|
|
|
Archive for the ‘Opinion’ Category
May 9th, 2008 by Gord Hotchkiss
In just over a week, I’ll be the emcee at my third Search Insider Summit, on beautiful Captiva Island in Florida. This time around, I also lent fellow Search Insider, David Berkowitz, a hand in putting the program together. We started by asking some past attendees what they liked and what they’d improve about the shows. With the search show calendar as jammed as it’s becoming, it’s important to find a niche that attendees find valuable.
In these conversations, the almost unanimous response was, “more conversations”! The size, scheduling, location and intimacy of the Summit are among its best features, in that they allow attendees to actually talk to each other. So this time around, we’ve allowed for more conversations than ever, but bringing attendees together for round table brainstorming breakouts on topics ranging from local and universal search to social media and cross channel optimization. Each table will be hosted by one or two experts in the area.
But, in search, shows are usually crawling with “hidden” experts who have just as much to add (maybe more) as the people presenting up on the panels. Often, these attendees lurk, remaining silent, and, if you’re extraordinarily lucky, you might sit next to one at the bar after the official show shuts down. This is when many attendee’s real education begins. These sessions are valuable because you can ask specific questions and get relevant and targeted answers. This was the value that our informal research uncovered.
At this Summit, we want to facilitate as many conversations as possible. Rather than vague generalities, we wanted to drill down to real life scenarios, involving the people that are executing within those scenarios on a day to day basis. We’ll have plenty of the high profile experts at the summit, the ones who speak at the big events, but I encourage you to seek out the hidden experts as well. Talk to the people who are executing large campaigns for some of the big brands. The sophistication is often amazing. Swap tales of tactics that have worked. Ask questions and generate discussions. This is what the Search Insider Summit is all about.
I’ve mentioned in the past that some of the best conversations I’ve ever had in this business happen at the Search Insider Summit. I’ve had great conversations with many who I’ve since stayed in contact with. I’ve been pretty involved with both the SMX and SES shows in the past, and I think both show organizers do a great job in providing packed tracks full of information. I’ve also presented at a few PubCons. But the size of these shows makes it difficult to facilitate conversations. They happen organically (most search marketers are not shy) but it can be tough to connect with people. I think the size and atmosphere of the Summit helps encourage that.
I hope I’ll see you there. I’m sure we’ll have some great conversations!
Originally published in Mediapost’s Search Insider, May 8, 2008
May 1st, 2008 by Gord Hotchkiss
All you who have Google stock, take a moment to thank Larry and Sergey. You who have fallen in lust with your iPhone, stop and say a silent prayer for Steve Jobs. And you parents who spent many a peaceful hour thanks to your kids being glued to a Disney movie, face towards Disneyland and bow to Walt himself, may he rest in peace (or a freezer, as rumor has it). Thank God for the product-centric leader, because they are few and far between.
Customer-Centricity: More than Just Words
I have spent many an hour in conference rooms listening to the new “religion” of customer-centricity that has suddenly taken hold of the mega-corporation X, Y or Z. The scripted lines are typically “We are here to serve our customer. We will find optimal strategies to maximize customer experience and revenue opportunities. We embrace good design”
It may sound good in the annual report, but it’s not that easy. When you talk about balance, I hear compromise. Somebody is losing, and it’s almost always your customer. Because as Sergey, Larry, Steve and Walt will tell you, there can only be one person driving this bus. Either it’s your sales manager, or it’s your customer. Come to any intersection and one will tell you to turn right and one will tell you to turn left. Who are you going to listen to?
Now, obviously, Apple, Google and Disney have been known to make a buck or two, so customer-centricity can be profitable. It depends on which route you want to take to get there. If you take the customer’s route, it means having the courage to say no to a lot of people inside your company (and out) along the way. And really, the only person who can say no and get away with it is the leader of the company.
The Product-Centric Leader
Here’s a shocker, coming from me. The more I think about it, the more I don’t believe customer-centricity is the key. It’s not a goal, it’s a by-product. It comes as part of the package (often unconsciously) with another principle that is a little more concrete: Product-centricity. Product-centric leaders, the ones that are obsessive about what gets shipped out the door, are customer-centric by nature. They understand the importance of that magical intersection between product and person, the sheer power of amazing experiences. The iPhone is amazing. Disney classics are amazing. My first search on Google was amazing. Steve, Walt, Larry and Sergey wouldn’t have it any other way. They focus attention on the importance of that experience, and know, somewhere deep down inside, that if they get it right, the revenue will take care of itself.
The other thing about the product-centric leader is that they don’t have to do extensive customer research. They may, and many do, but they already have a gut instinct for what their customers want, because they are their own customer. Larry and Sergey invented a new search engine because the old ones were fundamentally broken and they were fed up with them. Walt built Disneyland because he was tired of sleezy, grimy amusement parks. And Steve knew that some people need a lot more than a beige, generic box because he’s one of them. They have use-centricity baked into their core, because they’re building products they want to use. They don’t compromise in the drive to create a product that’s good enough for them. It’s a happy coincidence that there are lots of other people who also love the product. It’s an intuitive connection that 99.9% of corporate leaders can’t imagine, let alone do.
Managers are almost never Product-Centric
The typical corporate manager has no special bond to the product. Along the line, too many compromises have been made in the name of profitability. Whatever amazement the product may have once had has been sold off, bit by bit, along the way. The sales manager and the bean counters have taken over the steering wheel. They turn out bland, uninspiring products they wouldn’t use themselves. They are not product centric, they’re profit centric, and profit really doesn’t inspire anyone.
I’ve spent a lot of time wondering how so many companies can preach customer-centricity yet continually miss the mark by so much so often. Look at the ones who hit the bull’s eye regularly. It turns out that it’s not so much customer-centricity they’re aiming for, it’s delivering products the leaders are obsessed with because they can’t wait to use them themselves. That’s a key element Good to Great and Built to Last author Jim Collins missed in his Level 5 leadership. Steve Jobs would never be mistaken for Collin’s or Stephen Covey’s ideal leader, but if I were looking for someone who’s going to turn out a product that blows me away, Steve would be my guy.
April 24th, 2008 by Gord Hotchkiss
The difference between tactics and strategy can be monumental in the success of any marketing, and search is no exception. So, what are the telltale signs of a strategy? How can you tell when you’re dealing with a basketful of tactics rather than a well thought out strategic plan? Here are some things to look for:
Strategies are immutable.
They remain constant, and so are expansive enough to accommodate the inevitable tactical shifts that will be required. Strategies provide bearings for the team involved, providing a navigation point that everyone can refer too. Napoleon was one of the best military strategists that ever lived, but he said that he never once had a battle go according to plan. Life never rolls out exactly the way we plan it. But, if you know what your strategy is, you can make the necessary adjustments on the fly and not lose sight of your objectives.
Strategies are not objectives
Strategies are not the same as objectives, but the two are integral to each other. Strategy needs an objective. And realizing objectives is a lot easier with an aligned strategy. But the two can’t replace each other. A great primer in objectives, strategies and tactics is provided by this supposed quote from Colin Powell in Desert Storm.
In a press conference, asked what the objective was, he replied, “Liberate Kuwait.”
“What’s the strategy?”
“First we’re going to cut it off, then we’re going to kill it (referring to Iraqi forces)
“What tactics are you going to use?”
“Tactics are Schwarzkopf’s job”
Strategies are simple yet profound
The best strategies boil down to one absolutely crystal clear concept that everyone can understand. The more people you have working on a strategy, and the more spread out they are, the clearer your strategic foundation has to be. Airlines provide a good example. Southwest’s strategy? To be THE low cost airline. JetBlue’s? To make coach suck less. Those are clear strategies that everyone, from CEO’s to pilots to baggage handlers, can understand. It also gives every team member the latitude to decide on the best tactical execution to achieve the strategic objective.
Strategies are Customer-Centric
Strategies have to be defined both from the outside, looking in, and the inside, looking out. Because of this, strategies have to begin with a clear understanding of your customer and their relationship not just with your company, but also your competition. You must be able to see how they differentiate you from your competitors, not how you believe you might be different. Then, you can use this external perspective to define your internal objectives, improving what must be improved and accentuating what is already good. It’s this view from the outside that allows you to determine the things you should do, and more importantly, the things you shouldn’t do. It helps you decide what the really important things are.
Strategically speaking, where do you begin?
So, if after this Strategy spotting primer, you decide you don’t have a strategy, how do you start building one? It’s no quick task. Strategies come from a lot of soul searching, hundreds (or thousands) of really tough questions and the courage to say no to things that seem really important. And strategies have to begin at the top. They come from developing a deep and honest understanding of your customers and, more importantly, your own company.
Strategy is hard. Really hard. But no company who has ever made the significant investment required has ever regretted it.
April 17th, 2008 by Gord Hotchkiss
It’s one of the banes of this industry that we often use the words “strategies” and “tactics” interchangeably. Conferences that fly the strategy banner offer a deep dive into multiple tactical tracks. Sessions that promise cutting edge strategies in fact deliver tactics. Now, I have nothing against tactics. The right tactic can be a beautiful thing, when it’s used to execute on a strategy. But they’re not the same thing.
The Dingoes ate my Strategy
I went off on this topic at the recent SMX in Sydney. I was asked to present at a session that offered out-of-the-box PPC tactics. I hijacked the session and said that it’s hard to know what out of the box is until you’ve defined the box. Strategy defines the box. If you’re building a house, strategy is the blueprint; tactics are the tools you use to put the house together. Apparently I scared a few Aussies by my impassioned plea not to confuse the two. The reason for my rant? Because all too often in search we get enamored with a brand new tool and forget to look at the blueprint. This is not a new message for me. Check the byline blurb at the bottom of this column. It’s been the same message since I started writing this column, almost 4 years ago now.
I don’t think anyone disagrees with me that strategy is a good thing. But why does our focus so often slip from the strategic to the tactical? Why do we keep loosing sight of the forest for the trees? Rick Tobin, our director of research, came up with one possible reason. Tactics are easy to own and even easier to delegate. They’re a “tick off” item on our to-do list. Strategy requires more thought. It’s a lot slipperier to get hold off.
The First Step is Admitting You Might be Making a Mistake
I tend to take a strategic slant when I present at conferences and shows. And because of that, I think I ask more from my audience. I’m asking them to question what it is they might be doing right now, because it might be the wrong thing. Strategy demands that you ask tough questions of yourself. It challenges your beliefs. And that’s a hard thing to ask of humans. We’re wired to ignore anything that might cause us to change our mind.
I know first hand how tough it can be to keep focused on your strategy and to execute effectively against it. It’s a constant challenge in my company, and the same is true for every company I know that values strategy. You have to think your way through this stuff. You can’t do it on autopilot.
Tactical Mastery or Strategic Stumbling
It’s a lot easier to focus on a tactic. We like to master things, and you can do this at a tactical level. You can be a great link builder, or PPC manager. You can become the wizard of analytics, or the master multivariate tester. And these are the things you’ll find on the typical search conference agenda. I think it would scare the hell out of most attendees to go to a session titled “Strategic Soul Searching: Are All Your Marketing Efforts in Vain?” To be fair to the show organizers, most attendees come looking for tactics. Almost no one comes looking for strategy. They may think they’re looking for strategy, but they’ve mixed up the terms.
Books like Good to Great and Built to Last, as well as almost anything by Peter Drucker or Tom Peters, ask you to look at things from a strategic vantage point. Even Covey’s The Seven Habits provides you with the strategic building blocks for a more effective personal life. In his books, Jim Collins warns that this is not a quick process. Companies can take a decade of dedicated persistent effort to really discover their soul and define their strategic direction. You can pick up a tactic in a 15 minute presentation, but a strategy takes a lot more time.
The Strategic Common Denominator
Personally, I’ve felt that by providing glimpses into user behavior, I can help provide a lens to help see things from the outside in, an essential perspective for strategic evaluation. Part of any strategy in marketing always depends on gaining a deeper understanding of the common denominator, humans. The more years I add to my CV, the more I realize we need to spend some time understanding the weird quirks and traits that make us all too imperfectly and irrationally human. And it’s from that understanding that your strategy will eventually spring forth.
To wrap up for this week, I leave you with a quote from Sun Tzu, the military strategist:
Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.
April 11th, 2008 by Gord Hotchkiss
The frequent flier blitzkrieg continues. This week’s stop, Sydney, Australia for SMX. In the opening keynote, Danny Sullivan asked Google’s Marissa Mayer what keeps her at Google. Her answer was that there are just too many really interesting, really hard questions still to be answered. She likened it to the world of scientific discovery and pegged the current state of search and online as analogous to the 15th or 16th century. Sir Isaac Newton has just discovered gravity.
From a timeline perspective, I think Marissa’s analogy works. There’s no doubt we’re at the early stages of something, but what that something is remains to be seen. The difference between us and Isaac Newton is that Newton was exploring the guiding principles of the real, physical world. We’re building a new world up as we go. More correctly, a new world is emerging organically from the efforts and thoughts of millions of people. It’s a world defined in an ethereal middle space, a world of mind spawned musings and accomplishments, shared and propelled one packet at a time. We’re not discovering anything, we’re building something entirely new. At any given moment, hundreds of millions of us are making it up as we go along. It’s a Darwinian experiment on a grand, grand scale.
The other difference is that the physical world afforded us a certain leisurely pace of exploration. Apples have been falling from trees for millions of years before Newton finally got around to wondering why. Even Darwin had the luxury of time to define his theory of natural selection. Not much happens in the way of evolution in any time scale that we can perceive.
But this online witches cauldron we call the Internet moves much quicker. It is a world driven by innovation, and it is the fastest innovators that will not only survive, but prosper. Mindful musing is a luxury we can’t afford. Things move too fast.
Despite the seemingly blank canvas that stretches before us, there are limits to the world we create, and these limits are those imposed on us by our human nature. The virtual world we create must fit within the sphere that defines us as a species. It must not take advantage of our foibles and failings. It must empower the best of us. The human mind is a convoluted, complex mechanism that is only 5% rational. The other 95%, the really fun part that makes us human, brews under the service, messy, murky and sometimes manipulative. And the truly scary part is that we know almost nothing about this dark underbelly of our minds. We’ve discovered much of the world that lives outside our skulls, thanks to Newton, Darwin, Galileo and their scientific brethren. But we’re only beginning to discover the world that sits locked in our 3 pounds of grey matter.
Humans haven’t really changed much in 250,000 years. Yet man’s greatest creation, our society, has changed by leaps and bounds and the pace of that change is still accelerating. The creation of the internet is perhaps the most significant leap forward yet. We are literally redefining the structure we use to build society upon. This, I suspect, changes everything. Our challenge, then, is to use our technology, our passion and our intellect to create a society that breaks the restrictions imposed on us not just by our physical world, but also by our baser human instincts.
I can understand why Marissa Mayer still wants to get up and go to work in the morning. She’s driven by the same thing that drives many of us who have chosen to dedicate our passion to this new online world that is the biggest group project in history.
Maybe, just maybe, this time we’ll get it right.
March 17th, 2008 by Manoj Jasra
 Last week I was able to catch up with Jeffrey Pruitt, EVP, Corporate Partnerships at iCrossing, to discuss his thoughts on search marketing trends and paradigm shifts in 2008. We also discussed some useful sessions people should check out while attending Search Engine Strategies in New York. Here’s how our conversation went:
[Manoj]: Can you give me a brief overview of the trends you think the search marketing industry will see this year?
[Jeffrey Pruitt]:
1) Convergence of Search and Display
As advertising becomes more and more digitized, we will see a changed landscape over the next few years. Non-Premium inventory (not on first page) served from contextual like products:
-
Site-Targeting
-
Content Ads
-
Display type ads
-
Video Ads
-
Display retargeting
And will continue to evolve to search type dynamics, bought in an auction based environment. The fastest growing inventory on the web is non-premium display, which is driving the convergence between Search and Display. This is why you see Yahoo and the other engines bring search and display under one operational organization. See Yahoo Study, "Closing the Loop" With the ability to target and optimize performance brand advertisers will expect improved results on display type products (contextual, site targeting, etc). Firms whose DNA is search can lead the consolidation of Search and Display by having search empower how Display is purchased by utilizing targeting and optimization through auction based platforms.
Although, Search firms tend to view contextual, display and video ad type products as search campaign add-ons and therefore they fail in overall performance. Search firms need to reverse the messaging to include any measurement beyond just brand impressions as more successful than current brand metrics (impressions).
2.) Consolidated and Efficient ROI-Maximizing Ad Platforms and Exchanges
Similar to stocks exchanges, inventory (ads) will be sold and advertising platforms will be the mechanism for buying, selling, tracking and reporting all inventory (print, radio, display, TV,etc).
Exchanges will constitute a large percent of where on-line display advertising is bought and sold.
3.) Video Optimization and Video Advertising
Video optimization allows for extended reach of video assets, creates additional web traffic and fosters viral communication. Videos are served through:
-
Video Uploading: the process of publishing videos to video search engines on a per vide basis (most popular)
-
RSS media: Require submission of content via xml
-
Video Crawler: actively crawl the web for video content
Agencies can further monetize their offerings by utilizing video optimization as a formal service line which includes optimization, creative build, tracking and reporting.
Publishers are innovating video ads through engaging, rich media experiences that do not turn off customers. Interactive Ads on Yahoo or In Video Ads served within the creative content of videos on Google (Adsense) are going to become frequently used advertising formats.
Publishers are innovating video ads through engaging, rich media experiences that do not turn off customers. Interactive Ads on Yahoo or In Video Ads served within the creative content of videos on Google (Adsense) are going to become frequently used advertising formats.
[Manoj]: How will marketers have to adjust their budgets to compensate for the upcoming changes?
[Jeffrey Pruitt]:Some of the budgets will be pulled from traditional sources. More and more you will see advertisers relying on performance marketing, especially if there is an economic down turn. Understanding these trends will help drive this change.
[Manoj]: How important is it to understand all the online touch-points of your visitors?
[Jeffrey Pruitt]: Very important. Everything on line starts with research of your customers and what journey’s they have both off line and on-line. Search sits at the center of digital and the insight that can be gained from Search and then utilized across the marketing mix is endless.
[Manoj]: What are some sessions as at SES New York that you recommend attendees should check out?
[Jeffrey Pruitt]:
MONDAY
-
Redefining the Customer
-
Video Made the SMB Star
TUESDAY
WEDNESDAY
-
Big Brand Search Strategies: Build Connections and Fuel Online Promotions
-
Searcher Behavior Research Update
-
Ad Exchanges Are Changing Everything
THURSDAY
Original Post: Web Analytics World
February 7th, 2008 by Gord Hotchkiss
Now that there seems to be some sort of union in Yahoo’s future, blessed or otherwise, I felt the urge to pass along some advice to whoever the happy couple might be. For, in all this talk about the impending nuptials , the clear objective is to survive and compete in the business of attracting the attention of prospects online.
I offer this advice on behalf of users, because frankly, I think that’s the only perspective you should be interested in. I’ll explain why.
Why Search is Essential
First of all, there’s a lot of talk about how a Microsoft – Yahoo deal would give you the biggest chunk of the online ad network space, and this is true. But I hasten to add: don’t forget search. Google has stumbled in rolling out another significant revenue channel that holds up against their search business, yet they’ve still dominated. That’s because the importance of search has been understated up to this point. Here’s why search matters.
Search is the thin edge of a wedge that is marking a fundamental change in advertising. And it’s fundamental because it’s initiated by the prospect. The importance of that sometimes gets missed by marketers, who start looking at search as just another weapon in their arsenal.
Search is important because of expressed intent. That puts it in a whole different league than all other advertising, online or off. Behavioral targeting is effective, but it’s still intrusive and interruptive. We ask for search results. That’s a different level of engagement, a different balance of control and a different mindset on the part of the prospect. It’s the first place that balance shifted from the marketer to the customer, but it won’t be the last. Search is forging the way, but customers will demand that level of control and relevance to intent in more commercial communication from corporations. So, for all the talk about ad serving networks, it’s vital that the new duo gets search right. All the truly effective revenue channels will lead from search and the new principle of prospect initiation, including the vast untapped mobile and local markets. You can’t afford to screw it up.
Users come first, Advertisers will follow
Secondly, all you should be focused on is one thing, and that’s meeting the expressed need of the user. Don’t talk to me about balanced ecosystems or serving the needs of both users and advertisers. While as an advertiser I appreciate the consideration, as a user I call it hogwash.
Search cannot serve two masters. One has to prevail. And it should always, always, always be the user. Users are the prospective customers, and without them, the equation doesn’t work. Get users and the advertisers will follow. And those advertisers will play by the rules laid out by the users because they have no choice. Google gets it (probably due to the philosophical bent of Google and an inherent suspicion of advertising) and you’ll have to get it too to compete. So those ads better be highly relevant and in the user’s interest if they appear. If they’re not, don’t show them.
If you pay attention to nothing else, please pay attention to this one point. It’s vital to your success.
Church and State: Antiquated Concept?
The final piece of advice is not to be so set on holding on the divide between Church and State on the search results page. This is one hold over from the offline world that may be due for rethinking
The concept of the Church/State divide came from the fact that advertisers will always push their advantage. That’s one reason why you can’t have a balanced ecosystem. Advertisers have always had a much louder voice that gets heard more often. So in traditional channels, the only answer was to divide up the page (or other real estate). Advertisers had free reign over some sections, but they had to keep their hands off others. Consequently, we’ve learned to largely ignore the real estate given over to advertisers. The success of this Church/State division has been questionable in the past, but it’s a relic of journalistic thinking that somehow became entrenched in the world of search.
But if you pay scrupulous attention to my first two pieces of advice, you don’t have to worry about Church/State. The fact is that in search we have expressed our desire for relevant information, and if that information is commercial in nature, and it matches our intent, than we’re open to it. At Enquiro, we’ve looked at interactions with search advertising in minute detail, and while people will self report an aversion to advertising in general, in the midst of a task, relevance trumps all. If an ad is the closest match, it will succeed.
This opens the door to mash up editorial functionality with commercial messaging in a richer way. As search becomes better at determining intent and delivering richer results, the opportunity exists to seamlessly integrate commercial messaging with other information in a user-centric way. But user trust is paramount. Let the user set the rules of what’s acceptable.
So, whatever happens, this is the advice I would give. There’ll be a lot on your mind in trying to navigate the new union, so I’ve kept it simple. You can thank me later.
January 31st, 2008 by Gord Hotchkiss
Thomas Young was the last person who knew everything. Or, at least, that’s Andrew Robinson’s claim in his book of the same title. Whether you agree or not, the accomplishments of this 19th century Quaker were certainly impressive. In contradiction to Newton, he proposed the wave theory of light, furthered our understanding of the mechanics of the eye, helped invent Egyptology and decipher the Rosetta stone, created a measure of elasticity in engineering, was an accomplished physician, created a technique for tuning keyboard instruments, compared 400 languages and coined the term Indo-European and still had time to pioneer developments in carpentry and life insurance. Thomas Young was the human Google of his age.
Today, our world is much more complex. There’s too much knowledge to store in just one mind. So, we tend to find other places to keep it for when we need it. Hence the concept of transactive memory, which I touched on last week.
Misty, Watercolored Memories
We have different methods for storing different types of memories. The way we remember our 21st birthday (if we still remember it at all) is different than the way we remember our phone number. Different still is the way we remember how to ride a bike, or what Led Zeppelin’s Black Dog sounds like. And some people are better at remembering certain types of things than others. That’s why we’ve adapted to extend our memory capabilities by using transactive memory. We rely on others to store memories that we might need at some point. Our wives remember birthdays. Our kids remember how to program our smart phone. Our co-worker remembers how to run the virus scan on our computer. We don’t have to remember all these things; all we have to remember is who does.
The Transactive Web
But what about computers, and, by extension, the internet? What about search? Doesn’t this take transactive memory to a level never thought of before? Even the reduced work load of remembering who remembers what is significantly more trouble than just being able to instantly recall information with a well placed query. We dump the details of our life on a hard drive somewhere, and search for it when we need it. Even if we’re looking for something we didn’t know we needed, like the recipe for haggis (how many of you celebrated Robbie Burns Day last Friday?) we can find it when we needed it. And we don’t have to remember it, because we know it will be there come next January 25th.
The Adaptive Brain
And that brings us to the second point I raised last week, that of neurological plasticity. Our brain prunes itself, getting rid of capacities we really don’t need anymore, and strengthening those that we do. This happens to the greatest extent in the first few decades of our lives, but it is a lifelong process. I am forcibly reminded of this when my 14 year old daughter asks me for help with her algebra homework. At one point in my life, I knew this stuff. But most of those neurons have long since disappeared. To offer any help at all, I have to relearn what I once knew, building new neural pathways.
So, as we have to worry less about remembering certain things, like facts, dates, phone numbers and addresses, will our semantic memory capabilities, the place we store these things, become less exercised and therefore, pruned out of the way? And in its place, will we develop greater skills in navigating online spaces?
It’s really not a question, it’s already happening. We can see the difference in the generational abilities in the online space, or when our kids kick our virtual butts in a Wii showdown. But we’re still in a place where we’re balanced on the cusp between the pre and post digital world. We still have a foot in each realm. Let’s fast forward a generation or two and see what capabilities, which seem so essential to us today, have disappeared. And which new talents, unfathomable to us today, have taken their place.
Exponential Technological Advance
Now, obviously, this is nothing new. We don’t need to remember how to shoe a horse, and our great grandfather would be amazed (and possibly aghast) at a trip on a California freeway. Change has always happened, and humans have always adapted. But there’s something different now. Raymond Kurzweil calls it The Law of Accelerating Returns. The need to adapt to leaping technological advance is getting more and more demanding. Technological growth is exponential. At today’s rate, we experience 20,000 years of progress in a century. In the year 2045, Kurzweil believes we’ll hit a point where machines become smarter than humans. Could the human mind, which is amazing in its adaptability, simply be outstripped by technology?
One last thought. If you believe in evolution (as I do) humans have evolved as the preeminent species through a long line of trial and error, with our environment as the ultimate judge of genetic worthiness. The problem is that evolution is a long, slow process. Our evolutionary environment, the one we’ve adapted to excel in, is a hunter-gatherer society several thousand years past. Evolution never equipped us to function in the world we live in, except in one regard. It equipped us with an adaptable mind that allows self awareness. And even that is inextricably tied to our human nature. The human mind is a wonderful thing, but unfortunately, it doesn’t benefit from Moore’s Law.
January 24th, 2008 by Gord Hotchkiss
Honey, Where Did I Put the Car Keys?
In 1986, University of Virginia Psychologist Daniel Wegner came up with an interesting theory. He realized that we depend on others to remember some of the things we need to know. This is especially true in couples and families. Some of us are better at remembering phone numbers and birth dates. Some of us are better at remembering how 401Ks and computers work. In couples, the longer we spend together, the more we divvy up the memory workload, depending on our spouse to prop up our spotty memories. Wegner called this transactive memory. With it, we don’t have to remember everything. We just have to remember who knows what. Wegner found this to be true in any small group who spends a lot of time together. The bigger the group, the larger the extended memory capacity.
That’s the first concept I want you to think about. Now, let me give you another.
It’s the Second Chimp on the Left, the One with the Scar
Babies are born with a capability that you and I don’t have. They can recognize and distinguish between faces of different species. For example, if you introduce a 6 month old baby to 6 different chimpanzees, then show them pictures of the faces after, they’ll be able to recognize them and tell them apart. But to us, they will all look like chimpanzees. The same is true of sheep, or lemurs. To us, a sheep is a sheep is a sheep. It seems we lose this ability around 9 months of age, according to Olivier Pascalis at the University of Sheffield.
Why can we no longer tell chimpanzees apart? We’re born with this ability because at one point in our evolution it was important. The ability to tell animals apart led to a greater chance of survival. But that’s not really true today. Today, in our complex social world, it’s much more important to be able to tell human faces apart. So at about 9 months of age, the brain starts to concentrate on that. And, in this case, something has to give. Sorry chimps, but after awhile, you’ll all look the same to us.
There’s one more point I want to share here. Dr. Pascalis found that if parents continued to develop this ability, by repeating the exercise with babies, they retained this ability to distinguish between non human faces.
The Pruning of the Young Mind
It’s not so much this lost ability I find interesting. It’s the underlying reason, the ability for the brain to change itself from birth to maturity. Humans received another gift in the evolutionary lottery, an adaptable mind. The brain you get at birth is not the brain you’ll end up with. In a 2007 study at Oxford University, it found that newborn brains have almost 50% more neurons than adult brains. Babies have more raw “brain material” to work with. They get shipped with the full menu of evolutionary options, including the ability to tell monkeys apart.
But over time, in a process known as “ pruning”, the brain starts to discard options it doesn’t use very often. Weak, underutilized neurons, forming neural pathways we never use, get pruned and, in some cases, reconfigured, to make way for pathways that are more commonly used. To go back to our facial recognition example, being able to keep track of all the faces in one’s ever increasing circle of friends and family is a huge task. And its right around 9 months that we start venturing out in the world, meeting more and more people. The timing of this is not coincidental.
Fertilized Neurons
But our brains not only get rid of unused functions. They also nurture commonly used functions. The same Oxford study found that although our neuron inventory decreases, we actually gain significantly in another type of cell – glials. Glials are the most important brain cell you’ve probably never heard of. They act as a support system for our neurons, nurturing them and making them more effective. And adults apparently have 3 times the number of glial cells found in infants.
So, for the next 7 days, until my next column, I want you to think about those two concepts: we rely on external sources to extend our memory, and our brains are adaptable, able to rewire themselves to discard capabilities that are no longer important to us, and build capabilities that are more important.
See where I’m going with this? Until next week.
January 17th, 2008 by Gord Hotchkiss
Last week, I talked about the importance of asking why in marketing. I also talked about human hardware and operating systems. For me, it’s there where I eventually find the end of my “why” trails. This week, I want to give you two books that look at why we’re wired the way we are. One is a deeper dive than the other, but they’re both well worth the effort.
Descartes' Error – Antonio Damasio
If Malcolm Gladwell’s book Blink tantalized you, Damasio spreads out a 7 course feast to consider. Damasio provides the psychological and neurological underpinnings for the Blink phenomenon. He was first drawn to the role of emotion in our decision making process by two curious cases that shared much in common.
Damasio starts by recounting two curious cases, that of Phineas Gage, a 19th century rail worker and Elliott, a modern patient of Damasio’s. Both had severe damage to their prefrontal lobes; Gage because of an iron rod that was driven through his cheek behind his left eye and out the top of his skull by a mistimed gunpowder explosion and Elliot as the result of the removal of a brain tumor. The two cases were remarkable because neither patient lost any of the mental abilities we normally associate with intelligence or competence. Gage never lost consciousness and talked rationally with his doctor throughout the entire incident. Elliott was subjected to a battery of intelligence and psychological tests after his surgery and scored normal or above normal in every one. Prior to their brain lesions, both had led successful lives and were admired individuals. Yet, after their misfortunes, both had made a string of horrible decisions, leaving them unable to function in their social environments. Damasio wanted to know why.
Descartes’ Error is Damasio’s explanation of why. It probes fascinating territory, looking at how our bodies, emotions, environment and brain all make up our “mind” and our ability to make valid decisions. They are inextricably linked in a network of feedback and feed-forward loops. Damasio doesn’t pull any punches, going into detail about the neurological and biological mechanisms, but he does so in a lucid and elegant writing style.
Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion – Robert Cialdini
Cialdini starts with a rather bizarre example of a conditioned response from the animal world. A turkey hen is programmed to protect her chicks when they cheep. If a turkey chick is cheeping, the hen is a model mom, gathering, nurturing and protecting her young. If the chick isn’t cheeping, the mom will ignore it and will sometimes even kill it. The hen is conditioned to respond to the cheeping. But it gets more bizarre. The cheeping is the only thing the hen responds to. It doesn’t really care what is cheeping. Experimenters put a small recording playing the cheeping sound inside a stuffed polecat, a natural enemy of turkeys, and dragged it towards the turkey. Without the recording, the polecat was attacked with a fury. But with the recording, it was gathered to the turkey’s breast and protected.
Before we get too smug in differentiating ourselves from the easily duped turkey, Cialdini finds several examples where humans have similarly conditioned responses to certain situations and behaviors. Cialdini calls it the “click, whirr” response, where we have scripts that automatically play out when the right buttons are pushed. Through the years, salespeople and con men (Cialdini euphemistically calls them “compliance professionals”) have learned to activate these conditioned responses by setting up the right situations. He draws on examples as diverse as the Hare Krishna’s and how the Chinese brainwashed American prisoners of war. After reading this book, you’ll never buy a car in quite the same way again. And heaven help the time share sales person that manages to rope you into one of their pitches. You may start seeking them out, just for the fun of it.
Cialdini’s tone is lighter than Damasio’s, but he’s no less diligent in doing his homework. He cites numerous studies and provides examples that are easy to relate to. And he does it with a self effacing and engaging humor.
There are two to get you started. I’ve got a book shelf filled with other candidates, so I’ll probably loop back in a few months and stock up your reading list again. In the meantime, if any of you readers have suggestions of books that probe the why’s, please take a moment to share them with a quick blog post on Mediapost.
Originally published in Mediapost's Search Insider, January 17, 2008
|
|
enquiro research
