Steve Jobs and the Corporate Persona

The world is experiencing one of those life-jolts today as word spreads and news sinks in that Steve Jobs, the computer-visionary-turned-marketing-master, has died.

A sad moment, and a loss felt across an extraordinary slice of humankind. Steve Jobs was, as the Washington Post noted "Bold enough to believe he could change the world, and talented enough to do it."

He was a visionary man, a creative force, and carried with him the strength of his conviction. So much so, that the image, the Jobsian allure moved millions to embrace his take on "cool," and motivated an entire company to strive to perform at a higher level.

It wasn't always that way at Apple.

Point of fact, the company lost its way more than once (remember John Scully? Gil Amelio?) but clung to its core belief that its products were simple better than all the players in the PC marketplace, especially looking down upon its behemoth nemesis Microsoft. And even though at times the stumbles put it on a tenuous footing, the common thread of its ability to speak to a loyal base buoyed it through the troubles.

And, it's this thread, seemingly spun of gold that strengthened Jobs' ability to weave a bolder story in his second surge at the company, and eventually lead Apple, the Mac, the iPod, iPhone and iPad to new highs in corporate cache. He was all too aware of the power that gave him. Much like Edison's talent for driving innovation and promoting genius, Jobs established a culture inside and outside the company that kept a tight grip on opinion.

His PR machine let the media flail away and boost the company mystique often in spite of its efforts. The even more powerful marketing machine made geekiness even cooler, and brought technically-advanced products to the market in a such a cohesive manner that high tech became the sort of human support mechanism it's always purported itself to be. Apple products resonated with the buying public because they could make life easier.

We went along because we really wanted to think that Jobs believed in the better-living-through-modern-science promise AND understood the modern world's pent-up demand for such a product, such a company, such a leader. He championed that promise to harness the imagination and disposable income of millions.

Gurus take on all shapes and proportion to the problems they tackle. Jobs not only willed his company to enormous success, he also guided its image to a plateau that drove billions in sales and market value.

Lots of CEO's purport to lead. Many try to take on bigger/better leader status, and so many fail. The suit doesn't fit, and the music isn't right and the words don't sync with the picture. There is power at the top, but it simply doesn't shine brightly enough to light the whole building.

Is this the fault of the leadership or their public relations and marketing machines? Likely both, but the guiding light has to emanate from somewhere, and for all the stars, only so many are bright enough to cast shadows of significant proportion. We think you look to the top star because he/she has a gift for driving success, for seeing the timing and for embracing public need, but more importantly, the leader knows how to exponentially affect change via a core team of very strong followers. We think of this team as people who could be their own star, but choose to burn more brightly in a more cohesive glow.

They ALL mind the lighthouse, and the seafaring world is better for it.

That is the real genius of Jobs. He made the extraordinarily difficult seem magical (not easy) and he surrounded himself with talent and thinking that glowed even brighter with his guidance. Try to think
of another CEO so revered, and today so remembered. Nope, not there.

Corporate mavens, marketeers and PR flacks take note: if you're not up to the challenge either get out, or gear up. We all could use some Jobs-like greatness in today's economy, and the world is waiting for a sign.

RIP Steve Jobs. The world is better for your being, and perhaps "the Cloud" is seeing improvements as we lament your passing. Many a leader (and competitor) has survived your passing, but ever-so-few will come close to emerging from the shadow you cast.



Now there are two ways to get our GuruNews.
1. Text GuruTrack to 90210
2. Click here for eNews via your email account

Texting Fundraising for Non-Profits? Not for Sissies.

Geoff Livingston reports today on non-profit fund-raising via texting that has become so high profile in wake of initial Haiti relief fund raising efforts. It has come up as possibilities in no fewer than 6 conversations around here, and is listed in documents related to the eventual establishment of the GuruTrack Foundation.

But like any effort worth the effort, getting donations via this delivery method is anything but simple.
Livingston writes:

Close examination of texting-based fundraising reveals a wide variety of barriers for 501c3s, including the use of mandatory foundations and ASPs (application service providers) to interact with carriers, a stringent vetting process to become accepted, limited donation amounts of $5-$10, limited short codes, and shared costs with partners (in some cases, the wireless carriers). Even after setting up text-based fundraising mechanisms, non-profits face the challenge of limited function integration, and appealing to donors.

Given the many aspects of texting, from technology to communications, non-profits need to consider SMS with their eyes wide open. Causes may even want to consider alternative mobile channels for communications and fundraising.

He goes on to point out 5 key areas to address, namely:


1. Texting Costs Non-Profits Money While all of the carriers and their non-profit texting partners waived fees for Haiti relief, most causes shouldn’t expect such treatment. Non-profits have to pay set up fees with wireless partners like mGive and the Mobile Giving Foundation, which can range from $3,000-$10,000 in some cases.

2. Non-profits Must Work with a Third Party
It’s not as simple as calling one of America’s big four carriers and setting up a short code. The wireless industry has set up approved third party vendors to vet non-profits. These third party players have stringent requirements to ensure causes meet state charitable solicitation registration requirements.

3. Limited Capabilities
Texting requires an event, such as a celebrity request, a concert, or unfortunately, a catastrophe to compel people to donate en masse. Repeated solicitations in general communications can repel potential donors. Further, other limitations include the ability to interact with texters and garner their contact information.

4. Integrating Texting Into the Larger Mix If discouraged by fundraising options, non-profits can use text messsages for other opportunities. While mobile applications are sexy, SMS marketing offers communications benefits, too. Non-profits can push URLs, facts and opportunities to parties who opt in to such lists. The sky (or organizational creativity) is the limit.

5. Other Options Exist There are more options than just texting for mobile. The great news about the mobile Internet revolution is the certain rise of non-profit applications on the iPhone, Android, and other platforms. If a non-profit wants to look at creating a mobile opportunity, general applications such as social good based The Extraordinaries offer powerful choices.

To see his entire (and very informative) article click here.
To learn more about the author, click here.

Remember to join our eNews list. Get Guru Updates 1st!