“The No-Stats All-Star” by Michael Lewis (NY Times Sunday Magazine, 13 Feb 2009).  Please pardon the cliche of using sport to discuss business, but this article was particularly interesting. On one hand there’s the element of statistics and using numbers to stud, evaluate and squeeze out that last ounce of victory. On the other, there’s the idea of team – collecting the right people at the right time and producing a result where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Finally there’s the realization that the “HR” departments of many well financed sports teams fail to produce winners. Not only do they have the budget to acquire talent, they have the budget to acquire the talent that helps to pick the talent. Next time you feel like you’re coming up short with your “team” remember that you’re not the only one.

“What Are the Odds a Handy, Quotable Statistic Is Lying? Better Than Even” by Barry Gewen (New York Times, 3 Feb 2009). A must-read article on the new book by Michael Blastland and Andrew Dilnot, “The Numbers Game: The Commonsense Guide to Understanding Numbers in the News, Politics, and in Life.” In short, statistics are often used to bend the truth and sometimes lie. Not only can’t we believe whatwe hear or read, we can’t believe what we see either. Too often the associated graphic representations of the (out of context) data are also often misleading. Unfortunately, as more and more people are “outsourcing” their critical thinking, analysis, and ability to question “the facts”. Thinking is a gift and we should never be too busy to count that blessing.

Saturday Interview:  Dev Patnaik – Companies From Mars, Customers From Venus By Elizabeth Olson (New York Times, 23 Jan 2009). Here’s a teaser:

Q. When you wrote the book, before the current auto industry crisis, you said the Big Three were “living in a bubble.” One reason you mention is that Detroit auto workers and executives drive only American-made cars and see everyone else around them doing the same. Why does that matter?

A. It matters because companies make better decisions and make decisions more quickly when they are in alignment with the folks who actually buy their products. In Detroit, employees get discounted cars, executives receive a new car once or even several times a year. They never take it to a car wash and they park in an executive parking lot. Some don’t even drive the car themselves. If you have no firsthand, real-world experience with your own products or people who use your products, it’s very hard to make good decisions about what people want to buy.

Now click in and scoop some more brilliance into your brain.

“Career Couch: Making the Most of Your Workplace Mistakes” by Phyllis Korkki (New York Times, 18 January 2009). Funny thing is, when you’re a scientist they call it R&D. In that space it’s expected that you try new things, make mistakes, “fail”, etc. We’re all human and it’s pointless to live in fear of being so. What’s unfortunate is that there are organizations where such an approach is frowned upon. The good news is such organization are destined to fail and don’t last long in that form. Worst case, update your resume and move on for place that’s better for you.

Got an idea? Looking to grow your biz? Need some money to make it happen? You’re going to want to breeze through these:

“Likes Taking Risks, Profitable Returns” by Dan Fost (NY Times, Wed 1 Oct 2008).

“Easy Money” on Sir Richard Branson’s new Virgin Money (www.VirginMoneyUS.com) by Jessica Harris (FSB – Fortune Small Business, Jan 2008).

Those of us who are honest will probably admit that the initial impression of Mark Cuban can best be described as a part of my anatomy that one doesn’t get to see without using a mirror. And we’re not talking about my tonsils. However, as time goes on Mr. Cuban seems to be one of the few in business who actually has his head on straight – even if his head is the size of a hot air balloon.

“Slow Road to Wealth, With ‘No Shotcuts’” as reported by Wendy Fried (NY Times, Sun 12 Oct 2008). It’s just a couple paragraphs. Good stuff, right?

And if you never caught Mr Cuban’s “What I’ve Learned” interview that appeared in Esquire magazine (www.Esquire.com) in late 2006 then it’s strongly recommended you soak that in as well.

The best of the bunch is Cuban’s, “If you’re looking where everybody else is looking, you’re looking in the wrong spot.” Who knew that his ego left some room for this brain.

Please pardon the lack of these each getting full blown posting attention.

“Coping (or Not) With Injuries In Training For Marathon” by Gina Kolata (NY Times, Sat 27 Sept 2008)

“From Injury to the Olympics, Radcliffe Shares How She Made It Back” by Gina Kolata (NY Times, Sat 27 Sept 2008).

The key bit is in the first article and comes from Mr Chris Martin (who is not the Coldplay guy):

Martin, though, is not entirely won over. “The bottom line is that the water running and training on the elliptical running machines were stopgap measures to limit the damage to my running fitness,” he wrote.

What’s mentioned earlier in the article is that after getting injured Mr Martin pursued an alternate approach to training that was less damaging to his body. In short… He PB’ed in an Ironman triathlon. Yet he dismisses that method? Shouldn’t he be rejoicing that he’s found a better way? Instead he insists on the superiority of an approach that injured him. Huh? The Radcliffe article is also about a different approach due to injury that also proved to be pretty effective.

Bottom line… There are other ways to train (or market, or sell, or advertise, etc.) that don’t entail hurting yourself. Sooner or later the (macho?) 70′s mindset to (over) training is going to have to change. But as with most change, people are slow to grasp the obvious when they are blinded with routine, habit, addiction, etc.

While we’re on the subject of working out also see “How Powerful Is Your Workout” by Linda Baker (NY Times, Thur 25 Sept 2008). Pretty cool. Makes sense, right? Why waste that spent energy when it can be put to use? Every little bit counts.

Ya gotta love these little tidbits that pop up here & there. All meat, not fluffy over-analysis.

“Free Samples Work, Now and Later” by Alex Mindlin (NY Times, Mon 6 Oct 2008).

When it comes to successful web sites there’s no doubt that search is important. However, one needs to be careful not to build a business model that puts too many eggs in basket. Especially when you don’t have control over that basket. Especially when you don’t really know what’s inside the black box in basket. Especially when that basket is called Google.

While one might sympathize with the guy (Dan Savage) in this article where is his value add? What is he doing that’s so unique? Yes, it’s simple but his game is to play the spread in difference in price. Great! Ride that wave as long as you can. But did he not expect that somewhere along the line that the rules might change?

“Stuck In Google’s Doghouse” by Joe Nocera (NY Times, Sat 13 Sept 2008). True, stories like these aren’t exactly new news. That said, people continue to pursue approaches that rely on the strength of their search placement instead of focusing on the quality and value add of their product/service. Those are parameters you can control. Those are points of differentiation that you can market. But when the success of your marketing plan is just a gimmick that is subject to the tweak of an algorithm then having a smarterer guest-centric approach is probably in order.

In Sunday’s The New York Times Magazine (21 Sept 2008) was a Questions For with Mr Charles Murray (as interviewed by Deborah Solomon). Murray wrote “The Bell Curve” back in 1994 and has a new book out called “Real Education.”

In short, this guy has issues. Marketing issues to be exact. He might be right, not everyone is cut out for college. However, where he goes wrong is taking such an exclusive position. The fact that he’s an old white male only compounds that problem (but we’ll leave that discussion for another day.)

He would have been much better off selling this idea as being inclusive. For example, he would get a lot more buy in if his message is, “We all need to find what we love. What we’re best at. What will make us get out of bed in the morning. For some of us that’s college. For some of us it is not. Regardless, we as a society need to be firing on all cylinders. We need everyone to contribute the best they can at what they’re the best at…” He could have went on to talk about the number of people who get a degree and never use that degree. He could talk about the number of people who go to college because their family expects them to and they just end up dropping out.

Ultimately, he should be talking about how it’s best if everyone is happy and doing something they’re happy doing. How his new plan is about getting everyone to where they need to go – not telling people, “Sorry you, you and you can’t go here.” Being exclusive is only going to alienate those who you’re not including. Duh! And in this case, Mr Murray is excluding quite a few people. This is an idea that needs to be addressed. Mr Murray just needs to use a message that raises the tide instead of trying to sink other boats.

As a side note, and somewhat in the defense of Mr Murray, the fact is there is a certain amount of intended “‘over-booking” built into the college admissions system. Colleges admit students knowing they probably won’t graduate but also knowing they’ll pay. Like they say… When you want the truth, just follow the money.

Great one… “I’m So Totally, Digitally Close To You” by Clive Thompson (The New York Times Magazine, 7 Sept 2008)

About three-quarters of the way in you’ll find:

“Laura Fitton, a social-media consultant who has become a minor celebrity on Twitter — she has more than 5,300 followers — recently discovered to her horror that her accountant had made an error in
filing last year’s taxes. She went to Twitter, wrote a tiny note explaining her problem, and within 10 minutes her online audience had provided leads to lawyers and better accountants. Fritton joked to me
that she no longer buys anything worth more than $50 without quickly checking it with her Twitter network.”

More and more often there’s a story about someone using their network cloud – so the same can be applied to Facebook to some extent – to solve a problem that prior to hyper-connectedness used to be solved by traditional search (e.g., Google). Granted, this could be one of the reasons why Google wants to exert influence on the cell phone market. Given that their biz model is built on search it makes sense that they are more than a little concerned. True there are already sites where one can post a question, and wait / hope for an answer. However, cloudsourced answer(s) can come almost instantly; from birds of your feather; and are probably more accurate and/or suitable.

The real story here… At this point, who needs Google?

It’s all over the news, another one of Wall Street’s (alleged) finest is down on their luck. And apparently luck is the key word here for Lehman Brothers and the like. For one of the many NY Times stories please click here. Can someone please explain to us how in the best of times these outfits are allowed to declare themselves geniuses and then anoint themselves with over the top bonuses, as if they had in fact mastered the universe. Yet, when the current they’d been swimming in – at what we were told were actual world record breaking in speeds – changes they all suddenly are calling for a lifeguard.

Granted, one has to feel some empathy for almost anyone who loses their job. We’ve all been there at one time or another. But it’s difficult to shed too many tears for people who (hopefully) pay more in taxes than most normal people make in a couple of years. Live by the sword, die by the sword, eh? What’s really sad is the millions of little guys who are really suffering Wall Street’s consequences.

It’s hard to believe that there isn’t anything criminal about this mess. Talk about a lesson in what leadership is not.

This post is a quick follow up to a post from a couple weeks ago. Long story short, after submitting a question to Mr. Fuerstman via Montage Hotels and Resorts web site (www.MontageLagunaBeach.com) I received a phone call from the Director of Communication on behalf of Mr. Fuerstman. Yes that’s right, someone in management there picked up the phone and called! And I wasn’t even a current or former guest!! How sweet is that?

My original question was basically, what books and/or other sources of inspiration that embrace the ideal of “the guest” does Montage recommend? Per the phone call, “Speed of Trust” by Stephen Covey comes highly recommended. As does the Jim Collins’ classic “Good to Great.”

Kudos to Montage Hotels and Resorts for talking the talk and walking the walk.

From the New York Times, “A Hotel’s Secret: Treat the Guests Like Guests” by Perry Garfinkel (Saturday 23 August 2008).

This brief interview of Alan J. Fuerstman, the chief executive of Montage Hotels and Resorts, packs a mountain of insightful punch. In fact, we have all trudged though 200+ pages of a best seller to get half of what Mr. Fuerstman offers in a faction of time. Sounds like a great organization, eh?

The real story?

1 – This isn’t rocket science. There is no reason why other B2Cs and even B2Bs can’t use these concepts. Whether it’s a web site, or a retail store, that person engaging your brand is a guest. Those who accept and embrace this excel. Those who are in denial… Well, we’ve all had too many below average experiences, eh?

2 – Notice that Mr Fuerstman doesn’t even mention revenue, profits, etc. Why should he? He understands that if he and his people focus on the guest the money will come. It’s really that simple.

From the New York Times, “Is Google a Media Company?” by Miguel Helft” (11 August 2008).

This is easy. Two quick things…

1 – First and foremost Google is a publicly traded company. It’s #1 job is to maximize shareholder value. It can say what it wants but that is going to drive it is its actions. Google understands that the playing field is in constant flux. It is constantly repositioning its efforts with a view that is beyond one quarter to the next.

2 – In the print edition this article was on the front page of the biz section. What continues to be more amazing than Google’s share price is their PR machine. They get so much free press that one has to wonder if they even have an ad budget. It’s Google this. And Google that. Yes, it’s a great and powerful company but sometimes the depth of the coverage seems out of proportion to the matter at hand.

One of the most insightful lessons behind Usain Bolt’s world record time (“Bolt of World’s Fastest – by a Mile” by Lynn Zinser, New York Times, 16 August 2008).

Just year ago Mr. Bolt’s event was the 200 meter dash. After begging his coach Bolt put some time into the 100 meters and look where he is today. Bolt was considered an “expert” at 200 meter but he decided to step beyond that constraint and apply his talents at a higher broader level. In addition, in order to do that Bolt had to convince his coach (i.e., obviously also an “expert”) to let him try. But shouldn’t it had been the other way around?

The lesson… To get unpredicted world class results very often requires not being constrained by the opinions of “experts” who are too over-focused, risk adverse, and typically are more concerned about their reputation than they are about reaching new heights. Kudos to Bolt for having the chutzpah to cast aside the cliches, step beyond the norm and have the passion to become a world champion.

While we don’t want to be accused of beating a dead horse, here are three more nails in print’s coffin:

ListenNJ.com – Free audiobook downloads from your library.

NetLibrary.com – Similar offering.

DigitalBookMobile.com – “Download books and more” is there motto. This is the experience of the next generations.

Just out of curiosity I did a drive-by look at Amazon’s Kindle as well as Sony’s Reader. Conclusion: Skip this generation and wait for the next. But for what one would pay for the “easy of use” of the print version of the NY Times one could actual buy the Kindle *and* get a one year subscription to The Times *and* not kill as many trees.

Another goody from Monday’s New York Times, “The Classic Rock Magazine Is Swithing to a Smaller, Rack-Friendly Size” by Richard Perez-Pena.

First, kudos to Mr. Jann Wenner, chairman of Wenner Media (owner of the magazine), for having the vision to fix something that by many arguments wasn’t even broken. Sure, their new stand sales are off, but who’s aren’t?

Aside from all the talk about saving money and increasing news stand sales one of the key insights comes from the next to last paragraph of all places:

“In the large format, long articles often turn up as daunting expanses of almost uninterrupted type. With the revision, such pages are smaller and less intimidating, and more likely to be broken up with photographs. Sections filled with shorter items look less cluttered with fewer of them on a page. Smaller design changes give the pages a slightly airier, cleaner look.”

Translation: Rolling Stones readership is becoming more and more accustomed to internet based reading. This is not only a shift in format but in reality a step back towards the center of guest expectations and their experience with the magazine.

Bottom line: Be as creative and inventive with the IA / UX / UI as you want but if you miss the expectations “sweet spot” you’re going to have a site that looks great but discourages engagement. Save the energy of those innovative thoughts and feelings for other kinks in your biz model.

Pulled from an article about Peter Gabriel “An Old Rocker Gets Digital” by Fred Goodman (New York Times, 10 August 2008):

“More recently, outside services like Apple’s iTunes, Amazon.com, eMusic and Rhapsody have succeeded to the point that paid digital downloads — which also include ring tones — now account for nearly 25 percent of record industry revenue, according to the RIAA. That’s hardly enough to make up for the drop in CD sales. Moreover, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, a trade group, says that freely traded music downloads still outnumber paid tracks by 20 to 1.”

Do the math, something doesn’t quite jive here:

- 25% of the music industry’s revenue comes from music downloads and ring tones.

- The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry says illegal downloads/trades outnumbers legal 20 to 1.

Even if one where to presume downloads and ring tones is a 50/50 split. And that the International Federation’s estimate in the USA is reduced to 10 to 1. That still means that the illegal industry is larger than the legal one, no? Or put yet another way, in less than 10 years the internet has at least doubled the size of the music business. True, not all that growth is bringing in money but most other industries would kill for that level of growth. The issue then isn’t loss due to downloads but the music industries ability to capitalize on the growth.

Some would say, the music industry’s issues are do to a drastic loss in margin. They went from selling albums with just one or two good songs for $15-20, to selling just those one or two good songs for $1-$2. Add in all the guest  “anger” for having overpaid for so much crap for so long and it’s no wonder that industry struggles. What’s most surprising is that they’re surprised their gravy train has been smashed with a digital hammer. It’s not rocket science to figure out that if you treat your guests that badly for that long that eventually those same guests will figure out a way to get revenge.

“A Tall, Cool Drink of…. Sewage?” by Elizabeth Royte (Sunday Times Magazine, 10 August 2008).

Orange County’s vision is impressive and inspiring. As was Ms. Royte’s portrayal of the OC until, “The stuff that’s removed is washed back to a pipe that discharges into the ocean.” That was it. Nothing more? While this approach probably saves money it’s hard to believe that – in California of all places – Sisyphus would be part of the inspiration for this solution.

There’s got to be a better way. But for now at least it sounds like a step in the right direction.