Contextual Laziness

That's great, and I agree with the sentiment of the post.

But “return” is still the wrong term. No matter how you rationalize it, R.O.I. is not and cannot be “return on inspiration” or “return on innovation.” Apples to oranges, Matt. Input to output. That's the relationship framed by the term “return.”

What's the input of innovation? What's the input of inspiration?

Let's say that you manage to create a currency/metric for inspiration. Call this value an Inspiron. Now what? You're going to measure your return… how? Will you count the inspiring ideas you put into a presentation or blog post, then count the inspiring ideas you get back from your audience? Positive R.O.I. here would be what… (3 inspirons – 6 inspirons) / 3 inspirons = Return on Inspiration?

What about “return on innovation?” How do you measure that?

Right sentiment. I agree. It isn't all about the money. I'm there 100%.

But the issue isn't context. The issue is vocabulary. A “return” on something is a very specific thing.

What Jeff is talking about isn't R.O.I. It's benefits. Positive outcomes. Results. Non-financial profit. There are dozens of ways to express what he is talking about. R.O.I. isn't one of them.

I think you're missing the point, or maybe you got the point and are just making your own. I think you could (and I have) make the argument that repurposing a word ROI contributes to confusion therefore should not be done under any circumstances or context. I can see that. I still would call it contextually lazy to be too rigid about that though.

It's like you and I hanging out and you saying “you're such a douche”. You don't mean that literally, or even figuratively, it's just a smartass remark between two dudes hanging out. Each of which clearly understood that. I don't think I would then try and go tell everyone that you don't know what a douche is.

1. Definition vs. intent:

I don't see how your example fits any of this. Here's why: Calling me a douche is either for realz or in jest, right? The” context” speaks to intent, not to the meaning of the word “douche.” The definition of “douche” isn't variable. When you call me a douche, you aren't changing the meaning of the word. The variable/context in this case is the intent: To either insult me or establish a pattern of male bonding through ritual hazing.

The R.O.I. argument you present here isn't about intent, however. It's about the definition of the term. You argue that Jeff can transform R.O.I. into Return on Innovation and Return on Inspiration. That is very different argument and it requires a different example from the douche thing.

By the way, I am a douche. So… irony aside, I tend to laugh even when people call me that for real, just in case.

2. Philosophy vs. logic:

You say: “Jeff’s job is to inspire you to think beyond the business. My job is to make your business money. It is perfectly acceptable within his context and objective to use language like “Return On Inspiration”, he’s painting a picture for you that there is more to life than financial success.”

I agree with that. There is more to life than financial success. AND, Jeff's Job is to inspire beyond the business. Okay. No argument from me there.

Here's the catch: If Jeff says “my goal” or “my objective” or “the benefit” of doing what he does is to inspire, or be inspired in return, then fine. That works.

When he says “return on inspiration,” he is creating a buzzword with zero meaning.

“Return on x” is the expression of a relationship between an input and a gain from that input. It's an equation. I'm not saying that it has to be financial, but it has to be measurable in order to be a “return.” There must be a common metric, value or currency to make it a “return on x”.

How do you measure inspiration? What is the currency of innovation?

So again, I agree with the sentiment here, but the vocabulary is still wrong. It has nothing to do with me or my R.O.I. presentation or any of that. Jeff is calling something by the wrong name.

It's like confusing the mpg efficiency of a new fuel (which in this case would be the substitute for R.O.I.) with its perceived (and not yet measurable) positive environmental impact (substituting for inspiration and … innovation). Efficiency and environmental impact are not the same thing, yet here, you are arguing that one could be substituted for the other: “MPG isn't miles per gallon, it's really Miles per Good Karma, or Miles per good air quality.”

See what I mean?

Apples and oranges, Matt. That's all I'm saying. Right idea, wrong words to express it.

Matt,

Having lived through the first wave of CRM cannot be quantified as ROI, let's focus on intangibles — let me tell you just one thing: yes, it has to be quantified or don't call it return. Simple and more true with each day that goes by.

Context makes no difference, definitions do.

Thanks Matt – appreciated your sentiments on ROI. I stand by you that it means one thing and one thing only – and you can't get RO without the I. Sharing this. Now. (and thanks to Shelly Kramer for the tweet)

Redheads always appreciated here (BTW: I've read your stuff, and it would seem you are doing your best to maintain the belief that “redheads are fiery”. )

Great post Matt.

I agree with you, it is absolutely about context. To be awfully positive or positively awful online could be super positive or negative sentiments which mechanistic logic will likely miss. Context is important as we frame the details and specifics by our epistemic world view.

ROI can be all of the above as others have postulated here. Everything is right, contingent on context.

You are spot on here:
“This is why some of the most effective problem solvers you meet tend to immediately question facts when presented with them. How were they arrived at? Who produced them? Are they biased? What was the intention of the data? etc. They are attempting to find the objective and context.”

The more questions we ask, the better we become at identifying the best solutions. Questions frame the context and how we decipher what it is we're processing.

Think gestalt old lady/young lady picture, knowledge of what we observe co-exist contingent on the context ie. what it is we want to see, measure, experience.

Soft is hard and hard is soft. Water.

Let's hope we don't excel in this area of ROI ~ Return on Ignorance.

All the best,
@Iconic88

Reminded me of this, Be water my friend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USlnfTGlhXc

Matt

Think your entire post sums up to “please take the certainty out of your voice” — as soon as you accept that you might just be wrong or not have the complete story, you create the opportunity to get smarter and maybe find the truth of whatever topic you're debating.

Like you, I think ROI is ROI — but where I feel there is room for discussion is how you define R. Return doesn't just have to be dollars… it could be knowledge, inspiration (which fuels other ideas or programs that do return dollars), etc.

As usual from you, great thoughts.
@TomMartin

*high five*

Regardless of the ROI argument, you're right on the money about context, esp. this statement:

An idea, no matter how incorrect, can build momentum and become a commonly held belief within moments. So there’s a drive to jump on a hot topic, insert an opinion in a wizened Yoda-like voice, and shove it out to the world lickety-split. What we lose in that process however is any reflection on that hot topic.

I don't know how many times I see this happen. I'll follow the hashtag for some event that I'm not attending, and one person makes a statement that sounds somewhat profound, and then the retweets become a case of follow the leader, parroting that very sentiment. However, I at home, not being at the event itself, look at the statement out of context in these tweets, and to me it looks like nothing could be further from correct. But oh, these people are perpetuating this somewhat profound statement, later it becomes mantra. Having not been there, I don't know if I should be taking this statement literally, or if it was said in sarcasm, or what. I have no context except what I read, and truth be told, even those people there that do retweet it and are there tend to believe it literally. I don't know if the “contextual laziness” is actually laziness to think for one's self, or if it's many people's inability to, but the one thing for certain is that much does get lost in translation.

Great post and discussion. Matt, I understand why you chose “contextual” to describe your point. I also fully grasp the logic, and to some degree I agree with your assessment of Jeff's objective.

I'm don't think I'm going to go out on a limb here by saying, whether inspiron (not Dell's, but Olivier's) or investment, quantifiable or unquantifiable, if the objective of meeting goals can be met, then it really doesn't matter which gets used or championed if the end result is campaign success.

I think most of the ROI (for investment) proponents get fired up with the waffling that happens when carrying a structured, regimented strategy midstream, and recalibrating it with an abstract ROI (for inspiration) as a means of life support.

And I don't mean to sound like I'm splitting hairs, but rather than contextual, isn't it really intellectual laziness, because after all, we really should know better to inquire – not just taking some bloggers catchy title or opinion at face value, but hearing Sharrod's entire speech – instead of doing, as you say “.. jump on a hot topic, insert an opinion in a wizened Yoda-like voice, and shove it out to the world lickety-split.”

Joseph | RepuMetrix Inc.
@RepuTrack

Thanks Tom, always appreciate your insights.

Thanks for the comments Joseph. I disagree a bit when it comes to things like 'campaign success' because ROI is a very strict post-activity equation for measuring financial return. So yes, it matters which gets used. e.g. If the 'goal' of a campaign wasn't to be measured financially to start with then ROI as a term should never enter the picture.

As for the rest of your comments, yes, I think you're spot on.

The contextually lazy person may counter that you're a relativist. and that maintaining a consistently self-referential perspective in fact demands great discipline.

Interesting and useful post.

This whole thing would be a lot easier if everyone just said “success metrics” instead of “ROI”. That’s what they mean, they just don’t articulate it that way.