Okay...I very rarely have material goals, but this...yes. This I want. Yes, it's a sportscar, but it's way cooler than that:

• 100% electric
• 0 to 60 in 4 seconds
• 135 mpg equivalent (for those who do the 'electric hurts the environment' argument)
• 250 miles per charge
• about 1 cent per mile

Current pricetag? $75k - if you reserve it ahead of time. $100k when it comes out...which means, I'll have to wait a while...but I heard rumors that the 'plan' is to roll out more accessible versions over the next 5 years (even a $20k model, which is more my pace).

Still not a convert?

...the Tesla Roadster offers double the efficiency of popular hybrid cars, while generating one-third of the carbon dioxide. Compare the Tesla Roadster against other sports cars and the results get better still: it is six times as efficient and produces one-tenth the pollution, all while achieving the same performance and acceleration.

and for those 'hot car' enthusiasts...Lotus actually designed it. Yum.

While my business picks up, my personal life seems to be falling by the wayside in various ways. I had heard about Maya's Mom through various channels, but hadn't really decided to join until I knew that I needed a support network.

And what a support network it is!

I don't know how many parents read my blog, but what I found at Maya's Mom was this amazingly friendly, safe place to talk about what, I think, are my short comings as a Mom. And I didn't have people saying, "There there." I had oodles of people offering me helpful, judgment free tips - from experience and even trained expertise. Within about 2 hours of posting a sensitive topic, I had 6 Moms offer up their words of wisdom. Within 24 hours, I had taken some real steps to change my situation and within 48 hours, I was feeling way more confident.

I can just imagine how helpful this would have been when I was a new mom - very young and scared and unsure. There are actually tons of mothers of young children on the system.

For me, Maya's Mom represents the kind of site that fosters this type of community. There are all sorts of groups, easy ways to post discussion topics, safe spaces to post photos and questions. Ann, who is 'Maya's Mom' actually greets you and personally thanked me for being so open and honest with my concerns. She spends time to get to know each one of her community members, it looks like. That's key. Being part of the audience you serve is essential. I'll bet that's why the site is so intuitive.

Now...you can't join unless you have kids (which is a good thing) and your photos are private except for friends (which is also good for most parents - plus, I can post the unflattering shots there safely). This isn't a 'social network' like any other I've been to (which is the best thing about it). But, living in a relatively child-hostile city and functioning within a seemingly child-less zone (I hang out with mostly single geeks), it is a site that makes me feel incredibly confident and safe to ask any of those 'icky' Mommy questions I need to ask and get a safe and sound answer from people who care.

Thanks for Maya's Mom, Ann!

Seriously. First, poor Jeneane had problems, then there have been at least 5 outages in the past week and a half. Now, if this post ever makes it up there (I'm emailing it in), I wanted to inform you that I'm going to post all of my thoughts over at the Citizen Agency blog until I can figure out how to move myself over to Wordpress.

[Huh? by jpeepz]

Did you ever have one of those situations where you get asked a question and when you answer it, you look the inquisitor straight in the eye and realize that is totally not the answer they were looking for? And at the same time, you realize that you could never actually answer it the way they wanted to, because they are operating in an entirely different paradigm than you are.

I get that a great deal.

Like at Office 2.0, when the crowd wanted to know how to sell Web 2.0 into the enterprise and I said, "Um, the chaotic and grassroots nature of Web 2.0 is antithetical to enterprise. However, I do see the next generation of potential employees disrupting all that is enterprise anyway. I believe the nature of business itself is changing. It's only time before the grassroots disrupts it. Therefore, we should be concentrating on the grassroots adoption as well as SMB's, who are much more willing to try brave new products in lieu of cost-savings."

Blink. Blink. Blink. [blank stares]

And then, "So, how do we sell Web 2.0 into the enterprise, then?"

Man...

When I was at Riya I was certain I communicated my strategy. I was spending my marketing time getting involved with the web and photo community on a one-on-one basis - on line, in person and in print - then weaving the lessons learnt back into my feedback on the product emerging, hoping that both the trust and the visibility I was working on would translate into a good launched product (as well as a myriad of other things). This resulted in a great deal of buzz and over a million photos uploaded in the first day...but because it didn't fit into a paradigm of direct ROI, lines of code or spreadsheets of projected numbers, it was translated as "launch and pray". I can see why Munjal may think this. We were talking entirely different languages, so he couldn't possibly see how A=B.

The problem is point of view. Previously, I have been terrible at realizing the gulf that separated different paradigms. I'd miss all sorts of cues and get frustrated, keep repeating the answer and end up getting nowhere. Today, I make understanding this a priority.

I've learnt a great deal about this in the past few months (especially starting a new business entirely built on a different paradigm) and there are a few things that I've added to my mantra, like:

1. Difference doesn't equate to a value judgment. I have one point of view. That person may have another. Trying to find common ground is good, but, chances are, we will end up agreeing to disagree. That's cool. There is room in the world for this.
   
   Watching Mondovino taught me this. Although I love wine for the 'craft' and 'history', I do agree that the Mondavi way of wine making has made wine way more accessible for a wider number of people. And it's business. I understand that. Not my focus, but I totally get it.
   
   [that being said, the scales are waaaaay tipped...so I'm looking forward to the balance that is being restored through this crazy citizen media stuff]
   
   
2. It is best not to try to 'change' the perspectives of others. Instead, listen to where they are coming from. Can you come to a compromise without feeling you have compromised too much? Then a relationship is not suitable for you.
   
   
3. People's core values never change. Okay, that's an absolute, so there are probably many exceptions. However, believing that will save you a helluvalotta heartache. No matter how good your intentions, find peace with this.
   
   
4. Understanding the other perspectives (i.e. seeing it from their point of view) is good for you. It doesn't mean that you change your own core values, but it not only helps you to open your mind, but it actually works to make your own ideas stronger. You may even come up with a thought or two on how you can co-exist. ;)
   
   
5. Don't try to fit the wrong answer into the wrong question. Say, "From my point of view, that is the wrong question...and here is why..." or even, "I am not equipped to answer that question..." Otherwise, you'll end up being frustrated and frustrating your audience.

I think I've mentioned my Mother's wisdom before, but I should have listened to her earlier when she said to me, "You can't change anyone but yourself." I think I'm finally 'getting' it, Mom!

So, today, when a someone wants to hire us and asks, "So, can you build enough buzz to generate 500,000 new members in the next six months?" we know to kindly decline*. Because, well, they are asking the wrong question.

*of course, we tell them why, but as per #2...we don't aim to change perspectives...just clarify.

I'm just waiting to have coffee with one of my favourite people at the amazing Espresso Vivace in Seattle, so I thought I'd check in and say 'THANKS!' to Maryam, who invited me to speak on the Building Communities Online panel at the Blog Business Summit. The panel has received some good reviews. Awesome.

I actually came up with the slides on the flight here (night before). Yikes. So last minute, I know, but I wanted to include stuff I've been thinking about but haven't had a chance to blog. Fresh, y'know. Stuff I hadn't talked about to death.

My slides are posted here (however, they are wonky from the keynote to ppt conversion..have to adjust that...here is the pdf).

My presentation was called Commodity or Community? and I plan to blog more about what I'm thinking about very soon. Until then, you can kind of read between the lines of those slides. :)

If you use 'Google' synonymously with 'search', you may be in biiiig trouble, according to this post. (I know this isn't new news, but the gBlog is bringing it out into the open)

They don't want to be Kleenex or Escalator...

Um...

Boo hoo, Google. That's what happens when you become gargantuously successful at something. Either way, you are raking in over 1/2 of the ad revenue in North America because people are Googling mostly on Google. Your brand is being spread far and wide. So, for those newbies who are new to search, what do they do? They go to Google. It's recognizable. It's everywhere.

I've heard the term 'Google Juice' too many times today alone (including a reference to it spilling over onto other sites).

So, the heavy-handedness with the 'our lawyers will getcha' message is pretty OTT IMHO. Be thankful that you matter, really. You should be a commodity, but you aren't. You are synonymous with your category. You've won (well, at least for the time being, but if this type of behaviour persists, you may lose that spot).

"I asked the young couple what they do for a living and they said, 'Blogging and Podcasting'. I thought to myself, 'They don't look like deep sea fisherman.'"

Stan, the fairly new real-estate blogger, at the Blog Business Summit

Now this is a company launch I'm excited about: Obvious Corp. Ev is one of my heroes. He's honest, open and smart. Oh...and he gives a damn about the people who use his apps.

So much that he bought his own company back from the VC's. As he put it:

I just wanted to create a company that would be as much fun and as fulfilling as possible. Fun in work to me means a lot of freedom, and ton of creativity, working with people I respect and like, and pursuing ideas that are just crazy enough to work. I don't want to have to worry about getting buy-in from executives or a board, raising money, worrying about investor's perceptions, or cashing out.

That rocks. I'm looking forward to seeing his new model for building web products. I'm sure whatever that looks like will be inspirational to many.

Off to the Blog Business Summit today (it started at 8 a.m. this morning). I'll be speaking on a panel with the ever charming Elisa Camahort and the unstoppable Betsy Aoki regarding Building Communities Online.

Just like Betsy, I'm going to refer to Kathy Sierra on this one...but for the 'presentation zen' she posted about the other day:

1. Don't start at the beginning (going to cut out that part about why)
   
2. Show, don't tell (lots of stories, anecdotes, etc.)
3. Definitely won't start with the history of communities
   
4. ...or prerequisites
5. and my credentials? I'll be so compelling, people will want to go and check me out...;) Besides, it's about the audience...not me.
   

She says, "Begin with a question"

Mine is: By now, you've discovered that the internet has amplified the power of the customer voice. Is this a frightening, utterly chaotic turn of events or the best thing that ever happened to business?

I'm going to tell three stories: Fluevog, Threadless and Flickr

Then I'm going to go into some simple takeaway steps, but make certain I accentuate the fact that every customer is unique. (and answer the question, of course...it IS the best thing that ever happened to business) Then I'll leave loads of room for Q&A.

I have a feeling that Betsy and Elisa and I are pretty aligned on our assessments of community. This should be loads of fun.

The word crowdsourcing makes me sad.

Why don't people just say: "wanting you to give your time to my project for free" or "could you do me a favor that will never be returned?". It sounds so much nicer.

Best text message ever:


This message was randomly sent out to a group of people on Courtney's Twitter friend list. Instantly, I imagined what situation could have precipitated this message.

I [heart] twitter quite a bit. It's this quirky text messaging company that I signed up for when I heard it was Ev's new thing. At first, Ev was (also) my tamagotchi. I was fascinated at what he was up to (surprisingly). Planning his upcoming nuptials. Endless traveling (he has a better phone plan than I do to send and accept multitudes of text messages in Europe). Selling his house. Having dinner with interesting people.

Unlike Dodgeball, where I'm sort of constrained to specific tasks, Twitter allows me to just message anything that strikes my fancy...out to a group of people who I've specified are my friends. Of course, there could be many improvements and tweaks, but right now, they are doing the smart thing and just letting their users feel around the place. Seeing what emerges. Or at least, they seem to be doing that.

And Ev himself is like a catalyst. He twitters stuff out that, I'm sure, makes all of his 'friends' more likely to open themselves up to this micro-sms-blogging tool. I learn stuff just intimate enough to make me feel close to him, but not enough to make me want to unsubscribe. But, seeing how he's conducted his self in the past, I think Ev very much 'gets' community.

[He stood up in front of a crowd at FoWA and told us that he thought that Odeo failed and gave us the reasons why. It was brilliant and self-reflective and included the fact that he wasn't building as part of the community...he didn't even podcast.]

Even Chris has recently fallen in love with Twitter...using the API to develop desktop apps that alert us to the Twittering when we are hard at work.

I don't know if it works outside of the US (and Canada, I would assume), but all it requires is a cell phone that accepts and sends text messages. I would make certain my plan included unlimited texting (or at least quite a few). Twitter doesn't currently charge, but your phone company isn't so altruistic.

[Reading the Longtail ... By Zenigma]

There is a new agency in town: Crayon

Their business model? Teaching companies how to 'enter the conversation' in Second Life.

Man...

I respect Joseph Jaffe very much and enjoyed his book, Life After the 30-Second Spot, so I'm assuming they are going to be 'smart' about it...um...respectful to the Second Life community, even.

Yes, there is a business model here because over 1 million people have joined the virtual community. There were even calls for this type of thing. (Like, instantly, when #'s start proving the worth of a community, the drooling begins)

I can't help to think, again, about what Dave Rogers has to say [UPDATE: now I know, whew, I knew he'd come through! So much more succinct than I am.]. I mean, yes, the Cluetrain said 'markets are conversations' (meaning people in the marketplace are talking) but all of these people are conflating it to mean 'marketing is conversations' (which means you have a conversation before you sell something to someone) - which is, I believe, what is how it is being interpreted widely. It seems when big business shows up, they have a way of inherently effing up everything that is sacred for their own financial gain.

People haven't gone to Second Life to be 'conversated with' by people who only care about the dollar value you can deliver them. Sure, sure...Jaffe and crew will teach respect for the community and all that (and, no, "Conversation and Transformation above Communication" doesn't clarify anything...for me...it's vagueness actually makes me a little more suspicious), but I loath the day I can't go anywhere (online or off) where I have to wonder whether a person chatting with me is sincerely interested in me as a person or just wants me to buy stuff.

Not long ago, I wrote this crazy comment on an excellent Burningbird post (the post is a must-read):

I sometimes feel like I’m part of a machine who is that guy in the Terminator movie who found the Terminator’s robot hand and figures out the secret to A.I. which leads to eventually robots nuking the planet and waging war on humans. And Linda whatsherface and Arnie have to kill him to stop it from happening, but he’s a good guy. He has good intentions. He has no idea about what he’s contributing to.

We really have to throw that chip into the molten lava before there is nothing sacred left in the world.

My only hope now is that all of these 'new media' businesses will fail their clients miserably (sorry...) and prove, once and for all, that the 30-second spot is actually where it's at. There is clear ROI there. Please, dammit. Please keep 'marketing messages' where 'marketing messages' should be. Or else we will live in the world that Shelley describes here:

I’ve never considered marketing people equivalent to used car salesmen. I even admire marketing companies that come out with clever ads and interesting campaigns. There’s been many a commercial I’ve found more interesting than the show, and I’ve liked some enough that I’ve actually bought the product because of the intelligence of the advertising spot. So, I don’t not like marketers...

...As I said, I’ve been exposed to marketing, but not marketers. Not people who work in PR, or marketing, or who write motivational books, or anything of that nature. Until weblogging, that is. Now, I can’t seem to swing a dead cat without hitting a marketer.

[emphasis mine]

Social pollution. Yep. That is what it is.

Get on your toxin blockers...

Although we've been in business for a mere 4 months, I previously ran Rogue Strategies for 2 and a half years, so some of these lessons I'm relearning. As well, some of these were contributed by really smart entrepreneurs I know. We found them really useful, so hopefully others will, too:

1. Make a list of at least 10 criteria a client has to meet. Stuff like: share the same core philosophies of blah, blah and blah; not try to haggle on the price; and be commited to his/her end of the work; etc. Know your own deal breakers.
   
   [thanks Jen!]
   
   
2. Know that the issues you have during the negotiation process are issues that will carry through the rest of the relationship. These aren't necessarily deal breakers, but they will inform you of what to be aware of in the future.
   
   [thanks Lane!]
   
   
3. Be clear on goals. Ask your potential client: "When this has been successful and we sit down for drinks and reminisce about the success of this project and relationship, what does it look like for you?" It really helps to understand what to work towards.
   
   [Lane again!]
   
   
4. Don't ignore red flags. Everything may appear to align, but if something seems 'off', pay attention and follow the lead. It is better to part amicably in the beginning than messily later on.
   
   
5. Avoid working for friends and family. This may seem really tempting, but it is not a good idea. Even the simplest thing like a homepage redesign can drive apart the closest friendship. If you have to help a friend out, do it for 'trade'.
   
   
6. Heed the warnings of others. Really. If you need a 'second opinion', seek it, but when a previous relationship has soured, it's good to find out why...even if it is only to help you avoid the same pitfalls. Especially beware, when someone says, "They don't pay their bills."
   
   
7. Set expectations from the start. Don't start out by dedicating 40 hours per week when you've contracted for 5. We like to go above and beyond, but setting expectations like that up front can turn out to be frustrating for you and your clients.
   
   
8. Don't undervalue yourself. It is tempting to give 'deals' and set yourself at a lower rate than you need to in order to 'ramp up'. Don't. Instead, be objective about it. Take a look at industry standards (especially for your geographic location) and calculate what the cost of running your business is. You can't help anyone if you are starving. Ask around at cost structures, too. We use a monthly retainer system, which works pretty well for us and most of our clients - but never haggle over hours because, inevitably, they vary and they are paying for delivery, not clock-watching.
   
   
9. Don't take on a 'bad fit', even if you are really, really broke. I say that you should go into a little debt before you take on a client that doesn't fit these criteria. The right one will come along if you are doing things right (if not, that is a whole other story, but you can always go back to working for 'da man). Taking on a problematic client out of desperation puts you in a terrible position. You are begging for heartache and/or abuse.
   
   
10. Never be adversarial. Ever. A relationship that starts out on a bad note will continue on that same note. Win-win is the way to be. If someone feels slighted, things will never be right. Even when a client has disappointed me or been a problem later on in the relationship, I've always tried to come at it from a win-win perspective. I'm never wishy-washy, but I do want to end things well and it is easier to get a positive outcome if one approaches the situation from an empathetic point of view.

It's a two-way street. We look at bringing on new clients like a partnership...like they've joined the wider team. We actually introduce all of our current clients to new clients and make them interact and collaborate with one another, too. This way, they can talk about us behind our backs. ;)

[p.s. I would post this to the CA blog, but it's down. Besides, hopefully it's useful for my fellow entrepreneurial readers]

#1. Conventional Wisdom

In 1958, the very brilliant John Kenneth Galbraith coined the term 'Conventional Wisdom' to mean that type of statement that is repeated so many times, people think it is actually true. From Wikipedia: Conventional Wisdom has a property analogous to inertia, a momentum, that opposes the introduction of contrary belief; sometimes to the point of absurd denial of the new information set by persons strongly holding an outdated (conventional wisdom) view.

#2. Devil's Advocate

As Tom Kelly puts it, "The role of the devil's advocate is nearly universal in business today. It allows individuals to...effectively kill new projects and ideas, while claiming no personal responsibility."

#3. Crowdsourcing

From Wikipedia: It describes a business model akin to outsourcing, but relying upon unpaid or low-paid amateurs who use their spare time to create content, solve problems, or even do corporate R&D. Lovely.

I like Chris' definition: 'Crowdsourcing' is kind of like sexism in how it objectifies those who would perform work as part of a given effort without respecting them as collaborants for their contributions.

Other examples?

I have been very fortunate. Over the past year, I've traveled through work to the following places:

• Paris (2x)
• Dijon
• Lyon
• Montpellier
• Amsterdam
• Berlin
• London
• Bangalore
• Seattle (2x)
• Calgary
• Toronto
• New York (2x)
• Boston (2x)
• New Hampshire (several towns & cities)
• Raleigh
• Durham
• Greensboro
• Austin
• Phoenix
• Murphy's (CA)
• Sebastapol (CA)
• San Jose (and various other peninsula towns)

Whew! Did I miss any? It's difficult to keep track. I've also been to oodles of conferences and BarCamps and events, met geeks and non-geeks in all of those places. I've traveled by plane, by boat, by car and by train (well, the boat was only across the Bay to Sausalito, but it was a sailboat, so I think it counts).

I've observed people from different countries with different tastes and lifestyles and desires and backgrounds. It's been exciting, exhilerating and inspirational, but the most informative moments for me have come when we engage in conversation with people who are totally outside of our industry.

For instance, on both the overnight train from Paris to Berlin and the return overnight train, we happened to share the same couchette bank with a young man (maybe 25 or so) named Andy. On the way to Berlin, he was a great help with communicating for us to the German speaking conductor (our German is non-existant). On the way back, we were surprised to see him again, so we started having a deeper conversation.

Andy is a student at the business school in Paris (Finance) and, ironically, had been given the assignment to write a term paper on why businesses should care about blogging. Chris and I enthusiastically explained how it has benefited us and how simple it was to do.

The one point that Andy seemed to be won over on was that there were tools in place to witness who was linking in to you. He had no idea that blogs interacted at such a rate. He, as well as most of the world, still saw blogs as a outward communication tool...not as a two-way communication tool. Hyperlinks! That was the key for him and he hungrily wrote down all of the sites we rattled off: Technorati, Google Blogsearch, etc.

The instantly measurable ROI of seeing who is talking about you made the advantage immediately clear and we suspect that Andy, himself, will go to Wordpress (also written down enthusiastically) and set up his very own 'experimental' blog (which we warned him would become very addictive and he would end up a slave to his blog just like we are).

After offering him the blogging (which Marnie Webb once told me is the gateway drug to social media) lesson, we moved into wikis, SecondLife, social bookmarking and Flickr...we didn't even get to videoblogging and podcasting, because we could see his head was spinning. We gave him our email addresses and then we all drifted off.

This experience taught me more than my endless hours of online research and getting together with my fellow geeks to discuss technology. Why? Because when I'm 'geeking out', I lose touch with the rest of the world. With people's real motivations, with reality and with the fact that there is a world full of lessons and questions and diversity out there that can inform everything I'm working on today.

We need this diversity.

I've always wanted to go to the TED conference. It's not the big-time star speakers that I care so much about, it's the fact that the people that present at TED are people I have probably never seen present elsewhere...because they are either from a totally different background than I have studied or they have been found doing real-world amazing things that don't include pitching the conference circuit.

Sure, the conference is deadly expensive, not to mention exclusive (it's tough to even get accepted to spend your money), but I have yet to hear any former attendee say that it wasn't worth it.

I think the key to TED is diversity.

There have been alot of responses to Chris' recent white boys club post that indicate that a commitment to diversity would mean a decline in quality. Or worse, that a commitment to diversity would end up patronizing 'minority' groups - leading to the 'token female' or 'token African American', etc.

No way.

Diverse situations inform everyone involved. Developers need designers need customer service needs marketing need engineers need managers need customers need researchers need writers need...the list goes on. But we also learn something when we step all the way outside of our own comfort zone. When we travel. When we go to the opera instead of going to a Flickr meetup. When we join a group organizing a community art project instead of joining a group discussing Ruby on Rails. It's all important and we should strive to cross polinate as much as possible.

But not because it's a nice or 'renaissance' thing to do, but because it is necessary to your future. Innovation depends on diversity. Diversity in teams (hire someone from outside the industry to be on the team in some fashion). Diversity in education (invite unexpected guest lecturers and discussions...go on a field trip). Diversity in activities (get outside, build something with your hands, travel).

I just finished reading the 10 Faces of Innovation by Tom Kelly from the world renowned innovation shop, IDEO. This is a shop, renowned for it's innovative ideas. They can charge exorbitant amounts because they have an edge. He admits that a big part of this edge is diversity. Every chapter of the book mentions this.

I know it is my personal goal to start diversifying more. I believe that it will really help my clients and the future quality of my work and thought to do so. I'm going to finally take French lessons (hold me to that). I'm going to go to the gym regularly (just signed up yesterday). I'm going to start going to more cultural events again. I'm going to spend more time with my girlfriends. I'm even going to read the occasional fiction book.

This industry needs to do the same. Steve Balmer's famous 'Developers! Developers! Developers!' rant is mirrored by the Google uni-policy of hiring only Ph.D.s and celebrating the cult of developer. I think developers rock. They are awesome. I depend on them to make technology move. But they aren't the only voice needed in this biz.

The end users of technology are not a monolithic mass...so those contributing to the future of it should not be either.

And, yes, we need more women...and more African Americans...and more Native Americans...and more people with disabilities...and a celebration of the multitude of personalities and sexualities and cultures we have in the industry already (yes, even Turks, Tantek...;)). Not to mention the necessity of more input from more people outside of our industry in informing the development of our tools going forward.

The more I travel, the more people I meet, the more I know this to be true.

Diversity isn't a 'nice thing to have'. It's essential. It is our first step to crafting experience.

You have to be kidding.

Is his power truly limitless? Next, he'll be passing a law that the current President can rule indefinitely...'cause it's in the interest of America.

Oh...and I watched this tonight. Raises some crazy questions. Not that this video was news (something like 43% of New Yorkers believe there were explosives). What baffles me is that it just keeps going on and on...

I know this isn't a political blog and that I'm a resident alien (so I should shutup), but wow. When does it hurt so bad that you finally want to remove the knife?

[I actually had to laugh out loud at this bill, proposing a $6.7 billion spend on a 'fence' between the US and Mexico. Nice. That'll keep the buggers out.]

That's a big title for my small post.

Like Dave Rogers says, "You can introduce whatever great technology, but unless people change, it won't mean a damn." (okay...paraphrasing)

The Wal-mart blog thingy happened because Edelman, as Tris conjectures, puts their clients ahead of their clients' clients. Yep, that's the way most business works. [You think that greeter is really happy to see you?]

It's time to tip the scales, I think. I wrote a little post over at the CA Blog about our core philosophy and why we are more concerned with our clients' clients than our clients. In a world that conspires against the 'consumer' ('buy our stuff and shut up' and 'we care about you, really, okay we don't, but we've paid alot of money for this creative, so that you will think that, when we really should have put the money into replacing those crappy parts or empowering customer service to help you'), we are bettting the bank on consulting our clients in the other direction.

We don't actually care if they blog...unless they really, really want to open those lines of communication. Nor do we think that having a blog means that those lines of communication are open.

That's the issue here. The league of clueless has a spanky new tool: blogs. No need to change your attitude or outlook when you have a tool that says you have. Right?

Wrong.

From my post:

We love our clients. We think they are awesome and want them to do very very well. In fact, we want them to be big successes.

So, we totally ignore their corporate interests, technological limitations and funder concerns.

Not that we have all of the answers. It's a complex and difficult transition...and even after you do everything possible, you could still miss the boat. All I know is that all of these books and blogs and consultants and firms that are teaching their clients to joint the conversation by [insert Web 2.0 technology here] aren't going to change anything unless we go at the attitude.

[photo from wikipedia]

A comedy troop so funny, they needed two names.

Canadian.

My birth into appreciating all that is Canadian humor.

Mr. Canoehead. The Grunt-o-Gram. Kazoo Theatre. Mr. Interesting. Those two nerds that drive women MAD!

There is a petition to get their stuff on DVD for those of us who remember to purchase.

Official site. Man, I loved the Frantics. Anyone? Anyone?

Mostly for my own round-up, these are the themes I'm obsessed with these days:

1. CRAFT
   
2. DECENTRALIZED ORGANIZATIONS
3. COMMUNITY (like, always)
4. LONG TERM THINKING (or, as Evelyn says, Slow Marketing)
5. CHAOS
6. DEVNETS (which nobody seems to be picking up...yet...but Ben will change that)
   

Themes that I'm also thinking about and I'm going to discuss some more:

1. DIVERSITY (on so many levels)
   
2. MEASUREMENTS (yep. the chaotic one wants to measure the health of community. not in the sub-standard way we've always measured stuff, though.)

I've also been asked to contribute to Vitamin (first article in...just awaiting edits...it's kind of a beginner "Why Community?" piece) and the Fast Company blog (coming soon - although they really need to trash the partial feeds). I'll be on a panel at the Blog Business Summit next week in Seattle. I'm thinking it will be a better fit (what was that girl going on about? lol) than the Office 2.0 panel (nobody there seemed the least bit interested in community - well, except for Deb).

Oh, hey...this is cool. Pinko Marketing is getting uber pickup in the French blogosphere! Vive la revolution!

The above is not a value judgement. We live in a very real, very fast world, where time and money are both limited. Mass production and mass 'targeting' are a reality for us. We want it inexpensive and we want it now and there are many companies that make a living out of providing just that.

But in a world where everything is commoditized, those things that stand out are the experiences. Turning a commodity into a craft. It sometimes takes a great deal of change, but often times, these changes are subtle.

It's the lack of 'classes', the little televisions that say pleasant things, and better than average service of JetBlue. It's the slow hand drip coffee at Blue Bottle Coffee. It's having a hamburger under the UBahn tracks and between two busy streets, served up by a woman who genuinely loved meat (she looked at Vegetarian Chris like he was on crack). It's finding that perfect little romantic restaurant with a prix fixe tasting menu that takes you on a journey...not a meal.

The most successful consultants have turned their services into a craft. They specialize and study very specific areas. They become obsessed with the details of their specialization. They write and absorb and talk to people and find out every nuance to bring back this knowledge to their clients. They call themselves 'boutique' firms. Sure, there are alot of fine firms that make a great living designing websites or PR campaigns, but those who obsessively take their clients through an experience that changes the way they do business or approach problem solving, etc., those are the ones we remember. Those are the ones we shell out for.

You can't afford to be without them.

Diner coffee? Nope. I'll wait. I'll go several blocks out of my way for a Blue Bottle coffee. I'll bring everyone I know there. I will tell people on the other side of the world about it. Whether they care or not. There is always a lineup at Blue Bottle. I can't tell you who we flew with last time we went south, but I can tell you who we'll fly with anytime we head to Boston or New York. We actually get excited to fly Jet Blue. Excited. I hate flying. That takes a bunch. I've heard similar rants and raves about SouthWest Airlines. In fact, Creating Customer Evangelists dedicates an entire chapter to the people who fly SWA. They get practically fanatical about SouthWest - writing love letters and donating money to make sure they stay in service in tough times.

Yes. You can have a commodity and make a darn good business. It's the backbone of this culture. But there are a few issues that you will face:

1. There are lots of commodities. That means you will end up competing on price. How low can you go? I'll betcha not as low as those importers.
2. Even if you are offering something new, there will be competitors soon.
3. I can't imagine there is much joy in it.

Oh...and the advantages to crafting an experience?

1. Darn, it's awesome fun: building something worthwhile, building relationships, learning stuff...
   
2. Your customers will remember it and return time and again
3. ...then they'll tell others about it
4. It's nearly impossible for new competitors to take business away from you (loyalty is crazy awesome)
5. You don't have to compete on price. You can price fairly, where everyone wins.

No, not everyone will buy an experience. Many people still want to buy based on price. That's cool. There is a business for all levels.

I am really adoring Evelyn Rodriguez's discussions on slow marketing. For me, what that means is a call for a return to craft and experience. Evelyn's writing is that kind of experience in itself.

Think about it. If you are competing on price (especially in the software industry right now...c'mon...free? Leave that to Google!), why not try moving yourself over to crafting an experience? You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.


[p.s. at some point I will talk about the 'experiential' difference between stripping and burlesque - once again not a value judgement, but there is a craft involved in burlesque whereas there is a business involved in stripping - but Chris claims that most of my audience has probably been to neither! True?]

[p.p.s. crafting experience is harder than it looks, btw...and isn't a simple formula.]

When I read this, I thought, egad, Mike must feel very vindicated.

[of course, we have to think of the different audience, but for them to get all of those facts wrong? That's a bad showing]

["What's a Tantek?" screeenshot from a IRC chat at last year's Les Blogs]

Francois over at Emergence Marketing wrote a great piece about CEOs with Big Egos that really struck a chord with me. For one, I've been reading, along with the rest of the blogosphere, about the ego-centric mistakes of Friendster in the New York Times. This story clearly shows that there is a line between vision/experience and arrogance that Friendster executives and board members continuously crossed. Secondly, I've had the pleasure of working with both ego-centric and ego-less CEOs and leaders throughout my lifetime and have definitely seen the benefits to the latter personality type.

The screenshot I started this post with is of a conversation about a very important individual in the web community. Tantek has proven himself a super smart guy and visionary from time to time, but never feels the need to let you know that. In fact, I had to 'discover' Tantek's vast contributions to the web world over time. He is probably one of the most ego-less people I've ever met. I believe that is one of the biggest reasons why he has seen so much success in all of his various projects. We are lucky to have Tantek as one of our advisors at Citizen Agency and he puts our egos in their places all of the time (thanks, Tantek!).

I've seen both men and women lead from a 'threatened' position. Managers who won't hire people smarter than themselves. CEOs who think that their ideas are the only ideas (I've actually heard, "This is my company, so I get to say what is best for the end users."). Board of Directors who unreflexively view their company as 'the best', so will play hard ball with anyone who comes along wanting to partner.

I once sat in a strategy meeting where, after being offered a win-win deal with an amazing, fast growing company whose partnership was (IMHO) benefiting us more than them, the CEO said, "Let's pass," because he believed that the deal was too small all of a sudden and was going to go after a bigger fish instead (and become a competitor to the partner). How did it turn out? Not only did the subsequent big fish deal fall through (because we were seen as small potatoes), but we ended up alienating the first potential partner, so there was no deal at all. (btw...that potential partnership is now the biggest service in it's category only 6 months later)

A purely egotistical mistake.

Then there is the 'Not Invented Here' (NIH) syndrome. Time and time again, I've seen the rejection of good solutions and ideas because they didn't come from management. I used to get around this syndrome by quietly giving the idea to the executive team and letting them claim it as their own. It required major ego-lessness for me, (which was a bit detrimental for my career) but I just wanted to see customers benefit.

Working with an ego-centric CEO is difficult. It's frustrating. It's tense. It leads to putting the individual ahead of the community. It leads to bad decisions. It leads to an organization that is constantly on the defense (and feeling threatened). Now, if that leader happened to be right 100% of the time (a benevolant dictator, perhaps), then you may be able to live with it. I've yet to see this as the case.

Ego-less leaders recognize that they need smart people around them...and they equally recognize that those smart people need to be given credit for their contributions. Ego-less leaders are humble and aware that, even when they are 'big fish', this is a temporary situation, so it is important to make friends, not enemies. Ego-less leaders recognize that motivating people requires win-win situations and a team atmosphere, and I'm not talking stock options. That isn't motivation. Ego-less leaders don't feel threatened by others.

Being ego-less doesn't mean being wishy-washy. It doesn't mean that you are weak (in fact, the opposite!). You can still have strong ideas, principles and personality, but you are strong enough that you can admit when to bend and when you are wrong. Being ego-less means that you don't have to take credit for everything, because you recognize that celebrating those around you actually makes your position stronger.

We were having coffee with Mark Balabanian from Koders the other day and asked him if they are worried about the new Google code search. He gave the ultimate ego-less industry leader response:

"We think it is great. Koders was alone in what we do for years. When Krugle came along, it strengthened the category. Now that Google has entered it, we think the idea of code search will only grow."

He is right. Ego-less leadership (Koders is the leader in the industry as well as a pioneer) looks at 'competition' in a really healthy way. Competition is a chance to grow. Competition just validates a purpose (obviously we are doing something right if others see a business here).

I'd love to hear from you as to other ego-less leaders you've had and how it has benefited the organization (or community or company).

...that 3 ounces of liquid was okay. I lost lipgloss, a friend lost mascara and several other women lost similarly 'suspicious' beauty products. The announcement was, ostensibly, made on September 25th. I lost a 25ml tube of lipgloss (original cost = $36, hey, it was a good lipgloss) on October 2nd.

...oh...and I am totally with David.

In follow-up to my previous post and as an interesting case study in what works and what doesn't as far as seeing communities form around ideas, we had a rather long discussion at BarCampBerlin on 'When Community Doesn't Happen'.

Raju Bitter, one of the organizers of the camp had actually approached me earlier on in the day to discuss this, comparing two movements, Structured Blogging and Microformats, and suggested we make a session out of it. The results were amazing. Looking at the development of the two initiatives side by side, we were able to come up with some really solid observations on why certain actions and philosophies were conducive to strong community (resulting in wider adoption) and why other things hurt the growth of a community.

To be clear, 'failure' may be too strong of a word. As we discussed at BarCamp, the basic idea of Structured Blogging isn't a bad one (the idea of publishing tools for microformats, basically, that make it super simple for non-developers to use Microformats) and may have real legs being pursued openly and with a decentralized community, but for the reasons outlined below, have caused much tension in the developer community and haven't been widely adopted.

I also want to demonstrate with this example why community doesn't happen separately from product or environment.

So...where did Structured Blogging go wrong? (Keeping in mind that I am repeating below what was contributed by the discussion group)

1. Trust was breached by creating a false sense of security for developers
   
   A list of 'supporters' was published publicly that implied a commitment to the adoption of Structured Blogging. Many of the 'supporters' published hadn't actually made an official commitment, making them suspicious (some actually asked to have their names removed). The developers working on SB, would go to these 'supporter' sites and became confused as to where the support was.
   
   Lesson: 100% honesty all of the time. Only publish what is the truth today.
   
   
2. There was a hidden development process
   
   Much of the SB development was done in closed conditions. What resulted was alot of reinventing the wheel and slapped together solutions.
   
   Lessson: transparency = better solutions
   
   
3. Pushing, rather than paving cowpaths
   
   There seemed to be an urgency in getting everything done, so the process was rushed along. In the cases where solutions were unknown (i.e. there weren't prior examples to learn from), something was invented. What resulted were some clumsy solutions to very real issues.
   

So, on the flipside, Microformats have seen wide adoption after just over a year of forming a community. The group took a look at why that is:

1. Built out slowly.
   
   Microformats as a community doesn't seem to be in a big rush. This does a couple of things in their favour: 1. Shows a commitment to doing it right, which builds trust in the developer community as well as with sites that adopt the practice of using Microformats, 2. Makes sure that the solutions are right, not rushed.
   
   
2. Developed entirely out in the open.
   
   Every proposed Microformat goes through the same process. Research, discussion, more research, more discussion. Most Microformats are still works in progress. It is the wider web community adoption of a Microformat (like rel-tag or hCalendar) that gives it legs.
   
   
3. Paving cowpaths.
   
   If there isn't an instance where examples can be found in the wild of the necessity of a Microformat, then it is questioned whether there needs to be a microformat. Microformats are about paving cowpaths, not forcing people down unnatural paths of behaviour. This is one of the key reasons why adoption of them is so simple.
   

Microformats is definitely a Starfish organization. Even though Tantek is the champion behind it, many 'leaders' pop up all over the world to champion Microformats who, after they have shown their commitment and trustworthiness, play an equally important role.

Even the principles of Microformats makes all of this explicit:

• solve a specific problem
• start as simple as possible
• design for humans first, machines second
• reuse building blocks from widely adopted standards
• modularity / embeddability
• enable and encourage decentralized development, content, services

Thus, the adoption for Microformats has grown incredibly, with large organizations such as Microsoft and Yahoo! implementing them, and it continues to grow popularity. So, the lessons to be learnt?

• Be patient. Relationships take time.
• Be 100% honest and authentic. Trust is your greatest currency.
  
• Be transparent and open.
• Do it right, not quick.
  
• Don't force behaviour, pave cowpaths
• Know when you are not developing something worth adopting. Be honest with yourself.

The truth is that even Microformats could make a wrong turn at this point. It's important to always keep those lessons in mind.

[API Graveyard by FactoryJoe - to illustrate what happens when you forget about your devnet: original photo here]

Ben, our partner at Citizen Agency, is just getting settled into his new digs in San Francisco, but has already been getting many inquiries into the type of community he has expertise in working with:


Ben was the guy who built the award-winning and innovative devnet at the BBC: Backstage. This was a pretty significant project because the BBC, a publicly funded broadcasting corporation, wasn't known for their openness. Ben somehow convinced them that this move would be, at the very least, an interesting experiment. What resulted was much more.

We almost missed the fantastic article Ben wrote about Developer Networks on the CA blog whilst we were in Europe, but I've been running into more and more people who say they forwarded it along to several companies and printed it out and presented it to their board of directors. Some of those points? As Ben points out, Developer Networks can help you:

• Innovate
• Increase revenue
• Market
• Identify talent
• Be ubiquitous

When it comes to web companies, we believe that there are several unique communities to serve, and, almost 100% of the time, a community a web app can really benefit from is a developer community.

Cal Henderson gave a great talk at The Future of Web Apps that discussed a couple more advantages to opening an API and serving a devnet, including:

• Forcing you to have clean interfaces (carefully thinking out architecture from the beginning); and
  
• Built in regression testing (especially if you use your own APIs)

Matt Mullenweg discussed how powerful the extensibility of Wordpress was for his growth. The API and extensibility means nothing without a devnet.

But, we've seen many examples of devnets gone dry. The whole, "build it and they will come" isn't the case. We know of many APIs out there, left dangling with abandoned forums and lifeless IRC channels. The issue is, as is with any web app or site that is lacking community, that there is something fundamentally missing from one of the tripod legs: Environment + Product + Community.

Or as Chris likes to ask: "What's in it for them?"

The truth is that if you set out to build a community merely to benefit your own interests, you will probably end up hacking on your API by yourself in the corner. You are wanting to attract smart, busy people to your site to develop tools that really, ultimately, benefit you. There is alot of choice out there now. Great devnets like Yahoo!'s and the Mozilla's don't happen by accident.

Some of the things these two do right?

1. They both have a large team of people dedicated to the devnet - answering questions, creating content, gardening the wikis, etc.
   
   So many companies just make it a lower priority, tacking it onto someone else's job. We recommend dedicated people + have it part of everyone's job to participate in the devnet. Matt also said to answer your own support emails...this is similar. It keeps the whole company aware of the issues.
   
   
2. They have clear layout of information and documentation.
   
   
3. They have ways in which developers can benefit: show their work, connect, find jobs, get involved deeper, promote their overall work, etc.
   
   
4. They aren't buried as an afterthought.
   
   
5. They are incredibly interactive: using blogs, wikis, forums, IRC, groups, etc.

Ben knows about a gazillion more important characteristics that go into healthy developer networks (he's 'da man in that area), but it is surprising to see how many companies that are out there that don't quite make the basics and end up writing off a devnet altogether. Especially when there are so many open source tools out there that you can build the basics on.

I'm sure that Ben will want to follow up with something on the CA Blog or his own, but I definitely wanted to bring his awesome article to light and let people know that Ben is here and ready to get to work. ;)

I'm absolutely ruined.

We opened our first bottle of regular $15 California 'good enough' wine since returning from France tonight. It wasn't 'good enough' anymore.

There was something about it that was off...I mean, it wasn't off. It was exactly what it was supposed to be. But it felt like it was forced. Clumsy. Awkward. Like a teenager who had grown too fast for his/her body. Pimply and slouched, with smelly feet. All floppy because it's limbs have grown too fast...un-naturally.

I gazed longingly at our growing collection of French wine - the wine we can't touch because it isn't ready yet. It needs to mature and blossom. One bottle we bought is supposed to mature in 7 years. Seven years! I'll be 40. Yikes.

But, like the mature wines we drank in France, they will taste 'right'. The kind of right that happens naturally, over time, like they are supposed to. Like they've waited for that exact moment to dance across our palettes. The difference between having a conversation with an awkward teenager:


...and having a conversation with an engaged, interesting, interested person. One is mildly entertaining and the other awakens your senses and pushes your imagination further. It's like the first sip of a mature wine lays out the bouquet of the ingredients the wine encountered as it went through it's lifetime as a grape and then as a liquid. The vineyards of France talk about Terroir...or the 'sense of place', which exists mostly in geography, but also in the nuances of the life cycle of the wine. A hint of apple? Perhaps the soil previously bore an orchard. The second wave of sensation hits you with a realisation of the history of the wine. We watched Sideways last night (me, for the second time) and Virginia Madsen's character discusses how she loves wine for it's unique history: how she imagines the person who picked the grapes...that with old wine, that person could be gone. Some believe the soul of everyone who is involved in the process of making the wine along the way infuses the wine with their character.

Don't get me wrong. I know nearly nothing about wine. I find, especially old world wines, incredibly difficult to keep straight. I spent about 5 months working in a wine shop (boutique) in Calgary years ago that specialized in California wine. I can tell you that a Syrah (or in Australia, Shiraz) is about the 'biggest' grape you'll find in reds. Next is a Zinfandel, but Cabernet Sauvignon comes close. Chardonnay's grow best in the new world climates. It's hearty. The 'new world' loves its oak barrels 'cause that is what the wine critics dig. You can almost always taste alot of oak in new world wine. That is where my knowledge ends.

But like everything in life, as you become more and more exposed to something, you start to have a more and more mature understanding of it. I know that Burgundy (known as Bourgogne in France) is kind of central/east and surrounds Dijon and Beaune as French cities. That the Languedoc region (Southern France) was known for their 'table wines', but a couple of vineyards are changing that. We haven't visited the West coast vineyards (Bourdeaux), but have some of the most celebrated wines of France.

We had a good guide - Msr. Gregoire Japiot - when we visited Bourgogne, but even he didn't have time to show us more than a small appellation within the region.

Overwhelming!

Okay...this was meant to be a simple metaphor, but it has become a diatribe on wine. (well, we know that the boring stuff has alcohol, then, eh? ;))

But think about it this way: I will probably forget the experience that I'm having drinking this glass of 'micro-aerated' (which, basically, matures the wine quicker for drinking) wine. But the bottle of Chambolle-Musigny that we have stashed in our wine rack for 2 years from now...that we are looking foward to. We anticipate it. We connect to it. Not everyone will. In fact, most people like many new world wines because, like Coca-Cola, they are consistent. Not complex and layered...just good. There is no surprise.

Which was interesting for us to understand at that moment we discovered that we liked the uncertainty of these complex, unruly wines. We, in a sense, embraced the chaos of something we consumed. "Some people want consistency. They just want some stuff to work. Others want adventure and complexity. They want to discover."

Then, while, standing in the winery at Daumas Gassac, we were told, without asking, "We are not interested in making the Coca Cola of wine." (We are really hoping to convince them to have a WineCamp at their vineyard)

This isn't a wider value judgement. These are my own values. However, they are deeply routed in what we are about cultivating. We hold ourselves and our clients to a higher regard. We expect complexity and chaos. We trust that what will come through is the layers that are human and real. We distrust the gleam of perfection. Something artificial is holding that veneer in place. What will result is a longer-term, more real offer. Something that people can appreciate for years to come, rather than forget overnight.

Yeah. It's only software. But, at one point, wine was only a beverage. Sustenance. I don't know at which point it flipped to being an art form. I look forward to the day that our industry evolves from being 'only software' to being an art form (I think 37 Signals is one of those shops that is leading us there with their full-on integrity).

Or maybe it doesn't matter whether software ever gets there. What matters is the attitude behind crafting it, which I think is well on its way, and the attitude behind delivering it up.

All I know is that my palette is ruined for 'good enough'. I now, especially, want a world where everyone over-delivers and delights.

[these guys are T-N-T, man...dy-na-myte]

How many times have you been to a restaurant or a website or a store where, even though you are there, spending money on their services, you leave feeling totally disempowered and gross? When there were two clear ways to solve a dispute: 1. make the customer feel better about a bad situation or 2. take the money and say 'screw you'. I end up feeling 'screwed' too often.

More often than not, these experiences occur in situations where you have limited choice. The proprietors of the business see that they have no real competition and take advantage of that fact.

Some examples of this are:

• restaurants in remote or removed places: airports, roadsides, museums, theatres, etc. - too often extremely high prices, poor quality food and grumpy service preside
• government services: used a government website lately? Stood in line at the DMV? Passport office? Don't even think about joking around, either. I've received oodles of eye rolls.
• parking lots in big cities: parking costs money. You have to put your car somewhere when you need to go into a meeting or the like. These lots charge eroneous amounts of money for very little value, many lot operators treat you with contempt and there is usually a whole load of fine print that leaves you paying more than you bargained for.
• insurance: once again, you require insurance. The industry seems to set the price. They can deny you service or charge you grotesquely high rates if you've gone without insurance for over 2 years, which means that a first time car buyer has a pretty sad experience.

I'm sure everyone has a story or two to tell and examples to add. Anywhere that the interests of the industry solipsize the interests of the consumer, you will find this phenomenon.

There is more harm caused by bad customer experience than merely the loss of money, though. There is a general feeling of anger, distrust and resentment that sets in between those consuming and those providing. As a 'consumer', we start to expect that the proprietor is out to take advantage of us. Every city I travel to, I watch every turn a taxi driver takes now. I expect taxis who assume I'm not local to take me for a longer ride than necessary. Sure enough...7 times out of 10, they do.

Sure, we pay for convenience and I'm the first one to happily pay extra for someone more qualified to show me the way, but when I feel taken advantage of, I'm left feeling generally yucky. I carry that experience with me onwards...through the rest of my day...through future experiences...through my entire trip.

Is it good business to take advantage of those who have no clue or choice? Well, some would say so...that it is part of the way that a capitalist economy works. It is up to the business to make as much money as possible. Even with eBay, studies have shown that those sellers with high ratings play a game where, once established enough, they can 'cheat' the occasional customer without effecting their reputation. It's just part of the biz.

I beg to differ, though. I truly believe that these business practices have long term negative consequences. Sure, the short term cash grab is attractive, but building a long-term sustainable business requires treating customers with dignity and creating relationships rather than 'consumers'.

Think about the examples I gave earlier on. All of those, including the government services, will probably have competition in the future. If it isn't direct competition, it is the presence of some sort of choice that will make them redundant.

Restaurants in remote or removed places? Those that don't limit outside food, like train stations and airports, will see more and more smart travelers bringing food with them. Movie theatre food? People will either eat ahead of time or wait for the DVD to be released (Netflix rox).

Government services? I've seen a great deal of privatization of government services in Canada. I can't see why not here. Not to mention progressive, new governments potentially coming in and demanding reforms, reduction of redundancies and more automation to increase efficiencies.

Parking lots? I only hope that public transit will improve in San Francisco. We really love traveling to Europe where their transit is amazing. Yes, people in the US love their cars (and big cars at that), but what about cars in the future that fold up into small parcels? Transporter beams? Lots that offer discounts to hybrids? The city shutting down the downtown core to traffic or putting a high price on driving into it (London did it)?

Insurance? This one is a bit more complicated, but I can see people getting fed up with the strong hold insurance companies have...the influence they have on policy. Perhaps a government that calls for reforms to the insurance industry will be elected (it's happened in many other places).

Then, besides being proprietary and closed, what do they have left to compete on? They've scorched our trust and given us years of bad experiences. Sure thing we will move onto the alternatives that deliver high octane experiences and ignite our passion.

There is also online media, allowing for individuals, like myself, to talk about our experiences openly. We found many recommendations to good experiences through Yahoo!travel et al that took us off the beaten track. Warnings against specific hotels or shops were well-heeded and it really paid off in experience.

And karma, besides being a warm, fuzzy is going to become more and more of a marketing must-have as customers go to online peer recommendation systems in droves and as those recommendation systems become easier and more accessible to use. Someday, there will be the ability for me to take my mobile phone and text in NWA sucks to a number and give a 'reason code' (or multiple in this case) and add my rating to a general system. The formerly dismissive executives will watch in horror as everyone in the terminal takes out their phones to give them a poor rating.

A taxi driver who takes me 'for a ride' (not the one I bargained for) will be subject to the same. A passport waiting experience will be logged. A website who doesn't supply secure shopping. An eBay seller who rips me off. A restaurant that serves poor quality food at high prices...the list goes on.

As a business owner myself, I work hard to over deliver and to have happy customers who will tell others. I'm acutely aware of how bad service can affect my business today and tomorrow. Why wouldn't I want to build a long term reputation?

As I have said before, trust is today's most precious currency and it is non-renewable. Think long term and your marshmallow reward will come in.

I love my new Flickr mini cards by Moo...(they are so gorgeous...I don't even want to give them out):



and I'm totally excited about the photos I submitted to JPG Magazine:



Why is it that everything that is delighting me so much is a throwback to pre-digital life? Is this a trend of the future? Or just a human reaction to needing something tactile again?