The future is intangible. It fascinates us all. In this episode of atNickHodge, I interview Mark Pesce.
If we could get someone to read us our future, with certainty, we would certainly leap at the chance. It impacts the lowest base needs of our Maslowian needs of security and safety. Knowing the future provides a comfort to our present.
Ultimately, the future may be the only thing we humans cannot touch, cannot see, cannot measure; and for the masses, cannot directly effect.
The role of a futurist is a modern day equivalent of a celtic druid; an indian shaman. The gypsy fortune teller. Someone who sees the present through different glasses and extrapolates a non-Wolframic line of potentiality. Somewhere that is now known, in the present mind.
But by the sheer act of shining a light in one dim corner of a future; the cockroaches scuttle out; and there is a potential that the futurist has Heisenberg’d that reality.
A futurist has a challenging act. In a small way a court’s jester: not to be the clown: but rather the only one freely permitted to speak their mind. Call the present for what it is – and to determine the health of Schroedinger’s cat . In what dramatic ways will the present change a potential future.
Risk can be described as the myriad of things can happen, which is more than was eventually does happen. Knowing the future reduces risk, or detailing a future helps tickle out the potential futures. Good and bad.
Futurists, such as Mark, have this responsibility to shake up the people and power in the present. Ensure that a negative future is averted as we journey down the dirty path of now within the dark forest of reality.
OK, I stuffed up the most important thing at the beginningÂ – audio (embarrassing as @fang and I had discussed this earlier in the day); but thankfully deks caught that and I fixed it on the fly. @zuzu was such a great guest: she spent the last 6 days collating data after work ready for the show. And obviously she had plenty of stories to tell.
Another great thing was seeing @zuzu reconnect with her old Vancouver Punk scene friends over the internets.
Pre-dates Web 1.0 (dot-com boom) Web 2.0 (R/W) and Social Media!
Around David Winer, scripting.com (early blogging in 1996/7)
I first met Dave in 1993.
many of these, IT industry specific; aimed at Apple and Microsoft
Theses 1 â€“ 6: Markets are Conversations – mass media subverted the “village market” .. internet returns us to this concept. Information in markets drives to better stability
Thesis 7: Hyperlinks Subvert Hierarchy – SM: anyone can reach out, outside PR
Theses 8-13: Connection between the new markets and companies – SM: example, mini-microsoft on recent rounds
Theses 14 â€“ 25: Organizations entering the marketplace – ‘voice’ is the culture, fitting in; not attempting to dominate/control
Theses 26 – 40: Marketing & Organizational Response – authenticity
Theses 41 – 52: Intranets and the impact to organization control and structure – fails to understand flow of responsibility; tied to risk/reward
Theses 53 – 71: Connecting the Internet marketplace with corporate Intranets – voice, again in SM context
Theses 72 – 95: New Market Expectations – expectation change
(John C Dvorak) Is it just a Circle-jerk of Burning Man attendees
and left-wing wingnuts?
OK, voices: the voice of government, plainly sucks. PR speak etc. Messages in 15 seconds
where does the need for transparency come from?
what other books/people have you read?
Current “marketing” oriented approach and “p0wnership” needs to be stopped!
“connected oriented” <———————————-> “conversation oriented”
platform of “social media” as a replacement to “msm” (traditional media)
Connection oriented is characterised by the number of people that see a viral ad; inserting this into the high end of the SM world, and watching it expand due to the network effect. Getting as many views as possible. No care as to the actual content of the conversation.
Conversation oriented is people oriented; genuine people, conversation .. Cluetrain
This has its place, but its not “social media” >> cf “Television department” in Mad Men
I am concerned that the “digitial marketing industry” is too much on the left of the above scale as they do not understand customers or employees.Â
It is a whole-of-organisation cultural change.
The disconnect is here.
It is all “vendors spruiking their wares”?Â Â Â
what is transparency? 100% transparent is impossible; where is the boundsÂ
concept of reflective transparency: transparency exists outside the organisation, whether you like it or not
how does this apply to a non-commercial organisation?
Sun employee documenting top 10 reasons for Sun #fail vs. SEC implications
@wacom @msretail argument vs. MS policy on blogging (vs. SM)
Fundamentalist person-oriented social media
partly due to my own success and persona, personality and cult thereof
approach to POSM within large organisations
personal brand vs. corporate brand?
finding the middle ground
[9:24pm] Ending thoughts
Here is the elevator pitch: For as long as an organisationâ€™s products and or services have existed, constituents have been talking. About the products, the price, the service they get; value, ease of dealing with you. Their personal association with the company.And these conversations are across the range from positive or negative. Traditional marketing aims and claims to penetrate the mind, and have influence over these utterances. Sales people argueÂ and negotiate around them, or to reinforce them. PR works with the influencers to influence.
Citizens, constituents and customers are, or have, moved online. Their utterances, or conversations, about you are now visible to millions, if not billions. A search engine search away. We are hyperconnected and hypershare our experiences. Photos, videos or snippets of life compressed into 140 characters. Literally and Instantly. And they are permanent. And they are findable.Of course there are independent voices; voices traditionally called journalists. There are subjective voices in cacophony: SM from the organisation out. A traditional market, if you have visited one, is noisy.
As a representative of your organisation, can choose to listen, or be a part of this conversation, actively choose to block it out. Ignore it. This choice is ultimately yours to make. Like all business decisions, you will need more information to make a rational choice.Â Are your constituents online? Is the effort worth the investment?Â Can you risk to your reputation by ignoring it?And here is the most frightening question of all: are they talking about you at all?
The schoolyard and tea kitchen in our officespaces are online, in the clouds of the internet.
After 4.2 minutes of thinking, the only name that fell into my head is “atNickHodge” (@nickhodge). That will do for the moment. At least it is consistent with my strict personal branding guidelines. And I will probably change my mind and call it something else one day.
Thanks to all my previous guests, and the future super sekrit guests. And a big thanks to @dekrazee1 for her help and support. Oh, and @mrsnickhodge and @yin_0x7f for their guidance. Doing a weekly show seems to add structure into my life; and is becoming a new hobby.
Onto way more important topics.
Nick at Arromanches (D-Day Gold Beach) May 2004.
The next show is scheduled for 8.30pm, Thursday 23rd April 2009.
Topic this week: “The Lost Uncles”. It is Anzac Day this Saturday. In Remembrance, I am going to reveal the histories of four individual soldiers from World War 1 and 2; each of which I have a personal connection. This show is not to glorify war; nor create false heroes. It is an episode just to remember four men.
Three from WW1, one from WW2; Two I am related to, two have other connections; Two survived the war, Two did not. Three were enlisted men, one an officer. One was married and had a child prior to enlistment; two had no children and I am directly descended from one. One I met in person; all are in my being and thoughts.