Branding

I started this when I was in a place of not so fun hell. The company I was with at the time was going through massive layoffs. Me, never one to be a cog in the system, went from a promising "consultant" to the senior management team to the dreaded cog. It was a fun ride up - not so much on the way down.

So, I quit. No gig lined up. No idea where to go next. I just leaped. It was an amazing experience. I am fortunate to have a wife that makes more than me, so financials were of little concern. And, I was confident I would land in due time.

I took the time to understand what I wanted next and where I wanted to be. I have never been happy with my job. In politics, I hated the hours. Managing my own firm, I missed the opportunity to learn from above. And in the corporate world, the sludge that political bullshit brings to the system stifles even the most creative and ambitious of souls.

And so I landed back in DC. Its great to be back in among friends. I am also in a startup. Not sure where it will lead, but I am definitely learning.

Learning what is my question. Many talk about creating a "brand" for yourself - one that helps quickly define you and your skills to others. In b-school, they preach heavily the idea of squeezing your background and experiences into one of 3 areas - finance, marketing, or operations. I tried. I couldn't. So I stopped.

I decided that I needed to develop my own brand, outside the pretense of "business". But what is that brand? What do I enjoy? What do I do well? After about 6 months of thought and effort, I still don't know. But its a hell of a lot more fun...

The Long Tail

In Chris Andreson's book, "The Long Tail", he does a great job of dissecting the rapid market shifts underway, given the emergence of the internet. However, his framework is weak in the definition of fact.

Mr. Anderson discusses in great detail the differences between the Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia. One of the core differences he defines between the two is that the Britannica is defined as "authoritative", due to its "scholarly" roots. And, Wikipedia is defined as "non-authoritative", given its roots within the collective wisdom of many.

However, scholarship itself is defined within the collective wisdom of many. Much of the work of any PhD student or practitioner is to scour the world to devour any and all previous work surrounding the topic at hand. They, like any human, collect available information, digest it and rely upon it. How many times in our recent history have we seen "authoritative" thinking debunct?

The fact that our culture has defined "scholars"as more authoritative becomes less relevant as the market shifts, as defined by Anderson's framework, as more and more people are able to participate in the definition of fact.

Fact is truly a dynamic being. It is the result of the most up-to-date information available. Given the opportunity to assimilate new information from any human on the planet, as Wikipedia is fast enabling, the resulting fact will undoubtedly continue to evolve, just as it has since the beginning of time...

Latent Dissatisfaction

Rags Gupta has a very interesting post about the concept of latent dissatisfaction. He speaks about how Apple has uncovered such a state that exists with the consumption of music, with their current iPod + iTunes offering. Though unknown to anyone in "the industry", consumers were latently unsatisfied with the methods available to consume music content.

This smells of basic communications theory surrounding the idea of "message." The one speaking defines what is spoken. For discussion (or "interaction") to occur, respondents are forced to work under the construct the speaker defined. If you speak of an apple and an orange, others are not even aware of the pear, and more importantly are highly unlikely to even mention it.

This concept relegates such consumer understanding techniques as interviews, surveys, focus groups, etc. - tools that require the respondent to work under the construct of what they know and what they are asked - as weak, and potentially misguided for generating understanding of real opportunity.

My take-away is this: Is there more opportunity inside a defined construct, our outside? There is no question that the limitless, undefined "outside" offers the most opportunity.

Welcome

Welcome to my musings. I thought I would add my own voice to the cacaphony of thoughts that now float about.

I have a background in politics and technology, and a fascination with how our culture continues to evolve as technology further permeates our lives. I am an expert in nothing, but a bystander of much. Conversations with my wife and others have led me to believe the way my mind works might be different (and potentially interesting) to others. We shall see...