Posted on

The iceberg ahead


Amid the visibly destructive frontal attacks on the rule of law as well as our most valuable institutions, there’s a quieter yet equally destructive attack on our data.

The US government has traditionally kept databases separate, with information about citizens collected and stored on a need-to-know basis for each agency. No one entity had all the information about citizens in one place, and sensitive data was available only to key staffers. Data sets could be compiled, but only with good reason and often a court order. This was not “government inefficiency”, it was a safeguard of our personal, private data.

All that has changed with this administration, which is allowing a man with no official standing to steal all the data from all the sources and create a unified repository. DOGE has pushed its way in to agency after agency, firing anyone who stands in the way, and hooking up computers to directly download all that data to their own equipment. Outside of the law, outside of security protocols, outside of any right to know. Early targets were the Treasury and Social Security, because (supposedly) that leads them to identifying non-citizen immigrants but it is bigger than that.

On the surface this may sound harmless enough to many. If everything is in one place that means less duplication, faster flow of information, and lower costs. That’s certainly one way they justify it — efficiency! And if you’ve ever wondered why you have to keep repeating yourself on government forms, this streamlining may sound downright helpful. You may not even realize your info was previously siloed on purpose, or you may assume you already have no privacy so it isn’t worth worrying about. Certainly TV and movies already present this as reality, with law enforcement and hackers able to pull up complete info on someone instantaneously. Besides, you might think, I have nothing to hide!

But if you’ve ever read science fiction you’ll know that any entity holding universal, centralized data on citizens is highly dangerous. Think about it: Your tax documents alone may include bank routing numbers, employers, sources of income, assets, addresses, and dependents. Combine that with records of disability or medical claims, military service, immigration, travel history, criminal or civil actions, education, federal loans, and social security — and in the future potentially things entirely outside the government’s purview like financial records, DNA databases, and electronic health records — and all taken together they can track your whole life. Everywhere you’ve been, everything you’ve done, everything you might do. And when I say “they” of course I mean AI.

This can and will be weaponized. They can target people the algorithm predicts will speak out politically. They can decide who gets medical care based on genetic factors. They can guess who may have had traveled to another state pregnant and come back not-pregnant. They could theoretically monitor or seize assets held in any account you’ve ever used for a tax transaction.

And it doesn’t matter if you haven’t done anything wrong, they simply have to assert that you have. If this sounds far-fetched, know that we’re already experiencing accidental deportations, revoked visas, and instructions to self-deport based on error and mistaken identity. Computers and the internet are invaluable tools, but do not have their own intelligence — they require human oversight and regulation to work with us rather than against us. The idea that they’re moving so fast they don’t bother to check whose life they’re destroying is terrifying.

It’s especially dangerous in our current scenario, when all this data is being gathered by an entity that isn’t even a legitimate government agency. There’s no oversight or security. What if it’s hacked? What if they sell our data? What do they want it for? Data in the hands of unregulated technology and unrestrained capitalism is catastrophic.

This is hard to explain simply and makes a lousy protest sign. But this is big, really big. And we have to pay attention.

Posted on

Delusions of grandeur

This quotation from President Truman goes to show there’s nothing new about today’s political divisions:

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home but not for housing. They are strong for labor but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage, the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine, for people who can afford them. They consider electrical power a great blessing but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They think American standard of living is a fine thing, so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it." – Harry S Truman, October 13, 1948

Truman presided over the country from the end of WWII until 1953. Continuing FDR’s legacy he championed many progressive New Deal reforms and successfully brought Democrats together under that banner, but in the end was largely unsuccessful against a staunchly conservative Congress. Most of his causes would have to wait more than another decade for Lyndon Johnson and his Great Society, and sadly those wins are under attack 60 years later.

When Republican voters talk about “going back” to better times many are envisioning a very short post-war period from 1945 to 1960, when we were experiencing a strong middle class for the first time in our history. The war machine had generated investment and momentum that shaped how we saw our role in the world and created plentiful jobs and broad economic opportunity. And we stop the time window there, before the Civil Rights Act and the Vietnam War disrupt their idyll.

Of course this nostalgia overlooks how many people were left behind at the time — everyone who wasn’t a white man — and indeed that is the appeal for many who wish us back. But there’s a more profound omission here. They are also filtering out the collectivist ideals that led to that prosperity! The war effort was a singular moment of inclusion and integration in our history (if only because we needed all hands on deck to win) and that carried forward into the Space Race and seeing ourselves as global citizens. Middle class success also hinged on the rise of trade unions, federal housing assistance, and the GI Bill. The middle class prospered because we adopted policies derided as “socialist”. They simply can’t go back and have the success they remember without the progressive programs and institutions that were integral to it.

Their even greater delusion is thinking they are voting for a time before voting rights and birth control, while the people they revere and vote for have an entirely different destination in mind — the Gilded Age of the late 1800s. These elected officials and shadow leaders don’t want a strong middle class with good jobs and unions, and they prove this in their actions and policies every day. They are modern robber barons who will take all the resources by any means necessary and keep the masses hungry, desperate, and under their thumbs. And, like before, this will run us straight into an economic crash that will let them scoop up even more at a discount.

Buckle up.

Posted on

Imagine

Imagine you’ve had a friendly relationship with your next door neighbor for generations — almost as long as you’ve lived there. They are the best neighbors you could ask for! You visit each other often to share backyard harvests and lend a hand on improvement projects. They kindly overlook your rowdy parties. Your sons have even gone to war together. You have had each other’s backs for as long as anyone can remember.

Imagine you have now remarried your abusive ex, against all good judgment, and he intends to take over your neighbor’s plot for no reason other than he wants it. Not to mention, they have some nice-looking trees that he could chop down for a new patio! And because the neighbor has a reputation for being kind, he assumed they would simply hand it over. When they say no, as any reasonable homeowner would, your ex becomes aggressive and threatening. Now deeply offended, your neighbors put their elbows up to defend their property. Nearly all the other families take your neighbor’s side against this illegal bullying — leaving you isolated and vulnerable. His only remaining friends are a few gang leaders he admires and doesn’t realize are playing him.

Imagine belligerently alienating your best and most important neighbor, the one you relied on to get through difficult times and keep the neighborhood safe. Imagine driving away all your longtime friends and allies, and aligning with thugs. And thinking this all, somehow, will generate more respect rather than less.

Imagine.

Posted on

Dollar Shave Club and Unilever win big — what about the customers?

Everyone is talking about the $1 Billion dollar buyout of Dollar Shave Club by Unilever in terms of disruption and startup success. I can’t help but wonder what’s in it for customers.

DSC sells monthly subscriptions to inexpensive men’s razors, a rebel brand positioned against the trend of aggressively overpriced and over-featured razor blades. (Think $1 per blade vs. $3-5. Razors are such a racket!) The company has never turned a profit, so from their perspective a buyout worth 5x their revenue is a dream. While they hadn’t yet made it into the black, what they have done exceptionally well is attract an engaged, young demographic poised to buy their product monthly for decades to come. Access to this customer base — and the cheeky advertising that built it — is what Unilever is paying for. It’s a big number to DSC, a tiny one to Unilever. A win-win.

The analysts see disruption as the takeaway. That another upstart has undercut an established industry is indeed scary news to many businesses. Naturally, the press has put out a string of breathless warnings about new models and subscriptions coming for their market share. No one is safe! They’re right. They are also speculating how this affects competitors, particularly Gillette, owned by P&G, and if a pricing war on the horizon. All very interesting from an industry point of view.

Where are the customers in this conversation? I haven’t seen any mention by analysts of how this might be good (or even bad) for customers. How do they feel about their indie brand selling to a mega CPG company? How will this impact their dirt cheap razor prices? Will they stay loyal, or defect to one of DSC’s competitors, like Harry’s? Will Unilever maintain what they value about this brand?

Unilever is a good company, known for a sincere commitment to being an ethical, sustainable business. I have no reason to believe they are scooping up a competitor to wreck it. But they won’t maintain an unprofitable division for long. Reportedly, they hope to increase profitability by reducing marketing costs and scaling up. Who knows? Maybe they’ll pull it off. But if I were a customer, I’d be expecting a price hike. If not now, soon.

Regardless, I hope Unilever is truly listening to these new customers and keeping them front and center in their conversations.

ETA: This is a great article about how this disruption happened, and role the invisible juggernaut AWS plays.

Posted on

Lessons from Mad Men: Bigger is not always better

mad-men-time-and-life-partnersAs Mad Men winds down, we find our beloved anti-hero, Don Draper, losing his agency.

Over ten years in television time we’ve watched him pull rabbit after rabbit out of his fedora to stay ahead of mergers and takeovers. (Not to mention contracts.) Despite a last-ditch effort, this time there are no more rabbits. It appears Sterling Cooper & Partners will be assimilated by mega-agency McCann Erickson.

Why the SC&P partners would be dismayed at joining the fold does not compute to the McCann rep. He says to them: “You’re dying…and going to advertising heaven.” Where heaven is the biggest clients at the biggest agency. And it’s true, this is heaven for many folks.

But from Sterling Cooper’s point of view this means giving up their clients. The ones that stood with them while they built the agency. The ones they’ve built strong relationships with.

That hits home for me.

Their story is a little different than mine. In addition to clients, SC&P also faces a loss of autonomy, probably most of their staff, and the Sterling Cooper name. More than their name — their identity. If anything, I’ve been reaching beyond my old identity and giving away some of my independence! Where our stories intersect is valuing relationships over billings and not believing bigger is necessarily better.

There was a time in my career when I dreaded cocktail party questions about my work: “Who do you work with?” “Have you done anything I’ve seen?” Few people had heard of my clients, and this felt like the mark of being less-than. Just as the McCann guy assumes, I did expect to move on to bigger clients and bigger agencies. Even though I liked the values-driven, emerging businesses that gave me my start, it seemed inevitable to leave them.

I hadn’t yet grown into the wisdom that these clients were not stepping stones, they were my destination. Big or small, the size of the organization is irrelevant. What matters is finding people you trust and look forward to working with, towards a goal you can get behind. It’s especially sweet when they are small, though. The feeling you get from helping a founder bring her vision and legacy to life is incomparable.

Now I see those questions differently. Sure, we could talk about a company you’ve known for decades, or I could introduce you to one that’s breaking new ground or making the world a better place. Which conversation would you rather have?

Posted on

Are you ready for the design-led revolution?

Over the past year I’ve been fortunate to collaborate with the sustainability team at Autodesk to envision their support for the design-led revolution. Haven’t heard of it? You may not know the DLR moniker, but you’ve seen revolutionary design in action. From affordable prosthetics to solar robotics, high-impact solutions are emerging everywhere. And just in the nick of time!

The reinvention needed to make our planet livable for 9 billion is immense, and I love that Autodesk is committed to helping designers, architects, builders, engineers, and entrepreneurs reshape our world. We need more companies like this leading the way.

Their aim isn’t only to raise awareness about epic challenges and inspire people to do what’s right, although that’s certainly a big part of it. It’s also about helping designers and companies get ahead of  the inevitable resource shortages, urbanization, and climate change coming our way. To stay relevant — and profitable — in the future, you must start thinking differently now.

So, how will you design a better future?

Credit where credit’s due: The awesome folks at Free Range are the storytellers behind the design-led revolution video, manifesto, and hero case studies.

Posted on

Small Giants

smallgiantsThe book Small Giants resonated with me in a way few business books ever have. Author Bo Burlingham defines small giants as “companies that choose to be great instead of big”, an idea near and dear to my heart.

As a young designer in Chicago, my employers and clients were small companies. At the time I wasn’t aware how special those early experiences and relationships were. The work seemed, frankly, boring and limiting. I was antsy to move on to bigger agencies and brands.

After relocating and landing in a Silicon Valley agency, I found myself deeply conflicted. My heart wasn’t in working for mainstream, consumer brands. I missed the thoughtfulness and intimacy of the work I had done before. I missed the sense of purpose gained from helping good people realize their dream of owning a thriving business. Words of wisdom from a long-forgotten designer echoed in my head:  “There are no good projects, only good clients.”

After the agency collapsed, I struck out on my own. Eager to get back to “good clients”, I thought about what my favorites had in common. Here’s what I knew: They sold something of tangible value, and they did it honestly. They were fair to suppliers and partners. They were small and closely held, often family-owned. They treated employees with respect and generosity. They were local businesses — what defined that wasn’t clear, but I knew it when I saw it — and they supported community service and philanthropy. In short, the world was better with than without them.

This led me to a loose concept of social responsibility: doing business with integrity, giving back to the community, and treating people well. It also seemed being privately held was the key to being able to control everything else. Those became my four criteria for choosing clients ten years ago.

Finding Small Giants was inspiring and validating. Finally, a cogent description of what I’d intuitively understood but been unable to define! An entire book about the business unicorns I love! I now have a clearer sense of who the right clients for me are, and new insights into what to look for.

One idea that hadn’t previously gelled as part of my definition was limited growth — choosing to grow only when it serves strategic goals and doesn’t sacrifice culture or ideals. Growth has become such an unquestioned requirement of business that not growing is surprisingly radical.

Another insight was that “small” isn’t necessarily what makes my clients a good fit for me. It’s having a family culture, engaged leadership, and sense of purpose where I thrive. While it’s certainly easier to maintain those in a small company, there may be mid-sized companies that also fit this bill.

I also love the inclusion of soul, or mojo, that Burlingham cites as a secret ingredient. Running counter to management playbooks and belief in predictive data, it acknowledges there is a special magic that allows a company to be intimately, deeply great. That I couldn’t concretely define what I loved about my clients makes sense — there is simply a quality. They either have it or they don’t, and no logic model can predict it.

Finding small giants is no easy feat. But with renewed inspiration and clarity, I look forward to seeking more of them as clients and also to doing my part to help aspiring small giants find their mojo.

Posted on

Living economies

Friday I attended a talk by Hunter Lovins at California College of the Arts. She briefly touched on a point of view about globalization that struck me: You can’t have a living economy without a local economy — otherwise, you have an economy that is either killing or dying.

Think about that for a minute. In a global economy, your economy is either killing others or being killed. In order to thrive without destroying, you must have a robust local economy.

That’s not to say business shouldn’t benefit from global markets. But the foundation of economies should be rooted in creating sustainable value and resilience locally.

Posted on

On Being Unreasonable

Friday I gave a brief speech at a Designers Accord town hall event “Design Change, Change Design” hosted at California College of the Arts and organized by Design Strategy MBA students Ahmed Riaz, Elysa Soffer, and Mike Funk.

My talk was geared at designers who want to work towards social good but aren’t sure how, and it was inspired by The Power of Unreasonable People by John Elkington and Pamela Hartigan. A fellow speaker also brought the Unreasonable Institute to my attention, which is based on the same idea.

A short version of my speech follows.

My goal in life is to be an unreasonable person.

It’s true most of the time people need to be more reasonable, not less — but reasonable people don’t change the world.  A quote from George Bernard Shaw:

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world around him, where the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

To make a change in the world, we have to be unreasonable — we have to believe in things that most people think are pointless, or crazy, or impossible. At an event about “design for social good” it’s safe to assume many of you are already pretty good at this. But for those just getting started, here are 5 ways designers can be unreasonable:

1) Push back

The first step to being unreasonable is challenging the design parameters you are given. Even if they were written by a boss, client, or someone you think is smarter than you are doesn’t mean they’re right. Designers have a pivotal role as the gatekeepers to “stuff” — messages, products, processes — and they can use this to influence what is produced.

Ask basic questions: Is this the right solution, or even the right problem? Does it have to be done with this material or process? If you can, add your voice and improve the outcome. And even if you can’t, sneak in improvements. I had a client who didn’t like the idea of recycled paper even though he couldn’t tell the difference, so I simply didn’t tell him the paper he approved was recycled. Problem solved.

2) Just say No

Once you’re used to pushing back, stop working with clients or projects that are harmful. Tell your boss you won’t work on certain accounts, or turn down projects or clients if you have that power. Yes, it’s scary and risky. That’s why it’s unreasonable.

3) Believe you are the only one who will solve the problem

Reasonable people think others — people, governments, corporations — are working on the world’s problems. You may even be thinking that you aren’t business savvy, smart, or qualified enough to make a difference. But designers are, by definition, trained to solve problems. You’re exactly the right person to identify a need and find a way to meet it. Keep in mind you don’t have to have a big idea yet. Just keep your eyes open and needs will appear in your own backyard.

4) Find profit where others think there is none

Once you found your opportunity, become a social entrepreneur. Social entrepreneurs are the very definition of unreasonable, bucking common wisdom by finding creative ways to create economic gain alongside social good and refusing to accept they have to choose between doing good and making a good living. Just because no one else has figured out how to solve a particular problem and make money at the same time doesn’t mean you can’t. Figure it out!

5) Sell out

As a social entrepreneur you may have formed an entire community of unreasonable people working outside the system, and all of these ideas start seeming…very reasonable. In this group, perhaps the most unreasonable thing you can do is go back inside the belly of the beast and become a social intrapreneur instead. Going back to point #3, believe you are the person who can change  a mega-corp like Monsanto from the inside. I’ve taken a few potshots at Adam Werbach for working with Walmart and selling his agency to a media conglomerate, but he’s right that a micron of change by Walmart can create a larger measurable result than everything else combined.

For more about social entrepreneurship and what it means to be unreasonable, I highly recommend reading The Power of Unreasonable People.

Posted on

Tone Deaf

Recently I was astonished to see this Sherwin Williams logo, which I assumed old signage. Seriously, who in the world would think this logo is a good idea? I was wrong. This very old mark — which, to its credit, looks decades newer than its pre-1900 origins — is in fact still the approved Sherwin Williams logo. How have I never noticed this before?

It’s easy to imagine an ambitious young paint company loving the original idea: “Wouldn’t it be great if we could paint every building in the world with our revolutionary standardized paints?” But in the current context of environmental awareness, the intent is overshadowed. Even if you overlook the bloodiness of the paint they are still, quite literally, pouring toxic paint over the earth.

Paint that ends up down drains and in landfills is a hazard to environmental health and water supplies, and this image gives the worst possible impression of their attitudes towards corporate responsibility. I can hardly grasp what must be flat-out stubbornness behind the decision to stand by this logo. More companies should honor their brand history, but this is simply an absence of good sense.

In branding, your intentions don’t matter; what matters is what people perceive. Sherwin-Williams has a statement defending the mark and their sustainability initiatives, but refusing to acknowledge public perception is a colossal branding misstep.