UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT
In my last post (“The Message Is The Medium”), I suggested that it is possible to employ a wide variety of distribution channels to communicate messages so potently in terms of packaging, targeting and frequency that the messages become virtually ubiquitous to the people receiving them. I consider such messages to be “organic.” In this first in a series of posts, I suggest a way to understand what that is all about and what I think is necessary for making a message “organic.” I expect to devote more posts to this concept, including my thoughts on how the Obama campaign for President is a great case history. It showed how various distribution channels were used to communicate an extraordinarily controlled and simple message. It is a precursor to what is emerging as a new cultural phenomenon: a never-ending political campaign where the goal is not so much to get votes on election day as to gain support when and in the fashion needed to defend and promote special interests in the new environment of economic and political change.
TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I MEAN BY AN “ORGANIC MESSAGE,” LOOK AT A COFFEE CUP.
As I write this, as usual, I have a cup of coffee within easy reach. There is no question about whether this coffee cup exists – of course it exists. Pick it up; use it to sip coffee; there is no doubt as to its existence. That cup was made by a corporation. The corporation also exists; there is no question about that either. But in fact I can’t prove its existence. I can’t hold the corporation as I can hold its products. I can observe the corporation’s headquarters, but that is just the building, not the corporation. So how does it exist? It exists as an idea.
The American Philosopher George Santayana, whom I studied in college, would explain that the coffee cup’s existence is open to an empirical test of truth or falsity, and it therefore has a “scientific” existence. On the other hand, the existence of a corporation is not open to an empirical test of truth or falsity. It is an idea. It has what Santayana called a “poetic” existence – not open to a test of truth or falsity, but it exists nevertheless. Poetic existences rely on a leap of faith on the part of the individual(s) who believe in it.
Early in my career, I concluded that, in the final analysis, communications campaigns are all about creating ideas: the idea of a corporation, the idea of a political philosophy, the idea of needing to buy a flat screen television, the idea of buying fast food because I can get it fast and cheap and it meets my expectations.
So, I began to ask a core question: How can you create an idea so strong that the existence of that idea motivates people to think or act consistent with specific goals? How can you make that idea actually come alive – make it “organic”?
AN INVESTOR RELATIONS PITCH THAT FAILED TAUGHT ME ABOUT HOW TO CREATE IDEAS THAT CAN REALLY EXIST.
In 1981, I joined Flow General Corporation to head its corporate communications and especially its investor relations program. It was an NYSE multinational company headquartered in McLean, VA, involved in technology research for the Federal government (mostly the Department of Defense) and what was initially defined as “biomedicine” but was repositioned to “biotech” when the company won the first contract awarded by the NIH to produce human interferon. At the time, interferon was not only considered a cure for cancer, but it was considered by many (especially the irrationally exuberant investors of the time) to be “the” cure for “all” cancers. Needless to say, for some period of time, Flow General was a hot stock.
After a long effort, I finally persuaded a highly respected analyst from Hambrecht & Quist to visit our company. This analyst was very bullish on Genentech, which at the time had no revenues and was reporting major losses as it was in the early stages of producing its then hoped-for first product: human growth hormone. By contrast, Flow General had an international presence, was the global leader in cell cultures and related products, and generated significant revenues and a profit (before things started falling apart for the company for a wide variety of reasons, ultimately ending with the company being sold-off piece-by-piece).
The analyst traveled to the Washington area not simply to meet with me, but for other meetings. I was a courtesy stop along the way. Our meeting was at my office late one day. The hum that usually exists in an office setting had abated, and as he sat down, his body language made clear that I wasn’t going to have a lot of time to make my points. So I went right into it:
“Why would you invest in Genentech, which has no revenues, no product, and no sales and marketing capability, and not buy Flow General? After all, we have an international presence, big line of products, well-known brand, no need to raise capital, we’re involved with a significant R&D project, and we have a much lower enterprise valuation.” Pow! I gave him my best shot.
His answer wasn’t about Flow General but about Genentech: “I’ll pay $50.00 for a $200.00 stock any day,” he said. He said that Genentech Management outlined their vision early in their history. They identified their benchmarks, and what the results would ultimately be if they hit those benchmarks. The projected results were manifested in a P&L that would be realized if they produced their products, if they got the share of the market they projected, if they sold it at the price they projected, and if they incurred no more than the expenses they projected. The P&L showed that revenues would start being generated years out, and a black bottom line would be even further off. “All I need to do is determine the likelihood of them hitting this P&L, then apply some time cost of money factors, and come up with what I am willing to pay today. Every time I meet with Management they review where they are on the schedule of hitting their benchmarks, they re-establish credibility with me that they will in fact achieve their goals, and I maintain my view that if they do that the share price will go to $200.00. At $50.00, it’s a buy.”
It dawned on me that he was less concerned with the company’s current situation and more concerned with the way the current situation related to the prospective future. But today was real. The future was an idea. A vision. It was a story he was willing to invest in because he believed it would be real. The story – nothing more than an idea – existed. And not only did that story drive the analyst to support the stock, but the story drove the growth of the corporation itself.
SO THEN THE QUESTION BECAME: WHAT ARE THE COMPONENTS OF THE STORY THAT ARE CRUCIAL TO MAKE THE STORY TRULY EXIST – TO MAKE IT “ORGANIC”?
Over the course of my career, I have identified that to “exist” a story has to have four critical components:
1) It has to confront the audience (one or millions) frequently and with a powerful presentation through a variety of distribution channels;
2) It has to be relevant and relate to the audience;
3) It has to exist within a context; and
4) It has to be credible.
The “more” the story has of each of these four factors, the stronger the story’s “existence” and the more powerful its impact. .In my next post, I will discuss these four factors in more detail. Use the appropriate link to subscribe to an alert when it is posted.
Return to Death Of Time Homepage