Comments on: Sherlock Holmes Problem http://blog.jimnovo.com/2008/09/12/sherlock-holmes-problem/ Moving from a Low Accountability to a High Accountability Business Model Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:46:38 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Jim Novo http://blog.jimnovo.com/2008/09/12/sherlock-holmes-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-51234 Jim Novo Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:47:36 +0000 http://blog.jimnovo.com/?p=258#comment-51234 Thanks for the Comments! One of the most difficult parts of figuring out this Repeating the Past problem - and then addressing Learning and Teaching - is trying to assess how much of the "blame" belongs on which side of the brain - math or creative. Or if you prefer, how much blame the "Technology" folks deserve versus the "Marketing" folks. Know what I mean? I'm leaning towards the Math / Technology side (Wrong Model), with a hard assist from the Creative / Marketing side (Dumb Money), as I indicate in the next post. Reason? Advertising folks can only buy what's available for inventory, and the quality of that inventory is controlled by the Tech side. Failure to innovate in this inventory area - by just slapping up Display inventory as the solution in development cycle after cycle - is the "Root Cause" of Online not getting it's share of Attention and Budget from the C-Level. Not that the Marketing side is blameless at all - what is needed is an Intervention by Marketing on the Tech / VC side, or the Tech side to say, OK Marketing, what do you want? It's the old "requirements" problem, if you will. Either way, Marketing could say, "Here is the model that makes sense; here is the model we will buy, here is what you need to supply in order to really compete for budget with offline media". If Marketing knows these answers, that is. Otherwise, seems to me we are destined to keep developing great new Technology that never delivers on the Marketing promise. Who wants to write the Requirements doc with me? Thanks for the Comments!

One of the most difficult parts of figuring out this Repeating the Past problem – and then addressing Learning and Teaching – is trying to assess how much of the “blame” belongs on which side of the brain – math or creative. Or if you prefer, how much blame the “Technology” folks deserve versus the “Marketing” folks.

Know what I mean?

I’m leaning towards the Math / Technology side (Wrong Model), with a hard assist from the Creative / Marketing side (Dumb Money), as I indicate in the next post.

Reason? Advertising folks can only buy what’s available for inventory, and the quality of that inventory is controlled by the Tech side. Failure to innovate in this inventory area – by just slapping up Display inventory as the solution in development cycle after cycle – is the “Root Cause” of Online not getting it’s share of Attention and Budget from the C-Level.

Not that the Marketing side is blameless at all – what is needed is an Intervention by Marketing on the Tech / VC side, or the Tech side to say, OK Marketing, what do you want?

It’s the old “requirements” problem, if you will.

Either way, Marketing could say, “Here is the model that makes sense; here is the model we will buy, here is what you need to supply in order to really compete for budget with offline media”. If Marketing knows these answers, that is.

Otherwise, seems to me we are destined to keep developing great new Technology that never delivers on the Marketing promise.

Who wants to write the Requirements doc with me?

]]> By: Steve http://blog.jimnovo.com/2008/09/12/sherlock-holmes-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-51117 Steve Wed, 17 Sep 2008 04:11:42 +0000 http://blog.jimnovo.com/?p=258#comment-51117 I'd go with extracts of Chico's response: Great Analysts are grown via experience. Wide ranging experience. The experience thus gives the background to have a better appreciation of the questions to go hunting/asking for. I'd mildly disagree that "Programming" teaches a rigid mindset tho. Quite the opposite. The actual code is rigid - syntax et al; But the solutions are anything but rigid and more akin to an art form. A favourite example is the wonderful "Story of Mel": http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/story-of-mel.html "... I have often felt that programming is an art form, whose real value can only be appreciated by another versed in the same arcane art; there are lovely gems and brilliant coups hidden from human view and admiration, sometimes forever, by the very nature of the process." Cheers! - Steve PS Apologies for the delayed response - been in London the past week and ultra time poor I’d go with extracts of Chico’s response: Great Analysts are grown via experience. Wide ranging experience. The experience thus gives the background to have a better appreciation of the questions to go hunting/asking for.

I’d mildly disagree that “Programming” teaches a rigid mindset tho. Quite the opposite. The actual code is rigid – syntax et al; But the solutions are anything but rigid and more akin to an art form.

A favourite example is the wonderful “Story of Mel”:
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/story-of-mel.html

“…
I have often felt that programming is an art form,
whose real value can only be appreciated
by another versed in the same arcane art;
there are lovely gems and brilliant coups
hidden from human view and admiration, sometimes forever,
by the very nature of the process.”

Cheers!
- Steve
PS Apologies for the delayed response – been in London the past week and ultra time poor

]]> By: Chico http://blog.jimnovo.com/2008/09/12/sherlock-holmes-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-50913 Chico Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:45:07 +0000 http://blog.jimnovo.com/?p=258#comment-50913 Hi Jim, A mathematical mind is naturally curious as maths requires ingenuity to solve its often abstract problems, creative minds might not have the discipline to understand the data well enough. But pattern recognition gets a boost from a creative mind that can see the ‘gabs between the branches’ and come up with unexpected ideas/explanations. Someone else said a varied background tends to create better analysts, maybe because they have more varied experiences and can ‘empathise’ better? Truly original thoughts are very rare, most of the time a great analyst is putting together the various bits of knowledge they have and coming up with reasonable hypothesis. This is where growing up with Internet means you understand it better – understand need for consumer focus and how relationship marketing can get you there. As for a lack of proper analytical culture I really believe this is critical and where most companies fail. Nowhere I have worked actually uses analytics to drive the thinking – maybe because it’s a longer-term strategy and the usual corporate greed gets in the way. Hi Jim,
A mathematical mind is naturally curious as maths requires ingenuity to solve its often abstract problems, creative minds might not have the discipline to understand the data well enough. But pattern recognition gets a boost from a creative mind that can see the ‘gabs between the branches’ and come up with unexpected ideas/explanations. Someone else said a varied background tends to create better analysts, maybe because they have more varied experiences and can ‘empathise’ better?
Truly original thoughts are very rare, most of the time a great analyst is putting together the various bits of knowledge they have and coming up with reasonable hypothesis. This is where growing up with Internet means you understand it better – understand need for consumer focus and how relationship marketing can get you there.
As for a lack of proper analytical culture I really believe this is critical and where most companies fail. Nowhere I have worked actually uses analytics to drive the thinking – maybe because it’s a longer-term strategy and the usual corporate greed gets in the way.

]]>