Comments

Great interview Erik - I was just tweeting it to Chris Brogan followers.

Twitter is about to get a digital boost from the new Apple iphone. With this device we might be able to finally declare that Web 3.0 is here see http://ow.ly/1kIZ

Twitter will come alive on this new platform. Facebook can become relevant and remarkable in surprising new ways. LinkedIn has work to do if it is to catch up with these developments.

BIG changes are heading our way! Brands will die - overnight. Filters (tools that turn "many:one" into "one:one" conversations) will replace brands - overnight. "MY interest in" will become a new currency - overnight. Customer-provider relationships will be re-invented - overnight. New digital revenue models will emerge - overnight. Innovation will happen in real time over your iphone - overnight. New web-based communities will form into micro economic networks - overnight.

My often repeated observation here is that these new global economic networks will form three communities - what I call clusters (these are not innovative), clans (these are early adopters and are innovative), and tribes (these are the long-tail and are not innovative). At present LinkedIn appeals to tribes not clans. Twitter appeals to clusters not clans. Who will capture the clans? Perhaps it will be a reformatted Facebook or as I hope a whole new organisational entity.

Thanks again Erik and Chris for this refreshing walk on the sunny-side of new technology and its current and future impact on our world of work. Best wishes to you both Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at March 26, 2009 10:38 PM

interesting no comments on social networking or maybe everyone has moved onto twitter to comment......

Seriously - I like the look of twine - seems much more based on ideas rather than only following people. I am not that keen on twitter - I like depth too much.

Posted by PaulH at March 27, 2009 3:33 AM

"Brands will die - overnight."

Richard, I love your passion but what does that even mean? Will we all be purchasing generic, nondescript products and services? If so, there will be no need to tweet about them, since they will all be exactly the same.

Brands will not only survive in this new transparent, customer-controlled environment, they will thrive. The marketplace will continue to fragment, with new products and services popping up like weeds in a field.

Think about this: In the pre-internet days, Tom Peters and a handful of others were the only business "thought leader" brands around. Today, there's a new "thought leader" born every minute, in every field imaginable.

Again, brands won't die, they'll flourish. But what will happen is that prices will fall due to the abundance of offerings and suppliers. If the brand you offer is not truly unique and valuable in this new environment, you had better have a very low price.

Posted by Tom Asacker at March 27, 2009 12:06 PM

Hi Tom Asacker.... Good question.... Brands are used today to help individuals or groups of people eliminate choices. Tom you and I buy brands that we trust to give us the requisite taste, service, performance, etc we desire from a product. So long as the brand delivers we are loyal and will even pay a premium for our favourite brand.

When I was growing up there were no brands for bread, milk, or other staples. Why? My mum did not have a choice so she had no need of such a differentiation mechanism. She bought what was delivered to our door by the local milko, bread van, etc. Brands not needed so they did not exist. By the time supermarkets were in full swing Brands had become a way of life - a way of ensuring a 5 hour trip to the shops became a 1-3 hour excursion because my mum would buy her favourite Brands - Kellogg's Cornflakes, etc had become world-wide Brands. She came home in the shortest possible time because she did not have to ponder every decision in each and every isle.

Today shoppers are more likely to take longer shopping even in no name Brand shops like Aldi (do you have them in US they are European supermarket stores that have a limited range of goods that are much cheaper than anywhere else). They take longer because they read the labels for contents of products and the price per quantity data. The only Brand of note is the Aldi brand and it is a sign for where to buy not what to buy.

By the way Tom Peters was never a brand for me so I don't buy that analogy.

The notion of "brand you" really took off when Mc Kinsey consultants started talking up "war on talent" (they did it because it suited their revenue/business models). However, I understand what you are saying with this example and within that context I accept your example - today there are millions upon millions of 'thought leaders' some of whom I follow on Twitter. Some like Chris Brogan have huge followings but they are not brands and never will be.

Here is where my thinking on Brands takes a leap of faith. If you take your argument then Charlie Chaplin was a huge brand in silent movies. His brand lives on today and he is probably bigger than ever in popularity. But good old Charlie did not make the transition to talking movies. Indeed almost none of the "stars" of the silent movies made the transition to the new technology. Their brands live on to some extent but on in the respect that they are limited to historic representations of their art. Their brand is essentially dead because it is no longer needed to differentiate them from the mob - they had used their brand to differentiate themselves from other artists of their time but that is no longer relevant to our choices. Brands are dead or dying today because technology is moving on.

I have a new device I call DigitalCore - it is a simple filtering device for our digital world. In the analogue world I would have made it into a trademark and then ensured it became a branded entity. In this digital world we are entering with Web 3.0 capability I do not have to brand it. If it is useful to people they will use it and they will share it with others. They will innovate it, they customize it, they will then prototype it till it does what they want it to do, etc. There is no brand here and there is no need for a brand here. I give this notion away free to my clients I do not sell it - they can call it whatever they like and do with it whatever they like. The business models of providing data, things, tools, etc "free" (you have read Chris Andersen on this I am sure) are entirely different to those that need brands.

Kevin Kelley says when we move from the Web 2.0 we have today to Web 3.0 or the semantic web we move from a position of being outside to a position of being inside the web. Just thinking about that prospect give me goose bumps. There is a downside to all this because Kelley points out we will become co-dependent with the web.

When we live inside the web we need tools not brands - we need tools that give us simple ways to personalise our "many:one" connections or opportunities. DigitalCore may be such a tool for many consumers but it will never need to become a brand to succeed.

Thanks for your question. I hope I have managed to confuse you further Tom as I believe that "positive confusion" places each of us on step one of our learning curve. Cheers, Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at March 27, 2009 5:18 PM

Hi Richard,

Where do I begin. :)

You are absolutely correct in asserting that brands are trusted shortcuts that help us deal with an abundance of marketplace choice. And choice will continue to proliferate, therefore so too will the need for those shortcuts for decision-making, i.e. brands. The questions become, in what particular categories and who will dominate?

Aldi has about 1,000 outlets in the U.S., but Americans are probably more familiar with Wal-Mart. Do you know what the biggest fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) brand in America is? The answer isn't Coke, Gillette or J&J - it's Great Value, Wal-Mart's own-label. However, Great Value is still a brand. People trust it. It's a "where" and a "what" brand. Perhaps we're dealing with a semantics issue. :)

With regards to Tom Peters being a brand, he may not be a brand to you, but he certainly is one to many meeting planners who purchase his celebrity status in order to increase the value and price of their events. If you are trading your name value for money in the marketplace, you are a definitely a brand, like it or not. Is Chris Brogan a brand? Ask him.

Charlie Chaplin was also a brand in that his brand sold movie tickets, and he received compensation based upon that ability. You are right, his brand is dead today because he did not remain relevant. But think about this, Elvis and Curt Cobain are dead, but their brands are alive and well, bringing in millions of dollars a year.

Regarding your DigitalCore tool, it doesn't have to be protected by patent or trademark to be a brand. Brand value is not a legal notion, it's an associative one. Right now, that association creates value for you through the value you've provided to your clients. Do you see what I mean?

Thank you for the positive confusion Richard. This is the type of debate and learning that I truly enjoy.

Cheers,

Tom

Posted by Tom Asacker at March 28, 2009 10:27 AM

Hi Tom A

I see what you mean by brands - I just do not think it is relevant in a Web 3.0 world. Most of what you say is familiar to me because we all still essentially live in an analogue world where push marketing is a key feature of life. Web 3.0 will bring us a digital world where pull marketing is a key feature of life. Already Twitter works this way - people choose to follow my tweets (lord knows why? there are not many mind you - just around 180 but I do have some notables there that surprise me...) from all around the world. I do no advertising. I am merely talking a lot of "out of control" stuff (like brands are dead) and then trying to link people to comments that show how crowd-sourcing, etc will work to form networked economies. This is a major change for all of us.

Before brands there were multiple suppliers - they put a name on their services or products but they did not constitute brands or did they? I love Wal-Mart but in house brands are not brands to me.... I have discussed this with Wal-Mart before... What they are trying to do is to get people who buy their stuff to cross the aisle while they are there and buy more stuff. Women buy certain things and men buy other things but neither cross the aisles. Recently more are buying and self-serving medicines because of the recession... None of this has to do with brands it has everything to do with PRICE... But I know you will claim that Wal-Mart brand is based on PRICE. So I am fighting a loosing battle.... I will not convince you that brands are dead and I am not trying to do that. Trust me brands will become irrelevant once Web 3.0 is here with us.... But I am not here to convince you or anyone of this fact or fiction - I am here to engage you in thinking about what might be happening in our wonderful world of work.

Another key change in a digital world (where we have parallel processing not sequential and we have machine-to-machine data transfer not just people-to-people) is that the whole manufacturing model for revenue models will be dead too. The core notion that supports that moribund model is "value adding". In a networked economy there is no value adding but only "use value". Is Tom Asacker providing use value to me? If not then he has no presence - no brand, no use - for me. Chris Brogan has 55,000 + followers but he may provide no value add to any of them. He does provide 'use value' though if he regularly provides links or comments that at least one person can shout out to his cluster, clan, or tribe. Members of those clusters, clans, and tribes decide to follow Chris and boost his network of followers. Web 3.0 will be viral not managed - it is more like a living organism than a mechanistic system.

Best wishes, richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at March 28, 2009 5:41 PM

Absolutely fascinating exchange between Tom A and Richard - thank you guys. I don't pretend to understand most of it but it shows what a great platform TP Blog is for discussions that range from the frivolous and humorous through to the deep stuff. You both clearly have great knowledge of the branding subject. One observation from me about the following comment;

“Trust me brands will become irrelevant once Web 3.0 is here with us”

I don’t profess to be a branding expert nor indeed able to argue this academically but I suspect that is a sweeping generalisation. I would suggest the biggest brand of the last 2000 years called ‘Jesus’ will be as relevant when Web 10 reaches us - whatever that looks like and whenever it is. The Jesus brand will always be relevant. Regardless of technology

Posted by Trevor Gay at March 29, 2009 6:09 AM

Hi Trevor

My tweet to you 5 seconds ago:

digitalwarrrior @Trevthered Thx for comments about @chrisbrogan on Tompeters! http://www.tompeters.com Carlton FC = #1 on AFL ladder = 223% after Rd 1 YES!

Now that is what I am talking about 140 characters 3 links - 3 messages directly from me to you (one:one) but also to 55,000 + who follow Chris (one:many)... This is a digital conversation where no brands are needed BUT in this message 6 brands are mentioned & thus broadcast to potentially 55,000 + people - how simple is that????

IS JESUS REALLY A BRAND? If I were to choose a "faith icon" I would choose the Hindu God Shiva (went to shrine in India and received a "red dot" on my brow from a high priest so I was apparently inducted into his flock) or Greek God Zeus (400+ years BC).

About all these matters I assume the following:

"The more we change, the more we stay the same." This is why I remain captivated by 3 simple yet elegant organisational forms - clusters, clans, & tribes.

However my thinking about most things is guided by the following:

"The more we stay the same, the less we change".

This is why I remain captivated by 3 simple yet elegant organisational forms - clusters, clans, & tribes.

Cheers, Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at March 29, 2009 8:11 PM

Hi Richard – Thanks for the response

cheapest canadian viagra Jesus is a brand to me. He may not be to others. Others have their own faith 'brand' - that's also fine by me. Faith by definition is individual and is a choice for us all - it must always be that way - being pushed, cajoled or brainwashed into something is not a faith - each to their own I say including of course those without faith :-)

viagra and women I’ve starting using Twitter and whilst I like it, I see it, at the moment, as a form of light entertainment rather than anything else. It is a signposting system. You are right it can take us to other links and that is how I use it – it is a useful tool. Selective filtering of followers and those following is important - just like in real life we need to pick our friends carefully. I am not in love with Twitter. I am in love with my Blog to be honest. ‘Call me old fashioned if you like’ in the words of Dame Edna :- ) Old fashioned because I like something that is all of 7 years old max! – Wow! - How our definition of ‘old fashioned’ is being re-defined!

Like all things technological the beauty for us all is choice and there is a place for Blogs and Twitter and numerous other communncation methods and social networks – it’s an exciting time. I dabble in them all but I also respect those who don’t see the need to get involved. That’s also a choice – not a choice I would take up but it is a choice I respect for some people who will always like just the personal contact with real human beings rather than virtual relationships. I believe there is still a huge place for that face to face stuff. There is a danger of suggesting that really important face to face stuff is ‘out of date’ in our clamour for ‘virtual’ answers to everything.

My own personal preference is to make my own links in my own way and build up a group of friends and colleagues that I get to know well. I guess we all have to find a way that suits our own style and mode of working.

Exciting times indeed my friend!

Posted by Trevor Gay at March 30, 2009 6:57 AM

I am not a massive fan of twitter. I do "get it" but there is too much rubbish hiding the real insight. I am concerned if different types of social networking appeals to different types of people - the key driver of change is where different types of people get together.

Although not keen on all the approaches. I am a big fan of the possiblity of networked being and thinking.

I think these sites are only scratching the surface. I am looking forward to when we have true graphical interfaces that shows nodes of people, ideas, facts, emotion, money etc and in which the links between the nodes are as important a definition as the nodes themselves. Imagine everything run on a global mindmap shown graphically in 3d (or 4, 5 or a 100 dimensions.)

You can dream, think, plan, execute all in one dynamic enviroment. Like the brain the importance of connections would grow with use until it became company policy (some people could be given more influence). The Budget required to do something would simply follow the nodes with a financial attribute - constantly updated with the latest consolidated view (the nodes could be hierarchical).

If we can brainstorm using software like this why not other types of links?

Posted by PaulH at March 30, 2009 9:44 AM

"Is Jesus a brand?"

"Jesus is a brand to me."

Ugh! This whole talk of Jesus is silly and/or stupid.

"Ye are gods."

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 30, 2009 10:57 AM

"Ugh! This whole talk of Jesus is silly and/or stupid."

You are entitled to your opinion Judith. I just disagree with you completely. That's what this forum is all about isn't it? - differing opinions. No right no wrong, just opinion. I'm sure we all have our own silliness/stupidity rating scale on other's comments and that's fine by me too.

Posted by Trevor Gay at March 30, 2009 11:23 AM

So, leave me with my opinion, dear Trevor unless, of course, you can offer a rebuttal of sorts to the statement. I rarely throw stuff out there without having thought of it beforehand. Your "no right no wrong, just opinion," IS WRONG. (Being PC sucks. This is my opinion, needless to say.) There are rights and there are wrongs, even though all may be opinions. What is essential is wisdom and judgment based on many factors. Many people have such on this site and I am appreciative of this.

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 30, 2009 11:45 AM

We will agree to differ Judith. I would like to say I don't think I've ever written stupid or silly comments on this forum. I agree with you when you say "What is essential is wisdom and judgment based on many factors." - Unlike you however, I do not feel I am the best judge of others serious comments for their level of silliness or stupidity.

Posted by Trevor Gay at March 30, 2009 3:36 PM

discount online viagra generic

A: Tom A. Insightful & maximizes his billable hours to add value & benefit.
F: Lipscombe. Pure madness & no evidence of any billable hours - a genius at digital leisure?
F: Trevor Gay - the 1 member of the Cult of Trevor - coming late to the Christian party & trying to "brand" the Savior - better luck next time.
A: Judith - like me of faith from the start - spiritual intelligence gets overlooked by too many.

Posted by C Love at March 30, 2009 6:12 PM

"Unlike you..."

So true, Trevor. But please do not attempt to reframe my words. I have already said exactly what I meant to say and nothing above personally puts me in the picture you have painted. By the way, whatever happened to our having our own opinions?

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 30, 2009 6:33 PM

Thank you C Love - what an insightful assessment.

Judith - I wasn't aware I had disagreed about us all having our opinion. In fact I agree with you 100% on that.1.00 a.m. here - sleep well.

Posted by Trevor Gay at March 30, 2009 6:58 PM

Do I have to spell it out? I won't. Sleep well, Trevor. It's only 8:15 here.

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 30, 2009 7:13 PM

I was not a great fan of Twitter until Guy Kawasaki convinced me it offered me more than "random chatter"... We all know that Twitter is full of random chatter and that can be fun but Guy uses Twitter to connect people to interesting ideas and to market his business Alltop. Alltop is an aggregator of news which it lists under various themes (Guy calls it an eMagazine). If you "follow" Guy's tweets you will get links to all kinds of wonderful articles about technology, celebrities, cars, science, space, silicon valley, etc. Perhaps most of them are of no singular interest to you or your friends BUT some are so pertinent that you will immediately Re-Tweet them so your followers are able to dive in as well. This is why people follow you, in part, because you follow Guy Kawasaki and you Re-Tweet what interests you from him. Some of your followers also follow Guy and they Re-Tweet different things to you - this enables you to see why it is important. Finally Guy might be following you and he may Re-Tweet what you have sent out there. This is what Twitter does well at present - it connect ideas to people around the globe.

What Twitter might end up doing really well in the near future is to become your 'real time' search engine and so partially replace the search engines you use today. Already it has brought on the spot reporting of crises to people around the world before the world's media has latched onto the story.

Twitter is a great tool for social networking - it reaches around the globe not just around the block. Thus if you use it wisely it can greatly enhance your next face-to-face meeting with friends, business contacts, government officials, etc. Yeah contrary to popular belief I believe that Twitter when used socially responsibly can only serve to enhance your face-to-face meetings.

The digital age has just begun there are lots of great new adventures to be had as Web 3.0 (semantic web) kicks in. But the more things change the more things stay the same......

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at March 31, 2009 1:32 AM

I hear what you are saying Richard and I can feel your passion for Tweeter - it has terrific potential. Maybe if I keep at it I will recognise its use for me. Thanks for the exchange as always. Up the Reds!

Posted by Trevor Gay at March 31, 2009 3:39 AM

Trevor, viagra for sale from canada

Do you want to be truly inspired? Give yourself the gift of 30 minutes with the World's Best Chef >http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10182

Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at March 31, 2009 7:01 PM