“Local” means something entirely different now

Roger Gardner offers a good example of the idea in headline.

“Jefferson Bank, in Jefferson City, Missouri, has the banner on the business section of NYT. Of course, they don’t buy it everywhere, NYT knows where I am, so it inserts the local ad. Interesting to me is who sold it to Jeff Bank and how?”

Let’s say you sell yoga supplies and would like to advertise locally. But the newspaper, radio and TV stations don’t offer any programming or content relevant to your customers. The local media can’t afford to produce that programming for the few hundred people into yoga.

If you have a great database of readers (as the NYT certainly does) … and an ad network that can pull from yoga shops all over the country… you can serve up ads like the one above.

I think a more practical approach might be for the yoga shop owner to create his own content and community. We’re seeing that happen every day. Or, if they just don’t have the time… others will create that branded content for them. But the result is more and more business becoming “media” creators.

“The Future Journalist”

Found these (and much more) at Mashable. Specific digitally-oriented skills and traits a future journalist would need. These include being:

  • a multimedia storyteller: using the right digital skills and tools for the right story at the right time.
  • a community builder: facilitating conversation among various audiences, being a community manager.
  • a trusted pointer: finding and sharing great content, within a beat(s) or topic area(s); being trusted by others to filter out the noise.
  • a blogger and curator: has a personal voice, is curator of quality web content and participant in the link economy.
  • able to work collaboratively: knowing how to harness the work of a range of people around him/her — colleagues in the newsroom; experts in the field; trusted citizen journalists; segments of the audience, and more.

If you are a working journalist, could you get the job you have today based on the requirements above?

Top Ten Mistakes Managers Make With Email

1. Using vague subject lines. “Meeting,” “Update,” or “Question” provide no value as subject lines. Maximize the subject line’s message. PDA users will get the message quickly; everyone will appreciate the clear summary. You can communicate plenty in a five to 10 word subject line: “Your Action Items and Minutes from Last Week’s Meeting” or “Sam: See You at 10:00 Tuesday with Report In-Hand?”

2. Burying the news. Convey the important points first: put dates, deadlines and deliverables in the first one to three lines of the message (if not also in the subject line). PDA limitations, time pressures, cultural distinctions and value judgments keep many readers from reading further.

3. Hiding Behind the “BCC” field. At best, the ‘blind copy’ field is sneaky and risky. At worst, it’s deceitful or unethical. Plus, blind recipients sometimes hit “reply all,” revealing the deception. Instead, post the initial message and BCC no one. Then forward your sent message to others with a brief explanation.

4. Failing to clean up the mess of earlier replies/forwards. Few readers will wade through strings of previous messages. State your position clearly, even if context follows below in the email string. “Yes” helps less than “Yes, you can have the extra funding to hire 5 temporary workers.”

  • Summarize the discussion to date: “See below: R&D is looking for more time but Sales risks losing customers if we don’t act now.”
  • Force focus when necessary: “Let’s focus on cost now and revisit the morale and equity issues at our staff meeting next week.” Change subject lines cautiously.
  • Tighter, more relevant subject lines work best, but even one letter’s difference upsets inbox sorting mechanisms.
  • Cut extraneous or repetitive information.

5. Ignoring grammar and mechanics. PDAs have granted us certain sloppy flexibility, which means you’ll impress readers even more when you write precisely.

  • Follow standard punctuation, capitalization and spelling rules.
  • Think carefully about the tone different punctuation conveys. “Dear Betty,” is standard, neutral; “Dear Betty:” is professional, perhaps distant; “Dear Betty!” is personable, perhaps excessively so; “Dear Betty.” prefaces bad news.
  • Avoid over-stylizing with high-priority marks, disorienting color or complex backgrounds.
  • Avoid all-caps and excessives (like “!!!!” or other strings of punctuation).

6. Avoiding necessarily long emails. Longer messages sometimes work best; they can help avoid attachments’ hassle and security fuss. Don’t fear long emails but outline your structure and motivate reading up top.

  • Provide a ‘mapping statement’ to allow readers to skim for key information: “I’ve included information, below, on the background, costs, implementation schedule and possible problems.”
  • Emphasize the specific response you seek: “Please let me know, before Monday, how this project will impact your team.”
  • Indicate an attachment’s presence and value: “I’ve attached slides that I need you to review before our meeting; those slides identify total costs and break down the budget.

7. Mashing everything together into bulky, imposing inaccessible paragraphs. Length does not discourage reading; bulk does.

  • Keep your paragraphs short, ideally no more than three to five lines of type.
  • Open each paragraph with a bottom-line sentence.
  • Use section headings (in all-caps) to facilitate skimming.
  • Include blank lines between paragraphs and section headings.
  • Avoid italics, boldface and other typeface changes which do not reliably carry across email systems.

8. Neglecting the human beings at the other end. Email travels between actual people, even though we don’t see or hear each other directly.

  • Praise, precisely. “Great job” takes little time and space but can work wonders. Quickly wishing someone a good weekend, at the end of an email, might perk someone up without cluttering your message.
  • Avoid conveying blame or delivering negative feedback over email. Talk to the person instead.
  • Avoid sarcasm, caustic wit, off-color humor and potentially inappropriate remarks —all of these elements tend to confuse, disorient or fall flat over email.
  • Consider using emoticons and exclamations (“!” but also “ha, ha” or “just kidding”) when they convey useful emotional context.
  • Adjust your style to suit your audience. For people who don’t know you, a terse style might seem rude; a wordy style might seem unfocused.

9. Thinking email works best. Email is not always the best way to communicate.

  • Need a quick answer from someone nearby? Stop by for a visit.
  • Want a reply to several unanswered emails? Pick up the phone.
  • Looking for more gravitas? Mail a letter.
  • Need to explain a complex or sensitive situation? Arrange a meeting.

10. Forgetting that email last forever. Most of us read, send and discard emails at lightning speeds. But don’t forget that emails remain on a server somewhere as easy-to-forward proof of any error, offense or obfuscation we made.

Source: Wall Street Journal

The Quadrants of Discernment

Passion is a frequent theme in Seth Godin’s latest book, Linchpin. He also spends a good bit of time on discernment. The ability to see things they way they really are. Each corner of the illustration below represents a different kind of per and the way he responds to situations at work.

“In the bottom right is the Fundamentalist Zealot. He is attached to the world as he sees it. There is no prajna her, no discernment. Change is a threat. Curiosity is a threat. Competition is a threat. As a result, it’s difficult for him to see the world as it is,because he insists on the the world being the way he imagines it. At the same time, he has huge reservoirs of effort to invest in maintaining his worldview. Fundamentalist zealots always manage to make the world smaller, poorer, and meaner.

The top left belongs to the Bureaucrat. He’s certainly not attached to the outcome of events, and he definitely won’t be exerting any additional effort,regardless. The bureaucrat is a passionless rules follower, indifferent to external events and gliding through the day. The clear at the post office and the exhausted VP at General Motors are both bureaucrats.

The bottom left is the corner for the Whiner. The whiner has no passion, but is extremely attached to the worldview he’s bought into. Living life in fear of change, the whiner can’t muster the effort to make things better,but is extremely focused on wishing that things stay as they are. I’d put most people int he newspaper industry in this corner. They stood by for years, watching the industry crumble while they resolutely did nothing except whine about unfairness. Almost all the positive change in this industry (like The Huffington Post and YouTube) is coming from outsiders.

And that leaves the top right, the quadrant of the Linchpin. The linchpin is enlightened enough to see the world as it is, to understand that this angry customer is not about me, that this change in government policy is not a personal attack,that this job is not guaranteed for life. At the same time, the linchpin brings passion to the job. She knows from experience that the right effort in the right place can change the outcome, and she reserves her effort for doing just that.

Here’s another way to describe the two axes: One asks, Can you see it? The other wonders, Do you care?

How flat is your organization?

This interview with Cristobal Conde, the president and CEO of SunGard, is a good example of why I’ll be willing to pay for the New York Times, when that day comes (couple of weeks?). The Q & A covers several very basic and interesting areas and I encourage you to read the entire piece. Here are a few bits to whet your appetite:

“You have to work on the structure of collaboration. How do people get recognized? How do you establish a meritocracy in a highly dispersed environment?

The answer is to allow employees to develop a name for themselves that is irrespective of their organizational ranking or where they sit in the org chart. And it actually is not a question about monetary incentives. They do it because recognition from their peers is, I think, an extremely strong motivating factor, and something that is broadly unused in modern management.

On leadership:

“I think too many bosses think that their job is to be the leader, and I don’t. By creating an atmosphere of collaboration, the people who are consistently right get a huge following, and their work product is talked about by people they’ve never met. It’s fascinating.

On micromanagement:

“If you start micromanaging people, then the very best ones leave. If the very best people leave, then the people you’ve got left actually require more micromanagement. Eventually, they get chased away, and then you’ve got to invest in a whole apparatus of micromanagement. Pretty soon, you’re running a police state. So micromanagement doesn’t scale because it spirals down, and you end up with below-average employees in terms of motivation and ability.

Instead, the trick is to get truly world-class people working directly for you so you don’t have to spend a lot of time managing them. I think there’s very little value I can add to my direct reports. So I try to spend time with people two and three levels below because I think I can add value to them.

PowerPoint:

“I actively despise how people use PowerPoint as a crutch. I think PowerPoint can be a way to cover up sloppy thinking, which makes it hard to differentiate between good ideas and bad ideas. I would much rather have somebody write something longhand, send it in ahead of the meeting and then assume everybody’s read it, and then you start talking, and let them defend it.

Advice to young people:

“My advice to young people is always, along the way, have a sales job. You could be selling sweaters. You could be selling ice cream on the street. It doesn’t matter. Selling something to somebody who doesn’t want to buy it is a lifelong skill. I can tell when somebody comes in for an interview and they’ve never had any responsibility for sales.”

Print this interview and slide it under the bosses door. Wear gloves and don’t get caught.

Poll: 2 in 5 Americans read paper daily

One of the findings of an Adweek Media/Harris Poll taken in December 2009. Only 43% of US adults say they read a daily newspaper – either online or in print – almost every day, while 72% read one at least once a week and 81% read one at least once a month. The study found that one in ten adults say they never read a daily newspaper.

“Daily newspaper readership skews heavily toward the older age groups. Almost two-thirds of those ages 55+ (64%) say they still read a daily newspaper almost every day. Younger Americans read newspapers less often. Just more than two in five of those ages 45-54 (44%) read a paper almost every day as do 36% of those ages 35-44. However, less than one-fourth of those ages 18-34 (23%) say they read a newspaper almost every day and 17% in this age group say they never read a daily newspaper.

Though many newspapers are exploring the possibility of charging a monthly fee to read a daily newspaper’s content online, the poll results suggest this tactic is unlikely to work. Three-fourths of online adults (77%) say they would not be willing to pay anything to read a newspaper’s content online. Among the minority willing to pay, one in five online adults (19%) would only pay between $1 and $10 a month for this online content and only 5% would pay more than $10 a month.

The average monthly amount consumers are prepared to pay ranges from $3 in the US and Australia to $7 in Italy.

I want to be depressed by these findings but must confess that I do not read a hold-it-in-your-hands newspaper and I’ve never been better informed. I spend the first two hours of every days gobbling up news from dozens of sources. And much (most?) of the real news comes from newspapers that are bleeding red ink.

What will I be reading if/when those traditional sources are no long? I have no idea.

Bruce Sterling: State of the World 2010

Every year the Well (one of the early, pre-web, online communities) invites Bruce Sterling to chat about the state of the world. This year, he paints a grim picture of where the “present” is heading:

“Various entities and institutions have scrambled together safety pins and gobs of glue to rig the global economy so that it appears to be ambling along, but isn’t it a great conceptual Jenga, ready to fall if you move the wrong block? What kind of shuffling and reshuffling can we expect, if there’s a global economic meltdown? And has the collapse already happened – are we like the coyote, run far beyond the edge of the cliff, waiting for gravity’s effect?”

On Google News and Twitter:

“I’m looking over my Twitter stream here, because it seems a more useful barometer to me now than Google News. Google News definitely has that rickety Jenga feeling that JonL is talking about. Whenever you see something on Google News nowadays, you have to wonder: “who owns this so-called news organization now? What’s left of them financially? Is there even a shred of objective fact in this?”

Sivad is “Davis” spelled backward

Growing up in Kennett, Missouri, in the 50’s and 60’s, we got our TV from Memphis, 100 miles to the south. But we were blessed with a great selection of movies. One station, WHBQ, billed their offerings, “Million Dollar Movies.” And there was a great sub-set of horror movies (Dracula, Wolfman, Frankenstein, etc) presented as Fantastic Features. The Monster of Ceremonies was SIVAD, the only vampire with a hush-puppy southern accent.

How big was Sivad? He drew 30,000 fans to the Mid-South Fairgrounds, breaking the Beatles attendance record). You can learn more about Sivad and alter ego Watson Davis here.

Much thanks to Charles Jolliff for tipping us to this pop-culture flash-back.

Is this the future of advertising?

First, I am assuming this was a paid commercial. And I’m assuming Domino’s Pizza paid a premium. The ultimate “live read.” As I watched, I realized I was paying very close attention, trying to figure out what I was seeing.

Whose idea was this? The show’s writers? You damn well better have good writers if you’re going to try this. Was it Domino’s idea? Their ad agency?

My next thought was, this is a one trick pony. You can’t do this every night. Or even every week. But then it hit me, you wouldn’t need to. This segment had 100% of my attention. I clearly got the message that Domino’s Pizza was trying to make their product a lot better. I don’t need to see some mindless 30 second spot over and over.

This… whatever it is… didn’t insult my intelligence. It played to it in a tongue-in-cheek manner ideally suited to those who watch The Colbert Report. I have no trouble imagining an advertiser paying big bucks for this.