![]() ![]() In other words, they just "get sh*t done." Some of the most capable people I've worked with know how to go over, around, or straight through those walls by virtue of their resourcefulness and sheer force of will. As a result, there will always be walls put up on the way to achieving the objective. If a goal is truly visionary, it's going to be confronted by doubters, skeptics, and those threatened by its realization. Asking people to dream big without delivering on the vision was not only an incomplete sentiment, it could carry the unintended consequence of producing pie-in-the-sky thinking without anything to show for it. It's something I would never want taken for granted or crowded out by the singular objective of thinking at scale. Demanding excellence is an important value for us. During this particular meeting, I ended up writing down two simple words to capture this quality: "Dream big," with the intention of cascading the theme more broadly.Īlmost immediately after seeing those words in writing, I realized the message was incomplete.The team leading the discussion that day may have been conservative in their approach to articulating what was possible, but they were also highly capable and credible - and had a proven track record of delivering results. When well reasoned, that kind of vision can be highly inspirational, change the way teams solve for a specific opportunity or challenge, and ultimately, transform the trajectory of a company. Oftentimes, my favorite exchanges are with people who are naturally predisposed to think at truly massive scale and without limitations. Regardless of whether or not they could hit the target (which I think they can), the point was to get them thinking much bigger, without constraints, and to start by asking the question, "What would it take.?" ![]() Without hesitation, I challenged the team to increase their long-term goal by roughly 20x. Granted, they were being somewhat conservative, but their objectives were still way off what I would have expected them to be targeting based on the addressable opportunity and the assets we were bringing to the table. Midway through, they covered the measurable results they expected to achieve in three years. It all started in a meeting where a talented team was presenting their plan for a potentially high impact initiative. As a result, thought it might be interesting to provide some additional context on where the diagram came from. With 20k+ likes and comments on LinkedIn and over 2.2k retweets and favorites on Twitter, it's become the most viral update I've shared to date. But in order to understand what makes things funny, we need to venture into the “unfunny” territory, bad midget jokes and all.Several weeks ago, I shared the above Venn diagram in a status update. In full disclosure, some of this stuff is pretty offensive, and does not represent what we believe or our sense of humor. So, in the name of science, here are the unfiltered, uncensored worst of the worst. Many of the results are so racy we couldn’t even think about posting them at Wired.īut that doesn’t mean we can’t publish some of them here. We weren’t expecting the creatives to take their sketches so far over the line in terms of decency. (You can read about the results over at Wired.) Then we took the participants out on the town and asked them to sketch a funny new ad, back-of-the-napkin style, after each downed drink we bought them. To start, we showed our participants the Venn diagram Pete uses to illustrate his Benign Violation Theory, the idea that humor only occurs when a violation is considered benign: We wanted to investigate how alcohol impacts humor creation. Over at, we recently detailed an experiment we ran involving some of New York’s top advertising creatives, a hypothetical marketing campaign, and lots and lots of booze.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |