ChaosScenario

What's to become of Apple evangelists?

I don't begrudge Steve Jobs for not giving a keynote address at the 2009 Macworld Expo. It had to happen sooner or later. After all, eventually Jobs will retire. Better to plan for life after Jobs while he's still around to provide advice and feedback. What I do question, however, is Apple's decision to withdraw from the Expo altogether after 2009.

Apple callously claimed that they simply don't need the Expo anymore to distribute their message. Having become more mainstream than they had been, they have other ways of communicating with their audience.

Well, maybe that's true, but how can a company turn down the opportunity to fulfill the desire of thousands of their most loyal, rabid enthusiasts to directly interact with them?

Those people, having that desire, willing and eager as they are to be seen as outliers -- as outcasts -- are enviable assets.

The Whole Truth

It makes me wonder if Apple is telling us the whole story (not that they are obliged to do so). I have no doubt that preparing for and attending these events has a measurable cost, and they can calculate the PR benefits of all the press they get from them.

Having seen all the press they've received over the last 10 years each time Jobs speaks, it's difficult for me to believe that the costs are higher than the benefits

Maybe they have reason to think that they can't consistently deliver the punch that Jobs does at these events, and it would be hard to argue with them.

Jobs has built himself into a legend. That status isn't something that can be transferred to a proxy, because he would not likely have the same credibility as the pioneer himself.

Perhaps they want to put on their own Expo and reap the profits from it themselves more directly. It's hard to say at this point.

It's important to reserve judgment until we have more information. But I'm sure the thousands of people who have held Apple's torch when no one else would are wondering what's in store for them in the future.

I am, too. - Cam Beck

Are you in the business you think you are in?

A lot of people go into a business for themselves because they have an overriding passion for an area  in which they also  have a lot of expertise, but they later discover that there is a lot more to running a business than they imagined. There are books to keep. Employees to hire. Regulations to which they must conform. But imagine you're Wilbur or Orville Wright, who, in addition to running their own bicycle business, decided to take on the "problem of flight," which included not only successfully flying a heavier-than-air craft under its own power, but also maneuvering in mid-air.

Oh, and due to a general human intolerance to blunt force trauma and impalement, landing alive consistently was another important issue to solve.

But what business were the Wrights in? Weren't they just bicycle men?

Well, yeah. But they were so much more than that.

They were even more than entrepreneurs or even inventors. They were all of these things.

But chiefly they were problem solvers who, importantly, were not afraid to try, though they might fail.

So many times we allow others to define us, and we refuse to break out of our boxes for fear that we would be ridiculed by those who have more "expertise" than us.

When you find yourself in this situation, think of the two brothers from Ohio. And remember that their success depended on their doing, not on what others may have expected of them based on their credentials. - Cam Beck

Too Cute to Fail

Over the years I've read studies that report on income disparities between the comely and the homely and between the tall and the short. Being neither particularly tall nor attractive, I read this news with some interest -- sometimes wishing for different genetic fortune -- but nevertheless hoping to prepare myself to be the exception that balanced out the statistics.

Of course, being tall doesn't make one clever. Nor does being attractive. It appears that something else is at work to account for the statistic. Perhaps there is a glass ceiling, but before you can break through it, you first must be tall enough to reach it.

When automakers tell Congress that they are "too big to be allowed to fail," I can't help but picture the worker I envisioned in the above statistic, who regardless of his business acumen (or lack thereof), might complain that he is "too good-looking to fail," or "too tall to fail."

Yet when they do, they don't come to testify before Congress asking for the taxpayers to bail them out.

It's absurd.

Unlike the genetics that determine our heights and looks, the automakers had a choice in how large they became.

They grew that large this because they hoped to earn their fortunes in this way. Through much thinking, strategic planning, and good old-fashioned hard work, they were successful. They weren't promised this success when they began, but they began anyway because -- increasingly burdensome regulations notwithstanding -- they knew they had freedom to succeed.

But also to fail.

In fact, that is the genius of allowing such freedom to succeed and to fail. No business is too big to be allowed to fail. But nor is any business to small to be allowed to prosper.

Everybody has to start somewhere. If that means we have to start small again, we can take comfort in knowing that they'll never be able to use the annoying fallacy again, that they're "too big to be allowed to fail." - Cam Beck

Who are the gamers?

Gamers are probably not who you think they are. Stereotypically most people see them as high school aged boys, eating Cheetos with their Xbox. According to a new report released from the Pew Internet Project, those stats are changing:

Younger generations tend to dominate the gaming world; however, older respondents who do play games are more avid players. Older gamers, particularly seniors, tend to play games more
frequently.

Seems like gaming is becoming more mainstream and hitting a broader audience. What does this mean to marketers? I think the answer is still to be determined. Game development is difficult and time consuming. It takes a level of detail, planning and creative ability not found inside most marketing groups, including advertising agencies. However, the right game can have a great viral affect. There are already a lot of boutique firms that produce these games. Based on what I'm seeing, I think we'll see a whole lot more. - Paul Herring

When You Can Make a Difference, Do It

When my employer, Click Here, first assigned me to The Salvation Army account, I was mostly ignorant of who they were and what they did. I recognized their red kettles and bell ringers outside of various stores, but I was ignorant of the ways they help the communities in which they operate.

I was surprised to learn that they also were one of the 6 organizations that, during World War II, formed the USO, which many years later provided me with fond memories growing up as a military brat on the tiny island of Okinawa.

Now, knowing the good that The Salvation Army does to foster community and fellowship, to rebuild lives that are effectively destroyed by addiction, slavery, and disaster, and to give comfort and support to those who need it -- especially during Christmas -- I would be remiss to not show them my thanks for those fond memories by helping them do their calling.

Happily for all of us, their calling makes this world a better place.

Will you help me follow their lead? - Cam Beck

Taking Risks

Today, Seth Godin published a piece on how costs of being current and up-to-date may be higher than sitting back and waiting just a little while. He isn't necessarily opposed to "investing in now," but rather he suggests to audit the amount you're investing to ensure it's being used wisely.

It's always good advice to be wise with your money.

But let's also not forget that, according to Seth Godin himself, being safe is also risky.

Is this a contradiction?

I don't think so. It's just a matter of embracing the what Jim Collins and Jerry Porras called "the genius of the 'and'." It's possible to be both wise and to take risks on being current on any given subject.

Wisdom doesn't guarantee success, though.

Even if you invest thousands of hours finding resources to help you increase your intellect and wisdom, you may fall flat on your tail. That time you spent is wasted only if you stay there.

The stupid and unwise may occasionally find a measure of success. But success rarely, if ever, favors the timid.

Be bold. - Cam Beck

Advertising to Calculus Students: The Standard of Proof

Try these math problems on for size:

1. Tom Farber, a calculus teacher in San Diego, California, has a $316 budget for copies. He needs $500 to provide his students with the practice they need to master the course.
   
   True or False? $316 < $500
2. Getting a larger budget from the school is not an option. There is no discretionary or R&D budget. What is the most sustainable way for Mr. Farber to solve this problem?
   
   A. Pay the $184 difference out of his own pocket.
   B. Keep printing tests as normal, hoping the $184 would be found somewhere between now and then.
   C. Reduce the number of tests. Use up only what his budget allows, possibly sacrificing the course's effectiveness.
   D. None of the above.

Assuming his methods really are effective, give Mr. Farber extra credit for choosing "D" and refusing to sacrifice the quality of his students' education. When faced with the prospect of a budget shortfall, Farber invented a way to make up for it.

He sold advertising.

On tests.

And worksheets.

Even the final exam.

But is it ethical?

The managing director of Commercial Alert, an organization formed explicitly to prevent commercial interests from intruding on spaces they deem ought to be impenetrable, is worried that, since Mr. Farber raised nearly twice as much as his shortfall, this feat might be duplicated by other struggling schools.

Before jumping to conclusions, here are a few questions worth asking:

1. Do Mr. Farber's extra tests make the course more effective at teaching Calculus?
2. Can that effectiveness be duplicated by some other means, less expensively?
3. Does selling any ad space, whatsoever, in any format, inherently corrupt the education process?
4. Do ads inherently corrupt the students?
5. Is it possible to corrupt students with advertising?
6. What measures can be taken to prevent it?

When are sponsored ads on tests justified?

If the answer to #1 is yes and #s 2-5 are no, then by all means, sell the ads and let the kids learn.

If the answer to #1 is no, then it doesn't much matter what the other answers are, because the problem isn't with the number of tests, but with the teaching method.

If the answer to only #1 and #5 are yes, then it becomes necessary to answer #6 and to determine which option costs less: Forking over the dough for copies or investing the time, energy, and money to institute proper safeguards that prevent the corruption of the students or the process.

Who is responsible for finding out?

The teacher and the school have the duty to educate the children under their care. Thus, it is up to them to confirm the effectiveness and integrity of the system.

Once they've established a positive correlation between number of tests and better grades, they can determine if the better grades were caused by another factor, such as some sort of quid pro quo between the teacher and the advertiser.

Beyond that, the public can subject the process to what is called a "reasonable person" test. According to Wikipedia:

The reasonable person is a legal fiction of the common law representing an objective standard against which any individual's conduct can be measured. It is used to determine if a breach of the standard of care has occurred, provided a duty of care can be proven.

The standard performs a crucial role in determining negligence in both criminal law—that is, criminal negligence—and tort law. The standard also has a presence in contract law, though its use there is substantially different.

Therefore, if Commercial Alert or any other advocacy group believes the practice of exposing students to advertising is harmful in some way, they are obligated to not only assert, but provide a body of evidence that shows how what they claim could be true.

It is incumbent on them to do so, because they propose such advertising be eradicated by statute, and in doing so they eliminate a potentially effective resource for overcoming budget problems in a way that doesn't require compulsion.

Because unlike individual taxpayers, sponsors have the choice as to whether or not they will participate.

The standard of proof has to rise above the level of indignation - feigned or otherwise. Commercial Alert may have a point. But they may be blowhards. It's up to them to convince the public which category they fall under.

Likewise, Mr. Farber and his school shouldn't get a free pass, either. We shouldn't take on faith that his approach is necessarily better than one requiring fewer tests. But in this case, there should be a mountain of statistical studies already that suggest one thing or another.

All they need to do is cite them. - Cam Beck

Cyber Monday - I think I'll buy an iPhone

After viewing this video on what all the iPhone can do for me, I was sold.  Let me know your favorite apps that you can't live without. -John Herrington