If you hang around innovators
long enough, it's pretty clear they all have a deep-seated confidence
in both their ideas and their ability to turn ideas into reality. The
best innovators are able to do this on a regular basis, delivering
value along the way. To some, they may seem invincible, impervious to
the naysayers, roadblocks, and intransigent systems in their way. But I
believe that this confidence, however valuable, is not what
distinguishes a great innovator. Instead, innovation requires a level
of vulnerability with which most are uncomfortable.
Roger Martin, Dean of the Rotman School of Management
in Toronto, says the hallmark of an innovator is having a confident
point of view combined with the self-awareness that something is always
missing. I agree. Neurosis-laced vulnerability is what enables
innovators to seek critical input and make the random connections
needed to fuel innovation. There is always a better way and innovators
open themselves up in order to search for missing puzzle pieces.
Innovators
possess the unique capacity to put themselves and their ideas out in
traffic, expecting and welcoming an onslaught of direct and
hard-hitting feedback. The cliché that innovators have thick skin is
true—but it isn't impenetrable armor. It is a semi-permeable membrane
that enables a free flow of ideas and experiences in both directions.
The innovator's vulnerability enables an active osmosis of ideas,
allowing for freely flowing input from diverse external networks.
Feedback is Welcome
Don't
mistake vulnerability for weakness. Innovators are not weak. They are
driven to find a better way and will stop at nothing to find solutions
and deliver value. They are not afraid to assert and defend their point
of view or present their case for change with confidence and
conviction. They don't hold back—and if you listen closely, it's always
personal.
Innovators don't give presentations. Instead, they
share stories, designed to create an emotional connection with the
listener. The stories are often self-deprecating, laying bare the
innovator's vulnerabilities. And innovators are central characters in
their own narrative, not removed from the process. They're sensitive,
too. They're the first ones to read the reviews. They can't wait for
feedback and devour every press mention, blog post, or social media
blurb. Critiques can't come fast enough, and good, bad, and ugly
comments are all welcome. Anything with the potential to improve an
idea or concept is welcome insight. Critical feedback from respected
sources is the best fuel source.
Innovators celebrate their
vulnerability by diving into the gray area between disciplines,
sectors, and departments. They know you can't learn anything by being
the smartest person in the room or from hanging around with people who
all think and act alike. Instead, their goal is to recognize patterns
and connect dots horizontally across silos. Connecting unusual suspects
by bridging perspectives, language, and approaches is imperative.
A Rare Breed
Don't
mistake vulnerability for naiveté, either. True innovators are firmly
grounded in reality and will not claim victory until value is delivered
or a problem is solved. Optimism and belief in a better way provides
immunity from the anti-everything crowd. A cacophony of detractors is
nothing but white noise to an innovator. Despite being surrounded by
skepticism and those supporting the status quo, innovators manage to
remain positive and committed to their visionary paths forward.
Being genuinely vulnerable is in short supply these days. Perhaps it's not a coincidence that innovators are such a rare breed.
It's my belief that there'll always be room in the market for a high-quality, well-designed print publication. Some reasons why:
Reading
habits are different online vs. offline. Online we skim and multi-task;
offline we absorb longer paragraphs and deeper reporting (think
investigative news stories). This could change with the technological
progression of tablets, but there's still a long way to go in that
arena.
Online isn't the best place to appreciate an
aesthetically-pleasing high-res graphic spread. Our experience of ads
and art changes from medium to medium; pick up a copy of Monocle or Vogue, then ask yourself whether the images pop
the same over the 'net. (Maybe this will change when everybody has a
monitor at home that's the size of a plasma-screen TV. But that's not
happening tomorrow either.)
This
could just be old-school purism. I'm a reader who's partial to the
tactile experience of ink and paper, the same way hardcore music
listeners appreciate the audible differences between vinyl, compact
discs and MP3s. (And look who's winning that war.)
In
any event, we're in a period of flux, so most of the print publishing
industry's in trouble. Those who can afford to stay in business are
trying, meanwhile, to reinvigorate the space.
Enter rough but promising experiments with augmented reality
-- the idea of layering an element of engagement and manufactured
liveliness to a non-digital experience (like reading print on paper).
Above is a video demo of Esquire'saugmented reality edition (via @psyop). Point the issue at your webcam to see Robert Downey, Jr. leap out of the cover and harangue you with chatter.
Inside,
you can engage -- and to a degree, control -- selected content and
advertising. In some cases, the experience changes from day to day --
incentivizing you to come back to the same piece of content again.
COLORS Magazine, United Colors of Benetton's quarterly publication, also toys with augmented reality in its current issue, "Teenagers."
The functionality seems more limited than Esquire's effort but it's aesthetically interesting anyway. See the tutorial of snogging Benetton teens.
To
see how augmented reality is changing entertainment (and advertising,
and mobile utility, and life as we know it!) beyond print publishing,
here's a cheesy but useful synopsis from CNN (via @160over90). Try not to wince when the Terminator 2 clip starts playing.
“…I consider the potential of thousands of people with recorders, portable and stationary, messages passed along like signal drums, a parody of the President’s speech up and down the balconies, in and out open windows, through walls, over courtyards, taken up by barking dogs, muttering bums, music, traffic down windy streets, across parks and soccer fields. Illusion is a revolutionary weapon…” William S. Burroughs
During the 2008 Presidential Election in America, I consistently saw signs in the pro-Obama camp with the slogan “Recreate ‘68,” as if trying to capture the sense of near-revolutionary spirit of the time period. It seemed a strange thing to allude to in American culture since, in America, 1968 was a great swelling of revolutionary thought, idealism, and activism that somehow slowed and what seemed initially like a tsunami, threatening to engulf and envelope American politics, changed merely into a rapidly dwindling eddy in the water.
1968 was not, however, without its accomplishments. In the near revolutionary environment in France, wildcat strikes and student occupations effectively unseated the de Gaulle government, moving the country in a new direction. It seems perhaps there were several differences in the political/social landscapes which afforded France this opportunity as it was lost in America. To begin with, France had the advantage of a small geographical area and smaller overall population, allowing subversion to spread quickly, and allowing a more firm underlying ideology. Part of this ideology stemmed from the work of Situationist International, which was founded in part by Guy Debord, who has obviously influenced my ideas in terms of the Spectacle, images and representation. Also, beyond having an underlying ideology that spread throughout the populace as a whole (whereas in America, two groups which could have worked together to the same ends; the young urban hippies and the under-represented workers unions, were too disparate and couldn’t bring together a rational working dialog between the two groups.), France was also not as far along as America in terms of militarizing their police force. America has for an extended period worked to heavily militarize its police force.
Today, as the isolation of the internet is splintering working ideologies amongst citizens and country, more than ever, in America and the European Union, we have the most highly militarized police forces in history. Increasingly we learn that even in America, our police forces are being taught to view “protests” not as constitutionally protected free-speech dissent, but instead as a radical and dangerous kind of “terrorism.” We encounter more and more difficulty in protests being successful as our militarized police forces make plans of attack long before scheduled protests for corralling protesters into “free speech zones” often far removed from the important event in question. A prime example was the overzealous response by police forces during the Republican National Convention in 2008.
So, the question we have today is: If we are unable to effect viable change through citizen protest as we were once able to due to highly militarized police forces, how can we effect positive change in the 21st century?
0.1 - Identity Correction and Information Management The Yes Men, a prankster group of activists, have seemingly found an effective way to promote their activism through corporate infiltration and a practice they refer to as “identity correction.” Through clever use of information management; producing websites and emails strikingly similar to those of large corporations/corporate entities, they are able to confuse large groups of people into contacting the Yes Men instead of the intended corporation/entity. These sites always have small traces of the “truth” of corporate activities, using the same plainspoken language corporations often do to make their calculated evil sound like positive steps for humanity. This seems as though it would be enough to tip off unsuspecting individuals that this website is not serious, not a part of the greater corporate entity they wish to contact, but it is just subtle enough to confuse and misdirect most.
The Yes Men’s unique form of culture jamming would be unlikely workable if it were not for their clever technological prowess and efficient information management skills. By accurately mimicking the doublespeak nature of most corporations, as well as using web portals that are similar enough in design to still be considered “parody” legally, they trick and confuse the less technologically adept into allowing them to infiltrate many different positions. More than once the pseudonym of Hank Henry Ünger has been asked to speak on behalf of the World Trade Organization, at events as diverse as economic/trade organization meetings to speaking appearances on CNN Europe.
A Yes Man impersonating a representative from Dow Chemical:
The point here being that, while the Yes Men dabble in the practice of social engineering, their underlying ability to effect change through their prankster tactics is almost exclusively enabled by their technological prowess. The internet is bringing activists a new tool to use in the war against the status quo. It’s importance is unmeasurable as it becomes the 21st century version of the printing press, breaking down physical barriers of dissemination, allowing more voices to be heard.
However, as this Cat and Girl comic astutely points out, the more voices that are heard, the less legitimacy each voice has. So, how do we overcome the social isolation of the internet and the increasingly fragmented social/political groups to produce activism that is useful in the 21st century?
0.2 - Internet Hate Machine Produces Epic LULZ
In this instance, I turn to 4chan and the cult of Anonymous, the so-called “Internet Hate Machine.” The history of 4chan is as storied as the internet itself, as it is not only the birthplace of many of the most popular memes that have penetrated human culture, but it also has done major work in terms of what I would refer to as hacktivism.
Hacktivism is, of course, activism via the use of “hacking” techniques to spread a thematic idea, message, or disseminate secret information to the populace. Perhaps a modern incarnation of Deleuze’s “handyman/bricolage,” the hacktivist is the tinkerer, wishing to activate change through changing a system to produce something unintended. 4chan/Anonymous would certainly fit the definition of being particularly schizophrenic in their mode of production. 4chan/Anonymous participate in hacktivism in spades, with such examples as theYoutube Porn attacks, the recent Twitter “gorillaporn” attacks, rumors about Steve Jobs having a heart attack, DDoS attacks against Scientology websites/servers, hacking the TIME Magazine Top 100 Most Influential People of 2009 internet poll to not only make the creator of 4chan, moot, the winner, but also to leave a message to remind TIME and everyone else that even more than moot, Anonymous are the most influential group.
Anonymous, while working effectively as a group to effect massive attacks against established entities, apparently has no serious underlying ideology. Well, that’s not entirely true. “I did it for the lulz,” can be referenced as the “why” behind their manic and serious group effort to undermine the philosophies and representations of popular web portals. While Anonymous may only be partaking in such hacktivism due to a want to create laughter and joy amongst their peers (once again, creating their own elite hierarchy of commodity fetishism.), they are one of the few groups actively partaking in the detournement or “remixing” of popular culture, revealing the empty truth behind the propaganda of the Spectacle, the hype machine. Their work reveals the underlying absurdity in the messages of the Spectacle, desperate to convert others to their own malicious brand of absurdism.
0.3 - The Electronic Revolution
So, how do we tie this to an ability to effect positive change in a modern society where we are unable to physically actuate effective protests? The answer seems obvious, the political activist must follow the lead of the Yes Men and Anonymous. The “Electronic Revolution” as Burroughs called it, is the last bastion and the most readily available to our generation. To become the pranksters of media, using our generations ability to control and manipulate information to effect change.
We have this one small margin of time to take firm hold of what may be the last opportunity for activists to effect change in the 21st century. As it stands, we have world leaders who are of an older generation, a generation that did not grow up with computers, high speed internet, ipods, social networking, and an ever-shifting technological landscape. They still live and die by television propaganda, most unable to conceive how to properly use the new Spectacle of the internet to spread their propaganda. President Obama is a good example of the beginning of the end of this margin of time, as his meager understanding of modern technology allowed him to use the internet to win the Presidency. Very quickly government agencies such as the NSA, CIA, and FBI are working towards becoming “militarized” in terms of information security. This on top of secretive international treaties such as ACTA, which has had no input from the citizenry of any country, a document heavily influenced by the Entertainment-Industrial Complex, dedicated to pushing copyright to become a fully criminal act, no longer merely civil court cases. This much is obvious through the small amounts of information leaked on ACTA as well as the long-running propaganda campaigns of the Entertainment Industry which would have you believe you can actually be arrested for copyright infringement, which is ludicrous at best and a dangerous psychological precedent, at worst.
We must quickly grab hold of this dwindling opportunity to accomplish more than spreading “epic lulz.” We must use the tactics of Anonymous and the information management and social engineering skills of the Yes Men. In the words of Lenin, “One should begin from the beginning again” when approaching how to be revolutionary in modern times, and consider that the old options for activating change are no longer revolutionary. With ever-more militarized police forces, the internet and the ability to distort information and use it to mock and confuse is increasingly our only viable option.
0.4 - Anti-sec and the Fall of Full Disclosure
Finally, I come to what spurred the thought behind this Theses. Today, Imageshack was hacked for a short period, and uploaded images would all resolve into the following image (click for full size version):
So, we are introduced to the Anti-sec Movement. The question I immediately ask myself upon reading this is: are they considering the over-arching implications of destroying Full Disclosure? Are they merely hackers who are upset at script kiddies, who encroach upon their own elite hierarchy? Do they have motives other than simply destroying the current Security-Information Complex?
To begin with, the fear-mongering of the Security-Information Complex seems like a moot point to the current generation. While they use fear to induce the older generation to buy unnecessary anti-virus programs, firewalls, etc., most of the current generation knows that if they need such protection, they can achieve similar ends with either Open Source, or they can simply turn to hacking groups who have invariably produced “cracked” versions of popular anti-virus programs/firewalls/etc., effectively making them free. So, the fear ingrained in those who do not understand the technology is summarily not ingrained in the current generation, who scoff at the fear tactics of the Security-Information Complex.
Secondly, the fear-mongering used by the Security-Information Complex is not only used to sell products to unassuming consumers, even more often it is used to sell scare-tactics to government agencies, often producing reports for governments with scary stories such as a “digital Hurricane Katrina.” Using such damning language to describe such situations to a group which barely understands the technology, they are able to make massive effect in how current governance’s are responding to the internet and information technology and management. So, the consumer is not the only group effected by this situation by far.
As for their proposal that Full Disclosure needs to be eliminated to create a truly secure “white hat” Security-Information Complex, disallowing the festering masses access to such dangerous material. Do they really consider this material dangerous, or are they simply sick of script kiddies stealing their thunder by using their exploits? Do they want to stem the dissemination of information truly to stop corporate exploitation of security fears or is it more tied to a desire to regain the elite status of early hacking communities? One cannot say for sure with the scarce amount of information we are presented with, but it seems that either way they have not considered the far-reaching effects of closing off this dissemination of information.
Returning for a moment to Anonymous and their effective tactics, we have to realize that Anonymous is not a group of elite hackers. In fact, they represent what Anti-sec wants to destroy, a movement of script-kiddies who find exploits readily available via Full Disclosure and use it for their nefarious activities of producing “epic lulz.”
I personally see this as an attack on our generation’s last bastion of hope for revolutionary change in 21st century governance. In the way that Marxism often expected too much of its citizens, requiring them to not only be skilled workers, but to also be skilled philosophers and governors in their own right, needing to be intimately involved in their own government at every level as well as being intimately involved in the production of usable resources/commodities; the Anti-sec movement would have us all need to not only be thoughtful, philosophical activists, but we would also all need to be intensely skilled hackers in our own right, making our own hacktivism coalitions just to be able to find our own set of exploits to be able to spread a message.
Without Full Disclosure, we would lose a huge lifeline to our generation in terms of being able to become activist “script-kiddies.” Just as Lenin learned that the masses cannot be expected to all be so adept at evolving their knowledge to create a functioning Marxist society, we must be ready to accept that without this information being freely available, we will not be able to expect our generation to become hacktivists and activate change through the exploitation of information security.
0.5 - The Fall of Empires, the Fall of Nations (the Rise of Digital Socialism?)
I fear the success of Anti-sec and how it could change the landscape of revolutionary political activity on the internet.
Just like how the printing press broke down barriers of dissemination of information lead to revolutions and the fall of the Empire and saw the rise of Democracy, the internet stands to have the ability to topple the notion of Nation and bring us into a new epoch of thought and government. We may not have another chance like this for our generation.
Will the internet follow its predecessor or will the battle for information control be quickly won by control instead of resistance?
We only have one solution if we truly want to “Recreate ‘68.” We must embrace the revolutionary spirit and philosophical background of the French worker/student movements in 1968 and use our skills to enable the true Electronic Revolution.
Mergers and acquisitions would be more common in the third sector if CEOs were given the sort of parting packages that are common in mainstream business, said a leading social entrepreneur yesterday.
Craig Dearden-Phillips, CEO of Speaking Up, which is itself in the final throws of a planned merger with Advocacy Partners, told a conference on mergers and acquisitions that there was little incentive for CEOs to plan mergers which might lead to their own redundancy.
Dearden-Phillips said: 'With our merger one of us is on our way and leaving with nothing, but you have to go beyond your own interest, and your family's interest, and your kids, and perhaps we should be saying to CEOs that we will give them some help to get their new career going.
'The problem is CEOs and boards are wholly unincentivised to merge,' said Dearden-Phillips.
He was backed up in his view by Karin Pappenheim, acting director, work and lifelong learning, at the Shaw Trust.
She said: 'I do think there should be some support for CEOs because compared to the private sector we don't have the incentives to do mergers.'
Fay Selvan, CEO of The Big Life Group, said offering a package of support would remove one of the obstacles to mergers in the third sector.
'I don't see why social enterprises should be different to the private sector and that would take away one of the obstacles,' said Selvan.
Earlier in the day the conference heard from Neil Goulden, executive chairman of the large multinational Gala Coral, who said one of the main reasons mergers failed was because 'two Jags don't fit in the same parking spot'.
Dearden-Phillips said: 'Our Ford Fiestas will fit in the same parking spot for a bit but eventually one will have to go into the horizon.'
A few months ago, I translated Jeremiah Owyang's post about The Five Eras of the Social Web in French (here for 'my' French version, here for his English version) and something I found interesting in his post was his analysis on how nowadays, the Internet experience is somewhat incoherent for all of us because we all have various identities online. Take myself as an example: on Twitter I am @metoo, on Facebook I am Sandrine Plasseraud, on most other sites/network like Dopplr I am Sandrine.
From a consumer journey point of view, it doesn't make sense and it's all very confusing and frustrating. I hate having to sign in/out of Facebook/Twitter/Yahoo & Flickr/etc. It would obviously all make sense to have a single identity and although I'm not saying Facebook Connect is the answer, it clearly can provide some interesting benefits.
Which bring me to the subject of the Prototype Experience and Facebook Connect... Most of you might have already come across the Prototype Experience as it dates back from June 2009 but just in case - and as I was amazed by the experiment myself - here is what it's all about...
To advertise the new Protype video game, here is a 'simple' website asking you to connect via Facebook, which I've done - and the results is I am fully immersed into the experience (vi Facebook images & info from my personal profile). Check out some of the screen grabs from the video:
