Friday Aug 28, 2009

The Extra Effort

When you want to move into a new career or even grow in your existing job, it's up to you to make the necessary adjustments to make that happen. Just doing what you have been doing all along -- even doing more of it -- simply won't cut it. Don't even waste your time. You'll stagnate and eventually get dumped overboard when you get too old and you'll be left to drown all alone. Now, these days you can get tossed aside through no fault of your own, of course, but the point is that if you want to change you have to change. And even then, there are no guarantees. But if you don't drive your own agenda, then others surely will and you may not like the results. Which means you get screwed, basically. So, you to do whatever it takes -- working late and on weekends and holidays, taking classes, traveling to new areas for conferences, using new technologies, whatever -- to pick up new skills and new contacts. Then, when you get those skills you can sell them in the marketplace.

Part of this process is putting in the extra effort when you get laid off. That's what Melissa Pereira is doing. I worked with Melissa some years back in Sun marketing. She's in New York now, and she found herself in the Wall Street Journal and on Good Morning America (absolutely unbelievable) for her extra effort. She's doing an unpaid internship in the city to retool her skills so she can take advantage of new opportunities. She's not just sitting around waiting for something to happen. She's making it happen. Cool.

Sunday Jul 05, 2009

Talk to Everyone

Interesting piece about PR in the NY Times today -- Spinning the Web: P.R. in Silicon Valley. And it`s running at the top of Techmeme tonight, too, with even more interesting commentary. I wonder why PR gets so much attention in high tech when practitioners in the field are forever trying to justify themselves, or at least quantify their value. I never understood that. The influence of the public relations industry is absolutely everywhere in modern society, and yet even in this NYT piece you see a defensive tone in some places -- mixed in with the pervasive and typical self importance, of course. Whatever. It`s a fascinating field, I must admit. I was in PR for a long time many moons ago, and I`m still interested in how information is delivered through filters using various rhetorical techniques that date back thousands of years. Modern PR grew from the teachings of the American propagandist Eddie Bernays, whose famous work says it all: Propaganda. Read the book. Scary stuff.

Anyway, in the NYT article right up front in the first few paragraphs, you`ll read about a scene in Silicon Valley were a PR pro is advising a client about a launch strategy (who to talk to and such), and someone shoots back about avoiding certain well-known bloggers and news websites. What? Why would you want to avoid a communications channel at your launch? I don`t get it. People who feel passionate about their stuff generally want to talk to anyone who will listen -- and if listeners have megaphones so much the better. I`ve worked with some people like that, and what they taught me is that everyone is important because you just never know -- you never know who is connected to who at any given moment, and you can never know who will be connected to who in the future. And, of course, predicting how a story will spread is difficult at best. Now, I realize the PR strategy in this case was to talk to a select group of high powered people, which is fine since they obviously have deep influence. But why talk to those guys to the exclusion of the others in an age when communities are flattening hierarchies and distributing power?

Talk to everyone. Everyone is important. Especially now with everyone connected in ways you may not even realize. And Robert Scoble is right. Talk to the grassroots first. Community building operations should be implemented first so the marketing guys have something to sell (and participate in as well). Too much of PR is still rolled out the other way around.

Thursday Jan 29, 2009

Japan Social Media Marketers

I joined the Japan Social Media Marketers community recently. I found these guys via the Tokyo2Point0 community. Lance Shields started the group with these words: "So yet another community was born and it bumbled along with mainly myself posting blog entries and the occasional discussion thread that mainly I responded to myself. It was pretty lonely and it was a lot like every blog I started and stopped over the years. Then a really cool ..." And it goes on from there. The point is Lance stuck it out. Those who build things from scratch often find themselves alone and responding to themselves initially. In fact, some of the most successful people in the world started out that way, right? Anyway, I`ll hang out here for a bit and see what`s up. The Japanese international social media community seems fascinating. Stop by if you are around.

Tuesday Jan 06, 2009

Attacks in Politics and Marketing

I see attack politics and attack marketing as pretty much the same thing. Or, a distinction without much of a difference, anyway. Politicians generally attack enemies who threaten their getting elected or getting some policy implemented. If you aren't a threat, though, you are basically ignored in that system. And if you are a little guy trying to attack powerful politicians, you are generally ignored, too. This is why collective protest is a necessary prerequisite for change. Strength comes in numbers. You have to make yourself a threat to even get noticed, and that has to happen well before you have a shot at changing things (whatever your thing is). But from the politicians point of view, since they have the power, it seems the attack principle dictates that they shouldn`t want to give too much exposure to a competitor or group they don`t support, so many politicians actually tend to attack pretty carefully. The rhetorically skilled know this very well. They think out a few moves ahead. Who should do the attacking? What`s the venue of the attack? What will the counter punch look like? Where will it come from? And when? What does it mean when no counter attack comes back at all and instead they are met with silence? And heck, what if the opponent praises in return instead of attacking as expected? The answers to these questions are imprecise at best.

I used to do competitive marketing, and I went through this exact same process. However, I always told my clients that attacks are best done by third parties and only in response to a precipitating attack. In other words, you don`t attack first. It`s not worth the headline. Instead, you be the one responding. Here`s why: those who attack first generally give away at least some of their position, and that gives you much more flexibility to respond. Unskilled politicians and marketers make this mistake all the time when they shoot their mouths off, but the concept holds up pretty well over time. I`ve said before that I think people attack for basically two reasons: (1) they are afraid that someone smaller than them may grow up and kick their butt, or (2) they are small themselves and want to pick a fight with a big guy to get attention. Either way, if you study your attacker you can learn a lot.

It's a game, granted. And everyone in it knows this. Most attacks can be quite easily turned around with some basic facts and logic. But rationality is irrelevant in the arena of delivering really good emotional propaganda for the purpose of influencing behavior. That's why attacks can work in some cases if they generate a strong reaction from the attacked. Attacks spread fear. And many times that fear shapes how people think if it`s not characterized properly. In fact, the term used to describe this process is sometimes called FUD -- fear, uncertainty, and doubt. It`s a silly sounding term, but it should be taken seriously because the best propagandists out there can be rather dangerous people if they have a power base and resources supporting them (a country, a company, an interest group, a foundation, a university, a union, whatever). In other cases, however, attacks and fear mongering backfire badly, and we saw this in the recent political campaign in the U.S. where pols on both sides took some things too far and the people (remember the people?) called them out on it.

So, what should you do if you are attacked in the marketplace? First, stop. Think. Don`t react immediately with the first counter attack you can think of in the first publication you can find. You`ve been attacked so you now have the upper hand for a period of time (not forever, though). What is the attack telling you about your attacker? Is he or she responding go your attack? If so, you deserve the counter attack so enjoy your stupid little fight. If not, though, something else is going on and you may be in a much better position than you think. It means that you got someone`s attention for some reason. You may have not even intended to get this attention, but that`s what the attack may mean and that`s valuable competitive intelligence if you can confirm it. Remember, if you were really irrelevant, chances are you`d be ignored. So, dig right there before responding and respond to defend and deflect not to attack back. And if you can praise the attacker (or his product or community or company or whatever) so much the better. Attackers are generally simple minded and angry and unable to deal with praise as a response. Alternatively, your attacker could just be engaging in bad marketing or politicking. Consider that too. Either way, you have the upper hand if you do the responding, not the attacking.

Tags: propaganda attacks

Tuesday Apr 08, 2008

The Ubuntu Brand

Interesting branding story shaping up in the Linux community -- Is Ubuntu becoming the generic Linux distro? Could the market be deciding that Ubuntu is Linux? I'm an Ubuntu user, and I surely don't see Ubuntu as the only Linux, but it's surely the only Linux I'd use.

Saturday Feb 23, 2008

Rapid Response Counterattack

McCain turns tables on Times. An interesting read about how the McCain forces jumped all over the Times the other day. This is standard procedure, of course, but it really depends on how well you execute (and that execution always makes interesting reading) and if your enemy responds in kind. Politicians know that in terms of public perception you can absolutely influence by going negative, hitting hard, using overwhelming force, and yelling with extreme language. The purpose is to intimidate. If the other side counters, well, then you have a brawl. If they hesitate, though, you've got them. That's the critical part that comes through in this article. The Times found itself responding to its own article and responding late. Now, this is politics so truth is not really that important, and I have no opinion about the substance of the article or the counter attack (nor do I particularly care about either). What I find fascinating, though, is the dynamic of influence and how large organizations of people can be rapidly moved to action. What are the techniques? What foundational work is necessary beforehand so a message resonates? Anyway, the LA Times talks about some of this, too: McCain story proves incendiary among journalists, conservatives

Monday Feb 11, 2008

Everyone Marketing

Forget the A-List After All: "Evangelism is not about sucking up to only people who are famous and self-important. To wit, few Fortune 500 CIOs helped make Macintosh successful. It was unknown artists, designers, hobbyists, and user-group members who made Macintosh successful, and we could have not identified them in advance." -- Guy Kawasaki, commenting on Clive Thompson's in FastCompany article, "Is the Tipping Point Toast?"

That FastCompany article is great. If you are at all interested in marketing or communications or community building I highly recommend it. The article outlines research from Duncan Watts that basically says we all have influence, not just the special people, and some much of what happens is random. Thompson says, "Influentials don't govern person-to-person communication. We all do." A little democracy in marketing? Cool.

Saturday Dec 22, 2007

Focus on Profitability, not Market Share and Competitors

The 'Myth of Market Share': Can Focusing Too Much on the Competition Harm Profitability? -- "We're not saying companies shouldn't pay attention to their competitors; they might be doing reasonable things that you may also want to do. What we're saying is that the objective should not be to try to beat your competitor. The objective should be profitability. In view of all the damage that occurs by focusing on market share, companies would be better off not measuring it." -- J. Scott Armstrong, Wharton marketing professor.

And interesting examples of this concept cited in the article include Japan's Toyota and Canon.

Sunday Nov 18, 2007

Smart Marketing, Competitive Marketing

Sun has run aggressive, very pointed marketing campaigns promoting the benefits of its system over Dell, HP and others. But today in a follow-up media briefing, Schwartz said, "The stupidest thing we could do is say 'You blew it, you made a mistake'" buying Dell. Schwartz said such hardball marketing is a thing of the past for Sun. He even went so far as to suggest customers could use the $5,000 they might save adopting Sun's free Solaris and xVM software "to buy a brand-new Dell server." -- David Needle,

Well, that must have been an interesting press conference, eh? My goodness. Very cool.

I'm happy to see these changes in Sun's external communications to customers. It's far smarter than the bulldog public attack tactics we used to do. When I was in marketing (before I joined the OpenSolaris engineering team) I wasted several years of my career doing that stuff around standards and open source and Java. Heck, I even won an award for it! Embarrassing. Based on that experience, though, and four years of working in the OpenSolaris Community (where such nonsense is not tolerated), I can see clearly that those activities were counterproductive. It made Sun less competitive and less respected and less credible. But even if this so-called "hardball" marketing is going away, it doesn't mean we are any less competitive in the marketplace. In fact, Sun's product portfolio is probably more competitive today than it has ever been, and we are cutting interesting deals and moving faster than anyone even realizes.

Are we still making mistakes? Sure. But we are people, so you can expect that. And although our communications to the market is improving, I think we as a company still have to improve our communications to the various developer communities we are involved with. As our engineering opens, so too must our communications. The two functions are directly related, and right now too much of both lives inside of the firewall. We'll get there, though. It's a fine line to balance corporate interests with community interests, and there's no rulebook for doing this on the scale we are attempting. In fact, I can't think of a multi-national corporation that has done as much in this area. Can you?

Friday Oct 05, 2007

Mark's Musings

Very cool to see my buddy Mark Herring out there blogging -- Mark's Musings. Mark is one of the very best marketers at Sun, and his blog could be very hot very soon.

Thursday Aug 02, 2007

Eco Poll

This is cool. Sun sponsored a poll on environmental responsibility at work -- New Poll Reveals 73 Percent of U.S. Workers Want Employers To Be Environmentally Responsible But Lag In Own Efforts To Help: "By Leaving Eco-friendly Habits at Home, U.S. Workers Waste An Estimated $4.3 Billion in Energy Costs Per Year Resulting in 32 Million Tons of CO2 Emissions"

That's a lot of CO2. Turn off the lights, everyone. And your computers, too. I never understood why desktop machines had to run all nite long, all weekend long, all vacation long. Makes no sense.

Anyway, we had a little chit-chat on opensolaris-discuss about how Sun does marketing, and one community member is not happy about Sun's advertising efforts. He's wrong, of course, and I explained why, but then I gave up after a while because he was just flaming at that point. But this poll is an innovative way to engage the market in a conversation, eh? Generate some news. Create some real data. Use the data in ads, press releases, sales engagements, etc. Change a little behavior and save some money along the way and help build a market for our energy-saving servers and all that. Works for me.

Friday Jul 20, 2007

Pressure Questions

Michael Dell tries to reboot Dell Computer: "During the interview, Fortune editor Andy Serwer asked Dell if he's been approached by any private equity firms about a potential buyout. Dell went quiet, smiled, looked to his PR person, looked back, and said, 'I'm not sure how to answer that.' And so, he didn't answer." -- Jia Lynn Yang, Fortune.

Pretty funny. But a good lesson for anyone dealing with the press and analysts. Even extremely experienced executives used to pressure interviews get caught off guard from time to time. It's actually nothing to laugh at. These guys have to choose their words carefully and for good reason. Even in this so-called age of open conversations, interviews are rarely conversations. Especially if you are in Dell's position right now. Also, unless you've been in a stressful media spotlight, it's difficult to judge those who are.

Wednesday Jul 04, 2007

Reading the Markets

Sun puts "Sparc" into Web 2.0 -- "I think Sun is reading the market correctly." -- Ephraim Schwartz

Sunday Jun 24, 2007


The Future of PR is Participation, Not Pitching -- "To thrive in this new distributed environment, the PR community must step out in front of the curtain, become a bit more technically adept and participate transparently as individuals in online communities." -- Steve Rubel

Tuesday Apr 10, 2007

(Open) OpenSolaris Marketing

A few days ago, Marc Hamilton blogged about his new position as VP of Solaris Marketing, which includes OpenSolaris Marketing, of course. But he's now gone out and introduced himself to the OpenSolaris Community right on the community's main discuss list as well. This is very interesting to me. There are many Sun executives who blog -- probably more than any big company out there, actually -- but now we are seeing a new trend of open communications where executives are jumping right into the main community conversations as well. Blogging is one thing, but participating on open lists is another thing altogether. Wild.

So, first Ian and Dan and now Marc. Seems there's a lot going on in Solaris and OpenSolaris marketing at Sun these days. It will be good to see the marketing community grow with this new activity.

Friday Feb 16, 2007


Robert Scoble on leaks -- "Remember when I posted Steve Ballmer’s email to all employees? I actually had permission to do so from the PR team. Sometimes "leaks" aren't leaks at all. They are press events designed to get the company’s point of view out to the world." This is a good distinction, I think, because real leaks are bad and are generally done by people who have no idea what they are doing. Also, if your company participates in open communities, there's no reason to leak since, presumably, a great deal of your operations are already occurring in the open.

Thursday Feb 15, 2007

Toyota Story: Unsecured Report Used as Source

Fascinating article here -- Toyota fears U.S. backlash over gains. Nothing in the article is out of the ordinary, really. Apparently, Toyota is concerned about public opinion in the U.S. because the company is doing very well there, and its American competitors are not. Not a big deal.

But what fascinated me was this part right here in the 7th paragraph: "In the briefing to other Toyota managers, Sudo cited political and social risks. The report, left unsecured on computers at the company's Georgetown, Ky., complex, said Toyota could come under fire for: ..." and then there's a list of items. And "Sudo" is Seiichi Sudo, president of Toyota Engineering & Manufacturing in North America. Ok, so what's up with the bit about "the report, left unsecured on computers at the company's Georgetown, Ky., complex" doing in there? Did the reporter hop on to the president's computer right there in his office and hack around while everyone else was chatting out in the hall or something? Or was the preso left on the computer right there in full view for all to see as the interview was taking place? Was it leaked to the reporter and therefore deemed "unsecured" in that respect? Did the reporter whip out a cell phone and take a quick picture of the screen while the others were ducking down to pick up a pencil from the floor? I'm dying to know. How did this happen?

Judging from the amount of information from that so-called "unsecured report" used in the article and how that source material is characterized, I can just imagine the reporter sitting there in front of the computer taking notes. All alone. For a long time. My goodness.

Tuesday Dec 26, 2006

Participatory Mobs on the Internet

The Blog Mob is one of the funniest articles attacking bloggers I've read in a long time. It's not a credible criticism of blogs or bloggers because the language is too extreme to be taken seriously, but it's worth a read because it demonstrates how far some writers are from understanding the Internet. There are many humorous bits in there, too. I found this sentence especially delicious: "The participatory Internet, in combination with the hyperlink, which allows sites to interrelate, appears to encourage mobs and mob behavior." Wild, eh? Oh, there's more. A lot more. Enjoy ...

Monday Nov 27, 2006

Burn, Baby, Burn

Nice quote here from Matt Asay -- "You have to burn the boats" (BusinessWeek on business model innovation):

This is why I have hope for companies like Sun. No company has responded more aggressively to the open source challenge. Sun has been open sourcing its software and hardware on the expectation that the shift will bear fruit. Time will tell, but by burning its boats, all it needs to worry about is the future. As it turns out, this is a great prescription for success.

Sometimes you have to read right to the very end to find the best stuff. Which is where you'll find this paragraph. I was hooked all the way through, though.

Sunday Nov 26, 2006

The Rich and Brands

Fascinating piece in the NY Times about brands -- What We Talk About When We Talk About Brands. It seems that we regular people talk a lot about brands. Those busy little marketers can prove it, and they are finding new and innovative ways of listening in on our conversations to get at this intelligence. It's interesting how all these "word of mouth" marketeers are always trying to eavesdrop on their customers but they are much less inclined to actually get involved with their customers. Obnoxious. Anyway, that's not why I liked the article (though I did find that part as amusing as usual). What got me hooked was way at the end. Go down to the last paragraph and you'll find this little gem -- "It turned out that people with high incomes were not talking about the brand, but people who made less money were talking about it a lot." Fascinating. So, what do the rich people know that we don't?

Wednesday Oct 18, 2006

Corporate Blogging

Interesting article on CNN/Money about corporate blogging that's done right and done wrong. I'm not sure why some companies are getting themselves into trouble with this form of communication. It seems really simple to me, but hey, we all make mistakes so it's hard to be hard on someone attempting to be more transparent. And I understand the recent PR example quite well because I know that business and those errors speak for themselves. For a nice review of that one, check out Dave Taylor's piece from the other day. It's a piece I tend to agree with a great deal .

Sun, on the other hand, seems to be just surfing right along with blogging. I think I have a theory as to why -- Sun grew from the community so it understands how to behave within a community, and we have a large number of engineers participating in communities of all kinds -- some Sun run, some run by other vendors, some run by standards bodies, and some by foundations. All these interactions take place on open mail lists or forums. So, when blogging came along it was really nothing new, and people seemed ready and eager to get going. It was just a new way of doing what they had been doing in the past -- communicating openly and honestly. Not perfectly, but openly and honestly for sure. And that can take you a long way.

Monday Sep 04, 2006


Interesting -- Microsoft's PR agency admits it doesn't "get" blogs!. What's not to get about blogging this late in 2006? Just blog. The lessons are obvious, immediate, painful, humbling, powerful, exciting, and [insert your favorite lesson here]. But you can't understand blogging from the outside looking in, so don't bother trying. In this case, understanding comes through direct experience, not observation. Which means you have to blog. Only then will your opinions change or at least be based on something substantial. And if you hate it, that's fine. It's not for everyone. But who am I to talk. I "don't get" Web 2.0, so maybe WaggEd shouldn't listen to me, eh?

Saturday Jul 08, 2006

Connected Capitalism

I love the term "Connected Capitalism" coined by Simon Phipps to describe how "open source works by everyone contributing what they want without compulsion and using what they need without restriction -- as a counterpoint to people who try to call open source 'communism'. Think Benkler."

That's a jam packed Simon quote from a comment he left to a recent James Governor blog about press coverage on Simon's keynote at OSBC a couple of weeks back. Ben Rockwood also has some interesting and valuable thoughts on the subject. Ever since I tripped over open source here at Sun about six years ago, I've been fascinated -- mostly because the culture reminded me of things I had seen in the past but couldn't really fully participate in. There is so much to talk about, but I'll just carve out my favorite little bit from Simon's comment -- connected capitalism.

I see a nice consistency between capitalism and open source. If open source were really about communism, as some detractors assert, I'd dump it pretty quickly. Not because of any political belief (I don't waste time on such issues), but because it would be incapable of providing me enough value so I wouldn't want to contribute to it. I'm looking to earn a living with multiple and diverse streams of income but in a way that contributes to the community (whatever community), not detracts from the community like the robber barons of times past (and some present, I suppose). If I don't have the ability to get something out if it, I'm gone. It's that simple. Food is important. So is health insurance. I have a significant amount of experience with the medical community, and I'm determined to have enough money to pay for as many circumstances I can imagine. And a steady flow of cash well into retirement should come in handy as well. So, my perspective is especially economic and I'm getting more and more focused on that every day. It's my primary goal, in fact. But I've never been a believer in the zero sum game, either, so that's why I like the concept, culture, and dynamic of open source. It's the perfect solution.

As an economic system, capitalism has done a lot of good and certainly provides some pretty massive incentives for growth. It has some pretty big holes, though, and many people react negatively to the term. Perhaps because used alone it can sometimes connote "big" and "exclusive" and "exploitive" and the connections supporting it generally pervade insiders -- the special ones, the privileged ones, the rich ones, the ones who control things like Big Oil, Big Unions, Big Education, Big Agriculture, Big Banking, Big Construction, Big Shipping, Big Government, Big [insert your favorite big thing here]. So, if that's the reason someone doesn't like the term, I can understand it. And, for the most part, I agree. Those things bother me, too. Breaking into some of those entrenched industries without paying off the controlling parties is challenging. Those industries are not communities whose members openly welcome new contributors, that's for sure.

I tried to break into the construction industry in New York as a small business owner, and, boy, did I learn a lesson in, ah, capitalism. My goodness. It had nothing whatsoever to do with open competition or competing based on talent, better pricing, better service, better equipment, better ideas, or better innovation. Instead, it had everything to do with paying to play in a controlled market, and it represented an absolutely stunning destruction of innovation and inspiration. I had to pay to enter the kingdom of those who had gone before and who were carefully guarding the gate to their paradigm -- at all costs. The controllers viewed their game as zero sum for sure, and I didn't fit in very well at all. In my case, I ran into several powerful construction and trucking unions (I was non-union), dozens of well-connected contractors (I didn't have their money), many government agencies (I didn't have political connections), and a few other rather strange characters (I'd rather not talk about). At times, the lines supposedly separating these groups blended all too closely, which was confusing and unsettling at best. The experience was both disgusting and exhilarating, and everything I believe today about economics and politics I learned from those early battles in the construction business. Back then I worked with some well-meaning business people -- true entrepreneurs -- and I learned all about what creative, innovative, talented individuals could build and how easily a powerful, centralized, controlling group could take it all away -- sometimes violently -- because the leaders felt threatened. I came to believe that open competition terrified people who contributed so very little..

I've always wondered about this though. In capitalism, why can't the individual and the community (or company, government, or union, or school, etc) benefit simultaneously so the cycle is self referral? To me, open source goes a long way to solving this problem because the culture of that system openly welcomes new contributions from creative, innovative individuals anywhere -- and the more the better. This is not necessarily exclusive to open source software development; it's probably present in other engineering and scientific disciplines as well. I sure saw it at Tufts University where I worked for a few years with physicians, veterinarians, and a variety of researchers. Heck, I bet any true craftsman or artist in any field would get this concept of individual, contribution, community. In other words, the community benefits but so does the individual contributing. In fact, the more one contributes, the more one benefits. It's that whole "you get out of it what you put into it" thing, and it supports the notion of enlightened self interest, which Simon rightly explains can be a problematic term but one I have no problem with (other than the fact that I need to assert it much more often). So, you enrich the commons and all the individual people within the community managing the commons benefit as well, and those especially hard working people have a limitless opportunity at their fingertips. Opportunity is there for all but it's proportional to how hard one works and how much one contributes. And around it goes. Generally speaking, of course. And by "enrich" I don't necessarily mean only in pure monetary terms. Rich means many things to many people: money, reputation, connections, access to shared resources, conservation, safety, insurance, learning, skill development, contribution, feeling of well being, donations, participation, desire to help others, etc. Simon explains all this much better, of course, but I'm trying to understand it based on my past experiences and on my future plans.

Now, elements of this absolutely remind me of capitalism -- but a very, very special form of capitalism. It's called entrepreneurialism. Small capitalism, I guess. Capitalism for the little guy. Capitalism the way it should be. Capitalism where everyone is welcome to participate and dare and risk. Capitalism that the old capitalists and the old communists would both have a hard time dealing with. That's the kind of capitalism I like. I just call it entrepreneurialism because my perspective starts with an independent individual being able to take care of him/herself so as not to be a burden but to do so by being connected so contributions benefit all. I think small entrepreneurs understand this more than big capitalists do (yes I'm splitting hairs a bit here) because the entrepreneurs usually start small and depend heavily on connections to others for resources, whereas those big capitalists tend to rely more on buying their way around since they already have lots of resources. It's certainly not true in all cases, but that's what I've seen along my way.

So, when Simon puts "connected" in front of the term "capitalism" it gives the entire principle a new, de-centralized, individual, empowering feeling and that's something every entrepreneur can understand. Hard work, perseverance, talent, skill, opportunity, luck. Not for Big Enterprise, but for the individuals who can't help but dream of what's possible. In this context, the term "connected" is critically important because it implies rather directly that for all this to work one has to connect to the community and help manage the stuff in the commons. Connected also implies responsibility, and if you are connected to people rather than capital it's more important that you do the right thing, not necessarily the most profitable and selfish thing. It's the connection to the community that creates the opportunity to create individual value, and that's what has hooked me. It solves my problem. I can be entrepreneurial without being a robber baron. The elite wouldn't understand this because they are not connected to anyone other than elitists like themselves. Whatever economic system they use in whatever society they live tends to exploit the commons, not contribute to it, and over time that pisses people off on all sides of the political, economic, and social fence.

"Connected Capitalism" works well for me. And I've yet to see a more powerful expression of the entrepreneurial spirit than the dynamics of a thriving community. Have you?

Friday Jul 07, 2006

Ideas and Engineers

"For most engineers and software people it's the ideas and solutions that count, not the public accolades that come with acceptance." -- Paul Murphy, Job satisfaction and open source

Tuesday Jun 27, 2006

They're Everywhere

Paul Murphy compares Sun and Ford and says that we "can't seem to monetise [our] research" due to issues with middle management:

Want to lose your credibility at either company? make yourself responsible for a breakthrough product or strategy that fails -- in big organizations there's always someone who can retroactively prove he warned you of the certainty of failure if what you do goes wrong; and it doesn't matter if that's a sales compensation policy change, or a part that becomes a million car recall; there's always someone.

I love this observation generally, but it's true of all organizations. Every company has its predators and antibodies. Every university. Every government agency. Every institution of every size absolutely everywhere at every level. I believe these guys are in the distinct minority, but they carefully use fear to build the perception that they are in control and you are wrong. They are usually weaker than we think, but many of us end up following and giving them power. I've kept my own list of these guys over the years, and I can trace them all the way back to grade school. They are just the same people recycled in different skin. I've met them here at Sun, sure, but Sun is also a culture particularly tolerant of risk-taking, and it's not a culture of blindly following bullies. That's one thing I appreciate about this place.

Saturday Jun 17, 2006

CHEN on the Pod

Nice to hear Barb Heffner at CHEN PR talking up blogging on a recent podcast with Dana Gardner. Sun's bloggers came up in the conversation as well as the recent entry of the Sun PR team on BSC. Also, CHEN is now partnering with Dana Gardner to offer podcasting services. Cool. I'll be listening ...


Thursday Jun 15, 2006

JohnnyL: First Adobe Exec Blogger

Check out JohnnyL's new blog at Adobe. It doesn't surprise me that he's blogging, but according to one of the comments on his first post, he's the first exec at Adobe to blog. That's pretty cool. Should be interesting to watch things emerge over there down in San Jose.


Wednesday Apr 26, 2006

Some More Scott and Jonathan Links

Seems like another busy media day for Scott and Jonathan. Reading all this coverage over the last two days has been interesting. I have a feeling there will be a lot more as the dust settles, don't you?

Sun users offer advice to new CEO Schwartz
Neal Tisdale, praised Schwartz's selection. "I think it's a great change," said Tisdale, vice president of software development at the Atlanta-based subsidiary of Siemens Power Generation.

Sun: Same song, second verse?
Bill Zeitler, IBM's systems/technology group: "I think the move to OpenSolaris has been a good one. The move to open up their portfolio to Opteron and away from Sparc and moderate their investments there is a smart thing strategically." That's IBM talking up OpenSolaris there.

Sun's chiefs on the hot seat
"If you're an engineer or you're a technologist, you want to come to a place that appreciates technology and engineering. This is one of the places that you go do it." -- Schwartz

One rises, one sets / New generation, but same vision, for Sun CEO
Crawford Del Prete of IDC: "I think Jonathan has shown that he understands the multiple aspects of Sun's extremely complex business and he has shown that he can be engaging with customers."

New Sun CEO Is Unconventional, Controversial
"When directors at Hewlett-Packard Co. saw a need for a new chief executive officer, they recruited Mark Hurd, a button-down operations specialist from NCR Corp. who is now overhauling H-P's sales strategy. Rival Sun Microsystems Inc., by contrast, promoted a brainy insider who promises to stay the computer maker's maverick course."

Analysts Seek Turnaround Strategy From Sun
"It was under Schwartz that Sun Solaris, considered by some to be the gold standard of operating systems, became a free download." And it became open source, too. Let's not forget that part.

When I First Met Scott...
Jonathan talks about Scott.

McNealy--an engineer's witty patron
"McNealy has been the down-to-earth face of the Valley's engineers -- more comfortable in jeans and sneakers and more apt to talk about golf and ice hockey than fabulous vacations and yachts."

Langberg: McNealy was pushed out because he had lost credibility
"I hope McNealy continues to serve as the company's public face. He's always been a nightmare for the PR department, telling reporters exactly what he thinks and producing great quotes." Cute. But I'm not sure the article really substantiates the headline.

Why a new CEO is right, Wall St. is wrong and America needs more jails
Scott: "It allows me to go do what I want to do, which is working with the US government, Japan and our top 20 accounts."

McNealy's greatest hits (wisecracks)
Great little video.

Analysis: All eyes on Schwartz to turn Sun around
“Sun still has the influence -- don’t count them out yet." -- Joe Wilcox, JupiterResearch

Goodbye, Mr. McNealy
"McNealy wasn't just an industry giant, he changed the IT world forever ... Let us never forget, that without Scott McNealy we would have neither the Internet nor the open source that powers so much of it. -- Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

McNealy--apres moi, you'll be bored silly
"Unlike, oh, 99.9 percent of the white-bread phonies who present themselves as corporate leaders, McNealy was the real deal when it came to leadership." -- Charles Cooper

Sun's New Boss: The Same as the Old Boss?
"This is not about how we take a whack to headcount," Schwartz said. "The goal is to make sure we focus on top-line growth and increasing the value of our shares."

Sun Microsystems' Big Changes
"The company had its woes, but Sun has been a fountain of original and innovative thinking over the years." -- Dan Gillmor

Don't Blame Scott
An obnoxious piece.

Tags: sun jonathan-schwartz scott-mcnealy

Sunday Apr 16, 2006

A Blog is Essential?

There's much to agree with and disagree with in this Boston Globe article -- Blogs 'essential' to a good career.

''For your career, a blog is essential," says Phil van Allen, a faculty member of the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena.

''It's the new public relations and it's the new home page. Instead of a static home page, you have your blog," he said. It's a way to let people know what you are thinking about the field that interests you.

Sure, I get that blogs can be used as a PR tool and that you can blog and link your way to new heights of popularity and a new career. No question about it. But it's you doing that, not the blog. You have earned it, not your blog. The blog is just one (albeit powerful) syndication tool.

But is this tool of blogging "essential" for your career? What about those who don't blog but who are seriously successful and who have earned deep credibility within their communities? I see these people all over the place. I don't know about all this. I think the marketing people are making too much of this in this article. Personally, I'm becoming more interested in the non-bloggers at this point -- the ones who earn credibility without publicity. Those people fascinate me. What's the quality supporting their success? Whatever it is I bet it transcends time and tool.

Back to a few more quotes from the articles ...

Employers regularly Google prospective employees to learn more about them. Blogging gives you a way to control what employers see, because Google's system works in such a way that blogs that are heavily networked with others come up high in Google searches.

And coming up high is good: ''People who are more visible and have a reputation and stand for something do better than people who are invisible," says Catherine Kaputa, branding consultant and author of ''Blogging for Business Success."

But pick your topics carefully and have a purpose. ''The most interesting blogs are focused and have a certain attitude," says van Allen. ''You need to have a guiding philosophy that you stick to. You cannot one minute pontificate on large issues of the world and the next minute be like, 'My dog died.'"

Note the word "control" in the second sentence of the first graph. Interesting perspective, eh? Also, the bit about the people who are more visible with a so-called reputation doing better than the ones who are "invisible" is way too restrictive to be a credible statement. Just because someone is not in the public eye or a blog star doesn't mean he or she is invisible and lacks a reputation. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard about blogging. And the last paragraph advising that you not blog about "large issues of the world" and then also talk about personal issues is pejorative at best. Why not? Who says? Perhaps I want to know that someone's dog died, what the heck is wrong with that?

Aha. Ok, that's pretty much it. There are also eight tips to being a good blogger. I'd add one more: (9) If you are blogging strictly to enhance your career and using branding, marketing, and PR tactics, your blog may not earn as much credibility as you think. Remember, many people can easily see through blogs used simply as vehicles to publicize. Sometimes it's really quite obvious, too.


Thursday Apr 13, 2006

Reality PR

I see BusinessWeek has a bit on  Eric Dezenhall, author of Nail 'Em! It's an excellent book about brutally competitive attack and defend PR tactics. Actually, it guts the PR industry's silly tactics of press releases, briefings, messaging, education, and influence and replaces them with reality. It's a devastating book. I have it on my shelf right along with a couple of other classics in this area: Rules for Radicals and The Prince. There are many such books, of course, if you like this sort of thing. Any good PR pro has these books practically memorized. They rarely call it PR, though.



« May 2015

No bookmarks in folder