Charlie Sheen, Chandler Massey, Johnny Depp, Paula Abdul, Zac Efron, Rob Lowe, John Davidson, Dick van Patten… This is just a short, partial list of the people Jeff Ballard works with, and has worked with in some cases for nearly 30 years, as one of the top publicists in the entertainment industry.
Often CEOs will say that leading people is like herding cats. And too often, many leaders are unable to help some of their most talented managers reach full potential. Highly capable people can have insights that are hard to understand, and can be impatient to take action. In far too many cases organizations lose highly talented people because the leaders are unable to maintain long-term relationships and coach/assist those people productively. Or, even worse, the highly talented people are misunderstood and the organization pushes them out rather than figuring out how to get the most out of them.
As a publicist for some of the top actors in Los Angeles, Jeff Ballard has worked with, assisted the growth of, and become long-term friends with some very talented people. And layered on top of this is the impact of celebrity, and chronic media frenzies that can position and reposition these people in the public eye – as well as the eye of producers. What most CEOs would consider a once-in-a-decade set of issues for helping a developing high-performer move their career forward is literally daily activity for Jeff Ballard.
And through all of this he maintains some of the longest known relationships in what is widely considered one of the most fickle industries in America. In the fast changing entertainment industry people are often dropped like chattel as trends shift. Yet, Jeff Ballard’s clients stick with him for decades, and wax eloquently about how he has helped them to grow as people, and move their careers forward. While you’ve probably never heard of him (unless you are in the entertainment business,) Jeff Ballard has developed some of the sharpest leadership skills anywhere.
Charlie Sheen, Conner Greene, Jeff Ballard on set of “Anger Management”
How does he do it? How does he help highly talented people to achieve even greater results year after year?
1 – Be helpful. Seriously. Don’t just hang around. Don’t wait to be asked to do something. Be helpful. Every interaction is an opportunity to help someone. Think about how you are creating opportunities to help people. Think about their capabilities and their goals and always be helpful.
Too often leaders take their relationships for granted. Or worse, they see people in their network as a route for the leader to accomplish his goals. They see others as someone who can help them. One of Jeff’s great skills as a leader is seeing his role as helping others. The more he helps others, the better things work out.
When Chandler Massey lost his phone, and he needed to do some interviews, Jeff ran to a store, bought a phone and a plan, and got the technology in Chandler’s hands in time for the interviews. This seemingly small thing was critical to the success of that event. But it demonstrated that by focusing on how to help, Jeff was willing to do what was necessary – whether big or small. And that builds long-lasting relationships. Chandler thanked Jeff by giving him his Emmy award.
Part and parcel with this, make sure you are only building relationships with clients, and your ecosystem, where you can add value. Too often leaders will take any business. Explore any relationship. But if you over-reach and take on a client, acquisition, merger, new product, new project, etc. where you are unable to really add value – unable to really help accomplish the goal – bad things will happen. So think ahead, and understand how you can be helpful.
2 – Add value fast. Every chance you can. Fix things – even things that may seem unimportant to you our outside your wheelhouse.
Dick van Patten once asked Jeff Ballard what to do about a broken sauna. Although far from his job, Jeff quickly took a look and then actually fixed the sauna. When producers are looking for actor A to be on a show, like Entertainment Tonight, for a variety of reasons this may not be a good fit. But rather than saying “no” – or worse, just letting requests go unanswered – Jeff will look quickly to understand the producer or media person’s needs and come up with a value added answer. Jeff constantly thinks about recommendations where all parts of his ecosystem could possibly help meet their needs.
When you constantly think about how to add value – and immediately – then people respect you. And they learn to trust you. When you are helping people reach their goals they listen to what you say. They are open to discuss alternative solutions. Far too often too many leaders think of themselves as “great deciders.” Or as the person responsible for making a “yes” or “no” answer and then moving on – leaving those around them to solve problems for themselves. But great leaders listen, and think about how to add value. Quickly.
3 – Separate talent from the person. Everyone is unique. Not everything a person does is on the direct path to greater success. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t talented – and able to continue to perform at superior levels despite something that didn’t go so well. Don’t be so foolish as to let the talent slip away because you are having issues with the person.
For actors, or sports celebrities, this can be easy to see. The media reports on something they say, or do, and it is easy to become negative about that individual. But, the next great performance (a movie, TV show, concert, CD, home run, winning goal, etc.) demonstrates that the person has talent. Leaders have the job of getting the most out of the talent – and not trying to manage the person – or worse, losing the talent because of “personal issues.”
Far too often organizations end up losing highly talented people because of the “black mark” syndrome. An up-and-comer does well for several years, but then something misses. For example, passionate effort to launch a new product or business creates conflict in the organization, and he shouts or otherwise acts out. HR is called in, and the manager is rebuked and forewarned — but worse he is now “marked” as problematic. All that talent is forgotten, undeveloped – or it simply goes to a competitor.
People are people. Some are easier to work with than others. But what’s important is whether they have talent, and whether as a leader you can bring out the most of that talent. Leaders don’t have the job of “changing people” (which far too often they really try to do,) but rather of helping people around them cultivate, develop and demonstrate their talents. If we focus on the talent we achieve far superior results while helping the person achieve their personal goals.
4 – Stay relevant, and keep those around you relevant. The world changes quickly. It is easy for leaders to expect those in their network – and especially their inner circle – to become complacent. To rest on their laurels of past success. Which all too quickly leads to problems. So it is critical that leaders constantly look around for what is emerging, and keep reminding their network of what is necessary to remain relevant. A pat on the back lasts one second, but helping someone stay relevant sustains their success far into the future.
Leaders can become so fixated on “performance” that they dehumanize those they coach. If, instead, they focus on providing guiding lights to people they can encourage them to adapt to change. They can help those they work with to stay current and growing. Too much time is spent reacting to what just happened, rather than figuring out how to achieve the long-term goal.
Jeff works constantly with his clients to understand what the market is seeking now, and will be seeking in the near future. Rather than reacting to events Jeff and his talented clients spends considerable time discussing what outcomes are desired, and whether or not a planned activity will lead to that outcome. By focusing on future relevancy Jeff leads clients to become proactive about achieving their goals. He helps them to make decisions today which are directed toward a future goal, rather than reacting to an historical event.
Over and again famous clients and top producers compliment Jeff Ballard for his honesty, integrity and loyalty. But these are not simply attributes. Many of us have these attributes. Rather, these are outcomes from Jeff Ballard’s long history of constantly helping people in his network, adding value quickly toward solving their problems, constantly focusing on bringing out the talent rather than chastising (or managing) the individual, and keeping everyone relevant and proactive rather than falling into patterns of reacting to something that already happened.
Jeff Ballard’s publicity firm is far from the largest in Los Angeles or New York. Yet, he helps clients who are famous, as well as new talent such as Conner Greene who you probably do not know. And no competitor can offer the long-term track record of performance Jeff has provided. Regularly clients who move to large publicity firms return to Jeff, seeking his counsel and advice in recognition of his leadership – generally absent from his competitors. Repeat business that all leaders seek, but don’t often achieve.
The next time you find yourself struggling to lead the people in your organization think of Jeff Ballard. His insights about leadership, rooted in the complex and difficult world of media publicity for celebrities, could help you be a far better leader in your organization.
This week the people who decide what composes the Dow Jones Industrial Average booted off 3 companies and added 3 others. What's remarkable is how little most people cared!
"The Dow," as it is often called, is intended to represent the core of America's economy. "As the Dow goes, so goes America" is the theory. It is one of the most watched indices of all markets, with many people tracking how much it goes up, or down, every trading day. So being a component of the DJIA is a pretty big deal.
It's not a good day when you find out your company has been removed from the index. Because it is a very public statement that your company simply isn't all that important any more. Certainly not as important as it once was! Your relevance, once considered core to representing the economy, has dissipated. And, unfortunately, most companies that fall off the DJIA slip away into oblivion.
I have a simple test. Do like Jay Leno, of Tonight Show fame, and simply ask a dozen college graduates that are between 26 and 31 about a company. If they know that company, and are positively influenced by it, you have relevancy. If they don't care about that company then the CEO and Board should take note, because it is an early indicator that the company may well have lost relevancy and is probably in more trouble than the leaders want to admit.
Ask these folks about Alcoa (AA) and what do you imagine the typical response? "Alcoa?" It is a rare person under 40 who knows that Alcoa was once the king of aluminum — back when we wrapped food in "tin foil" and before we all drank sodas and beer from a can. To most, "Alcoa" is a random set of letters with no meaning – like Altria – rather than its origin as ALuminum COrporation of America.
But, its not even the largest aluminum company any more. Alcoa is now 3rd. In a world where we live on smartphones and tablets, who really cares about a mining company that deals in commodities? Especially the third largest with no growth prospects?
Speaking of smartphones, Hewlett Packard (HPQ) was recently considered a bellweather of the tech industry. An early innovator in test equipment, it was one of the original "Silicon Valley" companies. But its commitment to printers has left people caring little about the company's products, since everyone prints less and less as we read more and more off digital screens.
Past-CEO Fiorina's huge investment in PCs by buying Compaq (which previously bought minicomputer maker DEC,) committed the rest of HP into what is now one of the fastest shrinking markets. And in PCs, HP doesn't even have any technology roots. HP is just an assembler, mostly offshore, as its products are all based on outsourced chip and software technology.
What a few years ago was considered a leader in technology has become a company that the younger crowd identifies with technology products they rarely use, and never buy. And lacking any sort of exciting pipeline, nobody really cares about HP.
Bank of America (BAC) was one of the 2 leaders in financial services when it entered the DJIA. It was a powerhouse in all things banking. But, as the mortgage market disintegrated B of A rapidly fell into trouble. It's shotgun wedding with Merrill Lynch to save the investment bank from failure made the B of A bigger, but not stronger.
Now racked with concerns about any part of the institution having long-term success against larger, and better capitalized, banks in America and offshore has left B of A with a lot of branches, but no market leadership. What innovations B of A may have had in lending or derivatives are now considered headaches most people either don't understand, or largely despise.
These 3 companies were once great lions of their industries. And they were rewarded with placement on the DJIA as icons of the economy. But they now leave with a whimper. Their values so shredded that their departure makes almost no impact on calculating the DJIA using the remaining companies. (Note: the DJIA calculation was significantly impacted by the addition of much higher valued companies Nike, Goldman Sachs and Visa.)
If we look at some past examples of other companies removed from the DJIA, one should be skeptical about the long-term future for these three:
2009 – GM removed due to bankruptcy
2004 – AT&T and Kodak removed (both ended up in bankruptcy)
1999 – Goodyear, Union Carbide, Sears
1997 – Westinghouse, Woolworths
1991 – American Can, Navistar/International Harvester
Any company can lose relevancy. Markets shift. There is risk incurred by focusing on the status quo (Status Quo Risk.) New technology, regulations, competitors, business practices — innovations of all sorts — enter the market daily. Being really good at something, in fact being the worlds BEST at something, does not insure success or longevity (despite the popularity of In Search of Excellence).
When markets shift, and your company doesn't, you can find yourself without relevancy. And with a fast declining value. Whether you are iconic – or not.
Microsoft needed a great Christmas season. After years of product stagnation, and a big market shift toward mobile devices from PCs, Microsoft's future relied on the company seeing customers demonstrate they were ready to jump in heavily for Windows8 products – including the new Surface tablet.
Looking deeper, for the 4th quarter PC sales declined by almost 5% according to Gartner research, and by almost 6.5% according to IDC. Both groups no longer expect a rebound in PC shipments, as they believe homes will no longer have more than 1 PC due to the mobile device penetration – the market where Surface and Win8 phones have failed to make any significant impact or move beyond a tiny market share. Users increasingly see the complexity of shifting to Win8 as not worth the effort; and if a switch is to be made consumer and businesses now favor iOS and Android.
These trends mean nothing short of the ruin of Microsoft. Microsoft makes more than 75% of its profits from Windows and Office. Less than 25% comes from its vaunted servers and tools. And Microsoft makes nothing from its xBox/Kinect entertainment division, while losing vast sums on-line (negative $350M-$750M/quarter). No matter how much anyone likes the non-Windows Microsoft products, without the historical Windows/Office sales and profits Microsoft is not sustainable.
So what can we expect at Microsoft:
Ballmer has committed to fight to the death in his effort to defend & extend Windows. So expect death as resources are poured into the unwinnable battle to convert users from iOS and Android.
As resources are poured out of the company in the Quixotic effort to prolong Windows/Office, any hope of future dividends falls to zero.
Expect enormous layoffs over the next 3 years. Something like 50-60%, or more, of employees will go away.
Expect closure of the long-suffering on-line division in order to conserve resources.
The entertainment division will be spun off, sold to someone like Sony or even Barnes & Noble, or dramatically reduced in size. Unable to make a profit it will increasingly be seen as a distraction to the battle for saving Windows – and Microsoft leadership has long shown they have no idea how to profitably grow this business unit.
As more and more of the market shifts to competitive cloud businesses Apple, Amazon and others will grow significantly. Microsoft, losing its user base, will demonstrate its inability to build a new business in the cloud, mimicking its historical experiences with Zune (mobile music) and Microsoft mobile phones. Microsoft server and tool sales will suffer, creating a much more difficult profit environment for the sole remaining profitable division.
Missing the market shift to mobile has already forever tarnished the Microsoft brand. No longer is Microsoft seen as a leader, and instead it is rapidly losing market relevancy as people look to Apple, Google, Amazon, Samsung, Facebook and others for leadership. The declining sales, and lack of customer interest will lead to a tailspin at Microsoft not unlike what happened to RIM. Cash will be burned in what Microsoft will consider an "epic" struggle to save the "core of the company."
But failure is already inevitable. At this stage, not even a new CEO can save Microsoft. Steve Ballmer played "Bet the Company" on the long-delayed release of Win8, losing the chance to refocus Microsoft on other growing divisions with greater chance of success. Unfortunately, the other players already had enough chips to simply bid Microsoft out of the mobile game – and Microsoft's ante is now long gone – without holding a hand even remotely able to turn around the product situation.
Game over. Ballmer loses. And if you keep your money invested in Microsoft it will disappear along with the company.
The web lit up yesterday when people started sharing a Fortune quote from Marissa Mayer, CEO of Yahoo, "We are literally moving the company from BlackBerrys to smartphones." Why was this a big deal? Because, in just a few words, Ms. Mayer pointed out that Research In Motion is no longer relevant. The company may have created the smartphone market, but now its products are so irrelevant that it isn't even considered a market participant.
Ouch. But, more importantly, this drove home that no matter how good RIM thinks Blackberry 10 may be, nobody cares. And when nobody cares, nobody buys. And if you weren't convinced RIM was headed for lousy returns and bankruptcy before, you certainly should be now.
But wait, this is certainly a good bit of the pot being derogatory toward the kettle. Because, other than the highly personalized news about Yahoo's new CEO, very few people care about Yahoo these days as well. After being thoroughly trounced in ad placement and search by Google, it is wholly unclear how Yahoo will create its own relevancy. It may likely be soon when a major advertiser says "When placing our major internet ad program we are focused on the split between Google and Facebook," demonstrating that nobody really cares about Yahoo anymore, either.
And how long will Yahoo survive?
The slip into irrelevancy is the inflection point into failure. Very few companies ever return. Once you are no longer relevant, customer quickly stop paying attention to practically anything you do. Even if you were once great, it doesn't take long before the slide into no-growth, cost cutting and lousy financial performance happens.
Consider:
Garmin once led the market for navigation devices. Now practically everyone uses their mobile phone for navigation. The big story is Apple's blunder with maps, while Google dominates the marketplace. You probably even forgot Garmin exists.
Radio Shack once was a consumer electronics powerhouse. They ran superbowl ads, and had major actresses parlaying with professional sports celebrities in major network ads. When was the last time you even thought about Radio Shack, much less visited a store?
Sears was once America's premier, #1 retailer. The place where everyone shopped for brands like Craftsman, DieHard and Kenmore. But when did you last go into a Sears? Or even consider going into one? Do you even know where one is located?
Kodak invented amateur photography. But when that market went digital nobody cared about film any more. Now Kodak is in bankruptcy. Do you care?
Motorola Razr phones dominated the last wave of traditional cell phones. As sales plummeted they flirted with bankruptcy, until Motorola split into 2 pieces and the money losing phone business became Google – and nobody even noticed.
When was the last time you thought about "building your body 12 ways" with Wonder bread? Right. Nobody else did either. Now Hostess is liquidating.
Being relevant is incredibly important, because markets shift quickly today. As they shift, either you are part of the trend going forward – or you are part of the "who cares" past. If you are the former, you are focused on new products that customers want to evaluate. If you are the latter, you can disappear a whole lot faster than anyone expected as customers simply ignore you.
So now take a look at a few other easy-to-spot companies losing relevancy:
HP headlines are dominated by write offs of its investments in services and software, causing people to doubt the viability of its CEO, Meg Whitman. Who wants to buy products from a company that would spend billions on Palm, business services and Autonomy ERP software only to decide they overspent and can never make any money on those investments? Once a great market leader, HP is rapidly becoming a company nobody cares about; except for what appears to be a bloody train wreck in the making. In tech – lose customesr and you have a short half-life.
Similarly Dell. A leader in supply chain management, what Dell product now excites you? As you think about the money you will spend this holiday, or in 2013, on tech products you're thinking about mobile devices — and where is Dell?
Best Buy was the big winner when Circuit City went bankrupt. But Best Guy didn't change, and now margins have cratered as people showroom Amazon while in their store to negotiate prices. How long can Best Buy survive when all TVs are the same, and price is all that matters? And you download all your music and movies?
Wal-Mart has built a huge on-line business. Did you know that? Do you care? Regardless of Wal-mart's on-line efforts, the company is known for cheap looking stores with cheap merchandise and customers that can't maintain credit cards. When you look at trends in retailing, is Wal-Mart ever the leader – in anything – anymore? If not, Wal-mart becomes a "default" store location when all you care about is price, and you can't wait for an on-line delivery. Unless you decide to go to the even cheaper Dollar General or Aldi.
And, the best for last, is Microsoft. Steve Ballmer announced that Microsoft phone sales quadrupled! Only, at 4 million units last quarter that is about 10% of Apple or Android. Truth is, despite 3 years of development, a huge amount of pre-release PR and ad spending, nobody much cares about Win8, Surface or new Microsoft-based mobile phones. People want an iPhone or Samsung product.
After its "lost decade" when Microsoft simply missed every major technology shift, people now don't really care about Microsoft. Yes, it has a few stores – but they dwarfed in number and customers by the Apple stores. Yes, the shifting tiles and touch screen PCs are new – but nobody real talks about them; other than to say they take a lot of new training. When it comes to "game changers" that are pushing trends, nobody is putting Microsoft in that category.
So the bad news about a $6 billion write-down of aQuantive adds to the sense of "the gang that can't shoot straight" after the string of failures like Zune, Vista and early Microsoft phones and tablets. Not to mention the lack of interest in Skype, while Internet Explorer falls to #2 in browser market share behind Chrome.
When a company is seen as never able to take the lead amidst changing
trends, investors see accquisitions like $1.2B for Yammer as a likely future write down. Customers lose interest and simply spend money elsewhere.
As investors we often hear about companies that were once great brands, but selling at low multiples, and therefore "value plays." But the truth is these are death traps that wipe out returns. Why? These companies have lost relevancy, and that puts them one short step from failure.
As company managers, where are you investing? Are you struggling to be relevant as other competitors – maybe "fringe" companies that use "voodoo solutions" you don't consider "enterprise ready" or understand – are obtaining a lot more interest and media excitment? You can work all you want to defend & extend your past glory, but as markets shift it is amazingly easy to lose relevancy. And it's a very, very tough job to play catch- up.
Just look at the money being spent trying at RIM, Microsoft, HP, Dell, Yahoo…………
