Screens

I was listening to the radio the other day (some show on NPR, I don’t remember which one). There was a little commentary by a reporter who has been reading iPad books to his son at night. He said it was cool because it is really interactive. His son can touch a part of the story and hear voices, or see moving pictures. He concluded his story by saying that this reading experience is much more interactive and engaging then when he would read to his son from a book. When he reads from a book his son just lays back and listens, when he reads from the iPad his son is involved and part of what is going on. He did not directly say it, but he implied that the iPad experience was better.

I have to confess I worry about this a bit. Why did we decide that the only measure of engagement is physical activity? If you saw my parents reading to my brother and I when we were young it would have looked very boring I am sure. There we were, on our beds with words going into our ears. But in my mind I was creating. I could see High King Peter leading the army of Narnia into battle, and I could hear Aslan’s song as he created a new world. And the next day we would play these stories out in the real world, and we would expand on them by being the characters, changing the plot, or even making up our own stories and characters. We were fully engaged in the story.

Don’t get me wrong. I think that there is a place for interactive reading and that it can be really good, but I hope that we don’t ever let that take the place of creating entire worlds in our imagination.

I have some uneasiness about all of the screens in my world.

Just tonight we went to see the stage version of Beauty and the Beast. We had seats on the first row of the balcony, so it is easy to look down and see everybody who is sitting on the floor. At intermission of course everybody got out there phones to do very important things. There was even a row of three or four people who got out their iPads to play games. It made me kind of sad to see rows of people who seemed to be there together look down instead of turning to each other. What opportunities were missed for the sake of checking email? Opportunities to talk about the art that was happening right in front of us? To learn about the person you came with, or to understand the story we were watching a little better? You might argue that they were making connections with people through their phone, which may be true (the lady playing Wheel of Fortune on her iPad was not connecting to anybody), but why are the connections on the little screen more interesting then the connections with the people you came to the show with?

I feel like some sort of anti-technology person writing this. I promise that is not the case. I spend more then my fair share of time in front of a computer both creating and consuming media, and as soon as my current cell phone contract runs out Ill probably buy some sort of fancy phone touch screen and all. But like many I worry about the lack of balance that is creeping into my life. I have to be intentional to not spend all my spare time reading blogs, catching up on news, and checking the good ol twitter feed. I wish is was the other way around. I wish I would read a book and forget to look at facebook.

That’s just how it is.

I have not blogged in a while…i miss it. Ill continue the guest service marketing series, but I have something else on my mind right now: dusruptive.

We hear about things being disruptive in an industry often (the iphone, google, threadless, wii, etc). I am not sure what all it takes to put yoursef in a postion to be disruptive, but I have noticed a couple of things that happen to people who are trying to do things in a new and different way.

Recently I went to the dentist. Mint Dental is a small dentist office near our house. They are trying to do some things different from how normal dentest do things. Some of this is about limiting waste (no paper, recycling, etc), some of it is about serving customers well. I had an intersting conversation with Dr. Avery about building their new office as she cleaned my teeth.

Think back to the last time you went to the dentist. Imagine sitting in the chair. Look to the left and right, do you see the cabinets? Probably. There are also some cabinets behind you, and there is a specific amount of space between your feet and the wall. Apparently almost every dentist office is built to the exact same specs.

When they built Mint they decide to change the layout. No cabinets on the left and right, a central storage space for tools to eliminate duplicates, and bit less space at the foot of the chair. Not big changes really. But the entrenched industry did everything they could to keep them from. The cabinet company told they they could not get just the cabinets for the head of the room, they had to get the side cabinets as well, because “you would need them.” Never mind that they did not need them. The cabinet company also said they had to make the room longer or they would not have enough room. Now, I am a bit taller then average and i had plenty of room.

Dentistry is an old industry, and everybody does it basically the same. Because of this the people who supply the dental industry with their tools are convinced that there is only one way to do things, and even little changes are seen as wrong.

What is interesting about all of this to me is how powerful the need for sameness is among big established organizations and industries (churches, governments, schools systems…). It’s a bad place to be when your client is asking for a new and better way to do things, and your telling them it can’t be done for no better reason then “that’s how it is”/

 

is It a Two Way Conversation?

I saw a tweet recently (sorry, i dont remember who it was and can’t find it…). The basic gist was “i find it annoying when online news site editor does not have a twitter accounts.” I don’t really care if an editor has a twitter account or not, I think you have to choose your tools, and twitter is not for everyone.

But let me tell you a short story. Recently I tweeted that I liked a particular article in a local newspaper. I included the papers twitter name, so if they are paying attention to twitter they saw it. But they did not respond to it in any way.

I really did like the article, I would have tweeted about it no matter what, but there was a bit of change in how I see the magazine now. If you put a twitter badge on your site I see that as saying something; open, conversational, accesible. Obviously this is not always true, but it is the hope. When you don’t respond to tweets it sort of dashes the hope, the change in perception is slight, but important.

Tell a Better Story

I just finished reading A Million Miles in a Thousand Years. It is very good, and very quotable. Take this for example:

A good storyteller speaks something into nothing. Where there is an absence of story, or perhaps a bad story, a good storyteller walks in and changes reality. he doesn’t critique the existing story, or lament about his boredom, like a critic. He just tells something different and invites other people into the new story he is telling.

So, there is a lot to learn from that little quote. I think it says something about how to change the world. But, it also seems to say something about how we market things, have conversations in politics, and how we relate to competitors.

Sometimes, the best way to change something that is wrong is just to start doing something different and better. If it’s really a better way of doing things people will follow, soon the last holdouts will have no choice but to consider your idea.

Don’t get me wrong, sometimes you have to stand up and say enough is enough. Im not talking about those times. But on a lot of things just tell a better story and invite people to come along.

Contextless Ideas

You know how there are some people who come into a new situation and start throwing down ideas like crazy? Perhaps your trying to solve a problem and somebody comes up and gives you 10 solutions without asking you a single question. I have to admin

I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with this.

I think that getting lots of ideas out on the table is critical to solving problems. The only way to find the best solution is to come up with a lot of potential solutions. And sometimes not having a full understanding of a situation will let you get outside some contraints that that might not be real….it lets you be a bit crazy…if you don’t know where the box is you wont think inside it.

The flip side though is that if you don’t know and understand the problem it’s really hard to evaluate ideas, to come up with solutions that really get to the nuanced root of an issue. How can you solve a problem you don’t understand?

I know i tend to go way to far to the second side. I feel like i have to define every last variable before I start coming up with solutions (i am INTP after all). It would be healthy for me to find a way to combine the best of both worlds.

Obligatory post on NPR and Juan Williams

I listen to a lot of NPR, so I have been thinking about the whole firing of Juan Williams thing a lot.

I really don’t remember any specific story or analysis that Juan did, so I don’t have much opinion of him. And, I also recognize that the specific events that lead to his being fired was not the first conflict between him and NPR…we dont know the whole story.

In the end I dont really think that NPR should have fired him. Instead I think NPR should have engaged him in a public conversation (get him on Talk of the Nation, do some town hall stuff, interviews, a TAL…etc…) about some real issues:

• How is it appropriate to be honest about something that seems bigoted, discriminatory or whatever. For him to say “I get nervous on a flight with Muslims” is just true. The issue is what do we do with that. Does he think that is ok? Or does he fight that tendency he has to categorize and generalize? Is he coming to this from an (unfounded) string of logic, or is this an emotional response? How can we have a rational, helpful conversation about this stuff?
• Next, It would have been interesting if they had a conversation about the role of opinion in journalism. I don’t for a second buy this idea that any journalist or news organization is unbiassed and just “presents the facts”. So what if there was a conversation abut how to understand bias in news. What are the appropriate ways for reporters and analysts to give their opinion? Perhaps if there was an accepted way (such as a blog, specific show, etc) for them to give analysis based on opinion they would be more able to leave bies behind in a news reporting situation because they have an out let. Perhaps not. At the very least if we, the news consuming public, had a way to know what a reporter really thought we would have a starting place to evaluate what they say.

Any way, if Juan, NPR an FOX had been able to engage those (and other) issues it might have helped us as a news consuming people think through some hard issues. In the end perhaps Juan would still have left or been asked to leave, but at least it would not have degraded into yet another he said, she siad, i dont like you, give me my free speech, left, right, yelling match in a big yelling match.

Dream Job

There are lots of things i could enjoy doing with the rest of my life, but if i could have a dream job i think i would want to be an idea person…also known as consultant. Here is how it would work: I would work either for an organization doing interesting things, or work independently for several organizations. Whenever somebody had an problem to solve they would come to me, and i would help them figure out the solution. Then, if the solution sounds interesting then I would get to help implement the solution. If not, they get to find somebody else (hey, its a dream job remember!).

I think that often the most interesting part of design is solving the problem. I like the process of trying to come up with new ideas and new ways of looking at a situation. I like trying to see the big picture and pulling unrelated things together.  I like coming up with lists of solutions and then trying to pick the best one. But sometimes I get a bit stuck on the implementation part.

Is anybody hiring?

Obligatory Health Care Post

Dear Republicans, Tea Party, and other Conservatives,

Your mad, we get it. I don’t blame you for standing against something you truly oppose…I probably even agree with some of your concerns. But you’re not scoring points with me. If you want me to buy into what your doing this is what you should do:

1. Start saying you have some concerns about the current legislation, that you think its a bad idea, give your reasons. Then, move on, acknowledge that for now whats law is law.
2. Focus on one of your concerns: how much this is going to cost and that it will raise insurance rates in the long term. Let us know that you are going to try to find a solution for this part of the problem by figuring out how to deal with the cost of health care.
3. Right now, today, start figuring out a way to start working on the next issue in health care: costs. Bring together a diverse group of people from lots of backgrounds to start coming up with some new ideas. Do something big and innovative. It can even line up with your values. Find new ways to make market forces work in heath care to do what markets do: lower cost and increase quality. Find innovative ways to deliver health care, focus on preventative care. Do something great. Work with everybody, prove you can rise above your party affiliation.
4. Now, you have something to stand on. Instead of just retelling a story of fear (of course it would come back to story and marketing right?) you can tell the story of how you did something great, and how you want to take a new crack at insurance reform. Repeat step 3 with insurance reform, we might even end up with something better.

The Story of Fear

Yesterday I happened to wake up to a conservative talk show on the radio. As I was listening I was struck by how much the host leaned on fear as the story he was telling. So I had been thinking about the effectivness of using fear as the story to sell your idea, position, brand, or whatever (Then of course later that day the RNC’s fear strategy document came out, so i was thinking about it even more).

If the future belongs to the story tellers like so many say, then we have to be able to tell an effective story. The fear story can be effective of course, but I would rather be sold something positive then negative.

So, I was thinking, if somebody is going to use a fear story on me what does it take for it to be effective? The talk show host was 100% ineffective on me, if anything he convinced me not to listen to him again. To be effective on me he would have to:

• not be sensationalist. Your sensationalism only convinces me your prone to exaggeration.
• tell me what I should be afraid of. Be specific. I’m not really afraid of this nebulous idea of “America changing”. There might be some things that should change. Give me some specific things that I should be afraid of, and why (and to the shows host..”it’s un-american” does not count as a reason)
• give an argument for why what I fear is likely to come to pass
• acknowledge the possibilities that you might be wrong, or partly wrong. If said talk show host had said “the current administration is doing X. This has the possibility of leading to scenario A, which is bad because 0f Y, or scenario B which is less bad because of Z” I might have listened.

Just some thoughts. By the way, conservative talk show hosts are not the only ones that do this, everybody does (see global warming and Hell House). He just happened to be the one I heard that morning.

sometimes you should apologize

I have been thinking about this post a bit. The basic idea is that if you feel the need to apologize for an email you send, phone call you make or blog post you write that you should just not call/send/write.

Generally i think this is true. But, I think that if a mistake on my part made the sending necessary it is OK to apologize. For example I recently sent an email to 10 or so people I work with. I needed to send it, it was relevant, etc. However, after I sent it I noticed that I had done something crazy to the formatting and it was basically unreadable. So, I fixed the formatting, added a “sorry to send twice, here is why, here it is again” note at the top and sent it.

I think that it was good to acknowledge  my mistake and the annoyance I was going to cause.