Party like a businessman

Marketing advice

Marketing is everything, Everything we do and everything we say, it has either a positive or a negative effect on the customers. Or no impact at all…

Recently, I read a survey stating that 85 per cent of staff are notaware of their company’s core business idea and strategy. This is how the idea of using a "party metaphor" to describe business communication & development was born.

The idea is simple. Creating a good party and marketing a business successfully are based on the same principles. The metaphor is based on a 10-step-model which encourages the employees of a given company – from CEO to Post Room – to coordinate their efforts so as to strengthen the oveall communication impact. This might sound simple, but it is not that easy to achieve and getting it right can yield significant profits.

Step #1.

The Party Theme / Business idea & Strategies. 

It´s important that everyone in the company is aware of the business idea and strategy.

I recently met with a sales executive from Apple. I asked him if his main role was selling Apple products. He answered quickly: "No, I AM Apple!" “What do you mean?" I asked. His reply was fast: "Well, I help our customers to unleash their potential with simplicity and attractive design, and that is someting I LOVE doing." Clearly, he knew so well the company’s values and goals that he could identify with them. Talk about living the brand!

Tip: Make sure that that all staff is aware of what their role entails and how it fits within the company. You will be amazed about the amount of money wasted and opportunities missed when there is confusion about the company’s aims.

Step #2.

Guests? Target groups and their needs.

Without customers - no business. All focus should be directed towards satisfying the customer’s needs and making the company a ‘hero’ in customers’ lives. IKEA is a great example of pre-empting and meeting customer needs. In addition to functional furniture at low prices, their stores offer free measuring tapes, small pencils and note papers, and especially designed IKEA bags, to name just a few clever customer-friendly features.

Tip: Encourage all staff to think about what their customer needs are, and how they can contribute to satisfying them. They might come up with the idea of ​​your company’s IKEA bag.

Step #10

Seven steps later in the model, you have reached Step #10 – ‘The Moment of Truth’. The result of the overall strategy should be that customers enjoy the product/ service so much that they’ll want to come back for more. The attention to detail at the heart of the company’s strategy is a key element of such success. Coca Cola is one of the most popular brands worldwide; its Facebook page counts more than 42 million ‘likes’. Not only it is known to value its employees, but it constantly keeps abreast of social trends. Despite having been established in 1886 it is not complacent and aims to appear fresh all the time (no pun intended).

Harald Moe is a business & communication consultant based in Sweden. He is the author of Party Marketing

Photograph: Getty Images

Harald Moe is a business & communication consultant based in Sweden. He is the author of Party Marketing

Getty
Show Hide image

Staying in the EU would make it easier to tackle concerns about immigration, not less

Brexit is not only unlikely to deliver the control people want, it may actually undermine people’s faith in the system even further.

As Theresa May prepares to set out her latest plan for Brexit in Florence on Friday, those on all sides of the debate will wait to see if there are answers to fundamental questions about Britain’s future outside of the EU. Principle among those is how the UK immigration system will work. How can we respond to Leave voters’ concerns, while at the same time ensuring our economy isn’t badly damaged?

We must challenge the basic premise of the Vote Leave campaign: that dealing with public’s concern about immigration means we have to leave the EU and Single Market.

In fact the opposite is true. Our study into the options available to the UK shows that we are more likely to be able to restore faith in the system by staying within Europe and reforming free movement, than by leaving.

First, there are ways to exercise greater control over EU migration without needing to change the rules. It is not true that the current system of free movement is "unconditional", as recently claimed in a leaked Home Office paper. In fact, there is already considerable scope under existing EU rules to limit free movement.

EU rules state that in order to be given a right to reside, EU migrants must be able to demonstrate proof that they are either working, actively seeking work, or self-sufficient, otherwise they can be proactively removed after three months.

But unlike other continental systems, the UK has chosen not to operate a worker registration system for EU nationals and thus has no way of tracking where they are or what they’re doing. This could be changed tomorrow, if the government were so minded.

Other reforms being discussed at the highest levels within Europe would help deal with the sense that those coming to the UK drive down wages and conditions. The UK could make common cause with President Macron in France, who is pushing for reform of the so-called "Posted Workers Directive", so that companies seeking to bring in workers from abroad have to pay those workers at the same rate as local staff. It could also follow the advice of the TUC and implement domestic reforms of our labour market to prevent exploitation and undercutting.

Instead, the UK government has chosen to oppose reform of the Posted Workers Directive and made it clear that it has no interest in labour market reform.

Second, achieving more substantive change to free movement rules is not as implausible as often portrayed. Specifically, allowing member states to enact safeguards to slow the pace of change in local communities is not unrealistic. While the principle of free movement is a cornerstone of the European project, how it is applied in practice has evolved. And given that other countries, such as France, have expressed concern and called for reform, it is likely to evolve further.

The reforms to free movement negotiated by David Cameron in 2016 illustrate that the EU Commission can be realistic. Cameron’s agreement (which focused primarily on benefits) also provides an important legal and political precedent, with the Commission having agreed to introduce "safeguards" to respond to "situations of inflow of workers from other Member States of an exceptional magnitude over an extended period of time".

Similar precedents can be found within a number of other EU agreements, including the Acts of Accession of new Member States, the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The UK should seek a strengthened version of Cameron’s "emergency brake", which could be activated in the event of "exceptional inflows" from within the EU. We are not the first to argue this.

Of course some will say that it is unrealistic to expect the UK to be able to get more than Cameron achieved in 2016. But put yourself if in the shoes of the EU. If you believe in a project and want it to succeed, moral imperative is balanced with realism and it hardly needs pointing out that the political context has radically shifted since Cameron’s negotiation.

In contrast, a "hard Brexit" will not deliver the "control of our borders" that Brexiteers have promised. As our report makes clear, the hospitality, food, manufacturing and social care sectors heavily depend on EU workers. Given current employment rates, this means huge labour shortages.

These shortages cannot be wished away with vague assertions about "rejoining the world" by the ultra free-market Brexiteers. This is about looking after our elderly and putting food on our tables. If the UK leaves in April 2019, it is likely that the government will continue to want most categories of EU migration to continue. And whatever controls are introduced post-Brexit are unlikely to be enforced at the border (doing so would cause havoc, given our continued commitment to visa-free travel).  Instead we would be likely to see an upsurge in illegal migration from within the EU, with people arriving at the border as "visitors" but then staying on to seek work. This is likely to worsen problems around integration, whereby migrants come and go in large numbers, without putting down roots.

We can do this a different way. The important issues that most drive public concern about EU migration - lack of control, undercutting, pace of change - can be dealt with either within current rules or by seeking reform within the EU.

The harsh truth is that Brexit is not only unlikely to deliver the control people want, it may actually undermine people’s faith in the system even further.

Some will say that the entire line of argument contained here is dangerous, since it risks playing into an anti-immigrant narrative, rather than emphasising migration’s benefits. This is an argument for the ivory tower, not the real world.

There is a world of difference between pandering to prejudice and acknowledging that whilst EU migration has brought economic benefits to the UK, it has also created pressures, for example, relating to population churn within local communities.

The best way to secure public consent for free movement, in particular, and immigration in general, is to be clear about where those pressures manifest and find ways of dealing with them, consistent with keeping the UK within the EU.

This is neither an attempt at triangulation nor impractical idealism. It’s about making sure we understand the consequences of one of the biggest decisions this country has ever taken, and considering a different course.

Harvey Redgrave is a senior policy fellow at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change and director of strategy at Crest Advisory.