The Oatmeal at SXSW

While the majority of sessions that I'm attending here at SXSW are related to my work as a product manager, there were a couple sessions I wanted to attend for purely personal reasons. #1 on my list was Viral Marketing with the Oatmeal. Matthew Inman, aka The Oatmeal has been churning out hilarious, relevant and very relatable comics on his web site since 2009. His session at SXSW dealt with the history of his website as well as some of the tips and tricks he's used to expand his creative empire. Inman is hilarious in person and getting the back story on some of the comics and quizzes he's done was phenomenal. Here are the highlights:

-The name. "The Oatmeal" was a direct result of the first person shooter "Quake." When the game debuted, Inman was a huge fan of the multiplayer experience and his handle was "Quaker Oatmeal." He later shortened it to Oatmeal and that has been his go-to handle/screen name/avatar ever since.
-The quizzes. Ever done "How Many Hungry Weasels Could Your Body Feed?" or "Are Your Loved Ones Plotting to Eat You?" These, and the many other delightfully-named quizzes featured on the Oatmeal aren't just goofy diversions, they're actually a highly effective guerilla SEO technique. Inman's first solo venture was an online dating site which he eventually sold to a larger competitor. To drive search engine traffic to the site, Inman created quizzes like "How Many Five Year Olds Could You Take in a Fight?" On the results page of each quiz Inman placed a small link to his dating site at the bottom. As well as a snippet to embed the results page on Facebook, a blog, etc. The quizzes went viral and were enormously popular, so the link to the dating site spread like wildfire. By determining how long you would last in a zombie apocalypse and then sharing your score with your friends you were inadvertently boosting the the rank of Inman's dating site in search engine results. Pretty smart.
-PETA. A few years ago, PETA kicked off a campaign to try and convince the general public that fish were "sea kittens." Most people are opposed to eating kittens. So PETA figured that if people starting thinking of fish as cuddly, they wouldn't be so eager to catch and consume them. Inman immediately responded with his own site promoting the consumption of "Sea Bacon." PETA was not amused. Last year, Inman did a comic extolling the 5 Reasons Pigs Are More Awesome Than You (#1 reason - Pigs experience a 30 minute orgasm). PETA was so impressed with the comic (and apparently forgot about Sea Bacon), that they linked the comic on their website. When Inman saw the influx of traffic to the site from PETA's domain, he inserted some code to redirect hits from that domain to a new comic advocating the eating of horses. It took PETA 8 hours to catch the redirect and update their link.
-Bieber. Inman's friends have urged him for some time to do a comic skewering Justin Bieber. But after taking some time to research what exactly a Bieber was, Inman decided he was merely another reason to feel bad for humanity as a species and not worthy of a comic. He did create a quiz called "How Many Justin Biebers Could You Take In A Fight?" Recognizing that many quiz takers would post their results to twitter, Inman added Bieber's twitter tag to the automated Twitter export. So every time someone Tweets their Bieber bashing score, the Biebs himself gets a heads up.

SXSW Session: Dork Intervention - Bringing Design to Agile

One of the sessions I was really looking forward during SXSW was Dork Intervention: Bringing Design to Agile. In the past year Info Directions has adopted an agile development model for some of our new software features. The advantages to our development and testing processes are obvious. But as the product owner/designer, it has been a challenge figuring out how to communicate my design/system requirements to the other members of the team. I am accustomed to developing in a waterfall environment, where we spend as much time as needed hammering out the design and requirements before a developer or tester ever begins work. Now, we are expected to design concurrently with dev and test activities. So this session with Karl Nieberding and Kris Corzine of eBay, looked like it had massive potential.

Agile is Broken

The presenters discussed a case study from their experience at eBay. Specifically, how could they reduce the time necessary to post a listing on the auction site from an average of 45 minutes, to 3 minutes or less? The presentation was less about the solution (using bar code scanning software to rapidly input items with a web cam) than the process that got them to the solution. The presenters went through the pros and cons of the various models of incorporating design into agile: Waterfall, mini waterfall, just in time and exclusive design sprints. Ultimately, the presenters decided on a new approach they called Fused Innovation. Unfortunately, their explanation of Fused Innovation was pretty vague. I got the impression that they continued to mash up the first four methods until they found a hybrid that was comfortable and then ran with it. But it was tough to discern exactly how Fused Innovation could be duplicated. They wrapped up with a list of 7 rules of engagement. But these rules were par for the agile course. Nothing earth shattering.

Overall, I was really hoping for a great takeaway to bring back to IDI. So the Dork Intervention was a mild disappointment.

Stuck on Plane While the Bison Go Dancing

When it comes to booking travel, I'm a fire and forget kind of guy. I put in the time to find the cheapest fare, best flight times, etc. but once it's booked, I rarely look at my itinerary until a few days before I depart. So it was an unpleasant surprise to find out that Bucknell's Patriot League championship game would tip off at the SAME TIME my flight from Chicago to Austin departed today. The game was broadcast on ESPN2, so up until I confirmed my itinerary on Wednesday, i was pretty sure I would catch SOME of the game at an airport bar, or at the hotel in Austin. No such luck.

It's a strange feeling in this era of constant connectivity to be invested in the outcome of an event, and not have any way of following it. I'm so used to following scores on my ESPN Sportscenter, or watching the gamecast even if a game isn't televised. It's just genuinely odd to be in a place where I'm just totally cut off.

The good news is that the flight to Austin was smooth and upon landing, I had an email from BU President John Bravman informing me that Bucknell was going dancing. I'll be watching the selection show Sunday to make sure I'm not off the grid for Bucknell's first round matchup.

BYU: Not Much Honor in the Code

It's been almost two weeks since Brandon Davies was suspended from the the Brigham Young University basketball team for violating the school's honor code. Since that time, the story has grown more complex. Davies was suspended from the team for having sex with his girlfriend. This is a clear violation of the BYU honor code, which includes the following provisions:

• Be honest
• Live a chaste and virtuous life
• Obey the law and all campus policies
• Use clean language
• Respect others
• Abstain from alcoholic beverages, tobacco, tea, coffee, and substance abuse
• Participate regularly in church services
• Observe the Dress and Grooming Standards
• Encourage others in their commitment to comply with the Honor Code

Upon first reading about the Davies situation, I was furious that BYU would take this kind of action for what seems to be the typical behavior of the average American college student. Not only is the school ruining a stellar season for Davies, but the rest of the Cougars are clearly going to have to adjust to the loss of a close teammate. And their potential without Davies is not quite as promising. Then there is the personal impact of dragging a young man and his girlfriend through the mud for what appears to be a consensual act. I see no honor in an academic institution humiliating a student to satisfy their "code."

But I have had time to internalize the flip-side of the argument: Davies knew what he was signing up for attending BYU. As such, he has to live with the consequences of his actions. And given some time to reflect, that's a fair assessment.

So ultimately, what continues to bother me is that BYU and the pundits covering the story continue to refer to this set of rules which Davies violated as an honor code. Unfortunately, it has little to do with honor. When discussing the story on Pardon the Interruption, Mike Wilbon continues to invoke the University of Virginia as another school with an honor code. He's right. UVA does have an honor code. It's been around since 1842, and according to the school's website, looks something like this:

Today students at the University make a commitment not to lie, cheat, or steal within Charlottesville, Albemarle County, or where they represent themselves as University students in order to gain the trust of others. Because of this commitment, there's a strong degree of trust among the various members of the University community. Students are also expected to conduct themselves with integrity and are presumed honorable until proven otherwise.

Prohibition of lying, cheating and stealing seems a much more apt description of honor. So what does that make the BYU "honor code?" It is a religious, or moral code. And while the school may feel that those traits define an honorable existence, news outlets covering this story need to make a distinction. When ESPN continues to acknowledge this list of rules as an honor code, it begs the following question: If an individual breaks these rules, do they lack honor? The UVA code seems to pass this litmus test. If a person lies, cheats or steals, they are almost universally condemned as lacking in personal honor. But if a person drinks caffeine? Swears? Dresses like a slob? Has pre-marital sex? Do those activities connote a universal lack of honor. I'm guessing the US Marine Corps, which practically institutionalizes coarse language and caffeine consumption would assert that their membership still demonstrates honorable traits despite the rough behavior.

BYU is a religiously-motivated institution, and I would be shocked to see them amend either the terms of their code, or what they call it. But members of the media must adopt greater sensitivity in spouting the phrase honor code without any context, lest they begin to offend a broader sense of what is truly honorable.

18 Game Conspiracy Theory

As NFL collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiations enter a mediation phase this week, I decided it was high time that I put my conspiracy theory about the proposed 18 game schedule in print. I mean, I can't claim credit for it if I don't get it out there before a deal is done.

So here's the theory: The NFL owners have prioritized and publicized the 18 game schedule over the past year solely to create CBA negotiating leverage. Don't believe me? Consider the following:

• Timing. The pace of change in the NFL is glacially slow. Just look at overtime rules and instant replay. These two concepts, relatively simple in execution, took years to achieve owner support and implement. An 18 game schedule would fundamentally change the nature of the NFL product, and yet the owners are looking to slam it into place by the start of the 2012 season. That fact alone suggests this is more of a stunt that a legitimate consideration. If the NFL owners were serious about an 18 game schedule, the transition would be a gradual (17 game season, then 18 game season), multi-year process.
• Money. NFL negotiator and outside counsel Bob Batterman publicly valued the additional two games at $500 million in incremental revenue for the owners. While that sounds like a lot of money, divvy it up 32 ways (of course the actual share per team would vary considerably) and each team is looking at just over $15.5 million in additional revenue. That's not a significant increase given the risk involved when tampering with the most popular sports product in the US. And those revenue projections are likely based on a best case scenario where fans don't balk at increased ticket prices and television audiences aren't diluted by the extended season. Bottom line, the risk vs reward for the 18 game proposition doesn't look all that attractive.
• Safety. Roger Goodell is not stupid. He has to know how it looks to the fans and pundits when he is preaching safety awareness, pushing concussion protocols and fining violent hits with one hand, while looking to add two hours of regular season playing time with the other. League officials have made the argument that the players are already committed to 20 games a year (16 regular season, 4 pre-season), they just want 2 of the pre-season games to count. But this argument only looks reasonable to the most casual of fans. Anyone with genuine interest in the league knows that the starters who will be on the field for the majority of the regular season minutes will play sparingly (if at all) during the pre-season. The limited playing time for starters is specifically to avoid the injuries that will certainly accrue with the addition of two games that "count." The whole safety dilemma that Goodell has allowed to manifest only makes sense if he knows that the 18 game schedule will be off the table before the 2011 season gets underway.
• Fan support. When I discussed the money issue above, I noted that the rosy financial projections for an 18 game schedule are dependent upon a scenario in which fans embrace a longer regular season and the escalating ticket prices that come with it. In addition, TV ratings must remain strong throughout the extended season. So if fans start to tune out as the season meanders towards week 18, ad revenue and TV dollars may diminish as well. This is bad news considering that an AP fan poll revealed what ESPN characterized as "lukewarm" support for the new schedule.
• Logistics. So far, the details of the 18 game schedule have been limited to the conversion of two pre-season games into regular season games. Fans have heard nothing about the details of the proposed schedule. When will the new regular season start? What will the impact be on OTA's? Training camp? Playoffs? The draft? The combine? Will a second bye week be added to allow for more recovery time? If so, that stretches the actual duration of the regular season to 20 weeks. These are all questions of major importance to players and fans. Is the NFL really suggesting they're going to have all this worked out AND achieved player and fan buy-in by August 2012?

So if the timing seems off, the money is a gamble, the safety issue makes the league look foolish, fans aren't crazy about the change and the implementation looks daunting, why are guys like Bill Polian calling the 18 game season a "done deal"? The answer: Leverage. In a potential lockout situation, NFL players know they have the fans on their side. While financial pressure may ultimately force concessions from the NFLPA, the union is poised to dominate the owners in the PR skirmish. In an age where players can spin with their Twitter accounts, it is simply too dangerous for the owners to allow a lockout to occur. So when the chips are down and it's time to deal or start missing games, the owners need to have something to concede. How about the 18 game schedule?

Picture it: The NFL and NFLPA negotiators in a swank hotel room in NYC. Terms have been reached on rookie salaries and limited OTA's, but the players won't budge on profit sharing. With a weary sigh, the NFL negotiator offers, "If you can move on the profit sharing, we are prepared to postpone the implementation of an 18 game scheduled until the next CBA." The NFLPA negotiators smile, concede some of the profit sharing and a CBA is reached.

The owners are able to seal a new deal by conceding an 18 game schedule that nobody really wanted in the first place. Brilliant.

So that's my theory. If a CBA is reached and all sides report that the NFL's concession of an 18 game season was at the heart of the compromise, I'm right. If the dust settles and we're looking at an 18 game schedule in 2012, I was wrong. Either way, I'm on the record.