Antonio Fontanini >>

Como conseguir compras immediatas

Comparto este artículo del Nobel Daniel Kahneman sobre un tema que me interesa muchísimo, al tratar el comportamiento de los consumidores frente a una compra y porqué. Mirense la charla en Ted.com de Sheena Iyengar sobre el experimento citado en el post sobre las mermeladas.
Es evidente que la neurociencia y el neuromarketing tienen cada día más puntos en común y es fascinante para mí observar como funciona nuestro cerebro y tener que admitir cuanta razón tenía Steve Jobs cuando nos decía que los clientes no saben que quieren cuando se trata de innovación.
Por lo visto tomamos decisiones, la mayoría de ellas, con el lado “inconsciente” de nuestro cerebro, el menos “lógico”,  el más antiguo: Malcom Gladwell nos ha enseñado que a veces tener demasiada información para la toma de una decisión nos desenfoca y es dañino para el buen fín de la misma.
Al mismo tiempo tenemos que aprender a convivir con nuestro lado más intuitivo para evitar cometer errores guiados por nuestros prejuicios innatos, nuestra primera impresión que desafortunadamente no siempre es la buena: el libro “Blink” de Gladwell es un tratato sobre esto y os aconsejo vivamente leerlo y disfrutarlo.

Fast and slow lessons for marketers

Consumers don’t think what they feel, don’t say what they think and don’t do what they say – behavioural economics can prove it.
Daniel Kahneman is an Israeli-American psychologist and Nobel laureate. He is notable for his work o

Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman is notable for his work on the psychology of judgement and decision making. Photograph: Richard Saker

The idea of consumers making fully reasoned decisions is finally being debunked. Events like the financial crisis and fresh research have successfully challenged the idea that rationality is at the heart of our choices.

 

The most prominent thinker in this area is psychologist Daniel Kahneman. His book, “Thinking, Fast and Slow”, has now sold over a million copies in the UK. He’s demonstrated that our mind has two systems of thought. System 1 is a fast, automatic and intuitive process over which we have little conscious control. System 2, which corresponds with our idea of rational reasoning is slow, deliberative and effortful.

 

This cleaving of the mind into two spheres isn’t new – the idea stretches back to antiquity. However, what is new is the idea that the vast majority of decisions are made by System 1. Even when we think we’re making reasoned conscious decisions often the conscious mind is merely post-rationalising decisions that have already been made. In the memorable words of Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind, the rational minds “thinks it’s the Oval Office when actually it’s the press office”.

This is problematic for businesses in a number of ways. Firstly, it means that asking consumers what they want is flawed. If they don’t have full introspective insight into their decision-making process what they claim motivates them is often inaccurate.

 

Another, broader repercussion springs from the fact that choice is effortful. As Kahneman has said, “Thinking is to humans as swimming is to cats; they can do it but they’d prefer not to.” It means that the ever-burgeoning growth in choice might have unintended consequences.

 

Classic psychological research by Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper of Columbia University has investigated the potential negative effects of an excess of choice. They set up a stall at a posh food market selling a range of gourmet jams. They alternated between offering six and 24 varieties of jam. While the large display attracted more interest than the small one, people were 10 times as likely to buy from the stall with the smaller variety of choice. For brands that try and squeeze out every extra percentage point of sales a tenfold increase is astonishing.

 

The psychologists concluded that consumers failed to buy at the more varied stall as the choice became too effortful. Additionally, researchers like Barry Schwartz have suggested that happiness with a purchase declines when there is excessive choice. In these circumstances consumers worry that there’s an increased chance that one of those unchosen goods would have been a better use of their money.

 

Despite these findings the variety of choice we face is ever-expanding. Even Starbucks offers 80,000 potential combinations of drinks. But if these mind-boggling levels of choice dampen sales why would companies, whose aim is to maximise profits, continue to offer such large ranges?

 

One answer might be in the fact that companies can boost the price that customers are willing to pay by introducing higher-end goods. The agency, Mountainview, ran an ingenious experiment in which they offered people a range of beers. When consumers were offered a mass market beer (Carling) for £1 and a premium beer (Budvar) for £2, two-thirds opted for the pricier beer. However, when a third option was introduced, the super-premium Kronenbourg Blanc at £4, preferences switched. A few people chose Kronenbourg Blanc but the remaining 90% chose Budvar. Consumers who had preferred Carling to Budvar in one context switched to Budvar in the presence of a high-end option. The presence of the higher-end good seems to shift people into the middle choice – for some people it avoids the feelings of being ripped off or of being seen as frugal.

 

The second reason that choice doesn’t seem to be being reduced is that companies are becoming better at how they present their offerings to consumers. Amazon, for example, has millions of items yet its algorithms carefully select a handful of recommendations based on past purchasing behaviour. Despite the breadth of the potential range, the Amazon experience can be less baffling than a visit to a small bookstore. Other brands offer less technologically driven solutions, guiding the consumer by promoting their most popular items. If everyone else has bought it, the thinking goes, it must be a satisfactory choice.

 

These examples and experiments suggest that the range of choices we’re offered can have profound effects. Introducing additional choices can change customers’ preferences – even when the new option isn’t purchased. However, companies must be wary – too much choice can be demotivating. Behavioural economics will continue to generate interesting and useful insights for companies which they can then test and learn from in almost real-time on their digital ads and website.

Richard Shotton is head of insight at ZenithOptimedia.


Antonio Fontanini >>

Para presentar como Lawrence Lessig, Nancy Duarte y Garr Reynolds

Mi compadre Ramiro Casó cada día escribe mejor: sobre los blogueros profesionales tiene que tener el mismo efecto que tenía sobre mi Bob Dilan cuando escuchaba sus canciones en mis años mozos: “Esta canción debería haberla escrito yo!”.

Os dejo su último post: Las tres cosas que aprendí de Lawrence Lessig

Va sobre su admiración para este profesorón que ha introducido una nueva manera de compartir derechos en el mundo digital, creando Creative Commons y que ahora lucha para minimizar la corrupción política en EEUU.

Pero traigo a colación su post por su tercera parte, dedicada a la manera fabulosa que tiene Lessig de Comunicarse, que reproduzco aqúi por la riqueza de datos y referencias.

#3. Pocas cosas son tan persuasivas como una buena presentación
Puede parecer extraño, pero Lessig es de quien más he aprendido sobre cómo presentar, sin que él dedique ni un solo minuto de sus charlas o un sólo párrafo en sus libros a hablar de presentaciones. Su estilo y manejo discursivo me parecen brillantes y puedo decir que no he visto todavía a un presentador que lo supere en claridad y poder persuasivo. Escucharlo hablar es un placer, por la claridad en su mensaje y lo fluido de su discurso. Garr Reynolds ha hecho referencia varias veces a Lessig y su estilo en su famoso blog Presentation Zen, en donde afirma que sus presentaciones son “una fantástica combinación de contenido, arte y branding”. Lo que más me gusta de su estilo es la manera en la que estructura el contenido. Sus presentaciones suelen estar divididas en 3 o 4 partes distintas, muchas de las cuales son historias o anécdotas que luego conecta a través de una observación o un argumento. Eso le permite organizar su discurso de manera impecable, haciendo que las láminas acompañen lo que dice a un ritmo casi perfecto. Es casi imposible no terminar convencido de lo que dice luego de verlo presentar. Yo, humildemente, trato de copiar algunos de sus recursos, con la esperanza de lograr el mismo poder persuasivo que él logra en cada una de sus charlas.
Bueno, hasta acá los aprendizajes. Si logré despertar interés y desean explorar más sobre su trabajo, pueden empezar por estos links.
Créanme, vale la pena.

A las referencias sobre como montar una presentación perfecta, déjenme añadir la web de Nancy Duarte con su maravillosa charla en Ted.com y sus libros Slideology y Resonate.

Finalmente, os reporto aquí el último post de Garr Reynolds, citado arriba, sobre los elementos “buenos” y “malos” de una presentación, sacado de sus clases en la Universidad de Tokio.

Elements of a “Good” & “Bad” presentation
Here is a list that a group of about one hundred young Japanese college students came up with this week.

“GOOD”
“BAD”
• Start with interesting hook
• Big Voice (good projection)
• Smile, friendly, natural
• Passion, excited by topic
• Conversational tone
• Points are clear
• Use of humor, emotion
• Use of great visuals
• Use of video/movie segments
• Simple design, delivery
• Has a clear main point
• Confident body language
• Use of interesting examples
• Uses personal stories
• Clear pronunciation
• Gets audience participation
• Speaker asks questions
• Q&A, discussion time
• Feels like a journey
• Lots of photos/visuals
• Good time management
• Clear conclusion
• Has surprises, unexpected bits
• Makes audience think
• Is entertaining, fun
• Has new or “rare” info
• Variety of content
• Statistics *with* context
• Explains why not just what
• Makes the abstract tangible
• Changes pace periodically
• Uses original content
• Shows “the big picture”
• Not just lists of info
• Presenter is “authentic”
• Presenter is having fun
• Rambling, boring, slow start
• Small, weak voice
• Reading a script
• Reading text on slides
• Lots of text on slide
• No eye contact
• Looks at paper all the time
• No gestures
• Seems not confident
• Looks bored/disinterested
• Too long/too short
• Too complicated, confusing
• No attempt to simplify
• Material only memorized
• Ugly, amateur design of visuals
• No clear point
• No examples
• No stories
• Faces away from audience
• Repeats a point too often
• No audience participation
• Monotone, monopacing
• Seems unprepared
• Talks too fast
• No body movement
• Data overly complicated
• Charts are irrelevant
• Charts impossible to see
• Using jargon
• Speaks down to audience
• “Showing off” by using jargon
• Presenter not motivated
• Talk contains nothing new
• Speaking sounds memorized
• No flow, just many “points”
• Does not inspire or motivate

Antonio Fontanini >>

Un buen pitch: Derek Sivers

Para preparar vuestros pitches estelares de cada día quiero compartir este post de mi compadre Ramiró Casó sobre como hacer una buena presentación, inspirandose en Derek Sivers y en su charla en Ted sobre la relatividad de nuestras verdades.

En su charla, Derek nos demuestra con un ejemplo muy simple que nuestros convencimientos pueden dar paso justo al convencimiento contrario, pero lo que importa es la metodología que utiliza para demostrar su tesis.

Os dejo con el post de Ramiro.

Abrazos,

Antonio

Derek Sivers es un payaso.

Esa descripción profesional, que a mi siempre me ha causado gracia, esconde el verdadero talento detrás de este interesante personaje, quien además de haber trabajado en un circo, resulta ser, entre otras cosas, un exitosísimo empresario musical.

Lo traigo a este blog porque siento que en el talento de Sivers se puede resumir casi todo lo que hablamos en las tres sesiones del PPT Boot Camp que dictamos con el apoyo de nuestros amigos de Animal Costa Rica, y que acabamos de cerrar el pasado viernes.

Acá el video

Como pueden apreciar, Sivers es un presentador genial, que tiene el particular poder de transmitir una idea de forma poderosa en apenas unos pocos minutos. Repasemos lo que hace a esta presentación una pequeña obra maestra utilizando el mismo esquema que usamos para organizar el taller.

Planificación

Es evidente que Sirvers realizó un trabajo previo importante para transmitir una sola idea, la cual pudiésemos parafrasear en algo como “no existen verdades absolutas”. Es válido asumir que el autor se sentó primero a decidir qué era lo que exactamente quería decir, para luego definir la forma de hacerlo. Su estructura es, como su idea, sólida y sencilla: nos lleva de la mano por un lado del mundo que no nos es familiar (oriente) para demostrarnos que aquello que damos por sentado, en otros lugares ocurre exactamente al revés. Maneja el contraste de manea impecable, sorprendiéndonos en cada nueva lámina. Recurre más a la historia que al dato y no abusa del tiempo: lo que tiene que decir lo dice en un par de minutos. Por último, termina su presentación con fuerza, expresando literalmente la idea que quería transmitir, para que no queden dudas.

Diseño

El uso que hace de las láminas es también brillante y simple. Utiliza al principio el recurso de Google Maps y la iconografía que lo distingue para contarnos dos historias contrastantes. No necesita hacer nada más. Luego nos pasea por fotografías que acompañan su discurso y que potencian la historia que nos está contando. No hay palabras, ni bullets, ni grandes bloques de texto. Su apoyo visual es justamente eso: un apoyo visual.

Delivery

En estricta línea con los dos puntos anteriores, su estilo al presentar es simple pero potente. Empieza con una historia y termina con un dicho que resume su idea. Su forma de hablar es sencilla y alegre. Pero quizá lo más importante es el ritmo y el manejo que hace de las láminas. Esto se nota de manera especial en las anécdotas de las direcciones en Japón y los EEUU. Es tan fluido su manejo de la presentación, que no parece que usara láminas. Sin embargo allí están, con animaciones y transiciones discretas (cero efectos especiales escandalosos que en nada contribuyen a su relato). Al final se siente como si hubiésemos estado tomándonos un café con Derek mientras lo oíamos reflexionar sobre su experiencia en aquellos lejanos lugares.

***

Yo no dejo de asombrarme cada vez que me paseo por estos 2 minutos 42 segundos. En el taller que dictamos con Carlos Jiménez, nos esforzamos para tratar de convencer a quienes asisten, de que ésa forma de presentar no sólo es la ideal, sino que puede aplicarse prácticamente a toda idea que uno quiera comunicar, independientemente de si se trata de estados financieros o campañas publicitarias.

¿Cuántas cosas no mejorarían si más gente lograra transmitir ideas con la claridad y potencia con que lo hace este señor?

Una buena presentación, decimos en el taller, es aquella que logra transmitir una idea haciendo uso de la menor cantidad de recursos posibles.  O para decirlo tomando de referencia al gran Julio Cortázar, una buena presentación es como un buen cuento, debe ganarte por knock-out.

Este payaso lo tiene clarísimo.


Antonio Fontanini >>

We have the videos of TedXCibeles 2013

After months struggling with technical issues and waiting for TED’s approval, we are happy to announce that the final videos of TEDxCibeles 2013 are live in the TEDx YouTube Channel.

You will find the whole playlist and the summary video in the following links:

Thanks to this incredible team for making this happen.


Antonio Fontanini >>

Disruptive Innovation: Steve Blanck speech

Reproduzco aquí el speech que Steve Blanck ha leído en el Commencement Day de ESADE business School, para los alumnos del Full Time Mba.

Es un discurso redondo sobre innovación y como gestionarla en el futuro muy próximo.

Me quedo con la necesidad de las empresas de “act as a start up” y esta definición:

A pessimist sees danger in every opportunity but an optimist.. an optimist sees opportunity in every danger.

TEXTO

I’d like to start with a request.

Everyone, hold your phone up in the air like this.

Now look around.  In this sea of phones do you see any Blackberries? How about any Nokia phones?
Ok you can put your phones down now but let’s keep exploring this a bit. Raise your hand if you rented a VHS tape last night? Or if you used a paper map to find your way here?

These questions and your answers lie at the heart of what I’d like to talk about with you today: the changing face of innovation and your role in it.

Let’s start with Joseph Schumpter. I’m sure many of you have heard his name. Schumpter was an economist who taught at Harvard in the 1930’s and 40’s.  I like the guy because he’s credited with coining the word entrepreneur. But you probably remember him as the one who proposed the theory of creative destruction.  According to Schumpter, capitalism is an evolutionary process where new industries and new companies continually emerge to knock out the old.

Fifty years later another Harvard professor, Clayton Christensen, developed his theory of disruptive innovation, which actually described how creative destruction worked.
Disruptive innovation leads to the creative destruction of businesses that once seemed pre-eminent and secure.

Which brings me back to your mobile phones.

Think about this; 7 years ago Nokia owned 50% of the handset market. Apple owned 0%.  In fact, it was only 7 years ago that Apple shipped its first iPhone and Google introduced its Android operating system.

Fast-forward to today—Apple is the most profitable Smartphone company in the world and in Spain Android commands a market share of more than 90%.  And Nokia?  Its worldwide market share of Smartphones has dwindled to 5%.

You’re witnessing creative destruction and disruptive innovation at work. It’s the paradox of progress in a capitalist economy.

So congratulations graduates – as you move forward in your careers, you’ll be face to face with innovation that’s relentless.

And that’s what I’d like to talk about today—how innovation will shape the business world of the next 50 years—and what it means for you.

The Perfect Storm
Your time at ESADE has trained you to become a global business leader.
But the world you lead will be much different from the one your professors knew or your predecessors managed.

Just look at the disruptive challenges that businesses face today– globalization, China as a manufacturer, China as a consumer, the Internet, and a steady stream of new startups. Today’s workforce has radically different expectations, brands are losing their power, physical channels are being destroyed by virtual ones, market share is less important than market creation, and software is eating world.

Industries that we all grew up with, industries that enjoyed decades of market dominance – like newspapers, bookstores, video rentals, personal computers — are being swept away.

The convergence of digital trends along with the rise of China and globalization has upended the rules for almost every business in every corner of the globe. It’s worth noting that everything from the Internet, to electric cars, genomic sequencing, mobile apps, and social media — were pioneered by startups, not existing companies.

Perhaps that’s because where established companies might see risks or threats, startups see opportunity. As the venture capital business has come roaring back in the last 5 years, startups are awash in available capital. As a consequence, existing companies confront a tidal wave of competitors 100 times what they saw 25 years ago.

Efficiency over innovation
Yet in the face of all this change, traditional firms continue to embrace a management ethos that values efficiency over innovation. Companies horde cash and squeeze the most revenue and margin from the money they use. Instead of measuring success in dollars of profit, …firms focus on measuring capital efficiency. Metrics like Return on Net Assets, Return on Capital and Internal Rate of Return are the guiding stars of the board and CEO.

Cheered on by finance professors, Wall Street analysts, investors and hedge funds, companies have learned how to make metrics like Internal Rate of Return look great by one; outsourcing everything, two, getting assets off their balance sheet, and three only investing in things that pay off fast.
As Harvard professor Clayton Christensen noted, these efficiency metrics provided wise guidance for times when capital was scarce and raising money was hard. But they have also stacked the deck against investment in long-term innovation.

Since the financial crisis of 2008, policy makers have kept interest rates at near zero, flooding the market with cheap money in an attempt to restart growth. In spite of this, private equity funds have used the rallying cry of efficiency to hijack corporate strategy and loot the profits that historically would have been reinvested into research and development and new products. We legalized robbing the corporate treasury. Today billions of dollars that companies could have invested in innovation are sitting in the hands of private equity funds.

Unfortunately as we’ve learned from recent experience, using Return on Net Assets and IRR as proxies for efficiency and execution won’t save a company when their industry encounters creative disruption. Ask Sony about Samsung, ask any retailer about Amazon, any car company about Tesla, and any newspaper company about the web.

The stock market clearly values companies that can deliver disruptive innovation. Look at the valuations of companies like Tesla, Illumina, and Twitter.

In fact, I predict that over the next few decades, we will see two classes of public companies. The first will be commodity businesses that are valued for their ability to execute their current business model. Their lifetime as a market leader will be measured in years. The second class will be firms with a demonstrated ability to continually innovate and reinvent their business models. The companies that can show “startup-like” growth rates of 50% plus per year will get stratospheric market valuations.
So I hope you are thinking—“hey how can I lead a business with startup growth?” At least I hope you’re thinking that, rather than “oops I joined the wrong company.”The question for all of you is … “What will it take to inspire and manage this kind of innovation?”

Innovation
Before I answer that question, let’s take a minute to establish a common definition of innovation. At its most basic, innovation means to introduce something new. But in a business context, the meaning gets more nuanced. I’d like to describe the four types of innovation you can build inside a corporation:

The first type of corporate innovation is individual initiative. It’s exactly as it sounds – you build a corporate culture where anyone can suggest an idea and start a project. Some companies use a suggestion box, others like Google give employees 20% of their time to work on their own projects.

The second type of business innovation is called process improvement. This is the kind most of us are familiar with. Car companies introduce new models each year, running shoes grow ever lighter and more flexible, Coca-Cola offers a new version of Coke. Smart companies are always looking to make their current products better – and there are many ways to do this. For example they can reduce component cost, introduce a line extension or create new versions of the existing product. These innovations do not require change in a company’s existing business model.

This is what companies typically do to secure and defend their core business.

The third type of business innovation – continuous innovation – is much harder. Continuous innovation builds on a strength of the company’s current business model but requires that new elements be created. For example, Coke added snack foods, which could be distributed through its existing distribution channels. The Amazon Kindle played on Amazon’s strengths as a distributor of content but required developing expertise in electronics and manufacturing.

Fourth and finally is disruptive innovation – this is the innovation we associate with startups. This type of innovation creates new products or new services that did not exist before. It’s the automobile in the 1910’s, radio in the 1920’s, television in the 1950’s, the integrated circuit in the 1960’s, the fax machine in the 1970’s, personal computers in the 1980’s, the Internet in the 1990’s, and the Smartphone, human genome sequencing, and even fracking in this decade. These innovations are exactly what Schumpter and Christensen were talking about. They create new industries and destroy existing ones. And interestingly, in spite of all their resources, large companies are responsible for very, very few disruptive innovations.

The first two types of innovation—individual and process innovation– are what good companies do well.
The third type—continuous innovation—is a hallmark of great companies like GE and Procter and Gamble.

But the fourth type of innovation – creating disruptive innovation– and doing it on a repeatable basis– is what extraordinary companies do. Apple with the iPod, iPhone and iPad; Amazon with Amazon Web Services and Kindle; Toyota with the Prius… these companies are extraordinary because, …like startups, they create entirely new products and services.

ESADE and other great business schools have provided decades of advice and strategy for the first three types of innovation. But leading an existing firm to innovate like a startup is not business as usual.

Building Innovation Internally is Hard
Paradoxically, in spite of the seemingly endless resources, innovation inside of an existing company is much harder than inside a startup.  That’s because existing companies face a conundrum: Every policy and procedure that makes them efficient execution machines stifles innovation.
Think about this.  When it comes to innovation, public companies have two strikes against them.  First the markets favor capital efficiency over R&D.  And secondly, their sole purpose is to focus resources on the executionof their business model.

As a consequence, companies are optimized for execution over innovation. And to keep executing large organizations hire employees with a range of skills and competencies. To manage these employees companies create metrics to control, measure and reward execution.  But remember—in public companies financial metrics take precedence. As a result, staff functions and business units develop their own performance indicators and processes to ensure that every part of the organization marches in lock step to the corporate numbers.

These Key Performance Indicators and processes are what make a company efficient —but they are also the root cause of its inability to be agile and innovative. Every time another execution process is added, corporate innovation dies a little more.

Act Like a Startup
So how does a company act like a startup in search of new business models while still continuing to successfully execute?

First, management must understand that innovation happens not by exception but is integral to all parts of the firm. If they don’t, then the management team has simply become caretakers of the founders’ legacy. This never ends well.

Second and maybe the most difficult is the recognition that innovation is chaotic, messy and uncertain. Not everything will work out, but failure in innovation is not cause for firing but for learning. Managers need radically different tools to control and measure innovation. A company needs innovation policies, innovation processes and innovation incentives to match those it already has for execution. These will enable firms to embrace innovation by design not by exception.

Third, smart companies manage an innovation portfolio where they can pursue potential disruption in a variety of ways. To build innovation internally companies can adopt the practices of startups and accelerators.  To buy innovation companies can buy intellectual property, acquire great teams, buy-out another company’s product line or even buy entire companies. And if they’re particularly challenged in a market they can acquire and integrate disruptive innovation.  My favorite example is Exxon’s $35 billion purchase of XTO Energy in large part to get their fracking expertise.

Other smart companies are learning how to use Open Innovation pioneered by Henry Chesbrough who teaches here at EDADE. They can partner with suppliers, co-create with consumers, open-source key technologies, open their application programming interfaces, or run open incubators for customer ideas.

Everything I’ve been talking about smart companies have already figured out.  Many firms are creating the new role of Chief Innovation Officer to lead and manage these innovation activities. Ultimately this is not just another staff function. The Chief Innovation Officer is a c-level executive who runs the company’s entire innovation portfolio and oversees the integration of innovation metrics and initiatives across the entire organization.

Looking forward, all of you will play a role in the future of business innovation, whether you help to accelerate it or discourage it.

How can you kill innovation? Some companies have so lost the DNA for innovation they become “rent seekers”. Rent seekers fight to keep the status quo. Instead of offering better products or superior service, rent seekers hire lawyers and lobbyists to influence politicians to pass laws that block competition. The bad news here is that countries where bribes and corruption are the cost of doing business or that are dominated by organized interest groups, tend to be the economic losers. And as rent-seeking becomes more attractive than innovation, the economy falls into decline.

I know that’s not the path most of you want to take. Instead I think you want to be part of the innovation team.  And if you do you are in luck. Companies need your help.

They need your help in creating new metrics to manage measure disruptive innovation.  They need your help in creating new innovation incentive systems that reward creative innovation.
And they need your help as leaders who can run companies that can both execute and innovate.
Finally, remember Innovation won’t come from plans or people outside your company  – it will be found in the people you already have inside who understand your company’s strengths and its vulnerabilities.

So in closing, let me leave you with this final thought:

A pessimist sees danger in every opportunity but an optimist.. an optimist sees opportunity in every danger.

In the last 150 years only a few generations have had the opportunity to reshape the nature of business.

Be an optimist.

Congratulations class of 2014:

Embrace change and lead the way.


Antonio Fontanini >>

WIFI en los aviones

El post de hoy de Enrique Dans nos habla de su pésima experiencia utilizando el servicio de pago WIFI a bordo de un vuelo de NY a Madrid con Iberia.
Precio abusivo (29,95 euros), pésima calidad de conexión, banda ancha ridícula (50 Megas), cargo adicional exorbitante, …).
Comparto su cabreo al 100% siendo inadmisible que una compañía del tamaño de Iberia caiga en un error de este tamaño y creo refleja un tic de su pasado gubernamental: en un mercado libre (sin subvenciones y monopolios) sólo sobreviven los que saben adaptarse a las nuevas circunstancias y hoy tener WIFI a mano no es un lujo, es una necesidad imperiosa, un elemento necesario en el customer journey de cualquier pasajero que no sea un bebé.
Si le añadimos el contexto de tener que pasar 7 horas en un espacio mínimo y con un mal servicio a bordo (a menos que viajes en Business class), tener conexión es la diferencia entre aburrirse o entretenerse, ser productivo o dejar pasar todo el tiempo.
Creo que la llave está en que las compañías aéreas ofrezcan un servicio Fremium de alta calidad.

No sé cuantos clientes volaban en ese avión de NY a Madrid: imaginemos que el billete costaba 1000 euros con un margen bruto de 100 y que volaban 250 pasajeros.
¿Cuantos usuarios se habrán conectado? un 25%? digamos 50.

Son alrededor de 1000 euros de facturación añadida. Si el margen del WIFI es el mismo que el del pasaje, le deja a Iberia el mismo dinero que un pasajero más.
¿Cuantos pasajeros eligirían Iberia si el WIFI (funcionante y aunque limitado para un tiempo razonable) fuese gratis?

Digamos una hora gratis y el resto de pago, pero funcionando de maravilla.
Con un pasajero más ya tendrían el mismo ingreso.
Si mis margenes son equivocados da igual: conceptualmente, creo que esta oferta sería imbatible.

Iberia necesita imperiosamente un nuevo Chief Customer Experience Officer (suponiendo que ya tienen uno).

Antonio Fontanini >>

Miedo y riesgo

En el último TED hay una charla de Chris Hadfield que os recomiendo escuchar: va sobre riesgos y miedos.

Es muy interesante ver como una gran preparación te permite no pasar miedo frente a grandes riesgos mientras puede darse justo la situacción contraria.

Frente a una araña sentimos miedo cuando el riesgo que sea venenosa es mínimo; por lo contrario este astronauta nos cuenta como no pasó miedo quedandose ciego en una misión espacial fuera del Soyuz, es decir mientras paseaba por el espacio.

Siendo emprendedores, tiene mucho que ver con desactivar la amigdala (nuestro radar ancestral de “fight or flight”), practicar mucho (las 10,000 horas de otro post), tener planes de contingencia siempre a mano y formarse, formarse siempre.

Os recuerdo que si es cierto que grandes empresarios como Bill Gates o Steve Jobs  nunca se licenciaron en una Universidad, vivieron el ambiente de high performance de Harvard o Reed, para citar estos dos.

En vuestro caso: ¿vuestros miedos son proporcionales a los riesgos?


Antonio Fontanini >>

Lessons of a life

Miguel Palma (si necesitáis un despacho legal y gestor en California, el suyo es el mejor) me ha pasado este historia que me parece digan de ser compartida.Un conocido suyo murió de repente hace año y medio y a través de su hija h apodido acceder a la carta que este hombre tan especial le escribió a sus nietos antes de morir.

James era poeta y contador de historias de su Irlanda natal y suscrib todos sus consejos que parecen trañidos de alguna de mis conferencias. Veo que muchos opinamos lo mismo. EN el Syllabus tenéis 100 consejos (cien) más, pero estos son los básicos.

Que los disfruten.

Sed felices. Luchad por ello.

On Sept. 3, 2012, James K. Flanagan of West Long Branch, N.J., died unexpectedly of a heart attack. He wrote this letter to his five grandchildren just months earlier and it is reprinted here with the permission of his daughter Rachel Creighton.

Dear Ryan, Conor, Brendan, Charlie, and Mary Catherine,

My wise and thoughtful daughter Rachel urged me to write down some advice for you, the important things that I have learned about life. I am beginning this on 8 April 2012, the eve of my 72nd birthday.

1. Each one of you is a wonderful gift of God both to your family and to all the world. Remember it always, especially when the cold winds of doubt and discouragement fall upon your life.

2. Be not afraid . . . of anyone or of anything when it comes to living your life most fully. Pursue your hopes and your dreams no matter how difficult or “different” they may seem to others. Far too many people don’t do what they want or should do because of what they imagine others may think or say. Remember, if they don’t bring you chicken soup when you’re sick or stand by you when you’re in trouble, they don’t matter. Avoid those sour-souled pessimists who listen to your dreams then say, “Yeah, but what if . . .” The heck with “what if. . .” Do it! The worst thing in life is to look back and say: “I would have; I could have; I should have.” Take risks, make mistakes.

3. Everyone in the world is just an ordinary person. Some people may wear fancy hats or have big titles or (temporarily) have power and want you to think they are above the rest. Don’t believe them. They have the same doubts, fears, and hopes; they eat, drink, sleep, and fart like everyone else. Question authority always but be wise and careful about the way you do it.

4. Make a Life List of all those things you want to do: travel to places; learn a skill; master a language; meet someone special. Make it long and do some things from it every year. Don’t say “I’ll do it tomorrow” (or next month or next year). That is the surest way to fail to do something. There is no tomorrow, and there is no “right” time to begin something except now.

5. Practice the Irish proverb: Moi an olge agus tiocfaidh sí “Praise the child and she will flourish.”

6. Be kind and go out of your way to help people — especially the weak, the fearful, and children. Everyone is carrying a special sorrow, and they need our compassion.

7. Don’t join the military or any organization that trains you to kill. War is evil. All wars are started by old men who force or fool young men to hate and to kill each other. The old men survive, and, just as they started the war with pen and paper, they end it the same way. So many good and innocent people die. If wars are so good and noble, why aren’t those leaders who start wars right up there fighting?

8. Read books, as many as you can. They are a wonderful source of delight, wisdom, and inspiration. They need no batteries or connections, and they can go anywhere.

9. Be truthful.

10. Travel: always but especially when you are young. Don’t wait until you have “enough” money or until everything is “just right.” That never happens. Get your passport today.

11. Pick your job or profession because you love to do it. Sure, there will be some things hard about it, but a job must be a joy. Beware of taking a job for money alone — it will cripple your soul.

12. Don’t yell. It never works, and it hurts both yourself and others. Every time I have yelled, I have failed.

13. Always keep promises to children. Don’t say “we’ll see” when you mean “no.” Children expect the truth; give it to them with love and kindness.

14. Never tell anyone you love them when you don’t.

15. Live in harmony with Nature: go into the outdoors, woods, mountains, sea, desert. It’s important for your soul.

16. Visit Ireland. It’s where the soul of our family was born — especially the West: Roscommon, Clare, and Kerry.

17. Hug people you love. Tell them how much they mean to you now; don’t wait until it’s too late.

18. Be grateful. There is an Irish saying: “This is a day in our lives, and it will not come again.” Live every day with this in mind.

As was written in his obituary, James K. Flanagan “was proudly liberal and fought unyieldingly for the underdog. He was an accomplished author, poet, and seanchai — Irish storyteller; he reveled in recounting the joy of growing up Catholic in Jersey City and his adventures in the Adirondack Mountains and on the Western coast of Ireland. His greatest love was spending time with his family, most of all his five grandchildren” Ryan (11); Conor (10); Brendan (9); Charles (8); and Mary Catherine (5).”


Antonio Fontanini >>

Innovación en minimizar riesgos

Anoche cenamos con una pareja de empresari@s muy especiales y a los que queremos mucho, muchísimo.
L@s d@s han pasado por las mejores Universidades e Instituciones académicas  y de hecho ella es una altísima ejecutiva en una de las 10 mejores Business Schools del mundo.
En mitad de la cena mi amigo me dió una clase sobre como minimizar riesgos y asegurar el futuro de tu fábrica contra un enemigo inesperado pero presente y me dió permiso para contarlo a cambio de aclarar que esto no lo había aprendido en la London Business School, sino en la calle.
En Navidad toda la plantilla de su empresa juega al mismo número de la lotería: imaginad lo que pasaría si de repente les tocara el gordo.
A cada decimo ganador le tocan unos 300,000 euros, una suma considerable para un empleado “mileurista”: descontando lo que se lleva el Sr. Montoro, son unos 20 años de sueldo.
Lo normal pues, si te toca el gordo, es celebrarlo el día 22, el día 23, el día 24, …
Pero si le toca a TODA la plantilla, el absentismo laboral que se generaría seria del tamaño de la Catedral de Burgos.
Para minimizar este riesgo (bajo, pero existente) mi amigo y dueño de la fábrica compra el doble de billetes de la serie del mismo número que compran sus empleados: de este modo, si tocara el gordo, él  recibiría suficiente dinero como para no preocuparse si la fábrica cerrara unos días o para siempre.
Genial, ¿verdad?
Gracias por la clase, amigo (y por la cena)

Antonio Fontanini >>

5 caminos para ser el mejor

Comparto aquí un articulo de Eric Barker visto en Time, sobre los 5 caminos que nos llevan a ser el mejor en cualquier cosa.

1, 10,000 horas de practicas (son 3,7 años, 10 horas de lunes a viernes, con un mes de vecaciones);

2. Tener buenos genes;

3. Formar parte de un gran equipo;

4. Ser generoso;

5. Tener una mezcla de los puntos anteriores.

Seguro os inspirará como a mí.

The Five Paths To Being the Best at Anything

168351286 Getty Images

I’ve posted a lot about becoming the best in your field. Looking back, what are the most successful methods for getting there?

10,000 Hours

Let’s get the most famous one out of the way first: Hard work pays off.

Malcolm Gladwell popularized the theory in Outliers: approximately 10,000 hours of deliberate practice at something can turn you into an expert.

Via Ungifted: Intelligence Redefined:

…the most elite violinists accumulated about the same number of hours of deliberate practice (about 7,410 hours) by the age of 18 as professional middle-aged violinists belonging to international-level orchestras (about 7,336 hours)! By the age of 20, the most accomplished musicians estimated they spent over 10,000 hours in deliberate practice, which is 2,500 and 5,000 hours more than two less accomplished groups of expert musicians or 8,000 hours more than amateur pianists of the same age.

bakadesuyo.com

That said, 10,000 hours is an average. And deliberate practice is not just going through the motions.

You’ve spent more than 10,000 hours driving but that doesn’t make you ready for NASCAR or Formula One.

Deliberate practice means getting feedback and always pushing to improve. It’s not flow and it’s not fun.

But it is what molds champions.

(More on how you can become an expert here.)

Have Great Genetics

I won’t lie to you: being a member of the lucky sperm club certainly has its advantages.

Via The Sports Gene: Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic Performance:

Even in this age of hyperspecialization in sports, some rare individuals become world-class athletes, and even world champions, in sports from running to rowing with less than a year or two of training. As with Gobet’s chess players, in all sports and skills, the only real rule is that there is a tremendous natural range.

There are also genetic advantages in the area of music, math and writing.

Via The Complexity of Greatness: Beyond Talent or Practice:

Heritability coefficients were strongest in music (.92), math (.87), sports (.85), and writing (.83) of the explained variance.

This is usually cause for many to throw up their arms and surrender. (These people do not have much grit, mind you.)

But the existence of genetic advantages doesn’t mean you should give up. I’d ask you two questions:

  1. Have you tried a wide variety of things to see if you possess genetic advantages at any of them?
  2. Have you tried aligning your efforts with the areas where you show a level of natural talent?

As David Epstein explains, the model is no longer “good at sports” or “not good at sports” — it’s “which sport was your body designed for?”

Via The Sports Gene: Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic Performance:

But, as Norton and Olds saw, as winner-take-all markets emerged, the early-twentieth-century paradigm of the singular, perfect athletic body faded in favor of more rare and highly specialized bodies that fit like finches’ beaks into their athletic niches. When Norton and Olds plotted the heights and weights of modern world-class high jumpers and shot putters, they saw that the athletes had become stunningly dissimilar. The average elite shot putter is now 2.5 inches taller and 130 pounds heavier than the average international high jumper… Just as the galaxies are hurtling apart, so are the body types required for success in a given sport speeding away from one another toward their respective highly specialized and lonely corners of the athletic physique universe.

Tall and thin? Try basketball. Short and thick? Weightlifting. Mom and dad are successful engineers? Give math a whirl.

Taking advantage of genetic gifts is a matter of finding what your body and mind might have been designed to excel at and aligning your efforts appropriately.

(More on genetic advantages — and how I had my own DNA analyzed — here.)

Be Part Of A Great Team

Working 10K hours and having naturally steady hands can be a great advantage to a doctor but surgeons only get better at their home hospital.

Why? That’s where they know the team best and develop strong working relationships.

Via Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success:

Overall, the surgeons didn’t get better with practice. They only got better at the specific hospital where they practiced. For every procedure they handled at a given hospital, the risk of patient mortality dropped by 1 percent. But the risk of mortality stayed the same at other hospitals. The surgeons couldn’t take their performance with them. They weren’t getting better at performing coronary artery bypass grafts. They were becoming more familiar with particular nurses and anesthesiologists, learning about their strengths and weaknesses, habits and styles.

Star analysts on Wall Street? Same thing.

Via Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success:

Even though they were supposed to be individual stars, their performance wasn’t portable. When star analysts moved to a different firm, their performance dropped, and it stayed lower for at least five years.

What about for artists? Yeah, baby.

Via Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success:

Frank Lloyd Wright’s drought lasted until he gave up on independence and began to work interdependently again with talented collaborators. It wasn’t his own idea: his wife Olgivanna convinced him to start a fellowship for apprentices to help him with his work. When apprentices joined him in 1932, his productivity soared, and he was soon working on the Fallingwater house, which would be seen by many as the greatest work of architecture in modern history.

(More on how your friends can make you a better person here.)

Be A Giver

Researchers who hog the credit on scientific papers are less likely to win a Nobel prize.

Those who give younger academics a bit of the spotlight are more likely to have a trip to Stockholm in their future.

Via The Half-life of Facts: Why Everything We Know Has an Expiration Date

One striking finding was the beneficence of Nobel laureates, or as Zuckerman termed it, noblesse oblige. In general, when a scientific paper is published, the author who did the most is listed first.There are exceptions to this, and this can vary from field to field, but Zuckerman took it as a useful rule of thumb. What she found was that Nobel laureates are first authors of numerous publications early in their careers, but quickly begin to give their junior colleagues first authorship. And this happens far before they receive the Nobel Prize… By their forties, Nobel laureates are first authors on only 26 percent of their papers, as compared to their less accomplished contemporaries, who are first authors 56 percent of the time. Nicer people are indeed more creative, more successful, and even more likely to win Nobel prizes.

We think of givers as getting exploited or walked on. And that definitely happens.

Wharton Professor Adam Grant explained in our interview:

What I find across various industries, and various studies is theGivers are most likely to end up at the bottom. That’s primarily because they end up putting other people first in ways that either burn them out, or will allow them to get taken advantage of and exploited by Takers.

But that’s not the end of the story. If givers resist being martyrs, or have a circle of “matchers” who protect them, they end up on top:

Then I looked at the other end of the spectrum and said if Givers are at the bottom,who’s at the top? Actually, I was really surprised to discover, it’s the Givers again. The people who consistently are looking for ways to help others are over-represented not only at the bottom, but also at the top of most success metrics.

(More on balancing nice with tough here.)

Combine Them

Only got 5000 hours and “pretty good” genetics? Combining these methods can provide powerful results.

You don’t need to work endlessly or be born brilliant. There’s a very simple formula we can all use to get a benefit from this information:

  1. Always work hard to improve.
  2. When choosing tasks and strategies, consider your natural gifts.
  3. Pick a great team and get familiar with them.
  4. Within reason, always help others.

All other things being equal, I can’t imagine how this combination would not lead to an impressive level of success. Can you?