Idea Management

The New York Times just released a very interesting article about the correlation between physical contact and success. (Evidence That Little Touches Do Mean So Much). I heard Jim Rome mention it on his radio program over lunch today. In it they talk about studies that are being conducted linking momentary touches with professional success.

Scientists at Berkeley are currently focusing a study of this relationship within the basketball arena.

“In a paper due out this year in the journal Emotion, Mr. Kraus and his co-authors, Cassy Huang and Dr. Keltner, report that with a few exceptions, good teams tended to be touchier than bad ones. The most touch-bonded teams were the Boston Celtics and the Los Angeles Lakers, currently two of the league’s top teams; at the bottom were the mediocre Sacramento Kings and Charlotte Bobcats.

[Read more →]

What is the difference between a blogger and a journalist?

In a recent controversy culminated in an interview on ESPN’s “Outside the Lines,” a lot of hostility was directed at a post written on MidwestSportsFan.com.In his post, Jerod Morris “speculates” on whether or not Raul Ibanez’s stats this year are tied to steroids in any way. (I emphasize the word speculate, because when you read the post it seems evident Morris’ intent was not an accusation or speculation.)After reading the original post and then gauging the responses it generated, my thoughts on the matter are that many mainstream journalists still just don’t get it.Countless times both Ken Rosenthal and John Gonzalez claim in the ESPN interview that they DO get it. What they get is what the rest of many traditional journalists “get” (which is coincidentally the same thing that my parents and grandparents get regarding interactive media) - they get that it’s taking away readership from their own publications; they get that it’s not going away; they get that they need to find a way to participate. What they don’t get is what that participation means. Journalists don’t get to pick and choose what parts of the Internet are worthy and what parts need to be accountable to their standards. [Read more →]

I have noticed a trend lately (albeit based on a very limited pool) of individuals completely shutting down their Facebook, Twitter, blogs and other accounts. The reason hasn’t been some addictive behaviors they haven’t been able to control. Each instance has been because the user feels a sense of guilt that they don’t post as often as they think they need to.

The defectors are concerned that they’re not living up to their end of the bargain- that their voyeuristic observations of their social network is not being reciprocated. I find it fascinating that rather than just not making updates, they’re completely closing down their accounts. Five people in my own social network have either shut down their account or threatened to do so.

This guilt - to me - seems more prevalent on Twitter than Facebook. I not only see it directly, but also in the tone of many posts that begin with: “Sorry I haven’t posted in a while.” I’ve also noticed this tendency quite often in the blogosphere. This unsolicited and unnecessary apology seems to be an indicator of the sometimes subconscious guilt that users are experiencing with social media. With the timestamped nature of Twitter and other blogs, there is a sense of accountability that accompanies this medium, even if our “audience” is no bigger than our physical social circles.

I’m not quite sure what to make of this guilt. Maybe that motivation and pressure to keep our social networks updated is positive. Or maybe there is enough information floating around that we don’t need to try to conjure up content out of an overdeveloped sense of responsibility.  If you don’t feel like posting updates often or ever, then don’t. Most of those in your network are probably not anxiously awaiting your next post. They’re probably more worried about their next post and what you’re going to think of it.

I think this topic deserves a little more consideration. So to both of those readers of my blog… I’ll keep you posted.

A perspective on analyzing marketing data

Provability is a weaker notion than truth. - Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid

You may be familiar with one or each of these great minds (Gödel, Escher, Bach or Hofstadter). I discovered the book while wandering through the philosophy section at a Border’s Bookstore about 10 years ago. The book does a superb job of explaining the meaning and significance of mathematician Kurt Gödel’s controversial (for it’s time) incompleteness theorem which demonstrated the incompleteness of Principia Mathematica. Hofstadter weaves Gödel’s principals with similar examples in music (Johann Sebastian Back), art (M.C. Escher), language and logic to show we use self-reference to ‘prove’ ideas that can’t be proven. As Wikipedia currently describes the book:

Through illustration and analysis, the book discusses how self-reference and formal rules allow systems to acquire meaning despite being made of “meaningless” elements. It also discusses what it means to communicate, how knowledge can be represented and stored, the methods and limitations of symbolic representation, and even the fundamental notion of “meaning” itself.

In response to confusion over the book’s theme, Hofstadter has emphasized that GEB is not about mathematics, art, and music but rather about how cognition and thinking emerge from well-hidden neurological mechanisms. In the book, he presents an analogy about how the individual neurons of the brain coordinate to create a unified sense of a coherent mind by comparing it to the social organization displayed in a colony of ants.

The most eye-opening concept I pulled early from the book was that “provability was a weaker notion than truth.” In other words, for every proof that claims to be consistent, there is a self-referential truth that needs to be acknowledged. As Gödel’s theorem postulates:

Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.

So how does this apply to the world of advertising and marketing? Simply this: there is an element of truth to creativity and innovation that exists beyond the “provability” of statistics and analysis. We often prove the success of our subjective strategies through objective analytic measurements. But as any political campaign can remind us, those numbers can be stretched, manipulated and structured to fit almost any agenda or interpretation.

And while those analytics are important, we have to weigh them against the objectives and presuppositions that we originally started with. We also have to recognize the truths that exist just outside of the numbers.

In light of my recent post on - An economy on steroids -  I thought this comment by President Barack Obama was very intriguing. To recap, here is what was said: [Read more →]

A foundational truth about dealing with the ‘devil’s advocate’

Typically, an immediate reaction to any idea is to find all the reasons why it won’t work. This is such a natural response in so many of us. I’m not sure of all the reasons behind it: maybe its ego; maybe it’s insecurity (and I have this nagging suspicion that ego and insecurity and inevitably linked); maybe it’s just habit. But keeping a great idea alive is not up to the naysayers. It’s the responsibility of thsoe that ‘get it’. And that is where a great idea manager can come in.

And even the naysayers can ‘convert’. What I try to express to anyone that starts taking about an idea right away is to relish in the beauty of the idea. Take it in. Breathe it. Savor it. Try and understand where it came from. The person that introduced it, why did he see such value in it? What makes it lovely? You may really have legitimate reasons for why it won’t work, but first, recognize what elements of the idea make it so beautiful.

Once you’ve had some time to soak it in, then start listing where the problems lie - not with the intent of blowing it out of the water, but with the intent on making it stronger.

But this advice is not so much for the ‘devil’s advocates’ out there. They will always exist. It is intended for the ones that either created the idea or the ones that want to evolve it - the ones that saw something beautiful but can’t completely explain what or why it was so appealing. Take advantage of the naysayers out there. They are out there and they serve a purpose. Use their criticism and skepticism as a way to grow the idea. And the only way you’ll truly be able to do that consistently is to learn how to relish in the beauty of ideas and to encourage & teach those around you to do the same.

A metaphor of baseball and banks

As I write this, I’m finding many analogies out there between the economy and the steroids epidemic in baseball. Each of those comparisons liken the stimulus to steroids. However, I think the analogy works better when going back a little further. The stimulus is the government’s attempt to make up ground for its lack of oversight, just as Selig is attempting to fix the reputation of baseball. The stimulus is not the drug that bloated our country with a false sense of prosperity. It was greed!

There are plenty of articles and books you can read to gain a fuller understanding of what happened with our economy. I’m not attempting to tackle that monster in this post. I just want to draw a few comparisons - and in that maybe others can have a new perspective for ways we can work ourselves out of it.

The steroids issue in baseball is not a collection of a few isolated instances. When all of the top players are being slapped with charges of use, we must realize that those are not the only instances. They’re the “roaches” (when you see one there are thousands more you don’t see.) Instead, the steroids in baseball issue is much more of a systemic culture that permeates the sport. [Read more →]

I’ve said it in the past that all companies should strive to participate in interactive and social media. But that doesn’t mean that all companies are ready for it. First, they need to take an introspective look at themselves. Because if you want to market in social media, you have to be transparent. (See my previous post on this topic.)

Today Facebook, the undisputed leader in social networks affirms this notion with their post Governing the Facebook Service in an Open and Transparent Way. In it, Mark starts by eloquently saying:

“Our main goal at Facebook is to help make the world more open and transparent. We believe that if we want to lead the world in this direction, then we must set an example by running our service in this way.

We sat down to work on documents that could be the foundation of this and we came to an interesting realization—that the conventional business practices around a Terms of Use document are just too restrictive to achieve these goals. We decided we needed to do things differently and so we’re going to develop new policies that will govern our system from the ground up in an open and transparent way.”

This is the language and the model that is brining the web to new levels and higher standards. The old way of looking at advertising still has it’s purpose. But if you want to be successful in marketing on this medium, you have to understand the basic rules.

[Read more →]

Collaboration is a common buzzword (especially in politics and advertising). It suggests creativity and innovation. Yet, we seem to mistake collaboration for something more unproductive: compromise. Compromise typically breeds dissatisfaction for all parties involved, but that is exactly how many of us collaborate.

With compromise, it works like this: we have a perspective on how to address a challenge. Because of that perspective, we have a certain solution in mind. Then, another group enters the room with their own perspectives, and now our solution must contend with theirs. While we may personally want the best for everyone, we mostly want our idea out there.

Maybe it’s ego. Maybe we truly believe our idea is the best solution. Nobly, we might feel that there is some truth to our solution and all it needs is a little tweaking, so we listen to their solution. There are parts that sound interesting and others that aren’t so appealing. So, we negotiate for some middle ground and we arrive at a solution that is neither ours nor theirs, but something that is half-baked from two dissenting solutions. [Read more →]