Gregory Koberger :: the blog

When asking for advice, implement a 5 minute rule.  Don’t let anyone advise you until they’ve thought about it for at least five minutes.

It’s amazing that people take five minutes to decide what they want from the McDonalds Dollar Menu, yet they’re ready to jump in with their take on life or business decisions before you’re even done talking.

It doesn’t have to be five minutes- thirty seconds, an hour, or a day all work.  The important part is that you’re asking the person to think first.

Remember this rule when you’re giving advice, too, and you’ll instantly become much more thoughtful and helpful.

Recently, there has been an ongoing debate on which is better- the lean or fat startup.  A lot has been said for both sides- and honestly, it comes down to what’s best for the given situation.

One thing we have to look out for that hasn’t yet been mentioned: massive offline companies.  They have a ton of money.  To put the $100k or $1 million investments we see announced on TechCrunch all the time into perspective: Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein got a $53.4 million bonus in 2006.  Imagine what a tech start-up could do with $53.4 million- and that was just one guys bonus.  Once these big companies- especially the old media companies- figure this internet thing out, lean start-ups are out of luck.

Don’t believe me?  Take a look at the story behind Hulu.  Imagine a lean start-up doing what Hulu managed to do.  You’d end up with, well, Joost or Yidio.  Pretty soon, every company will realize they need their own Jason Kilar.  Imagine if some brilliant, budding entrepreneur had the half a billion dollars News Corp spent on mySpace to create their own social network.  Had Rupert Murdoch found a man with a vision to fund, rather than pouring all that cash into the massive dying social network?  Facebook would have some serious competition.

Quite frankly, the problem with lean start-ups comes down to quality.  Can it be done?  Yes, it can.  But imagine how much faster and better a start-up could be created if they had a few bucks in their bank account.

Have an idea for a start-up?  No need to be a starving entrepreneur anymore.  Now might be a good time to skip the VC route and head straight to the old media offices.  They certainly have the money, and they’re starting to believe this Internet thing just might take off.

I’m bad at answering emails.  After all, it’s so easy to procrastinate.  “I’ll get to it tonight,” or “what difference is a few hours going to make?” are just some of the convincing arguments I regularly make to myself.

I really liked this line on developer Kenny Meyers‘ contact form:

I’ll get back to you within 24 hours.

That simple sentence guarantees two things:

1. Kenny won’t procrastinate when answering emails, since a few hours will make a difference.
2. People are more comfortable emailing him, since he’s made email slightly less asynchronous.

By making a public promise with absolute numbers, you’re forcing yourself to adhere to it.  Using a relative time frame such as “as soon as possible” affords endless procrastination- “24 hours” does not.  This technique isn’t limited to just email, either.  You can use it for workouts (”3 miles a day” rather than “exercising daily”), blog posts (”new blog post every day” rather than “regular posts”), or making plans (”by the end of the week” rather than “soon”)- basically, anything that involves some sort of self control.

Does it work?  I’m not sure, I’d have to ask him.  I’ll know by this time tomorrow.

Job descriptions tell employees what they can’t do.  Take the average job description for a programmer: it relegates them to their IDE, saying they can’t do marketing, biz dev, sales, writing or project management.

What this does is put employees in silos- just like a programmer wouldn’t take coding advice from a sales guy, marketers won’t listen to a techie.

So, how about using this as a job description?

Wanted: People who can help us create a kick ass startup.

Yes, you need people who can program.  And you need people who can balance the books.  So, throw in something like “* programming experience encouraged” at the end.

It reminds me of how they cast the show Lost:

A lot of the casting came out of, like, finding actions they wanted to work with, rather than necessarily fill in a roll.

-Jorge Garcia, Hurley, Lost

The producers didn’t have jobs for much of the cast- many of the characters were created simply because they liked the actors.

What’s my point?  When starting a company, don’t tie people down to certain tasks.  Ideas and talent will be wasted, and they’ll eventually get bored.  Let people decide for themselves how they can best use their talents to help the company.  Sure, some things have to be done to keep the lights on.  However, if you give people the freedom to manage themselves and decide what needs to be done, you might be surprised.  A good enough team will rise to the occasion, and do more than just keep the lights on.

Over and over again, I see the same misconception: “Lowest Common Denominator” means “dumb.”  That’s how people criticize stupid comedies on TV or lolcats on Digg- they said it’s catering to the lowest common denominator.

Most of us learned in middle school how to figure out the lowest (or least) common denominator.  It’s the smallest positive integer that the given set of numbers all evenly fit into.  That’s exactly what finding the lowest common denominator for a piece of content does- it tries to find the smallest integer (or, most interesting content) that the set of numbers (or, the people consuming the content) can fit into (or, enjoy together).

So, to use an example: let’s say we have a biologist and a chemist.  Their “Lowest Common Denominator” might be science- the highest level topic that they both agree is interesting.  Throw in an economist, and the LCD might become math.  Throw in an artist, a construction worker, a computer geek, a WalMart greeter, a stay at home mom and a professional athlete, and you find that Two and a Half Men and funny cat pictures are all they really have in common.

Lowest Common Denominator doesn’t mean stupid- it merely means “this is the highest level that everyone involved can agree on.”

This brings us to Digg.  Digg started out as a place for tech news, and it attracted a geeky following.  It caught on, and soon found itself getting popular.  As more people joined, the diversity of topics expanded- political and scientific stories started to seep in more.  Digg had two choices- either stay dedicated to tech news, or do whatever it could to increase its popularity.

Eventually, the interesting domain specific stories couldn’t make it to the front page anymore because not enough people on the site were interested.  Instead, funny pictures became the lingua franca on Digg.

So, how do we fix this?  Digg v4 aims to rectify this problem by making it so you follow people rather than everything.  This means the death of the Digg Effect- no longer will we all see the same thing, but rather, we’ll just see what our friends post.  This does not fix the problem, however.  Lets say you are a chemist- unless all your friends on Digg are chemists, and all their friends are chemists, chemistry articles will still have to be diluted (either in terms of quantity or level of depth).  It doesn’t even have to be based on profession- I’m from RIT and want to hear RIT news, yet that will never find its way onto my Digg front page.  On top of that, this leaves you with a very closed source of information.  You’ll only get news from people who you follow- people who think the same way you do, and have the same beliefs.

In order to fix Digg (or any other large site), it’s important to understand and embrace the Lowest Common Denominator.  If you could follow and post to topics, rather than people, the problem would be reduced.  Digg, Reddit stole your concept six years ago.  They’re onto something with their subreddits, and they owe you one.  Take the subreddit concept, and improve on it- for example, maybe add advanced filtering controls?

I want to be able to say: “Digg, my front page should show me all posts about RIT or programming.  Also, show me anything from the World News topic that has more than 600 Diggs, and any funny pictures my friends have dugg.”  That is what would make Digg useful for me- not just the Facebook/Twitter/Google Reader clone they’re about to launch.

Over the weekend, I created a small app called PleaseCallMyPhone.com.  It does just that- it calls your phone.  I made it as a remedy for lost phones, however it is simple enough that you could use it for other things.  It only took me a day to make, however I wanted to share a few quick lessons I learned from making it.

I created Please Call My Phone for me- I kept losing my phone, so I needed a way to find it.  I decided to spruce it up, however, and throw it in my portfolio.  After all, it couldn’t hurt.

Deciding to let anyone use it, however, meant having to cut a few features.  I could no longer let people enter in their own messages, since I knew I’d end up sending out a large number of monotone text-to-speech “I’m going to kill you” messages to unsuspecting recipients.

I figured my friendly “Hey, this is Gregory from PleaseCallMyPhone.com” message would be enough to dissuade people from using the application for nefarious purposes.  Sure, people could still call their friends numbers- but, why?  What would be the benefit of sending friends a phone call that clearly explains what it is, and how they can block the number?

I could have limited the calls per phone, or the calls per IP.  But what if someone really couldn’t find their phone?  They might need to call it 2-3 times, especially if it’s on vibrate (I recommend people add the number to their phones and set the ringer to a non-vibrating one, although I know most people won’t be that proactive).  I wanted my application to be as useful as possible.

I was wrong to trust people.  The amount of people (both friends and people I don’t know) who abused the system was unbelievable.  So, I had to take the service offline temporarily until I have time to lock it down.

I know I should learn, but I’m still surprised by peoples boredom- everything from weird emails from my contact form to finding SQL injection attempts saved in my signup forms.  It’s a shame I couldn’t make a simple little toy, and have people use it the way I intended it.

But that’s my problem, I suppose.

Lesson #1 was posted Monday, and Lesson #3 will be posted soon.

Everyone who visits your site is a potential evangelist for your product- someone who will go out and vouch for it to their friends.  This is more than just a simple recommendation.  Evangelizing is a step up; more personal and more passionate.  This is the best form of marketing- it’s free, and the message comes from someone the potential user trusts.

So, how can you transform users into evangelists for your product?  Think about the sites you evangelize- what are some things they all have in common?

For me, my list is relatively short.  If we ignore the big ones (Facebook, GMail, etc), there is Twilio, Grooveshark, Doodle and A Story Before Bed.

Here are some common characteristics:

They are easy to share

These products make it easy for users to share content.  Doodle makes it painless to send your polls to people, while Grooveshark makes sharing music extremely easy.  Most importantly, you can share on your own terms- via email, social networks, or just a link.

LinkedIn’s “Join My Network” emails are annoying- they are a form of sharing, however they don’t offer the user anything (at least, not in the short term).  Doodle and Grooveshark offer the users something they benefit from, instantly.

Both also do a great job of converting people.  Next time someone wants to set up a meeting, they will turn to Doodle.  Next time someones looking to play a song, they will turn to Grooveshark.

Let’s look at the competition.  There is a site called TimeBridge, which runs circles around Doodle in terms of features.  However, it’s such a pain to use that very few people will ever want to put themselves through it again.  With Grooveshark, sharing music has been around for ages- but rarely has it been so easy or pleasant.

They conform to the user

Many products try to improve our lives by adding features.  My favorite products, however, just work.  They don’t ask me to change my workflow, or do things their way.  They simply fill a void; no more, no less.

Many startups have an “our way is better!” philosophy.  However, this asks us to leave our comfort zones and do things a different way.  Evernote, for example, is a great product.  However, they ask users to go out of their way (even if it is only a minimal amount).  The products I tend to like, rather, merely fill a frustrating void.

Sharing music and scheduling events are all things we do regularly, yet don’t have an efficient way to do it.  Bridging a website with a telephone is something many applications need, but never had a way to do.

This is a subtle distinction, and I’m not entirely sure I’ve illustrated it properly.  I think the subtle nature is why most startups fail to nail it, however.  They feel that they are enhancing users lives, and users should be grateful for the privilege to use their product.  It’s a subconscious mentality, but it’s there.

Rather, they should be doing everything they can to conform to the users existing workflow, and make the experience as seamless as possible.  Startups need to realize that the users are doing them the favor, and not the other way around.

No login

Doodle and Grooveshark don’t make people sign up.  Even for the person creating the poll or sending the music, no signup is required.  This is the reason Craigslist is so huge- nobody has to sign up.  Doodle acts just like Craigslist- you sign up, and you get a link so you can administer your poll.  Unless you really need users to sign up- and, I mean, really need them to- there’s no reason to make them.

Give users extra features if they sign up- but don’t require it if you don’t have to.

Simple

Twilio not only fills a void- it does it in a way that is impressively simple.  I wasn’t amazed by the functionality- I was amazed by how unbelievably simple it is to use.

Lets say you wanted a way for your customers to call a number, and have a voice tell them (for example) the current weather.  Six months ago, I would have laughed at you.  Now, I can do it in 30 seconds, thanks to Twilio:

<?xml version=”1.0″ encoding=”UTF-8″ ?>
<Response>
<Say>Hello World.</Say>
</Response>

Doodle polls are just as simple.  Grooveshark isn’t as minimalistic as Twilio or Doodle, however the interface is still dead simple.

The Experience

So far, I’m yet to mention A Story Before Bed.  This is because I like it for different reasons.  It might be simple to use, or any of the other characteristics I’ve mentioned before.  However, the reason I like it is the experience.  It is a beautiful site, with a consistent theme.

The Conclusion

What makes you want to tell everyone you know about a site?  Think about that, and do your best to replicate it.

Textbooks are a cop out.

Sure, some classes require it.  You can’t teach a math or science class without assigning a textbook full of math problems and dry explanations.

However, for the softer sciences, teachers who assign textbooks are taking the easy way out.  Why don’t teachers assign actual books?  They are cheaper, more enjoyable, and do a better job of getting the point across.

Marketing classes should assign Seth Godin, business classes should read Chris Anderson, and my class about technology diffusion should be centered around Malcom Gladwells’ Tipping Point.

Yes, these authors offer one-sided views of marketing, business and technology.

However, what is wrong with that?  I have never seen a discussion break out in a classroom over a textbook.  Textbooks present things in a matter-of-fact manner.  Books, on the other hand, spark debate.  After all, look at how bloggers took sides when Malcom Gladwell wrote his scathing review of Chris Anderson’s Free.

Maybe I’m biased.  However, you can learn a lot more from the so-called Airport Books, the “elite class of business titles that I see sold in airport newsstands next to the magazines and crappy romance novels”((Coined by Anil Dash, Free Criticism, Science After Data, and Airport Books)) than you can from the expensive, monotonous textbook teachers feel obligated to assign.

There is a silver lining, however.  Go and read on your own.  You’ll be a few steps ahead of the people stuck reading textbooks.

Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn’t seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed. The other guy whips out his phone and calls the emergency services. He gasps, “My friend is dead! What can I do?”. The operator says “Calm down. I can help. First, let’s make sure he’s dead.” There is a silence, then a shot is heard. Back on the phone, the guy says “OK, now what?

Have you ever retold a joke you found funny, only to have it bomb?  Lots of things can go wrong- too verbose, amiss tone, bad buildup, wrong mood.

Badly executed websites are just like a bad joke- all the parts might be there, but something didn’t click.  Merely doing something doesn’t mean you deserve those metaphorical laughs.

Explaining the joke never works- at best, you’ll get a pity laugh from listeners who want you to stop.  If users are telling you they prefer a similar product, you can show them yours does the same thing if you go into the settings, click the link on the top left, scroll down, and blah blah blah.  But it won’t work.  They’ll nod their heads, but won’t be sold.

You need a solid product, appealing ascetics and effective marketing.  Showing up is not enough.  All the hours you put in and money you spent are irrelevant.  Best intentions don’t justify praise.

Take a look at the joke at the beginning of this post is.  According to research by Richard Wiseman of the University of Hertfordshire¹, it is the world’s funniest joke.  Even with that notable distinction, however, just retelling it isn’t guaranteed to garner a favorable reaction.

Get the joke right.  Merely telling it doesn’t mean you are entitled to laughs.

1. Spike ‘wrote world’s best joke’, BBC [↩]

Recently, a Tumblelog called Clients From Hell popped up.  It is a collection of stories about clients clueless about web design.  At first, I enjoyed reading the stories.  After all, anyone who ever worked with a client has heard “I can’t pay you, but it will look good on your resume.”  However, the more I read the daily posts, the more I started to realize that freelancers are probably a pain.  From the clients perspective, some of these freelancers are dead wrong.

Biased Stories

Take a look at the following story:

Your designs are too pretty, too beautiful looking. I need them to look more like I designed them. For example, instead of using a green box to highlight a chunk of copy, instead I would put green trees all over the page. You should try and be more creative like me and stop trying to make everything look so good all the time.

I would imagine that this is what the freelancer heard, not what the client actually said.  After all, who would say a design is “too beautiful looking”?

I imagine the conversation went more like this:

Your designs are beautiful, but I need them more like I designed them.  For example, instead of using a green box to highlight a chunk of copy, instead I would use these green trees.  You should try and be more creative like me, rather than just going for something that looks good.

This isn’t to say the designer is bad- he or she might be great.  But either way, the design he produced wasn’t what the person paying for it wanted.  People want to get what they paid for- and it’s evident that the designer ignored the clients initial suggestions.

Which brings us to our next point…

Clients Know Their Audience

Sure, freelancers may know Web 2.0 .  They may be able to make a beautiful, standards compliant website that would impress even the best of web designers.  But the client undoubtedly knows their audience better.  If the client thinks that their users would rather green trees, he’s probably right.  Maybe not from a design standpoint, however the client is closer to their own clients.

For example:

I’m not a Graphic Designer but I redesiged your brochure in MS Publisher. This is kind of how I’d like it to look

Do I find MS Publisher brochures attractive?  Not at all.  However, it is likely that this clients audience consists of other people who use MS Publisher.  There’s no reason to scoff at a client requesting Word- why shouldn’t they be able to edit the documents they’re paying for?  I once had to redo my resume in Word once, and was pleasantly surprised at how similar it was to my InDesign version- and you didn’t need a degree in graphic design to edit it.

Lack of Work

These stories are anonymous, so it is hard for submitters to upload work.  But wouldn’t it be nice to see the work in question?  What if the designer created something truly horrid?

I have met a lot of people who complained about clients not appreciating their work, when their work was simply bad.  We have no context.

Back to the story about the trees.  What if the site was about nature, and the trees were tasteful vector images that subtly highlighted the message?  Maybe the client wanted to get away from a plain green box- after all, very few sites can pull of a square, solid green box.  Feel free to attempt to prove me wrong.

Car Mechanic Problem

Car Mechanics have a reputation for overcharging.  When something breaks on my car, I know my uneducated “estimate” is always much lower than the actual cost.  I have a superficial understanding of cars- there are a ton of factors I overlook.  Are there a few mechanics out there that overcharge?  Of course.  However, overall, I would argue that normal people merely don’t have a proper understanding of what repairs entail.

Customer: Our budget is $4,000 but it is not so complex what we want. Have you used Outlook?

Me: Yes

Customer: We want exactly that functionality in our site plus some other stuff.

Many of the posts on Clients From Hell are about lowballing clients.  If a client offers you $100 and gives you two days, it isn’t because they are insulting.  They have no frame of reference, and they value the benefits of a website at $100 and two days of work.  Do your best to make your case, but remember they aren’t trying to screw you over- they just don’t know any better.

For the few that involve the freelancer getting screwed- well, that’s the freelancers fault.  The client was wrong, but so was the freelancer.

We know your photos have been on our website for six months, but we’re only going to pay you 1/4 of your invoice because we don’t think the quality is there.

Get a contract, and get money up front.

Conclusion

My biggest problem is the name- Clients From Hell.  I get it- clients like comic sans, ugly colors and Microsoft Word.  But does this mean we should vilify them?  We are dealing with people who don’t know our trade- much like how we don’t know theirs.

Wouldn’t it be less bitter if the site was instead called “Clients Say The Darndest Things”?

There are two sides to each story.  While these stories make for a good (despite repetitive) read, it would be fun to hear clients talk about their horrible hires.

Freelancers From Hell, anyone?