In my case, influencers were simply other business travelers in my network.
The Majority Illusion helps us programmatically create influence, and more importantly, approach influence as a part of our marketing strategy with a wider lens. We’re not just buying audiences from influencers, we are generating influence by first using data—third-party modeling, custom audiences, etc.—to identify who we want to influence and who is best to influence them, friend or celebrity, and connecting the two. Simply put: It’s the connection that’s the sweet spot—not simply the output."
- "Is Influencer Marketing Dead?" Justin Marshall (emphasis above mine)
- Holly Weeks, "What Not to Say to a Stressed Out Colleague"
Yes, there are some substantial new publishers (Vox, BuzzFeed, Vice) and some older ones making nice pivots (Financial Times, Atlantic Media, New York Times, Washington Post) operating at large scale. But chasing scale may not be the answer for most everyone else in the content-creation business...
...Columbia Journalism Review has a thoughtful piece on how bottomless supplies of content enable compulsive and even addictive reader behaviors. Digital readers endlessly click on to the next story, dozens or even hundreds of times a day, all for a little dash of dopamine to the brain stem. The article rightly asks whether we’re complicit in the decline of our own readers. We are. Meanwhile, the value of any single story further drops, even as we encourage low-engagement reader behavior that further feeds the vicious cycle.
So what's to be done?"
- David Bloom, "Insights: Toward a New Publishing Paradigm where Scale Fails and More is Less"
“You have one identity,” he emphasized three times in a single interview with David Kirkpatrick in his book, ‘The Facebook Effect’. “The days of you having a different image for your work friends or coworkers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end pretty quickly.” He adds, “Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.”
This is a fascinating and revealing passage. Zuck may as well be saying: If you want in on the Facebook experience, and seek the benefits of expressing yourself in the Social Feed / Push Internet, then you agree to push out one consistent version of yourself. That is the bargain. In exchange for being able to push content out to an audience (and have other content pushed back at you), you accept the tradeoff of restricted variance in your self-expression. You have to pick one version of yourself and stick to it. Facebook is the clearest example, but this applies more or less equally well to Instagram and Twitter, the other two biggest Push networks of the scrolling feed paradigm. Your feed can be diverse, but at the expense of restricted variance and diversity of self-expression within any of its component contributors."
- "From Pull and Push to Here and Now: The Grand Bargain of the Facebook Feed is Unravelling" - Alex Danco
- Good listening is much more than being silent while the other person talks. To the contrary, people perceive the best listeners to be those who periodically ask questions that promote discovery and insight. These questions gently challenge old assumptions, but do so in a constructive way. Sitting there silently nodding does not provide sure evidence that a person is listening, but asking a good question tells the speaker the listener has not only heard what was said, but that they comprehended it well enough to want additional information. Good listening was consistently seen as a two-way dialog, rather than a one-way “speaker versus hearer” interaction. The best conversations were active.
- Good listening included interactions that build a person’s self-esteem. The best listeners made the conversation a positive experience for the other party, which doesn’t happen when the listener is passive (or, for that matter, critical!). Good listeners made the other person feel supported and conveyed confidence in them. Good listening was characterized by the creation of a safe environment in which issues and differences could be discussed openly.
- Good listening was seen as a cooperative conversation. In these interactions, feedback flowed smoothly in both directions with neither party becoming defensive about comments the other made. By contrast, poor listeners were seen as competitive — as listening only to identify errors in reasoning or logic, using their silence as a chance to prepare their next response. That might make you an excellent debater, but it doesn’t make you a good listener. Good listeners may challenge assumptions and disagree, but the person being listened to feels the listener is trying to help, not wanting to win an argument.
- Good listeners tended to make suggestions. Good listening invariably included some feedback provided in a way others would accept and that opened up alternative paths to consider. This finding somewhat surprised us, since it’s not uncommon to hear complaints that “So-and-so didn’t listen, he just jumped in and tried to solve the problem.” Perhaps what the data is telling us is that making suggestions is not itself the problem; it may be the skill with which those suggestions are made. Another possibility is that we’re more likely to accept suggestions from people we already think are good listeners. (Someone who is silent for the whole conversation and then jumps in with a suggestion may not be seen as credible. Someone who seems combative or critical and then tries to give advice may not be seen as trustworthy.)
While many of us have thought of being a good listener being like a sponge that accurately absorbs what the other person is saying, instead, what these findings show is that good listeners are like trampolines. They are someone you can bounce ideas off of — and rather than absorbing your ideas and energy, they amplify, energize, and clarify your thinking. They make you feel better not merely passively absorbing, but by actively supporting. This lets you gain energy and height, just like someone jumping on a trampoline."
- Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman, "What Good Listeners Actually Do"
- "El Chapo and the Secret History of the Heroin Crisis," Don Winslow
If you have any interest in the War on Drugs or drug policy, this is a must-read.
"This was the whole problem," Kim says. "I had no clue what the problem was."
All Kim knew was that over and over and over again the world didn't respond the way she expected. People would say things and do things that seemed completely unrelated to what was actually going on. It happened all the time.
Once, as a kid at summer camp, she saw two girls trying to put up a sail on a sailboat. "And I'm always really good at doing that kind of stuff, and I looked at them and I could see what their problem was," she says. And so she walked up to them, explained that she could help, could show them how to do it.
"And they were mad at me," she says. The girls started screaming, telling her to go away.
"It was so strange," she remembers. "It was like ... why would they be mad when I'm trying to help them? That makes absolutely no sense. I don't understand that."
That was in 1966, when Kim was 12. More than 40 years later, after a researcher spent 30 minutes pressing a fancy magnet to the top of her head, Kim would finally experience firsthand the critical element of the sailing scene that she had missed in 1966: the subtle emotions swirling around..."
- Alix Spiegel, "What An Hour of Emotion Makes Visible"
(OMG, this article!)
The problem is that when we get our identity tied up in our work, we worry that any kind of failure will then say something bad about us as a person. It’s a fear of taking responsibility, of admitting that we might have messed up. It’s the sunk cost fallacy. And so we throw good money and good life after bad and end up making everything so much worse.
Let’s say the walls feel like they’re closing in. It might feel as if you’ve been betrayed or your life’s work is being stolen. These are not rational, good emotions that will lead to rational, good actions. Ego asks: Why is this happening to me? How do I save this and prove to everyone I’m as great as they think? It’s the animal fear of even the slightest sign of weakness.
You’ve seen this. You’ve done this. Fighting desperately for something we’re only making worse. It is not a path to great things."
- Ryan Holliday, "Ego is the Enemy"
Type 1 decisions: “Some decisions are consequential and irreversible or nearly irreversible – one-way doors – and these decisions must be made methodically, carefully, slowly, with great deliberation and consultation. If you walk through and don’t like what you see on the other side, you can’t get back to where you were before.”
Type 2 decisions: “But most decisions aren’t like that – they are changeable, reversible – they’re two-way doors. If you’ve made a suboptimal Type 2 decision, you don’t have to live with the consequences for that long. You can reopen the door and go back through. Type 2 decisions can and should be made quickly by high judgment individuals or small groups.”
- First Round Review: "How A/B Testing at LinkedIn, Wealthfront and eBay Made Me a Better Manager"
But rarely do we improve when the task is easy..."
- Carson Tate, "How to Fight Through Intellectual Discomfort."
...the real world is a stubborn place. It is complex in ways that resist abstraction and modeling. It notices and reacts to our attempts to affect it. Nor can we hope to examine it objectively from the outside, any more than we can step out of our own skin.
The connected world we're building may resemble a computer system, but really it's just the regular old world from before, with a bunch of microphones and keyboards and flat screens sticking out of it. And it has the same old problems.
Approaching the world as a software problem is a category error that has led us into some terrible habits of mind."
- Maciej Cegłowski, "The Moral Economy of Tech"
(This post is one of those posts that is so full of good that it's very difficult to excerpt just one piece. If you read one thing this week, it should be this.)
Want to get a taste of it all in one go? Read Cannes Lions 2016 in Bullet Points.
If you prefer pictures, take a look at 100+ Beautiful Slides from Cannes Lions 2016. You can take a trip down memory lane with the "100 Beautiful Slides" from 2013, 2012, 2011, and 2010 and "100 Bullet Points" from 2012 and 2011.
In a way, what's happening to video recalls what happened to literature when we stopped reading aloud, together, and started reading silently, alone. Beginning in the Middle Ages, people no longer had to gather in groups to hear tales or learn the news or study religion. They could be alone with a text and their own thoughts, an unprecedented freedom that led to political and religious turmoil and forever changed intellectual life.
With computers, video consumption is also becoming a solitary, self-paced act — and maybe a more analytical act, as well. If you believe, as I do, in the artistic potential of television and film, then perhaps we are on the brink of another cultural transformation — viewers finally seizing control of this medium. And the medium will be better for it."
- Jeff Guo, "I have found a new way to watch TV, and it changes everything."
(OMG, READ THIS ARTICLE. It has information on the history of reading that I never knew, and it's just fascinating from a consumption-of-information viewpoint.)
Highly allows you to highlight things on the web and then share them with your friends. I find this really useful because there's a number of articles where there's one or two good paragraphs that I want to remember.
Interested? Join me on Highly to read my highlights and share your own. www.highly.co/by/rednikki
Via The Upward Spiral:
Trying for the best, instead of good enough, brings too much emotional ventromedial prefrontal activity into the decision-making process. In contrast, recognizing that good enough is good enough activates more dorsolateral prefrontal areas, which helps you feel more in control…
Sound too easy? Too simplistic? Okay, let’s look at a real world example of how people at the highest levels make decisions.
James Waters was Deputy Director of Scheduling at The White House. (Word on the street is they make some pretty big decisions there.) What did James tell me?
“A good decision now is better than a perfect decision in two days”
- Eric Barker, "This is how to make good decisions: 4 secrets backed by research"
The Chinese term for this ritual, sao yi sao, quickly becomes familiar. Everyone and almost everything on WeChat has a QR code, and sao yi sao-ing with your phone is both constant and strangely satisfying. James, a tanned American with unruly blond hair who mans the Yoli table, is here to host a workshop called “How We Built a WeChat App & Recovered Our Development Costs Within 24hrs.” He scans my code, which gives him my WeChat profile and also generates the equivalent of a friend request; I accept, and we agree to meet during the week, skipping right over the old-fashioned niceties of last names and business cards.The presentations are about to start, and jet lag is kicking in. I hurry to the coffee counter for an iced Americano. There’s a QR code in a plastic photo frame. The woman ahead of me is scanning it. I try it, and … WeChat fail. I’ve entered a credit card into WeChat, but it won’t work, and my WeChat wallet is empty. I feel distinctly self-conscious fumbling around for yuan. I’ve been in WeChat-era China one day, and already cash money feels embarrassing."
- Dune Lawrence, "Life in the People's Republic of WeChat"
When a reader buys a self-published book, Amazon keeps 30 percent of the royalties and gives the rest to the authors—meaning the company makes money whether the book is plagiarized or not. A traditional publisher is liable if it puts out a book that violates copyright. But Amazon is protected from the same fate by federal law as long as it removes the offending content.
Amazon regularly complies with this rule, and plagiarized books are removed from the site. However, it can take a while for the company to respond to complaints, which can be maddening for authors, since every day a fake book is up is a day they’re losing sales. The company spokesperson Justin O’Kelly said Amazon has a team dedicated to stopping plagiarism, but he wouldn’t go into details about their methods for fear of giving plagiarists ideas. “In the rare instance when plagiarized titles make it through, that same team makes sure they are taken down quickly, and repeat offenders are blocked,” he said."
- Joy Lanzendorfer, "Stealing Books in the Age of Self-Publishing."
Issues which spring from the highly concentrated world Meeker describes, issues of money power and culture, cannot be charted in the line graphs and pie charts which tell us where the money and eyeballs are going. In fairness it isn’t an investment firm’s job to do this, but the cultural and political inferences that ought to be made from these “big picture” presentations are profound."
- Emily Bell, "'Bible of trends' for the media industry charts more famine than feast."
Granted, Harry can’t perform most of the tasks in a pathologist’s repertoire. But in 2016 — 11 years after the launch of the ur-platform, Amazon Mechanical Turk — crowdworking (sometimes also called crowdsourcing) is eating into increasingly high-skilled jobs. The engineers who are developing this model of labor have a bold ambition to atomize entire careers into micro-tasks that almost anyone, anywhere in the world, can carry out online. They’re banking on the idea that any technology that can make a complex process 100 times cheaper, as in Harry’s case, will spread like wildfire.
Perhaps it’s inevitable that in a few years, software will swallow up these jobs, too. But as the tech conversation has fixated on how artificial intelligence will affect the job market, crowdwork has quietly grown in impact and scale.
The next jobs to receive the crowd treatment? Doctors, managers and teachers."
- Mark Harris, "Say Goodbye to Your Highly Skilled Job. It's Now a 'Human Intelligence Task.'"
“What I’m referring to are those that believe being “industry famous” in the creative world is success in of itself. Especially those that start out with that goal in mind. This is where the Complex can poison talent. Being industry famous should be the result of some contribution to the world that the industry respects and wishes to learn from. Or insights unique and useful that it genuinely makes people’s lives better.
Increasingly “creative coaches” and people with “keynote speaker” in their Twitter bios are making their quest to earn authority a higher priority than the very reason they got into this in the first place. Fueling the Complex is alluring catnip that feels like you’re advancing your career the same way answering a bunch of emails just feels productive.If someone cares more about what their industry peers think of them than the problems they are solving, they’re a bullshitter. If the idea of being “known” is barometer of their success above user (or reader) success stories, they’re a bullshitter. They are the internet’s equivalent of a reality TV star, taking advantage of the attention economy by catering to our worst instincts in lieu of substance.”
- Sean Blanda, "The Creative World's Bullshit-Industrial Complex"
(thanks @jessedee for the link)