Mar 15, 2010 | Change, Marketing, Personal Rant, Social Media
From time to time we stumble across something that offers a “Eureka moment” an opportunity for insight that clears the haze, explains something in a way that makes such obvious sense, we wonder why it took so long.
Clay Shirky’s notion of “Cognitive surplus” is such a moment.
His central thesis is that we spend time, huge amounts of it, consuming various forms of media, and he concentrates on TV, but surely most magazines rate a mention, because we do not know what else to do with the surplus time, but when we wake up, and find an alternative, we embrace it, enter Wikipedia, open source software, facebook, and many more.
The wake-up is that we realise that rather than being passive receivers of stuff, we can create something ourselves using the tools of the web, and no matter how trivial it may be, it is more rewarding than sitting watching Desperate Housewives. This is a seismic shift in the way we live our lives, and our kids are going to have to deal with it, but what fun that will be, and how enriching it will be for their lives, so much better than dumbing out in front of Gilligans Island.
Mar 14, 2010 | Change, Marketing, Social Media
One of the huge advantages of the web is that the small can look big, and professional, and able to tackle any challenge, and most important, confident of success.
In order to achieve this on your site, you need to spend a little, perhaps a little more than you would like, but the returns will be there when you generate the opportunity to over deliver to a customer.
On the other hand, the worst thing you can do, having built the expectation, is to under-deliver.
Sounds a bit like life before the web.
After the hype of the last 10 years, we are increasingly able to see the web as just another tool, and like all tools, you need the right one at the right time, and be able to use it effectively in order to get a result.
Mar 10, 2010 | Change, Leadership, Operations
In the audience at a seminar last week, I witnessed an interaction that probably takes place often, in a wide range of circumstances.
An audience member, when invited to ask a question, instead made a statement that was at odds with the point of view of the presenter, who proceeded to get annoyed, and respond to the statement with aggression. Predictably, the exchange did not go far, and if the presenter takes the time to look at the tapes, he should be embarrassed at the opportunity lost.
How much better to ask of the questioner: “why do you say that” and follow up with another question, and perhaps another.
The outcome of questions may have been they both, and the rest of the audience learnt something, rather than seeing the session degrade into an embarrassing mess.
Humans are hard wired to react to aggression, “fight or flight” is the usual expression, but I think we should, under some circumstances add the option of “question and learn” to our repertoire.
Mar 8, 2010 | Change, Innovation, Leadership
Knowledge workers, and these days that is most of us, create value for their employers by leveraging their knowledge, but defining the ownership of that knowledge, and the flow of benefits from that knowledge, is a huge challenge, and becoming larger.
The recent court case between Mattell, owner of the Barbie doll franchise, and MGA Entertainment, owner of the Bratz doll range offers a salient example of the problems.
The designer of parts of the Barbie accessory range, after leaving Mattel went on to design the Bratz range for MCA, and the court held that Mattel was owed for the IP he had developed whilst working for them, but applied to the benefit of a later employer.
This scenario is a minefield for many businesses, and has far reaching implications on the way the employees and contractors are managed, and the ownership of ideas they have retained, or that evolve, even after they may have left employment. Simple no-compete contracts, which are the norm currently are a long way short of the mark in a knowledge economy.
In a knowledge based sector, retaining, motivating, engaging, and understanding key employees should take more time energy than just about anything else. Don’t leave it to the lady in personnel!.
Feb 28, 2010 | Change, Management, Sales, Strategy
How many times have we heard this as a smart front line operator expresses frustration with the attitudes of the executive suite, the redundancy of the business model, or the strategy being pursued, as again, the “bosses” appear to fail to understand the coal face drivers of success.
The most common cause of this cry is becoming the rapid commoditisation of many markets, and those that see it first are usually on the front lines. Suddenly, long term customers are turning away, a new competitor emerges, and the only tool the troops have left is price, and they are pushed to do more with less.
Short term responses to a fundamental change in the business model necessary to be commercially sustainable won’t get you far, at best it will put off the inevitable. You need to ask yourself a couple of key questions:
- How can I differentiate my commodity product to a smaller market, instead of being all things to all people?
- How can I solve a problem someone has with the existing commodity product and service?
- How do I deploy my resources to make it happen, recognising , often this will mean adding a different type of resource.
Feb 25, 2010 | Change, Innovation, Personal Rant
It has been interesting listening to the “debates” over the last week or so on two different topics, the latest of the seemingly endless versions of a NSW transport plan, and the redevelopment of the area of Sydney harbour now called Barangaroo
On both issues, it seems if talkback radio is any indication, that everyone has an opinion, and wants everyone else to hear it.
It also appears that the conversations vary from loud opinions based on fluffy thinking at best, to sensible opinions based on a series of assumptions that even if you choose to disagree with the opinion, at least the assumptions upon which they are based are transparent. There appears to be some correlation between the level of noise and the ignorance of the mouth from which the noise emanates, particularly when responding to an opinion leading view expressed aggressively, as Paul Keating has done on Barangaroo.
It seems to me that if you are going to be taken seriously in a debate, any debate, about the changing of the status quo, you had better have some facts, transparent assumptions, and a vision of the preferred outcome in order to be taken seriously, and to have a useful role in the debate.
Making noise just distracts from the real work of driving change.
