Enlightened Conflict

murphy’s laws of war (& business)

May 15th, 2013

Well.murphys stupid

This post is partially silly and partially truth.

And maybe that summarizes all of Murphy’s laws in general. What makes them fun to read is that they almost always seem to contain a <maddening> grain of truth.

I was cleaning out a folder and came across a shortened <there is a website that has almost 100 Murphy’s laws of war> list of Murphy’s Laws of war.

And, no, Murphy is no Sun Tzu <The Art of War>. Oh. But just to say this while it is on my mind … every business person should, at minimum, read The Art of War but it doesn’t hurt to have a copy of the little easy to read pamphlet in your working space. Its good <business> stuff.

Anyway.

Let me share Murphy’s version of war theory before I wax poetically on how relevant they are to business.

Murphy’s Laws of War:

 

-          Professionals are predictable. It is the amateurs that are dangerous.

-          Never draw fire … it irritates everyone around you.

-          Friendly fire … isn’t.

-          Never forget your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.

-          The enemy invariably attacks on 2 occasions:

  • When they are ready
  • When you are not

-          If the enemy is within range … so are you.

-          Mines are equal opportunity weapons

-          When the pin is pulled Mr. Grenade is not our friend

-          When in doubt, empty your magazine.

-          Don’t ever be first, don’t ever be last, and don’t ever volunteer.

-          If it’s stupid but it works, it isn’t stupid.

 

Well.

On every single point I was drawing a correlation to business.

 

interviewing jonny_asking_questions_2Professionals are predictable. Professionals can be bad … good … lazy … but predictable. And consistent. Why? Because they actually do know their shit. They may get lazy, or play politics or even get bullied by someone louder … but they really do know their shit. Amateurs? Well. Simply … they don’t know their shit. Sure. They may get lucky on occasion as well as they may instinctually be okay <on occasion> but they are extremely unpredictable. Even worse? If an amateur has an early success they stretch that to ‘I am now a professional’ and become dangerous. Amateurs are valuable to have around because (a) they can see things differently so you can work the wheat from the chaff and (b) someday they will be professionals. But on their own? They are dangerous.

 

Never draw fire … because it does irritate people around you. There is an art & a science to actually raising the objection … drawing out a complaint or criticism. It also contains risk. People do not like risk. Especially if they are not controlling it. If you draw the fire … be prepared to take the bullet(s). If you are not ready to do so? You will irritate the people around you even more.

 

Ah. Friendly fire. Let’s call it constructive criticism or what could be <and is often called> ‘healthy debate.’ Well. It may be healthy but it sure doesn’t feel good or healthy. I guess this also falls under the ‘if it hurts it must be good for you’ philosophy. By the way? That is a stupid philosophy. Work is difficult enough without offering up the supposed friendly fire to your co-workers.

 

Your weapon is made by the lowest bidder.   Oh so true. In today’s business world, despite the fact everyone says ‘quality is number one’ they don’t really mean it. Ok. Maybe they mean it sometimes. And ‘sometimes’ means … well … there will always be an aspect where someone decided to go ‘lowest bidder.’ What do I mean? I have a project with 25 aspects. I decide to go lowest cost on 15 aspects so I can go high quality on the other 10. Murphy’s Law? Somewhere within the 15 going on the cheap will haunt you. I say all that <bringing it back to business> because while you may decide to put your ass on the line because you feel confident ‘we did it the right way’ … just know that somewhere within all that ‘right way’ a component was given to the lowest bidder.

 

The enemy attacking. I laughed when I read this. Why are people in business always scrambling to address competition? Well. It’s because they are always surprised when it happens. And it’s crazy. More time is wasted (a) preparing yourself for an attack that will never come when you want it to and (b) flailing in response to an attack. The point? You control what you can control. Your own company and business. Ignore an attack if it has acceptable losses and attack when you are ready.

 

If they are in range … you are in range. To me this is the disillusionment of believing you have an advantage. Advantages are so fleeting if you blink you can miss it <and get your ass blown off>. The moment you have an advantage … trust me … someone is already moving into either (a) the space you just left to get you from the rear or (b) into the same space you are moving into to attack all on their own. Never assume you have an advantage. Never assume if you perceive you have an advantage that it will last. Well.  Never assume you are out of range.

 

Mines are equal opportunity weapons. Pointing out problems doesn’t mean you are absolved from (a) blame, (b) becoming part of the problem or even (c) getting your ass blown up. Notice how people are often hesitant to complain or point out some flaws? It isn’t because they don’t see them or recognize that they shouldn’t be solved … it’s because they also recognize that they could get hurt themselves.  Oh. That’s why having a minesweeper employee is priceless. Pay her/him anything they want if they are good at it.

 

The grenade one. Well. That is a silly one. Kind of. Why kind of? Everyone makes mistakes … in life and in work. Mistakes, like it or not, are like grenades. Once a mistake is made … the pin is pulled. It may be on a 5 second timer, 5 hour timer … even a 5 year timer … but it is a grenade and it is on a timer. Too many times I see people trapped by their own mistakes. And, frankly, they get their ass blown off simply because they held on to the grenade. I know the metaphor is silly … but you get it. In business <for sure> and in Life <most of the time> mistakes have to be shared. By sharing you not only potentially save your own ass … you most likely decrease collateral damage. Simplistically … Mr. Grenade is not your friend.

 

When in doubt, empty your magazine. Whew. If I had seen this earlier I would have put it up as a sign in my office. Inside an office there is so much discussion on strategy of what to do and what to say and ‘showing all your cards’ and when … and it is such wasted energy. If you have the bullets use them. Trust me. If you use them all and still get killed it’s because you didn’t have enough or you didn’t shoot straight enough … you didn’t get killed because you should have held one or two back. Plus. There is a fairly well-known fact that magazines <business bullets> are manufactured in quantities. You can always grab another magazine if you get the opportunity. Say what? No more magazines or bullets! Oh well. Just means someone was smarter than you and had more bullets. Holding one or two back ain’t gonna help here either. Use it if you got it.mustache reindeer

 

Don’t be first, last or volunteer. This one is tricky. But I will give a personal opinion on this … I prefer, in business, to be a quick follower. I know that may sound strange <because leading implies being first and I like leading> but I have always tended to believe the ‘first’ <in general> were simply the most hasty. The most impatient. The ones most scared to not be first. In their desire to be first they just didn’t have all their proverbial shit together. In fact … my dream business scenario is actually to see 2 hasty ‘firsts’ coming out of the blocks duking it out and bludgeoning each other. Whew. Did I just say I liked being the 3rd out of the blocks? Well. Yeah. If it could play out that way. Being last? Nope. Too late. But a quick follower? Absolutely.

 

If it’s stupid and works it isn’t stupid. In the business world … too often when things go right and someone perceives it happened out of sheer luck or ‘stupidity gone right’ … it gets ignored. It gets ignored as (a) non replicable and (b) don’t want to replicate <because it was stupid>. You want to know what’s stupid? Ignoring something that worked. I am certainly not suggesting that the ends always justify the means but I am suggesting that working is working. Somehow, someway … it worked. Therefore somewhere within what happened something was not stupid.

Please note that it is mostly the arrogant know it all senior managers who overlook the ‘stupid but worked.’ They “know better.” They “know the right way to do it.” Aw … baloney. They are being stupid.

 

Well.

That was fun <for me>.

Oddly <in my pea like brain> I thought of writing this using Murphy when I saw this list in some magazine from the J.Crew CEO on business. Maybe because some of the things he suggests would make great Murphy’s Laws at some point.

In addition? I happen to agree with him on his list. Here are his thoughts … the ones I really liked.

 

corporate cultureCreativity Tips From J.Crew CEO Mickey Drexler

 

-          “Every business could be creative.”

I talk to so many people about the lack of creativity in companies in America. Part of creativity is contrarianism. Creativity battles common wisdom. Because if there’s common wisdom, there’s an opportunity. In my own experience, whatever was a good idea was a bad idea to most people.

-          “Companies are in the Stone Ages organizationally.”

You can tell by the offices. “I’m going to see the king!” The king is on the top floor and there are 17 people in front of the king’s office. There are layers of bureaucracy. It shouldn’t be like that.

-          “Most companies should have a rule about how big they get.”

Not necessarily assigning a billion-dollar value or a 10 billion-dollar value, but companies that become too ubiquitous go one way.

-          “America’s companies are built to destroy creativity.”

If you become the head of a big company today, you’re not the youngest person in the world. You have a contract. You get a jet. You have a huge overpaid salary. You get bonuses. Do you think that CEO is going to screw around with fast, creative change? No. And the board of directors–the last thing they want is someone who’s going to change things. Steve Jobs–he would bet the company, he wouldn’t care. But there are very few people who run companies that way.

-          “You have to keep moving forward.”

Everything has a trend to it; I don’t care if it’s appliances or engines. I always ask: What has a company done in the past five years that somebody’s noticed?

-          “You cannot copy high quality.”

It takes a long time to get a reputation for quality. There are people in our industry, they’re basically copiers. Look at the cars on the streets. They all look alike. But if you put quality into a product, then have it validated, you have huge credibility. It takes time to earn that.

-          “Simplicity is very difficult to achieve.”

Try to ask someone to make a really good roast chicken.

—–

Good stuff.

Smart guy this Mickey. Maybe he should meet Murphy and create some laws.

 

storytelling

May 14th, 2013

Ok.clorox reinventing

This TV commercial will not be for everyone. But it is exactly for the audience it was designed to talk to. Teens and young people will be bored. It is slow and unfolds and … well … it tells a story.

Older people <old as well as aspiring old> … will enjoy. Get a chuckle.

Oh.

And the good news? It is for a household cleaning product.

Oh.

More good news? It is from a staple household brand with gobs of heritage <been around for gobs of years> so it is relevant to whom they are <and subliminally kind of reminds you that they have been around for gobs of years thru a really nice hyperbole-stretched reference>.

 

Clorox Makes Cleaning History: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdXxcoo8L-w

 

The commercial is about this new ‘no waste’ cleaner pump spray they have. Not only is it a nice product/packaging idea but it is a nice storytelling way to talk about it.

Relevant to today <no waste, efficiency, good value, best expenditure you could make, etc.> but they also suggest that the idea has always been relevant.

 

Why is that important? Well. First. People who are saving money don’t really want to feel like today’s circumstances are forcing them to save money. They would like to feel they are just being smart … and being smart is timeless. Second. People don’t want to feel cheap. Cheap as in “that last little drop really does matter to me.”

Now.

That is a wonderful little insight … and that wonderful little insight <which apparently I did not come up with> was utilized in this little TV commercial.

And I bet research was used … and I finally get to talk about how research can be used well <because I am guessing this is a good example>. Here is my guess on what happened.

 

-          Trivial out loud, aggravating inside

clorox last dropThey <researchers> probably had to work pretty hard to get people to not only talk about this … but admit it. it sounds so trivial <the last spray … or … the last little drop>, petty and cheap. People probably didn’t really want to admit it.

You’re cleaning, spraying … it spritzes a little … and then the next squeeze of the trigger … nothin’. Nada <insert thought bubble of ‘crap’ over users head here>. You shake the container and … hey … there is still something in there <albeit just a smidge>! So you point, squeeze and … nothin’. Nada. You know it is, at best, one more use … maybe even a halfhearted spritz remaining … but it is aggravating <on a variety of levels … you didn’t get to finish cleaning to the level desired -  a lack of completing objective – as well as ‘I paid for it’>.

Whew. Even typing this it sounds trivial. Saying it out loud? You sound cheap and petty.

C’mon. It’s just the dregs at the bottom of the bottle. Yup. BUT. Aggravating nonetheless.

Good use of research.

 

Next.

-           It’s not the 1000, it’s the 1 I didn’t get.

This may seem obvious after what I just wrote in the first point … but it is a nuance that has to get recognized <and you would be flabbergasted – I just wanted to use that word – by how many professionals would miss this important nuance>. So it is only obvious if you don’t ignore it.

This is a well forgotten Life and marketing truth.

It ain’t the first impression that matters … it is the last.

The practical <hack> brand manager is likely to think … “great value … they got 1000 efficient uses for only $x … that is only pennies per pull!”

The insightful brand manager thinks … “they aren’t happy with the product … well … they are feeling less than satisfied as they throw it in the trash <and listen to a little sloshing as it drops into the trash can> … their last impression is tinged with a sense of aggravation or dissatisfaction. Hmmmmmmmmm …. They are defining the product by the one spray they didn’t get rather than the 1000 they did get.”

Does that make an irrational consumer? You bet.

Does it matter anyway? You bet.

Perceptions don’t always match up to reality. You have a choice … manage the perceptions or change reality. Clorox was smart. They changed reality. They eliminated the ‘one I didn’t get.’ Smart.

Good use of research <and someone who could actually decipher it>.

 

<note: detergent manufacturers should take note of this insight because all the new ‘free flow’ liquid containers leave an aggravatingly large amount of detergent left sloshing around that you cannot get out>

 

Regardless.

I like this commercial for a number of reason.

Good insight(s). it’s smart.

Meaningful product enhancement <addresses a user problem>.

Clorox Ben FranklinHeritage. Clorox has been around forever. In a nice understated way they remind you they have been around since … well … a long frickin’ time.

They make the user feel smart.

They even have a slight chuckle at their own expense <we did think of this a long time ago but lost it>.

And it’s a simple execution … but entertaining. It doesn’t have any of those flashy production techniques nor any of those quick cuts back and forth between random vignettes … but rather it is … well … a story.

 

Stories are timeless when told well.

Marketing people should remind themselves of this on occasion.

Well done Clorox.

 

 

 

the antichrist bigfoot and global warming

April 18th, 2013

“One in four Americans suspect Barack Obama to be the anti-Christ”. – Public Policy Pollconspiracy theory director

<note: for the mathematically challenged that equates to 25%>

 

Well.

There are moments where I not only scratch my head with regard to the present possibilities for the human race … but there are also moments that I encounter full despair about the future of the human race.

25% think the American president is the anti-christ?

Please. Someone tell me this is a joke.

Unfortunately it is not a joke … and it is because of this recent Public Policy Polling survey conducted in America with regard to conspiracy theories that has me very worried about the future.

Because in the here and now? There are a shitload of people who are either unequivocally nuts or absolutely clueless.

Ok.

Maybe not nuts.

But they are … for some reason … deluded into believing some really wacky things.

Like what?

Beyond the 25% who suspect that President Barack Obama might be the antichrist … more than a third believe that global warming is a hoax  … and more than 50% suspect that a secretive global elite is trying to set up a New World Order.

Yikes.

conspiracy paranoiaHave we become so paranoid?

The survey asked a sample of American voters about a number of conspiracy theories, albeit the phrasing the questions in eye-catching language that will have the country’s educators banging their heads on their desks makes for interesting reading itself, and the results are disturbing.

The study revealed:

-          13% of respondents thought Obama was “the antichrist”, while another 13% were “not sure” – and so were at least appeared to be open to the possibility that he might be.

Thankfully … some 73% of people were able to say outright that they did not think Obama was “the antichrist”.

-          37% of Americans thought that global warming was a hoax, while 12% were not sure and a slim majority – 51% – agreed with the overwhelming majority view of the scientific establishment and thought that it was not.

-          The survey also revealed that 28% of people believed in a sinister global New World Order conspiracy, aimed at ruling the whole world through authoritarian government.

Another 25% were “not sure” and only a minority of American voters – 46% – thought such a conspiracy theory was not true.

 

At least some of the insane theories suggested by the poll were dismissed by large majorities. For example:

-          only 7% of Americans in the survey believed the moon landing was faked

-          only <a stunningly large amount to me> 14% believed in Bigfoot

-          only 4% accepted that “shape-shifting alien reptilian people control our world by taking on human form”

-          only 6% believe Osama Bin Laden is still alive

-          21% of voters say a UFO crashed in Roswell, NM in 1947 and the US government covered it up.

-          20% of voters believe there is a link between childhood vaccines and autism <thankfully 51% do not>

-          29% of voters believe aliens exist

-           14% of voters say the CIA was instrumental in creating the crack cocaine epidemic in America’s inner cities in the 1980’s

-          9% of voters think the government adds fluoride to our water supply for sinister reasons (not just dental health)

-          4% of voters say they believe “lizard people” control our societies by gaining political power

-          51% of voters say a larger conspiracy was at work in the JFK assassination, just 25% say Oswald acted alone

-          15% of voters say the government or the media adds mind-controlling technology to TV broadcast signals (the so-called Tinfoil Hat crowd)

-          5% believe exhaust seen in the sky behind airplanes is actually chemicals sprayed by the government for sinister reasons

-          15% of voters think the medical industry and the pharmaceutical industry “invent” new diseases to make moneyConspiracy Theory Words

 

In some good news, Paul McCartney will be relieved that a mere 5% of respondents believed that he died in a car crash in 1966 and was replaced by a double so the Beatles could continue their careers

And thankfully just 11% embraced the concept that the US government knowingly allowed the terror attacks of 9/11 to take place.

 

Here is the link to the full results: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf

 

Ok. I won’t dwell on the real purpose behind the survey <it was carried out in order to explore how voters’ political beliefs impact on their willingness to embrace conspiracy theories> despite the fact it did indeed find that the partisan divide that is blamed for many problems in Washington DC also extends to the world of paranoia, aliens and Big Foot.

I will not dwell on the politics because my real concern has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans but rather the fact such paranoia, fear and irrational thinking is so prevalent among people.

Look.

I have written many times on how difficult it is these days to discern truth from non-truth as well as partial truth.

But at its core … conspiracies have a sense of irrationality.

 

According to conspiracy monger Alex Jones, “The military-industrial complex killed John F. Kennedy” and “I can prove that there’s a private banking cartel setting up a world government because they admit they are” and “No matter how you look at 9/11 there was no Islamic terrorist connection—the hijackers were clearly U.S. government assets who were set up as patsies like Lee Harvey Oswald.”

 

This is crazy talk.

But people are listening.

And even more scarily … if they are not fully believing … they are accepting this garbage.

 

I dug up some research to try and explain what I would consider ‘indications of an ignorant paranoid population.”

University of Kent psychologists Michael J. Wood, Karen M. Douglas and Robbie M. Sutton in a paper entitled “Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories,” published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.

The authors begin by defining a conspiracy theory as “a proposed plot by powerful people or organizations working together in secret to accomplish some (usually sinister) goal” that is “notoriously resistant to falsification … with new layers of conspiracy being added to rationalize each new piece of disconfirming evidence.”

Once you believe that “one massive, sinister conspiracy could be successfully executed in near-perfect secrecy, [it] suggests that many such plots are possible.”

With this cabalistic paradigm in place, conspiracies can become “the default explanation for any given event—a unitary, closed-off worldview in which beliefs come together in a mutually supportive network known as a monological belief system.”

This monological belief system explains the significant correlations between different conspiracy theories in the study.

For example, “a belief that a rogue cell of MI6 was responsible for [Princess] Diana’s death was correlated with belief in theories that HIV was created in a laboratory … that the moon landing was a hoax … and that governments are covering up the existence of aliens.”

The effect continues even when the conspiracies contradict one another: the more participants believed that Diana faked her own death … the more they believed that she was murdered.

 

The authors suggest there is a higher-order process at work that they call global coherence that overrules local contradictions:

“Someone who believes in a significant number of conspiracy theories would naturally begin to see authorities as fundamentally deceptive, and new conspiracy theories would seem more plausible in light of that belief.”

Moreover, “conspiracy advocates’ distrust of official narratives may be so strong that many alternative theories are simultaneously endorsed in spite of any contradictions between them.” Thus, they assert, “the more that participants believe that a person at the center of a death-related conspiracy theory, such as Princess Diana or Osama [bin] Laden, is still alive, the more they also tend to believe that the same person was killed, so long as the alleged manner of death involves deception by officialdom.

Wow.

That is scary.

Alex Jones proclaimed in Conspiracy Rising: “No one is safe, do you understand that? Pure evil is running wild everywhere at the highest levels.”

This is rampant paranoia … at its worst.

 

Okay.

To me … conspiracies are for the lazy thinkers.

I now that sounds odd because the amount of energy they take to think these things up would make you believe they are hard working thinkers.

But here is the deal with conspiracy thinking.

Conspiracies are all about isolating empty spaces … empty of information … or the gaps as it were … and then accumulating all the empty space and creating a theory <and feasts on empty minds>.

But what is a conspiracy theory in the end?

Just empty space filled with speculation and not facts.

Yes.

Everyone is entitled to challenge conventional wisdom but that doesn’t mean the alternative conspiracy theories are true … they simply represent intriguing possibilities.

And these possibilities only exist because the theories’ “reality” only lives in the empty spaces.

And the biggest empty space seems to be people’s minds.

On his Infowars.com Web site, Jones headlines his page with “Because There Is a War on for Your Mind.”

Well. There is certainly a war on for our minds.

It is called the war between reason and fear & the irrational.

Conspiracy mongering feasts on the second at the expense of the first.

 

I imagine the lure of conspiracies is twofold:

First it makes the believer special, in their own eyes and the eyes of many. That person knows “the secret” … something no one else knows. It’s a matter of having inside information nobody else has, unless they are wise enough to be in on the scoop.

Second it permits the believer to blame someone else for their lot in life.

The possible third lure is conspiracies can never be proven … nor disproven to a conspirator … therefore they are always right <although they are not proven right>.

 

conspiracy threatIt makes my head hurt.

Here is something I read that explained why my head hurts on this topic:

“… remember that the best place for a nefarious conspirator to hide is inside a conspiracy theory which by its nature is infinite in complexity, there is always another layer needed to cover up the inconsistencies.

Conspiracies are non-falsifiable hypothesis. There are the refuge for those without proof.

What we have then is the extremes at both ends, those that believe in nothing but the norm, the mindless sheep awaiting orders. And at the other end those that believe nothing they are told and no longer have a coherent grasp of reality because of their missing pool of shared experiences.”

 

So.

I blame a lot of things and mostly people themselves <because they are being unerringly paranoid and duped by selective truths and speculative thinking> for this trend but I will point out a major contributor … television. This report summarizes why I wanted to point out TV as a major culprit:

 

According to “The State of the News Media 2013”, a report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism at the Pew Research Centre, the deteriorating financial state of news organizations has hurt their output.

Americans who think media firms are putting out fewer original, thoughtful stories are probably right. Weather, traffic and sport now account for around 40% of local television newscasts. The average length of a story keeps falling. Only 20% of local TV stories exceed a minute, and half take less than 30 seconds.

On cable-news channels, live reports, which require camera crews and journalists actually to show up somewhere, have fallen by a third in daytime programs in the past five years. Interview segments, which are cheap, have risen.

Americans may also prefer talking heads because they increasingly prefer to hear opinion rather than fact.

This trend is highlighted by the popularity of Fox, a conservative news network, and of MSNBC, its left-leaning counterpart. CNN, which tends to toe the middle line, continues to struggle with its ratings unless there is a big news event.

Pew says the news industry is “undermanned and underprepared to uncover stories, dig deep into emerging ones or to question information put into its hands.”

 

This dependence on “opinion entertainers” as news is probably the most damaging … and disturbing.

I know lots of people who get 100% of their news from Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh or Jon Stewart. Unfortunately, while smart people, they are entertainers.

Their existence is based on ratings not truth. Opinions drive ratings. Apparently Truth isn’t a big seller these days.

 

Anyway.

Conspiracies and paranoia and irrational thinking.

Sure.

Be skeptical.

Disbelieve, doubt and look askance.

If you want, look askance twice.

Assume you are being lobbied if not actually lied to if you want.conspiracy anxiety-bw

But in the end make up your own mind using common sense <and try and avoid too many ‘what ifs’ and made up shit>.

And remember a conspiracy theory is just empty space filled with speculation and not facts.

Make sure that description isn’t your mind.

Oh. And make sure you just aren’t paranoid.

Oh. And you may have to recognize that all this poking holes in conventional wisdom and faux science and conspiracy theories will take strength of character, a constant battle for clarity <and common sense> and a boatload of courage to take on people whose only real argument is “so you just don’t get it”.

the web as the problem? (and children’s education)

April 17th, 2013

Well. web is problem mr peabody-and-sherman

 

My project global generation may never go anywhere … but it certainly puts me within some of the most interesting conversations with regard to educating the youth.

 

Let me share the part of the conversations that is a head scratcher <at least to me>.

 

But it is a consistent head scratcher part.

 

Like in the over 90% of the time consistent.

 

My conversations begin with ‘it is a web based global children’s education’ and always <and I mean always> veers very quickly to someone stating unequivocally … “how the world wide web has made things more difficult-worse-insert some negative comment here.”

 

 

The web is destroying reading skills.

 

The web is destroying cognitive skills.

 

The web is spreading criminal (lower value-ethic) attitudes to a broad audience.

 

The web facilitates laziness.

 

The web is diminishing attention spans.

 

The web is giving voice to thoughts that are encouraging the destruction of character.

 

All, some, most and more.

 

The majority of older people want to go back to the “way it was before” because it was better (definition of better would be “we weren’t lazy, had broader attention spans, stronger character, less people thought criminal like thoughts, we read more … ).

 

 

The majority of older people seem to think of the past as ‘simpler.’

 

 

“How many people long for that “past, simpler, and better world,” I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them?” – R.A. Salvatore

 

 

Well. after scratching my head … In the beginning I used to just chuckle and try the “it is what it is today … we cannot ‘undo’ the web so why waste energy looking backwards?”

 

Well.

 

Experience has taught me that (a) that is not the A response (b) that response got me nowhere very fast (c) there are a shitload of people – people with leadership roles, smarts and influence – who are dedicating a shitload of energy into trying to reintroduce past plans of action <albeit at least focusing on those which can often be associated with some success thank god>.

 

So.

 

I have regrouped. While my path of least resistance would seem to be to find those who don’t want to go backwards but instead embrace what is and move forward , alas, I can’t.

 

Maybe I am too stubborn <yes>.

 

Or maybe in some semi smart way I have realized there is a significant group damming up the flow of progress. And this ‘stubborn against change’ group are creating a double fold issue:

 

web is problem teach 

 

(1)    – They are increasing creating an ever increasing gap between age generations.

 

While there is always friction between age generations as innovations occur something like the web (just as the printing press and maybe the automobile did) is a lightning rod of paradigm shifting attitudes and behaviors. Generations have never been further apart.

 

 

(2)    – They are increasing the problem gap.

 

Issues are being exacerbated as they balk at moving forward. No solution behavior translates into issues being permitted to gain momentum (which I feel obligated to point out from a physics perspective that a faster moving object is more difficult to slow down, stop or change direction than one moving at a slower pace).

 

 

Anyway.

 

Let’s try some of this thinking out.

 

 

-          1. Kids read more today than ever before.

 

Oh. And reading is reading.

 

Yeah.

 

Reading is reading (with regard to cognitive skills). I was part of an online TED forum on this subject and I was getting the shit kicked out of me (by people who were arguing the web/texting/twitter was destroying cognitive skills in children) until this gentleman stepped in (or ‘up to the plate’ or ‘to stand by my side’ or whatever phrase indicative of a sigh of relief on my part) and said this:

 

 

 

“but … I don’t even know where to begin with this one. I have a PhD in reading. Not that this necessarily means I’m smart, it’s just that I’ve studied and continue to study reading. So here goes…it doesn’t matter what a person reads, in what form, by which author, on which device. Reading is reading.
My first “Crayola secret” for you is that we all read on 4 different levels: instructional, informational, recreational , and frustrational. Not any one is better than the other. Just read. The definition of comprehension? It’s still being worked on. No one, not even the experts and researchers, can seem to agree.”
- Marti Dryk, PhD

 

 

Amen.

 

Reading is reading. And between tweets, social media, web searches, e-books … and good ole fashioned paper literature … kids are absorbing more words and thoughts than ever before.

 

 

-          2. Young people have always had short attention spans.

 

<note: and I could argue changes in parenting style have affected children’s attitudes and behaviors – including attention span – more than the web>.

 

Regardless.

 

A teen brain has always been a teen brain. As I have written before in that stage of development it simply gets overloaded (with stimulus) and it is wired for short bursts of stimulus. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be teaching the value of “make haste slowly” but on the other hand we do not have any research proof suggesting teaching USING how their brain works (of which the web provides that opportunity where an adult teacher is not readily capable (their brains are built differently) is not effective. If you search for data you will find it is mostly negatively anecdotal (obviously from adults). All I am suggesting is that sometimes a classroom is less effective because we are teaching one way and the recipients natural way of absorbing is another way. That misalignment creates inefficiencies. Why not use a tool and educate in a way that is aligned.

 

 

-          3. The web is not encouraging laziness <or lazy thinking>

 

First.

When we were young we were exactly the same type of ‘lazy thinker’ we older folk claim the web is creating. In our youth we wanted to get to the solution <or whatever would get us the good grade> as quickly as we possibly could. The web is a double edged sword. Quick solutions or answers  are easily at your fingertips. Now. They may not be the right solutions or answers but they are right there. On the other hand … multiple solutions or answers are at your fingertips. Some right and some wrong. I have to be honest … I see as many adults today seeking the ‘shortcut’ to answer as I do the youth.

 

Second.

I actually believe the web is creating a more vigorous thinker … albeit a different type of thinking than we old folk were. The web makes such a myriad of factoids <and semi-factoids> available so quickly that the young are becoming more discernible analyzers, evaluators and thinkers earlier than any generation before.

 

Who gets the credit? The web <note … with some good guidance from teachers>.

 

 

Ok.

 

Moving on. 

 

I always hesitate to say this <as a nonparent> but I am not sure it is any more difficult to bring up children today than it was in the past.

 

Different? Absolutely … more difficult? I think not.

 

Kids are kids.

 

And they have always been kids.

 

They are adults in training.

 

As adults we want what we want. Kids are the same. The web has simply given them a new tool to do what kids do and have always done. The web has probably made it more difficult for a parent to be lazy thinkers (as parents) and at the same time make it more difficult to be “opinion selective” when sharing thoughts.

 

I think of it as a balance sheet. The web has increased both assets and expenses. But it is still a balance sheet.

 

I just tend to believe that the value of the overall balance sheet has increased with the advent of the web.

 

 

gg thinker and girlAnyway.

 

I cannot remember who wrote this <it was an author> … “the web … it is just a matter of time before some kid from North Dakota decides to blow past the popular kids … just blow them out of the water … with something spectacular.”

 

 

Maybe the greatest aspect of the web is the fact it is an equalizer. It can level the playing field so that all kids … whether they are popular or not … whether they live in upper income New York or rural North Dakota … whether … well … whatever … can do something spectacular.

 

And, geez, who the heck wouldn’t want that for our kids?

 

 

my new contrarian hero is contagious

April 16th, 2013

Well.simplicity meaningful

Contrarians need to stick together … or … well … stick up for each other.

My newest contrarian hero is a guy named Jonah Berger … for several reasons. First. Because not only has he mastered the statement of the obvious:

 

We miss out on the value of the message itself as a vehicle for driving virality.” – Jonah Berger

 

… secondly, he also supports it with research <albeit some of us have been stating it, or something similar to it, for years> … and third, and most importantly, he is using all those trite ‘here is the secret to success’ business books as his foil.

 

Jonah has a new business book called “Contagious” which I will admit I will never buy but I will also admit probably does as nice a job of outlining some basics of effective communication.

<Contagious: Why Things Catch On by Jonah Berger. At 32, the assistant professor of marketing at University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business is carving out a corner of academia for himself in the study of social epidemics, or how products, ideas, and behaviors become popular>

 

He even has a nifty sound bite compilation of sound bites to create a sound bite philosophy:

Here are his STEPPS for making anything go viral:

-          Social Currency: We share things that make us look good (even if that means pictures of our cat).

-          Triggers: Easily memorable information means it’s top of mind and tip of the tongue.

-          Emotion: When we care, we share.

-          Public: Built to show, built to grow.

-          Practical Value: News people can use.

-          Stories: People are inherent storytellers, and all great brands also learn to tell stories. Information travels under the guise of idle chatter.

 

Catchy isn’t it?

Basically he has used aspects from what every one of the top advertising agencies currently teach, utilize and suggest on their own websites <albeit they do it in mini sound bites> and compiled them into a list.

But.

big picture thinkingHere is the real genius.

This is nothing new.

Story, Emotion, and Practical Value have been the mainstay of the communications business for years … nope … decades. Let’s even say for a century.

It was the cornerstone of everything I was taught in the advertising business beginning in the 1980’s.

Don’t believe that?

You can visit the advertising archives at Duke University and find this same information in archival information from the 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s <in some nifty in house advertising>.

Anyway.

All that said … what makes him a bigger genius? <the part that makes him my newest hero>.

He is deflating all the tripe ‘The Tipping Point’ and ‘Made to Stick’ and all those other bestselling business books have been peddling to us and the stuff I know I have been kicked out of boardrooms for suggesting is sound bite tripe.

His book actually seems to also in a contrarian way attack what businesses have been battling for several years now … how to handle what Napoleon first suggested …

 

“un croquis vaut mieux qu’un long discours.” <a sketch is better than a long discourse>

Now.

Sketch <or brevity>. The business world has gone wacko over this thought … going to absurd lengths to create the ultimate soundbite under the belief “a person will only remember one thing” or “all people have the attention span of a gnat so tell them what you need to tell them in 3 seconds or less.”

Well.

Unfortunately, and truthfully, some things are just too complex to communicate in a sound bite or in 3 seconds or less. Effective communication <or ‘contagious communication’> would be one of those topics.

No matter how brief and simple you want to make it … well … it is neither brief nor simple. It is complex and sometimes the opposite of brief.

It isn’t just about telling a story.

Nor is it just about finding influencers to broker the story.

Nor is it just about practical value.

Nor is it just about emotion.

Unfortunately it is a combination of those things.

 

Regardless.

I have been tempted to write several business books … one even on simplicity and effective communications. And I just saw some of the high falutin’ folk with high falutin’ titles at SiegalGale <one of the top branding companies in the universe … yes … almost solar system-esque in their expertise> are publishing something about Simplicity … Simple: Conquering the Crisis of Complexity <I am hoping they cite me from one of my simplicity posts … but not holding my breath>.

They could have used something from any of these …

http://brucemctague.com/simple-complicated-complicated-simple

http://brucemctague.com/simplicity

http://brucemctague.com/simplicity-the-project-brief

 

by the way … it is probably a ‘simple truth’ with regard to simplicity but the main issue is not trying to find the simple within a crisis of complexity but rather not making something that is extremely simply into something complicated <or complex>.

 

Anyway.

Let me explain the trouble I ran into writing my business book on ‘effective simplicity.’

It was a short book.

Two pages <on index cards in fact>.

 

Page 1: say something meaningful.

Page 2: say that something in an interesting way.

 

And then because about the only additional advice I give someone is to be ruthless editors with regard to communication and words <sketch instead of discourse Napoleon thing> … well … I simplified it into one index card:

 

“Say something meaningful in an interesting way.” – Me <author of “the shortest business book ever written”>

 

Shit. invincible and questioning

There is my book.

Save yourself a boatload of money on all those business books.

There it is.

Do that and you have as much of a chance of creating something contagious <or drive ‘message virality’ to use a Jonah term>, or made to stick or tipping cows or points or people or whatever.

 

There are no formulas nor are there any checklists.

It isn’t really about telling a story <although you can if it is interesting> and it really isn’t about simplified in a short sweet concise way <although you can if a long type driven story isn’t meaningful or compelling>. It is just about doing what is right at that time in that place.

 

You can use lots of words or few words.

You can use white space or little space.

You can use a great compelling visual or no visual at all.

 

You cannot use words or pictures or stories that say something meaningless.

You cannot be uninteresting.

 

Oh. If only it were all this simple.

instinct

April 6th, 2013

 

“Ideas pull the trigger, but instinct loads the gun.” – Don Marquisinstinct collective_unconsciouness

 

This quote is taken from Marquis’ “The Almost Perfect State” which was written in 1927 as a series of sharp criticisms of the Progressive Era.

Ok.

I imagine a lot of people read this quote and wonder if the quote would work better … “ideas load the gun, but instinct pulls the trigger.”

But I believe that misses Don’s point <albeit I have not spoken with him on this topic … he died in 1937>.

The point?

Knowledge and experience can only take you so far.

It is the difference between being solely analytical and incorporating the intangible <the instinctual>.

What he is suggesting is that all the bright big ideas in the world don’t mean shit if they cannot be brought into being without a person who can originate the intellectual movement of action. This person requires a special character.

Ah.

Special character.

Instinct is one of those things people hate.

Because it is not tangible … and it always assumes some level of risk.

It is research of one <which scares the shit out of people these days>.

That means …

Collaboration? Well. Nope.

Consensus? Geez. Nope.

Extrapolation through the hypotenuse of multiple data points discussed ad nausea and plotted on some nifty white board? Sounds like fun … but … nope.

Instinct is gut … albeit typically great instincts have been honed by experience and knowledge.

But in the end … it is not tangible nor proven.

It is … well … just what it is.

Sure.

It can be cultivated.

And it can even be honed.

But I do not believe it can be taught.

Well. Let me take that back and try this.

Good instincts cannot be taught.

Good instinct is first and foremost an internal aptitude. We all have instincts … but some just have gooder instincts. Beyond that natural foundation it is probably a combination of experience and knowledge and ultimately a mindset.

I say a mindset because instinct is a feeling and not anything visible or tangible. You sense what to do and where to go and what to say.

And it often isn’t because your instincts are proven good … but just rather that you know what feels wrong.

 

“Every time I’ve done something that doesn’t feel right, it’s ended up not being right.” – Mario M. Cuomo

 

That said.

I know one of the most frustrating things I have heard in business decision meetings is “I am not sure what the right thing to do is … but … what we are discussing doing sounds wrong.”

And while frustrating … it also feels right.

We sometimes get so rushed to make a decision we grab one … anyone will do. And, yet, it feels wrong … okay … maybe not wrong … just not right.

That is instinct.

Not only knowing the path to success … but also recognizing paths to failure & disappointment <before you even take one step on that path>.

It is a true joy to be near someone with good, if not great, instincts.

They seem to be in an effective zone and not in a comfort zone. What I mean is that they have a habit of disregarding distractions … discerning the important from the unimportant  … and have a focus. That focus may not be the destination <it can be> but oftentimes their instincts are reflective of the journey to the destination.

They have a humble confidence … and sometimes are even slightly insecure <I imagine because their strength is in the intangible>.

 

“Trust instinct to the end, even though you can give no reason.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

And they are rarely emotional in decision making.

instinct good or badNow.

Conversely, it is absolutely miserable to be near someone who has crappy instincts <but thinks they have good instincts>.

It is not only miserable because you end up going down lots of fruitless paths and waste a lot of energy but also because instincts are intangible.

There are no numbers or research or facts that can counter instincts and intuition. Therefore someone in a leadership position who has crappy instincts is unmovable. They are literally an elephant in the room.

That is misery.

Regardless.

Instinct is a natural aptitude.

Kind of like a knack.

An innate tendency or response to act in ways that, at its most base description, is essential to development, preservation or survival.

As Hayakawa suggests … instinct implies innate disposition rather than having a talent. It is not a gift, nor a talent or even an aptitude. It is more an inborn intangible. It could be called a ‘Knack’ but that has almost always been associated with social rather than intellectual causes & situations.

It is tough in today’s world for people with good instincts.

While intellectual in its strength it is not proven with any reason.

In an over thinking, over analyzing, over safe world .. ‘without reason’ doesn’t often gain a place at the table.

Instinctual decision making often requires having people follow with some blind faith. And in a world of consensus and collaboration … well … that ain’t happening much these days.

morons

March 16th, 2013

 

“All morons hate it when you call them a moron.” - Holden Caulfield <Catcher in the Rye>Cary Town Council - Wellness Morons

 

Ok.

Morons is a harsh word and a harsh concept …but let’s face it … most of us have experienced that maddening discussion where we explain that seemingly simple concept … or that seemingly simple common sense point of view to someone … and not only can they not grasp it but may actually argue a completely moronic point of view that flies in the face of <1> facts, <2> truth, or maybe even <3> common sense.

In fact … during the discussion we may even try several different approaches to the idea, using every metaphor <or parable or analogy> within reach to throw into the discussion that we think the person should reasonably be capable of following.

In the end … sometimes we succeed … mostly we fail … and always it is painful <to us> and obviously moronic <to us>.

It is here I will bring up the idea of intelligence <despite the fact it may sound odd in a rant on morons>.

First. Just to set the groundwork … most everyday functions of modern life require an IQ of around 90.

Those functions include driving a car, mailing a letter, paying bills and making a bank deposit.

The more specialized the function, the more intricate, the higher the level of intelligence necessary.

Second. I am not using the term ‘moron’ as a classification of any mental deficiency despite the fact that technically ‘moron’ translates to denoting a mild mental deficiency. I am going to suggest being a moron denotes a certain deficiency … but not a mental one.

Therefore <here is where I link intelligence and the topic of morons> we can dispense with the idea that morons are stupid or have a lack of intelligence.

The deficiency within morons, or being moronic, has nothing to do with intelligence <or at least IQ>. Most have IQs at or above 90 <I made that up but I tend to believe it>.

Let me take it one step further. You cannot be a moron unless you actually are intelligent.

Because morons are actually people who have intelligence … but they waste it.

Either by using it <their intelligence> poorly or misusing it or not even using it at all.

Wow.

Bet you didn’t think I was going to head down that path, did ya?

Morons are actually intelligent? Yup. Morons are simply purposefully ignorant … but they are smart.

Uh oh.

That means morons are as intelligent as you and I <okay … maybe at least me … you are probably smarter and this is simply my issue>.

All that said … it suggests that the moronic issue resides elsewhere than intelligence.

Robert Heinlein said that stupidity characteristics <or characteristics of morons> are actually tied to ignorance <so I am going to steal that idea because I agree with Bob>.

He suggests that stupidity cannot be cured using money, remedial education or some governmental edict because inevitably it resides within a different reason … a purposeful or intentional ignorance.

Purposeful. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … This means that morons actually know something to be wrong with themselves <it may be subconscious but they somewhere within they understand> … they are intelligent enough to understand … and, yet, rather than correct themselves and abandon that ‘something’ … they practice intentional ignorance clinging to that ‘thing’ and inevitably insist that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

And this is where morons are dangerous.

morons electronsVery very dangerous.

 

“Because, fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding. And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and drums beating, we’ll be marching backward, backward, to those glorious ages of the 16th century, when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind.” – Clarence Darrow <Inherit the wind>

Morons march backwards. Busily marching themselves and trying to herd the rest of us backwards to some glorious age.

It is a Life truth that fanaticism & ignorance is forever busy <and a busybody>.

I fully understand that this fanaticism and ignorance is impossible to extinguish. But that doesn’t mean it should be tolerated. Particularly if it is actually harmful.

Regardless. Tolerance is an acceptance of the morons.

And with this acceptance, albeit grudging acceptance, the morons simply see it as permission to be moronic and they gladly step up <in their forever busy way of theirs> and do harm.

Harm in the form of stopping <or even reversal> of progress … harm in marching us backwards.

Or they teach and promote falsehoods to others <others including children which is disturbing> with the hope that this younger generation will grow up and can possibly march us backwards.

All this translates into a lot of time and effort and energy lost as ignorance and its byproducts step up and suck time & energy from progress.

Ok. A Bruce thought.

I believe we can no longer afford the luxury of moronic ignorance or tolerate the presence of morons. Tolerating them leads to the creation of a sense that this moronic ignorance actually equals some sort of knowledge <which then makes them some sort of “knowledgeable person” and you know where that leads … ‘trouble in River City’ to quote The Music Man>.

 

“<there is a> … false notion that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ― Isaac Asimov

 

Morons are wily. They have the notion that their smarts, combined with their purposeful ignorance, is just as good as real unfiltered knowledge.

This is tiring to deal with.

In fact … if you find yourself surrounded by morons, rather than just shake your head, you have to purposefully accept the challenge to deal with their moronic thinking with the knowledge that they actually have the intelligence to be non-moronic <but actually choose to be moronic>. Wow. Just typing that made my head hurt.

It would take a monumental effort to create the unlikely evolutionary change where morons become extinct <that may be an unattainable objective but it is certainly an admirable objective>.

And it will take your best monumental effort to deal with a moron because there are instances where the lines are blurred and where argument and debate and discussion regarding two sides of an issue are actually warranted.

But.morons disagree

You should seek solace in that there are also issues where right is right … and wrong is wrong … and anyone who argues it looks like the guy who believes Yoda exists somewhere and The Force can be attained with focus & practice.

Oh.

And here is where morons really thrive.

Numbers & science & studies & statistics <oh my>.

Science is smart and science is stupid.

Both are true and there could be studies done to prove it.

One of the smart/stupid things about science is something called the ubiquitous study. They are excellent scientific research formats but while all studies <and most research in general> are interesting … they do not reveal eternal, all-encompassing truths.

They simply provide a glimpse into one small, carefully cordoned off area of interest. Extrapolations from the data are based on statistics and therefore do not necessarily apply to everyone and everything.

I say that because it seems like we find comfort worshiping at the altar of the ‘numbers’.

All of us seem to be considering study results and numbers to be the indisputable truth.

What a fantasy.

But it is often a fantasy land morons live, eat & drink in <and thrive in like a bacteria in a petri dish>>. Numbers are their friends and constant companions.

Morons thrive on the isolated statistic. A random factoid or piece of information that has no context nor admits it has Truth only within a limited set of circumstances. And they win a shitload of debates using this technique. How does all this happen?

Well. It sounds simplistic … but I believe we allow it to happen for a couple of reasons … first is a well intentioned but subverted belief in freedom of speech. Subverted because inevitably it is often simply ‘freedom of opinion’ these days. Secondly … ‘opinion’ forces us all to seek something tangible in which to reach some conclusion … therefore we seek statistics or numbers to identify truth <and isolate something we can all agree on>.

And numbers do not necessarily translate into Truth. Especially isolated non-contextual numbers.

In the end we seem to be damned by a society that has ingrained in us this strange belief that because we encourage freedom of speech and freedom of thought … that all ideas deserve respect and consideration that no one individual <or idea> is “better” or more “worthy” of consideration than any other.

What a bunch of bullhockey.

This has created an environment in which any moronic idea can hover around like an aggravating gnat as legitimate idea.

It is crazy.

A moron is a moron.

A moronic idea is a moronic idea.

It is time that we learned to have the balls <or spine if you are a woman> to call out the morons.

morons quoteMorons don’t like to be called morons.

Why?

Because they are frickin’ intelligent enough to know better than skate by on shallow feelings and beliefs.

And all the while you must swim in the shallow end of the intellectual debate to debate with them … you must be careful of your own ignorance more than theirs … because purposeful ignorance does have a sneaky way of creeping up on you. What I mean is that it is easier to be a moron than to not be a moron. It takes less work, intellectually and curiosity, to maintain an ignorant point of view than it takes to not only grow personally but to actually help a moron grow <which is a quite taxing job>. Frankly it is just easier to quit debating than to take on a moron. I imagine it becomes a test of character.

Regardless. I imagine in the end that is my point <the test morons give us day in and day out>.

Morons are morons because they are smart enough to engage in purposeful ignorance.

To be ignorant on purpose?

Yikes.

You would have to be a moron.

But. In the end … morons hate to be called morons simply because they are smart enough to know they could do, and be, better. Even morons know somewhere under their purposeful ignorance they should be better than what they are. I imagine the only way to beat morons is to actually get them to face that fact.

Wow. There is a tough job. But. We cannot let the morons win. Purposeful ignorance is a disease. A disease that can affect entire civilizations & cultures. That thought makes it scary to even think about tolerating the moron.

why we buy stuff, luxury items and the everyday schmuck

March 14th, 2013

“One generation’s indulgence becomes the next generation’s necessity.” – James TwitchellLuxury-must-be-comfortable,-otherwise-it-is-not-luxury.

So.

First. With higher unemployment and all the talk of recession and poor economy it is easy to forget a lot of shit is being purchased by people. And a lot of money spent buying stuff.

Second. A shitload of that shit being purchased is in the luxury category. The expensive stuff.

Third. Maybe 90% of what we call “fads” arrive on the scene from the Luxury category <note: I made up that %>. And because of that I almost called this post ‘fad to functional.’ Sometimes today’s fad does become tomorrow’s functional necessity. Sometimes. A lot of people make a lot of money figuring out which fad will become tomorrow’s necessity. By the way … most fads do not become anyone’s necessity.

Regardless.

I decided to write this to say you would think why we buy things would be simple <we like it>. Unfortunately it isn’t that simple. What happens around us and what happened to us in our youth impacts … well … what we like.

And, of course, we like what other people like.

And, of course, we like what the fabulously rich like <but they can afford it and we cannot>.

And, of course, we like the best. Having ‘the best’ excites almost everyone <I typed almost because I didn’t want to say everyone but I honesty cannot think of anyone who wouldn’t want the best>.

 

With that I will begin with the slightly odd relationship between luxury and value and how us schmucks who aren’t millionaires get led to purchasing behavior by the schmucks who are millionaires.

 

“The rich adopt novelties and become accustomed to their use. This sets a fashion which others imitate. Once the richer classes have adopted a certain way of living, producers have an incentive to improve the methods of manufacture so that soon it is possible for the poorer classes to follow suit. Thus luxury furthers progress. Innovation “is the whim of an elite before it becomes a need of the public. The luxury today is the necessity of tomorrow.” Luxury is the roadmaker of progress: it develops latent needs and makes people discontented. In so far as they think consistently, moralists who condemn luxury must recommend the comparatively desireless existence of the wild life roaming in the woods as the ultimate ideal of civilized life.” –  Ludwig von Mises

<note: that last sentence is priceless>

It may seem obvious to everyone (but just to be sure I am writing about it) but there has always been a relationship between luxury and value.

Not “in the moment” but rather as a future tend indicator.

A lagged effect.

Huh?

Well. Here is what happens (simplistically)

 

A luxury item or service is developed.

Only the richest (or those who decide to splurge) can afford it.

It gets a lot of press and people become more aware of the luxury items.

People desire it.

The item manufacturer recognizes one of 2 things:

  1. It will become obsolete (or less desirable to the 1% who can afford it) as more people own it <and they then develop something new & different>
  2. They can make a shitload more money by selling it at a lower price to the masses <once the 1% has moved on to another item they have just developed and are making a shitload of profit on>

All the everyday schmucks <that is you & I> then start buying it and everyone on the street has it.

 

There you go.

Now.

find xSome really savvy business people stare at the luxury category <sometimes even cross eyed> and try and make sense of which luxury products & services are likely to trickle down to the mainstream consumer … and even more difficult … when it will trickle down.

It is more difficult than you think it would be <note that this is different than ‘early adopters paying more to be the first’> … but if you know what to look for <and I am not one of those who knows what to look for> luxury is a pretty reliable indicator of what next generations will consider basic necessities.

“Luxury consumers are spending more, in many cases lots more, on life-changing experiences, while their need for luxury goods is waning. Spending on luxury experiences in the US, including travel, dining, entertainment, spas and beauty services and home services.” (source: Pam Danzinger, Unity Marketing).

So sometimes luxury is not just things and widgets … but also experiences.

Oh.

And then there are toys. A toy industry consultant said “the toy industry has always reflected adult culture.”

(I was sad just typing that)

Oh.

But it gets worse (for us americans at least).

Britain is Europe’s biggest toy market, followed by France and Germany, according to Frédérique Tutt, an analyst at NPD EuroToys. British parents buy an average of 41 toys per year, which is almost a toy per week.

In Spain, by contrast, children receive few toys outside the Christmas season.

Britons seem highly susceptible to marketing campaigns <but no one is more susceptible than American consumers>. Britain’s toy market is similar to America’s in favoring entertainment over education, says Gerrick Johnson, a toy analyst at BMO Capital Markets. About one-quarter of toy sales in Britain are license-driven, which means they are based on characters from Disney films or television series.

The proportion in Germany is just 14%.

German parents are bigger on engineering. Last year building sets accounted for 13.4% of German toy sales compared with only 8.6% in Britain. Germany is the biggest European market for Lego, the Danish maker of colorful bricks.

Oddly … even UNICEF has stepped in with an opinion:

UNICEF, a United Nations agency, slates British parents for encouraging “compulsive consumerism” in their children.

Ok. I apologize. Toys really don’t have shit to do with luxury and ‘fad to functional’ other than the fact we mostly buy toys for entertainment <fad> and not educational <functional>. But. It gave me a chance to throw around some research I actually did.

Anyway.

All the examples aside … there is a really odd <interesting?> thing happening in the middle <between luxury and what us schmucks are buying>.

The middle of the middle is disappearing.

The explosion of choices at the low priced <but with quality> and the high priced <with high quality> is leaving run-of-the–mill products in desperate straits.

In fact … no one is buying them.

Oh. How do you recognize the mediocre middle? They are the folks couponing like madmen and cranking out buy-one-get-one-free deals like shit through a goose.

This explosion is also making it more difficult to discern fad from functional.

Yeah.

Discerning what is fad <in other words … what will disappear over time> and what is functional <useful and/or humongously important> is really really difficult.

And becoming even more difficult in our world of instantaneous hype.

A combination of transparency online <and sometimes the transparency is bullshit but if you don’t invest the energy to discern between the bullshit and the truth it all becomes blurry> and the fact that the global entrepreneur business brain attacks high priced items thinking how to offer a designer/quality version at a lower cost <not by cutting corners but simply building it better & more efficiently> is making the luxury category a turnstile category.

 

Anyway.

This topic became a great excuse to highlight one of my favorite sites <and thinkers> … 50topmodels.

They have once again humorously <but smartly> mapped the hype cycle which tries to predict the beginning of corporate marketability of technological innovations.

They note that it maybe also predicts the time you will marry … but that’s their interpretation.

 fad to functional gartner2

The model cuts a new technology roughly into five periods in its life cycle (although real time is phased differently and individually):

 

-          Technology Trigger — the product is on the market and you hear the buzz all over the place. Kind of a breakthrough in visibility.

Comes along with: “Have you checked this out? It’s great!“

 

-          Peak of Inflated Expectations — The hype is on top, but more and more people uncover that the product or services is just half-baked.

Comes along with: “It’s great, but…!“

 

-          Trough of Disillusionment — the technology fails to meet expectation and becomes boring for early adopters. There’s hardly any press about it, but still, people use it.

Comes along with: “It would be great, but they should change this and that!“

 

-          Slope of Enlightenment — press stopped covering the technology, but some businesses take time to experiment with it or they invest in it. The feature becomes more practical. Maybe 2.0 version.

Comes along with: “I use it, but in another way.“

 

-          Plateau of Productivity — now it’s a real benefit for the users. The technology is accepted and maybe even broadly spread (within it’s purpose to serve).

Comes along with “I knew it!“

 

The 50topmodels little drawing shows parts of the  2008 issue (german). Compared to 2006 (german), Web 2.0 went from “peak” to “disillusionment” – just as the market researchers of Gartner predicted.

 

Anyway.

It is more difficult to select that which is in luxury which will make it into the everyday schmuck’s home than you think.

But give it a shot.

Its fun to think about it.

The only thing you can be really sure of?

What looks like an ‘indulgence’ today … will be a ‘necessity’ tomorrow more often than you would like to believe.

answering the help wanted ads for data decipherer

March 12th, 2013

Help Wanted!- Data, data everywhere—and not enough people to decipher it – WSJ headline 3/11data decipherers

 

51% of surveyed IT professionals currently involved in big-data projects cited ‘lack of expertise to connect the dots’ as a reason projects fail in their organization. No other factor was more commonly cited. – infochimps, inc.

 

Well.

This post is either going to show I am incredibly naïve or incredibly smart or incredibly stupid <and clueless>.

Look.

Everyone in business is drowning in data these days.

But here is a newsflash … we were always drowning in data … albeit different data … but I am willing to bet a shitload of money that anyone with any business experience will agree that we had so much data crossing our desks <in the good ole days> that you could build your own great pyramid of paper if you so desired.

As I scratch my head over the flurry of farcical diatribes around “big data” I can’t help but be reminded of the poem “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”:

 

“water, water everywhere, nary a drop to drink.”

<Bruce translation: despite the depths and vast expanse of the ocean it can’t begin to quench our thirst>

 

We might say the same thing about how technology has enhanced the volume of data these days.

The volume of data is almost unfathomably vast.

And because of that we see thousands of articles on how to sift through the data for business advantages.

Well.

This is crazy talk. Mostly because it seems like everyone is mesmerized by the quantity of data available.

Anyone with any business chops will quickly point out that anyone, throughout the history of business, has always had a quantity of data available.

And we almost always had too much quantity <more than they could ever use>.

The access to quantity has never been an issue.

Now.

data analysis statslogocroppedThey will also point out that part of knowing your business shit is setting up efficient/effective data gathering … so you capture the most important <and not invest gobs of energy on stuff you will never use, cannot use, do not really want to use or is just plain useless> data.

Now.

They will also point that data analysis has three components:

-          Assessing the data available <with gobs available which gobs are most meaningful>

-          Setting up a system to use the useful data <consistently trapping & tracking the useful stuff consistently saves time and effort>

-          Analyzing the data <connecting the dots … instead of just showing numbers>

Now.

They will also point out that the third step in the process is often best done by someone who has no clue how the data is gathered … or even needs to know exactly what data was not gathered <although they may at some point suggest gathering something that someone up the ladder had decided was unimportant> … but they know how to connect dots.

Now.

I will now point out we in business have been doing this for years.

Sure. More and different data may be available today but the schematic looks the same.

 

Business management has always faced an obstacle when it comes to reaping the benefits of big data because they always need someone who can tell them what it all means.

But it seems that because there are so many new ways to gather and track data there is a heightened awareness, and desire, to actually use all this data stuff … with the same good intentions that business had in the past … gain a competitive edge … or at least to keep up with the competition.

Oh.

And here is what any business person with chops will also tell you … relying on data alone isn’t enough. This is a game of both head and gut.data connecting-dots-stevejobs

When you rely too heavily on data, you can become too reactive, too myopic in your thinking and miss out on what the numbers can never tell you … the why’s and the what’s and the <inconceivable to number crunchers> impractical inconsistent sometimes illogical human mind & behavior. Data cannot tell you what to do.

<Big> data can lead to small sharp insights and beget great decisions and action.

But.

Here is a business truth <that most executives do not want to hear these days> … data, of any size <double venti, regular venti, grande, etc.> has no value in and of itself.

The true value of data is found in context.

Look.

You absolutely need a team with technical people to gather & mine the data … but they need to be working together with an experienced analytical person who knows how to ‘connect dots.’ This type of person knows how to observe information, interpret information and place it in context with non-number/data stuff and explain it.

And, no, that person may not be a data gwonk.

They are just good at connecting dots.

And they are good at not being blinded by the newest  & nearest data point.

 

“Gut feel is great for everyday problems. But, it often leads us astray when we’re presented with complex streams of information. We can be blinded by the newest and nearest data point and miss the big picture.” – Nate Silver statistician & author

 

I don’t agree with Nate … well … he did caveat it with “can” and “often” … so maybe I will give him a break.

Gut feel … intuition … ability to “feel” the numbers in context … is essential in order to use the data.

I do believe in what IBM calls “augmenting intuition.” And that means … well … what it says. Augment … ‘in addition to’ … add in as part of your decision criteria.

No amount of numbers <and data of any kind> can eliminate all decision risk. Nor can any amount of numbers <and data of any kind> insure you make the best decision.

Here is my last “Truth” of this post … data & analytics can make you equally smart & stupid.

People make smart decisions using data all the time.

People make stupid decisions using data all the time.

The only thing consistent is people.

And here is where the article kind of truly went a little nutso.

data connectdotsIncreasing training & skill set on ‘connecting dots’ <I assume this is “analyzing the data” in academia> to increase the amount of decipherers available to businesses.

This is where it all falls apart for me.

Because doing what they suggest basically means that data drives good decisions. Data all by itself. No intuition … no feel … no gut from experience … that maybe data can make a decision for you … and they are wrong.

I become scared because I almost feel like this is a deeper dive into that business hellhole I call “responsibility free decision making” with the intent to do the “safest behavior to increase return <or increase advantage>”.

This is using data to make all the decisions <and they even use it to hire a person which is also kind of nuts>.

This is dancing on the head of a pin business management.

And it doesn’t teach people how to think.

It doesn’t utilize skills of existing people <who aren’t steeped in ‘Big Data” but are also not intimidated nor blinded by the newest & nearest data point> who are very good at connecting dots.

And, worse, it guarantees a next business generation of “big Data decipherers” … or people who use data decision making skills and have honed no intuition skills at all.

Am I suggesting “gut management” alone? Of course not. I never have. I never will.

In the 80’s we scoured computer printouts with ‘crosstabs’ and supermarket SAMI and Nielsen reports which contained reams of data point we had to make sense of.

In the 2000’s we are scouring computer printouts <assuming you print out> which contain reams of data points we have to make sense of. And you did it then, as it should be done now, as part of a team to insure you didn’t get dazzled by some shiny data point.

This stuff drives me a little nuts because we all think the newest and nearest data point <oops … innovation> means that the world has turned on its head.

It hasn’t.

Some skills are just … well … good business skills. Adaptable to pretty much any new widget or innovation that mankind can create.

I know how to connect dots. I have no clue how to build systems to gather these dots. And you know what? I am not sure I have ever known.

And I am not unique. There are hundreds if not thousands of Me’s out there.

The skill?
Making Big Data nice small simple learnings/conclusions. Ok. Making any data available into nice small simple learnings.

2013. 1913. 1813.

The skill has always been relevant … and thinking that ‘data decipherer’ is some new skill is crazy.

Enlightened Conflict