Oh Maker Shed, why do you mock me and steal my account credit?

I've been a subscriber to Make Magazine and even asked my family to send me gift certificates to buy items there. As such, I opted-in to their newsletter and patiently scoured each newsletter like a kid looking at a candy store, imagining the fun I would have when I purchased something on MakerShet.

Help form at: https://help.makermedia.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

Finally, I found something that I wanted to spend my money on, but when I went to login in and make my purchase, Maker told me that my account didn't exist or have the funds I deposited. I tried to contact them and even send screen shots of parts of my Gift Certificates.  My requests have simply been ignored, and I don't know why. I've screen captured part of my follow up message after my first one was ignored.

They haven't lost my email, since they still send a newsletter to me, but their recover password system tells me I don't have an account. Even thought I've sent them evidence of my account, they choose not to respond. All I can do is keep posting on social media until someone notices or until I take other steps that will incur costs and times to recover the small, but meaningful value of the gift certificates that were were provided to me as gifts.

Any bets on how long it will take them to respond or resolve the problem? My first message was a week ago or so, and I just send another reminder today, Feb 5, 2016.

I'll keep a tally and track how long they ignore me and provide horrible customer service.

Goofy Accessory or Subtle Genius?

Fitbit is one of the best known pioneers in the smart fitness movement. I own a FitBit One, which is discussed here, and I recently saw an add for a product that immediately caused a love-hate reaction. 

The item in the image is the "Black/ Hot Pink Ribbon Wristband 2-Pack for Fitbit." It is basically a piece of cloth and rubber that holds a FitBit One. At first glance, however, it appears to be a piece of a scarf with a knot it it.

I mentioned that I have a love-hate relationship, and here's why -- the image makes the accessory REALLY look like a piece of $5 scarf that anyone could cut and use. A $5 scarf could be cut to make 10 of these, which merchants are selling for over $10 each. It looks cheap at first glance, but then I looked again and showed someone. 

The response? "That's pretty, and it looks way better than the cracking rubber case holding your FitBit One." She was right. it does look better than my aging and cracking rubber case, and it would sit on my wrist, instead of being stuck on my pockets which sometimes leaves me digging through the clothes hamper to find it. In fact, I had spend several moments thinking about buying a FitBit Flex or Charge over the holidays because I wanted the convenience of having a fitness tracker on the wrist, but I decided not to make the purchase.

The product suddenly made sense, and I wished I had one.

I still think that the product looks cheap and uses some terrible images, but I now believe that the product has a clear value proposition that I could really come to love. So this boils down to terrible presentation fighting high utility, an easily fixable problem.

Good or Bad Form: Leveraging a Strong Prototypical Character

Mercedes Benz introduced it's B Class, and all I could think about what how the introduction might rank as a "C" in terms of marketing choice.
The TV ad they used to promote the B Class tapped the prototypical mad scientist. I assume they somehow connected mad scientist with innovation for their electric car, but the visual and history of that electrification of corpses is too strong. If that already sounds whacked, it is, but it's worse on many levels.

In the Frankenstein genre, and every movie that taps into that "feel", the viewer is faced with a lonely and isolated location where there are few humans, whack science, and even macabre activities. The original storyline of Frankenstein is based on a mad scientist who robs graveyards for body parts to create a humanoid abomination. The stitched together body parts are then reanimated after focusing lightening on the corpse.

Does that sound like a way to introduce your latest car? Am I supposed to believe that the B Class is a combination of left over or junkyard parts? Is the B Class dead-on-arrival, requiring a jumpstart to use it? Is the B Class put together by a single crazy scientist or team of crazy scientists with questionable motives? I want to see the genius in this, but I'm stunned.  I can't help but think, will there be a bride of B Class that is also reanimated from car carcasses?

I may sound harsh, but this is less of a slam and more of a question about why Mercedes is shocking me so much. I expect Mercedes to innovate and create great cars. I don't expect to have Mercedes associated with left over body parts stitched together and reanimated by a stroke of luck. Refuse to believe that the Mercedes I've come to know for so many years is trying to push that message. I just hope that someone can see how this commercial is harming the brand.

Please oh please Mercedes, make some sense of this for me.

Big Data, Teenage Sex, and a Better Megaphone

While reading a marketoonist cartoon on Big Data (see image below from that page), the author cited a hot topic in marketing circles, “Big data is like teenage sex”. The quote behind the discussion goes something like this “Big Data is like teenage sex: everyone talks about it, nobody really knows how to do it, everyone thinks everyone else is doing it, so everyone claims they are doing it.”

The underlying discussion about Big Data is funny because of the truth behind the statement, but what struck me is who gets credit for that phrase or who can claim to really owns that phrase, since I recalled hearing it before. I’m not trying to stir a debate of originality over impact, but from a fame and bragging rights standpoint, it’s worth taking a second look.

I found a nearly identical quote by Dan Ariely here, where he received nearly 1700 likes and over 700 shares. That was back on January 6th of 2013. I’m not sure if I saw it them, but I might have seen a “share” as the reason why the recent spread of that phrase caught my eye. Of course, I don’t know if Dan’s post was the first, but I do know that the LinkedIn post that followed recently is the most famous.

10 months after Dan’s post that received 1700 likes and 700 shares, the same phrase is finally picked up and e-broadcasted to LinkedIn, and BAM!. Suddenly it’s being shared by no less than three people I know personally. Is this random luck or something that could be engineered? It seems like random luck, and even if it was, it’s worth considering a few key properties of this now famous statement. 1. Big Data has gone through a hype cycle, and reality about it is settling in 2. The statement is largely true, even w/o the comparison to teenage sex 3. The statement connects the reader to a universal experience 4.  There were 1700 likes and 700 shares, so it clearly had some redeeming value before it was famous 5. Someone from LinkedIn curated it.
Of the above, only #5 was necessary, but arguably, the previous 4 steps made #5 easy for someone at LinkedIn to notice and curate. I would postulate that many famous statements or quotes share the same spirit of the the first three.

Advertising Joke or Marketing Blunder?

Everytime I see this ad from Old Spice, I do a triple take.

• First, my reaction is "ick" that's an ugly wolf.
• Second, my reaction is "creepy, who is the ad targeting", and 
• Third, my reaction is "what were they thinking? I would never buy that"

Are any of those reactions the desired response from guys? The women I've shown the ad to had similar reactions. Most said that the ads creeped them out and would make them think the guy who uses that particular Old Spice product was either dumb or smelly. My follow on question is why the "dumb" question, and the clarification is that "any guy who wears that trying to get woman would be dumb or desperate."

The optimist side of me approaches this add differently. Maybe, the agency is going for extra campy, maybe the idea is to be soooo bad, that it's good? Additional searches will yield additional funny/campy ads, so this is clearly an attempt to be funny. In fact, maybe there's some demographic where this does lead to sales lift.

I have yet to find anyone who thought that the ad was more funny than creepy, but at the same time I see that the ad continues to run. The only two explanations I can come to: 1) I completely don't get the demographic that this is targeted to, or 2) Someone in marketing at Old Spice is measuring lift around this ad.

I really hope someone is measuring the success of this ad, as I would love to learn what demo this ad pulls in.

Victoria's Secret is about Women in Technology

Another year, another Victoria Secret prank. It's a good day when fellow Mudders make the press in positive ways.

The article is nice reminder that the web is a canvas where creative minds can vote or take other actions to support or raise awareness of their causes.

In this case, the cause is promoting women in technology and doing it via a Victoria Secret contest for a campus party.

Is the code mightier than the sword? Better yet, can it make a point when your numbers are small compared to larger and more popular organizations?

The results are in. Go Mudders.

Nuke business meetings, save productivity

I just launched a free meeting time, cost, and waste tracker app for android and was pleasantly surprised to topic discussed on linkedIn today. The crux of the article is summed up pretty well at the end "The traditional business meeting is broken. Transform it by keeping it timely, concise, and used only when necessary."
find the exact

This topic and the recommendations are not surprising, however, what is surprising is that this same discussion comes up over and over again. It's easy to forget the meetings are tools, and as tools they serve a purpose in moving business forward. This is best accomplished when everyone involved knows what the purpose is, and meeting attendees act to respect that purpose.

That doesn't mean that all meetings need to be short. Some of the best meetings are the "brainstorms" that energizes people and gets innovation and creativity on the table. I've seen many of those take a while to get into a creative flow. On the other hand, some meetings serve as an opportunity to berate and belittle others, and those can be severely damaging to the business, personnel, and attitude.

That said, I won't waste any more of your time, but please do check out my time, cost, and waste app.

Does Bullying Ever Work to Motivate Employees?

I've heard that startups sometimes think of themselves as strike teams working as a tight knit stealthy force to take down opponents. Unfortunately, modelling a business on that analogy comes with limitations, as a strike team is never intended to become large thriving business, and the policies and strategies that may have worked in a small strike team break down and give way to intimidation-like tendencies. I was reminded of this in an article about intimidation as a management style.

The story used to make the point is a bit long and drawn out, but it does make a good point. Intimidation does not breed a work force that will stand by you when times get tough. The intimidated will move to better opportunities, while those who have no options will stay behind. On the opposite side of the spectrum, if you foster personal ownership and self-motivation, employees won't see a downturn as a chance to run away, but instead a chance to prove that they were right or that they can make a difference.

I've surely over simplified the article, but it's a good read that can make you think about management and how motivations can impact company success.

Findability is better than SEO?

How do you find things when you don't know what you're looking for?

Source: Chitka.com, June 7, 2013

The obvious answer would be search, and that makes sense, as you can search via dictionary, book index, or via any of several online search engines. The same could apply to buyers of your product or service. Remember, however, to look at the bigger picture - purchasing is about trust. When someone decides to buy from you, they are expressing some level of trust, and whether you like it our not, a product vendor shouting that they have the best product might create awareness that you THINK that you have the best product, but that may not convince someone to buy.

I would propose that the your excellent SEO is necessary, but not sufficient. Generic external links to your site will help the SEO, but external links that are relevant can provide the external validation for your product that provides even more value visitors if they find you via an educational link, an independent third party, or a comparison site. Links of this nature can be earned via hard social media efforts, a PR push, or even participating in online forums or places where your customer might be, such as stackexchange for programmers or LinkedIn for human resources professionals.

So when you look at the image in this post from Chitka.com, where the source article stated "Sites listed on the first Google search results page generate 92% of all traffic from an average search", think about more than just traffic. You want traffic that trusts you and with whom you can build a financial relationship. If you just build traffic without trust, what was the point?

Is there a limit to Marketing Effort?

In my early days of marketing, I was an operational machine and proud of it. Too proud of it.

At the time I worked for an Asian networking equipment manufacturer, managed product and corporate marketing, product management, and customer service. I was given responsibility because I could simply do everything that was asked. All told, I had check list of 120 marketing task items that I managed, doing all of them on time and on budget while leading the company's marketing efforts from zero to millions in revenue.

I was doing a great job and executing on everything. I earned media placements, replaced competitors, and amazed my friends and co-workers with my efforts. With that success in my rear view mirror and wins that few people have replicated, I eventually realized that I was misguided -- and misdirected.

The constant lack of budget meant that my team constantly tried to do everything ourselves. We rarely hired contractors as there was little time to train them, and instead depended on overusing internal staff to design posters and print ads that were beyond our skill-sets. Worse yet, we did everything because the highest ranking executives said so.

Doing what I was told kept me employed, but it also cost the company untold revenues. Luckily, in the course of doing everything and interacting with customer and prospects, I gathered information about the real cost of marketing to our premium prospects. These prospects pointed out that we were absent from a few pricey marketing events that our competitors attended, but more importantly, the competitors at those events all had premium customer contracts. The events? Telecomm and Carrier association meetings. Our President had fit at the price of joining, but literally, within 3 months of paying the hefty fees and participating in the first events, we were in negotiations with a telco for a trial.

From then on, I stopped the team from doing everything, and focused on those things that had clear impact and actionable customer value. I was fortunate to learn that it wasn't all about effort. It was about impact and moving the needle.

Is your leadership hurting your organization?

In my work, I enjoy looking for opportunities where not only can I make impact, but where I can also learn from others. In pondering such an opportunity, I found a great article in Inc magazine that had me thinking about the views that people have around leadership.

In the article, 4 key signs of leadership failure are discussed. Read the article and feel free to share your opinion and let me know if you agree or disagree.

My quick take, however is to look at it a different way, the way attributed to Raph Nader "The function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers."

It's a simple, but powerful statement if you think about it. If you produce more leaders, you need to do several things:

• Provides examples of good leadership
• Give people the chance to develop leadership skills
• Operate in an environment of respect (if you believe leaders deserve respect)
• Have a definition of success or at least of what successful leader is

This seems self-evident to me, however I realized that others may not see it that way, and it does matter from your frame of reference. If you subscribe to the method of leadership that states that fear drives people and that great leaders should be feared, than we would be at odds.

That said, I would challenge the leadership by fear believers to compare the market growth and market capitaliation of leadership by fear regimes to those based-on developing a culture of leaders. My non-scientific counting on fingers had the fear-based technique as non-scaleable and leading to low to negative growth.

The Pain and Process in Choosing a Name

A recent naming exercise reminded me of the rat hole a naming exercise can be, and how, after many years, many attempts, and improved processes, it all comes down to a personal choice. I’ll attempt to explain one process that works but also point out how it can be sidetracked at the last moment.

But first a wisdom alert. Marketers must judiciously apply the “If no one loves it or hates it, it’s probably too generic” rule. To use this rule, remember that there’s a wide range outside of love and hate. Now back to my story.

Having worked at many startups, there is little to no budget allocated to hiring a “naming firm” to create a brand name for products. The fees often run in the tens of thousands, and, even then, you may not get a name you like. If you have the budget, hire a naming firm, as a professional firm will guide you through the process and reduce or at least highlight hidden biases in the decision process.

If you don’t have the budget what do you do? You should prepare for the exercise with the realization that it’s more than a mission in name selection. The name design process has several key steps, and depending on the type of product, you may add other steps. I break this process into several steps, each of which come with some cat herding, input selection, and some post-processing to insure alignment around the process.

• Step 1: The brainstorm. Get all stakeholders to systematically provide input in the following key areas: what the product does, characteristics of the product, results of using/owning the product, and word association around the product. Request that participants provide at least three for each part. In this brainstorm, do not remove ideas.
• Step 2: Meta brainstom. In this phase, get everyone in the room from step 1, put all the ideas on a the wall, and ask the group to add more to the lists.
• Step 3: Require each participant to mark the top 3 in each section that the love and hate (6 total).
• Step 4: Stack rank all the choices for each section based on the votes, from most loved to least loved, tossing all the ones no one voted for or hated.
• Step 5: If any items has both love and hate votes, the item is announced for removal, and people have 1 minute to present what they love or hate the item. If the “hater” wins, the item is removed, if not, the item remains on the table. At this point, the group should have a list of descriptors that are mostly loved and mostly acceptable.
• Step 6: The sections are reduced even further by another round of voting to determine the top 3 for each section. This should highlight the core values of the product and align the participants around the core values.
• Step 7: The naming begins, with another brainstorm where group members submit names that fit the core values and a “searcher” is selected to find other terms that match the agreed upon core values. The searcher also researches connotations, conflicts, url implications, and baggage associated with each term.
• Step 8: The search and term analyses are presented to the group, who then vote for the top 5 names
• Step 9: A “searcher” then looks into language and cultural aspects of the top 5 terms presenting them to the group. With the new information, the group votes again, leaving a stack rank of choices.
• Step 10: The CEO or product owner makes a decision.

This process usually insures some transparency if the stakeholders are chosen from a wide base, but usually the process yields a bland vanilla name. All that work and the name still sucks? This often happens in a design by committee group where group members are focused on being the least offensive. Another risk is the hidden last minute legal check to find out whose trademark is being violated. Another more common risk is the CEO intervention - the CEO likes something and that becomes law.

There it is. Naming can be difficult. The more people to please, the more difficult it is to do a good job. On the other hand, if you start with clear goals and a good process, you might, just might end up with a good name.

Social Media: tools, costs, impact, ROE, and ROI

There are so many experts telling you what to do and how to spend your time/money on social media, so I was happy to see a presentation from a knowledgeable colleague. In it, he reviewed several key issues surrounding social media: tools, costs, impact, and ROI. While the presentation is on the long side, it's a good read.

Cost Effective Social Media Measurement from geoff sharp

If you are strapped for time I recommend leaping forward to page 34 using the slide control, as that provides a case study with a quick view into a way to look at and evaluate social media efforts.

One reason this presentation appeals to me is that it attempts to define a closed loop approach to measurement and recommendations. Using initial or preliminary goals, I can look at the analysis and reports to see how I'm progressing toward those goals by choosing and analyzing a few key metrics. Over time, as I progress toward my goals or fail to reach them, the measurement allows me to re-evaluate my choice of metrics as key indicators of goal progress or even redefine my goals or sub-goals based on what resources I can apply to the process.

The key to this approach, however, is to have goals. These goals can be simple or complex, and can be co-mingled with costs, for example:

• Simply have or expand a social media presence
• Create market awareness and findability
• Create the largest social media footprint without advertising
• Create the largest social media footprint with a limited ad budget
• Use social media to drive sales
• Use social media to establish thought leadership
• Drive sign-ups to your service

Each of those goals is valid depending on your business needs and stage of business, and each has implications on both ROE (return on effort) as well as ROI (Return on Investment).  Pursuit of any of the individual goals alone or in combination has implications in terms of pre-requisites, resource allocation, and budget, which then translate to identifying which metrics you track on the way to your goal.

So, what is your goal, and how will you know when you get there?

Disclaimer: I know the creator of the presentation and have been an advocate of his measurement and ROI centric approach. Funny how I agree with it, no?

Market Camp Silicon Valley

At the first marketing camp unconference in SV and it's good place to be. It was terrible to wake up in the 7am hour on Saturday, but the sheer number of people here sacrificing their Saturday represents both personal commitment and possible productivity pain.

I think this could be a great thematic direction for SVForum, as this was the first large scale marketing conference that I've seen where the egos were secondary to the learning. Like the unconferences for hacking and technology, this featured directed topics, lots of discussions, and Q&A. This was the place to learn what's on people's mind: What do marketing people think and worry about? What marketing issues are top of mind?

As a problem solver, it was fascinating to see what people consistently had questions about. What did I gather was the major direction? Marketing people, or at least people tasked with marketing, are saddled with tactical issues. Several of the sessions had topics covering strategy and planning, but most were limited by the generic for of "How do I do X" or why are things changing?

The undertone is that business is changing. Many of the "How To" questions were based on several areas that I followed:
- How do I best use Twitter?
- How do I best use Facebook?
- How do I measure return on effort and return on investment?
- How do I grow (users, engagement, customers, etc)

If I could take one thing away from this conference, marketing automation and the training around it is really solving problems. This particular audience seemed more tailored to startups, small business, and consultants, so the defacto vendor mentioned over and over again was hubspot. One caution here - several people stated that while hubspot was good to start, it was painful to leave.

I'll be looking for the final slides here.

Industry Expert vs. Functional Expert for Out-of-Box Thinking

I was talking with several people about hiring the right people for their marketing roles. It seems that hiring processes have either encouraged inflexibility or laziness, with poor results. The crux of the topic can be boiled down to two key statements:

1. Most HR departments have a rigid experience requirement, such as 10+ years experience, to insure market familiarity
2. Resulting hires tend to want to do things the way they've been done for 10+ years, often with mediocre results, though not necessarily horrible results.

I once heard that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting the same results. I don't think these HR people were insane, so is there anything unexpected going on here? If you do something for 10 or more years, you learn the traditions of a  business. Traditions and network matter, especially for well established and long lived business. On one extreme, I worked for Pacific Bell, they gave me an 11 page document that only had acronyms that I was required knowledge for the business. At the same time, those traditions can lead to stagnation and a lack of innovation. You may often hear the phrase "but that's how we've always done it" when any type of change is introduced.

One CEO I spoke with made an interesting comment: "While the staff and even executives are hired with the industry experience requirement, look at how CEOs are hired". That's an interesting point.

• In energy, telecom, steel, semiconductors, and banking, you see CEOs almost always coming from within the exact same industry. 
• In other technology, you may see CEOs, valued for functional experience, cross over to another technology area. Meg Whitman moving from eBay to HP and Eric Schmidt going from Novell to Google come to mind.

Another CEO told me that HR departments can be either overwhelmed or lazy, leaving them to fall back on what's easy. He said that while some industry experience is indispensable, once a minimum threshold is met, the company culture, position goals, market culture, and personal attributes become more important.

I've seen some recruiters who get it. One told me that in Finance, you often see people jumping from industry to industry all the time. Their functional expertise helps them understand and approach a variety of financial situations. Financing, deal making, and money management constantly changes, and once someone has the minimum industry understanding, their ability to creatively solve problems is paramount since the old ways may not work.

The same should apply to sales and marketing. Great sales and marketing people understand that people, markets, and situations change. It's often a good idea to NOT do the same thing you've done for 10 years or even 5 years, as the market, people, and buying behaviors have changed.

How do you hire? Do you fill a position or hire a functional leader?

Ambush Marketing - Big Win and Lessons from Nike

Nike's neon shoes were all over the place during the Olympics. The presence of the shoe was so ubiquitous that I assumed that they were a sponsor. They weren't. Reebok was the official
sponsor and has not renewed it's role for Rio. One possible reason? Nike implemented executed a well planned ambush marketing effort. The basics are covered in Ad Age here.

What people saw during the Olympics was a neon yellow shoe on the feet of athletes. The visibility and brand reinforcement, most notably, during track and field, when usually two or three athletes were shown in their events, with their feet seemingly glowing. The shoes were high contrast, visible, and part or many events where the wearers won a medal. The message to watchers, of course - the bright neon shoes helped win medals.

Nike insists that their products are all about the athletes, while other contend that their athletes are their marketing vehicle. While Nike backs it up showing gold medalists wearing Nike shoes, others point to Nike's own description of good products. The article quotes Martin Lotti, the man responsible for the marketing win:

"Mr. Lotti believes good Nike products have four elements: performance, emotion (a Team USA insignia over the heart, for example), environment (in keeping with the spirit of this being the first "green" games, the Flyknit is Nike's most sustainable shoe ever) and aesthetics."

Only one of the four items is for the athlete: performance.  The other three are about marketing, but to focus on the marketing aspect is to miss the big picture. It's the combination of good product and marketing that made the ambush marketing at the Olympics a success. Great athletes wear good products, good products were highly visible during the Olympics. Some athletes won with those products, so Joe Consumer might get the same benefits. It's a simple and well orchestrated marketing effort that leveraged product, celebrities, and distribution.

Small Time Brands Go Big, if They Survive Long Enough

A branding article in the Harvard Business Review caught my eye: "How These Small-Time Brands Made It Big", as I try to keep apprised of the psychology of branding and product acceptance. The article is a good refresher on some branding fundamentals, but also glosses over some core dependencies. If, as a reader, you can internalize the take-aways and understand the key prerequisites, I recommend you engage with the article.

The fundamental take-aways in the article:

• Focus on a small idea
• Deploy a powerful visual
• Treat the name as a strategic creative decision
• Don't overwhelm customers

Those take-aways are indeed valuable, but often get lost or misrepresented when applied. In nearly all of the examples provided, the author correctly mentions, but almost glosses over the struggles and hard times the companies endured before the brand really mattered. Yes, the brand was important, but the brand is/was an accelerator, not the core value. In each example, the brand didn't make the company, the company developed a great product or service before people cared about the brand.

Here's how to put things in perspective:

• Nike: A shoe company under a different name for 14 years before it became Nike, and even then, the logo was rushed out to make production deadline and cost $35. 
• Instagram: The now-famous service is a rebranding and outgrowth of the less popular Burbn
• Twitter: Tweaked a $15 stock photo that came to signify the brand

One take-away that you shouldn't miss, is that the entrepreneurs behind the brands in the examples built the business and customer base first. Once customers love or simply believe in your product or service, you've proven yourself brand worthy, which is where the value of your brand comes from. 

Build value first, and the brand value will come.

Publicity by Pranking Victoria's Secret

While reflecting on how a colleague is trying to "Cross the Chasm" with his startup, I naturally reflected on basic marketing principles for customer development, such as reputation building, free PR, and testimonials. There are other principles, but I'll focus on those few since they came to mind when the topic of my undergraduate school's small size yet excellent academic reputation came up as a comparison.. And that's when I thought of Victoria's Secret.

My undergraduate education was earned at Harvey Mudd College (HMC), a small engineering focused school in southern California. It has consistently ranked in the top 3 for top engineering schools and for a brief time was ranked as the top undergraduate institution by US News and World Reports. Sure, we had more PhDs per capita than CalTech at the time, but for every one person who knew that, ten would ask "Harry Mudd - that guy from Star Trek?" Before geek was cool, and before there was a "Big Bang Theory" on TV, it was difficult to get recognition for my small, young, but rigorous school.

I and my classmates continue to fight that uphill battle, silently rejoicing when Harvey Mudd is acknowledged for any reason. Sure, we've had math champions, CS champions, famous faculty, and even the school President is on the board of Microsoft. The problem is that only a few "in the know" would assign weight to those facts, despite my personal bias that HMC President Maria Klawe is a recognized leader and lends additional credibility to the school. No, it would take a hilarious prank on Victoria's Secret to make me really happy.

In one act (many small ones, really), students from the school banded together to dominate a contest to win Victoria's Secret lingerie. The prank leveraged student technical know-how to beat voting protection systems to not only make it seem like Harvey Mudd had over 1 million students and alumni, it also spelled out school phrases, and catapulted other Claremont colleges into the top rankings. The prank on Victoria's Secret was covered in news sources all around the web, and an article in Yahoo voices can still be seen here.

Now back to my original comment about reputation building, free PR, and testimonials - this small, but meaningful prank demonstrated a few key points that could help attract new students and make alumni proud:

• Reputation building: The student body self organized to pull off a technical feat. You can bet the school is both technically skilled and has a tight community.
• Free PR: HMC did not have to spend a dime to advertise that the students were skilled technically or that there's a creative, if not "puckish", personality of pranks at the school.
• Testimonials: Tthis prank was acknowledged by many online sources and shared via Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn and became virtual lore at the alumni meetings that followed. This also led to follow up discussions where fellow alumni suddenly started talking about the pranks they did or others did while at school. 

In short, sometimes communication and reputation can be assisted by events, people, and tools that tell a story about a school or product that has merit, but can be amplified by leveraging the goodwill of another brand. It helped Harvey Mudd, and it may help others looking for increased visibility.

The Truth Behind Food Styling Can be Viral

Since when does a video exposing the marketing tweaks to a product  go viral and reach over 5 million views? The McDonald's Canada video on "food styling" just did. You'll find the video on the top video viral chart there.

I try to look at business videos applying 3 main filters to understand it's influence and potential for spread:

• Is it relate-able or use an archetype?
• It it relevant/timely
• Is it memorable

Is it relate-able?

There's a resounding "YES" here. Nearly everyone I've known has asked the question answered by this video. Who hasn't wondered why fast food has never looked as good in person as it does in the photos - would be a better question. The premise is good and it draws people in.

Is it relevant? 

I'd say yes, but not in the usual way. Normally, when something is relevant, it is connected with your current needs or interests. In this case, there are few people who are particularly interested in this question. The real relevancy is two fold: 1) universally relate-able topic, and 2) market concern over "pink slime" and fast foods.

Suffice it to say that a universally relate-able topic always has some relevance, but add that to the recent concerns over "pink slime", and people are more interested in what goes on or in their fast food. I'll admit that I wondered if there was any real-world air brushing or special chemicals applied to the burger, and that kept me watching.

Is it memorable?

If one of life's mysteries was answered for you, would you remember? Of course. The revelation in the video, of course, isn't so appealing, but having worked in the film industry and marketing, I came in with some expectation of staging. Sure, I've staged products, I've staged homes for sale, and even created special demos that avoided known bugs. In this case McD's gave us the tour of how it takes hours of prep, staging, and even some photoshop to make the burgers look as good as they do in the photos. 

This video hits all the key points for me, and it's no wonder that the video went viral.

C.E.O. Pay Is Rising in Effort to Spite the 99%

I was sent a article from the NY Times about how CEO pay is skyrocketing in spite of efforts of the "occupy" movement to raise awareness of the disparity between CEO pay and rank and file workers. This article made me wonder "How often do CEOs jump ship for larger pay?"

Shouldn't CEO's get paid every cent they're worth? That's a vague statement, as a quote from the article stuck out from front line workers "Why should I kill myself to get a 2 percent raise if the C.E.O. is going to get a 20 percent raise?"

The main justification for the huge pay increases is that it keeps CEOs in place and prevents them from jumping ship. This may be true in some cases, but shouldn't there be a published study about the topic before corporate boards make wild assertions that glorify huge packages for CEOs and imply a level of worthlessness to the average worker? 

A study of this topic should answer a few questions:
1) How often do CEOs jump ship for larger pay?
2) How successful are the companies who land CEOs who repeated jump for higher pay?
3) When CEOs jump ship for higher pay, does the industry matter or do they jump anywhere to make more money
4) Do CEOs jump to go to a better company or a chance to make more money?
5) What is value creation equation when setting pay for CEOs? 
6) When is it financially prudent to let a CEO jump since the pay required no longer makes sense?

My guess is that there will never be such a study, as there is no accountability for the people setting the pay package. When there's a bad hire, it's easy to say "we didn't pay enough for the right talent" than to answer some harder questions.

That said, a brief thought experiment is in order.  What if CEO pay was capped at $5M or even $1M/year plus unlimited discretionary options for long term restricted stock? You could have the potential for unlimited pay, but remove the incentive for jumping ship. Would you still see CEOs jumping around? Would you see longer tenures when the shorter term incentives are reduced?