ChaosScenario

Enemies of Progress: Success and Failure

When things are going well and business is humming along, industries are resistant to change because they don't want to change the model that has been working so well for them. They resist change so much that they will defend the status quo with litigation and legislation (through lobbying efforts) to prevent the market from adapting to changing circumstances and demand. When things are going poorly, often companies in these same industries lack the capital necessary to make the changes they needed to sustain profitability.

A prime example of this is the RIAA, who for years resisted the demand of consumers to download music directly from a distributor for use on their portable devices -- and any other device types they might want to use it. Another example that is far more troublesome is the failure of so many newspapers, whose sunk capital investment and romanticism prevents them from making meaningful change in how they create and distribute the news.

Now the Author's Guild finds itself threatened by the same predicament. Having become accustomed to receiving royalties independently for both physical books and for audio versions of the same book, the Guild is concerned that the new Kindle uses a technology that reads text aloud, using a voice synthesizer.

This technology, they fear, may one day become so good that people will no longer need to buy a separate audio version for their books.

Progress? The horror!

Also, consider the hubris of those who would either deny technological advances or prevent the text from being read aloud by a third-party (this would not be the same as a recording).

To be clear, the Kindle 2, were it to become widely adopted, represents some challenges for authors and how they negotiate royalties. However, it's in their best interests to figure it out quickly -- before their industries fail because of their inability to adapt.

Not all the news is bad. One thing the Kindle may do is, if implemented properly, reduce the barrier for consumption of the authors' work, making it more likely that people will spend the money to purchase it.

If this happens, the natural result is that more people will consume more books.

This is good for everybody.

This will enable their ideas and their fame to more easily gain traction, which actually increases the likelihood that they will make money.

But first they have to get out of the way of progress. For now, the publishing industry doesn't face the same immediate threat that newspapers do. However, if they don't find a way to make this trend work to their advantage, especially if the price for the Kindle falls to the point that it can be more popularly seen as a worthwhile investment, they aren't far behind. - Cam Beck

How Much is $1 Trillion? The Anatomy of a Sticky Illustration

Today on Facebook, a friend posted a link to this article on PageTutor.com that illustrates as well as anything I've ever seen, just how much money $1 trillion is.

I don't want to infringe on the author's work, so please go read it, and then come back here.

Simple. They set out to make a simple point: $1 trillion is a lot of money.

Unexpected. The result is just ... astonishing. Just as important as the result, however, is the build up. By comparison, $1 million, which to most would seem like a lot of money, is just pedestrian. However, had they used $1 as the building block instead of $100, the $1 million may have appeared to have more weight. I was just as surprised by the $1 million illustration as I was with the $1 trillion.

Concrete. By using human-scale objects that people are familiar with (a $100 bill. A human. A pallet), the creators were able to take a concept made abstract by its scale and make it understandable. A lot of that has to do with the progression.

Credible. The efforts the author made to make the illustration concrete also make it credible. Add in the fact that the author used a tool created by a publisher with some authority (Google Sketchup), and the author's conclusion receives additional credence.

Emotional. There is really no overt call to action here. It's really not designed to pull at your heartstrings the way it could have been. However, if the scope leaves you with your mouth agape in astonishment, then this criteria is certainly covered as well.

Story. As I said, it would not have been effective had the author just posted the concluding illustration. It required the build-up to be effective. Start with something almost all of us has seen and probably held at some point: The $100 bill. Show how what most of us consider a fair amount of money is really not all that impressive to look at. Keep building anticipation until the last moment, when the final illustration is revealed.

Most people who have been reading this space for awhile know what a big fan I am of Chip and Dan Heath's book, Made to Stick. If you're not aware or you haven't read the book, let me direct you to my review of the first edition of the book (download the PDF).

If you haven't read it, now is as good a time as any. Buy it now. You'll be glad you did. - Cam Beck

Authentic Suffering ... and Salvation

Recently I was honored to take part in redesigning the website for The Salvation Army's adult rehabilitation centers. Take a look for yourself and see how you like it.

The challenge was to effectively communicate the idea that when you donate clothing, cars, appliances, etc., to The Salvation Army, the sale of those items helps people in need of recovery.

This requires two things to make a compelling story:

1. People in need
2. People who were helped

Oh, and their stories needed to be real.

Happily, The Salvation Army has lots of stories that meet that criteria, and now they're posting them on YouTube. Be warned, though. It may be difficult to keep your composure as you watch them. Here's one of them:

Feed readers click through.

Sometime soon, these types of videos -- and other stories -- will find their way to their website as a means of communicating their message of hope -- hope they're able to deliver because of the people who donate items they're not using anymore, as well as those who buy these same goods.

If you need a reminder, just watch and listen to the stories of those who have recovered from some of the most difficult challenges anyone has had to endure.

Jason
Nellie
Patrick
James

I think we can all be glad organizations like The Salvation Army are out there fighting the good fight on the front lines of this personal turmoil.

But beyond that, I think we have to do our best to achieve our mission, in our own contexts and on our customers' terms, as successfully as The Salvation Army has for these people.

It isn't about whether we make commercials (funny or not) about overachieving horses or people throwing snow globes at other peoples' crotches. It's about truly helping others -- in whatever way that applies to you.

You want a way out of the economic mess? That -- not gimmicks -- is the way to do it. - 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

What is a killer-app?

Just when you thought you have things figured out, life has a way of redefining the way you look at things.

Lately I've been hearing clients ask for a "killer app," and we've been working like crazy to satisfy their decision-makers, but more importantly their needs. However, to understand what they're really asking for, we have to look beyond the Wikipedia definition of "killer application."

"...an application so compelling that someone will buy the hardware or software components necessary to run it."

We're pretty certain our clients haven't communicated to us and relationship between the success of their website and the success of any singular platform. In fact, our shop does an outstanding job creating standards-compliant websites that is viewable on every major platform -- and even some minor ones.

A killer app, a lot of times, boils down to developing an effective strategy that they can work within their budget and manpower limitations.

Thus, when timeframes are limited (which they always are), a killer app is just something that allows them to improve and manage compelling content effectively and efficiently -- to provide unique and hard-to-duplicate value to their audience while still working within their means.

At least, that's what I thought. Then I read this:

Sniper Rifle Software Launched for iPod Touch.

From Telegraph.co.uk:

A new application has been launched for the iPod touch to help gun users line up a clean shot at their target.

The BulletFlight app, which costs £6.99 to download from the iTunes store, has been developed by Runaway App to turn the iPod touch into a ballistics computer which the company says can provide “quick solutions in the field”.

If that's not a killer app, then language means nothing. - Cam Beck

A Tale of Two Teams

Troy Polamalu is one of the most versatile safeties in pro football. A deeply humble and religious man, he's just as likely to pray for his opponent's health as he is to knock the snot out of them or return an interception for a touchdown -- and attribute it to "luck." Historically, he has played more like a linebacker with the range of a safety, but this year, he's played more like a safety who can hit like a linebacker. When asked if he prefers playing this way more than he enjoys playing as he did in previous seasons, in what can only be described as vintage Polamalu, the Pittsburgh Steelers all-pro safety said, "I prefer winning."

The result? Partly as a result of Polamalu's 40-yard interception return for a touchdown in the AFC Championship game against the stout Baltimore Ravens, the 14-4 AFC north and conference champion Pittsburgh Steelers are heading for their 7th Super Bowl, and their 2nd in 4 years.

A Texas Ranger throws a tantrum

Michael Young is a gifted baseball player for the Texas Rangers. He's also well-paid. He makes over $6 million per year.

I don't watch baseball, but I've heard on ESPN Radio that he was a phenomenal 2nd baseman who acquiesced to being moved to shortstop, where he also played very well.

But when the Rangers asked he move to 3rd base, to make room for an up-and-coming shortstop team management might help the team win, Young had enough. He asked to be traded rather than move to a position he didn't think he could thrive in.

In what I doubt is a coincidence, the Rangers finished the 2008 season with more losses than wins. Young reluctantly agreed to move, but reports say he isn't happy about it.

Are you Michael Young or Troy Polamalu?

Are you married to your tactics, or would you rather you (or your clients) simply win? 

There is no panacea of marketing. A lot of marketers in this space -- who read this and other blogs in our blogroll -- believe in what they do. They look at the landscape of traditional marketing and witness  account executives and brand creatives who go on exotic "business" trips on the client's dime and put out tv ads (sometimes even entertaining, award-winning work) that simply don't solve the client's problems.

They resist pushing the client over to another tactic or medium because that's not what they do. That is handled by a different department, and pushing it off will mean fewer exotic business trips, or less money for their team's expense account.

Maybe the right solution is being handled by a different agency altogether, and they're too worried about their own survival to countenance the loss of revenue to a rival agency.

The same can be said of more "progressive" marketers, too -- those who so fanatically believe in Internet advertising or social media and modern Internet technologies that they eschew all traditional methods of communication.

The right solution is the one that helps your company and your clients succeed. If you haven't considered alternatives to the tactics you offer simply because you don't offer them, then hire someone who can. You can decide what to do about it later.

Your clients will appreciate (and reward) your dedication to their well-being. - Cam Beck

Competence of Heroic Proportions

Author's Note: As of this writing, I am working under the assumption that the first reports regarding the US Airways Flight 1549 are more or less accurate, that the engines were knocked out by an unforeseeable and unavoidable flock of birds and the pilot did the only thing he could do to save the lives of the passengers and crew.

Have you ever wondered what it would feel like to crash-land on water? Thanks to the incredible story of yesterday's near-catastrophe, you may be able to ask someone. Or 155 someones, to be exact, all who miraculously survived a crash landing on the Hudson River.

"Everybody owes their life to that pilot," said passenger Bill Zuhowski. "Period."

While this sentiment is understandable from someone who just walked away from such an incident, let's not get too punctuation-happy just yet.

First, let's remember the flight crew and rescue workers who helped ensure everyone's survival.

However, we also should not forget the industrial designers, engineers, the manufacturers and quality management personnel of every flight component who likewise did such a competent job that they collectively, without knowing it would crash-land in water, designed and built an aircraft that could withstand a water landing.

While we're at it, let's remember the janitors who cleaned up for these people -- thereby freeing up their time and attention to put to their tasks so they could perform them better, the farmers who grow foods in large quantities so they didn't have to do it themselves, the truck drivers and train engineers who moved components, food, and everything else they needed in their work and their lives, and the laborers who loaded them for transportation.

The 155 people who survived that flight owe their lives to them, as well.

Of course, well-deserved praise is given to those at the point of the crash and rescue. The pilot, the crew, the rescue workers, and the passengers who helped get everyone out all should be honored in the coming days.

And for at least 155 people and their families and their descendants-to-be, they should be honored for several lifetimes to come.

They did their jobs and behaved like compassionate human beings, and that is laudable.

We should also admire their clear and focused presence of mind.

But for all we admire in the first group of people who are getting all of the accolades in how they did their jobs when they knew without a doubt what was on the line because they saw it, let's take a moment to reflect on the virtue of basic things like a commitment to do a good job even though their lives aren't at stake at the time they're required to do it.

Maybe it's not "heroic" in the strictest sense, but it is admirable, and it will deserve our appreciation long after the rest of the world forgets about this amazing story as they continue to pursue excellence in their own lives' work.

A job well done is often its own reward, but for the 155 who survived Flight 1549, it's so much more. - Cam Beck

How Will You Stay Relevant?

Yesterday I discussed some problems that might occur when those recognized as experts are either wrong on fundamental issues (on which they may or may not have any expertise) or become obsolete altogether in front of an audience that doesn't realize it. Today I was going to write about what it would take for experts to remain sharp and for nonexperts to become experts, and why it's important to do so -- particularly in an uncertain economy and higher unemployment.

As the market fluctuates, neither marketers in general nor agencies in particular are immune from its  effects. When this happens, oftentimes good, competent people lose their jobs for reasons that are not their fault. This can create a labor surplus, which is all unemployment really is.

When a surplus exists in a free-market economy (a relative term these days, I know), it tends to depress prices, or in the case of labor, wages. Many times, however, companies won't bother to reduce wages outright, but rather they will rid themselves of the people in their employ and hire new employees at a lower cost.

This is true insomuch as your expertise is only categorical, and you do not distinguish yourself in other ways that provide value to either your clients or your employers. Your best defense, I believe, is in providing value beyond your category of expertise.

Guy Kawasaki points us to a very good article by Kendra Van Wagner on About.com that tells us 10 techniques to become a more effective learner.

Recognizing the importance of delivering business intelligence to our clients, today I set myself on a course to learn more effective database modeling techniques. It's a fascinating subject, but I know I have my work cut out for me. I know I can learn it, but it is a risk, because it may not be the very best use of my time. All I can do is make a decision and follow through.

Knowing this, I wondered if anyone else was embarking on a similar journey -- not necessarily on the same subject, but in resolving to learn something new that will help you serve your clients and/or your employer better.

How will you stay relevant in 2009? - 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