I love this article — on a gut level, because it goes against the popularity of “startups” — but, more seriously, because of its business advice based on Monocle’s own business journey and the business success of its featured shops.
“”Startup” is an empty word….
Entrepreneurial success seen through the Monocle lens looks different: It’s slower-growing, more painstaking, less giddily affluent. The businesses profiled sell tangible products–ceramics, goat cheese–and are run by grown-ups versus the delayed adolescents one associates with Silicon Valley…
“petiteness” (not getting too big, too fast) and “social terroir” (rooting your business in place and community, and staying responsive to the needs of that community)…
Pitch your product upmarket, where higher margins prevail; don’t sell products, curate an experience; cater to consumer tastes you understand well; cross-pollinate ideas across industries; and tilt your business model as necessary (a gelato “university” in a high-rent locale is more financially sustainable than a simple gelato shop)…
…So yes, if you have a great new idea you may be able to steal a march on everyone else, but most new businesses are actually repeating–but refining–old ideas. There is always room for a new café done better or a magazine that does its own thing.
A good brand is built through repetition and you have to have the confidence to keep repeating what you do best until you get the breakthrough. The other important thing is to choose steady progress over what may seem like easy wins. They are usually hollow.
…Canvass opinions, do your research, check the market, but in the end you’ll only make it if you know what your passion is for, and you stick with it. Sometimes people won’t understand what you are trying to achieve at first.
… each person has learned to be open to the input of their team…but, in the end, they are the keeper of the flame. They are brave enough to make the big decisions.
When you feel that you’re just responding to the next urgent request all the time and need some bigger thoughts, get out of your office, turn off that phone, be distracted by something bigger than the task at hand…”
Hi, Reader. A note before I get started.
This series is because people don’t talk about the importance of workflow, in the digital trend websites.
They talk about “innovation”, “gamification”, and “UX”. This year, the new cool things to say are “responsive design” and “wearable tech”.
(Sorry, in advance. I’ll probably keep showing my cynicism towards buzzwords).
Marketers and digital strategists never really say things like “chain-of-command” and “proper documentation”. Or “proper client facilitation”.
When THOSE can be the keys to actually executing great products.
(I’m not claiming that I learned these on my own. For readings on these pertinent topics, please read Things That Are Brown, A List Apart, 37 Signals’ Signal VS. Noise, Boxes and Arrows and MIX Online.)
So here I present my “workflow lessons” series.
This is for the people who love the workflow.
This is for those who care about the grind.
Don’t Punch Above Your Weight
You know a simple two-step way to solve all project issues?
1) Tell the person directly concerned. Yes, to their face.
2) Having done Step #1 (and you must do Step 1) — if that doesn’t resolve or clarify the situation — inform your boss, so he/she can tell that person’s boss.
Really. It’s that simple. You’ll be surprised at how many things those two steps can actually solve.
You know what the hard part is? Working up the guts to do (1).
It is tough to talk to a person directly. Especially about work conflict.
What’s stopping me is I’m afraid of recruiting participants.
Apparently, to the point of paralysis.
—
This is my first time working as a one-woman team. I used to do everything a research project requires EXCEPT recruitment, since I came from research agencies where you hired a team of recruiters to do the respondent-gathering for you.
But, see, user research usually employs “guerilla research” tactics. Low budget, man-on-the-street type, fast-turnaround time qualitative projects.
Turns out I’m afraid of asking people to participate.
I freeze up. I rehearse phrases in my head then weakly walk back-and-forth till I work up the courage.
My friends who read this will probably find this really, really odd.
Most people who know me assume that I’m an extrovert. I’m annoyingly talkative, loud; my hobbies involve performing arts and showmanship, and my profession is “consumer research” (a job that makes you talk to groups of people and establish rapport on command).
I like taking things apart and seeing why they work. One of my best friends said that you could see that that’s how I am as a researcher. I’m not an empath, like many of my friends from work. The energy is really different when they talk to people – they’re warm, almost motherly, you open up to them because they’re like friends you haven’t seen in years.
Me, I get giddy – colleagues who’ve observed me say that my focus groups are “exciting”, but tiring. It’s like an eating binge – I get this frenzied drive to ask people about themselves to learn about what they like, what they do, how things makes sense.
And that’s why I love consumer research – because human interests are complex, and very challenging to find logic in, but there are patterns and deviations and flows and stories. It’s beautiful.
I love talking to people. I naturally have this itch to go up to people and ask about their phones, their clothes, why they like things, what they’re afraid of. I love that.
But, for the past years, I’ve been trained in a kind of market research that says when you interview people, participants should not be able to “read” you, so they aren’t biased by how they perceive you. That you should be a relatively “blank slate” — “blend in” as much as possible, so that you don’t stick out and be the point of conversation. Which is hard for me, because I’m a generally gregarious person.
This is why I’m curious about and want to learn how danah boyd does research while retaining her creative individuality.
Photo by Brooke Nipar
I realized that I freeze up when trying to recruit people for research studies because I’m afraid of how to ask to get them to agree.
I’m afraid of rejection – of the rate of refusal versus the daunting volume of work.
Why be afraid of rejection? Because I’m looking at approaching people with the mindset that I’ll be asking them to participate in a cultural probe where I’ll be observing your behavior for a period of time blah blah blah…
I’m thinking of them as “participants”. That I have to put on a mask of “normalcy”, and try to establish “rapport” and get them to formally agree to be “studied”.
I’m not thinking of them as well…people. I love watching and asking friends about what they watch, what they read and what they like about them. I enjoy watching them use their phones and play games, because I know them, they know me and I’m comfortable doing that.
As a “researcher”, I’ve begun to dwell too much on the formality of all, when in fact, what I love about user research and user-centered design is that it’s needs-oriented, people-oriented. That it doesn’t just look at individuals as people to sell to, but people to service.
I’m having a hard time because I have this feeling that I’m supposed to switch to some gorillas-in-the-mist mode and be this relatable Everywoman.
Yet again, I am trying to present some studied version of myself, instead of just letting my interest and love for the job drive me. I should just be able to be me, and still interview people.
Yes, life, I will try to stop over-analyzing.
I hope this helps me. We’ll see how my studies progress in a few weeks.
icepick 