No, Cisco Didn't Flip Out; A good, Fast Lesson for Start Ups

When I first read about Cisco's decision to shut down its Flip division, I was stunned. This technology/product seemed like a no brainer. Even though the capability is quickly being built into multi-purpose, networked devices, surely Flip cameras would be needed or could be repurposed.

I don't know if there is a case to be made for that argument, but Cisco has just taught start ups a really important lesson:

if you have piece of your business that doesn't focus on your core capabilities, don't let it sink slowly. Kill it quickly.

It's hard for any company to do that, but it's really hard for a big business to do it. Because they often have the resources to support the ship in hopes of finding a solution. But with start ups, where every penny matters, that option is not available. Make these decisions quickly.

Of course, this depends on understanding clearly what your core essence is. Because you don't want to kill businesses that are key to that essence. That's what makes the fast decision so hard.

But Cisco's lesson is really important; they know their essence and saw that the Flip wasn't part of it.

Set Some Priorities; What is the Goal and How do we Get There? Well, maybe it's not that easy

We work with start ups, primarily. And I can't help being aghast at the current government shutdown debate (which may be resolved by the time you read this). When you work with young companies that are trying to make a difference, every day involves setting priorities.

Based on having worked with with nearly 100 new and growing companies, there is actually one question that underpins the determination of priorities:

*What is our company's goal and how do we optimize getting there?

Though this may be a simple question, it's pretty hard to answer. We suggest a recipe:

1. Understand -- at your core -- what is your essence as a company -- what is it you are really trying to do?
2. How will you realize this essence and truly optimize next steps as a company?
3. How do these next steps fit into your company architecture? That is, based on your goal, how do you set priorities so that you don't compromise critical path items in favor of short term issues.
4. Keep reassessing.

These questions impact communications strategy directly. So we are often right in the middle of this discussion. Sometime there's instinct involved in finding the right answer. But, at the same time, the key is having a clear vision and continuously moving in that direction.

Flight of the Dove: The Story of a Great, Consistent Communications Program

For some reason, I have been thinking a lot recently about Dove . For those of you who might not know (might be nearly all of you), Dove launched a fascinating marketing campaign a few years ago: "the campaign for real beauty."

I have probably been thinking about Dove because over a period of several years, with many brand extensions and new communications tools, they have been able to build a tremendously consistent positioning, branding, marketing, and communications effort. That's really hard to do. They continue to introduce products that are focused on "real beauty"; they have launched multiple programs focused on self-esteem; and have all sorts of social media activities focused on real beauty/self esteem.

Dove shows us that as communications become both more universally accessible through social media, it has also become more complex. That is, having a very clear and consistent message is all the more important when there are so many ways that the customer and influencer are touched.

Of course, at Roeder-Johnson we work technology start ups, most of whom are business-to-business companies rather than being consumer-oriented. But the same perspective is important with these companies. And, in fact, it probably is more manageable. Though unfortunately in this era of constrained resources, companies often forget that they can get MORE leverage by being thoughtful and consistent about their marketing and communications.

But imagine if a company had a clear "high concept" (like "the campaign for real beauty"), was able to develop products that reinforced this, AND developed marketing programs and communications through traditional and new tools that reinforced and built understanding of that core high concept? One theme, lots of leverage, and ultimately a lot of efficiency in building a unified brand.

Lessons of the Incas: Necessity is the Mother of "Innovation"

I just returned from Peru. It was a wonderful trip. And, as so often happens when I travel, I came away with some sort of "aha". While these trip-related insights may not be earth-shattering realizations in the grand scheme of things, they are always a great reminder of some basic lesson.

The Lesson of the Incas was a reminder that necessity is the mother of "innovation" (Yes. The wording is slightly changed over the common expression.) It was amazing to observe how advanced the Incas were so many centuries ago. This was particularly obvious in the very sophisticated techniques they had for agriculture. They planted in terraces to optimize the use of their land and then created an irrigation system to fit the demands of these terraces. And there are theories that the Incas created a deep circular terraced crater at Moray in order to provide different micro climates for various crops that were important to their survival. This is just an amazing idea!

I am not an expert on the Incas and won't try to defend these innovations or explain them deeply. It's just that the whole experience reminded me that some of the most effective innovations come in direct response to fundamental needs.

The question this raises for technology start-ups is how can this lesson be applied to optimize innovation today. For the most part, there is no survival issue driving much of technology development, whether it's building a better iPhone, social networking site, or whatever. (That's quite a bit less true of green tech and medical technology.)

We could have a long discussion here about "Maslow's hierarchy of needs" and recognize that today much of the technology work is past basic survival and have moved up the hierarchy. But the drivers are no less important. I just don't think that's true.

So, the question I took away from the Incas was: how do we fuel really important innovation in an environment where our basic survival doesn't depend on this innovation?

The Message is More Important than Ever

Unfortunately, this month has brought layoffs of some of the most seasoned journalists in the world. I won't go into the causes, except to say this is one more sign that the media world is going through a wholesale change (a bit of understatement). This will continue to have a major impact on everything from politics and government to companies and their businesses to the lives of each of the people effected.

However, I want to focus on what is means to start-ups. In short, it means the "press" is more scarce than ever and that clear and (as my friend Seth Godin calls it) "remarkable" messaging in everything you do is more important than it has ever been.

To illustrate the scarcity of the press, I will share an anecdote about a friend who is a former CEO turned author whom I recently helped to get word of his latest book out. We worked together to craft his messaging -- creating a high concept that was leverageable in several media. But then, because at Roeder-Johnson we were swamped, my friend did the press outreach himself. He was quite successful but needed to work pretty hard at it. He reached a number of his target journalists who were quite cordial, but for the most part explained that they found the story interesting, but really were very busy and couldn't focus on this story because it "wasn't required reading." Ultimately my friend has been quite successful, given the context of the times. But there's nothing like a little direct experience for him to see clearly the impact of the reduced presence of traditional media: he learned that if you want a presence in the press, your story has to trully rise above all of its competition. That's always been true. But today, the competition for the scarce space is more intense than ever.

But, the good news is that, more than ever, communications are transparent. That is, there are lots of ways of getting your story and message out to interested parties. It's not restricted to the press any more. As we have said before in this blog, that means that your message and its consistency matters more than ever: because anything you say is seen by everyone interested. Therefore, being clear, differentiated, tight, and consistent is critical.

At Roeder-Johnson, that message-clarity is what we have always focused on. This is not a battle of quantity. It's a battle of being "remarkable" and consistent and regularly reinforcing those.

So, even if traditional media isn't as high a priority in the communications mix, it's more important today to focus on the message.

"Find the Language"

I met recently with a wonderful man and superb entrepreneur, James Currier, who founded (or co-founded) Tickle (acquired by Monster), Ooga Labs, Wonderhill and others. He is supremely thoughtful and has been through several rounds of entrepreneurial education, so he has a pretty clear vision of really happens in start-ups and lots of credibility.

After his years of founding and running companies, James shared with me that he sees his primary job as CEO and founder to be to "find the language" that clearly articulates what his companies are trying to accomplish. He believes this because finding the language is at the heart of understanding what a company truly is.

Boy, do we agree! As you know if you have read this blog in the past, we believe that "words matter". The process of coming up with the simple, "High Concept" that fundamentally explains why a company is important is critical to the process of creating a successful business.

I was excited when James expressed his viewpoint. In addition to being very strategic, his years of experience have also led James to be very practical: there's no point in having a company that represents an elegant concept if it isn't a good business (I am putting words in his mouth but I think this explains his viewpoint).

This perspective is important to us because we see WAY too many companies that believe they need to choose EITHER thoughtful positioning OR a good business. We believe that good positioning is all about how you can be most successful.

When we met, James further explained that the process of finding the right language can be stage-related: the first stage is find the right specific thing that a company does well right now; and then, over the longer term, broaden that out as the vision and mission of the company broadens. More of James' practical view of the world.

Thank you, James, for helping us think clearly as well!

Faster Innovation and the "Google-ization of Business"

The Wall Street Journal had a fascinating piece yesterday call "The New, Faster Face of Innovation". MIT scholars Michael Schrage and Erik Bryn Jolfsson have traced the implications of the faster and more iterative approach to innovation that we are seeing from companies in today's market.

We have referred to this trend in past blog posts as "the Google-ization of business". Yesterday's article does a great job of describing the trend and cites excellent examples of its implications.

We think about the implications of faster innovation specifically from the perspective of what does it means to communications in today's world; when you combine this rapid pace of innovation and change with an "architectural" view of communications which we have discussed at other places in this blog, it has vast implications. To keep things simple, following are two of the key changes.

1. While having an idea of what image you are trying to create and a hypothesis of how you will get there is more important than ever (because of the transparency of communications), today it is no longer necessary to feel that your first communications stake-in-the-ground is indelible.

2. This new iterative approach to innovation means that you can communicate more frequently and with more trial balloons to help educate the market. Ultimately, when used well, it is likely to enable reaching your communications goals both more effectively and perhaps even more efficiently.

This new flexibility is quite liberating. When communicating, you no longer have to worry about whether every point is the "perfect" point. And you can learn along the way in order to make your communications better.

Please don't misinterpret this flexibility as a recommendation to just throw material into the communications chain and pay no attention. As referenced above, we still feel it's very important to have a clear hypothesis of what you want to communicate over the long term and how you think you might get there (this is what we call the "communications architecture").

The big difference now is that you can course-correct much more easily.

At the end of the day, we believe this new world means you should communicate more than ever before.


*

The Art of Start Ups: Doing what it Takes

It's a hard time for start-ups. We all know that. But on a positive note, I was watching the NBC Evening News (yes I still do -- but on the TiVo) and saw a story that reminded me of a conversation I had yesterday that made me smile. The NBC story was about a company in Peoria, Illinois that has made its way through the recession by having employees who can do many jobs. They are flexible.

The conversation I had yesterday was with a new guy with one of our clients who said, when asked what his job was said (something like) "Whatever helps the company succeed." This made me smile because, after working with nearly 100 start ups through the years, we have seen that the best people in start ups are those that have that attitude. If pushing the broom is what it takes to get there from here, that's what they will do.

And mind you, this is a guy with substantial credentials and a track record of experience across several disciplines. He could claim specialization but instead is just focusing on being a meaningful part of the team and using all of his strengths to accomplish that.

Of course, not everybody can do everything: if you aren't a developer, you probably shouldn't try to write code. And more than that, we at Roeder-Johnson, try to keep focused on what we do well -- hoping to execute in our discipline when needed but always looking at the bigger question: of "how can we help the company succeed."

And, by the way, if pushing the broom is what we can do, then hand us the broom.

Leadership and the Importance of Press Releases

Who knew? The last post on "What about Leadership (Redux)" led to a fair amount of dialog. It also led me to believe that I should probably advocate an unpopular subject: the importance press releases.

In short, we believe that a well-crafted press release is a big opportunity to clearly and effectively tell a company's story. And that's true whether the news hook is mundane or earth-shattering. Along with the many other means of communications available today, press releases are part of the entire communications architecture.

This is, to some, a fairly radical view. Many "modern" communicators think that whispers, blogs, and tweets are the right way to get a story told. We believe all of these are a valuable part of the mix. But we also believe that it's critical to lay out the story clearly and simply in a few places that are broadly available. Therefore, more than ever, we think press releases are a tremendously important communications tool.

In thinking about this position, you may be interested to know that, in years past, I have been very conservative about press releases: when they were just a tool for communicating to a very limited audience, it was key to make sure you didn't flood people with paper. But today, the press release plays a different and more important role:

1. It is a tool, at the appropriate time, to tell a company's story to the appropriate audiences. It should be written clearly and without hyperbole.
2. It can have a viral benefit.
3. In this environment, many constituencies look for and read press releases (not just press and analysts) and this can be helpful to companies on many levels.
4. It can be very helpful in reinforcing leadership messaging and communications architecture.
5. There are lots of other comments -- let me know if you want to discuss them.

This odd topic arose because I have recently seen a few companies that may be squandering their opportunities to help the market understand who they are and how they fit into the world. Hence, these companies may be leaving their market leadership position unsupported and unexplained -- leaving it to chance that the market will figure it out. And, on the flip side, we have seen when we are working with companies who are leaders, the ongoing explanation about important news and nuances of their stories helps the leadership positioning emerge over time.

A few thoughts/caveats about this viewpoint.

1. A press release should always have added value. That is, it should be interesting and provocative.
2. We are not talking here about press release that have two paragraphs (one with the lead and the second with some innocuous quote.) If you are going to bother, explain enough to be meaningful.
3. The purpose of a press release today is not always just to get "ink". It should be viewed as an important part of the toolset to create leadership in the long term.
4. Of course, press releases alone are not the whole communications mix. They should be built into the plan along with thoughts about the Web site, blogs, tweets, conferences, one on one communications, etc.
5. Some press releases are tactical in their nature. That's fine. But never squander an opportunity to tell the story well.
6. Keep the bar high. Don't tell people "what the CEO had for lunch."
7. A press release should be objective and educational; the more boastful, the less believable.
8. Yes. Some recipients might be skeptical of a press release. Sometimes that means you shouldn't do it. And sometimes if means you just have to move ahead and keep the long term in mind.
9. A well-conceived press release takes a lot of work -- to understand what the news is, why it is important, and how to explain this clearly.

Remember, the goal is leadership. (Oh yeah. I already said that.)

But what about leadership? (Redux)

Ugh! Over the past few days there has been a lot of communications about an article in the New York Times about PR in the Silicon Valley. First, there was the original story, then there were a variety of follow-up pieces commenting on it. Not surprisingly, though pretty amazingly, this discussion was really about "publicity" and none of the discussion (that I have seen) has focused on what we at Roeder-Johnson believe is the key issue: the question isn't publicity, "ink" or "buzz"; it's about LEADERSHIP.

At Roeder-Johnson, we believe that the goal of our strategic communications and public relations efforts is to help position clients as market leaders. That's really different from short term "buzz" or publicity. We can all think of companies that have gotten plenty of attention (either in the press or in the "buzzosphere") and ultimately didn't attain leadership in the long term.

What are the benefits of leadership? The most basic benefit is to enable a company to define its environment, rather than following others that do the defining. And resulting from that core benefit are some fundamental business benefits: companies that lead can:

-Charge higher prices
-Enter into better partnerships
-Hire better employees; and ultimately,
-Lower the cost of capital of the company.

So you probably wonder how leadership is attained if it doesn't come from buzz. We believe there are a few key steps needed:

-First, there is the decision by the company that it wants to be a leader and in what way.
-If the choice is made to target leadership positioning, we believe a basic architecture needs to be defined for how the company wants to be perceived in the long term.
-That architecture includes many dimensions -- from business and product strategy to thought leadership and communications strategy.
-In the communications realm, the first step is to put some language around the vision. We call that a High Concept(R): What is the fundamental disruption we represent and how is it simply articulated?
-Following this, it's key to understand how will we get people to understand the high concept: the need, the requirements and what it will take to accomplish the vision, why the company is in the position to accomplish it, and how it plays out for the long term.
-Then, on an ongoing basis, the communications strategy is implemented and refined to help lead the market to understand the High Concept.

This is a very short description of an alternative view to the conventional wisdom about public relations as publicity. I want to note that ink and/or buzz is certainly a part of any communications strategy. But it is NOT the end in itself.

Start Ups Need to Avoid the "Susan Boyle Effect"

I have been intrigued by the story of Susan Boyle on "Britain's Got Talent." It was hard not to be interested in this shy woman who has the potential of realizing a life-long dream by singing her heart out. And, I admit, I have followed each of her ups and downs over the past few weeks. It's not really surprising that she has "buckled" under the pressure of all the public attention that has come her way.

This "Susan Boyle Effect" is not disimilar from a phenomenon that most start-ups need to be careful of: coming out with such hoopla that they can hardly do anything but buckle under the pressure and ultimately disappoint the expectations that have risen far too high.

By nature, start-ups are somewhat like the shy woman from Scotland. They have the stuff but have not been real-world tested under the glare of Klieg lights. We can all think of a number of examples of companies that have come out with too much attention and then because of the market interest and expectations, they ultimately were unable to meet the demands were placed on them. And they became exhausted in the process of trying. Or worse, the first impressions they made on people were unsatisfactory and they couldn't get customers and influencers to come back for a second look.

There are a few companies that have defied the odds of lots of attention. Google comes to mind and was amazingly able to withstand the pressure of vast relatively early attention. We are all living through the pressures that Twitter is under and the jury is still out on whether they will hold up (though in spite of some technical problems they have done amazingly well). But in general, we recommend a modulated plan for emerging from under the radar.

How should a company do this? Of course, it's different for each company. However, in general, we recommend building credibility and infrastructure and consistently raising visibility. This process enables a company to accomplish its business needs steadily while at the same time building up the strength to support market demands.

I hope Susan Boyle bounces back. Regardless of the next step, she will undoubtedly be wiser.

What exactly is a "seedling"?

A lot of the VC's I have spoken with recently are increasingly interested in funding "seed" stage companies. Of course, that has to do with the seemingly attractive economics of these companies. Valuations are quite low now so a large piece of the company can be acquired for less.

That is, of course, what venture capital is all about: funding companies (that often might not get off the ground without them) and having everyone end up ahead of where they would be alone. I am a huge believer in venture capital and its role in promoting innovation. It is (or should be) one of the great sources of long term growth we have.

But there's a problem with what I am also hearing from some of these same VCs: they give their seedlings a few months and then they have to have a clear path to "monetizing" (I use that word because it is such an important piece of the industry jargon).

That's what worries me: We have a seedling lemon tree in our front yard. According to all the experts, each time you see a bit of new growth in this seedling, you are supposed to pinch it off; this is so that growing the new shoot doesn't completely sap the whole tree. And you are supposed to do this for a few years.

The approach to the lemon tree is the way I have traditionally thought about seed funding: plant a seed and then nurture it till it realizes its potential (within reason). We have a few clients that are great examples of this: Canesta, today the leader in 3-D vision sensors, has been nurtured and is today hitting the ball out of the park. And cPacket, with a revolutionary approach to chip design has the most efficient approach to "complete packet inspection" (a networking and IT concept that is just coming into its own) is in just the right position today to be capturing that market. And I just learned about a friend's company, ZettaCore, that is doing some really important stuff in materials science and has investors who believe in this nurturing approach to building winners in the long term.

It's not clear, however, the most investors have that "lemon tree" approach to investing. They give lip service to seedlings and then are apparently willing to only give them a little time to turn their big idea into big business.

Sure. Everyone is under a lot of pressure today and needs to see "positive momentum" to keep funding companies. But, has the definition of "positive momentum" become too limited among most VCs? And does this mean that many of the seeds that have the potential to grow into important trees may be killed before they have a chance to blossom?

Is Too Much Attention being Paid to the First 100 Days?

I'm torn about the tremendous attention being focused on the President's first 100 days. On one side, it seems like kowtowing to a media event and creating a lot of hype around a false stake in the ground; on the other hand, we live in a time where clear communication is key.

Ok, I admit it: at the end of the day, it seems like there is too much "pomp and circumstance" being put on this date on the calendar. While the President couldn't and wouldn't stop the press from covering this milestone and should communicate clearly, the planned prime time press conference feels like a bit much.

So what the relationship between this hoopla and technology start ups?

1. First, running a company is a marathon not a sprint. It's fine to set goals and meet them (in 10 days, 100 days or 6 months). But that's not the end in itself.

2. Hype kills. Yes. This is a familiar refrain for this blog. But we cannot say it too often. At the end of the day, spinning up too many things to create too much buzz can (nearly) always lead to disappointment among most constituents. . (Admittedly, the President has, thus far, avoided this pitfall. But...)

So, what should the President be doing now? Probably clear and concise communications to keep the discussion and understanding progressing. But without the prime time focus.

The same goes for most companies.

Speeding Along in the Real-Time World

David Brooks wrote a very interesting piece in yesterday's New York Times called "Greed and Stupidity" about the current financial crisis. I won't comment here on the specifics of his view of the crisis. But he had a very interesting comment in the article that got me thinking:

"To me, the most interesting factor is the way instant communications lead to unconscious conformity. You’d think that with thousands of ideas flowing at light speed around the world, you’d get a diversity of viewpoints and expectations that would balance one another out. Instead, global communications seem to have led people in the financial subculture to adopt homogeneous viewpoints. They made the same one-way bets at the same time."

We have all been made increasingly aware over the last decade of the implications of the world being flat. But i don't know that it was quite so clearly articulated that one of the side effects is, in fact, increased "lemminghood" (my term for Brooks' more polite "unconscious conformity"). But it is certainly the case. I have been concerned about it when reading poll numbers -- they reflect the perceived direction of the moment (sometimes this is valuable and sometimes it can be misleading); it's certainly impacted and been impacted by the news media and what's popular and what we read about; the speed with which 'fashions' come and go; and there are many other unintended consequences of real time communications.

So what is the impact on technology start-ups?

*First, now more than ever, young companies cannot afford to be slow in their decision making. This has been true for as long as I can remember. In small companies, there has never been room for misdirected use of resources for long.

*On the one hand, it is important to listen to the market and ferret out what can be learned from the constant access to information and opinions and real-time responses. This is a very powerful tool.

*But, on the other hand, it's critical now to be clear on your goals and have the "intestinal fortitude" to stick to them. We have always believed that "looking over your shoulder" is a very distracting activity for any company, especially start ups.

*The real time world is one in which entrepreneurs need to have a well-honed sense of balance between their fundamental views and outside input -- both of which are key, when you have an instinct about which to heed when.

A Return to Passion

In his piece in yesterday's New York Times, George Anders talked about "The Secrets of the Talent Scouts". It reminded me of the need/opportunity to return to passion in the world of start ups.

Mike Moritz of Sequoia Capital was quoted in the piece: "The only people who want to start a company in a time like this are the ones with the greatest conviction.”

That's exciting. Because over the last few years, the fever of money-making has, to a large degree, overtaken the passion to "change the world" that has driven start ups for a long time. For those of us who started in technology awhile ago, this passion has been a sentiment that we found missing. It reached a pinnacle (or nadir, perhaps) for me when, a few years ago, I met a very young entrepreneur who, when asked to tell the story of the founding of the company, answered with the following: "Do you want to hear the real story or the one that sounds better?" Ugh.

But now, I suspect such raw ambition without a foundation of passion wouldn't succeed in getting funded. (Yes. There are a lot of venture capitalists who aren't funding those companies either, but that's another story.)

At Roeder-Johnson, we are fortunate to represent multiple companies that have built and maintained their companies on sheer dint of will and the passion to make their visions happen. Turns out they are feeling the impact of today's economy less than a lot of other start ups.

So, what does this have to do with communications? A lot.

We believe that today, more than any time in the last few years, communications strategy and messages need to combine BOTH that passion and vision as well as the basic business case. That is, whether the founders of the company want to make cloud computing instant, a chip that does many high speed communications functions better than any network or general purpose processor, next generation multi-touch and gestural controls, or breakthrough fuel cell materials, the story that the company tells should combine four key elements:

*The inspiration for the basic idea;

*What is possible when this basic idea is realized (and, in its small way, how it might change the world);

*The business opportunities that are opened because of this breakthrough; and
*The passion that will lead to success -- through thick and thin.

It's no longer good enough to have a clever, opportunistic gimmick to make it through the challenging times we face. We have to believe that the change will really happen.

Living in a World of Knobs

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh is said to have fired up the troops at a major conservative conference. This, combined with a recent dinner with a friend who absolutely believes that the right answer to ALL of today's economic woes is to let the free market solve the problems, caused me to think about whether we live today in a world of many knobs rather than one big switch.

Let me explain.

If you imagine a dashboard for running the world (or the country, if you want a "smaller" picture), the image that would be conveyed to describe Limbaugh's world would be one with a gigantic switch whose two settings are: on one side is "government intervention"; and on the other side is "let the market take care of it". Limbaugh is essentially saying that the latter is the solution.

Alternatively, another dashboard might exist: one with multiple knobs, perhaps divided up by industry or discipline with varying degrees of government and private sector support represented around each knob. This latter is more of what is being used by today's U.S. government.

So what does this have to do with communications? A lot. It's obvious that in the former scenario, communicating the mission and vision is relatively easy. It's simple and clean.

But in the latter scenario, communicating is much tougher. There are nuances that are being implemented that can complicate the story.

However, we believe that even in a world of knobs -- which is likely the world in which most technology start ups live -- it is possible to develop as clean a communications strategy. It's what we at Roeder-Johnson call a "high concept". It requires stepping up above the individual knobs and seeing the single common vision that unifies all of them.

It may not be easy to define the "high concept"; but it is very important to do -- at any time of the market, especially now. We are living through a time of tremendous complexity, where everyone has many knobs they have to deal with every day. This means, for a company to raise itself above all of that fog of knobs, it needs to simplify its message.

Whether you agree with those who represent the "switch" vision of the world, there may be a lesson to take from them.

I Don't Usually Kiss 'n Tell, but. . .

If you know me, you know that I am not the type to Kiss 'n Tell. But, this time, I just have to. After a recent acceleration of Facebook use and connections, I have just succeeded in my first true Facebook "hookup." Over the past year, I have reconnected with old friends and learned so much more about what is important to many of my Facebook friends; but just this week, directly as a result of Facebook, I successfully introduced a guy to a company and he is joining!

Maybe that doesn't sound that exciting. Undoubtedly, a lot of people have found jobs through Facebook connections. But the amazing thing is that this guy wasn't looking for a job! We had never discussed anything like this.

Here's the general scheme of things (without saying to much in order protect peoples' privacy).

First, my friend and I have kept in touch for the 10 years or so that we have known each other. But, as a result of Facebook, we have been "chatting" so much more. After about 2 months of chats, "cross-commenting", and "wall-talking" my friend suggested we have lunch. Then, the night before our lunch, I had an epiphany: this guy who was happily living his life and not in any way looking for a new job, might be uniquely qualified to fill a nearly-unfillable role at the company of another friend.

So, we had lunch and the question was posed; the worst that happened was that the guy said no. But it turned out that he didn't say no. He got excited about the idea and the introduction was made. The rest is history.

This is so exciting because it happened by leaps of creativity. Facebook didn't do that, but the proximity of the people, the reconnections, etc. triggered the creativity.

It never occured to me that Facebook would become a part of the creative process. But it did. And, by the way, over the past year, I have had other "creative" experiences with Facebook as well (though they are somewhat less dramatic). Interestingly, it's not clear that LinkIn or Plaxo would create the same kind of creativity. Because the dialog is more stilted (or maybe I haven't figured them out yet -- which says something in itself).

Of course, this blog is about communications -- and this is a perfect example of how communications is changing and perhaps how we are all potentially more creative because of them.

"Yes" is the New "No"

Each day I watch President Obama with continued fascination. There are certainly a lot of things to find fascinating in today's world. But, as a communications professional, it is clear that all of us have a lot to learn from our new President.

There are layers of nuances in the way the President communicates. But the single biggest lesson that we can all take away is one the nearly all of us know already and just don't practice. Rule number 1 of communicating is: be inclusive; if you can keep people listening, you have a much better chance of getting your message across.

Let's look at a few recent examples:

1. The big one recently was when Tom Daschle removed himself from consideration as Health and Human Services Secretary. Instead of being defensive, President Obama quickly said "yes, I screwed up." The issue nearly became a non-story and we could move back to the big issues at hand.
2. We are also seeing this technique in the President's dealings with Iran and the Arab world. He has expressed toughness but at the same time went first to an Arab TV station and has openly said we will talk.
3. And with the Labor Unions, which will undoubtedly need to make concessions to help keep the economy progressing, Obama said "We will work with you." Rather than "get with it and lower your expectations." They will become part of the solution through this, rather than part of the resistance.

Daily we see more examples of this very astute communications approach -- it is clearly innate to the President's view of the world. It underscores that, in addition to the other rather wholesale changes happening today, we are returning to a time of candor and what I hope is a "win-win" approach to communicating.

What does this mean to technology start ups? Here are a few takeaways:

1. Start ups are often trying to do what President Obama has been trying to do: change the way people think. Communicating early and often is most effective.
2. Be inclusive in your communications; rather than negative. Try to find a way to get everyone to be a part of the transition/solution.
3. In response to criticism and challenges, acknowledge them and move forward rather than fighting against them.
4. Always remember, "Yes is the new No."

What's good for GM. . .

Let me just be clear. As a former owner of an EV1 electric car that GM subsequently took back and destroyed, I am not a fan of GM. They have made their bed.

That said, GM (along with the other US auto companies) is currently doing some PR that we can all take a lesson from. In short, because they are trying to convince Congress that their futures are worth betting on, the auto companies are currently very proactively showcasing their advanced technology. For the first time, reporters are seeing a lot of auto advancements that are upcoming in ways they have never been allowed to before.

Obviously, these are emergency measures and who knows if these guys will be proactive technology leaders when their lives don't depend on it. But, here's the lesson:

Don't wait till you are fighting for your survival to showcase your breakthroughs and leadership. It should be an integral part of your ongoing positioning strategy and will have broad benefits in the near, medium and long term.

Those of us with a heritage of working with technology start up companies know that technology is often one of the great differentiators for a young company with very tight resources. This means that initially it captures attention of customers, partners, and influencers, over the mid- and long-term it helps you move forward with customers and partners who need to look to tomorrow, and in all cases, when used right, has the potential to lower the cost of capital.

Of course, technology won't get you all the way over the line. You have to show that the technology leads to advantages that customers want. But it's a really powerful tool.

And by the way, I would contend that in this current economic environment it is MORE important today than in the past few years when "the rising tide lifted (almost) all boats".

What Technology Companies can Learn about Communications from the Recent Campaigns

Along with many of you, I have been watching this week's historic Presidential election very closely. In addition to its transformational nature in the story of the United States, the communications strategies of the Obama and McCain campaigns have differed dramatically and can provide some good lessons for start-up technology companies.

In short, the Obama campaign was an excellent example of "high concept" communications; while the McCain campaign followed a much more exclusively tactical path.

If you have read this blog in the past, you know that key elements of high concept communications are developing a simple and clear leadership vision and message which is the guidepost of a long-term communications strategy. With the creation of the "Change" high concept, the Obama campaign built the foundation of its entire communications architecture. And more than that, the campaign was quite disciplined about staying with this architecture – through thick and thin.

But it's also interesting to note that, at the same time as the Obama campaign defined and stuck with a clear architecture, it didn't forego any tactical advantage. A tremendous amount has been and will be written about the campaign's organization, on-the-ground tactics, and ground-breaking use of the Internet. The great communications strategy was not a substitute for those basics of great execution.

Juxtapose this very clear and consistent strategy with the McCain approach. To an outside observer, it didn't look like the campaign ever defined a unifying, overriding high concept that would inform an entire architecture. The communications seemed to change throughout the campaign with new slogans and approaches. Mind you, the campaign faced a number of "near death experiences" and needed to be fleet-of-foot to survive them; but it appears the campaign allowed that survival instinct to exclusively drive communications rather than finding a way to marry survival with a long-term strategy.

As part of this short-term, survival view of communications, the McCain campaign used "gimmicks" several times. (We believe Governor Palin and "Joe the Plumber" are good examples of this.) They appear to have generally offered short term benefit that ultimately became a deficit and backfired.

So, what are the lessons to be learned from these Presidential campaigns that can be applied to technology start-ups. First, let me explain that our view is that many start-ups share the core characteristic of Presidential campaigns in that they have the potential to “change the world” in some way but also live in a fast changing world where vision and survival are often at odds.

With this perspective the there are multiple lessons:

1. High concept communications works.

2. High concept communications both requires and enables a long-term view of the communications strategy. This means you want to be thoughtful up front about creating that strategy.

3. High concept communications does not argue against near term, practical execution decisions.

4. Gimmicks and hype are very risky.

5. Sometimes high concept communications takes both the will to be consistent and the creativity to marry it with the need for survival.

6. High concept communications are as important to a company as great products, technology, marketing, and business strategy. No single one of these can replace any the others.

Undoubtedly there are both more lessons and room for debate about these ideas. Please share them.