WORD FATIGUE

Never have so few been confused by so many.

In thinking about the word “innovation” while working on a project, we ran across at least three different definitions.  Are we developing something that never existed?  Finding another use for a product-at-parity or commodity?  Or looking to expand the use and care of a service/item?

Then, we turned to our handy databases.  One limited search on the word – the last 30 days and full-text only – yielded nearly 12,000 hits.  Each hit includes different explanations, different parameters, and different processes to innovate.  [That doesn’t even include internal “googling” inside annual reports, on corporate Web sites for “innovative” job titles, and the most recently released business books.]   Everyone, in short, claims innovation, even The New York Times which solicited ideas from its readers mid-last year.

What’s more, there are ongoing, sometimes volatile arguments among those who innovate for a living.  The talk rages between ideating for efficiency sakes, sustaining an already viable item, and/or for disrupting the heck out of an industry [e.g., moving from mainstream computers to PCs]. 

Why the much ado?  Because it seems like, in the word melee, we’re intent upon the process and thing, not the benefits.  It bestows some sort of accolade to say Chief Innovation Officer.  Or kudos that we’ve cornered the market on ideas.

As with all these intellectual wrangles, we giggle.  There is truly no “I” in innovation.

PICK ME ... PLEASE!

Right before the 2012 holidays, Pepsi nabbed Beyoncé as its brand ambassador in exchange for a 50-million-dollar paycheck. 

She’ll be more than window dressing, say the marketers, partnering with the beverage giant to create content and drive fan engagement.  One example:  At Super Bowl halftime, fans got their 15 minutes of fame in ad photos by shouting, head bopping, and feet tapping, solicited in advance. 

This kind of high-powered deal is rooted in the mid-2000s, when will.i.am joined Intel as director of creative innovation, deals that then branched out to include Lady Gaga’s effort with Polaroid and 50 Cent endorsement of Vitamin Water in song and in ads.

Yet how much more credible and authentic are these celebrity endorsements than the Pizza Hut and Southwest Airlines and Overstock.com employees who’ve appeared in their company ads?  In this skeptical age, most viewers, for one, know that a Sofia Vergara or a Brad Pitt aren’t true brand ambassadors; rather, they’re paid advocates for the product (or service).  Sure, they’ll drink the soda, even wear the perfume, and don the apparel. But how knowledgeable are they, really, about the product attributes, its fit with the overall brand, primary consumers and their emotions, and so on?  Do they field customer complaints (and compliments), understand supply chain issues and opportunities, and/or struggle with IT/IS problems? 

[No sour grapes here.  Any one of us would jump at the chance for a million-buck endorsement, let alone 50 times that number!]

Instead, companies looking for ambassadors – including the CPG stalwarts – might do well by scouring internal files to uncover soon-to-be stars.  Even today, when engagement is reportedly at an all-time low (Forrester noted two years ago that a high percentage of employees would not perform stand-ups for their employers), the deep credibility and trust that real people engender among consumers new and old is simply not to be dismissed. 

We’ll stop … with one more question.  Hey, new Coca-Cola Ambassador Taylor Swift:  Does Diet Coke truly understand you just because it’s in your frig?

WHY GOOD THINGS MIGHT (RE)APPEAR IN SMALL PACKAGES

Flash fiction.  AOL’s CliffNotes in comic video formats.  Retailers that gobble up high-end sale sites.

These three newsy trends all say small:  Fiction that’s usually less than 1,000 words.  Classics reinterpreted quickly for the non-reading public.  And designer duds at reduced prices for an hour or so. 

Thinking further, we figured out that packaging also ties the three together.  Which got us ruminating about the power of packaging inside corporations. 

Externally, we can all vouch for the impact of great packaging.  After all, CPG companies spend millions and more on product look and feel, the way it’s displayed on shelves, in aisles, and end caps, how it appears in advertising and online. 

As consumers, we’re attracted to bright shiny objects as well as cinematographically-challenging movies (Inception, anyone?).  Many of us, regardless of generation, are captivated by the speed of Internet search and purchase, not to mention the ever-changing possibilities of digital networks.  That, too, is packaging at its height, one of many time-proven ways to get us hooked into and using brands.

Rarely, though, do we ever get well-packaged communications as employees.  Here are just a few examples to trigger some thoughts:  For many and often legal reasons, communicating about benefits tends to be long and involved and simply not all that engaging.  In quite a few businesses, corporate announcements are often ignored or stored in e-folders for later reference.  Even major initiatives that bring good change to life don’t necessarily receive the kind of overall look and feel they deserve.

No, we’re not advocating good looks without quality content and well-defined metrics.   Nor do we espouse internal advertising-type campaigns that are glitz sans information, and lack in-depth analysis and use of WIIFMs, up and down the ladder. 

We’d like to continue the form-versus-function debate re communications:  Does it matter if the package is Tiffany blue or UPS brown?  Or, simply, that something worthy is inside?