The Entrepreneur's Dilemma

Posit: every five years, four out of five businesses will go under.

If you're a budding entrepreneur whose start-up belongs among the casualties, how would you take that information? Do you wish that you'd known how tough it would've been beforehand, just so you could quit ahead? Do you simply resign yourself to the law of large numbers? Or do you look to the one business that beat the odds and ask yourself what they got right that you didn't, raring for the next opportunity?

Now imagine that the roles are reversed: that you are the lucky fellow whose business has survived. Does the statistic help put your success in perspective? Do you pat yourself on the back and say, "Damn...I must be good"? Do you pause to consider that you may have just been lucky, and that it will take plenty of effort just to weather the next five years? Or are you that rare soul that dares think "Well then...I better find the means to be able to start four more businesses every five years"?

Success isn't always a given. Sometimes failure is. But it can be that all that separates one from the other is something as simple as your attitude. It can determine whether you snatch victory from the jaws of failure or failure from the jaws of success. And that's a huge difference.

Back of the Napkin

"Charming" would be an apropros description of Back of the Napkin: Solving Problems and Selling Ideas with Pictures. How can one keep from being won over by Dan Roam's neat manual on, literally, illustrating ideas? The title alone makes it hard to resist, and the overall aesthetic of the book -- right down to the hand-drawn "doodles" used by way of examples throughout -- doesn't just serve to make it accessible and fun to peruse, but more to the point delivers the message that the author is someone who walks his talk (and rather well at that).

However, for a book ostensibly about making presentations, Back of the Napkin is a bit of a mixed bag, albeit of the more positive variety. What it does right, and overwhelmingly so, is communicate the author's philosophy that "Any problem can be solved with a picture. And that anyone can draw it." By eschewing slideware in favor of hand-drawn illustrations, and offering a sensible framework by which to use pictures to convey ideas, Roam convincingly demonstrates that all you need to make that next great useful presentation is quite literally at your fingertips. In that sense, it's not just insightful. It's downright empowering.

Still, the fundamental problem with the book -- which it shares with similar titles of its ilk -- is precisely that: it attempts to codify too much (unlike, say, Garr Reynolds' Presentation Zen). Make no bones about it: Back of the Napkin is ultimately a step-by-step tutorial about how to put order into one's thoughts before putting them down on paper and thereafter to good use. Which is great. But it also feels a little too structured, almost to the point of being a tad contrived. There's a fair bit about the four steps to visual thinking, which leads into a series of five "focusing" questions, culminating with (what Roam terms) a <6><6> codex for seeing and showing. A useful framework, no doubt, but those more seasoned at making presentations may find this a bit much (and will lament the fact that the very doodles that give the book its unmistakable visual appeal fall somewhat flat in later, more complicated chapters).

Everyone has to walk before they can crawl; so it is with making presentations. Ultimately, Dan Roam's singular achievement with Back of the Napkin is in having authored an effective guidebook to visual thinking. Novices at preparing and delivering presentations will find in this book the basics upon which they can develop their own skills and sense of style. Likewise, those for whom presentations are old hat nonetheless would do well to revisit Roam's advice, and use this as an alternative checklist by which to evaluate how else to make good presentations even better.

Always Right

Many businesses treat their customers like crap.

Some may not, but if given the chance they'd like to, consciously or otherwise.

Believe it.

It's easy to see if this is the case. Just look at their underlying corporate philosophy.

You've heard it before.

It's the kind of thinking along the lines of "If you make it look nice, market it using the lowest common denominator, and sell it cheap, they won't notice how bad a product it really is."

It's what underlies the notion that store attendants have to hover right behind customers who walk through their doors. Supposedly, it's to be there to offer service, but it's really to watch if they're pocketing things on the sly, or worse, discreetly breaking anything.

It's what leads to store policies or programs that promise customers one thing -- discounts! rebates! prizes! -- but make them go through hoops to get it (and hiding it in the fine print, besides).

Would you really want to buy anything from businesses that live up to these (low) standards?

They just get everything wrong.

The customer is not stupid. She's your wife. (Or so the saying goes.)

The customer is not a thief. She's your breadwinner.

The customer is not greedy. She wants good value, and is all too willing to part with her money if you are willing to provide that value.

Reality check:

If you treat your customers like they're stupid, they are immensely stupid for patronizing your business.

If you act as if customers are thieves, you're certainly not acting as if you want them around.

And if you make it hard for them to get the most bang for their buck, why are you even in business?

Smoking Everywhere(?)

Over dinner somewhere in Mountain View (CA) a few months back, as conversation shifted to the topic of "So what do you do for a living?", one of the wife's friends mentioned he'd been busy setting up a business selling electronic cigarettes.

That merited a double take. Electronic cigarettes? The concept didn't quite compute. Yet as if in anticipation of our unspoken question, our acquaintance beat us to the punch with one of his own: "Haven't you heard of Smoking Everywhere?"

In reality, the concept isn't nearly as odd as it sounds. It's a plastic cigarette that looks like the real deal, but in place of the filter is a nicotene cartridge that releases vapors of the substance directly to the person inhaling. Yet to keep up with the fiction that it's similar to a cigarette, the white tip (where a regular cigarette is normally lit) instead contains a red LED that glows when the person inhaling takes a drag. No carcinogens and no tar: just a direct infusion of nicotene as and when needed.

If it sounds like a cross between a cigarette, Star Trek's hypospray and an asthma inhaler, that wouldn't be too far off a description.

The geek in me can't help but marvel at the technology. But as a person who can't stand cigarette smoke and has had to tolerate smokers most of his life, I have to ask whether this is at all a step forward. Obviously, such a newfangled nicotene delivery system carries with it the distinct advantage that, as the name implies, the cigarette can be "smoked" anywhere. There's a resulting mist after one takes a drag (or so I observed), but one absent the offending odor that accompanies conventional cigarettes, and dissipates quicker, to boot. Further, it does represent one way to wean people off smoking altogether -- or so the sales pitch goes -- without being nearly as inimical to one's health.

Precisely because it goes into uncharted territory -- it's like smoking...but it's not! -- it creates its own set of social quandaries. Should these be acceptable indoors and in "no smoking" areas just because no carcinogens are involved? Is it a good idea to employ electronic cigarettes in order to get people to quit? In short, is the growing trend to frown upon smoking (less pronounced in countries like the Philippines, but more so in some developed countries) based on fiat and social norms more than anything else?

I can't say that an easy answer to these questions comes to mind. But my attitude towards this is pretty much the same as my attitude to smoking in general:

If non-smokers can get along without nicotene in their systems, then there's no reason smokers can't do so either. And electronic cigarettes as a means to wean off the real thing and give up the habit? Please. In my book, there's only one way to quit smoking: quit smoking!

[Smoking Everywhere]

[Vapor War: Our Irrational Hostility Toward Electronic Cigarettes (Slate, via The Journal of Murketing)]

What is Politics? [Presentation Thursdays]

The first class I ever taught -- in my brief career lecturing at my alma mater -- was for a course on Philippine Politics and Governance. In another lifetime (i.e. when I was a student), the course was called "Fundamentals of Politics", and between the two titles it's easy enough to piece together what the course is about. All told, the purpose of the course (required for undergraduates under a liberal arts curriculum) was to introduce basic principles in politics and be the requisite course on the Philippine constitution, by and large a very practical way to get students to understand the subject.

Here are the slides from my introductory lecture:

View more presentations from brianbelen.

This was back in the day when Powerpoint XP was cutting edge, and way before I moved to a Mac (and thereby, Keynote) or read Presentation Zen. As such, the slides are somewhat cringe-inducing (to me anyway), albeit in a nostalgic way. Obviously, the slide template leaves much to be desired, and at the time I thought it would be a good idea to highlight the important terms in different colored font (I overdid it), but at least I got the whole "use an overview slide" routine down from day one. So all in all, serviceable slides that got the job done.

Content-wise, the purpose of the lecture was really simple: get students to start thinking about why some acts are "political" while others are not. Famously, the one question that just has to be asked during the course of the lecture is "Is brushing your teeth political?" Classic stuff. I also made it a point to make use of the late Bernard Crick's definition of politics as "the conciliation of diverse interests in society" (from In Defence of Politics), as that was instrumental to getting me heavily interested in the subject in another lifetime (again, when I was a student).

Alas, the other sources I referred in the course of preparing the lecture were on the syllabus but currently escape me, particularly the bit about political predicaments. There's also the token reference to Aristotle not just because it's de rigueur, but because I also happened to be teaching a course on Political Thought at the time.

[About Presentation Thursdays: Every now and then, on a Thursday, I post a presentation from my archives and include some accompanying commentary not just about the content but also my thoughts on designing it. The presentations can also be viewed and downloaded from my Slideshare page (Creative Commons license applies).]

Top Flight Service

A brief missive about the trip I'd been meaning to write about:

On our return leg, we repaired to Cathay Pacific's Business Class lounge during a two-hour layover in Hong Kong. There, my dad took a moment to catch up on his cellphone messages.

When we arrived in Manila, he discovered the phone was missing.

After ascertaining that it hadn't been misplaced on the plane, we came to the conclusion that it had been left behind in Hong Kong. On the off chance someone might have found it, I tried giving it a ring on the ride home. At first, no luck. But on my second attempt I got through to the sound of a woman's voice on the other end of the line.

The conversation that ensued was none too easy between the poor reception and an apparent language barrier (she was obviously Chinese), but we somehow managed. I explained who I was, to whom the celphone belonged, and asked who she was in return. She explained that she worked for Cathay Pacific, had been the one who found the phone, and completely understood the situation. Thinking that we were still in the Hong Kong airport, she asked what flight we were on so the phone could be rushed over. I told her that we'd already left, providing the necessary flight details. As it became increasingly apparent that we wouldn't able to resolve the matter then and there, I asked if it would be possible to just coordinate via email. Thankfully, she found it a sensible suggestion, took down my email address, and promised that her supervisor would be in touch with me the next day.

Come morning, I was in the office with my dad waiting to hear from the airline, beginning to worry that maybe my email address wasn't taken down correctly. Yet before my anxiety go the better of me, I received a call from the local Cathay Pacific office.

They'd already flown the phone in on the first flight to Manila that day.

We dispatched a messenger to pick up the phone for us. All told, less than 24 hours after the phone had been left behind, it was back in my dad's hands safe and sound.

Sadly, I can't recall the name of the woman who took my call late that night and patiently talked through the problem at hand (my fault entirely). Whoever she was, she is certainly a credit to the Cathay organization, and the airline is certainly lucky to have her. As for Cathay Pacific itself? Let me just say that I wish all airlines took care of their customers as well as we were taken care of during this little mishap. In the calculus of dollars and cents, it may have been cheaper for everyone concerned to have just given up the phone for lost. Yet simple acts like these are precisely what build brand equity and customer loyalty.

So thanks Cathay Pacific. Hope to be flying with you again soon.

FREE for free

It doesn't get much better than this: if you want to see why Chris Anderson's book FREE: The Future of a Radical Price is poised to cause quite a stir, you can now check out the whole thing. For free!

Here's the whole book as available on Scribd:


So I scored a free copy, albeit not in the way I'd hoped. Who cares? FREE is free. I'm stoked!

Missing the Maker Faire

I didn't write about it before, but last year we missed the San Mateo Maker Faire while we were in town. Dad was the one who caught wind of the event since he'd frequented Silicon Valley numerous times over the years; yet on our way there we got caught in a terrible traffic jam leading up to the convention center, so we aborted our visit.

This year, it slipped our minds that we were again in town for the Maker Faire -- that is, until we again found ourselves victims of the traffic jam near the convention center, albeit entirely by coincidence. So once more it just wasn't in the cards, and since we really had no intention of going this time around I had no reason to feel disappointed about missing it again, especially because I had no clue what it was exactly that I was missing.

Then the strangest thing: recently, an article about the Maker Faire popped up on my CNET news feed subscription. It was originally published back in May, but because of a correction popped back up on feed. Add to that the fact that it had something to do with Wall-E(!), the inevitable result was I just had to read the article.

And now I know what I've been missing.

No matter how you look at it, the Maker Faire concept is cool: a convention for inventors and inventions. Granted, that by itself doesn't sound particularly remarkable, as if it were an activity ripe for either crackpots or snake oil salesmen. Yet the caliber of invention and innovation that finds its way to the Faire (if the article is anything to go by) is nothing short of outstanding. Robotics aficionados trying to build their own version of Wall-E? I'm down with that. It's precisely these kinds of activities that're lacking in the Philippines: events that get people excited about science and technology beyond the hackneyed "make a clay volcano" or "construct a diorama" or any of the papier mache projects that seem to pass for science in basic education these days.

It's become fashionable to blame many of the country's ills on the paucity of material resources. Yet that's just a cop-out. The Philippines is a developing country. Fine. We get that. But we shouldn't let our material poverty get in the way of our talent, our ability to be innovative, and our capacity to dream big.

But I digress. Hopefully next year that long-delayed visit to the Maker Faire will push through. If it does, you can bet I'll be checking out the DIY Wall-E scene -- and all the other things, besides -- thinking up how I can get in on the action myself.

[Daniel Terdiman: In Search of a DIY Wall-E (via CNET)]

Debating FREE

Chris Anderson has a new book coming out called FREE. As a follow-up to The Long Tail you know it'll be quite the read, especially when even its post-publication hiccups (however inexcusable) make for an interesting case study by itself.

That and I'm hoping to score a free copy. But that's another story.

Anyway, while reading through my RSS feeds it was interesting to note that the interweb is abuzz about the book, after a fashion. First, it appears that Malcolm Gladwell found some arguments in the book polemical in his review. Clarifying, Anderson offered a response to his esteemed contemporary in a good-natured "intellectual exchange between corporate cousins." Apparently, that "family" has extended relations, as now Seth Godin has also joined the discussion, with the surprising declaration that "Malcolm is wrong(!)".

It's awesome to see this high-caliber back-and-forth between three of the leading observers of new media. In particular it's the underlying respect that each has for the other that makes their frank exchange really stand out. On its own, it's a good example of what quality, civilized debate and discussion should be like -- what in the age of internet trolling, flaming and such -- and just goes to show why these three are among the best in the business.

As an aside, it's equally awesome how RSS feeds now allow anyone to assemble their own "newspapers" (for lack of a better term) from sources around the world. Generally, a good variety of local and foreign sources makes for an interesting read. But when OPED columnists (and I consider Chris Anderson, Malcolm Gladwell and Seth Godin as such in my self-styled RSS "newspaper") all gravitate towards the same topic, it gives the thing a local feel, just like a paper newspaper's OPED section would focus on the burning issues of the day. So with news, the world has truly become smaller.

Ain't techology great?

But enough about that. Chris Anderson. Seth Godin. Malcolm Gladwell. Three good reasons to read through this particular exchange of opinions.


[Malcolm Gladwell: Priced to Sell (The New Yorker)]

[Chris Anderson: Dear Malcolm: Why so Threatened? (The Long Tail)]

[Seth Godin: Malcolm is wrong (Seth's Blog)]

The Story of Stuff

If it were at all possible for Al Gore, Tom Friedman, Naomi Klein, and Michael Moore ever to collaborate on a video about the perils of modern day consumerism and its environmental effects, the result would probably be something like The Story of Stuff.

Produced by former Greenpeace activist Annie Leonard, I first caught wind of the video via a New York Times article discussing how it was being used in class by a growing number of teachers, to mixed reactions from students, parents, and school administrators. Curious, I decided to check it out, and now understand what the fuss -- both positive and negative -- is all about.

Overall, I think it's great that materials such as this are critical of the excesses and, at times, the unintended consequences of the modern-day economy. More so in the post-subprime, post-Lehman, post-financial meltdown world. Especially so. Yet it's equally unfortunate that The Story of Stuff is unabashedly slanted in its presentation. There's a fair bit of political innuendo thrown into the mix, unnecessary to be sure and terribly inelegant. Even-handed political advocacy? Cool. Political advocacy by allusion and insinuation? Not cool.

More's the pity, as there is clearly a need for something like this that forces us to reexamine our lifestyles, both as individuals and for society as a whole. Is it fit for educational purposes? I'd say no, or at the very least it should be used with more than a grain of salt. Of course, I could be wrong. If the video is anything to go by, "to each his own" is a large part of what got the world into the mess it's in to begin with. Yet that's the admonishon I'd say applies best to The Story of Stuff.

[The Story of Stuff with Annie Leonard]