Seth's Blog : Excoriated

Excoriated

There are only three reasons to really chew someone out for something they did, only three reasons to have an emotional tantrum, to use cutting language and generally make them feel lousy:

1. You want them to never do it again.

2. You want them to stop doing it right now.

3. You feel upset about the change and taking it out on the person who took action makes you feel better. First clue, "he deserved it!"

Can we agree that the third reason is selfish and there are almost certainly better responses if your goal is one or two?

Seth's Blog : Open, generous and connected

Open, generous and connected

Isn't that what we seek from a co-worker, boss, friend or even a fellow conference attendee?

Open to new ideas, leaning forward, exploring the edges, impatient with the status quo... In a hurry to make something worth making.

Generous when given the opportunity (or restless to find the opportunity when not). Focused on giving people dignity, respect and the chance to speak up. Aware that the single most effective way to move forward is to help others move forward as well.

and connected. Part of the community, not apart from it. Hooked into the realities and dreams of the tribe. Able and interested in not only cheering people on, but shining a light on how they can accomplish their goals.

Paradoxically, the fancier the conference, the more fabled the people around the table, the less likely you are to find these attributes. These attributes, it turns out, have nothing to do with fame or resources. In fact, fear is the damper on all three. Fear of failure, intimacy and vulnerability. Fear closes us up, causes us to self-focus and to disconnect.

When we find our own foundation and are supported in our work by those around us, we can get back to first principles, to realizing our own dreams and making our own art by supporting others first and always.

Seth's Blog : The mirror and the periscope

The mirror and the periscope

A long time ago, real estate developers figured out that one way to save a lot of money was to put a mirror in the lobby next to the elevator banks. People would happily look at themselves in the mirror while patiently waiting for the elevator... meaning that the developers could get by with one fewer (expensive) elevator.

If we want to, we can turn social media (and our day) into a giant mirror. "I wonder what they think of me?" "I wonder what their reaction was to what we just shipped?" "I wonder if they've figured out I'm a fraud?" We hide this mirror gazing under the guise of customer research, but particularly for soloists, artists and anyone who puts her name on her work, what an opportunity to waste time and energy checking out what the online world tells us about our role in the universe.

On the other hand, social networks now give us a better opportunity than ever to find out how other people are doing. "I wonder if Trish is happy?" "I hope that those protesters have enough blankets." "Are our children learning?"

It's human nature to care how the tribe (and strangers) think about us. It's more important, though, to wonder how they feel about themselves.

Seth's Blog : Confusing loyalty with silence

Confusing loyalty with silence

Some organizations demand total fealty, and often that means never questioning those in authority.

Those organizations are ultimately doomed.

Respectfully challenging the status quo, combined with relentlessly iterating new ideas is the hallmark of the vibrant tribe.

Seth's Blog : Is a famous thinker better than a great one?

Is a famous thinker better than a great one?

Does a bestselling author have more to say than someone who has written a brilliant book that didn't sell?

Does a tenured professor at Yale deserve more credence than someone doing breakthrough work at a local state school?

If the violinist in the subway has played to packed houses, does that make him better than the previously unknown singer around the next corner?

For physical goods, a trusted brand name certainly increases the likelihood of purchase, because the risk is lower. We figure that Nabisco is less likely to sell us an unflavorful dust cookie than some unknown brand at the health food store. For a new flavor, the brand makes it an easier choice.

An idea is different, though, because the only apparent cost is the time it takes to hear it. (That's not really true, of course).

And yet we hesitate to invest the time to hear ideas from lesser-known sources. It's not fair to the unknown inventor, but it's true.

I think this is changing, and fast. The permeability of the web means that you don't have to start at the top, don't have to get picked by TED or a by a big blog or by anyone with influence. Pick yourself.

It's true that when you pick yourself, people aren't as likely to embrace your idea (at first). That's because the personal risk of hearing new ideas from new places is the fear that our opinion of the idea might not match everyone else's. The real risk of interacting with unproven ideas is the fear that we might not react in a way our peers expect. The desire to fit in often overwhelms our curiosity.

It takes quite a bit of work (and a lot of luck) to acquire a level of fame. The question that might be worth asking is whether or not that effort is related to the quality of ideas underneath. Harvard has been around for nearly 400 years. That doesn't mean the brand name is worth as much as we might be inclined to believe.

Branding started with pottery, beer and biscuits. Now it effects the way we think about ideas, people and even science. Buyer beware.

Seth's Blog : Scarcity and abundance in the digital age

Scarcity and abundance in the digital age

Thankfully, for many people in the privileged world, food scarcity is an ancestral memory. We don't have to scrounge over lunch so we'll have something to eat for dinner.

Sandy reminded millions of people in the Northeast what scarcity felt like. When gasoline shortages hit, the thought that there might be a day or more without gas in the tank led to six-hour lines and occasional fistfights. Many grow up with a sense of unlimited... go ahead and gun the engine or throw out the extra, there's more around the corner.

And yet, physical goods always manage to bump up against scarcity. There's always one more shiny new thing to buy, one more mini-storage unit to rent. The media amplifies our envy of physical goods with reality TV shows and commercials about that next thing you ought to buy, if you hurry, if you can borrow to do so.

The digital world doesn't offer similar scarcity. Two generations have grown up with the understanding that all music is available essentially for free, all the time. Our internet connections are largely unlimited--and when the limits do kick in, our entitlement comes out in the form of umbrage at the affront.

But economies are always based on scarcity (hence the term 'economize'). There is no market for humming, for example, because everyone has unlimited humming at their disposal at all times. So, in the abundant digital world, what's scarce? Where is the economy?

It's in connection.

Who trusts you? Who wants to hear from you? Who will collaborate and support and engage with you?

These are things that don't scale to infinity. These are precious resources.

When there was no power during Sandy, people had to decide (for the first time in a long time) if a song on their phone was worth listening to. Was it battery worthy? That's the analysis that informs the connection economy--is it worth interrupting this person? Is my next action going to build a relationship or take from it? Am I earning trust or burning trust?

In the connection economy, we reward art and innovation and things worth talking about. We seek out transparency and generosity and the long-term. Sure, there are still people who will profit in the short-run by burning the assets they've got, but as we get ever more connected, that's just not going to scale.

Connection and leadership and trust are going to get ever more valuable. Sure, go ahead and shake your head in agreement, but when you get back to work, are you busy working in the scarce universe or trying to build a place for yourself in the new one?

Seth's Blog : On behalf of yes

On behalf of yes

Yes, it's okay to ship your work.

Yes, you're capable of making a difference.

Yes, it's important.

Yes, you can ignore that critic.

Yes, your bravery is worth it.

Yes, we believe in you.

Yes, you can do even better.

Yes.

Yes is an opportunity and yes is an obligation. The closer we get to people who are confronting the resistance on their way to making a ruckus, the more they let us in, the greater our obligation is to focus on the yes.

There will always be a surplus of people eager to criticize, nitpick or recommend caution. Your job, at least right now, is to reinforce the power of the yes.

Seth's Blog : Ideal, average and outlier

Ideal, average and outlier

Generalizations are the heart of marketing decision-making. When we look at an audience--customers, prospects, constituents--we make decisions on the whole based on our assumptions about the individuals within the group.

But are we basing those generalizations on our vision of the ideal member of the tribe, the average member or the outlier who got our attention?

It's easy, for example, to defend high-priced famous colleges if you focus on the ideal situation. The ideal student, getting instruction from the ideal professor and making ideal progress. No one can argue with this.

On the other hand, when we see the outlier (the person who is manipulating the system, or the one who is being harmed by it) it's easy to generalize in precisely the other direction, deciding that the entire system isn't worth saving.

And finally, it's tempting to rely on the average, to boil down populations of people into simple numbers. The problem with this, of course, is that if one foot is in a bucket of ice water and the other is being scalded, on average, you should be comfortable.

Before we start making decisions about markets, tribes and policy, we need to get clear about which signals we're using and what we're trying to focus on or improve.

Seth's Blog : Slow media

Slow media

Slow media is patient. It's not on a deadline. It isn't measured in column inches. It can be calm instead of sensational, deep instead of superficial.

In the age of "Breaking news, Emmy nominations announced!" and 140 characters, it's sort of surprising to realize that we are also living in the golden age of slow media.

For years, on Sunday mornings, you could find me sitting in my driveway, recently arrived home from one errand or another, listening to Krista Tippett's extraordinary interviews on the radio. Thanks to the web, there's no need to sit in your car any longer, and Krista's groundbreaking approach is spreading. Spending 90 minutes in the studio with her to create this week's show was, for me, one of the highlights of my career. (download).

When there's unlimited shelf space allowing unlimited podcasts, which can be of unlimited length, the goal isn't to get the show on the air faster or to make it noisier. Instead, the goal, like the goal of a good book, is to say something worth saying, and to do it in a way that's worth waiting for.

The challenge used to be to promote your idea enough to get on the radio or get into the newspaper. Of course, along the way your idea was truncated, edited, misconstrued, amped up and dumbed down, because scarce media space often demanded this.

Today, the challenge is, as Krista has shown, to be insightful enough and patient enough to use the (unlimited) time to create slow media that people actually want to listen to. Not all people, of course, but enough. Not media for the masses, but media for the weird, for people who care. It might not be obvious media, or easy to understand media, or easily digested media, but that's okay, because slow media is not mass media. Slow media is not for the distracted masses, it's for the focused few.

One of the greatest privileges of publishing The Icarus Deception and V is for Vulnerable is that I've had the chance to talk with some amazing podcasters. And to do it slowly. With focus.

Go ahead and subscribe to a few. Slow media is good for us.

Seth's Blog : The long run keeps getting shorter

The long run keeps getting shorter

In the long run, we're all dead, sure that's still true.

But the other long run effects--in the long run, you get caught, in the long run, kindness wins out, in the long run, we learn about who you really are--all of those are happening faster than they used to.

The short run has always been short (and it's getting shorter still). The real change, though, is how short the long run is getting.

Seth's Blog : Why do we care about football?

Why do we care about football?

For someone outside the US, the visceral connection with football seems mysterious. You can understand a lot about the future (and past) of marketing once you understand how the sport turned into a cultural touchstone.

Tribes -> TV -> Money -> Mass -> TV -> Tribes

Football as we know it started in colleges. It was an epic muddy battle, pitting one alma mater against another, a war-like, non-balletic battle that united (at a pretty elemental level) the tribes on each side. As it grew as a college sport, it became as much of a social event as a sporting one, with alumni and students finding connection around a game.

But if that's all it was, today wouldn't be the biggest day of the year for several industries. If that's all it was, you wouldn't be able to pick a fight merely by challenging the hegemony of football or the local team. We'd be spending as much time and energy on soccer or lacrosse or basketball, but we don't.

No, it turns out that, quite accidentally, football, more than any other sport, is made for television. It's better on TV than it is live. The combination of the play clock, the angles, the repetition and the opportunity for analysis all make it perfect to watch on TV. And perfect to run commercials on. TV and football grew up together, side by side. Instant replay and the thirty-second commercial, supporting each other.

It's not an accident that the commercials are as much a part of the Super Bowl as the game. The commercials represent both the cash component of football as well as the cultural souvenirs that go with our consumption of the game.

Fifty years ago, a coat salesman paid $4,000 for the rights to film a game, and NFL Films was born. The decisions Ed and Steve Sobel made over the years turned the sport cinematic, amplifying the tribal origins but taking them much further. They used sound editing and shot on film, all to transform a game into a spectacle.

Then, the second great accident occurred: As football became the official sport of television, it generated billions of dollars in revenue. This revenue led advertisers to push for more football, which led to more television, which led to colleges transforming football from a small sideline into a cash cow of some focus, despite the fact that it has very little to do with the core mission of the institution.

People justify the unpaid (and dangerous) labor of college football players by pointing to all the scholarships. But the scholarships aren't for playing football, they are for appearing on TV. That's what pays for the system.

The media-football complex drives deep into childhood, with many kids fast-tracked from a very young age into the game (not soccer, not baseball, not physics) at some level because of TV and because of money and because of tribes. If football is part of what we stand for, then of course we're happy to have our kid be part of that. But what does it mean for football to be part of what you stand for?

No one stands for movies, or ice cream or double-entry bookkeeping. No, a sport has become a pillar of our worldview, a tribal and economic connection to our past and our future. We don't want to understand the history and the money and the happy accidents. We just assume that this is as it was and as it will be.

Going forward, no other sport will ever have a run like this, because the TV-cash part of the connection can't be recreated. Mass TV built many elements of our culture, but mass TV (except for tonight) is basically over.

The new media giants of our age (Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc.) don't point everyone to one bit of content, don't trade in mass. Instead, they splinter, connecting many to many, not many to one.

The cultural touchstones we're building today are mostly not mass, mostly not for everyone. Instead, the process is Tribes -> Connections/communities -> Diverse impact. Without the mass engine of TV, it's difficult to imagine it happening again. So instead we build our lives around cultural pockets, not cultural mass. Our job as marketers and leaders is to create vibrant pockets, not to hunt for mass.

But for next season... Go Bills!

Seth's Blog : Customers who break things

Customers who break things

2% of your customers don't get it. They won't read the instructions, they'll use the wrong handle, they'll ignore the warning about using IE6. They will blame you for giving them a virus or will change the recipe even though you ask them not to.

And not only that, they'll blame you when things go wrong.

If you do a very, very good job of design and UX and process analysis, you can lower this number to 1%.

But then what?

The thing is, blaming this group for getting it wrong helps no one. They don't want to be blamed, and they're not going to learn.

The other challenge, of course, is that the 1% keep changing. If they were always the same people, you could happily fire them. But there's no way to know in advance who's going to get it wrong.

If you're going to be in a mass market business, you have no choice to but to accept that this group exists. And to embrace them. Not to blame them, but to love them. Successful businesses have the resilience to make it easy for them to recover. To make it easy for these people to find you and to blame you and to get the help they need.

Sure, whittle down the number. But the ones who are left? They're part of the deal.

Seth's Blog : How to listen

How to listen

Live interaction still matters. Teachers, meetings, presentations, one on one brainstorms--they can lead to real change. The listener has nearly as big a responsibility as the speaker does, though. And yet, Google reports four times as many matches for "how to speak" as "how to listen." It's not a passive act, not if you want to do it right.

If listening better leads to better speaking, then it becomes a competitive advantage.

Ask an entrepreneur leaving the office of a great VC like Fred Wilson. She'll tell you that she gave the best pitch of her career--largely because of the audience. The hardest step in better listening is the first one: do it on purpose. Make the effort to actually be good at it.

Don't worry so much about taking notes. Notes can be summarized in a memo (or a book) later.

Pay the person who's speaking back with enthusiasm. Enthusiasm shown by the expression on your face, in your posture, in your questions.

Play back what you hear but in your own words, using your own situation. Don't ask questions as much as make statements, building on what you just heard but making it your own. Take what you heard and make it the foundation for what you are trying on as your next idea.

If you disagree, wait a few beats, let the thought finish, and then explain why. Don't challenge the speaker, challenge the idea.

The best way to honor someone who has said something smart and useful is to say something back that is smart and useful. The other way to honor them is to go do something with what you learned.

Good listeners get what they deserve--better speakers.

Seth's Blog : Exactly the same vs. exactly different

Exactly the same vs. exactly different

You will almost never find a case study or lesson that precisely fits the problem you're aiming to solve. You won't find a book that shows you what someone precisely like you did to solve a problem precisely like this one.

The search for the exact case study or the exact prescription is the work of the resistance, a clever way to stay safe, to protect yourself from your boss or your self-talk. If you wait for the perfect map before departing on your journey, you'll never have to leave.

It's also true, though, that you have never once had to solve a problem that is exactly different from what's gone down before. We'd like to romanticize our problems as unique, as the one and only perfectly difficult situation that is the result of a confluence of unrepeatable, unique causes.

Your problem is your problem, and it is like no other. But it's close enough to those that came before, close enough to the ones you've studied, that it probably pays to stop stalling and take the leap.

Seth's Blog : Paracosms, loyalty and reality in the pursuit of creative problem solving

Paracosms, loyalty and reality in the pursuit of creative problem solving

A paracosm is an ornate, richly detailed imaginary world. Whether you're a three-year old with imaginary playmates, or a passionate inventor imagining how your insight will change just about everything, a paracosm gives you the opportunity to hypothesize, to try out big ideas and see where they take you.

Managers at established organizations have a very hard time with this. Take book publishing as an example. Ten or fifteen years ago, I'd sit with publishing chiefs and say, "let's imagine how the world looks when there are no mass market books published on paper..." Before we could get any further, they'd stop the exercise. "It's impossible to imagine that. Paper is magical. Are you saying you don't believe in books?" (I heard variations on this from people as recently as a year ago.)

The emotional response is easy to understand. If one of the core principles of your business needs to be abandoned in order to act out the paracosm, it feels disloyal to even utter it. Sort of like asking your spouse if he's going to remarry after you die...

And yet.

The most effective, powerful way to envision the future is to envision it, all of it, including a future that doesn't include your sacred cows. Only then can you try it on for size, imagine what the forces at work might be and then work to either prevent (or even better, improve on) that future and your role in it.

It's not disloyal to imagine a future that doesn't include your founding precepts. It's disloyal not to.

Seth's Blog : Eleven things organizations can learn from airports

Eleven things organizations can learn from airports

[Of course, this post isn’t actually about airports].

I realized that I don’t dislike flying--I dislike airports. There are so many things we can learn from what they do wrong:

No one is in charge. The airport doesn’t appear to have a CEO, and if it does, you never see her, hear about her or interact with her in any way. When the person at the top doesn’t care, it filters down.
Problems persist because organizations defend their turf instead of embrace the problem. The TSA blames the facilities people, who blame someone else, and around and around. Only when the user’s problem is the driver of behavior (as opposed to maintaining power or the status quo) things change.
The food is aimed squarely at the (disappearing) middle of the market. People who like steamed meat and bags of chips never have a problem finding something to eat at an airport. Apparently, profit-maximizing vendors haven’t realized that we’re all a lot weirder than we used to be.
Like colleges, airports see customers as powerless transients. Hey, you’re going to be gone tomorrow, but they’ll still be here.
By removing slack, airlines create failure. In order to increase profit, airlines work hard to get the maximum number of flights out of each plane, each day. As a result, there are no spares, no downtime and no resilience. By assuming that their customer base prefers to save money, not anxiety, they create an anxiety-filled system.
The TSA is ruled by superstition, not fact. They act without data and put on a quite serious but ultimately useless bit of theater. Ten years later, the theater is now becoming an entrenched status quo, one that gets ever worse.
The ad hoc is forbidden. Imagine an airplane employee bringing in an extension cord and a power strip to deal with the daily occurrence of travelers hunched in the corner around a single outlet. Impossible. There is a bias toward permanent and improved, not quick and effective.
Everyone is treated the same. Effective organizations treat different people differently. While there’s some window dressing at the edges (I’m thinking of slightly faster first class lines and slightly more convenient motorized cars for seniors), in general, airports insist that the one size they’ve chosen to offer fit all.
There are plenty of potential bad surprises, but no good ones. You can have a flight be cancelled, be strip searched or even go to the wrong airport. But all possibility for delight has been removed. It wouldn’t take much to completely transform the experience from a chore to a delight.
They are sterile. Everyone who passes through leaves no trace, every morning starts anew. There are no connections between people, either fellow passengers or the staff. No one says, “welcome back,” and that’s honest, because no one feels particularly welcome.
No one is having any fun. Most people who work at airports have precisely the same demeanor as people who work at a cemetery. The system has become so industrialized that personal expression is apparently forbidden.
As we see at many organizations that end up like this, the airport mistakes its market domination for a you-have-no-choice monopoly (we do have a choice, we stay home). And in pursuit of reliable, predictable outcomes, these organizations dehumanize everything, pretending it will increase profits, when it actually does exactly the opposite.

Seth's Blog : A legend in my own mind

A legend in my own mind

Everyone lives with self mythology.

The more important a memory is to the story we tell ourselves about ourselves, the more often we rehearse the memory. And the more often we relive those memories, the less likely it is that they are true.

Despite our shared conception that we are rational actors making intelligent decisions based on an accurate view of the world and ourselves, precisely the opposite is true. Your customers, your workers, you and I, we are all figments of our imaginations.

Understanding the mythology of your partner, your customer and your audience is far more important than watching the instant replay of what actually happened.

Seth's Blog : Beyond showing up

Beyond showing up

You've probably got that part nailed. Butt in seat, smile on your face. We often run into people who understand their job to be showing up on time to do the work that's assigned.

We've moved way beyond that now. Showing up and taking notes isn't your job. Your job is to surprise and delight and to change the agenda. Your job is to escalate, reset expectations and make us delighted that you are part of the team.

Showing up is overrated. Necessary but not nearly sufficient.

Seth's Blog : "We don't need to make it better"

"We don't need to make it better"

Improvement comes with many costs.

It costs time and money to make something better. It's risky, as well, because trying to make something better might make it worse. Perhaps making it better for the masses makes it worse for the people who already like it. And risk brings fear, because that means someone is going to be held responsible, and so the lizard brain wants out.

Which is why, unless there's an urgent reason to make something better right now, most organizations naturally don't volunteer to improve.

Operating systems, government programs, established non-profits, teachers with tenure, market leaders, businesses with long-standing customers--these organizations are all facing an uphill battle in creating a culture where there's an urgency to improve.

Just because it's uphill doesn't mean it's hopeless, though. One of the most essential tasks a leader faces is understanding just how much the team is afraid of making things better (because it usually means making things worse--for some people).

Seth's Blog : Getting a ridiculous behemoth (and two California gigs)

Getting a ridiculous behemoth (and two California gigs)

Many of you that missed out on pre-ordering the 800 page behemoth that I published late last year have asked for a chance to get one. Since you're the biggest sneezers of the ideas in my books, I thought I'd put together a simple fundraiser for the Acumen Fund (limited to the first 200 people).

Visit this page and order a pre-set package of books from 8CR and I'll send you, at my expense, one of the last remaining copies of the Behemoth. (US orders only, please, because shipping costs so much). I'll also make a $10,000 donation to Acumen in the name of those that get in on it.

ALSO! I've been invited to come to LA on March 16 as the opening keynote (program, tickets) for a day-long conference, and also to appear in Costa Mesa, CA on the evening of the 15th.

You can get your Costa Mesa ticket with a few books thrown in as a bonus by clicking here.

Seth's Blog : A diet for your mind

A diet for your mind

It's Groundhog Day, which means that January is over. January, of course, is official diet book month, the time of year that formerly young, formerly thin people buy books in the hopes that by osmosis, they will magically become post-holiday skinny.

Now that this madness is over, perhaps it's time to invest in something you can change: the way you think. Here are a bunch of books, ebooks and recordings that can help with that: Diet books for the mind.
Controlling what you eat is an interesting challenge, but not nearly as important as controlling how you think.

Seth's Blog : You'll pay a lot...

You'll pay a lot...

but you'll get more than you pay for.

There's plenty of room for this sort of offer to work. The hard part isn't charging a lot. The hard part is delivering more (in the eye of the recipient) than he paid for.

Plenty of people would happily pay extra for what you do... if they only believed that in fact it would turn out to be a bargain, worth more than it costs. One reason we price shop is that we don't trust that anything that costs more than the cheapest is worth what it costs.

Too often, in the race to charge less, we deliver too little. And in the race to charge more, we forget what it is that people want. They want more. And better.

Seth's Blog : Owning vs. renting

Owning vs. renting

You don't own attention or trust or shelf space. You don't even own tomorrow's plans.

It's all for rent, with a cancellation clause that can kick in at any time.

The moment you start treating the rental like a right, it disappears.

Seth's Blog : Watching is not doing (confronting the spectator problem)

Watching is not doing (confronting the spectator problem)

Talk shows, from Johnny Carson to Fresh Air, have always been about spectating. Comedy, TV, graphic arts, business leadership, politics--they've been sold to us as spectator sports.

Selling spectatorhood is pretty easy. It's safe and fun and easy. You hit the remote. You pretend you have power--the power to turn it off, to change the channel, to buy or not to buy. We've seduced the masses with a simple bargain, and even permitted the role of the spectator to move into the work world. Most people, most of the time, are told to watch, not to lead, to follow, not to create.

Waiting for breakfast in bed to be served is very different indeed than getting up early and serving breakfast in bed.

The spectators foolishly assert that if everyone was a doer, a leader and a maker of ruckuses, then there'd be no one left in the audience. As if those that do require an audience.

The alternative to being a spectator involves failure and apparent risk. It means that you will encounter people who accuse you of hubris and flying too high, people who are eager to point out the loose thread on your jacket or the flaw in your reasoning. The spectators in the stands are happy to boo, happy to walk out when the team is struggling in the third period, happy to switch if the bread or the circuses cease to delight.

Why on earth, they ask, would they want to be anything but a spectator?

And yet, those that have foolishly picked themselves, stood up, stood out and made a difference, can't help but ask, "and why would I ever want to be a spectator again?"

[More on this from fabled professor Jeffrey Pfeffer]

Seth's Blog : The roller coaster of shipping

The roller coaster of shipping

 

Perhaps something like this has happened to you. Here's an annotated graph of what it's like to make a book, with 'joy' being the Y axis with time along the bottom (click to enlarge)...

 
1. The manic joy of invention. The idea arrives, it's shiny and perfect. I can't wait to share it.

2. The first trough of reality. Now that I've pitched the idea to someone (and I'm on the hook), the reality of what has to be done sets in precisely as the manic joy of invention disappears.

3. Wait! The epic pause of reality. It's not quite as bad as I feared. I can see a path here, maybe. I'm still in trouble, sure, but perhaps...

4. The horrible trough of stuckness. The path didn't work. The data isn't here. Critical people have said no. People in critical roles have said no. I can't find any magic. Sigh.

5. Flow. This is why we do it. The promises made as a result of #1 pushed me through the horrible trough, and the lights are coming on and my forward motion, my relentless forward motion, may just be contagious. Let's not talk about this, because I don't want it to dissipate.

6. The pre-publication lizard-brain second-guess. I see the notes that have come back to me, all that red pen, the not-quite-ebullient look on the face of a trusted reader. I am sniffing everywhere for clues of impending doom, and yes, there they are.

7. The realization that it's good enough. This is the local max, but not the universal one. Optimists welcome. It's not perfect, but it's going to ship, and good luck to it.

8. Post-partum ennui. "Why haven't you read my book yet?"

9. Life. And this is the long haul, the book in the world, the hearing about a book you wrote ten years ago that's still impacting people. The crepe paper grand opening bunting has been taken down and there is no one left to write a snarky review, because the book is on its own, touching, spreading and being.

And then, sometimes, #1 happens again. Or not. 

Seth's Blog : Those people

Those people

At a recent seminar, a woman who helps run a community college stood up to ask a question.

"Well, the bad news," she said, "is that we have to let everyone in. And the truth is, many of these kids just can't be the leaders you're describing, can't make art. We need people to do manual work, and it's those people."

I couldn't believe it. I was speechless, then heartbroken. All I could think of was these young adults, trusting this woman to lead them, teach them, inspire them and push them, and instead being turned into 'those people.'

You know, the people who will flip burgers or sweep streets or fill out forms all day. The ones who will be brainwashed into going into debt, into buying more than they can afford, to living lives that quietly move from one assigned task or one debt payment to another. If they're lucky.

No, I said to her, trying to control my voice, no these are not those people. Not if you don't want them to be.

Everyone is capable of being generous, at least once. Everyone is capable of being original, inspiring and connected, at least once. And everyone is capable of leading, yes, even more than once.

When those that we've chosen to teach and lead write off people because of what they look like or where they live or who their parents are, it's a tragedy. Worse, we often write people off merely because they've been brainwashed into thinking that they have no ability to do more than they've been assigned. Well, if we brainwashed them into setting limits, I know we can teach them to ignore those limits.

Seth's Blog : Two kinds of mistakes

Two kinds of mistakes

There is the mistake of overdoing the defense of the status quo, the error of investing too much time and energy in keep things as they are.

And then there is the mistake made while inventing the future, the error of small experiments gone bad.

We are almost never hurt by the second kind of mistake and yet we persist in making the first kind, again and again.

Seth's Blog : Podcasts, live events and more...

Podcasts, live events and more...

Lots of hoopla and good news to share:

Hope to see you in Boston or London later this month.

For those that were out over the break, here are the three books now available for sale (thanks for the great feedback and terrific support). Here's the audio edition.

Thanks to the podcasters who interviewed me:

Marketing Over Coffee

Adrian Swinscoe

Work Talk Show

Social Media Examiner

Duct Tape Marketing

The Game Whisperer

Eventual Millionaire

Blogcast FM

And a post from David Meerman Scott. Anne McCrossan. And with TED videos.

The feedback from the worldwide Icarus Session was so good we've scheduled another one. And here's the bookmark project.

Thanks.

專題：解決消費者沒開口告訴你的困擾

史萊渥斯基(Adrian J. Slywotzky)、卡爾．韋伯(Karl Weber)/奧緯國際管理顧問公司(Oliver Wyman)合夥人商業與當代事務作家

【消費者的困擾】
1.列出既有產品、服務特質，以及體系中浪費時間、精力與金錢的圖表；
2.顧客許多頭痛、失望與挫折的體驗；
3.需求創造者許多誘人的機會。

　蘋果著重解決使用者的困擾

　想想某名觀察者對於二○○○年代初期，某個無所不在的困擾製造器所提出的評論：「大家都有手機，可是大家都痛恨手機。手機實在很難用，軟體很爛，硬體也不怎麼樣，所有人似乎都對手機痛恨不已。」彆扭的簡訊介面、不堪用的網路瀏覽功能、難以閱讀的螢幕、耗費時間的操作程序，以及不易使用的應用程式，都讓無數的手機使用者懊惱不已。只有賈伯斯(Steve Jobs)，也就是剛剛引述的那位觀察者，明白這些困擾正需要新式裝置加以解決，那就是iPhone。

　賈伯斯與他在蘋果的團隊開始著手解決手機難用的困擾。他們發明了「可視語音信箱」，可讓使用者像瀏覽電子郵件般瀏覽語音信箱裡的留言，再挑出自己想聽的留言，並且按照自己偏好的順序聽取。他們把讀取簡訊和瀏覽網路變得更便利，像是賦予iPhone 多功的能力、內建Safari 瀏覽器、螢幕顯示能旋轉為水平顯示等，呈現出易於閱讀的寬螢幕效果。

　二○○七年一月發表的iPhone 開創智慧型手機產業，並且開啟一股潛在需求。直到今天，幾乎沒有競爭對手能夠完全超越iPhone，解決各種手機困擾的特色。

　許多數位工具跟使用者理想中的功能需求比較起來，大多只具備一小部分功能，而且設計時很顯然不是以使用者做為設想對象。有名華爾街交易員，曾向供應資料管理裝置給公司的工程師抱怨道：「你們設計的裝置字體太小，看都看不清楚；按鍵也太小，我的大手指總是很難操作。」小問題嗎？證券交易中一個數字的錯誤就可能導致數百萬美元的損失，問題可是一點都不小。那名交易員就是彭博(Michael Bloomberg)。他善加運用自己在使用金融資料上所經歷過的困擾，創立了以他的姓氏為名的資訊帝國。

　哈斯汀、賈伯斯與彭博都深深精通消費者的困擾——也就是潛藏於大多數顧客體驗中的挫折、不便、繁複與可能發生的災難。

　消費者的困擾可以只是內心的想法，也可以畫成實際的圖表——以視覺方式實際呈現顧客遭遇的困擾。消費者的困擾也可以是一份清單，列出程序裡的各個步驟，其中有太多的步驟不是太複雜，就是價值與目的不夠清楚，像是所得稅退稅表格；也可以列出顧客要完成工作所必須接觸的人員、機構、供應商與資源來源，過程不免導致混亂、浪費以及過多的選擇與資訊。

　在為顧客整理出困擾的過程當中，精明的需求創造者會向自己提出追根究底的問題：「顧客有什麼樣的心理？他們在人生中想要什麼？現有的產品能不能滿足渴望？要是不能的話，那會是什麼原因？」還有：「什麼樣的困擾會讓顧客難以忍受？有沒有哪些困擾因為太過常見而令人習以為常，但還是可以設法解決的？」惱人的困擾無所不在，但是能以清晰的洞察力了解、又有不屈不撓的創意能加以解決的人，卻是少之又少。

　數位世界轉變背後的推手，是少數幾位了解消費者困擾的思考方式有多重要的先驅。在促成此一轉變的同時，他們也為自己充滿魔力、改變使用者人生以及減少困擾的產品，創造了難以置信的大量需求，並且改變了高科技產業的遊戲規則。消費者困擾的思考方式能夠推翻傳統的觀點。因此，精通消費者困擾的人物在轉變數位世界之際，也造就了令人驚異的商業成果。

　電腦公司—蘋果(Apple)產製最佳的手機，並成為音樂產業的領導者；線上公司—耐飛利，成為電視台與有線電視公司最強大的新興競爭對手。同樣是線上公司——亞馬遜，是全球最大線上零售商，也是創新能力數一數二的電子用品製造商，在書籍出版業裡的勢力愈來愈大；資料科技公司——彭博，則是在過去由美國國家廣播公司(NBC)、《紐約時報》(The New York Times)與道瓊公司(Dow Jones)主宰的媒體世界裡，成為主要勢力。

　一旦按照過去熟悉的企業分類，例如：電腦公司、媒體公司、電信公司、消費電子公司，上述成果就會令人摸不著頭腦，但只要將企業全部歸類為「困擾解決者」，一切就顯得豁然開朗了。在現今的高科技世界裡，創造最大需求的公司都是最能利用科技解決顧客困擾的公司，不論公司原本所屬的類別是什麼。

　當今的數位困擾解決者，把觸角延伸到個人電腦或手機等單一科技之外，重新設計數位裝置及周邊基礎設施，更能因應顧客的需求。有時必須融合多種科技、有時候必須把不同的裝置或資訊流連結起來、有時必須創造新的工具讓數位裝置使用更便利。不管採用哪種方法，困擾解決者都懂得成功的關鍵，在於創新必須以顧客面臨的問題為中心，而不是把焦點放在裝置的功能上。

　以顧客為中心的新式做法所帶來的新興結果，就是消除了過去劃分科技的分類界線。蘋果的賈伯斯在一鍵搞定的世界裡則是個先驅。他以iPod 攻進消費電子世界，將iPod 與iTunes 整合起來，成為世上第一套用於購買、整理、享受音樂及影片的軟體暨線上零售系統，至今仍是最優秀的系統。接著，賈伯斯又以iPhone 攻進電信業，並且整合至另一套更加龐大且有效的系統，涵蓋應用程式以及包括iTunes 在內的各項服務。今天，iPad 則將觸控螢幕科技連結於各種產品，包括電影與電視製作公司推出的影片、書籍、雜誌出版商推出的數位內容，以及其他許多資訊和娛樂來源等。

　蘋果不只是單純涉足各類產業，而是將它們整合起來。更重要的是，蘋果把數位科技與各種誘人的內容連結起來，重新繪製消費者的困擾分布圖，提供無縫接軌、獨特而且深具魔力的體驗。

　此舉帶來的商業結果是，極端而前所未見的運勢逆轉。二○○○年十二月，索尼的市值達六百三十億美元，蘋果還不到五十億美元。截至二○一一年三月為止，兩家公司已經互換了地位，蘋果的市值高達三千三百億美元，索尼則只有三百六十億美元。至於需求的結果，世界各地的顧客都認為蘋果所代表的產品與服務不僅酷炫、優雅、功能強大，而且使用起來合乎直覺、簡易又充滿樂趣，認為蘋果是出類拔萃的困擾解決者。

　在一鍵搞定的世界裡，顧客愈來愈認定產品必定不再理會科技藩籬，而是將重點放在為人們帶來便利、親和性與樂趣。所以廠商推出的產品一旦局限在傳統的科技企業框架裡，人們就會毫不猶豫地把該產品拋在一旁。

　在一鍵搞定的世界裡，設計的重要性已然提升了十倍，除了產品設計，還包括體驗設計與支持產品的商業設計。

　傑出的一鍵搞定公司看待產品實體設計的態度極為嚴肅，例如：蘋果在美感方面的絕佳表現；耐飛利的經典紅色信封曾經前前後後重新設計過一百五十次，才終於找到對顧客而言最有效率的設計；亞馬遜網站以高明的方式結合了形式與功能； Kindle 的按鈕位置設計恰當等細膩的差異，使用起來比索尼電子書閱讀器更加容易，也更有樂趣。

　然而，比產品設計更加重要的，是投入大量心力設計產品與顧客之間的體驗關係。數以百計大大小小的調整，包括系統、介面、資訊流、服務協定與公司間的聯盟等方面，每項調整都能減少一些浪費的時間、心力，或是顧客遭遇的挫折。當這些細微的差異一旦加總起來，即可造就幾乎毫無困擾的體驗，顧客就會拋開冷漠的態度，表現出他們的熱愛，並且欣然掏出錢來。

　除此之外，還有商業的設計，由此便可看出成功與失敗的差異。成功的一鍵搞定公司明白世界級的商業設計不是現成的，而是必須以不亞於研發創新產品的創意量身訂做，其中包括獨特的價值主張、在購買者享有的價值當中佔有一定比例的利潤模式，以及保護利潤的策略控制。(本文節錄自《引爆需求：讓顧客無可救藥愛上你的6個祕密》，天下雜誌，2012年11月7日出版 )

CEO專訪：艾伯斯渥斯-皇家郵輪創辦人

哈蘭‧史泰恩包姆(Harlan Steinbaum)/葛拉塞醫療(Medicare Glaser)董事長兼執行長

INTRAV旅遊、皇家郵輪、快捷郵輪
創辦人暨董事長兼執行長

　巴尼‧艾伯斯渥斯（Barney Ebsworth）全心全意投入他的事業，一九五九年他從一家小旅遊公司起家，多年後將它打造成遠近馳名的成功事業。他專精於航空和海上包租旅遊，提供顧客刺激的旅遊方案，很快建立起INTRAV就是旅遊歐洲與世界最佳管道的口碑。

　他永遠在尋找提升服務品質的方法，因為對於向其他公司租賃的郵輪不滿意，艾伯斯渥斯決定自己添購、甚至建造船隻。他藉此創立自己的郵輪公司皇家郵輪（Royal Cruise Line）和快捷郵輪（Clipper Cruise Line），並且與他原有的旅遊事業一樣成功。

　艾伯斯渥斯從經驗中學習到，他的公司只有在他全心投入下才會成功。每當他創立新事業，卻未百分之百投入其中時，結果總是不順利。同樣的情況也發生在他跨入並非他專長的行業，並交到他以為可以帶進更多價值的人手中，結果也總是以失敗收場。

　這些經驗帶領艾伯斯渥斯來到他的關鍵時刻。對他來說，經營事業是一件全心投入，否則便一無所獲的事，因此他擬出一套能讓自己免除繁重的工作壓力與負擔，同時又能趁著年輕時追求、探索和享受其他興趣的計畫。

　不同於許多公司創辦人拖延他們有用之年終結的到來，或忘記為自己開創事業以外的生活，他獨一無二的「退休規畫」，和他洞燭機先地提早計畫退休後的日子，提供了一個令人耳目一新的企業主管卸職例子。

　我在一間滿布灰塵的辦公室創始我的旅遊事業，我僱用的接待員還得身兼售票員。我猜想在我搬進去前，那間辦公室是一家賣假髮的店舖。據說樓上是賽馬的簽注站，我不知道是不是真的—一直到現在我還不確定。

　我做任何企業人士會做的事：一開始我整天打促銷電話，徹夜加班以便支付帳單。我會接任何生意，只為了讓我的燈亮著、辦公室門開著，能慢慢累積生意。

　一九六○年，我第一次接到英國旅遊的生意。在一九六一年，我可能做了四、五趟旅程，主要是到歐洲。到一九六六年，我開始做亞洲旅遊。一九六七年，我把公司名稱從國際旅遊顧問（International Travel Advisers）改為INTRAV，然後開始銷售包租到東方的旅程給中西部的顧客，主要透過俱樂部，包括密蘇里運動俱樂部、印地安納波里斯運動俱樂部，以及德州的俱樂部。

　在我們「東方探險」的第一年，我們到東京、京都和香港，每個地點各四天。我們的行程能夠成功，是因為我們包下整架飛機，並提供第一流的服務，相對於大多數包租業者都提供狹小的座位、盡可能擠更多人，而且盡可能壓低成本。

　我們會包下整架波音七○七客機，假設我們有一百六十五名乘客，我們會在東京、京都和香港包下足夠一百六十五人住的房間。要說明我做的事，可以想像在棒球賽中有旅行團同時在一壘、二壘和三壘：每次有團上了一壘，我們會讓每個團移動到下一壘，這樣我們就能以最經濟的方式利用所有旅館和包機。這讓我們可以給顧客四○％到五○％的折扣，同時還能增加我們的利潤。我們的事業就是這樣成長的。

　有一段時間進入日本的包機數量受到限制，而我們包攬了幾乎一○○％獲准的美國包機落地權，我們確實支配了市場。還有，你可以說歐洲旅行團真的是從我開始做起來的。

　我建立事業的方法是每次跨出一步。起初我會先到海外安排細節，我很清楚我們想去哪裡，想住在什麼地方，所以我會過去協商和安排。在開始做包租生意的第一年，通常我會在之前一年（或一段時間）就預先做好所有準備，然後在第一次出團抵達前兩個月就先過去，確定我們在那裡的旅遊營運商已經準備好，有招待櫃檯，旅館的人也知道旅行團何時會到，以及表達我們的期望。

　然後我在第一架包機起飛前兩天先出發，這樣我可以在他們抵達前有兩天可以確定一切都已準備好，並把所有事情先預演一遍。然後，如果旅行團待四天，在第一個城市結束前兩天我會飛往下一站，做同樣的兩天檢查，然後再飛下一站，再做兩天檢查。視進行的順利程度而定，我也可能回前面的城市處理一些問題。

　但那只有頭一年。第一年過後，我們已經經營九項包租，而且我僱用了一名管理營運的副總裁，那是我最後一次親自管理營運。

　一九七○年，我開始包租船隻經營地中海的郵輪巡航。那些船不是很好，但我開始想，我的天！這是很可以做的事業！

　郵輪巡航業才剛從邁阿密往各地發展，主要業者有皇家加勒比海公司（Royal Caribbean）、嘉年華郵輪公司（Carnival Cruise Line）和挪威加勒比海公司（Norwegian Caribbean）。我說：「上帝啊！我們承租的都是一些破船—我們得想想辦法！」

　另一方面，我們剛好又碰上稅務問題：我們賺太多錢了。有一天我的會計師說：「我有一些壞消息要告訴你，你們公司獲利支付的稅率是五○％。你累積的資本盈餘（surplus capital）太多了。」因為我的公司是未上市服務公司，所有我們的獲利都存為現金。所以我的情況剛好跟大多數企業人士相反，他們老是在找更多現金，我則是現金滿溢。

　我想稅務是我計畫退休的肇因。我當時的想法和大多數成功的企業人士相反，我真的不想一輩子只是經營企業，我覺得我還可以做些別的事。

　所以我說：「我要再多學一種生意。」

　然後突然之間我想：「嘿，等一下，為什麼我不開創一家地中海的郵輪公司？」那裡沒有別的公司，這個事業是新的。它看起來顯然有成長潛力，所以我著手創立皇家郵輪公司，並打造一艘郵輪，開始經營第一條地中海郵輪航線。我在丹麥赫爾辛格（Elsinore）建造那艘船，然後又建造另一艘，並改造另一艘，所以我們擁有三艘船。我們很快就賺錢。

　在我五十五歲生日時，我說，我愛我做的事，我愛與我共事的人，但我想擬訂一個十年計畫，等我六十五歲時—或其他歲數時—我就可以不必擁有任何必須為員工負責的公司。我想讓自己徹底擺脫這些，去做別的事。

　那是我最重要決定的開始，但我想在許多方面，那是每個人最重要的決定。我總是說，當你的船入港時，你不希望自己是在機場等它。

　我只是想，我喜歡事業，但我不想把一輩子貢獻給它。我還想做別的事，而設定出售公司的個人期限，以便我繼續前進和做其他事，就是實現它的好方法。

　我有許多和我年齡相仿的朋友，他們對我計畫的反應是說：「我做不到你做的事，因為我沒有你擁有的興趣。」所以他們繼續做原本的事業。我總是勸他們：「你必須為自己鋪好後路。」如果你想繼續做你的事業一輩子，就必須設法減少一些牽絆你的事情，不讓它們阻止你做自己喜歡做的事，例如跟你的兒女到亞斯本（Aspen）滑雪，或到歐洲旅遊等任何事。

　我確實有一些別的興趣，我想這些興趣會開始讓我忙碌，但我真的還想看是否有別的事也會引起我的興趣。

　一九九九年，我賣掉一家瑞士公司。當時我可能已超出十年期限兩天了。我可以繼續做下去，再賺一大堆錢，但我已經失去賺錢的動機。我創立了幾家公司，對我來說，那種成功的興奮感已經不夠。我想尋找別的東西。

　我創立公司時，我們沒有營收—從零開始。等我退休時，我們的營收大約在一億到一億二千萬美元間，而我們的淨利介於一千二百萬到一千四百萬美元。

　我賣掉事業並退休後，我們搬到西雅圖。我蓋了一棟我一直想要的房子。我參與創投事業和房地產投資。我繼續收藏藝術品—我已經從事四十年。我擁有一些據說是世界上最好的二十世紀美國藝術品收藏，其中包括霍普（Edward Hopper）、歐姬芙（Georgia O’Keefe）、哈特萊（Marston Hartley）、德夫（Arthur Dove ）、希勒（Charles Sheeler）、馬林（John Marin）、德庫寧（de Kooning）、波洛克（Pollock）、沃荷（Warhol）、瓊斯（Jasper Johns），他們都是很棒的藝術家。

　我已經找到許多可以做的事，還有許多等著我發現的事。如果我還在經營事業，我不會有時間做任何這些事。(本文節錄自《面對危機，領導人的關鍵決策：39位頂尖企業領袖現身說法》，聯經，2012年9月19日出版 )

Seth's Blog : Clean bathrooms

Clean bathrooms

The facilities at DisneyWorld are clean. It's not a profit center, of course. They don't make them clean because they're going to charge you to use them. They make them clean because if they didn't, you'd have a reason not to come.

It turns out that just about everything we do involves cleaning the bathrooms. Creating an environment where care and trust are expressed. If you take a lot of time to ask, "how will this pay off," you're probably asking the wrong question. When you are trusted because you care, it's quite likely the revenue will take care of itself.

專題：MOOC帶來高等教育的春天

鄒景平/總裁學苑專欄作家

　成功的變革通常是由局外人啟動，創辦可汗學院的Salman Khan，激發史丹佛大學實驗有大量學生的線上免費教學(MOOC)，進而成立Coursera，專門提供MOOC教學，半年之內，Coursera就與三十三個世界知名大學合作，推出198門課程，吸引了一百六十四萬人註冊，並進而帶動老師使用新的教學方式。

　我們在教室聽課時，向來是學生對老師做報告，很少有老師在期末考後，對學生做報告的例子，但是在Coursera的開課平台上，每門課結束後，老師對學生做授課總結報告，卻逐漸成為一個新的，很受學生歡迎的重要活動。

　雖然Coursera是2012年四月才開張，但已形塑出一些比教室教學更符合人性的新風格，其中最明顯的兩個，一個是課前對學生發送問卷，瞭解學生的背景（年齡、國別、性別）、學習目標和學歷程度，以讓老師能及時並適度調整教學內容與方向。

　另外一個，就是老師在課程結束後，對學生做報告，將註冊人數、每週上課人數、參加期末考的人數和獲得證書的人數，做一個統計分析，老師也回顧授課過程中值得肯定的事情，以及日後的和改進措施與授課計畫等，即使課程結束了，老師還透過臉書的社群和學生持續保持聯絡，甚至於繼續舉辦office hour，和學生進行面對面的交流與互動。

　Coursera的老師也知道學生中很多是來觀摩的老師，因此，對於這些觀摩者，課程總結報告就更受到關注。例如我上的「Internet History, Technology and Security」，為期八周，但老師的總結報告就長達四十多分鐘，除了分析學生的學習狀況，對教學過程的反思，還預告了之後會開的進階課程。

　老師Charles Severace說，註冊這門課的人數有45572人，完成第一周學習的有11640人，參加期末考的有5401人，考試成績通過標準而拿到證書的有4595人。而他今年秋季班的類似課程，學生只有152人。他所任教的密西根大學，每年的大學畢業生也只有六千六百人左右。

　換算一下，Severace教授講一次Coursera的課，就至少抵他教三十次的教室課程，也差不多是四分之三的密西根大學每年畢業生數量，相較之下，就清楚的顯現出MOOC的優勢與價值。

　老師也在課程中，寄出給學生的調查問卷，共有4701人回覆，統計結果，學生年齡以25-44歲之間最多，約佔二分之一，45歲以上，約佔四分之一強，18-24歲則小於四分之一。男性占三分之二，女性佔三分之一。大學以下學歷者約佔三分之一，大學以上（含大學）則占三分之二。約有百分之十五的人，具有老師身份。

　Severace教授曾擔任電視節目主持人，訪問過許多網路科技專家，他口齒清晰、表達流暢自然，並善於使用圖表說明複雜觀念。更可貴的是，他非常注重網際網路發展的脈絡，而非具體、特定的技術細節或史實，因為他親自經歷了電腦與網際網路發展的過程，並與其中主要的貢獻者是好朋友，所以娓娓道來，並適時加上一些訪問專家的視訊來補充，使得學習過程輕鬆而有趣。

　課程結束之後，學生記掛的兩件大事，一個是什麼時候發證書，另一個就是Severace教授下一次要開什麼課？對於後者，Severace教授有清楚的交待，他說自己教課的願景，就是幫助大家卸除對科技的恐懼心理，並學會喜歡、善用與活用科技。

　所以接下來他要教的一門課，是如何運用Python程式語言，來探索人與數據之間的關係，課名是「Python for Informatics: Exploring Data」，這門課教完後，他再下一門課，就是教學生如何透過Google App Engine來建置動態網站，其中會使用到HTML, CSS, Python, Database, JavaScript, JQuery...等技術，課程名稱是：「Building Dynamic Web Sites with Google App Engine」，老師並提供一些參考資源，這對於我，真是非常好的學習路徑的指引。

　為了讓學生知道老師和未來開課的最新狀況，Severace教授特地在臉書（facebook）成立社群，目前已經有六百多人加入，大家最關心的問題，就是問其他同學拿到證書沒有？因為離課程結束已經有兩個禮拜了，還沒有收到Coursera用eMail寄來的證書，感到有些心慌，很擔心是否出了什麼差錯！

　原來證書在學生的心目中，還是佔著非常重要的地位，連我自己也是一樣，普林斯頓大學的世界排名，常在第一或第二位，雖然也在Coursera開課，但他們的規定是不允許老師發證書，雖然老師的課講得非常精彩，但若我花了很多心力學習，卻沒有任何憑證或紀錄，那股學習的動力就難以激發出來了！

　雖然Coursera提供的是網路教學平台，但Coursera的老師們，卻不像在封閉的教室中那麼孤立無援，因為在共同的開課平台下，Coursera的後台人員和學生們，都會告訴他們一些其他老師的教學方法和點子，像同學互評、遲交作業的寬限機制與課程總結報告等，都是先有老師採用之後，發現效果不錯，就推薦給其他老師。使用的人多了，就形成了Coursera的新學風。

　美國的老師比較沒有架子，對所教的主題既有熱忱，又有深厚的實務經驗，願意跟學生溝通，跟學生的互動多，也樂意採納學生的建議。

　Severace教授更是特例，八周的課程，他就在美國各地舉辦了六次的與學生的面會（office hour），因為他經常要到各處開會，他就趁機舉行面會，瞭解學生的學習狀況，並收集他們對課程的建議，聚會的地點通常是當地的星巴客咖啡店，每次約有五到十位學生參加，老師並拍下簡短視訊，讓其他同學認識他們。

　Severace教授回顧在Coursera教學過程，他認為自己也從學生那裡學到許多，由於使用推特(twitter，功能與微博近似)，讓他可以快速得知學生的反應，使用臉書又可讓他在課程結束後，仍然可以持續跟學生互動，師生關係不因課程完成而結束，卻形成一個徒弟追隨師父的社群，繼續保持聯繫。

　Coursera的老師們，常常把他們開的課稱為一個實驗，大家想透過實驗來發現新的可能，新的教學方法，新的師生互動模式，讓學生有高品質的學習，讓學生有更人性化的學習，並因之逐漸形成新學風，讓好老師出頭，讓世界各地的學生受惠！

　種種跡象，讓我發現MOOC帶來高等教育的春天。(本文原刊於總裁學苑)

Seth's Blog : The danger of starting at the top

The danger of starting at the top
When making a b2b sale, the instinct is always to get into the CEO's office. If you can just get her to hear your pitch, to understand the value, to see why she should buy from or lease from or partner with or even buy you... that's the holy grail.

What do you think happens after that mythical meeting?

She asks her team.

And when the team is in the dark, you've not only blown your best shot, but you never get another chance at it.

The alternative is to start in the middle. It takes longer, it comes with less high-stakes tension and doesn't promise instant relief. But it is better than any alternative.

Starting in the middle doesn't mean you're rushing around trying to close any sale with any bureaucrat stupid enough to take a meeting with you (or that you're stupid enough to go to, thinking that a sale is going to happen.)

No, starting in the middle is more marketing than sales. It's about storytelling and connection and substance. It's about imagery and totems and credentials and the ability to understand and then solve the real problems your prospects and customers have every day. It's this soft tissue that explains why big companies have so many more enterprise sales than you do.

You don't get this reputation as an incidental byproduct of showing up. It is created with intention and it's earned.

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2012/12/the-danger-of-starting-at-the-top.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2Fsethsmainblog+%28Seth%27s+Blog%29

Seth's Blog : Win the behemoth

Win the behemoth
I've gotten a ton of requests from people who want to get their hands on a copy of the limited-edition giant book I did. I also want to thank those of you with enough confidence in me to pre-order my new books. Hence a sweepstakes.

Enter here.

An old school sweepstakes, the kind I first ran in 1991, before, I don't know, everything.

And two PS bonuses:

1. This crazy ad has been making the rounds (see paragraph 4). On one hand, you probably get what you advertise for if you're direct enough. On the other hand, not the sort of place most of us would like to work, which tells you a lot about what sort of place you might want to create if you want to hire the people that don't want to work at this place...

and 2., a second iphone app, so you can compare, collect and trade. Thanks to Fred and his team at Jacobs Media for building it. (The other app is linked to here).

Seth's Blog : Question the question

Question the question
The best creative solutions don't come from finding good answers to the questions that are presented.

They come from inventing new questions.

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2012/12/question-the-question.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2Fsethsmainblog+%28Seth%27s+Blog%29

Seth's Blog : How to make a website: a tactical guide for marketers

How to make a website: a tactical guide for marketers
This isn't about the strategy of how to design a website that works--this is my take on how marketers can work with their teams, their bosses and their developers to get the site they want built with less time and less hassle. (PS all of this works for apps, too). Most people who are responsible for websites are amateurs. This is my best take on how the goal-oriented non-professional can do a good job.

Three things worth remembering:

Every website is a marketing effort. Sooner or later, your site involves an interaction with a user, and that interaction won't be 100% technical. You have to sell the engagement, the interaction and the story you have in mind. While websites have always involved technology, the tech is secondary to your ability to get your point across.
Virtually all websites are not on the cutting edge of technology. You're doing something that's been done before, at least technically.
Synchronizing your team is difficult, because most people know it when they see it, and seeing it is expensive. It's sort of like building a hundred houses in order to find the one that your spouse likes--not a practical effort.
The approach I recommend:

Find the tech elements you need by browsing the web. Make a list--I want menus that work like this site, a shopping cart that works like that site, a home page that works like this one.
Create the entire site (or at least the critical elements) using Keynote on the Mac (PowerPoint works too, but Keynote is a little easier to work with). Begin by copying and pasting elements from other sites, but as you make progress, hire a graphic designer to create the elements you need. Keynote makes it easy to actually have spots on the screen link to other slides in the 'presentation', so the document you create will actually allow your team to click on various parts of the screen and jump to other pages.
Do not do any coding at all.
What you end up with, then, is a 3 or 10 or 100 page Keynote document, with a look and a feel. With menus. With fonts. With things in their proper hierarchy. Once you're good at this, you can build or tweak a 'site' in no time.

Now you have a powerful tool. You can use it in presentations, in meetings and even test it with users, all before you do any coding at all. Once you've shared this with the team, the question is simple, "if our website works just like this, do you approve of it?" Don't start coding until the answer is yes.

This is a discipline, one that takes a fair amount of guts to stick with, but it pays off huge dividends. Don't code until you know what you want.

Last step: Hand the Keynote doc to your developers and go away until it's finished.

As I said, this works for mobile apps too. Here's a site filled with template shortcuts for both.

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2012/12/how-to-make-a-website-a-tactical-guide-for-marketers.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2Fsethsmainblog+%28Seth%27s+Blog%29

Seth's Blog : Help wanted: Designing for growth

Help wanted: Designing for growth

Just as the tech community has realized that coding and marketing can be turned into growth hacking, it may be time to redefine what we seek from graphic designers.

Prettiness isn't the point, and neither is sheer utility. The best designers working online are now using UI, UX and game theory to create services that spread. They're engaging in relentless cycles of test and measure and improve in order to determine what works (and what doesn't), replacing "because I said so," with "because it works."

Most important, though, they're learning how to use their significant visual and aesthetic chops to create series of interactions that actually generate better outcomes than the workaday stuff they're replacing.

I think there are two kinds of jobs now available to designers working online:

1. "Here, make this prettier"

and

2. "Figure out how to lead the process that helps us grow."

Squidoo is hiring someone for the second kind of job. It's an incredibly exciting gig, one that will allow someone to cross boundaries and lead. You will work with me and with Squidoo's entire team of developers and tribe leaders. Find out the details right here. Please read carefully and apply in just the way the page describes.

PS there's a bounty if you refer the person we hire. Have them mention your name and contact info in the application.

Deadline: Tuesday, Jan 15 at noon.

自由地扼殺點子

貝爾斯基(Scott Belsky)/「彼罕思」網絡(Behance)執行長

　很多團隊談及以往的嚴重失誤時，都表示是有新點子的出現而讓原始計畫的方向愈來愈偏。所以，若大家已經認清有個點子行不通，應該馬上扼殺它。

　能根據早期行動的結果資料來提出缺失是有生產力的創意團隊該有的重要能力。通常團隊中會有一些人看到的並非概念的發展潛力而是它們的缺失，這些人會被形容成「悲觀主義者」或「掃興者」，但負面的意見絕對值得參考。如果你獨自工作，也一定要培養找出問題的能力。不管是自己提出質疑或請他人幫忙找缺失，我們都必須容納負面意見中的動力。

　華特．迪士尼最為人稱道的是他源源不絕的創意，而非善於提出質疑，但他其實要求甚嚴，一旦工作團隊的發想不符需求即否決提案。個人發展專家崔奇（Keith Trickey）曾寫一篇文章談到，製作動畫長片時，華特．迪士尼會執行一套安排好的程序，在三個不同房間逐步培養點子並嚴格檢視：

　第一個房間。在這個房間裡，天馬行空的創意都被允許，不受任何限制。腦力激盪的本質就是無限的發想及無止境地分享點子，沒有人會提出異議。

　第二個房間。整理並歸納第一個房間的瘋狂點子，最後得出電影的故事大綱，將故事中的情節依時序排列，並做出角色的大致描述。

　第三個房間。又被稱為「汗水間」，整個團隊必須在此嚴格檢視專案計畫，不受任何限制。因為在第二個房間裡，所有出自個人的創意都已經被整合了，所以「汗水間」裡的批評都不是針對個人，而是針對專案中的元素。

　每個創意工作者或團隊都需要第三個房間。很多人不免想保留第一個房間的各種創意奇想，但第三個房間的嚴密篩檢步驟其實和第一個房間的天馬行空一樣重要。

　藉著具體的空間分隔和清楚的階段目標，迪士尼成功打造了多產的創意事業，改變了娛樂世界。奧力．強森（Ollie Johnston）和法蘭克．托馬斯（Frank Thomas）是迪士尼兩位首席動畫師，他們在合著的《迪士尼動畫原則》（The Illusion of Life: Disney Animation）一書中寫道：「其實有三個華特．迪士尼，他們分別是夢想家、務實派和破壞者。開會時，你無法預期哪一個迪士尼會現身。」看起來華特．迪士尼不只會用三個不同房間來推動團隊工作，他自己本身也具備這三種房間的特質。

　創意人必須重視懷疑或批評者在概念發想過程中的角色。當你或團隊提出全新的點子或為計畫添加一些創意色彩時，請謹記要召喚一些懷疑論調來了解點子需要什麼改正，讓自己的判斷更臻完善。你不需要真正空出三個房間，但一定要有一段檢視的時間。此外，不論你能不能產生新的點子，你都不希望在你的周遭建立太多不必要的結構。然而，你必須願意自由地扼殺一些行不通的想法，好讓你能真正執行有用的點子。(本文節錄自《想到就能做到：活用組織力+人脈力+領導力，讓創意不再卡住、自然實現》，大塊文化，2012年12月28日出版 )

從小事做起、從自己做起

青田卓也/物流業顧問

　在企業內的改革，應該要怎麼做呢？

　第一個重點就是：不要一開始就訂太大的目標。

　就像提到學騎腳踏車的例子中，「學會騎腳踏車」可能是最初的目標；接著，能夠和朋友騎到遠一點的地方去玩、最後能夠到山中享受越野追風的快感，則是進一步的目標。

　所以在企業內部的改革，最好不要一開始就想從能夠大幅影響公司營運的大目標著手。這一點，即使是社長也是一樣的。不管多好的點子，沒經過徹底執行，也無法達到目的。即使是社長，下達命令後，如果員工都不服從，也會遇到「猛然回頭才發現，身邊竟然一個人也沒有」的窘境。

　更何況想要發動公司內部改革的人，如果只是一般上班族，如何好好的引領、牽動周圍的人，就成了成功與否的最大關鍵。為了一切能夠順利，首先就必須自己先學會騎腳踏車，並且將技術與堅持結合；也就是說，要先改變自己。如果連自己都沒辦法改變，就更別說要改變周圍的人了。

　企業內改革的最終目標，就像是能夠騎越野車，一開始要先找到自己改變就可以的事，再慢慢挑戰難度較高的目標。就像越野單車在山岳中穿越驚險的岩石路、跨越因颶風而橫倒路面的大樹，想要達到那樣的境界，就必須要有相當的技術，要達到相當的技術，就必須先堅持「想學會騎腳踏車」的意志力。

　但必須補充的是，即使決定先針對某一個小目標改革，還是會遇到一些困難。這跟長大後才要學騎腳踏車反而比較難的道理一樣。為什麼難呢？因為害怕受傷，「如果跌倒了，要怎麼辦？」等等的思緒總是揮之不去，結果，人生至今所學的經驗與知識，反而變成一種阻力。

　總而言之，要先訂一個「先學會騎腳踏車」的近期目標。不管目標有多小，要是一個新的目標，就是一個很棒的改革目標。

　我來講一個某大型保險公司主管的例子。我們就暫且稱他為「田岡先生」。田岡先生大學畢業後就進入這家企業的資料室，主要的工作就是從龐大的資料庫中找出各個部門要求的保險人資料。由於長年的累積，資料已經有點失去條理，而且還常常遇到其他部門希望第二天就能夠給出資料的要求。日復一日，從早到晚，田岡先生埋頭找資料的日子，換了誰都受不了。田岡心裡不禁吶喊：「為什麼我每天要不斷的跟這些資料奮戰呢？」

　於是，他開始思考。為了能迅速找到資料，他把負責的資料做一番大整理。之後，他便能夠在短時間內快速地找到，並提交資料。公司整體的運作，也由於他提交速度的提升而改善。不久，此事便在公司內部開始流傳，之後田岡先生還被升為高層主管。

　這不就是一個很棒的改革故事嗎？這也是「先學會騎腳踏車」的類似例子。雖然剛開始時，並不是對整個公司做什麼重大的改變，而只是改善自己的工作，但結果還是改變了整個企業。

　田岡先生可能只是對自己在資料室的工作，做了自己能力所及的改變。他除了每天要交出各個部門要的資料，同時還要一邊將龐大的資料整理歸檔到新的架上，前後總共花了數個月的時間。

　什麼樣的整理方法最正確？整理的順序又是如何？在一邊要處理日常作業，又要一邊規劃整理方式的情況下，一定發生過各式各樣的問題。沒有人命令田岡先生要做這件事，什麼時候放棄或停止做這件事，也沒有人會發現。但是，田岡先生還是將它完成了。促使田岡先生做出改變的原動力是什麼呢？雖然我沒有問過本人，不過我想，應該是跟登山者常說的一樣：「因為山就在眼前」，因為「一大堆資料就在眼前」，不解決，問題永遠都存在，還會一直困擾自己。

Seth's Blog : Interesting?

Is it interesting because it happened...

or because it happened to you?

If George Clooney sits next to you at a restaurant, that's interesting to you, no doubt, but only interesting to your friends because you're so excited. I mean, he had to sit next to someone!

Should we read your press release or come to your gallery opening or take a sales meeting because it's important, or because it's important to you?

Marketing is the art of seeing (and then creating) what might be interesting to more than our friends.

There's a circle of friends in our lives that care a lot about what we care about. The rest of the world? They mostly don't.

[Feel free to insert "important" and "urgent" as well. ]

Seth's Blog : For truly important problems

For truly important problems

You know something is important when you're willing to let someone else take the credit if that's what it takes to get it done.

Seth's Blog : Understanding idea adoption (you're not a slot, you choose a slot)

Understanding idea adoption (you're not a slot, you choose a slot)

In the last year, millions of people have bought a copy of 50 Shades. Here's the thing: they didn't all do it at the same time.

Some people bought it when it was a self-published ebook. Others jumped in when word of mouth started to spread, enough that it became a bestseller. Most people, though, waited until it was on the bestseller list, in piles at the bookstore and the subject of positive and negative discussion and even parodies. And a few people are going to buy it two years from now, after everyone else who was willing to read it already has.

Another example: Just about all of the people who read this blog have read one of my books, and yet, just about no one who reads this blog has read my newest book yet (less than 2%, surely).

This is what almost always happens. Individuals choose a slot based on what sort of leadership or risk or followership behavior makes them happy right now. Early adopters and nerds like to go first. But some people are early when it comes to shoes, or to mystery novels, or records, while others adopt early when it comes to political ideas or restaurants.

Most of the time, most of us choose to be in the slot of mass. The masses wait to see the positive reviews, or they monitor the bestseller lists. The masses know they have plenty of time, that they'll get around to it when they get a chance, and mostly, they are driven by what their peers (the early adopters, the ones who keep track of this stuff) tell them. "Why waste time and money on the wrong thing," they argue, with some persuasion. So they wait for proof. Social proof or statistical proof.

[Beyond mass: No, everyone is not going to sign up for your new online service or buy my new book. We're talking about pockets of people, micro markets. But within those micro markets, everyone is not the same. Within those micro markets, some people are itching to go first, and plenty of people are waiting patiently to get it right.]

The glitch in the system is that many marketers obsess only about the launch. They put their time and money and effort into the first week on sale, and then run to work on the next thing, when in fact, the mass market, those that choose to wait for more than, "it's new!" haven't decided to take the leap yet.

Perversely, marketers look at what typically happens after the launch and say, "it's not worth sticking with this, because stuff that doesn't take off right away rarely does." And the reason? Because it was abandoned by the marketers who introduced it and then ran off to play with the next shiny object. It's self-fulfilling.

The fact is that almost all the profits of the record and book businesses come from the backlist, from Pink Floyd and Dr. Seuss. Apple sold almost all of its iPhones in the months after each launched, not the first day. Because that's what the market wanted. The exception that proves the rule: The Super Bowl only happens once a year, and it's just about the only time that everyone does everything at the same time.

I don't think the job of the marketer is to encourage people to jump from one chosen slot to another. I don't think it's worth the time or the energy to get someone who is comfortable with mass to suddenly turn into an early adopter, at least for today. Better, I think, to live in and work with and embrace your market, to go where they are, not to pressure them to change their habit.

Seth's Blog : But which is the sideshow?

But which is the sideshow?
What's the most urgent, important, celebrated element of your organization's work?

If it involves the status quo, the thing that got you here, it means the new stuff is going to be treated as a little bit of a sideshow or a distraction. (Another example: The team that typesets traditional books at most publishers is talented and driven. They do it with care and very high standards, and have for nearly a hundred years. The team that typesets ebooks at most publishers, though, is more junior, understaffed and has a very low bar for what is considered good enough.)

One reason that incumbents are so often defeated by newcomers is that the incumbents put their best people and their urgent focus on the stuff they used to do (like winning Pulitzer prizes, selling ads to cosmetic companies and counting dead trees) while the new guys have nothing but the new thing to focus on.

The same effect occurs when we approach our art/sideline/new venture. Some people spend their best energy on the new project, squeezing in the day job when they must. Others (the ones who rarely ship) insist on every element of the day job being finished before they practice their music, write their book or otherwise make a ruckus.

If you're serious about building a new sort of asset, or experiencing the cutting edge of new technology, or rebuilding the way you grow, the first way to demonstrate that seriousness is to put your heavy hitters in charge of it, while refusing to pay much attention at all to the people or the metrics of the old thing. Easier to say than to do, but consider how the upstarts that are eating your future are allocating their time and their talent...
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2012/12/but-which-is-the-sideshow.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2Fsethsmainblog+%28Seth%27s+Blog%29＿

Seth's Blog : What's it for?

What's it for?

If, seventy years ago, you asked Henry Luce, "What is Time magazine for?" he'd probably talk about setting society's agenda, capturing the attention of the educated and powerful and most of all, delivering the best weekly news package he could.

Today, the answer is clear. The purpose of the magazine is to make as much money as possible. Everything else is in service of that goal.

It used to be that the profit enabled the magazine to reach its goals. Today, the goal is to reach the profit.

If you ask a typical food service manager at a typical high school what school lunch is for, the answer is probably not, "to educate kids about healthy food and help them to make nutritious choices for a lifetime." No, the answer is probably, "to feed as many kids as fast and as cheaply as we can, given the limited resources we have."

And if you ask someone working at a kitchen gadget company what the latest item is for, the truthful answer probably has nothing at all to do with pitting an avocado efficiently, or making a good cup of coffee. The honest answer would revolve around ease of manufacturing, pleasing the rep and the store buyer and most of all, producing an item that sells in volume and turns a profit without too many people sending it back.

In most b2b situations, the answer is always the same, "to please my boss."

Sure, we're good at making up backstories to explain our actions, to craft the 'why' that's ostensibly behind the reason we do things. But c'mon. The answer to, "what's it for" is all about what drives the person who makes the non-obvious decisions. If you're always having to recalibrate your actions to match someone else's decisions, that's the real 'for'.

Fedex used to believe that they were in the customer service business, and that speed and reliability were the driving factor behind everything they did. Now, it seems, they are in the profit business. That the purpose of all of those people and all of those trucks and planes is to maximize profit. The rest is merely a means to that end.

I think maximizing near-term profit can be a productive goal, especially if that's what those you work with and partner with expect. I'm pointing out that the spin of substituting something loftier can truly confuse people inside and outside of your organization. And of course, when the only rudder you have is 'profit now,' expect that your long term prospects are in doubt, threatened by those with a different goal, one more congruent with their customer's needs.

Economics often trumps good intent, particularly at scale and over time. Decision-making power accrues to those that spend and make money, one reason that industrialization and time suck the art out of so many things.

Being clear about what we're doing and why is the first step in doing it better. If you're not happy about the honest answer to this question, make substantial changes until you are.

Seth's Blog : What you waiting for?

What you waiting for?
I'm not asking in the usual hectoring, pushing sense of asking you to hurry up and get started.

I'm genuinely, rhetorically curious. What, exactly, are you insisting will happen before you start shipping your art?

Write it down. Write down what has to happen before you can make and ship your ruckus.

Being clear about what you're waiting for makes it far more likely that your art will happen and far less likely that you're merely stalling.

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2012/12/what-you-waiting-for.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2Fsethsmainblog+%28Seth%27s+Blog%29

Seth's Blog : Possession aggression

Possession aggression

It's actually not that easy to give something substantial away. That's because accepting it means a change (in lifestyle, responsibility or worldview) of the person receiving it. It's stressful.

Far more stressful, though, is taking something away. Once a person or an organization comes to believe that, "this is mine," they erect a worldview around their possession of it. Taking it away instantly becomes personal, an act far greater than living without a privilege or object in the first place would be.

We care more about the change than the object or privilege itself.

Seth's Blog : When a conference works (and doesn't)

When a conference works (and doesn't)

When we get together with others, even at a weekly meeting, it either works, or it doesn't. For me, it works:

...If everything is on the line, if in any given moment, someone is going to say or do something that might just change everything. Something that happens in the moment and can't possibly be the same if you hear about it later. It might even be you who speaks up, stands up and makes a difference. (At most events, you can predict precisely what's going to be said, and by whom). In the digital age, if I can get the notes or the video later, I will.

...If there's vulnerability and openness and connection. If it's likely you'll meet someone (or many someones) that will stick with you for years to come, who will share their dreams and their fears while they listen to and understand yours. (At most events, people are on high alert, clenched and protective. Like a cocktail party where no one is drinking.)

...If there's support. If the people you meet have high expectations for you and your work and your mission, but even better, if they give you a foundation and support to go even further. (At most events, competitiveness born from insecurity trumps mutual support.)

...If it's part of a movement. If every day is a building block on the way to something important, and if the attendees are part of a tribe that goes beyond demographics or professional affiliation. (At most events, it's just the next event).

The first law of screenwriting is that the hero of a great movie is transformed during the arc of the story. That's the goal of a great conference, as well. But it's difficult indeed, because there are so many heroes, all thinking they have too much to lose.

Seth's Blog : With great power comes great irresponsibility

With great power comes great irresponsibility

It's possible that Peter Parker was uninformed.

Organizations tend to view "responsiblity" as doing the safe, proven and traditional tasks, because to do anything else is too risky. The more successful they become, the less inclined they are to explore the edges.

In fact, organizations with reach and leverage ought to be taking more risks, doing more generous work and creating bolder art. That's the most responsible thing they can do.

Seth's Blog : Four reasons your version of better might not be enough

Four reasons your version of better might not be enough

I might not know about your better, because the world is so noisy I can't hear you.

I might not believe it's better, because, hey, people spin and exaggerate and lie. Proof is only useful if it leads to belief.

The perceived cost of switching (fear, hassle, internal selling and coordination, money) is far higher than your better appears to be worth.

Your better might not be my better. In fact, it's almost certainly not.

Seth's Blog : Two people you might need in your professional life

Two people you might need in your professional life

An agonist. While an antagonist blocks an action, the agonist causes it to happen. Even more than a muse, a professional agonist might be exactly what you need to provoke your best work.

And of course, a procrastinatrix. Someone who's only job is to hold you accountable for getting it done, now, not later.

In a world with fewer bosses than ever, when we are our own boss, these two functions are more important than ever. If you can't find a way to do it for yourself, spend the time and the money to find someone to do it for you. Neither job is particularly difficult to do, but it's hard to do to yourself. Two more job titles for the future...

[Thanks to Sunny for the nomenclature.]

專題：MOOC帶來高等教育的春天

鄒景平/總裁學苑專欄作家

　成功的變革通常是由局外人啟動，創辦可汗學院的Salman Khan，激發史丹佛大學實驗有大量學生的線上免費教學(MOOC)，進而成立Coursera，專門提供MOOC教學，半年之內，Coursera就與三十三個世界知名大學合作，推出198門課程，吸引了一百六十四萬人註冊，並進而帶動老師使用新的教學方式。

　我們在教室聽課時，向來是學生對老師做報告，很少有老師在期末考後，對學生做報告的例子，但是在Coursera的開課平台上，每門課結束後，老師對學生做授課總結報告，卻逐漸成為一個新的，很受學生歡迎的重要活動。

　雖然Coursera是2012年四月才開張，但已形塑出一些比教室教學更符合人性的新風格，其中最明顯的兩個，一個是課前對學生發送問卷，瞭解學生的背景（年齡、國別、性別）、學習目標和學歷程度，以讓老師能及時並適度調整教學內容與方向。

　另外一個，就是老師在課程結束後，對學生做報告，將註冊人數、每週上課人數、參加期末考的人數和獲得證書的人數，做一個統計分析，老師也回顧授課過程中值得肯定的事情，以及日後的和改進措施與授課計畫等，即使課程結束了，老師還透過臉書的社群和學生持續保持聯絡，甚至於繼續舉辦office hour，和學生進行面對面的交流與互動。

　Coursera的老師也知道學生中很多是來觀摩的老師，因此，對於這些觀摩者，課程總結報告就更受到關注。例如我上的「Internet History, Technology and Security」，為期八周，但老師的總結報告就長達四十多分鐘，除了分析學生的學習狀況，對教學過程的反思，還預告了之後會開的進階課程。

　老師Charles Severace說，註冊這門課的人數有45572人，完成第一周學習的有11640人，參加期末考的有5401人，考試成績通過標準而拿到證書的有4595人。而他今年秋季班的類似課程，學生只有152人。他所任教的密西根大學，每年的大學畢業生也只有六千六百人左右。

　換算一下，Severace教授講一次Coursera的課，就至少抵他教三十次的教室課程，也差不多是四分之三的密西根大學每年畢業生數量，相較之下，就清楚的顯現出MOOC的優勢與價值。

　老師也在課程中，寄出給學生的調查問卷，共有4701人回覆，統計結果，學生年齡以25-44歲之間最多，約佔二分之一，45歲以上，約佔四分之一強，18-24歲則小於四分之一。男性占三分之二，女性佔三分之一。大學以下學歷者約佔三分之一，大學以上（含大學）則占三分之二。約有百分之十五的人，具有老師身份。

　Severace教授曾擔任電視節目主持人，訪問過許多網路科技專家，他口齒清晰、表達流暢自然，並善於使用圖表說明複雜觀念。更可貴的是，他非常注重網際網路發展的脈絡，而非具體、特定的技術細節或史實，因為他親自經歷了電腦與網際網路發展的過程，並與其中主要的貢獻者是好朋友，所以娓娓道來，並適時加上一些訪問專家的視訊來補充，使得學習過程輕鬆而有趣。

　課程結束之後，學生記掛的兩件大事，一個是什麼時候發證書，另一個就是Severace教授下一次要開什麼課？對於後者，Severace教授有清楚的交待，他說自己教課的願景，就是幫助大家卸除對科技的恐懼心理，並學會喜歡、善用與活用科技。

　所以接下來他要教的一門課，是如何運用Python程式語言，來探索人與數據之間的關係，課名是「Python for Informatics: Exploring Data」，這門課教完後，他再下一門課，就是教學生如何透過Google App Engine來建置動態網站，其中會使用到HTML, CSS, Python, Database, JavaScript, JQuery...等技術，課程名稱是：「Building Dynamic Web Sites with Google App Engine」，老師並提供一些參考資源，這對於我，真是非常好的學習路徑的指引。

　為了讓學生知道老師和未來開課的最新狀況，Severace教授特地在臉書（facebook）成立社群，目前已經有六百多人加入，大家最關心的問題，就是問其他同學拿到證書沒有？因為離課程結束已經有兩個禮拜了，還沒有收到Coursera用eMail寄來的證書，感到有些心慌，很擔心是否出了什麼差錯！

　原來證書在學生的心目中，還是佔著非常重要的地位，連我自己也是一樣，普林斯頓大學的世界排名，常在第一或第二位，雖然也在Coursera開課，但他們的規定是不允許老師發證書，雖然老師的課講得非常精彩，但若我花了很多心力學習，卻沒有任何憑證或紀錄，那股學習的動力就難以激發出來了！

　雖然Coursera提供的是網路教學平台，但Coursera的老師們，卻不像在封閉的教室中那麼孤立無援，因為在共同的開課平台下，Coursera的後台人員和學生們，都會告訴他們一些其他老師的教學方法和點子，像同學互評、遲交作業的寬限機制與課程總結報告等，都是先有老師採用之後，發現效果不錯，就推薦給其他老師。使用的人多了，就形成了Coursera的新學風。

　美國的老師比較沒有架子，對所教的主題既有熱忱，又有深厚的實務經驗，願意跟學生溝通，跟學生的互動多，也樂意採納學生的建議。

　Severace教授更是特例，八周的課程，他就在美國各地舉辦了六次的與學生的面會（office hour），因為他經常要到各處開會，他就趁機舉行面會，瞭解學生的學習狀況，並收集他們對課程的建議，聚會的地點通常是當地的星巴客咖啡店，每次約有五到十位學生參加，老師並拍下簡短視訊，讓其他同學認識他們。

　Severace教授回顧在Coursera教學過程，他認為自己也從學生那裡學到許多，由於使用推特(twitter，功能與微博近似)，讓他可以快速得知學生的反應，使用臉書又可讓他在課程結束後，仍然可以持續跟學生互動，師生關係不因課程完成而結束，卻形成一個徒弟追隨師父的社群，繼續保持聯繫。

　Coursera的老師們，常常把他們開的課稱為一個實驗，大家想透過實驗來發現新的可能，新的教學方法，新的師生互動模式，讓學生有高品質的學習，讓學生有更人性化的學習，並因之逐漸形成新學風，讓好老師出頭，讓世界各地的學生受惠！

　種種跡象，讓我發現MOOC帶來高等教育的春天。(本文原刊於總裁學苑)

Seth's Blog : What do you make?

Decisions.

You don't run a punch press or haul iron ore. Your job is to make decisions.

The thing is, the farmer who grows corn has no illusions about what his job is. He doesn't avoid planting corn or dissemble or procrastinate about harvesting corn. And he certainly doesn't try to get his neighbor to grow his corn for him.

Make more decisions. That's the only way to get better at it.

重新思考你管理專案的方式

貝爾斯基(Scott Belsky)/「彼罕思」網絡(Behance)執行長

　藍道．史都曼（Randall Stutman）在許多美國企業擔任高階主管教練，他常說一個好的領導人必須「樂觀面對未來，嚴謹看待任務」。創意領域的領導者要因點子未來的潛力而興奮，也該深切思考如何將點子當作專案來管理。

　總之，每個概念發想都必須和專案計畫緊扣。不管是私事（如策畫友人的生日派對）或是工作（將上市的新產品），每一個案子都是你的想法的實踐過程。

　我們鼓勵你把手弄髒。「專案管理」這個專有名詞讓大部分的創意工作者退縮，像是甘特圖（Gantt chart）這種精密的表格也許很折磨人，但畢竟境由心生，專案管理會累人或令人滿足，端看你的處理方式與心態。如果沒有良好的工作管理，絕不可能成功地將概念付諸實踐，因此，請容許我為你做出該如何管理專案的建議吧。

　我和我的團隊觀察了上百個工作團隊和獨立工作者，這些年來，不僅記下一些很棒的做法，更演繹出一套創意專案的管理原則，小至個人作業、大至企業團隊皆適用。就算最剛愎的創意人也能夠採用這套「行動方法」（Action Method）。

　「行動方法」質疑以往傳統的專案管理方式。聽從上司分派任務的思維已經過時，重視縝密計畫、由上而下的單向溝通模式也顯得笨重而沒有生產力。觀察分工精細的大公司後可發現，正式的專案管理中，最有生產力的創意工作者會同時分工進行，更有彈性地完成工作。這些公司各擁獨門的管理系統，但有以下共同特點：

　努力不懈地將點子付諸實踐。大多數點子來來去去，能否實踐都是看運氣，下一步常會迷失在筆記和草稿中，而一些創意工作必備的工具，如空白的筆記本，只會讓問題更糟。所以，每次一有概念發想時，你必須捕捉並強調你的「執行步驟」。

　可行的任務最好個人化。讓某一個成員管理下一步驟通常行不通。讓某一個人做好會議記錄再分給其他成員，會讓專案的責任變成模糊而且不切身。每一個人都需要去「擁有」他自己的執行步驟。辨識其他人寫的筆記並非易事，如果是自己記下的工作任務，上面有熟悉的語彙和筆跡，一定會比較容易上手。

　完整的筆記其實事倍功半。我們發現筆記很少發揮作用，「過度筆記」其實和「起而行」是有衝突的。只記下必要事項並化為具體的行動，才能在工作中領先群倫。

　用有設計感的系統讓自己更有組織。用來記下「執行步驟」的材料也很重要，顏色、材質和風格都要納入考慮。很多成功的創意人認為，多些設計巧思可讓執行步驟更有吸引力，當然就大大增加執行的機會。

　以「案子」而非「地點」來規畫工作。現在人們通常不在辦公室工作，不是管理好收文籃就會有生產力。分配好在家裡或公司該完成哪些工作也還不夠。我們應該像那些優秀的創新者一樣，以案子為中心處理工作和管理流程，而不是以工作地點劃分。(本文節錄自《想到就能做到：活用組織力+人脈力+領導力，讓創意不再卡住、自然實現》，大塊文化，2012年12月28日出版 )

Seth's Blog : Design like Apple, but name like P&G

Design like Apple, but name like P&G

Apple's naming approach is inconsistent, it begs for lawsuits (offensive and defensive) and it shouldn't be the model for your organization. iPhone is a phone, iPad is a pad, iPod is a ... (and owning a letter of the alphabet is i-mpossible).

Procter and Gamble, on the other hand, has been doing it beautifully for a hundred years. Crisco, Tide, Pringles, Bounty, Duracell--these are fanciful names that turn the generic product (and the story we believe about it) into something distinct.

If you can invent an entire category, fabulous, that's an achievement. For the rest of us, resist the temptation to be boring or to be too aggressive. It's your name and you need to live with it.

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2012/12/design-like-apple-but-name-like-pg.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2Fsethsmainblog+%28Seth%27s+Blog%29