Moving On

This blog is now closed- you can find the musings of The Button Pusher at finomediagroup.com/blog.

Thanks for reading, and we'll see you on the other side.

Hiatus

We're beginning a shift away from blogger and to Word Press, so we'll be on hiatus until the new site is up and running.  More details when we have them.

Goals That Match

This post at Startup Models is on point, especially the ideas of A. Paying commissions when the cash arrives, not when the deal is signed and B. Making sure the sales goals are in line with what is good for the company.

A story from a Supply Chain friend that is an example of B gone bad:

My friend gets hired by a fabric company to figure out what is wrong at a plant that takes in white cotton fabric at one end and ships out printed fabric from the other. The problem is that truckloads of fabric are rotting and molding in the Southern heat before the fabric can be brought into the plant for printing. Millions are being wasted annually.

But the printing plant is running 24/7. Supply Chain friend sees nothing wrong with the printing plant- it's at full capacity, using good workflows. The problem isn't there.

So my friend visits the plant up the road that makes the fabric which then rots in the parking lot of the printing plant. It, too is running 24/7, cranking out fabric as fast as it can. Fabric Weaving Manager is surprised that Printing Manager is having problems getting everything printed.

The problem? Fabric Weaving Manager was only evaluated on how much fabric went out his door. What happened to it down the line was none of his concern. He was being paid a giant bonus for weaving more fabric than the rest of the supply chain could manage. Waste of raw cotton, waste of fabric, waste of cash. The company thought it had the right incentives in place (High Output = Big Bonus), but the incentives had too narrow of a scope- the one plant. If Weaving Manager was paid based on output AND the profitability of the printing plant down the line, he would have incentive to weave the amount of fabric the printing plant could handle, rather than weave 24/7.

One well-intentioned goal resulted in expensive losses. Incentives need to have multiple factors to avoid unintended results.

Confusion

I think the Netflix spinoff Quikster is an example of taking a business model too far. I understand the instinct to try and separate the business units, especially when one is growing long term (streaming) and the other will fade away (DVDs through the mail). But Qwikster is only going to confuse and tick of current customers. Netflix has done a brilliant job of making itself the go-to destination for entertainment, and users (like me) actually liked the deep catalog of content. I didn't really care if I had to wait a few days for a DVD to arrive if it was the only way of getting it. The wait was a fair tradeoff for the selection. Now I will have to go to a separate website for DVD content- giant pain. I realize businesses have incentives to chase off lower-margin customers, which DVD viewers surely are compared to streamers- but this is perverse. Consumers like the bundle. They don't care that the local cable company has TV, and internet, and phone- but they like one bill and one tech support number. Netflix is going the other way. While Qwikster makes sense on paper, it will hopefully be a disaster in reality. But given the lack of good alternatives, I will experience the Qwikster disaster first hand. At least I'll have much to blog about.

Ideas

Some suggestions for the start of your week from Kneale Mann: I'm off to do suggestion #2.

Layers

I shake my head every time someone is surprised that putting three layers of management between the client and the person doing the work leads to an outcome unlike what the client had imagined. Let the worker bees talk directly to the client. It's faster, reduces the conversation in general, and makes the client happier because things get done the first time.

Failure As Normal

It is easy to grasp the idea of "Failing Quickly": to push yourself or your product into new places, which reveal the areas that need improvement. The hard part is dealing with the failure itself. It's no fun. Embracing something we instinctively avoid feels odd, awkward, strange. Yet it is necessary, as it peels back the veneer we place over everything we touch to get at the gooey messy middle. It's where the growth come from. But to stand over your failure and passively analyze it as a dispassionate observer takes tremendous courage, courage more easily directed at more trivial things. The good news is that careful study will lead a positive feedback loop, steady improvement, and less pain when examining the latest failure.

Certifications

Some jobs require a degree from an institution that gives some hint at the work you are capable of. A lawyer from an Ivy will get a higher starting salary than similar lawyer from average public university in part because the Ivy will be expected to generate more work, at a higher rate, than the average. That may or may not play out over time, but that's the theory. But many careers lack certifications. My career path long ago stopped being about where I went to undergrad and is now all about the work I've done, with whom, the revenue it has driven, etc. Many are crossing over from photography and print, using their unique skill sets to make the marketplace more varied and interesting. Few care if they went to an Ivy or are self-taught. Credentials are fine, but at the end of the day the question is: "Can you do the work?"

Improvising

On some level we all improvise our way through our day- we make the little decisions that get tasks done and keep the organization moving forward. But that is improvisation on a micro scale.

To expect your group to improvise its way to success is madness. Point the way. Success doesn't just happen. Improvisation on the macro scale only leads to chaos.

Disaster Stories

The past weekend was fascinating for weather nerds not directly in the path of hurricane Irene. I enjoyed watching how the various news outlets covered the big story of the weekend, especially all the new toys that news divisions can deploy in situations like this.

I saw interesting live shots sent via cell phone. Tours of flooded neighborhoods from a moving truck. Reporters at one live shot having conversations with reporters at other live shots. Lots of newsgathering techniques that were not options a few years ago.

But I could see the times when the channels were in love with how they were delivering the news, but paying less attention to what they were saying. When the meteorologist is trying to show detail on a weather map, the viewer doesn't want a split-screen showing roaring surf or a flooded street- show the dang map. Don't get cute.

At the same time it appeared that most of the stories making it to air were the ones that could be told from the tether of the satellite truck. There were multiple crews scattered around Manhattan, each stationary, giving their tiny bit of the picture. It was both illuminating- live shots from the middle of the storm!- but also hard to get the big picture when all the network could do was cycle around from one live shot to another, waiting for each situation to change.

When new tools come on the scene it is easy to mistake telling the same old story more cheaply versus telling new stories, stories you couldn't really gather the old way.

Engineering Fun

This week's Flyover Effect podcast discussed an idea that is too often overlooked in the development of pretty much everything: Fun.

I often see a "lack of fun" in software- the program that was built to do a specific job well, but has an interface that is ugly, complicated, and hard to use. All of the build energy went into making the features work, but zero thought went into the person who has to use the thing.

A corollary: If users of your software have a bunch of sticky notes on their monitors to help them with their work, you need a redesign of the UI.

Fun design encourages a user to explore the software, not run from it as soon as the task is completed.

This carries forward into every product and service. If something is pleasant to deal with, people will do more with it, and thus spend more money. If something is hard, difficult and unpleasant, it will be avoided.

Too often businesses can't step out of their own shoes to view how the public interacts with them, and thus can't make the changes needed to up the "Fun" quotient. A lack of fun holds them back.

Client Types

This was written in 2006, but it still nails the difference in client types.

Your life will be easier the better you get at avoiding grinders in the first place.

Recycling

Sometimes clients are best served by recycling their old content.

While those on the production side would prefer to create (and bill for) a spectacular new project involving helicopters, marching bands and a dozen different effect shots, that may not be in the client's best interest. They probably have something on the shelf that can be freshened up and reused.

Taking the long view, purposely create marketing content where the beginning and end is created for each new use, but the center- the heart of the message- is static and consistent for ever audience. Both parties win: The client gets value out of creating one great package, yet retains the flexibility to shape the message for each new audience, while the producer gets a steady stream of small updates as new uses are found.

Take the long view for both you and your client.

Design By Intent

I highly recommend this thought provoking read about Design By Intent.

The series of cards in the pdf each have examples of design that isn't simply nice to look at, but improves useability (in most cases).

Lots of things to chew on.

Website FAIL

I encountered a website today that was a double FAIL.

I had to dig around to find contact information, and discovered multiple 404 link errors- in the store of all places.

Despite professional design and technology, not having things buttoned up scared me away. Sale lost.

Order Of Work

There is a big difference between processes that happen concurrently and those that can only happen consecutively. Planning for events can often mistake the two, and scheduled get crushed as a result.

In simple terms, two people can butter bread and slice cheese at the same time (concurrent), but you can't cook the grilled cheese until all the parts are ready (consecutive).

Every project had points where things will slow down until a key point is passed. Plan for them.

Pay Status

There are a few clients who require special rules, based either on class or experience. Politicians and political parties are a very special case.

Due to the nature of campaigns- cash is tight, the demands are high and timelines short, and they tend to fold up shop the night of the election (if not sooner)- the wise ask for half up front and the balance before the product is handed over. This means literally holding a tape hostage until you have payment, ideally something that acts like cash.

An audio friend of mine once had to keep the podium mic at a live event turned off until he had cash in hand. The candidate was about 20 feet from the stage, about to speak to the crowd, before the envelope appeared. The mic was turned on, the event was great, the client was happy, and later apologized for the drama. Had my friend not held the line, odds were high that he would have been stiffed. Campaigns have little loyalty to their vendors.

I once spent a day shooting for a Presidential candidate who eventually stiffed my boss. The candidate dropped out of the race before our invoice got paid. That's a hard way to make a donation to a campaign, especially if you are not a supporter.

Trust most, but some just have to pay cash.

Archiving

Archiving of assets from finished projects can be annoying and time consuming- but can save hours when a client asks you to rebuild something for an update, a new distribution channel, or just the need for another copy. Minutes spent archiving content can save literal hours in the future, let alone the cost of recreating something from scratch.

I've been reminded lately to be more dilligent in my archiving process. One missing tape is driving me batty.

Peter

Cliches

Cliches are cliches for a reason- there is a grain of truth to them, and they are used to reinforce users impressions of a group, place or experience.

But they are also insulting to both the viewer and those being portrayed.

My personal example: Every political event leading up to the Iowa caucus must involve some visual agricultural image: tractors, livestock, straw bales, cornfields, etc. All of them. Even when the imagery it is ridiculous.

I once witnessed straw bales trucked in for an event in downtown Des Moines to be strategically placed on the lawn of one of the world's largest financial services companies in order to reinforce what the campaign believed was everyone's image of Iowa and Iowans.

It was the equivalent to staging a hundred Mob Goons as background for a political event in New York. Or a hundred suits yelling into their Blackberries. Or 50 yellow cabs caught in a traffic jam. and so on.

Worst of all, cliches are lazy because the don't require any thought by the creator.

Don't be lazy.

Distance

We forget what a joy it is to work on a well-conceived project with the proper resources behind it, until we work on something half-baked with no budget.

I would love to see the video equivalent on Iron Chef, where participants are given 30 minutes of lousy footage, no script, and given a period of time to make something entertaining. The results would be varied, but the process fascinating.

You can't fully judge someone's work without knowing how far they had to carry it.