Conceptualists are from Picasso, experimentalists are from Cezanne, popularizers are from Gladwell

Interesting bit on Fast Company Now about a talk by Blink and The Tipping Point author Malcolm Gladwell on two types of creativity. Great popularizer of obscure ideas that he is, Gladwell latches on to an idea from a book by David Galeson to explain how two artistic masters — the cubist Picasso and impressionist Cezanne — embody two types of creativity/innovation.

As FC Now puts it:

Picasso, a conceptual innovator, pretty much knew what he was going to create even before he created it, and came up with new ideas at a rapid pace early in his career. Cezanne, by contrast, was an experimental innovator, slowly rehashing and improving on a particular concept until he nailed it. … Consequently, his greatest works–or at least the ones most valued by collectors–didn’t come until later in his life.

What troubles Gladwell is that so many companies today favor “precocious innovation [of the Picasso kind] and have lost patience with innovation that takes a long time to mature [a la Cezanne].” In order to be successful, he argues, you need both.

Seems this idea might extend to educational institutions as well.

The post points out that so many businesses go for the quick fix because “It’s a lot less riskier.”

The conceptualists, says Gladwell, can approach a company’s board and say, We’re going to solve this problem, and this is how we’re going to do it. Experimentalists, on the other hand, don’t necessarily know where their research is going to lead them, will probably take longer, and have a tougher time articulating their plan of action. With limited budgets and patience, it’s the former that get funded. But increasingly, Gladwell says, we’re encountering problems that can only be solved through extended trial and error.

Sounds like most faculty would side with Cezanne, while many administrators — and marketing types — would favor Picasso.

U.S. News rankings guru gets into blogging

Robert Morse, the guy who develops the methodology behind U.S. News & World Report‘s annual college rankings, is now blogging about the process on the U.S. News website. His blog — cleverly titled Morse Code: Inside the College Rankings — is billed as offering “deeper insights into the methodologies and is a forum for commentary and analysis of college, grad and other rankings.”

I’m not sure how much of a true forum Morse’s blog will be (there’s no option to leave comments on Morse’s post) but it’s heartening to see U.S. News is attempting to get transparent about the rankings process. In fact, it warms the cockles of my rankings-wonk heart.

Welcome to the blogosphere, Robert! Don’t forget to bookmark us.

CASE creates a management checklist for communications and marketing

CASE has put together a handy little (or not-so-little) checklist to help communications and marketing managers assess their programs. Looks like a handy checklist that covers a lot of ground, from an institution’s historic background to marketing plans, policies and procedures, media relations, and more. CASE offers similar lists for alumni relations and philanthropy. Full story, with links.

POP! PR covers the changing media landscape

Jeremy Pepper over at POP! PR is doing a bang-up job covering a big corporate communications event sponsored by Cisco. He shares some thoughts from a panel discussion on the changing media landscape featuring some Silicon Valley A-listers like Dan Gillmor. The money quote, from my perspective, comes from Gillmor:

All your corporate sites are media. Monetizing audiences is traditional thinking, and what is now is that you need to assemble a conversation and community, and monetize directly or indirectly. It will be useful in a non-business model way. What is being done is that corporations are creating media, and would love it if companies approached the sites like citizen media, with the tenets of traditional media.

There are those two C words again: conversation and community.

USphere meets TechCrunch

Glad to see a member of my blogroll, USphere, get a nice writeup on TechCrunch on Tuesday. (Actually it wasn’t the blog on my blogroll that got the writeup, but the startup company of the same name.)

As TechCrunch puts it:

Usphere lets students fill out a single application and be considered by their network of colleges. When you’ve completed the application, it’s tossed into their applicant search engine and only accessible by the 33 schools in their network. If a school likes you, they email you an acceptance letter complete with a bottom line price tag to attend. The application service costs $65, although they have several free college search tools.

Interesting timing, in light of what U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings has been saying about the need to simplify the “Byzantine” financial aid application process.

Spellings criticized the cumbersome federal financial aid application process, calling it “redundant, confusing, Byzantine and broken … a maze of 60 Web sites, dozens of toll-free numbers and 17 different programs.”

Maybe USphere can try to help Secretary Spellings develop the killer financial aid app app.