Out of My Gord

Uncle Jim: My Information Highway

2010-12-30T10:54:49-08:00:00

For my last post of 2010, I'd like to take a little detour from my usual subject matter and tell you about someone very special to me. I'd like to introduce you to my Uncle Jim, who passed away on Christmas day. He was, in many ways, a precursor to the connected world we write about constantly in this column.

Uncle Jim was a long-haul truck driver. For most of his life, he delivered bricks in Eastern Canada and the United States. Over the last several years of his career, he hauled specialty vehicles for the rich and famous (i.e. he transported Celine Dion's car from Florida to Vegas). It was this last job that caused him to crisscross the continent. And it was during this time that many of us in the family got to know Uncle Jim.

Our family is pretty spread out. In Canada, we literally span the country, from Halifax to Vancouver. And we have members who also live south of the 49th parallel, primarily in Texas. Over the years, the bonds of our family have had to become pretty elastic to accommodate the intervening miles. But the bonds have never stretched to the breaking point, and one big reason for that was Uncle Jim.

Uncle Jim was our original information highway. Family was vitally important to Jim, and as he crossed the continent, he'd always set time aside to drop in on his various nieces, nephews and cousins. Jim kept a trucker's timetable, which meant you wouldn't get much warning. You'd get a call, which generally went like this; "Hey, it's your Uncle Jim. I'm in town. Got time for a coffee? I'd like to see you."

Jim didn't care about how tidy your house was, or whether there was anything to feed him. He was a man who appreciated a hot cup of coffee and a good chat. You would bring him up to date with your life, and in return he'd share his treasure trove of family tidbits from across the country. Through Jim, you'd reacquaint yourself with your far-flung family: the cousins who were expecting, starting a new job, going to school or getting engaged. At the end of the visit, you were always very glad you took the time for a "coffee and a chat." And Jim was always gracious and grateful for the time you took out of your day to share with him.

Uncle Jim made the life of a long-haul trucker tolerable by using it to become the glue of our family. He tied us together in ways that we've only now begun to appreciate with his passing. To a person, each of us have our "Uncle Jim" stories which have become so precious to us. We even had "Uncle Jim" alerts. My sister, who lives in Edmonton (about a 12-hour drive from our home) would give me a quick call to let me know Uncle Jim was on his way and I could be expecting a call soon. This gave us enough time to grab some cookies to have with coffee.

In the past few years, as Uncle Jim battled with cancer, I was able to return the favor. Whenever my travels took me anywhere in the vicinity of their home, I took an extra day to spend some time with my aunt and uncle. I didn't think it was possible, but in the past three years (since his original diagnosis) family became even more precious to my Uncle Jim. Whether it was weddings, reunions or joint family vacations, he was never too ill to travel and spend time with family. Fortunately, my wife and I were able to host one of these reunions at our home a year and a half ago. It would become the last family reunion that Uncle Jim was able to make.

My last visit with Jim was a week before his passing. We didn't have coffee, but we did talk about family and share some laughs. The burly truck driver was barely recognizable in a physical sense, weighing less than half what he once did, but the spirit was still there. He struggled to sit up so he could shake my hand. He was so grateful for the time I took out of my day to spend those last few minutes with him. I can't express how much I'll miss those visits.

On Christmas day, we all struggled with our loss. But somehow it was fitting that Jim's far-flung nieces and nephews reached out online to share our grief. We posted little slivers of our sadness on Facebook -- and from those slivers, a picture of Uncle Jim began to emerge. It seemed fitting to me that the portrait of a man who spent so much time on the road came from people separated by miles but united by memories.

I'd like to end 2010 with my own Facebook memorial to my Uncle Jim:

Uncle Jim... there's a stop ahead where you can rest for the night. The food is good, the coffee hot, the traffic light and there are friends and family waiting for a visit. You've had a long haul with a tough load. It's okay to let someone else take the wheel. You've more than earned a rest. Sleep well, Uncle Jim, sleep well. Your job is done!

Google: Caught in the Act of Balancing

2010-11-18T09:49:03-08:00:00

And yet another post on the recent changes to the Google SERP. This time, Chris Knoch sent me an interesting screen shot of a Google beta test that eliminated the side sponsored ads. I pondered the implications to the user experience. Also published Nov 18 on MediaPost.

In last week’s column, I talked about the number of changes I was seeing on the Google results page, and, in particular, how they might maintain the delicate balance between driving revenue from the page and maintaining user trust. No sooner did the digital ink dry on the column than I received an email from an old friend, Chris Knoch, formerly of Omniture and now VP of Marketing at Ready Financial. In his email, Chris included a screen shot of a rather interesting beta that Google is running:

It’s hard to say, given Google’s love for beta testing, how widely spread this test is and how indicative it might be of future ad presentations, but there are a number of fascinating implications to consider here. For today’s column, I’d like to focus on one of them: the elimination of the side ads.

Side ads generate a small percentage of the sponsored clicks from the page. For most results, the top two or 3 ads generate over 80% of the paid clicks on the page, with the 7 or 8 running down the right rail splitting the remaining 20%. That’s a lot of real estate to devote to underperforming ads. Will Google’s expandable alternative, with the user choosing to see 8 more ads, generate more clicks? I suspect so. Here’s why.

We judge the relevance and quality of blocks of information as a group, rather than consider them individually. The first ad in any block will dictate the performance of the block as a whole. If it’s a high quality ad, it’s saying to the user, “I’m relevant. Chances are the rest of the ads in this group could be relevant too. At least, you should spend a few seconds deciding for yourself!” But if it’s a low quality ad, it sends the message, “Don’t waste your time here. I’m not relevant, and everything below me is even worse.”

For side ads, this means that the top ad determines the depth of scanning engagement with the entire block. The position and visual treatment of the ads reinforces that it’s a “sidebar”, of secondary importance to the main purpose of the page. We won’t invest a lot of time scanning here, and if the first ad sucks, the rest of the block is doomed.

Google’s treatment provides a compelling alternative to the user. It restricts the number of ads shown to only the highest quality ones (you’ll notice that this presentation appeared on a broad query, where there would be sufficient inventory to provide high quality ads). The ads should be just as relevant to the intent of the user as the organic results, and given the query, probably more relevant. The user should be hooked. The presentation of two ads (I’d bet big money on the fact that Google will be testing both 2 and 3 ad presentations above the “more ads” button) gives a ready-made consideration set for the user. We’ve known for some time now that users “chunk off” a result set in groups of 2 or 3 results (maximum 4) and consider them as a group. There are natural visual barriers (the related search suggestions) that reinforce the visual presentation of the top ads as a group. What this means is that the user will judge relevancy, and if the first two (or three) ads pass the test, there’s a high likelihood that the set will be expanded.

When the set is expanded, the entire visual balance of the search results set is changed to the benefit of the advertisers, but the user initiates it. The user has given the ads an implicit vote of confidence, and by doing so, all organic results are pushed down out of visual scanning range. My guess is that this will result in much higher engagement with the ads, virtually eliminating the side bar blindness that has typically plagued right rail ads.

It’s a perfect example of maintaining user trust while driving more revenue. Based on this beta, I’d have to say, “Well done, Google!”

Google's Recent Changes: Here There Be Monsters

2010-11-18T09:40:49-08:00:00

Here's the follow up to the Google Places Page post. The recent changes to Google's pages looked strangely familiar. In fact, it took me back to a research paper we did 3 years ago, titled, ironically: "The Future of the Search Results Page: 2010" (available free on our site). Prescient? Perhaps. This was first published at MediaPost on November 11, 2010.

Something's brewing in Mountain View. Google's geared up the SAR (Screwing Around Rate) of its results page to unprecedented levels. We have Google Instant, Place Search and Google Previews all rolling out in the last few months. And from around the blogosphere, there's rumors of testing that allows users to show 11 sponsored ads on top and also the telling switch of the label "Sponsored Links" to simply "Ads." So what do Google strategists have up their sleeves?

The recent changes at Google prompted me to dig out a research paper we wrote a few years ago called "Search Engine Results: 2010." In it, I interviewed Marissa Mayer along with a dream team of search pundits and usability experts. A lot of what we're seeing today was hinted at in those interviews.

For example, Mayer said: "If you imagine the results page, instead of being long and linear, and having ten results on the page that you can scroll through -- to having ten very heterogeneous results, where we show each of those results in a form that really suits their medium, and in a more condensed format. When you started seeing some diagrams, some video, some news, some charts, you might actually have a page that looks and feels more like an interactive encyclopedia."

Michael Ferguson, who was the UX lead at Ask, which had just rolled out Ask 3D (which, in hindsight, was well ahead of its time), went further: "There might be a time you might see people advertising and providing content not just on web pages and blogs etc. but with short discrete self-contained video answers and audio answers that come up either as sponsored or relevant content. So you might have a breaking down of search marketing that takes some of the things that have been learned like optimization and designing good text ads and seeing how that would work when you're delivering an audio 20 second pitch or delivering an audio content that drives traffic to your site."

There's a delicate balance that must be respected when you're combining the presentation of advertising and the way we search for information. As the results themselves become increasing rich and interactive, advertisers won't be very happy if the ads start to lag behind in terms of visual prominence. Mayer touched on this: "As you know, my theory is always that the ad should match the search results. So if you have text results, you have text ads, and if you have image results, you have image ads. So as the page becomes richer, the ads also need to become richer, just so that they look alive and match the page. That said, trust is a fundamental premise of search. Search is a learning activity."

It's this trust that makes the presentation of advertising a precarious proposition on the search results page. We're not there to find ads, we're there to find relevant information. If ads are highly relevant, we're receptive. If they're not, we'll skip over them. We accept ads not as ads, but as potential paths to relevant information.

This is an important distinction. If ads start to look too much like ads we start to skip over them. And that decision is made in milliseconds, before the relevance of the information that lies on the other side of the ad is even considered.

This phenomenon is called banner blindness. Jakob Nielsen explains: "If they put up display ads, then they will start training people to exhibit more banner blindness, which will also cause them to not look at other types of multimedia on the page. So as long as the page is very clean and the only ads are the text ads that are keyword driven, then I think that putting pictures and probably even videos on there actually work well. The problem of course is they are inherently a more two dimensional media form, and video is 3 dimensional, because it's two dimensional - graphic, and the third dimension is time, so they become more difficult to process in this linear type of scanned document 'down the page' type of pattern."

I believe that Google is now responding to the multi-screen search challenge. Search on a desktop needs to be different than search on a mobile device or on a tablet. Mayer's "encyclopedia" format makes sense here. But experimentation and the resulting change come at the potential price of alienating users.

Why have ads been the least changed part of the search page? It's certainly not because advertisers have been demanding that they remain as boring lines of text. It's because Google, along with Bing and Yahoo, are acutely aware of how important that trust is. The nature of our engagement with ads on a search page is far less straightforward than you might think. There's a lot of subtle psychology at play here. In the words of Hector Barbossa, "You're off the edge of the map now mate, and here there be monsters!"

Google Defines 'You' On The Fly

2010-11-18T09:34:37-08:00:00

Hopefully, over the coming holidays, I'll catch up with my blogging again. In the meantime, here are a few back posts that I haven't had a chance to get up on the site yet. Recently, Google's results page has been downright schizophrenic with all the changes it's been through. Here's my take on the importance of Places Pages. First published on MediaPost on November 4.

Google's ramping up of local results last week made me realize something: our Web presence is rapidly being taken out of our immediate control. Case in point, the Place Page.

Beyond the Walled Garden...

For over a year now, I've been pushing a mind shift to our clients, asking them to stop thinking of their online presence in terms of a "website" and more in terms of a portfolio of digital assets; some under their control and others either completely or partially out of their control. For every entity that lives online, there is a ripple effect. At the core is our website. Spreading out, usually with lessening degrees of control, are the "rings" of our presence: portal sites and extranets, mobile apps, information or products on channel partner sites, online ads, videos, interactions in the social space, comments, reviews, references and third-party apps that may access either our data or pieces of our functional infrastructure. The sum of all this is our online presence. As such, it is incumbent on us to be aware of what that looks like, and how visitors might interact with it.

The challenge is daunting for any company that has been online for a while. Even as an individual, according to Google I "live" online and in over 10,000 separate locations. And that's just what can be easily identified in Google's index. I suspect the number is even higher. Today's column will have its own ripple effect, adding to the collective total of what is "Gord Hotchkiss." My company's online presence is the sum of over 25,000 individual parts.

Bringing the Web to Your Neighborhood

Now, consider a tiny two- or three-person company in some small town somewhere in America. The odds are pretty good that they may not even have a website, or if they do, it may not have made much of an impact on the vast ecosystem of the Web. At least, that's been true up to now. But Google's Place Pages provides a prescient view of how our Web presence might be defined.

Place Pages aggregates at least some of the various pieces of a local business' online presence. The interesting part is that these Place Pages exist even if there's little or no input from the business owners themselves. It's an online presence defined by an algorithm -- or rather, multiple algorithms. It's a small digital snapshot of "you" as defined by Google. Google decides which parts of "you" it exposes.

Place Pages are important in Google's local search strategies because they solve a problem that restricted the growth of the hyper-local online market. People will only search if there's something there to find. Google had to create a scalable on-ramp model to give local businesses an online presence. The company did it by leveraging its strength: finding and organizing information. In this case, the presence is created from the information that defines the business on the Web. It's carrying a search results page one click further, making it specific to one company and structuring the data in a more cohesive way.

"You" on the Fly

This is interesting and important on two different levels. It shows that an online presence can be created through algorithmic aggregation alone, even in the absence of an official website. It shows how extensive our identities are online. Like it or not, we leave footprints on the digital landscape, and no one is in a better position than Google to gather those together to create online destinations on the fly. If this is true for the tiny Mom and Pop shop in Cannon Ball, N.D., it's even truer for bigger, more established entities, whether they be organizations or individuals. Will our online selves be increasing defined by Google, with or without our input?

The other thing to ponder is that this is scalable and driven by technology. Google has an open door to aggregate and present different types of information, specific to the type of company it is. I suspect a lot of what you see in the current Place Pages is simply a placeholder for new things to come.

The creation of Web destinations on the fly is quite probably a game-changer for Google. It's a natural extension of the company's mission, organizing the world's information. It provides a new outlet for something that Google has been doing for well over a decade now: gathering together the ripples that define us online.

Hello Yellow: Enquiro now part of YPG

2010-10-26T06:51:13-07:00:00

Okay..it's been a long time since my last blog post. I've been busy. In addition to everything else I've been doing over the last several months, we sold our company. Something had to give. And blogging drew the short straw. Sorry. I'll be better in the future. I promise.

For anyone who's done this, you know that this can be like strapping yourself into a roller coaster that appears to have no tracks. My wife said: "Oh my God, it's like giving birth!" I'll have to take her word for it.

But, by and large, it's been pretty cool. I add the "pretty" qualifier because as lovely as lawyers and tax accountants can be, I've spent far too much time with them this summer. Sorry, "pretty cool" is the best I can do.

So, you ask breathlessly, "What's the scoop?" Well, we were bought by a public company, YPG in Canada, and I'm told I have to be careful about what I say. One more thing I'll have to get used to.

Yes, Enquiro was bought by a Canadian Yellow Page publisher..THE Canadian Yellow Page publisher. And I'm pretty pumped about that. Let me explain why.

These are not your Father's Yellow Pages...

When they laid out their vision of the potential of the Canadian online landscape, I realized early on that these are smart people. They've been buying up online properties at surprisingly brisk pace. Today, they sit with one of the largest online networks in the country, and the largest Canadian owned one. What's more, the properties they own all share one common trait, they're all there to deliver on intent. So if you define this by intercepting people who are ready to buy something, this is one powerful network.

Here's the nasty little secret about Canada. Canadian people are heavily wired. We spend more time on line than our US cousins. It must be those long winters. But Canadian advertisers are 4 to 5 years behind the digital curve. I don't know why. They just are. That creates a huge opportunity gap, and YPG realized that. So they wanted to do more than just wire together a network of intent driven properties. They wanted to introduce a brand new digital offering that ties together platforms, publishers and people. They called it Mediative. That's what's now on my business card.

This doesn't mean the US clients we've grown up with will be replaced by new Canadian upstarts. We're going to continue aggressively growing our US footprint. It's hard to keep digital marketing within borders. This move actually helps us do that, with new bases of operations closer to our markets on the East Coast and in the Midwest.

I like to think that Enquiro has been a strong contributor to the search marketing landscape over the past 14 years (yes, I optimized my first site in 1996). This is, in some ways, a step in a new direction, but the reason I was interested in this partnership in the first place is that it allows us to ramp up many of our plans.

Chatting with Mac McIntosh

2010-06-08T10:35:06-07:00:00

If you haven't had the chance yet, you can still register for my web chat Thursday with B2B Lead Gen Guru Mac McIntosh.

http://pages.enquiro.com/webinar24-managing-b2b-sales-leads.html

There are four basic questions that Mac and I will be covering:

How has technology, e.g. marketing automation, changed the way marketing and sales work together?
What role does search marketing play in qualifying leads?
How does social media fit into lead generation?
What will lead gen. look like in 2015?

One of the fascinating things I've realized with B2B is that the more we focus on technology, the more we realize that this is all about people. Sometimes that's hard to keep in mind in this business, but that's certainly the perspective I'll be bringing. Well, have to go now, as I have a panel to do at SMX Advanced.

Our Indelible Lives

2010-06-07T06:47:43-07:00:00

This was last Thursday's Search Insider. As you can tell from the post, I've been spending a lot of time on the road and my blogging has suffered because of it. Despite starting with the best of intentions, I find it impossible to keep up with everything when bounding back and forth between airports, hotel rooms and conferences.

It's been a fascinating week for me. First, it was off to lovely Muncie, Ind. to meet with the group at the Center for Media Design at Ball State University. Then, it was to Chicago for the National Business Marketing Association Conference, where I was fortunate enough to be on a panel about what the B2B marketplace might look like in the near future. There was plenty of column fodder from both visits, but this week, I'll give the nod to Ball State, simply because that visit came first.

Our Digital Footprints

Mike Bloxham, Michelle Prieb and Jen Milks (the last two joined us for our most recent Search Insider Summit) were gracious hosts, and, as with last week (when I was in Germany) I had the chance to participate in a truly fascinating conversation that I wanted to share with you. We talked about the fact that this generation will be the first to leave a permanent digital footprint. Mike Bloxham called it the Indelible Generation. That title is more than just a bon mot (being British, Mike is prone to pithy observations) -- it's a telling comment about a fundament aspect of our new society.

Imagine some far-in-the-future anthropologist recreating our culture. Up to this point in our history, the recorded narrative of any society came from a small sliver of the population. Only the wealthiest or most learned received the honor of being chronicled in any way. Average folks spent their time on this planet with nary a whisper of their lives recorded for posterity. They passed on without leaving a footprint.

Explicit and Implicit Content Creation

But today -- or if not today, certainly tomorrow -- all of us will leave behind a rather large digital footprint. We will leave in our wake emails, tweets, blog posts and Facebook pages. And that's just the content we knowingly create. There's a lot of data generated by each of us that's simply a byproduct of our online activities and intentions. Consider, for example, our search history. Search is a unique online beast because it tends to be the thread we use to stitch together our digital lives. Each of us leaves a narrative written in search interactions that provides a frighteningly revealing glimpse into our fleeting interests, needs and passions.

Of course, not all this data gets permanently recorded. Privacy concerns mean that search logs, for example, get scrubbed at regular intervals. But even with all that, we leave behind more data about who we were, what we cared about and what thoughts passed through our minds than any previous generation. Whether it's personally identifiable or aggregated and anonymized, we will all leave behind footprints.

Privacy? What Privacy?

Currently we're struggling with this paradigm shift and its implications for our privacy. I believe in time -- not that much time -- we'll simply grow to accept this archiving of our lives as the new normal, and won't give it a second thought. We will trade personal information in return for new abilities, opportunities and entertainment. We will grow more comfortable with being the Indelible Generation.

Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps we'll trigger a revolt against the surrender of our secrets. Either way, we live in a new world, one where we're always being watched. The story of how we deal with that fact is still to be written.

Google vs Apple: An Open and Closed Case

2010-05-28T06:37:25-07:00:00

Yesterday was a long travel day for me, flying back home from Frankfurt, so for today, I'll just do a repost of yesterday's Search Insider column. The idea sprung from a debate I overheard while in Germany that I thought was fascinating. It also allowed be to blow off some long building steam about Google's increasingly apparent lack of appreciation for design aesthetics:

This week, I was eavesdropping on a debate about open-source vs. closed systems. I found the debate fascinating because two of the most important contributors to what our search experience might look like live at opposite ends of this debate. Apple is adamant about locking down every aspect of the user experience. Google wants to open it up to any and all comers. The third player, Microsoft, sits somewhere in between. The debate was about who might prevail. I was uncharacteristically silent during all this, because I had to think about it before throwing in my two cents. Now, 24 hours later, it's time to toss in my ante.

In theory, open source should win hands down. The open environment allows a cooperative ecosystem to evolve, guaranteeing a rate of innovation simply not possible in closed system. But I think it depends on where we are in the maturity of the market. Open source allows for more innovation, but it's also an open invitation for more things to go wrong. This can be deadly as you try to push along market adoption.

Apple Closes the Loop

There is a reason why Apple is the darling of the early adopter. The company insist on things working. And you can only do this when you can lock down each and every aspect of the user experience. If there's one thing Apple understands at its core (sorry, couldn't resist), it's how to make a user happy. The Jobs BHAG of creating "insanely great" products only works if all that insanity leads to an expected end result. And I challenge anyone who's used both a Mac and a Windows box to tell me that the Apple user experience isn't more refined, more elegant and more delightful.

In the early days of market adoption, this stuff is important. You don't want to drop way more cash than you should on a new tech-toy only to find the interface is clunky, amateurish and full of glitches. With Apple's meticulous attention to detail, you know that whatever is available on your new iToy will work near-flawlessly. Sure, the code-police from Cupertino are overly dictatorial, which isn't winning them any friends in the programming community, but the apps that are the end result are ridiculously simple to use and frequently beautiful to look at.

Google's UX Challenges

Now, look at Google. I tried to find a polite way to say this, but couldn't, so I'll just lay it on the table: Google sucks at interface design. For years we've been lauding the simple, spartan look of Google search. The fact is, simple was all we needed for an ordered list of text results. Google's algorithm provided enough power in the backend to make up for an anemic interface. But today, now that everyone's caught up in the algo department, Google's interface looks like a Grade 8 coding project. The new 3 column search format follows in the footsteps of Gmail, Google Docs, Google Calendars and most other Google interfaces: it looks like it was designed by an engineer.

In my company, we tried to move to using Google's suite of tools based on the fact that in an open-source environment, we should see more rapid innovation. Well, that and the price was hard to argue with. But the fact is, everyone on our team is completely fed up with clunky Google interfaces that seem full of quirks. It doesn't feel like we're using leading-edge innovation, it feels like we're using freeware. And I, for one, expect more from Google.

Google ... Give me that GUI Feeling!

That's the problem with open source early in the market adoption model. There's not enough maturity in the market to force developers to worry about nuance. User experience is considered the polish -- the last thing to be applied. You can't lock down all the details needed to guarantee a consistently acceptable user experience.

I still have tremendous respect for the innovation engine that sits at the heart of Google, but if I had one piece of advice to pass along, it would be this: Worry less about changing the world, and more about polishing up the Gmail interface. You can always change the world tomorrow, but today I'd like to retrieve my email from something that doesn't look like a dog's breakfast.

More Thoughts on Outside In Thinking

2010-05-26T22:53:23-07:00:00

Before I move on to Carlota Perez and her Regime Transition Theory, i just wanted to add some additional thoughts to yesterday's post about Outside In Perspectives.

Strangers Amongst Us

As I mentioned yesterday, sometimes a stranger in a strange land is better able to see things than the natives. For the inside group, what they see everyday ceases to become remarkable. It's just their everyday reality. And, as I said, people in a group tend to conform to the norm of the group. Herds work much better when everyone is heading in the same direction, so we have an inherent drive to get along with our herd-mates. There are multiple ways this plays out, but in the end, our collective behaviors define our culture. However, as we conform to the norms of our group, they tend to become invisible. What strikes an outsider as a quaint custom or odd behaviors is, to the insider, simply the routine of their day. Culture dictates what is remarkable or what is numbingly normal. For example, our noses curl up at some of the dishes from other cultures (China comes to mind, with roasted scorpions on a stick) yet we think there's nothing remarkable about wolfing down a couple of scrambled chicken fetuses on toast. We may even add a couple of fried slices of belly fat from that foul smelling animal that loves to roll in its own excrement. Normal is in the eyes of the beholder.

When I travel (as I am right now) I notice things about a culture that a native never would. I also notice that travelers from different countries tend to have different levels of tolerance for the new and novel. For example, I find Canadian tourists quicker to conform to the customs of a foreign country than Americans. Americans (and realize, I'm talking about averaged behavior here) tend to like to take a little piece of America with them. They are like cultural missionaries, transplanting the seeds of American culture to the destinations they visit. Canadians are cultural observers, taking note but leaving few traces of their home country. Of course, when it comes to hockey games, all bets are off. The maple leaf suddenly sprouts everywhere.

Canadians in Search of a Culture

Americans like the world to conform to them, where as Canadians are more apt to conform to wherever they are. The sheer bulk of American culture spreads far beyond its borders, where as Canadian culture is still struggling to fill the huge empty spaces that make up Canada itself.

Why the cultural differences between Canadians and Americans? Actually, Canadians have a long history of cultural observance. Some of the most esteemed observers of American society all have Canadian roots: Marshall McLuhan, Malcolm Gladwell and Steven Pinker - to name just a few. Of course, entertainment is also about observing the foibles of our society, and Canadians have long mined this rich vein - Mike Myers, Jim Carrey, Seth Rogen, Ivan Reitman, Rick Moranis, Dan Aykroyd, John Candy, Michael J. Fox, Eugene levy, Howie Mandel, Lorne Michaels, Leslie Nielsen, Martin Short, Norman Jewison and James Cameron are all Canadians.

Why are Canadians cultural observers and conformists, while Americans are cultural imperialists? In the animal world, Canadians would be chameleons and Americans would be peacocks. I think it has to do with the vibrancy of the culture, its critical mass and also the prevailing attitudes of the inhabitants. For example, there's a strong correlation between the military history of an nation and the aggressiveness of it's cultural imperialism. If we look at critical mass, that presents another challenge for Canadians. The sheer size of our country means we have pockets of population spread across the landscape, rather than one contiguous community. Each pocket has unique cultures (militantly so in Quebec) so Canadians continually conform to new cultures, even as we travel within our own borders. We don't have the same unifying cultural icons that Americans do, in their TV, their movies and obsessions with celebrities. In fact, all those things we import from the US. If you go beyond hockey and Tim Hortons, there are precious few cultural threads to stitch our nation together (and we refuse to believe that our precious Timmie's is now owned by a US corporation - PepsiCo). Before the US, we imported our culture from our British and French founders. As Helen Gordon McPherson said, Canadians have been so busy explaining to the Americans that we aren't British, and to the British that we aren't Americans that we haven't had time to become Canadians.

Carry No Assumptions

My point in this rather long aside is that the less preoccupied you are with spreading your own culture, the more observant you can be with others. Canadians seem naturally suited to this. If you are going to become an effective observer, try to go in without assumptions.

These tendencies also speak to the role of past success in clouding our judgment of the present. It has seemed to me that the more successful an organization has been in the past, the more internally myopic they are now. Indeed, internal focusing of resources is one of the contributing factors to success, but that inward focusing often comes at the expense of an external perspective. Success entrenches group "in thinking" and even when marketplace dynamics cause the once successful company to begin to struggle, the thoroughly homogenized views within the company struggle to identify the problems. They can't objectively benchmark against the outside world because they're blind to their own blemishes.

IDEO and Organizational Observation

IDEO actually has a few processes that rely on an outside view. Here are some examples for the IDEO Method Cards:

Rapid Ethnography: Spend as much time as you can with people relevant to the design topic. Establish their trust in order to visit and/or participate in their natural habitat and witness specific activities.

Extreme User Interviews: Identify individuals who are extremely familiar or (for my point) completely unfamiliar with the product and ask them to evaluate their experience using it.

Unfocus Group: Assemble a diverse group of individuals in a workshop to use a stimulating range of materials and create things that are relevant to your project.

These are just a few of the ways that IDEO helps companies gain an outside perspective. My suggestion would be to develop this discipline, and, as your looking for outsiders to help identify your own reality, consider hiring a Canadian. It comes naturally to us!

A Case for Outside-In Thinking

2010-05-24T06:53:52-07:00:00

Consulting as a business practice exists to serve two needs:

To provide subject matter expertise on an "as needed" basis; and,
To provide a fresh perspective on things.

It's the second of these that I want to ruminate on a bit today. Why is an outside look at things so valuable for companies? Why can somebody on the outside see so quickly what is all but invisible to those on the inside? Increasingly, as my consulting career grows, I'm astounded to continually rediscover how different the view from outside-in can be from the inside-out view. Consultants look at things differently. Good consultants can translate that into insight for their clients. Great consultants combine that with their own experience and expertise to deliver what is, dollar for dollar, the best investment their clients can ever make.

Ideas from IDEO

Outside-in is a great business model. One of the masters of this, the design firm IDEO, has built an entire methodology around "design anthropology," helping companies reimagine their products by providing a fresh look at things. They base innovation firmly on observation of real people, basically providing an outside-in view of the world. I've always been a huge fan of qualitative research, with ethnography in particular being an underused secret weapon. IDEO lives, breathes and eats this stuff. Better yet, they're willing to share their secrets. You could do much, much worse than learn about more about the IDEO approach to innovation. Spend some time on the IDEO Resource page.

But why does being on the inside blind you to insights that are instantly observable to people on the inside? It's not that the people outside an organization are so much smarter than the people on the inside. They have no special gift or source of information. They simply have a different view. Why?

Conforming to the Norm

As with most everything in life, I approach these questions from a Darwinian point of view - I seek ultimate rather than proximate answers. I suspect it's because we humans, being herders, have a need to conform to the norm.

I'm in a unique position right now to test this theory as I'm writing this from a different culture - Germany. In the past few years, as I've traveled through different parts of the world, I've been amazed at how cultures shape behaviors. Yes, we have inherent human behaviors, but as you travel from culture to culture in Europe, the difference in national behaviors is almost palpable. Or at least, it is to an outsider. It's probably not a coincidence that the most insightful cultural analyses have come from observers from outside the culture in question, from Alexis de Tocqueville's (France) Democracy in America to Friedrich Engel's (German) The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844. Canadians actually have a long history of observing other cultures, in particular, America. I'll touch on why that might be more in tomorrow's post

I've written before about Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, a keen observer of culturally driven behavioral traits. His book, Bowling Alone, provides a razor sharp analysis of several cultural trends in America that are altering the very nature of our social bonds. But it's an earlier work, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, that shows how our social connections determine not only our culture but also the effectiveness of everything from commerce to government. Let me veer a little off track to make a point.

The Making of a Clan

Analysis of cultures from mountainous, geographically isolated regions show that they tend to evolve around the power of the clan. These incredibly strong bonds of kinship have been documented in the Scottish Highlands, the Appalachians in the US and Southern Italy and Sicily as well as other similarly geographically restricted areas. There are strong divides between in-group/out-group that hamper the creation of inter-group trade practices and formalized governments. In particular, geographic restrictions on movement of genes in and out of the collective gene pool create even stronger kin selection bonds. Putnam, in his book, documents how this prevailing tribal attitude held Southern Italy back while Northern Italy flourished. There, easy trade routes lead to mercantilism and intergroup trading, reaching a peak in the trade guilds of Florence.

The impact of geography on evolved human behavior has also been fertile ground for UCLA's Jared Diamond. Prevailing attitudes within a tribe quickly spread, bringing behaviors towards the group norm. The more isolated the group, the more homogenous the views and attitude of the group and the more resistant they are to an outside view. Because we conform to the norm, it quickly becomes true that either the members of the inside group are blind to realities easily perceived from outside, or, if they are aware, they cannot effect change because they're stifled by the collective influence of the group.

There are some unique corporate conditions where this internal version of restricted group-think tends to flourish. Ironically, past success is usually a good indicator of future limitations in perspective. But again, I'll get back to that in a future post.