2013-05-24T13:13:50-04:00 Chris Hirst http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=chris-hirst Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Chris Hirst Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2764289 2013-02-26T06:41:24-05:00 2013-04-28T05:12:01-04:00

Chris Hirst http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-hirst/
For us, this culture change programme is not a passing fad, nor is it the pet project of a few people at the top: it has affected every single Grey London employee. I can't speak for everyone, but I know that most never want to work in any other way again, wherever their careers take them. It's that simple and that powerful. Returning to a dependant, hierarchical culture - in an industry that thrives on ideas, personality and ambition - would be impossible.

Open can give any business that kind of adrenaline shot. Here are the final principles to bear in mind if you feel like taking the medicine yourself.

Don't stop
You've done the hard work. You've thought about change, and made it happen. You've made it visible, breaking down all the physical and virtual barriers that constrained you. Most importantly, as a leader, you've got out of the way and become a mentor rather than a manager, giving your people the freedom to be the best they can be. What next?

Well, first of all, don't stop. Too often, change consists of one-off initiatives that are forgotten by employees and abandoned by management. This means any success you see is short-lived and you end up returning to the old ways of working pretty quickly.

It's easier - but far less rewarding - to preserve the status quo. While Open works, it can be tough going. It's about encouraging ongoing and long-term change within your organisation, which requires constant nurture and collaboration through workshops, training, social events and company-wide challenges to keep succeeding.

We lie awake at night worrying 'what next?' rather than, 'did it work?'

Recognise that change is lumpy
That said, it is important to take stock and track progress. How will you know if Open is working? You need to set ambitious metrics for success and be transparent about what they are. Encourage open and honest feedback and share all the results with everyone.

Open is about decisions, action and continuous change. Coupled with ambitious targets - and full disclosure on progress - comes the very real possibility of failure. If you've fully embraced Open, you will make the wrong decisions from time to time, but as long as you continue to act and make more good decisions than bad, your business will move forward fast. Remember, change isn't linear - it's lumpy.

As General Schwarzkopf once said, "If you've waited until you're more than 70% certain, then you've waited too long."

Make it personal
Finally, you need to acknowledge that while all this business success is wonderful, at the end of the day, people desire personal recognition and satisfaction to work hard and take part.

So, identify your stakeholders and make sure they see the results of your change program as not just being different, but being better. Not better in an abstract or corporate sense, but better for them as individuals.

This applies to everyone you work with, for, and alongside, and you need to be able to articulate exactly how - whether that be personal association with a winning team, potential career development if you're the client who commissions a breakthrough piece of creative, the rewards that come with working for a successful company or even just coming to a nice place to work.

Grey London has never been more successful in its 50-year history and that's down to Open and the people who embody it every day. I hope it's inspired you to take the plunge yourselves and supercharge your business, as we have. Like a rigged game of snakes and ladders, there are ups and downs, but roll the dice and you'll always come out on top.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2527157 2013-01-22T12:24:00-05:00 2013-03-24T05:12:02-04:00

Chris Hirst http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-hirst/ posted a blog about the 'Open' culture we've cultivated at Grey, and how this culture change programme has supercharged our business in all the right ways. I promised to follow this introduction up with a list of ways any business could reap the rewards, just as we have, by implementing its principles. I suggested that despite the economic gloom, if we all invested in our company cultures, and the confidence and motivation of our workforce, that together we could help feel our way out of recession. And I ended it by saying, 'Don't just talk about change, do it now'.

Having taken my own advice, things have been rather busy - in a good way - hence the rather long gap between posts. The reason the past few months have been busy for me personally leads me neatly onto my next point: the importance of building a workforce motivated to change by breaking the traditional parent/child relationship that exists in most businesses. Empowerment of individuals at all levels is crucial to Open.

First, pick the right team.

You need a good team to make Open work, to grow and take advantage of the opportunities that will present themselves. Furthermore, this should be an ongoing process: even now, three years into the programme, I've spent a lot of time (hence the delay to this post!) hiring some exceptionally talented people to take the business forward. And that's the other thing - get 'Open' right, and you'll begin to attract the very best talent; the talent who really buy in to 'Open' and will help the business flourish.

Whatever stage your business is at, you need to put together a committed and focused group at the top of the organisation to oversee change, and to make it happen; a team who invests effort in collective success and effort in making the team itself work effectively.

Do as I do, not as I say.

Even if you have a good team in place to lead it, change must happen at an individual level to succeed - and that includes you. Accepting that change is necessary is fairly easy. Acknowledging that you personally need to do things differently is not.

Fundamentally, culture is about the behaviour of management and if you can't change, nothing will. What you do (as a manager, chairman, chief exec, etc. More broadly, as a mentor), not what you say, is what really counts. Only your actions and leading by example will bring about a change in the way your whole organisation behaves.

Engage, don't mandate.

That said, simply hoping everyone will follow your example won't work. You still have to mobilise and energise what is likely to be a highly sceptical workforce. This is the greatest barrier to change and can only be surmounted by inviting your staff to shape the future of the business with you, not by trying to manipulate them to satisfy the needs of management.

At Grey, we invited everyone to a series of day-long workshops to engage staff in developing our new vision and values. The management team didn't define 'Open', the company as a whole did. In an open culture, the role of management is to create an environment that encourages creativity and allows every individual to be the best they can be. Furthermore, management must also focus on removing obstacles and barriers that obstruct this ambition (of which inevitably there are many).

Break habits and make change visible.

No matter what type of business you're in, culture is like concrete. Over time it sets into a particular mould and is hard to change - make no bones about that. To help the process, you need a tangible symbol of change. Any effective change program needs to be experienced physically as well as attitudinally.

Too much so-called change stays on PowerPoint. To really shake things up, you've got to take a sledgehammer to that concrete. Literally.

Fundamental to the success of Open is the breaking of barriers, physical or otherwise. So the first big step is tearing down walls: no offices (for anybody) and nobody sitting in departments. Then, change your processes to involve all stakeholders throughout a project so everyone not only understands the problem, but takes pride and ownership in delivering the best answer.
Be aware that in time, every new approach will also become entrenched. You need to keep smashing and resetting to maintain a vibrant culture and energised business. Not that all change has to be this radical. Much can be achieved through seemingly symbolic acts. Seen by everyone and felt immediately, symbolic acts can be disproportionately influential.

Cast management as mentors.

'Open' should turn the traditional organisational hierarchy upside down, recasting management as mentors. Ultimately, its success lies in the emphasis on the power of the individual (or individual teams) to do the right thing, their way. It allows ambitious entrepreneurs to thrive and be the best they can be - which can only be of benefit to the company.

If you sit in an organisation where the seventh floor doesn't know who's on the first floor, let alone what they think, you can't change a company's culture. To combat this kind of malaise, you need to change people's emotional contract with the organisation - and we went as far as giving junior executives a place on the board through the creation of 'Open Chairs'.

You also need tangible demonstrations of trust and devolution of responsibility. For Grey, an advertising agency and a creative company, the most totemic act was the removal of 'sign-offs'. For us, sign-offs became shorthand for everything that we believed was wrong about traditional agency ways of working. Sign-offs are about control, but they also disempower and imply that only the one person's point of view matters - that of the creative director, in this instance. This leads to a slow, dependent culture, frustrated clients and, most importantly, less good work.

Open belongs to everyone. It involves everyone. Even clients. Ideas can come from anywhere and anyone, so people must be granted the freedom to adapt the approach as they see fit and launch their own initiatives to promote a culture of collaboration. Do this, and you'll find leaders emerge at all levels.

In my final post about Open, I will share how to ensure Open helps you achieve and exceed your goals by being transparent, welcoming failure and accepting that change, while never linear, is good for everyone.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1978812 2012-10-18T09:11:19-04:00 2012-12-18T05:12:02-05:00

Chris Hirst http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-hirst/
But we don't need it spelt out for us; it's plain to see what's going on. British high streets are littered with closing down sales and empty shops, and the nightly news broadcasts increasingly worrying scenes from Greece, where the very fabric of society and democracy itself are under real threat.

But despite the gloom, by taking matters into our own hands I think we can get back to growth, starting now. Over the next three posts, I will share how everyone can create the kind of internal culture that has the power to turn their company and so the wider economy around, one business at a time.

While the factors influencing the global financial crisis are deep and complex, taking charge of your own corporate destiny is a bloody good place to start. Google, John Lewis and Nike all make big claims about their cultures being key to their success. We put ours down to something we call Open.

Open is both an expression of our culture and how we believe today's people-based businesses should work in order to survive, evolve and thrive. It is a philosophy of collective creativity and collective responsibility. It encourages increased collaboration between departments, the agency and its clients. Any business can be Open; what follows is a brief description of why we did it, how we did it, and the lessons learnt.

Why should we be open to Open?

Against such an apocalyptic economic background, where survival is everyone's primary concern, it may seem a luxury to talk about company culture. But if you subscribe, as I do, to John Maynard Keynes' view that how people feel dictates the health of an economy; it's possible to conclude that if we all invest in our company cultures, the confidence and motivation of our workforce, that together we can feel our way out of recession.

I'm not an economist. Grey London is an ad agency. But we are in the business of shaping trends, popular culture and convincing people to buy things. Media spend is often cited as an early indicator of the health of an economy, so if we're doing well, it just might mean that there's a glimmer of hope on the horizon. And we are. We're having our best year ever; but not at the expense of our people, on the contrary.

Like most of the western world, talent is the key to our success and therefore, as our greatest asset, it needs to be protected and nurtured. Open does exactly this.

Despite the talent-based economy we operate in, most Western businesses continue to operate a manufacturing model founded on the needs of mass production. Top down, hierarchical structures are simply not fit for purpose and stifle talent. They make for slower, less innovative and ultimately frustrating places to work. They ensure failure, not growth.

The challenge for these kinds of businesses therefore, is to create a culture that enables individuals to be the best they can be: liberated, inspired and motivated. The challenge for business leaders is to get out of their way and be cultural guardians, to mentor, not manage.

So, if you want to change, here's the first of three posts, and 10 ways, on how to become an Open business...

1. Don't just talk about change, do it now.

All businesses need continuous change, but to really achieve it you need three things: vision, courage and urgency. The latter is the most important, because talking about change rather than doing it is where most programmes come unstuck.

The perfect, pain-free time to change your business will never present itself. So getting started today, no matter what your diary looks like, is paramount.
Strategy is, in fact, the easy bit. Doing it is very hard indeed. You need to start quickly, but also be prepared for the long road ahead. Only a dramatic shift in culture, which creates a place that allows people to be the best they can be, will yield the best results.
What will follow in my next post is how you go about breaking the traditional parent/child relationship that exists in most businesses. Therein lies radical change for all companies, and so the economy as a whole.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1759484 2012-08-09T15:20:30-04:00 2012-10-09T05:12:04-04:00

Chris Hirst http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-hirst/
We take it for granted; it's so familiar it has become almost part of the ritual: the Coke ad signals Christmas, a car playing football is a canary in the mine for the Euros or World Cup.

The rules are clear -- and in really simple terms for many brands, this is about as sophisticated as it gets. Find a celebrity, preferably from the country you plan to run the ads in, stick 'em in an ad and pump it like there's no tomorrow.

The problem is, of course -- despite the millions spent -- if everybody's doing it, how do you stand out? The IOC's solution is legislation i.e. make it illegal for others to market at the same time; but this is surely more of a sop to those handing over the official cash than a realistic way of stopping brand misattribution, or just invisibility, in amongst all the noise.

What has gone largely unheralded this Olympic week is a perfect example of how to do it near-perfectly.

Over a business dinner several years ago, I suggested that cycling was the place to be: big personalities, a perfect conjunction of extreme physical prowess and technology, photogenic and a sport in which the UK already possessed world-beaters (men and women). The problem is, I was assured by an expert present, nobody gives a shit about cycling.

Bradley Wiggins' achievements over the past six weeks rank as high as any by a British sportsman and has certainly captured as many column inches. But what has gone almost unremarked is the role Sky has played, not just as a badge sponsor - examples of which we are currently deluged by - but as an integral and driving force behind Wiggins' and the team's success, and the overall development of the sport in the UK. What other sponsors can make such a claim?

Most sponsorship simply draws down on the equity of the sport and attempts to stick some of that equity to the brand. The brand gets (hopefully) benefit by association; the sport gets money. Sky's sponsorship of cycling starts at the heart of the sport, and forms a true partnership, where brand and sport develop and grow together.

Sky's success is so complete, in fact, it has changed the rules of successful brand partnerships. Its secret is down to the 3As: Ambition, Attitude and Activation.

Activation is the flip-side of sponsorship and brands have long embarked on all manner of activities to add engagement and depth to their commitment. Many do this well (Calsberg and Nike take a bow), but equally frequently it is forgotten or mishandled, leaving a brand's activity looking lopsided and shallow. Through their massive range of grass-roots activities, such as Sky Ride, Sky ensured top-to-bottom immersion in a rapidly developing sport.

Sky's Pro Cycling created an attitude and passion which transcended the sport and the brand. Sky behaved like they genuinely loved the sport, rather than simply badging it. In Sky's model, the brand's immediate relevance is less important than their shared passion.

Most unusual, is ambition. Where most sponsorship is about borrowed equity, Sky set about nothing short of the transformation of the sport in the UK - and world domination. The first ever British winner of the Tour de France within five years? Surely, a task greater than the infamous Alpe D'Huez itself. It's easy with hindsight to miss this, but the size of the risk taken was significant and the opportunities to fail, many. It's hard to think of any brand, let alone a sports brand, which has dared tackle such a challenge.

Sky's sponsorship of cycling in the UK is as good an example as it is possible to find of a symbiotic relationship between a brand and sport. For once, the majority of the money hasn't simply poured into the pockets of the super-elite few, but has truly nurtured the sport as a whole. Sky's activation of its involvement is comprehensive and crucially, sincere. They appear to be a brand who genuinely love the sport and are fully invested in its success. It's a claim few can make.

In winning the Tour and multiple Olympic medals (ahead of target), coach Dave Brailsford's team tore up the rule book. Similarly, Sky's sponsorship should be seen as a textbook re-invention of how to create a genuine partnership between brand and sport. The commitment and achievements of both our cyclists and their sponsors should be an example to us all.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1586947 2012-06-11T12:25:30-04:00 2012-08-11T05:12:07-04:00

Chris Hirst http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-hirst/
I read a very learned paper recently which argued convincingly that this public baring of life and soul is an extension and reflection of celebrity culture - particularly celebrity of the Big Brother/OK magazine variety. Possibly.

What is for certain is that it has now become so normal that millions of people globally give it not a second's thought. Increasingly those, such as myself, whose job it is to read, understand and influence mass consumer behaviour are pouring ever more sophisticated efforts into understanding and harnessing this change. And of course, as sure as eggs is eggs, many, many smart minds are trying to work out how to make money out of it.

Of course there are naysayers - there always are. It puts me in mind of Michael Faraday's response to a heckler after a demonstration of electromagnetic power at the Royal Society. "But what use will there ever be for it?" he was asked. "Sir," he replied, "electricity will be of such import that one day it will be taxed." Twitter users beware.

Mr Zuckerburg's tax return is already of such magnitude that it has taken a bite the size of a small country's economy out of the Californian state debt. But what conclusions should be drawn?

Facebook's founders have clearly proved that they have been able to make money out of this phenomenon - and there is a tiny gaggle of pilot fish companies nibbling a jolly good living off the Facebook Whale Shark. But can anybody else?

The Schadenfreude surrounding Facebook's stock-price travails is well-documented but, as Warren Buffet famously observed: "In the short-term the markets are a voting machine; in the long-term they are a weighing machine." The markets initially voted, but now they turn to weighing they find Facebook rather lighter than they thought.

All stock-prices in the long run (i.e. when being weighed rather than voted upon) are decided on forward cash flows: projections of money they will make in the future. The $100bn question is how will Facebook - and anybody else trying to monetise social, do this? It won't all come from Farmville, that's for sure.

Knowing the intimate details of 900m people should be (and in Facebook's case has been) hugely lucrative. But therein lies the problem. One of the main ways of realising this potential is using those intimate details in ways users would not really want them used. And certainly in ways governments around the world might be squeamish about.

Monetising social is a profoundly different model to Google, with whom Facebook's flotation is regularly compared.

Furthermore, I believe there is something very different about being part of a huge and vibrant community run by a geeky Harvard drop-out, and being a member of a publicly-listed company's database.

Previously Facebook had choices about the extent to which it tried to exploit and monetize its members. Now it doesn't. The share price will, according to Warren Buffet's rule, be decided by the weighing machine that is forward cash flows. Nothing else.

I am not a naysayer: I am prepared to accept that Facebook is run by people far smarter than me. However, I do believe that the unavoidable pressure they now have to generate very large cash flows will not just be controversial (data protection is a subject governments are very interested in). It will also inevitably, in my opinion, change for good the organisation's relationship with its members, and potentially the face of social media as a whole.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1454824 2012-04-26T05:47:39-04:00 2012-06-26T05:12:01-04:00

Chris Hirst http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-hirst/
What made both stories initially fascinating was the voyeuristic intimacy of their details - like amateur PIs we've been able to have a good old rummage around in the litter bins of the good and the great. And, of course, we were able to find some simple, die-cast bad guys to blame stuff on - it's all the fault of the bankers - and as suspected no politicians can be trusted; no wonder we're in trouble.

In both cases, the thing that turned big stories into monsters was not simply the scale of the revelations; surely everybody knew bankers got massive bonuses and most people that MPs have a very non-transparent, antediluvian allowances system. Rather, it was the reactions of those involved - and what it told us about the worlds they live in.

Both bankers and MPs weren't just defensive (that'd be okay, we kind of expect that), they were seemingly in denial. Even the most selfish MP surely realizes that their re-election is quite closely linked to the credibility of the parliamentary system. Yes, we all thought, this has been a bit of a mess, we're pretty angry, but at least it must now be obvious to all involved that we need to push CTRL-ALT-DEL, re-boot the system and find better ways to pay bankers and MPs. After-all, how everybody else gets paid is pretty straightforward.

Instead, it seemed what was obvious to the rest of us, wasn't obvious to bankers and MPs. Surely this can't be just down to narrow self interest and, in understanding it better, I believe we may learn a little more about how we all work.

Both, it transpires, live in analogous universes, ones which are relatively small, self-contained and carefully self-regulated. They have their own languages, traditions and both increasingly have little external experience, particularly in a professional sense. To mis-quote Rudyard Kipling, 'what should they know of banking, if only banking they know'.

I believe the reason is that both worlds are defined by norms which to those within them aren't just theories, they're facts. Things that are evidently nonsense to those on the outside are repeated with almost religious fervour by those within. For instance, to bankers, the banking regulators, the banking industry it is a non-negotiable fact that to hire and retain 'the most talented people' they have to pay massive bonuses, in, let's face it, pretty much the same way they always have. The industry doesn't repeat this parrot fashion because they're stupid, they really do believe it and they believe it because it is simply inconceivable to people whose life is defined by the norms of the banking industry that it could be any other way - like trying to make water without hydrogen.

Similarly, the norms for MPs were to 'flip' houses and generally become impressively adept at 'working the system'. It's obvious to everybody that if you depend on a popular vote for your job, it's best not to appear to be a crook - yet they continued to employ family members etc, etc, etc. And, like a headmaster peaking at porn on the school computer, they're not breaking the law, but if it appears on the PTA agenda, it's going to make hanging onto your job pretty tough.

The real irony is that the MPs' favourite villains, the bankers, are exactly like them. They both live in a universe whose norms define and justify behaviour that to those outside is at best indefensible and at worst down-right irresponsible. The real surprise however, is not that norms exist, but how strong, powerful and insidious these norms can be.

The next obvious question is where else can we find such norms? Well, the answer is everywhere. All of us live in universes defined by norms every-bit as strong as those of MPs, and who's to say that given the right set of circumstances, couldn't be discovered to be every-bit as ridiculous. It's therefore a very productive thought-experiment to try and hunt out some norms in our own businesses and imagine trying to justify them to those from the 'outside'. Many (most?) will make perfect sense, but I'd be astonished if you can't discover a few that wouldn't - we certainly found more than a few when we tried! Once you've found them, try and imagine changing that norm - how easy would it be and would it make your business better or worse to do so?

Understanding these norms and their power, and having the courage and conviction to challenge them isn't easy, but ignorance isn't an acceptable alternative.

That they exist is not new, their power and tenacity however is easy to under-estimate, and as social and community marketing explode into mainstream marketing thinking our ability to identify, interrogate and where necessary root them out will become of increasing importance.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1379146 2012-03-26T06:24:20-04:00 2012-05-26T05:12:01-04:00

Chris Hirst http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-hirst/ Mad Men?'

To be honest, it's always struck me as being basically ER, but in a 1960s ad agency (a facetious point of view which particularly annoys my wife). However, while I'm not a regular viewer I am definitely a distant and ardent admirer of how the show has been crafted. Every now and again something comes along that isn't just an improvement on its predecessors, but one which makes those that went before look like lame, ersatz imitations; Jurassic Park, Roger Federer, the iPod and Who Wants To Be A Millionaire spring immediately to mind.

When these appear, it is sudden, unexpected and transformational - and like mist lifting it leaves everybody else nakedly groping around, scrabbling to raise their game. Until a new, higher-level status quo is achieved and the cycle repeats. Mad Men, love it or hate, definitely falls into this category.

What sets Mad Men apart is all in the execution - as was ER, arguably. But Mad Men is TV-programming OCD-style, I forever find myself in awe at the all encompassing, uncompromising obsessiveness with which the show is put together. It feels as though the art department is driving themselves to the brink of insanity ensuring the folds in the pocket squares are Fall/Winter 1967 rather than Spring/Summer 1968. Thinking broadly, shows set in the 60s aren't new, long-running dramas aren't new and shows about ad agencies aren't new either. Mad Men, however, has raised the bar for everybody through its how rather than its what.

I'm a little obsessed with execution. Ideas, by and large, are easy - what is hard, often very hard, is the selection of the right idea and then the translation of that idea from the page into reality. In other words, execution. The difference between game-changing excellence and run-of-the-mill is the metaphorical pocket square folds you might say. The real difference is the last 0.1%, which is also the bit that so often gets lost, or is too hard or isn't fully appreciated.

Brilliant execution requires at least a little bit of obsession. But brilliant uncompromising execution is also a defining characteristic of the products, shows, and perhaps even people that we admire, love and covet. It is too easy to assume that once we, as consumers, experience a product, its perfection is inevitable. Nothing could be further from the truth. Who Wants to be a Millionaire's brilliance wasn't simply the grandeur of the prize on offer, it was in the heart stopping, gladiatorial building of tension; the music; the lighting. It would have been far, far easier to do it 99% as well. And 1% worse, means ordinary.

In mine and Don's million-mile-an-hour world, the development and delivery of ideas from drawing board to fruition was compared by a boss of mine (I have many) to a Formula 1 race. The difference between 1st and 2nd is several hundreds of thousandths of a second - after several hours of racing. The margins are miniscule, but the difference in reward huge. This is why execution matters; the result of 99% right won't be the next Mad Men.

Brilliance of execution is the defining characteristic of the products and experiences we love and remember the most. The folding of Don Draper's pocket square should be an example to us all.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1357692 2012-03-18T19:00:00-04:00 2012-05-18T05:12:01-04:00

Chris Hirst http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-hirst/
What it seems was pointed out to him after his recent Sky Sports outburst by Fenway Sports Group (I like to think, in keeping with the times, it may have been a video conference!) was that he was not just a tracksuit wearing football manager but, in fact, a Marketing Director.

Not just any old Marketing Director either, but one in charge of a massive, hugely lucrative global brand. What's more, a brand operating in a market place without regulation except (and crucially for Dalglish) the court of global public opinion. When the Luis Suarez controversy kicked off, Dalglish could only thinking about protecting his dressing room - after all, why should he be worried about Liverpool's image? He's a football manager!

King Kenny is a public example of what perhaps we might call brandisation: the transformation of brands from products in the supermarket into virtually anything, everything, everybody and everywhere. New York City, The Beckhams and Manchester United were early adopters, but brandisation has caught on, and is now everywhere: X Factor, Katie Price, Local Authorities and even the Army all now consider themselves brands. I've even known job applicants who describe themselves as brands. Stuart Baggs anyone?

(Incidentally, how is it that football fans have only just realised they support brands, for what is a brand if it isn't a product wrapped in emotional values? It could be argued football clubs are the ultimate expression of branding.)

The corollary of this trend is that as everything becomes a brand, and each of usbrand managers. Brandisation has seen the ownership, control and direction of brands shift from financial shareholders in the city to emotional shareholders everywhere

What's more challenging is that these emotional shareholders don't have to own (or even like) your products to join the club. Who doesn't have a point of view on Microsoft, BP, Tesco or Liverpool FC? We watch and debate, criticise and calculate. Brands are public property and, more than ever, actions speak louder than words. In Kenny's case, his most damning action being the farcical show of support for Suarez back in December.

You just have to look at the millions of owners of iPads or iPhones that are emotionally invested in both the present and the future of the Apple brand. Their opinions and passion both support and pressurise simultaneously.

The breakdown of traditional societal hierarchies and the democratising effect of the internet has profoundly shifted both the expectations and potential of 'fans', 'supporters' and 'loyalists' (all passive expressions) and created a world of 'activists', 'ambassadors' and 'networkers'. Thus the emotional shareholders in Kanye, X Factor, Tesco, and Renault expect to have a say (both positive and negative) in a brand's performance, just as their financial shareholders do. And just as projections of future earnings determine share price, so consumers increasingly determine the brands' value - and its values.

The challenge for Marketing Departments is how they deal with this loss of control - as poor old Kenny discovered to his cost.]]>