Watch Neil DeGrasse Tyson educate Richard Dawkins on the importance of understanding context when “teaching” others. Tyson makes a wonderful point about the difference between information and persuasion.

There are varying degrees of scope and sophistication in our wildly different projects and initiatives. Our work is passed to our clients, to internal teams, to executive management, to various partners and outside parties. The names of studies, reports, presentations, tools used in the process, task force teams, strategic plans, products in development, etc. do matter.

Names should be clear and communicative – presenting the topic but also the considering the audience. Names should not be overly technical or detailed. Names should be intuitive, parsimonious, and should be readable (and intelligible) “out loud.” But names should also hold up over time, regardless of how related issues change or evolve. Future researchers should be able to refer back to your work, referencing a name that still communicates something to them. It’s somewhat a lofty challenge, if you think about the implication of the choice of title. The goal is to strike a balance between communication and brevity – if the name simply “fits” in these terms, it will likely carry and communicate as desire.

I’ve watched my share of TED Talks, and I’m always amazed by the consistent quality of the presentations. Honestly, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a dud. This may explain why…The TED Commandments.

I’ll be first to admit that I’m not the biggest fan of Malcolm Gladwell’s books. I mean, I thought The Tipping Point was as interesting as the next guy. But with Blink and Outliers, I was overwhelmed by this sense that he was conducting years of exhaustive research and writing a few hundred pages to tell me something I kinda already knew.

That said, his New Yorker articles are top-notch, the most recent How David Beats Goliath, being no exception. Gladwell uses examples as disparate as elementary school basketball, T.E. Lawrence, and of course, the story of David and Goliath to make his point. In each case, the key to success is simply trusting your own skills, instincts, and limitations and using them to your advantage. Maybe I kinda already knew that, too, but the article serves as a great reminder.

For these types of projects, smart study design is critical, but for the most part these analytical techniques are applied post hoc, in interpretation of trends and spikes that emerge across a large numerical data set. We love this type of work, but we only recommend such an approach if our client’s overall strategic and specific research objectives seem to call for it.

Sometimes, marketing research objectives are best addressed not so much through application of post hoc analytical techniques, but on the front end of the project – through development of a direct, customized, in-depth line of questioning.  This can be true for quantitative or qualitative research, really. This post is mostly inspired by some questionnaire development work I conducted recently: our client’s objectives boiled down to a need to understand specific consumer behaviors and to identify specific factors (both cognitive/rational and emotional/irrational) that went into decision making on the research topic.

We have a large sample for this project, so we’re sure we’ll be able to do some interesting post hoc analysis as well, but at this stage it seems we’re going to be able to provide real insight to our client because we started off in search of specifics, rather than through use of standard survey metrics.  Development of customized questions with detailed answer options made for a smarter survey instrument. We do often add standard, academically validated question formats to our surveys, but some studies simply require a deeper dive. This seems particularly true for technology and health care research, but could potentially apply in any category.  When I start a new questionnaire, I remind myself to watch my step but not hesitate to go down the direct questioning path.

- Marty Neumeier

Too often, the new breed of social media expert is taking tired marketing and communications methods, adding some glitter and shine, and treating new online and mobile channels as the same old stuff. I’m seeing a lot of top ten lists that talk about ROI, about how to get your message out, about avoiding the mundane. Too often companies are being told to push commercials or marketing messages to the mobile phone. Broadcast static specials or new product announcements to Facebook or Twitter.

Many of these experts/evangelists/buzz generators seem to be missing the point. The problem with all of this is that as consumers use the internet more and more in everyday life, they get savvier about being sold to. They don’t want their mobile device (be it an IPhone or netbook), Twitter account, Facebook Page, etc. to merely be a new conduit for one way information sharing. For consumers it’s about being social, about doing things together, about being awash in the matrix of information that’s out there and sipping when they want. There is one overarching piece of advice that companies should follow when establishing a presence using online user controlled channels:

Use social media as a means of having a conversation.

Don’t forget, conversations are as much about listening as they are talking. Let your consumers talk to you, express their complaints, ask questions. Use the consumer interactions as an opportunity to respond, fix customer service/product issues, and bring consumers in on the process. People are using these methods to talk to each other, when your Twitter page merely announces specials or new product launches, there is no need to follow it. If it’s a conversation you’re sharing information, receiving information, and potentially identifying issues or opportunities in the marketplace. Use social networking to show you care, to show a little of your personality. Despite what many of these experts say, allowing a little about the daily grind of your office to bleed into your online presence is a good thing. While it shouldn’t be a minute by minute recap of the user’s day, showing that real life people work for your company can really add dimension to your brand. You might just create loyal customers who tell their friends to use your products and services.

I might add to his advice that they should go work for small companies where they can be involved in everything for the first few years of their career. While there, they should constantly stretch themselves and ask for more. More responsibility, more and different tasks, more autonomy, etc. A young person who pours their brains and hearts into their work early on will take more from the experience than someone who goes to a big company seeking experience.

The analogy I’d make is that your first job or two are akin to a liberal arts education. Don’t go to only pick up tangible skills and a job title/career. Go to immerse yourself and learn as much as you can. Go broad and deep. It will make you much more well-rounded and competitive by the time you hit 30. Plus you might find yourself doing something you like instead of repeating a work-skill daily until retirement or downsizing.