A Simple Formality

• - Would you be so kind and empty the trash bin? 
• - No problem, you’ll just need to submit an RFA.
• - Submit a what?
• - An RFA. Request for action. I’ve decided to bring more structure into our household, and I’d like you to fill in and submit this simple form before I proceed to executing your request.
• - But my dear, what’s the point? It’s just a simple thing, to empty the trash bin. It will take longer to fill in the form, than to do what it requests.
• - In the present case, it might be the case. Nevertheless, for a start I opted for an RFA in case any action is required, be it re-painting the whole house, preparing breakfast or emptying the trash bin. An action is, after all, an action, and if you want to measure the efficiency and the workload, you need to record everything. That is why ...
• ... your form contains questions about “estimated duration of the action/event”, “level of skills required for performing the action”, “expected added value for the household” and  approval of the next higher manager? - asked the wife, by now pale with stupefaction. 
• - Yes, indeed. I will need these to prepare my monthly KPI report. 
• - KPI? Pan sobie chyba kpi!
• - No idea what you’re saying. Key Performance Indicator. I’m planning to make a few of them on a monthly basis, they’ll be useful for you, too. “Number of Actions Requested to Husband”, “Number of Actions Requested to Wife”, “Response Time of Husband” (time elapsed between RFA submission and the execution of the task), “Response Time of Wife”, “Task Difficulty Level v.s. Speed of Delivery” - you name it. We’ll meet regularly to discuss our findings, and take the required actions to optimise our household. As a result, we’ll have more time to do the things we like.
• - But at the same time we’ll need more time to fill in all the forms. I don’t know about you, but if there’s one thing I find a total waste of time, it’s form-filling.
• - No problem, I can fill it in for you. But first...
• ... I’ll need to fill in an RFA  to request you to fill in an RFA for emptying the trash bin.
• - You learn quick.
• - You know what, I’ll just do it myself.
• - No, you can’t do that, as you’re not in charge. According to the division of tasks in our household, I’m the one who is responsible for the trash bin, while your domain is, among others, the groceries. For a full list...
• ... you’ll need an RFA?
• - No, for a full list, please see the inside of the kitchen cupboard, third one in the upper row on the left of the sink.
• - Ok, just pass me the form, please. - said the wife, resigned. - I guess I have no choice, but just fill it in for this time. 

Fifteen minutes later the form was ready for submission. 
She handed it in to her husband.

• - Where’s the approval of the next higher manager?
• - Who’s the next higher manager? Can’t I just sign it by myself?
• - No, the form needs to be approved by someone other than you. And in case or our household, it has to be me. There’s nobody else here.
• - You mean, you’re my next higher manager?! You must be kidding!
• - Well, technically, we’re partners. But I’m taller, so in a way, I’m higher.
• - And who’s going to approve the forms you submit?
• - Someone else than me. It will have to be you then.
• - Ok, if that's the case, that’s fair. 
• - You see, I knew I’d convince you. It just takes a little getting used to... In the long run, you’ll see how much it helped us structure and organize our lives, so that we have more time for ...

But she didn’t listen anymore, resigned, studying the full list of tasks and their repartition between the two of them, glued neatly on the inside of the kitchen cupboard, third one in the upper row on the left of the sink. You could see a little smile when she discovered that the nasty task of filling out the tax-refund form was assigned to her husband, and she got the much less unpleasant one of watering the flowers.

There they went, occupying their time by filling in the forms and performing the requested tasks in order to save time for something else. They got so good in it, so efficient, that they even started to take pleasure in the form-filling, reporting, comparing the results with the previous months and taking necessary actions to amend the detected irregularities, such as the contents of the trash bin rotting away while Husband was on a business trip for the whole week, and Wife becoming totally useless in the meantime, missing the RFAs from her next higher manager.  They didn’t care about that something else they were saving time for.

This isn’t my story, obviously. It’s my acquaintances’, Mr. and Mrs. Corp. But I stopped seeing them some two months into their new procedure. They had no time to meet, their schedules packed with efficiency.

(Don't) Con the I

Rituals
Initiation
Exclusive Product Offering
Over-delivery
Myths
Relevant Sensory Oddity
Icons
Tribalism
Endorsement

Continuity

are the seven engines of Conversational Capital, a refreshing and comprehensive marketing approach, whereby the task of marketers is not just to create buzz around the product, but rather, to create a viable story about it and consistently deliver on it on the promise, year in, year out. 
The authors of the book (B. Cesvet, T. Babinski, E. Alper: "Conversational Capital. How to Create Stuff People Love to Talk About") are top people of a unique Montreal- and Amsterdam- based advertising agency, Sid Lee. Yes, their story is very appealing and gave me a lot of food for thought. And my thought has been very hungry. 

They claim that the story about your product is an integral part of the experience, and not just something applied to it, like rabbit ears to a chicken. Surely such claim appeals to a Rabbit, who wouldn’t like his ears to be applied to anyone else, be it a chicken, a fox or even a hare. The latter wouldn’t have appreciated such an exchange anyway, as a hare’s ears are as different from a rabbit’s as Conversational Capital is from conventional approach to marketing. 

The authors talk about a certain triangle and claim that it should be as compact as possible. The three points of that triangle are: who you are, who you say you are and who people say you are. This applies not only to products, but to people and organisations alike. 
They talk about creationist v.s. evolutionist word-of-mouth, the latter one being much more powerful in creating a story which will be talked about. And such talk is the most efficient, yet completely free-of-charge, marketing tool. 
So, if you want your story to sell, think first of who you are and make sure you do communicate who you are, and not something that you are not (but would merely wish to be). You’ll make people believe in what you deliver, and if you deliver it consistently to people’s content - they surely will talk about you. The book is about brand creation, but the authors admit that Conversational Capital applies in many other areas. 

Think of the Church, for instance. This is probably true of most, if not all, of the churches, but let me just refer to the one I know the best - the Catholic Church. The rituals (sure), the initiation (you join it by baptism only), Exclusive Product Offering (the “product” being applied to Salvation, is perhaps an unfortunate term, but however you call it - exclusive it certainly is), over-delivery (that remains to be seen, but I’ve heard of the near-death experience as being something indescribably terrific, so if Heaven is much more, over-delivery it certainly is), myths (sure, though we call them the Truth), Relevant Sensory Oddity (the smell of candles and incense, to name just one example), icons (obviously), tribalism (by joining it, you become “one of us”), endorsement (ever heard of Mother Theresa?), continuity (it has remained largely unchanged for over two thousand years). Coincidentally, a triangle happens to be also one of its symbols, though not necessarily meaning the same thing as the one mentioned in "Conversational Capital". 

So where has it gone wrong? Why is the story of the Catholic Church losing its power? Would the Church be failing to deliver on its promise? 

The problem is - nobody knows, as the promise refers to the afterlife. There might be some happy souls conversing merrily about the story of the Catholic Church in paradise, spreading the word about salvation which is guaranteed for devoted members, but no echos of those conversations have reached us, earthlings, so far.

Therefore whether this Church, any other church or spiritual path deliver on their promise remains a question of belief. 
But believing can make things happen. Therefore, as there are both believers and non-believers among us, I do not exclude the possibility that God both exists and doesn’t. Like a Schroedinger’s cat.

Coming back to Conversational Capital - it worked in my case. Completely for free, I’m spreading the word about the book now. Read it. It’s difficult to get in printed version, so getting hold of it already becomes an initiation: the book started to deliver on its promise even before it promised me anything. Someone was asking 70 euro for a second-hand copy (an e-book is there for you for a mere 16.99 eur, but the array of the things I believe in do not include an e-book. I need that Relevant Sensory Oddity that goes with the touch of paper under your fingers, and the pleasant sound as you open your printed book).

Just a little quote “to get people to say you are smart and funny, you have to be smart and funny in the first place.” This brings me to my favourite song by Daan:

“so don’t try to be an icon
con the I inside of you
that picture you’ve been painting
doesn’t look a thing like you”

This song could have been added to “Conversational Capital” for extra sensory oddity, in fact. With next printed edition, maybe?