Jagger, Warhol, and another guy you've never heard of

Check the letter below, a fairly famous one at that, written in 1969 from the Rolling Stones Mick Jagger to the artist Andy Warhol regarding Warhol's impending collaboration with the band on the cover art for their soon to be released album:

In three short paragraphs, and with 100 words give or take, Mick schools us all on the difference between the Talent - himself, the band, and of course Warhol; and the 'support' types like the unfortunate Mr. Al Steckler, who will look 'nervous' and can essentially be ignored.

I post a lot on this blog, perhaps too much, about the challenge and threat that increased automation and robot technology pose to the workforce and workplaces of the future. But I don't think that the changes and potential disruption that more powerful automation technologies, smarter artificial intelligences, and the increasing acceptance of robots in all kinds of workplace environments can be ignored. The primary challenge for many of us, and certainly for the next generation of workers, will be to find ways to ensure we can continue to create value - unique, hard to copy, and certainly hard to automate value.

This is not really a new requirement, although the pace of technological advances are making it more pressing. Back in 1969, Mick Jagger already it pegged. People like himself and Andy Warhol, well they were the creators. They were the important parts in the machine. And they'd enjoy the spoils - did you catch the line in the letter were Mick basically tells Warhol to name his price for creating the album cover art?

In 1969, for a non-creative, non-essential type like Steckler the worst think likely to happen was he'd be ignored and maybe marginalized a little. In 2013, the risks of being someone branded as a non-creative, worrying, nervous, functionary I think are far worse.  We can get a robot to handle those jobs soon enough. 

And the robots won't get nervous or bother the talent.

Have a great week all!

Google on Competition, Creativity, and Gut Feel

Last week Fortune ran an extremely interesting interview with Google co-founder and current CEO Larry Page that covered a wide range of subjects related to the tech giant's business. It is a fascinating and enlightening read, and I'd definitely recommend taking a few minutes sometime this week to read it through, but since I know you are busy, I'll pull out a few of the most interesting parts for your consideration.

Larry Page on competition (and how much he and probably you should be thinking about it:

Obviously we think about competition to some extent. But I feel my job is mostly getting people not to think about our competition. In general I think there's a tendency for people to think about the things that exist. Our job is to think of the thing you haven't thought of yet that you really need. And by definition, if our competitors knew that thing, they wouldn't tell it to us or anybody else.

This is a super observation and warning - spend too much time thinking about the competition and run the risk of just copying what they are doing, and not enough time creating the next, new, and innovative thing. And creating the 'next' thing is where the action is, and as we will see in the next point, how you attract and retain the best people.

Page on how Google chooses which projects to pursue:

Choosing what to do. We want to do things that will motivate the most amazing people in the world to want to work on them. You look at self-driving cars. You know a lot of people die, and there's a lot of wasted labor. The better transportation you have, the more choice in jobs. And that's social good. That's probably an economic good.

Really interesting observation about how business strategy (What projects should Google be working on?), is informed and even driven by talent strategy, (What are the things that great talent wants to work on?).  Mostly organizations have this reversed - strategy is set and projects are picked, and THEN the organization seeks or attempts to convince people to work on them.

Finally, and possibly the most notable aspect of the interiew given Google's famous reputation as a data-driven organization, how Page assesses the progress his teams are making:

You kind of have a feel for it, but it's hard to measure really accurately. But I think a lot of things have improved. We had a measurement of our rate of how we check in code. We've seen some improvements in that, which I view as a good sign. But I probably put more weight on just an intuitive feel.

The takeaway here is, for me, a bit of a warning to not let management and leadership simply devolve into a numbers game. Whether it is the influence of Moneyball, the last election and the cult of Nate Silver, or the inevitable calls for leaders to leverage 'Big Data' for decision making - Page's admission and inclination to trust his intuition is in a way refreshing. 

Besides, the robots have not (yet) learned how to manage by intuition.

Have a great week all!

Thirteen versions of the same thing

Neat piece on a photography blog called Canonblogger a few days back titled 'Can You Shoot Thirteen Views?' which challenged readers, I'm assuming them all to be fairly serious photography enthusiasts, to pick an object or scene, anything really, and shoot thirteen different photos of the object, adjusting and changing lighting, exposure, etc. to create a collection of similar but slightly different images of said object.Source - Canonblogger

The point of the exercise? That the simple process of creating 13 versions of the original image, or new takes on the existing idea for the image, is likely to produce something much more interesting and valuable than what existed at the starting point.

From the Canonblogger piece:

Go get your camera and pick some random object in your room, office, or wherever you happen to be. Now what?

Take 13 pictures of that object. Make each one different! Change the angle, change the light, change the object itself. It doesn't matter what you do, just do 13 different things. I can guarantee you that at least one of those photos will be something new, unique and even compelling.

Kind of a neat and really simple exercise, particularly given the near-zero cost of digital imaging today, (each additional picture on the camera's memory card costs essentially nothing), and considering the amazingly accessible and powerful tools and apps like Instagram that are available to photographers of all skill levels.  Creating 5 or 10 or even 20 'versions' of an image has never been more possible and approachable.

Why bother? Well as the post suggests, the more images one takes of an object, the numbers do increase the likelihood of creating something new and compelling, that much seems obvious. But for me, there also might be a lesson about our perceived capability to experiment, speculate, and explore in other areas beyond simple digital photography.

Most everything we do, projects, processes, even technology development, seems to start from a fixed place - a given set of assumptions, circumstances, work that has gone on before we get our hands on whatever mess opportunity we are inheriting. That starting point, maybe 'Image 1' in the 13 images example above, often determines a large part of the eventual outcome of the endeavor, sort of the old 'Where you end up depends on where you start' gimmick.

If you buy-in to that theory, or at least suspect it might have some truth to it, then taking perhaps just a bit of extra time at the start, to challenge assumptions, to examine more closely the status quo, to really honestly assess whether constraints are real or just imagined might prove valuable and open up a wider range of possibilities, and eventual outcomes as well.

The 'Take 13 images' example reminds us, even simple things like objects often can tell much different stories when viewed just a little bit differently. If that is true for static objects, it is no doubt true for the more complex ideas and relationships and technologies that you might be working today with as well.

Have a Great Weekend!

The important thing is not the idea

A few days ago I re-watched the excellent documentary 'The Pixar Story', a 2007 film that chronicles the origins, the early struggles, and the eventual amazing successes of Pixar Studios.  While in 2012 it may seem obvious that computer generated animation can produce incredible images and lead to fantastic results, (like Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Cars, etc.),  that belief was not widely held when Pixar was starting out.  The film does a superb job of profiling the early visionaries and eventual leaders in the computer animation field, namely John Lasseter, Ed Catmull, and even everyone's favorite tech titan Steve Jobs, whose investments and belief in Pixar allowed it to survive some tough early years.

Watching the film again I was struck by the many simple, seemingly obvious yet hard to replicate, work practices and cultural influences that make creating great art and innovating more likely at Pixar than at the typical organization. The open, free-flowing office layout, the relentless focus on creating something even better than the last film, the self-awareness to know that they could not simply rely on their past reputation, that they had to continue to elevate their games in order to continue to succeed in the crowded entertainment space. All of this, combined with a really high talent level across the board, (the film gives the distinct impression that the best talent in computer animation is at Pixar, and thus continues to attract even more talent), help to at least attempt to offer reasons or explanations behind Pixar's story.

But probably the most telling point raised in the documentary was an observation made by Ed Catmull, who was Pixar's Chief Technology Officer and later became the President of both Pixar and Disney Animation Studios, on what he felt like was the key factor or 'secret' behind Pixar's success.  Here's the quote from Mr. Catmull:

"The important thing is not the idea, the important thing is the people its how they work together, who they are that matters most."

It's not the idea. Or, it's not enough anyway. Sure, someone has to come up with that initial bit of inspiration, like, 'What if the toys came to life when no one is in the room?', but then all you have is just that idea. Nothing, or at least not much else. And while having that great idea is essential, and everything in the process flows from there. Even in an ideas business like Pixar, the idea is never the end its just the beginning, and creating an environment where ideas can find capable, empowered, competitive, and motivated people is the only way you win.

Which is probably why there are so few companies like Pixar out in the wild - it's pretty easy to generate ideas, it's even easier to poke holes in other people's ideas, but the toughest nut to crack is to create the conditions where good ideas have a chance to emerge and have the potential to actually be improved upon when exposed to the larger community.

Catch 'The Pixar Story' sometime, I think you will be glad you did.

It doesn't matter how unique your idea is, it matters if it can be copied

Quick one for a summer Friday and then we can all get back to the beach or backyard or ball game.

If you have been in New York City's Times Square in the last decade or so, you've probably seen a crowd gather around this guy ---->

Known as 'The Naked Cowboy', (real name Robert Burck), the Cowboy strolls the square, singing, posing for pictures, and otherwise working the crowd for donations in what has to be called a clever and certainly unusual way to make a living.

I've seen the Cowboy many times over the years, and while for me, and this is not a knock on the Cowboy really, the novelty has kind of worn off and I think the entire gimmick is silly, he still seems to be getting it done with the crowds of tourists and out of town business folks that make up most of the people in Times Square on any given day.

You'd think that his angle, parading around Times Square in a pair of speedos and boots, playing guitar and singing songs, and doing it for over 10 years, would have pretty much locked up the market for this sort of thing for the Cowboy, and probably allowed him to feel some security and perhaps even a little bit of complacency, secure in the fact that his act was/is so out there that no one else would be able or interested to get in the game. Heck, after a while I bet he stopped learning new songs or jokes for the crowd, because like any good monopolist, why keep innovating when you've locked up the market?

Well, according to the UPI, the Cowboy might not have the range all too himself any more, enter the 'Naked Indian'. See right---->

Same schtick, same angle, different guy, (slightly) different costume, now battling the Cowboy for the hearts, minds, and wallets of the tourists, (as well as potentially battling the Cowboy in court).

From the UPI story:

The Cowboy, Robert Burck, who has been playing guitar and singing in his underwear and cowboy hat in Times Square for years, now has a rival in the Indian, Adam Davis, the New York Daily News reported Saturday.

Burck, who said there are no ill feelings between him and Davis, has nonetheless threatened to sue Davis if he refuses to join Burck’s company, Naked Cowboy Enterprises, a franchise that features Naked Cowgirls and other entertainers.

“I’ve been here ... 365 days, every day for 13 years and change,” Burck said. “He’s only been here 16 days and missed two already.”

Davis, who dons underwear and a headdress, said there is room in the busy tourist area for more gimmicks.

Hard to say how the dueling naked entertainers will get this resolved, but the whole sordid, (and sad), story reminds us all that no matter how unique or unusual your idea or angle is, chances are if it works it's going to be copied. It might take a while for the 'second to market' folks to get there, but if you're only advantage over them is yelling 'I was here first', well for most customers that argument won't mean much or ensure you can hold on to your market.

If there is someone out there willing to copy the Naked Cowboy, there definitely is someone out there willing to steal your gimmick as well.

Better learn some new songs this weekend.