I’m preparing to do payroll. As part of my personal program of productive procrastination, I thought I would delay this task with a little blogging. Whenever it’s time for payroll, I start to think about the price “P” of the marketing mix. It’s a natural, because it is a most practical reminder of the importance of gross margin, which is a function of price.

I read a book not long ago, Pricing on Purpose, in which the author talks about methods for stratifying prices, so that you can get higher prices from customers/clients/situations in which the tasks or goods have a higher value (that would be above the equilibrium line on the supply and demand curve, which I also learned helps to define price elasticity).

To a pure market economist, a thing is worth what the present customer is willing to pay for it at the present time, under the present circumstance. To a glass half-empty type (angry marxists), this is a definition of exploitative pricing. To that guy, a thing is worth precisely the cost of producing it—Marx lived with his mum for most of his adult life. That guy doesn’t take into account all of the times when the seller has to sell, and the present buyer, at the present time, in the present circumstance is willing to pay LESS than the cost of producing the goods—look at Florida real estate.

For the most part, I think it’s sort of silly to attach moral judgments to pricing. But people do. To some people, the “correct/fair” price of a thing is exactly what the last guy paid for it. By that logic, if a guy bought a bottle of drinking water for a buck before the famine, then the seller should be obligated to sell drinking water for a buck during the famine (remember Richard Nixon’s wage-price freeze?). As a practical matter, the most common idea of correct/fair pricing is some cost-plus equation. There is some arbitrary idea of a “fair” markup (usually somewhere between 15 and 300 percent, depending on the industry), beyond which, the seller is gouging the buyer.

Sometimes I like to turn the tables. Is it fair for somebody to make $100,000 on a piece of advice or work for which he paid $5,000? That’s a 2000 percent profit!!!!! Outrageous!!!! Yet that is often the case with people who purchase professional services. Then again, if the person rendering the service only spent two hours rendering the $5,000 piece of advice, then he’s making $2,500 per hour. Outrageous!!!!!! Nobody’s worth that!!!!!

By common, cost-plus logic (complete with added morality), the guy should not have been allowed to charge more than, say, $200 (at $100 per hour); and the person using the advice should not have been able to make more than $600 (that would be a 300 percent profit). That would be $104,100 in value that never gets into the economy. With the multiplier effect, that’s like $300,000-500,000 in goods and services that never get purchased. That’s ten unemployed households created in the interest of some arbitrary idea of a “fair profit.”

Wish I could make $2,500 an hour. Some days I wish I could make $25. Gotta get some paychecks written.

That’s objective, goal, strategies, measures. It’s one of the strategic tools we use to keep from wasting resources. Sometimes we have so many forms and strategic tools, that people feel like it restricts their creativity. Of course, we need to remember that our creativity is not the point of what we do; we should be focused on enhancing our client’s business. Besides that, certain constraints actually enhance creativity (for example, check out how a creative cornerback uses the sideline).

Anyhow, the OSGM is a linear/waterfall tool that helps us put first things first. Everything is subservient to the Objective—the reason for the initiative. From the objective come the Goals—practical, measurable desired outcomes for the success of the initiative. Then come Strategies—things we’re going to do in order to achieve the goals. Then come Measures—quantifiable methods, determined in advance, to evaluate the degree to which the initiative was a success…or not.

Without objectives, you can spend a lot of time, resources, money, and brand equity doing stuff that seems cool, but that does not get you (or your client) where you want to be. Without goals, you can all agree on what your trying to achieve, but then, you can spend a lot of time, resources, money, and brand equity doing stuff that seems cool, but that does not get you (or your client) where you want to be. Without strategies, you end up trying to solve problems by throwing money at them. And, of course, if you don’t establish your measures in advance, you can roll out some arbitrary measures after the fact and use them to declare victory (if you like the initiative) or defeat (if you don’t like the initiative).

So, the OSGM process keeps it about the business, and thwarts self-indulgent creativity, the tendency always to jump on the next big thing, and the counterproductive effects of office politics. It is what it is. It is does what it does. It succeeds or fails on its own merits. And that’s that.

This morning I read the story of Samson and Delilah in the book of Judges. There have been a lot of songs written about that story. The Grateful Dead did one, I think. But my favorite is “Hallelujah,” by Leonard Cohan…“she tied you to a kitchen chair, she broke your throne, she cut your hair…”

As I read the Samson chapters, I was amazed at what a huge jerk this guy was. And yet God used him to achieve His purposes, and blessed him. So that gives me some hope. I may be a jerk, but I never burned a field, gave my wife away to my friends, ripped a gate off of a city wall, killed anybody with an animal part, or knocked down a crowded building, crushing the inhabitants. And I never let a pretty girl get between God and me, just because she flirted and nagged…at least I don’t think so.

What’s all this have to do with branding? Well, Samson was a Nazarite. One of the brand distinctives of a Nazarite is that they NEVER cut their hair. He gave up part of the essence of his brand and betrayed his stakeholders for a short term benefit (getting to take a nap on Delila’s lap!!!!). Know your differential advantage and stick to it.

You have a personality, no matter what they told you in high school. We’ve been doing branding for a long time, and we’ve been studying brands even longer. And we know two things to be true (at least two). One, everything is a brand—even if it is not packaged and promoted as such. And two, every brand falls into one of five personalities—sincerity, excitement, ruggedness, sophistication, or competence.

My Aunt Evelyn is the embodiment of competence. My dad is sincerity with overtones of ruggedness—this caused him some anxiety as a math teacher, but served him well as a scout leader. I had a room mate in college (Lips Miller), who was an excitement brand. Dude did spontaneous dives off a railroad trestle, at night, into dark water—EKS-SITE-MENT! Anne’s Aunt Barbara and Uncle Bert are sophistication—Bert is in the big-time jewelry business. Gave Anne some really nice china, just cause they thought she ought to have it.

Wedgewood—sophistication.

Had a black lab—Primo— who was the epitome of sincerity and ruggedness. Loved trucks. Got hit by one once, trying to lick the front bumper, while it was moving. Sincere. Rugged. Not smart.

I was just outside, and I noticed that it was getting a little cooler—at 94 degrees! Last week we set a record—five days in a row over 100. So, 94, by comparison, is a little cooler. But anyone who thinks the words “cooler” and “94 degrees” in the same thought needs some sort of adjustment in perception.

This must be what it’s like to be a boiled frog.

We do this thing several times a year. We call it “fun day.” It’s always the last Friday of a month with five Fridays. And it usually involves some sort of competition.

The other day I had an idea. What if we have two prospective clients, both looking for a new agency. We split into two teams, one assigned to each prospect. We do simultaneous new-business sales presentations on that day. If one of the clients selects our agency, that team wins a prize. If both client select our agency…we’ve got ourselves a new business strategy!

So any volunteer clients? The requirements are: you must have the authority to hire an advertising agency, you must be sincere about looking for an advertising agency, you must be the right size ($100,000-$1,000,000 annual budget) and in one of the industries where we have experience or applicable expertise. And you must look at www.gibbonspeck.com and conclude that we may be the kind of agency with whom you would like to work.

I will select the two candidates to participate from the many volunteers I expect to get. You can volunteer by leaving your contact information in the comment box. If you do not want your identity posted, please stipulate that and I’ll take care of you.

What can I say? It’s 100 degrees, headed for 102, and my brain’s a little overheated. I’ll watch the comment box.

I know it’s not me. Maybe it’s the client.

But if you ask the client, he says it’s his boss. And if you ask the boss, she says it’s the owners. And if you ask the owners, they just want an ROI, which goes to the customer.

And if you ask the customer, they really don’t care about your company; they just want some soap that works. And how do they know if the soap works? It makes lots of long-lasting suds (which doesn’t really have anything to do with the working of the soap)…it removes the soil or stains (which has more to do with the source of the stain, the age of the soil, or the temperature of the water than it has to do with the efficacy of the soap)…it leaves a “clean” smell (when you think about this one, how clean is something that has been washed in a solution that leaves a residual of a fragrance?).

So, by buying or not buying the client’s soap, somebody who has no idea how soap works or even if the soap worked has a great deal of power over our agency. So we have two choices. Either we can convince the prospective customer to buy the soap because it works, or we can convince the past customer who bought the soap that it worked.

Or, I can just accept the fact that I am not in charge.

I was shocked to learn that GW, a brilliant young creative professional, is neutral regarding Bugs Bunny. I didn’t think anyone was neutral regarding Bugs Bunny. Hmmm.

I love a lot of things about Bugs. He doesn’t get upset in stressful situations (like when Marvin the Martian is going to destroy the Earth with his space modulator, or when Elmer Fudd is hunting wabbits). He is kind to those who are weaker than he is. He is respectful, but not overly so, to those who are stronger than he is. But here’s my favorite part…

Bad things happen to people who attack Bugs Bunny, in exact proportion to the effort they expend in trying to harm Bugs. Like, remember the episode where Yosemite Sam put dynamite in the piano? Bugs let himself look silly. And Sam let himself get blown up by his own dynamite. Cracked me clear up.

As a generally sweet, slightly nerdy, not classically strong, athletic, or handsome kid, I really learned to like Bugs. Still do.

He’s a literary hero, doc.

The way we set up our schedule, we work a half hour extra most days, and then we get a half day off (4.5 hours) every second Friday. Today is a short Friday. Woo-hoo.

To be honest, some of us are usually here for at least a couple of hours in the afternoon of a short Friday (right now it’s 3:02—office closed three hours and two minutes ago). But even at that, it’s pretty cool. You can work in relative quiet, because nobody is here unless they have a specific thing they’re here to work on. You don’t get too many interruptions. And when you’re done, you leave. So, if we’re outta here before like 4:30, we still feel like we got time off.

I wonder what it would be like to work this way all the time. Come in when you have things to get done. Schedule meetings, and have the people show up who need to be there. Have client meetings on specific days. Forward our calls to our cells. Forward our email to our laptops. We could work ALL the time. And we would never feel like we were “at work.” But then, we would never feel like we were off. I gotta say I’m not likin’ this picture too much.

Maybe I’ll just take the rest of the day off and think about it.

Marketing communication is inherently secretive. People have ideas that are only valuable if nobody knows them until its too late to do anything about them. The first mover’s advantage is debatable in the product arena. But it is fact in marketing communication. If I have an awesome campaign line, and you find out about it and put in out there before I get to, you have reaped the entire potential value of my idea.

This creates and interesting paradox. Marketing people tend to be the types of folks who like to talk. Some like to share. Others like to brag. But in general, we tend to be talkers. Yet, our stock in trade requires us to keep secrets. Also, just about anyone who has worked in an agency has been in a position to have to keep client secrets. We keep our clients’ secrets. Our clients keep our secrets (and our clients’ secrets). Secrets flow downhill.

I have a friend whose dad was an Air Force pilot. Flew the decoy for Air Force 1. Was privy to the president’s travel schedule. They lived next to a CIA guy. The two dads would have strange, cryptic back fence conversations. Both making allusions to secrets. Neither actually talking about them.

Right now, I know three big client secrets and one big prospect secret. I’m sure I’m not unusual among people in my position. But they’re not telling. And neither am I.