Category Archives: Corporate Darwinism

Evolutionary Hotspots in Marketing

First published November 21, 2013 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

paramoscene1_7in

The Páramos Ecosystem

The Páramos are remarkable places: grasslands that sit above the tree lines in the Andes, some 10,000 feet above sea level. What makes them remarkable are the things that grow and live there — like Espeletia uribei,which looks like a huge palm tree, but is actually an overgrown member of the daisy family.

The Páramos just happen to be the place on earth where evolution happens the fastest.  There are other places where species evolve quickly, including Darwin’s Galápagos Islands, but scientists believe the Páramos are the hottest of the evolutionary hot spots.

The reason for this supercharged speciation is the climate, which makes them a very tough place to call home.  They’re located at the equator, so they get sunshine year round. But the elevation introduces harsh temperatures and extreme ultraviolet exposure. Also, the weather can change in a heartbeat. A few minutes can mark the difference between sunshine, mist and full-on storms.  This constant adaptive stress has resulted in biodiversity not seen anywhere else on the planet.

In biology, evolution is measured by the rate of mutation. In the business world, mutation equates to innovation. A new idea introduces a wild card into the competitive environment, just as a genetic mutation introduces a wild card into nature. It disrupts the status quo, either positively or negatively. That’s why it’s important for organizations to embrace failure. Openness to error encourages innovation, driving the competitive evolution of the company. Successful innovations can be game-changers, as long as you create a framework to identify unsuccessful innovations before they do irreparable damage.

So if we accept that corporate evolution is a good thing, and we want to increase our mutation/innovation rate, then it makes sense to seek our own organizational “Páramos.” These will be departments or divisions where volatility is the norm, rather than the exception. Stability is the enemy of innovation. Typically, these will be areas that require rapid reaction to external forces and adaption to new environmental factors. Much as we like to mythologize the lone genius toiling away in an ivory tower or R&D lab, the history of innovation shows that it most often comes from far messier, more organic sources.

In the Páramos, it’s the harsh, unpredictable climate that drives evolution. In a company, it’s the instability of the competitive marketplace that drives the forces of innovation. So it makes sense that the hotspots will be those areas of the organization that have the most exposure to that marketplace. Front-line touch points with customers, head to head contact with competitors and real world usage of your products or services are the externalities you’ll be looking for. That makes sales, marketing and customer service prime candidates for becoming your own Páramos.

The challenge is to enable innovation at this level. Typically, innovation in an organization is constrained (and unfortunately, often choked to death) by bureaucratic frameworks that build in “top-down” governance from executives who are traditionally miles away from the “Páramos” in the org chart. This is exactly the wrong approach. Mechanisms should be developed to encourage “bottom-up” innovation in these identified hotspots, with appropriate guidelines for identifying successful opportunities as quickly as possible, allowing organizations to fast-track the winners and cut their losses on the losers. These hotspots can become the strategic radar of the organization.

Darwin’s “dangerous idea” has completely changed biology. Currently, it’s causing everyone from psychologists to economists to rethink their respective fields. In the future, don’t be surprised if it has a similar impact on marketing and corporate strategy.

Yahoo Under the Mayer Regime

First published November 7, 2013 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

marissa-mayer-7882_cnet100_620x433OK, it has a new logo. The mail interface has been redesigned. But according to a recent New York Timespiece, Yahoo still doesn’t know what it wants to be when it grows up. Marissa Mayer seems to be busy, with a robust hiring spree, eight new acquisitions, 15 new product updates, a nice 20% bump in traffic and a stock price that’s been consistently heading north. But all this activity hasn’t seemed to coalesce into a discernible strategy — from the outside, anyway.

It’s probably because Mayer is busy rebuilding the guts of the organization. Cultures are notoriously difficult things to change. In any organization where a major change in direction is required, you will have to deal with several layers of inertia — and, even more challenging, momentum heading the wrong way.  In the blog post, design guru Don Norman agrees, ““The major changes she has made are not what the logo looks like or a new Yahoo Mail. The major changes are what the company looks like internally. She’s revitalizing the inside of the company, and what everyone sees on the surface are just little ripples.”

To be fair, Yahoo has been an organization lacking a clear direction for a long, long time. I remember speaking at the Sunnyvale campus years ago, when Yahoo was still being remade into a media property, under the direction of Terry Semel. There were entire departments (including the core search team) that felt cut adrift. Since then, the strategic direction of Yahoo has resembled that of a Roomba vacuum, plowing forward until it senses an obstacle, then heading off in an entirely new direction.

What was interesting about the recent Times post was the marked contrast to the rumors and kvetching coming from Mayer’s old digs: Google. There, the big news seems to be the ultra-secret party barge anchored in San Francisco bay. And a Quora thread entitled “What’s the Worst Part about Working at Google?” paints a picture of a frat house that has yet to wake up and realize the party’s over:

  • Overqualified people working at menial jobs.
  • Frustration at not being able to contribute anything meaningful in an increasingly bureaucratic environment.
  • Engineers with egos outstripping their skills.
  • Bottlenecks preventing promotion,
  • A permanent “party” atmosphere that makes it difficult to get any actual work done.

But perhaps the most telling comment came from someone who spent seven years at Google, who said that all the meaningful innovation comes from an exceedingly small group, headed by Larry and Sergey. The rest of the Googlers are just along for the ride:

Here’s something to ponder.  The only meaningful organic products to come out of Google were Search and then AdSense.  (Android — awesome, purchased.  YouTube — awesome, purchased, etc. Larry and/or Sergey were obviously intimately involved in both.  Maps – awesome, purchased. Google Plus is a flop for all non-Googlers globally, Chrome browser is great, but no direct monetization (indirectly protects search), the world has passed the Chrome OS by… etc. ) Fast-forward 14 years, and the next big thing from Google, I bet, will be Google Glass, and guess who PMd it.  Sergey Brin.  Tiny number of wave creators, huge number of surfers.

So we have Google, still surfing a wave that started 15 years ago, and Yahoo struggling to get in position to catch the next one. For both, the challenge is a fundamental one: How do you effect change in a massive organization and get thousands of employees contributing in a meaningful way? Ironically, it may turn out that Marissa Mayer has significant advantage here. If you’re bright, ambitious and looking to do something meaningful with your career, what would be more appealing: trying to shoehorn your way into an already overcrowded house party, or the opportunity to roll up your sleeves and resurrect one of the Web’s great brands?

Evolving on the Fly: Growth Hackers, Agile Marketers, Bayesian Strategists and CMTs

First published January 10, 2013 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

If you are a Darwinist, one of the questions you may have asked yourself is, on what timescale does evolution play out? Is it a long, gradual development of new and differentiated species? Or, as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge believe, does evolution happen in short spurts, separated by long periods of stasis (their theory is called Punctuated Equilibrium)?

The next question you might ask is, what does this have to do with marketing?

I venture to say: everything. Bear with me.

If you believe, as I believe, that evolution happens in spurts, then it’s important to understand what causes those spurts. Among many contentious alternatives, one that seems to be more commonly accepted is a sudden dramatic change in what evolutionists call the adaptive landscape.  This is the real world that species must adapt to in order to survive. “Flat” landscapes create an even playing field for all species to survive, resulting in relative stasis. “Rugged” landscapes significantly favor some species over others, accelerating evolution dramatically. “Rugged” landscapes generally emerge after some big event, like a catastrophe.

I propose that marketing is currently a very rugged adaptive landscape. Some marketers are going to thrive, and others are going to disappear from the face of the earth. We’re already seeing exciting new species emerge.

Growth Hackers

If you haven’t heard about them, Growth Hackers are “the next big thing,” at least, according to Fast Company.  A post by Andrew Chen is referenced, where he explains, “Growth hackers are a hybrid of marketer and coder, one who looks at the traditional question of ‘How do I get customers for my product?’ and answers with A/B tests, landing pages, viral factor, email deliverability, and Open Graph.” Think of hackers as tech-savvy marketing guerillas. They move fast, exploit technical opportunities, and track and test everything.

Agile Marketers

According to the Agile Marketing Manifesto, this offshoot of Agile Development enshrines customer focus, validated learning, iterative approaches, flexibility and learning from our mistakes. In the words of my friend Mike Moran, it’s learning how to “Do It Wrong Quickly.” As opposed to Growth Hackers, which is more of a job description, Agile Marketing is a corporate philosophy that encourages (demands) rapid evolution. It embraces the realities of a “rugged” adaptive landscape.

Bayesian Strategists

This was top of mind after my last column, so I added this in as my contribution. As stated last week, I envision strategic thinking to become less of a “shot in the dark” and more of a “testable hypothesis.”  I would never want to see “Big Thinking” give way to “Big Data,” but I believe the two can co-exist, and co-evolve, quite nicely.

Chief Marketing Technologist

Finally, under whose watch does all of this fall? If you believe Scott Brinker (which I invariably do — he’s from Boston and he’s “wicked smaaht”) it falls quit nicely into the job description of the Chief Marketing Technologist. I’ll let him explain in his own words: “A chief marketing technologist (CMT) is the person responsible for leading an organization’s marketing technology.”

A CMT sits astride the rapidly colliding worlds of marketing and technology and makes sure an organization does not fall prey to the all-too-common trap of having these overseen by two completely separate (and often outrightly hostile) departments.

A CMT understands the following realities:

Everything is Marketing

Everything is Changing

Everyone Must Be Agile

In the words of Peter Drucker, “Business has only two basic functions: marketing and innovation.” In today’s world, those two functions are inextricably linked. As a marketer, you have two choices: adapt and survive, or stand still and die. The ones who do the first the best will emerge at the top of the marketing food chain.

The Evolution of Strategy

First published January 3, 2013 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

Last week I asked the question, “Will Big Data Replace Strategic Thinking?”  Many of you answered, with a ratio splitting approximately two for one on the side of thinking. But, said fellow Search Insider Ryan Deshazer, “Not so fast! Go beyond the rebuttal!”

I agree with my friend Ryan. This is not a simple either/or answer. We  (or at least 66% of us) may agree that models and datasets, no matter how good they are, can’t replace thinking. But we can’t dismiss the importance of them,either. Strategy will change, and data will be a massive driver in that change.

Both the Harvard Business Review and the New York Times have recent posts on the subject. In HBR, Justin Fox tells of a presentation by Vivek Ranadive, who said, “I believe that math is trumping science. What I mean by that is you don’t really have to know why, you just have to know that if a and b happen, c will happen.”

He further speculates that U.S. monetary policy might do better being guided by an algorithm rather than bankers: “The fact is, you can look at information in real time, and you can make minute adjustments, and you can build a closed-loop system, where you continuously change and adjust, and you make no mistakes, because you’re picking up signals all the time, and you can adjust.”

The Times’ Steve Lohr also talks about the recent enthusiasm for a quantitative approach to management, evangelized by Erik Brynjolfsson, Director of the MIT Center for Digital Business, who says Big Data will “replace ideas, paradigms, organizations and ways of thinking about the world.”

However, Lohr and Fox (who wrote the excellent book, “The Myth of the Rational Market”) caution about the oversimplifications inherent in modeling. Take, for example, some of the potentially flawed assumptions in Ranadive’s version of an algorithmically driven monetary policy:

–       Something as complex as monetary policy can be contained in a closed loop system

–       The past can reliably predict the future

–       If it doesn’t — and things do head into uncharted territory, — you’ll be able to “tweak” things into place as new information becomes available.

Fox uses the analogy of a Landing Page A/B (or multivariate) test as an example of the new quantitative approach to the world. In theory, page design could be left to a totally automated and testable process, where real-time feedback from users eventually decides the optimal layout. It sounds good in theory, but here’s the problem with this approach to marketing: You can’t test what you don’t think of. The efficacy of testing depends on the variables you choose to test. And that requires some thinking. Without a solid hypothesis based on a strategic view of the situation, you can quickly go down a rabbit hole of optimizing for the wrong things.

For example, most heavily tested landing pages I’ve seen all reach the same eventual destination: a page optimized for one definition of a conversion. Typically this would be the placement of an order or the submission of a form. There will be reams of data showing why this is the optimal variation. But what about all the prospects that hit that page for which the one offered conversion wasn’t the right choice? How do they get captured in the data? Did anyone even think to include them in the things to test for?

Fox offers a hybrid view of strategic management that more closely aligns with where I see this all going — call it Bayesian Strategic management. Traditional qualitative strategic thinking is required to set the hypothetical view of possible outcomes, but then we apply a quantitative rigor to measure, test and adjust based on the data we collect. This treads the line between the polarities of responses gathered by last week’s column – it puts the “strategic” horse before the “big data” cart. More importantly, it holds our strategic view accountable to the data. A strategy becomes a hypothesis to be tested.

One final thought. Whether we’re talking about Ranadive’s utopian (or dystopian?) vision of a data driven world or any of the other Big Data evangelists, there seems to be one assumption that I believe is fundamentally flawed, or at least, overly optimistic: that human behaviors can be adequately contained in a predictable, rational, controlled closed loop system. When it comes to understanding human behavior, the capabilities of our own brain far outstrip any algorithmically driven model ever created — yet we still get it wrong all the time.

If Big Data could really reliably predict human behaviors, do you think we’d be in financial situation we are now?

Marissa Mayer and Yahoo’s Regression to the Mean

First published July 26, 2012 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

There is not a lot of overlap between the universes of Gord Hotchkiss and Marissa Mayer, but our orbits have intersected on a few occasions in the past. I’ve had the opportunity to talk to Mayer about various aspects of search on a handful of occasions, so it was with some interest that I watched the announcement and subsequent buzz about her appointment as Yahoo CEO.

Much has been said about Mayer’s personal qualifications for the job, and the general consensus is that this is a good thing for Yahoo. If this were a movie, I’m thinking she would score an 82% on the Tomatometer, handily qualifying as “fresh.” Personally, I would agree. Mayer has a razor-sharp (and somewhat intimidating) intellect, a core love for search and an innate sense of what’s right for the user. All of these things will be big plusses for Yahoo. What she hasn’t been tested on is her ability to run a big company. And that’s where things could get interesting.

No doubt Google still imparts its own “halo” effect on anyone who has spent time at the “Plex” in a leadership position. And few have spent as much time there as Mayer, who, as hire number 20, was Google’s first female engineer, logging 13 years with bosses (and hopefully still friends) Page and Brin.  These three tied a tight little knot in the early days of Google, but from the outside, that knot seems to have frayed just a little in the past few years. Mayer’s recent moves in the company have been more lateral than vertical, as later additions to the Google team were promoted above her. Undoubtedly, this was a contributing factor to the parting of the ways with Google.

But how much value does Mayer’s vast inside knowledge of Google and its past successes bring to Yahoo? It must have played a major role in her selection as the new chief Yahooligan. But was she instrumental in the streak of seemingly picture-perfect management calls in the early days of the Internet’s Golden Child? And, even if she were, does it really matter?

Earlier this year, I took part in an open forum on search at an industry conference. Our moderator tossed a ticking time bomb at the panel, in the form of this delicately stated question: “What the #%^&$ is Google doing lately? Have they gone insane?” We each offered our opinions, which ranged in the degree of madness ascribed to Google’s executives. I started my response with this, “I think we tend to downplay the role luck played in the early days of Google. Maybe their luck is just running out.”

There is a much fancier name for the hypothetical situation I described, which is called “regression to the mean.”  In his recent book, “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” (a HIGHLY recommended read) psychologist and Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman explores how this can lead us to overvalue executive talent when it’s combined with the halo effect. Kahneman even uses Google as an example: “Of course there was a great deal of skill in the Google story, but luck played a more important role in the actual event than it does in the telling of it. And the more luck was involved, the less there is to be learned.”

Regression to the mean simply means that when you take a snapshot in time that represents either exceptionally good or bad performance, subsequent snapshots tend to move closer to the average. And those highs and lows generally involve luck to some extent. So you can poach talent from a company on a hot streak, only to find that it wasn’t the executives responsible for the performance, but simply the planets aligning in a favorable way.

As an ex-CEO of a company, albeit a tiny one, I find it hard to swallow that leadership might not be as important as we think in the fortunes of a company. But I generally find Kahneman to be an incredibly astute observer of human errors in judgment, so I have to resist the urge to go with my own cognitive biases here and trust Kahneman’s research.  He doesn’t say leadership is inconsequential, but he does caution against ignoring the role of timing and sheer luck.

This is also not to downplay the role Marissa Mayer will play in the future of Yahoo.  Somebody has to lead the company, and Mayer is at least as good a choice as anyone else I can think of.

Who knows? Maybe Yahoo’s luck is due to change. In their case, “regression to the mean” means there’s no place to go but up.

Bet Big on Digital Acceleration

First published July 19, 2012 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

The other day, I was going through some background research for a client. What struck me, as I waded through the reams of PowerPoint decks and research reports, was how integral digital was to the core functions of this particular industry. Whether it was key influencers in the purchase decision, reasons for doing business with a company or competitive differentiators, technological proficiency was right up there with traditional factors like price, value, convenience and reliability.

As potential customers, we expect companies to have their digital acts together. More than this, it appears we’re ready to reward companies that aggressively invest in raising the bar of their own connected maturity level. Why, then, are companies so loath to place significant bets on their own digital future?

I deal with big companies all the time, and when it comes to investing in their own websites, online marketing, web support platforms and other planks in their digital platform, they seem to prefer hedging their bets, squeezing out miserly budgets at a level that would make Ebenezer Scrooge seem hopelessly profligate. None of them are looking at digital proficiency as a way to distance themselves from the competition. Instead, it seems that they prefer the security of the herd, nervously watching the pack for signs of movement and only investing when they feel they have to to avoid being trampled by a stampede. It’s Geoffrey Moore’s classic Crossing the Chasm behavioral pattern, writ large.

It’s not the first time this has  happened. The same thing took place about 100 years ago, as Industrial America embraced electrical power. The entrenched manufacturers had all invested heavily in steam power. Despite the obvious benefits that electricity offered (cleaner, safer, more efficient factories) they never did fully embrace it, jury-rigging factories and doing ad hoc retrofits, stranding themselves in a competitive no-man’s land between electricity and steam. New competitors built new factories that maximized their advantages, and the old guard never recovered. In a decade, most of them were gone.

Economists refer to this as a regime transition. In hindsight, it seems hedging your bet when it comes to new technology is not really “playing it safe.”

To me, it seems obvious we’re in exactly the same place. History is repeating itself. If these companies look at their own research, it’s easy to see the signs. Yet research tends to be digested in context, and often people see what they want to see in it. What’s potentially worse, they fail to see what they don’t want to see. Even more frustrating, the cost of making a significant, best-in-class investment in accelerating digital maturity is relatively minimal — perhaps even infinitesimal — given the other operating costs these companies are carrying.

When it comes to digital maturity, I find the real acid test is how effectively companies connect with their customers, both present and future, through online channels. Is the website truly effective? Do they have good search visibility? Have they found a way to play in social that recognizes the importance of authenticity and the forging of true relationships? Do they understand how their customers might use a mobile device to connect with them? If a company can do these things right, chances are they’re well advanced in the digital maturity model.

The other thing to look for is how the company is using digital technology to reinvent the traditional ways it does business, especially when it comes to handling relationships with real people. I find sales to be one of the last bastions of “we’ve always done it this way” thinking. If a company is seriously considering how to make its sales force more effective by leveraging digital channels, it’s a good sign for the future.

In my opinion, betting the farm on digital maturity seems to be a no-brainer — especially when, in terms of real dollars and cents, it’s a relatively small farm we’re talking about here.

Marketing Physics 101

First published February 9, 2012 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

Physics has never been my strong suit, but I think I have a good basic grasp of the concepts of velocity and direction. In my experience, the two concepts have special significance in the world of direct marketing. All too often I see marketers that are too focused on one or the other. These imbalances lead to the following scenarios:

All Direction, No Velocity

As a Canadian, I am painfully familiar with this particular tendency. Up here, we call it a Royal Commission. For those of you unfamiliar with the vagaries of the Canadian political landscape, here’s how a Royal Commission works. It doesn’t. That’s the whole point. Royal Commissions are formed when you have an issue that you wished would simply go away, but the public won’t let it. So a Royal Commission deliberates over it for several months, issues a zillion-page report that nobody ever reads, and by the time the report comes out, everybody has forgotten why they were so riled up in the first place.

This is similar to a company’s strategists noodling for months, or even years, about their digital strategy without really doing anything about it. They have brainstorming sessions, run models, define objectives and finally, decide on a direction. Wonderful! But in the process, they’ve lost any velocity they may have had in the first place. Everyone has become so exhausted talking about digital marketing that they have no energy left to actually do anything about it. Worse, they think that because it lives on a shelf somewhere, the digital strategy actually exists.

All Velocity, No Direction

With some companies, the opposite is true. They try going in a hundred directions at once, constantly chasing the latest bright shiny object. Execution isn’t the problem. Stuff gets done. It’s just that no one seems to know which direction the ship is heading. Another problem is that even though velocity exists, progress is impossible to measure because no one has thought to decide what the right yardstick is. You can only measure how close you are to “there” when you know where “there” is.

Failing any unifying metrics grounded in the real world, people tend to make up their own metrics to justify the furious pace of execution. Some of my favorites: Twitter Retweets, Number One SEO rankings and Facebook Likes.  As in “our latest campaign generated 70,000 Facebook likes” — a metric heard in more and more boardrooms across America. Huh? So? How does this relate in any way to the real world where people dig out their wallets and actually buy stuff? Exactly what dollar value do you put on a Like? Believe me, people are trying to answer that question, but I’ve yet to see an answer that doesn’t contain the faint whiff of smoke being blown up my butt. I suspect those pondering the question are themselves victims of the “all velocity, no direction” syndrome.

Balanced Physics

The goal is to fall somewhere in between the two extremes. You need to know the general direction you’re heading and what the destination may look like. You will almost certainly have to make course adjustments on the way, but you should always know which way North is.

And if you have velocity, it’s much easier to make those course adjustments. Try turning a ship that’s standing still.

Embrace Your Inner “Screw Up”

First published January 19, 2012 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

Humans hate making mistakes. But the fact is, making mistakes is an essential part of being human. Somehow, we have to learn to live on the edge of this paradox. For digital marketers, our entire industry is balanced on this particular precarious precipice.

There are a few rules of thumb to “screwing up” successfully:

You Can Only Learn from Others if You’re in the Middle of the Pack

If you’re a digital marketer, you’ve decided to travel at the head of the herd. Congratulations. But here’s the thing. You’ve volunteered to make mistakes. The mark is on your forehead and it’s your job to poke the bushes and test the waters, flushing out danger for others to take heed of.

Humans have a long history of leveraging the principle of safety in numbers. But in that dynamic, some have to live on the edge and let others learn from their mistakes. The advantage of that position is that you’re also the first to take advantage of the unchartered wins that come from conquering new challenges. The risks are greater, but so are the rewards. If this balance doesn’t appeal to you, move back to center and follow the leaders. Just realize it’s a lot more crowded there, and there might not be enough perks to go around.

The More Unstable the Environment, The More Important it is to Make Mistakes

You don’t need the safety of a herd in safe and stable environments. We call it civilization. It’s on the frontier, where things get precarious, that you need safety in numbers. Ironically, it’s on the frontier where the herd thins out and you often have to go it alone. That really leaves you no choice. There is no beaten path to follow. You’re going to have to be the one that forges it. And that means you’re going to make mistakes. Get used to it. Embrace it. Take solace in the fact that while taking action may cause mistakes, not taking action pretty much guarantees you’ll end up as somebody’s lunch.

If You Can’t Get Comfortable, Get Courageous

I often tell aspiring digital marketers that this is not a comfortable career. If you want security, become an accountant. But if you want a challenge, you’ve found the right niche. Digital marketing takes courage. It means trusting your gut and betting on long shots. It means embracing opportunities without a mound of evidence to rely on. To succeed in this business, first you need passion — but courage runs a close second.

Mistakes = Learning

I don’t know where making mistakes got such a bad rap from, but I shudder to think where humanity would be without them (read Ralph Heath’s excellent book, “Celebrating Failure”). You can’t learn without making mistakes. You can’t gain ground without occasionally falling down. I’ve spent the majority of my life as an entrepreneur, which pretty much means the regular making of mistakes, so perhaps I’ve become used to it.  But I honestly don’t know why screwing up has been stigmatized to the extent it has.

Learn to “Do It Wrong Quickly”

My friend Mike Moran wrote a book a few years ago calling “Do it Wrong Quickly,” which uncovers one of the essential elements of successfully screwing up: to build learning into the process. Understand that failure is an essential part of the equation (especially in digital marketing), and go in using it as an opportunity to learn quickly, adjust and iterate your way to success. By going in anticipating failure, you won’t be surprised when it happens and can quickly move beyond failure to learning and adapting.

Realize You Don’t Have to Be Perfect — You Just Have to be Better than the Other Guy

Finally, this is a game of percentages. If you bump up the level of activity, you’ll make more mistakes, but you’ll also win more battles. You’ll “fail forward” — and soon you’ll be looking at the competition in your rearview mirror.

Embrace Your Inner “Screw-Up”

First published January 19, 2012 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

Humans hate making mistakes. But the fact is, making mistakes is an essential part of being human. Somehow, we have to learn to live on the edge of this paradox. For digital marketers, our entire industry is balanced on this particular precarious precipice.

There are a few rules of thumb to “screwing up” successfully:

You Can Only Learn from Others if You’re in the Middle of the Pack

If you’re a digital marketer, you’ve decided to travel at the head of the herd. Congratulations. But here’s the thing. You’ve volunteered to make mistakes. The mark is on your forehead and it’s your job to poke the bushes and test the waters, flushing out danger for others to take heed of.

Humans have a long history of leveraging the principle of safety in numbers. But in that dynamic, some have to live on the edge and let others learn from their mistakes. The advantage of that position is that you’re also the first to take advantage of the unchartered wins that come from conquering new challenges. The risks are greater, but so are the rewards. If this balance doesn’t appeal to you, move back to center and follow the leaders. Just realize it’s a lot more crowded there, and there might not be enough perks to go around.

The More Unstable the Environment, The More Important it is to Make Mistakes

You don’t need the safety of a herd in safe and stable environments. We call it civilization. It’s on the frontier, where things get precarious, that you need safety in numbers. Ironically, it’s on the frontier where the herd thins out and you often have to go it alone. That really leaves you no choice. There is no beaten path to follow. You’re going to have to be the one that forges it. And that means you’re going to make mistakes. Get used to it. Embrace it. Take solace in the fact that while taking action may cause mistakes, not taking action pretty much guarantees you’ll end up as somebody’s lunch.

If You Can’t Get Comfortable, Get Courageous

I often tell aspiring digital marketers that this is not a comfortable career. If you want security, become an accountant. But if you want a challenge, you’ve found the right niche. Digital marketing takes courage. It means trusting your gut and betting on long shots. It means embracing opportunities without a mound of evidence to rely on. To succeed in this business, first you need passion — but courage runs a close second.

Mistakes = Learning

I don’t know where making mistakes got such a bad rap from, but I shudder to think where humanity would be without them (read Ralph Heath’s excellent book, “Celebrating Failure”). You can’t learn without making mistakes. You can’t gain ground without occasionally falling down. I’ve spent the majority of my life as an entrepreneur, which pretty much means the regular making of mistakes, so perhaps I’ve become used to it.  But I honestly don’t know why screwing up has been stigmatized to the extent it has.

Learn to “Do It Wrong Quickly”

My friend Mike Moran wrote a book a few years ago calling “Do it Wrong Quickly,” which uncovers one of the essential elements of successfully screwing up: to build learning into the process. Understand that failure is an essential part of the equation (especially in digital marketing), and go in using it as an opportunity to learn quickly, adjust and iterate your way to success. By going in anticipating failure, you won’t be surprised when it happens and can quickly move beyond failure to learning and adapting.

Realize You Don’t Have to Be Perfect — You Just Have to be Better than the Other Guy

Finally, this is a game of percentages. If you bump up the level of activity, you’ll make more mistakes, but you’ll also win more battles. You’ll “fail forward” — and soon you’ll be looking at the competition in your rearview mirror.

In Search of Simplicity

First published December 21, 2011 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”

This quote, from Leonardo da Vinci, was on the original brochure for the Apple II. Throughout his life, Steve Jobs didn’t stray far from this principle. In fact, he was obnoxiously obsessive about it.

When Steve returned to Apple after his 12-year hiatus, he embraced simplicity with a vengeance. While Apple was wondering in the wilderness, they somehow managed to amass no fewer than a dozen different variations of their various computers. All were crappy (and I speak as a former owner of several of them) but at least there were a lot of different varieties of crap to choose from.

One of my favorite passages from Walt Isaacson’s book describes how Jobs quickly pruned the unwieldy product portfolio back down to size: “After a few weeks Jobs finally had enough. ‘Stop!’ he shouted at one big product strategy session. ‘This is crazy.’ He grabbed a magic marker, padded to a whiteboard, and drew a horizontal and vertical line to make a four-squared chart. ‘Here’s what we need,’ he continued. Atop the two columns he wrote ‘Consumer’ and ‘Pro’; he labeled the two rows ‘Desktop’ and ‘Portable.’ Their job, he said, was to make four great products, one for each quadrant.”

The upshot is this. It’s not worth doing something unless you know you can do it really well.  Which brings me to Google.

Google has always embraced the grass roots-definition of innovation. The principle is this: get a bunch of really smart people, let them dream up really smart things, and then figure out a way to monetize it. Google carries it even further. They have recently been on a shopping spree for other companies who are also dreaming up smart things. In theory, it sounds great. There’s only one problem: It lacks simplicity. And, by extension, it lacks focus.

Now, if you refer back to a column I wrote earlier (“Amazon = Evolution, Google = Intelligent Design”) it seems that I’m dancing on both sides of an argument. I don’t see it that way. My point in that column was that you can choose to provide platforms that enable widespread innovation, but it’s difficult to try to own that process entirely within one organization. Platforms enable innovation to play out over a larger stage.

Now, you might say (and I would say the same, being a rabid Darwinist) that nature also lacks simplicity. Evolution certainly didn’t happen through any top-down directive to be number one or number two at anything. Evolution is the biggest ongoing trial and error experiment ever conducted. Google’s approach seems to have much in common with nature in this regard.

But in fact, nature imposes the ultimate simplicity at a later stage, and it does so with relentless cruelty: successful variations survive, and unsuccessful ones die. As mercurial as Jobs was, he doesn’t hold a candle to the whims of ol’ Ma Nature.

In today’s marketplace, there seems to be an urge to try new things just because we can. The barrier to entry is lower than ever, thanks to technology. So we rush opportunity on multiple fronts, hoping one will pay off for us. Companies like Google encourage this by actively enabling their team to dabble in whatever strikes their fancy. I’m not saying this is wrong, but at some point, focus has to be brought into the equation. You need to simplify, prioritize and focus to turn out “insanely great” products. You need not only to be innovative; you also need to be a ruthless pruner of less-than-great ideas. And the culture that fosters collaborative innovation generally has a difficult time arbitrating what survives and what doesn’t. This creates confusion and mixed priorities. It saps away simplicity.

Google’s approach is to extend beta periods indefinitely, hoping that this will weed out the winners from the losers. Eventually, loser products (and there have been many) die under their own inertia. But in the meantime, this extended life-support system drains corporate resources. How many real winners have come out of Google Labs? What is the success rate of Google’s approach to innovation? What would have happened if Google Search weren’t as wildly profitable as it’s been? Would Google still be around?