When you Fake Innovation…

February 10, 2009

6a00d83451d69069e200e5517221008833-800wiWhen you fake innovation, you let everyone down.  For whatever it is worth, an enterprise must decide for themselves what they want to be.  And then once that decision is made, build yourself around it.  That means hiring and firing the right people, changing the way you communicate both internally and externally, and executing.  If you are okay being an average organization that does not take big risks and rides on the coattails of success, that’s fine.  Just don’t fake it.

Major League Baseball is faking it. They were looking for mass appeal, so they turned a blind eye to rampant abuse of performance enhancing drugs for a long time.  When they finally decided to deal with it, it wasn’t an internal decision.  Their hand was forced by the media and other external factors.  But even at that point, they had the chance to turn things around.

They tested and “perfected” a new random drug testing policy that was actually quite lenient, much more so than other professional sports.  They revised it many times, made it more strict, publicized it, and executed it.  Their message all along was that they were cleaning up baseball, making it great again.  At least that was their message to us, the fans and media.

Internally, no one got fired for failing to do their jobs.  And an investigation that should have been quick and to the point, is still ongoing.  Then, when most of the dust had settled, and fans of the game finally felt like things were back to normal…A-Rod.  Curt Schilling I think says what I mean best in his blog post.  Why is A-Rod left out to dry?  Who leaked this information?  Why are some names still not released to the public?

This is not a blog about Major League Baseball.  But from this example, it is clear that an organization (your company?) must have a clear vision for what they are trying to do.  And now, more than ever before, you must communicate and execute on that vision in the public eye. You can’t get by with telling one story and doing something else, you’ll get called out on it.  The negative PR from “lying” about your goals, your vision, your ideals and your strategy is too much to handle in a connected world.

You have to be the real thing.  People will acknowledge you for it, respect you for it, and thank you for it (success!!).  What do you think?

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Leave a Comment » | anti-innovation | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Zach Heller

2 Emails Worth Mentioning

November 20, 2008

In the past week I have received two emails that I feel are worthy of a mention on a blog about Innovation. Both were from people I do not know, have never met, have never talked with online, and most likely will never talk with in my lifetime.

The first was from Steve Gentile at Think Tank NYC, and he probably had no idea that he was emailing me. You see, Steve decided to leave a social networking group that we were both a part of called Sta.rtUp.Biz. In deciding to leave, Steve emailed all the members of the website explaining his reasons for leaving, and also saying that he is interested in communicating with any of us who would still like to remain in contact with him.

This email stands out for two reasons. The first, is a direct shot at Sta.rtUp.Biz. We are in a world where everything you do can and will be used against you, online. And word travels fast. When you market yourself as a social networking site for entrepreneurs, where we can enjoy the freedom of idea creation, open discussion, and useful information to start our business, you better follow through with that. Now I don’t know if it was the creators or the members who transformed this site into what it is now, but Steve is blaming the creators. “A fool’s game of mindless invitations and posts delivered with the purpose of point building without substance, and not networking or provoking deeper thoughts”, is how he described it in the email. That got my attention, and I am sure many others’, and will hurt the website’s credibility.

Two, this is a semi-ingenious move on Steve’s part to get some attention. As an entrepreneur, what better way to promote without promoting. Take something you are going to do anyway and send an email about it that gets in the heads of people that you may want to work with. I don’t know Steve, but I emailed him with interest after receiving that blast.

The second was from John Podesta. John is the co-Chair of the Obama/Biden Transition Team, and apparently the one in charge of sending out the emails (or at least the name that someone else puts on their emails). I got this email because I had signed up at the new website of the Obama Administration, Change.gov. I encourage all those who have never seen it to check it out. It is still quite bare right now, but very promising.

It is interesting to think about a presidency that will be more in touch with the people. Even if this is all an act, which I don’t think that it is, it’s still a strong step. A president who devotes time to including people and getting involved in online communication, what a concept. Well, we already saw how well they used this sort of internet grassroots promotion in the campaign, now we get to see if they follow through with it during the next 4-8 years.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

3 Comments | anti-innovation, Branding, change, Politics | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Zach Heller

Google vs. Facebook: What does it all mean?

October 24, 2008

It is well documented that Google and Facebook do not like each other. They can barely stand to be in the same room or at the same conference as one another. It’s a strange relationship.  It’s not like Yahoo and Google, which is like a sibling rivalry in one industry. These are two of the most powerful companies on the internet, both with clear aspirations for the future of the web, who fear each other just enough to make coexistence impossible.

Awhile ago I read an article in Time magazine about the future of the internet, and who will have control.  The three options: Apple, Facebook, and Google.  The reason: Each are in a position to expand their territory, have the money and ingenuity to make major moves, and each have a very different belief when it comes to what the internet is best used for. The article analyzed the good and bad aspects of all three, but did not take the time to address whether it is good or bad that there is that kind of battle for control.

Should the battle even exist?Let’s take a closer look at the war waging between Google and Facebook.  First, their underlying culture as it relates to the use of the internet are conflicting. Google believes in the freedom of information and the ease of which people can access it. Whereas Facebook holds sacred the anonymity of its users and closes its network to outsiders, including Google.

When Facebook wanted an advertising partner, they went to Microsoft, another company that is not too fond of Google. Open Social, the project Google started to make social networking more inclusive, did not extend the invitation to Facebook. There is a war brewing.

Let me know if you think that an internet where Facebook and Google hate each other is good or bad for the future of the web. Is it a pure case of competition being good for the consumer? Or is there an underlying negative aspect to these two powers going toe to toe? I will let you know what I think in my next post.

3 Comments | anti-innovation, Theory, web 2.0 | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Zach Heller

When We Need to Retool

October 12, 2008

There are times when an industry has gone as far as it can go on their current practices.  At times like that, it becomes necessary for a new player to come along and shake things up.  Most often, it takes a new player because the cost of changing the way an existing company does things is far to great for anyone to get accepted.  There are too many highly paid board members and CEO’s with too much pressure from stockholders to suggest drastically changing something within an organization.

As an example, I will use the struggling Airline industry.  Nothing seems to be working for them now.  At one point, it appeared that Southwest Airlines has come into an industry that needed a new player at the right time to change the way things work.  But it is apparent now that the change that should have been felt was not widely accepted.

When you have to charge someone an extra $20 to change their reservation on the phone, there is a problem.  In affect, you are scamming someone who is already your customer.  This person has already made the decision to fly with you.  They have already paid money, choosing your service over that of your competition.  So why make them question that decision?  Why make it any harder for them to get what they need?

When you have to charge people to check a bag based on how much it weighs without announcing that to them before they come in, there is a problem.  If I purchase a ticket online, and it does not warn me that I will pay an extra $15 because my bag is one pound over a limit, what am I supposed to take from that?  What happens the next time I need to fly, am I going to happily choose your company again and pack a little lighter?  No, probably I will do some more research and do everything possible to choose another carrier.

So what does the airline industry need?  Where does it go from here?  For starters, it needs an outsider’s persepective.  It will need a new leader, one that steps up and challenges the things that today’s giants take for granted.  How can you reward people for being loyal?  How can you save money for the company, and relay that savings to everyone who chooses your service?  Fuel is expensive, but is there a way to pay for rising fuel costs by cutting your expenses in another way?  Stop looking for little ways to “steal” money from customers.

It’s time for someone to start to think a little differently about the way that we fly.

3 Comments | anti-innovation | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Zach Heller

Comcast and Big Business Bullies

August 20, 2008

As someone who talks a lot about innovation and moving forward not only in business but as a society, I hate it when “big business” tries to stop the movement. I can see where it might be in their best interest to do so, because they are just not forward thinking enough to see the benefits of change. They are happy with the way things are now and think that “technology” and the so called new economy will hurt that success.

It’s never been, and should never be the role of government to protect dying corporations or big business interests. If new technologies and startup companies develop ways of doing things differently, than that is how it should be.

The recent news that Comcast is making has caught my eye. They were sued for intentionally blocking access to certain file sharing websites because, as they said, it created too much congestion on their network. And now, after losing that battle, they announced that they will limit “heavy internet users” to improve speed for other users during times of heavy congestion.

First, anyone or any company that believes in limiting the availability of information on the web has got it all wrong. Google stands out above all others in their belief in the free flow of information. After all, that is what makes the internet great. It is a tool for sharing information faster and without limits. Comcast, as an internet provider, has no business blocking its customers from achieving this.

And why is Comcast’s solution for network issues focused on hurting those people that use the service the most. That is like a restaurant charging more, or taking longer to serve returning customers. A message to Comcast:

Take a look within. Improve your service. Don’t make excuses and develop initiatives that hurt your current customers. And maybe, just maybe, people won’t leave your service as soon as they have that option.

2 Comments | anti-innovation, Corporations | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Zach Heller

Next Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.