Comic for April 2, 2013

via Dilbert Daily Strip http://feed.dilbert.com/~r/dilbert/daily_strip/~3/vPxp0_eC_bo/

The Branding Power of the Prank

This year, more than ever before it seems, businesses got into the spirit of April Fools' Day. Twitter, for example, announced a policy change that tweeters would henceforth have to pay if they wanted to use vowels. Sony pretended it had launched a new product line, Animalia, consisting of electronics especially designed for pets. Google tried to trick the world into thinking it now offered olfactionary search.

What's behind all this tomfoolery? Let's start with the main reason that companies are playing these jokes: It's because they can. Large-scale gags on the order of BBC News' revelation that spaghetti grows on trees used to be the sole province of major broadcasters. Now that every business has a web presence that allows it to publish daily, it's easy to post creative content for April 1 only to take it down by April 2.

Amidst all the fun, some killjoys have started raising the question: Just because you can prank the public, does that mean you should? As many have hinted or outright said: Shouldn't you be, um, working?


But the better question is this: Why wouldn't you do an April Fools' Day stunt?

If you think about it, even a joke that's just okay is going to get more positive attention for your brand than almost anything else you could do today, or this month. Let's stipulate that the humor behind your prank is the self-effacing kind that plays on your own quirks rather than the cruel, "kick me" kind that makes sport of your victim's gullibility. In that case, you are striking exactly the tone that social media applauds brands for in other instances. Indeed, your April Fools' gag will see plenty of extra amplification, as media from ABC News to Huffington Post to Time aggregate examples in their April Fools' Day coverage.



I'll push the point even further: A good April Fools joke — again, assuming it involves a light dose of self-mockery — can even pay benefits internally. Just as having your caricature drawn by a street artist is a good way to open your eyes to your most pronounced features, a parody is a great way to get past managers' defenses and show in stark relief what the brand really stands for in customers' minds.

Several years ago I had the idea to actually put this notion to the test. Thanks to my friend (and long-time HBR author) Tom Davenport, I had an "in" to the inner sanctum of the Harvard Lampoon. Tom's son Hayes was a Harvard undergraduate at the time, and one of the Lampoon's officers. Since the Lampoon is known for its magazine parodies, I asked him: Why don't you ever make fun of HBR? I even thought we might induce them to choose us for their next spoof by doing three things: sharing fonts and templates to make it easy to mimic the graphic design; lending lists to help them direct-market to the people who would be most likely to buy; and giving them access to archives and editors so they'd get an up-close look at our worst excesses.

Sadly, the idea died in committee here. Harvard wasn't ready to turn quite so crimson. But it made so much sense that Hayes turned around and pitched the concept to National Geographic, and they went for it.

If you're looking for any more argument that there's a positive ROI on April foolery, think of this. Workplaces have always been ground zero for April Fools' Day pranks among colleagues. The time and energy, in other words, are already being spent. Unleashing the humor on the public is a way to capitalize on it. So if you didn't do it this year, resolve to go for the jocular in 2014, and let your customers in on the joke.

via HBR.org http://blogs.hbr.org/hbr/hbreditors/2013/04/the_branding_power_of_the_pran.html

Apple Is Really Looking Ugly Into The Close

Ugly late day for Apple.

It's now down over 2%, and crumbling into the close. Not helping things is news that a huge Fidelity fund has cut its stake.

And it's not just today that the stock is doing bad.

Down about 8% over last four days "@karsun01: haven't seen 4 consecutive days like this in $AAPL since 5/12"

— Stocktwits (@StockTwits) April 1, 2013

Please follow SAI on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

via SAI http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/mldcwhSBu0o/apple-down-over-2-percent-2013-4

The Hidden Biases in Big Data

This looks to be the year that we reach peak big data hype. From wildly popular big data conferences to columns in major newspapers, the business and science worlds are focused on how large datasets can give insight on previously intractable challenges. The hype becomes problematic when it leads to what I call "data fundamentalism," the notion that correlation always indicates causation, and that massive data sets and predictive analytics always reflect objective truth. Former Wired editor-in-chief Chris Anderson embraced this idea in his comment, "with enough data, the numbers speak for themselves." But can big data really deliver on that promise? Can numbers actually speak for themselves?

Sadly, they can't. Data and data sets are not objective; they are creations of human design. We give numbers their voice, draw inferences from them, and define their meaning through our interpretations. Hidden biases in both the collection and analysis stages present considerable risks, and are as important to the big-data equation as the numbers themselves.

For example, consider the Twitter data generated by Hurricane Sandy, more than 20 million tweets between October 27 and November 1. A fascinating study combining Sandy-related Twitter and Foursquare data produced some expected findings (grocery shopping peaks the night before the storm) and some surprising ones (nightlife picked up the day after — presumably when cabin fever strikes). But these data don't represent the whole picture. The greatest number of tweets about Sandy came from Manhattan. This makes sense given the city's high level of smartphone ownership and Twitter use, but it creates the illusion that Manhattan was the hub of the disaster. Very few messages originated from more severely affected locations, such as Breezy Point, Coney Island and Rockaway. As extended power blackouts drained batteries and limited cellular access, even fewer tweets came from the worst hit areas. In fact, there was much more going on outside the privileged, urban experience of Sandy that Twitter data failed to convey, especially in aggregate. We can think of this as a "signal problem": Data are assumed to accurately reflect the social world, but there are significant gaps, with little or no signal coming from particular communities.

While massive datasets may feel very abstract, they are intricately linked to physical place and human culture. And places, like people, have their own individual character and grain. For example, Boston has a problem with potholes, patching approximately 20,000 every year. To help allocate its resources efficiently, the City of Boston released the excellent StreetBump smartphone app, which draws on accelerometer and GPS data to help passively detect potholes, instantly reporting them to the city. While certainly a clever approach, StreetBump has a signal problem. People in lower income groups in the US are less likely to have smartphones, and this is particularly true of older residents, where smartphone penetration can be as low as 16%. For cities like Boston, this means that smartphone data sets are missing inputs from significant parts of the population — often those who have the fewest resources.

Fortunately Boston's Office of New Urban Mechanics is aware of this problem, and works with a range of academics to take into account issues of equitable access and digital divides. But as we increasingly rely on big data's numbers to speak for themselves, we risk misunderstanding the results and in turn misallocating important public resources. This could well have been the case had public health officials relied exclusively on Google Flu Trends, which mistakenly estimated that peak flu levels reached 11% of the US public this flu season, almost double the CDC's estimate of about 6%. While Google will not comment on the reason for the overestimation, it seems likely that it was caused by the extensive media coverage of the flu season, creating a spike in search queries. Similarly, we can imagine the substantial problems if FEMA had relied solely upon tweets about Sandy to allocate disaster relief aid.

Big data's signal problems won't disappear as the use of smartphones and other digital technologies increases. As the geographers Michael Crutcher and Matthew Zook noted after Hurricane Katrina, technologies are always differentially adopted, and "any divide in accessing digital technology is not a one-time event but a constantly moving target as new devices, software and cultural practices emerge." As we move into an era in which personal devices are seen as proxies for public needs, we run the risk that already existing inequities will be further entrenched. Thus, with every big data set, we need to ask which people are excluded. Which places are less visible? What happens if you live in the shadow of big data sets?

This points to the next frontier: how to address these weaknesses in big data science. In the near term, data scientists should take a page from social scientists, who have a long history of asking where the data they're working with comes from, what methods were used to gather and analyze it, and what cognitive biases they might bring to its interpretation (for more, see "Raw Data is an Oxymoron"). Longer term, we must ask how we can bring together big data approaches with small data studies — computational social science with traditional qualitative methods. We know that data insights can be found at multiple levels of granularity, and by combining methods such as ethnography with analytics, or conducting semi-structured interviews paired with information retrieval techniques, we can add depth to the data we collect. We get a much richer sense of the world when we ask people the why and the how not just the "how many". This goes beyond merely conducting focus groups to confirm what you already want to see in a big data set. It means complementing data sources with rigorous qualitative research. Social science methodologies may make the challenge of understanding big data more complex, but they also bring context-awareness to our research to address serious signal problems. Then we can move from the focus on merely "big" data towards something more three-dimensional: data with depth.

via HBR.org http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/04/the_hidden_biases_in_big_data.html

Leading Teams When Lives Are at Stake

I am about to climb Mount Everest. And as a management professor (Scott speaking here) this inevitably has led me to wonder how team dynamics will play out on the mountain — as my life may depend on it. Before you go worrying, I have been training for years, have extensive climbing experience, and am going with reputably one of the world's best guiding companies.

Still, I don't have to tell you that the stakes of successful teamwork are high when ascending the highest mountain in the world. With this in mind, I recently sat down with David Morton, a world-class mountaineer (and coauthor of this post) who has led teams to the summit of Mount Everest six times. In light of our different backgrounds, we found common ground in what it takes to build and lead teams up Everest, and how those leadership lessons apply to the high-risk, high-uncertainty environments that business leaders find themselves in today.

Know your team's goals and stress points. Everest is high-stakes not only because of the inherent dangers, but also because nobody wants to fail after investing years of training (and in some cases, their life savings) in this journey. Not too dissimilar from high-potentials who fixate on the "corner office," many climbers are completely gripped by the idea of "Everest" and have an irrational dream about what it means to summit the mountain. Other people play down the difficulty — the dangers and the accomplishment — acting as if it were not a big deal. You must assess and monitor where people fall on this spectrum. Do this by encouraging transparency, starting with yourself. Communicate your goals for the team and your personal motives. Make it clear how achieving the team goal can enable individuals to achieve their personal goals, and then be honest about what individual goals will not be met (including your own).

Cultivate psychological safety. In high-stakes environments, fear is your biggest enemy to success. There will always be unexpected events and setbacks, and fear keeps hidden the information your team needs to be resilient. You need team members to be honest and speak up even if their point of view is unpopular. On Everest, there are many self-protective reasons for withholding information. Reporting a health concern might result in being seen as weak. Inquiring about a specific climbing technique could appear as lacking adequate skills. Expressing uncertainty about the team leader's plan could be seen as defiant, inappropriate, or not being a "team player." So, how do you ensure team members speak up, share concerns, and question assumptions? Keep these strategies in mind:

• Minimize status differences. David, for example, minimizes discussions about differences in experience levels among team members. Scott worked with an executive who would intentionally not attend brainstorming meetings with his direct reports, so they wouldn't feel intimidated by his rank and hold back ideas.


• Tell stories, even ones that make you vulnerable. Sharing personal experiences where you made mistakes is not a sign of weakness. Rather, it makes clear that nobody is perfect and creates a norm of sharing in the team.


• Engage one-on-one. Trust is essential. Find at least one or two commonalities with each team member, and demonstrate a commitment to personal engagement and consideration.


• Be inclusive and forgiving. Invite and appreciate others' contributions to group decision-making. When mistakes occur, demonstrate a commitment to forgiveness. Focus on learning, not reprimanding. Mistakes will occur, just make sure not to make the same one twice.

Give away information. In high-stakes environments, err on the side of too much information. More information helps the team feel engaged in the process, and reduces anxiety and stress. For example, David makes it clear from the very beginning how decisions will be made. There will be times when he must make an executive decision, but it is clear that his decision must be informed by input from all team members. With few exceptions, David shares the information he has as team leader, explains how that information is being used to make a decision, and what options are being considered based on the available information. As a result, the team feels engaged and ultimately more committed to the final decision.

Be decisive but patient. In situations with limited time and information, leaders need to be decisive and clear but should not feel compelled to immediately make a call. Imagine being at 28,000 feet with unpredictable weather, limited communication, and incomplete information. The team is anxious. A bias for action is necessary to accomplish the team goal, protect the group, and maintain the team's confidence in your authority. Yet, at the same time, the leader cannot afford to become wrapped up in a very emotional, high-anxiety situation. You can prepare by consistently reinforcing "what if" scenarios in advance — which enable you and your team to more effectively deal with the uncertainty. But remember, under extreme stress, not everyone will recall and be able to act on those scenarios.

The best way to clear your head for sound decisions is to sit down and step back. Find a space where you can think without feeling pressured to make an immediate decision. On one expedition, bad weather moved in and forced Scott's team to decide whether to continue to the summit or turn around, less than an hour from the top. While team members debated and reinforced their commitment to summiting, the team leader sat down in the snow and was silent for a few minutes. He found a space to think despite the chaos, and upon his call, we turned around. (Thank you, Garrett.)

Stay flexible. It is impossible to lead when you are overly attached to how things are supposed to happen. You had a vision about how things were going to work based on the previous day's information. You planned and strategized. The next day, everything changes. On Everest, it is a team member getting sick, the weather changing, or another team needing your help. In business, it is unexpected changes to a project, variable customer demands, or sudden shifts in the market. You cannot afford to be attached to the plan simply because you invested in it previously. You must quickly identify the need for change, explain the change even if it means admitting a mistake or misjudgment, and present the new plan. Whether it is on Everest or in business, your team's ability to thrive and survive in high-stakes environments depends on you staying flexible and adapting in real time.

Follow Scott's journey on Mt. Everest on Twitter (@scottderue), and at the Alpine Ascents Everest 2013 blog. Follow David's climbs this year @davidcmorton.

via HBR.org http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/04/leading_teams_when_lives_are_a.html

What's the Connection Between Counting Squares and Innovation?

Take a look at the following figure, and then consider the questions below.

1. How many squares are there in this picture?


2. How did you arrive at this number?


3. What connection (if any) do you see between this exercise and breakthrough innovation?

We will provide the answers to these three questions in a separate post on Wednesday. In the meantime, you can submit your answers by posting a comment below, along with your email address. We'll pick five commenters that we feel answer these questions best, and they will be given a copy of the book Reverse Innovation .

via HBR.org http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/04/whats_the_connection_between_c.html

Yes, Marketers, There Is Life After Mommyblogging

"We buy stuff too." That's the rallying cry I've heard from widely read female bloggers over age 49, who are frustrated that a well-established cadre of younger women with young children — known as "mommybloggers" — garner extensive promotional contracts with major brand advertisers, while Boomer-aged women online are often ignored.

What marketers seem to be missing is that Boomer women are actually outspending younger generations online — and not on the products that might come to mind when you picture the 50+ set. Boomers averaged $650 spent online vs. Gen X at $581 and Gen Y at $429, according to Forrester Research. They are buying beauty products, electronics, experiences, vacations, and health products.

To make sense of the confluence of disposable income and increasing online time among this generation and what it means for marketers, I've drawn on my own experience and the rise of the mommyblogger.



I began working in digital marketing to women when I was 22. Back then we had message boards to share the woes and joys of life, not Facebook or blogs. Along the way, I've marketed everything from makeup to presidential candidates, but the bulk of my work has concentrated on reaching mothers of young children, that sweet demographic of women 25-45 with kids at home and lots and lots of consumer goods to purchase. In 2008, Bryan McCleary, director of external relations for P&G, endorsed a mom-centric marketing worldview when he said, "It's official: Mom bloggers are the new influencers." In 2013, the world of "influencer marketing" is a crucial element of the marketing mix. Increasingly, we don't make purchasing decisions based on impersonal Consumer Reports or television commercials; we turn instead to our trusted web of friends and confidants online for their knowledge and experiences.

Marketers seem to have missed — or ignored — the arrival of Boomers online. Perhaps their entree into the digital world was quieter and more gradual than their younger counterparts. Perhaps this generation is different than any other generation we've seen come of age, in terms of their disposable income and longer life expectancy. They just don't fit into the traditional marketing bucket reserved for 50-65 year olds — they are more active, more vibrant, and healthier, than any generation that has come before. Perhaps there's just not a convenient way to talk about this demographic — "mommyblogger" is a convenient brand identity that immediately helps people understand what they do and who they are. While some bloggers in the older demographic use "Boomer" and some use "midlife," neither term is quite comfortable. Chloe Jeffreys of GenerationFabulous.com says that midlife bloggers don't particularly care for the term "midlife": "I fought until I was 51 and then I realized I'm probably not going to live past 102!" Though these women might not know quite sure how to label themselves and their experiences, their might online is not lessened, and marketers need to understand that.

"The ad model hasn't shifted from targeting 18-49 year olds, but the next time you walk into an Apple store, take a look at who's there," says Anne Marie Kovacs of the BoomBox Network. Chances are, it's men and women over 45. Apart from the fact that those between the ages of 50 and 65 spend twice the amount of money on healthcare than the 18 to 25 year-old set and three times as much money on housing, 50 to 65 year-olds also spend an amazing 78% more money on shopping. Simply put, marketers should follow the money.

What do these women want marketers to know? They want marketers to better help women age well; it's about looks, finance, dreams, work, parents, and kids.

I've heard from many of these bloggers that the elder caregiving explosion is a popular marketing message to boomers online, often as proxies for their elderly parents, who are not net savvy. Informal, unpaid caregivers contributed $450 billion in help to older adults — and two out of three say caregiving has impacted their work. There is obviously a huge market opportunity to provide a variety of services to these caregivers. AARP reports "42 percent of U.S. workers have provided care for an aging relative or friend in the past five years. About half (49 percent) of the workforce expects to be providing eldercare in the coming five years." Most of these caregivers are midlife women.

Caregiving is a huge impact on midlife women, but it's just one element of a whole life. Just as mommybloggers write about everything on their blogs, midlife bloggers aren't beholden to only talking about the sandwich generation.

Think about beauty and fashion. One of my favorite new blogs, Une Femme De Certain Age, highlights great fashion and looks for the second half of your life: in her eyes, a footloose life spent traveling and exploring. Barbara Grufferman writes The Best of Everything After 50, talking to Boomer women about health, style, finance, sex, and design. Sound like other blogs you've read authored by women in their 20s and 30s?

Then there's food. On her blog, A Boomer's Life After 50, Judi Freedman covers everything from heart health to cooking, to dealing with raising adult children and the recent loss of her mom. Hers is an authoritative voice, one well worth the attention of a brand marketer.

Work, personal finance and entrepreneurship is a huge focus. Darryle Pollack, 63, a former TV journalist turned blogger is launching The WHOA network, a video network that helps women honor their age, says, "at this point in life it's almost shocking to realize how much energy and drive I have. All the women I know: even if they haven't worked before, they're working now, and they're using digital media to find that path. Traditionally, women who are past childbearing age sort of faded into the woodwork and that is SO not happening now."

All women who use social media to connect want the same thing: a community of friends where they can talk openly about their opinions, hopes, and dreams as those things apply to them. And they want to be recognized for the value they bring to these conversations.



From my vantage point as a Gen Xer, I'm thrilled at the increasing breadth of women's voices online. Even the original cadre of "mommybloggers" have reached an age where their kids are older, and their lives and blog content are expanding too. Gen Xers may just find themselves in a similar position as they approach 50.

The fullness of a woman's life demands a 360-degree view from marketers; her interests cannot be contained to a narrow lens or a defined age group.

via HBR.org http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/04/yes_marketers_there_is_life_af.html