Posts tagged as:

evil

I‘ve done quite a bit of thinking about how the social web will make the world a better place. I’ve written about it, and also lectured about the social web, good, and evil.

So when a talk by Evgeny Morozov popped on TED on the topic of how the net aids dictatorships, I was naturally interested. Was somebody going to put up a good argument against my theories?

The answer is yes. And no. Evgeny argues beautifully for the ideas, but simultaneously shows how the dictatorships actually start using the web to reach out and communicate, much like I think companies should. They are proactive, the contribute, they engage, and they are present. They DON’T try to cencor stuff, because they have realized that participation is more effective. And I tell you – if dictatorships do this successfully, companies should too!

Then, of course, these dictatorships abuse their power to flood the system with government biased comments and spam, and commit evil acts, but I’m not as sure as Evgeny is about how effective this is. Compare it for example to this example from the very well designed guidelines at Intel for how to effectively use the social web:

Be transparent. Your honesty—or dishonesty—will be quickly noticed in the social media environment. If you are blogging about your work at Intel, use your real name, identify that you work for Intel, and be clear about your role. If you have a vested interest in something you are discussing, be the first to point it out.

This is not a guideline that the dictatorships exactly follow. On the other hand, perhaps other commenters don’t dare use their real name either for fear of physical abuse, so this way It may actually work for government agents to blend into the anonymous crowd. Again – we see an example of how anonymity leads to evil and abuse.

Incidently, the campaign led by The Cartel to hunt down file sharers also leads to anonymization of the web, making laws like HADOPI and IPRED all the more troublesome – and also promoters of more serious evil.

Similar Posts:

{ 2 comments }

What the World Will Look Like in 25 Years

by Walter Naeslund on September 1, 2009

When I went to ad-school I felt that the school was in many respects molding people into replicas of what ad-people were supposed to be. Now I feel that this is perhaps about to change. The other day I got interview questions from Hyper Island regarding digital trends, and today I got another question from Berghs School of Communication regarding “what the world will look like in 25 years“. And despite the fact that a question like that is hopeless in terms of giving the correct answer, I can try to provide some humble thoughts on the subject.

First, the world will be what we make it
. That may sound like an empty phrase, but it’s really quite the opposite. It is a way of living, of working, of acting, and of thinking. If you live by this belief, make decisions and take action, this will not be an empty phrase, but the best estimate of the future that we can produce.

But aside from this answer, I will try to give you an answer to your question that is a little more pragmatic. Looking at what communications will look like in 25 years we can try on two scenarios.

In scenario 1 we make the internet asymmetrical. We let legislation rule what can and cannot be sent across the internet. Material which is not permitted (like “pirated” information for example) will move underground and will be sent using stealth technology. Much of the information flow of the internet will be encrypted jibberish, undecipherable for any sense-making technology wanting to make use of it and invisible to human senses that could otherwise have been used for collaborative sense-making and coordinated collective intelligence.

The goals of those wanting to control certain information based on their nostalgia of the times when they had a lucrative monopoly on distribution will not be reached because of ever improving speed and convenience of stealth technology. Instead, the huge resources that will be put into creating these technologies (love of music for instance is a powerful incentive) will be of great benefit to those who have truly evil intentions but smaller resources, notably terrorists and criminals. Since the only way of stopping “piracy” will be to do so at the infrastructure level (service providers can be real and effective gatekeepers!) this is where we’ll eventually end up, banning encrypted traffic altogether. And presto! The internet as we know it is destroyed.

Also in this asymmetrical scenario, we will start charging for the use of bandwidth. Me, being a strong believer in free markets and competition, opposing this kind of asymmetrical access to the internet based on resources may sound incongruent, but it really isn’t. Much in the same way roads and  equality to the law are the basis for efficient competition (imagine the transaction costs of paying different prices for different levels of use of different roads), I think that access to the internet should be considered public infrastructure that will benefit competition, production, innovation, and market efficiency. But in the asymmetrical scenario, this will not be true anymore, and instead old business models and old distribution monopolies can be recreated by content companies using their funds to squat certain infrastructure lines and only provide access to their content through these. This may perhaps sound fair, but what will happen is that the abundance paradigm of the internet, the free flow of information, the “to each according to his ability” (the reverse of the famously Marxist slogan), and the rise of man through collective intelligence will stop.

I’m an optimist. I don’t think that this will happen.

In scenario 2 we retain the symmetry of the internet. We treat it like infrastructure in place to make markets and information flow efficient. Like a great system of streets and water pipes. In this scenario innovation will flourish because we can all do what we have always done, build on each others innovations, but we can do it with unprecedented efficiency. We can try and fail to a very low cost, we can learn from the mistakes of others, which boosts human efficiency enormously. This increase in efficiency, just like earlier technology leaps such as industrial farming, will create vast amounts of cognitive surplus that we can use for further innovation and production. Note that even resources that seem to be wasted on chatting with friends and Twittering create value in the form of information coordination and add to the collective intelligence. We can learn how people talk, we can cluster information, we can find new synergies and draw new conclusions.

Gossip will become hugely more efficient in this transparent world of efficient communication. This will lead to vengeance and gratitude being distributed with much more precision in answer to bad or good behavior and will make us all behave better and cheat less.

Digitally replicable products will not be products, they will be marketing for products where there is still tension between supply and demand. Musicians will try to get their music redistributed as quickly and widely as possible in order to fill venues and cut deals with brands, authors will do the same with their audiobooks to get speaking opportunities and sell hardcovers, filmmakers will use their films as vehicles for brand building and profit off of their brand, while also providing vehicles for other brands. Ludicrous legislation regarding this will be laughed at in 25 years. So will the crude methods of product placement of our age. The cinema experience cannot be pirated and we will see huge product development in terms of widening this experience. Their temporary monopoly on the film itself has made them lazy in this respect.

There will not be a difference between our digital identity and our physical one. All interaction with us will be permission based, and we will grant permission to those that we like and receive value from. Interuption marketing will be long since dead. The notion of publicly reachable phone numbers and email adresses will be laughed at as cute relics of the past. Our identity will be our identity and we will call people, not numbers, by whatever means is most efficient at the time, voice, video, text, images. By default our precense in the digital and analogue world will be publicly available. The benefits of this will outweigh the drawbacks. At times we will switch this off, just like we close the door when we want to sleep.

The semantic web will be obvious, and we’ll look back at how the internet was and smile at how we had so many copies of everything and how inefficient everything was. Of course each object will only be available in one absolute, so that any update will only have to be done once. Of course each of these will contain data representations fit for each semantic understanding of that particular data. We will be able to search, deploy scripts to ask questions and make calculations, and switch between real time representations and the historic dimension. This will all be very intuitive.

Since you are asking me to describe what the world will look like in 25 years, it is a bit ambitious to think that one blog post will answer it all, but these are some ideas of how things will be. If that’s what we decide to make them into. Because still, I think that my first answer is the best one – the world will be what we make it.

Similar Posts:

{ 7 comments }

Contrasts are what make life interesting. Yesterday I woke up here:

…from the sound of sheep walking around outside my tent. Today I woke up and threw myself into a cab to Arlanda to fly off to Oslo and Strömstad for the Bring Dialogue Conference ‘09.

When I got here I realized I’d be staying here:

…at the luxury spa resort in Strömstad. Slightly different from camping – haha! It’s actually even nicer than what the picture shows.

But conferences are all about the people. The people at Social Web Camp were the elite of social media – almost like Sweden’s own R&D-department of digital communication. Here we have a similiar number of people from the business elite (at least from what I can tell so far). Probably as smart, as passionate, and as creative, but in slightly different fields. Also, we have some amazing speakers like Kjell A. Nordström, Micael Dahlén, Magnus Lindqvist, and Jan Bylund. Only to name a few. (Note that all but one are striking the same knuckles-in-chin-pose). :-)

And then I haven’t even begun talking about the shellfish buffet that is planned on Koster for tommorow night.

Those of you who attended my session at the Social Web Camp got to see a preview of the talk I’m doing here. Stay tuned for Slideshare presentation that will be posted shortly. I’ll be discussing the evolution of gossip, good, and evil, draw parallels to social media, and also present thoughts on strategy for approaching this new breakdown of brand privacy.

See you soon!

Similar Posts:

{ 3 comments }

Planner Must Read: Were You, Are You, or Will You Be?

by Walter Naeslund on July 9, 2009

With his new book called The Time Paradox, social psychologist Dr Philip Zimbardo lays out behavioral patterns of past-, present-, and future oriented personality types. It’s an incredibly simple, yet insightful theory he puts forth, and one which really highlights the weaknesses of our ordinary demographic segmentation of target groups. I would say that this is a must read for any planner worth his name.

As some of you know, I’m a big fan of Dr Philip Zimbardo. I’ve used parts of his book The Lucifer Effect to explain the benefits of social media openness and the perils of anonymity (read more here and here). Now, with his new book and theory, Dr Zimbardo really inspired me to investigate social media and marketing psychology from this time perspective horizon. Stand by for a new talk on this topic!

In the meantime, check out Zimbardo’s presentation. Start with this short version from TED, and then continue on to the longer one below if you find it as interesting as I do.

Now, if you found that as interesting as I did, you should really go grab a cup of coffee and switch of your mobile phone for the next hour and watch this fantastic 74 minute presentation on the topic. Well worth the time if you ask me.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Similar Posts:

{ 0 comments }

We are now starting to see the effects of the Swedish IPRED-law, which states that copyright holders can go after individuals downloading protected content. Apparently, Swedish internet traffic has now dropped by nearly half. And since when is that a good thing? I thought traffic was valuable?

I believe that you can never be quite certain when you make predictions about the future, but in this case I think that the case is quite clear, and that we can now see the evidence emerging.

But first off, I want to be very clear that I am on the side of artists and other creators of value. I have strong opinions about this subject, but they are all about realism. Not about anarchism.

What the IPRED-law is doing is to protect an outdated business model for music, motion pictures, and other content. It’s implementation will remove incentives for product- and business model development like for example Spotify.

What’s worse, however, is that it directs valuable resources to evil forces, such as terrorists and criminals. Why? Well, a lot of people care about music and film. Much more people, in fact, than are criminals and terrorists. And thus there is a broad base for recruiting creatives to help keep music, film and other content free. If we go after file sharing individuals using the IPRED-law, there will be strong incentives to develop stealth file sharing software, and a large and powerful community engaging in it. We will quickly see increasingly sofisticated software of this type appearing and being deployed. With file sharing, we’ll be back to where we started, but criminals and terrorists will have brand new fast stealth tools which they would never have had the resources to develop themselves. And even if this if perhaps an exagerrated fear (there is after all already great stealth services out there, as well as bad guys using them), it clearly shows that this law will be completely useless very soon because of people learning to use these stealth services.

And what about open wireless networks? Will they all disappear now? That will not make brands trying to utilize IPRED very popular, and will actually damage the country’s progress towards connectedness. Read on.

Because another angle is the branding angle. And here it becomes very interesting when opening todays newspaper DN (unfortunately not linkable yet). In one article you can read about how people are boycotting the film- and music industries. Here are some examples of quotes from the public cited in the article:

“I’m completely going to boycott the music- and film industry now. Earlier, I’ve spent an average of 1000kr (ca $100) per month on cinema, DVDs, concerts and CDs. That will now end. All this will be cancelled”.

Or this one from a middle age person:

“I’ve never file shared in my life, but now I have to if only to show them that they can’t scare us. Let’s fight to protect our last rights. I have just downloaded file sharing software and figured out how it works. This will be fun”.

Or this interesting one:

“Let’s demand a seal for artists entirely without association with the major labels”. Now wouldn’t that be interesting.

Like I wrote the other day, we can already see smart companies, like Viasat for example, taking advantage of this, publicly promising NEVER to have anything to do with the IPRED-law, and thereby end up in the same future oriented category as for example Spotify.

If I were a copyright holder today I would think once, twice, and three times before even thinking about using this law. It may very well cost you your brand.

Similar Posts:

{ 2 comments }

OMG. Reading this mornings newspaper, I get the same vibe as when I hear about bullying in schoolyards, or when I listen to Philip Zimbardo talking about evil at TED.com – “if we attack in a group, we all get away with it”.

Earbooks, Storyside, Piratförlaget, Bonnier Audio, and Norstedts have decided to take advantage of the new and highly controversial (79% of young men are against, and half of the general population) IPRED-law to attack, in formation, ordinary people downloading audio books from file sharing sites. This is NOT smart.

Sure, one of them could attack an individual and say that this is what they believe in and have some sort of pseudo-discussion about rights of artists. They could make it part of their identity and stand by it. I don’t believe in it, but at least it would feel honest and perhaps even a little courageous. But when hiding behind each others backs, effecively saying that they’re a little bit ashamed, it’s absolutely devestating for their brands.

On top of it all, Bonnier has a brand new R&D-department working to take Bonnier into the future. Suddenly this sounds less than convincing. If putting the numbers on the board of what kind of money they MIGHT make off of this (will it even be a +sign in front of that number?) against the cost of the damage they’re doing to their brand, and multiply that number over the medium or long term, this will seem like the worst decision in a long time. It’s very unfortunate.

Compare this to what Viasat are doing, leveraging this law to show off their brand as progressive and intelligent.

Similar Posts:

{ 0 comments }

Let soak in for 2 or 3 minutes or until you see GOD!

by Walter Naeslund on March 26, 2009

IMG_0756.JPG by you.

People sometimes ask me what I mean when I talk about Honesty’s communication model. And in response, well, let me tell you a story:

Last night I briefly attended one of these cool VIP-ish happenings where you get a goodie bag upon leaving. Though not entirely aimed at me (mostly women’s beauty products in there), one of the products caught my eye. It was a “Chai Latte Soul & Body Wash” from Philip B.

Now, how different can these products really be? I mean, sure, it’s probably great and all, and it probably smells lovely of chai latte, but if we want scented cleaning products, there are probably much cheaper alternatives, right? Instead we want to buy in on the luxury dream. And that will trigger us to buy, which is good of course. But today I want to talk about what triggers us to communicate and talk to our friends, blog readers and Twitter followers about something. And this lovely product has such triggers.

First, the name. Besides the Chai Latte scent association the “Soul & Body Wash” product description is just lovely. That alone is blogger friendly and cute. But the real magic emerged when turning the bottle. The directions on the back read: “…lather it up and let soak in for 2 or 3 minutes or until you see GOD! Rinse well.”

That kind of detail is JUST what people love to talk about. It may seem insignificant, but these things matter. Unless you want to try buying your way in using brute force and distribution. Who’s going to talk about the new Wella shampoo just because they have an expensive full page spread in an expensive magazine with an expensive sensual model shot by an expensive photographer with an expensive camera. You may get people to buy if you have enough cash to spend, but you won’t get people to talk.

I want to get people to talk. Because then you will get leverage on your marketing cash. And you will build equity in search engines by getting a lot of links and lot of buzz. How much equity do you get out of a magazine spread? Ultimately, we will have a much larger pool of people buying AND talking. And then you have a positive spiral and can get ready for the next product development.

This is what I talk about when i talk about communicative product development. It may well be a bigger innovation like a foldable car, but it may just as well be a small detail, like tonality in the directions on the back of the bottle.

Like they say – the devil is in the details.

Similar Posts:

{ 3 comments }

The Privacy of Evil – Part Two

by Walter Naeslund on November 25, 2008

This is the second part of my idea sketch on privacy and integrity. The first part can be found here. There is also an interesting comment on that post by Michael Dahlén where he talks about information symmetry, a theme that I’ll adress later in this post.

In this second part I will show you two talks, the first of which happens to be one of my favorite talks ever, by the phenomenal writer and psychologist Jonathan Haidt. The second talk is a rather graphic and frightening one by Philip Zimbardo, and I will only present the link here and not embed it since there are some very graphic images in the presentation.

Anyway, I wrote in the first part about how we psychologically maintain moral behavior in a self-regulating way, by rewarding and punishing each other in more or less subtle ways to maintain moral equilibrium. It’s an extremely impressive distributed control system, much like the self balancing control system of a market economy, but much more refined and granular.

In Haidt’s talk, five moral foundations are listed as ones that we have with us from birth. These five are:
1. Harm/care
2. Fairness/reciprocity
3. Ingroup/loyalty
4. Authority/respect
5. Purity/sanctity

If any one of these foundations are challenged, we react quickly to restore equilibrium. At least until we shift the equilibrium by fundamentally changing the rules of the system. There are several ways of changing the rules of the system, but I will focus only on one of these here. The one I will focus on it the introduction of anonymity.

If we remove personal responsibility from the system by introducing anonymity, studies have shown that several of these moral foundations seem to fail. Some of these studies are presented briefly in the talks below. Personally I’m most intrigued by the first two of these foundations. It seems that people can turn evil and cause harm when power is introduced in combination with the removal of personal responsibility. Consider uniforms in war for example, or hoods worn by executioners through all time. And people in many systems seem to loose sense of reciprocity by cheating when individual contributions are unclear. We also seem less prone to do good under such circumstances.

So is this view highly cynical? Well, perhaps not. Perhaps it’s just how civilized group behavior evolved. How else would something like this be governed? The peer to peer equilibrium control system is perhaps the only viable path for evolution to take (Darwin would say that the present state is proof of that. I would too).

This view would explain why religion was a really good idea for keeping up moral behavior. Because even when nobody was watching, god was. But the notion of god created a huge information asymmetry which was quite scary, and often abused throughout history.

But as the internet removes anonymity in a (more) symmetrical way, it is much more difficult to abuse this information. I don’t mean to be bombastic, but I can truly see us moving into a new era of higher moral standards and a better world – simply because we increase communication efficiency and information symmetry. And I would like to encourage you to consider this the next time you read a negative article about the breakdown of privacy.

It also puts a new spin on Google’s “Do No Evil”-tagline, doesn’t it?

Now watch these two amazing talks and consider what I just said:

Talk number 1 by Jonathan Haidt:

Click here for talk number 2 by Philip Zimbardo.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Similar Posts:

{ 2 comments }

Is The Brand of Green Going Stale?

by Walter Naeslund on April 28, 2008

There is not much left in the world that is not green, organic, and sustainable. If I want to be evil and don’t care for mother Earth, I’m really stuck with a pitiful selection of Earth-abusing stuff. When I was in New York the other week the apple was really greener then big. Everybody wants to be green.

But when things sound a little too good to be true, they usually are.

Let’s back things up a little: What’s the point of being green? Well, that depends on who you ask. The original intent is of course to save the Earth, stop global warming and so on. From the brand builders perspective, it’s about charging your brand with a dose of caring and responsibility so that the consumer can buy shares in your brand (that is, your products), thus appending the same caring and responsible aroma to his or her own personal brand (let’s face it, saving the world is just not incentive enough). This COULD be a really powerful synergy between brand and Earth, but as it turns out a lot of the green-branded eco friendly products are just not green. Fortune magazine just wrote a small but nicely put together little piece on this phenomena called greenwashing. Google that term for a little while if you feel like getting depressed.

The problem with greenwashing is that we’re really watering down the brand of green. When things REALLY are green and good for the Earth, we just won’t be able to tell because they look just like the greenwashed products. And when we won’t be able to tell, we can’t make choices that are good for the environment, and BOOM – we’re back where we started.

But I don’t believe that all is lost. Sure, green will turn out to be just a fad (that’s a promise), but that’s really not so strange. Green is not owned by anybody, and when it’s not owned, people don’t care if it get’s scratched more than they do about a rental car. Instead we’ll start seeing a lot more proprietary brands attaching themselves to believable statements that they will have to prove on an ongoing basis. Whole Foods is an early example of this where only products that are NON-organic are marked as such. Organic is the default. And if Whole Foods turn out to be greenwashers, they really have something to loose. Such as their entire brand value. The key for them will be to take real action that is hard to copy. They need to DO things, not just say them. Marketing as a service (MAAS) and/or marketing as a product (MAAP) is the way to go here. Let your actions speak. I guess that’s true for all of us.

Similar Posts:

{ 0 comments }

The other day i wrote about Donny Deutsch’s book Often Wrong, Never in Doubt. Today I started flipping trough the pages written by another of advertising’s greats, David Ogilvy, in 1983. (*Interesting fact: Both Donny and his dad used to work for Ogilvy, and apparently Deutsch Sr. had a beef with David).

Anyway, the two books can really not be compared, but it’s striking how no-nonsense the Ogilvy book is, how warmly he talks about testing campaigns and readable the book is. This is truly the original planner/creative, and I must say I’m impressed.

And while I think that Ogilvy may be old-school and arguably would have difficulties developing an intuition for social media (a general difficulty for those with few friends who are active users of such media) and youth trends, he is a master of the psychology of gut feeling. David also writes:

“I run the risk of being denounced by the idiots who hold that any advertising technique which has been in use for more than two ears is ipso facto obsolete”

And I ask myself; have I been one of those idiots? Well – at least I’ve not been paying enough attention to the underlying thinking of people like Ogilvy or Bernbach. I’ve been the rebelling teenage kid, and I know from experience that it is an unavoidable phase in anything I set out to do. I’ve been a dogmatic futurist and exclusive believer of “new” psychology and new technology, but I (with the assistance of David) am starting to shift my stance. The true winners will be those with an understanding for what’s next, but also a firm grasp on the craftsmanship, the no-nonsense businessmanship, the devilish attention to detail of people like David Ogilvy. Not many people can combine Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (or rather David Ogilvy & Chris Anderson) within themselves, but if I have one mission in this career, making that fusion is it.
Wish me luck.

(Oh, and by the way, when reading I have a habit of marking pages that I find interesting. After flipping through the first ten pages of Ogilvy’s On Advertising, is this a good indication of how good I think this book is?)

Blogged with the Flock Browser
Similar Posts:

{ 1 comment }

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes