Checking Vision: A Starbucks Lesson For Small Business

Someone asked a good question last week. Fredrick Nijm, co-founder and CEO of Addoway, mentioned that many companies, especially startups, sometimes see too many changes to adhere to a vision statement.

He's right to some extent. But before discussing why he is right, consider what Howard Schultz, president and CEO of Starbucks, discussed this week with NPR. As soon as he returned in 2008, he closed about 7,000 stores for several hours to retrain Starbucks employees.

Why? In Schultz's opinion, growth had given way to small changes that was driving Starbucks away from its vision. One example cited in the article related to how the company steamed milk. Size and scope had prompted stores to re-steam milk, which is more profitable and produced a higher yield. But it's also one off from the mission and vision of the company in terms of meeting its commitment to excellence.

"To establish Starbucks as the most recognized and respected brand in the world and become a national company with values and guiding principles that employees could be proud of.“ — Starbucks vision statement, 2008

The vision was not perfect, given the first part is not necessarily achievable and the second is, arguably, already achieved. But incidentally, the company has been working toward developing a new vision. In the interim, it has mostly been operating on a mission to "inspire and nurture the human spirit - one person, one cup, and one neighborhood at a time."

What is interesting is that the mission has little resemblance to the one employed by Starbucks four years ago — "Establish Starbucks as the premier purveyor of the finest coffee in the world while maintaining our uncompromising principles while we grow." Both, I might note, weave in elements of the vision. And, you have to consider the various principles and values the company has adopted to appreciate the full scope of what Starbucks is trying to do.

This change no doubt plays into the logo change earlier this year. While the company received its fair share of criticism over the matter, the change of the mark wasn't made on a design whim. It was made because the company had already been changing its mission and vision in ways that included coffee but went well beyond the primary product.

How Do Startups Keep Pace With Change And Maintain A Vision?

To Nijm's point, vision statements are less about corralling a company and more about providing a bellwether (along with a mission and values) that the company can measure ideas against. Ergo, while reheating milk makes the company more profitable and speeds the process, it also fails in the face of the company's mission and vision.

Although Starbucks is a big company, this case study fits well within the biggest challenge small companies and startups face on a near daily basis. I'm working with one company right now (not even launched), which in staying true to its preliminary vision, decided to make manufacturing a core component of its operation as opposed to contracting the manufacturing and branding the product.

In the short term, contracting out the manufacturing seemed like a good idea because it would reduce startup costs. However, in retrospect, the owner decided contracting out would compromise the quality. He is right. After all, many people know that the McDonald's of 30 years ago is not the McDonald's of today, which also required a vision change to keep pace with growth.

It was a defining moment for that company, for instance, to decide that growth and profitability was more important than purchasing a specific quality of beef. And therein lies how a well-defined mission, vision, and values are a bellwether.

Growth. Companies need to revisit their mission, vision, and values during growth spikes that clearly cause them to move away from their foundation. (When growth or profitability take precedence, a company like McDonald's may de-emphasize quality. And lately, the company is being forced toward health consciousness.)

Acquisition. When companies purchase other companies, they need to determine whether the acquisition can adjust to the parent company or if the subsidiary can reasonably act autonomously with its existing mission. (This has been the Achilles of Yahoo since its beginning, buying up companies that were poor matches and attempting to make them yield.)

Shift. When companies take on new niche products or services, sometimes those products or services slowly begin to dominate the initial scope of a company. (For example, I recently worked on an account to rebrand a mold remediation company that grew into an environmental demolition and construction company.)

Era. Not all products and services are timeless, especially in the medical and technology industries. Consider all the industries that are struggling — print publications, auto manufacturers, etc. — and you'll recognize what happens when companies begin to believe they publish newspapers instead of journalism or work in autos as opposed to transportation. Or perhaps the better example is how the March of Dimes transitioned from ending polio to benefiting premature babies.

Exploratory. Small business owners and startups are often given opportunities well outside their scope of service or expertise. The existing vision can easily help them decide whether or not the opportunity is worth changing their direction. Or, they may operate in a temporary exploratory mindset, provided they understand that they will have to adopt some permanence.

Weakness. Or, as mentioned in the original article, companies might consider their vision when it's already failing for one reason or another. Perhaps it is because they hired people who never embraced the original vision or perhaps it is incredibly weak and not transformative. Either way, companies without an adopted vision tend to have various departments and individual people who could be working against each other or in different directions (whether they know it or not).

The short answer for small companies and startups on when they might change their mission, vision, and values is at a major event. However, the better answer is to weigh every operation and decision against the vision to begin with. If those decision makers did that, chances are that there would be fewer sweeping changes as they developed.

But then again, that may even be the difference between a company vs. an enterprise or an organization vs. an initiative. While both usually have some direction, one doesn't necessarily have any end in sight, which is probably why most enterprises and initiatives eventually end.

Creating Community Or Capturing Fans: Facebook

Perhaps even more so with the launch of Facebook Sponsored Stories, there is increasing division about how marketers might approach Facebook. There are four primary approaches that marketers can make in any combination. And depending on the mix, those efforts produce two types of outcomes — collections or communities.

The four approaches to Facebook.

Invitation.

The invitation is the most prominent tactic, which commonly includes listing the address on any number of marketing materials. By adding a button on websites or icons on print advertisements, companies share that they exist on Facebook.

It's self-selected, usually undertaken by one of three types of fans — loyal customers, prospective customers, and perpetual dreamers (with the latter existing for select brands). For example, Porsche is made up of people who own Porsches, people who are considering a Porsche, and people who've always dreamed of owning a Porsche but more than likely never will.

There are spammers too, but well-managed accounts can deal with them effectively enough. Deleting spam posts (irrelevant content) or banning people who have no purpose other than tossing up junk links can be removed. But for the most part, the only accounts that keep them are number focused.

Introduction.

The introduction generally consists of well-placed advertising that attracts people to the site. It became even more common when Facebook launched its advertising program.

In this case, the primary driver was that a marketer could target specific demographics, proximity, or an expressed interest in something. Deciding which works best for the Facebook page is as varied as the account type. For example, a restaurant might benefit from focusing on proximity or a specific product might appeal to a certain demographic or a publication might write about a specific interest.

Advertising for a Facebook page can be added off the page too. But mostly, Facebook's program works well enough inside the platform. It makes more sense to promote a website beyond the program because people can always connect via the page.

Not all introductions are paid, of course. The sharing function within Facebook is generally well liked. People share topics of interest all the time with their friends. But it also relies on the strength of the page community.

Sponsored.

The newest advertising feature on Facebook empowers marketers to capitalize on shared stories by turning them into advertisements. The position of Facebook is that since the person already shared or endorsed or liked a page, someone else sharing this information (including a marketer) isn't any different.

While the shared stories concept has raised privacy concerns (including some advising people not to like anything), Facebook does have a point that it's not very different from the way the concept works today. Some marketers, brands, and companies have been sharing content all along. This simply moves it to the sidebar.



But the bigger question to ask is what kind of person does it attract to the page. If the consumer is drawn more by the relationship to another person and less for some of the reasons expressed in the other approaches, a marketer could gain more connections but not necessarily more interest in the product, service, store, or content.

Bought.

While just as old as any other approach, some people very literally purchase connections. They earn their "likes" by either purchasing connections outright, any number of link exchange programs (points or mutual), or coupon bribes and discounts.

While the latter doesn't seem to have as many issues as the first two, the primary objective of those who engage in any kind of purchased connection schemes is to run up big numbers. But numbers aren't a very good measure online. At least, not as good as some people would have you believe.

While it is true that popular pages tend to increase the likelihood of a page being liked, numbers alone do not guarantee it. People often look at several factors before liking a page, including its interaction with the members and among members.

The Two Types Of Divergent Outcomes.

The Capture.

Marketers that are intent on capturing fans ought to have no real problems. But the downside to chasing numbers is there are no real benefits either. There might even be unseen challenges.

Someone we work with used this approach on the front end of the Facebook experience and quickly captured 2,700 "likes" without much sweat. They were captured in about one month. However, what most people will never see is the story behind the scenes. These 2,700 connections have an interaction of 300 visits every 30 days and falling. And about 1,500 page views over the same period.

Even when new customers or self-selected connections join the page, the silence of those members encourages them to do the same, which is virtually nothing.

The Community.

Conversely, there is a page that we manage that was operated on an organic-only approach, which means the page only used self-selected community members — either invitations to people visiting the site or people with a specific common interest.

It had a modest following of 1,000 members. It took approximately seven months. However, behind the scenes, it has an active and growing community with 1,500 visits and growing at a steady, if not exponential, pace. And about 35,000 page views over the same period. When new connections are made, they are much quicker to like, share, and comment on the page just as they see other members do.

Interestingly enough, which touches on the concept of marketer-selected shared stories as opposed to friend-selected shared stories, some of my friends joined the 1,000-member page but never participate. Conversely, non-friends on the page have become friends over time through repeated interactions.

Is Friendship Enough?

Facebook says that its sponsored story tests had higher recall and were much more likely to result in an action (such as a friend liking a page too). However, our research is continuing to show that overemphasizing a friendship connection over a common interest connection actually drags down the interactions of the community.

The reason is psychology. Sometimes people like a page because a friend likes it. They may even recall which friend likes it and why. Liking it might even be less of an expressed interest in the page as much as it is a nod recognizing that a friend likes it.

However, such a scenario is much different than two friends who like the same things on the same page. In those instances, the two friends are much more likely to interact with the page, and perhaps, reinforce their mutual interests.

This isn't to say the sponsored story concept isn't intriguing. It has the potential to work, especially with the right company. The Starbucks example in the video is a good one. I can see how it might work for a restaurant. But for something else — let's say an environmental survival store — people might like the page because they want to support their friend's interest and feel more environmental for the day. But, they are likely to never visit the page again let alone buy anything from the company.

Getting Noticed: Top Five Ways To Get Media Attention

Everyone seems anxious for publicity these days. So much so that Patrick Garmore published 109 ways to make your business irresistible to media on Copyblogger. Some of those ideas might work, but Garmore curiously left off the top five.

What's more, none of the top five really require social media (but social media will give you an attention-getting boost). So much so, there is a good chance you will be booked on talk shows for weeks, even if you have never developed any relationship with the media before. So can you handle the truth?

The truth is that all of these proven publicity tactics are so effective that most public relations professionals will never present any them. Why not? Because they just don't know they exist. And, because it demonstrates just how easy it is to drive hits on YouTube and land national news coverage any time you want.

Top Five Ways To Get Media Attention And They Never Grow Old.

1. The Streak. There is nothing more effective than streaking at a sporting event. It's guaranteed to make the evening news and generally draw more than one million hits when it lands on YouTube. Just remember to wear a hat, especially one that can be easily identified with your business.


Planning for a streak session requires just enough exercise to outrun security and the price of admission to a sporting event. Add two or more people to the streaking session for maximum impact. Risks associated with this stunt include angry players, fans, and the possibility of arrest.

2. The Shoe Toss. Originally made famous at the expense of President Bush, the shoe toss remains one of the best ways to gain not only media attention locally but also around the world. It all just depends on the prominence of the person you toss the shoe at or how prominent you might be. The original shoe tosser was thisclose to sparking an international incident. Wow!


Planning for a shoe toss requires a balanced hand at picking the right shoe. The shoe needs to be soft enough not to cause any real damage, but aerodynamic enough to hit the target. It also helps to pick someone not as athletic as President Bush, given it made his assailant look so amateurish with two big misses. Risks associated with this stunt include criminal arrest, deportation, disappearing, and possibly being shot.

3. The Squirrel. Although some stunts have become cliche, waterskiing squirrels or other pet tricks still command attention. In some cases, pets don't even have to have talent if they are cute. But the waterskiing squirrels still rock on both counts, making them the leader of the pet trick pack.


Planning for a waterskiing squirrel or other pet trick is a serious commitment. It could take months or years before it pays dividends. On the plus side, as long as you are kind to your animals and they don't get hurt, there is no downside. They draw crowds when they are at live events and are good for one to three videos.

4. The Rant. While it helps if you are somebody, near incoherent rants from anybody are worth their weight In gold. And if you think the video rant can only be employed by the likes of Charlie Sheen, then you must have forgotten that the reigning rant champ (37 million views) was none other than Chris Rocker.


Planning for the perfect rant is not as easy as it looks. While it can be scripted, rants only work if they appear spontaneous. They also require one seamless take so prepare for several attempts before you get it right. The downside to the perfect rant is that the better the rant is, the harder it will be to top it. Sheen was smart to play his rants down just enough to give himself wiggle room for future toppers. Rocker, on the other hand, quickly lost the momentum.

5. The Flub. While it takes more effort to find the right venue, blowing an answer on live television or anything that looks remotely like a spontaneous man-on-the-street interview is big business. Case in point: While blowing an easy question is still preferred, Kellie Pickler makes her blown answer into a masterpiece as she throws out half a dozen unrelated answers that are also wrong.


Planning to toss out a series of stumbles and still maintain face can be difficult. This is why we picked Pickler as the best example. She has always managed to be graceful in never allowing what she doesn't know to outshine her talent. Prior to Pickler, Miss South Carolina had the crown (but she had more difficultly overcoming the moment).

So there you have it. Making yourself irresistible to the media has never been easier. In fact, we have a list of about two dozen more tactics that have proven effective time and time again. And, much like the top five above, none of them require any hard work like those offered up by Copyblogger. All it takes is the guts to seize your moment, assuming you really want it.

However, there is one primary caution to employing any of these proven publicity techniques: Never mix and match any of them. A rant followed by a shoe toss, for example, will make you look overly aggressive. Answering questions with dumb answers after streaking devalues the original scheme. And any of these actions around animals — such as poodle tossing or appearing naked with animals — will permanently damage your credibility. That said, have fun and get ready for your close up!

Copywrite, Ink. does not endorse any of these tactics per se. They should only be done by trained professionals who are cognitive of the risks, especially any of those that could result in serious harm or fatal embarrassment.

Winning: Maybe Eyeballs Measure Absurdity

Author David Meerman Scott says Charlie Sheen is winning. And he's not alone. Many people seem to think so. He's winning publicity, which is always admirable.

Right?

Sheen isn't the only one grabbing headlines. Muammar Gaddafi is grabbing headlines. So is the tragedy in Japan.

Are they winning? Do they need a fan page on Facebook? A Twitter account to promote a book tour? A blog or YouTube channel to rant about it all?

The new rules suggest old measurements are dead then toss out eyeball counts too.

One of the lessons I frequently share with public relations professionals every year is the concept of what makes news. And of the various topic choices — impact, proximity, timeliness, importance, prominence, conflict, novelty, human interest, sensitivity, and special interest — most of them skew toward conflict. And even if they do not, headlines are skewed toward it.

There was a small sliver of time that media covered news you needed to know. Nowadays, most media merely packages it in such a way that it makes you think you need to know it. It's done for all those topic choices mentioned above because journalists didn't invent the list. The public purchasing papers did. Media tends to deliver what people want nowadays.

When Charlie Sheen kisses Jimmy Kimmel, he capitalizes on prominence, novelty, conflict, timeliness, proximity, and special interest. He is smart to do it.

USA Today recently mentioned how these things work out. The public jumps for the ringside seat at various celebrity train wrecks for a few minutes before moving to the next. The stories are all the same — prominence, novelty, conflict, timeliness — every single time.

The media played it the same way with radiation reaching the United States. Several networks elevated the level of fear (causing some people to buy and take potassium iodide‎) to drive viewership and then continued to attract readership by refuting their own case before repackaging it into another alarmist story about the safety of the nuclear facilities in our own backyard. These proximity twists prolong eyeballs for as much as 90 days.

Some local programs even prompt government agencies to jump on it. Never mind California, there were news stories in New Hampshire. How did that work? It was simple enough. Someone at the news station wanted to capitalize on the news by ramping up proximity. So they called state officials.

No matter what state officials said, the news station had a story. If the state was monitoring radiation, it creates alarm. If the state isn't monitoring radiation, it creates alarm. In this case, either story taps impact, proximity, timeliness, importance, prominence, and conflict. And it makes you wonder. Is radiation winning? Does it need a fan page on Facebook?

The majority of news is negative so maybe publicity isn't a win.

The majority of news stories across ANY topic is negative. It doesn't matter what the topic might be. Almost 65 percent of media headlines (if not the story itself) lean negative, 15 percent positive, and the balance neutral. (This was from a scan of several statistical counts ranging from the economy to politics). It's no surprise. Psychologically, we're hardwired to react to negative because because it feels like it has more immediacy than positive.

Given those percentages, someone could easily make the case that news coverage means that you're losing, not winning. Sure, you might be "winning" publicity, but what does that really mean? Does it mean that Charlie Sheen needs to run for president? Maybe. The public likes him more than Obama or Palin, even if the same poll shows that almost no one has any respect for him.

Consider that for a moment.

Personally, I have no feelings toward Sheen (other than I liked him in Platoon some years ago). But I do have feelings about the measure of followers on social networks. Three million followers do not make you somebody. Or to borrow a quote unrelated to Charlie Sheen...

We don't hate you because you're famous. You're famous because we hate you.

Or maybe it's because you're a novelty. Or a threat. Or some other attention-grabbing reason, like saying "We are high priest Vatican assassin warlocks. Boom!" If that is winning, I'm happy to set my measures on a different track all together. But still, I will given Sheen this — at least he's doing something. Doing something is how you win with social media.

And if he hadn't done anything, then he wouldn't have broken the fastest person to reach one million followers record, even if more than 80 percent of those people were jumping on to see a meltdown. Maybe he will. Maybe he won't. I hope he doesn't, but I'd be as cautious about adopting the Sheen publicity model as I would be Gaddafi or a tsunami. What you do will eventually matter.

Working Without Vision: How Flailing Begs Failure

It doesn't happen often, but it happened last week. Someone from an Internet publicity company challenged the importance of having a vision during a Kaizen discussion. The discussion was framed around a recent poll suggesting almost 80 percent of all companies deviate from their strategic plans. The professional received ample push back, given the audience.

"Vision is not necessary for profitability, neither long term or short term," he said.

At a glance, the numbers certainly bear out his argument. Marketing consultant Kevin J. Clancy has researched this topic before. He found as many as one-third of all Fortune 500 companies do not have a vision statement. And, of those that do, only 22 percent have transformational vision statements, which strive to change the world (or at least the segment of the world in which they operate).

However, the story of visionless Fortune 500 companies is misleading. David Kinard dug up some interesting research last year. One-third of all Fortune 500 companies in 1970 had ceased to exist by 1983 and nearly two-thirds had vanished by 1995. Not surprisingly, he alludes to the idea that of those that failed, most lacked a working strategic plan, which includes a well-defined achievable vision.

So the answer is more of a mixed bag. You can be profitable without a vision (or an outmoded vision). But the real question is for how long? Ten years? Fifteen years? That might work for serial entrepreneurs, but it doesn't do much for a sustainable company.

Given the failure rate of small businesses and upstarts is even greater, it might make you wonder why so many fail or, more appropriately, why do so many fail despite success and profitability.

More than likely, it seems short-term success can be managed with a mission alone but long-term success is the function of operating in a singular transformational direction or frequently updated adaptive direction. Either will do, but companies, much like people, are apt to be pulled in too many directions without one.

Three examples of failings for abandoning or operating without a vision.

1. Focus failure. An advertising agency start-up earns immediate attention because of its cutting-edge creative and begins to grow. As it does, it also begins to solicit larger accounts that have a stronger voice in the creative process, forcing the agency to produce substandard creative work in favor of retaining the larger accounts.

2. Growth failure. A hamburger stand that prides itself on fresh ingredients reaches critical mass and decides to open two more stores. However, the continued growth forces it to streamline its operations to keep up with demand. So, instead of preparing all the ingredients at each site, it decides to centralize prep work with the consequence of losing its proposition.

3. Profitability failure. A frozen dinner manufacturer develops the right recipes and quickly dominates its niche. However, in order to continue growing, the company has to maximize profits, which could mean smaller portions, cheaper ingredients, or inferior packaging. Any number of these decisions could have consequences.

Those are a few examples, but there are plenty to choose from, small and large companies alike. Blockbuster comes to mind in that its struggles were largely related to moving away from a vision that hinged on its diversity and toward a protectist model.

Had the company stayed focused on its vision, it would have led the electronic rental models (Netflix) and developed blue box (Redbox) before either competitor saturated the market. But it didn't. It did have, however, a solid 25-year run.

The simplicity of a vision and the complexity of applying it.

A vision statement is nothing more than knowing what your company is going to be when it grows up (or in 10-30 years if it is already grown up). And its values are the limitations it has adopted while pursuing that vision. While writing a mission statement can be just as important, the vision statement pinpoints the destination you are hoping to arrive at sooner or later.

Nike is hinged on inspiration. Apple is hinged on (simplified) innovation. Toyota Worldwide is hinged on harmony. And the more aligned they remain with their vision statements, the more likely they will still be successful in 10, 20 or 100 years. The more they are driven by outcomes like expansion, profitability, or market share, the less likely they will achieve that destination.

It's not confined to business alone. While it doesn't have to be formalized in writing, most successful people pursue a vision or sense of purpose. And it is on this micro view that the function of a vision might make the most sense. Even if it is not written per se, people tend to have one whether they realize it or not. All movement leads to a destination.

This might even be why it's important not to mistake vision for outcomes like job security. Outcomes are usually the by-product of a vision, not the pursuit of a destination. For example, someone pursuing job security might stay with a job they dislike until their position or company is no longer secure. Someone who pursues to be on the leading edge of a field, however, is likely always to have job security no matter where they work.

Companies operate in similar ways. If a company is always challenging itself to be innovative, it will win. If a company is challenging itself to earn profits, it may enjoy short-term success until someone else delivers an alternative. If a company doesn't have a vision, it may still move in a direction but the destination will be anybody's guess.

Strangling V: Did Online Rights Kill The Show?

Last year, ABC initially thought it might have tapped into next franchise sci-fi relaunch success story like Battlestar Galactica. The television series V had it all: a riveting premiere, strong story potential, and ample buzz from fans nostalgic for the original series. The premiere drew 14.3 million viewers.

This year, things look very different. Despite ugly angry aliens in Battle: LA helping the war flick with a science fiction twist to claim the number one spot at the box office, audiences have no appetite for the passive aggressive aliens in human skins like those found in the television series V. Its recent ratings, 5.5 million viewers, is considered an uptick.

There is no other way to say it. It's a dead show walking.

But the show didn't commit suicide on its own. ABC had placed it on the bubble last year. It could almost be considered a miracle that the series saw a single second season show.

However, if there was any hope that the series might survive, other decisions clinched its demise. ABC ordered a truncated season 2, first 13 shows and then only 10. It also slated the show for a slot that followed a weak opener on a bad night for the network. And finally, the network decided to withhold electronic distribution of season 2 on all fronts.

Fellow V fans,
It is with much regret that we must inform you that full episodes of V will not be available on ABC.com or Hulu for Season 2. Just like you, we truly wish full episodes were playing here. But we also hope our detailed recaps will keep you informed and entertained should you ever miss an episode.

Best always,
The ABC.com Team

Just like you, we truly wish full episodes were playing here?

Despite rumors, the avoided answer — ABC didn’t acquire the online rights for the second season — does exist. And this fits in with Time Warner not liking the price of online content.

It would have made more sense for ABC to spell it out, but it seems painfully obvious they don't want to answer the second round "why?" It's likely related to the price of online licensing. And ABC is just as happy to kill the program. (Although they haven't officially killed it yet.)

It seems to beg the question. What is the fair price of a single season? On iTunes, a season of House sells at $60 for high definition and about $40 for standard definition (22 episodes). Amazingly, people still watch first runs and replays, even if they buy it. So perhaps the question that ought to be asked is — what is the value of a product nobody can watch?

Network schedule-only shows cannot survive in an anytime environment. Period.

V was okay, but it never really lived up to satisfying any nostalgic sensibilities. It was good enough to watch now and again, but only on a consumer schedule. In other words, it worked for semi-interested viewers who tuned into Hulu.com or purchased the season on iTunes. But if it wasn't available there, there wasn't much compulsion to purchase a DVD for $30 (or maybe $15 given there are only 10 episodes)? It doesn't make sense.

Digital frees the consumer from shipping costs. And it frees the producers from packaging costs. It's easier to store too. Real space is best reserved for those special collector's packages or those few movies where physical copies feel right for some reason.

Sure, not everyone has a digital device or a component video cable to make their computer-television conversion seamless. But eventually they will. And if not with a hard cable connection, then with WiFi sharing. With this in mind, $40 to $60 per season seems reasonable because it's the standard networks and producers set when they wanted to cash in on videos and compact discs.

But more importantly, when viewers cannot catch their shows or forget to set their DVRs (because they missed the first few episodes or have too much in memory already), then limiting distribution won't gain viewers or increase the value. It will diminish viewers or possibly turn them off entirely (with the possible exception of a few shows).

Profit doesn't come from protection. It comes from innovation.