While visiting Washington DC last week, The Top Tweeter in our family (T³) sent this:

At the National Gallery. Headed to the East Bldg to see the contemporary art.9:37 AM Mar 19th from Tweetie

While I love my iPhone, I’ve not embraced Twitter and had dismissed it as completely irrelevant to my life – until T³ received this response moments later:

rohnjaymiller@patrickstrother I’m working on the re-design of the National Gallery Web site. Check out Frank’s “The Americans” while you’re there!

If only for novelty sake, we thought we should comply. Retracing our steps to return to the West Building, outer tier, we discovered the most interesting find, and only because of Twitter. I am now a believer.

Robert Frank’s The Americans is an incredible exhibit of 83 photos which portrayed life as it really was in 1950s America. This is no Mayberry or Donna Reed retrospect. His controversial style of often rough, blurred, out-of-focus foregrounds and tilted horizons captured another reality to reveal a profound sense of alienation, angst, and loneliness. I felt as if these images offered the key to understand the impending social unrest now known as the civil rights, women’s rights and gay rights movements. If only more had unlocked their minds to a new perspective.

If you can’t visit the Gallery before April 26 or the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, May 16–August 23, 2009; or the Metropolitan Museum of Art, September 22–December 27, 2009 – buy the 50th anniversary of the book. It will provide new perspective – whether you Twitter or not.

-Pat Henning

Lately I’ve been seeing numerous blogs and editorials declaring President Barack Obama a narcissist. While I can’t know for certain whether he is or isn’t a narcissist (because I’m not a qualified mental health professional), more people seem to be globbing onto this “label” with cavalier frequency to either discredit political foes or defend poor choices. Anyone else roll their eyes last year when former Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards offered that he had become “increasingly egocentric and narcissistic” as the reason he cheated on his cancer-stricken wife? And of course, there’s Bill Clinton, whose many personal shenanigans have rendered him the poster child for narcissism by many accounts. Most recently, former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has been branded narcissistic, delusional and even sociopathic in the media.

Do those labeling others as narcissists really understand what they’re saying? The main proponent of the “Obama as narcissist” theory Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. does. Considered a leading authority on Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), Vaknin has the disorder himself and authored one of the first books on the subject: Malignant Self Love–Narcissism Revisited. But others seem to use the term narcissist in place of the expletive they might prefer to use, if that expletive could see daylight in print.

What exactly is a narcissist? According to the Washington, D.C.-based American Psychiatric Association, someone could be diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (pathological narcissism)–if they meet at least five of the following nine criteria.

1. Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates accomplishments, talents, skills, contacts, and personality traits to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).
2. Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance, bodily beauty or sexual performance, or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion.
3. Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions).
4. Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation–or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious.
5. Feels entitled. Demands automatic and full compliance with his or her unreasonable expectations for special and favorable priority treatment.
6. Is “interpersonally exploitative,” i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends.
7. Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with, acknowledge, or accept the feelings, needs, preferences, priorities, and choices of others.
8. Constantly envious of others and seeks to hurt or destroy the objects of his or her frustrations. Suffers from persecutory (paranoid) delusions as he or she believes that they feel the same about him or her and are likely to act similarly.
9. Behaves arrogantly and haughtily. Feels superior, omnipotent, omniscient, invincible, immune, “above the law”, and omnipresent (magical thinking). Rages when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted by people he or she considers inferior to him or her and unworthy.

Not even those who meet five or more of these criteria are definitively NPD. In my opinion, only a therapist trained in detecting the disorder can make that diagnosis. And only those closest to a person with NPD (partners, family, friends and coworkers) who have endured their emotional, psychological and verbal abuse can reasonably make that assumption.

Going forward, I hope we see less random use of the label “narcissist” for effect. Otherwise, the meaning of this under-detected, pervasive and destructive disorder might very well become as empty as a common expletive.

-Steph Haugan

First, Focus on Those Who Are Ready to Buy

Lots of nervous executives are questioning the wisdom of marketing during a recession. There are two basic schools of thought. The first school says this is the best time to market because weaker companies won’t and so they become much more vulnerable to your accelerated ability to steal share. Many marketing driven enterprises almost intuitively adopt this philosophy. The second school simply asks: Why market when the demand is so soft that it is just not justified from a ROI standpoint?

I believe that both these arguments have merit, but they answer the wrong question. I believe the better question is not whether you should do marketing during a recession but rather: How should you market differently during a recession?

First, the best thing to do is look at the time horizon to customer conversion. A recession is not the time to focus on your brand, or even take the long view. Rather, a recession is the time to focus on that part of the market likely to yield the quickest result; namely, those that are looking to buy. To reach those ready to buy you need to shift your content toward them and save the brand building for the recovery. We’re trying to steal share here, not build our image.

There is no intrinsic reason to increase marketing investment during a recession, but there is a good reason to rethink what you are doing with your existing marketing investment. In B2B marketing there are two smart places to put your money for a quicker, higher return on marketing investment. The first is in more relevant search engine optimized content on the Web; the second is in direct marketing. Both of these can convert interest seekers to buyers and both can be measured. Advertising and other mass communication techniques shout loud enough but lack the necessary focus of relationship-based strategies.

When buying slows down, you need to focus more than ever on making sure you are finding the prospects who are actually ready to buy — or even better, make sure they are finding you. The best way to do this is to focus your offers on content that will appeal to someone who’s actually looking for a solution (as opposed to thought leadership and best practices content, which can appeal to prospects who may one day have a need but are not currently looking). Examples of this kind of content can include “Top 3 Questions to Ask a Potential Vendor,” well-written relevant whitepapers, case studies, buyers guides and checklists, testimonial evaluations, and so on.

During a recession it’s best to shift your marketing focus beyond merely informing to fulfilling interest among those shopping and ready to buy.

-Patrick Strother

Warren Buffet

I have long admired Warren Buffet. Not only is he the most successful investor by almost any measure, he is an interesting, articulate man of uncommon wisdom and generosity. Buffet’s status as one of the richest men in the world is enhanced by his refreshing modesty, famously self-deprecating style, honesty and keen intellect.

Many books have been written about Warren Buffet’s extraordinary life and investing philosophy. In reading a number of these, I have always found it interesting that he has managed to maintain a surprisingly normal life. For example, he enjoys Cherry Coke (upwards of 5 a day), lunches at Dairy Queen, drives his own Lincoln (with license plates that read Thrifty) and perhaps most convincing, he has lived in the same house in Omaha for more than 50 years.

He bought his current residence in 1958 for $31,500

Buffet was heavily influenced by the book How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. In his early twenties, he signed up for a Dale Carnegie course in public speaking. “You can’t believe what I was like if I had to give a talk. I was so terrified that I just couldn’t do it. I would throw up. In fact, I arranged my life so that I never had to get up in front of anybody.” The course was transformational for Buffet and he has been explaining everything he can to anyone who wants to hear ever since. He seems to have viewed his platform as Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway as a teaching tool right from its inception 44 years ago, and his annual letter is now pored over as if it was the defining economic document for the United States and the financial world.
Buffets personal traits are consistently reflected in each of his famous Annual Letters to Shareholders. This year’s letter offers an interesting insight into the US economy. Here is the full letter: A couple of sample passages reflect the tone of this year’s 22 page letter.

“We begin this New Year with dampened enthusiasm and dented optimism. Our happiness is diluted and our peace is threatened by the financial illness that has infected our families, organizations and nations. Everyone is desperate to find a remedy that will cure their financial illness and help them recover their financial health. They expect the financial experts to provide them with remedies, forgetting the fact that it is these experts who created this financial mess.”

“Indeed, recent events demonstrate that certain big-name CEOs (or former CEOs) at major financial institutions were simply incapable of managing a business with a huge, complex book of derivatives. Include Charlie (Munger his partner) and me in this hapless group: When Berkshire purchased General Re in 1998, we knew we could not get our minds around its book of 23,218 derivatives contracts, made with 884 counterparties (many of which we had never heard of). So we decided to close up shop. Though we were under no pressure and were operating in benign markets as we exited, it took us five years and more than $400 million in losses to largely complete the task. Upon leaving, our feelings about the business mirrored a line in a country song: “I liked you better before I got to know you so well.”

Inviting shareholders to the annual meeting Buffet closes the letter with this: “So join us at Our Woodstock for Capitalists and let us know how you like the new format. Charlie and I look forward to seeing you.”

Buffet is one of a kind. The world could use more executives with his honesty, ability and generosity. In 2006 he committed to leaving most of his fortune (estimated at $62 billion prior to the crash) to the Gates Foundation, making him arguably the most generous man who ever lived.

-Patrick Strother

“F” words have always been intriguing. My new favorite is even more so.

Frequency. How many times does it take to see or hear a message before you become ready to take action? Traditional advertising theory advises a frequency of 8-12 times. Today, the frequency equation may be more elusive but we know it must span multiple mediums to be most effective. The seller must almost hold the prospects hand along the adoption process– and then provide a peer endorsement at the end! It takes a lot of coordinated effort to move a prospect from unaware to purchase.

An example based my most recent personal experience

I’ve been thinking for months about trading the not-too-comfortable glider seat in the porch for a wicker couch that would inspire family bonding this summer. What teen could resist joining their parents relaxing in Adirondacks if there was a very comfortable couch to stretch out on and call their own?

In considering a purchase, I am unaware of specific options. The thought of researching couches seems daunting until I get an e-mail from FrontGate.com making me aware of their wicker selections. I neither open it nor take any other action. However, the next Saturday morning I peruse the Internet and become informed about couches at Front Gate and other sites. It is a disappointing experience as I don’t find what I think I want.

Soon after, I find a Front Gate catalog in the mail box. Walking up back to the house, I am intrigued by the stunning cover photography and flip through. Hmm. I am definitely interested in the couches profiled. A couple days later I receive a second e-mail. This time I click. Wow. Look at all these options. I am almost ready to find the one. (Funny thing– I saw these same models on the site a few days earlier and had no interest.) Still no action.

The second catalog tips me into ready mode. This catalog is smaller and less glamorous than the first – but it reminded that I had saved the first. Pouring through the catalogs again I move onto the net. As a proxy for trial, I check out on-line reviews and compare a couple of models. Finally, I make the purchase on line, thrilled to have found the perfect solution (until I learn it is on back order).

The tally: two e-mails interspersed with two direct mail catalogs and two independent internet searches. Whew! And I was already thinking for months about a couch. The lesson of course is it is all about frequency. Don’t hold back. The biggest cause of failure for Front Gate (two other “F” words) would have been giving up too soon – or lack of frequency.

-Pat Henning