As noted in my previous blog post on this topic, the first quality I believe is necessary in a great speaker is for them to be educational in some way. In my recent bout of conferences, I have seen speakers who fall all over the quality spectrum, but the ones that were truly good ensured they shared something new with an audience.

In the interest of a clean comparison, I will use the same list of speakers — covering the spectrum of topics — across all three categories. A few of these speakers I saw more than once, in which case my ranking takes into account each time I saw them in a public speaking setting, even if the format changed (i.e. if they were a solo speaker in one case vs. on a panel with others in another).

	Charlene Li Educational Value of Content: B Details:Charlene’s background as Forrester analyst gives her access to a lot of information. This is certainly helpful when pulling together a presentation. While there wasn’t anything tremendously earth-shattering in her information either time I saw her speak, her content was solid and her examples were clear and well-presented. Particularly in her main address at SXSW, however, she made at least one leap of logic that she was clearly hoping the audience would share, and seemed a bit surprised and unsure how to respond when there was a difference of opinion. Her assertion was that Google “wouldn’t dare” violate their user’s trust by compromising their personal data. She left this as a blanket statement without explaining on why she felt this was the case. An audience of 1,300 people were not as universally quick to buy into her belief as she was.
	Chris Anderson Educational Value of Content: A Details:Though probably best known as the Editor of Wired and the author of The Long Tail, Chris was on-stage at SXSW (with Guy Kawasaki) principally to discuss his new book, Free. From a content standpoint, Chris knows his stuff. And I was in a constant scramble to jot down notes of things he was saying that I wanted to research in more depth later, because he was making some great points and doing some very interesting historical and economic comparisons. He clearly had the material for a graduate seminar that would have been very interesting, and it was too bad the schedule and format did not allow him to share more.
	Chris Brogan Educational Value of Content: D Details:In the multiple times I saw Chris speak in the month of March, I am not sure I honestly remember once where he shared a piece of new information. He gets props in other areas, but educational value was very low. He had a couple of anecdotes that were insightful, and the questions he had for Guy Kawasaki during their “fireside chat” at PubCon elicited some good discussion, so he gets a bit of credit on that front. By and large, though, the strengths Chris demonstrated during the times that I saw him were not in the educational value of his content.
	Gary Vaynerchuk Educational Value of Content: B Details:Gary is a sneaky devil who walks the line on content. In a perfect situation, he will spend his entire talk on audience Q&A and entirely avoid the need to generate original content himself. He’ll ‘crowdsource’ his content by leaving it up to the audience and simply answering their questions. So I’d mark him down points on that, but then give him high marks for providing good, detailed, tactical answers that are chock full of actual educational content. And, as a person with a tremendous curiosity and range of interests (and deep expertise in some areas), he ends up being a font of juicy nuggets of information — assuming someone thinks to ask questions in the right areas.
	Guy Kawasaki Educational Value of Content: C Details:Aside from good anecdotes, Guy seems to reserve most educational content for his written efforts (Twitter, blog, books, etc.), and uses his speaking engagements for the “lighter-weight” aspects of personal branding. To be sure, some of his anecdotes are phenomenal, but they usually play more towards humor and simply being “good stories” than being truly valuable, reusable lessons or insights. Though, to be fair, he did toss out a few gems here and there, and out of the handful of times I saw him speak, I did get a few particularly good ideas — though these seemed to be very tool-specific, based on the opinion of a self-avowed technology lover. He did also do a good job of eliciting good content out of Chris Anderson during their shared event at SXSW.
	Larry Lessig Educational Value of Content: A Details:Larry is a lawyer, a professor, a writer, an activist and the founder of Creative Commons. He is all about the content (literally and figuratively, as a matter of fact). I’ll cover style in a subsequent post, but his content was detailed, specific and entirely relevant to the topic at hand. If you could write fast enough to keep up with him, you’d easily get valuable information when he speaks.
	Matt Cutts Educational Value of Content: A Details:Matt knows his stuff cold. Inside and out. And he is there to share information. So Matt gets all A’s when it comes to content. As a developer, Matt can give super technical information (and did); but as a smart speaker, he knows how to de-geekify his content when his audience is not developer-centric. So he gets double-points on content: not only is it valuable, but he also de-mystifies what could easily be intimidating material and makes it extremely accessible for non-technical audiences. He also has a great advantage over some speakers when it comes to content: because his main topic (search) is a constantly evolving field, his material is always being updated, so there is no real danger of content stagnation with Matt.
	Tony Hsieh Educational Value of Content: A Details:From what I heard from people who’d seen Tony at previous speaking events, his content didn’t really change much, so if you’ve seen him once, you may have already heard most of what he had to say, but if you haven’t seen him yet, make sure you do at the first available opportunity. His message on leadership, management, building a company, brand and culture is packed with valuable information. Like Guy Kawasaki, he uses lots of anecdotes. The difference is that his are targeting a point, rather than merely being entertaining. His stories are well-selected to illustrate his points, and his points are insightful and compelling. I found it common that he would speak on topics I knew a lot about, and still managed to say something new.

So these are my scores for the educational value of the content. As I’ve mentioned before, I saw tons of people speak over the course of conference season to date. I selected these examples here because they are well-known names most people have heard of. I also selected them because they represented a great cross-section of public speaking strengths and weaknesses in the three areas I outlined as essential: educational value, authenticity and emotionally connecting with the audience.

Have you seen any of these speakers and have different experiences about their content?

Related posts:

1. Why Winning the “SEO Game” is About Your Content As a content strategist one of the things I spend...
2. Canines, Trains and Really Great Parties One of my favorite things about the information economy is...
3. Grumble, Bumble, Facebook Trouble I was reading an article this weekend, on Entrepreneur.com, and...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

There may be no more pervasive and unsavory cliché about lawyers than ‘the ambulance chaser.’ The lawyer who follows an emergency medical team to the scene of an accident for the express purpose of leeching off the pain and misery of others – for the less-than-noble reason of making money – is generally regarded as one of the negative side-effects of a litigious society.

Yet, the fact remains, it is inevitable that one person’s tragedy is another person’s opportunity. So how does one walk the fine line between the two? In a word: brand.

For the airline industry, 2008 was an epically bad year – in some ways, even worse than 2001 and the time immediately following the 9/11 attacks. For as drastic an effect as 9/11 had on the industry’s solvency, it did not shake business models to the core the way that the oil prices of 2008 did: suddenly entire enterprises found that this single change in economic conditions rendered a previously viable business model entirely unsustainable. An ‘unofficial’ count of 2008 airline bankruptcies by Airline.org places the number at 13 – most of which completely ceased operations and permanently closed down, ranging from long-standing carries like Aloha, to new startups like SkyBus.

But what happens when – in the case of SkyBus – a Friday afternoon press release is issued stating that the company is incapable of maintaining operations and will close its door in less than 24 hours? An airline with 74 flights per day across a network of 15 cities has easily transported thousands of customers (and couple hundred employees) to destinations away from home and then effectively stranded them with no way to get back. The immediate shock and outrage by ticket-holding customers notwithstanding, what is or should be the standard for how the rest of the industry reacts to news like that? In another word: JetBlue.

Within hours of the SkyBus announcement JetBlue had mobilized a response. Just past midnight, less than half a day after SkyBus declared it could not continue to operate, JetBlue offered to assist SkyBus customers and employees who were stranded with a plan to get them home. Given that JetBlue was not offering free travel, was not deploying special planes and was not the only airline to step in with a helping hand, why do they get special credit for their approach? Urgency. Unlike the other airline offers to help stranded customers and employees (which trickled in over the course of the next couple of days), JetBlue’s response demonstrated an understanding of the anxiety levels experienced by customers holding suddenly worthless tickets and made a special effort to help assuage those concerns as quickly as possible.

One could argue that this is a chicken/egg-type of debate: was JetBlue’s offer seen as genuinely helpful instead of self-serving because they have a good brand? Or was the helpful nature of the offer what makes them a good brand? The answer is both. The value in JetBlue’s brand is hard to dispute – both internally, across the industry and among the general marketplace, JetBlue is regarded as a marquee brand that has derived its success from doing everything possible to live up to its original operating philosophy: “Bringing humanity back to air travel.” And while anyone stuck on the tarmac at JFK on Valentine’s Day 2007 would be quick to point out that, like any other business, JetBlue makes mistakes, even that day – regarded by the company as a major turning point in its maturation – was the result of mistakes that were rooted in that philosophy.

When SkyBus collapsed under the weight of unfavorable economic conditions and stranded thousands of people around the country, JetBlue was not in a position to send off planes to pick everyone up and take them back to where they needed to go; and truthfully, the two airlines had very different routemaps that did not necessarily help most customers. So most of SkyBus passengers did not make use of JetBlue’s offer. But that wasn’t as important as JetBlue making the offer and making it quickly. Being the first ‘on the scene’ to offer help, and to maintain a sense of sincerity in the effort is what makes JetBlue a great brand.

Today, in a completely different space, we see a similar example: last night TechCrunch reported that Platform as a Service solution provider Coghead is closing its doors, and in doing so, leaving customers stranded for a solution. This morning, Intuit, one of Coghead’s competitors, steps in and offers to help both customers and employees. In the press release issued this morning, Intuit offers Coghead customers, partners and employees support via its QuickBase platform – ranging in everything from discounted rates and special transition services for customers, to potential jobs for employees who suddenly find themselves facing an increasingly dismal economy with no paycheck.

Did Intuit need to do this? No, of course not. Coghead’s customers are, no doubt, scrambling for a new solution, and not all of them are going to take Intuit up on its offer to use QuickBase. But the point is that Intuit made the offer. Like JetBlue, they recognized that the people who are impacted by a business’ closure still have things they need to get done, and having the rug pulled out from under them causes anxiety. By providing a solution, offering support and publicly declaring their desire to help, Intuit is doing what great brands should always do: recognize that customers are people, and not merely numbers.

Is there opportunity gain to be had by the JetBlues and the Intuits of the world in situations like this? Absolutely. But if their only concern was profit, there are other tacts they could have taken – not the least of which is the ultimate ambulance chaser mentality: jack up your prices in the immediate term to stick it to people who are desperate for an immediate answer to their problems. But that is short-term thinking: while that might help sales numbers this week, that is not how you build long-term brand value.

SkyBus customers who’s travel plans were restored thanks to JetBlue’s offer to get them home have reason to like JetBlue now that they never had before. And while they may not live in a BlueCity (JetBlue’s term for cities they serve), you can be sure that the positive brand association those customers now have to JetBlue is strong enough that, if given the chance, it would hold sway in future flight purchasing decisions.

As the fallout from our current economic crisis continues to have a ripple effect from one industry to the next, it will be interesting to watch how those who are left standing adjust to the roles they find themselves in and the opportunities that present themselves. It will be easy for some of them to get very short-sighted and opportunistic; while others will make decisions that more closely resemble JetBlue or Intuit. As a consumer, these are valuable insights into an organization’s culture and priorities. And when it is time for me to spend my money buying goods or services, I would always rather support a business who demonstrates that it lives up to the old State Farm motto, and acts “like a good neighbor.”

To quote an episode of The West Wing, “When your neighbor’s house is on fire, you don’t haggle over the price of a garden hose.” Companies that understand the value of a good brand know that, and that’s what they strive to build over time and through multiple channels – both directly and indirectly. In an increasingly interdependent world, it is more important than ever for consumers to recognize their power by supporting organizations that behave as responsible corporate entities should, instead of like the vampyric parasites that we see splashed across the news every day.

Great brands shouldn’t just be a product of a good management philosophy; they should be an expectation of employees and consumers. Anyone can provide a product. Providing true value, though, requires more than that. And the organizations that realize that are the ones worth supporting.

So good luck to the employees of Coghead. My condolences for having to watch your efforts be capsized by a turbulent economic sea. Best of luck in your future endeavors, and I’d love to know if any of you do indeed end up at Intuit.

Note: In the interest of full-disclosure, I will state that I have worked with and/or for Intuit and JetBlue for several years for precisely the reasons I have highlighted in this post.

Related posts:

1. Why Customer Service Matters Many people don’t think about it specifically, but know it...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Like many other of the career IT professionals I work with these days, I took a decent sized paycut for my current job. (As far as political statements go, that was one my former boss found especially telling.) And when you ask any of us why we would do that — particularly given that, at the time, extremely well-paying IT jobs were in no way difficult to come by (even now they still aren’t THAT bad), the resounding answer you will hear is: “The culture!”

The culture was the selling point. The culture made the paycut worth while, because the culture made coming to work every day an enjoyable experience. It was the culture.

But what happens when that culture changes — especially if it changes so much that it becomes part of the “old days” mythology that new people never entirely believe, because they’ve never seen it for themselves?

The answer to that is simple: the people who came for that reason, no longer have a reason to stay. So they go.

Every industry has it’s perks:

• Financial Services will work you like a dog, but they pay you like a king.
• Defense contractors put you through security paces, but you get to work on all kinds of cool, high-end, top secret gadgets.
• Software start-ups will also work you like a dog, but you get to be a big fish in a small pond and have a level of influence you would never dream possible at a large company.
• In the travel industry, you may have less exciting work in many ways (less cutting edge), but if you’re a travel junkie, the perks can’t be beat.

Over time, most career IT professionals find their sweet spot: you settle into an industry or two, you may become a subject matter expert on an industry-specific technology system (i.e. SAP or Sabre) and that ends up guiding much of your career progression.

But when you switch from one job to the next, the more pertinent question is about the COMPANY itself. A company is often a microcosm of its industry and so there are certain things that a career industry person will expect, but it’s the subtle differences that, in the end, make ALL the difference.

Once upon a time, the culture was ours. We still cling to the idea that it is: we still talk about it, we still give it credit for much of our success, and we still hold out the hope that we’ll find a way to revive it. But in the end, we have new agents of change — some internal, some external — and they have no regard for the value we all placed on the culture in the first place.

And without truly understanding that the culture was the reason we were here in the first place, they have no understanding that disregarding the culture is the fastest way to lose the best and the brightest.

So, for as sad as it is to go, the fact is, this place isn’t the place I used to love coming to every day. The balance in the equation has changed. And, like most successful career professionals, I have the luxury of not feeling trapped and forcing myself to stay in a situation that is no longer worth the price.

But it also means that I had to let go of the fantasy that the change in culture wasn’t permanent.

Related posts:

1. Not Being Penny Wise and Pound Foolish I love startups. I love the chaos. I love the...
2. Tis the Season to be Independent In Deck the Halls with Pink Slips I discuss the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.