https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/313532/tv-advertising-has-a-marketing-problem.html
The Martin Agency Promotes Karen Costello to CCO in the Wake of Joe Alexander’s Scandalous Departure
Powered by WPeMatico
Making the Complex Simple by Avinash Kaushik
Anyone can present complexity. It is the rare person that can do so simply. Consider the myriad nuances, layers and data points at our disposal today. Every issue, from mass incarceration, to multi-channel marketing attribution, to Brexit, is incredibly complex. That complexity often stalls our progress when people who speak about these issues — people who present solutions — can’t present complexity simply. Why? Because it is freaking hard! : ) Focusing on our world of marketing and analytics, we must determine how to take business complexity and present it simply. Our goal is to ensure clear understanding by our leaders and guide them toward the right questions, which are rarely obvious. Today, a foremost method of achieving simplicity: the humble 2×2 matrix. What is the best way to illustrate the dilemma between business owners and customers? There are 80 possible answers to that question. But the complexity is perhaps best distilled through a 2×2 visual. An image posted to LinkedIn by Katie Ostreko offers a wonderful example: |
|
Really cool, right? Customers always want the bottom-right. Business owners would love the top-left, though they’ll settle for the top-right. And there-in lies the dilemma! Every strategic problem your company faces boils down to this 2×2. Does the 2×2 solve all the problems? No, of course not. It frames the essential, and lays it naked and stark. That is its power. It will fuel many non-obvious questions stimulate rich, strategic discussions about complex topics. Another example addresses a complicated topic I’ve been immersed in for over 18 months: Jobs will become obsolete with advancements in intelligence and automation. How do we prepare for the immediate and long-term impacts of that disruption? Consider this chart from PwC in the UK (PDF): |
|
[I’ve edited the graph for simplicity. Can’t help myself.] Two sources of data: PWC and Frey and Osborne. Regardless of your preference, the conclusion holds true: by the early 2030s — in just a dozen years — we can expect massive disruption. It is unclear whether it will be a lobster boil, a series of small bangs, or a big bang. But disruption is coming. [If you want to create a personal preparation plan, here’s a guide: Analytics + Marketing Career Advice: Your Now, Next, Long Plan] There are thousands of industries. Tens of thousands of job types. Hundreds of thousands of variations in the skills required for those jobs. How does one represent all that complexity simply, and yet provide enough insight to spark a constructive conversation? While there is no obvious or perfect approach, there are 10,000 ways of doing it wrong. You’ve undoubtedly seen many in cute USA Today graphics and throughout click-baited blog posts and tweets. My quest lead me to the simple framing by the Federal Reserve. It’s not a matrix, but you’ll recognize a 2×2 if you look closely: |
|
(Source) All jobs boil down to four categories on two dimensions: Nonroutine Manual: Service occupations related to assisting or caring for others Routine Cognitive: Sales and office occupations Simple, right? I’m not fond of the word “manual,” so I’ve replaced it with “physical” in what I came to call the Body & Mind Matrix: |
|
It dramatically focuses your attention for this complex topic, right? Now that we have a simple 2×2 structure, we can consider what might be the optimal data to drive a more focused discussion about jobs at risk due to intelligence and automation. The best piece of data, for my use case, came from an excellent article (with an unnecessarily alarming title and graphics) in Mother Jones: By when do we expect the automation to impact each job type? With that piece, here’s the completed version of the Body & Mind Job Automation Matrix: |
|
Now we are really cooking. An extremely complicated topic, with loads of ambiguity and unpredictability, encompassing every job on Earth, framed in a way that anyone can comprehend and pinpoint where they lie. It deeply resonates. I bet you immediately have questions — constructive, non-obvious questions — that would have been hard to surface if I had just asked you, “What will happen to jobs due to increased automation?” That’s the beauty of simplifying complexity using a tool like 2×2. Of course, this approach excludes much detail. Loads of nuances are absent. But the takeaway balances information with simplicity to focus the viewer and power the discussion a CEO or politician — or you — will find productive. That’s the big win. I’ve used 2x2s in other instances. For example, in your quest for innovation how to know when to stop and when to keep going – a 2×2 that uses Cost and Errors. Another one I’m working on at the moment illuminates how to power smarter analytics governance – a 2×2 that uses Strategy and Speed. The use cases are endless. Bottom-line: 2x2s are just one example of representing complexity. Pair them with other approaches to simplicity in your slide decks, analytics dashboards, prenuptial agreement(s), new business strategies, and plans to solve the global clean water crisis. Be a simplicity warrior. -Avinash. PS: If you’re seeking more scary headlines on AI/automation: 1. By 2060, AI will be capable of performing any task currently done by humans. 2. Routine jobs represent 50% of the current US labor force, they’ll disappear by mid-2030s. (Both from the Oxford-Yale survey, the data analysis well worth reading. Download pdf.) 3. Spektrum der Wissenschaft, figures that 40 percent of the 500 biggest companies will vanish within a decade. Scary is there if you want it. But keep in mind two considerations: Uno. Scared is not very useful. You want a simple way to have a focused discussion that draws out non-obvious questions for you/your company. Use the Body & Mind Matrix. Dos. 38% to 47% of normal jobs are going to be automated away by 2030s. Normal jobs are the ones we currently have. During the period represented by the Body & Mind Matrix humanity will create new jobs that we can’t imagine, to solve opportunities we can’t anticipate. Oh, and if you are curious about what happens to humanity 150 years out, go read TMAI #100 for my prediction! #happydotsoflights |
January 26th Story of the Day
Knowing a Last Name Means Much More Than I Thought
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-dating-no-no-asking-for-a-last-name-1516810482
The New Dating No-No: Asking for a Last Name
Now that smartphone apps are the primary way people meet, some things have become too awkward to ask
One warm summer night, Dana Musharbash was sitting along the Chicago River with a man she had been dating for more than three months. As they talked about the future, sipping blue Tiki drinks, he popped the question:
“What’s your last name?”
Ms. Musharbash, 21 years old, was surprised he hadn’t already figured it out. Soon after meeting him on the dating app Tinder, she discovered his last name through his Snapchat screen name. But his question meant things were getting serious.
“He now knew me as a whole person,” she said.
As online dating has proliferated, so too have an array of norms that might seem bizarre—or downright counterproductive—to generations who didn’t rely on their phones as a way to meet people. Among them: a reluctance to ask for surnames until the relationship has progressed to a more serious level.
Asking for a last name “is definitely a modern social cue” that trust is building in a relationship, said Denny Dowty, a 26-year-old in Kansas City, Kan. “It’s the 21st-century equivalent of leaving a calling card.”
Many millennials say asking directly for a last name on a first date feels awkward, and signals too obviously they intend to scour the internet for biographical information. Others say that downloading a date’s entire digital footprint—armed with the full name—can stop a relationship from developing organically.
“The less I know, the better,” said Brendan Krick, 25, a comedian in Philadelphia. “Everyone is so lame on the internet.” Just seeing that a woman liked “a bunch of bands that suck” on her Facebook page could be a deal breaker, he said.
Dating apps have grappled with how much information to reveal about a user without sacrificing safety. Tinder and Bumble, another service, typically show only first names. OkCupid recently revised its policy to require people to use their first names instead of made-up usernames such as “DaddyzPrincess29.”
The League, another app, generally requires users to show their first name, last initial, educational background and current employer, saying “you’ll never have to wonder if that Harvard hottie is too good to be true.” Users can pay extra to hide their employer, or customize in other ways.
Nicole Ellison, a University of Michigan professor who has studied online dating, said finding out last names can shatter the carefully curated image presented through an app, potentially revealing what people are actually like.
“Once you have the last name, that unlocks this whole new universe of information,” said Prof. Ellison. “You can go to their social media sites, Google the person, look up criminal histories.”
Thanks to sites such as LinkedIn and Facebook, an amateur sleuth can often figure out last names with just a first name and the person’s alma mater or place of work.
When that doesn’t work, there are other tactics, such as taking a peek at an Uber account name or credit card after a date, or asking to exchange social media handles.
Hayden Moll, a freshman at Missouri State University, swiped left on Tinder recently on the profile for a woman named Claudia, even though he meant to swipe right to show his interest. Undeterred by the mistake, Mr. Moll saw they attended the same school and proceeded to email 42 different Claudias at Missouri State hoping to find her.
“If Tinder provided last names this would be much easier,” he wrote in the email.
Mr. Moll said the two plan to meet up for doughnuts “sometime soon.” Ms. Alley didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Dating app users such as Judith Cothran say they don’t want to put in the effort to learn last names until relationships become more serious. Ms. Cothran, 41, who works in software sales, said she has been on more than 300 first dates since 2010, but has only learned the last names for approximately 20 of them.
“I realized that pre-date research is often a waste of time,” she said, especially because it isn’t guaranteed to reveal whether the man is married, her biggest concern.
Mike Ingram, a 41-year-old books editor, said it was easier to find out last names when he started online dating about a decade ago because people commonly exchanged email addresses, which often contained last names, instead of phone numbers. “Nobody emails anymore,” he said.
Keeping track of a one-name first-date phone number isn’t easy. Mr. Krick said his phone contacts contained, at one point, more than 60 women with the last name “OkCupid” or “Tinder.” He hardly ever enters real last names.
“The one time I did it recently, it was because there was another Emily Tinder already, so I needed to find out her real last name,” he said. “I couldn’t have Emily Tinder Two.”
Jessica Lieberman, a 25-year-old user-experience designer in Washington, D.C., said she puts prospective suitors in her phone using nicknames, such as “Dave Military” or “East Coast Science Dan.”
Changing a last name in her phone from “Tinder” to a real last name is a “modern relationship milestone,” said Angelica Guarino, a 20-year-old student at Boston University.
Some online daters thoroughly investigate people before agreeing to meet, including copying and pasting photos into Google’s image search.
Maria Mir, 19, said if she has only a first name and location for a prospective date, she deploys friends to find him on Facebook or other social media sites, partly to check out his political views.
“I want to know what you think about mass incarceration and things like that,” she said.
This can also backfire. A man Ms. Lieberman matched with on Bumble told her, on the second date, he had found her LinkedIn page. He brought up her education status and mentioned a nonprofit job she held around 2014, none of which she had yet discussed with him.
Ms. Lieberman said she judged him for scrolling through her LinkedIn.
“That ended terribly,” she said. “It wasn’t a match.”
Write to Nicole Hong at nicole.hong@wsj.com
Appeared in the January 25, 2018, print edition.
Movie Theater Business Still Big With Millennials
Powered by WPeMatico
McDonald’s Taps New Leaders to Oversee Brand Content and Cultural Engagement
Powered by WPeMatico
Comcast Hires Strong As President, Consumer Services
Powered by WPeMatico
Amazon’s First Ad for the Echo Spot Is About Togetherness, Not Shopping
Powered by WPeMatico
BET Experimented With AR Hair Dryers to Promote the Second Season of The Quad
Powered by WPeMatico