ChaosScenario

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

What They Say vs. What They Do

Researchers and media love their surveys. They are relatively easy to set up, and once the data are collected, they have a certain air of authority in them. However, while surveys can be useful, even if performed correctly, they are limited by a number of factors, not the least of which is the survey responders' lack of self-awareness that is required for gathering true insight into their own motivations. It's far more useful -- and often difficult -- to watch their behavior.

Fire the bums!
For instance, recently Rasmussen conducted a poll that concluded that 56% of Americans think we should throw all of Congress out on their ears and bring in new representatives. With an overwhelming incumbency retention rate around 95%, though, we are left to wonder why there is such a disparity.

Coke is it. No, really.
Back in the 80s Coca-Cola panicked when Pepsi started winning blind taste tests, so they tweaked their recipe until their new formula won in the blind taste tests they conducted. They introduced their new formula with much fanfare and a chipper Bill Cosby. Public outcry over this unnecessary change was so great, Coca-Cola had to backtrack -- offering both versions for awhile until they got rid of "New Coke" altogether.

What can we conclude from all of this?

While most people probably don't intentionally lie when they're answering survey questions or participating in a poll, the fact remains that surveys don't necessarily accurately measure the root causes of anything, and they certainly can't accurately predict what is going to happen or what can happen if a company (or a politician, for that matter) provided some actual leadership in its respective category.

It hurts none to ask people what their preferences are, but gaining insight from the answers requires more than reporting the results. First, you don't know that you're asking the right questions. And second, even if you were, the participants of the survey may not be able to think about the questions in the terms that conclusive action requires.

What people do is far more telling than what they say. But whether we conduct a survey, perform a usability test or conduct an ethnographic study, we mustn't be afraid to see what we see. - Cam Beck

Reflections of Our Better Selves

Have you noticed that marketers have a tendency to view customers as they view themselves? Their customers are smarter-than-average, savvy and sophisticated. Half of them have iPhones, and the other half have Blackberries.

In short, their audience projections look more like the how the marketers want themselves to be, not how they really are.

But your customers are like this, too.

Like us, they see the world through their own prisms without as much as the proper vocabulary to describe a worldview different from their own. Even in those extremely rare occasions when they change worldviews, their descriptions of this new perspective to those still in their old worldview come across as nonsense.

The fact remains that we are a diverse people with motivations that defy rational comprehension. But that doesn't change the fact that we wish for ourselves greater achievements -- however we define "achievement."

Our fear often keeps us from achieving it. It is true, as François de la Rochefaucauld said:

"We promise according to our hopes and perform according to our fears."

Instead of focusing all of our energy on those who meet our vain and selfish criteria for success, if we recognize this aspect of the human condition,  we can help our customers feel as if they can overcome the fears that are preventing them from becoming the people they want to be.

Knowing what your customers want to be, and how you can help them, requires an understanding of both their hopes and fears. Ask them, and then learn how to read between the lines.

What are they telling you? What are they not telling you? How does their actual behavior differ from what they're telling you?

How you choose to apply this advice will vary depending on if your worldview is closer to Hugh Hefner's or James Dobson's. This doesn't negate the premise, though. Rather, it can help us put the debate in perspective in a way that can lead us to identify the consequences of getting it wrong. - Cam Beck

Will traditional marketers ever understand online

Those people who adopt a technology, product or even philosophy have long been identified as early adopters. It's one of those things that's taught in Marketing 101. The early adopters are the first ones to try it, represent a small group of people and generally are considered influencers that the rest of us follow.

Traditional marketers seem yet to embrace the changes that are not only happening in our discipline but also our society. Back in 2000, right after the dot com bust, there were many people who were publicly saying that the internet was a fad. Now days most traditional marketers give it lip service but don't really embrace it. I've encountered my fair share of traditional marketers or public relations experts who feel that the internet or digital solutions are a "channel". They treat it as such not wanting to take the time to understand how their particular audience uses the medium or will in the near future.

I don't think I have to tell anyone who reads this blog how wrong that way of thinking is. What I do wonder, however, is when that way of thinking will stop being part of traditional firms. I think now that most traditional marketers give the changes that the internet has brought to the discipline lip service. To not do so would make them look asleep at the wheel. When the rubber meets the road however, there is still a LOT of these marketers that treat it as a channel. They're not really interested in how relationships are forming online, how early adopters can predict the ways that their audience will behave in the future and how to take advantage of that now. For the most part, they just want a simple tactic or advertising campaign that will complement (but not extend) the offline campaign.

It makes me wonder how much longer these types of firms can hold on to talent. Just like Yahoo! and Microsoft didn't foresee what Google would do, will there be a new type of company that will attract talent and provide a new way for companies to  provide marketing. Or will there be a company or agency that can transform itself?  - Paul Herring

(image courtesy of www.marketinginprogress.com/)

How to Vote for The Best Little SxSW Panel in Texas

1. Go to this page.

2. Sign in or create an account.

3. Look for this:

4. Click on the star on the right.

5. Attend SxSW to attend The Best Little SxSW Panel in Texas.

What Smart People are Saying:
Alan Wolk - "'Your Brand Is Not My Friend' is all about the critical mistake too many brands make when entering the social media space. They assume that every brand has the following of a Nike or an Apple. But those two brands, and no more than a dozen others, are 'Prom King Brands' who have a unique and unusual relationship with their customers The panel will discuss this and what to do if you are one of the 99% of brands out there who are not one Prom King Brand. We'll also touch on The Real Digital Revolution (the ability of consumers to research products online and how this shifts the focus of advertising.) You can read the latest iteration of "Your Brand Is Not My Friend" in this Adweek article from June 2008."

David Armano -     Brands need to figure out how to engage in social networks. And how not to. This should help.

Dion Hughes - i'm a big believer in this concept, and word has it alan is great on stage. plus, could there be a moderator better placed to prod and provoke than [Adweek's] brian morrissey? this one is a must see.

But Wait, There's More
If this panel is selected, I will also be on it.

So what are you waiting for? Go vote!

You won't find a more useful election this side of November. - Cam Beck

Weezer Genius... or Violation?

I've never purchased a Weezer album (unless you count that brilliant "Buddy Holly" video bundled with Windows 95). After watching this video, though, I just might.

(Feed readers click through)

Considering Paul's post yesterday that mentioned the publishing of copyrighted work on YouTube, this video is particularly interesting since it references a lot of YouTube hits.

Obviously, the video is copyrighted, but I don't know if the person who published this video online was authorized to do so.

I do know it's been watched over 500,000 times since it was originally posted about 3 weeks ago.

I also know that the song and the video are directed at people who watch YouTube videos often enough to get the references, and as such, YouTube is the perfect place to promote both the song and the band.

Will they remove it?

I would argue that they shouldn't, but there isn't always a connection between what the music industry should do and what they actually do. - Cam Beck

Many thanks to my wife for sending me the video link.

Note: Weezer DOES have an authorized version posted here, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are compensated by YouTube for unauthorized postings. They  seem to be fans of the platform, at any rate. Does anyone out there have an inside scoop?

Elements of super heroes

I used to read comic books religiously. I'd accompany my Dad on trips out to remote parts of Colorado and neighboring states. When he'd have to work, I'd dive into the world of super heroes and villains. I'm not sure when I stopped reading them, probably around 13. Now, thanks to my five year old son, I've been pulled, willingly, back into that world.

I've thought about why my son enjoys them so much and why there is such an attraction to these stories. Other "fads" have come and gone but the adventures of Spider-Man, Hulk, Batman and the others have remained popular for some time. As I experience the stories many, many years older I discover that the reason the both my son and I are attracted to these stories is not (just) because of the battles, the powers or even the flashy costumes, it's because of the core parts of these stories which more or less all have the same basic themes:

All heroes start from a point of weakness - Whether it's Peter Parker (Spider Man) being a high school geek or Matthew Stark (Iron Man) as a morally bankrupt billionaire, each person has personal weaknesses that he/she is facing.

Transformation is painful, difficult and life changing - The transformation to being super is a painful process that changes them not just physically but more importantly their outlook on life. Rather than focusing on their own problems, they begin to see the problems in the world around them.

Being super means pain, mis-understanding and hatred - Once the transformation is complete, the pain doesn't stop. In a world full of never ending problems, these heroes go from trying to fix one problem to another with little rest or recognition. Worst yet, in most cases the public hates them, wants to put them in jail or kill them and there is really no reward for their service and bravery outside of doint the right thing.

The appeal of these comics is that it's about good stories. Having these common themes, the stories that are told engage audiences of all ages over a lot of time. For us marketing folks, we could learn a lot from how Marvel has controlled the brand of these super heroes through the decades.

Some might say that it's a little much to have my five year old engaged in these often violent comics. For me, the things that he can learn about responsibility, helping without the expectation of reward or praise and sacrifice make it worth it. - Paul Herring

Building Successful Microsites

Microsites are mini-websites are meant to supplement a company's primary website. They have their uses, but many times they are meant as a way to "introduce" a product to the general public.

Who they're for
A microsite shouldn't be built until this is clearly defined. For until you define the audience, you don't know if a microsite will appeal to them, or what sort of functionality to put on them.

Don't assume the first person you ask (even if it's the CEO) knows the audience as well as he thinks he does. Often the online audience doesn't perfectly reflect the audience the company reaches through other means.

Why they're used
Agencies like them because they are not as shackled by the design constraints and architecture of the primary website. Companies like them because they are relatively quick and inexpensive to set up (especially when put together hastily), and it gives them some ammunition to take to prove to their bosses that they're doing something "cutting-edge."

When they work
Microsites work when they're either especially well-thought out and fun, or when they actually provide a useful tool to the audience that they can't get somewhere else.

When they fail
All websites fail when they don't add sufficient value to their audience. Significantly -- and this is something typical agencies tend to forget as they're distracted by the Bright and Shiny Objects they're creating -- websites also fail if they do not deliver tangible results to the  client.

Therefore, defining your success metrics beforehand is critical, and it should never, ever be skipped.

How to do it right
Designers, cover your ears: Proper planning is the most important aspect of building a successful microsite. A big part of that planning is ensuring the right resources (including the design resources) are identified and secured.

Websites aren't like television commercials. People must actively choose to visit one, which means  to attract them, the site must provide something the audience wants or needs, and then it must provide that in a way that doesn't frustrate the users.

Even the most nifty design is useless if no one comes to it, so the planner must take into account how people would get to the site and what would motivate them to return (if that is, in fact, part of the plan). 

What it means to your brand
With the right strategy and execution, this method can build a strong affinity for your brand, which isn't exactly useless. However, that affinity doesn't always translate to an easily calculable ROI.

Because the microsite is a supplement and not the main course, poor execution here is most often low-risk, but poor planning can be, in certain situations, a public relations nightmare. Make sure you consider your contingencies and have the right stakeholders in the loop throughout the way.

One Important Caveat
Building microsites should normally take a back-seat to improving the performance of your main site. For creating a perfect microsite that is made popular by a clever promotional execution, can actually cause harm when the main site is useless and unusable.

- Cam Beck

 

Innovation by the Hour

While I enjoy performing research, one of the most rewarding parts of my job is finding interesting solutions to business problems that the research uncovers. The process itself can be at once both stimulating and tedious. You have to enjoy the process, though, because you're not always going to be able to apply solutions you might dream of because budgets, timelines, and narrow-minded thinking might prohibit it.

Here's the dilemma: Agencies typically bill at an hourly rate, not at the rate of innovation. So if in the process of developing and selling a solution that is workable within the scope of the project, you happen to make a highly innovative but simple connection of two disparate ideas that will help you more quickly solve a different problem you might encounter on another project, for another client, to whom does that idea belong, and what can you charge for it?

The Client Owns the Idea
You could make the argument that the company that you billed the time to while you made the discovery owns the idea, but in some cases it was never even presented -- it was just one of the paths you went down when you were looking for something else.

The Agency Owns the Idea
And you can also say that the agency owns the idea, except many times key stakeholders aren't really aware that the idea exists. All they are aware of is the final outcome, which they may or may not be satisfied with, either of which they can usually live with if the client is happy and pays their bills on time.

Plus, since the innovation initially occurred on someone else's dime, the apparent cost may be disproportionate to the time billed on it. Since the idea is far more valuable than the time spent on it (for this project), how can the company in good conscience bill another for an idea when they have agreed to pay based on time spent? (Answer: They can't.)

The Employee Owns the Idea
Companies provide resources and create an environment where connections can be made, but ideas are not promulgated apart from people.

If the idea is that innovative and the employee recognize it, the enterprising employee may look to advance himself by assuming the risks, breaking off to form his own company and sell the idea on the open marketplace.

Or he may use the idea to advance the company for which he works (and his own status within it). This is especially attractive if

1. The person is confident that his company will sufficiently reward him for the innovation and
2. More risk is entailed in launching the idea than he is willing to assume.

Learn, Practice, Practice
Lewis Green includes this anecdote in his email signature. It represents an exchange that allegedly occurred between Pablo Picasso and a patron who commissioned Picasso for a sketch that Picasso quickly executed:

And what do I owe you?" she asked.

"Five thousand francs," he answered.

"But it only took you three minutes," she politely reminded him.

"No," Picasso said, "It took me all my life."

Reflecting on this recently, I started to wonder: In a marketplace where ideas, not time spent, are the chief source of prosperity, why do we bill hour time hourly?

Rather than measure our success by number of hours billed and the rate at which we can bill it, a more telling metric would be to measure the number of useful ideas generated and cataloged per project.

I suspect that the company that established a way to catalog, recognize, reward, and recall such ideas as needed would eventually build a surplus of useful innovations in the course of a project that would benefit them and their clients tremendously.

The Copycat Web
The truth is that ideas are promiscuous anyway, so claiming exclusive ownership of them is problematic. The guy who first called the home page the home page is not living a life of luxury because he collects trademark fees from everyone who has a home page.

Ideas aren't spread because you spent a lot of time on them.

They aren't spread because you bill a high hourly rate.

Ideas spread because they're useful.

So why do we continue to bill by the hour? Maybe because that's the most reasonable accord clients and vendors can reach.

Or maybe it's because we lack the imagination to think of something better. - Cam Beck