Creativity Gone Sour: Motrin, Mothers, and Twitter

Over the weekend I was monitoring Twitter friends and was surprised to discover a bit of a dust up with regard to the Motrin brand. Motrin, it appears, had put up an ad suggesting that mothers who wear those slings to carry their babies are slaves to fashion, and that it hurts their backs. Depending on how you interpret the ad it can also be perceived as calling mothers “tired and crazy”. It also subtly suggests that the sling is not really as much of a bonding experience as it’s purported to be. One would guess the original intention of the ad would be to suggest that Motrin is the answer to all the neck, back, and shoulder pain a mom would would get from using a sling. It was also intended to be a “viral video”. It was! And it was Not Good! A virtual firestorm of negative reaction went aflame on the web.

Motrin, to put it mildly, has really stepped in it (McNeil Consumer Healthcare owns the Motrin brand, McNeil is a division of Johnson & Johnson). Rumor has it that Amy Gates (aka “@crunchygoddess on Twitter) learned about it on Facebook, who told Jessica Gottleib (aka JessicaGottlieb) who took it to Twitter and tweeted — to a huge community of mothers, bloggers, and knucklehead social observers like myself. Then Katja Presnal (aka @KatjaPresnal) created a response video for YouTube. 20 hours later the Motrin brand website is offline…

From a creativity and innovation perspective there are two points about this event I’d like to make.

1. Creativity isn’t useful or innovative unless it solves a problem. Creativity in a vacuum by some ad executive — who think they know the market — can be worse than useless, it can be damaging. We’ve all seen some visually interesting ads and at the end of it said, that was cool — what brand was it? The Motrin ad goes a step further, it’s creative thinking that actually harms a brand. One of the rules of structured creative problem solving is that you really understand the problem. Clearly, those who developed this ad don’t understand the role of slings, and the emotional connection mothers have to them. Now, it may be that slings do indeed cause some pain. Good research might have uncovered this insight. However, that insight alone, even if true, is not quite enough. In good creative problem solving you would not only understand the basic problem, you’d make sure that whatever you create as a solution works for the problem owner, the target in marketing terms. Mom’s clearly were offended by the ad’s tone, assumptions, and suggestions. Motrin aimed for empathy and simply missed the target. With web technologies, like Twitter and other tools, lack of funding is no excuse for not market testing. It’s incredibly easy to show a spot to a panel via the web. Why they didn’t do this is a mystery (or if they did how they missed the negative response). Traditional focus groups would have worked for this testing — if properly designed. I don’t agree with Peter Shankman, a social media guru, on this (his post on this event is otherwise brilliant IMHO). A series of focus groups might have “iterated” the spot and found language that was truly empathetic (or not, the concept may have been unsalvagable). What Peter and I can agree on is web tools like Twitter would have quickly given creators much needed consumer feedback on their ad concept. There is something to be said for the wisdom of crowds in the social media universe.

2. Social Media are Power Tools for creative and innovative self expression. Social Media is coming of age in a fast and furious way. They are powerful and can work for you, or against you. Yes, this might seem obvious, but I believe there is a vast universe of people who are missing the social media boat. I’m personally a Greggey-come-lately to social media. I’ve been on Facebook, Plaxo, and Linked-In for sometime but for the most part have found them to be a waste of time. Don the Idea Guy got me involved with Twitter and I thought, at first, it was completely silly — who would care to know “what I’m doing right now”? Why “micro blog” when you can macro blog or email? I didn’t get it, but am beginning to see the light. The lightning speed at which an organized response to the Motrin ad was put together was amazing, and it can be directly attributed to Twitter. An alert was messaged “tweeted” out and before one could blink there was a video on YouTube with all the outraged responses (nicely done and oh-so-timely by Katja Presnal). Last night it was still possible to see the original ad on the Motrin site, today I can only find it on YouTube. In fact the Motrin brand web page itself has been taken down, I suspect, for re-tooling in light of this marketing fiasco. From ad release to brand web site shutdown — less than 20 hours. Lesson here: be careful with power tools!

It will be interesting to see how Motrin responds to this. How they respond will be make or break for the brand. For more on this story see Fast Company’s take.

For more very short snippets of creativity and innovation news and views, follow me on Twitter: www.twitter.com/greggfraley

Revisiting the Creativity & Innovation of The Beatles

I just returned from spending a couple days in Liverpool, the city of The Beatles. I stayed at the new Hard Days Night Hotel, sleeping below a huge air-brushed portrait of George Harrison. I’ll write more about the hotel, it was, to use a 60’s phrase, a trip. In the meantime, I have a lot of things to say about The Beatles, and their relationship to creativity and innovation. I spent an afternoon at The Beatles Story museum at Albert Dock, which had a great audio tour and memorabilia.

The anecdote that struck me was one told by their producer, George Martin. He recounted hearing the first tape of The Beatles and thinking it was awful. Brian Epstein, their manager, was insistent and George finally said, well, come down to London and let me evaluate them in person. He booked an hour of studio time but had low expectations. They arrived, were pleasant, polite, funny, and played with a lot of verve and energy. After they left Martin remarked to himself how charming and nice the boys had been, how much fun they had playing, and their “wit”. He noticed that after they were gone that he felt “diminished” by their absence. He noted to himself that if he felt this way, what might young people feel? That was the feeling he went with when he signed The Beatles. He remarked that he didn’t know at the time that The Beatles had been turned down by every record label in London, and if he had known, he wouldn’t have signed them.

There are several things about this anecdote that strike me for those seeking to innovate.

1.) Notice how you feel. Martin was self-aware enough to notice that he felt “diminished” by their absence. That was his clue to understanding how they affected their audiences. It takes real thoughtfulness to notice a subtle feeling like “diminished” doesn’t it? How many of us slow down often enough to notice what we are feeling about people and things? He was also impressed by their wit — their sense of fun was part of the reason he thought they had promise. Intuition

2.) New and different almost always seems wrong at first. The Beatles had a new take on pop and at first nobody, that is the experts, got it (one famous comment about The Beatles “guitar groups are on the way out”). They were ruled out by nearly all the experts. Martin was open enough to simply give them a chance and consider what was good about them. Positive evaluation allows for more possibility. Most disruptive innovations lack sophistication in some dimensions; they haven’t been all polished up and featured out. The raw chords of American R&B hadn’t been filtered and refined, it didn’t sound like “good” music to those used to something else.

3.) Persistence matters. Brian Epstein kept making his presentation, he believed in what he had and stayed after it. Most of us would have quit after the first two or three rejections.

4. Consumers know best. The fan base in Liverpool at the Cavern Club and the Casbah knew The Beatles were great two years before the experts did. They were ready for something new, ready for something fun, ready for something to lift their Liverpudlian blues. It’s old news really but it’s a lesson we often forget, consumers know best. If you want to innovate, see what people are doing, particularly those with noting to lose. Notice what those people enjoy, and you’ll find the best clues to market acceptance of virtually any product.

The Innovator’s Guide to Growth…a new bible for Innovation Managers

This post is part of the Post2Post Virtual Book Tour, my Innovise Guy pardner Doug Stevenson is also reviewing the book on The Innovise Guys Blog (the post-tour tour). He’s posting Wednesday, October 1.

I do a bit of reading. I try to have one business book and one fictional book going at all times. This last month my pair has been The Innovator’s Guide to Growth and Salmon Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children. It has proved to be a month of intense learning about innovation – and India! The Innovator’s Guide to Growth, which I am reviewing here, I predict, will become as important a book in the business world as Rushdie’s Booker Prize winning novel is in fiction. Quite simply, IG2G is the new bible for innovation managers and leaders.

Business leaders: do not pass go, do not collect 200 stock options, go immediately to Amazon and buy this book. I haven’t read such an eye opener since picking up Geoffrey Moore’s Crossing the Chasm in the early 90’s.

Business books are often a slog to read. Even those with good content can be sleeping pill substitutes. IG2G is quite dense with information about how to “do” innovation – particularly disruptive innovation. However, it’s no sleeping aid, you are compelled to keep reading because it’s just so damn insightful, fresh, and filled with important advice on all aspects of the innovation puzzle.

I’ve been saying for some time that innovation is a holistic organizational activity; it’s not one thing it’s many intertwined factors. There is no silver bullet! Many business books address some aspect of it, call them silver-bullet-centric; virtually none are holistic in nature. IG2G is the exception, it’s womb-to-tomb about innovation management and process. It sorts out the complexity and removes the mystery for innovation leaders. It’s truly a guide – they didn’t use that word in the title just for the alliteration! Leaders take note: what they say in IG2G – the first chapter – “there is no silver bullet for companies interested in enhancing their organization’s ability to innovate.” IG2G is what managers really need, a full-process tool kit.

Speaking of titles, the subtitle of IG2G is “…putting disruptive innovation to work”. This is key because one of the great things about this book is how it clears up the concept of disruptive innovation. It presents a valuable and persuasive case as to why disruptive innovation is so essential for growth. Growth is the point of innovation after all isn’t it? In watching many organizations continue to extend product lines incrementally it’s clear that they are avoiding the risk of bigger, new-market type innovation. Innovation leaders often fall prey to what I call the Pete Rose trap, that is, settling for singles instead of swinging for the fences (note to international readers: forgive the baseball analogy, it means “not taking enough risk”). Falling for the Pete Rose trap means that organizations fail in the long run. IG2G gives leaders the tools they need to justify, plan, create, and execute a balanced innovation strategy that includes the all-important disruptive element. This book could save your company.

I love that the book is peppered with real world examples. For instance, it tells the story of Best Buy’s development of the Geek Squad service. It’s a great example of disruptive growth through acquisition and development. J&J, P&G, Dow Corning, and Intel are just a few of the many success stories cited to flesh out the books guidance. The team of author’s are Scott Anthony, Mark Johnson, Joseph Sinfield, and Elizabeth Altman. The men on the author team are all part of Innosight a premiere innovation consultancy that uses the concepts articulated in IG2G. Innosight owes a lot of its brilliance to Harvard professor Clayton Christensen, one of the founders, who has done much of the deep research that backs up this book. Indeed, he wrote the foreword to IG2G. Altman is a Motorola strategy executive and adds real world experience in innovation to this guidebook.

This is clearly a book written by experts who know all aspects of innovation. I was paying particularly close attention to what the author’s said about “how” to do the creation part of innovation. Ideation is something I specialize in so I was hoping to catch them out on something! Instead, I read advice on ideation that I’ve been preaching (to mostly deaf ears) for years. I keep saying that ideation takes time, that it can’t all be done in one big brainstorming session. It made me feel good to read that they suggest that a team take “several weeks developing and exploring opportunities.” Amen brothers! They further suggest that if you do an ideation session you should combine fresh groups of people. Good suggestion. I would go one better and suggest you bring in folks from outside the organization and I’ll bet they would agree.

They are also quite insightful when it comes to on-going innovation idea programs. They believe that reinforcement is critical. This is so right, I’ve seen this time and again, where organizations ask for ideas, get thousands, then ignore them.

The only downside to IG2G is simply that it is, like Midnight’s Children, not a glazed doughnut to consume. It’s as dense as a bourbon laced holiday fruit cake – plan on reading it slowly, studying it really, for the next quarter. Perhaps with a nice port…

USA Financial Crisis: The Danger of Unbridled Innovation

A simple point I want to make today, in light of all that went down last week: Innovation can be dangerous. We saw it when Enron collapsed – creativity without regard for legality. This time it’s much worse.

Back when the financial markets were deregulated a lot of folks, on both sides of the aisle, thought that it was a good thing. They thought it was innovation, and, it was. For years, it appeared to be a genius move, as new financial products were created, more competition was introduced, and folks got mortgages they wouldn’t have in earlier days. The people who architected and pushed for deregulation had a real vision of the upside, and indeed it came to pass.

The bad news is not enough lawmakers looked at the downside to deregulation. And, folks, it was there to be seen, many people saw it, it was ignored. The deregulation laws that got passed were simply not properly evaluated. And further blame should be put on those who, with more data, didn’t re-evaluate and make adjustments.

It’s textbook: When you implement a new innovation, before it goes online, you need to judge/critique the idea based on criteria. One criteria that wasn’t looked at properly was risk. More precisely, nobody knew the risk, or how to calculate the risk.

If this were a Vegas sportsbook, they wouldn’t make odds, they wouldn’t take the bet.

The unintended (but I would say predictable) consequences hit the fan when factors beyond our control de-stabilized the system, and now the taxpayers of the USA are bailing out the banking industry. What happened to capitalism? I always thought like, if you failed, you were SOL (“Situation Out of Luck”). I guess that’s only true for guys like me! I’m an entrepreneur and I’ve been part of several ventures that have fallen flat on their face, and no rich Uncle named Sam bailed me out. It was months and years of eating an apple for breakfast, bologna for dinner, and bartending or taxi driving all night to pay the rent.

If you got one of those easy mortgages and don’t have the income to manage them, I feel for you, but personally, I don’t want to pay it for you. And I don’t want to bail out the banks who loaned it to you either. Looks like I’m going to do both! I’m SOL! We’re SOL! We’re SOL because our leaders didn’t generate criteria and take a hard look at the downside to regulation.

So, enough with the rant, and back to the main point: Innovations of any kind need to be critically evaluated before being put into action. Everyone considering a new innovation of any kind, hey, here’s my suggestion: Do an Evaluation Matrix. Develop some precise and measurable criteria and evaluate your idea. If you don’t know what an evaluation matrix is, well, buy Jack’s Notebook and find out!

USA Financial Crisis: The Danger of Unbridled Innovation

A simple point I want to make today, in light of all that went down last week: Innovation can be dangerous. We saw it when Enron collapsed – creativity without regard for legality. This time it’s much worse.

Back when the financial markets were deregulated a lot of folks, on both sides of the aisle, thought that it was a good thing. They thought it was innovation, and, it was. For years, it appeared to be a genius move, as new financial products were created, more competition was introduced, and folks got mortgages they wouldn’t have in earlier days. The people who architected and pushed for deregulation had a real vision of the upside, and indeed it came to pass.

The bad news is not enough lawmakers looked at the downside to regulation. And, folks, it was there to be seen, many people saw it, it was ignored. The deregulation laws that got passed were simply not properly evaluated. And further blame should be put on those who, with more data, didn’t re-evaluate and make adjustments.

It’s textbook: When you implement a new innovation, before it goes online, you need to judge/critique the idea based on criteria. One criteria that wasn’t looked at properly was risk. More precisely, nobody knew the risk, or how to calculate the risk.

If this were a Vegas sportsbook, they wouldn’t make odds, they wouldn’t take the bet.

The unintended (but I would say predictable) consequences hit the fan when factors beyond our control de-stabilized the system, and now the taxpayers of the USA are bailing out the banking industry. What happened to capitalism? I always thought like, if you failed, you were SOL (“Situation Out of Luck”). I guess that’s only true for guys like me! I’m an entrepreneur and I’ve been part of several ventures that have fallen flat on their face, and no rich Uncle named Sam bailed me out. It was months and years of eating an apple for breakfast, bologna for dinner, and bartending or taxi driving all night to pay the rent.

If you got one of those easy mortgages and don’t have the income to manage them, I feel for you, but personally, I don’t want to pay it for you. And I don’t want to bail out the banks who loaned it to you either. Looks like I’m going to do both! I’m SOL! We’re SOL! We’re SOL because our leaders didn’t generate criteria and take a hard look at the downside to regulation.

So, enough with the rant, and back to the main point: Innovations of any kind need to be critically evaluated before being put into action. Everyone considering a new innovation of any kind, hey, here’s my suggestion: Do an Evaluation Matrix. Develop some precise and measurable criteria and evaluate your idea. If you don’t know what an evaluation matrix is, well, buy Jack’s Notebook and find out!

My Starbucks Idea, A “C” At Best

I keep an eye on Starbucks — as readers of this blog are well aware. I do this not as an investor, but as a student of all things innovative, and as a bona fide coffee lover. Starbucks is a fascinating study because it’s a combination of good practices and not so good practices when it comes to innovation. Their recently slide into hard times and 600 shop closings indicates trouble in paradise; sadly, I see them as an on-going case study in innovative failure at this point. I don’t think they are listening to their consumers, the key to incremental innovation. Nor do I see them making any radical departures, or starting any new ventures, the key to disruptive innovation and growth. Howard Schultz is like a quarterback who’s suddenly been traded to another team. The plays he’s calling are sincere attempts to score, but they don’t fit the team. He may have some plays up his sleeve we don’t know about. If he doesn’t, I don’t see their stock price, or their growth rate improving any time soon.

As I mentioned in my June post on Starbucks (Starbucks is Dead), they put together a website for consumer suggestions called “My Starbucks Idea” (otherwise known as MSI). I saw the site as a hopeful sign that they were listening to consumers and making an effort to re-create the vaunted experience that made them great in the first place.

I’ve been watching the site for about three months now and I’d like to report what a great success it is, unfortunately, I can’t. It seems to be a sincere effort but it’s flawed and therefore it slides into mediocrity.

What’s good about it is a lot of consumers have jumped in and suggested thousands of ideas. Like any unfocused brainstorming session, the ideas range from the sublime to the silly. There is also lively discussion about various hot issues (like Wifi fees, food, and of course the various coffee drinks). This discussion is rich with consumer data, it’s a real asset for Starbucks — if they use it! The problems with the MSI site, in my opinion, are the following:

1. Very, very few of the ideas are actually being taken into action. The site has an Ideas Into Action blog. What I see reading the entries is a great deal of Starbucks spin – usually reasons why they can’t do an idea (and therefore can’t innovate). You read lots of PR-ish statements about new drinks or food items from Starbucks employees — which is not bad information — but it’s not about Ideas In Action. This blog should be about ideas that have been done, or, how to get an idea done, and could be more productively used in that fashion. What’s the use of a consumer site if you don’t move forward with the best ideas? I realize the percentage of ideas implemented will be very low, but there ought to be some winners, and consumers should know what they are.

2. Starbucks Is Not Really Listening. Some key issues, particularly Wifi and Bold Coffee All Day Long (Not Pikes Peak!) get consistent consumer feedback saying basically the same thing: Wifi should be free and there should be a Bold Coffee option all day long. This is Very Clear consumer feedback and I find it amazing that Starbucks would ignore it. In my many visits to various Starbucks sites, it’s clear they are ignoring it. Surely their qualitative research bears out both of these desires, I would be shocked if it didn’t. And yet, these unpopular decisions (charging for Wifi access, and, a weaker non-bold afternoon brew option) remain in place. This is, IMHO, a classic mistake. They are leaving the door open for competitors to provide what they don’t.

3. Poor Convergence Tools. The site makes it easy to enter a new idea, that’s good. The problem is there is no place to easily compare ideas with each other, no rank ordering, no easy way to sort through all the ideas. What it suggests is that Starbucks wants to leave the consumer out of the convergence process. I get that Starbucks needs to make final decisions, of course, but they are leaving a lot of consumer wisdom on the table by not providing better viewing, voting, sorting, and ranking tools.

I’m still hopeful that MSI can evolve into a more meaningful site for consumer-based ideation, but now, I’d have to give it a “C” grade and just barely that. The moderators and site managers are doing the best they can but I get the sense they are not really empowered to take the site to the next level. My suggestions:

1. Focus the ideation on more specific problems. These would be problems that Starbucks really wants solved, and are motivated enough to make real changes. Take control! So, get the ideas for the problems You Want To Solve, pick one, and put it into action. Then tell us about it.

2. Put the discussion of ideas into a separate area. Separate ideation from discussion. Then list ideas in categories so you can see them at a glance. It’s impossible to scan quickly through ideas on the MSI site.

3. Hire the best ideators and pay them. Use the site to find prolific ideators.

4. Improve the convergence tools, and use consumers for convergent activities.

5. Empower the MSI team to do more.

Why Is God Laughing? A Review.

I was recently gifted a copy of Deepak Chopra’s book, “Why Is God Laughing? The Path to Joy And Spiritual Optimism.” I don’t often read books related to spirituality, probably an over-reaction to being inundated with religious instruction as a youth. Frankly, I’m one of those people who believe the more you talk about spirituality the less likely you are actually spiritually connected. I must confess that in the past I had less than an open mind about all things new age, but that’s changed. Chopra’s book helped me make more connections between my expertise area of creativity, and something I am still mystified about, spirituality.

The fact that Mike Myers (yes, of SNL and Wayne’s World fame) wrote the foreward helped me get over myself and start reading.

In recent years I have become more and more convinced that the deepest root in the innovation tree is, in fact, spirtuality. I’ve tried time and again to find a way to say this in a way that people, particularly business people, understand. I see spirituality as the most important part of a person’s creative environment, the source from which all innovation flows. I cite the spirituality of Einstein and Elvis as examples of how that foundation can lead to creative greatness. Still, for most people, it’s a tenuous link.

Why Is God Laughing fills in a lot of cracks in the linkage between the soul and personal creativity. It’s written as a story. The main character is Mickey, a successful stand-up comic who has just lost his semi-estranged father. His father’s character, Larry, reaches back from the dead (I won’t say how here) and finds a way to show Mickey a path to spiritual optimism. In the process Mickey learns more about the nature of fear, the roles we play in life that aren’t who we really are, and how the ego gets in the way of leading a more joyful life. It’s a quick read — only a day or two for most people I suspect, and, it moves quickly and without a lot of new-age double-speak. It’s a light weight story, and it is nonetheless a powerful book.

For me, a key insight is how much fear gets in the way of how we live. I’ve always said that removal of fear, or at least recognition of it, is the first step in creative problem solving. If you are paralyzed with fear there will be no creativity, there will be no innovation. Chopra does a great job of showing how fear is a dead end and provides a way of looking at it that helps remove it from our thinking. Likewise, he does a fine job of showing how ego interferes with authenticity. The learning for me is that recognizing how your ego rules you is the first step in letting that go and the positive result is greater, and more authentic, self-expression.

I would encourage anyone who wants a fresh perspective on the connection of spirituality to creativity, innovation, and joyful living to read this subtly enlightening book.

Ideation First Aid, 7 Ideas to Unblock Yourself

Professional creative people often find themselves needing a brilliant idea -- and simply not having one. We’ve all been there, a deadline is looming, you’ve tried this and that, and you know in your heart it’s not there, you don’t have something you can use. Anxiety, frustration, and fear creep into your being, and the harder you try, the worse things get.

Don’t push the panic button, reach for the ideation First Aid Kit and triage your challenge. Here are seven tools for coming up with an idea under pressure:

1. Think positive. Even if you’ve been stumped for days, even weeks, start telling yourself that you are going to have a great idea, and start believing it. Take a moment and imagine things working out perfectly and explore in your head, in your mind’s eye, what success might look like, how it might feel. Get into as much sensory detail as you can, how does it taste, smell, feel? Don’t know? Make it up! Your brain tends to follow the instructions you give it, even the non-intentional ones. So if you say to yourself “I am having a great idea about the Wesley account,” your brain will give it to you. If you say, “I’m stumped” your brain will stay that way. Brainwash yourself! Allow for all possibilities to emerge.

2. The next thing to do is relax. Do something physical. Shake the anxiety out of your body and shoulders, pretend you’re Elvis for a few minutes. Stretch, do some yoga, go for a short walk, take some deep breaths. If you have time, do something that gets you out of breath or makes you work hard physically. This will help get you “out of your head” and return you to a mental space that is more grounded. The key here is to still your mind.

3. Try looking at your challenge from a new angle. Pretend you are someone else – even a historical person like Frank Lloyd Wright, or Lincoln, or a fictional character like Miss Jane Marple. How would they look at this challenge, how might they address it? To break through to something fresh you have to think differently, so, why not use another persona to start getting imaginative. How would a child see it? Do anything you can to have “fresh eyes” – you’ll then have fresh thoughts. So, leave the past, your habits and assumptions behind and work at being in the present.

4. Seek out the overlooked facts in the situation. Something obvious that you are taking for granted might be re-examined and used as the basis for a fresh idea to solve your problem, to meet your challenge. Make a list of facts and feelings and include the obvious, the obscure, the irrelevant – you’ll get some ideas in the process.

5. Get out of the pattern of having an idea and then immediately critiquing it. You’ll never get into an imaginative flow that way. Instead, make a list of possible solutions and just keep writing up, or doodling/sketching new options, even listing the silly, stupid, obvious, and downright “bad” ideas. If you keep listing options/ideas, a new and fresh idea will eventually pop up, but you have to believe you can, you have to drop all negative thoughts, and just keep listing! Allow yourself to be truly spontaneous.

6. Make a forced connection. To get a fresh idea you can sometimes surprise or jog your mind into giving it up by using a forced connection or association. Look around your workspace or outside the window and pick an object at random. Then ask yourself what, say, an Oak Tree, has to do with your challenge. To help yourself make a connection, list words about the Oak Tree, like, strong, old, flexible, productive, kind, enduring, etc. Then use those “attribute” words as stimulus for ideas about your challenge. Be playful in exploring possible connections and let your mind go, suspend disbelief. Something unexpected and highly useful often arises from forced connections.

7. Final ideation first aid tip: Slow Down. You can’t be very creative when full of anxiety. Be thoughtful, deliberate, focused, and playful with your ideation -- without rushing. Rushing and hurry will put your mind right back into panic or urge mode and nobody works very well in that state of mind. As Napoleon once said to his valet: “Dress me slowly, I’m in a hurry.” When you rush you make mistakes that ultimately waste even more time. Grace under pressure is a hallmark of great leaders – and of great creative people.

Best of luck!

Starbucks - No Longer Innovative

In early June I posted under the title, Starbucks Is Dead. In that post I explored how, for me as a consumer, the experience had changed, and I was walking away from my favorite coffee. I expressed some hope that they would return to innovative greatness under the newly resumed leadership of Howard Schultz, the original founder. Well, things have taken a decided turn for the worse; Starbucks posted its first ever loss last week, and announced the closing of over 600 American stores, and nearly all its Australian ones. Don’t Aussies like coffee?

The closings might be a smart move in the long run. Schultz undoubtedly has gotten that advice from the bean counters (no pun intended). Starbucks has grown awful fast, and the stand-up joke about their locations holds some truth, that’s why it’s funny (”did you hear where the new Starbucks is gonna be…in Starbucks”). Former CEO Jim Donald was a bit growth crazy and has been quoted as saying his big mistake was not growing fast enough in the international market — because it would have balanced the USA slowdown. Perhaps, but for me that kind of thinking is exactly what slow-roasted their quality, their biggest asset.

What bothers me, and what I think bodes ill for them moving forward, is that Schultz says “the experience hasn’t changed.” He blames things on the recession which is having people pinch pennies and not buy expensive coffee. I’m sure his market research department is telling him this is true, and, I would say the research is missing something, is asking the wrong questions of consumers. Small indulgences are what people can afford when times are tough, so, blaming the recession doesn’t ring true to me. I suppose Schultz has to say that for the benefit of the street — admitting they’ve lost their way in providing a great coffee experience would send their stock even lower. Still, how about some transparency, how about returning to the style of game that got them to the level of success they enjoyed for so long. That style was all about really great coffee. Believe it or not, you can go into a Starbucks in the afternoon and not be able to get a fresh brewed cup of bold flavored coffee. It is sometimes a special order, which they will do, but hey guys, the reason people go to Starbucks is for Strong Coffee. If I wanted the middle of the road stuff I could go anywhere.

I also question all the closings. Why not get creative about making those shops more profitable? It would be innovative for them to create a new model for site profitability instead of slam dunking the marginal locations in the poop can. All those shuttered stores are a real black eye for their image as a corporate good guy. Even granting the impact of the recession on stores, I don’t believe they’ve done enough to create new profit centers. If they had been more creative in new product development, if they had worked harder at keeping the experience fresh, fun, and enjoyable, they wouldn’t be in the spot they are now.

Starbucks is not going to slash its way back to the top; the way they win is to re-invent the experience, re-create something surprising and cool. The market isn’t going to reward them with a better stock price until they do. Time to wake up and smell the coffee Starbucks — and make it a bold brew — time to start innovating fearlessly.

Starbucks is Dead

Okay, maybe a bit of an overstatement.  I say it because my "experience" of Starbucks has gone from a "highlight of my day" to one of avoidance.  Why do I see Starbucks as dead? Because when I go its dirty, crowded, and often staffed by dizzyheads who don't leave enough room for milk.  And, this hurts the most to say, the coffee itself has slipped.  I still find good cups at Starbucks, but not always.

Visionary founder Howard Schultz is back at the helm because results have suffered.  Awareness is the start of a return to greatness.  Apple came back from the doldrums, maybe Starbucks can as well.  

I'll never forget my first Starbucks.  They opened their first Chicago location on Wacker drive and I stumbled into it while waiting to make a sales call at Morton Salt.  I dosed my Americano and took my first sip and was instantly addicted -- this was clearly the best cup of coffee I'd ever had.  I've had thousands since then, I was a true believer.  

Until things started going pear-shaped.

Innovation for a company like Starbucks is incredibly challenging. It's like trying to make love in a straight jacket.  How to keep things fresh and new, how to keep old customers happy while bringing in new ones, etc.  How not to have locations stepping on each others customers.  The key is continuously looking at, and implementing, fresh ideas while maintaining focus on the core business. 

When I heard the suits had changed things from fresh ground to pre-packaged I knew they'd lost it.  Suits are great for keeping the books, not so great when it comes to creating a real cool experience for customers.  

In researching this blog entry I stumbled on My Starbucks Idea -- a site for consumers to post ideas for Starbucks consideration.  In just a few days participating I've noticed real ideation, real dialogue on the site.  It's a good signal.  The heart stopped but it's beating again.  If they want to continue the recovery they'll not only listen, they'll take action on the ideas that have been posted.  

Lots of action!  

Good luck Howard!

New Habits Means More Creativity and Innovation

It's great when you find out something you've been preaching for years is, like, actually true.  What I'm blogging about is the idea that new habits, new stimulus, is a great way to enhance your creative capacity.  Usually I talk about it in connection with the concept of Tolerance for Ambiguity. I advise people to not only tolerate ambiguity but to invite it into their life by always trying new things that "stretch" how you view the world and how you think.  I say that this opens doors for ideas to enter your consciousness.  I have evidence that what I say is true of course, and, it...

turns out I'm not the only one saying this.

A great article was just published in the New York Times that gets into the brain physiology that backs up what I advise.  Janet Rae-Dupree has the byline and she interviews authors Dawna Markova and business colleague and fellow author M.J. Ryan.  Markova wrote "The Open Mind" and Ryan wrote "This Year I Will..." -- both of which are going on my Amazon order list today (so much to read, so little time...).  Markova/Ryan make some incisive remarks about USA education, standardized testing, and new habits.  

Turns out new habits help you lose weight -- something I didn't know, but I'm betting my new habit of drinking porter style beer doesn't count.  Still, I can try.

The article closes with a wonderful quote by Markova "You cannot have innovation unless you are willing and able to move through the unknown and go from curiosity to wonder."  Well said Ms. Markova, let me add, AND "take your wonderment, generate some ideas, and get into action."

The Time Has Come for a National Innovation Foundation

As another recession is getting started and the USA watches more manufacturing go overseas one wonders when we'll do something to get off our bums and be more competitive and retain jobs.  

Well, somebody is at least thinking about it.  A think tank issued a press release today recommending that a National Innovation Foundation should be created, and funded, in order to help the USA compete and drive growth.  See the release here:

www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_9023834

I'm glad that the ITIF (see www.itif.org) came out with this suggestion, although it strikes me as a bit obvious.  One wonders why this wasn't done 15 years ago.  The Bush administration, in it's infinite wisdom on support of small business, is trying to eliminate the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, a government entity trying to assist companies in modernizing their operations.  Congress has kicked around a couple of ideas, such as the America Competes Act, but without funding where could that go and what could it achieve?

Susan Collins, Republican senator from Maine, is working now to create an innovation foundation.  

I would hope that whoever is elected would support this important initiative.

Are you listening Barack, John, and Hillary? 

International Creativity and Innovation Summit -- ACA Singapore

Roving reporter hat on, I sit in a brilliant white bathrobe in the King Copthorne hotel in Singapore, up early, filing this missive about the ACA International Conference 2008, themed Creativity Across Cultures, "Sowing the Creative Seed".

Imagine those newsroom sounds...do do do do....

ACA is the American Creativity Association and you might wonder why an American group is having their annual meeting here in this red dot of an island nation at the tip of the Malaysia peninsula. Until this event, Austin, Texas was their meeting place of choice. The simple answer is they made a gutsy decision to be truly international, and they are aided and abetted in that effort by Singapore Management University (SMU). After 19 years in the USA I believe this signals that the ACA has taken their game to a new level in furthering their mission of promoting personal and professional creativity, innovation, and problem solving. Kudos to the ACA, they walk the talk of applied creativity and innovation, and they are now walking and talking internationally. No other creativity organization is credibly doing the same, I credit the ACA with showing leadership.

Kudo's to the illustrious thinker Kirpal Singh of SMU who had the idea to bring the conference to his homeland over three years ago. It's a testament to ACA that they were creative enough to let that idea live long enough to see the light of day, apparently they really practice the principle of deferred judgement! In one fell swoop Kirpal has helped establish himself and SMU as creativity and innovation thought leaders in this island nation, and perhaps in the entire region.

There is an impressive array of speakers here. Tony Buzan presented twice yesterday and delighted his audience with a sparkling wit and with fresh research on the interplay of memory and creative thinking. Zainul Abidin Rasheed, a Senior Minister with the Singapore Foreign Affairs office made some intelligent and germane remarks about the role of creativity in furthering the economic interests of a nation that has been a tremendous adaptor of new technologies, but not a great inventor of new ones.

I'm speaking Tuesday afternoon on the Fun-damentals of Daily Creative Behavior, sharing my time slot with Kirpal. I'm honored -- should be interesting.

Attendees come from all around the globe, I personally met people from these countries: Russia (Siberia), Iran, New Zealand, Australia, Nigeria, Israel, the USA, Canada, UK, India, Singapore, and a sizable contingent of folks from China. I'm sure I've missed a few but it is delightful to see people of all colors learning more about creativity and innovation together. The CSTC (Creative Leadership Form) held a short meeting here at the ACA and members got some face time with CSTC organizer Ralph Kerle of Australia. For more on the CSTC see:http://www.thecreativeleadershipforum.com/

The mood here is buoyant and it's floating a lot of optimism and, well, creativity! Buzan had the whole group of over 200 memorize in a matter of moments the names and order of the planets going away from the sun by the use of a highly visual story. He talked about the universal language of all humans which is images, imagination, and association.

Tony LeSorti, an American innovation consultant, gave a terrific summary of current innovation best practice. Particularly revealing were his points on the effective behaviors of organizations with a high level of innovation, citing Teresa Amabile of Harvard and Stan Gryskiewicz. I have to wonder what was in the mind of a Viet Nam Veteran returning to the region where he lead soldiers through the jungle as a young man. My guess, he was delighted to be here make a contribution in such a positive way.

Pavan Choudary with the School of Wisdom in India did a session which was very insightful on how to cope with those who lack integrity. His answer for the innocent is to use creative thinking.

My favorite session so far was fairly low key but dramatic in terms of what it revealed about thinking. Sue Woolfe, a published novelist and professor at Sydney University in Australia, talked about the relationship of writing, creativity, and neuroscience. Essentially she advocates a type of writing where one is in a state of "loose construing". She cited the neurological research to back up her theory, but better than that, she had us all writing and creating compelling characters in a very short time period. For me it was a further demonstration of the power of story, and the importance of getting into a relaxed flow when doing any type of creative thinking.

Much more to come before this meeting ends on Friday, it's a pretty amazing array of thought leaders and experts they've assembled from around the globe. It feels like a community.

If you're a corporate innovation manager, or an innovation consultant/practitioner, you would be well served to keep tabs on this conference and attend next year, http://www.amcreativityassoc.org, and if you get to Singapore, you have to try the Chili Crab -- to die for!

Creative Barcelona, Eyes Up, Hands Down

Just returned from a long weekend in Barcelona. To say that I was blown away by the audacious innovation exhibited there would be an understatement. Specifically, I’m referring to the Gaudi architecture, although the whole city is bursting with beauty. Of course I’d heard of Gaudi before the trip and seen pictures in books and such, but seeing the real thing was an eye opener. His unfinished masterpiece the Sacrada Familia church is breathtaking. Impressive also is the vision of the city to continue building something that won’t be finished until 2030. Travel is one of those not-so-secret keys to enhanced creativity isn’t it? You learn to see with new eyes as a result.

Gaudi’s work is deeply inspirational and it supports my belief that innovation is often underscored by a deep spirituality (see my article on Elvis and Einstein http://www.greggfraley.com/elviseroseinstein.html ) and a relationship with nature. It also supports the notion that expertise is not an inhibitor to innovation. There was a flurry of press not long ago, which essentially said that being an expert would close your eyes to new ideas within your own area. I understand that but have always thought that new combinations often result from knowing thoroughly what you can combine. In reading up on Antoni Gaudi I learn that he studied materials and building crafts from a very early age and he never stopped. The reason he could build La Pedrera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casa_Mil%C3%A0 ), this amazing apartment building, is because he technically knew how to break the existing rules and get away with it. An imaginative architect without Gaudi’s deep knowledge of materials could have never pulled that off.

Gaudi was impressive. Just as impressive was the level of highly professional crooks that roam the streets! My travel partner, who will remain nameless here, had her purse stolen right off the chair she was sitting on. I’ll use the word audacious again and break a long-standing rule not to overuse that word. These guys were good. We were sitting at a bar eating some lovely tapas and were engaged in a great conversation about the soul of business with a British venture capitalist sitting next to us. Her purse was actually under her coat! Enough of it must have been visible to clue them in unfortunately. Suddenly she shouted, “they’ve nicked my purse” and we looked to the doorway and they were already in the wind. While it’s shocking and inconvenient you can’t help but admire the creativity and expertise. The theft required good fact-finding skills, assessment of risk, intuition about value, quick decision making (convergence) and courage. Our bar neighbors commented later that three men were hovering behind us for a few minutes, then, using the classic technique of a distraction, bumped both the neighbor and lightly grazed my partner. At that moment the coat was lifted and the purse snatched. We were too busy talking to notice but my partner became aware fairly quickly, just not fast enough to prevent or catch these bums.

Barcelona is beautiful, dangerous, and a highly creative city in two directions. Go visit to be enchanted by its beauty but for goodness sake keep your bag in front of you and strapped on.

Personal Innovation

I've always struggled with labeling what I do "creativity" although even with my corporate customers it most certainly is creativity. I struggle because I know that many people will immediately dismiss creativity expertise as something that is touchy-feely (or "airy fairy" if you live in the great white north, that is, Canada). People who have looked into it know that creativity is more than just self-expression, and know that it also is problem solving and decision making. My simple mantra is: you can't have innovation without creative thinking!

Creativity to many managers, unfortunately, means "loss of control" and is therefore not a desirable thing. The term "deliberate creativity" is better because it implies some control, some structure, but it sort of takes the fun out of the word creativity doesn't it? And many people, who believe that creativity can't be controlled at all, will say there is no such thing as deliberate creativity!

The word Innovation on the other hand gives business people a warm fuzzy feeling. It means success, it means new markets, it means exciting new products, etc.

Okay, so call it Innovation when it comes to business, but what do you call it when it's about you, your own life, your own challenges? Since about half the world believes they are not creative (even though everyone has that capacity) I'll coin a new phrase and call it "Personal Innovation." Personal Innovation is creativity applied to the challenges of your life, and it implies action, which I like. Innovation of any kind is not in your head, it's an action you take, it's results.

So, Personal Innovation...you heard it here first people.

Creative Integrity

I know a lot of professional creative people, that is, creativity and innovation practitioners, artists, facilitators, consultants, and marketing types. I've noticed something I want to comment on and I suspect this will be controversial. What I want to comment on is a lack of integrity among some creative professionals.

By integrity I mean simply someone who does what they say they will do.

Creative people sometimes get a pass on being reliable. The excuse that is made for them is that they "flaked out" or they were "keeping their options open," or simply made another choice. Making another choice or changing your mind is excusable, and sometimes a creative act in and of itself. On the other hand, there is no excuse for saying one thing and doing another because it is now to your advantage to do something different. I'm really tired of creative people who hide behind the creative stereotype while they know that what they are doing is just plain lying. Okay, maybe sometimes it's not lying outright, but more of an obfuscation, non-responsiveness to avoid difficult issues, or a painful delay in responding to someone. Call it bad manners, poor form -- it's really not right -- and I'm afraid the classic creative types are some of the worst offenders.

On a more positive note on this subject, I heard the story about George Clooney keeping his word and how powerful that was. Actors in Hollywood routinely break contracts when their star is rising and re-negotiate bigger deals. When Clooney found overnight fame on ER everyone expected he would break his contract. Instead, to everyone's surprise, he kept his word, saying simply that a deal was a deal. I understand that because of that he paved the way for many subsequent great deals -- here was a guy you could trust! He's made himself into a real player in Hollywood beyond his role as a leading man actor. Integrity is something you should hold onto because it's the right thing to do, and, when you do the right thing people notice and it becomes a positive spiral. It certainly enabled Clooney to be creative and make some interesting films that would probably otherwise not have been made, Three Kings, and Syriana for example.

Creative people should pay close attention to the promises they make, and should honor their word. Integrity is a powerful creative force all by itself. It creates confidence, good will, and better environments to create within. If you consider yourself a creative person, put aside the option to flake out and keep your word. Let's change the stereotype and make creativity about truth and honesty as well as imagination and self-expression.

When the Going Gets Tough, the Tough Invest In Innovation

Recession fears continue to dominate the headlines. I was somewhat heartened to read some recent research in the Harvard Business Review from the eminent innovation scholar Clayton Christensen (and colleagues Stephen P Kaufman and Willy Shih). It doesn't hurt that he has that Harvard glow does it? Give these guys credit, they have articulated something especially important in these uncertain times.

Essentially Christensen and colleagues looked at three classic financial evaluation tools to see if they hinder or assist companies in innovation (for more detail go to the actual article http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu, do a search on Christensen and you'll find the article Innovation Killers: How Financial Tools Destroy Your Capacity to Do New Things).

For many of us these tools are arcane but in big business they are essential and commonly used to determine investment of all kinds. The research shows that the tools don't account for the future and that managers won't be investing enough in innovation as a result (this is my simple synopsis of a fairly complex study.) The tools assume that current levels of investment in innovation are good enough to maintain the company and the companies worth. What a poor assumption!

For me the study adds credibility to the argument that companies should be investing more in innovation if a recession is in our future. Idea management systems, innovation process training, and research and development should be getting more attention and resources, not less.

It's intuitive to high innovators that sometimes breakthrough's require extraordinary measures, in other words, more money, to make something happen. Innovative managers often don't get the funds they need because these classic financial tools back up the numbers guys. Clayton is saying the tools aren't bad in and of themselves but they have a built in bias against innovation investment. Many top managers rely on these financial tools and make decisions not from an intuitive sense of the market, but instead "do it by the numbers." Evidence is all around us of how this can be deadly -- the US car industry and the US steel industry are two obvious examples. They did not invest heavily when the times called for it and they simply got out-innovated and destroyed in the process.

To my point -- managers who invest in innovation over and above what seems to be called for -- particularly when others are cutting back in a recession, are the managers that are positioning their organizations for a strategic long term competitive advantage.

When the going gets tough, the tough invest in innovation.

The Train Innovation Comes In On –

Anyone whose taken brainstorming training knows you don’t critique ideas as-you-go, you “defer judgment.” This allows for a flow of ideas to emerge. A few years ago Sid Parnes went a step further when giving a talk to a group at the Creative Problem Solving Institute. He said to be more creative, you need to defer judgment -- as a way of life. It made sense to me at the time, I thought, getting into the habit of it would make you a better ideator in times of divergence. I still think this is true, but here’s a new insight:

Deferral of judgment has a deeper impact. It unlocks your mind and allows for more intuitive thought.

This occurred to me while reading “Awakening Intuition” by Frances E. Vaughan. Vaughan is associated with the Institute of Transformational Psychology in Palo Alto, CA*. She discussed that awareness of the choices you make every day, moment to moment, is a good starting point for getting in touch with your intuition. Being more aware of alternative choices, or options, puts us into a sort of alert and open state that gives the mind a chance to suggest something that it “knows.” Stated another way, deferral of judgment opens doors to intuitive thought.

So, if you get more intuitive thoughts, and are aware of them, then you are going to have a greater stream of insights and ideas with which to solve your problems. Ultimately these ideas are what innovation is made of – this is the kind of thinking you need to make breakthroughs. I also believe that this idea stream is going to come from a different source within you; intuition is an inner knowing that is quite different than rational/logical thought, it’s non-linear. And again, non-linear thinking is the train innovations come to the station in. If you’ve read Malcolm Gladwell’s book about intuition, “Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking,” you’ll be convinced that while it may be difficult to explain how it happens, it does happen, and the impact can be dramatic on a business.

So people, try this on for size – walk through each day being very conscious of the judgment choices you are making. Make an effort to hold off, to defer, and allow your mind to suggest creative alternatives. Defer about everything! Give it a week and let us know what happened.

* For more about this cutting-edge psychology school, see http://www.itp.edu

The One Apple Apple Tree

I live in a new country home in Michigan. I have 10 acres of mature trees and I've made a game out of identifying them. I'm not bad -- I can get 9 out of 10, but one tall slender tree in a thicket near the house was throwing me. I went through the books and based on the leaves, bark, etc. I came up with a Tupelo.

Well, I was wrong. My arborist Chris came by and I pointed out my Tupelo. He smiled and said, "creative identification" which was political correct speak for mistake! Chris told me it was actually an Apple tree. He took a long look upwards and pointed his finger. I looked up and saw a lone apple about 40 feet up. We looked everywhere and it was the only piece of fruit on the tree, but, it was a perfect apple. I still can't believe it's an apple tree! I never figured it for a fruit tree in among all the hardwoods, and the shape was so tall and thin, very unapple. I skipped that part of the book entirely when looking for matches!

So, as always, I ask myself "what does this mean?" What's the link to innovation?

What comes to me is that it's a bit like a problem employee, or a difficult partner. They have a role but there is conflict and they don't seem to fit. You can't figure out what they have to offer, and so we tend to slap a label on them and stop listening. And yet, even the worst employee, even the most difficult partner, often has one good insight or idea -- one good piece of fruit. The problem is we have preconcieved notions about who they are and what they know, so we don't hear it.

Years ago I was told by an employee of one of my software companies that one of our managers was "losing it." I discounted the comment as this employee was an oddball and an introvert. He was a good programmer, but I gave him no credit whatsoever for insight into anything more, particularly people. Well, he was right and it was tough sledding handling someone who was having a mental breakdown. The company and that employee would have been far better off if I had been really listening, we might have prevented a real disaster.

So here's the lesson: Listen to everybody. Somewhere way up in the leaves is a piece of perfect fruit. It might be a good product idea, a way to cut expenses, a way to boost morale. If you listen, an apple may fall right into your lap.

Cincinnati Innovation -- an Oxymoron?

I don’t mean to be overly provocative with my title. I do mean to raise the question “What is the Innovation culture, if any, of my beloved hometown of Cincinnati?” Let me say how much I love Cincy to start with here. I don’t think there is a more beautiful city in the Midwest, and it’s hard to beat Cincinnatians for being friendly. I spent many good years living in Cincinnati and I often wish to return to Mooney Avenue in Hyde Park and spend some time reading novels under a giant oak tree.

But I digress, this is not a love letter, it’s about an honest look at the state of innovation in Cincy. I return to my hometown May 21 for a 7:00 pm appearance at Joseph-Beth in Hyde Park to sign copies of Jack’s Notebook. Come visit with me! My visit prompted my thinking about my Hometown.

Historically, Cincinnati is darn innovative. Jet engines were first developed at GE in Evandale. Proctor and Gamble, the giant that looms large in this cities corporate profile, certainly has innovated like crazy over the years and continues to do so. P&G strategy over the last few years has been nothing short of brilliant. Kroger’s continues to grow by being very smart, and yes, innovative. Tom Nies and Cincom was a pioneer in the software business (disclaimer, I worked for Cincom for 4 years in the 80’s). Once upon a time Cincinnati was one of the most admirably balanced economic cities in the world, with all kinds of thriving companies. It was the world capital of precision machine tools at one point, and not so long ago. So, okay, Innovation and Cincinnati do belong in the same sentence.

However, Cincinnati is no longer as well balanced as it once was. The big companies continue to do well, but with some rare exceptions it’s hard to find the gleaming and exciting light of new business formation and innovation. Opportunity, or rather the lack of it, is at the heart of Cincinnati’s racial disquiet. No hope means despair, and desperate people do drastic things. I spoke with a real gentlemen named Jim Clingman, Jr. (http://www.blackonomics.com/) yesterday and he confirmed what I thought was true 20 years ago. It’s not a level playing field in Cincy for the young business person coming up. Jim is a UC professor and an advocate for economic empowerment. He says that the investment funds that were supposed to help small businesses (one of the responses to the racial problems that occurred) only go to companies with more than a million in revenues. And there doesn’t appear to be any micro loan programs in Cincinnati – and that’s hard to believe given the need and they’re proven effectiveness for bootstrapping. Jim is one of the driving forces behind Entrepreneur High School, an educational program located within Woodward High, to create new players on the field. It’s a modest success, having survived within CPS for 5 years now and graduating it’s first class. They’ve won national awards for business plan development. If only this program were more widespread…it should be an option in every public high school. Especially in Cincinnati.

And having said all the above, Cincinnati is still a force -- at this time home to 10 Fortune 500 companies and 18 Fortune 1000 companies. These companies do well in a low cost of living city like Cincinnati, drawing on its educated population, and on a solid mid-western work ethic. These companies long ago carved out their niches and are, mostly, content to do incremental innovation to maintain their market shares. One bit of good news -- as some of these bigger organizations downsize and send talented and experienced baby boomers off to retirement, those folks refuse to go quietly and often go out and start ventures. This is a real engine for small business growth and Cincinnati would do well to aid and abet this trend. Enquirer columnist John Eckberg, author of The Success Effect, made me aware of this. He cited as an example the story of the founding of Lenscrafter. Dean Butler, a retired P&G executive noticed that there was no good reason glasses had to take two weeks to come back from the grinder. He put the lens makers in the back of the store, delivered glasses in one hour, and the rest was history. A seasoned veteran is the kind of person who not only has that kind of business insight, but also has the experience to grow a company.

And Cincinnati has some stars -- Doug Hall at Eureka Ranch is arguably the leading innovation consultant in the USA. While I don’t agree with all his methods, you can’t argue with his results, which keep customers from all over the world coming back to Newtown for his services.

Let me get personal here. I left Cincinnati in the mid 80’s to pursue a software career in a bigger market, Chicago. It was a good move for me. I worked for several companies in Chicago and then started my own, with partners, in the early 90’s and prospered. That would never have happened for me in Cincinnati (you can’t get a cup of coffee in Chicago without running into somebody with a new business idea). New business requires capital and mentorship. It requires a culture that supports risk taking. Here’s my opinion: Cincinnati is a risk-averse city. The statistic I found on Wikipedia -- that it is #16 in the USA for entrepreneurship (not bad) and #1 in failure rates -- is interesting. It means only “sure things” are being tried. The downside to having a good batting average is you give up the long ball, the home run. The Big Red Machine didn’t operate that way! You need good bets and you need to bet on a long shot once in a while because they have the biggest payoff.

Let’s look at technology. There needs to be a culture that develops new technologies and nurtures them into new businesses. I don’t see that going on in Cincinnati. Okay, the University of Cincinnati does some good work in engineering research and development (check out the interesting work being done at Extreme Photonics http://www.uc.edu/news/steckl.htm) – but unlike Stanford or Harvard – where are all the start-ups taking that stuff to the next level? And creating jobs? It’s really not happening in Cincinnati.

Until Cincinnati starts supporting technological development and start-ups, and until it does the hard work of creating more empowerment for small business from the ground up with micro loan programs, and better entrepreneurial education, it will remain what it is today, a good town content to follow, and not a great town leading innovation.