The Black Smoke Cloud

I am really mesmerized with the amount of complex innovation frameworks that have been popping up now and then in books, blogs and speeches.
Some of them have bullets that goes from 1 to 10, others 1 to 36, but the fact is that if we put all together there would be like 700 bullets on a PowerPoint presentation (not counting the duplicates).
In my point of view all of these bullet points are only part of a huge black smoke cloud, like those ninja hiding clouds, strategically blowed just so companies don't have to get into the only real thing that keep them from growing creative thinking, which is: Their excessive focus on a culture of control.

Today there's a lot of Innovation talking, and also new innovation "guru's" are popping up everywhere.But as a matter of fact, how many companies do you know that are really open to drop the “control" mindset and implement real value + strong bold changes programs for innovation? And that includes hard to swallow strategies like give paid time to employees do their own stuffs.

There are some companies trying to fill this gap by asking their employees to do "creative home works".
Recently i was confronted with a strange, to say the least, case of endo-marketing, where HR was trying to convince employees to visit museums and parks in their weekends and free time. Their strategy, by their own words, was created for "opening the employees creative mind". (Maybe they’ve got this weird idea after a quick look on the book "A Whole new Mind" by Dan Pink)

How come an enterprise can achieve an Innovation mindset if investing in human resources (like paid time, in this case) is not even in the horizon? To the point they are asking employees to invest it themselves.
This was my question to the HR manager, and for that, here is the answer:
"We will always count on commitment from our employees and it is not a big deal to ask them to spend their free time in cultural activities. This will even make them some good".
Good…says who? And by the way who is "them" ?

Recently i was watching Daniel Pink's new speech on TED about his new upcoming book. In this book he presents a lot of scientific explanations in order to prove that “the carrot and the stick” way does not work for building up innovative cultures and collaboration.
His point of view is very simple. When rewarded with bonuses people tend to work more efficiently, but only in tasks that are analytical, and therefore needs lots of left brain resources. In other tasks that takes more cognitive and right brain processing, the traditional reward mechanism can even slow employees performance.

In his speech he also shows that in recent experiments a group that were under the promise to be rewarded scored much worse in their performance on “right brain tasks” than another group that were not under the same promise.

This happens because the excessive concern on delivery a great performance creates a funnel in the brain that doesn't allows the “Gestalt thinking” to kick on.

So, what now?

Now, Brands that wants to innovate... let me rephrase that... Brands that want to survive in the next years, will need to stop to intellectualize innovation and start to get the hands dirty on it. And by that I mean to re-design the critical and more polemic parts of their management model, trashing away some of the old school metrics, reward systems and management "best" practices.

Nobody wants to read about an intelligent "new and improved innovation model". What is really necessary now is to build a simple and humanistic model, based on a intelligent reward system that delivers benefits and real value to employees.

If your lower income employees cannot get to a deep understanding of your innovation strategy... guess what... your strategy is a failure.

Viktor Frankl in his book "Man’s search for meaning", concludes, after a strong and emotional narrative of the time he spent in nazi death camps, that the only thing that the human being really need to be happy is to engage in something bigger than himself.

Mihaly Csikszentmihaly in his book Flow presents statistics that shows how money is poorly, or even not, correlated with happiness.

In my opinion the rollout of innovation in corporations cannot be headed by the same people that, for years, were safe keepers of the management "best practices". And the reason for that is simple: There’s no way a "best practice" will ever generate an innovative concept.
The whole mindset of "best practice" is overwhelmed with the only thing that companies need to get rid off if they want to become innovative: An excessive focus on a culture of control.

Companies to really get on an innovation culture will need to go deeply in knowing it's employees and what make them tick and generate stories about their relationship with the Brand.
And based on this knowledge, there is need to re-design the reward system to rebuild it upon real value propositions


Damn right, It takes a lot of work. Are you ready?

Is UFC an Innovation?

I Think so and Harley Davidson agrees.

For those who are not familiarized with the term, UFC means: Ultimate Fighting Championship. It is the largest MMA (mixed martial arts) competition in the World today
I decided to cover the aspects of it in the blog inspired by the fact that today is UFC night. This is de 101 edition of UFC. Yes, it has been 101 competitions already since the Gracie Family, creators of the world famous Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, entered the UFC stage for the fist time. In that occasion they passed the message that Brazil had more to offer than beautifull womans and soccer players. Even though you may not agree with the violence involved in MMA competitions, no one can ignore the fact that Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is being considered by jornalists as the biggest Brazilian worldwide cultural explosion since Bossa Nova.
There's no MMA fighter in the world that can, safely, enter the octogone (UFC's ring) without at least a basic preparation on what the world calls Brazilian Jiu Jitsu.
Brazil is a leader in the UFC rankings and actually holds two titles in different categories, which is really unusual in that competition.
It is also the only country to earn direct respect, what I mean by that is, a brazilian fighter gets certain amount of respect already just because of its nationality. This is one thing that we didn't had experimented in other sports than Soccer yet.
For those and other reasons it is at least interesting to take a look and decode some of the aspects that involves this world wide phenomenon.

First, leave your personal opinions on fights behind, and let's check three elements that makes UFC a "not to be questioned" Innovation.

1) Innovation sometimes are a scary thing.
UFC in the early days was something not to talk about. It reminded us of clandestine fights, that ones that happens in somebody backyards. Normal people avoided to talk about it at any costs. And the competition was only adopted by a few martial arts lovers.

2) Innovation is not about the object. It is about the people.
The UFC brand is way beyond the fight already. Today it represents a life style. People that are not directly engaged in fight activities choose deliberately to live the UFC life style. This can be seen in the growth of certain Brands that were born as UFC fighter gear providers, one good example is Ecko Unltd. Harley Davidson itself and Burger king had also joined the hero quest of UFC fight competition atmosphere.

3) Innovation is a category killer.
UFC has made Boxe looks like a pillow fight. A Boxe fight will take much longer than people are willing to pay attention to, this is in part because of the "safety rules" of the sport.
Boxe lost it's innovation timing long before. Today it is a "fading" sport and if they don't reinvent it quickly it will be restricted soon to multi-sports events like the Olympic games.
This is the result you get by practicing the "keep doing what works" mentality in any category. While the fight consumers perceptions was evolving Boxe was stucked with it's pillow gloves and big clumsy old-funny shorts.

The result is clear. Show a teenager a picture of Lyoto Machida or Demian Maia, both UFC fighters that cannot be framed in the common fighter stereotype which is "big guys with small brains", and at the same time show to the kid a picture of a Boxe fighter (you can use the posted bellow pictures if you like). And ask that kid a simple question: If you had to choose, which one would you prefer to be like?
The image of the Boxe fighter today is the same as it was 20 years ago. And this doesn't please the eyes anymore, doesn't matter if you are a boomer, X or Y generation.

How about you? Who you 'd rather to be like?

These guys:


Or those guys:



* Sorry if you are strongly against fight competitions, but just try to be neutral and give your opinion based on context and identity of both scenarios.

And why Harley Davidson choose jump in the UFC?
Harley has associated it's image to the UFC Brand in a very sharp and clever way. Some people asked me already: But this is too violent, can it represents danger to the Brand image? . And also: But Harley wants to be seen as violent?
The answer is no to both questions.

The UFC Brand triggers the Hero Archetype in one of it's more traditional forms: The Gladiator. The Gladiator is the mysterious hero who fights in a closed space, and cannot leave until his opponent is dead. He fights all his life to earn the ultimate prize which is his freedom.
In the UFC the same scenario takes place. Only after the fighter had engaged in a certain number of fights he earns the right to control his financial transactions and to choose better his next fights.
The octagon (UFC ring) is also called "The Cage". Any Harley Davidson lover knows that "cages" is the way the Brand refers to cars. So, people are stucked in cages (cars) and Harley is their way to find their freedom.
So...wrapping up.
In UFC: The fighter will fight for his life, inside a cage, after the ultimate prize which is his freedom.
On the real life: People fight their daily battles on cages (cars, offices...), and the prize should also be the Freedom. And freedom can be achieved when you ride a Harley Davidson.

This is a strong association example between two brands. They have different archetypes but they share core values. Great deal.

Or did you thought that Harley was just doing mass media strategies again? They don't need it. They are just making their Brand statement strong in consumers mind.

Well, UFC is an Innovation. It is the reinvention of the previously released by Boxe category:” Highly produced drama fights, to watch at home with friends and family in the weekend". It has all the Boxe drama, fighters debates, historical sad fighter life-stories to backup the drama and the Hero Gladiator archetype and etc. But it all comes in a very contextualized way and with a language that is in perfect pace with today's consumers lives.

The real deal behind: Bring meaning to people's lives.

It's not news anymore that we are living in an experience society. That means: Consumers will pay more for experience than they will do for products and services.
We live in a highly social-connected society indeed but this is still a highly social needy society. People feels lonely like never before although we have so much new ways to connect. In this context Brands that delivery delight and incantation drives consumers to a very much appreciated, and rare nowadays, excitement state that helps fulfill unmet needs that are rare to find these days.
According to the world famous life coach Tony Robbins people will search in every interaction for six basic human needs. And they are:

1) Certainty
2) Variety (surprise)
3) Significance (relevance)
4) Connection
5) Growth
6) Love

If these are the six basic needs we search for, and if we were always humans... So what changed?
During the information age the lack of the natural availability of some of these needs had expanded, which made consumers turn their expectations on finding a way to fulfill those needs through their Brand interactions.
In that process of fulfillment consumers started to look for Brands that:

1) Brings more certainty to their lives.
2) Fulfills their lives with more variety, by surprise them more often.
3) Helps them be more relevant and state their personalities.
4) Helps them connect better and more.
5) Teaches them stories, help them learn and growth.
6) Brings more love to their lives.

All brand interactions, to be relevant, must to be aligned and aware of this endless search. And I think that's the real deal behind the cliché: Bring meaning to people's lives.

Think about your interactions. Is your Brand ready?

... Maybe they got lost?

Pão de Açucar is a Brazilian supermarket known by its premium positioning, and prices a little above the competition.It holds a good product mix and it claims to provide a good organized enviromnent and 10 graded service.
With stores 24hs open and always near you, they promote the "Convenience and comfort at any time" experience.

Brand Promisse: "It's your way. The way you like it."

A Brand which aims to provide this kind of experience cannot make basic mistakes at its touchpoints with the consumer. As i am insisting in my posts: A good experience is the one you can manipulate and control. Coincidences are not included.

The Pão de Açucar holding has acquired a lot of companies recently and its brand portfolio had grown substancially, as follow.


Besides that brands it recently bought "Ponto Frio" a huge chain of eletronics store.

Let's take a look at a consumer journey in a Pão de Açucar store.

Time: 0:30
Store: Ana Rosa (São Paulo)

1) The shopping cart.
In a premium supermarket the shopping cart should not be a problem for the consumer. This is the basics for any supermarket. Shopping carts are critical touchpoints in the consumer experience.
It is clear that this shopcart is in bad, bad shape.

2) Entrance hall
The moment you go into the store you face the fruits hall. In the picture you can see the stock "refill" boxes that stands in the way of the consumers.


3) Corridors
Full of boxes, difficult to move the shoppingcart.



4) Products Shelfs
Empty shelfs all the way through the store.


This is a private label Brand.

5) Checkout
Paper Boxes instead of plastic bags.But paper boxes that once holded products. Not special "takeaway" boxes.



6) Parking lot




After speak with some employees here are some things that they told us:
1) Bad timing.
2) Running with less employees
3) Paper Boxes are for sustainability purpose.
4) Corridors are not so messy.
5) At that hour it was always like that.

Brand Promisse: "It's your way. The way you like it."


... Maybe they got lost?

Innovation… Now what?

For a long time now people have been talking about Innovation. Thereʼs no doubt about the buzz this word has generated already. What is often left behind is the “how” part of it.

So letʼs say… “Yes I know I need to Innovate”… but now What? Really, now what?

Pure R&D will not put you on the right track. Innovation is not about invention, innovation is about people and what is really relevant to them. And thatʼs where (and why) Design must come first when the subject is Innovation.

Design is also about people. And even better than that, design is about transform ordinary things in peopleʼs preferred ones. And on that Design have done a lot in terms of bringing meaning to peopleʼs life.

But how Design can be integrated in the process of Innovation in a way it helps bring innovation to Life? And by innovation I mean: Things that you had never seen before, but that after you experiment it on your life, it becomes part of who you are. (e.g. The iPod. Ok… itʼs an old case, but it is still a major and effective one). The whole Design process and the way it tackles problems, and not just aesthetics, is what will lead you to the path of building (really) innovative solutions.

Design Research, Design Thinking and Design Strategy are three good examples of Design fields that are not directly correlated to aesthetics and can be used to construct the basis of a well-balanced innovation strategy.

Also consider that by Innovation I donʼt only mean products, but also services. You can, and please should, design innovative services if you are interested in promoting a differentiated Brand experience. This is the equivalent of saying, “If you are still interested in surviving”, these days.
Every Product and Service Design to be effective in a world of rapid commoditization must be constructed considering four basic aspects:

1) Human
2) People
3) Culture
4) Brand.

By designing from the basic principles of human centric usability, then take in consideration peopleʼs behavior, then include social and cultural aspects and then dig deep on the Brand essence, right channels and signals you will be on the right track to do something extraordinary. Yep… not so easy as just buzz around about Innovation, but become a “doer” instead of just a “talker”, will certainly pay-off.

(article released at WENOVSKI design thinkers network)