10 Steps to Viral Success

Despite my distaste for the V-word, I am resigned to give the people what they want, and humbly submit — in preparation for your coming boardroom brainstorm — these 10 infallable steps to “going viral”:

• Be exceptional
• Be extraordinary
• Be strange
• Be special
• Be unprecedented
• Be inimitable
• Be rare
• Be unparagoned
• Be singular
• Be peerless

Yep - that’s it… 10 randomly chosen synonyms for the word “unique”.  Total bullshit, sure; but I’d argue it’s closer to the truth than the volumes of non-sense that have been granted to the reigning champion of advertising lexicon, AND you’ve just saved hours of reading, conference panels, and distraction.

“Viral” is not a tactic… it is, at most, a symptom of being undeniably remarkable, lucky and smart all at the same time. Considering luck resides in the frugal grasp of serendipity, I suppose this list is unsurprisingly as inconclusive as its peers.

I leave you then, with the time saved above, to be remarkable, smart and focused.

Tesler’s Law of Conservation of Complexity

I’m not quite sure how I came to cross paths with the thoughts of Larry Tesler lately, except to say that in the cacaphony of our wired lives, the Spartan designer deserves to be heard, understood and followed.  I especially like the economic parallel which hides beneath it - how we trade, value, exchange and often disregard the scarcest resource (and currency) of all: time.

Tesler’s Law of Conservation of Complexity states that:

Every application must have an inherent amount of irreducible complexity. The only question is who will have to deal with it.

In an interview, Tesler further enumerates on his law:

If a million users each waste a minute a day dealing with complexity that an engineer could have eliminated in a week by making the software a little more complex, you are penalizing the user to make the engineer’s job easier.

Whose time is more important to the success of your business? For mass market software, unless you have a sustainable monopoly position, the customer’s time has to be more important to you than your own.

Whether you fancy yourself as a experience designer, an insurance salesman, a roadie, an entrepreneur, or just an everyday human trying not to suck: there is a priceless lesson here for life and business.

[via ProgrammersParadox]

Mutually-Assured Destruction: Postponed

On the eve of a new year, within minutes of the ball drop in Times Square, millions of Time Warner Cable customers found themselves pawned like the children of a belligerent divorce.  “We’re not making the decision, it’s up to Viacom — call them,” said one flustered Time Warner representative when I called to confirm whether I would wake up Colbert-less in 2009.  The consumer had now become the fulcrum of leverage between two conglomerates battling over twenty-three cents.

In the battle of content versus dumb pipe, we’re naturally inclined to side with the one who makes us laugh — and were it not for geographic monopolies and painful switching costs I would expect 90% of customers to acquiesce to Viacom’s demands.  Yet, in this case, the advantaged party is attempting to turn us against our ourselves by prescribing higher fees for content that is, with a few stellar exceptions, unwanted and stagnant — an ambitious and rather myopic strategy.

Viacom may have gotten their twenty-three cents within seconds of the new year; but in doing so they have also heightened awareness of the ridiculousness of the system:

• Why can’t we subscribe only to the channels and content that I want?  Must I support Nickelodeon if all I want is Comedy Central; or 24 hours of Comedy Central content on the back of the one hour I actually want and watch?
  
• Why can’t I watch said content on my schedule instead of yours?  On-Demand is not a promotional opportunity, it’s the way we (your CUSTOMERS!) want our entertainment. 
  
• Do you expect consumers to pay more for more of the same, or will this twenty-three cents actually better the other 95% of your programming?

• Why has capitalistic competition given way so easily to monopolies in what is one of the most vital infrastructure needs of an information economy for the century ahead?

• If content is king, then what feudal metaphor should be ascribed to the power who can silence the king with the flip of a switch?

• Most importantly: is this petty fight a sign of things to come if we fail to affirm net neutrality?  Should we expect passive aggressive advertisements urging us to open our wallets so that Gmail can load 20% faster, or to spare multiplayer lag on XBOX Live?

Corporations acting like children is one thing; but when they move so aggressively toward mutually-assured destruction, and attempt to wield their customers like children in a feigned divorce it’s evidence of a much greater, systemic problem.

How Pixar Fosters Creativity (and Competitive Advantage)

Pixar is a success story 20 years in the making, and the envy (and antithesis) of its Hollywood competitors: a creative powerhouse with unparalleled consistency in both quality and box office.  From Wall-E and Ratatouille to Finding Nemo and Toy Story, it’s tough to define the company by anything other than unconventional genius.

In the September 2008 issue of the Harvard Business Review, Ed Catmull (Pixar’s Co-Founder and President) offers an insightful look into the true source of Pixar’s success: a collective culture driven by creativity, obsessed with quality, and with an appetite for risk.

Other studios may have caught up with Pixar’s aesthetic, but replicating a culture — arguably Pixar’s greatest renewable competitive advantage — is an arduous challenge… well beyond the powers of Hollywood magic.

Here’s a few excerpts from Catmull’s wordy and worthwhile case study:

Creative Isn’t a Department:

Our philosophy is: You get great creative people, you bet big on them, you give them enormous leeway and support, and you provide them with an environment in which they can get honest feedback from everyone.  […] Of great importance—and something that sets us apart from other studios—is the way people at all levels support one another. Everyone is fully invested in helping everyone else turn out the best work.

On Continual Improvement:

Systematically fighting complacency and uncovering problems when your company is successful have got to be two of the toughest management challenges there are.

Demand Quality, Never Settle:

Toy Story 2 also taught us another important lesson: There has to be one quality bar for every film we produce. […] By rejecting mediocrity at great pain and personal sacrifice, we made a loud statement as a community that it was unacceptable to produce some good films and some mediocre films.

You can enjoy the Full Article at Harvard Business Review.  [via The Disney Blog]