Dunbar's number

…a theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships.  These are relationships in which an individual knows who each person is, and how each person relates to every other person.  Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally require more restricted rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group.  No precise value has been proposed for Dunbar’s number, but a commonly cited approximation is 150.

furthermore.  you’ve got thousands of people who follow you on twitter?  here’s a sticker.

i used to hate math as a kid but i like it a lot more in the business world because i can count on one hand the people who understand the connection between behavior and action.

crying that no one clicked on your link?  well, literally, no one gives a shit.

The wrong business model?

Delivering immediate effect might not be the best business model for designing long-term valuable marketing initiatives.
…

There is a need for long term marketing initiatives; digital concepts and ideas need to carry the longevity of product relationships. Which also implies a different way of measuring value. (What are the metrics identifying the value of a relationship? Are they the same as used for our ability to traffic people back and forth from, and around in, cyberspace?)

An Ongoing Lack of Imagination in Pricing (of Digital Content)

debbiestier:

maggiehilliard:

Interesting post about lack of creativity in digital pricing from Albert Wenger.

continuations:

…

Yet despite such clear examples, Amazon, Apple, the New York Times, book publishers, etc all seem stuck on essentially the one price model.  Can we please have some more imagination in pricing?  It is time to start creating offers that let readers self select based on how much they value specific content.  How would this work?  In the case of the New York Times here is just one of many possible examples.  Put on a weekly series speaker series and make priority access to limited tickets / limited realtime online viewing spots part of a higher priced subscription.

please click-through and read the whole piece.  i highlighted the portion that rang true.

the web in general is struggling with the economics behind its real currency - original thoughts, ideas and content.  i’m interested to see how boxee’s plans pan-out.  they’re letting it ride vs. the establishment and i’m sort of glad about that.  the “establishment” has been making subtle attempts like this for years but now is the time to just make the gross change.  move forward and innovate, let everyone else catch-up.  fear is big right now (understandable).  you don’t want to piss off the “audience” or lose them.  fine.  but while they’re looking to you for content they’re also trusting in you to move the needle.  it’s an unspoken thread that rumbles across the web - if you’re in the position to “do it” and you’re not, what’s the point?

for generations, content pricing had the luxury of it’s delivery factoring into cost.  now it doesn’t.  advancing technology has allowed us to fully focus on the actual value of something and it’s why everyone is freaking out.  paying too much for stuff that doesn’t deserve it while paying too little for the stuff that does.

i’m a proponent of on-demand streaming access.  sure, “downloading” as an act that keeps a local copy of content available is predominant but that’s only b/c - in the USA - our peer-to-peer tech and bandwidth lags severely.  i’m convinced apple bought lala because of their biz model and tech combo.  it’s a service that saw the media future and had creative, scaled pricing.  i can spend to purchase/own something all-out but i’d also adopt the cost of caring for it (which I don’t want anymore - I have no need to be a slave to external hard drives).  OR, i can pay to simply have access to it.  it stays in one place.  i can use it and leave it there when i want.

that’s just enough.

enter the magical mystery chambers.

um, guys?  wu-tang vs. the beatles.

hat tip @blam & @ryan.

The Reviewing Stand

The oddness of some of the voices in the reviews only makes them more useful. When you consult reviews on a site like Amazon, you generally see what you want to see, and autobiographical information can give a handy pretext for disqualifying an argument you’re disinclined to hear. (“That reviewer’s way too young to know a good pre-Raphaelite frameable art card!”) When you turn to the Internet for guidance, after all, you’re doing the latter-day equivalent of blindly flipping open the Bible and looking for answers. If you want to believe in something, you can usually find a way to back up your credulousness; likewise for doubt.

Old School Hip Hop Tapes

jhnbrssndn:

errorgorilla:

An online archive of one man’s personal collection of tapes dating back to the very early days, all available to download.

yes.

The End of the 00s: The Hunt for lonelygirl15, by Richard Rushfield | The Awl

No one is actually listening anymore: One of the great frustrations of the lonelygirl hunt was the fact that, despite having her face plastered everywhere in media, for weeks and weeks no clue about her identity emerged. How was this possible that no one had seen her? Well, it was possible because, despite everyone on earth in one way or another seeing her face (certainly everyone who used the internet), no one was actually paying attention.

as you can tell i’ve been frustratingly retrospective for the past few days.  i want to do some pretty significant things in my personal life this year while keeping my professional life on track.  the walls are just closing a bit faster.  shame that they won’t stop until i kick it.

my hopes for this week?  that i close it out with a clear head, empty “to do” list, clean room, healthy finances, initial strides towards better health and a clear framework for avoiding anxiety.

oh yeah, 10 years went by.  recognizing that the largest deficit society is facing for the next 10 is our lapse in really caring is probably what this piece frames the best.  if you’re looking for some closure, the awl has you covered.

America can't make things because managers all learn finance instead of production

But these executives were frequently numb to the sorts of innovations that enable high-quality production at low cost.

proof points and unique positioning:

• amit gupta is a real smart guy.  he runs a business and it’s built on real, tangible & focused deliverables.  at the same time, he’s looking for solutions that will change our economy.

• $700 billion generated to cover up mistakes forced a man into seclusion in efforts to build a shed.  think about these parallels.

• speaking of sheds, here’s the other side of this story realized:  catskill farms.  there is a lot of innovation here that gets hidden by simplicity - but that’s the point.  it’s turning a bi-product of american opulence on its head.  no more huge, costly palatial houses far away that burden you.  they’re focused, approachable, controlled well-built and beautiful.  a very smart business model that generates more than fiscal reward.

• the best explanation behind how wall st. tanked that i’ve read so far.

• the case for working with your hands.

::exhales::  i know this is sort of open-ended and more “okay, i get it - how do we fix it?”  but maybe that’s the point.  everyone is looking for ways to right the ship, to get us back on track, to get “us” flourishing again.  to become omnipotent and ignorant all at once again probably shouldn’t be our best intention, veiled or otherwise.

we can do this differently and it doesn’t have to be choosing between one or the other.  i’m absolutely sure of that.

Gin, Television, and Social Surplus

syntheticpubes:

I re-read this every few months and it always cheers me up. Perhaps social media isn’t to blame for a lack of productivity—it’s just doing an effective job of soaking up our increasing number of idle hours. Those idle hours are probably a symptom of broader economic missteps in the face of globalization and its inherent upsets.

(I still like that 4chan hyperbole though.)

this discussion has been seeping into my head for the past few weeks.  all the tech we’re creating to lower thresholds and open the fire hoses a little wider to our brains is actually and obviously hurting us.  sure, you know the facts faster but you haven’t had time to actually think about them before you’re bowled over with the next.  arguments about television aside, there is a situation that is in the present where we must become editors for ourselves.  information, however delivered, isn’t all useful.  finding and digging for the exceptionally valuable can only be a human function, not a computerized one.

everything “real-time” might not be worth your time.