FACE TIME

Warning:  Our hackles have been raised.

Those hairs on our neck shifted upwards when we read of not-so-secret one-on-one meetings between money managers, hedge funds, and the like and public company CEOs.

Not that there’s anything wrong or illegal with the practice.  [After all, the SEC calls it “corporate access” and, though there’s some monitoring, it doesn’t breach the Regulation Fair Disclosure rule of 2000.]

Yet survey after survey of these fairly regular occasions – about 99 on average each year for public businesses, says Ipreo – demonstrates that this kind of face time allows analysts and investors to make better trading decisions and more accurate earnings forecasts.

So be it.  It’s obvious these kinds of conversations help persuade the monied occupations that a company’s stock is a worthwhile investment. 

At the same time, it allows other, external observers to gauge the tone and confidence level and body language of the CEO (or CFO).

So what we object to is not the need to present to the investment community, face to face.  No, what causes our discomfort is the not-so-equal access of the C-suite to his/her employees, the rank and file who need to understand the strategies, the changes, and, yes, the financials. 

Okay, we get it:  Executive time is precious.  But don’t employees relish and deserve regular face-to-face communications in small groups with key senior leaders?

THE TRIPLE-HEADER TROIKA TRILOGY

Triangles.

The Three Stooges.

Snap, Crackle, and Pop.

Red, yellow, and blue.

For years, we – as marketers, advertisers, designers, and communicators – have almost blindly followed the rule of three … in visuals, in messages, in benefits, and more.  It’s been one of the unproven facts that informs our universe; somehow, three and no more seemed to cement our case.

Now, more than gut says we’re right:  Two UCLA behavioral science/marketing professors investigated a handful of scenarios with hundreds of undergrads, testing recall and reactions to anywhere from one to six reasons for each.  They deliberately explored the theory known as “set size effect,” or, in other words, the more descriptors, the better.  [Guess the “set size” creator never met Mies van der Rohe.]  The results were to be expected:  Students embraced the list of three, with four or more receiving a raised eyebrow or words of disdain.

Don’t stop there, though:  Three means more than a simple count.  It points to one of the issues we face now:  Way too many choices and way too little time to make effective decisions.  Though every day we face that challenge (especially in grocery stores), it’s just recently, when shopping for healthcare insurance, that we wished for an easier process.  We not only had to review the in- and out-of-network providers, but also go through, grid by grid by grid, comparisons of benefits, making sure we were matching apples to apples.   Multiply that by five providers.  And hear our frustration.

So “three” is now our golden rule. 

For us, that involves skirting aisles with too many similar products (how many different kinds of oatmeal do we need?), glossing over ads with more than three descriptors, ignoring multi-multi-imaged signs.  It also includes our stricter adherence to tri-anything in our work. 

Like our headline.

POPULAR PHRASES WE’D LIKE TO CHANGE #1

Everybody’s got ‘em:  those words or series of words that are puzzling at best, annoying at worst.

Our first nomination?  “Best practices.” We can count on our fingers, toes, and the hairs on our heads how many times companies request best practices.  It doesn’t matter that the particular requestor hails from one of the leaders in its field.  Nor that its executives have been publicly touted for running a great business. Or that its employees consider it the best place to work in the world.  The “ask” for best practices still happens.

Maybe it’s attributable to just plain human curiosity. After all, how common is this statement of interest? “I’d like to find out what makes XYZ great in, say, its efficient, cost-effective supply chain operations.”   

It’s when that query goes one step further – “and maybe we can apply those lessons learned” – that our caveats begin. 

After all, those lessons are, in a word, templates. Easy ways to capitalize on the knowledge and hard work of others with just a bit of spit and polish. Plus lessons learned are ways to “stand upon the shoulders of giants” (thanks, Mr. Newton), comparing your company to the Fortunate 50 or 100 or 500 or 1000. “Hey, I’m using this process that Starbucks or Amazon or GE (or fill in the blank) has perfected.”

No question, best practices can be applied … if corporate culture, goals, customers, and how your company gets stuff done are all factored in.  Then you’ve bettered those practices, to be more congruent with your needs.  [And expect the ultimate compliment, with others asking you to share!]

One final thought:  While some are applying best practices, others are changing the game, often dramatically, to fit their needs. Where does that leave this popular phrase?