Bloglikes - Branding en-US Thu, 15 Apr 2021 17:35:47 +0000 Sat, 06 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0000 FeedWriter Put branding first! How to build a business that attracts growth Thu, 15 Apr 2021 03:33:52 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Agent Back To Basics Columns Marketing Select Service Teams Brand Brand-first Business Branding Kris Lindahl Recruiting Theme-month-202104 6 Elements Of Digital Brand Dominance 6 Elements Of Digital Brand Dominance

Video streaming is just one example of a digital economy where competition is intensifying. Many so-called legacy companies are caught up in a battle with digital competitors, and so far, the born-digital companies have been eating their lunch. Walmart (and every other physical retail store, from Macy’s to Best Buy) is in a constant duel with Amazon, and banks and credit card companies are squaring off against PayPal and Apple Pay.

Meanwhile the digital giants are battling each other for market share and dominance: Amazon’s AWS versus Microsoft’s Azure cloud services. Consumer goods companies, retailers, and manufacturers have hundreds of e-commerce start-ups nibbling at the edges of their market share with niche products sold directly to consumers online. Think of P&G’s Gillette razors sold in stores versus the online subscription-based Dollar Shave Club that sells direct to consumers.

The common thread in these erupting battles is digitization. It has upended the very nature of competition today, and made twentieth-century ways of thinking about competitive advantage obsolete.

The old adage “stick to your knitting,” for example, a colloquial version of “build on your core competence,” tends to narrow a company’s imagination. Yet a bold imagination is a requirement for leaders today. Netflix, Amazon, Facebook, and Google would not be what they are if their CEOs and executive teams had not imagined a future that did not yet exist.

A clear view of the competitive landscape suggests that some of the early generalizations about “first mover advantage” and “winner takes all” are not holding up, especially as digital giants challenge each other.

First movers may be able to scale up fast, but others are certain to enter whatever large market spaces they create. For that reason, winners really don’t take it all, at least not forever. And if new competitors don’t enter the fray quickly enough, antitrust government regulators may step in.

As early and dominant as Amazon has been in e-commerce, it is hardly alone. Alibaba, Tencent, and are fierce global competitors, and traditional retailer Walmart is barreling into the online space in a bigger way since its acquisition of and its majority stake in Flipkart, India’s largest e-commerce player. It has been gaining traction by linking its online sales with physical stores. In Brazil, B2W has held Amazon, a relative newcomer, at bay.

The outcome of these competitive battles is uncertain. But some fundamental differences in how digital companies compete have become clear. When one dissects the Netflixes, Amazons, Googles, and Alibabas of the world, we see that they have certain elements in common:

  1. They imagine a 100x market space that doesn’t yet exist. They imagine an end-to-end experience in a person’s life—as the individual travels, eats, shops for goods, or seeks medical care or entertainment— that could be greatly improved, and if it were, that a vast number of people would want. They think about how technology could be used to make the seemingly impossible happen. They focus on the end user even if intermediaries lie between them and the consumer. They know that if their offering is right for the end user, they can scale up very quickly, because word spreads almost instantaneously. Netflix believed that a huge number of people would prefer to discover and enjoy videos at their convenience in their homes instead of going to a movie theater and putting up with overpriced snacks and disturbing neighbors, or watching TV at prescribed times set by the entertainment companies or networks. In the age of $50 cellphones and ultra-low-cost Internet connections, as in India, the potential market explodes.
  2. They have a digital platform at their core. A digital platform is an expertly stitched together mix of algorithms that store and analyze data for a variety of purposes. It allows for fast experimentation and fast adjustment of prices, and makes it possible to reach a huge population globally at minimal incremental cost. Netflix can easily stream its repertoire across geographic borders. Algorithms in the categories of artificial intelligence and machine learning can correct themselves as they learn more about customers’ behavior and preferences, improving personalization and thereby increasing customer loyalty.
  3. They have an ecosystem that accelerates their growth. Ecosystem partners take many forms, such as third-party sellers on Amazon’s website, Uber’s independent drivers, or Apple’s app developers. They allow the company to expand capacity quickly, often with no capital investment on its part. They allow cross-selling to extend innovations to a broader audience. They can also enable a new moneymaking model or supply a capability that is missing. Most ecosystems share data, contributing to the ability to scale up fast. Netflix would not exist without the content it licensed from its ecosystem, such as the TV series Friends from WarnerMedia and The Office from NBCUniversal. Companies don’t compete against each other—their ecosystems do.
  4. Their moneymaking is tied to cash and exponential growth. Digital businesses know that after a period of intense cash consumption, if the offering is successful, returns will turn sharply upward as the incremental cost of the next unit sold or subscriber added drops. They focus more on cash than on accounting measures. Funders who recognize the law of increasing returns are willing to ease the liquidity issues in the early going to reap exponential rewards later.
  5. Decision-making is designed for innovation and speed. The downside of growth and a principal reason traditional companies experience diminishing returns is the increased complexity and bureaucracy that come with growth. But increased bureaucracy is not a given for companies that have a digital platform at their center. Teams close to the action can make decisions and take action without layers of oversight because they can easily access real-time information. They can move very fast. Accountability is built in because the digital platform makes a team’s progress visible to anyone in the company who needs to know. Overhead is kept to a minimum even as the company expands rapidly; Amazon’s general and administrative costs are just 1.5 percent of revenues. Recruiting people who are self-motivated and can thrive in a team-based environment makes the company innovative and agile.
  6. Their leaders drive learning, reinvention, and execution. Digital leaders have a different set of skills and competencies than traditional managers. They have a working knowledge of technology, an expansive imagination, and an ability to link their big-picture thinking with ground-level execution. Their use of data takes execution to a whole new level. And their constant communication with their teams, along with their decisiveness in shifting resources, makes the organization agile. The fluidity of their thinking drives continuous change and growth. They create the change that leaders of many other companies struggle to contend with.

So today’s digital giants and upstarts focus intensely on the experience of an individual consumer and open big new market spaces. They scale up fast, aggregate data, and draw relevant partners into their ecosystem. Their business models focus on cash gross margin, cash generation, and exponential growth. They get hefty amounts of cash to fund their growth from VCs and investors who understand the new patterns of money-making. And their highly committed leaders and employees work with purpose and focus relentlessly on what’s next, driving speed, continuous innovation, and disciplined execution.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by: Ram Charan and Geri Willigan, excerpted from their book RETHINKING COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE with permission from Currency, an imprint of Random House, a division of Penguin Random House.

The Blake Project Can Help You Create A Bolder Competitive Future In The Jobs To Be Done Workshop

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers

Wed, 14 Apr 2021 21:32:39 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Business Strategy
2022 Nissan NISMO GT-R Special Edition Flaunts Exclusivity   The 2022 Nissan NISMO GT-R Special Edition was unveiled today in Japan. How much more exclusive can a limited-edition sports car be? It turns out this GT-R is pretty distinctive. It’s not just a badge and some decals that sets it apart.   First, it’s painted a NISMO-exclusive color called Stealth Gray. Rays 20-inch […]

The post 2022 Nissan NISMO GT-R Special Edition Flaunts Exclusivity appeared first on The Truth About Cars.

Wed, 14 Apr 2021 15:02:28 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Branding Car Collector's Corner Design Enthusiasm Global Japan Marketing Media Rare Rides Sales and Marketing Technology Tuners Flagship GT-R Japanese Limited Availability Nissan Nissan Gt-r Nismo Special Edition Sports Car
Here’s Why You Won’t Find Talking Animals or Irritating Jingles in NJM Insurance’s Advertising ]]> Wed, 14 Apr 2021 14:49:00 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Branding Tools to Support High Volume Hiring Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:00:00 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Blog Posts Featured News Staffing Tech Candidates Hiring HR Technology Talent Acquisition Technology Tools The sloppy Sixth Circuit A federal court of appeals was so unsympathetic to a transgender student that it sloppily misstated what had happened in the case and gave faculty a broad license to mistreat minorities. I explain in a new piece at the American Prospect, here.

Appellate decisions are supposed to be based on a careful review of the record. I've criticized the substance of the Sixth Circuit's Meriwether decision elsewhere.  But this new piece points to something worse: professional incompetence.  The university lost, and doubtless will now have to settle for some significant sum of money, because the Court of Appeals carelessly misconstrued the facts, and angrily denounced the university for what it had not done. 

[Author: Andrew Koppelman]

Wed, 14 Apr 2021 09:33:09 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Andrew Koppelman
“You’re not that good” These are the three problems with creative work.

The first is that when we begin, we’re not that good. This is a fact. The breakthrough for anyone on this journey is adding the word “yet.”

It doesn’t pay to pretend that we’ve figured it out before we have. It’s counterproductive to adopt a brittle attitude in the face of criticism. In fact, during this stage, “you’re not that good,” is precisely what we need to hear, because it might be followed with insight on how to get better.

The second is that once we start to build skills and offer something of value, some people are going to persist in believing that we’re not that good. Fine. They’ve told us something about themselves and what they want and need. This is a clue to offer our leadership and contribution to someone else, someone who gets what we’re doing and wants it. The smallest viable audience isn’t a compromise, it’s a path forward. Find the folks who are enrolled and open and eager. Serve them instead.

The danger is that when you hear rejection during this stage, you might come to believe that you’ve accomplished nothing, as opposed to realizing that you might simply be talking to the wrong people.

And the third comes full circle. Because it’s possible that in fact, we’re not that good yet, and there aren’t enough people who want what we’ve got. We’re simply not good enough for this part of the market. So we embrace that truth and begin at the beginning. We’re not good enough yet. We haven’t practiced enough, found enough empathy, understood the genre well enough and figured out how to contribute. Yet. At least for this audience.

And then we get better.

Sooner or later, these three problems become three milestones on the road to making a difference and doing work we’re proud of.

PS today’s the best day to sign up for the Freelancer’s Workshop offered by Akimbo. I hope you’ll join in…

[Author: Seth Godin]

Wed, 14 Apr 2021 09:33:00 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Uncategorized Seth Godin
Can you see it? Do you notice that you’re dressed dramatically differently than everyone else at the event?

That you’re driving at a different pace than everyone else?

That your question at the end of the talk lasted four times longer than anyone else’s?

That your band’s new single is half the volume of everything else that’s being pitched to this program director?

That your code isn’t commented and everyone else’s is?

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being different from the crowd. In fact, it might be the ideal path forward. The problem begins when you don’t see what’s not matching up.

The best way to transform the path is to see the path first.

History doesn’t always repeat itself, but it usually rhymes.

Wed, 14 Apr 2021 09:33:00 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Uncategorized
How Obsession With Uniqueness Threatens Brands How Obsession With Uniqueness Threatens Brands

We all believe that our brand and business is unique, that no-one else could possibly do what we do, that we are the one and only. But is an obsession with uniqueness necessarily true, or even helpful for our business and brand?

We all want our brand to stand out from the crowd, but too often when managing a brand it is forgotten that we still need to be seen as a part of a crowd in order to then stand out from it.

The only way we can stand out from a crowd is to initially be seen as a part of that crowd.

Part of the identifying features of a brand is in its similarities to other relevant brands. Take Coca-Cola – they sell a fizzy drink, in cans and bottles, to people, through various third parties, using aspirational messaging. So do their competition. Just because other brands have similarities doesn’t mean that Coca-Cola should stop showing these features of the brand, as they are features which people need to know in order to put Coca-Cola in the same ‘crowd’ as their competitors.

It is not only the points of difference which create your brand identity, but also the points of parity.

When managing a brand it is vital not to become obsessed with uniqueness. Not everything your brand does should be unique. It can’t be. The brand must be understood to be a part of a ‘crowd’ first – a crowd which has specific features in which people are interested. Only once you have defined the crowd in which your brand exists can you begin to create some level of differentiation, in order to try and stand out.

Part of what defines us is that which makes us the same as others. This is true for people and the same is true for brands.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by: Paul Bailey, Strategy Director at Halo

At The Blake Project we are helping clients from around the world, in all stages of development, redefine and articulate what makes them competitive at critical moments of change through online strategy workshops and extended engagements. Please email us to learn how we can help you compete differently.

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers

Wed, 14 Apr 2021 09:33:00 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Brand Differentiation
[PODCAST] VidCruiter – Why Structured Digital Interviews Win Over AI with Sean Fahey Wed, 14 Apr 2021 08:00:00 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Blog Posts Featured News Podcasts Recruiting RecruitingDaily Podcast Tech AI Candidate Experience Candidates Data HR HR Technology Interview Recruiting Software Talent Acquisition Technology Video IBM Joins The Happy Idiot Club Please join us in welcoming IBM to the Happy Idiot club, as they’ve announced the name of their IT division spinoff: “IBM says the “kyn” part of the name is derived from is the word “kinship,” and “dryl” comes from tendril, which it said should bring “to mind new growth and the idea that … the business is always working toward advancing human progress.”  Full Article.


Tue, 13 Apr 2021 13:28:28 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Uncategorized
2021 trends: Staying relevant in the age of e-commerce

In this second column of the 2021 trends series, I want to talk about the acceleration of e-commerce adoption. The pandemic forced many consumers to change their purchasing habits, and e-commerce was the lucky recipient. Techcrunch predicted e-commerce would be up more than 20%, and in the third quarter of 2020 e-commerce increased by over 30% over the second quarter.

There’s no doubt that the forced isolation, stay-at-home orders, and working from home have all accelerated e-commerce growth globally, and most marketers predict this shift is permanent.

On the flip side, we are all urging each other to buy local and support the businesses around us. The question is really: How do we take the best from each buying experience and weave it throughout the other?

As consumers, we all love the 24/7 convenience of online shopping. It’s hard not to delight in being able to do your holiday shopping in your jammies while enjoying a roaring fire at 10 p.m.
But that delight often turns to frustration when you can’t reach anyone to resolve a problem or ask a question.

On the flip side, we love being welcomed into a store or business and enjoy the personal service. But it’s frustrating when we made an effort to get there and what we want is out of stock, or they can’t help us.
On the local front, many businesses have had to reinvent how they deliver their products and services in 2020. Innovations around deliveries, curbside pickups, ramped-up websites with more functionality, and even Zoom delivery of services that had traditionally always been face-to-face. But finding ways to integrate the warmth of the in-person experience with a robust website and active social media channels will be critical for survival in 2021. “We don’t have time or the money” just won’t cut it anymore. Having a digital presence is mission-critical.

It’s time to go beyond the convenience factor for businesses that are already crushing it on the e-commerce side. Creating brand loyalty and a community of happy customers will allow you to develop a connection with your customer base that will encourage repeat purchases and word-of-mouth buzz.
The other area that needs plenty of improvement is the gap between the organization’s brand and the online experience. Convenience loses its allure when you can’t get hold of someone to answer a question or deal with an issue.

Every business needs to be paying close attention to how and where their brand shows up online. Findability goes beyond simple SEO. Getting on referral sites, digital shopping lists, and ramping up your efforts to get reviews are all going to be critical.

But it’s not all about the online aspect of the relationship. Building your brand promise and ensuring it’s delivered at every touchpoint is even more critical when you have never met your customer in person. Your brand has to be much bigger than the channel. Your brand needs to be channel-agnostic.

Another aspect of e-commerce that needs some attention is the whole concept of packaging and presentation. There’s a lot to think about in this arena. We immediately go to protecting the contents from breaking. Given the power of social media, live streaming, and influencers, the unpacking process itself should not be ignored. How do you make the opening of your package an experience unto itself?
How do you bring your brand to life if you don’t get to interact with your consumer in person? How does your brand translate to Zoom, an e-commerce site or an email interaction?

That’s the most important question we need to answer as we acknowledge that the digital revolution is here to stay. It’s filled with opportunities if we’re smart enough to seize them!


This was originally published in the Des Moines Business Record, as one of Drew’s weekly columns.

Tue, 13 Apr 2021 11:00:14 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Uncategorized Agencylife Agencymanagement Agencyowner Marketing MMG
2021 Jeep Exclusive – Gladiator Trail for Texas There’s a new 2021 Jeep Gladiator, the Texas Trail. Unveiled this week, the Trail is offered only in Texas, the country’s largest truck market. The Gladiator Texas Trail is based on the Gladiator Sport S, with 17-inch mid-gloss black aluminum wheels and 32-inch mud-terrain tires to enhance the truck’s off-road capabilities. The Trailer Tow Group, […]

The post 2021 Jeep Exclusive – Gladiator Trail for Texas appeared first on The Truth About Cars.

Tue, 13 Apr 2021 10:38:10 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Texas Marketing Sales Autos Trucks SUVs Jeep Special Edition Branding Gladiator Enthusiasm News Blog Car Collector's Corner Trailer Tow Group Gladiator variant Gladiator Trail Texas Trail Unveiled Gladiator Texas Trail
Legendary Onboarding – What It Is and How to Get It Tue, 13 Apr 2021 10:00:00 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Blog Posts Featured News Recruiting Tech Company Culture Employee Engagement Future of Work Guest Post Hiring HR Onboarding Remote Work Talent Acquisition Technology How to Find Your Unique Content Creation Style Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:00:00 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Content Marketing [PODCAST] Storytelling about Virtual With Us with Alexandra Schrecengost Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:00:00 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Blog Posts Featured News Podcasts Tech Use Case Podcast Company Culture Diversity and Inclusion Employee Engagement Employee Wellbeing HR Motivation Remote Work Talent Acquisition Technology The Use Case Podcast Havas CX’s X Index offers a new and holistic view of a brand’s customer experience The international experience network Havas CX recently launched its X Index, a global barometer of customer experience (CX). When I first heard about it, I did […]

The post Havas CX’s X Index offers a new and holistic view of a brand’s customer experience first appeared on Adrian Swinscoe.]]>
Tue, 13 Apr 2021 07:37:21 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Branding Business growth Customer Experience Customer Journey Brand Customer Experience Management Havas CX OpinionWay Service Experience Stephanie Nerlich X Index
Defining Your Brand Vision Defining Your Brand Vision

Brand vision is intention. It can be a single-minded intent, or a group of goals and objectives — typically no more than one, two or three.

Steve Jobs wanted this, “Put a ding in the universe.

Henry Ford wanted to make cars that ordinary Americans could afford. (Consider that in Henry’s era, people were driving the equivalent of $200,000 Teslas while everyone else was riding a horse.)

Tesla Motor’s vision is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy.

And Elon Musk’s newest vision is to enable people to go “Anywhere on Earth in under one hour.”

It is sometimes hard to differentiate between a Vision and Mission Statement, in practice they are often conjoined, conflated and confused.

Think about yourself. It’s the difference between, I want to figure out how to take a year off and go to Bali (vision statement), versus I want to be nice to everyone at work, be more intentional and pay the rent on time (mission statement).

Your Mission Statement should be derived from your Vision, and should help your Vision become a possibility rather than an aspirational poster. So, maybe together all those things will help get you to Bali.

Patagonia’s Brand Vision is often voiced as, “environment conservation and restoration,” while their famous Mission Statement is, “Build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis.”

Three specific to-do’s are mentioned and you can feel a spine running through the thing.

Neil Blumenthal of fashion eyewear company Warby Parker has noted the brand’s fledgling intention was to break into the world of “health and fashion.”

Warby Parker’s mission statement from 2015 reads, “Warby Parker was founded with a rebellious spirit and a lofty objective: to offer designer eyewear at a revolutionary price, while leading the way for socially conscious businesses.”

Brand Vision Defined

Simply, the Brand Vision says “What’s out there?,” the Mission Statement says “How” and/or in what manner. Fundamentally, there is a compelling tone of voice and personality embodied in both the Vision and Mission that attracts us.

Vision attracts our being at the deepest core, the level that exposes something raw, cellular and greater than our selves. It’s the reason why people get out of bed in the morning.

The Vision is a statement — an intention — about where the company is going.

Where will we be in six months? Six years? Why do we come to work in the morning?

Amazon is an example that experts frequently turn to as an example of Vision and Mission.

Amazon’s Vision “is to be earth’s most customer centric company; to build a place where people can come to find and discover anything they might want to buy online.”

In his famous 1997 , Jeff Bezos made three Mission-centric declarations that outlined the company Mission. These statements have held through time and are pointed to and serve as totems in strategy conversations around the world.

“This is Day 1 for the Internet.”

“We believe that a fundamental measure of our success will be the shareholder value we create over the long term…Because of our emphasis on the long term, we may make decisions and weigh tradeoffs differently than some companies.”

“We will continue to focus relentlessly on our customers.”

Twenty years later, Amazon is ranked #1 in the American Customer Satisfaction Index and Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world.

If you want to .

Zappo’s vision, by comparison, seems pragmatic and functional. “One day, 30% of all retail transactions in the US will be online. People will buy from the company with the best service and the best selection. will be that online store.”

Apple’s vision, according to current CEO Tim Cook, is “We believe that we are on the face of the earth to make great products and that’s not changing. We are constantly focusing on innovating. We believe in the simple not the complex. We believe that we need to own and control the primary technologies behind the products that we make, and participate only in markets where we can make a significant contribution. We believe in saying no to thousands of projects, so that we can really focus on the few that are truly important and meaningful to us. We believe in deep collaboration and cross-pollination of our groups, which allow us to innovate in a way that others cannot. And frankly, we don’t settle for anything less than excellence in every group in the company, and we have the self- honesty to admit when we’re wrong and the courage to change. And I think regardless of who is in what job those values are so embedded in this company that Apple will do extremely well.”

Much different than, “I want to put a ding in the universe,” right? This reads more like a mission statement and underlines the difference between a visionary entrepreneur and a manager trying to execute someone else’s vision. Even a good manager.

Google’s mission is: To organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.

The Walt Disney Company’s corporate vision is “to be one of the world’s leading producers and providers of entertainment and information.”

Nike Inc.’s official mission statement is “to bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete in the world.”

When pushed to create a mission statement by co-workers, Blue Bottle Coffee’s founder James Freeman expressed his vision in three words: “Deliciousness, hospitality and sustainability.”

Netflix’s quest is “We promise our customers stellar service, our suppliers a valuable partner, our investors the prospects of sustained profitable growth, and our employees the allure of huge impact.”

Shapchat’s mother ship Snap Inc. says it’s a camera company that believes “reinventing the camera represents the greatest opportunity to improve the way people live and communicate.”

Marriott International does not have a mission statement; rather, they stress their Vision, which is “To be the world’s favorite travel company.”

AirBNB Brand Vision

Airbnb’s mission, which reads like it might have been conceived after too much Burning Man reads, “To live in this world where one day you can feel like you’re home anywhere and not in a home, but truly home, where you belong. To live in this world where you can be home, you have to provide hospitality and hosts provide hospitality. Airbnb is a hospitality company.”

Notice that the words “transformational,” “transparent,” “empower,” “genuine,” “experience,” are not used anywhere in the Vision statements above. If these words exist in your statement, you’re probably doing work that’s already been done.

“The Vision is what we want to be,” asserts brand and strategy expert Erich Joachimsthaler, CEO of Vivaldi. “A brand vision should be an aspiration. Not what you stand for right now, but what you aspire to create. A brand vision has a lot more depth because it draws on the organization, personality, product features, it draws on not just what the customer buys but is more future driven and future aspiration.”

Joachimsthaler agrees that the difference between Brand Vision and Brand Mission is an area of modern confusement that has extinguished forests of white boards, oversized Post-It® Notes and dry erase markers.

When Joachimsthaler and fellow brandsmith David Aaker were business partners in the 1980s (they worked together for over 25 years), these concepts were rough, raw and often misused. “What some people do not realize,” says Joachimsthaler, “sometimes the brand strategy becomes the business strategy. Brand vision is the face of the business strategy. Brand vision becomes the back page for your business strategy.”

Vision fills the empty meaningless hole in our universe and makes it meaningful. Some assembly is required.

When you understand the concept of brand vision properly, says Joachimsthaler, it is not only understanding the operational state of your business — but Vision can become your superpower to rethink an entire industry.

Companies like Netflix, Apple smartphones, Airbnb came not from a business strategy, but from an entirely new perception, a left-field cracked-egg vision of the world.

Gwyneth Paltrow Goop Missio

Gwyneth Paltrow’s enterprise Goop espouses a reverence for a new kind of expert, a kind of visionary who rejects modernity (in Goop-speak, that’s “Western medicine”) in favor of a romanticized vision of natural, pre-modern (i.e. “Eastern”) practices.


“We believe Goop believes that the little things count,” Goop declares on their website, “that good food is the foundation of love and wellness, that the mind/body/spirit is inextricably linked and we have more control over how we express our health than we currently understand, that it’s better to buy fewer things that are better.”


Here’s an editorial statement from someone else that has not been condensed into a one-liner, but is a fusion that illustrates how Vision and Mission exert themselves and ultimately become a part of everyday activations and conversation.

It’s from Taylor Stitch, a purposeful clothing company in San Francisco. Taylor Stitch asks users to vote for the products that mean something to them (and fund them) before a single garment is made. It goes like this:

“Before we bring any of our products to life, we always like to know what our community thinks,” they write in a recent email burst. “In an effort to make the clothing industry better from the way we source, sew, and sell, we use fabric voting to limit over-producing products that might eventually end up in landfill. Ultimately, our goal is only to make products that will be loved by you, the wearer. It’s one effort we take to build for the long haul responsibly.”

The long haul.

Vision is built for the long haul, because you can’t really build for that journey unless you have a vision of what that thing is that you’re building for.

A better Self. Better Purpose. A better person, place or thing.

At least, that’s the Vision.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by: Patrick Hanlon, Author of Primal Branding

The Blake Project Can Help: Please email us for more about our purpose, mission, vision and values and brand culture workshops.

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers

Mon, 12 Apr 2021 21:32:49 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Apple Google Amazon Elon Musk Bali Steve Jobs US San Francisco Netflix Tim Cook Walt Disney Company Airbnb Zappos Jeff Bezos James Freeman Vision Warby Parker Gwyneth Paltrow Vivaldi Henry Ford Branding Goop Mission Statement Henry Marriott International Nike Inc Blue Bottle Coffee Tesla Motor Patrick Hanlon Zappo Brand Culture Neil Blumenthal David Aaker Erich Joachimsthaler Joachimsthaler Taylor Stitch Snap Inc Netflix Apple Shapchat Bali Patagonia Brand Vision Defined Simply the Brand Vision Mission Amazon Mission These Brand Vision and Brand Mission
Amazon Adds Aplenty to Its Growing List of Private-Label Brands ]]> Mon, 12 Apr 2021 17:25:55 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Amazon Ecommerce California Advertising Illinois Branding Food & Beverage Amazon Fresh Consumer Product Innovation CPG & Grocery Briefly NBCUniversal and Capital One Partner for College Bowl Reboot ]]> Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:00:54 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Nbc Advertising Branding Brand Purpose Programming & Performance Briefly Capital One Partner for College Bed, Bath & Beyond Unveils New Campaign Under A “Home, Happier” Tagline ]]> Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:50:41 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Advertising Creative Davis Branding Retailing Cindy Davis Identity is often used against us Identity feels permanent, powerful, emotional and fragile.

Identity has been used to unite college alumni (“we are!”), political factions and groups of all kinds.

Criticism is not in short supply, especially lately, and criticism aimed at us, at our core self, is particularly hurtful.

“I don’t like you,” is hard to wrestle with.

That’s why ad hominem attacks on appearance and other permanent attributes we all have are so difficult to live with.

But “you” is not the car you drive, the kind of wine you drink or how you feel about a certain issue in our society. Those are choices. Those are tastes. Those can be changed.

When I say I don’t like your idea, I’m not saying that I don’t like you. And if we’ve been persuaded by marketers and politicians that everything we do and say is our identity, then it gets very difficult to learn, to accept useful feedback and to change.

Evolving our choices and our tastes is part of being human. Establishing your identity as someone who is not static, open to change and eager for better makes it far easier to engage in a world where some would prefer us to do precisely the opposite.

Mon, 12 Apr 2021 09:33:34 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Uncategorized Branding
5 ways to make your marketing and branding more memorable Marketing should be exploratory and dynamic to capture the interest of the new generation of customers.

Carlina Teteris

  • Modern customers respond better to marketing that's more personalized and interactive.
  • Customers tend to advocate for brands they have great relationships with via positive experiences.
  • This type of marketing helps businesses build loyal and recurring customers.
  • See more stories on Insider's business page.

As a business consultant, I often have to remind small-business owners that their marketing needs to be more interactive, versus the traditional "push" model, where you broadcast your message to as many people as possible.

New generations of customers respond better to the "participative" approach, where they get to provide input via social media and the internet.

It started a few years ago with email satisfaction surveys after an online purchase, but now includes interactive internet ads, as well as custom requests for input on the design of future products and influencers on social media. It seems that everyone these days wants an experience and a relationship, and is willing to become your best advocate via word of mouth.

Some call it a move from always "hunting" for new customers in the wild to "gardening," or nurturing loyalty and value from the ones you already have.

In any case, the new approach is important to all businesses, and embodies some new marketing rules that you need to focus on and learn:

1. Make your marketing exploratory and dynamic

The days of big-bang long-term campaigns that never change are over. You should be constantly trying new approaches via social media and online, and asking for feedback and input from influencers and customers. Scale quickly on good feedback, and move on if you get little engagement.

A step in the right direction is to take advantage of the new tools available at very low cost, including sponsored podcasts, blogs, visibility in online communities, and Twitter influencer support. Sometimes it's as simple as updating your website format and videos.

2. Use experiments versus designing the ideal ad

Trends and customer interests change quickly, so use small experiments to find something that works today, and use innovation to push the envelope, before your competitors can copy and overrun you. The key is to be able to measure your return, adapt quickly, and learn from your efforts.

According to the Harvard Business Review, e-commerce companies that conducted ad experiments saw 2-3% better performance per experiment run. An advertiser that ran 15 experiments in a given year saw a 30% higher ad performance.

3. Motivate customers to participate and engage

Reward customers for their advocacy and engagement with discounts and coupons, keep the interaction dynamic, and encourage their return. This requires a sense of urgency on the part of your team, and a culture of accountability and focus on the customer. Marketing must be everyone's top priority.

For example, Dunkin' Donuts did this through a photo contest, rewarding discounts to those who submitted a photo with the brand's handle and hashtag. Other companies highlight live experience and happy videos, submitted by customers, on their website and promotions.

4. Partner with others to create blended offerings

A very successful marketing effort created by a restaurant near me during the pandemic offered a carryout from multiple sources - to combine flowers with food and drinks, all from different establishments, packaged creatively together. Everybody wins, and it spread quickly on social media.

People remember and endorse you as the primary brand that created the blended offering, as well as the other "endorsed" brands. The hybrid approach is also effective as an experiment if you are exploring ways to expand your own brand into new segments.

5. Market solutions as an experience or an event

Advertising more features, or even a lower price, is not as memorable to customers today as a great experience or a unique event. These may be live or immersive online experiences. Use social media to build anticipation and highlight successes, to get people talking and coming back for more.

The message here is that big blockbuster campaigns and big marketing budgets are no longer the key to results in the new customer environment, where participation and relationships are key.

Now is the time to ask your customers and partners for participative ideas, do some experiments, and scale up the ones that work. Be prepared to make frequent updates as trends change.

Marketing is no longer a one-way conversation, whether you are a startup or a legacy business. How long has it been since you changed your marketing strategy? Are your costs going up and the returns going down?
Try listening and learning, more than talking and pushing.

Read the original article on Business Insider

[Author: (Martin Zwilling)]

Mon, 12 Apr 2021 09:10:34 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Business Marketing Trends Strategy Customer Experience Harvard Business Review Branding Nordic Dunkin Donuts Inc Contributor Marketing Strategies Martin Zwilling Contributor 2019 Carlina Teteris Modern
Unilever’s Health Snack Bar Graze Introduces A Squirrel as Its Chief Eating Officer (CEO) ]]> Mon, 12 Apr 2021 09:00:49 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Advertising Unilever Branding Food & Beverage Health Snack Bar Graze Introduces A Squirrel [PODCAST] TheCandEs – 2020 North American CandEs Benchmark Research Report with Kevin Grossman Mon, 12 Apr 2021 08:00:00 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Featured News Podcasts Recruiting Hiring Staffing Branding Kevin Blog Posts Hr Technology Sourcing RecruitingDaily Podcast Candidate Experience Talent Acquisition Talent Board COVID-19 Kevin Grossman All things being equal Those are four words that are often overlooked when we focus on the rest on the sentence instead.

“All things being equal, pick the cheapest option.” Or, “All things being equal, go with the one that creates new opportunities.” Or perhaps, “All things being equal, stick with what you’ve got.”

The thing is, all things are rarely equal.

We rush over the equal part and race to the second part of the clause, going for the cheaper one or whatever the organizational default is.

It’s worth a cycle or two to realize that we might be missing nuances in our decision making.

All things are rarely equal.

Mon, 12 Apr 2021 03:33:51 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Uncategorized Branding
advertising without cookies Advertising without Cookies cartoon

Adland is counting down to the end of third-party cookies by 2022, which has major implications for marketers.

Some of the digital ad industry is working on alternative techniques to track people.  A few of these techniques could be even more invasive than cookies, like tying people to email addresses (permanent) instead of advertising IDs (temporary).  

As Gartner analyst Andrew Frank put it, “So far, a solution that serves consumer privacy interests as well as the economic interests of publishers and brands has been elusive.”

Last month, David Temkin at Google that not only is Google removing third-party cookies from the Chrome browser, they aren’t replacing cookies with a substitute technology to track individuals, and instead would lump people into interest-based cohorts.  

In the announcement, David cited a study by Pew Research Center that “72% of people feel that almost all of what they do online is being tracked by advertisers, technology firms or other companies, and 81% say that the potential risks they face because of data collection outweigh the benefits.”  He described Google’s shift as the start of a “course toward a more privacy-first web.”  

Gilad Edelman at Wired critiqued Google’s move as “privacy theater”.  As he put it:

“This doesn’t mean any steps Google takes to restrict third-party tracking are inherently suspect. What’s dangerous is treating the end of third-party cookies as privacy itself, rather than an incremental shift that comes with its own set of trade-offs … Letting only Google know my secrets might be better than exposing myself to the whole ad tech industry, but not by a whole lot.”

As global regulators increasingly take aim at microtargeting, this is a good time for marketers to reflect on the larger implications of a “privacy-first web.”  The end of third-party cookies is not the end of the privacy debate.

Here are a few related cartoons I’ve drawn over the years:

marketing data and GDPR compliance - October 2017 License Share
  • Share this Marketoon
| Read Post marketing with personal data - May 2014 License Share
  • Share this Marketoon
| Read Post data privacy, consent fatigue, and GDPR - May 2019 GDPR Consent Fatigue cartoon License Share
  • Share this Marketoon
| Read Post state of user experience design - January 2019 License Share
  • Share this Marketoon
| Read Post Your Ad Ignored Here "If marketing kept a diary, this would be it." - Ann Handley, Chief Content Officer of MarketingProfs Order Now

The post advertising without cookies first appeared on Marketoonist | Tom Fishburne.

Sun, 11 Apr 2021 12:17:59 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Google David Gartner Pew Research Center Ad Tech Branding Ann Handley Gilad Edelman Andrew Frank David Temkin Cart Corporate Blog Sponsored Post
Nothing Was Inevitable

For the Symposium on Martin J. Sherwin, Gambling with Armageddon: Nuclear Roulette from Hiroshima to the Cuban Missile Crisis (Knopf, 2020).

Martin J. Sherwin

Many thanks to Professors Stephen Griffin, Sanford Levinson, Jeremi Suri, and Amanda L. Tyler for their generous comments and keen insights, and a special nod to Professor Jack Balkin for hosting this symposium.  

Gambling with Armageddon is divided into two books, the second of which focuses on the Cuban missile crisis.   Understandably it was the primary subject of the reviews.   But before addressing those reviews, I want to highlight some of the salient points in Book I that established the centrality of nuclear weapons and led directly to the crisis. After all, the overarching argument of Gambling – as the subtitle proclaims -- is that the crisis was the result of how (irresponsibly) nuclear weapons were seen, valued and used, initially by the United States, but also by the Soviet Union, during the seventeen years between 1945 and 1962.

It is worth emphasizing an obvious point to be certain that it is obvious to everyone.   The crisis of October 1962 was a missile crisis.   Initiated by Khrushchev, it was his response to his and Fidel Castro’s conviction that in the wake of the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of April 1961 the United States was planning to invade and overthrow Cuba’s Communist government.

Why Khrushchev chose to protect his ally with provocative strategic missiles is the central point of Book I.   There were less provocative ways to safeguard Castro’s government: officially admitting Cuba into the Warsaw Pact, creating a separate defense pact, deploying a large number of Soviet troops to Cuba to serve as a “tripwire,” announcing the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to defend the island, or all of the above.

But Khrushchev chose to secretly deploy strategic missiles to Cuba, a provocative act that his most informed and trusted Presidium adviser, Anastas Mikoyan, warned him against.   The United States would not tolerate such a deployment, he insisted.   “We have to defend Cuba,” he said, “but with this approach we risk provoking an attack on them and losing everything.” [195]

Or gaining everything, in Khrushchev’s view.


That was his missile gamble: a high-stakes bet that if successful would protect Cuba, enhance Khrushchev’s prestige, even the “balance of fear,” demonstrate Soviet resolve, provide him with additional diplomatic leverage, and make it clear to the United States that by stationing its Jupiter missiles close to the Soviet Union (in Turkey), it had invited the Soviet Union to station its missiles in Cuba.

Even before 1962 Khrushchev had become convinced – as a result of the Eisenhower administration’s espousal of nuclear weapons (the New Look, Massive Retaliation and Brinksmanship) – that strategic missile strength had become the sine qua non of great power diplomacy.

It began with Hiroshima.

Each of the reviewers commented on the extraordinary fact that there are no checks on a President’s decision to use nuclear weapons.   That was true in August 1945 and it is true today. JFK remarked on this troublesome fact.   It was “insane,” he said after surviving the crisis, “that   two men, sitting on the opposite sides of the world, should be able to decide to bring an end to civilization.”  

What made this possible?

My favorite counter-factual addresses the origins of our nuclear dilemma.   It posits that the atomic bombs were not used in August 1945.   Influenced by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, who warned President Truman on April 25, 1945 that the Manhattan Project was producing a weapon that “could destroy civilization” and that “our leadership in the war and in the development of this weapon has placed a certain moral responsibility upon us which we cannot shirk without very serious responsibility for any disaster to civilization which it would further,” Truman declined to authorize any atomic bombings.

After the war, the counter factual continues, there was a Congressional investigation at which Stimson testified.   Asked why the atomic bombs were not used against Japan he explained that they were not necessary to end the war and they were weapons that could destroy civilization. No civilized society would consider using them, the venerable 76 year old Secretary of War insisted. The United States had higher standards than the debased moral standards of the Axis Powers.   We would not introduce weapons that could destroy civilization (. . . and so on).  

If nuclear weapons had been thus introduced to the world as unacceptable, immoral, unusable weapons shunned by the United States – rather than as legitimate weapons for war as Hiroshima and Nagasaki affirmed –- do you think the seventeen years between 1945 and 1962 would have been different?   I have often thought that this was a counter factual that every serious citizen should consider.*

*(It is also important to note that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not lead to Japan’s surrender.   The Japanese surrendered because the Soviet Union declared war against Japan on August 8th (as Stalin had promised he would).   The Imperial forces could not fight a two-front war (Soviet invasion from the north; USA invasion from the south.) Moreover, and most important, Japan’s leaders were rabid anti-communists and the prospect of the Soviet Union participating in the occupation of Japan, with the certainty that Stalin would seize Hokkaido, Japan’s northern island, suddenly transformed surrender to the United States into Japan’s best option.

So why were the atomic bombs used?   “It was ever present in my mind,” Truman’s influential Secretary of State, James Byrnes recalled in an interview, “that it was important that we should have an end to the war before the Russians came in.”)   [Think of Byrnes as Truman’s ExComm.]


Nuclear weapons are promoted and defended as a deterrent against aggression, but in fact their primary role during the cold war (and even now) was diplomatic coercion, and that is what makes “deterrence” theory a fraud and so dangerous.  

In January 1950, five months after the Soviet Union successfully tested its first atomic bomb, President Truman ignored the recommendation of the General Advisory Committee [GAC]] to the Atomic Energy Commission [AEC] to reject a plan to build hydrogen bombs. “Its use carries much further than the atomic bomb itself the policy of exterminating civilian populations,” the GAC argued. But Truman was not thinking about the military use of hydrogen bombs; he was most concerned with its coercive usefulness. The decision was necessary, he insisted, “if only for bargaining purposes with the Russians.”

Truman’s rationale had momentous consequences. Accumulating weapons for “bargaining purposes” established an escalation logic that had no military limit. Arguments that a particular number of nuclear weapons were a sufficient deterrent held little sway compared with the diplomatic (coercive) bargaining value of more and better weapons.


President Eisenhower transformed the cold war into a confrontation calibrated on the number and quality of nuclear arms.   “We have got to consider the atomic bomb as simply another weapon in our arsenal,” Eisenhower told a National Security Council meeting four months after his inauguration. The key to success, in the former general’s view, was to promote America’s superior nuclear arsenal.

The United States possessed approximately 1,200 nuclear weapons of various types when Ike became president.   Eight years later, when he gave his famous farewell address that warned about the dangers of the military industrial complex, the United States nuclear arsenal included over 22,000 nuclear weapons.   It was an “insane accumulation,” noted the journalist-historian James Carroll, that “cast the [nuclear] arsenal in its iron mountain of permanence.”

Eisenhower’s commitment to nuclear weapons —promotionally dubbed the New Look— was formally promulgated in the top-secret National Security Council document, 162/2, which he signed on October 30, 1953. Designed “to meet the Soviet threat . . . [and] to avoid seriously weakening the U.S. economy,” it decreed an expanded and expansive role for nuclear weapons.   It called for “the effective use of U.S. strategic air power against the USSR” and the establishment of overseas bases as “essential to the conduct of the military operations on the Eurasian continent in case of general war.” It mandated “a strong military posture, with emphasis on the capability of inflicting massive retaliatory damage by offensive [nuclear] striking power.”

“Eisenhower personally intervened in the final discussions of 1953 to insure [sic] that [the Strategic Air Command’s [SAC] nuclear bombers] should be recognized not as ‘a major deterrent’ to Soviet aggression, but as ‘the major deterrent,’” McGeorge Bundy wrote in his history of the first fifty years of the nuclear arms race.

At the core of NSC 162/2 was the revolutionary strategic posture—a significant extension of NSC 68—that the United States will consider nuclear weapons as available for use as other munitions.”


The Cuban Missile Crisis

From his first briefing on nuclear weapons in September 1953, Khrushchev understood their savagery in general, and the special terror of the hydrogen bomb. “When I was appointed First Secretary of the Central Committee and learned all the facts of nuclear power I couldn’t sleep for several days,” he recalled. “Then I became convinced that we could never possibly use these weapons, and when I realized that I was able to sleep again.”

And, perhaps, to dream about how those horrific weapons could support his most ambitious policies.

By 1962 Khrushchev was obsessed with nuclear weapons. They were a transformative force that defined national power. They were fearsome instruments of war (which he was determined to avoid: “Any fool can start a war,” he often repeated), but as such they were splendid for reinforcing diplomacy. John Foster Dulles had made that clear from the beginning of the Eisenhower administration. What else were the doctrines of massive retaliation and his brinkmanship threats but intimidating ultimatums in the service of U.S. diplomatic objectives?

If Eisenhower and Dulles could use the threat of nuclear war to coerce the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union could use those same weapons to threaten the United States. Eisenhower’s New Look became the blueprint for Khrushchev’s nuclear diplomacy.

“My thinking went like this,” Khrushchev explained. “If we installed the missiles secretly, and then the United States discovered the missiles after they were poised and ready to strike, the Americans would think twice before trying to liquidate our installations by military means. . . . The main thing was that the installation of our missiles in Cuba would, I thought, restrain the United States from precipitous military action against Castro’s government.”


It didn’t work out as planned.   Worse, it almost led to what Khrushchev was determined to avoid: a war. If the ExComm had had its way, there would have been a war.   If the Joint Chiefs of Staff [JCS] had had its way, there would have been a war.   If a Soviet submarine captain had had his way, there would have been a war.   And, perhaps, most troubling, if the U.S. Congressional leadership had had its way, there would have been a war.

All the reviewers are understandably troubled by the fact (as I am) that congress has no role in deciding whether a president can initiate a nuclear war.   The assumption we all share is that there would be less chance of a bad choice if the legislative branch had a role in such a decision.  

But the history of the Cuban missile crisis does not support that view and, of all the disturbing discoveries I made researching Gambling, President Kennedy’s meeting with the Congressional leadership on October 22nd, shortly before he gave his televised speech announcing the blockade, is the most disturbing of all.   [chapter 34]

The blockade was inadequate, Senator Richard Russell, lectured the president. The Soviets had been warned, very clearly, against stationing offensive weapons in Cuba, but had ignored the warnings. “We’re either a first-class power or we’re not. . .” The United States was fully justified, Russell insisted, in carrying out its announced foreign policy, and “we should assemble as speedily as possible an adequate force and clean out that situation.”

The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee continued: “We’ve got to take a chance somewhere, sometime, if we’re going to retain our position as a great world power,” a remark he buttressed several minutes later with the declaration that “a war” was “coming someday. . . . Will it ever be under more auspicious circumstances?”

Senator William Fulbright, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, was equally critical of the president’s blockade initiative, albeit for different reasons.

Russell’s cavalier approach to war shocked the president and he left the room as angry as Ted Sorensen had ever seen him. “If they want this job, they can have it—it’s no great joy to me,” he fumed— probably the most exaggerated inaccuracy he ever uttered.

My takeaway from this disturbing episode is that structural rearrangements, such as Congressional participation in decisions for or against war in a crisis, do not guarantee the right result.   As Jeremi Suri wrote, even though Kennedy commandeered decision making during the crisis “he was still held hostage by the assumptions and constraints of the American military posture.”  

Assumptions dominate.   If you are convinced like Senator Russell that war is inevitable then you will accept war.   And, since we are discussing nuclear war, with its potential for “destroying civilization,” our only rational recourse is to work for “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,” as George Shulz, William Perry, Sam Nunn and Henry Kissinger argued in their famous Op Ed in the Wall Street Journal, on January 4, 2007.

Anything less leaves our specie dependent on good luck or dumb luck.   Either way, as President Kennedy averred, it’s “insane.”


Martin J. Sherwin is University Professor of History, George Mason University. You can reach him by e-mail at martysherwin at 













[Author: Guest Blogger]

Sat, 10 Apr 2021 09:32:35 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Japan Usa America Turkey United States National Security Council Ussr Jfk Jupiter Cuba Fidel Castro Manhattan Project Castro Kennedy Eisenhower Nagasaki Hiroshima Branding Stalin Guest Blogger Soviet Union Ike Congressional Henry Kissinger Joint Chiefs of Staff Imperial Russell Central Committee Warsaw Pact Truman AEC Foreign Relations Committee Senate Armed Services Committee NSC Dulles U S Congressional Strategic Air Command Richard Russell James Carroll Atomic Energy Commission GAC Khrushchev Jack Balkin Byrnes Stimson James Byrnes John Foster Dulles Jeremi Suri McGeorge Bundy Amanda L Tyler United States Eisenhower Anastas Mikoyan Ted Sorensen Martin J Sherwin William Fulbright Henry L Stimson Martin J Sherwin Gambling Soviet Union The Soviet Union Stephen Griffin Sanford Levinson Jeremi Suri General Advisory Committee George Shulz William Perry Sam Nunn History George Mason University
The plan for day 100 What do you want to be doing 100 days from now?

What change do you seek to be making? With which skills? Surrounded by which people?

For that to happen, day 99 will need to be different from today.

And so will day 98.

In fact, so will tomorrow.

If we keep focusing on ‘what’s next’ we might never get around to doing the work we need to do to get us to day 100.

PS happy day 100 of 2021.

Sat, 10 Apr 2021 09:32:28 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Uncategorized Branding
[PODCAST] iCIMS – Breaking Down The 2021 Workforce Report With Charles Mah Sat, 10 Apr 2021 08:00:00 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Featured News Podcasts Tech Recruiting Branding Blog Posts RecruitingDaily Podcast Charles Mah