im-media-te impact by Brian Reich

01:22 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

What makes a brand powerful?

Cone Inc released their "Cone Nonprofit Power Brand 100" report yesterday - in which it valued (and ranked) the brands of some of America’s leading social, environmental and animal organizations.  Not surprisingly, the report is already generating a lot of buzz.  People mostly want to talk about which charities were ranked and which ones weren't, or who scored highest on the list (and why).  But I think that is the wrong discussion to have.  I want to focus on something else - the very concept of brand, and its importance for nonprofit organizations, in today's connected society.

[NOTE: I was the Director of New Media at Cone from December 2006 to December 2007 and remain connected to members of the Cone team who worked on this study in various ways.  I was aware that this research was being conducted but had no role in the research or analysis, nor was I given access to any information about the study that is not available publicly.  In fact, as you will see below, I am quite critical of the study -- and I am sure that my friends and colleagues at Cone have a very different perspective on the value of the research that they have delivered.  A spirited discussion awaits for sure.  I also want to note that I have previously, or am currently working with, several of the organizations that are ranked in the study.  I provide strategic guidance around communications, fundraising, education, mobilization, and other work, largely focused around the use of the internet and technology.  I acknowledge that the work I do is directly related to the 'brand' of an organization, however, as you will see from my analysis below, I have a different view of what is important and offer guidance to my clients accordingly].

All research is flawed in some way.  In this case, the Cone report is not even close to being comprehensive. Cone began with the selection of 100 nonprofits to value and subsequently rank.  They write in the FAQ about the study that "because we needed a pre-existing pool of top U.S. nonprofits, we looked to private support- and income-based rankings, such as the “Forbes 200 Largest Nonprofits,” the “Nonprofit Times Top 100” and the “Chronicle of Philanthropy Top 100,” to identify the largest nonprofits.'  They also acknowledged, "in the end that’s a fraction of the 1.5 million total nonprofits in the U.S., so there are bound to be some favorites that aren’t on the list."  True.  I recognize that it is not possible, or at least not realistic, to consider everything in a study or measure every organization.  But, just as a starting point, I would question whether picking the 100 'largest' nonprofit organizations, in terms of revenues, is a good place to start.

The Cone report also tries to assign a value to something - brand - that may not, in fact, be fully quantifiable.  Cone, and their research partner, Intangible Business, have done a good job explaining the thought process behind their rankings, writing: "The brand valuation calculation attempts to derive the amount a nonprofit would be willing to pay for its brand, if it did not already own it, by determining how much money the brand contributes to the organization. This approach is called the “relief from royalty methodology” as it calculates how much the brand owner is relieved from paying by virtue of owning the brand."  They also listed out the criteria that was used to calculate the ranking:

"The total brand value is driven by three key factors:

1. 2007 revenue: Consolidated, itemized revenue, including but not limited to: direct and indirect public support, government contributions and alternative revenue streams

2. Propensity for future growth: Compound annual growth rates (CAGR), derived from the reported financial data, adjusted to reflect the nonprofit brand’s long-term ability for growth

3. Brand image: The relative strength of each nonprofit brand’s image derived using eight measures (people's familiarity with the organization, the organization’s personal relevance to people, share of voice, geographic reach, support base, direct public support, nonprofit efficiency, and growth).

So here is my issue: brand, as we have always known it, no longer matters -- or at least does not matter as much.  Put another way, I don't think that determining the value of a brand, and using that as a way to determine whether an organization is successful or worthy of support, is constructive.  Let me explain my thinking:

In the past, brand was dictated by the organization. Organizations talked about the importance of their work and the impact of their actions,  They showed glossy videos of their volunteers in action and published lists of the celebrities and influentials who had signed on to support their cause.  Today, every one of us gets to decide whether an organization has a strong brand.  That decision is based on our personal interests, our relationship to a certain issue, and the interaction that we have had with a group -- as a donor, a volunteer, or even just a casual observer.  Groups can talk about the good work you are doing, and the strength of their mission.  They can have celebrities do PSAs and generate oodles of press coverage.  But if the work that an organization is doing doesn't interest me, isn't addressing a need that I believe exists in society, nor can be measured as having an impact that I can understand and can appreciate, I simply won't regard that organization very highly, or consider it worthy of my support or attention.

Brand used to be about marketing and positioning.  Today its about experience and impact.  As I look at the Cone list, I see groups with larger and more sophisticated marketing operations at the top, and high-impact organizations near the bottom (or not on the list at all).  Cone readily acknowledges this, writing "Brand value is ultimately a reflection of the amount of revenue a brand contributes to an organization, and is therefore inherently a financial measure. Nonprofits with large revenues will often have well-known brands that contribute a great deal of revenue to their organizations, in turn giving them high brand values."  That makes me queasy.

In The New York Times article about the Cone study, Alison DaSilva noted that environmental organizations "have spent a lot of time raising awareness of the issues through things like calls to action — put a brick in your toilet, turn out the lights — but not for their brands," while a group like "Make-A-Wish Foundation enjoys widespread recognition, but its revenues do not reflect that."  In short, the level of awareness that an organization creates for its mission is more important, in many ways, than the work that it does.  I couldn't disagree more.  Isn't it more important to actually (and measurably) reduce our carbon footprint or enrich the lives of children with life-threatening medical conditions -- instead of just talking about the fact that we should be doing that work?  Isn't it better to be known for actually doing something, than just to be known?

Maybe those two things aren't mutually exclusive, as the research seems to suggest.  Perhaps the groups that have the largest marketing budget and strongest brands are also doing the best work.  I'm not convinced.  The Cone list is littered with groups that I supported in the past, but no longer give time or money to today.  I haven't stopped giving my money and time to groups, quite the opposite in fact, but I have found many other organizations who are doing more and better work to address the issues that I believe are important in ways that I know are having a greater impact.  And I know I am not the only one.

As consumers, we get the final decision on what issues matter most to us -- and how we want those issues to be addressed.  We get to control the information we receive and how we spend our time. And thanks to the widespread availability of information, about the challenges that face our society and the work that groups are doing to address it, I can see first hand whether the claims that groups are making about their impact are true and what progress is actually being made towards a solution.  This is the reality of a connected society, and a reality that nonprofit organizations (among others) need to recognize changes everything about how we operate, communicate, and engage audiences.  Everything has changed - and topping the list is brand.

Cone writes in the explanation of its study that "valuing a nonprofit brand gives organizations a license to demonstrate to companies and other partners that there is an established and justified cost to aligning with nonprofits."  I am not so naive as to believe that groups can operate, and solve major problems in our society, without raising money and creating corporate and other partnerships.  Raising money is important.  But it should be a far smaller part of what you do as an organization than anything else, and certainly not the aspect of your work that you generate the most attention for.  

And yet, for some reason, the most attention seems to be paid to the amount of money raised, the creativity of an ad campaign, or the ranking of a brand that a nonprofit receives (as is the case in the Cone study).  That could be the fault of the media.  Surely the audience is to blame for not demanding more accountability and measurable action from nonprofits shares some responsibility.  But mostly, I think that nonprofit organizations find it far easier to talk about the operational aspects of their success, and to use those to power more success.  That's fine, if your job as a nonprofit organization is to run a nonprofit organization.  Activity is a great measure of, well, activity.  But if you got into business to teach kids to read, solve the climate crisis, or whatever your mission, you aren't focusing your energy in the right place.  Across the board, far too much time is spend 'serving the cause' instead of 'solving the cause' these days, and the Cone study gives groups license to continue that behavior.

The Cone study/ranking represents an old way of viewing what makes an organization strong and worth of support or recognition.  And I fear that by celebrating the organizations on the list, and reinforcing the behavior (marketing, promotion, branding) that earned these groups high marks for brand, we are making it even harder for group to focus on the impact that is needed, or for groups who are being recognized for their impact to find the support they need to scale up.  

The rise of the internet and ubiquity of technology have made it easier for audiences to get information and to be involved with the organizations and causes they care about.  Those same forces have also created far higher expectations among audiences about what nonprofit organizations must do to engage, educate, and mobilize action around these issues, and the relationships we have with groups.  A high ranking on the Cone study does not mean that these groups are doing enough to solve the most critical issues of our time, or that they value and support the relationship that they have with the audience. My personal and professional experience would suggest in many cases that the opposite is true (and that some of the best organizations were left off the list). In fact, groups that received high rankings in the Cone study, I would suggest, better examine the interactions they are having with their audience and make sure that they are delivering the kind of impact and value we want -- and quick.  Relying on your brand to sustain attention, fundraising success, and everything else still works, to a certain extent, but it won't for long.    

I am glad that Cone conducted the study.  I just think they studied the wrong thing.  Instead, they should have studied, and we should be ranking, organizations based on the quality of the experience they provide to their audience, the impact they have on the issues that they are stated in their mission, and the ability of groups to understand (and demonstrate that understanding) how serious issues are being addressed today.  So please, study that.

12:21 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

Innovation requires more than technology

The following is a post I wrote for Innovate Masstech (http://innovate.masstech.org/), a blog/site/discussion about the future of technology in Massachusetts.  The site was launched by a friend/former employer.  

The post hasn't gone live yet (and I don't know if/when it will), so I thought I would share it here as well.


Governor Deval Patrick wants Massachusetts to be more competitive - in terms of jobs, and standard of living, healthcare, and education.  He wants to bolster our university system so that students, professors, and researchers see Massachusetts as the base for their learning and exploration.  The Governor wants the economic benefits that derive from having vibrant industries and successful companies operating in the Commonwealth to benefit everyone.  And the Governor has challenged the technology industry in Massachusetts to lead the effort to meet these challenges. 

Governor Patrick is pinning his hopes on the technology industry to drive the necessary growth and innovation to sustain everything else that his agenda includes.  He has challenged local companies, or those who want to establish a base in Massachusetts, to build the newest technology to address our energy, healthcare, and education challenges.  He has invited mobile, gaming, interactive marketing and other sectors to establish their base in Massachusetts and help contribute to the economic growth we need.  And to their credit, these groups have responded.   The strategy appears to be working.  

But, with all due respect to the Governor, I think the vision is too narrow, the measures of success are too short, and the opportunities are too great not to expand our view and try something different.  The energy and focus of the technology industry alone is not enough to deliver the kind of meaningful, measurable impact we need and expect.  Innovation requires more than technology.  And ensuring a bright future for Massachusetts will require contributions from everyone, working together, pursuing a shared set of interests and goals.

I am not the first, nor am I the only person, who has suggested that broader, and deeper, collaboration between government, the technology sector, media, educational and social/community leaders and others is necessary.  But I will do it again here, and now.  Why?  Because we continue to use roughly the same approach to addressing major challenges in our society.  Our political leader issue a challenge and provide incentives for industry to advance.  But the impact of that work is not felt by all, and many significant problems remain unsolved.  Our current focus in the economy, but education, healthcare, and everything else is still out there as well.   Why not try to solve many of the problems at the same time?  Why not look for new and different approaches, and invite more voices and perspectives, in hopes of finding better solutions?  The same old approach is not working, and everything around us continues to shift and change.  We have an opportunity, and an obligation, to do better.

The rise of internet and the ubiquity of technology has dramatically changed the way people get and share information, and the expectations of what audiences want when it comes to ... well, everything.   Audiences do not rely on single source for information.  We do not live, or learn, or engage in our communities the same as we did in the past.  Technology gives each of us the opportunity to find or create our own personal connection to something, online and offline.  And while technology has driven much of that change, its not the technology that we can blame, or use alone, to drive our efforts going forward.  

The internet has also taught us that we can get everything we want, customized to meet our personal needs or satisfy our particular interests, have it available on demand or delivered in near-real time, all in return for a price we want to pay (which is often very little).  Those high expectations apply to everything: retail, education, nonprofit organizations and charities, politics and government – and most especially to media – whether its online or offline.  Our relationships with institutions that have always led, driven innovation, and supported economic growth, provided critical services in our cities and towns, and the people whose voice and experience must be considered doesn't fall into the same patterns we have seen before.
 
In short, everything must change.  And that includes our approach to innovation and our drive for changes in business, media, society, and everything else that will drive the Commonwealth towards success in the future.

The technology industry has embraced the challenge put forward by the governor, but they cannot lead our society towards true innovation on their own.  No tool, widget, application or robot will create jobs, feed hungry people, help educate our students better, or improve our energy efficiency without significant help.  No game, movie, handheld device or website will capture attention, deliver information, deepen learning, or motivate action from a sufficient number of people across Massachusetts (or the nation) to see significant change occur.  Revenue can be generated.  Jobs can be created.  New stories and research will result from all these innovations.  But there are larger, more important goals that we must reach, and the innovation in technology that we must pursue should be focused on meeting those needs above all.  We can develop all the technology we want, but for it to have a sustained impact, to improve society, and to meet the needs of our citizens, those technologies must be understood, used, and embraced by everyone (or the widest possible audience).  Only when that happens will everything come together.

How do we get there?  Cross-sector collaboration, as the Governor has demanded, is still critical -- but we must broaden the definition of 'cross sector' to include those who are not just in the field of technology.  The people who lead business, media, education and culture, nonprofit and social change organizations across Massachusetts must all come together as a part of the discussion.  These audiences must understand and embrace technology, from the start, not left to figure out how to implement something once it is developed.  Even more importantly, the public, the end user, the customer, the audience - the students and teachers, parents and doctors, white collar and blue collar workers, seniors and young people... everyone... the people who live in our communities,, who face great challenges every day, and who increasingly find themselves struggling to stay afloat in the sea of media and technology that overwhelms our senses every day need to be listened to, and what they are asking for needs to be heard.  If they do not understand, use, and embrace new technology and the opportunities for changing how we live, and work, and learn, any successes will be short-lived.

In short, we must be careful not to over-estimate the impact that technology has on our society, and our economy.  Technology is important, but its just a tool.  Good technology is created to facilitate the solving of problems, meeting of goals, or pursuit of activities.  The technology industry creates jobs and generates revenue for the state.  But addressing the challenges that exist in all other aspects of our lives is equally important, and must be considered at the same time for everything to work.  I know that if you figure out how to develop new technologies that truly address the challenges that people in our society are facing - we will use them and we will pay for them.  Companies will make money.  Government will see new revenues.  People will find their lives easier to lead and the goals more attainable.  But do the opposite and you will create larger challenges -- create new technologies that are innovative and generate revenue, but don't aid us in our lives or bring us closer to addressing our needs, and we will not follow.

The challenge has been issued, and we all must rise up to meet it.  The technology industry has taken the first step, by offering its time and focus -- but the effort must go further.  Government and technology leaders must invite and support true collaboration with other groups.  Government must show the leadership we all need to recognize the broader opportunities that true cross-sector collaboration can create.  Educators, social change and nonprofits, business leaders and others, must offer their contributions and expertise.  And we all, in the audience, as citizens, must make our voice known, hold our leaders accountable, and contribute our own energy and insights to ensure innovation is realized.  Only then will the challenge be met.

12:28 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

Why People Explore New Technologies

I think a lot about how people get and share information, how technology impacts those experiences, and what organizations need to consider (and do) when trying to communicate or engage or direct an audience towards taking some kind of action (purchase, learn, advocate, etc.) in our connected society. 

The biggest challenge I face is what I call 'shiny object syndrome' - or more broadly the emphasis that people put on technology, often letting the tools drive the conversation and their decision-making.  But technology is not the solution, its just the facilitator of the actions you want people to take.  To be successful, you have to provide/create good content, create experiences people want to be involved with, or offer a product ('stuff') that people need in their lives.

It seems, Fred Wilson, a VC and principal of Union Square Ventures, is on the same page.  He wrote the following in a blog post about what drives consumer adoption of new technologies:

In most of these cases, the breakthrough product or service delivered a new experience to consumers that they had never had before. Sure there were social nets before Facebook, but none allowed you to run your life the way Facebook does for my kids. Sure there were browsers on phones before the iPhone, but there hadn't been one that you could actually use like you use a browser on a computer. Sure there had been personalized internet radio services before Pandora but not one that was drop dead simple and delivered a great experience.

So it seems to me that consumers are driven to new experiences that are simple and useful and/or entertaining. It is not enough to be the first to market with a new technology. You have to be the first to market with a version of the technology that is simple and easy to use.

I would go further than Fred Wilson.  People are increasingly moving towards using technology that provides a value or serves an important role in their life.  Having and using a tool simply isn't enough.  The value to someone might be around entertainment, or education -- or just from the experience of using it (in which case simple and easy to use are the top priorities).  But, being able to use that technology to get questions answered, accomplish tasks, or at very least not having some piece of technology make it more difficult to get through the day, get the information you want/need, or take the actions you are interesting in taking, is valuable.  Too much of the technology that is created today simply fills space, it doesn't add value to our lives.  And we just won't tolerate that anymore, not with everything else going on and all the competition for our time. 

So, people gravitate towards information, experiences, and stuff that they find valuable.  In many cases that is technology.  But they don't use technology because its there -- or at least that's changing more and more every day.

12:40 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

More Funding, Please

G4C

I am at the Games 4 Change Festival (http://www.gamesforchange.org/fest2009) which bills itself as "the only festival dedicated to the exciting new movement of Digital Games for Social Change."  This is one of the premiere gatherings of game designers and developers, academics, activists and funders.  Everyone here is passionate about their craft and committed to having an impact on the world.  But something doesn't feel quite right.

One of the big topics at G4C is how to get funding for game projects.  Everyone needs funding.  Everyone wants to know how to find, or qualify, for funding.  Without funding, there would be no serious games - and there would be no social change the results from them.  Its a big deal.

But, I am not convinced that the funders really understand the potential of games.  The people in the audience are chasing the people on stage, if you will, but it should be the other way around.  It should be the other way around.

For example, the consensus seems to be that the projects that get funded are the ones that can demonstrate success.  Foundations want to fund projects that they know can address a certain challenge or answer a particular question.  Investors and media companies want to fund games that they know will get attention and generate revenue.  Academics want to study games that prove a particular theory or test a certain behavior.  There is still a bias towards short-term results -- which is a big challenge when the outcome is social change.  And everyone has a threshold that games must meet before they can find funding or support.

How will we know a game has potential to change the world until we build it?  How will we know what audiences are going to do with a project until we can actually observe them?  How do we know the investment we make is worthwhile until we look back from the future and analyze the return?

This conference is supposed to 'how to' focused -- to give people who want to build games that have an impact on social the tools, and guidance, and support to pursue their ideas.  But the people with the ideas are the ones who understand what is happening in the world.  The person who has mapped out a game concept is way ahead of the person who is being asked to finance that game's development.

We are seeing some best practices.  There are some successful case studies for building games that have an impact on society.  But the impact that games have the potential to have is far greater than we have realized.  And we won't realize it until the funding for games becomes more readily available and less challenging to acquire -- until we are able put games online (or similar) and get people playing.

Like I said, I don't think the people being asked to fund serious games understand the potential of games.  Which leads me to believe they shouldn't be the ones in control of whether we are able to innovate or not.  The people in the audience are chasing the people on stage, if you will, but it should be the other way around.  

09:07 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Work Hard, Be Smart

Everyone wants to know the strategy for success - in life, in business, you name it.  Billions of dollars are paid to experts and consultants, not to mention for books and conferences and courses, by people hoping to get some unique insight or never-before-imagined analysis that will make all the difference.  That approach has never made sense to me.  The best strategies don't always work out.  And the smartest, biggest, most highly regarded people and institutions don't always succeed. You can pay all you want to get help, and guidance, and support in what you are trying to do - and a lot of times that money is well spent - but that is not the answer. Consultants, and business books, and therapists, and everyone else are facilitators - a means to an end.

So, if the consultants and experts in the world aren't the answer to finding the perfect strategy, what is?  There isn't one.  Its not about the perfect strategy.

In a recent issue of the New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell explained how upsets occur, or, put another way, How David Beats Goliath.  He writes:"David’s victory over Goliath, in the Biblical account, is held to be an anomaly. It was not. Davids win all the time."

The concept of David beating Goliath would seem to have been the result of a perfect strategy.  But it wasn't.  As Gladwell explains: "David can beat Goliath by substituting effort for ability—and substituting effort for ability turns out to be a winning formula for underdogs in all walks of life..."

In other words, work hard, be smart, and you will succeed.  It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.

12:16 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

Business Book Challenge: Update

Last week I issued a challenge.  I wrote:

"I have come to the conclusion that most (maybe all) business and strategy books are useless. They over-generalize. They offer little value.  I go in with such high expectations, based on reviews and descriptions, and am almost universally disappointed."

and

"If there are business and strategy books that really are worth reading, I want to build a library of them -- and begin to hand them out to people who I work with, work for, and provide advice to.  I know the value that books can provide in helping to shape people's thinking and support their intellectual development.  I just haven't found any business books that provide that kind of value."

Here are some of the responses that I have received so far:

• Lukas Peyer suggested Strategy Bites Back by Henry Mintzberg, adding "Its full with stories - one to a few pages long - looking at strategy from different and unusual angles. It is funny, thought-provoking and not edifying at all."
• Steven Devijver suggested two books: "The Responsibility Virus" by Roger Martinand and "A Strategy of Constant Change" (which he wrote, and offers as a free ebook).
• Roni Turner nominated Passion vs. Pension by Colin Turner.
• Mike Duley offered that "Flawless Consulting" by Peter Block was "among my "within reach" books that works for taking your team to the next level."
• Holly Jocoy suggested "The Publicity Handbook" by David Yale and Andrew Carothers -- and then added separately, "I think strategy books need to have actual examples that people can "crib" from. Otherwise, book may as well be a coaster 4 cups."

Further, my friend Brad Berens promoted the challenge on his blog, MediaVorous, and on his blog at iMedia Connection (he also created a hashtag on Twitter: #bizstratbooks).  He has received some pretty interesting responses, including this analysis of business and strategy books more broadly by Don E. Schultz of Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism and Agora, Inc.   Thanks Brad, and Don.

I am very pleased with the response so far -- I have about a dozen books on my list (I will post the full list later) and have begun to pursue copies so I can read and review them all myself.  I will begin posting my comments here, and on other blogs and sites where I contribute, soon.  My expectations remain low, but the fact that people would offer suggestions of books that they have personally used, and benefited from, gives me some hope that good business and strategy books do exist.

At the same time, I am surprised that only a handful of authors, publishers, or people in the book industry responded.  Its possible they didn't hear about my challenge.  Its also possible that the authors, publishers, and people in the book industry who deal with business and strategy writing realize that few, if any, of the books they produce are really adding value to the discusison.  As I think about it, maybe I shouldn't be surprised that I haven't heard from book people.

Keep sending your suggestions, comments, and ideas -- if you have a must-read book or author, I want to hear about it.  And if you have thoughts or experiences with any of the books on the list so far, let me know.

The challenge goes on.

 

 

10:10 am | 0 recommendations | 9 comments

My Business Book Challenge

I have come to the conclusion that most (maybe all) business and strategy books are useless. They over-generalize. They offer little value.  I go in with such high expectations, based on reviews and descriptions, and am almost universally disappointed. 

For a project that I am working on, I want to be find the business and strategy books that do help, that really deliver value.  I want to find the must reads. 

I want books that offer guidance and support on how to start and run a effective businesses and organizations.  I'm looking for authors who really understand how to change people's minds or understand their behavior.  I know there must be a book out there that can help me (and others) to be organized and efficient, creative, and successful.  And of course, I want to find a book that offers really good advice on how to break through and make a difference/impact in today's connected society.

I have been trying for years, with nothing to show for it.  So now, I am asking for help.

1) Are you an author of a business or strategy book that believes what you wrote is really good?  Will you send me a copy or a summary -- and make the case for why your book is worth reading (and sharing)?

2) Are you a publisher of business or strategy books with a staple of authors who you think really 'gets it'? Will you recommend a book or author, send me a copy or a summary -- and make the case for why you think I should spend time with your book(s) over something else?

3) Do you have favorite business or strategy books -- ones that have changed your life, opened your eyes to a new way of thinking, or become the book you give you tell everyone they have to read to succeed?  Will you tell me what books (or if not a whole book, what chapter, or particular section) had that result -- and help me to understand what you found valuable?

If there are business and strategy books that really are worth reading, I want to build a library of them -- and begin to hand them out to people who I work with, work for, and provide advice to.  I know the value that books can provide in helping to shape people's thinking and support their intellectual development.  I just haven't found any business books that provide that kind of value.

Here is my plan/promise:

- I will read and provide my thoughts on every book that someone argues is worth reading, or sent to me to review.  I will post thoughts here and cross promote everything I share on other blogs I support, through my twitter feed, in podcasts, and similar.

- I will talk with any author who wants to make the case for why their book is great and share the back-and-forth between us for all to appreciate.

- When I settle on a book that is worth reading, ends up on my shelf permanently, or becomes something that I will hand out -- I will shout it from the rooftops, write blog posts and articles selling its virtues, and buy copies for people I work with, work for, and provide advice to.

 

I have wasted too much time reading books (and other information) people say will teach me something, change my life, give me guidance on how to succeed, or satisfy my curious.  Most of the time the book simply doesn't live up to its billing.  Please help me find the must-reads.

If you can help, leave a comment below, Email me (breich [at] gmail dot com), send me a message on twitter (www.twitter.com/brianreich) or Facebook, or LinkedIn.  Whatever, just send me a message and let's figure this out together.

12:17 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

My 100 Days Report Card

Something about this 100-days conversation isn't working for me.

President Obama will celebrate his 100th day in office with a town hall meeting in St. Louis and a nationally televised press conference from the White House.  He'll use those events to highlight his successes, in addressing the flagging economy, rebuilding the reputation of the United States around the globe, beginning the hard work on climate change, education, healthcare, and more.

The media will mark the occasion by delivering their 'report card' of his performance.  I suspect they will give him relatively high marks for his work on the issues, including his shift in focus on the war (away from Iraq and towards Afghanistan), his approach on the economy (more stimulus funds, a focus on a green economy), and his commitment to changing education, healthcare, environmental, and even national service policy.  They will probably ding him for failing to achieve true bi-partisanship in Washington, by falling short on some of his campaign promises, and similar.

How do we know?  It is clear that 100 days is not a sufficient amount of time to judge whether this administration will successfully move our nation in the right direction.  The exercise still has value, and application to our work, but we must take a broader view for any measure to be meaningful.

Typically, when thinking about how to measure success we talk about goals (the need to have them, and be able to clearly articulate them) and execution (whether your actions lead to those goals being met).  The problem is that our goals are not designed to be met in such a short time, which makes measuring progress towards them challenging.  And as I have said many times before, activity is not a good measure of impact, so listing out all the the work you have done doesn't mean you are on the right track with any of your activites. Goals and execution don't take into account everything else that goes into our work - our lives, our families, where we live, and what is happening the world around us.  These structured ways of measuring success and failure, defining progress or decline, are too rigid.

How should we measure success?  Should we be trying to apply grades at all (or is it just a convenient way to frame the discussion)?  And perhaps most importantly, what should we do with the grades that we receive - good or bad? 

Let me see if I can give myself a report card.

My professional goal is to help organizations change the way they communicate, by helping them to understand the impact that technology and the internet have on our society and how that reshapes everything we do.  I want to make a difference.  I want to change the world.  I want to change the things about our society - the way we teach and learn, do business, how our government works, how we solve problems in our community.  I have a number of different strategies for meeting that goal.  I work directly with organizations to help create successful projects, and use those projects to help other organizations to improve their work.  I write and speak regularly about how technology and the internet can be used more effectively by brands, nonprofits, political organizations, and others, so that people who I am not able to work with directly can still learn from my experiences.  I read, watch, and listen to as much news and information as possible, so I can try to make sense of what is happening in the world and help others in my network, online and offline, to navigate what is changing in  in their work and life. 

I certainly believe I am good at what I do and the people I work with, and engage directly, are benefiting from the information that I share and guidance I provide.  But i could have more clients and make more money.  I have written some good blog posts and keynoted some important events.  Still, my book didn't make any major best seller lists when it first came out last year, and the audience for my blogging, tweeting and speaking could be larger.  And despite having worked in and around these issues for a decade and having significant experience and success, other 'experts' in the areas in which I work seem to have more traction for their messaging (even if, in some cases, I don't think what they are saying is right or as good).  If I had to give myself a grade on my work, I would think a low B, or maybe even a C, would be appropriate.  My success has been average.  I continue to make gains and I certainly enjoy my work, but I have a lot of work to do until I achieve my goal.

I haven't written out a set of goals for my life in the same way I have for work, or clear strategies for meeting those goals (perhaps I should).  I know that I want to be healthy and happy, that I want to have a family and feel as if I have more than just my work to keep me engaged.  I am happily married to a wonderful, supportive, and understanding woman and together we are raising a really terrific 17-month old son.  When I say 'together' I really mean it too -- my wife, Karen, works part-time leading government relations for a major national nonprofit organization, and while she is at the office I am at home with our son.  When I am working, she is takes care of him. We are a team.  And perhaps most imoprtantly, in the time that my wife and I have been together, and especially in the last couple of years as we became parents, my perspectives on what is important in life have changed and my ability and desire to balance work and home has increased.  Its not all easy though.  I generally don't feel as if there are enough hours in the day to get everything done and there are still times when I am paying more attention to my iPhone than the conversation my son is trying to have with me (for which I am embarrassed and ashamed).  I have been so consumed by work at times, or away on travel so much, that I have forgotten important events or missed important conversations.  If I had to give myself a grade on my life, I would think a B is in order.  I wouldn't trade anything in my life right now, but there are still some things I would like to do, and do better.

If you ask me tomorrow I will almost certainly give you a different set of grades.  The same for the next day and the day after.  If I have a bad day at work my scores drop.  When my son and I go to watch a little league game in our neighborhood, there is no number or letter could reflect how perfect everything feels at that moment.  If you pick out any single moment you won't get a complete pictures. And I am ok with that.  I will never satisfy every work objective I have and yet I can still recognize how much more important reading a book with my son is to me over the long run.  I can know know that my wife and I have built a tremendous relationship, and still have ambitions for work that nothing else can satisfy.

That is how it is supposed to be, right?  No single measure of success can fully capture everything that we are involved in, and no metric can be applied to everyone.  Whether you are talking about work, life, or anything else. Profitablity doesn't take into account the larger impact that a company has on its community or the people it employs. The big trends we use to gauge how things are going don't focus much on the individual perspectives.  

I believe the world is changing, and that technology and the internet have shifted our perspective on what is important and how we engage organizations, information, and eachother.  Its clear to me that our world today is very different than it was just a few years ago, and much more will change in the years ahead.  Regardless, how we measure success and failure is what is probably more important.  And that needs to change more than anything.

01:53 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

Why does somebody have to buy Twitter?

The biggest question in the technology world these days is who will buy Twitter?  The leading contender is probably Google, since the search giant has what seems like an unlimited amount of money and a history of scooping up interesting products.  Facebook is a possibility as well, since the audience for Twitter and the overall 'cool factor' it has going for it fit most obviously within the social networking universe.  MySpace, Microsoft, and Yahoo! have all been floated as possibilities too, probably because they are desperate to find ways to compete with Facebook and Google.  And I could also imagine a media giant like NBC Universal or Time Warner (their own financial issues aside) making a play, figuring ownership of the leading micro-blogging platform would make them an instant player in the online world (and conceivably enhance their other entertainment and news products).

My question is this: why does anyone have to buy Twitter anyway?  Biz Stone said "Our goal is to build a profitable, independent company, and we're just getting started."  I believe him.  So, why can't that be how this story plays out?  

- Twitter can make money on its own. Twitter is more than just a company -- it represents a significant shift in the way people communicate and an evolution in the way information travels and communities gather.  It has successfully balanced mass adoption (the numbers are fuzzy, but estimates are that Twitter currently have between 15 and 20 million users, and growing by the minute), while also creating a base of loyal, passionate users.  When you are that successful, and by extension, influential in the shaping of how people communicate with each other, there is plenty of money to be made.  

(A side thought - the ways that people have traditionally made money online - through advertising most notably - are clearly not working as well anymore. Rather than try to put an existing revenue model into Twitter, the Twitter team should be looking for new opportunities to generate revenue, things that nobody has ever thought of before... kind of like Twitter itself.  Additionally, the Twitter folks are going to need to step up their customer service if they want to continue to grow and build loyalty - technology alone doesn't make people feel like they are a part of something special, and the larger they get, the harder it will be to demonstrate a personal connection to their audience.)

- When companies are acquired they lose their soul.  Think about it: when NewsCorp purchased MySpace, MySpace changed (and not for the better).  When Time Warner bought AOL, AOL changed (and not for the better).  When Facebook tried to make itself even more desirable to a potential buyer (by forcing an ill conceived advertising model onto users), it nearly imploded.  The list of such failures is long. For Twitter to be successful, it has to maintain its independence, and keep focused on what it has done well.  If they need to hire, or work with smarter people to keep moving towards their goal, that's fine -- but they should resist the option of being absorbed (even if the money is totally ridiculous).

- There are plenty of ways to grow, and get investments.  In the past, investors had only one goal - to get their money back.  In today's world there are social returns that carry equal, or at least, significant weight.  Twitter can qualify as a social venture.  There are plenty of investors out there who believe in Twitter and its potential to not only become profitable, but to change our society.  One of the reasons Twitter might sell is to satisfy the needs of its investors, to give back a quick return on their initial investments. But they must resist that urge.There are plenty of investors who will be will be patient while Twitter figures out its future, knowing that their return, over the long run, will be far greater (financially and otherwise).

It can't be easy to pass up millions, maybe even billions of dollars -- but its the right thing to do in this case.  Twitter has a brighter future, and greater potential, if it resists the opportunity to join a larger company and instead continues to look at ways to grow and evolve on its own.  And to help them, the Twitter community should band together and be a part of the process of figuring out how to help Twitter succeed on its own.  

Or, in twitter speak: @biz don't sell. stay the course. I am here to help, and there are others. We can make Twitter great if you just stay focused on your goals.

01:52 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

Underwhelmed

I was at Opening Day in New York last week, attending the first official game at the new Yankee Stadium last week. Honestly, I was underwhelmed. Considering that the Yankees spend $1.5 billion dollars to build the ballpark, I expected more.

Note: I register my opinion as both a die-hard baseball fan and a self-styled ballpark expert. In 1997 I visited all the major league baseball stadiums and have kept up with most of the new constructions since.  I usually get to see about 15 ballgames per year, and watch or listen to hundreds more on TV, radio, and online. I have written papers/articles about ballpark construction, spoken and given interviews on the subject, and similar. And in case you are curious, I am a life-long Seattle Mariners fan.

What was I expecting?  I expected the prices to be high (they always are in New York, and there has been lots of press coverage about how expensive this particular ballpark would be) -- and they were.  And I expected the lines at the concession stands to be long (no stadium does that well in my experience) -- and they were.  But I also expected the new ballpark to have some design features, uses of technology, or other elements that served to enhance the fan experience.  The opposite was true. The field carries the exact same dimensions as the old ballpark, the look and feel of the park reflects the design of the original Yankee stadium, and many of the enhancements that were made -- like the gigantic new scoreboard -- actually detract from the experience of watching a game (example: it took me five minutes to find where the ball/strike/out tally was being displayed). 

My underwhelming experience at the new Yankee Stadium got me thinking about my role as a fan, and as a customer more broadly.  I quickly came to the conclusion that I am underwhelmed by most of the experiences I have these days -- whether I am shopping, reading the newspaper, attending a ballgame, or similar.  I go to stores and the people who work there aren't helpful, or the products they offer don't meet my needs.  I subscribe to dozens of newspapers and magazines and its hit or miss whether I get an article in any particular issue that really peaks my interest or teaches me something new and interesting.  I am more than happy to buy things, and spend money, and I do all the time -- but more and more, I feel as if the companies who want me as their customer simply aren't giving me much in return.

I know that every fan's perspective is different, and the same is true for customers, and audiences for everything.  If you ask most Yankees fans they will tell you the new ballpark was a major improvement over the old Yankee Stadium.  I just don't happen to feel that way.  You will always find people who say their shopping experience was fulfilling, or the magazine they just read was worth the subscription price, and more.  I have been that person, but it has been a while since I felt like shouting from the top of the hills about something I bought. 

My question is this: Does anyone else feel this way?  Do I make poor choices with how I spend my time and money -- or generally, are we settling for less than we should?

 

The new Yankee Stadium is clean, there are TV's everywhere to help follow the action, and the bathrooms all seem to work -- significant improvements over the old stadium.  By most standards, that would be enough for a good ballpark.  But for the New York Yankees, and at a cost of $1.5 billion, its not enough.  Very little that has changed from the old Yankee Stadium -- so in essence you are paying significantly more for the same product.  The Yankees, in my view, chose not to put much effort into making sure that the fan experience is worthwhile, that the (significant amount of) money that people spend to watch a game leaves them feeling like they received value and want to return.

Maybe they don't have to.  The Yankees may be a special case -- given their history, the success on the field they enjoy year after year, and the loyalty they have built up with their fans, maybe they can get away with charging high prices and delivering a mediocre stadium experience.  Even if that is true (and I am not sure it is), they are the exception and not the rule.  Consumers have greater control over their consumption now than at any point in history and as a result have higher expectations that what we will receive for our time or money will be worthwhile.  If we have a bad customer experience, we will look elsewhere for another, better option.  And with all the information that flows online today, there is a good chance that the opinions of an underwhelmed customer like myself will reach others, probably quickly, and impact their decision making as well.

I will still go to baseball games, and probably a few of them will be at the new Yankee Stadium.  But given the choice, I would definitely prefer to spend my money on a team, at a ballpark, or more broadly on something else where I feel like I am an improtant customer and I am getting value in return for the time, energy, and money I contribute.  Other teams do it, and there are companies and organizations make me feel that way as well -- and trust me, those are the ones I spend the most money with.  At the same time, too many companies are getting away with delivering an underwhelming experience and I say its long past the time we stopped letting them get away with that.