It’s not just about conquering fear: Jump-starting your ideas into action

Fear of innovation is healthy in small doses and can even help you jump-start your ideas into action – provided you have the right set of values, writes Anian Christoph Wimmer.

In a recent blog post based on his latest book, Seth Godin asks if people are afraid of ideas and points out that most people either hesitate or overdo it when it comes to the crunch, i.e. turning good ideas into reality. Godin coins the vivid neologisms hypogo and hypergo to describe both extremes – the ditherers and the overdoers. Personally, I prefer the spectrum of either jumping the shark or  jumping the gun. Why? Because unhealthy hesitation is always characterised by a fear of absurdity that ultimately fulfills its own prophecy: You are so afraid of jumping the shark that you finally do it – just like that terrible moment on the jumping platform at the pool: You know, when you know you are too scared to jump properly, but can’t not and so do jump: and crash with a terrible flat entry that will burn your belly and flush your cheeks.

Seth Godin reminds everyone of what I would only describe as a simplified summary of the old Cardinal virtues of temperance and fortitude.

It’s not good to be too fat or too thin. Not good to have blood pressure that’s too high or too low. It’s only in the center, where we resonate with the market and get it right, that we can produce effectively.

I almost agree with this – who wouldn’t? –  but let me offer two observations to on this notion.

Firstly: It is not enough to have an idea – or even lots of them – and then decide to make a go of it. You need to have a strategic approach and the right (financially sound, or better yet: frugal) context, ensure that your development is both positive and controlled. You need to know when, how and where to jump to. This applies not only to your personal predispositions and approaches, but all the more to your company. Hence the three guiding principles behind what I describe as “engineering your ideas”.

Secondly: The centre is not the market. The market has no centre as such. Therefore, it’s not enough to neither be too hesitant nor too hyper. Yes, you do need a level of measured temperance, as Seth Godin alludes, and courage, but also – without making it sound old-fashioned: wisdom, and yes, what’s traditionally called justice.  The full set of cardinal virtues – as  I recently recommended Ex-Minister and Ex-PhD Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg and his strategists.

What applies to the approach to Digital Public Affairs is equally true of the approach to making your ideas count. Get your “engineering” right, and you will neither jump the shark nor the gun – just like Betty Boone does in the glorious photo above. (Image Source).

“Ideas Engineering”: Three principles to make radical innovation work for you

By Anian Christoph Wimmer

Imagine, you could fly. There would be a giddy period of exploration at first. You would fly and fly and fly! But then, you would also return to your life, your reality so far. And invariably, you would be on the way to somewhere and catch yourself grabbing the car keys or checking that bus timetable – when in fact you could just fly there.

This is exactly the point in time many businesses (and governments, and institutions) are at when it comes to using the incredible means of digital communication available to radically innovate their game, their product, or just their day-to-day operations. What is lacking is some real “Ideas Engineering”.

Ideas Engineering? What is that? You mean ideas for engineering, right?” Not really. I wish I had 1 € for every time I got asked that. To be fair, it is exactly the question I would have responded with. But Ideas Engineering is a way of making radical innovation work sustainably. In this post, I want to outline the three guiding principles to making radical innovation work for you.

To really add value to any organisation or enterprise, the interlinked questions of a) how you source creativity and b) then work it to innovate and c) steer, audit and review that process need to be answered convincingly. And you always need to take the long(ish) view: Innovation is a long-term investment, after all.Source: State Archive of Florida

Irrespective of whether you feel like the Knowledge Economy is a reality or not: It’s common sense that businesses need to innovate to stay ahead. The best companies do it because they recognise that creativity breeds innovation. And give their staff at least 10% of working time to just play with projects they like. But they also do it sustainably, and with a keen eye to upholding fiscal responsibility. If creativity is the mother of all innovation, frugality – or at least fiscally sound and efficient principles, may well be its father. In fact most successful innovators are incredibly focussed, hard working and – you are going to like this one – conservative.

Frugality – The (paradoxically) Big Fat Caveat

And that point is also one big fat caveat that bears explaining in a bit more detail: Your numbers need to be in order, that goes without saying. Your operational realities must be efficient and compliant, sure. And yes, all of this transparently so. But even that may not be good enough when you are competing globally: You also need to make quality last. Hence the use of the word frugality.

In essence, you need to have a long-term strategy in place that ideally does not reward short-term shareholder value at the expense of the business, but fosters the strategic nimbleness and overall operational health of the enterprise. That is what makes many family-owned businesses last. And by the way, that is what a good leader will provide. The classic example of course is the Mittelstand, the backbone of the German economy. Often family-owned, small and medium enterprises that produce high quality products for the global market, but also with a growing recognition they do so for the economy in which they manufacture or operate otherwise.

As Time Magazine reports – calling Germany a China of sorts –  and the Economist now blogs to ask the experts, one of the key success factors for Germany’s economic recovery is what the Anglo lexicon calls frugality and/or even austerity – and what Germans, but also Swiss, Austrians, Dutch and Scandinavians see as a reluctance to overspend. As the Economists’ readers, including IFO-President Hans-Werner Sinn, point out, Germany has learnt to stop exporting its savings. That might be the opposite of what the spend-to-grow-school of economic philosophy dictates. But so far, it has served the Germans (and the Swiss, and others) very well in the long run.

Three Principles to guide the Engineering of Ideas

Now, why praise frugality like that? You may well ask. To be sure, frugality is not a necessary precondition of innovation. But without it – or at least very sound economic principles operating within an equally sound long-term strategy – innovation will usually either be dismissed as a fancy pipe-dream – or bring down the house with it. History is littered with companies that failed with innovative ideas. So yes, it is worth emphasising this caveat: Innovation can and will fail – unless managed right.  Hence, of course, Ideas Engineering. Let me explain. Provided the big fat caveat is accounted for, it provides a natural, but also controlled, approach to fostering, sourcing, and managing innovation. The three main principles are:

  1. The Source is Everywhere. So is the Market.
  2. The Customer is willing to pay for Quality.
  3. Make your Strategy fit the Customer’s reality. Not vice versa.

If and when you apply these principles to Engineering Ideas to the operational “value chain” of your product or service design and delivery, you can successfully innovate.

The Source is Everywhere. And so is the market.

Don’t buy the old “innovation means turning problems into ideas” chestnut. It’s neither that simple nor that easy. That’s the bad news. The good news is that it is also – in a way – easier. As Alexander Pschera has pointed out on this blog, you can and should apply the principles – if not the practice-, of crowdsourcing your product development. I suggest you (re-)read his post on this important aspect.

Furthermore, internally, fostering creativity requires an approach that supports it, but also makes it clear that there is no inherent value in “being creative”: The measure of the value is its measurable outcome. (That’s also one reason why most successful innovators are conservative). Deadlines, and a bit of creative pressure never hurt anyone, except perhaps the most talented writers or classical composers.

Once you start both crowdsourcing externally and internally fostering ideas, then your structure needs to match the input: It’s about curation, adaptation, quality control. In other words: reaching that sweet spot where you neither stifle good ideas nor oversell mediocre ones that have major downsides. Again, this is where the premise of frugality or sound management at the very least must come in. You need to have good risk assessment, a real knowledge of the product, the market, the competition. All whilst maintaining day-to-day business, of course. But the point is: You need to have all of these things even if you don’t want to innovate. So it’s not an excuse. In fact, it’s an opportunity: If you start to integrate Ideas Engineering into your workplace, you will also need to look at the totality of how things are decided, accounted for, and how they need to be improved to be stable operationally. Again: The source of innovation can be everywhere.

The Customer is willing to pay for Quality

Anyone with a shred of experience knows that is a truism. But this has serious implications for how you foster creativity internally and manage the process of innovation externally – for instance in your branding philosophy and the traditional marketing work. But also in terms of where you draw on innovation – for if it does not come to you, then study the innovators.

When first Japanese, then Korean and more recently Chinese cars started to rival European models in quality of build and engineering, only then did competition get real. Now yes, branding matters, but I firmly believe it always only goes so far if your product is crap – despite what critics of soft drink manufacturers might say. Remember: innovation is a long-term investment. One example of this is the vacuum cleaner business and the story of radical innovation of Dyson.

In short: If you want to corner the “cheap and cheerful” segment of the market, don’t try and be the innovator.

Make your Strategy fit the Customer’s reality

This final guiding principle to Ideas Engineering is the most challenging. Or at least it has the most repercussions for the actual work of engineering the ideas, in other words: what happens when you apply these principles to innovate – and which will be the subject of many a separate post, no doubt.

Just to be absolutely clear: By strategy, I mean both your strategy in approaching the management and engineering of ideas, but also your overall long-term planning. When you are working to a) source, b) value and c) implement ideas for innovation, then the overarching goal should always be the customer, and her reality. Not to unduly single out any company, but just to demonstrate that this happens to the best of them: Not doing this is of course the classic Microsoft mistake.

In some cases, you are your own customer, of course. But the principle applies anyway. Radical innovation always works best when it works its way back from the customer and their reality – and to the customer and their reality. And it is another reason why the old adage “innovation means turning a problem into an idea” particularly no longer holds true in the age of digital communication. You can innovate before there are problems. The requisite tools of communication are there. Use them – or get someone to help you use them – and you may well start flying places where others can only get to on foot.

Online Marketing: Was jeder wissen sollte, aber leider oft nicht weiß

Von Anian Christoph Wimmer

In der Welt des Online Marketing, in Deutschland meist “Social Media Marketing”, gibt es vier Möglichkeiten für Unternehmen wie Einzelkunden:

  1. Wegschauen und nix tun.
  2. Aufs Tigerblut vertrauen.
  3. Mit der schillernden Halbwelt der “SEO-Gurus” flirten.
  4. Eine professionelle Kampage einkaufen.

Wer es ernst meint, der entscheidet sich für Option 4. Aber damit ist der Käse nicht gegessen. Selbst altgediente Marketing-Profis, Pressesprecher und Kommunikationsexperten kennen sich oft nicht einmal gut genug aus, um informiert zwischen Option 3. und 4. unterscheiden zu können.

Was sind die wichtigsten Elemente im Online Marketing? Was sind die operativen Vorgänge? Wie wird Was gemessen, um Erfolg oder Misserfolg zu analysieren, zu kontrollieren?

Eine schöne grafische Übersicht bietet aktuell als “Noob Guide” an:

Anklicken, um Bild zu vergrößern.

Crowdfunding: Die Zukunft des Journalismus?

Von Anian Christoph Wimmer

Hat guter Journalismus eine Zukunft? Wie können Geschichten recherchiert und erzählt werden, die im Interesse der Öffentlichkeit sind, aber nicht in traditionellen Medien veröffentlicht werden? Die Antwort auf diese Fragen ist eine andere Frage: Wie  macht man Journalismus im digitalen Zeitalter profitabel?

Die Huffington Post macht es mit kluger Aggregation, Rupert Murdoch probiert es mit einer Gebührenschranke (Paywall) für seine Londoner “Times”. Die “TAZ” probiert es mit Micropayments auf der eigenen Website. Einen völlig anderen Weg geht das Projekt “Spot.Us” – hier wird das Prinzip des Crowdfundings für Journalistische Projekte ausprobiert, wenn auch als Initiative, die nicht finanziell ausgerichtet ist.

Crowdfunding ist die Finanzierung eines Projekts durch “Investoren” oder “Spender” über das Internet. Wie funktioniert das bei Spot.Us?

Auf seiner eigenen Website beschreibt sich Spot.Us als Plattform für Journalisten und Bürger. Hier könne die Öffentlichkeit Geschichten beauftragen, die wiederum an Medien-Partner lizensiert weitergegeben werden können, oder “frei verfügbar” bleiben.

Spot.Us – Community Funded Reporting Intro from Digidave on Vimeo.

Vor allem Themen “die wichtig oder vielleicht übersehen worden sind”, sollen so an die Öffentlichkeit gelangen. Die “mehr als 95” Partner sind nicht nur ein paar versprengte Blogs. Neben großen Medienhäusern wie der New York Times, sind es vor allem kleine Blätter der alternativen Szene und Lokalzeitungen in der amerikanischen Provinz. Und wie immer wieder betont wird: Die “Investition” ist steuerlich absetzbar.

Mit anderen Worten, hier läuft es ein wenig nach dem Prinzip: “Welches G’schichterl hätten’s denn gern?”. Suche Dir aus oder schlage vor, was recherchiert wird und wer kann und mag bezahlt dafür, dass die Geschichte journalistisch beackert wird. Wenn sie für etablierte Medien interessant sind, haben die eine “Option” auf die Story.

Das Prinzip Crowdfunding, so angesetzt, ist zugleich Risiko und Chance. Einerseits kommen so potentiell wichtige Geschichten ans Licht der Öffentlichkeit, die sonst nie publik würden.

Andererseits funktionieren die internen Kontrollmechanismen nicht, die der Journalismus als Profession genau so kennt wie jede journalistische Einrichtung. Ein Negativbeispiel, wo das hinführen kann, findet sich schnell: Da wird statt einer Geschichte eine britische Weltuntergangs-Website zum Klimawandel finanziert. Wer dahinter steht, ist genauso unklar wie die Frage, was das mit Journalismus zu tun hat.

Fazit: Vielleicht ist Crowdfunding nicht die Zukunft des Journalismus, aber eine Zukunft für eine ganz bestimmte Form des Journalismus, und darüberhinaus ein Fingerzeig, wohin es mit “dem” Journalismus im Pluralismus des Digitalen Zeitalters gehen wird. Die Herausforderungen bleiben in vielerlei Hinsicht die gleichen.