CrapHammer

The Passion Files: An Interview with Josh Clavir

This is an ongoing series where I interview some of the most passionate to understand their motivations, their secrets and their advice for others.

I’m speaking with Josh Clavir, Producer and all around amazing young man, who I’ve had the pleasure of knowing as film-maker, producer, student and friend. Josh is tireless.  He has limitless energy, passion and focus.  And I’ve wanted to interview him for some time to understand what drives him.

One of his first big co-producing gigs just got into TIFF. The Camera of Christopher Merk. Here is a link to more information on the movie: http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2010/cameraandchristopher

 

SEAN: I wonder if there’s not a myth about the film industry that we just come out of school and we get hired into a big production somehow? When we look at some of the greats, Ridley Scott, for example, and how he started in corporate and music video for a very long time before he made the leap to the films he is now so famous for.

 

JOSH: Starting in the art department. I was watching this interview with him on YouTube and he talks about how he was in love with D.A. Pennebaker, the American documentary filmmaker. Like loved him, “Oh, this guy’s incredible.” So he goes to New York, as a 20-year-old or whatever it was.

And one day he met D.A. Pennebaker in an elevator, “I want to work for you.”  He said, “Okay, sure. If you want to volunteer, sure. Here help our editor,” so he spent weeks getting the editor coffee. And then, eventually, after months of doing this he gets this phone call, “Hey, man, they’re hiring at the BBC. They need someone in the art department.”  And Ridley is just like, “Hey, I can get paid?” So then he’s on a plane back to England. But it’s pretty funny, like, how you’re just so passionate about something, so you’re like, “Oh, I’d love to do that.” But I think what’s interesting is that he said, “I’ll take a job that pays over that any day.” And before his first feature film The Duellists, he had done, God knows how many commercials, probably like 400 by that point or something.

 

SEAN: So what are you passionate about?  What drives you?  What would cause you to fly across a country to spend all day getting someone a cup of coffee? 

 

JOSH: I think what I’m really passionate about is story, more than anything. It’s just a compelling story, an interesting story. When I was a kid, I remember a large part of my childhood and education was storytelling, whether it was telling stories to my brother or telling stories to my friends, I was always in that role, recounting what happened in the playground or at recess.

Almost class clown but not really, more like I would just be always talking. I’d always have stories. And I spoke a lot as a kid, I was a pretty loquacious kid.   I used to have teachers that would try to get me to write things down, but I had a lot of trouble writing. It was much easier for me to speak ‘cause I didn’t have that filter - that self-criticism when you go to write.

My mother is a huge film buff and she would watch Saturday Night at the Movies on TVO and there were just some excellent films: How Green Was My Valley, The Maltese Falcon, Casa Blanca, Fat City, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Through a Glass Darkly, as a kid, I watched a lot of this and I really got engaged. I was also exposed to theatre and plays, but with film, more than anything, was this idea that you could really get into someone’s psychology. And those to me were the most compelling stories - the ones where you’re seeing it from someone’s point of view. And the ability of the camera to focus on certain aspects, as well as how rich sound can be in film between the score, between the effects, between how you’re mixing and stuff.

 

SEAN: I’m really curious about what keeps you going. You’re certainly not making a lot of money. I’ve watched you bounce from a variety of crazy jobs and positions over the past few years.  Why not abandon this path? Why not walk away? A lot of people do… 

 

JOSH: Right. Yeah. Well, that’s because it gives my life meaning. It’s the most important thing that I do. When my brother passed away, it was an interesting time for me because it was, sure, quite terrible, but it was also quite enlightening, because I was in a position where everyone was saying, “Hey… you’ve got to find out what your brother meant to you.” And I had to try to understand myself, as well. Being mid-20s at the time, I was still living at home so it was a very weird atmosphere, very surreal. So I tried to inject, if you will, some kind of joy into my life to try to temper the sadness and stuff. So, I started to do things.

And I think a lot of people do things in a situation like this.  They travel, purchase things, take up hobbies… all to see what would actually affect their behaviour. And, ultimately, at the end of the day, the only thing that I consistently found I really enjoyed doing was writing in a journal. And it wasn’t just writing thoughts, it was writing stories. It was always the same thing, it was talking about the next film, or what would make a good film or writing a script, even if the script didn’t work out, even if the dialogue was crap or the idea wasn’t fully formed.

It was creating something. I felt like I was working towards something, like there was a longer goal, and that was a huge factor for me. I wrote with a friend for a couple of months in the spring and that was the most fun I’d had doing anything, whether it was travelling, whether it was hanging out with friends, whether it was sex, or any of that.  Nothing compared to that period of creation. Because you just felt like, “I know this is maybe not going to work out the way I want, but I’m glad that I’m doing it,” you know?

After that period I knew for sure that I couldn’t be doing anything else. Like, whatever “normal” job I might do, I knew that I’d be repressing a part of myself.  I’d always need to have that aspect of creating something, creating a story or working on an idea.

So I think that’s what allows me to work on projects for free or next to no money. I look at this as a long process. I don’t ever think that I’m going to get to the point of knowing that, “Oh, I’ve done it. I’ve hit this mark.” I don’t think that’s ever going to be the case, and it doesn’t really matter because the process is really fun.

 

SEAN: So, a lot of people assume that some of us are born with well defined goals – that we know what we want to be. You were talking about just enjoying the process. What if it’s a project with friends and the story sucks. Would you still enjoy it?

 

JOSH: Yes, but not as much.  There’s a lot of times when you’re like, “Oh, I don’t think this story is fully fleshed out,” and I have a difference of opinion with the author. I guess what I enjoy in those cases is refining my skills. <laughs>  

So we’ve got the script and maybe it’s not the best script, but we can add things. What can we do, from the production standpoint, to make it as good as possible? What can we do to fix aspects of it? And I think that is always a good experience because you’re forced to kind of think on your feet and learn to adapt, which really is the number one rule in anything. Being creative is being able to adapt when someone throws you a curve ball and say, “Okay well, that doesn’t work.”

SEAN: How does it feel when you have to do that?

 

JOSH: It feels good as long as you’re able to do it as a group. I think what really derails people’s interest in the process, and people can get really pissed off about it, is when their ability to make an impact has been reduced. We all want to be heard. And it’s hard when you don’t have that kind of say and you feel like you’re just, essentially, treading water.

There are lots of little elements where if you can’t make an impact, especially as a producer, it can be, for sure, very disempowering. You don’t want to be as involved and it can taint future experiences, especially, if you’re being paid. I think that’s the worst.  If you’re being paid to be a hatchet man for a production, I think this can be the hardest part of my job. So, I would add that the greatest part about free projects is that you usually have a stronger voice.

 

SEAN: Let’s talk about your life and the choices you make.  Like running to LA for your friend’s school production and stuff like that.  Do you think people would say that you are following a “safe” path?

 

JOSH: No, not at all.  It’s definitely not the safe path.

 

SEAN: Would you see it as unsafe, though?

 

JOSH: I would say that I don’t take as many risks as others in the industry do, but I certainly take risks. I don’t know if I would use the word “unsafe” ‘cause, to me, it has more of a negative ring. But it also isn’t a question for me.  I have to do these things.  I can’t stop myself.  And that’s the hard part because it’s fucking stupid and I know I shouldn’t do it but, “I’m still going to do it,” you know?

It’s like the Bright Eyes lyric, “I’d rather be working for a paycheque than waiting to win the lottery.” To me, working for a paycheque doesn’t mean working nine to five.  It means continuing to get out there and work on what you love. I know a guy who has been working to get the same feature film produced for over 10 years and doing nothing else.  That’s like waiting to win the lottery, and I’m too pragmatic and conservative a person to fall for that.

Being in the industry doesn’t mean you have to be a starving artist, but it does mean that if you believe in a project and it’s for free and it’s for a friend or something, then you absolutely need to find a way to do it and there’s no question of saying “no.” Because then what was all this for? Why did you waste your time fucking going to Los Angeles, going to film school or doing any of the other projects?

 

SEAN: Talk about that, because we both know people who say they want to get involved in film and I would say 80 to 90% of the time these people don’t show up. They’re not reliable. They won’t put in the 14-hour gruelling days. But you are different. That’s what’s always struck me about you, that you’re going to come through. Where does that come from? Is it tied to the passion and enjoyment? 

 

JOSH: Yeah. Part of it is taking pride in what you do. And it always comes down to the craft. It’s like you want to be good at something, you know? You see so many things that aren’t working out and you don’t want to be that. You would like to be more certain, you’d like to be less changeable, less fickle than a lot of people. You like to come through. And I think a lot of that, especially, in your role as a producer, is you want to be that person on set and through the project who helps to steer the course. When the director’s having second thoughts, when the writer doesn’t know what he’s going to write next, when the editor’s upset about something, you want to be the one everyone can turn to.

I’ve always enjoyed that aspect of management. I like the leadership role. I’m digressing a tiny bit, but I think it’s an interesting insight that I’ve had about myself. I’m one of those people that needs to be a frontrunner. And I think that’s because of my personal competition with myself. I think anyone’s that’s competitive really is just competitive with themselves.

I always have the burden of, “If this doesn’t come through, it’s on your head - you were responsible for this,” driving me.  I crave it. And so a lot of the time I’ll go out of my way to take responsibility for things because I like the pressure that that puts on me to succeed. Maybe that can be self-destructive sometimes, but I think that this is also what I really enjoy.

 

SEAN: Can you give me an example of where you haven’t been so driven? I’ve never seen you without that drive or commitment.

 

JOSH: <laugh>.  Yeah, I don’t know if it happens. I know that I’ve gotten really resentful, even as a kid, when I tried to organize camping trips with my other friends, who are great guys, but total fucking boneheads when it comes to the details. And I remember just being, like, so frustrated when someone wouldn’t return a phone call or, forget to bring the charcoal. On the following trip I would pick up charcoal, so there would be like redundant auxiliary charcoal, ‘cause I knew he would probably forget to bring the charcoal again.

I think a lot of it is a control thing which I think I also have to learn to ease off of. Because, I know for myself, I can get frustrated and blame myself for certain situations, which is totally unfair, because things happen that I can’t control. But for me, it’s not an option. If my name’s going on it I would like it to be the best that I can realistically make it.

 

SEAN: So, at the beginning you talked about how the act of creating actually brings enjoyment to you. That’s something that I would say almost everyone that I interact with struggles with. Hell, I struggle with it!  We are always asking ourselves, “What’s my passion? What’s my thing? What’s my future? What’s my dream job?“ And, I don’t know if this is a fair question, but how do you teach people to just understand what they enjoy?

 

JOSH: I’ve always been so hyper-focused on my goal. Not a goal. It’s a desire, a strong desire, a passion really, to tell a really compelling story and to move people with something that matters. There was a time, though, when I was a kid, that I wanted to be a psychiatrist.  This lasted for a long time, for years.

I really think it comes down to what we yearn to do on a daily basis. And when you take away things like, just the basic appetite of desires (food and sex, new things, new technology, new clothes, and trips) people will start to gravitate towards certain things. Sometimes that’s just connecting with other people, sometimes that’s music.

I know, for my brother, it was a big thing figuring out what he wanted to do. He would spend a lot of his time talking to his friends online and recommending songs that he felt would inspire them. He had a friend that was in Afghanistan, and he would write him all the time and that guy’s still really affected by what my brother wrote. Eventually my brother started to realize he kind of liked music a lot. Not that he wanted to necessarily become a musician, he kind of realized that wasn’t for him. But he loved playing the piano and listening to music. He couldn’t work without it. So the more he thought about it the more he was like, “Well, maybe I could help people with my selections of music,” and it started to become this thing of, “Well, maybe I want to be a music therapist.” And that’s something that he ultimately came to a decision that he wanted to do.

I think that it really just started with noticing that everything he was doing had this constant element in it. I have a friend who I’ve always believed should probably work for government. Since I’ve know him, he has always read the paper, every single day of his life.  In fact, he always reads a couple of newspapers, every day, from like when he was 13 years old. I mean, there are not a lot of kids I went to school with that did that. And I always commented on it. He had very strong opinions on Canadian policy, foreign policy. He went on to get a bunch of degrees and now he’s doing odd jobs and is like, “Well, where should I be?” And I’ve been saying for years, “You really should consider the foreign service. Something where you can affect policies.  Or PR or government relations.”

I think a lot of people just need to take the time to tune into what they love doing. Go out and do all the stuff that is just a basic primal human thing like sleep in, eat well, have sex, travel but, at the end of the day, look at what you actually do between those moments. And what you enjoy doing.

 

SEAN: I don’t know if there’s anything scarier to an individual, in western society, than contemplating the things that we’re really passionate about. It’s the one thing that we don’t want to admit to ourselves. It’s almost like we’ve built this world where we can ignore our passions. To actually go and investigate a passion that’s potentially at odds or unrelated to our job and our life, can be really painful.

 

JOSH: I don’t have a kid.  I don’t have a mortgage. I don’t have a lot of debt. So I can take more risks. So in that sense, I have an advantage.  But I don’t think that it has to be so dramatic where we have to take weeks off of work or anything like that. It’s just about doing the things you enjoy doing. For no other reason than for the fact that, just intrinsically, you like doing this thing. “I intrinsically like to garden. I like it, it’s interesting. I love to read about plants. Maybe I should read a book on botany.”

I really do believe that when people start doing that, regardless of whether they’re a financial analyst or a movie maker, this will make them better at their job. Maybe that’s naive, but I think everyone’s so different and when you start to tap into that difference, what you are passionate about, you’re just going to see the world in a different way and that’s incredibly valuable to everyone, organizations and people. 

“I got a commerce degree, I work for a bank, blah, blah, blah,” but that’s not really who you are. What’s interesting is your background, your interests and what makes you different. And I think that it really comes down to taking the time. I’m wary to put a number on it, like a day or how many days or whatever. I know that we’re all incredibly busy.

But I believe everyone can afford the time to start a journal about what interests them. Maybe it’s a tape recording or an app on your phone that you can record your voice. What do you find yourself thinking about? “Okay, I’m going through my day. I’ve just eaten lunch. I’m back at the office. What am I doing?” and just recording it. And then just pay attention to what you enjoy doing. “Whoa, that’s really interesting. I keep wanting to read a book on how to build a kayak. It just interests me, how it’s built or the history of it.”

And then there are the people also already know what they like, “I wanted to be a rock star. Only, I’m entering my early 30s and I don’t think that’s realistic anymore, so I’m going to go take a job doing PR and promoting rock bands,” or whatever it is. I believe you have to examine what it was about an end goal or profession that you were attracted to. And I don’t ever believe its just fame. I don’t have such a cynical view of people. I think it has to do with what they love doing.

It can also be about going back to when you were a kid. What did you play with? What did you enjoy doing? What roles did you take on as a kid? Which roles did you not enjoy? And, again, that comes from getting in touch with how you think, really, on a day-to-day basis. And maybe that’s journaling, maybe that’s travelling, or whatnot, but I absolutely believe it’s all connected.

 

A Public Debate with Jen Evans

[Update: July 13, Jen Evan's response added.]
[Update: July 17, Sean's response added.]
[Update: July 28, Jen wades back in.]

I recently had the pleasure of drinks with Jen Evans, founder and chief strategist of Sequentia Environics.  Many had spoken to me over the years of Jen, but amazingly we had never connected.  Let me just say that I now join what I believe to be a long list of people who admire her spirit, intensity and intelligence.

At one point in our laughter and exploration, Jen challenged me to a public debate.  Unlike some who might have done so in jest, Jen followed up with me on Twitter the next morning with the topic for said event.  I feel like I have been transported to an era of calling cards and pistol duels.  How totally awesome is that!?  Woot!

Jen, please feel free to email me your response and I will edit this post with your reply.  Or we can use the comments area.  Your call, my lady.  ;)

Jen Evans (via Twitter - abbreviations removed)

"I think marketing can and will evolve into something I like to call the virtuous cycle of empathetic marketing: what do people need from the products and services they buy?  How do we help them diagnose that in a way that adds real value and informs?  I believe in Drucker's vision of the function of the corporation and marketing, and I believe digital really allows that vision to happen. Discuss!"

My response

I must begin by challenging the initial question.  First, because your question affirms an unfair advantage upon you as your firm excels in converting people with a stated interest in a product or service into a sale.  But more importantly, I have to wonder if this is really the opportunity on the table both for our clients and for our respective agencies.

I would ask if the opportunity we are faced with is rather this: What is it that people value, need and want?  And what role can an organization, brand, product or service play in supporting and/or fulfilling these needs?

I get and agree that we live in a world of conspicuous consumption and that products and services (in addition to affiliation with a brand) become symbols of status (in North America at least).  And the opportunity for a luxury brand in this context is so rarely fully leveraged.

But we also live in a society where significant forces are at work that I will argue are transforming organizations and individuals.  These forces are not technological in nature (though they are enabled by such).  They are social and come from a shift in beliefs.  In its rawest form, the concepts of purpose and the role of passion has become more pronounced in our day to day lives.  The drive has always existed.  Only now there is this belief that we all have the right (or even need) to find and even define our individual purpose.

"I believe wholeheartedly that a new form of capitalism is emerging.  More stakeholders, (customers, employees, shareholders, and the larger community) want their businesses to ... have a purpose bigger than their product." 
   -  Mats Lederhausen, Investor and former McDonalds executive (source)

And because this is a debate, I will turn to Ms. Evan's named source, Mr. Drucker.  I will admit I have become quite a fan of Drucker over these past few hours as I had clearly misclassified him in my head.

Well before 1996, Peter saw a shift happening in business.  Organizations would no longer be a place that supplied meaning and value to the lives of their members by virtue of the organization's stated beliefs.

"All institutions, including governments, churches, universities, and so on, will become more interdependent, more market- and customer-driven." [source]

Drucker wasn't speaking just about changes in how we market our services.  He was talking about changes within the very organization and its relationship to its employees, partners and supply chains.

"We know that knowledge people have to be managed as if they were volunteers. They have expectations, self-confidence, and, above all, a network. And that gives them mobility, which is probably the greatest change in the human condition. A very short time ago, if you were the son of a peasant, you were going to be a peasant. Even in this country, social mobility was almost unknown. Now, every one of the young people I know has his or her resume in the bottom drawer, which no blue collar worker ever did."

And I think that if Drucker were alive today he would be talking about this shift in purpose and aligning organizations with the passions and activities of its customers, employees, partners, etc.  In fact, much of what I've been able to find about him seems to say he likely saw this coming far earlier and may indeed have talked about it.  I'm just getting up to speed on Drucker, sadly.

Over to you, Jen.  If you buy my re-framing of the question, then I would be very interested in where and how you see people expressing their search for purpose, passion and meaning and what opportunities this presents for organizations, brands, products and services.

Jen Evan's Reply (July 13):

Sean, I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion as well and on our next meeting my only change in strategy will be to ply you and @interpretivist with multiple Perroni to weaken your thinking and resolve. I’m not above admitting it.

Having said that, I think your position is completely and utterly wrong. You see, I don’t believe in passion.

Passion is pre-eminent in an individualist mindset that I think has reached its apex/nadir in 21st century American politics, and is on the decline. The much bally-hooed search for personal fulfillment and passion, I think, has led to more destruction than any other single force in the West.

I think these are in many ways the most dangerous terms in modern society, and that passion is in fact killing us.

Much of consumer impulse, overacquisition and materialism, is tied up into ego, which is fed by passion and a highly developed sense of self. These destructive selfish influences create a drain on resources, create competition and envy, and cause people to always want more. This is not healthy nor sustainable. We live in cluttered homes with stuff we don’t need. We go after jobs and titles that make us a lot of money and boost our sense of self temporarily, but leave us miserable in the end. We make bad decisions about investments, resources, and much more because of ego. We start wars, we treat others poorly, all in sacrifice to this goal of personal fulfillment/passion/ego. I think we need to introduce a little nonattachment into the equation. And into the marketing equation as well.

I think the digital marketing experience, in the purest sense of marketing, in creating markets, can deliver better experiences and better decisions to people - if we focus on the outcome rather than the means to get there. We want people to have better experiences with the things they invest in and spend time with. We want people to select the right products and services and experiences – and careers, and volunteer roles, and so on. We need better information to make decisions. We want companies to have more successful technology rollouts; it’s better for everyone when things work properly, when products don’t have to be returned, when enterprise scale software implementations don’t get scuttled after hundreds of millions of dollars have been unsuccessfully spent. And the information is out there, and the explosion of digital allows us to collect, package and disseminate it in ways we never could before.

I do not believe in passion but I do believe in utility. I believe we are going to evolve – not entirely, but significantly -- away from interruptive marketing full of empty promises, toward usefulness and utility. I think this will take the form of structured information experiences delivered digitally to help people make informed objective decisions about the important things in their lives, be they work, family and friends, recreation, business or politics, along with things they own, and use every day. Imagine a pharmaceutical company surveying the families of thousands of subscribers of Alzheimers’ medication, and developing a three-year information guide to help families adjust and respond to a diagnosis, delivered as a plan in weekly information modules along with 24 hr support and monitoring. We have the collective knowledge to develop these kinds of tools. We now have the ability to efficiently capture, package and deliver it. And that is human, purposeful marketing that helps change people’s lives on a fundamental level. That is where we can get to, without having to look externally for bolt-on purpose or passion.

I am now going to take this to an entirely new level. I love the quote you selected:

"I believe wholeheartedly that a new form of capitalism is emerging.  More stakeholders, (customers, employees, shareholders, and the larger community) want their businesses to ... have a purpose bigger than their product." 
   -  Mats Lederhausen, Investor and former McDonalds executive

What I find most amazing about the entire discussion around purpose and meaning is that … we are having this dialogue as if these are things that we suddenly do externally. Businesses have a purpose bigger than their product. It’s called the quality of life of their employees, their employees’ families, and the quality of life of their customers.We have the ability to change lives and live lives of purpose every day within our sphere of influence: our workplaces, our families, the homeless guy at the corner, the new intern on her first day. Why aren’t we investing our energies in those places? Because it’s ego satisfying to find passion in big seemingly meaningful spectacular ego driving ways. We celebrate movies like The Blind Side  because that story is so exceptional (a privileged family takes a homeless boy into their home! holy cow!) that they made it into a movie, and that is just ... sad. Our purpose should be to reinvent ourselves from within, to focus on becoming kinder, less ego-driven workplaces, and kinder, less ego-driven people, kinder to each other and gentler on the resources we consume. We are individuals and we will never cease to be individuals, with strong egos and desires and passions already in place as part of our DNA.  I believe we need to try as much as we can to minimize that inner search for take our own desires out of the equation and focus on not passion, but selflessness and purpose.

My Reply (July 17)

Hey Jen,

I hate to break this to you.  But you are one of the most passionate people I now know.  Not only are you passionate, but you have this knack to collect the most passionate around you.  In fact, I would go so far as to blasphemy you in public.

"Jen Evans not only believes in passion, she practices it on a daily basis."
  - Sean Howard

But before I explain why I believe this to be so, let's recap where I believe we are in perfect, harmonious agreement.

I believe we are in agreement:

• On the opportunity to "help people make informed objective decisions about the important things in their lives" (I think digital will be like paper - one medium out of many)
• "Our purpose should be to reinvent ourselves from within, to focus on becoming kinder, less ego-driven workplaces, and kinder, less ego-driven people, kinder to each other and gentler on the resources we consume"
• "We go after jobs and titles that make us a lot of money and boost our sense of self temporarily, but leave us miserable in the end"
• "I believe we are going to evolve – not entirely, but significantly -- away from interruptive marketing full of empty promises, toward usefulness and utility"
• And the idea of the power of experience, content and utility when they are united to a measurable and positive outcome.

Back to your argument. 

I believe you may be confusing zeal with how I use the term passion.

Zeal being (according to Oxford) "great energy or enthusiasm in pursuit of a cause or an objective".  This doesn't sound so bad until we look at the root of the word.  It is from the Greek root Zelos.  The primary connotation of which is jealousy.  Eager desire.  And then we look at a zealot: "a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideal."

If I were to go through your argument and substitute zealousness in place of passion, then I would be in full agreement.  This type of emotion and encouraging it's growth have not led to good things and it could even be easily vilified as a key contributor to conspicuous consumption as well.

Passion is different to me.  And I can see where confusion comes in, as the definitions of this word are insanely broad.  Oxford has it as "an intense desire or enthusiasm for something" or "a thing arousing great enthusiasm."  Our dictionaries really suck.  It reads so similarly to Zeal.  With one caveat.  It's not about a cause that is always external.  And when I dig into the roots of the word, passio [latin] we find this idea of "suffering" and if we go all the way back to the Greek root of 'pathos', we find this sense of suffering and deep emotion.

It can be an all consuming fire.  It requires tempering.  On this, I certainly agree.  But I will argue later that it is not directly nor primarily responsible for the ills you attempt to connect to it.

I don't believe the search for passion is what has led to the inflation of ego and the drive for materialism.  I would argue that it is the inability to find real passion and purpose at a personal level that has enabled the ego to run rampant and has led to this yearning to be satisfied through rampant consumption.  I believe that the ego is actually checked by purpose and passion when these forces align.  And without alignment, the ego is easily fooled by zealots who would use and misappropriate a person's dreams, actions, etc.  Whether this zealot be a leader bent on world domination or the ex-head of GE.  :)

Let's go a bit zen for a moment.  I think we would both agree on the role purpose plays and that we both seek a world where individuals come to an understanding of their individual purpose and that this be a healthy force on the systems within which we live.  And clearly, it needs to be balanced and focused internally versus driven to achieve external signs of wealth and "greatness."

Assuming you are not running around screaming obscenities at me by this point, the potential agreement on purpose brings us to an interesting place.  Is there then a connection between passion and purpose?  I need to take a step back and turn to Jordan Peterson and his work to understand how we define and create meaning in the world.

His first tenet is that emotions do not function except in context to a goal.  As we move towards our goals, we feel good.  As we move away from our goals, we feel less good.  And each goal only exists within the context of a larger purpose.  Whether that purpose is to grow profits or help others.  And purpose only exists within the context of a social structure.  ie: our culture, a society or a company.  Which in itself lives inside a larger context.  Etc.

So Yes.  If you are a functioning member of society, passion and purpose are always connected.  But not always in a healthy way.

So what happens when we don't have internally set goals?  Let's assume we are excited to join a company that has a strong purpose.  We likely accept some of the goals that align with their purpose and this helps us feel good, have confidence and feel like a successful member of the organization.  But it doesn't stop there.  We also feel good about ourselves and our role in society.

But many corporations still live and die to drive materialism (or as they would put it - shareholder value).  Or they see purpose as the stability they bring their workers.  Stay focused on beating Pepsi.  What more do you need?

If we want to see a world where people have inner strength, then I would suggest we will want to find ways to connect individuals from the bottom up to passion and purpose and then align these individuals to organizations where the purpose and goals of the organization are not at extreme conflict with their personal beliefs.  Coke can still be focused on beating Pepsi.  Only now, the workers are allies in something bigger that is not about just driving consumption.

What's really neat is this is not just a philosophical debate.  Businesses are changing.  For Benefit (with profits) is emerging as a significant force.  For profit businesses are changing how they define their vision, purpose and objectives.  Often, they are doing so from the bottom up.  Allowing their employees to find and share in the passion, purpose and benefits.  Some of the most significant changes in business afoot today are around enabling mastery, autonomy and passion within the workforce at a positive, individual level.

Tom's Shoes.
Interface.
Google.

"The science shows that the secret to high performance isn’t our biological drive or our reward-and-punishment drive, but our third drive – our deep-seated desire to direct our own lives, to extend and expand our abilities, and to live a life of purpose."  (Daniel Pink, Drive)

I wanted to make sure I got back to the idea of zeal.  And how a zealot is someone "who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideal."  I spent some time with this statement because I think that we are in a time of significant social change and this uncompromising attitude may be the single largest threat you and I both face in our quite similar missions to create a world that is not driven by materialism or blind external faith.

If there is anything that has led to war, it is sacred beliefs.  By sacred beliefs I do not necessarily mean religious, but rather any belief that is not subject to challenge.  These beliefs are at the core of all conflicts.  There is a great bit of work being done on sacred beliefs that I was reading about in the latest Scientific American Mind, July/August 2010.  Beliefs not subject to negotiation are what drive the political landscape, negotiations and conflicts of our present day.

At the end of your article you bring things back to something you are driven to accomplish which I believe is tied in with the empathic marketing you mention in the original challenge.  I am very interested in this idea and hope you will have a chance to elaborate further on it.

But I also promised you Rumi.  So I end with my dearest Coleman Barks translation.  It is about this search for selflessness and purpose you speak of, but from a vantage point of inner passion (at least to me).

The Center of the Fire

No more wine for me!
I'm past delighting in the thick red
and the clear white.

I'm thirsty for my own blood
as it moves into a field of action.

Draw the keenest blade you have
and strike, until the head circles
about the body.

Make a mountain of skulls like that.
Split me apart.

Don't stop at the mouth!
Don't listen to anything I say.
I must enter the center of the fire.

Fire is my child
but I must be consumed
and become fire.

Why is there crackling and smoke?
Because the firewood and the flames
are still talking:

"You are too dense. Go away!"
"You are too wavering. I have solid form."

In the blackness those two friends keep arguing.
Like a wanderer with no face.
Like the most powerful bird in existence
sitting on its perch, refusing to move.

What can I say to someone so curled up with wanting,
so constricted in his love?

Break your pitcher against a rock.
We don't need any longer
to haul pieces of the ocean around.

We must drown, away from heroism,
and descriptions of heroism.

Like a pure spirit lying down, pulling
its body over it, like a bride her husband
for a cover to keep her warm.

(Mevlâna Jalâluddîn Rumi translated by Coleman Barks.  Source)

Jen's Response (July 28)

So Sean, first of all, I love that Rumi. Reminded me of reading Ondaatje's the cinnamon peeler for the first time. Gorgeous. The kind of passage that transforms you as you read it. But I'm starting to wax poetic and we're here to talk about marketing. Er, passion. And the intersection of the two.

Yes, I have the passion. Whatever you call it: zeal, enthusiasm, passion, I have it. I am passionate about a lot of things. And as a business owner, I also have a passion for profitable growth. Really, I want my business to be not only successful, but game changing! Epic! World dominating! Paradigm shifting!

And therein lies the problem. I am very passionate. I start to become attached to the outcome of my passion, the end result. And that is where passion becomes dangerous: when we are compelled to defend it. The *instant* we become attached to some outcome of that passion, it starts controlling us. I love to paint becomes attachment to the idea of being a great painter (for all but the least ego-involved.) Or producing a masterpiece. The teachings of christ are amazing! becomes: we must follow them down to the last literal letter, and anyone who disagrees with us clearly has the wrong kind of passion, so let's get rid of 'em. And so on. Bringing it back to digital: how many ridiculously defensive blog posts and comments have you read where people will tear a strip off each other - off people they don't even know - just to win a point? Not that I'm judging, but ... Ego. Dumb, hungry, endlessly unsatisfied, defensive, selfish ego.

There is a great rudyard kipling quote: if you can meet with triumph and disaster/and treat those two impostors just the same. Think about that. Success and failure are the same. Passion-fed ego makes that perception almost impossible. We read too much of our perceived selves into it. Our industry is the same. We celebrate great cool clever campaigns and mock 'failures' (all descriptors subjective). We don't celebrate effectiveness and utility. We don't push for innovation. Why? Because we are attached, through reputation, or compensation, or yes, passion, to the status quo.  

So yes, I am passionate. And I now work very consciously, and with great difficulty and continual failure, to not be attached to that passion, to observe those passionate feelings, recognize them, but not be driven by them. You have to work really hard to not be attached to the idea of being better, smarter, or the smartest. Or the best. Because the ego will do just about anything, rationalize all kinds of behaviours and delusions, to make sure it gets satisfied. And when you start to really get into the idea of non-attachment ... Well, it's the thin end of the wedge that makes you start to question the validity of cartesian thinking and being. What if my thinking has nothing to do with my being and is in fact a false symptom? Chew on that one for a minute. But I digress. Once we get through marketing and poetry we can move on to philosophy .... But first let's tie this back to the task at hand.

Marketing comms and advertising have traditionally been blunt force bait and switch. I will appeal to your emotion/ego in order to get you to buy thing x. Does it actually do or make you feel that thing? By and large, no. In other words, we sell false promises based on perceived need: an agenda that is set by marketers. It's a hideous, clumsy way of matching consumer need to object. We've also made it very sophisticated, expensive and industrialized, an unrefined blunt object that manipulates emotion to achieve its goal. The promise is rarely delivered upon, if ever. We can do better. Then, it's about utility. It's about: how do we change. How do we use the collective knowledge we now have at our fingertips to make things better and deliver more meaningful experiences.  How do we use this incredible set of tools to learn more about each other, and communicate, and make improvements on a societal level as well? That takes non-attachment. That takes moving past advertising and selling a product and into true societal utility.


I don't think we are far off. I think it is a natural evolution given these amazing digital toolsets and datasets we can now pull together. Do I have a clue what it is going to look like? I have my ideas, yes, and they revolve around the impending realization companies are going to have soon: that they actually can do a really good job of talking to their customers and prospects, directly, themselves. Now, I have a lot invested in that reality happening, so I don't pretend to be objective or have all the answers, but I will say this: it looks nothing like it does right now. Old spice was a funny example of this. You saw a lot of advertisers saying, see? SEE? There's life in the old dog yet. And yes, the old spice campaign was fun. Fleeting. Ephemera. And we need that in the world. But is it anything new? Is it a really great example of the power of connection to change how we decide what we want and why? Not really. Funny though! And there will always be room for funny and shocking and engaging based on the mores of the time. But what we have here, the thing that is different and new,  is an opportunity to change what marketing is and what it accomplishes. From meaningless, to something that reflects and helps us better understand what it really, really means to be human.

And on that grandiose note, I await your rejoinder.

What we REALLY know

Fuck.  Fuck.  Fuck.

I can't say any more or less at this point about the following presentation.

Other than to say it is filled with more nuggets per pound than anything I've read in the past 2 years.

The Real Life Social Network v2

View more documents from Paul Adams.

Everyone "says" that people matter

Every company says their people matter.

But would your company change their homepage to mark the death of someone?

Even if it meant you would see a SIGNIFICANT drop in sales?

Would you have the guts?

Everywhere I have worked, management always refers to "us" as a "family".

And I've often questioned the reality behind the sentiment.

Today, Apple proved to the world that their people matter.

If I was an Apple employee, I'd be walking a bit taller today.

Dummies Guide to Behavioral Psychology and Engagement

Mike Arauz had a great post on What Behavioral Psychology Can Teach Us About Engagement.

He refers to an article by John Hopson on Behavioral Game Design.

Hopson is attempting to open up the world of behavioral psychology to game designers.

Namely the idea of rewards and contingencies.

Rewards are pretty self explanatory.

And contingencies are simply the "rules governing when rewards are given out."

 

Now we add in the user and their actions.

"there are actions on the part of the participant which provide a reward under specific circumstances."

Hopson defines two types of reward rules (or contingencies): Ratios and Intervals

A ratio example would be a game where you gain XP for every monster you slay. [And after so many monsters you go up a level (reward)]

An interval example would be Space Invaders where power-ups appear based on what level you are on.

 

The biggest breakthrough in behavioral psychology came when B.F. Skinner was running low on rat pellets and began giving out rewards intermittently.

"Experimenting with different regimens of reward, he found that they produced markedly different patterns of response."

And I had to realize we've gotten lazy.

Too many of our experiences tie a reward to every desired action.

A coupon for every friend you delete.

A free VIP gift for becoming a fan.

Points for every tweet!

Or worse, our rewards are completely "random" in nature.

Win a camera!  Win a car!  Thousands of prizes!

Hopson points out that ratios alone lead to long pauses between flurries of activity which can be a challenge if we want to keep people consistently engaged in something.

As such, Arauz is recommending we explore using Variable Ratio Schedules in experience design.

This is a fancy way of saying we combine unexpected rewards together with reward mechanics that are clear and predictable.

"If you want to see sustained steady engagement, then the best approach is a Variable Ratio Schedule. In this approach the number of activities required to trigger a reward changes randomly, so the first time the player may have to kill 10 monsters to get an extra life, but the next time they only have to kill 5. The promise of the next reward is always on the horizon."

I like the idea a lot.  But is it realistic?  Is it actionable?  How would we apply it to an experience we create? 

Lemme know your thoughts.

Death of the URL Bar

Uploaded with plasq's Skitch!

Prediction:  The URL bar will go away (as we know it.)

We do not need two bars on our browsers.

More users are using the search bar for everything.  Because it always works.  Type in a search term and bingo, you get the results you were looking for.  Type in a URL and bingo, you click on the first link that comes back.

The URL bar is dying.

The day the Google search bar automatically takes you to a URL is the day the URL bar will become extinct.

The Future of Publics

I don't come from this space, so speaking of "publics" in the plural freaks me out a little.  That said, this presentation rocks.  It's much closer to engagement in this new socially leveraged world of technology we live in today.

Public Media 09 Presentation | Public Media 2.0: Dynamic, Engaged Publics, by Jessica Clark and Pat Aufderheide of the Center for Social Media

View more presentations from Jessica Clark. (tags: for center)

The Passion Economy eBook

It all started when I first read Saul Kaplan's article on "Creating a Passion Economy". I was so enamored with this concept that I asked eleven people I respect to weigh in on their views regarding "The Passion Economy" and it's role or impact on business, brands and each of us.

 

 

 
Downloadable Link:
The Passion Economy: opportunity for brands or jut a fad? (PDF, 2.3 megs)

First, a big thanks to:
Saul Kaplan for the article that kicked this all off (catalyst!)
Valeria Maltoni for the idea I stole (eBook)
Peter Flaschner for his design vision, ideas and wine
Eli McIlveen for urging me on and his amazing editorial reviews

And now, a round of applause for the contributors:

Scott Suthren
Ellen Di Resta
Gavin Heaton
Charles Frith
Mike Wagner
Mack Collier
Mike Arauz
Katie Chatfield
Alan Wolk
Peter Flaschner
Matthew Milan

Please share this document freely and join in the conversation!

 

Play More: Embedded Futures

This is an experiment to enable more play in my life.  I've come to realize that - for me - to play is to create, to dream and to imagine. So I will begin with a possibility that arose when I first interacted with a Flip Video Camera.

A year ago I came across my first Flip Video Camera.  The amazement of flicking a switch and seeing a USB connector pop out amazed me so much that I went around the office demonstrating this feature over and over to the immense enjoyment of my co-workers.  Click.  Click.  Click. See!  Full frame video and audio for less than $100 and no cable!  Click.  Click.  Click. 

A neat solution to something few in the industry addressed as a problem - not having a cable on hand.  But this was not the real innovation as I saw it.  What floored me was that there was no software to install (aside from a driver issue).  Rather, the software to edit and upload your movies existed on the camera in PC and Mac formats.  Plugging in the camera caused it to appear as a drive and double clicking the software on the camera would cause it to run on your computer. 

This idea of software delivered "embedded" in a device is what got me excited.

I'm going to take a very broad and liberal view of "embedded software".  The industry views embedded software as something extremely specialized and included on a chip to better enable the hardware to interact with the real world.  But what if software came embedded on devices the way the Flip software for editing videos comes "embedded" on the Flip Video camera?

Questions for Playing

What are the human behaviors?  The unmet needs?

Devices that require software to be installed SEVERELY limit their ability to be used collaboratively with others who don't have the software installed.  As we move into a participatory culture and world, should devices that require software not come with the needed software on them?  I buy apps on my iPhone that require me to install software on my PC or Mac.  But updating my iPhone software doesn't update the computer software.  And further, to use these apps with another computer I have to find and download the software required.  Why?

What trends/changes show a shift away from software delivered via CD-ROM?

Networked computing/storage is exploding.  Google Docs, anyone?  How many people are shifting to buying and downloading software?  What if media was intelligent and DRM was less about who could use it and where it was being used from?  Networking standards have come a very long way.  I can connect my Mac and PCs to the same networks with less and less issues.

What if in the future we upgrade our "computers" by purchasing other physical devices that enable new features or capabilities in our devices?

Scenarios / Play Time!

The Car as Catalyst

Kat was late for work.  Again.  She grabbed her purse, coat and keys and shoved them under one arm, freeing up her hands to initiate a call to her assistant on her iphone.  Her car - sensing the approaching keys with an RFID signature - turned on the lights, started the engine and unlocked the doors.  Tossing everything haphazardly into the car and speaking into the bluetooth earpiece, "Jana, can you move my 8am?  I'm not gonna make it."

Her iphone beeped in her ear.  It had connected to the car and found local software standing by to run.  She began to dig through the debris on the seat beside her to find her phone while listening to Jana complain about how full her day already was.  "Aha!" she pronounced as she came up with the phone, much to Jana's surprise.  "It's cool, Jana, just reschedule Marketing to next week.  I'll call him later today."

She pressed "Proceed" on her phone, allowing it to launch the apps found in the car and quickly bypassed the signature check.  The dashboard application came to life - allowing her iPhone to take over the entertainment functions for the vehicle.  She smiled and turned to put her hands on the wheel, knowing that her favorite programming would begin as soon as this call ended. If it ended. Jana continued to ramble on about some trip the Chairman wanted her to take.  She put the car into reverse and backed out of the driveway, making a mental note to download some new audiobooks on time management to her phone.

The Printer as Enabler

Jeremy ran the office for a small not-for-profit that helped to develop sustainable building projects in the core of Toronto.  He felt good about his job but his role could be quite challenging. He was constantly tasked to accomplish the impossible on budgets that were always insufficient.  His latest task was to replace the aging office equipment as well as upgrade everyone's software in the office with a budget that was more appropriate to throwing a pizza party.

So when Jeremy decided he needed a new printer for the office, he became very interested in the new lines of multi-use printer/copier/fax/scanner/counterfeiting units.  There were so many to choose from. It was a bit daunting and he had already wasted an afternoon at one of the stores with some kid who was just reading to him from the boxes.  One model did stand out in his mind, however, and it was the new Xerox model.

He didn't really care the technology the printers used to print but he did like their story about less waste.  What really amazed him about this particular unit was that it came with a full copy of Photoshop SmallOffice - they called it "Smart Software".  He wasn't quite sure what "Smart Software" was but figured it was worth a risk.  He had 24 hours to return it with no questions asked. 

When he unpacked the printer, he was a bit surprised that there were no CD-ROMs or software to install.  The quick-start guide walked him through how to plug the printer in and how to get it on the network. Jeremy walked through the setup instructions while eating a bagel and as he pressed the last button, he had to jump back.  Like magic, a network drive began to appear on every computer in the office - Macs and PCs.

He sat down at his computer, thinking this was beyond cool.  There was a folder for drivers and another folder for software.  He clicked on the software folder and there was a Mac and a PC executable for Photoshop as well as ScanSoft.  He double clicked Photoshop and sure enough, a full copy of Photoshop SmallOffice launched.  A screen came up and said he was the only user and 2 more copies could be run at any time by any other computer on his network.  It also warned him not to copy the software to his computer as it would only run when launched from the printer.

Was this cool?  Sure, but Jeremy wasn't sure how this would be adopted.  Over the next few weeks he became a believer.  His office saw a constant flux of people as they used a lot of part-time and even seasonal staff.  Suddenly it was ridiculously easy to get people connected to the printer.  And if they needed to scan something, the software was right there for them.  No more installing of CD's and the like.  Furthermore, his graphic artist on staff was beyond happy as they had been using a copy of Photoshop that was 5 years old.  If anything, Jeremy was interested in buying more concurrent licenses for the applications...

Electronics as Enhancement

"Is that the new Samsung 3000+ Entertainment console?", Josh asked in a reverent and disbelieving tone.  Greg grinned and nodded.  Josh gulped visibly and a look of envy flashed across his face before he regained his composure.  "That's the one that turns on 5D sound in World of Warcraft 7?"  His question died at the end as he noticed the shit-eating grin on Greg's face.

Greg had to laugh as he pulled his laptop from under the coffee table and presented it to Josh.  "Here.  Try it."  Josh had been reading the reviews and his hand trembled as he went to launch World of Warcraft from the Start menu only to have Greg bat his mouse hand away.  "Dude.  Please.  You have to run the special version off the console."

Josh looked like a geek who had been shown up by a small child.  Greg grinned and double clicked the network drive for his sound console and launched the icon located there under games.  It quickly searched his hard drive for the other needed game components and then launched the advanced version that took advantage of the unique capabilities of the house-shaking sound system that the packaging promised "came close to bending time and space."

Play with Me, It's Fun!

This is about playing, not predicting.  It's about unlearning and exploring without the normal boundaries in place.  What emerges and what other ideas come up are totally a bonus.  So wade on in.

P.S.  Come on Alan, you can't let that last title "get off" so easily.  ;)

Focus Group Dystopia: Marketers Beware

I've been arguing against the validity of focus groups for some time now and I'm certainly not alone.  They are not effective tools for innovation, insight generation or validation. But now they are outright dangerous.

Focus groups lend themselves to being gamed.  We saw it very early in the dot com boom where the same people would show up regardless of how you worded the screener.  It didn't matter which firm you used, or whether you wanted someone with 1 year of experience online, 3 years of experience or a PhD in computer science.  Marla and Jim would be in the submitted names.  They were professional focus groupers and had registered with every research house in town.

So the market reacted and higher end houses worked to identify and screen these people out.  But now a new variation appears to be at play.  One where cheating the marketers is not only the order of the day, it's a business.

A friend of mine loves focus groups.  Let's call him Dan.  As an actor, focus groups allow him to make some easy cash between gigs.  The other day I met Dan for lunch and he informed me that he had a focus group to attend after our meal.  Nothing unusual.

What was unusual was he had notes.  While we were waiting for the bill he was studying them quite intently.  I was quite perplexed and asked him what the notes were for.  He smiled awkwardly and said he had to be a gay man between jobs with two kids from a previous divorce.  He was trying to memorize his previous work history and his views on dating sites.  My jaw hit the table.

His recruiter didn't call with a screener.  His recruiter called with briefing notes on who he was to "become" for the session.

I pity the marketer still using focus groups.  It's only going to get worse.

Image Source: Oliver Ingrouille