Everybody Loves a Good Story

I just read The Storytelling Animal: How Stories Make Us Human by Jonathan Gotschall. The title caught my attention. We humans learn things more effectively if information—fictional or nonfictional—is shared in the form of a story or a game. That's one reason school is so boring; not enough storytelling going on. Factual information is no different than fictional information, it can be presented in a story format. We could argue that much of what is presented as history is actually fiction. But sidestepping that debate, even something as fascinating as history—a natural story—can be obliterated by pundits with stuffy presentations.

I'm interested in how to weave a good story. The Storytelling Animal gave several insights to the process, but also went down several loosely related tangents. Like how the human mind will fabricate stories from a limited amount of information in order to make sense of something that happened, or what dreams mean. Some of these tangents were interesting; some strayed farther from storytelling than was interesting for me. Gottschall addresses all areas of storytelling which includes eroticism. There may be some brief sections that are offensive to some individuals.

Dr. Oz gives "three basic insights" on motivating people

I don't watch TV; I have seen but brief segments of Oprah Winfrey and I confess I have never seen Dr. Oz on her show. I did see this article about his new show and was specifically drawn to his reflections on why people that know the facts about health care still don't change their lifestyle; the facts he says, "weren't sinking through."

So Dr. Oz has embarked on a mission to get health facts to sink through; to help people understand why they should take action.

Getting others to take action. Isn't this what anyone with a message is trying to do. Help people not only be aware of something, but understand it well enough to take action? Recently, information I've read about internet marketing uses the term "drive," as in drive customers to your website. It seems to be everywhere. It's just the current "power" term, but it gives the wrong impression.

Drive implies the marketer has control. That may work on some people, but it doesn't work for me. People do not like to be told what to do or pushed (read as, driven) to do something.

Before potential customers buy your offering they want to feel they can trust you and they are receiving good value for their money. This is especially true for internet transactions. This means you must be willing to spend time building trust and even giving them valuable information for free.

Dr. Oz has already established that level of trust through the Oprah show. So now he can get right to the point: First, people must have a visceral awareness of why your product matters. Second, it really has to make a difference in your customers' lives. And third, (and this really applies to the internet) it has to be playful.

This has been my point for years. The time will come when all information is available on the internet, how that information is shared will determine which websites get the most visits.

Growth: the "Killer" App, Why Is It the Titans of Business Never Get It?

Eric Schonfeld of TechCrunch did a book review of "Googled: Schmidt Wants To Build A '$100 Billion Media Company.'" My question is: Why do business leaders always feel bigger is better?

Google has been one of the coolest companies to come along in decades, but trying to become a multi-media giant will ruin everything that makes Google, well...Google.

Growth doesn't mean just doing a lot more of what a company has been doing. Growth requires expanding and moving into other areas; areas where management may not have as much expertise.

Disney was once a really cool company, but as it continued to grow it was forced to focus more on growth and less on creativity. In the 1990s it tried to generate full-length animated feature films with a cookie cutter approach--the tried and true fairytale with three new "blockbuster" songs--and a new film every year. But the creativity was gone. They had to acquire Pixar to get animated features that were even close to original and creative. Slowly, creativity is being wrung out of Pixar too. Now they have consumed Marvel and will start the process of killing it.

Microsoft was once a fairly cool company with software that was--if not really cool and easy to use--at least better than other available options. But with its size, aggressive behavior, and software programs that are becoming more cumbersome to use, many of its customers feel a love-hate relationship with the company. As better software applications that meet specific needs come on-line people continue to use them.

To my mind, these are two companies that, at one point, had it together with bright futures. Growing to a position of dominance has made them targets for other smaller and creative companies who find lucrative niches. Google has been one of the companies with lucrative niches, but I fear is losing its way in the forest of business plans and growth.

Trying to be everything to everybody has never been a viable business model. It has more to do with the ego of company leaders than with providing really creative and useful products or services to your customers.

A Creative Environment: Seven steps to getting it right

Ed Catmull is the president of Walt Disney and Pixar Animation Studios. He is a graduate

of the University of Utah with BS degrees in computer science and physics and a Ph.D. in computer science. He was also a co-founder of Pixar Animation Studios.

Ed was the guest lecturer for the Organick Lecture Series at the University of Utah on December 8, 2008. His lecture was on what he has learned about the creative process as it relates to creating animated movies and shorts, and risk.

The following points from his lecture stood out to me as essential to any creative process. It’s interesting that, with the exception of the first point, they all center on dealing with people.

1. In a creative environment nothing stays the same; there is no safe place. Our measure is taken by how we respond to things when they go wrong.
2. Gather people around you that can do things you cannot do. Don’t be intimidated by people that are better than you are at what they do. Let people work and solve the problems that arise. Trust people; they will make mistakes, but the mistakes can be fixed. Mistakes are part of the creative process. Trust takes time; putting together a group of talented people is not the same as having a group that can work together, be honest about the work with each other, and become cohesive.
3. Ideas are very complex. It may start with a high concept, but eventually there are thousands of decisions that must be made and things that must be done, and most of what is generated won’t get used.
4. As a creative brain trust you must be self-aware and be able to self-assess. Every contributor’s work must be in the open and subject to review by the group at all times. You learn with each other.
5. Talent isn’t fair. You must employ the talent that you have.
6. Push responsibility out to the lowest level possible. Let people work through the difficulties.
7. Make other people look good.

Like so many things in life there is no single way to be creative and what works changes over time. No matter how things change these steps help refine the process. As Ed Catmull pointed out: Our measure is taken by how we respond to things when they go wrong.

Review in Deseret News

Free To Grow

In my post Free To Fail my point is we learn and become stronger by the experiences we have. What we learn helps us better understand how to deal with new situations we are confronted with. When someone shields us from those experiences they do a disservice. When we are shielded from important experiences over a very long period of time the results can be disastrous.

Clayton Christensen in his book Seeing What's Next: Using the Theories of Innovation to Predict Industry Change, in referring to the process of hiring people, articulates it this way:

Most of what managers have learned results from wrestling with problems. Overcoming these challenges or problems leads to the development of competencies that people can use in similar situations in the future. While the right-stuff thinking castigates failure, failing can actually be beneficial as long as one can learn to identify the root cause of the failure so as to prevent it in the future.

How people, managers, have overcome difficulties is often as important or more important than the management skills they have learned.

Free to Fail

Of all the freedoms we enjoy the one most overlooked is freedom to fail. Fail?! That's not, really a freedom is it? We don’t like to talk about it and, truth be known, we really wish it wasn’t there.

Still, this little backwater freedom is under major attack by government officials with encouragement from every side: liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, economists, journalists, businesspeople and citizens at large. Heck, we’d give away the freedom to fail in a heartbeat—if anyone would take it. Who wants to fail? Not me!

What we learn from our failures though—our mistakes—is often more meaningful than what we learn from our successes. Part of human nature is making mistakes. Humanity is full of emotions. We push things to extremes: up and down. Small failures help us learn to avoid big failures. We become more cautious, more observant. We back away from ideas that don’t work and pursue ideas that do work.

When government steps in and saves us from economic turmoil it adds to a feeling of euphoria, a feeling that government really can control things and make life better through economic planning and social programs. However, even when done with the best of intentions, government programs such as loosening financial standards, creating too much money, and acting quickly to keep the economy from experiencing its normal ups and downs delay, but do not eliminate economic corrections.

My biggest fear is that those who want to run the government are too willing to take control and solve our problems. Just sit back and relax. They won't let anything bad happen to us. Poof, our freedoms are squandered along the road to a better society.

You say I'm paranoid and overreacting to the situation? In the last year, we have witnessed many government seizures of control I never dreamed could happen in my lifetime. In some cases the profligate business people begged for government help.

Free markets are made up of millions of people acting on their own behalf; economic engineering and social programs deny us of lessons we as individuals must learn to ensure sound economic growth and development. If we don't learn from our small mistakes as we go, then the let down when it comes is worse, sometimes catastrophic.

Our current situation has grown out of many years of government engineering of the economy and the money supply. The lessons we haven’t learned put us further out on the limb than is reasonable or prudent. We will never know what our economy might have been like if we had grown stronger by learning from our mistakes.

Billion dollar bailouts are a last ditch effort to save us from the harmful and often wrong decisions of economic planners over the past 30 years. Lessons we should have learned in those years have been postponed, but not avoided.

Unfortunately, the price we pay to avoid the pain is more than monetary. We give up the chance to take care of ourselves and do things in better ways, in ways that are more personal. We give up the freedom to choose.

Solving our problems won't be easy. A space ship off course by only half a degree will miss its target by thousands of miles. Because of government meddling our economy has been moving off course for many years. Then when government officials decide to embark on a plan to save us, and throw billions of dollars at it in the process who can stop them?

To be sure, there are other factors contributing to our being off course: greed and big business seeking and receiving favors from government are two, but the lessons we haven’t learned apply here also. And the culprit is also the same: Government granting favors to select groups and encouraging reckless actions on the part of individuals in the name of accomplishing some social program.

Those who would run the government believe we are not capable of taking care of ourselves. They don't have faith in us. They earnestly believe only they can provide the solutions to our misery and woe.

However, people like to do things for themselves. We are capable of figuring out solutions to challenging situations; even situations that are unpleasant and thrust upon us. We have the energy and enthusiasm to meet challenging tasks and overcome them. Our history is full of examples. Our energy and enthusiasm grow when we take care of ourselves.

Relying on government to solve our problems—or worse, wanting government to do so is a recipe for loss of freedom, and I believe for failure on a large scale. We may be learning that unnecessary lesson right now.

There is no substitute to taking responsibility for our own well-being.

What to Do With Wikipedia; A New World Is Before Us

There is a revolution ahead. Some would argue we are already well into it. One thing seems certain, we are much closer to the beginning than the end. This is not a religious war, though some may see it that way; this is not a war of political ideology, though some will try to impose their political orientation; this is not a war for geography, we are moving past that.

This is a war for the World Wide Web and how it is used.

William Badke in his article What to Do With Wikipedia does an exceptional job of addressing several issues that are key to the information age and the way people learn in this new era. The article is worth reading. My perspective on this issue follows: The first issue--creative destruction--was popularized by economist Joseph Schumpeter and more recently articulated by Harvard Professor Clayton M. Christensen in his book The Innovator's Dilemma. When creative new methods or technologies come forth those entrenched in the established methods, most strenuously resist the new ways. Early on at a time when new ways could be adopted the established organizations resist change; the old way works just fine and they are in control. Later when the threat of destruction looms on the horizon the establishment seeks to embrace. Second, to the old guard knowledge is power; something that must be controlled and only imparted (through scholarly journals) to those who are qualified or to those who pay (students). Control does ensures a certain level of discipline, but does not always keep out bias. To the avant-garde knowledge should be freely imparted. In every field, knowledge thus shared brings to bare the intellectual force of all who are interested. This is blasphemy to the anointed scholars, but beyond them are thousands of intelligent people who have significant contributions to make, but in the past were disregarded. When more people get involved ideas are tested and refined in ways that would otherwise not be considered. (James Suroweicki in his book The Wisdom of Crowds proposes the idea that a group of people with varying intellectual abilities often finds a better solution, because experts tend to view things in similar ways.) Discipline is maintained because those involved have a vested interest in making sure it does; perhaps discipline even improves because so many unbiased eyes are watching. Third, the new ways will prevail if for no other reason than the old guard will die. More and more, new academics will innovate, contribute and collaborate in the new medium. Fourth, even some who are accustomed to the traditional academic methods question one of academia's products. Career counselor and author Marty Nemko sees eroding value in the traditional four year college degree http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i34/34b01701.htm. Fifth, as the cost of a college education and advanced degrees continues to skyrocket, as the volume of information even in narrow fields continues to explode, and as the knowledge gained may be very important, but have a short shelf life one must question the viability of the traditional academic format. A system that teaches students--who have no intention of becoming "experts"--vast amounts of information that has no application to the students' needs. Sixth, for years George Gilder has held out the idea that what we have in abundance should be wasted; what is scarce should be preserved. Transistors are a good example. In the 1950s they were rare and expensive, today because transistors are made of silicon they are everywhere and cheap. Knowledge is taking a similar path. Wikipedia is not the new way, it's the current way. Innovators will continue to forge ahead developing new tools and finding ways to use them. What the Internet and the academic environment will look like in another decade is anyone's guess. To be sure it will be someone's guess or more likely the thinking of many.

Thoughts and Ideas

I have so many ideas that come to my mind, but they rarely come to me while I'm at the computer and I usually don't carry around a note pad to record them. Frequently these ideas come to me while I'm driving and it would be impossible to write them down without pulling over to the side of the road. I must start carrying a note pad though.

I was reading some comments last night by Ray Bradbury about his work. He indicated he didn't really create his stories and ideas they just came to him and he would then work to get them recorded. He mentioned how even as a young boy he loved words and ideas and this has carried him through the sixty plus years of his work. He talked about how he wrote as a youth and as he looks back on it how awful his work was and that he didn't really have any talent. He developed through continuing to write because he loved recording his ideas.

I guess I come late to things. I have had a love of words and ideas for the last twenty years or so, but it seems so hard for me to organize my thoughts and get them recorded; when I look back on what little I have recorded my writing seems awful. Still I have this love for words and communication and sharing ideas and it just keeps surfacing in my mind. I must record what I am thinking, even disjointed little snippets of ideas. If I can get them recorded then I have at least a better chance of organizing them into something.

Think Like a Dandelion

Cory Doctorow uses reproductive strategies of mammals and dandelions to make a point about how information and influence are distrbuted in the virtual world. Mammals generally exercise much more control over their offspring than do dandelions. Obviously most mammals wouldn't survive if they adopted the dandelion approach, but the point is our own Internet creations are not the same as our physical offspring.

Still the unresolved question remains, "How do you earn a living if you give away your creations?" I don't have the ultimate solution, but it seems to me the wider your sphere of influence the greater your opportunity to translate what you do into cash flow of some sort.

Nine Inch Nails made its last two creative efforts available for free over the Internet. It's album The Slip is not only available for free, but the group also encourages people to share it, use it and change it. I would never have purchased a NIN CD at the store, and I probably would not have purchased its music over the Internet, but I know the group now and I'm more likely to complete a money transaction in the future. So, has the increased exposure offset the lost revenue from selling music through traditional formats? I don't know. Has it increased the groups sphere of influence? I think so.

The Internet is still relatively new; most people and businesses try to force the ways of commerce from the past on to this new and really uncharted medium. I believe we are on the threshold of significant changes in the way we interact and conduct business on the Internet.