The Web Is One Big Party

A VC A few months ago, Fred Wilson of All Software Should Be Social. In it, he paraphrased something Clay Shirky said:

Clay Shirky once said that social nets are like parties. When they are small, they are really great, when they get big and crowded, they cease to be useful. Again I can’t find that post, or I’d link to it.

Clay’s right. But a huge social net that’s made up of millions of smaller social nets is likely to be even more useful than anything that we currently have.

This got me thinking, which, I know, is a dangerous thing.

Say the web is one big party. Like Clay says, a party with too many people is no fun. But this party is being held in an enormous warehouse with lots of nooks and crannies. So naturally, groups of people break off into their own niches.

Some people stay with their friends (MySpace, Facebook, Friendster.com, Second Life). Others stick with family (Famster), coworkers (LinkedIn), or even church group (MyChurch). People like to feel like they belong somewhere, and people with similar interests tend to cluster together. Thus you have cliques (Wikipedia, Flickr, Digg, Yelp, YouTube, Last.fm, Kaboodle, Dogster, Fanpop, Gather, FanNation, LibraryThing, Rupture, and on and on and on).

But people don’t stay within a particular group all the time though. They travel between several cliques, sometimes adopting different persona with each one. That’s okay though, because they still have their own identity; it’s just their outward behavior and language that changes (OpenID, PeopleAggregator).

Sometimes people want to share their life story and crave an audience (Twitter, Blogger, Xanga, LiveJournal). That can be difficult because this is one loud party; but you’re bound to find a few single people at the bar if you look hard enough.

Other times, people need a little alone-time and privacy, away from everyone at the party. This can be both easy and hard. It’s easy when you want to just leave the party (log off). It’s hard when you’ve been at the party for a while, had lots of conversations, then are trying to hide. If someone wants to find you, they will (Google, Technorati, Wink). At this party, everything you’ve said can last forever.

It’s also easy just to sit back and people-watch at this party (Google Reader, FeedBurner, My Yahoo!, Netvibes, Bloglines). There’s a lot to see and your eyes may glaze over after a few hours. But you’ll also see some really wacky and fun sights.

Then what happens when bullies start to get abusive? It’s tough to police this party; it’s so big that almost anything goes. Fortunately, some kind souls are trying to help (EFF, Creative Commons). Much luck to them. There are lots of predators at this party. I hope they don’t ruin it for the rest of us.

And there you have it. The web as one big party. It’s a fantastic one that’s growing everyday. This warehouse is infinite, save for our imaginations. So come in and have some fun. Just don’t drink too much; the hang-over is killer.

Mindset: The Effort Effect

Mindset: The New Psychology of Success Last month, Guy Kawasaki wrote about Carol Dweck, a psychology professor at Stanford. In the Stanford Magazine article by Marina Krakovsky, “The Effort Effect“, Dweck explores why “a really capable child [gives] up in the face of failure, [while] other children [are] motivated by the failure.”

Her field studies in learned helplessness and attribution theory led her to launch a new field of educational psychology: achievement goal theory.

In short, there are people who believe they have a fixed mental capacity (known as a “fixed mindset”) and there are people who believe they can always learn new things (known as a “growth mindset”). A person with a fixed mindset, even highly capable ones who are already highly intelligent, don’t try as hard as those with a growth mindset and therefore don’t excel as well. Dweck’s new book, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, goes into more detail about these conclusions and offers parenting tips as well, since her field studies were conducted mostly on elementary school children.

Guy, useful as ever, cites some of Dweck’s tips and adds the word “employee” to show how they are relevant to business and management:

Listen to what you say to your kids [employees], with an ear toward the messages you’re sending about mind-set.

Instead of praising children’s [employee’s] intelligence or talent, focus on the processes they used.

Example: “That homework was so long and involved. I really admire the way you concentrated and finished it.”
Example: “That picture has so many beautiful colors. Tell me about them.”
Example: “You put so much thought into that essay. It really makes me think about Shakespeare in a new way.”

When your child [employee] messes up, give constructive criticism—feedback that helps the child [employee] understand how to fix the problem, rather than labeling or excusing the child.

Pay attention to the goals you set for your children [employees]; having innate talent is not a goal, but expanding skills and knowledge is.

Don’t worry about praising your children [employees] for their inherent goodness, though. It’s important for children [employees] to learn they’re basically good and that their parents love them unconditionally, Dweck says. “The problem arises when parents praise children [employees] in a way that makes them feel that they’re good and love-worthy only when they behave in particular ways that please the parents.

The Do’s and Dont’s of Cover Letters

I’ve seen some truly horrendous cover letters. Awful ones. Ones that make me want to lather it with ketchup and feed it to a stray dog.

Here are some tips from my experiences as a hiring manager on writing an effective cover letter.

  • DO: Be polite and respectful
  • DON’T: Be arrogant and demanding

    Some hiring managers see hundreds of cover letters a week. If you start off with, “Give me a job, I’m the best in the industry,” you’re going to be the best crumpled-up cover letter in the trash can.

  • DO: Highlight notable achievements in previous roles
  • DON’T: Repeat what’s on your resume

    The cover letter is a place to go into a little more detail about a previous job. If there was an especially relevant accomplishment, write about it and provide some extra details.

  • DO: Personalize the letter to the company
  • DON’T: Use a generic template

    Some hiring managers are impressed with candidates who’ve done their research about their company. Generic cover letter templates usually sound dry and, well, generic too.

  • DO: Explain why you’re qualified for the role
  • DON’T: Explain why you want to work for the company

    This might be contrary to what you might think, but it’s already obvious that you want to work for the company. So don’t waste the hiring manager’s time explaining that. Instead, explain why you’re a good match for the role without being overly arrogant.

  • DO: Be accurate
  • DON’T: Lie

    Hiring managers often ask questions about the information you put in your cover letter (or resume). If you lie, you’re going to get caught. Some background checks are more thorough than you think.

  • DO: Keep it concise
  • DON’T: Write a novel

    Since hiring managers see so many cover letters, a long one is a sure way of getting tossed aside. Don’t write a one-liner, but don’t write a ten-pager either.

In short, a cover letter is a way to explain why you’re qualified by providing some details about specific accomplishments you’ve made, without repeating what is already in your resume.

Late Bloomer, Late Genius

The Tortoise and The Hare I marvel at all the smart people around me. The people who’ve hit success at a ripe young age. The Jerry Yangs, the Larry Pages, heck, even the Shawn Fannings. And I wonder: is it too late to make a big splash?

Then I read Daniel Pink’s article in Wired: “What Kind of Genius Are You?” He begins with an anecdote about a 17th-century Dutch art class at Harvard.

On the first day of class, the professor displayed a stunning image of a Renaissance Madonna and child. “Pablo Picasso did this copy of a Raphael drawing when he was 17 years old,” the professor told the students. “What have you people done lately?”

Hmmm. I ate a banana for breakfast, read a bunch of emails, thought hard about improving some processes on my team… but no Renaissance Madonnas. Damn. What’s that say about me? Am I doomed to mediocrity?

Fortunately, no! There’s still hope!

The article explains how David Galenson, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago, made an interesting realization. Using the careful analysis of a trained economist, he scoured volumes of data and “sliced and diced the numbers with his econometric ginsu knife.” The end result showed two types of geniuses:

Conceptual Innovators
These are people who “do their breakthrough work when they are young”, “then decline steadily.” Examples are Edvard Munch, Herman Melville, and Orson Welles.
Experimental Innovators
These are people who go through “a lifetime of trial and error and thus do their important work much later in their careers.” Examples are Auguste Rodin, Mark Twain, and Alfred Hitchcock.

An entry by Stephen Dubner on the Freakonomics Blog corroborates these results. It cites an article by David Wessel in the Wall Street Journal: “Why Middle Age May Be Healthy For Your Wallet“.

Baseball players are said to peak in their late 20’s. Chess players in their mid-30’s. Theoretical economists in their mid-40’s. But in ordinary life, there’s an obvious tension between sheer smarts, often seen in the supple minds of the young, and experience, which comes only with age.

Ah ha! So maybe I’m an Experimental Innovator. Maybe I’m the kind of person who is able to arrive at genius through trial and error and experience. I know I’m definitely no baseball player.

So if you were to ask me, “What have you done lately?” I’d say, “I’ve done lots of things! Like eating a banana for breakfast, reading a bunch of emails, and thinking hard about improving some processes on my team… All things that will give me valuable experience for my budding late genius!”

(And heck, I don’t need to be the next Mark Twain. Wessel explains that most people make their smartest personal finance decisions in their 50’s. I’ll gladly settle for that.)

Want To Buy Some Web 2.0?

web2.0forsale.com and VentureBoard Now this is what I’d call a sign of trouble.

Have a Web 2.0 online business but can’t get your business model working? Maybe you can’t get any customers. Maybe your product really sucks. Maybe you quit your job to start this thing and are realizing you made a horrible, horrible mistake.

Never fear! Just sell your business online!

There are now two companies through which you can sell your online wares: VentureBoard and Web 2.0 For Sale. You can sell anything remotely Web 2.0ish, from domain names to mash-ups to your website. As I write this, Dodgy.com is on sale for $12,500.00 at Web 2.0 For Sale. Wow.

The hubbub started when Kiko.com, an DHTML calendar offering, sold themselves on eBay for $250,000. They weren’t the first to use eBay, but they generated the most press. Jux2, a metasearch engine, was the first – at least, according to TechCrunch.

I remember watching the Kiko.com auction on eBay. A friend told me about it and we mused: “Maybe we should build some kind of DHTML app and sell it on eBay too…”

Well, that idea could still work. And now we have more sales channels too!

What VentureBoard and Web 2.0 For Sale are doing is really smart. There’s certainly a demand for this kind of service right now. Why not capitalize on it?

For entrepreneurial web developers, this may start a new trend – quickly build a Web 2.0ish online app (be it a social network, mash-up, wiki, pick your favorite buzz word) and sell it. Even if you sell one for $5,000, that ain’t half bad. Do that once a month and you’re golden.

Only, who the heck is buying? These services don’t post any sales statistics. It’s easy to find this out on eBay, but not on VentureBoard and Web 2.0 For Sale. Hmmm.

The entrepreneur in me is saying: “Maybe we should build some kind of DHTML app and sell it on eBay, or VentureBoard, or Web 2.0 For Sale too…” If there’s a low-cost way in doing this, why not?

The trouble is in building a real business model. I’d just be building a site for the sake of selling it. Quite a post-Internet-bubble sentiment, eh? First, there was: Build a site and the venture capital will come. Now, there’s: Build a site and the sales will come. Nice.

The real business model here is in VentureBoard and Web 2.0 For Sale. At least, as long as there are actual buyers for these Web 2.0ish social networks/mash-ups/wikis/etc…

And hey, I have a few ideas. Anyone want to help me build a few DHTML apps? They probably suck as businesses, but maybe someone will buy them!

The Missing “I”

You know what really grinds my gears? People who drop the “I” in sentences.

It’s especially common among executives and high-level managers, as if they expect you to know that everything they say is – of course – about them.

For example, here’s a request for a meeting: “Want to get together for a meeting.”

It sounds like a question, but it’s really a declaration. In proper English, it would read: “I want to get together for a meeting.”

Here are more examples taken from actual situations:

  • “Interested in that CPM vs CPC comparison.”
  • “Like idea of adding extra modules to page.”
  • “Agree with John – nice job on sales call.”
  • “Only concern is the light gray text is too subtle.”
  • “Have to take a poop.”

Well, that last one isn’t an actual example, but I can very well imagine an executive saying that. Or, rather:

Can very well imagine an executive saying that.

ScienceDaily Week by Guy Kawasaki

ScienceDaily Last week, Guy Kawasaki ran a series of posts that highlighted choice bits from ScienceDaily. This online magazine (ezine?) aims to be The Source for the latest research news in science, technology, and medicine, by including stories “submitted by leading universities and other research organizations around the world.” Guy notes that their studies have implications on business practices as well.

So with that, Guy highlights:

Which is more effective: bonuses or raises?

For example, have you ever wondered whether giving employees a pay-for-performance bonus or a merit raise fosters greater productivity? According to this “Bonuses Boost Performance 10 Times More Than Merit Raises” in Science Daily which pointed to a Cornell study called “Using Your Pay System to Improve Employees’ Performance: How You Pay Makes a Difference” by Dr. Michael C. Sturman, a bonus yields far better results.

Interesting! Same probably goes for commission-based compensation too.

Hype Kills

…assistant professor Vanessa Patrick (University of Georgia) [and] co-authors Debbie MacInnis and C. Whan Park (University of Southern California) [published the study] “Marketing: Too Much Hype Backfires.” The study shows that “people take notice when they feel worse than they thought they would, but—oddly—not when they feel better than expected.”

This supports the old adage that people tell five others about a bad experience but only one about a good experience (“negative evangelism”?). Thus, it sure looks like “under promising and over delivering” is the way to go.

It’s well-known that losing something creates a stronger emotion than winning something, so I guess human beings are wired to feel negative emotions moreso than positive emotions?

Advertising and Sexy Content

…advertising during television programs with sexy content is less effective than during programs with no sexy content. This is the research finding of Ellie Parker and Adrian Furnham of the Department of Psychology of the University College London.

To quote Robin Williams: “God gave you a penis and a brain, and only enough blood to run one at a time.” So when you’re watching that sexy content, your brain isn’t going to be remembering a damn thing.

Here’s a three-fer

  1. Researchers at the University of Oregon found that when people watch someone perform a task that they know they’ll have to repeat later, similar parts of the brain are activated that are used doing the the task itself. The source is “Watching With Intent To Repeat Ignites Key Learning Area of Brain.”
  2. An article called “Subliminal Advertising Leaves Its Mark On the Brain” cites how researchers at University College London found that subliminal images attract the brain’s attention on a subconscious level. An implication is that subliminal advertising could work. That is, of course, assuming you don’t Tivo past the ads.
  3. Seeing the color red can hinder people from performing their best on tests. This is the conclusion of a study called Research On the Color Red Shows Definite Impact On Achievement” at the University of Rochester.

So our brain is like a sponge, absorbing not just the spilled milk, but all the dust and gunk on the floor too, for better or worse. Great.