Favre's Passion

"You can't fake the passion." - Brett Favre discussing his love of football with NFL commentator (and former pro wide receiver) Chris Collingsworth in an interview aired 12/6/09 before NBC's Sunday Night football game.

Putting Someone Else In TOMS Shoes

“I believe that you can do good by doing well.”
Blake Mycoskie - Chief Shoe Giver, TOMS Shoes

Chances are you’ve already read or heard about this company. Perhaps it was a story in Time magazine, a feature in People, or one of another dozen or so articles in prominent magazines or newspapers across the country during the past couple years. Or maybe you saw the “More Bars In More Places” AT&T television advertising spot earlier this year. It was kind of a cool spot. But even if you’ve heard about this company, their story is worth telling again. Their approach to business is totally Gonzo Innovation.

A couple years after taking third in the 2002 reality television show The Amazing Race II, entrepreneur Blake Mycoskie returned to one of his favorite destinations from the show – Argentina. While there, visiting a remote village, Blake was struck by the number of barefoot children who were unable to afford the basic footwear worn by most locals. In that moment, seeing that many of these children had infected cuts on their feet and wondering what he might be able to do about it, Blake Mycoskie had an epiphany. In that moment, the underlying “One for One” premise of TOMS Shoes was born. And in May 2006, after developing a more commercially viable version of the alpargatas (simple roped soled shoes) worn throughout Argentina by everyone from farmers to polo players, TOMS Shoes became a reality.

Later that first year, made possible because of caring TOMS customers, Blake with a group of family, friends, and staff, returned to Argentina to distribute its first 10,000 pairs of shoes. As of August 2009, TOMS has given over 150,000 pairs of shoes to children in need throughout the world, with plans to give over 300,000 pairs in 2009.

Wow.

From the company website:
“TOMS Shoes was founded on a simple premise: With every pair you purchase, TOMS will give a pair of new shoes to a child in need. One for One. Using the purchasing power of individuals to benefit the greater good is what we're all about.”

TOMS (short for Shoes for Tomorrow) is everything Gonzo.

It is infused with passion

It is filled with purpose.

It’s efforts are experiential.

It’s team is committed.

For a consumer, shopping with TOMS equals giving. The company’s “One for One” business model has transformed customers into benefactors. And in doing so, TOMS has created a truly sustainable gonzo business that isn’t dependent on fundraising for support. Pretty amazing.

Perhaps you should consider putting someone else in TOMS shoes this holiday season.
_____________

TOMS shoes are available at department stores and specialty shops throughout the U.S. Find a retailer or purchase online at http://www.tomsshoes.com/.

[This entry was posted simultaneously on Front End of Innovation]

Gonzo Investment

I bought 1000 shares of The Rum Diary on hsx.com today.

Innovation is in the Eye of the Beholder

“When people have learned to love music for itself, when they listen with other ears, their enjoyment will be of a far higher and more potent order, and they will be able to judge it on a higher plane and realize its intrinsic value…” - Igor Stravinsky

A month or so ago, after partaking in a discussion with rock critics Jim DeRogatis of the Chicago Sun Times and Greg Kot of the Chicago Tribune, I began exploring The Difference Between Innovative & Stupid. As part of this exploration, I identified two important elements for making this distinction – the necessity for passion in the innovation process and the infusion of what could be termed “amplified personality.” I’ll not rehash this discussion here, but if you’ve not read the original post, I’d encourage you to take a peek.

During the same discussion that prompted me to delineate between innovative and stupid, Greg Kot made an interesting point when he said “music is only as good as the person who listens to it.” He didn’t use these words to describe his statement, but his point was essentially that a person needs to be experienced enough, knowledgeable enough, and simply open to the music enough so that, as Stravinsky suggests, he or she is “able to judge it on a higher plane and realize its intrinsic value.” I contend that with innovation, as with music, you need an experienced, knowledgeable, open person to recognize the intrinsic value of the innovation. This person may be someone involved in the process to develop the innovation or perhaps someone who consumes the innovation. In either case, innovation is only as good as the person who experiences it. Without this insight, innovation may be lost.

In 1974, after recently seeing a now legendary performer in concert, rock critic Jon Landau, writing for the Boston alternative weekly newspaper The Real Paper, penned the prophetic statement “I saw rock ‘n’ roll future and its name is…”

[You didn’t honestly think I’d drop the name this early in the post, did you? Any guesses?]

So how does one go about gaining experience, and knowledge, or becoming open to innovation? Does wisdom come with age? Is it more important to be submersed in an occupation or industry for a significant duration, or are cross-functional talents and an eclectic mix of industry experience more beneficial? Is it possible to have an inherent gift for innovation? Is it innovation talent or skill that reigns supreme?

I don’t have easy answers. If you have thoughts, please share.

There are essentially two angles from which innovation is discovered and experienced. You might find yourself as part of the innovation development process, or you might be a consumer of an innovation. Although the developer might have more responsibility concerning the success of an innovation and the consumer may be the entity of on which the success relies, I don’t necessarily think the nature of the discovery or experiential process is intrinsically different between the two. You either “get it”, or you don’t. The question I keep asking myself is why do some get it, and others don’t?

As I sit here and ponder the role and responsibilities of the innovation developer and consumer, I can’t help wonder who at Xerox PARC decades ago decided it was okay to show their graphical user interface and mouse to Steve Jobs? Why didn’t they fully recognize the innovation in their midst?

On a personal level and as a consumer, I lament the fact that more people didn’t recognize the innovative nature of the lightly carbonated, citrus-flavored soft drink Rondo. If they had, perhaps I could still be enjoying the fabulous, innovative taste of this “thirst crusher.” I loved the stuff.

Jon Landau ultimately went on to manage and co-produce many albums for the subject of his prophetic 1974 statement. “I saw rock ‘n’ roll future and its name is Bruce Springsteen.” How he saw the future I do not know.

[This post originally appeared in the Front End of Innovation Blog 06/23/09 http://frontendofinnovation.blogspot.com/2009/06/innovation-is-in-eye-of-beholder.html]

The Difference Between Innovative & Stupid

“The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.” - Mark Twain

Hindsight is usually 20/20, unless of course you’re a perpetual drunk or a serious candidate for rehab. It’s relatively easy to look back with the wisdom of time and the help of modern day crowd-sourcing to identify great moments and products. Or specifically, innovative moments and products. But how, in the midst of the moment, can you identify true innovation? How do you know your idea isn’t simply stupid?

Of course there are different types of evaluations an organization can perform on new product ideas – Stage-Gate® scoring, customer feedback, test market campaigns, etc. But such evaluations are a reflection of, but do not necessarily pertain directly to innovation. They’re actually specifically geared towards determining market success, which may or may not actually be completely attributable to innovative ideas and practices.

Bob Dylan went electric at the Newport Folk Festival on July 25, 1965. He was booed aggressively when he did. Despite the negative crowd reaction, he continued to perform plugged-in throughout the formative years that followed. I imagine Bob Dylan didn’t care too much about what the crowd actually thought at the time. He would forge ahead with or without their approval. I wonder though if he realized the innovative impact his electric guitar would have on folk and rock ‘n’ roll music.

I recently had an opportunity to participate in a discussion with music critics Jim DeRogatis of the Chicago Sun Times and Greg Kot of the Chicago Tribune. In addition to their respective writing duties, Jim and Greg also host the nationally syndicated radio program Sound Opinions (http://www.soundopinions.org/), the world’s only rock and roll talk show. It can be heard coast to coast on public radio stations throughout the United States.

At some point during the discussion I asked Jim and Greg the question, “How do you determine whether a new piece of music is innovative, rather than simply just stupid?” When I asked the question, I knew whatever their answer would be, it wouldn’t actually address the fundamental issue facing a musician in the midst of the creative process (or organizations attempting to develop innovative products). Jim and Greg were answering from the perspective of a listener (or in this case critic). For the most part, the music they listen to (like all of us) has already been recorded and released by the time they hear it. They’re not struggling to create innovative music themselves.

Their responses were enlightening and entertaining none-the-less and reinforced some of my own ideas on the matter.

Jim DeRogatis began by suggesting there’s a fundamental difference between Patti Smith laying down the track “Piss Factory” and some random person that, as he put it, “farts into a mic and posts it on MySpace”. Both might be entertaining. But the former is innovative. The later is just stupid.

For Jim, the primary differentiating factor between such dichotomous recordings is the sense of “passion” emanating from the effort. Passion is a key component to the innovation process and should be reflected in its outcomes. Listen to “Piss Factory” and you can hear the passion in the voice of Patti Smith. As for the MySpace posting, I imagine you’d hear something fundamentally different emanating from…well, you know.

Greg Kot introduced an interesting phrase I’d not heard before. He concurred with Jim regarding the necessity of passion, but also suggested an additional element he described as “amplified personality”. This is the extension of oneself as expressed through the music. It’s personal and what makes the music unique and different. Via the amplified personality, an artist is able to “transcend one’s basic combination of influences.” It’s as if the artist goes beyond the basic summation of his or her musical influences to create something truly innovative. From an idea and product development standpoint, amplified personality to me is akin to the expression of an organization’s values and beliefs.

Greg made another interesting point when he said “music is only as good as the person who listens to it.” But I’ll save my discussion and the applicability of this statement to product innovation for another time. For now let’s just say I concur with Jim’s basic assertion concerning passion and Greg’s concept of amplified personality. I’m of the opinion that a product should embody and be an extension of an organization’s values. And whether you’re assessing something after it’s introduced, or attempting to evaluate the innovative merits of an idea in development, both passion and expressed values are critical elements in discerning innovative from stupid. I’ll save this for another time as well, but passion and an expression of values are key components in what I term Gonzo Innovation.

Bob Dylan’s “Like a Rolling Stone” was selected as the No. 1 song in Rolling Stone magazine’s list of 500 Greatest Songs of All Time (Issue 963, December 9, 2004). “I wrote it. I didn’t fail. It was straight.” So said Bob Dylan shortly after he wrote and recorded “Like a Rolling Stone” in June 1965. I’m not sure how he knew the song was revolutionary in design and execution, but he knew it. Passion and amplified personality I guess.

As I try to finish my thoughts here in the wee hours of the morning, I can’t help wonder whether all the people that booed Dylan because he turned on his amp during the mid to late 60’s now recognize and are willing to acknowledge the innovative impact his electric songs and shows had on folk and rock ‘n’ roll. Do you think the guy that yelled “Judas” at Dylan during the Manchester Free Trade Hall concert in ’66 looks back and has had a change of heart concerning the innovative impact of that performance? I would hope so. It didn’t take Dylan more than forty years and hindsight to figure it out though. In response to the heckler, Dylan kicked in to an acidic version of “Like a Rolling Stone” and turned to his band and simply said “Play it f**cking loud!”

[this post originally appeared on the 05.12.09 Front End of Innovation blog http://frontendofinnovation.blogspot.com/2009/05/difference-between-innovative-stupid.html]