One of my favorite marketing blogs, Neuromarketing, recently ran a post about the positive side of daydreaming.

As blogger Roger Dooley notes, when business teams need to brainstorm a new idea, the knee-jerk action is to get people sitting down together to spend a segmented amount of time concentrating on thinking and talking about one topic until something sticks.

Don't think so hard. According to psychologist sources, daydreaming can be productive.

However according to Karina Christoff, psychology professor at the University of British Columbia, this tried and true method is not always the best approach.

It’s not that concentrated thought is a bad idea. But daydreaming, Professor Christoff suggests, isn’t as unproductive as it is said to be. In fact, daydreaming improves your creativity.

Christoff explains: After all that mind-wandering, eventually you start seeing connections that you wouldn’t have seen before, because you would never have logically allowed your mind to make those connections. Now it’s going to make them for you.”

I’m sure that most marketing experts have their own unique take on the creative brainstorming process. Few people can come up with something truly innovative by staying within the lines.

So what’s your approach?

Image source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4567659/Americans-embarrassed-by-poor-spelling-performance-compared-to-Britons.html

Big reason #1 for not upgrading: “Upgrading may break our current apps.”

IE6 behaves differently than every other browser, so it requires more development time. It is a last generation browser which doesn’t support many newer features. It is half the speed of most modern browsers (on a good day). This limits new applications, not to mention the price increases that accompany longer development processes. Google has been actively pushing people away from IE6. When you log into Gmail with IE6 you get a “Get faster Gmail” message which encourages you to switch to Chrome or FireFox. Even 37Signals has dropped support with an explanation of IE6’s limitations at http://37signals.blogs.com/products/2008/07/basecamp-phasin.html. It is much easier to upgrade an app to a modern browser, than develop modern apps to run in IE6. While these organizations may need to spend money on upgrading older applications, they will save money in the long run because all their new projects will be quicker and easier to develop.

Big reason #2 for not upgrading: “We don’t know the security and compatibility implications of upgrading.”

Even Microsoft has decided it is time to move on. They have announced that they will stop actively supporting IE6 in June. It will be grandfathered in, but will receive no more compatibility and security updates. If this isn’t an indication that it is time to move on I don’t know what is. In 2009, Secunia, a computer security company, reported 142 vulnerabilities compared to the 34 in Firefox (http://secunia.com/advisories/product/11/). I wonder how long it will take for IT departments to catch on that upgrading will be cheaper and easier than trying to support software that even the company that wrote it won’t support.

If anybody else has complaints about IE6, let’s hear it.

Back in the old days before my time, computers were programmed with Procedural Languages. Measure 1 cup of pancake mix into a bowl, stir in 1 cup milk, mix. Heat griddle … well, you get the idea. Everything was spelled out in procedural sequence. And programs were long and hard to maintain.

Then along came Smalltalk-80 which introduced the world to Object Oriented programming. Now we can tell the Griddle object to flip the contents. How that happens is entirely up to the griddle. The goal is to split large programs into manageable pieces (objects) that are easier for people to work through.

Tell Don’t Ask refers to a guideline in Object Oriented programming: tell an object to do something, don’t ask it for private data.

Alec Sharp (1) contrasts procedural and object oriented programming in his book Smalltalk by Example by:

With procedural languages writing something like this was common:

while scanner.has_links_to_visit

link = scanner.next_link_to_visit
webpage_contents = get(link)
process_webpage(webpage_contents)

end

My fingers hurt just typing that in.

Imagine my shock and horror when I realized that example was recently written in my favorite object oriented language: ruby. How could this be?  Was I asleep at the keyboard when I typed in the while loop?

How do we know this code is procedural?  Simple, it asks the “scanner” is there any work to do and makes a decision based on the answer which violates the “Tell, Don’t Ask” guideline.

We can turn this procedural code into object oriented code by using an iterator. David A. Black covers this topic nicely in his book The Well-Grounded Rubyist.  The object oriented version using an iterator turns the while loop into

scanner.each_link_to_visit {|link| process_webpage(get(link)) }

The iterator “each_link_to_visit” quietly hides the details and provides values to the block, one at a time.  The big win comes during application maintenance: reading 1 line of clear code is easier to understand than reading 5 lines of code.  It’s like reading the Cole’s Notes version of War and Peace versus the reading the original version in Russian.

Iterators are a handy-dandy tool for converting procedural while loops into object oriented loops.

Happy iterating,

Alvin.

I was reading Garfield comics on dead trees (paper books). Yep I was in elementary school and enjoyed a good laugh at the fat cat.

Last weekend I was tired but not sleepy so I decided to Google Garfield. And up popped the Garfield website.

Two things caught my eye

1. Garfield is still targeted towards kids
2. I can read comics for free without killing trees

So I started reading the comics. Some comics were rehashing old material. Some comics (almost) showed character development as the main character Jon finally found a girlfriend. And I laughed (ROTFL?).

Garfield comic: November 12, 2008

Then the sciency part of me kicked in and I asked myself Am I so immature that I still laugh at the same things I did in elementary school? Or does the Garfield comic work on multiple levels?

Then I looked at the Garfield website again with new eyes. Plenty of cartoon graphics for kids. Some advertising for adults: sign up for Vonage, virtual web hosting, give me your money…

Perhaps some of the comics work on two levels

1. facial expression changes and cute graphics for the kids
2. words in the captions: rating a girlfriend on how fast she can pluck a chicken for those in the dating scene

Out of curiosity, how many urban kids know what “plucking a chicken” entails?

How can a website for kids be “safe” when it includes advertising from a third-party?

Things that make me go “Hmm…” now that I am not in elementary school.

Image source: http://garfield.com/comics/todayscomic.html on November 12, 2008
Page backwards or search for November 12, 2008.

Great Web Copy is a Product of Teamwork

In the comment thread from my last post, Justin mentioned 37 Signals as a model for great web copy. I couldn’t agree more. For those of us looking to write smart, sharp marketing copy for the online software market, I think 37 Signals sets a high standard.

Consider this quote from their homepage:

Execution is everything.

We believe most software is too complex. Too many features, too many buttons, too much confusion. We build easy to use web-based products with elegant interfaces and thoughtful features. We’re focused on executing on the basics beautifully.

Source: http://www.37signals.com

Without getting too technical, I’d like to point out the consistent structural features of this snippet. The use of short sentences helps the copy pack a punch: each statement comes and says only what it needs to. Conventional grammar is abandoned in favour of information-stuffed fragments. The tone of the copy matches the mission of the company. Just like they want to simplify online software, 37 Signals accordingly communicates in a simple, no-nonsense fashion. Their software is friendly, so their copy is friendly.

Which brings me to what I believe to be the most important maxim of writing web copy: match your voice with your company. Short and sweet is nothing if your copy doesn’t have something more, its own unique voice. There is nothing that can improve your marketing better than a thorough understanding of your business’s mission and value system that goes for marketing in person, of course, as much as it does on the web.

My suggestion to web writers is to take the time to accustom yourself with the look and feel of your company, and this ranges from its webpage, to its physical office space, to the people who make the magic happen on a daily basis. Have a conversation with your coworkers about what your company means, what its ambitions are and what its core values boil down to. Write that stuff down, and highlight key words that come to mind. Here at Plainpeak, our philosophy always links back to “Grow Smart”. I find those two words surprisingly helpful when I’m struggling with marketing copy.

Justin also drew my attention to an incredible non-profit site called Housing Works. Next week I want to consider the differences and resonances between non-profit and corporate marketing copy: what can each of them learn from the other?

In the meantime, I am interested in more examples of great web copy. What are your favourites?

Image Source: http://www.avision2market.com/index.html

Barack Obama photographed by Joe Crimmings (via Flickr)

Obama’s answer hits not just one but several of the oldest entrepreneurial problems at their core. To start off he makes clear who’s advice he is listening to and how he goes about handling that advice  …

“…the only people that really know are the collection of ex-Presidents that we have. And I want to protect the confidentiality of those conversations since I expect to go back to them for advice, and I want to feel that they can give me unvarnished advice.”

This short introduction to his full answer (see below) already covers two huge lessons for politicians, entrepreneurs and managers alike:

Lesson #1. He focuses on listening to people that have done what he aspires to do, that have been in the role that he is getting into an have succeeded in overcoming the challenges (at least in part) that he is going to face in the near future. In the business world there is so much advice available that comes from people who have never started a small business in their lives, that were never responsible to close a sale, to get new work in for next month, to get a couple of projects done for next week, send invoices out and make payroll at the end of the month and – of course – have supper ready for the kids every night.

Simple but effective Obama lesson #1: Listen to people that have done it and are willing to share honestly. Everything else is wasting your precious time.

Lesson #2. He makes very clear that he wants to protect and deepen the relationships with the ones who know by protecting their privacy and the confidentiality of those conversations.This seems trivial but when you think of it he could have just talked about the things that aren’t confidential and not mention anything that is. Instead he sends a clear message to his network and his supporters, strongly underlining how he appreciates their support and how he’d never compromise relationships i.e. for a quick headline. This one sentence sends a powerful message: “You can trust me.”

What can we learn from this? Trust is a prerequisite for any successful business relationship. The formula is simple: No trust, no transaction. And yet too many businesses, small and large, choose to compromise their relationships – and by doing so their own lifeline – by jeopardizing the trust of their clients, employees and partners, sometimes for very short term benefits.

Obama’s lesson #2: Never, ever compromise the trust that people have in you, in fact; take every opportunity you have to deepen their level of trust and strengthen your relationships.

So, what has Obama learned form his presidential predecessors?

From the short but insightful introduction above he moves on to let us know what stuck out as a very valuable lesson for him …

“I can tell you that all of them have said that it is important to carve out time to think and not spend your entire day reactive. Because there’s always a crisis coming at you, there’s always a meeting you could be doing, there’s always a press conference or a group of supporters that you could be responding to. And so I think maintaining that kind of discipline is important.”

Wow. This is one of the best lessons any entrepreneur and manager can learn. Every business owner, every manager (including myself) gets sucked into dealing with the daily struggles any business has in store (pun intended) in such abundance. It is so easy to get caught up in doing another task, meeting another deadline, finishing this project and ultimately working IN the business 100% of the time instead of working ON the business on a regular basis. By working ON your business I mean focusing on creating clockwork instead of continuing to tell the time over and over. It means looking at your business form a strategic and tactical perspective and putting measures and activities in place that get you where you want to go. The problem is that too often a business’s development (or lack thereof) heads in the wrong direction because nobody looked at it from and ‘outside’ perspective. By outside, I don’t necessarily mean ‘external consultant’ but outside, as in, not being overwhelmed by a stack of tasks, an endless list of E-mails or a brewing crisis with a customer.

For myself, I will take the advice that Obama received from a list of ex-presidents to heart. My goal is to carve out half a day per week to think and to work on my business. I plan to keep you posted on this blog on how that works out for me and what that ‘protected’ time to think gets me. Stay tuned and watch for posts titled ‘Time to think: …”

By the way, the E-Myth Revisited and all the other versions of this book by Michael E. Gerber explain the concept of working on your business instead of in your business from every angle. I consider it a must read for every active or aspiring entrepreneur, manager, physician or contractor.

You may have perfectionists in your life. You know the type, the ones that work on a project tweaking and “finishing up” until the deadline has long passed. So, what’s the harm?

The harm associated with perfectionism can lead to delays or even stop a project. So how do you know when it’s time to call it a finished project? Well, that is like answering the question “Are we done yet?”  and it requires defining objective acceptance criteria.  How the acceptance criteria are worded is important. Here is an example of how vague acceptance criteria can muddle the answer to the question.

Example: Working on an application that processes credit card authorization, you can have two acceptance criteria. The first is “The application should process credit card authorizations quickly”. The second is “Processing a credit card authorization should take no more than 1 second 90% of the time and no more than 3 seconds ever”. 

The first statement is vague and can lead a perfectionist team to focus on optimization and speed which is a fun task indeed. The second statement is objectively testable by anyone with access to the system.  Pull out your stop-watch and press “authorize”.  Either the system responded within 3 seconds (quickly enough) or not.  No ambiguity.  This means the team knows when it is done and can move on to other tasks.

Objective acceptance criteria have more benefits:

1. Perfectionists have less wiggle room to continue working on one task.
2. You know when the software works correctly because all acceptance criteria pass.
3. There is no ambiguity on which features are included or not included in the software.
4. It also provide a talking point: is the acceptance criteria feasible?

Acceptance criteria should be defined carefully as the criteria focuses the team’s attention on what is important in that what you measure is what you get.  Normally acceptance criteria are tied to business value, a topic for another blog post.

How do you know when you are done your tasks?

Recently, GOOD magazines’ daily newscast (with tiny newscaster Roger Numbers) covered a story about communities developing hometown currencies to spark the local economy.  These local currencies can be bought at a discounted rate (i.e.: 90 cents on the dollar) but then are accepted by local area businesses at full value. In this way, consumers are encouraged to buy local products. Apparently, many communities have been producing this type of local money for years with some currencies (the Massachusetts BerkShare) having issued as much as 1.5 million dollars.

In Canada we have two national currencies. Officially, we only have the Canadian dollar. It is well known for its colorful designs that emphasize nature, hockey and beavers. Our second (unofficial) currency is Canadian Tire Money, noteworthy for its pitifully low and awkward denominations and its resemblance to Monopoly money. Canadian Tire, it should be explained, is one of Canada’s largest retail and automotive outlets. Initially, Canadian Tire Money originated as a customer loyalty program in 1958 and remains arguably the most successful and well-known marketing campaigns in Canadian history. 

These secondary currencies encourage spending in the local economy and provide a boost to the businesses that accept the unique money. The alternative currencies also provide incentive for loyal and repeat customers (a highly coveted marketing demographic). It may not be the solution to the current economic problems but local currencies (if successful) can prove to be a powerful and enduring promotional tool.

We are very thankful to Michael for his participation in SmibsTV. If you get a chance, click on the SmibsTV link and watch this and prior episodes.

(Editors note: If you are wondering who produces and edits SmibsTV, it’s Smibs’ own New Media Intern Elisabeth Szabo.)

What makes GOOD innovative or different?  Well for starters, Ben gives away all the proceeds from the subscription-based magazine to a charitable organization of your choice. Since the 2006 launch, GOOD has yet to break even, let alone post a profit. The company has done a lot for charities and non-profits and to date has already given away over $850 000 to these institutions.  GOOD’s website is also host to a rich variety of web-based content including a regular video newscast, an impressive community site and a decent library of current events based mini-documentaries.

GOOD has been criticized as being ‘too idealistic’ in their business model. I think they are quite savvy. Giving away their subscription base to charity could be considered a marketing strategy. They receive priceless public relations coverage from the media and the consumer feels like they have financially contributed to a worthy cause. This personifies GOOD magazine as selfless contributor to charities.  In reality, subscriptions account for very little income for most magazines where as most income comes from advertising dollars. So to recap, GOOD gains legitimacy as a philanthropist from both the media and the consumer while actually contributing a very small percentage of total income to charities. That being said, I feel that GOOD magazine should be recognized for what it is (i.e.: a very entertaining magazine with great web content) and not for what it wants to be (i.e.: Robin Hood).

 

(Editors Note: Ben Goldhirsh was recently interviewed on CBC’s ‘The Hour’.  Check out the interview here)