Thank You for Disrupting

Home > Other > Thank You for Disrupting > Page 12
Thank You for Disrupting Page 12

by Jean-Marie Dru


  $8 billion a year, leads Netflix to employ thousands of not-yet-

  famous professionals from the world of cinema. For many of

  them, as promising as it might seem, the collaboration with Net-

  flix often gives rise to tough financial negotiations.

  The platform has attained such power that it can dictate its

  own conditions. Netflix doesn’t disclose the number of down-

  loads of its series. With no precise knowledge of the audience,

  artists have to accept a limited royalty deal, one that is most often

  disconnected from any actual viewer figures. Now Netflix could

  argue that it permits hundreds of directors and actors to work

  on films that, without its support, would probably never see the

  light of day. This is also true.

  As for its employees, they come to realize that Netflix’s cul-

  ture, which initially appears so attractive, is in reality not so

  kind and relaxed. On the contrary, it is so performance-driven

  that it has become inflexible. For instance, managers are fre-

  quently required to apply the “keeper test.”10 They have to ask

  themselves, “If one of my people were to leave for a similar job

  in a peer company, would I fight hard to keep her or him at

  Netflix?”11 If the answer is no, an employee’s fate is sealed; that

  person will be fired. People whose talents no longer fit, how-

  ever much they may have contributed, are asked to leave. The

  rule at Netflix is that “adequate performance gets a generous

  severance package.”12

  No one knows this better than McCord. After 14 years as

  the head of human resources, she was let go in 2012. Despite

  being considered by many observers as one of the greatest inno-

  vators in her field, her skills were no longer integral to Netflix.

  The rules and principles she helped to create led to her eviction;

  proof that preserving a culture can carry a high cost.

  Chapter 12

  The DisrupTion Company

  ON CORPORATE CULTURE COMPONENTS

  AND DISRUPTION

  i would like to conclude Part III with a corporate culture I know

  well, that of my own organization, TBWA. This might appear

  somewhat presumptuous. Whatever its impact and its weight in

  the business world, my company is more modest than many oth-

  ers that are covered in this book. In a chapter dedicated to cor-

  porate culture, how can I not describe the one I know best, the

  one I live daily?

  The Harvard Business Review identified what it has called “the

  six components of corporate culture,”1 vision, values, practices,

  people, narrative, and place. I will attempt to describe TBWA’s

  culture in line with these six themes.

  107

  108

  THANK YOU FOR DISRUPTING

  Vision, Values, practices

  The first element is vision. At TBWA, we define ourselves as

  The Disruption® Company. Those not familiar with TBWA’s

  history and with its role in shaping the word disruption might be

  a bit surprised. They should know, however, that using the word

  disruption in a business context originated with our agency. We

  were also the first to give the term a positive connotation.

  Many might consider disruption to have become an overused,

  even somewhat generic concept. But as I stated previously, what

  makes a vision great is not so much its originality as its authen-

  ticity. TBWA has been cultivating this vision for almost 30 years.

  Every day we must try to live up to the high expectations we

  have set with regard to our company’s positioning. To do so, we

  must think disruptively, create disruptively, and act disruptively

  in everything we do. We must try to avoid anything that leads to

  linear or incremental growth. We seek disruption.

  Consider now values. Annual reports are full of the values

  companies espouse. From one company to another, we fre-

  quently come across the same words peppered throughout their

  documents such as integrity, adaptability, frugality, responsibility,

  accountability, competency, sustainability, flexibility, utility, and

  transparency without forgetting innovative spirit and sense of leadership. These values are not original, but what matters is how

  present they are in the heart of a company.

  TBWA’s culture also relies on a set of values. They are

  described in three words that are in themselves not necessarily

  distinctive: creativity, curiosity, and diversity.

  Of our three values, creativity comes first. Every single day

  we are looking for ideas that are fresh, smart, and simple. Fresh

  because so few ideas manage to emerge from the immense noise

  of global communication. Most have become inaudible, invisible.

  The Disruption Company

  109

  Smart because we should never underestimate our audience. No

  one ever complains about an ad being too smart. Simple because,

  as our Apple campaigns have always demonstrated, the simpler,

  the more impactful.

  Ideas do not come out of nowhere. They come from an

  understanding of the cultures we live in and of the audiences with

  whom we are talking. This is why curiosity is our second value.

  We want and expect our people to have hungry minds. And we

  do a lot to help feed them. For instance, every day of the week,

  we produce a different three-minute video describing particular

  micro-trends and what’s becoming important in emerging crowd

  cultures. This provides great food for thought. The goal is to

  help our people find ideas that, as our chief executive officer,

  Troy Ruhanen, says, “locate and involve brands in modern

  culture.”

  Our third value is diversity. “Embrace diversity, it will hug

  you back,”2 believes John Hunt, our worldwide creative director.

  While gender diversity is important to us, at TBWA diversity

  goes far beyond the executive positions occupied by women.

  In our organization, six of our largest offices—Los Angeles,

  New York, Toronto, Shanghai, London, and Paris—are man-

  aged by women. While having a diverse staff at all levels of an

  organization is important, we also take diversity to mean open-

  ness to others. We see the value in cultural blending. Each of

  our local offices is endowed with its own strong local character,

  and this enriches our work. It’s no coincidence that our Los

  Angeles office was chosen by Steve Jobs and our Johannesburg

  office by Nelson Mandela. We know that none of us individually

  is better than all of us together. Troy Ruhanen said some time

  ago, “I need Paris to come into New York. I need Turkey to

  come into China. I need L.A. to come into Australia. That’s how

  we’ve got to work.”

  110

  THANK YOU FOR DISRUPTING

  This leads us to our own business practices. The Harvard

  Business Review identified practices as one of the six components

  that form company cultures. The Disruption Days we conduct

  with our clients are the most concrete manifestations of our cul-

  ture. Each of these events brings together around 30 people, half

  from the client
side, and half from the agency. Over one or two

  days, they follow a precise sequence of activities based on a series

  of rigorous exercises. Our network has 270 agencies around the

  world and each one has held at least five Disruption Days per

  year, meaning we will have organized at least 10,000 of these

  events so far. We estimate that more than 100,000 of our clients’

  employees have participated in them, from China to Brazil, from

  South Africa to Finland. It would be difficult to imagine a prac-

  tice going further in bringing a company’s culture to life.

  people, Story, place

  People means talent. Agencies are among those kinds of com-

  panies that are not protected by patents and cannot lay claim

  to the exclusivity of a given service or product. The value they

  create comes from the work they do every day, and that depends

  on the sum of the talents they are able to bring together. In our

  company we look to recruit people with a real entrepreneurial

  spirit, doers with a taste for all things artistic. These are people

  for whom music, exhibitions, and street art hold no secrets, and

  who are versed in crowd cultures. Our employees feel at home

  in an environment built entirely around creative processes and

  people. And, because we expect each member of our collective,

  no matter their level of seniority, to have a real influence on the

  agency, we ask just a single question in our regular evaluations,

  “What is your impact on our business?” Anything else seems su-

  perfluous.

  The Disruption Company

  111

  Moving on, the fifth element is narrative. The Harvard

  Business Review says, “Any organization has a unique history, a

  unique story. And the ability to unearth that history and craft it

  into a narrative is a core element of culture creation.”3 TBWA

  has its own history, which has shaped the company into what it

  has become. To fully appreciate this, it’s worth considering that

  of all the mergers that have taken place in the world, across all

  industries, the vast majority has actually destroyed value. The

  advertising industry is certainly no exception. It’s a cemetery of

  mergers. Our network is an exception.

  Why? Because of our culture. Our company was built by

  bringing together local agencies recognized for a high level of

  creativity in their own markets. The reason these partnerships

  have worked is that the agencies involved all claimed very similar

  cultures to begin with. Indeed, they all voluntarily adopted the

  Disruption methodology, even though it came from an agency,

  at the time BDDP, which was one of the last to join the TBWA

  network. From one country to another, our agencies have all

  remained very different, each with its own distinct local person-

  ality. But the common language that bonds them, the Disruption

  methodology, brings a real cohesion to the collective that they

  make up and forges the strong cultural backbone of our company.

  The Harvard Business Review proposes a sixth and final ele-

  ment that it calls place, which could also be described as interior

  architecture. We want the way our agencies look to reflect who we

  are. Many of our offices have interesting designs, one of the best-

  known being our former office in Los Angeles, the so-called Bin-

  oculars Building,” conceived by Frank Gehry. In all our agencies

  around the world, we favor open spaces with impromptu meet-

  ing places that facilitate chance encounters. Office design should

  encourage such serendipitous collisions.

  I would like to expand on this notion of place, of space. The

  philosopher Emil Cioran once said, “One does not inhabit a

  112

  THANK YOU FOR DISRUPTING

  country; one inhabits a language.”4 Language is indeed our

  common home. Bill Taylor, editor and founder of Fast Company

  magazine, wrote in Mavericks at Work, “Because they think about

  their business differently, maverick organizations almost always

  talk about their business differently. They devise a strategic

  vocabulary that distinguishes them from their rivals.”5

  At TBWA, we have adopted words that we are alone in

  employing. Our thought process is founded on a unique road-

  map of convention, disruption, and vision. Every day, we talk

  about things like Disruption Live, Backslash, No Format, Tiger

  Academy, Sea Legs, Take the Lead, Media Arts Lab, Cultural

  Edges, Disruption Lab, and other terms that we use in our own

  particular way. Our shared vocabulary is the most eloquent

  reflection of our culture.

  This is what I wanted to say about the culture of the company

  I belong to. This culture is not inherently better than another;

  it’s just different. And it’s pervasive, something we at TBWA

  share. Our culture drives everything—and it has made us The

  Disruption Company.

  the Disruption Methodology

  On May 1, 1992, I published a full-page ad in the Wall Street

  Journal, Le Figaro, and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung with a single word—DISRUPTION—as the title, which appeared in

  heavy type across five columns. The term disruption was hence

  employed in a business context for the first time ever. Since then,

  the word has been misused for anything and everything—and it’s

  even been denigrated.

  When we created the Disruption® methodology in 1991, we

  gave the word a precise and positive meaning, contrary to those

  The Disruption Company

  113

  who later used it to describe reversals, upheavals, and even

  destruction. Our goal is to help companies grow, to conceive dis-

  ruptive ideas and strategies, and to develop disruptive business

  models that will help them achieve what Troy Ruhanen calls “a

  larger share of the future.”

  For us, Disruption is an upstream concept, whereas for oth-

  ers, it is only a means of observation, a grid to read events that

  have already occurred downstream. Others notice that a disrup-

  tion has taken place, but we try to imagine and create disruption

  from the outset, pushing it upstream.

  The method often leads us to re-examine a brand’s strategy,

  and sometimes even a company’s. It helps us become what all

  agencies strive to be: “growth consultants.” But there are two

  particularities. First, unlike the big consulting firms, we imagine

  futures for the brands we work with that go beyond extrapola-

  tions of the past and comparative analysis. We are consultants

  who use imagination. Second, we actually make stuff. We create

  things. This not a minor detail. Making things is at the heart

  of all true transformation. The way a strategy is brought to life

  often reveals its true power.

  To return to the concept of corporate culture in general,

  I would like to stress again that any manager that allows his

  company’s culture to become diluted is depriving himself of an

  incomparable asset. This is what Richard Branson meant when

  he said, “No matter how visionary, brilliant, and far-reaching a

&nb
sp; leader’s strategy might be, it can all come undone if it is not fully

  supported by a strong and spirited corporate culture.”6

  Or as Lou Gerstner, IBM’s former CEO, stated: “Culture

  isn’t just one aspect of the game—it is the game.”7

  PART

  FOUR

  DISRUPTIVE BRAND

  BUILDING

  John Smale was chief executive officer of Procter & Gamble

  from 1981 to 1990. I saw him in his Cincinnati office just a

  few days before he retired. I was curious to know what he felt had

  most changed in the discipline of marketing during his career.

  He said that, for him, it was the very concept of the brand; what

  changed was the idea of what a brand is and what it can become.

  To explain, he told me that just a few weeks previously, a recom-

  mendation had been made to him to launch a toothbrush under

  the Crest brand. He had accepted it without hesitation. What’s

  interesting is what he said next. As a young brand manager, he

  had made the same recommendation decades before and it was

  vigorously rejected. Such an idea collided with the absolute

  dogma that reigned at the time: Product and brand were insep-

  arable. One brand, one product. One product, one brand. It was

  115

  116

  THANK YOU FOR DISRUPTING

  unthinkable to risk diluting the image of the established product,

  in this case Crest toothpaste, by introducing a line extension. It

  was simply prohibited.

  It was a coincidence that just before he left, Smale was led to

  take a decision opposite to that taken by his management a few

  months after he joined the company. Between the start of his

  career and his retirement, Procter & Gamble’s very rigid con-

  cept of the brand had profoundly and definitely evolved.

  This anecdote is more eloquent than it might at first appear.

  It highlights the distance traveled in our understanding of what

  constitutes the contours of a brand. When John Smale started at

  P&G, the brand was nothing more than a name. You had to give

  a product a name to identify it. Brand values were simply reflec-

  tions of the product’s attributes. Ivory was a pure brand, like the

  soap that bares its name.

  But launching a new brand is expensive. So, for reasons of

  cost-efficiency, marketers around the world began to group

  products together and launch them under an existing brand

 

‹ Prev