I read your suggestion about the 3×5 pad and it sucks! That’s because I hate paper and pen note-taking. I want something that I can carry with me anywhere on my handheld and which will also prompt me, just like a personal assistant, not something which will load me with the extra work of transcribing to a master list! As if I am not burdened enough already! Look, I need something to help me gain lost time each day. Something to boost my productivity and tidily organise my intended activities in a manner that enables me to take action on them!

My reply:

The reason I like paper is that the transcribing *forces me* to confront whether or not a particular task is important enough to copy by hand. If it isn’t, that’s a sign that it probably isn’t important enough to keep on my list. The key to freeing up time, ultimately, is saying “No” to commitments and then vigorously protecting the time you’ve freed up.

If time is getting lost, you need to stop doing the things that you define as “losing” it. Smartphones are often big time losers. Yes, the phone is a fun toy, and yes it can do cool stuff, but measured *in terms of my getting my important work done* (as opposed to my unimportant, imagined work), it’s probably doesn’t make me that much more productive.

The problem is that it speeds up some things, but it slows down others. For example, I type about 1/3 the speed on my smartphone as I do on my desktop. I may find it convenient to respond to email on my smartphone, but it’s actually making me *less* productive. And even if I could answer email at the same rate, the moment I click on a link and spend 5 minutes web browsing or playing a game, any email productivity gains get lost as I waste time goofing off.

If you’re brave enough, try keeping a log for a couple of days. Note what you get done on your smartphone and what you get done at your desk, and how much time each takes. You may find your smartphone boosts your productivity. Or you may find it doesn’t. For looking up phone numbers and addresses, my smartphone is awesome. But does it really save time? I used to clip someone’s business card into my rolodex and I’d memorize it after 2-3 calls. Now I have to retype or scan-plus-double-check each card to get it into my address book (or pay someone to do it, which means earning the money to pay them). And then I *always* have to look them up, because I no longer memorize.

Assuming I make 5-6 calls a day, am I really more productive with an electronic address book when you take all that into account? I suspect yes, but I probably save a few minutes a month, *not* hours.

In short, I like paper because it forces me to think. I like technology because it’s fun and sometimes convenient. But I never assume that paper is automatically bad, nor do I assume technology is good. Like any tool, test it out and be careful that adopting a new, faster tool in one area doesn’t slow you down in another.

I share a lot on social media because it’s part of my job. I have a very popular podcast that offers what I hope is a unique perspective with content that ranges from heard-it-a-thousand-time-before to novel and new. I work very hard to provoke thought, either by refuting some conventional wisdom I believe is wrong, or by asking provocative questions that stimulate a conversation.

If “thousands of people just like [me] are sharing,” then my sharing adds nothing, so why bother? A far better message is, “go get off social media and do something fascinating, intriguing, exciting, and wild! Then come back and share when you have something unique to share.”

Let me pose a challenge: if you spend time on social media sharing the book you’re reading, or which ice cream parlor you’ve stopped at for a cone, stop it. Use that same time to daydream a challenge to undertake, a mystery to solve, or an adventure to create. Then go do it. And then share that on social media. Not only will you attract a larger audience, but you’ll have a life worth broadcasting as a role model.

Reading that, I realized that the “Google is free” argument used to work for me, but it no longer does. Google apps are not free at all. You’re paying in the currency of giving them complete access to everything you work on, so they can analyze it and target ads. If someone were to make that explicit and ask me, “How much would you charge to give someone the right to scour every email you send and receive and every document you compose so they can build a profile on you for targetting ads?” I would name a figure far, far, FAR in excess of what I’ve paid for desktop software in my lifetime. In terms of my own value system, I’m only now realizing that Google Apps may be the most expensive software I’ve ever used.

What do you think? What would you charge to give someone the right to analyze all your email and documents to build a profile of you? What would you expect in return?

If these had caused immediate obesity or cancer, they probably wouldn’t have succeeded in the market. But human beings have an odd quirk: if the effects of something don’t happen quickly, we discount them in favor of immediate gratification. Our compulsion to eat that extra cookie (like I did last night) is immediate, and we act on it much more than we act on the hypothetical, imaginary future world in which we have added a few inches to our waistline.

Then we came up with science and started uncovering these longer-term cause and effects. If a new product were to be introduced that was known to have such negative health effects by triggering short-term gratification impulses, I’d like to think we wouldn’t rush to embrace it.

But even if we’ve gotten smarter (debatable), there’s an even trickier question: some things are fine when done individually, but disastrous when everyone does them. Skipping college is a great example. We’re living in a moment in history where our college costs, educational outcomes, and job prospects are such that it makes very little economic sense for most people to go to college. There’s just no way they can get a job that can pay back their tuition, and we don’t provide enough national educational assistance or reimbursement to encourage people to go unless it has a direct effect on their future income. (Let’s leave out for a moment the recent studies that show that many 4-year colleges are nothing but an extended party and don’t seem to teach very much.) For any one person this makes sense. When an entire generation does it, 20 years later we’ll have a workforce unsuited for anything but manual labor and jobs as check-out clerks. Bad check-out clerks, I might add.

Outsourcing is another place where the individual benefit leads to bad things societally. Any one company can be more profitable through outsourcing. When all companies start doing this, however, it leads to higher domestic unemployment and the gradual deskilling of our workforce. Why would anyone put in the time and effort to develop a skill when they can’t compete with $3/day people of similar skill overseas?

Our economic system is clearly set up to reward the individual, short-term decisions. Sometimes that produces the larger good outcomes, and sometimes it doesn’t. If we as businesspeople are concerned about our larger societal outcomes, how can/should/could we change the system to deal with (a) profitable short-term gratification businesses that have long-term negative effects, and (b) individual incentives that lead to rational individual behavior, but when everyone does them, larger Very Bad Problems?

Do we have any responsibility to address those two flaws in the system? If so, how? If not, then how should we handle the very real societal problems that result?

Ever since we had this hot water heater installed 3 years ago, it’s been a problem. We went without hot water for almost a month while going through the Rheem step-by-step troubleshooting procedure, which involved sending us spare parts one at a time, scheduling a repairman to come out and install the parts, and then calling in again when the part didn’t work.

So far we’ve been 11 days without hot water this time (thank goodness for the gym showers!). We’ve been going through the customer service dance again. The contractor who originally sold us the unit is telling us to call the manufacturer. Rheem is saying we have to remove the hot water heater and return it to the contractor and then they’ll replace it. Really? Remove the hot water heater and bring it back to the contractor? By law, we aren’t even allowed to do that, since it connects to a live gas feed. It has to be done by a licensed plumber. Rheem may think it’s very clever, selling us a lemon and making it virtually impossible to get it fixed. The contractor, of course, is telling us that they can’t do anything, and we just have to deal with the manufacturer directly.

What neither seems to understand is that with this kind of behavior, we’re never going to be customers again of either the contractor or the manufacturer. The inability to get decent service has soured us on both parties.

People Want Solutions, Not Vendors

What customers want (in other words, what I want) is one person they can call to solve their problem. They don’t want you to forward them to your vendor, or to some third party. They want to call you and have you work the magic it takes to get the product working again.

Furthermore, you want them to call you, too. That’s the only way you can make sure the service experience is a good one. Our contractor is going to lose our business through no fault of theirs, but through the fault of the manufacturer. The fact that it’s “industry standard” for customers to deal directly with manufacturers does not matter to me. It’s a stupid standard that is making my life miserable.

What I wouldn’t pay for … a contractor who would sell me a hot water heater, install it, and be a one-call service center for me. Would I pay more for this than simply time + materials? You bet. The contractor would quickly get the experience dealing with the various manufacturers, and could streamline which products they recommend to be the ones that don’t break, or that can be quickly fixed when they do break. If they have enough customers, they could even get some negotiating leverage, either for service response time or price. (“I have 100 customers with your hot water heater in the Chicago area. Let’s negotiate a discount on replacement parts.”)

There’s a market niche, but so far, no one’s filling it.

What experience do your customers go through when your product breaks? Is there a chance for you to deliver serious extra value by being a one-phone-call provider for your customers? If so, will it give you the extra bonus of developing relationships or expertise that ultimately helps you work even faster, cheaper, and more easily?

Think about it. There’s power to being the only person someone calls when they need a solution, and that can be turned into a seriously valuable business.

There’s no reason a frequent buyer program needs to have my personally identifiable information. As long as all my purchases get charged to card #4234, they can print the offer coupons for card #4234 based on the purchase history of #4234. There is never any need to get my personally identifiable information unless they plan to sell it or cross-index it against other databases to find out more about me.

This seems like RITE-AID wanting to reward me as a frequent customer by giving me future deals that will encourage me to shop there more. In that, we’re aligned. I want to let them do that. But I’m not interested in giving them personally identifiable information that they can sell or use in ways other than encouraging me to shop there more.

If you want to reward your customers, find ways to reward them that does not infringe on them. Most people, if they like you as a merchant or service provider, will be happy to accept and respond to incentives. If you want fanatically loyal customers who rave about you, make it possible for people to have a great experience without stepping beyond the bounds where they stop being comfortable with the relationship. Otherwise, you end up with people like me blogging about your intrusion into their lives, instead of praising you for giving you such a great deal.

What I want to know is what kind of smartphone the co-CEOs of RIM use? Do they use Blackberrys? I can’t imagine a worse choice. They should be using iPhone and Android devices for 95% of their calls and computing. We’ll let them use Blackberrys, but only on Sunday. And they’re not allowed to have their IT people set them up; they need to do that themselves. Then they’ll start to understand fundamentally what it’s like to use these devices, and why Blackberry is increasingly falling behind.

I’ve been in Blackberry’s marketing research list for years. I want so badly to tell them why my next phone will be an iPhone, and exactly how and why their platform falls short. But they never ask that. They ask too-specific questions about their guesses as to why I might prefer an iPhone. And their guesses are wrong, because they’re so steeped in their own product.

If you’re in a competitive market, you owe it to yourself to adopt your competitor’s product. Don’t just use it for an hour or a couple of days; really integrate it into your life. Understand its strengths and its shortcomings. Do this a couple of times a year. Only then will you have a hope of being able to take the next step and leapfrog what they’re doing with your own next product. Otherwise, you’re playing guessing games. You might get lucky once or twice, but at the end of the day, you can’t create a vision of a next generation product when you don’t even know what this generation holds.

Editors ROCK! When I’m writing a Get-it-Done Guy episode, my natural sense of humor comes out. My natural sense of humor was developed doing comedy improvisation with college audiences. “Decorum” is not high on the list of words you would use to describe my first draft material.

Fortunately, there’s a very dedicated editor at Macmillan publishing who reads my drafts. She sends them back with paragraphs circled in red pen. In the margin, she writes notes like, “If you say that, the FBI will open a file on you, start wire-tapping your phones, and put you under 24-hour surveillance. Again.” While most people would enjoy free protection services, I find it cramps my style when I go out clubbing. So I rewrite the paragraphs she highlights, this time using Goldilocks and the Three Bears as the central metaphor of my piece. My editors approve, and another Get-it-Done Guy episode is born.

Editors come in many varieties. Some editors can make sure your humor is appropriate. They can make sure your text flows, that you don’t repeat yourself, and that your points build on one another. Copy-editors handle editing the details. They double-check your spelling, your grammar, and your punctuation. I was a copyeditor for the school newspaper when I was a student at Harvard Business School; I need to give my marketing staff a special therapy budget, so they can deal with me.

If you have to write reports, pamphlets, or anything where quality matters, get yourself an editor. It doesn’t have to be a professional, a colleague who writes well may be all that’s required. If you’re worried about letting your coworkers see your work before it’s polished, find a friend who has the write skill set, but works at another company. You can be an outside helper for each other, without worrying about work-in-progress-quality work getting out to the people in your company.

If you’ve never worked with an editor, give it a shot. You’ll discover that having an extra pair of eyes double-check your work can often produce something better than either of you could have written on your own.

When you’re deciding how to structure your business, who to give service to, and when to go the extra mile for a customer, don’t just consider the transaction you’re in the middle of dealing with. Consider the total lifetime of interaction with your customer. The “lifetime value” of a customer is how much you expect that customer to spend over the course of their association with you. That lifetime value is what you want to take into account when deciding how far out of your way to go. I’ve recently had a few run-ins with companies that have taken a short view, much to their detriment.

I eat lunch 5 times a week at the same deli. They discontinued my favorite kind of hot pepper, leaving no condiments that I enjoyed. I asked them to please bring them back, and they refused. I offered to buy my own jar for them to use. They refused. And I stopped eating there. Five days a week, times 50 weeks a year, times $7 per lunch is $1,750 of income a year they were happy to forgo to avoid dealing with the hassle of keeping a jar of peppers around. My new deli is part of a franchise. They are only supposed to serve their approved condiments. I spoke to the owner and he happily kept a special jar of peppers just for me. In the 3 years I’ve been eating there, they’ve made $5,000 and my previous deli has gone out of business.

My friend passes through Reno every year on the way back from the Burning Man festival. He stayed in Harrah’s because they gave him a free upgrade if they had rooms available. He then spent the money he saved in the Harrah’s restaurant and spent even more in the casino. They stopped giving free upgrades, and he changed hotels. It would cost them nothing to give him the upgrade, and instead, they’ve lost year-after-year of restaurant and casino business. Let’s not even consider how much Harrah’s would make on all the referral business my friend would bring. Smooth move, Harrah’s.

To return to the original example, while it may make sense on any given night to forgo seating one person in favor of the party of 12, if that one person dines at your restaurant three times a week, in the course of a year, they’ll outspend the entire party of 12. As unintuitive as it may seem, treating the solo customer well may be a better business decision than handling the occasional bachelorette party. And believe me—the cleanup’s a lot easier, too.

When you make decisions about your customers, do you consider their requests as separate events, or do you consider the lifetime value of each customer before deciding how much to commit to their happiness?