DISQUS

Hi Geoff,

We're pushing it forwards, meeting with potential partners and lawyers and all that sort of good stuff. Hope to have an update shortly but it's definitely progressing.

@Simon, totally agree, I think nuance is exactly what we are losing in the short, digital, and often binary world of communication. I read a really interesting book on creativity called Fire in the crucible years ago. They looked at creative geniuses across a variety of fields and found that nuance was the key to their creativity. I suspect we'll see a backlash to "slow information" and longer forms sooner rather than later.

Thanks Geoff, you've obviously been doing some digging yourself as I was checking out some great links on your blog this weekend!

Thanks Chris, much appreciated. It's true, media is the one place where context is the driving factor but isn't it more often the case that it's simply context for "the big idea" that's being sought rather than context for the product/service/brand? However, I do think you raise an interesting opportunity for agencies to apply "media thinking" more broadly. If you separate media thinking from communications entirely and make it a context-creating discipline, I think you could probably open up some really cool areas.

Hi Stephanie,

I think you're absolutely right, real-time information is an AND not an OR. The net is, as you point out, an overall gain. I love that kind of thinking and I do appreciate your (and all commentary). A big part of putting this stuff out there is so that other people will help you shape it. Thanks for the "personal note" it's nice to know you like it but keep the alternative thinking coming.

Yes I think you're both pointing out that information/data ceases to become information/data when it is properly processed and becomes knowledge. So then my question is what happens to that knowledge on a real-time web? Knowledge isn't transferred through tweets and friendfeed updates. Where does knowledge live and how can we make it part of our daily web experience?

@Melanie, thanks for stopping by and clarifying. Just so you know, I wasn't trying to pick on Postrank unfairly, I've actually found the ranking service to be pretty useful (in my short experience) and it'll be a permanent fixture on my FF extensions. I think this is a bigger problem (as you obviously know). I did a bunch of research on this a while back, not sure if you guys saw this: http://oak.cs.ucla.edu/~cho/research/bias.html

There need to be system in place to balance out the bias that's being created by popularity systems. Glad to hear you're working on it, I'll give the discovery functionality a go.

Seems to me that there are 3 different issues with being able to measure real interest.

1. Only you can really say how interested you are, your actions and behaviour aren't always affected by interesting information, so research as you suggest (Mark) is probably required.
2. Interesting is relative so what's interesting to you may not be interesting to others, so you would want a metric based on your personal interests (Lee, you'll be laughing as we've talked about this endlessly)
3. Interesting information may take time to process and absorb before it's acted upon. Unfortunately because we have created, and are moving further towards a real-time web where information is tailored to being acted upon immediately, this problem will probably get worse before it gets better.

Hi Helge,

Thanks for the compliment, means a lot coming from you. I strive for slideshows as good as yours!

I actually think we're talking about the same thing. In the classic mode of brand positioning, you are advised to take a static position and to simultaneously claim that position, by broadcasting it through every channel at your disposal, and defend that position by attacking anyone who tries to grab it. What you and John (and many others) are talking about is the need for brands to have energy, to remain in motion. I absolutely see this as new marketing thinking.

To continue the metaphor, if your brand is always in motion, it becomes much harder for a competitor to pin it into a corner. It is much easier for a brand in motion to escape any positioning traps set for it by competition than it is for a brand that is fixed to a point.

I also think that the terminology of positioning confuses the issue. When I think of positioning I think of classic brand benefit or promise. e.g. the best...

New positioning is built around a mission - typically an internal one ( http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/2009/culture-the-... ) But I wouldn't call this a positioning I'd cal it a brand mission, purpose or something like that. These aren't things you change, or escape, but temporary positionings or claims are.

@Niko, thanks for your email, you are absolutely correct. My tripod strategy is the transformation of a transactional relationship through adding a 3rd party to create a two-sided market. Thanks for persevering and correcting my ignorance!

@Matt, the idea of partnerships isn't new but I think the idea of using a partnership to transform a transactional relationship between two parties into a new kind of relationship between three or more parties is definitely new marketing thinking. Also, while I applaud your optimism, I think the reason marketing is held in the same esteem as used car sales is evidence that there have been many losers in marketing of the past.

@niko, I think this is different. Two sided markets are about creating a barter-like relationship but still between two parties. This is about introducing a 3rd party into the situation. But maybe I'm missing something.

Those were the glory days my friend and we didn't really realise it at the time

@Charles, thanks for the link - yes very convergent. Had never heard of Goodhart's law but I think it's pretty accurate. Brilliantly conceived too.

@Jeff thanks, you've helped clarify the point I was trying to make. When engines were invented, horsepower was the important measurement because engines were looking to replace horses. But today, horses aren't in the consideration set and so the measure has really lost relevance. I think that's true of a lot of the measurements we use - actually have another post coming on that.

@Andrew, great presentations and yet another place where our discussion of things versus their relationship or context fail us. Thanks for the links, really helpful.

@Brian, great point, absolutely agree

Hi Paul, credits to Eric for this post, and if you want to check out his book selection sign up on Goodreads, I think he shares it all there.

Hi Stephanie, my logic is much simpler:

Unlike fossil fuels, wind and solar are available to anyone. As an individual, I can set up my own system to extract energy from them. So any company that wants my business is going to have to provide better value and service than I can get by myself. Equally there's nothing (other than money) stopping a hundred or a thousand different companies from going into the wind and solar business. It's difficult to control access to the sun and the wind. Sure some places have more of some or the other but in general these are things I can't simply build a business around owning.

I think that has to force a different business strategy and I think the ones who'll win will be the ones who deliver more. Starry eyed perhaps but much more likely to happen with wind and solar than with fossil or biofuels. Shell already owns the vast majority of biofuel production. Good thread on slahdot here: http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/1...

Hi Dominique,

Group strategy probably leads to a bad place but I think that most self-organised groups have taken their lead from a few key people - e.g. in Linux 1 - so all it takes is one individual with a great idea that he or she wants to give away and then you're off.

In terms of money, IP and that sort of stuff, those probably go counter to the spirit of most self-formed groups. Money isn't a motivator for participation, recognition is. Self-formed groups would almost certainly do work under some type of open licence which specifically prevents the commercialisation of the work.

You've brought an interesting dimension to this Ed. I agree that the boundaries of "the company" are losing definition, and in fact I think the company that first figures out how to combine the cohesiveness of a tightly defined internal culture with the ability to mobilise groups of people on the outside will make a killing in whatever field they're in. I wonder though if that will be achieved by loosening internal culture or by simply choosing to expose only certain parts of it externally. It's a pretty interesting question though and I don't believe anyone's solved it yet.

To your point about strong cultures stifling creativity, I think about a company like Zappos that has a well publicised induction ritual of offering new employees money to leave. From the outside that culture appears to be stronger and more comprehensive than even Microsoft's yet it clearly has created an innovative company.

Stephanie, really interesting analogy. I agree, dance is a fantastic metaphor for matter over information. Negative space is as communicative as where the body goes - what an inspiring thought.

Thanks!

@Adam, thanks for the reminder, I had read that, thought it was brilliant.

@Jake, yes I think you're right, there are a whole set of abstracted services like filtering and organising that would still be valuable. The Web is a model for that.

@Simon, your data are for TV spots overall which matches the situation here in the US. However, the CPM price has risen here pretty continuously as there is "more demand for fewer eyeballs." (http://www.tvweek.com/news/2008/06/tv_nets_eye_...)

As far as ROI goes, there are lots of studies which all say different things - ROI is hard to generalise across different media and different marketing objectives I think.

@Andy: Clay Shirky talks about this in his book, "Here comes Everybody." His point is that businesses have typically operated through reducing the cost of interaction between different disciplines. In the Internet era, the cost of interaction is approaching zero and therefore businesses are in trouble. My view is that businesses do more than simply make it possible for different kinds of people to work together. They provide framework for rituals, missions, values, safety and shared purposes that bind people together as well. That's why I'm not as new age about this stuff when it comes to dismantling businesses as others.

However, I do think people are re-thinking what's inside the business and what's not. I know we talk about this all the time.

@Ross Gatekeepers is a very valuable add! You are absolutely right. Old business is about preventing the smooth flow of information, capital, goods or whatever and New business is about providing open access. Thanks!