LATEST ENTRY

CREATIVITY | Erik Dies

Open Questions About Openness

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

June 11, 2007 | RSS | EMAIL | PRINT | 6 COMMENTS

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…

PREVIOUS ENTRY | NEXT ENTRY

LEAVE A COMMENT

First name, first and last, whatever you feel like.

Required, but not displayed (so don't worry about spam).

If you've got one, flaunt it.

You can use some HTML (a's, br's, p's, oh my!) if you'd like, if you don't know what that means, don't worry about it.
REMEMBER ME?

COMMENTS

1barbara

Go Erik! These are great questions for the digital age, presented in a clear, concise, possibly mathematical?, and thoroughly understandable way. I wish I could answer them ... maybe that's why I'm not in marketing anymore:) Perhaps you should reconsider a career in the field -- you certainly understand the pitfalls! At the very least, you should consider blogging ... a consumer's viewpoint on marketing? ... hmmm? ... could be a very valuable platform ... I'm really looking forward to seeing some serious answers to the questions you've posed.

June 11, 2007

2Erik

Thanks Barbara.

June 12, 2007

3Andy

Hi Erik. Great questions. In the following you'll see a fairly consistent lack of absolute answers because so much of this depends on the brand, the consumer/s etc. But I'll try to share some thoughts which I hope you find interesting.


When is it right to ignore the feedback of your consumer?
Every day.
Re: blogging, remember, we only ever see the comments of a particular 'type' of person. I.e. Those that can be bothered to comment. Easily over-looked. And there are hoards of teenagers that treat forums and blogs as an excuse to be abusive.
Judgement day (as proven with your two examples) is when the product is released. And let's not forget, the most loved brands are respected for their authoritative and superior offerings. They quite simply, know better.
Conversely, to reframe the question: "when is it ok to 'appear to ignore' your consumers? - Never.

How do you reconcile specialization with cross-discipline applications?
Wow. Had to read this one a couple of times.
I think there's a couple of questions in there. Concerning the question about a general manager managing specialists or grabbing specialists when you run into trouble -- I think it depends on your standards. The former makes a lot of sense and is very efficient. In fact, the structure mirrors Jeff Hawkins' theory of intelligence. I.e. a hierachy where sequences of patterns (of data) are grouped and passed onto a higher cortical layer. The top layers essentially act as that 'manager' and rely on lower layers to interpret unknown data. This is standard business hierachy and it's very efficient because one model works for everything. The danger is that the top manager can not fight his/her own sterotyping of situations which will lead to blunter judgement. The second method you describe is a bit more like a 'hotshop' with an endless pool of creatives/thinkers. This dynamic is likely to produce more exciting, original work, free from the shackles the general manager wears. However, this becomes less efficient and the system doesn't benefit from managerial experience. (To be pedantic these two systems start to become very similar depending on WHO "grabs the specialists".
Concerning disciplinary cross-pollination, you ask if this is only useful as metaphor. This is near-impossible to answer without specific examples. But I will say this: I love metaphors. They are the crux of most good communication. The problem is they are so tempting to use; they remove so many processes and explanations; that we find ourselves translating the thing in its entirety rather than pause to reflect which elements of the metaphor are useful. This is human nature and (like everything) comes back to neuro-science. Patterns, patterns and more patterns. We operate, understand and communicate efficiently by lumping together patterns of data. Metaphors are both a treasure and a curse: such a great tool that we think they solve the whole problem.
There are similarities with this point and the last one about managers: Both are about hierachy of understanding; both are about a weigh-up between process/efficiency and accuracy/results.
Is there an answer in here?
If there is, it is this: No two things in the world are identical. Love thy metaphor but don't get lazy.

How do you make sure you are not promoting revolution for revolution’s sake?
A revolution is a revolution either personally, or culturally. You can't feign a cultural revolution. If you claim the line of shoes your brand just launched will change the way people walk, then the proof will be in the pudding. And personal revolution is in the eye of the beyholder. Apple did not say: We are going to revolutionaize music. They did it. And we all said it for them.
Branding is often about 'vision' and what better way to manifest vision that with a revolution. But it is products that create revolutions. Not messages.


do we really want to see how the sausage is made?
Most of us don't.
Geeks want to know how software works, fashionistas might want to see the cut of a suit and activists would probably be keen to see a video of fake fur being manufactured (and the factory being operated by well-looked-after squirrels). However, the question is a little vague. Here are a few variations:

Do we value things more when we know how they're made?
Should campaigns offer varying levels of behind the scenes to appeal to different consumers?
Is hiding the behind the scenes cheating consumers (I.e. no visible screws on iPods means hard to fix at home)

Brands have an opportunity to engage with their customers at varying levels. Interactive TV is a very basic example of this. But imagine every brand giving you easier and more sophisticated means to peel away layers. Those who want pure seduction and are time-poor can stay surface level. Those with time on their hands can dig as deep as they want. This idea has only had its surface scratched.
The one thing to be careful of is the removal of mystery. But this is the ultimate human conundrum. Does knowledge equal happiness?

June 12, 2007

4Erik

Andy, wow. There is really some fantastic stuff in here.

"But imagine every brand giving you easier and more sophisticated means to peel away layers. Those who want pure seduction and are time-poor can stay surface level. Those with time on their hands can dig as deep as they want. This idea has only had its surface scratched. The one thing to be careful of is the removal of mystery."

I found this part of the last paragraph especially thought provoking. What might this onion look like.

I agree whole-heartedly with "love thy metaphor, but don't get lazy". I suppose my particular concern is using a mathematical model as a metaphor for a relationship or theory, versus a mathematical model modeling a relationship or theory. It is a line that is easy to blur, with or without intent (I know first hand, as I have been guilty of this offense). I don't want to stifle anyone's intellectual exploration or to curb the use of metaphors in learning. I just want to be wary of pseudo-science.

And about revolution for revolution's sake, in retrospect perhaps revolution was the wrong word to use. Change for the sake of change probably would have been better.

Again, great food for (more) thought; I think I need to go out and get a book on neuroscience.

June 13, 2007

5Mark Lewis

erik - sorry to post a non-related question/request but I am desperately in need of talking to a mathematician about so in depth theory stuff. I don;t want do the AP version of theory, so could you send me an email so I can get in touch with you.

Just click on the link to get to my site and email .

Cheers

Mark

June 13, 2007

6Andy

I read a book on the philosophy of boredom once. The author suggested that proof of our generation being almost profoundly 'bored' was society's prioitisation of things that are 'interesting' over things that have 'value'. I think this perfectly sums up the state of the information-age and it is also my response to your "change for change's sake" prompt.
Change is what gets our attention. Another question might be: Should companies assume ethical responsibility to not feed this culture of transient stimulation? (distractions)
I would suggest: It's too late. They either benefit from it or lose out. It is probably not possible (sadly) for every brand, every month to contribute to what Anomaly's Johnny Vulkan calls branded utility.

Re: onions. I elaborate very slightly on my blog here: http://nowincolour.blogspot.com/2007/06/on-integration.html

Re: neuroscience, I recommend Jeff Hawkins' On Intelligence and a bit of Edward De Bono.

Andy
// No job ; time to blog //

June 14, 2007