Monday, May 28, 2007
Actions and Beliefs
Actions change beliefs faster than beliefs change actions. I have blogged about this before but I was reminded of it again. I sat down to read the scriptures today because I had set a goal to do so. I really did not want to, but I did it. Within a few moments, I wanted to. The desire came because I was doing it.
I have a friend that has gotten himself into some bad situations. I try and talk to him and reason with him, almost afraid to be overbearing because if I cross the line and he withdraws, I will have lost what little influence I have. I was again reminded, actions change beliefs faster than beliefs change actions. My friend knows how wrong the situations are. He knows he should not go into them. My telling him this is not giving him new information. Occasionally a reminder helps all of us, but this is an attempt to convince someone of what they already know. Last night I had someone go with me to try and reason with my friend in his bad situation. I tried talking, the person I brought simply removed all options and forced the person to get out of the situation. It worked. The point is not that we should take away agency, but that my friend actually experiencing walking away from a bad situation did more good than any hours of conversation we have had on the subject of doing just that. So maybe there is something to doing his will and then knowing the doctrine.
I have a friend that has gotten himself into some bad situations. I try and talk to him and reason with him, almost afraid to be overbearing because if I cross the line and he withdraws, I will have lost what little influence I have. I was again reminded, actions change beliefs faster than beliefs change actions. My friend knows how wrong the situations are. He knows he should not go into them. My telling him this is not giving him new information. Occasionally a reminder helps all of us, but this is an attempt to convince someone of what they already know. Last night I had someone go with me to try and reason with my friend in his bad situation. I tried talking, the person I brought simply removed all options and forced the person to get out of the situation. It worked. The point is not that we should take away agency, but that my friend actually experiencing walking away from a bad situation did more good than any hours of conversation we have had on the subject of doing just that. So maybe there is something to doing his will and then knowing the doctrine.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Community and TV Ads
I don't think it's a secret that TV ads have lost their ability to reach into the lives of mainstream America and influence purchases. They just aren't that effective. Seth Godin says that marketing in which the person seeks the advertiser is the way that purchasing is now influenced. Disruptive marketing is now just an annoyance. Current TV is known for its user generated content. Most of the pods are submitted by users and even some of the ads. Having users create the ads is a way that firms are trying to tap into the new generation of consumers. I think it's a ploy that most viewers of Current TV aren't excited about. It's cool to make your own ads and it would be cool to get paid for it. But without a doubt, everyone knows that it's just companies trying to get us to notice their products without making it obvious that it's still disruptive marketing. Maybe if we participate in the creation we won't be annoyed by it. That still isn't permission marketing.
What Current TV could do is tap into the collective intelligence of the users to decide what gets shown on the channel and what doesn't. Every advertiser pays the same amount to be able to submit their ads. It goes through a voting and editing process much like occurs on Threadless.com. There are a few rounds in which the ad creator can edit the material according to the suggestions provided by the community. After all voting rounds are complete, the winning ads air on Current TV at no extra cost. Advertisers are simply paying for access to the creative community. The advertiser then has the right to use the ads that they create on any station that they wish, but to air on Current TV, they have to win. This, hopefully, means that good ads will air and the Current TV community (of Threadless community if Current TV does not have one of its own, which it doesn't seem to have) will have participated in the creation of the ads. It isn't a way to trick people into thinking that they are part of the creation process, it's a way to actually tap into their collective intelligence.
What Current TV could do is tap into the collective intelligence of the users to decide what gets shown on the channel and what doesn't. Every advertiser pays the same amount to be able to submit their ads. It goes through a voting and editing process much like occurs on Threadless.com. There are a few rounds in which the ad creator can edit the material according to the suggestions provided by the community. After all voting rounds are complete, the winning ads air on Current TV at no extra cost. Advertisers are simply paying for access to the creative community. The advertiser then has the right to use the ads that they create on any station that they wish, but to air on Current TV, they have to win. This, hopefully, means that good ads will air and the Current TV community (of Threadless community if Current TV does not have one of its own, which it doesn't seem to have) will have participated in the creation of the ads. It isn't a way to trick people into thinking that they are part of the creation process, it's a way to actually tap into their collective intelligence.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Narrowing Down - Simplicity Revisited
In the May 28th edition of The New Yorker, James Surowiecki (Wisdom of Crowds), discusses feature creep and individuals inability to judge what will make them happy in the future (Stumbling Upon Happiness? bought it but haven't read it yet, maybe Paradox of Choice?). In short, people buy whatever has the most features, but are then displeased when they realize that they don't know how to use it, get confused, or discover that they don't need all those features. A large percentage of returned merchandise is due to the user's inability to figure the thing out.
So, we want simplicity but we think we want as many features as possible. Just like a teenager thinks they want as many options open as possible and any restriction is something to be fought against. Just like me wanting to leave every decision undecided as long as possible because it gives me more options down the road. In essence, this desire to grab hold of everything leads to paralysis, an inability to act. If I have friends coming over to watch a movie, I have to pick out three choices ahead of time. I know that about my friends. Otherwise we will never decide on a movie and if we do, a large number will be unhappy with it. Narrowing down to the reasonable choices is sort of a preliminary decision making art that I think we've lost. We reserve decision making, any portion of it, for the last moment possible. Is it that we really are so bad at knowing what we want or is it that we just don't want to be responsible for any bad decision? We keep hoping that more information will come along that will make the decision easier. How does narrowing down our choices or lack of responsibility relate to our believing that we'll use more features than we really will? Well isn't the reason that we choose the one with the most features because we think it would be a bad decision to not choose more for the same or close to the same amount? Could part of it be that making a decision to buy less shows responsibility while making a decision to purchase the most options available shows none because no one can blame us for choosing the most options available. There is no personal responsibility in the decision to do so. We are not making a decision when we go with the gift card. We're not giving more options to the purchaser, what we're really doing is not taking responsibility (don't be offended, I buy gift cards). Every decision that we make based on the default "more is better" is simply of shift of responsibility from ourselves to society. It's not a decision that we own. It's a decision that the supposed collective intelligence of everyone else has determined to be the right one. We're not liable. Narrowing down creates decision ownership. Throwing out creates ownership. Limiting creates ownership. Problem is that it's ownership of something nobody seems to want to own.
So, we want simplicity but we think we want as many features as possible. Just like a teenager thinks they want as many options open as possible and any restriction is something to be fought against. Just like me wanting to leave every decision undecided as long as possible because it gives me more options down the road. In essence, this desire to grab hold of everything leads to paralysis, an inability to act. If I have friends coming over to watch a movie, I have to pick out three choices ahead of time. I know that about my friends. Otherwise we will never decide on a movie and if we do, a large number will be unhappy with it. Narrowing down to the reasonable choices is sort of a preliminary decision making art that I think we've lost. We reserve decision making, any portion of it, for the last moment possible. Is it that we really are so bad at knowing what we want or is it that we just don't want to be responsible for any bad decision? We keep hoping that more information will come along that will make the decision easier. How does narrowing down our choices or lack of responsibility relate to our believing that we'll use more features than we really will? Well isn't the reason that we choose the one with the most features because we think it would be a bad decision to not choose more for the same or close to the same amount? Could part of it be that making a decision to buy less shows responsibility while making a decision to purchase the most options available shows none because no one can blame us for choosing the most options available. There is no personal responsibility in the decision to do so. We are not making a decision when we go with the gift card. We're not giving more options to the purchaser, what we're really doing is not taking responsibility (don't be offended, I buy gift cards). Every decision that we make based on the default "more is better" is simply of shift of responsibility from ourselves to society. It's not a decision that we own. It's a decision that the supposed collective intelligence of everyone else has determined to be the right one. We're not liable. Narrowing down creates decision ownership. Throwing out creates ownership. Limiting creates ownership. Problem is that it's ownership of something nobody seems to want to own.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Enabling Community
Peer Help Groups works on different sites that help people help each other. Two of those are based on teachings of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Both LDSTeenHelp.com and HelpforGuys.com are founded on some the principle that the atonement of Christ can give us the power to change our lives. This is called "the enabling power of the Atonement" (David A. Bednar). We focus on building a community of individuals, more like a family, that encourages each other to access the enabling power and make changes in their lives that will make that possible. These two communities are not a crutch for the emotionally dependent and not a reserve for those that need to be needed. The community is a stepping stone to help bring others to be able to act for themselves. It's empowering. Creating a self-reliant individual is a goal of the gospel of Jesus Christ and these communities strive to bring out the resources and guidance to make that possible. Ultimately, the path that one takes on these sites has to lead to accessing the power of the atonement, or all of the efforts and changes will be fleeting. Every program is designed with that in mind. We encourage everyone using the sites to use what strength they have to make the changes necessary and find help in their lives that will make those changes permanent.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Viral Marketing in Real Life
Okay, maybe I should amend part of what I just posted. I drew a hard and distinct line between proliferation tactics and real viral marketing. I was trying to emphasize a point. However, there are obviously some really good viral marketing ideas that ad agencies can come up with. Like this one from MSNBC called NewsBreaker Headlines. You can bet that the people in that audience are going to go home and create a word of mouth effect. And what a perfect time to introduce this because everyone complains about paying outrageous prices to go to a movie and then sit through commercials while you wait. SS+K, the ad agency, recognized a pain and filled it with something of value. People were paying to go to a movie and be entertained, so SS+K replaced the pain with entertainment. Genius. The line between proliferation tactics and real viral marketing is fuzzier than I thought. Perhaps the graph from our previous post should look something more like this:
Viral Marketing New Era
I've read recently on what viral marketing is and isn't. My two cents: Viral marketing is simply a tool to be used. It can be employed in a guerilla marketing campaign, but isn't the same thing. It can be employed as disruptive marketing, but not all disruptive marketing is viral marketing. I think buzz marketing and word-of-mouth marketing are good synonyms. Media leverage might be a result of viral marketing, but isn't always included. The long tail has no connection to viral marketing except that viral marketing can be used to bring access to the long tail, but the same as viral marketing is a tool to bring any product to any group. No that that is cleared up...
Viral marketing may be one of the most difficult things to create for some people, but one of the most natural things for others. In the spirit of Freakonomics, I would go so far as to say that viral marketing isn't something that you contract out with a typical ad agency to create. We're entering an arena of marketing where what you do is far less important than what you are. Be something that's worthy of viral marketing or word-of-mouth spread. I do completely agree with Blake Snow in the above linked post that consumers really control the outcome of viral marketing campaigns or ads. And consumers are infinitely smarter, more clever, and more vengeful than some give them credit for. It's a new era where people don't want to be manipulated or coerced into buying something they don't want and (here's the new part) they're aware of when it's happening, despite the best disguise that money can buy. Of course there is a certain mindset, and even if you are viral marketable, if you're not thinking along those lines, you could miss out on opportunities. It's worth learning the tactics involved, but don't think that it replaces having a product or service that people want to talk about. Now, I know that there are some readers now thinking that I don't know what viral marketing is. There are two ways of looking at viral marketing and I separate them completely. Blake's example of Hotmail putting a tagline on the bottom of each email as advertisement is not the kind of viral marketing that I'm talking about. Mainly because that viral marketing is actually spreading the virus yourself. The marketing that I'm dealing with is where the virus is spread with or without you. Some people look at them as the same, but I would separate them as two completely different types of marketing: Proliferation tactics and Real Viral Marketing. This may not be the most well organized post, but like I said, it's just my two cents.
Update: I have changed my mind on some of the statements in this post. See Viral Marketing in Real Life
Viral marketing may be one of the most difficult things to create for some people, but one of the most natural things for others. In the spirit of Freakonomics, I would go so far as to say that viral marketing isn't something that you contract out with a typical ad agency to create. We're entering an arena of marketing where what you do is far less important than what you are. Be something that's worthy of viral marketing or word-of-mouth spread. I do completely agree with Blake Snow in the above linked post that consumers really control the outcome of viral marketing campaigns or ads. And consumers are infinitely smarter, more clever, and more vengeful than some give them credit for. It's a new era where people don't want to be manipulated or coerced into buying something they don't want and (here's the new part) they're aware of when it's happening, despite the best disguise that money can buy. Of course there is a certain mindset, and even if you are viral marketable, if you're not thinking along those lines, you could miss out on opportunities. It's worth learning the tactics involved, but don't think that it replaces having a product or service that people want to talk about. Now, I know that there are some readers now thinking that I don't know what viral marketing is. There are two ways of looking at viral marketing and I separate them completely. Blake's example of Hotmail putting a tagline on the bottom of each email as advertisement is not the kind of viral marketing that I'm talking about. Mainly because that viral marketing is actually spreading the virus yourself. The marketing that I'm dealing with is where the virus is spread with or without you. Some people look at them as the same, but I would separate them as two completely different types of marketing: Proliferation tactics and Real Viral Marketing. This may not be the most well organized post, but like I said, it's just my two cents.
Update: I have changed my mind on some of the statements in this post. See Viral Marketing in Real Life
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Hating but committing-
I think that we have this grossly inaccurate impression that in order for sin to be sin, it has to be enjoyed. I even heard someone today say that what they were doing wasn't really bad because they were just doing it because they were bored, not because they wanted to. I really don't know which is worse. Gross disobedience because of an almost overwhelming urge or simply because you don't care about the law? Of course, what the young man was implying is that sin is giving yourself over to another power, allowing yourself to be controlled by an influence. And he obviously takes the stand, "I could quit if I wanted to," which is not new. Ask any of the hundreds of users on our sites that have struggled with addiction in some form or another and you'll find that most of them don't really enjoy the actual act all that much. They don't enjoy it and they don't enjoy the aftermath, yet they can't seem to act while in its trance. Scary, blind world it is when we're not looking far enough ahead to plan the next step but allowing it to come as it will. At the heart of the problem, I think we will find an issue of faith, or lack thereof. It's not just the addicts. We have a large number in society that no longer think pro-actively or plan with faith that which they want to accomplish. Addiction is simply the vice that brings all of this to the surface and solidifies what was already happening in the heart. Visualizing yourself acting a certain way, and apparently visualizing in third person in particular, helps us act on faith and plan the path that we will take. Spend a few minutes in the morning thinking of the type of person you want to be that day and then actually, mentally lay out what you're going to do in order to accomplish that. The old adage, those who fail to plan, plan to fail really has some spiritual significance.
"And there were many whose faith was so exceedingly strong, even before Christ came, who could not be kept from within the veil, but truly saw with their eyes the things which they had beheld with an eye of faith, and they were glad." (Ether 12:19)
"And there were many whose faith was so exceedingly strong, even before Christ came, who could not be kept from within the veil, but truly saw with their eyes the things which they had beheld with an eye of faith, and they were glad." (Ether 12:19)
Labels: visualization addiction
