Today I was having a skype chat with the Super Awesome Micro Project CTO Raul Oaida about what his life would be like after we finish the project.
I said:
After SAMP your life will be one of travel, opportunity and space exploration
He said:
That would be a dream come true!
and then I replied:
No, that would be a dream worked hard at.
———-
The simple truth is that dreams either get worked on arduously to become a reality, or they remain a pure fantasy.
I feel like I hear the term passionate too much when it comes to business and startups.
“I’m passionate about the internet.”
It’s a bit like saying, I’m really into electricity. The internet isn’t really a thing to be passionate about – it’s a thing that allows passions to be made into realities. Lately I’ve been listening to a lot of entrepreneur podcasts and youtube interviews and what I’m seeing as their foundation lies in ‘interests’ more than passions. I’m seeing a long term interest in certain areas that have subtly influenced their direction over time. A sense of curiosity which builds over time and provides startup direction by stealth. They didn’t have a burning passion or overnight explosion of desire, but a slowly building yearning and curiosity for a certain type of technology or type of connection.
The Foundation interviews by Kevin Rose are a super forum for hearing the long story from founders. A little more about how they got there, than what they did once they arrived. It’s insightful and refreshing stuff. Two of these that stood our for me were the interviews with Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey.
Musk – Turns out he had a big interest in comic books as a kid. He read every single one in the store and their futuristic view of the world shaped his mindset and the ventures he ended up in.
Dorsey – Was obsessed with dispatch routing (omnidirectional messages from a single source) and maps (he filled his bedroom wall with them). Which again influenced the design of the twitter service.
The point is they didn’t turn up and say: ‘How can I take advantage of this internet thing with something new?’
Rather, they said: ‘Hey, finally I can build that thing I’ve been thinking about all this time.’
We are best served when we listen to our genuine long term bubbling interests, rather than what’s hot and bursts of passion.
I heard this quote for the first time – not sure if it’s an old one. You could even argue it isn’t entirely true….But thought it was a simple reminder of the types of things we should consider while we move through startup land:
“The big do not always eat the small, but the fast always eat the slow.”
Anyone involved in an entrepreneurial sphere, has at some point lamented the fact that they missed a previous revolution. A time when the momentum of change swept everyone forward. Those times when change was inevitable, or only a few people knew about the big change that was underway. Those times when being there, or just turning up was enough for success to be inevitable. The home brew computer club, the early days of the web. It was so much easier for those guys to launch something new and innovative, and make a bundle in the process. The world was so open and less competitive. Right?
Yes – it was less competitive, but we must remember that access to resources was a big issue. To finance projects, and get around the barriers to entry was incredibly difficult. Ceteris paribus – I’d say the probability of success is unchanged. Some parts are easier, some are more difficult.
The other thing which is interesting, is that those previous revolutions we wished we participated in: The personal computer in the 1970’s, the dot com boom of the mid 1990’s or the web 2.0 renaissance are all still here. The names have changed, and the widgets are new, but the opportunity is just as large. And 5, 10 or 20 years from now you’ll be reading about entrepreneurs who changed the world forever in these in 2 important areas – The web of things, and 3D printing. Both of these areas are as big as any piece of the digital revolution we’ve already lived through…. the ones you missed. And right now they are both in their early 1970’s era equivalent in terms of development and opportunity. So the only question remaining is this. Why are you doing about it?
My father told me this which I never forget. The opportunity of a lifetime comes up about once a week. But only when we’re looking for it.
Industrial and bricks and mortar businesses are overcome by their need to ‘get on line’. Guess what? Digital and startup businesses need to ‘get off line’. It turns out that this revolution is a two way street. The new eco system is wide, and we ignore either side at our peril.
Here’s a fun example of the digital getting physical:
[vimeo=http://vimeo.com/58580261]
—
The most outdated form of learning is memorising. Other than the ability to write and speak – it’s hard for me to see a future for memorising anything when I have access to the knowledge of the world, in real time, in my pocket.
So why do we still ask kids to memorise lists, States, Ex Presidents and the first 20 elements of the periodic table?
The really valuable part of computing power is the ability to process the data, the RAM. The hard drive (the storage) is less expensive and I’d say not as important. How often do we go into our files to find that presentation, spreadsheet or file from 2 years ago? – Almost never.
I think it’s a lot like our human brains, the real value is in problem solving, not rote memorising. Ironically personal computers seem to be moving back to the way they began – without the potential to store data locally. The data stored on our hard drive is quickly moving to the cloud and away from our computers. And it’s my contention that we should do the same thing with memorsing stuff and outsource that to the micro chip as well.
Attracting and serving fans has been a past time of brands for the past few years on Facebook. To the point where the accumulation itself became the objective. And while I keep looking for the cracks to appear in Facebook it seems to be able to continue to grow despite its huge size. Maybe the barriers to exit the service are too high for consumers to leave? Maybe the FOMO and connectedness matters too much? But one thing I am sure of is how I feel about it personally, and from a marketing perspective.
It made sense at first: After the 50 years of the top down TV industrial complex – a period when we got told and sold, it was novel to have a direct connection with the brands. To be able to talk to the big brands in town felt good. For once our opinion was more than a letter or ‘non caring’ customer service 1800 agent. I mean they had to care, it was all on display for everyone to see. A poor response from any brand would result in a digital lynch mob attack. Finally we had the respect we deserved as the supporters of the brands. It was the connection we always wanted. It seemed to make sense for both parties. So we all connected in every way we could – and filled our digital dance card.
Then we discovered we didn’t have much in common: Both us and the brands struggled with our new found direct connection, our co-operative digital love affair. We’d read each others stuff, try and be loyal to each other and support the give and take element in this new world. We even designed new products together, made advertisements for each other and really embraced the new tools we were afforded. But it got kinda boring. I mean how many conversations can we have about breakfast cereal, tomato sauce and canned tuna? So the brands took their lessons and got wise. They realised that they had to live a layer outside of what they sold in order to create value beyond what they actually sold. They realised they had become a resource and knowledge bank in related realms to thrive in a social world. So cereal became about diet and health. Frozen meals became about a life well lived and what’s on in the city and dish washing liquid became about tricks and tips around the house. The campaigns and related brand pages sprouted like mushrooms And all this worked out pretty well…..for a while.
Until it became a spam fest: At first, we got useful information and respected and rewarded brands in the process. So brands did what brands do. More of what works, and copied those who did it first and best. The great likenomics battle of 2010 and beyond…. Until everyone’s feed was so full of junk – it became like the letter box we have no joy in opening – A letter box just filled with flyers, bills and credit card offers. The dance floor wss too full, the music was too loud. In a social media marketing sense it is the equivalent of 3am and we all just want to get some sleep already. We are over it. I don’t think I am exaggerating here, it is probably how most of us feel right now. And I haven’t even touched on all the people we said ‘yes’ to on facebook, who we haven’t seen since grade school. Like I said, it was interesting and novel at the start, but it is very difficult to care for the babies of someone you have seen in decades.
So now I’m done: Yes, there are some brands I love. Some whose products and services really matter to me. But it is certain that none of these brands ever find their way into my shopping trolly, are my finance provider or power my home. Yes, non of them are boring products from the industrial era. The only brands I play with and want to converse with are those I spend my spare time with. That’s my current definition of where I draw the line on being ‘friends’ with a corporation. And I really think it’s over for most brands trying to make their way in the social sphere – even though the numbers and analysis on brand engagement on social forums probably don’t show it yet.
Yes, brands need social: It is foolish to think that brands shouldn’t be in social media, or use the tools. It is the first place we’ll go to find them – their facebook page, or find their twitter handle. And you can be certain we’ll want an answer within seconds. It is the new call centre and probably alot of other things as well. What it isn’t, and wont ever be, is part of peoples social life. I’m betting people will gravitate back to saving that for other humans.
It’s in our make up: There only so many relationships we can have in life. Whether they are people or personified brands, we are genetically programmed to only be able to manage so many interactions. Dunbars number is the simplest way to explain this phenomenon. It’s a basic safety mechanism that ensures stability and safety, and it’s what will drive us back to a limited number of social interactions (physical & virtual).
Brands need to know where they belong: The key element to all this is knowing where we belong in peoples lives. I’m far more likely to interact with a brand that I invest my spare time with. The brands that play in my passion space. The other brands I am happy to purchase, need to understand that they are associates, micro interactions, whom I do not have time for or want dealings with outside of what they thing they actually deliver.
It’s time everyone (brands & people) realised where they belong, and took a human approach to our connections. If everyone tries to maximise social connections simply because the gates have been opened, we’ll end up with closed doors and reduced potential for trust with the connections we actually want to have.