BrewingThoughts is moving to a new home. Thanks to everyone who has followed and read along at Tumblr over the past 1+ year!
Start today, I’ll begin rolling out a new design and content at www.ABrewingThought.com
Take a look at the new site and please feel free to send any comments or suggestions over to me at abrewingthought (at) gmail.com
-Adam
[This piece originally ran on Medium in the collection ‘Best thing I found online today.’]
I took an Art History class as an undergraduate at the University of Michigan.
Any student who opts into The History of Photography (which filled absolutely zero graduation requirements) is at least partially motivated by a romantic image—a liberal arts education, discussions of art and beauty and nostalgia, a classroom in an old library or art museum.
To turn a semester into a sentence: the course was nothing like the romanticized fantasy; it was an exercise in memorization—photographer, title, and date—and any discussion at all was simply the professor singling out a scared student attempting to hide behind a Macbook Pro.
I still remember a few powerful photographs from that class. The names escape me; but when I see them, I recognize them.
For the most part, however, memorizing a date and a title for an exam did little to help me process and internalize the works of the world’s most famous photographers.
Knowing thousands of images for a brief instant wasn’t enough. The exam ended and the photo disappeared from memory.
This was my first experience with the idea of temporary photography.
A continuation of this brief series on content. To the third question…
3) Content is an incredibly abstract term, what does this ‘year of content’ even look like as a product?
To tackle the final question, I’ll post a series of examples. The following is (a short list) of companies/products that have content as a core strength.
Medium -
Here’s how co-founder Ev Williams describes the idea behind Medium in one of the site’s first posts:
It’s not too late to rethink how online publishing works and build a system optimized for quality, rather than popularity. Where anyone can have a voice but where one has to earn the right to your attention. A system where people work together to make a difference, rather than merely compete for validation and recognition. A world where thought and craftsmanship is rewarded more than knee-jerk reactions.
Truth be told, we’re just starting the journey of figuring out what all that means. We have an amazing team with a ton of relevant experience, but we’ve built just a sliver of what we have in mind. And we know it will be a learning process as we go.
The most simple way to describe Medium for those who haven’t seen/read about it is by the way people have parodied it.
Many have said it feel like ‘an online collection of essays for 30-something year olds’ to Thought Catalog’s 20-something audience.
Our interest in technology is in the business of technology, and the competition between technology companies and their products. But our belief in technology is the belief in non-incremental change. Not in emergent form factors or paradigm shifts in venture funding, but change in our culture, our politics, our laws, our experiences, and ourselves.
- Tim Carmody in the Verge feature “Memory to myth“
Brilliant.
The concept of non-incremental change is an incredible motivator and force.
It’s been written ten thousand times that the world resists change.
Well, I know a lot of very smart people who have risked traditional careers and jobs to pursue a passion for technology. Why is this different? Why is the world fascinated with great entrepreneurs? Why are we really invested in this ecosystem?
The belief in non-incremental change.
High risk, high reward.
We want to work on problems and products and solutions that have the potential to create meaningful change.
Disruption. It’s overused and in every tech headline of the past 24 months.
Technology empowers fundamental change and disruption It leads to products and solutions that are 10x or 100x better than what was previously imagined, not just 10%.
There are big problems to be tackled. We haven’t even scraped the surface of what’s possible in industries like education and health care.
The belief in the possibility of this potential is empowering.
This isn’t a new concept. We see this everyday.
When you step on a college campus, new freshman are brimming with excitement—the possibility of people to meet, interesting classes and clubs to join.
The possibilities feel endless, not incremental; and that excitement—the belief in the power of education and the future—is palpable.
We see this when starting a new job or when our favorite team begins a new season. The future feels non-incremental.
We’re not thinking of one game or one project, we’re immersed in the belief of all that is possible.
And technology? Technology takes this to another level.
The potential for change—change that scales the world and empowers new industries and businesses and ways of thinking and living—is tangible.
In the last decade we’ve been introduced to new software and hardware (first consumer-focused, and more recently enterprise-based) that changes the way we live and work.
Unlike in the past these changes are cheap, accessible to the masses, and accelerated. One year, hundreds of millions of people are working on PCs…a few years down the road, billions are consuming content on smartphones and tablets.
Pipe dreams become a reality when non-incremental change is made tangible.
The belief in technology is the belief in non-incremental change.
They tellin’ me I’m the rapper for these white kids / ‘Cause black kids can’t possibly like the same shit.
- Childish Gambino in Break (All of the lights)
It’s hard to write complex characters for a half hour television show.
Girls, the HBO show created and directed by Lena Dunham, has its fair share of critics. Much was made of the fact that the show’s first season featured very little in terms of racial diversity.
The second season introduces us to Sandy (played by Donald Glover): a black, Brooklynite, Republican who is dating the show’s lead, Hannah (played by Dunham.)
While Glover was cast before the public criticism, his choice proved interesting. Dunham describes:
We cast Donald because of a love of his work. But having such a conscientious person with so many particular opinions on the topic, it seemed only correct that we should play around together on that.
Donald raps a lot about his relationship to being like a hipster black guy and the fact that he’s been in like a very white comedy scene and a very white like indie music scene — he has that lyric about being the only black guy at the Sufjan Stevens show — so he had a lot to say on the topic.
The casting of Glover (who also goes by Childish Gambino as a rapper/singer) highlights the importance of understanding the nuances that comprise a character’s complexity.
It’s easy to stereotype the Glover’s music (“nerdy rapper for a white audience.”) But this would be a huge mistake and generalization. His music reaches a much larger audience.
As an artist, he also can’t be illustrated by a particular definition. He’s a comedian, writer, musician, and actor. We can stereotype any of those roles, but would be incorrect and ill-advised in doing so.
There’s more to a character or person than individual components; but we have stereotypes for a reason.
They’re shortcuts for the brain. They make processing a situation far easier. But they’re not always correct.
This week I found myself on an email chain discussing Girls
Up for debate was just this topic: the complexity of Dunham’s characters.
How real were they? How much nuance can you pack into 30 minutes of HBO television? How do we judge each character and are those judgments valid?
The following is a rough breakdown of the conversation between the group.
I’d like to believe that in a few rapid-fire, quick email exchanges we touched on an interesting subject.
Michael H. writes:
I hope EVERYONE WATCHED THIS SCENE (Sandy and Hannah’s break up) ON GIRLS….
Adam L. responds:
…I’m 92% confident that he (Sandy, the Republican) has a copy of Angels in America on his table which makes no sense given that the play’s subtitle is “A gay fantasia on national themes..”
M.H.:
Can you further explain why he wouldn’t?
When did he once say he was not pro-gay marriage. All he said about his republican beliefs was “it’s more complicated than that” WHICH IS AMAZING because she doesn’t villainize the republican at all - instead she villainizes herself for being a millennial ball of emotion.
Then, Mathew L. chimes in:
It’s interesting because this ties back to exactly what the discussion was during the election. Remember your Facebook status? “If you’re voting for Romney consider that you are limited my freedoms as a human being?” …
By selecting your political party you are voting for a platform of issues and just because your vote INTENDS on being good (ie. supporting gay marriage but voting for a conservative candidate) that doesn’t mean shit.That doesn’t mean he COULDN’T have had the book on his coffee table. Or maybe it was placed on purpose to make Lena seem like she had completely overreacted, like you said. HMMM…who knows.
Later in the episode Hannah attempts to rationalize the break up to her friends.
Your rights happened and your rights happened! She claims, pointing to her female best friend and gay roommate.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what Lena was writing.
As Mathew wrote in his email, we don’t really know what the writers’ intentions were.
Mystery can remain.
We can be completely wrong in our judgement of Sandy’s character.
Maybe it’s too much and unrealistic to write a single character that embodies so many distinct stereotypes (the Republican, the Brooklynite, the intellectual, the student, the African American, the gay rights supporter, etc. etc.)
But maybe that’s what we are as characters. Certain characteristics can be more apparent than others, but aren’t we all really a complex collection of different beliefs and relationships and experiences?
The possibility of that depth—in Sandy as a character, in any written character—is important.
The fact that art and television turned into conversation, that’s really what is important.
And if any piece of art causes us to turn conversation into contemplation, if we maintain the self awareness and ability to understand and change our views, that’s even more important.
A continuation of this brief series on content. I stated that I would answer three questions, now I feel the need to follow through.
Question #2: How can an organization build a creative culture to foster quality content?
This question reminded me of an essay I read earlier this year from Etsy’s design lead Cap Watkins.
Cap writes about the differences between claiming to be a ‘design-driven company’ and actually having design and designers as a thought partner and integral part of a team.
His writing provides a starting point to understand an answer (and the importance) of building and maintaining the proper culture to embrace quality content in products and as an organization.
Two insights emerge that can help answer my question on content and organziations:
1) Treat content as a priority
The leadership team must make content an integral part of the conversation and/or process.
It’s not enough to say, “we’ll increase traffic or customer interaction through great content.”
Producing and designing this content needs to be a stage gate in any process. It needs to be openly discussed and focused on.
Designer and editors and producers need to be in big strategic conversations, not simply a resource on the side.
It’s too easy to get distracted by other components of the business and not keep content a focus. So make it a priority, put good content in your cultural DNA.
2) Build a diverse team
I’m a huge believer in the value of diverse teams.
Diversity of skill sets, backgrounds, thoughts, and beliefs is fundamentally important to create a strong organization and business.
This is especially true for content creation.
In Cap’s post he discusses the value of designers:
…designers are in a unique position when it comes to holistically understanding products. Whether it’s because there are typically few designers per product or because of something innate to the design process, designers are naturally 10,000-foot-view people. They view every feature they work on and every idea they have as part of a larger whole. They view changes not just through the lens of the present, but also looking into future iterations. They think about version 5.0 while working on version 1.0.
A similar paragraph could be written about editors, engineers, sales folks, etc.
It’s easy to say that you have a diverse culture and work environment. Much harder to consistently prove and maintain it, especially as an organization grows.
Therefore it’s important to set the value of collaboration in stone early.
Insist that the right—diverse—group of thinkers is in the room at the right times.
This will foster an environment of creative collaboration and positively impact the end result.
2013 is the year of content.
As many would say, “content is king.”
I know: a) not such a bold prediction, and b) it’s already the 3rd week of January—a bit late for prediction posts.
A few weeks ago I began drafting (mostly in my head) a post on content.
Thinking was helpful but led to more questions rather than a concise thesis.
1) How can I become a better producer of content?
2) How can an organizational construct a culture that facilitation better content production?
3) Content is a super-abstract term, what does this year of content even look like as a product?
In an effort to keep this a reasonable length, I’ll attempt to answer each question over the next few days and weeks in a series of three posts. First up…
How can I produce more (and higher quality) content at work and in life?
I’ve had a blog post by SEOMoz’s Andrew Dumont open in a tab for pretty much all of 2013.
He writes a great life-hacking themed entry titled “How I Made a 26-Hour Day.”
Andrew describes his solution to optimize his day and production. It is incredibly simple and obvious, as most good ideas are. It boils down to this:
Wake up 2 hours earlier. Push your schedule up, rearrange tasks accordingly.
From Andrew:
Wait a minute, didn’t I just wake up two hours earlier? Well, yes. But I optimized my day, significantly. Along with waking up earlier, I segmented out the thing that caused the greatest distraction, emails and calls. By waking up a few hours earlier and creating more granularity, I avoided the krypotonite of productivity – context switching.
Each time you answer a call or check an email, you lose time.
According to studies, it can take up to 23 minutes and 15 seconds (on average) to get back on task after an interruption. Studies also show that we’re interrupted an average of 6-7 times per hour. On the high-end, that’s over 5 hours that we can lose from context switching in just a two hour period, which doesn’t make any sense, but you get the point.
Mornings are different. Email slows down. Distractions fall away. Productivity increases.
The entire post is well worth a read.
The beauty of Andrew’s advice is that this simple solution is applicable to everyone.
The obvious push-back is that if you work in a service-based, client-facing industry you don’t always own your own schedule.
By pushing your schedule up earlier you’re re-structuring your day to avoid this trap.
When I’m on the road for work, or a project is particularly busy, I try to force a habit and schedule surrounding an early morning workout (insert your own valued task—writing, reading, cooking, etc. here.)
I’m more energized and productive throughout the day, but more importantly, that time is protected. Even in client services.
Fire drills and new ‘urgent’ asks are inherently unpredictable. They throw off the rhythm of your day and plans.
I don’t know what meetings or projects will pop up throughout a busy day. I don’t know what my afternoon or evening will look like.
I do know that I can fit in a quick run or workout in the morning.
Mornings are predictable. You own your morning. In aligning your morning to your ideal tasks or to-do’s you’re reducing distractions and freeing up even more time throughout the day.
This positive result will make you more productive and it will increase the quality of that productivity.
Find a way to optimize your days and weeks.
Structure them around what’s important and valuable to you.
One small change will dramatically increase your productivity and (hopefully) happiness.
And in increased productivity—greater free time to think or read or write or brainstorm—will undoubtedly lead to better content in both work and personal lives.
I’ve given a little love to New York and a lot of love to travel in previous posts…but strangely almost none to Chicago.
This morning, Greg passed along this fantastic post filled with charts and graphics and pointed jokes about this amazing city.
Those of you who have ever lived in, visited, or fallen in love with Chicago will get a kick out of it.
There’s no place in the world like Chicago in the summer.
Here are a few of the illustrations. Check out Liz’s full post for much more awesomeness.
The stereotypes:
A few more after the jump.
A phenomenal Quora thread/answer came across my Twitter feed* the other day.
The original question…
I am turning 27, and feel I have wasted a lot of time. Is it too late?
Nearly every ‘life’ conversation I’ve had with 20-something year old friends recently has turned to the topic of work and careers
However, this isn’t a post on the millennial generation.
I can say, without diving too deeply into generational observations and stereotypes, that many of my friends have ‘the next step’ on their minds.
These are friends who have worked 1 to 2 jobs, for 1 to 5 years post-graduation.
They have different appetites for risk.
They all want to do something important, something that makes them happy.
But they all have hesitations.
This answer does a perfect job of responding to those who are hesitant to jump to the next project, venture, or position.
I wanted to cherry pick a few great lines, but I think the post as a whole deserves a read.
Pay attention to the last three paragraphs on sunk costs. The words couldn’t be more spot on:
Too late for what?
If you slept through your 26th birthday, it’s too late for you to experience it. It’s too late for you to watch “LOST” in its premiere broadcast. (Though, honestly, you didn’t miss much.) It’s too late for you to fight in the Vietnam War. It’s too late for you to go through puberty or attend nursery school. It’s too late for you to learn a second language as proficiently as a native speaker. It’s probably too late for you to be breastfed.
It’s not too late for you to fall in love.
It’s not too late for you to have kids.
It’s not too late for you to embark on an exciting career or series of careers.
It’s not too late for you to read the complete works of Shakespeare; learn how to program computers; learn to dance; travel around the world; go to therapy; become an accomplished cook; sky dive; develop an appreciation for jazz; write a novel; get an advanced degree; save for your old age; read “In Search of Lost Time”; become a Christian, then an atheist, then a Scientologist; break a few bones; learn how to fix a toilet; develop a six-pack …
Honestly, I’m 47, and I’ll say this to you, whippersnapper: you’re a fucking kid, so get over yourself. I’m a fucking kid, too. I’m almost twice your age, and I’m just getting started! My dad is in his 80s, and he wrote two books last year.
You don’t get to use age as an excuse. Get off your ass!
Also, learn about what economists call “sunk costs.” If I give someone $100 on Monday, and he spends $50 on candy, he’ll probably regret that purchase on Tuesday. In a way, he’ll still think of himself as a guy with $100 — half of which is wasted.
What he really is is a guy with $50, just as he would be if I’d handed him a fifty-dollar bill. A sunk cost from yesterday should not be part of today’s equation. What he should be thinking is this: “What should I do with my $50?”
What you are isn’t a person who has wasted 27 years. You are a person who has X number of years ahead of you. What are you going to do with them?
The past is important. Lessons learned propel us forward.
Nothing is more important than the relationships we’ve made.
But the future is a blank slate.
What will you do with it?
*I believe Christina originally tweeted the link. However, a quick trip to Stanford and Palo Alto this week has left me a bit fatigued social media-wise…and I can’t seem to relocate the original link.
Recent comments