For each individual, sport is a possible source for inner improvement. — Pierre de Coubertin

May joy and good fellowship reign, and in this manner, may the Olympic Torch pursue its way through ages, increasing friendly understanding among nations, for the good of a humanity always more enthusiastic, more courageous and more pure.
— Pierre de Coubertin

The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not winning but taking part; the essential thing in life is not conquering but fighting well. — Pierre de Coubertin

After all the media fallout and threats of boycott because of civil rights violations and pollution in China, Beijing ’08 is the most watched Olympic Games since Atlanta ’96. Why do we watch? Why has this particular Olympic Games captured our attention?

Of course, it is standout stars like Michael Phelps, but it is more. We are a country, a continent, a world that is caught in a quagmire of disappointing news. There are wars raging in Georgia, Iraq, Afghanistan and countless other countries where strife is the rule, not the exception. The threat of domestic terrorism has most Americans still in its vice grip, as we watch violence in other parts of the world. Issues such as energy conservation, and finding new ways to generate energy are on our minds, even as the environment and sustainable living grow to be a more serious, undeniable concern.

The economy appears distressed in most countries or at least everywhere except Dubai and portions of the middle east, where abundant wealth springs forth like a miraculous fountain of lavish life. There is political uncertainty here in the U.S., along with a deep recession that may have already bottomed out. The state of affairs in many countries appears to be contingent on the welfare of the U.S., designed fortuitously or not to follow our markets.

In 1896, when Pierre de Coubertin founded the modern Olympic Games in Athens, Greece, he applied a vision of a world that was based on commonwealth, a common goal and good for all people, one that was above politics, war, and socio-economics. This is a higher ideal or purpose than any of the concerns we have; this is a spiritual roadmap for a possible future.

While I never broke a world record or excelled beyond an average level at any sport, I know a little about the Olympics. I can tell you why the 1956 Games of the XVI Olympiad were to be held in Melbourne, but in part moved to Stockholm at the last minute because of a quarantine. I can recite most of the cities that hosted over the last 112 years. I can tell you that I attended the Centennial Games in Atlanta in 1996, stopped and took pictures of a friend in front of that tower, just before Centennial Park exploded in a night of tragedy and death. Earlier that night, I had seen Michael Johnson run in a 400 meter trial and actually place second, much to everyone’s dismay.

I had worked on the Official IOC Souvenir Guide to the Olympic Games, a project that the good people at Sports Illustrated extended as an opportunity nearly 2 years prior to the event itself. We poured our hearts into a publication that was syndicated and ultimately reprinted in about 16 languages and sold worldwide. I fell in love with the Olympics as I worked on that Program Guide, which was a Centennial celebration of the Games. Later, I led the design for the Official Olympic Program for Sydney in 2000, and again for Salt Lake City in 2002. The Olympics have since captivated me, especially the summer games.

Why do we watch? Because in my opinion, in a world of grey, a world where manipulation, deception, uncertainty and loss of hope is flourishing, there is that part in each of us that feels fundamentally true and honest, full of will, decency and strength. We are hopeful to be inspired by the triumph of the human spirit — that naked, raw expression that declares: I have nothing here to help me and I am alone in my quest, but I want to be excellent, I want to feel honored, I want to do perform as well as I possibly can. And in that, I may lift other people to do the same.

The competition may not always bear good news, but at least the competition is just that: It is real, and cannot be faked. The standards for determining who wins and loses in the Olympics are incredibly high. The IOC has had it scandals in the past, but no other single sport can boast such an earnest commitment to transparency and integrity among its operations and athletes. In Beijing as with other Olympics, they seem not to compete for the love of money, but rather for the love, desire and passion they have for winning and for their sport. The brands of the NBA, and increasingly MLB and NFL have substantial work to do in this regard.

There is also a part of everyone that dreams of excellence in their own lives, and of commitment at the ultimate level, a space or a place that requires total sacrifice and conviction, and, a belief in our collective future.

In the Olympic Games, we witness the pursuit of excellence in unadorned, unforgiving real-time. It’s a highly compelling view of our own lives. Besides the fact that we watch professional athletes perform feats that we could not imagine, we also see the best of the human heart, manifested. We see all that we can be, a positive message projecting what tomorrow may hold for each one of us and our children. At a time that predicts a disappointing immediate future, this grand spectacle is not a spectacle at all, but a validation of our best efforts. It is a showcase of human free will. It smacks our predisposed destiny in the face and instead, reminds us that tomorrow’s news is not yet written; it can be whatever we make of it. It is a respite and a fresh breath of air.

It is an idea, a promise — indeed it is a brand that has sustained since the Greeks introduced it in 776 BC, a brand that is now modernized and yet embraces the same principles that Pierre de Coubertin set forth in 1896. As long as these tenets of honest competition, sportsmanship, discipline and self-challenge are considered the standard to uphold, it will be a brand that will endure forever.

Posted in Brand Identity | No Comments »

We hear a lot about internal communications and HR initiatives designed to foster teamwork and create a connection between the company and its employees. The thinking goes that if there is an increased focus on living the brand promise internally, employees will be inspired, success will be ensured, and the positive benefits will radiate outward. So why have so many companies failed to inspire a sense of purpose and mission? How is it that so many people live their lives today with such little sense of commitment, conviction and trust in one another, or in our organizations?

In practical terms, it seems difficult for large companies to be expected to live the brand promise with any level of conviction and sincere commitment — or is it? Would a true commitment at the highest ranks of management, to the livelihood and welfare of all employees actually help to grow the organization? Could an approach that sounds more like religious doctrine affect business culture so drastically that profitability and earnings are improved? Could one C-level executive apply that way of thinking and inspire hundreds or thousands of employees and thereby change the core of the organization?

In a word, yes. But it is less about communications initiatives or talking and more about walking the walk and delivering on our promises each and every day.

It’s a difficult idea to embrace, this concept of letting go of all self interests and working almost exclusively to set the stage for success — to focus relentlessly on a single target of achievement and lift others toward that goal. It’s a culture, a commitment and a foundational philosophy, a promise not to be compromised. That promise, when lived properly, can indeed change an entire organization. But this requires an honest and selfless commitment to always do the right, fair, responsible thing for the company. One place to start for many CEO and C-level executives is in their compensation. There’s no better way to transmit a message of self-sacrifice and teamwork than giving up the opportunity for personal gain.

The book Band of Brothers by Stephen Ambrose summed it up when describing the philosophy “officers go first” espoused by Lt. Richard Winters, platoon commander of Easy Company. “Dick Winters was an officer who got the men to perform because he expected nothing but the best, and you liked him so much you just hated to let him down,” explained Robert Rader when interviewed for the book. According to Ambrose, “Winters’ code was ‘Follow me.’ He provided not only brains but also personal leadership. He personally took more risks than anyone.”

The same thinking applies in business and demonstrates how leadership can affect the culture of an organization. Leaders have a brand too, just like the companies they are committed to building. Their personal brand message trickles down with greater speed and effectiveness than many leaders are aware. In some cases, it’s a message with no significant, specific point of view that actually dampens personal commitment over the entire base of employees. In other cases, a humble and reaffirming message can lift and inspire each person in every part of the business.

More than anything else, the culture of any organization is a direct reflection of those who manage it. Break the promise, and you break the trust. And trust, once broken is nearly impossible to restore or earn back. It should be considered the social responsibility of all companies to work and live the brand promise internally. It’s also just smart business to do so.

Our future ultimately depends on it.

Posted in Brand Identity | No Comments »

“The difference between a successful person and others is not a lack of strength, not a lack of knowledge, but rather in a lack of will.” — Vince Lombardi (1913-1970)

The controversy and drama that is being played out in recent days regarding Brett Favre is a monumental disappointment, and American football will never be the same. The Packers have now reportedly offered Brett Favre $20 million not to play football ever again. Favre wants to play again, and has petitioned the NFL office for reinstatement to the game after retiring recently. He seems to be happy playing for Green Bay, if he is able to start again, or to play for another team in the same conference.

It may not appear at first blush to be directly connected to marketing or brand identity concerns that I enjoy researching and writing about on this Blog, but it actually is a perfect representation of how to earn a poor public image.

When it comes right down to it, the cat and mouse game between Brett Farve, the NFL, and the Green Bay Packers organization is an intricately developed, compelling series of events that has left a storied football franchise viewed in unsavory light. The league itself, led by Commissioner Roger Goodell, has seemingly taken a laissez-faire approach to the whole debate, which is a position that could leave some fans praising the hands-off decision, and others still wishing that the Commissioner took a stronger stand on one side or the other. In any crisis, it can be disconcerting to witness the only governing body (NFL office) of a group of companies standing idly on the sideline, waiting to take a point of view once the dust has settled. That’s not leadership, nor it is strength or wisdom.

As for Favre, his brand seems “untarnishable.” He is one of the greatest players to ever grace the field and play the game. He owns every major passing record in the NFL and is adored by fans all over the world. His fans’ level of commitment seem to transcend conference and team affiliation. Why is this? How has he earned such success? Because the brand called Brett Favre is based on a competitive spirit and a passion — deep love of the game, actually. He has built and cultivated an image across a broad base of fans’ minds of someone who is a tenacious winner and competitor, a player who has tremendous spirit and heart, but who is also vulnerable and humble. He is genuine and true and his own internal values are well aligned with his core beliefs. He has a simple message. There could be no stronger or enduring perception for any brand.

On the other side of the fence, the Green Bay Packers have unwisely made an offer of a large financial payoff (never the image that any brand should aim to affiliate) to have Favre ride gracefully off into the twilight of his playing career. In one move, the organization has transmitted: We have money. We are powerful. We don’t want to see you play competitively in a fair, free market economy, so we will bribe you to stay home, or perhaps show up and earn that $20 million by serving the Packers as a sort of celebrity spokesperson.

It’s as anti-American as anything I have seen in professional sports in my lifetime. Every sport should work to build a true spirit of competitiveness and fairness, as well as good sportsmanship, all as a part of the internal brand of the sport. Now, for the first time in and American public forum, our leaders are paying us not to compete. Competition, with some natural and instinctive boundaries, is a good thing. The conventional thinking goes: The more that one can successfully build the “internal brand” on a solid foundation — good, decent values, the better off the whole brand will be as those principles of common sense, common decency, and common good tend to radiate outwardly through the daily actions of constituents associated with the brand.

What message does the Packers actions send about the Green Bay Football brand? Well, it’s counter to the culture that made the Packers one of the most historic, beloved teams in the NFL. The saga will play itself out in the coming days and ultimately be reconciled. If it felt devastating that Green Bay made the offer initially, it would be equally disheartening for Brett Favre to accept it. That action would begin to erode his own brand among deeply committed fans, and would be terrible for the NFL. It would project a message that “Yes, I can be bought. Yes, money truly is more important to me than my love of football.” And the fans, and the sport, would lose.

This is all ironic for a franchise team that became known for its discipline, toughness, and consequently for its inherent success. Green Bay had talented players when it dominated professional football in the 1960’s, but the team was not known for its stars, per se. The Green Bay Packers brand was associated with work ethic, with heart and toughness, which is why Brett Favre was always a perfect fit for that team. It was also known as an NFL team that was the ultimate American tenet of democracy: It is the only team in the NFL owned collectively by the fans.

Now, the sport of American football will never be the same, nor will the Green Bay Packers image. Vince Lombardi must be turning over in his grave.

Posted in Brand Identity, Marketing | No Comments »

OK, so it’s not as poetic as Mr. McGuire telling a young, 21 year-old graduate by the name of Ben Braddock that the future is in “plastics.” But it is just as age- and era- defining.

I see a tremendous transitional shift in technology again, and as usual we are going smaller and lighter, which when we really study it, seems to be an evolutionary trend for the human race over at least the last 80-90 years or so.

Consider the big screen and public response to the first “moving picture.” In 1895, Louis Lumiere and his brother were the first to present projected, moving, photographic images to a paying audience of more than one person. Around the same time, several others were experimenting with similar technology, including The Edison Company. The world would never be the same.

Think about the invention of the television and how it brought a technological revolution and the media to the masses. Imagine life in the 80’s before the invention of the first IBM Personal Computer, commonly known as the IBM PC. It was introduced on August 12, 1981 and created by a team of engineers and designers under the direction of Don Estridge of the IBM Entry Systems Division in Boca Raton, Florida.

Can you remember life before the invention of the laptop? The clam-shell design that today’s modern laptop is based on was developed in 1979 by William Moggridge for GRiD Systems Corporation, which was acquired by Tandy Corporation in 1988.

Looking back even earlier, the small device that you hold in your hand, whether it is the new iPhone, some form of the Blackberry or similar device, was at first much larger and intended not to carry all forms of information, but rather sound, primarily.

According to the Wiki, an early version of the telephone was invented around 1860 by Italian inventor Antonio Meucci, who called it teletrofono (telectrophone). The first American demonstration of Meucci’s invention took place in NYC, USA in 1854. In 1860, a description of it was published in New York’s Italian language newspaper. Alexander Graham Bell was the first to patent the telephone, an “apparatus for transmitting vocal or other sounds telegraphically.” The first successful bi-directional transmission of clear speech by Bell and Watson was made on March 10, 1876 when Bell spoke into his device, “Mr. Watson, come here, I want to see you.” The first long distance telephone call was made on August 10, 1876 by Bell from the family homestead in Brantford, Ontario, to his assistant located in Paris, Ontario, some 10 miles away.

To the day, exactly 100 years and 40 days later, after Bell and Watson first communicated those historic words, Steve Wozniak, the technician, and Steve Jobs, the visionary, sold the first Apple computers on April 1, 1976.

Of course, along with the technological innovations, there was also the convergence of media. The driver of all media business does apply like an unrelenting Darwinian principle. The mantra today is not “Go west, young man,” but rather: Give the people the communication they want, when they want it, however they want it. Considering the increase in population, availability to work and live with great mobility, demand for constant communication, the accessibility of wireless data, and the means to purchase — on a mass scale — items of technology that would have been considered a luxury in 1876, is there any doubt where this is headed?

All technology is interesting and worth considering as an investment of either time ot money, but based on ROI, I would not put my money into computers placed into cabs, or even into GPS or satellite technology. The future of exciting technology and graphic or content development is in that small, 2-3 ounce device in your purse or pocket.

I can only assume that on a broad scale, we’ll be purchasing clothing, groceries, making travel plans, speaking, listening, viewing our friends in real time video chats, accessing entertainment such as movies and television, and living our complete lives around one tiny instrument that fits into our pocket. Our desktop computers, our laptops, our televisions? All antiquated relics of the past that collect dust, and increasingly are disposed or stored in our garages and attics.

Herbert Marshall McLuhen (1911-1980) would have been proud. The medium truly is the message.

Posted in Media | No Comments »