This is IVgroup's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following IVgroup's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
IVgroup
Recent Activity
For most of us in the creative fields, the introduction of a more empirical approach to composition and design can feel limiting. But science can actually help inform our creative choices. In fact, research sometimes validates our instincts - helping us understand that there often is a connection between universal themes and the way our brains are reacting to certain combinations of sounds, rhythms, melodies, etc. Dr. Daniel Müllensiefen, who is another co-director of the Goldsmiths program, has been focusing on the use of music in the context of advertising, with some interesting results. It's a growing field - one that I think will continue to grow exponentially in the years ahead - and one that could be an interesting career option that isn't typically thought of as part of the "music business." You can find out more about Müllensiefen's recent work here: http://www.gold.ac.uk/news/pressrelease/?releaseID=983
Toggle Commented Dec 22, 2012 on The State of Music Psychology at hypebot
1 reply
Nice post. And definitely fuel for thought. While delineating the differences between entrepreneurs and consultants helps us understand what appear on the surface as conflicting perspectives, the reality is that successful entrepreneurs and consultants have far more similarities than differences. There was an interesting article by Malcolm Gladwell in the January 2010 issue of the New Yorker (I've linked it in PDF form): http://www.allianceofceos.com/documents/forum/2010-01-Malcolm%20Gladwell%20-%20The%20Sure%20Thing.pdf In it, he argues that the most successful entrepreneurs are actually predators - and risk adverse. Like their successful consultant sisters (or brothers), they have an uncanny ability to analyze the situation, calculate the risks and take advantage of the situations that work in their (or their clients') best interest. "The economist Scott Shane, in his book “The Illusions of Entrepreneurship”, makes a similar argument. Yes, he says, many entrepreneurs take plenty of risks  but those are generally the failed entrepreneurs, not the success stories. The failures violate all kinds of established principles of new-business formation. New-business success is clearly correlated with the size of initial capitalisation. But failed entrepreneurs tend to be wildly undercapitalized. The data show that organizing as a corporation is best. But failed entrepreneurs tend to organize as sole proprietorships. Writing a business plan is a must; failed entrepreneurs rarely take that step. Taking over an existing business is always the best bet; failed entrepreneurs prefer to start from scratch. Ninety per cent of the fastest-growing companies in the country sell to other businesses; failed entrepreneurs usually try selling to consumers, and, rather than serving customers that other businesses have missed, they chase the same people as their competitors do. The list goes on: they underemphasize marketing; they don’t understand the importance of financial controls; they try to compete on price. Shane concedes that some of these risks are unavoidable: would-be entrepreneurs take them because they have no choice. But a good many of these risks reflect a lack of preparation or foresight." I would hazard a guess that regardless of which hat you choose to wear, whether an entrepreneur or a consultant, if you're successful at what you do it's because you have the ability to wear both those hats interchangeably. And for the record, I prefer a fedora.
1 reply
IVgroup is now following The Typepad Team
Mar 29, 2011