Actually, Think Inside the Box

I was sitting in a small auditorium on the campus at Hamline University, listening to a young poet named Li-Young Lee. He was a wild and brilliant writer, incomprehensible to me most of the time. But as a speaker, he was amazingly clear, and one thing he said has always stuck with me. In discussing the abstract idea of contradiction, he said, "As an architect, the best way to communicate 'space' is to enclose it." If I remember right, to illustrate his point, he cited Grand Central Station.

Over time, I've shortened my interpretation of that insight to simply this: Creativity is born of restriction. Yes, popular culture is awash in stories and images of artists who only bloom when they shake the shackles of oppression--political, religious, cultural, mostly familial. And those who deal with creative types constantly hear them whine (often justifiably so) about being too restricted. But if you doubt that restriction is absolutely essential to creativity, keep in mind that poets themselves created the insane constraints of the haiku.

In my own experience, I've witnessed it several times. The song I use as the soundtrack for my Conk Creative website: We had just enough studio time left for one live take, and it turned out to be the most popular track on our CD (despite my sloppy guitar playing). The screenplay I recently optioned: I sputtered for more than a year until I decided that I had to complete a draft in time for a contest deadline. Even with this blog, I created the "CC Pick 3" email in part because I knew it would force me to publish at least three posts a month (this is number three for May). And keep in mind that pop songs and screenplays are already two of the most highly structured vehicles in their creative families. The latter is mandated to be written in three acts, not to exceed 120 pages in 12-pt. Courier font, with margins of 1.5 inches on the left, 1 inch on the right, top and bottom.

Most recently, I've enrolled for the 48 Hour Film Project, a contest in which you draw a genre out of a hat, then have 48 hours to create a film longer than four minutes, but less than seven minutes. We'll see if this level of restriction proves to be oppressive, liberating or both. (Note to clients: This post should have no bearing on setting deadlines for future projects...)

Focus vs. Inclusion Part II

For the original "Focus vs. Inclusion," click here.

Last week, I was sitting in a meeting with a successful but frustrated company. They had decided years ago to undergo one of those evolutions from "widget distributor" to "solutions provider," and their sales people still didn't get it.

Coming at it from the outside, I was having some trouble understanding what they did myself. On one hand, they were positioned at a high consultative level ("no matter what you manufacture, we can make you more efficient") that was industry agnostic. On the other hand, they still listed three specifics ("we specialize in these three areas of manufacturing"). So which was it?

Finally, I asked the president of the company a simple question: What don't you do? He was stumped. After thinking about it for several minutes, he eventually got a phone call, and the subject was dropped.

Since the day I started Conk Creative, I keep coming back to this recurring marketing/branding problem of focus vs. inclusion. It's getting clearer all the time, and it goes something like this:

- Sales people want "inclusion" because they never want to turn down an opportunity. The motivations are obvious. Basically, a sales person is conditioned to always say, no matter what the challenge, "Yes, we can help you with that." That translates to the customer as "we do everything."

- CFOs want "inclusion" because they see the world as a series of current and potential revenue streams. If there's money to be made, a client to be secured, a bottom line to be grown, they want it. This also translates to the world as "we do everything."

- People (and marketing professionals) want focus. I don't search Google for "help me do anything" or "people who can make me more efficient." I search for "plumbers," "watch repair," and, most recently, "child's leg swollen after DTP shot." (He's fine.)

These are specific. When I'm walking around a crowded world, I don't really have time to understand what a company called Stuff 'n' Things sells. In fact, they annoy me because they don't let my mind put them in a convenient category. But if they're called "Just Hats," well, I know where to go next time I want a hat.

Focus and Inclusion are constantly at war with each other, and the distinction isn't always so clear cut. After all, Target sells almost everything as far as product, but what it really sells is "discount chic," and it's been brilliant at marketing it. (Though I still have a hunch that Super Targets won't last forever... the grocery thing is pushing it.)

Starbucks is probably the best example. It broke through the branding clutter by out-focusing everybody and just selling high-quality coffee. It then managed to evolve a little bit into a lifestyle brand by producing and distributing select CDs and books. But now (after going too far with breakfast sandwiches, among other things), guess what? It's back to coffee basics, hearkening back to its very first store by promoting Pike Place Roast.

I suspect that the focus-focused internal Starbucks brand champions finally won out over the pure revenue stream crowd... because the customer was starting to get confused.

Random Rewrite #2: AkzoNobel

Here's a classic case of what I suspect is an overly vetted corporate merger ad (appearing in today's Wall Street Journal).

Existing copy reads:

Joining Forces: AkzoNobel and ICI

Together, we're stronger. The integration of ICI into AkzoNobel has created a major industrial company. We now have the combined creative force of more than 60,000 individuals. The new AkzoNobel is the world's largest coatings manufacturer, the number one in decorative paints, and a leading supplier of specialty chemicals. We not only think with passion, but we also have the expertise to deliver on our ideas. By pushing our imagination beyond the normal limits, we're continuing to color, protect and transform virtually every aspect of daily life. For everyone across the globe. We're AkzoNobel. We're committed to delivering Tomorrow's Answers Today.

* * *

As an average Joe reading the Journal, I'm a little confused. I suppose it doesn't help that I've never heard of either of these companies (AkzoNobel is Dutch, as it turns out). I gather from the copy that they're in the paints and coatings business. But what does an abstract tagline like "Tomorrow's Answers Today" have to do with paint? And what's the benefit to me that they've "joined forces"? The positioning is overly vague. The tone is too self-serving. And frankly, it's a little dull for a self-proclaimed "color company."

* * *

I would have done it more like this:

The New AkzoNobel: Expanding the Spectrum

Ask Vincent van Gogh: The most striking colors come from unique combinations. That's how we feel now that ICI has joined forces with AkzoNobel. We're a new company, with an even bolder vision, backed by 60,000 innovators in 80 countries, ready to help you achieve a personal brush with greatness each and every day.

The world's leading developer of coatings, decorative paints and specialty chemicals. All in one place.

Now that's a good mix.

The New AkzoNobel
success ... in color