Seth Godin's Blog, page 158

The Debate Channel

Watching the US candidates hustle and squirm about the upcoming debates shows a fascinating generational media shift, one that impacts all of us.

In this case, the system has announced that only the top 10 candidates in the polls get invited, which means that more than a handful won't make the cut, which of course feels like doom.

But TV isn't in charge any more. We each own our own TV broadcasting network—anyone who wants to put on a show, can.

If I were crazy enough to be running, I'd organize my own debate, challenging one or two of my competitors to an hour-long conversation, and then post it online. Even better, I'd challenge one of the candidates from the other party and have a substantive conversation. Bernie Sanders debating [pick your candidate]. It elevates both sides because each person had the guts to address the issues, to go head to head, to speak up and make a case.

The Debate Channel can't be far behind. No grandstanding, with chess clocks provided for fairness, no wasted time on moderators, merely conversations, some of which can't help but go viral and get ratings that would, in aggregate, compete with the TV variety.

Can you imagine a musician today who only performed on TV when asked to by Jimmy Fallon? No music videos, no online work...

And the rest of us? We can have our own debates. Debate patent trolling or which kind of activity tracker is best. Two brand managers or engineers arguing for their particular cloud solution. Or debate sous vide vs. grilling, your freelance skills vs. someone else's... 

The game theory is clear: In a competition among many players, when two or three care enough and are brave enough to debate, everyone else becomes 'everyone else'.

The magic is the open nature of a billion-channel universe. The organization with an FCC license is no longer in charge, debates aren't something that happen to you, they're something you can choose to do.

Pick yourself.

            

Blah, blah, blah

Writing and speaking (essays, non-fiction, copywriting, direct interactions, speeches) can be easily sorted into two groups:

The expected

The unexpected

We don't remember what most people say when they greet us (at a party, or even a funeral) because it's banal. Most college essays, tweets and advertising copy fit right into this category. The prose we consume every day gets instantly processed, filed away and ignored.

The other kind of writing is super risky. It is the original, vulnerable work of the edges. This is the interaction that adds real value because it's not something we could have already guessed you were about to say.

The unexpected doesn't work because it's surprising. It works because it's valuable. Valuable because it brings new truth, because it says something we didn't already know.

Of course, expected writing is often important. We need to check the boxes, pay the toll, make it clear that we know how to act and speak and write in a situation like this one. 

But unexpected writing isn't merely important, it's a miracle. If we already knew what we needed to hear from you, we wouldn't need you to say it.

[Here's a first step in moving from one to the other: Cross out every sentence that could have been written by someone else, every box check, every predictable reference. Now, insert yourself. Your truth and your version of what happens next.]

            

The fruitless search for extraordinary people willing to take ordinary jobs

When I write about linchpins and people on a mission, I often hear from bosses who ask a variant of, "Any idea how I can find people like that for my business?"

It's unreasonable to expect extraordinary work from someone who isn't trusted to create it.

It's unreasonable to find someone truly talented to switch to your organization when your organization is optimized to hire and keep people who merely want the next job.

It's unreasonable to expect that you'll develop amazing people when you don't give them room to change, grow and fail.

And most of all, it's unreasonable to think you'll find great people if you're spending the minimum amount of time (and money) necessary to find people who are merely good enough.

Building an extraordinary organization takes guts. The guts to trust the team, to treat them with respect and to go to ridiculous lengths to find, keep and nurture people who care enough to make a difference.

            

The critic as an amateur hack

Criticism is difficult to do well.

Recently, we've made it super easy for unpaid, untrained, amateur critics to speak up loudly and often.

Just because you can hear them doesn't mean that they know what they're talking about.

Criticism is easy to do, but rarely worth listening to, mostly because it's so easy to do.

            

Word of mouse

Every fast-growing social movement, non-profit and brand of the last decade has grown because people have chosen to talk.

Not shelving allowances, coupons, A/B testing, Super Bowl ads, dancing tube men or Formula One sponsorships. Each can be a productive tool, but at the heart of real growth is a simple idea:

People decide to tell other people.

Start with that.

            

Marketing to the organization

If you can't persuade your peers and your boss, then your project is never going to have a chance. I've learned this the hard way.

Here are some of the principles of marketing that impact how you can get the organization to understand and to take action, because, as in all marketing, perception matters:

Permission: Do you have the privilege of delivering anticipated, personal and relevant messages about your project to the people you work with? Would they miss your updates and your insights if you didn't send them? How do you earn the ability to be heard?

Ideavirus: Do your ideas spread within the organization? Do people talk about your projects when you're not the one initiating the conversation, when you're not in the room?

Your story: Not the facts of your project or initiative, but the story of it... does it resonate with the worldview of the organization and the people who work there? If you're busy talking profit and they're busy listening for impact (or vice versa), how does that mismatch effect your ability to make change? (A key story element often overlooked by the internal storyteller: risk).

Remarkable: Are you creating work that demands to be talked about?

Tribes: Who's on your team--not because they report to you, but because you're in sync? Are you leading people who want to be led, helping parts of the organization move in a direction that feels right to them?

Idea diffusion: Are you bringing the boldest ideas to the early adopters, and socializing them gradually as they move through the organization to the majority?

Many of the books I've written (along with other post-advertising marketing books) address the idea of changing the status quo without interrupting strangers with ads. It's as important to do this inside your organization as outside.

Part of the job of the CEO or leader is to create an organization where good ideas are easy to market internally.

Internal marketing starts with this: do it intentionally, as intentionally as you would market your project outside the organization. Every memo, email and presentation you do inside is a marketing effort, and it should be treated that way.

            

Not all who are lost, wander

Going faster doesn't make you less lost. It's okay to ask for directions. 

(Knowing you're lost is half the battle.)

            

Pain and money and b2b selling

When you sell to someone at a business, it's worth remembering that the pain their problem is causing belongs to them, while the money they have to spend, doesn't.

Any time you can cure their pain in exchange for their boss's (or the shareholder's) money, that's a compelling offer.

The challenge is actually being able to cure the pain, because too often, when an organization moves forward, the fear of failure and the pain of change is worse than the problem they started with. Asserting it can be done is insufficient.

            

Do-able

Lean entrepreneurs can talk about the minimum viable product, but far more important is the maximum do-able project.

Given the resources you have (your assets, your time, your patience), what's the biggest thing it's quite likely you can pull off?

Our culture is organized around the people who get on base, who reliably keep their promises, who deliver. "Quite likely," is a comforting story indeed. [HT to Bernadette.]

Domino's could have offered five-minute pizza delivery, and sometimes, without a doubt, they could have pulled that off. But promising something they could do virtually every time earned them a spot on the speed dial of millions of phones.

Aiming too high is just as fearful a tactic as aiming too low. Before you promise to change the world, it makes sense to do the hard work of changing your neighborhood.

Do what you say, then do it again, even better.

We need your dreams, but we also need your deeds.

            

Taking names

Should you keep track of the people who say you're going to fail, who actively work against you, who troll your best work? Should you try to win over the haters and those that so cruelly root against you?

I wonder if it makes more sense to spend as much (or even more) time with the fans and supporters and sneezers who work so hard to help you succeed.

It seems to me that this is more productive, more fun and likely to make more change happen...

Yes, take names. Of the good guys.