mondaydots

release the keynote files

2010-03-07T17:46:46-08:00

I am really excited to let you know that I am releasing the raw Keynote files from my mondaydots videos/presentations.

I have had quite a number of requests for these files from viewers and one of the core reasons I started the blog was to help people improve their presentations.

I hope these files help, and if you make something incredible - please be sure to share it with me and I will repost it (with your permission) so everyone can learn from it too!

gamble model: download "the gamble model" file

why dots?: download "why dots?" Keynote file

cuts! panic! value?: download "cuts! panic! value?" Keynote file

goals and alignment: download "goals and alignment" Keynote file

disruptive innovation: download "disruptive innovation" Keynote file

mind the information gap: download "mind the information" gap Keynote file

I can't post them all, as some include images I purchased from iStockphoto.com. Posting them would violate my license agreement.

I would like to start posting these Keynote files with every post. This will encourage me to use my own images or draw my own for future posts (be very afraid!).Thanks for reading and I look forward to your feedback.

mind the information gap

2010-02-28T09:39:39-08:00

watch "mind the information gap" on vimeo

In reading "Driven" and "Made to Stick" I stumbled across an incredibly interesting idea. It's called Information Gap Theory. Dr. George Lowenstien wrote a paper about it in 1994 and it works like this: when we come across something new that is not explained by our previous knowledge or experiences, an information gap is formed. If you are a designer, creator or communicator, understanding how to use this gap will have great rewards.

Before I tell you how to put it to use, let's explore the gap with a story. Let's say you're a pentagon, and your entire world, all your of your previous experiences, everything you know, everything you think about, is pentagons. Then one day you come across a hexagon. A hexagon is not very different from anything you've previously experienced, so a small gap in your information is formed. This gap is easily rectified by explaining the hexagon as a pentagon with six sides. You quickly close the information gap and move on.

Next you come across a polygon. This polygon is so unlike anything you've ever seen before that it creates a huge information gap, and a problem occurs: when the information gap becomes this large it creates fear and people, I mean pentagons, loose the desire to close the gap and don't engage with the new product or service, I mean polygon. They either ignore it or run in the opposite direction as fast as possible.

Then you encounter a dot. It's like a pentagon but has a beautiful, continuous, smooth curve and no harsh angles. It is similar but also different from anything you have previously experienced and it creates a medium sized information gap. The power in medium sized information gaps is that they inspire curiosity. They are small enough to be crossed but large enough to create interest and this is the key to putting Lowenstein's Information Gap Theory to work for you: When you are building your next new product, service, or ad campaign, aim to create medium sized information gaps.

It amazes me how many new product developers, marketers, and advertisers create the wrong sized gap. They either create a "me too" product or service which creates an information gap that is too small and uninteresting. Or they let their engineers and creatives add wild, bloated, and unnecessary "features", and create a huge information gap that inspires fear over the size of the gap and size of the of the learning curve.

Each of us has an inherent desire to learn and explore, to the degree that you can create medium sized information gaps with your audience, with your new website, widget, and or marketing campaign, you will be successful! Thanks for watching and I look forward to your feedback!

brand animation

2010-02-20T14:54:44-08:00

Tudor "Doru" Girba emailed me this past week with a cool animation he built inspired by the mondaydots technique. It is a great testament of what you can build with three simple shapes. Nice work Doru! Check out the full post: "Tools and magic" on his blog.

relativity and immediate gratification

2010-02-13T20:03:35-08:00

watch "relativity and immediate gratification" on vimeo

note: Ever since I started mondaydots my friend, Professor Doolittle, has encouraged me to read Back of the Napkin. I finally did this past week and I can easily say it is one my favorite books. I used the SQVID process from his book to refine some of the ideas in this post. If you are interested in the drawings, you can find them here

Transcript

Most people believe that the inherent need to satisfy immediate gratification stems from greed, a lack of self control, or the ability to sacrifice a smaller short term gain for a greater long term gain. While I agree, I also think that some of our short sighted decisions stem from the natural way we compare alternatives in the decision making process. In fact I think the real cause of immediate gratification can be found in this picture from Dan Ariely's "Predictably Irrational". Which of the darker dots is larger? In this illusion it looks as though the dot on the left is larger. If we do a quick measure, we can easily see that the dots are in fact the same size. Even with this newly minted knowledge if we loose the ruler, our eyes go back to seeing the dot on the left as being larger.

The problem is relativity. As Ariely states, "our natural tendency is to compare things that are easily comparable-- and avoid comparing things are not easily compared." So how does this apply to immediate gratification? Just as our eyes can be tricked by visual illusions, our mind can be tricked by cognitive illusions. A great example of a cognitive illusion is my slightly modified example from "Predictably Irrational".

It is an illusion I have fallen for many times before. Suppose you are standing in line at the market getting ready to check out with your fancy $15 toothbrush when the person in front of you turns around and tells you that across town, the same toothbrush is on sale for $7. You get out of line, hop in your car, and drive 20 minutes across town to get your toothbrush on sale for $7. The next week you are at the suit store. You are standing in line ready to check out with your $500 suit when the person in front of you tells you that across town they have the same suit on sale for $492. You think to yourself $8 off a $500 suit that's not worth the 20 minute drive, so you stay in line and buy your suit. Aha! You have fallen for the cognitive illusion! How come you were willing to drive 20 minutes to save $8 off a toothbrush but not a suit? Before I explain, let me show you how this same type of cognitive illusion can cause you to fall into the immediate gratification trap.

The example comes from the book "Driven: How Human Nature Shapes Our Choices" by Paul Lawrence and Nitin Norhria. In the example participants were given a choice to receive $100 in 28 days or $120 in 31 days. Most of the participants in the study chose waiting 3 extra days to get the $120. Next participants were given the decision of receiving $100 now or $120 in 3 days. In this decision the same participants chose the $100 now over waiting three extra days for the $120 reward. So why did the participants decide to change their decision if the time between rewards in both choices is 3 days? The same reason you were willing to drive across town to save $8 on a toothbrush but not a suit!

The problem occurs because like in the dot visual illusion we measure the alternatives of our decisions based off of relative information. The only sure way to know if the dots are the same size is to use an external measuring device like a ruler. The same holds true for the cognitive illusions, yet most people don't take the time to establish the correct cognitive ruler. In the toothbrush example our natural tendency is to compare the $8 in savings to the $15 toothbrush and think it is a great deal. In the suit example we compare the $8 in savings to $500 price tag and think not a great deal. Yet in both instances you save $8 dollars by driving 20 minutes. The correct cognitive ruler to assess both decisions is to ask yourself whether driving 20 minutes to save $8 is worth it, and if it is, then you should always drive 20 minutes to save $8 whether you are buying a toothbrush or a suit!

In the money and time example participants compare 3 days with 28 days and decide that waiting 3 extra days after having waited 28 does not seem like that much longer to get the larger $120 reward. But when compared with receiving the $100 reward right now, having to wait three days seems like an eternity and the participants chose the fast money. The correct way to establish a cognitive ruler and avoid the immediate gratification trap is to look at the time between rewards and the value of both rewards. In both decisions the time is between rewards is 3 days. The difference in value is also the same at $20 or a 20% return on your money. So the correct cognitive ruler is to ask yourself if waiting 3 days is worth making 20% on your money. I don't know of any investments that guarantee a 20% return in 3 days and in this example it is always better to wait three days for the larger reward.

The best way to avoid the relativity that causes immediate gratification traps is to establish an external measuring device such as a cognitive ruler. Because the ruler changes from decision to decision I ask myself three simple questions to make sure I am evaluating a decision properly:

1. What information am I using to evaluate the decision?

2. Am I making a relative comparison?

3. Can I establish an external cognitive ruler?

If you can answer these questions and establish a cognitive ruler you will avoid the relativity that causes immediate gratification traps! Thanks for watching and I look forward to your feedback!

coloadvisor dots

2010-02-12T07:30:17-08:00

Shirin over at ColoAdvisor.com/ recently created his first mondaydots presentation explaining what his company does. It is a solid first presentation and I look forward to future ColoAdvisor presentations!

Here is the transcript:

Hi, this is Shirin with ColoAdvisor, just wanted to walk you through how our service works.

As far as colocation and hosting goes; at times working for a single company pushed is to try and place square pegs into round holes for the sale of the sale due to downward pressure to hit certain revenue targets. This is a short term strategy and is bad for both parties involved.

As far as selling as selling hosting and colocation services to companies. This didn't work for us; we realized that companies out there usually do one or two things really well but could never be everything to everyone. ColoAdvisor was formed to overcome this issue.

Here's how are model works, while taking as little time from our client as possible we gather detailed requirements using an efficient collection and capture method, we'll give you feedback and suggestions to optimize the overall solution you're seeking to purchase. From here we put together a diagram and requirements document that we review with you before sending it off to our trusted partners. This model has worked really great for a lot of our clients to date.

ColoAdvisor has relationships wit 40 hosting, colocation, cloud, CDN, messaging and enterprise application management companies. Using these 40+ providers, we narrow down the companies with the best fit to a handful for you. While working directly with our end client we'll work to select the one that fits the best from a technical, cultural and financial perspective. Our hours of consulting and research are covered by the final provider that we mutually choose. If you choose to table or put your project on hold, there's nothing to worry about, no fees are due to us at all.

We wanted to thank you for your time in watching our presentation and please do reach out to us for any hosting, colocation, CDN or cloud initiatives that you may have. Thank you very much.

principles of contribution

2010-02-02T07:57:14-08:00

Watch "principles of contribution" on Vimeo

Transcript:
In our last post we promised a follow up for making your contribution social media ready. We have a few basic principles that if followed can help your content avoid being ignored and capture the attention of your second and third circles.

The first of these principles is to lead with passion. Find something you are passionate about and pursue it. We see so many people using social media just for the sake of using the technology or for shameless self promotion. If you aren't passionate about your work it will show in the quality. If you want your contribution to capture attention, put your heart and time into it, there are no shortcuts.

The next principle is possibly the most important. Find a niche, become the expert, and dominate that niche. Stop trying to contribute content, products, or services that attempt to meet everyone's needs while sacrificing what makes you unique. We see so many round pegs trying to fit in triangle, star, and square, holes instead of embracing the fact that their passion, experience, and knowledge makes them the expert to dominate a specific niche no matter how small or eccentric. Fill your niche and rock out!

The next of these principles is to make sure your contribution is rooted in story. Story is the essence of the human condition and it is the best way to process, package, and get your audience to remember information. This goes for everything from your blog posts, instructional videos, presentations, and even your resume. The bottom line is that people are suckers for a story. If your contribution has an amazing story, it will travel and it will be remembered.

The last principle is important, especially in the social media context. So many social media groupies fall into the "expert's trap" where they are really excited to show off their knowledge of a particular subject on go on to ad nauseum. Don't fall into this trap! Keep it short! We have found that when people view content online their attention span hardly last more than 5 minutes. We have also found that our 2 - 4 minute video posts receive the greatest attention and have the most potential in capturing the audience's attention through out the whole piece.

That's it! Now that you know the principles, get out there and start contributing. Thank you for watching and we look forward to your feedback.

contribution = rockstar

2009-12-02T18:53:36-08:00

Watch on Vimeo

Social media and networking have fooled a lot of people and companies into thinking they are rockstars. Unfortunately the ease of access and near zero cost of distribution have created an internet that sounds a lot like this. (bad music playing) The abundance of fake rockstars have created an audience that is willing to be your friend, but not willing to listen to what you have to say, buy your product, or help you get a job.

Unfortunately most people and businesses using social media and networking are following the funnel rule: Cram more people into your brand funnel, and maybe you can trick a few into listening to what you have to say. The problem with cramming is that it is costly both in time and brand credibility, and cramming is the most inefficient and absolute worst way to go about being a rockstar.

If you really want to be a rockstar, you have to understand one thing, and one thing only: contribution. Your power and influence are directly proportional to the amount you or your business contribute to your audience. When you look at the essence of relationship and group formation dynamics, contribution is the key element that unites and brings people together. It is a simple yet powerful concept that if understood and properly implemented can mean the difference between being truly great and just being noise.

This principle has not changed for thousands of years. When you look at all the rockstars throughout history, beethoven, einstein, gandhi, martin luther king jr., all have been immortalized not because they were interested in cramming people into their branding funnel, but because the impact of their contribution was so incredible people were naturally drawn to them.

A great way to visualize the power of contribution is to use Seth Godin's analogy of circles. As Seth put it in his blog post, most people are putting all their energy into increasing the size of their first circle, when the real power and size of their network lies in the second and third circles. The only way to gain access to the second circle is to create a message, product or service so incredible, unique or valuable that it contributes to your first circle in such a way that your first circle wants to share it with their first circle. If it is really amazing then your newly created second circle will share it their first circle giving you access to the third circle and so on…

One of our favorite stories of contribution and social networking is Zoe Keating. With nothing more than a cello and a macbook she is able to create beautiful loops of music that grow into incredible works of art. Is she actively seeking out new followers and friends for her twitter or facebook pages? No, but she has a razor sharp focus on following her passion to contribute some of the best music in the world. Her contribution shows in her numbers. She has over 1.2 million people following her on twitter. Her shows are regularly sold out and she has been featured in wired, n.p.r., and WNYC's Radio Lab.

The message is simple, if you want to be a rockstar, stop trying to add more people to your first circle or cram them into your branding funnel and start contributing content, products, and services that are so incredible that they are worth linking to and talking about. In our next post we will give tips for making your contribution social media ready. Thanks for watching and we look forward to your feedback!

behavioral economics of intrinsic motivation

2009-09-15T19:26:44-07:00

watch "behavioral economics of intrinsic motivation" on vimeo

Transcript:
One of the most basic questions I hear from managers is: How can I do a better job of motivating my team? Should you use a bigger carrot or a sharper stick? In Dan Pink's new book Drive and his latest TED talk he makes the distinction between extrinsic motivators like strict schedules and large bonuses and intrinsic motivators like autonomy, mastery, and purpose. He makes the case that employees performing jobs that require more than just basic cognition, are less productive when motivated by an extrinsic source than an intrinsic source. What I find most interesting about his talk are the behavioral economics behind this management style.

To understand the behavioral economics behind intrinsic motivation we must first understand that the call to move to intrinsic motivators is really a call to move the employee-employer interaction from a market relationship to a social relationship. Let's look at these two types of relationships as defined by Dan Ariely in his book "Predictably Irrational".

A market relationship is usually defined by the exchange of monetary currency for a product or service. In the employer-employee relationship this has been the structure for motivating people to work throughout the 19th and 20th century. The employee trades her or his time for compensation. When managers want their employees to preform better they either offer them more salary, more options, more benefits, or the thought has been they can motivate them to work harder with a stricter schedule, less benefits, or even threatening them with losing their job.

A social relationship is much different. It is defined as the exchange of an intangible for a product or service. In his book, "Predictably Irrational", Dan Ariely illustrates the difference between a market relationship and a social relationship with a great anecdotal story. Imagine you are at your in-laws house for thanksgiving. At the end of the fantastic meal you walk over to your mother-in-law and instead of giving her the customary social payment of a big hug and thank you, you pull out your wallet and ask her how much she wants for the meal. Here is where the behavioral economics get interesting. Even if you were to offer her $1000 for the meal, a meal that only cost her only a couple hundred dollars and a few hours of her time, she and everyone else at the table will be offended because they will feel you cheapened the day.

Why? Well behavioral economics show us that the intangibles like love, gratitude, trust, and community that we receive in a social exchange are difficult to put a value on, so difficult in fact, that we can't calculate them and value them as priceless. By offering the $1000 to your mother in law for the Thanksgiving dinner you are putting a cheap value on something that is priceless in her mind. This inequity is caused by trying to blend a social exchange with a market exchange and it is an important lesson for managers who are moving to a management style with greater intrinsic motivators.

Managers must understand that while intrinsic motivation is better and far more economical at motivating employees to be creative, productive, and loyal; it is also creates a long term commitment of honoring that social relationship. The reason intrinsic motivation works so well is that in addition to market capital it uses social capital to dramatically increase the employees valuation of their time. Employees feel they are getting the better end of the bargain and are willing to work harder.

The potential problem is that intrinsic motivators create employee social expectations. Just like you couldn't pay your mother-in-law a $1000 for your Thanksgiving dinner, trying to move a social relationship created by the use of intrinsic motivators back to a market relationship will cause great turmoil in the employee- employer relationship. The moment a manager can't afford to give the time, trust, or freedom needed for the social exchange the employee will devalue their time to the market exchange rate, feel ripped off, frustrated, and will most likely quit.

Don't get me wrong! I think using intrinsic motivators are an excellent idea and I think Dan Pink and Dan Ariely are really onto something here, but managers need to understand what they are getting into and be willing to make the long term commitment and investment in meeting the social expectations that come with intrinsic motivation. Thanks for watching and I look forward to your feedback!

disruptive innovation

2009-07-23T07:22:33-07:00

watch disruptive innovation on vimeo

For the last few years I have been fascinated with Clayton Christensen's theory of disruptive innovation and its application to business, politics, education, and insurgency models. What I find most interesting is that his theory, featured in both The Innovator's Dilemma and The Innovator's Solution provides a prescription for a small entrant with less resources to compete with and beat a large incumbent.

To understand his theory we begin by looking at a set of customers for a good or service. A simplified segmentation of the market is defined as non consumers, mainstream customers, and higher end customers. The incumbent starts by creating a good or service that appeals to the mainstream consumer. Upon reaching market segment saturation, the company looks up market and innovates on the product to capture the higher end more margin rich segment. Often tech companies competing in the same market play this leap frog game of matching innovation to control more of the commodity market. Clayton defines these as sustaining innovations.

In business the process is called profit maximizing resource allocation and the right competitor can use it to force an incumbent out the top end of the market. By continuing to innovate, the incumbent creates bloated products or services that have more value or performance than the consumer can utilize. The logic is that if I can please my most demanding customers then my main stream customers will be also be satisfied, but in reality it exposes the lower end of the market to the disruptive entrant who can enter in two ways:

- By targeting non-consumers with a simple, less expensive and more convenient product - this is referred to as a new market disruption
- By innovating on the business or manufacturing process so as to reduce costs and provide a product that over served consumers can get at a lower price.

With both the entrant and incumbent competing in the same segment, the entrant has the margin advantage as the price equilibrium is set at the marginal cost of the incumbent. The incumbent is unable to compete, and the strategy becomes to abandon the low end of the market which contains their least profitable, least loyal customer base and refocus the business in the higher margin tiers with more loyal customers. With the incumbent effectively pushed out of the segment, prices fall to the marginal cost of the entrant.

Now competing in a commodity market and faced with the same growth imperative as the incumbent, necessity begets innovation: The entrant must figure out how to apply the new innovation in the business, manufacturing, or product to move up market. Once this happens the incumbent abandonment, segment commoditization, and then entrant up market movement repeats itself through until the incumbent is forced out of the market.

Here is where it gets interesting: by pushing the incumbent out of the market, the entrant becomes the incumbent and is now exposed to the disruptive entrant. So how does the incumbent compete? Clayton makes the case that the company should develop an autonomous business unit to compete at the lower end of the market. He makes a great argument that the cost structure of an organization drives its values and these cost structure based values limit an incumbent from competing directly with an entrant.

While I think this is good solution, I see it as highly reactive. I think an organization should do as Toyota did and implement a clear and hold strategy similar to what the Marines do in their counterinsurgency operations. When competition, demanding customers, and profit mazimazation drive a company to innovate up market, a company should establish an autonomous business unit to move up market much like Toyota did with the creation of Lexus. And even though they were proactive in creating Lexus, sometimes a disruption redifines the market by turning non consumers into customers, forcing an incumbent to be reactive. Ultimately Toyota had to establish Scion to compete with disruptors like Hyundai and Kia. Thats a quick look at the Disruptive Innovation model, Thanks for watching and I look forward to your feedback. for more, Check out Clayton's books The Innovator's Dilemma and The Innovator's Solution

stop motion dots

2009-07-01T22:22:22-07:00

Deb recently forwarded the above picture (full size version) she found in a catalogue, titled International Voices. The piece of art really intrigued me as it was created using only dots. I contacted the artist, Sumalee Sampansakul, and inquired about the piece. Sumalee was incredibly gracious and explained that the work was created about a year ago for school as part of a stop motion piece!

I have had many emails about alternatives to the process I use to create mondaydots, and stopmotion looks like it could be a great (albeit more time consuming) alternative! Nice work Sumalee!