Greentech: Conservation or Reinvention?
0 Comments Published by Ray Podder on Thursday, May 31, 2007 at 9:49 AM.
Does "Online" and "Offline" Matter Anymore?
0 Comments Published by Ray Podder on Monday, May 28, 2007 at 12:31 PM.
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...
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?
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?
0 Comments Published by Ray Podder on at 12:13 PM.
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...
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...
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 :(
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!
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!
