This is a ~13 minute speech I wrote on transformation design. There are slides and videos that accentuate certain points, but the speech stands on its own. I thought y'all would like a read.
For the last ten installments of the Star Trek series, Hollywood pitted the Star Ship Enterprise against renegade Vulcans, violent Klingons and a super enemy named Nemisis. Every trailer featured brooding and intense music. Every trailer featured aggressive dialogue and battle that took place during earth’s darkest hours.
That is until the producers of this year’s Star Trek XI made a different choice.
Filled with the hopeful sound bites from JFK and John Glen, a chest-inflating soundtrack and images of creation that take place on the eve of earth’s greatest adventure, the trailer for Star Trek XI invites us to do what no other trailer did before. Rather than invite us into a battle, it invites us to hope, to dream and to join in the creation of a new future.
Not twenty, not ten, not even five years ago could Hollywood have produced this perspective. Our culture had a much different mindset then.
But now, it’s choosing a new one.
Our culture is changing from a masculine orientation towards life to a feminine orientation.
A masculine orientation values control and stability. Its strategy is logic, force and aggression. It is focused on the individual and can only succeed if it defeats something.
But, a feminine orientation values creation and the dynamic. Its strategy is empathy, collaboration and nurturing. It is focused on the community and wins by helping others.
This choice appears in more than just Hollywood. In all aspects of life, people are choosing the feminine over the masculine.
We find it in politics. The most famous line in the last 20 years of politics is President George Bush’s pugnacious throw down: “You’re either with us or you’re against us.” But today, the most famous line in politics today is Barrack Obama’s collaboration affirmation: “Yes we can.”
We also find it in music. Four years ago, the music industry descended hell upon DJ Dangermouse for releasing his Grey Album – a mash up The Beatles’ White Album and Jay Z’s Black Album. Yet, Nine Inch Nails just released a DVD version of its Ghosts I-IV album containing all the data files of all their recordings. They’ve invited fans to remix and alter the songs as they choose.
We also find it in our learning choices. Once the official authority of information, Encyclopedia Britannica is no longer seen as such. Instead we find greater value in Wikipedia – a co-created wellspring of dynamic and motley information.
We also find it in technology. Fifteen years ago, TV remote controls had buttons - a function restricting our interaction with the TV to an either-or relationship. It dictated on or off, channel 3 or channel 15. Today, remote controls have a direction pad. A function inviting us to explore an environment where we could choose to engage, search, play, participate, explore or buy.
In work and leisure, in the political and the personal, individuals are reaching for the feminine people, the feminine things and the feminine experiences that enable them to shape their world.
In other words, people are reaching for support. In such a reality, Harvard Business School Professor Shoshana Zuboff and former Volvo CEO James Maxmin believe successful companies will not be those that sell to people but those that support people. Their tome, The Support Economy, argues that managerial economics and mass production relegates consumers to an end cog in the production machine. But as product quality dramatically rises across the board and the number of category players expands, people will increasingly demand more from companies than just a product. They will demand deep support in creating their ideal selves. In other words, successful companies will be those with a feminine orientation to their customers. They will be collaborators and nurturers supporting the individual in the creation of his or her desired life.
While it is easy to understand why we would not want to be treated as a cog in the machine, it is less clear why we need to surround ourselves with supportive companies.
It is because our lives are a constant struggle between opposing values. We may yearn to be adventurous, but each time the opportunity arises, we regrettably remain apprehensive. Or we may yearn to regain the optimism of our youth, but, upon surveying our life, find little to be optimistic about. It is these moments – when we find our personal faculties unable to render in our lives the values we desire – that we look outward. We look to the things around us – people, objects, experiences and even companies – that, whether through encouragement or empowerment, move us away from the values we fear and towards those we aspire. And when we find those things, we fill our lives with them.
If we survey the world of business today, we quickly realize the most culturally relevant companies with the most passionate customers have a feminine orientation:
- Facebook supports efforts to share information, develop relationships and develop communities.
- Method supports a desire for clean homes, clean environments, clean minds and clean fun.
- Scion collaborates with customers to create individual expressions of their personalities – whether it is through customized cars, customized graphics or customized music.
- Target helps customers design more beautiful lives.
With culture and business changing to such a large degree, we have to wonder: Is the advertising industry keeping pace?
(To keep reading...)
13 comments:
Totally brilliant, utterly convincing. The single most exciting thing I've read as a planner. Thank you.
I second that. This is great stuff and I think a great many righteous people are going to find a natural home for themselves within TD.
Great stuff, as always, Leland.
I think you'll like this post by Tara Hunt titled "The Future Is Feminine:
http://rurl.org/rd9
shit leland, where to start? i'm going to need a minute to take this all in.
what a read!
Excellent. Really nice lens to view this through.
Ad agencies need to un-clever themselves to make the switch back to this level of honesty and authentic respect for the individual. It's totally unhip. Which, of course, is one key reason why it works.
Have a good w/end.
here here, I just wrote a big article on this topic for the Future Laboratory in London. the intro is below, if you would like to read the whole article where I have a whole lot more evidence, mail me at miriamrayman at gmail.com. It looks at the broader debate something we at the Future Laboratory are calling 'womenomics' (of course). I really like this notion of the support economy though.
Womenomics: a social, economic and cultural logic that puts today's women in pole position
Miriam Rayman
The term 'Womenomics' may sound problematic to some. But for strategists in fields as diverse as economic policy, branding, marketing, design, manufacturing and the corporate world it is the essential new term. The future focus, they believe, needs to be on women. The last 150 years have been in the hands of men, as the Economist recently put it, and production has been geared to male preferences. However, the next 150 years will be female-focused and everything will look very different.
For economists, the focus on women means boosting GDP and solving the pending pensions shortfall by bringing more women into the workforce. European economist Kevin Daly of Goldman Sachs is understandably excited about the prospect of increased female employment. 'Raising female employment to male employment levels would boost US GDP by as much as 9%, Eurozone [EU countries not including the UK] GDP by 13% and Japanese GDP by 16%,' he says. But this is not a debate about discrimination. This is about the new strength of the female in the light of Womenomics which, as this feature details, represents a body of social, economic and cultural logic that puts today's females in pole position.
For designers and marketers it means referencing a new sensibility that speaks to both the sexes and is more human, intuitive and cerebral. 'It's about simple, clear and intelligent communication that has the ability to cross all segments, male or female,' says Mark Sinnock, chief strategic officer at advertising agency Fallon London. It is also about a difference in tone and in the way the advertising community, which is still male dominated, tackles this rising economic force.
Womenomics isn't about revisiting the feminist doctrine of the 70s. If anything it is contradicting that by focusing on the differences between the genders. 'It's not about talking to women because it's fair,' says Jane Cunningham, co-founder of female-centred marketing agency PrettyLittleHead. 'It's because it makes business sense.'
"the companies that will thrive in our feminine future will not be those with a great sales pitch. it will be those with a great support system." fantastic. and for politicians - well, i hope our more feminine democratic candidate has both.
Thanks for the feedback y'all. The feedback we've been getting - especially among young folks - has been good and enlightening. I'm beginning to realize this whole Transformation Design thing is rather political - unintentionally of course. When we talk about it, people don't comment about it in the context of advertising or marketing. They comment about it the context of politics.
This is very interesting considering we started out just wanting to make better marketing. Which brings up an interesting question/potential blog post: Is marketing politics?
Is the femininity not restricted to the western/digital world? fact is that in the greater part of the world people are fighting for their identity and survival (economic, social, etc). Because brands tend to be mostly profit driven and thus reactionary, rather then actionary, is the war/masculine analogy not still a very powerfull one? one that can be usefull?
this is also a question in response to your post about the war metahfor vs the stortelling way?
would love to har your thoughts
Good questions Nikko. I don't think femininity is restricted to the West. Nor do I think it replaces masculinity. Both have their time and their place.
As Marshal McLuhan said, when a medium is taken to an extreme it reverses itself. This means it no longer amplifies in the world what it originally did. It feels like the masculine-orientation has reversed itself.
In response, the world must adjust by either creating something new or resurrecting something from the past that pushes aside the reversed medium and thus amplifies a more favorable thing/position/attitude/medium in the world. The feminine attitude is what we are resurrecting.
Eventually, however, as with all mediums, the feminine-orientation will grow to a point where it reverses itself and we start the process all over again with the masculine-orientation.
Also, one question in re: to you comment "brands tend to be mostly profit driven and thus reactionary, rather then actionary," How so? A for-profit organization can still be actionary - i.e. creating a new market. Aren't the best companies are actionary since they are leaders rather than followers/imitators.
Leland, thanks for responding.
What I mean when I say brands are reactionary is the fact that they are mirrors that reflect certain values that the group they are trying to attract, like. It's not about reacting to your competitors, it's about reacting to your buyers.
Once they stake out a profitable stand, they tend to run with. So yes one can be actionary as a company, seeking new customers, new revenue stream, but what you stand for can not (often times) change dramatically without just cause and danger of profit change.
I am making a distinction between comms and marketing as you can tell, many brands have created support systems for their core group without giving up the macho stuff.
Perhaps that was not articulated properly in my earlier comment.
I agree with you that there is a ying yang element, but the pendelum does not swing the same for everybody all over the world.
A recent article in Foreign Affairs also explored the fact that ethnonationalism is still a very powerfull sentiment/political ideology that has mass appeal and is gaining ground in certain parts of the world.
So yes I do believe that the feminine way of supportsytem building is the way for marketing, but I do believe that the masculinity approach is very usefull in the comms departement.
Niko,
Ok so the reaction vs actionary comment is an important one. Every company – hell every person – deals with this issue. Though I’d frame it as being vs. becoming: being who you are vs. becoming what the world wants you to be. In other words, companies (and people) must constantly balance authenticity with relevancy. If a company (or person) lets the golden ratio between these two become lopsided, they fall out of favor.
Levi’s is an example of a company that focused too much on authenticity. They said, “We’re Levi’s goddammit. We don’t need to change what we do to fit this “designer jean” crap.” Because they refused to grow with the world, the world left them behind.
Pepsi is an example of a company that focuses too much of relevancy. Pepsi changes with whoever the celebrity of the moment is. Madonna. Michael Jackson. Britney Spears. Justin Timberlake. Dave Chapel. Etc. Even their visual language changes to fit the fads of graphic design. Look at how many times their logo has changes over the years: cursive script to Robo-Cop fonts to the disk to the sphere-ized disk to all the other crap they do to their identity. It could be argued that Pepsi will never become a dominant brand because they don’t stand for anything. They have nothing authentic to them. If they do manage to become a leader, it’ll be because either a) Coke royally f’d up b) Pepsi cooked up some brilliant distribution scheme.
I do agree that most brands heavy up on the relevancy game. Why?
1. Every new CMO wants to come it and put his/her mark on the marketing.
2. Blind commitment to relevancy leads to short terms gains and looks good to shareholders.
3. Blind commitment to relevancy is mindless because you just regurgitate what research tells you to do.
4. Holding true to who you are and saying “no” to changes is hard.
5. They’ve been taught bad thinking by past ad agencies who produce a product that is meant to be relevant because it (it being advertising) has such a short shelf life.
Also, let me be clear that while I drew a black and white line between a masculine approach and a feminine approach in my speech, it was only for illustrative and provocative reasons. I understand the situation is much more grey. Competitive, hierarchy, control…all those masculine things will be present in a feminine approach. You can’t rid the world of those things. But you can choose not to amplify them in the world. You can choose to bring some other characteristics to the mix.
I’m also not sure why you bring up ethnonationalism. After all, ethnonationalism is just another form of community building – as I understand it. (I should note that a feminine approach does not try to create a unified world community. That’s would be an absurd aspiration. People will always categorized themselves and set themselves apart from other people. It’s how people understand their place in the world and navigate the pool of people around them.)
Thank you for helping me better understand your POV and the meaning behind your speech.
As for the etnonationalisme reference, well it just struck me as an amplification of the war methaphor, thus making it still a very relevant framework. Yes it is communitybuilding, but not in the sense that you give tools to people so they design their own future. It still (succesfully) uses fear, ingroup and out group thinking to achieve its goals; in other words a great sales pitch is still relevant, but I sometimes tend to think whil I writing so feel free to disregard the whole thing ;)
Anyways great stuff and food for thought! thanks !
Post a Comment