I don’t have as much time as I used to. None of us do.
I just had an article pop in on one of my subscriptions: “72 tips for safer computing.”
I don’t have time for 27 tips, much less 72.
Experts aren’t valuable because they provide a more exhaustive list of advice. Experts are valuable because they give you the advice you need, when you need it. Experts are valuable when they distill their experiences and philosophy into accessible bits.
If a self-described “expert” creates value for himself by creating complexity, then run away. Experts make things simple.
[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, communication[/tags]
I like this post. I joined a company that enlists the help of many agencies, consultants, etc. As I’ve sat in meetings learning what the new strategy is for the business and how it’s being rolled out, I have been floored. I listen, I read, and I still walk away scratching my head. So, I’ve tasked my group, which is now in charge of communications, to simplify what the “expert” consultants have put together. The idea that leadership would agree that their audience needs to just see and hear the presentation several times to “get” it, to me, is absurd.
The average person can only accept and comprehend ONE new concept a year. Any more presented at a time is (hopefully) left to germinate later.
Too many try to dazzle with BS to appear that they have a message. When talking with other people we need to try to use one or two syllable words and try to emulate Dr. Seuss. It is amazing how much he taught with just a few letters.
Sorry, can’t help it… the ole man is creeping out.
Yes, it gets overwhelming. Too many points? Heck, more than 5 is too many. If a person can’t hold it in their head, what’s the purpose?
I try to remind folks at work, KISS. Keep It Simple Silly. Still get long rambling emails with no clue what to do sometimes. 🙂
Best
Hi Ike, I had two points here. Fab post, as always…damn you’re good at this (I’m learning from you).
1) Notice the popularity of some of the new social networking sites out there — Squidoo (ok, not so new, but still), Seesmic, Twitter, Facebook, etc. They’re all two-syllables names, or less. Is that saying something about companies that want to push the envelope past 2 syllables? Is more than 2 making things more difficult? Curious for your feedback? ::: Twitter me with it? ::: (sorry, RSSed comments are over-RSSing it, methinks).
2) Great little bit that former Mexican President Vicente Fox wrote about in his panned book, REVOLUTION OF HOPE (I thought it was great, however). Being a US-educated former Coke man in Mexico, he brought “American style” quick sound bites and KISS-style communication into the presidential office. In Mexico under the PRI for 71 years (the world’s “longest-running dictatorship”), he cut the PRI’s old, rambling State of the Union addresses down to 30 mins. from the 2+ hours they were formerly.
In Mexico (as here in the Czech Republic), if you didn’t speak for at least a couple of hours yammering about various rubbish and economic/social metrics, no one would take you seriously.
Hey, they’re learning…and I suppose, so are we here in the Czech lands…
–ADM from Prague
I’ll answer you on Twitter too…
1) Two-syllable names are easy to roll off the tongue, and carry a slight perception of a speed advantage. For some reason, Flickr sounds faster than Photobucket, even if the latter is more descriptive. (To some, Flickr sounds like a monitor malfunction, or a device to remove boogers.)
A few years ago, there was a rush for the shortest domain names possible. Big brands grabbed theirs, and shorter cuts down on possible typos. I registered shenlungkungfu.com for my Kung Fu group, then grabbed shenlung.com because it was shorter.
There aren’t many 4-6 letter domains left. (Unless you’re willing to go for something like XKCD. Whoops, it’s taken. And damned funny, too.) So the new metric for shortness is the syllable measure.
Where do we go from there? Who knows. I predict more descriptive top-level domains.
2) Culture has a lot to do with it. There are some groups where you have to prove yourself with volume. If you’ve got 16 hours to fill at a conference, the most important presentation might be the one done in a half-hour. But the ego of the keynoter can get in the way, and they’ll demand three hours just because no one else can.
The other effect I think you’re seeing (and since we’re talking Czech economists, I’ll say firsthand) is a bit of self-preservation. It’s hard to justify your existence as an academic if you are too good at boiling down complex subjects. You almost have to go out of your way to make the material more dense, so others won’t devalue your work.
Those two principles will get you quite far in empowering and growing an economy. The charts and the graphs and the circus that follows is job security for PhDs, and the bureaucrats who are paid by the weight of the paper they push.
Thanks for inspiring me, once again, to write a comment that is three times the size of the post!
Ike,
You are a loveable person…