We live in an era obsessed with overlying.
Technological billionaires presented themselves as the only architects of progress, preaching the virtues of moving quickly and breaking things. Eager to imitate this state of mind, companies continue the disturbances at all costs.
But here is the irony: the marketing teams have spent the last decade Move quickly and break thingsOnly to find yourself stuck in an endless fixing cycle. Fixation of broken analyzes. Fixing Martech batteries disconnected. Fixing of fractured messaging. Nothing is never complete enough to define a new standard.
Somewhere along the way, the teams have lost the value of the humble process of defining a process.
The actor David Mitchell offered this Funny observation On the British game Would I lie to you?::
“One of the codes in which I live my life is that my appearance should in no case be remarkable. But then again, not as inatteal as being remarkable in itself. »»
David explained his code with the example of a person who carries a gray tie which is so colorful, so little worthy of division, that it becomes really remarkable in itself.
I thought of David’s “code” when someone sent me An article Inc. A few years ago, this content opposed (and the disruptive iconoclasts that go against the grain of conventional processes to create it) against predictable processes (and people who follow them).
I will explain how I think this is linked to the Mitchell life code. But first, a little diatribe. (You can watch it in the video below or read it – with even more details – here)
Contents vs processes
The article Inc. warns organizations not to ignore the “hyper-performance”. Ok, could you say, who would discuss differently?
But what prompted my rant is the poor characterization of hyper-performance on the basis of a quote that the article mentions An interview of the mid -1990s With Steve Jobs:
“I found that the best people are the ones who really understand the content. (By “content”, think of what really stimulates your business.) And it is pain in the ass to manage. But you support it because they are so great in content. And that’s what makes excellent products. It is not a process. It’s happy. “”
Can you think of anyone who draws attention to how it is good to disturb the status quo and create value, but which is also pain to manage?
In the interview, Jobs told how Apple’s engineering team told her that she would need five years to develop the mouse, and each would cost $ 300 to build. He therefore hired an external company that developed one in 90 days that would cost $ 15 to win.
A remarkable achievement. But later in the interview, Jobs implies that the process always embarks innovation:
“Companies are confused. They want to reproduce initial success, and many of them think there is magic in the process. Thus, they try to institutionalize the processes, and for a long time, people are confused that the process is content. »»
It’s bad.
The process and content must be balanced for one or the other to obtain remarkable results. Any remarkable content – including the content of a product And The experiential content created by marketing – is built on standardized, Reproducible process.
Jobs has recognized the need in an innovative way to develop the mouse because the standard and well understood processes have informed its engineers that the type of mouse job sought would take five years and cost $ 300. But having this well understood process in place allowed him to recognize this need.
Finding a business to design a cheap mouse in 90 days was only step 1. The success came because Apple developed this mouse quickly and then Improvement of its existing reproducible process to establish a new standard for mouse production.
The creative solution And The reproducible process made it work.
Jobs could only know that the development of a cheap mouse in 90 days was innovative because Apple engineers had already established a standard.
Why do content and marketing need both
Most organizations have at least a few hyper -performance in content – creative or in terms of stars that destroy their butts to create remarkable things.
In some organizations, these creators do not have content or processes to follow. In others, hyper-performs are excused from the process established to avoid disturbing their disturbance.
Without a standard operational process to establish what “remarkable” looks like, organizations find it difficult to identify the value that these star employees generate.
Let’s say you are a New content leader In a company where product, brand and public relations marketing teams all produce informed leadership in the plans of each other. Consequently, the content is often in conflict.
You might conclude that there is no hope of changing the functioning of these hyper -performances focused on iconoclastic content – so why create a process?
It’s a mistake.
Without a standard way to do things (a process), the company cannot determine which The content must be prioritized or eliminated controversy. Everyone decides what the “remarkable content” of an individual or team lens looks like. When someone says, “It sucks”, and someone else says: “It’s great”, they both have reason – because no standard exists.
Some might say, “Leave the performance data Decide. “But without standard process, the data is not sufficient.
For example, you cannot determine if the content has worked well or bad unless each part was following a workbench Distribution and promotion process. You will not know if success or failure had more to do with the content itself or the promotion of it. Has it failed because it was not effectively promoted, or did he only succeed because of a large promotional campaign?
Have a hyper-performer disruptor?
The promotion of generative AI as “hyper-performance” in the proverbial content room illustrates my point.
For example, Openai advised people To invite its new models of reasoning in a particular way. But as Mike Kaput Marketing Ai Institute notes in a recent post LinkedIn, many say they opposite From what the OpenAi advice produces higher results.
Who is right? Everyone.
Only humans can attribute a sense to chatgpt or any generating AI output. And people use their own experience learned to determine the “superior” results.
If you do not have an established process to assess the output, whatever the output you believe superior, is higher. It’s like asking if one film is better than another. You might have a view while someone else holds another. Everyone is right.
Standard processes show where innovate
Taiichi Ohno, who launched the Toyota production system, said one day: “Without standard, there can be no improvement.”
This is why the pressure for remarkable content in modern marketing must find a balance with a collaborative process. Some of the most high -performance professionals I have met are managers who have created a business level method to develop creative efforts.
It is the process, the standard and the commercial approach as usual which allows them to see the possibility of innovation. Yes, it is Shakes things. He does it to design.
It is easy to see the value in the innovative superstar that does not want to comply with the process but frequently creates incredibly precious things.
However, you do not see how remarkable the results compared to the results of the content created in a coherent and large -scale way.
The process and content must work together symbiotically.
Disturbances of the welcome process
I would bet money that Apple engineers were not a bunch of terrads who did not understand it. They were probably extraordinarily competent people who looked at the situation and said: “This is what she currently takes.”
Would they have been opened to investigate the means of improving and innovating the process? Jobs does not say.
If they weren’t, then Jobs makes a good point to bring innovation to someone who could innovate the process to the extreme. A process is as strong as its ability to evolve and improve.
Your process should in no case be remarkable but not so inattatating that it is in itself remarkable.
An excellent content process is like an excellent plumbing: invisible and adaptable. It should promote improvisation and innovation by allowing the integration of remarkable exceptions.
And that brings me to my ultimate defense of the person in the process in relation to the content person. An innovative process East (or can be) content itself (that is to say the content of a great strategy).
Remarkable and standardized processes need unique and ready -to -use thought, design and execution associated with large products. And the teams responsible for the process are no less precious or innovative than those who think the things that the process will produce.
The members of your team will not create remarkable content every day. But on the days they do, your process will help you recognize, repeat and improve it.
It’s your story. Say it well.
Updated from a story of March 2023.
Conversely sorted on the pane content:
Joseph Kalinowski / Content Marketing Institute cover image
