“People don’t buy what you do but why you do it.” _Simon Sinek_TED 2009
According to Simon Sinek when consider the bell curve of innovation related to mass market appeal that changes the status quo; it seems the formula is based on time and stating why you are doing something, not what you are trying to do. His codified concept of the “Golden Circle” explains technology, innovators, early adaptors, established branding, and political action. He explains how to negotiate with the individual, to accept and change the status-quo in relationship to branding and political action.
Remember about three classes ago when we were studying branding and we had to do a discussion post on Guy Kawsaki and his take on Mantra versus Mission Statement. Interestingly Simon Sinek cites Apple in his presentation because Guy Kawasaki who worked for apple during the time Sinek is referring too said that branding is more about making meaning not about making money. However, Sinek furthers this concept by introducing the "Golden Circle". This Circle adds two categories related to meaning. If meaning is represented by “why” in the Golden Circle, then how represents the product that is used by the people who identify with the meaning of the company that gives them the product. Thus, the “what” circle being the further from the “Why” circle is the most superficial and the most visible aspects of the entire process of making meaning for a consumer or more so a human being. Moreover, Sinek brings a valid hypothesis that the common statement “a gut feeling” is related to a biological reaction and not a rationalization. This concept is based on the current biological understanding of the human brain and the belief that reason is separate (i.e. the why) from the “what”. In this model, feelings (i.e. the why) are in the limbic system that does not control language. Language is in another part of the brain. Thus a “Gut Feeling” is a common expression because it is a common failing of human beings to connect the why with the what.
"The Goal is to sell to people who beleive what you believe."_Simon Sinek_TED 2009
Sinek analysis Dr Martin Luther King’s Speech and argues “I have a dream” biologically creates and inspires a movement that is more effective then “I have a plan” is an interesting point. The focusing on the why and the right time sold the ideas that Martin Luther King wanted to push. In this, Dr. Martin Luther king states a dream that set up objective criteria that man can follow because the criteria aligns with what people want as opposed to things happening at the time that they did not want. In this sense as it has been concluded by many; the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King is not his dream alone, but the true American dream without the fancy white picket fence, house, car and TV. I do agree that Martin Luther King is negotiating, but I think Sinek’s argument is not to negotiate with some other party. I think Sinek’s idea is to negotiate with the self; the interior of what makes humans human (i.e. the limbic, the why), then we are not selling simply a product but propitiating a concept as real and worthwhile. In this sense, people didn’t believe in Dr. Martin Luther King nor showed up to hear him because they saw themselves in the message of Dr. Martin Luther King had that there are two laws the law of men and the law of God and only when the two are united we will live in a just world.
"The goal is to work with people who believe what you believe" _Simon Sinek_TED 2009
It seems the formula is based on time and stating why you are doing something, not what you are trying to do. Thus, Sinek is saying that effective leaders focus on “why” something is what it is, and this is why people will follow someone. Not because they believe, but because the why is driving them to follow someone with an answer. This idea becomes very powerful when we consider things like Twitter and the recent events in the Middle-East because Twitter has a button labeled “follow” and leaders are losing their “followers”.
The Obama Conundrum: A Warning of Using the “Why?” in a World that Reacts with the “What!!!”
@ Jeff
Hey, this is going on my blog so if you want it removed just email me.
“Opportunity criteria and mutual benefits are definitely a part of King’s speech, but with a subject so volatile and full of emotion, separating the people from the problem is almost impossible. Dr. King was able to convey the voice of the people in the best possible way, keeping it positive and uplifting.” _Jeff
I agree Jeff. The objective criteria was poetically portrayed in the reason why Dr. King was speaking. On the other the hand, the 2008 “Change” campaign Obama ran also used the same strategy; however, after people wanted more facts about what Obama was doing a year after he was elected, the tone of the Whitehouse became about plans. In this sense, it seems the political climate had changed from the “why” to the “what”. Simon Sinek talks about politicians with their “12 point plans”. True, but the backlash of Obama who used similar auditory tactics should be noted. In business “Apple” seems to use this tactic very well, but I couldn’t see Steve Jobs wining any political elections or able to keep people happy if he did.
LOL, I still believe in the current President to be part of positive change.
Blogs and Vlogs on Stuff I am Learning and Know
Custom Search
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Case Study Help
To my fellow students... hope this helps.
Yeah and don't forget about the writing center.
Yeah and don't forget about the writing center.
Game Thoery Response
Sorry for the late post but on Wednesday my net was down and I was busy editing the week 3 interview. I first heard of game theory in video game design. In video game design, game theory creates the challenges the players will face and the reward upon completing those challenges. If the game seems to unreasonable, then the player quits and less people will want to play the game. For this class, Game theory seem relative close to BATNA, in this sense two parties are weighing their options in regards to their self and another party.
From the first video on the prisoner’s dilemma and the term Strategic Interaction means the decisions you make effect others and how your effected by others actions. Similar to the group experiences we had, one member could break the entire group or the entire group has to work towards a mutual beneficial goal. The use of the chart is to measure the possible best out come for each player. Note: we’ve considered in the example that there are only two parties. In this case, the chart that we’re given can only be related two parties or sides and not multiples.
Player 2 [Confess No] [Confess Yes]
Player 1 [Confess No] [10, 10] [O,15]
Player 2 [Confess Yes] [15, 0] [5,5]
This example of the prisoners confess is based on the psychology that both want the best (i.e. a Dominant Strategy). The best bet individually would just to confess and try and go for 15 points, however, if both will confess they will both get 5 (i.e. Nash Equilibrium). However, if both parties could trust each other, both could leave with 10. In this case, this is where negotiation and contracts help to create mutual benefit. Thus, corporations more than likely have insensitive to cooperate with their competitors even though it’s illegal, because cooperation leads to better wins. The assumption of the presenter is that cooperation act more individually and that cooperation is based on guessing what the competition is going to do.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAcVrcrqhn8&feature=relate)
An example where the third video game theory and Banta work hand and hand in the negotiation for Mike’s pay raised because his boss is slowly pushed in to a BATNA. Since the boss doesn’t want to lose him, it corners his boss.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikE1pn034WA&feature=related)
@ Braing and @ Tiffany
“Regarding the tobacco companies, don't forget they both benefitted by the ban on advertising. It (the ban) was a gift to them in some ways, saving them millions of dollars in advertising because they had to compete.”
I fully agree, but let’s look at the chart
Let C= Comapny
[C1 Advertise Yes] [C1 Advertise No]
[C2 Advertise Yes]
[C2 Advertise No] [15,15]
In this case, it stands to show although it is illegal for companies to cooperate in full “inclusion”, the benefits of having legal agreements that hold each other to do certain set of action still stand. If you remember the movie “Thank You for Smoking”, it cited an interesting case related to Philip Morris. That being that one of the major cigarettes cooperation actually funded the anti-smoking campaigns. Now if we consider that this model only does a comparative analysis of two parties in decision matrix, then it also shift focus from a third outside force can manipulate an entire industry as in this case. Case in point, the analogy of the “prisoners” does not tell us how crooked the cops are and only creates a BANTA for the prisoners when dealing with the outside force of law.
Considering Michael Moore’s recent documentary “Capitalism a Love Story”, the event that lead us to the “2008 Crisis”, and the “Great Depression” game theory has a huge hole in logic, it doesn’t account for an outside force. In our lives we will face many outside forces, and seems game theory means to team up in order to get the best out come when dealing with these outside forces. In as sense, the outside force could be analogues to a mediator who has an self interest (i.e. a lustful marriage councilor after one of the spouses they are trying to help). LOL, sounds more like a Life Time Movie then a Conspiracy Theory, heh.
From the first video on the prisoner’s dilemma and the term Strategic Interaction means the decisions you make effect others and how your effected by others actions. Similar to the group experiences we had, one member could break the entire group or the entire group has to work towards a mutual beneficial goal. The use of the chart is to measure the possible best out come for each player. Note: we’ve considered in the example that there are only two parties. In this case, the chart that we’re given can only be related two parties or sides and not multiples.
Player 2 [Confess No] [Confess Yes]
Player 1 [Confess No] [10, 10] [O,15]
Player 2 [Confess Yes] [15, 0] [5,5]
This example of the prisoners confess is based on the psychology that both want the best (i.e. a Dominant Strategy). The best bet individually would just to confess and try and go for 15 points, however, if both will confess they will both get 5 (i.e. Nash Equilibrium). However, if both parties could trust each other, both could leave with 10. In this case, this is where negotiation and contracts help to create mutual benefit. Thus, corporations more than likely have insensitive to cooperate with their competitors even though it’s illegal, because cooperation leads to better wins. The assumption of the presenter is that cooperation act more individually and that cooperation is based on guessing what the competition is going to do.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAcVrcrqhn8&feature=relate)
An example where the third video game theory and Banta work hand and hand in the negotiation for Mike’s pay raised because his boss is slowly pushed in to a BATNA. Since the boss doesn’t want to lose him, it corners his boss.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikE1pn034WA&feature=related)
@ Braing and @ Tiffany
“Regarding the tobacco companies, don't forget they both benefitted by the ban on advertising. It (the ban) was a gift to them in some ways, saving them millions of dollars in advertising because they had to compete.”
I fully agree, but let’s look at the chart
Let C= Comapny
[C1 Advertise Yes] [C1 Advertise No]
[C2 Advertise Yes]
[C2 Advertise No] [15,15]
In this case, it stands to show although it is illegal for companies to cooperate in full “inclusion”, the benefits of having legal agreements that hold each other to do certain set of action still stand. If you remember the movie “Thank You for Smoking”, it cited an interesting case related to Philip Morris. That being that one of the major cigarettes cooperation actually funded the anti-smoking campaigns. Now if we consider that this model only does a comparative analysis of two parties in decision matrix, then it also shift focus from a third outside force can manipulate an entire industry as in this case. Case in point, the analogy of the “prisoners” does not tell us how crooked the cops are and only creates a BANTA for the prisoners when dealing with the outside force of law.
Considering Michael Moore’s recent documentary “Capitalism a Love Story”, the event that lead us to the “2008 Crisis”, and the “Great Depression” game theory has a huge hole in logic, it doesn’t account for an outside force. In our lives we will face many outside forces, and seems game theory means to team up in order to get the best out come when dealing with these outside forces. In as sense, the outside force could be analogues to a mediator who has an self interest (i.e. a lustful marriage councilor after one of the spouses they are trying to help). LOL, sounds more like a Life Time Movie then a Conspiracy Theory, heh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)