Social Media and Building Sustainable Ideas: A complex puzzle

In this morning's news, an article ran called "'Kony 2012' grabs media attention, but it could be fleeting". The article is about social media and revolutions, summed up in a quote from the article: "When you use social media to bring down a dictator, it's simplistic and easy," says Christopher Tunnard, who studies the effect of social media on politics at Tufts University. "When you're trying to build things back up, it's much more complicated. It's very difficult to put together a story about how social media are being used to build up institutions."

Since this blog is not about global politics but communications issues, this morning's article highlights what I believe is perhaps the biggest issue in communications today: social media is very good for intermittent hits on single ideas. But how do you sustain and build an entire "ideology" with social media?

The first answer to this question is to keep your ideas simple. We have talked a lot in this blog about a "high concept".

But the second answer, about which we have also talked, harkens back to our view of creating a "communications architecture." That is, even when you have a single "high concept", building an entire infrastructure around it is critical to build sustained ideologies.

I believe we are all just in the early stages of understanding how to implement this second strategy with social media. There will be a lot of experimentation in the next few years; though it is likely that the right approach will revolve around creating social media campaigns that systematically build and weave ideas.

There's a lot more to think about re how these campaigns are created. Watch this space.

Hashtag Movements: Whither big ideas and social media?

One of the most puzzling communications issues today is how to introduce new ideas in the current environment that is dominated by social media and often calls for 140 character ideas. This is a question I think about regularly because we often represent companies that aren't just an evolutionary step from something that exists already, but often call for people to think about new and different issues.

I was reminded of this puzzle in reading today's Reuters story about the current anti-Wall Street movement.

What can we learn from this movement, called "Occupy Wall Street" and which has been described as a "hashtag movement"? I think there's one big lesson: social media works to generate interest when you can sum up your new idea with a simple, short tagline. I am not trying to be caustic or cynical here. Just observant.

Does that work for all communications problems? I am going to have to keep thinking about it. Over the years, as we have worked with companies with big, new ideas, I have come to understand that to help them succeed we need to come up with a way to systematically lead the market to believe it needs what the company has. In "the old" world where people relied on somewhat extended stories, we could develop an educational program designed to raise questions, answer them and gently ease perception in the direction we wanted. This could be systematic and allowed for explanation and clarification along the way.

But how do you do this when 140 characters is the norm? This is a really big challenge for new ideas.

There's clearly an opportunity within the social media space to address this issue. In the meantime, is the answer a series of progressive "hashtag movements" to get a market from here to there?

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.

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.

"When all else fails, try the Truth - Redux"

This afternoon, it was confirmed that the "balloon boy" incident was a hoax. The most amazing thing to me was that anyone ever thought otherwise. Having done communications and public relations for my whole career, I have found that it's pretty easy to tell when someone wants attention for their own benefit rather than for a "greater good." The surprising thing about the hoax was that it wasn't obvious to just about everybody that this family had a long history of attention-seeking.

The sad thing is that we "have made our own bed". The combination of the 24-7 news cycle and the general interest in drama and sensation have led to people like this family who exploit the system. Moreover, I suspect that ultimately they will benefit somehow from this great amount of attention, even if they have to wade through some mud to reach their goal.

It's ironic that I am concerned about this. After all, at Roeder-Johnson, we are in the business of helping companies get noticed. But, for better or worse, we believe there is a certain standard. I often joke about the fact that my motto is "when all else fails, try the truth." But it's actually not a joke. We believe that you start with the truth. The market ALWAYS figures it out. And companies are better off managing their perceptions based on the truth rather than apologizing or correcting themselves later.

So how do we rationalize communicating within this drama-driven world and staying with the truth. They are not mutually exclusive. Most companies have stories that are full of drama on several levels and, over time, can garner attention. And in the meantime, by communicating who they REALLY are, they are getting to the constituents they need to influence.

So, I am hoping that the sensation of the balloon boy doesn't encourage more such hoaxs. But, unfortunately, I am afraid it will.

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.

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?

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.

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.

When Times are Tough, Keep Talking and Differentiate

We recently underscored the importance of continuing to communicate during this current down market. To reiterate, there are two fundamental reasons:

• In the near-term, you want your constituencies to know you are out there, active and understand how you can benefit them; and
• In the long-term, there’s ground to capture and if you succeed, you come out the winner and leading the market.

However, as is always our way, we don’t recommend quantity instead of quality. It is critical in a market like this to stand out by being clear about who you are and why anyone should care, especially when resources are at a premium.

This means that before you talk, step back and clearly define the following:

1. Within the world as it is and is coming to be, why are you important?
2. How are you different and why is that difference important to your target audiences?
3. How do you explain and reinforce this clearly and repeatedly?

Since the current market difficulties are still pretty new, let’s find an example that worked. I heard the story the other day of the refrigerator company that advertised heavily during the Great Depression. They knew that this was an opportunity for them. Their thrust was: in a time when money is tight, you need to preserve your food for as long as possible; buy a refrigerator because it will stretch your budget.

Yes, I know that this may be simplistic. But they focused clearly on their differentiation and benefit. Imagine how that might look today in the world of transparent communications. For example, think about the elements of the Web Site (and then you can extrapolate to the broad spectrum of communications):

• Theme: Save more with a refrigerator.
o Company description: We are committed to bringing down total costs with our products that help preserve food long
o Technology:
• We have invented a number of unique technologies that create a long lasting cool storage place for perishables.
o Markets:
• Everyone keeps perishables and everyone needs to preserve their investment by saving these as long as possible.

o We serve the following markets:
• Homes
• Restaurants
• Industrial applications

o Products:
• Home version
• Restaurant version
• Industrial version

o Case Studies:
• Family
• Restaurant
• Factory

o News:
• Launch of First Refrigerator that Stays cool forever
• Family keeps food for a week
• Restaurant profits increase because of less food loss
• New Technology Extends the Life of Food

Well, you probably get it. We used the example of the web site because in today’s world, it serves as a great example of nearly all of the types of communications that you may need to use and how you can be clear and differentiate at each turn. Moreover, this example exemplifies why you need to be quite clear about what you are trying to say at all levels.

Sequoia’s Right: Just Make Sure You Know All of what they Said about Communications

There is much being made these days about Sequoia Capital’s meeting with portfolio companies where they said “RIP: Good Times.” In short, they have told portfolio companies to tighten their belts, be realistic about their businesses, and hunker down for the long term. Turns out, Sequoia hasn’t been alone in these warnings. We are hearing that most investors are giving their portfolio companies similar messages.

But Sequoia also said some very interesting things about communications. According to GigaOm, Doug Leone made a number of key points:

• Go on the offensive and pound on your competitors’ shortcomings.
• Be aggressive with your messaging and be out there. In a downturn, aggressive PR and communications strategy is key.

This is certainly a version of the old adage: “He who wins in a down market wins.” Therefore, our advice is:

• Take the advice of your investors – most of whom are going to tell you to lengthen your runway as much as possible; and
• Seize the moment by capturing undefended ground during this downturn.

So how does a company use communications to do this?

• Be clear, articulate, and consistent about your differentiation;
• Be clear, articulate, and consistent about your benefits – near term and long term;
• Speak often to your key markets and influencers;
• Be specific and real. Help your customers and their influencers understand how you are better and the benefits you bring;
• Use the transparency of communications today to make sure this communications gets to all of your audiences.
• Don’t stop talking!

We know that you may be wondering how you can both extend your runway and increase your communications.

We intend to create a series of blog posts to address the issues enumerated above. But, if you want to discuss these, call us.

Sometimes when you climb a mountain, a flip flop is the right decision

I recently was on a hike in British Columbia and, at the end of 6 hours and about 4500 feet with at least as much to go (without much food or drink, or any flashlights or warm clothes), our entire group of hikers decided that we would not make it to the designated end of the hike and we would have to change our plan. Not only was this the right thing to do, but as I think about the situation, I am reminded that sometimes, given new data, changing the plan is the right thing to do.

Interestingly, changing course is an increasingly common 21st Century business move. It seems to have become more accepted in our world today -- when companies like Google (and lots of others) can introduce a product or make a business move and, if it doesn't work (for whatever reason), they quietly change things.

It's not clear that the press (at least the part that covers politics) has yet recognized that this kind of flexibility is both acceptable, and probably also necessary, in our time. In politics, this behavior is called a "flip flop" and candidates seem to be accused of flip flops on a regular basis these days.

But two fundamental questions arise here:

1.) Are flip flops inherently OK or are they a sign of weakness or unclear thinking?
2.) If flip flops are ok, what kinds of guidelines can be used to help understand when a decision represents good judgment or equivocation?

The answer to the first question seems relatively clear: of course flip flops are ok. We live in a real-time world and when new data comes along that leads to new insight and possibly a change of opinion, then, by all means, flip flop if it's the right thing to do.

Of course, the second question is the hard one: where does flexibility end and poor judgment or a weak value system begin? It's certainly a lot easier to be doctrinaire about opinions and inflexible about plans (this lends a certain clarity to life). But it doesn't seem a practical or sensible way to live in today's world. Yet, when do you change your course?

In reality, I don't know the specific answer to this question. And it's certainly one that start-up companies should constantly be looking at (both in business in general and certainly in their communications strategy): when do they stay the course -- even if it's hard; and when do they change directions? In general, it feels like good guidelines are:


• If your original plan was based on a well-thought-out rationale, then the default position should be to stay the course; but
• If, in spite of this default predisposition, new evidence leads you to conclude a change in course is necessary, then do it.

We live in a world today when flip flops -- with the right foundation -- are ok.

Welcome, PR 2.0! But Where Is “Leadership” in the Formula?

Welcome, PR 2.0! But Where Is “Leadership” in the Formula?

We are so pleased that a “high concept” called “PR 2.0” is attracting so much attention of late. After the hysteria of the last decade or so about “ink” and “publicity”, it’s excellent that young entrepreneurs are being educated about the real facts of life in effective public relations. We have always tried to practice this on a one on one basis and are glad for the help reminding people of some important fundamentals about public relations, including the benefits of:

• Having a clear vision
• Articulating it clearly as a “high concept”
• Understanding how your market is shaped and influencing the influencers through the appropriate media
• Relationship-building; and
• Leadership


Leadership is the thing that we believe is missing from the broadly articulated version of PR 2.0. It’s good to have the tactical execution in hand as being explained by PR 2.0. But we think the broad explanation forgets to remind entrepreneurs that they need to define the market – not follow it (you can read about this a lot in this blog (http://thehighconcept.blogspot.com/2008/05/walk-before-you-run-to-win-leadership.html).

We hope that with the increased attention to professional PR execution the quality of services provided will go up. Moreover, we hope even more fervently that a few of the entrepreneurs will go the extra mile and really work to lead and challenge the market with provocative and interesting perspectives.

Walk before you Run to Win the Leadership Race

For some reason, the last few weeks have been very exciting for me. I'm not sure why, but it has felt like a particularly rich time to add value to companies by combining experience with new ways of looking at the world and communications.

As I have said before, one of the most energizing things going on today is that with the Internet, you can try lots of new things: the rules are different today. Yes. It's important to remember that human behavior is still the same. But you can reach people so much more easily and in so many different ways.

Our whole goal for clients is helping them achieve leadership. But leadership does not have a hard and fast definition. It means that a company is shaping its market, rather than having the market shaped for it. Beyond that general guidepost, achieving leadership can differ dramatically from company to company.

But, at its core, leadership comes from systematically thinking about how the market will be influenced and then helping each of those influencer groups to move forward. So often, we see that while having high profile attention can have lots of benefits to companies; focusing exclusively on that kind of attention can be very damaging to a company truly looking to achieve leadership. Sometimes, the core constituency that is going to lay the foundation for leadership, will actually be offended by too much high level attention too soon.

That's where experience comes in. It's important to figure out the "layers" of the market and build credibility. And, by the way, no two companies or markets are the same: A company in the "material science" business needs adoption by scientists if they are are doing provocative and transformative things; a company in the software business needs to be adopted by developers before the big business impact can happen; a company in the communications chip business needs to be accepted by systems designers before changing things; a company in the advertising business needs to influences both the infrastructure developers and the "clients" to get their idea accepted. And so on.

The real message here is that understanding how to achieve that lofty leadership goal takes some thought based on a combination of instinct, execution, experience, and new thinking. It's valuable energy to invest for a young company to have a chance to define its own destiny.

Yes, my dear, Technology Does Matter

I just read a post by Alex Haislip of PE Hub that bothers me. The phrase that most struck me was "I feel like most VCs I write about repeated the 'defensible technology is all that matters' mantra until it blinded them to any other opportunities."

Where are these VC's? My concern today is that so many VCs lose sight of the need for barriers to entry and just focus on clever business models. And, worse, technology breakthroughs are looked upon with skepticism that they will be too expensive, or worse, never become commercial.

We certainly understand that a viable business model is needed to make a successful company. But what about transformational technology? Yes; it is possible to put too much emphasis on technology, but there are too *few* start ups today with that critical technology breakthrough.

And if that happens, where will tomorrow's new business opportunities come from?