Viewing entries in

It's time to call it: Pulling the plug on Buyosphere


It's time to call it: Pulling the plug on Buyosphere

We've been keeping Buyosphere on life support for almost 2 years now. It breaks my heart, but it's time to pull the plug.

We kept hoping that something would happen...someone would come along to save the day: we'd get an upswing in usage (from non-spammers), we'd get someone coming along that would want to buy it, we'd somehow find the way to keep building it. But none of that happened and the hosting bills kept coming in. It hasn't been an easy experience.

In the video, I give a few 'lessons' I learned, but all-in-all, I've come to realize that it wasn't one was a million things that led to this not turning out the way we wanted it to.

Thank you to everyone who contributed to the adventure! I tried to list you in the video. xo

Here's our baby in her hey-day:


Why YouTubers are Cashing In (hint: they are worth it)


Why YouTubers are Cashing In (hint: they are worth it)

moneyteen I've read more than a few articles that sensationalize the large dollar amounts that Digital Influencers are making. I've also overheard many people having conversations about this that indicate they think this is frivolous. I want to tell you that when I hear anyone snicker at what Digital Influencers are making, I automatically think:

  1. That person is out of touch with the reality of marketing today - these kids in their bedrooms with their iPhones making videos are who people listen to (especially Millennials, who everyone seems to want to reach).
  2. That person is going to regret their dismissal of Digital Influencers when they are priced higher than the current market rates for other forms of advertising.

Just because you don't understand why this is happening doesn't mean it isn't happening. And it's only the beginning.

Doing The Basic Math

The simplest way to describe the value is by presenting the basic math. When you work with a Digital Influencer, you are getting more than someone sitting in their bedroom for a few hours recording and editing a video. You are getting video production/editing/direction, talent, natural amplification AND celebrity/influence.

If I was to conservatively price out a basic YouTube video looking for 100,000 views (equivalent views to a mid-range YouTube influencer with around 200,000 subscribers), it would look like this:

Scripting/production/shooting/editing - $5,000 (for really basic stuff) Hiring basic talent (with charisma) - Average $250/hr - ACTRA says you have to pay for a full 8-hour day - $2,000 Boosting - Assuming the CPV (Cost per View) is $0.05 = $5,000 for 100,000 views Influence/Celebrity - hard to price this, but Kim Kardashian makes $100,000/hr for appearances and Snooki makes $25,000. Neither of them show up on the most influential list. Let’s be conservative, though, and say $10,000 for the appearance.

That nets out to a very conservative estimate of value for a YouTuber with 200,000 subscribers (and ~100k views/video on average) to $22,000 per video.

And when I say that I was being conservative about this estimate, think about the costs of a 30-second TV spot - which is reaching fewer and fewer people (and, in my opinion will continue to decline in relevance...if there ever was much anyway). According to the American Association of Advertising Agencies, the average cost of a 30-second spot on television in 2011 was $354,000. That's a pretty penny.

So, when Jerome Jarre, who has 7.2 million followers (and rapidly growing) on Vine is reported to make $35,000/vine, I say those brands get a helluva deal! Don't tell Jerome, but he should be making $500,000+ if he was charging for just the boosting capability (his vines see >10million unique views)!

I guess the $1,000,000 offer he turned down was a good move after all:


The Bottom Line

When you hire a Digital Influencer, you aren't paying for the few hours they take to record the video or the quality of the camera or editing work. You are paying for their SOCIAL CAPITAL, which in their world is VERY tangible.

You can see their subscriber numbers and the way their audience is deeply engaged in everything they do (from what they are wearing to who they listen to and beyond). They've spent years building deep trust with their audience by investing in them and being open and transparent. According to a study by Variety, Digital Influencers rate higher than Hollywood celebrities in influencing purchases.

To dismiss them for being too young or their work being too fun/easy or their content being too casual is to completely miss the reality of the situation: your brand should have invested in digital content years ago. Just one 30-second spot would fund anywhere from 1-10 YouTube stations for a full year (depending on your production investment + complexity). That sort of investment would mean a smaller long-term investment, bringing that efficiency that many companies look for today.

The building your own audience ship hasn't sailed quite yet, though. Condé Nast, under the amazing leadership of Dawn Ostroff, is investing in a better digital content strategy on YouTube and it's really paying off. Their audience is growing rapidly as are their organic views. Much of their content is modelled on the types of videos the audience enjoys: entertaining, funny and authentic.

I still believe that working with Digital Influencers is one of the strongest short term marketing tactics you can deploy today and going forward, but it's also important you learn from them and invest in becoming an influencer yourself.

Let me know how you are investing in an audience below.

[title image credit: Thinkstock]


It's Worse Than You Think: or why you should care about poverty, jobs and income inequality


It's Worse Than You Think: or why you should care about poverty, jobs and income inequality


Follow my blog with Bloglovin

[Row of Unemployed from Flickr Commons]

I'm afraid. Truly. I'm afraid of where we're headed.

We live in a world where the basic storyline goes something like this: we are born, we get educated, we go to work, we earn money, we buy a house and get hitched and have babies who are educated...and the cycle goes on. Of course this story varies in order, magnitude and timeline, but you get the drift. We get trained and then we work so we can afford to do it all over again generation after generation.

It's always seemed to me an odd way to exist, but it works well enough and there have been loads of benefits to this structure, including advances in our technology and comfort in general. The market that we work for and buy from gets more efficient and produces better and better outcomes for us. The incentive is comfier living, through income or better/cheaper stuff or whatever, but I certainly appreciate typing on this laptop while sitting in a warm office and having the ability to publish this for the masses to read. I have a comfy chair and a good cup of hot coffee while the winter elements whip around outside without touching me. Life is good.


And yes, I have Capitalism and the free market to thank for my good life. But there is no escaping it. We need to work to afford such luxuries. If I didn't have an income, I wouldn't have all of this. And I suppose I could eschew my current lifestyle and take to the land, but I don't really have the skills to snare rabbits and pick the right berries. I took a survival course when I was 14 that my parents teased me about (they called it "Camp Two Fingers" because I described the limited amount of food I could eat each meal - a two-fingered scoop), but I don't remember much of that. And I've been watching the AMC series The Walking Dead and took the 'How long would you survive' quiz and didn't do so well.Also, I like my laptop and wi-fi and power and heat. I'm quite fond of the ease of life I lead, so I'm willing to pay the piper.

But the story is getting harder and harder for more and more people to follow. The piper has more and more limited space. And we're going to have to write a new one if we want to survive.


We are nearing a job crisis of mundane proportions. As Chrystia Freeland outlines in her 2013 TED Global talk, The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich(I know, the irony, right?):

Since the late 1990s, increases in productivity have been decoupled from increases in wages and employment. That means that our countries are getting richer, our companies are getting more efficient, but we're not creating more jobs and we're not paying people, as a whole, more.

During the Industrial Revolution, jobs were created on a massive scale, moving the majority of people into cities to fill positions. But since then, globalization has happened, moving hundreds of thousands of jobs overseas to cut costs, displacing an enormous number of jobs. We've seen the effects this has on cities built around industries who now outsource like Detroit and Baltimore. But what happens when the skilled labor is outsourced? What happens when we don't even need people to do the job AT ALL?

Self-driving vehicles, artificial intelligent computers that may teach themselves to code, robots that do intricate tasks and smart homes that monitor and fix themselves are just some of the technology that is right around the corner and threatens unskilled AND skilled labor. Why outsource your coders when the computer can do it for you? Who will need cars at all? Forget mass transit. Seamstresses and tailors? Meh. Cooks? Who needs them. Plumbers? Electricians? The list goes on.

In fact, even the people who are BEHIND the technology that is leading us there are afraid of where this is headed:

Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google – a company that is working on emerging technologies such as self-driving cars and robots – is worried. “The race is between computers and people and the people need to win ... In this fight, it is very important that we find the things that humans are really good at,” he said. -, Automation and the Threat to Jobs, January 26, 2014

Sure, every advancement creates a new job and new opportunities to earn, but are the number of jobs and opportunities created enough to replace the ones lost? Are there? Because if there aren't enough new jobs to replace the lost jobs, no matter how much you berate the unemployed for being lazy jerks, there won't be jobs for them to go to. And the time period between unemployed and homelessness will be swift as the number of people living paycheck to paycheck (68% in USA alone) and buried in personal debt is staggering.

I wouldn't be so afraid if there was some sort of plan in place. If this was something we talked about openly and honestly and that economists were discussing in a public forum. But it's really difficult to find anyone talking about this except for a smattering of people here and there who are largely dismissed as paranoid and overreactive.

As an interesting aside, after watching Freeland's TED talk, I went to check out the numbers of people employed by the tech companies we know and love (these are worldwide numbers for the most part):

Amazon - 109,800 ($183B market cap) Microsoft - 100,500 ($305B market cap) Apple - 80,300 ($450B market cap) Google - 46,400 ($380B market cap) Yahoo! - 11,700 ($35B market cap) Facebook - 5,800 ($150B market cap) LinkedIN - 4,800 ($25B market cap) Twitter - 2,300 ($34B market cap)

TOTAL - 361,600 jobs

To put this in a bit of perspective, here are the headcounts for the 8  biggest employers in the US:

Wal-mart - 2,200,000 ($242B market cap) IBM - 435,000 ($192B market cap) McDonald's - 400,000 ($93B market cap) UPS - 400,000 ($89B market cap) Target - 355,000 ($36B market cap) Kroger - 338,000 ($18B market cap) Sears - 312,000 ($4B market cap) General Electric - 287,000 ($25B market cap)

Total - 4,327,000 jobs

Notice something about many of the employers on this list? Many of them hire part-time, minimum wage employees (the working poor), some of them hire unskilled labor (the automate-able - I can see the day when our Big Macs are assembled by robots, can't you?) and some of them are in trouble (Sears anyone?). Here is something to chew on: Target employs roughly the same number of people who Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, LinkedIN and Twitter do COMBINED.

And if you don't understand the connection, the reason why I'm showing the largest employers is that many of them are retailers whose retail outlets are being threatened by technology - when retail outlets get shut down because people are ordering more and more online (just today, Radio Shack announced the closing of 500 stores), where are the new jobs being created to replace them? Certainly not with the new entrants.

[NOTE: Knowing how damned frustrating it is to get support at any of the tech companies listed (even the Genius Bar is backed up for days now and they direct you to the forums), I have some suggestions of where they could hire a few bodies. Am I right?]


It's about this. It's just a symbol of a much deeper issue. The Bay Area, is the next canary. It's awesome because people are finally taking income inequality seriously...and it's dislodging many heads from many a$$es.


As consumers, we should take on a big part of the blame here, too. It's not just companies trying to be more efficient and maximize profits. It's also our appetite for a 'deal' and our move to shopping online and on our mobile phones. As we demand lower costs and convenience, we force more human beings out of a livelihood. Hell, I love my Joe Fresh deals, but when the factory collapsed in Bangladesh last spring, I realized what my hunger for good deals was doing to the world. I'm making more of an effort to shop local now and when I get a hankering for some online shopping, I head to Etsy first.

And what about startups like Etsy and Shopify and Chloe + Isabel and all of the other peer-to-peer and home-based business boosting tools that are launching? Isn't there all sorts of money being poured into these pretty commonplace tools to help people grow their own businesses, releasing them from the shackles of traditional employment?

Sure. But just like their analog ancestors (Avon, Amway, Mary Kay and Tupperware to name a few), there will be only so many successful people in each neighborhood. For instance, I live in a pretty tight neighborhood (roughly 15,000 people and we all have dogs so we talk). If EVERYONE in my neighborhood bought $50 worth of Tupperware per MONTH, that would only cover costs of living in this neighborhood ($60k/yr) for 38 people (25% commission based). And that's being generous. NOBODY needs $50 worth of Tupperware a month. Here is a real stat: 65% of Etsy sellers made less than $100 last year. And as a big fan of Etsy, I know for a fact that these sellers are often barely covering the costs of their supplies. They try to remain competitive so they don't pay themselves very much.

Building a business online is the same as building a brick and mortar business. You need buyers. And with buyers going for the cheap and convenient options, there isn't much space for the artisan or hand-crafter. As a friend of mine said, "There is only so much jewelry I can buy!" when referring to Chloe + Isabel.

And speaking of buyers, what happens when unemployment soars? There will be even fewer buyers, which means ANY business trying to make ends meet is going to struggle, which will most likely lead to more layoffs, which will...well you know where this spiral leads.


Well, if we keep burying our heads in the sand and moving in the general direction we're moving, yes. We're completely effed. Marketing, which happens to be the profession I've made a living at for 15 years now, is a BS job. I can completely admit to that. It's completely necessary in a Capitalist free market economy - because there is a confusing amount of options for customers and somebody needs to point them in the direction of your option - but in the automation and AI boom, it'll be made irrelevant.

In fact, many of the tech giants have already eliminated the marketer's role. Does Google hire marketers? Nope. Sales people and engineers. There are a few 'advocates' and 'futurists', but that's not the same. Does Facebook? Not really. Some people have the title of marketing, but they're role is more sales-driven, too. Microsoft and Amazon have fairly healthy marketing departments, but there are only so many jobs to go around there. Besides, once Google automates it for us (along with those engineering jobs), everybody will follow.

I know I'm a big downer. Sorry. If it makes you feel any better, this whole mess is still a few decades off. The singularity isn't supposed to hit until 2029. (Oh, which also reminds me that the person who invented the idea of singularity employee of Google. Coincidence? You make the call.)

Truthfully, we need to rethink our economy altogether. Maybe the future of work is different? Maybe we don't work for a living anymore? Maybe we actually work on what makes us passionate without pay because we get a stipend? Or we don't need money anymore? Maybe there are different incentives? There are lots of people who have been rethinkingmoney for years and there is even a great crowdsourced currency contender (say that 10x fast!). Today's dollars are really only real because we think they are real. Sort of like Tinkerbell, if we stop believing it's real, it will cease to exist. (This concept has always fascinated me - since I studied the Brazilian Real Crisis in the 90's)

I had a conversation lately with my brilliant friend Heather, who said she read and watched The Hunger Games and didn't feel it was fictional at all. I agree with her. There are all of these showy excesses being waved around arrogantly while so many struggle. There is fear and awe now, but all we need is a Katniss to start the uprisings. I feel for Tom Perkins because, even though his Nazi Germany comparison is incredibly offensive, the Plutocrats are in danger. When wealth inequality is put under a microscope, it will affect him deeply. In actuality, he should have used the French Revolution as the example. But he wouldn't because many still uphold the French Revolution as a necessary balancing of power during a time of...great inequality.

Maybe there are think tanks and groups of people locked up in important secret boardrooms (beyond the lip service of Davos) coming up with awesome ideas. But seriously, folks. This is going to be big. And we can put it off and put it off, but at some point, it's going to catch up with us.

There are so many people out of touch with reality and though we shouldn't live with a cloud over our existence either, we really really need to think practically about our future. The higher we climb, the further we fall. Let's figure out how to prevent free fall in the future.

Let's not wait for those in power to come up with a solution...or we may be sending our children to a fight to the death arena in the near future.


I've taken over the Fuck Poverty Facebook Page to share articles and continue this conversation. It's not much, but it's a start. Any additional suggestions, input, etc is very welcome. I've been thinking about this subject a LOT lately. I think the time is ripe for making it a priority.

I'm also reading The Lights in the Tunnel, recommended by my friend and associate, Lane Becker. Everyone should read it. It's awesome and covers stuff I said here with better examples, data and clarity. ;)


Confidence and the Cause-Effect Loop


Confidence and the Cause-Effect Loop


From Lean In to inspirational messages, the answer to much of inequality seems to be the responsibility of the person on the losing end of the equation. Fair enough, you might say, that person stands to gain the  most. Let me offer up another angle.

I was born a confident person. I'm not sure how or why, but from a young age, I didn't have much humility. My parents, concerned about the reaction to the amount of space I enjoyed taking up, urged me to balance my confidence with some humble pie. Admittedly, I needed that lesson. I saw gatherings of people - no matter what the occasion - as my opportunity to direct attention to my latest talent or idea. What I thought was cute at the time most likely came across as obnoxious after a while. And though some may still accuse me of being an attention hog, I am aware of my boundaries and try my best to leave room for others.

As obnoxious as it can be, confidence has gotten me far in life. My privilege, above everything else (I have other privileges, of course), is confidence.

I should also note that confidence is NOT the same as arrogance. Confidence doesn't compete or dismiss others. Confidence is open to push-back and other ideas (in fact, confident people love it). Confidence has room for empathy. Confidence doesn't know everything. True confidence IS humble.

Confidence gives you an edge over others in most situations. You get the job. You win the contract. People are drawn to you. They want to join your cause, invite you out, promote you, help you and trust you. But the tricky thing about confidence is that, when you need it the most, it fails.

I was born confident, yes, but that doesn't mean I'm unflappable. After my startup ran out of money, I lost my confidence. I know it was obvious. I must have oozed insecurity because people treated me different. I was passed up for contracts and jobs, people stopped reaching out to me, they gave me pep talks instead of wanting to really help me, introductions stopped...nobody had faith in me. It was like a spiral. As I lost faith in myself, others lost faith in me, which led to me losing even more faith in myself.

Until one person who I barely knew said, "I have confidence in you." And that was the beginning of my restoration.

I know that the self-help movement means well. The gurus that are trying to teach motivation and confidence to their readers understand that motivation and confidence are key drivers to success. But what is missing is that success is ALSO a key driver to motivation and confidence. There have actually been studies that show that the more successful a person is, the more confident they become. It's a bit of a vicious circle.

And yes, there are people who can 'fake it till they make it' but I think they have help along the way (and, like me, are born with a certain level of confidence).

So, if messages of affirmation and kicking yourself in the butt aren't the whole answer, what is?


Having someone take a leap of faith when your confidence is shaken goes a long way. Some people are going to need more time and patience than others - especially if they haven't tested their skills before. When you see a spark hidden behind a heap of self-doubt or bad experiences, encourage it to ignite.

Don't say, "Believe in yourself," say "I believe in you."

Don't say, "Lean in," say, "I will help you with that presentation" (after putting her in charge of the pitch).

Don't say, "Your success is up to you," say "I think you have what it takes to be successful" and then offer your guidance.

The whole sink or swim mentality isn't just giving naturally confident and privileged types an unfair advantage, it's also passing over some incredible talent. I'm convinced that the more people with privilege that put confidence in those who lack their own, the better our world will be. Arrogance is a zero-sum game, but confidence is not.


My Aptitude Adjustment (with Latitude by YouScience)


My Aptitude Adjustment (with Latitude by YouScience)


I love this stuff, so I just have to share. Sorry if it seems gratuitous or 'braggy'. I don't mean it that way.

This might be the coolest thing I've done for my career in quite sometime. This week, I signed up to try out an Aptitude Test product by YouScience called Latitude. For a quick overview on what they do:

Now, I'm not afraid to reveal that I am 40 years old and have been working in marketing for almost 15 years now, so I'm pretty ingrained in my career. But nevertheless, I was still pretty darn curious to see if I had chosen correctly, so I signed up and sat down to do my testing.


Let me start out by saying that the testing part is rigorous and a bit grueling. You need to block off a good 2-2.5 hours of uninterrupted focus time. You'll need a few sheets of paper and a pencil with an eraser. You'll need to hide your phone so you aren't distracted by texts, notifications or phonecalls...and so you aren't tempted to use your calculator (I know I was). You'll need to be comfortable. And you should try to refrain from feeling discouraged.

I finished my testing in just under 2 hours because at the end, I didn't want to wait through the breaks (I just wanted to get it over with! That may have been a mistake - my brain was fatiguing!). Most sections were tough, but there were sections that nearly made me cry. My palms were sweaty. My heart was racing. I'm sure I was yelling at my computer loud enough for my neighbors to wonder what I was doing.

At the end of the tests, I got a message saying, "You'll get the results in 24 hours". I'm sure I didn't sleep that night. I was certain the results would tell me I suck at pretty much everything and I should give up on my future.


When I received the notification my results were in, I held my breath and opened the report. Though Latitude's FAQ's insist there is no such thing as good or bad aptitudes, I still put a bit of a value on how I did in many of the tests. Not all sections tested skill levels, though. Some were more about personality type or leanings. But for those sections I saw as 'strengths' and 'weaknesses', I assigned a value to them. Here are my overall results:

1. Visual Comparison Speed (weakness) My type: Double Checker

Paperwork or video games are probably more tedious than enjoyable to you and you may need extra time to complete clerical tasks.

Your visual radar moves slowly and deliberately. You probably find clerical work or video games tedious, draining, and boring. You can find fulfillment in the completed product or game, but are more likely to enjoy fields of work or study that are more hands-on, interactive, or auditory.

YUP. Sounds about right. I remember really trying to focus on this test and having to read lines over and over. A 'tip' that made me chortle:

Yes please! :)

2. Vocabulary (strength) My type: Advanced

Your highly developed Vocabulary makes it easy for you to find just the right word to express yourself precisely. Your interests are likely to be many and varied.

You are likely to keep learning about many things because you are in the habit of paying attention to the meanings in words. There are always new interests to explore and new people with whom you can converse.

This one gave me a NICE boost in confidence that helped me breathe a little easier. So, I have a good vocabulary. That's true! I love words. I love learning them and using them (correctly, if possible). I love studying language and understanding which words to use for which audience. Actually, just last night I was having a conversation with someone about the language of corporate culture and how I used to keep a notepad of acronyms with me as a reference when I worked in enterprise software. Here is a little highlight that made me smile:

Oh God yes! It's my favorite bit!

3. Numerical Computation (strength) My type: Advanced Computer

Your high Numerical Computation make mental calculations and learning math skills super easy for you.

What may look like an unfinished puzzle to someone else is a clear picture in your mind. You can keep track of multiple calculations simultaneously even though you may not be aware you're doing it. You can also multitask while making calculations because it is so automatic for you that it takes little conscious attention on your part.

This one was a BIG surprise to me. I thought for sure I had bombed this section. In fact, I think I may have made a few lucky guesses as I went through the testing. Perhaps if I took this one again, I wouldn't be so lucky...but I'll let it be for now (and I *was* excellent at math in high school). This was the only 'tip' I could identify with:

Yes. Yes I can do that. In fact. I can 'eyeball' a teaspoon compared with a tablespoon as well...but that's cause I love cooking.

4. Numerical Reasoning (average) My type: Predictor

You probably enjoy looking for patterns in numbers but don't automatically do so. You have a solid grasp of trends in numbers after they are pointed out and explained.

You strike a balance between analyzing numbers when that is called for and applying existing formulas when that is more appropriate. You're the person who uses the formulas to direct the action.

I was actually quite sad to be average on this exercise, though I wasn't 100% surprised as I ran out of time with 2 problems left. I often play these games online where I guess for the value of n and I think I'm pretty good at it. But I guess I'm just average. Booo. But this does sound about right:

5. Spatial Visualization (strength) My type: 3D Visualizer

Your high Spatial Visualization makes it easy to organize and view your world as a 3D model. You may be able to retrieve books, a specific quotation, or objects quickly, even from a crowded space, because you "see" their location in your mind. People around you may comment that you're "very visual." You like to work and think about physical objects. You are good at using tools, machinery or equipment.

This was a bit of a head-scratcher for me because this exercise was really tough, but I guess I did okay after all! I didn't truly believe it until I read the 'challenges' to having this strength. This one in particular is very true:

I'm always drawing out what I mean and find it incredibly challenging to describe ideas without some sort of mock-up or diagram, which got me to learn Photoshop, InDesign and Illustrator early in my career.

6. Inductive Reasoning (strength) My type: diagnostic problem solver

Your high Inductive Reasoning allows you to quickly see the interconnections between things and ideas that may seem unrelated to others.

As a detective, you follow the Sherlock Holmes model. You're likely to observe myriad details that others may deem unrelated or irrelevant. You see a pattern or story develop from these details that is plausible, odd as it may seem to others to whom you have to explain your reasoning process...Accepting that "this is the way it is" does not satisfy you. You're a diagnostician who thrives when there are new facts to correlate. The more facts and the faster they arrive the better. You like making changes that are improvements, small or large, whether they reach your target audience better, save money, promote world peace, heal someone, or fix an engine.

I LOVE that this is a strength and I really liked the inductive reasoning tests. I'm a big fan of Sherlock Holmes (who isn't?) and always try to solve a case before he does. I'm not always successful, but I'm not too bad. ;) I pride myself on having this as a strength:

If I was to pick one strength I'm most proud of, it is this one. I'm so glad I have it!

7. Sequential Reasoning (strength) My type: Sequential Thinker

Your high Sequential Reasoning ability lets you automatically shuffle and organize large amounts of information in your head and easily organize your thoughts and learned information in a methodical and logically organized way.

Your mental closet comes equipped with hooks, shelves, drawers, and hangers that you use to organize different pieces of information in your head. You may not feel the need to write out your ideas or have your physical surroundings organized in a structured way. In fact, you may have piles of stuff that look random to other people, but you seem to know where everything is.

This was another happy moment for me. And:

...this made perfect sense. I love doing my Keynote presentations.

8. Idea Generation (average) My type: Idea Contributor

You can elaborate easily on things that you have experience with or are knowledgeable about, but you might not come up with multiple ideas by yourself.

While you may not always have a flood of ideas to contribute, you can add to existing scenarios or put a twist on existing plans, approaches, or games. You enjoy sharing your own ideas with others, but you are just as comfortable when others share their ideas with you. You can create or execute ideas equally well and probably enjoy a balance of those two roles.

I thought I would do much better on this section, but after seeing the results and reading the description. It made perfect sense. Especially:

I really admire people who can do this. I have to research and gather my thoughts before I present anything. I also really like collaborating and riffing off of others' ideas and work.

9. Hand-eye Coordination (weakness) My type: Experiential Mover

You can understand movements by watching others, but replicating actions and developing flow takes repetition and consistent practice.

Once you have the sequence of motions down, you'll gain confidence; but remember that the initial learning curve will take you longer than for some other people.

I'm a good freestyle dancer, but it's true, I need to practice a LOT to get a movement down that someone else demonstrates. And I guess I shouldn't dismiss Zumba as exercise after all:

(even if I think it's a bit ridiculous)

10. Associative Memory (average) My type: Conscious Memorizer

You have the ability to memorize terminology with little difficulty; however, you should recognize that you'll need to use that information repeatedly if it is to be transferred into your long-term memory.

When you learn terms, codes, formulas, etc., you don't have to exert a great deal of effort, nor do you need to use memorization tricks. You will, however, have to make a conscious effort and possibly repeat terms a few times before they stay in your memory. Know that this is a conscious act that requires you to focus while learning terms and concepts simultaneously.

I really struggled with these tests. My visual memory is awful. And this is a HUGE weakness for me:

I've been known to forget names of people I've known for years when I've been over-challenged!

11. Visual Memory (average) My type: Data Reviewer

You're able to memorize important numbers and data like dates, codes, or account numbers pretty easily and can hang on to them for some time.

Numbers are a useful tool for you. You don't necessarily seek them out, but you know which ones are important to focus on. You memorize important dates, codes, or accounts easily, but you need to use calendars, notebooks, and other tools to keep track of the less important or frequently used items.

Again, not a surprise. I keep good records of numbers around me at all times because I suck at this:

12. Work Approach (personality type) My type: Generalist

You work best on projects that allow you to explore and exchange ideas and viewpoints with others.

As a Generalist, you prefer that the video lens be wide open so that you are aware of everyone involved. You will work best on projects that allow you to bounce ideas off others and exchange viewpoints and ideas. You will enjoy knowing all of the different perspectives, including the ones that differ from your own. It is usually easy for you to adapt your own perspective based on what you learn from others.

Yep. This is why I really don't like working solo:

13. Time Frame Orientation (personality type) My type: Future Focuser

Your high Time Frame Orientation lets you work toward goals in the distant future. Without something distant you may feel a bit aimless. You are more focused on the actual long-term goal or target than the specific day-to-day steps to success. You prefer to think about the impact of your decisions five to ten years into the future.

You are able to stay focused on a distant target and can work toward goals that may take years to develop or come to fruition...You might find yourself slowing down as you approach completion because you are uncomfortable without a long-range goal.

Exactly how I've been feeling for the past while and why this year is one of purpose:

14. Pattern Memory (average) My type: Map Reviewer

You're comfortable using maps, charts, and blueprints with little effort, but you aren't likely to refer to them from memory.

You're able to notice subtle differences in certain patterns, but might need to compare them side by side to identify specific differences. You don't need a lot of exposure before you memorize patterns, but they don't automatically stay in your memory.

That darned visual memory thing again. I thought for sure this result would be a weakness. I like the advice, though:

15. Interpersonal Style (personality type) My type: Extrovert

The presence of others energizes you. Getting to know people, catching up with old friends, and just laughing with others seems to lighten your day and bring you inner peace. It's nearly impossible for you not to engage with someone around you, even if it's greeting a stranger in a checkout line.

No surprises here! However, as I've grown older, I do need personal, alone recharge time. I'm a little less extroverted now. I'm pretty sure that I still do this, though:


If you think the aptitude assessment was interesting (as I did!), you are going to enjoy the career exploration even more! Latitude breaks these down into three sections:

Overall fit combines your aptitude testing results with your interests and gives you a list of career suggestions. In this section, I found out that I've actually done pretty well with my chosen path over the years and most of the other careers listed were quite appealing to me. Just the top 15 (I highlighted some of the roles I've played in my career):

  1. Broadcast News Analyst
  2. Architectural Teacher, Postsecondary
  3. Commercial and Industrial Designer
  4. Art Director
  5. Editor
  6. Interior Designer
  7. Director
  8. Instructional Coordinator
  9. Advertising and Promotions Manager
  10. Genetic Counselor
  11. Social and Community Service Manager
  12. Counseling Psychologist
  13. Exercise Physiologist
  14. Creative Writer
  15. Producer

The list of careers that solely suit my aptitude testing, however, were incredibly interesting. Some of the results were on my career path at one point, but I lost interest in them when I looked deeper into them (I began University in Computer Science, for instance):

  1. Energy Engineer
  2. Nuclear Engineer
  3. Computer Systems Engineer/Architect
  4. Petroleum Engineer
  5. Engineering Teacher
  6. Urban and Regional Planner
  7. Mechatronics Engineer
  8. Curator
  9. Advertising and Promotions Manager
  10. Transportation Engineer
  11. Geoscientist
  12. Market Research Analyst & Marketing Specialist
  13. Materials Scientist
  14. Securities and Commodities Sales Agent
  15. Aerospace Engineer

But lo and behold, Advertising and Promotions Manager and Market Research Analyst/Marketing Specialist are both present amongst the engineering heavy list, so yay!

Most of the list of careers based on my interests aren't actually that interesting to me now, but would have probably been VERY interesting when I was setting out in the world:

  1. Art, Drama and Music Teacher, Postsecondary
  2. Interior Designer
  3. Preschool Teacher, Except Special Education
  4. Broadcast News Analyst
  5. Actor
  6. Music Director
  7. Music Composer and Arranger
  8. Architectural Teacher, Postsecondary
  9. Middle School Teacher
  10. Fashion Designer
  11. Theatrical Makeup Artist
  12. Film and Video Editor
  13. Park Naturalist
  14. Creative Writer
  15. Art Director

The way Latitude presents each career is really very cool and thorough, too. Take for instance the Broadcast News Analyst. They break down each career into four categories: A Day in the Life, How You Fit, Education and Salary & Opportunity. The information under each is quite thorough. Here are some screenshots:

US based, but really interesting stats available on where the jobs are at if that matters to you.
US based, but really interesting stats available on where the jobs are at if that matters to you.
You can even break down salaries and projections state by state.
You can even break down salaries and projections state by state.

From what I understand, the future of Latitude will be to match people with college programs and eventually jobs, which is really exciting. It's definitely a tool I could have used when embarking on my career. I may have weighed future salary and opportunities with my aptitude and stuck with that Computer Science degree after all. Who knows?

But what was so magical about doing this testing right now in my career is that I am able to validate my strengths and identify my weaknesses so I can both focus on what I'm good at and work on improving where I'm weak. And in future interviews when I'm asked, "Name three strengths and three weaknesses," I have really great answers with scientific proof behind them. If that doesn't impress HR, I'm not sure what will!

In fact, if I were in Human Resources, I'd be all over Latitude. The testing isn't lightweight and you can't really cheat it (you can't go back and change answers and it's timed pretty tightly, so you can't really beat it by googling stuff - not that I tried, but there wasn't much time to answer each question). And you wouldn't want to cheat it anyway - there is no 'good or bad', just a better way of fitting you with the right career. And cheating the system would work against your own happiness.

But maybe I'm wrong. I know this is a super long post, but if you've gotten to this point and are interested in trying it yourself, I've been told I can give out THREE Latitude Assessments for you to try at home. And just for clarity, this is NOT a sponsored post. I loved my assessment so much I wrote them to ask them if I could write this and offer a few passes to my readers and they said yes. :)


How to be Creative


How to be Creative


My work is fundamentally creative. There are loads of analytical pieces, but at the end of the day, marketing is about making a connection with human beings who are not as predictable as marketers would like to think. Yes, there are lots of studies on consumer behavior and human drive and we can move the needle by tapping into those things that motivate buying behavior, but so is everyone else and the companies that 'win' the loyalty and sales are the ones that are more creative.

Content marketing, which is the focus of my current consulting, is all about being creative. There is a good amount of noise out there: companies writing blog posts, producing video series and posting regularly to social media channels, and most of it really doesn't matter. It follows formulas and delivers the same old same old that we've read a million times before. There is nothing to distinguish one inspirational quote from another. There is no point of view.

So I am to dig deeper. Provide something different. Something valuable. Something thought provoking. I shoot for remarkable.

But thought provoking, valuable and remarkable take time. They take long hours of thought. And, frankly, most brands don't want to pay for that. We just got them to the point that (many of) them are realizing that content is important and some of them are willing to pay something for it, but that's only a small piece of it. Stopping there would be like giving someone a bathing suit and expecting them to swim across the Atlantic.

Francis Moran, a colleague of mine, recently likened the current state of content marketing to the early state of radio. Anyone with access to the tools could claim expertise in radio, but as it evolved, it was apparent that there were very few examples of radio shows that could hold an audience. And you need an audience to pay the electric bills.

One of the shows that stands out to me is This American Life with Ira Glass on Public Radio. There are very few radio shows that I can listen to for a full hour each week and even fewer that I will go back to listen to multiple times, but this is one of them. There is just something so incredibly entertaining and thought provoking about it.

And then this weekend, another colleague of mine, Mitch Joel, pointed out aGoogle Talk with Ira Glass in which the interviewer asks where he comes up with the programming week after week (for >18 years!) and Glass' answer is amazing:

Somebody will pitch a story that we all feel very excited about and that doesn’t go with any of the themes we have going on at the time, so we’ll just say “Let’s use that story as an anchor for some show” and then we’ll concoct a theme that could plausibly contain it. And sometimes we’ll come up with 2 or 3 different themes that could plausibly contain it and we’ll have other stories left over from other shows that we couldn’t use and see if we can glue anything to it and then we’ll start on a search. And that search could take up to 3 or 4 months often and sometimes even more. Finding ideas for stories is very inefficient.

One of the things when you start to do creative work that nobody ever asks is, “Where are ideas going to come from?” And you have this idea that they are just going to be sprinkled on your head like fairy dust…but you just have to surround yourself with a lot of stuff and a lot of ideas, because ideas lead to other ideas. So at one point, we’ll just go on a massive search…

Then he goes on to describe a very complex process with all sorts of questions and nuances that are unique to every story and every episode, including having to kill about 1/3-1/2 of every thing they start. And he adds:

You really can’t tell what’s going to work until you start to make that thing. It’s like you want lightening to strike as an industrial product (in the same spot) every week, and to do that, you just need to wander around in the rain...a lot. 

This is the key to creativity. It's not a linear process and it's not predictable. You need to give it space and lots of encouragement. If you are held to pumping it out like a factory, you are probably not going to nail it. And it doesn't come to you at the most opportune times.

In one of my favorite TED Talks ever, Elizabeth Gilbert describes a fantastic story where poet Ruth Stone would hear a poem thundering over the hills while she was working and have to "run like hell" to find paper and pen to capture it in the moment.

Creativity requires:

  1. Surrounding yourself with inspiration, stories and ideas. I'd say that most of those ideas should be on-topic (if you are trying to come up with a great story on wearable tech, surround yourself with conversations, articles and experiences on wearable tech), but you should also step outside of the narrow topic to get inspiration (think about it from the perspective of parenting or fashion or education, for instance).
  2. Space to breathe and  grow. You'll go down a million paths that will lead you nowhere. There is no fairy dust.
  3. A purpose. You need a direction. A point of view. A raison d'etre. For Ira Glass, it's the constant search for stories that will change people's perspective. Having an end goal or a point of view will help focus you enough on what you want to convey. Then you just have to deal with the how.

As you are probably already thinking, this process is far too free-flowing and unpredictable for most companies out there. It's why most artists are starving and why the world is full of mundanity.

The good news is that there is a happy medium to be struck between completely unleashed creative, interesting content - that is "inefficient" as Glass puts it - and completely lifeless outputs of formulaic, mundane content. But the current pendulum favors the efficient (while complaining that the ROI is less than desirable on this particular output). What we need to work on is the message that it isn't just any content that works. It's content that actually adds value (a term that is understandable to organizations). And adding value takes more thought than a 2 week RFP or a couple of brainstorms.

(The last creative agency I worked with operated on last minute series of brainstorms to come up with ideas for clients. I added some sanity to this by bringing market research to the meetings and presenting insights, but the output was still horrifying enough for me to back away from the whole circus. In an ideal world, agencies would work as partners with clients and evolve ideas over time rather than be given a creative brief, then expected to go into their creative cave and come out with brilliant ideas.)

And brilliantly out of the blue, Jeff Bezos' wildly popular appearance on 60 Minutes provides a fantastic example of a company that is winning and will continue winning by having a purpose, taking time and surrounding itself with inspiration (they spend a good deal on R&D, a dying department). Bezos asserts of their crazy sci-fi drone idea that it'll be 4-5 years before it is reality. But their incredible commitment to customer-centricity helps them get creative in their approach. It's how they became the market leader and how they will stay there.


No, Social Media Doesn't Drive Sales...but that's not the point


No, Social Media Doesn't Drive Sales...but that's not the point


Okay, maybe I'm overstating it. Some sales are driven through social media channels. I know I've bought books and songs and contributed to Kickstarter campaigns many times because a friend shared a link and I thought, "Hey! That's awesome! I should buy that!" I've even tipped a bigger purchase in favor of a friendly recommendation on a social network. But I can count on one hand the number of times  I've bought something pushed to me by a brand I follow on Twitter/Facebook or the like.

But that's not the point.

The point is that social media is a teeny tiny reflection of what happens in day-to-day life. In Jonah Berger's Contagious, he makes the salient point that only 7% of word of mouth happens online (other studies say 5%). I'm not sure if all of that even belongs to social media channels, either. I'd guess a bunch of it happens over email and private chat.

There are hundreds of ways that your customer will find you (or not find you) online and offline. However, when it comes to spreading a message, word of mouth has always been the most effective way of marketing messages spreading. But these messages become ineffective when they aren't authentic. But the most salient point here is:

You cannot force word of mouth.

It doesn't matter the media or the amount you spend on it...some stuff just doesn't spread. And though marketing impressions make a brand awareness difference - whether it's a billboard or a paid tweet - it's never guaranteed to work.

So I'm continually bowled over when I hear people complain about how their social media marketing doesn't work. Usually a few questions helps me realize what's really going on:


What's really going on here is that companies think that paying for marketing is some sort of silver bullet. It's not. It never was and it never will be. Hell, some super bowl ads go unnoticed - and that audience is one of the biggest captive audiences in the universe!

You are probably asking yourself, "Okay then, why would anybody in their right mind pay for marketing?"

Good question. I sometimes wonder myself because not everyone is ready for it...and sometimes they are too late for it.

But why pay for marketing when the results aren't guaranteed? Because, like I said before, there are hundreds of ways your future customers will find you (or not find you) and it's better to be findable than not. And good marketing means that you will be more findable AND have more credibility (if the branding is done right) when people do find you. And all of that helps with what you want: sales.

There are all sorts of wonderful things built into social media marketing that you won't have built into traditional one-way channels. There are:

  1. analytics - you can't really tell who paid attention to that television ad, but you can tell who watched your YouTube ad all the way through...and who liked it...and who shared it...etc etc. The data available on how people interact with your content is AMAZING.
  2. feedback - it's right there in the comments. It's also there on Twitter. Oh...and you can find out what people are saying on Reddit and their blogs and in forums and...well...that is invaluable. Read it. Report it back to your team. Improve your product with it. Respond to it with thanks. Hell, you pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to get this feedback from focus groups each year and here it is for you for free. Completely raw.
  3. relationships - you aren't going to strike up a conversation through the TV or radio. But that two-way conversation is built into social media platforms. It's really awesome. You can find out so much about your customers and start to really build a bond.

What really baffles me is the demands that brands make of social media marketing when they pay a fraction of the price to use it. They'll hire interns and junior staff to run it, they'll lowball agencies and consultants ("I pay you whatfor a couple of FB posts?! I can get my kid to do that!"), they get impatient and want instant results without being willing to invest the thought needed or take risks, they'll tack on a social media strategy (which has no strategy) to a made-for-television and magazine ad campaign thinking that it's yet another direct marketing channel (which is a limited medium, too).

All of this and the brands ask for stellar results. They look past the amazing insights and feedback and potential for relationships that no other traditional marketing medium every had and they say, "Meh. Social media doesn't work for me."

And completely miss the point.

You want to know the ROI of social media?

Number one. It's the ability to listen. It's priceless. Not with some damned tool that measures sentiment or finds influencers, either. Really listen.

Number two. Serendipity. It's opening yourself up to constant and amazing opportunities to participate and by participating, you will find numerous opportunities to lead the conversation and make a great impression. Oreo's dunk in the dark tweet is a great example of this. They are doing a really great job of being a relevant brand again by seizing opportunities like that. Do they do it every single day? Nope. But when they do, they nail it.

Number three. Community instead of merely customers. The difference is incredible. If you have patience and build a community instead of just a customer database, you will have finally tapped into that magical word of mouth network you wanted to buy a few months ago. But this time, it's real and authentic and it spreads.

(and there are dozens more...but you get the point, right?)

So PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF DOG stop thinking of social media as a direct marketing tool or some sort of silver bullet that will drive sales through the roof. Stop reading those case studies where Snapchat drove millions of dollars in sales from a viral campaign.

That's not the point.