I felt really crappy last week so I decided to do my introspective thing. All I could come up with for causes are working too many hours lately, my back acting up, and stress over money. But that wasn't it, something else was nagging me. Then it hit me: I hadn't been to the gym in over a week. If it's possible to do a double take with my consciousness, I did it. I immediately had two thoughts: what an odd thing to feel crappy about, and what did I do to make exercise such a high priority in my life (something I consider a good thing, by the way).
I should throw this disclaimer out there: I'm not in what you would call fantastic shape. I'm definitely soft around the middle and although I lift weights, I'm not someone you would consider muscular. Let's just say I'm not turning any heads at the beach. However, I can say this: I have lost over 30 pounds on three separate occasions. Over the past four years I have put on as much as ten pounds but I always lose it again. I also weigh about 30 pounds less than I did when I graduated from high school ten years ago. I also have good blood pressure. My point is that I am in relatively decent shape and I know how to lose weight.
Over the years I've tried different exercise programs and diets resulting in a wide range successes and failures. Over the last four years, my most consistent stretch of healthy weightyness, I haven't followed any plan. Even better, I don't think it is important. I think following a plan puts the cart before the horse. So what's been my secret? Making exercise a habit. It's easier than you think.
When I first started my gym membership five years ago, I could only run on the elliptical for ten minutes. Each week I added a minute until I was running for 40 minutes a clip, as much as seven times a week. Looking back, that was the most important element, starting at a rate I could handle. You know why people's gym memberships go stale after their January surge? They hate going to the gym.
So here is my proposal: it's not the type of exercise you do, how long you do it, how hard you work, or what specific plan you follow. It's all about showing up and the rest falls into place. Pick the number of days you'd like to go to the gym a week and add one to that number (invariably you will have to cancel a day due to life's road blocks).
Then, just show up. If you're tired, sore, or just not in the mood to work out - show up anyway. Do just one exercise, walk for ten minutes, or do some light stretching - it's really not that important. All you need to do is make going to the gym a habit. It takes about six weeks to form a habit. Once that habit is established you will want to go to the gym and feel a bit "off" when you start missing days. Then you can look at what program works best for you and try to reach a goal of 30 minutes of solid cardio four times a week.
To paraphrase Yogi Berra, ninety percent of weight loss is half mental, the other half is physical.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Why the Id Negates the Effect of Focus Groups
I haven't read the new biography on Steve Jobs, but it's pretty hard not to read about it with all the coverage it's been getting these lest several weeks. Say what you want about the guy, he understood his audience. Many excerpts from the book have been rehashed already but two in particular stand out to me. First, the quote "people don't know what they want until you show it to them," and the fact that he didn't believe in focus groups.
I haven't read enough to know why he felt that way, but I certainly agree with him. Marketing is really just trying to figure out what people like to buy, and then carving your product to fit that mold. To put it another way, it's the art of understanding and predicting consumer behavior. Which is exactly the problem I have with focus groups, no one in that group is a consumer. At least they aren't at the time that the focus group is being conducted.
As Dan Ariely frequently points out in his books and on his blog, people often behave irrationally. Consumers often make decisions based on emotion rather than reason. To put a psychology spin on it, I would say their decisions are more motivated by their subconsciousness that their consciousness. A focus group fails to emulate consumer behavior because it takes people out of the consumer mind frame by speaking to their consciousness. Their answers are honest, but they are the product of rational thought and not a true reflection of consumer behavior. It's like playing poker with fake money: the game looks exactly the same from the exterior but there is no element of risk. The players will behave more recklessly because they have no real money of their own to lose or win. (It's also incredibly boring. Look, I'm no advocate of gambling but try playing poker with no money and see how long you can last before you're suggesting Fish as a superior alternative.)
A poor marketing professional will make decisions based on what their audience says. A smart marketing professional will make decisions based on what their audience does.
I haven't read enough to know why he felt that way, but I certainly agree with him. Marketing is really just trying to figure out what people like to buy, and then carving your product to fit that mold. To put it another way, it's the art of understanding and predicting consumer behavior. Which is exactly the problem I have with focus groups, no one in that group is a consumer. At least they aren't at the time that the focus group is being conducted.
As Dan Ariely frequently points out in his books and on his blog, people often behave irrationally. Consumers often make decisions based on emotion rather than reason. To put a psychology spin on it, I would say their decisions are more motivated by their subconsciousness that their consciousness. A focus group fails to emulate consumer behavior because it takes people out of the consumer mind frame by speaking to their consciousness. Their answers are honest, but they are the product of rational thought and not a true reflection of consumer behavior. It's like playing poker with fake money: the game looks exactly the same from the exterior but there is no element of risk. The players will behave more recklessly because they have no real money of their own to lose or win. (It's also incredibly boring. Look, I'm no advocate of gambling but try playing poker with no money and see how long you can last before you're suggesting Fish as a superior alternative.)
A poor marketing professional will make decisions based on what their audience says. A smart marketing professional will make decisions based on what their audience does.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Can Something Really "Change" Your Life?
"This book changed my life," is what I wanted to say. It's a very profound statement and emphasizes the impact the book (Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn) had on me. The only problem is the book did not change my life, my life is still the same as before I read it. Any changes that happened took place in spite of reading the book.
So I sat there with an open mouth, searching for the right words as my friend waited patiently. After a moment, I realized what I wanted to say. "This book changed the way I look at the world." It was less pretentious, more accurate, and spoke to its influence on me as evidenced by my friend asking to borrow the book.
It made me wonder how often to we say "(fill in the blank) changed my life," and not really mean it. If you were in a car accident and it made you a paraplegic, then yes, that event changed your life. But the way we think or feel about things is not really life-changing at all. The circumstances in our lives involve our environment and the people with whom we interact. When that changes, your life has changed. Your life does not exist inside your head.
So I sat there with an open mouth, searching for the right words as my friend waited patiently. After a moment, I realized what I wanted to say. "This book changed the way I look at the world." It was less pretentious, more accurate, and spoke to its influence on me as evidenced by my friend asking to borrow the book.
It made me wonder how often to we say "(fill in the blank) changed my life," and not really mean it. If you were in a car accident and it made you a paraplegic, then yes, that event changed your life. But the way we think or feel about things is not really life-changing at all. The circumstances in our lives involve our environment and the people with whom we interact. When that changes, your life has changed. Your life does not exist inside your head.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Living Outside the Social Media Bubble
A funny thing happened at the Work Study job fair in the library last week. We put together our Marketing Office application and included a section to list computer skills, social media experience and a throwaway question "You're about to leave on a secret mission and have two minutes to pack; what five items do you bring with you?"
Students asked various questions about what we do and provided some entertaining responses to the secret agent question. But what really caught me off guard was how many students asked "what's social media?" When I gave them examples such as Facebook and Twitter they all replied something to the effect of "oh yeah, I know what that is."
It's not that they don't know what social media is. They've practically grown up with it. It's such a part of their daily lives that they never had to step back and label it. We were the ones that had to give it a name because we are outside the bubble. Let's face it, social media is a part of pop culture which is always driven by the youth.
That's why it's so hard to study social media and establish an effective marketing plan to young constituents. We're trying to put everything they do into a test tube and determine it's chemical make up. They don't see it that way. They are a part of a big youth culture with strong connections that only fragments as we get older. Meta thinking and reflection does not exist because they are reactive social animals. When we try to think like them, we are already thinking too hard. They are like a flock of birds, changing direction all at once without a leader. We can study the patterns of flight direction and try to determine when the flock will change direction or why. But the truth is that none of the individual birds knows, they just react.
I'm not saying that we should stop trying to study youth culture for marketing purposes. Just acknowledging that we are outside the bubble and therefore will always be a step behind.
Students asked various questions about what we do and provided some entertaining responses to the secret agent question. But what really caught me off guard was how many students asked "what's social media?" When I gave them examples such as Facebook and Twitter they all replied something to the effect of "oh yeah, I know what that is."
It's not that they don't know what social media is. They've practically grown up with it. It's such a part of their daily lives that they never had to step back and label it. We were the ones that had to give it a name because we are outside the bubble. Let's face it, social media is a part of pop culture which is always driven by the youth.
That's why it's so hard to study social media and establish an effective marketing plan to young constituents. We're trying to put everything they do into a test tube and determine it's chemical make up. They don't see it that way. They are a part of a big youth culture with strong connections that only fragments as we get older. Meta thinking and reflection does not exist because they are reactive social animals. When we try to think like them, we are already thinking too hard. They are like a flock of birds, changing direction all at once without a leader. We can study the patterns of flight direction and try to determine when the flock will change direction or why. But the truth is that none of the individual birds knows, they just react.
I'm not saying that we should stop trying to study youth culture for marketing purposes. Just acknowledging that we are outside the bubble and therefore will always be a step behind.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Segregating the Message
We've been crafting a new message for our future publications; more of a focus on new buildings, programs, and renovations. Which is fine, but there was nothing wrong with the old message; our history, our distinction and uniqueness. My only question is: why not use both?
I'm not talking about overloading every printed and electronic communication we send out with every angle we can possibly spin (what's the old designer's adage? if you try to emphasize everything, nothing gets emphasized). I'm talking about crafting certain messages for certain audiences.
A high school student doesn't care that we just renovated the bathrooms in our oldest dormitory. They know little to nothing about us; everything is new to them. So we don't have to reinforce that message. What do they are about? The programs of study, the athletics program, campus ministries, campus aesthetics, and tuition (okay, maybe their parents really care about tuition).
Likewise, alumni do not care about the history of the school nor it's distinction. They already went there, they know what makes it special. They care about "what are you doing with my money." New buildings, new programs and reassurance that the college is moving forward.
Let's face it, a college, like any institution, means different things to different people. If you try to craft one message to your constituents, you are likely to leave a lot of people out. Instead, target your messages and predetermine your vision for each group.
I'm not talking about overloading every printed and electronic communication we send out with every angle we can possibly spin (what's the old designer's adage? if you try to emphasize everything, nothing gets emphasized). I'm talking about crafting certain messages for certain audiences.
A high school student doesn't care that we just renovated the bathrooms in our oldest dormitory. They know little to nothing about us; everything is new to them. So we don't have to reinforce that message. What do they are about? The programs of study, the athletics program, campus ministries, campus aesthetics, and tuition (okay, maybe their parents really care about tuition).
Likewise, alumni do not care about the history of the school nor it's distinction. They already went there, they know what makes it special. They care about "what are you doing with my money." New buildings, new programs and reassurance that the college is moving forward.
Let's face it, a college, like any institution, means different things to different people. If you try to craft one message to your constituents, you are likely to leave a lot of people out. Instead, target your messages and predetermine your vision for each group.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
What the Debt Ceiling Says About Our Ability to Compromise
The whole debt ceiling debate has been nothing short of a disappointing reflection of our government's ability to get things done. As I tweeted earlier, it's gotten more coverage than the killing of Osama Bin Laden - an indication that we value Jersey Shore-style bickering more than good news. If a deal is not reached by the deadline it will confirm my worst fears, that our government has been hijacked by idealogues who value sensationalism over pragmatism.
I often hear more sensible members of the media reflect back on the "good old days" when republicans and democrats worked together to accomplish similar goals and pass laws that made sense at the risk of slighting some of their more zealous constituents. We are now in a place where congressmen refuse to compromise even the slightest for fear of retribution from their voter base when campaign season comes around. And their fears are justified; there will always be over-the-top demagogues and underqualified politicians like Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin there to play the "I won't ever vote for tax increases, I'm on your side" card against any incumbent who didn't fit their respective party's archetype. The fact that Bachmann and Palin are GOP presidential front runners (rather than more sensible choices like Pawlenty or Romney) shows how our voters have lost sensibility.
But here's the dirty little secret about archetypes; they aren't real. Only shadows of actual people. And they never pan out in the world of politics because it is always a game of give and take to get anything done. Which brings us to our current situation: our government would rather default on our debt then compromise in any way.
I don't think this is the result of a recent batch of congressmen, I think this is simply what happens with overpopulation and an ever-expanding government. The two party system doesn't work because there are simply too many damn people being represented to fall into just two distinct parties. I think term limits is a good start (it would force congressmen to focus on getting bills passed rather than preparing for campaign season), but I don't think it is enough. I honestly think the only solution is to decentralize the government. The larger we grow as a country, the more fractured we become as a culture. In his book Blink, Malcolm Gladwell comments on how the successful company Gore-Tex has a rule that once a location reaches a certain number of employees, its splits off and starts a new one. We are a tribal culture, we cannot fit into two distinct categories. Our best hope is to provide more options.
I often hear more sensible members of the media reflect back on the "good old days" when republicans and democrats worked together to accomplish similar goals and pass laws that made sense at the risk of slighting some of their more zealous constituents. We are now in a place where congressmen refuse to compromise even the slightest for fear of retribution from their voter base when campaign season comes around. And their fears are justified; there will always be over-the-top demagogues and underqualified politicians like Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin there to play the "I won't ever vote for tax increases, I'm on your side" card against any incumbent who didn't fit their respective party's archetype. The fact that Bachmann and Palin are GOP presidential front runners (rather than more sensible choices like Pawlenty or Romney) shows how our voters have lost sensibility.
But here's the dirty little secret about archetypes; they aren't real. Only shadows of actual people. And they never pan out in the world of politics because it is always a game of give and take to get anything done. Which brings us to our current situation: our government would rather default on our debt then compromise in any way.
I don't think this is the result of a recent batch of congressmen, I think this is simply what happens with overpopulation and an ever-expanding government. The two party system doesn't work because there are simply too many damn people being represented to fall into just two distinct parties. I think term limits is a good start (it would force congressmen to focus on getting bills passed rather than preparing for campaign season), but I don't think it is enough. I honestly think the only solution is to decentralize the government. The larger we grow as a country, the more fractured we become as a culture. In his book Blink, Malcolm Gladwell comments on how the successful company Gore-Tex has a rule that once a location reaches a certain number of employees, its splits off and starts a new one. We are a tribal culture, we cannot fit into two distinct categories. Our best hope is to provide more options.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Wonderful: The Way Jim Feels
My favorite band, My Morning Jacket, released their sixth studio album, Circuital, a few weeks ago. Even before that, the album leaked and the early messageboard chatter was not kind. People seemed to feel that it fell somewhere in between Z and Evil Urges, not very telling considering those are my most and least favorite albums of theirs, respectively. While I could appreciate what frontman Jim James was trying to do on Evil Urges, it simply was not my taste. The messageboard rumblings, however, seemed to suggest that their disappointment was not in Jim's new direction on Circuital, but that it simply seemed short on talent and creativity. The music seemed bland and the lyrics were dull and uninspiring. This was very disappointing to me. EU still showcased a brilliant and ambitious band willing to try new things. Was Circuital showcasing a band that had run out of ideas and passion?
So I bought the album with low expectations. I gave the entire CD several non-stop spins in my car, trying to be objective and listen to it out of context. This is what we do with our favorite bands; give them more chances than we would with anything else. Hey, they've given me a lot of great music so I feel they've earned it. Finally one day it dawned on me: I like it. I really like it.
The opening track, Victory Dance, is kind of weird and cool - two adjectives often associated with MMJ's work. A slow simple beat from the rhythm section that carries on as different elements fade in and out as Jim repeats "Hope to dance the victory dance in the evening's setting sun," at the song's nadir. The title track and Wonderful (the way I feel ) are MMJ at their best - a fun beat that builds and builds but gives Jim's hauntingly beautiful vocals enough space to howl. I particularly love the opening to Wonderful: "It matters to me/ Took a long time to get here/ If it had been easy/ I would not have cared."
Slow Slow Tune provides some space for Carl to shred some tasty licks, but Jim's voice sounds noticeably off on this track. And again, on Holdin' On to Black Metal, he reverts back to that falsetto he used on Evil Urges. This is something that I just don't get. When Jim was born, God grabbed is vocal chords with both hands and gave him the voice of an angel. Jim should never do anything that detracts from that voice. MMJ's earlier sound consisted of Jim's strumming and his soaring vocals, with the band colorfully filling in the empty gaps. Now, I wonder if the problem is that his band mates are too talented. Their sound has changed significantly since Carl and Bo came on for the Z sessions. Jim might feel that keeping them on the sidelines for too many songs is a disservice to their abilities.
As long as Jim's around, I still feel that there is a magic to this band. Like some of the early reviews, I agree that Jim's lyrics on this album have taken a big step back. However, I am comfortable with the fact that this band peaked at Z. I still appreciate what they do and am going to enjoy their slow slow ride into the sunset, dancing the victory dance.
So I bought the album with low expectations. I gave the entire CD several non-stop spins in my car, trying to be objective and listen to it out of context. This is what we do with our favorite bands; give them more chances than we would with anything else. Hey, they've given me a lot of great music so I feel they've earned it. Finally one day it dawned on me: I like it. I really like it.
The opening track, Victory Dance, is kind of weird and cool - two adjectives often associated with MMJ's work. A slow simple beat from the rhythm section that carries on as different elements fade in and out as Jim repeats "Hope to dance the victory dance in the evening's setting sun," at the song's nadir. The title track and Wonderful (the way I feel ) are MMJ at their best - a fun beat that builds and builds but gives Jim's hauntingly beautiful vocals enough space to howl. I particularly love the opening to Wonderful: "It matters to me/ Took a long time to get here/ If it had been easy/ I would not have cared."
Slow Slow Tune provides some space for Carl to shred some tasty licks, but Jim's voice sounds noticeably off on this track. And again, on Holdin' On to Black Metal, he reverts back to that falsetto he used on Evil Urges. This is something that I just don't get. When Jim was born, God grabbed is vocal chords with both hands and gave him the voice of an angel. Jim should never do anything that detracts from that voice. MMJ's earlier sound consisted of Jim's strumming and his soaring vocals, with the band colorfully filling in the empty gaps. Now, I wonder if the problem is that his band mates are too talented. Their sound has changed significantly since Carl and Bo came on for the Z sessions. Jim might feel that keeping them on the sidelines for too many songs is a disservice to their abilities.
As long as Jim's around, I still feel that there is a magic to this band. Like some of the early reviews, I agree that Jim's lyrics on this album have taken a big step back. However, I am comfortable with the fact that this band peaked at Z. I still appreciate what they do and am going to enjoy their slow slow ride into the sunset, dancing the victory dance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)