At the core of all hacking, and in fact the root word hack itself, is the fine art of knowing when to hold firm to principle, and knowing when good enough is good enough.
'The word hack doesn't really have 69 different meanings', according to MIT hacker Phil Agre. 'In fact, hack has only one meaning, an extremely subtle and profound one which defies articulation...'
Hacking might be characterized as ‘an appropriate application of ingenuity’. Whether the result is a quick-and-dirty patchwork job or a carefully crafted work of art, you have to admire the cleverness that went into it.
I've heard this criticism of Seth a few times now. I don't disagree with the statement... but it's also not exactly a strong criticism either.
His work seems to be mostly about making us rethink the way we approach marketing, especially on the web. That is coming from the other end of the "actionable" spectrum. It is a strategy, not a tactic. All the old tactics still apply, but you use them for different ends.
His examples are, of course, simple and "obvious" in a style that many (myself included) appreciate. I've found writing a series of succinct, obvious statements that convey a greater wisdom is much harder than people give it credit for.
And, like any exploratory thinker, I don't think Seth himself would claim he's never wrong. It's all about if you can learn something about the <i>approach</i> to marketing, not memorize a bunch of steps.
Definitely a fan, not a fanatic, but I've heard this point enough that I wanted to state a counter.
Or maybe that just condemns me to the same designer hell.