BrandSoul

An ethical dilemma

A dilemma is supposed to be a problem that offers no obvious solution. When it comes to ethics it is quite common to support one ethical judgment or the contrary. You can always be or not to be in favour of abortion. You could even have mixed feelings on the issue. But a dilemma defies common reasoning. You cannot even figure out what the most correct answer to the problem could be.

As unusual as it seems, there's an ethical dilemma happening in the last few months. I refer to the case of Floyd Landis and his supposedly doped victory at the Tour de France 06. Well, it is quite clear that Landis behaviour regarding the use of some kind of doping substance if proved, should be condemned. But from that point on, things start to be more and more obscure.

What should authorities do?

1. Should they declare the Tour 06's winner was Oscar Pereiro? It seems like he deserves it.

2. Should they ask Landis to return the money he earned for being  considered the winner of the race?

3. What about the collateral earnings he enjoyed? What about the collateral money people like Pereiro couldn't earn?

The problem with cycling is just getting more puzzling. Bjarne Rijs the 1996 Tour de France Champion declared last week he used EPO to improve his performance. What should we do now? We should consider he did not win the race? Should we change the whole Tour de France history? And how can we be sure the one who made second did not use some substance too?

The problem is even more difficult to resolve if we compare Rijs' case and Landis'. Landis is being judged severely in public. Rijs has admitted having done the same and nobody asks him to submit from his position. Should Rijs too return the money he earned for winning the Tour 96? And the subsequent earnings derived from that? And why should Landis, then? Rijs has built his prestige on the sole basis of his results at the french race. Should he be removed from his current job, too? Should someone else deserve his position?

Performance and judgement in Branding

What does it take to build a great brand? Let's take an example from the sports world: what does it take to a football team to build a great brand?

The first answer should be: results. But I'm not so sure.

Let's take an example from this week.

I've just read in today's (Friday) paper that Real Madrid, the mythic spanish soccer team has scored the most points in the second part of the season in their history. Not only that, if they continue to win the three remaining games until the end of the League, they would beat all the marks in the history of the most successful soccer team in the world (Real Madrid).

This should lead us to a satisfactory perception of the situation among supporters. The surprising thing is that by reading the comments of Real Madrid fans on a couple of blogs, it seems like the team is accomplishing something ordinary. Even the coach is being  judged as too tactical and many comments point out he should leave the team next year.

This is crazy. There must be something influencing the judgment of supporters that is not performance and is not availability of information either.

What is it?

The theory of constraint

Yesterday I read an account of the life of John von Neumann, one of the leading mathematicians of the XX century. He was part of the Manhattan Project and has been widely recognized as the main founder of what today is known as Game theory.

The Manhattan Project reunited an important number of leading scientists and it happened to be that many of them were hungarians. Von Neumann was a hungarian jewish who had to exile to the US when nazis went into power. Asked by the coincidence of so many hungarian top-level minds at the same location, in Los Alamos, von Neumann answered it could be explained by "the need to make extraordinary accomplishments to avoid being extinguished".

I think this is a major factor in the lifes of many extraordinary creative people. Sometimes the constraint factor can lead to insanity or extravaganza, as I have sometimes discussed this with Trevor. But other times it is the only way to survival. In this case, not only survival is enough, but it is the element that makes sense the whole experience of the person.

Truffaut and Welles

I've just finished watching François Truffaut's Stolen kisses. I've enjoyed it so much that I can't help writing something on it. It is a trait of any genius to make things simple, but extremely meaningful. And that is what Stolen kisses offers. It is perfect in showing love and the joy of life. Thanks Truffaut for rendering this pure stream of bliss.

On the other side, I watched The magnificent Ambersons for the first time last weekend. Though I love Citizen Kane and Fake, The Ambersons saga seemed to me too pathetic, dark and claustrophobic. Of course, one could argue that is what Welles intended. Still the story reminds me too much one of a person I know and perhaps that contributed to the feeling of deception.

Truffaut and Welles, simplicity and complexity, two completely different styles. I was a Welles maniac years ago. Now I prefer Truffaut's serenity. Am I aging or something?

The ignorant's tactic...and other negotiating tricks

Few days after I was back at work in Bilbao, I had the opportunity to test my negotiating skills. I had to negotiate a package of financial products with the leading Bank in our area. While on the table, I just tried to figure out what their tactics were to make the deal possible. These were some of them and I explain why they did not work.

1. The first tactic was to make an offer without any basis according to the reality of our company. The offer was, obviously very low for our interests, but if I had accepted it would be a great deal for them. At least for the sort term, because that means they don't care for their customers, they were not offering me thei best products or at least products that fitted with our needs.This is the tactic of the ignorant. It just works if you are a total ignorant on the issue you are negotiating.

2. I obviously reacted and said it was not a fair deal for us. I presented them some balance sheets and financial information as to make them see what our needs were and what we could offer to them. Their second offer was better than the first, much better, but did not take into account the information I was giving to them. Another possible interpretation of this is that they didn't know how to interpret the financial information, but I take for granted they have the background to do it. This is the tactic of the apparently confused man. The apparently confused was him, for not taking into account the information I was giving and explaining to him.

3. The third offer really was in sintony with our needs and our possibilities, but it just kind of matched up the conditions another competitor was already offering to us. The man negotiating with me, turned out saying we should reach to an agreement because it would be great for our companies to work together. I just could tell him, I thought this was a matter of practical solutions in a very focused area. I could not see why we should work with them if they were not offering us better conditions than the competition. He then said it would be good for both of us to work together. I think he referred to the prestige or reputation working alongside them could bring us in certain circles. This is the condescendent friend tactic.

Well, none of these tactics worked out. They just showed out three things:

1. They don't care about the customer's needs, they just want to hunt their money.
2. They are not used to negotiating on the basis of proffessional standards.
3. They really believe they are powerful as to make you sign a contract that is painful for you, for the sake of working with them.