im-media-te impact by Brian Reich

11:13 am | 0 recommendations | 2 comments

My Thoughts On the 2010 Superbowl Ads

I was unimpressed with most/all of the advertising during last night's Superbowl -- and I know I am not alone.  There are, of course, several different lines of attack I could level against the brand and advertising community: 

- The ads lacked creativity or originality -- isn't that the very thing the brand and advertising community pride themselves on most?

- The ads weren't funny -- and even if they were funny, was that the best (or only) way to attract attention and deliver a message to the audience?

- Most ads were clearly anti-women -- is it really necessary to cut down a whole segment of our society, and the viewing audience, to sell your product?

- There was very little TV-to-online/mobile connection made -- don't you understand how people are watching television today, or the ways we get/share information about products and services?

But I don't want to add to the pile of criticism that the brand and advertising community is certain to be digging out from underneath this morning.  I want to try to help.   I have made my share of mistakes when putting together campaigns for my clients and I know that constructive, focused feedback always helps me improve for next time.

So, with that:

Dear Brand and Advertising community:

I watch the Superbowl every year -- without exception.  I have for as long as I can remember.  I tune in mostly for the game.  But you should know that the ads are important to my viewing experience as well.  I am interested in the ads for professional reasons -- I work as a communications strategist, helping organizations (including major brands) find ways to reach, educate, engage, and ultimately mobilize audiences. I also study how people get/share information in today's society and write, speak, and teach about marketing and how to change behavior through media.  I am also interested in the ads for personal reasons -- I want to hear about new products, get help figuring out which choices to make when I go to the store, and similar.  Needless to say, from a professional standpoint the Superbowl offers wonderful information about what brands are doing to reach and motivate audiences, and whether or not its working. And on a personal level, I can use the advertising I see during the Superbowl to make some important choices about what companies I want to support, and what products I am going to buy.

It might be helpful if I told you a little bit about myself:

I am a white male, 32-years old, living in New York City.  I am married. I have a two-year old son, Henry. My wife, Karen, and I are expecting our second child in April.  I am college educated.  I am employed. I am Jewish -- but what you would call a 'high holiday Jew' (meaning I know the customs, celebrate the big events, enjoy being part of the community, but you would not consider me religious, or particularly faithful).  I am a big sports fan -- I attend games, I watch sports on TV, I buy and wear clothing to support my favorite teams (the Seattle Mariners, Seattle Seahawks, New York Knicks, Michigan Wolverines, etc).  I .  I consume a significant amount of media -- dozens of newspapers and magazines, hours of television and radio (broadcast and podcast), and I spent roughly 18 hours each day connectd to the internet in some way, shape or form. I have an iPhone.  I use both mac and pc.  I blog, tweet and use Facebook daily -- and I am an active member of a host of different communities and groups, online and offline.  I donate to charity.  I shop online and offline.  I love going to the grocery store.  I listen to (and purchase) music.  I watch movies (on demand, and in theaters).  I travel, a lot, both for work and for personal reasons.  I own a car (a GMC Acadia) - but rarely drive it anymore because we live in NYC. I shop online.

Let me put it this way: I am your target audience.  You don't think so?  Look at my demographics.  Take a moment to understand how much information I consume, and share, on a daily basis.  Consider how many people I connect with, and how diverse a group of people that represents.  I may be just one person, but I both reflect a pretty broad audience of people who you need to pay attention to if you want to be successful -- and I talk with, and reach, a pretty broad audience of people you need to pay attention to if you want to be successful.

So, what did I think about the Superbowl?  I was thrilled with the game.  I was underwhelmed by your ads.  Let me explain:

Bud Light: Seriously - do you think I am that dumb? I don't drink Bud Light - or beer at all - so I recognize that you don't really care what I think about your ads.  I don't drink beer because I don't like the taste, and if I am going to drink I want to enjoy the experience.  Even if I did drink beer, I wouldn't drink Bud Light because, regardless of taste, you have built a brand that I don't want to be a part of.  The men in your ads are stupid, or do stupid things.  Whether I am sober or drunk, I sure hope that isn't me.  And if you can't be truly original, at least be sufficiently different or better than the ads that you were inspired by (take the Light House ad, for example, that aired during the first quarter -- if you goal was to do a Bud Light version of the very funny Heineken ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1ZZreXEqSY) from a few years back, you missed the mark).  Stick to the basics -- like your ad from a few years back in which men watched football while their wives shopped (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_7xRaNY8wY).  That was a solid reflection of life, for many people, and it was truly funny.

Doritos: Seriously - is the violence necessary?  The 'play nice' commercial has a kid slapping some guy (after the guy had ogled his mom).  The guy (who taunted the dog) ends up on the ground after a violent shock from a no-bark collar in the 'Dog Gets Revenge' ad.  The 'Weight Room' ad turns a snack chip into a weapon and ends with a scary (chip-covered) maniac attacking another guy.  Apparently everyone who eats Doritos is a jerk.  Good to know that's how you think about me.  Look, I love Doritos.  I buy Doritos.  My wife loves Doritos.  The first chip of any kind that we fed our son was a Dorito.  But nothing about your ads reflected the feeling I get when I see a bag of Doritos, the reasons I buy them, or the fact that I can't resist eating a Dorito when given the opportunity.  Can't you make a case that Doritos' taste good?  Can't you show that the person who brings Doritos to a party is always the most popular?  The best you can do is suggest that Doritos make us all violent?  Maybe I don't want to eat Doritos if that is what happens to me.

Motorola: Seriously - do you think I am going to buy your phone because Megan Fox might send out a picture of herself in a bathtub when I do?  I get it, Megan Fox is hot.  And having a sexy woman in a bathtub talk about your product gives you an above average chance that someone might pay attention.  But, does it sell phones?  Does it present you as a company that is interested in developing a relationship with me as a consumer?  People buy phones because they serve their communications and other needs. The 'features' that you highlighted on your phone -- the ease of updating all your networks, for example -- are available on any phone.  And I can't imagine that getting slapped, getting hurt, or any other result would be the result I am hoping for with the purchase of my next piece of technology.  What makes your device better than an iPhone, or a Nexus One?  Is there anything that makes your product unique, or more useful than something else that is available on the market?  Is there any real benefit I get from buying your phone?  Also, on the sexting thing -- if Oprah says something like sexting is a bad thing, you might want to think twice before using it as the foundation of your advertising campaign(http://www.oprah.com/showinfo/14-Years-Old-They-Say-Theyre-Ready-to-Have...). And last time I checked, Megan Fox uses an iPhone (http://www.tipb.com/2008/07/16/celebspotting-megan-fox-with-an-iphone/).

Go Daddy: Seriously - do you think I haven't seen your Superbowl ads before?  The well is dry.  The idea of using Danica Patrick, or any other women who tears off her clothing, to drive traffic to your website is so last year (or maybe it was the year before, or the year before that).  The 'too hot for TV' videos aren't that hot.  They aren't funny. And, the message at the end - about customer service - actually comes across badly.  I dont' have a problem with using sex to sell... but at least use it well.  Take all that energy that you put into breaking the mold of the traditional Superbowl ad several years ago and apply it to a new concept.

Google: Seriously - what was the point of running an ad?  Did the head of CBS call and say 'We're $3 million short on braking even for the Superbowl -- will you help?  Are you getting nervous that Bing or KGB (who advertised during the Superbowl as well) or Yahoo! are going to make a serious dent in your search business?  Do you not think that searching on Google is the first thing that, well, probably everyone who watched the Superbowl is going to do when thinking about something they want to track something down during the game last night (I have used Google at least 25 times already this morning). The Google ad was simple, clean, well written -- by all standards well done.  But I don't think there was any reason for Google to run an ad.  They have brand recognition.  They are wildly successful, even in tough economic times.  Running a Superbowl ad suggests, to me anyway, that they aren't as smart as everyone thinks. I would be annoyed if I was a Google investor that money was spent on a Superbowl ad - as opposed to, say, improving the actual performance of the search engine (lucky guy searching in the ad that there was content for everything he was curious about... would have been interesting to see the ad show the guy have to go to the second page of Google results to get some facts that weren't helpful at all) or making a profitable business out of any of their other products.

I come across as harsh, and cynical, I realize.  But I don't want to suggest that every ad during the Superbowl was a waste.  There were some ads that I thought justified the millions spent to air them -- even if what happened after the ad left much to be desired:

Dove: I can see parts of my life, as I suspect many other men can as well, in the Dove 'You Are a Man' ad (though neither the ad, nor the Dove website devoted to the new men's line of soap products - http://content.dove.us/mencare - do nothing to make me want to go buy your soap). But, assuming that your ad makes a big part of the Superbowl watching audience aware of the opportunity to take better care of their skin, and they are willing to explore further -- you still have a lot of work to do.  I don't think men's skin care is a well understood area of personal care. Your commercial framed the opportunity, and had pitch perfect presentation, but the rest of your supporting marketing can't close the deal.  If you put a fraction of the effort that you put into your Real Beauty campaign (I wrote about it here - http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/16431.asp) you might see a bigger result.  In short, your television commercial can't be the only relevant part of your marketing to men if you want to sell product.

Flo.TV I would love nothing more than to be able to watch live TV whenever and wherever I want, and the series of Flo.tv ads actually made me curious about whether it was possible.  I should have known better than to get my hopes up.  Yes - the service exists -- but my visit to the Flo.TV website, followed by another website, and another website revealed that in order to actually get the service, I need to buy a different phone.  Not going to happen.  If anything, the success of the Flo.TV ads reveals a limitation in the product/company itself -- you sold something you couldn't deliver.

Coke: You can never go wrong with the Simpsons (though I was surprised to see them in an ad that aired on CBS and not Fox).  An ad that is visually rich -- and in class Simpsons fashion, riddled with hidden messages -- actually forces me to pay attention.  The message is clear... Coke makes you happy (and even the worst, down on their luck, hated by everyone person, kind of cool to hang out with).  But I couldn't follow up -- the Coca Cola website had nothing.  Facebook had nothing (I could find).  After several searches I stumbled on to the Happiness Factory site (http://hf3.coca-cola.com/), but it took so long to load that I had to abandon it to get on with the rest of my life.  And wasn't there all this talk before the Super Bowl about Coke's fancy cause marketing effort (http://www.marketingvox.com/coke%E2%80%99s-cause-marketing-campaign-ties...) -- I still don't know how to participate.  You had me at 'ha ha ha... another billiionaire is broke' (the line that opens the Simpsons ad), but you never did anything with it.

Finally, I do want to give a special shout-out to the 2010 Census for running an ad (full disclosure: my father works at the Commerce Department, which is responsible for the Census -- but I was not given advance notice of the advertising, or any additional information about the campaign).  I thought the ad itself was pretty lame -- the 'snapshot of America' message is not compelling in my view (how about... fill out the Census becuase funding for things you care about depends on it, or even 'everybody is doing it... you should to") and Ed Begley Jr. is the last person who would motivate me to act, on anything.  So there is a lot to be desired in terms of execution.  But, the very fact that an ad appeared about the Census was a big deal, a very smart strategy by the government.  There was a lot of buzz generated by the Census ad - good and bad - and that is not something that happens every day.  As fans and consumers, we expect to hear from Bud Light, Google, all the other companies that spent millions of dollars on advertising, and we are more than happy to talk about them (that's why they advertise of course).  Nobody talks about the Census.  And the 2010 Census is actually very important.  Filling out your form and returning it is important.  In fact, as the @uscensusbureau team noted "If 1% of folks watching #SB44 change mind and mail back #2010Census form, taxpayers save $25 million in follow up costs."  That is not an unreasoanble goal, or a way to measure whether the taxpayer funds spent to promote the 2010 Census were well spent.

Let me sum up with this: The advertising during last night's Superbowl did little to change my mind about any of of the brands, products, services, or personalities featured.  If anything, the advertising did more to hurt the chances I will buy a product, talk about a company or spend any additional time or energy exploring what was being promoted.  I was always under the impression that is the purpose of advertising - and especially the purpose of advertising during the Superbowl. At very least, that should be the reason someone advertises during the big game, and how they can measure whether they were successful.

I could go ad by ad, brand by brand, situation by situation and tell you exactly what it would take to compel me to buy the product, recommend a brand to someone, or even just suggest a friend watch an ad or visit a website.  As a consumer -- and a member of the target audience for almost every single advertiser featured during the Superbowl - let me say this: I will talk to any brand, advertising agency or anyone else out there who is serious about making improvements to their marketing, and tell you what you need to do to reach me, successfully.  And as a professional -- let me say this: I am confident I could do a better job than the folks who produced your ads, or provide some help to make sure that even the worst ads have some potential of driving a real meaningful, measurable outcome, and I have a lot of friends and colleagues who want to see you succeed as well. 

You know where to find me.  And if you choose not to write or call, that's fine -- I guess I'll see you next year.

08:37 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Sports and Change

I am leading a discussion about 'how to handle what's next' at the USA Today Sports Philanthropy Forum later today in McLean, VA.  To help set up the discussion I wrote the following -- about how the sports world is in a position to help us address causes in new, powerful ways because of the important role that sports play in people's lives.  Take a look:
 
Everything is changing – and what it means to sports and causes
Our society has changed - dramatically - over the past few decades.
 
We often talk about these changes in the context of business (flattening), government and politics (opening) and community (connecting).  But changes are being seen everywhere, in every community and every sector of our society, and they are being felt by all of us. Technology and the Internet, and their role in our lives, has changed how we communicate, get and share information, the media we consume, and the reasons we engage with each other - online and offline. And make no mistake, these forces are also shaping, and re-shaping, how we experience sports and how causes are addressed in equally significant and dramatic ways.
 
Information moves faster, people are more closely connected, and the expectations we all have for what we want see and hear, where we donate, who we trust, and what kind of relationship and support we want from an organization, is also changing.  The ubiquity of technology and the reach of the Internet make it possible to spread a message farther and have it be embraced by more people than ever before.  The rise of social platforms leaves no doubt that we are one global, inter-connected community and capable of taking action on issues we passionately share.  Organizations receive instant feedback and real-time measurement of their impact directly from their most important constituents. Those who listen and embrace that feedback, develop deeper, more meaningful relationships with their audience.  The available tools make it possible for everyone to have a platform from which to speak, and anyone to spark a bottom-up, grassroots-fueled revolution that has power no individual or entity could generate.
 
As a result of these massive, disruptive changes to our society, how organizations operate, organize, and communicate must be re-imagined.   The contribution that media can make to raising awareness and supporting education must be re-considered.  The passion and interest of individuals all around the world must be re-focused and re-directed.  The support that athletes, sports teams and leagues can provide to causes and serious issues should be re-envisioned.  
 
In short, everything must change.
 
Sports as a change agent
Religion, in its most basic form, is a socially shared set of beliefs and rituals that allows us to transcend the material world and impart meaning to our lives.  The same is true for sports.
 
Sports and religion both have organized hierarchies and places of "ceremony" and devotion where followers gather.  For many fans, Sundays revolve around the big game, the way church attendance provides a focal point for a weekend. Fans wear a team’s colors and carry its flags, icons, and mascots as public displays of their faith and commitment. At stadiums, as well as in groups gathered around television sets in bars and living rooms, repetitive chanting, hand-clapping, booing the other team, doing the wave, and other activities create a similar shared experience that many get during a responsive prayer or the singing of a hymn.  Sports and religion share a vocabulary:  words like devotion, dedication, sacrifice, commitment, spirit, prayer, suffering, and celebration are used as commonly when describing teams and contests as they are when discussing one’s faith.
 
Sports are not technically religion, of course, but all over the globe people worship sports much the same as they do religion. For many, sports are the main thing in their lives, and without them, they would not feel complete.
 
Sports unite individuals in a celebration of common interest and shared belief. In religion, that common interest and shared belief has been used to advocate on behalf of causes and social issues.  In fact, religion has been among the most powerful agents for changing human attitudes and behavior. Sports too can help to shift the way people think and take action to support important issues and causes.  Few groups in our society have such potential to drive meaningful, measurable change – and few would benefit as greatly as the sports world could, in the process.
 
A total reset in thinking
When you accept that sports plays a similar role to that of religion in many people’s lives – and motivates a significant amount of passion, and investment of both time and resources among fans and followers - then you can begin to understand how sports has a powerful opportunity to help shape how our society addresses serious issues and causes.  
 
The huge growth in professional sports paralleled the growing amount of leisure time that people gained thanks to the efficiencies that came with ‘modern life’.  With the current rise of connected media, we are seeing a growing amount of connected time (e.g. kids spend upwards of 11 hours each day with media of some kind).  Those connections create a powerful opportunity to create more meaningful experiences for fans, teams, and communities.  And with those meaningful experiences will come measurable change.
 
The tools and channels that have been created in the last few years have generated a lot of excitement and attention – but technology can’t change society on its own.  Building a large email list does not reduce the number of hungry people in the United States.  A video that is seen by a million people online won’t cure cancer. A million followers on Twitter can’t teach a child to read. To create change, we have to begin by recognizing that the ways that we reach, educate, engage and mobilize audiences isn’t working anymore – that technology can facilitate the activities and behaviors we believe are needed, but the content we deliver and communities we support are critical components as well.  We have to re-think how to communicate and drive action.
 
The current ways that the sports world focuses on cause follow the traditional patterns we have seen develop in other sectors of our society. Teams talk to reporters about the good work they are doing and host events to raise money to support their favorite causes.  Athletes record public service announcements and make appearances to show demonstrate their interest and commitment to a particular issue.  Television commentators urge the viewing audience to make a donation to support a charity during the broadcast of a game.  These are important commitments, but they aren’t enough.  Awareness is only the first step.  Fundraising is just one of the needs that must be met.
 
In today’s world, success doesn’t come as a result of good communications or creative marketing. Making a big donation isn’t exciting to people anymore.  An ad campaign won’t get much attention.  The audience wants to see results. Fans want to be your partners and feel that they are doing something to help as well.  They want to share ideas, help identify the most urgent need, ensure the work that you are doing is efficient and effective.  They want to believe that their support of your efforts will result in support of a cause or issue that they understand and value.  Your fans expect that the commitment that the sports world makes to a cause or issue will have a meaningful, measurable impact.  In short, fans expect that you will help them change the world.
 
An invitation to act
The public is more engaged than ever before, more capable of collecting and sharing information with a wider audience - for free - than at any point in our history.  This drives greater interest in media – as well as sports and causes – and the creation of a more diverse and interesting culture.  Coupled with the passion and commitment that people show towards sports and we are now seeing an unprecedented opportunity to mobilize action in new and exciting ways.  
 
This is an invitation to act.
 
Think bigger. The potential for technology and the internet to redefine how sports fans look at serious issues, how they get involved, and what say do we want to have in that is huge. Gone are the days when the majority of the population would sit for hours to read a newspaper from cover to cover or tune in to watch a whole game on television. Our information experiences have changed and our focus and goals in terms of sports and causes should change as well. The idea that we will find a mass audience for anything, no longer exists. What must be changed, or adapted, within our society to ensure that the commitments that sports leagues and teams have, and share with their fans, is focused and activated to achieve the desired results?  What can we do with small, dedicated, passionate audiences instead? How can the sports world use its unique connection with communities and individuals, bring together disparate ideas and passions, for a common civic goal? If we think bigger, we can elevate sports – and everything that it touches – to a place in our society where it influences how we think, act, and perceive everything around an issue.
 
Tell more stories. Because of the unique relationship that the sports world has with the media and its fans, the structure to support wide-reaching efforts to communicate, educate, engage and mobilize audiences is already in place. But no single publication, channel or service has the ability to cover the full range of what is happening in the sports world or how the fans are involved.  And when it comes to cause and serious issues there is almost no mainstream discussion at all – there are huge gaps in what is covered.  Many people, your fans included, know what is happening in the world or what kind of help is needed.  The sports world can be its own media.  You can seize the opportunity to create coverage, to share information and to tell more stories – to help inform your audience and support their interests in the causes they support and the issues you believe are important.  The sports world should use its influence, its reach, and the channels it controls, and content it creates, to elevate the discussion about the sports world’s impact on causes and issues to new levels.
 
Do More!  Everything about sports is big -- its big business, big entertainment, big audiences, and big excitement.  But when it comes to causes and the commitment that athletes, teams and leagues are making, the reach and impact is still small.  Sports should do more.  Sports should be bigger. There can be more voices, more access to information, more collaboration, and more ambition. Fueled by technology, we all have the ability to learn or discuss whatever we believe is relevant, to produce and distribute information so that it reaches audiences any time, any place, with a more diverse (and deeply invested) audience, and through any device.  Beyond just being fans, everyone can be an ambassador for a cause or a champion for the work that is needed to address a serious issue.  The sports world can invite its fans to help expand the reach and impact of its work in support of causes and issues, to help shape and define and respond.  And by demonstrating your commitment to your fans, and welcoming their deeper involvement, not only will you have an impact on these critical issues, but you will also create a relationship with your fans that will result in more dollars, and interest, in every other aspect of your work.
 
We haven’t seen the sports world – or any organizations for that matter – fully embrace these kinds of opportunities that the technology and the internet have created in the world for two reasons: first, organizations are still spending too much time trying to contain the conversations that their audience is having, to shape and channel their interests and behaviors to suit a particular agenda. Second, organizations largely focus on how to communicate most effectively, the best ways to deliver a message – and the tools --but not the content of those messages or how they relate to their audience.
 
Organizations still want to have control.  But no organization or institution has control anymore.  The audience is in control.  Organizations should be looking to support and enhance the interests of their audience, to engage them in conversation (and to listen to what they are saying). Anyone can use the tools that are now widely available online to conduct campaigns, and send notices, solicit funds, and do so more efficiently and cost effectively than ever before.  But technology is not the answer.  What you do with those tools is what matters.  How well you know your audience and an organization’s ability to meet their needs and satisfy their interests is what will define the outcome of your work.  Instead of looking at email open rates and the size of their friend lists to determine success, organizations should be inviting their audiences to participate and provide feedback, listening to their feedback and adapting based on what they hear, and in doing so building trusted relationships that can be leveraged long into the future.
 
We need to fundamentally shift the way we think about addressing causes, find a new approach. The sports world has an opportunity to embrace the idea that they can play a unique role in mobilizing the public behind causes and serious issues – and that there are benefits to them as well if they go beyond the standard approaches.  The sports world can go beyond their current levels of commitment, in dollars, but also in terms of energy and focus, time, and expertise – and help to re-shape the way causes and serious issues are integrated into the lives of their athletes, the work of the teams, the structure and operations of the leagues, and the partnerships that exist with media and other organizations.
 
Fans are so consumed by the sports they follow they are willing to devote their lives to their favorite teams, as parishioners do to their congregations. They read the daily sports pages in newspapers, devouring reports and features about their favorites team and players as the devoted read and re-read their holy scripture each day looking for guidance. They learn to speak the language of sports, to dissect box scores of games, and to re-create narratives of great plays and dramatic endings, just as the faithful tell of their religion's triumphs while evangelizing to the masses.  People look to sports for entertainment, a sense of community, a sense of structure, and to live out their dreams.  
 
Fans are looking to the sports world for guidance on how to address serious issues and causes.  They want to be met by an athlete, a team, a league, their partners, and the community of fans that they have chosen to join, and given help to accomplish what is needed.  They want to support causes.  They want to change the world.  And with your help, now they can.  We just have to start by changing everything we are doing.

01:01 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

Why do I follow brands on Twitter and Facebook?

My sister emailed me this morning and asked why I follow brands on Facebook and/or Twitter.  Here is my response:

I follow a brand on Facebook or Twitter for (any/all of) three reasons:

1) I have particular interests when I buy a product or invest time and energy company.  I have certain expectations.  I have certain needs.  I have a particular challenge that I would like to see met.  Once I have decided to take the plunge and buy a product, or invest some time and energy in looking at what a company is all about, Twitter and Facebook are a natural way to stay connected.  I log on to look at what the company is talking about, curious if their promotion matches their values, hopeful that what I am spending my money on reflects my personal interests, or my interest isn't misguided.  I figure companies have an opportunity to use Twitter and Facebook to introduce ideas, explain positions, apologize for mistakes, promote products or services -- and do so in ways that keeps my interest and pushes me to seek out additional information -- and I want to see if they are actually doing that.

2) I want to learn new things, be introduced to people, get access to information that I wouldn't find on my own, participate in experiences that I find valuable but might not make time for unless prompted.  If I trust a brand, trust their judgment, think their people are smart, or even just hear from someone that a brand is trying something that is worth checking out, I look to Twitter and Facebook.  I think its likely in today's world that a company might offer something interesting or unique to me via Twitter and/or Facebook, as opposed to on their website or through their ads.

3) As someone who works to help organizations understand how people get and share information, the impact that technology and the internet are having on our society and our behavior -- and what that means in terms of communicating, educating, engaging and mobilize audiences, I am curious to see who has an interesting approach to using Twitter and/or Facebook.  I want to see who is helping the rest of us to see opportunity in a certain platform or channel, who is really changing the game or taking our communications/marketing/promotion/engagement/conversation/listening and similar efforts to the next level.  Brands have a lot of money and interest invested in being able to reach people in new ways and compel them to act -- whether its buying a product or supporting their cause. In theory they are going to be trying things that are different, that we can all learn from, and that actually work or might provide some guidance for what success could look like in the future.

Of course, few (if any) brands meet these criteria.  I might follow a company, try to engage with a brand, or connect to an individual that is on the inside -- but most of the time I am underwhelmed or disappointed.  I unsubscribe.  Quickly.  I don't follow brands much because they are aren't adding any value to my world, they aren't worth my time.  I don't follow brands because, despite the attention that they receive for their interest in these platforms, I don't think they understand nor do they care about realizing the full potential that Twitter, Facebook, or technology and the internet generally might offer. 

That may not be a part of their mission... they may just be in the business of selling stuff, or satisifed with measuring the number of followers on their list as a sign of success.  But I am interested.  I do expect more from the companies I follow.  I am hopeful that we will continue to expand the uses of Twitter and Facebook beyond marketing and self-promotion.  I see it all the time, from thinkers and doers and creatives and coders, from nonprofits and charities, the media, even government on occasion.  I don't see it very often from companies and brands.  But hey, I keep following (and unfollowing) and will until I do find companies and brands that meet my critera. 

12:04 pm | 0 recommendations | 2 comments

Why?

We spend a lot of time talking about, and trying to understand, people's behaviors.  But the approach is wrong. The research that is conducted and the insights that are shared - about people's buying habits and media consumption, how they spend their time or who they associate with, about people's likes and dislikes, etc - are flawed, or at best, incomplete.  We can measure all sorts of activities and behaviors.  We can look at physical and emotional responses to certain situations.  But we never know for sure what causes them to occur. Everything we measure is quantiative.  The qualitative assessment is missing.  There isn't any attention paid to the motivations behind the behaviors, the reasons that someone took a certain action or think a certain way.  In short, nobody asks why.  And the why is where the impact really comes from.

I have been wondering why people do things a lot lately.  I wonder why people buy one product over another, and why they think someone is trustworthy or not.  I wonder why something that seemed likely to occur just a few days or weeks ago isn't even considered possible now.  I wonder why someone was willing to take a certain action before, or even several times, but won't now -- with not evidence to suggest that they learned, experienced, or tried anything in the interim that would have shifted their behavior.  There are so many things I wonder about.

I am thinking a lot this week about how we respond to disasters, and address causes in today's society - and what it means for the future, and how everything else we do is impacted as a result.  So, let me take one, specific, timely example -- the earthquake in Haiti.  The response to the humanitarian crisis that is unfolding before our eyes is, it appears, unlike anything we have seen before.  Much of the discussion so far has been about the record amounts of money that are being donated, in all forms, to support relief efforts.  But there is dramatic evidence that everything - how governments are responding, how individuals are organizing, how technology is being used, how the media is covering the story, that people's level of interest is greater, compared to past disasters, is different than before.  I want to know why.

Why are people willing to donate $10 via text message to support earthquake victims in Haiti, but didn't in the wake of the earthquake in the Sichuan Province of China in 2008?  The same technology was available, but the idea never caught on.

Why are people willing to collect blankets to be sent to Haiti, but refuse to provide the same support to a person living on the street just a few blocks from their home?

Why are companies donating millions of dollars in response to the crisis in Haiti, in some cases far exceeding what they have donated to other causes over the course of a year?

Why did most of the major media choose to fly its top anchors and talent to Haiti, but haven't (or won't) send them to Iraq or Afghanistan any longer?

Why are there dozens of nonprofit organizations competing for attention, and fundraising support, instead of collaborating and coordinating their efforts for greater impact?

Why is the level of commitment that the US Government is able (or willing) to make to support the people of Haiti different than, say, the level of commitment in response to a humanitarian crisis that happens in the United States?

Why is the story of the earthquake in Haiti dominatre our airwaves, when other, critically important things that occur every day can't break through?

Why is George Clooney hosting a telethon on MTV to support the people left homeless by the earthquake in Haiti, but didn't for other disasters.

There are lots of reasonable answers to any of these questions.  Maybe the technology wasn't available, or our knowledge and comfort using new technology wasn't as advanced.  Perhaps the scale of the disaster is greater - more people killed and injured, Haiti presents a more desperate situation because of its extreme poverty.  There could be political considerations, or logitical challenges that made the response to disasters in the past different.  The level of attention paid to this disaster by the media may have set up the challenge differently. 

Do any of those answers really explain why certain decisions were made, or actions taken?  Do we have any greater understanding after considering the answers that are, or will be given, that will help us to learn from this situation and prepare for disasters in the future?  Has anyone ever asked why, and pushed until a plausible answer was provided?  If the answer wasn't something that people wanted to hear -- a company gave money because it thought it would get them good PR, or a person donated to support earthquake victims in Haiti and not China because they have a bias against China -- have we ever followed up, and determined if that was an acceptable or appropriate reason to make a decision?

We are all part of one, global community -- we are all connected.  That means the decisions that people make in response to the earthquake in Haiti, and more importantly the reasons why they made one choice or another, impact us all.  It may not seem that way, but if an earthquake hits your town, and someone chooses to respond differently - to not text in a donation, to not share critical information - for whatever reason, it will absolutely matter.  And its not just limited to disasters.  Why we buy a certain product, choose to take the bus instead of driving, call someone on their birthday instead of posting a note on their Facebook wall... these things help us learn how people operate, how communities form and sustain, what marketers can do to serve our needs, what problems are most vexing and what solutions need to be prioritied -- and of course, what we need to do, or not do, to make sure that our society functions. 

I am thinking a lot this week about how we respond to disasters, and address causes in today's society - and what it means for the future, and how everything else we do is impacted as a result.  The first question that I am asking, of course, is why.

08:50 am | 0 recommendations | 5 comments

Thanks for the $20 million, but...

Google announced (very quietly) yesterday that they would take the money that they normally spend on creative gifts and lavish parties for their advertising partners and instead give the funds to a list of charitable organizations. Google explained on the announcement page for the gift that they would give $20 million to a list of approximately 25 charities.  They also offered this brief explanation:

“This gift is for someone very special: Everyone. Because charities are experiencing their toughest year in decades, we have committed $20 million to helping those who help us all. Our gift to you is a gift to them. Happy Holidays.”

Google's decision to give a big chunk of money to charity this year was incredibly generous -- and I believe done for all the right reasons (in the words of Beth Kanter, it was not 'cause washing').  It was also lazy.

Google is right -- this has been one of the worst years in recent memory in terms of fundraising for nonprofits. Donations to nearly every type of charity are down, in some cases fundraising has hit lows we haven't seen in a half-century. Money can help ease some of the pain, but its not the gift that nonprofits and charities would benefit most from -- and thus, the 'everone' that Google has generously offered the gift on behalf of, won't benefit as much either.

Economists argue that the majority of money spent on gifts for others is wasted. Why?  Because gifts that people buy for other people are usually poorly matched to the recipients' preferences.  We have become a culture, especially in the United States, where gift giving is expected.  But when you ask the recipient, receiving the right gift is far more important than receiving a big gift, or a lot of gifts.

And that's my piont.  Google gave a generous gift, but it wasn't the right gift.

You see, the economy is a big part of the reason why people aren't giving as much money to charity. But there are other important reasons why organizations are having trouble raising money this year. Back in August I wrote a post entitled "Its not (just) the economy, stupid," about the many reasons, beyond the economic slowdown, that nonprofit and charitable organizations were having trouble raising money. Then, in November, I offered some thoughts on "What's Wrong With the Analysis of "What's Wrong With Charitable Giving-and How to Fix It" and suggested that dumping more money into a bad system wasn't going to fix anythning.

That's what Google did -- they made a large, and very generous donation, that won't address the real issues that exist for nonprofits.  What a wasted opportunity.

I talk/write all the time that everything about how we communicate, get and share information, engage each other -- online and offline -- has changed because of the role that technology and the internet play in our lives. And it continues to change. Information moves faster, people are more closely connected, and the expectations we all have for where we will donate, who will we trust, and what kind of relationship and support we want from an organization is changing. That means how organizations operate, educate, engage, and look at directing supporters and donors to take action must change as well.

We can use the tools that are now widely available online to conduct campaigns, and send notices, raise awareness of issues or solicit funds, and do so more efficiently and cost effectively than ever before. But, that doesn't mean that work should take priority over developing relationships and providing value to our audiences. We have prioritized telling a quick story that suggests progress over investing in long-term impact that both changes the world and drives people towards deeper commitments to organizations. We have become too accustomed to measuring success based on the size or popularity of an organization and not the value that the audience, who we rely on for support and donations, places on the work that groups are doing. As long as groups continue to focus on these wrong efforts, or blame the economy for its larger issues, nonprofits will continue to struggle.

Most nonprofit organizations don't understand that.

You know who does?  Google.

If Google wanted to give a really meaningful gift, they would help nonprofits and charities to understand how to navigate our rapidly changing, information-driven world.  Google could have deployed its super nerds to nonprofits across the country to help them re-think their approaches to information, organzing, and fundraising.  They could have acknowledged that their tools, while powerful, are not the solution to many of the challenges that nonprofits face, and helped direct organizations to make smarter choices with how they use their time (and their tools).  If Google didn't feel that they knew enough about how nonprofits work to offer that kind of supoprt, they could have made it possible for the people who do - the consultants, practioners, nonprofits who have had success, etc - to work directly with organizations who need more help.  In short, there were lots of options for how Google could have supported worth nonprofits and charities around the country.  Cash is only one, and in a lot of ways, is the gift that will have the smallest impact.

The best gift Google could have given, to the 25 nonprofits on their list, and the 'everyone' who they gave the gift on behalf of, would have been knowledge, and energy, and time, and support. Google appears to have an abundance of that.  What nonprofits don't need more of are tools.  What nonprofits won't benefit as much from is cash.  What nonprofits don't know how to harness and convert into long-term, sustainable support is  We have plenty of tools, cash, and attention. What we don't have are real solutions to the challenges that our society is facing, and deep, system-wide understanding among the organizations who are on the front lines battling every day. 

I'm not suggesting Google take back the $20 million -- that is a generous gift, and I am sure the groups who receive the money will use it wisely.  Rather, I am suggesting that Google use the $20 million as a starting point to do something more, and better, to help re-shape our society and have the kind of impact that 'everyone' wants to see.

Consider yourself challenged.  Happy holidays.

12:45 pm | 0 recommendations | 2 comments

Is Social Media Changing The World? Not yet.

Jared Cohen, a member of the policy planning staff at the State Department penned an essay on HuffingtonPost asking whether social media was really changing the world.  He has some good perspective, an interesting background, and definitely some credibility on the subject of global organizing and social change.  But he's still presenting the same old tired conversation about social media and social change.

You see, his answer to the question of whether or not social media is really changing the world is,  essentially, yes -- but he says we shouldn't call it social media, and suggests we look at where technology and human connection are coming together to have significant impact. In other words, he's not talking about social media.  And in most cases the examples he is citing aren't about broad social change or impact.

That's ok, and I agree.  Social media isn't changing anything - yet.  Put another way, the campaigns that get all the attention, and even those that raise significant amounts of money, aren't moving the needle when it comes to meaningful, measurable impact - yet.  The well-known tools and new platforms that are offering ways for people to talk with each other, and conceivably organizing, aren't living up to their potential - yet.

Using the internet and technology to bring people with shared interests, and a passion/focus/self-motivated interest/nothing better to do/whatever together to impact our society has huge potential. We aren't close to realizing that potential yet because that's not how people are using social media for the most part.  They are using the tools to communicate, socialize, explore, and in some cases learn.  The actions they are being asked to take, or in most cases are figuring out how to take on their own, don't relate directly to impact. 

Why aren't we doing more/better?  The main reason, I would argue, is because the companies that want/need to make money from people using their tools either don't understand, or aren't committed to the ways people organize and behave in order to address serious issues.  Real change takes time.  Real impact requires sacrifice and commitment.  Those things are very hard to measure on a quarterly balance sheet.  They don't easily make for a compelling story that will get you on the front page of the paper, or drive huge audiences to your site (to view advertising which generates you much desired revenue). 

I don't fault companies for not being entirely focused or committed yet to significant social impact or societal change, but I think its important we don't fool ourselves into believing that a lot of attention alone will fix what ails our society. To achieve significant social change, or social impact, we will need better understanding of the fundamentals that drive human behavior, online and offline, and a better, deeper connection to how that understanding can be applied to the issues that confront our society.

Cohen addresses this point as follows:

In this networked century, where access to technology is increasing exponentially, almost everybody is reachable. But more importantly, almost everybody has the ability to connect. This new ability to connect is leveling the playing field and breaking down previous age, gender, socioeconomic, and circumstantial barriers to who can emerge as a leader, activist, or grassroots agent for change. The power of technology today will be determined not by web traffic and viewership, but by its ability to strengthen and more importantly facilitate connections in real time.

Again, I agree. The tools have leveled the playing field. Our ability to connect - across borders and beyond language and time zone - presents the possibility of doing something really incredible. 

But it won't happen on its own. And it won't happen, as Jared Cohen suggested (perhaps inadvertently), by coming up with a new frame or phrase to describe what we are doing. The stories of people's lives being changed, or new innovations and solutions being created are just stories.  As compelling as they are, they are not a broad shift in behavior in the making.  We are still lacking the appropriate focus and commitment to systemic change.  We still haven't proven that the internet supports sustainable shifts in behavior - or at least not in the context of serious issues like poverty or climate change.

Unless, or until, we figure out what will change our society, and the role that technology and the internet can play, we will keep having this same discussion and not enough will change/get done.

05:58 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Need motivation to change the status quo?

Do we need more motivation to change the status quo than being told that the status quo isn't going to change?

Trendwatching, one of the leading global trend firms, released its "10 Crucial Consumer Trends for 2010" today.  Their first big trend for the coming year is entitled "Business As Usual" and suggests we lower our expectations for change.  They write:

In 2010, prepare for ‘business as unusual’. For the first time, there’s a global understanding, if not a feeling of urgency that sustainability, in every possible meaning of the word, is the only way forward. How that should or shouldn’t impact consumer societies is of course still part of a raging debate, but at least there is a debate.

Meanwhile, in mature consumer societies, companies will have to do more than just embrace the notion of being a good corporate citizen. To truly prosper, they will have to ‘move with the culture’. This may mean displaying greater transparency and honesty, or having conversations as opposed to one-way advertising, or championing collaboration instead of an us-them mentality. Or, it could be intrinsically about generosity versus greed, or being a bit edgy and daring as opposed to safe and bland.

Really? We shouldn't expect to change things - even in our hyper-connected, everyone-can-launch-a-movement, technology-enabled society?  What a bummer!  I suppose we could take their advice and subscribe to a slow, painful year of seeing organizations of all types fail to change and meet our expectations.  Or, we could redouble our efforts and say, to whoever will listen, through every means at our disposal - buying power, political action, media commentary, and more - that we are going to stand for slow change and more business as usual.

The world has to change if we decide to change it, right?

Its not all doom and gloom. The Trendwatching folks write "one only needs to look at the Googles of this world to get a feel for ' business as unusual'. So not surprisingly, the other nine trends in this briefing all touch on doing things differently, driven by changing consumer preferences and desires. Time to study and learn from those brands that you think are already mirroring today's more diverse, chaotic, networked society, and then outdo them."

I'm not satisfied. Let's shoot for 10 out of 10.

02:06 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

What's Wrong With the Analysis of "What's Wrong With Charitable Giving-and How to Fix It"

Pablo Eisenberg, a Senior fellow in the Center for Public and Nonprofit Leadership at Georgetown Public Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., penned a terrific op-ed in The Wall Street Journal Tuesday entitled "What's Wrong With Charitable Giving--and How to Fix It." But his analysis of the challenges facing the nonprofit and charitable community and his suggestions for how to fix the system didn't go far enough.

Mr. Eisenberg is absolutely right when he says "Much of current philanthropic giving, by foundations and individuals, neither meets the needs of our charitable organizations nor addresses some of our most urgent public needs." And his nine recommendations, including increasing payouts and general operating support, adopting rolling grant-making, and reaching out to local groups and under-served regions, are sound. But even these significant changes in the way the nonprofit and charitable community operates won't fix the problems. Why not? Because they are mostly surface level suggestions. They assume that the nonprofit and charitable community is functioning properly, or could function more effectively, save for a few problems in approach and perspective.

My take: if we are going to have a vibrant, sustainable, and (most importantly) impactful philanthropic community, the very nature, focus, and function of nonprofits and charities needs to change. The space has lost its way. To get back on track we need a total reset.

Back in August I wrote a post entitled "Its not (just) the economy, stupid," about the many reasons, beyond the economic slowdown, that nonprofit and charitable organizations were having trouble raising money. Let me offer a few related points here:

1) There are too many nonprofit organizations. There are more than a million registered nonprofit organizations in the United States, and tens of thousands of new nonprofits are created every year. They are all competing for the same dollars and in many cases fighting to serve the same need. I believe in the free market, and a vibrant community of organizations all working to address serious issues will spur new ideas and innovation in how to serve the public. But there is such a thing as too much. There are simple too many nonprofits, too many messages, too many options, and not enough success. More money won't solve that problem, it will only make it worse. We need to take a good, hard look at all the organizations out there and make some choices about which ones are truly effective and worthy of continuing to operate. We need to find the groups that are operating successfully and figure out how to apply their expertise to other areas that are struggling. We need the organizations who are focused in the same areas to collaborate and work collectively to make progress. And we need to get rid of the egos--the people who run organizations more often than not get in the way. So ask yourself: is your organization having a real, meaningful measurable impact? And are you helping advance the whole community with your work? If not, please step aside and let someone else use the limited resources we have more effectively.

2) Service the Cause, Not Solving It. In my experience, most nonprofits and charities focus their energy on growing and sustaining their organizations and not so much on improving the way they do business or deliver their services. Making improvements to the system--how groups are funded, what systems they must follow, etc--will help. Having a watchdog will call attention to the issues. But operational changes can't provide the fundamental reset that is needed. Organizations are serving their causes instead of solving their causes in large part because the people who are running these organizations don't know any other way. The audiences who support them believe that their contributions are making a difference. We recognize and reward short term progress and not long term change and we have to stop. When we demand immediate outcomes, instead of demonstrating the patience it takes to shift how a society operates and people behave, we undermine our own efforts to improve our society. The whole system for addressing serious issues is flawed, and every day we move a little further away from having a real impact.

What is needed? First, a fundamental shift in the way we think about serving issues, recognizing how people get and share information, what motivates their behavior, and how it can be applied to what plagues our society. Second, a commitment--in dollars, but also in energy, and time, and perspective--so we can set long-term, ambitious, and meaningful, measurable goals for change on the big issue (and the small ones) and ensure we meet those goals over time. No more trying to change the world on a day-to-day basis... we have to look ahead. (NOTE: Mr. Eisenberg talks about funding over a multi-year period, but even if that money was made available, few, if any organizations have demonstrated their ability to maintain the talent and focus over that time to get the job done).

3) Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better. The Internet has empowered audiences in new and powerful ways. Technology gives each of us direct control over our information and the choices about how we spend our time and focus our energy. And we can use these tools to help organizations and address causes in ways that go well beyond donating. As a result, we simply don't believe--and probably for good reasons--that the institutions that once offered the guidance, support, and direction for how to address the issues facing our society know best. We can do it on our own, we don't need them. Moreover, most nonprofit organizations haven't embraced these new and different ways to engage and mobilize their audiences. Nonprofits invest much of their focus and energy on directing action behind a single, centralized agenda, instead of expanding their reach and looking for the best way to tap into the community (online and offline) to help address issues. They send a message that the public isn't truly important to the process.

Put another way... everything about how we communicate, get and share information, engage each other--online and offline--has changed because of the role that technology and the Internet play in our lives. Information moves faster, people are more closely connected, and the expectations we all have for where we will donate, who will we trust, and what kind of relationship and support we want from an organization, is changing. That means how organizations operate, educate, engage, and look at directing supporters and donors to take action must change as well.

We can use the tools that are now widely available online to conduct campaigns, and send notices, raise awareness of issues or solicit funds, and do so more efficiently and cost effectively than ever before. But, that doesn't mean that work should take priority over developing relationships and providing value to our audiences. We have prioritized telling a quick story that suggests progress over investing in long-term impact that both changes the world and drives people towards deeper commitments to organizations. We have become too accustomed to measuring success based on the size or popularity of an organization and not the value that the audience, who we rely on for support and donations, places on the work that groups are doing. As long as groups continue to focus on these wrong efforts, or blame the economy for its larger issues, nonprofits will continue to struggle.

Few people understand that and nobody--in any sector--has figured out exactly what it means. Nonprofits and charities aren't looking at the long term implications that technology and the Internet are having on society--they are struggling just to figure out how to design an effective Web site or use Twitter to make some easy cash. There are few, if any, larger organizations looking at these shifts at a level that all in the nonprofit and charitable community will benefit from either. The game is different, the rules need to be rewritten. And until the nonprofit and charitable community, and those who support and benefit from it, understands that everything has changed as a result of the impact of technology and the Internet, everything else is window dressing.

I have said before, and I will say it again here--there are lots of incredible nonprofit organizations, focused on serving a particular community in need or addressing an important cause, and doing so efficiently and/or with an innovative approach that drives real, meaningful, measurable impact. And there are people, in the nonprofit community, or coming from outside, looking at ways to apply their knowledge and expertise to solve some of society's most challenging problems. They are beginning to change things. But, for every person inside the nonprofit community who thinks differently, there are hundreds of corporations pumping money into a cause for the sole benefit of improving their brand, and reinforcing what doesn't work. For every organization that has shaken up its leadership, re-structured its team, begun to experiment with new, and different ways of tackling big issues, there are tens-of-thousands of other groups who are still stuck in a model that (maybe) worked twenty years ago, with little interest in, or hope of changing, and little prospect of having a meaningful, measurable impact on our society.

We won't make any progress until that ratio/balance changes, in a big way.

The challenges that nonprofits have had in convincing people that they are worthy of support, and sustaining that support, have been brewing for a while. We haven't made enough progress on the major issues plaguing our society in a while either--certainly not the kind of progress we are capable of, given the tools we have available, the interest and commitment from the global population, and the obvious need and desire for change.

Dumping more money into a bad system won't fix anything. Making some operational changes won't alter the DNA of the nonprofit and charitable space. We need to address the core identity of the nonprofit and charitable community issues first. Only then, with a total reset of how these groups operate, will we figure everything else out.

09:50 am | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

CNN's Model For Success (and what we should learn from it)

The big news out of the TV ratings report this week is that CNN is in fourth place -- last place.  That's right, the 24-hour cable news giant is floundering in the eyes of the viewers.  But CNN isn't concerned.  In fact, the big cheese at CNN, Jon Klein, said that ratings don't matter as much as you think.  Here is an excerpt from his comments on a call with staff yesterday:

Yes, our ratings in prime were down in October. Remember - we are a 24hr network - not a 3hr network. We are also just one network in a group that attracts hundreds of millions of viewers a month. Media writers might not understand that. Our competitors don't either. Despite the bad press we don't lose sight of OUR business. We, CNN/U.S., still attracts millions and millions of viewers a month, more than our closest competitors. Writers don't talk about our users -- we are on air and on line, globally -- rather they break it down to one part of the day.

 

What is Jon Klein's plan?  Simple - do great work.  Here is how he framed it:

Excellent journalism is what we are focused on. We refuse to do the things that might get us a quick number or cater to the extremes that would alienate our core viewers. It's important to work at it every day - it's our mission. It's the key to our growth. If we are outstanding ALL the time (and we are getting better and better at it) we will have an impact over time.

Now, I would argue that CNN isn't anywhere close to achieving that standard of excellence - with all their 'breaking news' alerts and 'expert' contributors. The news that they produce isn't any better than what the rest of the struggling media is producing. In fact, when CNN released its iPhone application a few weeks back, I refused to pay the $1.99 because I didn't think that the value of what they were offering was worth even that much. I do, and will pay, a lot for news and information -- but it has to be high value.  CNN hasn't proven to me that they can offer that yet.

Still, at least publicly, Jon Klein's view of how CNN can succeed - both as journalists, and financially - is different. Its refreshing to hear a news leader taking a long(er) term view, having both the confidence, and presumably the backing of their financial masters, that setting a course for excellence will pay off in the end.  They still have to do the work, and stay that course.  They still have to demonstrate to news consumers like me that their offering is worth my investment of time and money.  And they have to find a way to sustain that, to be patient even as the criticism of their approach persists.

Good luck, CNN.

12:32 pm | 0 recommendations | 2 comments

The trouble with innovation

Innovation is important. Necessary. Critical to success.  We've all heard it.  Innovative or die. We here it all the time. 

There is a lot of new talk of late about how innovation can fix the economy, save education, solve the healthcare crisis, and more. Very smart people argue that innovation is the core of a successful company.  Books and cover stories about innovation are making the rounds like never before.

But there is a problem with innovation.  Its hard.  I mean really hard.  To do something innovative once, let alone innovating, you have to be smart, and engaged, and connected, and have enough free time to really focus on making changes and having an impact.  Do you have that kind of freedom in your day?

Innovation doesn't just happen.  You don't see something on your walk to work in the morning and then translate that into a radical change in your business model, or a new future for journalism before lunch.  In many cases, the true innovation that occurs happens over years or even generations -- you can't throw a new org chart together or a creative new tagline and have the work you do change.

I know innovation is important. I push my clients, and everyone project I am involved with, to think differently and change the way they are operating. I think our society is changing, rapidly, and innovation is a matter of survival today. 

But I also recognize that not everybody is innovative, or can innovate.  Some aren't in the right role, so their ideas aren't heard (not their fault, but still an impediment to change). Some don't have the time to focus.  Some don't have the access to information or the tools to help communicate or demonstrate the innovations that are needed.  None of those are intended as judgments on the intelligence or commitment of the people in the world today.  Rather, I am just trying to note that all the talk about innovation doesn't necessarily jive with the reality of how we operate.

If innovation isn't for everyone, but the future of our society depends - at least in part - on true innovation occuring, what options are we left with?  Let me suggest two quickly:

1) We need to redefine innovation.  Rather than glorifying the big idea or the creative new presentation, we should look at innovation as more of an incremental shift in behavior, attitude, and action.  You don't have to radically change a whole community or measure a huge impact to claim innovation.  One tiny shift in how someone goes about their day that you helped to drive could be a sign of innovation. One change in the way an organization operates is a sign of innovation.  One example of a positive outcome, even if its just a one-time example, is a sign that innovation is possible. Add those up, you'll have big changes, massive shifts. Look past the little things and you'll find yourself falling short of your goals.

2) We need to focus our efforts in more places.  Innovation, it seems, is always reserved for something huge - a whole industry, a way of life. We've seen innovations in green technology, in hos hospitals manage disease, in the way people ensure there is enough clean water around the world for the people who need it. What about the innovations that happened at home, around your office, in your community. That way of keeping your to-do list, so you can manage more items or free of some brain space to help a colleague... that's an innovation that has huge potential for impact.  A word change on a form that you have to fill out to request a stop sign from your local city government... that's an innovation that might save lives or begin a transformation of an entire neighborhood.  Point is, we all have the potential to be innovative, if we look at the every-day, ordinary, mundane things in our lives and look at how they might be improved or changed.

Innovation is important. Necessary. Critical to success.  We have all heard it, and we will continue to hear about it.  I hope that the way we think about innovation, however, will change.