Only Dead Fish

The Cynical Organisation

Reading about some of the tumultuous change going on right now in some of world's biggest tech businesses, one can't help but feel for the workers caught at the sharp end, trying to make sense of the latest senior management missive or strategy. Missives that often talk about the need for accelerated innovation and a culture of experimentation.

And yet, what's the biggest killer of experimentation? Cynicism. What causes cynicism? Lack of belief, frustration, blame, fear. It so easily happens.

In Change By Design, Tim Brown of IDEO talks about how curiousity does not survive in organisations that have grown cynical. How ideas get smothered, risk-takers driven-out, projects with uncertain outcomes avoided: "even when leadership wants to promote disruptive innovation and open-ended experimentation, it will find that no-one is willing to step forward without permission - which usually means defeat before the start." 

He's so right. Compare that those organisations that seem to be so accomplished at creating and maintaining positive momentum, who adeptly manage the challenge of competing internal priorities, who are able to marshall people around a powerful vision and inclusive working practices.

As Tim Brown says, when we talk about creating a culture of experimentation, perhaps we don't talk enough about creating it's essential counterpart - a climate of optimism.

Image courtesy

What Kind Of Future?

One of my favourite columnists John Naughton recently wrote an exceptional piece on the inadequacy of our national curriculum, and more specifically the part of the curriculum called ICT ('Information and Communication Technology'), in equipping our children for the challenges of the future.

Whilst we're moving into a post-PC age, he writes, the ICT curriculum is firmly rooted in desktop computing running Microsoft Windows. Compartmentalising ICT as a separate, discrete part of the curriculum is as absurd as it would be to have 'books' as a seperate part. Instead of educating our children about the potential of open software, collaborative tools and cloud-based services, we are training them in how to use Word and Excel. This "chronic mismatch between the glacial pace of curriculum change in a print-based culture, and the rate of change in technology" is effective only in establishing an outdated utilitarian relationship with technology. Instead, we should be opening young minds to the creative possibilities of computing, and encouraging tinkering and experimentation.

John Naughton goes on to talk about the powerful impact in the 1980s of the BBC Micro, the small home computer launched as part of a campaign by the BBC to stimulate interest in the possibilties of computing in schools and homes.

Sadly, I never got to use the BBC Micros that my secondary school brought in (yes, I am that old) but my Father (I think in recognition of the potential of this new techology) bought me a Commodore Vic20 to use at home, much like this one.

The thing about computers like the Vic20 and the BBC Micro was that (apart from the very basic games you could load onto them using tapes and a connected cassette recorder) in order to get them to do anything, you had to write a programme. So, in short order, I'd learned how to make it do stuff and the screen of our telly in the living room became filled with different colours, scrolling words and patterns and shapes. It was basic stuff, but the point (and the point that John is also making) is that I had established a relationship with the technology where it was OK to get under the hood and start mucking about.

Unfortunately, perhaps in no small part due to the fact that tinkering with computers at home wasn't supported with more structured and purposeful tinkering with computers at school, this learning went no further. But it makes me wonder what might have been.

I then read this interview (which Ben linked to) with Cathy Davidson, author of a new book in which she argues that our education systems are poorly preparing our young for an interactive, globalised and contributory world. Davidson's book quotes one estimate that 65% of today's grade school children will end up working in careers that haven't been invented yet. Like her, I have sympathy for the in-the-trenches teacher who is constantly being asked to change without good reason, and often with poor support. But I also have much sympathy for the argument that our education systems are structured to produce workers for a punch-clock economy that will not exist when today's students enter the workforce.

This makes me wonder what kind of future we're creating. Davidson and Naughton talk about the need for our education systems to unlearn old working methods and habits that are unsuited for such a rapidly changing, technologically driven world. Such outdated practices undermine the authority of the education system by showing tech-savvy children how antediluvian it is. And I think the same is true of organisations that are failing to create working environments that are relevant to the needs and expectations of a generation of young talent who use technologies in a wholly different way to collaborate, customise, communicate, and create.

My real concern is that we're in danger of creating a lost generation whose experience and use of technology outside the school and the workplace is increasingly different to that within it. That environments which are designed to equip our young for the challenges of the present, and the future, feel increasingly irrelevant and disconnected from the reality of the way in which that generation behave every day. But in order to change, we first need to let go of what we think we know.   

Main image courtesy

Papercut

PAPERCUT - Enhanced reading experience for iPad from Mathew Munro on Vimeo.

This is a rather intriguing idea. A book reading app that seeks to use the properties of the iPad to create a new type of immersive reading experience for ebooks featuring audio, video and rather lovely animations.

Adam recently observed that "there are two, diametrically opposed dangers on tablets: being a print fundamentalist and being a web fundamentalist". So true. So many iPad apps from publishers seem to be wanting to squeeze analogue principles inappropriately into an entirely new interface that is deserving of something new and unique.

I think that what I like about this, is that it's taking the old, but bringing something which is rich and new to it in a way that completely fits with the medium. As you read the text it triggers image sequences, animations, and audio that enhance or relate to the narrative so that it becomes more multi-sensory. 

I'll admit to there being a cynical part of me that questions whether having such additional input whilst reading is merely distracting from what I should really like to be paying attention to - my imagination. But there's perhaps a bigger part that is rather fascinated by the idea of it, and even more intrigued about about where this might lead us too.

Love Metrics

Image courtesy

A while back, Anjali posted a quote from a product designer saying that if they had to live with one user engagement (horrible word, I know) metric for a non-transactional site or app it would be visitor recency. That's not to say that using a bundle of metrics isn't useful. It is. But since visitor recency measures what percentage of your visitors come back each day and each week, it's a good indicator of whether what you're creating is a truly great experience. One that people want to do again and again. One that stands a chance of becoming a regular part of people's lives.

It's a nice point. Eric Ries (he of the Lean Start-up movement) has talked about the trap of so called 'vanity metrics'. How every start-up (because it's so important to get talked about) will inevitably use numbers that look good on paper or on a press release (like page impressions, total users, views, message volume) but aren't action oriented.

But as Kevin Systrom of Instagram says in this interview, whilst this may be OK externally, internally it is critical that you focus on active user metrics. So for Instagram, that's not only how many people are posting per day, opening it up and checking it, but how different cohorts are using it over time (like how many of the people that first downloaded it are still using it for example). It's what Scott Cook of Intuit calls 'Love Metrics' - the kind of metrics that are better indicators of "how much people love the product, how often they come back, how delighted they are".

It sometimes seems that digital media is awash with vanity metrics. Personally, I'd much rather focus on the numbers that told me whether what I was building was something that stood a chance of being a meaningful or useful part of people's lives. I think a lot of content producers (and dareisayit media owners) still focus too much attention on their own version of vanity metrics. It's all about how many users you have rather than who they are, what they're doing or how often they come back. This, to me, is a fundamental mistake.

At The Edges

Edges have always been interesting places. And I think they are becoming increasingly so.

In The Power Of Pull, Hagel, Brown and Davison talk about innovation happening at the edges of organisations. About the value of individuals who are connected to the interesting ideas being shared and who bring new thinking into a company. 

At the #Firestarters 2 event at Google, Tom Hulme of IDEO talked about how great insight can come from looking to the extremes of how people use a product or a service.

Image courtesy

I think it's perfectly valid to focus on core customers and making your product or service as good as it possibly can be for them. But I also think that an endless cycle of driving efficiencies leaves little room for the kind of ideas that really challenge existing ways of doing things. So next time you want a big idea, look to the edges. It's a little raw and nervy out there, but it's where all the interesting stuff is.

Image courtesy

Google #Firestarters 3: The New Operating System For Agencies

You'll know by now that I'm working with Google to curate a series of events designed to facilitate some challenging thinking and debate around some of the bigger issues facing planners today. Our first two events, on Agile Planning, and Design Thinking in Planning, have both created a large amount of good buzz and discussion around their respective topics.

But there's been one theme that has arisen at both debates (less of an elephant in the room and more of a Rhinocerous we can all see sat in the middle): legacy structures, processes and thinking. So, with our next event, we're tackling that head-on, and asking the question: what might the operating system for the agency of the future look like?

There has never been more debate around the future for agencies, but with the challenges of a networked world and all that brings with it in terms of accelerating change, the explosion in data, real-time, new forms of story-telling, the question remains a highly pertinent one. A more meaningful relationship between advertising and technology seems to be finally emerging, reflected perhaps in the fact that this years Cannes Cyber Lions seemed to be more about experiences than messaging. 

And there's been a fascinating debate going on just recently around agencies making stuff, and whether if this is indicative of the future, it is one that they are really equipped for. Tim Malbon posted a good response to the question posed by Murat Mutlu in the post that just won the Post Of The Month vote (concerning whether the next Instagram, Angry Birds (et al) could be born within an agency), suggesting that whilst agencies should undoubtedly be experimenting with the internet, is it really realistic to be expecting them to be behind the next big consumer-facing platform when what's behind this shift is potentially bigger than just agencies and brands. As part of that post he linked to Heidi Hackemer talking about people taking on an experiential shift to drive real empathy and change. 

And my latest column for New Media Age (sub required I'm afraid) speculated that, as products and services become ever more digitised, and messaging becomes experiences, perhaps the one group of people best positioned to lead agencies into a new relationship with clients are those that can help businesses find the right problem to solve, truly understand customer need and work back: agency planners.

So, we are not short of things to talk about. To give their vision, and to provide a starting point for the debate, we have three of the smartest people in advertising: Mel Exon from BBHLabs, Martin Bailie from GlueIsobar, and James Caig from MediaedgeCIA. We have here perspectives from a creative agency, a digital agency, and a media agency, but having begun with a thought that this would be an interesting place to start, I realise now that that thought is irrelevant. Good ideas come from anywhere, the lines between different agencies in the advertising process are rapidly blurring, and no one part of the mix can logically provide a more insightful perspective than the others. So, it is more relevant that we have three visions from three brilliant advertising and media practitioners, followed by one debate.

The event will be held on 27th Sept at Google's shiny new HQ in London and is strictly invite only (sadly we're limited on space so have to be realistic). But as before, I have a few guest passes to give away, first come first served, to readers of this blog. If you'd like one, please do drop me a line (please note I won't be able to  respond to everyone but will notify the successful applicants).

Post Of The Month - August 2011 - The Winner

Well, quite a ding-dong battle this month between Tracey Follows' excellent post on the rise and fall of free, and Murat Mutlu's rumination on whether the next Instagram et al can be born within an agency. The lead changed hands a number of times during the vote but in the end it was the latter that triumphed. So well done Murat, you get the props of your blogging peers and are entered into the Hall of Fame. Thanks everyone for taking part, and don't forget to bookmark your good reads for nomination in next month's vote.

Post Of The Month - August 2011 - The Vote

Thanks for the nominations everyone. Our shortlist this month is between:

Introducing Invention Strategy by Winston Binch

Nothing is Unthinkable by Will Burns

The Rise and Fall of Free from Tracey Follows

Circling Around Your Wallet by Doc Searls

Making Things, And The Labour Theory Of Value by John Willshire

Can the Next Instagram/Angry Birds Be Born Within An Agency? by Murat Mutlu

Why Everyone Should Start Their Own Business from Rob Campbell

Female Creatives: Do We Really Need 'Em? from Damon Collins

And you can vote below:

Post Of The Month - August 2011 - Nominations

OK, nominations are now open for Post Of The Month, so please nominate the best posts that you've read and which were posted in the month of August in the comments below. As usual, I've listed a few starters - I've already had a few nominations ahead of time so this a longer starting list than usual. But once I have a good selection I'll stick them all up for a vote. OK, so my starting five are:

Introducing Invention Strategy by Winston Binch

Nothing is Unthinkable by Will Burns

The Rise and Fall of Free from Tracey Follows

Circling Around Your Wallet by Doc Searls

Making Things, And The Labour Theory Of Value by John Willshire

Please nominate your own good reads below.