TRUTH OR ... CONSEQUENCES

In past lives, many of my former colleagues and I* would have leaped at the chance when asked to validate a series of statements, chapters, or books.

Not any more, especially after Election 2012.  Bloggers and punsters, editors and opiners alike rushed to quick judgment about which party/candidate told the truth and which, fabricated.  “Right or not” became a cause célèbre as factcheck.orgs of all shapes and sizes weighed in.  Blue or red truth? trumpeted the headlines.  Both political parties blared Fiction! … and pointed fingers.  Posturing?  Yes, for many.  Yet many voters, in the millions, were simply seeking credulity and authenticity.

Regardless of the outcome, the facts didn’t matter.  Because facts, in and by themselves, were ­ not the prime determinant of the election.  A further surprise:  What did make a difference, psychological researchers insist, is the very complicated science of behaviors.  One study reveals that the more knowledgeable voters, those armed with the most facts, show more bias than those who knew less.  Another shows that people assume news is true (or not) simply based on which TV or radio station, newspaper or magazine, Web site or blogger reported it.

Why?  It has everything to do with emotions, the reasons we search for verification.  If I’m afraid or concerned or insecure, it’s doubly hard for me to wrap my mind around the facts. The truth matters less if I’m simply not prepared to accept it.  Cognitive dissonance, in part:  We ignore facts and science when they conflict with our practices (smoking, for instance).

At this point, the consequences from non-truths might not matter, depending on the specific cause and effect.  What this signals, initially, is that, as communicators and marketers, as designers and brand strategists, we all need to become a bit less fact-obsessed and a lot more emotion-driven as we set about to change minds and behaviors.

*Say it’s so:  My career began as an MSLS-wielding librarian.

CHANGE, BROUGHT TO YOU BY ...

New to the business world-at-large is something many of us have been doing for quite some time:  Sponsoring.

In the new parlance, a sponsor is a few steps up from a mentor, or someone who actively promotes you in the workplace, helping you get to the top.  It’s not a role to be solicited.  Nor is it conferred upon the meek.  Rather, says a recent Fortune magazine article, a sponsor-executive bets on your career and your track record, expecting the same loyalty in return. 

How is sponsorship all that different than our search for executive support for a large corporate initiative?  In the latter case, the naming of a sponsor is also a critical nuance for success:  She, he, or they need to have internal credibility, external presence, and a reputation for removing barriers and getting projects done. 

Or when we as marketers identify a sports or arts event, entertainment or cause that we want to own, er, sponsor?  Similar criteria rule:    Both parties must be credible, work together on a deal or deals of mutual benefit, and provide assurance of success, all along the way.

Easy to find?  Not really.  There’s no sure thing in sponsorships, whether of the change or the collaborative or the personal variety.    Validating what an executive has done (or not) in the past will help.  Has s/he managed the situation in good and not-so-great times, with grace under a lot of pressure?  Will they stand up for the outcomes, given that the cause is the right one?  Is it possible for the sponsor to act with not only integrity, but also with a touch of humor and humility?

Acquisitions and mergers, transitions and big lumpy strategy changes (to mention just a few) tend to reveal all sorts of behaviors in managers and employees that might not have been witnessed before.  Some good, some not.  So when thinking about the specific upcoming change and about the right kind of sponsor, prepare well.   Find that star manager.  And make sure you’ve got his/her back.

MARS VERSUS VENUS

Sheconomy.  The Third Billion.  Influence-Hers.

Obviously, all three slogans tout the importance of women as consumers – and their major role in buying products and services. 

In fact, the numbers do astound:  Women account for 80 percent of buying decisions (though that statistic has been debated of late).  One-third out-earn their husbands.   Forty-four percent are NFL fans.  Et cetera. 

In targeting this group, marketers, through much trial and error, have discovered that women buy differently.  [Duh.]  Loyalty counts.   Explanations are critical.  Social networking makes large inroads into their decisions and preferences.  Once converted, they’re evangelistic and tend to spend more. 

Specific programs from the Dells and Midases of the world, though, have faltered.  Why?  Because originally these companies talked “female,” prettifying, almost downscaling information.  Others have learned the hard way that a woman scorned will resort to viral networking to broadcast contrarian messages. 

Dealing with internal change is different. 

We’ll argue that, today, genders don’t need to catered to as separate stakeholder groups. After all, the lines between the sexes have been blurred.  Men have nearly equal say on spend.  Roles and traditions have flipped.  Many products are almost agnostic in appealing to different populations.

Opt, instead, for engagement in change.  Before the “it” happens, ask both men and women to weigh in.  Request their opinions.  Show them what happens now and what will occur in the future.  Explain in detail why the change is needed – and solicit their help.  And use that help with all due candor and speed. 

Then:  We bet decisions will be made, along with whole-hearted buy-in.  Sure, segmenting and targeting groups in line with their preferences  and profiles makes sense.  For change to succeed, though, upfront participation counts.  No matter which planet you live on.