GROW

Moving to One.

2008-09-02T12:26:00.001-07:00

This blog has moved here.

The reasons were many and a long time coming, but mainly because :

We are all many things.
In my career, I've been a designer, illustrator, copywriter, creative director, author, strategist, brand guru, production designer, organizer, marketer, entrepreneur, serial founder, futurist and more...

We also have many thoughts.
My interests span from pop culture to geopolitics, the social media to nanotechnology, microfinance to clean energy, western literature to eastern philosophy and a host of new things I stumble upon everyday...

I needed to simplify.

So as far as blogging goes, I'm moving my three blogs to what I've really been focused on all along: Our Brighter Future

As far as my work, I still contribute to my startup projects, but my focus is solely about What's Next and how to get there.

I hope to see you soon at the new site simply called: RayPodder

Many thanks in advance for your support and attention :)

Best,
Ray

Venture Communism?

2008-08-11T15:51:00.000-07:00

This video from the Fortune 2018 conference panel raises some interesting insights that may actually shape the Internet businesses and experiences to come.

The key takeaway for me was the discrepancy between the short term thinking of those who control the money against the long term value equation the connected commercial landscape enabled by the Internet actually IS.

I've written about my systemic approach to brands, experiences, business models and more here many times, so I won't bore you with another reiteration of the same concepts, however, I want to ask just one question that may set the context:

If the world is truly becoming an interconnected and interdependent ecosystem virtually just as it is physically, how long will traditional power structure paradigms (governments, VCs, companies) actually benefit by trying to control it?

BTW, Here's an interesting take from Bill Gates on a related matter.

Is a Mass Innovation Future Closer Than We Think?

2008-07-14T16:58:00.000-07:00

Within the last couple of days of the iPhone launch and the Google Android platform's contests a little earlier, it's not that difficult to imagine that what can be dreamed of today is actually closer than its projection.

As I'd illustrated in an earlier post here, and on the GrowAhead blog the missing components of a vision at the time of conception evolve at a more rapid rate (like the availability of multi-touch surfaces or nanomaterials) once the purpose driven meme is set loose to a imaginative and connected audience. In other words, when we can collectively imagine a need like finding the cool spots recommended by our friends, the means to do just that happen much faster than in the singular incomplete imagination of the original visionary.

Understanding the real constraints of political, social and technological execution limitations that can't match the boundlessness of imaginations, the discussion is about not visions for next month, but rather projections that are years away. If you buy my theory though, I think that timeframe is shorter yet, when you factor in collective visions that self-correct the assumptions over singular ones (such as these video examples that have been shared on a public forum like YouTube).

Anyway, that's my take on it, and here's another perspective (see video below). What do you think?

Do You Know What You Suck At?

2008-07-10T09:29:00.000-07:00

It's very easy to confuse the need to persevere against the odds vs. when you really should quit. These guys from Boogie Nights illustrate the point beautifully. Enjoy!

What's Your Motivation OS?

2008-06-30T11:00:00.000-07:00

Tony Robbins masterfully repackages Maslow's Hierarchy / Vedic Chakra based perspective that's definitely worth the 20min time investment.

Can Personal Branding Titles Hurt Your Personal Brand?

2008-06-29T18:39:00.000-07:00

I've read a lot of Tom Peters and understand the concept of standing out from the crowd, but whenever someone claims that they are a "Visionary Entrepreneur", "Media Maverick" or a "Disruptive Innovator", my 1st reaction is not one of curiosity, but rather, what is it they actually do, and why is this person so full of themselves?

Mind you, I didn't come to this way of thinking without a few personal branding exercises of my own. A designer by training, futurist by thought, inventive and entrepreneurial by nature I also struggled with what to call myself to stand out from the crowd. I'm sure I appeared no less pompous and delusional when I've called myself "Meaning Architect", "Visioneer" or "Revolutionist"....the last one I was particularly fond of since I work with startups I really believe can lead to revolutionary change :(

I think what's missing here is that these personal branding titles are like the taglines from your favorite brands that you'll never remember even if your life depended on them! It the common delusion that you define your brand, and not your audience.

Think about it. Seth Godin calls himself a "Change Agent", but when you think of Seth (for those of you who dig his blog like me), you mostly remember that is a prolific and insightful marketing thinker who is one of the most popular blogger/business authors online. In other words, "Change Agent" is an exercise for Seth himself, but the fact that he's a blogger is a derivative of my (and yours) specific experience with his "brand".

So as the question is "Can personal branding titles hurt your brand?", maybe the real question is have your built one based on real experiences with an audience first? Calling yourself something cool without proving yourself worthy of the expectation is no different than any other hype (i.e, the annoying infomercial guy above).

....and as to what do I call myself? Well, I hope I can build a reputable enough brand for myself so that you, my readers, friends and colleagues can offer some suggestions :)

What Drives Three?

2008-06-23T19:15:00.001-07:00

Ancient concepts of three interdependent components contributing to the well being of the whole, like the third eye depicted in the mask above have remained integral to many cultures over the ages for a reason. The rational explanation may be that it is easy for humans to process three interrelated things such as father-mother-child for the nuclear family or CEO-CMO-COO for the global business, but maybe it goes a bit deeper than that...

After a recent conversation with a friend about the three components that keep a business going (Distribution-Development-Operations), it suddenly occurred to me that maybe there is a deeper truth here that applies to all the three-pronged dynamics in the universe.

The obvious examples of the minimum requirements of legs on a stool, spokes on wheel, etc. are a given. They are about the structural rules which even translates to everything from writing to persuasion to choice architecture. The "a-ha" wasn't really that, it was the nature of the relationship which hold the three together that is most fascinating.

Within every architectural case there is a:

-Driver: Something that inspires the need
-Developer: Something that answers the need by creating
-Derivative: Something that is produced as a result needing to be managed in order for the cycle to continue

In most business paradigms, the "Driver" equals creating and delivering the market, i.e., sales and marketing..., The "Developer" equals the development of the product and/or service, i.e. R&D, engineering, design, architecture, etc... and the "Derivative" is the management challenges of a growing organization, i.e. operations.

The realization that the other two cannot exist without the "Driver" is crucial in understanding how all three pronged systems work. It's very easy to get distracted and spend energy on the "Developer" (trying to make the product perfect) or the "Derivative" (designing the most efficient operation management system) while losing focus on what drives them.

This is universal regardless of context, and definitely not limited to business. Here are some other examples:

1. Family: Providing, Nurturing, Prioritizing
2. Learning: Stimulus, Knowledge, Recall
3. Relevance: Need, Choice, Context

See what I'm getting at? What do you think?

Building Your Dream Team?

2008-06-19T16:05:00.000-07:00

1. Don't Lie

2. Choose What Matters

I've always been a big fan of Dee Hock's philosophy on associates and have blogged about it often like this post. However compelling choosing by that priority may be philosophically (integrity, motivation, etc.), in practical terms the best results seem to happen when you recognize someone's true talent and help them succeed.

3. Respect

Designing 3.0?

2008-06-09T10:01:00.000-07:00

Ever since Tim Brown dropped the Design as Strategy meme, the business world has been waking up to what we designers knew all along: Good design=Good business. While why it is more important than ever can be looked at from many perspectives, the fact that it actually IS is a no-brainer.

We are more and more likely to focus on its importance living more and more immersed in VirtuReality, so what does that mean for Design Thinkers and Design Professionals? More importantly, what does that mean for organizations who needs the knowledge capital of design to create its competitive advantage?

Being a designer at my core, I've seen my own career mature through the following transition first hand, and this is what I've observed:

Design 1.0: Attention
In the mass communication era, the primary advantage of design was grabbing attention. Visual aesthetics defined design, and designers were introduced into the mix after the strategic heavy lifting was already managed. Design set trends that influenced visual sensibilities of particular eras. Think about the iconography of the 20th century, like 20's Art Deco, 40's Hollywood, 50's Kitsch, 60's Flower Power, 70's Disco, and 80's Nagel prints and Miami Vice, 90's Hip Hop, etc...

Design 2.0: Interaction
In the post Cluetrain era of the connection economy, we realized how taking human usability factors into account can disrupt markets like the iPod did. Suddenly, interaction drove the design and measuring everything from web traffic to prescription labels mattered. Design is no longer just about looks, it's about engaging people.

Design 3.0: Integration
As heatmaps, sentiment analytics and even the design of the building blocks become second nature in considering design solutions, the real question becomes about design's relevance to the ecosystem. Design becomes more than just the front end "skinning" of the thought product or service, but rather part of the thought process to arrive at creating itself. Will your idea consider business model, brand and competitive strategy with design considerations at the onset, or will it do it after the fact. Can you really afford post-strategy design? Probably not.

While this post may seem self-serving, my honest intent is not that. I truly think that the quality of our thinking will directly affect the quality of life we all enjoy. Design is no longer for "designers", it is a Whole New Mindset for all of us to design the future we want for ourselves. Thoughts?

Media Like Water?

2008-05-26T09:42:00.000-07:00

Gerd has got a cool take on it. Hope you dig it too :)

What's the Worst That Can Happen?

2008-05-23T11:58:00.000-07:00

Brilliant logic for choosing wisely. The Nudgers will surely agree :)

People or Organizations?

2008-05-13T09:23:00.000-07:00

When I hear stories of people being empowered with the same resources as manufacturers minus the red tape, it's tempting to think of individualized democracy. But as Doug Rushkoff explains in this video above, its not really so. I concur. What about you?

Is Your Brand Ready to Reinvent Its Business Model?

2008-04-30T09:41:00.000-07:00

Untitled from MGvandenBroek on Vimeo.

Very cool perspective from one of my favorite business thinkers. His thoughts more clearly define in a modern context what I was thinking here back in 2004 (pdf).

Make Money and/or Change the World?

2008-04-22T12:30:00.000-07:00

<div><a href='http://www.omnisio.com'>Share and annotate your videos</a> with Omnisio!</div>

David Heinemeir Hansson of 37 Signals makes a great case for entrepreneurial practicality in the video above. A case for common sense that seems to elude majority of the 2.0 bubble hopefuls that are still chasing YouTube acquisition like stardom that come by as often as winning the lottery.

He has some great points and the video is a must watch. It's a reality check that all who chase the next gold mine should pay attention to. If you don't cover the basics (i.e. a business model that can actually sustain you), than you can't build anything...

While I love his no-nonsense rant fueled by an obvious ego, I still have to question whether it applies to everyone.

Can you really change the world by DHH's logic? For example, if you were in the alternate transportation business like Shai, reinventing the mobile internet like Anand or running against the grain of a broken legacy system like Barack?

I think there's a fundamental difference between thriving in a system (like capitalism) and trying to change the game rules of the system itself. Shai is changing the business model, Anand is changing the carrier model, and Barack changed the fundraising model.

The lesson is here is to not be tempted to apply a one-size fits all common wisdom. Understanding the context of where it applies is just as, if not more important. Can you really change the world? It depends how you approach the change from a systemic perspective. What do you think?

TADD: What Are We Really Seeking?

2008-04-03T12:49:00.000-07:00

TADD (Technological Attention Deficit Disorder) as coined by Jay here is all too familiar. Some say its a psychological disorder, but all I know is that my daily RSS feed diet can be pretty bloating. Like most next tech enthusiasts (OK, geeks:), knowing what's happening now can be an all consuming obsession if I let it. But how much do I really get from scanning 1000+ feeds a day, plus social streams from my network, and not to mention magazines, videos, TV, podcasts and more besides confusion?

Of course, I've asked the signal to noise question both publicly and to myself, and I do understand the value of discovering a curated gem from one of my trusted peers over the overwhelming number of PR posts on the tech blogs.

I've also unplugged (mostly by arm twisting from my wife) for many days at a time to discover either that I'd not really missed much, or feel that I'm completely out of the loop. But should the fear of not knowing really be a motivator?

Until there's possibly a better way to to receive more relevant (curated), easily digestible info; the real question may just fundamentally be in why I was seeking that knowledge in the first place? In other words, in a world where attention is scarce what is the most efficient means of spending it?

Instead of looking for more technical means like Feedhub or SocialThing to reign in the beast, maybe the filter should 1st and foremost be driven by our main purpose. What is it that I/we are trying to achieve by voraciously devouring information?

-Are we looking for inspiration to create, or sizing up the competition?

-Are we looking to challenge our thinking or validate an existing point of view?

-Are we seeking knowledge or ammunition?

The deeper answer may reveal more about us than we might realize. Kurzweilian or Bell's theories of memory enhancements not withstanding, it may be a good idea nonetheless to consider purpose over practice :)

Is Packing Your Company with "Experience" Too Much to Bear?

2008-03-26T19:43:00.000-07:00

Over the years I've been very fortunate to be involved with innovative people who create companies from just ideas to market leadership. I've also seen missteps, misconceptions and more from companies and their competition regarding how they are "supposed" to behave once funding, talent and advisers come into the mix.

At the early stages, ideas flow freely and execution is much quicker and more efficient for no other reason but survivability. However, as their efforts are recognized by revenue streams and/or the investor community, the stuff that made them great starts to get replaced by the stuff that plagues legacy organizations they were invented to disrupt in the first place.

There's a guy who now documents the most insignificant of requirements. There's another person who takes copious notes at every meeting. There's more people who spend hours debating the effectiveness of blue vs. green while being completely removed from the strategic objectives relevant to the marketplace. Why?

The reason is as simple as the cheesy plot lines of predictable Hollywood blockbusters. There's money and reputations at stake now and most of the energy is spent managing that over the "survivability" instinct that propelled them to this point.

The new hires come from big companies with impressive track records only to repeat their legacy which was often born out of a different set of circumstances than their current situation. The advisory board is formed less for real advice, and more to "attach" themselves to a potential notch on their portfolio belt. Management egos move from humility (which made them wise earlier) to hubris (which makes them believe they're right regardless of the market reality).

Sound familiar?

It's easy enough to point to the ideal M.O. from Dee Hock which I've written and spoken about before, but that idealism doesn't get you the dollars the way the game is currently played. Of course, money is never the motivation for people wanting to create positive change through innovation, but money, amongst other things are the sad reality.

Instead of frustration, maybe the thing to look at who you invite to the party organizationally, and how do you enforce the criteria. The details are beyond the scope of a blog post, but maybe the simplest way to see this is by asking these three questions:

1. What's this person's real talent (over what their credentials say)?
2. What is their typical response to challenges (motivation and character)?
3. Is the answer to Q1 complimentary, and is the answer to Q2 a cultural fit?

Experience can be valuable, but the real question is: Experienced at WHAT exactly?

Should The Next Breakthrough Innovations Be Demystified?

2008-03-03T16:21:00.000-08:00

In business and in life it seems that I repeatedly run across three main types of people:

1. Those who create
2. Those who manage
3. Those who invest

Arguably, we all possess some parts of each category of talent, but ultimately one of these areas take over both professionally and personally.

From Nanotech, Genomics, Biotech, Robotics, Cleantech, and even the real discussions around Web 3.0 range from the conceptual to the executionally conceptual to many shades in-between...

Guess what? Those who invest obviously don't give a shit about what it means and how its done.

All the people pondering what it could mean are in category 1 (myself included), and until Zopa and Fundable-like things reinvent the financial capital industry (wishful thinking:), they have to beg the category 3 people to fund their projects.

What about category 2? Well, we bring them in once the category 3 people opened up their wallets. More about that rant in my post here.

So should the next breakthrough innovations be demystified?

Of course, but where's the fun(ding) in that?

Aggregating Towards Signal or Noise?

2008-02-15T16:03:00.000-08:00

The hyper-connected users like me have been promised some new toys to make our lives simpler lately.

From Yahoo's OneConnect to PageOnce, Alltop, Twine, SignOn are all promising simplicity by aggregation.

Being an avid user of tools like iGoogle, Google Reader, and even a little app called Orgoo I'd helped design, I like the idea of being able to manage all my connections from one place. But are they really simplifying the info overload my attention span is bombarded with everyday?

Bringing all my news items, social streams, identities, contacts and more together can be a cool thing. But does that really help us understand the insights that drive our decisions, enable us to trust each other, help one another or be productive in society and the marketplace?

I'm not so sure.

More in one place is still MORE than ever to deal with. Growing Bacn on my startpage aside, the real questions about why we do what we do seem to go unanswered. Do we trust by volume of ratings or by people whose opinion we value? Do we act based on past behavior, or our present understanding of the context?

These are just some of the fundamentals we may want to revisit before investing energy in next killer "aggregator" app? What do you think?

Do You Know A Michael Scott?

2008-02-13T22:09:00.000-08:00

If you don't know a Michael Scott, you might be a Michael Scott. If you're in a company run by a Michael Scott, get out. Unless career suicide is your type of thing.

Is the Noise Really the Signal?

2008-02-12T11:19:00.000-08:00

Sure we need inspiration, not aggregation, but how does that inspiration manifest itself?

Reducing the noise through recommendations is evolving into a significant discussion.

Maybe the way to think about it is how we see clear signals from other complex systems, i.e. nature. Take weather for example: a cloudy day is a simple signal for what to anticipate from a lot of complex activity. The Ambient Devices guys got a good head start capitalizing on this idea, how about you?

Bubble? What Bubble?

2007-12-12T11:03:00.000-08:00

Are Creators and Businesspeople Mutually Exclusive?

2007-11-21T15:41:00.000-08:00

This parody to shed light on the recent writers guild strike is amusing to be sure, but it also brings up an interesting point. It seems most of the "suits" still subscribe to this type of "dealmaker take-all while the creative grunts produce the stuff we sell" philosophy is sadly more delusional than reality.

I think the key reason is that people like the dude in the video are still conditioned to believe that our economy is still structured to produce "Goods". The unfortunate reality is that the value is no longer derived from "product" but from "thought." In other words, as illustrated in this Wired article, we are becoming a society of puzzle solvers not factory drones.

What was once a a component for "dealmakers" to sell, is now another puzzle for creative minds to solve. Think what kind of person comes up with a truly effective Viral Video, Facebook or OpenSocial app? Is it a market analyst or media buyer or a multimedia designer/software developer?

It's not so much creative types are now the new suits, but rather, creatives who can channel their creativity to capitalize on the changing marketplace that have the real advantage. If you're a writer, designer, musician, programmer, etc. forget about adjusting to fit into the "factory mindset" and instead think about people and connections and the world might be yours yet :)

Thankful

2007-11-21T11:13:00.000-08:00

I'm thankful to have lots of cool projects to work on so I have less time to be a "New Media Douchebag". I do appreciate your attention when I do have the chance to post soon :) I'll do my best to avoid the Douchebaggery...

Where Do We Go NOW?

2007-09-12T18:47:00.000-07:00

The past is no longer a viable indicator of the future.

The reference systems that we've used to measure progress are disappearing quickly.

The pain is in between where you are now and where you wanted to be now.

Predictions based on today will undoubtedly look silly tomorrow.

So how do we move?

The same way we navigate when we are lost:

1. Find where you are now.

2. Map where you want to go.

3. Repeat. Readjust. Redirect.

Free Hug Day :)

2007-09-09T23:20:00.000-07:00

Hug someone. Repeat.

When the benefits need no explanation, isn't it worth doing? The insight too should be obvious. If not, you're not hugging enough:)

Getting Ego to Work?

2007-09-08T17:50:00.000-07:00

Guy posted this insightful piece about Egonomics recently that really struck a chord with me.

For better or worse, I've not only worked with egomaniacs, but have also been a victim of my own ego. Sometimes, my ego has gotten the best of me even when I thought I was past it...

The Egonomics book undoubtedly will spark conversations about "the real business costs" of ego, but I wonder if there are strategic advantages/opportunities to capitalizing on the egos of your competition?

No is as smart as everyone.

Those that think they are, might just be presenting you with ready opportunities.

Is Your Copy an Improvement?

2007-09-08T17:42:00.000-07:00

We all copy.

We copy because it is innate to our survival, and because it works. But we still want to be original. Why?

Because when we copy naturally, we are not really seeking duplication, but improvement.

However, the easier copying becomes, the easier it is to confuse causation with correlation.

We see the pitfalls when we mimic the wrong things in culture, commerce and technology all the time. We also see the enormous potential to biomimic, design, evolve and become more than what we'd previously imagined when we copy the right things. So the real question is not whether or not we copy. That's a given. But...

...Is your copy an improvement?

What If Startups ARE the Establishment?

2007-09-04T10:53:00.000-07:00

The topple rate for large established organizations have been at an all time high for some time as this McKinsey paper outlines.

Some of the most powerful players online are small, agile organizations, and like Seth says, Small is the new Big.

Emerging web companies have disrupted everything from media, commerce and telecom and there is no letting up.

Independent, connected knowledge workers make up the emerging workforce, not seniority based on time on the job and loyalty.

_______

If you are in any business context today, you don't need Tom Peters or me telling you the current reality.

_______

So why is it, that the Startup ecosystem (the Angels, VCs, Entrepreneurs, C-Level execs, Technology partners) are all geared to play to the potential M&A play, the IPO and other constructs based on the assumption that large organizations will always rule?

Why is it, that despite all the disruptive thinking of the founders that created the market advantage, most mid stage startups OUTSOURCE their leadership to ex-corporate execs? People who continue to mimic their large organization upbringing and stifle the original innovation and prepare for an exit (often to ensure a fat personal compensation over organizational health)!

How come people still hire or give credence to people based on pedigrees without 1st checking on their integrity or motivation?

_______

The reasons for the above are as human as any other time in history. It's tough to change, even if our life depended on it. We make decisions based on our "feelings", and our feelings are the direct result of our primitive hardwiring for survival.

I get it.

However, a HyperLocal, VirtuReal and hyperconnected world is very different than any other in history.

So in the age of disruptive creative destruction of everything from advertising, financial markets, telecom, media and more, is it really that outrageous to imagine the commercial power in the hands of us all?

More specifically, as change becomes a constant, what if legacy companies are a thing of the past and those agile enough to reinvent on the fly are the real power players?

How Much is "Post Strategy" Design Really Costing You?

2007-09-03T12:54:00.000-07:00

This classic video always gets a few smirks and chuckles from the marketing community, but is its message really clear? While it's always convenient to bash Microsoft, I believe the real culprit is not the "best practices" of large companies, but rather the way most people still think of the role of design within their strategic objectives.

While myself and others with more impressive credentials tout the accolades of "design thinking", most marketing and corporate strategists still view design as aesthetics after the strategic "heavy lifting" has been decided. The end result is obvious in this parody video, but is it really obvious in your organization?

The cool factor of design centric organizations is just that: DESIGN is at the CENTER.

That means, involve designers and design thinkers when you are conceiving the plan, not bring them in when you need to "execute" the plan. As the video clearly states, the conventional thinking will yield not much more than crap!

Are You Hungry Enough to Stay Smart?

2007-09-03T11:08:00.000-07:00

The social commentary at this poor girl's expense has been all over the media recently, but is it just about the poor education system in the US? Or is it more about complacency, as in the desire to learn when you grow up and get through life on your appearance?

Just as this Miss Teen USA contestant is clueless about geography, aren't some companies with growth on their side guilty of bonehead moves because they think they don't have to learn anymore? If we could all get by on how we "appear" to the marketplace, what is the real incentive to reinvent the game? When we can "acquire" the smart technologies and the companies that produce them, why bother with understanding what all this Web 2.0 stuff means? Just say some words like "social media" and "user generated" and look good to your board and convention goers such as... and we should be good right?

Think again.

Does Your Idea Still Work?

2007-08-24T11:58:00.000-07:00

We live in the age of ideas. It's ideas that make jeans worth $300 and water no longer available for free. The idea to brand relationships are fairly obvious. If not to all of us, at least to savvy marketers who use them to their advantage everyday.

Obviously, some ideas have a longer shelf life than others. The question is, do you know when yours is expiring?

-Grameen Bank had a brilliant idea of empowering bangladeshi women out of poverty as mobile rental providers at a time when mobile phones were expensive. Now mobiles are more available and affordable than ever in Bangladesh. Is it still wise to reinvest in the program or is it time to retire the idea or keep feeding the path to obsolescence?

-The idea of "walled content" saved universities like Harvard Business School from declining enrollments. More professionals and entrepreneurs (myself included) contribute to their bottom line than all of their students combined. But in the emerging age of Free Content, will the "premium content" model still hold up?

-Ever since Google was up for IPO, everyone and their cousin tried their hand in the search game. From A9 to Chacha, cool technologies sit by the curb like the homeless begging for visitors to elevate them to "The Next Google". Do you really think that's going to happen, or did the destination site boat already sail?

-Wired recently had a post about the lamest social networks. Do I need to elaborate further about starting your own? Is it really about yet another community, or offering value wherever people may be connecting to each other?

-Even investing in The Internet as is might prove dangerous with increasing security threats as we migrate offline infrastructure systems online. Not to mention the inherent inefficiencies of distributing bandwidth hogging content like HD video that Bittorrent and others are trying to address.

See, in the current flux, the rate of change is faster than ever before. The moving parts intersecting cultural vibe, technical possibilities and the current geopolitical influence is exactly that: MOVING!

If you don't understand what moves and when, your brilliant idea might easily become the black hole of organizational and personal energy suck because the premise under which your idea originally bloomed no longer exists!

Does Your Agenda Follow Network Rules?

2007-08-22T19:35:00.000-07:00

The human network is more than a brand position for Cisco. It's real. We experience it everyday.

It should be obvious because "The nature of information is biological".

Drucker said it, and so have numerous others who see the obvious connection.

Irving recently posted this thoughtful piece on the nature of networks and changes emerging in the IT industry.

That's a vision some of us can see and work towards, and we try with our respective thoughts and innovations.

Unfortunately however, the myopic focus on next quarter's earnings is still the prevalent mantra in the business world.

Industry changing innovations that honor the network dynamic often don't make it (I know that all too well 1st hand).

-The kind of frenzy that results in moves like this for advertisers do.

-So does the hype around the Ethanol bandwagon over real green changes like Electric Cars or rebuilding Chinese cities.

-The oil company agenda still continues despite the occasional dissenting exposé.

Why they do is obvious.

With constant change, short term profitability seems a surer bet than long term sustainability.

But does it have to be?

Won't sustainable innovations give better return for energy spent in times of constant change?

or better yet, do you really think you can control a system to your benefit for long? See vid below:

Can You Outsource Leadership?

2007-08-20T18:35:00.000-07:00

The cheesy and ignorant Indian stereotypes notwithstanding, the sentiment for outsourcing is funny because it's true. But while the outsourcing of labor is obvious, there is another outsourcing movement that often goes unnoticed.

It's the outsourcing of leadership. In other words, what happens when you pass the "vision and passion" baton from the founders of your business to the C-level people who will run it without suffering loss in translation?

The obvious answer is your Brand Mantra (the driving principles that transcend specific leadership), but is making it stick really that simple?

What's Your Competitive Attitude?

2007-08-09T09:37:00.000-07:00

When facing the competition, do you work to:

a) Improve your service and/or features relative to the competitor's?

b) Outspend your competition's marketing efforts?

c) Reinvent the category/change the playing field?

Guess which one moves your brand to market leadership?

Hint: It's the same principle that keeps Apple innovating way ahead of the personal electronics game, Wallmart ahead of the retail game, and (sadly) Al Qaeda staying alive while bleeding U.S. government resources trying to fight an "understood" enemy...

So why is it that emerging brands mimic the organizational behavior of industry Goliaths with fewer resources? How do you think their stories will end? Just think about that the next time you see a Startup more concerned with "appearing" like industry giants rather than being clever enough to actually change the game.

What is VirtuReality?

2007-07-16T16:11:00.000-07:00

I wrote this article on VirtuReality on the 1st weekend of July and thought I'd put up the draft version to get your feedback on the concept before I submit it to publishers.

Since then, some of you have been sending me examples of your VirtuReal experiences, so I thought I'd try this experiment. I started a VirtuReality group on Ning and a VirtuReality Blog with the hopes that we can all participate and get our VirtuReal experiences published. What do you think?

Is a Little Evil OK?

2007-07-04T11:50:00.000-07:00

The argument from advertisers and those making a fat living from the last paradigm of advertising models (PPC, pageviews, etc.) for invasive advertising practices is that data mining is essential for personalization.

This recent Mashable and TechCrunch post outlines some of that thinking in action.

But are these approaches really inevitable? Can we not think of better ways to exchange information about value relative to us (the Real Advertising 2.0) than invasive measures? Of course we can.

BlueOrganizer, Pownce, StumbleUpon and more are living testaments to that.

The question here is not about what are the facts, but rather whose AGENDA do they serve? No one in power ever ceded it, it was either forcefully taken away, the environment changed or a disruptor introduced a new meme to change the game completely.

I know I have some ideas about utilizing the power of recommendations based on shared contexts to redefine advertising, and I’m sure some of you have powerful game changing ideas of your own. The question is, will you introduce those ideas in time to undo the damage the repetition=awareness=relevance thinkers have already done and are planning to do?

A little “Evil” is not OK. No matter how cute it may seem at first.

What’s on Your Mind?

2007-06-26T15:37:00.000-07:00

The video above might just be a preview of the way we interact with virtual spaces in the very near future. While the iPhone, MS Surface and other cool ways of interacting with machines as I’d previously illustrated are already capturing our imaginations, the biggest shift yet is the one at the speed of our thoughts.

I’m a big fan of the ideology that our thoughts create our reality, and as we head into a world where we blur the lines between real and virtual, it takes on an entirely more profound meaning.

The idea that advertising is content was not just my rants like this one, but actually coming true here with the Geico Cavemen and characters from your media entertainment spaces having footprints like this in our mental realities. That, with a real marketplace for virtual goods are just more indicators that the physical and metaphysical are indeed becoming one and the same.

Though I’m not a big believer of following a linear logic to the future, it’s likely that the influence of brand stories in today’s transitory semi-meta virtual existence might translate quite seamlessly in our more immersive mind spaces in the very near future. As traditional advertising models of awareness=relevance dies its much deserved death, the brand stories that move us might just be driven by our own imaginations.

What do you think? (double meaning obviously intended)

Do You Understand What Does Not Change?

2007-06-26T15:35:00.000-07:00

To adapt ahead of change, we need to know what does not change. Though the common wisdom says that we have a set of governing core beliefs to maintain the integrity of our brand, what we know always changes what we believe over time. Our ability to anchor our thinking in principles while adapting new challenges requires a set of understandings, not beliefs. Here’s what I understand to stay relevant regardless of change:

1. Thought shapes reality.

2. Nature is the design manual.

3. Value is the only currency.

4. Everything is connected.

5. Every choice is self defining.

6. Motivation is rooted in (the perception of) survivability.

7. Activity should never be confused with understanding.

What Matters First?

2007-06-26T14:43:00.000-07:00

Some people are making a big deal about Markus Frind who was smart enough to ask the most important questions first and capitalized on the corresponding answers:

Q: What’s missing from online dating sites?
A: Free Services!

Q: How can I capitalize on it?
A: While advertisers still bet on “page views” to be a viable conversion tool, it's a no-brainer : Online Ads!

To me, as I’m sure to many of you it’s blatantly obvious. The question though, is that is it obvious now that I’ve pointed it out, or that Markus is making serious money, or both?

As The Black Swan points out, we often see the logic of solutions after the fact and deduce that “the logic” we reconstructed may be the formula for future success. It’s not! The four dimensional paths of intersecting possibilities made the apparent success real only seem unidirectional after the fact!

However, asking what matters first (like having a engaging story line) may guarantee a better return than this type of a multi-million dollar doozey...but that’s another topic for another post...

Visionary Democracy?

2007-06-22T11:28:00.000-07:00

When sites like this pop-up, who becomes the visionary in organizations? The "leader" or everyone?

Is The Future Really A Linear Progression?

2007-06-18T10:05:00.000-07:00

Circa 2007

Circa 1962

Where is Your Mind in the Business Ecosystem?

2007-06-14T11:44:00.000-07:00

-Do you respect and grow the talent of your peers, or do you leverage it so you can shine?

-Do you have transparency with your vendors, or do you try to squeeze every drop of value from them until they move on and you find someone else?

-Do you feel good or bad when you’ve clearly exploited someone’s position to your benefit?

-Do you weaken or strengthen the power of the people around you?

-Do you still maintain relationships where you benefit much more than you contribute?

These are but a few questions that define whether or not you can play a more significant role in the global business ecosystem you participate in. As the world becomes more connected and thus transparent, the rules that apply to biological ecosystem apply here as well.

The big difference though is that in nature, parasitic, symbiotic and dynamic relationships are played by the same players without the possibility of moving up or down the change (apart from evolution over time). With people in business, the evolutionary cycles are faster and more immediate than ever, and growth is dependent on the ability to adopt to new mind shifts from “small timer” to major player.

The real question then is about your mentality. I’d written earlier about Landlord vs Trader mentality, but this is far more fundamental. It’s about nobility. The best definition of nobility I’ve hear to date is:

Nobility is not about how much better you are than someone else, but rather, how much better are you than your former self.

So now, truthfully ask yourself:

Are you just a bottom feeder, a leach, a coattail rider, a predator, or can you shift your mentality to be an integral part of the business ecosystem you play in? Your survivability in the bold new world might just depend on it.

Real/Virtual Melding?

2007-06-14T10:14:00.000-07:00

Techcrunch article on the same here... As I was saying sometime back here and here.

2007-06-01T17:52:00.001-07:00

Greentech: Conservation or Reinvention?

2007-05-31T09:49:00.000-07:00

MS Surface

2007-05-29T12:16:00.000-07:00

Does "Online" and "Offline" Matter Anymore?

2007-05-28T12:31:00.000-07:00

Besides the entertainment value of the clip above, the sheer fact that core motivator for pleasure in the physical world (sex) has now been virtualized brings up a much more interesting question. Are we still operating in the physical world, or is this the transition to mindspace?

I'll write more on this soon (as an article or paper), but I just wanted to throw out the concept to get you all thinking...

-Brands and their respective stories determine the real value in the marketplace (a mental construct)
-It often costs more to create a movie, a website or produce intellectual property than a building.
-We are becoming desensitized to violence (fear of death) through virtual experiences like Video Games.
-We do more things virtually (email, SMS, blog, etc.) in our workday than physically.
-We seek pleasure in peace of mind and avoid experiences that make us feel crazy. Contrast that with seeking pleasure through actual sex and avoiding actual death...
-Real businesses have virtual counterparts and vice versa. Have you seen 2nd Life? How about a TV show based on a real tattoo parlor (Miami Ink)? Blog with characters from ABC's Lost? Yes I said "Characters"...

The shift is happening...

It opens up different ways to look for opportunity, different ways to look for value, and different ways to be relevant. What do you think? I'm not just asking that for feedback BTW; what YOU THINK might be the biggest factor of all...

Can You Trust Immutability?

2007-05-28T12:28:00.000-07:00

In the branding world, Al Ries seemed to have a lock on the time tested concepts on brands (they were actually on human nature), but even some of those things are anything but, as indicated with this article from Mike Schultz and my GBN colleague Dr. Dan Herman.

This post is not to bash Al Ries, these guys have already done the job. More importantly, it got me thinking about what the bigger function of declaring immutability is really about. I think it simply comes down to establishing one's own authority.

Take for example the "logic" of theology. Whatever your beliefs are, you'll see this same pattern when you look closer into any religious doctrine (Bhagavad Gita, The Bible, The Q'uoran, you name it):

1. Ask a big question like the meaning of life.

2. Ponder the emotional dilemma posed by this question.

3. Create a circular logic that points to one immutable source for the answer (i.e. God).

Maybe the reason to cling to concepts of immutability is our fear of having to adapt to yet more change. Whatever the reason, the real question is: Can we really afford to think in terms of immutability when the cycle of change is faster than its ever been in human history?

Can Capitalism Still Exist in a Transparent World?

2007-05-28T12:13:00.000-07:00

Let’s face it, the top dog in a capitalist economy stays that way through opacity regardless of the feel good business reality of transparency on the horizon. We don’t know Apple’s real plans, nor do we know what Google’s really cooking up behind closed doors despite Paul Bucheit’s “Don’t Be Evil” quip that happened to make it’s way into the public G-manifesto.

Today a country stays a superpower by manipulating energy and the need for arms. How else do you keep paying your citizens a higher wage for the same work in another part of the world? Start a war, bring the fear, then sell the stuff that keeps the fear alive so your stuff is worth more and you make more money for the same effort... Ok, ok, it’s a bit simplistic, but you divorce your mind from the emotion, I’m sure you’ve also had the same insight, right?

Why media censorship, web access censorship, PR spins and more still exist in a post Cluetrain world may be baffling to the 2.0 digirati, but I can’t say that it surprises me. We need opacity to keep the wheels of Capitalism rolling....but where its’ going though is a whole other question.

Enter a transparent world. Blogs in the workplace, SMS revolts that overthrow autocratic governments, and even the Twitter-ization of politics. Now the real questions surface:

If your enemy can be humanized on MySpace, do you really need guns to protect yourself from him?

If we can actually generate energy without depleting the Earth’s natural resources, do we still need to invade new “markets” geographically or has the competition shifted to the realm of intellectual property?

When you can truly outsource in a uber-connected world, how will you justify your inflated salary living in a “developed” country? For that matter, when it’s all connected, where is it really “developed”, and where is it not?

If the world is indeed becoming transparent, can Capitalism still exist?

I’m lucky to live in a country where I can raise these issues and my web is generally accessible. Even so, the powers that be would like to blind you this reality, but they may not have long. Transparency is the new currency of business, and an inevitable byproduct of a connection economy. Can the connection economy and Capitalism co-exist? In other words, will the connection economy actually bring about a re-distribution of wealth where somebody doesn’t have to lose for my gain? We’ll just have to wait and see...

Wise or Foolish?

2007-05-10T17:39:00.000-07:00

It is only two kinds of people who are 100% certain of their decisions. The wise and the foolish. The irony is that you don’t know which one you are until the actions of your decisions reveal themselves :(

A Life of Happiness or Meaning?

2007-05-10T17:22:00.000-07:00

Of all the areas of your life to live with paradox, it seems ambition is the biggest bitch! While self help gurus, business wisdom and even the Jeffersonian “Pursuit” of it, does “Happiness” really fit in a life of meaning?

Sages, yogis and the like have always extolled the virtues of “Living in the moment” and “Giving freely” to travel the road of happiness, but can you really do so if your ambition (or calling if you prefer) is a life of “Meaning” instead?

Recently, a TV character put it into perspective for me:

“A life of happiness is living in the moment without baggage from the past or anxiety for the future. A life of meaning involves constantly examining your past to continue to shape your future. So, either you choose a life of happiness or you choose a life of meaning. You can’t have both!”

Of course! I’ve always known It’s the pissed off people who change the world! Doh!

Are You Ready for The Shift?

2007-04-12T17:12:00.000-07:00

glumbert.com - Shift Happens

Thank You David Lynch !!!

2007-04-03T21:12:00.000-07:00

I couldn't have said it better myself!

Belief or Understanding?

2007-04-01T18:18:00.000-07:00

I watched this video again today, and it further confirmed how the world operates on belief over understanding.

Hans Rosling makes some compelling data points very clear through the great work of the Gapminder project, yet the world still operates like my last post as "What we call the news" video below indicates. He thinks if we can access the same rich global data with ease, there will be understanding that benefits us all. I’d like to “believe” that too.

What We Call the News!

2007-03-29T09:58:00.000-07:00

What We Call the News | Send To Friends | Funny Animations at JibJab

Do You Know What Efficiency Really Looks Like?

2007-03-04T17:24:00.000-08:00

Recently, some of my advisory engagements have transitioned into design gigs. Coming back full circle from the client side back to the service side, I couldn’t help but notice the inefficiencies of how design gigs work...or rather the way they’ve always worked, but I'd failed to notice because I too was selling the kool aid I was drinking back in the day.

For example, why do we need multiple design options to arrive at a solution when we’ve not yet fully understood what problem for the customer we're really solving?

Being involved with startups, I already know that agile, iterative prototyping is far superior to linear "button down" methodologies. I’ve also noticed that most established companies spend more energy on “looking” efficient, than actually being efficient. The “meetings about meetings” are the obvious signs, but lately I also notice things like expensive research reports vs. just experiencing what it’s like to be your own customer.

Design, marketing and IT shops seem to spend a lot of energy on looking like they know what they’re talking about and you don’t. Unfortunately, a large percentage of service businesses feel they need to operate this way to keep their business model of playing to your insecurities or resource constraints. People who seem smarter and bigger than you seem to buy into it, so why shouldn’t you?

If you’ve built a successful business from scratch, or been around people who have, you should already know it. Efficient people and processes are far too busy being efficient to spend energy to look that way. That should be your first clue.

These two parody sites do a great job at exposing the BS. Can you?

How Immersive Will Our Mindspace Get?

2007-01-18T22:34:00.000-08:00

Here are some very cool previews starting with this moving clip of the image above. The web 4 scenario from Seth here and the gel screen created by Yoichiro Kawaguchi (story here). The "screenless screen" video above and more scenarios with mobile devices below from Nokia. Enjoy!

What Do People Really Want?

2007-01-18T17:00:00.001-08:00

Fear and desire have always gone hand in hand. Our deepest fears have always revealed our truest desires. For example, if you fear being insignificant, you definitely desire fame. If you fear being poor, you are bound to desire riches, and so on...

While surface needs are always debatable and open to interpretation, all people at their core want to SURVIVE. But what does “survival” really mean? Obviously, it’s the FEAR of their demise and the DESIRE of pleasure, but within which context?

Interestingly, while we are wired for survival in the physical world, our daily existence is increasingly becoming virtual, or more about the the things we can’t really see or touch. It used be that we took a break from our geographically bound physical world to engage the mind with media or thoughts; but isn’t it the other way around now?

Don’t we spend most of our time (work or play) thinking, worrying, imagining, escaping and staring into a screen or attaching our senses to some other attention occupying device (iPods, phones, etc.) most of the time, and THEN take a break to deal with reality (i.e, take out the trash)?

What’s happened here?

Has the context of survival shifted from the physical reality to the space in our heads? If we’ve indeed moved from body to mind, (and before you debate it, just consider what you are doing reading this blog post right now) what are the new rules of survival? What constitutes our real fears here? What equates to our real desires here?

In the physical world, its pretty simple. We fear things leading to death and desire things leading to sex. Before you consider that too simplistic an assessment, just ask yourself why you avoid driving into oncoming traffic and why you really want any possession.

The most powerful force to shape human destiny has always been our desires. The opposite of what we fear most have always been desirous. The question here is not about that basic understanding, but what those fears and desires are when our context changes from the physical to the mental. In other words, in the new world of our mind spaces is it still the same? The answer to that may not only reveal how to market and participate in next market reality, but also reveal who we are and who we are all becoming.

Can It Really Be That Simple?

2007-01-05T16:12:00.000-08:00

I remembered this quote about the personal journey of a martial artist that went something like this:

“When I was a novice, a punch was just a punch and a kick was just a kick.

Then, when I started to study the art, the punch was way more than a punch and a kick was way more than a kick.

Now after many years with the art, a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick.”

The point is obviously about the process and how things really are that simple once you’ve gone through it.

For those of us participating in our changing marketplace, I hope your own journey brings out the realization that everything about what we can do better next IS about the fusion of Human+Nature.

As simple as that sounds, it’s far more profound if you’ve worked to understand HUMAN behavior and potential and also see that there is no better blueprint for efficient, sustainable design of everything from communications to systems than NATURE.

The key here as always is the PROCESS.

Why Do People Do What They Do?

2007-01-03T11:20:00.000-08:00

Getting to the right question is more than half the battle. Amidst a bevy of predictions that start off the year, most of them seem to be answers to questions that may be the most popular but not necessarily relevant or useful.

For example, it’s easy to say that marketing will go more mobile and social in 2007 based on obvious advances in social and mobile technologies but does that really mean people will opt-in to socially recommended advertising on their mobile devices?

Or is it likely that they will just trust their own opinions because in times of constant change, it’s the easiest and most reliable thing to do? If the latter is more likely, then shouldn’t the mobile apps be based on personal opinion validation rather than network recommendation? See what I mean about asking the right questions?

Thinking about the future is a constant for us, especially when the rules we thought were true have suddenly been challenged. It seems that if we can just keep up with the rate of change, we’ll have the advantage, but could it be that keeping up with change is more about identifying what is constant rather than what is changing?

For me, that constant is trying to better understand why people do what they do.

My Top Ten for 2006

2006-12-31T08:24:00.000-08:00

Nuckin' Futs! The JibJab Year in Review | Send To Friends | Funny Animations at JibJab

This time of year somehow compels people to assess the key events of the year and I suppose I’m no different.

There’s been lists galore from Yahoo Top Searches, IT Products of 2006, Doc’s Top Blogs, Mashable’s 2007 predictions Round 1 and Round 2, the FutureLabs’ marketing trends, the Social Entrepreneur’s Toolkit to even the Amazon website about lists themselves. I’m not part of the cool club yet to participate in Blog Tagging, so I'll spare you my secrets...

So what to post, what to post?

Well, I’m certainly immersed into the future enough to spout my own perspective on the evolution of the web like this and Web 3.0, but I still believe the best way to predict the future is to create it yourself!

There’s no need to end the year with discussion of social controversy. That's not really my bag, and others are already at it. During this I wondered if people in power want racism to continue because it's a way for them to manage otherwise fragmented voter market spaces?. After all, the irony of community is ultimately the fear of the outsider, is it not? Or whether or not its delusional to believe in God...

I also wondered whether “We are really smarter than me” is really true when less than 1% of the community is responsible for more than 90% of the content on sites like Wikipedia? Or, are currencies going to be the new countries as these virtual examples are already showing us the way?

Finally I decided on sharing the most meaningful things I’ve learned this year, and I hope by sharing them will benefit others as they’ve enlightened me:

1. You can’t share meaning until you’ve shared context.

2. You can’t be any more intelligent, you can however, be less stupid.

3. People don’t ignore you because they don’t know you, they ignore you because they think that they already do.

4. Of course the game is rigged! But if you don’t play, you can’t win.

5. Most people can’t handle real authenticity or transparency, only the illusion of them.

6. Most people will put what they consider to be their means of survival ahead of any “bigger than themselves” cause they claim to participate in.

7. No one is smarter than everyone but it’s still individual insight who originates direction.

8. You can’t really change anyone’s mind, you can however, change their context.

9. Efficiency=Satisfaction=Value

10. It takes much more effort to know than to believe; but it’s always better to know.

If Everyone’s Talking At Once, Is Anyone Listening?

2006-12-28T18:54:00.000-08:00

I loved this cartoon on Hugh’s Blog the other day. If you’re still under the delusion that blogs are about the conversations that the Cluetrain imagined, you’re in for a rude awakening!

For starters, who has the time to read even the stuff that’s actually worth reading (such as the Z List), forget the scores of new blogs cropping up every minute? If you actually are trying to do stuff like run a business or have a life, it’s daunting at best.

Secondly, even if you comment on one of these blogs, the blog owner/editor will generally publish the comments that will further strengthen their point of view. It’s as forgettable as the bulletin board back in High School (unless you’re in student council)

But mostly, the information is not quickly applicable when I most need it. In other words, unless I decide to make an ongoing investment by adding your blog to my RSS reader and spend more time I don’t have interrupting my day with your feeds, the wisdom is lost into the ether as fast it appeared. So what to do?

Are good blogs valuable? Absolutely! Do I get to read my growing blogroll regularly? No. Am I missing out? Am I under informed? No and maybe but so be it.

Those of us honest enough to admit that blogs are an exercise in our own narcissism may be closer to getting more value from the wealth of info available online. Once you realize that, the information has a clearer context and thus easier to filter.

So my next question is:

Are connection economy markets really about conversation or is it about the end result of what conversations in real life achieve?

The end result of conversation in the real world is intelligence. We learn stuff about each other when we talk. In a hyper connected world, can that not also happen by seeing the choices we make and the patterns that emerge from them?

So maybe it’s actually one step further:

Markets are about the exchange of intelligence.

Does Talent Equal Popularity?

2006-12-20T10:15:00.000-08:00

As the video above illustrates, true talent has little to do with what elevates people like Diddy, Britney Spears, Donald Trump and others like them to superstar status. Considering their more talented counterparts like Dr. Dre, Christina Aguilerra, Bruce Ratner and others occupy the lesser degrees of the same limelight, the obvious parallels to other brands who compete with substance vs. sizzle is definitely something to consider.

So why do we as a group choose the less talented and the less substantive? Is it because as Machiavelli had said that we judge by the results and not the process? Is it because the less talented remind us more of ourselves and thus more accepted? Or is it purely biological as our reptilian brains unconsciously gravitate towards the better looking (both physically and financially) to ensure our survival and the talent or substance just doesn’t feature in the process?

The truth is generally a combination of all factors relevant, but more importantly I believe the cause is less important than the outcome. Regardless of the reason, people gravitate towards perceptions. Positive "perceptions" of truth, wealth, beauty, philanthropy and authenticity always win over the real deal. If you've ever visited Paris in Las Vegas with the annoying faux French accents adorned by the staff and marveled at their profitability, you've seen it 1st hand.

Contrary to popular belief, the availability of information in our connection economy does little to change perceptions, rather the info only validates existing world views. Perceptions are still shaped by disinformation and cultural biases. I believe understanding the root of both the disinformation and the culture codes are more essential than ever. Because as Gottfried Helnwin had once said:

“Of course the game is rigged. But if you don’t play, you can’t win!”

How can we be more intelligent?

2006-12-08T15:53:00.000-08:00

We are only as intelligent as we are. We can however, be less stupid.

Starting with Trust

2006-12-04T18:09:00.000-08:00

Can you see applications of this kind of thinking in another commercial context?
Some Social Entrepreneurs are already setting the stage for the next world changing innovations here.

My question is this: If we are all part of the same market ecosystem in our connected global economy, then why should there be any distinction between "social" and "entrepreneur"?

Is Addiction Efficient?

2006-12-03T20:17:00.000-08:00

Not to put the horse before Descartes, “I post, therefore I am” is a common sentiment shared by me and every other blogger addicted to putting their thoughts out in the cyber ether. Indeed the addiction to media, the Internet, to shopping, smoking, drugs, sex, etc. is pervasive in modern society to say the least. It’s safe to say that the pillars of capitalism are built on addiction. In other words, if you’re hooked, you “consume” and if you consume, you keep the economic engine chugging along...but has that ideology reached a point of diminishing returns? Here's an amusing little video that captures media addiction all too accurately:

So what's the point really? Is it not true that all addicts are essentially searching for satisfaction through their addiction but are coming up short every time? Thus, the cycle continues and the fat capitalists get fatter, right? But at what cost?

If at the core of addiction is a universal need for satisfaction, wouldn't it make more sense to organize commercial systems around satisfaction itself? What would "consumption" look like if we did that? Would economies be less beneficial to society or more?

Though this is a larger topic that warrants discussion beyond my blog post, my feelings on this are clear. I believe we now live in connected paradigm of civilization where the real costs of “consuming” have little choice but to be balanced by serving the ecosystem in which we participate. If we don't benefit the network as a participant, we don't survive here. The natural analogy is pretty obvious. Accounting for waste and provisioning for creating new customers shouldn't be just “ideals” but essential for creating sustainable satisfaction. A brand must not only entice you to merely buy to feed the addiction, but enable you to participate in the system which creates ongoing satisfaction.

The Virtual Me

2006-12-03T18:08:00.000-08:00

There’s been a lot of talk of virtual reality communities lately. As with anything that gets people’s attention when money moves in a new direction, the focus on the revenue can blind us to what’s really at work. Sure we can generalize that social networks serve our very human need for recognition and acknowledgment and for the most part we’d be right. So what is the one thing about virtual worlds that’s so appealing? Most non-participants would say that it’s anonymity, but Cyworld does over $300K a day in virtual commerce based on being yourself.

I believe virtual worlds represent a significant shift in civilization we’re already participating in. How we present ourselves on our “about me” pages on our bios and profiles, and who we choose to be seen with both on and offline are all part of the larger phenomenon of amplifying who we ideally want to be. In short, virtual avatars are nothing more than our desires to create and recreate our ideal selves. Our desire to continuously create ourselves in our ideal image is a desire that is finally being enabled, and it's a pretty cool thing. It’s safe to say that we’ll be participating in such activities as the lines between the physical and metaphysical continue to blur.

The Human Network

2006-12-03T17:56:00.000-08:00

The Internet may have inadvertently replicated our decentralized biological wiring in terms of computing, but collective human capacity far outweighs what machines can do. Without further exposing my inner geek, the simplest reason may be that we can understand and interpret chaos if nothing else. Just the ability to distinguish a “cooler” spot to hang out than another gives us the ability to out compute the most sophisticated of machines to date.

The idea that technology can help us amplify our abilities has now moved beyond science fiction to everyday fact. The practical applications of the human network is showing up in places like Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to the hoards of location based mashups like Vibely brought on by Google Map’s open APIs to predicting stock picks and mobile social intelligence from startups like Mozes. Intelligence amplification or IA is working alongside Artificial Intelligence or AI in ways we’ve yet to imagine and the implications can be mind boggling if we lose focus on the why or how of what using intelligence means for all of us.

I think that intelligence is simply the means to negotiate our survival.

The intelligence needed is relative to the situation in which we need to survive. Philosophy aside, life, work and society are inevitably affected by connected intelligence fueled by the introduction of new technologies and suddenly “the situation” is more difficult to mask beneath the illusion of control we might have over it. So to play, we’ve got to know more stuff either personally or processed through some computer to survive.

In a less connected society we needed our network of people to help us make decisions, and nothing has changed other than scale and frequency to keep up with rapid change. Just as one cannot write a compelling summary without ever written a story, a network cannot become truly intelligent without the consentual participation of actual humans.

What’s Luck Got to Do With It?

2006-11-27T16:44:00.000-08:00

Most entrepreneurs successful or otherwise will repeatedly tell you that “Luck is just preparedness meeting opportunity”. Is that really true or would guys like me who risk everything for what we believe in like it to be so?

For the same reason millions of rational air travelers decided to drive right after 9/11 here in the U.S., the belief in control in the midst of chaos is a natural human reaction as nicely illustrated in this recent Time article. Even though statistically, we are much safer flying than driving, driving represents the “feeling” of being in control despite the numerous variables to the contrary.

It’s the same with luck. In today’s interconnected world of increasing variables, the illusion of control is more essential than ever. Hard work is obviously a given, but how much that work actually reduces the risk variables is highly questionable.

Faith has always been the path of least resistance, and maybe the belief (in ourselves in this case) is instrumental in making us less anxious so that we can make better decisions. As I’d written in Don't Do. Be. sometime back, how we “feel” about our ability to control our destiny may just impact the “luck” in our favor. This captures it well:

"A wise man will make more opportunities than he finds."
-Sir Francis Bacon

SelfLead: The Emergence of The Sovereign Citizen

2006-11-13T12:47:00.000-08:00

I finally got around to writing a thought piece on it. Check it out and let me know what you think.

When Will Then Be Now?

2006-11-13T12:42:00.000-08:00

Maybe sooner than we think. I was blown away by the implications of MS labs PhotoSynth potentially represents. It’s shared context using data that we humans understand : pictures. More than just Flickr with Google Earth and other daily mashups, these kinds of technologies might turbo charge our participation economy like never before.

Now just think of this for audio and cross reference that with time and space. The possibilities are just emerging as we think of realizable business and service models to get people outside of the connected few in wealthy countries to participate. I’m brewing up a few ideas, how about you?

Is Found the New Search?

2006-11-06T10:03:00.000-08:00

Wired just put out a story on social bookmarking which brings up a very interesting question. Whose results do we trust more? Those from an impersonal search engine or the selections of an human being? What makes another person’s picks interesting to us is obviously dependent on how much they have in common with us, but how do we determine that commonality?

How do we share meaning with that person if they’ve not shared our context?

I believe that is among the big questions still left to explore as new business models emerge in this space. As for the question posed in this headline, the reality is probably closer to how we seek and process information in general. We BOTH “search” and trust the “findings” of trusted sources. It’s really a question about the level of SATISFACTION with the known vs. the unknown, and it really depends on context. Thoughts?

Commonly Brilliant?

2006-11-05T16:28:00.000-08:00

Fans of the classics like Shakespeare’s Midsummer’s Night Dream already know the power of fantastic entertainment for the masses masking the deeper wit and insight. Timeless entertainment has already figured out the formula for sustainability by layering insight and intellect with absolute nonsense so that it can appeal to more people albeit on multiple levels, but has the world of business and governance? It’s more than the “common touch”, it’s brilliance that finds what is common to all and capitalizes on it. There are lessons to learn while laughing (the best kind, I’d think), here are a few for your viewing pleasure:

Daily Show

Bugs Bunny

Borat

Midsummer’s Night Dream

Is it Sexier to See the World Through the Common Lens?

2006-11-05T14:47:00.000-08:00

None of us like to believe that we’re one of the masses. We’re programmed to see the world from our unique perspective to ensure ultimate survival of self. Paradoxically we also trust the wisdom of crowds. What everyone is doing somehow seems like the thing to do, or at the least try out.

The world of business is no different. Social spaces are said to generate huge ad spending and you can bet the race to lead here is heating up. Guys like me and the head lemur here see the obvious lunacy, but is anyone really listening?

With cash opportunities sprouting in the and other spaces, it’s only natural for companies to try to mimic the success of others. However, I think Machiavelli might have had it right, when he observed that most see the action and the result but not the PROCESS. I’d argue that what these recent trends actually mean are distorted bhttp://beta.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gify old lenses of equating traffic with relevance, predictions with reality.

When the result is in billions in acquisitions, the observations of “process” and true causes often eludes us. It is definitely sexier to see the results and make what seems to be the “obvious” bets.

Can Contradictory Approaches Co-Exist?

2006-10-30T19:09:00.000-08:00

There’s been some nipping at Google’s reigning advertising heels lately. Players like Adify, and Skyrider are all attempting to reinvent the game by making sure which ads show up where and giving up the controls of that to both buyers and sellers of advertising to work that out. Personally, I think that’s a positive step towards democratizing the practice of advertising itself, but then what about Videos and Social Media?

Although the monetization thinking is emerging in to models like MetaCafe and BrightCove, the predominantly open and inviting environment of social spaces puts the traditional contextual ad model in question. Social spaces work because of shared connections and interests. When advertising tries to guess what that context means, it is generally mistaken and thus gets largely ignored. The potential to be relevant is obviously huge, but is contextual advertising” that was never asked for really the answer? Are social networks themselves the answer to real contextual relevance? Or is it something else like entirely different like the co-browsing applications such as Medium and Flock?

The Giga OM blog had a very interesting perspective on this, and it got me thinking. Just as the telephone started out wanting be what the radio ultimately became, there’s a need and room for both solutions. Similarly, I don’t believe advertising relevance is about one approach vs. another. Things are only contradictory or opposing when you can’t see the whole picture. Maybe contextual placements to recommendations is the Yin to the Yang the ad industry desperately needs. Nature co-exists with contradiction, how would an interconnected market ecosystem be any different?

Is Spin Still “In”?

2006-10-27T16:38:00.000-07:00

For those in the know, this PR effort on behalf of the cable industry is obviously BS but will the subscribers to their services know any different? The same kind of infoganda that keeps certain powers that be and certain issues like renewable energy distorted within the public perception is very much in charge of our perceptions. Why?

If markets are indeed conversations a-la the Cluetrain, and openness was supposed to make us more responsible (thus truthful) then why do people still buy into the hype? I sure don’t have all the answers, but I can offer a question to you that may be revealing:

Is it easier to have the “truth” delivered than to work for it?

Right now, the Internet savvy like us who dig for info, and quest for meaning are few. Most people next door, even if they use the Internets do "The Google" or "The eMail" or check "The AOL" and have no clue about mashups, diggs, del.ico.us, technorati and the like. Until that changes, I think “Spin” has a nice pad with a beach front view in the mediascape, don’t you?

Are Album Cover Mashups Just the beginning?

2006-10-23T17:34:00.000-07:00

With the recent "napsterization" of YouTube, copyright owners are screaming bloody murder on more than one occasion as indicated here. However, as I'd mentioned in an earlier post, I believe this is the beginning of the ultimate media power shift : The Audience is the Media.

It's just a matter of time before innovative business models allow users to mashup copyrighted content and use them to create recommendation engines that put traditional ad models like adwords to shame. The numbers don't mean much now anyway...

After all, what’s really the difference between the CBS fall lineup and your YouTube playlist other than scale and access to professional content? Think you might be amongst those who might create such things? We should talk...

Who Do You Connect To?

2006-10-20T11:36:00.000-07:00

I hear the same complaints about vendors, partners, friends, colleagues, employees and bosses from the same people all too often. In fact, I’ve even done it myself enough times to finally ask WHY? Amazingly, when you ask the right questions, the right answer just comes along:

Our relationships both in business and in life are nothing more than mirrors of ourselves.

The choices we make have nothing to do with inevitability, but everything to do with who we feel we are when we make them.

We are continuously authoring a story of who we are by the choices we make. We seek what we feel we don’t have enough of, we admire the qualities we think we need more of, and we despise the qualities we don’t like in ourselves...all to create the ideal version of ourselves. So why all the complaints? René Magritte's "False Mirror" image above might be a big clue!

Maybe you don’t know yourself as well as you might think!

If you can look at your choices (friends, associates, vendors, partners, etc.) objectively, you might just have all the answers to all your complaints. What you choose to do about them is another matter altogether...

Is Design Really Strategy?

2006-10-19T16:56:00.000-07:00

Design is obviously important to business, but despite the success of Apple, Target, Ikea, Philips, BMW and other design-centric organizations, so many business leaders still view design and design thinking as “decorative” or “aesthetic styling” after the “strategy” has already has been worked out.

Of course guys like me (and Fast Company) can make a case for why design IS strategy, simply by the fact that strategy is nothing more than clarity of vision for next actions. When it comes to deciding what to do next, what leaves no room for ambiguity?

But is design really strategy or is this "Design IS Strategy" another business philosophy du jour to sell more design and design-thinking books?

Most business leaders might argue its strictly about numbers. Even though I can still make the case that numbers not only can be misleading, they don’t create customers (more specifically woo your customers into falling in love with your brand). If the sole purpose of business is to create a customer as the late Peter Drucker made evident, then shouldn't the core factor be given more importance?

The reality is that this is a loaded question because nothing specific (unlike originality) can be strategy. In a unpredictable marketplace with situational variables, strategy, or the deciding of what's next (to do, to go, etc.) is largely dependent on the current cultural, political and technological context. That said, DESIGN infused into your brand experience not only doesn't hurt, it is a real advantage.

For one, design thinking is about possibilities realized. I can talk or write about about fusing the colors of your imagination all day long, but none of it is going to inspire you or your customers to feel anything like what your see here and the Sony Bravia Ad here.

Design is good. It should be integrated into strategy, and thinking like designers (possibility vs probability-based thinking) can only help in today's hyper-competitive markets with fickle customers searching for the next thing they "might" miss out on. Design makes them stop and notice. That's definitely a solid strategic move in my books.

Is Leadership Really Natural?

2006-10-18T17:31:00.000-07:00

This popular video of seeming order amidst the chaos better know as “Indian traffic” may be a case in point of how we collectively make decisions. This may also be a model for the nature of distributed communications that is The Internet.

See, ‘till date organizations have taken cues from what I believe is an incomplete observation of nature. In nature there are “alpha” leaders of packs of wolves, deer and the like, but as soon as the 51st percentile of the population decide on an action like which way to go, the “alpha” leader is left to catch up with the pack. We see this with flocks of birds to ant colonies and beehives, yet our focus still seems to be on the individual that “seem” to call the shots.

If you’ve ever observed our modern day leaders like politicians and CEOs, you will quickly find this same “chaotic democracy” in action. The most influential leaders don’t really drive others to their own agendas, they find ideological groups already in agreement with where their agenda’s fit. In other words, the 51% leaning already existed before the “leader” showed up and capitalized on it!

Does that mean leadership is unnecessary, and we can self govern based on "true democracy"? We all know that's not the case! I think its more of how "democracy" is branded. Democracy in the modern sense sorta works because everyone participating within it believe that they are all "equals". In reality, EQUALITY never plays a role in true progress (in art, science, or politics), but the "belief" in equality is important for leaders to motivate action.

The traffic in India video above is a situation that works there (I know, I've seen it 1st hand many times), because everyone is concerned about managing their path within chaos and they automatically self-regulate. However, the rules of conduct (some unspoken) have already been determined (that's where the leadership piece fits).

Think about it. Not because I’m asking you to, but because thought leadership is real leadership. Especially when we live in a connected world where the participation of it’s citizen’s are already mimicking biological systems. Seeing the nature of chaos has advantages in your market ecosystem like never before! There’s a reason that “servant leader” buzzword came around...maybe Indian traffic and flocks of geese can really put it into perspective.

Originality IS Strategy

2006-10-18T12:27:00.000-07:00

YouTube clones like the ones here, here and here, Flickr clones (like the one shown), and Google clones are abundant these days in cyberspace. How far can these guys actually hope to go?

Back when I wrote The Business Model IS the Brand or when my Global Brand Network colleague Dr. Dan Herman observed that the Brand IS the Strategy, our instincts were on the money but the bigger pattern eluded us (or at least me, I can’t speak for Dan).

Since then, being on the road to following my own entrepreneurial dreams and actively innovating for other emerging brands, it finally became crystal clear! The only real advantage in today’s hyper-competitive marketplace has nothing to do with “best practices” or “market share” but reinventing the market to follow ones one unique path. In other words, it actually is this simple:

Originality IS Strategy!

Think about all the great brands that have prospered and endured in today’s hyper-competitive world. How many of them are “me too” companies, and how many of them behave like their perceived competitor? If you know Virgin, ING, U2, Apple, Cirque or any of the other one-of-a-kind institutions you can already see it. They move to their own pulse and make decisions based on their own world views.

In the age of trackable behaviors and measurable metrics (made up premise or not), it’s easy to get sucked in to performing what you believe the market wants you to do, but that’s only on the surface.

Copying is never cool, no matter what the stats tell you. We can smell lame a mile away like in the case of the feds trying to be YouTube here.

In the age of chaos, the true market gems are the ones that follow their own rules (here's another cool example).

I always feel like somebody’s tracking me?

2006-10-18T11:50:00.000-07:00

The intent of this eye-tracker video at etre.com was about usability (and the utter uselessness of placing "contextual" advertising was just a bonus discovery). The fact remains though, that no one in the ad insertion game seems to be letting up. The recent BusinessWeek article on click fraud should have been a wake up call to innovate towards a better WOM (word of mouth) solution, but instead, it seems to form groups to babysit the growing problem of click accountability.

When you have billions of dollars worth of turf to protect, you really don’t have the luxury of game changing ideas. Growth is already doing a number on the innovation potential of your organization and now its just about maintainance.

So if ad placements don’t really register, then why keep doing it and why build revenue projections based on them? I think it comes down to the sperm analogy I made sometime back, and it really comes down to the cost of managing that "hit or miss" approach. If the costs are manageable, and we can invent the metrics to prove it (at least for this quarter), so be it!

As for the feeling of somebody tracking me (to push useless ads in my path), here are some things you can do. If that fails, then maybe advertising ourselves with huge banner ads will have the same effect of obscurity as the ad in the Etre example did :)

10 Things that Kill the Cool Online:

2006-10-16T12:46:00.000-07:00

In my last post I bitched and rambled on about the lunacy of commercializing previously “cool” spaces online. It just occurred to me that the signs are pretty simple if you just take the time to look. Here’re my top ten reasons why “cool” dies an untimely death:

10. The owners of the site1 notice the activity and start making plans to cash in.

9. Outside “experts” come in and advise the founders of site1 on what they should do next.

8. The site1 owners make deals with advertisers and technology partners and the mainstream PR machine unleashes and goes rampant.

7. The people that never “got it” before suddenly show up at site1.

6. These “new people” start asking the existing site1 members about what they missed or interrupt them with other irrelevant questions.

5. The new people start spewing buzzwords and promoting their new Internet real estate businesses.

4. The site1 owners ignore the conversations and add new features like blogs and address books while big plans for version 3.0 cook in the background.

3. The original members start dropping off faster than the new ones come online at site1.

2. Somebody posts a “you suck” piece about the site1 and others agree.

1. A new site2 pops up with most of the original site1 members there.

BTW, not a direct correlation...I wish the YouTube guys all the success! But check out the video for some apropriate humor. When these are gone, the clown suits have defintely invaded. Enjoy:

Will Commercialization Kill the Cool?

2006-10-16T11:30:00.000-07:00

Online spaces, like any other business goes through The Clown Suit Syndrome / Jump The Shark desperation evident when TV programs fail.

The current hype around social networks documented so well by Pete here on this mashable post and the Ad Age speculations that follow are no different. When you change what makes something original and cool you’re simply asking for trouble. Enter clown suits and shark ramps...

If you’ve ever participated in a social network, you’ve already seen what happens when the conversation goes from stimulating to “self promotional” to the utterly lame. The exodus happens when the original reason people come to a social network gets displaced by what Ernie Mosteller called "late adopter" participation (in a recent conversation we just had) that have nothing to do with what attracted the interesting conversations there in the first place.

The last era of marketing bottled “cool” for sale so often with reasonable success that most in the profession believe that anyplace with eyeballs mean “captive” audiences. They are sadly mistaken in my humble opinion. It’s not just my faint little rant at the edge of the blogosphere, its the rules of human nature.

We are social to satisfy a need. Unless that need is understood, no amount of marketing is going to have an impact. Just as multi-level marketers killed the party over at Ryze, the banner ads and shameless plugs will likely do the same at MySpace and GoogTube.

Mindsdhare is about meaning. Meaning happens when we are able to share the other person’s context. In other words, you have to “get” what they are into rather than using their space to push your own agenda. Seth makes a great point about that here. So does OM Malik as he breaks down what is really important for social networks here. For all the hypemongers rushing to create their own little 1.6 billion dollar paradise, it might pay more to listen.

Cool is about originality, it can’t be “contextually advertised” to become relevant to people who didn’t ask for it. Commerce is nothing more than an exchange of value, and that is absolutely natural. “Commercialization” however becomes a dirty word in today’s context because the attempts to date are “unnatural” because they go against the real reasons behind human behavior. Interestingly, we now have a medium (The Internet) that mimics biological connections. Commercialization doesn't have to be ugly. We can innovate towards a better, more meaningful solution.

Merchants of Cool?

2006-10-16T09:30:00.000-07:00

These guys are hell bent on capturing the young "consumer". As lame as their "So, tell me what's cool?" approach is, they are still in charge of serving up the goods to feed the machine. Those of us in the business of creating brands that create customers now have a choice:

1. Believe that most people are the clueless masses and thus persuade them decide what they need and create our bottom line.

or

2. Believe that true democracy (collective decision making) is inherent to nature and create products and services to serve people where they are naturally headed.

Which way would you go? Why?

Black on Ads

2006-10-04T09:22:00.000-07:00

I blogged about this w/ the Jessica Simpson video sometime back but this originating segment is a classic. In the era of mashable networks, new models are of course emerging but none that are mature enough to stand up to Mr. Black's verbal freight trains (yet). Enjoy!

Free Hugs!

2006-10-03T20:48:00.000-07:00

I've always observed that true leadership is about finding what is universal and using it to motivate others to one's cause (regardless of context). This guy is definitely that in the truest sense of the word. You can't fake being real. Real always has the advantage...very cool!

Roger McNamee on Social Media

2006-10-02T19:27:00.000-07:00


I'm think sync'ing with this guy. With "deep tagging" practices through offerings like motionbox.com, I think it will become more about "matching" vs. "searching" though...it can be argued that they become one and the same. Enjoy the vid.

Stepping ahead or dreaming forward?

2006-09-28T17:19:00.000-07:00

This is cowdung. It might just be converted into what makes your morning commute possible. But wait, who still commutes in the age of broadband enabled telecommuters? The latter is obviously more sexier to think about than dung but can we bank on it?

Guys like Richard Branson and Vinod Khosla are now making the PR rounds with initiatives focused on making biofuel production efficient enough to replace fossil fuels. So what about the people who are dreaming up hydrogen fuel cell cars that run on good old H2O? Why aren’t those guys getting the same play?

The reason is more obvious to self made entrepreneurs than academics and innovative thinkers. While revolutionaries dream of disruptive ways of changing the world, evolutionary businesspeople like Branson and Khosla realize that change is rarely an overnight shift.

Change is incremental and there’s are economic proofs needed at every step before the actual shift happens. Don’t believe me, just think of all the things we now think of as “major shifts”. The Internet, automobiles, the printing press seem like revolutions, but just think of how they were adopted into mainstream popularity. Remember dialing up to send an email? My point exactly!

Incremental innovation doesn’t mean that we stop dreaming. In the case of green transportation, we shouldn’t stop questioning whether “cars” are the real answer. It seems to me that better designed cities are far more efficient than efficient cars leading to more paved roads to disrupt already dying ecosystems!

Global change much like personal change needs positive feedback to stick. Change needs both dreams and positive (market) feedback at each step to make a difference. For those of us with goals of creating positive change in the world, its a lesson well worth remembering no matter what the current path smells like.

Are we solving the right problem?

2006-09-28T17:10:00.000-07:00

Oftentimes as an objective observer, I notice things that just don’t add up. I was reading an article lately where a parent was concerned about their child being too short for his age and asked the columnist if HGH (human grow hormone) treatments might help bioengineer his child’s normalcy?

For him to come to the conclusion that height is the problem and thus seek a solution to remedy that, seems to parallel a lot of other problems we try to solve in the world. In the respective legacies of Prince, Napoleon, Socrates and numerous other “short” giants, it may be obvious that this parent’s POV is a little distorted, but what if the child was your business, and “too short” was your current strategic diagnosis?

Take network TV for instance. It’s interesting to see otherwise working TV shows that glam up with beautiful cast members because another show with the same is a few ratings ahead. Even though the viewers can spot the “jump the shark” attempts before inevitable show cancellation time and again. The same is true of the acquisition frenzy around social networking spaces like the recent MySpace buy, even though having users in a network is no indicator of either loyalty or a real revenue model.

So why do we chase the wrong problems to solve time and again? Sometimes the strategically savvy know better but play the short term game long enough to take the money and run, but usually we just don’t want to see it. Much like the father in the example I started this post with, we are overly preoccupied with the present context rather than see the cause and effect from an broader, more objective viewpoint. I guess that’s probably why guys like me keep working...maybe the obvious just isn’t.

Building Efficiency From The Planet Up...

2006-09-06T11:23:00.000-07:00

Design | e2 | Rethinking Buildings

The Green Apple

2006-09-06T11:15:00.000-07:00

Design | e2 "The Green Apple" Autodesk is doing a great job of exposing innovative ideas for sustainability with this new series. Very cool.

Red 2 Green

2006-09-06T10:33:00.000-07:00

Design | e2
China Red to Green - Must See!

Flat Fee High Notes

2006-09-06T10:00:00.000-07:00

More from MediaFuturist Gerd Leonhard on Flat Fee Music

The Future of Digital Music?

2006-09-06T09:42:00.000-07:00

Thinking on music that translates to other mediascapes...

Mickey Marx?

2006-09-05T15:53:00.000-07:00

Would post Internet civilization reinterpret these ideas as something beyond the social experiment gone wrong as we've known it? Ideas?

Can Capitalism Lead Positive Change?

2006-09-01T17:15:00.000-07:00

Profit moves progress...at least until we find a better alternative to the current capitalism model? The business perspective of global warming above (Worth the 10 mins to watch, BTW) shows some obvious paths to profitability but does it really show sustainable progress?

Scaring people into going green definitely has short term gains, especially when the threat is more than old school marketing hype! What happens though when the proposed progress either slows the threat or profitability slows the progress? Mass marketing is going the way of individualized communication, is global capitalism to follow? The Internet has disrupted the communication paradigm, will nanotech and biotech do the same for business?

Maybe its idealist or utopian thinking, but to realistically conceive that people can produce more with less infrastructure costs is really not that far off. Will scaring people "green" still stick then?

Channels by Moi?

2006-09-01T09:12:00.000-07:00

View on Grouper.com

Add to Blogger Blog

Some of us will enjoy watching this more than others. Those that share my particular sense of humor will bust a gut just like I did! But will it make it to local TV? Probably not. What's most interesting about this is not this content or all the videos I've been posting lately on my blog, but the bigger idea this type of content sharing represents. I believe this is the beginning of individuals aggregating content which competes for airtime with national broadcasters. Now do you see the need for monetizing and advertising relevance I keep yapping about? When guys like me collect and share quality content (that's HD/fullscreen on any display), how does NBC pay their bills? Something to think about...meanwhile, happy Friday, and enjoy this clip!

2006-08-31T22:48:00.000-07:00

Dude makes great points! He gets that the right next thing to do is more important than doing the same thing right.

2006-08-31T22:41:00.000-07:00

Lines are indeed blurred! See my post on and/and below...