This is's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
There are segments of the news lifecycle that can be monetized... segments where value is added. Feature stories, analysis and/or commentary are a couple that come to mind. but the idea that anyone can lock down all the news is crazy. You only need one renegade that will publish it for free then the value is gone. Maybe this is exactly what the "newspaper" industry needs to finally cause the collapse and let us move on to whatever comes next. @jtrigsby
1 reply
I make the analogy that its like the retail store being angry with the cab driver because the customers he brings to the store don't buy anything. Who's fault is that... the cabbie, or the store?
Toggle Commented Dec 2, 2009 on This Will Only Hasten The Fall at /Message
1 reply
Very interesting Stowe! You are absolutely right on that much of what we have been trained to blindly accept as "the way business is done" is fallout from the industrial revolution. Its just always been that way... but maybe not much longer. Reading this post gave rise to two questions, or maybe a question and a comment, as I was reading. First, if we could design business today without the preconceived limitations of how you do it "the right way," how would it look? Would we even have office buildings? Would cities with historical prowess in given areas (eg New York for finance) retain that position? Second, this change is definitely coming along with the generational change in business leadership. Our youngest workers today, the 20 somethings fresh out of college and ready to tackle the world, don't understand a world without text messaging, email on your phone, even 24 hour availability by phone. To try to work without them is foreign and painful to them. As they rise in the ranks... or maybe better yet, start new ranks... their influence will accelerate the shift away from the industrial age organization toward this networked organization. Us old fogies just need to hand on! Another awesome topic, thanks so much for sharing! jtrigsby
Toggle Commented Nov 17, 2009 on The Rise Of Networks, The End Of Process at /Message
1 reply
I kind of agree with you both (you and Seth). There is a finite limit to the number of genuine relationships a person can engage in. For most, I'd say 150 genuine relationships where you know and are known... is a lot. Doable, but a lot. In that sense I agree with Seth's application of Dunbar. However, Dunbar was conceived in a time without the means of connectivity we enjoy today. Geography now has very little to do with our friendships and let's face it, it costs less now than ever before to stay in touch with anyone, anywhere in the world. That being the case, why don't we? Well, I believe that brings us back around to Dunbar. Sure, we CAN stay in touch with even thousands of people, but are all those people our friends? Probably not. Maybe its just semantics but lets suppose that this whole Dunbar argument is just a matter of vocabulary. Are they friends, acquaintances, or relationships? I suggest that the 150ish number applies to genuine relationships, where both parties are engaged and derive mutual benefit from the interactions. Using that definition, can you agree w/Dunbar & Godin? Just my two cents worth. Thanks for a GREAT post! Just discovered your blog and still trying to read it all! @jtrigsby
1 reply