Archive | January, 2010

Google: Scientist

29 Jan

via Ultimi Barbarorum de Bento le 13/01/10


Baruch,

Symbolism is never lost on the Chinese, who are the masters of signaling, and thus there was some great poignancy to Google’s A new approach to China being posted to the blogspot.com domain, which is blocked in its entirety by China’s censorious government. This proved quite a sassy way to illustrate a point, before even starting on the merits of the case. Those outside China didn’t even notice. Everyone inside China, including the officials, had to turn on their VPN to read it.

Now that the deed is done so publicly, I don’t imagine either side will back down, and nobody expects Google.cn’s redacted search service to last much longer, with perhaps a further punitive ban on google.com for the sheer audacity of this insubordination. But already today the blogosphere erupted in competing narratives explaining Google’s autodefenestration from Chinese search, and not all were wholly credulous of Google’s stated motives.

Among the cynics, the arguments ran thus:

– Google is misrepresenting its decision: It was a face-saving, kudos-generating way to exit a failing business (though without explaining why profitably capturing 31% of the search market in China should prompt shutting down).

– Google is making a mistake: No business in their right mind would purposely anger the masters of such a lucrative market, so this has to be a stupid tactical mistake. (The stated presumption here is that Google cannot be ethical, or it would not have entered China in the first place, so this fiasco must be a very bad business decision merely masquerading as a moral decision.)

Among the partisans:

– Google was pressured into it by Hillary Clinton, thinks Rao Jin, the founder of the China’s patriotic Anti-CNN forum. (I suspect a failure of the imagination on the part of Rao — clearly, he is projecting onto the US how things are done in China.)

And tomorrow, expect the official mouthpieces’ take, which I predict will involve far more references to the peddling of pornography than to the free market of ideas.

I, Bento, take Google’s explanation at face value, however. And I intend to restate the narrative in terms that will be familiar to long-time readers of Ultimi Barbarorum: All along, Google’s approach to China has been that of the scientist: There was a testable hypothesis, an experiment, and a conclusion based on that experiment. And today, we saw the publication of the results — the hypothesis proved false.

Specifically, the hypothesis, as formulated by Google during 2005: The internet in China will become freer in the coming years, and Google’s presence in China will help strengthen this process. Many believed and hoped this might be the case — the Olympics were approaching, China was opening up, officials exuded reasonableness.

The experiment, initiated in January 2006: Enter the Chinese search market, try to improve the system from within by collaborating with the regime, and see if China’s internet gains freedoms over time.

The evidence: Over the past few years, a progressively stricter program of shutting down those Chinese sites that do not comply with demands for censorship and surveillance. The progressive blocking of all popular foreign sites that allow uncensored anonymous communication, including several Google properties: Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Blogger, WordPress, IMDB, Google Docs, URL-shortening services… And, what Google cites as the final straw, recent industrial-strength malware attacks aimed at Gmail-using Chinese dissidents.

The conclusion: Google’s collaboration was not making things better; things were getting worse. They admit they were wrong! There may have been a financial return on its China investment, but the civic return proved disappointing.

Faced with this realization, Google could have done nothing. But that way lies death by a thousand cuts as web property after web property gets axed. How soon before Gmail gets blocked? Google Maps? Earth? Picasa? Google Reader? Instead, Google cleanly terminated the experiment: There will be no more collaboration with the regime. Now China must throw them out if it wants to save face domestically — albeit at the price of losing face internationally.

As Spinozists, this is a proud day for us. Google has posted that placard declaring China’s government Ultimi Barbarorum in a public place. Gone for them is the queasiness of having to placate a regime that believes calling for free elections deserves 11 years in jail for subverting party state power. I’m betting it’s a relief.

A postscript: I was surprised that several Shanghai-based European VCs and businessmen I follow on Twitter were among the cynics, berating Google for not conforming to Chinese/Asian business practices based on saving face, consensus and relationship-building, instead reverting to an “American” ultimatum. But these views come from individuals who have already made their peace with China’s political system, and whose business models and reputation do not depend on the unfettered flow of information. Perhaps some of them are unwittingly using the occasion to signal their own reliability as partners in China: “Look at us — we’d never consider doing what Google just did.” Google may have burned its financial bridges, but they are burning their moral bridges, making them the Stupid Cartesians of this sorry episode, Baruch.

Ce que vous pouvez faire à partir de cette page :

Posted via email from fabricecaduc’s posterous

How Do You Stack Up

29 Jan
The Alltop Test !

via chrisbrogan.com de chrisbrogan le 28/01/10


titles Swing by any page at Alltop and browse the titles other bloggers are using. Now, compare their titles to yours. Which would you click? Go back and look at the last 30 days of your blog. How many posts does that encompass? If someone only had the last 30 days of your blog to go on, what would they say about it?

If you look at this graphic I copied, you’ll see a few titles that get your eyebrow raised. I found the experiment to be interesting, and even more interesting when I picked a topic material that wasn’t really my thing. It’s amazing how just the titles got me thinking about my own blog and what I could do better.

Just for fun, I grabbed the most recent titles from my blog. Here they are:

  • The Location Game – Over on OPENForum
  • Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 Review
  • How Social Media Can Power Your Business – Kitchen Table Talks
  • Points of Contact
  • The Social Media Pie – over on OPEN Forum
  • How I Use Mindmapping to Write
  • Cubicle Farming
  • New Job New You – a Book Review
  • The Writing Practice
  • Switch- A Book Review
  • The Beginning – Kitchen Table Talks
  • How NOT to Help Haiti
  • How Systems Thwart Service
  • Your Farmer List
  • Living In Google Wave
  • What is Your Pop-Up Store
  • Get Seen- Do It Now
  • Represented by the APB Speaker’s Bureau
  • More Fun Than Competition
  • Business Stripped Bare – Book Review
  • Do One Thing Very Well
  • How Heartfelt Marketing Delivers
  • The Future Is Evidently Blurry
  • A Customer Aware World
  • Experiment- 30 Days of Bing
  • Deepen Your Networks
  • New Sponsor – Search Engine Strategies NYC
  • Are You Ready for Fun

There are four book reviews. There are four “announcement/promotion” type posts. There are seven video posts.

Of the titles, I think I did okay. I think they could be better. I’m sure Brian would tell me I could do better.

So, what do you think? How do YOU stack up? Does looking at other people’s titles and ideas help you think about your blog?

Can you see the value in comparisons, or, as I talk about in More Fun Than Competition, are you just competing with yourself?

If your blog was the next Wired / BusinessWeek / FastCompany / whatever-for-your-industry, how would you rate it?

Ce que vous pouvez faire à partir de cette page :

Posted via email from fabricecaduc’s posterous

The art of control without controlling, doing without doing

29 Jan

Creative Block #1 – “I’m Not Creative”

29 Jan

via Lateral Action de Mark le 05/01/10


This post is part of the Break Through Your Creative Blocks series.

Break Through Your Creative Blocks!

If you have a creative block you’d like us to address, tell us about it – details in the first article in the series.

If you believe you’re “Just not the creative type”, there’s no point even trying to think or act creatively. You’d just be setting yourself up for failure.

This is one of the biggest and most debilitating creative blocks of all. Fortunately, it’s also one of the easiest to get around, provided you’re prepared to make a shift in your mindset…

These days, we’re forever hearing how vital creativity is to success. In the 21st century creative economy, we have to innovate or die – or at least end up on the scrapheap, like Lou.

Which is wonderful news for creative types like Jack and Marla. But what if you’re just not that kind of person?

You’re not an artist, designer or a mad scientist. You’ve never heard the voice of inspiration in the middle of the night. You’re perfectly happy with a sensible haircut. You don’t hang around in cafes dressed in black, smoking French cigarettes and discussing obscure subtitled movies. You may not even – whisper it – use a MacBook Pro. :-(

Is there any hope for you?

To find out, let’s flip things round and have a look at the kind of people who clearly are creative, to see what makes them special.

So What Makes a Creative Person?

Throughout history, human beings have regarded artists, poets and other creative people as somehow different from and mysterious to the rest of us. There have been several explanations as to the precise nature of the creative ‘X factor’:

Divine Inspiration

Thousands of years ago, it was common knowledge that inspiration came from the gods, and those who were visited by the Muse were revered and/or feared. These days, those who claim divine inspiration are more likely to be ridiculed or referred to a psychiatrist, but it’s a surprisingly persistent idea.

Genius

These days, high-level creators are still revered, but not because of their association with the gods. They are described as geniuses, born with special skills and powers that are denied to the rest of us mere mortals. And if you ain’t a genius, you ain’t going to create anything as special as them.

Madness

Less flattering than the ‘inspiration’ and ‘genius’ theories, this one suggests that creativity is a side-effect (or even a symptom) of mental illness. The implication is that, although it must be nice to be able to write novels and symphonies, no-one in their right mind would want to be creative.

Personality

More down-to-earth than ‘inspiration’, less glamorous than ‘genius’, but more attractive than ‘madness’, this theory suggests that creative individuals can be identified as a particular type of personality. We can all recognise the stereotypical ‘creative person’ – a cross between Vincent Van Gogh and Lord Byron: “mad, bad and dangerous to know”. Or at least a pain in the ass to manage. Researchers have spent a lot of time and effort trying to pin down the specific traits of the ‘creative personality’, but no-one has convincingly demonstrated that most creative people conform to the same personality type.

Talent

When confronted with outstanding creative performance, particularly when it seems to come effortlessly to the creator, it’s tempting to conclude that such achievements are down to an innate talent. As with the other qualities we’ve looked at, talent is something you either have or you don’t. And without it, your creative ambitions are doomed. If you find that a bit discouraging, you may find a glimmer of hope from those authors who suggest that Talent Is Overrated, even if it could take you 10,000 hours of practice to become a world-class performer.

Lateral Thinking

Another popular modern theory suggests that creative people think different to the rest of us. Instead of following the well-trodden furrows of logical thinking, they ‘think outside the box’ and make use of special thinking techniques, which Edward de Bono groups under the heading of lateral thinking. The nice thing about this theory is that – unlike inspiration, genius, madness, personality or talent – it doesn’t boil down to a magical quality that you either have or haven’t got. According to de Bono, lateral thinking is a skill that anyone can learn. On the flipside, as regular readers of Lateral Action will know, some people have dared to suggest that lateral thinking is unnecessary for creativity and thinking outside the box doesn’t work.

Having studied all of these theories of creativity in depth, without finding any of them especially convincing, I’ve arrived at the following definition of a creative person:

A creative person is a person who creates things.

You either create something or you don’t. Period.

No doubt there are plenty of factors that influence things along the way, but it’s hard to say definitively that any of them are the reason why creativity happens. So worrying about them – and whether you have them or not – is a red herring.

And the great thing about this definition is that there’s nothing stopping anyone having a go for themselves, to see if they too can create something extraordinary. Including you.

Forget about ‘Being Creative’ – Start Creating

Forget about who you are (or think you are) and what qualities you may or may not have.

Forget nouns (’creativity’, ‘creation’, ‘creator’) and adjectives (’creative’), and focus on verbs (’create’, ‘creating’). In other words, stop worrying about theories, and start taking action.

And whatever you do, consign the thought “I’m not creative” to the dustbin. It’s meaningless, useless, and doesn’t suit you at all. Take a moment to listen to the Thud! as it lands in the bottom of the bin, and the Clang! as you slam the lid shut on top of it.

You might even like to take five minutes to watch the garbage collectors empty the bin into their truck, and motor off into the distance, on their way to dump it in the landfill of all the limiting and unhelpful beliefs that human beings have no more use for.

What next?

Use this four-step creative process for every project you start:

  1. Goal: Ask “What do I want to achieve?” (Don’t forget to dream big.)
  2. Options: “What is the next action I can take, that I think is likely to get me a step nearer my goal?”
  3. Action: Do it.
  4. Review: Ask: “Have I reached my goal yet?” If the answer is “Yes”, give yourself a pat on the back and start thinking about your next challenge. If the answer is “No”, cycle back to 2. and keep going until you get to ‘yes’.

There you go. It’s not rocket science. You don’t need to make a moonlit sacrifice to the Muse. You don’t need to jump out the bath and run about in your birthday suit. You may even be able to manage without a Moleskine. ;-)

It may not look mysterious or glamorous, but this kind of iterative process is fundamental to the success of all the high-achieving creative people I’ve worked with over the years. In cognitive psychology, this feedback cycle is known as a T.O.T.E. – standing for Test, Operate, Test, Exit.

The T.O.T.E. cycle may look simple, but it’s robust and flexible enough to handle the most complex project. To use it successfully, you need to develop several core skills – all of which can be broken down into separate elements, practised and learned.

Here are the skills you need at each stage, and some resources to help you strengthen them:

  1. Goal Setting: Keep SMART Goals In Front Of You; How to Focus on What Really Matters
  2. Options Thinking: Michael Michalko’s Creative Thinking Techniques; 20 Creative Thinking Techniques; Free Creative Thinking Tools on the Web.
  3. Taking Action: The Little Rules of Action
  4. Review: Critical Thinking Is Not a Creativity Killer; Tips for Giving and Receiving Feedback on Creative Work

What Solutions Can You Think Of?

Have you ever struggled to shake off the feeling that you’re “Not the creative type”? How did you manage it?

What advice can you offer to anyone who has a hard time believing that they are creative?

About the Author: Mark McGuinness is a poet, creative coach, and co-founder of Lateral Action. Subscribe today to get free updates by email or RSS.

Ce que vous pouvez faire à partir de cette page :

Posted via email from fabricecaduc’s posterous

Does Your Customer Want What You’ve Got to Offer?

29 Jan

via Copyblogger de Sonia Simone le 15/01/10


image of cranky baby

If you’ve got something to sell, at some point you’re going to need to present an offer.

In other words, you’ll need to tell your prospective customer what you’ve got, what it’s going to do for them, and what you’re looking for in return.

Sounds simple, and it is. There’s just one problem.

Too often, we get caught up in how much our prospect should want what we’re feeding them. And then we get surprised when they respond like a toddler faced with a bowl full of broccoli ice cream.

When my little boy was a baby, I got a very good piece of advice about feeding kids.

As a parent, it’s your job to put something on the table that’s reasonably nutritious, that tastes good, and that’s appropriate to the context. (Your so-spicy-it-could-strip-paint vindaloo may be the best on the planet, but it might not be realistic to expect your two-year-old to go for it.)

It’s the kid’s job to eat it or not to eat it. They’re in charge of getting a forkful of the stuff in their mouth, chewing, and swallowing.

When you get your job and their job confused, you create a lot of problems.

How to make an appealing offer to your customers

When you’re asking for a sale from a potential customer, you’re working with the same equation.

It’s your job to create an attractive offer. It’s the prospect’s job to say yes or no.

Ever notice the language customers use when they’re feeling pressured to buy? They’ll often mention not wanting an offer “crammed down their throat.”

Sure, you could always try to sell people something they don’t want. But a) it will work miserably or not at all, b) you’ll get the results “barfed up” in the form of complaints and returns, and c) it’s a lot easier for prospects to run away than it is for toddlers.

Make it nutritious

The best offers are nutritious — in other words, beneficial to the customer.

Yes, you can definitely (maybe even easily) sell a product that doesn’t actually do the prospect much good. But you’ll get the most recurring business (and satisfaction) out of selling good stuff, not junk food.

When your customers are truly better off for buying what you offer, they’re a million times more likely to spread the word about how great you are. It’s hard to build a solid business on products that are all seductive promise but don’t really deliver anything of value.

Make it taste good

On the other hand, you try feeding my kid broccoli.

I think it’s fantastic stuff. I eat it every week. My kid considers it the culinary equivalent of waterboarding.

To me, broccoli is delicious. To my kid, it’s not. Different markets want different things.

It’s much easier to sell something people want than it is to sell something they need. We’re grudgingly pushed toward certain behaviors by our needs, but we’re pulled wildly by our wants.

Basically, you have two options. One, you can find a customer who adores broccoli. They’re certainly out there.

Two, you’ll sell something like a smoothie. It has the vitamins, minerals, and fiber of the broccoli, but it tastes more like a milkshake.

When you’re selling it, bring up the delicious taste first, and close the deal by making them feel good about all the logical health benefits.

Offer what they want, when they want it

Strawberries taste good in summer. Hot chocolate tastes good in winter.

Make sure your offer lines up with what your prospect is looking for today, not tomorrow or yesterday. You’ll make selling much, much easier.

My kid thinks popsicles are nirvana, but even he won’t eat them when he’s playing outside in the middle of January.

Make sure it’s fresh

Even the tastiest dinner doesn’t look all that good after a couple of hours go by.

That means you’ve got to set a time when dinner gets pulled off the table. If you keep your offers fresh by limiting them in time (or by setting a limit on how many you’ll sell), you make them infinitely more attractive.

“Buy the blue widget for $47” may be a tasty, nutritious, and well-timed offer. “Buy the blue widget for $47 if you order by midnight this Friday” has all the same qualities, but it also keeps the offer fresh and interesting.

New and fresh is always more appealing than stale and boring.

Keep your roles straight

Remember, it’s your job to cook up fresh, tasty, nutritious offers and get them on the table. Obviously, you’ll use all the copywriting techniques at your disposal to make them as appealing as possible.

(You can consider a resource like Copyblogger as a cookbook that lets you make your offers as delicious as possible.)

Then, you observe. Did the market bite or not? If not, the two most likely culprits are that the timing was off (popsicles in January) or that the offer just didn’t look tasty (broccoli ice cream).

Try adding a spoonful of sugar, in the form of more value or an additional bonus for the same money. Make sure you’re not talking too much about all of the “good for you” aspects, and that you’re instead emphasizing the yummy factor first and foremost.

Either way, it’s not a rejection of you as a human being or a death sentence for your business. It’s just a dinner that didn’t turn out particularly well. Do a little work to figure out where your recipe went wrong, and try again tomorrow.

With practice and observation, you’ll be cooking up consistently delicious offers in no time.

Want learn more about putting together killer offers, and presenting them in the most compelling fashion? Subscribe to Internet Marketing for Smart People, the Copyblogger email newsletter. It’s some of our best stuff, no junk, no fluff, and no charge. Hey, that’s a great offer!

About the Author: Sonia Simone is Senior Editor of Copyblogger and the founder of Remarkable Communication.


Thesis Theme for WordPress

Ce que vous pouvez faire à partir de cette page :

Posted via email from fabricecaduc’s posterous

define: Brand

29 Jan

Here's my definition: A brand is the set of expectations, memories, stories and relationships that, taken together, account for a consumer’s decision to choose one product or service over another. If the consumer (whether it’s a business, a buyer, a voter or a donor) doesn’t pay a premium, make a selection or spread the word, then no brand value exists for that consumer. 

A brand's value is merely the sum total of how much extra people will pay, or how often they choose, the expectations, memories, stories and relationships of one brand over the alternatives.

A brand used to be something else. It used to be a logo or a design or a wrapper. Today, that’s a shadow of the brand, something that might mark the brand’s existence. But just as it takes more than a hat to be a cowboy, it takes more than a designer prattling on about texture to make a brand. If you’ve never heard of it, if you wouldn’t choose it, if you don’t recommend it, then there is no brand, at least not for you.

If you hear a designer say this (believe it or not, I didn't make this quote up), “A TCHO Chocolate bar, with its algorithmic guilloche patterns, looks like a modern form of currency. “Modern” was always part of the brand brief — no faux traditionalism, but resolutely forward-looking for a new generation of chocolate enthusiasts…” then I wonder if there’s a vocabulary disconnect.

Design is essential but design is not brand.

PS a Google tip: you can find the definition of any word by typing "define:" followed by the word into your search box.

Posted via web from fabricecaduc’s posterous

Graduate school for unemployed college students

29 Jan
Will you do it ?

via Seth's Blog de Seth Godin le 09/06/09


Fewer college grads have jobs than at any other time in recent memory—a report by the National Association of Colleges and Employers annual student survey said that 20 percent of 2009 college graduates who applied for a job actually have one.  So, what should the unfortunate 80% do?

How about a post-graduate year doing some combination of the following (not just one, how about all):

  • Spend twenty hours a week running a project for a non-profit.
  • Teach yourself Java, HTML, Flash, PHP and SQL. Not a little, but mastery. [Clarification: I know you can’t become a master programmer of all these in a year. I used the word mastery to distinguish it from ‘familiarity’ which is what you get from one of those Dummies type books. I would hope you could write code that solves problems, works and is reasonably clear, not that you can program well enough to work for Joel Spolsky. Sorry if I ruffled feathers.]
  • Volunteer to coach or assistant coach a kids sports team.
  • Start, run and grow an online community.
  • Give a speech a week to local organizations.
  • Write a regular newsletter or blog about an industry you care about.
  • Learn a foreign language fluently.
  • Write three detailed business plans for projects in the industry you care about.
  • Self-publish a book.
  • Run a marathon.

Beats law school.

If you wake up every morning at 6, give up TV and treat this list like a job, you’ll have no trouble accomplishing everything on it. Everything! When you do, what happens to your job prospects?

Ce que vous pouvez faire à partir de cette page :

Posted via email from fabricecaduc’s posterous