The inside story off how transformational leadership created “Broadband”

Most people are wrong. “Broadband” has not been around forever. It was first introduced to the public at the beginning of 1997. Most people do not realize that the word still has no formal definition in the way it is used most often today. Fewer still realize the part that Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young played in it. This discusses how I, as Chief Marketing Officer of MediaOne/US West, popularized it, and how I have codified the thinking process so that experts can apply it to their business.



I had many years of, in retrospect, relevant, but seemingly unconnected at the time, experience. CompuServe had been founded in 1969, and I became a user in 1984 when I bought a Radio Shack TRS 100 laptop computer, which came with a free one month trial subscription. I became a customer. I later advised CompuServe in the late 1980s when it faced attack from AOL, but it refused to recognize that the company was at risk. Management kept on saying “the people who know, use CompuServe, while the masses use AOL” – the kiss of death for CompuServe, of course. I had also advised AT&T, Sprint and Deutsche Telekom in telecommunications and GTE on its “Main Street” interactive video trial. So, having experienced the best in voice, video and data, I was well aware of the potential power of convergence.



When I joined Continental Cablevision in 1996 as CMO, as it was about to be acquired by US West for $10.8 Billion, I knew the company faced many challenges. Amos Hostetter, the founder and Chairman of the company, whose baby it was, had just sold it to US West Media Group, whose CEO, Chuck Lillis, had a vision to transform the company into a multi-pronged communications company - convergence. He needed the company’s fiber-optic network, the most extensive in the country then, but still in the process of being fully built out. At that time, Cable companies provided around 50 analog video channels, and no one even thought of them as Internet access or Phone providers. Yet the technology was on us, but the plans for commercialization were not. In the first few months of my tenure, I developed specific plans for hundreds of digital video channels with new content, high speed Internet access (when most consumers had 57.6 kbps dial up modems), and IP telephony. Consumer research told us that the claims were not believable – “50X current speeds, you’re nuts.” Nor were they seen as relevant. Most consumers used the Internet only for email, and saw no benefit in reading emails 50 times faster. There were no online videos, which only became possible with the introduction of High-speed data, and consumers did not understand why they would want them. Yet we enabled Netflix and many of the services we take for granted.



We had the additional disadvantage that most people hated their cable company. I remember well that I was visiting our Jacksonville office and while I was there, the Jacksonville Jaguars were playing the Denver Broncos in the playoffs. At a critical stage, there was a cable outage in the cable feed and several important minutes were lost to local viewers. On my way out, at Jacksonville airport, the security screeners realized for whom I worked from the logo on my carry-on, and put me through so many extra screenings that I missed my flight!


This meant that we had to move away from the name “Continental Cablevision” to one that screamed “convergence.” We could not just be a cable company any more and have any credibility. US West had been using the MediaOne name in Atlanta, and research showed that it would be a powerful way to signify that we could offer voice, video and data. A new logo was designed that symbolized that we offered an enormous pipe into the home, and we “only” had a “promise” to develop. The “O” in the logo was designed to represent a pipe carrying the new services to the home.


So, initially, we were offering something that few saw the need for, used new technology, and for which no products existed that would fully use its capabilities. The biggest challenge was to create an overriding theme and way to manage the “How,” the “when” as well as the “what.” There was a clear need for a “magic ingredient” in the same way that laundry detergents once used the “blue speckles.” It needed to be a term that was not in wide use, but that could be used to explain the benefits we offered. An intense search, in conjunction with our advertising agency, Margeotes Ferttita, led us to one word – “Broadband.” We had found only 15 uses of the word in the previous year worldwide, and that was in technical wireless journals. As mentioned, there is still no formal definition of it as applied to communications other than radio.



Now this was neither easy nor obvious. Many of my colleagues felt uncomfortable with it. Typical conversations ran somewhat like this:

Me: “We need to create a “Magic ingredient” that no one really understands, but sounds scientific enough to create believability for our claims.”

Executive Committee (in unison): “You must be crazy. No one will understand it, and it will never work. Why should we bet the entire future of the company on your plan?”

Me: “We have to change the game completely. We have to show people what they will be able to do with this – video, voice and Internet – while giving them a reason to believe us.”

Executive Committee: “Even our own people won’t understand or believe it.”

Me: “We have to create and execute an intensive program to train and educate all our own people.”



I must admit that neither I nor anyone else foresaw that the word would catch on so strongly, that like “Aspirin” it would become almost generic. We only encountered skepticism in the media that it would not catch on, and that I was making a huge mistake. In fact, it encapsulated everything that consumers came to understand that we were going to offer. In no small part this was due to the extraordinary advertising that our agency created. It has now become so commonplace that few realize that it was introduced by an advertising campaign. George Fertitta went on to become CEO of NYC, Inc., the entity that grew New York tourism and business so successfully in the past decade.



Our advertising agency was a strong believer, and so was I. I did convince everyone, so I rebranded the company as “MediaOne,” and launched it, with the new services and used the slogan, “This is Broadband. This is the way.” http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Broadband.html



The very first commercials in the world that mentioned “Broadband,” featured a re-working of the CSN&Y song, “Our House.” Seventeen years ago these were visionary commercials, offering a new view of the world - one that came to pass today. These commercials can be seen at the following link: http://youtu.be/eiCQtSArNwY . Subsequent follow-up :30 commercials focused on specific aspects:

Human Capacity: http://youtu.be/iWADKplUAkg
The Future Arrived: http://youtu.be/eJEGdgGpaWk
House of the Future: http://youtu.be/oMit7Zxe6b0
Future Vision of House: http://youtu.be/vBuCi6o5164


At the time, the reaction was shock and disbelief in the business press and from pundits. Many called me personally crazy, and that it would never catch on. This umbrella term was so successful that it is now globally and universally used. We were named “Marketer of the Year” in the Cable industry. This was all accomplished in six months, with the result that US West sold it two years later for $62 Billion, based on subscriber value - a “turnaround” of a company that was not failing, but that could have sunk into decline instead of into explosive value growth. I still remember well, attending all the shoots and staying at the editing studio in Manhattan well past midnight to approve the commercials so that they could go on air immediately.



I continue to preach that while most companies are “maintained,” often even quite well, re-invention is the key to real value growth. Leadership has to be transformational. The secrets to this are:

1. Having breadth of experience in multiple industries, technologies and customer/consumer populations.
2. Having the ability to tie together multiple strands of knowledge, as I have done in many places, including Reliant Energy or Remedy software.
3. Welcoming and embracing change with passion instead of fearing it. This can be threatening to many as old knowledge becomes irrelevant and new learning is essential.
4. Looking for optimization instead of step improvements, that are never transformative.

How "best place to work" could have helped GM avoid its problems.

GM is only the latest company to get into trouble and struggle to get out of it. Preventing and dealing with a crisis is, however, not merely a PR problem. Really effective companies have a culture that makes getting into a crisis far less likely, and dealing with one, far easier. Companies that are principle driven, such as Mars, Inc, http://www.mars.com/global/about-mars/the-five-principles-of-mars.aspx are far less likely to get into trouble. We have found that one of the measurable attributes of such companies is that they qualify to get onto one or more "Best Places to Work" lists.

We at Max Brand Equity http://maxbrandequity.com/ have found also that top executives do not know that companies that qualify for such lists achieve value growth at least twice that of peer group companies.

How to be a good networker - one key

Perhaps you know it, but there is one thing you do that few do - you provide feedback on introductions - that make you much better than most. Even though I always ask people to let me know how they got on, most do not. I make a lot of introductions, including several yesterday and giving me feedback is a good thing for them:

1. It's polite
2. I'm curious
3. I know more so that I can make further introductions
4. I know who is unhelpful and I can not introduce anyone else to them

For example. someone who never gives me feedback afterwards on the introductions I make for her misses opportunities for new introductions. There are people I have been making a few introductions a year for over many years, and someone who never gives feedback is losing out. You don't have to push, just make it easy for me to think of people you might like to meet.

What was it like in Houston, energy capital, during deregulation? How is it applicable elsewhere?

In the late 1990s, energy deregulation was seen as the solution to rising energy prices. As a result, while regulation was not completely lifted, there was to be freedom to compete on price and geography. As President of Reliant Energy's Retail Business I had an inside seat from within the third largest combination utilities in the world. It was a heady atmosphere in Houston at the time. Consultants and lawyers were making $ millions assisting most of Houston's energy companies devise plans to prosper in the new environment. Outsiders who had succeeded in other rapidly changing industries were brought in to bring new thinking. The dining clubs of Houston were full of people making deals over lunch, from top executives at the Petroleum Club (where I was a member) on the top floor of the Exxon Building, other top executives and politicians at the Coronado Club, and more lunching in the fading elegance of the Houston Club (Houston's oldest, from the 19th century) and attending evening events at the River Oaks Country Club. You could see Dick Cheney or Ken Lay, comfortable in the company of their peers. Now, any change in rules represents great opportunity, as well as great danger. I brought to that a record of success in transforming the cable, Internet and phone by introducing the first "Broadband" service a year or so before. It is not unlike, part way through a soccer game, it suddenly changing to basketball - except you may be able to influence the rules of the new game! My success in building the most profitable deregulated business without feeling the need to resort to the tactics of our cross-town rival, Enron, was the result of much analysis, experience and thought. The company pioneered a number of activities, many of which can be applied to any changing business or network based one.

Will Silicon Valley ever grow up?

Silicon Valley is dominated by companies that are innovative, fast growing, ambitious and intense. They face the need to be efficient, keep growing and stay ahead of newer competitors. Yet, these challenges have been faced by companies for hundreds of years. Henry Ford, Thomas Edison and Harley Procter had to overcome them long ago. They did. Procter and Gamble is over 180 years old. Ford Motor is almost 100 years old. Many companies in Silicon Valley act as though they are the first organizations to have to deal with these old issues in Management. They tend to spend much effort and relatively little time (shooting from the hip) in re-inventing the wheel. So you get stupid interview questions such as: "how many golf balls fit inside an airliner?" Decision and implementation processes are not thought through and are sometimes ill conceived. Executives at all levels in many companies have not experienced being in a more mature, effective company. There are exceptions, such as Intuit, of course, but too many are unlikely to last a fraction as long as P&G.

Yet, until Silicon Valley does develop some maturity and balance, there will continue to be cycles, poor predictability, and bubbles. The smart companies make sure that they hire experienced executives, even from outside the industry. They also make sure that they have the processes and thinking such as that required to get on a Best Place to Work list. http://www.optimalthinking.com/best-places-to-work.html

When Westport, CT was the center of the Marketing World

Following 14 years in Brand Management at Procter & Gamble, Ralph Glendinning moved to Westport, CT in 1962 to start Glendinning Associates, the first Marketing Consulting firm in the World. Early clients included consumer giants like General Foods, Lever Bros., Ogilvy & Mather and H.J. Heinz. David Ogilvy once wrote that "when it comes to sales promotion, Ralph Glendinning is a true genius."Glendinning became a powerhouse, with offices in London, Paris and Frankfurt. It also spawned many spin-offs in the Westport area, as well as copycats and other Marketing Service firms. The most successful spin-off company, Marketing Corporation of America, was founded by Jim McManus in 1971, and grew to be a behemoth of Marketing Services, with Strategy Consulting, Sales Promotion, Market Research, Advertising Agency, Couponing, and even a Venture Capital Arm. At the time of this article in 1982 http://www.inc.com/magazine/19830601/7217.html M.C.A. was still growing rapidly, and ended up also owning car dealerships, restaurants as well as the largest regional airline in the North-East. Just as Glendining had other spin-offs such as the Weston Group, Connecticut Consulting and New England Consulting, so M.C.A. had its own such as the Ryan Partnership, Main Street Partners and others. Quite separately, other Marketing service firms such as Greenfield Consulting, Clancy, Shulman and others, set up shop in the Westport area. Westport still has many Marketing services in the Area, but one could argue that the Hedge Funds and Private Equity firms have taken the pre-eminent position now.

Why are managers so bad at managing people? Becoming a "Best Place to Work."

Survey after survey tell us that the No. 1 reason people leave their jobs (or hate them if they do not leave), is a bad manager.We also know that each year, 2 Million people leave their jobs. Are so many managers bad? The answer is certainly less. The fact is that little attention is given to training managers in being good at it - in fact, the odds are high that their manager is not good at it! While the number of people who have been academically trained in "Management" had grown dramatically in the past 60 years, the amount of practical, on-the-job training managers get has dropped. People management skills are more readily absorbed by on the job training than in an academic setting.

Over the past twenty years, there has been growth in companies trying out for "Best Paces to Work" lists, but many companies do not know how to qualify. Training in this has only very recently become available and it is worth companies checking out the need for it: www.optimalthinking.com/best-places-to-work.html

The Short sightedness of companies

30 years ago it was routine for large and mid-sized companies to hire university graduates, train them and promote them. A few left, but that merely provided space to promote newer hires. In this way companies built a "bench" of trained, loyal people, who know how the company and industry worked.

Today, more and more companies hire on contract so that even professional ranks are filled with "temp workers." This means that the company is filled with people who do not know it, are not trained and that forces the company to hire from outside for middle and senior management.

From the point of view of the college graduate, a career become a hap-hazard progression, with all the onus for learning on their shoulders. The individual is on their own.

Long-term this means that for a very few innovative self-starters, they may have more opportunities, but for most it means insecurity and little room for career growth. As they hit 50, it will become increasingly difficult to get hired and that, combined with later retirement benefits, will cause financial distress. While the issue of experienced executives over 50 looking for work has been an issue for some time, it will change as those looking for work do not have linear career paths. http://www.optimarketllc.com/pdf/Fired_at-50_GP_1-05-12.pdf

Why can't people accept that they may have something to learn?

I had a client who use to ignore everything anyone suggested unless it was something he already wanted to do. On one particular issue, where he had no experience at all, he had a very locked in point of view. I had tried to convince him to think differently, as had others. Then one day, after someone else tried to convince him, but failed, he turned to me and said,"everyone keeps on saying the same thing. I am looking for someone who will tell me that I am right." So, he saw the fact that everyone kept on telling him that he was wrong as evidence that no one but him had the right answer!

Closing the loop to make social media more effective

Some people see relationships with "friends" or "connections" as one way only. They assume that they are so fascinating that everyone else will read their posts and that they do not need to reciprocate or show that they reciprocate. In order to cement relationships better, unless you are an entertainment or political rockstar, you should note and "like" or "share" other people's posts. This is immensely flattering and will encourage others to read what you have to say. Relationships should not be one way only and closing the loop in this way is valuable.

How many networkers really try to help those who help them?

Each day I get a few emails or phone calls from people I may know, or more likely, have been referred to me by someone I know. Usually, they are asking for two or so hours of my time to meet and make introductions as they job hunt. Often they offer to buy me a cup of coffee or lunch. The reason it takes two hours is that I will have to drive to meet them and then drive back, rarely less than an hour, often more. The reality is that while I am happy to help people, I feel that they are not being considerate of my time. If I accepted every request, I would spend all my time helping job or business seekers. One way they can make it worth my time is to reciprocate.

Yesterday, I met with someone for over an hour, but not once during that time did she ask me how she could help me. Even those who do ask the question, will rarely dig deep enough to really help. If someone genuinely wants to reciprocate and help those whom they ask for help, they will try to understand you as much as they can. They will try to learn what you do and test out if introductions will help by making a few suggestions and asking how they are on or off target. They will regard helping you as an obligation on their part.

Test yourself and think back to the last time you asked someone else for help. How much help did you give them?

Data vs. Insight

Data or Information are often mistaken for insight. The reality is that insight can come from data, but much data is either not analyzed at all, mis-analyzed or is simply overhelming. Currently, with the advent of "Big Data" (which must have Volume; Velocity, and Variety, to qualify), we are in danger of being overwhelmed. This is so much so that many people put a lot of effort into eliminating or cutting back most data so that what is left is easy to understand.

This can be dangerous, as in order to identify the exception, you have to deeply undestand the norm. The human visual cortex is still the best tool for doing this. In simply driving down the road, we see, absorb and analyze millions of data points. We need to start using tools that can replicate this in business and science.

Such tools are beginning to exist. An example is Synerscope software which does not eliminate data, but by putting all on one screen allows identification of deviant processes very efectively.

Global Transfer of success is hard

Most attempts on the part of businesses to expand to other countries fail. Probably one of the biggest reason is to underestimate the difficulty and the differences between the two countries. Having done this for over 40 years, I know that it calls for not merely country knowledge, but a sensitivity that allows learning. Of course, beyond this, there are mechanical reasons such as distances, laws, raw material supplies, availability of logistics capabilities and more. Many people who have only worked in one country are not aware of possible differences and do not ask the right questions.

Impact of the Cyprus bailout on people there

The terms of the Cyprus bailout were unprecedented. In exchange for a €10 billion emergency aid package, Cyprus in March agreed to E.U. demands to effectively confiscate up to 60 percent of any depositor’s holdings above €100,000 held in two of the country’s largest banks, Bank of Cyprus and Laiki Bank. Now Germany claimed that this was to penalize the money launderers who had contributed to the crisis (itself questionable). As a result of this, many businesses have been plunged into immediate bankruptcy. They cannot pay suppliers, salaries, rents or running costs. Schools and hospitals are running out of money, farms cannot buy feed for animals and the country is being plunged into misery and a financial situation that will take up to ten years to recover from. Private citizens had wired money in to close on houses, only to see most of it disappear before the sale could close. Lawyers holding money in escrow have seen the money vanish while still being liable to pay their clients.

There has never been a bailout like this, and had the terms been applied to a larger country, it could have led to global chaos. It is as much of a "punish the innocent and uninvolved" plan as one that hits the mark of hurting the guilty.

Travels in Cyprus

I recently returned from Cyprus, where the banking crisis continues. While people have been hurt by having their bank accounts raided, businesses, schools, hospitals have been hurt even more. Driving in Cyprus, around 20-25% of shops are shuttered, many probably permanently. Yet, if the purpose was to eliminate Russian money laundering through Cyprus, I still saw 747s from Russia arriving at Paphos's tiny airport.

I also spent some time in Turkish occupied North Cyprus, which only Turkey recognizes (and subsidizes). Long poorer than the rest of Cyprus, it shows signs of pulling ahead. Cars are newer, commercial and residential development is moving fast. My forecast is that in ten years, the North will be wealthier and more separate from the South. Whereas in the South, virtually everyone speaks excellent English, in the North few and fewer do.

More to come!

Why do people not understand that lead generation is a key part of sales

Not recognizing the need for lead generation comes from a naive view of selling. Sales is not simply a transactional process where a buyer, who has spent the time to understand all the options, investigated each thoroughly, then makes a completely rational decision. Rather, it is a messy process, where many decision makers in a company, each with superficial knowledge of the options, make a subjective decision based on a brief and rarely complete trial, in a situation of having little time available. The final tie-breaker is trust, and sometimes it can be the biggest factor. Lead generation efforts are essential to complete these fully.

Start-ups rely on execution

People often assume that once you have the idea, all is plain sailing. Yet many failed start-ups were based on good ideas (which often succeed in other hands). What made Facebook succeed where Friendster and Tribe did not, or LinkedIn where eCademy or Ryze did not, was the right execution. This does not mean that all went smoothly. A lot of scrambling went into the success, and a lot of quick recovery from mistakes. Yet, all too often, execution is underestimated and the value of the idea is over-estimated.

You don't have to be crazy to found a start up, but it helps

As H.G. Wells said, “all progress is made by unreasonable men.” Of course, he was wrong. There are many unreasonable women! Each year, in the USA alone, there are over 100,000 start-ups. Only about 10,000 get any outside funding at all and only about 1,000 get VC funding. The biggest VCs only fund low single digits per year, and the small ones may only fund any every other year or less often. Even of those funded by VCs, about 50 will become real businesses, and probably fewer than 5 will pay back the investment in the multiples they hope for. So, almost all founders waste years on the business and lose a lot of money. A very few make a fortune, a few more make a living.

Nevertheless, were it not for such people, the country would not progress and grow. Fortune 500 companies, in aggregate, are job destroyers. It is the medium sized and small companies that grow employment and advance technology available to the market. Even the best corporate labs have only a small proportion of the technology they generate commercialized. So the country, and the world, needs start-ups to sustain our growing population, even at the cost of dashed dreams and bankrupt entrepreneurs. But why do intelligent people found businesses if the ods are so intimidating?

Perhaps, it is, as they say about lottery tickets, “you can’t win unless you buy a ticket.” That is probably one of the reasons, but there are others. Firstly, most founders do not know how slim the chances of success are. Secondly, they have an idea that they totally and passionately believe in. They usually over-estimate the quality of the idea, but it is still normally a good idea. Thirdly, they assume that both selling and getting investors will be easier than it is (after all, it is self-evidently, a brilliant idea).

As a result of this, founders can be unreasonable managers and partners. They are so convinced of the rightness of the idea that they do not accept anything that is at odds with their own vision. Now there are founders who are very different, but a balance is important. There are ten key guidelines that can make the success of a start up more likely. These are:

1.     A team of equals is more likely to succeed than a single founder. There is a lot of work to do and rarely can one person alone do it all. Furthermore, it shows that the founder(s) can work with other people, and the idea is good enough to get several people believing in it enough to put their lives on the line.

2.     Having a defined target market. If the business cannot narrowly define its market, it cannot optimize its product, its message, its pricing and its distribution channels.

3.     Solving a recognized problem in a new way. If the target market does not and never does, recognize a problem, then however technically brilliant the product or service, it cannot succeed.

4.     Openness to new input. Often founders are so monomaniacal that they keep on with a plan even when they get new input or experience problems. While constantly changing is harmful, openness to change is essential.

5.     Too much focus on product vs. acquisition of customers. Getting customers is key, as a source of revenue, but also it enables easier funding and continuous product improvement. Paying customers give better product feedback than ones that are trying it for free. Balance spending against sales and marketing with spending on programmers.

6.     Having too little money. It takes a lot of time to get funding, and if the founder does not get 12-18 months of money, then the he or she can spend all of his or her time chasing money.

7.     Spending too much money on the wrong things. Fancy offices do not matter, people can work from home if needed, as long as there are people who can make or deliver the product and people working on sales and marketing.

8.     Choose the right location. Not all locations are created equal. Too many founders pick a location because they live there, or want to. Just because it’s a big city, it may still be wrong – Chicago or Dallas is almost always a mistake for a start up in technology or fashion. You need a culture that is start up friendly and that has an infrastructure to support you. For example, investors would rather invest locally than have to get on a plane to attend a board meeting.

9.     Make all your early people feel like founders. They will have a stake in the success of the business rather than just being employees there for a salary.

10. Make sure that you and all on the team make this a serious, energetic effort. You can’t play with a start up on the side and expect that it will work. Too many people are dilettantes for years and even if it is a good idea, they drift for so long that they fail, still having spent lots of money and time.

So, if you have an idea, go for it. Recognize that it is hard, but the potential rewards are great. Do all that you need to do to maximize your chances of success, and balance some insanity with intelligence.

The purpose of a startup..Peter Drucker

Peter Drucker famously said that the "purpose of a business is to create a customer. Often people forget. They come to believe that the purpose of their business is to build a product, grow an organization, get funded, or create an efficient supply chain. While these may be essential means to an end, the end is always to create customers. If too much effort and money is spent on the intervening steps, then too little will be spent on Sales & Marketing. This is often the case in start-up where founders can believe that the product speaks for itself, it will become successful through word of mouth or viral efforts, and will need little formal advertising or selling. Particularly today, many talk about avoiding product categories that require a lot of of Sales & Marketing. However, experience tell us that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Nothing will substitute for the tried and tested. Trade Shows and mailing lists are not glamorous compared to a Twitter account, or a partnership with a high profile company, but working the basics is essential for success. What Peter Drucker said half a century ago still holds true.

Sherlock Holmes - Big Data analyst

It has been recognized that the reason why Sherlock Holmes was so effective was that he observed and remembered everything. As such, he had access to an enormous data base. However, memory and observation alone are not enough. His strength was that he could access the data and put together apparently unconnected strands to create solutions. This was far from the concept of data mining. He had no idea of what he was looking for and no preconceptions of what he would find. He used patterns to identify those that were anomalies. This is the principle by which the future generation of Big Data analysis, such as Synerscope, will work. Pour in vast amounts of data, and simply by observing unusual or unexpected patterns, the user, not someone with an advanced degree in data analysis, can draw conclusions fast and easily.