ideasarehere

Hugh came up with some good thoughts on blogging.

Gavin points us to this great post.

Derek has some great advice when you feel stuck with your choice.

New people moving in at the neighbors’ house, which has about 10 flats. As far as I know, there are no pets allowed, which didn’t stop some people from smuggling in one or another. Now come the new neighbors, politely asking for permission to have two cats in their flat, because the cooperative owning the house told them they were ok with it as long as the residents are.

To me this is pretty cool, because this is one of the rare cases when the people who will be affected by a decision are also the ones to decide. You don’t get that very often. But what happened was that they told the new neighbors that they did not feel like they were the ones to decide, but the house owners — the very same people they blame for making stupid decisions without ever asking and so forth.

It’s the same old story: With power comes responsibility. When you’re in charge, you’re in charge 100 per cent. This is the part most people fear, because they’re still clinging to the notion that a decision made is to last forever. But it only lasts until someone raises a hand to say “I disagree”, and their idea catches on. Also worth noting: If the power that has been given to you is taken away, you haven’t lost anything. (Tell your Congress Member.)

A new series of billboard ads has been placed throughout the city, on buses, pillars, anywhere, same old story. Here’s the first point: How much sense does it make to print advertise for a radio station? Besides, they don’t even mention a frequency, so even if there were unsuspecting, yet easily to be influenced car drivers…

But even worse is that the transition from catching attention to arousing interest fails poorly because of a language mashup that’s just plain stupid. What’s more, you have to read the full ad to understand it. Makes you wonder that anyone believes someone passing by would stop and read. The purpose of a billboard is to say “Wanted” or “Buy this!”, and if you want it to tell a story, use one compelling image — there’s no room and no time to give a long spiel about it.

Figuring that I need some kitchen tools because I had dumped my old ones when moving out of the last place some months ago, I went to the supermarket and had a look, because they had some on offer.

It turns out that you have two options when selling, even with simple items like kitchen knives:
a. Sell it so that everybody understands, like “stainless steel, manufactured locally”. No questions asked. Easy as pie.
b. Emphasize the non-obvious benefits (which they did): “extra-sharp conically polished blade”. Now I’m confused, starting to wonder what the exact advantage of this feature might be. No explanation. Instead, I’m not willing to buy it anymore.

Using fuzzy facts does not give you an advantage. Nobody is impressed by things they don’t understand (unless everybody else is, and you profit from a mass hysteria). Here’s the point: if the fact doesn’t have a story, don’t mention it. I don’t care if the handle is ergonomically shaped, I expect it to be. I don’t care if it’s been designed by someone who I’m not sure of to have an expertise on kitchen knives (this can be an upside, once you have the right story). I don’t care what shape the blade has unless there is a reason, preferably one of (no pun intended!) leading edge scientific research for this.

Tools are rarely subject to fashion, but utility, durability, and warranty (hint: “lifetime” is a good start).
The risk of overselling is always higher the lower the perceived value of your item is.

Today, Seth pointed out that good ideas are in most cases only the wheat that’s been separated from the chaff, yet more often you may end up just having the chaff but no wheat (these are the bad ideas). This is another scenario when the individual mindset determines the outcome.

Starting from scratch is hard, having something that has failed before is easy, because the first step of creating has already been taken. Now there is a substance, something to work on, analyse and measure, thus finding the (possible) weak spots and to improve on them, and enforce the strengths of the original idea (if they did not turn out to be the reason of failure — always cut the fat first). This applies not only to ideas of course, but also your products, services, systems in general.

Success can be a pitfall, because in most cases people only celebrate but never question it. The harder it is to face reality when failure occurs. But this only applies when your mindset is based on the luck factor. It is an easy explanation, because it takes away self-responsibility and maybe earns you compassion because you’re the victim of destiny. But it bears no chance of improval, because after every attempt your mind resets to zero, denying the opportunity of learning from the failure and getting an advantage in the future.

Failure should not be reduced to an equation of “[you] = dumbass”. This is a complete misinterpretation of the situation. It is the product of one or more of the following: non-clarity of objectives, prioritization, wrong assumptions (about whatever), expectations (about whatever) not being met, conditions changing during the process, to be continued… It is important to be aware that neither of these is an excuse for the result — it isn’t. But every single one is a point or stage worth examining.

Doing the uneasy job of analysing and identifying when the wheels got off the rail will give you more insight to yourself, the people involved in the (failed) transaction, and the communication between the both of you.

If what you think you’re doing, what you claim you’re doing, and what you actually do are all consistent, you’re authentic.

Except you’re not. Why?
Authenticity requires a context.
New formula.

If what you think you’re doing, what you claim you’re doing, and what you actually do is consistent with what people believe you’re doing, you’re authentic.

For better or worse.

No matter what the occasion, sooner or later you will run into someone who thinks he knows better.

Last time I noticed was on Derek Sivers’ web page, when he wrote why he gave his company to charity. Long story short, he set up a foundation to which he transferred the ownership of the business and then this foundation sold the company. By doing so, all the money from the transaction would go into the funds and not be taxed. The cause of this foundation is to sponsor music education when Derek has passed away.

Now there are people who think they know better: “You should have given your money to cause XY, I’ve been working in that field and it’s so much more important than music education… ” Matter of fact: There are thousands of good causes people could support. But for some reasons they choose to support the one(s) they identify with. And if there’s no one who does something you appreciate, who’s to stop you from starting your own? Especially when you are lucky enough to have heaps of money. Derek did not only want to give away what he had, but to something he values.

The thing is, giving unsolicited statements like “My [insert belongings, beliefs, or business] is better than yours” does not help anything, it does only worsen the relationship. Because in most cases, people did not care to frame the precise context of your opinion or decision. (And even worse, it implies a judgement. ) So if you’re not completely turned off by people acting as described above, the question to respond with is: To do what, exactly?

But when time is scarce and choice is abundant, no one will stop to ask this.  They just skip to the next. So if you’re about tho tell somebody about the advantages of your [whatever], be sure to know exactly what they want [whatever] to do for them.