To be honest I’m at a loss for words right now as I try and reflect on the year that was. This website, and more importantly the community that’s developed around it, has simply been extraordinary. I can’t tell you all what it means to me that you find my thoughts interesting enough to read and comment on. To say I’m inspired by all of you is an understatement and I want to take this chance to thank you.
So . . .
Thank you.
Thank you for being there when I needed you.
Thank you for making me feel special.
Thank you for inspiring me to write and think at a higher level than I ever have.
Thank you for opening doors for me.
Thank you for your emails that just say hello.
Thank you for your comments that are often better thought through than the post they’re attached to.
Thank you for linking to this site and telling others you know that it’s worth reading.
Thank you for showing up for coffee at 8am.
Thank you for saying such nice things about me.
Thank you for introducing me to other people as brilliant as yourselves.
Thank you for writing your own blogs.
But most importantly, thank you for being a friend. For me this was the year that my online world met my offline world. I’ve had countless drinks, coffees and dinners with you all and I look forward to many more. The people I’ve met over the last twelve months as a direct and indirect result of this site have all been spectacular. When I started NoahBrier.com two-and-a-half years ago I never imagined it would be the catalyst for so many great things.
For that I am forever indebted to all of you.
Thanks again and have a wonderful 2007.
December 31, 2006
In my last entry about trust, I promised to talk a little more about the role of trust, and specifically what I called the trust exchange, in marketing. As an addition to the post, I wrote, “Thinking about it again this morning, the most interesting part of this for me is the trust process. Transparency helps build reputation which can be used as colatteral in a trust exchange. This is possible because reputation has real value and can be used in lieu of things like diamonds or money.”
So why does this matter to brands?
Simple. Brands are reputations: They only live in people’s minds. A company uses its brand as collateral when it tries to get you to buy its products. Think about it. I own a PowerBook. I like my PowerBook. It’s well designed and works great. I have a very favorable perception of Apple’s brand as a result of the experience with my PowerBook. When Apple comes out with a new product they put their name on it knowing that I will associate it with their brand and the perceptions I have will carry over.
I don’t think any of this is terribly new, actually. Branding and marketing developed as a way to help consumers know what was reliable. What’s new is:
- There’s less differentiation than ever before. As a result of cheaper technology and (most likely) stricter quality control laws, the difference between one product and another is tiny.
- The store has taken on much of the trust burden. When you walk into a grocery store you probably don’t think any toothpaste they carry will make you sick. Same thing when you walk into Best Buy: Sure there might be a quality difference between the brand name and the no-name plasma television, but there’s an assumption that nothing they carry could be that bad.
- We, as customers, are far more savvy about marketing than we once were. People don’t take something said in a commercial at face value any more. I think the two reasons for this are that we’ve been duped one too many times and everybody is saying the exact same thing, so how can they all be right?
- Price comparison tools have shifted the power. I don’t think people talk about this enough. The ease of price comparison and research online has done more than force stores to compete more, it has changed customer mindsets. The person willing to walk away is always in control of a negotiation and its easier than ever to walk away and get what you want from someone else.
In a way, what I’m saying is that brand is both more and less important than it ever was. More important because there’s less differentiation and one great way to put your company ahead of the rest is by establishing your brand in people’s minds. Less important because people are more savvy and know that chances are there’s not that huge a difference between your tube of toothpaste and your competitors.
So what is a brand to do?
Well for one companies can make people feel like they’re in control. Max makes a great point in his latest Online Spin article. In it he says despite the popularity of the statement, consumers are not really in total control. “Consumers now have a voice,” he says, “they have more choice and can hold marketers accountable as never before. Consumers can quickly organize, mobilize, reward and punish . . . They are more empowered, but there are two sides to this relationship.” Max follows with a slew of ways marketers can respect their partnership with customers.
The bottom line for me, though, is make it personal. Brand relationships traditionally exist at the 100 or 1,000 foot level. Personal relationships exist at the one or ten foot level. That’s because personal connections build reputation: There’s more on the line when you know someone’s name, number and their kid’s birthday. Transparency helps bring brand relationships to this level.
Robert Scoble is the perfect example of this. Here’s a guy who worked at Microsoft and was willing to put his cell phone number on his website. He must believe in what he does to do that. If I ever really needed something I felt like I could call him up and tell him. While I don’t think he would have been able to do anything, necessarily, having an ear within the organization completely changed the kind of relationship I had with Microsoft.
That’s about all for now, I think there’s a lot more to talk about here, but I’ll save it for another time. Thanks to Adrian for getting me thinking some more about this.
December 28, 2006
[Editor's Note: This is volume two of my favorite links of 2006. Volume one can be found here.]
Well folks, it’s time for round two of the best links of 2006. For those that missed the first half, go read volume one.
Now onto the links . . .
Best Links of 2006 (vol. 2)
- The Marketplace of Perceptions: This may be the article I quoted most this year. Behavioral economics is rocking my world and this is a perfect primer.
- Good News Day: Continuing on the inspiring tip is this story of Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams beating a seemingly cureless disease with perseverance and rhymes.
- ‘Baby, Give Me a Kiss’: This one’s certainly not inspiring and I hope it doesn’t offend anyone. The LA Times sent a female reporter to interview Joe Francis of Girls Gone Wild fame. In the process she witnessed a date-rape and was attacked by Francis. Girls Gone Wild is an undeniable phenomena and Claire Hoffman, the writer, contemplates why. The article is a look at the dark side of the digital explosion. “This is so much bigger than Francis,” Hoffman explains. “In a culture where cheap and portable video technology lets everyone play at stardom, and where America’s voyeuristic appetite for reality television seems insatiable, teenagers, like the ones in this club, see cameras as validation. ‘Most guys want to have sex with me and maybe I could meet one new guy, but if I get filmed everyone could see me,’ Bultema says. ‘If you do this, you might get noticed by somebodyâ€â€to be an actress or a model.’”
- Architecture and interaction design, via adaptation and hackability: Dan Hill of cityofsound is brilliant. He’s got an amazing ability to pull together all sorts of different disciplines and spit out a coherent idea. This is actually the full text of an interview he did with Dan Saffer for his book Designing for Interaction. These were the questions posed: “Can products be made hackable, or are all products hackable? What types of things can be designed into products to make them more hackable? What are the qualities of adaptive designs? You’ve spoken on putting “creative power in the hands of non-designers.” How do interaction designers go about doing that? What can interaction designers learn about adaptability from architecture?”
- Video Explains the World’s Most Important 6-Sec Drum Loop: It’s long, and somewhat dry at times, but this 18-minute video explains the incredible history of the amen break which is the probably the most ubiquitous sample in history.
- Banksy Punks Paris: Banksy’s most famous move was putting his own art in New York City museums. In this installment Banksy droplifts a bunch of specially made Paris Hilton CDs with music by Danger Mouse and a custom-made booklet.
- Dove Evolution Commerical: Rounding out the YouTube trio is an ad of sorts. As part of the Campaign for Real Beauty Dove shows the world how our idea of beauty became so distorted. The video depicts a ‘regular’ woman going through the process of becoming a billboard model. After much makeup, stretching and shrinking the person we see at the beginning of the video is completely different than the product at the end.
- Getting Customers to Love You: This was the year of the ‘ordinary Joe’ and nowhere was this more apparent than marketing. All over the industry people are finally realizing that we’d forgotten about customers. In this article Jeanne Bliss, from Land’s End, gives 10 tips for getting customers to love you. They’re simple, but they’re great reminders to put customers first.
- The Confession of an American Jew: I can’t say I ever really considered it, but there are a whole lot of Jewish comedians. Look at the list: “he Marx Brothers, the Three Stooges, George Burns, Jack Benny, Milton Berle, Sid Caesar, Carl Reiner, Neil Simon, Woody Allen, Mel Brooks, Henny Youngman, Jackie Mason, Don Rickles, Buddy Hackett, Rodney Dangerfield, Lenny Bruce, Gilda Radner, Andy Kaufman, Jerry Seinfeld, Larry David, Adam Sandler, Ben Stiller, Sarah Silverman.” Luckily, Wayne Gladstone over at The Morning News was kind enough to think about it and offer up some amazingly amusing thoughts on the subject.
- Rethinking Every Rule of Reinvention: Who better to speak to reinventing a brand than a man who has helped both Nike and Starbucks reinvent theirs. I’m not sure there’s any single revolutionary point in here, but taken together it’s an incredible roadmap to thinking about marketing the right way.
I’ve also got two special bonus links for you . . .
- BONUS: Professional Radicals: This entry is really just a vehicle to post a 1994 book (in PDF form) from ‘iconoclastic British ad agency of the 1990s’ Howell Henry. The PDF is fantastic and I’m forever in debt to Gareth for posting.
- BONUS: I Saw NY: Last but not least is the Renegade holiday/New Year site. It’s a guide to New York City written by Renegade and friends. You can even register to contribute yourself. I’ve been unbelievably pleased with the quality of what people have added, there are about 20 places I’ve discovered on there that I want to visit. I Saw NY. For FTC purposes I do work for Renegade, however, I was not compensated for posting this link. :)
Well, that’s it. Hope everyone is having a great holiday. Just in case you missed it, go check out volume one.
December 26, 2006
[Editor's Note: This is volume one of my favorite links of 2006. Volume two can be found here.]
This is one of my very favorite entries to write. I get to pull all the great stuff I read all year and throw it into one post for your reading enjoyment. Hopefully this will be a fun way to fill some of that extra holiday time.
So without any further ado . . .
Best Links of 2006 (vol. 1)
- The Omarosa Experiment: This is an amazing inside look at what life on reality television is really like. Beyond just talking to some former stars they speak to psychologists who help choose the participants. After all is said and done, I had a much better idea of the psychological imbalance of the people on these shows.
- Warning: May Contain Non-Design Content: I’ve found myself quoting this Design Observer article quite a bit this year. In it Michael Bierut answers some critics who complain he doesn’t write about design enough: “The great thing about graphic design is that it is almost always about something else. Corporate law. Professional football. Art. Politics. Robert Wilson. And if I can’t get excited about whatever that something else is, I really have trouble doing good work as a designer. To me, the conclusion is inescapable: the more things you’re interested in, the better your work will be.” A rule to live by.
- Cookie Monster Searches Deep Within Himself and Asks: Is Me Realy Monster?: I’m a huge Jim Henson fan. Runs in the family. In this article cookie monster asks some tough questions as he tries to deal with his monsterous tendencies. “Me thinks me have serious problem. Me thinks me addicted. But since when it acceptable to call addict monster? It affliction. It disease. It burden. But does it make me monster?”
- The Worst President in History: Lots of people have said it casually, but when a historian wonders out loud whether George W. Bush is actually the worst president in history, it’s worth listening.
- Roger Federer as Religious Experience: Every year David Foster Wallace writes an article that’s extraordinarily long and detailed about something I’ve never thought about and I find it impossible to put down. Last year it was Consider the Lobster and this year it’s this New York Times article highlighting every detail of Federer’s greatness. I’m not really a tennis fan myself and this gave me an entirely new view into the intricacies real tennis fans love.
- A Cup of Tea: As a blogger myself every so often I ask myself “what should I blog about?” Lucky for all of us, Momus uses a cup of tea as an example of five approaches to blogging about anything. The techniques include: Quotation, anecdote, binaries, politics, personal and sociology.
- The Best and the Interesting: This is actually two articles smushed into one. Reading it again, I remember why I loved it the first time: It’s inspiring and beautifully written. “My hope is, at some point in my life, I will hit such a stride, some skillset I have where the best of me just happens as a matter of course. I’m good at some stuff, bad at others, but I would love to hit some point, in a few years, where I throw out perfection as calmly as a child tosses a ball. It’s something to strive for.”
That wraps up the first half, check back for more links in the next few days. Also, if you’re not already, you can subscribe to the site by RSS or email (there’s a subscription form below the fold).
December 23, 2006
A few months ago I let Noah crash at my apartment. It was the second time we’d met in person and I allowed him to sleep on my couch for a week.
Strangely enough I wasn’t bothered by this. Actually, I was more bothered by the fact that I wasn’t bothered at all (sorry to get all meta ya’). I found it incredibly odd that I was totally cool with this stranger staying in my home. I kept asking myself why I trusted him.
The more I thought about it, the more his website came up. Noah’s homepage has his cellphone number. He writes about his mom and dad. He exposes how many RSS readers he has to the world. That’s some serious controlled exposure (or radical transparency if you prefer Chris Anderson’s naming schema).
After cataloging all these things I realized that I was allowing him to use his reputation as a form of collateral in our trust exchange. By combining Okdork.com with the fact that we traveled in similar circles and have shared acquaintances, I was willing to give him my trust. I guess I felt like someone wouldn’t risk an, albeit micro, empire to do something bad to me.
And I turned out completely correct.
So looking back, what were the big lessons of this experience? (And I’m sure my buddies at trustmojo would have much more to say.)
- Reputation, reputation, reputation. As my friend Ryan Anderson said, “You only have one reputation, and it’s yours to ruin.” While the value of reputation may be indirect, there’s no question it’s there (just ask the thousands of bloggers who are profiting off it) and if you lose it you’re screwed. In some way, I felt like Noah was putting that reputation on the line by staying with me.
- Transparency breeds trust. When someone puts themselves out there for the world to see they’re vulnerable. They’re saying I’m willing to leave myself open to wounds in order to reap the benefits. Vulnerability is another form of collateral. Putting your cell phone on your website is pretty damn transparent.
- Go with your gut. Not to get all Gladwellian on your asses, but a big part of trust is built on instincts. When you first meet someone you probably either trust them or you don’t. Now they can change that impression, but it’s pretty damn difficult. Letting him stay at my apartment seemed like the right thing to do.
I’m sure there are more, but it’s getting late and I’m tired. I also hoped to get to how this relates to brands, but I’m going to have to put that off to another day. Unless you all want to help . . .
Update (12/21/06): Thinking about it again this morning, the most interesting part of this for me is the trust process. Transparency helps build reputation which can be used as colatteral in a trust exchange. This is possible because reputation has real value and can be used in lieu of things like diamonds or money. Not that I wouldn’t have accepted either of those.
December 21, 2006
Just this morning I was trying to decide what in the world I would write about today. There’s this funny feeling of obligation to write when you have a blog. It’s not that anyone else is actually saying, “hey Noah, you haven’t posted in a while,” but every few days this little thing goes off in my head that says just that.
Lucky for me Amber at Big Secret Pizza Party went ahead and gave me something to write about. She ‘tagged’ me with this ‘five things’ meme and wrote something extraordinarily flattering to boot (which I appreciate very much). Anyhow, I thought about starting this post with a diatribe about how I usually don’t take part in these kinds of meme, but then I realized I was full of shit and the only reason is because I’ve never actually made it into the loop. (After finishing this sentence I got an email from David Berkowitz informing me he had also tagged me, so I guess I really have no choice.)
So, without any further ado . . .
Five things you probably don’t know about me.
- I used to hate olives and then one day, about four years ago, I decided to change that. Every three months I would eat an olive until I finally broke and began to actually enjoy them. It was well worth the pain.
- I really suck at spelling sentence. I always try to spell it ‘sentance’. I also used to be bad at calendar, but I’ve gotten better.
- My list of things I want to do in my life (yes I have one of those) includes start my own business.
- Deep down I believe that starting this site was the best decision I ever made.
- I built my first website in 1995 and it was about my life as an aardvark. I’m not entirely sure why. The second website I ever built was called ‘eat some cheese’, again I don’t know what I was thinking. There seems to be no evidence of their existence and that saddens me a bit.
That about wraps it up, I will return to regularly scheduled posting in the near future. Hope this wasn’t too painful.
Also, rather than tagging anyone in particular, what if I just left it open for anyone who feels like commenting to add their five things (or a link to their site that lists them). It couldn’t hurt for us all to get to know each other a little better.
Update (12/18/06): It seems that Scott has tagged me too. I’m starting to feel slightly guilty for not passing this on . . .
Update (12/18/06): After feeling an extraordinary guilt for not tagging anyone, I’ve decided to pass this along to five fellow Renegades: Charles, Michael, Adrian, Adam and Jason you’re up.
December 18, 2006
In improv comedy there’s a rule called ‘Yes, and . . . ‘. Basically, anytime anyone says anything you reply by building saying yes.
“Is that a cobra stuck in your teeth?”
“Yes, and blah blah blah blah blah . . .” (I couldn’t come up with anything clever.)
You get the point. What that does is continue the energy and flow of the sketch. A ‘no’ is like derailing a train: Everything you’ve worked for up to that moment needs to change immediately.
In brainstorms the same rules apply. Even if you think someone’s idea is terrible you say yes and build off it rather than shoot it down. That’s because big ideas don’t hatch, they grow. That small and seemingly ridiculous idea can often grow into something amazing. In a brainstorm every idea gets its time.
It wasn’t until recently, however, that I started to realize ‘Yes, and . . .’ applies almost everywhere.
A few weeks ago I was at Russel’s NYC coffee morning and someone sat down for a few minutes who I didn’t know. He was only in New York for one more day and asked what he should do. I jumped in to suggest walking across the Brooklyn Bridge, which I think is one of the most amazing experiences NYC has to offer. His immediate response was “no, I’d rather take a cab.” BAM! Conversation over.
Now I totally respect that answer, and actually agree in most circumstances. What stood out for me most, though, was how obviously conversation-ending that comment was. A “interesting, but . . . ” or “that sounds cool, how about . . .” would have allowed talk to continue. However, at that moment the only other option was to change topics or offer up more free and friendly suggestions with the knowledge that they might be blatantly shot down.
Since then every time someone’s come to me with an idea I’ve tried to build on it instead of shooting it down. It’s not like I don’t critique things, but I try to do it with a yes instead of a no.
It keeps people disarmed and a little happier. Aint nothing wrong with that.
December 12, 2006
How do you create an environment where innovation flourishes?
There are lots of people getting paid lots of money to answer that question. Companies are creating VPs of innovation and BusinessWeek thought it was a hot enough topic to devote a magazine to the subject.
Personally, it’s something I’ve thought a lot about. Working at an idea factory as I do, it’s hard to analyze where innovative thinking comes from.
After digging through what I’ve read, what I’ve experienced and the rest of the random thoughts in my head, I’ve more of less landed on two core criteria for creating an innovative environment.
- Create a place where people want to bring great ideas.
- Teach people how to think better.
Now I think the first one is pretty obvious. One goal of an organization focused on innovation should be to inspire their employees to bring their innovative ideas to the office rather than leaving them at home. Lots of successful companies and products have come from a few employees within another organization. So why did they decide to take their idea with them instead of building it inside? How do you create a culture where people want to bring you their ideas.
One option is Google’s 20 percent time, where you give you engineers the flexibility to follow their passions for 1/5 of their week. Clearly this incentive has paid off, leading to Google News, Google Suggest and AdSense for Content to name a few.
There are certainly other incentives companies can dream up, but I’m going to leave number one on the table and jump to the second core criteria for creating an innovative environment.
Teach people how to think better.
This one is big and I think most often overlooked. It’s not about corporate training it’s about learning. As John Hagel put it, “When companies do focus on developing talent, they often emphasize formal training programs. While these programs certainly have a role in talent development, they pale in comparison to the rapid learning that occurs when employees are put in situations that challenge them to get better faster on a daily basis.” Bottom line is that there is a big difference between teaching people how to do and teaching people how to think.
You can help people think better. You can help them understand that the world is full of inspiration and learning can be fun. You can teach them to open their minds to unexpected places and follow whatever path it leads them down. You can teach them how to interpret things. That way instead of relying on a limited few in some R&D lab, you can open up the process. In turn you will create more value for both the company and the employees.
I’ve been meaning to write this for a long time, but was waiting for the right piece of motivation. Funnily enough, today it came in a New York Magazine article about the possibility of Mike Bloomberg running for President. Towards the end of the article when talking about what Bloomberg might do next, his unique take on philanthropy comes up:
But Bloomberg tells me he has another concept brewing. “There’s the area of, how do you encourage more democracy,� he says. “Whether it’s getting good people to go into public service, or finding ways for the public to measure the people they elect and whether they deliver what they promise.�
You’re talking about merging your politics to your philanthropy, I say.
“Yes, but you’ve got to distinguish between what I’m talking about and what George Soros is trying to do. Soros uses his money to push his views. I’d be more inclined to use my money to give people the ability to make up their own minds and express themselves.�
That sealed it for me. The common approach is to use your money or power to get people to make the decisions you want. What Bloomberg is trying to do is use those same things to get people to make the decisions they want.
That, to me, is how innovation happens. It’s when people stop making the decisions they think their boss wants and start thinking for themselves: Bringing their own ideas to the table.
December 10, 2006
I’ve been trying to write intelligently about the idea of ‘data-blogging’ for a while, but haven’t been able to articulate it all that well up to this point. In “Blog Everything”, I wrote “as a result of digital technology and the metadata it creates, we are able to share parts of our lives in much more fluid ways.” I then proceeded to go into the example of exposing your Netflix queue to your friends and the social implications of the whole thing.
Disregarding the social stuff for the moment, the bigger point is that we now have tools to broadcast our attention. As a result, attention is now media.
If you visit my homepage, you’ll see the Sidenotes in the right-hand column. That is an ever-changing list of links I find interesting. In my mind, the Sidenotes are an equal member of this site with my original entries. As I wrote a while back, “I decided to add the links as content because I believe that’s just what they are: Content. What I tend to do here is annotate/comment on other media. I read things and link to them with my own thoughts and opinions. While that’s not the entirety of the site, it is probably the majority. So with that in mind, why should the links themselves not be given equal real estate?”
Essentially the Sidenotes are a running log of what websites I’m paying attention to. They are a peak into my mind and can spur conversation. In a similar way, I am broadcasting my movies to friends through Netflix, my music through last.fm and my clickstream through Root.
One of the things I feel like I’m always quoting here is Kottke’s 2005 entry on “The fundamental unit of the web”. In it he writes that the web is shrinking: From sites, to pages, posts/permalinks and finally to links. To me, single bits of attention data is the obvious next step (is attentron the appropriate term Seth?).
All it took to turn millions of people into bloggers was a simple interface for posting to the web. Who is to say that Netflix and last.fm aren’t the same thing? Both allow you to broadcast yourself to the world. But even more than that, all these tools cut down the levels of mediation between people. Blogs are so revolutionary because it’s a fairly unfiltered look at people. Linklogs are even less filtered because they contain the ideas behind the ideas. Now imagine if I exposed every click to you, now you know the path behind the ideas that make the ideas (sorry for that).
I guess the question is do you want all that? It’s fun to spy on your friends movie-watching habits, but how deep to you really need to go? (I really don’t know the answer to this, need to give it more though.)
December 6, 2006
I’ve been wondering for a while when it became socially acceptable to meet people from the online world in meat space. Way beyond the small likemind and coffee morning gatherings are 40 million Americans engaging in online dating. Ten years ago if I told someone I was going to meet an online friend they’d have thought I was nuts, now they only thing I’m a bit mad. That’s progress folks.
But why? What’s caused this change?
I’m going to use some of the comments from the last post to guide the discussion (and highlight again how much I appreciate the brilliant comments). This is an experiment in post writing, so please bear with me.
. . . the way that we interact with each other – both with our friends and with strangers – is completely changing. There are hardly any lines anymore between what’s virtual and what’s real, what’s digital and what’s physical. (Orli)
Our points of access into the online world are expanding. We are becoming more comfortable with the communication that happens there and better able to judge the authenticity of the voice we are reading/hearing. (On a side note, I can’t help but wonder if it’s just a coincidence that the upswing in my social contact as a result of this blog is directly related to me adding my photo to the homepage.)
But there’s another side:
. . . it seems every day the internet is finding new ways to distance people – noah’s likemind group not withstanding. It’s making people lazy – physically, emotionally, mentally. (Jeff)
A common concern, but as an avid user of social media, Chet responded:
I don’t see distancing and lazyness. Personally, MySpace has expanded the surface area of my social life immensely, in a way that has helped me become friends, and see in person, way more people than before (and more interesting people, usually). For example, I just moved to new york, and I instantly had quite a few friends – because of a few connections that were strengthened through the site. This was entirely enabled by MySpace (and as it happens, the job i got here was enabled by blogging). I am also able to stay in contact with my friends in Toronto to a much greater degree. Hell, before I moved, I sent out a bulletin about selling all my stuff, and the next day, all my friends came over to my house (they had seen the photos on Flickr, too). It was a great time. I think that’s efficient, not lazy. (Chet Gulland)
And here we come to one of the great dilemmas of social media and the internet: How much efficiency is good? Take online dating, for instance. It’s hard not to feel like a bit of serendipity has left the world of dating when you choose someone via profile. The thing is, how often do people actually meet at a bar for the first time? Meeting people is a difficult task and I would guess the majority of relationships are set up in one way or another. So how different is online dating?
A lot of the fear of the internet comes with the idea that when people open their browser they lose their ability to think critically or make decisions on their own accord. I’m not quite sure why this is, but it’s not new. I remember being in school and having teachers tell me that there was a limit of internet sources I could cite. Their argument was twofold: Firstly, books are inherently more trustworthy because they’ve been printed (which is total bullshit). Secondly, I would be lazy and just pull up whatever it was that showed up in Google and use that to support my thesis. Of course there is absolutely no reason I couldn’t do the same thing in a library, but that never seemed to register.
At the bottom of all this is a fear of efficiency. We don’t like the idea of people working smarter, not harder. Why do something in 15 minutes that could take three hours? I guess it can feel less ‘human’ to be efficient, but it’s not like a human didn’t build that efficiency tool in the first place.
We are evolving. I would guess our brains are quite literally changing.
And we’re building it as we go . . .
December 5, 2006
The other day Michael asked a question that relates closely to something I’ve been noodling on for a while: “Is it ethical to blog about something that you find through a link from a contact inside your network?”
Personally I believe the answer is yes, mainly because I see posting your links to del.icio.us as another form of blogging. But putting aside the ethical issues, for a moment, it seems we are at an interesting time in the development of self expression. Mainly, it is now possible to express yourself via your implicit gestures instead of just your explicit ones.
I know that sounds strange, and I have to admit, I don’t have this idea fully baked. But basically as a result of digital technology and the metadata it creates, we are able to share parts of our lives in much more fluid ways and that brings up a whole lot of unknowns when it comes to social interaction.
How about a concrete example? Netflix allows you to add friends, when you do so you expose your queue and watched movies list to them. For the first time (maybe ever) I can keep up with what my friends are up to without any conversations. While they had to approve our ‘friendship,’ after that there’s no additional work or reminders that all your actions on the site are being recorded and exposed to your friends. In a way it allows us to ‘converse’ without the conversation.
In the not-too-distant future, we will be able to ‘blog’ much of our world: Our phones will be able to record our locations and upload them and our televisions will record all our shows and make recommendations.
I’m kind of out of it and having trouble formulating a conclusion. So how about I leave that up to you.
[CONCLUSION GOES HERE]
November 30, 2006
It’s time for another likemind and I swear after this round we will come up with a more permanent schedule. For this round we’ll be hitting up four cities: New York (Piers and I), San Francisco (Mark and Tad), Seattle (Scott and Elizabeth) and Oslo (Nick and Trude.
It’s been amazing to watch this thing grow from a whim Piers and I had into a global empire (well, maybe not empire). Thanks so much to everyone who’s come out, it’s really been amazing to meet so many of you. Those who are not in New York, I hope you’ll make it to one of the other cities. Also, watch out for some new ones come the New Year, we’ve got a couple of expansions in the works.
All festivities start at 8am local time except for Oslo, where 9am is the new 8am.
For all the location info and everything else visit likemind.us (since we’re now global the .us stands for us, not United States — just thought I’d add that).
November 28, 2006
The last few days were spent gorging myself on turkey, stuffing and links. That’s right, I caught up on enough reading over the last five days that I thought I might pop.
What’s painful for me, however, is good for you. What better way to start a week than ten links handpicked for your thought and enjoyment.
Without any further ado . . . (and in no specific order).
- Will It Copy: Will the Second Life CopyBot help us rethink the way we handle intellectual property?
- The Family Un-Planner: Bush appointed Eric Keroack to the office that oversees the family-planning program. “Until recently, he served as medical director of a pregnancy-counseling organization that runs down contraception and gives out scientifically false health informationâ€â€for instance, that condoms ‘offer virtually no protection’ against herpes or HPV. Keroack also promotes a wacky piece of pseudoscience: the claim that premarital sex disrupts brain chemistry so as to create a physiological barrier to happy marriage.” That is scary.
- The Young Economist: A profile of behavioral economist Ulrike Malmendier. She writes about stuff like how people pay not to go to the gym. Behavioral economics is the best thing going right now. (For a great intro to the subject, check out Marketplace of Perceptions.)
- ‘Beer goggles’ effect explained: Researchers at Manchester University have worked out a formula to calculate the beer goggle effect. I’m really glad there are people working on problems like this.
- Two Thoughts: George Seiemens’ connectivism theory brings many of the principles of the digital world to education. Here he talks about “content as a conduit for conversation,” saying, “Content is not an end itself, but a means to forming connections with others. I wonder how well we understand this as educators when we design our courses…” If only the rest of the system worked this way.
- On Saturday, They Rested: Only the New York Times could get away writing an article about how ‘real’ New Yorkers don’t go out on Saturday night. So elitest, yet so good.
- Quick Tips on Corporate Blogging: If you haven’t read Organic’s Three Minds blog, it’s one of the better corporate blogs out there. In this ClickZ article they highlight some of what helped them reach the success they have. My favorite: “We have an editorial policy we share with people inside the agency that’s quite simple: if you wouldn’t be comfortable sitting around a dinner table discussing the content of your blog posting with your mother, your largest client, your best friend, your boss, and your mentor, then you probably shouldn’t post it. So far, this has been a great filter.” Simple and straightforward.
- Put Any YouTube Video On Your iPod: Like the title says, this TechCrunch article explains how to pull videos off YouTube and do with them what you will (including put them on your iPod). I had no idea you could do this. Cool stuff.
- Riddling left, right and center: CK’s got something big brewing and it’s all based on the ‘the share economy’, which she is kind enough to break down in this entry.
- This Week’s Non-Racists: Michael Richards and Clint Eastwood: Last but definitely not least is an article from this week in race, co-written by my good friend Charlton McIlwain. The article breaks down the Michael Richards debacle, follow up apology and how another opportunity to seriously talk about race was squandered.
That’s it for now. Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving.
November 27, 2006
I’m quickly starting to realize that one of the advantages of having a blog is that you can outsource the really tough work to your readers. Last time I needed a new word for finding something way more important than I originally imagined and you guys came through with some amazing recommendations. So once again I turn to you for help.
The other day Gareth was kind enough to post a booklet from 1994 written by British ad agency Howell Henry. It outlines why and how the advertising industry must change. It’s pretty forward thinking for 2006 and imagining it was written 12 years ago is amazing.
While reading one of those thoughts that has been floating around my head for a while came to the forefront: Consumer is the wrong word. It comes from a different age. “This world was simple; one where consumers were passive creatures, quietly taking in whatever message was directed at them or buying whatever product marketers wanted them to buy.”
That’s not our world any more. People are buying products and associating with brands as a way to form their identity. It’s not that this is new, but we live in a much more savvy culture where people are more aware of the role of marketing in their lives. As Debbie Millman put it, “whether we like it or not, these objects are also now defining us. As we ‘give style’ to our character, we do nothing more than claim and renounce freedoms and choices. Style know ends up signifying our beliefs and our affiliations.”
On top of this, the line between producer and consumer is diminishing. Trends like co-creation, handmade and conscious shopping are giving people a completely new perspective.
Bottom line is consumer to me feels like ‘predator’, it assumes that’s all these people know how to do. It sounds like they’re programmed to consume like a lion is programmed to hunt and kill. That’s just not it at all, however, it’s so much more active and thoughtful.
So I ask all of you, what’s a better word than consumer?
November 17, 2006
I’ve got a couple big ideas floating around in my head that I’d
like to write more about, but I’m not quite sure how to form any of
them into full entries. So I figured I’d just throw them out there
and see what sticks.
Theory People
You know those people who are always saying “I have a theory
that . . .”? Well my friend Shana has a theory that those
are the most interesting people. When you have theories about things
you are showing that your observant and that you make connections
between seemingly disconnected things. I also think you’re exposing a
lot about yourself and how you view the world. (By the way, Shana
requested that link herself.)
It’s All in Your Mind
Credit on this one goes to Martin. We had a long conversation about the idea that brands only exist
in the mind of the beholder. It’s kind of like color: Two people see
green in completely different ways. Or, to take it a step further
(courtesy of Noah), there is no color unless there
is light. In the dark color ceases to exist. You can put your product
out there and do your best to control a person’s experience, but the
brand belongs to them. It’s not so easy to comprehend, but as Martin
wrote in Adweek, “What I realized is that this idea [that all products are brands]
may have been true in the past, when product, brand and need (or,
said another way, ‘the consumer’) were all neatly aligned. But it’s
not true now. Now they are three distinct entities. And as such, each
requires its own champion.”
Desire Lines
I wrote this in May: “Desire lines are
the unpaved paths that people wear down over time. In a way, does
that represent collective intelligence? What about the “ask the
audience” feature on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? Yeah, it’s post
internet, but the idea is not revolutionary. When people can
contribute to the group anonymously, without worry of social
repercussions, honest answers will emerge. When aggregated, those
honest answers will represent collective intelligence.” I first read about it in an Adaptive Path article titled “Metadata for the Masses”. It’s one of those ideas that pops up all the time, but I’m just not quite sure how to apply it. Go any good ideas?
Blog Everything
Really, all these different services we use (del.icio.us, last.fm and even Netflix) are blogging platforms in one way or another. The way I see it is if you’re sharing information about what you’re paying attention to you’re ‘blogging.’ That can be what movies you’re watching or what links you’ve read lately. This isn’t a new idea or anything, but I’ve been thinking about it more now that Netflix offers a mass example to us (the friend feature exposes your queue to people).
Well, that’s it for now. Any thoughts on any of these ideas would be greatly appreciated. If there’s any one in particular you’d like to read more about I can write a full post on them in the future.
November 13, 2006
This morning I went to Russel’s New York coffee morning. At some point we started chatting about how great the little stop/go button is at Brazilian churrascaria. (For those that haven’t been, when you eat there they keep bringing around meat until you turn it over to red.)
We were discussing the merits of having one for your entire life, so you’d be able to turn things off and on at any moment. Then Russell said how great it would be in a meeting, that way when things got bad you could flip it to red. As we built on the idea a little bit, I think a pretty great thing emerged.
So here’s the idea.
Everyone has a hidden button, maybe it’s under the table, maybe on their chair. Because it’s hidden, each person can vote anonymously (there’s a bit of Wisdom of Crowds at work here). When you hit the button a light turns from red to green (or off to on). When a majority of the lights go red, the meeting is over. It’s that simple.
The beauty of the idea is twofold. One, it would allow the presenter or leader to adjust their strategy based on the real-time feedback of the audience (this would work great for conferences as well). Second, it would put an end to all those terrible meetings where everyone knows it’s bad but it just keeps dragging on forever.
Would it actually work? Got any ways to make it better?
November 11, 2006
Just got back from a weekend in Chicago watching the Chicago Bears lose. Also have a pretty busy rest of the week ahead of me. So, I think I’m going to give you all some links and let you talk amongst yourselves. I still need to respond to my Netflix post and write more about binary and ambiguity, and promise to when I get a few minutes. Thanks so much to everyone who commented. If you haven’t been following in the comments, it’s really worth a read, that’s where all the action is.
Now for the links (in no order).
Actually, before I hit the links, Renegade, where I work, got some serious love from Media magazin. We were profiled as an “Idea Factory” and the story includes a few choice quotes from yours truly. (By the way, if you’re in NYC and looking for a job at a marketing agency, send your resume my way.)
And now onto the show.
The FACT edition
That about wraps it up. If you have anything else to talk about or some good links to share, do it in the comments please. Hopefully regular posting will resume in short order. Until then, please accept my apologies.
November 8, 2006
I joined Netflix about a month ago and so far it’s been an incredible experience. I’m finally catching up on a long list of movies I’ve been meaning to see for ages. Problem was, when I hit the video I either couldn’t think of the movie I wanted or decided that it was too serious and went for something easier to swallow (of course a lot of the movies I’ve rented like North by Northwest and What’s Up Tigerlilly aren’t really serious at all).
Instead of talking about what I’ve rented, though, I’m more interested in the ways that Netflix actually allows me to act against the human tendency to devalue the future. This is actually one of the core tenets of behavioral economics.
Broadly “speaking, “People act irrationally in that they overly discount the future,” says Bazerman. “We do worse in life because we spend too much for what we want now at the expense of goodies we want in the future. People buy things they can’t afford on a credit card, and as a result they get to buy less over the course of their lifetimes.” Such problems should not arise, according to standard economic theory, which holds that “there shouldn’t be any disconnect between what I’m doing and what I want to be doing,” says Nava Ashraf.
That comes from a Harvard Magazine article titled “The Marketplace of Perceptions”. Basically we place a premium on the now. That’s why there’s so much credit card debt and why people don’t go to the gym: It’s easier to put off what’s best for you today until tomorrow. To quote the article again, “Now we want chocolate, cigarettes, and a trashy movie. In the future, we want to eat fruit, to quit smoking, and to watch Bergman films.” We know for our ‘well-being’ we should see the classics, but it’s a lot easier to grab Dumb and Dumber off the shelf of the video store (no offense to Dumb and Dumber, it’s just an easy target).
What Netflix, and specifically the queue, allows you to do is pre-commit, thereby working against your predisposition to devalue the future. Because you add movies to a list and then they just send them, it’s easier to place all those films you’ve always wanted to see on there and just wait for them to arrive. Sure you can go in and rearrange, and most certainly do at times. But for the most part I’d guess people just let the thing flow. (Is this accurate?)
In a way this is not much different than something like a 401(k) (also talked about in “The Marketplace of Perceptions”) in that it forces you to commit to something and then just stick with it. The beauty of a 401(k) is it all just happens in the background. Like Netflix, to change your contribution or cancel it entirely, is actually more work than just getting that percentage taken out of your paycheck each month. In a way both services use our tendencies towards laziness for us instead of against.
Wouldn’t it be great if more services considered factors like this and helped us fight our bad tendencies?
As a side note, I have a few more Netflix entries in my mind. One’s about the ‘Hotel Rwanda Effect’ where people rent a serious movie and then it just sits around for hours because there’s never a particularly good time to watch a movie about genocide. The other is about friending on Netflix. If you have any thoughts on either I’d be curious to hear.
November 3, 2006
One of the things I’ve been saying for a while now is that there’s a big opportunity for marketing agencies to enter the product development cycle earlier. The end goal would be to bake the marketing right into the product. To me it’s a very design-centric way of approaching business where you declare that all touch-points create the overall brand experience and therefore each must live up to the same high standards.
The few companies who do a good job with this are the usual suspects: Apple, Google, Jet Blue to name three. Each has a very unique identity, but more importantly they all realize that something like packaging can play just as large a role in your opinion as the actual product. What they do, then, is build things that make it impossible to separate the marketing from the product.
And that, I believe, should be the goal.
It seems that Jeff Hicks, CEO of Crispin+Porter agrees with me. He was quoted in a DM News article saying, “We think the future of advertising is great products that have marketing embedded in them.”
Preach on Jeff. When you embed marketing into the product not only do you give the customer something better, but you also save yourself money on advertising. That’s because great experiences are contagious and contagious marketing leads to viral results.
It’s actually funny what a simple idea all of this is. Hicks is quoted as saying it’s the role of the agency to create “content so valuable and useful that [consumers] wouldn’t want to live without it.” Like the engagement debate, much of it is common sense. With that said, though, sometimes it is the most simple that is the most difficult to implement, which brings me to a question: How will companies handle this in the way they’re currently structured?
Part of baking marketing into products is about collaboration. Design, engineering, marketing and sales need to be working together to achieve lofty status like the companies I listed. Problem is at the moment, most organizations are not structured to handle that kind of collaboration. Silos do a pretty good job at stopping that.
While this doesn’t answer the question, one cause of this is digital technology. As I wrote a few weeks ago, “In an analog world, silos were mostly okay, information couldn’t really move across disciplines anyway. But in a digital world, where all information is made up of the same ones and zeros, those walls don’t work so well.” (For those playing along at home, this is also a hint about some of my thoughts to the ambiguity question.)
Bottom line is the industry is poised to redefine itself and maybe the opportunity is even bigger than just products: Could agencies also build capability for general change management and restructuring?
October 31, 2006
There’s been a question floating around in my mind for the last few weeks and I’m really curious whether anyone has any thoughts.
I believe there is more ambiguity in our world than there ever was and I’ve got a few reasons why:
- We are living in the information age. No one person has enough time to read everything (even in their particular field). As a result, there are more generalists.
- The internet has given people access to an almost infinite number of opinions and ideas. There are any number of variations on any topic and whether someone actually consumes them or not, the awareness of multiple viewpoints is very important. In a way it legitimizes ambiguity.
- Digital technology has allowed us to change our definition of both space and time. When you pick up the phone to call customer service you could easily be talking to the other side of the world. In many ways, physical proximity no longer matters as much as it once did.
All three of those things, I believe, can eventually be tracked back to digital technology. Whether it’s used as a tool for research, distribution or communication, it has fundamentally altered almost every aspect of modern life.
Especially lately, this has manifested itself for me in a desire to move away from dualities (whether it’s right/wrong, good/bad, either/or). The problem is a label like that is often defined by the other side (good by bad, for example), rather than its own unique set of values. Take politics for instance, simply labeling a terrorist as ‘bad’, hardly speaks to the nuances of terrorism and I believe leads to an un-winnable war where a country tries to use hierarchical and rational techniques to fight an enemy who is subscribing to neither (they are organized in a non-linear fashion and motivated by faith).
Now onto my question. If you buy into what I’ve said so far then you believe digital technology has played a major part in the greying of the world. How then do you explain the the underlying code is binary? How did this pure duality lead to an age so rich in ambiguity?
Please help me out with this one.
October 30, 2006
Don’t mean to hang on the word tip for another entry, but this is something I’ve been thinking a lot about lately.
For a while we’ve been talking about what all these bloggers and companies are doing online as ‘filtering’: They are helping bring news I want to me without all the other stuff. In fact, that’s how I thought of myself, especially the sidenotes (for those that don’t visit the site, they’re on the homepage), which are just links to other places that I think are interesting. I’ve talked about it a fair amount in the past, even suggesting in an iMedia article that marketers need to become filters for consumers.
While I don’t deny the value in filtering, I’ve decided that from here on out I’ve got a new word.
Curation.
The word suggests I’m actively looking after what I put out there for you guys, rather than just passively filtering by something like title or category.
What’s really interesting to me about this idea is that I think it’s what separates humans from computers: In the future computers will filter and humans will curate. While the computer will help and be fairly accurate, it won’t know the audience well enough to recommend a far out story that doesn’t fit in the algorithm.
So, welcome to NoahBrier.com: Carefully Curated Since 2004
October 27, 2006
A few weeks ago I was having a conversation with my friend/coworker/all-around-swell-person Shana (link at her request) and she said something that that I’ve been repeating ever since: the most interesting people are the ones who have theories on things.
It’s just so true. We all know people who are finding connections in seemingly disconnected ideas and forming grand theories off them. They really are the most interesting; When they look at the world they see a bigger picture.
While I appreciated what Shana said, I didn’t give the idea the due it deserved until recently when I realized I had been repeating it to everyone I knew. It just kept popping up everywhere. (It was a slow boil/regurgitation/digestion/[insert term here].)
When it connected to this New York Times article on ‘The Starbucks Aesthetic’ I realized I had to write about the topic. Part of what makes people who have theories more interesting is that it shows they’re not afraid to say what they think. When you share your crazy theory you are invited people into your world, it’s a look at the way someone’s brain works that we seldom get. These people are more interesting because they’re not afraid to follow their own path.
I don’t think its a far stretch to want the same things out of brands. A company like Starbucks has developed a customer base who likes them for more than just their coffee. They appreciate things like the space, the way their treated and the fact they feel a little fancy ordering things in ‘venti’ with some kind of crazy milk and sugar combination. They see the brand as a reflection of themselves. The company treats its employees well, giving them healthcare and a fair amount of power to make decisions on an individual store level. In the end they’ve created a lifestyle brand that can extend past just coffee, as we’re seeing now.
As Howard Schultz explains in the article, “With the assets Starbucks has in terms of number of stores, and the trust we have with the brand, and the profile of our customers, we’re in a unique position to partner with creators of unique content to create an entertainment platform and an audience that’s unparalleled.”
A big part of the reason for that is Starbucks is not afraid to be a company with theories. They don’t need to appeal to everyone, but they’ve discovered there’s a plenty big market willing to spend $4 for a cup of coffee to make a pretty good living. They found their identity and ran with it.
Just think about all the brands out there unwilling to put themselves out there. In the coffee space Dunkin’ Donuts seems like their in the perfect position to claim the ‘anti-Starbucks’ badge. But instead of going all out and becoming the working-mans coffee shop they are trying to make their stores like Starbucks but appeal to the regular joe with ‘America runs on Dunkin”. Another great example is this spoof of what would happen if Microsoft designed the iPod packaging. Again, because they want to appeal to as wide an audience as possible they end up diluting the product beyond recognition.
A company like Starbucks doesn’t just serve coffee, they build experiences. It’s all very active.
For their customer, Starbucks is a curator of taste.
Not just coffee taste, either. They’re a trusted source who is only now beginning to explore just how far they can take what they’ve built. The beauty is it can extend almost infinitely as long as Starbucks maintains its unique taste and identity.
Think of it this way, you trust me in one way or another. If I recommended a book you might buy it. Then if you liked the book and said you’ve got to hear this band, you’d probably listen. As long as I continue to give you good recommendations my influence can extend beyond just my original area of concentration.
So why should companies be any different? Sure they’re trying to sell you something, but who cares? As long as you trust them and they keep delivering the goods doesn’t everyone win?
I think so.
October 25, 2006
I’ve got a couple posts brewing at the moment (one about amibguity and its relationship to binary code and another about The Starbucks Asthetic and theories on theories). Until I get a chance to write them, though, I’ve got a question.
I keep having this thing happen to me where I’ll read an article or someone will tell me something and I will appreciate it then, but not as fully as I should. Then, as time goes on, I’ll find myself quoting it constantly or applying the theory everywhere and I’ll have to go back and examine or reread a few months later.
Anyone have a word for this? I really need one.
If not, how about making one up?
October 25, 2006
David Armano was kind enough to invite me to a presentation he gave at Digitas about the success of his blog. It was fascinating to be in the audience for a presentation by a blogger to his company about how to build something organically. David had lots of interesting points, especially the idea that once you’ve experienced the kind of authenticity you do in this online world, it’s hard to go back to the bullshit of corporate communication.
One point I did take slight issue with was his depiction of how influence ripples in the blogosphere.
My question, which I also asked David, was whether what he was depicting was really influence or reach? What I was seeing was the sources with the largest reach spreading the widest. David’s response was quite thoughtful. He suggested that what he was showing was the combination of reach and influence: A rare occurrence that is the holy grail of media.
The issue I have is that the wonder of the internet to me is the ability to have low-reach, high-influence. In an old media world, such a thing is not overly scalable, but online its an efficient and very real occurrence.
While I don’t have the reach of the New York Times, for a small group of people on a small number of subjects, I am more influential (as scary as that may be). In the same way, I read the blogs of many people who are not widely read. Their ideas are what draw me to them, not the size of their audience.
As CK kept repeating, “it’s about deep, not wide.”
For someone like myself, there’s no incentive to trying to appeal to a broader audience. People come here for a very specific reason and if I tried to write on more general things I’d probably attract no one at all.
Before I conclude, let me address one last thing. The question that always comes up with blogs is “how do you monetize?”. I think the answer comes in the value of niche. “Imagine going into a room and asking everyone who’s visited Yahoo! to raise their hand. Everyone in the room would have their arm in the air I assume. Now ask who’s visited NoahBrier.com. Pretend one other person raises their hand. (Come on . . . use your imagination here!) The odds that you have something to talk about with that one other person in the room is far higher than you having something to talk about with everyone in the room.”
This is not a brand new idea, niche publications have been doing it for years. But now that the cost of entry has dropped so low, it’s awfully easy to enter a new niche and build an audience.
I guess what I’m saying is that a super-targeted audience who listens and thinks about what you say is the influence I want.
So thanks for being that.
PS David: Thanks so much for the invite, I really enjoyed the presentation and am in no way attacking you. Just bringing up some friendly debate.
October 19, 2006
This is an extra special likemind announcement: For the first time likemind will be in two cities on the same day. Both NY and SF likeminds will have a chance to sit around, drink coffee and chat with other interesting folks.
Background for those who haven’t been: Piers and I started it about four months ago as a way for likeminds to meet. There’s no structure or moderator, just a bunch of people chatting about whatever with whoever they want. Special thanks to Tad and Mark who will be playing the part of Piers and I in SF.
Without any further ado, here’s the info:
likemind.ny
when: friday, october 20 at 8am (EST)
where: sNice, 45 Eighth Avenue, at West 4th Street, NYC (GOOGLE MAPS)
likemind.sf
when: friday, october 20 at 8am (PST)
where: Cafe Madeline, 300 California Street, at Battery, SF (GOOGLE MAPS)
Once again, if you’re interested all you’ve got to do is show up. You can get more info and sign up to stay informed at likemind.us. I hope to see some of you there.
October 16, 2006
Maxim is not a magazine I frequently read, but I was given a copy recently and I opened it up today. Inside is an interview with Vannessa Minnillo who apparently is someone I’m supposed to know. What caught my attention in the interview was a question about privacy. Maxim asked Minnillo, “Do you miss your privacy?” To which she responded:
I don’t have a private life. People don’t realize how powerful the media is. It’s a beast. It’s there to build you up and take you down. It’s kind of bittersweet, you know. Like right now we’re doing an interview for a magazine that I love. You need to do press, but you don’t ask for it to take over your life. I understand that when I go to work, the paparazzi will be there. But I don’t understand why they need to be down my back when I go out of my apartment at midnight to get some ice cream. She went to Baskin Robbins and got two scoops of mint chocolate chip! Dunt dun duh!
That got me thinking, why not just hire your own press person and photographer to follow you around and document your entire life? You can then either post it all for free online for the newspapers and magazines to use or you might even be able to charge usage rights. By giving away all your privacy you get it back.
If all the information was out there for the public it would be hard for untrue stories to emerge. Anyone would be able to just log on and fact check. In theory, this would lead to fewer if any paparazzi following celebrities around because there would be no money to be made off the photos (remember, they’re all available for public and media use online).
Now the side effect of this might be that celebrities would get less coverage, which they claim they want. Problem is, attention is central to a celebrity’s success: The more of it they receive, the more of they are worth.
The flip side is that this information could be made available to the general public, allowing anyone to come along for the ride. Problem is, part of what makes celebrities such a hot topic is the exoticism. If everything was out there and easy to get to, it might make their life a lot less interesting. All of a sudden we’d realize that they have to go to the grocery store and wipe their kids ass instead of sitting around all day drinking Cristal.
So we’re back to square one.
Thanks to Noah for some thoughts.
October 15, 2006
It’s Friday and it’s been a while since I pumped you chock full of links. So how about it? (As usual in no order.)
- Techdirt announces the Techdirt Insight Community. “Companies sign up to engage the Techdirt Insight Community to raise issues, get feedback, test ideas, review products, make strategy suggestions, help with purchasing decisions or any number of other services that require a dedicated group of experts.” I really like ideas like this. Find a way to tap into your audience and provide a service that benefits all parties involved.
- PhotoJojo’s “How to Take a Photo a Day and See Your Life in a Whole New Way”. They even covered my one a day photos, saying, “In a more self-reflective variation, our pal Noah takes a photo a day using the webcam built into his MacBook.” In case you were wondering, those are the photos on the homepage.
- Bruce Schneir on “Screening People with Clearances”. Mostly about a specific security situation, but it also speaks to some larger issues: “Security is a trade-off. We don’t have infinite dollars to spend on security. We need to choose where to spend our money, and we’re best off if we spend it in ways that give us the most security for our dollar.”
- Aaron Swartz on “The Awfulness of College Lectures”. Having seen a fair amount of academic presentations lately, they’re not any better. I have so little patience for people that don’t care about the audience’s engagement level. Tell a story, bring the audience into your world. It’s not that foreign a concept.
- Avram Miller on Everything. This is from 1999, but it says a lot of what everyone else is talking about right now. Headings include “Deals are not about money.” “Goodbye, company. Hello value.” “Give up control. (Guess what? You already have.” and “Intuition rules.” There’s some pretty amazing wisdom in there.
- Scott Berkun on “Why innovation efforts fail”. Scott is working on a book on innovation and he’s pulled together some of the worst offenders for ruining innovation. In an effort to avoid complete negativity, though, he also includes innovation efforts that work.
- Susan Mernit on “What Google didn’t buy”. Mainly, the New York Times.
- TheGoogleCache on “Should I Make a Flash Site?” The best flowchart I’ve ever seen.
- “20 Smart Companies to Start Now”. Some business bigwigs (Howard Schultz, Steve Case, etc.) give up their venture ideas and offer up money to build their ideas.
- Sony’s ex-chairman on why Sony went down the tubes. “Mr Idei also cast doubt on whether it had ever been a good idea for Sony to get involved in Hollywood through its acquisition of Columbia pictures in 1989. ‘The mistake was to buy the company,’ he said.” Strong words.
- Finally, a question from abstract dynamics: “Why is it that anytime you read about the advertising or video game industry, both of which are massive profitable and pretty much icons of our culture, they always claim to be struggling? Are industries based upon rapid fire information inherantly less stable than ones based on selling material goods?” Anyone have any ideas?
That’s all for now minus one reminder: We’ve announced the next likemind.ny date for October 20. It’ll be at 8am again at sNice. All the info at likemind.us.
Have a good weekend.
October 13, 2006
In celebration of the other Noah being in New York City, we thought we’d throw what we were calling a Noahup (Noah + Meetup).
Plan is we go to a bar and invite everyone we know to come along and chill, because two Noahs are better than one.
So, the plan is this:
Date: Tuesday, October 17
Time: 7pm
Location: Dusk (147 W 24th St – Between 6th and 7th)
So if you feel like coming out and having a drink with 2 Noahs (and hopefully lots of other interesting people), come on over.
October 12, 2006
For a while now Piers has been asking people what inspires them. We were talking about it today and I had a few thoughts that felt worth sharing.
I can’t answer the inspiration question well because I’m inspired by almost everything. I read as much as I can and try to always keep my eyes and ears open. I spend every day trying to consume as much as possible with the sole purpose of filing in away for a rainy day. The other day I went to SFMOMA and was inspired by the card that went along with the Duchamp fountain. Today in a brainstorm I was inspired by the Powers of Ten video and this afternoon during a conversation I was inspired by a recent post by Scott Berkun titled “Why Innovation Efforts Fail”. For those keeping score, that’s one piece of art, one video and one blog entry.
Ultimately my belief is that anything can be inspiring. thoughtless acts is a book on intuitive design. It includes pictures of things like people tying a tea bag around the handle of a cup to keep it from falling in or a woman sticking a pencil in her hair. The message is that people are finding innovative solutions to problems all the time and, as a designer, all you need to do is open your eyes to be inspired by them.
So when I think about inspiration, I think about understanding that anything can be inspiration. Most of us grow up believing that learning must be boring. A teacher must stand in front of the class and teach at us or history must come through some incredibly dry textbook. That’s not true, though. We get so much more out of those times when we’re engaged in an activity. Look at the detective work people put into spoiling Survivor or the research they do to prepare for a fantasy football draft. By being engaged we are more inspirable.
I’ve mentioned it a ton of times around here, but I believe the most important lesson of the internet is as a metaphor for our brains. Both are networks. My take on inspiration is to try and feed my brain as much information as possible and then figure out how it connects when the time comes. Often the biggest innovations come from connecting the most seemingly distant ideas. In the end, though, the best I can do to work towards that is keep my senses open to all possibilities.
October 11, 2006
About three weeks ago I was at an event throw by David Berkowitz and the good people at 360i. Not surprisingly, one of the most impactful presentations of the day came from Google. It was on digital asset management and the basic crux was to forget about ‘campaigns.’ The idea is that on Google a lead is a lead. Doesn’t matter whether it comes in March or November, it’s still worth the same amount of money. Marketers should end the campaign mindset and just make all their assets digital and marketable all the time.
Obviously this is in Google’s best interest, but it also makes a lot of sense. As long as the system’s fairly efficient at weeding out non-lead clicks, then it should be no-brainer to run advertising all year long, especially if you’re a manufacturer who sells via the web.
Now for the issue: Companies still work on quarterly budgets. Thinking of working towards an indefinite ending is not really an idea many people understand. In this case, I ultimately see the structure of the organization as holding itself back from doing what’s best for the business.
Let me give one more example: Blogging. I was at OMMA a few weeks ago and during one of the talks an audience member asked who should own the company’s blog? I think it was Rohit Bhargava who said it should be whoever is most passionate. Blogs are an interesting problem for an organization. For one, they do not subscribe to the command and control ideology so many corporate communication departments use. Secondly, blogs cut across the silos. It’s a communication/product/sales/marketing initiative. That leads to ‘ownership’ questions.
Ultimately, digitalness is at the core of the whole debate. In an analog world, silos were mostly okay, information couldn’t really move across disciplines anyway. But in a digital world, where all information is made up of the same ones and zeros, those walls don’t work so well.
This is bigger than just business, look at terrorism: The perfect example of a networked architecture fighting a more traditional hierarchical one. Just ask the United States army and they’ll tell you it doesn’t work so well.
Look at schools. Here they are broadcasting at students used to engaging with media. The system simply wasn’t built to deal with a wired world and America’s children are suffering as a result.
Bottom line is we are living in a very different world than we did fifty years ago and structures built then are going to be forced to change.
October 9, 2006
Three months ago I wrote the most important thing I’ve written on this website (and maybe ever). Funny enough it was probably the shortest entry I ever wrote and definitely not the most insightful. It didn’t get any comments, either, but that doesn’t matter.
In fact, for the hell of it, here’s the entry in it’s entirety:
Lately I’ve had a desire to meet some people from the blog world in person. So, if you’re a reader of this blog and live or are visiting the NYC area, drop me a line and we’ll get coffee or a drink.
That’s all for now. Talk to you later.
50 words.
The lesson I learned from that entry is simple and something that will stick with me forever.
The only thing keeping you from meeting interesting people is you.
It’s pretty simple, really. Since that day I’ve been proactive. I’ve reached out to interesting people, inviting them to a coffee or something similar.
Out of that 50 word entry grew likemind, an idea much bigger than I could have ever imagined.
The bottom line is that there’s a world of people out there feeling exactly the same as you. They’re worried about looking odd or sounding like a stalker if they send an email to their favorite blogger/author/artist. But chances are, the person on the other end will be more honored than anything else to know someone is paying attention.
With that I’m adding the following line to my about page: If you want to chat or meet up sometime around New York City, please just send me an email. Don’t worry, I promise I won’t think you’re weird or anything like that. In fact, I do the same thing all the time.
I’m thinking maybe all people need to motivate them is reassurance that it’s okay to reach out.
October 9, 2006
By Noah Brier and Charles Gallant
Rock and roll is not music. How could it be? You’ve got a bunch of kids with shaggy hair playing instruments with no real musical knowledge. They don’t even know scales! Hell, most of them probably can’t read music! They’re making noise, not music.
Or so the story goes.
Now let’s try it from the design perspective:
The consequence of your design democracy is an ugly spectacle of deep purples and electric organges. It’s a culture of me-me-me: my hideously personalized car, my hideously personalized sofa, my hideously personalized house. If we care about maintaining an aesthetic of public space, design should be left to professionals. Let people pour their uniqueness inwardly — but don’t let them clutter up the physical world.
That’s straight out of Fast Company.
Pardon my French, but it all sounds like a bunch of elitist bullshit. Today everyone’s got access to the tools that before only a select few could play with. Anyone can be a designer, a musician or an astronaut.
That scares and angers professionals.
Think about it. How would you feel if you went through four years of intense musical training and the people getting the fame and money spent all that time smoking pot and drinking Jack Daniels.
There’s never been a time in history when it was easier to just hack something together. (I think that’s paraphrasing something Henry Jenkins said.) Calling design ‘bad’ or music ‘crappy’ is a subjective judgement. ‘Bad’ design can be good. Just look at the filmmakers behind lonelygirl15: When it was time to build a Myspace page for their faux-15-year-old they intentionally gave it a ‘Myspace’ look. They knew their context and built something that could really have been produced by a 15-year-old girl in her bedroom.
The design represents the content. It presents the content. It is the content. If I’m a 9-year-old with a ‘crappy’ website, my design will probably scream “A 9-year-Old made this!!!” What those pompous musicians/designers need to get over is that some people are actually looking for a 9-year-old’s content. They’d prefer a universe where people wanted things that looked pretty, but sometimes people just want something that ‘is what it is.’ Something accessible. Something that’s all there on the table. Easy to swallow.
Design is a communication tool. Getting your point across should always be the ultimate goal. Sure I can make comments on the how much something adheres to traditional design rules. But at the end of the day it sure sounds like a bunch of classically trained musicians with their tux stuck up their ass complaining about the kids and their rock and roll.
October 6, 2006
One of the cliches of advertising is that half of the money is wasted but no one knows which half. The line is always good for a chuckle at industry functions, but it’s not funny. What kind of industry is built on inefficiency that extreme?
I expect the 50 percent number is low. For all but consumer packaged goods, I bet it’s more like 90 percent (even that’s probably low). So how did this happen?
I’m going to try to answer that question with a story. The other day I was at OMMA listening to Chuck Porter speak. Of course, he talked about all the great work Crispin Porter + Bogusky had done for the likes of Volkswagen, Coca Cola and, of course, Burger King. For those that aren’t in the marketing industry, Crispin Porter is behind the famous Subservient Chicken. He talked about the tens of millions who came to the site and how long they stuck around, but the most telling detail was what he didn’t say. Porter never talked about the effect the campaign had on sales of chicken sandwiches at Burger King.
It’s possible that Subservient Chicken did effect sales and there seems to be some anecdotal evidence that it did. Clearly, however, the campaign didn’t move the needle enough to blow anyone away. Sure the site didn’t cost that much, but the bigger issue is that advertising is given a free pass on this kind of stuff. Rather than worrying about sales or customer satisfaction, agencies worry about things like awareness.
Clearly there are a lot of factors that lead to this, but I think the biggest is the misconception that more leads are better. It’s in an advertising agencies best interest to speak to as wide an audience as possible for two reasons: One, a lot of agencies are doing the media buying as well and the bigger the audience, the bigger the buy. The second reason is about results, it’s much easier to claim success when you’ve got ‘big’ numbers to back it up. We work in an industry where 10 million visitors sounds a lot better than 10,000, even if the latter happens to be extremely targeted.
An even bigger issue, though, is that marketing is focused on customer acquisition, not customer service. I know the reason for this, but it’s still a problem. The thing is, the best kind of ‘advertising’ is word of mouth. Why do you think advertising agencies don’t advertise?
Companies should be spending money on creating great experiences for their current customers. Take that $150,000 for a (cheap) commercial and buy yourself three more call center managers. Get marketing to write the manuals. Go above and beyond what people expect and they’ll do all the marketing you need.
Before I finish, let me leave you with a story I read over at Web Strategy by Jeremiah about a company called Steel Pixel. After writing on his blog about a friend’s bad experiences at Dreamhost, the Steel Pixel guys left this comment:
Jeremiah,
I am sorry to hear that your friend is having such a tough time with hosting. We (The Web 2.0 Show podcast guys) run a hosting business and we would like to invite both you an’d Andy to give it a try (two months free). We would like to also offer a 10% discount to all your blog readers, they can just use the discount code “switch” when they sign up.
We try to keep a very human feel to our hosting, we use IM and campfire to allow real time chat with customers. We don”t really spend money on advertising because we feel the dollars a customer spends with us should improve the services we provide them. We are very much a fan of “Creating passionate users” :) . You can read more on our ideas at our blog.
They can afford to that because they don’t need a huge audience to be successful, they run a fairly low-margin business and understand their target audience well enough to know that if they provide a great experience they’ll have their name passed around. Sure, every business can’t pull this off, but I think many could.
Just remember: It’s better to be efficient than extensive.
[Editor's Note: If the Steel Pixel guys read this, I'd love to hear about how your approach has worked thus far. I'd love to interview you if you wouldn't mind.]
Update (10/3/06): I’m not completely sure I agree with this whole piece anymore. I don’t think I presented advertising in a completely fair light. There is a whole other side that should be addressed about brand recognition, employee morale and investor relations that more traditional advertising can help with. After saying that, though, I still believe that it’s possible to build a profitible business by means other than advertising. It may not be a billion dollar business, but it could be a million dollar one.
October 1, 2006
The other night I went to see Henry Jenkins and Steven Johnson talk. At some point they started talking about Wikipedia and Jenkins said something that sparked a thought so obvious I can’t believe I’ve never had it.
There are a bunch of Wikipedians just going around cleaning up messes, Jenkins explained. He specifically told the story of Stephen Colbert telling his television audience to change the Wikipedia entry on elephants to say that the number in Africa had tripled over the last few years. The thing is, when the huge audience came onto the site looking to make some trouble, the Wikipedians were there, waiting to change it back. Jenkins explained that there are lots of people who just go to Wikipedia in their free time, check the latest changes and make sure that none of them are vandalism. They are keeping their community clean.
That’s when it struck me.
Why are we trying so hard to figure out what motivates people to keep their communities clean?
No one ever asks why you don’t leave old spaghetti in the middle of your floor. Have you ever heard someone wonder what your motivation was for throwing away empty cups sitting on the lunch tables at your office? No and no. These are just things we do because we care about the community. Of course we don’t want to live in a place with spaghetti on the floor and trash on the tables.
So maybe we’ve all been going about this all wrong. Maybe it’s not about fame, attention, money, power or any of the other things we’ve been talking about. Maybe it’s just about community and hygiene.
This is my personal site. I keep it tidy in the same way I try to keep my own body clean. I can’t imagine it any other way.
A lot of people devalue online communities, saying they’re not real. That is wrong. They are real. Obviously people can’t live without physical contact, but to say that the relationships I’ve formed through this site are somehow less real than the relationships that have started in the physical world is a silly argument. Anyone who lives part of their lives in online communities knows the truth.
And they know sometimes they just do things to keep their community a clean and happy place to be.
September 28, 2006
So privacy’s dead. What now?
Control. It’s time for us to take it back.
Everyone is spying on us, so why shouldn’t we start spying on ourselves? At least that way we can use that data to our own ends.
last.fm gives you recommendations based on your musical tastes. Google is recording your searches with the eventual goal of giving you your own search engine. By making your bookmarks public, del.icio.us makes them a lot more powerful. These are all attention based systems that give us value through exposure.
But you want to know the most powerful attention system out there?
Let me give you a hint: You’re looking at it. Nothing paints a better picture of my identity and the things I pay attention to than my blog.
While there are dangers in exposing myself to the world, I’ve made the decision that the benefits are even bigger:
- I control my identity. Search for Noah Brier on Google and I’m number one. That means when someone’s looking for me they find the me that I want them to see. That’s big.
- I connect with likeminds. I wouldn’t have met all the great people I’ve met in the last 6 months had it not been for my willingness to expose myself and my thoughts to the world. The possibilities of these relationships are endless.
- I create searchable thoughts. I know for a fact that I use the search box on this site more than the rest of you combined. Since I wrote everything, I’m able to go back and dig up something I was thinking about 6 months ago. Sure, Google’s search might be powerful for the masses, but it can’t shake a stick at my own search for me.
Bottom line is this: Instead of false privacy I’ve chosen controlled exposure. And you know what? I’m having a damn good time with it.
September 27, 2006
Hi all, just a quick head’s up that I will be in San Francisco next week from Wednesday to Saturday morning. If you’re around the area and would like to try to meet up for a bit, drop me a line or a comment.
In other news, if you want to subscribe to NoahBrier.com by email, you can now do that. Just drop your email in the little form on the homepage (below the Sidenotes) and you’ll get an email the morning after I post something. It’s pretty handy if I do say so myself.
September 27, 2006
Thought this was too cool not to share with everyone. One Wednesday night in NYC Henry Jenkins and Steven Johnson are going to be having a conversation at the Museum of the Moving Image. Here’s the writeup from the site:
Henry Jenkins, author of the new book Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide (NYU Press), and Steven Johnson (Everything Bad is Good for You), two of the nation’s most incisive cultural critics, will discuss the ground-shifting and often surprising ways in which audiences are participating in the creation, distribution, and consumption of media in the digital age, and the effects of these developments on entertainment and learning. The program will be followed by a reception and book signing. Tickets: $10 public/$7.50 for students with ID/Free for Museum members, call to RSVP. Buy Tickets Online
While I haven’t finished reading Convergence Culture yet, I have been reading Henry Jenkins’ blog and can attest to the fact that he’s a brilliant media theorist. Steven Johnson is probably my favorite author in the whole world and the person I most with my brain worked like.
In addition if you’re interested, PSFK has (or had) three sets of tickets to give away (can’t promise they’re still there, but it’s worth a shot).
Anyhow, if you’re going to be there drop me a line and if anyone has any other cool events going on around NYC (or anywhere else) in the coming weeks, please leave them in the comments.
Before I go, here’s the info in digest form:
Convergence Culture: A Conversation with Henry Jenkins and Steven Johnson
Wednesday, September 27, 7:00 p.m.
Museum of the Moving Image
35 Avenue at 36 Street
Astoria, NY 11106
DIRECTIONS
September 26, 2006
Yesterday morning I realized something that had been floating around in my mind for a while: Niche choices provide a whole lot more insight than mass ones.
I was playing with last.fm’s similar artist radio. The basic premise is you put in an artist name and it plays you comparable music based on the data they’ve collected from users. Thing is, the similar artist player spits back terrible results if you put in an artist like Coldplay. That’s because for a band that popular, similarities in people’s other tastes don’t necessarily mean similar sound. The pool is too diluted.
That makes perfect sense logically, but for whatever reason yesterday morning it struck me as incredibly important. When I put in the Guther, the system returned some very accurate similarities as well as some interesting, but good, deviations. That’s because for an artist like Guther, who very few people listen to, the other artists people listen to are more meaningful.
None of this is to take anything away from popular bands like Coldplay, I actually like them quite a bit. Instead, it’s just to make the point that when a person makes a conscious decision to consume something niche it says much more about their taste than a mass artist/movie/etc.
Let’s try it another way: Imagine going into a room and asking everyone who’s visited Yahoo! to raise their hand. Everyone in the room would have their arm in the air I assume. Now ask who’s visited NoahBrier.com. Pretend one other person raises their hand. (Come on . . . use your imagination here!) The odds that you have something to talk about with that one other person in the room is far higher than you having something to talk about with everyone in the room.
I think this explains two important pieces of this 2.0volution, specifically as it moves outwards towards the general, more diverse, public:
- The best recommendations come from niche choices.
- In order to compare niche choices effectively you must have scale.
What’s scary about that statement, is that it seems like as soon as these things go mass they will no longer be useful. That may be true for something like ‘similar artist radio’ for Coldplay. However, what a system like last.fm can do to get over that issue is look at your entire library and compare from there. Thus their other feature, ‘recommendation radio’, is even better. By looking at everything you listen to and comparing it to everything everyone else listens to, you get some pretty insightful picks.
None of this is new, Amazon’s been doing it for years with their ‘people who bought this bought that,’ but it’s still a really big deal.
September 25, 2006
It’s been awhile since I did one of these roundups, and since I don’t really have anything better to talk about at the moment . . .
- Gary Stein on lonelygirl15: “Online personality is a shifting, strange thing and we should not be surprised that any person we encounter is real, fake or somewhere in between.”
- Warner Brothers egineers filed for a patent on a triple-standard DVD. It will have Blu-ray and HD-DVD on one side and standard DVD on the other. Imagine that, a company working in the consumer’s favor. Revolutionary!
- USA Today on ‘friending’: “But Valerie, who has 1,327 friends, says she will sometimes ignore list length for the right reasons. If she encounters someone with ‘only 12 or 20 friends, but they seem like a cool person, I’ll start a conversation with them, and I will still treat them like someone who had a thousand friends or something. They could’ve just started their site, too.’” So kind . . .
- One of my favorite new blogs, Logic+Emotion on life 2.0: “Life 2.0 is about discovering our purpose through finding each otherâ€â€and ourselves.” It’s all about connectedness . . .
- Facebook is worth more than Antigua and Barbuda. But Facebook doesn’t have white-sand beaches.
- “Marketers know about consumers, consumers know about marketers, marketers know consumers know about marketers, and consumers know marketers know consumers know about marketers.”
- Chartreuse brilliantly breaks down Paris Hilton’s fame, gets Dugg in the process. The big takeaway: “What makes Paris brilliant is that she used the attention she had and gave it to others thereby garning more attention for herself. And it’s been profitable.”
- Ad agencies are being threatened by regular people’s creativity. I see this as an opportunity, but that’s another post . . .
- Get a new passport before it’s got an RFID embedded.
- I blog therefore I am?
- Another great Logic+Emotion post, this one’s about staying in the lines: “What if someone told Steve Jobs to ‘stay in the lines’, or what if Thomas Edison never tried coloring outside of a line, just to see what would happen? What about that person at Motorola who thought the world was ready for a unusually thin and stylish phone? What if that individual just ‘stayed in the lines’?”
- The male body image is under assault.
And last but not least, here’s a video for everyone’s enjoyment. My friend Max Kalehoff is doing a videoblog where he interviews lots of smart people on engagement. The name, appropriately enough is Engagement By Engagement. Despite the high standards for participants, Max thought it suitable to interview me. However I would suggest clicking over to the site and watching some people far more intelligent than I talking about the subject (including my friend David Berkowitz). Oh, and just one note, Max actually made me button up an extra shirt button before going on camera . . . just in case you were wondering.
With that said . . .
LINK TO VIDEO
That’s it. Hope to see people at likemind.ny on Friday morning . . . Have a good weekend!
September 22, 2006
Hi, I'm 
![drinking Jack Daniels](http://blogs.prisacom.com/rollingstone/wp-content/subidas/Slash.jpg"){kind=link}