Constantly, wildly successful people are often asked the secret to achieving great things in life. Invariably, at the top of their lists is simply “work hard.” It is difficult to argue with that succinct statement. Most people at the top of the heap have worked hard, sometimes very hard. When I hear that statement, my knee jerk response is to agree and go to the famous quotation of my hero, Teddy Roosevelt, who said, “Nothing in the world is worth having or worth doing unless it means effort, pain, difficulty...I have never in my life envied a human being who led an easy life. I have envied a great many people who led difficult lives and led them well.”
My man, TR, was an advocate of what was known as “the strenuous life.” It makes sense that he thought everything was a struggle when, as a sickly child, he had to overcome some difficult illnesses and succeeded. As the years have passed and with much observation, I have done some revisionist thinking on hard work and see it as important but do not see it as the guaranteed pathway to success.
Over the years, I have seen people who put more quality hours in than anyone around them and they remained stuck in their dead end jobs. Some were too low key to rise, others were content, but many bristled as newcomers came in above them. I vividly remember telling a client contact that he was not promoted as he always made his boss look good.
Three years ago, I flew back back to Rhode Island to visit a sibling and see another who was visiting. It was a nice time. At the airport, a voice called out, “Don, it can’t be.” The speaker was someone whom I had not seen in perhaps 30 years. We both had a good hour before our flights were called so we had a great talk. My old acquaintance was known for not tolerating fools well so it was clear why we did not work together for very long. He worked in a different discipline than I but we crossed paths a lot and I respected him greatly. He bounced from job to job compared to many of us but always seemed to land on his feet better than anyone whom I have ever met. I asked him how he did it and he gave me some real gems in terms of career advice for young people (he reads MR and corresponds with me regularly these days).
Here is some of his advice:
“Have your OWN vision. Don’t waste you hard work on someone else’s. Find your path and stick to it.”
“Run your own career; don’t let anyone run it for you.”
“Have your psychological bags packed at all times. Be ready to leave within an hour. You may have to!”
“Forget who signs your paycheck. Work hard but never forget that you really work for yourself.”
“Andy Grove of Intel had it right when he said that, ‘only the paranoid survive’. Trust yourself.”
He once asked me some 20 years ago in a phone call whether I had prepared business cards listing myself as a consultant. When I said no, he burst in to a diabolical laugh and said, “I have one. Get one, Don.”
My friend’s comments seem to betray both the concept of hard work and loyalty to his employers. Actually, he worked hard and still does. And, while he has had more jobs than most of us, I have never heard him utter a derogatory remark about any of his bosses or past companies. His point is that you are the CEO of your own life regardless of your current title. So, he is a Horatio Alger type telling you to strive and succeed but, at the same time, have no illusions. Do not drink the corporate Kool-Aid and never get comfortable.
In a world of downsizing and constant mergers, maybe my aging friend is on to something. He has never played politics and stubbornly remains his own man. And, to this day, he works hard. His only regret was that the job shifts and multi-state moves were difficult for his wife who also had to switch jobs and his children who had to adapt to a new school on several ocassions.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Saturday, May 20, 2017
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
Poverty In America
As many of us, I was rattled when, a few months ago, I read accounts of how 45-47% of Americans did not have access to enough money to cover a $400 emergency expense. It might have been a serious car repair or a visit to the emergency room. When I bounced the statistic around to a few people, to a person they shook their heads and said that the figure had to be wrong. People may not have had 400 extra dollars in their checking accounts but they could go to relatives or friends or simply put the expense on a credit card.
So, I worked to find the source of the $400 statement. I found two--The ATLANTIC magazine and the Federal Reserve. Both sources have some credibility with me. The ATLANTIC is known for great writing, in depth analysis, and a strongly progressive tilt. I often do not agree with their conclusions or solutions to the issues that they raise but they almost always provide well reasoned arguments. The Federal Reserve perhaps should have raised interest rates earlier but they do look at FACTS and I am confident that their assertion that 46% of Americans would be hard pressed to come up with $400 for a surprise expense is likely quite valid.
In 2001, I read a then new book by Barbara Ehrenreich. It was entitled, Nickel and Dimed with the subtitle, On (Not) Getting by in America. Ms. Ehrenreich went "undercover" as a waitress and chambermaid to see how difficult it was to survive on minimum wage and tips. It was an eye-opener to any who read it. She talked of how hard it was physically to survive as well as financially when one was part of the underclass.
When I saw the $400 articles and commentary, I thought it might be time for an update so, in the great Don Cole tradition, I read three books of recent vintage with a similar theme:
1) Hand to Mouth by Linda Tirado
2) The American Way of Poverty by Sasha Abramsky
3) $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America by Kathryn Eden
The books vary in quality but all give real life stories that tear at your heart if you have one. Ms. Tirado's HAND TO MOUTH received the most publicity and is an easy and breezy read. She recounts her personal struggles and the many indignities that she and her family have had as they have dropped from the middle class to the underclass. Also, she is perceptive, very intelligent and quite angry. The anger and her vulgarity gets in the way of telling the tale.
She also loses points as she rationalizes many things. For example, she smokes cigarettes as a "five minute vacation" from her rough life and openly admits that after a hard day at work, she may eat all the wrong foods. In nearly the same breath, she complains about lack of funds. Well, stop smoking and you will be healthier and have more cash. She also talks of being fired repeatedly and candidly admits that she "lost it" with the boss in public. We all have to exercise verbal discipline on the job. She does not seem to get that. Still, the book is powerful. Her stories about dealing with insensitive landlords are deeply moving.
Sasha Abramsky’s THE AMERICAN WAY OF POVERTY is not a personal story. He does a nice job of using individual people’s stories to capture the hopelessness many impoverished people must feel. And, he offers a great many ideas for government programs that he feel can turn the tide. I am not so sure. When I go back to Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” of the mid-1960’s, we find that well intended programs often miss the mark. It does not seem to matter which major party is in power. Poverty, measured by the government, seems to be 12-14% of the population.
The final book is $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America by Kathryn J. Eden. This book seems unbelievable at first but as she takes you through anecdote after anecdote you soon realize that there are perhaps a few million people in America living as many do in a developing country (two billion people live on less than $2.50 globally). Reading it had a shock effect that I suppose we all need now and then.
Okay, what does this have to say to Media Realism readers. A few things hit me. Number one, most of the working poor work very hard. Some have made a few bad choices early on in their lives and are on a very rough treadmill simply trying to survive. Others had some bad luck and never recovered. Few are simply “too damn lazy to work” as many have been saying for years.
Secondly, some are in tight spots due to lack of discipline. If you are struggling to survive it may feel good for a minute to tell off the boss but you wind up out of a job soon. Also, you need to take of yourself physically and be sure to get to work on time. Basic stuff that many of us take for granted. Additionally, children are usually involved in most of the stories told in all three books. What can we do to help them so the vicious cycle of lifelong poverty does not continue?
The technological changes going on are apt to leave this underclass almost totally behind. Many of the minimum wage jobs that they are currently doing will be executed in large part by robots in a decade or so. Also, Amazon and fellow travelers are killing many retail outlets which have been a large employer for many struggling Americans for decades.
Finally, what will happen to TV? The underclass does not have cable, satellite, or Netflix or Amazon Prime. Most do not have credit cards and many, such as Ms. Tirado (at the time she wrote the book) are unbanked. So, conventional TV is going to become the only entertainment option of those living in poverty. The demographics of over the air TV and radio have been weakening for years. They will only get worse.
Reading these books made me realize the economics of poverty better than I ever have. You, my readers, along with me may not be satisfied with our current financial situation despite the NASDAQ seemingly breaking records almost daily. Yet, what if you had no skin in the game and no prospects for advancement? Think about it.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Sunday, April 30, 2017
The Ooda Loop vs. Buffett's Moat
Perhaps as long as 38 years ago, I was waiting to enter a presentation which my agency was giving at the Pentagon. Some of the creatives were a bit nervous presenting new work but all I had to do was show a magazine schedule that had largely run and answer a few questions. While my colleagues paced, I looked for a place to get a coffee.
As I was pouring my cup, I overheard a major and a lieutenant colonel talking about an upcoming visit by retired Air Force Col. John Boyd. He was going to discuss his Ooda Loop strategy. For some reason, I employed a memory trick that I learned as a teenager. I made a ridiculous association and locked in his name and his strategy (I imagined William Boyd, the actor who played Hopalong Cassidy in my youth in fully Hoppy regalia in a jet doing barrel rolls). A few weeks ago, I heard of Ooda Loop again, and like magic, John Boyd came back to me instantly.
During the Korean War, fighter pilot Boyd worked out an approach for making quick decisions that would improve chances of success in environments that were changing quite rapidly. His approach dubbed OODA was--Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act. I would argue that it is applicable to 2017 business, especially in tech.
Boyd observed that US pilots tended to win most dogfights in the air even though their planes were a bit slower than the Soviet MiG jets. The trick was not simply that his pilots were better trained. It was that they were able to make TRANSITIONS more swiftly.
So, he developed OODA. The Observe part was basic. Pay rigid attention as things are progressing. The Orient task came next. Unless you are able to interpret information it is not worth much. You need to digest information and come away with a more sophisticated view than most. Decide is next--just as a fighter pilot has to act so does a man or woman in business. Cut through the fog and make a judgement. Finally, you Act. The best way to mess up a rival be it a hostile jet or a business competitor is to hit them with unexpected actions. If you take action before an opponent can switch their tactics, you competitor will be at least temporarily disoriented.
It appears that many successful Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are using the OODA loop in some form. I have seen write-ups about how the PayPal founders employed it directly and it appears many are doing it without realizing it.
This is contrary to Warren Buffett’s famous “moat.” The great Omaha investor always has stated that he likes to invest in businesses with a moat around them. The cost of entry is high and the well established brand (Coca-Cola, Wells Fargo, Washington Post) has a sustainable competitive advantage over its competition. Such an approach has served Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway shareholders very well. Are the times changing, however, especially in new wave disciplines?
Eighty-eight year old business guru and former Royal Dutch Petroleum executive, Arie de Geus, said a few years ago that, “The ability to learn faster than your competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage.” If he is right, we may be seeing a great deal more about the OODA loop in the years to come.
If you want to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
As I was pouring my cup, I overheard a major and a lieutenant colonel talking about an upcoming visit by retired Air Force Col. John Boyd. He was going to discuss his Ooda Loop strategy. For some reason, I employed a memory trick that I learned as a teenager. I made a ridiculous association and locked in his name and his strategy (I imagined William Boyd, the actor who played Hopalong Cassidy in my youth in fully Hoppy regalia in a jet doing barrel rolls). A few weeks ago, I heard of Ooda Loop again, and like magic, John Boyd came back to me instantly.
During the Korean War, fighter pilot Boyd worked out an approach for making quick decisions that would improve chances of success in environments that were changing quite rapidly. His approach dubbed OODA was--Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act. I would argue that it is applicable to 2017 business, especially in tech.
Boyd observed that US pilots tended to win most dogfights in the air even though their planes were a bit slower than the Soviet MiG jets. The trick was not simply that his pilots were better trained. It was that they were able to make TRANSITIONS more swiftly.
So, he developed OODA. The Observe part was basic. Pay rigid attention as things are progressing. The Orient task came next. Unless you are able to interpret information it is not worth much. You need to digest information and come away with a more sophisticated view than most. Decide is next--just as a fighter pilot has to act so does a man or woman in business. Cut through the fog and make a judgement. Finally, you Act. The best way to mess up a rival be it a hostile jet or a business competitor is to hit them with unexpected actions. If you take action before an opponent can switch their tactics, you competitor will be at least temporarily disoriented.
It appears that many successful Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are using the OODA loop in some form. I have seen write-ups about how the PayPal founders employed it directly and it appears many are doing it without realizing it.
This is contrary to Warren Buffett’s famous “moat.” The great Omaha investor always has stated that he likes to invest in businesses with a moat around them. The cost of entry is high and the well established brand (Coca-Cola, Wells Fargo, Washington Post) has a sustainable competitive advantage over its competition. Such an approach has served Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway shareholders very well. Are the times changing, however, especially in new wave disciplines?
Eighty-eight year old business guru and former Royal Dutch Petroleum executive, Arie de Geus, said a few years ago that, “The ability to learn faster than your competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage.” If he is right, we may be seeing a great deal more about the OODA loop in the years to come.
If you want to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Saturday, April 1, 2017
Pounding For Home
“Don’t look back. Something might be chasing you”--Satchel Paige
“Never look back unless you are planning to go that way”--Henry David Thoreau
One of my older brothers has been a long distance runner for 50 years. Today, at 74, he contents himself with 5k’s, 10k’s and the occasional half marathon which I make it a point to be sure to attend. He is a remarkable physical specimen and an inspiration to us young guys. I remember his first full marathon back in 1967--the Boston Marathon! It was a bitter April day and was snowing in Hopkinton, Ma. as the race began. He did very well for his first big race and finished 150th. As my Dad and I picked him up, I asked him what he was thinking as he arrived at Heartbreak Hill (this is a famous location between mile 20 and 21 of the race right near Boston College where both he and I did our graduate work).
My brother’s answer was “six more miles to go, pounding for home downtown.” In the car back to Rhode Island after we dropped Dick Jr. off at his apartment, I asked my father, a former coach and world class athlete, what he thought of my brother’s answer. “Shouldn’t he have felt great about making it up Heartbreak Hill.” My father smiled and shook his head. “You big brother has got it right, Don. The previous 20 miles did not mean much. Always look ahead. That is the mindset of a champion.”
In previous MR posts, I have mentioned how tedious it is for me to meet with old cronies who continue to talk about the good old days of buying three stations in a TV DMA and not having to worry about cable, consumer avoidance, Netflix and dozens of digital platforms. It has been my observation that creators of businesses of all kinds keep building toward a long term goal. They do not dwell on where they are and rarely focus on where they have been. Their eyes are always “on the prize”--their long term goal.
A now famous story about looking ahead was an exchange that took place between the late Andy Grove, President of Intel and Gordon Moore, Intel’s Chairman (credited with Moore’s Law which stated that processing speed for computers approximately doubled every two years). Sometime in the mid-1980’s Grove asked Moore, “If we got kicked out and the board brought in a new CEO, what would that man do.” Moore’s immediate response was, “A new CEO would get us out of the memory chip business.” Grove’s fired back with “Why shouldn’t you and I walk out the door, come back, and do it ourselves?” That, of course, is precisely what happened.
Moore and Grove were creators but they were not mired in nostalgia. Nothing was going to get in the way of progress. Their energy was focused on the future; there was no time for regret or resting on their laurels. Business and life is a road full of potholes. You will hit some and dodge others. The winners will not let age, distractions or negative people get in their way. They will be too busy pounding for home.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Saturday, March 25, 2017
Samuel Beckett--Coach to Entrepreneurs?
Samuel Beckett (1903-1989) was an Irish born novelist, poet and playwright who spent most of his adult life in France. He is known for minimalist writing and being a leader in the theatre of the absurd. In 1969, he won the Nobel prize for literature.
Beckett’s writing was quite spare especially as he aged. In WORSTWARD HO, from 1983, he wrote--“Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”
This concept of “failing better” has been adopted by many in Silicon Valley almost as their mantra and has even been picked up some professional athletes who are clawing their way to the top. Entrepreneurs are often creators and many of the ultimately successful ones work on being brutally honest with themselves. They ask for criticism and, unlike most of us mere mortals, they do not get defensive when you give it to them both barrels. They have a self-awareness that few of us have. They do not run from failure or hide it from others.
Historically, we have all seen this work in the arts. Allegedly, Hemingway re-wrote the ending to A FAREWELL TO ARMS some 39 times before publication. Michael Curtiz shot seven different endings to CASABLANCA and Frank Capra did the same thing with MEET JOHN DOE. And, most of us at some time in our lives heard the famous Thomas Edison quotation of, “I have not failed, I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.”
There is also a misconception from my perspective that most entrepreneurs and private investors tend to “bet the ranch” on every new idea that they think is promising. If you study breakthrough technology or successful businesses with a bit of care you will find that the business generally succeeded by surviving a series of small bets. As a very successful entrepreneur told me recently, “By taking lots of small risks, you avoid catastrophic mistakes. I keep seeing what works and what does not every step of the way. I never stop testing and I know that most of these small wagers will not work. I can live with that.”
If you want to fail well you need to be able to move through even dicey situations. Learn to reframe, improvise and keep moving forward on the fly. And, amazingly, embrace the words of Samuel Beckett and FAIL WELL.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Beckett’s writing was quite spare especially as he aged. In WORSTWARD HO, from 1983, he wrote--“Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”
This concept of “failing better” has been adopted by many in Silicon Valley almost as their mantra and has even been picked up some professional athletes who are clawing their way to the top. Entrepreneurs are often creators and many of the ultimately successful ones work on being brutally honest with themselves. They ask for criticism and, unlike most of us mere mortals, they do not get defensive when you give it to them both barrels. They have a self-awareness that few of us have. They do not run from failure or hide it from others.
Historically, we have all seen this work in the arts. Allegedly, Hemingway re-wrote the ending to A FAREWELL TO ARMS some 39 times before publication. Michael Curtiz shot seven different endings to CASABLANCA and Frank Capra did the same thing with MEET JOHN DOE. And, most of us at some time in our lives heard the famous Thomas Edison quotation of, “I have not failed, I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.”
There is also a misconception from my perspective that most entrepreneurs and private investors tend to “bet the ranch” on every new idea that they think is promising. If you study breakthrough technology or successful businesses with a bit of care you will find that the business generally succeeded by surviving a series of small bets. As a very successful entrepreneur told me recently, “By taking lots of small risks, you avoid catastrophic mistakes. I keep seeing what works and what does not every step of the way. I never stop testing and I know that most of these small wagers will not work. I can live with that.”
If you want to fail well you need to be able to move through even dicey situations. Learn to reframe, improvise and keep moving forward on the fly. And, amazingly, embrace the words of Samuel Beckett and FAIL WELL.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Saturday, March 18, 2017
Are Viewers Paying Much Attention Anymore?
On Sunday, February 26th, I rose early, dressed hurriedly, and jogged out to the curb to begin my weekly ritual of reading a hard copy of the New York Times. As I glanced at the front page, I was very surprised to see an article about media research on the bottom fold.
The piece was entitled “FOR MARKETERS, TVs ACT AS PRICELESS SETS OF EYES.” (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/business/media/tv-viewers-tracking-tools.html?_r=0) The article covered an issue that many of us have been pounding the table about for years. With so many other devices going simultaneous to TV viewing, just what is the level of attentiveness to commercial messages in the 21st century?
Many of us were exposed to fragmentary and early set top box data as long as nine years ago, when it appeared that there was a great deal of channel hopping going on during commercial breaks. Intuitively, many of us had felt that but we finally had some proof. Since then, particularly among millennials, the use of a smartphone, tablet or laptop while “watching” TV has grown significantly.
The Times article talked about companies who are working hard to capture commercial ratings, if you will, relative to the standard program ratings that we all have lived with for decades. Advertisers are projected to spend upwards of $70 billion in television advertising in the US this year so providing attentiveness detail would be very valuable indeed to marketers of all broadcast/cable budgets.
The lead player in the article was TVision (pronounced tee vision) which “tracks the movement of people’s eyes in relation to the television.” TVision has approximately 2,000 households in the Boston, Chicago and Dallas-Ft. Worth areas which some may say is small compared to Nielsen’s 42,500 national household sample. Their information is valuable in how granular it is and also their measurement of binge viewing favorites on Netflix and Amazon. If you know what programs have the most engaged viewers, the pricing of primetime inventory is bound to shift, perhaps dramatically.
Also mentioned in the Times article was Symphony Advanced Media which has constructed a panel of 17,500 viewers who have a special mobile app installed in their phones. Participants, in exchange for a small monthly stipend, allow Symphony to track their usage plus a microphone hears what they are watching. Additionally, participants do a questionnaire on usage. The service captures viewings on busses and in sports bars as well.
All this is heady stuff. A well placed media executive told me anonymously that he is increasingly using this kind of data to wean people away from large commitments to television as we know it. For the time being, Nielsen will remain the gold standard in audience measurement. Yet, commercial avoidance continues to march at the fastest pace ever. These new services can wrap some discipline around the conjecture that many of us have had in recent years. And, of course, Nielsen is surely not standing still in terms of their development. It will be a long time before anyone gets ahead of the curve but promising new research is sure to realign the media mix of many significant advertisers.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolmedia@gmail.com
The piece was entitled “FOR MARKETERS, TVs ACT AS PRICELESS SETS OF EYES.” (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/business/media/tv-viewers-tracking-tools.html?_r=0) The article covered an issue that many of us have been pounding the table about for years. With so many other devices going simultaneous to TV viewing, just what is the level of attentiveness to commercial messages in the 21st century?
Many of us were exposed to fragmentary and early set top box data as long as nine years ago, when it appeared that there was a great deal of channel hopping going on during commercial breaks. Intuitively, many of us had felt that but we finally had some proof. Since then, particularly among millennials, the use of a smartphone, tablet or laptop while “watching” TV has grown significantly.
The Times article talked about companies who are working hard to capture commercial ratings, if you will, relative to the standard program ratings that we all have lived with for decades. Advertisers are projected to spend upwards of $70 billion in television advertising in the US this year so providing attentiveness detail would be very valuable indeed to marketers of all broadcast/cable budgets.
The lead player in the article was TVision (pronounced tee vision) which “tracks the movement of people’s eyes in relation to the television.” TVision has approximately 2,000 households in the Boston, Chicago and Dallas-Ft. Worth areas which some may say is small compared to Nielsen’s 42,500 national household sample. Their information is valuable in how granular it is and also their measurement of binge viewing favorites on Netflix and Amazon. If you know what programs have the most engaged viewers, the pricing of primetime inventory is bound to shift, perhaps dramatically.
Also mentioned in the Times article was Symphony Advanced Media which has constructed a panel of 17,500 viewers who have a special mobile app installed in their phones. Participants, in exchange for a small monthly stipend, allow Symphony to track their usage plus a microphone hears what they are watching. Additionally, participants do a questionnaire on usage. The service captures viewings on busses and in sports bars as well.
All this is heady stuff. A well placed media executive told me anonymously that he is increasingly using this kind of data to wean people away from large commitments to television as we know it. For the time being, Nielsen will remain the gold standard in audience measurement. Yet, commercial avoidance continues to march at the fastest pace ever. These new services can wrap some discipline around the conjecture that many of us have had in recent years. And, of course, Nielsen is surely not standing still in terms of their development. It will be a long time before anyone gets ahead of the curve but promising new research is sure to realign the media mix of many significant advertisers.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolmedia@gmail.com
Sunday, March 5, 2017
New Media and The Hype Cycle
Many of you have probably heard the term "hype" a great deal in your marketing, advertising or media careers. Did you know that there is a phenomenon observed by a renowned research firm known as The Hype Cycle?
The Hype Cycle was, as best as I can tell, was first identified by the Gartner research organization which essentially said the following about a technology or invention:
1) When it arrives or proves viable, the hype is huge
2) It is then found to not live up to its initial hype
3) The hype gets relatively silent and then you do not hear about it for a while
4) Incrementally, things get better and the new technology does the things it was supposed to do when first hyped.
In simple terms, a rule of thumb about the hype cycle is that things often become truly useful after we stop hearing about them.
Is this some esoteric theory from a bunch of futuristic dreamers? I do not think so.
Remember in the late 1990s when the internet was the rage and forecasters said that it would swamp advertising as we know it? Everyone wanted the internet in media plans even they did not understand what they were buying and could not verify the audiences of the online platforms. The great dot.com crash of early 2000 washed out a lot of marginal players and many avoided this emerging medium for a few years. Meanwhile,Google got stronger and has been proven to be an effective marketing vehicle along with many other online platforms.
The late Roy Amara who was president of The Institute for The Future developed a theory about the hype cycle that has since become known as Amara’s Law. Articulated in brief by fellow futurist Robert Cringely, it goes like this--”We tend to overstate the effect of technology in the short run and understate the effect in the long run.”
So, today we hear about driverless cars and trucks and tests seem to be going well. Elon Musk says that he is planning a flying car which reminds me of my childhood cartoon show, The Jetsons. Some politicians talk of an industrial renaissance in America creating millions of jobs but robotics is finding its way in to coffee shops and soon fast food establishments as well as auto plants. Robots will grow profits but kill unskilled and low skilled jobs.
Will all these things happen? Probably. When you stop hearing much about them, check your premise. It could be that they are merely in the quiet phase of the hype cycle and will come roaring back into our real world fairly quickly.
Advertiser supported media, particularly video, is losing share daily to Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Youtube and others. The hype may not be there as it was a few years ago but their growth is steady and relentless.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
The Hype Cycle was, as best as I can tell, was first identified by the Gartner research organization which essentially said the following about a technology or invention:
1) When it arrives or proves viable, the hype is huge
2) It is then found to not live up to its initial hype
3) The hype gets relatively silent and then you do not hear about it for a while
4) Incrementally, things get better and the new technology does the things it was supposed to do when first hyped.
In simple terms, a rule of thumb about the hype cycle is that things often become truly useful after we stop hearing about them.
Is this some esoteric theory from a bunch of futuristic dreamers? I do not think so.
Remember in the late 1990s when the internet was the rage and forecasters said that it would swamp advertising as we know it? Everyone wanted the internet in media plans even they did not understand what they were buying and could not verify the audiences of the online platforms. The great dot.com crash of early 2000 washed out a lot of marginal players and many avoided this emerging medium for a few years. Meanwhile,Google got stronger and has been proven to be an effective marketing vehicle along with many other online platforms.
The late Roy Amara who was president of The Institute for The Future developed a theory about the hype cycle that has since become known as Amara’s Law. Articulated in brief by fellow futurist Robert Cringely, it goes like this--”We tend to overstate the effect of technology in the short run and understate the effect in the long run.”
So, today we hear about driverless cars and trucks and tests seem to be going well. Elon Musk says that he is planning a flying car which reminds me of my childhood cartoon show, The Jetsons. Some politicians talk of an industrial renaissance in America creating millions of jobs but robotics is finding its way in to coffee shops and soon fast food establishments as well as auto plants. Robots will grow profits but kill unskilled and low skilled jobs.
Will all these things happen? Probably. When you stop hearing much about them, check your premise. It could be that they are merely in the quiet phase of the hype cycle and will come roaring back into our real world fairly quickly.
Advertiser supported media, particularly video, is losing share daily to Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Youtube and others. The hype may not be there as it was a few years ago but their growth is steady and relentless.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
