I didn’t say that; Guy Kawasaki did.
It came out in an interview a week and a half ago about Fast Company’s Influence Project, in answer to a question about why Social Media is so powerful.
It’s true in so many ways; the faceless, nameless, abbreviation-filled world of social media allows anyone to do just about anything online, from creating Super Bowl ads (for $2000) that win a million dollars to sending in stoopid piktures of kats with misspelled capshuns. Both of which, millions and millions of people have seen and loved.
Appropriately enough, the interview was short, but full of interesting tidbits from Kawasaki, the former chief evangelist for Apple. I follow him on Twitter and have always been intrigued by the fact that he offers up almost no original content, just links to things he finds interesting. Which, if his followers go check out, makes him eminently more influential. He’s definitely a somebody.
But the interesting thing is, it took him a while to become a somebody that people trust and believe and are willing to stick with and listen to over the long haul. He wrote books, he spoke, he got visible. he worked it. I haven’t heard about the guys who created the winning Super Bowl ad since they created the winning Super Bowl ad. They spiked and faded.
Guy might be right in his assessment of nobodies being the new somebodies. But as in any marketing effort for a brand (which he certainly is), in order to create loyalty and relationships, you need to have a diligent, consistent, strategic effort. It takes a lot of time (or in Kawasaki’s case, a staff of ghosts).
In the era of social media, nobodies can be somebodies, but if they’re interested in anything other than fleeting fame, they better work at it. With apologies to Andy Warhol, everyone will get their 15 seconds of fame. If they want it more than once, they better work at it.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
The wondrousness of snap decisions
I was in my favorite paper store today—great cards, stationary, writing utensils, doo-dads for making cool stuff--and as I was paying, a very stylish, sophisticated-looking older couple (around 70ish) walked in almost out of breath and asked the salesperson—demanded, really— “What’s the quickest you can make wedding invitations!?!?”
Talk about a question that conjures up a thousand different stories.
Their printer’s building (and their daughter’s newly printed invitations) burned down last night.
They both floated in and out of relationships but nothing ever clicked and neither ever married, and they just (finally!) found each other on an S&M site and knew instantaneously that they were bound (literally) to be together.
Or perhaps they just fell in love without the aid of J-date, Vegas, or martinis…just a random meeting earlier in the day, perhaps a misunderstanding around a Mate Latte at Argo Tea…their eyes met and they knew. And they decided to get married. Quickly. No time to waste, right?
So they started with invitations. Who knows where they were going next? Maybe down the block to the bakery. There’s a church down the street. And a travel agency.
They’re probably in Tahiti by now.
Look how far a quick decision from the gut can take you.
Talk about a question that conjures up a thousand different stories.
Their printer’s building (and their daughter’s newly printed invitations) burned down last night.
They both floated in and out of relationships but nothing ever clicked and neither ever married, and they just (finally!) found each other on an S&M site and knew instantaneously that they were bound (literally) to be together.
Or perhaps they just fell in love without the aid of J-date, Vegas, or martinis…just a random meeting earlier in the day, perhaps a misunderstanding around a Mate Latte at Argo Tea…their eyes met and they knew. And they decided to get married. Quickly. No time to waste, right?
So they started with invitations. Who knows where they were going next? Maybe down the block to the bakery. There’s a church down the street. And a travel agency.
They’re probably in Tahiti by now.
Look how far a quick decision from the gut can take you.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Up with Humans!
You know what the great thing about the world is?
Humans.
If you don’t like humans, or think they’re annoying, please stop reading. If their smell bothers you on the El, or the way they slurp their soup too loudly at Panera makes you want to put headphones on, you are excused.
Because I think humans are awesome, I say, “Up with people!”
One of the great things about humans is, they come up with amazing ideas. They think up things like the theory of relativity and the Flowbee (800 watts of stylish suction).
The guy who sells me my teriyaki chicken has ideas about a lot of things, some good, some bad; his recent ideas were around Chicago’s July 4 fireworks and how more people could see them (make ‘em bigger and higher!”).
A few years ago, the marketing world realized the value of humans and the power of their ideas and became an enabler to the development of User Created Content, also known as Consumer Generated Content. In other words, marketing communications that’s created by regular humans instead of professional marketers.
It’s some of the very best marketing communications out there. Here’s a very recent example. And here’s one of my favorites, a TV commercial created by real humans and voted by humans to be the best Super Bowl ad of 2009—and which helped coin the temporarily famous headline, “Two nobodies from nowhere.” Good stuff, don’t you think? You gotta love real human ideation.
One reason humans usually like Consumer Generated Content so much may be because it’s created by real humans. It doesn't have to jump over the many hurdles like an idea created by real marketers, such as focus group testing and rounds and rounds of revisions, so it hasn't had to have too many changes along the way, and the idea is often closer to what it originally looked like. The work may not always be as strategic as ideas that go through rounds of focus groups, but other humans sure seem to like it.
Just think if real humans created all of the marketing communications. It might be marketing anarchy. But it sure would be fun.
Humans.
If you don’t like humans, or think they’re annoying, please stop reading. If their smell bothers you on the El, or the way they slurp their soup too loudly at Panera makes you want to put headphones on, you are excused.
Because I think humans are awesome, I say, “Up with people!”
One of the great things about humans is, they come up with amazing ideas. They think up things like the theory of relativity and the Flowbee (800 watts of stylish suction).
The guy who sells me my teriyaki chicken has ideas about a lot of things, some good, some bad; his recent ideas were around Chicago’s July 4 fireworks and how more people could see them (make ‘em bigger and higher!”).
A few years ago, the marketing world realized the value of humans and the power of their ideas and became an enabler to the development of User Created Content, also known as Consumer Generated Content. In other words, marketing communications that’s created by regular humans instead of professional marketers.
It’s some of the very best marketing communications out there. Here’s a very recent example. And here’s one of my favorites, a TV commercial created by real humans and voted by humans to be the best Super Bowl ad of 2009—and which helped coin the temporarily famous headline, “Two nobodies from nowhere.” Good stuff, don’t you think? You gotta love real human ideation.
One reason humans usually like Consumer Generated Content so much may be because it’s created by real humans. It doesn't have to jump over the many hurdles like an idea created by real marketers, such as focus group testing and rounds and rounds of revisions, so it hasn't had to have too many changes along the way, and the idea is often closer to what it originally looked like. The work may not always be as strategic as ideas that go through rounds of focus groups, but other humans sure seem to like it.
Just think if real humans created all of the marketing communications. It might be marketing anarchy. But it sure would be fun.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Can't beat fun at the old baseball trapezoid
Collaboration in sports is usually a good thing. Just about every team has a huge amount of talent in the locker room, and often it’s chemistry that separates champs from chumps.
How often do you hear of a team making a late season acquisition of a player who has won championships on different teams? It’s not often the most talented guy available; in fact, more often that not, it’s a just-above average player who’s an excellent “clubhouse guy.” He’s a natural facilitator—he keys great collaboration and he helps get people to perform.
(And conversely, you only have to look as far as my beloved Wrigley Field to see two cases of the opposite of great clubhouse guys-- Milton Bradley and Carlos Zambrano--people whose poisonous attitudes have been able to take down a team all by themselves.)
So when is collaboration a bad thing in sports? When it comes to building baseball stadiums.
The interesting thing about ballparks, compared to football fields or basketball courts, is that no playing fields are the same. Football fields are 100 yards long, basketball courts are 94 feet from end to end and 50 feet from side to side. Baseball stadiums are all wonderfully uniquely different.
This was brought to my attention by some smart folks at snippets.com who used Google Maps to trace the shapes of all uncovered Major League baseball parks. The variance in shapes and sizes are truly amazing. While some teams actually do play on baseball diamonds, others play on baseball rhombuses and baseball trapeziods.
I won’t rant about this being another reason baseball is the best, most interesting and unique sport on the planet (despite most humans being unable to make it through more than an inning or two without going go get something to eat.)
I will suggest that the very best cultures allow for individuality to thrive even when great collaboration makes the difference between success and failure.
How often do you hear of a team making a late season acquisition of a player who has won championships on different teams? It’s not often the most talented guy available; in fact, more often that not, it’s a just-above average player who’s an excellent “clubhouse guy.” He’s a natural facilitator—he keys great collaboration and he helps get people to perform.
(And conversely, you only have to look as far as my beloved Wrigley Field to see two cases of the opposite of great clubhouse guys-- Milton Bradley and Carlos Zambrano--people whose poisonous attitudes have been able to take down a team all by themselves.)
So when is collaboration a bad thing in sports? When it comes to building baseball stadiums.
The interesting thing about ballparks, compared to football fields or basketball courts, is that no playing fields are the same. Football fields are 100 yards long, basketball courts are 94 feet from end to end and 50 feet from side to side. Baseball stadiums are all wonderfully uniquely different.
This was brought to my attention by some smart folks at snippets.com who used Google Maps to trace the shapes of all uncovered Major League baseball parks. The variance in shapes and sizes are truly amazing. While some teams actually do play on baseball diamonds, others play on baseball rhombuses and baseball trapeziods.
I won’t rant about this being another reason baseball is the best, most interesting and unique sport on the planet (despite most humans being unable to make it through more than an inning or two without going go get something to eat.)
I will suggest that the very best cultures allow for individuality to thrive even when great collaboration makes the difference between success and failure.
Friday, June 18, 2010
I daer yoo not 2 laff
Pablo Picasso may not have been real hip to computers, but he might have changed his tune if he'd hung around long enough to experience all of the wonderful stupidity of the internet.
Visionary entrepreneurs are building empires on the foundation of pictures of cats wearing ties accompanied by misspelled captions. I dare you not to laugh at Lolcats.
Or Fail blog.
Or There, I fixed it.
All these sites are owned by the Cheezburger network, a bunch of crazies who identify possible new Funny by monitoring community forums, blogs, and websites and use the intel to spin off new sites. The sites are easy to make and spread and they’re hugely popular. Thousands of submissions are rejected; many of the rejects are the basis new sites.
It’s a bastard stepchild of America’s Funniest Home Videos, a wonderful way to make something out of nothing by coming up with a new way to Twist what already exists, and it’s brilliant.
So see what's under that pile on your desk. Pay closer attention when you're surfing the web. Take another look at the back of your cereal box. Never hesitate to take a good look at what you already have; it's a good way to discover something new. It might even happen by accident.
Just ask these guys.
Visionary entrepreneurs are building empires on the foundation of pictures of cats wearing ties accompanied by misspelled captions. I dare you not to laugh at Lolcats.
Or Fail blog.
Or There, I fixed it.
All these sites are owned by the Cheezburger network, a bunch of crazies who identify possible new Funny by monitoring community forums, blogs, and websites and use the intel to spin off new sites. The sites are easy to make and spread and they’re hugely popular. Thousands of submissions are rejected; many of the rejects are the basis new sites.
It’s a bastard stepchild of America’s Funniest Home Videos, a wonderful way to make something out of nothing by coming up with a new way to Twist what already exists, and it’s brilliant.
So see what's under that pile on your desk. Pay closer attention when you're surfing the web. Take another look at the back of your cereal box. Never hesitate to take a good look at what you already have; it's a good way to discover something new. It might even happen by accident.
Just ask these guys.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Pablo Picasso was right (and wrong) about computers
“What good are computers? They can only give you answers.”
Thank you, Pablo, for criticizing computers in a way that doesn’t make you seem like a curmudgeonly old complainer like the other 40+ers who love computers 98% of the time but once in a while curse them for hurtling the world along faster and faster each day, and specifically, for the continued contraction of deadlines they’ve caused. If negativity is the enemy of creative thinking, then Time is its best friend. Give a good amount of time to some healthy collaboration and cognitive dissonance, allow time for Ideation, and watch the ideas explode in million wonderful directions.
Among the many things I wonder about Gen Y is if they ever curse computers and their very existence. Digital natives live with computers as appendages and don’t consider their continued minute by minute use as causing progress, as much as facilitating every day doings. Mason Bates is one example.
I would guess he’s made every tux-wearing symphony subscriber nauseous, and caused every classical musician to create Mason Bates voodoo dolls and stick hollow point pins in the eyes and hands. It’s interesting work, and it’s certainly art. And with all due respect to Mr. Picasso, I’d bet Mr. Bates’ compositions have created far more questions than answers.
Across media, there’s no doubt that the creative product thrives when computers are involved. It just means the art takes shape a little differently, which qualifies it for a spot on the evolutionary timeline that started when the first splash of paint hit the cave wall. It’s not about how it’s created, as long as someone is creating it.
Perhaps our friend Pablo said it best:
"There are painters who transform the sun into a yellow spot, but there are others who, thanks to their art and intelligence, transform a yellow spot into the sun."
Thank you, Pablo, for criticizing computers in a way that doesn’t make you seem like a curmudgeonly old complainer like the other 40+ers who love computers 98% of the time but once in a while curse them for hurtling the world along faster and faster each day, and specifically, for the continued contraction of deadlines they’ve caused. If negativity is the enemy of creative thinking, then Time is its best friend. Give a good amount of time to some healthy collaboration and cognitive dissonance, allow time for Ideation, and watch the ideas explode in million wonderful directions.
Among the many things I wonder about Gen Y is if they ever curse computers and their very existence. Digital natives live with computers as appendages and don’t consider their continued minute by minute use as causing progress, as much as facilitating every day doings. Mason Bates is one example.
I would guess he’s made every tux-wearing symphony subscriber nauseous, and caused every classical musician to create Mason Bates voodoo dolls and stick hollow point pins in the eyes and hands. It’s interesting work, and it’s certainly art. And with all due respect to Mr. Picasso, I’d bet Mr. Bates’ compositions have created far more questions than answers.
Across media, there’s no doubt that the creative product thrives when computers are involved. It just means the art takes shape a little differently, which qualifies it for a spot on the evolutionary timeline that started when the first splash of paint hit the cave wall. It’s not about how it’s created, as long as someone is creating it.
Perhaps our friend Pablo said it best:
"There are painters who transform the sun into a yellow spot, but there are others who, thanks to their art and intelligence, transform a yellow spot into the sun."
Thursday, June 10, 2010
The military giveth, the military borrowith
The Military has given great things to this country, not the least of which being freedom for all of her citizens and pretty much the rest of the free world. So it’s nice to see the military being smart (and humble) enough to look to the most American of all sports for some of their Ideas:
The National Football League (sorry, baseball, just check the numbers).
The US military has over 24 million minutes of video collected by remotely piloted aircraft, ready and waiting to be used to track down the bad guys. But it’s relatively useless because military analysts have no way to search it or know what information it holds.
Enter the NFL, which has “the technology so you can pull an instant replay of every Brett Favre touchdown over his career.” From where did the idea to borrow from the NFL come? It could have come from a Five Star General chilling on a standard issue khaki couch one Sunday afternoon, but I think there was a secret ideation session led by an Army facilitator in a bunker somewhere south of Kandahar.
Either way, some smart person in the military who has probably read A Technique for Producing Ideas understood the value of putting together existing elements to come up with a sparkling new, smart idea. Now if he could only figure out a way to make Instant Replay in the NFL about a hundred times faster.
The National Football League (sorry, baseball, just check the numbers).
The US military has over 24 million minutes of video collected by remotely piloted aircraft, ready and waiting to be used to track down the bad guys. But it’s relatively useless because military analysts have no way to search it or know what information it holds.
Enter the NFL, which has “the technology so you can pull an instant replay of every Brett Favre touchdown over his career.” From where did the idea to borrow from the NFL come? It could have come from a Five Star General chilling on a standard issue khaki couch one Sunday afternoon, but I think there was a secret ideation session led by an Army facilitator in a bunker somewhere south of Kandahar.
Either way, some smart person in the military who has probably read A Technique for Producing Ideas understood the value of putting together existing elements to come up with a sparkling new, smart idea. Now if he could only figure out a way to make Instant Replay in the NFL about a hundred times faster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)