In case you stumble upon this, I no longer feel compelled to blog. It doesn't mean I stopped thinking, writing or subverting, I just do that elsewhere. Although a couple of people know who I am I always liked the fact that I blogged anonymously. It was never about me but about the thinking. I've moved that on a bit now. I am still planning on subversion but I try and do it in practice rather than in blogs. If you know me or interested to find out more about what I am up to e-mail me here: email@example.com.
Some silly observations: The people on the edges (and closer / facing the rest of the world) are the ones who voted for him. Change comes from the edges, most certainly not from the orthodoxys of the conservative centre. Apparently Obama had a lot of young people voting for him, perhaps it's the young are the ones that still believe you can change. Any way more later on this.
According to Business Week these are the most influential people on the web. What I find really interesting though is that 8 out of the 25 mentioned have businesses or ideas that are under serious threat from somebody or something else. Craiglist is threatened by eBAY Google is in danger of becoming the Microsoft of the web or a spin on their Don't be evil becoming exactly that: 'The Evil Empire' Amazon has reached maturity already and needs to diversify out of the Book Club Ghetto. Microsoft well their biggest threat is moving from a software business into a web based software business not to mention google docs and the likes Firefox is under threat from Google's Chrome MySpace is under threat from facebook and is forced to diversify it's way out of being the poor people's facebook Yahoo well who wants a directory based portal in a digg world. Nokia trying to compete in the multi-media hand-held computers, talk about psychizophrenia For a list showing the webs most influential people it seems to me that over a third of that list are either shitting their pants, laying sleepless at night or simply sweating. Fundamentally because either their ideas have reached maturity already and are in need for diversification / reinvention or they haven't evolved fast enough or simply came up with new ones. Contrast those 8 to the guy who did blogger, tried odeo and recently done twitter, not to mention Apple who is for all intents and purposes a music business as much as it is a computer business. Interesting Indeed.
Isn't it funny when recruiting people or being recruited in an industry like ours the people who get the job tend to be those that have done something 'similar', 'relevant' or are 'a bit like us'. I would love to see the day when people are recruited because they have an experience that's nothing like the existing culture. A mixed up world is a more interesting place. But this 'creative destruction' principle is too painful for those who seek to stay in their comfort zone. Any growth out of what puts you in the un-predictable and is painful but so are muscles as they grow. If you can't stretch you can't reach the top shelf :-)
I hate Ryanair. It's shit. I couldn't put it any other way. They are definitely the 'fare without care' airline and the thing that I find annoying like hell is that they don't have to be rude. Rude is a policy at Ryanair. It doesn't cost anything to allow their staff to be nice. Like easyjet for example. Today Ryanair have announced that they will be making losses this year. I couldn't have been happier. Because as well as market forces teaching them a lesson in eating humble pie perhaps the fare no care strategy should now come back to haunt them as passengers dessert them not only for price but for nice service.
'Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see' - Arthur Schopenhauer. I was thinking about types of planners out there following a conversation with a great planning director and we were debating the virtues of various 'types' of planners. Labels abound of-course, account planner, creative planner, communication planner, digital planner etc. Yet the only types I could come up with were simply two: the first are planners who are brilliant at de-construction: these are the folks who are great at telling you how the world works. Typically because they come from research and curiosity backgrounds / mindsets. The other type are the planners who are brilliant at construction. These are the ones who are into how the world 'could' work. The latter type don't need a curiosity background. Sadly i was say that the latter are the rarer variety. I suppose the difference between the two is what Schopenhauer described between the talented and the genius. Finally, as far as planning processes go wouldn't it be simpler to narrow down the planning cycle to two phases: Deconstruction - Reconstruction. The first is about understanding 'how the world works?' and the second is about 'how it could work?'. If it is one planner who is doing both then he/she would need to swap hats somewhere in the middle but you could always have two planners the de-constructionist and the re-constructionist in charge of each phase.