What my toddler is teaching me about motivation

As I get ready to move into a new position in the coming weeks, I am discovering that I am learning a lot from my toddler and day care.

She’s been going through a transition of her own – moving from the infant room to the toddler room, which is probably the biggest transition of her young life. (Except for well, being born. That was a shocker.) It’s something that we’ve all been a little sad about. Her infant teachers were about as awesome as we could possibly imagine, and we were all tearing up a bit at the thought of the move, and bracing for her reaction.

But here’s the thing – two days into her new world, she’s handling it fine. In fact, it’s changed her attitude at home – and I think it’s because she’s embracing the new experience.

My theory is this – Kate loved the infant room, but as one of two older kids in the room, there weren’t a lot of things to challenge her. She wasn’t unhappy – at all. But she wasn’t overly stimulated, either. Now, it’s a new world, and each day begins with the tears of discomfort as she gets dropped off in this still largely unfamiliar place. But she settles within minutes, and when she comes home, she’s like a different kid.

Previously, she’d come home after a day and she’d be curious but sometimes cranky. More than anything else, she wanted to eat. It was totally fine. She was fun and great – and hungry.

But this week, something different has happened. She’s happier. She’s even more engaged. And food is fine, but she wants to laugh and explore even more. She runs and smiles and listens and communicates and connects.She’s motivated when she comes home to learn even more.

That’s what a new experience can do. It challenges you in new ways. It stretches your horizons and taps into new parts of your brain. And if it clicks – that exhilaration carries over to the rest of your life. For the kid, it was time to move up. And it was for me, too. I hope I get half of the boost from the change that she has seemed to get from the move to toddler.

What about you? Is it time for you to step up to the toddler room?

How Virgin America lost a suitcase – and gained a fan

virgin-air

Somehow, even though I really don’t travel that often, air travel has been a frequent topic of my blogging.

Usually, I’m bitching about something. This time – I’d like to sing the praises of the airline that lost my bag and gained my trust.

[Read more...]

Be consistent.

carseat

People need to keep me off planes – they tend to generate blog posts.

Today a reminder of the importance of being consistent.

 

 

 

[Read more...]

Mining Facebook for connections – and finding inspiration

ann murray paige

One of the business things I learned about at the recent Moby Dick Project event in Palo Alto last month was a concept that somehow I had missed called the ‘Valley of Death’ – the time in the life cycle of a research project where you’re caught between your early stage funding for research and the later-stage funding when your project/technology/research gets interest from investors. (Thanks to Nikita Bernstein at Boston-based Jove.com for the educational moment.)

I think the job search has a similar valley, at least for me in this economy. Right now, I have reached out and connected with job opportunities that are most closely related to my media background, but I need to tap into that next circle, of organizations that are related, but not directly, to my background. It’s a tougher sell for me, and in this economy, I have a feeling that it will be a tougher buy for many people in PR/marketing/policy to stretch beyond looking for people with PR/marketing/policy backgrounds. (If you’re one of those hiring people – it’s worth it. You want people who can deliver quickly, smartly, on time and under budget? Look hard at former journalists.)

But regardless, it’s a time of uncertainty. And there are times when I’m not quite sure how to fill the next fifteen minutes productively.

One strategy I started last night to turn this negative into a positive was to start drilling into the Facebook feeds of some old friends and colleagues, just to see what they have been up to. Their kids are all stunningly older than when I saw them last, their lives full of new things, and in a few cases, there are whole major chapters of their lives unfolding that I just hadn’t grasped.

[Read more...]

Customerization – a quick thought

The customer is always right.

It’s a nice idea, but I don’t actually believe it.

But whenever possible, the customer is someone you want to make it right with, and recently, I have witnessed a few scenarios where brands that might have the best of intentions fail to think through their options with customers in mind, and end up driving away people who they could have won with a little change.

Start today with the airlines. I know, it can be like shooting fish in a barrel, but to be fair, airlines do have a challenge moving people and their stuff together in a difficult security environment. But my wife today experienced the classic business traveler scenario on United, where she had to sit and wait as a flight headed to her destination left with plenty of empty seats, unless she wanted to pay an outlandish change fee. Moving her would have been a moment of effort, but it could have been done.

So she sits. She waits. And she and I think, “Gosh, the next time out I won’t be tempted to fly United.” If there was an actual reason – such as security, then fine. But there’s no security issue – or else a fee wouldn’t solve it. If it was that her checked bag couldn’t be moved, Ok. But she didn’t check a bag.

Nope, it’s just the way it is.

Different industry, similar issue. Went to the store yesterday to buy razor blades for my Turbo 37 blade monster of a razor. (Not really -just a Mach 3 turbo, from Gillette.) At our local CVS, they have one of those razor blade dispensers that looks like something out of the 1970s, where you push in the button, it shies like a child’s toy and you get your blades. It’s great, I guess, for keeping away thieves. Except that in this case, it didn’t work. 8 different slots didn’t work. I couldn’t buy a 12-pack, an 8-pack or a 5-pack. And it’s the second time in different stores that has happened to me.

I could have gone to the counter, gotten a clerk, and had them unlock the case, get me some blades and paid. But that’s asking a lot. So I bought some disposable razors from another company and moved on. I’m not sure if this is a CVS thing or a razor company thing, but as a customer, I don’t care.

Because the old broken technology there was the way it is.

So what’s my point? Here are two (actually 3) big companies that want to be customer-connected. But someone along the line isn’t looking at things from a customer perspective. And because of that, they may have lost customers it would have been easy to keep.

Lessons:

If you can’t see things (or don’t let your people) see things from the customer’s perspective, and do right by them, they won’t be customers for long.

Your customer service strategy is only as good as its weakest point, whether that is personnel, systems, or technology.

You may have great social media and other systems in place to address complaints, but in some cases, you may never get the complaint. You may just lose a customer.

A problem of confidence

Watching the markets right now is not a fun experience for anyone with money tied up in a 401(k). The markets dropped like a rock yesterday and things will likely feel uncertain in the economy for some time to come. But turn on the business channels, and a lot of experts are saying this is a far different time than the banking crisis of 2008.

The market is fundamentally sound, they say. So why are people selling? A lack of confidence.

I’ve been thinking about confidence a lot lately as I move into my own job search. I decided to make a change because I am confident – in my skills, my background, and my ability to find a job that will make me happy. “Fine,” people say. “So why did you have to effectively leave one job in order to look for another? Why not just stay in your position until the next one comes along?”

“A lack of confidence,” I reply.

But didn’t I just say I WAS confident in all the things that suggest I can find a new job? I did. I am confident that my fundamentals are sound. But I wasn’t confident that I was selling myself well. I was unhappy. I was worn down. And as I thought about convincing potential employers that I was the man for the job, I knew that I didn’t have the self-confidence and energy to put my best foot forward. That meant that the longer I stayed in my current place, the less likely I was to be able to get out of it. I couldn’t believe enough in myself to make a convincing case for myself.

So, I made a change. I took a risk.

So far, I’m confident it was the right thing for me.

A call for more fellowships

Training a new generation about old media

My wife and I have been talking a lot recently about the concept of fellowships. She’s thinking she needs to create a fellowship opportunity for her company, and I’m thinking, “You know, the idea of the fellowship may be a great way to help people with great skills but no experience into a new career.” Like say, for example, if you’re a journalist. You can write. You can tell stories. You are comfortable interviewing people, speaking and writing intelligently, you have general business experience, and you can do all those things that are so important in a number of new social businesses.

Well, except for one big thing – maybe you lack the business background for a mid-level social media job. You lack that little bit of experience, because no matter how they like to think they are attacking the online space, your publisher is more typically a laggard than a leader in new media.

Enter the fellowship.

[Read more...]

Where privacy meets convenience – a graceful seam or an earthquake in waiting?

I was fortunate enough today to get an invitation to #tastybytes, a luncheon sponsored by the folks at Compete, which focused this afternoon on location-based marketing.

(Thank you, Tyson Goodridge at Dialogue – I know it was a good lunch because I left with about five ideas I’d like to try with LBS and news and/or clients.)

But the session got me thinking about “check ins”, which was one of the early topics. As most of you reading this know, apps like Foursquare, Gowalla and a number of others ask you to check in and publicly (or non-publicly) declare where you are. Then you might be eligible for points, prizes, mayorships and more. But the panel early on began discussing whether the check in itself was going away – replaced by devices that simply do the work for you, checking you in to various places and sites as you go about your business.

On the one hand, the convenience of a world without pausing to check in has its selling points. Imagine specials, discounts, messages, and tips just coming your way as you walk down Newbury Street or another shopping area. It’s a win-win – you get discounts, the stores get your traffic, and the app developers get your valuable data and habits with which they can further market to you.

But there is an aspect to this that still creeps me out. And that’s the lack of control – of my information, of my location, of my public persona. Sometimes, yu just want to stay hidden – and this auto-location makes you like the kid in hide-and-seek in grade school who was always the first one found because he or she couldn’t stay quiet and still. “I’m over here!” your phone shouts, and someone, somewhere now knows who you are and where you are.

That’s troubling, and not just for the security reasons that robmyhouse.com and sites like I Can Stalk U have so brutally and easily demonstrated. And it’s deeper than the tracking cookies that permeate the internet anyway. On the web, cookies let people know a lot about who you are, what you’re interested in and how you spend your time and money. But LBS technology can track your exact whereabouts in order to market to you, at a level that can be a little freaky.

So what, you say? I don’t want to get too carried away – but marketers don’t have a perfect track record of keeping personal information safe or treating it responsibly. Any time you share data with some organization, knowinglt or unknowingly, you are taking a risk. With LBS, generally, you’re also getting a reward. And ultimately, the question is whether the reward is worth the risk.

To me, having control over my check-in means I have some control over the level of risk I am taking. Don’t want to check in to announce I’m on vacation? I don’t have to. But if it means I get a $100 discount on my hotel, maybe I’ll call the neighbors and ask them to keep an eye on things. But the choice is mine. If my services check in for me, there is a possibility they’re informing the larger world of things I don’t want them to know. But an auto check in means I get more of what I want with less effort – and that’s tough to pass up.

So where does it all come together? With earthquakes in the news, I can’t help but see the tectonic plates of privacy and convenience coming together. Can they co-exist quietly? Sure. But they could also crash together with unhappy results. Facebook has been criticised for its privacy policies. But LBS raises the bar for the kinds of information being collected even higher. What if data is being sold in unscrupulous ways? What if hackers get in? Or what if a stalker wants to track a target?

I’m not saying privacy and convenience can’t coexist. But I am saying that providers and marketers who use LBS need to be sensitive to how deftly this balance must be handled. Failure to do so could cause some significant harm. And in the meantime, I’ll hold on to my need to check in myself. I might miss a few deals, but I hope I’m keeping a little more control of my information.

A team that’s tough to love

Let me start by saying I am a lifelong Red Sox fan. I don’t think it is humanly possible for me to actually hate or root against the Red Sox.

But the 2011 Red Sox are testing me. Seven games into the season, this is a team that is tough to love, and not because they are 1-6, although that doesn’t help. It’s because the Sox are in serious danger of joining the list of teams that tried to bring in this best people money could buy, and ended up with a whole that was far less than the sum of the parts.

What does this team lack so far? A number of things that any organization or business needs to be a fan favorite.

Character: The 2004 Red Sox were like the not-so-evil opposite of this team. That team had character, with Johnny Damon’s hair, Papi’s enthusiasm, Kevin Millar’s charm, Trot Nixon’s work ethic and so on. The closest thing this team has from a character standpoint is Dustin Pedroia. The other stars – Youk, Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford, Jon Lester, Clay Buchholz – are great players, but there’s not a lot of charisma there. The other charismatic stars, like Papi and Paps, have lost some of their luster.

Sorry guys, that makes you tough to rally around.

Hustle: Is it just me, or has this team not only been getting beaten, but doing it with all the anger and swagger of a garden gnome. Who’s pissed? Who’s willing to throw a helmet, trash a locker, announce that this team is too f$&@ing good to get swept by the f$&@ing Indians, of all people?

Anyone… Anyone… Bueller? You can call it professionalism. I look at it as a team that isn’t fired up. And that can mean a loooooooong season ahead.

Spirit: This ties into hustle. If you can’t have swagger, you need to have some sort of other spirit. Underdogs get fired up because “No one thinks we can do it.” This team can’t claim that, and they miss it. They need a fight. They need the equivalent of sending Shawn Thornton out to go pound the other team’s enforcer, get the crowd going and the team fired up. Come to think of it, they need a Shawn Thornton, period.

Karma: The Sox are generating no good karma. Representing the most egocentric athlete of our times in Lebron James does not generate good Karma. Chanting “Yankees suck” when our 0-6 team might finally win one doesn’t generate good Karma. If we were the underdogs, it could be cheeky. For this team, it’s far from it.

Bottom line, I will always root for the Old Towne Team. But I have to admit, I’m shopping for a team that is young and hungry. A team that can surprise. A team that doesn’t have $140 million tied up in two former aces (Beckett and Lackey) who have sub-.500 potential and sub-.500 personality to match. Maybe it’s the 5-1 Orioles. Maybe it’s the unbeaten Rangers. (Nah. But the Rangers do remind me of the ’07 Sox in some ways.) Maybe it’s an NL team that could surprise.

That way, while I cheer on the Sox, I’ll have someone to love, too.

Both fascinating and frightening – trading on the news

Math-loving traders are using powerful computers to speed-read news reports, editorials, company Web sites, blog posts and even Twitter messages — and then letting the machines decide what it all means for the markets.

The development goes far beyond standard digital fare like most-read and e-mailed lists. In some cases, the computers are actually parsing writers’ words, sentence structure, even the odd emoticon. A wink and a smile — ;) — for instance, just might mean things are looking up for the markets. Then, often without human intervention, the programs are interpreting that news and trading on it.

Given the volatility in the markets and concern that computerized trading exaggerates the ups and downs, the notion that Wall Street is engineering news-bots might sound like an investor’s nightmare.

But the development, years in the making, is part of the technological revolution that is reshaping Wall Street. In a business where information is the most valuable commodity, traders with the smartest, fastest computers can outfox and outmaneuver rivals.

“It is an arms race,” said Roger Ehrenberg, managing partner at IA Ventures, an investment firm specializing in young companies, speaking of some of the new technologies that help traders identify events first and interpret them.

Many of the robo-readers look beyond the numbers and try to analyze market sentiment, that intuitive feeling investors have about the markets. Like the latest economic figures, news and social media buzz — “unstructured data,” as it is known — can shift the mood from exuberance to despondency.

Tech-savvy traders have been scraping data out of new reports, press releases and corporate Web sites for years. But new, linguistics-based software goes well beyond that. News agencies like Bloomberg, Dow Jones and Thomson Reuters have adopted the idea, offering services that supposedly help their Wall Street customers sift through news automatically.

Some of these programs hardly seem like rocket science. Working with academics at Columbia University and the University of Notre Dame, Dow Jones compiled a dictionary of about 3,700 words that can signal changes in sentiment. Feel-good words include obvious ones like “ingenuity,” “strength” and “winner.” Feel-bad ones include “litigious,” “colludes” and “risk.”

The software typically identifies the subject of a story and then examines the actual words. The programs are written to recognize the meaning of words and phrases in context, like distinguishing between “terribly,” “good” and “terribly good.”

Vince Fioramonti, a portfolio manager at Alpha Equity Management, a $185 million equities fund in Hartford, uses Thomson Reuters software to measure sentiment over weeks, rather than minutes or hours, and pumps that information directly into his fund’s trading systems.

“It is an aggregate effect,” Mr. Fioramonti said. “These things give you the ability to assimilate more information.”

Bloomberg monitors news articles and Twitter feeds and alerts its customers if a lot of people are suddenly sending Twitter messages about, say, I.B.M.

Lexalytics, a text analysis company in Amherst, Mass., that works with Thomson Reuters, says it has developed algorithms that make sense out of Twitter messages. That includes emoticons like the happy-face :) and the not-so-happy :.

Skeptics abound, but proponents insist such software will eventually catch on with traders.

“This is where the news breaks,” said Jeff Catlin, the chief executive of Lexalytics. “You have a leg up if you are a trader.”

The computer-savvy traders known as quants are paying attention. According to Aite Group, a financial services consulting company, about 35 percent of quantitative trading firms are exploring whether to use unstructured data feeds. Two years ago, about 2 percent of those firms used them.

Quants often use these programs to manage their risks by, say, automatically shutting down trading when bad news hits.

But industry experts say the programs are also moving the markets. Last May, as Greece’s financial crisis deepened, Wall Street computers seized on a news story with the word “abyss” in the headline and initiated sell orders, according to industry experts.

But some warn of a growing digital divide in the markets. Well-heeled traders who can afford sophisticated technology have an edge over everyone else, these people say.

Paul Tetlock, an associate professor at Columbia University who did research that was used to create the news algorithms, worries that technology has skewed the playing field. Regulators, he said, should keep a close eye on these high-speed traders.

“People are trading news at very high frequency,” he said. “People worry about that.”

But the experts are already talking about the next thing — programs to automatically digest broadcast and closed-caption television.

Adam Honoré, the research director at Aite Group, said the innovations did not end there. He said some traders were using software that monitored public statements by corporate executives and administered the computer equivalent of a lie-detector test.

“It is the next wave of trading,” Mr. Honoré said of unstructured data. “It goes hand in hand with more and more of everyday life being digitized.”

The old adage is “buy on the rumor, sell on the news” – and it’s not really a good strategy. But a story in today’s New York Times that more and more traders are using text analytics to determine sentiment and identify potential opportunities shows the power of information – even information that is typically not all that quantifiable.

On the one hand, it’s a fascinating example of how people are using technology to analyze non-traditional facts and figures. But it’s also something that bears watching for other reasons – because it could turn rumors into reality. It’s not far-fetched to think of a scenario where a rumor that creates a negative buzz on blogs and social media begins to trigger automatic selling – which then becomes a real negative.

What’s a small investor to do? Probably nothing at the moment. But if I was a company seeing this article, it would remind me of the importance of staying on top of the news, ensuring that your messages are well-honed, and staying ready to react to any sort of bubbling discussion trends.

That’s the marketing side of me. The trader side of me is less comfortable Between this and the 60 Minutes story a few weeks ago that focused on computer traders who are making a mint by aggregating millions of daily trades – it does seem like the Wall St. environment is becoming no place for the small investor. And that’s most of us…

Regardless of whether you agree with me or not – this article is a good read.

Posted via email from Yankee 2.0 on Posterous