sift everything

Big move to Alberta today.

Will be offline for several days.

Be back soon … ish.

Hugh MacLeod from Jeff Jarvis on Dell:

“The thing is, when you start turning your products into commodities, you start treating your customers like commodities.”

Wondering: Is this what it takes to make a million $1 sales? Treat customers like commodities?

Love this stuff.

Ever hear of the The Ad Lib Game Development Society (ALGDS)? The ideas behind it go anywhere. ALGDS is an attempt to rapidly gain experience which is usually hard-won and takes tonnes of time to build.

Leveraging the experience of a group, game developers “attempt to challenge, amuse, and better ourselves through the frequent practise of spontaneous, rapid game design and development”. Read more about it here and at Kathy Sierra’s site where I found it.

Aside 1: Founder, Brian “Squirrel” Eiserloh, “subscribes to the ‘Zen’ philosophy of programming, putting a high premium not only on quality of code but on craftsmanship, engineering, teamwork, and communication”.

Aside 2: At the informal session where Kathy heard Squirrel, the most engaged participant was Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.

Dan Shaffer on “design thinking“:

“… design thinking is creative, innovative, and focused on problem-solving. But so is the thinking of many different types of professions: lawyers, engineers, and contractors, to name only a few. So lets remove those as differentiators right away. No, if there is such a thing as design thinking, it’s probably shorthand for these things:

- A Focus on Customers/Users.

- Finding Alternatives.

- Ideation and Prototyping.

- Wicked Problems.

- A Wide Range of Influences.

- Emotion.

… I think it’s the combination of these that people mean–or should mean–when using the phrase “design thinking.”

(via cph127)

Design as Story-telling by Thomas Erickson.

(via cph127)

The cool part of Albert’s story is its utility. There’s no riddle to solve. Just choices to make.

You can choose high design, narrowly defined clients, exceptional service, concierge-level attentiveness — and the lifestyle that goes with it.

Or you can choose Walmart.

Either way, you’ll make money.

Keynote by David Kelley, Founder and Chairman, Ideo, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Founder of Stanford’s New “D” School:

- doing well in technological innovation, rounding the corner on business innovation, but still have lots to do on human-centred innovation

- lots of opportunity for integrated thinking across the silos of knowledge disciplines

- best model for innovation is observing the needs of potential clients

(note: flash stops abruptly before finished … haven’t found a full version yet)

To me this is incredibly interesting. And maybe it’s obvious to the rest of you and you wish I’d clam up. But the gorgeous climax of these dynamics is the lifestyle and ether it affords Albert.

Ever been to LensCrafters? Ever wish you could work there? Better yet, ever wish you could live there? What about the people that work there — want to dress like them? Ever wish you could hang out with their buyer in WalMart or Zellers or wherever they buy their frames — milling about with hacks that haven’t ever thought about paying more than $2 bucks a pop for a frame, let alone watched the word “design” crawl across their cerebral HUD?

But you should have seen us at Albert’s. Me and an elderly couple were the singular focus of four employees and the owner. Every one was wearing beautiful clothing, trigged out hairstyles, and of course, superb glasses. Albert’s stories about buying trips had my wife glassy-eyed. All of this is situated just one street down the hill from Canada’s parliament buildings — forget your stomach for politics, these are lovely buildings.

I guess it boils down to a pretty basic choice: What kind of person do you want to be? The kind it takes to make a million $1 sales or the kind that makes a single, annual sale of $1 million? Everything rolls out from that.

Thought I’d try an experiment: Pass protected posts.

My posts are sometimes a bit mysterious. Leave the punchline out. Let you think a bit.

I’m trying harder to see what sings for people. But I often get questions like, “if that idea means this … then what does that mean for me?”

To keep the mystery but still answer those questions, I’ll either package all the various pieces together in a sum total. Or more deliberately explain what I think it all means.

To get this, I need your email. You can subscribe here (and get updates on sift posts too).

Of course, I won’t share your email. That’d hurt my reputation in a way far greater than anything I might gain.

Anyway, thought I’d give it a shot.

I’ve kept thinking about Albert and two things he told me.

1. At this level, brand doesn’t matter, it’s all about reputation.
2. I don’t blog because it gets me the wrong kind of client.

Where brand doesn’t matter. It’s a great title for a philosophy (and sweet name for a book).

I should have seen it coming. It’s everywhere. Look at milk: cream, milk, water. Look at earth: sky, water, ground. Look at music: rockstar, musician, Britney Spears.

Upper-class, middle class, lower class.

Those at the bottom are the average sheep. Those in the middle are micro-global-branders and the regular sort of branders. And those at the top … well we don’t hear about them unless we buy from them (or sneak into their stores).

The creators Albert buys from are so keenly aware of this, they won’t sell to him unless he shows a list of other creators he has bought from. There’s a sharp sense of differentiation — the line is cut on reputation.

Reputation in turn defines clientelle. You don’t pay $750 for frames unless you value design more than … well, actually being able to see. And, let’s face it, there aren’t too many people like that. But Albert made it crystal clear that he only wanted people that were like that.

There’s a nuance here that shouldn’t be missed. Albert isn’t being crusty. Remember, I was wearing Gap jeans, a tee, and my drolling son. Albert is being exclusive on palette only — and wonders if blogging would draw in people that lack a sufficiently refined palette to appreciate his stuff.

Derek Sivers on execution:

Ideas are worth nothing unless executed. They are just a multiplier. Execution is worth millions.

Explanation:

AWFUL IDEA = -1
WEAK IDEA = 1
SO-SO IDEA = 5
GOOD IDEA = 10
GREAT IDEA = 15
BRILLIANT IDEA = 20

NO EXECUTION = $1
WEAK EXECUTION = $1000
SO-SO- EXECUTION = $10,000
GOOD EXECUTION = $100,000
GREAT EXECUTION = $1,000,000
BRILLIANT EXECUTION = $10,000,000

To make a business, you need to multiply the two.

The most brilliant idea, with no execution, is worth $20.
The most brilliant idea takes great execution to be worth $20,000,000.

(via Rob May at Business Pundit)

Perfect expression can only come from complete knowing and graceful execution is a consequence of absolute understanding.

To name this goldfish … or strategy … or brand … or unquestionable! … or mountain … you’ve got to know — you have to have looked, studied, analyzed and described to the deepest level. Knowing is a depth of understanding beyond the superficial.

Only after knowing can you express the essence of purpose — these are navel gazing words I know, but this is the stuff of viruses.

Having found people that deeply know their business, I am suddenly very passionate about finding people that want to. Wouldn’t it be great to live within a network of business people, problem solvers, and decision makers who are dedicated to graceful execution? I and the world would be better for the effort.

Kottke writes:

“… can we have a discussion about where technology and user experience on the web are headed without using any of the following words or concepts:

Ajax, web services, weblogs, Google, del.icio.us, Flickr, folksonomy, tags, hacks, podcasting, wikis, bottom-up, RSS, citizen journalism, mobile, TiVo, the Long Tail, and convergence.

That all seems like the present and past, not the future, no? … What else is out there? Anything?”

103 comments ensued generating a very interesting conversation … well, a kind of conversation, more like many monologues at once.

It was just this sort of phenomena that prompted a real conversation between Dave Pollard and I. When we first started talking we were trying to understand how to better leverage all the great, individual thinking being done on blogs because what Kottke hosted wasn’t a conversation at all. It was nearly 80 people carrying on their own conversations with themselves while others watched. That’s not a conversation — that’s philosophical voyeurism spiced with a hint of insanity.

Since our first chat Dave’s put up a set of guidelines for what might become real conversations through blogs. And while the whole thing is worthwhile, I think there are some highlights to bring out. First, he’s deliberately steered us away from the usual format of blogs (no links, no graphics, and only people invited to participate). Second, it actually involves discussion (actual voices, slightly edited for palatability, etc.). Finally, the people need to be knowledgeable or clever — most blogs with 103 comments usually float a lot of dead wood.

So, to Kottke’s list of over-played words I would add “conversation”. And to the ideas that form the future, I would also add the same.

Update:

After kottke picked this up, Will Femia of Clicked on MSNBC grabbed it and said:

“We learned a similar lesson with our chat rooms and message boards; most people were going there to say their piece, not listen to others and discuss. Providing a forum is not the same as conducting a conversation. If the future is able to come up with a new way to conduct conversation it’ll be a bigger revolution than most people realize. Most of our media right now, even when there are guests representing “both sides” consist of nothing more than single perspectives presented in series.”

So, what are we going to do about it?

When I went to Albert we must have tried 40 pairs of glasses … 40 pieces.

Stacked up on the table in front of me were frames nearly indistinguishable from each other. And tirelessly he placed them on me, stepped back, readjusted … and rejected.

Over and over until the 28th pair. “These … are excellent. Superb.”

Placing them to the side (a place reserved for only two other pair) he continued on for another few pairs. But his eyes were on “Superb” and he soon put them back on me.

“Unquestionable. Simply no question. These are the ones.”

Back to a few more. Not three pair later they were back on my face.

“Magnificent.”

One more pair and he suddenly dropped everything on the table. He glanced with the sneer of a master at the other two previously reserved pieces on the table, carefully and respectfully placed the esteemed piece on my face, stepped back and with a flair that only the French can pull off — kissed his fingertips with a smack — and walked away.

He was done.

In the theme of all things gamble — Steve Pavlina on blackjack:

Novices miss golden opportunities.

“Novice blackjack players will almost invariably play their hands too conservatively. They’ll stand too often when they should hit, and they’ll fail to double down and split pairs as often as they should … They give up a lot more to the house by playing defensively, trying not to bust. But expert players exploit every opportunity to maximize their wins, meaning that they’ll double and split far more often when the odds favor doing so. Expert players will bust more often, but they’ll also hit their big hands more often.”

“You see a similar pattern in life too. High achievers will bust more often, while underachievers play too conservatively, afraid to take calculated risks for fear of losing what they have. In blackjack, it’s those splits and double down hands where you make your real money. Novice players think it’s the ten-ace blackjack hand that’s the best — the guaranteed win.”

Novices don’t put in the time to fully understand the game.

“Expert players understand the game inside and out because they’ve invested many long hours studying it. Experts work harder. Novices have a strong understanding of certain parts, but their knowledge is very fuzzy in other areas. They often get confused on how to handle situations that arise infrequently. But eventually those situations do arise, and that’s where novices lose. … aside from a lack of understanding, novices also have some false understanding.”

“It’s the same with life. Novices don’t take the time to master the basics, like goal-setting, time management, motivation, and self-discipline. They do OK most days, but whenever an exception occurs such as the loss of a job, they’re thrown completely out of whack, and it takes them a long time to recover.”

Experts are more disciplined.

“Novice players tend to play their hands inconsistently. When the same situation arises, they often make different decisions with no rhyme or reason. They exhibit poor discipline … Experts understand that you can make the correct decision and still lose, but they focus on making correct decisions, not on trying to force a particular outcome. Experts have the patience to know that making correct decisions is all it takes to win in the long run.”

“You see this in real life too, don’t you? Achievers tend to be more consistent in making decisions and taking action; they focus their energy. Underachievers, however, waste their energy, never applying enough force in a consistent direction to bring about a breakthrough.”

(via Business Opportunities Weblog)

Rich Pan’s got some great questions on innovation.

Stuck in a rut? Maybe these ideas will shake you loose.

(via Business Opportunities Blog)

Groove, watch Wikipedia grow — and mourn with London (or drink tea).

This is absolutely stunning in its implications.

(via Amit Gupta)

Biomimicry.net:

“Biomimicry is a new science that studies nature’s models and then imitates or takes inspiration from these designs and processes to solve human problems.”

“The core idea is that nature, imaginative by necessity, has already solved many of the problems we are grappling with. Animals, plants, and microbes are the consummate engineers. They have found what works, what is appropriate, and most important, what lasts here on Earth. This is the real news of biomimicry: After 3.8 billion years of research and development, failures are fossils, and what surrounds us is the secret to survival.”

Very cool.

(Spotted by Good Morning Thinkers and Innovation Weblog)

Into the room walks a professor. In his hands is a jar, filled with water, and in the water swims a goldfish.

Placing the jar and fish on his desk he turns to the single student in the room and asks, “What is this?”

The student looks blankly from professor to jar to professor.

“It is a fish … in a jar.”

Faintly smiling, the professor asks, “But what is it?”

The student, brow furrowed, looks again at the fish.

“A gold colored Carassius auratus.”

“But what is it?” repeats the professor.

This continues each day for several weeks.

Each day, for one month, the professor asks this question. Soon the student has compiled the chemical elements of the jar, water, and fish. Dissected the fish. Sketched it’s inner organs. Studied, illustrated, and described the life cycle, habits, and ecosystem of the fish.

Finally, a pile of papers, books, and diagrams lie scattered about the room. And still, sitting calmly at his desk, is the professor.

“But what is it?”

The student looks up from a detailed drawing of the dorsal scales, stares intently at the fish in the jar, and states:

“It is a goldfish.”

Binding every painter is the canvas, brushes, and paint he chooses.

But, instead of constraints, are these not rules that define the task? Is it not the mastery of these rules that defines the master?

I was talking to a web designer yesterday about the essence of web design. I was asking for perfect and he said, “Well, we’re bound by the rules of the size of the page, html, and the functionality of your blog.”

But aren’t these just the tools of his art? Aren’t these things binding every designer? Yet, isn’t it easy to see the difference between the work of a master and the work of a hack?

Art grows in two primary ways: through new expression using old tools and through the use of new tools. Business grows in these ways too.

Chinese character “mountain” by Zhang Zhengyu

Si-Ma (1019-1086) of the Song Dynasty said, “A gracefully executed work has no peer.”

As in calligraphy, so in business. Of the many ways to express business, here are two: By getting things done or graceful execution.

Getting things done is LensCrafters, McDonalds, and WalMart. Viable? Yes. Viral? Never.

Graceful execution is the art … the essence of business. Perfect expression of purpose. Flawless code. Brilliant design. Simple strategy.

Peerless.

These guys just asked me to sign up.

“We deploy the world’s most developed expert network: the Councils of Advisors.”

Cool model, eh? And cool name. Who doesn’t want to be part of the swank Council of Advisors?

How could you use something like this?

Conversation yesterday:

Me: There’s loads of guys doing work that looks just like mine.

CEO: Well, there’s guys that talk smack and guys that get stuff done. Be the second.

Me: …

CEO: So, how much do I make this check for?

Rich…! on free:

“Think about it, cheap is probably one of the worst marketing strategies around, surely then it stands to reason that free, which is pretty much the deep-end of cheap, ain’t going to be much better, especially if you want to be taken seriously.

Let’s face it, we’re shallow, and a wee bit simple. Too often we use the price tag as the sole measurement of value.”

(For the flip side, go here)

Rich…! what do you think about Fred Wilson’s defence of free?

Seth Godin on two kinds of writing:

“If you’re writing for strangers, make it shorter.

Use images and tone and design and interface to make your point. Teach people gradually.

If you’re writing for colleagues, make it more robust.

Be specific. Be clear. Be intellectually rigorous and leave no wiggle room.

Takeaway: the stuff you’re putting online or in your blog or in your brochures or in your business letters is too long … Too many unanswered questions getting answered too soon.

Takeaway: the stuff you’re sending out in your email and your memos is too vague.”

From a marketer with a reputation like Seth’s this advice is worth noting. Notice the unanswered questions, gradual teaching, use of abstract — this is mystery.

This advice works for more than blogging. It works for pitching, describing your interests, and getting more opportunities with old clients too.

Update: Seth, given what you said above, what do you think drives the success of Dave “king-of-the-long-form” Pollard — proud father of the none too shabby blogpulse rating of 558?

I had a great conversation with Albert. Instantly piqued, I pummelled him with loads of questions:

How much advertising? None. Just word of mouth.

How long in business? 26 years.

How long just buying one piece of each creation? 6 years.

Big difference? Never been better. The place is packed.

You know blogs? Yes.

Why not blog? I don’t want those clients.

What the … why not? The people that come through the door need to already know what we sell, why we sell it, and to be ready to pay this price. I don’t want curious, I want clients. Anything else takes too much time for this level of service … besides, I’m too busy already. (Hugh? Thoughts?)

Any plans to expand? No way, I’m exactly where I want to be … I got the right set of clients, I travel to buy pieces, I couldn’t do this right and be any bigger.

This is so rich.

I just bought a pair of $750 eye glasses.

They’re made by a group of 25 year-old German “creators” (which is important … read on) and there is only one other pair in the entire city of Ottawa — Albert, owner of Albert Opticians, is wearing them.

I went in ready to spend $350 tops. Albert up sold me by $400 — here’s how:

Albert is refined (wearing $250 trousers, a fine pair of shoes, and, need I mention, very sharp glasses), very selective in his approval, and persistent in his search for the ultimate piece,

Albert and his people spent an hour zipping around the shop, snatching up new pairs, and with great flourish helping me try them on,

For each pair I was educated on why they worked and why they didn’t,

Albert pointed out the fine features of each pair:
- “these lenses float inside the frame”,
- “see here,” manicured pinky pointing, “no screws anywhere on this pair”,
- “these lenses,” puffing and buffing very seriously, “are nearly invisible”,
- etc.,

He explained where each pair was made, why he bought them, and why a brand name at this level was irrelevant — “You are buying design, creation, and sophistication — these guys are the very best — brand names don’t matter here … just reputation”,

He explained his philosophy of buying — from “creators” only (the people that actually create the frames — there are mere hundreds in the world) and never designers (these are legion), and only one pair of each piece,

And he gave me his deepest respect despite my Gap jeans and Westcoast tee.

This is exactly what boutiqu-ing (1, 2) is all about. This is bespoke tailor and Hugh McLeod riffs on thousand year old cheese.

Loved this mix between science and web-links.

Mike Grehan’s dad in Filthy Linking Rich:

“… in my experience I’ve discovered that looking for the million dollar deal is very difficult. Getting a million dollars from one person is hard. However, getting one dollar from a million people is really not so difficult.”

If you were going to sell your stuff for $1 what would it look like? And for $1 Million?

Found this on Asterisk.

Keith thinks it’s a great read for consultants — I think it’s a great read for entrepreneurs.

With exploding personal networks, niche-marketing, and tribal companies entrepreneurs need to starting acting like the consultants described in this article: listen obsessively (ping), generously share knowledge and information, and treat people like people.

I’ve been given several great career options recently. Two were particularly fetching:

1. Stay in government but raise the game to another level — Start helping the highest level bureaucrats identify, learn about, and build strategies on long-range issues facing governments before they become a part of the political debate. Offered:

strong ability to identify future, high-level issues and package learning in a persuasive and compelling way

deep network with every high-level bureaucrat and CEO of government

an opportunity to move government by influencing the head rather than the tail

2. Switch to a private, early-stage venture investment company and become an investment manager — Offered:

deep knowledge of VC-type investments, business assessment, and business coaching

opportunity to work with major players in the food, bio-product, industrial product, and financial sectors (in an industry poised to explode)

an opportunity to move industry through entrepreneurism rather than political maneuvers

Well, after a long and torturous deliberation, I chose the private venture company. I’ll be working with start-ups and early stage ventures in a really unique business environment: We are a not-for-profit venture investment company. Go figure. There’s like … one in Canada.

We don’t take equity positions with our investments but this allows us to invest in ideas for renewable resource ventures that are either too risky or not yet sufficiently viable enough to attract equity-driven investments. It’s this sweet mix of soft social benefits, future-oriented visioning, and strategic long-range decision making.

I gotta tell you: I’m tickled.

I talked to Doug Hall last week — I’ve been trying to make a few important career choices and wanted his advice. He asked two questions: “where will you grow more” and “what adds more diversity”.

Growth and diversity, these like NOS and 21″ rims for careers. I’m including them more explicitly in my decision filter. The filter is a set of questions that start with “Which opportunity …”

- Leaves sufficient room for me to be the husband, father, and friend I want to be?
- Gives the most chances to be visionary?
- Consistently asks me to be strategic?
- Rewards spectacular performance (and punishes sub-standard performance)?
- Is in a field I know very little about (encourages knowledge building)?
- Builds hard skills I can take anywhere?
- Puts me in the company of people I admire?
- Makes for the best story?
- Is an intuitive, adventurous, calculated risk?

43 Folders has an excerpt of an interview with Brian Eno.

“Brian Eno … on the creation of “The Microsoft Sound” (the gentle little tune that plays when you boot your Windows PC):

‘The idea came up at the time when I was completely bereft of ideas … the agency said, ‘We want a piece of music that is inspiring, universal, blah- blah, da-da-da, optimistic, futuristic, sentimental, emotional,’ this whole list of adjectives, and then at the bottom it said ‘and it must be 3 1/4 seconds long.’

‘I thought this was so funny and an amazing thought to actually try to make a little piece of music. It’s like making a tiny little jewel.’

‘I got completely into this world of tiny, tiny little pieces of music. I was so sensitive to microseconds at the end of this that it really broke a logjam in my own work. Then when I’d finished that and I went back to working with pieces that were like three minutes long, it seemed like oceans of time.’”

Maybe if we’d innovate in tiny, tight spaces — keep it to the very essence of the change — then we’d look at our usual work and wonder what befuddled us before.

Fast Company: Masters of Design

Invokative perspective on innovation.

Related to the last post:

If SMART is action steps that are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-bound, and SMART doesn’t work with wicked problems, maybe we should look for ones that are FLUID.

F is for Free: non-linear and oblique
L is for Little steps
U is for abdUctive
I is for Invoke mystery
D is for Deliberate chaos

I don’t deal in issues as weighty as racism or as complex as a Nasa space shuttle — but I do work on thorny and complicated problems. But I still see, as Patti just experienced, a deep desire to choose SMART action steps instead of thinking.

The problem is that SMART action steps put a quick stop evolution and necessary, non-linear meandering. Tell me where you have learned more: Flashing down the highway doing 60 or wandering aimlessly at the edge of dirt road. Something resonates in us when we simply explore. While we all share a strong pull to simplistic and quick problem definitions, we also share a natural (life-preserving, life-enhancing) curiosity.

Maybe we should start experimenting in curiosity instead of problem solving. When faced by a CEO or bureaucrat bent on a quick fix try asking questions instead of giving answers. Describe a mystery instead of a problem.

Instead of: “We have a knowledge management problem. Too many of our people are replicating someone else’s work, too few are sharing their experience, and we remain locked in departmental silos — this all needs to change.”

Could we try: “I’ve noticed two things I can’t explain. First, Olga is always talking in the hallways, if she’s at her desk then she’s on her IM — Yet she’s the most productive and creative policy analyst in the group. Second, I’ve never been able to ask her a real question without her saying she wants to talk with someone else before she answers.”

The first is a simplistic problem statement that lends itself nicely to a crippling set of SMART action steps. But the second is carefully hedged to avoid next steps and provoke curiosity — banal as the topic may be.

Wicked problems require something different from us. But we are built for well-trod surfaces and love to follow old paths. I’m wondering if the trick is to avoid highways by inviting another natural response — intense curiosity.

If you are an entrepreneur, you need to pay attention to this post.

There is open source business like the business experiment and then there is open door business like Google, Red Hat, and Flickr — come in, walk around, and use what you like for free — but if you want to go pro, that’s going to cost you.

Fred Wilson:

“Free is a great way to make money. You just have to know how you are going to get paid for being free.”

[thanks to Hugh for the link]

Not too long ago I wrote a series of posts on pitching. It was mostly for my own sake that I put those pieces together — I wanted to better understand what pitching actually meant and where it was best used.

After doing all that work and looking critically at the process, I decided not to build a pitch — at least not one for getting clients. Instead I put together a short bit on what sift is, what I do, and why I think it’s interesting work.

I felt that pitching tasted too used car and not enough like the sophisticated dilettante I want to grow up to be. And since then I’ve panned around for a clearer expression of what I believe works. Yesterday’s post by Seth Godin comes close.

Seth explained how important small, initial wins are in the process of persuasion. Gunning for an initial big win is unrealistic, particularly if your intended audience isn’t interested in being persuaded. He suggested that the hopeful persuader should look for open-minded invitations from the persuadee (these can be unconscious or intentional — like thumbing through an innovation-oriented business magazine or subscribing to a change-agent’s email list). Instead of seeking a single, big win pursue a series of small changes. Seth called this flipping.

—

I just watched the interviews of the Oscar winning cast of “Million Dollar Baby”. In it Clint Eastwood, Morgan Freeman, and Hillary Swank each said that listening is the most important part of acting. Listening determines your action — it’s the core of improv — that mysterious definer of great versus flat acting.

A great actor, like Morgan Freeman, persuades us that he understands and lives in that moment. For those minutes on the screen he is that character. As in acting, so in persuasion. While pitching or flipping we hope to become the answer, the solution, or the next step — to step inside and manifest what we hope to sell.

—

Know what a ping is? Here, give it a shot: Open a MS-DOS prompt and type “ping www.siftstar.com”. You’ll get a read out of what was sent to sift, what sift received, and how long it all took to happen.

Pinging is a protocol checking if another computer on a network is reachable. You send off a ping, the other computer bounces back a message that lets you know it hears you.

—>

To pitching and flipping I would add: pinging.

In the game of pitching and flipping, pinging is important. Pinging is the listening part of persuasion and provides those bits of information needed to understand the persuadee. Pinging drives the improv that makes us real-time instead of scripted … dilettante instead of used car.

And pinging endures. I can pitch and you can ignore it. I can flip and you can flip back. But when I ping, I learn something that is mine to keep. I learn what makes you tick, what burns you up, what makes you sing — I can be more persuasive now than before. These are mine to take home and use again.

I’ve learned and gained more from pinging than I ever have from pitching. And I’ve made more clients from plain interest and curiosity than I ever have from savvy flipping.

Yesterday, Hugh posted on trust and blogging. He said that he’s increasingly reluctant to do business with non-bloggers — that cog in the trust wheel needs to be there.

—

Seth Godin recently wrote that “the only security you have is in your personal brand and the projects you’ve done so far.”

—

One of my clients is in communications and media and last night he was pointing out how much room he still sees for improving blogs, podcasts, and vlogs. There’s a niche, he says, for excellent and high-quality communication in these forms.

—>

In all things there is a baseline. It used to be that a high-school diploma done you good. Now we’re skittering between Master’s degrees and Ph D’s. The education baseline is rising.

At one time, the people I knew from church were sufficient to guarantee a reasonably sustainable flow of local business. Then we started networking. And now we’re blogging. Our personal set of relationships is growing exponentially.

The baseline to sustain a “personal brand” is hopping levels and broadening to encircle a wider range of skills — but that’s obvious. What’s catching my eye is the average sheep. Those people that ignore these changes.

Before you could finish high-school and stay in Sunday school — done. In between then and now, you could spend two years and catch up. But now — the gap is huge (the gappingvoid is hugh, heh). To be near the top you need a high-end degree from a prestigious school, a huge sphere of relationships across a wide swath of the economy, and a personal brand so deliberately constructed that it can withstand the torturous strain of a non-linear career.

Now you can’t catch up — you can either do it or you’re out — permanently.

via loic le meur blog

That’s what’s on the mind of Jeff Bezos:

Execution.

Success is almost completely defined by execution. Too many ideas and too few actions. The trick is execution of the right things.