Digital Digressions

Interview: Where Does the LEGO Lady Go to Unwind?

A fair question and although this interview explains all about one of my favourite places on Earth; little Pietra Santa in Tuscany, Italy read the Interview - although it is not where I'm headed this weekend. A holiday is certainly something I need right now, it's been a wildly busy year and I'm getting to that stage right now that although I love my job and have a blast doing it, people could be handing me the greatest gift on the planet and I would struggle to summon my trademark enthusiasm for it.

I simply need a rest. And to stop thinking about all the things I have to think about as part of my job just for long enough so that thinking about them will feel like 'I'm thinking about them after having had some time to think about something else' rather than 'I'm thinking about this again and by the way I haven't had time to think about anything else in the meantime'. You know what I mean. Fortunately a break is looming on the horizon and I'm truly madly deeply looking forward to it, much like someone crossing the desert must be feeling when they finally come across an oasis. So on that note - over and out and back again next week!

The Web and the Illusion of Anonymity

I had a strange experience the other day. Someone I met for the first time told me they had 'Googled' me before our meeting and were intrigued to find all this stuff about me, including this blog. Now forgive me folks, but on one hand here I am, with a blog being seemingly progressive and 'out there', in with the times and all that and the fact is that most of my friends don't read my blog, at least not regularly anyway, because they prefer to talk to me in person about the topics I blog about and many more things, rather than read about them on my blog.

Can't blame them really, but this has also caused a certain disconnect for me, where usually I would meet people and it would be me making the first impression and eventually this person would discover I had a blog, which would be more of a curious 'aha' moment for them, rather than something they would use to form an opinion about me even before meeting me. However, this, as I mentioned, was all turned on its head just the other day. The insecure person in me immediately wondered 'what do they think... do they like what I write or do they think I'm a total nutcase??' Anonymity on the web at least (most of the time) means you will never get to meet the people in person who think your blog is a bunch of ramblings and that you are truly nuts.. but it may all change!

Fortunately this individual was very complementary, or perhaps just a supremely a nice person who couldn't bring themselves to tell me just how bad they thought my writing was, but fortunately at least saved me the embarrassment of telling it to my face. Of course you will all rush to tell me that I should have thought of that when starting a blog and to this I reply: I did! Initially I was very much in two minds about whether I should blog under my real name or anonymously, and initially I did blog completely anonymously as I was experimenting with content and style and so on.

Eventually I settled for the 'a little bit about everything' approach that you find on this blog - stuff I think about and find that writing it down into a post helps me structure my thoughts and move on and think about new stuff... clearing my mind if you like. So my blog has now become a bit of a scratch book of thoughts and sometimes pretty personal too - in the same breath I have abandoned anonymity and even sport a button to my Linked-in profile now for all those who wonder who I am and why I'm interested in all these diverse topics (hopefully my profile goes some way to explain this..here's me hoping anyway!)

The scary thing is though that the more I have become 'exposed' through this blog, the more people, prospective employers, clients, you name it all use Google to check up on people they are about to make contact to. On one hand we are seeing extremely personal confessions on blogs and various social networking sites and on the other hand we are seeing more and more people having to pay the price for that as it seems that there are still employers out there who are looking for people who are literally the 'blank' canvasses - with no clearly defined and perhaps 'jarring' personal identities to try to mold into an organisation where individualism is a fault, not an asset.

Some are talking about how young people in particular should be much more careful about what they do reveal on-line as that digital trail will follow them forever - there are even companies devoted to destroying information about you on the net these days - service comes at a pretty price though. The one place not even they can reach are the news archives of various papers - once you end up there you are on the net forever. So where does that leave us? It seems that the arena is wide open for the debate on a set of 'net ethics' of sorts - what is acceptable to take into account about a person in terms of background checks on the net, versus what is advisable for individuals to reveal on-line?

Ultimately some things are personal and although revealed on-line on say a social networking site, they should remain as such or be considered as such by a company seeking to employ that person. Also those who devote countless hours to blogging and so on are in fact industrious minds to whom a blog is one outlet, but give the person a challenge to chew on that same industrious mind can be put to service for the benefit of a company, as opposed to being seen as an overtly extrovert destroyer of 'the way we have always done things in this company'. What do you think?

What Marketeers Forget When Thinking of Web 2.0

Web 2.0 is on everyone's lips - it's attractive to users, because we become the authors, publishers, content creators and between us we can create infinitely more value for each other than a company can on its own. Context is the content. Marketeers are intrigued by this prospect too, because it means new, potentially more cost-effective ways to target their audiences, spreading word of mouth and if you are lucky, being able to measure the effect much more precisely than you ever could via say TV or print-advertising. There is a prospect of creating more bang for the buck and moreover, learning more about the likes and dislikes of your consumers.

In the wake of this growing phenomena, there is an exponential growth of seminars, lectures, conferences and events to explain what web 2.0 is, what you can do with it and how best to make use of it. Countless executives are invariably crammed into a room, where some net-savvy individual extols the virtues of blogging, viral marketing, you name it and the room is filled with various degrees of perplexed individuals who are beginning to realise that the entire paradigm they have structured their careers and lives around, is shifting into the unknown and many traditional practises will have to change if they are to survive.

Your Audience is Active - not passive
Traditional communications theory used to focus on measuring and analysing the effect of media on the people exposed to it. Audiences were considered passive and we all wanted to know what watching TV really does to you, does it make you buy more, more stupid, more obese etc? The truth is that audiences are active, they consume media based on its uses and gratifications gained. That goes for TV too these days - having a Tivo box makes the traditionally passive act of TV watching much more active as you can choose what you want to watch, when, skip the ads and teach the thing to tell you next time something is on that you might enjoy. This becomes even more acute when we move towards on-line media - users decide what they do, where they go, what they watch, who they talk to and so on. What others have said is easier for them to find out, and what is on their mind is easier to broadcast to everyone around them too.

If You Want to Talk, You Must Show You Care to Listen
Traditional marketing operating from a paradigm of passive consumers that need to be engaged, first be reminded of their inadequacies and then told how to overcome them still wants to approach Web 2.0 with the same attitude. It's still about trying to sell people some smokescreen and appeal to their fantasies and desires, but that will not work anymore, not in the traditional sense.

Imagine you are sitting at a table with a person you have never met. You begin a conversation, politely you try to find out who they are and so on. Imagine then if this person behaved as if you had just pushed the 'play' button, out comes some random message about who you should be, what you should do to be like that, what they are selling and how good it is. So you patiently wait till the end of this litany and ask again. You want to know about the person behind that statement. Are they nice, do they have integrity? Do they care about the same stuff you do? Again the same mantra. What that is, is a one-way broadcast, like radio and TV advertising, because the medium didn't allow talk-back - but nowhere is that approach becoming obsolete quicker than the web.

No longer is it about 'what do we want to communicate - it's about 'what do we want to facilitate!'
Web 2.0 is a dialogue, it's a start of a love-affair, it's a discussion that takes twists and turns depending on who is having the conversation and what the topic is. It's fun to talk to someone if they show they listen to what you have to say and respond accordingly. It's even better when they can put you in touch with other people just like you. It's extremely boring when you feel like you are talking to a wall. It's really that simple - but what it means is that smokescreens become harder to maintain. After all, not everyone is David Copperfield and besides, if everyone's rating everything and all views are public - you don't even want to be David Copperfield, you have to be you and be good, because what goes around comes around.

Build Good Karma
Buddhism is a very useful in this context and may even one day become the foundation of the new world-wide company ethic - but the basis is simple: refrain from bad behaviour, do good and remember that karma comes back to haunt you - good or bad. So can your company handle that level of openness, can you genuinely say that everyone in your company respects your consumers and tries their utmost to be fair, do the right thing and never lie? Marketing in this context becomes less about convincing people something is great, but more about setting the structure and motion in place for responding to what people want, encouraging them to work with you and always, always, always making sure you are honest, respectful and humble. In product design we  always used to joke that you are only as good as your last project. How true is that - in the world of web 2.0 you are only as good as the last consumer experience you delivered.

It takes a (global, connected) village to raise a child

No I'm not referring to Hillary Clinton's book, nor her speech on the topic of children - but I am borrowing the same (origin unknown) African proverb that claims it takes a village to raise a child. In fact, I'm building on it to refer to the Internet, the global connected village it has made the world, we are all connected, not necessarily by six degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon but in fact by 3rd degree via LinkedIn (or Myspace, Bebo, Facebook or whatever takes your fancy).

For me it has been a revelation that by humbly starting to publish this blog here in my corner of London, UK, there are people as far as Kiribati who magically stumble on this site and moreover, can be bothered to read what I have to say. Truly humbling. Big up to Kiribati I say! This global village of ours has also taught me some very valuable lessons, some of which I agonise over in a previous post about the pain of trying to come up with consistently good quality material. Not sure I succeed consistently, but mainly due to the kindness and patience of my readers, I still have an audience..

I recently came across a brilliant study from Forrester research by a guy called Jaap Favier, Dutch perhaps I endeavour to guess? Anyway he has managed to pull together some great insights about how group dynamics are driving social media on the net and how this connectivity means companies need to change in order to stay relevant for their consumers. Sounds complicated, but on a larger scale I feel companies need to learn what the village has raised me to believe over the years:

Content is king -> CONTACT is king
It's not about the stuff, it's about whether you care to listen what people have to say, whether you can help put them in touch with each other and provide them with ways they can not only help each other, but create things together with you. Are you a good citizen and do people even want to know you? If you are evil, chances are they don't. Often only when you go look for friends do you discover what people really think about you. Don't let it get that far.

The Medium is the Message -> The RESPONSE is the message
Can you get people to care enough to get involved, can they respond to you, to others, do things change based on their response? You get what you give, if you are rude and deceitful, chances are you also foster that behaviour in people around you.

We call the shots -> THEY call the shots
Don't think you know it all. Don't even attempt. There are people out there who know your company, product, service you name it better than you do. They do call the shots whether you like it or not. A smart thing would be to learn from what they have to say and be humble.

KEEP IT REAL
Only if you are honest, true to what you promise and deliver it as good as you say it is, people trust you. To be trusted you have to keep it real, always. No lies, no cheating, no screwing people over - they find out soon enough and others even sooner, so be good and the world is good to you back. Most of the time anyway!

It's funny - yesterday we had the last episode of the Apprentice, (for now) where our pet magnate Sir Alan Sugar got himself a fresh faced new apprentice, Simon, willing to work 'his cotton socks off' as he bluntly put it when asked why he should be hired. Sugar, true to his name, subsequently presented Simon with some unsightly pairs of cotton socks that he could 'work off' in due course. Although not the most experienced of contestants, Simon's happy-go-lucky attitude and kindness got him quite far and moreover made him a master at dealing with some of the more prickly contestants in the show.

The complete opposite was Katie, fired from the show last week. It seems that in her case, common decency took a left-turn and avoided her altogether. Certainly, courtesy of having a blog you learn first-hand how quickly the Internet bites back and let's you know faster, sooner, and more sharply how much you suck, even when your best-friends stay silent. It felt almost sadistic and certainly voyeuristic to sit there watching Katie spouting her horrific comments about her fellow contestants to the camera and then select comments being revealed to the fellow contestants by programme directors.. pausing to focus on the furious candidate, squirming in their seat, rolling their eyes. It just amazes me that no one from the real or virtual village has played their part, taking Katie to one side, giving her a really good hiding and reminding her just what it means to be a citizen in the global village. Sir Alan Sugar did it sort of, a little yesterday - but all she did was smile. Knowingly. Thinking she still calls the shots. Think again.

The Rise of Transparency Tyranny

Recently we at LEGO had our most visible example yet of a phenomenon increasingly affecting companies world-wide: the rise of the consumer activist. Above and Beyond: LEGO Shop gives consumers new hope. In our case we are lucky as this commentary turned out in our favour and helped highlight some of the practises we have prided ourselves in offering ever since we set up our consumer service centres, but more often than not consumers bite back and give not only companies a piece of their mind, but also their fellow consumers.

We are truly moving away from the days when it was possible to limit the damage of a single consumer disappointment to travel only as far as that individual could reach through letter, phone and discussion with friends and family. Still damaging to a brand, granted, but today, we are faced with a new situation, a new world order if you like where single consumer contacts and their outcome, positive or negative - have the power to influence thousands, if not millions as they can now be recorded (not only in words, but through camera phones, video, voice) in addition to traditional text - making the content much more evocative and that content be shared with millions, through a plethora of rating and social networking sites.

The only fly in the ointment right now is the absence of profiles - i.e having a service/product/experience rated by someone just like me (age, education, income, job, interests, lifestyle etc.), which would lend the ratings even more gravitas, but it is just a matter of time before a networking site like Myspace teams up with a rating service and makes this happen.

Enter the era of transparency tyranny. This movement is picking up, as people are moving from trusting companies to trusting their peers instead. Furthermore the Digital Natives (those who have grown up with the Internet always there) communicate 155% more than before (Forrester), which means this phenomenon will only grow.

So in my opinion there is nothing that warrants a higher priority in companies than focusing on delivering first-class services and experiences to consumers, measuring it through the Net Promoter Score (NPS). The NPS has to be consistently good across all touchpoints, because this - more than anything, will determine the future of your company. In our case - by the power of our strong heritage, we have a lot of expectations to live up to - people who have grown up with the brand and have come to expect a kind of quality, continuity and ethic to LEGO, which the other toymanufacturers struggle to achieve. All eyes are on us to continue to deliver that in the age of transparency tyranny!

Why the Desire to Simplify Can Inhibit Innovation

A friend recently postulated that having budget constraints can encourage better innovation than those with lots of money to burn as this provides a framework where automatically many things are out of bounds, because you can't afford them. He proceeded to point to many start-ups often don't have a lot of money, but make up for it in energy and determination and thus often end up coming up with solutions better, smarter and more relevant than their heavy-weight rivals. Stops you re-inventing the wheel I suppose.

Coming from a product design background I must agree that an essential component to innovation is first figuring out your constraints, the framework within which you intend to innovate. Before you know that, it is virtually impossible to determine, which of your million ideas is the best solution to a given problem.

Having smaller budgets certainly creates some immediate restraints on what the solution should be - i.e it can't cost more than X. That has a remarkable ability to focus a team. The trouble with this approach is often the desire to simplify too soon, which means that many important factors, which will in the end determine the success of the solution, are discarded too early from the process, and thus the solution ends up being more of the same, rather than truly groundbreaking.

One of my favourite quotes ever is that of F. Scott Fitzgerald, that for him 'the sign of a truly intelligent individual is one who has the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function'. Innovation is often just that, how to balance the constraints one has from an organisational, technical and financial point of view against the desires and demands of one's consumers. Often it is not a matter of either-or, but both, and the innovation is the process of coming up with just how that will be done.

Here the key is to be able to seek less obvious, but potentially relevant factors (that will give differentiation in the long run, although to start with will seem like they are adding more complexity to the topic), secondly it is the ability to consider multi-directional, non-linear relationships between these variables and seeing problems as a whole, examining how the parts fit together and how decisions affect one another, and then lastly: creatively resolve those conflicts between seemingly opposing ideas to generate innovative outcomes.

That sounds very complicated and at times, it is - and it is pivotal not to fear the complexity to start with and simplify too soon, thus ending up creating a solution which will only partially address the problem (and potentially give birth to an entirely new problem!), but to persist and strive to integrate, not divide. So constraints are good - but do you know all your constraints or have you simply settled for the most obvious ones?