Losing

John McCain has impressed even more in defeat than in the contest. I thought the manner of his choice of a vice-president was a sign of good leadership (and even though he turns out to have been wrong, that was not the reason he lost). Now his heartfelt endorsement of his former adversary, and his honest wish that everyone works together with the new president, show true leadership.

Good decision

There's been plenty of study of the way the mind works after it's made a purchase decision (see wikipedia here on 'post-purchase rationalisation', and here for a really interesting finding on the positive difference that branding can make). We tend to filter out any evidence that we made a bad choice, and to seek those things that tell us we chose well.

The people in Procurement are just as prone to this, but probably more aware of it than most. They are going to want something a little more objective to measure the impact of their decisions.

There's an interesting opportunity here to provide external measurement and validation of the effects of long-term decisions such as placing or renewing outsourcing contracts. Such a validation would also benefit the service provider, since it would be independent verification that they had delivered on the promise.

So I'm setting up something to do just that in the marketing services space. It's called an Independent Assurance Review. It's a really simple idea - and it's not even a new one, it's already quite common in the public sector. There's a bit more about it on my website - or you can call me to talk it over.

Mission: clean data

Time to go public on a private passion.

Good work is being done to improve direct mail's image in the UK. Royal Mail have launched a 'green' version of postage for their wholesale clients. The Direct Marketing Assocation (DMA) has set up a Direct Marketing Commission to give the public better access to information and services. As part of both of these there is discussion about the correct use of suppression files, and even talk of how to ensure that data is processed correctly before it is used to create mailing campaigns.

However, there is one important part of this that is not yet being addressed. There is huge variation in the quality of data processing itself. It's just not enough to say 'the data has been deduplicated and suppressed'. I've seen the difference between some of the low-cost online deduplications, and the 'proper' kind, and it's huge - it's entirely possible to say you've processed your data, yet still mail thousands of duplicates, people who have opted out, or people who you know to have died.

There's a job to be done to raise the awareness of this, and to get some form of recognition of the importance of the quality of data processing for direct mail. I'm not the only one who believes this, and we're working on how to get it done. I'll write more as this (long-term!) project develops.

Burned bridges

A friend of mine used to be on the board of a medium-size company that was very successful and grew organically and by acquisition. Some years ago he parted acrimoniously, and was not entirely private with his opinion of his former colleagues.

He moved on, and made good things happen at other companies. I spoke to him yesterday. His business unit has just been sold. To a large competitor. Which is run by the CEO he used to work for.

He does see the funny side of this; at the same time he does not expect to last long.

Despite what we would sometimes like to think, it's a small world. Even if it's hugely satisfying at the time to burn the bridge, it's very unlikely to be a good strategy.

Teams

I'm setting up a company that will provide specialist creative and execution of highly targeted, highly personalised marketing communications, integrated across multiple media. People have been working in this area for a while, and there are some fabulous case studies. But there aren't many of them.

Turns out, that they are quite difficult to do.

Well, actually, they are difficult if you are trying to do them the way you do your other campaigns.

If you reorganise your resources and your structure properly, they become a lot more straightforward, and as a result a lot more fun to work on too. I'm aware that this is a challenge for many companies, but I don't really understand why. All you need is good people, a clear mission, and an open, enabling culture. Which is not difficult at all, is it ...

Periodic updates will follow.

It could be coincidence

Article in the 'Guardian' the other day (here) about the difference between the way that Senators Obama and McCain organise their volunteer networks. The Obama network gives the power to the local volunteers themselves on how to organise and what to do, whilst the McCain camp operates much more as 'command and control'.

It takes some bravery to commit to the devolved model as Obama has done. It's a lot easier though, when there is a clear vision behind which the volunteers can rally. The local teams can then interpret the vision to make it work on their ground. There's also a great deal of hard work required to set up those local networks. However, it does seem to be working well at the moment ...

The Blair Ditch Project

Great fun watching the story of the sacking of London's Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair. A lot of outrage coming from national politicans. Interestingly, the outrage seems to be less about the decision - by London's new mayor Boris Johnson - than the manner of it ('did not consult appropriately', 'did not follow process'). Yet for me the most significant aspect of the story so far, is that the mayor was prepared to take a decision - on his very first day as chair of the body to which the Commissioner reports - on a matter which has been festering for at least three years, which is hugely complex and highly politicial. Perhaps, after all, Boris has some of the important characteristics of a good leader.

Of course, it's much too early to tell whether the decision was the right one. But that's part of the challenge when you have that level of responsibility. You won't necessarily know for a while whether you made the right choice; you just know you have to choose.