Outliers

I hope that everyone is recovering nicely from Thanksgiving. It was a relaxing and fun day for us in Minneapolis. We did not travel as we are preparing HQ for another junior agent.

I finished Gladwell’s Outliers last night. It was a great read. Using the term Outlier in it’s scientific and statistical sense, Gladwell describes stories of successful individuals, but moves beyond the Algers-esque stories of a strong individual. He looks at the socio-economic, cultural, and historic elements that also contribute to working for or against one’s success. Here's Gladwell talking about why he wrote the book:

In the case of Outliers, the book grew out a frustration I found myself having with the way we explain the careers of really successful people. You know how you hear someone say of Bill Gates or some rock star or some other outlier—"they're really smart," or "they're really ambitious?' Well, I know lots of people who are really smart and really ambitious, and they aren't worth 60 billion dollars. It struck me that our understanding of success was really crude—and there was an opportunity to dig down and come up with a better set of explanations.

I was surprised Gladwell did not explicitly acknowledge or reference Anthony Giddens’ theory of sturcturation. In a similar vein, I was surprised that Tipping Point did not acknowledge Rogers’ work on Diffusions of Innovation…while I’m at it, why Bourdieu’s work was not surfaced in the cultural discussions. Those nits aside, I really enjoyed the book and thought it is a great way to help us think more critically about the socio-symbolic construction of reality.

Some of the more interesting stories for me were those of Bill Gates early high school opportunities; Bill Joy’s college experience (some similar elements to that of Gates’ high school experience – both had, at the time, rare opportunities to program on time share clients); the Beatles early days in Hamburg, and the socio-cultural elements of Columbian and Korean co- pilots that make it difficult for them to raise questions or provide a change of course in times of emergency. Yet the most interesting for me may have been the discussion of the KIPP (knowledge is power program) in the New York City school system.

I recommend the book.

Takeaways: Culture and history continue to provide “here-and-now” phenomena that shape our symbolic reality; and the boot straps story is really kind of hogwash (sorry Ayn Rand).

iPhone Continues to Change the Game

Some cool new updates with iPhone 2.2 and apps continue to push ways in which technology can improve our lives...or sometimes can just do cool things.

• iPhone's Google app now has voice recognition for search. Don't type, just talk.
• Maps now has walking and bus route directions.
• Shazam music tagging and identification tool is awesome
• Urban Spoon is continuting to show how the web is becoming hyper-local.

So now, I can use either Urban Spoon or the Google app to find a restaurant in my neighborhood. I can use Maps to give me driving, walking, or bus directions to get there. When I'm there, if I hear a cool new song, Shazam can tell me what it is and where I can find out more about the artist or the song. Then, in our post-modern modes of communication my wife and I can tweet about the experience.

Have a great Thanksgiving.

Election Follow Up

So, long time no posts. The election was nuts for a political communication junkie. On top of that, I took a new job, as an online channel manger for Best Buy. It’s been a fascinating ride so far. Now here’s my quick recap of the election from a brand and symbolic identity perspective. My analysis is not meant to explain all facets of the election or the psyche of the electorate, or talk about spending, I just want to highlight some things that interested me and helps explain why Obama won.

Obama had a better use of technology and connected more with young and first-time voters. C’mon he even had an iPhone app that could provide localized news. Obama seemed more presidential, as he remained calm. While his election is historic and he ran a great campaign (even the conservative CNN talking heads agreed – the only big mistake was the “clinging to guns and religion” statement). However, I feel that McCain’s team did a lot to beat themselves by not grounding their symbolic vision. As I outline these items, they are not on my ethics, but rather based on where brand promises are broken.

*McCain’s “maverick” status would have worked to separate himself if he didn’t vote with Bush 90% of the time.

*McCain’s choice of Palin was a high-risk choice. At the end of the day, may have hurt him more than helped (which is out of the norm for a VP choice).

*Joe The Plumber – was not really a plumber, was not trying to buy a business, and could not afford a shopping spree the likes of the Palins.

*The key issue moved from Iraq to the economy in late summer. McCain looked erratic and indecisive (yet wanted to be the one with experience to lead). He wasn’t sure if he would be at the first debate, if he would be on Letterman, etc. At the end of the day, he votes for the bailout (like Obama). So there was no unique differentiator on the vote, and how he got there did not instill confidence as a leader or a maverick. I had a conversation with conservative friend of mine who felt that McCain could have won if he made only two different choices: Pawlenty for VP and voted against the $700B bailout.

*Economy part II: Warren Buffet endorsed Obama. Among most voters, Buffet has recognition of being a smart investor. The Obama endorsement is hard to overcome for McCain. Obama’s weakness on foreign policy and experience led to the choice of Biden. McCain’s admission of not being strong on economics led him to the choice of Palin. It’s hard to say that the nearly “socialized” economy of AK would translate to a strength on the National or International level.

The takeaways: Don’t break brand promises. When trying to ground a brand identity, make sure that are reality links to can make the symbolic tangible. You can’t be all things to all people. The here-and-now changes the landscape. If the economy wasn’t the chief here-and-now issue, McCain’s weakness on economic issues may not have mattered.

Politics brings out incongruity and some of it is laughable, but too much of it and a vision can not be grounded or reach critical mass.