Skip to content →

Category: value

Politics of Change • Economics of Change • Value of Change

Published November 13, 2007 by cgerrish

Al Gore

It’s an interesting question. Who has more power to affect climate change: the President of the United States or a new partner at Kleiner Perkins. One way to create change is to make new laws. Another way is to create economic incentives and fund creativity in the business world. Al Gore spent a lot of time trying to change things using the political system, now he’s trying another method. Political solutions always seem to involve sacrifice and high cost to the economy. When a new venture is funded, the expectation is that it’s going to be successful and make money. The fact that it’s a green venture doesn’t make a bit of difference.

It’s a different kind of grass roots politics that Gore’s practicing now. He’s building a constituency in the business world, and by creating value (doing well and doing good) he’ll change more minds than by fighting with politicians. That is, he will if he can show that his portfolio companies can make a buck or two. It’s a large bet, and a very optimistic bet, on the future of human endeavours.

Comments closed

Facebook partners with Amway & Tupperware

Published November 12, 2007 by cgerrish

Tupperware party

This just in, Facebook announces partnerships with Amway and Tupperware. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg reportedly said, “What’s old is new again. In order to bring advertising into Facebook we need the expertise of companies with a solid history of getting people to sell stuff to their friends.”

Multi-Level marketing has entered a whole new phase. The online tupperware party and other alternative distribution systems are the future of retailing. Stores are dead. While some have difficulty distinguishing this approach from a Ponzi scheme, Facebook has managed to avoid the pyramid scheme by not sharing any of the revenue with their members. Facebook participants bear the burden of endorsing products and selling into their network of “friends” without any of the benefit. If the thing blows up, Facebook can always put the blame on its users. After all, what kind of sucker would shill for a product without getting a piece of the action?

One Comment

Aggressive weeds in the garden of your social graph?

Published November 7, 2007 by cgerrish

It’s a cold world out there. In the beginning there was the walled garden. AOL was a safe place, but in the end it couldn’t  compete with the wider network of websites. But once we were out in the cold cruel world, we needed someone to help us find our way around. A personal start page like MyYahoo, or a search engine like Google provided an orientation point for any journey into the network.

Social networking sites like Facebook seem to provide a new entry point that filters the larger network using one’s friends as editors; transparantly journals friend activity; and provides the opportunity to create facets, or nodes of connection, through the assertion of interests (preferred modes of attention) within the social network.

The battle for monetizing the network revolves around which company can provide the best orientation point for entering the network. Facebook puts you into the stream of your friend’s activity. Techmeme puts you into the stream of technology news and opinion. Twitter puts you into an edited collection of small moments, stream of consciousness and conversation. MyYahoo is a personal newspaper. Google is ready to show you whatever you’re interested in. Google Reader puts you in an edited stream of blogs. Del.icio.us puts you into an edited stream of categorized bookmarks and pointers. Mahalo is a variation on Google, it’ll show you whatever you’re interested in, but edits the search result to make it more human readable. Where do you want to enter the network today? Perhaps, I’d like to enter through my teleputer…

Trust is hard to earn and easy to lose. This is the primary lesson for social networking sites, what was so painstakingly created and nutured can be destroyed very easily. The structure of a social network is biological, it’s growth is organic. But it is subject to disease (viruses, the madness of mobs, etc) and environmental factors. For instance, you could introduce social objects (nodes) that aren’t individuals, but representatives of corporate entities. You could ask people within the network to vouch for these new objects. You could have just figured out the best way to monetize the social network as an entry point, or you could have introduced an aggressive weed into your garden. In any case, the ecology of the system is irrevocably altered. Trust is hard to win, easy to lose.

3 Comments

Phoning in the OpenSocial / OHA on my Teleputer

Published November 6, 2007 by cgerrish

Google seems to be in the announcement business these days. Announcements of grand alliances that make a big circle around the future of our interaction with the network. The future of social, is you can take your graph with you. (That’s friends for most people) And the future of mobile computing is that Google wants to stand as the middle man between you and anything you want on the network. (and of course, monetize that position) The phone will be opened up and will be open source.

 God knows the phone needs to be opened up in someway– it’s a very crippled interface. If you view voice as just another kind of data, it changes you idea of what a phone should do. Although I think I’ve heard all this before from George Gilder, it was called the rise of the Teleputer.

And I’m afraid I have to agree with Fake Steve Jobs, it’s not a phone, it’s an alliance. Companies join alliances for many reasons, often they do it to slow down progress, maintain the current environment, and protect their current revenue stream. I don’t see alliances creating change, they’re more effective in consolidating change that has already occured.

If you want to instigate change, you need to upset the balance of power. A new element needs to be injected into the competitive mix. Apple’s iPhone has the potential to do this because it re-invents the phone interface on a software platform. This gives it real flexibility, it can learn and adapt. Google is probably looking for the same kind of environment with their alliance. But it’s a long way from alliances to making phone calls. Remember something is only useful when it has users.  Not developers, users.

One Comment