U.B.I.llin'

Staff Us Up

Here's a pretty fascinating story from the NY Times, and it plays off a longstanding concern of mine, as well as lots of people who work in marketing and advertising.

To wit... to date, technology hasn't *really* destroyed (many) of our jobs. Sure, designers and copywriters now get to "compete" with people from all over the world, which means that it's becoming more and more difficult to make a living, or justify doing this rather than flipping burgers... but the job still actually exists.

Unlike, say, the people who used to make or develop film for cameras, flashlights instead of cell phone apps, cassette tapes or CDs or DVDs, and so on. You might have a career that has felt increasingly more insecure, or one that has been less and less lucrative, or involve more and more free-lancing and hustling, but it's still a gig.

But just because the job exists now, doesn't mean it will continue. And when the gigs go away, what happens next?

Well, this is where we need to think beyond how the world is now, and try to get past our natural human reaction to always assume the worst of progress or people... and to think about, say, what the world might look like when it is very, very different.

Say, with ubiquitous renewable energy, and maybe it's so efficient and paid for, over such a long period of time, that no one *has* to pay for it any more. Kind of like how long distance telephone bills used to be a big deal, and now, well, aren't.

Where genetic research, and maybe even therapy, allows us to simply correct chronic conditions, rather than continually pay to manage them.

Where every child is planned, and populations managed, with humanity maybe not even confined to the surface of the Earth. Which means all kinds of disruption to real estate and housing.

Where technology eliminates the need for massive military expenditures, or stops putting humanity at direct risk.

Where travel becomes easier, either through self-driving (and maybe also flying?) technology, once again powered by the limitless energy. Or, more fancifully, with teleportation.

Which means that it's not just your job that's at risk.

It's everyone's.

That's a world where it's possible that the pursuit of money just might not be, well, how the world works. Remember, we're talking about limitless energy assets, massive developments in computing power, spectacular advancements in communications and so on. But the transition from the current world of 1% / 99% to a money-free "Star Trek"-esque utopia won't be easy or smooth, so what's being increasingly considered is a kind of dividend payment. Some economists call this Universal Basic Income, or UBI.

Rather than as a welfare payment, it's better to think of such things as if you were, say, a resident of Saudi Arabia or Alaska, where oil companies pay the residents a portion of their revenue as part of a prior arrangement. Or members of a Native American tribe with casinos. It's basically similar. (Also, perhaps not great for overall happiness. Hard to say, really.)

If all of this seems very naive or promoting a particular agenda, keep in mind that the concept isn't beholden to a political party or philosophic leaning. Rather, it simply reflects the reality that any job that can be taken away by technology probably, well, will.

And, finally, this...

If you didn't have to work for a living, because technology gave you everything you ever wanted and needed, and money didn't exist as a scoreboard or necessity to provide for yourself and your family...

What would you do with your time instead?

(Me? Probably the same job as now, because the writing is who I am. But don't tell my clients or employers, because it really doesn't do much for my leverage in contract negotiations...)

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.

Today In I Don't Get It: Awards

Stop Stalking Us

After reading about the Oscars this week, I'm left with my usual reaction... and that is that, just, well, I just don't get why people care about such things. And before you get the wrong impression, this isn't about who got nominated, or the recurring demographic breakdown of that group. Rather, it's why the awards exist in the first place, and why anyone cares about them.

I suppose it's fun to complain about things that don't ever change... wait, that's actually not fun at all. Plus, there's all of these columns about what needs to be done to make the show better -- as if the show ever really changes. Or who got snubbed, as if the snubbing weren't probably better for your economic prospects than to be nominated, but not win it. But beyond all of that, I just don't remember ever making a decision about watching a movie based on whether it won a statue or six. I watch movies based on reviews that probably never mention the awards, or because of the personnel involved.

At this point, you might start to wonder how we'll tie this into marketing and advertising... and, well, it's simple. Have you ever made the decision to hire a marketing and advertising professional based on the awards they have?

That's not a rhetorical, by the way. Feel free to testify to it in the comments. But when you get into my world of analytics fueling creative, lather rinse repeat, awards just aren't part of the flywheel. I'm not saying that we'd turn them down.

Just that we've honestly never even remembered to apply for them, mostly because we've been too busy doing the, you know, work...

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.

The Danger of Monoculture, Or How Potatoes Should Inform Your Marketing & Advertising Choices

Long Fry Me

In my social feed this weekend was a marvelous rant about, of all things, potatoes. Don't worry, it applies to marketing and advertising, and most specifically, email work. But first, we've got to get the background, or What I Learned.

It turns out that there has been hundreds of varieties of potatoes in our past. The Incas are said to have had thousands, many of which have not been seen before or since. What has happened in the centuries since is that the commercial market has driven down the number of potatoes that are viable economically, which means that we're down to, at most, 50 or 60 kinds of potatoes today.

At this point, your eyes may glaze over a bit and say, um, Dave? It's a potato. How different can they be, really? If no one insisted that we keep eating them, maybe they tasted terrible. And the answer is... well, I have no idea, and you have no idea, and if we applied the same logic to birds, the world would be a lot less fun for a whole lot of people, and maybe the skies would be thick with nothing but pigeons. Not exactly appealing.

But leave that as it lies. The single biggest potato on the planet, from an economic standpoint, is the Russet Burbank. And the reason why the RB is such an economic monster is because it makes long and perfect French fries, which is to say, it's more or less the official potato of McDonald's.

Once again, I'm going to be rude and anticipate your reaction: you have a problem with McDonald's french fries? Dear Lord in heaven, no. I don't eat them much any more, because I am of the age where denying myself pleasures is its own strange reward, and once you start to consume them, its pretty much impossible to stop. So I just don't put myself in their path. (This is more trouble than you might imagine, in that there is a McDonald's within a 3-minute walk of my home. Troubling. Luckily, as I write this, it's too late in the evening to cave. Moving on.)

The problem isn't with the commerce; it's with the potato itself. RBs are adored by more than just fast food lovers. They also bite the dust to every fungus, weevil, blight and microbe that you can imagine. In terms of sustainability, the RB is a fainting violet. If it were a heroine in an action movie, it would faint a half dozen times, and be abandoned by the hero for something with a little more meat on her bones. If it were a stock car at Daytona, it would lead after five laps, then explode. It's just not meant for massive cultivation.

Which means that, well, we have to force things. Massive micro-management, fertilization, et cetera. You pretty much need soil that grows nothing but RBs to grow RBs... which puts us right into a rather substantial point in human history, at least as it relates to people related to me. The Irish Potato Famine, which happened in the 19th century when there was also a monoculture that couldn't overcome a blight, and flooded America with so many Irish, it makes for all kinds of old-school anti-immigrant moments now. But let's walk it back from the political.

In email and digital marketing and advertising, testing to a monoculture is depressingly easy. You A/B test to the point of optimal efficiency, usually around a single metric if you want to set up maximum possible fail, or just make one number. Let's say it's open rates, or click, since that's easiest to monitor. Then the world changes -- ISPs stop delivering that kind of subject line, consumers stop responding to that call to action, dayparts fail and so on and so on -- and hey presto, you've got a monoculture that's failing, and all kinds of Crisis. With no data that says, um, let's try Next Best Potato and see if we can get 95% of what we had.

There's a better way, of course.

A rich biosphere, with an environment that looks at multiple metrics. A tolerance for "losing" art, so long as it provides a good learning point. Re-testing "optimal" practices to make sure the world hasn't changed dramatically without your notice. Understanding that some campaigns might be better served by multi-use, or video run times, or tracked acquisition, or synergy to other marketing channels and collateral. And so on.

It's a lot more complicated than just making one kind of potato, and maybe even a little less lucrative.

But only in the short run.

Oh, and there's also this...

We're marketing and advertising people, not farmers.

And we have a hell of a lot more fun, and learn a hell of a lot more in the doing, when we make more than one kind of product.

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.