Amazon is shaking up retailers, both big rivals and small independent stores, as it speeds its way beyond books toward its goal of becoming a Web-sized general store. Jim Wilson/The New York Times
Try to imagine the largest bookstore in the world. Aisle after aisle, floor after floor of books, maps, audio books, music, video, you name it (if you’ve ever had the unique and wonderful experience of visiting Powell’s Bookstore in Portland, Oregon, you’ve got a great visual image to begin with). But this bookstore isn’t limited by physical size, or shelf space or inventory cost; it carries nearly every title in print, and a huge back catalog of used and out-of-print books. And in the unusual case where they don’t have the book you want in stock, they can try to get it for you from other stores or the publisher. Every time you enter this store, you’re immediately recognized and greeted by name at the door, and your personal guide stands ready to recommend books and other goods you might be interested in. Of course, you don’t have to get in your car to visit this store, it is as near as your computer. Of course, the largest bookstore in the world is Amazon.com.
Those of you reading Monday’s post about the mystery industry whose distribution methods kept evolving and cannibalizing older versions can now view the rest of the story. As presented in an op-ed piece by columnist Charles M. Blow in last Saturday’s New York Times, the graphic shows the demise of the traditional recorded music industry in ‘graphic’ detail. It’s another example of the power of thoughtful graphic design.
An recent op-ed piece in the New York Times graphically illustrated the impact of changing technology on an industry familiar to all of us. It reminded me a bit of my earlier riff on Netflix vs. Blockbuster, but it was the graphic that I found especially compelling. I’ve reproduced a portion of the graphic here, deliberately obscuring some of the detail and some of the data. The horizontal axis is time, and each of the vertical bars in the charts leading from left to right represents one year, from 1973 to 1999. Each of the patterns represents the emergence, growth, and demise of a particular distribution method for this industry’s product, and the height of each bar represents the constant current dollar value of goods shipped in each year (in billions). A black box is drawn around the peak year for each of the distribution methods.
A Facebook post from an old friend over the weekend reminded me of the immense power of graphics to convey information. Most of those reading this are likely to use PowerPoint or other presentation software regularly; it has become a basic tool of communication in organizations everywhere. I am convinced of a universal truth; we can all stand to improve the way we communicate graphically.
But few of us have the benefit of formal training in art and design, and many rely on default settings in such programs as Excel and PowerPoint to determine how our charts and graphs appear. We simply think far less about the grammar and construction of our data than we do about our words.
The Facebook post pointed to an op-ed piece in the New York Times by Charles M. Blow and accompanying graphic. The graphic powerfully (and some might argue unfairly) presents a lot of information in little space to illustrate Mr. Blow’s point. My aim in including the graphic here is not to get into the politics, but to illustrate the power of graphics to communicate.
He has also been a vocal critic of PowerPoint, a sample of which can be found in his article PowerPoint is Evil a few years ago in Wired Magazine. Here’s a taste (emphasis added):
“…slideware – computer programs for presentations – is everywhere: in corporate America, in government bureaucracies, even in our schools. Several hundred million copies of Microsoft PowerPoint are churning out trillions of slides each year. Slideware may help speakers outline their talks, but convenience for the speaker can be punishing to both content and audience. The standard PowerPoint presentation elevates format over content, betraying an attitude of commercialism that turns everything into a sales pitch.”
Disciples of Tufte are thoughtful and considerate of choices in how to present data – far beyond the insight needed to choose between a pie chart and a bar graph. His thinking doesn’t provide absolute answers about right and wrong, but a way of thinking about conveying information that will make you (and ideally your change program reports) more effective.
Balanced scorecard (BSC) reports of performance measures are notoriously data rich and information poor. Most of the available software for BSC reporting acts to constrain rather than broaden the user’s choices for presenting data, and to segregate and subordinate any added contextual prose. In their passion for simply getting the numbers into the report, contributors spend little time considering choices for how to present the information. But effective reporting content enables effective strategic decision making, and the reverse is always true.
Those serious about effective communication are well advised to attend one of Tufte’s one day seminars, which are offered at locations around the U.S. at the very modest cost of $380 (currently), a bargain that includes copies of all four of the books listed above. I strongly recommend this experience to all visitors to the Tenacious Blog.
Have you attended Tufte’s seminar? Do you have examples of particularly effective or poor graphics? Please share them below. (If you need help including a graphic, drop it in an e-mail, and I’ll figure out a way to include it).
New York Times Correction: June 30, 2009
The chart accompanying the Charles Blow column on Saturday incorrectly identified which presidential candidates won Maine and Tennessee in 2008 in a list of states ranked by subscriptions to online pornographic sites. Maine voted for Barack Obama, not John McCain. Tennessee favored Mr. McCain, not Mr. Obama.
The New York Times reported this week that a recent New Yorker article on health care spending has become required reading in the White House, and that President Obama referred to the article in a briefing on health care reform with Democratic senators. The article, which is a lengthy but very worthwhile read, was written by Atul Gawande, who is both a staff writer for the New Yorker and general and endocrine surgeon at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. Along with President Obama, I recommend this article to anyone interested in the likely changes to U.S. health care policy that is on the political horizon.
Gawande’s article follows his curiosity and research into regional disparities in health care spending; why some places spend far more (per Medicare enrollee, an approximation of overall spending) than others, without significant differences in overall public health or patient outcomes. His research focused on the town of McAllen, Texas, “the most expensive town in the most expensive country for health care in the world,” where annual Medicare spending per enrollee (in 2006) was around $15,000, almost twice the national average.
