"PPPProgramming Notes" (Four P's #167)
As a child of the 1980's, television was my second sibling. Or maybe a third parent.
It was my best friend, a staple of my upbringing, my connection to culture, my community of content consumers. And I watched everything: cartoons, sitcoms, re-runs, game-shows. Heck, I even watched telenovelas with our Spanish-speaking live-in housekeeper. It's probably a miracle that I even know how to read and graduated from high school, let alone college.
In the epic battle of nature vs nurture, television tipped the scales heavily in favor of nurture and is a big part of why I am who I am today: I was programmed to oppose racial injustices from "Diff'rent Strokes," support female empowerment from Claire Huxtable, challenge Reaganomics from Alex Keaton, seek out platonic friendships from "Three's Company," bolster filial bonds from "Perfect Strangers," and seek out the facts of life from "The Facts of Life."
Something Personal: Diff'rent Strokes
The world doesn't move to the beat of just one drum. What might be right for you may not be right for some. Whereas many people still watch television at the same unhealthy levels that I did 30 years ago, 100% of my current diversionary/discretionary video programming comes from either streaming platforms or social content/creators. With the exception of Mets games in the summer, there are now ZERO regular broadcast or cable television programs that I watch on a consistent or weekly basis.
Yet the term "television" still defines the genre regardless of the screen (small or large) on which we watch. The Emmy Awards are dominated by streaming networks like Netflix, Hulu and AppleTV after years of domination from cable networks like HBO and Showtime. The big networks are smaller percentages of larger media empires (ABC within Disney, NBC within Comcast/Universal, CBS within Paramount, and Fox within whatever it's called now). With fewer quality shows making it to network lineups now, news and live sports may be the last reason that viewers haven't cancelled their cable packages yet. However most viewers can no longer afford all of the networks and channels on which the best shows appear.
I would love for our kids to binge on the "old classics" we grew up on as they get older, but there’s just too much competition for their attention. In my 20's, I curiously went back and re-watched old episodes from our parents' generation of shows, from "I Love Lucy" and "The Honeymooners" to old "Howdy Doody" and "Bonanza" episodes. It was a simpler time, and frankly, most of it was terrible (except "Laugh In," which I loved). Fortunately, maybe not all hope is lost. I was quite pleasantly surprised to learn that my 7 year-old daughter was recently watching a few episodes of "Sister Sister" (even if it was more of an in-between show... more popular when I was a teenager in college). Who knows… maybe “Family Matters” will be next?
The next generation is getting information in totally different ways. Nowadays, my kids come home from school, quickly complete their homework assignments on their Chromebooks, watch a little bit of YouTube on their iPads, shuttle off to golf practice or dance class, then come back to their devices again after dinner before bedtime. Their education is probably 30% school, 30% YouTube, 30% Netflix, 10% their idiot friends telling them what THEY learn/watch on their devices.
I know, we're terrible parents. So what? They'll have theirs, you'll have yours, and I'll have mine. And together, we'll be fine.
Something Practical: Small Wonder
Another show that has stood the test of time centers on a family whose engineer father built a robotic child that behaves like a 10-year girl. Except when she doesn’t, and hijnx ensue. "Small Wonder" did not receive the same critical acclaim as other shows of that decade, but there was a decades-long (ultimately false) rumor that the actor who played the robot girl's older sister grew up to be the lead singer of Smashing Pumpkins. But the show tapped into Cold War/1980’s angst that robots could ultimately replace humans, even in our own families.
Fast forward to February, 2019, and I am unable to sleep on an overnight flight to Paris, where I was set to start a new job the very next day. In my backpack was that week's New Yorker, which I fully devoured front to back before we touched down at CDG. One feature in that edition still stands out, having both traumatized and excited, called "Are Robots Competing for Your Job?" I remember thinking to myself that night, "I sure hope not."
The article was inspired by a book that I have admittedly NOT read, titled “The Robots Are Coming: The Future of Jobs in the Age of Automation.” In both the article and the book, the authors cite an Oxford study predicting that 47% U.S. jobs are at risk of being replaced by robots and artificial intelligence over the next 15-20 years. And that survey is already five years old!
For decades, we’ve been living with the idea that robots are a threat to humanity. Recent innovations in AI, AR, and VR have added to concerns that robots may take our jobs and have more control over our lives. But while I do like to point out to idiots and racists that robots are more likely to take their jobs than illegal immigrants, neither should be feared.
We’ve been writing and fantasizing about robot uprisings for ages, we’re still a ways off from creating any kind of technology that can replicate or replace the wholly unique human mind. AI is nowhere near the level of the human mind. In fact, a human toddler is better at performing simple tasks such as identifying a glass of water or momentarily stopping a task to pick up something that fell on the floor. Even with increased computing power and processes, our minds are simply too complex, capable of contextualizing new information, multi-tasking, and making the right decisions.
On the other hand, because these robots are designed and built by human beings, we’re actually creating technologies that can assist, support, and provide different kinds of comforts and services. Robots are more likely to be our pets instead of us becoming subservient (or worse!) to them. AI is actually more like trained animals, capable of learning and adapting. Instead of replacing human beings, robots and machines are tools that can assist us and perhaps even improve our well-being: Throughout the centuries, that was the role of canaries in the coal mine, beasts of burden, carrier pigeons, seeing-eye dogs, and wire-laying ferrets. In all of these cases, people trained autonomous animals for singular purposes, which is more or less what we’re doing with AI and robots today. Nowadays, people bring therapy animals on airplanes, to schools, and in hospitals. I love my dog, but I'd prefer to have my ipad on an airplane.
There’s little doubt that we’re going to continue bringing more robotic devices into our lived. Alexa and Siri have improved many lives in countless ways, including this app for veterans by my former company. Ultimately, we need to stop thinking of robots as human replacements. Looking back on that initial panic that the robots are coming for us the night before I started a new job, I can look back proudly having done a (somewhat?) effective job as a manager, leader, mentor, builder, operator, listener, and maker of jokes that no robot could ever replace. And while I'm grateful for the improvements in tech to enhance content creation, distribution, communication, and measurement, these small wonders are nowhere near at the level of replacing the human mind or taking over the jobs that we’re uniquely capable of.
Something Professional: Growing Pains
One thing that robots will never be able to replace is human creativity. Sure, they may assist us in how things are created, or even make information more accessible to inspire our creativity. But human creativity is, and always will, thrive. And as the "creator economy" picks up more steam, a flurry of new individuals and companies are popping up to support, enhance, build, and broker things like the new Web 3.0 and the NFT ecosystem.
Founders and leaders who have never built (or even worked at) a start-up before face new and old challenges, need to blaze new trails, build new processes, and define new roadmaps that support the products or services fueling their potential growth. I've worked at, and with, a few start-ups over the years, and one recurring theme at each of them is that few founders have the time or interest in learning the marketing tactics essential for growth and success. The good ones understand that great products don’t sell themselves. It's why they ultimately hire a CMO.
So let’s cut out the fluff and share some abbreviated, efficient start-up marketing wisdom right here, cool?
Every company should have its own unique mission, objective, strategies and tactics (M.O.S.T.). If not, why do you exist in the first place? But there are some consistent themes that work. Foundationally, the success or failure of every start-up depends on it customer/consumer base. It is why leaders and their teams need to think about that consumer connection early and often, and build the company’s goals around achieving that connection. As a marketer, myself, I define "connection" as communication + impact. With this connection, demand for a service or product increases and spreads. Connecting with consumers who will buy again, share your story, and support a community will have a multiplier effect on a start-up's growth rate. The type, volume, and frequency of this connection will depend on the company stage. Early on, just a handful of new customers (B2B) and consumers (B2C) count as connections, but you’ll obviously want that to grow.
To do so, start-ups need solid marketing strategy AND tactics. Whereas Elon Musk's Tesla spent almost no overt $ on advertising, Steve Jobs believed that successful entrepreneurs split their time 50/50 between product development and connection. Connecting with consumers and community early on also has the added benefit of providing valuable feedback that will further developing the products. Marketo actually blogged about their product long before it was even fully developed, which then generated feedback and built a customer base of 14,000 buyers on Day One.
The targeting capabilities of digital media are unlike anything we've ever seen in the history of marketing. Social channels and chatter can generate important connection and traction for start-ups. Word-of-mouth, UGC, influencers... we all know the deal at this point, but sooner is usually better than later to activate these triggers, and many start-ups wait longer than they should. The first way to achieve traction through social media is via viral marketing: encouraging your existing users to refer new ones. Once you start the ball rolling, it gathers its own momentum. It’s all about encouraging your users to refer other users to you – and ultimately growing your customer base in an exponential way.
Today’s digital start-ups first leverage the channels in which they will ultimately be playing, but many make the mistake of discounting traditional media and PR to make connections. Some PR strategies go narrow and deep, whereas others might leverage more, but smaller, outlets and bloggers. While fewer dollars are being spent on radio, TV, and out-of-home within the marketing mix (at least percentage-wise), each still has its place for certain companies and opportunities. The key: knowing where the audience is and what the goals are, from reach and consideration to engagement and conversion.
What about blogs? Yeah, what ABOUT blogs? Thought leadership has tremendous value, but only when properly leveraged and consistently maintained and optimized. Many companies start the blog early, and while company blogs keep devoted customers engaged, it can take a while to build up a reader base for them. So instead, consider sponsoring a third-party blog that your customers already like, in order to gain attention.
I see blogs as both an informative platform, as well as a traffic-driving opportunity: a blended SEO/SEM play. SEM are the ads displayed within or next to search engine results. So when someone does a related search, they see your ad and are informed about your product. SEO, on the other hand, involves pushing your website to the top of the results people get when they search for related words. This is important because data shows that only ten percent of all clicks happen beyond the tenth search result. This is where blogs, with the right keywords and deep-link + social strategy, can make a huge difference.
Not last, (and certainly not least in importance) is email. Newsletters or email messaging can be tricky, and can either be incredibly effective or potentially damaging as far as building meaningful connections. Sending notes, updated, or personalized outreach to customers (especially those who’ve expressed interest in your product) is powerful. It’s personal and gets you the undivided attention of prospective buyers. However, it’s important to differentiate personalized emails from unsolicited spam (you signed up for these emails, didn’t you?). Find legitimate ways of attaining email addresses, such as asking for them on your website, blog, or at the end of an event.
But the single most effective start-up marketing trick I've personally learned over the years for start-ups is partnership marketing. Many start-ups already work with partners on product development and even business development. But teaming up for marketing, whether via digital cross-promotion and linking, or even attending networking events, shows, speaking engagements and other offline events can be a real positive boost for mutually symbiotic start-ups.
Yes, the marketing and sales connection model is different for start-ups, emerging and challenger brands, and category leaders. They have to be. But the two things that all successful connection plans have in common are: 1. They start with clear and specific goals (which helps with budget prioritization and time/resource limitations) and; 2. The channels and tactics will evolve over time (flexibility and open-mindedness matter). Constantly review and improve your path, keeping meaningful connection as your main priority.
Something Political: Silver Spoons
Remember little Ricky Schroder riding around his house on that train set in “Silver Spoons?” I mean, what kid didn’t want one for her or his house? When people think of infrastructure, the most common example they focus on is roads, bridges, and trains. They are important, and quite literally our connection to each other.
Last week, the United States Senate did something that many thought was impossible. They passed a $1 Trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act in a relatively bipartisan 69-to-30 vote. Approval came after months of negotiations and despite deficit concerns, reflecting an appetite in both parties for the long-awaited spending package. The bill, which aims to improve and modernize the nation’s aging infrastructure, now must pass the House. (House Democrats are holding off on passing the infrastructure bill, as progressives threaten to vote against it while they seek agreement on a second, larger spending plan.)
The bill also seeks to fund new climate and broadband initiatives, and it will be a win for all. But there is still work to be done, and one area of focus that is increasingly tricky is around buildings and ACTUAL structures. And herein lies the question: Who's job is it to fix these things?
All over the country, private and publicly owned buildings are aging, as well. Few of the frameworks, facades, or interior environments can be upgraded, improved, or even maintained without government funds. And if private enterprise doesn't act, it becomes a matter of public safety and health that the rich don't want to pay for, but ultimately will have to be accounted for in taxes. We're largely a reactive, as opposed to proactive, people. Most wealthy business owners, land holders, and commercial real estate companies will do the minimal amount of work and invest the lowest amount possible for maintenance and upkeep. When we see disasters like the one that happened with the Miami apartment building collapse, we first blame the owners, and then need public institutions to help.
But what about the less obvious, less visible issues. Things like sewage, water and building HVAC aren't the sexiest of topics, but low quality ventilation and filtration are immediate national security threats that will continue to perpetuate and spread airborne viruses and illnesses if not addressed. The pandemic pointed out the importance of this ideal, though the proposed plan doesn't specifically address viruses like the one that causes Covid-19. There were provisions in the plan summary for improving ventilation in schools, but it does not mention it for public housing or other residential buildings.
No act of Congress will ever satisfy all of the needs for which they were initially intended, but stopping the spread of COVID, and mitigating its future recurrence, must be a priority for our government. We must address all of the ways in which this pandemic has been allowed to proliferate, and that doesn't just stop with mask and vaccine mandates. It will require billions or trillions of dollars to upgrade a set of systems and structures already on the decline. I, for one, am willing to pay more to ensure a safe and prosperous future for all of us. Are you?