Bean Counter 2.0: Beyond the Numbers

Why people claim that they can get more done because they have a (pick one) Blackberry, iPhone, smartphone, iPad, notebook, netbook, tablet, or other portable electronic gizmo is beyond me.

Oh, that’s right. These devices enable them to “multitask.”

Newsflash multitaskers…the brain just doesn’t work that way.

Studies show that you aren’t accomplishing your best work on two things at once, you’re cheating one, the other, or both things you are attempting while multitasking. Plus you may be a bigger distraction to others trying to concentrate on the one thing that they are supposed to be concentrating on.

We all can tell great stories about “that client” who is always multitasking (e.g., texting, e-mailing, or web surfing) during a meeting, presentation, or important conversation. But before we do, we should probably step back and ask ourselves why we feel it necessary to have our phones and notebook computers with us wherever we go. I know my e-mails still get ignored on all the best of the portable platforms!

Our gadgets may make us more efficient at times, but not all the time. Sometimes the tech makes it easier to be busy at being busy, thereby accomplishing a lot less.

If you want some attention then just scream “look at me,” but don’t play the multitasking card, because it is generally not a winner.

First the legal disclosures: I’m not an economist, nor do I play one on TV. I was 3 college credits shy of having a minor in economics, but I still can’t make heads or tails of it. I believe that economics is a science, but so is meteorology.

Here is my simple and free 5-step economic stimulus package:

• Economists must take a 90-day vacation from talking about the economy, and that includes you too Big Ben B.

• Politicians need to get day jobs, their own medical insurance coverage, and support their families for the next 90 days using only the income from their new jobs.

• The “news media” needs to get back to journalism and take a step back from Facebook and Twitter, and not interview any of the economists while they are relaxing on vacation.

• Banks need to invest in the goodwill of their loyal customers whose credit may have seen better days.

• Companies need to hire people who have been unemployed.

All joking aside, it is not as easy as supply and demand curves anymore. So much is speculative today, and not many things can be consistently predicted with 100% accuracy. So let’s do what it takes to avoid an economic self-fulfilling prophecy.

I hear it at least once a week if not more at our Memphis design firm…“I love Mac.” “I love iMac.” “I love iPod.” “I love iTunes.” “I love iPhone.” “I love iTouch.” “I love iPad.” “I love Steve Jobs.” “Blah blah blah DESIGN.” “Blah blah blah best OS.” “Blah blah blah genius.” “Blah blah blah best customer experience.”

I haven’t worked on a Mac since 1998, when running accounting software efficiently on it was nearly impossible. Brings back fond memories of trying to run a simple report and seeing the bomb icon as my fuse grew shorter. My wife’s company gave employees iPods at their annual party in February, and hers is still in the sealed packaging.

But I must admit that I love my new iPhone 4. Great experience with the hardware and software. Incredible product.

The customer experience, on the other hand, left a sour apple taste.

I waited a month before I even thought about attempting to get the iPhone 4. You could order online and wait three weeks or check at your local Apple Store. All the information online suggested that the only way to ensure that you could get an iPhone 4 at the store was to order online and have it delivered to the store, because they did not take in-store reservations. I figured that I would call the store and ask if they had the phones in stock. Seemed simple in theory, but the store phone rang, and rang, and rang. I counted a couple of times just for fun, and it rang over 50 times before I hung up. One time I got through and the Apple Associate asked me if I had a reservation (?). I said no, and she said that although they had stopped taking reservations (?), they didn’t have any in stock at that time. She let me know that they received shipments daily, but they were no longer taking reservations (?) and there were no guarantees they would have it in stock.

A couple of weeks later when I got through to an associate, she told me that they had iPhone 4s, but could not guarantee that they would have any by the time I got there. I jumped in my car and rolled the dice that they would still have them. As I entered the hallowed ground that is the Apple Store, I was greeted by an associate who asked if I needed any help. I responded that I wanted to get the iPhone 4, which prompted his response, “Do you have a reservation?” I said no, and he said I think we will be able to help you. He asked me to step over by the new iPhone demo area, then informed me that the there were only 3 people ahead of me and someone would be there shortly to assist me. 

The store was buzzing with activity, but not packed. 30 minutes later the original greeter was replaced by another associate with green hair. 10 minutes later, after a brief conversation with the green-haired greeter, a young Apple associate approached me and asked how she could help. I told her I would like to get an iPhone 4. She asked if I had a reservation (?). I told her no. At which point she looked back to the green-haired associate for guidance, and he indicated that it was OK for her to get me one from their inventory.

She was nice and polite as we went through all the customary work for getting a new cell phone. She asked me if I had ever had an iPhone before, and I told her that I had not. She asked me if I knew anything about Mobile Me as she started her up-sell, but I was not interested. We looked at some accessories, but I decided to wait until later. In a little over an hour the purchase was complete and I was on my way out of the store, left to figure out my new phone all by myself. I was also completely underwhelmed by the e-mail I later received from Apple containing tips for my new phone, which turned out to be a few static screen shots of the phone with a few instructional sentences.

I couldn't be happier with the phone, but the actual customer experience did not match the expectations that were formed through years of advertising, Jobs' press conferences, other exposures to the brand, and word of mouth from Apple fans.

Care to share your Apple experience?

Risk is an inherent part in any promotion, no matter what media you’re using (e.g., TV, radio, direct mail, e-mail, website, social networking), so it is incumbent on you, whether you are a client or an advertising agency, to know your promo. Just because you farm it out to the “professionals” does not mean you have eliminated any potential damage to your brand if things go wrong.

Dr Pepper’s recent Facebook promotion is a good case in point.

As brand consultants, we all want to produce the most engaging promotions incorporating social networking, as well as other channels. We want to smell like a man while generating brand awareness and sales. At the same time, we need to make sure both client and agency understand the risks and implications associated the media, technology, design, messaging, audience, and distribution methods we choose for a promotion, not to mention the legal complexity that may be involved.

Remember, there are no dumb questions, just those that go unasked. What is more important, the perception that you are cool and edgy, or protecting your brand by asking a couple of simple questions?

If someone at Dr Pepper (Coca Cola) had asked a couple of simple questions, they could have saved a lot of time, money, and embarrassment. Unless they subscribe to the theory that any publicity is good publicity!?!

Thomas Cook’s requested signing-on fee has advertising agencies crying foul. Although the request is a little more blunt, how is it too terribly different from requiring spec creative? I know they are wanting cold, hard cash up front for the privilege of working on the huge media account, but why the shock? 

I’m not saying asking for what most would consider a bribe is acceptable; I’m just saying it is merely one step up from asking for free work (e.g., spec creative). 

We get paid for our ideas and execution because each has value. If we agree to give away ideas to one client that another client would pay for, aren’t we offering the client a bribe? Maybe not on as grand a scale as what Thomas Cook is looking for, but a financial incentive to say the least. 

Again, I’m not condoning a sign-on fee to work with a client, but I wouldn't be paying the fee unless I got the work. When you agree to do spec creative for an RFP, you still may not get the account.

I hope other business owners (that’s right, it’s a business) learn an important lesson from Dan Gilbert. Font selection can be just as important as the business communication itself. If you want your “written” communications to be taken seriously and have the most impact on your audience, make sure you think about the font you select. Don’t let your font selection overpower, outshine, diminish, or dilute your message.

If you need help, Font Conference will give you a humorous look into the world of fonts.

(Not responsible for any advertising or adult language that may accompany this College Humor video posted on YouTube.)

In a sometimes brutally competitive industry where some clients request spec creative (i.e., free work) along with all ownership rights to any materials submitted, and many firms are willing to do whatever it takes to get their foot in the door, it is refreshing to see a client RFP that financially rewards the top contenders for their ideas. According to Adweek, Prudential Financial has narrowed their search down to 3 contenders, and each will be paid significant fees (a couple of hundred thousand) for their creative contributions. Thank you Prudential for recognizing that a branding firm’s ideas submitted in response to an RFP have significant value, even if they don’t come from the brand consulting firm that was awarded the business!

You have the next big product, and it’s about to have the biggest launch ever, but it has a small problem. You can’t hold it in the way that seems most natural.

The world prepares to recognize the 1-year anniversary of the death of one of the world’s most influential entertainers of the past 50 years, who also has a nickname…the Gloved One.

These two seemingly random/independent events occur within the exact same week and almost on the exact same day.

What are the odds?

The Apple iPhone 4 debuted in homes, offices, and stores on Thursday, June 24. Reports started hitting the Internet early that reception was weaker when the new phone was held with the palm if your hand versus being placed on a surface and dialed. Apple did release a statement that "Gripping any phone will result in some attenuation of its antenna performance, with certain places being worse than others depending on the placement of the antennas. This is a fact of life for every wireless phone," and “If you ever experience this on your iPhone 4, avoid gripping it in the lower left corner in a way that covers both sides of the black strip in the metal band, or simply use one of many available cases."

The anniversary of Michael Jackson's (the King of Pop) passing was on Friday, June 25. Michael was known for making wearing a single glove a global fashion craze.

How strange is it that a pop superstar’s fashion statement of the past could be one solution for Apple’s antenna problem? Stranger still is the fact that there is an iGlove already in existence. Time to dust off the patent paperwork and start production.

Eerie marketing strategy or just strange coincidence? Before you pass judgment too quickly, remember the Nike commercial with Tiger’s dad?

I’ll let the marketing conspiracy theorists separate fact from fiction.

Once upon a time in the not so distant past (20 or 30 years ago), there were no smart phones, no digital cameras, no writable CD/DVDs. You may have had a computer at work, but more than likely you had a terminal connected to a mainframe, a word processor, or a typewriter; Al Gore was still in love with Tipper and working on creating the Internet; and your choice of television channels was limited to 4-6 different stations.

Back in the day, plagiarism took some effort. Your sources were very limited. You could use your newspaper, encyclopedia, or your family’s copy of Time, Life, or National Geographic magazine. If you didn’t have access to any of those sources at home, you would have to venture out to your local library, and you would have to lug all of your pens, pencils, notebook paper, tracing paper, and other materials with you. It was a very labor-intensive process. You learned early on from parents, teachers, and mentors that copying someone else’s work was wrong, a form of cheating, and sometimes illegal.

But today there are “adults,” young adults, and teens that grew up during or after the consumer-technology revolution. Many have had cell phones, computers, printers, cable/satellite television, and the Internet most of their lives. School projects, book reports, term papers, research papers, arts and crafts, illustration, design, writing, architecture, engineering, journalism, television… are all just a couple of clicks away.

In a world where content is king and everyone is being judged on speed and efficiency, is it any wonder that copy-n-paste has become an alternative to hard work and creativity? Have we become so politically correct that when little Jane has clearly copied someone else’s work, we turn a blind eye so that she feels good about herself, and hope that she learns right from wrong later? Is this “someone else has already said it or done it, probably better than I could, and the clock is still ticking, so since it will let me copy it, it must be OK for me to use it as my own” mentality more prevalent in one generation over another? Is copy-n-pasting someone else’s intellectual property just becoming more acceptable?

The sad truth may be that until it directly affects our wallet, we can afford to look the other way, and it is probably not as generational as you might think.

Brilliant minds may go to waste the more they rely on copy-n-paste!

Aretha Franklin said it best: "Think."

In a 9-0 ruling the justices said a police chief did not violate the constitutional rights of an officer when he read the transcripts of text messages sent from the officer's work pager. The high court found that the search was work-related, reasonable, and limited in scope; therefore, the officer’s privacy was not protected under the 4th Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches.

This decision affects more than 20 million employees of state and local governments, as well as federal workers, and will undoubtedly influence cases in the private sector.

What this means to employers is that you need to have a computer and software usage policy or company asset protection policy that informs employees of their rights when using company computers, laptops, servers, phones, cell phones, smartphones, tablets, e-mail systems, and other software. The policy should specifically state that company assets are subject to work-related searches as necessary in the course of business, and employees should expect minimal privacy in the usage of such assets.

What this means to employees is that you don’t need to type, record, save, store, send, receive, or forward anything on company equipment or software that you would not want anyone else in the company reading in the normal course of business. Don’t expect your private life to stay private if you are using company assets for personal reasons.

You can find summaries of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act all over the web, and most do a good job of distilling the complex matrix of what provision goes into effect when qualified by an ever-present footnote that “the specifics of this provision will have to be clarified or further defined by the department of X prior to the date that this provision becomes effective.”

But the answer to one of the questions that many people have been asking …”how will this new act pay for itself,” has until recently been hidden deep within the over 2,400 pages of complex legislation. Surprise, starting in 2012, 1099-MISC forms are required for everyone paid over $600.00. Under the old rules suppliers of goods and corporations were exempt, but now everyone is fair game.

How does this affect small businesses? Instead of having to process only a handful of 1099-MISC forms, now you may have hundreds. This also means collecting and verifying hundreds more Employer Identification Numbers (EINs). If you have hundreds of 1099-MISCs, then you may meet the threshold that requires electronic submission. Additional software or resources may be needed to submit these forms electronically. This will be a much more costly administrative burden for smaller businesses that may not have the dedicated staff, systems, or other resources necessary to meet this new IRS requirement in 2012.

In less than 2 years Groupon is in 50 states, has over 3 million subscribers, and was profitable within its first 6 months. Recent funding would suggest that Groupon is valued at somewhere just north of 1 billion dollars.

According to CEO and founder Andrew Mason, most competitors are engaging in a strategy of “see who can copy Groupon the closest.”

Ventures in Russia and China have taken Mason’s competitive analysis a little too literally.












As we have seen in the tech turf wars between Apple, Google, and Microsoft, it may be time for Groupon to unleash the attorneys to protect trademark and trade dress. The also-ran copycats might not be a threat, but the literal copy-and-paste clones could seriously damage the brand. You wouldn’t want your billion-dollar company to fade into a million-dollar company simply from not making a small investment to protect your brand, would you?

What are you doing to protect your brand from copycats?

While I was out of town last week I saw a quick segment on the motorcycle industry on Headline News. As you can imagine, motorcycle sales are down across all the major brands. More specifically, Harley-Davidson was forecasting a challenging year in 2010. The news anchor then made an interesting observation about the fierce loyalty of Harley owners. He mentioned that it seemed odd that the “American Icon” Harley-Davidson would be experiencing the prospect of such low sales, given that its owners and fans go so far to get the company’s logo or a version of it as a tattoo.

Which brings me to my question…is there a company, product, or service that you are so fiercely loyal to that you have or would consider getting tattooed on your body? (Set aside any religious, social, moral, or other objections to tattoos just for the purposes of this discussion.) What brand deserves permanent ink?

If you already have your favorite brand inked out on an area suitable for viewing in a business environment, send me a comment with a link to a photo of your ink.

I’m curious to see if there are any B2B brand tattoos (suitable for viewing at work).

A few weeks ago I met with a couple of business colleagues to renew some insurance policies. After we had wrapped up our business, we moved on to lighter topics of conversation…mutual friends, families, and upcoming vacation plans. Before we parted ways I jokingly asked what they thought of the Goldman Sachs brouhaha, because I knew from years of working with these guys that some of their collateral material has “A Goldman Sachs Capital Partners Company” on it. They were concerned about the message that their clients as well as the general public were receiving on a daily basis from the media and the Senate hearing. They also hoped that, not unlike our relationship, their clients would rely more on the past history of success with their company and not let the parent company tarnish their image.

As mergers and acquisitions accelerate in the coming months, one of the many strategic B2B branding decisions to make is do you re-brand your acquisition to cash in on your established brand, or can it flourish on its own? Does the buyer or seller have better brand equity? Do the brands compete head to head, or does each brand serve a unique market? The Soul of the Corporation How to Manage the Identity of Your Company by Hamid Bouchikhi and John Kimberly addresses many of these issues.

At some point a child will exhibit his or her frustration with growing up under the shadow of a more widely recognized parent, and you just hope it is for all the right reasons.

Is today (Cinco de Mayo) a time-honored tradition recognizing Mexico’s independence from France that will be celebrated throughout Mexico, or just another Wednesday? If you have ever been in Mexico on May 5, you would know that today is just another Wednesday. The celebration of the struggle for Mexico’s independence from Spain is recognized as Dieciséis de Septiembre (September 16), which usually starts late on September 15.

If you own a Mexican restaurant, are a beer distributor, or have just crafted a new “celebrity” tequila, then you probably have Cinco de Mayo as one component of your integrated marketing strategy, helping Americans everywhere celebrate “Mexican Independence Day!”

So why do we celebrate one and not the other? Convenience. Many gringos can count to at least 10 in Spanish, and 5 is only halfway there. May is the time of year when people start to get outside and enjoy the weather before it gets too hot. Let’s face it, “Cinco de Mayo” is easier to pronounce, has a nice ring to it, and fits better on promotional materials.

Similar, if not the same, perils exist when you get the urge to check up on your current employees using the internet.

Remember, the EEOC frowns on employment decisions based on age, disability, gender, genetics, national origin, pregnancy, race, religion, and retaliation.

There are also concerns about invasion of privacy. How did you get to the information on the Web? Is the information you are gathering relevant to their employment?

The biggest question you need to ask yourself is “Are you prepared to take action on what you find?” What I mean by that is the same policies, procedures, and standards of behavior that you enforce offline in the physical work environment should not be treated or enforced any differently in the online environment. So if you uncover that one of your employees is sexually harassing another employee, vendor, or client online, you need to begin your thorough investigation and take corrective action. If you have a zero tolerance policy for falsifying timesheets, and the employee has posted photos of their wild time in Las Vegas on Facebook or flickr on the dates that they were “sick,” then you need to investigate and take disciplinary action.

If you are concerned about what your employees are doing online during business hours, you need to have policies in place that clearly communicate what is and is not acceptable when using company assets (e.g., computer hardware, software, Internet access, networks, printers). Your policy should also contain language that communications and files stored on company equipment are subject to monitoring to set privacy expectations. These policies must be consistently enforced. The only thing worse than not having a policy is having one and not enforcing it.

You don’t interview every single candidate that sends in a resume for an open position with your firm, and you probably won’t Google them all either. Although I’m sure that a web search on candidates will provide endless hours of entertainment, I’m telling you now, don’t start using the Internet to weed out candidates before talking to them first.

Why?

There is this federal agency that goes by the name of EEOC ( U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), and one of their missions is to protect people from discrimination (age, disability, gender, genetics, national origin, pregnancy, race, religion, retaliation, and sexual harassment). Note that good taste, common sense, or stupidity is not protected by the EEOC.

Unfortunately, part of the danger that you have no control over is that many people post too much personal information about themselves online. So if you start researching candidates on the Internet prematurely, it is likely that you will discover some personal information (gender, race, age, disability, religion, national origin, chronic health condition) that you could not legally ask about during an interview, or that once discovered might be hard to convince the EEOC that there was no discrimination in your disqualification of a candidate.

Another problem area to consider is personal privacy. Some of the information on the Internet can only be accessed if you are a member, friend, invited guest, or subscriber. So if you do not already have a prior online relationship with someone, or a group that they belong to, any effort to obtain additional information about them may be considered a breach of personal privacy. For example, if you get someone that is already the candidate’s friend on Facebook to show you the candidate’s page or print it out for your review, you in all likelihood have violated their personal privacy.

Most attorneys specializing in employment law will advise you not to Google candidates so that you do not open a potential can of worms.

If you insist on performing Internet searches on candidates prior to employment, here are a few tips to help you avoid trouble:

• Have a written recruiting and hiring policy that all employees must follow.
• Don’t research candidates until you have selected your top 3 to 5 through the interview process.
• Explain to your top candidates that you will require a signed release to perform an Internet search to validate qualifications and experience.
• Perform the Internet search only after you have received the signed release.
• You should research all candidates in the same or similar manner or not at all.
• Be aware that you cannot disqualify a candidate based on  age, disability, gender, genetics, national origin, pregnancy, race, religion, health condition, or alleged crimes without convictions.
• Once you open that door you are responsible for doing your due diligence to confirm that you are looking the right John Doe or Jane Doe, because not everything you find on the Internet is accurate.

As always, your hiring decisions should be based on the written job description and experience required for the position compared to a candidate’s qualifications and experience.

You can’t eliminate all the legal risks associated with recruiting or your current employees’ online activities with the push of a button on your keyboard or simple search using your web browser. Although the technology is available, easy, and efficient, and you may think it is a great idea to Google a recruit or current employee, there are some dangerous and potentially costly pitfalls if you don’t have some guidelines in place.

Next week we will look at some things to keep in mind before you use the web to research potential new employees.

The week after that we will look at some things to keep in mind when you get the itch to Google a current employee.

Any questions?

In business, just as in our personal lives, there is little doubt that true friendship is priceless. What is a friend? Merriam-Webster defines it as “one attached to another by affection or esteem, “while acquaintance is defined as “a person whom one knows but who is not a particularly close friend.” I think the advent of online social networking has some business people confused about the difference between “friend” and “acquaintance.”

Why do I even bring this up? More and more, I’m asked how I view the use of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, or other social networking sites from a legal, HR, or manager (e.g., business) perspective. Simply put, Facebook and similar sites are personal in nature, Twitter is more of a hybrid depending on specific usage, and LinkedIn and similar sites are business-oriented.

So on Facebook I would only friend those people that I would socially interact with (drinks, lunches, dinners, movies, birthdays, vacations) on a routine basis and people I feel comfortable sharing personal information with. Just because I work with someone or am polite to someone in social settings inside or outside of work does not necessarily make them my friend. There is no inherent obligation for me to accept a friend request from an acquaintance.

The same basic philosophy holds true for LinkedIn or other business-related networking sites. You want to make sure you know who you are associating yourself with in your professional life. If I’m linked to Bernie Ebbers, Bernard Madoff, and Allen Stanford, I don’t think I’m going to have such a sterling reputation (guilt by association).

Just like in the physical world, you need to be cautions and selective when online. Remember, it’s not the quantity that counts, it’s the quality.

You may want view the podcast below before you decide who your friends are.