Via Scoble, a great post on A VC about Apple becoming a "they" company.
"We" companies are built by and for a community of users..."They" companies are traditional companies that seek to optimize profitability at the expense of everything else.
Microsoft is the poster child for a "they" company. Craigs List is the poster child for a "we" company. Apple used to be a "we" company. I love Apple as I've blogged about many times. I still do. But Apple is not a "we" company any more.
One of the comments by Matt Schulte goes on to say:
I think Apple has always been a "they" company. I think the "blogosphere" and a more media-savvy public is making it more difficult for the "public-facing" part of a company to present/market themselves as a "we" company, when their actions say "they" company. People have been preaching "transparency" as a part of the code of doing business today, and the blogosphere is bringing that transparency to businesses whether they want it or not. So...the divide between how a company presents itself to the public, and what kind of company it 'really is' is dissolving...companies are getting transparentized. Zap.
"Zap" is right. All this talk of transparency reminds me of the classic scene in The Wizard of Oz where Toto pulls back the curtain on the wizard. He's furiously working his controls and microphone to operate the big talking head: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
If you believe that transparency is a fad, or an option, or a warm and fuzzy buzzword, think again. What you believe doesn't matter. There are millions of Totos running around the blogosphere; they've got good noses for men behind curtains. And nothing pleases them more than to see another talking head fall.
My definition of a brand is an idea in the minds of your customers... and that idea is formed by what you say and what you do. As Matt pointed out, the blogosphere is shining a bright light on the gap between how a company presents itself and who a company "really is." Social technologies like blogs and community forums are forcing us to completely rethink the traditional tenets of brand management.
Transparency will happen to your company whether you like it or not. One obvious question to ask yourself is, how embarrassed will you be when your curtain is pulled back? If there are aspects of your business practice you'd rather customers not know, you might consider addressing them now. For example, in the land-line telecom industry, there are taxes and surcharges you're paying on your bill that are not mandated by the FCC and not passed on to the government; phone companies can discount the line price, jack up the fees and make the same amount of money while giving the illusion of a discount. Another example is Blockbuster's new "no late fees" program, for which it's now getting sued for false advertising claims. Bottom line: if you've got a business practice that you feel needs a "marketing spin job" to get customers to buy it, then it's time to reconsider. Gone are the glory days when you could safely hide behind a curtain.
But even if you have nothing to hide, chances are that customers are still distrustful. And they're tired of 'business as usual' where they don't have a voice. At this point, your best option is to come out from behind the curtain and make friends. Be proactive. Reveal the humanity behind the talking head. Start a company blog, or enable your employees to do so. Engage in dialogue. Become a "we" company instead of a "they" company. These open actions, more than anything else, will differentiate you from your competitors who are hiding behind official press releases, suing their customers and refusing to listen.
So in light of this new transparency trend, what does it mean for companies like Apple that have depended on keeping new innovations a secret until launch time? Are secrets (even good ones) possible -- or desirable -- in the new transparent marketplace?
Jennifer Rice
Andy Lark
Johnnie Moore
John Winsor
1. jbr on March 22, 2005 02:47 PM writes...
Glad to see you back! Like your analogy and have a couple of observations.
A "they" environment may be more of a function of a company history/way of doing things. Maybe, the "they" company wants to be a "we", but they are trapped by their processes and structures. There are many, many people behind various curtains and each curtain represents their piece of the process/structure. The curtain also represents their desire to keep people away from their piece or fiefdom.
So, inside "they" companies, you have all of these folks hiding behind curtains, comfortable within their box and levers. In my mind, these are the more likely culprits for an entrenched "they" culture/stance. Even the rather simple act of starting a blog becomes a major ordeal as a Toto has to run the gamut of getting approvals. Laughingly, even if everyone agrees that a blog is a good idea, Toto must still make a business case for the blog. Bottomline, Toto gets tired from pulling back all of these curtains!
Possibly, the folks in Cupertino want to be "we", but they don't have enough internal Totos for the amount of curtains involved. I suspect there are many Totos in that land, but it will take them some time to find and pull back these curtains. Depending upon the size of the company, blog adoption/transparency will vary. I really believe most companies want the "we" environment, but these entrenched wizards behind the curtain can be difficult to expose/change.
Even as the blogdom doubles in size every 5-7 months, there is still an inertia to overcome within corporate environs. Overcoming inertia won't be as easy as closing your eyes and clicking your heels 3 times. It will take the work of Totos running around inside of the corporation, moving curtains until all wizards are exposed. Only then will we be on the road to Transparent, KS.
Permalink to Comment2. Marty on March 22, 2005 06:24 PM writes...
I'm all for exposing nefarious doings and shady marketing practices at Apple or any other company. But exposing specs for unannounced products and the like? That's just silly. There's no public interest served by snooping around and revealing that kind of stuff; all these people are doing is inadvertently providing help to Apple'c competitors. They "love" Apple the way a stalker "loves" his quarry.
That said, I do agree with those who say Apple has always been a "they" company. And just because customers have built a "we" culture around it, there is no automatic right to insider info on the company's plans.
Permalink to Comment3. Debra Owen on March 22, 2005 06:41 PM writes...
A bunch of totos running around pulling back curtains to expose evil wizards? That sounds rather paranoid to me.
Companies, in the end, are still companies. They are still there for a profit and there's nothing evil about that.
And I agree (and wrote earlier this afternoon) with Marty that Apple has always been a 'they' company, but the users created their (our) own 'we' feel.
Permalink to Comment4. Tom Guarriello on March 22, 2005 10:22 PM writes...
I'm struck by the construction you've chosen here, because it reminds me of two of my favorite thinkers.
When I think of "we" companies, I'm reminded of Buber's notion of "I/thou" relationships. In them, the unique nature of our existence is mutually affirmed.
When I think of "they" companies, I'm reminded of Heidegger's notion of the "they," in which anonymous selves engage in impersonal discourse, in which I relate to others as my most inauthentic self.
Are these constructions relevant to our relationships to companies?
Historically, I'd say, "no." We've come to see companies as anonymous, impersonsal things with which we conduct transactions for our (relative) mutual benefit. "Caveat emptor" speaks to the lack of care at the heart of those transactions.
But in the modern era, is it possible to enter into an authentic, "I/thou" relationship with a corporation? Is it possible to have a caring relationship with a company? What would such a relationship look/feel like? Who does what for whom?
These are the kinds of questions that arise as we begin to explore new ways of thinking about commerce in the context of relationship.
But the necessary transformations are enormous.
Permalink to Comment5. Deb on March 22, 2005 11:04 PM writes...
Tom,
Interesting thoughts you have there.
"They" and "we" and "us" and "them". I don't understand the need for all this anyway. "They" employ "us". "They" are sometimes really good for "us". It's not all "them" taking advantage of "us".
"They", in the case of Apple, didn't even create "us". "We" created an "us" all on our own (the users). (see my blog)
And yes. A company is a company. It's an "it". It's not a "we" or an "us" or a "them" or whatever. It's a company. And yes, it's meant to make a profit. And if someone 'good' starts a company and it turns into one that touches and becomes a part of 'our' lives and holds true to that, great!
But 'we' don't care about 'them' more than 'they' care about 'us'. I mean, really. Think about it. Are 'we' truly loyal? (Outside, of course, my unbelievable loyalty to Apple til they die.)
I will use a personal example.
I will be going to a meeting next month in Atlanta. The meeting will be in Buckhead, and we'll be right next to Lenox. To those traveling with me, they think "Oh...yeah...another mall...yippee." (deadpan, of course)
Me? Well, I used to live in Atlanta. I used to go to Lenox with my mom and my grandmother. Stories are told in my family about how I liked to walk in and tell them (in my "Kennedy-esque" early-70's kid gear that they would dress me in) that there would be "3 for lunch, please". Nevermind the time that I walked up and asked if the woman in cosmetics would page them because "THEY" were lost.
But here's the thing. That hostess indulged my 6-year-old-ness in seating the "3 for lunch". And the woman at the cosmetics counter really did page them and treat me, even at that age, with respect and admiration.
And now I'll be back there. My grandmother is ill. And I'll be back there. And the reason I remember it with such respect is the way that those people acted. The way those 'employees' behaved. I'm a bit afraid that when I go back I'll be ignored.
In the end, we were dealing with a company.
But that's the glory of the 'brand'.
In the place I work now, we're trying to figure out how to get this across. Everyone now says "we treat people well". The difference is, we do. (And I'm a cynical witch so I never would have believed it, but we do.)
Do I believe utter transparency is necessary? That the two people offended because I just used the word "utter" be indulged and catered to? No. In fact, I'm completely against that.
And I'm against it because I agree with your point that a company is, indeed, a company. And a company, despite waht some people hope, is ultimately about profit.
But can we have 'relationships'? Real ones?
I think we can. Sometimes, as in the case with Apple, those relationships come in the form of the fabulous and unbreakable bond of users.
But I think there has to be a balance.
We cannot pretend to be appalled that companies are about making money. We also cannot pretend that the relationship we have with companies or clients are more than business relationships.
I might remember with complete adoration those women who bore my asking them to page my elders when I was six. And that created a sense of relationship and loyalty and memory within me. Then again, when I go back, I could be completely ignored, snubbed. And while I will want to remember the experience I had in the past, I won't be getting angry and blaming the company.
Maybe they need more of an understanding about branding and experience and what all that entails. Or maybe I'll just have to accept that things aren't what they used to be, and that the company is there (SHOCK!) to make money. Because that's usually what they're there for.
A balance of both would be a dream.
Permalink to Comment6. jbr on March 23, 2005 12:09 AM writes...
Evil wizards? How did we get evil from this analogy? The Wizard of Oz wasn't evil, just a guy doing his job in the manner that had always worked. Once he came out from "behind the curtain" and had a conversation ( heard of Cluetrain? ) with Dorothy, he helped her as best he could. Don't read more into the analogy than what is stated.
Simply stated, I am saying that most corporations are inherently good and likely desire a "we" state. People within a company may unintentionally prohibit the progress from "they" to "we" due to our inherent trait to resist change. As stated, the "curtain" represents a person's piece of the corporate structure/process. If moving from "they" to "we" somehow threatens to unveil the "curtain", then the human nature kicks in and the necessary changes either don't occur or they occur at a much slower pace.
So, if someone was reading carefully, it would be somewhat clear that I am defending Apple more than portraying them as an evil corporation. Other than the Enron's and WorldCom's of the world, I don't see many corporations as bad. I see them as sometimes hamstrung by their well meaning employees who fear change. Any company that is trying to reach Transparent, KS is going to face internal resistance. Call them witches, flying monkeys, munchkins or wizards behind the curtain. The key is to find them, converse with them and understand them.
Jennifer, the more I think about it, the Wizard of Oz is a great analogy for business use. No doubt, it will show up again down the road. So many metaphors that really resonate with the blogosphere. Wonder which 3 blog luminaries would be the Lion, the Strawman and the Cowardly Lion? Thanks for pointing it out.
Permalink to Comment7. jbr on March 23, 2005 12:13 AM writes...
whoops! that would be the Cowardly lion, the Tinman and the Strawman. i hate to post a correction comment - apologies to my host.
Permalink to Comment8. JD on March 23, 2005 03:48 AM writes...
The ONLY thing Apple needs is for the FUD machines to cease and all the brain dead drones who have been brain washed by Microsoft FUD be eliminated or freed from their stupidity.
The truly informed and discerning can live and already use Apple computers.
Permalink to Comment9. Tom Asacker on March 23, 2005 10:17 AM writes...
Great minds metaphor alike? http://www.marketingprofs.com/preview.asp?file=/3/asacker1.asp
Permalink to Comment10. Peter Flaschner on March 23, 2005 01:33 PM writes...
I think "we" or "they" is subjective at the individual level. If we turn the focus from the company to the consumer (of products, ideas, politics, etc), we get a better sense of what makes the we/they difference.
Blogs and other forms of self-publishing foretell the need to change the traditional one:many communication model to a one:one model. Relationships become vastly more important. Why? We’re marketing weary, and, as Ms Rice said “nothing pleases them [us] more than to see another talking head fall.” I’m happy to see an anonymous head roll, but far less thrilled when someone I respect or trust goes down. I’m willing to cut that person a fair bit of slack.
Relationships exist between PEOPLE. Blogs are inherently human; even GM’s blog has a lot of ‘touch’. People trust people much more than they trust organizations. If I trust you, I’ll let a mistake slip (once). Mistakes are human, after all…
Blogs will affect organizations in two major ways: they will (and do) affect opinions by directly competing with the org’s mindshare (see my blog, www.peterflaschner.com for a lovely little infograph), and by bringing a human face to the org. I wonder what this will do to brands? What will happen when my relationship is with Bob Lutz instead of GM? What happens when Lutz moves on?
Permalink to Comment11. Laurence Haughton on March 23, 2005 06:26 PM writes...
As someone who has spent the last two years studying why half of all business initiatives will fall through the cracks and why half of all technology customers are thinking about switching suppliers, I see a direct connection between the blogs and following through.
Permalink to CommentNow if a company advertises that customers should expect to be delighted the blogs will be watching to see if they deliver. If an executive makes an announcement that their company will do something the blogs will be watching to see if they follow through. And all the PR flacks in the world won't shield a leaders from looking like a fraud or a hypocrite to all the world if what they say doesn't match up to what they do. Forget trade secrets, blogs will be airing the dirty laundry from behind the corporate veil. That's why some thin-skinned execs are howling.
Jeremy Bentham observed, "The closer we are watched, the better we behave."
The Blogs will be watching and that will cause companies to follow through more vigorously. As a result we'll have lower rates of customer defection, less waste, and more problems fixed before they become a disaster. That's a good thing for profits.
12. James Cherkoff on April 4, 2005 08:22 AM writes...
I had a good experience of Totos this weekend. I was booking a hotel in Rome and reviewed each one of them at VirtualTourist.com
I found all of the hotels on the site complete with photos taken by previous residents of mouldy shower curtains, tiny beds and broken lifts. And then I found one which was praised universally....which i booked.
Nothing paranoid about that.
Permalink to Comment13. jkh on April 7, 2005 05:54 AM writes...
hi.
as a european i do have my difficulties with concepts of "they companies" and "we companies".
i also always had problems in fully following naomi klein's no-logo point of view. i always felt that she overestimated the power of brands in the long run.
one can argue that the concept of brands is s.th. that companies invented to keep customers hooked onto their mediocre products and services.
but this is only half right.
if you zoom-out of today's world and take the historical perspective you will find that the history of brands (also the evolution of the concept of the brand)is more a reaction to consumer trends (looking for always new and valid indicators of trust for example) than it shows the trace of a massive seduction machine that we would eventually have to stop.
the evolution of the brand-concept shows us that marketing is moving towards the customers - not away from them.
does that mean that the "we company" will be the highest stage of evolution? no, of course not, ...for many reasons...
as someone already stated above, companies are primarily following economical goals, they are complex, they have realities that are far too real to be projected onto the surface of the market - all of us who are employees know that, those of us who are entrepreneurs know that even better.
i love that picture of the wizard of oz. and i love the discussion here about the nature of this wizard. no, he is not evil.
but in the long run his good intentions are not enough. once you have seen through the trick he has to think of a new one. please wizard, that is your job, give us a little magic.
we are not the first momos in history. blogging does not make the world more citical or better or worse. it is just a chat on the marketplace of our global village. and it can shape public opinion just like these informal chats have always done.
Permalink to Comment14. jkh on April 7, 2005 10:01 AM writes...
when i started my comment with "as a european ..." i did this for two reasons. first of all some background information always puts things into perspective.
secondly i sometimes get the feeling that in american discussions the factor "brand" is a little overemotionalised... what can i say... for some strange reason it feels like the power of brands is overestimated and at the same time there comes a little taste of guilt or bad conscience with it (well, no need for bad conscience this time :) i'd say)
marketing is not that strong. educated consumers are stronger.
Permalink to Commentwhat can i say, i believe in mankind and the rhythms of culture.