ChaosScenario

Lessons in Leadership... from Gordon Ramsay?

When I first saw Gordon Ramsay on television, it was on the show "Hell's Kitchen," and I immediately hated him. Of course, I hated the show as well, as the antagonism seemed totally contrived, and I had seen enough of that in my life already. However, a few months ago I started watching him on BBC's "Kitchen Nightmares" (Now on Fox), and I find that I must reevaluate my opinion of him.

If you've not seen the show, you must check it out. Ramsay evaluates failing restaurants, almost always mom and pop shops (or the equivalent) and tells them what they need to do to turn it around. Although he doesn't mince words in his criticism, I can see the genuine concern in his eyes when he screams at the restaurant manager, "GREEN BURGERS KILL PEOPLE!!"

You Can't Handle the Truth
His style is certainly different than mine. Even including my time in the Marine Corps, I can think of one time I've yelled at a subordinate in anger. And if I were Ramsay, I likely wouldn't yell, even about the green burgers, unless it were my restaurant serving them.

But you can see that Ramsay understands and intimately appreciates the risks restaurant owners take when they undertook their business endeavor. By the time Ramsay comes in to the rescue, things are bad enough that the owners, if things don't change, they very well may need to shut the place down and take tremendous losses.

It appears as if Ramsay has no patience or tolerance for employees (especially "managers") who are flippant about the gravity of that risk. The owners have landed ashore and scrapped their boat. They cannot go back to the old world. They risk bankruptcy while the people who work there risk temporary unemployment.

Ramsay can get away with yelling and cursing at people because:

1. He has expert power beyond reproach, and
2. He has only one week, not one year, to teach them what they need to know to succeed in the marketplace.

In such an atmosphere, half measures and unnecessary pleasantries would only slow him down. "Green on your ground beef is indicative of bacteria that may cause you to fail a health inspection" is not nearly as powerful as "GREEN BURGERS KILL PEOPLE!!"

Thankfully they usually get the message.

Business and Marketing Lessons
Especially over the past 10 years or so, I have always appreciated the risks undertaken by business owners. When we recommend solutions, we must be appreciative of those risks. It is not our money we're spending, and if it were, we'd better be sure we'd spend it in the manner we're recommending. To ensure we are the best stewards we can be with our clients' money, we should:

1. Remember that it is not our money at risk. This is what makes my blood boil over the strikes that have been threatened or have been going on for the past few weeks. Unions are calling for job security, but the best job security is business security. Preventing the company from being nimble in the marketplace ultimately makes the company less competitive and hurts everyone. Thus, it turns out "job security" means that the union bosses still get paid -- on someone else's risk.
2. Become the experts our clients need us to be. This includes but is not limited to embarking on a journey of continuous improvement. Read everything in sight. Interact with the market. Converse with others. And finally, experiment and analyze. The marketplace changes, so we need to be able to adapt as it does.
3. Be direct and honest. Going along to get along will not help our clients succeed in the marketplace. Our expertise does no one any good if it is not shared. It's as bad practically, and worse morally, if you keep it to yourself when it could have made a difference in the outcome.

Answer This:
What do you think of Gordon Ramsay?
How do you reveal what you believe is true when you know the truth will hurt?

- Cam Beck

The Black Magic of Predicting the Future

When Apple dropped the price of the iPhone by $200 so soon after launch, I tended to be forgiving (at least once they made it up to their early adopters). As I said over at Lewis' blog, I understand the difficulty anyone has in predicting the future -- especially when a product changes the way the game is played like the iPhone.

AdAge's video podcast of 9/5/2007 (subscribe) brings up an excellent example of what I mean, and they do so by using a similarly innovative product -- the DVR. In 2003 Forrester predicted that by 2007, DVR penetration would be at 25.7% in the U.S. However, now that it's 2007 and we have real data to measure against, we know that penetration is only 17%.

If you're an advertiser, don't overestimate what that means, though. As before, people are still ignoring your TV ads. It just takes them longer because they're ignoring them by means other than a DVR.

In general, the further out you try to project, the less accurate your prediction will be, because you simply don't know and can't predict how people will react in the real world... how they will be influenced once they see how people react to the new product.

I know there are very clever mathematicians out there who claim they can predict to within plus or minus three percentage points with 95% confidence what people will do, but that is only assuming that they have all the relevant information. When a product is much better than anything that has come before, it's less likely that statisticians will have all of the relevant information. - Cam Beck

Get Smart

Possibly the best movie trailer I've seen in hours, if not minutes. I was obligated to put it here for its reference to "chaos." :)

Happy Friday! - Cam Beck

Ignoring the target

  I'm a big fan of the show Heroes on NBC. I think that it all started with my obsession with X-Men which the show is really a rip off of. Because of kid's bedtimes, work, etc. I'm not always able to see every episode when it airs. I usually catch up either online or download an episode on iTunes.

Right before this last Monday, I went to NBC's site to see the previous week's episode so that I would be up to speed before the new one aired. I love the fact that I'm able to see episodes without commercial interruption. As an advertisers, I also like that a single sponsor pays for the entire program. What I don't understand is why "Scrubbing Bubbles Automatic Shower Cleaner" sponsored the show. Of course I don't have all the data but why would a product primarily targeted at women with a house and kids be sponsoring an online TV show whose audience is primarily (not only but primarily) males, and younger males at that?

Of course my first inclination is to blame NBC but they just sell the inventory. I'd think that Apple, HP or even Xbox or Playstation would be all over this. Am I missing something? - Paul Herring

I Love the Internets

We like to give President Bush grief from time to time for using his occasional (frequent?) malapropisms, including "the internets," but sometimes we need to be reminded that there are actually two of them. And now scientists are planning a third.

The idea of "Internet2" was introduced several years ago to increase network speed and capacity for the educational community. Ultimately, the technology mavens of the world hoped that as the backbones, protocols, and addressing systems were proved, Internet2 would enjoy wider adoption to encompass the existing Web, and we could go back to referring to the Web in the singular, without the version number.

With researchers breaking the world speed record over Internet2 (9 Gbps over a 20,000-mile path), I think we can officially call it "proved." According to MSNBC.com, a high-quality version of "The Matrix" could be downloaded at that speed in about thirty seconds.

Take THAT, Mark Cuban!

The problem is that updating all of the routers and servers will take many years and billions of dollars. Let it be suffice to say it is going to take awhile before we see that kind of speed in our homes.

So maybe we'll have to save the victory party for later. But without a doubt Cuban should go ahead and concede now and save his energy for his next Dallas Mavericks playoff game and philanthropic initiatives.

But wait. There's more.

Apparently, thirty seconds is just too much darn time to wait for a complete movie download. Scientists are also exploring a third Internet option. This time, they would build it from the ground up, and they project speeds of up to 100 Gbps. The same movie download for The Matrix would take just a few seconds at that speed.

With all the costs associated with upgrading the infrastructure to achieve such speeds, I have my doubts that 100 Gbps download speeds will be seen in the next twenty-five years. However, I just don't see a problem with 9 Gbps. None at all.

Hopefully networks and marketers will resist the urge to turn the Internets into what TV is now -- intrusive, stationary, and static. It will require we give up on the idea that we can  control what everyone sees at once, and instead embrace the idea that we can actually show our audiences something they want, when and in ways they are most receptive to seeing it.

I have no idea what Web 3.0 is going to look like, but something tells me it will at least as fast as Internet2. - Cam Beck

P.S. Paul McEnany has a nice post about how NBC is using the Internet -- at its current bandwidth -- to keep a series alive. Awhile back, he also extensively compared two competing video delivery mechanisms. Both are great reads. Can you imagine what Internet2-type speeds will do for these services?

Preempting American Idol snarkiness

I'm going to preempt a lot of the snarky posts that you'll see tomorrow about the American Idol - Giving Back extravaganza that will be on TV tonight.

It's a sure bet that tomorrow you'll see all types of posts about how bad the show was and how advertisers and artists alike should have just given money directly to the charity. There will even be some blogs that will calculate out how much money could have been given to Africa relief.

I don't think that's the point, and frankly, although they'll be raising money for relief, it's more about awareness and engagement.

If you haven't already, take a look at the About page ONE campaign site. The point of the campaign is not for people to donate money but for people to get involved, specifically:

"The ONE Campaign derives its name from the belief that allocating an additional one percent of the U.S. budget toward providing basic needs like health, education, clean water and food would transform the futures and hopes of an entire generation in the world's poorest countries. We also call for debt cancellation, trade reform and anti–corruption measures in a comprehensive package to help Africa and the poorest nations beat AIDS and extreme poverty."

I know the conservatives out there (and sometimes I count myself as one) will point out all the aid the United States gives and the problems at home we need to address. However, I'll point out that ONE percent will barely put a dent in the budget and can easily be pulled from other programs. Africa's problems will soon become our problems if we don't do something.

In my opinion the idea of using pop culture to popularize a cause is brilliant. It can't be measured in dollars raised in the short-term. It has to be measure by people's awareness of the cause and their willingness to act. And if we make acting on behalf of a good cause cool, we'll live in a much better world.

If your willing to add your voice to the cause, join by signing the petition. - Paul Herring

How to Save TV

Mark Cuban posted an article on his blog this morning claiming that the Internet is "old news... useful and boring with obsolescence right around the corner."

Now, Cuban has a personal financial stake in the success of TV, both directly through his investment in HDNet and indirectly through his ownership of the Dallas Mavericks, which depends on lucrative television contracts that pull in tons of advertising revenue. I can understand why he both has a problem with YouTube and why he would want the Internet to become obsolete. YouTube sucks all the oxygen out of television (as he sees it), and the capabilities of the Internet may one day make television obsolete.

Let's leave that aside, because it truly has nothing to do with whether or not he's correct. It just gives us cause to examine his claims more closely.

His fallacy on this matter is that he's assuming the way the Internet is now is the way it will always be. He even said as much when he called the Internet "mature utility." However, the truth is that the interruption advertising model that supports television is broken, and without the utility that is currently found only on the Internet, TV will eventually become completely unsupportable.

People don't like to watch ads. The combination of the Internet and DVRs have opened up a Pandora's Box... People know what life is like without the traditional advertising model, and there's no going back. They will willingly sacrifice some production quality if doing so means they don't have to be interrupted. Trying to force people to accept interruption is only going to turn them off more.

But contrary to Cuban's implication, this isn't a competition between TV and the Internet. The Internet is richer because of TV, and it's becoming increasingly clear that programs are richer because of the utility of the Internet. That interdependence needs to be embraced -- even harvested.

As such, the way to save television is to discard the interruption advertising model on which is based -- that is, to make it more like what is good about the Internet. Rich interactive programs (Choose Your Own Adventure, anyone?), on-demand content that remains free and non-intrusive, and effective, accountable advertising.

The Internet, simply, needs more bandwidth to support better quality content, higher adoption rates, and better usability. I know Cuban doesn't think much of this can be done, but I'm staking my future on the idea that it can.

What will we call this integrated system? It's hard to predict. I suppose it depends on the primary path the innovation takes -- whether we're getting the combination of TV and Internet through AppleTV 10.0 or if we're getting it through Comcast Cable. If it's the former, perhaps our children will be asking if we can watch the Internet tonight. If it's the latter, maybe they'll ask if they can play on the TV.

I like Cuban. From what I've been told by people who've met him, he's a swell guy. He's also obviously very bright, and even though I haven't cared to watch basketball since Michael Jordan retired, I absolutely admire Cuban's passion for the game. We should all have the same passion for what we do.

Cuban's obviously committed. As we've already established, he's got a fortune riding on the belief that he's right. How much can we say the same? - Cam Beck

P.S. Perhaps this is wishful thinking, but I hope the future of TV advertising, one way or the other, looks more like this. (Link via Random Culture).

South Park goes HD in Xbox

South Park released it's first episode in HD. That's really not big news, there are a lot of TV series making the transition. What's interesting is that they released the episode not on cable or even on a web site but rather on Xbox live. According to Josh Lovison from Gaming Insider:

"Comedy Central partnered with the Xbox360 to deliver the episode, aptly entitled "Good Times With Weapons," in high definition. To the best of my knowledge, this makes "SouthPark" the first network TV show to bypass its traditional distributors to offer a superior product via digital distribution — in this case, a major video game platform. "

I agree with Josh that this is an interesting development that a lot of people are ignoring. Could this be the beginning of the end for broadcast television? How will this change television advertising? Can we track what shows and interest people are watching? Will people be able to interact with shows with their gaming devices? Will HD broadcast further encourage adoption of these types of devices? - Paul Herring

Beating television at its own game

So a lot of smart people, including Joesph Jaffe have commented quite a bit about re-purposing 30-second spots online. Suffice it to say it's not something they suggest doing.

Maybe not. Take a look at this research from  Millard/Brown:

      







"Web spots increased the viewer attention rate by 53%, awareness by 52%, consideration by 27% and favorability by 26%. Prompted recall of brand advertising was four times higher for Web viewers." 

So put all your 30-second spots online? Well maybe, but I think the results are really a result of how people use the different media types. As David Hallerman puts it,

"The Internet is a lean-forward medium, with an actively engaged audience ready to click and type and move around quickly, while television is the proverbial lean-back medium, with the typified image of couch potatoes letting sounds and images wash over them."

This to me means that, although putting your TV ads online may work, it's not the using the medium to its full capability. Good agencies will recognize the best way to integrate the two and will take that into consideration when the 30-second spot is created. They'll extend the campaign by allow interaction, creating additional content or creating communities. Know of some good examples? I think they're few and far between but let's hear 'em. - Paul Herring

WSJ: A Companion to Time's "Person of the Year"

After we were all anointed Time's "Person of the Year," The Wall Street Journal ran its "Best (and Worst) Ads of '06." Happily enough, the good folks at the Journal took its cue from Time and pointed out something good folks like Seth and Paul have been pointing out for some time. Commenting on advertisers' successful reactions to the trend that sees consumers desiring control over their own media, the WSJ said, "This low-key approach is a major reversal for an industry long keen on marketing messages delivered with a sledge hammer."

Here's WSJ's list of the 5 most successful ads of '06:

1. CareerBuilder's Monkey Business. Not one of my personal favorites aesthetically or in terms of usability, but I like how they integrated multiple media by promoting the Super Bowl TV ads.
2. KFC's TiVo Buster. I never actually saw this ad on TV, but I can't help but admire KFC's willingness to embrace and experiment with alternative solutions to a growing problem for TV advertisers by encouraging the audience to interact with the brand in new ways. I also appreciate how the promotion was able to drive traffic to the site to download coupons (Over 100K within a week, and 3 million page views). KFC also came under fire for supposedly violating an FCC rule against "subliminal advertising," but this was more a case of imaginative lawyers with too much time on their hands than KFC doing something wrong.
3. Philips "Bodygroom" Shaver. What can be said about this that hasn't been said before? It's shameless. It's engaging. It's hilarious, not just for what it shows, but for what it leaves out. Great use of technology. I have no word on the ROI (building a site like this had to be expensive), but it's difficult to put a price tag on the word-of-mouth something like that generates.
4. Apple's Anthropomorphism. With 95ish% of the market owning PCs, Apple didn't seek to make PC owners look bad, which would have been a polarizing disaster. The actor playing a generic "PC" is respectable in his own right, lovable for certain, but he's also a little out of touch with the "in" crowd. As the WSJ puts it, "Apple's knife cuts deep, but by the time rivals feel it, they have already started to bleed." These ads made the rounds on YouTube, but they also spurred a flurry of funny spoof ads on the same platform, which  by themselves do nothing but build awareness for Apple's ads and its brand.
5. Sprint's Phone. This is the one where one of the phones is supposedly a "crime deterrent" -- a stone-age use of cutting-edge technologies that Sprint tells us allows users to connect with the Web.

Notice how all of these, in some way, utilize either integrated or Web-only campaigns, or promote interaction with the Internet? It's a Web 2.0 world, folks. We're just living in it. First Time, and now The Wall Street Journal, seem to recognize this. Time's article smacks of shameless pandering. The Wall Street Journal article, by contrast appearing on page B1 of Friday's edition, seems much more authentic. Does that make it a trend? - Cam Beck