I’ve been thinking a lot about talent lately. Finding talent, being talent, harnessing talent, etc etc.

It’s very strange to watch national news reports on widespread joblessness, and then at the same time, see the absolute fever within the online space, to try and hire anything or anyone that knows how to output “hello world” onto a screen.

The juxtaposition is awkward and hard to reconcile at times.

Anyways…on the topic of talent, this posting from Eric Paley (The Curve of Talent), is wonderfully written. The following passage stuck out to me above everything else.

The large company corporate world is filled with C players. The term “Peter Principle” was coined to describe this phenomenon in which people in large companies are promoted exactly one pay grade beyond what they can competently do and then stay in that role for the rest of their careers. Large companies thrive on inertia and the core job description of a large company employee is to keep that inertia going and do nothing to screw it up. If last year’s top line grew 8%, the job is to grow it 8% again, not to figure out how to make a step function change and grow it 20%. In attempting to achieve that 20% step function change, there is high risk of a misstep that could lead to a decline in sales. That’s simply unacceptable.

Large companies fire those who get F grades, because they are not at all productive. They accept C players, because they are somewhat productive with guidance and B players are hard to find. It is very easy for a C player to seem moderately successful when progress is largely based on inertia. Large corporations celebrate B players who can competently complete their job with minimum coaching and maintain inertia. These are the heroes of large corporations. Innovation within a function is risky and can threaten inertia.

Large companies have very few A players. A players don’t want to be at large companies because, more often than not, corporate bureaucracy and process not only fail to reward, but actually punish A players. By putting the objectives ahead of process and politics, A players step on bureaucratic toes and don’t retreat based on false territorial claims. Though there are exceptions, few large corporations create cultures that give A players room to win. It’s not fun trying to innovate at a large company when co-workers feel that you’re threatening the core inertia on which the business is based. They’ll say things like “that’s just not the way things work around here.”

Read the entire post here.

Despite my recent iPad purchase, and much to the surprise of many people I talk to, I am not an iPhone owner. I am an Android guy, and have been since 2009. I don’t think that the Android OS or the Android devices are materially better or worse than the iPhone, it’s just what I prefer, and it’s what I went with on my carrier (T-Mobile) when it came time to ditch my Blackberry for something more…modern.

However, when I’ve had the Android vs iPhone debate in the past, I’ve always maintained that at some point the operating systems and devices will somewhat be equal, and that the distribution of the respective operating systems is what will matter. Specifically, when it comes to apps. One HUGE selling point for iPhone, has always been the apps. Bazillions of apps.

But developers ultimately go where the distribution is. At some point, the market shares will change in such a way that developers will see the value in developing for Android first, and iPhone second, because that’s where the distribution is. There will simply be more Android devices than iPhone devices, which means more potential installs and more potential revenue.

The Android gains matter because technology platform markets tend to standardize around a single dominant platform (see Windows in PCs, Facebook in social, Google in search). And the more dominant the platform becomes, the more valuable it becomes and the harder it becomes to dislodge. The network effect kicks in, and developers building products designed to work with the platform devote more and more of their energy to the platform. The reward for building and working with other platforms, meanwhile, drops, and gradually developers stop developing for them. (more here)

Now this certainly ignores what I think is Android’s largest problem right now, and that is a fragmented set of OS versions, which make it really painful to develop for Android. If they can get this sorted out, and unify the operating system versions across carriers and devices, they (in my opinion) will be well positioned to leverage this network effect.

I’ve got mixed feelings on QR codes. I’m really conflicted. On one hand, I feel like they are a totally reasonable way to move consumers from an offline point of sale piece, display, or other print ad, to some deeper interactive experience. On the other hand, too many buffoon marketers are just treating these codes like they do with every new shiny technology, and slapping it on everything, never giving thought to what the experience should be, or if the experience actually enhances the value of the message or product.

If you’ve seen the new IFC show Portlandia, there is a great sketch called “Put A Bird On It!”, which is all I can think of every time someone mentions QR codes. These damn codes are the quick knee-jerk reaction, anytime a marketer is tasked with doing something even vaguely innovative – “PUT A QR CODE ON IT!”. The clip is hilarious, and just imagine “QR codes” instead of “birds”.

One of the things that doesn’t sit well with me, is that there really isn’t much out there in the way of good, concrete usage statistics that support the case for spending money on the deployment of QR code based campaigns. Most of what you’ll find in the way of case-study and statistics, lean heavily on broad metrics around the number of smartphones shipped and in use; and then based on these numbers, an inference is made that QR codes are therefore totally scanned…like all the time. It’s flimsy support at best, and frankly the best data (not surprisingly) comes from companies that stand to benefit from the use of this technology.

You’ll also see lots of support for QR codes, based on the fact that some big brands have used, or do use them. Like “hey, Pepsi and Starbucks do it, so it has to be awesome and work!”. Just because brands do something, doesn’t mean that it is well-thought out, makes sense, or is good practice. As a brand (or any marketer), you should always be asking one question before you put a QR code on something. ANd that question is “does this make the interaction/experience materially better for the user?”. If the answer is no, don’t do it. And if the answer is that it actually makes the experience WORSE (which is more common than not), then DEFINITELY don’t do it.

I actually got a mailer from Banana Republic a while back, that had a QR code on it, and the execution was infuriatingly poor. The mailer had two coupons in it (which I tore out immediately) and then was four or five pages of shots from their spring collection catalog shoot. At the end of the brochure, was a QR code, which upon scan, merely launched a Banana Republic commercial. Literally just a moving version of the brochure. It was a great example in my opinion, of an opportunity to more deeply engage me, gone to waste. Rather than show me something useful and substantive (how about a little video on how to mix and match the items in the collection?), they just made me irritated and added no value to the experience. In fact, they lessened the experience by setting the expectation of something interesting, only to double-cross me with a useless video that took 20 seconds to load up, and then totally disappointed.

I applaud the brands that take initiative and experiment with or test new technologies, but I REALLY admire the ones that are smart enough to realize when these experiments and tests yield poor results, and then make adjustments or direction changes. So maybe next time around, Banana Republic will provide something more useful and intriguing for its audience.

This summer, I’ve actually got some QR driven campaigns that will be out in the real-world. I’m really anxious to get the data back after they run (both quantitative and qualitative), and curious to see what the numbers look like, and how these were (or weren’t) actually used.

While walking to Starbucks this morning, I was thinking about beer and about location-based services. Two things I tend to think of often. The specific thought was that while so many startups, services, and web-apps try to clumsily back location-based features, or check-in mechanics into whatever they are doing, there are really very few instances where this is done elegantly and with a real benefit to the user.

Foursquare obviously sits atop this chain, and has done a good job (as the segment leader/creator should) of setting the general standard for how the user benefits of these apps are defined. In their case, the benefits are broad – find your friends, explore the city, earn badges and unlock specials. But once you drill down into the more niche apps, often times the inclusion of location and check-ins, seems somewhat forced at best, and totally annoying/useless at worst.

Which takes me to Untappd, an example (in my opinion) of an app that really leverages location-based features and check-in mechanics in a beautifully simple and effective way.

In case you aren’t familiar with this app, Untappd is part beer diary, part game, part social network, and in largest part, a beer-discovery-engine. In their own words:

Untappd is a new way to socially share the brew you’re currently enjoying, as well as where you’re enjoying it, with your friends! Curious what your friends are drinking or where they’re hanging out? Just check out their Untappd profile and comment on their share and find out! It’s a great way to spread your favorite brews and hang outs with your friends.

Beer geeks are all about discovery. They are always asking “what new beers are out there?”, “who is drinking them?”, and most importantly, “where can I find these beers?”. Untappd facilitates this discovery process in such a simple way, and from each of these three directions. It hits squarely on (and only on) the things that matter to their core users, and serves up this information remarkably efficiently and well.

• See which beers are on tap at a particular location, based on check-in activity.
• If you’ve got friends with similar tastes, see what they are drinking, and where they are drinking it.
• Search for a beer you’ve been wanting to try, and use check-in activity to see where it’s being poured.

And for what it’s worth, I don’t have any formal business relationship with these guys, save for a little badge tinkering we did back last year. I just happen to have used the app, and had the chance to talk with Greg and Tim, and really like what these guys are up to.

There are also some other similar apps out there, which I haven’t had the chance to try. Such as RedPint (because it’s iPhone only), and Beerby (installed, but haven’t used yet).