Who can blame the banks. It is just like catching one of your neighbour's kids robbing your house. Their whole family somehow is disgraced, tainted by the values you assume, that they must all hold in common as a family unit. That is what happened to brand America. One of their kids brought down the banking system and now all of American banking is suspicious.

American capitalism stood for everything that was white, male power tinged with a touch of arrogance. That is why in this Presidential election everything fitting that description has been pushed under the covers. (Even President Bush was kept well hidden during last weeks of the Presidential campaign.) There just had to be a new face to brand "America" and the more distance from the family that caused the woes, the better. 

Obama, the “twenty dollar president”, had his campaign funded by a mass of twenty dollar donations from ordinary Americans. Their small donations easily matched the contributions from bigger business interests. Then, this campaign was put to work online in a manner never before seen in a Presidential campaign. Obama’s internet campaign, for example, was rumoured to have cost around $4.5 million. "Obama Everywhere" showed that he was featured on all the online networks like Linkedin, mySpace, facebook, youtube, Flickr, twitter, Eventful, BlackPlanet, Faithbase, Eons, Glee, Migente, MyBatanga, AsianAve, DNC Partybuilder. Now, that is one sophisticated online social networking list.

Obama has given a new image to American politics. In those live debates he never lost his cool. We learned about his ties to both his roots in Kenya and  the families in Indonesia where he lived for four years during his student days. Both places he  visited in the final two years of his campaign sending a very strong message to all peoples about his views and personal links.

Many people outside of America actually started to get interested in the elections once they realised that Obama might make President. At the same time we all knew that like other American leaders in the past, that there was also a possibility that that he could be assassinated before he made Office. However, fortune was on his side and Obama became president and the world breathed a sigh of relief and rejoiced at the prospect of a new broom. (Although, the bookies are still not paying out until his inauguration.)

Can Obama rebuild brand "America"? I believe he can because he represents a substantially different image for America than any of the administrations before him. The effect of electing Obama for brand "America" was just like hanging the sign “Under New Management” in the window of a business that desperately needed a change of hands.

Countries as with business, people eventually will come back to give it a second go. As a result, Obama now has the eyes and ears of local and foreign public opinion. With an ailing economy the last thing America needs is her overseas clients to turn their backs on her completely and trade only amongst themselves. This is where the hope for rebuilding brand "America" now hangs in anticipation of something new and different. So here are the issues as I see it from a brand perspective:

Even though the majority of the American public chose Obama, there is still a part of their culture that doesn’t want him in Office and are committed to removing him by what ever means possible. Obama like Mandela represents a complete re-branding of the American brand. If American's can't protect Obama they will lose what I see as the only opportunity in the near furture to redeem the esteem for brand America.

Secondly, nothing kills public esteem faster than a new brand that heralds no change. Re-brands cause the public to look again at what is new in your offering. A re-brand or re-image is a strategic public relations exercise.

In the case of America, electing a coloured man couldn't get more noticed by the world. It is the closest thing to an apology from the American public that the last elected administration didn't quite get it right. Unfortunately, the press has also jumped on board and dubbed George Bush "the worst President in American history"—a label no leader would want to own at the end of his tenure.

So, a second opportunity that exists for Obama to bring about policy changes that could re-inspire confidence in the of world of business, banking and the media. By far the strongest adversary to his success and yet, at the same time ally in increasing public confidence is the media.

In the past the media maintained consumer confidence, when our spending went spiraling out of control. Now it seems hell bent on sending us into a depression with its wonder lust for stories of economic doom. If I was Obama one of my first agenda items would certainly be paying Murdoch a call, if his election coverage was any indicator of his position towards him.

"Change we can believe in"—we certainly watch with interest in Obama coming up with the goods to fulfill this promise of this positioning statement of his election campaign.

 Responses by email:

'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'
Thomas Jefferson 1802 — C.P. 14/11

80 years ago the USA enthusiastically elected a new president, who was expected to turn around the 12-month bear market and set the country back on its feet. If the racial situation had been more advanced they may well have elected an African-American, but it wasn’t, so they did the next best thing – they elected a geologist!
 
Herbert Hoover failed to turn things around during his term, instead we had the Great Depression. Some years later he wrote:
 
Our reconstruction from the war had proceeded with such steady success, and the other impulses to progress were so very great that, with the growing optimism, they gave birth to a foolish idea called the New Economic Era. That notion spread over the whole country. We were assured that we were in a new period where the old laws of economics no longer applied.
 
The Federal Reserve Board had deliberately created credit inflation.  The government contended that by the control of discount rates, open market operations and currency issues, business crises could be eliminated. A contribution to optimism and the belief in a New Era was the illusion that the economic system was thus completely immune from financial crises. Bankers, accepting this illusion, neglected many of their own responsibilities.
 
One trouble with every inflationary creation of credit is that it acts like a delayed time on them is an interval of indefinite and sometimes considerable length between the injection of stimulant, and the resulting speculation.
 
Our overpriced stocks and real estate were bound to come down, and the degree of down is influenced by the degree of up, which means they descend from overvalued to undervalued. The boom had lifted securities and real estate far up and to this degree was to deepen further the slump by the downward swing.
 
(OK, Hoover’s career was as a mining engineer, but his qualification was in geology).
—P.H. 14/11

Three of the businesses participating in the program chose to review this aspect of their Intellectual Property and as a result have now expanded both development options and exit strategies.

A context for naming
Names have a bit of the chicken and the egg syndrome around them.  If you take the Shakespearian perspective “a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet” actually only applies if you have had the experience of the “rose” first. In business this relates to meeting a person, liking them, and then asking about their business. This is how we often experience people and their businesses through networking events, referrals or introductions.

Just like Romeo smitten with love for Juliet, does he really care what she is called when those hormones kick in? Alternatively, do people in business care what the company is called when they are at the other end of an good deal...of course not. Still, I can't help but wonder if even Romeo would be so brave, as to pursue a girl whose name was “John” or “Gertrude”?

An interesting study was conducted a few years ago, on the emotional impact of names. Particularly, it sought to understand the influence a name could have on attractiveness.

The first part of this study concerned itself with finding two women that were rated by some 100 people as equal in attractiveness. The second part of the study was to take these two identically rated women, simply apply the names of “Jennifer” to one and “Gertrude” to the other, and send their photos out again to another 100 people in order to rate their attractiveness.

If the Shakespearian perspective was true, you would expect the addition of a name, to have little bearing on the attractiveness of either woman. However, the two names, did change people’s perceptions of attractiveness of the two individuals. The study revealed a whopping 400 percent difference towards the person “Jennifer” and away from the person named “Gertrude”. (Remember, these women were rated the same in appeal before those names were applied.)

For any business who wants to use non-personal means of introduction, whether through advertising, billboards, signage, marketing campaigns and/or the internet, then your name must be considered as a factor of influence to your business success.

Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) experts have long known the difference a change in domain name can have, along with ad copy, to increase the click through rate for advertisers on Google adwords. (They are the advertisers you find mostly down the right hand side of a search page on Google.).

How we take on information
My second guiding principle relates to the way we as humans take in information. Recently, I was sitting down to coffee, when a truck went past with the name “Lyre Company” and the tag line “we put your interests first”.  

We take in information visually through what we see, how it makes us feel and by hearing. When coining a name, make sure that its meaning doesn’t alter visually, over the phone (orally) or when experienced as a word. Now, back to our “Lyre” example, there is no difference between the sound of “Lyre” and “liar” over the telephone. 

“Lyre” would definitely not be my choice of a name for a security transport business because it sounds like “liar”. Even apart from this, is the marketplace really going to believe a tag line like “we put your interests first” from any company that calls itself “liar”, of course not and the company loses its potential for influence as a result.

I wrote about a similar situation, last Evers Report, concerning the National Australia Bank changing its name to “nab”. We all know what “nab” means in slang. However, here is a quirky fact. If they would have kept their new name in caps, as in NAB,  that would have changed our perception in a different way. Another study reported in New Scientist on names showed that names in caps have higher credibility and influence than names in lower case. Unfortunately, not only did “nab”  lose in the oral name stakes, they lost in the credibility stakes by going lower case as well.

Naming for Business Continuity
The third principle for any business though when naming is around succession planning, diversification and the overall exit strategy for the business.

As part of your business naming process, you need to decide whether your exit strategy is to sell or pass on the business, diversify your business interests or franchise it in some form. Every one of these has an impact on your choice of name and has intellectual property ramifications as well.

Your name captures, along with the brand, the goodwill of the company. Nothing is more disheartening than to see years of goodwill unable to be fully realised in the sale of a business or leveraged into new products or business opportunities because of a poor naming strategy.

Take Rentokil as an example. Rentokil is a great name for pest control business, but Rentokil Plant Hire, doesn't quite cut it for a business that hires out healthy plants. Something about kill and plants doesn't quite go together. I keep thinking that it was the "rento" part that should have been transported to the plant hire business. They could have called it Rentoplant or Rento Tropical Plant hire, still can and would change the take-up of this franchise business overnight.

You can uncover even more examples of this, with businesses that use a form of technology or service in their name that are now becoming extinct such as typewriters or analog now in telecommunications. Names that leverage off current technology can often end up with a limited life span.

Own your own name
Finally, your name has be able to be owned by you. That means you need to be able to trademark it as well has having the logical .com or the extension for your country as your domain.

Domain names are in themselves becoming big business. I noticed while I was doing the research for this report that www.planting.com has the hefty price tag of $58,000 on it. Not a bad return for an initial $10.00 investment in an internet domain name.

These four guiding principals do set the stage for right thinking around names.

In creating a name of influence there are at least nine approaches you can use to come up with the right name. As well as a nine point checklist that has taken us years to compile, to make sure it will be effective.

The good news is, that we will be covering both of these aspects, in detail, in an Accelerated Influence course we plan to release later this year, online. We realise that there are challenging times ahead and business people will need these kinds of resources to empower their business within reach.

So, until our next report, I wish you well on your journey to greatness.

Regards,
Monika Evers

To my mind it has less to do with performance and more to do with intangibles. Let me explain.

National Australia Bank was always been the pillar of the business banking. As an "Achiever" linked brand, it literally owned business banking and the “Achiever” brand and image as a result.

Recently however, we have been witnessing a great bank with massive brand value, slowly eating away at its market strength through naive changes to the way it is being positioned. These changes are killing its credibility and showing itself through the only tangible register of brand value...its decreasing share price.

Like many others in business, I was quite surprised at the announcement of the downsizing of its great National Australia Brand  to "nab" on February 13, 2006. Even though the press releases claimed it was done in order to "support the needs and aspirations of our customers".

Quite adventurous, I mused at the time...."owning" what you did with your clients uncleared funds (nab them!). After all, we suspected that banks used our money during those 2-3 days our incoming funds remain "uncleared" in the short term money market.  Actually renaming a bank based on this dubious feature of banking was quite refreshing, even though personally I had misgivings that it would not work for the National Australia Bank, long term interests to say the least.

It now appears my concerns have been vindicated. The move to "nab" has signalled more to the market place than a friendly banter around honesty or being in touch with the common use of the bank's name.

The influence stakes between the big banks has been an interesting watch over the past 6 years all round.

From my perspective ANZ made a few disastrous influence mistakes early on. There was the "crying baby campaign" that outraged women and was quickly replaced by the "we'll pay you $5 if you have to wait in line" campaign. It took many years to recover their lost esteem in the marketplace, including a not so successful repositioning in 2003, aimed at the women's market. However the repositioning had elements that did lay the foundations for its current position and the bank has finally found its feet in the past 18 months as the new "Achiever" business bank in the banking sector. This too has been reflected in its share price of late.

For the past 5 years Bendigo Bank too has been making a steady claim on its position in the banking marketplace. It now is the true “peoples" bank. Yet, with facilities like the ability to do a TT to anywhere in the world from your personal internet banking account, I would have to say it is truly the “modern people’s” bank.

Commonwealth is still floundering for dominance after fighting with the marketplace for years over its contentious image change. Now as time moves on...all is forgotten and forgiven. Image works that way given enough time but the bank is still lagging behind the true potential of its name.

In the end the share price says it all. NAB is weakest and under performing bank share compared to its rivals.

NAB 18% down on CTB Commonwealth shares for past 3 years
NAB 22 % down on BEN (Bendigo) shares for past 5 years
NAB equal to WTC  (Westpac) after a history of 20% superior performance.

Why did I even bother to look up share performance you may ask? It is because, this is the exact result I expected to find and it’s time to start writing the story of the power of Marketypes on share price.

Marketypes control marketplaces and share price

MarketypesTM are what I term the collected perceived values of brand, reflected in a "personality metaphor" that is known and held by your marketplace.

Metaphors are and have always been, the easiest and fastest way to change the  consciousness of a group, deliver change or learnings on mass.

So it makes sense that these Marketypes can capture and transform marketplaces, brand value, market understanding and hold the esteem of any business.

While there are some 84 submarketypes there are only 12 main marketypal groups in any given marketplace. Once you own a Marketype in any market space it is literally influence suicide to move from it or go towards another, like McDonald’s did.

They dictate and hold your market promises but also couch the values of the brand, the esteem of the services and the expectations of the customers and shareholders of performance. Change it and you lose a good proportion of the value of your goodwill along with it. 

Share price is the true indicator of market confidence and the tangible value of any listed company. Therefore if you want to see how successful the marketypal standing of a business is, then look at the changes in their share price.

Take yesterday...driving around I glanced up to see another billboard with "nab"'s new campaign..."know your enemy". I even can't remember the line underneath, but I vaguely remember it was a about some course they were offering. I found myself wondering why a bank would run a headline like that especially when it calls it self "nab"?

“Enemy” and “nab” is an automatic influence, negative cross-match or did they not connect the dots on that one.

Everything that goes out to your marketplace either confirms or detracts from your marketypal positioning. Most of the time correct marketypal positioning is made more by accident than the calculated strategy by Board or CEO that it should be.

What we are currently seeing playing out in the banking marketplace is the dynamics of marketypal positioning.

NAB is divesting itself of its "Achiever" business marketype for a confused offering that covers everything from "mateship" to a "mentor" offering.

"Everyman or the mateship" marketype though is taken, Bendigo Bank has already successfully claimed that and now exclusively owns this space.

"Achiever" is now slowly being taken over by ANZ.

Macquarie Bank now owns the “Creator” marketype and innovative business banking market.

Reserve Bank owns the "Ruler" space but doesn’t really trade like a normal bank, but it sets the interest rate, so who cares, it rules!

Commonwealth by name alone occupies a kind of deputy ruler status, but is still underdeveloped.

It begs the question is brand and influence really so intangible, when you can actually log its impact in share market performance?

NAB is losing its influence and it is sad to watch such a great business mismanage one its greatest influence assets, its Marketypal status.

In their recent annual report NAB stated their goodwill had increased by 3%. I hate to break the bad news, but goodwill isn’t tied to CPI. It is dynamic and reflected in consumer confidence and in also in share value, which in NAB’s case is currently 20% down compared to it’s banking peers.

The other way to think about "nabs" predicament is that they have a 20% share value deficit that they could begin to reverse by simply re-addressing this issue.

The same market forces that affect businesses also play out in the personal arena, especially if you are a CEO, business consultant or corporate adviser.  Recently, a consultant approached me about their personal brand. Their counterpart overseas was on a five million dollar annual income, yet they were only receiving a small recognition of that in Australia. It soon became apparent to both of us that it was a combination of their personal style, positioning and social proof mechanisms that had been undermining their personal brand and costing them the recognition they should have seen in income.

They are not alone. In my experience the majority of personal brands in Australia are underdeveloped.

The rules of influence apply just as much to personal brands as they do company brands. Being able to differentiate and position yourself in way that makes it easy for a Board or employer to understand your relevance, or recommend you to others, is vital in this time poor world. Therefore, preparing yourself to be recommended or endorsed in as few words as possible, needs to be as much a part of your personal preparation, as your business attire and cards.

Recently, I was impressed by a venture capitalist that used the first hour of our meeting to story tell his way through his social links that extended to royalty on two continents, major share holders of some of the biggest companies here and abroad and of course his own family background. He used them to establish his financial and social influence so he could strike a more effective deal for himself and his investors in the boardroom.

Here is the second point to this story. He was the one with the money, so he could take as long as he wanted. When the shoe is on the other foot you had better be succinct. What makes you great in 21 seconds or less is where you should be aiming. After eight seconds, fifty percent of your audience have already made up their minds about you and tuned out. To turn around any counter impressions you will have to make two extraordinary comebacks, not just one in that remaining time.

Lack of time reduces us to being in a commodity marketplace. Your job in influence conversations is to become differentiated, memorable and easy to recommend. Creating that kind of influence should also be the major focus of every resume and business profile and where many people fall short.

Social proof is just one of the six ways you can increase your personal influence. It can be the kudos you gain from being employed or engaged by the big guns or rising stars of your industry. Consider how many consultants use their stint at Deloittes or PWC  to boost their credibility and launch their personal consulting careers.

Leveraging from influential brands immediately transfers some of their brand's value onto yours. Although I wonder how many consultants owned up to working at Andersons after their collapse...and that is always the problem with brand leverage, you live and die according to a brand you have no control over.

Degrees, MBA’s and grades while they are an indicator of a standard of education wade into the brand leverage stakes, with an MBA from Harvard or Melbourne University I am told by graduates, having more influence and prestige than an MBA from other institutions. (An interesting form of marketing, using graduates to deliver social proof.)

Who you know, testimonials, recommendations, press, books, even who you breakfast and lunch with, all fit into a version of social proof that allow you to leverage onto your personal brand and increase your influence.

I remember eating at Café del Sol in Bologna, Italy. While we were feasting on what I have to admit was the best meal I have ever tasted, period, I was informed that staff there were prepared to forgo wages just to be able to say they had worked there. This form of social proof impressed me as much as the food and the 3 Michelin star rating.

CEO’s and celebrity Board members are now becoming the other big brands of business. Every CEO has the potential to add to shareholder confidence and therefore add value to its share price. Remember when Jack Welch resigned from GE after his meteoric stewardship. The best indicator of the value of his brand happened on the day of his retirement announcement. The share price of GE halved overnight from around $60 per share to just over $30.00 (where it still travels today).

Celebrity branding has become a global phenomenon, even in share markets. Just like the movie stars that can influence box office sales, big business, will pay more for a CEO that can increase a share price just for coming on board. Therefore CEO’s are not only responsible for the growing the value of the brand of the business they steward, they also need to manage, grow and leverage their own brand as they develop in their careers. Their personal brand can make a difference of millions to their income when it develops that influence to increase a company's share price.

Consultants, advisers, CEO's and employees can increase the success of their personal brands. Future Evers Reports will continue the conversation of the additional Principles of Influence to support that journey, so stay tuned.

Understanding these aspects of our dual natures go some of the way to explaining why we value gossip and news. They are both methods by which we add in information into our understandings on the strata of relationships in our life.

Malcolm Gleadwell in his book “The Tipping Point” has researched that the maximum number of people we can have a genuinely social relationship with is limited to 150.

It is also the magical number he suggests that work groups, organisation departments and communities need to limit themselves to keep that genuine community/small business feel.

memory stacks create layers of influence

When people talk about a brand or person they use the name so it makes sense that names hold a strong social bias.

People who have already seen the "Anatomy of Influence" will know that name alone can skew a preference for a similar person or product by 400%.

Names influence and increase Brand influence as they become connected to the relationships and events of our lives. Often when the name becomes strongly associated with a brand mark logos or other design devices, they begin forming a "stack" of memories and influence. These "stacked" memory parcels are also referred to as stacked "memes". They are formed when two or more recall devices images, names, music, smells, emotion..." work together to recreate an experience in recall which can then influence a current behaviour.

For example when people say the name Disneyland, it brings back a flood of memories that include the way it is written, the castle logo, Walt Disney singing..."When you wish upon a star" and so many good memories of childhood of sitting in front of TV with my cousins on a Sunday night at 7.30pm

That is one massive stacked meme that is loaded with social experience and data. Does this memory stack (meme) have sway on adults like me buying for videos for children. You bet it does.

The nine layers of Influence

BRAND building is about creating memory stacks (memes) that can influence buying behaviour towards your company or person.

Over 20 years in the business of influence, I have been able to uncover the nine layers behind "stacks of influence" that when combined accelerate the influence of businesses and their BRANDS.

Businesses and personal brands that miss anyone of these layers, shave off a percentage of influence, sales and opportunities that should be yours.

If you know your sales cycles are long, losing sales, margins are being reduced, or your business is just not getting the credibility for its product or services, then I invite you to have a look at our presentation "The Anatomy of influence". Discover the nine essential factors that optimise influence. Then you can decide if this is, just what your business needs. How knows...for the same amount of effort you could be doubling your sales.

Call me direct on +61 3 9252 0609.

1. what happened when the drinks were presented anonymously (taste only)
2. what then happened when the subjects knew and saw the brand of the drink they were about to consume (cultural influence);
3. any correlation between either preference and areas of brain activity.

Because of the nature of the testing environment the subject were presented with only non-carbonated versions of the drinks. The sampling was always done in pairs to force choice. (About 6 months later the subjects were called back to complete the study and verify that carbonation held no influence on preference, which they did.)

Anonymous Delivery
When they did the anonymous delivery of the drinks, the results matched the Aussie version of the 80’s study into the Pepsi^®/Coke^® Challenge. They was no preference overall by the group for either Coke^® or Pepsi^®. Individual preferences were strong and showed activity in the VMPFC (ventromedial prefrontal cortex), an area the study attributed to reward-based learning due to appetite.

Brand Knowledge
Next, the scientists decided to label (brand) one of the pair of cups and leave the other unbranded. They also told test subjects that the other cup may or may not contain the same drink. They were testing specifically for brand influence.

The Results and I quote…“unlike the Coke^® label, the existence of the Pepsi^® label did not change the distribution of choices significantly relative to the anonymous taste test.” “no brain areas showed a significant effect of brand knowledge. (p<0.01) ”.

Brand Pepsi^® had no influence on their choice.

Coke^® on the other hand registered a 0.43 in the hippocampus area and a 0.41in the DLPFC (dorsolateral region of the prefrontal cortex.) Both are areas that are known to bias sensory judgment but act independently. The hippocampus is recruited to recall the cultural information that ends up biasing judgment.

Which is exactly what happened with the Coke^® brand. More people chose the Coke^® brand even over previous, alternate, taste preferences.

The influence for the brand “Coke^®” biased preference by 70% compared to Pepsi^® (which held no bias in these areas of cultural influence). 

The final count (out of three trials), was on average Pepsi^® 1.2 and Coke^® 2.25 (almost double).

The Point
What the experiment showed was that when the subjects were shown the brand Coke^® it influenced their choice over any previous taste preference. When brand Pepsi^® was shown to the test subjects it held no influence over taste.

Implication for business
Pretty tricky for the Pepsi^® marketing department wouldn’t you say. All that money spent and in the end people choose Pepsi just based on taste. The brand apparently holds no real sway. This means it has little ability to leverage other products or product lines in the marketplace. Has some pretty interesting implications on sponsorships as well.

The problem is, that they are not alone when it comes to this factor of 'long term stickiness'. One of the many gripes of companies is that after the marketing campaign the company and their products revert to previous sales revenues.

What it shows is that the quality of stickiness or ‘influence’ as I prefer to call it, is often not increased by the marketing campaign. In Pepsi^®’s case, it seems, from these studies at least, by any campaign.

We have uncovered from our research and experience, which includes the launching of over 100 brands, that there are some nine factors that increase brand influence. 

Month by month we will introduce more about these factors of influence, as part of the Evers Report, so stay tuned.

He got the names of 160 people at random who lived in either Omaha and Wichita. To each person he mailed a packet. Inside of the packet was a letter explaining the study and the name and address of a Stockbroker who worked in Boston and lived in Sharon, Massachusetts.

Each person was instructed to write his or her name on the packet and send it to someone they knew (on a first name basis), that could get the packet closer to the stock broker.

The idea was that by the time the packet arrived at the stockbroker's home or work address, it would show how many people's hands it came through to get there.

The study revealed that it took on average 5.5 hands to get there, hence the "Six Degrees of Separation". However, that wasn't the big deal of the study. It revealed something far more significant to people in business, today.

Of the 24 packets that arrived at the stockbroker's home in Sharon...16 were hand delivered by the same person. That is 66% of all the letters to his home came through just one person. Of the ones that arrived at his office in Boston, the majority were hand delivered by just two other people.

Imagine, 160 letters were sent out to friends, relatives or work colleagues, totally unrelated to each other. Yet in their journey across the country the majority of the final letters would eventually end up in the hands of these three people.

What the study really showed us, was not that everyone in the country is linked through six degrees of separation, rather the reverse. It was that these three people had links to everyone else in the country.

The people who are the connectors

You will find these people peppered through referral networks, social groups and business clubs. The easiest way to uncover who they in your circle is to do this simple test.

Write a list of 40 friends (excluding work colleagues and family), or even 40 clients and trace back the contact points to find out how you got to know each of these people. Often the majority of your connections originate with one or two people.

Don't be surprised if you also discover that you are actually part of their network rather than in one of you own. At the very least your search may reveal a person you should be appreciating a whole lot more. When I traced back my business clients, I ended up with two people. Gary Schuller's and his Breakthrough Connection and indirectly Rosalyn Neville and her Entre Nous Agency for an introduction to a business connector now living abroad.

Both Gary and Rosalyn have utilised their skill as connectors, to create businesses that specialise in connecting people to each other. Gary's connections are to do with connecting businesses and people in business, while Rosalyn's are more on a personal level.

A stuffed polecat was dragged near a mothering turkey and understandably it rendered a vicious attack on the polecat. Next, it placed among the newly hatched turkey chicks with a tape recorder inside of it playing the "cheep cheep" sound of a turkey chick. When the tape was playing the turkey happily mothered the polecat as one of its nest of chicks, tucking it underneath her. As soon as the tape stopped playing the turkey began attacking it viciously.

The study showed that turkeys had a set of mothering behaviours that were automatic and unconscious. If it cheeped it would mother it, if it stopped cheeping it would murder it.

Many other studies since have shown that while these patterned ways of being maybe for the most part innate in animals, humans have sets of unconscious patterns of behaviours as well.

We use these sets of behaviour to bring more simplicity to our complex world. We learn skills like using a knife and fork to eat, which after a while become what we term an unconscious competency. We are able use a knife and fork without even thinking about it. Driving, at first for most is an incredible conscious challenge. After a while we can arrive at our destination and hardly be aware of our journey.

We learn to make decisions the same way and develop unconscious shortcuts so we don't have to think too much about what we may be buying. This is where brands live in these unconscious shortcuts. For example I buy Pura milk in a dark blue carton. Do I review all the milk containers every time I want milk. No I just buy “my Brand”. (Actually, I just switched to organic, but that was because  the word “Organic” is a far stronger influencer on my purchasing than any specific brand..)

“If an expert says it it must be true” is another automatic influencer. That is why the gold medals on wines holds sway with more people as do Awards for films.

“Expensive equals good” is another automatic influencer for those seeking quality.
That is the reason why when the store owner told her assistant to 1/2 the price of her slow moving jewelery and the assistant instead mistook the instruction to read x2 (double) the price, it took the glass jewelery into the “expensive equals good” price category compared to her other stock. Those clients seeking quality would have been influenced to buy those pieces because it initiated the automatic influencer around price.

In our practice we have found that automatic influencers even affect brands. Look beneath our conversation on the MetaBrand DNA process and you will see that it is all about mapping unconscious and automatic influencers that underpin our ongoing success with brands.

This months "Inside Influence Report" discusses what kind of person is the most influential advocate for your product or service.

For example a person that has abstained from drinking alcohol their whole life and advocating a change away from drinking has far less impact on a heavy drinking audience than a heavy drinker who is now a teetotaler talking to the same audience.

In turns out that using people that have been in the target market and then made the change are the most powerful influencers.

The take out of this report and study is to find people that are like the people you want to influence and have already made the switch to your offering.

These people will create a better listening for your product/service and an influencer of change. Makes you wonder who might be better serve you as a sales rep doesnt it?

Source Article:  "Inside Influence Report"

Source Science:  Levine, J. M., & Valle, R. S. (1975).  The convert as a credible communicator. Social Behavior and Personality, 3, 81-90.

When Leo Burnett reviewed 62 of his greatest advertising flops, he found they all shared one common element. They had an average usage of adjectives of 24.1%. Far higher than his more successful ads.

Adjectives are describing words, like outstanding, remarkable, new and fresh.

Alex Mandossian, one of today's great informmercial and web copywriters reported this week, that in todays' on line environment what Leo Burnett uncovered in the 60's still holds true. The most influential copy is copy that minimises the use of adjectives and increases the use of verbs.

Verbs like uncover, discover, transform and inform, increase the influence your emails, letters and web copy.

He has created a site that allows you to see the 104 power verbs and use them to increase the influence of your communication.

Thanks Alex.

104 power words link

Source: Alex Mandossian Wednesday minute

image by YOUSUF KARSH/RETNA

We discussed the weeks events, as we ambled down the long avenue, serenaded by the creaks and calls of possums. I spoke at length for first time to Louis owner, about what I did and my philosophy of the influence. We somehow ended up on the CEO and the importance of vision and values as a key influencer in a brand.

I was pulled up in my tracks by the question of whether I really believed that a CEO carried any true influence in organisations today.

I mumbled something about Jack Welsh and Richard Branson having significant sway with investors and the public.

If it wasn't for the fact, that I later found I was walking with two professors and institutional heads I would have let the question slip by to the keeper as naive.

I was left wondering why people have that belief about CEO’s. What is the difference between your “everyday” CEO and the amazing entrepreneurs and super CEO’s like Branson.

— Monika Evers.

A new role of influence for the CEO

There is a fun axiom of corporate life and it goes like this

... Who is on top? Where am I in the scheme of things? What do I have to do to get on top? Yet, I would pose that it goes even further... What have they got that I have? What have they got, that I don't have ...and how can I get it?

Already in this conversation two things become apparent. There is a hierarchy at work and we place ourselves accordingly no matter how we want to believe we live in an egalitarian world.

Our competitive animal natures apply equally to work as they do our golf ranking or on the tennis court.

The second thing to notice in this conversation is around modelling. why has this person been more successful at obtaining the top position in an organisation than you.

Most people think its about the skills. My proposition is, that it is about the ability to influence on every level that makes a CEO a leader. The difference however between a CEO and a super CEO though has to do more with the quality of their vision and their ability to bring that vision into reality.

The power of influence

The super CEO is like any other super brands. They have succeeded in creating the influence that we accord the likes of super brands like Mercedes or McDonalds.

Remember the day that Jack Welch announced his resignation from GE, the share price halved. That is the mark of a superbrand of a CEO.

I was listening to an address given by Stewart Williams current CEO of David Jones. Stewart, in a relatively short career has taken a successful company albeit a bit of a dinosaur to now doubling its share price and wiping his market opposition in the process.

He talked about his success as a CEO which he believed hinged on his ability to influence his team and organisation as a person and outside of the position he holds as the CEO. His ability to influence.

From day one being the CEO is a purchase usually made by the board. They are the commodity“CEO” is the product. What is being bought is the qualifications to do the job.

But the real sale was the influence they garnered to sway the purchaser that they should buy them instead of the 15,000 other CEO’s in the marketplace.

CEO’s as brands

This influence comes from their personal brand (their name in the marketplace) and their positioning through their behaviour, their overall image which included things like the first and final impression they created, their presentation, spiel and their personal values. All of this is what I term the influence of their image.

What allows them to remain is their position is just like the superbrand ...to be relevant, maintain the esteem and the market kudos. The share price often touted as the ultimate measure of their success.

Now back to the original question. “Are today’s CEOs really important to the effectiveness of an organisation?”. That depends entirely on what measures you employ.

Using a different set of measures

I remember going to a lecture at the Theosophical Society many years ago to hear a guy expound his theory on brown holes.

For him there wasn’t spaces between bodies of mass. Instead, his contention was, that unseen...supporting the mass, were brown holes.

Brown holes he believed held all thought, visions and intentioning (the energy of our thinking)

Rupert Sheldrake was the first scientist to open this area for discussion with his 100th Monkey offering, on the subject of group minds. He called them fields of Morphic Resonance. Based on his theory I saw a remarkable study on animals.

This study observed the behaviour of animals separated from their masters who were on shopping trips or holidays. The animals were filmed during this entire time their masters were away, to see at what point they "knew" when their master was going to return home.

What the study revealed was that the instant the person (hundreds of miles away) decided to return home (they were also being filmed) the dog went to the door or their "greeting in wait" place every time and waited for their physical return, sometimes hours away.

It begs the question, how is this possible that an animal can know the instance you decide to return home.

Sheldrake proposed that we are all connected into a field of resonance he termed group mind. Family is a group mind (including animals). societies are a group mind as well as special Interest groups and of course business has a group mind.

Laying a different set of foundations

When you start a business with your intentions and your vision you are laying the foundation bed of a group mind.

Like a garden it can be nurtured or polluted.

The whole point of creating visions and values is to bring the collective structure to the vision you hold for the business, so that others when they join the business can tap into this field as well and get to know the culture and direction of an organisation on an intuitive level.

That is why using the Evers MetaBrand System the CEO is the most powerful influencer of the business. He is charged with the tenderer of the group mind, the gardener and the holder of the vision.

A corporate advisor actually gave me his scope on the difference between an Entrepreneur and a CEO. An entrepreneur drives his enterprise through his inspired Vision. A CEO on the other hand is a caretaker role.

The missing ingredient is of course the Vision and intentioning that goes with an inspired Vision.

The Inspired Vision

If you want to see the true capability of organisation then look at the intentioning, drivers and inspired vision of the CEO.

Branson, Welch, Jobs were all holders of amazing visions of purpose and intentioning for their organisations. Yes, they were CEO’s but they were CEO’s steering an organisation through their vision.

Want to see a lame business then look at the holders of the Vision and the intentioning of the business. If there ain’t no real vision, values or intentioning being done, then the business will be reflecting that in poor to average performance. Got some issues with morale, look here too.

Poor morale is a poorly tended group mind…usually with poor soil and no basis for growth. The CEO again has not been tending the garden. One of the greatest KPI's here is absenteeism. Show me absenteeism and I show you a poorly tended group mind. In fact there are dozens of KPI's to validate this normally unnoticed and undervalued aspect of business and organisations.

ROI is just the physical outcome that most Boards and investors apply their short term focus. It is tragic really, It’s like looking at boxes sold at market and not at the soil and its ability to deliver. Poor yields and erosion often come from over-farming. Not looking at group minds, visions, intentioning is like over-farming.

Business was never meant to be soul-less...after all it’s all about people. Morphic fields exists in business. The CEO’s role is that of a leader, influencer, tender and guardian of that group mind. A great CEO compels it through an inspired vision that can be tapped into and inspired through the group collective.

Recommend reading: “Presence” by Peter Senge, C Otto Scharmer. (These guys were behind the dismantling of Apartheid in South Africa...without the bloodshed! It’s compelling reading on inspired visioning and yes, Rupert Sheldrake gets a mention here too!