transformation – Manu Prasad

The evolution of work and the workplace

manu prasad — Wed, 18 Dec 2013 10:46:07 +0000

I spent Rajinikanth’s birthday at Jaipur, all thanks to one of my favourite bloggers – Kavi, who, in his official avatar, invited me to his organisation’s annual HR conference. The theme of the conference was Evolve Connect Enhance, and I can honestly say that many of my perspectives were enhanced during discussions about the real implications and challenges for organisations, brought about by radical changes in the business environment.

For now, I’ll let the talk do the talking! (transcript below the ppt) Do comment with your thoughts!

Final Talk Points by manuscrypts

until next time, work it out

Social : Means or Outcome?

manu prasad — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 04:58:08 +0000

In the last few weeks, I have had several interesting conversations on the subject of social’s utility to brand building. I realised that I often veered towards building the product/service ground up with social inherent in it. I was trying to understand why and that took me back to the ‘aligning business to social’ vs ‘aligning social to business’ perspectives. (earlier post and source)

Though fundamentally the same concept, its application brought about the title of the post. With a pragmatic approach, I realise it is impossible for existing organisations to suddenly transform one day and change/align their business to a socially relevant purpose. It requires evolution. So once they identify the need for this evolution, their challenge is two fold – to build social into existing products/services and simultaneously look at identifying need gaps (of the users) in their domain which have the potential for social resonance. (either by giving the individual user such an excellent experience that he shares it in his circle willingly, or by delivering a utility by using his social connections on other platforms) The first is using social as just another means to meeting an existing objective, and the second is building something that by its inherent nature will have a social outcome that also delivers business results.

They differ not only in approach and design, but also in terms of gestation, returns and time frames. Depending on the organisation’s evolution appetite, they will have to choose how much they would like to focus on each.

until next time, social output is where buttons come in

A brand is

manu prasad — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 05:08:56 +0000

One of the interview questions that brand managers get asked early in their careers is 'What is a brand?' Some of my favourite answers have been 'a promise to the consumer' and 'a thought in the consumer's mind'. But changing landscapes in technology and consumption mean that the definition remains an evolving one. I found a few interesting perspectives last week in this context.

The first is this seemingly simple, but excellent post at HBR titled 'A Logo is Not a Brand' which (to really summarise) explains how the brand is its strategy, the stories that its products tell, its calls to action, its customer service, its tone, attitude, its people, communication tools and its logo and visuals are all part of the brand. And he asks a very pertinent question in the end

Whether you know it or not, whether you have a swanky logo or not, you do have a brand. The question is whether or not it's the brand you really want.

With social platforms and user voices that become more effective than the brand's own, the likelihood of different perceptions is indeed high, but the good news is these very same tools also offer brands the opportunity to bridge the chasm.

The second post titled 'Brand Building: Is Function the new Emotion' builds on the view (that I also subscribe to) that the best advertisement for a brand is its product. But the twist in the end is that “the functional integration into a consumer's life creates an emotional bond” and sustaining it requires “superior performance and meaningful, empathetic innovation”. Completely agree, because it does tie into the idea of social business and identifying a workforce and processes that will help build and sustain it.

Car Leasing Kit And Guide

ads/2011/06/LB.jpg”>A brand's purpose is something I have written about many times earlier on this blog. I found a very elegant brand framework – part of Leo Burnett's Human Brands concept – in one of the Cannes 2011 decks. According to Mark Tutssel, Chief Creative Officer, “Brands which have a purpose, but don't act dreamy, while brands which act without a purpose are noisy. And, for brands which lack both, they are lazy.” (via) The top right quadrant belongs to 'HumanKind', and that's where successful brands are.

So what prevents other brands from occupying it? One interesting answer I read was 'Fear'. As the post says, to build a leading brand, “organizational thinking must be on the creative plane (possibility and potential) not the competitive plane (hard bargains and discount pricing)”, and marketers are frightened of what this entails. The post even outlines a six step transformational cycle. Metrics are mentioned as a strong deterrent.

I have always felt that most advertising have not been measurable from an actual sales perspective. Parameters like TOM, salience in brand advertising are a no-brainer, but even in 'performance' advertising, there are so many factors that remain unaccounted for and unmeasured. But most brands go through the loops. We come back to the first reference about brands being a collection of various parts, a sentiment that is echoed in the last reference too, as the author defines leadership as “the quality of one’s presence in every aspect of life”. When organisations learn to do that, brand utopia will be nearer.

until next time, contrabrand