The Four Intelligences of the Business Mind–Book CoverThe Four Intelligences of the Business Mind: How to Rewire Your Brain and Your Business for Success, by Valeh Nazemoff (CA Technologies, 2014), reviewed by Shel Horowitz, primary author, Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green
According to the Nazemoff, any successful business needs to concentrate on four different types of intelligence.
The first is financial intelligence, which most people already think about when they think about business.
But we also have to think about customer intelligence, data intelligence, mastermind intelligence. Mastermind is really what we normally think of as brainstorming. It’s the idea that a group of people can be smarter than any one individual.
In data intelligence, she suggests marrying the “9 Cs”—Collaborate, Consolidate, Communicate, Collect, Connect, Coordinate, Change, Converse, and Convert—to the classic 5Ws and an H that every beginning journalist learns to ask: Who, What, Where, When, Why, How.
Combining these, we get what she calls neuro-economics. And sometimes, small incremental changes that create a big result.
To me, the most interesting chapter was on customer intelligence. She talks about how to develop a customer profile, personas, and markets. and how to use this information to create communities. But she also shed some fascinating light on data. Specifically, the importance of determining whether your data is good. And I love her statement that success is not about how much data you have, but whether you have the right data.
These intelligences have implications in decision-making; Nazemoff talks about using them to determine who is responsible to make the decision, who is accountable, who gets consulted, and who simply gets informed.
Whole grain cracker (stock photo, not the brand I’m writing about)
In the next town over, there’s a store I frequent that sells remaindered natural foods. I bought some whole-grain rye crackers there recently, costing 99 cents for an 8.8 ounce package. Yesterday I noticed this astonishing bit of small print on the label:
Made in England from local and imported ingredients…Imported and distributed by [address in Australia] and [address in New Zealand].
Our nearest full-scale international airport is in Boston, Massachusetts, USA, about 100 miles away. Googling the distances, it’s about 20,000 miles from England to Boston via either Australia or New Zealand.
The cracker label does something very odd about ingredients: wholegrain rye flour and salt are listed, and then—presumably because they’re recycling the same back panel across several flavor varieties—”May Contain Oats (Gluten), Wheat (Gluten), Sesame Seeds, Soya.” It’s a fair guess that at least the sesame (definitely included in this flavor) and soy traveled an additional few thousand miles to get to the factory in England.
Mind you, I’m not a locavore purist. Yes, I prefer to eat local, but I’ve got plenty of olive oil, chocolate, and other products in my kitchen that don’t grow around here. But when there is a local product available, I prefer to buy it. Years ago, I stopped buying the very wonderful bread I used to get because it’s made in California, and there’s perfectly lots of good bread made within 10 miles of my house—and I’ve basically only bought locally baked bread since then. (I did buy a loaf of my old favorite when I was in Berkeley, where it was local.)
Grains can be grown in my area, and some of the local bakeries actually use local ingredients (including a tortillaria that uses local, organic heirloom corn, and their tortillas are delicious).
It should not even be possible that something could travel 3/4 of the way around the world, be sold to me at that price, and have anyone involved make a profit. The shipping costs alone have to be much higher than that. And if externalities were counted and the true costs figured in, I should have been looking at a price tag somewhere around $10.
In the privileged middle-class country where I live, the impact is somewhat modulated, because only a small percentage of people make their living as farmers, and many of those farmers have secured markets that are insulated from these kinds of macroeconomics games (farmers markets, specialty restaurants, etc.). But talk to any dairy farmer in the US, and you’ll find that the economics are very troubling.
And when imports are dumped below-cost into subsistence farm economies in developing countries, the results can be tragic. Farmers who cannot compete with these artificially low prices lose their markets, and eventually their land. They crowd themselves into massive urban slums where they can find menial jobs, and those overcrowded megacities become crime-invested nightmares—while the land they once farmed withers or is polluted by some big industrial scheme where manufacturing jobs have been outsourced because it’s cheaper to operate in countries without strong environmental regulations.
We need to rethink our food economics and our whole consumer economy. Desperately.
Starbucks has been getting a lot of flack since announcing its “Race Together” initiative. People are mostly either calling the company self-serving or questioning why a cafe chain would want to take on an agenda that seems so unrelated to its core business.
Now, I’ve certainly criticized companies for cause marketing that seems to have nothing to do with its purpose. For example, I’ve publicly questioned why Ford has chosen to support a breast cancer charity rather than something related to, say, transportation access.
And I’ve given space to Starbucks critics like Dean Cycon of Dean’s Beans, who says the coffee giant could be doing a lot more on sustainability, fair trade, and organic.
But I actually think this time Starbucks did something sensible and good, and I was really pretty shocked at the negative media firestorm.
Consider this:
In the post-Ferguson climate, where black communities are showing righteous anger about police violence, race is back on the agenda
Many legislative bodies are imposing onerous barriers to registering and voting, ostensibly to stop “voter fraud” (which is close to zero)—but whose deeper agenda seems to be denying the vote to people of color and those with low incomes
As a culture, when we want to talk things over, we do so over coffee—so what better place to start a national conversation?
Starbucks has thousands of locations in cities—Ground Zero for the recent race incidents; thus, the company has a vested interest in de-escalating tensions and opening dialog so those stores continue to thrive, in addition to the moral grounds it cites
We have a number of planned Race Together activities in the weeks and months to come: more partner open forums, three more special sections co-produced with USA TODAY over the course of the next year, more open dialogue with police and community leaders in cities across our country, a continued focus on jobs and education for our nation’s young people plus our commitment to hire 10,000 opportunity youth over the next three years, expanding our store footprint in urban communities across the country, and new partnerships to foster dialogue and empathy and help bridge the racial and ethnic divides within our society that have existed for so many years…The heart of Race Together has always been about humanity: the promise of the American Dream should be available to every person in this country, not just a select few. We leaned in because we believed that starting this dialogue is what matters most. We are learning a lot. And will always aim high in our efforts to make a difference on the issues that matter most.
If this is self-serving, I say we need more of that kind of self-serving.
Much as I would love to see a Bernie Sanders presidency, I don’t think he should run. Why? This comment I wrote in response to a Facebook “fantasy” (her word) of a Sanders-Elizabeth Warren ticket explains succinctly:
Fantasies? Absolutely. Elections? Not so much–and I say this as someone who has voted for Nader and Kucinich and who feels Bernie Sanders represents me as well as Vermonters. We need them both in the Senate where they can actually work for change, and not marginalized as 3% presidential candidates who can be safely ignored or ridiculed. Oh, and Elizabeth Warren (who IS my Senator) needs to get off the Israel-right-or-wrong train.
Now, if we had instant runoff, parliamentary democracy instead of winner-take-all and some other much-needed reforms, it would be different. But right now, the system is totally stacked in favor of forcing us to vote for the least horrible mainstream candidate instead of the most wonderful fringe people. 20 years ago, I was excited at the idea that the day would come when I could vote for Hillary–but she was a different person then.
Among the other reforms we need is in campaign finance. It’s an absolute travesty that we allow our candidates to be bought and sold, and force them to spend so much time fundraising. We also need to look at the often-ridiculous way congressional district lines are drawn. The way we let candidates buy attack ads without proving their facts. And the way we allow TV to control the discourse in ways that restrict real discussion of real issues.
With those additional reforms, perhaps we’d get a viable party that actually stands for the people’s interest—or the planet’s. In Europe, which has a parliamentary system and a different way to fund elections, Green Party candidates often win seats and most countries have been governed by people-centered democratic governments. And, perhaps not by coincidence, things like health care and college education and maternity leave are considered fundamental rights. Meanwhile, we’re stuck with Tweedlebad and Tweedlehorrible.
Meanwhile, please, let’s keep Bernie and Elizabeth in the Senate.
That’s my opinion. Please put yours in the comments.
Creative Anarchy cover (green side)For a non-visual learner like me, Creative Anarchy is a mind expander. The author has brought together ideas from design studios around the world, many of which offer very non-traditional approaches.
The book has two key principles. The first is that rules are made to be broken. The second is that in order to break the rules, you must understand them.
For example, a common rule in book publishing is that books have both a front and a back. However, this book has two fronts. The larger, green, side is more or less about the rules. The thinner, red, side is about breaking those rules.
It makes fascinating reading.
However, as someone who occasionally hires graphic artists, I find that I generally insist on two rules that only get lip service here. First, I believe that it is usually important to write copy before considering the design. And secondly, I believe that any visual representation should enhance the message. Some of her examples do this beautifully and creatively, while others left me scratching my head and saying huh?
Value is about not just price, but quality. This busy market obviously understands.If you want to market on price, look at words like “affordable” and “value.” “Cheap” can be deadly.
As a service provider, I did lead on price for a number of years. Back in the days when much of my business was resume writing, I used a simple half-inch in-column ad in the Yellow Pages (remember them?) with the slogan “Affordable professional resumes while you wait.” The year they changed it without permission to “Affordable professional resumes while U wait,” I successfully argued that proper grammar was a key selling point in my line of work and they killed it—and got the cost of the whole year’s ad refunded. I turned out to be wrong; that ad brought me plenty of clients. But I personally would not patronize a writing service whose face to the world was ungrammatical.
Those ads ran in the 1980s and 1990s, and resume writing is only a tiny fraction of my current business. These days, I stress value, not price–for all the services I offer. Some are still quite inexpensive, like writing a press release or book cover—or, for that matter, the occasional resume I still write. Others, including strategic consulting on green and social change profitability as well as book publishing consulting, can be fairly pricy.
I would have moved away from marketing on low price anyway, as my business matured. But if I hadn’t, my business would have dried up. The market is very different now. Nobody is a prisoner of their own geography any more. I can’t compete on price with some clown on a bottom-feeding service bidding site who throws an article into a word-blender and spits out crap for $5 a shot. But I sure can compete on value and quality.
As a consumer, I’m price-sensitive on some items, but quality will trump price, and so will politics. Yesterday, I spent $40 or $50 at the farmers market. I could have bought the (theoretically) same items at a supermarket for half the price, but not the organic/local/fresh choices I purchased. But I also stopped at the local independent discount store and picked up some just-past-date polenta for a buck. I cooked it last night and it was fine. I have a less gourmet one in my fridge that I paid $3 for at a different store and it doesn’t expire until November, which means the one I ate tonight was probably packed last summer. But that’s OK, it was fine.
I learned all the way back in the 1980s that price and value were not necessarily the same. After a couple of bad experiences with cheap electronics, I started buying better quality components for my stereo, better telephones, and so forth—and being much happier with my purchases. I learned that I could get a good deal through a remainder catalog, and that a $100 item with an original list price of $300 was generally going to be a much better value than a $75 item that had never sold for more than $100. And when I bought my first computer, I went with the expensive but easy-to-use Macintosh and was very happy I did.
I will shop at that local discount store, but I won’t shop at that very famous low-price big box store beginning with a W. While I recognize that they are among the best in the industry on sustainability (something very important to me), I’m also painfully aware of how much I dislike their store siting and closing policies, their community relations, labor practices, supplier practices, and a bunch of other stuff. Plus, I’ve heard that the quality is often less than stellar. I give them kudos in my speeches for, among other things, developing a massive market for organic foods among people who have never been inside a Whole Foods. But I personally choose not to shop there.
But I’m perfectly happy to drive inexpensive, functional cars. Right now, we have a 2004 Mazda, bought new for $17K, and a 2005 Toyota Corolla, bought at six years old but with only 26,000 miles on it, for $10K. I expect both to last several more years. When we bought the Corolla, one of our other options was a used Prius with 99,000 miles, for $12K. The Corolla seemed like a MUCH better deal. It wasn’t the lower price so much as having only 1/4 as many miles.
In short, as a consumer, I’ll definitely factor in price, but it won’t be the only factor. How about you? As a business owner and as a consumer, how does price factor into your decisions.
