I was reading a few books about branding. The branding concept comes down to a very simple idea, "Be simple and be an idea that occupies a place in people's minds."
The concept is not only for businesses and companies. A lot of people apply the concept on themselves.
I am a scientist. This "branding" is good enough for most people I come across in parties. When I talk among scientists, "what I do" becomes the new level of my "brand". For example, as a part of my work, I am supposed to give a talk in the Cancer Center this coming Friday (3/1/13) and have been working on the presentation slides. When I prepare for this kind of presentation, important thing is communication. I need to communicate "what I do" to colleagues. And the story I tell them will become my "brand," so to speak, in their heads. The story becomes "who I am" in them.
If you come to accept this concept, you'll see application of this branding process everywhere.
Let's take this example. My wife has been doing a "House MD" marathon for a while. So I have been watching many episodes of the show with her. We finally reached the finale last night. The show has been quite enjoyable.
The show's star is Dr. Gregory House. A curmudgeon/ genius medical doctor who leads his diagnostic team in a fictional New Jersey hospital. He is a character. The character does a lot of things and develops over 8 seasons. Yet, the character was so well-defined from the beginning that we can remember him easily. We can even predict what he would do in certain situations, and have fun with it.
Another example would be these comic superheros. We "know" who the Spiderman, Batman or Superman are, and what they do.
A "character" is a brand applied on a person.
The books about branding caution against being complex, not simple. When you do something that goes against your brand or do something else; this is where conflict can arise. Like Rolex selling cars instead of selling luxury watches.
Since a "brand" is a perceived idea by others, it can conflict with the intention of someone/business/company who takes the actions. Other people's perceptions (brand) are something that happens in their heads after all, and it may not reflect the "real you" as you intended. As you grow, you may start changing what you do, and it goes against your current brand and your character. You develop a new brand, or develop your depth as a character.
They say you become who you are. This concept of branding and character development can help, if you apply it to your real life.
As a scientist, I do not place wholehearted trust on someone's perception and beliefs, especially when it comes to Nature's workings. But for affairs involved with people, I see the branding concept works very well. And as a scientist, I like something that works well.
February 24, 2013
February 17, 2013
Science: Grant: better give first to get one
The last entry in my blog was about "give before you get." This applies to my own business, which is medical science.
A majority of science projects are supported by grant money. A scientist needs to write a grant application and be chosen as a winner to get the money and to continue his research . At least in many research universities, this is the way it works.
The reviewing and judging of the application is also done by scientists with similar specialties. It's called a peer review system. Then, let's say I am reviewing the grants and choosing the winner. Who would get the grant?
In many cases, we tend to choose established high achievers. "I am unproven but I have a good idea, so give me the money" people cannot win over "I have done this and that, and with my background I can do this proposed project, too" people, unless the grant is specialized for the former.
When I watch "Shark Tank", a TV show about small business owners trying to obtain an investment from established business owners/investors, I am amused by the fact that the same process is going on in the show.
We tend to be cautious because the money is usually a public taxpayer's money, and we do not want to send it to someone unproven. Someone who may or may not get the job done. An established format for Science is "Show and Tell", not "Tell and Show", after all. An established brand name has an advantage of perceived dependability.
This psychology and tendency in the selection process will lead to a few winners and many losers. "The winner takes it all" is a likely outcome.
This trend of course comes with a setback. Science projects are somewhat like species in nature. Diversity and variety will ascertain the overall ability to adapt to and survive in different environments. And, generally we cannot predict what's coming in the future. A line of research that establishes a good niche has a better chance for survival, but it depends on the environment.
There is the grantsmanship factor, too. How the grant is written is important. Scientists have specialties. I am knowledgeable in my core specialty, but frankly not as much in some other research fields. Since the grant review committee is made up of scientists with similar specialties but different disciplines, writing a grant with somewhat plainer language is important for communicating better. It will be beneficial if they can write a grant in a way that makes it easier for readers/reviewers to evaluate and recommend.
We can think about a lot of things. But like many other business, the eventual judgement maker for your action/application is the market. What we propose either pleases the market or not. And we need to take the market's judgement seriously and act accordingly.
A majority of science projects are supported by grant money. A scientist needs to write a grant application and be chosen as a winner to get the money and to continue his research . At least in many research universities, this is the way it works.
The reviewing and judging of the application is also done by scientists with similar specialties. It's called a peer review system. Then, let's say I am reviewing the grants and choosing the winner. Who would get the grant?
In many cases, we tend to choose established high achievers. "I am unproven but I have a good idea, so give me the money" people cannot win over "I have done this and that, and with my background I can do this proposed project, too" people, unless the grant is specialized for the former.
When I watch "Shark Tank", a TV show about small business owners trying to obtain an investment from established business owners/investors, I am amused by the fact that the same process is going on in the show.
We tend to be cautious because the money is usually a public taxpayer's money, and we do not want to send it to someone unproven. Someone who may or may not get the job done. An established format for Science is "Show and Tell", not "Tell and Show", after all. An established brand name has an advantage of perceived dependability.
This psychology and tendency in the selection process will lead to a few winners and many losers. "The winner takes it all" is a likely outcome.
This trend of course comes with a setback. Science projects are somewhat like species in nature. Diversity and variety will ascertain the overall ability to adapt to and survive in different environments. And, generally we cannot predict what's coming in the future. A line of research that establishes a good niche has a better chance for survival, but it depends on the environment.
There is the grantsmanship factor, too. How the grant is written is important. Scientists have specialties. I am knowledgeable in my core specialty, but frankly not as much in some other research fields. Since the grant review committee is made up of scientists with similar specialties but different disciplines, writing a grant with somewhat plainer language is important for communicating better. It will be beneficial if they can write a grant in a way that makes it easier for readers/reviewers to evaluate and recommend.
We can think about a lot of things. But like many other business, the eventual judgement maker for your action/application is the market. What we propose either pleases the market or not. And we need to take the market's judgement seriously and act accordingly.
February 10, 2013
Life: creation of value and money
I was talking with my wife about her new job and money. The talk drifted to a question of how to make a lot of money and be rich. But is this even asking the right question?
One yardstick we can judge people by is money. "He is rich ( or poor)"; this statement is associated with a lot of things in our mind. Why do we think in this way? Someone is rich or poor in this world. Why does it matter?
A note: "Value" is a matter of perception by people who pay for it. It is not a set standard. The best product, service or business can fail if it is perceived poorly. Too bad.
On a different topic. I borrowed 1400 page two-volume Pathology textbooks from collaborating Professor on Friday. I was reading some parts of them over weekend. I was also reading "The complete idiot's guide to Ballroom Dancing" by Jeff Allen. In the chapter 3, they asked women why they dance. They said, "because of music". They asked the same question to men. They answered, "for women". The writing confirmed my experience very well.
I think it has something to do with our view of success in life. Money is a number on your scorecard in the game of life.
Excluding rare exceptions (the "born-rich with a silver spoon's" and the "super lucky lottery winners"), most of us need to deal with financial issues in this society. You have to start with where you are. And how much money you make and have in your life depends on your strategy and output.
People fall in one of the following four categories.
People fall in one of the following four categories.
1. The super rich. People who create something of value that impacts many people or something that has very high value, can be super rich. Computers and Bill Gates. Harry Potter novels and movies and JK Rowling. (I am not including or endorsing illegal or predatory super-rich here, like being a warlord.)
2. The middle class A. People who acquire some skills and sell their time for their skills. They are called workers or employees. They get paid because they have certain value to the employers and/or customers, and they can be rich, modestly or sufficiently, but most likely not super rich.
3. The middle class B. Small scale business owners. They provide enough values to customers so their business lives. They can grow big, or they can go bankrupt. Depending on the amount of the value they create.
3. The middle class B. Small scale business owners. They provide enough values to customers so their business lives. They can grow big, or they can go bankrupt. Depending on the amount of the value they create.
4. The poor. People who do not create value for whatever reason. They only consume. Although everyone has to consume, the rich and okay folks balance it out with their output. But people in this category, they are not paid for their output, because there is none or an insufficient amount, thus they usually have no money.
The poor can be a temporal setback status, like someone struck by misfortune, or a chronic symptom of a person who creates no value. So we need to factor this in when we see a poor person.
If you see things this way, you may realize that the super-rich (1) are big givers to the society, the okay-folks (2 and 3) are modest givers, and the poor (4) only consume with insufficient output.
Probably most of us understand this already. "Someone is rich" suggests the person has done a good job for people or has created a higher amount of value. They scored higher.
This line of thinking led me to hypothesize that we should strive to create more value and output if we want to be rich. Creating something of big value that has potential to be a super-rich is not an easy task. It takes strategy, work and time. Finally as a result money may follow, but not the other way around. In other words, you got to give first.
A note: "Value" is a matter of perception by people who pay for it. It is not a set standard. The best product, service or business can fail if it is perceived poorly. Too bad.
On a different topic. I borrowed 1400 page two-volume Pathology textbooks from collaborating Professor on Friday. I was reading some parts of them over weekend. I was also reading "The complete idiot's guide to Ballroom Dancing" by Jeff Allen. In the chapter 3, they asked women why they dance. They said, "because of music". They asked the same question to men. They answered, "for women". The writing confirmed my experience very well.
February 3, 2013
Dance: be precise or be free?
Last night we had a WCS (West Coast Swing) party in OKC after a workshop with Barry Jones, who is a champion WCS dancer, judge, and instructor from Dallas. The party was packed, with many out of town dancers. Famous instructors/dancers can bring many dancers together, and it is a valuable addition they can bring as well. A long standing contribution to the community is something the WCS dance community appreciates. In fact, it is a point that separates a great dancer (who can dance the dance greatly) and a champion dancer who people come to at a community level. These two are not the same.
Chances are good that a great dancer in a dance, be it ballroom, salsa, street or contemporary, can dance WCS great as well after short training. But it may take some time for him to be a champion in the WCS community. It requires leadership and from time to time contributing the community. Patience, my friend.
WCS is a very improvisational dance, like Argentine Tango. Probably that is the reason I love these two dances in particular dearly. But in WCS, both the leader and the follower are supposed to dance more independently than in Argentine Tango. In WCS, quality of the leader as a dancer and the quality of the follower as a dancer both show.
Because there were many dancers, I saw many different types of dancers on many levels. They were roughly categorized to two; (i) very precise, sharp and cool, and (ii) more on the "having fun" side with body rolls and additional moves.
The dancers were both good, only the approaches were different. It's like the white swan and black swan in Natalie Portman's "Black swan". I loved them both. But how do we want to employ the two approaches when we dance?
In general in contests, precision dancers are more likely to win, mainly because it is easier for judges to score apparent technical precision. I would score them highly if I had to judge in a contest, so I wouldn't complain about that. According to some poll, about 90% of judges think in the same way. Also, the precision dancers are usually easier to dance with because they have more consistency.The reward for practicing precision is speed and apparent confidence. The downside is that they can be predictable and even boring, unless they exceed a certain level. They'll have to think how they can add extra interest in their dance in the contest.
In contrast, "Be free" dancers are either great, or just look terribly sloppy. They are more fun if the dance works out, they can radiate the joy of dancing, but they can end up being awkward for both the lead and the follow. In spite of the higher death rate in contests, a small number of "be free and unique" dancers make it to the top. They are the ones I am entertained by and remember.
From a teachers standpoint, the precision and cool approach is easier to teach. I won't say it is easy to achieve, but precision in movement is teachable and achievable with practice. But how do you teach individual expression; unique body usage and musical sense? Is it even possible? (actually it is not impossible, but it heavily depends on the student's mindset).
When I teach, precision in the elements and patterns is a first goal to achieve, yet I may have to leave it up to them whether the dancer eventually reaches the "be free and unique" status. No wonder the director guy in the "Black swan" was frustrated.
Most of the time, the "be free and unique" dancers have a strong affinity for dancing free and unique. In other words, it is their choice to be free. Good "be free" dancers usually can demonstrate good basics if that's what they want, but it is not what they do when they have a choice.
This video is taken when I was dancing with one of these "be free" dancers last night. It was so much fun. Thank you, Kirsty.
If I sign up for a contest, I would have to keep in mind showing basics a little more. Showing triple steps and all. This video may be an example of the fact that you don't have to keep the man's footwork precise to get WCS to work. As long as my center travels well and the connection is good, a fact like which leg I am standing on does not influence her following and dance in WCS. It is a huge difference from Argentine Tango, in which I need to know which axis she is standing on and I am standing on. Obviously I am a big fan of "being free" myself. Ironically, my affinity to "be free" and my choice keeps me somewhat indifferent toward contests where good dancers gather. Might I have to reconsider my position?
Today is Super Bowl Sunday 2013. We are staying at home and relaxing.
Chances are good that a great dancer in a dance, be it ballroom, salsa, street or contemporary, can dance WCS great as well after short training. But it may take some time for him to be a champion in the WCS community. It requires leadership and from time to time contributing the community. Patience, my friend.
WCS is a very improvisational dance, like Argentine Tango. Probably that is the reason I love these two dances in particular dearly. But in WCS, both the leader and the follower are supposed to dance more independently than in Argentine Tango. In WCS, quality of the leader as a dancer and the quality of the follower as a dancer both show.
Because there were many dancers, I saw many different types of dancers on many levels. They were roughly categorized to two; (i) very precise, sharp and cool, and (ii) more on the "having fun" side with body rolls and additional moves.
The dancers were both good, only the approaches were different. It's like the white swan and black swan in Natalie Portman's "Black swan". I loved them both. But how do we want to employ the two approaches when we dance?
In general in contests, precision dancers are more likely to win, mainly because it is easier for judges to score apparent technical precision. I would score them highly if I had to judge in a contest, so I wouldn't complain about that. According to some poll, about 90% of judges think in the same way. Also, the precision dancers are usually easier to dance with because they have more consistency.The reward for practicing precision is speed and apparent confidence. The downside is that they can be predictable and even boring, unless they exceed a certain level. They'll have to think how they can add extra interest in their dance in the contest.
In contrast, "Be free" dancers are either great, or just look terribly sloppy. They are more fun if the dance works out, they can radiate the joy of dancing, but they can end up being awkward for both the lead and the follow. In spite of the higher death rate in contests, a small number of "be free and unique" dancers make it to the top. They are the ones I am entertained by and remember.
From a teachers standpoint, the precision and cool approach is easier to teach. I won't say it is easy to achieve, but precision in movement is teachable and achievable with practice. But how do you teach individual expression; unique body usage and musical sense? Is it even possible? (actually it is not impossible, but it heavily depends on the student's mindset).
When I teach, precision in the elements and patterns is a first goal to achieve, yet I may have to leave it up to them whether the dancer eventually reaches the "be free and unique" status. No wonder the director guy in the "Black swan" was frustrated.
Most of the time, the "be free and unique" dancers have a strong affinity for dancing free and unique. In other words, it is their choice to be free. Good "be free" dancers usually can demonstrate good basics if that's what they want, but it is not what they do when they have a choice.
This video is taken when I was dancing with one of these "be free" dancers last night. It was so much fun. Thank you, Kirsty.
If I sign up for a contest, I would have to keep in mind showing basics a little more. Showing triple steps and all. This video may be an example of the fact that you don't have to keep the man's footwork precise to get WCS to work. As long as my center travels well and the connection is good, a fact like which leg I am standing on does not influence her following and dance in WCS. It is a huge difference from Argentine Tango, in which I need to know which axis she is standing on and I am standing on. Obviously I am a big fan of "being free" myself. Ironically, my affinity to "be free" and my choice keeps me somewhat indifferent toward contests where good dancers gather. Might I have to reconsider my position?
Today is Super Bowl Sunday 2013. We are staying at home and relaxing.
February 1, 2013
Life/Dance: Grant writing, KDP select
A few days ago I dropped a post to Facebook, "With all stages combined, the relative 5-year survival rate of liver cancer is about 15%, an unacceptably low rate. How can I help? ...I got an idea and am writing a grant (due 2/15). Getting myself busy."
Sure, as I said, I am busy. But it is fun and satisfying to see the grant taking shape.
Of course, there was a lot more background work in order to generate previous publications and preliminary results. The writing is not just an idea or a whim, but a result of working for a long time. It's a part of long process, not an event. I will be busier for a while.
Now a different topic. Kindle select enrollment.
I wonder how many people use Amazon Kindle AND sign up for Prime membership with $79/year AND use Kindle Owners' lending library?
Apparently, Kindle Owners' lending library is another incentive program by Amazon for their Kindle users who are also Prime members. Amazon allows Kindle owners/Prime members to borrow eligible eBooks (eBooks that are enrolled with the Kindle select program) once a month for free. Basically, they can read any eligible (Kindle select-enrolled) ebook for free, within a certain restrictions.
I don't have the Prime membership, so I cannot speak about the borrowing from experience.
I am an author of "Beginning Argentine Tango", available in paperback and as an eBook. So I have something to think about from a different perspective, the author's side.
I had not enrolled my book with the Kindle Owners' lending library. I was not sure how it worked, and I am not necessarily the type to just dive in to something. "Never invest in a business you can't understand", said Warren Buffet.
I gave the question a thought; "should I enroll my book to Kindle select or not?"
I could come up with reasons for both sides. "No" side and "Yes" side.
When there is an argument and both sides have apparent supports or appeals, whenever applicable I do what scientists do. Experiment. I'll quietly enroll my eBook to Kindle select, and see what happens.
In the end, the following "Yes" reasoning pushed me to do it:
"I wrote the book with a somewhat Evangelical-like passion and desire for more people to dance Argentine Tango. If the program enrollment helps the book reach more people, and more people dance Tango as a result, it may be the right thing to do."
Let's see how it turns out.
Sure, as I said, I am busy. But it is fun and satisfying to see the grant taking shape.
Of course, there was a lot more background work in order to generate previous publications and preliminary results. The writing is not just an idea or a whim, but a result of working for a long time. It's a part of long process, not an event. I will be busier for a while.
Now a different topic. Kindle select enrollment.
I wonder how many people use Amazon Kindle AND sign up for Prime membership with $79/year AND use Kindle Owners' lending library?
Apparently, Kindle Owners' lending library is another incentive program by Amazon for their Kindle users who are also Prime members. Amazon allows Kindle owners/Prime members to borrow eligible eBooks (eBooks that are enrolled with the Kindle select program) once a month for free. Basically, they can read any eligible (Kindle select-enrolled) ebook for free, within a certain restrictions.
I don't have the Prime membership, so I cannot speak about the borrowing from experience.
I am an author of "Beginning Argentine Tango", available in paperback and as an eBook. So I have something to think about from a different perspective, the author's side.
I had not enrolled my book with the Kindle Owners' lending library. I was not sure how it worked, and I am not necessarily the type to just dive in to something. "Never invest in a business you can't understand", said Warren Buffet.
I gave the question a thought; "should I enroll my book to Kindle select or not?"
I could come up with reasons for both sides. "No" side and "Yes" side.
When there is an argument and both sides have apparent supports or appeals, whenever applicable I do what scientists do. Experiment. I'll quietly enroll my eBook to Kindle select, and see what happens.
In the end, the following "Yes" reasoning pushed me to do it:
"I wrote the book with a somewhat Evangelical-like passion and desire for more people to dance Argentine Tango. If the program enrollment helps the book reach more people, and more people dance Tango as a result, it may be the right thing to do."
Let's see how it turns out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)