Topics: marketing
20 Apr 2010The late, great comedian Mitch Hedberg had a lot to say about the craft and business of being a comic. Here is how he described the art of showmanship.
As a comedian, you have to start the show strong and you have to end the show strong. Those are the two key elements. You can’t be like pancakes. You’re all happy at first, but then by the end, you’re sick of ‘em.
It’s easy to start strong. A customer hears about your product and becomes excited by the potential offered. It seems to solve a problem they have. Maybe the experience starts with seeing your commercial on television. Or on the shelf at a store. Maybe they have read through your website and decided to sign up for your service. Perhaps your salesperson has just finished a pitch and convinced the customer they want your product.
In other words, they were hungry. They looked at the pancakes, and man, did they sound good.
“I’ll have the pancakes.”
But then they dive in. They start using your product and it’s alright at first. But as they continue to use it, the disappointment starts to set in. The experience is frustrating. The interface is confusing. It becomes a chore. The initial excitement is gone, it becomes unpleasant, and in the end, they’re happy to see it taken away.
It is no longer enough to just drive sales. Your product needs to continually deliver. It needs to live up to the initial promise. Marketing is more than just getting people to buy. The end-to-end experience people have with your product is also marketing. In fact, it’s the most important part, because if you’re leaving people sick of your product at the end, word will spread. The Internet provides everyone with a megaphone and if they aren’t happy, others will know.
And then what happens? People will stop ordering your pancakes.
Topics: entrepreneur|running a business
5 Apr 2010In a 1964 court case deciding whether a movie was to be deemed obscene or not, former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said:
“ I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so.
But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. ”
In other words, he couldn’t define obscenity in words but he could decide whether or not something was obscene by actually seeing an example. This concept became the basis for the common expression “I know it when I see it.”
“I know it when I see it.”
While it’s admittedly an odd parallel, I’m a big believer that most people know good websites when they see them. And they’re able to spot a bad one a mile away. And by “most people” I’m referring to web designers, developers, users and yes, even clients.
But it’s a rare skill to be able to describe what makes a website good. Putting things into words is much more difficult than reacting to what we can see, use and interact with. And it’s even harder to be able to visualize what things will look like based on just reading text.
So why does every web project start with words? Clients write a Request For Proposal, vendors respond with a written proposal, and everyone decides on critical issues such as cost and time lines all before anyone has seen anything. This is why there are so many mediocre websites out there. And why so many clients and vendors get frustrated during the process. We all assume everyone can put what they want into words and that’s not the case.
Don’t Just Say It. Show It.
Wireframes and prototypes can serve as a great starting point to capture ideas early on in a project. It allows everyone to actually see what is being discussed, allows good ideas to be demonstrated, and often leads to bad ideas being killed early. I’ve used this process on multiple projects and it always produces better results in the end.
Starting out a project with something visual, something people can interact with and react to, is definitely unconventional. Few people do it. Which is why you might want to try it.
Too much of our business focuses on the end result. Maybe it’s time to reevaluate the process that produces those results.
Topics: career|ideas|networking
22 Mar 2010
Another day, another celebrity sex scandal. The latest saga involves the sordid affair between motorcycle-building and Sandra Bullock-marrying Jesse James and some “tattoo model” named Michelle McGee. Several days ago the smoking gun was finally revealed: text messages that James had allegedly sent to McGee.
All of this is happening in the wake of the Tiger Woods debacle, which happened to include an incriminating voicemail Tiger had left on his mistresses’ phone.
(A piece of advice: If you’re golfing legend Tiger Woods and you need to ask someone to change a voicemail message so your wife doesn’t find out about your affair, don’t leave that request in a voicemail. And definitely don’t start the message with “It’s me, Tiger.”)
Here are two different examples of wealthy, famous individuals who both have a lot to lose from the public knowing about their affairs. And what did they both do?
They handed someone they couldn’t trust a lever.
What’s a lever?
A lever “will lift, pry, or force an object to respond through the proper distribution of pressure,” according to the book, Games Criminals Play by Bud Allen and Diana Bosta. In the book, the authors outline how criminals manipulate people. For example, inmates create a setup against a corrections officer in order to gain leverage over that individual. It usually has to do with getting them to bend the rules slightly, like by sharing a cigarette with the inmate (which is against the rules within prison). They then threaten to report the guard for the infraction unless some other favor is done for the inmate. The situation can continue to escalate, leading to serious crimes like having the guard smuggle drugs or weapons into the prison.
If you’ve ever read a news story about a prison guard risking their job and their family by doing something serious like this and wondered why they would do it, this book outlines the process the probably led up to it.
Not Just For Corrections Officers
I’m assuming not too many readers of this blog work in a prison. But I share this book because I consider it recommended reading for everyone. It outlines some basic principles of human behavior and psychology, describing a sequence of events that can lead to people being manipulated and doing things they would have never imagined. And it usually starts by handing someone a “lever” that can be used against them.
And it’s not just celebrities that make these mistakes.
Obviously, whenever someone cheats on their partner, they are handing a great deal of power to the individual they cheat with. But it applies on a smaller level too. When you tell a co-worker you weren’t really sick when you called in the other day, you handed them a lever. When you engage in gossip about someone, you hand a lever to the person you’re sharing with. Most of the time the lever is never used. But by continually handing them out, you’re increasing the chances that it will be.
Don’t be manipulated.
Games Criminals Play describes various setups and how they are used to influence people’s behavior. A lot of colorful language is also used to describe the process, like lever, ducks, stings, and protectors (I won’t spoil it by explaining what each one means). There are also a few entertaining case studies that describe actual events and situations. It’s a great book and has a lot to share about making sure you aren’t being manipulated.
So the next time someone mentions the great work you’re doing and how it’s obvious your boss doesn’t appreciate you, ask yourself: Are they just looking for a lever?
Topics: career|running a business
12 Mar 2010The sports world is full of traditions. And as we prepare to enter mid-March, one annual custom continues on. Of course, I’m talking about the endless stories about how much March Madness costs the American economy in lost wages.
This year’s figure, diligently compiled by outplacement firm Challenger Gray Christmas, puts the total assault on productivity at $1.8 billion. And that’s down from a record high of $3.8 billion in 2006.
So how can we tolerate such a loss each and every year? And what has changed to slash this financial havoc by more than half?
Calculating the “Damage”
First, a quick look at where this $1.8 billion number comes from. Challenger Gray Christmas first looked at an MSN survey from 2009 says 45% of Americans planned to enter at least one college basketball pool last year. Well then, according to them, that must apply to every single worker included in payroll employment (129,526,000) which means that 58.3 million workers will be participating in office pools.
Already this starts to fall apart. Almost half of the American workforce will participate in March Madness? Really? But let’s keep going.
So, take that 58.3 million people, and assume that each worker makes an average of $18.70/hour (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics). That’s more than $6 bucks every 20 minutes. So if each worker (stay with me here) spends 20 minutes every workday of the first week of March Madness (5 days) on non-work related activity, then ta-da, $1.8 billion in damages.
Because, you know, every single minute you’re at the office, you’re working.
This assumes that March Madness will take away from actual work, as opposed to just reallocating some of the slack-off time already built into each workday. Or that the morale and team-boosting effects of participating in an office pool doesn’t have any sort of positive productivity result.
The Truth Behind the Decline
So why the huge decline from previous years? In 2006, Challenger Gray Christmas counted all 16 days of the tournament in their estimate. They used to assume each day was of equal weight. After getting called on it over the years by multiple keen observers, Challenger Gray Christmas now only counts the first week of the tournament, assuming that’s when people are most interested in researching teams and are following the early rounds, which consist of multiple day games. After the end of the first round, many casual observers lose interest (after sadly watching their bracket crumble). Plus, the majority of games are during non-work hours in later rounds.
Overall, these figures have huge, unrealistic assumptions built into them. About half of the workforce participates. Every one of those workers spends 20 minutes everyday for an entire week following the games instead of working. That every minute of every workday you are actually working. That there are no positive effects that come from co-workers being involved in a group exercise like this. And so on.
Good PR. Bad Math.
You have to hand it to them. Every year, Challenger Gray Christmas gets their name in media all over the globe with these stats. But as soon as you dive into their methodology, it doesn’t hold up.
So if you’re a sports fan, don’t feel guilty spending a bit of your workday following the action. It’s not going to create billions in damages.
Hopefully you’re not reading this blog post while you’re at work, otherwise you are hurting the already distressed American economy. Maybe I should issue an annual press release titled “Websterism Costs American Employers About $36 in Lost Wages Each Year.” The newspapers would eat it up, year after year, and I would continually get my name in print.
Actually, I might be onto something.
Topics: career|networking
9 Mar 2010LinkedIn has been around for about eight years now and has grown to become a valuable networking and job search tool. Though it is technically a social network, there are still too many people who treat it differently, almost as if it were just a resume database. This is evidenced by how many people still haven’t uploaded a photo to their profile.
There are various excuses as to why people haven’t included a photo. The most common seems to be that it could become a point of discrimination for a recruiter, as it reveals your ethnicity and approximate age. Since these would all be obviously revealed when they meet you in person, it shouldn’t be much of a concern.
There are many reasons to make sure you include an appropriate headshot with your profile. This could be a long list, so I’ll focus on just three reasons.
1. You will instantly stand out from the crowd.
LinkedIn includes the profile photo in all searches, messages, and job inquiries. About 40% of LinkedIn profiles don’t have a photo on their profile. So by adding one, your profile would already stand out above nearly half of all other users.
2. It adds personality and authenticity to your profile.
Giving users too much creative control over profiles can lead to disaster (MySpace, anyone?), so most popular social networking sites use a standardized look and feel for all user profiles. This means that your photo is the only opportunity you have to visually differentiate your profile from others. A photo-less profile looks cold and sterile. And though it sounds obvious, a photo shows that your profile represents a real person.
3. It creates a sense of visual recognition.
People react more openly to familiar faces than unknown ones. It is hardwired in our brains, a remnant from a time when recognizing faces was an important part of survival. When a recruiter, potential employer, or professional contact sees your photo on LinkedIn, their brain will consider you “familiar” when they meet you in person, causing them to drop their guard a bit.
LinkedIn considers adding a photo a requirement for your profile to be considered 100% complete. There is a reason for this: It makes your profile more effective.
If you don’t have one, go find a professional-looking headshot of yourself and update your profile now.
I'm a designer and marketer who has spent my career helping brands & organizations get the biggest bang for their marketing buck. I believe that with a creative approach, anyone can do big things on small budgets.
Kickstart Concepts
The interactive design and development agency I founded in New York City.
ChangeSides.com
Life and work advice from authors, bloggers and entrepreneurs.
WingDipper
A specially designed cup for dipping buffalo wings into dressing.