Enlightened Conflict

Order and Chaos

February 3rd, 2017

order chaos consistent hugh

 

============

 

“There seems to be a kind of order in the universe … in the movement of the stars and the turning of the Earth and the changing of the seasons.

 

But human life is almost pure chaos.

Everyone takes his stance, asserts his own right and feelings, mistaking the motives of others, and his own.”

 

—-

Katherine Anne Porter

 

================

 

Well.

 

What an interesting thought this quote offers.

historic thinkerSuggesting that it isn’t Life that is random and chaotic … but rather us.

 

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

This suggests that Life, if left alone, would be quiet, orderly and consistent.

That is something quite contrary to what I have written and what I believe most of us tend to think about.

 

I know I tend to think of Life as indifferent to us and , in fact, tends to care only about itself and its humorous existence by randomly pulling the strings of our Life on occasion just to make sure we are paying attention.

 

What if I have been thinking about it all wrong?

 

What if it is really just us crazy humans and not Life itself that creates the sometimes quirky zigs & zags in Life?

 

Wow.

 

If it is us then … well … we all better get our shit together.

 

This would mean that not only do we need to stop thinking about how we adapt to the quirks of everyday life but that we need to become better fighters of better human behavior <and attitudes I would imagine>.

 

Why?met the enemy and it is us pogo

 

Well.

 

Because this means the enemy is us.

 

This would suggest that there is, and will always … always, be something good we will need to be fighting for.

 

This would also suggest that what we see as true individual autonomy, which we most often associate with a sense of freedom, is a false narrative.

 

It is false because our self-interest and autonomy is not unfettered by rules or obligations to others but rather constricted, or fettered, by other people.

 

I would imagine we could view this on maybe several levels … our own self interest, imposed self interest <rules and guidelines set up by some larger entity> and the other persons’ self interest.

 

We then see the world as an orderly place if, and only of, all those things are aligned and all have the same interest at the same time for some meaningful amount of time from which we can get some sense of orderliness.

This would also then suggest that any adversity is not Life imposed but self imposed <if not by you but by someone else>.

 

But there is another aspect. I need to go back to the interest trinity of own self interest, imposed self interest <rules and guidelines set up by some larger entity> and the other persons’ self interest.

opinions fight myself

For if we only seek obedience to the ‘imposed interest’ we are doomed for failure.

Simplistically this is why authoritarianism and totalitarianism and autocracies fail.

They try to impose self interest which, more likely than not, does not actually align with real self interest and this generates a feeling of adversity … and chaos.

Which is slightly odd in that we are generating chaos from order.

All this does is point out that imposed order is more likely to create chaos than not.

 

There is a phrase called ‘obedient autonomy’ and I am purposefully misusing it to make a point.

 

Individualistic autonomy is a false narrative. Yes. we can make individual choices but unless we are on some island, alone, … we inevitably interact with other people and are connected culturally in a variety of ways.

 

We must have some self-imposed order to enable the greater whole to have a greater good.

Our self imposed order limits chaos created by people … not created by Life.

 

And … if we get our self imposed order wrong? Whew. It only creates more adversity, more angst, more friction and more inefficient cultural and societal behavior.

 

All that philosophical mumbo jumbo aside … here is my point.

 

We sometimes confuse what appears to be a disorderly and uncertain world with what is actually just disorderly and uncertain people.

 

Therefore, maybe we confuse chaos or randomness with what is actually unpredictability due to our lack of understanding or information <or maybe a thread of ignorance>.

next generation of thinkers

I believe we all know that there has to be some kind of standard, some kind of mutual agreement and that ‘some’ means it should be captured in some laws, rules and guidelines. That is not really ‘imposed interest’ but rather ‘interest captured in guidelines.’

This shouldn’t be that hard to grasp because, similarly, we all know there are clearly some scientific laws that govern the universe.

These are the things that help make some aspects of life predictable and orderly.

 

I read somewhere … there isn’t really much variation from stone to stone, or from lion to lion, or from cloud to cloud to us people. Therefore, you would have to say that without people the universe is extremely orderly with the occasional exception that actually proves the rule rather than disprove this rule of thinking.

 

Therefore, if we see randomness or we see chaos, it is not ‘the world’ nor is it some ‘universe thing’ … but rather people and personalities creating what we “see”.

 

 

thinker thumbtackWhy does that matter?

 

Because what people make … people can unmake.

Just ponder that when you think about a universe and world and Life which seems uncertain and out of control.

 

It is people creating that feeling of chaos & uncertainty and those people’s behaviors can always be constrained and contained by other peoples who are in the right and seek some orderliness.

raincoats

December 29th, 2016

 autumn-rain-fall

=========

 

“Because of the way this garment <Mackintosh raincoat> is made.

There is no stitching involved, it’s completely bonded/glued, in order to keep the garment completely waterproof. I owned a vintage Mac that I wore for years in my early twenties until someone stole it at a party.

Even after literally doing everything to wear it out, that coat always looked immaculate.”

============

 

Ok.

 

Today is the 250th birthday of the guy who invented the Mackintosh raincoat <a Glasgow Scot named Charles Macintosh>.

 

 

 

raincoat-charles-macintosh-google-doodle

 

I used to own a Mac. It was hot when wearing … but that sonuvabitch kept you dry as a bone.

 

Alas.

 

I believe it was a victim of one of the dozens of moves I have made as part of some garage sale or some Goodwill donation as I was purging things <that I only ended up rebuying again at some point>.

 

Charles Macintosh was a Scottish chemist and inventor of waterproof fabric.

 

Why am I writing about raincoats today <other than the fact I rue ditching my fabulous Mac>?

 

It is a reminder that inventions don’t have to be glamorous and that inventing is rarely glamorous.

 

It is a reminder that even with all the apps being ‘invented’ almost 95% of them are wasted energy and wasted money.

 

It is a reminder that most of the inventions that truly matter to us are the fruits of labor and not complete ingenuity but rather a practical ‘what the hell can I do with this’ attitude.

 

For example.

 

Macintosh had a nothing-wasted mind-set.

 

—-

His discovery of the long-sought solvent for rubber came out of his search for uses of some of the nastiest by-products of the nineteenth century progress,” Barnett writes. “Gas lamps were becoming popular in the cities of Europe, lighting up the wealthier streets and private homes. But the tar sludge left behind in the manufacture of coal gas was a public menace … Macintosh saw practical uses in the sludge and wastewater, which include valuable ammonia.

In 1819, Glasgow Gas Works was only too happy to sign a contract to sell him all the waste it produced.”

 

According to Today in Science, the sludge led to Macintosh’s famed invention:

In June 1823, Macintosh patented his process using a solution of india-rubber in naphtha soaked between two layers of cloth forming a sandwich that was pressed together. The rubber interior provided a layer impermeable to water, though still flexible.

His patent, No. 4,804, described how to “manufacture for rendering the texture of hemp, flax, wool, cotton, silk, and also leather, paper and other substances impervious to water and air.”

—-

 

From the nasty by products of civilization, which were thrown out as useless by the majority, one guy developed the rainproof fabric.

 

lamp bulb tulips isolated on white with clipping path

My point is that great ideas rarely arise from nothing … they arise from something. And they arise from someone who sees something in what others deem as useless or unimportant or some version of waste of time.

 

My point is that even disruption is defined by “discovering an unconventional way to do conventional things.’

 

My point is that the most meaningful inventions, the ones which impact the way we live, are not glitzy or glamorous or ‘seeking to be a global brand’ but rather pragmatic, practical and part of a way of living Life.

 

My point is that the best raincoat in the world was made from human excrement and industrial waste.

 

My point is that everything is useful.

 

young people smarter egg context

My point is that it is fairly likely that the next great idea is not going to be found by some branding guru or within some big high falutin’ brand but from someone we don’t know working in some garage using all the shit, some ideas and probably some random by-products … that all the ‘smart people’ have thrown away.

 

Don’t give me sob stories

September 3rd, 2016

 

this is business sob story

—————–

 

“Don’t give me sob stories,” she ordered me with sudden vehemence, striking the key words for emphasis.

 

“Every day people appeal to my emotions.

You can’t govern that way.

It simply isn’t fair.”

 

=====

Margaret Thatcher to John Le Carre

 

—————–

 

 

want need sign hard easyRunning a country is hard. Very hard.

 

Running a business is hard. Very hard.

 

It doesn’t mean you don’t have good days and it doesn’t mean that all the ‘hard’ doesn’t reap some benefits and joy but … well … hard is hard.

 

And maybe, just possibly, the hardest part is managing the emotional appeals you are faced with on an almost daily basis.

 

And I say that while ignoring the inevitable larger events & stories which compound the emotional aspects of leader decision making.

 

Leading is mostly about the day in and day out responsibility to the greater good and the greater whole. This certainly doesn’t mean you don’t look at the parts and how the parts & pieces are affected but you can’t get too close to individual aspects for fear of … well … a couple of reasons:

 

First is the functional responsibility a leader has.

The greater responsibility is to the whole and insuring the whole is fair, respected and healthy. There is certainly a responsibility to parts, the germs & healthy cells roaming the lifeblood of the whole, but sometimes I let a germ live because it has lesser consequences to the health of the whole than if I invest in something that makes the already healthier cells even more healthy.

 

Second is basic perspective.

Research studies clearly show that emotional decisions are often quite irrational and often quite … well … bad <or maybe better said … less than optimal>. A leader has the difficult responsibility to maintain perspective … even in the face of a crescendo of criticisms demanding ‘this situation is unique.” The optics of a good leader often looks bad.

 

Aloof. Disconnected. Unempathetic.

 

The greater responsibility is to the whole perspective and insuring what is fair and respectful to the whole.

 

This is going to sound bad … really bad in fact.

 

<… I am taking a deep breath here>

this too shall pass tough time choices decisions

 

But good leaders have a sense for “this too will pass” and simply pass on engaging with the individual engagement demand of the moment.

Yes. You acknowledge it and then ignore it.

 

To be clear. You don’t always make the right call and you don’t always get it right but the intent is 99% of the time purposefully not engaging to maintain perspective.

 

 

All that said.

 

Disconnecting from the emotional sob story, while still remaining connected to empathetic reasoning, may be one of the most difficult aspects of leading.

 

I don’t care if its 350 million people, 350 people or 35 people this tug of war between caring but not caring too much is constant and challenging. In addition it is a constant battle for self survival.

 

When thinking about this … inevitably what I believe most of us every day schmucks struggle to understand is the perspective.

 

Most people view things “I” up … and a leader has to look “we” down.

 

In other words … “I” has specific needs and I am willing to think about insuring other “I’s” have the same needs met. There is nothing wrong with this and it certainly can insure some healthy altruistic attitudes & behavior. But it does not reflect good leadership thinking.

 

In other words … “we” have larger needs and I am willing to sacrifice some of what some “I’s” want <and even, unfortunately, need in some cases> to insure the “we” needs are met. There is nothing wrong with this and, when done well, the greater whole prospers and is, in general, happy.

 

But it isn’t easy.

It is really hard.

 

And suffice it to say “ruling” by ignoring emotional appeals is more fair but it is still emotionally draining to a good leader.

 

Whether the 350 million, 350 or the 35 recognize it … there are many days when the 1, the leader, leaves the office with a heavy heart. And it is not heavy because 349,999,900 people, 341 people or 34 people went to sleep that day feeling pretty good about their day and their needs & wants & hopes … but because the few with a true sob story went to sleep that day sobbing.

 

You govern and lead by what is fair to the whole.

 

That’s just the way it is.

 

And just as Margaret Thatcher did … I would vehemently emphasize this business truth to anyone.

 

But.just do your best

That doesn’t mean I don’t think she went home some nights with the weight of someone’s emotional appeal on her mind.

 

That’s what I thought about today after I read this quote from Margaret Thatcher.

 

Oh.

 

And I also thought about whether I was fair and maintained the balance as a leader. I am not sure. I take some solace in the belief that almost every leader wonders the same thing.

 

angry strategizing

August 11th, 2016

if you are not angry you are not paying attention

======

 

 

“It’s time we stop worrying, and get angry you know?

But not angry and pick up a gun, but angry and open our minds.”

 

————————-

 

Tupac Shakur

============

 

 

This is hardly worth fighting for

But it’s the little petty shit that I can’t ignore

When my fist hits your face and your face hits the floor

 

It’ll be a long time coming

But you got the message now

‘Cause I was never going

You’re the one that’s going down

 

One of us is going down

I’m not running,

It’s a little different now

‘Cause one of us is going

One of us is going down

 

—————-

Sick Puppies

<You’re Going Down>

===============

 

Well.

 

The Olympics is reminding us of a topic which is not discussed often enough in business … angry competition. I call it angry strategizing.

angry strategy yell think business

 

 

Yeah.

 

The Olympics has reminded me about competing angry.

 

While the Olympics are supposed to be about the love of competition and a better world through sports competition … it is actually about determining the best in the world. And that, my friends, is not about love it is about the rage of competition.

And while I will surely give a nod to respect shown to other great competitors and the aftermath camaraderie that can only be had among the best in the world who have competed the hardest and recognize greatness around them at the Olympics, and how they do so even in loss, I must point out that the Olympic best carry a certain rage into their competitiveness.

 

It may not be the traditional version of anger but it is most certainly a version of anger.

 

And it drives them to compete with the intent to beat the shit out of whomever they are competing against and be the best they can be so they can actually be the best.

 

I say all that because I don’t believe enough business people strategize with some anger. Anger that … well … there are some stupid ideas out there …

 

some stupid opinions

 

some stupid attitudes

 

competitors say and do stupid things

 

and certainly there is a stupid acceptance of mediocrity.

 

I know that I have sat in a meeting room with some business partners and looked around at the competition and what they were doing and saying and … angry sign window republicanwell … got angry.

 

And got angry enough t want and do something about it.

 

 

Being angry in business. and, no, I am not talking about being some anger management candidate but I mean planning angry … developing a strategy thinking with some anger about the status quo … maybe even having some anger toward conventional thinking and certainly some anger against whomever you are competing <but you can still respect the ones who deserve the respect while doing so> is effective and leads to effective business strategy to create real distinction in the marketplace.

 

To be clear.

 

Anger, to me, is much more useful than disdain.

 

Disdain breeds some arrogance and certainly diminishes the capabilities of the competition as you think about competing against them. In your scoffing at them it suggests that it is … is … well … just not worth even thinking about.

 

Anger, on the other hand, suggests you are facing what is straight on … in its face … and taking it head on. Anger guides you not toward some flimsy white space but directly into the fray …  directly toward the space you want in a market <whether it is already occupied or not> and take it.

 

Or, as Admiral Nelson once said, “you can do no wrong by putting yourself as close to the enemy as possible.”

 

 

And you know what?

 

In business strategy that is smart.

 

So that is why I call this the angry business strategy.

 

Certainly … there is only one real way to win … and that is without cheating.

Anger almost forces you to not only recognize that there is no virtue to be found in taking a shortcut <although shortcuts never really exist anyway> … but that there is no long cut or shortcut but rather simply getting up and going … and competing to win.

 

I am sure someone will point out that it may simply be you look around and get aggravated by what you see and decide to do something about it.

 

But I think if you have the team, and you have the product or service and you actually have the means to make your mark in the business world … then … well … it is okay if you look around at the competition and the competitive business world and get a little pissed … not just aggravated.

 

You get a little angry …

This is stupid … there is a better way.

 

This is crazy … I have a better product.

 

This is nuts … I can’t believe people believe that shit.

 

Your anger puts an edge on what you decide to say and do.

 

Far too often we sit around and have pot after pot of strong coffee and have intellectual discussions on how to smartly effectively compete. We worry through some fairly random details, talk about being the best and then go ahead and be anything but the best.

 

So … you know what?

 

If you are better and have a better offering and are truly worth a shit and want people to know you are worth a shit … well then … there is no real intellectual challenge.

 

You get on with getting on.

 

You just get competitively angry and stand in the middle of the field and say “here I am, and I am not going down.”

 

strategy think anger angry business ideas filterI am not suggesting being stupid about competing.

 

Nor am I suggesting bludgeoning the industry and competitors with some dull edged hammer.

 

But I am suggesting the anger puts some attitude into your strategy and tactics.

 

It puts a sharper edge into your sense of competitive purpose.

 

And here is what I know.

 

If it isn’t blind anger but rather competitive anger … you won’t tiptoe into your messaging and go to market strategy. You will stride in with some swagger, some confidence and clearly some strong purposeful messaging.

 

I think … no … I know more businesses would do better to attack their business meeting angry business strategystrategy with some anger.

 

Get a little pissed about perceptions, attitudes and mediocrity.

 

Get pissed that people are accepting less than the best and less than real truth.

 

Get pissed at yourself if you are in a position where you don’t believe enough in yourself and your offering to be able to get pissed.

 

Yeah.

 

I do believe more businesses should strategize with some anger.

As Tupac said … not angry and pick up a gun, but angry and open our minds.

the attention value equation (may I have your attention?)

August 8th, 2016

ok look at me attention

 

==========

“An expert is someone who has succeeded in making decisions and judgements simpler through knowing what to pay attention to and what to ignore.”

 

—-

Edward de Bono

 

======

 

“Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity.”

 

——–

Simone Weil

 

====

 

“Genius is nothing but continued attention.”

 

—-

Claude Adrien Helvetius

 

=============

 

So.

attention trillion content strategy gain

Targeting customers in business, for business, used to be about … well … targets.  More specifically … demographics.

 

Well.

 

Not anymore.

 

First.

 

Attitude, or attitudinal targeting, has replaced age & income & crap like that.

 

What I mean by that is if you develop a compelling message that connects with aspirations & attitudes … well … I don’t really care about the demographics of someone.

 

This means a business goes forth ignoring who someone is physically and, with an intent to connect with or maybe change a mindset <or at least make the mind think> and create some desired behavior, goes out and connects with aspirations and expectations by delivering ‘something’ <it could be a variety of tactics, images & words> with relevance and resonance.

 

And then it all comes down to tactics <connection points – which is place & timing>.

 

Second.

 

Beyond the actual targeting of people <who should I aim my message at> it seems more and more we were actually paying attention to … well … attention.

 

Someone actually called this topic “the attention value equation.”

 

The equation is fairly simple …

 

“I give you my attention … I expect to get something in return” = some value

 

 

This value equation is almost like a transaction.

My attention is the currency which I am going to lay out on the table expecting to get something for it. And the true value? The attention giver actually feels like they got an additional ‘gift’ <that’s the highest order of attention value>.

 

Now.

 

Of course, in today’s word this creates some massive, but not insurmountable, behavior smartphone teléfonochallenges.

 

The opportunity exists in the fact that over 90% of almost the entire business targeting population now is interested in maximizing their ‘mobility.’ I once called this the ‘nomad generation’ but let’s just say that we are being socially conditioned to live much of our daily Life from wherever we are <enabled by some smart technology>.

 

The challenge is that “live much of our daily Life from wherever we are” is a self-empowered decision where attention is ‘given’ … uhm …‘spent’ … if I continue with the equation theory.

 

Whatever I spend I … well … don’t want to “lose” <get nothing for it>.

 

And while many people smarter than I would step in here and suggest we should treat attention as a gift I will not. I will suggest that attention is money extended as part of a transaction. But with a twist.

 

They are paying upfront. You get the money no matter what. They get nothing if you give them nothing <uh oh>.

 

That thought places attention unequivocally into a transaction equation.

 

And that is the reason why from the ‘attention receiver’ standpoint content marketing is an essential tactic. Because it isn’t really a tactic … it is an intimate engagement in which money has been exchanged and someone wants to receive, at minimum, value for the exchange and , at maximum, some acknowledgement of the intimacy <but this does not need to be done in every exchange>.

 

The danger in taking what I just wrote literally is that someone could view exchanges as one-on-one transactions at some given point in time.

 

uh oh scooby attentionWhy is it a danger?

 

Because it avoids the fact that there is a constant ever increasing flow of information in which people are often not only drowning in that flow but also unsure of how to enter into the flow and not get swept away.

 

It’s the flow of memes, animated GIFs, updates, events, questions, conversations, breaking news updates and every other digital drop of water creating the flood of information.

 

In addition the giver of attention has a constant flow of attention running through everything available on the ‘must do’ and ‘should I do’ and ‘want to do’ at exactly the same time.

 

Now.

 

This is where most marketing people stand up and say “do break thru execution and you will win.”

 

The intent is quasi-correct but the challenge is steep.

 

First.

 

It implies one engagement & connection is sacrosanct.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

You gotta start somewhere an treating each moment & engagement as ‘important’ is … well … important. But it ignores the fact that managing ‘touchpoints’ is like staring at beautiful trees while the forest could be burning down.

 

Second.

 

Did you know that 4.6 billion pieces of content are produced daily?

shoot someone get attention business

Tweets / Videos / Whitepapers /Email / Listicles / Instagrams / Webinars / Vines /Infographics / Podcasts / eBooks / GIFs / Blogs /Memes

 

4.6 billion.

 

<yikes>

 

Ok.

 

I mention this because, getting back to targeting and attitudes, if you want to discuss attention & attention value … well … unfortunately you have to discuss data.

 

Yeah.

 

Most people who formulate attention/connection communications have an aversion to data.

 

Now.

 

I encourage everyone to think about data a little differently.

 

Think of the fact that Data is actually the result of someone doing things over and over again through connections with other people. Maybe think of it as a massive research program of ‘one-on-one interviews.’

 

And, as with any research, when you compile the interviews you can very easily lose sight of the fact that each data point represents real people who dedicated their real attention at some particular identifiable moment.

 

are you paying attentionBut if you look at data that way … well … you realize that each moment matters.

 

Each moment is possibly very important. And each word, image, story, factoid needs to be thoughtful and purposefully constructed as part of a larger ‘forest’ we want people to wander and inevitably to arrive at some beautiful clearing we have created just for them.

 

Access to data has given us the opportunity to capitalize on the most important, sometimes personal and uniquely relevant moments. Frankly, it has never been easier to find the right people or the right moments. Sure … you may have to dig into the <research estimated> over 20 trillion moments of smartphone ‘moments’ each person has each year , but, go ahead and assume 20 trillion will trend and trends can offer extraordinary insights.

 

But.

 

Most importantly <and possibly what all those ‘big data experts’ fail to see> is that all these data points reflect … well … WHAT SOMEONE HAS CHOSEN TO PAY ATTENTION TO.

 

 

“Attention is the most important currency that anybody can give you, it’s worth more than money, possessions or things.”

Steve Rubel

 

 

Discussing data is a completely different, and complex, topic. But do not disregard data as a means to examine connections and what people pay attention to.

 

But let me get back to attention itself.

 

Google getting someone’s attention and you will get a gazillion <46,900,000 to be exact> results in less than one second.

pay attention to me wave nerd

And I have seen dozens of presentations from really smart digital market people on capturing attention.

 

But of everything I would have to say Ben Parr <author of Captivology: The Science of Capturing People’s Attention> caught my attention in Harvard Business Review <HBR> with a couple of deeper thoughts.

 

  • Capture … or … “THE capture”

 

Anticipation and motivation.

It fuels our desire to “want” food, sex, money or more intrinsic rewards like self-satisfaction and a sense of purpose. The prospect of capturing these things makes us pay attention.

Rewards we can touch, experience, or even just visualize have a greater impact on our attention.

 

I love the thought before …. and I debate the overall issue with some people on this.

 

sound imagery colorsFirst.

 

This does not mean we live in a visual world <and a visual is all that matters>.

This suggests “strategic use of visuals.”

 

Second.

 

This does not mean the visual has to be ‘beautiful.’ Many business people suggest that something beautiful is so attractive … everyone looks. I would argue that is a lazy … well … argument.

 

Third.

 

The big thought? “Capture” is at its best when tied to intrinsic rewards.

 

Fourth.

 

This Ben Parr guy suggests sensory cues actually direct our attention automatically. It’s a safety and survival mechanism that helps us react faster than our brains can think. Thinking about capturing someone’s attention that way permits you to think aurally, visually and any other more subtle way that plays on people’s instincts rather than just plastering some beautiful visual in front of them.

 

 

  • The Expert.

 

From the same HBR study the author suggests that attention increases with … well … credibility.

 answeres expert

Consumers consistently rate experts as the most trusted spokespeople, more than CEOs or celebrities. There’s a scientific reason for this: in a 2009 study, Emory University neuroeconomist Greg Berns found that the decision-making centers of our brains slow or even shut down while we are receiving advice from an expert.

This is a phenomenon Dr. Robert Cialdini calls “directed deference.” So, especially if you’re trying to capture the attention of people who don’t know you, feel free to lead with your credentials, establish your expertise and cite others who are most knowledgeable on the topic at hand.

 

To be clear … the use of “shut down” in this case means “filter our distractions and focus.”

 

Well.

 

Many digital experts expound upon the importance of ‘personal ‘in digital and mobile communications … but … maybe we should be thinking about establishing ‘expert’ first?

 

Just a thought.

 

All that said.

 

I do believe that while discussing gaining someone’s attention and the value equation it is incredibly easy to focus on one connection and one moment … the truth is that to gain someone’s attention within a multi trillion mobile connection person’s life you have to be relentless, persistent and omnipresent <because the smartphone is omnipresent in that person’s life>.

 

This is hard to do.

 

Like.

 

REALLY hard.

 

message lost in detail presentation communicate ideaMainly because to be persistent you need a shitload of content … and it needs to be relevant content <remember the credibility, the capture and the intrinsic reward opportunities I outlined above>.

 

Truthfully?

 

This is a glorious grind.

 

I say a grind because … well … that is obvious. I say glorious because you are constantly seeking to create that one post, article, tweet, video, picture, whatever … that connects, converts and is remembered.

You are constantly seeking to briefly say what needs to be said … with care.

 

And, yeah, you have to do all this. Why? Because if there truly is 4.6 billion pieces of content created daily then you almost have to assume that most people are ignoring anything that could be construed as mediocre content.

 

Anyway.

 

I would suggest it all starts with the attention value equation.

 

While almost everything I have shared today suggests “overwhelming” the one thing I have been clear on and offers a strong central filter is the attention value equation.

All questions you may ask about relevance and interest and connection can be answered by using the value equation.

 

No value and whatever you are offering is useless.

 

This also suggests you can put “creating dialogue” on the backburner <because if you don’t gain someone’s attention in the first place and don’t actually offer some value once you do gain their attention there ain’t gonna be no dialogue>.

 

Create connections that are useful, likeable, memorable and shareable … and what people value. And create an overall journey in which the value equation is driven by purpose and intention <that insures no connection is wasted>.

 

It is easy to say in today’s world you are competing for attention. It is actually a little lazy. While living Life from the palm of your hand may create some ‘noise’ challenges … we have always had to compete for attention. In addition … as I have stated before … the whole “shorter attention span than ever” is bullshit.

 

Attention is attention … was yesterday, is today and will be tomorrow.

 

And the attention value equation is the attention value equation … it was yesterday, is today and will be tomorrow.

connect attention value business listen speak

 

Sometimes we forget this shit.

 

Most likely because our attention is caught by some stupid cat video and then we st back and think “oh, that is what needs to be done to gain someone’s attention!”

 

That is stupid thinking … yesterday, today and will be tomorrow.

 

Just keep your eye on the attention value equation and you should be good.

 

Enlightened Conflict