Ship fast, ship often, they say. The one downside of that is a lack of focus. If you ship a lot of products, you’re likely to be caught up in the excitement of the new product. The existing product that needs your focus wont get the attention it deserves, and will suffer.
What should you do? Separate your new ventures and existing businesses. They need different kinds of people to run. Hunters and farmers. Studs and fighters.
Existing and new businesses are different cups of tea. It makes sense to manage them separately.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
The one reason Buzz might just click....
…is that it’s within Gmail. You need Gmail. You keep checking it every few minutes you’re online. Google’s bet is that your attention-deficit-disordered mind will want to click on that ‘Buzz’ link.
Remember Wave? You had to go over to wave.google.com . In hindsight, what killed Wave was that it was at a different URL. Its ‘incompatibility’ with something users were familiar with was too much of a barrier.
Anything new faces a lot of friction and inertia. If someone told you to go deep sea diving, you wouldn’t take the plunge right away. You’d hem and haw and ask around and inquire. You’d make sure your fears are allayed before you take a step.
One way to overcome that friction is to build a bridge from the old to the new, and make that bridge easy to traverse. That’s something Goog seems to have done astutely with Buzz.
(and what is the one thing that might kill Buzz? The fact that it hasnt really thought about privacy. And has refused to learn from Facebook's mistakes.)
Remember Wave? You had to go over to wave.google.com . In hindsight, what killed Wave was that it was at a different URL. Its ‘incompatibility’ with something users were familiar with was too much of a barrier.
Anything new faces a lot of friction and inertia. If someone told you to go deep sea diving, you wouldn’t take the plunge right away. You’d hem and haw and ask around and inquire. You’d make sure your fears are allayed before you take a step.
One way to overcome that friction is to build a bridge from the old to the new, and make that bridge easy to traverse. That’s something Goog seems to have done astutely with Buzz.
(and what is the one thing that might kill Buzz? The fact that it hasnt really thought about privacy. And has refused to learn from Facebook's mistakes.)
On common men, and laziness in word choice
The Hindu reports that the media was exhorted to ‘fight for the common man’.
Okay. So common man who? Chap making under 3k a month? Slum dweller? Footpath dweller? Rickshaw driver? What about me? Am I a common man?
Which of those would you want the media to ‘fight for’? The one man with the lowest income of the lot? All of the people below a certain income level? Everybody on earth?
I have a problem with lazy statements like that. Even if the statement is sincere, you cant ‘fight for’ everyone, unless you have infinite time, energy and media space. And what’s worse, if you attempt ‘fighting for’ everyone, you end up making a difference to no one.
The reason why people say pointless things, perhaps, is that they have nothing to say.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
On measuring simplicity
Simplicity in writing is elusive. We all talk about it. But the only way to judge it was 'I know it when I see it'.
I was glad to find, then, a way of quantifying simple writing. Of objectively knowing how readable a piece is. This involves using any of the different readability measures. Readability measures help evaluate how simple and easy-to-read a piece is. These consider variables like letters per word and length of sentence to evaluate readability.
http://www.addedbytes.com/code/readability-score/
It is useful to pick any one of the measures and follow it consistently. I like the Flesch Kincaid Grade Level, since it is easy to interpret. It roughly gives the number of years of schooling it
would take someone to understand the content.
The lower the score, the simpler the piece is. Typically, a score above 12 indicates fairly convoluted writing. Some of the best long form copywriters I know manage consistent scores of under 6.
This is a good way to objectively measure how simple/crisp your writing is.
PS - Thanks for this tip to John Fancher, whose copywriting I've been very impressed by.
http://www.addedbytes.com/code/readability-score/
It is useful to pick any one of the measures and follow it consistently. I like the Flesch Kincaid Grade Level, since it is easy to interpret. It roughly gives the number of years of schooling it
would take someone to understand the content.
The lower the score, the simpler the piece is. Typically, a score above 12 indicates fairly convoluted writing. Some of the best long form copywriters I know manage consistent scores of under 6.
This is a good way to objectively measure how simple/crisp your writing is.
PS - Thanks for this tip to John Fancher, whose copywriting I've been very impressed by.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
When free isnt really free
When I bought some t-shirts yesterday, I turned down the offer of the wrapping and plastic covers. These were free, but they were also unnecessary. I might even say they imposed on me the cost of cleaning up their clutter at home.
Just because something’s free, it’s not necessarily a nice thing. For one, nothing is truly free. Consuming a ‘free’ good has an opportunity cost to it. You might even get more utility by paying for something compared to consuming something else for free. Government hospitals are free, but they’re so bad you and me don’t seek treatment there.
See the parallels with the world wide web? The marginal cost of producing another web page is close to zero. Everything on the web is free. It’s no longer an economy of scarcity, it’s one of abundance. It’s easy to show up, anyone can do that.
Being there is no longer enough to make people want to engage with you, deal with you. On the world wide web, you've got to give more compelling reasons to stay with you.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)