In addition to the Lucas Conley book mentioned in my last post, current branding “sciences” are covered in Rob Walker’s 2008 Buying In (subtitled The secret dialogue between what we buy and who we are).
Walker is the New York Times Magazine “Consumed” columnist, and he’s not too happy about the lengths to which marketers are going to snag our dollars (or euros or pounds or yen).
Compared to the Conley book, this one is relatively jargon-free, although Walker has created a term of his own to describe what he’s seeing:
“Murketing” says it very well.
Email relory@aol.com.
[jargon] [buzzwords] [doublespeak] [gibberish]
Friday, August 29, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
From the brand called Bob Lory
First, what’s “branding?”
Lucas Conley quotes a modern branding guru’s explanation: Branding is “about the organization of tangible elements that results in a manifestation of a considered plan.” Further clarification: It’s about “developing and supporting the atmosphere” of a product.
This is important, he says, because we consumers “need to romance the experience of anything we deal with.”
Conley’s 2008 book, Obsessive Branding Disorder (subtitled The Illusion of Business and the Business of Illusion), is full of such illuminating quotes from members of the branding “industry” (there is one, and it’s growing like an unattended fungus and -– obviously -- a growing industry needs its own growing vocabulary to explain its benefits to those of us who might not otherwise appreciate them).
Brands, of course, used to be for things like cars, soap, furniture, clothing -- stuff like that -- and, of course, they still are. But the branding “process” has now been expanded to the companies that own the old-type brands and departments and divisions with in them. Cities and towns all over are being branded, complete with expensively produced logos and slogans, all in the hopes that some target audience will “buy into” the brand in the desired way.
And so it is with our personal brands. If you want to succeed at anything, you need to sell yourself. And that of course means “developing and supporting the atmosphere” of you. Personal branding, according to one specialist paraphrased by Conley, is about “simplifying aspects of an individual’s personality to create an aura that is both consistent and unique.” That includes “a snappy slogan.”
This guru’s company has “helped” more than 2000 people through its branding process. His colleagues are known as “The Brand called Michelle XXXX,” “The Brand called Nick YYYY,” etc.
Enough. Right now my two Shih Tzus (The Brand called Ewok and the Brand called Chewie) are due for their daily walk. I truly hope they’ll both romance the experience.
Email relory@aol.com.
[jargon] [buzzwords] [doublespeak] [gibberish]
Lucas Conley quotes a modern branding guru’s explanation: Branding is “about the organization of tangible elements that results in a manifestation of a considered plan.” Further clarification: It’s about “developing and supporting the atmosphere” of a product.
This is important, he says, because we consumers “need to romance the experience of anything we deal with.”
Conley’s 2008 book, Obsessive Branding Disorder (subtitled The Illusion of Business and the Business of Illusion), is full of such illuminating quotes from members of the branding “industry” (there is one, and it’s growing like an unattended fungus and -– obviously -- a growing industry needs its own growing vocabulary to explain its benefits to those of us who might not otherwise appreciate them).
Brands, of course, used to be for things like cars, soap, furniture, clothing -- stuff like that -- and, of course, they still are. But the branding “process” has now been expanded to the companies that own the old-type brands and departments and divisions with in them. Cities and towns all over are being branded, complete with expensively produced logos and slogans, all in the hopes that some target audience will “buy into” the brand in the desired way.
And so it is with our personal brands. If you want to succeed at anything, you need to sell yourself. And that of course means “developing and supporting the atmosphere” of you. Personal branding, according to one specialist paraphrased by Conley, is about “simplifying aspects of an individual’s personality to create an aura that is both consistent and unique.” That includes “a snappy slogan.”
This guru’s company has “helped” more than 2000 people through its branding process. His colleagues are known as “The Brand called Michelle XXXX,” “The Brand called Nick YYYY,” etc.
Enough. Right now my two Shih Tzus (The Brand called Ewok and the Brand called Chewie) are due for their daily walk. I truly hope they’ll both romance the experience.
Email relory@aol.com.
[jargon] [buzzwords] [doublespeak] [gibberish]
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Mystic jargon
The ad in The Wall Street Journal that caught my eye contained the following (I've deleted the company's name):
"The entire (company) is committed to transforming words into actions in the realm o sustainable development. In 2008, (the company) aims to turn the constraints related to sustainable development into opportunities, building them into its strategies and offerings in all its businesses."
Now here's the mystery. The reason the ad caught my eye was the company's outstanding 2007 performance. Sales over the previous year were up 12 percent. Net profits were up 32 percent. Dividends were up 25 percent. All have risen steadily since 2004.
Why on earth would a management with results like these resort to such balderdash?
Here's what I think happened.
The company is based in France and, for this WSJ ad, it looked to an American agency or consultant to appeal to Wall Street investors. And, in the agency's view, this is the kind of language American investors are familiar with--our "language of business."
Which says something about the agency but a lot more about how American corporate wonks "communicate."
My hope is nobody translated this into French for the edification of headquarters employees.
Email relory@aol.com.
[jargon] [buzzwords] [doublespeak] [gibberish]
"The entire (company) is committed to transforming words into actions in the realm o sustainable development. In 2008, (the company) aims to turn the constraints related to sustainable development into opportunities, building them into its strategies and offerings in all its businesses."
Now here's the mystery. The reason the ad caught my eye was the company's outstanding 2007 performance. Sales over the previous year were up 12 percent. Net profits were up 32 percent. Dividends were up 25 percent. All have risen steadily since 2004.
Why on earth would a management with results like these resort to such balderdash?
Here's what I think happened.
The company is based in France and, for this WSJ ad, it looked to an American agency or consultant to appeal to Wall Street investors. And, in the agency's view, this is the kind of language American investors are familiar with--our "language of business."
Which says something about the agency but a lot more about how American corporate wonks "communicate."
My hope is nobody translated this into French for the edification of headquarters employees.
Email relory@aol.com.
[jargon] [buzzwords] [doublespeak] [gibberish]
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
"Value sustained" revisited
The email asks, with regard to my previous post:
"With an ounce of gold moving from around $US 640 to more than $US 830 in 2007, how in hell does a gold-mining company manage to lose $1.9 billion?"
I admit, it would appear to be a real challenge. Maybe the "initiatives" management "identified and implemented" were misaligned with the company's "strategy to build sustained value for our shareholders."
If that's the case, we should look for bonanza profits when gold hits the nadir of its next downturn.
Email relory@aol.com.
[jargon] [buzzwords] [doublespeak] [gibberish]
"With an ounce of gold moving from around $US 640 to more than $US 830 in 2007, how in hell does a gold-mining company manage to lose $1.9 billion?"
I admit, it would appear to be a real challenge. Maybe the "initiatives" management "identified and implemented" were misaligned with the company's "strategy to build sustained value for our shareholders."
If that's the case, we should look for bonanza profits when gold hits the nadir of its next downturn.
Email relory@aol.com.
[jargon] [buzzwords] [doublespeak] [gibberish]
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Value sustained?
Annual report season is upon us, bringing "sustainable" joy to those of us who love punching holes in blather.
Here, the opening sentence of Newmont Mining's CEO letter to shareholders:
"2007 was a year of significant change at Newmont as the management team began to re-orient the company and its strategy to build sustained value for our shareholders. In 2007, we identified and implemented initiatives to focus Newmont on its core gold business, expand our growth and exploration opportunities, unlock value embedded in our capital structure and begin to reduce our costs."
I'm sure this elated shareholders. I'm also sure they were not elated by the company's almost $ 1.9 billion loss last year.
Email relory@aol.com.
[jargon] [buzzwords] [doublespeak] [gibberish]
Here, the opening sentence of Newmont Mining's CEO letter to shareholders:
"2007 was a year of significant change at Newmont as the management team began to re-orient the company and its strategy to build sustained value for our shareholders. In 2007, we identified and implemented initiatives to focus Newmont on its core gold business, expand our growth and exploration opportunities, unlock value embedded in our capital structure and begin to reduce our costs."
I'm sure this elated shareholders. I'm also sure they were not elated by the company's almost $ 1.9 billion loss last year.
Email relory@aol.com.
[jargon] [buzzwords] [doublespeak] [gibberish]
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Not a new problem
If you think blather-speak just turned up yesterday, read the following.
"I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."
Here it is in modern English:
"Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account."
This is a parody, but not a very gross one.... It will be seen that I have not made a full translation. The beginning and ending of the sentence follow the original meaning fairly closely, but in the middle the concrete illustrations--race, battle, bread--dissolve into the vague phrases "success or failure in competitive activities." This had to be so, because no modern writer of the kind I am discussing--no one capable of using phrases like "objective considerations of contemporary phenomena"--would ever tabulate his thoughts in that precise and detailed way. The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness.
Now analyze these two sentences a little more closely. The first contains forty-nine words but only sixty syllables, and all its words are those of everyday life. The second contains thirty-eight words of ninety syllables: eighteen of those words are from Latin roots, and one from Greek. The first sentence contains six vivid images, and only one phrase ("time and chance") that could be called vague. The second contains not a single fresh, arresting phrase, and in spite of its ninety syllables it gives only a shortened version of the meaning contained in the first. Yet without a doubt it is the second kind of sentence that is gaining ground in modern English.
The passage above is from "Politics and the English Language," published by George Orwell in 1946.
(This comes courtesy of my daughter Shana. Those of you who regularly visit my writing blog will find it there as well.)
Email relory@aol.com.
[writing][communication] [editing] [communication training]
***
I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:"I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."
Here it is in modern English:
"Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account."
This is a parody, but not a very gross one.... It will be seen that I have not made a full translation. The beginning and ending of the sentence follow the original meaning fairly closely, but in the middle the concrete illustrations--race, battle, bread--dissolve into the vague phrases "success or failure in competitive activities." This had to be so, because no modern writer of the kind I am discussing--no one capable of using phrases like "objective considerations of contemporary phenomena"--would ever tabulate his thoughts in that precise and detailed way. The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness.
Now analyze these two sentences a little more closely. The first contains forty-nine words but only sixty syllables, and all its words are those of everyday life. The second contains thirty-eight words of ninety syllables: eighteen of those words are from Latin roots, and one from Greek. The first sentence contains six vivid images, and only one phrase ("time and chance") that could be called vague. The second contains not a single fresh, arresting phrase, and in spite of its ninety syllables it gives only a shortened version of the meaning contained in the first. Yet without a doubt it is the second kind of sentence that is gaining ground in modern English.
***
The passage above is from "Politics and the English Language," published by George Orwell in 1946.
(This comes courtesy of my daughter Shana. Those of you who regularly visit my writing blog will find it there as well.)
Email relory@aol.com.
[writing][communication] [editing] [communication training]
Friday, March 14, 2008
Productivity's new math?
Today's Wall Street Journal reports that Chrysler will shut down almost all its operations for two weeks this summer. One would think, logically, that is an effort to cut costs, but in an email to employees, CEO Robert Nardelli "explains" that the action will "create better alignment and efficiency across organizational lines and boost productivity."
Say again? Is this corporate-babble or what?
Just how does shutting things down create anything (including cars)? And if most of the organization isn't doing anything for these two weeks, how--in absentia--does it get better aligned, more efficient and more productive?
But assuming this (surely HR-inspired) explanation makes any sense at all, why not kill operations for an additional two weeks and, thereby, double the alignment, efficiency and productivity benefits? Or just turn out all the lights, let the company slide into bankruptcy-and watch all these things soar ad infinitum?
And if all that is so, shouldn't we also see massive improvements in enhancing teamwork, capturing synergies, adding value, exceeding expectations of customers (whose collective delight will go off the charts) etc.?
But they couldn't say all that. Some employees just might suspect management was putting them on.
Footnote: I've owned my (second) Jeep Cherokee for almost nine years and am happy as hell it wasn't built by Chrysler's HR "team."
Email relory@aol.com.
[jargon] [buzzwords] [doublespeak] [gibberish]
Say again? Is this corporate-babble or what?
Just how does shutting things down create anything (including cars)? And if most of the organization isn't doing anything for these two weeks, how--in absentia--does it get better aligned, more efficient and more productive?
But assuming this (surely HR-inspired) explanation makes any sense at all, why not kill operations for an additional two weeks and, thereby, double the alignment, efficiency and productivity benefits? Or just turn out all the lights, let the company slide into bankruptcy-and watch all these things soar ad infinitum?
And if all that is so, shouldn't we also see massive improvements in enhancing teamwork, capturing synergies, adding value, exceeding expectations of customers (whose collective delight will go off the charts) etc.?
But they couldn't say all that. Some employees just might suspect management was putting them on.
Footnote: I've owned my (second) Jeep Cherokee for almost nine years and am happy as hell it wasn't built by Chrysler's HR "team."
Email relory@aol.com.
[jargon] [buzzwords] [doublespeak] [gibberish]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
