Mood:  a-ok

Traditional brands do not work well on the web. Brands need to be dynamic? interactive? Community based? See http://goo.gl/jHkx7

Posted by richard-lipscombe at 12:52 PM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

In a world that is sometimes very hard to fathom, one thing is crystal clear.  Digital content is king.  Not technology.  Not location.  Not applications.  Not pay walls.

The new mantra is content, content, content.

There is only one thing better than content on the web.  That's creative content.  Creative content is the crown prince on the web.  It shapes the viral loops that sustain value over the Internet.  It is the game changer for any online venture  - ask Groupon, ask Treadless, ask Obama 2008 Campaign manager at Digital State.  

2011 content must be entertaining.  It must be arresting (get our attention).  It imust be remarkable (make us want to share it with our friends).  

Is your online content arresting and remarkable? 

Posted by richard-lipscombe at 2:44 PM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

Our biggest asset today is 'self-talk'.  This is true for the individual, group, company, and community. Constructive 'self-talk' is the key to unlocking a feasible and desirable future. Issues today are complex, ambiguous, and full of uncertainty.  To resolve them we all need clear, simple, and certain 'self-talk'.  

Posted by richard-lipscombe at 10:48 AM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

I have the first draft of a little book that I have various working titles for beginning with "social silos" through to "people, people, people...."

The core idea is that all the change we talk about is based on technology not people.  Indeed for most of us the truth is that not much has changed because our social structure has not changed.

We live in a social structure that is being reinforced by new technologies not changed by it.  Sure we are more connected than before.  Sure those connections stretch further than ever before.  Sure we have connections with others around the world that we may not yet met. But these connections are based on shared information, values, ideas, ideology, etc that is not changed by the technology.

The digital world is a connected place that is dominated by people, people, people..... People still determine the content of the web.  People still determine what is bought and sold.  People still determine the rules for life on this planet.

People form clusters, clans, and tribes on the web today as always.  These clusters form around events within online and Main Street communities. What drives people to events in both those spheres is an individual's sharp interest in a subject or being dragged along to it by a friend. 

People form clans.  Clans form around ideas, ideals, or values based issues.  Clans are incubators.  This means they are quick to form and equally quick to implode.  Clans are dynamic entities whose energy comes from early adopters and/or critics of prevailing/conventional wisdom. 

People form tribes.  Tribes are the keepers of converntional wisdom, shared values, or ideologies.

Posted by richard-lipscombe at 12:57 PM NZT

Updated: Tuesday, 2 August 2011 1:33 PM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

There is less social diversity today than ever before in my life time.  Your immediate thought bubble is 'surely there is more with the advent of social media and social networks?"  

There is more content.  There is more noise.  There is a higher volume of conversation.  This is all true and it is attributtable to social media and social networking on the world wide web.

There is more sameness not more difference.  The sameness comes because the commentary is picked up from the mainstream press and spread through social media and vice versa.  Content moves around and around but it rarely diversifies.  For diversity to take hold you need geniune insights, new ideas, or creative content.

When you have content that brings us insights, ideas, or creativity then it goes viral.  It may be a joke.  It may be a youTube clip.  It may be a blog.  Whatever the source or channel its the content that matters.

Most content today is simply repeated 24/7 on the web, radio, TV, etc.  If you listen to talk back radio you will hear the same content being rehashed time and time again.  It is all the same.  The same rumour, analysis, questions, etc are being discussed about the NBA lock out as were around about the NFL lock out. Nothing new.  No insights.  No breakthrough ideas.  No creative content.

Are you reassured by the sameness that passes for analysis, commentary opinion, etc today?  I contend that most people are.  They are because it makes them, strangely, feel connected and an active part of what is going on around them or around the globe.  They crank up their social network just so they can retell what they have heard.  Why is this so?

Not sure I know but I suspect it is partly because social media is primarily about entertainment.  It is not about news.  It is not about information sharing.  It is not about discussion, debate, dissection, or distribution of the facts.

Posted by richard-lipscombe at 3:58 PM NZT

Updated: Monday, 1 August 2011 5:15 PM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

We all know people who seem to have their fair share of luck.  We can rejoice with them about it or be envious of their luck. Those who rejoice also have luck on their side.

Turns out that luck is a state of mind.  Indeed, luck is a by-product of the way we look at the world.  If we believe we are lucky then we are if we believe we are unlucky then we are that too.  

Because luck is a state of mind we can create it for ousellves each and every day with our self talk.  If we tell ouselves that we are lucky no matter what is happening to us then over time we will become luckier and luckier.

Posted by richard-lipscombe at 10:51 AM NZT

Updated: Sunday, 31 July 2011 12:15 PM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

Digital networks rely upon content.  As we all know there is an abundance of content. But as we also know we all have great filters when it comes to content. We all embrace, seek, welcome any content that re-inforces what we believe about ourselves and the world at large.  We all filter out what contradicts our opinions, beliefs, or accepted ideology.  We filter on an individual basis but, more importantly, we do it by selecting groups to become attached to or active within.  Thus we love the content that suits our version of 'groupthink'.

2011 is a year when there is more content being sent around the globe than ever before.  What is striking is that although there is more there is actually less and less creative content.  Creative content is disruptive. Creative content is challenging.  Creative content is imaginative. Creative content is shocking.

Creative content is what goes viral.  It is a circuit breaker to the endless loops of sameness that is the early C21st content.  It is fluid because it can not be contained within the silos that exist within our conversations, politics, culture, economy, business, etc.  It is the lightening rod for progressive action.  It is the baseload for unexpected outcomes.

Posted by richard-lipscombe at 12:10 PM NZT

Updated: Friday, 29 July 2011 5:24 PM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

Are you achieving your goals?  If your answer is yes then you have to ask yourself 'are my current goals too small'?  If your answer is no then you have to ask yourself, 'are my current goals too small'? 

In these troubled times it is natural to shrink our goals.  But do they become more achievable because they have shrunk?  Perhaps not. Small goals achieved can bring an instant feeling of success and that in turn, may lead you into the trance of complacency.

This is surely not a time to become complacent. This is a time to be bold, risk taking, and moving towards a big success.

How big are your goals? 

Posted by richard-lipscombe at 5:02 PM NZT

Updated: Wednesday, 27 July 2011 5:19 PM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

The world has a cloak of darkness, pessimism, and mistrust around it today. Thus it is easy to be negative, cautious, and timid. Is this the mood in your workplace, home, or community?

You can change all that. You can choose to be bold, positive, risk taking. You can do that at work, at home, and in your community.  If you do that you might change the outlook of enough people around you to make life better for your fellow workers, your family members, and your community cohorts. 

One thing is certain, your life will be better tomorrow than it is today.

Posted by richard-lipscombe at 6:48 PM NZT

Updated: Tuesday, 26 July 2011 7:01 PM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

Go to an Apple Store as I did the other day and you will see one of the secrets to success in 2011. I went because my Apple MacBook was peeling - the rubber cover on the bottom had bubbled then separated from its surrounds.  It was not a good look.  I went to the Aoole Store.  They saw immediately what had to be done.  "Oh dear", the technician exclaimed as if this was one of his babies.  "I will check to see if we have this part in stock", he continued.  "Yes we do, now some paperwork and I can fix it for you in 10 minutes" he concluded.

As I sat there at the bar where the Apple Genius crew strut their stuff I saw iPhones, iPads, etc  all replaced for new units to the obvious relief of their owners.  I was taken by the whole process of a modern company standing by its product - no questions asks - and also providing the friendly and efficient service needed by its customers.

The charge sheet was for my work was $128  - the charge for me $0.  The real value of that work for company is hard to calculate.

Replace it - no questions asked.  It works for me and it surely works for them.

Posted by richard-lipscombe at 1:39 PM NZT

Updated: Monday, 25 July 2011 2:00 PM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

Workplace debates are often fully charged with emotion because the tormentor in the room is the culture.  Facts can be debated calmly, rationally, and successfully - there is a clear winner and loser in these jousts (often the best methodology/process wins this argument).  But once "the culture of the place" is tabled for debate then there will be no clear winner.

Culture is the way things are done around here. If that culture is strong it is based on past successes.  It is always hard to argue against a demonstrable success with new ideas, plans for change, or a vision for new successes.  Culture is forged from the lessons of past achievements not the possibilities of future benefits.  Culture is supported by people with shared values, practices, and ways of beingi in the world.  Cultural traits are as strong for individuals/groups whether they are learnt, adaopted, or hard won at the workface.  Cultures can become toxic and yet be defended boldly by those who would benefit the most by almost any change.

If you and your group are caught up in a workplace debate you need to ensure you either have the prevailing culture on side or you make sure that you are offering something completely new. 

Make sure that your argument is based on the changes being experienced or projected for the environment beyond your entity.  Make sure you are arguing for changes that will help your workplace adapt to and survive external changes.  Make sure too that you (and your support group) understand the internal culture of the place so that you can avoid the trap of criticising it.  Make sure too you have a full supply of 'good luck' too.

Good luck comes to those who have the attitude, presence of mind, and resiliance to shrug off any type of setback to their cause.

Posted by richard-lipscombe at 4:40 PM NZT

Updated: Sunday, 24 July 2011 5:10 PM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

In 2011 as ever before people do not see what they are not looking for. 

This is a time of great changes and yet people see threats everywhere not opportunities.  They screen out talent.  They screen out diversity.  They screen out plurality.  They screen out the wisdom of the crowd.

Apply for a job and you will immediately get my drift.  The job is full of descriptors that create a framework to de-humanise the work that needs to be done.  No human being with talent and foibles need apply.  So who will get the job.  Probably the  least talent but the most qualified person (given the culture that he/she must fit into).  The person who will not rock the boat. The person who will fit best the prevailing groupthink around the place.

Is it any wonder that News of The World had a problem with its culture? Is it any wonder that the culture within News of The World reflects the culture of Britain today?  News of The World was not a charity - it served its readers interests for titillation and scandal.  That it became the scandal itself over the past few week is only part of this story.  The real scandal is the low standards of behaviour expected, tolerated, condoned, or otherwise accepted within Britain today.

People do not see what they do not want to see.....

Posted by richard-lipscombe at 2:03 PM NZT

Updated: Thursday, 21 July 2011 2:18 PM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

The biggest change in 2011 is the growth of digial trade.  Local, national, and international trade online, in goods and services, seems to be growing at a decent pace. Much that is shared online has no price attached.  It is free.  Free goods and services as provided by Google, Tripod, Groupon, etc are changing our traditional notions of what is a fair price. 

What is a fair price for goods and services delivered online in comparison to those delivered through the analogue economy?

In the analogue economy the 'price' of goods and services was a signal - it conveyed information to us about the quality, scarcity, and added value bundled into everything we purchased.  We paid more for brands because we trusted them to provide a quality to price ratio that we could accept.  Prices went up when products were improved and we paid that premium accordingly.  It was the 'price mechanism' that conveyed the information we needed to choose what and when to purchase our goods and services.  In a practical sense 'trust' was built into the price.

In a digital economy 'trust' is important too.  What is surprising though is that it is even more important than before.  Anyone who has bought or sold over eBay knows how important 'trust' is to the whole transaction.  Price is clearly secondary to trust.  Trust comes from shared information, networked ratings of performance by buyers/sellers, about the probable outcome for the payee in an online transaction.  Trust is the result of the collective experiences of others who validate or discredit the supplier/buyer for you before you begin to trade with them.

Posted by richard-lipscombe at 2:39 PM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

Withdrawal from a habit is difficult.  The past decade has seen most of us addicted to debt.  We borrowed to fund higher and higher consumption levels. We borrowed so we could spend on consumption assets (homes, schooling, training, etc) not wealth producing assets (businesses, infrastructure, manufacture, etc).  Businesses borrowed to provide the product and services we consumed - some were financed with debt/equity based on a 'promise' of future profits (eg Google, Facebook, Myspace, Groupon, etc).  Governments borrowed too, they borrowed to spend our money in ways that supported our personal/household consumption binge.

We all, in the end, borrowed from China, India, Saudi Arbia, etc. Some lent us their labour (China/india) some their resources (Saudi Arbia). But now for us all, it is pay back time.  Pay back comes in the form of loss of jobs, future lines of credit, efficiency/productivity in our economy (local/national) and asset values (real estate, intellectual property, etc). But what we have lost overall is our urban-industrial economy that we have lived with, and benefitted from, since WWII. 

What happens now?  

Posted by richard-lipscombe at 2:49 PM NZT

Updated: Monday, 18 July 2011 4:51 PM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

Culture Change is difficult - my experience over 30 years has proven such projects to be both frustrating and rewarding.   Rewarding when you can change behaviours.  Frustrating when you are totally swamped by a culture of 'group think' that promotes continuity, conformity, and loyalty to past success. 

One thing that modern change agents often fail to recognise, or give appropriate recognition to, is that culture is the outcome of success not failure.  Pride in past successes is lauded and generally encouraged by us all - so it is difficult to ask people to change their behaviours (or the culture that supports them) without a clear and present demonstration of success.  The new model has to be based on a desirable and feasible pathway to success - it has to be something that people aspire to otherewise it will be rejected like a mismatched liver or heart transplant.

Today there is little attempt at culture change: such endeavours seem too difficult for our times.  Instead we opt for its poor cousin "change management". In these uncertain times management wants skills training embedded into risk averse process or procedural change.  Change management usually accompanies a technological or system upgrade.  It is an adjunct to systemic changes rather than an attempt to re-design, re-form, or re-vamp the social structure of an entity, community, or nation.

Having said that I sense this is precisely the time to engage in "full on" Culture Change.  We need to learn, or to relearn, to eat our peas....

Do you know why you should eat your peas?  See Strategy and Business article at http://www.strategy-business.com/article/11205?gko=ac42d&cid=20110712enews

Posted by richard-lipscombe at 1:32 PM NZT

Updated: Wednesday, 13 July 2011 5:37 PM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

Social mediums - changes to technology rarely bring  changes to social structures. Ideals, ideas, habits, and  social cohesion force changes within social structures.

When we use social mediums we are reminded that connectedness is mythical.  Sure more people are connected via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc than ever before.  The numbers of Tweets, Twitters, etc are huge but the number of meaningful conversations are few.

Ever wondered why the power of Twitter is demonstrated best when there is a movement of people who need to inform each other about ideas, events, facts, etc.  This was the case in the Obama drive for President, especially his use of social mediums to win the Democratic nomination.  This was the case in Egypt during the uprising.  This is often the case with aircraft incidents or crashes.  In all these situations people want and need conversations with rich content.  They need insights, they need ideas, they need to feel connect to the events, and they need to become part of the social cohesion that evolves within a crisis.

Much is made of the wonders of the technology. It is true this is a time in human history when we have remarkable new tools for connection and conversation.  Little is made of the waste of this technology because there is far less understanding of the social structures of the people who use these tools. Those social structures are not being changed by these new technologies, as most commentators claim, but rather re-inforced and hardened.

Example.  Just because commentators claim that web-based technologies are democratic (ie open, transparent, accessible, equitable, etc) does not mean that democracy is about to sweep the world.  The Arab Spring is a good example.  Western eyes see democracy in the air while the movements in all these countries see the chance to end one form of oppression.  Will they become democracies?  Who knows?  I doubt it.  They need ideas, habits, and mores that lead them away from those haboured during their repression before they can decide what type of social mediums suit them best. 

Posted by richard-lipscombe at 12:18 PM NZT

Updated: Thursday, 7 July 2011 3:06 PM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

What is the real value of content today?  How do you place a value on content presented to you online?  Do you expect online content to be provided to you free of charge?

We all know the value, or price, of technology.  If we don't then we can go to an online auction house and find out what value is put on 'things' by others.  For things we have a traditional market price mechanism.  For people who produce things we have a traditional market mechanism for valuing their contribution (how much value they add) to the things they make or sell.  But content is different.

The value of content is at the heart of many of the issues we face today.  Newspapers incur huge cost in creating, sourcing, and presenting content but the value of that content is now in question.  Previously, we all relied on newspapers, magazines, etc to bring us reliable content and we paid for it.  The price we paid was small in terms of the cost of running a daily newspaper/media outlet but these costs were offset by revenue from advertising.  Today we are not as willing to pay even a small amount for that content.  So what is content worth today?

Quality content is as important as ever before but are we willing to pay the full cost of producing it?   

Posted by richard-lipscombe at 1:32 PM NZT

Updated: Wednesday, 6 July 2011 1:46 PM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

2011 is an interesting year for us all.  There is so much going on - the commentators are out there predciting what will and what will not happen (as usual).

One interesting development I note is that the 'experts' like to tell us about what they all agree about. I find this interesting because I have learnt, over the years, that when everyone is predicting a 'certain' outcome then tread carefully.  When betting on sports I believe that 'certainties' are good bets for someone else and if I can make a half reasonable case for an upset I should back the underdog.

This year is a great time to be humble, it seems to me.  It is a time to put our "prediction thinking cap" on the shelf.  People who like to back their predictions can become very arrogant.  Being arrogant with egg on the face is becoming common in 2011.  Rather, I prefer to listen to the humble commentator who is not sure what outcomes are likely because they see both threats and opportunities rather than certainities.

My mantra this year is to try as hard as I can to be humble - perhaps this is the year when the meek will inherit the world. 

Posted by richard-lipscombe at 2:20 PM NZT

Updated: Monday, 4 July 2011 5:12 PM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

Spend shift is happening with consumers - ie most have put their debt funded consumption on hold. Consumers today are forming social networks online that is forcing businesses to provide them with more use value. Consumers want to unbundle today's business offers because they are now much more frugal purchasers. Consumers today are the real talent for business because they are a collaborative force for change. Consumers understand the digital revenue models of free access to general content and paid access to specialised content.

Posted by richard-lipscombe at 12:14 PM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

Think piece.........

After decades of credit/debt boosted consumerism - including house sales - there is a change evident.  Consumers have become frugal.  They want more 'use value' for their dollar spend.  They want to reduce their household debt levels.

While it is hard to imagine a return to post WWII consumer habits of saving and paying for goods and services with cash.  It is probable that a new consumer is emerging who will better fit with the nature and context of a global digital econoimy.  Consumers will purchase/transact more deals over the web.  The costs of these transactions will be discounted against the local store prices.  Thus the urban malls will struggle for business.  Indeed those who sell global goods and services will be forced to deal on the web.

Local goods/services will be confined to the staples - homes, food, energy, telecomunications, and some entertainment.  The rest of what we consume will be provided or at least sourced on the web.

The spend shift patterns we can expect therefore have two elements 1) frugal consumers with low tolerance for credit/debt 2) a new economy with two streams - local and global supply.

The numbers of traditional jobs lost to the local economy will be enormous.  These will be offset however by a huge increase in jobs that are linked to the global economy.  In the main the best educated and most self-motivated workers will gravitate to the global economy and the local economy will struggle to attract the talent it needs to maintain high quality outputs.

Posted by richard-lipscombe at 1:25 PM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink