Blog

  • From Beta to Bedrock: Build Products that Stick.

    From Beta to Bedrock: Build Products that Stick.

    As a product builder over too many years to mention, I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen promising ideas go from zero to hero in a few weeks, only to fizzle out within months.

    Financial products, which is the field I work in, are no exception. With people’s real hard-earned money on the line, user expectations running high, and a crowded market, it’s tempting to throw as many features at the wall as possible and hope something sticks. But this approach is a recipe for disaster. Here’s why:

    The pitfalls of feature-first development

    When you start building a financial product from the ground up, or are migrating existing customer journeys from paper or telephony channels onto online banking or mobile apps, it’s easy to get caught up in the excitement of creating new features. You might think, “If I can just add one more thing that solves this particular user problem, they’ll love me!” But what happens when you inevitably hit a roadblock because the narcs (your security team!) don’t like it? When a hard-fought feature isn’t as popular as you thought, or it breaks due to unforeseen complexity?

    This is where the concept of Minimum Viable Product (MVP) comes in. Jason Fried’s book Getting Real and his podcast Rework often touch on this idea, even if he doesn’t always call it that. An MVP is a product that provides just enough value to your users to keep them engaged, but not so much that it becomes overwhelming or difficult to maintain. It sounds like an easy concept but it requires a razor sharp eye, a ruthless edge and having the courage to stick by your opinion because it is easy to be seduced by “the Columbo Effect”… when there’s always “just one more thing…” that someone wants to add.

    The problem with most finance apps, however, is that they often become a reflection of the internal politics of the business rather than an experience solely designed around the customer. This means that the focus is on delivering as many features and functionalities as possible to satisfy the needs and desires of competing internal departments, rather than providing a clear value proposition that is focused on what the people out there in the real world want. As a result, these products can very easily bloat to become a mixed bag of confusing, unrelated and ultimately unlovable customer experiences—a feature salad, you might say.

    The importance of bedrock

    So what’s a better approach? How can we build products that are stable, user-friendly, and—most importantly—stick?

    That’s where the concept of “bedrock” comes in. Bedrock is the core element of your product that truly matters to users. It’s the fundamental building block that provides value and stays relevant over time.

    In the world of retail banking, which is where I work, the bedrock has got to be in and around the regular servicing journeys. People open their current account once in a blue moon but they look at it every day. They sign up for a credit card every year or two, but they check their balance and pay their bill at least once a month.

    Identifying the core tasks that people want to do and then relentlessly striving to make them easy to do, dependable, and trustworthy is where the gravy’s at.

    But how do you get to bedrock? By focusing on the “MVP” approach, prioritizing simplicity, and iterating towards a clear value proposition. This means cutting out unnecessary features and focusing on delivering real value to your users.

    It also means having some guts, because your colleagues might not always instantly share your vision to start with. And controversially, sometimes it can even mean making it clear to customers that you’re not going to come to their house and make their dinner. The occasional “opinionated user interface design” (i.e. clunky workaround for edge cases) might sometimes be what you need to use to test a concept or buy you space to work on something more important.

    Practical strategies for building financial products that stick

    So what are the key strategies I’ve learned from my own experience and research?

    1. Start with a clear “why”: What problem are you trying to solve? For whom? Make sure your mission is crystal clear before building anything. Make sure it aligns with your company’s objectives, too.
    2. Focus on a single, core feature and obsess on getting that right before moving on to something else: Resist the temptation to add too many features at once. Instead, choose one that delivers real value and iterate from there.
    3. Prioritize simplicity over complexity: Less is often more when it comes to financial products. Cut out unnecessary bells and whistles and keep the focus on what matters most.
    4. Embrace continuous iteration: Bedrock isn’t a fixed destination—it’s a dynamic process. Continuously gather user feedback, refine your product, and iterate towards that bedrock state.
    5. Stop, look and listen: Don’t just test your product as part of your delivery process—test it repeatedly in the field. Use it yourself. Run A/B tests. Gather user feedback. Talk to people who use it, and refine accordingly.

    The bedrock paradox

    There’s an interesting paradox at play here: building towards bedrock means sacrificing some short-term growth potential in favour of long-term stability. But the payoff is worth it—products built with a focus on bedrock will outlast and outperform their competitors, and deliver sustained value to users over time.

    So, how do you start your journey towards bedrock? Take it one step at a time. Start by identifying those core elements that truly matter to your users. Focus on building and refining a single, powerful feature that delivers real value. And above all, test obsessively—for, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, Alan Kay, or Peter Drucker (whomever you believe!!), “The best way to predict the future is to create it.”

  • An Holistic Framework for Shared Design Leadership

    An Holistic Framework for Shared Design Leadership

    Picture this: You’re in a meeting room at your tech company, and two people are having what looks like the same conversation about the same design problem. One is talking about whether the team has the right skills to tackle it. The other is diving deep into whether the solution actually solves the user’s problem. Same room, same problem, completely different lenses.

    This is the beautiful, sometimes messy reality of having both a Design Manager and a Lead Designer on the same team. And if you’re wondering how to make this work without creating confusion, overlap, or the dreaded “too many cooks” scenario, you’re asking the right question.

    The traditional answer has been to draw clean lines on an org chart. The Design Manager handles people, the Lead Designer handles craft. Problem solved, right? Except clean org charts are fantasy. In reality, both roles care deeply about team health, design quality, and shipping great work. 

    The magic happens when you embrace the overlap instead of fighting it—when you start thinking of your design org as a design organism.

    The Anatomy of a Healthy Design Team

    Here’s what I’ve learned from years of being on both sides of this equation: think of your design team as a living organism. The Design Manager tends to the mind (the psychological safety, the career growth, the team dynamics). The Lead Designer tends to the body (the craft skills, the design standards, the hands-on work that ships to users).

    But just like mind and body aren’t completely separate systems, so, too, do these roles overlap in important ways. You can’t have a healthy person without both working in harmony. The trick is knowing where those overlaps are and how to navigate them gracefully.

    When we look at how healthy teams actually function, three critical systems emerge. Each requires both roles to work together, but with one taking primary responsibility for keeping that system strong.

    The Nervous System: People & Psychology

    Primary caretaker: Design Manager
    Supporting role: Lead Designer

    The nervous system is all about signals, feedback, and psychological safety. When this system is healthy, information flows freely, people feel safe to take risks, and the team can adapt quickly to new challenges.

    The Design Manager is the primary caretaker here. They’re monitoring the team’s psychological pulse, ensuring feedback loops are healthy, and creating the conditions for people to grow. They’re hosting career conversations, managing workload, and making sure no one burns out.

    But the Lead Designer plays a crucial supporting role. They’re providing sensory input about craft development needs, spotting when someone’s design skills are stagnating, and helping identify growth opportunities that the Design Manager might miss.

    Design Manager tends to:

    • Career conversations and growth planning
    • Team psychological safety and dynamics
    • Workload management and resource allocation
    • Performance reviews and feedback systems
    • Creating learning opportunities

    Lead Designer supports by:

    • Providing craft-specific feedback on team member development
    • Identifying design skill gaps and growth opportunities
    • Offering design mentorship and guidance
    • Signaling when team members are ready for more complex challenges

    The Muscular System: Craft & Execution

    Primary caretaker: Lead Designer
    Supporting role: Design Manager

    The muscular system is about strength, coordination, and skill development. When this system is healthy, the team can execute complex design work with precision, maintain consistent quality, and adapt their craft to new challenges.

    The Lead Designer is the primary caretaker here. They’re setting design standards, providing craft coaching, and ensuring that shipping work meets the quality bar. They’re the ones who can tell you if a design decision is sound or if we’re solving the right problem.

    But the Design Manager plays a crucial supporting role. They’re ensuring the team has the resources and support to do their best craft work, like proper nutrition and recovery time for an athlete.

    Lead Designer tends to:

    • Definition of design standards and system usage
    • Feedback on what design work meets the standard
    • Experience direction for the product
    • Design decisions and product-wide alignment
    • Innovation and craft advancement

    Design Manager supports by:

    • Ensuring design standards are understood and adopted across the team
    • Confirming experience direction is being followed
    • Supporting practices and systems that scale without bottlenecking
    • Facilitating design alignment across teams
    • Providing resources and removing obstacles to great craft work

    The Circulatory System: Strategy & Flow

    Shared caretakers: Both Design Manager and Lead Designer

    The circulatory system is about how information, decisions, and energy flow through the team. When this system is healthy, strategic direction is clear, priorities are aligned, and the team can respond quickly to new opportunities or challenges.

    This is where true partnership happens. Both roles are responsible for keeping the circulation strong, but they’re bringing different perspectives to the table.

    Lead Designer contributes:

    • User needs are met by the product
    • Overall product quality and experience
    • Strategic design initiatives
    • Research-based user needs for each initiative

    Design Manager contributes:

    • Communication to team and stakeholders
    • Stakeholder management and alignment
    • Cross-functional team accountability
    • Strategic business initiatives

    Both collaborate on:

    • Co-creation of strategy with leadership
    • Team goals and prioritization approach
    • Organizational structure decisions
    • Success measures and frameworks

    Keeping the Organism Healthy

    The key to making this partnership sing is understanding that all three systems need to work together. A team with great craft skills but poor psychological safety will burn out. A team with great culture but weak craft execution will ship mediocre work. A team with both but poor strategic circulation will work hard on the wrong things.

    Be Explicit About Which System You’re Tending

    When you’re in a meeting about a design problem, it helps to acknowledge which system you’re primarily focused on. “I’m thinking about this from a team capacity perspective” (nervous system) or “I’m looking at this through the lens of user needs” (muscular system) gives everyone context for your input.

    This isn’t about staying in your lane. It’s about being transparent as to which lens you’re using, so the other person knows how to best add their perspective.

    Create Healthy Feedback Loops

    The most successful partnerships I’ve seen establish clear feedback loops between the systems:

    Nervous system signals to muscular system: “The team is struggling with confidence in their design skills” → Lead Designer provides more craft coaching and clearer standards.

    Muscular system signals to nervous system: “The team’s craft skills are advancing faster than their project complexity” → Design Manager finds more challenging growth opportunities.

    Both systems signal to circulatory system: “We’re seeing patterns in team health and craft development that suggest we need to adjust our strategic priorities.”

    Handle Handoffs Gracefully

    The most critical moments in this partnership are when something moves from one system to another. This might be when a design standard (muscular system) needs to be rolled out across the team (nervous system), or when a strategic initiative (circulatory system) needs specific craft execution (muscular system).

    Make these transitions explicit. “I’ve defined the new component standards. Can you help me think through how to get the team up to speed?” or “We’ve agreed on this strategic direction. I’m going to focus on the specific user experience approach from here.”

    Stay Curious, Not Territorial

    The Design Manager who never thinks about craft, or the Lead Designer who never considers team dynamics, is like a doctor who only looks at one body system. Great design leadership requires both people to care about the whole organism, even when they’re not the primary caretaker.

    This means asking questions rather than making assumptions. “What do you think about the team’s craft development in this area?” or “How do you see this impacting team morale and workload?” keeps both perspectives active in every decision.

    When the Organism Gets Sick

    Even with clear roles, this partnership can go sideways. Here are the most common failure modes I’ve seen:

    System Isolation

    The Design Manager focuses only on the nervous system and ignores craft development. The Lead Designer focuses only on the muscular system and ignores team dynamics. Both people retreat to their comfort zones and stop collaborating.

    The symptoms: Team members get mixed messages, work quality suffers, morale drops.

    The treatment: Reconnect around shared outcomes. What are you both trying to achieve? Usually it’s great design work that ships on time from a healthy team. Figure out how both systems serve that goal.

    Poor Circulation

    Strategic direction is unclear, priorities keep shifting, and neither role is taking responsibility for keeping information flowing.

    The symptoms: Team members are confused about priorities, work gets duplicated or dropped, deadlines are missed.

    The treatment: Explicitly assign responsibility for circulation. Who’s communicating what to whom? How often? What’s the feedback loop?

    Autoimmune Response

    One person feels threatened by the other’s expertise. The Design Manager thinks the Lead Designer is undermining their authority. The Lead Designer thinks the Design Manager doesn’t understand craft.

    The symptoms: Defensive behavior, territorial disputes, team members caught in the middle.

    The treatment: Remember that you’re both caretakers of the same organism. When one system fails, the whole team suffers. When both systems are healthy, the team thrives.

    The Payoff

    Yes, this model requires more communication. Yes, it requires both people to be secure enough to share responsibility for team health. But the payoff is worth it: better decisions, stronger teams, and design work that’s both excellent and sustainable.

    When both roles are healthy and working well together, you get the best of both worlds: deep craft expertise and strong people leadership. When one person is out sick, on vacation, or overwhelmed, the other can help maintain the team’s health. When a decision requires both the people perspective and the craft perspective, you’ve got both right there in the room.

    Most importantly, the framework scales. As your team grows, you can apply the same system thinking to new challenges. Need to launch a design system? Lead Designer tends to the muscular system (standards and implementation), Design Manager tends to the nervous system (team adoption and change management), and both tend to circulation (communication and stakeholder alignment).

    The Bottom Line

    The relationship between a Design Manager and Lead Designer isn’t about dividing territories. It’s about multiplying impact. When both roles understand they’re tending to different aspects of the same healthy organism, magic happens.

    The mind and body work together. The team gets both the strategic thinking and the craft excellence they need. And most importantly, the work that ships to users benefits from both perspectives.

    So the next time you’re in that meeting room, wondering why two people are talking about the same problem from different angles, remember: you’re watching shared leadership in action. And if it’s working well, both the mind and body of your design team are getting stronger.

  • Is Traditional Marketing Dead? Why Strategy Wins in the Age of AI

    Is Traditional Marketing Dead? Why Strategy Wins in the Age of AI

    Is Traditional Marketing Dead? Why Strategy Wins in the Age of AI written by Sara Nay read more at Duct Tape Marketing

    Over the past 15 years, I’ve watched marketing evolve in ways we never could’ve imagined. When I started as an intern at Duct Tape Marketing, the name of the game was execution. Do the work. Deliver the thing. Check the box.Back then, success meant staying busy. Creating deliverables, managing campaigns, launching tactics. And honestly, that […]

    The Long-Haul Leader with Chris Ducker written by John Jantsch read more at Duct Tape Marketing

    Listen to the full episode:

    Overview

    In this episode of the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast, John Jantsch interviews Chris Ducker, serial entrepreneur, bestselling author, and founder of Youpreneur. Chris shares lessons from his new book, “The Long-Haul Leader: How to Lead and Win in the Long Game of Business,” and explains why sustainable success requires patience, consistency, self-care, and transparency. The conversation covers the power of personal “operating systems,” the value of creative hobbies, the importance of prioritizing recovery, and how vulnerability and leading out loud foster loyalty and real connection in business and life.

    About the Guest

    Chris Ducker is a serial entrepreneur, bestselling author, and founder of Youpreneur, a global personal brand business education company. Recognized for his candid, actionable advice on entrepreneurship and personal brand leadership, Chris has helped countless business owners scale and lead for the long haul. His books, “Rise of the Youpreneur” and “The Long-Haul Leader,” offer roadmaps for building sustainable businesses—and lives—rooted in clarity, community, and authenticity.

    Actionable Insights

    • Short-term wins are loud, but true impact “whispers until it starts roaring”—sustainable success is built on patience, consistency, and showing up for the long haul.
    • “Hustle” is a season, not a lifestyle. Lasting growth comes from intentional focus, recovery, and doing unflashy work behind the scenes.
    • The Long-Haul Leader framework is built on four pillars: personal mastery, hobbies/pastimes, love/relationships, and impactful work—with balance and alignment at the core.
    • Creative hobbies and prioritizing recovery boost productivity and satisfaction—entrepreneurs with hobbies are more successful at work.
    • Measuring progress in these areas means tracking not just KPIs, but also personal growth, creative time, and meaningful relationships.
    • Transparency and “leading out loud” build trust—sharing both wins and struggles creates stronger teams and connections.
    • Reinvention is essential. Burnout and setbacks are part of the journey; prioritizing health, joy, and the right people is key to bouncing back.

    Great Moments (with Timestamps)

    • 01:22 – The Dangers of Short-Termism and the Power of the Long Game
      Chris explains how patience and consistency outlast hustle culture for real business impact.
    • 05:02 – Focus Over Followers
      Why clarity, intention, and saying “no” matter more than chasing every shiny object or platform.
    • 07:28 – The Operating System for Long-Haul Leadership
      Chris introduces his four-part framework: personal mastery, hobbies, relationships, and impactful work.
    • 11:39 – Hobbies and Recovery Aren’t Optional
      Research (and Chris’s own experience) show creative hobbies and recovery time dramatically improve performance.
    • 16:38 – The Power of Analog and Using Your Hands
      How woodworking, painting, and hands-on hobbies can boost mental clarity and satisfaction.
    • 17:06 – Burnout and Reinvention
      Chris shares his own story of hitting rock bottom, recovering, and reshaping his business and life.
    • 20:07 – Leading Out Loud: The Value of Vulnerability
      Why openness, transparency, and sharing the journey matter for modern leadership.
    • 22:36 – Writing the Book as Memoir, Roadmap, and Call to Action
      Chris describes how personal stories and practical frameworks combine to help others lead for the long haul.

    Pulled Quotes

    “Short-term wins are loud. Long-term impact whispers—until it starts roaring.”
    — Chris Ducker

    “Hustle is a season, not a lifestyle. Prioritizing recovery and the right people is the secret to lasting success.”
    — Chris Ducker

    John Jantsch (00:00.898)

    Hello and welcome to another episode of the Duck Tape Marketing Podcast. This is John Jantsch and my guest today is Chris Ducker. He’s a serial entrepreneur, bestselling author and founder of Youpnur, a global personal brand business education company. He’s recognized for his candid actionable advice on entrepreneurship, business growth and personal brand leadership. He’s been on this show before with a couple of his other books, For Sure Rise of the Youpnur, I think.

    shaped countless business owners to scale and lead. And we’re going to talk about his latest book, The Long-Haul Leader, How to Lead and Win in the Long Game of Business. So Chris, welcome to the show.

    @ChrisDucker (00:39.814)

    Yeah, thanks for having me back, John. Appreciate it.

    John Jantsch (00:41.666)

    So serial entrepreneur, know, my mind goes to like Frosted Flakes or something, is there a favorite serial in the UK that we don’t have over here maybe?

    @ChrisDucker (00:53.01)

    Boy, I don’t know. That’s a really good question to kick off the chat. I’m pretty sure that we’ve got everything you’ve got and you’ve probably got about another gazillion other serials that we don’t have, I would think.

    John Jantsch (01:06.359)

    You’ve certainly got something dry and drier and tastelesser.

    @ChrisDucker (01:11.784)

    I was going say we generally don’t do cereal in our house. I think the last time I had a bowl of cereal, was probably something bland and boring like cornflakes or something like that.

    John Jantsch (01:22.094)

    Okay. All right. So in the book, you take on something you call short-termism, which I guess is obviously the opposite of the long haul. Was there a time in your business? mean, a lot of authors are really just writing like from the insights they’ve had over, you know, growing their own businesses. When did you realize the long game? Was it, did you have to be in the long game to realize the long game’s value?

    @ChrisDucker (01:39.335)

    Yep.

    @ChrisDucker (01:50.024)

    That’s a question. I think that I probably felt it initially, probably maybe 10 years or so ago when we opened up the doors to Uprenur. At that point, I’d already had two other businesses that were both doing very, very well indeed. Funnily enough, both those businesses we’ve now exited and sold over recent years. So the only business that we run now day to day is Uprenur.

    And we’ve niched that down now to serve business authors and help them not only write and market their books and launch their books, but also to build businesses around their books and the frameworks that live within them. And that’s going really, really well right now as well. So I believe that when we opened up the doors to Upino, there was a lot of kind of membership sites out there teaching you how to market and your business and grow your business, become a creator and all that kind of stuff. But for me,

    John Jantsch (02:29.976)

    Mm-hmm.

    @ChrisDucker (02:48.584)

    I remember saying, this is going to be probably like the next 10, 15 years of my life, I think. Like I felt really quite positive and confident on that fact. And the the real reason here is that the other factor here is I think that ultimately, particularly as an entrepreneur, like we’re kind of conditioned to go after those quick wins, right? Those fast wins, those shiny object wins, as I call them, but

    John Jantsch (03:09.432)

    Mm-hmm.

    @ChrisDucker (03:13.85)

    If you think about how short-term wins are quite loud, you go for something, you grab them, you celebrate it in a loud way, the way I look at long-term impact is really it whispers and whispers and whispers until it starts roaring. I’m all about the roar at this point. The real game should be patience and consistency and showing up even when it’s not sexy, doing the un…

    the unflashy work behind the scenes and all that kind of stuff. And so, yeah, I think there’s certainly something to be said for hustle, right? And hustle culture. There’s nothing wrong with a little hustle every now and then. And you will hustle anyway, just naturally by being a business owner, a deadline, a project that you want to get out the door by a certain date or something along those lines. But generally speaking, it’s not sustainable to be in that hustle mindset for too long. In fact, hustle, if you think about it, is a season.

    It’s not a lifestyle. I talk about that in the book, obviously.

    John Jantsch (04:10.254)

    Yeah. But help me a little bit. mean, I get this. I’ve been doing this 30 years, you know, so I get, you know, what happens is you, you develop muscles and you develop memory and that helps you with the long game. Like every year in our business, February is a terrible month. And it must have something to do with, you know, the cycle of, of, know, what people do in business. You know, it’s like everybody wants to close the year and, you know, big time. And then there’s like kind of this exhale.

    And so younger members of my team are like, leads are way down, know, business is way down. What are we going to do? And I’m like, it’s always this way. You know, just, just wait for March. It’ll be fine. You know, but, that until you’ve been through it 10 times, you know, it’s hard to have that mindset. So how does a, how does a younger entrepreneur in this case, develop that long-term mindset without kind of the, benefit of, you hindsight.

    @ChrisDucker (04:45.869)

    Yeah. Yeah.

    @ChrisDucker (05:02.982)

    Yeah, I think, you know, particularly the younger generation, my daughter, Chloe, as I know your daughter’s with your company, Chloe’s been with us now for six years. She’s our COO at Upanose. She’s amazing, but she’s also quite kind of KPI and kind of target focused and she wants to kind of chase down the next goal quite a bit. And I, you know, I always say that first and foremost, leadership in general, leading the game in whatever niche you’re in is not about being

    John Jantsch (05:17.474)

    Yeah.

    @ChrisDucker (05:32.11)

    everywhere. Genuinely, it’s not. It’s about being where it really matters. So you don’t have to worry about being on every platform, chasing down every goal, every verification badge that you can get and all that kind of stuff. It’s about choosing your presence with intention and working from a place of non-insecurity or no insecurity. The other thing is that

    John Jantsch (05:33.409)

    Mm-hmm.

    @ChrisDucker (05:59.654)

    I kind of like the idea. Like I’ve been saying this a lot recently, particularly to younger people. My son is 16 now and he’s, he’s a big music fan and he’s kind of creating his own music and he’s putting it up on Spotify and YouTube and all these kinds of places. And he gets like really, that I just hit 200 subscribers and you know, it just hit a thousand streams and all this kind of stuff. And I keep saying, look, you don’t need more followers. You don’t need more followers. You just need more focus, right? You’ve got to like focus on the clarity.

    Don’t worry about constant content out, know, da, da, da, da, da, know, every available opportunity, like build that focus, knock out something really good on a weekly or a monthly basis. And the momentum will follow plain and simple. And so I think overall, the question is, yes, I can respect people want quick wins and they want to chase down those, those goals, but ultimately any kind of suggest or rather any kind of success that kind of, or suggest that you’re, you know,

    have bad health because of it or family or start doing it from a place of non-committal joy. That’s pure sacrifice right there. That’s not success. I want my kids to be successful just like I want all my clients to be successful as well.

    John Jantsch (07:13.518)

    Well, before we get too much further in the show, the book is built, I mean, as all good books, you give people a, it’s not just a concept, here’s a framework. Here’s actually the steps to do it. So you want to kind of as high level as you want to go unpack what the steps are in the framework.

    @ChrisDucker (07:22.482)

    Yep.

    @ChrisDucker (07:28.456)

    Yeah. So when I first started writing the book, so this all came about out of 2021, we were in the middle of pandemic. I had a burnout, a pretty bad burnout. I was actually diagnosed with anxiety, depression, which I didn’t see coming at all. And I had phase three adrenal failure, which basically meant that my adrenal glands, which are two little glands that sit on top of your kidneys, they create cortisol, which is your stress hormone, right?

    They flatlined, they weren’t creating any cortisol, so I couldn’t handle stress. And the more stress it got, the worse it got and so on and so on. So I had to take a period of time off and kind of recoup and relook at things. And I noticed when I was writing notes down, and I was doing this mostly for me at this point, not for the book, but whenever I was writing notes down or listening to a podcast or watching a video or whatever it was, talking to somebody, I noticed that the…

    The notes I was taking, the things I was taking away from these discussions kept landing in four very, very distinct buckets. And they were hobbies and pastimes, which was a big one out of left field. It didn’t see that coming at all. It was love and relationships. It was personal mastery, so upgrading yourself, et cetera. And then the work that you do, right? And so I sat down and I kind of…

    worked through this and looked at how we could put this into a framework when we actually started planning the book. And that’s what we did. We basically put it into this four step, if you imagine a bit of a Venn diagram, it’s the only image in the entire book. There’s one image in the whole book and this is it. And we’ve called it the long haul leader life OS or operating system. Because my mindset was, well, if our phones have got an OS, our computers have got an OS, why can’t we have an OS as well?

    And so if you imagine where personal mastery and hobbies and pastimes kind of overlap, the time that we spend doing those things represents the balance that we have between our self-improvement and obviously the activities that we enjoy doing. Where hobbies and relationships and love clash, memories, right, the actual memories that we create, they reflect those meaningful

    John Jantsch (09:26.488)

    Mm.

    @ChrisDucker (09:42.212)

    experiences that we create, right, while we’re pursuing these passions and nurturing these relationships and whatnot. And then going further, where love and relationships and the work that we do, or impactful work, as I talk about it in the book, where those actually overlap, then what we’re talking about here is like, showing how meaningful work ultimately enables personal freedom, but also strengthens the relationships both at work and away from work as well. And then finally,

    the personal mastery side of things and how that clashes and overlaps with the work that we do. This kind of like excites me a lot is it all comes down to the clients and they reflect the value and the influence that we generate from the people that we work with and how we apply our own expertise into our work. it’s a business book. And it’s interesting with my publisher, we have a pretty long drawn out discussion over like, how do we position this? Is it a leadership book? Is it a self-help book?

    John Jantsch (10:36.536)

    Yeah.

    @ChrisDucker (10:40.186)

    Is it personal development? it business? We ended up sticking it into a leadership category, but ultimately it’s a little bit of all of those things. And I’m kind of joking a little bit when I talk to friends about it, saying when it’s kind of part memoir, part roadmap, and that’s kind of where we’re going.

    John Jantsch (10:56.142)

    Well, I’ve always said that I think entrepreneurship is probably the ultimate personal development. Yeah, I mean, so, I mean, I think you could rightly call personal development or self-help even because I mean, regardless if you’re running a business, mean, almost everybody has those four areas at some level in their life, even if they’re working for a company.

    @ChrisDucker (11:04.04)

    it totally is. If you want to do it right.

    @ChrisDucker (11:21.01)

    Yeah.

    John Jantsch (11:24.758)

    All good frameworks come with a way to measure. Are we making progress? Are we setting the right priorities? How do you suggest, especially when you start getting into things like hobbies, as you’ve mentioned, mean, how do you measure like, I doing it right?

    @ChrisDucker (11:39.27)

    Yeah, the hobbies thing, like I said, came out of left field. I didn’t see this one coming. I, through the research that we did through the book, the people that were interviewed for the book and things like that, it was pretty apparent to me that those entrepreneurs, very specifically entrepreneurs, as well as C-suite executives and things like that, but mostly entrepreneurs that we talked to, those that had hobbies were a heck of a lot productive and more successful in their work compared to people that did not have hobbies.

    John Jantsch (11:42.445)

    Yeah.

    John Jantsch (11:46.072)

    me

    John Jantsch (12:00.056)

    Thanks.

    @ChrisDucker (12:09.16)

    I started looking into this even further and I found that creative hobbies, very specifically things like painting or anything to do with music and that kind of stuff. I’m a watercolour, nature watercolour. Yeah. And I also do bonsai as well, which is quite creative as well. Got to keep the things alive first and foremost. So the horticulture side of things comes in the play first. But yeah, so what we found with the creative hobbies was really interesting. So

    John Jantsch (12:10.958)

    Okay.

    John Jantsch (12:16.426)

    Mm-hmm. And I think you do painting, don’t you? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

    Okay.

    John Jantsch (12:29.069)

    Yeah.

    Yeah.

    @ChrisDucker (12:39.036)

    I went down a rabbit hole and I started looking at like, there any famous people that are like in corporate America, corporate world who have got like creative hobbies? There’s one guy we found, David Solomon, who is the CEO of Goldman Sachs. David Solomon is also known as DJ D Sol. And he is one of the most sought after dance DJs in America. Everything he makes, he gives to charity because he doesn’t need the money, obviously.

    John Jantsch (12:45.26)

    Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

    John Jantsch (13:00.608)

    funny.

    @ChrisDucker (13:08.232)

    But when you look at the statistic, and this came out of a Forbes survey, I believe, that if you engage in a creative hobby as an entrepreneur or a high level executive for a minimum of two hours a week, on average, you’re looking at about a 30 % boost on your performance at work, which is pretty telling. So the overall arching message here is go get a hobby and make it a creative one, ultimately.

    John Jantsch (13:29.154)

    Yeah.

    John Jantsch (13:35.618)

    I mean, did the research suggest why that is though? I mean, what does it rewire your brain? Is it like give you something else to think about? Yeah, yeah, yeah,

    @ChrisDucker (13:39.24)

    I think it comes down to prioritizing recovery fundamentally. It’s prioritizing recovery. And that is what I’ve personally seen as well in me stepping away from work more often. The work that I do now, Monday, because I don’t work Fridays, I haven’t worked Fridays for many, years. Monday to Friday, I work 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.

    So it’s not a lot of time quote unquote in the office, but I am more productive than I ever have been. And I go out on nature walks almost every day. I’m very blessed to live in the countryside here in England. So I’m out and about on nature and everything pretty regularly become a little bit of a birdwatcher. Actually, I’m the guy walking around with a big lens now in the morning, just in case something cool pops out of a bush somewhere. But on a very serious note, have noticed unreservedly noticed that

    John Jantsch (14:21.048)

    Mm-hmm.

    @ChrisDucker (14:32.912)

    I feel more confident in the work that I’m doing. I get more done. I’m hitting my KPIs. My to-do lists disappear almost on a daily, if not definitely a weekly basis. And my team started the follow suit as well. So we’re now a no work Friday company. And everybody loves that, obviously, a four day work week. And there is just something about prioritizing your recovery that allows you to become better at what you do at work.

    John Jantsch (14:58.03)

    I wonder sometimes too, if people like us that have their hands on a keyboard a lot of days and we’re staring into virtual cameras. I wonder if there’s also something, if we want to go down another rabbit hole to doing a hobby that uses your hands, that is analog, that really gets you away from a computer screen completely. I actually enjoy woodworking. I build furniture and things. I always say that all the time. I mean, there’s something.

    about holding this thing that used to be alive, you know, this tree that used to be alive. And I think there is something physical as well as mental about that.

    @ChrisDucker (15:37.224)

    I went to a conference, fair. was the Global Bird Fair just last weekend. I’ll show you something on camera here. So if you’re listening on audio, sorry, you’re going to miss this. But I bought this. This is a little nut hatch. Yeah. And I paid, think probably the equivalent of about $90 US for it. But I didn’t necessarily buy it because I wanted this to sit on my desk, although it does look pretty cool.

    John Jantsch (15:49.513)

    yeah, yeah, a little carved nut touch, yeah.

    @ChrisDucker (16:06.128)

    I bought it because after talking with the sculptor for 30 minutes, I was invested in the journey. I was invested in what he was all about. This guy was retired, mid seventies, does about five hours a day in his workshop, pretty much seven days a week. Loves what he does and travels the country selling his woodwork and making a little money after retirement. But it was the joy.

    John Jantsch (16:13.037)

    Yeah, yeah, yeah.

    John Jantsch (16:23.042)

    Yeah.

    @ChrisDucker (16:32.196)

    in his face and his words when he spoke about doing what he did and what he loved. And there’s something to be said for that, you know?

    John Jantsch (16:32.227)

    haha

    John Jantsch (16:38.798)

    Yeah, 100%. Well, we could do a whole nother show on this. We better get back to another topic in the book that you cover a lot. And again, you use yourself, I think of stories of reinvention. there a particularly painful, people love painful stories, or is there a particularly painful one or maybe something that you got through because of maybe taking this long haul approach?

    @ChrisDucker (16:43.549)

    Ha

    @ChrisDucker (17:06.408)

    Well, I mean, it’s the burnout of 2021. know, that was, it was interesting because that year we had a phenomenal year business-wise. We made a whole bunch of money. We served probably well over 300 people within our UPINR programs, maybe even a little more actually. It was just a great year and all the work I was doing, like genuinely John, like I was loving it. Loving the work.

    John Jantsch (17:08.492)

    Yeah, yeah, yeah.

    @ChrisDucker (17:32.636)

    love the people we’re working with, love doing the track, you know, everything that we were doing to kind of like, you know, turn up and train people and all the rest of it. was just a great year, but little did I know deep down, I was just wearing myself out further and further and further and further. And when you hit a rock bottom, like, like if you’d have asked me five, like seven, eight years ago, do you ever think you’ll be treated like clinically with drugs for depression, Chris? I would have called you mad, mad. Yeah. There I was.

    John Jantsch (17:35.534)

    you

    John Jantsch (17:56.407)

    Mmm, yeah.

    @ChrisDucker (18:01.786)

    on antidepressants for 18 months to bounce back from it. So it was very much a fish out of water situation for me. I didn’t really feel it coming all that much. And when it hit me, it hit me really, really, really hard. And I did what most kind of quite addictive personality type people do. And I kind of went all in on it. And I, you know, I went down, I went down the nutrition route, the

    the whole kind of biohacking route. did a whole bunch of blood work. I started wearing a wearable to track everything from sleep and recovery and the heart rate and all the rest of it. know, red light therapy, cold plunges, saunas, PT sessions every other day, all that stuff. Because I’m like, I need to get better. Like I can’t, you know, yes, I can afford to take six months off, but my business can’t allow me to take six months off like this.

    John Jantsch (18:31.97)

    Mm-hmm.

    John Jantsch (18:49.933)

    Yeah.

    @ChrisDucker (18:57.84)

    And so it was really, really, really tough. But the things that I talk about in the book are real. Double downing on things like recovering and enjoying hobbies more, spending more time with the people that you love and you respect and want to be around a lot more, focusing on learning new things as well and understanding that in order to lead, you have to continue to learn. You have to. And then really just like the…

    focus of working with the right people. That was the big change that I made coming back out from it was that I was done working with the wrong type of people. When I started looking at things a lot more granularly, I realized, that guy’s a pain in the butt to deal with. This group I don’t want to work with anymore and so on so on and so on. And we fired a whole bunch of clients, hired a whole bunch of new ones and rejigged a whole bunch of different stuff that we were doing program-wise, messaging-wise.

    John Jantsch (19:54.307)

    Mm-hmm.

    @ChrisDucker (19:54.812)

    marketing language wise, everything. So that was the big, you know, the kind of the big painful story that now I’m happy to say is, you know, we’re in a much better spot than we’ve ever been.

    John Jantsch (20:07.374)

    So one of the things that I think this long haul approach is, and you talk about it in the book, it takes a lot of transparency. people realize that you’re in the long haul if you’re, I think you even call it leading out loud. You share the good things, you share the bad things, you share where we’re going, get everybody on the same page. How, especially for a leader, that that might feel like, wait, we don’t do that, do we?

    We don’t share the books. don’t, you know, I mean, how do you get somebody to realize the value in doing that?

    @ChrisDucker (20:34.279)

    Yeah.

    @ChrisDucker (20:40.882)

    Here’s the thing, I didn’t do it either. I didn’t do it. Now, I didn’t do it mostly because I’m a stupid man and we have idiot brains, you know, most of us, but I mean, I think some of it was down to pride. You know, I’m the patriarch of my family, what, four children and an amazing family and they look up to me for pretty much everything. And I love that most days, right? And…

    think part of it was that. The other part very clearly was business because people were coming to me to know how to build their business with balance and their business with profitability and purpose built in. And here I am burning out like there’s something broken here and I can’t let them know that I’m going through this. So I had to kind of almost power through it in a way. And actually it was last year when we were hanging out in Nashville.

    John Jantsch (21:33.144)

    Yep. Yeah.

    @ChrisDucker (21:39.11)

    with each other. was sitting down when our time together had finished and myself and my buddy Pat Flynn were hanging out. he and our families are very, very close families. We spent a lot of time with each other. And I hadn’t even told him. And we’re talking three years after the fact, after I was diagnosed and put on meds and all the rest of it. And when I was telling him about it, finally face to face properly that we hadn’t seen each other since the pandemic, he started tearing up and he was just like,

    John Jantsch (21:53.806)

    Hmm. Hmm.

    @ChrisDucker (22:08.448)

    believe you went through all this without telling me. Like it’s awesome that you’re on the other side of it, but like, bro, you should have told me kind of thing. know, like this is messed up. We’re supposed to be friends. So I kept it in, John, kept it all in for those two main reasons. And I’ve hated myself for it. And when I started writing the book, really got into it at around the beginning of last year, it wrapped up. We wrapped the editing up in around September last year.

    John Jantsch (22:10.638)

    Yes.

    John Jantsch (22:20.876)

    Mm-hmm. Yeah.

    @ChrisDucker (22:36.444)

    But when I really got into the writing, was like, I can go two ways here. I can continue to kind of put a bit of a cloak and smoke and mirror style here in place and kind of just skate around the edges. Or I can really open the kimono up and just, you know, just, just, just be super vulnerable and, and just give it all, just put it all out there. And which is, that’s what I decided to do.

    And the folks that I’ve spoken to about the book, are half a dozen or so folks that had like an advanced PDF version a few months back before we finalized everything. They were like, man, this is like, the fact that you’re doing this is huge because people in our industry just don’t do this. This has the opportunity of genuinely, like, hopefully changing some lives, like for real, not just business lives, but like lives, lives. And so I’m glad I made the decision to be a little bit more open about it all.

    John Jantsch (23:30.222)

    Well, awesome. Chris, I appreciate you taking a few moments to stop by the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast. Anywhere you want to invite people to learn more about you, your work, obviously the long haul leader.

    @ChrisDucker (23:38.728)

    Yeah, I mean, if anybody does want to read the book, they can preorder it at longhaulleader.com. The official publication date is September 2. And if they preorder before that date, just send us a copy of your receipt. We’ll give you a load of bonuses. All the info is on that page. And if they want to connect on me, just chrisducker.com. Nice and easy.

    John Jantsch (23:57.198)

    Again, appreciate you dropping by and I look forward to seeing you in Nashville soon.

    @ChrisDucker (24:03.91)

    Yeah, right back at you, my friend.

    John Jantsch (24:05.688)

    Take care.

    powered by

  • Do This Instead: How to Adapt Your Marketing to the AI-Shaped Buyer Journey

    Do This Instead: How to Adapt Your Marketing to the AI-Shaped Buyer Journey

    Do This Instead: How to Adapt Your Marketing to the AI-Shaped Buyer Journey written by John Jantsch read more at Duct Tape Marketing

    The Long-Haul Leader with Chris Ducker written by John Jantsch read more at Duct Tape Marketing

    Listen to the full episode:

    Overview

    In this episode of the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast, John Jantsch interviews Chris Ducker, serial entrepreneur, bestselling author, and founder of Youpreneur. Chris shares lessons from his new book, “The Long-Haul Leader: How to Lead and Win in the Long Game of Business,” and explains why sustainable success requires patience, consistency, self-care, and transparency. The conversation covers the power of personal “operating systems,” the value of creative hobbies, the importance of prioritizing recovery, and how vulnerability and leading out loud foster loyalty and real connection in business and life.

    About the Guest

    Chris Ducker is a serial entrepreneur, bestselling author, and founder of Youpreneur, a global personal brand business education company. Recognized for his candid, actionable advice on entrepreneurship and personal brand leadership, Chris has helped countless business owners scale and lead for the long haul. His books, “Rise of the Youpreneur” and “The Long-Haul Leader,” offer roadmaps for building sustainable businesses—and lives—rooted in clarity, community, and authenticity.

    Actionable Insights

    • Short-term wins are loud, but true impact “whispers until it starts roaring”—sustainable success is built on patience, consistency, and showing up for the long haul.
    • “Hustle” is a season, not a lifestyle. Lasting growth comes from intentional focus, recovery, and doing unflashy work behind the scenes.
    • The Long-Haul Leader framework is built on four pillars: personal mastery, hobbies/pastimes, love/relationships, and impactful work—with balance and alignment at the core.
    • Creative hobbies and prioritizing recovery boost productivity and satisfaction—entrepreneurs with hobbies are more successful at work.
    • Measuring progress in these areas means tracking not just KPIs, but also personal growth, creative time, and meaningful relationships.
    • Transparency and “leading out loud” build trust—sharing both wins and struggles creates stronger teams and connections.
    • Reinvention is essential. Burnout and setbacks are part of the journey; prioritizing health, joy, and the right people is key to bouncing back.

    Great Moments (with Timestamps)

    • 01:22 – The Dangers of Short-Termism and the Power of the Long Game
      Chris explains how patience and consistency outlast hustle culture for real business impact.
    • 05:02 – Focus Over Followers
      Why clarity, intention, and saying “no” matter more than chasing every shiny object or platform.
    • 07:28 – The Operating System for Long-Haul Leadership
      Chris introduces his four-part framework: personal mastery, hobbies, relationships, and impactful work.
    • 11:39 – Hobbies and Recovery Aren’t Optional
      Research (and Chris’s own experience) show creative hobbies and recovery time dramatically improve performance.
    • 16:38 – The Power of Analog and Using Your Hands
      How woodworking, painting, and hands-on hobbies can boost mental clarity and satisfaction.
    • 17:06 – Burnout and Reinvention
      Chris shares his own story of hitting rock bottom, recovering, and reshaping his business and life.
    • 20:07 – Leading Out Loud: The Value of Vulnerability
      Why openness, transparency, and sharing the journey matter for modern leadership.
    • 22:36 – Writing the Book as Memoir, Roadmap, and Call to Action
      Chris describes how personal stories and practical frameworks combine to help others lead for the long haul.

    Pulled Quotes

    “Short-term wins are loud. Long-term impact whispers—until it starts roaring.”
    — Chris Ducker

    “Hustle is a season, not a lifestyle. Prioritizing recovery and the right people is the secret to lasting success.”
    — Chris Ducker

    John Jantsch (00:00.898)

    Hello and welcome to another episode of the Duck Tape Marketing Podcast. This is John Jantsch and my guest today is Chris Ducker. He’s a serial entrepreneur, bestselling author and founder of Youpnur, a global personal brand business education company. He’s recognized for his candid actionable advice on entrepreneurship, business growth and personal brand leadership. He’s been on this show before with a couple of his other books, For Sure Rise of the Youpnur, I think.

    shaped countless business owners to scale and lead. And we’re going to talk about his latest book, The Long-Haul Leader, How to Lead and Win in the Long Game of Business. So Chris, welcome to the show.

    @ChrisDucker (00:39.814)

    Yeah, thanks for having me back, John. Appreciate it.

    John Jantsch (00:41.666)

    So serial entrepreneur, know, my mind goes to like Frosted Flakes or something, is there a favorite serial in the UK that we don’t have over here maybe?

    @ChrisDucker (00:53.01)

    Boy, I don’t know. That’s a really good question to kick off the chat. I’m pretty sure that we’ve got everything you’ve got and you’ve probably got about another gazillion other serials that we don’t have, I would think.

    John Jantsch (01:06.359)

    You’ve certainly got something dry and drier and tastelesser.

    @ChrisDucker (01:11.784)

    I was going say we generally don’t do cereal in our house. I think the last time I had a bowl of cereal, was probably something bland and boring like cornflakes or something like that.

    John Jantsch (01:22.094)

    Okay. All right. So in the book, you take on something you call short-termism, which I guess is obviously the opposite of the long haul. Was there a time in your business? mean, a lot of authors are really just writing like from the insights they’ve had over, you know, growing their own businesses. When did you realize the long game? Was it, did you have to be in the long game to realize the long game’s value?

    @ChrisDucker (01:39.335)

    Yep.

    @ChrisDucker (01:50.024)

    That’s a question. I think that I probably felt it initially, probably maybe 10 years or so ago when we opened up the doors to Uprenur. At that point, I’d already had two other businesses that were both doing very, very well indeed. Funnily enough, both those businesses we’ve now exited and sold over recent years. So the only business that we run now day to day is Uprenur.

    And we’ve niched that down now to serve business authors and help them not only write and market their books and launch their books, but also to build businesses around their books and the frameworks that live within them. And that’s going really, really well right now as well. So I believe that when we opened up the doors to Upino, there was a lot of kind of membership sites out there teaching you how to market and your business and grow your business, become a creator and all that kind of stuff. But for me,

    John Jantsch (02:29.976)

    Mm-hmm.

    @ChrisDucker (02:48.584)

    I remember saying, this is going to be probably like the next 10, 15 years of my life, I think. Like I felt really quite positive and confident on that fact. And the the real reason here is that the other factor here is I think that ultimately, particularly as an entrepreneur, like we’re kind of conditioned to go after those quick wins, right? Those fast wins, those shiny object wins, as I call them, but

    John Jantsch (03:09.432)

    Mm-hmm.

    @ChrisDucker (03:13.85)

    If you think about how short-term wins are quite loud, you go for something, you grab them, you celebrate it in a loud way, the way I look at long-term impact is really it whispers and whispers and whispers until it starts roaring. I’m all about the roar at this point. The real game should be patience and consistency and showing up even when it’s not sexy, doing the un…

    the unflashy work behind the scenes and all that kind of stuff. And so, yeah, I think there’s certainly something to be said for hustle, right? And hustle culture. There’s nothing wrong with a little hustle every now and then. And you will hustle anyway, just naturally by being a business owner, a deadline, a project that you want to get out the door by a certain date or something along those lines. But generally speaking, it’s not sustainable to be in that hustle mindset for too long. In fact, hustle, if you think about it, is a season.

    It’s not a lifestyle. I talk about that in the book, obviously.

    John Jantsch (04:10.254)

    Yeah. But help me a little bit. mean, I get this. I’ve been doing this 30 years, you know, so I get, you know, what happens is you, you develop muscles and you develop memory and that helps you with the long game. Like every year in our business, February is a terrible month. And it must have something to do with, you know, the cycle of, of, know, what people do in business. You know, it’s like everybody wants to close the year and, you know, big time. And then there’s like kind of this exhale.

    And so younger members of my team are like, leads are way down, know, business is way down. What are we going to do? And I’m like, it’s always this way. You know, just, just wait for March. It’ll be fine. You know, but, that until you’ve been through it 10 times, you know, it’s hard to have that mindset. So how does a, how does a younger entrepreneur in this case, develop that long-term mindset without kind of the, benefit of, you hindsight.

    @ChrisDucker (04:45.869)

    Yeah. Yeah.

    @ChrisDucker (05:02.982)

    Yeah, I think, you know, particularly the younger generation, my daughter, Chloe, as I know your daughter’s with your company, Chloe’s been with us now for six years. She’s our COO at Upanose. She’s amazing, but she’s also quite kind of KPI and kind of target focused and she wants to kind of chase down the next goal quite a bit. And I, you know, I always say that first and foremost, leadership in general, leading the game in whatever niche you’re in is not about being

    John Jantsch (05:17.474)

    Yeah.

    @ChrisDucker (05:32.11)

    everywhere. Genuinely, it’s not. It’s about being where it really matters. So you don’t have to worry about being on every platform, chasing down every goal, every verification badge that you can get and all that kind of stuff. It’s about choosing your presence with intention and working from a place of non-insecurity or no insecurity. The other thing is that

    John Jantsch (05:33.409)

    Mm-hmm.

    @ChrisDucker (05:59.654)

    I kind of like the idea. Like I’ve been saying this a lot recently, particularly to younger people. My son is 16 now and he’s, he’s a big music fan and he’s kind of creating his own music and he’s putting it up on Spotify and YouTube and all these kinds of places. And he gets like really, that I just hit 200 subscribers and you know, it just hit a thousand streams and all this kind of stuff. And I keep saying, look, you don’t need more followers. You don’t need more followers. You just need more focus, right? You’ve got to like focus on the clarity.

    Don’t worry about constant content out, know, da, da, da, da, da, know, every available opportunity, like build that focus, knock out something really good on a weekly or a monthly basis. And the momentum will follow plain and simple. And so I think overall, the question is, yes, I can respect people want quick wins and they want to chase down those, those goals, but ultimately any kind of suggest or rather any kind of success that kind of, or suggest that you’re, you know,

    have bad health because of it or family or start doing it from a place of non-committal joy. That’s pure sacrifice right there. That’s not success. I want my kids to be successful just like I want all my clients to be successful as well.

    John Jantsch (07:13.518)

    Well, before we get too much further in the show, the book is built, I mean, as all good books, you give people a, it’s not just a concept, here’s a framework. Here’s actually the steps to do it. So you want to kind of as high level as you want to go unpack what the steps are in the framework.

    @ChrisDucker (07:22.482)

    Yep.

    @ChrisDucker (07:28.456)

    Yeah. So when I first started writing the book, so this all came about out of 2021, we were in the middle of pandemic. I had a burnout, a pretty bad burnout. I was actually diagnosed with anxiety, depression, which I didn’t see coming at all. And I had phase three adrenal failure, which basically meant that my adrenal glands, which are two little glands that sit on top of your kidneys, they create cortisol, which is your stress hormone, right?

    They flatlined, they weren’t creating any cortisol, so I couldn’t handle stress. And the more stress it got, the worse it got and so on and so on. So I had to take a period of time off and kind of recoup and relook at things. And I noticed when I was writing notes down, and I was doing this mostly for me at this point, not for the book, but whenever I was writing notes down or listening to a podcast or watching a video or whatever it was, talking to somebody, I noticed that the…

    The notes I was taking, the things I was taking away from these discussions kept landing in four very, very distinct buckets. And they were hobbies and pastimes, which was a big one out of left field. It didn’t see that coming at all. It was love and relationships. It was personal mastery, so upgrading yourself, et cetera. And then the work that you do, right? And so I sat down and I kind of…

    worked through this and looked at how we could put this into a framework when we actually started planning the book. And that’s what we did. We basically put it into this four step, if you imagine a bit of a Venn diagram, it’s the only image in the entire book. There’s one image in the whole book and this is it. And we’ve called it the long haul leader life OS or operating system. Because my mindset was, well, if our phones have got an OS, our computers have got an OS, why can’t we have an OS as well?

    And so if you imagine where personal mastery and hobbies and pastimes kind of overlap, the time that we spend doing those things represents the balance that we have between our self-improvement and obviously the activities that we enjoy doing. Where hobbies and relationships and love clash, memories, right, the actual memories that we create, they reflect those meaningful

    John Jantsch (09:26.488)

    Mm.

    @ChrisDucker (09:42.212)

    experiences that we create, right, while we’re pursuing these passions and nurturing these relationships and whatnot. And then going further, where love and relationships and the work that we do, or impactful work, as I talk about it in the book, where those actually overlap, then what we’re talking about here is like, showing how meaningful work ultimately enables personal freedom, but also strengthens the relationships both at work and away from work as well. And then finally,

    the personal mastery side of things and how that clashes and overlaps with the work that we do. This kind of like excites me a lot is it all comes down to the clients and they reflect the value and the influence that we generate from the people that we work with and how we apply our own expertise into our work. it’s a business book. And it’s interesting with my publisher, we have a pretty long drawn out discussion over like, how do we position this? Is it a leadership book? Is it a self-help book?

    John Jantsch (10:36.536)

    Yeah.

    @ChrisDucker (10:40.186)

    Is it personal development? it business? We ended up sticking it into a leadership category, but ultimately it’s a little bit of all of those things. And I’m kind of joking a little bit when I talk to friends about it, saying when it’s kind of part memoir, part roadmap, and that’s kind of where we’re going.

    John Jantsch (10:56.142)

    Well, I’ve always said that I think entrepreneurship is probably the ultimate personal development. Yeah, I mean, so, I mean, I think you could rightly call personal development or self-help even because I mean, regardless if you’re running a business, mean, almost everybody has those four areas at some level in their life, even if they’re working for a company.

    @ChrisDucker (11:04.04)

    it totally is. If you want to do it right.

    @ChrisDucker (11:21.01)

    Yeah.

    John Jantsch (11:24.758)

    All good frameworks come with a way to measure. Are we making progress? Are we setting the right priorities? How do you suggest, especially when you start getting into things like hobbies, as you’ve mentioned, mean, how do you measure like, I doing it right?

    @ChrisDucker (11:39.27)

    Yeah, the hobbies thing, like I said, came out of left field. I didn’t see this one coming. I, through the research that we did through the book, the people that were interviewed for the book and things like that, it was pretty apparent to me that those entrepreneurs, very specifically entrepreneurs, as well as C-suite executives and things like that, but mostly entrepreneurs that we talked to, those that had hobbies were a heck of a lot productive and more successful in their work compared to people that did not have hobbies.

    John Jantsch (11:42.445)

    Yeah.

    John Jantsch (11:46.072)

    me

    John Jantsch (12:00.056)

    Thanks.

    @ChrisDucker (12:09.16)

    I started looking into this even further and I found that creative hobbies, very specifically things like painting or anything to do with music and that kind of stuff. I’m a watercolour, nature watercolour. Yeah. And I also do bonsai as well, which is quite creative as well. Got to keep the things alive first and foremost. So the horticulture side of things comes in the play first. But yeah, so what we found with the creative hobbies was really interesting. So

    John Jantsch (12:10.958)

    Okay.

    John Jantsch (12:16.426)

    Mm-hmm. And I think you do painting, don’t you? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

    Okay.

    John Jantsch (12:29.069)

    Yeah.

    Yeah.

    @ChrisDucker (12:39.036)

    I went down a rabbit hole and I started looking at like, there any famous people that are like in corporate America, corporate world who have got like creative hobbies? There’s one guy we found, David Solomon, who is the CEO of Goldman Sachs. David Solomon is also known as DJ D Sol. And he is one of the most sought after dance DJs in America. Everything he makes, he gives to charity because he doesn’t need the money, obviously.

    John Jantsch (12:45.26)

    Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

    John Jantsch (13:00.608)

    funny.

    @ChrisDucker (13:08.232)

    But when you look at the statistic, and this came out of a Forbes survey, I believe, that if you engage in a creative hobby as an entrepreneur or a high level executive for a minimum of two hours a week, on average, you’re looking at about a 30 % boost on your performance at work, which is pretty telling. So the overall arching message here is go get a hobby and make it a creative one, ultimately.

    John Jantsch (13:29.154)

    Yeah.

    John Jantsch (13:35.618)

    I mean, did the research suggest why that is though? I mean, what does it rewire your brain? Is it like give you something else to think about? Yeah, yeah, yeah,

    @ChrisDucker (13:39.24)

    I think it comes down to prioritizing recovery fundamentally. It’s prioritizing recovery. And that is what I’ve personally seen as well in me stepping away from work more often. The work that I do now, Monday, because I don’t work Fridays, I haven’t worked Fridays for many, years. Monday to Friday, I work 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.

    So it’s not a lot of time quote unquote in the office, but I am more productive than I ever have been. And I go out on nature walks almost every day. I’m very blessed to live in the countryside here in England. So I’m out and about on nature and everything pretty regularly become a little bit of a birdwatcher. Actually, I’m the guy walking around with a big lens now in the morning, just in case something cool pops out of a bush somewhere. But on a very serious note, have noticed unreservedly noticed that

    John Jantsch (14:21.048)

    Mm-hmm.

    @ChrisDucker (14:32.912)

    I feel more confident in the work that I’m doing. I get more done. I’m hitting my KPIs. My to-do lists disappear almost on a daily, if not definitely a weekly basis. And my team started the follow suit as well. So we’re now a no work Friday company. And everybody loves that, obviously, a four day work week. And there is just something about prioritizing your recovery that allows you to become better at what you do at work.

    John Jantsch (14:58.03)

    I wonder sometimes too, if people like us that have their hands on a keyboard a lot of days and we’re staring into virtual cameras. I wonder if there’s also something, if we want to go down another rabbit hole to doing a hobby that uses your hands, that is analog, that really gets you away from a computer screen completely. I actually enjoy woodworking. I build furniture and things. I always say that all the time. I mean, there’s something.

    about holding this thing that used to be alive, you know, this tree that used to be alive. And I think there is something physical as well as mental about that.

    @ChrisDucker (15:37.224)

    I went to a conference, fair. was the Global Bird Fair just last weekend. I’ll show you something on camera here. So if you’re listening on audio, sorry, you’re going to miss this. But I bought this. This is a little nut hatch. Yeah. And I paid, think probably the equivalent of about $90 US for it. But I didn’t necessarily buy it because I wanted this to sit on my desk, although it does look pretty cool.

    John Jantsch (15:49.513)

    yeah, yeah, a little carved nut touch, yeah.

    @ChrisDucker (16:06.128)

    I bought it because after talking with the sculptor for 30 minutes, I was invested in the journey. I was invested in what he was all about. This guy was retired, mid seventies, does about five hours a day in his workshop, pretty much seven days a week. Loves what he does and travels the country selling his woodwork and making a little money after retirement. But it was the joy.

    John Jantsch (16:13.037)

    Yeah, yeah, yeah.

    John Jantsch (16:23.042)

    Yeah.

    @ChrisDucker (16:32.196)

    in his face and his words when he spoke about doing what he did and what he loved. And there’s something to be said for that, you know?

    John Jantsch (16:32.227)

    haha

    John Jantsch (16:38.798)

    Yeah, 100%. Well, we could do a whole nother show on this. We better get back to another topic in the book that you cover a lot. And again, you use yourself, I think of stories of reinvention. there a particularly painful, people love painful stories, or is there a particularly painful one or maybe something that you got through because of maybe taking this long haul approach?

    @ChrisDucker (16:43.549)

    Ha

    @ChrisDucker (17:06.408)

    Well, I mean, it’s the burnout of 2021. know, that was, it was interesting because that year we had a phenomenal year business-wise. We made a whole bunch of money. We served probably well over 300 people within our UPINR programs, maybe even a little more actually. It was just a great year and all the work I was doing, like genuinely John, like I was loving it. Loving the work.

    John Jantsch (17:08.492)

    Yeah, yeah, yeah.

    @ChrisDucker (17:32.636)

    love the people we’re working with, love doing the track, you know, everything that we were doing to kind of like, you know, turn up and train people and all the rest of it. was just a great year, but little did I know deep down, I was just wearing myself out further and further and further and further. And when you hit a rock bottom, like, like if you’d have asked me five, like seven, eight years ago, do you ever think you’ll be treated like clinically with drugs for depression, Chris? I would have called you mad, mad. Yeah. There I was.

    John Jantsch (17:35.534)

    you

    John Jantsch (17:56.407)

    Mmm, yeah.

    @ChrisDucker (18:01.786)

    on antidepressants for 18 months to bounce back from it. So it was very much a fish out of water situation for me. I didn’t really feel it coming all that much. And when it hit me, it hit me really, really, really hard. And I did what most kind of quite addictive personality type people do. And I kind of went all in on it. And I, you know, I went down, I went down the nutrition route, the

    the whole kind of biohacking route. did a whole bunch of blood work. I started wearing a wearable to track everything from sleep and recovery and the heart rate and all the rest of it. know, red light therapy, cold plunges, saunas, PT sessions every other day, all that stuff. Because I’m like, I need to get better. Like I can’t, you know, yes, I can afford to take six months off, but my business can’t allow me to take six months off like this.

    John Jantsch (18:31.97)

    Mm-hmm.

    John Jantsch (18:49.933)

    Yeah.

    @ChrisDucker (18:57.84)

    And so it was really, really, really tough. But the things that I talk about in the book are real. Double downing on things like recovering and enjoying hobbies more, spending more time with the people that you love and you respect and want to be around a lot more, focusing on learning new things as well and understanding that in order to lead, you have to continue to learn. You have to. And then really just like the…

    focus of working with the right people. That was the big change that I made coming back out from it was that I was done working with the wrong type of people. When I started looking at things a lot more granularly, I realized, that guy’s a pain in the butt to deal with. This group I don’t want to work with anymore and so on so on and so on. And we fired a whole bunch of clients, hired a whole bunch of new ones and rejigged a whole bunch of different stuff that we were doing program-wise, messaging-wise.

    John Jantsch (19:54.307)

    Mm-hmm.

    @ChrisDucker (19:54.812)

    marketing language wise, everything. So that was the big, you know, the kind of the big painful story that now I’m happy to say is, you know, we’re in a much better spot than we’ve ever been.

    John Jantsch (20:07.374)

    So one of the things that I think this long haul approach is, and you talk about it in the book, it takes a lot of transparency. people realize that you’re in the long haul if you’re, I think you even call it leading out loud. You share the good things, you share the bad things, you share where we’re going, get everybody on the same page. How, especially for a leader, that that might feel like, wait, we don’t do that, do we?

    We don’t share the books. don’t, you know, I mean, how do you get somebody to realize the value in doing that?

    @ChrisDucker (20:34.279)

    Yeah.

    @ChrisDucker (20:40.882)

    Here’s the thing, I didn’t do it either. I didn’t do it. Now, I didn’t do it mostly because I’m a stupid man and we have idiot brains, you know, most of us, but I mean, I think some of it was down to pride. You know, I’m the patriarch of my family, what, four children and an amazing family and they look up to me for pretty much everything. And I love that most days, right? And…

    think part of it was that. The other part very clearly was business because people were coming to me to know how to build their business with balance and their business with profitability and purpose built in. And here I am burning out like there’s something broken here and I can’t let them know that I’m going through this. So I had to kind of almost power through it in a way. And actually it was last year when we were hanging out in Nashville.

    John Jantsch (21:33.144)

    Yep. Yeah.

    @ChrisDucker (21:39.11)

    with each other. was sitting down when our time together had finished and myself and my buddy Pat Flynn were hanging out. he and our families are very, very close families. We spent a lot of time with each other. And I hadn’t even told him. And we’re talking three years after the fact, after I was diagnosed and put on meds and all the rest of it. And when I was telling him about it, finally face to face properly that we hadn’t seen each other since the pandemic, he started tearing up and he was just like,

    John Jantsch (21:53.806)

    Hmm. Hmm.

    @ChrisDucker (22:08.448)

    believe you went through all this without telling me. Like it’s awesome that you’re on the other side of it, but like, bro, you should have told me kind of thing. know, like this is messed up. We’re supposed to be friends. So I kept it in, John, kept it all in for those two main reasons. And I’ve hated myself for it. And when I started writing the book, really got into it at around the beginning of last year, it wrapped up. We wrapped the editing up in around September last year.

    John Jantsch (22:10.638)

    Yes.

    John Jantsch (22:20.876)

    Mm-hmm. Yeah.

    @ChrisDucker (22:36.444)

    But when I really got into the writing, was like, I can go two ways here. I can continue to kind of put a bit of a cloak and smoke and mirror style here in place and kind of just skate around the edges. Or I can really open the kimono up and just, you know, just, just, just be super vulnerable and, and just give it all, just put it all out there. And which is, that’s what I decided to do.

    And the folks that I’ve spoken to about the book, are half a dozen or so folks that had like an advanced PDF version a few months back before we finalized everything. They were like, man, this is like, the fact that you’re doing this is huge because people in our industry just don’t do this. This has the opportunity of genuinely, like, hopefully changing some lives, like for real, not just business lives, but like lives, lives. And so I’m glad I made the decision to be a little bit more open about it all.

    John Jantsch (23:30.222)

    Well, awesome. Chris, I appreciate you taking a few moments to stop by the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast. Anywhere you want to invite people to learn more about you, your work, obviously the long haul leader.

    @ChrisDucker (23:38.728)

    Yeah, I mean, if anybody does want to read the book, they can preorder it at longhaulleader.com. The official publication date is September 2. And if they preorder before that date, just send us a copy of your receipt. We’ll give you a load of bonuses. All the info is on that page. And if they want to connect on me, just chrisducker.com. Nice and easy.

    John Jantsch (23:57.198)

    Again, appreciate you dropping by and I look forward to seeing you in Nashville soon.

    @ChrisDucker (24:03.91)

    Yeah, right back at you, my friend.

    John Jantsch (24:05.688)

    Take care.

    powered by

  • Fantastic Four and Superman: The One Scene That Shows What a Difference James Gunn Makes

    Fantastic Four and Superman: The One Scene That Shows What a Difference James Gunn Makes

    Superman and The Fantastic Four: First Steps have clues in this article. We already knew that The Fantastic Four and Superman would share a lot of things with one another even before their release, just two days off. Both shows have original comic book characters that they both embrace […]…

    The first article on Den of Geek was Fantastic Four and Superman: The One Field That Shows What a Difference James Gunn Makes.

    Great ideas and stories abound in the contemporary game landscape. Some Professional video games have as much lore as a Homeric amazing. In addition to the expansive narrative areas of Elden Ring &#8216, which are the Lands Between!, Hell, FromSoftware even hired Game of Thrones father George R. R. Martin to fill in the But, that wasn’t always the case.

    The &#8217, 90s and &#8217, 00s games were mostly focused on creating a satisfying game experience through primitive graphics, so the idea of &#8220, lore&#8221 was no frequently taken into account. Despite this, gamers eventually learned to respect and value these titles, whose cannon is still in question. There is no better illustration of this occurrence than Sony’s automotive fight series Twisted Metal. In the midst of Calypso&#8217’s demolition derby, themes, characters, weaponry, locations, and yet themes started to emerge.

    cnx. powershell. push ( function ( ) {cnx ( {playerId:” 106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530″, }). render ( “0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796” ), }),

    In its first year, the Peacock TV set version Twisted Metal made homage to that unknowable mythology. The second time is now poised to delve even further into the games ‘ history. Anthony Mackie ( John Doe ), Stephanie Beatriz ( Quiet ), Joe Seanoa ( Sweet Tooth ), and Anthony Carrigan ( Calypso ) among the showrunners at San Diego Comic-Con.

    &#8220, The legend is thus unhinged. Showrunner Smith describes the Distorted Metal brand as being completely insane. We have dockets in the writers ‘ room, which is so full of all the weapons and levels, to ensure we have all those Easter eggs so fans can always &#8216, Leonardo DiCaprio [pointing ] meme&#8217, the screen at all times. That thing is always so enjoyable to contain. &#8221,

    Per Smith, the Leonardo DiCaprio-pointing joke stuff this time around will make some unexpected allusions to one of the book’s most adored characters.

    We included some crazy Axel legend, and we included it. I find it hard to believe that the Twisted Steel writers and creators included this products unless you are really into the Twisted Metal mythology and you see what we included from Axel’s backstory. &#8217, It&#8217, s but strong and it &#8217, s but stupid how we included it. &#8221,

    While the iconic conflagratory clown Sweet Tooth (voiced by Joe Seanoa and voiced by Will Arnett ) was able to appear in Twisted Metal&#8216, the game’s first time, winter two thoroughly exposes the true author of the destruction tournament screen. Calypso, who was portrayed by Anthony Carrigan ( a.k .a. Noho Hank in Barry and Metamorpho in this summer’s Superman ), is a fantastically evil dandy who fits the Twisted Metal universe just as comfortably as his absurd wig fits his head.

    Sincerely, the hair does all the speaking. I take very little credit, it &#8217, s all the hair, &#8221, Carrigan jokes. The character’s framework was it, but we were able to work together and have fun. I took a lot of rights, I’m going to say. A lot of freedoms. However, I believe the cast’s overall attitude is genuinely enthusiastic about having fun and pushing the boundaries. &#8221,

    &#8220, It&#8217, s a bible to you, dude, &#8221, Mackie adds to Carrigan. A typical artist would have entered, never taken risks, not pushed the envelope, and instead just stood there and said the script. However, you did it all. You completely lost your mind. It was stunning to view. It was like &#8216, oh what &#8217, s this dude gonna be&#8217, and then you &#8217, d be on set and hear]INDESCRIBABLE HAUNTING LAUGH]. &#8221,

    The show’s versatile concept also allows Twisted Metal to experiment with some fresh characters, including the introduction of a particular post-apocalyptic big who begged Smith for an explanation.

    When we broke the concept of Big Baby, my wife said,” I hate Big Baby,”’ Smith says, and I explained it to her. She was incredibly upset with me that we came up with it. She instructed me to cut Great Baby, and I responded,” Big Baby stays, honey.” It&#8217, s Major Baby or me. ‘ &#8221,

    Nan, we appreciate the effort to omit Great Baby.

    The first three incidents of Twisted Metal winter 2 air on Peacock on Thursday, July 31. The episode on August 28 marks the beginning of fresh incidents, which air on Thursdays.

    The second post Twisted Metal Season 2 May Include Deep Lore For a Beloved Game Character appeared initially on Den of Geek.

  • Every Adaptation of the Fantastic Four Ranked

    Every Adaptation of the Fantastic Four Ranked

    It seems crazy how little hope was there that The Fantastic Four: First Steps from the MCU would do it justice because The Fantastic Four is such a mainstay in Marvel, hero literature, and truly just roll culture in general. These characters have rarely stood out in [ …] because it feels so odd.

    On Den of Geek, the article Every Version of the Fantastic Four Ranked first appeared.

    Big tales and bigger ideas are prevalent in the contemporary game landscape. As full of mythology as a Homeric spectacular do some AAA gaming titles. The wide tale areas of Elden Ring &#8216, which are located in the Lands Between!, were also completed by Game of Thrones father George R. R. Martin. But, that wasn’t always the case.

    The &#8217, 90s and &#8217, 00s games were mostly focused on creating a satisfying game experience through primitive graphics, so the idea of &#8220, lore&#8221 was no frequently taken into account. Despite this, enthusiasts eventually learned to respect and value these games, despite their modest lore. No better illustration of this trend can be found than Sony’s automotive battle series Twisted Metal. In the midst of Calypso&#8217’s demolition derby, themes, characters, weaponry, locations, and yet themes started to emerge.

    cnx. powershell. push ( function ( ) {cnx ( {playerId:” 106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530″, }). render ( “0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796” ), }),

    In its first year, the Peacock TV set version Twisted Metal made homage to that unknowable mythology. The second time is now poised to dig even further into the games ‘ story. Anthony Mackie ( John Doe ), Stephanie Beatriz ( Quiet ), Joe Seanoa ( Sweet Tooth ), and Anthony Carrigan ( Calypso ) among the showrunners Michael Jonathan Smith and Anthony Carrigan ( Calypso ) stopped by Den of Geek Studio at San Diego Comic-Con to tease what &#8217, s come.

    &#8220, The legend is therefore unhinged. It&#8217, s simply crazy, &#8221, according to director Smith about the Twisted Metal company. We have registries in the authors ‘ space, which is so full of all the weaponry and rates, to ensure that viewers can always find all those Easter eggs. That thing is always so enjoyable to contain. &#8221,

    Per Smith, the Leonardo DiCaprio pointing joke stuff this time around will make some unexpected allusions to one of the story’s most adored figures.

    We included some crazy Axel legend, and we included it. I find it hard to believe that the Twisted Steel writers and creators included this things unless you are really into the Twisted Metal mythology and you see what we included from Axel’s backstory. &#8217, It&#8217, s but strong and it &#8217, s but stupid how we included it. &#8221,

    While the iconic conflagratory clown Sweet Tooth (voiced by Joe Seanoa and voiced by Will Arnett ) was able to appear in Twisted Metal‘s first time, winter two thoroughly exposes the true identity of the destruction tournament screen. Calypso, who was portrayed by Anthony Carrigan ( a.k .a. Noho Hank in Barry and Metamorpho in this summer’s Superman ), is a fantastically evil dandy who fits the Twisted Metal universe just as comfortably as his absurd wig fits his head.

    Sincerely, the hair does all the speaking. I take very little credit, it &#8217, s all the hair, &#8221, Carrigan jokes. The character’s framework was it, but we were able to work together and have fun. I’m going to suggest that I took a lot of rights. many rights are involved. However, I believe the cast’s overall attitude is genuinely enthusiastic about having fun and pushing the boundaries. &#8221,

    &#8220, It&#8217, s a bible to you, bro, &#8221, Mackie adds to Carrigan. A regular actor would have entered, never taken risks, never ventured far, and instead just stood there and said the script. However, you did it all. You completely bizarre. It was stunning to view. It was like &#8216, oh what &#8217, s this dude gonna be&#8217, and then you &#8217, d be on set and hear]INDESCRIBABLE HAUNTING LAUGH]. &#8221,

    The display &#8217, s premise’s flexible format also allows for Twisted Metal to experiment with some fresh personalities, including the introduction of a particular post-apocalyptic big who is so revolting that this recruiter begged Smith for an explanation.

    When we broke the concept of Big Baby, my wife said,” I hate Big Baby,”’ Smith says, and I explained it to her. She was incredibly upset with me that we came up with it. She instructed me to cut Great Baby, and I responded,” Honey, Big Baby stays.” It&#8217, s Major Baby or me. ‘ &#8221,

    We appreciate the effort, Nan, to omit Major Baby in any case.

    On Thursday, July 31 on Peacock, Twisted Metal year 2 will debut. The episode on August 28 marks the beginning of fresh incidents, which air on Thursdays.

    The second article Strong Lore For a Beloved Game Character Will Be Included in Twisted Metal Season 2 appeared initially on Den of Geek.

  • Twisted Metal Season 2 Will Include Deep Lore For a Beloved Game Character

    Twisted Metal Season 2 Will Include Deep Lore For a Beloved Game Character

    Great ideas and stories abound in the contemporary game landscape. Some Professional video games have as much lore as a Homeric amazing. The Estates Between!, a storyline based on the epicentre of the Elden Ring, was also expanded by inventor of Game of Thrones George R. R. Martin. That wasn’t always the [ …]] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

    The second post Strong Lore For a Beloved Game Character Will Be Included in Twisted Metal Season 2 appeared initially on Den of Geek.

    Big tales and bigger ideas are prevalent in the contemporary game landscape. Some Professional video games have as much lore as a Homeric amazing. The wide tale areas of Elden Ring &#8216, which are located in the Lands Between!, were also completed by Game of Thrones father George R. R. Martin. But, that wasn’t always the case.

    The &#8217, 90s and &#8217, 00s games were mostly focused on creating a satisfying game experience through primitive graphics, so the idea of &#8220, lore&#8221 was no frequently taken into account. Despite this, gamers eventually learned to respect and value these titles, whose cannon is still in question. No better illustration of this trend can be found than Sony’s automotive battle series Twisted Metal. In the midst of Calypso&#8217’s demolition derby, themes, characters, weaponry, locations, and yet themes started to emerge.

    cnx. powershell. push ( function ( ) {cnx ( {playerId:” 106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530″, }). render ( “0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796” ), }),

    In its first year, the Peacock TV set version Twisted Metal made homage to that unknowable mythology. The second time is now poised to dig even further into the games ‘ story. Anthony Mackie ( John Doe ), Stephanie Beatriz ( Quiet ), Joe Seanoa ( Sweet Tooth ), and Anthony Carrigan ( Calypso ) among the showrunners at San Diego Comic-Con.

    &#8220, The legend is thus unhinged. Showrunner Smith describes the Distorted Metal brand as being completely insane. We have registries in the authors ‘ room, which is so full of all the weaponry and rates, to ensure that viewers can always find all those Easter eggs. It&#8217 ;s always so enjoyable to include that stuff. &#8221,

    Per Smith, the Leonardo DiCaprio pointing joke stuff this time around will make some unexpected allusions to one of the story’s most adored figures.

    We included some Axel legend that is so absurd. I find it hard to believe that the Twisted Steel writers and designers included this thing unless you are really serious in the Twisted Metal mythology and you see what we included from Axel’s story. &#8217, It&#8217, s but strong and it &#8217, s but stupid how we included it. &#8221,

    While the iconic conflagratory clown Sweet Tooth (voiced by Joe Seanoa and voiced by Will Arnett ) was able to appear in Twisted Metal&#8216, the game’s first time, winter two thoroughly reveals the guy behind the demolition tournament screen. A wonderfully deranged dandy who fits the Twisted Metal universe as comfortably as his absurd wig fits his head, Calypso, played by Anthony Carrigan ( a.k .a. Noho Hank in Barry and Metamorpho in this summer’s Superman ).

    Sincerely, the hair does all the speaking. I take very little credit, it &#8217, s all the hair, &#8221, Carrigan jokes. The character’s framework was it, but we were able to work together and have fun. I’m going to say that I took a lot of rights. A lot of freedoms. However, I believe the cast’s overall attitude is genuinely enthusiastic about having fun and pushing the boundaries. &#8221,

    &#8220, It&#8217, s a bible to you, bro, &#8221, Mackie adds to Carrigan. A typical artist would have entered, never taken risks, not pushed the envelope, and instead just stood there and said the script. However, all the strange garbage came from you. You completely lost your mind. It was stunning to view. It was like &#8216, oh what &#8217, s this dude gonna be&#8217, and then you &#8217, d be on set and hear]INDESCRIBABLE HAUNTING LAUGH]. &#8221,

    The show’s versatile concept also allows Twisted Metal to experiment with some fresh characters, including the introduction of a particular post-apocalyptic big who begged Smith for an explanation.

    When we broke the concept of Big Baby, my wife said,” I hate Big Baby,”’ Smith says, and I explained it to her. She was incredibly upset with me because we came up with it. She instructed me to reduce Major Baby, and I responded,” Honey, Big Baby stays.” It&#8217, s Great Baby or me. ‘ &#8221,

    We appreciate the effort, Nan, to omit Major Baby in any case.

    On Thursday, July 31 on Peacock, Twisted Metal year 2 will debut. The episode on August 28 marks the beginning of fresh incidents, which air on Thursdays.

    The second post Strong Lore For a Beloved Game Character Will Be Included in Twisted Metal Season 2 appeared initially on Den of Geek.

  • Asynchronous Design Critique: Giving Feedback

    Asynchronous Design Critique: Giving Feedback

    One of the most successful soft skills we have at our disposal is opinions, in whatever form it takes, and whatever it may be called. It helps us collaborate to improve our designs while developing our own abilities and perspectives.

    Feedback is also one of the most underestimated equipment, and generally by assuming that we’re now great at it, we settle, forgetting that it’s a skill that can be trained, grown, and improved. Bad comments can lead to conflict on projects, lower confidence, and long-term, undermine trust and teamwork. Quality opinions can be a revolutionary force.

    Practicing our knowledge is absolutely a good way to enhance, but the learning gets yet faster when it’s paired with a good base that programs and focuses the exercise. What are some fundamental components of providing effective opinions? And how can comments be adjusted for isolated and distributed job settings?

    We can find a long history of sequential opinions on the web: code was written and discussed on mailing lists since the beginning of open source. Currently, engineers engage on pull calls, developers post in their favourite design tools, project managers and sprint masters exchange ideas on tickets, and so on.

    Design analysis is often the label used for a type of input that’s provided to make our job better, jointly. It generally shares many of the concepts with comments, but it also has some differences.

    The material

    The content of the feedback is the basis of every effective criticism, so where do we need to begin? There are many versions that you can use to design your information. The one that I personally like best—because it’s obvious and actionable—is this one from Lara Hogan.

    This formula is typically used to provide feedback to people, but it also fits really well in a style criticism because it finally addresses one of the main inquiries that we work on: What? Where? Why? How? Imagine that you’re giving some comments about some pattern function that spans several screens, like an onboard movement: there are some pages shown, a stream blueprint, and an outline of the decisions made. You notice a flaw in the situation. If you keep the three components of the equation in mind, you’ll have a mental unit that can help you become more precise and effective.

    Here is a reply that could be included in some feedback, and it might appear fair at first glance because it appears to merely fit the equation. But does it?

    Not confident about the keys ‘ patterns and hierarchy—it feels off. Does you alter them?

    Observation for style feedback doesn’t really mean pointing out which part of the software your input refers to, but it also refers to offering a viewpoint that’s as specific as possible. Do you offer the user’s viewpoint? Your expert perspective? A business perspective? From the perspective of the project manager? A first-time user’s perspective?

    When I see these two buttons, I anticipate one to go forward and the other to go back.

    Impact is about the why. Just pointing out a UI element might sometimes be enough if the issue may be obvious, but more often than not, you should add an explanation of what you’re pointing out.

    When I see these two buttons, I anticipate one to go forward and the other to go back. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow.

    The question approach is meant to provide open guidance by eliciting the critical thinking in the designer receiving the feedback. Notably, in Lara’s equation she provides a second approach: request, which instead provides guidance toward a specific solution. While that’s a viable option for general feedback, in my experience, going back to the question approach typically leads to the best solutions because designers are generally more at ease with having an open space to experiment with.

    The difference between the two can be exemplified with, for the question approach:

    When I see these two buttons, I anticipate one to go forward and the other to go back. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow. Would it make sense to unify them?

    Or, for the request approach:

    When I see these two buttons, I anticipate one to go forward and the other to go back. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow. Let’s make sure that all screens have the same pair of forward and back buttons.

    At this point in some situations, it might be useful to integrate with an extra why: why you consider the given suggestion to be better.

    When I see these two buttons, I anticipate one to go forward and the other to go back. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow. Let’s make sure that all screens have the same two forward and back buttons so that users don’t get confused.

    Choosing the question approach or the request approach can also at times be a matter of personal preference. I spent a while working on improving my feedback, conducting anonymous feedback reviews and sharing feedback with others. After a few rounds of this work and a year later, I got a positive response: my feedback came across as effective and grounded. Until I changed teams. Quite unexpected, my next round of criticism from one particular person wasn’t very positive. The reason is that I had previously tried not to be prescriptive in my advice—because the people who I was previously working with preferred the open-ended question format over the request style of suggestions. However, there was a member of this other team who preferred specific guidance. So I adapted my feedback for them to include requests.

    One comment that I heard come up a few times is that this kind of feedback is quite long, and it doesn’t seem very efficient. No, but also yes. Let’s explore both sides.

    No, this kind of feedback is effective because the length is a byproduct of clarity, and giving this kind of feedback can provide precisely enough information for a sound fix. Also if we zoom out, it can reduce future back-and-forth conversations and misunderstandings, improving the overall efficiency and effectiveness of collaboration beyond the single comment. Imagine that in the example above the feedback were instead just,” Let’s make sure that all screens have the same two forward and back buttons”. Since the designer receiving this feedback wouldn’t have much to go by, they might just make the change. In later iterations, the interface might change or they might introduce new features—and maybe that change might not make sense anymore. Without explaining the why, the designer might assume that the change is one of consistency, but what if it wasn’t? So there could now be an underlying concern that changing the buttons would be perceived as a regression.

    Yes, this style of feedback is not always efficient because the points in some comments don’t always need to be exhaustive, sometimes because certain changes may be obvious (” The font used doesn’t follow our guidelines” ) and sometimes because the team may have a lot of internal knowledge such that some of the whys may be implied.

    Therefore, the above equation serves as a mnemonic to reflect and enhance the practice rather than a strict template for feedback. Even after years of active work on my critiques, I still from time to time go back to this formula and reflect on whether what I just wrote is effective.

    The atmosphere

    Well-grounded content is the foundation of feedback, but that’s not really enough. The soft skills of the person who’s providing the critique can multiply the likelihood that the feedback will be well received and understood. It has been demonstrated that only positive feedback can lead to sustained change in people, and tone alone can determine whether content is rejected or welcomed.

    Since our goal is to be understood and to have a positive working environment, tone is essential to work on. Over the years, I’ve tried to summarize the necessary soft skills in a formula that resembles the one for content: the receptivity equation.

    Respectful feedback comes across as grounded, solid, and constructive. It’s the kind of feedback that, whether it’s positive or negative, is perceived as useful and fair.

    Timing refers to the moment when the feedback occurs. To-the-point feedback doesn’t have much hope of being well received if it’s given at the wrong time. When a new feature’s entire high-level information architecture is about to go live, it might still be relevant if the questioning raises a significant blocker that no one saw, but those concerns are much more likely to have to wait for a later revision. So in general, attune your feedback to the stage of the project. Early iteration? Iteration that was later? Polishing work in progress? Each of these needs a different one. The right timing will make it more likely that your feedback will be well received.

    Attitude is the equivalent of intent, and in the context of person-to-person feedback, it can be referred to as radical candor. That entails checking whether what we have in mind will actually help the person and improve the overall project before writing. This might be a hard reflection at times because maybe we don’t want to admit that we don’t really appreciate that person. Hopefully that’s not the case, but it can happen, and that’s okay. Acknowledging and owning that can help you make up for that: how would I write if I really cared about them? How can I avoid being passive aggressive? How can I encourage constructive behavior?

    Form is relevant especially in a diverse and cross-cultural work environments because having great content, perfect timing, and the right attitude might not come across if the way that we write creates misunderstandings. There could be many reasons for this, including the fact that occasionally certain words may cause specific reactions, that non-native speakers may not be able to comprehend all thenuances of some sentences, that our brains may be different, and that we may perceive the world differently. Neurodiversity is a requirement. Whatever the reason, it’s important to review not just what we write but how.

    A few years back, I was asking for some feedback on how I give feedback. I was given some helpful advice, but I also found a surprise in my comment. They pointed out that when I wrote” Oh, ]… ]”, I made them feel stupid. That wasn’t my intention at all! I felt really bad, and I just realized that I provided feedback to them for months, and every time I might have made them feel stupid. I was horrified … but also thankful. I quickly changed my spelling mistake by adding “oh” to my list of replaced words (your choice between aText, TextExpander, or others ) so that when I typed “oh,” it was immediately deleted.

    Something to highlight because it’s quite frequent—especially in teams that have a strong group spirit—is that people tend to beat around the bush. A positive attitude doesn’t necessarily mean giving in to criticism; it just means that you give it in a respectful and constructive manner, whether it be in the form of criticism or criticism. The nicest thing that you can do for someone is to help them grow.

    We have a great advantage in giving feedback in written form: it can be reviewed by another person who isn’t directly involved, which can help to reduce or remove any bias that might be there. When I shared a comment and asked someone I trusted,” How does this sound,”” How can I do it better,” or even” How would you have written it,” I discovered that the best, most insightful moments for me occurred when I saw the two versions side by side.

    The format

    Asynchronous feedback also has a significant inherent benefit: we can devote more time to making sure that the suggestions ‘ clarity of communication and actionability meet two main objectives.

    Let’s imagine that someone shared a design iteration for a project. You are reviewing it and leaving a comment. There are many ways to accomplish this, and context is of course important, but let’s try to think about some things that might be worthwhile to take into account.

    In terms of clarity, start by grounding the critique that you’re about to give by providing context. This includes specifically describing where you’re coming from: do you have a thorough understanding of the project, or is this your first encounter with it? Are you coming from a high-level perspective, or are you figuring out the details? Are there regressions? Which user’s point of view do you consider when providing feedback? Is the design iteration at a point where it would be okay to ship this, or are there major things that need to be addressed first?

    Even if you’re giving feedback to a team that already has some project information, providing context is helpful. And context is absolutely essential when giving cross-team feedback. If I were to review a design that might be indirectly related to my work, and if I had no knowledge about how the project arrived at that point, I would say so, highlighting my take as external.

    We frequently concentrate on the negatives and attempt to list every possible improvement. That’s of course important, but it’s just as important—if not more—to focus on the positives, especially if you saw progress from the previous iteration. Although this may seem superfluous, it’s important to keep in mind that design is a field with hundreds of possible solutions for each problem. So pointing out that the design solution that was chosen is good and explaining why it’s good has two major benefits: it confirms that the approach taken was solid, and it helps to ground your negative feedback. In the longer term, sharing positive feedback can help prevent regressions on things that are going well because those things will have been highlighted as important. Positive feedback can also help, as an added bonus, prevent impostor syndrome.

    There’s one powerful approach that combines both context and a focus on the positives: frame how the design is better than the status quo ( compared to a previous iteration, competitors, or benchmarks ) and why, and then on that foundation, you can add what could be improved. This is powerful because there is a big difference between a critique of a design that is already in good shape and one that is critiqued for a design that isn’t quite there yet.

    Another way that you can improve your feedback is to depersonalize the feedback: the comments should always be about the work, never about the person who made it. It’s” This button isn’t well aligned” versus” You haven’t aligned this button well”. Just before sending, review your writing to make changes to this.

    In terms of actionability, one of the best approaches to help the designer who’s reading through your feedback is to split it into bullet points or paragraphs, which are easier to review and analyze one by one. You might also consider breaking up the feedback into sections or even across multiple comments if it is longer. Of course, adding screenshots or signifying markers of the specific part of the interface you’re referring to can also be especially useful.

    One approach that I’ve personally used effectively in some contexts is to enhance the bullet points with four markers using emojis. A red square indicates that it is something I consider blocking, a yellow diamond indicates that it needs to be changed, and a green circle provides a thorough, positive confirmation. I also use a blue spiral � � for either something that I’m not sure about, an exploration, an open alternative, or just a note. However, I’d only use this strategy on teams where I’ve already established a high level of trust because the impact could be quite demoralizing if I had to deliver a lot of red squares, and I’d change how I’d communicate that a little.

    Let’s see how this would work by reusing the example that we used earlier as the first bullet point in this list:

    • 🔶 Navigation—When I see these two buttons, I anticipate one to go forward and the other to go back. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow. Let’s make sure that all screens have the same two forward and back buttons so that users don’t get confused.
    • � � Overall— I think the page is solid, and this is good enough to be our release candidate for a version 1.0.
    • � � Metrics—Good improvement in the buttons on the metrics area, the improved contrast and new focus style make them more accessible.
    • Button Style: Using the green accent in this context, which conveys that it is a positive action because green is typically seen as a confirmation color. Do we need to explore a different color?
    • Given the number of items on the page and the overall page hierarchy, it seems to me that the tiles should use Subtitle 2 instead of Subtitle 1. This will keep the visual hierarchy more consistent.
    • � � Background—Using a light texture works well, but I wonder whether it adds too much noise in this kind of page. What is the purpose of using that?

    What about giving feedback directly in Figma or another design tool that allows in-place feedback? These are generally difficult to use because they conceal discussions and are harder to follow, but in the right setting, they can be very effective. Just make sure that each of the comments is separate so that it’s easier to match each discussion to a single task, similar to the idea of splitting mentioned above.

    One final note: say the obvious. We don’t say something because we sometimes think it’s obvious that something is either good or wrong. Or sometimes we might have a doubt that we don’t express because the question might sound stupid. Say it, that’s fine. You might have to reword it a little bit to make the reader feel more comfortable, but don’t hold it back. Good feedback is transparent, even when it may be obvious.

    Asynchronous feedback also has the benefit of automatically guiding decisions, according to writing. Especially in large projects,” Why did we do this”? there’s nothing better than open, transparent discussions that can be reviewed at any time, and this could be a question that arises from time to time. For this reason, I recommend using software that saves these discussions, without hiding them once they are resolved.

    Content, tone, and format. Although each of these subjects offers a useful model, improving eight of the subjects ‘ observation, impact, question, timing, attitude, form, clarity, and actionability is a lot of work to put in all at once. One effective approach is to take them one by one: first identify the area that you lack the most (either from your perspective or from feedback from others ) and start there. Then the second, followed by the third, and so on. At first you’ll have to put in extra time for every piece of feedback that you give, but after a while, it’ll become second nature, and your impact on the work will multiply.

    Thanks to Brie Anne Demkiw and Mike Shelton for reviewing the first draft of this article.

  • Asynchronous Design Critique: Getting Feedback

    Asynchronous Design Critique: Getting Feedback

    ” Any feedback?” is perhaps one of the worst ways to ask for opinions. It’s obscure and unfocused, and it doesn’t give us a sense of what we’re looking for. Getting good opinions starts sooner than we might hope: it starts with the demand.

    Starting the process of receiving feedback with a question may seem counterintuitive, but it makes sense if we consider that receiving input can be considered a form of pattern research. In the same way that we wouldn’t perform any studies without the correct questions to get the insight that we need, the best way to ask for feedback is also to build strong issues.

    Design criticism is not a one-time procedure. Sure, any great comments process continues until the project is finished, but this is especially true for layout because architecture work continues iteration after iteration, from a high level to the finest details. Each stage requires its unique set of questions.

    And suddenly, as with any great research, we need to examine what we got up, get to the base of its perspectives, and take action. Iteration, evaluation, and problem. This look at each of those.

    The query

    Being available to input is important, but we need to be specific about what we’re looking for. Any comments,” What do you think,” or” I’d love to hear your mind” at the end of a presentation are likely to garner a lot of different ideas, or worse, to make people follow the lead of the first speaker. And next… we get frustrated because vague issues like those you turn a high-level moves review into folks rather commenting on the borders of buttons. Which topic may be a savory one, so it might be difficult to get the team to switch to the subject you wanted to concentrate on.

    But how do we get into this scenario? A number of elements are involved. One is that we don’t often consider asking as a part of the input approach. Another is how healthy it is to keep the question open and assume that everyone else will agree. Another is that in nonprofessional debate, there’s usually no need to be that exact. In summary, we tend to undervalue the value of the issues, and we don’t make any improvements to them.

    The work of asking good questions guidelines and focuses the criticism. It’s even a form of acceptance because it specifies what kind of opinions you’d like to receive and how you’re open to them. It puts people in the right emotional position, especially in situations when they weren’t expecting to provide feedback.

    There isn’t a second best method to request comments. It simply needs to be certain, and precision may take several shapes. The concept of stage over level is a design for design criticism that I’ve found to be particularly helpful in my coaching.

    Stage” refers to each of the actions of the process—in our event, the design process. The type of input changes as the customer research moves on to the final design. But within a single stage, one might also examine whether some assumptions are correct and whether there’s been a suitable language of the amassed opinions into updated designs as the job has evolved. The layers of user experience could serve as a starting point for potential questions. What do you want to know: Project objectives? user requirements? Functionality? Content? Interaction design? Information architecture UI design? design of navigation Visual design? Branding?

    Here’re a few example questions that are precise and to the point that refer to different layers:

    • Functionality: Is it desirable to automate account creation?
    • Interaction design: Take a look through the updated flow and let me know whether you see any steps or error states that I might’ve missed.
    • Information architecture: On this page, we have two competing pieces of information. Is the structure effective in communicating them both?
    • User interface design: What do you think about the top-of-the-page error counter, which makes sure you can see the next error even when the error is outside the viewport?
    • Navigation design: From research, we identified these second-level navigation items, but once you’re on the page, the list feels too long and hard to navigate. Are there any ways to deal with this?
    • Visual design: Are the sticky notifications in the bottom-right corner visible enough?

    The other axis of specificity is determined by how far you’d like to go with the information being presented. For example, we might have introduced a new end-to-end flow, but there was a specific view that you found particularly challenging and you’d like a detailed review of that. This can be especially helpful when switching between iterations because it’s crucial to highlight the changes made.

    There are other things that we can consider when we want to achieve more specific—and more effective—questions.

    A quick fix is to get rid of the generic qualifiers from questions like “good,” “well,” “nice,” “bad,” “okay,” and” cool.” For example, asking,” When the block opens and the buttons appear, is this interaction good”? is possible to appear specific, but the “good” qualifier can be found in an even better question,” When the block opens and the buttons appear, is it clear what the next action is?”

    Sometimes we actually do want broad feedback. Although that’s uncommon, it can occur. In that sense, you might still make it explicit that you’re looking for a wide range of opinions, whether at a high level or with details. Or perhaps just say,” At first glance, what do you think”? so that it’s clear that what you’re asking is open ended but focused on someone’s impression after their first five seconds of looking at it.

    Sometimes the project is particularly broad, and some areas may have already been thoroughly explored. In these situations, it might be useful to explicitly say that some parts are already locked in and aren’t open to feedback. Although it’s not something I’d recommend in general, I’ve found it helpful in avoiding getting back into rabbit holes like those that could lead to further refinement but aren’t currently what matters most.

    Asking specific questions can completely change the quality of the feedback that you receive. People with less refined criticism will now be able to provide more actionable feedback, and even expert designers will appreciate the clarity and effectiveness gained from concentrating solely on what’s needed. It can save a lot of time and frustration.

    The iteration

    Design iterations are probably the most visible part of the design work, and they provide a natural checkpoint for feedback. Many design tools have inline commenting, but many of them only display changes as a single fluid stream in the same file. These types of design tools cause conversations to end after they are resolved, update shared UI components automatically, and require designers to always display the most recent version unless these would-be useful features were manually disabled. The implied goal that these design tools seem to have is to arrive at just one final copy with all discussions closed, probably because they inherited patterns from how written documents are collaboratively edited. That approach to design critiques is probably not the best approach, but some teams might benefit from it even if I don’t want to be too prescriptive.

    The asynchronous design-critique approach that I find most effective is to create explicit checkpoints for discussion. For this, I’m going to use the term iteration post. It refers to a write-up or presentation of the design iteration followed by a discussion thread of some kind. This can be used on any platform that can accommodate this structure. By the way, when I refer to a “write-up or presentation“, I’m including video recordings or other media too: as long as it’s asynchronous, it works.

    There are many benefits to using iteration posts:

    • It creates a rhythm in the design work so that the designer can review feedback from each iteration and prepare for the next.
    • Decisions are made immediately available for future review, and conversations are also always available.
    • It creates a record of how the design changed over time.
    • Depending on the tool, it might also make it simpler to collect and act on feedback.

    These posts of course don’t mean that no other feedback approach should be used, just that iteration posts could be the primary rhythm for a remote design team to use. And from there, other feedback techniques ( such as live critique, pair designing, or inline comments ) can emerge.

    I don’t think there’s a standard format for iteration posts. However, there are a few high-level elements that make sense to include as a baseline:

    1. The goal
    2. The layout
    3. The list of changes
    4. The querys

    Each project is likely to have a goal, and hopefully it’s something that’s already been summarized in a single sentence somewhere else, such as the client brief, the product manager’s outline, or the project owner’s request. Therefore, I would repeat this in every iteration post, literally copy and pasting it. The idea is to provide context and to repeat what’s essential to make each iteration post complete so that there’s no need to find information spread across multiple posts. The most recent iteration post will provide all I need to know about the most recent design.

    This copy-and-paste part introduces another relevant concept: alignment comes from repetition. Therefore, repeating information in posts is actually very effective at ensuring that everyone is on the same page.

    The design is then the actual series of information-architecture outlines, diagrams, flows, maps, wireframes, screens, visuals, and any other kind of design work that’s been done. It’s any design object, to put it briefly. For the final stages of work, I prefer the term blueprint to emphasize that I’ll be showing full flows instead of individual screens to make it easier to understand the bigger picture.

    It might also be helpful to have clear names on the artifacts so that it is easier to refer to them. Write the post in a way that helps people understand the work. It’s not very different from creating a strong live presentation.

    For an efficient discussion, you should also include a bullet list of the changes from the previous iteration to let people focus on what’s new, which can be especially useful for larger pieces of work where keeping track, iteration after iteration, could become a challenge.

    Finally, as mentioned earlier, it’s crucial that you include a list of the questions to help you guide the design critique in the desired direction. Doing this as a numbered list can also help make it easier to refer to each question by its number.

    Not every iteration is the same. Earlier iterations don’t need to be as tightly focused—they can be more exploratory and experimental, maybe even breaking some of the design-language guidelines to see what’s possible. Then, later, the iterations begin coming to a decision and improving it until the feature development is complete.

    I want to highlight that even if these iteration posts are written and conceived as checkpoints, by no means do they need to be exhaustive. A post might be a draft, just a concept to start a discussion, or it might be a cumulative list of every feature that was added over the course of each iteration until the full picture is achieved.

    Over time, I also started using specific labels for incremental iterations: i1, i2, i3, and so on. Although this may seem like a minor labeling tip, it can be useful in many ways:

    • Unique—It’s a clear unique marker. Everyone knows where to go to review things, and it’s simple to say” This was discussed in i4″ with each project.
    • Unassuming—It works like versions ( such as v1, v2, and v3 ) but in contrast, versions create the impression of something that’s big, exhaustive, and complete. Attempts must be exploratory, incomplete, or partial.
    • Future proof—It resolves the “final” naming problem that you can run into with versions. No more files with the title “final final complete no-really-its-done” Within each project, the largest number always represents the latest iteration.

    The wording release candidate (RC ) could be used to describe a design as complete enough to be worked on, even if there might be some bits that still need more attention and in turn, more iterations would be required, such as” with i8 we reached RC” or “i12 is an RC” to indicate when it is finished.

    The review

    What typically occurs during a design critique is an open discussion that can be very productive between two people. This approach is particularly effective during live, synchronous feedback. However, when we work asynchronously, it is more effective to adopt a different strategy: we can adopt a user-research mindset. Written feedback from teammates, stakeholders, or others can be treated as if it were the result of user interviews and surveys, and we can analyze it accordingly.

    Asynchronous feedback is particularly effective because of this shift, especially around these friction points:

    1. It removes the pressure to reply to everyone.
    2. It lessens the annoyance of snoop-by comments.
    3. It lessens our personal stake.

    The first friction is being forced to respond to every comment. Sometimes we write the iteration post, and we get replies from our team. It’s simple, straightforward, and doesn’t cause any issues. But other times, some solutions might require more in-depth discussions, and the amount of replies can quickly increase, which can create a tension between trying to be a good team player by replying to everyone and doing the next design iteration. This might be especially true if the respondent is a stakeholder or someone directly involved in the project who we feel we need to speak with. We need to accept that this pressure is absolutely normal, and it’s human nature to try to accommodate people who we care about. Responding to all comments at times can be effective, but when we consider a design critique more like user research, we realize that we don’t need to respond to every comment, and there are alternatives in asynchronous spaces:

      One is to let the next iteration speak for itself. When the design changes and we publish a follow-up iteration, that’s the response. You might tag all the people who were involved in the previous discussion, but even that’s a choice, not a requirement.
    • Another tactic is to formally acknowledge each comment in a brief response, such as” Understood. Thank you”,” Good points— I’ll review”, or” Thanks. These will be included in the upcoming iteration. In some cases, this could also be just a single top-level comment along the lines of” Thanks for all the feedback everyone—the next iteration is coming soon”!
    • Another option is to quickly summarize the comments before moving on. Depending on your workflow, this can be particularly useful as it can provide a simplified checklist that you can then use for the next iteration.

    The swoop-by comment, which is the kind of feedback that comes from a member of a team or non-project who might not be aware of the context, restrictions, decisions, or requirements, or of the discussions from earlier iterations, is the second friction point. On their side, there’s something that one can hope that they might learn: they could start to acknowledge that they’re doing this and they could be more conscious in outlining where they’re coming from. Swoop-by comments frequently prompt the simple thought,” We’ve already discussed this,” and it can be frustrating to have to keep coming back and forth.

    Let’s begin by acknowledging again that there’s no need to reply to every comment. However, if responding to a previously litigated point might be helpful, a brief response with a link to the previous discussion for additional information is typically sufficient. Remember, alignment comes from repetition, so it’s okay to repeat things sometimes!

    Swoop-by commenting can still be useful for two reasons: first, they might point out something that isn’t clear, and second, they might have the power to fit in with a user’s perspective when they are seeing the design for the first time. Sure, you’ll still be frustrated, but that might at least help in dealing with it.

    The personal stake we might have in relation to the design could be the third friction point, which might cause us to feel defensive if the review turned out to be more of a discussion. Treating feedback as user research helps us create a healthy distance between the people giving us feedback and our ego ( because yes, even if we don’t want to admit it, it’s there ). In the end, putting everything in aggregate form helps us to prioritize our work more.

    Always remember that while you need to listen to stakeholders, project owners, and specific advice, you don’t have to accept every piece of feedback. You must examine it and come to a decision that can be justified, but sometimes “no” is the best choice.

    As the designer leading the project, you’re in charge of that decision. In the end, everyone has their area of expertise, and as a designer, you are the one with the most background and knowledge to make the right choice. And by listening to the feedback that you’ve received, you’re making sure that it’s also the best and most balanced decision.

    Thanks to Mike Shelton and Brie Anne Demkiw for their contributions to the initial draft of this article.

  • Designing for the Unexpected

    Designing for the Unexpected

    Although I’m not sure when I first heard this statement, it has stuck with me over the centuries. How do you generate solutions for scenarios you can’t think? Or create items that are functional on products that have not yet been created?

    Flash, Photoshop, and flexible style

    When I first started designing sites, my go-to technology was Photoshop. I started by making a design for a 960px canvas that I would later add glad to. The growth phase was about attaining pixel-perfect precision using set widths, fixed levels, and absolute setting.

    All of this was altered by Ethan Marcotte’s 2010 post in A List Off entitled” Responsive Web Design.” I was sold on responsive pattern as soon as I heard about it, but I was even terrified. The pixel-perfect models full of special figures that I had formerly prided myself on producing were no longer good enough.

    My first encounter with flexible design didn’t help my fear. My second project was to get an active fixed-width website and make it reactive. What I discovered the hard manner was that you can’t really put adaptability at the end of a job. To make smooth design, you need to prepare throughout the style stage.

    A new way to style

    Making flexible or smooth websites has always been about removing restrictions and creating content that can be viewed on any system. It relies on the use of percentage-based design, which I immediately achieved with local CSS and power groups:

    .column-span-6 { width: 49%; float: left; margin-right: 0.5%; margin-left: 0.5%;}.column-span-4 { width: 32%; float: left; margin-right: 0.5%; margin-left: 0.5%;}.column-span-3 { width: 24%; float: left; margin-right: 0.5%; margin-left: 0.5%;}

    Therefore using Sass to re-use repeated slabs of code and transition to more semantic premium:

    .logo { @include colSpan(6);}.search { @include colSpan(3);}.social-share { @include colSpan(3);}

    Media questions

    The next ingredient for flexible design is press queries. Without them, regardless of whether the content remained readable, would shrink to fit the available space. ( The exact opposite issue developed with the introduction of a mobile-first approach. )

    Media questions prevented this by allowing us to add breakpoints where the design could adapt. Like most people, I started out with three breakpoints: one for desktop, one for tablets, and one for mobile. Over the years, I added more and more for phablets, wide screens, and so on. 

    For years, I happily worked this way and improved both my design and front-end skills in the process. The only problem I encountered was making changes to content, since with our Sass grid system in place, there was no way for the site owners to add content without amending the markup—something a small business owner might struggle with. This is because each row in the grid was defined using a div as a container. Adding content meant creating new row markup, which requires a level of HTML knowledge.

    String premium was a mainstay of early flexible design, present in all the frequently used systems like Bootstrap and Skeleton.

    1 of 7
    2 of 7
    3 of 7
    4 of 7
    5 of 7
    6 of 7
    7 of 7

    Another difficulty arose as I moved from a design firm building websites for little- to medium-sized companies, to larger in-house teams where I worked across a collection of related sites. In those positions, I began to work more frequently with washable parts.

    Our rely on multimedia queries resulted in parts that were tied to frequent window sizes. If the goal of part libraries is modify, then this is a real problem because you can just use these components if the devices you’re designing for correspond to the viewport sizes used in the pattern library—in the process never really hitting that “devices that don’t already occur” goal.

    Then there’s the problem of space. Media questions allow components to adapt based on the viewport size, but what if I put a component into a sidebar, like in the figure below?

    Container queries: our savior or a false dawn?

    Container queries have long been touted as an improvement upon media queries, but at the time of writing are unsupported in most browsers. There are workarounds for JavaScript, but they can lead to dependencies and compatibility issues. The basic theory underlying container queries is that elements should change based on the size of their parent container and not the viewport width, as seen in the following illustrations.

    One of the biggest arguments in favor of container queries is that they help us create components or design patterns that are truly reusable because they can be picked up and placed anywhere in a layout. This is an important step in moving toward a form of component-based design that works at any size on any device.

    In other words, responsive layouts are to be replaced by responsive components.

    Container queries will help us move from designing pages that respond to the browser or device size to designing components that can be placed in a sidebar or in the main content, and respond accordingly.

    My issue is that layout is still used to determine when a design needs to adapt. This approach will always be restrictive, as we will still need pre-defined breakpoints. For this reason, my main question with container queries is, How would we decide when to change the CSS used by a component?

    The best place to make that choice is probably not a component library that is disconnected from context and real content.

    As the diagrams below illustrate, we can use container queries to create designs for specific container widths, but what if I want to change the design based on the image size or ratio?

    In this example, the dimensions of the container are not what should dictate the design, rather, the image is.

    Without reliable cross-browser support, it’s difficult to say for certain whether container queries will succeed. Responsive component libraries would definitely evolve how we design and would improve the possibilities for reuse and design at scale. However, we might need to modify these elements in order to fit our content.

    CSS is changing

    Whilst the container query debate rumbles on, there have been numerous advances in CSS that change the way we think about design. The days of fixed-width elements measured in pixels and floated div elements used to cobble layouts together are long gone, consigned to history along with table layouts. Flexbox and CSS Grid have revolutionized layouts for the web. We can now create elements that wrap onto new rows when they run out of space, not when the device changes.

    .wrapper { display: grid; grid-template-columns: repeat(auto-fit, 450px); gap: 10px;}

    The repeat() function paired with auto-fit or auto-fill allows us to specify how much space each column should use while leaving it up to the browser to decide when to spill the columns onto a new line. Similar things can be achieved with Flexbox, as elements can wrap over multiple rows and “flex” to fill available space. 

    .wrapper { display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; justify-content: space-between;}.child { flex-basis: 32%; margin-bottom: 20px;}

    You don’t need to wrap elements in container rows, which is the biggest benefit of all of this. Without rows, content isn’t tied to page markup in quite the same way, allowing for removals or additions of content without additional development.

    This is a big step forward when it comes to creating designs that allow for evolving content, but the real game changer for flexible designs is CSS Subgrid.

    Remember the days of crafting perfectly aligned interfaces, only for the customer to add an unbelievably long header almost as soon as they’re given CMS access, like the illustration below?

    Subgrid allows elements to respond to adjustments in their own content and in the content of sibling elements, helping us create designs more resilient to change.

    .wrapper { display: grid; grid-template-columns: repeat(auto-fit, minmax(150px, 1fr)); grid-template-rows: auto 1fr auto; gap: 10px;}.sub-grid { display: grid; grid-row: span 3; grid-template-rows: subgrid; /* sets rows to parent grid */}

    CSS Grid allows us to separate layout and content, thereby enabling flexible designs. Meanwhile, Subgrid allows us to create designs that can adapt in order to suit morphing content. The above code can be implemented behind an @supports feature query even though Firefox is the only browser that supports subgrid at the time of writing.

    Intrinsic layouts

    I’d be remiss not to mention intrinsic layouts, a term used by Jen Simmons to describe a mix of contemporary and traditional CSS features used to create layouts that respond to available space.

    Responsive layouts have flexible columns using percentages. Intrinsic layouts, on the other hand, use the fr unit to create flexible columns that won’t ever shrink so much that they render the content illegible.

    frunits is a statement that says,” I want you to distribute the extra space in this way, but never make it smaller than the content that is inside.”

    —Jen Simmons,” Designing Intrinsic Layouts”

    Intrinsic layouts can also make use of a mix of fixed and flexible units, letting the content choose how much space it occupies.

    What makes intrinsic design stand out is that it not only creates designs that can withstand future devices but also helps scale design without losing flexibility. Without having the same breakpoints or the same amount of content as in the previous implementation, components and patterns can be lifted and reused.

    We can now create designs that adapt to the space they have, the content within them, and the content around them. We can create responsive components using an intrinsic approach without relying on container queries.

    Another 2010 moment?

    This intrinsic approach should in my view be every bit as groundbreaking as responsive web design was ten years ago. It’s another instance of “everything changed,” in my opinion.

    But it doesn’t seem to be moving quite as fast, I haven’t yet had that same career-changing moment I had with responsive design, despite the widely shared and brilliant talk that brought it to my attention.

    One possible explanation for that might be that I now work for a sizable company, which is significantly different from the role I held as a design agency in 2010: In my agency days, every new project was a clean slate, a chance to try something new. Nowadays, projects use existing tools and frameworks and are often improvements to existing websites with an existing codebase.

    Another possibility is that I now feel more prepared for change. In 2010 I was new to design in general, the shift was frightening and required a lot of learning. Additionally, an intrinsic approach isn’t exactly new; it’s about applying existing skills and CSS knowledge in a unique way.

    You can’t framework your way out of a content problem

    Another reason for the slightly slower adoption of intrinsic design could be the lack of quick-fix framework solutions available to kick-start the change.

    Ten years ago, responsive grid systems were everywhere. With a framework like Bootstrap or Skeleton, you had a responsive design template at your fingertips.

    Because the benefit of having a selection of units is a hindrance when it comes to creating layout templates, intrinsic design and frameworks do not go hand in hand quite as well. The beauty of intrinsic design is combining different units and experimenting with techniques to get the best for your content.

    And then there are design tools. We probably all used Photoshop templates for desktop, tablet, and mobile devices to drop designs into and demonstrate how the site would look at all three stages at some point in our careers.

    How do you do that now, with each component responding to content and layouts flexing as and when they need to? This kind of design must take place in the browser, which is something I’m very fond of.

    The debate about “whether designers should code” is another that has rumbled on for years. When designing a digital product, we should, at the very least, design for a best- and worst-case scenario when it comes to content. It’s not ideal to do this in a graphics-based software package. In code, we can add longer sentences, more radio buttons, and extra tabs, and watch in real time as the design adapts. Does it continue to function? Is the design too reliant on the current content?

    Personally, I look forward to the day intrinsic design is the standard for design, when a design component can be truly flexible and adapt to both its space and content with no reliance on device or container dimensions.

    First, the content

    Content is not constant. After all, to design for the unanticipated or unexpected, we must take into account content modifications, such as the earlier Subgrid card example, which allowed the cards to adjust both their own content and that of their sibling elements.

    Thankfully, there’s more to CSS than layout, and plenty of properties and values can help us put content first. Subgrid and pseudo-elements like ::first-line and ::first-letter help to separate design from markup so we can create designs that allow for changes.

    Instead of dated markup tricks like this —

    First line of text with different styling...

    —we can target content based on where it appears.

    .element::first-line { font-size: 1.4em;}.element::first-letter { color: red;}

    Much bigger additions to CSS include logical properties, which change the way we construct designs using logical dimensions (start and end) instead of physical ones (left and right), something CSS Grid also does with functions like min(), max(), and clamp().

    This flexibility allows for directional changes according to content, a common requirement when we need to present content in multiple languages. In the past, this was often achieved with Sass mixins but was often limited to switching from left-to-right to right-to-left orientation.

    Directional variables must be specified in the Sass version.

    $direction: rtl;$opposite-direction: ltr;$start-direction: right;$end-direction: left;

    These variables can be used as values—

    body { direction: $direction; text-align: $start-direction;}

    —or as real estate.

    margin-#{$end-direction}: 10px;padding-#{$start-direction}: 10px;

    However, now we have native logical properties, removing the reliance on both Sass ( or a similar tool ) and pre-planning that necessitated using variables throughout a codebase. These properties also start to break apart the tight coupling between a design and strict physical dimensions, creating more flexibility for changes in language and in direction.

    margin-block-end: 10px;padding-block-start: 10px;

    There are also native start and end values for properties like text-align, which means we can replace text-align: right with text-align: start.

    Like the earlier examples, these properties help to build out designs that aren’t constrained to one language, the design will reflect the content’s needs.

    Fluid and fixed

    We briefly covered the power of combining fixed widths with fluid widths with intrinsic layouts. The min() and max() functions are a similar concept, allowing you to specify a fixed value with a flexible alternative. 

    For min() this means setting a fluid minimum value and a maximum fixed value.

    .element { width: min(50%, 300px);}

    The element in the figure above will be 50 % of its container as long as the element’s width doesn’t exceed 300px.

    For max() we can set a flexible max value and a minimum fixed value.

    .element { width: max(50%, 300px);}

    Now the element will be 50 % of its container as long as the element’s width is at least 300px. This means we can set limits but allow content to react to the available space.

    The clamp() function builds on this by allowing us to set a preferred value with a third parameter. Now we can allow the element to shrink or grow if it needs to without getting to a point where it becomes unusable.

    .element { width: clamp(300px, 50%, 600px);}

    This time, the element’s width will be 50 % ( the preferred value ) of its container, with no exceptions for 300px and 600px.

    With these techniques, we have a content-first approach to responsive design. We can separate content from markup, meaning the changes users make will not affect the design. By making plans for unanticipated changes in language or direction, we can begin to future-proof designs. And we can increase flexibility by setting desired dimensions alongside flexible alternatives, allowing for more or less content to be displayed correctly.

    First, the circumstances

    Thanks to what we’ve discussed so far, we can cover device flexibility by changing our approach, designing around content and space instead of catering to devices. But what about that last bit of Jeffrey Zeldman’s quote,”… situations you haven’t imagined”?

    It’s a completely different design process for someone using a mobile phone and moving through a crowded street in glaring sunshine from a person using a desktop computer. Situations and environments are hard to plan for or predict because they change as people react to their own unique challenges and tasks.

    Choice is so crucial because of this. One size never fits all, so we need to design for multiple scenarios to create equal experiences for all our users.

    Thankfully, there is a lot we can do to provide choice.

    Responsible design

    ” There are parts of the world where mobile data is prohibitively expensive, and where there is little or no broadband infrastructure”.

    I Used the Web for a Day on a 50 MB Budget.”

    Chris Ashton

    One of the biggest assumptions we make is that people interacting with our designs have a good wifi connection and a wide screen monitor. However, our users may be commuters using smaller mobile devices that may experience disconnects in connectivity in the real world. There is nothing more frustrating than a web page that won’t load, but there are ways we can help users use less data or deal with sporadic connectivity.

    The srcset attribute allows the browser to decide which image to serve. This means we can create smaller ‘cropped’ images to display on mobile devices in turn using less bandwidth and less data.

    Image alt text

    The preload attribute can also help us to think about how and when media is downloaded. It can be used to tell a browser about any critical assets that need to be downloaded with high priority, improving perceived performance and the user experience. 

      

    There’s also native lazy loading, which indicates assets that should only be downloaded when they are needed.

    …

    With srcset, preload, and lazy loading, we can start to tailor a user’s experience based on the situation they find themselves in. What none of this does, however, is allow the user themselves to decide what they want downloaded, as the decision is usually the browser’s to make. 

    So how can we put users in control?

    The media queries are returning.

    Media questions have always been about much more than device sizes. They allow content to adapt to different situations, with screen size being just one of them.

    We’ve long been able to check for media types like print and speech and features such as hover, resolution, and color. These checks allow us to provide options that suit more than one scenario, it’s less about one-size-fits-all and more about serving adaptable content.

    The Level 5 spec for Media Queries is still being developed at this writing. It introduces some really exciting queries that in the future will help us design for multiple other unexpected situations.

    For instance, a light-level feature allows you to alter a user’s style when they are in the sun or in the dark. Paired with custom properties, these features allow us to quickly create designs or themes for specific environments.

    @media (light-level: normal) { --background-color: #fff; --text-color: #0b0c0c; }@media (light-level: dim) { --background-color: #efd226; --text-color: #0b0c0c;}

    Another key feature of the Level 5 spec is personalization. Instead of creating designs that are the same for everyone, users can choose what works for them. This is achieved by using features like prefers-reduced-data, prefers-color-scheme, and prefers-reduced-motion, the latter two of which already enjoy broad browser support. These features tap into preferences set via the operating system or browser so people don’t have to spend time making each site they visit more usable. 

    Media questions like this go beyond choices made by a browser to grant more control to the user.

    Expect the unexpected

    In the end, the one thing we should always anticipate is that things will change. Devices in particular change faster than we can keep up, with foldable screens already on the market.

    We can design for content, but we can’t do it the same way we do for this constantly changing landscape. By putting content first and allowing that content to adapt to whatever space surrounds it, we can create more robust, flexible designs that increase the longevity of our products.

    A lot of the CSS discussed here is about moving away from layouts and putting content at the heart of design. There is so much more we can do to adopt a more intrinsic approach, from responsive components to fixed and fluid units. Even better, we can test these techniques during the design phase by designing in-browser and watching how our designs adapt in real-time.

    When it comes to unexpected circumstances, we must make sure our goods are accessible whenever and wherever needed. We can move closer to achieving this by involving users in our design decisions, by creating choice via browsers, and by giving control to our users with user-preference-based media queries.

    Good design for the unexpected should allow for change, provide choice, and give control to those we serve: our users themselves.