marginally subversive

It's all about the experience...

I stumbled upon this interesting slide show on content marketing - at least that's how it was labeled on SlideShow.Com.  However, I think that it does cover more than just content marketing as a discipline.  It covers a far bigger, far richer view of the consumers' experience-sphere - and how brands can make/unmake their positions within this circle.

It's all about enhancing consumers' experiences of brands - that's the raison d'etre of media, channel, and messaging experts.  It's not about buying a TV ad or a print ad or a banner ad in some number 1 portal somewhere.  It's not about buying search keywords and optimizing them to the hilt.

It's about enhancing consumers' experiences of brands.

And I honestly think that content marketing - what used to be called (or is it still called?) "branded content and sponsorships" (though I think it's far more than that) - is one pillar that is currently underutilized in the media planning industry.

A lot of clients that I have spoken to about this have just one reply: "We are not a publishing company".  To which I say, "... but the mere fact that you are creating ads, buying media to send those messages into the market, and getting PR people and CRM writers to create campaigns - contents, essentially - don't these make you a publishing company?"

 

Content Marketing = Brand New Marketing?

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: media interactive)

Innovation

A thesis: Technologies designed to meet said and unsaid needs of consumers is what's going to drive innovations. 

Innovation is a careful balance between what consumers think they want now and in the near future - and what they have not yet thought about.

The real challenge is not really "meeting consumers' needs" - as made evident by surveys or any other "emotional, ethnographic research".  But creating technologies that enhance the experiences and lives of consumers.

Google did just that.  So did Apple's iTunes + iPod combo.  So did Amazon.Com.  They looked at how they could create better experiences for their consumers (and well, increase their bottom-line).  And they did succeed.

Simple.  Classic.  Elegant UIs.  That actually work.  And eventually get trusted.

Technology is important - but it is an enabler.  An important enabler.  But it's not the end-all/be-all.

Brands as Destinations

I was just thinking about 'destinations as Brands'.  The Hiltons and Conrad Hotels (which by the way are still tops on my list), Sheratons, and JW Marriotts.  Then started thinking about "countries as brands" - Singapore, the US, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, the Philippines, Malaysia.  And then the brands that take you there - Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Northwest, Emirates... - all of which are not entirely 'destinations' but surely are 'brands'.

Then my brain flipped:  How about thinking of it inversely - "brands as destinations"?  Does it hold?

Come to think of it:  some companies have called the 'retail space communications' as "the last mile that will make or break the deal between the brand and the consumer".  Some have thought of the "consumers' journey" or "path to a purchase".

From these, it seems then possible that "brands are destinations" in and of themselves, regardless of what categories they belong in.

But what would a brand as a destination be?

Hmmm.

For Coke: That sizzle, that 'bite' at the back of the throat that refreshes and gives me a break - however simple and short from the hassle of daily work.
For Kiehl's and Gillette 5Blade (whatever it is called) Shaver:  That smooth shave in the morning - with the minty, tingly feeling after.
For Mac:  That "can't wait any longer gotta be on my Mac" feeling every single night - in spite of being tired.
For my Sony PSP:  That "can't wait to advance to the next level and earn my black belt - even if it's only virtually" experience.
For the good old, H&L Milk in my fridge: That "please, I want to sleep now" feeling.

It seems possible.  And it could well be true.

Brands in themselves are destinations for consumers.  Brands are not just the tangible aspect of a 'product' - but also the emotional responses that a certain experience evokes out of and with the consumer.

Hmm.

agency executives are not doormats; we're people, too...

There is a fine, fine line between questioning a person's professional capabilities and attacking her/him personally.  There's also a fine, fine line between "client service" and being a "client's doormat".  Between service and slavery.  Between being demanding and being unreasonable.

For awhile now, I have been holding this thought in my mind.  A lot of marketeers think of agency executives (like myself) as "mere agency people" - "people who take my orders (or my boss') and get them done because we want to get things done".

For a long time, I have thought that this was the responsibility (the fault?) of agency people - both current and past players in the world of advertising, media and communications planning, and even research and other allied services.

Then it dawned on me that no, it's a shared responsibility.

We all have a shared responsibility to treat each other respect.

Agency executives ought to demand respect from their clients - and clients ought to respect their agency teams, regardless of whether they are from the media company, the research,or the creative teams.  No amount of "incompetency" is sufficient to warrant a 'personal attack'.  Specially if such attack is based on preconceived notions on races, genders, age, skin color, and types of passports.

Not because they deliver the goods and they get things done "the way we want to get things done".

But because it's the right thing to do.

Simply.

 

(Picked this up from Flickr)

We all come into this world naked.  And we all die, too.  We breathe the same air - and we look up to the same moon at night.  What makes you different is just in your head.  And life is too short to be concerned about your next bonus, the boss' accolades, or winning the next 'political bout' in the office.

 

(Photo from Flickr.)

Seth Godin asks "Is it worth it...?"

Seth Godin always has a way of writing that makes it seem he's writing based on the past events of my own life.  Of course, that's preposterous and as my friends would say, "very assuming".  But one of his latest posts did just that.  In his blog, Is It Worth It?, he writes (after asking a lot of questions):

The object isn’t to be perfect. The goal isn’t to hold back until you’ve created something beyond reproach. I believe the opposite is true. Our birthright is to fail and to fail often, but to fail in search of something bigger than we can imagine. To do anything else is to waste it all.

The past few weeks (when I was on holiday - and I am still on holiday!), I have been thinking about the same question - "Will these new adventures and ventures be worth it?" 

I left a pretty good (read: 9to6, 8hours-a-day, no-stress, no-working-on-weekends) job and took on a 1month break (and counting) with nothing but my savings in the bank to search for new adventures and ventures that I could be part of.

For four weeks, the thought - and yes, the fear - of having nothing to come back to after my holidays was there.  And the thought of "will these things that I am thinking about be worth it?", I would admit, keeps on coming to me - whilst lying by the pool, whilst swimming, whilst doing the rounds in my apartment, whilst running errands, whilst playing with my best friend's kids...

And then suddenly, I realized: I wouldn't know if any of these will be worth it unless I get myself into doing any of these.

The object is no longer to find the perfect situation to grow in - or the perfect company or venture or partnership or business to get myself involved in. 

And as Seth wrote on the 17th of June: The object isn't to be perfect. 

And in the same manner, my object isn't to be in a perfect situation - whatever and however that situation may be.

My object is to find a system - or systems -  to which I can be committed to, whose vision is aligned with my personal vision, and whose values are interlinked with my values.

And I believe I have found it

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: SethGodin, Excellence, Arete, Remarkability

Value Proposition versus Price Proposition

I have been trying to put a "dollar value" to my day.  This is part of my personal goal of setting up my own shop - an advisory shop for small to mid-sized entrepreneurs in Singapore and in other countries in Southeast Asia on how to break-through their respective markets and create compelling stories for investors. 

For the past several days, I have been looking at different ways of doing this.  I first looked at the idea of "direct salary costs" + "overhead/capitalization" + "preset profit margins".  But quickly, I saw the weakness in such an attempt.  My salary - or at least, my former company's salary - could not be a benchmark, because that is not necessarily the value that I can bring to the table.

I tried a different approach - benchmarking.  I started calling friends who have been in the business of consultancies (the closest I could get to "advisory") - and started to rack my brains in search of memories that could lead me to a number.  I then compared my credentials with their own credentials, their clients with my target clients... But then again, I realized,well, mine is an entirely niche target altogether.  My credentials - or anybody else's credentials - are not a sure-fire way to measure value.  And besides, how does one quantify the value of one's credentials - and those non-dollarizable values?

Then I recalled I had this book called "The Business of Consulting".  I started to look at the advice the author gave - and devised my own way of looking at how I should be charging - or perhaps, 'dollarize' my time. 

1. Start treating yourself as a company.  So list down all your possible expenses - knowing full well that you now are a company, not just an employee.

2. Determine how many days in a year will you be working to create noticeable value.  This may or may not be 8hour days.  There is no "number of hours" involved - the ultimate goal is "noticeable value-creation" for clients.

3. I had to be realistic - this would be a stressful endeavor.  So I figured there should be days wherein I will do nothing BUT nothing.  There will also be days when I will need to catch up on readings and learn new things.  And there will be days when I will have to market the company - well, that's also creating value, but not to the clients that I will be serving.

4. Only then did I arrive at a number.  It seemed high - at first.

5. I immediately tried it out with a trusted business partner - and told him what my rates are going to look like for the projects that I will be doing for his team.  Of course, I had to show him the value of the projects that I will be working with him on - and how these could potentially lead to better processes, better returns, better people.  He said yes.

So - value proposition versus pricing proposition?  I think looking at 'dollarization' from both angles is perhaps necessary.  "Pricing" however, tends to undervalue the "real value" - because "we have to be competitive, we have to get more sales volume, we have to get more pick-ups and empty the shelves, we have to have more sales units sold!"

So I am going to say, it's all about dolarization should never be driven by what's cheap, what's in the market, what the rest are doing, and what we think would make people buy ("People love cheap prices!" - to which I say, "Not really...")

And funnily enough, Seth Godin in his latest blog talks of this thing.  He says -

Your sales force and your customers may scream that you need to lower your price.
It's not true.
You need to increase your value. If people don't want to pay, it's because you're not delivering enough value for the money you're charging.
You're not selling a commodity unless you want to.

Coincidences.  How I love them.

(I would like to say "great minds think alike..." but then again, I don't think I can compare with THE Seth Godin...!  Haha!)

Your sales force and your customers may scream that you need to lower your price.
It's not true.
You need to increase your value. If people don't want to pay, it's because you're not delivering enough value for the money you're charging.
You're not selling a commodity unless you want to.

LinkedIn and other social networks...: Beyond Advertising

The news on LinkedIn.Com being valued at about 1Bln USD after having been infused with 53Mln USD of investments has made a lot of people asking:  "So how will LinkedIn.Com's business model be?"

A lot are speculating that their current revenue streams won't be enough.

Right now, LinkedIn.Com is all about delivering ads - with premium CPMs/CPCs considering the quality of the audiences that LinkedIn reaches - and premium subscriptions.  A lot of industry watchers are asking "will this be enough?", adding that "Nobody would pay for a subscription if social networks such as Facebook, Ning, MySpace, and Friendster would do" and "Nobody clicks on text ads anyway... so if they are to rely on advertising, it wouldn't be sustainable".

I beg to differ, though.

I think that so long as LinkedIn.Com sticks to its principles - to what got them here (i.e., their audiences and the trust that they have built amongst their members - paying or non-paying) - they should be OK on the batteground for subscriptions.  For one, I can stand and raise my hand that my LinkedIn subscription has paid for itself many times over.  And I am sure those folks who are also subscribers to LinkedIn are getting the same value out of it - more than the "free" spaces that they get on Facebook et al.

On the advertising front, I think LinkedIn has got something valuable - their audiences.  My impression is that the people who are in LinkedIn are the ones who are deciding the fates of major companies in major industries.  OK - perhaps, not the C-level people - but people who have the C-level executives' ears.

I also would like to argue that advertising is NOT the only way that LinkedIn can capitalize on their services.  Advertising - i.e., "forcing people to look at messages and forcing people to respond to them" (which is essentially what advertising traditionally is all about) - is not the only way for LinkedIn - or any social media - to realize their potentials.

I believe that the phenomenon of social media - the social web - needs to be approached differently from merely forcing people to consume ads.  It needs to be more intimate, more relevant, more personal - and more social.

I know that's a paradox - to be "personal" and yet "social".

How then?

That is the big question that I think LinkedIn - and anybody in the social media world - should try to answer:  How do we monetize the social networks that audiences voluntarily create without alienating and annoying the very audiences that created these social networks in the first place?

For now, I don't have an answer - and I also have the impression that anybody has the answer.

So... I guess the race is on...  Again.

Does God play dice?

Einstein said that "God does not play dice".  But perhaps, Fate does?

I have been trying to understand the concept and the philosophy of probability - and whilst I am getting glimmers and glances into the it (and sometimes, I am getting some probable - hmmm - nuggets of wisdom from my readings), I still don't think I get it fully.

Some would probably say, isn't that a bit too odd to study?  Or perhaps, argue that "it's too academic - of what use will it be in your work?"

The truth is, I happen to believe that probability - and its related themes: randomization, the search for truth, measurements, errors, risks - are all interesting - and important - stuff that have wide applications.

When one goes to a doctor and presents his symptoms, the doctor actually makes educated guesses based on her experience - which we hope would be deep - and her knowledge - which we hope would be sufficient and inclusive of the latest technologies and advancements.  Her prescriptions are based on educated guesses - and that's why there's almost always that advice to "see me 7 days from now if it doesn't improve".

It gives the doctor - and the patient - the chance to "course-correct".

I think at any given time, we are presented with information.  Whether those information are perfect or imperfect, complete or incomplete, is immaterial: what we do with those data points and how we scrutinize them in search for nugget of deeper information, insight, knowledge, wisdom - or mere alternate views is what's more critical.

In due time, more information will come in.  And that is the time we take corrective action.

This is from _mpd_, from this site.  _mpd_ called this "Einstein was wrong".

** And now here comes my diatribe or my discourse on media planning...

One of the missing tools that we have on media planning is risk management - and the basic understanding of measurements.  We take Nielsen's or TNS' ratings figures at face value.  We assume that the last 13 weeks - and the average of those last 13 weeks - would be a good indicator of the future performance of any certain program.  Why 13?  Well, because it's always been the case.

We do not take into consideration the variation of the numbers.  And the probability of these averages and estimates happening again in the next week, in the week after next, 3 weeks from now, 4 weeks from now.  We don't create enough scenarios.  We don't apply strict- and rigorous-enough portfolio management principles to media plans.

And let's not get into the "validity" issues:  are we measuring program ratings or title ratings, or specific ad/timing- and pagination-rating?

All these need to be taken into account in media planning - and in the calculations of other metrics.

We also do not take enough corrective action.  In Singapore (as far as I know and I could be wrong), overnight ratings are not available - data are delivered 48hours/2days (I think - I have been too removed from the buying field).  I think overnights would have been ideal - but 2days are still enough to take corrective action against the benchmarks and goals that we have.

Once the plan has been signed and booked and logged into the system, it seems, there is little that one does on the media plan - to take corrective action.

(OK.  It just doesn't happen in media planning.  It also happens in promotions planning.  I have encountered clients who wanted to increase their media investments - "go for more GRPs!" - if the promo doesn't take off.  Sure - there is corrective action, but rather, it is a questionable corrective action.)

There just isn't enough thought put into media plans - and promo plans - and marketing plans.  There just isn't enough risk management, scenario planning, decision-making disciplines that get into marketing planning.

As the market for consumer goods and services soften in the US - and potentially in other regions - we need to be more aware of the investments - and the associated risks (and probabilities).  We owe it to those paying the bills - nope, not the brand managers - the shareholders.

"it's nothing personal..."

One of the things that keep on popping in my head when I am thinking about management is an ex-boss' advice: "In business, don't take things personally; separate the personal from the professional".

In the years that I have managed and interacted with people in the corporate world, though, I have come to realize that it is inevitable that the "personal" will be separate from the "professional".  I also think that such categorizations are misplaced and misinformed.

Companies hire people - and people being people, they are imbued with their rationalities and their irrationalities.  The "personal" is not distinct from the "professional".  And vice versa.  Dealing with people means dealing with the whole and the totality of each individual.

Such rationalities|irrationalities come with the entire "talent resource" package.  Defining one from the other is rather impossible - because people are people.  And people are complex.

I don't know where I read this - but it's probably in one of the microeconomics or behavioral economics books or perhaps, in one of the management magazines that I have been reading:  (I am paraphrasing)

"It is the irrationality of people that makes it difficult to predict human behavior.  Rationality of individuals is an assumption - not a given - in any situation, such that when the assumption of rationality is removed, all bets are off."

Should we give up then?

I think not.

The essence of leadership, I believe, is at the core of this realization: that people are people.  And whatever leadership or management style or theory we adopt, it is never - and will never be - perfect.  It is only when we truly understand people as people can we lead, inspire, impassion, involve, engage, enroll people.

 

From kellypuffs, aptly called Rational-Colored M&M's from Flickr

The whining of Gen-X'ers...

This from BusinessWeek is so far the only compilations of why Gen-X'ers are unhappy and are considered to be a whiny bunch.  The truth is, there is far more to us being whiny. 

As one of "us" commented: "When we had new ideas at work, nobody cared to listen; now that we're 'old' and mature enough, everybody's looking at the Gen-Y as if they held the panacea to all our worries."  And oh, we do make a distinction between shareholders and stakeholders. 

Oh well.

And supposedly, the war for talent continues

In an earlier post, I wrote about talents, potentials, and Ferraris that are encumbered by speed limits that are imposed on them.  I have not really gotten to the point of accepting that an HR Manager - somebody high up the HR chain - would say something like "You may be a Ferrari outside - but here, inside this company, we have speed limits".

Oh well.  That is done.  The deed has been done - and I have stopped the hypocrisy.  Talent management is very prone to lip-service.  I wouldn't go as far as saying it is in the same league as "shareholders are our first priority".  But I guess, they're pretty near in the cliches that I have heard in the past.

Lest I be seen as a anit-corporate man, let it be known that I do like the corporate world.  We just need to be honest - and stop the pretensions that "people come first, then profits".  Companies train people so people can become more effective and efficient - and ultimately benefit the company.  Let's stop the charade about "we believe that our greatest assets are our people" - nope, it's the things that these people produce that companies tie in as "corporate properties unless these can be proven to have been done beyond and outside company hours and without any use of company resources".

OK.

Enough of that.

As I have said, I have ended the charades and the hypocrisy.

I am no longer that naive - though my naivete have indeed hurt me.  I guess, I was idealistic - and I had to learn the lesson.

- - - - - -

In Jack and Suzy Welch's latest BusinessWeek column, they were asked this question:

When you have a capable person to promote in your company but that person does not have appropriate tenure, is it better to hire from outside? — Natalia Salistean, Bucharest, Romania

The answer of the Welches: No.  And they continued to explain why tenure need not be a major, critical consideration.

To quote:

... why would any company put a high-performer through unnecessary paces just to satisfy a bureaucratic requirement? That uncompetitive practice is a throwback to the days when an employee's time served could, and often did, trump his value added.

- - - - - -

Well said.

Oh well.

marginally subversive thought of the day

People don't care about the technologies that they are using - they care about the brands that these technologies are powering. 

The brand promises - and engenders hope; the technology delivers.  If the technology does not deliver, the brand gets spanked.  If the brand does not deliver, the technology - no matter how good it is or how superior it is against its competition - won't survive.

Think MSN's Live Search - or better yet, Yahoo Search versus Google Search.  We can safely assume that all three are 'good' search engines - with the backing of great software engineers, academicians, algorithm designers, and specialists.  But why does Google dominate?  How did "Google it" become an intelligible sentence?  How did "Google" become a verb?

Or Creative Technology's ZEN products versus Apple's iPod.
Or Dell versus Sony Vaio versus HP versus Gateway versus Asus?

The brand creates the promise - that the technology behidn the brand does and will deliver.  The brand opens the door for technology to do its work.  If the technology behind the brand sucks, the brand suffers.

But it is the brand that starts it all.  And to paraphrase my former professor in Cognitive Psych would have said: No brand, never mind.

magazines and websites: round 1

I just got off the phone with the customer service of the only one magazine that I subscribe to - BusinessWeek.  The purpose?  To cancel my subscription to the magazine.

Don't get me wrong - I love the magazine.  I love reading it week after week after week.  I thought it had pretty good thoughts and viewpoints about current socio-political and economic issues in the US and around the world.  I was not perfect - I still read a few more other magazines that I could get my hands on.  But I thought it was a good starting point.

But then, I realized after having gone through several issues - "paper" and online - there was no significant difference.  In fact, when I tried to check out the latest paper-issue against their online-issue, I didn't see a big difference between what I wanted to read on-paper versus those that were online.

In fact, the one online was a lot more updated.  Perhaps, not as deep as I wanted the discussions to be - but still, good enough.

So I cancelled by BusinessWeek subscription.

Did BusinessWeek lose me as an audience?  Of their magazine, yeah.  But of their brand?  Nope.  I still will read their articles.  I am just going to do it online - and well, free.

I know some would think that this is no longer an issue - this thing about 'paper versus digital' media.  But I think one has yet to win over the other.  And in fact, it is possible for a brand to never lose in this battle.

If only media-publishers would treat their businesses as brands - real brands - in the same way that Coke, Pepsi, IBM, Dove, and Pantene are brands.

 

"I told you so!"

I am going to cut and paste this blog in its entirety - because I couldn't have written it any better.  All I can say is "This explains a lot!".

A New Power Principle?

Posted by: Jena McGregor on May 20

You may think it’s your boss who’s always the one messing things up. But according to new research in the journal Pyschological Science, people with lower-ranking titles are more likely to make errors than those with higher-ranking roles. That’s because, says Adam Galinsky, a study co-author and professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, the “executive functions” of the brain, or the gray-matter processes that override automatic responses, can be impaired when people are put in jobs with little power. In Galinsky’s study, which was co-authored by Pamela K. Smith, Nils B. Jostmann, and Wilco W. van Dijk, subjects who were randomly assigned to be subordinates had a harder time staying focused on goals than those who, by chance, were named to be managers.

The research isn’t the first Galinsky has done on the effects of power on performance. In another study, he had students sit down very close to electric fans blowing in their faces. Sixty-nine percent of those randomly assigned to be managers moved the fans, while just 42% of those named subordinates did. Galinsky believes such research helps confirm why employee “empowerment”—especially in health care, or high-risk factory jobs—should be much more than just lip service. Says Galinksy: “Lacking power impairs those parts of the brain that allow people to stay focused.”

I wouldn't really call it "power" though - it's "control" or the perception of the ability to make a difference and to control one's environment.  Once that is lost - all is gone.

for old friends...

An old friend of mine - from high school - managed to track me down through this blog.  So for old friends who will stumble upon this blog of mine... this one's for y'all.  Anya!  Adulaamin...  tawagan dak, oen?

 

"i demand the right to change my mind"

A friend commented that I change my mind so quickly - that sometimes it is quite difficult for him to stay abreast with my choices. 

My rationale - which he never bought - was "Well, things change... and situations change.  When situations change, the parameters to a decision also change.  And the decision initially arrived at could well be shelved in favor of a new one - perhaps a refurbishment of a previous decision or an entirely new option altogether". 

He never bought it. 

He thinks that I am just too fickle-minded.

I say "No.  I know what I want - and that I will not lose.  What changes are the paths that I take to getting where I want to be and what I want to do."

Still, no positive response.

Having exhausted all that I could think of to justify my "changeable mind", I sent him a short note:  "I reserve the right to change my mind as and when I see fit."

As far as I am concerned, that's the end of the argument.

Glorified Messengers?

My stockbroker is driving me nuts.  He's a nice guy - and means well.  And don't get me wrong:  he has my best interests at heart.  (At least, I think so.)

But he sends me 20 emails every day with reports cut and pasted from other people's reports, with PDF attachments that are 20 pages long about countries and companies and markets that I am not interested in.  (I have my own investment strategy - and no, I am not interested in some oil company in Bulgaria that will be the next big thing in the world.)

Sometimes, advertising media are just like mere glorified messengers.  The 'traditional' meaning of the word 'medium' comes to mind:  "it is through which a message is delivered".  But that is already changing.  It is no longer just the aether through which messages are sent and received.  It is becoming - or it has become - a part of the message, a consideration of both the sender and the receiver in trusting the message, and perhaps, a medium of real, two-way interactive communication.

The days of glorified messengers are over.

Search versus Content?

The new internet has ushered in a new age of content-creation, where audiences no longer are just mere receivers of information and of content:  they themselves are content-creators - and they are no longer passive audiences whose entertainment are determined by others.

Blogs have exploded.  Video and audio content are also exploding.

So is this finally the end of the 'search versus content' debate, with 'content' winning?

Well, I actually think that the more 'content' there is, the more search is important. 

I think that Google's vision (if I recall it correctly) is correct: To manage the world's information.

There seems to be no dissonance between search and content - and neither can be effective without the other.

I think of this as a situation that is analogous to recall, memory, and forgetting:  It's not so much that we cannot remember something - it's just that we had problems storing and recalling memories.  That's exactly what search does - it allows us to store and recall memories ('content') effectively.

Google has got its search product right.  Yahoo and Microsoft are also hot on their heels - and I think that with these three battling it out for supremacy in the world of search - or perhaps, more rightly, "information management and retrieval" - we will only see better results i the future.

Now with regard to content:  That's an entirely different story altogether - although related to search, I think that only a few web services have gotten it right.

A few that I think are getting it (based on my own personal experience) would include BusinessWeek.Com, Yahoo's Finance Pages, Economist.Com, Wired.Com (both online and off), and to a certain extent, the non-US CNN.Com (although I wish they would be more deep in their treatment of news).  BBC also is getting it right - and their wide range of offerings are turning me into a loyal follower.

"The Dip" by Seth Godin - One Year...

One year ago, I stumbled upon The Dip by Seth Godin.

I wrote earlier about it (but well, deleted it together with the rest of my old blog, Organized Chaos) - and how I got something new out of it each time I read it.

Without knowing that it's been a year, I recently started rereading The Dip again.  Somehow, I felt compelled to re-read it as part of my attempt to understand and discern (a 'deep' word these days in this phase of my life) whether I should make a move or not.

And again, I got something new out of it:  If you can't be the best in what you do in a certain situation, either re-create and redefine the situation such that you can be in your top form or get out.

That's exactly what I did - I tried to redefine the rules with the hopes of redefining the situation I was in so as to get a sense of accomplishment, or being remarkable at the end of each day.

I failed.

So I got out.

A lot of my friends and even colleagues and former bosses told me I was making a stupid move.  It was - in one of my ex-bosses' words - what every one was looking for.  It was, as Nigel and Emily from The Devil Wears Prada (yes, that movie again) defined as "the job that a million other girls (and boys) would kill for".

And I could see where they were coming from:  I come in at 9am, I plonk myself in front of the PC and do my work, I log off at 6pm, head to one of my evening activities - Spanish classes, readings in Stats and Econometrics, readings in Philosophy, visits to the library, dinner with friends, partying and a little bit of drinking, and gym (not on the same night...).

But that, I told my ex-bosses and colleagues who still work 12-15-hour days, how I want my life to be.  I want to be able to use whatever talents I have been blessed with - and make full use of all the learnings I have gathered from 12 years of working with other people (making mistakes, perfecting processes, perfecting the art of asking questions and quantifying them, making sure that things are "perfect enough").

Anything short of that is, well, not for me.

Sure, it's also about the money.  But it's not just about the money - or even tenure or security or whatever else you can think of.

It's personal fulfillment - and the chance to be good and remarkable.

Seth Godin made a request - "take it off the shelf and lend it to someone".

I am sorry, Mr. Godin, I can't.  It just is too useful for me.  Don't get me wrong - it's not the best book I have read.  It's amongst the better books, for sure.  If I were to be stuck in an island for a year and can only bring 10 books, it sure will be one of those 10 books (alongside those books by NNTaleb and Mark Buchanan, and ET Jaynes).  I tend to be very protective of my books (you should see my apartment shelves - they're full of books).  I am happy, however, to tell others about it.  In fact, I have bought a couple of friends copies of your book.  And I would even gladly buy some of my friends one for their birthdays and anniversaries and farewells and all.  But sorry, I just can't part with my copy just yet.  Perhaps next year.

Of PowerPoint(R) Presentations...

I have always been a tech-geek.  Not the "programmer" kind - but the one who maximizes all possible shortcuts there are in the software that I use.  My philosophy is completely opposed to RTFM - for me, the best way to learn something is to do it.  Experiment.

I never had PowerPoint training in the past.  When I first started working in 1995, PowerPoint was just starting in the Philippines.  I remember that I was still using Quattro Plus back then to do my spreadsheets and my charts, and print them on a "dot-matrix" printer.

(Okay, I am that old.)

But I immediately caught on.  I spent a whole week learning the in's and out's of PowerPoint - and how I can make it a support tool for me to communicate my ideas.  I learned through feedback from clients and colleagues that "anything smaller than 16points is really bad" - and "too much color on a screen is confusing".  I also learned that "people don't go beyond the title" - and "tell a story, stupid - not what's on the charts... people can read".

I also began to develop my own story-telling style - and in spite of my chart- and numbers-heavy charts (in succession, sometimes), I believe that I do manage to deliver a compelling story.

And the key to it all is having a story.

My former bosses would ask me to send over the presentation file to them - and then they would critique it.  And I wouldn't hear of it.  I would rather that I get them seated in front of my PC, and tell the story - why this chart precedes this chart and why this slide precedes this conclusion.

It's a story - and you can't get a story out of reading slides and numbers.

Of all my former bosses, it was only my latest boss - Jon T. - that actually 'got used' to my style.  He would see the file and immediately find loopholes in the story, suggesting how to further strengthen a case or whether a certain slide is not necessary to the story or is a different story altogether.

As I am mired in PowerPoint presentation preparations right now, I cannot help but admire people who present other people's presentations.  They get others to craft the story, get the file, and re-tell the stories themselves.  I am not sure how effective they are or how close the stories they tell are to the stories that I wanted to convey - I have not sat in any one of their presentations.

But it is quite interesting.

Some people, I believe, are able to craft stories out of nothing (well, not nothing... but out of the morass of numbers and charts).  And some people - upon seeing mere outlines and slides - get it and could retell it.

Frankly, I am not one of those who could retell another person's story - whenever I get a deck for presentation, a deck that was prepared by someone else, I always allot time for me to go through the entire thing - and rejig it.  The objective:  tell the story my way whilst keeping true to the spirit of the story.

Sometimes, I remove slides.  Sometimes, I do different things with the order.  And still sometimes, I add in my own interpretations.

But I can never present another person's deck.

I guess it's a talent that I don't have.