Arianna Huffington calls Zeng Jinyan, a 22-year old dissident blogger, “the online progeny of Wang Wei Lin, the protester who blocked a column of advancing tanks during the Tiananmen Uprising in 1989.”
I still think about Wei Lin – the poor man was executed 14 days after his brave stand.
I will never forget that moment. The bravery, the tragedy.
China will never be a great country, in my eyes, until Wei Lin gets a posthumous medal from the Chinese government.
Someday.
Back to Zeng Jinyan.
Her blog is in chinese, but take a look at this translation.
“House Arrested Again,” says her T-shirt. Read about her funny T-shirt incident, and pray for her life >>
John Hagel’s FAST Strategy Webinar – May 9, 2007
Over the last sixty years, the average lifetime of companies on the S&P 500 list has declined by 80%, from 75 years to 15 years.
John Hagel asks: “What if everything you learned about business strategy is WRONG?”
According to JH3, the basic principles of traditional strategy – the principles still taught at most business schools and company executive education programs – are wrong:
· WRONG: Develop a detailed strategy before moving to operational implementation
· WRONG: Focus on a one to five year time horizon to develop robust strategies.
· WRONG: Pursue a portfolio approach to business initiatives to cope with growing uncertainty.
· WRONG: Strategy is a specialized discipline that needs to be pursued by experts.
So what’s the alternative? Hagel has developed a powerful approach he calls FAST STRATEGY and it’s being used by some of the world’s most successful (and innovative) companies.
On May 9, Hagel’s doing a webinar with StrategyWorld.org titled appropriately – FAST Strategy: How to Get Results in Disruptive Markets
The webinar will provide you with a basic understanding of how to use FAST Strategy in both your business and as a personal tool to improve your career.
Check it out >>
Note: the way I see it is that Hagel normally charges $25,000 for an hour long presentation on strategy. And now you can join the conversation (live) for $1497.00 on May 9. That’s chump change, especially if your company pays for it! See you there>>
Silencing Science
Here’s a press release which made me shake my head in disbelief – again.
Federal climate, weather and marine scientists will be subject to new restrictions as to what they can say to the media or in public, according to agency documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Under rules posted last week, these federal scientists must obtain agency pre-approval to speak or write, whether on or off-duty, concerning any scientific topic deemed “of official interest.”
On March 29, 2007, the Commerce Department posted a new administrative order governing “Public Communications.” This new order covers the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which includes the National Weather Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Commerce’s new order will become effective in 45 days and would repeal a more liberal “open science” policy adopted by NOAA on February 14, 2006.
Although couched in rhetoric about the need for “broad and open dissemination of research results [and] open exchange of scientific ideas,” the new order forbids agency scientists from communicating any relevant information, even if prepared and delivered on their own time as private citizens, which has not been approved by the official chain-of-command:
* Any “fundamental research communication” must “before the communication occurs” be submitted to and approved by the designated “head of the operating unit.” While the directive states that approval may not be withheld “based on policy, budget, or management implications of the research,” it does not define these terms and limits any appeal to within Commerce;
* National Weather Service employees are allowed only “as part of their routine responsibilities to communicate information about the weather to the public”; and
* Scientists must give the Commerce Department at least two weeks “advance notice” of any written, oral or audiovisual presentation prepared on their own time if it “is a matter of official interest to the Department because it relates to Department programs, policies or operations.”
“This ridiculous gag order ignores the First Amendment and disrespects the world-renowned professionals who work within Commerce agencies,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “Under this policy, National Weather Service scientists can only give out name, rank, serial number and the temperature.”
The agency rejected a more open policy adopted last year by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The new policy also was rushed to print despite an ongoing Commerce Office of Inspector General review of communication policies that was undertaken at congressional request.
While claiming to provide clarity, the new Commerce order gives conflicting directives, on one hand telling scientists that if unsure whether a conclusion has been officially approved “then the researcher must make clear that he or she is representing his or her individual conclusion.” Yet, another part of the order states non-official communications “may not take place or be prepared during working hours.” This conflict means that every scientist who answers an unexpected question at a conference puts his or her career at risk by giving an honest answer.
Painful. What’s next for our poor scientists? Public floggings and burnings at the stake, perhaps?
You’ve gotta read it to believe it!
Japanese Whalers vs. Greenpeace
How ironic is this?
“Imagine you’re the skipper of the mother ship of a Japanese whaling fleet. A massive fire disables the ship’s engines in the frigid waters off Antarctica, and one of your crew goes missing. Who would you least like to hear from right now? That’s right — Greenpeace.”
Read all about it>>
So why are these Greenpeacers so upset at the Japanese? The answer may be here >> [Warning: this is not kid friendly stuff!]
In my eyes, this whaling junk is going to hurt all of Brand Japan. Sort of like our misadventure in Iraq has hurt Brand USA…
Surely Japan can do better.
Marshall Goldsmith’s New Book Rises to #1
Every now and then you see someone who does well in the public eye and actually deserves it. I can’t think of a better example than Marshall Goldsmith and his latest book: What Got You Here Won’t Get You There: How Successful People Become Even More Successful.
The book is now the #1 best selling business book in the United States, as ranked by both the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. It also reached that coveted #1 spot in Amazon.com.
Way to go Marshall! For those of you who missed my quick take why you should read this book, go here>>
I’ll be doing a book review shortly.
Say Goodbye to Yellowstone!
How come this never gets any press?
Leadership Styles: Warren Buffet vs. Bob Nardelli
US News on Warren Buffet’s style of open communications:
“Every March, more than 20,000 people trek to Omaha for Berkshire Hathaway’s annual meeting. At “Woodstock for Capitalists,” as it is known, Buffett and longtime partner Charlie Munger answer questions for more than four hours. What a contrast to companies like Home Depot, which cut off their meetings in less than 30 minutes, refusing to let shareholders ask any questions.”
Now you know why.
Is this the end of Home Depot?
Read about the US leadership crisis at StrategyWorld.org (my newest site) >>
Snorkeling in a Red Ocean: Yahoo’s ‘Peanut Butter Manifesto’
Read John Hagel’s post “Internet Strategy – Red Ocean or Blue Ocean?” then take a look at this >>
[From the WSJ]
An internal document by Brad Garlinghouse, a Yahoo senior vice president, says Yahoo is spreading its resources too thinly, like peanut butter on a slice of bread. Full text of the document is below.
Three and half years ago, I enthusiastically joined Yahoo! The magnitude of the opportunity was only matched by the magnitude of the assets. And an amazing team has been responsible for rebuilding Yahoo!
It has been a profound experience. I am fortunate to have been a part of dramatic change for the Company. And our successes speak for themselves. More users than ever, more engaging than ever and more profitable than ever!
I proudly bleed purple and yellow everyday! And like so many people here, I love this company
But all is not well. Last Thursday’s NY Times article was a blessing in the disguise of a painful public flogging. While it lacked accurate details, its conclusions rang true, and thus was a much needed wake up call. But also a call to action. A clear statement with which I, and far too many Yahoo’s, agreed. And thankfully a reminder. A reminder that the measure of any person is not in how many times he or she falls down – but rather the spirit and resolve used to get back up. The same is now true of our Company.
It’s time for us to get back up.
I believe we must embrace our problems and challenges and that we must take decisive action. We have the opportunity – in fact the invitation – to send a strong, clear and powerful message to our shareholders and Wall Street, to our advertisers and our partners, to our employees (both current and future), and to our users. They are all begging for a signal that we recognize and understand our problems, and that we are charting a course for fundamental change. Our current course and speed simply will not get us there. Short-term band-aids will not get us there.
It’s time for us to get back up and seize this invitation.
I imagine there’s much discussion amongst the Company’s senior most leadership around the challenges we face. At the risk of being redundant, I wanted to share my take on our current situation and offer a recommended path forward, an attempt to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
Recognizing Our Problems
We lack a focused, cohesive vision for our company. We want to do everything and be everything — to everyone. We’ve known this for years, talk about it incessantly, but do nothing to fundamentally address it. We are scared to be left out. We are reactive instead of charting an unwavering course. We are separated into silos that far too frequently don’t talk to each other. And when we do talk, it isn’t to collaborate on a clearly focused strategy, but rather to argue and fight about ownership, strategies and tactics.
Our inclination and proclivity to repeatedly hire leaders from outside the company results in disparate visions of what winning looks like — rather than a leadership team rallying around a single cohesive strategy.
I’ve heard our strategy described as spreading peanut butter across the myriad opportunities that continue to evolve in the online world. The result: a thin layer of investment spread across everything we do and thus we focus on nothing in particular.
I hate peanut butter. We all should.
We lack clarity of ownership and accountability. The most painful manifestation of this is the massive redundancy that exists throughout the organization. We now operate in an organizational structure — admittedly created with the best of intentions — that has become overly bureaucratic. For far too many employees, there is another person with dramatically similar and overlapping responsibilities. This slows us down and burdens the company with unnecessary costs.
Equally problematic, at what point in the organization does someone really OWN the success of their product or service or feature? Product, marketing, engineering, corporate strategy, financial operations… there are so many people in charge (or believe that they are in charge) that it’s not clear if anyone is in charge. This forces decisions to be pushed up – rather than down. It forces decisions by committee or consensus and discourages the innovators from breaking the mold… thinking outside the box.
There’s a reason why a centerfielder and a left fielder have clear areas of ownership. Pursuing the same ball repeatedly results in either collisions or dropped balls. Knowing that someone else is pursuing the ball and hoping to avoid that collision – we have become timid in our pursuit. Again, the ball drops.
We lack decisiveness. Combine a lack of focus with unclear ownership, and the result is that decisions are either not made or are made when it is already too late. Without a clear and focused vision, and without complete clarity of ownership, we lack a macro perspective to guide our decisions and visibility into who should make those decisions. We are repeatedly stymied by challenging and hairy decisions. We are held hostage by our analysis paralysis.
We end up with competing (or redundant) initiatives and synergistic opportunities living in the different silos of our company.
• YME vs. Musicmatch
• Flickr vs. Photos
• YMG video vs. Search video
• Deli.cio.us vs. myweb
• Messenger and plug-ins vs. Sidebar and widgets
• Social media vs. 360 and Groups
• Front page vs. YMG
• Global strategy from BU’vs. Global strategy from Int’l
We have lost our passion to win. Far too many employees are “phoning” it in, lacking the passion and commitment to be a part of the solution. We sit idly by while — at all levels — employees are enabled to “hang around”. Where is the accountability? Moreover, our compensation systems don’t align to our overall success. Weak performers that have been around for years are rewarded. And many of our top performers aren’t adequately recognized for their efforts.
As a result, the employees that we really need to stay (leaders, risk-takers, innovators, passionate) become discouraged and leave. Unfortunately many who opt to stay are not the ones who will lead us through the dramatic change that is needed.
Solving our Problems
We have awesome assets. Nearly every media and communications company is painfully jealous of our position. We have the largest audience, they are highly engaged and our brand is synonymous with the Internet.
If we get back up, embrace dramatic change, we will win.
I don’t pretend there is only one path forward available to us. However, at a minimum, I want to be part of the solution and thus have outlined a plan here that I believe can work. It is my strong belief that we need to act very quickly or risk going further down a slippery slope, The plan here is not perfect; it is, however, FAR better than no action at all.
There are three pillars to my plan:
1. Focus the vision.
2. Restore accountability and clarity of ownership.
3. Execute a radical reorganization.
1. Focus the vision
a) We need to boldly and definitively declare what we are and what we are not.
b) We need to exit (sell?) non core businesses and eliminate duplicative projects and businesses.
My belief is that the smoothly spread peanut butter needs to turn into a deliberately sculpted strategy — that is narrowly focused.
We can’t simply ask each BU to figure out what they should stop doing. The result will continue to be a non-cohesive strategy. The direction needs to come decisively from the top. We need to place our bets and not second guess. If we believe Media will maximize our ROI — then let’s not be bashful about reducing our investment in other areas. We need to make the tough decisions, articulate them and stick with them — acknowledging that some people (users / partners / employees) will not like it. Change is hard.
2. Restore accountability and clarity of ownership
a) Existing business owners must be held accountable for where we find ourselves today — heads must roll,
b) We must thoughtfully create senior roles that have holistic accountability for a particular line of business (a variant of a GM structure that will work with Yahoo!’s new focus)
c) We must redesign our performance and incentive systems.
I believe there are too many BU leaders who have gotten away with unacceptable results and worse — unacceptable leadership. Too often they (we!) are the worst offenders of the problems outlined here. We must signal to both the employees and to our shareholders that we will hold these leaders (ourselves) accountable and implement change.
By building around a strong and unequivocal GM structure, we will not only empower those leaders, we will eliminate significant overhead throughout our multi-headed matrix. It must be very clear to everyone in the organization who is empowered to make a decision and ownership must be transparent. With that empowerment comes increased accountability — leaders make decisions, the rest of the company supports those decisions, and the leaders ultimately live/die by the results of those decisions.
My view is that far too often our compensation and rewards are just spreading more peanut butter. We need to be much more aggressive about performance based compensation. This will only help accelerate our ability to weed out our lowest performers and better reward our hungry, motivated and productive employees.
3. Execute a radical reorganization
a) The current business unit structure must go away.
b) We must dramatically decentralize and eliminate as much of the matrix as possible.
c) We must reduce our headcount by 15-20%.
I emphatically believe we simply must eliminate the redundancies we have created and the first step in doing this is by restructuring our organization. We can be more efficient with fewer people and we can get more done, more quickly. We need to return more decision making to a new set of business units and their leadership. But we can’t achieve this with baby step changes, We need to fundamentally rethink how we organize to win.
Independent of specific proposals of what this reorganization should look like, two key principles must be represented:
Blow up the matrix. Empower a new generation and model of General Managers to be true general managers. Product, marketing, user experience & design, engineering, business development & operations all report into a small number of focused General Managers. Leave no doubt as to where accountability lies.
Kill the redundancies. Align a set of new BU’s so that they are not competing against each other. Search focuses on search. Social media aligns with community and communications. No competing owners for Video, Photos, etc. And Front Page becomes Switzerland. This will be a delicate exercise — decentralization can create inefficiencies, but I believe we can find the right balance.
I love Yahoo! I’m proud to admit that I bleed purple and yellow. I’m proud to admit that I shaved a Y in the back of my head.
My motivation for this memo is the adamant belief that, as before, we have a tremendous opportunity ahead. I don’t pretend that I have the only available answers, but we need to get the discussion going; change is needed and it is needed soon. We can be a stronger and faster company – a company with a clearer vision and clearer ownership and clearer accountability.
We may have fallen down, but the race is a marathon and not a sprint. I don’t pretend that this will be easy. It will take courage, conviction, insight and tremendous commitment. I very much look forward to the challenge.
So let’s get back up.
Catch the balls.
And stop eating peanut butter.
Truth, Fear and Consequences
Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.
I think it was Einstein who said that, but I could be wrong. Doesn’t matter, it sounds good.
These days we live in a culture of fear: fear in classroom, in the boardroom, at work, in society, sometimes even at home. But what are we afraid of?
Here’s a list of fears:
– fear of failure
– fear of criticism
– fear of ridicule
– fear of sickness
– fear of loss
– fear of old age
– fear of death
The list just goes on. You name it, and our minds can find a way to fear it.
Bottom line, we are afraid of the truth.
Why? Because it destroys the story we have created for ourselves. It shakes up the cocoon of complacency we spin around ourselves.
That’s what I like about one of my clients – Byron Katie. She is fearless. Nothing that happens in the world seems to daunt her. So how do you live without fear? Where would you be without your fear, as KT might say?
If you weren’t afraid, what would you do? What actions would you take? Well, go ahead and do it. Accept the consequences. Life is too short to be scared.
Recently I got in trouble with a client when I told them I didn’t like something they were patting themselves on the back about. I knew that my criticism could end my relationship with the client. And yet I did it anyway. Why? Because in the long run, the truth now is better than truth later. Better to hurt a few feelings now than to let the marketplace hurt the client later. And if the client doesn’t understand, that’s fine too. I accept the consequences.
Wasn’t it Blake who said: “opposition is true friendship”? Maybe that’s going too far.
Carr: Top-Down Disruptive Innovation
Our friend Nicholas “IT Doesn’t Matter” Carr has written a wonderful essay on top-down innovation – the anti-thesis to Clayton Christensen’s Innovator’s Dilemma.
Carr tells us that top-down disruptive innovations actually outperform existing products when they’re introduced, and they sell for a premium price rather than at a discount.
Exhibit A: Apple’s iPod. Writes Carr: “The iPod upped the performance stakes immensely. By using a tiny hard drive to store music, it allowed people to carry hundreds, even thousands, of songs with them at all times. Its price, starting at $399, was equally eye-opening — the price of a mid-range component stereo system.”
Good point.
The article definitely make you think that there is some benefit (profit) to providing high-end products. So why are so few companies doing it?
Because to compete on quality is much more difficult than competing on cost. For one, it takes imagination. And even more important, it takes execution. And that takes good leadership. Would Apple be succeeding without Jobs? Look what happened to Apple when they had that guy from Pepsi running it. Almost destoyed the company.
So it’s not that easy. But top-down innovation can be done. The question is: can it be sustained?
REWIND: Remember The Cluetrain?
Some of my clients (both B2B and B2C) need to go back in time and read The Cluetrain Manifesto.
Here are the classic “95 Theses” (try substituting the word “market” with “customers” or “friends”):
95 Theses
————————————————-
1. Markets are conversations.
2. Markets consist of human beings, not demographic sectors.
3. Conversations among human beings sound human. They are conducted in a human voice.
4. Whether delivering information, opinions, perspectives, dissenting arguments or humorous asides, the human voice is typically open, natural, uncontrived.
5. People recognize each other as such from the sound of this voice.
6. The Internet is enabling conversations among human beings that were simply not possible in the era of mass media.
7. Hyperlinks subvert hierarchy.
8. In both internetworked markets and among intranetworked employees, people are speaking to each other in a powerful new way.
9. These networked conversations are enabling powerful new forms of social organization and knowledge exchange to emerge.
10. As a result, markets are getting smarter, more informed, more organized. Participation in a networked market changes people fundamentally.
11. People in networked markets have figured out that they get far better information and support from one another than from vendors. So much for corporate rhetoric about adding value to commoditized products.
12. There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone.
13. What’s happening to markets is also happening among employees. A metaphysical construct called “The Company” is the only thing standing between the two.
14. Corporations do not speak in the same voice as these new networked conversations. To their intended online audiences, companies sound hollow, flat, literally inhuman. ‘
15. In just a few more years, the current homogenized “voice” of business—the sound of mission statements and brochures—will seem as contrived and artificial as the language of the 18th century French court.
16. Already, companies that speak in the language of the pitch, the dog-and-pony show, are no longer speaking to anyone.
17. Companies that assume online markets are the same markets that used to watch their ads on television are kidding themselves.
18. Companies that don’t realize their markets are now networked person-to-person, getting smarter as a result and deeply joined in conversation are missing their best opportunity.
19. Companies can now communicate with their markets directly. If they blow it, it could be their last chance.
20. Companies need to realize their markets are often laughing. At them.
21. Companies need to lighten up and take themselves less seriously. They need to get a sense of humor.
22. Getting a sense of humor does not mean putting some jokes on the corporate web site. Rather, it requires big values, a little humility, straight talk, and a genuine point of view.
23. Companies attempting to “position” themselves need to take a position. Optimally, it should relate to something their market actually cares about.
24. Bombastic boasts—”We are positioned to become the preeminent provider of XYZ”—do not constitute a position.
25. Companies need to come down from their Ivory Towers and talk to the people with whom they hope to create relationships.
26. Public Relations does not relate to the public. Companies are deeply afraid of their markets.
27. By speaking in language that is distant, uninviting, arrogant, they build walls to keep markets at bay.
28. Most marketing programs are based on the fear that the market might see what’s really going on inside the company.
29. Elvis said it best: “We can’t go on together with suspicious minds.”
30. Brand loyalty is the corporate version of going steady, but the breakup is inevitable—and coming fast. Because they are networked, smart markets are able to renegotiate relationships with blinding speed.
31. Networked markets can change suppliers overnight. Networked knowledge workers can change employers over lunch. Your own “downsizing initiatives” taught us to ask the question: “Loyalty? What’s that?”
32. Smart markets will find suppliers who speak their own language.
33. Learning to speak with a human voice is not a parlor trick. It can’t be “picked up” at some tony conference.
34. To speak with a human voice, companies must share the concerns of their communities.
35. But first, they must belong to a community.
36. Companies must ask themselves where their corporate cultures end.
37. If their cultures end before the community begins, they will have no market.
38. Human communities are based on discourse—on human speech about human concerns.
39. The community of discourse is the market.
40. Companies that do not belong to a community of discourse will die.
41. Companies make a religion of security, but this is largely a red herring. Most are protecting less against competitors than against their own market and workforce.
42. As with networked markets, people are also talking to each other directly inside the company—and not just about rules and regulations, boardroom directives, bottom lines.
43. Such conversations are taking place today on corporate intranets. But only when the conditions are right.
44. Companies typically install intranets top-down to distribute HR policies and other corporate information that workers are doing their best to ignore.
45. Intranets naturally tend to route around boredom. The best are built bottom-up by engaged individuals cooperating to construct something far more valuable: an intranetworked corporate conversation.
46. A healthy intranet organizes workers in many meanings of the word. Its effect is more radical than the agenda of any union.
47. While this scares companies witless, they also depend heavily on open intranets to generate and share critical knowledge. They need to resist the urge to “improve” or control these networked conversations.
48. When corporate intranets are not constrained by fear and legalistic rules, the type of conversation they encourage sounds remarkably like the conversation of the networked marketplace.
49. Org charts worked in an older economy where plans could be fully understood from atop steep management pyramids and detailed work orders could be handed down from on high.
50. Today, the org chart is hyperlinked, not hierarchical. Respect for hands-on knowledge wins over respect for abstract authority.
51. Command-and-control management styles both derive from and reinforce bureaucracy, power tripping and an overall culture of paranoia.
52. Paranoia kills conversation. That’s its point. But lack of open conversation kills companies.
53. There are two conversations going on. One inside the company. One with the market.
54. In most cases, neither conversation is going very well. Almost invariably, the cause of failure can be traced to obsolete notions of command and control.
55. As policy, these notions are poisonous. As tools, they are broken. Command and control are met with hostility by intranetworked knowledge workers and generate distrust in internetworked markets.
56. These two conversations want to talk to each other. They are speaking the same language. They recognize each other’s voices.
57. Smart companies will get out of the way and help the inevitable to happen sooner.
58. If willingness to get out of the way is taken as a measure of IQ, then very few companies have yet wised up.
59. However subliminally at the moment, millions of people now online perceive companies as little more than quaint legal fictions that are actively preventing these conversations from intersecting.
60. This is suicidal. Markets want to talk to companies.
61. Sadly, the part of the company a networked market wants to talk to is usually hidden behind a smokescreen of hucksterism, of language that rings false—and often is.
62. Markets do not want to talk to flacks and hucksters. They want to participate in the conversations going on behind the corporate firewall.
63. De-cloaking, getting personal: We are those markets. We want to talk to you.
64. We want access to your corporate information, to your plans and strategies, your best thinking, your genuine knowledge. We will not settle for the 4-color brochure, for web sites chock-a-block with eye candy but lacking any substance.
65. We’re also the workers who make your companies go. We want to talk to customers directly in our own voices, not in platitudes written into a script.
66. As markets, as workers, both of us are sick to death of getting our information by remote control. Why do we need faceless annual reports and third-hand market research studies to introduce us to each other?
67. As markets, as workers, we wonder why you’re not listening. You seem to be speaking a different language.
68. The inflated self-important jargon you sling around—in the press, at your conferences—what’s that got to do with us?
69. Maybe you’re impressing your investors. Maybe you’re impressing Wall Street. You’re not impressing us.
70. If you don’t impress us, your investors are going to take a bath. Don’t they understand this? If they did, they wouldn’t let you talk that way.
71. Your tired notions of “the market” make our eyes glaze over. We don’t recognize ourselves in your projections—perhaps because we know we’re already elsewhere.
72. We like this new marketplace much better. In fact, we are creating it.
73. You’re invited, but it’s our world. Take your shoes off at the door. If you want to barter with us, get down off that camel!
74. We are immune to advertising. Just forget it.
75. If you want us to talk to you, tell us something. Make it something interesting for a change.
76. We’ve got some ideas for you too: some new tools we need, some better service. Stuff we’d be willing to pay for. Got a minute?
77. You’re too busy “doing business” to answer our email? Oh gosh, sorry, gee, we’ll come back later. Maybe.
78. You want us to pay? We want you to pay attention.
79. We want you to drop your trip, come out of your neurotic self-involvement, join the party.
80. Don’t worry, you can still make money. That is, as long as it’s not the only thing on your mind.
81. Have you noticed that, in itself, money is kind of one-dimensional and boring? What else can we talk about?
82. Your product broke. Why? We’d like to ask the guy who made it. Your corporate strategy makes no sense. We’d like to have a chat with your CEO. What do you mean she’s not in?
83. We want you to take 50 million of us as seriously as you take one reporter from The Wall Street Journal.
84. We know some people from your company. They’re pretty cool online. Do you have any more like that you’re hiding? Can they come out and play?
85. When we have questions we turn to each other for answers. If you didn’t have such a tight rein on “your people” maybe they’d be among the people we’d turn to.
86. When we’re not busy being your “target market,” many of us are your people. We’d rather be talking to friends online than watching the clock. That would get your name around better than your entire million dollar web site. But you tell us speaking to the market is Marketing’s job.
87. We’d like it if you got what’s going on here. That’d be real nice. But it would be a big mistake to think we’re holding our breath.
88. We have better things to do than worry about whether you’ll change in time to get our business. Business is only a part of our lives. It seems to be all of yours. Think about it: who needs whom?
89. We have real power and we know it. If you don’t quite see the light, some other outfit will come along that’s more attentive, more interesting, more fun to play with.
90. Even at its worst, our newfound conversation is more interesting than most trade shows, more entertaining than any TV sitcom, and certainly more true-to-life than the corporate web sites we’ve been seeing.
91. Our allegiance is to ourselves—our friends, our new allies and acquaintances, even our sparring partners. Companies that have no part in this world, also have no future.
92. Companies are spending billions of dollars on Y2K. Why can’t they hear this market timebomb ticking? The stakes are even higher.
93. We’re both inside companies and outside them. The boundaries that separate our conversations look like the Berlin Wall today, but they’re really just an annoyance. We know they’re coming down. We’re going to work from both sides to take them down.
94. To traditional corporations, networked conversations may appear confused, may sound confusing. But we are organizing faster than they are. We have better tools, more new ideas, no rules to slow us down.
95. We are waking up and linking to each other. We are watching. But we are not waiting.
Special thanks to Levine, Locke, Searls & Weinberger. And John Hagel before them.
The Marketing Survey Rebellion
So many U.S. residents refuse to participate in marketing-research surveys that it has become increasingly difficult to get reasonably reliable consumer data — a problem of potentially catastropic implications for the big marketers who spend tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars for such research each year. “This is a problem of stunning scope,” explains reporter Jack Neff of Advertising Age.
Great news for Double Loop Marketing™ marketers like me. Why? Because marketers can test their new ideas, products, and services on a double loop site in a far more efficient and effective way than traditional surveys.
Listen to the audio interview here >>
I disagree with their take on online surveys – because they’re doing the same old junk.
What needs to happen is this: market researchers need to get off their cushions and start observing people in the marketplace and marketspace. Digital anthropology: the observation of online behavior. That’s it.
The market research community needs to get into Web 2.0, period.
Michael Porter’s Business Competitiveness Index: US #1
The United States and Germany remain atop the latest Business Competitiveness Index, with China continuing to slip in the rankings while India ascends, according to a report released from Michael Porter’s Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness.
The U.S., ranked number one in four of the last six years, scored high on business environment, financial markets, and innovative capacity. Germany, number two, benefited from its orientation on exports, the unique competitive positions of its companies, and the quality of its legal and regulatory framework.
Rounding out the Top 10 were Finland, Switzerland, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom, Japan, and Hong Kong SAR. Hong Kong increased its ranking by seven, in part by strengthening management education, the efficacy of government boards, and local availability of process machinery, the ISC reported.
Other high-income nations increasing their ranking included Qatar, Norway, and Malta. Advanced economies on the decline included Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Taiwan, and France.
China, which has retreated in the rankings since 2002, fell nine spots to 64, according to the ISC. “This year’s decline was driven especially by higher levels of corruption, weaker assessment of buyer sophistication, and concerns about labor relations,” the study found. Also contributing were weak property rights, poor board governance, and low quality of management education. “Overall it is clear that euphoria about China is moderating as the realities of its competitiveness become more apparent,” the report concludes.
India moved up four rankings to 27, aided by improvements in its business environment and increasing levels of company sophistication.
Hmmmm. Porter’s Index should be put next to a Global Standard of Living Index. Then we can learn which countries are the best for both employees and employers. But that might be too much to ask from Harvard. Maybe Yale could do that…
Ethanol versus Exxon: Wake Up!
Biofuels: Think Outside The Barrel
Vinod Khosla is a venture capitalist considered one of the most successful and influential personalities in Silicon Valley. He was one of the co-founders of Sun Microsystems and became a general partner of the venture capital firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers in 1986. In 2004 he formed Khosla Ventures.
Listen to his presentation to the nerds at Google, and you start getting mad at our politicians and oil-businesses.
Why can’t we do this? Because Exxon doesn’t want to. Listen, even the CIA wants to do this. I don’t often agree with those guys, but the facts are simple. Watch the video and call your congresswoman.
In Brazil, VW is debating whether they even need to manufacture “gas-only” cars anymore. Wake up, America. We can create some real wealth in the Mid-West instead of funding the Saudis.
“Gandhi Got a Shock and Took a Vacation”
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi [मोहनदास करमचन्द गान्धी] :
“Whenever I despair, I remember that the way of truth and love has always won. There may be tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they may seem invincible, but in the end, they always fail. Think of it: always.”
“I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.”
“Poverty is the worst form of violence.”
“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?”
“Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.”
“It is easy enough to be friendly to one’s friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. The other is mere business.”
“The only tyrant I accept in this world is the still voice within.”
“The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others.”
“Fear is not a disease of the body; fear kills the soul.”
“They cannot take away our self-respect if we do not give it to them.”
“It is unwise to be too sure of one’s own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err.”
“No culture can live, if it attempts to be exclusive.”
“Satisfaction lies in the effort, not in the attainment, full effort is full victory.”
“The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
“The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.”
“You must be the change you wish to see in the world.”
“Whenever you are confronted with an opponent, conquer him with love.”
“Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever.”
“You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.”
“An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.”
“I am a Muslim and a Hindu and a Christian and a Jew and so are all of you.”
“The function of a civil resistance is to provoke response and we will continue to provoke until they respond or change the law. They are not in control; we are.”
“If you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.”
“He Ram!”
It was Gandhiji’s birthday this week. I kept hearing the words of this song by Big Audio Dynamite:
I’m afraid all the profound stuff about Gandhi escapes me. Except that he knew his PR and his politics, and he had real guts.
Who is today’s Gandhi? A non-violent, all-inclusive, social activist who can move millions… Nobody on the radar… The closest we have is Nelson Mandela.
Karamchand. What’s that about?
Learn more about this crazy fellow >>
USA Today: IDEO, The Deans of Design
IDEO is all about experiential approaches. Its designers try to see and sense the world by getting inside the heads of their fellow human consumers. The firm-a dream come true for the concerned parents of liberal arts majors everywhere-employs anthropologists, cognitive psychologists, and sociologists, among other right-brain thinkers, to create, improve, or reimagine all manner of products, services, work spaces, and business systems. “It’s a very human-centered process,” says Tom Kelley, the firm’s general manager and brother of founder David Kelley. “Others approach a problem from the point of view that says, ‘We have the smartest people in the world; therefore, we can think this through.’ We approach it from the point of view that the answer is out there, hidden in plain sight, so let’s go observe human behavior and see where the opportunities are.” – from this article in USA Today
What a novel idea.
How come no one in the auto industry gets this?
ExxonMobil: the Most Irresponsible Company on Earth?
– ExxonMobil is the world’s biggest publicly listed corporation – and one of the biggest polluters. A Friends of the Earth study found it responsible for 5% of all man-made carbon dioxide emitted over the past 120 years.
– In 2001 the White House thanked it for its ‘active involvement’ in crafting US global warming policy, describing it as ‘among the companies most actively … opposed to binding approaches to cut greenhouse gas emissions’.
– In 2005 a record 28.3% of its shareholders voted to recommend that ExxonMobil review how it will meet greenhouse gas reduction targets in countries participating in the Kyoto Protocol. Exxon’s board ignored the vote.
– When asked about global warming by the Wall Street Journal in March, outgoing ExxonMobil chief executive Rex Tillerson replied: ‘At a minimum, there’s an enormous amount of uncertainty around this whole question.’
This is brand suicide.
What is with these people? For a contrast between BP and Exxon, see here >>
How Software Platforms Revolutionize Business
From HBSWK –
“You can’t see them, but we’ve all used “software platforms” over the last few decades, whether they are embedded in the Windows operating system, a cell phone, or game machine. In a new book, the authors term software platforms “invisible engines that have created, touched, or transformed nearly every major industry for the past quarter century.”
“Think of software platforms as ring leaders of ecosystems in which a few or many companies can participate to reach users. These core products, like Windows, for example, offer software services that can be used as the basis for independent developers to build new features. The cell phone has become a lucrative platform for more than handset makers—also in on the party are makers of digital cameras, music services, and organizer software.
“Not only are existing industries being transformed and sometimes toppled by software platforms, but new industries are also springing up around them; witness the multibillion-dollar ringtone business.”
Yup. Read the article here >>
It’s all about building digital business platforms…
The New Yale MBA: Value and Values?
Hey! Have they been reading Doug Smith?
The new MBA curriculum at Yale takes a major step (on paper at least) in the right direction…
Now will this become a trend or an anomaly?
Von Hippel: Democratizing Innovation
I meant to do this quite some time ago, but it slipped my mind (like most things). So here it is: a free download of Democratizing Innovation by MIT’s Eric Von Hippel.
The table of contents:
1 Introduction and Overview
2 Development of Products by Lead Users
3 Why Many Users Want Custom Products
4 Users’ Innovate-or-Buy Decisions
5 Users’ Low-Cost Innovation Niches
6 Why Users Often Freely Reveal Their Innovations
7 Innovation Communities
8 Adapting Policy to User Innovation
9 Democratizing Innovation
10 Application: Searching for Lead User Innovations
11 Application: Toolkits for User Innovation and Custom Design
12 Linking User Innovation to Other Phenomena and Fields
Here’s why I keep going back to this book:
“Firms can make a profitable business from identifying and mass producing user-developed innovations or developing and building new products based on ideas drawn from such innovations. They can gain advantages over competitors by learning to do this better than other manufacturers. They may, for example, learn to identify commercially promising user innovations more effectively that other firms. Firms using lead user search techniques … are beginning to do this systematically rather than accidentally—surely an improvement. Effectively transferring user-developed innovations to mass manufacture is seldom as simple as producing a product based on a design by a single lead user. Often, a manufacturer combines features developed by several independent lead users to create an attractive commercial offering. This is a skill that a company can learn better than others in order to gain a competitive advantage.”
The CMO’s Challenge: Profiting from Proliferation
How We Eat – an example of the new segmentation the nerds at McKinsey would have you think about. Very interestink!

And here’s how the profits stack up by the segments:

Lots more interesting stuff from their e-book.
Video: “What’s Going On?”
Now is a good time to ask yourself this question…
John Hagel on Mastering New Marketing Practices
Just read it.
JH3 sure makes you think, doesn’t he?
Manasco on “The Wisdom of Communities”
My friend Britton Manasco blogs about the “Wisdom of Communities” here.
His point is “the future is increasingly about the wisdom of crowds — or, at least, communities.”
So people, says Britton, especially in the B2B world, tend to trust their peers and not the experts.
Britton’s right to some extent. But what he forgets is that a community is a group of individuals, some more passionate than others, focused around a practice or interest. The leaders of the community are viewed as experts (perhaps not in the academic sense), but certainly in the role of the teacher helping the novices get up to speed.
These “experts” rise to the top naturally. And unlike senior management in most American companies, they rise to the top by virtue of merit – the knowledge they share with their fellow community members. The wisdom of communities is thus not the wisdom of crowds, but the wisdom of the expert-practitioner. Often they’re amateurs. Which makes them even more believable, because they’re in it for the love of the game, not necessarily for the money like the “professionals.”
Ask yourself: How can we get customers to collaborate with our company/companies to co-create products and services that benefit everyone involved?
To me, that’s the real power of communities, aside from double loop marketing.
The Self-Managing Employee
This innovative approach to team or group management comes to us from Taco Bell.
Yes, that Taco Bell.
Read all about it in HBSWK.
In my opinion, it is white-collar, Harvard-educated management types that won’t be able to adapt to this. Proof point – how many self managed teams are there at IBM Global Services or McKinsey, for that matter?
The Education Gap
“…turns out that families with incomes of at least $92,000 get more tax breaks for college than families making less than a third of that. Tax breaks simply don’t help the poor the way they do the rich. They often don’t make enough to qualify. And studies show that financial aid for college goes increasingly to wealthier students.
“That doesn’t bother institutions of higher learning. In fact, they’re skewing their dollars towards helping affluent children on purpose. They want to show that they’ve bet on horses that win instead of helping people equally at the starting gate. This way, the gap between the educated haves and have-nots keeps growing.”
Ouch. That’s Beth Shulman, author of “The Betrayal of Work.” Listen to her commentary here >>
The Culture of Entrepreneurship
Will the boys (and girls) from Bangalore eat their lunch? Is today’s Silicon Valley too complacent?
Immelt on Leadership
Emory’s Kelly Bean tells us about Jeffrey Immelt’s 5 traits of GE’s growth leaders:
1. External focus
2. Imagination and creativity
3. Clear thinking and decisiveness
4. Inclusiveness
5. Deep domain expertise
It’s all about creating leaders for tomorrow, not today.
Seems like Immelt is not quite optimistic about the US these days. Here’s what he told Fareed Zakaria
“More people will graduate in the United States in 2006 with sports-exercise degrees than electrical-engineering degrees… So, if we want to be the massage capital of the world, we’re well on our way.”
Ouch. Please read Zakaria’s How Long Will America Lead the World?.
Here’s a quick byte:
There are some who see the decline of science and technology as part of a larger cultural decay. A country that once adhered to a Puritan ethic of delayed gratification has become one that revels in instant pleasures. We’re losing interest in the basics—math, manufacturing, hard work, savings—and becoming a postindustrial society that specializes in consumption and leisure.
Ignoring the Death of our Planet
These are sad days. The president, the business community, and the religious establishment have all turn their backs on Life on Earth.
Now Al Gore wants to save the world, with a powerpoint slideshow (and a movie).
At least he’s doing something.
The oil lobby has already come out with anti-Gore attack ads defending Carbon Dioxide (and their profits). Yay!
America, when did we lose the ability to think? At what point did we decide that the future doesn’t matter any more?
What Would Jesus Do to Save the Planet? Play bingo? Drive an SUV? Hint: He kicked the money lenders out of the temple…
Mark Hollander: Life is not a Meritocracy
Mark Hollander reminds us that life is not a meritocracy.
According to Hollander, your success depends upon a combination of:
– Who you know
– How good you are at what you do
– How many people know that you’re that good
– Luck
I tend to agree with Mark, but there’s a huge difference across countries.
In the US, we’re talking about success. In other countries, we could be talking about survival.
Countries in which cultural and religious traditions dominate are even less likely to be meritocracies. My prime example is India. You can’t make it in India without “connections.” I know people who have left India to achieve success and then went back and set up successful businesses. Had they not left India for the meritocracies of the West, they would not have succeeded.
The question I have is where do meritocracies flourish? What are the conditions necessary for a meritocracy to take hold in business? in public office?
It all hinges on performance. If performance becomes the key driver of sucess, like it does in sports, for example, then meritocracy should be the rule. And to a large extent it is.
But even in sports, success is not assured. A superstar performer has to learn how to play with his teammates, even the ones who are jealous and want him to fail.
What astounds me is that we are so petty. Across the globe, pettiness trumps sound decision-making almost every time. From politics to sports, it is our social ability or “people skills” which makes all the difference. And these skills can be taught. As a society, we’ve got to be careful about what we’re teaching our kids.
Kissing-up is one of those surprisingly important skills they don’t teach you at Harvard Business School.
Thank goodness I work for myself. I failed “Butt-Kissing 101″…
Creation Nets: A Global View from JH3+JSB
On his blog, John Hagel III talks about the emergence and growth of creation nets.
Question: What is a creation net?
Answer: forms of open innovation that involve sustained relationships across large numbers of participants collaborating together to create new knowledge across traditional institutional boundaries.
Read the working paper – Creation Nets: Harnessing the Potential of Open Innovation>>
The Meaning-Driven Business
Does your business have meaning? A purpose beyond the purpose of making money?
See Guy Kawasaki’s “Art of the Start” clip below (hat-tip to Dominic Basulto from businessinnovationinsider.com)
Funny thing – we must find a way to do what we love, or we are wasting our lives:
Dr. K. Anders Ericsson’s research on performance suggests that when it comes to choosing a life path, you should do what you love — because if you don’t love it, you are unlikely to work hard enough to get very good. Most people naturally don’t like to do things they aren’t “good” at. So they often give up, telling themselves they simply don’t possess the talent for math or skiing or the violin. But what they really lack is the desire to be good and to undertake the deliberate practice that would make them better…
– from the NYTimes article by the Freakonomics nerds – read the article at soccer blog >>
Hypocrites
Now we have the President of Iran lecturing Bush on morality… in the language of the 12th century.
Oh, great – the neo-cons have dragged America (and the world) into the New Dark Ages.
How far have we fallen? Condi Rice shows her diplomatic skills are still far below world class.
Should we be surprised by our incompetence? At the wolf at our door?
Here’s a song to cheer us up:
Meanwhile, the family values we are so caught up with in the US don’t translate to action. The US ranks 32nd out of 33 industrialized countries when it comes to newborn mortality. Is this the “culture of life” our “religious” leaders talk about?
Here’s the list of newborn deaths per 1,000 live births in the top 33 industrialised countries. They are grouped from A to F. Each group is listed alphabetically.
A – Japan 1.8/1000
B – Czech Rep 2/1000
B – Finland 2/1000
B – Iceland 2/1000
B – Norway 2/1000
C – Austria 3/1000
C – France 3/1000
C – Germany 3/1000
C – Israel 3/1000
C – Italy 3/1000
C – Luxembourg 3/1000
C – Portugal 3/1000
C – Slovenia 3/1000
C – Spain 3/1000
D – Australia 4/1000
D – Belgium 4/1000
D – Canada 4/1000
D – Denmark 4/1000
D – Estonia 4/1000
D – Greece 4/1000
D – Ireland 4/1000
D – Lithuania 4/1000
D – Netherlands 4/1000
D – New Zealand 4/1000
D – Switzerland 4/1000
D – United Kingdom 4/1000
E – Hungary 5/1000
E – Malta 5/1000
E – Poland 5/1000
E – Slovakia 5/1000
E – USA – 5/1000
F – Latvia 6/1000
We have no shame… Have a nice day.
Womenomics: The Business Value of Women
Question: What would happen to the world if the CEOs of ExxonMobil, the NY Times, Wal-Mart, GE and Microsoft were all women?

The Economist tells us that women are now the most powerful engine of global growth. Apparently over the past decade, the increased employment of women in developed economies has contributed much more to global growth than China has.
Listen to this:
Making better use of women’s skills is not just a matter of fairness. Plenty of studies suggest that it is good for business, too. Women account for only 7% of directors on the world’s corporate boards—15% in America, but less than 1% in Japan. Yet a study by Catalyst, a consultancy, found that American companies with more women in senior management jobs earned a higher return on equity than those with fewer women at the top. This might be because mixed teams of men and women are better than single-sex groups at solving problems and spotting external threats. Studies have also suggested that women are often better than men at building teams and communicating.
To make men feel even worse, researchers have also concluded that women make better investors than they do. A survey by Digital Look, a British financial website, found that women consistently earn higher returns than men. A survey of American investors by Merrill Lynch examined why women were better at investing. Women were less likely to “churn” their investments; and men tended to commit too much money to single, risky ideas. Overconfidence and overtrading are a recipe for poor investment returns.
Is anybody listening?
I posted about this a while back: Advice to Women who would be CEOs: “Stay away from HR”
I usually think of “business-women” in two camps – the toady – a conservative woman who moved up the ranks by reinforcing the stereotypes (eg. Kay Bailey Hutchison) or – the trailblazer – a talented woman who created her own way despite the barriers and obstacles thrown in her way by the good-old boys (eg. Anita Roddick).
Of course some people in certain parts of the world still think of women as property. Is it a coincidence that our problems with terrorism stem from these same places?
The Community Trap: Joga.com vs. SoccerBlog.com
At first glance I have no chance.
How can my puny soccerblog.com site take on the likes of Joga.com from Nike + Google?
Answer: It doesn’t have to.
Joga.com from Nike + Google is too commercial, period. So it’s no contest.
Communities have to be open – in spirit and intent. They cannot exclude players, teams, or participants. I’m sure Nike + Google will learn. Until then, I’m having fun!
John Hagel: Joga.com and the Return of Community
William Dunk’s Global Province: Agile Companies #281
Ram Charan: Got Business Acumen?
What is business acumen?
In the latest S+B, Ram Charan writes:
“the art of business acumen: linking an insightful assessment of the external business landscape with the keen awareness of how money can be made — and then executing the strategy to deliver the desired results.”
and:
“…the ability to position their companies advantageously while operating within the same external landscape as their competitors.”
So how does one go about getting these insights into the external business landcape?
Charan suggests you ask yourself a series of six questions, and explore the ideas with colleagues and peers:
1. What is happening in the world today?
2. What does it mean for others?
3. What does it mean for us?
4. What would have to happen first (for the results we want to occur)?
5. What do we have to do to play a role?
6. What do we do next?
Hmmmm.
Read the article >>
Vinod Khosla’s Eco-imagination
From my other favorite, the Economist:
A lesson he [Vinod Khosla] learned from India, he says, is that one has to think big: “Unless you influence the lives of at least a million people, it simply doesn’t matter.”
And:
“Mr Khosla is particularly enthused by “cellulosic” ethanol, a highly efficient way of making fuel from agricultural waste. President Bush touted this new technology in his recent state-of-the-union speech, suggesting that it may come to market in six years. In typically impatient form, Mr Khosla wants to halve that gestation period. Anyone who spends time with him is liable to be hit with his well-researched but mind-numbing PowerPoint presentation on ethanol—unveiled with the affection that some men reserve for pictures of their grandchildren.”
But this is not a joke, guys. It’s the next wave of capitalism- natural capitalism, as some call it.
Wake up Amrica. It is time.
Again:
“It is easy to dismiss this enthusiasm as the irrelevant obsession of a rich hobbyist or the harmless utopianism of a capitalist who has made his pile. But the big oil companies are certainly not taking Mr Khosla lightly. The oil industry is funding a lavish counter-campaign to his ballot initiative called “Californians Against Higher Taxes”. Perhaps the best reason to take Mr Khosla seriously is that his professional success and Republican leanings mean that he has the ears of powerful people. He has been making the rounds, from the White House and Capitol Hill to the World Economic Forum at Davos and the TED conference (a big annual gathering for top venture capitalists), banging the drum for ethanol. Before Larry Page, Google’s co-founder, attended a recent TED conference in Monterey, California, he was sceptical about ethanol. After hearing Mr Khosla, he decided to help fund the cause. “When have you ever seen greens, farmers and guys like me and Larry on the same page?” demands Mr Khosla.”
Read the article >>
The BBC as a Global Online Brand
“The BBC is both an entrepreneurial anomaly and an illustration of the importance of branding on the internet. It has received considerable financial backing – from a government- mandated licence fee rather than venture capitalists. But its growth stems mostly from the reputation the BBC has earned through its old-media activities in radio and television.” writes the FT.
Darn right. The BBC has done what Rupert Murdoch could not (and would not) – it has become the online brand for trusted news, blowing away the pathetic efforts of the CBS, ABC, NBC, and FOX.
Why? Because the BBC is truly more fair and balanced. And it has something no American network has- constancy of purpose.
Read the article >>
PS- The other global British success story is the good old Economist.
The Idea Ecosystem
How’s this for an idea –
“An internal market where any employee can propose that the company acquire a new technology, enter a new business or make an efficiency improvement. These proposals become stocks, complete with ticker symbols, discussion lists and e-mail alerts. Employees buy or sell the stocks, and prices change to reflect the sentiments of the company’s engineers, computer scientists and project managers – as well as its marketers, accountants and even the receptionist.”
Idea marketplaces are happening now at Rite-Solutions and InnoCentive, according to Here’s an idea: Let everyone have ideas, an article in the IHT:
The next frontier is to tap the quiet genius that exists outside organizations – to attract innovations from people who are prepared to work with a company, even if they don’t work for it. An intriguing case in point is InnoCentive, a virtual research and development lab through which major corporations invite scientists and engineers worldwide to contribute ideas and solve problems they haven’t been able to crack themselves.
InnoCentive, based in Andover, Mass., is literally a marketplace of ideas. It has signed up more than 30 blue-chip companies, including Procter & Gamble, Boeing and DuPont, whose research labs are groaning under the weight of unsolved problems and unfinished projects. It has also signed up more than 90,000 biologists, chemists and other professionals from more than 175 countries. These “solvers” compete to meet thorny technical challenges posted by “seeker” companies. Each challenge has a detailed scientific description, a deadline and an award, which can run as high as $100,000.
“We are talking about the democratization of science,” said Alpheus Bingham, who spent 28 years as a scientist and senior research executive at Eli Lilly & Company before becoming the president and chief executive of InnoCentive. “What happens when you open your company to thousands and thousands of minds, each of them with a totally different set of life experiences?”
InnoCentive, founded as an independent start-up by Lilly in 2001, has an impressive record. It can point to a long list of valuable scientific ideas that have arrived, with surprising speed, from faraway places. In addition to the United States, the top countries for solvers are China, India and Russia.
It’s all about your company’s innovation ecosystem. Do you have one? How do you build one? How do you participate in the ecosystem which exists already?