According to an article in the Autumn 2007 Special Edition of Strategy + Business, focusing on a problem (“why does this keep happening?”) builds stronger neural pathways associated with the problem. An appropriate metaphor might be that it wears the ruts deeper in the existing road. Making new ideas possible (and new behavior) starts with focusing on solutions instead (“what will create a different outcome?”). Focusing attention on solutions helps build the short-cut between the road we’ve been on and the road we want to be on. So, focusing on solutions that are working is a faster way to create change.
While the non-profit I worked with did not ultimately adopt all the best practices we identified, the result of the assessment was hope. They had previously convinced themselves that their prospects were small. Now they had compelling evidence that others similar to them were making similar transitions and accomplishing their goals.  Compelled by this hope and a vision of greater possibility than they had imagined, they were able to chart a new course, recruit a new Executive Director and embark on a more successful program.
Focusing what you want to achieve, and new solutions to get there, are the keys to faster change and faster marketing results. The full article on Neuroplasticity is here at the Strategy + Business website:  You must register to read it but registration is free.

An emerging model from high-integrity organizations

By Kathleen M. Hosfeld

The phone rings at our house on any given evening. A member of our family looks at the caller ID. “It’s Evans Glass,” he or she calls out to the rest of the house. The call goes unanswered. This is one of between four to 10 calls we receive from Evans Glass each week. We made the mistake once of talking to someone going door to door offering estimates for window replacements. When we found out that the estimate process would take two hours, we said, “No, this isn’t what we want.” We asked that they not contact us again. They have continued to call. And call. And call.

This is one of the practices that have led to another kind of call – a call to “reform” marketing. These and other common marketing practices “work” for companies – they do result in sales. However, research shows that there’s a long-term consequence associated with intrusive and coercive tactics: cynicism and resistance on the part of consumers. Studies by the American Association of Advertising Agencies and Yankelovich show that from 1964 to 2004, the number of people who say their feelings about advertising have become negative grew from 15% to 60%. Forty-five percent of consumers say that the amount of advertising they are exposed to every day detracts from their experience of everyday life (Yankelovich). Yet, companies are spending more to overcome resistance, doing more of that which created the resistance in the first place. This is a vicious, self-perpetuating cycle.

What’s to stop it? Some believe that more regulation is the answer. While regulation and public policy always play an important role in systems change, a change from within – a transformation – will ultimately reach parts of the system that regulation can’t touch. Pioneering firms have been blazing this trail for almost two decades and research is starting to show that companies that take a higher road are achieving higher returns as a result (Studies by Sisodia, Raj, Jag Sheth, and David B. Wolfe in 2007; Sully de Luque et al. in 2008; Kearney in 2009).

The Emerging Model

Consider this article an introduction to a much wider conversation about how pioneering firms are transforming marketing. To start that conversation, I’m offering a 50,000 foot level management perspective of the model of marketing that is emerging as an alternative to the vicious cycle described above. This includes sustainability and the triple-bottom-line, but this is not a model of sustainability marketing per se. It’s meant to suggest a model of marketing that is emerging in companies who have made sustainability a way of life and are continuing to evolve. I have avoided references to tactical execution and, for now, case histories. I’ve avoided elements that might be more appropriate for specific industries (hard goods manufacturers), and tried to synthesize elements that are universal to all firms.

In working with clients, I often translate assessments into “Key Issues” for the sake of simplifying what must be addressed to accomplish their objectives. Key Issues are sheltering wings under which a variety of other issues or factors can find a home. In the following diagram and text, I frame three “Key Issues” for transforming marketing, and some (but not all) of the factors they represent.

A Fundamental Assumption: The most important difference between companies that are transforming their marketing practice is their interpretation of the purpose of marketing. In traditional practice marketing is about “selling stuff.” This follows the perception of the purpose of the business, which is to create profit. In firms that are transforming or have transformed marketing, marketing is about creating value for stakeholders – not as a means to an end (profit) but rather as the end in itself. Within this shift, profit is the measurement of how well the organization is achieving that end.

Embracing a Systems Perspective – A competence required for this emerging model is the ability to navigate complexity and engage with diverse, complex, adaptive systems. In transforming marketing, this includes issues such as:

Adopting a Multi-Stakeholder Orientation – In transformed marketing, the organization enlarges its focus from stockholders to stakeholders who include investors, employees, customers, partners and society. The intent is not to “manage” stakeholders but to serve them.

Cross-Functional Collaboration – In the traditional paradigm, marketing is frequently siloed and given increasingly tactical focus. In transformed marketing, value creation for stakeholders (marketing) is everyone’s job and requires cross-functional collaboration across departments – finance, human resources, manufacturing.

Industry Collaboration and Partnerships – Organizations transforming marketing are not isolated competitors seeking dominance and hoarding information. Rather they participate in industry collaborations to advance standards or other initiatives for the benefit of stakeholders.

Reclaiming the Marketing Mix – In traditional practice, marketing has increasingly focused on sales and promotion due to an emphasis on measurement. Organizations that are transforming marketing seek to maximize stakeholder benefit through all aspects of the marketing mix (product, price, promotion, distribution/sales). These marketing decisions may not take place in the marketing department per se but through cross-functional collaboration.

Creating Social Good – A radical departure from serving simply the profit motive, to one that says profit is the measure of how much value or benefit the firm creates for stakeholders. This includes issues such as:

Purpose and Culture Founded on Ethics and Responsibility – There’s a constant focus in these organizations around “doing the right thing,” which begins with purpose and a culture that supports ethical action.

Defining Success Beyond Profit – Financial measures are insufficient determinants of success for many organizations who care deeply about their impacts on the environment, on customers, on employees, vendors and more. Whether it’s two, three, four or more “bottomlines” – transformed marketing evaluates success in more than financial terms.

Organizational “Calling” – Those practicing transformed marketing are guided by goals that serve a shared understanding of the organization’s “calling” or intent to create stakeholder (or world) benefit.

Sharing Power in Exchange Relationships – Transformed marketing seeks to create partnerships with stakeholders in which power is shared. This capacity separates these organizations from those that are merely well intentioned, yet feel entitled to cajole customers into decisions that are “good for them” or to “sell what we make” without meaningful input from the customer or market.

Living the Brand – From one perspective brands are “perceptions” that are created to influence purchase decisions. In organizations practicing transformed marketing, however, the brand IS the company, and the company lives the brand. It’s not perception. It’s reality. Branding campaigns seek to create awareness of that reality, not to create it virtually. Elements of this include:

Brand Rooted in Clear Differentiation Strategy – In transformed marketing the brand is rooted in a solid business model that articulates a long-term strategy for creating value for stakeholders distinct from that of other firms. By contrast, head-to-head competition or competition on perception alone reinforces the vicious cycle of promotion to compete, leading to ethical “trade-offs”, and a firm-centric view.

Operations Aligned to Fulfill Brand Promises – The “operational side of branding” means taking the brand deeply into every aspect of the organization. This requires translating the implications of the brand for the day-to-day functions of departments. Representative questions to ask in this process include: What type of person should we hire to reflect the brand values? How does the brand change what our office looks like? How do I need to share information with other departments in order to help them live the brand?

Commitment to Stakeholder Benefit – The “right thing to do” in a transformed marketing environment is a radical commitment to making sure all aspects of brand execution translate into benefit for stakeholders. This includes ongoing reflection and action concerning methods of creating products/services, their features and benefits, the materials they use and the transparency with which the supply chain is managed.

Continuing The Conversation

Although the era of sustainability shines a brighter light on companies who practice marketing in this way, many companies – including ours and our clients’ – have been marketing in the spirit of the emerging model for years if not decades – long before frameworks for sustainability or the triple bottom line were as accessible as they are today. As more organizations adopt social enterprise models and similar forms that blend mission and revenue creation, transformed marketing offers an approach that better fits their values.

Many of the companies who have been pioneering in this model have done so based on the intuitive conviction that it was simply “the right thing to do.” We are fortunate in this time that research, including the studies referenced above, is confirming their collective hunch that a seemingly radical commitment to marketing that works for all also turns out to be a good way to make money. Many today are trying to approach the triple bottom line from a single-bottom-line perspective. Perhaps now there’s enough empirical research to encourage such firms to explore this emerging model more deeply.

There are many stories to tell and many interrelated ideas to unpack as we continue our own exploration. We’d love to hear from you about your experiences, ideas and questions.

Organizations Can Experience the Stress of Change When Implementing New Branding or Marketing Strategies

The dynamics of change are challenging for any organization.  Whether reacting to change or initiating change, the ambiguity and fear of the unknown that go with change create anxiety.  It’s made worse when leaders don’t acknowledge that the experience of change is as important to manage as the actual mechanics of doing business differently. The change doesn’t have to be a merger, down-sizing or process engineering to have significant impact. It can be as simple as creating a new marketing program.

In my work helping clients to explore, identify and implement new marketing strategies I’ve seen the effects of change in a variety of circumstances:

• Addressing declining revenue in a down market
• Implementing a new marketing plan during the transition of senior leadership
• Adopting a new brand strategy as the CEO made unannounced plans to leave
• Developing a new strategic direction when an artistic director and an executive director were fighting for control of an arts non-profit

The lessons that are emerging from these and other experiences reinforce a number of best practices of change management. Emotionally-intelligent and systems-oriented practices help carry organizations more successfully through change.

See the Whole System – A systems perspective is one that recognizes that our current situation is the result of the interaction of multiple elements. There are many lenses through which to see and define the elements of a system. One, the integral model, suggests that there are subjective and objective aspects of human systems. Objective elements are those that can be demonstrated and observed. Subjective elements are thoughts, beliefs and feelings.  Many organizations seek to drive change by attending only to the objective elements. Increasingly however, they are finding that success comes from attending to the subjective ideas, beliefs, passions and perspectives taken by individuals and shared culturally. Attending to those subjective areas – the “soft” stuff – means taking care of the emotional side of change.

William Bridges is known for his simple but useful model that highlights the emotional challenges of change. Organizations beginning a change start with an Ending. From there they move into a Neutral Zone where there is an intentional effort to move to a new end goal. Arrival at that end goal constitutes a New Beginning.

For organizations or individuals who have had change forced upon them, the first phase, Endings, is a phase of grief and loss. Time must be spent at this stage of change to recognize what is ending, and notice what is not ending.  For those who are initiating the change, there may be less unwanted loss, but something must be given up in order to move forward. As painful as this time can be, the next phase, the Neutral Zone, can be even more challenging. In the Neutral Zone, we enter the unknown, a time of new learning, where risks must be taken to find solutions that take the organization toward its goal.

Acknowledge and Mitigate Anxiety — Organizations facing the unknown experience anxiety. The members in these organizations act out their anxiety in a variety of ways. Finger-pointing, blame-shifting, detachment, passive aggression, aggression, and scapegoating are among the behaviors that show up in the Neutral Zone. Trust, or lack of trust, can be a significant factor in change. Many are suspicious of who is behind the change and who will benefit the most. A lack of clear leadership will bring out aggression as individuals seek to impose a sense of order. Perhaps most important to notice is a tendency to personalize the anxiety of change and make friction or problems experienced in the change process a particular individual’s fault.

A variety of techniques can be used to address these behaviors if they arise during the implementation of a new marketing strategy or program. Perhaps the most important step to mitigate anxiety is openly acknowledging it and providing safe places for that anxiety to be expressed.

Leadership Sets the Tone – How is the top leader (or leaders) in the change reacting? Are they anxious? Are they risk-averse? Do they love learning new things and taking on new challenges? If the leader is anxious, the organization will be anxious. If the leader is not clear, his or her direct reports will be unclear. They will believe he or she has a plan and just isn’t telling them what it is. If the leader feels comfortable taking risks and making mistakes, he or she will make that okay for everyone else. That’s important because transformational and adaptive change means stepping into the unknown. Mistakes will be made. That’s how we learn the new way.

So, leaders in change must be aware of their own receptivity to change. Those that are anxious should find outside resources for support and not expect emotional reassurance from their employees. Those leaders who thrive in change need to be sensitive to those who are less comfortable and not label them as “the resistance.”   Frequent communication about the change, clarifying where the organization is in the change process, and providing hope for a positive outcome are some of the greatest gifts leaders can give in a transition.

A more detailed unpacking of the Bridges model will provide additional insights for organizations going through change. John Kotter’s model for leading change in organizations also provides a series of action steps leaders can use to address the points above as they plan and manage the change.

By Kathleen M. Hosfeld, President

Recently, as I was browsing the “management” books aisle at a favorite bookstore, I pulled down a book on marketing and opened it to the first chapter. “Marketing is war,” the author wrote. Furthermore, he said, if the reader didn’t have the stomach for war, then “get out.”

We live in an interesting time in which the structures of one era exist side by side with those of a new one that is emerging. On the one hand we have the “business as machine” and “marketing as war” metaphors. In the early days of the corporation when people were trying to get their heads around how to direct large workforces – which were new to their experience – the only reasonable comparison was the mobilization of troops and resources for war. At about the same time, people were trying to make management and the enhancement of human work performance into a science.That meant breaking down work roles into components, isolating variables and trying to measure them for potential improvement.

But a metaphor is just a lens. Sometimes it doesn’t help us to see all that we should in a situation. Sometimes it colors our perceptions in ways we don’t want. In the last several decades many have been looking for metaphors that reflect the more dynamic aspects of organizations, markets and economies – the parts that seem to elude our attempts to control them. They are looking for metaphors that are more comprehensive than war.

One metaphor to explore is that of “marketing as a garden.” Many have suggested that economies are living systems and bear resemblance to dynamic ecosystems. Let’s make a distinction between a wild ecosystem and a living system that has been shaped by human intention. A garden is a living system that exists because a human being or human beings created it. While we don’t have control over all the dynamics in the garden, human influence determines a great deal of what occurs. Our organizations, markets, industries or economies might be considered gardens shaped by human actions, but still influenced by forces outside human control.

Two interesting ideas emerge when we consider the idea of marketing as a form of tending a garden:

There Are No Departments in a Garden

First, when we look at the dynamics of a living system, we discover that it’s difficult to completely separate all the processes at work into discrete boxes. Managers today tend to make artificial distinctions between marketing and management, finance, manufacturing, research and more. The distinctions will depend on how one defines marketing itself. Let’s assume that our definition of marketing, for the moment, is the actions of an organization to attract and keep customers. We could say that price-setting is a marketing function. But frequently a marketing decision is also a management decision. Price-setting is determined in part by knowledge of what the customer can and will pay. But it is also a management decision that has to reflect the costs to produce and the company’s goals for profit. Product development is another example. The design of a product impacts the customers who will be interested in it; it’s a marketing issue. It’s also a management and manufacturing issue.

The choosing of which customer segments/markets to enter is often reserved for senior management and strategists. This can also be a marketing decision; marketers have experience in the field that helps determine which segments are the best fit for the company’s strengths. Marketing is actually a set of complex, interrelated actions/decisions taking place within a dynamic system. This is mirrored in the nature of living systems, where various natural “sub-processes” serve multiple functions – those that can be compared with marketing and those that are more “management” functions.

One conclusion that can be drawn, and has been drawn already by theorists, is that a system view of business means that marketing can’t be separated from management. The silos we have created between marketing and other organizational sub-systems are artificial distinctions that actually impede interaction needed for the optimal health of our garden/our business.

“Too Much Alike” Increases Intensity of Competition

A second interesting idea comes when we consider the nature of competition in a living system. As some have sought new metaphors of organization, they’ve thrown out the idea of competition completely and replaced it with the ideal that all companies should just “get along” and collaborate. If we look at living systems, however, we have to accept that competition is a fact of life. Only just so many organisms can be supported by the resources found within the boundaries of a specific ecosystem. Only just so many companies can serve the same set of customers with a similar product.

What we find in living systems, however, is that the more similar two competing organisms are, the more intense their competition. Conversely, the more differentiated two competing organisms are, the more likely it is they will achieve an equilibrium that allows both to prosper. In business, we see this when two companies operate too similarly and offer the same essential product or service – they  compete more intensely. Companies that do not compete head-to-head are more likely to peacefully co-exist, or even partner, with others in their marketplace. This second lesson from living systems underscores the need for organizations to develop and sustain strategies that set them apart in ways that are meaningful to customer.

These two implications are likely just a starting place for cultivating the metaphor of the garden. What can you see through this lens? Plant the idea in the back of your mind and see what sprouts.

Note: Some of the ideas within the following journal articles contributed to this essay: The Anatomy of Competition, by Bruce Henderson, Journal of Marketing; and General Living Systems Theory and Marketing: A Framework for Analysis, by R. Eric Reidenbach & Terence A.Oliva, Journal of Marketing.