Well, of all the posts in this jumble of non-billable hours, the series on my (or, rather, my company's) take on what makes people tick seems to have a life of it's own. Part III, likewise, is morphing into a book unto itself. But to those who've been patient in their emails asking, "Where the hell is part III?!", a little fix to tide you over.

Some are still hazy as to why brand matters beyond marketing, or how brands are really a misunderstood place holder for deeper meaning. Or why brand and leadership, or the lack of either, are intricately entwined. Phew.

And then, happily, some are coming along for the ride, putting the pieces together and whomping their heads, saying, "Wow, I could have had A V-8!" Or something like that. Okay. Let's try and start tying this together.

We left things in Part II, promising some examples of archetypes in brand-motion... and to explain why "Survivor", "American Idol", "The Apprentice" and "Junkyard Wars" have some of the most brand-loyal viewerships going.

R-Complex boredom.

Education author Eric Jensen, in Arts with the Brain in Mind reveals that "America is a feeling-phobic society." This goes in spades for subgroups filled with "Professional Adults" called corporations. Of course, the feelings are still there and very active. They're just non-sanctioned, unofficial "elephants" taking up space and sapping oxygen. And this reveals a paradox for most businesses interested in moving product: many have no firm idea what moves people. Nor do they have processes to share this knowledge. That's hardly surprising. Most organizations are configured to hard facts, heavy analysis, and predictable results. Bureaucracies define themselves by their aim for consistency. What is surprising is that that bland paste of "consistency" equates to figurative "death" to our R-complexes. If there is no challenge "I am dead and useless" goes the brain imprint. And people shut down. Or they move on. Or they fight. (More on this below.)

Our brains--at least the parts willing to exert for ambition and spend for affirmation of identity, these parts recoil at spadework and predictability. And they have unique ways of showing themselves, depending on the circumstance. For example, have you ever asked yourself why "Survivor" or "Junkyard Wars", "American Idol" or "The Apprentice" or even Extreme Sports blasted so powerfully onto the American scene?

R-Complex boredom. These shows or activities feed our primal need to face and identify with challenge. Notice that some are solo efforts, some are teams, but all are competitive. Each has conflict, alliance and resolution. Each has winners and losers. Each is simple in its outcome.

That's because simplicity and rigid black and white choices--the R-complex's definition of Authenticity--is what's missing from modern life. For some of us, watching a TV show is enough of a fix. But most need more.

We were built to fight, flee, feed and, well, you know the other "F". The R-Complex is home to The Four F's. Modern life deprives us of opportunities to exercise these primal, hardwired facilities. Today, we are safer, better fed, more socially-secure than ever thought possible. The closest we come to exercising our basest skills is office politics. Or family feuds. And, yes, institutions and their power are quietly strangling because of it: Digital, synthetic, polished and too good to be true characterize much of what passes for official reality today. The R-Complex says "Bullshit!" It knows what natural feels like, and this ain't it. Natural isn't perfect and perfect isn't natural. Oddly enough, perfect is a Downer. Because in the minds-eye of the American R-Complex, perfection is the end of the road--nothing left to do. Again, Death.

I realize this is a stretch for some. It's what shrinks call non-discursive: Hard to describe. Love fits in that category. So does the urge to buy a $1000 generator when the last power outage you suffered through was in 1977. Non-discursive doesn't mean nonexistent. It just means you have to switch languages--images for words, feelings for facts, metaphor for management-speak. Non-discursive means sustainable competitive advantage in a parity world. In the most crass terms, it means you're counting your money while everyone else is jealously wondering how you got so "lucky." Unfortunately, many companies are "too busy for business"--their real business: identifying these needs and levers, and moving people toward mutual benefit with them.

These factors figure into the reason that Apple scored so counterintuitively with the iMac. A computer--a machine--made the leap from hardware into true Software. It became a part of your psyche and a member of the family. As a portal to the Internet for Jane and Joe Average, it overcame the final barrier: It became organic so you could communicate with other organic things: People. If you look closely at successes and failures of products and organizations, you'll see the connection. Look at vehicles again, particularly those of Daimler-Chrysler Their designs, from the Viper to round-fendered Ram Pickups to things like the PT Cruiser, are redefining and renergizing the car industry and reigniting people's appreciation of cars after years of crappy swings and misses. These changes are coming not from focus groups and traditional market research, but from cultural anthroplogists. They're giving people a comfy mat, turning down the lights, and asking them to provide narrative descriptions of being a child in the backseat of the family car. Or, to describe the feelings associated with picking up a date in your first car. Wacky, yes? Chrysler can't staff enough shifts to make enough PT Cruisers.

Ideas, companies or products that harness this primal realization and offer tools to break free, even momentarily, are viewed as saviours. (The key to lifetime customer value.) Brands intuited this way are heroes for hire, jealously guarded by R-Complex warriors, employee and consumer and even shareholder. Brands intuited this way are far from the traditional C-Level view and disrespect of marketing as Affectation--the suit you put over a flabby body to fool someone into dating you. If anybody should drop their spreadsheets and listen up, it's the guys leading the charge into brave new worlds. Which leads to another example before we proceed: Ever wonder why California seems to be "out there" on virtually every cultural front? Simple. Because it was the end of the line. All that westward ho! explorer spirit, all that idealism chasing opportunity, all that anxious, frenetic DNA... It slammed into the Pacific Ocean and pooled up on the West Coast.

Now, what is the archetype of America in the eyes of the world?

It's an admix of seeming geographic impossibility: It's California's Hollywood, right next door to Monument Valley and across the street from the Brooklyn Bridge. America is fast and flashy, future and past, mostly fair-minded, act first, ask questions later.

America is a Hero in a hurry, in the archetypal, R-Complex lexicon. As citizens, we are most comfortable living out that idealized self-image. Others, i.e. The rest of the World, are most comfortable seeing us as this Archetype. Anyone who tries to alter that view--ourselves included--gets a very bad reception from the R-Complex. It is a non-operational identity, It is inauthentic. To some, the dissonance can be scary or angering. America is also an adolescent as countries go. Like many teens we are in the midst of deciding our next phase. Messy for kids, messy for us, but a vital tug of war to cement identity for further growth.

Here is where American politics is playing out an object lesson as you read this. Left and right have two very different perceptions of "Hero", brought violently into conflict by the events of 9-11. One Archetype is powerful, yet sage and calm, expansive almost to a fault. It is a Hero-caregiver-protector. The other is powerful too, sage as well, if not so relaxed, and decisive almost to a fault. It is a hero-warrior-protector.

It's a separate conversation from here, but the successful candidate this Fall will be the politician who balances and reconciles the seemingly competing imagery of caregiver and warrior. It's not impossible, if framed correctly. I say successful because "winning" and getting the job are not the same things. Anyone who voted for Gore in 2000 will understand that distinction. And that's a lot of people.

Back to the pretty pictures.

So, the brain gives permission in a specific order. If you can asses the patterns that unleash or engage the right-brain/R-Complex chain, you get "truth" or "authenticity"--at least, you get them as understood by the brain's owner, which is what matters if you're a marketer or a leader or provider of anything that needs buy-in from others. In marketing terms, it too is a progression.

The process looks like this:

click to enlarge

As noted, facts are also rans in this process. That's not to say they're irrelevant. Quality data is vital to consistent production parameters and so forth. The problem comes when our left brain's voracious appetite for process meets the R-Complex's need for ritual and rigidity. For metaphorical rightness, not perfection.

Any reading of the press will demonstrate that "Smart" people sure do seem good at making dumb choices. They're not unique, they're just visible.

These people will bore you to tears rationalizing how it "Seemed okay", or was "a good idea at the time." Coke, with all their marketing dollars, thought "New Coke" was a "good idea." The aftermath was smart people backfilling. Part of this is due to arrogance borne of credentials or reputation or just a deep-pocketed organization's collective belief that they're the Pros from Dover. But how is this poor choice-making so?

Well, the saying goes that "Seeing is believing." Not true. We only "see" that which we already believe. Or, which supports what we believe to be true or think ought to be true. (Remember the phrases: She was ahead of her time. "He was overnight success--after 20 years.") We only see what fits. The rest is actively or passively discounted or actively, and sometimes violently, rejected.

Taking the Lady Liberty analogy in Part I, we are collections of hopes and fears. We promote hope, exalt it and imbue it in our organizations, products and messages. Or, we wallow in fear and frustration, mostly by pretending to ignore their real impact. Either way, these feelings tend to attract like minds--you get what you measure for, goes the saying. Proximity of these minds builds bonds. The collection of these bonds form communities. Another term for community could be neighborhood, or brand, or company, or political party. Whatever you call them, they are affinity groups with an aggregate collection of ideals that reveal themselves as archetypes. You might call these metaphorical definitions. They are more powerful than organizations themselves.

Have you ever left a job, only to have clients follow you, asked or unasked? While in that job you may have spouted the company brand position fastidiously, perhaps even written it. You did everything you could to be a good soldier. Still, when you left, the client follows. What gives?

People aren't loyal to companies. They're loyal to ideals. But ideal, simply stated on paper is just an idea. As individuals, we are or are not the embodiment of ideals in motion. And we leave a trail of evidence of ideals in action. Inevitably, people (and organizations) who have this magnetic attraction are firm believers and speakers and doers of the the things that realize a product or a company is really beside the point: enabling people to achieve their Statue Sense is the goal, regardless of the product or situation. For them, work is not work. It's "Profitable Learning" and sharing what they know. Feature advantage benefit for them, climbs from factual, to emotional, to symbolic. FAB-cubed.

Closer inspection reveals that organizations, like nature, are self-organizing--Leadership be damned. The true power and levers in an organization often do not jibe with the rational org chart. This can be good, or very bad, if you don't acknowledge the self-organizing nature of people. For this reason, many brands and companies fail because they freeze their persona--their understanding of it--in Amber. After all, they think: "We've just spent 5 million bucks figuring out 'Who we are' and we're damn well gonna amortize that cost for as long as possible."

This is spraypainting, not branding. Forcing, not aligning. Shuffling bits of rational knowns around, rather than finding the dynamic natural and profitable order. In this way, our left brain's hurry for order builds boxes that exclude many of the people who can do our organizations a world of good. Top down urge for spick and span leaves us wandering, like Diogenes, looking, not for perfection, but it's opposite: for an honest, authentic man, company or experience, warts and all. A final example:

An architect once designed a cluster of buildings. When asked by the landscape crew where to pave the sidewalks, he told them to plant grass between all the buildings, wait a year, then, after the occupants had worn the most useful paths, the architect told the landscape crew to pave the pathways that the occupants had created.