The Flip Side of Risk is Not Security
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the concept of risk. I’ve never actively courted risk in my personal life and always thought of myself as a fairly risk-adverse person. I don’t partake in extreme sports adventures or seek out an adrenaline rush. A near miss with a semi on the freeway the other day made me realize that…frankly, adrenaline sucks.
But when it comes to the business of marketing, I find myself constantly redefining the concept of what’s risky.
It’s become clear to me that the opposite of risk in business isn’t security. In fact, not taking a risk is downright risky today because you’re likely to get flattened by a semi truck of status quo.
Albert Einstein once said “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Obviously he wasn’t talking about marketing, yet a concept very similar has become ingrained marketing think…sanity and security is doing the same things you’ve successfully done before (over and over again) to get the same results. A company like P&G had it down to a science. But…the efficacy of that long-held belief is questionable.
Even P&G is now saying change is not only good, but mandatory to survive and thrive. And with change comes risk. But what’s the option? Obsolescence?
This quote from Bob Garfield’s Chaos Scenario 2.0 feature in AdAge really struck me…”Perhaps you believe that vast structures on which vast societies and vast economies depend do not easily lose their primacy. Perhaps you believe that the TV commercial and magazine spread — and radio spot and newspaper classified — are forever and immutable, like the planets orbiting the sun. Good for you.
Now, say hello to Pluto — the suddenly former planet. Forever and immutable, it turns out, are subject to demotion.”
But how do you demote the tried and true traditional thinking and approaches that are so very woven into the DNA of marketers and advertisers? Especially when many of those programs do still deliver results in the here and now. How do you get past the ‘if it ain’t broke right now, why fix it…instead let’s wait’?
Both sides of the coin say risk. Waiting is risky because by then it could be too late and/or too broken to fix. The ‘evolve now or become obsolete’ side of the coin comes with risks as well because no one really knows what the future holds.
I guess I put my ass on the line in the camp that says evolution is the lesser risk, even though it means moving forward and inventing on the fly without a lot of precedent as guidance. It’s pretty unnerving, yet all signs point to the tried and true as the road to obsolescence. And that ain’t one I want to travel.
This post was written by: Kim Mickelsen