In the Disney classic “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs,” you’ll remember that each dwarf’s name described their strongest attribute. Dopey was dopey. Grumpy was grumpy. Sneezy needed Zyrtec. They all probably possessed other noteworthy attributes, too, but these were their key differentiators.
It doesn’t matter how big or small the difference is; it only matters that there is one. From a communications perspective, there needs to be something you can call your own. Some people call this your Unique Selling Proposition. Basically, it’s personality.

If Disney hadn’t identified the dwarfs with descriptive names, I don’t think anyone would’ve cared for them. Who would buy a snow globe featuring the fourth dwarf from the left? Even if it was only $2.99 with purchase of a kid’s meal? However, when you differentiate all seven and name one Happy, you open up the possibility of making a real connection with a specific audience. Similarly, focusing on a point of differentiation allows you to reach a more specific market.

It’s important to realize that choosing a main message or value proposition for your product’s positioning doesn’t negate it’s other strengths. What it does do is allow people to connect with it more quickly. The dwarfs’ names were short – one simple word. If they were any longer, we wouldn’t remember one or two – let alone all seven. Our brains like to compartmentalize information, and so processing one message is much easier than processing five key points about your product or service.

The good news is that once your customers are able to process your unique personality, you own that space in their brains. If Snow White needed someone smart, she didn’t approach Bashful or Sleepy. She went straight to Doc.

If you focus on what differentiates you and develop a concise and unique identity, that territory is yours.

He’s seen the band several times, and he was anxious for me to experience my first live show. I wasn’t as excited, but I agreed to go along. I don’t dislike Metallica, and even though I wouldn’t classify myself as a hardcore fan, I can always appreciate the craft of music–even if the genre isn’t totally my thing.

We settled into our seats next to another fan who could be classified as hardcore. He admitted that this was his 21st Metallica concert. Seriously? I’d guess he was in his early thirties, so I was surprised he could squeeze that many concerts into his relatively short lifetime. Then I marveled at his loyalty.

My thoughts were interrupted with a sound check that shook my pant legs. Impressive and frightening at the same time.

With the decibel level set to extreme, Metallica took the stage. They played lots of songs–a few that I recognized, many that I didn’t. Looking around the crowd, those of us who weren’t pumping our fists for the duration of the show were texting, updating Facebook status, or trying to capture the experience through photos or videos shot with our mobile phones. We were also outnumbered ten to one.

By this time I was over the initial shock of the volume, so I started thinking again. How do you generate so much loyalty that you can wrangle up 12,000 or so people into a single venue in any major city around the world and get them so energized that they’d stand in the same spot for two hours, pumping their fists to your music? I was impressed.

Michele turned off the audio in this clip for a couple reasons. First, she didn’t think her iPhone could properly process the volume. Second, the fans’ enthusiasm was more interesting than the music being played.

I guess I never really considered bands as brands until that moment. That’s probably a good thing for the many musicians out there. You might want to be noticed for your music first, right?

After the show, I talked with Chad about my musings and asked him what he admired most about Metallica. He went on to say that the band knows exactly who they are, that for years they rarely promoted themselves through the mainstream channels, but gained notoriety through their live shows. And they believed that if their fans were willing to pay to see them, then those fans deserved the band’s best effort every night. Their sound has evolved over the years, but Metallica’s core values are still the same: to rock louder, faster, and harder than everybody else.

Sounds like everything that a successful brand would do. Believe in the brand. Define a focused value proposition. Design for your customers and support them along the way. Reinvent yourself, while staying true to your original promise.

I started digging around to see if Metallica partnered with any design consultancies that we might know about. Several bands take pride in producing their own album covers or working with freelancers, so I wasn’t sure I’d find much. As it turns out, Metallica worked with the notable Turner Duckworth to revive their original logo and design their most recent album, Death Magnetic. More digging turned up a great interview with David Turner and Bruce Duckworth, in which the designers spoke about bands having a better understanding of branding than most companies–particularly Metallica, who has been successfully managing its brand over three decades. Reinventing themselves. Loving and believing in themselves. The whole bit. I felt validated.

I wonder if companies were to model themselves after successful bands, would they reconsider the way they think of themselves? Be more loyal to their customers? Love themselves more?

So we got right down to work. Here are the results…

Fat, squishy wheels work the best. We found out later the BMW crew also used toy cars for testing.

In most organizations, innovation continues to be an event, a job, or a department – a small number of individuals that seem to fit a stereotypical description of outside-the-box or strategic thinkers.

Using the structure supplied by assessments such as Meyers Briggs or DISC, I believe there are at least four personality categories that apply to the innovation process. Each category can be considered both a step in the process and a set of skills that contribute to innovation.

Observers
Individuals obsessed with data populate this category. They read everything they can get their hands on, and they find the time to actually listen to all the podcasts the rest of us merely subscribe to. These individuals are vital for identifying what is happening, changing, emerging, or being talked about.

Connectors
People in this category are adept at finding patterns. They have a natural ability to scan large amounts of information, make connections between seemingly unrelated data, and develop hypotheses about how these data fit together and what the patterns might imply.

Evaluators
This category is reserved for people who excel at recognizing the advantages (or disadvantages) of any given idea, plan, scenario, etc. They possess keen analytical skills. Their insights are highly valuable.

Implementers
Individuals in this category set priorities and execute. They know what it takes to implement new processes and commercialize new products and services.

Thought leaders in this space are predicting a future when the organizations commonly thought of as “innovative” will be the ones who will find a way to manage around the fact that innovation is not a linear process. Innovation functions best when individuals contribute to the steps of the process that most closely match their personality. Observers observing. Connectors connecting. Evaluators evaluating. Implementers implementing.

In our office, we’re constantly passing around emails with links to articles, websites, etc. that someone here finds interesting – usually things that relate loosely to design, technology, or communication. Every once in a while one of these emails will find its way into our thinking or our processes, but more often than not these nuggets of information are digested, then lost. Not the right time, out of context, etc.

Imagine if each of those emails could be tagged and made available for the entire organization in a user-friendly format. The number of data points would grow over time. Information would group or cluster.

Now imagine an individual developing hypotheses based on these information clusters. These hypotheses could range from the predictable to the never-before-considered. Like the data points, the hypotheses would be tagged and made available for the entire organization. Also like the data points, we would begin to see clusters over time. What would happen if the organization could react to and provide critical analysis of these hypotheses?

Over time this process of discussion and analysis would begin to enable the groups of hypotheses to be categorized by their likelihood of panning out. Taking it a step further, imagine if this smaller group of hypotheses-most-likely-to-pan-out could be ranked by the organization in a Digg-like fashion.

Imagine this scenario not as an event, but as a fluid activity. Individuals could participate in as few or as many steps in the process as they felt comfortable, based on their personality. The result of all of this could potentially provide a snapshot of what the organization as a whole is paying attention to at any point in time, as well as our predictions about how these things could impact the organization, our priorities, and our rationale for what we believe deserves attention.

If getting a greater number of people involved in innovation efforts is important to an organization, this is the type of thing that needs to happen. Otherwise, innovation will remain the domain of a small number of people.