Not Yet Ready for Prime Time

Still unable to write a proper blog entry . . .

I hate to do it again (not really) but here's another quick bites edition since I don't know that I've got a full entry in me (I still have a bit of vacation hangover).

• I ran into Johnny Vulkan of Anomaly fame this morning outside the Apple Store. He's first in line in Soho for the iPhone and he's doing it in support keepachildalive.org. I asked him to send me an email explaining it. Here's what he had to say: "We're doing it for Keep a Child Alive, an amazing organization that provides aids drugs for kids in Africa. The iPhone will be a great product for connecting people but as we wait to enjoy them on Friday its good to remember we already connected to people all over the planet and we can all do our bit to help. eBay auction for the phone will start friday and we hope Alicia Keys will present it to the winner. We're also selling space on our t-shirts for sponsors - $500 minimum. In the meantime please donate at www.keepachildalive.org" (Update (6/26/07): Johnny posted some more info over at Flickr.)
• I was watching kids play in the park this weekend and they just copy what one another do. It was at that point I realized we never really mature past three, we just get slightly better at hiding (or justifying) the fact that we're copying the kid in front of us.
• Checked out the Shepard Fairey show in Brooklyn this weekend. It was good stuff. It's in DUMBO until July 21. If you don't know Shepard Fairey or Obey Giant, the first article I ever had published just happened to be all about it.
• I tried to use a pay phone this weekend. I was on a run and didn't have my cell on me. Did anyone know it now costs $.25 a minute to make a long distance call with a four minute minimum? How crazy is that. It got me thinking that while everyone credits cell phones for the demise of pay phones, it also probably has a bit to do with the rise of long distance numbers as a result of cell phones. I know lots of people who live in New York and have area codes from all over the place.
• While writing that I just searched my site and found these two old articles I bookmarked from the New York Times: Area Codes, Now Divorced From Their Areas (October, 2004) and Area Code, Sweet Area Code (February, 2006)
• I think I finally made it through that article I was writing, but there's a full blog post about how difficult it was. My final realization was that I was no longer using writing in the way that media outlets do. Writing has become an act of thinking for me and the idea of starting with a conclusion and working backwards feels a lot like work (specifically schoolwork).
• I recently read or heard the best description of geek I've ever heard: A geek is a self-aware nerd.
• Last, but not least, danah boyd's essay on class divisions through Facebook and MySpace has been getting a lot of play recently. I've yet to read it, but I found it very interesting when Umair from Bubblegeneration argued against it, suggesting the essay is "shallow, simplistic, and almost insulting stuff." Now I haven't read it yet, so I can't really comment, but this screams of one of Paul Graham's "offensive ideas". Everyone seems to be agreeing on Boyd's thesis and there's one voice of dissent that makes people slightly uncomfortable because it says, "She almost sounds as if she pities Myspace kids." Not saying Umair is right, just that it's worth thinking about . . .

I think that's it.

Leave a Comment

Friday Funday

It's Friday afternoon and almost time for happy hour.

First off, a quick reminder that happy hour is happening tonight. Here are the details:

Where: Sweet & Vicious, 5 Spring Street (off Elizebeth)
When: Friday, June 22nd at 6pm until whenever

Second, I've got something awesome to share. While I was away flash ninja, internet genius and all around cool dude Charles Gallant wrote an entry all about inspiration. Using his crazy ninja skills he put a form in the entry and asked everyone to post a link of inspiration which he promised to compile in some awesome way later.

Well, that awesome way has arrived . . . .

Check out www.noahbrier.com/inspiration and see what other people are inspired by. If you didn't get a chance to add your own inspiration the first time, Charles has been kind enough to put the form right into the flash. It's awesome.

I think that's all. Have a great weekend and hope to see many of you tonight.

Leave a Comment

No Rhyme or Reasons

A bunch of random ideas, links, etc.

Okay, life is a little nuts as I try to get back into the swing of things, so I'm just going to offer up some quick bite things I've been thinking about/reading. Hope that's cool.

• First off, a reminder about happy hour this Friday, have 10 hosts but would love more. Again, it's at 6pm until whenever at Sweet & Vicious, 5 Spring Street (off Elizebeth).
• I've been using Twitter more and more. Two observations: One, it's great for our office because it allows us all to keep up with what each other are up to and two, it is the perfect way to keep people informed of what you're up to while you're away. Twittering while in Israel saved me a lot of money in phone calls.
• There was a lot of instant coffee in Israel . . . that's gross.
• This is probably a full entry, but one of the fascinating things about my trip was thinking about the way required army service shapes Israeli society. At 18 every citizen joins the military. Unlike college, it's not a choice where you go or who you're with. This not only matures young people quite quickly, but it also forces them to learn to deal with people who are different from them. Whether we like to admit it or not, in America we tend to go to college with people like ourselves.
• Grant is almost always on a roll, but I've especially enjoyed his last few posts. Reinventing the conference, blogger and new media style and The World is Sorting are both serious insights into today's postmodern world.
• Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. That is an actual sentence. (Thanks Charles.)
• Like everyone else, I've been playing a lot with Facebook lately. I don't have anything particularly insightful to add yet, but I'll work on it.
• Did you know you can wash a keyboard in the dishwasher?
• While I was sitting on the plane home from Israel someone asked me if he could trade seats with me. I had the aisle seat and next to me were two of his friends. When I asked him if he had an aisle seat he said no, he was in the middle. I wasn't willing to trade an aisle seat on an 11-hour flight for a middle seat. However, I might have been willing if he threw in like $30. That gave me the idea that during boarding flights should allow you to auction off your seat. If they used the little TV and you could put your seat up for a price it might be interesting. No idea if this would actually work, but it's a fun idea.
• I'm trying to write an article for a magazine right now and I'm realizing how hard it is after blogging for a while. Because I can't use hyperlinks to give people credit I just keep thinking that I'm pretending to have come up with other people's ideas. I don't like that. Blogging seems much more honest.

I think that's it for now.

Leave a Comment

Catch Up (and Friday Happy Hour)

Just got back yesterday morning . . .

Okay, so I'm back. Have lots to talk about, but just wanted to tie up a few loose ends with a quick post before I dig back into blogging for real.

First off, huge huge huge thank you to all my guest bloggers. I can't tell you how it felt to have such incredibly brilliant people writing on my site while I was away. I can't imagine it's possible to have left it in better hands. Tad, Todd, Erik, Charles, Steve and Andrew you are all amazing! When I get settled I plan on responding to each post.

Second, since I have been out of town for a while I've decided to do a little happy hour this Friday, July 22nd. Here are the details:

Where: Sweet & Vicious, 5 Spring Street (off Elizebeth)
When: Friday, June 22nd at 6pm until whenever

What I'd love is to for everyone to host with me. So, if you're in NYC why don't you make it your happy hour as well. Just leave a comment with your name and I'll add it to the list of hosts. Then invite everyone you know and we'll make it a party. Sound cool?

Hosts

Noah
Johanna
Charles
Nicholas
Chet
Michael
Joey
Grant
Eric
David Castillo

I think that's it. Happy to be home. Will give you all the full Israel rundown soon.

Leave a Comment

What is your W2SAT* score? (*Web 2.0 Startup Aptitude Test)

Do you have the knowledge and skillset to found a Web 2.0 consumer internet site? Take the W2SAT (Web 2.0 Startup Aptitude Test) to find our your strengths and weaknesses.

Guest blog by Andrew Chen, who also writes at Futuristic Play.

Are you a Web 2.0 startup founder? Many of the skills required to make a "typical" Web 2.0 company are becoming more and more well-defined. So let's talk about what it takes, and rate your skillset and knowledge.

Read on if:

1. You are building a consumer-facing site that...
2. ... acquires users virally and...
3. ... is free to use, and ...
4. ... makes money through advertising.

With that in mind, I present the W2SAT - the Web 2.0 Startup Aptitude Test - a collection of rough questions about the consumer internet space - it should help you identify the areas you know really well, and the abilities you might want to develop further. This test is really for potential founders of Web 2.0 startups, and is not a general knowledge test for how often you read Techcrunch :)

One caveat: This test is for fun :) And in fact, even if you have a low score in areas, the real test is how well you adapt and learn.

With those excuses in place, please answer the following questions:

The Web 2.0 Startup Aptitude Test

• Do you build websites and/or write code?
• Have you gone through a full cycle of creating and shipping a product?
• Do you know how to launch a simple, core experience in less than a month?
• Are you exposed to new company ideas every day through blogs, people, etc.?
• Have you interviewed users and/or conducted usability tests to iterate on concepts?

• Have you bought users through advertising before?
• Do you know how to optimize signup landing pages?
• Do you have the relationships to get your company into major blogs and publications?
• Have you employed organic user acquisition tactics successfully? (viral/SEO/etc.)
• Do you know what metrics to use to measure retention, stickiness, viral, etc?

• Have you used AdSense/YPN/etc to monetize a site?
• Do you know the difference between CPM, CPC, and CPA?
• When you have a free+subscriptions model, do you know a typical subscription %?
• Do you know the typical CPM for social media sites?
• Have you ever sold a sponsorship deal to another company?

• Have you ever incorporated a company?
• Do you have a mentor that has already done what you aim to do?
• Have you sold or partnered with another business before?
• Have you ever interviewed, hired, or managed people?
• Have you ever persuaded anyone to invest in a company?

Great! Keeping track?

So where are you?

• 0-4 points: You might be great in one area, or be an early generalist - try to learn faster!
• 5-9 points: You might be a first-time entrepreneur - here's a great opportunity to partner with someone with complementary strengths
• 10-14 points: Awesome sweet spot - you know what you know, and also know what you don't know. You'd be a great co-founder or early employee. Email me! (voodoo [at] gmail [dot] com)
• 15+ points: Stop reading this blog, you aren't learning anything :)

Again, wherever you are, it's a starting point. In particular, it's a good way to learn what you are good at, and potentially find someone else who is good at the other stuff.

What profile are you?
Let's do some analysis. There are a couple typical profiles of people out there that you might fit in:

Independent consultant/designer/programmer:
If you're a independent player, you are probably quite good on managing your own little small business building products, so you'll be strong on part 1 and 4. Sometimes you won't have to worry about getting users or making money through ads, since you're not working on your own products, so 2 and 3 will be weaker.

People with big company resumes:
Big company folks might be great at products, managing overhead, and making money, but because they are tapping into existing cash cows, the actual traffic acquisition process can be difficult. So part 1 might be pretty good (although somewhat overspecialized or abstracted), part 2 will be pretty weak, and part 3 and 4 might be reasonably good.

MBAs with banking/consulting backgrounds:
Without operational experience, a "pure" business guy might have a hard time. In particular, although they might have great relationships, be very polished, and be good at business development, the other skills can be lacking. So typically part 1 and 2 might be pretty weak, with making money possibly higher, and part 4 the highest.

Typical startup employees:
Depending on the stage of the startup, an employee at an early company might be pretty balanced across all 4 parts. The reason is that they see a little bit of everything, which is great. This is probably the best training to do your own startup, IMHO.

Students and future entreprenurs
In the case of people who are still learning, the only thing you might have a great grasp on it part 1. You might be building a lot of useful things, and/or reading a ton of blogs, but without thinking too much about distribution and the business side of things. This is a GREAT start, and if you have enough years ahead of you, it'll be a short while before you master all the other skills.

Thanks!
If you've read this far, thank you! :) And thanks to Noah for inviting me to write a blog. If you want to reach out to me, feel free to write me at voodoo [at] gmail [dot] com. I also have a blog at http://andrewchen.typepad.com.

About Andrew Chen
Andrew Chen is an Entrepreneur-in-Residence at MDV pursuing initiatives in advertising and digital media for the firm.

Andrew holds a B.S. in Applied Mathematics from the University of Washington, where he matriculated at the age of 14. He writes a blog at http://andrewchen.typepad.com.

Leave a Comment

A Vision for the Future of Media Distribution

In this altered universe I've imagined, consumers will have ultimate reign, and artists will have way more freedom - no wonder corporations hate the future.

The other day I noticed a sign in Blockbuster's window, announcing an exclusive agreement with The Weinstein Co. I work in the media business and honestly don't know anyone who's compelled to watch a film because The Weinstein Co., or Universal, or any other studio made it. But that's not the main point of this story.

The implications of Blockbuster paying for exclusivity made me think about where the media industry is, and where it “would� go if I were king of the media universe. The first thought was that when Blockbuster gets content creators to sign exclusive agreements, they show a lack of appreciation for who their primary competition is, and worse yet what their customers' expectations are. Customers don't pay Blockbuster for their ability to curate films, they pay HBO for that. Now that Blockbuster is a completely subscription based business, competing on offering may help to fight with Netflix in a winner-takes-all game, but in the big picture, they're only helping their primary competition: free file sharing services on the web.

File sharing services don't care about exclusive agreements, and neither do customers; until it keeps them from accessing media via their chosen distributor. Everything is available on-demand on the web, no matter where you are in the world. So as a customer considering an incomplete offering from both Blockbuster AND Netflix, what would compel me to pay either, or both of them if I can get it all for free, more quickly, online? While I could recommend ways for Blockbuster and Netflix to fix their businesses, they're going to die anyway... so here's what I see coming down the pike once those two (among many others) are out of the way.

I see a future where portals will offer access to every piece of media ever created (and by media I mean everything: from TV shows & films, to video games, music, books, magazines, poems, paintings, etc...). Furthermore, no portal will have exclusive offerings (similar to Internet portals), and there will be minimal barrier to entry (contrasted with the NFL Network's problems). The business model has two fronts, one facing the consumer, and one facing the content creator.

The consumer facing model is based on the fact that every person has “x� number of minutes per day/week/month to spend consuming various forms of media. There is a dollar figure actuaries can determine those minutes are worth both to the portal and to the customer. Quickly a rate plan very similar to tiered cellphone plans will emerge. All the media you can consume in “x� number of minutes per month, for “x� dollars per month.

The content creator facing model will include paying each content creator a fixed amount per unit of time each unique customer spent consuming the media that content creator made available. The kid who took a picture of himself every day for several years & made a film with those pictures deserves the same amount of money per unit of time spent watching his film as did the creators of Spiderman. Why? Because you can't watch both at the same time, and you have a finite amount of time per month to consume anything.

This type of model will take the curating role out of distributors' hands, and leave it in the hands of the artists and their investors. The portals (formerly distributors) will no longer compete on content offering, but on services related to the searching for and interacting with the content. One example is re-inventing the idea of product placement. It won't be about “hoping� your audience noticed everyone in a show only drank Coke. It will be about making a pair of jeans, or a car that's seen on-screen an interactive object that a viewer can click & buy.

Note: I don't assume that the portals will only be accessible on your computer – the computer and the TV will, at this point be minimally different screens to access the same media. But hardware is the final element in this plan: creating tools for consumers to interact with media. Apple is WAY ahead of the curve on this front. With the advent of iTunes, they're not only acting as a portal, but with iPods, and AppleTV they're also offering the hardware and a “whole-product�. Software is relatively easy to develop & roll-out to market, hardware is much more difficult, and anyone who wants into this game had better start partnering with hardware manufacturers, if not buy one or two.

In this altered universe I've imagined, consumers will have ultimate reign, and artists will have way more freedom. The portals will at once offer two-way access from content creators to the smallest niche audiences, and the largest mass-markets. There will no longer be a studio boss, or book publisher who instructs an artist to change their art in order to distribute it. If an artist can afford to make something on their own, they can, and won't need a distributor to reach their desired market. Artists will be free to display their work, and get paid fairly for it. The most successful artists will be picked by mass appeal, rather than by “payola� systems which enable the distribution companies to shove whatever they want down our throats.

Let me know what you guys think!

-
Steve

Leave a Comment

Inspiration

It's Awesome

Hi. This is Charles. I'd like to talk a little bit about inspiration.

Those of you who know Noah know that he's a pretty inspiring guy. In fact, he writes about being inspired all the time. Today, I've thought of a way to give back to the thoughts and ideas that this site has curated over the years, and spread a little love along the way.

I've put together a simple form below. All it asks for is your name and an inspiring link. To extend any potential conversations, you can add your URL too (if you have one). In a few days this can turn into something really great, so stay tuned!

...and that's it. End of post. Take all that time you set aside for reading something lengthy, and use it to track down that piece of inspiration that's going to make someone's day. Here's mine.

Leave a Comment

Open Questions About Openness

Some questions from the head of a non-marketer for a change.

I am a long-time reader of noahbrier.com, first-time poster. I am not a marketing person, though I do keep up with this blog and the insightful discussions on it, and so struggled a little with what I could write on this blog that would be in keeping with its spirit.

So instead of a tutorial on how to split a check in NYC or a rant about the un-discussed dangers to the American republic, I would like, with the indulgence of the readership, to posit a few questions of balance.

When is it good and right to ignore the feedback and the wishes of your Consumer?

I followed the unveiling of the current generation of video game consoles quite closely. Every time a new feature of the Wii (which at that point was called the Nintendo Revolution) was revealed, be it the motion sensing or the cost-reducing-but-graphically-unimpressive CPU or the name change, video game websites exploded with negative comments. Bloggers excoriated Nintendo, petitions were started, and it was declared Nintendo would soon be out of the hardware business; the community by and large decried Nintendo for ignoring the consumer.

Snakes on a Plane was very receptive to the suggestions it received from what studio executives must have assumed was a large cult following. It was largely a movie by internet committee.

The Wii is selling as fast as Nintendo can produce units; SoaP was a fun meme (for a while) but somewhat of a financial disappointment.

One letter to a company is supposed to equal the opinion of several dozen people. I doubt internet communications (e.g. email, blogs, forums), with their immediacy and effortlessness, carry that same weight. Everyone may have a voice on the internet, but with the lack of physical presence and anonymity, it is easy for one very vocal and dedicated person to look like 50. And there are bad ideas out there. Somebody liked New Coke.

When should a company decide that they know what their consumer wants better that the consumer themselves?

How do you reconcile specialization with cross-discipline applications or analogs in learning (in a way that is not shallow)?

I am a huge fan of applying approaches, ideas, and theories from one discipline to another. I am delighted when connections are made between seemingly disparate fields. However, I feel I often run into ideas from science and math that are taken out of context, applied incorrectly, or used to draw fallacious conclusions. Science and math are subjects I am familiar with; I don’t doubt it is similar with other fields.

It is very easy to misunderstand an idea based on a shallow treatment. A condensed-AP-article version of a theory, idea, or approach to a problem is asking for misappropriation (on a side note I have found that shallow articles are my frustration as of late with Wired). Then there is the difference between understanding an idea and being able to apply it. Only with application are you going to knock down some bodies.

Is the answer for someone with a wide knowledge base to “manage� people with rich, specialized knowledge bases? Or is it to grab someone versed in a particular field whenever you run into an obstacle? Outsourcing a new idea seems like a recipe for miscommunication, for a beast you did not intend to create, but then maybe something good comes of that as well.

I see many wonderful musings concerning disciplinary cross-pollination. Are these ideas only useful as metaphors and similes? If not, how do we get these ideas out of the ether?

How do you make sure you are not promoting revolution for revolution’s sake?

I suppose a reformulation of this question would be, “How do you make sure that you are not trying to restructure your industry based on a fad?� There is something romantic and exciting about a call for drastic change, but does a company need to, or even should it, adapt to the latest whim of the internet? It’s hard to be nimble with a legal department.

When I entered undergrad our rather prestigious architecture school had just lost many of the original thinkers who made it so prestigious. The remaining professors were left trying to replicate the magic. A friend told me of one day in class, when a professor looked at a student’s model and scolded, “Be avant-garde!� Ponder how ridiculous that is for a minute, to have this oxymoronic cannon. I am always reminded of this story when I hear about a company planning a viral campaign.

I like openness, but do we really want to see how the sausage is made?

Really?

Though I did pontificate and was vague, I meant these as actual questions, and I would love to hear this community’s thoughts.

I will work on brevity and re-read my Strunk and White. Also, you may have noticed that I am the only guest poster without a web sight, so in closing, ERIK DIES, ERIK DIES, ERIK DIES, ERIK DIES, ERIK DIES. There. Now when I google my name maybe something other that an obituary will pop up…

Leave a Comment

Paris, David Blaine and How Far We Have to Go

It's a bit intimidating/humbling to be going for this walk in Young Noah's shoes - but as he checks in on his ancestors I'll see if I can't move the ball the least bit forward. I was mulling over what to discuss in the past few days and the one thing that has been driving me absolute batshit crazy is the David Blaine NBA ads which point out a series of problems with how corporate marketers deliver messages, and then the Paris Hilton nonsense (I live in LA so it is necessary for me to dabble in the booming craft of celebutantistm). And in the end they both speak to the same thing - which are opposite sides of the same coin - where marketers are and where consumers are and how on Earth we, as digital pros need to take heed of that if we are to bridge that gap.

But first my bit of vitriol for the genius behind the David Blaine playoff ads.

First there's the astonishing bit of me-tooism that is so obvious as to be painful. You can see the marketing meeting that took place after those brilliant Don Cheadle NFL Playoff ads aired, which began in 2002.

MARKETING DIRECTOR OF THE NFL: Did you see those ads? Did you? We need something like that.

MARKETING MANAGER OF THE NFL: On it.

Cut to some FIVE YEARS LATER (even Cheadle's later efforts of doing the NFL Ads failed to live up to his earlier brilliance) and we get David F'ing Blaine, delivering some crap message about Magic in the most tired, lame-ass monotone voice it calls to mind Tex Avery's wondrous creation Droopy. And this is important for a few reasons, the NBA ads have featured stars that that were no longer in the playoffs which when you're trying to entice viewers isn't necessarily the best strategy. The guy they select to do his best Don Cheadle, the guy they decide to give mass dollars to is David Blaine, who is so over as to not even really merit the blog inches I'm giving him. And third it shows the NBA's inability to capitalize on what was fresh in the Playoffs which was Baron Davis of the Golden State Warriors and for the moment - King James.

So point the first - the corporate marketer can be SLOW, LATE and OUT OF TOUCH.

Now Paris. Believe me I don't really deal with the Hilton bit too much. I once was in a bar with her and her sister Nikki at about the time her 15 minutes began and I literally felt my brain being sucked out of my head. But it doesn't matter what I think, it doesn't matter what you think- Paris coverage is off-the-hook. The madness outside of her home when she was under house-arrest for the day was a media orgy totally out-of-sync with the actual course of events. (A young woman got a DUI and then violated her probation). A panel was convened to discuss the whole matter on Larry King Live, and the news of her court date and re-incarceration were trumpeted on news crawls. And what does this say about our culture - that Paris is where it's at. The nexis of Celebrity, Money, Fame with not simply very little but actually ZERO substance behind it.

So here we have the very nearly opposite of the corporate marketer. The consumer is hyper-aware mercurial, and wholly interested in flash for flash' sake.

It's not quite as tidy an equation as I'd like but this is blogging so forgive if it is not perfectly thought out. We as professionals interested in delivering messages that resonate sit squarely in the middle - it is our challenge to get the marketer up to speed and not creating me-too campaigns 5 years too late and to interest the consumer in more than the pretty pictures and the viral vid du jour but something with a little teeth behind it.

The first bit - dealing with the client is the easier of the two, but ignoring where their head is at while we blog, twitter, and flickr ourselves to death would be unwise.

And the second bit, the Paris thing, is more a state-of-the union in that her incarceration really is what the peeps seem to be fixated on. How do you deliver a message of any heft when the person you're talking to has shown themselves either constitutionally incapable or philosophically disinclined?

-Todd

Leave a Comment

Closing the Loop

Marketing needs to make that final connection.

Noah asked me to write a few thoughts on marketing while he’s off gallivanting around Israel. So I thought I’d ask if anyone else is getting a bit disillusioned with all this talk about marketers “creating dialogue� and “sparking conversation� with consumers. Don’t get me wrong, I totally believe in brand dialogue, but I think a lot of folks are focusing their energy in the wrong place.

To me, the challenge isn’t about sparking a dialogue; it’s about closing the loop on the conversation. Marketers and agencies are actually really good at creating sparks. Let’s face it, a decent ad is all about generating interest. People have been telling their friends, “I saw this great ad last night…� for decades.

A company’s communication is really just the first pitch of the ballgame. The problem is that no one wants to throw the ball back. And you can’t really blame consumers. When was the last time you got an email from a company that said “Do not reply to this address� at the bottom of it? It’s hard to start a conversation if the other party openly admits that they aren’t going to listen to you.

Before creating any tactics to start a dialogue, marketers need to create a mechanism so that consumers know: a) Someone is actually listening to them and b) They’re creating an impact

Perceived lack of impact is often cited as the reason behind low voter turnout and it’s no different in the business world. Everyone wants to be acknowledged, but marketers are often too concerned with pushing out the start of the next dialogue than to think about how they can close the loop on the last one.

Imagine this- after conducting focus groups around the country to develop a new ad campaign, a company shared the final version with those consumers, thanking them for their feedback and explaining how the final spot evolved out of their comments. Better yet, let them know the first week of the media buy so they can tell their friends about the ad “they helped to make.�

The funny thing is that it’s a lot easier to close the loop on a conversation than it is to spark a new one. It could be as simple as including an opt-in for any market research participant to learn how their comments had an impact on the company. Or it could be ensuring that the marketing staff rotates the role of consumer relations manager to read and respond to consumer emails.

Love to hear your ideas. And yes, I promise that I’ll read any comments you write.

-Tad

Leave a Comment

A Few Weeks Off

I'm off to Israel for ten days.

Wednesday morning I leave for a ten day trip to Israel. I'm pretty damn excited about it, especially because I have been working non-stop for the last two or three weeks. (That doesn't mean the blogging stops, though, read on . . . )

Anyhow, I've made a small change in preparation for the big departure. If you check out the right half of the homepage, I've added my twitter stream. The plan is to do a bit of twittering while I'm over there (that's assuming I can get my phone straightened out). Anyhow, for those of you who are worried about how much space it takes up, don't sweat it, I plan on getting rid of it when I return (at least I think that's what I'll do).

In other news I have lined up an absolute all star cast to write for the site while I'm away. They're scheduled for entries ever two days, so check back often. Here's the lineup:

• Tad Kittredge (6/7): Tad and I used to work at Renegade together. He's one of the most amazing planners (and thinkers) I've ever met. Not only can he dissect a problem more quickly than just about anyone on earth, but he can make a room like him while he does it. Tad decided to go back and get his MBA and now resides in San Francisco working for a company I imagine he wouldn't care if I named, but I won't just in case.
• Todd Krieger (6/9): Todd is the closest thing I've got to a mentor. We were introduced incredibly randomly by a friend of a friend and just hit it off. He's West Coast, gets what's going on in technology/media better than just about anyone on the planet and is just about to take over the world . . . stay tuned.
• Erik Dies (6/11): Erik and I met on his first day of second grade when we were paired together as 'buddies.' Since then he's turned into a mathematical genius who also happens to be one of the most talented artists I've ever met. In addition to getting his PHD he does a fair amount of improv comedy. Renaissance man much?
• Charles Gallant (6/12): Five letters describe Charles best: N-I-N-J-A. The guy can do anything. But he's not your normal programmer, he gets what's going on beneath, whether it be design, user experience or just general technological trends.
• Steve Kalifowitz (6/13): Steve and I hit it off pretty immediately. A geek can spot a geek. He's incredibly smart, curious and voracious reader (seriously . . . I get two or three good links a day coming my way). While he certainly has a media/technology bent, he's by no means limited by it. On the contrary, we've had conversations on topics as varied as I can imagine. (As a side note, Steve was instrumental in convincing me to go to Israel . . . thanks.)
• Andrew Chen(6/15): You know when you hear about people who graduated high school when they were 14? Meet Andrew. With more professional years under his belt than his age would make you expect, Andrew is now the Entrepreneur-in-Residence at Mohr Davidow Ventures.

So that's it. Six guys who could easily take over the world. I personally can't wait to read what they've got to say.

Thanks to you all and see you in a few weeks.

Leave a Comment

The Math of Viral

Trying to use power laws and Metcalfe's Law to understand how viral marketing actually works.

I've been working on this thing in my head for a while and it's still hardly played out. But I've got a thesis going that you can apply Metcalfe's Law to marketing. For those not familiar with it, Metcalfe's Law is a way to calculate the value of a network. In a recent Forbe's article Metcalfe himself explained it like this: "The network effect says that the value of that Ethernet card to the person on whose desk it sits is proportional to the number, N, of other computer users he can connect to. Now multiply this value by the number of users, and you have a value for the whole operation that is roughly proportional to N²." In plain English: If one person has a fax machine it's got no value, if two people have it, it's still got very little value. From there, however, the value really starts to grow for everyone involved and eventually it hits a 'tipping point' where you can't not have one.

[Taken from Metcalfe in Forbes]

As I've mentioned, power laws are a core part of our interconnected world and Metcalfe's Law speaks to how these things happen. Essentially, because there's more value to a network as it grows, eventually they reach a 'tipping point' (or 'critical mass crossover') where some serious growth kicks in (think about when everyone started texting you and you had no choice but to text back).

[WARNING: I am probably about to butcher some math. I apologize for that.]

Anyway, when I was looking at that graph of Metcalfe's Law, I realized that it's exactly what 'viral marketing' is attempting (as much as I hate that term). Essentially 'viral' (and PR) is an attempt to get value that goes above and beyond cost. In the old days of media buying you bought the number of impressions you wanted. It was a fairly straightforward equation: Value = cost, and cost is based on number of impressions (N) times CPM (cost per thousand impressions). 'Viral' tries to beat the system, however: By tapping into the network effect a marketer can gain far more value than cost. That's because while cost is still a constant, value grows exponentially based on the number of people who the 'viral' touches (that is assuming it is spread-worthy).

[Deep breath.] Okay, that was way more math than I have thought about in ages and now my head hurts. But I think I had to go through it. I don't think anything I said in the last paragraph is particularly revolutionary, it's more just putting some structure around things lots of people have talked about/noticed. What is more interesting to me about this whole thing is the idea that if you lower the cost, you actually lower the 'critical mass crossover'. Basically, 'going viral' is not an absolute, rather it's based on the cost of production. If you make something for $5 than the 'critical mass crossover' is far lower than spending $500,000. This is possible because all power laws are scale-free, meaning no matter where you look at them they're exponential growth.

The way I've been explaining scale-free to people lately is with exponents. 2² = 4 and 4² = 16 and 16² = 256. When you look at those four numbers (2, 4, 16, 256) you think that exponential growth kicks in when you square 16, I mean the jump between 16 and 256 is huge. However, if you just isolate 2, 4 and 16, the jump between 4 and 16 is also huge. Below I've put a few charts, while each jump is more radical than the one before it, they are all radical in their own right.

Okay, one more point to make and then I'll leave you alone. If rather than approaching 'viral marketing' with one message, companies tried a number of different, low-cost options, then they might find more success. Each would have a lower 'critical mass crossover' point and you'd only need one success to pay for the rest.

Of course all this assumes a marketer has made something people actually want to pass around, which in and of itself is a lot to ask . . . (For more thinking on this topic I suggest this paper on Big Seed Marketing by Duncan Watts [PDF])

Leave a Comment