[ paul isakson ]

BLU | MUTO

Found this animation from BLU just now and thought it was worth sharing here vs. just on my Tumblr.

Enjoy.

via

Digging Into Design Thinking

image credit

In looking up more on the subject of design thinking, I came across a great article from Red Hat published in May of 2006 that is well worth the read. Here it is in its entirety:

Intro to design thinking

An interview with David Burney conducted by Tim Hyer

You may have noticed the word "design" being talked about recently. Perhaps you've read about design thinking in a recent business publication, or noticed the phrase being used in discussions on innovation where you work. Maybe you've heard about Stanford's newly-founded d.school.

That's a lot of hype. What is true is that design is changing the way innovative businesses operate. Successful companies like GE, Procter & Gamble, and Maytag have made significant investments and organizational changes to take advantage of design process and methodologies. Design as an innovative problem-solving methodology is fast becoming an imperative business strategy.

Our success at Red Hat is due to one of the biggest and most successful collaborative/transformative innovation models ever--open source. The value we bring to IT customers the world over is unquestionable and defining. Open source, at its heart, is a design thinking process.

What follows is a Q&A with David Burney, Vice President of Brand Communications + Design at Red Hat. Burney is a champion of design thinking.

Red Hat Magazine: What is design thinking?

David Burney: Design thinking is a term being used today to define a way of thinking that produces transformative innovation. While the term feels trendy, the way of thinking is hardly new. One can think of the cave painters in Lascaux 25,000 years ago as design thinkers-- they first began to collect data about the world they experienced, express that data by creating visual stories, document those stories in a way that could be shared into the future, and use that data to create new and innovative ways to solve their problems. The creation of alphabets thousands of years later is an example of design thinking.

RHM: What does design thinking have to do with design?

DB: The word "design" has a lot of different meanings for a lot different people. Often when people think of design they think of an artifact that's been designed well--such as a chair, a car or a building. Or they think of design as style or fashion--a great pair of shoes. The term 'design thinking' has gained popularity because it makes it easier for those outside the design industry to focus the idea of design as a way of thinking about solving problems, a way of creating strategy by experiencing it rather than keeping it an intellectual exercise, and a way of creating and capturing value.

RHM: Is design thinking exclusively art/design-related?

DB: That's a pretty big question. If I could determine the nature of art, then maybe I'd have a chance of answering it. Ellen Lupton, who is a very good designer and a leading writer on design, says that design is "art people use." I like that answer. What I find interesting in your question is that art, design, and design thinking are all about creating something new--in that, they are all transformative in nature. There are very real and important differences between processes that tear down to innovate, or processes that gather best practices to innovate, and creation processes that innovate. They demand very different actions, different cultural ways of thinking.

RHM: What impact does design thinking have on the way businesses operate?

DB: That's a great question. There is one philosophy that businesses only turn to design when they're desperate. After they've competed on price, delivery, systems, etc., and they find their business is totally commoditized and they have no other choice, THEN they turn to design. Some suggest that's true of Apple.

Of course, some businesses look for commoditized industries for opportunites to apply design thinking. Then they create new business categories. Even industries. What's more of a commodity than the coffee bean? Then consider what Starbucks has been able to accomplish. Or consider what Nike did in the sports shoe industry. Or Toyota in automobiles.

Clearly, today, it's increasingly difficult for businesses, even countries and geographic regions, to find ways to compete. They're finding that iterative methods for generating innovation and value aren't giving them the competitive advantage they're used to. The success of businesses who have built design thinking cultures has begun to be noticed. Innovation and creativity are on everyone's lips. Stanford University has started a d.school. This year, Davos has included design as a topic on its agenda. It's all over the business media. And companies as diverse as traditional marketing giant Procter & Gamble and manufacturer GE, commodity companies like Maytag and LG, are creating new strategies and restructuring their companies--making huge investments--to take advantage of design thinking.

RHM: How does it lead to innovation?

DB: From my point of view, leading transformative innovation is a very different animal from the processes most often used in the business world, and certainly very different from the cultures that are built to sustain most enterprises. A few years ago, Businessweek editor Bruce Nussbaum stated that less than 5% of Fortune 1000 companies 'get it' when it comes to design.

Ironically, I don't think innovation is that hard. In fact, once you can accept that innovation is about generating lots of ideas-- focusing on quantity rather than quality-- you're halfway there. That's first and foremost. It's dependent upon being extremely confident while not 'knowing' the answer. People who demand to know the answer too soon kill innovation. So, that's easy, right?

Design begins with the process of defining, and redefining, the issue or problem at hand, because it's terribly important to make sure everyone is on the same page. You can only get there if people are willing to put forth the most basic thoughts and ideas, and use those to create as simple a problem definition as possible. It's extremely important to feel free to suggest bad, even dumb, ideas. IDEO, one of the world's great design firms, actively pursues wild ideas. Because without that mindset you won't have the same ability to innovate; not by a long shot. Because transformative innovation is dependent upon having participants who don't know all the answers. Let's face it, if you know everything--if you have all the answers--it's kind of hard to innovate.

Play is important in design thinking. Critical even. Having fun IS often the objective. Giving up ownership. Listening, humbly. Forming teams from people who come from very different disciplines and cultures; not keeping them compartmentalized. Getting into the world and testing things out. Prototyping and failing. These are all good things in design thinking cultures.

Traditionally, success in the corporate world is often another matter: Territorial battles, internal competition, opaque agendas, hoarding information; strict structure by function--all are serious detriments to building a culture of design.

RHM: What are some examples of companies that embody design thinking as a competitive advantage?

DB: I've mentioned a few already. You can add companies like OXO, Target, VW, Progressive Insurance. These are great examples of design thinking-- companies that really involve their customers in co-creation of their products/service--companies that build great systems.

RHM: What role does collaboration play in design thinking?

DB: Most children easily grasp the concept that two heads are better than one. Well, 40 heads are really better than one. The myth of the lone genius is just that. A myth. I like to remind people that Frank Lloyd Wright is dead. Now, what we're seeing in the development of Linux and other open source collaboration development (design) models is incredible. Look at Fedora! Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Look at the value created! I think we, as humans, are just beginning to tap into the power of large-scale collaboration for creative problem solving. Bruce Mau, who spoke at our Summit last summer in New Orleans, is doing a great job of documenting how large-scale collaboration projects are changing the world. We believe at Red Hat that we have a strong leadership role to play.

RHM: How can corporations take advantage of design thinking?

DB: Design thinking is more than a methodology. Design is a cultural way of thinking. It's important to understand its power, commit to evolving your culture, even restructuring the company, resourcing and rewarding those who practice design thinking. You can no longer tolerate those who shut down design thinking. We have to get rid of the devil's advocates and experts who own their domain to the detriment of innovation.

 

Walk Proud

For no other reason than that it had me laughing this morning. I think I've been a bit too serious and at times, soap-boxy on here lately. As Dion noted yesterday, it's time to lighten up a bit and get back to finding the fun and positive in things. Thanks to Julian for pointing this one out. Agency is BBDO New York.

Brand Tags

I'm sure you have seen this as it's been well covered this weekend and through today, but if not, be sure to go play around with Brand Tags.

It's a simple, interesting, and great idea from Noah Brier that lets you see what people say/think about a few popular brands. If you want to know more about it, Noah has written a couple of posts about it that provide a bit of the background.

Re: The Future of Advertising is Design

In catching up on RSS feeds and email over the weekend, I came across an announcement that Anomaly, one of the agencies that often gets referred to as an "agency of the future," has hired Kevin Lyons to be their design director. The key bits from the article:

Anomaly has appointed former Urban Outfitters CD Kevin Lyons to design director, to bring what agency co-founder Carl Johnson calls "real world perspective" to its design initiatives.The four-year-old agency has always touted its holistic approach to branding for clients and has undertaken its own product development and design projects, so Lyons' role is intended, says Johnson, to inject the shop with "the pragmatism of retail" that will root its entrepreneurial endeavors in the truths of the market.

"Anomaly needs creative people who understand brand development beyond communications," Johnson says. "[Lyons'] experience in the retail/apparel world will be valuable to a company with a financial stake in its work. He knows how product innovation provides customers value and the ultimate pressure of sales numbers, in an ad world unfamiliar with those concepts."

"I am the balance between creativity and the practical application of creativity," Lyons says. ...

Thought this quote in particular was very interesting:

"Anomaly needs creative people who understand brand development beyond communications."

As more and more advertising gets ignored, agencies have got to come up with better, more meaningful ways to help their clients reach and connect with people. Anomaly gets this. They believe in it at their core.

"... when a client comes in with an advertising problem, Anomaly addresses it more broadly as a business issue, analyzing everything from design to product development." Fast Company, March 2008

This cuts right to the heart of what I've maybe not been articulating so well by using the words "design thinking" in my previous posts. Maybe "design thinking" isn't the right term.

Maybe the title of the post should have been, "The Future of Advertising Is More Than Communications."

Anyway, I thought this was relevant to some of what I've been posting lately and was also interesting in regard to looking at what types of people "the agencies of the future" are hiring.

Drench Water: Smart Hydration

Was over on brand new earlier today and came across this ad, which Gareth found via Rob.

I have to say, it's one of the best ads I've seen in a while. It entertained me. It made me smile. It reminded me of yet another reason it's good to stay hydrated. It even made me think kindly of a product that is often accused of doing more harm than good.

(And maybe part of the reason I like it is due to it reminding me of one of my favorite music videos.)

Then I immediately started to question the strategy. (I know. I always have to poke holes in good ads, don't I. Sorry. Can't help it. It's just in my nature to question everything. Anyway...) It's selling a benefit of drinking water, not the brand.

You don't have to drink Drench water to be properly hydrated. You just have to drink water, or any non-dehydrating liquid for that matter, to stay hydrated. And as far as I can tell, there's nothing special about Drench that makes it hydrate you better than any other water.

Now, to Drench's defense, if you go to their site, you'll see that they're positioning themselves around "smart hydration," not just hydration. (Seems like it would have been a great position for smartwater, no?) And using Brains from Thunderbirds as a spokespuppet is quite clever and yet another reinforcement of the strategy.

I think really what they're doing though is not so much trying to own hydration as they are trying to create a unique voice for the brand and basing it on smart hydration to start with.

With bottled water, I would imagine this is actually an imperative in order to demand a price above the low-cost leaders. If it's all just water no matter what bottle it's in, then it will be your marketing that makes people chose to pay more for your brand.

Clearly people are willing to pay a premium for Fiji Water because of the marketing, maybe even more so now that they're working to be carbon negative.

If I look at it in that regard, that they're using hydration as a product-relevant launching point to taking the position of being a light-hearted and fun water brand in category filled with overly-pretentious high-end brands, non-distinguishable mid-tier brands, and several low-cost players, then it all makes much more sense.

Given the slow growth the brand has experienced the past two years, with no TV advertising and a campaign based strictly on hydration, this approach - of developing a fun, interesting and entertaining voice brought to life both on TV and digitally - could be just what the need to get things going.

Agency is CHI & Partners.

We Are What We Share

Found this video on Punk Planning the other day and thought it was an interesting thing to think about. Also liked the animation/illustration.

Things have been staying pretty busy at work and with life lately, so posts are coming a bit slow. Sorry about that. I will try to get back here more regularly very soon. Thanks for the patience in the meantime.

Fifth Conversations About The Future Of Advertising Event

For those reading this in the Twin Cities...

Brian Morrissey, digital editor for Adweek, will be sharing his thoughts on the future of advertising along with how to build brands through utility, community and authenticity at the fifth Conversations About The Future Of Advertising event tomorrow (April 28) at Fine Line Music Cafe.

The presentation begins at 6 P.M. and is cosponsored by MCAD and MIMA.

You can find all the details on the CATFOA blog along with information on the first four presentations.

The Future of Advertising is Design (Redux)

Through all of the rambling that was the post titled, The Future of Advertising is Design, Linda was kind enough to leave a link to a post she put together in the comments which contained the above quote from the venerable Mr. Lee Clow.

I have always intended to do a shorter follow-up post to clean that mess up and this quote gave me the perfect lead-in.

What I intended to get at, but derailed with tangents, is that based on what Mr. Clow is talking about above - that what we do now (at least those of us who are to survive in this industry) is far bigger than what in the past has been called advertising - we have to think bigger than advertising at the beginning of creating ideas.

If an ad agency* is to prosper at whatever it is we'll call it in the future, they have to think bigger than the standard TV, Radio, Print and OOH model that then tosses a bone over to "interactive" by asking "the web guys" to put the TV spot on the web site. O.K., they also want a micro-site based on the TV spot. And make it a "viral" micro-site while you're at it. Oh, and get the PR agency to do a press release on the new campaign. There. It's all integrated now. Right? (Pssst. No. That's wrong.)

Where most ad agencies are getting into trouble, at least in my best guess, is that they are starting with looking at reaching the client's objective/goal by asking, "What's the ad campaign we need to create to solve this?" Or, "What's the message we need to tell people that will solve this?" If your approach is to start by assuming it's an ad, or starting by assuming the answer is to tell people something, then you're going to miss significant opportunities and as the quote above says, your client's brand will not be able to survive against others taking a bigger picture approach.

This is where the link to design came in. I didn't mean design will become advertising or advertising will become design. I simply meant that as an industry, we need to bring design thinking into the process to help us think bigger than advertising.

That's all. For now at least... Ha!

*For the record, we can plug "digital agency" into this equation too. If a digital shop is only thinking about how to best solve their clients' problems with web/digital solutions, they're going to quickly end up in the same situation. The only thing keeping them safe right now is that what's going on in the digital arena has everyone excited and so they're not taking the same heat as the traditional ad shops. Once the shine wears off the penny, they'll be hearing the same song.

Discovery: The World is Just Awesome

Discovery Channel has a new logo, a new ad and a new tag line. (TV spot via 72 and Sunny. Logo via Viewpoint Creative.)

Maybe I'm reading into it too much, but ever since someone called out that the "smile" on the Amazon.com logo is actually an arrow linking the A to the Z, and Faris reminded me of that bit not long ago when he noted the arrow in the FedEx logo, I've started looking into new logos more.

Anyway, it looks like maybe the "c" and the "o" are kind of forming an infinity sign, which if it's true and equates to there being infinite things about Earth that we can discover, well, that's kind of cool. Or maybe they're forming the viewing end of a pair of binoculars? I know. Now I'm really stretching.

The ad was fun. It definitely caught my attention. And now the song is stuck in my head. Overall, I liked it.

So, there's my over-thinking this stuff... What are your thoughts?

[found]

Who Gets Runners, Better?

A while back, I posted two spots aimed at people who run. One for Nike+. One for New Balance. I left the request fairly open-ended, asking people to let me know what they liked or didn’t like about each, or to compare and contrast them. I especially wanted to hear from people who run.

I did this because I am not a runner, nor do I run. There is no love/hate relationship for me with running. It’s all hate. When someone asks me if I run, I like to use a phrase a friend of mine says when asked the same question, “I only run when chased.”

Why am I telling you this? Because I want to be clear from the start that with me not being a runner, I couldn’t tell you if either of the commercials in question speak to a runner. And that’s why I asked the question I did. With that, here’s what I learned from those of you who responded both in the comments of the post and via Twitter with a few of my own thoughts/hypotheses thrown in...

Real runners actually do have a love/hate relationship with running. There are days when they just don’t want to do it, but they do anyway because they know that afterwards, they’ll feel better for it. Real runners are intrinsically motivated. They don’t run to lose weight or to get in shape for another sport or to stay trim. They don’t run to be a part of a “running community.” They run for themselves. They run to run.

Real runners don’t need something telling them in their ear how far they’ve gone or how much time they have left until they’re done. In fact, they’d rather not have anything to listen to other than the sound of their feet hitting the ground beneath them, their breath hitting the air and the thoughts running through their mind. For real runners, running is personal. New Balance gets this. And while their execution may fall a little flat for some real runners, the idea still resonates.

Nike+ on the other hand doesn’t speak to the real runner. Nike+ speaks to the person who runs, but not because they love running. The person who uses Nike+, from what I can ascertain via the feedback on the commercials, is doing it for some other reason. Possibly to get back in shape. Or to lose five pounds. Or to stay conditioned for another sport. Or maybe to get in some daily exercise in leu of going to the gym.

Therefore, the Nike+ user is more likely to be extrinsically motivated. There is no love/hate relationship with running. It’s mostly hate. This person runs as a means to an end, not because they love running. Because of this, they need extra motivation. They need to feel like they’re part of a larger community to be accountable to. They need music to help them keep a pace and not think about how much they hate what they’re doing at the moment. They need a voice telling them they only have a little bit further to go, only a few more minutes, until the self-inflicted torture ends.

The Nike+ ad follows in the footsteps of Nike’s historical approach to advertising, which is to speak to the inner-athlete in people who aspire to be more/do more than they are currently. By presenting Nike+ in a way that makes it feel like it’s for real runners and is a way of bringing real runners together, they speak to the masses who aspire to be more/do more and are running as a way to achieve this. Real runners look at this ad and scoff. But those who run for some purpose other than for a love of running look at it and say, “I want to be a part of that.” Nike+ makes it easier for the person who runs for external reasons stay with it.

So, there you have it. That’s my take, based on what a few of you told me. New Balance is going after a niche - runners. Nike+ is hitting the masses outside of that niche - people who run. Two different brands/products for two different types of people who run. What do you think? Did I come close? Or did I miss the mark? Runners, what do you have to say?

Required Reading: The Kaiser Edition

I'm not quite sure how it happened, but somewhere along the way, I lost track of what Marcus was writing when he switched over from his old blog to writing The Kaiser Edition.

Thankfully, someone pointed me in the direction of his Content Will Kill Your Agency series either in an email or comment from the Future of Marketing + Advertising post a while back and reminded me of his great blog/site.

In trying to catch up on it all, I feel like he and I are much on the same track of thought in many areas. Even down to the look of our sites/blogs. Although his is much better. If I were to create my own design rather than stay within TypePad's design tools, there's not much I would do different than how he has his set up. Anyway...

Rather than tell you about all the great stuff he's posting, just pop over there and start reading for yourself. Maybe the best/easiest way to start is to go with the "Top Stories" column on the right.

Note to Marcus, a.k.a. The Kaiser: Sorry I lost track for a bit. Definitely back on now and have corrected the oversight of not having a link to you over there in the blogrolls. Thanks for sharing all the great thinking and for always calling bullshit when it's needed.

The Future of Advertising is Design

--

Follow-up Note/Preface: This post kind of rambles and roams. It's not well constructed and thought out. I generally don't post "streaming thoughts" like this, but I felt like I should start getting this stuff out in the open and written down more instead of continuing to hold it in the back of my head until it's exactly how I want to say it. It's clear from some of the initial comments that I didn't get at what I am aiming to yet. At least not broadly. We'll get there. I promise.

Thankfully, the comments that are being left are helping me sort through this further and see where it's falling apart.  You're helping me find the right way to articulate it. So, thank you to each of you who has taken time to leave a remark, a thought, a link and/or a note. Please continue to share links, thoughts and challenges/questions as it is going to make this better in the end.

Final note/comment - I wasn't trying to say that the future of advertising is literally design and creating products with/for our clients. I do think that's a part of it, but it's not the entire bigger picture/total. I can see how the way this "brain-dump" progressed and the examples that folded in as the thoughts poured out makes it sort of come out that way. A follow-up post will be coming to tighten this down more and clarify what I was working at getting to, but didn't yet. Anyway, with that, continue on if you wish and by all means, keep commenting to push this further...

--

Came across this just now which led me to this and this. I'm putting Brian Collins' quote here and sharing it as it relates directly to something I've been thinking about for quite some time now.

A couple of those thoughts bubbled up in the comments of a post on Logic + Emotion recently. I guess it's probably time to just post some of them here instead of continuing to wait to write up something more "fully baked."

With that, here we go then on some true "thinking out loud"...

To me, Brian's quote says exactly where advertising needs to head if it is to survive. I've been playing with a thought in my head to capture the essence of the change that needs to take place. It goes something like this:

Advertising creates problems. Design solves them.

Or...

Design solves the problems advertising creates.

They're not quite right, but I think they're somewhere close. What I mean by them is this...

Most advertising as it exists today creates problems. Everyone is claiming to be the best, or better, or the fastest, or the newest... and on, and on, and on. Thousands of ads yelling the same basic message for thousands of products. This creates confusion for people. Confusion is a problem. People generally don't like problems. To counter this, we've created filters to block out all the problems we don't need to deal with.

To get rid of the problem for the things we do want or need, we turn to our families, friends and co-workers to see what they think or know from experience. We also turn to the web to look up more information to see what several people, including experts and complete strangers, are saying so that we can find out which one really is the best for what we need. We seek the truth, or as close as we can get to it at least, to clear up the confusion.

What does this mean for your ad? Simply put, if your ad doesn't match what these people say, you're probably not going to fare so well.

Design on the other hand, doesn't try to claim anything, Design doesn't talk. Design, well, it just does. Design sees a problem someone has with something they're using and works to solve it. By making things better or easier or more useful, etc., you create your own advertising. The person who uses the product or service tells others about it because you just made their life a little better.

That confused person above, the one who saw your ad... They're asking the person who is using your competitors redesigned "X" what the truth is and the person using your competitor's "X" has something real to show them and tell them about. Meanwhile, you've got the same old "Y" and a loud ad that creates problems. That doesn't sound like a fun situation if you ask me.

So where does all this go/what does it mean? Good question. I don't have the answer yet, but I've been playing with a thought or two and talking with a few people about them. It feels like this might be on the right track...

The way I've been articulating it, but I don't know if it's the best way of saying it, is, "We're no longer in the business of creating ads. We're in the business of creating experiences."

What this means for agencies is exactly what Brian Collins is talking about. We've got to re-think the process of how we solve problems for our clients. Instead of starting with "what's the main idea we need to communicate,' we need to start with "what is the experience we need to create to change behavior?" As a very wise man keeps pointing out, telling people things doesn't change behavior. Getting them to actually do things does.

What this means for advertising is that your ad needs to draw people into the experience instead of telling people you're the best. Make the ad do something, not just say something. The most recent iPhone ads are good examples here - showing what the phone can do to help make life easier instead of trying to tell you the iPhone is the best phone on the market and/or will make you look cool.

Another great example is the TV spot for the new Dyson Ball vacuum where James Dyson demonstrates the "steering" problem with conventional vacuum cleaners due to their being on four wheels that are only able to roll forwards and backwards and then showing his solution, putting the vacuum cleaner on a ball so it can pivot on a dime.

(Tried to find the spot so I wouldn't have to describe it, but couldn't. Sorry. If you know where it is, please let me know and I'll put it here instead.) Linked above (TV Spot) now, thanks to Camilla from Dyson sharing the link in the comments.

As for the Dyson example, they're taking the entire experience of using their vacuums very seriously - always looking for ways to improve and rethink them and then actually doing something with what they learn. How is it working for them? They've been cleaning house on the competition for some time now. (Bad pun intended.)

Another good example of this is BMW. For years they've been all about selling the ultimate driving experience. This begins with the car and how they design and engineer every aspect of it. They think about the driver and what they can do to make driving a BMW a truly special experience. They then use the advertising to give you a hint at what that experience is like. BMW Films took this to an entirely new level.

All three of these examples put the user experience first and foremost and then they build the advertising around that experience. Sure, it helps that all three of these products have an inherent "coolness" factor built into them, (I never thought I'd be calling a vacuum cool, but the Dyson kind of is...) but as the presentation I posted touched on, you don't have to have a cool product to create a great experience around the product. You can do things with your marketing that add value to the product or service, making a better overall experience for people.

Anyway, the point is that as an industry, we have to stop thinking about things like traditional advertising people. We need to start thinking about things like designers, engineers, architects and the like. We need to think about the action we want people to take and what will be required to make that action happen. We can't just think about what we want to tell people. Odds are, telling someone to do something won't be effective alone, if at all. Today's congested media landscape requires a lot more than a campaign built on 30-second TV ads with a heavy media buy to create any real change. It's in creating total experiences that we will see success.

And with that, I'll stop for now. More to come on this later, I'm sure. I didn't expect it to go as far as it did already.

Side note: I don't have time to keep going anyway. I've got to run my Sunday errands now since I'll be going to see Bon Iver tonight when I normally do them. If you haven't heard him and you like Nick Drake, José González and others in that vein, be sure to check him out. He's not exactly like those artists, but if that style/genre of music suits you, then I think you'll like what Justin is doing.

A Social Media Conspiracy Theory via The Kaiser Edition

The Kaiser Edition has posted some very insightful and interesting thoughts on the whole "social media" epidemic that is sweeping through the marketing world. On top of it being those things, it's also pretty entertaining.

It lines up with something I've been thinking about lately too. There are a lot of people out there who claim to be social media strategists and experts simply because they're doing some of these things themselves.

Just because you're doing something doesn't mean you're qualified to advise people on it. I know a lot of people who technically can drive a car but I'd never want them to try to teach someone else how to do it.

Anyway, give the presentation a browse. It's thought-provoking at a minimum.

You can also find it on SlideShare if you prefer to view it there.

Joseph Jaffe Speaking in Minneapolis 04/14/08

Just a heads-up for those reading this in the Twin Cities...

Joseph Jaffe will be speaking at the fourth Conversations About The Future Of Advertising (CATFOA) event sponsored by MCAD, MIMA and MSP Communications.

You can find all the details on the CATFOA blog along with recaps of the first three presentations and an announcement for the fifth, but the quick and dirty details for this one are that it happening this coming Monday night (14 April 2008) at Fine Line Music Cafe starting at 6 PM.

It is free for all to attend and the first 250 people to come through the door will get a complimentary copy of Join The Conversation.