Learning with Hef: Move, Change, Work With Things Unproven

May 20, 2008

There’s an interesting NY Time’s Article about the problem Playboy Enterprises has had that we also talk about all the time in the learning industry.

The squeeze between old media and new media.

Explanation by CEO talking out both sides of mouth: Christie Hefner says the problems are due to “the dual challenges of structural transformation in our traditional media business and a difficult U.S. economy and unprecedented changes in the way consumers access and use media content.” Later in the article she says, “there isn’t anything different about the fact that people can access content on the Internet because they could access it in other forms before.”

I pause to ponder… First, I thought the sex industry was recession-proof. Second, what’s different about accessing content? Oh, yeah… I can rate it, create it, tag it, share it, discuss it, mash it up, and OH YEAH, it’s mostly free. There isn’t anything different? Really?

Analysis: Ed Moran, director of production innovation at Deloitte noted, “Their [Playboy’s] model worked very well when what they sold was hard to come by, but now they’re living in a world where there are zero distribution costs because of the Web and a tremendous variety of material that is limited only by your ability to search for it.”

I pause …could it be that they just let the brand stagnate? Can they still think people read Playboy for the “breadth of content?” [I know, you only read it for the articles...ha ha! Good one. I've only heard it like...gee...a zillion times.]

So, the plan to keep Hugh Hefner in satin jammies: casinos, men’s perfume, upgrade online operation, improve content, put videos on YouTube, and continue profitable licensing of brand.

To me, this means they are adding depth and breadth to the brand and recognizing the concept of groundswell, the “sudden gathering of force.” (I’m reading the book Groundswell...will post about that later.)

How does an industry that’s not recession-proof (like training) become recession-resistant? It seems, we should never stop moving and changing, we should work with things unproven, and we should recognize the groundswell among our learners.

In some ways, I feel like Chicken “the sky is falling” Little lately with all this do or die talk. But I just see it in too many industries. Same new story.

So, while the “ILT will never go away” statement is true, it doesn’t address the fact that ILT continues to be a smaller percentage of the total training pie. And it doesn’t address the fact that the high-fidelity element of ILT is not so much better than the high-fidelity element of certain online activities. And it certainly doesn’t address the concept of groundswell. The only sudden gathering of force I remember in the training room was the appearance of the donuts.

MOVE, CHANGE, WORK WITH THINGS UNPROVEN.

What other six words of advice would you give?

Be Sociable, Share!

Tagged as: ,

  • http://www.daveswhiteboard.com/ Dave Ferguson

    This is a great comparison, though I tend to read “the learning industry” as meaning mainly the organized providers and helpers — in other words, those who earn their living selling services related to training/learning.

    Much of my experience has been in-house, as part of a corporate training organization. To me, those in-house people are in a somewhat different place. Many, obviously, are firmly in the ILT mode; others are working to contribute not so much to the learning industry as to the industry or field they’re in (transportation, finance, retail, government agency, etc.).

    Your six words are relevant to them as well. Mine might be: Watch what you’re doing, and why. (Pay attention to how you work with learning in your context, and why you advocate what you do.)

  • http://www.daveswhiteboard.com Dave Ferguson

    This is a great comparison, though I tend to read “the learning industry” as meaning mainly the organized providers and helpers — in other words, those who earn their living selling services related to training/learning.

    Much of my experience has been in-house, as part of a corporate training organization. To me, those in-house people are in a somewhat different place. Many, obviously, are firmly in the ILT mode; others are working to contribute not so much to the learning industry as to the industry or field they’re in (transportation, finance, retail, government agency, etc.).

    Your six words are relevant to them as well. Mine might be: Watch what you’re doing, and why. (Pay attention to how you work with learning in your context, and why you advocate what you do.)

  • http://www.brandon-hall.com Janet Clarey

    My most recent in-house experience was part of a corporate training program with an insurance company. I felt “my place” in that role *was* part of the learning industry. What I hope was not lost in this post (although it most likely was) is the idea that those working in the training depts. is to be careful that you don’t suddenly find yourself holding on to what used to be “hard to come by” (instruction) while your employees circle around you and make their own content. So don’t just be the classroom software trainer but the b bridge to new media to help you learn on the job.

  • http://www.daveswhiteboard.com/ Dave Ferguson

    Absolutely — I wanted to highlight the two views (the learning industry versus the actively-training community, perhaps) because each is having to cope with more rapid change. That point was clear to me; I just wanted to stress it.

    The other thing, closely related to your point, is that if someone’s currently in that actively-training community, then his organization or industry is… the organization or industry you’re in. He’s not there to deliver training, like FedEx delivers packages. He’s there to help the outfit do what it does, better.

  • http://www.daveswhiteboard.com Dave Ferguson

    Absolutely — I wanted to highlight the two views (the learning industry versus the actively-training community, perhaps) because each is having to cope with more rapid change. That point was clear to me; I just wanted to stress it.

    The other thing, closely related to your point, is that if someone’s currently in that actively-training community, then his organization or industry is… the organization or industry you’re in. He’s not there to deliver training, like FedEx delivers packages. He’s there to help the outfit do what it does, better.

  • Fredia Fuller Dillard

    Change or die/go away/disappear. It’s a part of life, but so many ILTers hold onto the concept that a live person is the best way to train. Offering only e-learning isn’t the best way either, or we choose to want to abandon one for the other. Perhaps, like a lot of educators, we fail to see “how” to blend the best of both worlds to keep up with the world. Change is a part of life. Unfortunately, we sometimes deal with it too late losing learners along the way. Sex may sell, but when you can get it for free and it’s a lot racer – why pay? The same could apply to training.

  • Fredia Fuller Dillard

    Change or die/go away/disappear. It’s a part of life, but so many ILTers hold onto the concept that a live person is the best way to train. Offering only e-learning isn’t the best way either, or we choose to want to abandon one for the other. Perhaps, like a lot of educators, we fail to see “how” to blend the best of both worlds to keep up with the world. Change is a part of life. Unfortunately, we sometimes deal with it too late losing learners along the way. Sex may sell, but when you can get it for free and it’s a lot racer – why pay? The same could apply to training.

  • http://mariaslearningblog.blogspot.com/ Maria Hlas

    Interesting comparison! I think the idea of trying unproven things is pretty scary but it shouldn’t be. I just helped facilitate an ILT class and we had two senior executives come in to talk about leadership. One of the executives encouraged everyone to take risks (we work at a bank so you know he didn’t mean really big ones!). I don’t think the training industry is prone to having a lot of risk takers – so that is a tough sell. And in the corporate world it is a tough sell. But I think taking risks are the things that set you apart … and sometimes they don’t work. Hopefully, we all work in groups, companies, etc. where that is okay. I personally think it is a lot more “okay” than people realize and what may be one person’s idea of risky is just another good idea to someone else.

    As far as ILT is concerned – after the classroom session today we asked for feedback and the group wanted to know when we were getting back together for another class. The other facilitator and I were a little surprised – when we said we weren’t planning to, they were all visibly disappointed. One experienced participant gave the feedback that we don’t do enough classroom training at our company. Hmmm … that was a thinker. Here we are trying to figure out how to make things more convenient for them and not take precious time out of their schedules and then they ask us for more classes. No, classroom classes are not dead – we are humans after all and we do like to be around others and learn from them.

  • http://mariaslearningblog.blogspot.com/ Maria Hlas

    Interesting comparison! I think the idea of trying unproven things is pretty scary but it shouldn’t be. I just helped facilitate an ILT class and we had two senior executives come in to talk about leadership. One of the executives encouraged everyone to take risks (we work at a bank so you know he didn’t mean really big ones!). I don’t think the training industry is prone to having a lot of risk takers – so that is a tough sell. And in the corporate world it is a tough sell. But I think taking risks are the things that set you apart … and sometimes they don’t work. Hopefully, we all work in groups, companies, etc. where that is okay. I personally think it is a lot more “okay” than people realize and what may be one person’s idea of risky is just another good idea to someone else.

    As far as ILT is concerned – after the classroom session today we asked for feedback and the group wanted to know when we were getting back together for another class. The other facilitator and I were a little surprised – when we said we weren’t planning to, they were all visibly disappointed. One experienced participant gave the feedback that we don’t do enough classroom training at our company. Hmmm … that was a thinker. Here we are trying to figure out how to make things more convenient for them and not take precious time out of their schedules and then they ask us for more classes. No, classroom classes are not dead – we are humans after all and we do like to be around others and learn from them.

  • http://www.brandon-hall.com/ Janet Clarey

    Maria – yes, the majority (over half) of the training that occurs in the corporate environment is ILT. Alive! Alive and well is the conversation. ILT gets the bum wrap when it’s used efficiently. I think what’s critical with ILT is the need to recognize it’s strengths and weaknesses (as is the case with the design of any instruction and the use of any delivery channel). So glad to hear your class went well. Encores! A good thing in our business.

  • http://www.brandon-hall.com Janet Clarey

    Maria – yes, the majority (over half) of the training that occurs in the corporate environment is ILT. Alive! Alive and well is the conversation. ILT gets the bum wrap when it’s used efficiently. I think what’s critical with ILT is the need to recognize it’s strengths and weaknesses (as is the case with the design of any instruction and the use of any delivery channel). So glad to hear your class went well. Encores! A good thing in our business.

  • http://www.brandon-hall.com/ Janet Clarey

    Fredia-
    I totally agree.

    I guess we continue to struggle with determining when a live person is the best way to train and when e-learning is the best way to train. And, of course the struggle with “how” to blend instructional methods and delivery channels.

    It’s the blind eye problem. ILT works, but when learners can get it more efficiently, more effectively, more engaging, on their own, then the instructional staff has failed them.

  • http://www.brandon-hall.com Janet Clarey

    Fredia-
    I totally agree.

    I guess we continue to struggle with determining when a live person is the best way to train and when e-learning is the best way to train. And, of course the struggle with “how” to blend instructional methods and delivery channels.

    It’s the blind eye problem. ILT works, but when learners can get it more efficiently, more effectively, more engaging, on their own, then the instructional staff has failed them.

  • http://www.brandon-hall.com/ Janet Clarey

    My most recent in-house experience was part of a corporate training program with an insurance company. I felt “my place” in that role *was* part of the learning industry. What I hope was not lost in this post (although it most likely was) is the idea that those working in the training depts. is to be careful that you don't suddenly find yourself holding on to what used to be “hard to come by” (instruction) while your employees circle around you and make their own content. So don't just be the classroom software trainer but the b bridge to new media to help you learn on the job.

Previous post:

Next post: