Open up your mind and say, ahh...

I am working with a client on a vision for their organization. I find
it interesting that people in leadership positions still have a
difficult time differentiating a vision from a mission–not just in
wording, but in concept.

A mission is a statement of why an organization exists. It should be short and very clear.

Even
big companies have mission and vision issues. Take The Walt Disney
Company. Disney used to have a very clear mission statement: “Make
People Happy.”

It didn’t say make people happy through animation,
or theme parks, or interactive experiences. Those are details. Its
mission was to make people happy.

Now their mission is “to be one
of the world’s leading producers and providers of entertainment and
information. Using our portfolio of brands to differentiate our content,
services and consumer products, we seek to develop the most creative,
innovative and profitable entertainment experiences and related products
in the world.”

Disney obviously hired a strategic planning consultant to help
it shape its mission statement to match the expectations of MBAs on
Wall Street. I don’t think their current statement does anything to
enhance its mission; in fact, I think it detracts because you have to
figure out what words like “differentiate” mean. They may be more
strategic and more business sounding, but do they still make people
happy? Making people happy keeps customers returning, unlike a
profitable, innovative entertainment experience. It is obvious that the
new mission statement drove investments like Disney’s California
Adventure.

And if you look at Disney assets, even ESPN could sign
up for making people happy. I was in Florida for a Patriots game once
with a bunch of people from Boston. ESPN was blaring from speakers and
shining from big screens. And the ESPN Club brought in portable taps so
they could serve people outside. They scaled up the Club, and scaling
up, and serving up Patriots football, meant people were happy.
Somebody’s vision of happy customers drove that experience.

Now to
vision. A vision isn’t a statement. A vision is a set of ideas that
describe a future state. Some organizations like “vision statements” but
I don’t find them overly useful. The future is something that an
organization must grapple with. Visions should provide a sense of
aspiration, they should stretch imagination. They should describe the
state of the organization, across its functions, not rush to summary.
Different parts of an organization may have different visions.

I
coach clients to think about vision attributes, then to think about the
capabilities required to deliver those attributes. Then I ask them to
consider how to measure progress through both metrics and a road map (a
sketch of a pathway that leads from the present to the goal).

At
the broad vision level, organizations should not try to measure their
progress. A vision statement isn’t a transformation into a future
mission.

Let me go back to the simple version of Disney. Making
people happy doesn’t change–ever (unless mergers and acquisitions cause
you to hire a consultant that helps put big words into the board’s
collective mouths). But let’s consider that Disney still wants to make
people happy.

Their vision may include:

• Be the leader in the delivery of entertainment experiences.
• Be the premier channel for sports experiences and information.

Those
aren’t the same, but Disney is a complex company. It is okay to have
vision statements that align with business units. And as the vision
becomes more granular, it should include elements that can be measured.

For
the first item, they would include theme parks, hotel properties, ice
shows, movies, video games, and a number of other things. Each of which
would imply a set of capabilities, and a set or measures to determine
progress (quantitative and qualitative).

The next discussion
sometimes includes a statement like: “That isn’t a vision, we are
already the leader in entertainment experiences, and have been for
years.”

Well yes, you may be the leader, but if you want to stay
one, shouldn’t you restate it as part of your vision? A vision is not
just about growing, but about maintaining. If the vision doesn’t include
“being a leader in the delivery of entertainment experiences,” what does
that mean for those parts of the business? Is there some future state
that is better than being a leader? Are we abandoning those businesses,
or deinvesting so we are just “mediocre in the delivery of entertainment
experiences”?

In fact, there was a time when Disney kind of lost
its collective soul, in the early to mid-1980s when box office share
dwindled to less than 4% and it turned down films like Raiders of the Lost Ark and ET–and was the target of investment raiders. Theme parks became real
estate and their movies uninspired. Poor management was reflected in a
poor understanding of vision and mission. Happy people were no longer
center stage.

The bottom line on vision, then, is to recognize the
complexities of the business and create visions for areas that are
meaningful to internal and external constituencies, and make sure these
visions are consistent with the mission. Grapple with the future. If the
vision is 10 years out, you don’t have to understand how to achieve it
today, but you do need to start prioritizing investments, including
learning investments, that dip toes into the future so you really
understand what the organization will need to achieve the vision. And
the state that eventually arrives in a decade may be very different than
what was documented 10 years prior, but by then, the vision should be
another 10 years ahead. A vision should help inform direction and help
set priorities. It should be not be unchanging. As organizations learn,
they need to adjust and adapt, and reflect that learning in the vision.
That is why scenarios are so important: They help you practice different
futures in which the vision might unfold–each scenario requiring
different tactics and strategies.

Any vision that stays the same
for a decade fails as a vision. Visions should be used every time an
investment or deinvestment decision is made, and if parts prove no
longer valid, or if the world presents new opportunities, then the
vision should be updated. Visioning is a process, not an output. You can
share your vision with people, but it should be shared with the caveat
that it is updated regularly, and with the request: “Please share your
thoughts, because we are always open to new perspectives and better ways
to think about our future.” That approach will not only make the vision
more meaningful and resilient, it will make the organization behave as a
learning organization, and that may just be part of its vision.

Image: Flickr user Joe Penniston

Music pirates: They’re the scourge of many a band, especially when it comes to a new album release. They’re also the villains in Incubus’s new retrostyle game, Incubattle.

Incubattle, recalling cartridge games of old, launches Thursday to promote the band‘s new album, If Not Now, When?.

The plot is simple: Stop a bunch of thuggish pirates from stealing your new album by engaging in good old-fashioned fisticuffs. Just choose a band member avatar to get started on your mission, which is scored with tracks from Incubus’s new album (in chiptunes style).

Any fans of retro gaming will certainly enjoy this diversion. It’s similar in style to Das Racist’s 8-byte music video for “Who’s That Brown?”

The game is just another piece of Incubus’s social media-flavored album release campaign, which included an interactive live stream, a partnership with video-sharing app Viddy and a stint on Formspring, among another initiatives.

Exhibitor Magazine ran a feature story on new media and how it is changing the world of event marketing. In our discussion, we expanded the scope beyond events to discuss how people were forcing the evolution of business overall. The result is something quite profound. People are now taking control of their online experiences driven by how they connect and to whom in the social web. This shift changes how people find, share and discovery information within their networks of relevance and also reshapes the decision making process while influencing new behavior and outcomes.

People are now at the center of their very own egosystem and as a result, businesses are forced to evolve market strategies from a singular focus of creation to a holistic approach of co-creation.

The story begins here…

The 3F’s

Fans, friends, followers — these three relatively pedestrian words have recently gained new meaning and power amid the social-media revolution. A revolution that, for all intents and purposes, has been perpetuated by Facebook and Twitter. The “three Fs,” as author and sociologist Brian Solis calls them, are the new return on investment for marketers. However, measuring social-media return isn’t as simple as adding up your fans, friends, and followers and calling it a day. Rather, it’s about defining what, exactly, those three Fs mean to your company and, ultimately, your exhibit and event program.

In his book, “Engage! The Complete Guide for Brands and Business to Build, Cultivate, and Measure Success in the New Web,” Solis explains how to attach relevant value to the 3F’s, and why they’re important players in the movement he has dubbed “the socialization of business.”

EXHIBITOR Magazine: What do you think accounts for the mystique surrounding social-media marketing? That is, why are companies struggling with how to set goals for their social-media efforts, and measure the results?

Brian Solis: Social media is a tool we — people, attendees, individuals — brought to the table, and something we deemed worthy of our time, focus, and attention. That interest created a groundswell and forced a bottom-up revolution. Companies are struggling with how to set goals and measure results because there aren’t established processes, methodologies, best practices, or even case studies to demonstrate how social media influences marketing. So, while companies often recognize the opportunities to incorporate social media into their marketing efforts, very few have the answers as to why it works.

Compare that to conventional marketing and sales, which are established and known quantities. The tactics, strategies, and metrics associated with them have been proven successful and thus introduced to us, and have been something we’ve had to master versus something we had a hand in creating. The mistake marketers make is that they try to bring traditional tactics (how to reach an audience, target a demographic, etc.) to social media. It simply won’t work because there isn’t “one” audience to target anymore. It’s been replaced by a series of interconnected groups. Basically, social media set out to revolutionize everything marketers were working against.

EM: How can marketers respond to this revolution?

Brian: Social media are just channels to reach people. The opportunities are as diverse as existing and potential customers. But what’s to say those individuals want to connect with your company? As a marketer, you have to define the basis of that connection. The mindset now is that all you have to do is set up a Twitter account, set up a Facebook account, and set up a blog, and you’ll magically reach that one audience. In reality, that’s not how it works.

As consumers, you and I are setting up our own information networks. How we learn and what we share with others is governed by those with whom we connect via social media. Before, people used to visit websites to find information, but now people expect information to come to them. This is the foundation of the social-media revolution. You have to ask yourself, “Who am I trying to reach (attendees, partners, speakers)? Where are they going for information (Facebook, Twitter, blogs)?” and then design your marketing programs around reaching each one of those segments.

EM: There is a section in your book that talks about “connecting from the heart.” Why is it important to establish an emotional connection with a social-media audience?

Brian: The social-media landscape is essentially personal. Look at what people are sharing and responding to on Facebook, Twitter, and blogs. If you looked at a word cloud based on what people are posting, you would find that the most often used words always have something to do with emotion. That’s because social media is emotional, and it’s all about the individual. When you introduce classic marketing and sales to a platform that’s personal and emotional, you’re going to be met with resistance, hate, anger, and resentment because you represent everything they’re moving away from. This is when research and empathy are important.

As a marketer, you have to spend time learning the emotional touchpoints of your audience. That’s how you, as a marketer, enter the discussion. Spark a series of conversations and introduce solutions in a social network that’s relevant to your audience, and you’ll earn a place within that community. And, ultimately, you can turn emotional aspects into tangible metrics and tactics. The practice of social media is an earned privilege. Your relationships and stature in that community are all a reflection of what you’ve earned through participation.

EM: How do you leverage relationships to reach your marketing goals?

Brian: Conversations take place with or without you. Facebook and Twitter just allow you to peer into conversations to see what people are thinking and saying. What you see is people talking. However, what do we, as marketers, do with this information? We sit around our conference table and come up with messages and strategies to try and convince our audience that we are what we say we are. Eventually, we start to detach from what we’re trying to do, and end up alienating that audience because we’re obsessed with ourselves and what we want to say, rather than thinking about what our audience wants (and needs) to hear.

Social media is just that — social. So how do you take what your company offers and present it to your audience via social media? Start with your mission statement. Ask yourself “Would I tweet it? Would I see that and retweet that?” The answer is probably “No.” Social media are massive networks rich with common experiences. Tie your mission statement to that idea, and you have a much higher probability of earning attention. After all, that’s what it’s all about — getting attention.

EM: How can companies make the transition from simply using social media to get attention, to actually benefiting from social media?

Brian: What companies are doing now is just what they think they’re supposed to be doing. It’s completely reactionary. You have to understand what you’re trying to accomplish before you can figure out how to benefit from social media. What is your mission? What is your higher purpose? It probably has something to do with creating better customer and attendee experiences through your events and exhibits, and ultimately increasing sales.

ROI is elusive when you look at it as the number of engagements or Twitter followers. What’s the return on those fans, friends, and followers? Nothing, because they don’t carry substantive value. You have to focus on the return you want, which is likely increased sales. So think about how you can use social media to increase sales, and work backwards.

For example, let’s say you launch a Facebook campaign to get 1,000 “likes” for your brand page. You make your goal of 1,000, but what’s to say those people will attend your event or even visit the page at a later date? You have to offer them something of value in order to create a social consumer. That social consumer might then provide feedback on the event and even influence peers to attend. Figure out what your audience wants, and give it to them — over and over. You have to give them a reason to both connect and come back.

EM: Are there any secrets to achieving social-media success?

Brian: After working in social engagement since the mid-90s, one thing I’ve realized is that I have yet to create a template. People are different, and you have to consider what influences them and what motivates them. Social media represents the socialization of business — it’s of the people and for the people. So you have to engage those people in order to build a larger, social-minded community for your company, which means you have to learn a new way to communicate.

Instead of casting a fishing line to lure people in, you have to go to people and actually steer their actions and experiences. This has its inherent disadvantages because you’re not as in control as you like, but at the same time, not everyone is a leader. Some people are still looking for insight and direction, and marketers now have a platform to provide that.

But ultimately, it comes back to the three Fs — that’s where the future of social media lies. Fans, friends, and followers are becoming intensely influential, and are, in essence, becoming the brand, which is why earning a place in the social-networking community is imperative for today’s marketers.

CONTINUING EDUCATION

With chapters such as Defining the Rules of Engagement, The Social Marketing Compass, and Unveiling the New Influencers, Engage! The Complete Guide for Brands and Business to Build, Cultivate, and Measure Success in the New Web serves as a veritable social-media textbook for marketers and business strategists. That’s because it goes beyond simply stating the case for social media, it outlines how professionals should be using it to create communities, promote brand awareness, and harness the power of a new crop of influencers. And that’s just the beginning. Additional chapters dissect everything from planning to vendor-relationship management and social-media metrics — all within the framework of explaining what, exactly, all this information means to business.

SpaceX is ready to develop a manned version of its successful Dragon spacecraft and has unveiled some of its plans to become the first commercial company to deliver people into orbit. The company became the first to successfully recover a spacecraft from orbit after its launch of the Dragon on December 8. Now the company wants to move forward with its plans to develop a version of the capsule capable of carrying astronauts.

Shortly after last month’s flight, SpaceX submitted a proposal to NASA’s Commercial Crew Development Program. The Dragon has been designed since the beginning to carry passengers and the company says the only things needed to make it crew capable is an abort system, environmental controls and seats.
The first step for SpaceX is to develop the launch abort system. The company says it plans to use an integrated design that will stay with the Dragon spacecraft throughout the mission. This is different than the tractor tower designs used on the Mercury and Apollo rockets that were dumped a few minutes after lift off. The NASA design is the very tip of the rocket that resembles a small missile on top of the capsule.

SpaceX says an integrated system is safer because there is no need for the abort system to be separated from the spacecraft during flight. The tractor tower system used by NASA required the abort system to separate in order for crew survival.

The Dragon spacecraft after its successful orbital mission in December.

Another advantage of having an integrated system is the rocket can also be used to contr

ol the return flight to landing. By keeping the abort rocket on the spacecraft throughout the mission, the thrust can be used for precise land landing if needed. Parachutes would always be on board as well for redundancy.

SpaceX founder Elon Musk has said it could cost as much as $1 billion to develop a crew capable Dragon spacecraft. This includes hardware development and test missions. While this is a large number, NASA has a contract just for six rides in 2013-14 and the tab is $335 million. NASA is expected to spend somewhere around a billion dollars over the next several years buying seats on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft to transport astronauts and equipment to and from the International Space Station.

A map of the ground track from the December flight. The triangle represents separation from the rocket and the square is the touchdown point.

The recent submission to NASA is for research funds to continue development of the crew capable Dragon. SpaceX says following the “100 percent” successful flight in December, there are at least 11 more scheduled flights for the Dragon and 17 more flights for the Falcon 9 launch vehicle before the first manned Dragon flight.

Images/Video: SpaceX

1. For the money
2. To be challenged
3. For the pleasure/calling of doing the work
4. For the impact it makes on the world
5. For the reputation you build in the community
6. To solve interesting problems
7. To be part of a group and to experience the mission
8. To be appreciated

Why do we always focus on the first? Why do we advertise jobs or promotions as being generic on items 2 through 8 and differentiated only by #1?

In fact, unless you’re a drug kingpin or a Wall Street trader, my guess is that the other factors are at work every time you think about your work. (PS Happy Birthday Corey.)

With the launch of 501 Mission Place comes the same conversation about whether it’s right to charge a nonprofit for education. My thoughts on this have always been the same: nonprofits are businesses with a cause in mind. They consume services and products just like other businesses. They deserve some consideration in such matters, but free isn’t the only price point with a nonprofit.

Nonprofits Need Money to Run

The same people who complain that someone charges a nonprofit for a product or a service are the same people who hit me up multiple times a month for donations or support for their cause. Yep, at the very heart of every nonprofit is a need to sustain itself through donations and grants. I donate plenty of my own money every month to various causes (mostly homeless, children, autism, and cancer). One goal of 501 Mission Place is to help people improve their ability to raise more funds in a sustainable way. After another conversation with a CFO for nonprofits, we’re even going to look into conversations of budget and money management.

Nonprofits Buy From For-Profits All the Time

Having talked to people who run charities and nonprofits, there are all kinds of operation and infrastructure expenses built into such organizations. The goal is to minimize overhead so that more of the donated money goes to the target cause, but there’s always some overhead. Education is a decent kind of overhead because it’s the kind that hopes to provide a yield for the expense. As I run into nonprofits at events all the time, I know that they buy conference tickets and airfare and hotels and pay for meals. 501 Mission Place is a for-profit platform that offers a reduced rate from most online education community platforms (most of the other HBW platforms will cost $47 a month, so we took almost 50% off the rate to be sensitive to a nonprofit’s budget).

Ultimately, it’s a Decision

You don’t have to pay for 501 Mission Place. You can visit several great free resources all over the web. chrisbrogan.com is free, by the way. I write about nonprofits here every once in a while, and other stuff I write for businesses is still applicable to nonprofits. I’m a huge fan of NTEN, so check that out, too. Whether or not you decide to spend your money on 501 Mission Place is your choice, and I respect your choice.

Money Isn’t Evil

Every nonprofit and charity I know needs money to exist. They shut down all the time from lack of money. Seems to me that money is the lifeblood of every nonprofit I know, because just sitting around wearing ribbons and wanting to change the world isn’t really helping many people, is it? Systems need resources to survive. I charge a small amount of money per month with the goal that you’ll figure out ways to make much more than that for your organization based on the information the group gives you.

Decide for Yourself

I invite you to join 501 Mission Place, where we help nonprofits figure out how to grow, help with your specific challenges, and give you a network of engaged people seeking to take on the world’s issues and bring them to a new level. With our leader and facilitator, Estrella Rosenberg, and a bunch of smart minds like John Haydon, Marc Pitman, Rob Hatch, and you, we’ll do what we can to improve your cause’s effectiveness.

It’ll cost you $27 to figure out whether it’s for you. That’s the cost of a hardcover book. Sometimes, books are great but don’t apply to us. Not everyone got what they needed from Trust Agents, and that’s okay. So, you decide. Swing by 501 Mission Place and see what’s taking shape. We’re already hard at work trying to give people their money’s worth.