The early adopter

Those of you who know me and/or follow me on LinkedIn know that I'm a big fan of Seth Godin. And, what's cool is that every so often, one of my colleagues will email or text and ask "did you see Seth's blog this morning?" That's what happened today with his post about the early adopter and the dilettante. That's when I know that it's content worth posting or blogging about given the impact it's had on others that I respect.

For the uninitiated, Godin is an author, former dot com business executive, speaker and teacher. I have some of Godin's books and had the good fortune to hear him speak. He is one of those people who I marvel at in their ability to cut through the noise to get to the heart of a problem...and always with a solution or cogent point-of-view.

Godin's blog post for today is attached below. What hit me hardest was what I tell clients all of the time--you MUST "choose the audience you seek." The one size fits all or "build it and they will come" mentality of organizations is debilitating. It sets false expectations. And, it's flat-out bad business.

Godin's point is spot on--early adoption is one thing but a mandatory is creating the conditions for stickiness (to use a current business buzzword.) In his words, "If you push for trial but don't create the conditions for subscription and persistence, don't be surprised if only the dilettantes show up."

Great and wise stuff, as always, from Mr. Godin.

The early adopter (and the dilettante) 

The early adopter bought an iPhone in 2008 and never looked back. They played a few games of pickleball and then joined a club and bought the equipment. They picked up a new magazine on the newsstand and then subscribed, and they bought the new bestseller and then read the author’s other works.

The dilettante shows up early and often, but then moves on.

The early adopter and the dilettante both try out the new tech, but only one sticks around through the dip, learning from the hard parts.

The dilettante seeks out new experiences, but the early adopter adopts.

Culture needs both.

Marketers need to be aware of the different personas, and plan accordingly.

If you push for trial but don’t create the conditions for subscription and persistence, don’t be surprised if only the dilettantes show up. That might be enough, but we need to choose the audience we seek.

Don't burn bridges

 How much information should you provide when turning down a job opportunity?

Here's the situation: 

- A client is searching for a Marketing Manager.

- An interview is scheduled with a promising candidate.

- The day after the interview is scheduled, the candidate emails to say "At this time, I'm moving in a different direction. Thank you."

- A reply is sent with "Can we get a bit more context? Did you get an offer from somewhere else? Or did you decide that the role...didn't fit what you were/are seeking?" 

- There is no reply to the queries.

I'm interested in what you all think. My belief is that the candidate could have and should have provided context, even if at a minimal level. This not only handles the rejection with grace but also, in good faith, provides the client with input and feedback about the job--is the description too vague, is the job too broad, is the likely compensation too small?

How much information should be provided?

I'm a big believer in not burning bridges. In this case, it feels like a bridge is being burned when a softer response would have kept a line of communication open, whether for a future job or simply for the connection provided as a result of this process.

My bottom line--always opt for the response that will build, maintain or nurture a connection.

Godin's Five True Statements

The daily blog from Seth Godin is one of the first things that I read every work day. Today's post, as many of his do, hit me square between the eyes.

In his post, Godin wrote that there are "five true statements we don't hear very often." Those statements are:

1. "I don't care enough to do what you're asking."

2. "I don't trust you enough to hear you out."

3. "I don't believe it's worth what it will cost in time, money or risk."

4. "I'm afraid of the changes it will cause."

5. "I don't believe that I'm the kind of person who can do this."

In this past year of consulting, I haven't heard any of these statements voiced directly to me. But I absolutely have experienced every one of them.

As Godin writes, people often talk about features, quality or budget, which all may be genuine but usually are a simple way to stall until time runs out.

Wouldn't we all be better off - on both the buy side as well as the sell side - to simply state the truth? 

If we heard any of these statements, we could do a more effective job of counseling and bringing ideas to the table. Or, we could simply say "thank you" and move on to our next opportunity.

Let's push for more true statements.

"Are They Smart?"

I had a work colleague years ago - let's call him "Bill" - who would always ask me "Is she (or he) smart?" when I talked about interviewing and potentially hiring a new member for our team. There was never any other question - only the query about the person's smarts. 

What I found irritating about this was the lack of definition as to what constituted "smart" in the mind of Bill. And why the infatuation with the candidate's IQ when there was so much more to consider related to their candidacy?

I lost touch with Bill but his question has stuck with me these many years. Every time I think about it, I feel the same feelings of irritation and impatience. 

What are the key things that you want to know when considering candidates for an open position? For me, the biggest driver is the fit with the team. Does their prowess fill a gap on the team and/or provide a complement to another team member's talents?

I also look for a sustained record of results that meet and, hopefully, exceed prior work expectations. Is the candidate proven in their ability to succeed? Have they succeeded in a variety of work environments? Do they have proven success in other endeavors in their life?

Finally - and this is very much an intangible - are they someone that you want to work with? Do they challenge convention? Do they make the team better? Are they fun to be around? Do they motivate me and other team members through the way they think and act and achieve?

Yes, "are they smart?" is an important question. It just isn't the question. 

Eight Types of Leaders

 One of my favorite things to do is to speak to graduate students on the topic of leadership. It's a topic that always generates robust discussion, questions and problem solving. And, inevitably, those in the class will pose a problem caused by a bad leader. 

I thus used this visual in the most recent appearance that I made at the Integrated Marketing Communications grad class at the University of Kansas Edwards Campus in Overland Park, KS. How many of these types of "leaders" have you worked for and/or with?

We all have our own horror stories of working with a wind bag or a parrot or any of the other six shown here. Trust me, I've worked with them all. And, I've found ways to work with each, navigating the challenges associated with these eight in order to drive results.

Let's have a conversation about your leadership challenges. I'm confident that I can help.

"The World's Greatest Metronome"

 The death on Tuesday of Charlie Watts, drummer for The Rolling Stones, has made me reflect on his life and the steady leadership that he provided to the "world's greatest rock-and-roll band." 

Watts joined the Stones in 1963 and never missed a concert during that timespan of numerous tours, albums and appearances. News of his death caused a variety of tributes from fellow entertainers. The Who's lead singer, Roger Daltrey, said Watts was the "perfect gentleman, as sharp in his manner of dress as he was on the drums." And Joan Baez commented that he was "a prince among thieves" and " a gentleman through and through."

It was Questlove's (The Roots) tribute, though, that I found most interesting. 

"He's always been a solid foundational drummer. He was the anti-drummer. He wasn't performative to let you know how hard he was f----ing working. He gave you the basic foundation." 

Quest continued, "Watts became a legend not because of who he was associated with but because he's providing the foundation. Only real drummers know the value of Charlie Watts and the fact that he was the world's greatest metronome. Trust me, his 'less is more' technique is probably some of the most genius playing that you'll ever hear."

There is certainly a lesson in leadership in the way that Watts provided the foundation for a band that has been together for 58 years and which includes two enormous personalities (onstage and off) in Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. One can easily make the case that the Stones would not have been "the Stones" without the talent - and quiet leadership - of Charlie Watts. Watts' place in The Rolling Stones is a lesson for all of us in how we perform, team...and lead.

Road Closed to Thru Traffic

  A week ago, a digital road sign appeared in my neighborhood saying “Street closed, August 12.” 

The notice caused a momentary, mental "hmmm" as I carried on with my mission of wherever I was going in my car. I gave the sign nary a thought after that one flicker of acknowledgment.

The date of August 12 came and I was once again in my car traveling the usual route when I came across a larger, more permanent sign in the road that said "ROAD CLOSED TO THRU TRAFFIC." My muscle memory told me to carry on because this is my normal route, right? I quickly came across another sign, across the entire road, that emphasized "ROAD CLOSED TO THRU TRAFFIC."

I grudgingly turned the car around and found an alternate route to my destination. While longer and less direct, I still arrived at where I needed to go.

Isn't this a metaphor for life these days? Isn't this a metaphor for what businesses and brands and organizations are dealing with as the pandemic hit, seemingly waned, and now is back in its continued disruption of our usual, chosen paths? How many saw an initial sign but carried on believing the challenge to be short-lived? Or, perhaps not believing that it was a challenge at all?

The longer, altered route may be less satisfying during the journey but the end result is often more rewarding given the challenge that's been overcome. While the longer way may not synch up with our desire for instant gratification or our muscle memory, it does satisfy the need to problem solve and to achieve the desired result.

Don't let the longer way get in your way.