ChaosScenario

The Meaning of Life

The three secrets to fostering a perpetually youthful spirit are:

1. An insatiable curiosity
2. A forgiving heart, and
3. Eight hours of sleep per night.

But you get to pick only two. - Cam Beck

Alright, Amazon. I'm sold on the new Kindle. Now can you deliver?

When the first Kindle was launched, I admiringly took a look at the features it offered and considered some ways it could be improved. Others had some of the same ideas.  Although the next-generation Kindle that Amazon announced today doesn't implement all of the suggestions, it improved in two ways that convinced me that I could really use this device to become more productive.

2007 suggestion:

Enable audio and ability to listen in car. This would kill my need to buy a traditional book again, and would be well worth the cost. In fact, I'd pay three times as much for each book if the audio version were included, in spite of the difficulties above. Then I could listen to books on my commute and read and reference books elsewhere. I'd even repurchase the books I'd already bought just so I could listen and/or read on my own terms, in my own time.

Kindle v2 improvements

Read-to-Me Feature - Now Kindle can read to you. With the new Text-to-Speech feature, Kindle can read every book, blog, magazine, and newspaper out loud to you. You can switch back and forth between reading and listening, and your spot is automatically saved. Pages automatically turn while the content is being read, so you can listen hands-free. You can choose from both male and female voices which can be sped up or slowed down to suit your preference. Anything you can read on Kindle, Kindle can read to you, including books, newspapers, magazines, blogs and even personal documents. In the middle of a great book or article but have to jump in the car? Simply turn on Text-to-Speech and listen on the go.

Audiobooks - With Kindle, you are able to download and enjoy more than 50,000 audio titles from Audible.com, including bestselling audio books, radio programs, audio newspapers, and magazines. Due to their file size, audiobooks are downloaded to your PC over your existing Internet connection and then transferred to Kindle using the included USB 2.0 cable. Listen via Kindle's speaker or plug in your headphones for private listening.

I should mention that a couple of my 2007 criticisms were off the mark. For instance, owners would be able to access their entire library online, so if they lost or destroyed their Kindle, their library wouldn't be at risk.

Although I still recognize the social nature of discovery and therefore believe in the utility of temporary book sharing (peer-to-peer and library-to-user)  the practical side of me says that publishers will never agree to it as long as they fear poaching, which is always. However, their Whispersync technology may eventually prove me wrong.

All said, even with a $356 price point, the Kindle may be the must-have device of 2009. Hopefully Amazon will be able to overcome the manufacturing difficulties that plagued the launch of their first device. - Cam Beck

Blog, Facebook, Twitter and Myspace: Managing Your Profile and Hedging Your Bets

As they say, the only two things that are certain are death and taxes. The rest is open to interpretation. This includes the suitability of a candidate for any given position. Therefore, whether you're looking for a job or looking for a good person to fill a job, you're putting something valuable at risk -- either your time or your money. If job hunting is a gamble, then why not hedge your bets a bit?

The following is part of an exchange between banking guru J.P. Morgan and a member of a congressional committee in the early 20th century.

Congressman: Is not commercial credit based primarily on money or property?
J.P.M.: No, sir. The first thing is character.
Congressman: Before money or property?
J.P.M.: Before money or anything else. Money cannot buy it.

Long résumés and walls full of degrees and commendations have their place, but in the pantheon of qualifications, I wouldn't rank them the highest. Like Morgan, I would put a premium on character. In fact, here's how I would rank the order of importance.

1. Character
2. Intelligence (general and specific)
   
3. Specific experience
4. Education

Why you should be all over the 'net

The problem is that character and intelligence aren't easy to put on a résumé. Some people get by with listing experience (especially pro bono work they've done) and education, but that will only get you so far. Although they're often a good starting point, companies know the story doesn't end there.

And increasingly, they know how to use Google.

Knowing this, you really have only two choices:

1. Ignore it and try to fly under Google's considerably effective radar, or
2. Embrace it and influence it as much as you can

Number 1 may work only if you have no friends or a name like "Abraham Lincoln." In the first case, even if you try to fly under the radar, your friends may have other ideas about your desire for anonymity, and if you're not actively telling your story, someone else may be. In the second case... let's face it... Companies would be hard-pressed to find information about you when they have to navigate through all the information about that other guy.

Number 2, on the other hand, gives you an opportunity to tell your side of the story before anyone else does. If you're a private person and are uncomfortable with being "out there," you have the ability to moderate your level of personal disclosure.

If you're prolific, you can ensure prospective employers (or clients, if you're self-employed) can become convinced that you may have the qualities they seek in a candidate. If they don't value those qualities, they're probably not a good fit for you anyway.

That way, if there are any issues (fairly or unfairly) that call your character into question (Remember those parties you attended when you were 25?) they will be drowned out by the story you'd rather they see.

Just make sure your online persona is consistent with the way you want others to see you. - Cam Beck

Pushing Past the 'Peter Principle'

The Peter Principle states that everyone in a hierarchy eventually rises to his own level of incompetence. It's a philosophy that is woefully deterministic and altogether pessimistic, but taken by itself, it leaves a couple of questions unanswered, including whether people are able to eventually achieve competence once they've been promoted to a position whose requirements they're initially unsuited to fulfill.

My story of incompetence

When the Marine Corps finished training me as an electronic switchboard technician, I spent some time in  a couple different units fixing things like telephones and radios, instead, and building "Near-Vertical Incidence Skywave" antennas so that we could talk over long distances with Marines we had in the field.

I was out of my specialty and therefore incompetent in my position, but I had to find a way to be useful anyway. So, I did what any reasonable person wishing to be useful would do. I learned how to do the job that was needed of me -- and that included doing something the unit had never done before.

Happily, under the tutelage of our new Communications Chief, Gunnery Sergeant Morris, we made some great strides that hopefully prepared -- through a chain of leadership and training passed from one Marine to the next -- other Marines to communicate and to solve problems in critical -- perhaps life-threatening -- situations.

Some positions are easier to train for than others.

Field-expedient antennas aren't hard to build with materials that can be found pretty readily at a military compound with a communications platoon. Once that knowledge is obtained, the trick is to know the people, the equipment, and the situation well to plan far enough ahead to have all needed personnel and items onhand at the right time.

Likewise, leaders who are responsible for filling other positions must know the requirements of those positions and determine if they will fill them from outside the organization or within.

Either one is risky. It's entirely possible (and assured at some point, if you subscribe to the Peter Principle) that a person will not be suited for the job at the time he is hired.

But can he get there? That's a question worth asking. - Cam Beck

Can anyone kill the killer social media apps?

This morning I saw an interesting question on LinkedIn from José María Gil about the role of email marketing and social media platforms to "build your brand." It was a question I know a lot of people struggle with as they seek for ways to capitalize on the growing adoption of social media, so I decided to post the question and answer here.

Here's the question (modified for formatting):

In the last year I have seen a big euphoria about the opportunity that social media is for companies as a marketing tool. There are a ton of articles and posts out there lately about how to use Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, etc, to build your brand, establish relationships with your users, and much more. Within that euphoria, I have heard voices claming that social media y the new king, and that email marketing is dead.

However, since the moment you need an email address to sign up for any social network, that is completely false. Email and social media are good friends and not enemies. Both of them have an important and different role within our online marketing strategy.

I see social networks as a party, where you meet a lot of people and get in a lot of conversations. That is a really good way to build a community and to find an audience. But, the people that really care about what you do, is the people who are going to sign up to your email list, and the people you are going to start a more direct and personalized relationship with, engaging them with the value given through your emails.

What do you think?

The cost of entry is low, but cost of effectiveness may be steep

José -
With the current social media platforms available, new entrants into this market need to be something more than parties where people can "interact with a brand."

Typically, they don't care about the brand, and they don't care about the problems or needs of the company. They just want something that rewards them for their time, or else they'll not feel compelled to give it, email or not.

Thus, social media sites must provide some unique value that people can't get on Facebook or Myspace, and with new apps being added to these two growing platforms that generate revenue, the cost of entry is constantly increasing. It pays to be a first mover.

However, it is possible to build a reasonably priced platform that addresses the needs of a niche audience, and email marketing (if you can really call it that) can and probably should play a critical role in building relationships. The goal, though, isn't necessarily to build a relationship between the brand and the individual, but rather to help them build relationships within the platform.

This requires a lot of restraint, because the temptation is to put some backwards sales techniques to use and try to keep convincing the users that your platform is the best platform and they should abandon what they're already doing.

Instead, hosts need to be fairly passive and message users when something has happened that they've asked to be notified about. (LinkedIn, for instance, lets you know when your profile isn't complete, or when someone attempts to connect with you).

The message must be simple and to the point. Make it (in a friendly way -- or whatever way showcases a likable personality) and get out of the way.

Hope this helps! - Cam Beck

Who Spins for the PR Agencies?

Is bribery still considered unethical?

When the UK tabloid, News of the World broke the story that Michael Phelps was photographed using a bong, two things immediately came to mind that confirmed, rather than shocked, my worldview. First, despite all of the hype and hero worship that typically surrounds sports superstars, this marvelous swimming specimen is still a young, immature kid in a world of highly permissive morality. Second, as is often the case in such an environment, this guy needs to find better friends and advisers.

I wasn't quite prepared, though, when I read the article that broke the "story," to hear that the agency that represents Phelps, Octagon, was accused of trying to bribe News of the World to keep them from publishing the photos.

From News of the World:
Phelps’ aides went into a panic over our story and offered us a raft of extraordinary incentives not to run the bong picture. … Phelps is represented by marketing giant Octagon, which works with huge brands such as Mastercard and HSBC. They admitted proven cannabis use would be “a major taint” on Phelps’ character.

Spokesman Clifford Bloxham offered us an extraordinary deal not to publish our story, saying Phelps would become our columnist for three years, host events and get his sponsors to advertise with us.

In return, he asked that we kill Phelps’ bong picture. Bloxham said: “It’s seeing if something potentially very negative for Michael could turn into something very positive for the News of the World.

Is it true? In a prepared statement that really took some chutzpah, Octagon denied the allegations, claiming News of the World, who broke the story that proved true, is a tabloid, and that tabloids are not to be believed.

Not only that, but Octagon wouldn't address the issue further, claiming:

"[W]e have no intention of getting into a shouting match with a tabloid."

No one is asking for a shouting match. Just an explanation. I want to know if the PR world thinks this sort of statement, in light of such accusations in a story that otherwise proved accurate, is sufficient. So far, I've only read one story on it, from a New York Times blog, "Notes on the News."

Obviously Octagon thought enough of the tabloid story to issue a statement on behalf of Phelps and to contact the publication respecting the story. Yet, when they became a part of the story, they claim they don't respond to tabloid stories, and that at least strains their credibility.

I'm not a PR professional, so I'd love to get your feedback.

What do you think? Should Octagon ignore News of the World, or does this situation require a more complete response? - Cam Beck

Marketing doesn't build brands

In the aftermath of Super Bowl XLIII, ESPN's Gene Wojciechowski wrote a nice piece that contrasted this year's champions, the Pittsburgh Steelers, against the Dallas Cowboys -- another organization that, with 5 Super Bowl titles, is accustomed to winning. The overarching point is something we all need to remember: Marketing is all well and good, but setting high expectations and exceeding them is what builds brands.

Though the beleagered Cowboys are often branded as "America's Team," Wojciechowski argued pretty convincingly that Pittsburgh is more deserving of the title.

"I'd be stunned if Tomlin and the Rooneys ever let a 'Hard Knocks' film crew into their training camp. They don't need the attention. They don't need to grow their 'brand.' Winning Super Bowls, not being on HBO, is what grows a franchise." (Emphasis mine)

The Cowboys have certainly won their share of Super Bowls (5 wins to Pittsburgh's 6). They built their brand and became "America's Team" on the strength of 2 wins.

However, all of their Super Bowl victories came before the salary cap was effectively implemented, and they haven't been a very credible postseason threat since then.

Marketing does have its purpose in sports. After all, the Cowboys topped a Forbes list of most valuable NFL franchises at $1.6 billion.

Win, lose, or draw, that's nothing to be ashamed of.

However, marketing a team and its players has a way of setting lofty expectations.

Winning is the only way they will meet those expectations. That will be the ultimate arbiter of the "brand."

Victory to the rest of the world means something else.

We typically don't pummel our competitors into submission. Our problems can't be solved over the course of four 15-minute quarters. If we set out to win -- first and foremost -- by doing at least as much as our customers expect (and probably more), we will deserve to succeed.

Our victories are less dramatic than in the Super Bowl, where the victors take turns in hoisting a trophy over their heads in front of a hundred thousand adoring fans

But victory -- especially in this economy -- is no less sweet. - Cam Beck