Musings & Meanderings

Today was not the first time I’ve had an MRI scan done. (The first was in 1992.) Last Thursday we were joking that my brain had broken the machine, following a 2+ hours session. Everything was working fine until they tried to do this one particular image of my brain. Each time we started the results would go out of whack. We’d stop and get me off the bed. Then the tech would turn off the machine, turn it back on, reset it, test it, and all would be fine until it started back up with my brain inside.

We finally got it today, and went on to do a number of other scans. For the first time, I experienced really strong sensations of heat, vibration, and sometimes pain (one location only) in the body part being scanned. Each time a scan series would stop, my entire body and heart would give a little jolt, like an electric shock but inside and throughout the tissue or structure of my body. Afterwards, I could barely walk or talk, and even hours later my motor control and reflexes such as swallowing are more impaired than usual.

MRI machines and the rooms they are in are always really cold. I think this is because the superconducting magnet is very cold, although insulated. Was the burning heat from the radio waves? or just in my body?

I sure wish that I had a doctor or tech to ask about this. I guess that most people would just want to be told not to worry, but if you know me, you know I always want to learn and understand.

It sounds less …crass, to talk about valuing your ‘brand’ and respecting your loyal readership, and displaying integrity via adhering to ethical principles, and practicing transparency… oh, and, replacing the for sale sign with ‘monetization opportunity’.

The blogosphere offers fascinating studies in shifting relationships between business and the consumer. No successful online community previously empowered the individual to this extent.

eBay, for example, enables individuals but deliberately ‘masses’ them. One could even say that, by insisting on remaining ‘just a venue’ and ignoring unethical and fraudulent behavior for too long it actively disabled individuals.

Previous communities which empower individuals are, for the most part, either protected cloisters, or ingrown special interest groups, or traditional grass roots movements.

Until blogging, individual empowerment has been extremely limited. Only those very few tech sophisticated enough to build and promote their own web presence successfully, or wealthy enough to pay for it, were previously empowered.

No one has come up with the next chapter yet, either. Currently popular ventures include Threadless (which is grassroots and promotes the current zeitgeist through aggregation of popular opinion on individual contributions), ASPs such as the fab 37signals suite, and enhancing the public space with privacy tools like Vox does. Although each of these examples is enabling in its way, all are private need centered.

Communality and the wisdom of crowds also has its place, and always will, but I doubt that anyone can subsume individual empowerment …put the genie back in the bottle, if you will.

The future of individual voices on the web is not traditional journalism, but it is the prominent bloggers who came from old media that, more than anyone, sit visibly in the awkward fast lane of this new form where consumers and business are converging.

They are in the fast lane because they have the training and skills to write prolifically and get read, which means that their traffic is substantial compared to most individuals on the web. As money tries to figure out how to buy all this traffic and attention, it is natural for the voices with the largest audiences to stand out.

They’re in the most awkward position, because part of their loyal readers’ trust is based on their perceived purity and impartiality. That this perception is faulty is totally irrelevant; the fact is that old media (who used to pay their bills) created it. Most people believe that great reporting and journalism and television are all free. They persist in this belief even as they pay their cable or satellite bill every month. The dollars traded for a newspaper go to the company that prints it, not to their favorite columnists, and so on. At least a bit of the antagonism directed at Rush Limbaugh is because he got rich doing his thing.

The numbers of professional bloggers who have struggled the most vocally with selling their reputation is already rapidly diminishing. They can’t go on about it forever, given that they still have to eat just like everyone else, and most have made their commercial beds. Their solutions range from private sponsors, ‘transparently’ disclosed on a page most don’t visit, to tasteful and limited traditional advertising. New and creative schemes for monetization, such as the Best Buy holiday shopping bloggers that Steve Rubel posted about last night, the Goodstorm’s MeCommerce and others posted about by Mathew Ingram, as well as recommendation engine and other aggregation concepts, are beginning to map the most accessible of these uncharted waters.

Selling your reputation, and therefore the trust your followers have put in you, is something that many would, on the theoretical surface, define as a betrayal of trust. That theoretical surface of popular belief, though, is melting like thin ice when recontextualized between real people. Joe the columnist isn’t getting a salary from the local News anymore is easily comprehended by the majority of people the first time advertising pops up on Joe’s blog. Ok, says the average person, but my thoughts and opinions aren’t in the same league as Joe’s either. Then comes the realization that simple popularity, basic social skills, a very little application, can result in a decent sized MySpace network that can be translated into a few bucks. The perception of immorality disappears.

Putting the selling of our time, knowledge, and reputation into a personal context, as blogging has led many people to do, leads us to an individualized and personalized perspective on business and economics that is practical, transactional, and realistic. It is a step towards slaying, or perhaps dismantling the bogeyman of evil capitalism that has been stoked in the public imagination for decades. All but the most fervently idealogical will concede that it is not money but people who are immoral when confronting the issues on a personal level.

May this emerging consciousness see sustained growth, enhancing individual comprehension of the transactional nature of human relationships and the utilitarian nature of money, and fostering a greater understanding of reputation and trust.

One of the things I am constantly struck by is the tendency we all have to divide everything into a black and white polarity. Many things resist, yet we determinedly jam them in there anyway. Every issue and every position must have two sides and no more, preferably a right one and a wrong one.

I am either a capitalist or a socialist. Pro or anti whatever. Friend or enemy. Honest or dishonest. Loyal or a traitor. A success or a failure. Is this really how life works? Do honest people, for example, always speak the full unvarnished truth? Never hold back? Even out of simple courtesy or compassion or self preservation? Does an honest loyal friend offer anyone and everyone the same level of these qualities?

Human relationships and interactions are, in fact, very complex things. Rich and multi-faceted things filled with nuance and diversity.

By defining most of our ventures and activities here as two dimensional, we are doing ourselves a disservice and bypassing opportunity.

If we are really to build a community and relationship and reputation based web, then the multi-faceted nature of human relationships must necessarily be reflected in it. That means acknowledging many different levels of contribution and involvement. It also means acknowledging one another as individuals and taking personal responsibility for our words and actions.

We are increasingly focusing on trust, reputation, and expertise or specialized knowledge, and I believe that this is a good thing. I also believe that we cannot begin to see large numbers of people establish and share these things over the internet while remaining anonymous.

Personal recommendation networks continue springing up all over the web, using the trust and reputation catchwords. On almost every one I’ve seen, most or all members use handles or nicknames. Over the years, I have developed non-commercial relationships with people solely over the internet, from whom I would seek advice or a recommendation, but I have yet to achieve that level of trust with an anonymous user.

The same applies to anonymous information. Recent reading on Wikipedia vs Citizendium, including this post by Clay Shirky, discusses the potential, problems, and value of each. Both are encyclopedias, a form which traditionally aggregates information without specific credit to the many authors. Citizendium, a planned fork of Wikipedia, intends to address the weaknesses and failings of compilation through open contribution, by limiting contributors to vetted and credentialed experts.

The one thing that I haven’t read of, and if I’ve simply missed it please let me know, is discussion or creation of a large open community encyclopedia where contributors are not anonymous. In the physical world, we listen, read and learn from others, and assess the value of that information regularly based on the background knowledge and reputation of the source. Rarely are we given this opportunity on the web, except with formal publications offered for sale. I believe that there is indeed a wealth of real and valuable knowledge to be contributed by the many, rather than only the elite. Identified contribution to our communities and common benefit would, in my opinion, take us a long way towards the full trust and reputation based web we wish for.

I am seeing Citizendium and Wikipedia as another form of ‘either or’. We shall read in the first only the words of credentialed experts, and in the second the words of any and all contributors. As a reader, there are occasions where I would choose to seek out only the writings of experts on a certain topic, and, if Citizendium is successful, it will fill that need. If, however, I was only interested in the writings of experts, I should be doing far less reading on the web in general, and would never have discovered the wonderful kaleidoscope of experience, thought and opinion that is emerging here.

To my beloved husband, a lone wolf American who has given me a way to see far beyond the political caricatures to glimpses of what the United States was founded on. The Constitution of the United States of America may be the slimmest book I own, yet it is one of the fullest.

To Rose, the best mother in law ever.

To all my past, current, and future American friends and cohorts.

*****
It’s a good day to post this link to a terrific Milton Friedman Obituary Roundup by Tim Worstall on November 16th. Whether you agree with Milton Friedman’s beliefs or not, will you not join me in a salute to a true independent thinker? Those of us who enjoy the liberty to communicate original ideas out loud, and to respectfully disagree, have something to be thankful for indeed.

For those of you (fully sated with turkey and football, of course) interested in free market economics, and rights of ownership, here is a reprint of an article by David Friedman that appeared in Liberty Magazine. The article briefly and accessibly interprets the bases of Coase Theorem of Swedish Nobel Prize (economics) winner Ronald Coase.

Every brilliant entrepreneurial and successful business idea is about one thing.
Creating value.

Rarely, in fact almost never, is it about a new invention. Although amazing inventions have changed the way we live and the world we live in dramatically through recent centuries, few inventors get rich. In fact, many new inventions are big losers financially for those who pioneer their introduction into consumer markets. Although there may be some future shift in this balance, as the population gap between early adopters and the tipping point is substantially shortened by electronic connections, the primary hurdles of introducing something truly new will always be the biggest ones there are in business. Imagine the difficulty of creating and introducing telephones. Think of the massive post war prosperity that finally enabled the funding of applied technology to mass marketing of things such as home washing machines.

We have the technological know how to create the stuff of science fiction fantasy, yet most of us have barely rivaled, let alone improved on, the guidance of a good librarian in searching out value on the web. CAD, once stuff that stoked the imagination to dizzying heights, languishes with relatively little widespread application. Many programmers, who could and, one would think, should, be participating in breathtaking innovation, are doggedly devoting time to fixing language problems, compatibility issues, networking and lobbying for industry standards.

Instead of producing dazzling new applications, most successful web developers are taking a rudimentary value producing idea and making it operable in a more usable way. The latest wave of ‘innovation’ on the web beginning with blogging and then social networking, has been all about putting a tool into the hands of the individual and finding ways to connect existing users and services. Both, from the original entrepreneurial point of view, derive from a viewpoint that was no different 10 years ago. Traffic.

Volume of traffic, which could be built then through SEO and now through viral marketing. Quality of traffic, which is measured by length of stay and involvement in the offering(s). Growth of traffic, which indicates value and future potential.

This focus on traffic represents a web equivalent to the real estate maxim. ‘location location location’. Aiming to be where the largest surge of traffic is heading is a sensible business goal. To take the analogy to real estate further, study the urban growth patterns, take into account related variables, and buy the most expensive thing you can afford as close to the path of redevelopment as you can.

On the web, though, unlike in real estate, getting in the path of growth and traffic is not easily guided and determined by physical boundaries and possibilities. Here, we are guided only by observable patterns of human behavior, and limited only by our own imaginations. In some ways, this makes it easier to conceive and execute a new idea, and in other ways harder. In real estate, you can physically follow the traffic surges, observe behavior, identify and interview select individuals, and determine your own desired location in ways that do not translate to the virtual world. The closest actual equivalent to study is television, however knowing that business will only inform you that almost no one in it can reliably predict what people will want. The big potential advantage here is direct and personal connectivity.

Development ideas such as dynamic and relational, many expressed in the original O’Reilly Web 2.0 concept (should I expect a cease and desist letter?), are evolving both gradually and in spurts as enabled/enabling applications and sites are created. The growth process is natural, but the amount of actual innovation involved is minimal. Nothing wrong with that. We need the streamlining and fleshing out and compatibility and standards. There is still a lot to create and do here.

Again with the real estate analogy …we’re sketching out a ‘downtown’ where once there were only random and unrelated structures. Bookstores. The giant flea market that is eBay. Fledgling libraries. Dating and sex. Initially a bit like a boomtown thrown together during the Gold Rush, but now showing some signs of growing maturity. More gathering and meeting places to exchange ideas, perform, communicate and collectivize. One of the most awesome differences, in following this analogy, is that we can (so far) continue developing this world with little need for formal law enforcement or government. A world where true liberty and personal responsibility can once again hold hands.

The market and the landscape here are wide open for ideas and entrepreneurship to an extent that is unprecedented, specifically because we are limited only by our imagination. I also believe that we’re entering a period of greatest opportunity. The population here is finally large enough in size and broad enough in scope to support any good idea effectively executed.

This is a perspective from which most any true entrepreneur can develop many ideas. This new world and its burgeoning citizenry needs and wants lots and lots of new development. Great places to go and things to do and ways to do them. If you’re working on developing new ideas, there are at least 2 perspectives from which to approach your goal.

The first starts with resources. Existing technology, tools, and applications offer a wealth of resources we haven’t begun to fully tap. The tech entrepreneur can micro focus on innovative ways of managing and transmitting content, or on applications not yet widely available, such as multidimensional images. He/she can macro focus in the equivalent of playing with a mecchano set, innovating ways to link and connect existing tools and functions to build more sophisticated (or less primitive) structures.

The second starts with people. We’ve an involved and committed citizenry that has been long growing far beyond just geeks and early adapters, and hundreds of millions more who are occasionally putting a toe in the water until they’re offered enough motivation to dive in. Motivate them. Instead of searching for ideas beginning with your personal perspective, which you then first test out with your immediate peers and others ‘just like you’, step back and start from a wider view. Include your family, your neighbors, your non-tech social circles. Get interested in what motivates them. We’ve all the tools and enough population here to start building really great destinations.

These destinations aren’t the exact equivalent of physical ones. They occupy different dimensions, some barely envisaged or developed, by virtue of being virtual. This statement can be conceptualized via games. Playing paintball or capture the flag is completely different from playing on Nintendo Wii. Going to a club is different from bantering between MySpace blogs. Attending university is different from getting a degree online. We’ve barely begun to scratch the surface of making the virtual equivalents all they can be, and only begun to venture into electronic experiences that transcend or differ from physical ones.

Every brilliant business idea creates value that did not previously exist. If you can create real value for your target markets, be they businesses or consumers, then you have a playing piece with which to enter the game.

Value can be tangible or intangible. We can create a marketplace for things, or a meeting place for social activities, or a way of compiling and exchanging ideas and information. We can create better ways to manage things or more entertaining diversions. The uses for existing technology are limited only by our imaginations, as are the images of all the places we’ve yet to build.

———
This web entrepreneurship post is focused solely on the mind set of developing entrepreneurial ideas. As a reminder of what comes next, I quote my wonderful husband:

“There are really only 2 types of ideas: good ideas, and bad ideas.

A bad idea, badly executed, is a guaranteed loser.
A bad idea, well executed, has a very good chance of winning.
A good idea, badly executed, is a guaranteed loser.
A good idea, well executed, is a guaranteed winner.”