I’m generally disappointed by business books, and for that matter non-fiction books in general. It’s rare to get a fresh idea, let alone one that is argued well. I’ve followed Mathew Bishop’s work (he is New York bureau chief of The Economist) over the years and confess to some skepticism when I saw he had co-authored a book (with Michael Green, an international development expert) entitled: Philanthrocapitalism: How the Rich Can Save the World. When I look at the many problems confronting the world today it seems to me that the rich, more than any other group, have messed it up. And what a mess it is.
However, Philanthrocapitalism is a great book, and I can’t think of any category of educated person who should not read it. The authors argue that philanthropists can be critical to helping solve society’s large problems because of their unique perspective.
Philanthrocapitalists are “hyperagents” who have the capacity to do some essential things far better than anyone else. They do not face elections every few years, like politicians, or suffer the tyranny of shareholder demands for ever-increasing quarterly profits, like CEOs of most public companies. Nor do they have to devote vast amounts of time and resources to raising money, like most heads of NGOs. That frees them to think long-term, to go against conventional wisdom, to take up ideas too risky for government, to deploy substantial resources quickly when the situation demands it—above all, to try something new.
The authors clear away much of the mud on the windshield when it comes to social investing, venture philanthropy, philanthropreneurship, social innovation, social entrepreneurship and the like. Every chapter is packed with interesting stories about the players who are making this happen, leveraging their wealth to improve the state of the world. I learned about the ecosystems of social investing, and was stunned to discover how business principles were being transferred so successfully.
[P]hilanthrocapitalists are developing a new (if familiar-sounding) language to describe their business like approach. Their philanthropy is “strategic,” “market conscious,” “impact oriented,” “knowledge based,” often “high engagement,” and always driven by the goal of maximizing leverage of the donor’s money. Seeing themselves as social investors, not traditional donors, some of them engage in “venture philanthropy.” As entrepreneurial “philanthropreneurs,” they love to back social entrepreneurs who offer innovative solutions to society’s problems.
For some time there has been the expression among the Corporate Social Responsibility community “You do well by doing good.” I don’t think this has been true. Many companies have done well by being awful – by having terrible labor practices, bad products bolstered by good advertising, externalizing costs (such as industrial emissions) on society and the like. However increasingly in the age of transparency everyone is being held to higher standards. And a new generation of people with wealth are beginning to understand that you can’t succeed in a world that is failing.
My hope is that wealthy people will read this book and follow the lead of their most progressive peers. How ironic, should the rich actually end up being key to making this smaller world a better and more sustainable one?
There is a long-held belief in professional sports that the best athletes often make the worst coaches. The reason for this is simple – elite performers often have a natural ability to perform that there lesser counterparts do not possess, and in turn they are unable to really understand how to coach and develop their less talented peers. In turn, it is often the mediocre players (those that had to get every last ounce of output from their limited ability in order to forge a career), or even those who are never able to go pro, that are more suited for coaching – because they really understand what the majority of players need in order to succeed, and what makes them click.
What got me thinking about this is that a lot of people are wondering what 2009 holds for social media, and Twitter in particular. Over the last year or so Twitter has exploded in popularity, and had over 3 million active accounts in late 2008. Within this group are numerous social media experts that have emerged as leaders, and they are remarkable on many levels. It is not uncommon for them to have thousands of followers, follow thousands of others, be active every few minutes from the time they wake up to the time they go to bed, and seamless integrate it with their other social media activities throughout the day. For those looking in from the outside, it can truly be a dizzying amount of activity.
Looking out over the next year, many people are trying to guess how popular Twitter will become – for example, Sean Moffitt has put the over/under for users at the end of 2009 at 25 million. If usage gets into this ballpark, I think it’s fair to say the platform is moving beyond the mavens and the connectors into the mainstream. But my question is whether how these people use the platform will be different, and how applicable the lessons from the leading twitter users will be.
Jeff Gordinier, author of X Saves the World, which we’ve mentioned on the blog before, a couple of times, has an interesting way of testing whether one is, in fact, a member of the generation. He points out that unlike the Baby Boomers, there is no agreed upon start (or end) year for the Generation. He proposes a quiz to tell whether you are a member:
1. Do you want to change the world?
a. Yes, and I’m proud to say, we did it man. We changed the world, just look around you.
b. Yes, absolutely, and I promise to get back to doing that just as soon as interest rates return to where they are supposed to be.
c. Omigod, omigod, changing the world and helping people is, like, totally important to me! I worked in a soup kitchen once and it was so sad but the poor people there had so much dignity!
d. The way you phrase the question is so fucking cheesy and absurd that I am not even sure that I want to continue with this pointless exercise.
That’s the only question on the GXAT. I could tack on a bunch of stuff about John Hughes and George Stephanopoulos and the Austrian version of “Rock Me Amadeus,” but there is no need. We’re done. If you chose d, accept it: you’re an Xer, even if you happen to be eighty years old. As people like (Douglas, author of Generation X) Coupland have been pointing out for years now, X is more a sensibility than a rigidly confined demographic.
I have multiple version of Rock Me Amadeus in my iTunes, but not that really cool extended dance mix with Falco’ pretentious spoken work autobiography. If you like the answer to C, I can point you toward some blogs.
Here’s an interesting story I read about over the weekend that 1) illustrates how Web 2.0 is changing the music industry for young people and 2) exemplifies just how powerful a multi-channel marketing approach can be – particularly for marketing one’s self. Country music fans may already have heard about Ryan Laird, the 21-year old aspiring musician from Fergus Ontario (now living in Nashville) that managed to catch the attention of chart-topping young phenomenon Taylor Swift.
Laird has a MySpace page, a Facebook fan page, and has posted several videos on You Tube, including male-version mash-ups of some of Swift’s songs. But, his real stroke of genius came this month when Laird dropped his life savings on a giant billboard in front of Swift’s publishing house which reads: “Hey Taylor – I LOVE your music. Will you produce my album?” The sign also includes a link to his MySpace. Says Laird; “I needed a unique way to reach out to her because she’s really busy.” I think it’s a great example of how an expensive traditional media placement can be used to ignite a spark and drive traffic to free online venues (not unlike the Paris Hilton/Carl’s Junior phenomenon).
The strategy appears to have worked. In an interview with E! Canada, Swift said that she would “definitely want to meet him,” and “definitely want to hear more of his stuff.” Notably, the MySpace link was critical to the billboard’s success. Says Swift; “I went on his MySpace and listened to one of his songs and absolutely fell in love with it. […] It would be really cool to maybe work with him.” Even if Swift doesn’t elect to produce his album, the viral buzz around Ryan Laird is growing. In an interview with CMT, Laird talks about how about 16,000 of Swift’s MySpace fans have become his fans as well.
As I have written aboutbefore, as part of my research I’ve been digging into what makes for popular videos on sites like YouTube. One of the interesting things that seems to be popping out of the data is that while YouTube’s slogan of “Broadcast Yourself” would appear to indicate the success of the site hinges on user generated content (i.e. prosumers), but what is proving to be the most popular content is more often than not from rather traditional sources - clips of popular shows, advertisement for major companies, and the like.
As I was scanning the web today I came across this interesting Guest post on Social Times, which was written by Michael Mossoba of Genius Rocket, that builds on some similar findings. Of particular note, the lessons from examining the top-50 viral videos of the year include the following as #1: the most viral content is usually corporate content. It’s also interesting to note that the most viral content is usually OVER a minute in length, and “Ads” more often succeed as viral content than “Politics”, “Comedy”, and even “Sexy” (which when combined with #1, challenges the conventional wisdom of 30 second advertising slots). Michael goes on to add:
These results undermine some of the conventional wisdom about viral videos. First, it contradicts the stereotype that viral hits are the mysterious province of webcam diarists. Indeed, the most viral videos are dominated by the film and music industries, and a few savvy companies like Dove, Sony, Honda, and Cadbury.
I couldn’t agree more - and it’s something people (and marketers in particular) should really think about. Too often we all get wrapped up in all the things that are changing, and don’t pay enough attention to what is staying somewhat the same. I encourage you to check out the rest of his article, as it really is an interesting read.
Hey, Happy Holidays everyone! Here’s something light for those of you trying to get back into work mode today despite (probably) being surrounded by empty cubicles and suffering from a turkey hangover.
In case you hadn’t heard, NORAD has been tracking Santa’s movements for over half a century using radar, satellites, Santa Cams, and fighter jets, and now works in partnership with Google to show kids Santa’s movements on Google Earth and Maps. More recently, this technology has become available as an iPhone app for kids. This year, children not only got to follow Santa’s flight trajectory on Christmas Eve, they also uploaded their pictures from their mobile phones (6-year olds have iPhones!?) and shared their holiday experiences with others from around the globe.
Last month I wrote about the impact of recession on youth, and in particular, the impact of a severe recession on youth participation in the labour market. Will they get crowded out in the short-term as older workers choose to stay in the workforce longer?
But such immediate questions aside, growing youth unemployment, or underemployment, may have far deeper societal repercussions.
The recent events in Greece where mobs of angry youths rioted in the streets is perhaps a telling example. Triggered by the shooting of a 15-year-old boy, an estimated 8,000 Greek youths joined what soon became an all-out attack against their role in the Greek state. As Nikos Mouzelis, emeritus professor of sociology at London School of Economics, noted: “The death of this young boy was a catalyst that brought out all the problems of society and of youth that have been piling up all these years and left to one side with no solutions. Every day, the youth of this country experiences further marginalisation.”
Or as others noted: “The death of the young boy may just be an excuse for the overqualified, so-called ‘700-euro-generation’, to rage at society. They have a hopeless future, since their degrees do not correspond to the needs of the market…. What a pity it is to see the energy of youngsters lost just because society doesn’t take care of their culture and education, doesn’t encourage them to explore their dreams and at the same time introduce and prepare them for real life.”
So could this mix of economic, political and social marginalisation yield the same violent results in other parts of the world?
Anyone who knows me is familiar with my buzzword fixation. In fact, I think I owe the bulk of my MBA to the effective overuse of fancy lingo. While a sound vocabulary is not to be underestimated, there’s nothing sillier than sentences over-peppered with empty words. Have you ever listened very carefully to one of those overly wordy people, initially impressed and intrigued, only to realize that despite their impressive constellation of words, strung together so eloquently, they hadn’t in fact said anything useful? That’s right, you all know that person.
…and yes, that’s right, I used ‘constellation.’
All kidding aside, I am genuinely intrigued by the effect word choice has on people and their perceptions. It’s amazing how much spin plays into image, both on a personal and organizational level, and how critical a role language plays in how we perceive things. This year has seen many events shape our current political, economic and social international environment. From a financial meltdown to an historic U.S. Presidential election, and everything in between, buzzwords were certainly abound.It was amazing to see how issues, people and events were, and continue to be, tagged and how certain words emerged as leading descriptors of mainstream topics.2008 was oh so ‘mavericky,’ my friends. Read More »
Speaking as someome who has pointed cameras at bird houses before, I suppose it’s about time they got even with us. Here’s a cool shot of security cameras dressed up as bird houses:
On a separate but related note to my previous post on RvB, while doing some research for my original post I noticed an interesting ‘news update’ on the Roosterteeth site. The Dec 8th post entitled “War on Oprah” (note: language may be offensive to some) caught my eye. Now, seeing that Oprah is normally viewed as a relatively peaceful person I was interested to see what was going on. Username: DGeoff from Roosterteeth (RT) headquarters noticed that the RT YouTube channel (45,577 subscribers) was right behind Oprah (47,888 subscribers) in the list of all-time most subscribed directors. He then wrote the news update to plead to the RT community (of some 725,536 members) to help RT over-take of Oprah in YouTube subscriptions and “topple her multi-media empire…” That one blog post received 774 comments to-date and in one week RT had gained 17,223 subscribers to reach 62,800 subscribers (As of Today, they are at 63,215 subscribers and have over-taken the BBCworldwide channel) . Now that’s really impressive. Communities like this are great examples of the power of wikinomics, community and the Web 2.0. It goes to show the power of a healthy, strong, loyal community. The RT team is super involved, constantly posting interesting, funny content – that gives their 700,000 + users a reason to keep going back.
I’d be interested to hear about any other examples of strong communities you have come across.
The inspiration behind this blog post came when I was thinking of doing some Christmas shopping for my sister. (Hopefully she doesn’t read this post…) I was looking to buy her the DVD Boxset of the first five seasons of Red vs. Blue – The Blood Gulch Chronicles. The Box set price is $69 USD which is reasonable considering you’re getting five seasons, unfortunately for me I live in Canada so I also have to worry about shipping costs, duty & customs, and the exchange rate difference. (But that has nothing to do with my blog post). [Btw, if anyone knows where I can buy this in Canada, please let me know!]
For those of you who haven’t heard of Red vs. Blue, it’s a machinima series (imagine a movie or tv show, but filmed within a video game) based on the popular Xbox 360 game – Halo. I first came across Red vs. Blue when doing some research for work; I watched a few episodes and immediately fell in love with the show. I was also lucky enough to get an interview with Burnie Burns, Co-Founder of the Roosterteeth (RT) community – and producer of the Red vs. Blue episodes. Burnie Burns and partners, Gustavo Sorola and Geoff Fink chose machinima because it’s an efficient way to produce animation – 3 people can produce around five minutes/ week. They then immediately post the video on the Web – for free.
Our exclusive Twitternomics Quant Study has revealed that a remarkable 72% of Twitter users believe it’s a great place to find marketing advice. In response to this result one of the most active users, whom in order to maintain anonymity we will call the “uber-twit”, noted that “This really proves the power of micro blogging and associated social media. Hey - if I follow you, will you follow me? I’ll link to you on my blog if you do. I’d tell you more, but I start to hyperventilate beyond 140 characters. Want to buy some marketing?” before passing out. Other findings include that 81% of Twitter users are marketers themselves, and 9% of Twitter users suffer from serious self-confidence issues.
Us Now is a documentary film project about the power of mass collaboration, government and the Internet. Right up our alley! The movie, recently premiered in the UK, highlights the impact of online networks on our notions of leadership, communication, hierarchy, and ultimately government and governance.
The documentary hosts a series of the world’s leading experts on communication, management and governance - notables includes Clay Shirky, Saul Albert, Ed Miliband, and our very own Don Tapscott (watch below) - in a broad discussion on what the explosion of online networks and grassroots community action means for governments from the local to trans-national levels.
And here’s one of my favourites - Tom Steinberg, director of mySociety.org, on the limits of representative democracy:
The Wall Street Journal posted a pithy article about Google that made the front page of Monday’s edition. There’s also been a little back-and-forth in the blogosphere from the Wired blogs and Google’s Policy Blog (to be fair, it’s been more back than forth).
The article in the WSJ argues that Google’s not-so-new practice of using edge-servers—servers that are closer to dense user populations—as part of their content delivery network is an overture against their pro-net neutrality stance. According to Wired, these edge-servers are co-located at ISPs near their users (which would logically mean major urban centres), which improves the performance of Google’s sites (like YouTube). The WSJ contends that this faster access these edge-servers provide is a breach of net neutrality, as its only for Google content.
The Tuttuki bako (or “poking box”) is so strange that when I first heard of it I just had to order one and see it for myself. Technically, you might describe this as a finger-based augmented reality system. But to put it bluntly you stick your finger in the hole in the side of the box and prod a variety of virtual characters - sort of how you might play with ants or something. Here’s me dueling with a stick person (watch out it knows karate):
The Wikinomics team recently sat down for lunch with Aaron Kim, Senior Managing Consultant in Emerging Technologies for IBM Global Business Services (blog, Twitter). Among the various meandering discussions, one of the more interesting observations made was Aaron’s notion that population density and average home size has a direct relationship with mobile technology adoption.
It makes sense intuitively; the higher the population density and the tighter the living quarters, the more likely you are to spend time away from home or in “third spaces.” Similarly, if you have a large comfortable home and long distances make travel more infrequent, you will be less likely to need “on-the-go” technology, and more likely to invest in desktop computers and broadband in the home. The proposition that one’s propensity to use mobile tech is directly related to population density is an intriguing one, so I thought I’d do some further investigation. Using population density figures from Wikipedia along with mobile penetration stats from the OECD and wireless penetration rates from RCR Wireless, I compiled a chart showing data from 20 countries.
“There are management consulting firms that charge really high rates. We wanted to come up with something that’s accessible to almost any business.”
This quote will ring true for many different people that have employed management consulting firms. In the worst cases, it appears that certain types of such companies merely send people in to work at company X for awhile, learn everything they are up to, and then go to company Y (& Z, etc.), looking to sell their insights for a stunningly high amount. Wikinomics and the “age of transparency” is clearly a direct threat to that model, and where this quote comes from is a remarkably good example of why.
The quote is from Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh, as reported in this AdWeek article. For many years companies have been invited to trek down to Las Vegas and check out how the company does business. Now, companies that don’t want to make such a trek (travel freeze anyone?) have another option to learn a thing or two about Zappos - pay $39.95 per month for a subscription to the forthcoming Zappos Insights, a subscription video service that lets companies ask questions about the Zappos way and get answers from actual Zappos employees. At such a price point, it’s easy to see why the company is targeting the “Fortune 1 Million”, instead of a much smaller range of targets.
It will be interesting to see how this service plays out when it officially launches (I learned about it from this mashable post, where a number of people were complaining about not being able to sign in, and Tony Hsieh chimed in to note they didn’t realize the Adweek article was going up so soon, so the site has been shut down until the official launch). But regardless of whether it turns out to be a bit gimmicky or not, it should at least provide people a reminder of the intense pressure certain business models are under as certain wikinomics principles continue to gain traction - yellow pages anyone?
This is kind of cool. Wikinomics fan Luke Grange has created an audio version of the Wikinomics and has posted it on the book tab of Wikinomics (be patient, it’s a huge file).
I asked Luke about the process of creating it. Here is his response:
So here goes: The idea to do the project came to me while thinking about the concept of having books collaboratively written in a Wiki while listening to the Audio version of Wikinomics on my iPod. The whole concept of loosening the reigns on Intellectual Property while still creating a platform to add further value (Peer Production as such) as an Open Source Publication was drifting through my mind. I have a partially completed book I was writing in 2007 about a part of my life’s travels and was thinking about publishing this on a Wiki and having the world at large completed the book with a prize for the person who came the closest to how it actually panned out. At the time I was also investigating the subliminal value of listening to Audio books while you sleep which you will be pleased to know I gave up after a week of waking up with dark rings under my eyes and snapping at people which is most unlike me. And so was born my little project to turn the already completed final chapter of the book Wikinomics into an Audio book.
It took roughly a month of working on it whenever I got the opportunity. I used Audacity which is a free, open source software for recording and editing sounds.Believe you me the software did come with its fair share of typical glitches which meant a higher degree of expletives expressed while recording which further exacerbated the amount of editing it took to record the chapter. At the time of recording I was in the midst of listening to “The Tipping Point” by Malcolm Gladwell also narrated by Malcolm Gladwell. He was so easy to listen to and the book was so powerful for me as a result of his manner that I felt inspiration to complete the project. I have the utmost regard for anyone who narrates a book as a result of now having done a part of it myself. Its hard work.
I hope that your audience enjoy the work I did. The proof is in the listening.
Luke is also the leader of the Wikinomics LinkedIn group. All Wikinomics fans are encouraged to join.
Having used craigslist for all kinds of things (from giving away old televion sets to procuring IT services), I consider myself a vetran user. However, even I was surprised to learn just how much Craigslist trounces its traditional media competitor - classified ads.
This week, we’re renting out our upstairs apartment. So we placed a 1-week classified ad, as well as posting it in the for-rent section on craigslist.
First some background - In the past, we’ve always had the best success with local newspaper ads. A few hundred dollars on an ad is a good deal when it means you don’t leave a suite empty for a month - classifieds were a great source of leads for the money. In contrast, we hadn’t had much luck with craigslist in the past, too few responses and no real qualified renters.
My, how times have changed. Our local newspaper advertising cost us $325 for a week of ads. Cost of our craigslist posting: zero, zip nada. Here’s how they compared:
Classifieds:
- Cost: $325
- Time before listing went live: 1.5 days
- Results (viewings): 2 viewings one late this week, one scheduled for next monday
- Results (completed applications): zero
Craigslist:
- Cost: free
- Time before listing went live: 5 minutes
- Results (viewings): 6 viewings scheduled within 24 hours (and one more later in the week)
- Results (applications): Three sets of completed applications
All I can say is: Craigslist, you are amazing, wow!
Clerk Dogs, that is. Clerk Dogs is a new movie recommendation website developed by Stuart Skorman, founder of Empire Video, a small video chain in Vermont, and most notably Reel.com. If you are anything like me, renting a movie is a display of utter indecisiveness and mindless meandering around the video store hoping that the perfect movie will just leap off the shelf and into your hands. Most video stores post generic lists of the most popular rentals of the week but this doesn’t help if the top pick is a video based on the latest Stephen King novel and you were in the mood for a comedy. What if you try to base your selection on recommendations? What movie did your friend say she liked? What movie got the 5-star review last week? Did Leno give this a thumbs-up? Unless you are walking around with Ebert and Roeper it is almost impossible to keep track of the good, the bad and the ugly.
According to this article, the idea for Clerk Dogs started at Empire Video where Skorman asked customers one question “Name a movie you’ve seen in the past that you’re in the mood for something similar tonight.” This question is not only the foundation for the business, but it is also the key to Clerk Dogs competitive advantage. According to Skorman “We knew more about them [customers] than Netflix could ever know, because we knew exactly what they were in the mood for at that moment.” This knowledge was then translated onto the Web but the recommendations have been created by video store clerks, not by a computer algorithm.
Introducing chTONGUEeek: a wikinomics enabled humor site A few weeks back a couple of guys from the office who thought they were kind of funny launched a new site called chTONGUEeek (i.e. Tongue in Cheek): Fair and balanced news, starting tomorrow. For a sample of some of the content you can find there (and follow via twitter or the Facebook Fan Page), [...]
