Global risks – from the World Economic Forum:
Guess what’s missing.
Global risks – from the World Economic Forum:
Guess what’s missing.
Billionaire-owned media makes the “free-press” a mouthpiece for the ideology of the super rich. It ignores the urgency of the climate crisis, radicalizes readers, and actively promotes right-wing propaganda.
So here’s a quick rundown of billionaire-owned/controlled media outlets:
Billionaires also have collectives or consortiums – like the Economist, which is owned by the Agnelli family, the Cadburys (chocolate), the Rothschilds (banks) and the Schroders (banks), along with some staff and former employees.
So how does one escape the tyranny of Twitter? Here are a few articles to help you decide if Mastodon is worth moving to ( I have).
|techdirt||Why Would Anyone Use Another Centralized Social Media Service After This?|
|Wired||Mastodon Is Hurtling Toward a Tipping Point|
|Guardian||Firefox and Tumblr join rush to support Mastodon social network|
|The Verge||Where to find Verge staff on Mastodon|
|Mozilla Blog||Mozilla to Explore Healthy Social Media Alternative|
|CNN||As Twitter backlash grows, rival Mastodon reaches 2.5 million monthly users|
|techdirt||I Speak Fluent ‘New Social Media CEO Who’s In Over Their Head’|
|Business Insider||Elon’s stale playbook|
|Wired||Mastodon Features That Twitter Should Steal (but Won’t)|
|SF Chronical||Elon Musk polls Twitter users on whether he should step down, hours after another controversial policy change|
|The Hollywood Reporter||Twitter Bans Linking to Mastodon, Facebook, Truth Social and Other Competitors|
|IGN||Twitter Will Now Suspend or Remove Accounts Promoting Links to Some Social Media Platforms|
|USA Today/AP||Twitter bans users from promoting rival social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram and Mastodon|
|New York Times||Twitter to Ban Accounts That Promote Rival Social Media|
|Reuters||Twitter prohibits users from promoting accounts on Facebook, Mastodon|
|TechCrunch||Twitter bans posting of handles and links to Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon and more|
|The Verge||Twitter abruptly bans all links to Instagram, Mastodon, and other competitors|
|The Hill||How Musk may reinvent the internet without even trying|
|MacStories||MacStories Is on Mastodon with Its Own Server|
|Daily Beast||Elon Musk Boots WaPo’s Taylor Lorenz From Twitter|
|WSJ||How to Use Mastodon, the Social-Media Platform Blocked by Elon Musk’s Twitter|
|PC||Elon’s Mastodon Vendetta Makes Us All Less Safe|
|Forbes||Elon Musk Bans Journalists On Twitter As More Flee To Mastodon: Here’s Who To Follow|
|Washington Post||A guide to getting started with Twitter alternative Mastodon|
|The Guardian||Twitter’s suspension of journalists sets ‘dangerous precedent’, UN warns|
|MSNBC||McNamee: Musk Twitter suspensions a ‘direct attack’ on journalism & democracy|
|CNET||What Is Mastodon, the Alternative Social Network Now Blocked by Twitter?|
|The Intercept||Elon Musk Is Taking Aim at Journalists. I’m One of Them.|
|BBC||Twitter blocks users from sharing Mastodon links|
|Forbes||Twitter Suspends Accounts For Rival Mastodon And Several High-Profile Journalists|
|Business Insider||Musk’s Twitter is blocking links to its competitor Mastodon|
|Bloomberg.com||Twitter Suspends Accounts of Mastodon, Journalists Covering Musk|
|TechCrunch||Twitter suspends Mastodon’s account and bans links to Mastodon servers|
|CNET||Twitter Suspends Account Encouraging People to Join Mastodon|
|The Hill||Twitter suspends Mastodon’s official account|
|CNN||Elon Musk’s Twitter bans CNN, NYT, WaPo journalists without explanation|
|The Verge||Twitter is blocking links to Mastodon|
|Thoughtworks Podcast||Welcome to the fediverse: Exploring Mastodon, ActivityPub and beyond|
|CYBERSCOOP||Fleeing Twitter users face uncertain privacy, security features on alternative platforms|
|The Desk||LGBT server on Mastodon blocks group for journalists|
|The Popehat Report||Goodbye, Twitter Everything Ends, And That’s Okay.|
|ZDNET||You’ve got Mastodon questions, I’ve got answers|
|Tech Policy Press||Priorities to Make the Fediverse Sustainable|
|The Next Web||Vivaldi browser backs Mastodon to free social networks from Big Tech|
|Bleeping Computer||New Vivaldi version integrates Mastodon into the browser sidebar|
|TechCrunch||Third-party Twitter app makers turn their attention to Mastodon|
|Business Insider||Migration to other social media platforms shows no signs of slowing|
|The Verge||The race to build a better Twitter|
|PC Magazine||EU Leader Uses Mastodon to Tell Elon Musk How Twitter Needs to Be Regulated|
|Vanity Fair||“NO ONE IS GOING TO KILL TWITTER EXCEPT ELON”: AS MUSK’S BLUE BIRD REELS, THE ARMS RACE FOR AN ALTERNATIVE IS ON|
|Dewey Square||A Snapshot of the Twitter Migration|
|Electronic Frontier Foundation||How to Make a Mastodon Account and Join the Fediverse|
|Slate||Social Networks Are Going Much, Much Smaller|
|EscapingTech||I Was Wrong About Mastodon|
|CNET||Confused by Twitter ‘Replacement’ Mastodon? Here’s How to Get Started|
|NOEMA||Mastodon Isn’t Just A Replacement For Twitter|
|Ars Technica||How secure a Twitter replacement is Mastodon? Let us count the ways|
|Reason||Mystified by Mastodon? We’re Here To Help|
|Time||Thousands Have Joined Mastodon Since Twitter Changed Hands. Its Founder Has a Vision for Democratizing Social Media|
|The Markup||The Markup: Mastodon’s Moment|
|CMS Wire||How to Pick a Mastodon Server|
|Axios||How Mastodon, a favorite Twitter alternative, works|
|CNET||Twitter Migrants Flock to Mastodon: How Does the Open Source Social Network Work?|
|Android Authority||Elon Musk just ended Twitter SMS 2FA (Update: Appears to be back up for some)|
|WE GOT THIS COVERED||Some Twitter accounts may become permanently inaccessible thanks to Elon Musk’s meddling|
|The Guardian||Musk says he has ‘too much on plate’ amid reports of more Twitter job cuts|
|CNBC||SpaceX just bought a big ad campaign on Twitter for Starlink|
|Politico||Dems want answers from Musk’s Twitter|
|Mint||‘Embarrassingly wrong’: Elon Musk’s Twitter theory rubbished by ex-employee|
|Axios||Elon Musk’s Twitter sees rise in racial slurs, hate speech|
|AP||Twitter drama too much? Mastodon, others emerge as options|
|MIT Technology Review||Twitter’s potential collapse could wipe out vast records of recent human history|
|Politico||‘Serious risk of breach’ at Musk’s Twitter|
|CNN||Playbill leaves Twitter, saying the site ‘expanded tolerance for hate’|
|Mashable||Surprise? Elon Musk’s $8 Twitter Blue hasn’t made very much money so far.|
|Human Rights Watch||Musk Chaos Raises Serious Rights Concerns Over TwitterLayoffs of Critical Staff, Impersonation Issues Dog Early Days|
|The Guardian||Joining the herd: what’s it like moving from Twitter to Mastodon?|
|The CHIVE||Twitter is a sh*tshow right now & the memes aren’t holding back (28 Photos)|
|The GuardianABC AU||Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly & Co apologises after fake Twitter account says insulin is free as Elon Musk rolls back verification|
|Washington Post||Elon Musk’s first big Twitter product paused after fake accounts spread|
|The Medical Republic||Is #medTwitter really leaving Twitter?|
|LA Times||What to do if you’re worried about the latest Twitter chaos|
|CNN||Elon Musk’s Twitter faces its ‘Titanic’ moment as executives and advertisers flee while trolls run rampant|
|The Guardian||Exodus continues at Twitter as Elon Musk hints at possible bankruptcy|
|The Verge||Inside Elon Musk’s first meeting with Twitter employees|
|The Verge||Twitter reactivated the ‘Official’ gray check for accounts that are actually verified / Things are going just great and nothing is on fire.|
|Yahoo||Twitter Gives Blue Checks to Fake Tesla Account, Fake Politicians and Real Nazis on Twitter Blue Day 2|
|The Verge||Elon Musk is putting Twitter at risk of billions in fines, warns company lawyer|
|NBC||Two Twitter executives resign as Musk’s chaotic run continues|
|UX Collective||Twitter alternative: how Mastodon is designed to be “antiviral”|
|Toronto Star||I fled Twitter to check out Mastodon. Here’s what I found|
|CNET||What Is Mastodon? The Twitter Alternative for People Flying the Coop|
|Rasberry Pi||Raspbery Pi: An escape pod was jettisoned during the fighting|
|ZDNet||ZDNet: Why Twitter will fail shortly — Sometime soon, Twitter will crash badly. Here’s why.|
|MIT Technology Review||MIT Technology Review: Here’s how a Twitter engineer says it will break in the coming weeks|
|Huffpost||What’s The Deal With Mastodon, The Twitter Alternative?|
|The Atlantic||Elon Musk Is Bad at This: The Musk era of Twitter has so far been defined by unhinged tweets, fleeing advertisers, and botched layoffs.|
The real question now is: how do we build a media network that actually serves the public interest?
Americans experience a false social reality by underestimating popular climate policy support by nearly half.
Let’s break that down:
Americans experience a false social reality.
They underestimate climate policy support.
Here’s what people think about what others think . (The red line is reality.)
Pluralistic ignorance—a shared misperception of how others think or behave—poses a challenge to collective action on problems like climate change.
These are the findings of a study published in Nature.
Where does this false social reality come from?
Preliminary evidence suggests three sources of these misperceptions:
(i) consistent with a false consensus effect, respondents who support these policies less (conservatives) underestimate support by a greater degree; controlling for one’s own personal politics,
(ii) exposure to more conservative local norms and
(iii) consuming conservative news correspond to greater misperceptions.
Fox News destroys reality.
But reality does not need Fox News.
Cimate collapse is here.
This week I interviewed Cettina Martorana, a candidate in Sicily’s regional elections on the subject of regenerative politics.
Can politics be regenerative at all?
Martorana is a professional business woman who finds herself in an election because she was drafted by Caterina Chinnici – the candidate on the left for president of the Sicilian Assembly.
Here are five points I got out of our discussion:
If our politics don’t engage the youth, what’s the point in politics at all? Martorana’s idea is simple: ask the students what they want and find ways to create opportunities for them. She does this through an old media format – comics!
But her message is serious.
Here is Martorana’s tree of regeneration – a symbol to capture the interconnected nature of all things in the community:
Martorana’s unique campaign is based on a deep understanding and empathy for the plight facing Sicily’s youth. Jobs and employment are scarce, and now with COVID and climate change, things may get much worse. As a problem-solver, she aims to explain why regenerative politics is not just a word, but the way forward.
You can check Martorana’s ideas out at www.cettinamartorana.it – with the help of Google translate!
This is the TEDxAthens presentation on regeneration – a preview of the book:
The legendary reggae band Steel Pulse (one of Bob Marley’s favorites) raises its voice to challenge the world to come together – a “movements of movements” – to save the Earth:
Special thanks to Jessica Lieng from the W7 Working Group for putting together the video. Maximum respect to Steel Pulse and David Hinds in particular!
Join us for the latest webinar from the Wicked7 Project >>
Join Philip Kotler and Christian Sarkar as we discuss the final wicked problem of the Wicked7 Project. With us for the webinar – a group of dynamic personalities from Palermo, Sicily:
– Leoluca Orlando. As Mayor of Palermo, Orlando’s extraordinary vision and courage has changed our understanding of immigration, tolerance, and the fight against corruption.
– Claudio Arestivo. A co-founder of Moltivolti – a unique regenerative business – which serves as an example for the future.
– Melania Memory Mutanuka. An immigrant from Zambia, she is an emerging leader with a purpose.
– Carmelo Pollichino. A passionate leader and the head of the non-profit Libera Palermo contro le mafie
– Francesco Bellina. An award-winning photographer and artist whose brilliant work on the problems of migration and exploitation are featured in leading newspapers such as the Financial Times and The Guardian.
It was my great honor to interview the “Father of modern Marketing” on his lifetime of achievements in marketing.
Professor Philip Kotler received the Thinkers50 Lifetime Achievement Award for his work over the past 50 years. I am deeply grateful for his friendship and mentorship – and everything he has done to demonstrate how marketing must be a force for good.
Join us as we welcome:
Watch the replay >>
Sometimes I wonder why we have forgotten these principles from the late Paul Polak. When I chatted with him about the $300 House, he wanted me to reconsider and make it a $100 House. His point was simple: affordability drives design.
Now, as part of the research agenda of the Regenerative Marketing Institute, I’m thinking about how these BoP principles and Stuart Hart‘s BoP protocol apply to the developed world — to communities trying to find a way back from the COVID-crash.
Here are Polak’s principles:
1) Go to where the action is. You can’t solve poverty from a World Bank office.
2) Talk to the people and listen to what they have to say.
3) Learn everything about the context of the problem and the people.
4) Think and act big. No reason to be modest. Small solutions applied thousands of thousands of times.
5) Think like a child to find the obvious solution people have missed in the past. (Irony of thinking big and like a child)
6) See and do the obvious. Emersing yourself in the problem helps.
7) If someone has invented it–you don’t have to. Find existing solutions
8} Make sure your approach can be scaled up.
9) Design for the poor. Affordability rules the design process with poor customers.
10) Follow practical 3 year plans. Must transform into effective work plan for 3 years.
11) Continue to learn from your customers. (Interviewed more than 3000 farm families, $12 solar lantern)
12) Don’t be distracted by what other people say (Almost every project I’ve done has had sceptics)
Let’s add another principle for impact innovation:
13) Design for justice. (The design schools don’t)
Where does it end?
The billionaires don’t need employees.
Humans are too much trouble. Far better a company run by robots.
Will the customer be a robot too? And, can we replace the CEO with AI?
Can marketing be regenerative? And what would that look like?
Our definition >>
Regenerative marketing is defined as marketing practices which nurture communities and build local prosperity over the long term. The outcomes of regenerative marketing include value creation for customers, employees, and local communities. Regenerative marketing practices must – by definition – build community wealth.
Read the article in The Marketing Journal >>
If you missed it, you may want to check it >>
It’s time to put aside our toys – our ideologies and guns – and look at this time in history as our final exam. This is a test, as Buckminster Fuller said, to see if we, the human species, deserve to carry on. COVID has shown us that we cannot find consensus on how to deal with the virus.
Time’s running out. Philip Kotler, Karthiga Ratnam, and I think it’s time for a movement of movements.
Learn more on the Wicked7 Project site >>
What are we going to do now? The #forkintheroad which Buckminster Fuller warned us about is here now >> “Whether it is to be Utopia or Oblivion will be a touch-and-go relay race right up to the final moment… Humanity is in a final exam as to whether or not it qualifies for continuance in the Universe.”
What will it take to leap across the chasm and undo the destruction we’ve caused? Why can’t the UN fix it?
We’re hurtling into a state of climate emergency whilst we simultaneously face the convergence of the Wicked7.
What are the Wicked7? The world’s most urgent problems.
We’ve distilled over 200 problems into the Wicked7:
You can’t solve wicked problems. That’s what we’ve been led to believe. And for years, we haven’t. Solve them, that is.
Well, if not now, then when?
Wicked problems must have virtuous solutions. If any lesson has emerged from this COVID-19 pandemic, it is this: we must address the urgent problems of the world now, or perish. Why? Because COVID-19 is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg… the ecosystem of wicked problems will not wait.
After working on this idea for over a year, Philip Kotler and I kicked off the Wicked7 Challenge on April Fool’s Day, 2021.
Our first challenge? The Death of Nature.
Join us >>
P.S. – Bucky Fuller was wrong. Thanks to Sonmoy, one of our W7 advisors, we now see that there’s a triple fork in the road, and utopia is simply no longer an option. What we must fight for is survival.
Once again, it is useful to study the past to learn what applies here to our ecosystematic journeys. Of particular interest is the work of Donella Meadows, who taught us how to focus on having the most impact on a system (Bill Gates, listen up!) >>
Where to intervene:
12. Constants, parameters, numbers (such as subsidies, taxes, standards).
11. The sizes of buffers and other stabilizing stocks, relative to their flows.
10. The structure of material stocks and flows (such as transport networks, population age structures).
9. The lengths of delays, relative to the rate of system change.
8. The strength of negative feedback loops, relative to the impacts they are trying to correct against.
7. The gain around driving positive feedback loops.
6. The structure of information flows (who does and does not have access to information).
5. The rules of the system (such as incentives, punishments, constraints).
4. The power to add, change, evolve, or self-organize system structure.
3. The goals of the system.
2. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system — its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters — arises.
1. The power to transcend paradigms.
Read all about it >>
A special thanks to the Business Ecosystem Alliance and Dr. Annika Streiber for hosting me on the topic of “Ecosystematic” – the forthcoming book co-authored with Philip Kotler:
Join Philip Kotler and myself as we kickoff this project to “save humanity from itself.”
WEBINAR >> April 1, 2021 >> 4 pm EASTERN / 10 PM EU
REPLAY available here >>
I still think of Larry Keeley‘s 10 types of innovation – and think about how the model can be applied to social innovation – to meet the “unmet needs” of society.
The 11th type of innovation is purpose – to what ends are your capabilities and talents being deployed? Are you inclusive or is your company supporting new forms of apartheid? That is what Brand Activism, and by extension – the Wicked7 Project – are about.
So how do we determine society’s Jobs to be Done?
Find out on March 31st (2:00 PM -2:45 PM ET) when I chat with Strategyn’s Tony Ulwick about this and more . Register here for the free webinar.
One of the points of the Wicked7 Project is to demonstrate how we have a shared responsibility — business, government, and social institutions — to work together for the future of the planet.
By definition, solving society’s most urgent problems is a balancing act between the various requirements and needs of the different stakeholders across all sectors. Our policy-making must be driven by this idea of balance if it is to create a sustainable and resilient society.
Read >> The Unmet Needs of Society: Introducing Multi-stakeholder Jobs to be Done by Christian Sarkar, Anthony Ulwick, and Philip Kotler.
We are now at that point in history where collapse seems inevitable: political, social, environmental, civilizational. The decisions our politicians make are killing us.
“Where there is no vision, the people perish.” — Proverbs 29:18
In Texas, we can applaud our fearless Governor Greg Abbott and his Republican mafia for destroying any pretense of serving the public good (see exhibits A and B). Every decision made by leaders in the Republican Party is made based on ideology, not reason, science, or even common sense. Some argue we live in the Age of Social Murder. The Democrats, for their part, are slightly better — but certainly not equal to the task which lies ahead.
It’s time to depoliticize decision-making.
Either that, or our time is up.
The work of leadership has never been more clear: it is to bridge the gap — across all boundaries — and to create a way forward for the common good. The pyramid of love reminds us that it is possible to resolve conflicts and escalate peace.
Says David Hinds of Steel Pulse: “Where there is no love, there can be no justice; and where there is no justice, there will never be peace.”
That about sums it up.
As the Senate holds its second impeachment trial of president Trump, they would be well advised to educate their members on how incitement and escalation of hate can indeed lead to violence and even genocide. Here’s a slightly modified version of the Pyramid of Hate developed by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Echoes and Reflections, and the Holocaust Center for Humanity.
The pyramid reminds us that hatred can be used to dehumanize people by race/color, tribe, ideology, and faith. The misleader polarizes and radicalizes their followers, pushing them up the pyramid of hate.
The problem isn’t Trump. Philip Kotler and I explain in this article for The Institute of Art and Ideas >>
Billionaires are a prisoners of their own “success.” Someone once said that if you have to give back to society, then you took too much from it.
The lowest paid, full-time Amazon worker makes $31,200 a year. It would take them just 4.15 million years to earn as much as their boss. Really.
Did you know that billionaires saw their fortunes rise by 27% during the pandemic while the rest of us struggled to keep our jobs?
Did you know that since 2016, corporate and trade association PACs have given $170 million to lawmakers who voted to challenge the US presidential election?
What will it take for the wealthy to care about the common good? What would society be like if our politicians weren’t owned by the rich and powerful, but actually worked for the people?
In Do Billionaires Destroy Democracy and Capitalism? Phil Kotler and I look at the problem in some depth.
The question that remains is: should billionaires exist at all?
2021 has already shown us that the wickedness of 2020 was just the beginning. The “new normal” is that there is no “new normal.”
The job of leadership now is (re)visioning – rethinking what it means to live in an age of collapse.
We will explore this topic in an article we’re writing (Phil Kotler and I) on the leadership we need now. This is also part of the agenda for The Wicked7 Project.
In 2015, the late architect and teacher Abhijit De and I wrote an article for Thinkers called The Ecosystem of Poverty: Lessons Learned from the $300 House.
In it we popped in a chart that was constructed after days and months of debate with students, surveys and discussions with villagers in rural India, and the “experts”:
Soon after, we were working on the concept of a “smart village” – with the sobering realization that the problems of the poor are not going to be solved without solving other wicked problems. A few days before his untimely passing, we discussed expanding this chart.
This “ecosystem of wicked problems“ is not going to magically vanish. It needs our attention, now more than ever.
And that’s the point of The Wicked 7 Project.
Join us >>
Clayton Christensen has passed on to a better world. We did not deserve him. I only ever met the Professor over the phone – in the early 2000s – when I did this interview with him >>
What are your views on Nick Carr’s Harvard Business Review article, “IT Doesn’t Matter”?
Clayton Christensen: In chapters 5 and 6 of Innovator’s Solution, I talk about how you start out in the early era of an industry’s history when the functionality and reliability of the product aren’t good enough. The way you compete is to make more reliable and higher performing products. In order to do that well, you need to have an interdependent architecture that’s a proprietary system. You then get to the paint where you’ve overshot what customers can use.
At this point, a process of commodization begins to set in. It has two dimensions: First, having overshot you keep trying to improve the product. People will accept the improved product; however, they won’t pay much money for the improvements. Customers often don’t need all of the improvements.
The other dimension of commodization surrounds the argument of now having to compete differently. You’re faced with the need to market so that every customer gets exactly what they need when they need it. If you achieve this, you can responsibly market to smaller and smaller niches in the market. To compete at this level, you need to have the architecture of the product evolve from a proprietary interdependent one to a modular architecture. When you have a modular architecture where the product’s performance is really driven by the subsystem that you snap together, like your personal computer, then modularity finishes the commodization job. You can no longer differentiate your product from the others on the basis of product performance because everyone has the same modules.
In the first realm of commodization, the functionality and reliability are determined in the architecture of the product. The component themselves don’t make much of a difference. In the other realm of commodization, the components or the subsystems make all the difference and the architecture doesn’t make much difference.
In chapter 6, the very move in this direction at a stage of value added precipitates a reciprocal of decommodization of the adjacent stages. Usually, that where what’s not good enough gets resolved.
Carr’s point is a little bit consistent with this view. There was an era when you could gain a competitive advantage by having information technology that (1) others didn’t have, and (2) you had processes within your company to integrate that technology into your strategic planning, product development processes, and pricing better and faster than others. Now, the ability to capture that information, process it, and deploy it to the people who need it is almost modular, in the sense, any company can get it. Carr overstates this point a bit. Things are headed in this direction, and thus the information technology becomes a commodity you must have. You just can’t differentiate yourself.
Let’s talk about a specific example- about five years ago, StorageNetworks built an IT infrastructure from commercially available hardware, raised more than $200 million, and offered organizations a third-party source for immediate storage, likened to that of a public service utility. EMC validated the concept. StorageNetworks couldn’t make a go of that business and offered backup stores and eventually started licensing its software. StorageNetworks went Chapter 11 and couldn’t given find a buyer. What went wrong here?
Clayton Christensen: I haven’t really studied this company in depth. So, I can only surmise. With the caveat that I haven’t crawled inside, I will tell you some of the things I worry about as I watch that. First, Chapter 8’s key assertion is the only thing you know for sure at the beginning you don’t know what the right strategy is. Likewise, you don’t know who are the right customers, and what job are they trying to get done. You start out with a deliberate strategy where you think this’s the right thing. You almost have to know for sure you are wrong. Therefore, you have to get in the market quick with a little of this and then figure out what’s work.
In Chapter 8, I cite a colleague’s study of 400 Harvard Business School graduates who started new companies. Half have been successfully; half haven’t been. The half that succeeded didn’t entirely trust the strategy they used when they raised money. They ended up selecting another strategy that enabled them to succeed. Ninety percent of this group said they ended up doing something completely different from what they intended to do. The difference between the successes and the failures wasn’t the successful ones got it right the first time. They just had money left over after they got it wrong. They learned from their mistake in time to shift gears.
In Chapter 9, I talk about good money and bad money. Bad money is a lot of money flowed into something with the willingness to accept big losses. You have the expectation that the more you spend, the more you will earn later. The money is spent in the expectation your strategy is right.
We would be in error to say that somewhere in that space where StorageNetworks was there wasn’t a great business opportunity. It’s more accurate to say, like everyone else, there initial strategy wasn’t right. They spent a lot of money pursuing that strategy. The problem they employed a deliberate strategy aggressively from the beginning, and spent to get big fast.
How do you fix the disconnect between upper management’s ideas and what the market will accept?
Clayton Christensen: It is a combination of Chapters 8 and 9. Too much money is a huge curse. Enough money can get you into the market as quickly as possible. In Chapter 3 talks about segmenting the market by the job people are trying to get done. The faster you can get into the market and get people to pay real money for real products, then you need to figure you what were these people trying to get done for them when they hired your product. You can then begin to focus on helping them get the job done better and better. As you learn what works and how the customers are using your product, you reach the point where you can aggressively spend money to grow. It’s the premature outlay of huge amounts of money in pursuit of the wrong strategy is the thing to avoid. You need to have an experimental mindset.
In my own language, I try not to use innovative and non innovative. Most company’s are innovative, but in different ways. An established company is usually very good in the sustaining innovation track. Usually established companies pull off radical sustaining innovations. Some times they overshooting and flaming out. The disruptive innovation is a different kind. I would rather work for an innovative company. The question is which ones.
As I live with the ideas in the Innovator’s Solution, history might judge the concepts in Chapter 3 — segmenting markets in ways that cause us to fail – might judge this to be the most important chapter in the book.
We always have an overwhelming tendency to frame the market we are targeting by the boundaries defined by product categories, or product points, or the demographics of the customers. We think about industry verticals. When we target products that markets that are defined by demographics of customers or by the product characteristics, we are playing the crapshoot game of determining whether or not there is a valid customer need. We define our business as helping a customer get a job done – one that he is already struggling to get done and has no satisfactory means of doing it – the probability that product will contact with the customer is very high. You need to look at what is the customer trying to get done and does it help him or her get it done better. Or, does it make it easier for them to do what they aren’t trying to get done. The latter is a failure.
We give a little example in Chapter 3. It’s about investments in Internet-based or electronic learning technologies which are oriented as trying to help college students learn more. These technologies usually never work. If you think about what college students are really trying to do, they want to pass the course without really having to study. If the same effort was focused on crammed.com, making it easier for them to cram, you help them try to do what they are already trying to get done. This works.
Carr makes the comment about commodization (Oracle and SAP struggling to sell better products at higher and higher prices). If the IT industry has lost a bit of its luster, history will show IT vendors have cut to segment the market by product categories and by the attributes of customers, rather than the fundamental jobs people are trying to do in organization. An IT professional who wants to know should I join this organization or this organization I am working with have high potential. If there’s a deep of what the customer is trying to accomplish, then I would be excited about working there.
What are the symptoms of a business or an industry that’s ready for disruption? You mention companies that produce products with features no one uses. What are some of the other attributes to look for?
Clayton Christensen:There are two types of disruptions – low-end and new market. The possibility that a low-end disruption, which is covered in Chapter 2, might occur only if two conditions are met: There have to be customers at the low end of the market who don’t value and won’t pay for further improvement. The second condition for that to happen is that someone has to figure out a lower-cost business model that can be attractively profitable at the discount prices required to win the business of those customers at the low end. If these conditions are met, then a low-end disruption most likely will occur.
The new market disruption is based on an entirely new market sector. If there is a population who are trying to get something done but they can’t to do it for themselves satisfactorily because they don’t have the skills or money to buy the product, they have to rely on the expensive and inconvenient help of experts. If that population exists, that is the requisite condition for new market disreputability. The second reason for new market disruption is can I technologically come up with a market that is so afford and simple to use that I can enable this new population who are trying to get it done, but can’t. If these two conditions exist, then a market is a new market disreputable.
Your company- Innosight- is a disruptive company in the management consulting space. How do you differentiate yourself from the McKinsey’s and the Bains?
Clayton Christensen: The trajectory that the consulting firms are on is higher billings, per partner, per client. Partners make more money by putting more people on the ground. These projects tend not to be strategic related, but operations effectiveness type consulting in mergers and acquisitions and integration. That has become the bread and butter of those companies. The way we try top to help a company is to go in and spend a day going over theory. We have this conviction that theory is a very useful thing. It’s a statement of what causes what and why. Managers use theories every day. In a way, we give them virtual glasses so they can see these theories.
On the second day, we have them make a list of 20 or more of the new business ideas or growth product ideas that have been kicked around in this company. Let’s look at each one of those ideas through this lens. Almost always, there are three or four that just pop out and managers say we haven’t been giving this much thought because it is not a sustaining innovation. However, when you look at it through the theories lenses, the ideas have enormous potential. As we go through the day, we say it has enormous potential, but the way we’ve been thinking about doesn’t meet with what we say in Chapter 3. Most likely, they’ve been studying the wrong customers for that idea. You can take an idea and start to shape it so it conforms to the pattern of disruptive successful companies.
By the end of the second day, they have several products which they say could be successful. Then we have them go through a market study phase where we try to send them to market by the job customers are trying to get done. They need to answer how big is this market? It does involve finding some people to watch and then to ask them a unique set of questions. When you just hired that product what job were you trying to get done? And when you don’t hire that product, what else do you hire to get the job done? There’s a methodology for converting those insight into an estimate for how big is the job.
The third is to work with the team to create a business plan that can get funded and implemented.
When creating businesses to commercialize high-potential innovations, you have six questions, six decisions you ask people to make. Can you go over them with us?
Clayton Christensen: The questions are fairly simple:
1) Whether the new business should be set up to operate autonomously. Opportunities that require developing new skills and using new business models ought to be kept separate from the main business.
2) The activities the company should build versus the activities it should buy. The new business needs to control activities that allow it to improve performance along dimensions that matter most to customers.
3) How the new business should interact with “value network” participants, such as suppliers and channel partners. The new business must help its value network partners move up their own improvement trajectory. People don’t do what doesn’t make sense to them.
4) Which managers should be appointed to run the new business. Managers should have wrestled with challenges (attended “schools of experience”) they know they will encounter.
5) How the new business should set its strategy. In all likelihood, the new business needs to use an “emergent” strategy process that lets it experiment and learn from the marketplace.
6) Who should fund the new business. The new business needs investors whose prioritization criteria match the business’ needs. For truly disruptive innovations, this typically means being patient for growth but impatient for profits.
People assume an answer to these questions without really asking. They often don’t have a theory or strategic framework to think them through. You never have a one-size fits all answer. There are no best practices. Best practices is flawed thinking- it causes innovation to fail.
For example, should the business be autonomous or not? There is a model in Chapter 7 of resources, processes, and values. The organization needs to be autonomous if its normal processes of prioritizing things would place other priorities over this one. The organization can’t succeed if the responsible people are over prioritizing. You can do the same thing with processes. A process is designed to do a particular thing. If the process won’t facilitate success, then you need a different process. Then you need a separate team.
The concept of getting the right people is one of the most important ideas for an organization. You shouldn’t segment markets by the attributes of the product. You shouldn’t segment people by their personal attributes. You need, instead, to segment them by the way they solve problems during earlier times in their career. You make a list of what kinds of problems this management team is going to comfort. Once we know, we have to make sure we have people on the team who’ve seen problems like this before.
You never want to ever say well those idiots failed because they had the wrong strategy. You have to ask “Why did they have the wrong strategy?” Almost always, they’ve used the wrong process to come with the strategy. We show two fundamentally different processes: one is a top-down analytical project that is followed by implementation, and the other way is get into the market to try to experiment what works and what doesn’t.
Who should fund the business? During the era of being out in the market experimenting, then the money has to be patient for growth and impatient for profit. Once you have it figured out and you know what strategy is going to work, then the money can demand growth.
Christian Sarkar: Thank you so much.
Years later, I interviewed Clay again – still not face to face – for The Marketing Journal >> “Branding as a Job to be Done” – An Interview with Clayton Christensen
I am grateful for everything you did for us nerds, Prof. Christensen. We will not forget you. See this from Harvard Business Review >>
According to PlainSite, Facebook has been lying to the public about the scale of its problem with fake accounts, which likely exceed 50% of its network. Its official metrics–many of which it has stopped reporting quarterly–are self-contradictory and even farcical. The company has lost control of its own product.
Fake accounts affect Facebook at its core in numerous ways:
Recently, my dear friend and mentor – Professor Philip Kotler (yes, that Kotler!) got entangled in a squabble between Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister of India, and Rahul Gandhi, the dynastic leader of the Congress party.
The fun began when Professor Kotler presented the Prime Minister with the inaugural Philip Kotler Presidential Award, an award that recognizes Shri Narendra Modi’s leadership qualities on the global stage.
Because his physician had advised him not to travel, Professor Kotler chose his friend Professor Jagdish Sheth, an eminent marketer in his own right, to present the award on his behalf.
The award was presented by a delegation led by Professor Sheth on January 14, 2019. Also part of the delegation were representatives of the World Marketing Summit which had held a conference in Delhi in December of 2018.
The next day, this tweet from Rahul Gandhi poked fun at the award, seeking to undermine not just the PM, but, more importantly for me, the integrity of Professor Kotler as well:
I want to congratulate our PM, on winning the world famous “Kotler Presidential Award”!
In fact it’s so famous it has no jury, has never been given out before & is backed by an unheard of Aligarh company.
Event Partners: Patanjali & Republic TV 🙂https://t.co/449Vk9Ybmz
— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) January 15, 2019
Almost immediately, the comments inspired by the post fell into two categories – insults and praise; insults from Rahul Gandhi followers and praise from PM Modi supporters. The tone of these comments was shrill, with many attacking Professor Kotler directly.
Professor Kotler and I were shocked. The article questioning the award was written by a leftist outlet which casts doubt on the award:
The government’s press release makes no mention of jury members, nor the exact organisation behind the new award.
The media pounced on the story and added to the controversy:
Tonight at 9: is the Kotler award legit ? pic.twitter.com/FyaF1Uu2gi
— Nidhi Razdan (@Nidhi) January 16, 2019
Even one of my literary heroes – Shashi Tharoor – piled on, going so far as to call the award a fake.
Questions & Answers
As questions were raised, I decided to collect and answer them:
Is the award real? (“…little information has been shared about the provenance of the latest award, or the organisation presenting it.”)
Yes, it is real. And why would people like Tharoor assume it was fake? The “journalists” in Rahul Gandhi’s tweet did not follow the first rule of journalism which is – check your facts with the source. How easy it would have been to Google Philip Kotler and contact him through his Northwestern faculty page.
Who is Philip Kotler? What qualifies him to give this award?
Along with Peter Drucker, Professor Philip Kotler is considered to be one of our greatest management thinkers. Who is the leading business scientist in history? According to the Hirsch-Index its Philip Kotler with an h-index of 163, followed by Michael Porter with 159.
Ask any MBA student anywhere in the world, and you will find that they have studied Professor Kotler’s books. He has received 22 honorary degrees from around the world, and published over 70 books. His 50+ years of work with the Kellogg School of Management has resulted in building the #1 Marketing department in the world.
Professor Kotler is a man with great integrity and openness. He is also one of the smartest thinkers to grace the planet. He is in the Thinkers50 Hall of Fame (2013), and is featured as a “guru” in the Economist.
Who chose the award? Why is there no jury?
Professor Philip Kotler made the final decision after a committee for the World Marketing Summit came up with a list of possible candidates.
Professor Kotler explains via a letter published on his blog:
Why is Kotler’s twitter account not verified?
Because Twitter has stopped verifying accounts, and Prof. Kotler never thought to ask. I messaged Jack Dorsey to ask him if he could make an exception for Professor Kotler.
Why was there no mention of the award on the Kotler website?
Professor Kotler’s site is not updated often. When the Indian press started questioning the authenticity of the Award, Professor Kotler tweeted about it:
I congratulate PM @narendramodi for being conferred the first ever Philip Kotler Presidential Award. He has been selected for his outstanding leadership & selfless service towards India, combined with his tireless energy. (1/2)
— Philip Kotler (@kotl) January 15, 2019
Why was the Indian site for the World Marketing Summit taken down?
After an event is over, often times the microsite that’s used to describe the event and/or register participants is usually taken down. The global site for the World Marketing Summit, Kotler Impact and Kotler Awards are still running.
What could Professor Philip Kotler possibly know about India?
Professor Kotler is not just the “father of modern marketing.” He is an economist and studied with some the greatest Economics teachers on the planet. His involvement with India began in 1955, when he spent a year working on his PhD thesis in India. If the journalists bothered to read My Adventures in Marketing, they might have known that. Since then he has visited India often to teach and speak.
What could Professor Philip Kotler possibly know about democracy?
Professor Kotler has published books and written numerous articles on capitalism and democracy. See: Democracy in Decline and Confronting Capitalism.
How to Argue
Bottom line, I’m disgusted with the trash-talking that I see from the left-leaning Indian journalists and social media participants.
Too many of our disagreements fall in the bottom two layers of Paul Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement:
If someone wants to question PM Modi’s track record, they would do far better through Refutation rather than Ad Hominem and Name-Calling. Let that be a lesson for you, young Rahul, and for all who would seek to look childish: focus on the substance instead.
Professor Kotler, please excuse the mess caused by this controversy.
DISCLOSURE: I have worked and continue to work with Professor Philip Kotler on several projects, including The Marketing Journal, ActivistBrands.com, and FIXCapitalism. We’ve written a book together titled Brand Activism: From Purpose to Action (the print version is forthcoming). No one asked me or paid me (in India, as elsewhere, paid-journalism is a thing) to write this. I simply felt compelled to stand up for a learned man of great integrity.
Professor Philip Kotler – the “father of modern marketing” – and I have co-authored a book: Brand Activism: From Purpose to Action.
Brand activism is driven by a fundamental concern for the biggest and most urgent problems facing society. The main idea here is that when government fails to do its job, business has a civic responsibility to stand up for the public interest. It’s what a good citizen does.
available in the following countries
The book introduces the reader to regressive and progressive Brand Activism, and shows how the best businesses are making the world a better place because their activism is a differentiator – for customers, for employees, and for society at large. We also examine the role of the CEO.
Here’s a look at the table of contents:
The book includes the Sarkar-Kotler Brand Activism Framework, a toolkit for business leaders looking to transform their companies and institutions.
The book also includes interviews with leaders from various fields:
Finally, we’ve launched a separate website to help individuals who want to learn more – www.activistbrands.com. We hope you find it useful.