Category Archives: Corporate Strategy

So, Six Seconds is the Secret, Huh?

First published February 13, 2014 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

oreo-superbowl-blackout-adApparently, the new official time limit for customer engagement is 6 seconds, according to a recent post on Real Time Marketing. How did we come up with 6? Well, in the world of social media engagement it seemed like a good number and no one has called bull shit on it yet, so 6 it is

Marketers love to talk about time – just in time, real time, right time. At the root of all this “time talk” is the realization that customers really don’t have any time for us, so we have to somehow jam our messages into the tiny little cracks that may appear in the wall of willful ignorance they carefully build against marketing. The marketer’s goal is to erode their defenses by looking for any weakness that may appear.

Look at the supposed poster child for Real Time Marketing – the Oreo coup staged during the black out in the 2013 Super Bowl. Because the messaging was surprising and clever, and because, let’s face it, we weren’t doing much of anything else anyway, Oreo managed to gain a foothold in our collective consciousness for a few precious seconds. So, marketers being marketers, we all stumbled over ourselves to proclaim a new channel and launch a series of new micro-attacks on consumers. That’s where the 6 seconds came from. Apparently, that’s the secret to storming the walls. Five seconds and you’re golden. Seven seconds and you’re dead.

Oreo surprised us, and it wasn’t because the message was 6 seconds long. It was because we weren’t expecting a highly relevant, highly timely message. Humans are built to respond to things that don’t fit within our expected patterns. The whole approach of marketing is to constantly blanket us with untimely, irrelevant messages. Marketers, to be fair, try to deliver the right message at the right time to the right person, but it’s really hard to do that. So, we overcompensate by delivering lots of messages all the time to everyone, hoping to get lucky. Not to take anything away from the cleverness and nimbleness of the Oreo campaign, but they got lucky. We were surprised and we let our defenses down long enough to be amused and entertained. Real time marketing wasn’t a brilliant new channel; it was a shot in the dark – literally.

And there’s no six-second gold standard of engagement. If you can deliver the right message at the right time to the right person, you can spend hours talking to your prospective customer.  It’s only when you’re trying to interrupt someone with something irrelevant that you have to hopefully shoehorn it into their consciousness. Think of it like a Maslow’s hierarchy of advertising effectiveness.  At it’s best advertising should be useful. This sits at the top of the pyramid. After usefulness comes relevance – even if I don’t find the ad useful to me right now, at least you’re talking to the right person. After relevance comes entertainment – I’ll willingly give you a few seconds of my time if I find your message amusing or emotionally engaging.  I may not buy, but I’ll spend some time with you. After entertainment comes the category the majority of advertising falls into – a total waste of my time.  Not useful, irrelevant, not emotionally engaging. And making an ad that falls into this category 5 seconds long, no matter what channel it’s delivered through, won’t change that. You may fool me once, but next time, I’m still going to ignore you.

There was something important happening during the Oreo campaign at the 2013 Super Bowl, but it had nothing to do with some new magic formula, some recently discovered loophole in our cognitive defenses. It was a sign of what may, hopefully, emerge as trend in advertising – nimble, responsive marketing that establishes a true feedback loop with prospects. What may have happened when the lights went out in New Orleans is that we may have found a new, very potent way to make sense of our market and establish a truly interactive, responsive dialogue with them. If this is the case, we may have just found a way climb a rung or two on the Advertising Effectiveness Hierarchy.

How Can Humans Co-Exist with Data?

First published February 6, 2014 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

tumblr_inline_mpt49sqAwV1qz4rgpLast week, I talked about our ability to ignore data. I positioned this as a bad thing. But Pete Austin called me on it, with an excellent counterpoint:

“Ignoring Data is the most important thing we do. Only the people who could ignore the trees and see the tiger, in real-time, survived to become our ancestors.”

Too true. We’re built to subconsciously filter and ignore vast amounts of input data in order to maintain focus on critical tasks, such as avoiding hungry tigers. If you really want to dive into this, I would highly recommend Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris’s “The Invisible Gorilla.” But, as Simons and Chabris point out, with example after example of how our intuitions (which we use as filters) can mislead us, this “inattentional blindness” is not always a good thing. In the adaptive environment in which we evolved, it was pretty effective at keeping us alive.  But in a modern, rational environment, it can severely inhibit our ability to maintain an objective view of the world.

But Pete also had a second, even more valid point:

“What you need to concentrate on now is “curated data”, where the junk has already been ignored for you.”

And this brought to mind an excellent example from a recent interview I did as background for an upcoming book I’m working on.  This idea of pre-filtered, curated data becomes a key consideration in this new world of Big Data.

Nowhere are the stakes higher for the use of data than in healthcare. It’s what lead to the publication of a manifesto in 1992 calling for a revolution in how doctors made life and death decisions. One of the authors, Dr. Gordon Guyatt, coined the term “Evidence based medicine.” The rational is simple here. By taking an empirical approach to not just diagnosis but also to the best prescriptive path, doctors can rise above the limitations of their own intuition and achieve higher accuracy. It’s data driven decision-making, applied to health care. Makes perfect sense, right? But even though Evidence based medicine is now over 20 years old, it’s still difficult to consistently apply at the doctor to individual patient level.

I had the chance to ask Dr. Guyatt why this was:

“Essentially after medical school, learning the practice of medicine is an apprenticeship exercise and people adopt practice patterns according to the physicians who are teaching them and their role models and there is still a relatively small number of physicians who really do good evidence-based practice themselves in terms of knowing the evidence behind what they’re doing and being able to look at it critically.”

The fact is, a data driven approach to any decision-making domain that previously used to rely on intuition just doesn’t feel – well – very intuitive. It’s hard work. It’s time consuming. It, to Mr. Austin’s point, runs directly counter to our tiger-avoidance instincts.

Dr. Guyatt confirms that physicians are not immune to this human reliance on instinct:

“Even the best folks are not going to do it – maybe the best folks – but most folks are not going to be able to do that very often.”

The answer in healthcare, and likely the answer everywhere else where data should back up intuition, is the creation of solid data based resources, which adhere to empirical best practices without requiring every single practitioner to do the necessary heavy lifting. Dr. Guyatt has seen exactly this trend emerge in the last decade:

“What you need is preprocessed information. People have to be able to identify good preprocessed evidence-based resources where the people producing the resources have gone through that process well.”

The promise of curated, preprocessed data is looming large in the world of marketing. The challenge is that, unlike medicine, where data is commonly shared and archived, in the world of marketing much of the most important data stays proprietary. What we have to start thinking about is a truly empirical, scientific way to curate, analyze and filter our own data for internal consumption, so it can be readily applied in real world situations without falling victim to human bias.

Never Underestimate the Human Ability to Ignore Data

First published January 30, 2014 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

ignore_factsIt’s one thing to have data. It’s another to pay attention to it.

We marketers are stumbling over ourselves to move to data-driven marketing. No one would say that’s a bad thing. But here’s the catch in that. Data driven marketing is all well and good when it’s a small stakes game – optimizing spend, targeting, conversion rates, etc. If we gain a point or two on the topside, so much the better. And if we screw up and lose a point or two – well – mistakes happen and as long as we fix it quickly, no permanent harm done.

But what if the data is telling us something we don’t want to know? I mean – something we really don’t want to know. For instance, our brand messaging is complete BS in the eyes of our target market, or they feel our products suck, or our primary revenue source appears to be drying up or our entire strategic direction looks to be heading over a cliff? What then?

This reminds me of a certain CMO of my acquaintance who was a “Numbers Guy.” In actual fact, he was a numbers guy only if the numbers said what he wanted them to say. If not, then he’d ask for a different set of numbers that confirmed his view of the world. This data hypocrisy generated a tremendous amount of bogus activity in his team, as they ran around grabbing numbers out of the air and massaging them to keep their boss happy. I call this quantifiable bullshit.

I think this is why data tends to be used to optimize tactics, but why it’s much more difficult to use data to inform strategy. The stakes are much higher and even if the data is providing clear predictive signals, it may be predicting a future we’d rather not accept. Then we fall back on our default human defense: ignore, ignore, ignore.

Let me give you an example. Any human who functions even slightly above the level of brain dead has to accept the data that says our climate is changing. The signals couldn’t be clearer. And if we choose to pay attention to the data, the future looks pretty damn scary. Best-case scenario – we’re probably screwing up the planet for our children and grand children. Worst-case scenario – we’re definitely screwing up the planet and it will happen in our lifetime. And we’re not talking about an increased risk of sunburn. We’re talking about the potential end of our species. So what do we do? We ignore it. Even when flooding, drought and ice storms without historic precedent are happening in our back yards. Even when Atlanta is paralyzed by a freak winter storm. Nothing about what is happening is good news, and it’s going to get worse. So, damn the data, let’s just look the other way.

In a recent poll by the Wall Street Journal, out of a list of 15 things that Americans believed should be top priorities for President Obama and Congress, climate change came out dead last – behind pension reform, Iran’s nuclear program and immigration legislation. Yet, if we look at the data that the UN and the World Economic Forum collects, quantifying the biggest threats to our existence, climate change is consistently near the top, both in terms of likelihood and impact. But, it’s really hard to do something about it. It’s a story we don’t want to hear, so we just ignore the data, like the afore-said CMO.

As we get access to more and more data, it will be harder and harder to remain uninformed, but I suspect it will have little impact on our ability to be ignorant. If we don’t know something, we don’t know it. But if we can know something, and we choose not to, that’s a completely different matter. That’s embracing ignorance. And that’s dangerous. In fact, it could be deadly.

What’s Apple’s Plan for 2014?

First published January 2, 2014 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

apple-storeWhen new markets open, value chains first build up, then across. Someone first creates a vertically integrated experience, and then the market opens up as free competition drives efficiency. This is the challenge that currently lies ahead of Apple.

Apple has been the acknowledged master at creating seamless vertically integrated experiences. They did it with the personal computer. They did it with music. They did it with mobile. They did it with tablets. The advantage of working within a closed value chain is that you control every aspect of the experience. You can make sure that everyone plays nice with each other.

The challenge is that at some point, as adoption heats up, you simply cannot scale fast enough to meet market demand. Open competition drives horizontal competition, which drives down prices. The lack of control up and down the chain introduces some short-term user pain, but eventually the dynamics of an open market overcome this and the advantages of having several companies working on an opportunity outweigh the disadvantages.

Apple loves early markets. Or, at least, they have in the past. Under Jobs, they had a knack of creating an elegantly integrated experience that was carefully crafted from top to bottom within the walls of Cupertino. The vision and obsession with detail that defined the Jobs era was a potent combination when it came to building vertical experiences. Somehow, Apple was able to open new markets over and over again, seemingly at will. They were able to bridge Geoffrey Moore’s “Chasm” – by making new experiences painless enough for the front end of the adoption bell curve. As markets rode up the curve, markets turned from vertical to horizontal, driving a decline in margins and prices. This is where Apple tended to kick out and look for the next wave to catch.

But that was then, and this is now. As mentioned, Apple doesn’t do very well when markets turn horizontal. They depend on high margins. Only once, with the Mac, were they able to come back and stake out a respectable claim in a horizontal market. And they almost disappeared in the process. The number of dependent circumstances that would be required to repeat that trick is such that I doubt they’re eager to go down the same path with the iPhone or iPad.

In the year end summaries, many are talking about a seeming anomaly –  that despite Android’s massive market share dominance over iOS (81% vs 12.9%, according to a recent Forbes article) it’s Apple that’s ringing up the holiday sales with mobile shoppers (23% vs Android’s paltry 5%).  This becomes more understandable when you put it in the context of a vertical market that is becoming horizontal. Shopping experiences are still much less painful on iOS. And, you have a user base that is much more comfortable with mobile ecommerce because they’re on the leading edge of the adoption curve. They’ve had a mobile device for a number of years now. Android users, in general, tend to be further back on the curve. As the benefits of Darwinian competition redefine the mobile marketplace along more horizontal lines, those ecommerce numbers will revert to a more natural balance, but it will take some time.

As this inevitable change in the marketplace happens, the question then becomes, “What does Apple do next?” Can they find the next wave? And, if they do, does an Apple without Jobs still have what it takes to create the vertical experience that can open up a new market? There are plenty of opportunities – the two most notable ones being connected entertainment devices (the much-rumored new generation of Apple TV) and wearable technology (iWatches, etc).

Apple has always been known for keeping their cards glued against their chest. In 2014, it remains to be seen if they have anything amazing up their sleeve.

A Tale of Two Research Philosophies

First published December 19, 2013 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

They only sit about five miles apart physically. One’s in Palo Alto, the other’s in Mountain View. But when it comes to how R&D is integrated into an organization’s strategy, there is significantly more distance between Xerox’s PARC and Google.

Xerox Alto computer

Xerox Alto computer

I recently visited both locations on the same day. PARC, of course, is the legendary research wing that created the graphical user interface, the personal computer, object oriented programming, the mouse, Ethernet and the laser printer. It was at PARC that Steve Jobs saw the interface that would eventually form the OS foundation for the Macintosh. Every time we touch the technology that today we take for granted, we should give thanks to the many people who have called the unassuming campus on Coyote Hill Road home.

But in 1969, when PARC was first created, there was a different attitude towards R&D. Research required isolation and distance from the regular business rhythms of the mother ship. Xerox could not have put more distance between its head office, in Rochester, N.Y., and its new research arm, 3,000 miles away. When it came to innovation, the choice of location was fortuitous. PARC, together with HP and other Silicon Valley pioneers, tapped into the stream of talent that was coming out of Stanford. In fact, PARC is located on land leased from Stanford. It soon became an innovation hotbed, thanks to the visionary leadership of Bob Taylor, who headed up the Computer Science division. But Xerox’s track record of bringing its own innovations to the market was dismal. As great as the physical distance was between PARC and the executive wing of Xerox in upstate New York, the philosophical distance was several times greater.

Google’s research efforts, under the leadership of Peter Norvig, is taking a much different direction, likely due to lessons learned from PARC and others.  Research is embedded in the ever-expanding Google campus that currently sprawls along Amphitheatre Parkway and Charleston Road. There is a free flow of traffic and communication between current product engineering teams (many riding brightly colored Google bikes) and those working on longer-term projects. The distance between “today” and “tomorrow” is minimized at every opportunity.

Norvig commented on this in a recent interview with me:

We don’t have a separate research entity whose job is to be isolated from the rest of the company and think about the future. Rather, everybody’s job, regardless of their job title, is to make our products better or invent a new product. So the distinction between being a researcher versus an engineer is not how academic you are, it’s not how forward-thinking you are  — whether you’re looking at this year or next year or the year after. It’s more in terms of the area that you work in. If you work in core search or in core distributed computer systems, then your title’s going to be software engineer, even if you’re a Nobel Prize-winning professor.

Google has taken a hybrid approach to research, in which even long-term projects are developed at production scale, minimizing the risk of projects failing during the technology transfer phase. Norvig touched on this in a recent article:

Elaborate research prototypes are rarely created, since their development delays the launch of improved end-user services. Typically, a single team iteratively explores fundamental research ideas, develops and maintains the software, and helps operate the resulting Google services — all driven by real-world experience and concrete data. This long-term engagement serves to eliminate most risk to technology transfer from research to engineering.

This was exactly the trap that PARC ran into, when some of the most innovative advances in the history of computing failed to significantly contribute to Xerox’s bottom line.  Google has thrown the doors open for internal research teams to access the full power of complete data sets and production scale systems while espousing the practice of agile development. The goal is to ensure that all innovation that happens at Google is not too far removed from the goal of either diversifying Google’s revenue stream with new products, or contributing to existing ones.

The Emerging Data Ecosystem

First published December 13, 2013 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

big-dataData is ubiquitous, and that is true pretty much everywhere. It was certainly true at the Search Insider Summit, where every panel and presentation talked about data. And not just any data — this was “Big Data.”  But what exactly is Big Data — just more data? Or is there a fundamental shift happening here?

I believe there is. When I think about Big Data, I think about an emerging data ecosystem, where the explosion of available data will exponentially increase the complexity of the ecosystem. This is not just more data, but a different environment that will require different strategies.

Typically, the data we currently use is either first-party data — the data that emerges as part of our business process — or structured third-party data, available from a rapidly growing number of data vendors. This is probably what most people think of when they think of Big Data. But I don’t consider data in this form a departure from the data we’re used to using. There’s more of it, true, but the process is already identified. It just needs to be scaled to deal with increased volumes.

Let me use one example from the recent Search Insider Summit. The Weather Company has recently launched a new division called Weather FX, aimed at taking the vast amount of weather data it has to create predictive models to help companies add weather-based variables to their own data sets. For example, ad targeting can now be weather-sensitive, ramping up campaigns and changing messaging based on predicted changes in weather patterns. While pretty impressive, this is a relatively straightforward use of data. The data feeds are well structured and have been “predigested” by Weather FX to make them easy to implement.

Big Data, at least in my interpretation, is a different beast altogether. Here, data is messy, often unstructured, hard to find and in raw form. To further complicate matters, it lives in disparate siloes that often have no market-facing interface. T It’s an organic ecosystem that bears more than a passing similarity to how we think of natural resources. This data needs to be identified, nurtured and harvested (or mined, if you’d prefer).

It’s this data that will lead to a true view of Big Data, a world of vast data nodes that require significant development before they can be used. Think of how the world was a century and a half ago, when a lot of raw stuff — wood, minerals, water, crops, livestock — lay scattered about our planet. At the time, there was little in the way of established manufacturing and distribution chains that transformed that raw stuff into consumable products. Over time, the chain emerged, but a lot of logistical challenges had to be addressed along the way. The same is true, I believe, for data.

But there’s another challenge with Big Data: It’s not always clear how to use it. It needs a framework. You can’t dump a ton of various metals and a couple barrels of oil into a big black box, shake it and expect a Ford Focus to drop out. You need to have a pretty clear idea of what your expected outcome is. And you need to have a long chain that moves your raw material towards your end product. In the early days of creating physical goods, these chains were often verticalized within a single organization, but as the ecosystem evolved, the markets became more horizontal. I would expect the same pattern to emerge in the data ecosystem.

If you create a conceptual framework within which to use data, you can determine which data is required and how that data will be used. You can pick your data sources, and identify the gaps and resource as required to address those gaps. Often, because we’re in the earliest stages of this process, we will need to explore, guess and iteratively test before the data will provide value.

This definition of Big Data requires new rules and strategies. It requires a commitment to mining raw data and integrating it in useful ways. It will mean dynamically adapting to the continuing data explosion. It will require blood, sweat and tears. This is not a “plug and play” exercise. When I think of Big Data, that’s what I think about.

360 Degrees of Seperation

First published December 5, 2013 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

IMT_iconsIn the past two decades or so, a lot of marketers talked about gaining a 360-degree view of their customers.  I’m not exactly sure what this means, so I looked it up.  Apparently, for most marketers, it means having a comprehensive record of every touch point a customer has had with a company. Originally, it was the promise of CRM vendors, where anyone in an organization, at any time, can pull up a complete customer history.

So far, so good.

But like many phrases, it’s been appropriated by marketers and its meaning has become blurred. Today, it’s bandied about in marketing meetings, where everyone nods knowingly, confident in the fact that they are firmly ensconced in the customer’s cranium and have all things completely under control. “We have a 360-degree view of our customers,” the marketing manager beams, and woe to anyone that dares question it.

But there are no standard criteria that you have to meet before you use the term. There is no rubber-meets-the-road threshold you have to climb over. No one knows exactly what the hell it means. It sure sounds good, though!

If a company is truly striving to build as complete a picture of their customers as possible, they probably define 360 degrees as the total scope of a customer’s interaction with their company. This would follow the original CRM definition. In marketing terms, it would mean every marketing touch point and would hopefully extend through the customer’s entire relationship with that company. This would be 360-degrees as defined by Big Data.

But is it actually 360 degrees? If we envision this as a Venn diagram, we have one 360-degree sphere representing the mental model of customers, including all the things they care about. We have another 360-degree sphere representing the footprint of the company and all the things they do. What we’re actually looking at then, even in an ideal world, is where those two spheres intersect. At best, we’re looking at a relatively small chunk of each sphere.

So let’s flip this idea on its head. What if we redefine 360 degrees as understanding the customer’s decision space? I call this the Buyersphere. The traditional view of 360 degrees is from the inside looking out, from the company’s perspective. The Buyersphere moves the perspective to that of the customer, looking from the outside in. It expands the scope to include the events that lead to consideration, the competitive comparisons, the balancing of buying factors, interactions with all potential candidates and the branches of the buying path itself.  What if you decide to become the best at mapping that mental space?  I still wouldn’t call it a 360-degree view, but it would be a view that very few of your competitors would have.

One of the things that I believe is holding Big Data back is that we don’t have a frame within which to use Big Data. Peter Norvig, chief researcher for Google, outlined 17 warning signs in experimental design and interpretation. One was lack of a specific hypothesis, and the other was a lack of a theory. You need a conceptual frame from which to construct a theory, and then, from that theory, you can decide on a specific hypothesis for validation. It’s this construct that helps you separate signal from noise. Without the construct, you’re relying on serendipity to identify meaningful patterns, and we humans have a nasty tendency to mistake noise for patterns.

If we look at opportunities for establishing a competitive advantage, redefining what we mean by understanding our customers is a pretty compelling one. This is a construct that can provide a robust and testable space within which to use Big Data and other, more qualitative, approaches. It’s relatively doable for any organization to consolidate its data to provide a fairly comprehensive “inside-out” view of customer’s touch points. Essentially, it’s a logistical exercise. I won’t say it’s easy, but it is doable.  But if we set our goal a little differently, working to achieve a true “outside-in” view of our company, that sets the bar substantially higher.

360 degrees? Maybe not. But it’s a much broader view than most marketers have.

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?

Whom Would You Trust: A Human or an Algorithm?

First published October 31, 2013 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

I’vmindrobote been struggling with a dilemma.

Almost a year ago, I wrote a column asking if Big Data would replace strategy. That started a several-month journey for me, when I’ve been looking for a more informed answer to that query. It’s a massively important question that’s playing out in many arenas today, including medicine, education, government and, of course, finance.

In marketing, we’re well into the era of big data. Of course, it’s not just data we’re talking about. We’re talking about algorithms that use that data to make automated decisions and take action. Some time ago, MediaPost’s Steve Smith introduced us to a company called Persado, that takes an algorithmic approach to copy testing and optimization. As an ex-copywriter turned performance marketer I wasn’t sure how I felt about that. I understand the science of continuous testing but I have an emotional stake in the art of crafting an effective message. And therein lies the dilemma. Our comfort with algorithms seems to depend on the context in which we’re encountering them and the degree of automation involved.

Let me give you an example, from Ian Ayre’s book “Super Crunchers.” There’s a company called Epagogix that uses an algorithm to predict the box-office appeal of unproduced movie scripts. Producers can retain the service to help them decide which projects to fund. Epagogix will also help producers optimize their chosen scripts to improve box-office performance. The question here is, do we want an algorithm controlling the creative output of the movie industry? Would we be comfortable take humans out of the loop completely and see where the algorithm eventually takes us?

Now, you may counter that we could include feedback from audience responses. We could use social signals to continually improve the algorithm, a collaborative filtering approach that uses the power of Big Data to guide the film industry’s creative process. Humans are still in the loop in this approach, but only as an aggregated sounding board. We have removed the essentially human elements of creativity, emotion and intuition. Even with the most robust system imaginable, are you comfortable with us humans taking our hands off the wheel?

Here’s another example from Ayre’s book. There is substantial empirical evidence that shows algorithms are better at diagnosing medical conditions than clinical practitioners. In a 1989 study by Dawes, Faust and Meehl, a diagnosis algorithmic rule set was consistently more reliable than actual clinical doctors. They then tried a combination, where doctors were made aware of the outcomes of the algorithm but were the final judges. Again, doctors would have been better off going with the results of the algorithm. Their second-guessing increased their margin of error significantly.

But, even knowing this, would you be willing to rely completely on an automated algorithm the next time you need medical attention? What if there was no doctor involved at all, and you were diagnosed and treated by an algo-driven robot?

There is also mounting (albeit highly controversial) evidence showing that direct instruction produces better learning outcomes that traditional exploratory teaching methods. In direct instruction, scripted automatons could easily replace the teacher’s role. Test scores could provide self-optimizing feedback loops. Learning could be driven by algorithms and delivered at a distance. Classrooms, along with teachers, could disappear completely. Is this a school you’d sign your kid up for?

Let’s stoke the fires of this dilemma a little. In a frightening TED talk, Kevin Slavin talks about how algorithms rule the world and offers a few examples of how algorithms have gotten it wrong in the past. The pricing algorithms of Amazon priced an out-of-print book called “The Making of a Fly” at a whopping $23.6 million dollars. Surprisingly, there were no sales. And in financial markets, where we’ve largely abdicated control to algorithms, those same algorithms spun out of control in 2012 no fewer than 18,000 times. So far, these instances have been identified and corrected in milliseconds, but there’s always a Black Swan chance that one time, they’ll crash the economy just for the hell of it.

But should we humans feel too smug, let’s remember this sobering fact: 20% of all fatal diseases were misdiagnosed. In fact, misdiagnosis accounts for about one-third of all medical error. And we humans have no one but ourselves to blame but for that.

As I said – it’s a dilemma.