November 30, 2011
Despite all the problems in the world — the sorry state of the environment and the economy, the absolute insanity of the standoff between the republicans and the democrats, the unrest everywhere, the disasters — I believe we are living in remarkable times. We have access to more information, more quickly than at any other time in history. Technology makes everything possible. Some of the greatest minds the world has ever known — or may ever know — are right here, right now.
And yet, we’re stuck. We just can’t seem to move forward. For some inexplicable reason we can’t seem to think of what could be; and instead, we refuse to change — insisting on living in the past — insisting on doing things the way we always have — despite the fact that they no longer work — and never will again.
It is so frustrating I could scream. And it makes me think of that late 70’s movie, “Network”, starring Peter Finch, Faye Dunaway and an all-star cast. In fact, the film is a story of a fictional television network with failing ratings. When the anchor, Peter Finch, is told he’s just got two more weeks on air, he has an on-air meltdown. He then essentially starts ‘a movement’ when he rants “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”
That is exactly how I feel, so stay tuned. You may just see me on the 6 o’clock news one of these evenings.
It drives me crazy that I go to conference after conference where corporate executives are ringing their hands. “Why” you ask? Because angry customers are venting on social media and they (the execs) think that if they have a Facebook page and get people to ‘like’ them all their problems will miraculously disappear.
Their problems will disappear when they change the way they do business. When they create products and services that their customers want and need.
Same goes for politicians; and health care providers; and educators, by the way.
Who knows? Maybe you’re all getting tired of hearing me whine about the same thing all the time. But we could accomplish so much, we would do so much good — if only we were prepared to re-think the way we think. Still not getting it?
Do yourselves a favour. Buy “Change by Design”, a book written by Tim Brown, who is the CEO and President of IDEO — one of the top ten most innovative companies in the world. What they do is called ‘design thinking’ — a systematic yet creative approach they use whether they are creating an object or finding an innovative way to deliver clean drinking water in the developing world.
I’ve re-read the book at least a half dozen times now; and each time I do I am more inspired. The challenges we face can be overcome. There’s a better, cheaper, cleaner, faster, more efficient, more human-centred way to do almost anything. All we need is the desire, and the willingness to change.
we either start thinking outside the box or we’ll end up with more and more people inside the box (as in 6 feet under)
November 24, 2011
Andre Picard, who writes the ‘Second Opinion’ column in the Globe and Mail made the front page this morning. His story, “When it comes to breast cancer, science trumps wishful thinking” gives us yet another opinion of yesterday’s news: After years and years and years of having the importance of yearly mammograms and early detection drummed into our heads, the Canadian recommendations on screening are changing.
What they’re now saying, in a nutshell, is that only post menopausal women should have mammograms — and less often than we’ve been told in the past. Specifically, unless you are at high risk (family history of breast cancer or positive for breast cancer genes BRCA1 or BRCA2):
- Canadian women 50 to 74 should now have mammograms every two to three years — instead of yearly from 50 – 69 as per their earlier recommendation.
- Women 70 to 74 should now have mammograms every two to three years — a group who were previously excluded.
- Women under 50 should now not have mammograms at all.
- Clinical breast exams and breast self-examination are no longer perceived to have value — so there is no longer any medical reason to fondle your breasts.
The article goes into all kinds of details and reasons, but seeing as how I am giving you the link (see above) and you can read it yourself, I’ll just give you the topline: “Many women who undergo screening mammography have false positives (meaning they are told they have cancer when they do not) and some are treated unnecessarily. (therefore, let’s throw the baby out with the bathwater).
I have many questions, but the most burning issue of all for me is this:
- It would appear to me that our screening methods may be flawed (and don’t get me started on how many lives may have been lost because of this).
- Not even one article I’ve read (and I’ve read several) has reported that the folks on the Canadian Task Force on Preventative Health Care Guidelines are concerned about this.
- Not one article has reported that these same folks are thinking or suggesting that we should be improving our diagnostic techniques.
- The recommendation is not to address or try to solve the root problem. To think differently. To look for innovative solutions. No … instead of finding ways to IMPROVE screening, and screen EARLIER and, therefore, prevent more disease and save more lives (and money because prevention is less costly than treating patients over and over and over again) let’s just screen fewer people. Yeah … that’ll fix the problem — sweep it under the rug for another ten years and it will be somebody else’s problem by then!
‘Innovation‘ is one of the hottest topics around these days. It’s almost getting as much attention as the economy. As well it should.
And if this debacle doesn’t prove that we are in dire shape in this country I don’t know what does. Every health care practitioner … every hospital administrator … every researcher … every silly servant at every level of government … every philanthropist … every insurer … every strategist … every creative thinker … every journalist who covers health care should all be hanging their heads in shame.
We have to stop deluding ourselves. We need change. Radical change. We need it now. We need to put our heads together and figure it out. Not just for breast cancer — for our health care system in general. It is not working. Period.
I was so pissed off, frustrated, horrified and disappointed when I read Andre Picard’s article this morning I emailed him. We bantered back and forth a couple of times — and in the end he did agree that “we need better prevention and treatment and more realistic presentation of what we’re able to do now.” So I do have one, last question for Andre Picard:
Instead of justifying the new recommendations why didn’t you ask the tough questions that need to be asked?
November 21, 2011
WOW! There was an article in The Globe today that I liked, by Roger Martin, who’s the Dean of the Rotman School of Business. For anyone who missed it, here’s a link: “Canada, like Steve Jobs, should zero in on innovation“.
I thought I’d blog about it, and went to their site so I could pick up the link. But once there I decided to check out some of the comments that had been posted — an exercise that blew my mind. Admittedly I didn’t check all of them — after a page I gave up. Talk about negative! My God! Seriously.
Angry. Defensive. Negative. Frightened when you come right down to it — and resistant — of change.
Nobody is suggesting that anyone had to love every word. Or even agree. But these folks just shut down. Period. Talk about closed minds. I sure hope they don’t speak for the vast majority of Canadians because God help us if they do.
Fact is, we live in a very different world than the one we are used to. And in my humble opinion the old ways of doing almost anything are going to have to change — and so are we. As consumers, because of the Internet, we have access to more information than ever before — and that empowers us. We no longer have to take anyone’s word for anything. And, as consumers, because of social media we now have a voice — a powerful voice. We can share information, learning and experiences — both good and bad. And we can watch that information spread like a virus when we touch the right nerve. Which makes us, like bloggers, important influencers (some bloggers have more than half a million followers).
And that means that the customer experience has never been more important. Our opinions are starting to count. Big time.
Consumers want choice. We want transparency. We want what we want — not what you want to force down our throats. We’re re-connecting with our collective conscience and we want the companies we do business with, and our governments to have one as well. We’ve been the victims of greed and we’re not buying it any more. The rules have changed; and they’re not changing back any time soon.
Why should we have to buy bundles of programming when all we want is one channel in the group? Why should insurance companies give us grief — and penalize us — when we have to make a claim — do we get a refund for all the years we paid and never claimed? Why is it that some airline rewards programs make it almost impossible to book trips while others have no black-out periods or restrictions?
When are we going to stop deluding ourselves about our health care system? Yes, everyone in Canada can get medical attention. But how good is it? How many lives are lost while some patients are forced to wait six months for an MRI? How many cases of colon cancer could be prevented if colonoscopies were as routine as mammograms? How can you justify that some tumours are too small for treatments that can prevent recurrence? In what instance is it acceptable to treat a 60 year old — but not an 80 year old — with the same illness — and then refuse to discuss euthanasia when there is no hope of recovery or treatment?
Jobs are scarce and getting scarcer. So instead of hauling people on UI down to look at job boards that lead to nothing, why aren’t we inspiring and helping them to start small businesses? We have micro loan programs in emerging nations? Why not right here — to get some of these folks’ businesses up and running?
I’m just saying.
So do yourself a favour and read Roger Martin’s column, with an open mind. And please, try to embrace change. Try to embrace innovation. We really do need to get with the program. A new program.
November 19, 2011
Last weekend a client sent me a link to a blog on Forbes. “The CMO: Dead Men Walking” by Paul Magnone. I have read it a dozen times and I’m still not sure what his point is.
He started off by saying that in IBM’s recently-released Global CMO Study 71% reported that they’re underprepared for the “Data Explosion.” He didn’t go into detail. He did, however, quickly go on to say that we now have more data available to us than ever before, but it’s not giving us much to work with — insight-wise. No examples to help me figure out whether or not I agreed.
So correctly or incorrectly I leapt to the conclusion that a hell of a lot of CMOs are drowning in a sea of useless information — out of which, Magnone was quick to point out, they are expected to figure out how to “improve the customer experience and deliver value to empowered customers.”
Doesn’t sound like marketing’s job to me, but I’m only about half way through the blog. It’s also very early Saturday morning, I’m still a bit groggy and I haven’t had coffee yet.
When I returned from Starbucks and started reading again I saw that we were now “following the customer’s north star” — which meant that we should be asking ourselves whether the customer actually wants the product or message we’re giving them. Or are we selfishly giving them what we want?
Well, this is a subject that is very close to my heart. But worrying about the message after it’s been delivered is a bit like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. Which could explain why Paul Magnone thinks that CMOs are dead men walking. As for the product not being relevant (which is essentially what he’s saying here), even after a low fat Grande Latte I still don’t think it’s marketing’s problem. So maybe the CEO should really be the dead man (walking or not) because it looks to me like he’s trying to pass the buck.
Frankly, I’ve long believed that it’s not uncommon for a client to expect an advertising campaign to solve a problem that it couldn’t solve. What actually needed fixing could have been the product or service they were selling or the lack of customer service they were delivering.
But despite what I think, as best I can tell, it is Paul Mangone’s contention that CMOs days are numbered unless they take the lead — not just when it concerns marketing, but also when a major business decision is being considered. That it should be the responsibility of the CMO to ensure that the product, sales, distribution and legal teams are driven by the customer’s needs and wants.
Again, a subject that is very close to my heart. But again, I do not believe this is marketing’s issue. This must be inherent in the corporate culture. It starts with the CEO and it has to be embraced by everyone who works for, and is connected in any way, to the company.
Paul Magnone has good credentials. He’s VP of business development and strategic alliances at Opennet Telecom. He’s the co-author of a book. He worked at IBM for 21 years, where he started and grew four sales and consulting businesses. Forbes liked what he said, because they published his blog post.
So I’m prepared to accept that I’m missing something here. Do me a favour and check out the story; and explain to me why all this data is the kiss of death for CMOs.