Ira Koretsky posted a comment yesterday that prompted me to check on the reprint rights for an article I recently wrote for ASAE.  Apparently I'm in the clear - so here's the article for all to see...


When Good Project Pitches Go Bad

If you have trouble winning buy-in from your board or members, maybe you’re lobbing answers when you should be fieldng questions. Here’s how to get consensus, step by step.
By Tate Linden
 

“To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.”—British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

 
How many times have you developed a promising organizational idea or strategy on your own (or with a small group), only to get shot down when you attempt to get approval from your board of directors or bring it to a membership vote? And what would you give to avoid the rancor, embarrassment, and frustration that too often rewards your most sincere efforts?

What is it about trying to build consensus within groups of people that makes it nearly impossible to get an answer anyone actually wants?
 
Over 15 years of helping corporations and associations develop their brand identities, I’ve been forced to become adept at consensus building. That’s because few things inspire as much passionate disagreement as the prospect of abandoning a brand history or taking a risky new approach to brand strategy. Employees threaten to quit, customers threaten to take their business elsewhere, members threaten the leadership, and leaders threaten to abandon their organizations.

Trying to arrive at an agreement under these circumstances is a little like skydiving in a thunderstorm—neither enjoyable nor productive, with significant safety issues.
 
An unpredictable art

As anyone can tell you who has encountered the tense conditions that require hiring consultants like me in the first place, consensus building often has more to do with politics than with the validity of the ideas presented. Bending the ear of the right board member or gaining access to an influential block of members can work wonders—whether you’re the project manager or someone wishing to stop the process.

The likelihood of successfully using the exact same technique in two different situations is, in my experience, quite low. Consensus building is an art—one whose techniques are constantly being developed, tested, refined, and discarded.

There are certain truths that you can have faith in, but these truths are general, not specific.
 

• First, few people in decision-making roles enjoy being told what to think—and in a membership organization, every member has such a role. If you’ve got the best idea in the world and you tell people that it is, in fact, the best idea in the world, the instinct for many will be to look for reasons why the idea isn’t so great after all.

• When you’re building consensus, an intelligent question is infinitely more valuable than a brilliant statement. If you want to bring minds together, I find that a gentle facilitative leading works better than vigorous prodding. Ask. Suggest. Consider. These are the methods that can lead us to consensus decisions worth making.

 

• It’s important to remember Newton’s Third Law of Motion: every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If you push a group decision vigorously, the natural reaction is what Newton predicts: to push back. This can mean failing to reach consensus—or ensuring that no one in the group gets exactly what they want so that everyone is equally displeased.

 
Not exactly ideal situations. They can be avoided, however.

The secret: Get buy-in first

The easiest and best consensus decisions I’ve facilitated were made possible by spending the time at first to learn the decision makers’ views of the concept’s goals. It is possible to get significant support for a project or decision before you even start discussing it.
 
The quickest way to get stuck with a bad decision-making experience is to come up with a plan based on ideas that are only inside your own head. Without external validation and an attachment to the needs of others, the barriers are very high.
 
Here’s a simplified view of how I’ve done it successfully:
 

1. Never, never start the discussion by proposing a solution—any solution. First, decision makers and influencers must agree on the nature and importance of the problem. Without consensus on the problem and its parameters, you are wasting your time discussing solutions.
2. Forge agreement on the definition of success. Develop criteria against which every proposed solution will be measured. Do this before any analysis or research on solutions begins.
3. Set up a comprehensive, two-way communication channel with everyone whose assent you need in order to decide. Be as transparent as possible. Make sure there’s a way for members to express their concerns and to have a voice at the table. 
4. Be sure to include all staff members whose responsibilities are connected with the topic under discussion, and treat them as valued participants. You’d be surprised how influential staff can be with the membership—and how easy it is for a staffer with a legitimate-sounding gripe to find an audience. These same employees, when given respect within the process, can be your strongest advocates for the project’s success.
5. Get as close to an either/or decision as possible. To obtain a majority decision, it is far easier to vote “yes” or “no” than it is to select from options 1 through 10. 
6. In presenting the “finalist” option(s) for discussion, describe the options considered, the roads not taken, and the reasons why. Reasons should refer clearly to the criteria and view of success developed in Step 2. Again, be free with information. Transparency builds trust; even well-meant opacity reduces it. Without trust, no positive decisions can be made.
7. Once the decision has been made, be generous with praise (and, as appropriate, rewards) for everyone’s efforts. Appreciation builds satisfaction almost as surely as results do.
   

 
Many people believe that knowledge is power—and that hoarding knowledge can lead to great things. When it comes to building consensus, the one who holds the most information closest to the vest loses.
 

In this post Tate goes on a brief rant about the expectations placed on names, and their inability to live up to them.

We don't care who develops, creates, brainstorms, or otherwise selects a name for anything, we can absolutely promise you that it ain't perfect.  That includes names developed by us. 

It's not that the creators are being mean, it's that it isn't possible to deliver.

The main reason why names can't be perfect (in my opinion) is that the criteria we use to measure names sets us up for failure.  We frequently get requests for names that are short, descriptive, intuitive, emotionally connected and completely unique.  While these are for the most part admirable qualities to pursue in a name, in many cases the strength of a name in one category will have a negative effect on others. 

Consider:

• Length vs. Descriptiveness
• Descriptiveness vs. Uniqueness
• Emotionality vs. Descriptiveness
• Intuitiveness vs. Uniqueness
• Length vs. Uniqueness

Taking the second example, The moment we describe what the thing to be named is (e.g., "Aluminum Cleanser") in a way that perfectly captures its function (or perhaps some other aspect we could describe) we lose the ability to easily distinguish our name from all the other products that do the same thing, thus making the name non-unique.  Also, the more descriptive we are the harder it becomes to remain concise. 

You might be able to find a name that perfectly meets a single measurement criterion - but you can't get one that will ace every one of them.

Florence Webb - our resident PhD (and primary process guru around these parts) was able to add yet another reason why names can't be perfect - this one relating to our expectations of what names can do for a brand.

We always ask what people want out of the name - and the lists are often huge.  We've had some lists go over fifty items.  Among the recent requests we seen are:

• Increase sales
• Increase profits
• Distance firm from bad press or scandal
• Increase brand loyalty
• Increase employee retention
  

These are all things that are good for organizations to want, right?  Given all the tools available to a business to reach these goals - is the name the best one to leverage for any of them? 

We say no.  The name can help, but it shouldn't be the first option.

• Increase sales --> Find effective promotions
  
• Increase profits --> Reduce Cost of Goods Sold
• Distance from Scandal --> Focus on public relations and changes in business practices
• Increase brand loyalty --> Improve the sales funnel, buying experience, or customer care
• Increase employee retention --> Stop beating your employees.

Your name can do all sorts of things better than other tools or methods.  It can impart a great first impression, it can bring you into legal compliance, it can make your firm easy to remember...  But it should never be the only tool you use, and you shouldn't try to use it where other solutions are more effective.   

Great names are great because of how they work with the rest of the aspects affecting the brand, not because they are in and of themselves the picture of perfection.

Anyone out there think there's a perfect name and I'm just missing it?

 

You might think that namers spend all day every day naming stuff.  Sadly that isn't the case.  A large portion of our time is spent explaining how we name stuff and why our method rocks.  About ten percent of my time is spent responding to requests for proposals.  This past week it was about 150% of my time.

A security firm was looking for help.  Our mission, if we chose to accept it, was to show 'em how we roll and why we're worth selecting.  We accepted, and wrote what we hope is a compelling case...

We might have spent a little time on the packaging, too.  (Apologies for the anonymized images, but it's gotta be that way...)

First, the proposal folder (note the quarter for size reference... this ain't no regular matchbook.)  This is part of the award winning package the team at Compass 360 designed for us.  You can click the photos for massive shots of these pics.


Next, the cover page for the rebrand proposal (inside the matchbook above.)  The layout and document design are ours.

These guys seem to be doing just fine - even though their name is has had a homonymic relationship with a rather undesirable term. 

It might not score well using the FAINTS system, but at least it's got some very strong emotional connections and a heaping dose of risk.

Some may think that the company name (from 1947) predates the term "whore" but they'd be wrong.  The term has been traced back to the thirteenth century.  It must've taken a lot of guts to select the name to begin with - or the namers led an incredibly sheltered life...

Does this company succeed because of their name or in spite of it?

Who knew making graphs could be so fun - and reading them so educational?


more graph humor and song chart memes

I'm tempted to start a naming contest for the first two... Poor Bono and horsey...

In terms of brand image, Segway has a lot of room for improvement.  Sure, it is cool technology, and it can make trekking around a tourist trap like Washington DC a bit easier on the feet... but the fact that almost everyone riding one (or is it driving... or steering... or whatever...) is also wearing a fanny-pack, huge helmet, and about 45 pounds of extra body-fat really doesn't help things. 

Segways are Geek-mobiles.  (This is reinforced by the naming verbal play a techie might come up with - Segue = Segway.  Few people can connect with a name that feels like you have to wink when you say it.)

All of this is about to become irrelevant.  Or perhaps it already has. 

The Chinese are helping Segways grow a pair.

A Stokefire relative - Darcy Burner - had her house burn down yesterday in Redmond, Washington.  She and her family got out with their lives and their dog, but little else.  Darcy is running for Congress in Washington's 8th district.  (That's her with the soot on her face - standing in front of her home below.)


This is not a call for donations to her campaign, nor is it a request for personal support for her family.  Instead it is a suggestion that you take a moment and write a small check to your local volunteer fire department.  In Darcy's case the firefighters were able to save her family, her family pet and they prevented the fire from spreading to the neighbors homes just a few yards away. 

We at Stokefire relish the imagery and attitude our name represents, but understand that in the real world there are fires we don't want to stoke.  We support our local volunteer fire station and encourage you readers to do the same. 

Where would we be if there weren't people in this world willing to put their lives on the line every day for people (and pets) they've never met - without compensation? 

Don't be the person that relies on everyone else to fund the services that save your own life.  Don't wait for that call from a fundraising company asking for you to fund the local department (while they take a large percentage of the donation.) 

Here's what you need to do:

1. Google your local fire department address.
2. Find your checkbook.
3. Get in your car (or on your bike... or put on your shoes...)
4. Go visit your local fire department.
5. Tell the first person you see  on-site that you appreciate their work - and you'd like to make a small donation to support their efforts.  Hugs optional.
6. Write check.
7. Feel just a little better about yourself, and just a bit safer too...
   

That's it.

Stay safe, everyone.

Ever been frustrated by the fact that all the good (or great) potential names are already squatted on the internet?  Any time you want to start a website there's someone who either already is running a business on the address or has reserved it and may be willing to sell it for a steep price.  If you're a namer then chances are excellent (actually beyond excellent) that you have been. 

That may be about to change. 

ICANN.ORG recently announced that they're giving the green light to customized Top Level Domains (TLDs).  This means that we may soon see alternatives to .NET, .ORG, and .COM (and the handful of other options.)

We at Stokefire see this as a complex change, but one that may actually lead to some very positive happenings in the business world.  Today many of the most favorable addresses on Top Level Domains are held hostage by domain squatters asking for thousands (or even millions) of dollars.  Given that the new environment will allow for nearly unlimited TLDs it will reduce the amount that squatters can charge since there will always be another TLD on which the desired name is available.

I personally don't worry much about the legal issues many are raising.  I believe that ICANN already has a process for defending ones rightful trademark.  Companies already have lawyers screening new domains - and this would dovetail with existing processes.  As long as there is a central repository or clearing house for checking domains it seems that it would work well. 

If this does indeed come to pass I predict it will bring about the end of typed-in URLs.  Since there will be a lot of variability in the TLDs it will become more difficult to remember the full address.  We're already seeing a migration away from typing in addresses after the "http://" in browsers.  Firefox and others have already promoted the search tool to the top of the window - it is but a slight adjustment to make it the primary way we navigate.  I have every confidence that Google can make this happen.

As for the post title - the reference comes from Saturday Night Live - and the video is below.  Enjoy!

We're on record as being against naming contests, but this one looks promising.  The Burj Dubai Lake Fountain is basically a pure-play publicity machine.  It's eye candy - being built to get people to come visit. 
This is exactly the sort of thing that a naming contest is made for. 

You can enter the contest here.

Naming contests are great for PR - and this fountain is basically a long-term PR campaign.  They're getting buzz around the world for a (rather sizable) fountain in the middle of a lake that might otherwise be ignored.  The name may or may not get publicity a few months after launch, but the job of the naming contest will have been done.

They certainly wouldn't be getting coverage here without it...

I'll have to check on re-publication rights, but those of you who are members of ASAE can view my article, "When Good Project Pitches Go Bad."  If I can republish the text here I'll do so shortly so all of you non association execs can check it out as well. 

The essence of the article is that it is much harder to force consensus than it is to allow it to happen through questioning and exploration.  This may seem irrelevant to those of you who have been reading this blog for a while - since I often say that consensus itself kills great brands.  I still believe that it does... however... if you want to actually gain approval to start the rebranding process you'll likely need to have consensus to do it.  Few organizations will just let staffers begin a hundred-thousand dollar (or larger) project without having the chance to review what it is supposed to do.

Remember... You need consensus on the goals of the project and whether or not the creative work meets those goals.  You do not need consensus on the other aspects of the creative work.  In fact, the less consensus you have the more likely you are to gain attention with it. 

Last - for associations there are often bylaws that state consensus must be reached.  In those situations you just have to muddle through it and hope for the best.  The process I lay out in the article provides a good chance of getting through a challenging decision without abandoning the soul of the organization and the people who work for it.

Hope to post the full contents of the article soon...