Advertising « 800 CEO Read

November 17, 2011

Brand Thinking with Debbie Millman and Tom Peters

Filed under: Advertising,Blog,Design,Marketing — Jon @ 9:00 am

As mentioned yesterday, today we’re featuring part of a chapter from Debbie Millman’s new book, Brand Thinking and Other Noble Pursuits. What’s the book about? It’s a collection of Millman’s interviews with some serious minds from the ad industry (and beyond) about what branding is, how it affects us, and how to better understand our relationship with it (both as professionals and as consumers). It’s a compelling read about a subject that involves us all (whether we like it or not).

In the chapter featured below, Millman interviews management expert and design conscious thinker Tom Peters. This is just one example of the type of thinking you’ll see throughout the book (and a pretty good one, in my opinion).

Here we go!

(A reminder: Questions are by the author, Debbie Millman, and answers are by Tom Peters, taken from the book, Brand Thinking and Other Noble Pursuits)

Why do people care about branded items? What do you think it does for the human psyche?

One part of it—which is less relevant today than it was in the past—is once they got connected with companies like the Unilevers and the Kimberly-Clarks and the P&Gs, a brand was a guarantee of reliability. This did not exist in my grandfather’s store in rural Virginia. Have you read Thomas Hine’s book on packaging? One of my favorite examples from his book focuses on Quaker Oats. Hine talks about how, in 1870, oats were something you fed to an animal. And suddenly, you had a cardboard box with a Quaker on the outside, and oats became a human delicacy—due entirely to packaging—in the short space of 20 years.

First, branding was about safety and reliability, but let’s also acknowledge that human beings are an emotional species. I was in China for the first time in 1986. As soon as Deng Xiaoping took the lid off of regulation, women went from wearing gray, shapeless Mao jackets to sporting colorful wardrobes nearly overnight. This need to express our individuality and vibrancy is obviously a fundamental, basic human need.

Why do you think it’s a basic human need?

I have no idea. It may be that giraffes are colorblind, so they have patterns on their bum that other critters don’t. I assume at some point, in some sense, it’s a version of peacocking. I assume that there was probably an aspect of Darwinian selection to it. My bet would be it has something to do with this, though I do have a proclivity for being fairly Darwinian in my beliefs. Frankly, I have no idea what the history is.

Let’s assume that we are hardwired to want to be attractive to each other for some deep-seated procreational need. How is this connected to oats transforming into a delicacy when the food is put in a package decorated with the image of a Quaker?

In Darwinian terms, we’re suckers for stories. Stories are the way that humans have always communicated. The Quaker Oats box is not only visually attractive, but it’s a story. Since Aboriginal times in Western Australia—and I’m sure if one goes back thousands of years, or hundreds of thousands of years before that, you’ll find the same dynamic—a good story has always been a good seller. A brand is a story. Period. Frankly, I would rather dump the word “brand” and use the word “story.” I think we’re in the process of wearing out the word “brand.” At some level, when I’m a brand, I’m more commercial. When I’m a story, I’m more human.

So what do you think the Quaker story was at the turn of the 20th century?

I presume that—to your point with plastic bags and diapers—as late as the beginning of the century, sanitation sucked. The pharmaceutical companies should get none of the credit for our life expectancy going from 50 to 75 during the 20th century. The two things that account for 90 percent of this improvement are sanitation and diet. So here comes a cereal that’s reliable and clean and that you could buy for your dearly beloved children without any fear they would get sick when they ate it.

How was the quaker telling that story? What did the quaker represent?

Doesn’t a quaker, in theory, stand for reliability? If it’s good enough for a quaker, then it’s got to be good enough for my little Martha.

One of my favorite stories revolves around the Morton Salt Girl. She is all about metaphor. Morton chemically alters a salt crystal so that it won’t stick to other crystals when it’s wet or humid outside. The Morton Salt Girl is holding an umbrella while the salt is pouring freely. So when it rains, the salt pours. But you don’t have to read a word—it’s all expressed by a visual puzzle that you have to figure out. I think this is why people like it so much. People love puzzles—they feel better about themselves when they correctly figure them out. That’s why people like the “I ♥ New York” logo so much. It’s a puzzle made out of a word, an abbreviation, and a symbol.

I remember reading an article about a social psychology experiment relating to this and being totally unsurprised, as I imagine you would be. Two sets of subjects are given two lists of the same words to memorize. One of the lists is of the words “farm,” “basement,” “bar,” and so forth. The other list is the same, except that random letters are left out, so instead of basement, you’ve got B–A–S, underscore, M–E–N–T. In terms of subsequent recall, the people who had the list with missing letters outperformed the people with the full words by a dramatic margin. Cognitively, you had to work your ass off, so it stuck in your mind.

Yes, the experience of figuring out the words creates a deeper neural pathway in the brain.

It’s extraordinary the way the brain works. . . .

I hate economists.

Why? Why do you hate economists?

Because they’re impersonal bastards. They believe in the rational model, which makes them dumb. When the great recession of 2007–2008 descended upon us, it was not an economics issue. It was a psychology issue.

How was it a psychology issue?

The behavior that got us there was herd behavior. The government has convinced people of the emotional need to own a house. If you look at the economics studies, in many respects the housing market doesn’t go up all that much over a long period of time. There are a million studies that will tell you that renting makes more sense than owning. But psychologically, owning a piece of turf is incredibly important. So I understand why people—who had no money and were given the chance to borrow money—were total suckers for it. And I use “sucker” not in an abusive sense, but in a realistic sense. Then again, you’ve always had herd behavior on Wall Street.

They’re now saying Silicon Valley is the “green” crash. The current punchline is that any human being, including you and I, can put together a business proposal tomorrow morning. And as long as we use a computer and include the word “green” a sufficient number of times in our proposals, the venture capitalists will be showering us with money by dawn the day after.

I’m obviously using hyperbole, but that’s where we’re seeing more of this herd behavior. In terms of the rational-mindedness, I’ve trained in that. I was trained as an engineer, but now I’m a reformed engineer, a “born again” engineer. The reliance on rational models—or models in general—to me, makes economists highly suspect. I don’t believe anything they say. That is very close to not being hyperbole. In the 1970s, when I was getting my PhD, my classmates and I read books by psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. Tversky and Kahneman invented “behavioral economics.” This is the hottest branch of economics right now, the “Freakonomics” branch.

Kahneman won a Nobel Prize in economics, but he was a social psychologist, period. I am royally pissed off that these f’ing economists have appropriated psychology and now call it the coolest thing in economics. Screw them. These straightlaced, rationally thinking economists have appropriated social psychology, and it pisses me off for reasons that are totally childish on my part.

Why childish?

Because it’s stupid. I’m delighted that the irrational realities are beginning to seep into economics. The rational me is delighted that irrationality is seeping into the rational profession, because maybe they’ll get some things right.

Look, I have a very strong smart-ass streak. I have learned to be “appropriate” and politically correct on many scores over the years. To the extent that I must, I guard my “smart-assery” when I’m giving speeches to middle managers from financial services companies. But the smart ass lurks no more than one glass of chardonnay below the surface.

I’ll remember that when I need to get your honest opinion on something. In the past, you’ve said, “Design is so critical it should be on the agenda of every meeting in every single department in the business.” Why do you believe that?

The term I’ve used for 20 years—and maybe I stole it from somebody or maybe by the grace of God they’ve stolen it from me—is “design-mindedness.” Design-mindedness is about bringing an aesthetic dimension into a discussion of anything. I am a great fan of Carly Fiorina. A lot of the reason was that she—kicking and screaming—brought a design aesthetic to Hewlett-Packard. I know this because I lived next door to Lew Platt, Carly’s predecessor, in college. Prior to Ms. Fiorina, Hewlett-Packard ranked 200 on a list of 199, in terms of design sensibilities. When she left, they were a significant consumer goods company, and that was Carly, pure and simple. When they gave her successor, Mark Hurd, the credit for having a great design team, it made me want to barf. Carly was not a good chief operating officer, and she probably needed to be let go at some point. I don’t deny that for a minute. And she had an ego that was a little bit out of control, and I don’t deny that for a minute either. But she brought about a cultural change at Hewlett-Packard, which makes the work that Lou Gerstner did at IBM and Jack Welch did at GE look like chump change by comparison.

Do you think that anything can be successful now without being highly positioned?

Yes.

Really?

Well, we obviously would have to spend the next two weeks defining “highly.” As the ethos of quality that began to bubble up in the United States during the 1980s took root, the major fast-moving consumer goods companies started having significant problems going up against store brands. Once store brands became reliable, they began to market and brand themselves. Then Wal-Mart came along, and the average American started saving something like $900 a year, which isn’t small cookies for people making $45,000 annually. The things they’re buying at Wal-Mart might be much less sexy, but as long as they’re quality products, this is perfectly acceptable. The recession obviously has pushed people even farther toward this model.

Look, I own a Subaru. I own a Subaru because they’re perfect for Vermont. But the quality revolution has taken such root that, in terms of quality, I’m probably just as well off with a Kia as I am with a Subaru or a Mercedes.

Do you really think that the quality is that comparable?

Yes.

So it is really just branding and positioning?

Well, branding, positioning, and people who like to have sex with their car. The electronics in BMW and Mercedes cars allow you to do a whole lot of things that you really don’t need to do. But in terms of a vehicle that can travel 30,000 miles without ever having to go into a shop, I would bet that a Kia is very, very close to these other brands.

Comments Off

November 16, 2011

Brand Thinking and Other Noble Pursuits

Filed under: Advertising,Blog,Marketing — Jon @ 10:24 am

We all like to think that we ignore advertising. We change the channel during commercials, we don’t click on banner ads, we hang up on telemarketers. But it’s no use, we still have a sense of brands. We look at them and try to understand them in ways we don’t even realize. Even by avoiding them, we’re recognizing them. And that makes brands a pretty interesting thing.

But just what is that thing exactly? Author, designer, and insightful thinker Debbie Millman has spent much of her life pursuing that question, and now, she asks some of the other brightest minds in the industry (and beyond) how they would answer this question. These discussions culminate in her new book, Brand Thinking and Other Noble Pursuits.

As you can see from the cover image, there’s some interesting names listed, whose ideas on this topic are indeed fascinating. In fact, tomorrow, I’ll be posting a chapter from the book where Millman interviews Tom Peters (c’mon back!).

But what about Debbie Millman herself?

Wanting to get her take on some of the ideas expressed by others in the book, I sent her some questions. Here’s the discussion that followed:

Acceptance or belonging seems to be a theme throughout the interviews you’ve conducted in the book. What is your take on a brand creating a sense of belonging for people that interact with it?

Debbie Millman: In my introduction to Brand Thinking, I write about how scientists and anthropologists believe humans feel safer and more secure in groups. Psychologists such as Harry Harlow and John Bowlby have determined that we feel happier and better about ourselves when our brains resonate with other, like-minded humans. I believe that our motivation to brand, and to be branded, comes from our hardwired instinct to connect. Brands are so persuasive in their personal, political, economic, aesthetic, moral, ethical and social consequences that they now reflect our behavior and our beliefs. People that share specific beliefs inevitably “find” each other and create tribes. As Wally Olins states, “Branding demonstrates (a) sense of belonging. It has this function for both the people who are part of the same group and also for the people who don’t belong.” Brands have become an extension of human facility, whether it is psychic or psychological. The brands we acquire telegraph our beliefs and affiliations, and in doing so, they create intimate worlds inhabitants can mutually understand. I think that any knowledge of culture is impossible now without an understanding of the implications of “brand.”

There are also multiple comparisons between brands and religion. However, religion deals mostly with the afterlife, and brands satisfy things while we’re alive. Where do you see the correlation, if any?

Debbie Millman: Throughout our history as a species, it seems that humans have needed faith and belief. Symbolism is a critical component of comprehending and telegraphing this belief. Despite this predilection, there is no agreement to one way of believing. We have thousands of religions followed by people who all deeply believe that they have a special, direct and intimate communication with God. But let’s be honest; there is no scientific data for this, they are constructs that we chose to believe in—or not. In Brand Thinking, Brian Collins makes the argument that “we create the (same) constructs around Nike sneakers or Coca-Cola in order to create specific feelings or to satisfy specific human needs,” and “For some consumers, it almost becomes a replacement for religion.” Alex Bogusky even goes so far as stating, “If we are wired by a higher power for religion and for God, then I think we could be wired for branding as well.”

Can brands be good, while what they represent is bad? (ex. Godin’s mention of tobacco companies) If so, what does that say about the position and responsibility they have, if any?

Debbie Millman: It is fascinating to consider why a person will choose Pepsi over Coke or Dr. Pepper over Mountain Dew. Ultimately a brand does more than differentiate itself categorically—brands also differentiate the consumer attitudinally. I am not sure that this is a bad thing—it is evidence of choice and freedom and the ability to express what we believe to be our individuality or preferences. The consumer chooses the brand that makes them feel most socially confident and wears this badge of cultural acceptability. What gets tricky is whether or not it is acceptable for a brand to promise to make people happy or sexy or healthy or smart or athletic by the sheer virtue of acquiring and experiencing the brand. Can a brand really make the world a better place to live? If I wear Nike sneakers or drink Diet Pepsi, will I have less insecurity? Cheat less? Lie less? Smile more? Feel “alive with pleasure”? I don’t think so. I hope that Jonathan Bond was right when he said, “Consumers are like roaches. We spray them with marketing, and for a time, it works. Then, inevitably, they develop an immunity, a resistance.” I believe that brands have many of the same responsibilities of people, as brands are created by the very species they are created for: Be truthful, do no harm and leave the world a better place than when you arrived.

Seduction is another concept that appears throughout the interviewees answers. Do you see brands as being seducers, or people just finding solutions to their needs with products or services provided?

Debbie Millman: It may sound like a cop-out, but the easy answer to your question is, BOTH. In an effort to solicit the imagination of a consumer, a brand must strike the right notes of allure and “choose me” seductiveness to a specific type of consumer. This sex appeal varies by brand or by category or by psychographic, but the basic tenets remain the same. One of the great ironies in our society is how the anti-branding constituents use the very same tenets of branding they so vigorously disdain. They have logos, they have websites, and they have target messaging. Even Adbusters sells sneakers now! On the other hand, people only continue to buy brands that consistently satisfy their needs and expectations. Seduction only works once if the product doesn’t deliver.

What was the biggest lesson you learned about brands in working on this book? How did it change you?

Debbie Millman: Better living through consumption doesn’t stop when you’ve consumed everything you covet. Unfortunately, brands are elusive and they don’t keep you happy for very long. As Dan Pink aptly points out, “The evidence is overwhelmingly clear that human beings metabolize (brands) very quickly. I’m specifically using the word metabolize because we are talking about hunger and thirst. If a big-screen TV is your symbol of stature and significance, it’s a fool’s game. These kinds of external objects do not provide enduring satisfaction.” He goes on to talk about what psychologists call the “hedonistic treadmill.” In other words, if you’re always looking to validate yourself by buying things, then you are never going to be satisfied. He states, “You are on an endless, addictive treadmill. The brand’s only purpose is to get you on that hedonistic treadmill. It may be good for the business in the short run, but in the long run, you’re doomed.” Dan has articulated this behavior better than anyone else, in my opinion. This has profoundly influenced how I feel about buying those new boots I have been coveting at Saks.

—

Whether you’re in advertising, marketing, an entrepreneur, or just want to better understand our relationship with brands as people, this is a helpful read. You get a variety of perspectives, with themes that develop yet each retain their own character, making this an insightful and useful book.

And as I mentioned above, tune in here tomorrow for the book excerpt where Millman interviews Tom Peters about brands.

Comments Off

March 23, 2011

Pre Commerce

Filed under: Advertising,Blog,Internet — Jon @ 2:09 am

It may be no surprise to you that the internet has changed your business, but with the rise in social media, those changes will continue, and will reveal great opportunities for those who are paying attention.

Bob Pearson, chief technology and media officer at WCG, has written a book called Pre-Commerce: How Companies and Customers Are Transforming Business Together, describing those changes and how leaders can apply the right knowledge to take advantage of the opportunities they bring.

To further describe some of the ideas contained within the book, I sent Mr. Pearson the following questions:

How can companies impact social buying decisions without turning it into another form of advertising?

Bob Pearson: Consumers are most often looking to their peers to consult on buying decisions, not advertisers. Peer influence is driven by the sharing of knowledge between people who have mutual respect for each other. The best advertising in the world is simply a catalyst to get that conversation started. It doesn’t lead to respect. A company’s goal should be to become a relevant peer in conversations related to buying decisions, so they can have the most potential impact. This requires a new approach to outreach.

How are some companies honoring their ambassadors?

BP: The best way to honor an ambassador is with recognition and respect, not a tchotchke. It is much more impactful to receive a thank you than a pen. Don’t you agree?

What happens when negative social feedback is overwhelming? How can a company (or just an employee) manage it properly?

BP: Rome wasn’t built in a day. Companies of all sizes need to take one step at a time. There is no easy fix to decrease negative share of conversation. The best way is to identify why customers are unhappy and then help solve their problems one at a time. If you find a solution that applies to many people, share it online, since 95% of your customers will not call you each year for customer service. They will search, talk with friends or do nothing. They don’t see as great a need to contact you directly as they did a few years ago. However, if they realize you are trying to help them online in their communities, they will appreciate it greatly. Think about it….would you rather have someone visit you or make you find them?

Is it possible for companies to make direct correlations between social activity and sales?

BP: Yes. Online behavior lends itself to quantitative analysis. If you know how to measure behavior online, you will start to see if what you are doing will lead people to make a purchase or other decision. Other decisions include doing nothing, which is also an outcome.

What impact does this new focus do for traditional forms of marketing?

BP: The entire marketing mix is evolving. All of the communications, psychology and business models we learned in school still apply, although the marketplace has changed externally. As a result, the way we market is evolving. For example, if you can see if an advertising campaign is working in 24 hours via online behavior, would you still lock in a three month media buy? You wouldn’t today, but you might have done this a few years ago without blinking an eye.

—

Whether your company is active in social media practices or needs to get a better understanding of what’s involved, this book is a helpful guide to improving your business. There are new ways to develop influence beyond traditional advertising and this book shows you how to participate, and with the best practices known today.

Comments Off

August 3, 2010

Brains on Fire

Filed under: Advertising,Big Ideas,Blog,Communication,Interviews,Marketing — Jon @ 8:38 am

Hooray! The Brains on Fire book!

Ever since I first read their ChangeThis manifesto, and heard Spike Jones speak in Milwaukee about the incredible approach people should consider in marketing – creating movements, I was hooked. These Brains on Fire people are different, and now they have shared their experience and insight in a great book jammed with pages that will make you reconsider the ways you think about marketing and advertising – throwing most of them out the window. It’s called: Brains on Fire: Igniting Powerful, Sustainable, Word of Mouth Movements.

Brains on Fire helped ignite a global fanaticism for scissors, they helped an electronics store become a hip music retailer, and so much more, and they did it by tapping people’s passion and bringing them all together – not just the people at the companies, but the people who use their products. How do you do that? It’s what marketers have been trying to figure out since the beginning of time.

Like a Seth Godin book, or Jason Fried and David Heinemeier Hansson’s Rework, you can literally feel your mind change when you read this. Here’s a glimpse into the ideas within the book – a brief Q&A with Brains on Fire co-author (and company president) Robbin Phillips:

What does Brains on Fire mean?

Yes. There is a company named Brains on Fire, but we didn’t name our book after our company. For us, “brains on fire” is what happens when you ignite the passion within your employees and customers. It’s about people who are so excited and devoted that they want to share their passion with others. We also like to think Brains on Fire is a love story. It’s about creating real relationships with people who love you. It’s about trust and about lifting others up. It’s about celebrating and creating remarkable stories that people want to share. It’s about igniting powerful, sustainable word of mouth movements.

For a long, long time, business has been about convincing people of something’s value. How do you see that changing?

Marketers have been trained to talk about product benefits and how much we care about our customers. Customer satisfaction ratings used to be golden. But in a world where the customer’s voice can be amplified at least as much as a company’s, talking AT your customers is outdated. Let’s face it; talking about yourself will not make others talk about you. No one talks about the precise angle on a pair of scissors, but they do talk about what they DO with those scissors – like crafting and sharing memories with friends and family. It’s not the product conversation anymore. Smart companies are learning to listen, reframe and support the passion conversation.

Who are the leaders, and how do we find them?

One of the lessons we learned in igniting movements and studying movements is this: Movements have inspirational leadership. Think about it. If everyone is expected to lead, no one will. When looking for leadership, we don’t look for the influencers; we look for regular, everyday people who just happen to have a deep passion for the category. Not the divas, the super-bloggers, or the supposed influencers that everyone else is trying to get hold of. We have seen first hand how these everyday people have more and greater credibility; because they are in fact, “just like me.” Influence can be built, passion cannot. Find your company’s passionate leaders and empower them with tools to spread their passion and their love.

New technology is all around us. What should companies do with it?

If there’s one thing you take away from our book let it be this: It’s about people. Period. Chris Sandoval, a kindred spirit, says it best: “When it comes to technology, what’s exciting and shiny today will be freakin’ dead tomorrow.” Ninety percent of word of mouth happens offline. So many companies jump into social media technology first — with Twitter strategies and Facebook fans. Our advice is to engage people first. Observe how they communicate and connect, then the tools and tactics will be as plain as the nose on your face.

Here’s a big question: How can a company become the center of the universe?

Big question. But there’s a simple answer. Take a look around your company. What do you have to offer that you take for granted? Perhaps you have experts who design your products who can share knowledge. Maybe your factories or offices are interesting to the people who love your products or services. Embrace the leaders and your fans, and give them access to the things you know. Share freely. Give freely without expecting anything in return. Treat your customers like your best friends. Forever.

And here’s a little bit of Robbin talking about the book in person:

Comments (4)

August 6, 2009

The New Rules of Marketing & P.R. – Book Review

Filed under: Advertising,Book Reviews,Marketing,Public Relations,Sales — Tags: Advertising, Book Reviews, Marketing, Public Relations, Roy, Sales, Technology — Roy @ 9:42 am

I found this review on www.blogcritics.org – it seems like a very intriguing read… especially for those of you in the P.R. world. It’s almost been a year since its publication into paperback and it would be neat to do a ‘reality check’ into if this book actually has tapped into the changing face of marketing… so, if you’ve checked this book out or will – let us know your thoughts on what is going on in your world.

Here’s what blogcritic.org thought of The New Rules of Marketing & PR: How to Use News Releases, Blogs, Podcasting, Viral Marketing & Online Media to Reach Buyers Directly by David Meerman Scott (Oct. 2008)

This book is definitely a must-read for those involved in the promotion and marketing of products and services. Scott does a wonderful job of covering the soup to nuts process of understanding your story, telling your story and then getting others to tell your story for you. His point is clear and hammered home, the old way of pushing your story via a general broadcast is not only expensive, but ineffective. In today’s world, where pitching a good story to the right people — focusing on the targeted few instead of the masses — is more likely to get many others talking about your story.
Focus on your buyers, not your product. How do customers relate to your product? What problem do you solve? What does Starbucks really sell?
Write in plain language, in the language of your customers. Invite them to engage in a dialogue instead of broadcasting your monologue.
I always preach similar techniques in my marketing practice. It’s not about the features of your product/service. In fact, it’s not about the product or service at all — it’s the relationship that customers have with your wares. What emotional connection — what need — does it satisfy?

If you are a fan of novels/movies then think about Cyrano de Bergerac and Roxanne. Basically, they have the same template: ugly, romantic guy vies against handsome, dumb guy for heart of beautiful girl. In the former, the hero duels with swords and in the latter he duels with tennis racquets. The point is that the template defines the emotional connection — the duel for love — and the nouns, namely the sword or the racquet are irrelevant because they are interchangeable. If we apply the principles from Meerman’s book, we’d see that it is paramount to focus on the template, not the instrument, i.e., the buyer and not the product.

The New Rules also talks about dialogue instead of monologue, engagement instead of broadcast. The Internet has made the world smaller. If I wanted to, right now, I could find someone online in another country and engage them in conversation. Even better, if I knew that they might have some interest in my product or service, by engaging them in conversation I’ve revealed that I’m a real person — I exist in the world — and that comfort can easily be translated to a stronger pitch for my wares to a potential customer or a journalist.

While reading The New Rules of Marketing and PR, think about the verbs that your customers use and the emotions that you can tap into to strengthen that connection… then get out there and do it.

Comments (5)

June 23, 2009

Books for a day at the beach.

Filed under: Advertising — Aaron @ 10:10 am

Tom Martin, the president of Zehnder Communications recently put together a nice list of his favorite beach-reading books for Advertising Agency folks. Read the post and leave a comment with the books you think he left off the list. If you are still feeling up for the audience participation, pop over to our My Favorite Business Book site, and share your story with us.

Comments (3)

February 18, 2009

Titles Now in Spanish!

Filed under: Advertising,Foreign Titles,General Business,General Management,Global Business,Leadership,Marketing,Personal Development,Safety, Health, and Wellness,Sales — Roy @ 9:24 am

Here are some new titles that are currently from Urano and Roca publishers. If you don’t speak/read Spanish, then perhaps you know someone that does. I’ve linked to the English versions where applicable – check them out as well!

Mate a Sus Vacas Sagradas or Death to All Sacred Cows by David Bernstein, Beau Fraser and Bill Schwab: Written by the owners of advertising agency The Gate Worldwide, this book aims to take the sacred cows of business out to pasture, showing how adages like ‘always trust your research’, ‘success breeds success’ and ‘the customer is always right’, are not only old and tired but may lead a business completely astray.

Planeta Sediento, Recursos Menguantes or Thirsty Planet, Dwindling Resources by Michael T. Klare: Recently, an unprecedented Chinese attempt to acquire the major American energy firm Unocal was blocked by Congress amidst hysterical warnings of a Communist threat. But the political grandstanding missed a larger point: the takeover of a new structure of world power, based not on market forces or on arms and armies but on the possession of vital natural resources.

Mejora esa Actitud or Improving this Attitude by Jerry Minchinton: Each of us, without exception, is born with innate talens and skills that too often are not developed due to be blocked by negative thougths and attitudes. The purpose of this book is to encourage those talents and help open new opportunities and ideas. If you have mental or emotional patterns that stop you from active participation in life, now you know how to change them. To achieve the changes you want, you must look after the seeds of your future care and feeling well.

Happy Reading and/or Referring these Titles!

Comments Off

December 3, 2008

POW! | Round 2

Filed under: Advertising — Kate @ 1:20 pm

Last month, you met Andy Nulman. He has a book coming out early in 2009.
Here at the 8cr blog we’re the sole hosts of five videos created by Andy. Each addresses the obstacles faced by authors. From the stunts pulled to gain attention (video 1) to author mug shots and what they say about personality (today’s video).
Here Andy asks for your help in choosing his mug shot.

More Andy over here.

Comments Off

November 17, 2008

psst….Then We Set His Hair on Fire…

Filed under: Advertising — Kate @ 2:15 pm

…is the latest book being offered over at inBubbleWrap. Known in its paperback form as One Great Insight Is Worth a Thousand Good Ideas. Created by Phil Dusenberry, advertising legend of BBDO.

Comments Off

August 8, 2007

Excerpt from WATCH THIS, LISTEN UP, CLICK HERE

Filed under: Advertising,Communication,Marketing — 800-CEO-READ @ 8:00 am

Yesterday I posted a new excerpt on the Excerpts blog. It’s from Chapter 1 of WATCH THIS, LISTEN UP, CLICK HERE by David Verklin and Bernice Kanner.

“This means that we’re exposed to an estimated 3,000 ads a day. That’s counting highway billboards, posters in trains, buses, and bathroom stalls, commercials in movie theaters, holograms on buildings and taxis, “talking” grocery shelves, and stickers on food (CBS has stamped eggs with ads for its shows). But that doesn’t take into account all the bumper stickers, t-shirt slogans, and ads on people’s anatomy that we see (yes, Dunkin’ Donuts paid college kids to panel their foreheads with messages about great coffee). And that 3,000-ad tally doesn’t count the now almost ubiquitous product placements embedded in films, TV shows, and games.
No wonder some are calling this the Age of Interruption. Commercial avoidance has become a high art. Seven out of 10 people wish they could will the ads away. But it’s not the advertising they hate as much as the uninvited disruption.”

Here’s a direct link to the excerpt: http://800ceoread.com/excerpts/archives/007181.html
And the book: http://800ceoread.com/products/?ISBN=978047005643

Comments (3)

Older Posts »