The Science of Communicating & Marketing Your Business

<UPDATE>
Jen sent me her comment and I'm posting it above my advertising below.

Same for Dr. Geertz's comment.
</UPDATE>

I received a request to help Unicef raise some US$20,000 a while back. The fellow who sent me the request pinged some 1,000 people. I think I passed it on to probably another 250. Others on his list may have done the same.

Let's say conservatively that maybe 1,500 people got pinged. The fellow who pinged me included in his ping that if everybody he knew donated just US$20, Unicef's goal -- bringing fresh water to an African village -- would be met.

The end result?

US$2,591

US$2,591???

I looked at the donation list. Most of the people donating were donating upwards of US$25.

And still, the US$25,000 goal wasn't met???

Just so everybody's clear on the concept, I'm upset by this poor showing.

I consider myself fairly fluent in the psychologies and sociologies of altruism, of social networks, group dynamics, ..., so this poor showing isn't surprising, merely upsetting.

Fortunately, you still have a chance to take part.

'Nuff said?

<JEN'S COMMENT>
Just can't stay away from this site, eh? :)
I participated without publicizing and also posted the link to my 200 Facebook friends, and I was also shocked/disappointed by the result of the fundraising.
I am commenting though because you didn't explain the formula in the title - are you teasing your loyal readers?!

Sorry about that, Jen. I wasn't teasing, I've just been busy the past few weeks putting the finishing touches on NextStage's Level 1 Sentiment Analysis tool and have been thinking in neuromathematics equations for a while. The equation translates to "Charity is a function of personal and/or group altruism (± 2db of variance)".

Thanks for the catch and thanks for reading and commenting. - Joseph
</JEN'S COMMENT>

<DR. GEERTZ'S COMMENT>
What could Scott have done differently to elicit a broader/greater response? I am loosely familiar with philanthropic endeavors and asking people to support a cause, as you know. From what I've found, the less effort you put into making the request, the less success you'll have. Much like any communication, face-to-face is best, followed by a telephone call, followed by real time communication, followed by mail/email.

I think there is a convenience factor in being able to pay by credit card through the email link that should be helpful, but I'm not sure the message with the request expressed urgency, expressed the need in terms of the village, or made it sufficiently personal to Scott. The water system need was vague and seemed to express what $20k can do more than it expressed what this $20k would do, raising $20k is something Scott was doing (not providing water to a village), and it suggested he hoped to get the money from 400+ twitter followers (Twitter followers are not a strong village, IMHO) and 200 facebook friends ($20 from each would still fall well short of the goal).

Finally, I think if you really hope to raise that kind of money, you need to step up with more than $180 - this goes back to the effort of the requester/commitment to the cause. And, as I'm sure you'll understand, I'm not trying to be critical toward Scott, but I am trying to provide a little critical thought as to how he could have communicated his message more effectively to achieve his desired effect.

Thanks for reading and commenting, Dr. Geertz.

The type of philanthropic activity you're describing is very different from the kind Scott used. He was using social mechanics (which works very well for certain things when done along certain lines) and you're describing (essentially) one-to-one solicitation (you know email addresses, phone numbers, etc). Your method uses "direct address", something I've discussed elsewhere. Scott chose another method.

To your points re Twitter and Facebook, yes and no. Those avenues are dependent on the strength of the social ties expressed by the individuals communicating via those networks.

I would disagree with your comment about Scott's level of commitment to his own cause, as well. My disagreement goes back to the social methodology he's using. A demonstration of "greater" commitment on his part could have proven financially intimidating to the audience he was addressing, hence the response would have been much poorer than it was.

As always, these are my thoughts and I'm glad you shared yours. - Joseph
<DR. GEERTZ'S COMMENT>

Please contact NextStage for information regarding presentations and trainings on this and other topics.

Sign up for the NextStage Irregular, our very irregular, definitely frequency-wise and probably topic-wise newsletter.

Have you read my latest book, Reading Virtual Minds Volume I: Science and History? It's a whoppin' good read.

And you can always follow me on Twitter. I don't twit often but when I do, it's with gusto!

Think Cyborg. Think Johnny Mnemonic. Think Firefox.

Also think DARPA and Extreme Black Ops.

The individual had read some papers I've written and determined that the ability for any programmable device to respond to human thought (from our first patent) qualified as neuroengineering. Especially weapons that know their owners and aircraft that know their pilots.

I offered that people are making a choice whether or not to use a programmable device, so ET didn't qualify.

They responded that programmable devices were ubiquitous so my point was moot.

I offered that humans always have choices.

They responded that modern society funnels us into mass behaviors and away from infinitely unique choices.

I offered that being part of a modern society was itself a choice.

They responded that fish don't know they live in water, so the great unwashed don't recognize they can opt-out. Further, the default is an unrecognized opt-in at birth and nobody gets to choose when they're born.

At this point my phone determined the individual was more interested in argument than discussion and took over larynx and breath control from me. My desktop has a very well developed mental matrix of me and is quite apt at conversing in my style so it took over attention, engagement and cognitive functionality.

Thankfully and pleasantly, I had already been shut down for my maintenance period and scheduled refit.

What made this such a fascinating paper was where the author went with it.

Here's their logic in a nutshell:

• We are wired for pleasure.
• Everyone's just enough different that the pleasure they go after can be unique enough such that in small groups, their individual pleasures become obvious (think going out for drinks with friends and each ordering a different drink).
• Given enough time or a large enough group (and there would be an upper limit on the group size such that group and tribal dynamics don't kick in) these unique quests for individuated pleasures will lead to chaos.
• So it's possible the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was a penchant towards disorder, towards chaos, and had nothing to do with vice or sexual deviancy except that they were manifestations of the disorder. And probably the historians of the day wouldn't grasp the concept of "chaos" in its mathematical meaning, so go with something you can easily point a finger at.

Oh...wait a second...everyone acting as a unified whole? That's a mob, isn't it? Definitely in the third person, never in the first (We were sitting here calmly sipping our drinks when an uncivilized mob roared past.)

Please contact NextStage for information regarding presentations and trainings on this and other topics.

Upcoming Conferences:

• The 4th Annual SNCR Research Symposium & Awards Gala at Harvard University in Cambridge, MA, 5-6 Nov 09

Sign up for the NextStage Irregular, our very irregular, definitely frequency-wise and probably topic-wise newsletter.

<UPDATE>
This blog platform has been providing increasing challenges over the past year. Yesterday I learned that people were having trouble leaving comments. One, Jen, was kind enough to email me her comment and I've included it at the end of this post. I'll only be posting two more times on this platform then moving my blog elsewhere.
Stay tuned...
</UPDATE>

I've written before that I read a lot. Honestly, I don't know many people who read more than I do. It's simply one of my preferred ways of learning.

Here I'd like to bring two such readings to everyone's attention:

• The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy

   

   

   

   

   

• The Babylonian Theory of the Planets

Perhaps even more amazing, the observations were made without any -- any! -- fancy or high power equipment, just patience and the naked eye.

And of course, lots of conversation and thought.

Seems to me those last two are especially lacking in today's I need a number let me come up with a metric world.

But that's just my opinion.

<JEN'S COMMENT>
I think there's a NextStage principle implicit in there!

Conversation and thought are wonderful, but I think patience may be the most important of all. Maybe part of the WAA certification should be baking a cake from scratch ;)

Joseph Response: ROFLMAO (and thanks for reading and commenting.
</JEN'S COMMENT>

Please contact NextStage for information regarding presentations and trainings on this and other topics.

Sign up for the NextStage Irregular, our very irregular, definitely frequency-wise and probably topic-wise newsletter.

That doesn't happen often, something so interesting me that I stop everything else I'm doing to give it my full attention.

Most people get nervous if I give them my full attention.

Anyway, please go watch this video if you're at all interested in the history of marketing, advertising and sales.

Then definitely go buy the book. Okay, buy my book first then go buy hers.

Please contact NextStage for information regarding presentations and trainings on this and other topics.

Sign up for the NextStage Irregular, our very irregular, definitely frequency-wise and probably topic-wise newsletter.

Have you read my latest book, Reading Virtual Minds Volume I: Science and History? It's a whoppin' good read.

And you can always follow me on Twitter.

• All Business.Com
  • "Seven Rules for Keeping Your Business Going, Part 2"
  • Seven Rules for Keeping Your Business Going, Part 1
  • Getting Experts to Untie
• An Economy of Meaning
  • Owning Your Brand
• That Think You Do
  • Nice Guys and Why Women Leave the Dance
  • Everybody Listen!
• The Analytics Ecology
  • The Unfulfilled Promise of Online Analytics, Part 1

Please contact NextStage for information regarding presentations and trainings on this and other topics.

Sign up for the NextStage Irregular, our very irregular, definitely frequency-wise and probably topic-wise newsletter.

Have you read my latest book, Reading Virtual Minds Volume I: Science and History? It's a whoppin' good read.

And you can always follow me on Twitter.

I knew the 'net when it was the Arpanet and have written about those glorious and heady days in Nothing New Under the Sun (Buying Computer Time, part 3).... The Arpanet came into being 40 years ago as of the past 29 Oct.

That long ago autumn day Arpanet went live. Well...not quite. It crashed before anyone could even login. Forget about any Blue Screen of Death. The computers (well, not really computers as most people think of them today. They were more like mammoth automated telephone switching stations) of the day were talking to each other and humming merrily along. It wasn't until one Charley Kline, then a student at UCLA, attempted to log in that things crashed.

Proof again that boys like to break things, I guess.

You know, I would never consider myself a programmer and everybody knows I'm a Luddite. But I remember seeing the first computer with an organic (read "alive") memory at Urbana (I was asked if I wanted to feed it). I remember being seated in Lexington, MA, and playing Adventure with guys seated in Berkeley, CA, and sending emails back and forth with folks at Penn State and Carnegie-Mellon. I remember designing 3D input devices and using an Apple II to create smart homes for quadriplegics. There are people that (to this day) are amazed at how I overcame the storage problems.

But you want to know my real best memory?

Susan (my beloved) was a StarTrek fan when we met. I programmed my HP-100 to play a Federation v Klingon-Romulan Alliance game for her. Ten levels, each level with 10 enemy ships and only the Enterprise to defeat them, they could cloak, she could not, with asteroids, planets, blackholes and limited photon torpedoes.

The things we do for love.

Please contact NextStage for information regarding presentations and trainings on this and other topics.

Sign up for the NextStage Irregular, our very irregular, definitely frequency-wise and probably topic-wise newsletter.

Have you read my latest book, Reading Virtual Minds Volume I: Science and History? It's a whoppin' good read.

And you can always follow me on Twitter.

I think I was the only one with an actual cellphone, no camera, no internet, no media, no music, no twittering on the go.

Thankfully, my Ludditehood is still intact.

Questions investigated in a roundtable format included the future of print, who's getting their news online, who's getting their news mobline (online mobile), what's the latest technology that will emerge and what will fade, ...

Very interesting stuff.

I sat, watched and listened to my extremely intelligent and knowledgeable brethren and sistren and counted the number of net-savvy, on the edge, knowing the future people were still wearing wristwatches. In fact, analog wristwatches. Not digital, and maybe quartz driven, but with analog faces.

I was curious because cognitive theory has demonstrated that there's an asymptotic ceiling to how much information the human mind can respond to from any interface. Until we evolve further (and in the necessary direction) that asymptote is getting exponentially nearer (mathematicians grimace when I write or say things like that).

The wristwatch has survived for a very long time because of four simple design rules:

1) It is simple to use,
2) The information it presents is immediately actionable,
3) It is a wearable interface that doesn't interfere with other routine daily functions and
4) It economically puts power into a large populations' hands (or on their wrists, whatever).

I've been telling people for a long time that for all the latest technologies provide, not a lot of them will last. Remember when everyone had to have a digital watch? Do you know that record players are now considered the must-haves because the sound quality is (supposedly) so much better? Technology is wonderful and only when its benefits outweigh its detriments. Personal technologies are wonderful and won't last unless they (as I said at a previous SNCR symposium and reference again in rule #4 above) put more power into people's hands.

Mobile devices don't quite live up to that promise. Yet. I know there are devices close to Dick Tracy's watchphone. I understand that they're not simple to use. Shucks. Lost on rule #1 above and require more power to use than they economically provide on a psycho-identity level (see Reading Virtual Minds Volume I: Science and History for more on this) so rule #4 is gone, too.

Bummer, dude.

I'm told that wristwatches are greatly on the decline with the young. They prefer to learn the time from their mobile devices. This means one of their hands is always going to be busy mobiling. One hand to hold the device, maybe another to push some button.

This is why digital watches faded. You needed two hands. If not to activate the display, then to light it for easy reading. Not easy, economical power. Anybody remember the SNL faux-commercial about a digital watch that required three hands to operate? "It's almost like asking a stranger for the time."

I also know that people purchase watches as they age. Perhaps to keep track of how little time they have left.

And I know that analog watches will catch on as we start to travel at light-like speeds. A little known fact from relativity; analog internals are the only timepieces that keep correct local time regardless of relativistic frame.

Maybe as people grow older they want to know the correct time at the Black Hole Bar&Grill?

So I performed a completely unscientific study

How far have we gone in those fifty plus years?

Excellent question that. When Susan and I sit on our backporch we can hear both the sounds of the forest behind our house and the sounds of industry on the other side of that forest. We say "It's almost 2010," and ask, "Where's my flying car? Where's my vacation on Mars? Why isn't teleportation here yet?"

The answer is pretty simple regardless of your area of expertise. Economic: if teleportation was easily available and inexpensive, automotive, energy, construction and infrastructure industries would go bankrupt overnight. Political: any one country demonstrating that kind of logistic advantage would immediately open itself to attack. Social: people haven't yet demonstrated their ability to behave responsibly to mass communication and you want to give them mass movement?

Similar arguments can be made for all truly futuristic technologies. 

People also have a cognitive challenge moving from communicating "earthwise" to communicating "starwise". Sure, your cellphone can immediately contact someone on the other side of the globe but the distances are "zero" as far as the electromagnetic spectrum goes. It takes most people longer to push the number of the person they want to reach than it takes cellular networks to locate the phone they're calling and ring it.

But another planet? Once you get beyond Earth's moon immediate communication ends. It would take over six minutes to get an "immediate" response from someone on Mars using current technologies.

Ah, current technologies. Immediate communication with our nearest stellar neighbor would take over eight years. Don't bother asking what they want for lunch. And if you could send a message, would you remember what you asked when you got your answer?

It took people about eight months to travel across North America back in the 1840s, about 3-4 days in the 1870s and mainly because technology changed. The horse-and-wagon gave way to the train for mass transportation. My grandmother said it took her two months to travel from Italy to America when she came here (1900s) and eight hours to fly back (1960s). Again, mass transportation technologies changed.

Current technologies may indicate that there's intelligences out there. Other technologies will let us communicate to them and get immediate responses.

Please contact NextStage for information regarding presentations and trainings on this and other topics.

Upcoming Conferences:

• The 4th Annual SNCR Research Symposium & Awards Gala at Harvard University in Cambridge, MA, 5-6 Nov 09

Sign up for the NextStage Irregular, our very irregular, definitely frequency-wise and probably topic-wise newsletter.

Have you read my latest book, Reading Virtual Minds Volume I: Science and History? It's a whoppin' good read.

And you can always follow me on Twitter.

As for my blogging...

• All Business.Com
  • "Organizations Don't Retain What They Learn"
  • Reading Virtual Minds Volume I: Science and History
• An Economy of Meaning
  • Reading Virtual Minds Volume I: Science and History
• That Think You Do
  • Guys, Size Matters! But You'll Never Guess Where
  • Want to kick the habit? Play Some Music
• The Analytics Ecology
  • Learning to Use New Tools

Please contact NextStage for information regarding presentations and trainings on this and other topics.

Upcoming Conferences:

• The 4th Annual SNCR Research Symposium & Awards Gala at Harvard University in Cambridge, MA, 5-6 Nov 09

Sign up for the NextStage Irregular, our very irregular, definitely frequency-wise and probably topic-wise newsletter.

Have you read my latest book, Reading Virtual Minds Volume I: Science and History? It's a whoppin' good read.

And you can always follow me on Twitter.