Filed under: Context for Innovation
Seth Godin has a thoughtful response to the wonderful Fast Company story “The Un-Tipping Point” by Clive Thompson.
Unleashing the Ideavirus didn’t spread because ‘important’ people endorsed and promoted it. It spread because passionate people did.
There are many ways to interpret the story, which covers Duncan Watts’s research, which discounts the roles of the super-influentials that many marketers try to reach to make their products tip rapidly. My interpretation is that marketers often over-simplify the definition of an influential, not recognizing that different people will be influential for different types of ideas or products. For example, Slashdot is a hugely influential audience for open-source software. It’s almost irrelevant when you have a new digital audio player to sell. This level of nuance has been left out in most efforts to create an influentials strategy, and that’s why the Tipping Point isn’t the panacea marketers hoped it would be. Just my two cents, you should read the story.
Filed under: Better Than Reading
-
Maybe? I’d love to see the math on that…
Filed under: Better Than Reading
-
I honestly sometimes wonder if Apple deliberately under-sells what it’s going to do just so analysts make their share price plunge, they can re-buy at a low price and then see the value soar again. I mean, best quarter of all time and lose $14 bucks? Huh?
Filed under: Better Than Reading
-
Potentially huge change in the way most online sites gather data about their users. It would be a strike for privacy, but I don’t see this going down easy.
-
First step in the right direction for the American wireless network. It will soon finally be possible to buy the phone you want and just take it to AT&T, and leave any time you want to. It’s about time.
-
Sad to see Meg retiring. Definitely one of Silicon Valley’s finest CEOs.
-
Patent for Camera Implanted in Eyeball That Gives Electronic Vision to the Blind [Artificial Vision]Wow. This is one step away from full-on bionics. This would be of tremendous value to the sight-impaired if it works. Seems like there’s serious potential for abuse, however. How do you know that what you’re seeing is what’s really out there?
-
NBC makes an investment in Indian media. Looks like someone doesn’t think the writer’s strike is ever ending.
-
Car designers still don’t really know how to make a great little car. Shame.
-
That PacMan cupcake set is AMAZING.
Filed under: Digital Life
I’ve been pretty disappointed in CES this year — very few really exciting announcements. Now, just into the Adult Entertainment Expo, is something truly disruptive. It’s the FyreTV, a digital set-top box that promises to deliver streaming HD pornography to your living room for $10 a month. Well, not your living room, of course.
All prurience aside, though, think about the larger implications of this device for the future of the entertainment industry. Imagine if the NFL distributed a box that, for $20, would let you watch all NFL games live on your TV in HD, as well as archived classic games.
Or what if there were a box from HBO that cost $10 a month and had every show they’ve ever done on it available to stream, as well as their full library of studio movies. Who the hell would still get traditional cable service?
This could signal the start of ala carte entertainment for the living room that really makes sense. Genre-specific set-top boxes. I never thought I would see the day.
CES: FyreTV Brings the Porn for Ten Bucks a Month | Gadget Lab from Wired.com
Tags: innovation, digital life, porn
Filed under: Innovation Humor
Pitchfork: Yet another Prince Paul and Automator joint. This time, though, the joke’s totally tired out.
It’s only the eighth day of the year, but the game that will define early 2008 has already come out. It’s not Halo 3, it’s not Super Mario Galaxy, it’s not even Rock Band. It’s the Create Random Album Art Game. Haven’t played it? That’s OK. You’ll be great. All you need is the Internet, a sense of humor and basic layout skills. Here are the instructions, along with samples of my creations. With huge thanks to my friend James Wilkinson at the V, who stole it from “Ronnie the Raincoat” at Cook’d and Bomb’d
Cat Fancy: Horrible patriot-rock in the style of Ted Nugent. He uses the phrase “Boot up your ass” no fewer than 9 times on the opening cut, “Practice Squad.”
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
The first article title on the page is the name of your band. You can remove bits in brackets – eg. “(Seinfeld epsode)” – if you like, or you can leave them in.
2. http://www.quotationspage.com/random.php3
The last four words of the very last quotation is the title of your album. You can use the last three or five words if it sounds better.
3. http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days/
The third picture, no matter what it is, will be your album cover. If it won’t let you save the pic (if this is the case, it will call the file “spaceball.gif”), press shift and print screen to take a screenshot, then paste it into the program.
4.Use your graphics programme of choice to throw them together, and post the result. You can get fonts from http://www.dafont.com.
5. Write a blurb about your album’s musical content (optional). [Editor’s note: But this is the most fun part!]
Time: Swedish electro-pop duo that opened for Loney, Dear once. They blew those sentimental bastards off the stage, chirpily.
RULES:
1. No partial re-rolling, eg: you don’t like your album cover then you have to get a new band name and album title too. You can fully re-roll as much as you like.
1a. Exceptions: when you have randomly selected the title of an existing band, or a band name/album title/image that someone else has used.
2. You can crop your picture to fit CD dimensions and resize it in either direction ’till it’s the right size, but it’s don’t drastically change the base image. You can add a border or something outside the image if it’s small or not square, in order to fit the album cover dimensions.
3. Feel free to break any of these rules, I suppose. It’s not like anyone can tell. But that does kind of spoil the whole exercise. If you cheat, have the decency to tell us!
I think this is all about the excitement of mash-ups. Make a bunch of ideas collide at random and see what you learn from their interactions. It’s a method I favor for ideation prompts — some of the best lateral connections and new-to-the-world ideas start this way — and it’s even more fun when it can be this visual. I found that as I made these and looked at those by other people, I felt more than anything that I had actually heard these records. What does that say about the implicit knowledge we all have about music, album art and the resonance of titles? My thoughts aren’t fully formed on this yet, but there’s something really compelling here. Who wants to play?
Rolling Stone: Third, “childhood trauma” record from the hopelessly lame goth-pop trio from York. For reasons we can’t possibly fathom, all of their songs sound EXACTLY like the chorus of Placebo’s “You Don’t Care About Us.”
Filed under: Better Than Reading
-
Bill Gates trying to explain the difference between his company and Steve Jobs’s. I’m sad that he doesn’t go a bit more into depth about what Apple doesn’t do well, other than by allusion. Apple is slow to implement new standard I/O, which drives me mad.
-
CNET’s a huge web site, but it’s not doing as well as it might. Big shake-up in the making
-
John Siracusa’s wonderful annual bingo card for the Steve Jobs MacWorld keynote. It’s so right on the money it’s scary.
-
Maybe we’re about to see downloads for AppleTV from Apple? I admit, I was wrong about the appeal to buy a movie through iTunes. Let me rent, though…that’s another story
-
Ouch. It’s blue screen of death in return
-
The archetype of the charismatic CEO — doesn’t he convince you that you’d like to work for him?
-
Good stuff
Filed under: Innovators
Interesting news out of Seattle this afternoon. After several years with his hands relatively off, Starbucks visionary and Chairman Howard Schultz has agreed to resume full CEO duties at the company he transformed from a regional coffee bean seller into an international coffee house titan.
Starbucks has taken a beating in the stock market and the media of late, largely because of perceive gains McDonald’s has made in starting to roll out its “McCafe” services, which include cheaper versions of lattes and cappuccinos than Starbucks is willing to sell. Just today, the Wall Street Journal reported on the possibility that McDonald’s could make further gains on Big Green, and that Dunkin Donuts will be tough to stop as well.
For his part, Schultz remains as inspiring and charismatic as ever. From his memo about the return, courtesy BusinessWeek:
Twenty-five years ago, I walked into Starbucks’ (SBUX) first store in Seattle’s Pike Place Market, and from that day forward we have taken the road less traveled. Working with an exceptional group of people and summoning all the courage we could muster, we created a new kind of place—one that served the kind of coffee that most people had never tasted, an environment that didn’t look like any other store, and hiring people who were fanatically passionate about coffee and celebrated their interaction with customers. To do this, we focused every ounce of our beings on creativity and innovation. Over the years, together we have built one of the most recognized and respected brands in the world. When we went public in June, 1992, we had 119 stores. We now have more than 15,000 stores and a significant and growing presence in 43 countries, serving 50 million customers a week. These customers have placed their trust in us, and for them and for each other we need to ensure that our future is as exciting as our past.
If we take an honest look at Starbucks today, then we know that we are emerging from a period in which we invested in infrastructure ahead of the growth curve. Although necessary, it led to bureaucracy. We will now shift our emphasis back onto customer-facing initiatives, better aligning our back-end costs with our business model. We are fortunate, though, that the challenge we face is one of our own making. Because of this, we know what needs to be done to ensure our long-term future success around the world.
…
In the meantime, I want to thank you for your dedication to Starbucks and for your commitment to earning the trust of our customers every day. Our success is up to us. We know what we need to do to win, and we will do it.
I’ll be interested to see what Schultz does in his second run at the top for Starbucks. If nothing else, it will provide another proving ground that it can be as hard to survive the departure of a charismatic visionary as it is wonderful to work for one when he or she is in power. Schultz is a genius, there’s no question of that. But in spite of all he has done to make everyone in Starbucks understand what the company represents, which goals matters, and how to make the Starbucks experience real, the organizations went awry when he stepped away from day-to-day leadership. His return might well prove as fruitful as the second coming of Steve Jobs at Apple (though Starbucks is far from as messed up as Apple was in the mid-’90s), but the question remains: What will either company do when its inspiring entrepreneur is really gone? What are they doing to make their cultures endure.
As a colleague of mine often says: “How do you do the job without Jobs?”
Image via BizWeek
Filed under: Better Than Reading
-
New issue of Ambidextrous, the D.School’s journal, hitting in two weeks. Will you be there?
-
Great year-opening question from Seth Godin. Who trusts you?
-
Korea and Japan have had these forever. Is the U.S. finally almost caught up, in spite of the cell phone networks?
-
Heart-breaking tribute to the greatest logo designer of all time.
-
Bizarrely, a colleague gave me Dusenberry’s book “One Great Insight is Worth a Thousand Good Ideas” (formerly known as “And Then We Set His Hair on Fire) yesterday, hours before he died.
-
It begins. This is a big step in terms of showing that it’s possible to make an iPhone without an iPhone.
-
Nothing I like better than accurate forecasting.
Filed under: Empathy
Happy New Year, everyone! In case you’ve lost track — I certainly have, and I run this place — this is Better Than New, a blog chronicling the shouts and murmurs of the innovation business at the intersection of culture, design and business. A number of other projects, including Cult of Mac and something top-secret, have taken my eyes askance, but I’m hoping to return to something like a regular posting schedule in the new year. I’ve even created an hour time slot on my Outlook Calendar for it. And now, the post!
Each New Year brings with it a seemingly endless stream of retrospectives. From the best movies and TV shows to the most loathsome human beings, every category of life in the last year is dissected and analyzed. In recent years, the latter variety of list has come to predominate. Filled with bile and cutting wit, such lists are often hilarious and downright mean ways to reflect on our wider culture.
This genre has become so popular over the past decade, in fact,t hat they have moved beyond the pages of obscure, cynical humor publications and into the mainstream press. Fortune, for example, created a list of the “101 Dumbest Moments in Business 2007,” which purports to help us remember the wild, wacky, and, well, dumb moments that helped define the business world last year. What the package actually manages to do is highlight the mindset that people in deep in the business world take when observing the wider culture in which they do business.
The list is fine when it aims directly at pressing issues of corporate malfeasance or downright boneheaded business decisions — Merrill Lynch’s entire last year, Eli Lilly marketing Prozac to dogs — but careens off the rails when asked to consider any issue that largely exists outside of the board room. Fortune, and by correlation its readers, is dangerously out of step with ordinary people. Take entry no. 9 on the list, which takes French newspaper Le Monde to task for praising Pixar’s Ratatouille as “one of the greatest gastronomic films in the history of cinema.”
Far from being an absurd assertion about a cartoon featuring a rat in a kitchen, Le Monde‘s effusive praise is pretty much right, from its expert depiction of life on a gourmet restaurant cooking team, the limited opportunities for women in the high-pressure food industry, and even the brilliantly rendered and joyless food critic Anton Ego. Not to mention the gorgeous dishes designed by French Laundry maestro Thomas Keller. From stem to stern, Ratatouille has made it cool to be a foodie. And it brought its parent company Disney $600 million in revenue. Millions of people obviously agree with Le Monde about the movie. Why doesn’t Fortune go find out why? People are not crazy. In their own minds, everything they do makes sense. But too often in a world that values rationality above all else (business), we dismiss the tastes and worldviews of everyday, average folks.
Evidence that Fortune editors are out of step with the bigger culture is evident in item 59, writing up Radiohead’s “In Rainbows” self-distributed, pay-what-you-like download model as a huge misstep. “Can’t wait for the follow-up album, ‘In Debt,'” the cynical headline writer reports. Har! The writer of the blurb note that 62 percent of downloaders paid nothing for “In Rainbows” while the remainder voluntarily paid an average of $6 for the collection. Radiohead could have made so much more if they had sold the album through its former label, EMI, right? Actually, no.
Most bands make less than $1 per album sold. Radiohead, even including those freeloaders, got paid an average of about $2.40 per album. If the band actually saw 1 million downloads, as rumored, they cleared well over $2 million in a single day, well over what equivalent sales would yield. Only through the eyes of someone solely focused on the health of corporations could “In Rainbows” be viewed as a failure. Yes, Radiohead’s decision meant that a ton of revenue destined for EMI didn’t go to anyone. But on a personal level, “In Rainbows” brought the members of Radiohead a huge amount of money, used nearly emissions-free online distribution, and also gave the band greater control than any major group in history. Fortune sarcastically referring to the next album, “In Debt” is so far off the mark I scarcely know how to respond. How could Radiohead go in debt? They distribution cost them a few thousand bucks in bandwidth costs, and they own their own studio. Going with a major label is far more likely to put you in debt, particularly when studio and promotion costs exceed the artist’s cut, as it often can.
I could go on, but I’ll stop there. This list is not, in and of itself, a crisis. But it if accurately reflects how acquainted most business people are with the wider culture, than we’re in for tough times. After all, how on earth do you know what people will want to buy if you can’t even figure out what they value or why they do the things that they do? It’s a signifier of a business world out of step with the rest of the world. Only by reconnecting to what people care about will companies of all kinds be able to sustain their growth. And that takes a dogged pursuit of empathy.
Via Daring Fireball
101 Dumbest Moments in Business 2007: Full list – Fortune Magazine
Tags: empathy, fortune, list, annual, mean