You are currently browsing the monthly archive for February 2007.
She writes: “This is a nonprofit donation marketplace. There are a couple of things that make it worth watching. One, it is good way of giving dollars because you can decide where the money is going and two, they are building a social networking component to it. Right now, people can build profiles, wishlists, registries…essentially create an identity as an individual philanthropist. I imagine that in the future, the full networking capability will be added”.
Looking forward to an article in HBR about a new role emerging in the Open Innovation Process. See preview below..
In March’s upcoming Harvard Business Review, Professors Mohan Sawhney of Northwestern Unversity and Satish Nambisan of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute define a valuable emerging role in the open innovation process–what they call an “innovation capitalist.”An IC firm would identify and license ideas and technology from various sources, and sell them to an established companies looking for new and innovative products. Yet it would do more than simply broker the idea between inventor and acquiring company.
The IC would develop prototypes, conduct market research, perform initial branding and packaging–but would stop short of fully developing or commercializing the concept. That would be left to the acquiring company.
The acquiring company pays less than it would for a market-proven product. But it also gets to observe and assess products well past the idea stage, and thus increases its innovation yield.
Product marketing consultants, you have a new job title: Innovation Capitalist.
Just posted a comment on Communities Dominate Brands. Found it worthwhile to post it here. It is about social networks/communities build around companies. Basically the advice I see regularly is to engage with your customer. This can be done through communities. I believe that engaging (willingness to communicate) is not enough. All your problems are not solved by engaging. Next to engaging you need to offer access to company resources. That makes it really interesting…Post is below:
Do these companies understand that we are entering a post capitalism world. Where not companies are the centerpiece but people. Production is not the motor of our world anymore. Many companies really overestimate the amount of discussion they will have with their customers. They overestimate their relevant importance in the lives of people. Relevant and interesting companies(should be products) are rare. Please dear companies focus on creating great tools to serve the public and this planet. Create these tools with your biggest fans(if you have any left). Focus on your true qualities. Analyze your access to resources. Rather do 1 thing great in the value chain than to do 3 things mediocre.
As an example: You have a water brand ==> You produce bottled water ==> you bottle fluids. Open up your production unit and let customers decide what they want to bottle.. Open Cola?
I hear a lot of advice to start engaging with your “(water)brand”. Your biggest users will evangelize your water. You don’t need to build a community around your water brand. It is just not interesting enough. Build it around your resources. Open up and give it away. “Ownership of resources” will change in this post capitalism world we are entering.
For consumers there are only 3 types of water: expensive water, chaep water and tap water. If you want to be the expensive water brand: focus on distribution. Force yourself through the channels and good luck to you!
Just watched The Secret. Nice documentary on the Law of Attraction. Basically anything you give attention to will grow. If you feel joy, more joy will be created by the universe.. etc, etc. I watched it online. It is worth the $4,95 😉
The movie gives you guidance on how to create your own desired reality. Big question I know have how would this apply in a 20.000 people company. Could we use brands as tools to focus our thoughts and feeling in companies. In a 100% transparant world there is no difference between corporate image and brand image anyway. Is there? For example if a company lacks creativity. How would you turn this around using the law of attraction? Somehow you would need to focus on creativity and everybody would need to imagine the loads of creative people working there.. You would need to believe the creative energy, the waterfall of ideas and the fertile breeding ground. Or would it be enough if the CEO would believe it? nah.
If brands are there to be admired and loved. Why not focus them on the employees instead of on consumers.. Use the power of visualisation to create a strong image of the company you wish to be. An emotional and passionate image. Full of purpose and meaning. This to create change within the company. This change will be visible to consumers and resulting in a better reputation.
Old model: brand=>changes consumer=>changes sales
New model: brand => changes employees=> changes company(reputation)=>changes consumers=> changes sales
Just some crazy thoughts..
Well. Finally I finished a presentation in which I combine many of my thoughts and beliefs. It is the most personal set of thoughts yet. Like everything I produce still work in progress.
Have a look at the presentation. Like always very curious on your thoughts and comments..
NOTE OF WARNING: COMPLETE UNSCIENTIFIC THOUGHTS ENTERED THIS POST
All around me I see businesses and complete industries asking themselves this question. How is it that right now so many people are asking themselves this question? It is almost like finding an object in your basement and asking yourself where did I use this for? Or in the middle of a fight you asking yourself why the hell did we start this fight? Strange to see people sitting in the middle of their resources and tools questioning their purpose or reason of existence. What changed? Just like in the example of the tool and the fight time passed and the use or purpose of the item diminshed. Therefore becoming obsolete. In other words the energy just went out of it. It is Autumn in company land. Why would this happen. Why do we have a changed view on the use or purpose of companies(maybe we don’t see it yet that conscious). My personal belief is that the beliefsystem of “welfare = happiness” isn’t right. Also the beliefsystem of “stuff = happiness” isn’t right anymore. Well companies are the centerpiece of both these beliefsystems. So now our pursuit of happiness continues towards new beliefs. Basically we created machines that would bring us happiness but didn’t. We also created a beliefsystem that isolated growth(careers, marketshare, beauty) would bring us happiness. We believed that a free market meant healthy competition. All these beliefs are crumbling currently. Basically resulting in companies ignoring it, companies that are apathic, companies that sell themself and companies that are adapting.
How are the new beliefs looking? Well again in my opinion in random order: people = happiness, collaboration = happiness and contribution = happiness. What will be build as the centerpiece of such beliefs? Well it is US. Not the United States but YOU, ME and WWW. The empowered and connected human. No longer slave of the tools he build. No longer dependent on the institutions he build to govern him. A flat world. Total democracy. What role do companies have in such a world? They are no longer the motor of society. They were great to create strong countries but they are not great to create a strong world. Or are they? Is it unthinkable that these thoughts might even influence the perceived value of money? The motor is a connected virtual marketplace of millions and millions of individuals. Sharing, creating, trading, recommending, changing, influencing, exchanging and demanding.
I believe this future brings companies back in the role of creating tools and being tools. Like the blacksmith in any medievil village. Access to resources and happy to serve you.
So if you ask yourself what business am I in. Here is the answer: whatever business you choose to be in. Look at your access to resources. Look at your skills. Ask yourself how you can support the new beliefsystem and create tools to support this new world.
Just read on a dutch blog about Pepsi’s new cans. With these new designs(35) they try to attract the youth and hope that they will choose Pepsi over Coca Cola. Designs are for example about music, cars, and sport. People can also create(yeah yeah) their own design..
Please stop squeezing the marketing system! Optimizing the attention game is just so uninteresting. Change the game!!
I really start to hate this kind of marketing… I really start to be ashamed for being associated with marketing. How do these new cans contribute to anything? How does it make the product better? What additional value is offered. This is just about value extraction. How serious are you about your consumers? Just more share of stomach?
Please Pepsi challenge challenge challenge!!!! Happy to help…
P.S. Sometimes it just all comes out at once.. Hope you are not startled by my emotional outburst..
Great post on Ageless Marketing about the difference in Self Expression between the first halfers(young generation) and second halfers(older gen). I copypasted the whole article. Nothing to add further..
Self-Expression: The Continuous Re-creation of Self
Self-expression is a morally broad term. During the 1960s and 1970s we saw episodic orgies in hedonistic self-expression. “If it feels good, then it is good” was a celebratory mantra of the times.
Today, the ethos underlying the concept of self-expression reflects a less self-indulgent quality than we saw in the Age of the Flower Child, which promoted anything but childhood values.
The rapid aging of the population throughout the developed nations of the world, with a little over a billion people, is transforming self-expression from neotenous self-indulgent behavior toward self-actualization behavior for tens of millions who have reached the second half of life.
The old – and the nearly – are good for society. They temper the hormonally driven behavior of youth. Having evolved beyond juvenile self-absorption they have a more others’ centered connection with the world. This is a core tenet of the increasingly famous “grandmother hypothesis” first proposed by University of Utah evolutionary psychologist Kristen Hawkes.
Hawkes believes that Homo sapiens outlasted Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon in large part because of a sharp increase in post-menopausal women around 30,000 years ago as a result of a sudden spurt in human longevity. This blossoming of the prehistoric elderly population promoted the development of oral history. Even today, older people are the biggest consumers of history as every historical destination knows.
With the development of oral history, lessons learned by one generation were likelier to end up in the minds of following generations. I presume that grandmothers of the day, like grandmothers today, sought to extend their own influence beyond the boundaries of time by having their values and life lessons survive them. And granddads must also have felt that way, much as today’s granddads commonly reach out to give back, thus leaving markers of their existence and proof of their value as human beings.
So, self-expression among people in the second half of life is often more about the next generation than simple self-indulgence.
Self-expression takes many forms. Its range of manifestation extends from artistic expression to taking an innovative approach to help the homeless. It is about giving response to the libido as Jung defined it.
To Freud, the libido was the mere drive for sex that accounted for most unconscious motivation. Jung believed the libido was much more than this. For him the libido was a force that flows through and energizes the unconscious in many ways, sometimes sexual, sometimes hunger, and sometimes the simple will to survive. To Jung, the libido was about the operation of the principle of conatus – the disposition of every organism to recreate itself at ever-higher levels of development.
In the first half of life, especially during and after adolescence, the imperative for self-expression is strongly rooted in the cause of biological re-creation of the self. In the second half of life, the self-expression imperative takes on a more nonmaterial or metaphysical bent and more likely results in activities that benefit others, including the human species itself.
Think of Bill and Melinda Gates. They’ve secured their biological re-creation of self, and now are moving into a full-time life of serving all of humankind in their efforts to wipe out malaria, extinguish AIDs and immensely reduce poverty through improvements in education.
I’ll continue this discussion in my next post. In the meantime, I hope you have been able to follow this meandering thread that began with my wife’s ikebana class last week (see previous post.)
By the way, the increasingly famous Dove campaign is very much about self-expression. It begins with the idea of giving young girls and women of all ages greater confidence in being who they are and expressing themselves through an authentic projection of self.
For a new video and other representations of this remarkable campaign, which includes a different look at aging, go to http://doveproage.com . Ironically, though Dove sells anti-aging products it does so from a pro-aging platform.
Just read a blogpost about OpenCola. OpenCola is a brand of cola unique in that the instructions for making it are freely available and modifiable. Anybody can make the drink, and anyone can modify and improve on the recipe as long as they, too, license their recipe under the GNU General Public License.
I could see that they would have a great recipe in the end. Is a great recipe in the end enough to become big. How about distribution of non-digital items? Would distribution organize itself if demand is high enough? How about awareness?
That made me think on the true value of Coca Cola. Currently I believe it is the distribution network. It is the distribution network that connects Coca Cola with the customer. The recipe is secret, but is it really that valueble?
What if Coca Cola sees cans and bottles as distribution units. What if I could put a mini CD in a canshaped container. Distribute it through the Coca Cola network. I could buy a chilled CD from the vending machine.
Would OpenCola ever be sold through Coca Cola’s distribution channels? Does Coca Cola have a choice if the public would demand it? 😉