How to be Fired

[Note: This essay ran in a slightly different form in Advertising Age on December 02, 2008. It has appeared in countless blogs since then. It appears here now for the first time]

They teach you how to design. They teach you how to write. They teach you how to take a client to lunch and they even teach you how to get a job. But no one ever teaches you how to be fired.

So in these perilous times, if you are one of the folks recently employment-free, let me be among the first to welcome you to your new life. Or at least, to your new life for a while.

And while I’m not going to lie to you that there’s anything I can say which will make if enjoyable, I can offer some advice on how to survive it with a minimal amount of therapy.

So here are six simple tips on how to be fired. Take them for what they’re worth. And tell me if they make sense to you. (Hey, it ain’t like you got anything else to do…)

Step one – Get fired.

You’d be surprised how many people walk around for a couple of weeks acting like they’ve been fired before they are actually let go. Freaking out that they’re gonna be laid off, moping around the office, and then it doesn’t happen, and they’ve wasted all that time when they could’ve been, I dunno, working maybe. Or looking for a new job. Or drinking. Or anything. So don’t sweat being fired until it happens. It won’t do you any good.

Step two – Freak out

Okay, you’ve been fired. Congratulations. The axe has fallen and it’s got your neck all over it. Well, at least that’s over. And while eventually it may all work out for the best, right now, it sucks. So freak out. Grieve. Scream. Yell. Throw things. Cry. Drink. Whatever. But get it out of your system. You absolutely, positively have to deal with it now, otherwise you’ll carry it around with you for the next thirty years. Which is okay if you don’t mind it rearing its ugly head when you least want it to. And it will.

Step three – Make a story

“He who controls the story controls their destiny.” I think C.J. Cregg said that. But it’s true, and you have to assume that once you get an interview, the first thing they’re going to ask you (or maybe the second, after, “Would you please stop shaking my hand”) is “Why did you leave your last job?” How you answer this will reveal worlds about who you are. Do you say “I got fired and I have no idea why?” That seems frighteningly uncurious and rather disingenuous – neither of which are qualities anyone wants to hire. Do you say “I got fired and I hate those bastards and I will spend all my free time hunting them down like the dogs they are”. Hey, at least it shows passion. Either of these are better, however, than just standing there stammering. Some come up with something. And then stick to it.

Step four – Be the Brand

We are in the business of selling brands. Or at the very least, bringing them to life. We – of all people – should know how hard it is to be convincing about something that is ill-defined. So why would you go into the job market without a clear brand for yourself? I don’t know. And yet, everyone does it.

So after you’ve figured out what you’re going to say about why you’re suddenly so damn available, figure out why they should hire you. What’s unique about you. Or said another way – figure out they should hire you and not the ten thousand other yahoos who’ve recently been sacked because the economy is in the toilet.

Wanna be really smart? Take it a step further. Customize your brand to the people you’re talking to. You know, like you always told your clients they should do. For exactly the same reasons.

Step Five – Eliminate what you hate

There will be a part of being fired that you really hate. (I don’t mean the being broke part. Everyone hates that – everyone with any brains at least.) So figure out what it is and figure out a way to get over it. Maybe you hate not having people to hang out with. Then go to Starbucks. I’m serious. Or maybe you hate not having a routine. Make one – get up, walk the dogs, read your mail, write something, whatever. Or maybe it’s explaining to your nosy neighbors why suddenly you’re wondering around the neighborhood in your pajamas at eleven a.m. I don’t know. But figger it out and get around it. Otherwise you’re gonna add another level of stress to the stress of being out of work. And who needs that?

Step Six – Embrace Repetition

Face this fact: You’re gonna be saying the same things over and over again. You’re gonna have your elevator pitch. Or you’re gonna have the thing you tell your neighbor. Or the spiel you make in an interview. Work it, polish it, refine it – but for God’s sake whatever you do, don’t get bored with it.

Usually when we’re presenting to a client, we only have to do it once or twice – maybe three times. We’re just not used to bringing the same enthusiasm the tenth or fifteenth time that we brought the first two times. And that’s exactly what you’re gonna be faced with when you’re interviewing.

Our natural instinct, of course, is to adjust what we’re presenting. Not necessarily make it better, just make it fresher so we can keep the passion in it, because otherwise we’ll feel bored by it. But look – even though this may be the tenth time you’ve said this exact same stuff, it’s probably the first time this particular person has heard it. It’s new to them. Make it sound like it’s new to you too.

Because the sooner you learn how, the less you may have to.

Hidden Identity

Look in the paper any day of the week and you’re bound to see another story about how enormous mega-nationals are plundering the most arcane and private bits of my personal data in order to produce marketing that is so tailored, so ingenious, so insidious that I am helpless in the face of it. Marketing that allows their agencies to craft advertising messages that are so highly tuned to the particular peculiarities of my personality that I am forced – on some primordial, pre-evolutionary, subconscious level – to buy whatever snake oil, motor car or dessert topping they happen to be selling.

To which I say, “I wish.”

Look, I’m in advertising. So was my father, and his father before him. And I’m here to tell you that I would love to have that kind of information at my fingertips. It would make my job so much easier. Something concrete and substantial. “We’re talking to these people. And they live here, and they eat this and their day looks like this and these are the things they believe, wear, think, feel, buy, blah, blah blah. Now, go make some brilliant advertising that uses all this information to trip their subconscious wires so we can sell a ton of stuff!”

The advertising wouldn’t even have to be “brilliant”. With information like that, it could be fairly mediocre and it would still be wildly successful. How could it not?

But you know what most of us creatives get? “Our consumer is women, age 18-54, average household income, average education. Some have families. Some don’t. And there’s no particular geographic skew – they’re pretty much every where. Now, go make some advertising I can sell to our client.”

Think about that for a second. Women 18 to 54. Now there’s a unified group. Not a lot of changes go on in a woman’s life between those years that might possibly impact the way she feels about a product. Or even whether she needs it or not.

Now, I’m not denying that all that information is, indeed, floating around out there in the info-ether. And I’m certainly not suggesting that you shouldn’t take every precaution to make sure it doesn’t wind up in the hands of identity thieves and other nefarious hackers.

But I am saying that I can count on one hand the number of Fortune 500 companies who are actually making any meaningful use of it in their marketing. Maybe less. Yeah, less than one hand.

I know this because I’ve tried to get them to use it, and they are, by and large incapable of it.

Do you know how many Fortune 500 companies have basements filled with entry forms or servers filled with email addresses that are just crying out to be used and aren’t? I mean, if you actually filled out one of those forms it’s reasonable to assume you have some kind of relationship with the company. Or that you want one. So you wouldn’t be averse to receiving some kind of communication back. Something that included you in the brand family, right? Something that said, hey, thanks for being interested in us. We’re interested in you. Simple right? When was the last time you got something like that? See what I mean?

Seems obvious, so why aren’t they doing it? Mostly because they’re too busy thinking about tomorrow. Tomorrow’s deadline. Tomorrow’s sales numbers. Tomorrow’s media placement. American business is so overloaded right now with the now that they can barely use the tools they’ve used in the past, let alone use these tools of the future.

So does this mean you’re safe? Of course not. There are dangerous folks out there trying to steal your identity so they can empty out your bank account and leave you destitute.

They’re just not going to try to sell you anything while they’re doing it.

New News

[Note: This was written for publication in March 08 at the height of the primary season. In retrospect, it's observations about the campaigns seem fairly accurate and predict a challenge McCain would have in the Fall election. It runs here for the first time.]

I realize that I’m just a simple advertising guy, but here’s what I don’t understand about the current campaigns for president. Why is it that I can’t turn on the TV without hearing some talking head tell me that the best thing for the Republican party would be if Mike Huckabee dropped out, or bemoan the fact that Hilary and Barack really ought to work out which one is the nominee so we can move on.

Are you people nuts? Move on to what? Because in the business I’m in, what’s going on here is exactly what you want. It’s what brands crave and pay agencies large sums of money to manufacture. It’s called new news.

“New news” combats the fatigue people experience when they feel that they’ve already heard your story a hundred times before – because they have, in fact heard it a hundred times before. As every salesman knows, there are only so many times you can say something to a person before they start to tune it out. We call this, the “nagging mom” effect. And advertisers know it too. That’s why the smart ones try to vary their media buys – where they show which commercials when.

But what advertisers really crave, because it really energizes people, is new news. A new “thing” to talk to people about, a new reason to talk to them.

Right now, every day, the Democrats have one and the Republicans don’t. Every time Hilary and Barack open their mouths, it’s news. What did he say about her, what did she say about him, what do we say about both of them. The press covers it, the cable networks repeat it and the pundits discuss it, until the next thing happens.

But on the Republican side? “This just in, John McCain is still the de facto Republican nominee”. Over and over again, with decreasing regularity. Which pushes McCain to the back pages – either literally, as the press covers him less, or figuratively, as the public tunes him out.

For proof, look no further than voter turnout. Democrats are up two and three times what they usually are – especially in states where, four years ago, the nominee was a foregone conclusion. And on the Republican side? Flat to down, especially since they established a presumptive nominee.

Coincidence? I don’t think so. But if it was, that would be news…

The Political Marketplace

[Note: This was written for publication before the election. It runs here for the first time.]

For several years I’ve observed a battle waging between two distinct factions in American marketing. On the one side are those who believe in a top-down approach and on the other, those who embrace something more “bottom-up”.

To review, those who believe in a “Top-Down” approach use traditional methods – TV, print and radio – with the occasional foray into viral and other newer media. These are marketers who are, by and large, engaged in monologues with their customers – “I have something about me to tell you”. They also jealously guard the “meaning” of their brand.

The “Bottom-up” camp, on the other hand, are more active about engaging “alternative” media – SMS, text, viral, social networks, guerrilla, etc. These are marketers who tend to view their relationship with their consumers/customers as a conversation, involving give and take on both sides. Similarly, they tend to view their brand as somewhat fluid – precisely because of these conversations.

By and large you see this battle played out by which marketing efforts (and even which agencies) each side uses. But this year, Americans are in the unusual position of experiencing this battle on the Presidential stage as the two candidates – by word and by action – are demonstrating how they fall into one of the two camps.

John McCain, for example, has been widely criticized for his unfamiliarity with the internet (citing comments that he has his staff print out email for him and that he “watches” the internet whenever he can). This would seem to indicate that because he’s not web-savvy, he’s a “Top-down” marketer. But he truly demonstrates his “top-down” view in his policies. To take one example, McCain’s approach to the economy is to encourage big companies with tax cuts so they will create more jobs. In another era we called this “trickle down economics”. In marketing we call it “top-down”.

And Obama? Again, not only do his roots as a Community Organizer point clearly to his being in the “Bottom-Up” group, but so does his economic plan. By giving tax breaks to the broad majority of Americans, he is hoping to incent the consumer end of the market equation – to get money flowing through transactions within the economy. Retailers call this a “pull” tactic, and it is a hallmark of “bottom-up” marketers.

To be clear, I’m not arguing who’s right. Or even who’s left. Nor am I saying that the election of one will herald the demise of the other’s tactics. Rather, I’m pointing out that in both cases, actions speak louder than words. Or rather, that the media is no longer merely the message, it actually belies the way you wish to engage with others. Understanding that is crucial, whatever your politics.

These Bonds Have No Brands

[Note: This was originally written in April, when we were just beginning to understand what a mess the mortgage market was. The fact that it's still relevant now is not a little frightening.]

I was waiting for my train with a friend who trades bonds, when I thought, Here is a perfect opportunity for someone to explain to me, a simple advertising guy, just exactly what the heck was going on with the economy.

What he said was that none of the people who usually buy the bonds are buying them. Why? Because they don’t know what risk is bundled into them. And because they’re not buying them, the folks who are selling are holding off on generating more debt. Which means they won’t lend to guys like us. Oh, and sidenote – it’s not just the buyers; the sellers don’t know exactly what the risk is in the bonds they’re selling either. And that further erodes the trust between buyers and sellers, which, my friend felt was the long-term problem.

“Is that all?” I said. “Brother, I deal with that stuff all the time, and if that’s all that’s wrong with this economy, then we’ve got nothing to worry about.”

Because what he had just described is a branding problem. These bonds have no brands.

Look, a brand is what a consumer thinks your product is and not what the seller thinks it is. It’s the shorthand, the mishmash of everything he or she knows about your product – what it tastes like, what it feels like, what other people say about it, the advertising for it today and ten years ago, the features, the benefits, the endorsements, the price – everything he or she knows about it. The consumer’s shorthand. That’s the brand.

If the consumer doesn’t have that shorthand, you’re not in the game. Even a bad, inaccurate shorthand, is better than nothing, because at least you’re on their radar. But no idea? That means you’re not even in the game. So they don’t buy you.

That’s what’s going on here. These bonds need a brand. The sellers need the buyers to have a good idea of what they are – an idea that’s not going to come just from the sellers. How could it? Would you trust a product was good just because the guys selling it to you told you it was? Do you?

These bonds need a brand. That’s all. And the good news is, guys like me are paid to figure this stuff out every day. And we’re happy to help. Cash in advance, of course…

Collateral Damage

[Note: This was originally written at the end of January/beginning of February, when Hollywood was in the grips of the Writer's Strike. So dial your brain back to those halcyon days before reading]

One of the most interesting aspects of the Writer’s Strike in Hollywood has been the repercussions. The Golden Globes, the Grammys. And here’s one more: Advertising Agencies.

Consider this: A company hires an advertising agency to advertise it’s product. Most of the time, that happens on television. The agency says “Show X is watched by 10 million 18-year-old men, so if we run our commercial during it, ten million 18-year-old men will see it and stop whatever they’re doing and run out and buy thirty or forty of your product.” Or something like that.

But what happens when people stop watching TV because there aren’t any new shows on? I mean, the company still needs to advertise their product – because they still need to sell their product, because they still need to make a living, right? So where do they turn?

Increasingly, they’ve turned back to their advertising agencies and said “Okay, we can’t do TV – do other stuff that will make my numbers.” Other stuff? Like on the web, at the point of purchase, on cell phones, via guerilla stunts and viral tactics, or even good old print and billboards.

Now here’s where things get a little sticky. Because even though advertising agencies have been talking about integrated marketing  – advertising across all the places a consumer might be – for a decade, very few of them are actually built to make it happen. And most of those that are, are really only able to do it if it’s anchored by, you guessed it, massive television advertising.

That’s why the Writer’s Strike has created a tremendous challenge for most advertising agencies. On the one hand, they’ve needed to quickly ramp up their non-television-commercial capabilities (so that their clients don’t go hunting for those skills elsewhere), while on the other hand, they’ve been praying like crazy that the strike settles quickly so they can go back to making tv commercials again – which are lucrative and safe and at which they are king.

In the long run, this will force both agencies and companies to be more creative with their marketing, finally forcing them to try some of the media they’ve jawed about at conferences for so long. Someone asked me if I thought it would kill the television commercial? No – but if it did, how ironic that it was writers who held the gun?

A Failure to Communicate

Ladies and Gentlemen, what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Traditionally, brands have spoken in a “monologue” form to consumers. Print ads. TV commercials. Billboards. They talk at, or to, consumers. They say “Here I am. This is what I am/do.” And for a long time, the only way consumers could engage a brand was with their wallets. If people bought the product, well, then whatever the product was saying was working. And if they didn’t, then it wasn’t.

This began to evolve when brands started asking people what they thought of products. Emotions. Feelings. Focus groups. Product Testing. The stuff that P&G is famous for (or notorious for, depending on your pain threshold). And suddenly the consumer could talk back – albeit in small doses. “Talking Back” however, is not the same as having a conversation (as anyone who has endured a focus group knows). So, while consumers suddenly had a voice, they used it the only way they could – to deliver monologues right back at the brand.

Another path for the consumer was promotional items. Coca-cola t-shirts. Tide race cars. McDonald’s holiday ornaments. The pursuit and display of items like these by the consumer became another way for the consumer to deliver a monologue on the brand they prefer – announcing to a broader audience than a focus group (that is, everyone who can see it) that they align with this brand.

So what started as a simple financial transaction between two interested parties – I give you money, you give me product or service – evolved into “matched monologues” – Brand: This is what I am. Customer: This is what I want.

But look what’s happening now. Now, those simple monologues are evolving into a genuine dialogue – as the consumer takes the brand message and reconstitutes it (via mashups, sampling, etc.) and feeds back to the brand a variation of itself. Which the brand may either embrace, build upon, or ignore at their peril.

Because when the means of production (to use an ironically archaic expression) are in the hands of the consumer, the “matched monologues” turn into an actual conversation. Think of how consumers turned Mentos into a pop icon in 2006 when they mixed it with Diet Coke and YouTube. Or consider how Scion has used “tuner” culture to shift their customers purchase cycle from the showroom to the longer aftermarket customization

Nowhere is this more brilliantly illustrated than in the 25th anniversary website for the Brian Eno/David Byrne album “My Life in the Bush of Ghosts”. Back in 1982, they built an entire album around sounds and audio clips they found on other albums, on the radio, and on television. Back then it was unheard of. Today, we call it “sampling” and it’s the foundation of hip-hop and rap.

So what did they do to mark the album’s 25th anniversary? They posted all the mixing tracks to two of the album’s songs, allowing – indeed encouraging – the public to build new songs off of them – just as they themselves had, twenty-five years earlier. And these songs are then reposted on the site, adding another generation to the conversation begun twenty-five years ago. Check it out at: http://www.bush-of-ghosts.com/remix/bush_of_ghosts.htm.

This is what user-generated content really means, and this is what it will look like in the future: A genuine “back and forth” between consumer and brand that regularly evolves and changes. What’s holding us back is that brands – trapped in a monologue mentality – are merely using the trappings of the new technology to help consumers create their own monologues.

Ultimately, the successful brands will be the ones who learn how to talk with consumers. The others? They’ll be the ones just talking to themselves.

Essays on Marketing

Welcome to “Beyond the Line” – a series of monthly essays on various aspects of marketing. Please feel free to comment or advise.