My Theory of Change
by Brian Reich | 8 Feb 2010, 1:54pm
Beth Kanter is asking what people’s theory of change is, as a part of a program that HP is running. Here is what I wrote:
My theory of change is that everything has to change. Everything needs to be re-visited, re-considered, re-evaluated, and ultimate re-worked. Until we do that, nothing will change - at least not on the scale that we desire, and not in a way that is sustainable. So my theory of change is really focused on setting us up so all the other theories of change are even more likely to realize success.
I believe in the power of community and the marketplace, I am confident that people, especially now that we are all connected, have the ability to radically shift the way we organize, communicate, educate and act (read: behave) if given a solid platform from which to launch their efforts. But for those powers to be activated, for those forces to have their influence, we have to change the way we are structured, the very way we look at how theories of change themselves are implemented. We have to knock the meteor that is currently hurdling towards the planet (apathy, focus on activity and not impact, serving the cause instead of solving the cause) and threatening to destroy everything off course, if you will.
Thus, my theory of change is:
1) Review everything. Start by looking at every organization, plan, structure, message, tactic, and activity to understand what is working and what isn’t. There are too many legacy systems and failed approaches being used ‘because that is how we have always done it’ to expect real change to flourish. This is true as a nonprofit community, and for individual organizations. That’s step one.
2) Break the big pieces into small ones. By reviewing everything you open up the possibility of considering everything. You can break the big systems down into little pieces — each goal can be isolated, each strategy left to stand on its own, each tactic able to be considered in a very narrow, specific context. When each challenge, each opportunity and each approach is on its own two things happen: a) you can more easily prioritize and organize what you are doing, and b) you can determine what is working and what isn’t more easily.
3) Put the pieces back together. No single activity or goal, no matter how exciting, will have a significant impact on its own. Everything is connected. And each piece plays a very specific role - they compliment each other, they expand the reach and impact of whatever came before them. When we put the pieces back together, and look at the whole picture of what needs to happen and the steps required to get from start to finish, we have a chance to do some real damage. So step three is to start to re-connect the pieces, and understand the relationships that exist between individual areas of focus, goals, the roles and responsibilities of those involved, the actions we all take, and the outcome we are seeking.
4) Divide and conquer. Right now, we mostly compete - for attention, for dollars, for ownership and control. Collaboration is nice. But in reality, to realize change we have to divide and conquer. We need to distribute responsibility and ensure that the necessary talent, energy and focus is applied to each of the key pieces along the path towards change. So, rather than invite people to participate, or throw open the challenge so that everyone can meet, we need to clearly identify the specific things that need to be figured out, at all levels, and make sure someone takes responsibility for each (and is held accountable). Until we all get out of our own way, not to mention each other’s, we won’t get anywhere.
5) Evolve. The last, and perhaps most important aspect of my theory of change, is change itself. Evolution. We have to grow. We have to try things and fail, but be comfortable in getting up and trying again. We have to be willing to accept that mistakes are part of the process of change, and embrace the fear, anxiety and difficulty that comes with doing new things. We have to be patient, and self-aware (or aware with help from others) so we can apply the lessons to our work in real-time. That will allow us to improve, our work and our plans, and the whole movement can evolve.
My theory of change is that you have to start by changing everything. You have to start by looking at everything we are doing, accepting it isn’t working, and start fresh. That doesn’t mean throw everything out, it means look at the game film and find the good stuff. It means ask tough questions. It means challenge existing assumptions. It means nothing that we are doing is working exactly as we had hoped and nobody who is doing anything is without a need for change.
Until we do that, things might look different, but nothing will change. That’s my theory anyway.
What do you think? Go post your own theory on Beth’s blog (not that you need a reason, but you might win a really neat prize too).
TAGS
: Beth Kanter Department of Ideas HP Theory of Change
leave a comment
My Thoughts on the 2010 Superbowl Ads (Cross-Post)
by Brian Reich | 8 Feb 2010, 11:18am
I spent far too much time writing down my thoughts about the 2010 Superbowl advertising on my Fast Company blog. Anyway, here is my post:
I was unimpressed with most/all of the advertising during last night’s Superbowl — and I know I am not alone. There are, of course, several different lines of attack I could level against the brand and advertising community:
- The ads lacked creativity or originality — isn’t that the very thing the brand and advertising community pride themselves on most?
- The ads weren’t funny — and even if they were funny, was that the best (or only) way to attract attention and deliver a message to the audience?
- Most ads were clearly anti-women — is it really necessary to cut down a whole segment of our society, and the viewing audience, to sell your product?
- There was very little TV-to-online/mobile connection made — don’t you understand how people are watching television today, or the ways we get/share information about products and services?
But I don’t want to add to the pile of criticism that the brand and advertising community is certain to be digging out from underneath this morning. I want to try to help. I have made my share of mistakes when putting together campaigns for my clients and I know that constructive, focused feedback always helps me improve for next time.
Read the whole post here: http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/brian-reich/im-media-te-impact/my-thoughts-2010-superbowl-ads?1265645619
Are We Refreshing Everything?
by Brian Reich | 6 Feb 2010, 4:34pm
The Pepsi Refresh Project (http://www.refresheverything.com) is the hot topic of the week — and for good reason. Its a big deal.
Its a big deal because Pepsi took the millions of dollars it normally devotes to advertising during the Superbowl and put it instead towards the Pepsi Refresh Project — which is focused online. That speaks volume about the potential reach and impact that the internet has to offer marketers, especially when compared to more traditional forms of advertising (including television).
Its a big deal because the Pepsi Refresh Project is committed to finding the “people, business, and non-profits with ideas that will have a positive impact” in local communities across the country. In short, the Pepsi Refresh Project one of the largest cause-related marketing campaigns to date, and Pepsi’s commitment sends a message that having a (genuine) commitment to addressing serious issues in our society is quickly becoming a requirement for brands.
Its a big deal because the Pepsi Refresh Project is inviting the public to choose where the money is spent. This isn’t the first time that a company/organization has given control over to the crowd online, far from it, but given some of the very public failures by brands when it comes to crowdsourcing (Chevy during the 2007 Superbowl, Chase in 2009/2010), Pepsi’s ambitious effort is especially notable.
The Pepsi Refresh Project is a big deal and everyone is talking about it… mainstream media (including the New York Times), the advertising community (led by AdAge), social media strategy folks (like Jeremia Owyang from the Altimeter Group), nonprofit superstars (like Beth Kanter)… and many, many others.
Pepsi absolutely deserves credit for launching the Pepsi Refresh Project. It is an exciting experiment. The size and scope of their commitment - both to the campaign, and in terms of the money they give to the community - is significant. Just by launching the campaign they have raised the bar in terms of how companies engage audiences online, how cause marketing is approached, with regard to what is possible when it comes to crowdsourcing, and more.
But, what are we really learning from the Pepsi Refresh Project? Is the Pepsi Refresh project as ambitious and exciting as the coverage suggests? Will the Pepsi Refresh Project really change the way marketing, cause branding and online engagement are conducted? Do the numbers of organizations and individuals participating serve as a measure of success, or do we need to measure more than just clicks to assess the real impact? If the project does drive big changes, are they the kind of changes we want and need? Will something really good come out of this?
I’m not sure.
- I don’t think most of the discussion about the Pepsi Refresh Project is focused correctly. The attention given to the Pepsi Refresh Project should not be compared to the attention that Pepsi might have received by advertising during the Superbowl. Whether or not Pepsi is a trending topic on Twitter during the Superbowl, when presumably other Superbowl ads will be, is not a measure of success, or the lack thereof. The number of impressions it generates is not a measure of anything other than the success of the marketing effort itself. The project will operate all year, with thousands of organizations competing for votes and dollars throughout that time, and (potentially) millions of tweets driving sustained traffic and attention throughout that time. Pepsi is pursuing a totally different strategy. And we have to find other ways to measure whether their strategy was successful, and what it means for the rest of the marketing world.
- The Pepsi Refresh Project isn’t just about social media, its further proof that all aspects of marketing and brand are being redefined. Everything is fragmented and blurred. The clear lines between how corporations operate and how they sell themselves no longer exist. Social media is not just a tactic - its a reflection of the changes that technology and the internet are driving all across society. Cause marketing is not a smart positioning strategy — a commitment to serious issues has become a critical piece of a successful company’s DNA. There are bigger changes afoot here than just the medium through which promotional messages are being delivered. Until we recognize and embrace those changes, and focus on trying to understand them — and how everything flows from them — not much will change.
- I am not yet convinced that the Pepsi Refresh Project is all that different from past marketing efforts, by Pepsi or anyone else. Pepsi is still spending millions of dollars to advertise the project (I saw a print ad - gasp! - last night) and drive traffic online. Pepsi is still using celebrity PR (Kevin Bacon and Demi Moore introduced the project this week on the Today Show) to drive awareness. There is very little conversation or direct engagement being offered by Pepsi online. Where is the personality behind the campaign? Where are the human beings helping to answer our questions and teach us how to build a community of followers? It seems a lot like a big brand, broadcast style, advertising-eque campaign is social media clothing.
- I’m not sure the structure is a good thing. First, money is being given to projects that receive the most votes online, which means organizations that have greater resources, more time to devote to promotion, celebrity support, etc. will likely come out on top. Many of the best or most deserving projects won’t get the support they need. Second, organizations competing for online support are realizing quickly that this is a number game — the more emails you send, tweets you write, or other promotional tricks you use, the most likely you are to generate votes. Social media is supposed to change the way organizations engage their audiences, how they develop relationships with people who are interested in their issues or support their mission, there is supposed to be more conversation and substance. This contest is giving organizations an invitation to find new ways to bombard people with messages, without considering the long-term implications being known.
Basically, I see the short-term, short-sighted, self-motivated things about the Pepsi Refresh Project. I see more being rehashed than refreshed with this campaign. I don’t see enough of the long-term commitment, deeper commitment, greater understanding and sense of leadership that I was hoping to see from Pepsi. Its a start, but there is much more that could and should be done.
I would have liked to see Pepsi try something significantly different, not just bigger. I would have liked to see Pepsi demonstrate a greater understanding of how social media is really changing our behavior, and our society, in how they built and promoted the project. I would have liked to see Pepsi do more to support the nonprofit community and the work that people are doing to address serious issues — beyond just giving money. And I still hope to see the project evolve, in major ways, to address these and other challenges going forward — since they have a whole year to make it even better.
And while I am at it, I would like to see the people who are watching and talking about the Pepsi Refresh Project — the media and bloggers, the experts and strategists, the organizations and individuals who are participating — ask some different questions, take a wider view, consider the broader implications of what is happening, do more than just find ways to game the system or emulate what Pepsi is doing. Pepsi can have a huge impact and drive big change, but we have to help them. We can do exciting things online, but we have to demand more of Pepsi - and other marketers - for that to happen.
I have hope. There are hints of some real discussion. There are tweets and blog posts that start to challenge the assumptions and ask the tough questions about this project, and what is happening in general around brand, marketing, cause, online communications, and more. There are new, big ideas being formed for future projects already because of the lessons we are learning here. And there is evidence that amazing things could happen because of the Pepsi Refresh Project itself.
Let’s see what happens.
TAGS
: Pepsi Refresh Project
1 comment
Department of Ideas: Revisit Everything
by Brian Reich | 31 Jan 2010, 11:21pm
I have an idea: We should revisit everything.
We spend so much time looking forward these days, its easy to forget what happened in the past — and why its important. Newspapers and magazines don’t offer much context, choosing instead to offer predictions and prognostications (that sometimes don’t even seem to be based on fact - or reality). Television news barely acknowledges that anything aside from ‘breaking news’ is even happening. Save for the death this week of noted historian and author, Howard Zinn, most people wouldn’t talk about history at all… and surely that interest will only last until someone embarrasses themselves during tonight’s live telecast of the Grammy’s.
The truth is, we don’t know much about the past. History isn’t important to most people. We don’t pay close enough attention to the events that shaped our society. And we do so at our own peril.
Personally, I’d say I know enough history to be dangerous. On a good day I can name all the US Presidents — and the major accomplishments of the most notable ones. I am pretty confident that I know when (and in some cases, where) most of the major conflicts, from the Trojan War to Operation Enduring Freedom, happened. I can sound authoritative when I explain the origins of the Israel/Palestine conflict or the factors that led up to the genocide in Darfur. And if pressed, I can hold my own during a cocktail party conversation about the various economic and cultural influences that have shaped our society.
Still, as I walked through the Lincoln and New York exhibit at the New York Historical Society earlier today it was clear I don’t know much at all. I consider myself pretty knowledgeable when it comes to Abraham Lincoln. I certainly know the highlights or our 16th President’s life — the big milestones in his rise to political power, his leadership during the Civil War, the content of his big speeches and proclamations, the events surrounding his assassination, etc. But I admit, the details are fuzzy, at best. The names of most supporting players are unfamiliar. I don’t know the exact dates of anything.
History is powerful. Knowing our history is important. But history is often overlooked, forgotten - or worse ignored. How can history compete with the present - the constant flow of information, the battles for attention, the speed and excitement of the new and shiny? With everything about the world changing quickly and constantly, do we even have time to pause and reflect on where we came from?
We do have time. We have to make time. Our survival in the future is as much dependent on our ability to understand the events of the past as our capacity to manage what is happening in the present day. That means our current situation, where history plays little or no role in our daily life, is both unsustainable, and ultimately dangerous. If we don’t pay more attention to history, take the time to consider the past, the consequences could be quite significant.
What should we do? Revisit everything.
One by one, subject by subject, we should be revisiting history. We should be reviewing what happened in the past and trying to make sense of it given our knowledge and experiences from current times. We should look at the big events, as well as the small happenings. We should pay attention to the big names, but also the people who surrounded and influenced them. Remember, new history is created every day — the studying never stops.
There should be more than one cable channel devoted to history. There should be movie studios that specialize in re-telling old stories - without ruining them. Television networks should build their programs around past events instead of ripping everything from the headlines. Publications, online and offline, should re-publish more articles from the past. For every book offering a new model or approach to conducting business online there should be a biography or historical analysis published as well. People should spend as much time looking through archives as they do on Facebook.
NBC had a great slogan when promoting their summer reruns a few years back. They said “If you haven’t seen it, its new to you.” That’s true for history also.
There is no time to waste. We should revisit everything.
Its just an idea…
Department of Ideas: Real Time TV Programming
by Brian Reich | 31 Jan 2010, 12:07am
I have an idea: television programming should reflect what is happening outside.
When a massive snowstorm hit the east coast the weekend before Christmas, everything stopped - planes were grounded, trains were delayed, the streets were (mostly) empty of cars and sidewalks (mostly) devoid of pedestrians. Millions of people from Washington, DC to Boston found themselves having to fill an entire day’s worth of time without being able to venture outside. I don’t know for sure, but I’m guessing many of them turned on the television.
I was in our apartment in New York — my wife and son had driven to Connecticut ahead of the storm and were spending a few extra days with family before the holidays. I had stayed behind to get some work done and spent most of the day in front of my laptop. By mid-afternoon, however, I needed a break. My brain was tired. I sat down to find something to watch on television.
There was nothing.
Nothing? Of course, there were plenty of things to watch on television. There were hundreds of channels and shows to choose from. I had a full TiVo as backup. But there wasn’t anything good. There wasn’t anything that would give my brain the needed rest. There wasn’t anything I was willing to sit still and watch. I was stuck in my apartment with nothing to watch on TV.
I was hoping for a Law & Order marathon or maybe some episodes of Criminal Justice or CSI. I probably would have been satisfied with a marathon of any TV show - even an old cycle of America’s Next Top Model, or maybe a Family Ties retrospective. I was out of luck. Channels like TLC, HGTV and Discovery offered no relief. MTV was blah, even for MTV. The 24-hour news channels were mostly offering coverage of the snow (no thanks). ESPN could have saved the day with a PBA event, but instead were still looping Sportscenter. It was bleak, let me tell you.
Were the television gods not speaking to mother nature that day? Had the folks who choose programming hit play on a loop before heading out for the holidays? Were the station managers not aware of the massive snowstorm that had blanketed the entire eastern seaboard and the need for quality television programming on a Saturday afternon?
The television world missed a huge opportunity when the snowpocalypse hit the east coast. What a great chance to put the Freaks & Geeks or Sports Night back on the air for a day. With people scanning the channels hoping for something good, why not trot out an old comedy like Fletch or Wildcats, even Ghostbusters?. After surfing and surfing and surfing for something to watch with no luck I probably would have settled for a few episodes of the Golden Girls. Seriously. The television networks had a chance to show that they understood what we were going through - to recognize that the terrible weather would drive us to our idiot boxes in desperation. But they couldn’t do it. Millions of people were looking for help to pass the time and they found nothing.
The people running the television stations weren’t paying attention. They didn’t seem to care. If the networks had changed their programming, they could have re-ignited the love affair that people have with their televisions. Had even a single television network put together some snow-friendly viewing, the audience would have responded. If I knew that a channel would adjust its programming to help support audiences when inclement weather strikes, I would have become a loyal fan instantly and tuned in regularly.
The people who run television networks spend millions of dollars each year trying to figure out what the audience wants, how to meet our needs. But when presented with a golden opportunity to engage TV watchers, to tap into a captive audience (ever so rare these days) they blew it. It was a no brainer than nobody thought of doing.
I think television programming should reflect what is happening outside.
Its just an idea…
Department of Ideas: 2-D
by Brian Reich | 29 Jan 2010, 10:56pm
I have an idea: 2-D is good enough.
I don’t have any desire to see Avatar. Even if I was a fan of science fiction I wouldn’t go. I am not interested in Tim Burton’s soon-to-be-released version of Alice in Wonderland either (and I actually like Tim Burton movies). The reason: they are in 3-D.
I don’t understand the obsession with 3-D. I don’t want things flying at me, real or virtual. I don’t feel the need to be surrounded by the people I am watching on screen. When I sit down to watch a movie, I am not interested in also being a part of that movie. But I’m definitely in the minority it seems. The movie industry is obsessed with 3-D. The TV networks are starting to think about 3-D. Televisions, cameras, and other consumer technologies are starting to offer 3-D functionality.
Stop it.
There is nothing wrong with 2-D. The entertainment industry has barely scratched the surface of what is possible in regular television. Most of the movies that hit theaters are a giant flop. Just because James Cameron made a bajillion dollars with his opus about a future world inhabited by blue people doesn’t mean that the opportunity to sport a pair of special glasses will have audiences rushing to see anything that hits theaters.
You can succeed without putting everything in 3-D. You can write interesting scripts. You can tell compelling stories. You can hire talented actors. There is plenty of opportunity to create great movies and television shows without them having to be in 3-D.
2-D is good enough.
Its just an idea…
TAGS
leave a comment
Department of Ideas: The White House Is Just The Beginning
by Brian Reich | 28 Jan 2010, 5:14pm
I have an idea: I don’t think President Obama should run for re-election… he has a better chance of changing the world on the outside.
I am a Democrat. I voted for Barack Obama. I want to see the Democrats control Congress, and the White House, and the issues and ideals that I believe are important advance and guide our nation. I also think the likelihood that any of the issues and ideals that I believe are important will advance and guide our nation, whether we have a Democrat in the White House or a majority in the House and Senate, is pretty slim.
So I have this crazy idea — it doesn’t really matter anymore who is in the White House. We shouldn’t care. We definitely shouldn’t spend billions of dollars on political campaigns each year, get our hopes up, and think that the next election will change the course of everything, that next decade will be different than the previous decades of disappointment. Does it matter anymore who gets elected and who doesn’t? Sure, I suppose a little bit - as long as we have the current system, elections will always have some importance, and there are some specific issues and situations where having power will be better than not having power. But overall, I don’t think we need to control the White House or Congress to get things done anymore. They aren’t getting things done anyway.
Government is broken. Washington sucks. Our elected officials - at the very top, but increasingly at all levels - clearly care more about getting re-elected than governing. The media eggs them on. No meaningful legislation can get through Congress. The legislation that does make it to the President’s desk is so weighted down with pork or so toothless to ensure passage it has little impact in most cases. I realize its a cynical view, and I am happy to consider evidence that challenges this point, but facts are facts.
In the silver lining category — there is lots of change happening outside of halls of power. There are lots of innovations being pursued, solutions being developed, ideas being explored beyond our nation’s capitol. Foundations are doing incredible things to cure disease, address the education crisis and re-envision the future of philanthropy. Nonprofits are feeding people, vaccinating against disease, rebuilding communities and responding to disasters. Colleges and Universities are conducting pioneering research and training talented, capable leaders. And individuals, regular ol’ people, thanks to the reach and power that technology and the internet offer, are able to make a difference as well.
The balance of power has shifted. The President doesn’t have the same street cred that he did in the past. Congress doesn’t have the influence it thinks it does. And worse, the most they fight, the more that real solutions are held up because of partisan wrangling or procedural gamesmanship, the frustration grows among the public and the interest in politics and government wanes.
There are exceptions, of course. The Obama administration is trying new things, talking about big issues, challenging the old rules and protocols. But they aren’t making a lot of headway. And even if President Obama successfully positions his administration as innovative and post-partisan, the realities of voter turnout, citizen engagement in the political debate and process suggest its not trickling down.
I suppose we could all continue to look to the President - and this President in particular - and the Congress to shape the policy of the nation. But I have a better idea. President Obama and the handful of legislators who really are committed to change, who want to find real solutions, should move on. President Obama should announce that he will not run for re-election because there is more potential for him to have an impact on the big issues that are facing our nation if he’s not stuck inside the beltway.
Sure, he would have to give up the fancy plane and — to a certain extent — the bully pulpit. He wouldn’t have the treasury to keep coming up with funds to promote his ideas. The media wouldn’t go live to every event he spoke at or discuss, ad nauseum, every idea that he shared. There are other planes. There is no reason, in today’s society, that a former-President Obama couldn’t command attention and spread his message around the world just as effectively by creating his own communications channels online. There is plenty of money available to solve the world’s problems. And the media… well… the media isn’t going to help, it seems, no matter what angle you come at them from.
The solutions to the world’s most complex challenges are increasingly being found outside of government. The most influential people in the world, in fact, are not Presidents or Prime Ministers. Bill Clinton had a lot of influence when he was President, but his ability to direct action on the world stage is greater now that he is a private citizen. Jimmy Carter’s post presidential life is a case study in second chances. Nelson Mandela became a global icon when he assumed the Presidency of South Africa, but his work in the years since have likely had a more significant impact. Lucky for George Bush (#1, the jury is still out on #2), the work he has done post presidency is going to provide him with a powerful legacy, much greater than if he had just been known for his work during one term in office. And don’t forget people like Bill and Melinda Gates, who are redefining philanthropy. Don’t forget the entrepreneurs and the advocates and the volunteers who toil every day in obscurity but whose work is redefining our society.
Barack Obama doesn’t need to be president to change the world. In fact, I doubt he’ll make significant progress on healthcare, education, and dozens of other issues he cares deeply about if the Republicans have anything to say about it. If President Obama wants to have a real impact on the world, he should get out now. He should not run for re-election. He should acknowledge, loudly and publicly, that our system is broken and the prestige of the highest office of the land doesn’t carry the same weight it once did. And then as soon as he does that, in the same breath, he should commit to a post-presidential life of advocacy, fundraising and change. He should resume his natural role as a community organizer, but on a global scale, and actually fix what is wrong with our society.
The White House has become the ultimate steppingstone - the gateway to really doing something special in the world. You don’t need to be in the White House, but if you are, you are probably having less of an impact than the rest of us who are not.
I don’t think President Obama should run for re-election… he has a better chance of changing the world on the outside.
Its just an idea…
TAGS
: Department of Ideas
1 comment
Department of Ideas: Life Transcript
by Brian Reich | 27 Jan 2010, 3:02pm
I have an idea: I want a transcript of my life.
Within minutes of the President delivering his State of the Union Address tonight the White House will release a transcript of his remarks. Even though millions of people will watch in real time, many will TiVo, and the video will be available online (on YouTube, C-Span.org, as well as most television and newspaper websites), the written record of what the President spoke about will still be published online and the transcript will appear in the print edition of many of the nation’s largest newspapers. If the speech is really good, you may be able to walk into a bookstore next week and buy a copy.
Of course, all of the President’s public remarks are transcribed and made available to the public. But you will also find transcripts for a lot of television news programs — like Meet the Press or Larry King Live — available for free online. NPR makes transcripts of its programs available through its iPhone app within minutes of them being aired. Even some major conferences are starting to publish transcripts. Of course not everyone makes their transcripts available for free — it costs $19.95 to get a transcript of the Oprah Winfrey Show for example.
Clearly, transcripts have value. In addition to being able to watch or listen to someone speak, a transcript gives you the ability to compare the substance of the speech to the delivery (they reveal very different things). You can analyze a speaker’s use of language - look for the subtext and meaning behind what they are saying. When trying to quote a speaker or cite a fact, having the transcript will help to ensure that key points aren’t missed. In short, words are important.
I am not the President of the United States. I am not a regular guest on a television news program or the host of a show on NPR. I do give a lot of speeches and lead a lot of discussions, but while most of the events I attend videotape my talks, few make the extra effort to create a transcript. And, while I do spend a lot of time narrating life for my two-year old son (particularly as we walk around New York City), I don’t have a personal stenographer who keeps a written record of my daily dialogue.
I wish I did have a written record of my life. I think there should be a way to create a transcript of everything you do and say during the course of a day, and then refer back later. I know there are applications designed to convert audio to text that you can get for your computer or iPhone — they are designed to help people keep track of their to-do lists, manage their voicemail, or record the contents of a meeting. There are websites that can generate closed captioning for an online video. You can even pay someone to sit in a meeting and take copious notes, or listen to a recording afterward and type of a transcript.
I want a transcript of my entire day. I want the details of every conversation I have with someon. I want to be able to review the stories I told. I want a record the answers I provided when my son, Henry, asked me a question. I want to remember what I told my therapist. If my wife and I remember the details of a past conversation differently, I want to be able to look up what I said previously. And I want to be able to capture the ideas and insights that I share with clients, or groups that I speak with.
There are lots of ways to track what you have done throughout the day. Your calendar offers some details about how you spent your day (or at least were scheduled to spend your day). You can review your emails to see how conversations developed over time. Depending on how you use it, Twitter acts as a partial transcript as well. And of course, you can always record everything and watch/listen later.
I’m not interested in being on my own reality show - or anyone else’s reality show for that matter. I want to be able to review how I spent my time, what I talked about, what I was thinking (out loud). I want to be able to engage in a conversation with another person and focus entirely on what they are saying without having to worry about not capturing a detail in writing that might be important later. I am not very old. I don’t have memory issues (that I know of anyway). But I don’t remember all the wonderful moments - and not so wonderful moments - from my childhood. I don’t remember the particulars of every conversation that I have. I don’t have the ability to review something that I said, or that someone said to me, to ensure that my interpretation was correct. And I think I would benefit from that — and others might as well.
I want a transcript of my life.
Its just an idea…
TAGS
: Department of Ideas
1 comment
Sports and Change (Cross-post)
by Brian Reich | 26 Jan 2010, 9:48am
I am leading a discussion about ‘how to handle what’s next’ at the USA Today Sports Philanthropy Forum later today in McLean, VA. To help set up the discussion I put together some thoughts about how the sports world is in a position to help us address causes in new, powerful ways because of the important role that sports play in people’s lives.
Here is an excerpt:
Religion, in its most basic form, is a socially shared set of beliefs and rituals that allows us to transcend the material world and impart meaning to our lives. The same is true for sports.
Sports and religion both have organized hierarchies and places of “ceremony” and devotion where followers gather. For many fans, Sundays revolve around the big game, the way church attendance provides a focal point for a weekend. Fans wear a team’s colors and carry its flags, icons, and mascots as public displays of their faith and commitment. At stadiums, as well as in groups gathered around television sets in bars and living rooms, repetitive chanting, hand-clapping, booing the other team, doing the wave, and other activities create a similar shared experience that many get during a responsive prayer or the singing of a hymn. Sports and religion share a vocabulary: words like devotion, dedication, sacrifice, commitment, spirit, prayer, suffering, and celebration are used as commonly when describing teams and contests as they are when discussing one’s faith.
Sports are not technically religion, of course, but all over the globe people worship sports much the same as they do religion. For many, sports are the main thing in their lives, and without them, they would not feel complete.
Sports unite individuals in a celebration of common interest and shared belief. In religion, that common interest and shared belief has been used to advocate on behalf of causes and social issues. In fact, religion has been among the most powerful agents for changing human attitudes and behavior. Sports too can help to shift the way people think and take action to support important issues and causes. Few groups in our society have such potential to drive meaningful, measurable change – and few would benefit as greatly as the sports world could, in the process.
You can read the whole post over at im-media-te impact, my Fast Company Experts Blog. Here is the link: http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/brian-reich/im-media-te-impact/sports-and-change
TAGS
: Causes Fast Company im-media-te impact ThinkingAboutSports USA Today Sports Philanthropy Forum USTSPF
1 comment
Department of Ideas: High Expectations
by Brian Reich | 26 Jan 2010, 9:16am
I have an idea: We should have (and set) really high expectations — and then go out and meet them.
I flew United Airlines from New York City (LGA) to Washington, DC (IAD) this morning for an event. The flight was smooth, the crew was friendly and the plane landed on time. I was pleasantly surprised. Scratch that - I was completely amazed. I had given up long ago on the prospect of having a good experience when flying United. My expectations were so low that anything short of the door falling off of the plan mid-flight would have seemed like a huge improvement over past experiences with United.
I can’t remember the last time I said something nice about United Airlines. Then again, I can’t remember the last time I flew United and the flight was smooth, the crew was friendly and the plane landed on time. I had originally planned to take a (very slow) train to DC, and then a (very expensive) cab from the train station out to my event, all because I didn’t trust that United would be able to get me to DC in time for my event. Think about that - I was willing to pay more money and have my trip take roughly twice as long to complete because I didn’t think that United could deliver on something as basic as a trip from New York to DC.
I tweeted the following when I landed: “Dear United: That strategy of setting painfully low expectations and then barely meeting them is really paying off.”
Congratulations, United. You have in fact set the bar so low when it comes to air travel that even you couldn’t manage to screw it up. That’s right, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.
Setting painfully low expectations is, indeed, a brilliant strategy. How can you go wrong? You can’t, at least in theory, do any worse than doing nothing. You can’t, at least in theory, frustrate your customers any more if you don’t actually promise them anything. You can’t, at least in theory, do any worse than you have done in the past if things just continually get worse. By simply doing its job, the most basic of operations that an airline is in business to do, United Airlines has redefined success.
Of course, I am not satisfied. The flight was unnecessarily expensive. The plane cabin was cold (I kept my jacket, hat and gloves on). The speaker that delivered the safety and in-flight messages was way too loud. My seat wouldn’t stay reclined. There were plenty of things that could have been better about my experience flying United this morning. And I still have to fly on United back to New York this afternoon.
I know better than to expect anything from United. I have good reason to keep my expectations low. This one successful flight won’t be enough to change my opinion of the airline. One trip with an on time arrival won’t be enough to rebuild the trust that I lost in United so many bad flying experiences ago.
That’s the problem with low expectations. When you set low expectations, and barely meet them, there is little opportunity to grow. You never really improve. There is almost no chance that my faith in United will be restored, even if they continually meet the low expectations that they have set, and I now hold, for their services because I know that they aren’t trying very hard. I know that they aren’t interested in my comfort. I know that they don’t really care about my well-being. I get that feeling when I fly United that I am just a number, a line on a spreadsheet, another tiny piece in their quest to make money.
Low expectations may allow a company like United to stay in business, to keep operating. But that’s all low expectations do. Low expectations don’t make United a good airline. Low expectations aren’t going go make United a successful company. High expectations make companies strong. High expectations give employees something to work hard to achieve. High expectations give customers, like me, a reason to keep coming back - to give an organization another chance when they make a mistake. High expectations demonstrate help to demonstrate that a company has higher aspirations for its products and services — something as a customer that I believe can be realized. High expectations help make things better.
We should all have high expectations, and we should meet them. Companies should have high expectations for the products and services they offer - that they will be the best, meet the audience’s needs. Companies should have high expectations for their employees and how they conduct business. Companies should set high expectations for customers, and not be satisfied until they are met. Customers should have high expectations, that the companies will have our best interests in mind, and meet our needs and when something doesn’t go well we should do what we can to help — by giving feedback, being even more clear about what we want, offering suggestions for how to improve, and being patient while adjustments are made.
Without high expectations, we’ll never be satisfied. Without high expectations, nothing will every change or improve. Without high expectations, we aren’t really ever going to be successful.
So yes, I think we should set really high expectations — and meet them.
Its just an idea…
