Ruth's Chris Steak House?
Lettuce Souprise You?
WTF! What is a "Chris Steak House"? I would say this about the worst choice I have seen for a restaurant name except I have a hard time picking between "Ruth's Horribly Named Restaurant" and "Lettuce Surprise You With A Really Bad Pun". One of my wierd eccentricities, I will refrain from patronizing establishements that have made bad marketing decisions for that reason alone.
Actually these do not surprise me. Why not? One big reason... Steve Jobs aside, taste does not often correlate with power. Many executives, managers, owners, directors etc. have great vision while at the same time, have little to no aesthetic taste or ability to remove themselves from their own shoes in perceiving their vision. This realizes itself when project owners, sponsors and their bosses give "creative feedback" in the only way they can. A bad way. "It needs to POP more", "I love Apple's taste for design. Make it like that with MORE!", "Be MORE creative!" All of these exact quotes belie the same actual lack of a clear vocabulary and understanding of design and are the result of a desire to imbue a design with their fingerprints so they can feel they were a part of the design process without any actual aesthetic motivation.
One of my favorite illustrations of this sort of behavior is...
props to Danny Elfman - composer for the music, originally from one of the modern movie masterpieces... "Pee Wee's Big Adventure".
One of my smartest friends once told me - when you take two great visions and mix them together sometimes all you get is a watered down version of both that actually appeals to no-one. Someday I hope to run into a sponsor who can own the vision and be confident enough in their own contribution to let designers do their job
Rating:
Business Executives making design decisions - Crap
Pee-Wee's Big Adventure - Like it.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
What is a facebook friend anyway?
So I have been using linkedin for professional relationships and facebook for personal ones and I am very comfortable with that. But I have recently been bombarded by friend requests from people with whom I have no interest in re-connecting with or personally connecting with. Maybe I'm kind of whacked (well, I actually already know that I am whacked, but that is more like a chapter in a book than a blog post), but I do not want to have the entire world as "facebook friends". In fact, I almost long to have some new sections:
Rating:
Facebook - Like it. It really has set a new standard in terms of a killer RIA.
People who want to be "friends" with everybody - Garbage
- facebook enemies - for people who have invited me and I want to ignore with extreme predjudice
- facebook acquaintances - for people who I might meet once or twice but they are not really friends yet
- facebook co-workers - for people with whom I have a professional relationship with but am not really comfortable with them having full access to my profile
Rating:
Facebook - Like it. It really has set a new standard in terms of a killer RIA.
People who want to be "friends" with everybody - Garbage
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Oh cruel Starbucks! Why do you mock me so?
I read an article in INC magazine online today about Starbucks, authored by one of my favorite bloggers Joel Spolsky and was inspired to write an entry wherein I do my usual thing; offering free advice to those who did not ask for it and certainly won't take it.
Many people already know what is wrong with Starbucks, what I am going to do is identify 3 ways to fix it.
1) Well Designed Kiosk Systems - I've been harping on this one forever! Some people say that Kiosks would impact the illusory atmosphere of a little coffee house escape that Starbucks has so carefully crafted, and I'm not sure that they are wrong. What I sure of however, is that the daunting rush hour lines crush that illusion in a way no well-designed kiosk could ever deign to. Picture walking into a Starbucks (even during rush-hour) and passing a little fob (which knows who you are, what your favorite drink is and your preferred form of payment - including credit card, just like amazon) over the kiosk. The kiosk presents your typical order (which is transmitted to the barista), along with an upsell pitch (offering a free biscotti if you buy a travel mug) in a way that does not require you to take ANY extra steps at all (much like a banner ad on a web site) if you chose not to touch it (of course the kiosks are touch screens) and also presents you with any other recent orders you have made (like when you came in with your insanely hot girlfriend and ordered her favorite drink too). You touch your choice, the order is submitted to the barista, your card is charged, you read the paper until a barista calls out: "Herman! Your grande non-fat ice latte is ready!". At which point you enjoy your drink.
Get it?
2) iBucks iPhone App - Picture an app on your iphone that knew all the starbucks locations, your calendar and your location too(if you allowed it to). You could:
Oh yeah, almost forgot... If Starbucks already has a CXO. Fire him/her and hire a new one who will actually do their job well.
Starbucks rush-hour experience - Garbage
Many people already know what is wrong with Starbucks, what I am going to do is identify 3 ways to fix it.
1) Well Designed Kiosk Systems - I've been harping on this one forever! Some people say that Kiosks would impact the illusory atmosphere of a little coffee house escape that Starbucks has so carefully crafted, and I'm not sure that they are wrong. What I sure of however, is that the daunting rush hour lines crush that illusion in a way no well-designed kiosk could ever deign to. Picture walking into a Starbucks (even during rush-hour) and passing a little fob (which knows who you are, what your favorite drink is and your preferred form of payment - including credit card, just like amazon) over the kiosk. The kiosk presents your typical order (which is transmitted to the barista), along with an upsell pitch (offering a free biscotti if you buy a travel mug) in a way that does not require you to take ANY extra steps at all (much like a banner ad on a web site) if you chose not to touch it (of course the kiosks are touch screens) and also presents you with any other recent orders you have made (like when you came in with your insanely hot girlfriend and ordered her favorite drink too). You touch your choice, the order is submitted to the barista, your card is charged, you read the paper until a barista calls out: "Herman! Your grande non-fat ice latte is ready!". At which point you enjoy your drink.
Get it?
- Walk in
- Flash an RFID embedded fob
- One touch for a typical order
- Read the paper / check email on your phone / chat up your girlfriend
- Drink your expensive coffee beverage
2) iBucks iPhone App - Picture an app on your iphone that knew all the starbucks locations, your calendar and your location too(if you allowed it to). You could:
- tell it to have your favorite drink ready in 5 min for when you walk in (of course the charge is handled in the same way as it is described above)
- have it offer you text-alerts 20 -30 min before certain meetings with discounts on your favorite drinks
- invite your other iBucks enabled pals to join you
Oh yeah, almost forgot... If Starbucks already has a CXO. Fire him/her and hire a new one who will actually do their job well.
Starbucks rush-hour experience - Garbage
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
American Brandstand
Brands are strange enigmatic beasts that are omnipresent in our daily lives in more ways than most people think. Most people who live in a commercial society are familiar with organization-based brands. Some people are also highly tuned to individual brands of well-known personalities. I sometimes refer to certain aspects of my life or personality being “on brand” or being harmonious with “brand Fish”.
Just as many people are aware of brands, both organizational and personal, many people and organizations are unaware with how to care for and enable a brand. It’s actually a lot more simple than many people think, but the problem is that simple does not mean easy or pain free – simple means lacking complexity.
How I care for and engender my personal brand are grounded in my upbringing. Growing up, there were things my parents taught me by explanation and then there were things they took for granted that I would absorb from their example and the culture around me. The value of standing for something fell into the latter category.
The reason why it has fallen into the "took for granted" category is sort of interesting - it emerges out of my Jewish heritage. Being raised as a Jew on Long Island meant I grew up hearing Holocaust this, Anne Frank that, Elie Wiesel the other! One of the key parts of these stories and lessons was that amidst all the horrendous tragedy that befell the Jews and many other minorities, there were some things to be learned – in the forms of perseverance, courage and the respect for life. Some of the greatest bravery displayed was by people who had the courage to do what was right by hiding Jews from the Nazis while risking the well being and safety of themselves and their families.
As I grew up, finished school, and got a job that I turned into a career, the stories gave me a sense of honor and continuously affected my everyday work and life choices.
When I became a father, however, things changed subtly. My engrossing responsibility to someone other than myself took the highest priority in my life and for some time I was conflicted on how to think about this in the context of my upbringing. After some thought I figured it out - it was not that my principles had become luxuries, my principles had remained the same, I just now had new "input" into the decision-making process. My questions then became, "How do I apply my principles to this new situation?" and "Where does 'protecting' them become forsaking my values and heritage?" The answer for me became that if, in the act of protection, I cease to be a figure they can admire and trust, then that "protection" is not something that actually serves their best interests. I believe that my children are best served by seeing me behave in a manner that is consistently honest and forthright – regardless of context.
Reader – “Whoa! Is this crazy dude ever going to get around to talking about company brands or what?”
Blogger – “Patience please.”
Being a person of deeply ingrained principles, tradition and devotion, I have stood fast on many "small battles" that seemed to hold precedent and consequence within them. Over time, I have refined this approach by improving my ability to actually see looming precedent in balance with long term interests and goals.
These sorts of decisions where short and long term interests seem to be at odds are the same sorts of conundrums that face many companies and organizations every day. The difference between sustained greatness and short term success is in part tied to the fortitude of the organization's members, the clarity of purpose and the ability to see the decision points as they actually are.
My point is this - companies who are willing to compromise who they are at the most core level are NOT protecting shareholder value as some of the decision-makers proclaim. In many cases they are actually compromising the value proposition that the organization holds to the public and ultimately short-changing the both the shareholders and the community at large of the long term promise of the organization (i.e., THE BRAND!).
Blogger – “Comically enough, this matches up with all the data and data-oriented conclusions of the phenomenal business books Good to Great and Built to Last by Jim Collins.”
Many people think a brand is a logo. It is not. There are some more-educated people who think a brand is a promise (what an organization says it stands for) - they are half right. There are still some other educated people who believe that a brand is an emotional context held by the customers, employees and partners who are served by the organization when thinking about the organization (what people believe an organization stands for – see The Brand Gap by Marty Neumeier) - they are half right as well.
Blogger – “Almost there!.”
It is my belief that the brand is a two-sided coin - the promise and its reflection, the perception. In order for an organization to be of sustained value to others, it has to define its promise clearly and live up to it every day so that the beholders of the promise can see it for both for what it is and what it aspires to be. In this manner, individuals can have relationships with the organization on something other than price - because to many individuals TRUTH HOLDS VALUE!!!
Blogger – “Wait for it…”
Just like truth holds value in how my kids look at me.
Blogger – “Wow! I wasn't sure if I was actually gonna get there!!!! Thanks for sticking it out.”
Standing for something - Like it.
Purporting to stand for something - Garbage.
Just as many people are aware of brands, both organizational and personal, many people and organizations are unaware with how to care for and enable a brand. It’s actually a lot more simple than many people think, but the problem is that simple does not mean easy or pain free – simple means lacking complexity.
How I care for and engender my personal brand are grounded in my upbringing. Growing up, there were things my parents taught me by explanation and then there were things they took for granted that I would absorb from their example and the culture around me. The value of standing for something fell into the latter category.
The reason why it has fallen into the "took for granted" category is sort of interesting - it emerges out of my Jewish heritage. Being raised as a Jew on Long Island meant I grew up hearing Holocaust this, Anne Frank that, Elie Wiesel the other! One of the key parts of these stories and lessons was that amidst all the horrendous tragedy that befell the Jews and many other minorities, there were some things to be learned – in the forms of perseverance, courage and the respect for life. Some of the greatest bravery displayed was by people who had the courage to do what was right by hiding Jews from the Nazis while risking the well being and safety of themselves and their families.
As I grew up, finished school, and got a job that I turned into a career, the stories gave me a sense of honor and continuously affected my everyday work and life choices.
When I became a father, however, things changed subtly. My engrossing responsibility to someone other than myself took the highest priority in my life and for some time I was conflicted on how to think about this in the context of my upbringing. After some thought I figured it out - it was not that my principles had become luxuries, my principles had remained the same, I just now had new "input" into the decision-making process. My questions then became, "How do I apply my principles to this new situation?" and "Where does 'protecting' them become forsaking my values and heritage?" The answer for me became that if, in the act of protection, I cease to be a figure they can admire and trust, then that "protection" is not something that actually serves their best interests. I believe that my children are best served by seeing me behave in a manner that is consistently honest and forthright – regardless of context.
Reader – “Whoa! Is this crazy dude ever going to get around to talking about company brands or what?”
Blogger – “Patience please.”
Being a person of deeply ingrained principles, tradition and devotion, I have stood fast on many "small battles" that seemed to hold precedent and consequence within them. Over time, I have refined this approach by improving my ability to actually see looming precedent in balance with long term interests and goals.
These sorts of decisions where short and long term interests seem to be at odds are the same sorts of conundrums that face many companies and organizations every day. The difference between sustained greatness and short term success is in part tied to the fortitude of the organization's members, the clarity of purpose and the ability to see the decision points as they actually are.
My point is this - companies who are willing to compromise who they are at the most core level are NOT protecting shareholder value as some of the decision-makers proclaim. In many cases they are actually compromising the value proposition that the organization holds to the public and ultimately short-changing the both the shareholders and the community at large of the long term promise of the organization (i.e., THE BRAND!).
Blogger – “Comically enough, this matches up with all the data and data-oriented conclusions of the phenomenal business books Good to Great and Built to Last by Jim Collins.”
Many people think a brand is a logo. It is not. There are some more-educated people who think a brand is a promise (what an organization says it stands for) - they are half right. There are still some other educated people who believe that a brand is an emotional context held by the customers, employees and partners who are served by the organization when thinking about the organization (what people believe an organization stands for – see The Brand Gap by Marty Neumeier) - they are half right as well.
Blogger – “Almost there!.”
It is my belief that the brand is a two-sided coin - the promise and its reflection, the perception. In order for an organization to be of sustained value to others, it has to define its promise clearly and live up to it every day so that the beholders of the promise can see it for both for what it is and what it aspires to be. In this manner, individuals can have relationships with the organization on something other than price - because to many individuals TRUTH HOLDS VALUE!!!
Blogger – “Wait for it…”
Just like truth holds value in how my kids look at me.
Blogger – “Wow! I wasn't sure if I was actually gonna get there!!!! Thanks for sticking it out.”
Standing for something - Like it.
Purporting to stand for something - Garbage.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
being known vs just being
Several years ago I was in a company all-hands meeting where one of the speakers posited the idea that it was highly important that our clients felt like we were experts. After the meeting one of my enlightened co-workers opined that it would be better to "be experts" rather than to be "thought of as experts".
I am often faced by this subtle differentiation both in the workplace, in politics and in personal relationships where people focus on being known for something or being perceived as something rather than just plain being what they want to be.
One of the consequences of this differentiation is that the overriding focus on the perception is actually one of the barriers that will prevent the reality from occurring.
Does Apple want to make the best products or be known for making the best products?
Does Adaptive Path want to make the best user experiences or be known for making the best user experiences?
Does Chad Johnson want to be the best wide receiver or be known for being the best wide receiver?
Does Barack Obama want to help the poor or be known as candidate who is out to help the poor?
Does John McCain want to always talk straight or be known as candidate who always talks straight?
Stop worrying about being known and just be!
Managing perception = Garbage.
Managing Reality = Like it.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inconceivable!
No not in that way...
While this blog does often talk about the elusive nature and meaning of words and it sometimes plays with them, I am not going to talk about the meaning of "inconceivable". Rather, what I find to be inconceivable is that so many people do not understand the meaning of the word "sorry".... hmmmmm, no that's not it. I do think they understand it, I just don't believe that they grasp what it means to actually mean it.
So many people use it as an attempt to claim compassion or empathy. While in reality what they actually mean is that they are uncomfortable with the current situation and either:
- don't know what to say
- want your absolution of any wrong-doing
- want to be acknowledged as permitted to end the current portion of the conversation
In business contexts - a retail or service employee will say "I'm sorry" or "I apologize" or something else with a similar supposed meaning. What I find offensive is that they believe I should accept it at it's face value when they are un-willing to back up said sorrow with any action or any actual attempt to make amends. The lack of any willingness to make amends robs the supposed empathy of any sincerity or meaning.
Professed empathy without sincerity makes "sorry" a platitude - a trite remark uttered as if it has actual meaning.
The crux of the matter is this - If a service employee says "I'm sorry" in the above fashion without any actual sincerity but as a means to end a topic of contention, then they are essentially assuming:
- that I should believe that they actually have empathy for me
- that saying "I'm sorry" is sufficient to make amends
- that I should belive that saying "I'm sorry" is sufficient to make amends
Why? Because in the world of falseness - people crave authenticity! Smart customers don't judge the character of your company when things go right, they judge it by your conduct when things go wrong.
Insincere platitudes - crap.
Authentic responses - like them.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
We don't need to build the Bentley... or do we?
It's been a while since I've been inspired. Some recent experiences have pushed me to the keyboard once again.
Lately, I've been seeing a common myopia (HAH! SEEING! MYOPIA! That's a joke son! Don't you get it? I'm too fast for you! You'll never learn nothing with your nose in a blog boy!) . The people who typically surround me are overachievers and we all seem to share a passion for excellence in what we do. This is not so strange. What is strange and interesting is that when we ask for something from others and have certain constraints (like time or money) we seem to lose some ability to empathize with the passion for excellence from the other party.
In a past life, we called it "building the Bentley syndrome" - the endemic need in groups of overachievers that nothing but their best work was remotely acceptable. In trying to lead teams of overachievers, I am constantly faced with this problem... and I think I have made some sort of break-through.
I've tried the "redefine" approach where "best" is subjective and requires a balance of all constraints to little avail.
I am loathe to try the "dictatorial" approach where my option is the only option. I feel that this option is doomed with people who bristle at authority.
Well, maybe break-through is a little strong. Gained some new insight is more appropriate. Maybe what people need is a little understanding and empathy. All the people around me want to create "remarkable" solutions and feel that shortcuts and delivering to managed expectations is not very remarkable. When challenged on their approach the replies basically come to this - it
is always easy to do something poorly. I agree with this sentiment - but my new retort will be, I understand your need to do your best work. I empathize with the need to shine. Please understand that even work that is half-assed by your standards will more than likely be better than anything the client has dreamed. Please empathize with the fact that the quality of work you are capable of delivering when you are not tying up every loose end will definitely exceed what the client is willing to pay for. Sometimes, if we deliver crisply, we leave clients wanting more. And over time, that delivery focus will lead to trust and partnership. That shared trust and context will allow us to do our best work and get paid appropriately for it.
Understanding & Empathy - Like em.
Lately, I've been seeing a common myopia (HAH! SEEING! MYOPIA! That's a joke son! Don't you get it? I'm too fast for you! You'll never learn nothing with your nose in a blog boy!) . The people who typically surround me are overachievers and we all seem to share a passion for excellence in what we do. This is not so strange. What is strange and interesting is that when we ask for something from others and have certain constraints (like time or money) we seem to lose some ability to empathize with the passion for excellence from the other party.
In a past life, we called it "building the Bentley syndrome" - the endemic need in groups of overachievers that nothing but their best work was remotely acceptable. In trying to lead teams of overachievers, I am constantly faced with this problem... and I think I have made some sort of break-through.
I've tried the "redefine" approach where "best" is subjective and requires a balance of all constraints to little avail.
I am loathe to try the "dictatorial" approach where my option is the only option. I feel that this option is doomed with people who bristle at authority.
Well, maybe break-through is a little strong. Gained some new insight is more appropriate. Maybe what people need is a little understanding and empathy. All the people around me want to create "remarkable" solutions and feel that shortcuts and delivering to managed expectations is not very remarkable. When challenged on their approach the replies basically come to this - it
is always easy to do something poorly. I agree with this sentiment - but my new retort will be, I understand your need to do your best work. I empathize with the need to shine. Please understand that even work that is half-assed by your standards will more than likely be better than anything the client has dreamed. Please empathize with the fact that the quality of work you are capable of delivering when you are not tying up every loose end will definitely exceed what the client is willing to pay for. Sometimes, if we deliver crisply, we leave clients wanting more. And over time, that delivery focus will lead to trust and partnership. That shared trust and context will allow us to do our best work and get paid appropriately for it.
Understanding & Empathy - Like em.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)