Mark Gilroy

Bringing Books to Life!

Search Results for: label/full-time writers

Anatomy of an Apology

In his first apology he really didn’t apologize for what he said but rather defended himself and even took shots at the ones he was apologizing to for making a big deal out of a possibly inappropriate joke he told that was the reason he was apologizing in the first place. Make sense?

I may have to read that sentence again myself. Slowly. During this first apology, one of the things David Letterman explained was that the criticism he was receiving was based, at least in part, on a simple misunderstanding that could easily be cleared up. When he joked that Todd and Sarah Palin’s daughter was getting ‘knocked up’ by Alex Rodriguez during the 7th inning stretch at Yankee Stadium, he thought people would know he meant the Palin’s 18-year-old daughter, not the 14-year-old daughter who was actually at the game and who was therefore “erroneously” assumed to be the one he was referring to.

As a parent, I would have felt a whole lot better if he was referring to my 18-year-old and not my 14-year-old, wouldn’t you?

Letterman also explained he’s told other jokes that he’s not proud of. Again, just the kind of reasoning to help things simmer down in a hurry.

Surprisingly, this first apology wasn’t received well by the Palins and others. Even women’s groups not known as staunch Palin supporters expressed dissatisfaction.

So five days later Letterman apologized again, but this time he really meant it. Somber newscasters declared this second apology attempt as “heartfelt” and “sincere.” The first apology was an obvious mulligan. In a blame reversal that even Bill Clinton would envy, a number of commentators took the time to criticize Governor Palin for inflammatory words of her own in an interview with Matt Lauer on NBC’s Today Show when she said it would be wise to keep Willow away from Dave. Matt didn’t like that. Not at all. But as a hard nosed journalist that’s his job. And think about it. Palin did have her nerve picking on a helpless 62-year-old television icon, going so far as to make a statement that could be construed to indicate that she thinks he is a dirty old man, when expressing outrage over what was said about her 18-year-old daughter – though not the 14-year-old Willow as was previously mentioned.

Robert Schlesinger opined in his U.S. News and World Report blog that in her statement Palin had equaled Letterman for “cheap and classless jokes.” I might agree with Schlesinger but it’s still not clear she was joking and if it is determined she was, it was only one joke, not jokes.

So during the same week that protestors have taken to the streets in Tehran what does this compelling news episode teach us about apologizing? Just maybe, we ought to be straightforward, heartfelt, and sincere the first time out of the chute as opposed to a face-saving, self-serving, self-righteous, and sarcastic approach. Most of us know that’s easier said than done. So if we can’t pull off the contrite and clear method it seems that blaming the person we’ve wronged for putting us in a position to botch our apology is a good backup plan … it worked just fine for David Letterman after all.

Different or Alike? Which Do You Aspire to Be?

One of my favorite weekly newsletters is written by Roy Williams of Wizard of Ads fame. If you are in sales and marketing and don’t subscribe to the MondayMorningMemo, I highly recommend it. But this week’s edition has life application beyond any advertising campaign you might be developing.

I think Mr. Williams’ message has insight on how we interpret and present ourselves to the world as individuals – not just for businesses. His question of whether to “differentiate” or “conform” can be used to to evaluate how we see and relate to others. In other words – how we get along with those around us. The person who insists on always being different and “special” might take heed that there is a cost of not fitting in. The person who always conforms to his or her surroundings might be reminded that each of us have a uniqueness accompanied by gifts that are meant to season the world around us.

But I’ll let the true Wizard speak from his observations as an advertiser.

Differentiate or Conform?Chronic problems in business are usually the result of binary thinking. “It’s either this way or that way. It can’t be both.”

Strangely, the answer is almost always “both.”

“Should I try to attract the price-driven (transactional) customer, or should I go for the (relational) customer who cares about something other than price?”

Both. Create and schedule ads that speak convincingly to the question of price. Create and schedule other ads that speak of important matters beyond price. Just don’t try to do both in the same ad.

“Should I manage with strict policies, procedures, methods and systems, or should I empower my employees to make decisions on their own?”

Both. Systematize the 90 percent of your company’s activities that are recurrent so that your employees have the freedom to humanize and customize the 10 percent of your activities that are ever-changing and unusual. A company without freedoms is a sweatshop. A company without policies, procedures, methods and systems is a country club for unproductive employees.

“Should I promote an exclusive brand and risk the manufacturer betraying me by allowing my competitor to sell that brand for which I’ve created all the demand, or should I create my own in-house brand so that I can remain in control of it?”

Both. You need the credibility of established brands to lend strength to the new brand you will introduce. Advertise both, but never in the same ad.

“Won’t this make me seem unfocused?”

No. You must get on board with proven procedures. You must also do your own thing and go your own direction. It’s not only possible that you do both, it is essential.

Mechanics across Europe began building cars in 1886 and each time they built a car it was different. More than 2,000 different garages built and sold cars one-at-a-time before Henry Ford’s 1913 introduction of the first moving assembly line employing conveyor belts. Henry popularized the concept of interchangeable parts. It was efficient. It also made him the richest man in the world. By 1923 Henry Ford was personally earning $264,000 a day. He was declared a billionaire by the Associated Press.

More than 17,000,000 Model T’s rolled off Henry’s assembly line and you could have any color you wanted as long as it was black. The inefficiency of building cars one-at-a-time forced the other 2,000 garages to sell their cars at about $2,500 apiece while the price of a reliable, new Model T was only $849.

Soon the other carmakers got on board and America became an automotive Wonderland.

But we always take a good thing too far. Fifty years later, General Motors decided to take this idea to the next level. “Instead of designing 5 different brands each year and retooling our machinery to build Chevrolets, Pontiacs, Oldsmobiles, Buicks and Cadillacs, why not just put a different interior package and grille and taillights in the same, basic car and sell that car under 5 different names?”

A Chevy Cavalier is a Pontiac Sunbird is an Oldsmobile Firenza is a Buick Skyhawk is a Cadillac Cimarron.

A Chevy Nova is a Pontiac Ventura is an Oldsmobile Omega is a Buick Apollo is a Cadillac Seville.

A Chevy Caprice is a Pontiac Catalina is an Olds 98 is a Buick Electra is a Cadillac DeVille.

On the surface, this looks like exactly the same idea that made Henry Ford rich. The problem with the “platform engineering” introduced by GM in the late 1970s is that it eroded the distinctiveness of their brands. Two decades later GM was forced to close Oldsmobile and a few years after that, Pontiac fell as well. Analysts speculate whether Buick or Cadillac will be next.

Conformity is essential or you will not be efficient. Differentiation is essential or you will not be special.

Overheard at the Gym: Prices are Soaring

She said “hi” but I was on minute-28 of an elliptical workout at the YMCA so I was red-faced and could barely breathe. It was pretty obvious I wasn’t going to be good for a conversation that included formed words and thoughts. I guess she forgot her ear buds and was bored and wanted to talk so she looked the other way and started a fairly loud conversation with the person to her left. I kept trying to breathe – and since I forgot my ear buds, too – I couldn’t help but eavesdrop.

The key revelation I picked up was that she had asked for two tea bags at a coffee shop that afternoon and was charged $2.25 each, which somewhat angered her and led to a sharp exchange with the waitress that ended with her telling the waitress, “I’m drinking your tip.”

I’ve always thought it was unfair to punish a waiter or waitress when a dining problem is clearly outside of his or her control. Like prices posted on the menu. Or a grease fire in the kitchen. And all that begs the question of why she was ordering tea in a coffee shop in the first place.

But what most caught my attention was that she was at least the fifth person I had heard in a 24-hour time frame that was complaining about how high prices are. If you’ve checked costs on homes and many commodities you already know it’s a seller’s market out there – if you can find someone that can actually afford what you have to sell!

What I think I was overhearing was actually a micro example of a fundamental psychological shift occurring on the macro level in America. We’ve always complained about prices – except when bragging about how much we paid for something – but I think now people really mean it.

Could it be that we are shifting from being consumers to conservers again? A lot of pundits will say it’s about time. That sounds as good and right as saying you’re only going to help people who can’t afford their homes because of bad luck rather than those who can’t afford their homes because they were greedy. But many economists will remind us that the Great Depression was caused in large measure because people stopped spending and investing. Consumer spending does create the magical process of turning a company’s inventory or services into cash, which is usually a requisite for staying in business.

But that doesn’t mean we haven’t been incredibly greedy and overspent on the aggregate – and as individuals. This seeming personal course correction – possibly nothing more than a temporary dip in our mad spending ways – is undoubtedly overdue but we shouldn’t be naive that there won’t be more corporate casualties. Whatever you think of companies – unfair, unfeeling, unscrupulous or anything else unflattering – they are entities that provide jobs.

So what’s the takeaway in all this for me? First of all, I’m not going to forget my ear buds again. And secondly, I’m limiting myself to one tea bag!