Going viral is every marketer’s goal, especially entrepreneurs with a new product/service/experience that needs to rise above the noise in order to be noticed.
Going viral requires some luck, as do most successes, even if it’s the serendipitous kind (right time/right place), but it’s mostly method, as discussed previously.
Research by Thales S. Teixeira, an assistant professor in marketing at HBS, identified “four key steps: attracting viewers’ attention, retaining that attention, getting viewers to share the ad with others, and persuading viewers.”
“The challenge lies in getting the best mix of all four ingredients and baking them into your ad.”
Read the article if you’re planning any kind of video/social media campaign; Teixeira’s insights and explanations will give you a much better shot at that success.
One of the problems is that entrepreneurs are so enamored with their products that they want to tell the world about it, so the world will love it, too.
But in a time of instant information availability and short attention spans, the world doesn’t care much about your product—it wants first and foremost to be entertained.
The research shows that if sharing an ad will somehow benefit the sender as much as it helps the advertiser, then the ad might go viral.
Things that tickle your funny-bone or touch your heart are always shared faster and longer than product facts.
In 1914 why did that ultimate capitalist Henry Ford raise worker pay to the unheard-of wage of $5 a day? There is many a corporate titan who would do well to consider Ford’s philosophy today—before developing next year’s executive compensation plan or even deciding on this year’s bonuses.
Not only was it a matter of social justice, Ford wrote, but paying high wages was also smart business. When wages are low, uncertainty dogs the marketplace and growth is weak. But when pay is high and steady, Ford asserted, business is more secure because workers earn enough to become good customers. They can afford to buy Model Ts.
These days, innovation is touted as the world’s savior, but is it really the game-changers or their copycats that provide real economic benefit? An excerpt from The Art of Being Unreasonable: Lessons in Unconventional Thinking, by Eli Broad posits the latter. And before you argue keep in mind that Apple didn’t invent computers or MP3 music players.
Who does capture the benefits of new ideas, products, and models? Imitators. They get a free ride, avoid dead ends, capitalize on the shortcomings of early offerings or tweak the originals to better fit shifting consumer tastes. And yet, imitators rarely get the recognition they deserve: When was the last time someone received an Imitator of the Year Award?
Based on descriptions of the new Windows 8 operating system I’ve decided that I will switch a few weeks after I die. If all you use is a smartphone or tablet you’ll probably have more tolerance to it, but if you use multiple applications on a real computer not so much. HBS’ Rosabeth Moss Kanter discusses it in terms of people’s resistance to change and I agree, but I have a much stronger resistance to things that make me feel incompetent and/or stupid.
Technology is good at that and as one commenter said, “I can’t tell you how many times I’ve sat there getting angry trying to figure out how to get something done. I’m not an idiot when it comes to computers, but this OS made me feel like one.” Kanter’s response? “Your software should not make anyone feel like an idiot.”
Common wisdom says “if it isn’t broke don’t fix it,” but there are times when that attitude is shortsighted. The Smithsonian certainly isn’t broke in any way, shape or form, but it has looked to the future and decided it needs to update its brand if it plans to continue for another 166 years and beyond.
Although the Smithsonian, the world’s largest museum and research complex, is already a popular and trusted brand, officials there nonetheless decided they needed to raise awareness, particularly among young people, of precisely what they have to offer.
The word “leader” is all over the news; media loves talking about individual “leaders.” Executives and people in positions of power have worked hard for decades to perpetuate the myth that leaders are magical and larger-than-life; special, unique, irreplaceable and, above all, can’t be duplicated. But that emperor has no clothes, according to HBS Assistant Professor Gautam Mukunda, who, in his new book, Indispensable: When Leaders Really Matter, kicks large holes in the myth that individual leaders really make a difference. (Book excerpt)
The result was his Leader Filtration Theory, or LFT, which states that a leader’s impact can be predicted by his or her career. The more unfiltered the leader, the larger the prospect of big impact. The more a leader has relevant experience, the less chance of high impact.
No where is the talk of “leaders” greater than in the political arena, especially during a Presidential election. An opinion piece focused on whether being gregarious is a requirement of leadership.
Culturally, we tend to associate leadership with extroversion and attach less importance to judgment, vision and mettle. We prize leaders who are eager talkers over those who have something to say.
As an introvert, I enjoy being by myself. I sometimes feel drained if I have to be in front of large groups of people I don’t know. After I’ve been in a social situation — including a long day at work — I need quiet time to be alone with my thoughts and recharge.
One way so-called leaders, (I prefer the more neutral term ‘boss’) can make a difference is found in how they treat people; one trait they all have in common is their approachability and engagement with everybody, not just their senior staff.
68 year-old Mickey Drexler, CEO of J. Crew, is and a well known face in all aspects and locations of the company—with employees and customers.
He visits every office, store and distribution center, and makes an effort to meet every new employee, although he’s always Mickey, not Mr. Drexler. (…) He’s been known to personally respond to a letter from a shopper who has a problem or a suggestion.
One thing that we preach at work all day long is “don’t hope.” What that means is don’t wait for somebody to do something for you. Don’t do something 90 percent well and hope that it’ll slide through. Don’t rely on luck. You have to make your own luck. The only thing you can do is try your absolute best to do the right thing.
Finally, for those of you who want more on leadership checkout the information and interviews available at McKinsey’s Leading in the 21st century(free registration required).
In today’s volatile environment, leaders of global organizations must master a slate of challenges unseen in business history. In this feature, McKinsey talks with seven leaders and Wharton professor Michael Useem about the new fundamentals of leading in the 21st century.
Every so often I read something that seems to fly in the face of accepted practice or is contrary to previous expert information.
For example
According to the media it’s a given that the young, college educated, both students and recent alumni, are focused on following their passions, but, as the saying goes, it ain’t necessarily so.
…91 percent of college students and 95 percent of Millennials (here referring to college graduates between ages of 21 and 32) said that being financially secure was either essential or very important to them.
Our conscious mind is pretty good at following rules, but our unconscious mind—our ability to “think without attention”—can handle a larger amount of information.
“Guilt-prone people tend to carry a strong sense of responsibility to others, and that responsibility makes other people see them as leaders,”says Becky Schaumberg, a doctoral candidate in organizational behavior who conducted the research with Francis Flynn, the Paul E. Holden Professor of Organizational Behavior.
If you were publishing something you wanted people to remember would you choose a simple font or a fancy one that was more difficult to read? If you said ‘simple’ you’d be wrong.
Fancy fonts might be harder to read, but the messages they convey are easier to recall, according to boffins at Princeton and Indiana Universities.
Speaking of publishing; does freedom of speech mean you can use any words you want on the Net with impunity? Maybe, but words like ‘leak’, ‘flu’ and ‘gas’ could put you on a watch list.
The Department of Homeland Security has been forced to release a list of keywords and phrases it uses to monitor social networking sites and online media for signs of terrorist or other threats against the U.S.
Monday I wrote how important it is to value all your people if you want to keep them, not just the “innovators” on your team.
I also listed the five prime traits of HBS defined “Innovator DNA”—associating, observing, questioning, networking, and experimenting—but what happens when an innovator doesn’t possess all five traits?
I am living proof that possessing one doesn’t mean possessing all.
I have the first three in spades, but lack the last two.
I know I excel in the first three, because those are the traits that my clients have raved about and tangibly rewarded over the years, but I was a specialist; hired to do specific tasks where the lack of the last two traits wasn’t a problem.
I don’t believe this is unusual.
I know many people who are superb at networking and discovering what people think or thrive on experimenting with an idea and trying out various versions, but can’t originate the concepts.
The question is how do you take advantage of the innovator traits people do have?
By teaming them correctly.
Much of my most innovative work is done with founders when working on their executive summaries.
I tend to associate what they are describing with things I’ve heard or read in other places and at other times and synthesize new uses or functions; plus I am totally a ‘why’ person, which annoys so many people, but the profs say it’s good—who knew.)
I often see relationships and usages the founders didn’t, but my hearing makes networking an exercise in frustration (on both sides) and I don’t have the skills and training required to validate the concepts in the field.
But that doesn’t change the value, because the founders and teams with which I work do have those skills.
Part of building a powerful team is the ability to take advantage of all the skills a candidate has and then filling in the team’s holes as needed.
In our wired era being available 24/7 generates both bragging rights and work/life balance complaints and nowhere more so than the high-powered world of management consulting.
It was in this world, as represented by a small team at Boston Consulting Group, that HBS professor Leslie A. Perlow initiated an experiment four years ago on the extreme benefits of “predictable time off” (PTO).
She shares the story and documents her findings in a new book called Sleeping With Your Smartphone.
Supposedly, the unpredictability working across time zones requires constant availability, but is that true?
“What caught our attention was that the more people were on, the more unpredictable their work time seemed to become.”
The key to success was predictability.
Perlow’s research started with a small team and three basic steps.
“First, team members have to agree on a specific unit of time each week that everyone can turn off. Not at the same time, obviously, since team members have to cover for each other. In our first experiment, it was one night a week. But whatever the goal, it has to be valued by the team, as a group. It has to be small but doable. And it has to be concrete and measurable.”
“Second, the team needs to meet weekly to discuss the challenges and successes they’re facing as they try to achieve the goal. These meetings are crucial for PTO to work, but they offer much more. They’re a regular forum for productive conversations about work, conversations that empower people to speak up. In theory, people are speaking up about process, which allows the team to meet the time-off goal. But really they’re speaking about all aspects of the work experience.”
“Finally, the team’s leaders — bosses, managers — have to show support for the project and for team members’ efforts. That’s not just about allowing colleagues to speak up and to use their time off. It’s also about doing the same themselves.”
Four years later 86% of the consulting staff in Boston, New York, and Washington, DC are practicing PTO.
According to BCG’s CEO, Hans-Paul Bürkner, the process unleashed by these experiments “has proven not only to enhance work-life balance, making careers much more sustainable, but also to improve client value delivery, consultant development, business services team effectiveness, and overall case experience. It is becoming part of the culture—the future of BCG.”
Retention is up, job satisfaction is up, productivity is up, client satisfaction is up.
Given proven results and a reliable methodology to follow, PTO can be instituted by any manager at any level even where the over-arching culture is hostile.
Nor is there any need for HR approval.
Go ahead; reap all those rewards and be a hero to your team—all it takes is 20 bucks and synergistic MAP, both of which are in your direct control.
I’ve often cited Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers regarding right time/right place luck—often an accident of birth. For example Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Steve Jobs, Bill Joy and Scott McNealy were all born between 1953 and 1955
Another example of right time/right place is found in Harvard’s MBA class of 1974 as chronicled by Laurence Shames in The Big Time: The Harvard Business School’s Most Successful Class & How It Shaped America, originally published in 1986 and being republished now.
1974 was probably the most successful single group of MBAs ever graduated from any school; further, this class actually did stuff and built things, as opposed to shuffling money around.
But they also worked their tails off. They didn’t expect anything to be handed to them. They always asked for more work, not less. They were a very competitive, driven group. But, again, not only for their own monetary gains. They wanted to excel. They wanted to be leaders.
When the ’49ers graduated, I think there were 653 graduates. Only six guys went to Wall Street –less than one percent of the class. It just wasn’t considered where the action was or considered a place where you could make a meaningful difference.
Learning about that class makes you wonder what happened. Where did the drive for more than money go?
What happened between 1974 and 2008 that so changed the attitude of our best and brightest? Why did money gain primacy as the only thing that matters?
The funny thing is that if you ask the folks who actually are changing our world, such as Larry Page, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg or Kevin Systrom, they’ll all say the same thing—they didn’t do it for the money.
Eleven thousand business books are published every year. Amazon currently lists more than 60 thousand books on leadership alone. There are also magazines, web sites, e-books, audiobooks, podcasts, and blogs. They all offer ideas on what to do. (Thanks to Wally Bock for the great stats.)
Much of what is written is anecdotal.
Much of what is written is more for self-aggrandizement as pointed out in this post by Jim Stroup.
And too much is garbage, pure and simple.
What it all has in common is the idea that if you do what the author did, or says to do, then you will become a leader whatever the situation, circumstances or your experience.
Obviously, this is poppycock. Nobody would even think of suggesting this kind of ‘do it my way and succeed’ approach to an athlete or entertainer, so why think that leadership, or managing, for the matter, is any different?
Little of what’s out there involves the rigorous kind of research that forms the basis of most subjects.
According to professor Rakesh Khurana “If we look at the leading research universities and at the business schools within them, the topic of leadership has been actually given fairly short shrift. … What we tried to incorporate in the Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice is how each different perspective illuminates key elements such as similarities and differences in leadership across task, culture, and identity.
Khurana also says that “Leadership just wasn’t tractable by large databases.” No surprise there, much of what involves human MAP isn’t.
But it was this comment that resonated loudest with me.
“There is no single “best” style of leadership nor one set of attributes in all situations.”
In conjunction with the effort to increase serious research, HBR is running a blog for just six weeks called Imagining the Future of Leadership. The articles are, in general, excellent and the comments interesting. Check it out and add your own thoughts.
I don’t believe that Harvard is the last word, but it is encouraging that a serious and respected institution agrees that the subject is complex, doesn’t fit neatly into a specific field and sees the need for much more than is currently available.
I only received one response to my query last week and it was positive, so here again are three food-for-thought links. I wouldn’t want you to run out of stuff to do this weekend.
First up is a post from Denis, who starred in my post, A Follower Leads. Denis is a senior software developer who says he isn’t a great follower, but he’s not a manager and doesn’t seem to see what he does as ‘leading’. The other day he wrote about Group Coherence/Common Purpose—one of the best explanation/discussion I’ve seen on the topic. I think Denis a leader, what do you think?
Next is from HBS Conversation Starter, a favorite source of mine, not so much for the posts as for the responses from readers (which are the whole point). This one is by Peter Bregman, CEO of Bregman Partners, Inc., who offers up what he considers the ultimate interview question—“After you have narrowed the pool of applicants down to those with the skills, experience, and knowledge to do the job, ask each candidate one question: What do you do in your spare time?” I hope that if you join the conversation, you repost your comment here.
Last, but not least, is a link to yet another Harvard offering. It’s the abstract of a paper called Why Good Leaders Make Bad Decisions. It discusses how “Neuroscience reveals what distorts a leader’s judgment. Here’s how you can keep your own judgment clear.” The teaser is interesting, but you’ll have to decide for yourself whether to buy the entire paper.
OK, that should keep you busy for an hour or so. Have fun the rest of the time!
Even in bad times even companies that are laying off may have critical positions to fill. Managers want to be sure that they get the highest value possible from that position, since it may be their only new hire in 2009.
The tendency is to look for a star—super person who can not only bring home the bacon, but smoke it first.
According to HBS professors Boris Groysberg, Lex Sant, and Robin Abrahams that may not be your best bet.
“Our research shows that stars whose jobs require them to cooperate and collaborate with other workers have a hard time maintaining performance when they move to a new organization.”
Read the interview and their research and then think deeply about the value of hiring an outside “star” for your critical opening.
Paul Brown’s Tool Kit column is an excellent resource and this one is well worth your time. In it he shares links to great resources showing the value of keeping your company small.
Go ahead and chow down, there’s lots of food for thought and action this week.
Entrepreneurs face difficulties that are hard for most people to imagine, let alone understand. You can find anonymous help and connections that do understand at 7 cups of tea.
Crises never end.
$10 really does make a difference and you’ll never miss it,
In 1914 why did that ultimate capitalist 
Monday I wrote how important it is to 
In our wired era being available 24/7 generates both bragging rights and work/life balance complaints and nowhere more so than the high-powered world of management consulting.
I’ve often cited 
That lack is starting to be 
I only received one response to my query 
Even in bad times even companies that are laying off may have critical positions to fill. Managers want to be sure that they get the highest value possible from that position, since it may be their only new hire in 2009.
