Huddle Up, Stakeholders

We’re reaching out to you today so we can put a stake in the ground, grab for the low-hanging fruit, and think outside the box.

You may not have noticed, but there’s been this juggernaut of jargon that’s taken over the business lexicon.

Seems like a no-brainer now, but back when we started talking this way, we thought it was a game changer. A win-win proposition. We were speaking the same language, mangling the same metaphors, and we really thought every conversation would be value-added — bringing us more bang for the buck.

Well, it brought about a paradigm shift, all right. It moved the needle…but in the wrong direction. Turns out we’ve become parodies of ourselves. Irritating ones at that.

Drilling down into the problem, we find the stigma of cliché, and the way that the overuse of tired, misapplied jargon actually weakens our messaging. Dive deeper, and you see that talking like a rigidly programmed Business Bot destroys your differentiation. You become plain vanilla, just another face in the crowd.

You’ve got a lot on your plate, we know. This probably wasn’t even on your radar. We’re not asking you to reinvent the wheel, but going forward, maybe you can repurpose some of this drivel? Transition it into another role?

At the end of the day, your communications skills are seen by your customers, competitors and employees as key performance indicators, showing them just how much bandwidth you’ve got for your core competencies. If they think you’re just parroting the masses, well then you might as well be down the rabbit hole.

Death to jargon, is what we’re saying. Do we have your buy-in?

The C4

1. The definitive guide to effective communications, Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style includes every rule of English usage you can imagine.
2. Seriously, read it. It’ll make you a better writer and speaker. (And it will turn you against insipid jargon, forever.)
3. Its most vital advice, which if we follow it will end jargoneering for all time (amen), can be summed up in one very short sentence…
4. “Omit needless words.”

Instagram v. Vine

Which is better for your business?

Oh, our love of drawing lines and taking sides. Mac v. PC, Ford v. Chevy, Elvis v. The Beatles.

Somehow the choices we make have become dichotomies — we’re expected to embrace one, eschew the other, and develop a steadfast loyalty that’ll last forever (or at least until the next big thing comes along).

It’s happening in the social-media sphere too, and until we see that Next Big Thing, the opposing teams seem to be Facebook and Twitter.

Of course, there’s not much of a dichotomy there. Because those two social powerhouses are different enough, with different usages and potential reach, that business and casual users tend to embrace them both. At the risk of oversimplifying, we use FB as our storefront and Twitter as our megaphone. They’re synergistic, and we’re using them that way.

But now comes Instagram and Vine, properties of Facebook and Twitter respectively, bringing back head-to-head competition, bringing back dichotomy, alas, to our social-media choices.

Instagram has been around for a while. It started as a photo-sharing tool, with a bit of a reputation for hipsterism. Recently, Instagram has added video sharing capabilities, hosting clips up to 15 seconds long.

Which intrudes directly into Vine’s wheelhouse. Vine was designed from the get-go as a video app, hewing tightly to Twitter’s penchant for short, pithy messaging. Six seconds: that’s all you get to make your splash on Vine.

These are still early days for both, so they’re both still the domain of the dabblers. Business and marketing professionals are taking notice, though, and strategies are being created to make the most of each.

So what kind of appeal can you pitch in just a handful of seconds? A pretty compelling one, by necessity. You don’t have time for a narrative arc — you must get to the point, unambiguously, with some kind of call to action. You turn on the camera, state your case quickly, then yell “cut” and get it posted.

You’ve got a tad longer to do so on Instagram, with the added bonus of tying your messaging in with its massively popular photo sharing (currently approaching 20 billion pics, shared by nearly 150 million users). You can also easily integrate your clips into your business Facebook presence.

On the Vine side, if you can’t say it in six seconds, then you might as well give up. But you know what? You totally can say it in six seconds. Vine users are remastering what Twitter already taught us: cut out the fluff and let the message speak for itself. In six seconds you can communicate one funny, scary, enticing, or intriguing statement. Do that with your URL flashing on the screen, and you’ll probably grab some traffic.

So how about that dichotomy? Do we really need to choose sides? Well as you surely know, we’re lovers, not fighters (ask anyone). So we love ’em both.

Down with dichotomies. Down with either/or. Vine and Instagram, much like Twitter and Facebook, each offer unique possibilities for building brands, reaching customers, and sharing the message of the market.

We know not which course others may take, but as for us, give us Instagram and Vine.

The C4

1. Choice is what makes the market work. We love choice.
2. But for some reason, choice has turned into an either/or thing. If you select the one, you must disdain the other.
3. Must it be so for Instagram and Vine? They’re similar enough, with their strict limit of either 15 or 6 seconds per video clip. Aficionados of each are probably already sneering and trash-talking each other.
4. It doesn’t have to be that way. Instagram and Vine are similar, but not identical. They integrate well with their parent platforms, Facebook and Twitter. They can host messaging that dovetails nicely with your overall social media strategy. You can use them both to reach different audiences, in different ways. So do you have to make a choice? Yes — you can choose to use them both.

Is Premium Brand Development A Double-Edged Sword?

One must remain sharp to fend off the pirates — and the vikings.

First, you build your brand (you’ve heard us say this before).

But your work’s not done. You must then protect your brand. You must be on guard not just against your competitors, but also actual counterfeiters, and brand knockoffs.

That’s not a huge surprise, especially if you’ve ever been offered an eye-widening bargain for a new “Gucchi” handbag or “Rollects” timepiece. It might shock you to learn, though, that this is hardly a new phenomenon. Premium brands were being harried by knock-offs much earlier than most of us realize.

How early? At least as early as the Viking age — over 1,000 years ago.

The well-equipped Viking, as he set out from Scandinavia on his dark errands, might wear at his hip the finest sword he could afford. We know from the archeological evidence that the most sought-after sword in those days was the Ulfberht.

No one today is sure exactly what the word Ulfberht means. It might have been a family name, but since the swords were in production for well over a century, it probably wasn’t the name of a single craftsman. It was clearly a brand, though, in the most literal sense. The word was proudly and intricately inlaid into the steel of the blade.

A few dozen Ulfberhts have been recovered and are in museums around the world. Not long ago, researchers noticed something odd about them. About a third of them bear their “trademark” in this format: +ULFBERH+T. Tested metallurgically, the steel of these blades were found to be remarkable: extremely high-quality carbon steel forged in a process that wouldn’t be recreated in Europe for centuries.

The others, which comprise the majority, are branded +ULFBERHT+ and are made of cheap, inferior metal. Our hypothetical Viking would have no way of knowing this without access to a scanning electron microscope…or until his prized sword shattered during battle.

The battle metaphor is pretty common in business, marketing, and yes, branding. Some wonder if it might be hyperbole. Our 1,000-year-old case study insists it isn’t. Consumers buy brands they trust because they’re expecting consistency in quality and service. Knock-offs dilute that quality and erode that trust.

And even today, long after the last Viking ship has sailed, this can still be a matter of life and death.

The C4

1. Brand counterfeiting isn’t just about cheap handbags that look vaguely like the original. Everything from auto parts to smoke detectors are being counterfeited. Cheap knock-offs can and do hurt people.
2. A thousand years ago, some unlucky Vikings learned this the hard way. The expensive+ULFBERH+T and the affordable +ULFBERHT+ looked equally shiny and nice just off the showroom floor. It was only when its owner needed it most that the metal’s mettle was truly tested.
3. Consumers and brand-owners are both in similar peril today. Every product, every brand is subject to counterfeiting. Only an informed public and a proactive business community can fight that.
4. First you build your brand, then you protect it. Branding is a process that never stops. Yes, we’ve said it before, and we’re sure to say it again.

Read Our Lips

Advertising is a cost of doing business.

Tax policy is such a multifaceted thing — if it weren’t so dry and yawn-inducing, it would make a fascinating case study for the reach and scope of government. It creates and regulates the flow of revenue into the treasury, of course, but it’s arguable whether this is its most important function.

Tax policy is also a cudgel, or a spur. It encourages certain types of behavior, while discouraging others. Very often that’s entirely deliberate. There’s a proposal under discussion right now to levy a 10% tax on the use of tanning beds…not so much because those extra dollars are needed, but rather to prevent, hopefully, some number of new cases of self-inflicted melanoma.

That’s all well and good. But what about the unintended consequences of tax policy? What about tax policy that will discourage behavior that no one can argue is detrimental?

Like buying American.

Separate committees in both the House and Senate are currently discussing overhauls to the U.S. tax code. Both committees, it’s been reported, are considering what we think is a drastic and ill-advised step: reclassifying marketing and advertising costs so that they will no longer be treated as normal, deductible business expenses.

Clearly, we have skin in this game. And clearly, we can argue that designating advertising as anything other than a necessary cost of doing business is simply inaccurate.

Instead, we’ll make this point: Tax policy is indeed a cudgel, and it does indeed alter behaviors. It’s an easily proven fact that when taxes are levied on a particular activity, then fewer people will engage in that activity.

By taxing advertising expenditures, the federal government will ensure that less advertising takes place. That distresses us (no surprise there) but it’s our contention that it should distress you, too. Why? Because the vast majority of advertising dollars are spent locally — local businesses working with local agencies, print shops, and production facilities, to place ads with local newspapers and broadcasters. Even on a national level this principle holds true. When American companies market to American consumers, most if not all of their expenditures stay within our borders.

For more than a century, since the birth of the federal tax code, advertising has been treated precisely like what it is: a wholly legitimate operating expense, necessary for finding and keeping customers. The industry that’s grown up around that need has become an engine of American economic advancement, and a thriving source of American jobs.

The proposed change to the tax code, the alteration of the advertising-expense deduction, will change all that, very much for the worse. We oppose it as strongly as our finite voices and human frailties will allow. We’re saying so to our senators and congressmen, and to anyone who’ll listen, really. We’re making the same case we’ve just made to you. We think it’s a convincing one.

If we’re right about that, then all that’s left is to ask this simple question: Are you with us?

The C4

1. The tax code is a mind boggler. No doubt it’s in need of an overhaul. But the sections governing advertising expenses, classifying them as deductible business costs, are right on point, we think.
   
2. It ain’t broke, but the government is trying to fix it. Both the House and Senate are considering changing or even eliminating that deduction. It is our stance that not only would this result in an unfair tax on a legitimate operating cost, it would also cause irreparable harm to an important American economic sector.
3. Marketing and advertising creates jobs and spurs growth — locally, regionally, and nationally. “Buy American,” they tell us. Well, when you buy advertising, that’s exactly what you’re doing.
4. How on earth can they justify attacking that? Make no mistake, a tax on advertising will mean less advertising, and that means an economic hit, right here at home. It’s wrong, it’s folly, and it needs to be stopped. We’re trying our best to stop it, and we sincerely hope you’ll join us.

Washington Post Acquired By Amazon’s Jeff Bezos

Medias merge.

Jeff Bezos, CEO and founder of internet-commerce giant Amazon.com, has entered into a purchase agreement with the Washington Post Company to take control of their 136-year-old flagship newspaper, The Washington Post. The paper, famous for its Watergate-era truth-to-power journalism, went for a reported $250 million, or a little less than 1% of Bezos’s net worth.

Although the Post has long been considered one of the nation’s premier dailies, on a rarefied par with the New York Times, it’s not immune from the modern perils plaguing all traditional newspapers.

Declining ad revenue and a shrinking readership base is the new — or maybe not so new — norm for these institutions. Even the Post, which boasts a vibrant digital presence, has suffered earnings shortfalls in each of the last six years. Although the Graham family, which has owned the paper for four generations, gave no previous hint that the Post was for sale, no one should really be surprised by this turn of events. Newspaper sales are also the new normal, because for many of them, their only hope of survival is new management.

At first glance, it might seem that the big story here is the marriage of a venerable media company, with one of its upstart online heirs. And maybe there’s something to that — ad revenue, after all, isn’t just the Post’s bread and butter, it’s also the mainstay of many a Dot Com. That’s not true for Amazon, though, which is a straightforward product retailer (once operated, by the way, from Jeff Bezos’s Seattle garage). No, it seems that the only real connection between the Post and Amazon is their mutual purveyance of the printed word.

It’s important to remember, though, that the NASDAQ-traded corporation Amazon.com didn’t buy the Post. Jeff Bezos did. When the sale is finalized, probably in October, he’ll be the paper’s sole proprietor.

And that, we think, is the story. “Billionaire buys paper” — it’s not a new story. Just a few days before Bezos made his move, John Henry, owner of the Red Sox, bought the Boston Globe. In both cases, the newly minted publishers publicly affirmed their commitment to ongoing journalistic integrity, and to a “hands-off” editorial policy.

Newspapers are in trouble. They’re vital to communities, but as profit centers they’re sorely lacking. It just may be that the stewardship of benevolent billionaires, who let journalists be journalists and for whom ad revenue isn’t so important, could be exactly what saves them.

The C4

1. Jeff Bezos founded Amazon.com in 1994. Legend has it he wrote the business plan as he was driving from New York to his new home in Seattle. A little unsafe, yet still inspiring.
    
2. He turned that little online bookselling concern into one of the most valuable, recognizable, and enduring online brands. Jeff Bezos helps define twenty-first-century entrepreneurship.
    
3. So maybe we shouldn’t have been as shocked as we were when the Graham family announced on August 5 that they were selling the Washington Post to Mr. Bezos. 
    
4. What comes next is entirely up to him. He might dismantle the newsroom and sell the fixtures. He might turn it into an editorial cheer-section for all things Amazon. Or he could reach into those deep pockets and create a journalistic legacy, independent of meddling and financial worries, that will go on serving the readers of the Washington Post. We think we know which way he’s leaning. We sincerely hope we’re right.