Happiness is supposed to be what we value above all else. Even in ancient times, Aristotle wrote that “Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence.” I think most people would agree. After all, who wants to be miserable?
So it’s strange that we pay so little attention to happiness. When the OECD ranked the US first out of 36 countries in terms of household wealth, but only 12th in life satisfaction, the response was… nothing. No big headlines or blue ribbon panels or congressional committees or even a furrowed brow. Nothing.
Compare that to the sanctimonious handwringing when there is even a slight dip in GDP or a weak jobs report or a mildly troubling manufacturing index and it becomes clear that, while we say we pursue happiness, we do very little to produce it, or even measure and monitor it. Is it any wonder than we’re ever more prosperous but no more happy?
Life for marketers used to be simpler. We had just a few TV channels, some radio stations, a handful of top magazines and a newspaper or two in each market. Reaching consumers was easy, if you were able to craft a compelling message, you could move a lot of product.
Now we’ve got a whole slew of TV channels, millions of web sites and hundreds of thousands of “Apps” along with an alphabet soup of DMP’s, API’s and SDK’s. Marketing was never easy, but technology has made it a whole lot tougher.
What used to be a matter of identifying needs and communicating benefits now requires us to build immersive experiences that engage consumers and seamlessly integrate a whole new range of skills and capabilities. It’s easy to get lost among a sea of buzzwords and false gurus selling snake oil. Here are 4 principles to guide you:
The Luddites were a group of expert weavers in the 19th century who, upon seeing that the invention of the factory loom had made their skills obsolete, smashed the machines in protest. Ever since, “luddite” has become a disparaging term for those who fear technological advance.
As I wrote previously in Forbes, we’re all Luddites now, at least in the sense that many of the hard won skills that we’ve come to depend on for income and social status are now being automated.
MIT’s Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee have argued that the solution is to learn to “race with the machines;” to become less like the mythical John Henry struggling to outdo a steam hammer and more like an Indy car driver, using technology to race at incredible speed. If so, we will need to not only redefine work, but ourselves as well.
Apple CEO Tim Cook has a very tough job. Not only does he have to run the most valuable tech company on the planet, but he has to follow one of the greatest chief executives in history. Is he up to it? I’m beginning to think he’s not.
There have been some missteps, of course, like some earnings releases that disappointed investors, the maps debacle, the continued lack of NFC or an Apple TV, but that’s not why I’m having doubts.
I find it easy to believe that those things would have happened if Steve Jobs were still around (well, except for maps, maybe). Apple’s legendary founder had more than his share of flops, but he had a great sense of what technology could do. Without him, Apple will have to learn to innovate differently and Tim Cook doesn’t seem up to it.
When I was a kid, my parents and teachers didn’t want me to play too much. They felt that the only thing I ever wanted to do was fool around which, to a large extent, was true and still is.
They found this immensely disturbing. Life, after all, is about hard work. You need to learn things in school, apply yourself and get a good job. Fooling around shows a lack of the kind of maturity and seriousness which is required to have a successful life.
I never did lose my love for horsing around and probably never will. Today, I urge my 3 year-old to play games because I’ve come to realize their power. We find them irresistible because they are, in a very real sense, simulations of real life. They allow us to practice with training wheels and, when we fail, we don’t get hurt, but learn lessons just the same.
When Clayton Christensen was a newly minted professor at Harvard Business School and began his famous study of why companies fail, he took an unsuaul approach
He wanted to look not just at any companies, but successful ones. The kind whose stocks were once high flyers and whose CEO’s graced the covers of top business magazines. Not the losers, but the winners who stumbled and fell. What he found was startling.
While he expected to see once great companies who lost their way, what he found was firms that followed all of the best practices taught at business schools like his. In other words, he found that technology shifts can radically change business principles. Today, as the technology continues to evolve, we need to take these four shifts into account.
It’s fun to look at old pictures of Bill Gates from back when he was a boy genius. Unlike Mark Zuckerberg, he arrived on the scene looking very much like the nerd he was; big glasses and a sheepish grin, like he’s just happy, albeit a bit embarrassed, to be invited to the party.
He’s grown up a lot since then. Years of success and media training have given him a quiet confidence. He speaks from the heart about issues he is devoted to, like education and eradicating malaria.
And technology has grown up with him. The bulky green fonts and command lines have been replaced by far more natural interfaces. Computers are now able to recognize speech, text and even gestures. As they continue to learn, they will become intelligent enough for most human tasks, which will change how we work forever.. read more…
Steve Jobs liked to say that it’s not enough to kill bad ideas, you have to kill good ones too. That’s because good strategy is about making choices and it takes more than intelligence or even instinct, it takes discipline, one of Jobs’ most overlooked qualities.
Marketing strategy is particularly difficult because, as I’ve noted before, the rules have changed. A generation ago, brands mostly strove to create buzz and “drive awareness,” now they need to build compelling experiences that keep consumers engaged.
However, the old tasks have not gone away. We still need to run TV ads and in-store promotions, man conference booths and hand out brochures, but now on top of that we have a whole new world of algorithms, apps and devices to master. To meet the new challenges, we need a new strategic approach, a new mindset and new organizations.
Hannibal Smith, the fearless leader of the A-team, always loved it when a plan came together and on that campy ’80’s TV show, they always seemed to, no matter how intricate and contrived. It seems quaint now. In the real world, things rarely happen as we imagine they will.
As Mike Tyson, another icon from the ’80’s, liked to say, everybody’s got a plan until they get hit and, like it or not, we all get hit, usually sooner rather than later. When that happens, as it inevitably always does, even our best laid plans go awry.
In truth, planning has never been about strategy, but control and control has always been an illusion. Nevertheless, for a long time, it was true enough to be successful. Plans set direction and, if problems arose, plans could always be changed. The problem is that as technology cycles compress, planning cycles can’t keep up. We need a new model.
Mr. Taleb contacted me to object that I mischaracterized his views. A few readers also commented with similar objections. I offered to correct any mistakes that he could point out, but Mr. Taleb declined to do so.
While I disagree with Mr. Taleb on this point, he’s a thinker I greatly admire and feel should be taken seriously. So I want to describe Mr. Taleb’s comments in greater detail and explain why I believe he is in error. While he claims that he is not anti-technology, his views undermine the innovation process which brings it about.
Or install manually
Copy and paste the following Google tag code onto every page of your website, immediately after the element. Don’t add more than one Google tag to each page.
MIT’s 
