Ginni Rometty: IBM’s New CEO On Customer Centricity and Innovation

CEO successions at large companies, like Unilever and IBM are not spur of the moment decisions.  They are carefully orchestrated and managed – with the bulk of the action often taking place back stage.  

GR.jpg

So are their interviews with the media and analysts – well rehearsed and predictably patterned.  Which is what makes Ginni Rometty’s interview with Fortune, shortly after her appointment as the new CEO of IBM – no palace coup, Sam Palmisano is retiring – so terribly refreshing.

There was none of the usual pabulum about vision, and globalization, and the new normal; just solid insights. 

Allow me to share a few that resonated most with me.

Reinvention: When asked what was the most important thing she had learned from Sam, Ginni replied – “the biggest thing Sam taught me, and not just me but the whole company was: Don’t accept inevitable.” Meaning, you’ve got to keep reinventing, constantly making new markets, like Smarter Planet, Analytics, and the Cloud.  

Personally, I really like this emphasis on creating new markets.  One of the least discussed tenets of customer-centricity is leading the customer, creating new markets, as Swatch, Starbucks, and Tata Nano have done. 

Implementation: It helps if you are the author, or co-author, of the company’s strategy.  Ginni Rometty was an integral part of building IBM’s current strategy, the 2015 roadmap.  Not surprisingly therefore, her dominant focus will be on implementation and execution.  That said, it was still refreshing to hear that reaffirmed – too many companies spend too much time rearranging the furniture, and not enough time following through on their commitments and convictions.

Value Proposition: “What do you stand for” is an easy question to ask.  It’s a very difficult question to answer, especially for companies as large as IBM.  It was very well answered in the interview – IBM stands for client value, R&D, and Innovation.

Several of my blogs have discussed two of these issues in depth – customer value and innovation.  Its one thing to know what the right things are – it’s another to be committed to them.  Given the near death experience IBM had in the 1990s, it’s unlikely that they will take either customer value or innovation for granted.  Or get smug about their achievements.  Both hallmarks of companies primed for long term success.

Learning Mindset-Longer Horizon: In his book “How the Mighty Fall” Jim Collins speaks of the dangers of hubris, the enemy of long-term success.  Of all the elements that comprise hubris, thinking that a company knows all that it needs to know to manage both its current and future operations is the most toxic.  In short, not having a learning mindset.  So one has to take note when Ginni Rometti says rather candidly – there are a lot of things we don’t know yet.

Additionally, both academicians and consultants have railed against short-term thinking, favoring quarterly gains, sometimes at the expense of long-term performance.  This is especially true for activities that form the spine of the business, such as R&D.  Even more pleasing to hear IBM’s newly appointed CEO talk of the longer-term horizon for IBM’s R&D efforts, and to continue historically aggressive levels of R&D spending.

Business-driven Technology Agenda:  This blog has carried several features on customer-driven innovation, on customer-led marketing, and customer centricity.  It has even quoted Ted Levitt on a few occasions, especially his classic – customers don’t buy ¼” drills, they buy ¼” holes.  IBM is a Technology company.  But Technology is at best a ¼” drill.  The sad part is that several companies still love their products and factories more than they love their customers (courtesy Regis McKenna – Real Time).  Based on her interview, it appears that IBM is unlikely to make that mistake any time soon – not just technology for technology’s sake, but for the effect it can and will have on the world.  Ginny Rometti offered the example of Watson, and its potential to reshape healthcare around the world in our lifetime.

A very dear friend and business associate, Gary Kirby (who used to work for Glaxo/Glaxo Wellcome/Glaxo Smith-Kline, and who is sadly no more), and I used to enjoy asking questions like:

Who reads the HBR?

Who follows the advice of leading management thinkers?

What types of companies are most turned on by implementing next-generation management practices?

Regardless of how we cut it, we came to the same, painful realization that smaller companies were often the hungrier, more eager, and took more risks, perhaps because their survival depended on it.  

It’s heartening to note – at least based on the interview – that behemoths, like IBM, are hell bent on showing that they too are hungry, keen, and eager.  That they can be the fountainheads of next-generation management practices.  We applaud them!

Amazon: Building The World’s Most Customer-Centric Company

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for amazon_logo.jpg

I received an email from Amazon a few days ago informing me that they were refunding me $2.50 on an item that I had preordered.  The reason offered for the refund was “pre-order price protection.” 

Two things about the email got my attention.  

First, the company had reached out to me of its own accord.  If someone had walked up to me minutes before I read the email and quizzed me on Amazon’s “pre-order price protection” feature, I would have got an F, because I would have replied – “what’s that?”

Second, and even more interesting was the claim at the bottom of the email – We are building the world’s most customer-centric company

Since customer-centricity is a hot topic and a priority for several business professionals and companies I decided to dig deeper and discover what makes Amazon so customer centric.  Amazon’s own explanation – a place where you can find and buy anything online – doesn’t quite cut it from me.  It may serve well as an advertisement for the world’s largest online bazaar, or as a vision statement, but not as an explanation.  

So, I went digging to understand how Amazon – the entire company – organizes itself around the customer.   I decided to use Jay Galbraith’s 5-point framework of Strategy, Structure, People, Processes, and Rewards to guide my inquiry.

Strategy and Culture: The true character of a company is revealed by the choices it makes and not by the slogans on the T-shirts it wears.  Every company wants to get closer to its customers.  Few succeed.  Because despite the rhetoric, most companies still love their brands, technologies, and factories more than they love their customers.  Not Amazon.  It has very successfully crossed this chasm – its strategic choices are directed by a simple dictum, what’s good for the customer in the long run is good for us.  It is strategically obsessed with continually creating and innovating customer value; it doesn’t waste its energy and/or resources obsessing about itself or its competitors. 

Structure: Agility and Flexibility are greatly valued traits in organizations.  However, without the spinal strength of conviction, agility and flexibility is merely blowing in the wind.  As the great poet Kipling advises us:

If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

But make allowance for their doubting too;

Translated, in an organizational setting, it is the balance between the exuberance of the shorts with the pragmatism of the suits that holds the key to future performance.  Amazon has done well in striking a balance between when to throw the organization chart out of the window and when to dig in and let experience rule.

Processes: The fundamental goal of most processes should be to provide the customer with a hassle-free experience.  Too many companies are so preoccupied with knocking the socks off their customers that they forget the leaky pipes and flooded basements.  Companies first need to get the basics right – customer delight will follow.  Amazon’s processes are transparent and motivated by a single dominant concern – how to help customers buy more intelligently.  Its One-click check out, Golden Box, Bottom of the page deals, Look Inside, warning messages if a customer is placing an order for something they have already bought before, its willingness to feature negative customer review on its own site – all point to one very simple motivation – if it makes sense from the customers’ point-of-view, give it to them.  Simple.

Rewards: So much has been written about the dangers of the next quarter mentality, yet so many companies continue to pursue it zealously.  A long-term view is not for the faint of heart.  Amazon has very successfully demonstrated the benefits of shunning lollypops and candy for more enduring sustenance and nutrition.  By actively deciding against chasing quick bucks Amazon has successfully invested in ongoing customer relationships and built long-term customer equity.

People: I have blogged about and spoken at conferences about the importance of employees to the innovation and customer value creation process on a number of occasions. I am not the only one.  Vineet Nayar’s book Employees First: Customers Second (a much misunderstood title) is a candidate for the best book award in the Thinkers 50 competition. Without the right people, customer-centricity will remain a slogan; the employees will hear the sirens, no one will move.  Amazon is on the move, it is excessively persnickety about who it hires, and rightly so!

The purpose of this blog is not put Amazon on a pedestal.  There is too much of that going on in today’s business world, too much chest thumping – look at me, look at me, see how great I am. The purpose of this blog is to simply give the reader a behind the scenes understanding of the key factors contributing to Amazon’s ongoing drive to becoming the world’s most customer-centric company.  That’s it.  

Does this mean that Amazon is forever blessed, destined to succeed for all times to come?  Far from it! Building the world’s most customer-centric company is a journey, not a destination.  Besides, future success is never guaranteed, least of all to today’s most successful.

 

Edison’s 150 Questions: A Collaboration and Co-Creation Masterclass

Innovation, especially collaborative innovation, or co-creation, requires the judicious use of collaborators.  While it is instructive to recognize and applaud modern pace setters like Apple, P&G, Unilever, Lego, and Nike, it is important to recognize that few achievements, if any, are stand-alone; they usually stand on the shoulders of titans of a previous era.  

Thumbnail image for Edisoninchem.jpg

The purpose of this blog is to pay homage to one such giant, Thomas Alva Edison, to his understanding of the importance of collaboration, to the importance of picking the right collaborators, and building requisite diversity into his invention and innovation programs. 

First, some stage setting.      

Chapter 5 of my book, Collaboration and Co-Creation: New Platforms for Marketing and Innovation, presents and discusses a framework for implementing co-creation programs.  One of the elements of the framework deals with the issue of collaborators.  Specifically, who, or which customers should the company select and invite to participate in the co-creation project? 

In some cases, the company may not want to impose any restrictions, and all who desire to participate are welcome.  Co-creation projects that have the potential to benefit from a diverse set of ideas and skills found in every-day people generally fit this category.  For example:

  • Frito-Lay’s Crash the Super Bowl Contest: can benefit from the humor and video creation skills of a large number of consumers and non-consumers of the brand.
  • Oxford English Dictionary: suggestions for which words to add to the dictionary to keep it current and alive, don’t just come from connoisseurs of the English language, they come from simple, every-day readers as well.
  • Coca-Cola: several hundred thousand people from all over the world helped Coke make open happiness tangible, not just a few Madison Avenue, advertising agency specialists. 

There are other times, however, when the nature of the co-creation task demands that the set of collaborators be drawn from a pool of specialists.  For example, Nokia Beta Labs makes it intentions very clear, it wants to collaborate with lead users only.  To help determine whether if you are a lead user or not the site encourages you to take a test.  Similarly, since the goal of TopCoder is helping companies meet their systems, software, and design needs, its collaborators are specialists, those who have software/system development, and design skills.  

Additionally, diversity of thinking among collaborators is also important.  Not surprisingly, Topcoder’s  community of 300,000+ software and design professionals come from a diverse set of backgrounds and mindsets, and places, ranging from Ankara to Zagreb!  

While the words and labels associated with collaborators, such as early adopters, innovators, lead users, experts, technology mavens, etc., maybe of recent vintage, the concept that in several cases, it is better to be discriminatory in choosing your collaborators has been around a long time.  Without that focus and specialized inputs, the targeted co-creation programs would have essentially been non-starters.  

Now back to Thomas Edison – extraordinary and brilliant on several dimensions.  Not only was he technically brilliant, he also had exceptional business and organizational smarts. Specifically, in terms of collaboration and co-creation:

  • He realized that in order to implement the many ranging ideas, to “give the world what it needed,” he had to have collaborators; going solo was not an option.
  • Most importantly, he was acutely aware that any odd collaborator would not do – they had to approximately mirror his skills and passions.  In order to achieve that goal he devised a ultra-unique 150-question test, to recruit his collaborators, no exception.  If you would like to transport yourself back to 1921 to figure out if you would have made Edison’s team, visit the Edison museum site.  The test is challenging and humbling, so be forewarned! 
  • Interestingly, most of the questions were from areas other than science.  Presumably, there was greater faith in the ability of renaissance individuals to do better, no matter what the field of endeavor, than myopic moles.  Exactly the opposite of what one observes today. 
  • He also understood the value of diversity, which is why he recruited collaborators from a wide variety of ethnic, cultural, and national backgrounds – a deliberate strategy to invest in wide-ranging perspectives and points-of-view, thereby preventing what we call “groupthink” today.

The brilliance of Edison continues to illuminate, guide, and teach.  The reasons why we need to pay homage to Edison are many.  In the context of collaboration and co-creation, the brief list presented above will suffice.  

It’s not the size of the list that matters though – it’s the strength of its message.  In today’s age, often characterized more by spin than substance, the value of Edison’s focus on fundamentals in building enduring customer value through innovation is priceless!

Biomimicry and Innovation: A Conversation with Zeynep Arhon

Zeynep güncel foto.jpgAnalogies are a powerful way of stimulating creativity.  What better reservoir to draw it from than nature? I met Zeynep Arhon in October last year at the Future Trends 2010 conference in Miami.  Zeynep is a biomimicry specialist from Turkey.  It was our mutual interest in innovation and collaboration that helped us connect.  Since sustainability is such a hot topic, and since biomimicry’s key goal is to promote sustainability, I thought a conversation with Zeynep would benefit our readers.  So here we are.  


Zeynep, can you give us a brief introduction to Biomimicry?
Sure.  The term “Biomimicry” is a combination of two words. “Bios” means life and “mimicry” means to imitate. Biomimicry is therefore the conscious emulation of life’s genius. 

And your belief is that innovation can benefit from this conscious emulation of life’s genius?

Absolutely. Understanding how nature and its many organisms solve their specific challenges can greatly help us solve life’s challenges in our own world.  What we don’t realize on a day-to-day basis is that we live in an R&D lab 3.8 billion years young! In this marvellous lab millions of species have already solved and continue to solve many of the problems that we grapple with – energy, food production, temperature control, transportation, packaging, business management and more. So, it makes much sense to look at nature for innovation. Mimicking these time-tested solutions can help us leapfrog to more effective futures, with significantly less failure.

Let’s dig a little deeper.  When I hear “innovation inspired by nature” Leonardo da Vinci comes to mind. Several hundred years ago he studied nature to come up with breakthrough designs.  Is Biomimicry really new?

You are spot on.  Leonardo was a genius, and yes his observation of birds in flight led him to think of planes. It is well known that polar bear digging and hibernating habits significantly influenced igloo designs. More recently, Swiss engineer George de Maestral studied burr seeds to invent Velcro. Learning from nature is not new.  What is new is the going beyond a few brilliant minds, what is new is the birth of a systematic discipline of learning and application that involves hundreds of designers, engineers, educators, biologists, entrepreneurs, chemists and architects from around the world. One indicator will help set the global interest and relevance of biomimicry in perspective.  The number of global patents containing the term “biomimetic” or “bio-inspired” in their title has increased by a factor of 93, from 1985 to 2005, compared to a factor 2.7 increase for non-biomimetic patents.

 

Let’s get specific – please share a few examples of innovative solutions inspired by nature? 

Since you are from India, you may like this.  HOK Architects and Biomimicry Guild, the consulting firm that incorporates nature’s designs into a variety of applications, are building a new city in India, 8,000 acres large.  The source of inspiration for this revolutionary city is moist, deciduous forests. 

BioPower Systems, an Australian company, creates technologies to convert ocean power into a renewable source of energy.  BioPower’s wave power system, bioWAVE™, is based on the swaying motion of kelp in the presence of ocean waves. Another new development is The VIVACE hydro energy device that mimics the swimming strategies of schools of fish. VIVACE can harness power from slow moving ocean and river currents to provide new, reliable, and affordable alternative energy sources

Another application that comes to mind which is sure to appeal to urban commuters is Volvo’s accident avoidance project; a goal they hope to achieve by the year 2020.  Volvo’s “Locust Collision Avoidance Detector” project led to the development of a sophisticated, yet affordable, collision avoidance sensor based on the study of locust behavior.  

There is an interesting saying this side of the Atlantic – there is no such thing as a free lunch.  What are some key roadblocks in developing and implementing biomimicry inspired innovations?

All the big roadblocks have to do with us – human beings; how we think and what we value.  As I see it, the biggest challenge is our ability to be humble and learn from even the smallest organisms on this planet.  We human beings live with a built-in mindset that we are superior to all other life forms.  With that kind of attitude there is slim or little chance for us to learn from other organisms, especially those that we label “insignificant.”

Another has to do with our willingness to true risk takers.  Most business leaders hanker after breakthrough ideas, but without breakthrough risks.  Biomimicry can’t guarantee success, what it does have to offer is an abundance of opportunities, waiting to reward those that are willing to be frontier thinkers and doers.

Now you personally operate at the intersection of biomimicry and business innovation.  Share a little of your passion and working philosophy with us?  

Happy to, but you have to forgive me if I come across as evangelical.  I am a biased protagonist!  You are very right.  I do operate at the intersection of bomimicry and business innovation.  

  • First, I do believe that business has the power to shape the future. 
  • Second, I also believe that biomimicry has the power to change business into a more human, and graceful activity, which it is not at the moment. 
  • Third, I believe in collaboration and co-creation, which is how I got interested in your work.  In my opinion, we overvalue competition, but undervalue collaboration.  

It is these ingredients that I combine to help my clients develop effective survival and growth strategies.  

One for the road – what if someone is looking for good reference sources, what would you recommend?   

Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature” by Janine Benyus is the iconic book, for those interested in reading more on the subject. The Biomimicry Group provides consulting and educational services. Its sister organizations, Biomimicry Institute and Biomimicry Guild bring together scientists, engineers, architects and innovators for creating sustainable technologies. Finally, the website www.asknature.org is an excellent and free resource developed by The Biomimicry Institute in collaboration with the well-known biologist E.O. Wilson.  

Thanks Zeynep, for sharing your ideas and passion; enjoyed the conversation.    

Thank you!  Enjoyed it.  Look forward to continuing our conversation.

What Can The Business World Learn From Rory McIlroy?

rory.jpg

Like so many others, I spent Father’s Day Weekend watching Rory McIlroy make history at the Congressional.  While listening to his story and watching his relatively instant transformation from “self-destructing whiz kid” to “self-assured grand slam champion,” I found myself introspecting, and in the process, learning and growing as well. It was only a matter of time before I found myself asking the question – what can the business world learn from Rory McIlroy?  Especially as business executives are constantly using examples from the worlds of sports and warfare to inspire and motivate their teams/troops.  

I think the Rory story (as has unfolded until now) can teach companies that want to move on from their failures and taste success three very important things.

Resilience

There is an old saying, what matters in life is not how many times you are knocked down, what matters most is how quickly you get up each time you are knocked down.  Resilience is an important ingredient of survival and long-term success.  On April 10, Rory blew a 4-shot lead to lose the Masters.  Two months and a few days on, he dominated the very next major, as few have in the US Open’s 100+ year history.  Too many executives steer their companies with a “rear-view” mirror mindset.  This induces unnecessary post-mortem and mourning, preventing them from bouncing back quickly to take advantage of the next round of opportunities.

Honesty

Several hundred years ago, the good bard advised us – to thine own self be true!  But that is something most companies have a short supply of – honesty.  Their egos get in the way.  All too often, when companies fail – new product failure, a failed reorganization, a stillborn merger – the failed event is used as an occasion to start a blame game.  Finger pointing and the search for villains dominate the agenda.  Not taking a good hard look at oneself, learning, improving, and moving on.  If Rory had indulged in the blame game after the Masters, he would not have made the cut, leave alone win the US Open.  As he so refreshingly admitted in his press conference, he was totally honest with himself after the Masters fiasco.  Rather than wasting time and energy looking for scapegoats, he spent time and energy looking inwards, trying to understand himself and his game, so that in the future he would know what to do, what not to do, how to play, and how not to play.  Without this brazen honesty, athletes, teams, companies, and organizations are doomed to repeating yesterday’s mistakes again and again, resulting in hard-to-reverse behavior patterns.

Authenticity

This is a much-bandied word in the business world these days.  Suggesting that a company, or a brand, is a surefire formula for setting off rage bombs.  Yet we know that companies and brands are not authentic.  Every single day the media presents us with plenty of evidence to confirm that.  Why else would companies engage in green-washing (claiming that their products are green, when in fact they are not), be more concerned about financial losses than cleaning up oil spills, and not reveal for days that personal data of their credit card holders has been hacked?  Authenticity is not about what companies and brands claim for themselves, it is about how they behave.  And watching Rory comport himself, both on and off the course, the respectful and direct way he handled questions, even when asked for the umpteenth time, they way he celebrated, or should it be the way he did not over-celebrate while lapping the field, the grace with which he accepted defeat in Augusta, all point to one thing – authenticity.  Authenticity is not something that you can be fitted for like golf clubs and balls, or something that you wear on your golf shirt, like an advertisement, or what spin doctors teach you, its something that you consciously cultivate and nurture, because anything less is unacceptable.

Winning is an infinitely poorer teacher than losing.  Thank you Rory for showing us that failure can be a stepping-stone to success.  Unfortunately, too many of us leave it the way it is, a slogan, and never convert it to an action anthem.

Cheers! Imbibe a pint of Guinness Stout and reflect on it.   

Social Innovation: A Growth Market for Collaborative Innovation

In my book “Collaboration and Co-Creation: New Templates for Marketing and Innovation,” the last chapter takes the reader beyond the business world. It discusses Norway’s Clinic of Innovation and Scotland’s NESTA, among other informative case studies. Though I am opposed to making predictions, purely on philosophical grounds, I do believe that social innovations will continue to provide us with some of the more compelling and enlightening collaborative innovation stories in the years to come.

economist_small.jpg

If you would like more evidence, read the April 30th – May 6th issue of the Economist – the one with the Statue of Liberty on the cover asking a tired, but provocative, question – “What’s wrong with America’s economy?”  The last story in the box on the top right features the story – “Behold, the $300 home.” It is a dialogue that was started by two people I know well; Vijay Govindarajan, who was my Professor at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, and Christian Michael Sarkar, a young marketing consultant who has collaborated with me on several projects.  I contributed to the discussion as well with my blog which highlighted co-creation challenges in implementing the $300 house program.

The article in the Economist, billed as “Applying the world’s business brains to housing the poor” discusses a number of social problems like housing, credit, and rural electrification. It also lists several noteworthy individuals (Muhammad Yunus, Girish Bhardwaj) and organizations (Philips, Habitat for Humanity) that are contributing mightily with ideas and solutions.  However, the sentence that caught my eye says – solving these problems will in turn demand a high degree of co-operation (please read as collaboration) between people who do not always get on; companies and NGO’s, designers and emerging world governments.

Maybe they didn’t in the past.  But we live in a different world today – one in which value chains are giving way to value constellations and where blatant pursuit of competition is being replaced by mindsets that favor collaboration and co-opetition.  In this new environment, ideas alone can’t be the dominant currency. For no idea can fulfill it’s intrinsic potential if not adopted and implemented.  

Nowhere is this truer than in the field of energy consumption; reducing the carbon footprint of individuals, communities, and cities.  And the forward-thinking city of Seattle is leading the way, at least in the USA.  The city has started a Community Power Works (CPW) programs. CPW is a neighborhood program in central and southeast Seattle that will make energy efficiency improvements to buildings in six sectors: single-family, multi-family, small commercial, large commercial, hospital and municipal sectors.

seattlepw.gif

To read and learn more about this interesting initiative, please visit my blog posted today at InnovationManagement.se

Beyond HSX and the Oscars: Prediction Markets A Valuable Tool for Decision-Making

HSX traders did well.  They correctly predicted the winners for seven of the eight categories for which Award Options could be traded.  The only category they got wrong was Best Director.  HSX traders predicted the prize would go to David Fincher, for The Social Network.  The Oscar went instead to Tom Hooper, for The King’s Speech.  Interestingly, Tom Hooper actually led the category for most of the trading period.  It was only in the last few days that David Fincher pushed ahead.

So, is this an advert for HSX, or its phenomenal track record? Not really.  HSX is merely a prop.  The purpose of the two blogs, is to demonstrate that in situations where uncertainty and risk are present, there are better ways of making decisions than asking a “so-called panel of experts,” or asking the man or woman with the “biggest stick” to make the call. 

Divergent opinions carry information, especially when outcomes are uncertain, as is the case with introducing new products, forecasting sales, or formulating a plan to best manage urban traffic congestion.  When this divergence is suppressed by authority, or subjugated by experts, companies and organizations actually make riskier and poorer quality decisions.  

No wonder smart companies and organizations like Motorola, GE, Google, Best Buy, and Iowa Electronic Markets use some form of prediction markets, or group decision-making platform (like the Delphi technique, or the Nominal Group Technique) to harness and retrieve valuable information that lies scattered in various corners of the company, or among its many stakeholders.  And more importantly, they use it to stimulate consensual decision making, not by squashing divergent viewpoints, but by offering them an opportunity to test themselves against the opposition.

So, is the crowd always right and do the fittest ideas always get rewarded and selected for implementation?  Not always.  But if diverse thinking is encouraged, and diverse thinkers are allowed to collaborate in a decentralized manner, independent of authority, then their collective ideas and recommendations are likely to best those of a single person, the proverbial white knight CEO, or a small group of people, such as the Senior Leadership Team.

A word of caution though.  For prediction markets and other group-decision making platforms to flourish, experts and authority figures in companies/organizations need to experience a shift in mindset, from:

  • focusing on “knowing all the answers” to “asking the right questions”
  • an obsession with “gathering mountains of information” to “analyzing data in creative ways” 
  • a hierarchical approach to “making decisions” to “guiding decision making.”

Hollywood Stock Exchange Traders Predict Oscar Winners

Feb 27 is Oscar night.  Pundits have been busy predicting outcomes for the last several weeks now.  I am sure you have a few of your own, and may even have bet a few quid with friends, family, and colleagues.

But have you checked out the Hollywood Stock Exchange’s (HSX) predictions?  The HSE is a digital community that allows members to buy and sell “stock” in the nominees.  Each nominee is given a stock symbol.  Community members trade the stocks they like and can therefore bid up, or down, the price of various nominees, based on their beliefs and preferences.

So, who’s leading the pack?  Around 14:00 EST (Feb. 27), the “stock price” leaders for Best Picture, Actor, Actress, and Director, and hence the favorites to win are:

  • Best PictureThe King’s Speech; ticker symbol A1PTKS, has the highest quote, selling at H$17.49.  Yup, the HSE has its own currency!  The closest competitor – The Social Network (A1PTSN) – is trading at a distant H$2.42.  Close to a sure bet, would you say?
  • Best DirectorDavid Fincher (A1DDF1) for The Social Network, trading at H$13.39.  The closest competitor – Tom Hooper (A1DTHO) for The King’s Speech, trading at H$8.43 (though on a downward tick).
  • Best Actress – This one seems to be a no-contest.  Natalie Portman (A1CNPO) for the Black Swan is way ahead of the pack; trading at H$20.16 and rising.  All other contenders are trading in single digits.
  • Best Actor – is shaping up as a no-contest as well.  Colin Firth (A1ACFI) for his role in The King’s Speech, is trading at H$22.19, and rising, and commands a huge lead over his competitors.

There is still time to play and win; play money that is.  Those who successfully pick winners will get a play money dividend of H$25. Either way, whether you play or merely watch tonight, I will be back tomorrow comparing the actual results against predictions.  The HSX traders seem to be very sure of themselves, they are not hedging their bets.

  

Consumer-Created Ads Cross The Chasm

Consumer-generated ads may have started off as a curiosity, as light-hearted fun.  But they have crossed the chasm and user-generated content
(UGC), an umbrella term for all consumer-generated material, including
ads, is serious business at a large number of companies today.  Its
not just Frito Lay, and Pepsi; companies like Coke, HP, and Best Buy
have also bought into their uncommon appeal and engagement potential. Across the board this buy-in is being supported by managerial commitment
and dedicated resources; exactly how companies
would support core business practices, like IT and Purchasing.

Two key factors lend credence to this point of view.

  • First, the amount of effort – structure, rigor, and resources – to
    create, select, and air ads has increased significantly, at some of the
    more established players like Frito Lay.
  • Second, intermediaries like MOFILM have grown in recent years, to enable implementation at companies that would like to leverage the power of consumer-created ads, but without making significant investments of their own.

Consider first the effort factor.  A brief description of the platforms and processes deployed by Doritos and Pepsi Max to create the commercials that were aired during Super Bowl XLV follows:

  • A dedicated website invited ad submissions from Doritos and Pepsi Max fans in the second half of 2010.
  • Details regarding the prize money and the airing of the
    commercials were explained and presented on the landing page itself. 
    Both Frito Lay and Pepsi recognized the power of prize money, and
    correctly so.  The 2011 edition promised $25,000 to the five finalists
    for each brand, and airing of the commercial for the top 3 for each
    brand (a total of six).
  • In addition, they also promised monetary incentives for
    winning the USA Today Ad Meter contest; $1 million to the winner,
    $600,000 for second place, $400,000 for third place, and an additional
    $1million to all three winners if the two sponsors swept the top 3
    spots.
  • All contest rules were clearly explained, including the format of
    the submissions, the number of submissions per person, and the
    submission deadline.
  • Finally, judging criteria, selection of finalists, and voting
    procedures to determine which ads get aired were also painstakingly
    explained.

superbowlchallenge.gif

In short, the two sponsors approached the contest exactly as they would
any other formal business process.  Small-scale experiments, or novel
indulgences, don’t get this kind of management attention and/or support.

But, what if a company lacks, or is unwilling to invest in, a formal structure, resources, and/or
knowledge to implement programs or contests for developing
consumer-created ads?  That’s where organizations like MOFILM come in; co-creation intermediaries.

MOFILM offers a platform for the co-creation of video content.  It helps large brands and social causes
recruit the services of creative and passionate people from around the
globe to create video and film content for a variety of applications and
devices, including mobile devices.  The company usually stages its
global competitions to coincide with world-renowned international film
festivals, like New York, Cannes Lions, and London Film Festival.  The company carries the support of several marquee names from the world of cinema; heavyweights like Robert Redford and Spike Lee.

mofilm.gif

   

Even a cursory look at their clients – Axe, Lego, Hindustan Times,
Persil, OMO, Haagen-Dazs, Nokia, Surf – reinforces the principal thesis of this blog.  UGC has crossed the chasm and is not just
the preserve of a few companies tinkering at the fringes.  Consumer-created ads are core business practice at a
large number of companies.  And their numbers are growing every day.

The Social Benefits of Collaboration and Co-Creation

Large scale citizen protests in Tunisia, Egypt, and earlier in Iran and Mayanmar (aka Burma), are symptomatic of very deep-rooted social diseases.  Problems like corruption, neglect of infrastructure, abuse of police and political power are too complex to be handled by one-dimensional solutions, no matter how well intentioned. 

However, in each case there is a vicious underlying theme.  The citizens have been screaming for several years.  Their complaints and grievances are not new.  But nobody is listening!  Nobody is actively engaging the common citizen in conversations about programs likely to increase the economic well being of those deprived the most.  Not surprising, therefore, that not much that needs to be done gets done; the pace of change and economic growth continues to be frustratingly slow, erratic, piecemeal, and hyphenated.  

So, what can the governments around the world do to reverse this cycle of absence of listening, leading to inaction, resulting in alienation and helplessness, ultimately leading to violence?  Without getting ultra-philosophical, they can start by looking at their populations differently.  Rather than view them as a heap of incessant problems, they can start viewing them as a resource, and hence as a part of the solution.  

This was also the theme of my last blog, wherein I discussed the excellent opportunities that social arenas and agendas, generally in the care of government and nonprofit bodies, offer for the application of collaboration and co-creation technologies and thinking.  This is also how the government of Scotland is thinking.  Rather than view their aging population merely as a burden on the exchequer (a problem), the government launched NESTA, a series of investments and programs, that views the aging population as a resource to help create incremental economic value, thereby increasing social well being (a solution).

Programs that listen to citizens and engage them in meaningful conversations on issues involving social and economic welfare, like NESTA, work because they are based on sound psychology and behavioral economics thinking.  Listening to citizens and making them part of the solution triggers the following positive consequences:

  • First, it lays the foundation for change by bringing into question current practices and forcing both citizens and authorities to look for alternatives.
  • Second, by listening and inviting collaboration, citizens are more likely to find new empowered aspects to themselves; aspects that go beyond whining and complaining to doing, to looking for solutions.
  • Third, by visibly displaying and acting on their different selves, small groups of empowered citizens are more likely to attract and build relationships with others like themselves, leading to broader community-driven action thinking.
  • Fourth, these actions are likely to bolster a sense of efficacy amongst citizens, proving to themselves and others that average citizens can make a difference if allowed to, even if the direct consequences of their efforts are small.
  • Fifth, citizens who believe they can make a difference are more likely to be on the lookout for opportunities to do so, and by definition are more likely to find them, merely because they believe and because they are looking.

There is no rule that says that change has to come in big and huge chunks.  In fact, it is this preoccupation with hitting the ball out of the park (sixes if you are a cricket fan, home runs if you are a baseball fan) that prevents governments and citizens alike from acting and making a difference; the mountain of problems seems insurmountable because the preoccupation is with moving the entire mountain all at once.  

Structured collaboration activities overcome this problem by focusing on finite gains, small tasks and achievable goals that are valuable and relevant to average citizens. Philanthropy-by-design organizations, like Philips (who co-created an eco-friendly cooking stove for the Indian rural poor; chulha in Hindi) and FINISH (who are working to design a toilet suitable for all types of conditions and environments encountered in rural India) have a lot to teach us in this regard.  In the communities these organizations serve, they have very successfully channeled the energy of average citizens towards creating economic value, by focusing on achieving small gains through collaboration.  The amount left over for anger and violence is significantly lower in these communities, compared to those where listening, engagement, and the co-creation of relevant economic value are non-existent.

I am not naïve. I do realize that the issues being discussed transcend the mere availability and application of collaboration and co-creation technologies.  They will also require a change in heart and mindset, most notably that politicians start viewing themselves as custodians, as opposed to entitled looters.  However, this should not detract from the realization that the platforms of collaboration and co-creation can serve as agents of change if implemented authentically, as they offer an opportunity to both citizens and governments to see with a different set of eyes, and hear with a different set of ears.