Does your business operate internationally? Do you have teams and vendors in other countries? Does your work take you all around the globe?
If so, then hopefully you've heard of the GLOBE Study already. If not, here's a quick primer.
The GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) Study is basically an analysis of the cultural, societal, organizational, and leadership differences between 62 different societies around the world. Conducted by the Wharton Business School of the University of Pennsylvania, its team of 170 researchers are aiming:
To determine the extent to which the practices and values of business leadership are universal (i.e., are similar globally), and the extent to which they are specific to just a few societies.
The completed study is released as a thick 848 page hardcover book called Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies and sells for $130. It's a hefty book at a hefty price, but it's generally regarded as one of those "must-have" books for corporate executives in international businesses. (Thank goodness for expense accounts, huh?)
If you're familiar with the personality tests such as Myers-Briggs and Keirsey, this study is similar—except on acid. The GLOBE Study breaks down the 62 societies into:
9 Cultural Dimensions: performance orientation, uncertainty avoidance, humane orientation, institutional collectivism, in-group collectivism, assertiveness, gender egalitarianism, future orientation, and power distance.
6 Culturally-endorsed Leadership Theory Dimensions: charismatic/value based, team oriented, self-protective, participative, humane oriented, and autonomous.
21 Primary Leadership Dimensions: administratively competent, autocratic, autonomous, charismatic/visionary, charismatic/inspirational, charismatic/self-sacrificial, conflict inducer, decisive, diplomatic, face saver, humane orientation, integrity, malevolent, modesty, non-participative, performance oriented, procedural, self-centered, status consciousness, team collaborative, and team integrator.
A great free guide on how to read and understand the GLOBE Study is provided by Grovewell LLC. Their founder, Cornelius Grove, even provides this list of nine highlights:
Thirty-five personal attributes of leaders are viewed in some societies as contributing to good leadership, and in other societies as inhibiting good leadership. Among the 35 are "cunning," "provocateur," and "sensitive."
Charismatic leadership is often said by businesspeople to be highly effective. The GLOBE research confirms that, worldwide, "Charismatic/Value-Based" leadership is indeed effective; it also specifies the attributes of such leadership.
The United States emerges as the only culture in which participative leadership has a positive influence on employee performance.
Most managers around the world wish that their companies and supervisors would focus more heavily on high performance than actually is the case.
"Team Oriented" leadership is seen by business people in all cultures as moderately or highly desirable and as contributing to good leadership.
Managers in the Middle East were less likely than managers anywhere else to view leadership that is "Charismatic/Value-Based," "Team Oriented," and "Participative" as substantially contributing to good leadership. On average, they viewed these three characteristics as having only a mildly positive effect.
Concern for gender egalitarianism is positively associated with good leadership in the great majority of societies; this finding is notable because fully three-quarters of the 17,300 respondents worldwide were male.
"In-Group Collectivism" is the degree to which people express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organizations. Contrary to the individualistic ethic of the U.S., American managers value (desire) In-Group Collectivism to the same extent as managers in Russia, Spain, Zambia, Turkey, and Thailand.
Overall, the GLOBE findings suggest that leaders are seen as the embodiment of an ideal state of affairs, and thus as the society's instruments for change.
Trying to sell your ideas within a corporation isn't always easy. You have to contend with politics, egos, bureaucracy, and other assorted barriers.
With that in mind, I put together the following information a couple of years ago for my team. Some of it is influenced by Seth Godin's book Free Prize Inside, which lists lots of great idea promotion techniques.
Introduction
This is not about how to come up with great ideas
This is about how to promote your ideas
Your job is to come up with great, viable, & successful ideas
Be aware of what the pesson wants from life, from you, or from this particular deal. What matters to this person? Money, fame, reputation, a promotion, etc?
Find out who the true influencers are; these aren't always the top executives (though usually they are); sometimes, it can also be a project manager or a low-level product manager, or even an administrative assistant
E.g. The executives of a major company wanted innovation. Unfortunately, below them were some senior managers who were afraid of upsetting the status quo and hurting their stock options because they were already making a fortune on them. They wouldn't let any new ideas through if they hurt the status quo. These senior managers were the true influencers, not the top executives. A way to approach them is to understand their motivations and show that, by not embracing this idea, the status quo would be broken because competitors would do it better.
Convince Others That Your Idea is Great
Not just good, but great
Do some research and gather statistics to back-up the potential success of your idea
Show them your vision, describe the future where your idea is a reality
Tell them the emotional impact of your idea, get them energized about it
The goal is not to prove beyond a doubt that your idea will work; that may be impossible to prove. The goal is to go through the necessary steps for your colleagues to believe that your idea will work
Understand what motivates people (which ties into politics)
Some want a cool challenge
Some like the geek factor of new technology
Some like being the first-to-market
Some want to push the stock price up
Some like making their own jobs more secure
Some want to make the world a better place
Some want public recognition
Convince Others That You Can Make This Happen
Build your reputation as a leader, an Idea Champion
Start small (plan a small event, like a team lunch)
Increase your responsibilities (take on increasingly more difficult tasks)
Take ownership of difficult, complex problems (own them from identification to resolution)
Be proactive about problem-solving (if you notice a problem happening frequently that no one else has identified yet, step up to find a solution)
Consider volunteering to champion someone else's idea (to help prove yourself and gain a political ally)
Consider learning about project management, marketing, engineering lifecycles, etc; (give yourself the right skills to see your idea through)
Dave Shen just wrote an entry that made me laugh. Not in a Haha What a Funny Joke! way. More in a Hells Yea That's Sure True way.
He wrote, "It Sucks to Not Be an Engineer…", and talks about the difficulty of trying to start up a Web-based business without knowing how to programming or having software engineers by your side.
For non-engineers, it's a tough to build a Web 2.0 company without being an engineer, or having one as a partner. You could hire an outsourced engineering firm but that could run your costs up to $30k to $100k per month for many months. You could raise that but you'd need 6-12 months to build something.
…
Best bet: Find an engineer or two and bring them on board with your concept.
…
Second best bet: buy Ruby on Rails for Dummies and start programming.
True, too true. I know of a bunch of entrepreneurs who are searching endlessly for software engineers as well. Even those with growing businesses need more engineers.
Which means it's a damn good time to be a software engineer. Hehe.
I would rather try, and fail, than to walk away and regret never having tried at all.
You've no doubt heard the statistic that X number of new business fail in X years. Maybe you've heard that the number really isn't that high, or maybe you've heard it's actually very high. To clear the confusion, according to the US Small Business Administration site:
Starting a small business is always risky, and the chance of success is slim. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, roughly 50% of small businesses fail within the first five years.
The numbers vary by industry, of course. On the Web, they're probably much higher—say 60-70% in the first year? (Five years in Web time is a lifetime and the barriers to entry are very low). But the conclusion is the same: You're more likely to fail than to succeed (especially on the Web).
So my thinking is, if it's inevitable, why fear it? Embrace it. And go forth with faith and gusto, as Jeremy Liew of Lightspeed, James Hong of Hotornot.com, and Robert Young of GigaOM all advise. In a nutshell: Failure is an option, have the balls to try, and bankruptcy gives you the opportunity to fail and start over again.
Young's point about bankruptcy is actually a very significant one. "The ability for a U.S. entrepreneur to go bankrupt is actually the most important element of this country’s economic success and wealth," he writes. How does bankruptcy do this exactly, you ask? According to Wikipedia, the purpose of bankruptcy is:
To give an honest debtor a "fresh start" in life by relieving the debtor of most debts.
To repay creditors in an orderly manner to the extent that the debtor has the means available for payment.
That means if you still have debt, but are out of money, those debts can be erased. This simple rule is part of what makes businesses thrive in the US. In The World is Flat, Thomas Friedman argues that if a nation wants to improve its economy and increase the number of jobs, it needs:
…a regulatory environment that makes it easy to start a business, easy to adjust a business to changing market circumstances and opportunities, and easy to close a business that goes bankrupt, so that the capital can be freed up for more productive uses.
If you are starting your business in the US, you are in luck. You are in such an environment. Happy day!
However, this doesn't mean you should go about your business in a haphazard fashion and take crazy risks. Failure may be inevitable, but at least be smart about it. Learn to build for it. Paul Hawken advises in his great book Growing a Business:
If you conceive and create a business where everything has to go right, one error, one mishap, can ruin a lot of good work. If you conceive a business where twenty serious mistakes could occur, and then you create safeguards to deal with some or most of these possibilities, you are creating a survivor. In the beginning, survival is more important than success. Survival is staying on the field, playing the game, learning the rules, and beginning to grow.
Another great book about managing and taking calculated risks is Anthony Iaquinto and Stephen Spinelli Jr's Never Bet The Farm. It presents fifteen common-sense principles that can serve as helpful reminders in times of crisis, such as Principle #9: Don't Spend a Dollar When a Dime Will Do, and Principle #11: Only Fools Fly Without a Net.
So there you have it. Don't be afraid to fail. Embrace failure. Go forth with faith and gusto. But be smart about failure. Learn to build for it. And don't walk away and regret never having tried at all.
I'm jealous of the students at Kansas State University.
In their class "Introduction to Cultural Anthropology", assistant professor/cultural anthropologist/media ecologist/student of the world Dr. Michael Wesch has put together some amazing videos derived from what must have been some very interesting discussions in his classes.
He's known most for his award-winning video The Machine is Us/ing Us which made its rounds in the blogosphere a few months ago. His site, mediatedcultures.net, houses all of his digital ethnography projects.
A recent project, which began as a brainstorming exercise about "how students learn, what they need to learn for their future, and how our current educational system fits in", culminated in the stirring video A Vision of Students Today:
Here are some of the statistics shown in the video:
My average class size is 115.
18% of my teachers know my name.
I complete 49% of the readings assigned to me. Only 26%… relative to my life.
I will read 8 books this year, 2300 web pages, and 1281 facebook profiles.
I will write 42 pages for class this semester. And over 500 pages of email.
These numbers come from the collaborative effort of his 200 students, a shared Google Document, 367 edits, and a student-created survey that 133 of them answered. While not entirely scientific, it's a fascinating snapshot.
Now I'm wondering: What will the role of record labels be if songs become freely available to the public, as opposed to within paid CDs or digital files?
And to that, I also wonder: Are there any helpful comparisons to make with the fields of writing, painting, photography, acting, or filmmaking? Perhaps, in these comparisons, there will be a demonstrated example of needing, or not needing, a record label.
All are creative fields with professionals seeking to make a living. So I'm sure there are some similarities, which I'm going to simplify into the need for marketing and distribution. And in all of these fields, the way to get the proper marketing and distribution (as well as other connections) is through representation by some kind of agent or manager.
(Disclaimer: I'm not a professional in any of these fields, so please let me know if anything I write here is incorrect.)
Writers
Representation
This is handled by literary agents. They are generally considered to be crucial, since they hold the key to the marketing and distribution channels. Blogging and online publishing is rapidly becoming an alternative means of self-publishing, diminishing the need for representation.
Marketing
This is handled by publishers. They have access to large budgets, teams of graphic designers, and marketing channels such as book tours and merchandising. Some business-savvy bloggers are beginning to learn how to market themselves, diminishing the need for publishers.
Distribution
This is handled by publishers. They have access to economies of scale, book production, and distribution channels such as bookseller chains. Blogging and online publishing provides a natural distribution alternative: the Web, diminishing the need for publishers.
Painters/Illustrators
Representation
This is handled by artist agents. They aren't commonly used, since some artists aren't aware they exist, don't know how to find them, or prefer to go it alone.
Marketing
This is handled by art galleries. Larger galleries are able to offer some advertising, though the gallery itself is the main marketing vehicle. Some web-savvy artists also use the Web as a supplementary marketing channel, but still rely heavily on art galleries.
Distribution
This is handled by art galleries and, if the photographer chooses this means of income, stock illustration services. They provide an aggregation point for artwork, making it easier for buyers to find and purchase the art. Some web-savvy artists also set up online stores as a supplementary distribution channel, but still rely heavily on art galleries or stock illustration services.
Photographers
Representation
This is handled by photo agents. They aren't commonly used, since some photographers aren't aware they exist, don't know how to find them, or prefer to go it alone.
Marketing
This is handled by art galleries and photography magazines. Larger galleries are able to offer some advertising, though the gallery itself is the main marketing vehicle. Many web-savvy photographers are increasingly using the Web as their primary marketing channel, especially with the rise of sites like Flickr.
Distribution
This is handled by art galleries and, if the photographer chooses this means of income, stock photography houses. They provide an aggregation point for photographs, making it easier for buyers to find and purchase them. Many web-savvy photographers are increasingly using the Web as their primary distribution channel, though there are difficulties in digital rights, since it's easy to make digital copies of photographs.
Actors/Actresses
Representation
This is handled by talent agents. They are generally considered to be crucial, since they hold the key to the marketing and distribution channels. There have been no viable alternatives to talent agents in this field.
Marketing
This is also handled by talent agents. They are the ones who promote and sell their clients to various "customers" such as casting directors and production companies. There have been no viable marketing alternatives to talent agents in this field.
Distribution
Since the "product" is the person him/herself, there is no need for a distribution channel, per se.
Filmmakers
Representation
This is handled by talent agents. Independent filmmakers generally don't use them, preferring instead to go it alone. Online publishing is rapidly becoming an alternative means of self-publishing, diminishing the need for representation.
Marketing
This is handled by movie studios. They have access to large budgets, marketing departments, and marketing channels such as television and billboards. Some web-savvy filmmakers are increasingly using the Web as their primary marketing channel, such as sites like YouTube, diminishing the need for movie studios.
Distribution
This is handled by movie studios. They have access to economies of scale, production facilities, and distribution channels such as movie theater and DVD rental chains. The Web provides a natural distribution alternative, diminishing the need for movie studios. There are difficulties in digital rights, however, since it's easy to make digital copies of movies.
Musicians
Representation
This is handled by music managers. They are considered crucial by some, though a few are beginning to publish music on their own, diminishing the need for representation.
Marketing
This is handled by record labels. They have access to large budgets, marketing and design departments, and marketing channels such as television and magazines. Some web-savvy musicians are increasingly using the Web as their primary marketing channel, such as MySpace, diminishing the need for record labels.
Distribution
This is handled by record labels. They have access to economies of scale, recording studios, and distribution channels such as online and offline music store chains. Some web-savvy musicians are increasingly using the Web as their primary distribution channel, though there are difficulties in digital rights, since it's easy to make digital copies of music.
My Prediction for the Music Industry
So what does this mean? A lot of creative professions are experimenting with the Web as a new marketing and distribution channel. For some, it makes sense; for others, it doesn't—at least, not with the current state of their industry.
I don't believe the marketing and distribution providers will ever go away completely. Not all creative professionals are business- or web-savvy, nor do they want to be. Some want to concentrate on creating their art, and nothing else. For those professionals, there will always bee a need for someone handling their marketing and distribution needs.
The current entities handling the marketing and distribution will need to evolve, however, if they want to survive. Going back to the music business, record labels have realized that they need new revenue vehicles as CD sales continue to drop. So they've been cutting into the musicians' pockets, as stated in Jeff Leeds's New York Times article "Squeezing Money From the Music":
Lately, the major labels have in effect tried to move into the talent management business by demanding that new artists seeking record contracts give their label a cut of concert earnings or T-shirt and merchandise revenue - areas that had once been outside the labels' bailiwick.
No wonder musicians hate record labels. As much as musicians need marketing and distribution services, record labels that do this are going to chase away more and more musicians. They're killing the golden geese that lay the golden eggs, so to speak.
What this means is an opportunity for smart competition—i.e. independent record labels who are willing to take on experimental business models. Although the largest record labels still dominate mainstream marketing and distribution channels, as they lose artists (and consequently, revenue), they'll lose market share in favor of new and evolved players.
Digital rights will also be a concern, though if digital songs become a marketing tool, then digital rights are moot.
New Potential Business Ideas
Here's a new business idea: You the musician can hire me for a percentage of sales (or a flat reoccurring fee), while I help you market and distribute your music. This could be as simple as operating a web site to getting your songs onto P2P networks. I'd have to have a lot of clients in order to turn a profit however, since margins will be slim. Or a business like iTunes could offer such services.
Another new business idea: Not every musician will have the expertise to create polished, well-edited music. So you can hire me to help you handle the recording and editing of it. Come to my recording studio, or hire me to teach you how to do this on your own. Maybe I can sell you some of the equipment and software too. The margins here are a little better. This isn't quite an alternative for record labels, but aspiring entrepreneurs could sure consider it. People who can do this well will be in high demand, just as current music producers are.
Another evolved-business idea: You'll still need someone to manage your gigs, merchandise, commercial licensing, and other revenue streams. I'm basically still your music manager, though with a slightly revised set of responsibilities. Or I could write some software, like Quickbooks, to help you manage your finances. Such software exists already, but none dominate the market or are widely-known.
Evolving industries always means new opportunities. Exciting times, indeed!
This Tuesday's post about NIN and Radiohead going independent has been on my mind. So here's a part 2.
Now, I'm not the biggest fan of current CD prices. I don't think anybody is. So when I read TechCrunch articles like Michael Arrington's "The Inevitable March of Recorded Music Towards Free", I'm filled with glee.
He's basically arguing that the economics of recorded music will eventually drive all music to be free.
This discussion got me thinking. If digital songs become free, how will that effect musicians? Listeners will love it because, hey, who doesn't love free stuff? But how will it effect the livelihood of professional musicians?
As I understand it, a musician makes money from:
Album & song sales (CDs, iTunes, etc)
Live performances
Merchandising (t-shirts, posters, etc)
Commercial licensing (using your songs for commercials)
Not all of these provide income at the same levels. I don't think there's a common ratio, but album sales generally account for a small percentage, while the others offer more, according to Chris Arnold's NPR article, "Band Tries to Make It Big Without Going Broke".
So if songs become free, that shouldn't gravely effect their livelihoods—since paid songs don't effect their livelihood much already.
Also, if song distribution is no longer a means of revenue, its value changes. It becomes… perhaps… a new marketing channel?
Such is already the case in China, where music pirating has made profits from CD sales drop to zero, so writes Kevin Maney for USA Today in the article, "If pirating grows, it may not be the end of music world", written in May 2005.
Yu Quan, like every music act in China, gets almost no income from CD sales, even though millions of its CDs have been sold. As soon as a CD is made, the pirates are on the street, offering them for a fraction of the retail price. Stores sell pirate copies. Legitimate CDs all but vanish.
So artists have to regard CDs as essentially promotional tools, not as end products. Yu Quan makes money by performing concerts, getting endorsement deals and appearing in commercials. If people hear and like Yu Quan's songs on pirated CDs, at least they'll be more likely to come to the concerts and buy what the duo endorses.
The primary revenue vehicles are now live performances, merchandising, commercial licensing—and even commercial endorsements and corporate sponsorships (though only the most popular acts can tout those).
So I agree with Arrington that the price of digital songs is being driven to free. But I don't believe it's just the economics of the situation.
My guess is that piracy and P2P networks figure larger in the equation than he thinks, especially since teenagers (and younger) are such prolific users. They are the audience of tomorrow; their habits now will lay the foundation for the landscape we'll soon be facing.
A paradigm shift from looking at digital songs as promotional vehicles instead of income sources will also precipitate the drive to free. And this, in my opinion, is a good thing—especially for musicians, though maybe not record labels. If musicians don't need a record label to package their CDs and market them anymore, what will they need them for, if they need them at all?
Does your business operate internationally? Do you have teams and vendors in other countries? Does your work take you all around the globe?
Dave Shen just wrote an entry that made me laugh. Not in a Haha What a Funny Joke! way. More in a Hells Yea That's Sure True way.
Now for some Friday fun. Take a look at this 
I'm jealous of the students at Kansas State University.
