« "My experiences with the Team of Destiny" | Main | $12 Million = Record Day »
September 1, 2004
Joe Trippi Gets It
By QBlog in
Joe Trippi's essay for the current issue of WIRED (Power to the People) analyzes the growing role of the Internet in American politics. He predicts that "the 2008 presidential campaign will be waged and won online." The significance of this predicted development is that it shifts the power away from the "Global PAC of Balding White Men Who Rule the Earth" and gives that power to the people, like you and me.
Trippi then moves beyond the political realm and explains how the Internet is "quickly becoming the world's primary source of information." He specifically cites the impact of bloggers within this new paradigm and describes them as "the plankton of the information ecology" (I love that metaphor).
The primary message of Trippi's essay is that the Internet (and specifically bloggers) is disrupting the status quo, in both politics and information distribution, while putting more power into the hands of the people. This is a message that many of the existing power brokers (Global PACs, Mega-Corps, Big Media, etc.) have trouble comprehending.
The Conversations
The reason they (power brokers) have trouble comprehending the new Information Paradigm is that they still believe information should flow vertically. There's a specific information hierarchy that they refuse to abandon. Those at the top pick and choose what to share with those at the bottom while information and ideas from those at the bottom rarely percolate to the top. The Internet demands that information flow horizontally, peer-to-peer. Everyone has access to all the information, instantly. Yes, such a flood of information presents its own problems (which are manageable) but we'll discuss that in a later post.
For now, we should understand that this "pancake" structure of information frightens the existing power brokers because it strips them of control. The hierarchy has been removed and replaced by a "market of opinions" where everyone can participate. As Trippi points out, people are now communicating in ways that can't be managed. They're engaged in conversations and because those conversations are networked, it amplifies their power and their impact on the "market of opinions."
Getting It
But how are the power brokers dealing with these networked conversations? Unfortunately, most are still trying (desperately) to manage, control and direct the conversations instead of simply participating. Such efforts have given birth to the corporate blog, the "trendy" email newsletter and discussion board marketing which all still work to control (or at least influence) the conversations.
Trippi (who managed Howard Dean's presidential campaign) decided to join the conversations as a participant. He genuinely embraced the "market of opinion" instead of trying to control it and you know what? It worked. He understood that a successful conversation combines speaking with listening. He "gets it." Do you get it? Does your business?
Comments
Great Post. I believe business is shifting from interuption marketing to engaging marketing. Those that don't "get it" will continue to have a tough time.
As oracle said, geeks shall inherit the earth. Mwahahahahaha
Wait, didn't Howard Dean lose in the primaries?
Wakka wakka wakka!
I'm new to this site, but I greatly appreciate all the information. My in-law's are highly involved in Quixtar and I have concerns. How can you tell when you are making a profit? I read on of the suggested reading books about the pricing of Quixtar items, written by a professor of business and asked him this question and how the answer is to be found in "The Business." He responded but was of no help. Don't any of the many seminars, rallies and other functions that my family has paid for and attended help them learn this basic "business 101" principle?
Denise,
I can relate as my in-laws are both involved too. The unfortunate thing is that you may not be able to determine if they are in fact turning a profit. I can tell you that based on the facts of the business, the likelyhood of them actually making money is, well, unlikely.
As I said, my in-laws are pretty involved. I once passed by an itenerary print out that was stuck to their fridge just before their trip to a rally in NC. The airfare alone was for $1300.00. Tthat same day they had left their 'bonus' check on the kitchen counter. It was for $53.00. Hardly a profit. They've been involved for 5 years.
The sad part is that they are taught that these losses should be looked at as normal business expenses and as the sacrifice for what lies ahead (financial freedom). This, all the while, while the basement is filled with cases of toilet paper and the pantry is overflowing with cans of XS and the laundry room is filled with SA8, and every compartment in the car is now full of tapes, and the bookshelf filled with motivational books. It's very sad and I hope you have better luck convincing your in-laws of the pit that is 'Quixand' er, I mean Quixtar.
Actually, determining profit (or loss) is pretty simple. minus equals net profit. Schedule C on your tax return (profit or loss form business) spells it out plainly, and I suspect that your in-laws have filled one out every year of their involvement.
The problem isn't that it's difficult to determine, it's that those involved seem to have a mortal fear of hard numbers.
For example, if you buy a product that you either wouldn't have purchased at all, or that you would have purchased for much less at a 'communist' store, for the sole purpose of building PV, that is a loss to your wallet, though not a loss for tax purposes.
If you take more time off work than you are alotted in order to attend functions, that docked pay is a loss, again, not for tax purposes.
For some reason (?), most people in the Amway trenches aren't even willing to talk about it, let alone offer up their own numbers for scrutiny.
It's not just embarrasment over the loss, there's this emotional response, that accompanies the learned mantras (I'm reaping now for the harvest later, etc). I don't really get THAT part.
I inadvertantly used an HTML tag which deleted part of my first paragraph....it should read "(money in) minus (money out) equals net profit."
The facts do count. I love analogy, hope this is relatible. If it isn't producing profit, after all the expenses, then you're just bobbing in the ocean, in the middle of a storm, barely keeping your head above the crashing waves. You're lying to yourself and telling yourself that you can drink saltwater for a while til something good happens. In the meantime, you could drown at any moment.
Now I am aware that in business there is risk, but the way the Quackstarians have it set up, a failing IBO is profit for the upline, and can be quite a loss for the IBO. I'd rather borrow the money to set up a SUBWAY shop (as the Quacksters use as an example in their talks) and take a chance than the approach they are talking about. At least with Subway, you're selling reality, and you will likely have more "big fish" biting.
Hi QBlog,
You were right before. I clearly don't get it. When you posted your note before about how the internet has changed business, I thought we were talking past each other. But now that I'm hearing a similar theme, I'm really lost about what I'm trying to "get" here.
I'm not sure about what this new concept is. The internet has been around for a long time, pretty easily accessible for at least 25 years. And it has clearly changed the face of business over the last 25 years or so. Most recently, car sales and insurance sales are done differently. Even Amway noticed that. It's the reason that Quixtar says it went online. But that's old news. Quixtar was probably at the tail end of the curve of businesses putting up websites.
Most of the information that is on the web today has been there for many years. Before I joined Amway 5 or 6 years ago, I did a search and read the reviews. The problem was that credibility was at issue. Who do you believe? Clearly, most of the stuff on the web at that time was negative, so it was easy to dismiss as people being mad or negative.
Websites like epinions.com and that genre have helped to change how much credibility that we give to reviews for products based on the number of people who agree, so that's an improvement there, but it's mostly product-based. And that's an old concept also.
So is the new concept in how blogging and forums are used? Or is it because search engines like Google are more user-friendly and accessible? But if so, how does that change business or politics? For example, if I want to know if a business or product is reliable, I'd do a search. But since credibility is an issue, I'd have to have a system to sort through the reviews. Blogging has helped that because there's more information about the person over a longer period of time, but reading the whole blog is time-consuming and probably not something the average consumer is willing to do over a purchase decision or even a Quixtar decision.
So I'm still lost about what this new concept is that you're referring to. Please elaborate. Thanks.
Ambivalent
Ambivalent,
I'm not trying to be snooty but you simply don't "get it" and probably never will. No amout of elaboration on my part will "open your eyes." I've explained why the Web (which has only been around a little over a decade) has changed the world forever but you simply don't agree and that's fine.
The best I can do is to ask you to read ClueTrain Manifesto and then get back to me. If, after reading that, you still don't understand then we'll talk. At least then we'll be speaking a common language.
Hope that helps.
It looks like, for the first time ever, upper managment might just need to read "Who Moved my Cheese." I find that poetic.
Posted by: imanewme | September 1, 2004 12:38 PM