This Week in Strategy: I tried calling the tinnitus helpline. No answer, just kept ringing

Hi Strat Pack,

It's not often that I ask you for a favor, right? Well, now I'm asking for one. The Met Unframed, the only thing I care about here at work, is up for two Webby Awards. And unlike all those big agencies, we don't have 150,000 employees that we get to vote for us. So I'm asking you, dear Strat Pack, please will you vote for my work in the Webbys?

Look - I'm under no illusion that we're better than the 1619 Project. But that doesn't mean we can't show them up in the popular vote! It takes 2 seconds to vote (and only 25 seconds longer to register). This newsletter is a free thing that I give to you every week. The least you can do is click through and spend 27 seconds on a Friday. Yes, I'm trying to guilt you into voting for my thing. Is it working? Please let me know in the comments below!

Guys, here's with a banger of a headline from The Gray Lady: ‘Citizen Kane’ Is No ‘Paddington 2,’ Says Rotten Tomatoes (Don't want to burn a NYT paywall article? check out the freer--and more on the nose--Guardian 80-year-old review wrecks Citizen Kane’s 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes) The 80-year-old, less-than-effusive review, headlined “Citizen Kane Fails to Impress Critic as Greatest Ever Filmed,” resurfaced last month as part of a new archival project at Rotten Tomatoes. “You’ve heard a lot about this picture and I see by the ads that some experts think it ‘the greatest movie ever made,’” the critic, whose punny pseudonymous byline was Mae Tinee, wrote. “I don’t.”

This is the kind of content that gets me through the week.

In other news, I fell down a rabbit hole the other day and landed on The Rolex Deep Sea Challenge That Accompanied James Cameron Into The Mariana Trench. Let's be honest, I'm not a huge watch guy. I want to be, but I also want a Patak Philippe and who has $300k to spend on a watch, amirite! This watch recently went down to a depth of 10,898 meters strapped to the outside of a submersible piloted by Titanic director James Cameron. What is it with that guy and depth? It is rated to 12,000 meters, or 39,370 feet...or roughly the flying altitude of your average transcontinental flight, except the other direction (down, not up). It can withstand up to 13.6 tons of pressure. I think it's cool as hell, and highly recommend clicking through just to look at, frankly, this feat of engineering.

Last but not least, let's end with some simultaneously amazing and hyper depressing news. The amazing: "Disaster Girl" Meme Sells as NFT for Nearly $500,000 USD. Love this for her. NFT for good. Now the hyper depressing: Zoë Roth, the titular character of the iconic photo, plans to use the proceeds to pay off her student loans. Gotta love the American education system.

Alright, stop messing around trying to figure out how to put me under 13.6 tons of pressure (j/k that's just my day job!). Let's jump right in.

The one thing to read this week

1) Is the Opposite of Your Choice Stupid on its Face? [Roger Martin - Medium]

If it is, it is not Really a Strategy Choice

We have all seen countless strategic plans asserting that the organization’s strategy is to be ‘customer-centric’ or to be ‘operationally effective’ or to ‘invest in its talent.’ But these don’t meet my test for strategic choices — even though they may actually be the most frequently proffered choices in the world of strategic plans. My test for whether a stated choice is actually a strategic choice is whether or not the opposite of the choice is stupid on its face.

For example, the opposite of the choice to be customer-centric is to ignore customers entirely, which is stupid on its face. Only a regulated monopoly — like the Department of Motor Vehicles — can ignore its customers entirely and survive. Similarly, either being operationally pathetic or disinvesting in talent is also stupid on its face. The only positive thing that can be said about those choices is that they aren’t stupid. And as such, you can be highly confident that all your consequential competitors will be making that same choice — i.e. to be customer-centric, operationally effective and to invest in their talent.

Since strategy is the act of making distinctive choices that position your organization uniquely to win, by definition a choice the opposite of which is stupid on its face is not a strategy choice. That does not mean it is a bad choice — just not a strategy choice. The opposite of filing your corporate tax returns on time is stupid on its face; but you better file your corporate tax returns on time or you are in big trouble. Organizations have to make innumerable choices where the opposite is stupid on its face, they just aren’t choices that rise to the level of a strategy choice. They are necessary to compete but don’t enable you to win.

The Value of Making Strategy Choices
When an organization makes a choice for which the opposite is not stupid — and in fact a competitor is doing the opposite and succeeding — it has the possibility of having distinctive strategy. Some other competitors might be making a similar choice, so it isn’t by definition distinctive; but at least it will place your organization in a smaller competitive set. The goal, of course, is a competitive set of one with a fully distinctive choice.

Think of mutual fund giant Vanguard. When Jack Bogle founded Vanguard, he made a choice to offer only passively managed index mutual funds (and later index exchange-traded funds). The opposite was to offer actively managed mutual funds, which wasn’t stupid on its face. It was what every other fund company on the planet chose, including Fidelity, which is the other global giant in the industry. Vanguard definitively made a strategy choice because the opposite was a successful strategy for Fidelity and others. In fact, arguably, Vanguard helped make Fidelity’s choice to compete as active management provider a real strategy choice because it proved that the opposite was anything but stupid on its face. Fidelity then had to make other strategy choices to separate itself from the pack of other active management mutual fund providers.

Real strategy choices make the world a better place: they are good for customers, shareholders, employees and communities.

When organizations fail to make real strategy choices, they make the world a worse place. This happens when competitors in an industry begin to imagine that there is only one set of choices that make sense for their industry — essentially believing that the opposite of that dominant set of choices is stupid on its face. When most or all converge on that set of choices, the industry commoditizes. Think of large US airline carriers converged on identical service and operations models, or now the smartphone industry converging on phones based on the Android operating system. These industries (or substantial parts of them) commoditize because with similar choices, the competitors produce an output that looks and feels nearly identical for customers. And when customers feel that way, they look for the lowest price from any one of the competitors.

With commoditization comes less customer choice, downward pressure on profits, and downward pressure on all costs, including wages. It makes it is less attractive place for customers, shareholders and employees — and often the communities in which they operate and work.

But Isn’t it Good to be Customer-Centric?
Customer-centricity is stated at level of generality that makes both the opposite stupid on its face and negates the value of deep user understanding. It is only a strategic choice to be customer-centric in a way that is distinctive from the way competitors are being customer-centric..

At Four Seasons, whose deep guest understanding found that they would rather be at home or at the office than in yet another hotel room, and thus features a guest environment designed to make up for what the guest misses from being home or at the office. Here the choice is pushed to a level of specificity that the opposite (grand architecture and décor) is not stupid on its face: rather, it is common among competitors.

P&G is not distinctive because it has chosen to invest in talent. Many of its competitors also do. But it is distinctive because it has chosen a promote-from-within system that enables a distinctive form of investment in its talent. Southwest is not distinctive because it has chosen to pursue operational effectiveness. Virtually all of its competitors pursue it in some form. But it is distinctive because it has made myriad operational choices (one kind of aircraft, no seat selection, point-to-point route structures, cross-trained staff, etc.) that are utterly distinctive.

Test every prototype choice with the question: is the opposite stupid on its face? If the answer is yes, then chances are that the choice is stated at such a level of generality that it isn’t a powerful choice at all. If that is the case, drive the choice to a greater and greater level of specificity until such time as you can say with confidence that the opposite is not stupid on its face: in fact, somebody else is doing the opposite successfully. Then you will have made a real strategy choice.

2) A couple of examples (thx google) of consumer journeys that are a waste of time in a ad agency [Julian Cole - Twitter]

A lot of ad agencies have co-opted UX language to look smart without really knowing why they're doing it.

Julian lists a bunch (click through for details) but my favorite is the McKinsey Loyalty Loop. It was *the thing* when it came out in like 2010 or whatever. Here's what he has to say about it:

The loop is flawed. The model disregards that most advertising happens when consumers are not thinking about you. Unfortunately for brands, I'm not in a loop of thinking, evaluating or buying car insurance everyday. The right consumer journey understands that 99% of advertising happens when we're not thinking about the brand.

3) Quick Hits

Two pieces on human behavior that I think are well worth a read this week. If we don't understand humans, how are we supposed to sell shit to them?

  • How Pfizer Became the Status Vax [Slate] Very very interesting read. The Pfizer superiority complex is at once a joke and a real phenomenon. But is it affecting the vaccine rollout? “Even though I think that we have this instinct that’s out there”—the belief that Pfizer is the elite shot—“it still feels more playful than really driving outcomes,” said Manuel Hermosilla, a professor of marketing at Johns Hopkins’ Carey Business School who studies the pharmaceutical industry.

    For Hermosilla, Pfizer’s first-to-market advantage was significant. Remembering last fall, he said, “Our expectations were very low and we had a lot of time and a lot of interest in a vaccine solution to come up. Then all of the sudden in November, we get Pfizer news. At least in my reading, this was a little bit of a magical moment, when [Pfizer CEO] Albert Bourla had this press conference and said, ‘Hey, we have 95 percent efficacy.’ Remember, the FDA had said, ‘We’ll take it if it is more than 50 or 60 percent.’ I think that that was a very special moment in our collective imagination in that there was a real solution to a real problem that was delivered by science much more quickly than we could have ever imagined or hoped for based on experience. This sequence of events left a very clear mark in our minds on this Pfizer vaccine being something special.”

  • Introducing You to 'Airport Culture', Gen Z's New Favourite Pastime [Vice] A very big part of me is very skeptical of this article. But I'm sharing it with you as an intersting piece on a segment of consumer culture I don't fully understand, and on the importance of removing bias from your work. And ultimately, it shows that teens just want a place to hang out. If not a mall, an airport. If not an airport, they'll find somwhere else. [The author] became fascinated with the question of what Gen Z do, when they’re not locked down and online, and actually out in the world? It was a bit of a bleak picture – they inhabit something of a cultural wasteland, where the appeal of pubs and clubs has dwindled, money is tight and where social spaces designed for teenagers have all but vanished.

    But there was one destination that came up so frequently and in such colourful detail, particularly for teenagers from poorer backgrounds, that it began to seem like an undiscovered subculture. It’s what I came to christen “Airport Culture”.

    Going to the airport for fun or to while-away time has become a noticeably popular activity. Interrogate it a little further, and it becomes obvious why. An airport is a free, diverse and safe space that offers the roaming possibilities of streets and parks, with the added benefit of lots of security, meaning nothing bad is likely to happen to you there.

4) Department of Great Work

  • Delivering for Earth :30 [YouTube] Guys I am a sucker for two things. Giant fucking boxes and Willie Nelson. Fascinated by the larger-than-life FedEx boxes that seem to have magically materialized in all kinds of locations, bystanders from all walks of life can't help but observe the cardboard contraptions curiously. As the boxes each fall open to reveal a different kind of environmentally-friendly development for delivery inside -- such as electric delivery vehicles, reusable packaging, and carbon capture research -- FedEx declares that it's making Earth its priority by making a goal of being carbon neutral by 2040. The plane exiting the FedEx box hangar in the :60 just gets me. From BBDO New York

  • LeVar Burton Stars in New Ad for Ryan Reynolds' Gin [ScreenRant] The ad starts off with Reynolds announcing that, because he kept hearing about how great Burton was, he'd decided to have the veteran actor step in and be the spokesperson for the brand. Seconds later, Burton pops up on screen, sitting in front of a pool while sipping a glass of the gin. From there, the commercial takes a comical turn that will definitely be memorable. It's good. Levar doesn't say "don't take my word for it," which I guess we can forgive him for. From Maximum Effort. And hey! Levar is going to be a guest host of Jeopardy!

  • Bombay Sapphire's Design Museum Supermarket Shows That Creativity is Essential [Little Black Book] Alex Grieve, chief creative officer at AMV BBDO, says: “In the mind-numbing sameness of pandemic days we have never needed creativity more. But, with all public galleries closed, the chance to be inspired and stimulated by art has been denied us. We believe creativity is essential. As vital to the human condition as food and water. Which sparked a thought: galleries are shut but essential shops are open. Let’s use creativity to find a way around the restrictions and turn a gallery into a supermarket so it can re-open and have the packaging of every product in our shop be a work of art from a different artist. Which just goes to prove creativity finds a way”. Guys this is gorgeous. From AMV BBDO

  • See Google's Emotional Oscars Spot About the Deaf Community During Covid [Muse by Clio] If, like me, you did not watch the Academy Awards last weekend, you missed two gorgeous and IMO very impactful Google spots. "A CODA Story" tells the tale of Tony Lee, a lead designer at Google Brand Studio who is also a child of deaf adults (CODA). The spot is told in Google's typically evocative style, using a combination of animated Google screenshots and real-life video footage to show how Tony has been able to use Google products—including Live Caption and captioning in Google Meet—to video chat with his parents, both of whom are deaf. From the Google Brand Studio Team

As always, the full archive is available here. Was this email forwarded to you? Want to start getting this on a weekly basis? All I need is your email, everything else is optional. Thanks for sticking around as always. See you next week

Jordan Weil