Make no mistake, there are some challeging times ahead for companies. And one of the big ones is dealing with the influx of new employees and the successful transition of young managers into the ranks of decision makers. Beth Kanter discusses social media as a form of innovation within NGOs here and points out this great slideshow from Sacha Chua. A taste of things to come? It is only a matter of time ;)
Greg Verdino's challenging post Beyond Knowledge has generated some great discussion on the nature of knowledge and the impact of the Internet/Web 2.0 on how we all tap into this massive "crowdsourced brain". I have been fascinated by the concept of knowledge management for years and actually ran a KM group for IBM years ago -- and what I learned then (and what Greg clearly identifies upfront) is that knowledge is not the domain of technology (yet) but of people.
You see, there are lots of really smart people out there in the world. They can be working in your business, they might be sitting in the cube next to you, or they could be on the other side of the planet. But how do you know what they know? How can they manifest this in a way that allows their expertise to shine out and reach the person who needs it? For this to happen you need a couple of things -- you need:
In the web 2.0 world, we have platforms coming out our ears -- we have blogs, wikis, video sharing sites, podcasts etc. We also have tagging and bookmarking to categorise and share our interests. And we have search engines and rating systems etc to connect it all up. But all this lives in the cloud and is the domain of cloud computing.
It is using all these elements that you, dear reader, are able to find my often misguided marketing meanderings. It is what allows the thoughts and ideas of one individual to reach out beyond the circles of life limited by time and geography. But why does this breakthrough? As Greg points out, I think it has to do with seeing the value in a shift from knowledge to conversation (or as Greg says, "connection").
When I worked at IBM we held seminars and meetings. Lots of them. We showcased ideas and project work. We wrote about them on the intranet. We championed the individuals whose efforts and breakthroughs made innovation possible. And we talked. And the thing that worked most effectively was the lunchtime meetings ... having one person tell the story of how they solved a problem. It was like a lightening rod ... conversation erupted, ideas leaped across the room. It was great.
So we decided to go bigger. While the virtual meetings were well subscribed, there was a demand for face-to-face storytelling. Everyone loved the ideas but also wanted to see the face behind the innovation -- and our first series of seminars filled lecture halls to overflowing.
We were building a forum for ideas. But there was a business purpose here ... I was also looking at commercial viability. I needed to be able to see a future opportunity -- a patent perhaps or the licensing of code. But I also needed to see something else -- a personal champion. As Greg points out, with knowledge freely available it becomes a commodity. A great idea can string separate knowledge chunks together -- but it takes a resilient person and a network of supporters to push through the barriers of innovation apathy to turn an idea into something tangible. It's no longer a case of "what you know" nor of "who you know" but of:
"who knows you + knows what you know".
And this is where Web 2.0 comes in. It is now far easier to create and enable these conversations via technology (in fact, this post is part of a conversation that is also occuring points out) or the sheer human pull of a good storyteller to make knowledge valuable.
Greg Verdino also promises another couple of posts extending this topic. I am looking forward to more conversation!
I love the way David Armano translates concepts into visuals. I am envious. It seems effortless (which is a sure sign of mastery).
I, on the other hand, have little to no visual skill. Well I can do composition and layout, but not design. Not like a real designer. In my last job I would often be working on a whiteboard discussing the features of functions of a website and begin drawing what I was thinking only to have one of my team stand up, remove the marker from my hand and begin to visually translate for me (yeah I am that bad).
My tool of choice is words. Storytelling. But after years as a consultant, I also like diagrams. I like flows. I like to map abstract ideas. It is also partly why I am fascinated by the concept of "innovation" -- how do you turn the abstract into something intangible into a real business outcome (hmm ... sounds a lot like branding now that I think on it).
That's why, when I saw this Periodic Table of Visualization Methods over at the fabulous and insightful Innovation Feeder blog, I gasped out loud. Not only can you use this as a resource to help you work through an idea, build a process or pull together random elements, this interactive table also gives you popup examples and descriptions. Awesome. I am sure Katie will like this.
Today was a bit of a Ross Dawson fest for me. Not only did I listen to the podcast that he recorded with Stan Relihan, I also found this cool Shanghai Tube-inspired map of trend predictions for 2008 (download the PDF here).
While I don't necessarily agree with the mainline destinations on the map, they do provide great food for thought. However, I do like the way that different trend lines intersect (eg where politics and demographics meet at a level crossing on the outskirts of a town called Anxiety), and the use of a recognisable map structure to convey a complex information architecture and messaging is brilliant.
The podcast, on the other hand, contained some gems. Ross talks about the way that social media is the future of organisations -- positing that enterprises now manage conversation flow in, through and out of the organisation in ways that traditional media companies do. This means that similar disciplines and approaches need to be put in place to harness, transform and unleash this information/knowledge as a way of delivering competitive advantage (my explanation).
I also found Ross' definition of Web 2.0 refreshingly simple. He says, Web 2.0 "... transforms mass participation into something valuable". From a brand and advertising point of view, this has some obvious implications:
With these three questions in mind, make sure you ask your agency/marketing team how participative media/web 2.0 is going to transform your business this year. Run these answers across the Trend Blend map and you may well have the seeds of a digital strategy sitting in the palm of your hand. It is already shaping up to be an interesting year.
I have been thinking over Microsoft's interest in Facebook ... and wondering what it is that is driving their strategic decision making. Sure there are strong customer acquisition drivers which become even more compelling when you consider this post by Charlene Li (explaining that this acquisition price is LIFELONG rather than transient -- but how long is "lifelong" in a Web 2.0 world?).
But the more I think on this, the more it makes sense. You see, Microsoft are not really buying customers, they are buying a PLATFORM OF INFLUENCE. The Platform of Influence is a precondition for what Ross Dawson calls "attention profiling" (one of his six trends tranforming living online). Ross explains attention profiling in this way:
4. Attention profiling We are moving to a world of infinite content. The proliferation of blogs, online publications, podcasts, and videos means we are swamped with information. The first phase of the response has been user filtered content or collaborative filtering on sites such as Last.FM and scouta.com, giving us personalized recommendations. The next phase will be to develop detailed profiles of our interests and behaviors across different categories of content, so that we can access or be presented with content in a way that matches our available attention relative to the relevance and interest of the content. The two most promising initiatives in this space - Particls and illumio - have both been launched in the last couple of months. We can expect it to become a completely seamless process to find or be given what we want from an infinite landscape of content.
While I see the value in attention profiling, the very concept raises many questions. You will, no doubt, have others, but mine are:
I think this is where Facebook comes in and precisely where there is potential value for Microsoft. Not only does Facebook already perform low level personal filtering, it already enables some of the collaborative filtering that Ross discusses. For example, I am much more inclined to join a group, read a post or attend an event that is already on the list of my influencers. This means that the distinction between decision and action is compressed and accelerated -- mostly thanks to the influencing power of my personal/professional network. Microsoft has wanted to bring its brand into our lives more seamlessly for years ... and this may well prove to be its best opportunity yet.
Blogged with Flock
Tags: Platformof Influence, Charlene Li, Ross Dawson, attention profiling, Facebook, Microsoft
There has been talk for many years about how gaming or game theory can have positive impacts on brands, marketing and even learning and retention. Marketers have been quick to apply traditional marketing approaches to the gaming world -- product placement, in-game advertising and so on. Educationalists on the other hand have applied gaming snippets to their curriculums -- especially as more and more learning moves online -- finding benefits in terms of awareness, retention and knowledge transfer. But IBM is taking this a step further ... using the closed-world of gaming to create an immersive learning experience that effectively crushes the distinctions between the IBM brand, the service/solutions that they offer and the learning/certification options available.
This game which will provide simulated learning (based on IBM's new services oriented architecture (SOA) and business process management (BPM) solutions) is still in beta testing with universities and business partners but it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
For the last couple of days I have been having an interesting time digging around in the corporate marketing sphere ... and one of the things that has surprised me is the lack of cross-over between the client and agency sides -- especially considering how closely the two must work to build and grow brands. It strikes me that there are plenty of things that the client and agency sides can learn from each other ... and then I found an article over at Strategy + Business that put a smile on my face.
This article by Gregor Harter, Edward Landry, and Andrew Tipping on the "Complete Marketer" talk about the six emerging themes that are occupying the top CMOs. These are:
Blogged with Flock
Read this. Creativity is a funny thing. Similarly with innovation. It is that intangible quality or movement that we recognise when we see it or feel it ... but find it difficult to systematise. And while there are whole industries dedicated to creativity and innovation and the book shelves are packed with how-tos, step-by-steps and self directed courses -- the essential key to creativity continues to elude us.
The business world loves innovation and creativity. The lexicon of innovation fills our annual reports and press releases, it slots into the collateral and brochureware of our marketing departments, squeezing any substantive meaning out of the words. It is a dead-end game.
But while the business world loves innovation and creativity, it is designed not to unleash innovation but to stifle it. Those charged with driving innovation and creativity within an organisation are often sidelined for promotion and described as "square pegs" or of needing to "grow up". Furthermore, innovation champions tend to achieve in spite of an organisation, not through its support ... the accolades landing only after a tenacious leader has succeeded in overcoming the barriers, solved the political, cultural and work-related problems and emerged on the other side, weary yet exhilarated.
And despite the realities of creativity and innovation, despite the commercialisation and amateurisation of creativity, there are still thousands of new graduates lining up for work in what can loosely be called the "creative" industries. Why would this be? Why would common sense dictate that any smart, inventive and driven professional keep well away?
The truth is, that in any enterprise (commercial, artistic or otherwise), there is a need for a wide range of skills, expertise and personality types. And while organisations employ techniques and tests to help quantify and qualify "staff" or "resources" or even "personalities", like many things, our skills and interests are malleable and resistant to categorisation. The "square peg" of Monday can also be the "round hole" on Tuesday -- slipping into the different roles dependent upon occasion. This type of Creative Chameleon is not only a business asset, but also a strategic differentiator. Have you seen one of these in your business? They are stranger and more imaginative than you might guess.
With every passing year we think we become smarter. We get a new gadget, a new phone (sometimes we can't tell the difference between the two), a new car, a new hair do and sometimes even a new body. We read more, learn more, study harder, work longer and balance our work and our "life". We "consume" media in ever new formats denoted by TLAs and order-in the food we are simply too tired to cook ourselves.
After writing this post on focus groups, I received some great comments and feedback. I also got a question that made me stop and think ... KG asked:
Since MySpace, YouTube, blogs, and all 2.0 phenomena, have focus group participants become a little too media-savvy? Or too jaded because they're constantly surrounded by media messages in their leisure time?
It's a great question because it raises a number of other questions about the nature of our audiences, their analytic ability and their willingness to act. My view is this ...
In that focus group participants are "supposed" to be representative of us lot, then we are really talking about the GP (general public). And you know, we might be interested in blogs, might write or read them, and sometimes even comment on them, but I don't think that changes the fundamental drives that attract us to products and services. If anything, it makes us admire good marketing/sales more because we have some understanding of the techniques.
Having said that, I think we also are more short tempered. We don't suffer fools or poor quality -- we fast forward through ads or remove them via TiVo, we click away from those annoying interstitials (which agencies think they work anyway?) and find alternatives to YouTube when Google puts too many ads in feed.
Does this make us smarter or more savvy? Does it affect the sample? No ... I think these changes are, to a degree, uniform -- affecting more or less equally. And if we are all smarter or more tired or more overwhelmed, then it balances out.
BUT ... KG also seems to be asking a hidden question -- is marketing still effective? And the answer is yes -- but a "qualified yes". Because we are more savvy, overwhelmed, tired and plain fed-up, and because we can now choose the timing, method and manner of our consumption of media, we are also changing the dynamic. We seek truthfulness and authenticity. We seek dialogue and engagement. And we also seek novelty and entertainment. This means that, as marketers, we need new tools to engage our audiences.
But remember, no matter HOW much smarter we are ... there are still some of us who are going to tattoo our asses.
OK ... in case you get this via text only RSS ... take a look at this cool light pen on film. It is not JUST about the beauty ... it is about the process behind the creation. Thanks to The Staufenbergers.
I was reading Russell Davies' blog as usual and came across this great post from June. I remember at the time of first reading that I loved the title "The Tyranny of the Big Idea" as it seemed to capture the strange attraction we all have with "big ideas", and how we stop and wait until one arrives.
One of the reasons I enjoy blogging is that it allows you to start with a small idea. You can explore and create episodically. You can jump from one idea to the next and you can link out to other people and their ideas effortlessly. And the more you blog, the more that ideas and stories begin to coalesce. And as you follow the links, you come face-to-face with emotions, habits and brands. And importantly, you come up close to people ... because it is clear, in blogging, that you are dealing with an individual. As Russell says, it is not about big ideas ...
This isn’t about phrase-making. It’s not about the actual words, it’s the bundle of ideas, activities, history, products, people, attitudes, emotions, habits that the words represent.
And as usual, Russell gives away a secret. He generously gives us some insight about HOW you can work with ideas in this context. There are five steps to get started:
My favourites are "start doing stuff" and "look for patterns that emerge". The important thing to remember is that small ideas are fast ... they are fast to devise and work with, they are fast to get to market and they are quick to show returns. And the good thing, if they aren't living up to expectations, then you can manage, modify and move them. And because they don't take 12 months to work through and execute, you don't need to run through research because you run it through your ACTUAL market.
Of course, the first thing to do is to let go of the big idea. Sure there is a tyranny ... but there is also a level of addiction. We are drawn to the power of the big idea ... now we just need to refocus and find a love of FAST.
OK ... you know I love anything to do with typography ... so check this out! This installation transforms the text written on a computer into a water curtain ... very cool. Thanks to Ariel for this one!
This is a great idea, and one that many musicians may want to follow. Terra Naomi extends her MySpace site with this YouTube tutorial on how to play one of her songs. OK ... I admit, I don't know her music, but somehow stumbled across it ... and liked the idea.
Of course, there are issues around copyright and publishing, but "word of mouth" carries much faster if it is sung!
We all love the romance of a big idea. They set our brains and imaginations on fire, overtake our senses (and sometimes our common sense), make our eyes pop, stomachs turn and arms flail about like streamers. They hit us like rocks or buses. They shake us out of ourselves.
And while big ideas are thrilling, they can also be dangerous. When reading Simple and Loveable's Tim Norton's post on teamwork, I was struck by this great quote:
There's probably plenty of people like me, I'm not an easy person to deal with at times, I say things I dont mean when I get heated (I still create too much heat), I over-focus on certain areas and let others of massive importance slip, I come up with 'big ideas' but struggle to bring them back down to earth and make them simple, I get things started and moving, but battle to finish...
I particularly like "I come up with 'big ideas' but struggle to bring them back down to earth and make them simple".
It is a common problem ... not just in the creative field. I am sure there are many of us who have had a great idea and become caught up in its pull. But as is often stated, it is not about the idea, but about its execution. The challenge of the BIG idea is to make it SMALL, or as Tim says, to bring it "back down to earth". As David Armano says, "It’s not about me. It’s about attracting consumers, engaging customers and meeting user’s needs" ... the idea is important, but it doesn't work, if it doesn't win. And it doesn't win if it doesn't communicate to your audience and address their wants, needs and expectations.
To deliver on the promise of the big idea, you need to make the big idea small. You need to do this to execute it and to control it. You need to do this to make it understandable to someone outside of your own space -- whether they are a client, a consumer, your business partner or your boss. And by making the big idea small, you can make sure that you manage it, and are not overcome by the connections, challenges and linkages.
I am beginning to think that a Compliant Idea is a BIG idea made small. Hmmm ... yet more to think upon.
S.
What does your resume look like? Is it neat? Does your work and experience fit into neat categories? Is there a clear line between where you went to school, what you did at university and where you have worked for years? Not me. I am, after all, the servant of chaos.
Along the way I have been provided many opportunities, opened some myself and learned plenty along the way. I have come from accounting and economics into drama and performance, stopped by higher study (one day I would like to be Dr Servant of Chaos), done some teaching, theatre directing, book editing and ran my own small business for a while. I wrote technical documentation, created online learning, became a project manager, graphic design, web developer, started a new business, grew a team, commercialised technology "innovation" and managed knowledge all in a stint with IBM. I think I had a job description for about the first five minutes ... then it got more interesting from there.
My next boss steadfastly refused to give me a job description. He told me that the job I was taking wasn't "that kind of job". It was more free form, less cog, more oil.
I was reminded of this while reading over Seth Godin's Change This short version of Small is the New Big. He has a section where he is talking about the challenges of innovation -- something I have been harping on about over the last couple of days. He talks about the need to constantly reinvent and push our own innovative approach to our work -- and that YOUR success is dependent upon measuring YOUR OWN worth, not waiting for a job description to do so. But enough about me ... take the words from Mr Godin:
The end result is that it’s essentially impossible to become successful or well-off doing a job that is described and measured by someone else.
This is WHY you don't want a job description.
S.
I was reading some of the posts over at Mike Sansone's CoverStations blog (thanks to Clay Parker Jones for the link) and got carried away with some of the ideas there.
Then I ended up over at Logic + Emotion reading a quote of the day -- and got caught by this quote from Guy Kawasaki:
"it’s one thing to write about, or read about, a successful company after-the-fact and analyze how it achieved success. It’s another to build that successful company from scratch. Everyone knows that the innovator’s dilemma is to find a tipping point in order to cross the chasm. The question is not “why?” but “how?”.
It is a great quote because it encapsulates many of the issues that marketers and business innovators struggle with -- if only we had hind sight! Of course, innovation is HARD work ... and the reason WHY is the HOW that Guy Kawasaki is talking about.
Innovation is hard because it comes down to making ideas happen. The ideas themselves are cheap ... but the ability to implement them, to take a concept, sell it (to supporters), fund it, build it, get people excited about it and then take it to market ... all without putting a foot wrong! Well THAT is hard work. There are many decisions to be made, many competing agendas to connect and limited attention. But in a startup situation, the challenge is all the more acute.
So I began to think about the HOW of a startup.
There are plenty of opportunities for startups to maintain their innovation and cockiness early on. But as they become successful, as they start to generate income rather than buzz, and as they begin to formalise some of the fluid processes that made them successful, there are many "solidifying" temptations to resist. The venture capitalists may want a steady hand on the tiller ... the other investors may want more governance ... and the banks may want a more conservative financial controller.
But of course, internally, there has also been a lot going on ... lessons have been learned, teams have become fixed and their speed has increased. The rough and ready are now silky smooth. They can take two steps at a time rather than one. And this is where innovation starts to decay.
Johnny Moore has a great post here explaining some of this type of thinking. Johnny is revisiting a book by Ellen Langer called Mindful Learning. He quotes from the book:
When people overlearn a task so that they can perform it by rote, the individual steps that make up the skill come together into larger and larger units. As a consequence, the smaller components of the activity are essentially lost, yet it is by adjusting and varying these pieces that we can improve our performance.
I had never really considered innovation in this way before! But then it started to make sense ... the slow connection of ideas, the sequencing of small acts into a unified whole ... an organisation geared towards the generation of ideas and their implementation. It was starting to resemble some of the work I was doing at IBM many years ago -- focusing on some of the key, small, innovative programs, processes and approaches that yielded significant commercial or competitive advantage and sharing them with the rest of the company.
It is easy to think that innovation is BIG ... but for every big idea, my guess is that there are thousands of smaller innovations that have been meticulously put in place. Innovation is hard because we are always looking for a big idea ... when really we just need a small one to kick us along.
S.
Sometimes we have to work hard for an idea, and at other times ideas can just come streaming into our consciousness. But once we have an idea, how do we turn it into something?
When you work for yourself, or you own a small business, the time between idea generation and implementation can be very small. You can think it, then do it. But when you are in a larger organisation there are many reasons that prohibit ideas being tested in your market ... and you have probably experienced this before:
There are plenty more.
BUT there is a more important question -- have you actually asked anyone about your idea?
You see, it is easy to kill off an idea before it even gets to someone else. Many times WE (the person who plucked the idea from their imagination) actually stop an idea before it gets too big. WE are the ones who talk ourselves out of it ... and then never get around to suggesting it to someone else. By talking ourselves out of it, the idea never gets to see the light of day.
Does this make it a bad idea? Of course not. It just means that we don't have faith in the idea. We don't have confidence in our ability to gather the resources, harness the team and build the idea into something worth showing others, talking about or selling. REALLY what you have done, is kill off your idea by THINKING!
Well if this sounds like YOU ... take a look at this post by Seth Godin.
It is a great post because it refocuses the questions that you ask around idea generation and innovation ... not why could it FAIL, but what would happen if it did FAIL? What is the worst case scenario? (Then, of course, you could ask what if it was a crazy SUCCESS?)
Which ever way it turns out, you are going to create a GREAT story. You are going to LEARN. And next time you will do it better.
Is it still a risk? You bet! But what is the alternative?
Thanks again to Spell with Flickr!
S.
I love this post on Johnnie Moore's blog. It has a great quote from Lisa Haneberg:
"A leader is most effective when people barely know he exists. When his work is done, his aim fulfilled, his troops will feel they did it themselves." Lao Tzu ...
How do you select, hire, measure, and retain invisible leaders? Now that's the rub. Well, if they love what they do (and they'd have to) retention is probably not the issue. Finding invisible leaders will take more work and a whole new mindset toward hiring criteria. The behavioral interview, so popular today, might not work to find the best invisible leader.
I always like to think that I work this way ... but if I don't, it gives me good reason to think about my approaches.
Any other suggestions are welcome!
S.
Chuck Frey over at Innovation Weblog consistently publishes thought provoking articles, hosts discussions on the topic of innovation and points us all to presentations, books, articles and videos by leading innovators. He has a great summary of a video on innovation at Google ... with links through to the video of Marissa Mayer's seminar at Stamford.
It is a great video if you have 50 minutes or so to spare. But if you don't, check out Chuck's summary of the 9 principles of innovation at Google.
Take a look at Chuck's list and let me know your favourite ... mine is "Creativity loves constraints".
S.
In a recent post I was wondering how MANY ideas are enough to present to clients ... and then this article over at Chuck Frey's Innovation Weblog got me thinking further.
The reason that it is easy to throw so many ideas at a client is because they are CHEAP to produce. Even good ideas are a dime a dozen! Many marketers and creatives can generate hundreds of ideas in a single brainstorming session ... some may later be discarded, or modified, or otherwise transformed -- but the problem is not the NUMBER of ideas. The problem is not even the QUALITY of the ideas. The problem is in their COMPLIANCE -- how easy are the ideas to implement or execute?
In a busy world, the Compliant Idea is going to win. It will win with your boss and will probably win with your clients ... it will probably also win with your audience. The Compliant Idea will have a wrap-around story, it will have an infectious nature and it will be easily transportable. Most importantly, it will allow your audience to pick it up and run with it.
Of course, even the most compliant of ideas are going to provide challenges when it comes to implementation, which is where all good ideas are tested (as are way too many bad ones). But you will see and hear a Compliant Idea from miles away ... they sound like steam trains. They give my friend Katie goosebumps.
If ideas are cheap (and they are), keep brainstorming until you find one that gives you goosebumps. Keep going until you hear the whistle blowing, then climb aboard for the ride.
S.
Update: Also see the category on Compliant Ideas.
With thanks to Mike Wagner for the link to Diego Rodriguez's Metacool.
Title courtesy of Spell with Flickr.
I was listening to the radio on my way to work this morning and heard a couple of words that made my ears tingle! The words were "organisational renewal".
A few years ago, when I worked at IBM, I was particularly interested in "organisational change". I was fascinated by the complex play between work culture, technology, business and process ... and mostly by the power of words to help implement and achieve the type of change that we were aiming for.
I like the sound of organisational renewal. I like the sense of momentum it holds and the potential for positive change that it suggests. Mostly I like the way it repositions the concept of "organisational change" which tends to sound very institutional rather than part of the life of a company.
What do you think?
S.
OK ... I know you have heard me before on this ... and really I should file this under RANT rather than the kindly "innovation", but I must agree with Seth Godin on the use of focus groups.
A focus group is not going to help you plot your way forward. They are not going to give you the answers to your serious business or marketing challenges. They may, at best, help knock some rough edges off your tactical efforts. They will answer your questions within the framework parameters that you specify -- but if you want more from them, then you are wasting their time and your money.
There is NO shortage of good ideas, but there really is a shortage of capability in delivering upon them. Wherever you look you will find an endless conga line of consultants, marketers and agencies all vying for your attention. But can they deliver? Are they flexible enough to be able to change direction mid-stream? Save your research money and plough it into planning and implementation then be prepared to learn fast.
And leave focus groups to the dinosaurs.
S.
It is important to have a story to tell. It is great to know that you have an audience. But once you know these things, you also need to know where you want to LEAD your audience. How will your story evolve as you begin to interact with your audience? And what is the difference between interacting with, and ACTIVATING, your audience?
All these questions began raging through my mind as I read Johnnie Moore's excellent summary of current and future projects over at the BBC. It is clear from the list that the BBC face many challenges, but are building a strong web platform that not only allows for interaction, it activates their diverse audiences. From online games to digital broadband, and from issue-oriented discussion/blog forums through to digital archives and mobile Internet ... the programs under development (or already active) are using technologies in the way that PEOPLE want to use them.
I love the way that they are not just using the technology to tell their own story ... but also allowing others to tell personal stories or to create new modes of storytelling. Something to watch as it evolves!
S.
We all know that meetings can be a waste of time. We also know that sometimes they can pave the way for significant insight and innovation.
Johnnie Moore is looking at the concept of "presence" in meetings and whether such an honest position for participants yields better outcomes. I presume, of course, that the meetings are supposed to be collaborative and that you are working within (or trying to work within) a team structure.
There are some interesting approaches that can be taken that borrow directly from the theatre. Fundamental to these approaches is RISK.
For performers (and we all are, really), every performance requires the balancing of risk and the acceptance of trust. You need to trust in the script, the director, the lighting etc -- and you need to trust your fellow thespians to perform well, say their lines, give you the correct cues and jump in when you forget your lines. But there is also significant risk ... you are displaying yourself to the world in an unusual way, you have to decide how long to wait for a cue before jumping in, you can expect criticism (sometimes in print or web), director's notes and a thousand other things.
Now, of course, the theatre has workshops and rehearsals, cold readings and line runs and a whole series of techniques that have been devised to support an actor's performance. But then, the actor has to deliver a "true" or a "believable" peformance. In my limited (but intense) experience, this will only occur when the environment and the preparation is right -- and that is when everyone feels safe enough to risk it (whatever "it" means to that person).
Just like in meetings -- if everyone feels safe, then you are most likely to achieve a sense of presence or "being in the moment". However, there are also ways of using presence (on the part of one person) to breakthrough the politics of meetings. I will write more on this later (thanks to Johnnie Moore for starting this stream of thought for me).
S.
Isn't it funny the way that smaller, innovative companies change as they grow. With the trappings of success come legions of consultants who will help you to "grow your business". And while there are serious advantages to developing strong processes and internal systems, it is also easy for these processes and systems to stamp out the thing that made your company unique.
Often it starts with a new "mission statement". Then comes the offsite strategy meeting (or "love in"), the hiring of a fleet of MBAs and a renewed focus on "innovation". Suddenly, being "creative" simply does not come into your business day.
Does this sound famillar? Guy Kawasaki has a way of rating the level of "bozosity" in your company. Want to rate your company? Do an evaluation online.
Remember, it is not your score that is important, it is what you do about it that counts!
S.
There are always going to be people who tell you what you CAN'T do. There are always going to be reasons to stop, to give in or to "do as you are told". Sometimes even your loyal customers will also tell you not to proceed with your idea.
Russell Davies points us to a summary of "feedback" about the launch of Apple's iPod. One piece of feedback stated:
I for one am disappointed and think that apple is making a mistake by trying to get into this market.
This just adds fuel to my post about focus groups. Here, Apple's customers were telling or retelling brand stories from the recent past. The customers were considering the iPod not as a revolution in the way that we consume and engage with music, but as the descendent of Apple's Newton -- it was the next chapter in a narrative of failure.
So where did Apple go right? They saw the opportunity as one of disconnection. They were not reading the Apple Story -- they were reading the story of the music industry and could see the potential for disruption and reinvigoration. They would have needed a whole swarm of product evangelists to keep the project humming along ... but at least they would have been humming the same tune!
I say, believe in your own good ideas. Even the one's that bite you will teach you a lesson. And the ideas that win, win big.
S.
When looking for inspiration or for innovation, many marketers turn to focus groups. This is "tried and true", makes us feel like we are gaining insight and a valuable understanding of consumer behaviour. And while, yes, it may yield some insight, it won't necessarily lead to breakthrough innovation.
Focus groups reiterate old stories. The participants talk about your brand and your products or services and (depending on the strength of your brand) will tell your story according to their experience. In general, the story you will hear in focus groups is already yesterday's story (or last weeks' or last years').
But innovation is about future stories. Innovation doesn't start with "once upon a time", it starts with "imagine if ...". Innovation is hard work, but it must be done by YOU. You can't expect your customers to innovate for you (and I know there are some who do ... but I am talking about customers not evangelists) ... it is not their job. As Steve Cone says "Focus Groups are a waste of time and money" ... and quoting Henry Ford:
"If I had asked my customers what they wanted they would have said a faster horse."
The innovation that a customer may have about your business is to move to your competitor who is engaging them in product development via blogs, updating them with podcasts and serving them with truly unique products. So start imagining your future today, and start telling a whole new story (maybe in a whole new way).
S.
Now this is cool ... if you have ever wanted to try your hand at podcasting, or if you know what it takes and can't be bothered with the hassle OR if you just like to try out new stuff online, well this site may be one to add to your list.
The Gcast team are currently supporting Bono's ONE Campaign and you can hear episode 2 online now. So, this is a cool story-telling technology with its own story to tell ... does it get any better?
Phil Gerbyshak points us towards this site and claims that he is also going to be giving this a try. I am relatively new to reading his blog, but there is plenty of interesting material to paw over.
S.
Technology has the potential to revolutionise our lives. The challenge is making the "technology" disappear to the point that it becomes just an "enabler" of interactivity rather than a "driver".
This technology is definitely heading in the right direction.
