Matt Baril

I haven't posted on my blog in quite a while and I won't blame anyone or anything for that, I've been involved in many projects for the last few months and decided to prioritize my projects and unfortunately the blog was put on the back burner. I still get comments and emails from people who use the job feed and I'm averaging 10-15 unique visitors a day, so I'm glad to see the blog hasn't died and some people find the job feed useful!

As some of you may know, my friend Evan Bleker and I started a small venture called Taste of Vancouver Tours about 2 months ago and I've invested most of my energy and time in our project. I have learned a great deal and faced many challenges already, but I enjoy every single step of it. It's finally time to apply what I've learned from school, books, case competitions, conferences, mentors, etc. And well as you probably expected, it's more difficult to execute than simply debate something in a classroom setting. You need some guts, good resistance to sleep deprivation, patience (which I lack), motivation, dedication when everything goes wrong, negotiation skills, marketing skills, project management skills, etc. The last 2 months have been very interesting to say the least.

The fact that my blog hasn't been updated for a few months and the creation of Taste of Vancouver Tours are actually related, but not because of a time constraint, it was a thought that was the catalyst.

I believe we, in the western world at least, live in a "container" world. We're more concerned about the container: what things look like and how people talk and present themselves than the "content" in that container: what we actually know and the quality of our thought process. Take this quote as an example, you've probably heard it 1000 times by now: "It's not about what you know, it's about who you know". I actually have a problem with that and I think it's fundamentally wrong. Why would you hire someone based on the people he or she knows rather than what he or she knows. The answer is you wouldn't. This quote misses the point: success attracts people and successful people will have broad networks. It doesn't mean that having a broad network wil make you successful though. You can know a lot of people in your field, if you're not successful at what you do, it's not going to be of any help.

So, a few months ago, I decided I would stop "shouting" in the blogsphere, hoping someone would hear me. I decided to spend my resources to act, execute and deliver. It's not that easy, but it's a lot more fun and I figured there are already many people shouting hoping for your attention, hoping to convince you they're worth listening to. I rather spend my time building something, filling up the container. If I'm successful, the rest will follow.

I will end with this quote I found on The Economist website this morning: "Also, they [potential MBA candidates] will recall that the most effective way to build a network is not to go to school, but to be successful".

Last Friday, I had a beer with Peter, a friend of mine who teaches at SFU and started his own company called Octothorpe Software which makes software to help anyone from individuals to Fortune 500 make better decisions. We were talking career path when Peter asked me: "If you had the choice, would you rather work in a zoo or in the wild?" Now, that got me thinking. Every time you meet Peter, you can be sure to be intellectually challenged and learn… a lot.

The Zoo

The zoo, on one hand, is this place where you're fed, pet, washed, and treated well just for being there. You're not asked to do much except for being there and doing that one show every day to impress the visitors. You're not asked to make any decisions or take any risks and will not be put down unless you do something absolutely stupid like biting the hand that feeds you… The staff in the zoo expects loyalty and will, in return, make sure you have all you possibly need.

The Wild

The wild, on the other hand, is a different story. Living from one kill to another, being emaciated during the hard months, feasting during the good ones. You can get killed at any time, but developing and relying on your peers and making up your own pride will increase your odds of you surviving. You enjoy your freedom and the fact that you don't report to anyone, but yourself. You also know you have to stay on top of the game, always keep a sharp eye open and plan for the next day. Having cubs to feed increases the consequences of your potential failure and keeps you up at night.

As Peter pointed out, there is nothing wrong in working in a zoo and it actually fulfills many people's aspirations. The only thing I would warn you against though, is to be careful not to be let loose after many years in a zoo. Your chances of surviving in the wild are decreased, a lot. You'll be fat, your reflexes slow, your natural instinct vanished, and your enthusiasm to run after big games dead. Even more important, you won't have anyone to rely upon to come to your help. It must feel quite lonely out there in such conditions. If you can have a plan, or multiple backup plans to ensure you do not end up in the wild after many years in a zoo, then you're safe. Otherwise, if you're like the rest of us and don't have a bulletproof position in a zoo, make sure you keep your eyesight clear, your instinct alert, your body fit, your claws and your fangs sharp and most importantly, keep your passion unaltered. Retiring in a zoo as opposed to starting your adult life in a zoo might also help you develop the necessary skills to survive in the wild and then enjoy the zoo.

So, do you work in a zoo or in the wild?

I found Peter's analogy very inspiring and thought I had to blog about it. If you like this, make sure you send a message to Peter to say thanks.

I've published a post on 5 of the 10 Social Media rules I find the most ridiculous and I've received some comments, feedbacks and questions via this blog as well as emails and facebook messages. One point in particular seems to be more controversial: Add Value. I thought I would shed some light on what I meant and why I'm finding this point to be even more ridiculous than when I first put it on the list.

The first problem we run into, is that it's very difficult to define value. I looked up the word "value" on the online Merriam-Webster dictionary and here are the 2 definitions that seem the most appropriate:

1. Relative worth, utility, or importance <a good value at the price> <the value of base stealing in baseball> <had nothing of value to say>
2. Something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable

I used the word "value" as define by the first point and I meant that you don't necessarily have to blog about things that have an utility or are important and I gave PostSecret and The Onion as examples. I would even go further and argue that you should not focus on adding value if you want to grow an audience or your followership. The first reason being that you cannot compete against 10,000 other blogs or the NT Times, and no matter what you blog about, odds are that a hundred blogs have already posted something about it. Another reason would be the ridiculous amount of information available out there makes content a commodity. Why do you fill up the tank at Shell instead of Husky or vice versa? Proximity? Coincidence? Why are you reading this blog rather than another one? Proximity (we're friends)? Coincidence (Google search)?

What We Can Learn From Borat

To me, Borat is the ultimate experience: stupid, disturbing, awkward, pointless, but dangerously funny and definitely memorable! I'm sure you've heard people quoting him on an almost daily basis with "Very nice! How much?" Or maybe it's Bruno, the main character of his latest movie: "Dolce Gabbana, Hallo?" Borat has had a big success and can count many fans and followers, yet I would not say that its success comes from its content. There is no real content: no script, not real story line, no actors except Sasha Baron (the actor for Borat and Bruno). You don't learn anything nor do you feel a better person when finished watching the movie. Yet Borat is amazing.

I am no movie expert, so I will not attempt to explain why it's been a success, I'm sure you can find other blogs for that. But one thing I know is that value as define in the first point above (worth, utility or importance), is not part of Borat's movie. It could however fit the second definition and be "desirable" I guess, but then the problem is that everything can be desirable to anyone. And if used that way. the word "value" loses its sense since it can be anything to anyone.

My take on this, is that creating a unique experience, being memorable, being different, leaving your visitors flabbergasted is more important than adding value in its traditional definition. We can think of groups, singers, movies, tv shows, books, blogs that don't have a high quality content, but are still great and amazing. This doesn't mean your social media strategy should be to be pointless in your posts and publish junk. The point is to show that the experience is at least as important, if not more, than the mere content. In this era of over-information, people are not looking for more information or more value, but for a unique and memorable experience.

If you're interested in Social Media, you've most likely come across many blog posts on dos, don'ts, and "rules" about Social Media. I find these very interesting, because there seems to be a general consensus on some of these "rules" even though there are very successful blogs that don't follow any of them. Here's the first part of a two-part article of 10 rules that I think come up the most often in blog articles and which I hate the most. My point is not that all Social Media rules are ridiculous, but that rules are made to be broken, and you shouldn't pay too much attention to them.

1. Publish often

Publishing often has the advantage of giving your blog a better ranking on Google as well as giving you the edge as far as first impression goes. What it doesn't give you though, is high quality content. When you post an article every day, you can't have thought it through all the time. I followed high profile bloggers such as Chris Brogan and Seth Godin for a few months, and these people post every single day. Although these 2 bloggers deserve kudos for the hard work they do and everything they have contributed to their communities/tribes, they can't keep up with great articles indefinitely by publishing everyday. We could also mention the kind of sacrifices it requires on a personal level to write 7 articles a week, for free. You can also read an interesting comment from Mike who raised an interesting point about posting less being not so much of an issue with RSS feeds nowadays in a previous post here.

Famous counter example: As an example Dosh Dosh is a successful and influential blog that publishes rarely, but has top quality content and long articles.

2. Engage people in a conversation

Most people follow you or comment on your posts with the hope you'll follow back or that their comment will draw traffic to their blog. This is not true 100% of the time, but I'd say the 80/20 rule would apply here: 20% or less of your followers are real fans and create 80% or more of the valuable and relevant content such as questions, ideas, links, etc. Trying to engage a conversation is a noble cause, but it won't happen by itself and it's most likely to take a lot of time before you're having a real conversations with your "fans". Keep trying to get as much feedback as you can, but if you're like 80% of us, replying to your fans won't take you all day.

Famous counter example: Seth Godin doesn't even allow comments on his blog which basically kills the idea of having a conversation and he still runs the most read blog on marketing in the world.

3. Be available, all the time

Chris Brogan is a blogger I really admire and who has done a lot for his community and he's probably the most available person in the world, which means that he sleeps 4 hours a day. He will try to reply to all the emails, tweets, facebook, friendfeed, linkedin, etc, he can possibly receive. I can't imagine the burden of having to be available all the time and the different consequences it can have on your personal life. I'm a strong believer in First Things First (affiliate link) and the power of prioritizing your life based on your roles (parent, employee, friend, son/daughter, etc.). Not everything that is urgent is important, and if it's not important, it should not get your attention.

Famous counter example: Let me reuse the Seth Godin no comment example here and make sure your read this blog post about what happens when you unplug. Someone also brought up no-tech Sundays, an idea I love and that I sometimes do.

4. Publish short posts, or break a long one into many smaller posts

I think it really depends of the audience you're targeting. I find my "true fans" to read all my posts even the very long ones and I've actually had more success with my longest posts. I have short posts for new comers and longer posts for regular visitors who know me better and have read some of my previous posts. If you publish less often, but try to have a higher quality, then length becomes almost irrelevant.

Famous counter example: Let me use Dosh Dosh as an example again, you'll notice that the typical post is much longer than average blog post.

5. Add value

What does that mean anyways? It's by far the most overused expression in Social Media right now, there is no article you can possibly read without having the words "adding value". First of all, I wish I knew what they meant by value here, and second of all it seems to be derived from business value. I believe a blog is all about experience and no so much about the value you add, but the emotion you can create. That might be the new direction my blog will take… hhhmmm

Famous counter example: One blog that has been very successful and which doesn't, in my view, add value is PostSecret. It might be argued that it entertains, but I don't really see the value it adds. Another blog that could be arguably added to this list is the onion (22nd on Technorati ranking) who reports humorous fake news.

We have a stat holiday coming up next Monday here in Canada and it got me thinking once more as I had the choice to either work or stay at home. I personally hate working stat holidays and I've never quite understood some of my colleagues who will just accept working any stat holidays to make a little extra cash. I just can't understand because it simply doesn't make any economic sense.

Working on a stat holiday basically means that you're ready to do the same work you usually do, with the extra pain of losing an opportunity to spend time with your family and your friends, for half the wage you usually get paid. You get 100% of your wage if you stay at home and 150% if you go to work, which means that in fact, you're working for 50% of your regular salary.

Obviously, if you find holidays boring, if you badly need money, if your employer pays 200% for stat holidays, or if you're forced to work during holidays, then it might make sense to go to work, otherwise you're getting screwed over…