Economize our Language

In this era of tightening belts and cutting back, I figured I would take a shot at lending a hand. However, I am stuck and need your feedback and assistance

My goal is to help the many citizens of the world who use the Latin alphabet, cutting it down by 4%. If we assume that any given word has six letters, this would create a net 1% savings to the bottom line. That would equate to $40M off Google’s expense line--- for the most recent QUARTER. (If you trust the math, move on. If not feel free to read the text Italics below)

Assumptions:

1. Words average six letters


2. Normal probabilities for a sample and population event


3. Words are independent events of one another

Translation

1. 1 letter from 26 = 4%


2. 6 letters a word from selection of 26 = 23%


3. 23% * 4% = 1% (rounded up)

Where I need you help? I cannot figure out where to cut.

First, there are the essentials I do not believe we can cut. I and A are both words in themselves. They have to stay. With the advent of SMS, U is a word as well. Not that I like this development, but it is here to stay (my 11 year old is even staring to use it in book reports… not good).

Next, I am not sure I could recommend P or Q without the wrath of my mother. I seem to remember having to mind those 2 a whole lot as a small child. So while I am still not sure 30+ years later why, they must have some importance if I was supposed to give them so much attention.

How about some of the vowels? We have that darned 6th one. That wily Y. Why is Y a vowel? It is so sly, the rhythm so dry. Best stop now…. So Y seems pretty essential after all.

There might be something to a vowel, as several countries have limited vowels and long names… Kyrgyzstan for example. If a country can cut down on a vowel, can’t we…. Maybe? But which one- E or O (as we have eliminated A, I, U, and Y now)? A vowel is not looking so good after all.

Z seemed like a logical choice, until I realized the wrath of major pharmaceutical companies everywhere would descend upon me. Zantac, Zofran, Zocor, Zyrtex, Zyban, Zithromax… the list goes on. Pharma also seems to think that X is a power letter as well: Xanax, Xenical, Xyzal, and more. Plus Microsoft and their legal team fresh off their Yahoo drubbing would love to level us to protect their X-Box…. Calling it “Bo” just does not carry the same panache.

I hope that you are staring to understand my dilemma. This is not an easy undertaking. I am not ready to give up hope.

I am trying to help our verbal and written economy. This is where I need your help. What letter would you remove from the alphabet?

Slippery Slope to the Bottom

Interpublic today announced a deal with SocialVibe. Bottom line, this is a BAD idea. Paying consumers to endorse brands and promote to friends is a slippery slope.

On the surface it looks great- winning points to redeem for charitable contributions. Finally liking Madison Avenue and social media. A win for all

I dissent. Take the concept to its logical conclusion. In order to meet the growing demands of its clients (or worse yet- Wall Street) more consumers need to be enticed to promote brands… so what happens?

First is the ‘commoditization’ of the charitable cause. We lose site into making a difference, and contributing to an actual cause. It becomes a media platform to stand on and say, ‘hey look at me’. People can, and will, start syndicating how much of a difference they are making. Yet, beneath the surface it is nothing more than self aggrandizement. In the long run, charitable causes lose communities, as constituents are pulled further from their cause, and not closer to.

Worse yet, SocialVibe and Interpublic start increasing the stakes. They award points that can be redeemed for actual products or services. Then the model falls completely apart, and we get a bunch of ‘brand sell outs’ (I dare not use the more derogatory term) who care nothing about the products they endorse. Soon spam takes on a whole new form as people try to make a few extra dollars using every knows social media tool to promote whatever it is they sign up for to their contact lists.

In either case, brands loose. In both cases the long term sustainability of the model is limited at best. Smart marketers beware.

Then again, I could be wrong. This could be the whole new model. I am not betting my $.02 on it, nor the non-profit on sit on the board for. Their mission is too important.

Listen Before You Leap

Recently I was at a dinner with some friends. Before I knew it I had ‘opened my mouth, and inserted my foot.’ My failure: too much excitement in wanting to jump in and participate in the conversation. The result: strange looks, my backpedaling, and a long recovery to re-engage (thankfully a few more glasses of wine helped ease that transition).

We are on the brink of social media fundamentally driving and affecting the way companies engage with consumers, constituents, and other stakeholders—both on-line and off-line. The buzz is everywhere. The taste is palpable on the lips and tongues of corporate types and start-ups alike. When the economy truly begins its recovery, my prediction is social media will take off, hitting new heights not forecast before.

My fear is companies will pull the ‘Speed of Internet Trigger’ and want to move fast into social media spaces when their budgets permit. My cautions: avoid the damaging harm of trying to move too fast; avoid waiting until budgets free to start you social media planning as it causes a significant increase in risk.

So, what is the solution? My recommendation is that you start listening before you leap. I have blogged in the past about listening to your customers. It is a low cost, low risk way to start truly understanding today, so that you can act intelligently tomorrow. You do not have to act, yet. But when you do, it will be with grace and elegance, as you will better understand how and where to act appropriately.

You cannot smooth over the ‘foot in mouth’ syndrome with your social media efforts with a few extra glasses of wine.

Olympic Boom to Bust

Michael Phelps has made history. 8 Gold medals in 8 events, and the most decorated Olympic athlete the US has ever had. In moves big business.

Numbers are being thrown around now that this could help achieve $30, $50 even $100 million in endorsements for him over his lifetime. He could be the next Tiger or MJ. I dissent.

My prediction is that he may sign a deal or two, but that the results from those deals and fervor over him will fade. The deals will disappear, and he will become another quiet success in the Olympic annals.

Why do I believe this? It comes down to two fundamental challenges. First, swimming is not a sport that is splashed (pun intended) in front of the public all the time. Thus there will be limited exposure of Michael in his element to support a brand. Second, the athlete who endorses a brand has to have charisma. While Michael seems like a nice enough guy, I dare say I have not seen the level of charm and natural ‘chutzpa’ required to really support the numbers being thrown about.

Sorry to be such a naysayer at this time of hype and hysteria. Sometimes someone needs to try and be the realist. Part of the appeal of blogs is being able to stake out a controversial position and defend it- right or wrong.

I may be proven wrong, and hope I am.

800 LB Gorilla Misses the Mark with Apology

Unless you have been under a rock, at the Beijing Olympics, or on a remote island vacation, you have probably heard about the Gmail outage at Google yesterday.

Last night Google updated its blog regarding the outage, and apologized for the incident. While I commend Google for the apology, it left much to be answered, and lacked in nearly all areas of communication.

I am not a PR expert, I am a simple person who expects companies to step up, take ownership and explain things to me--- from my perspective. Google had a grand opportunity, and squandered it with their less than appealing explanation. Here is my $.02 debrief.

Google has always claimed to be open- Where is the transparency?

• What really happened and why?
• Why was the communication not until ‘everything will be back to normal by the time you read this’?
• Why did I have to learn about this through Twitter and follow updates there rather than direct through Google?

Google built its search engine on being simple and clear- Where is that clarity?

• OK, so you fixed ‘it’. What is ‘it’?
• You are ‘updating internal systems and procedures accordingly’. What are those ‘systems and procedures’?

Google raves about its infrastructure and stability- Where is the restoration of that confidence:

• Where any explaination of a root cause analysis?
• What are the steps being taken to ensure that this a) does not repeat itself, and/or b) minimizes the chance of it happening again?

Google does not exist without their customer- Why is this from the Google perspective and not the customer?

• The ‘temporary outage’ seemed to last at least 1 hour, that is an eternity to users
• Why would you get on a blog and apologize and communicate and then go on to say, don’t expect to see that here again?

As my 5th grade teacher used to tell me, ‘A’ for effort, ‘C’ for performance. Too bad we do not get measured on effort.

Dummy It Down

I was catching up today on my stack of Harvard Business Review. The February issue (yes I am a bit behind) has an article, The Biosphere Rules. I would like to share a few nuggets from the article, as it articulates in detail something I Tweeted about in July:

1. There are over 100 elements in the periodic table, and a varying combination
   of ONLY SIX of them comprise over 99% of all living things
2. The earliest multi-celled organisms have spawned between 30 and 100 MILLION
   species today (if you believe in evolution and not creationism)

The author’s position for the article is in reference to sustainable development. While I am all for that, what struck me is this really applies to a multitude of businesses, and ideas. How? Please read on.

Think about Microsoft Windows. How much of the code do you really use, yet how much complexity was built into it? Same story if you run an IT infrastructure… think about your monitoring solution and how bloated it may be.

At my last job, we discovered that while there were over 3,500 potential monitoring alerts, the top 25 comprised 35% of the total possibilities. By the time you hit the top 100 alerts (just 3% of the total) we were well into the top quartile.

If a combination of six elements can create over 30 million (to err on the conservative) species and comprise 99% of all living things, I think we learn from that? Have we gotten too complex for our own good? How can we make things simpler?

Here is a suggestion as a start…. Ask yourself three fundamental questions, as you evaluate tools, companies, partners, applications, etc:

1. Is it useful
2. Is it relevant
3. Is it simple

There is elegance in simplicity.

Your Brand is Out of Your Control

It’s an anathema to brand and marketing folks around the globe, but it’s true. Social media has thrown a huge wrench in brand control. Gone are the yesteryears where internal brand and marketing teams carefully crafted messages, controlled content delivery and carefully measured responses.

In today’s dynamic digital media economy, for all the claims that brand and marketing folks make, they just cannot exhort the same kind of control. There are too many blogs, wikis, videos, usenet groups, and the like for anyone, even Google, to get their arms around.

That being said, you should not give up. There is huge opportunity, even better than before, for your brand. Yes, the tables have flipped, it puts ‘the people’ in control of your messaging and branding. That is good!

Embrace it, use it, and learn from it. If you engage in serious and open dialogue, if you react that conversation, you will win in the market place.

Why?

It puts the customer square back in the middle of the bull’s-eye. We have gotten too far from that, as many a company claim the customer is their #1 focus, but really not. I bet you can name at least 10 companies where you think they have lost that magic.

If you let down the barriers, let the customers control the brand and respond openly (ie admitting mistakes) and take action (to address their positive and negative feelings), the brand will become what you want it to be…. Delivery of the right product and/or service to the customer, with their positive endorsement.