Jun 9, 2010 | Communication, Marketing, Personal Rant
A while ago, I sat through two consecutive presentations on related topics, the first was energising, interesting, and memorable, the second was cold, dirty, dishwater.
Thinking about the manner of the presentations, rather than the value of the words, led to the conclusion that the difference was more than the capacity of the presenters to sell a story, which was markedly different, it was also about the manner the story was presented.
The first used a visual backdrop as a tool to highlight key points, and make them memorable by creating some emotion, and the visuals were very sparse, terriffic. The second used the built in capacity of Powerpoint to drive the agenda of the presentation, demonstrate the speakers mastery of the program, and provide speaker notes to the audience, dishwater.
The reason a presentation is given, whether it be to a few colleagues in an office communicating a routine matter, or thousands in a auditorium presenting a world changing idea or view, is the same. It exists to get a sale, to create buy-in to an idea, gain agreement, and approval. Whatever the driver, a presentation seeks to communicate and engage. No chance of doing that by boring people to death.
Seth Godin, one of the best salesmen of an idea around came up with a rant against Powerpoint some years ago, his arguments were thumped into me by the juxtaposition of these two presentations.
Jun 7, 2010 | Innovation, Marketing, Social Media, Strategy
Will the iPad and Kindle do to books what has happened to music? You have to believe they will. At the moment, it is the early adopters who are looking for books electronically, but it should not take too long to become mainstream.
It would be silly for publishers to become resisters rather than figuring ways to embrace the change that will happen, drive it, and thereby build a sustainable new business model. The core to that success will be the “ownership of the relationship” with the readers. Currently that is via the publisher who has control of the channel, apart from the few “big name” authors who have their own following, built after a publisher has invested in them.
The new e-readers offer a disintermediation opportunity for authors, one they will grab, so the role of the publisher is about to change, but how many of them see that?
Thinking about the potential for e-marketing of books also puts a gun to the head of the dumb restrictive publishing rules that exist in this country. I cannot buy a book published in the US in Australia unless a local publisher, or off-shoot of a British one, has chosen to publish here, adding another margin that has absolutely no value to me. Until recently, I did not have an option, then Amazon popped up, then the Kindle arrived, and now the iPad. Now there is a new set of rules emerging from the marketplace, and the existing regulations no longer have the control, so have become irrelevant.
Can somebody please tell the publishers and their cronies in the government, and I wouild not be too keen to buy shares in a book retailer wedded to the expensive shop front in Westfield.
Jun 6, 2010 | Communication, Leadership, Social Media
As we grapple in this country with the notion of Canberra putting filters on the net, as has happened in China, and the various businesses and groups having their say, perhaps the most useful being Google, who have had the guts to take a stand that compromises their short to medium term position in China based on their corporate values, what we lack is a philosophical framework that describes the “why” and acknowledges the downsides.
All we are getting is the “we must protect our children” arguments, few would disagree, but it leaves us with a shallow virtually non existent populist “debate” without any real foundation.
A short time ago the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton put forward such a framework, agree, or disagree, at least there is a sensible framework to debate. One of the best commentators on the net, and what is happening, and why is Clay Shirky, and I have linked to his edited version of Clintons speech to make life easier rather than reading the full transcript, but the full text is available on the US department of State website.
Jun 3, 2010 | Communication, Management
So many meetings fail to deliver an outcome simply because they do not ask for one.
Here’s an tactic I saw at work a while ago in a meeting chaired by someone I know well with an extensive record of getting things done.
At the end of the agenda, he went around the table, and asked people what they would do as a result of the discussions in the meeting.
By observation, it achieved three outcomes:
- It offered an opportunity to ensure the resulting workload is both fairly spread, and in the right place,
- It committed people to an outcome, as once they publicly said what they would do, it become a very strong psychological commitment to follow through,
- It would have exposed any who were in the meeting simply as a means of filling in time, in this case, there were none, as this was standard practice, and the bludgers had already been burnt, and moved elsewhere.
Try it, I guarantee it will energise and shorten any meeting.
Jun 2, 2010 | Change, Leadership
Management involves a huge amount of compromise, and hubris amongst all the more usual stuff you see about strategy, vision, performance measures and the like. We are all human, and often seek the easy way out, the low risk option.
Often, this involves telling others what they want to hear.
Making a difference in any environment usually means being prepared to be different, to rock the boat, take a risk, and offer others an alternative to consider, and to tell it as you see it, be prepared to be wrong, but work hard to bring a different perspective to the table.
This is usually a pretty uncomfortable place to be, particularly in an environment of so called collaboration where conformance is valued, which is most organisations I see.
Real value is rarely added by conformance, the best that can bring is more of the same, perhaps done a bit more efficiently.
What we need in a world changing at the rate it is, are people who do not conform, who are prepared to take risks and have a go, and welcome the consequences.
