You are here: Home / Archives for Massachusetts

“Truck” Beats “Machine” in Massachusetts

January 20, 2010 by Mike Troiano · Comments 

For those of you new to this blog, Holland-Mark’s branding approach is based on the observation that people have a tendency to boil things down to One Simple Thing™. We all do it, it’s part of our genetic code and an important adaptation to a world overrun by complexity.

We do this for brands (Coke = Real, BMW = Performance, Zappos = Service) and for just about everything else. We saw a potent example of One Simple Thing™ – or OST™ – thinking writ large last night in Massachusetts politics.

The truth is that comparatively few people met Scott Brown and Martha Coakley before yesterday’s election. Few closely followed press coverage of the two in the weeks leading up to the vote, and even fewer read their various position papers on the Web.

The vast majority of the 2.2 million votes cast yesterday were cast based on a single, simple distillation of what each candidate represented.

Martha chose her OST™ first, focusing on “Democrat,” which seemed like a sure bet for the seat vacated by Ted Kennedy, our beloved Lion of the Senate.

Scott Brown, though, chose a different OST™: “Truck.” Seriously. For those of you who don’t live here, Mr. Brown and his pickup truck were everywhere on Massachusetts media over the last few weeks, which for a long while made the Coakley team feel like this was going to be a cakewalk.

Well… it turns out that in an environment where voters feel Washington isn’t listening to them, “Truck” trumps “Democrat.” People like “Truck.” It’s solid. Populist. Dependable. When this began to become evident in the polls, the Coakley campaign tried to give Mr. Brown a new OST™: “Republican.” The Brown campaign countered by giving Ms. Coakley a new one as well: “Political Machine.” There was a shouting match for a while, in which Mr. Brown appears to have been more focused and effective, after which voters went to the polls ready to cast on the side of “Truck,” or “Machine.”

“Truck” won. By a lot. At least that’s how we see it.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Filed under Backyard Boston, Clarity of Message, Getting to Imperative, The Holland-Mark Way · Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

“Post 390 is busy trying to keep up with the crowds”

December 2, 2009 by Mike Troiano · Comments 

"The seafood entrees, including the lobster roll served with fries, stand out at Post 390." (Photo by Aram Boghosian for The Boston Globe)

A mixed but on balance positive review of our wonderful Post 390 client in The Boston Globe. Bottom line: The restaurant is a runaway hit, even as it works out the inevitable kinks.

From the piece:

“To its credit, the team behind Post 390 knows the food is not yet up to par. Several days before this review was scheduled to run, the restaurant’s publicist called to say as much. The crowds have been greater than they anticipated, she said. It’s hard to refine things when the kitchen is struggling to keep up.

Still, crowds were the goal. A month before the restaurant opened, I spoke with Kenneth Himmel, founder of the restaurant group. “It will be very high energy, very high volume,’’ he said. By that measure, Post 390 succeeded as soon as it opened. Now the restaurant needs to work on tasting as good as it looks.”

What do you think? Have you had a positive or negative experience at the restaurant? Anything we should make sure they know??

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Filed under Consistency of Experience, Getting to Imperative, Relevance of Offering, The Holland-Mark Way · Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Playing Monopoly

November 3, 2009 by Chris Colbert · Comments 

Monopoly
Image by elycefeliz via Flickr
We all aspire to be one. A monopoly. The only game in town. Proprietary this, trademarkable that. Product developers and business people all over the world are working their assets off to come up with the next best thing, the thing that is wholly different, that offers tangible distinction that the competition just can’t replicate.

But the truth is that all monopolies die or slowly fade away. The British Empire. Polaroid. GM. Marshall Field’s. Standard Oil. Facebook. Harvard University. The United States…

So why do monopolies inevitably die and/or lose their dominant position?

Because they end up believing that they are above the realities of the marketplace and the need to evolve, to wholly innovate and constantly reinvent themselves. Their first-to-market position convinces them that their brand position and value proposition are permanently secure. They stop listening to the market, they overextend their offering, they take on initiatives that are motivated more by ego and largess than by practical consideration of what would serve their customers (or citizens) best. They lose focus on what is relevant and what really drives sustainable value. They ignore the competition.

A monopolistic position creates a false sense of competency, alarming forms of “strategic laziness,” and a reluctance to take on what I call “essential risk.”

So is monopolistic aspiration the wrong intention? I think not. The way to avoid the downside of the upside is not to eschew the desire to “own the market” but to eschew ego, to be laser focused about what really matters to the people you serve and to look the truth about it all directly in the eye and act on what you see. Clarity. Humility. Practicality. Candor. Bravery. Ardor.

All key to winning the game again and again.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Filed under Societal Musings · Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,