GUEST POST from Kevin Roberts

How about this for a view of the future?

Prosperity spreads, technology progresses, poverty declines, disease retreats, fecundity falls, happiness increases, violence atrophies, freedom grows, knowledge flourishes, the environment improves and wilderness expands.

According to scientist and author, Matt Ridley, this is what we can expect from the future based on a reasonable reading of human progress starting with the Stone Age.

Radical optimism? Yep and rational too. This is the world-view laid out in Dr Ridley’s powerful new book, The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves.

This is refreshing stuff, especially in the midst of the economic and ecological turmoil all around us.

Dr Ridley’s case is grounded in an astute assessment of the past, and he believes pessimists take the wrong lessons from history. By excavating the past for solutions to the catalog of catastrophic threats that confront us – oil spills, financial meltdowns, climate change – the pessimist despairs when they can’t find any. But to Ridley and optimists like me, this misses the glaringly obvious: that, in his words, “the human race has become a collective problem-solving machine which solves problems by changing its ways”. As Mark Twain says, “history doesn’t repeat but it does rhyme” – and the tune is innovation.

In this grand narrative arc, trade between the first humans began the process of creativity and advancement that hasn’t stopped since and, despite the naysayers, Dr Ridley projects further acceleration.

“The modern world is a history of ideas meeting, mixing, mating and mutating…And the reason that economic growth has accelerated so in the past two centuries is down to the fact that ideas have been mixing more than ever before.”

It’s an awe-inspiring thesis. The more connections between people, the better; the more free and freewheeling the trade in ideas and insights, the more powerful the solutions will become. And ideas rule! We are not just equipped as a species to survive, but to prosper.

When it comes to optimism, the rational and the radical are one and the same.

Image Left: The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves, right: Matt Ridley speaking at Thinking Digital.

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Kevin Roberts

In the Participation Economy, we’re all connected. Our days are centered around social media, email, text messages, Blackberries, iPhones and e-Readers. Facebook and LinkedIn have become such a big part of our lives that they’re almost irreplaceable. We’re so interconnected, that even the smallest decisions are made by a collective We, rather than the individual.

Want to go to a new restaurant? There’s a thousand reviews on Yelp that can tell you where to go. Thinking about a new haircut? Post a status update on your Facebook about it and watch the advice come barreling in. With all this interaction, it wasn’t much of a surprise to read a recent Wall Street Journal article – The Power of a Gentle Nudge.

The story focuses on a Stanford University study on the impact of social support from friends on exercise routines. And it’s a great idea! Why not use all this interconnectivity to keep yourself (and your friends) motivated? We all know the story; a New Year’s resolution or a less-than great trip to the doctor inspires a new work out regimen. A brisk run every day, drink more water, eat less junk, sleep more, drink less. You’re starting on the path to the new and healthier YOU.

Unfortunately, we also know how the scenario ends. You miss a run because you’re late to work or you’re stuck in a meeting or maybe you have to pick up the kids from school. Tomorrow is Friday, so you think – “well, I’ll just take the rest of the week off . . . I’ve earned it.” Monday rolls around and you’re exhausted from the start of the work week . . . and on and on and on.

According to the Stanford Study, “Only 48% of Americans say they meet the federal recommendation for exercising half an hour most days of the week, and the actual percentage is believed to be much lower.”

That’s right, not even half of us are meeting the bare minimum of exercise recommended. It’s no wonder obesity is such an issue in America! Sure, fast food is a big culprit . . . but getting out and walking 30 minutes a day could be a huge help. The good news is that a little social nudging can go a long way.

• After 12 months, participants receiving calls from a live person were exercising, as a mean, about 178 minutes a week, above government recommendations for 150 minutes . . . Exercise levels for the group receiving computerized calls doubled to 157 minutes a week. A control group of participants, who received no phone calls, exercised 118 minutes a week, up 28% from the study’s start.

Even better, other recent studies have found that once the average person sticks to an exercise routine for eight weeks, they can settle into a long-term habit of working out. The next time you’re inspired to slip on your trainers, make sure you tell your Facebook friends to nudge you along the way.

Image Source: Croydon Mums

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Kevin Roberts

When all else fails, try being good.

So starts New York Magazine’s excellent feature this month on why American television is better than it’s been in ages. In a world where American Idol, Survivor and Dancing with the Stars are used to being the center of attention, smaller shows like Mad Men, Breaking Bad, It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, and 30 Rock are changing the way Americans look at TV.

The Economist report I shared yesterday talks about why television isn’t going anywhere. This NY Magazine piece talks about why some of the most memorable, well produced, well acted and ambitious television shows in history have popped up in the past three years. The report tosses around a lot of ideas, settling on a simple, direct concept – that we’re tired of watching crap.

Like almost any commercial product, it lives somewhere on the axis between commerce and art. And right now it’s more about art than commerce.

In the original “golden days of television”, most Americans had three basic channels. Networks competed for big, big numbers, and the advertisers flocked to the biggest of the big. Today the average American has access to over 100 channels, focusing on everything from food to football, gardening to game shows. New York points out, “what used to be the most mass entertainment around can now boast only one or two shows that can, in any real way, still be considered mass.”

So does that mean that TV is dying? No! It means it’s changing. Now advertisers are flocking to shows that draw big numbers from their target audience. If you want to sell something to college educated men in their early 20’s – you go to The Daily Show. If you’re a teen clothing line, you might want to think about Project Runway. The point is, you don’t need to be huge to earn a second season, you just need to be a great show that appeals to a niche market. 1 million viewers is a lot … if they are the right type of viewer.

Lowered expectations financially allow higher expectations creatively.

I was in my 20’s during the 1970’s, and it seemed like every weekend a new film hit the theaters that was going to blow your mind. The film industry was on the brink. They were out of touch with reality, blowing money on big budget flicks that flopped left and right. And what saved the day? Hiring a bunch of young nobodies to make films that people could actually get in touch with emotionally. Guys like Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese came along and made movies that weren’t just brilliant – people actually went out to see them in droves.

Today the film industry is back to big budget blockbusters, and films like The Godfather and Harold and Maude couldn’t get made today.

Thanks to the shift to niche marketing, TV producers can afford to experiment with creative, inventive new concepts. What does that freedom mean for creatives? Instead of going into film, the Gen Y Spielbergs and Coppolas are popping up in TV land. And with the influx of creativity comes not just consistently better writing, but also better acting and cinematography. I would never have guessed when I watched The Godfather for the first time that in thirty years I’d be turning to TV for such high quality Sisomo, but that’s exactly what’s happened.

I mean, I like a good Hollywood explosion as much as the next guy, but it’s the beautifully shot desert landscapes of Breaking Bad that take me back to the 70’s, not the recent Bruckheimer blow-em-up.

TV is mass enough to be commercially viable and narrow enough to allow some creators to give free rein to their once-repressed geekery.

That means networks can take a chance on shows that we wouldn’t have dreamed of seeing on TV even five years ago. To highlight just how creative TV has gotten, I’ll leave you with a few of my favorite (bizarre) premises for current shows. I would have loved to been in the room when these were pitched.

• A high school chemistry teacher tries to support his family by selling Crystal Meth when he’s diagnosed with terminal cancer (Breaking Bad)
• Brooding suited man with a secret identity smokes and drinks his way through the world of advertising (Mad Men)
• A high school glee club performs pop songs a-la Broadway musicals (Glee)
• A lovable serial killer is a cop by day, mass-murderer by night (Dexter)
• A novelist decides to become a Private Eye out of boredom (Bored to Death)

Image Source: Scenic Route Snapshots

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Kevin Roberts

Television is the ultimate connector. I’ve been saying this for a long time. The reason TV is so engaging is because it uses sight, sound and motion to deliver the three keys to a person’s heart – mystery, sensuality and intimacy. Every year the last few decades, trend pieces start popping up in magazines predicting “The death of television,” yet here we are, more than 60 years into the TV era and it’s stronger than ever.

That resilience is exactly the focus of the special report The Economist ran on the state of TV earlier this month. In 16 pages and about six different articles they manage to point out the power TV still holds over the world (over 4 hours a day on average, everywhere), where the medium is headed (the Internet and yes, 3D); and why television is just about the only medium touched by the web that isn’t falling to pieces.

The answer to that last question is simple – TV has done an amazing job integrating technology as it’s introduced. From the VCR to DVR’s to Internet-ready flat screens and online streaming sites – TV is absorbing new media as it arrives. Instead of waiting for a revolutionary service like iTunes to turn the industry upside down, networks around the globe are voluntarily putting their most popular shows on the web. Can’t watch your favorite program at nine on a Thursday? Don’t worry, there’s always the DVR. Off on a business trip and won’t be home for two weeks? Not a problem, you’re only a laptop and a WiFi connection away from Hulu.

Far from being cannibalized, traditional TV viewing is rising as new screens create a simultaneous dance of screen usage. Americans use TV and Internet together 35% more than a year ago. It’s becoming more important, not less important – because TV is an idea, not a box.

I’ve clipped and quoted from three of the more interesting sections of The Economist story below.

On how much TV we watch:

In 2009, young Americans (8-18) were spending more than seven and a half hours with media each day . . . into that space [when multi-tasking is taken into account] they packed in an astonishing 10 hours and 45 minutes of consumption. Among other things, they were watching more television.

The average YouTube user spends 15 minutes a day on the website, compared with the five hours that the average television viewer spends in front of the box.

On the Golden Age of TV:

It can be argued that Hollywood makes less impressive films these days than it did in the 70’s (or the 30’s), but that is not true of television. Modern TV shows . . . are so superior to that went before – so much better written, better acted and better shot – that they almost seem to belong to a different medium.

(For anyone in doubt on this, last night was the curtain – for the meantime – on one of the decade’s great TV series, 24. Didn’t you just want to reach into the screen and touch Jack to calm his soul?)

On Football of the Future (in 3D!):

The thing that will really drive people to buy 3-D sets is sport . . . watching football in three dimensions is a revelation. A crush of players jostling for position as a ball sails through the air suddenly becomes intelligible.

Those who have experimented with filming sport in 3D say the effect is so compelling that they need fewer cameras (which are placed lower down, near the touchline) and many fewer cuts.

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Kevin Roberts

I get a lot of interesting things sent to me about Lovemarks, and here is one out of left field. A Masters student in Australia, Bibi Deena Syed sent me over a hardbound thesis … that’s a psychoanalytic study of Lovemarks. Crazy? Psychoanalyzing love? I’ve traveled the world sharing and discussing Lovemarks with thousands of people, and every time I think there’s no other way of looking at it, someone comes along with a fresh and insightful take.

The researcher breaks down people’s motivations into the “TUM” theory, concluding that we’re all motivated by –

Them Drives: created by the cultural and social things around us (connected with commodities)

Us Drives: based on our desire for belongingness, company and affection (connected with brands)

Me Drives: our desire for self satisfaction and self fulfillment. (connected with Lovemarks)

The study found that the key difference between a commodity, a brand and a Lovemark is that consumers are into the first two mostly because of outside factors, while Lovemarks “make consumers feel good about themselves.”

I really liked the researcher’s focus – the iconic Australian Ute. Much loved down under, the Ute is an interesting Lovemark. The researcher interviewed 12 different Ute drivers about why they liked them so much, then searched the responses for answers pointing to things like sexiness, love, power, body appeal and identification. Here are some juicy highlights from the wild world of Lovemarks:

Q: “My Ute is like a … (use a metaphor)?”
A: “Cocoon of sense in a sea of useless drivers.”
A: “Secret lover – Powerful.”
A: “Goddess of love with wheels on.”
A: “My right arm and my mate.”

Q: “How did you become passionate about Utes?”
A: “I do not believe I am passionate about Utes, but if somebody bonks into my Ute in the car park, I am prepared to kill.”

Q: “Can you recall your first contact with a Ute or that first moment that you realized that the Ute was your ultimate car?”
A: “Not really. I just always loved them. Always saw myself driving one of them. It fits me.”

Q: “Which of the following animals would you like to be? Dog, Shark, Lion, Snake, Mouse, or Other?”
A: “Me, because animals can’t drive Utes.”

Image source: Flickr – Hugo90

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Kevin Roberts

“The hardest thing in the world to fake,” the old saying goes, “is sincerity”. Like all successful and durable one-liners, this pokes at a truth: ultimately, authenticity cannot be mimicked. It’s an observation that resonates increasingly.

In marketing and beyond, authenticity can be treated as something of a buzz word and is often cast as a trend (‘2010 is the year of authenticity’). This misses the central role that authentic communication and truthfulness play in our lives, and in the way we interact with each other. Except for a few saints and angels, all of us play a false note some time, and register from others how much it devalues us. Being true is what matters most, what rewards most.

There are ethical reasons for pursuing authentic relationships with people in your private and professional life, and also compelling practical reasons.

We live in a world where, ever more, voices clamor for the fractured attention of a less and less receptive audience. By necessity, people are more decisive in selecting the people and organizations they engage with. We rely on a well-tuned antenna for fakery, an intuitive and often unconscious gut-check to navigate the smog of unending data. We weed out more than just big-talking sales archetypes; rather, we filter voices of all volumes and persuasions, alert for signals of emotional truth relevant to our lives, as well as timely and resonant.

The impact of inauthentic behavior on how we act and interact is revealed by a new study published in the journal of the Association for Psychological Science. Researchers from Harvard Business School, Duke University and the University of North Carolina showed that, when two groups are allocated branded sunglasses – and one is told they have the real thing, and the other that they are fake – the counterfeit group is shown to later cheat on tests, as well as harbor negative thoughts about themselves and others. The study showed that the ’counterfeit’ group was oblivious to this negative behavior, leading the authors to call their study, “The Counterfeit Self: The Deceptive Costs of Faking It“.

If something as trivial as a pair of fake sunglasses can play such havoc with our behavior, then the psychological power of authenticity can’t be ignored. In an age where there are enough facts to go around to fit any argument, and where proof for any proposition is a mouse-click away, only authentic stories grounded in truth will go the distance (I’m not a fan of Nike’s redemption spot using Tiger’s father’s words for this very reason).

Image Source: Korzacsol

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Kevin Roberts

I recently got an email from Tom Middleton, a fellow Lancastrian on a mission. He’s auditioning for a television show in England called Rock Control, and he’s using social media as a means of making the cut. I get loads of emails every day from people pitching ideas, but there were a few things that struck me about both Tom and the show he’s trying to inspire his way onto.

I’ve talked a lot about the Participation Economy, and Rock Control is putting that concept to work. Part talent contest (think American Idol or in the UK – Britain’s Got Talent) and part reality show (a la Making the Band), Rock Control has the potential to be one of the most interactive television experiences we’ve seen yet. On their website, the producers state that: “Harnessing the power of modern media, Rock Control gives the global public total control of every single aspect of the band – from picking the members, to shaping their image and sound.”

Ever played Rock Band? Well, this is it. The real thing. Except instead of controlling animated characters with a plastic guitar, the public will actually play an active role in building a real band from the ground up. Who’s in the band, what they sound like, what they wear. Let’s see if the result will be the “global domination” that the producers are looking for.

As for Tom, he’s taking an equally interactive approach to getting himself on the show. He’s started a Facebook group to organize voters. He’s got a YouTube page showing off his guitar skills. He’s tweeting. He’s even emailing former local boys who might have connections (that’s me) to try to make his dreams a reality. He’s auditioning for the show on June 1, and you can check out his Facebook page to find out how to vote for him getting on the show. Good luck Tom.

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Kevin Roberts

The US Library of Congress recently announced an agreement with Twitter to create a digital archive of the several billion tweets that have been published on the site since it started life in 2006. The thinking is that this will allow future generations to look back and see what mattered to us, much in the same way as we’ve looked back on diaries, letters, journals and photos in the past.

Sounds praiseworthy and engaging (for example the first tweet ever, or President Obama’s tweet after winning the election), except I wonder how much meaning it will capture.

Twitter is the Participation Economy on steroids – it’s viral, instant, reflective and interactive. It involves you in the moment. To see the moment, you have to participate yourself – post your own tweets, respond to your friends’, see what @aplusk (Ashton Kutcher – the most followed Tweeter on the planet) is saying.

Trawling through old tweets will be interesting and insightful, but the digital archive will not be alive. Like diaries, journals and old media it’s one-way traffic, with nobody to tweet back to. Creating authentic connections will always involve a conversation.

Image source: HRWaldram Blog

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Kevin Roberts

A recent post on happiness included some words from great men. Here are ten women with some wisdom on purpose, courage, and justice:

Margaret Mead: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

Helen Keller: “Many persons have a wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification but through fidelity to a worthy purpose.”

Janis Joplin: “Don’t compromise yourself. You are all you’ve got.”

Mother Jones: “My address is like my shoes. It travels with me. I abide where there is a fight against wrong.”

Sappho: “Although they are only breath, words which I command are immortal.”

Jane Austen: “History…tells me nothing that does not either vex or weary me. The quarrels of popes and kings, with wars and pestilences in every page; the men all so good for nothing, and hardly any women at all – it is very tiresome.”

Barbra Streisand: “I am also very proud to be a liberal. Why is that so terrible these days? The liberals were liberators – they fought slavery, fought for women to have the right to vote, fought against Hitler, Stalin, fought to end segregation, fought to end apartheid. Liberals put an end to child labor and they gave us the five day work week! What’s to be ashamed of?”

Margaret Thatcher: “If you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman.”

Estée Lauder: “Telephone, Telegraph, Tell-A-Woman.”

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

GUEST POST from Kevin Roberts

One thing about the January 27th launch of the Apple iPad clashing with President Obama’s first State of the Union address was that they both focused on Jobs.

And check out the awesome enthusiasm Steve Jobs and his team have for their new baby in this video!

A lot of hype and hyped-up criticism have accompanied the launch of the iPad. Nothing new there. Apple attracted lots of criticism with the launch of the iPod in 2001 (total sales: 220 million) and the iPhone in 2007 (total sales: 34 million). They centered on a perceived lack of functionality. So it’s not surprising to hear gripes that iPad doesn’t support HDMI or Flash graphics, or have a built-in camera.

The critics have missed the point. The iPad is not a netbook or scaled-down laptop. In fact, it is only a distant relative to the traditional PC or Mac. Instead, its lineage is the DVD player, the VCR, the television set, the radio, the newspaper, the telephone, the telegraph. It is not a workhorse loaded up with functions and hardware. It is a platform for story-telling, interactive, personal and immediate.

The story of human technology is the relentless advance in the direction of greater utility, connectivity, immediacy, affordability and flexibility. The iPad represents a quantum leap in that direction.

We want to communicate with each other, cheaply and easily. We want information where and when we need it. We want to be entertained and to entertain ourselves. We want to get closer to the people and the things we love. The iPad promises to do that. Technology that fails to serve that purpose is just a gadget, suitable for little more than collecting dust.

There’s an interesting blog post in the NY Times predicting that the iPad will become an irresistible toy for children because kids will love the tactile nature of the device (they love to jab at things!), ‘painting’ software allows for mess-free splatter, it’s an ideal distraction for car trips, and the screen offers endless story opportunities. I couldn’t agree more, but the author could go even further: They are pretty compelling reasons for adults to get their hands on an iPad, too.

Related Articles:

• Radical Innovation of Meaning
• Apple’s Hidden Disruptive Innovation
• Insights to Drive Apple iPad Success
• Will Apple Introduce the Innovation Expected From Google?

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.