Volume 156: Authentically Fake Redux.
1. Authentically Fake Redux.
tl;dr: A clarification.
Well, Off Kilter put a cat among a few pigeons last week. Quite a few of you seem drawn to the concept of authenticity. And, as I went back and forth over email with a few of you, I began to see a definitional issue emerge that I’d like to clarify.
Unfortunately, the word authenticity is a bit like the word purpose in that it’s an imprecise term with more than one meaning.
In the case of authenticity, it appears to break down as follows:
A brand is authentic, meaning it attempts to reflect real, unvarnished life and purports to be deliberately free of artifice.
A brand is authentic to its own values, heritage, or belief system and builds a world of artifice around it.
Of the two, the first definition is what I was calling out as nonsensical. All brands represent artifice and image-making, so pretending yours doesn’t is ridiculous.
The second definition, which might also be referred to as consistent, cohesive, etc, is actually representative of the kind of behavior really great brands deliver all the time.
I referenced Ralph Lauren last week, to which I was sent a much more definitive history that I found fascinating (thank you, Christopher). A large part of the success of this brand has been the consistency and depth of its world-building. Is it authentic, as in free of artifice? Hell no. Is it authentic, as in reflecting its own perspective on the world? Hell yes.
Equally, someone I was emailing with brought up Google. If the Google brand were “real” without artifice, it would be rather different from what it purports to be. As we’re finding out in court right now, Google engages in serially questionable conduct, not to mention issues over at YouTube. However, the brand that has been carefully built as a friendly innovator largely shields it from consumer pushback.
In the interests of precision, I often think we might be better off borrowing from the language of storytelling and movie-making, a point I made way back in 2009 in this Fast Company article (blatant plug, sorry).
Here, we wouldn’t talk imprecisely about authenticity; we’d talk about things like canon, character backstory, narrative arcs, and world-building. All things that are potentially valuable in the context of a brand. Equally, we might talk about things like continuity errors, which I believe to be the bane of so many brands these days.
As we jump from campaign to campaign, shout ever louder for attention, treat re-brands as if they’re advertising campaigns, and generally become ever more tactical and short-termist, what are we really doing?
I’d argue that we’re simply introducing continuity errors across our narrative arc. Taking people out of the story and making them realize how inauthentic it is (haha, see what I did there?) rather than having them dive deeper and spark their imaginations.
2. IDEO Reboot?
tl;dr: Yeah, I have a view.
A recent Fast Company article on IDEO has been doing the rounds. The basic gist is that 1/3 of its people were made redundant in the past year because design thinking has become commoditized, and for the first time, a non-designer is the CEO.
I have absolutely zero connection to IDEO beyond a few conversations I had with them years ago, but I wasn’t particularly impressed by the quality of the analysis in the article—more on that later.
First, I want to point out that while designers have taken great joy in dunking on design thinking for years, the online crowing around IDEO’s recent issues leaves a bit of a sour taste. No matter your thoughts on design thinking and whether it represents “real design,” we’re talking about hundreds of people losing their jobs during a challenging time for most in the design industry. I’ve been in that position before, and I can tell you it’s not pretty. It’s demoralizing. And, while I was in the fortunate position of being the person making the layoffs rather than facing a future without a job, I can’t even imagine how those who lost their jobs must be feeling. It caused me many sleepless nights, a blown disc in my back, and I became completely burnt out trying to keep the lights on. So, no. I can’t find satisfaction in the misfortune of others.
We also have to accept that crowing about the decline of IDEO is fun for some because IDEO did a great job elevating itself to the top table in discussions with clients. Rarified air that very few designers ever get to taste that I’m sure left some feeling jealous. No matter what you might think of design thinking as a methodology (and its merits have been widely debated), what it unequivocally did do was get IDEO a seat in the boardroom advising CEOs and boards on the future of their businesses. And for that, I must salute them.
Anyway, back to the article for a moment. Here’s my alternate take. As I said, I have no connections to IDEO, so take this for what it is…pure speculation.
First, a couple of caveats. I don’t know if IDEO did what many did during the pandemic and overhired and then had to correct. Nor do I know whether the cultural issues that led to the previous CEO stepping down last year made a difference. But with that in mind, here goes.
I suspect the real issue with IDEO had little to do with design thinking in and of itself and more to do with an overall lack of commercial focus and strategic responsiveness to a changing business environment.
When IDEO popularized design thinking in the early to mid-2000s, method was very much in vogue in business circles. For example, Six Sigma was very much the in-thing as a do-it-all continuous improvement methodology. As a result, there was an open runway for a do-it-all innovation method. And they took it.
However, over time, three things changed. First, competition in the innovation space exploded as every agency, consultancy, and their grandmother re-labeled themselves an “innovation consultancy.” Second, the world shifted from a focus on method to a focus on outcomes. And third, the center of gravity for innovation shifted heavily toward the digital realm.
With this in mind, and with 20:20 hindsight, it appears that IDEO didn’t respond well to these changes. First, rather than ramping marketing up to maintain leadership in the face of competition, the IDEO marketing machine went strangely quiet (Fun fact: I once had a discussion with an IDEO partner where he proudly declared that they’d pursued a strategy of “de-branding” under his guidance. My enduring memory is of his being dangerously ignorant on the subject).
Second, instead of focusing on commercial outcomes, IDEO appears to have become increasingly esoteric in its focus. It used to be much more confusing, but even now, it feels more like an NGO than a consultancy in the business of driving commercial value for its clients.
And third, digital left IDEO behind. They’re not even in the conversation in this arena, which represents a massive commercial blindspot.
So, no, I don’t think the commoditization of design thinking in and itself represents IDEO's downfall. Instead, it feels more like leadership complacency and a lack of commercial focus manifesting itself via a lack of response to intensifying competition, a lack of connection to the changing commercial imperatives of its clients, and a failure to adapt to a much more digitally enabled environment, where coming up with ideas (what IDEO is good at) and building them into products (what IDEO doesn’t do) are increasingly integrated and inseparable.
The non-designer CEO schtick is a red herring for me. How well someone can lead and manage a business rarely has anything to do with the craft they’ve been trained in, and often, an outside perspective is exactly what an inward-looking culture (like IDEO seems to be) needs.
Of the stated intentions for the future of the business, two things stick out from the article. First, shifting to a lower-cost model, where freelancers primarily staff projects. This is an increasingly fashionable and overtly cost-driven approach. As a result, I’m somewhat dubious about the likelihood of sustained quality and consistency. It’s also a brand leverage play, so it may work for IDEO, whereas it won’t for others. As far as I’m aware, the IDEO brand remains stronger than perhaps its business results would indicate. The other intention to “build and scale a media brand” is much easier to explain. This almost certainly has nothing to do with becoming a media agency or consultancy, as the article intimates; instead, it looks like they’ll create a thought leadership vehicle equivalent to what the likes of McKinsey have done so successfully.
That’s pretty smart because it suggests a CEO who intends to re-energize the IDEO marketing machine after years of neglect and sharpen its commercial focus in the process.
What does the future hold? Who knows, but I’m more bullish than I am bearish. It’s a good brand. It stands for innovation in the minds of many, and if it can refocus and resolve the issues I mentioned above, it’ll likely do well.
However, the runway will be short, and I have no sense of whether a culture reeling from layoffs and the public airing of historical issues will accept such change and how difficult it might be to shift the business as a result.