March 31, 2009
02:43 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
Dear event organizers,
Please stop organizing panel discussions. Please. Please!
Panel discussions are boring. They are almost always filled with people who are more interested in self-promotion than informed discussion. Panels are dominated by powerpoint or other presentations, which in my experience don't convey much good information (the best presentations are image-heavy and presented really well, which is hard to do in this format). The answers that panelists give are long-winded and generally share little new or relevant information. And, they tend to be uni-directional (i.e. the panel talks at the audience). Even with a great moderator and really engaged panelists, the format simply doesn't work as well as it could.
You want me to keep going?
I say this as someone who attends a lot of conferences and sits through
a seemingly endless number of panel discussions (most of which I end up
using as time to check email or write blog posts). All of these factors, and many more, keep panel discussions from providing value to the audience. And, if your conference is filled with panel discussions, it makes me less likely to attend year after year.
I also say this as someone who gets invited to sit on, or moderate, a lot of panels. I am interested to talk about issues, help people understand things, and both listen and learn on my own at the same time -- that doesn't happen through a panel. If you invite me to sit on a panel, or moderate a session at your event, i will come back to you with a challenge for how to re-organize the discussion in a different way.
I prefer vibrant, substantive, back-and-forth discussions among groups of smart people. I know it seems like a semantic difference, because of course that is what panels seem like they will be on paper -- but in practice, there are some key differences between what I am talking about and the panels I see happening every day. Here are the ground rules I issue when I moderate a discussion:
- Have a really clear question or set of questions to give focus, but little/no preparation or scriptinog beyond that.
- No presentations and no powerpoints.
- Nobody talks for more than a couple of minutes at a time - and talk to each other, respond, challenge, disagree.
- Lots of specifics, lots of recommendations, lots of examples -- and not all from your work.
- Reveal your secrets, talk about your failures, be personal and transparent - no robots please.
- Most of the time is dedicated to question/answer with the audience, or comments submitted via some backchannel)
Format-wise, I like to limit the number of people on stage to three... a moderator and two 'experts' (or however you decided someone deserved an invite). The format can accomodate more people, but you should also give more time for the session the more people you want to hear from. No tables either... have us sitting on chairs, or even walking around so we can really interact with the people who we are trying to reach. Anything that stands between us and the audience creates a barrier to good conversation.
When I moderate, I start the session with very brief introductions that explain why I have invited someone into this discussion, or what I know about their experience that is relevant -- not a long-winded description of people's work history (everyone can google your bio nowadays, or look in their program if they want to know more). From there, instead of giving each of the invited experts each a few minutes to talk, jump right in with a question. Charge one person to answer and from there the rest is a conversation. The people on the panel should talk to each other, and to the moderator -- not just talk. The moderator's role is to interrupt and re-focus the conversation if it goes off track. If there is a backchannel conversation going, via Twitter or something else (and I haven't been to a conference in the last year where that wasn't the case), the moderator can/should monitor that discussion and bring some thoughts and questions in as well.
Also, if I could suggest - I think people who attend events love follow up. After event event where I speak, whether its a panel discussion or something else, I send out an email with additional thoughts, follow ups, recommend articles to read and similar. Anyone who gives me their email address or contacts me afterwards gets it - and they are free to use, or share, or rebuke my thoughts if they like.
Let me say this... even though I have a clear view on how this shoudl happen, I still make mistakes - big ones. The other night i was a part of a discussion where I talked too much. I even got called out by someone in the audience (via twitter) and had to adjust mid-course. If I was not connected, I could have screwed up even worse that I did. So this is an ongoing learning process, even for regular panel people like myself.
So again, please don't organize any more panel discussions. Please don't fill your agenda will stale, self-promotional, lectures. Use these rare occasions when we get people together to discuss an issue to learn and share ideas, to innovate and solve problems.
Best,
Brian Reich
(p.s. If you'd like me to moderate a vibrant discussion at your event, or even just brainstorm with you about ways you can improve the conversation around your issues, don't hesitate to ask. I love this stuff.)
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
March 29, 2009
11:15 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
You don't need me to tell you that the world is facing some pretty significant challenges right now. The economy continues to sputter. Wars and violence plague countries and communities large and small. Here in the United States, the problems with our healthcare and education systems don't seem like they will ever improve. You don't have to go far to find extreme poverty, religious intolerance, ethnic conflict, and more. People are scared about what the future will hold.
Traditionally, we have put our faith in institutions like government, the media or even business that they will come up with solutions and help lead us to better times. Filling in the gaps are nonprofit organizations or faith-based institutions. I know I am over-generalizing here, but the point is, there has been someone to look to, someone we believed had our best interests at heart. I'm not sure that is the case right now. I am not sure anyone has unwavering confidence in the institutions who have always led us, to do so again now.
The point is this post is not to be all doom and gloom -- quite the opposite. I am optimistic about the future (and if you know me at all, that's saying something). Our society has changed - dramatically - over the past few decades. We talk about it all the time, in the context of business (flattening), media (speeding up), community (connecting) -- but we don't often take a more macro view. The fact that everything has changed means that we have the tools and understanding needed to not only meet the challenges that exist today, but thrive going forward. Individuals are empowered as never before, and all of us have the tools, the connections and that access at our fingertips to do something incredible.
What do we need to succeed? We need a reset. A total, complete, top-to-bottom, reset. We don't need a plan - that's too short-term, we need to think bigger/broader. We don't need a model - we have never done what we need to do now, so there isn't anything to emulate. We don't need a strategy - this isn't about developing some roadmap and acting on it. We need to change the way we think, act, organize. We need to change the way we talk, and listen. Everything we know, and how it is applied, must be reconsidered and re-applied.
A reset doesn't necessarily mean starting over from scratch. There are elements of what we have been doing, across all sectors, that have been successful and can apply in the future. We need to find those good things and understand why they worked, or how they can be re-purposed. There is nothing about how one organization operates that can't help another one learn how to be more successful. There is so much than individuals, or a community of people, can contribute if those in power are willing to truly listen.
My personal believe is that no organizations are doing everything right, and especially not the ones that we often hold up on pedestals as examples. Even those who are successful aren't necessarily in a position to take what they do and adapt it to meet the new challenges that we will face in the future. There is too much focus on activity (how big your email list is, or how much money you give to charity) and not enough on impact (whether you are really serving a need, or changing things for the better). There is too much emphasis placed on brand (i.e. what groups call themselves, or say they are doing) and not enough on experience (what is really happening, whether expectatinos are being met). There is too much energy put into growth (how big can we be, how many people can we reach) and not enough commitment to sustainability (can we maintain the quality of what we do no matter how many things are choose to do).
The concept of a reset is not about abandoning the things in our society - like the marketplace, or even the institutions that currently operate and lead. We don't need to 'throw all the bums out' if you will. But we have a lot of room for improvement. We have an opprotunity to do things differently and see a better result.
A reset will be difficult, and it will take time. There will be people who don't have the patience to wait and will suggest we look at short-term gains instead of long-term shifts in the way we behave and function as a society. I say in response, without a total reset, we'll miss some major opportunities - to build better cities, to create more innovative and successful companies, educate and engage people more fully, and mobilize to address serious social issues in a meaningful and measurable way. Or worse, we'll continue to operate as we have, despite massive changes taking place in all aspects of our lives, and find ourselves quickly in a place from which we can't return.
Why would we wait? Time to reset.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
March 16, 2009
03:08 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
I am in Austin for SXSW and looking for the 'must reads.'
Who are they? They are the journalists, authors and bloggers that you can't ignore. But they aren't just writers -- they could be filmmakers, musicians, thinkers, doers, or anyone else that you absolutely have to keep current with. You carry around their writings in your bag, stealing a quick glance at every chance you get. You subscribe to their feeds, refreshing regularly to see if anything new has popped up. You tune in to see or hear what they are talking about.
In short, they are the people who, through the content they create and promote, shape the thinking of our culture. Government listens to their voices. Business responds to their opinions. We all talk about their work at cocktail parties.
I have my own list (and will be profiling some of them over the coming days in this space), but I am only one person.
You know who they are. So tell me. Who are your must-reads? Who are THE must-reads?
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
March 11, 2009
08:39 am | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
Like it or not, MBAs influence a lot of what happens in the world. They run major companies. They lead innovative startups. They build the business plans and crunch the numbers that fuel a lot of our economy and culture.
I don't have an MBA, nor any desire to get one -- but I recognize the importance of listening to folks who do. So, I wanted to share a few nuggets from a new report being released today by Net Impact, an international nonprofit organization whose mission is to make a positive impact on society by growing and strengthening a community of leaders who use business to improve the world. In short, its a big group of (mostly) MBAs who are trying to do more with the businesses they start and run.
The new report surveys over 1,800 students, representing more than 80 business programs to better understand current MBA student opinion on career choices, business school curriculum, the economy, and the relationship between business and social/environmental issues. A few of the key results stood out:
1) 90% of today’s graduate students blame a focus in business on short-term rather than long-term results as one of the contributing factors to the global financial crisis. Not only do I think this is true, I see little evidence that the major players in the economy intend to shift their focus in a any significant way. This needs to change -- and we have an opportunity to do so now, as we rebuild and re-think how the global economy operates. A focus on long-term value and sustainability (not green/enviro sustainability, consistent success) and not short-term profit is the first step.
2) Less than a third (31%) of respondents think that corporations are working towards the betterment of society. I agree, but I am not so naive as to believe that companies should be 'giving back' because its the right thing to do. That is true, it is the right thing to do, but the reason that companies should be working towards the betterment of society is because it is good business. Short-term thinking with regard to how we use natural resources, or how customers are supported contributed to the economic meltdown that is currently sweeping the globe.
Its worth noting that the students surveyed for the report believe that the for-profit sector should play a role in addressing social and environmental issues (88%) and that being responsible leads to corporate profits (77%). The next generation of business leaders clearly understand -- not sure why the current ones don't (at least not enough).
Perhaps most importantly, the survey suggests that that business schools place moderate or little emphasis on the major challenges that are facing business leaders of the future -- healthcare, education, the environment, etc. In other words, the curriculum at most business schools is not adequate to prepare the next generation of business leaders for the challenges that they will face. We will have to re-think and re-engineer the way we teach MBAs if we expect them to change the course of the economy, or re-invision the way companies should run in the future. Probably should haven't thought of that a while ago.
You can access at copy of the full report at http://www.netimpact.org/perspectives.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
March 5, 2009
01:17 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
Economic times are tough.
People are spending less money.
Companies are struggling.
When companies struggle, they cut staff.
When companies cut staff, their service suffers - nobody to answer the phone, nobody to check quality.
When service suffers, customers get frustrated.
When customers get frustrated, they stop buying.
When customers stop buying, companies struggle more.
Its a slippery slope companies are on these days.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
February 15, 2009
10:49 am | 0 recommendations | 4 comments
I spend most Sunday mornings, if I am lucky, reading. I consume numerous newspapers, magazines and blogs, some online, some in print. I clip articles and write blog posts. I tweet questions and send emails to friends about what I read. Mostly, though, I just sit and think about what I am reading (and yes, I know how that sounds).
The topic might be war, or politics, baseball, or business. Sometimes the issues are very personal and local, other times they are global (read: far away) or just hard to relate to. On any given Sunday there could be a dozen articles that I pull aside for deeper study, while the next week's reading might yield only one or two (or, gasp! none).
This morning I have been thinking about how technology impacts our society. Pretty general, I know, and certainly a theme that comes up a lot for me - given what I do (internet strategy). Why this subject, today?
In the New York Times, John Markoff, posits that the infrastructure (if you will) of the internet has evolved to such a place that "there is a growing belief among engineers and security experts that Internet security and privacy have become so maddeningly elusive that the only way to fix the problem is to start over." Read it.
Over in the Boston Globe, Darke Bennett argues that the internet, or more specifically the content that flows through it, has reached a new level of intensity. He writes "One of the results has been the advent of a new culture of online heckling and shaming, and the rise of enormous cyber-posses motivated by social or political causes - or simple sadism." Read it.
These are big issues, and they pose an even bigger question for me: Do we need a new internet -- one that is more secure, more constructive, and more reflective of the society we want? Or, do we need a new society -- one that is more secure, more constructive, and actually reflects what we hope the world we live in would be like (instead of what it actually is like)?
I won't try to summarize the articles, you should just read them for yourself. I won't try to answer the questions, you should consider the implications of this issue for yourself. My hope in writing this, instead, is to encourage (or give you an excuse) to spend the time each week, whether its on Sunday morning like me or some other time or place, to read and consider the big issues facing the world, or your world, or really just whatever interests you. And if you ever want to share them, I'll be here to listen and consider along with you.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
February 10, 2009
02:51 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
Last night, during his televised press conference, President Obama talked about one of my clients. He didn't mention them by name, but rather talked about their issue in clear, compelling language. What a dream!
As soon as I heard what the President said I sent a quick note to my client to make sure they saw the reference and understood the opportunity this created. What opportunity? Simple: there were a whole lot of people people tuned in to watch that press conference, and many more who will seek out information about his remarks on the economy after the fact. No matter how important you might have thought their issue was before, because the President of the United States mentioned it, it is now more important. My client now has a small window to create a connection between their organization (and their issue) and the President's remarks.
There is a simple lesson here that many marketers seem to miss. The news cycle drives much of what people do today, how they think about issues, and what they choose to act on. If your issue is in the news - regardless of whether you are mentioned by name - you should take advantage.
Its not difficult to ride the news cycle either.
- You have to be aware of what is happening in the world (which, arguably you should be anyway).
- You have to be ready to act (which is true in today's high-speed, always-on, everything is connected age).
- You have to be able to provide information or create an experience that allows people to learn more about your issue and get involved, quickly (which, if you keep it simple, is much easier than you think).
That's it.
If your issue, organization or product is relevant to people's lives, I assure you there are opportunities for you to pursue. Just let the news cycle be your guide.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
January 27, 2009
10:10 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
The press is abuzz this morning about a new report saying sales of single family homes rose in December. The rise in sales at the end of the year reverses a pretty significant slide that happened over the eleven (maybe more) months prior. Because the number of home sales is a leading indicator of economic progress in the nation, analysts suggest the report is a sign that the economy is on the way towards recovery.
Not so fast.
According to at least one news report I heard this morning, the data indicates that buyers are securing foreclosed properties at a steep discount. In other words, savvy (or shrewd) investors are buying up properties at rock bottom prices on the hope that if/when the economy does recover, they'll make a killing in the housing market. After all, home sales will always be a part of our economy - the issue is when will people be buying again, and what will they be willing to pay (or able to afford).
Among the things I am not an expert in, housing policy is near the top of the list -- but it seems to me like a pretty weak indicator to me if people who are scooping up foreclosed properties are considered the great hope for our economy. Moreover, the logic that at least one housing analyst offered on the news this morning -- that if sales remain brisk, prices will follow -- seems pretty flimsy.
When I was a child, I would often go and buy a new video game, set of baseball cards, or similar item without the full permission of my mother. Even when I knew she didn't want me to spend her money on such an item, I would permission and try to find something, anything, that would indicate I had received it. For example, my mother might say "I am not going to spend $80 on a video game" -- so I would only spend $60. Or, "Do you really need to buy all those baseball cards" -- to which of course, in my youthful mind, the answer was always yes. I wasn't a bad kid. I didn't directly disobey my mother. But, as she used to say to me, I would only "hear what [you] want to hear."
The conversation around the housing data seems to fall squarely into this category. I fear that housing analysts, economists, the media -- and eventually all of us -- will become so desperate for good news on the economy that we will simply hear what we want to hear.
Home sales are up? That's great news! No, it doesn't matter that the foreclosure rate is up 81% in the last year, and in some communities as many as a quarter of residents are being evicted from their homes. Someone is buying! Everyone can feel safe buying now!
It actually seems a little bit like how we got into this mess -- with loans being given to people who had no way of paying them back, and such. You see, in our haste to feel better about the economy, we will make bad choices about where to invest and how much to spend. This will seem ok in the short term, but we are certain to find ourselves in a mess down the line.
There are serious issues with the economy. We need to rethink how we do just about everything. And while there is a need to put people back to work, and keep things like home sales from slowing even further, this will take time. If we can be patient, the economy will recover -- or grow stronger as a result of new and different approaches that are now being explored -- and we will all be better for it. If we do the opposite, and try to sneak a semi-positive report past everyone as a sign of strength, things will only get worse.
Listen carefully people.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
January 19, 2009
02:57 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
I think most advertising sucks. And that goes double for most television advertising. That was a big motivation for me getting a TiVo (I actually now have two, one for each of the televisions in my house). And its provides a basis for a lot of my thinking and writing about why and how organizations continue to struggle when trying to communicate in today's rapidly changing, highly connected, technology and internet-centric world.
So, I was particularly interested to find a little nugget in the Ideas section of Sunday's Boston Globe about how commercials actually improve television. What a breakthrough!
Here is the blurb from the Globe.
"WITH THE ADOPTION of digital video recorders, fewer people watch commercials on TV anymore. After all, it's not like anyone wants to watch commercials (except during the Super Bowl, maybe). However, new research says that you may be missing out. When college students were asked to watch an episode of "Taxi," they enjoyed the version with commercials more than the version without commercials. The same thing happened when watching a nature show, such that students who watched the version with commercials were more willing to donate to wildlife preservation. The effect arises because the novelty of an experience can wear off, and a break can reset one's attention. There are a couple caveats to the effect, though: It doesn't apply to older people (with their longer attention spans), or to exciting shows. Of course, if younger people watch only exciting shows, then advertisers may be out of luck anyway."
The research is from a study entitled "Enhancing the Television Viewing Experience Through Commercial Interruptions" that will appear in the Journal of Consumer Research. It was authored by Leif D. Nelson, an assistant professor of marketing at the Rady School of Management at the University of California, San Diego. Tom Meyvis, an associate professor of marketing and Jeff Galak, a doctoral candidate at the Leonard N. Stern School of Business, New York University also contributed. Here is their summary:
"Consumers prefer to watch television programs without commercials. Yet, in spite of most consumers’ extensive experience with watching television, we propose that commercial interruptions can actually improve the television‐viewing experience. Although consumers do not foresee it, their enjoyment diminishes over time. Commercial interruptions can disrupt this adaptation process and restore the intensity of consumers’ enjoyment. Six studies demonstrate that, although people preferred to avoid commercial interruptions, these interruptions actually made programs more enjoyable (study 1), regardless of the quality of the commercial (study 2), even when controlling for the mere presence of the ads (study 3), and regardless of the nature of the interruption (study 4). However, this effect was eliminated for people who are less likely to adapt (study 5) and for programs that do not lead to adaptation (study 6), confirming the disruption of adaptation account and identifying crucial boundaries of the effect."
I am not quite sure what to make of this research -- or at least I am not sure what it means should change to improve the quality of impact of advertising (assuming you agree that advertising sucks). If anything, it seems like an argument for putting more commercials breaks into TV shows, to help make the TV show experience stronger. That would be a tragedy on so many levels.
I'll have to read the study in full to get more details, its not really fair to make assumptions based on the two blurbs I have read. But of course that won't stop me. What I know, from experience, is that advertising doesn't work as well as it once did, or maybe doesn't work at all now (for its intended purpose - to get people to buy things) because of the changes in how we get and share information. When we are sitting down to watch TV the last thing that is on our mind, typically, is buying something. The likelihood that I would want to get off my couch to go buy something I saw advertised is pretty low (or as a high school teach of mine used to say "Its easier to sit on the couch than go running"). And there is no way I will stop whatever I am doing to respond to an advertisement that I don't even think is interesting, or for a product that I don't need or want.
Historically, the shows were created so that advertisers would have something to attract viewers to their ads. Of course, people watch television because of the quality of the content on the shows themselves. So, the thought of using ads to enhance the viewing experience of the shows seems almost comical.
Before I forget, two thoughts on the study itself.
1) If it doesn't apply to older people (with their longer attention spans), to whom does it apply? The top audience that television advertisers (and television producers) try to reach during prime time, especially, are 18-34 year olds. I am within this target group and though I certainly have attention span issues, I am more than capable of watching a 'good' television show without needing a two-minute interruption. In fact, the quality of the shows that I watch (even the quasi-reality shows on MTV, yes I admit I am a fan of the Hills) is usually superior to the quality of the ads -- all the more reason why I wouldn't take my attention away from the show to internalize the message of a commercial. And if the ads are designed to target kids, with short attention spans, do the advertisers even care if it enhances their television watching experience? I would think advertisers would want the kids to run to their mommy or daddy and ask them to buy the sugary cereal or fancy new toy, not keep watching till the end of an episode (when their short attention span would have moved them on to other things anyway).
2) Why does it work for everything but exciting shows? Again, there may be more in the research that explains this better, but the concept of a show having to be 'exciting' in order to hold someone's attention seems wrong. What qualifies as 'exciting' is certainly subjective, but the suggestion seems to be that you must be watching a an episode of 24 or something else with violence, sex, or a chase scene to qualify. Sitcoms don't seem to qualify as 'exciting' but I assure that you I absorb every second of The Office and 30 Rock without needing an ad to reset my brain. Same for good dramas, like CSI (whose characters spend most of their time doing 'exciting' lab work) or Mad Men (whose charm is, at least in part, due to their portrayal of the mundane parts of real life).
The blurb in the Globe suggests the researchers used Taxi as a model for the type of television show it wanted to test. If that is true, I'd say that could be a big reason why the research is flawed. Taxi was a terrific show and groundbreaking for its time, but it would not be as popular today because the quality and the tone of the television shows we watch now is different. As the shows have changed, to meet the expectations of the audience or follow the trends of the time, the advertising has needed to change as well. But the progress there has been slower - so the advertisers are working off an old model. That has left viewers even more committed to the shows and less interested in the ads. Unless something changes, it will only get worse for advertisers too.
I still don't think advertising has much value, and it certainly doesn't enhance the television watching experience. If, or when, I get a copy of the research, I'll let you know if it says something to change my mind.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
January 9, 2009
08:23 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
Home Depot announced today that they were ending their sponsorship of the US Olympic Team (coverage here). The program, which had existed for 16 years, gave Olympic athletes part-time jobs and flexible hours along with full-time pay and benefits to help support their training. All told, Home Depot has employed more than 600 athletes who have won 145 medals.
Now, dozens of athletes are left without the financial support (or flexibility) they need to train and compete at Olympic levels. With just a year before the Winter Olympics in Vancouver, this is a serious issue. Instead of focusing on their training, these athletes must spend their time looking for new sponsors -- no small challenge given the tough economic times. And if they can't find new sponsorship, some of the athletes may have to stop their training and give up their Olympic dreams.
We can't let that happen. We should help.
By 'we' I mean the online community.
By 'help', I mean sponsor these athletes.
Its a pretty simple concept - we should crowdfund them. Crowdfunding is just a fancy word for pooling our money in support of some collective interest. Some examples:
MyFootballClub signed up 50,000 people willing to pay a small membership fee to buy and manage a football (soccer) team with a crowd of other dedicated fans. Last year they announced that they've agreed to buy a controlling stake in Ebbsfleet United FC, a member of the English Premiere League, with the option to buy the the remaining share in the future.
Spot.us, which allows freelance journalists to pitch story ideas and get funding from the public in the San Franciso Bay Area, is just one of several efforts to support journalism through crowdfunding.
A Swarm of Angels is an example of attempts to crowdfund the creation of a motion picture.
It could work for Olympic athletes as well. I would pay to sponsor a bobsled or curlingteam, give a luger or ski jumper the chance to battle for gold. Wouldn't you?
I'm in if you are, let me know.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
