Does this mean the death of the squeaky toy?

It seems that a lot of the feel-good team spirit that occurs in many organizations around brainstorming is just that. It’s not really as productive as we’ve been led to believe. And a lot of the performance art that is used to make the process fun, silly and good for team spirit may not be the best way to generate new ideas.

What’s the alternative?  Brainstorming that encourages saying anything that comes to mind, but also encourages debate and criticism of the ideas as they are generated. Perhaps surprisingly, brainstorms that allow this kind of debate and criticism are able to produce more ideas.

Having facilitated a few brainstorms, I think that not only is debate okay, but that structuring the brainstorm with models and new theories that may cause some anxiety and disagreement are also highly productive ways to generate ideas. As UC Berkeley’s Dr. Charlan Nemeth is quoted as saying in the New Yorker, “Maybe debate is going to be less pleasant, but it will always be more productive.” Moreover, she says that “authentic dissent can be difficult, but it’s always invigorating. It wakes you right up.”

We like to actively challenge our clients in brainstorms. We don’t even call them brainstorms — they are work sessions. Funny thing is, clients still seem to enjoy the process and the results.

Turn around is fair play too. Sometimes great clients are great at challenging a recommendation. They cause all sorts of consternation at agencies and with consultants, but it sure does wake everyone up. The best clients I’ve seen will relent if the idea really is the best one out there, but it ensures that the options have been explored and that less obvious answers were brought forward. Of course, we try to road-test like this internally, before an idea goes to the client.

The only issue I can see with this new learning is that brainstorms can easily get bogged down. You can spend all the allotted time debating one issue and not move on to other ideas. Of course a “parking lot” can help with this, but I wonder if it’s not another technique that moves us away from needed conflict too soon.

Lots to chew on as we develop our next work session.

Thankfully, we now have another resource to inform brand theory and marketing. Neuroscience provides a treasure trove of new understanding about how the brain works, how decisions are made and even the best place for a brand to (literally) live in the brain. Where we used to euphemistically refer to the battle for real estate in the minds of consumers, now we are learning that there really is more valuable real estate in which to land your brand inside a consumer’s brain. We can take this learning and focus the type of brand strategy we use to make sure it is working on the parts of the brain where the strongest bonds can be formed.

Daniel Pink has obviously written about this in the recent past, as have others, but we like Giep Franzen who was a pioneer in applying brain science to advertising and brand thinking. Also, Antonio Damasio, who runs USC’s Brain & Creativity Center has provided some great insights for brand strategists.

The theoretical basis for brand strategy is much better for all this new insight, but just as importantly, we find that referencing brain scientists who scan the brain in functional MRIs is far more solid ground for brand theory than psychology ever was — especially  when you are trying to sell an idea in the boardroom. For some reason, it seems more concrete … more Scientific. We presented to a group of senior leaders at an engineering-driven company recently and it was amazing to see the difference in response to our arguments when we cited neuroscience. It kind of works like all those commercials with an actor in a white doctor’s coat I guess.

This is not to say that we don’t respect the work of psychologists, and behavioral economics is also enormously helpful to brand strategists. For instance, we credit psychologist Robert Zajonc’s work for much of our thinking about the systematic problems with certain testing methodologies. But there is no doubt that we stand on more solid ground when we can reference brain science in the real world of business decision-making.

Perhaps respect for privacy has become a truly differentiating idea.

I was part of a panel recently at a conference for resorts and casinos. We were speaking on the topic of building greater trust with customers through the use of new technologies, digital media and analytics. My job was to define trust in a brand context. We draw on the work of Lewicki and Tomlinson at the University of Colorado for much of our perspective on trust. Their work has found a distinction between “calculus-based trust,” which is a cognitive, rational relationship based on consistent performance, and “identity-based trust” which occurs when shared values and goals become evident. Calculus-based trust is less resilient and can be shattered by the failure to perform on even one occasion. Identity-based trust, on the other hand, is highly resilient because its intentions are perceived to be good, even if it does let you down once in a while. You forgive brands that have established identity-based trust. This could be called values-based brand loyalty as well.

We argue that brand managers should try to create identity-based trust and loyalty because it leads to higher margins and less churn.  To do this, the brand needs to show how it’s on the side of its customers – holding the same values they do.

After I spoke, three very smart gentlemen on the cusp of technology discussed ways new tools can be used to track where a customer is on a resort property and how to dig deeper into their computers than ever before possible. One person commented on the power of “fingerprinting,” which is far more invasive and harder to remove than the quaint cookie used until now. The potential for more relevant offers and increased revenue seems obvious from this type of technology but I wonder if it can also be seen to cross a line where privacy is invaded and identity-based trust becomes untenable.

Ad Age even had a cover article regarding the way Netflix and Facebook seem to act so cavalierly with customer trust and loyalty.  It appears that the analytics folks are ruling the roost in some cases and it’s not always to the company’s benefit.

Even more striking is the new reality that trust is being defined in a completely different manner. In this technology-driven perspective, trust equals ongoing revenue.  Period. Relationship is akin to transaction.

How much room for error is left to the brand that is based on this kind of relationship? It would seem very little. Will consumers see a brand that is willing to delve way inside their computers (and be highly resistant to removal) as being on their side? Every once in a while we have eruptions of concern around privacy rights in our linked-in world. When customers find out about some of this new technology, will there be a revolt?  Will there come a time when consumers consciously select brands that respect their privacy? Can that become a selling point for a brand intent on developing identity-based trust that is highly resilient and long-lasting?

Perhaps respect for privacy has become a truly differentiating idea.