As you can imagine, the recent quake and tsunami shook their world. They report that they are safe, but heart-broken for the loss that is felt all across Japan. Their work in Munakata-shi, Fukuoka continues although “the event stirred Japan to its core. Recovery will continue for years to come.”

They covet your prayers for their family and the people of Japan. Watch video

We’ve all seen this iPhenomena in action. And there are many real world – non Apple – examples, from Netflix streaming to OnStar. Excitement is going mainstream. McKinsey & Company released a report last month titled Wow! Exciting Customers, Creating Value. It’s central premise: Satisfaction may retain customers, but it doesn’t attract them.

If your brand is looking to grow, you need to stop thinking in terms of good and start thinking in terms of great.

Technology is a double-edged sword. The same force that is making it easier for competitors and categories to settle into a pattern of symbiotic parity is also making it easier for that environment to be recognized as such. In many ways, technology facilitates more ennui than energy. And that should be a wake-up call for brands.

While we can all agree that a brand is a valuable asset, The Trouble With Brands reports that most consumer brands are not creating value. And a brand is a terrible thing to waste.

The brands that do create value? They have energy – defined as vision, invention and dynamism. That dynamism “creates excitement in the marketplace.” And, according to the authors of the study, it’s the most immediately visible of the three components. Excitement wins again. Three important reminders about this increasingly important brand equity:

• Exciting is not extreme satisfaction. Satisfaction is a hybrid of rational and emotional factors. It is a need. Excitement is emotional. It’s a motivation. Don’t try to satisfy your way to excitement.
• Excitement gets people to talk. Another McKinsey gem: Word-of-mouth is the primary factor behind 20 to 50 percent of all purchasing decisions. So surprise, fascinate and delight. If you’re about to invest in something that won’t incite sharing, it’s time to at least press pause to consider if that investment can be better spent.
• Excitement does not have to be dramatic. It can live in the little things. Intuitive functionality. Elegant solutions. A cookie on your milkshake’s straw.

The trick for brand managers? Make the journey to Wow! shorter. Because in this case, it’s the destination that matters.

Interested in more stuff I find interesting? Follow me @casey_flanagan on Twitter.

I bring this up for a few reasons. First, it seems like a anniversary worth recognizing. (TiVo ranks right up there with the iPod, iPhone and Twitter for changing my life for the better.) Second, despite the drum beating by the doomsayers, the thirty-second commercial is not dead. (It’s changed. For the better.) Third, it’s worth acknowledging we were all – or at least I was – too busy to notice.

Habits are changing dramatically. Strategies, too. That’s not news. So it should come as no surprise that it seems we may be at the beginning of another revolution. By the end of next year, eMarketer projects 86.6% of US Internet Users to be Online Video Users. That would account for an almost 40% increase in five years. But the under 25 set is already blazing a farther-reaching path.

According to new report from Retrevo, 29% of the Under 25 set reports watching TV online “all” or “most” of the time. Include “some” in the equation and the number shoots up to a whopping 83%. This next – trend-setting – generation continues to watch TV. Four out of five of them just might not be using a TV to do so.

The revolution is being televised – in new and exciting ways.

But I don’t think that we need to get rid of PowerPoint. I think we need to get rid of presentations.
We advise our clients on a daily basis that media consumption (and expectations) are changing. Yet hours and hours (and hours) are wasted on the same old presentations that are emotionless, bullet-pointed monologues. That’s not how to communicate an idea.

I offer two alternative solutions: performances and conversations. Together, they eliminate the need for presenting.

Performances. Performances have no droning or meandering. They have a point. They are engaging. They require little work to follow. And, at the end, they may even leave the audience wanting more. When was the last time you attended a performance? When was the last time you gave one?

Conversations. Not every gathering can (or should) be a performance. But, if we are unable to deliver one, let’s not fall back on a presentation. Instead, turn the event into a conversation. While conversations are still “led,” they are two-way. They still require planning, focus and takeaways. But they encourage listening, sharing and participating. The outcome of which tends to be more people operating from the same playbook. Wouldn’t you (always) rather take part in a conversation than a presentation?

Now, here’s the thing. PowerPoint (or, for the lucky among us, Keynote) are perfectly good tools for developing a performance or a conversation. They aren’t the only tools. But, reframed, it’s clear that each can be used for good, in addition to the unfortunate evil.

We just need to be clear. Is this meeting a performance or a conversation?

I absolutely agree. And I left this week’s Wisconsin Governor’s Conference on Tourism (#WIGCOT) excited to… do. There was a sense that if we all put our noses down and roll our sleeves up, there is much we can accomplish. I am always energized when people join together to create a greater whole. Beyond this general enthusiasm, I also left the conference with a potentially paradigm-changing framework. A new way to think about a tried-and-true approach.

In her opening remarks, Secretary of Tourism Kelli Trumble talked about a Will Do attitude. I had never heard that before and I thought it was an interesting – and important – distinction from the much-lauded, time-tested Can Do attitude.

In a service industry, a “Can Do” spirit is a prerequisite for success. It does have a limitation, however. It’s a reactive mindset. What if the customer doesn’t know what she wants? Or hasn’t asked? Or is tolerably satisfied against a very low set of expectations?

A “Will Do” mindset is a game-changer. It is a commitment to action, not just optimism. It’s proactive. It’s an invitation to think about what you will do for a customer, prior to being asked. In doing so, it increases the odds of a positive customer experience.

If a Can Do attitude is a prerequisite for success, a Will Do attitude is the foundation for loyalty.

So how does a GM whose career is based on numbers sum up statistical analysis? I heard a podcast interview with him this morning where he was talking about really wonky basketball statistics. But in the chaos of his analytics, he shared a nugget of clarity. And I believe his perspective to be invaluable. His take? “There are issues with every analysis. The best thing (good) analysis does is raise the right questions.”

Well said.

Data does not equal knowledge. And knowledge does not equal results. There is a lot of rigorous work involved. Getting good data allows you ask the right questions. Executing on the right insight lays the foundation for good results.

That’s why a Google Analytics dashboard is just the first step. Our ability to capture data is phenomenal. We just need to make sure our analytic capabilities are functioning at that same level.

I love lists. Especially the year-end variety. Music, books, advertisements. Successes, mistakes. Put it in a list and I’ll give you three more reasons why I’ll read it.

But, for the many that I comb through and truly enjoy, there is only one that I consider a can’t miss at the end of every year. And, at the end of every year, I’m always reminded that my favorite year-end list is actually (a) a non-business list about business and (b) a list for the following year.

It’s The New York Times’ Year In Ideas – now in its ninth edition. Dealing with subject matter as far reaching as social science to sports, the list provides “clever, important, silly and just plain weird innovations… from all corners of the thinking world.”

Inspiration, as Malcolm Gladwell has shown again and again, can be found anywhere. And, I would argue, that’s what we should strive for as a matter of course. The best way think like everyone else in your line of work is to attend the same seminars they attend, read the same authors they’re reading and see the world the way they see the world. It’s a recipe for vanilla.

So, I like my business lists different. From Random Promotions (Are we really just promoted to our level of incompetence?) to Drunken Ultimatums (Are we that vengeful of a culture?), each entry provides the opportunity to think in new ways (Is Michael Jackson more responsible for real time search than Google?). It’s all there. It’s kind of weird. And it’s well worth the read.

At last year’s planning conference, one of the keynote speeches was made by Jeff Goodby and John Thorpe. It was fifty minutes of good idea after good idea. But one of my favorites was their take on the yin and yang of a planner’s responsibilities.

We need to think less and do more. We also need to do less and think more.

I wrote earlier this year about the balance of simplifying and doing everything. It’s a concept I’m fascinated with. The original handle for the idea, at least for me, came (embarrassingly?) from an episode of Ed. Pop culture strikes again. And it is the foundation for my resolutions for the coming year.

I resolve to make 2010 the year of Less Is More. I resolve to do fewer things better. To focus on execution. To focus on follow-through. But that doesn’t mean doing fewer things. It likely means doing more. So I resolve to make 2010 the year of More Is More.  I resolve to focus on outcomes. And deliverables. To embrace small failures as a means to greater successes.

I will do more. I will do less. This year, I will simplify. And I will do everything. I will yin. I will yang. I will think less and do more. I will do less and think more. Just like I resolved to do last year. And just like I hope to do next year.

We are faced with choices on how best to tell stories on a daily basis. Often times, the decision comes down to “do we / can we trust the audience?” Can we trust them to be smart enough? Engaged enough? Responsible enough?

I was reminded of this the other night as I read How The Grinch Stole Christmas. It was the first time I had read it in, likely, twenty-five years. And you know what? [Spoiler Alert!] Despite the promise of the title, the grinch doesn’t steal Christmas. He can’t. That’s the point of the story. Here’s how the book ends:

And he brought back the toys! And the food for the feast!

And he… HE HIMSELF… !

The Grinch carved the roast beast.

The story ends with the grinch carving the roast beast at the Who’s Christmas dinner.

When run through a committee, the story would have been called “The Unsteal-able Holiday.” Or “How The Grinch Couldn’t Steal Christmas.” Or, maybe most palatable, at least in hindsight, “How Christmas Saved The Grinch.”

But it wasn’t run through a committee. Or made into a literal translation. It was told by someone who believed strongly enough that this was the exact right way to tell it. And that people would get it. The good Doctor Seuss used a title that was, in reality, the opposite of what the story was about.

And the story has been told and retold ever since.

Happy Holidays.

But it’s in the measurement of the return that marketers can lose their footing.

As pressure increases to demonstrate measurable (and immediate) results, opportunities for a potentially greater (or longer-term) return are passed up because they aren’t as measurable as their less needle-moving alternatives.

I blame Google.

Let’s call it benchmark-eting. The phenomena of marketers being reduced to goal-setters. Hopeful goal-hitters. And eventual reporters on the goal-hitting process.

The need for return on investment is a given, the approach we take is not. At the end of the day, the question we all need to ask is: Do our stakeholders want the most measurable return – or the best one? (Sometimes the best return is the most measurable one, sometimes not.) The long-term success of your brand may depend on it.