Remarkable.

Who do we talk about? What do we talk about? We talk about people, places, events, products and anything unusual, extraordinary and worthy of acclaim. We do this because it makes us different, cognisant, cool and if we get it right, remarkable. Whenever we tell someone about a hidden gem of a restaurant, a new product or destination, we are seen as cool, remarkable in our understanding of the scene and using information and word of mouth to stand out from the crowd. Many join the Twitter universe to achieve remarkability but few shine, as evidenced by their lack of followers.

So it comes as no surprise that a Wharton School study analysing the worth of remarkability, shows the value of sharing something remarkable. Examining over 6,500 brands and products, they asked people to score remarkability to analyse how perceptions were correlated and how frequently they were discussed. Some conclusions were obvious as banks and financial institutions were not talked about as much as Facebook, Google, celebrities, movies and hot eateries. Other brands stood out because they not only strayed from the norm, they created a new norm of remarkability. Jimmy Choo shoes are the same price as a small Korean car, uncomfortable after five minutes of standing in them but from a fashionista stand point, clear winners for remarkability, correlating with increased exposure, branding and profit.

The ability to surprise, delight and at the same time exceed expectation is the hallmark of remarkable brands and remarkable people. Seth Godin in Purple Cow, discussed the finer points of remarkability, acknowledging remarkable doesn't mean remarkable to you, it means remarkable to me, it's very individual and remarkability lies on the edges and is about the best, the fastest, the easiest, the biggest, the brightest, the most fashionable and the most difficult to accomplish. To Seth, it is not the same as being noticed, as walking down the street naked will get you noticed but it won't accomplish much.

So from an individual standpoint, what can we gain from the Wharton study? It's not about buying what's fashionable because that trend soon becomes unfashionable. It's not about achieving once and then living off that accomplishment. It's about finding your inner remarkability, what differentiates you, by way of thinking, by way of achievements, by way of constantly reinventing yourself and by way of understanding your relationships, your brand and what you bring to the table.

In today's crowded market place, to accomplish and achieve remarkability, you need to step out of your comfort zone, you need to push back your fear of change and you need to do it with authenticity. As Oscar Wilde so succinctly put it "be yourself; everyone else is taken", giving breath to the idea of individuality as a key to being remarkable. To be remarkable means moving away from the middle ground and that means no longer being able to please the majority. That is the greatest fear for most people, but if you never polarise anyone, never push the envelope, never stand for your commitments, what hope is there to be remarkable?

I am the greatest.

So proclaimed Muhammad Ali, at a time when no one could contest that line. He was the greatest at his job, knocking men senseless in 15 rounds of pugilistic mayhem that came to be called the Heavy Weight Championship of the World. Apart from a few prize fighters, Joe Frazier and George Foreman, most everyone agreed on Ali's CV as the best in the game. A quick right hook would take care of anyone doubting his credentials and so he was able to carry on his self branding exercise with total belief in his abilities. Most people can't get up at the office morning tea and proclaim their greatness because we don't abide with the philosophy of self promotion and aggrandisement. We don't do it because we live in an egalitarian society and anyone seen to be acknowledging themselves as better than the rest, is quickly labelled wanker or worse.

Yet you are likely to be really really good at what you do and no one notices because you don't want to be boastful or arrogant about your achievements and abilities. You keep working with perceptions, doing a fabulous job, getting on with your colleagues, putting in extra hours on the weekend, along with late nights will get you noticed by the boss and so build a great reputation. Unfortunately acclaim for your skills and achievements happens only twice in your employment, once when you are hired because your skills are recognised as being the best and then again after you leave and the company finds out how much you actually accomplished. In between it's up to you, so give the boss a break, the boss isn't a mind reader, point out your worth with diffidence, show your best side in meetings and don't expect anyone else to be responsible for your forward movement in the company. The boss as Father figure has long been extinct and to rely on someone responsible for an entire company, to be responsible for you and your brand is ridiculous on all levels.

The capacity to show your wares, to build your reputation and to market your brand has never been more available and attainable. There are enough opportunities to highlight your skills, socially and business wise anyone not working on their profile has been living under a rock, in a cave or has never turned on a computer. Don't be a casualty, don't be road kill on the "super highway", leaving your brand in the hands of others, especially your boss is tantamount to becoming the invisible man. Stake you place at the table, be it corporate or social, don't just take up space, contribute and create and your value will be recognised.

As long as communication and promotion is a two way street, your brand has the ability to stay interesting and engaging without being ego centric or conceited. Growing your cache will enhance opportunities within your circle, work wise and socially. Ali worked for years becoming the greatest, recognised for his unique abilities and personality. Aside from the gym work, if Ali had started online today, the world would have known about him in a day. If Ali had left it to his trainers he would still be in the gym pounding the big bag. What are you waiting for?

That's not a knife.

In the inimitable words of the Winfield smoking, Harbour Bridge rigging, prawns on the barbie throwing Paul Hogan in Crocodile Dundee, "this is a knife". Indeed, while his twelve inch blade used to slice the hide from Northern Territory crocs and keep his girlfriend safe from New York muggers was never going to make it back on the list of airline carry ons, it seems incongruous that smaller versions are now allowed to be carried in the back pockets of US airline passengers. The federal Transport Security Administration has scrapped the ban on pocket knives and small folding knives under 6 centimetres, that was part of the September 11 fight back on airline safety. Many are not happy about the decision for passengers to have the ability to carve their names into meal trays once again.

The obvious air crew, flight attendants and air marshals, none of whom were consulted, are taking a stance against TSA administrator, John Pistole, who indicated "this would bring US security regulations into line with international standards and was designed to help airport staff find more dangerous items such as explosives". Pistole inferred security needs to become based more on risk, hence the focus on explosives, sending up a shouts of joy from the NSKA, National Small Knife Association. Having poked fun at the decision via the imaginary NSKA, flight crew were also concerned that along with knives, passengers are now allowed to carry assorted sporting equipment such as billiard cues, ski poles, hockey sticks, lacrosse stocks, a couple of golf clubs and an array of novelty bats under 60cm in length.

So from April 25, I still won't be able to take my bottle of assault shampoo on board but I can step into the aisle and work on my back swing or even my slap shot if I so desire. After all how much damage can be done with a Big Bertha driver or the pointy end of a pool cue? This is where you insert movie scenes in a pool hall and think Vin Diesel taking on ten tough guys with just a cue stick, not to mention MacGyver, who could take over a small country with a knife and a novelty bat. It will be interesting to see reactions from the local carriers and airports, where over zealous customs personnel pride themselves on detecting concealed aerosol cans and perfume in excess of 100ml.

The TSA has suggested lines at airports would flow better without the hold up of knife confiscations but as of the decision, no rulers have been allocated for staff to check the differences between 6cm and 7cm knives. Will this omission add to the hold up, as men argue about mathematics long exaggerated or will the odd Crocodile Dundee weapon slip through? The decision made by the TSA, will polarise flyers who pray for shorter security lines while demanding aircraft cabins to be devoid of any opportunity for chaos and disruption. Is this the sharp end of the wedge of change?

Random closeness.

Much is made about the cause and affect, social media has, from a societal aspect of forming tribes, giving everyone a voice and making the world a smaller place and enabling people who have lost touch to reconnect. It would be rare to find someone using Facebook et al, who has not used social media to track down long lost friends, acquaintances and colleagues, or conversely, who have not been tracked down by someone from their past. Those initial contacts bring with them anxiety about the initial contact, wry smiles built around the nostalgia of good times past, a history shared, a slice of time when things were different, you were younger and life seemed simpler. The amazement and excitement of finding someone thought lost from your past brings with it questions of what to do next, are they still the same person, do they still like Kiss or have they moved on beyond the bond that bound you?

That aura, that warm and fuzzy feeling, that excitement and angst built around affinity for place and time associated with that person, can quickly fade. It fades for all kinds of reasons, nothing in common beyond a quick catch up on times past, you were already moving apart all those years ago and sometimes they just don't reply to your posting.
This particular trend of random closeness is often just that, random, capricious, haphazard, meaningless without substance of a long term relationship. It's that substance in relationships that bind, it's the fabric, the meaningfulness and soul in relationships that is the connective tissue and that is hard to maintain over a wifi signal with someone just found for curiosity's sake, not living in your city or country without the opportunity to connect in the flesh.

Much is written about the power of the net bringing the world closer through connections beyond immediate circles but more often than not, those connections are not meaningful, just dots in a line, not relationships and we should not confuse the two. Random closeness, like random acts of kindness brings with it a feeling of geniality but like random acts of fitness, is useless unless taken up with commitment for long term fraternity. Random closeness is like the school reunion built on curiosity of what people look like now and bench marking achievements and accomplishments against what was envisaged for the future.

To engage in random closeness to build up social numbers is akin to wanting celebrity, which is all about being loved by a lot of people from a distance. How do you know who the real friends are without looking them in the eye and pressing the flesh. All of this seems to be backed up by numbers garnered over the last 12 months with sites such as Facebook losing popularity in 14 of the 23 countries where it has a 50% penetration. There will be competitors vying for your attention and Google will be at the forefront looking to bring your circle of friends to another platform but the underlying issue of having close friends and then random closeness through a collection strategy will consign sites to a shallow accord long term.

Heroes and Villians.

The world needs more heroes. Sure Batman, Spiderman and Ironman are doing their thing in the movies but is Ironman going to get you through your week, including important meetings with the boss, that gym session you've been dreading, the senior management presentation or the family dinner with Uncle Joe that always ends in tears? We are constantly looking for role models, mentors and people to admire, making our sometimes humdrum dailies bearable and giving us the power to carry on through periods of stress and anxiety. More often than not, when it comes to our heroes, we look in the wrong places and more often than not, we are be disappointed.

So it came as a shock to read that Tom Hanks had been arrested for strangling and murdering five people in a drunken rampage, on his way to escaping into the Hollywood hills in a stolen Mercedes. A stolen Mercedes that had already been involved in a school crossing homicide, where Hanks ran down three children and a crossing guard. Who is left to admire if Tom Hanks has sunk so low, who is left to look up to if Tom Hanks is capable of such atrocity and how do we find another Tom to admire? People in Hollywood and as far afield as San Diego were aghast, commenting they had no one left to admire and respect, now that Tom had fallen from grace. For many, Tom was their last hope for a role model for their children, their relationships and their daily interactions at work.

Lance, Oscar, Lindsay, Tiger, Charlie, OJ, those guys from Enron and Opes Prime, not to mention Bernie Madoff, Martha Stewart, local boys like Alan Bond and Craig Thomson and a host of others, who have risen to power and money on the back of our trust and belief, are either facing charges, in jail or trying to live through the disgraced state of their past indiscretions. So who's left, who do we look to, who we admire, who do we approve of when it comes to bench marking attitudes, behaviour and social commentary. Now the last Hollywood hero has been debunked and we are left in limbo, in a vacuum when it comes to the archetypal example for our kids to admire, for us to deify as upstanding and courageous in the face of daily challenges.

Before Hollywood, before the Kardashians and before mass media became the beacon of societal mores, we had role models closer to home. We had role models in parents, work colleagues and high achieving friends. The problem arose when Mum and Dad became less exciting than the current high scorer in your favourite sport, or your work colleague just wasn't doing it for you like Lady Gaga was doing it for you. Sure the local models may not have been as shiny, as popular or or even as gifted when it came to texting inane messages to fill the tweetosphere but they had one important advantage over Lance and the rest of the fallen.

They were here, they were real and they cared about you. Time to flick the Who magazine and have a chat with your Dad, talk with the people at work who are making a difference to others and look closer at your inner circle. You'll be surprised who you can look up to.

PS. For the trusting, Tom didn't do all the bad things mentioned, although his next movie Cloud Atlas doesn't make up for all the previous good work.

Every picture tells a story.

The seminal 1971 album from Rod Stewart was all about painting pictures with music but it was much earlier we worked out pictures have the ability to convey abundantly more than what can be written on a page. The feelings a picture can convey is limitless and the phrase, "a picture is worth a thousand words", was given first accord to newspaper editor Arthur Brisbane when presenting to the Syracuse Advertising Men's Club in 1911. The saying was a mash up of many quotations attributed to advertising men, Confucius, Russian literature and old proverbs about ,"one timely deed is worth ten thousand words", "the drawing shows me at one glance what might be spread over ten pages in a book" and "that tear, good girl, is worth, ten thousand words".

Today research tells us a picture has the ability to position truth and trust when used with text, even when that is not the case. The theory behind this thinking has our brains more fully engaged and processing content more deeply because we connect the pictures to the words adding memorable learning and adding a layer of credibility. The theory behind the picture, is a complex idea can be conveyed with a single still image making it possible to absorb large amounts of data quickly. This sets up what the researchers call a "truth bias" in our brain, giving more credence to the text regardless of its content. University researchers have shown statements about celebrities being dead were considered more accurate when a picture of the celebrity was included, regardless of the accuracy of content. Samuel L Jackson can attest to this theory as he is often cited as being dead or dying, creating a Facebook out pouring of grief, as long as the story has his picture attached. Researchers pushed the "truth bias" beyond Hollywood when they stated "turtles are deaf" and found this was judged to be true as long as the text was accompanied by a picture of a turtle.

The influence of pictures on text cannot be denied and even neuroscientists have been tricked when a specialised case study given to the scientists was shown to be more credible with images of brain scan photos, even though those scans were not related to the conclusions. Words are commanding and the "pen is mightier than the sword" when it comes to literature but add an image and communication and messaging can be manipulated. So the take away from a neuro-marketing aspect, is all about adding credibility to your statements with images, especially if that imagery supports your claims and unfortunately, sometimes even when it doesn't.

So the next time you are in the supermarket or browsing a magazine, consider the text and images and judge if they really are aligned in message. Anti wrinkle cream with beautiful faces, unlimited Internet or phone access showing happy people chatting, hamburgers so big you need two hands to eat them, you can't trust them just because the "picture is worth a thousand words".

A cog or a lever?

There have always been threats of someone taking your job and doing it for less and there have always been threats your job could be outsourced overseas. These threats come from bad managers, inept companies, economic circumstances and a commoditisation of tasks. So you knuckle down, work hard, please the boss, don't take lunches and constantly look over your shoulder, in case it comes true. You wish you worked for one of those companies constantly on the best employer list, you day dream about winning the lottery and sometimes you turn the system on its head, using the threat as an opportunity.

Such is the case for a software developer working at Verizon, who we'll call Neville, as no doubt Verizon would want to keep his name out of any more media stories. Not one to be anxious about the Chinese threat to the developer world, Neville who was earning several hundred thousand dollars, decided to use some of his income to secure his employment record built on flawless performance reviews. He outsourced his job to a developer in Shenyang for $50,000 a year, giving Neville ample free time at work and still enough cash for a lucrative lifestyle.

Seems Neville enjoyed web highlights of cat videos, shopping on eBay, longer than usual lunches, connecting with his friends on Facebook and supporting the new capitalistic approach of a developing China. At the end of each day, having sat at his desk and given the impression the sweat off his brow belonged to the company, Neville would dutifully send through immaculate reports on what he had accomplished that day without his superiors knowing it was coming all the way from China. If this all sounds like a movie plot, that's just the way Verizon Risk Team member Andrew Valentine felt when he discovered irregularities on Neville's computer containing hundreds of invoices to a third party contractor in Shenyang. Seems Neville was clever enough to set up this system across several companies at the same time, allowing him to garner flawless feedback on work accomplished by his Chinese alter ego.

Unfortunately Neville is no longer employed at the telecom company but his legend lives on and he is likely missed, for his scintillating lunch time stories accumulated from hundreds of hours on the net, his ability to find time to help out others in the office, all the while maintaining work of the highest calibre. About now, many are looking around at others in the office, wondering at their capacity to produce vast amounts of work without raising a sweat or complaining about the work load. Is Joe in the corner all on his own or does he have accomplices in computer sweatshops?

Instead of thinking the worst and bringing out the worst in employees like Neville, companies need to foster office collaboration along the lines of Tony Hsieh and Zappos, who work hard on making everyone in the organisation responsible for working with everyone else. One of Hsieh's mantras is collisions, community, and co-learning, bringing his staff as close together as possible, even making things a little cramped and not hiding them behind partitions. He thinks this will ultimately make them smarter, happier and more productive and never ever have anyone considering their job is at risk of outsourcing or that they need to do a Neville.

As Seth Godin notes in his blog today, make your job individual so the thought of outsourcing never occurs to management, "the only alternative is to humanise our work. To create something that only you could have made, or said, or conceived of. When it looks and feels like you, when you are the trusted source, then you are on the spot, under pressure and deservedly valued".

Verbification.

We used to Xerox, we used to Hoover, we used to Superglue, we used to Whiteout and we used to Windex. Now we Google, now we Skype, now we FaceTime and we Photoshop. The "ubiquibility" (I've already used verbification, so why not keep making em up?) of brand names to enter the lexicon as everyday verbs has long been the aim of marketers everywhere who see this as the pinnacle of success. When a brand name becomes synonymous with a clearly defined use or action, the passage from noun to verb becomes complete. With thousands of brands created daily, it becomes more difficult to stand out and this is where marketing departments concentrate action on trying to "verbify" but sometimes no matter how much marketing you throw at the public, it doesn't add up, when was the last time you Binged something?

Today there are opposing arguments about the benefits of brand ubiquity to the extent of being "verbified" (we continue to play with the English language). Certainly the ability to become omnipresent helps the bottom line via sales of the product but if you lose control of your intellectual property, "genericide" ( losing the legal power of a trademark), can be an even bigger risk. Just because you say you will get some Kleenex or Windex or Aspros at the supermarket, doesn't mean you'll come home with those particular brands, after all how many tissue products are there and what is the difference between the dozens of headache tablets on display?

This is the problematic consequence companies like Xerox, who ran campaigns for publishers asking them to use the term "photocopy" instead of the brand name, have had to content with. Even Google, the fastest company to be "verbified" and admitted to the Webster dictionary as a verb, has maintained its "trademark is to be used as an adjective only, never as a noun or verb, and never in the plural form. Always to have a generic term following the trademark, example: Google search or Google web search." In its approach, Google is trying to make clear that the action of "Googling" cannot be made without the proprietary product being used.

This now becomes the pinnacle of marketing success, where the brand verb gives you no option but to use the product. Some have success because they are market leaders and "I'll Facebook you" has no alternative but to use Zuckerberg's site, while others like FedEx work hard to differentiate themselves from the opposition so that "FedExing" can only mean using one service.

The discussions that lead on from brand ubiquity to individual marketing, so important in today's social media, have similar challenges and it is even more important to keep your intellectual property safe guarded, so your name, your brand doesn't become synonymous with something you don't want to stand for. "To do a Bradbury" has long been in the Australian vernacular, a verbalisation of being the unlikely winner of a contest and has come to mean more about keeping going and never giving up. Such is the power of individual "verbification". What are you good at?

Whistle while you work.

Snow White wasn't the best CEO in the forest. In fact she slept most of the time and when she was awake her workers were in constant mortal danger from hostile mergers. Her employees worked hard but only one in 7 could be called Happy while the others were the usual collection of workers known for being Dopey, Sleepy and of course Grumpy. As a group they were disengaged, unproductive and constantly getting into trouble, until Snow White merged with the right party to provide a better place to work and they lived happily ever after.

For many workers the dream of happiness at the "coal face" is a fairy tale, with specialists at the Conference Board and Gallup calculating over half the U.S. population hate their career, noting fewer than 3 in 10 had their hearts are in their job, resulting in productivity loss upwards of $350 billion. The things that could have kept the dwarves happy, ability to move within their group, praise for a job well done, having a direct impact on the direction of the group and recognising individuality along with a work life balance, would have seen the evil witch vanquished by the middle of chapter 4.

Each year research mounts showing the positive affects happiness has on the company bottom line. Something recognised by the leading lights as pointed out by CareerBliss, who asked "what exactly makes staff whistle while they work?". The innovative technology companies with their bean bags and ping pong tables long ruled the roost when it came to staff happiness and engagement but they knew it was more than just the perks. Today chemical giants like Pfizer, government bodies like the US department of defence and NASA have all learned an amalgam of recognition, constant movement, clarity of company and career direction, life balance and having the ability to contribute and influence beyond the work place shoots them up the list of best places to work. The companies climbing the list have worked out "it's always personal" and people above everything adds up to the places people seek out, providing these companies with the choice of the best people in a tight employment market.

SAS, head quartered in Cary North Carolina, was named by several global bodies as the world's best multinational work place and they point at their 37 year streak of record earnings as a testament to their employee engagement and satisfaction. Valuing people above all, especially during the GFC when owner Jim Goodnight guaranteed no one of the 13,000 employees would lose their job and asked only they remained vigilant in their spending habits, SAS stayed true to the four pillars of happiness. Four pillars, that along with "people above all", include "trust above all things", "to give is to get" and "employees understanding the significance of their work".

It's easy to pin up such mission statements but if it was that easy, the question remains why don't other corporations lead like this? It requires leaders willing to open up and learn from people like Goodnight. Google, amongst the current crop of global technology giants has constantly looked to such models giving them a perennial spot at the top of the best places to work but other industries are embarking on the challenge to provide happiness, accepting it's not just about bean bags and ping pong tables.

Something the handsome Prince knew all along, giving the dwarves new direction, a new start, a new work place and saving Snow White from a career as CEO to a bunch of miners, constantly reliant on the coal index for future company profits.

"Trust men and they will be true to you; treat them greatly and they will show themselves great". —Emerson

Is it just me?

Is it just me, or is Michael O'Leary of Ryan Air a mad genius? While legacy carriers acquiesce and stumble over each other to passenger requests for better service, high quality engagement and seats Neil Armstrong would have loved in space, Ryan Air continue to gouge passengers for every conceivable service fee and get away with it. From discussions on fat tax, toilet tax, in flight porn, charging exorbitant fees, calling his clients "idiots and consideration for standing room only air carriage, Ryan Air has managed to stay in the news, in the social media and in people's minds, for all the wrong reasons. So you would think senior management concerns would look to rectify the above, but 20 million online searches per month ( compare 1.5 million for Virgin Atlantic ), have Ryan Air laughing all the way to the marketing department. Which in a million years could not replicate such a profile by mere campaigns for on board entertainment or food services.

Is it just me, or do brand experts not always know what they are talking about when they discuss Ryan Air's reputation suicide? The negativity encountered in blogs, chat rooms, reviews and website scrutiny, has people in a search frenzy and though experts would say this is all blood in the water, attracting nothing but sharks, the telling indicator for Ryan Air has always been about top of mind advertising. Top of mind advertising done for free by passengers and pundits with opinions that would turn your Grandma's hair white. Yet this brand awareness, free of charge, certainly qualifies Michael O'Leary as a marketing genius who has engaged and enraged the flying public in a deliberate campaign of hostility, looking to the airline you love to hate to be the first one you think of when you want to fly.

Is it just me, or is the head of PR for Ryan Air the worst job in the airline industry? Ten people are now on the short list for the vacant position of Stephen McNamarra, who for four years, took a beating and was bludgeoned about the head for the deliberate negativity used by the airline to increase profile along with sales. Mr McNamarra will be heading up the PR for the Irish Rugby Football Union, where no doubt sticking your head into a scrum is an eminent advance to sticking your head out for Ryan Air. The successful candidate will no doubt have the personality of traits of Gengis Khan, the Grand Wizard of the KKK, along with the guillotine mentality of the people who didn't want to eat cake, while always keying an eye out for the next best negative campaign to keep Ryan Air in the media.

Is it just me, or is Ryan Air the most interesting airline in the world to talk about? Seems no matter what the experts say, cheap shots and bad publicity combined with O'Leary's cynical approach to paying customers seems to be paying off at the bank. Instead of trying to emulate Richard Branson, maybe the local boys should take a more feisty approach to running an airline, as O'Leary points out, "the customer is not always right".