Minimize Contagion & Impact of "Non-Credible" News? An Open Source Idea for a Pragmatic yet Audacious Project To Support Democracy

Executive Summary: News and journalistic organizations believe that "non-credible" news will invariably seek to impact key democratic processes like elections across democratic societies going forward. Case in point: France. Some approaches have already been implemented by Facebook, Google and news organizations. Can a digital approach (project?) become part of democratic institutions that support a democratic society? 

Yes! Below is one approach to protect democratic processes digitally- implementable in many ways, open sourced, free to use as necessary in your part of the world. Details of this approach have been continually fleshed, augmented and shared since late 2016. From the desk of no-substitute-for-transparent-democratic-institutions-and-journalistic-standards-but-there-are-still-gaps.

Why Now?

Some would argue that fake news has always been part of elections. Even the U.S. founding fathers engaged in leveraged untruths.

What's different now?

The hypotheses that are our baseline assumptions:

• Fake news by existing stakeholders in a society did not have the contagion powers it has today. 
• Foreign powers, and parties influenced by foreign operators in any democratic society, can now frequently and easily access asymmetric information contagion tools and their associated effects at a level previously unavailable as societies were not as interconnected digitally. 
• Separately, democratic institutions across the world have been undermined, which has a multiplier effect on asymmetrical power that a non-credible information contagion can wield.

So, We Have A Problem? Houston, We Have a Problem!

Yes, voila, some information to support the contention that we have a problem:

• A story by the Independent on the possible deluge of fake new stories in France: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-voters-deluge-fake-news-stories-facebook-twitter-russian-influence-days-before-election-a7696506.html
• An ABC story on tech driven fake news possibly influencing the US election: http://abc7.com/politics/russia-used-tech-fake-news-to-influence-us-election-expert-tells-senate-committee/1826410/
• A Vice news story about a "fake new machine" targeting the French elections: https://news.vice.com/story/russias-fake-news-machine-is-now-targeting-the-french-election
• An Oxford study on fake news and the French election reported by the Verge: http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/21/15381422/france-fake-news-election-russia-oxford-study

What Has Been Done So Far?

Some solutions have been put in place. there has been an improved focus on fact checking. The press and also social media and digital behemoths like Google and Facebook have taken the actions toward being effective corporate citizens in ways that also strengthens their business.

• Facebook and Google have already implemented tools and processes to delegitimize non-credible news: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/04/25/google-overhauls-search-algorithm-bid-fight-fake-news/
• Facebook and Google are partnering with news organizations: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-facebook-idUSKBN15L0QU
• Journalism organizations are taking action too: http://researchguides.journalism.cuny.edu/factchecking_verification_fakenews

The problem is not easily solvable though:

http://fortune.com/2017/03/29/facebook-google-fake-news/


Is Digital Action Needed, and Enough?

No. Digital action is no substitute for democratic and journalistic institutions, even if they have been undermined by internal social, economic and political forces. Are these institutions active, responsive and keeping pace with the digital change flooding society?

The true ring fences for any democratic society:
1. The Executive- Federal and State
2. The Legislature- Federal and State
3. The  Judiciary- - Federal and State
4. Strong and Free Press
5. Engaged and Skeptical Citizens

If nothing else, the media, upon self-reflection, would agree that #4 has been severely compromised. They've been impacted by the same digital forces that have become risks to democratic processes- there was even a movie about this; more from a previous post here:
http://insightplusideas.blogspot.com/2011/07/news-new-york-times-and-movie-about.html

This is not solved just by funding journalistic and media institutions (reference here to great journalistic institutions like the New York Times, the Atlantic, the Economist, Financial Times and others) that, as individual organizations, would have challenges with *fully* and *comprehensive* representing any richly diverse (viewpoints or other) democracy, regardless of their adherence to journalistic standards and to a mission that supports society's "growth".

I can attest to listening to the personal (and harrowing) story of an editor of a Philly newspaper who moved on to managing content for a small pharma company. A story told over lunch. Neither of us were really having lunch and I suspect neither of us had appetite for lunch after. Here is more food for thought:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/how-americas-coastal-cities-left-the-heartland-behind/478296/

Even if we doubt that these ring fences are no different that they used to be two hundred years ago, they are uniquely threatened by the digital nature of a more complex society today. Even with strong local and state institutions a strong local press, and locally active and organized citizens, a digital forum that allows these institutions to weave together, be aware of and respond to digital threats from non-credible information may now be a critical need.

This leads us to a need for a separate digital forum that sheds light on "non-credible" information that impacts citizens and democratic processes and allows them to react.

The assertion, in conclusion: No, what has been done so far is not enough. Yes, more, on many fronts, especially digital, is needed.

Succinctly: We are at "necessary, not sufficient". We would be remiss to not pursue a digital framework.

What Can A Society Do Digitally?

Below is a digital approach that supports the creation of another ring fence to augment those that have already been acknowledged as core for democratic societies for a long time.

The focus is to foster transparency on non-credible information available to people in a society, and to foster channels, forums, tools and pathways for democratic institutions and people to swiftly counteract the effects of non-credible information on the democracy.

A Project to Support Democracy and Transparency Digitally

Why Open Source?

• It's an idea.
• A functioning democracy requires a panoply of processes, institutions and approaches. This is one. 
• It can be implemented in many ways. 
• The focus is on post facto management of response to "non-credible" news contagion- this is a non trivial problem.
• It requires strong partnerships across companies and existing democratic institutions. 
• It requires vision and long term support and action. 
• As an engaged human being on this planet, I will be glad to support anyone who can run with this.
• Even if it fails, this is an experiment we would be remiss to not try. 
• Feel free to contact me for more information.

Note: This approach has been shared previously (early 2017) in various forums and individually with folks and startups seeking to solve this problem. This approach follows a clear path from questions about transparency with democratic institutions and processes that gripped a nation's consciousness in late 2016, and has been continually fleshed and augmented with more public information updates since late 2016. Separately, I am glad to see the press and social media and digital behemoths like Google and Facebook take the actions they have. They are being effective corporate citizens in ways that also strengthens their business.

Business Planning with a Black Swan Event: Currency Policy Event and Macroeconomic Impact

Executive Summary: How does a global business make country specific plans in the face of black swan currency events? How do you cut through the noise and focus on the macroeconomic impact of a dramatic currency policy move in a BRIC country? Ask fundamental questions after thinking through the factors at play. Some quick Thanksgiving holiday thoughts. For quicker reading, skip the Background section and jump to Factors for key points. 

Background

US economic trends and recent events have captured our attention. In these interesting times, we consider a currency policy black swan event and leverage that for some thoughts that may help you with business planning in these volatile times.

What makes a black swan event? How about making specific currency notes- that make up a significant portion of notes in circulation- legal tender no more, at short notice? India took the dramatic step to 'demonetize' the existing 500 and 1000 rupee notes.

As additional information, a blog post, by Larry Summers and Natasha Sarin, is here:
http://larrysummers.com/2016/11/21/most-sweeping-change-in-currency-policy-in-the-world-in-decades/

Factors
Now, the impact of this move needs to be assessed in terms of several factors:
- Existing currency policy and economic context,
- Consumer behavior and impact on share of wallet of goods and services for the near and long term,
- Different strata of economic activity that make up the complex country, starting with digital economy versus lightly banked economy versus the cash economy versus the barter economy and their economic interactions, not just the taxed versus the un-taxed parallel economy,
- Industry sectors, ranked by their dependence on the cash economy (do consumer discretionaries, cellphone and construction industries take a hit? For how long?),
- Cash management approaches across industries,
- Legal framework to deal with defaults, bankruptcies and working capital challenges,
- Asset classes and impact to specific stores of value like the dollar and gold and potential 'microbubbles',
- Banking and financials sector structure and fractional reserve systems trends,
- Trade,
- Global interconnections with other economies not explicitly identified from sectoral trade,
- Currency exchange rates and the assets and factors backing and propping up a currency,
- Monetary policy and implications of currency that ceases to exist and is no longer
- Central banking tools and accounting for currency events,
- Communication and planning for the event, including managing business and citizen concerns,
- Social change implications of the event and associated hand holding of citizens,
- Central bank, government, large banking and financial institution and industry co-ordination over operational aspects, processes and execution.

Key Questions
There are a wide variety of views on this complex topic that may or may not cover all the factors outlined above. Regardless of the diversity of thought and ideas, here are three questions that may help start the conversation on potential outcomes:
1. What is the risk, in %age terms, of the Indian economy (or large parts of the economy) going into deflation after the 'demonetization' move?
2. What is the risk, in %age terms, of the Indian economy going into stagflation?
3. What is the risk, in %age terms, of the Indian economy suffering some sort of a Japanese Lost Decade?

These questions are a starter list to help us cut through the noise and identify potential, pragmatic outcomes of the dramatic currency policy decision. This may also form your framework for tweaking your business planning for 2017 for a BRIC economy.

What do you think?

Note: This post can also be found on Medium, here: https://medium.com/@insightplusidea/currency-policy-black-swan-and-macroeconomic-impact-5b56c25fe244#.3j594cf8l

The Washington Post, the News Industry, Jeff Bezos, Martin Baron and Innovation in News- Driving Change in a Changing World

Executive Summary: The Washington Post is neither an Amazon nor a Buzzfeed. Below are some elements of building a distinctive news organization that Jeff Bezos, Martin Baron and the news leadership would likely have considered at The Washington Post. They are structured as a framework, and presented with a parallel between building such a news organization and with managing innovation in fast paced industries. The metrics and insights that you may develop from these go a step beyond what the conventional audience, digital and social media metrics can do for you. No industry jargon was harmed or involved in the making of this quick essay. From the desk of A-Fine-Balance-between-High-Risk-Objectives-and-Metrics-For-Key-Results. 

Since Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post last year, there has been a lot of media conversation here (Businessweek) and here (Politico) about the news organization's personnel changes and also about its direction.

The most recent and highly cited one has been an article by David Carr of the New York Times (See link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/business/media/the-washington-post-regains-its-place-at-the-table.html ). The Washington Post, driven by Martin Baron and the leadership team, can take many paths towards building a distinctive news organization. For more about how New York Times handled its change, see here: http://goo.gl/7eSsQV

Let's address the elephant in the room.

What did Jeff Bezos gain by buying The Washington Post?

Digital is here.

Digital is not going away.

Digital will grow without Jeff Bezos' involvement.

Regardless of any potentially larger, altruistic reasons to own the newspaper that Jeff Bezos may share with the previous owners, The Washington Post offers Jeff Bezos a digital insight into minds on the Internet operating slightly higher up on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, compared to other websites. (Note: Maslow's Hierarchy is mentioned here only for simplicity- for a branding context, please feel free to refer to David Aaker's work here on the brand loyalty pyramid and Jennifer Aaker's work here on building innovative brands).

Additionally, while book publishing is a different animal from news, building a distinctive news organization that thrives in a digital world offers some transferable insights.

The Framework.

The framework below is one way to think about the trade offs involved in building a distinctive news organization. It offers a pathway to out-of-the-box metrics and potential key results the new organization's leadership could develop to manage a driven, aligned and responsive (towards stated objectives, not reactive) organization. I list a few dimensions of this framework to serve as guardrails.

The Objective.

Let's set a broad goal/ initial objective of this thought exercise for the Washington Post:

To build a widely read newspaper that has the sort of cache in the mind of the reader that Apple has relative to its competitors. It becomes a leader in an ecosystem for driving awareness, engagement and change, based on news elements, for the reader.

How's that for a start?

You will note that the objective explicitly sets the Washington Post a little higher on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs than a content farm. (Note again: Maslow's Hierarchy is mentioned here only for simplicity- for a branding context, please feel free to refer to David Aaker's work here on the brand loyalty pyramid and Jennifer Aaker's work here on building innovative brands).

The Dimensions

A few iterations through the structure below should yield some quantifiable objectives as well.

Dimension 1: Reader Impact Zones.

In terms of the reader, let's define how news may impact the reader in the scope of his or her daily life. We shall describe these as concentric circles.

Immediate Zone: The Giants winning the Superbowl is an Immediate Zone impact. So is news of a regulation cutting your taxes in half.

Near Network Zone: News about quicker or easier access to drugs for a sick relative would be a Near Network Zone impact.

Overarching/ Distant Network Zone: Immigration reform that does not affect you directly, but is important to you as an issue, would have an Overarching/ Distant Network Zone impact.

Dimension 2: Type Reader Network Effect.

What kind of a reader network effect can a news story have? We can draw from our experience of current metrics covering news, digital and social media here.

Awareness: This would go beyond just how many readers have read the news item on a topic (i.e. not just CPM as a sample metric).

Engagement: This is not just sharing on social media. This may involve the number of thought leaders engaged in the conversation in and around the news coverage. The news organization's leadership in facilitating conversation across the ecosystem on the news topic.

Change: Is there a change in the readership's views due to this news topic coverage (if that is important? If not, why not?) A change in law, as a direct effect of the new organization's leadership in news coverage, would be an example of the change effect.

Dimension 3: Timeline.

How long does the news coverage and its impact last.

Thinsliced: Commentary on cat videos is an example.

Short: From one to a few news cycles.

Medium: May require sustained effort towards engagement and may lead to change.

Long: Policy decisions that may change the nature of society.

Dimension 4: Originating, Curating and Funneling News Items (a la Innovation).

Just as organizations realize that the next great disruptive innovation may not arise in-house, news organizations would understand that they may not always be at the center of the next 'greatest news story ever'. How you manage origination, curation and funneling (you may replace funneling with acceleration of news ideas, if you like) of news stories is important. What percentage of ‘impactful’ stories would The Washington Post like to break?

Dimension 5: Distribution.

Top two on this list would be partners, along with cross medium, multichannel content and promotions.

Investigation into civil forfeiture and also posting a John Oliver video on the same topic is a great example of partner and cross medium thinking. See link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2014/10/06/watch-john-oliver-explain-civil-forfeiture-aggressive-police-procedures-on-last-week-tonight/

Evaluate The Framework So Far

We can come up with a few more dimensions, however, let's pause here. How does this help the editor and publisher? Here are questions worth thinking about:

How many news items can the news organization run in a year that string together into a medium term topic, which impact user views on the topic, engage 50%+ of the thought leaders on the topic and lead to an actual change in the life (say via a change in law) of the reader?

What is a sustainable frequency for these efforts?

Does a higher frequency of such efforts lead to increased subscriptions and greater reader retention?

Does a reduction of thinslicing type of content (say commentary on cat videos) lead to a reduction in traffic and hence a reduction in audience engagement?

Can this reduction in audience engagement be offset by pushing content through partners and other channels?

Conclusion.

Building a distinctive news organization requires and understanding of, and a sustained effort towards, the level of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs the employees, the readers, the industry and the news organization as a whole, wants to operate at. Going by kudos from readers and media watchers (David Carr at the New York Times), the leadership is showing success at this. The dimensions and the framework shed light on some of the challenges they deal with on a daily basis.

What do you think?

Pecan in Your Pie? Market Mechanics, Economics and Globalization

Executive Summary: Pecan pie is not quite apple pie, but it is as American as it comes. The humble pecan in your pecan pie may have a very interesting story to tell of growing up in a hot climate across the border, making it over in crowded containers, and finding its way to your plate through an oligopsony. An interesting tale about globalization. From the desk of A-Great-Story-From-2013-Is-Better-Told-Than-Never. Also, from the desk of Not-Quite-Bourdain-But-It-Will-Do.

Introduction

Pecan pie is American. Pecans are also American. Mostly. The U.S. is the world's largest pecan producer. A significant quantity of pecans are also grown in Mexico though- in 2012, Mexican pecans were 70% of all U.S. pecan imports by dollar value. Bet you didn't know that. Why would someone in Mexico care to grow pecans?

What follows is a structured account of a perception altering, freewheeling conversation about the humble pecan in your pecan pie:
Where? A random rooftop bar in NYC on a Friday evening.
Who? A friendly Mexican pecan farmer in town, with his brother, to soak in the U.S. Open.

These insights (highlighted below in italics) into pecans from Mexico and the global pecan industry, covering markets, demand, supply, buyers, global trade, a decade long product horizon and a multi-decade pricing perspective, are from a random conversation with a Mexican farmer. Specific annual data points have been added to confirm insights from the one time conversation. Of course, not all aspects of the conversation made it to the blog.

Climate

Pecans need hot and dry conditions to grow. They can be grown in regions approximating USDA hardiness zones 5 to 9, provided summers are also hot and humid. Depending on the variety, pecan trees require 205 to 233 frost-free days for the nuts to reach maturity, thus restricting pecan production to southern states in the U.S. Jimenez, Chihuahua in Mexico has the right conditions for it, and is close enough to America for Mexican farmers to nurture a source of revenue in the desert environment.

Other countries producing pecans include Australia, Brazil, Israel, Peru, and South Africa.

Local Operating Conditions and Conditions

Water is key to pecan farming. However, digging wells in the Mexican desert requires licenses. These local conditions and regulation, has directed Mexican farmers toward developing advanced irrigation systems.

Insight: Mexican irrigation systems thus need to be more advanced than those in the U.S.

Jimenez, Chihuahua in Mexico is about 200 miles from the U.S. border in Mexico and also contends with some of the socio-economic problems and strife seen at the U.S.- Mexico border.

Competitive Space

Insight: In 2012, Georgia led the U.S. in pecan production, with production for all pecans (improved varieties and native and seedling). 

Georgia's production reached 100 million pounds, followed by New Mexico at 65 million pounds, Texas at 55 million pounds, Oklahoma at 25 million pounds and Arizona at 20 million pounds. Production was up in each of these states except Georgia.  (NASS 2013)

Insight: China is emerging as a strong buyer of pecans globally and seeks to develop local supply. Mexican farmers were not concerned about potential Chinese supply impacting global suppliers in the medium term, primarily due to the time it takes for pecan trees to mature. 

Insight: Grafted trees reach maturity by the seventh year (seedling trees require another 2-3 years), and most cultivars remain productive for decades when properly managed.

Buyers

Insight: There are five major buyers in America for pecans in the U.S., who exchange information on pecan supply, quality and pricing. This enhances their buying power in most situations.

In 2012, the United States imported pecans valued at $282.0 million, down slightly from $286.8 million during 2011. Mexico remained the dominant supplier, providing shelled pecans, in-shell pecans and pecan products valued at $200.8 million.

Variability in U.S. production, not U.S. demand, impacts buying power. From 1970 to 1999, imports (shelled basis) ranged from a low of 0.2% (1981) of total U.S. production that year, to a high of 52% (1986).

Insight: Chinese buyers have attempted to gain greater control of the buying process and sought to trade directly with Mexico. However, with the U.S. as the largest market and the largest grower of pecans, the Chinese have not been successful so far. U.S. continues to export significant quantities of pecans to China.

U.S. pecan exports were valued at $486.9 million in 2012, up 30 percent from 2011. Hong Kong remained the primary destination for U.S. in-shell pecan exports, with sales reaching $165.4 million, a 69 percent jump from 2011. Vietnam was the second largest in-shell pecan market, purchasing pecans valued at $67.9 million, a whopping 115 percent increase. Mexican purchases declined in 2012, falling to $34.2 million.  (FAS 2012)

Demand, Market and Price Elasticity

Of tree nut consumption in the United States, pecans rank third behind almonds and English walnuts. Pecan per capita availability has held nearly constant over the past several decades, ranging from 0.38 pounds in 1968 to 0.47 pounds consumed per person in 2010.

Insight: Walnuts and even peanuts function as effective pecan substitutes. This constant demand and access to substitutes creates a narrow price range. At the time of the conversation with the Mexican pecan farmers, suppliers were getting prices at the higher end of a 100 year time frame.

Growing Chinese market demand, continued U.S. buying power and favorable U.S. food export programs have combined to provide the U.S. pecan industry with access to expanding new markets.

2012 data is a great illustration of price elasticity. The 2012 U.S. pecan crop totaled 302.8 million pounds or 151,400 tons, a 12 percent increase from 2011. The value of the 2012 pecan crop decreased 27 percent to $476.8 million. Total crop value declined as grower prices fell, partly because of increased crop size.  (ERS 2013, NASS 2013)

In 2011, average pecan prices dropped to $1.57 per pound, down from 2010 average prices of $2.43 per pound. Average prices also dipped for each of the five major pecan-producing states.  (NASS 2013)

From 1970 to 1999, U.S. average pecan prices ranged from a low of 29.8 cents (1971) per in-shell pound to a high of $1.14 (1992) per in-shell pound for native pecans, and from 35.4 cents (1971) to $1.57 (1992) per in-shell pound for improved pecans. During this same period, U.S. improved pecans averaged 78.2 cents per pound, while native or seedling pecans averaged 49.7 cents per pound an average price difference of 28.5 cents per pound. Caveat- differences in prices from state to state reflect national and local difference in supply and demand, as well as differences in quality, nut meats obtained, and market outlets.

Next time you look at a pecan, and find a wild look in its eye, you can safely assume there is a story to tell.


What do you think?




References:
http://www.agmrc.org/commodities__products/nuts/pecans/
http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_z/Z501/
http://www.wherefoodcomesfrom.com/article/303-2942/Pecan-Production-By-State-In-Order-Of-Production#.UtWX3PtZuio

Success with Disruptive Innovation and Acquistions and Integration- More Than A Short Term Play?

Executive Summary: Literature on acquisitions to manage disruptive change often focuses on the art and science of the acquisition deal and the short term post-merger acquisition program. For the acquirer, are other organizational factors which must be in place for sustained longer term success? Are both success in the acquisition deal and success at the 180 day mark into post-acquisition integration just first steps in transforming an organization to align with disruptive change? If so, what boundaries, hand offs and interplay must exist between the organizational structures and related processes and the acquisition and integration effort? From the Desk of Objects-In-The-Rearview-Mirror-And-In-A-Firefight-Suffer-From-Short-term-Bias.

Flesh Out the Problem to Build A Solution

There are several approaches to handling disruptive change, however, let's drill down on one specific question:
For organizations which leverage acquisitions and integration ("and" is key) programs to handle disruptive change, success in the acquisition deal and success at the 180 day milestone into post-acquisition integration all they need for sustained success with disruptive change?

For simplicity, we consider a scenario where the acquirer needs to make just one acquisition in its inorganic deal strategy, even thought his thought process can be applied to multiple acquisitions in the inorganic change program.

Disruptive innovation is Tough for Organizations

After a certain size and scale, organizations have challenges in nurturing and sustaining paradigm shifts.

Size is a good first pick as a proxy for organizational inertia in accepting disruptive change. In The Innovator's Dilemma, Clayton Christiansen highlights the disk drive industry and how companies were not able to transform with technologically driven business paradigm shifts. On the other hand, experience with digital startups will tell you that they will go through some changes in strategic direction and the successful ones navigate these nimbly.

Also, let's pick span of disruption as another factor in considering the impact of disruptive change. In an industry where sales channels are commoditized and thin, and operations as well as operational efficiencies are key, a disruptive shift in operations would be a tougher challenge compared to a technological product shift, with a long gestation period and long sales cycle that can easily be plugged into an existing industry ecosystem.

Specific Factors Which Make Disruption Tough

Companies in specific categories of size and scale, in specific markets, have unique challenges with, and have unique (organic and inorganic) solutions for, handling disruptive change. Smaller startups may find it easier to change direction and compete head to head in their new space, compared to larger organizations.

Would you pick more factors to identify a unique set of challenges and solutions for disruptive innovation?

Rate of change in the market?
Investments (not just money) required in addressing disruptive change?
Rate of adoption of disruptive change in the market?
Ratio of investments for disruptive change versus run of business size and scale of operations?

Any other factors you would consider?

While I have listed just a few factors, especially those that are external to the organization, this line of thought would help us structure the distinct categories of challenges and solutions for specific data sets.

Driving the common understanding of its common challenges and solutions through an organization would be invaluable for more effective decisions in finance, corporate development and business development roles. This would be an important internal factor in handling and managing disruptive change.

As we delve into this list, you will find that the challenges and solutions set may vary at the sector, sub-sector, company and even the business problem level.

Acquisitions and Disruptive Change

A company with a sustained, successful acquisition strategy for disruptive change is an outlier.

There are examples from the Pharmaceutical and Technology industries, in outlier companies like EMC and Cisco, around their solutions to the "acquisition and integration" of disruptive innovation. Some thoughts are here:
http://reflectionsblog.emc.com/2012/06/explaining-emcs-success-in-ma.html

Questions Illuminate the Problem

Given the broader challenges in assimilating disruptive change, would you tailor your acquisition and integration strategy to the unique challenges and solutions set at the sector, sub sector, company and business problem level?

What factors would you pick to identify a unique set of challenges and solutions for "acquisition and integration" for disruptive innovation?

Is the "acquisition and integration strategy" for disruptive innovation a subset of the overarching problem of handling disruptive change in an organization?

If not, what would be time horizon for the "acquisition and integration strategy" to play out for the acquisition to be deemed a success? In this case, would success really be measured by how the company has handled disruptive change?

If so, what boundaries, hand offs and interplay must exist between the organizational structures and related processes and the acquisition and integration effort?

 Magic Bullets?

In this case, one approach could be to promote a federated organizational structure, set up functions as services to different units, and tailor unit performance monitoring and corporate services to its set of challenges and solutions. Is that a magic bullet, or does that need some further thought and tailoring?



What do you think?

Android Platform: Jellybean, Kit-Kat... what next?

Executive Summary: From the Desk of If-You-Get-The-Name-Right-The-Rest-Will-Follow.

There might be a trend here: Icecream Sandwitch, Jellybean, Kit-Kat... Latkes? Would you like it with apple sauce or sugar?

(Yes, it is the season for some savory Latkes too.)

What do you think?

 

Douglas Engelbart. Innovator.

Douglas Engelbart. Innovator.

For helping us understand what innovation really means. For laying the foundations of what would become Technology industry sectors.

Innovation, Risk-taking, Incentives, and Trust

What tools can most organizations, which exist in the spectrum between the Fox and the Hedgehog, leverage to build success through trust *and* risk-taking?

Executive Summary: How does an organization balance the pressures of building trust through, and incentivizing, sustained successful execution, with the need for some form of risk-taking (with positive outcomes). Are common control structures like bonuses enough? Does innovation have a role to play here? From the desk of They-May-Be-Buzzwords-But-You-Still-Have-To-Make-Hard-Decisions-About-Them.

Overview
Anyone involved with a business- from a startup to a Fortune 10 company- has dealt with the trade-offs involved in building trust across decision makers in the organization, managing levels of risk-taking (high, or low, as required), and structuring organizational incentives. In the middle of all this is the need for transparency, which is fulfilled via measurements and reporting as an accounting function.

The key here is is risk-taking for positive outcomes. This could be an imperative in hypercompetitive markets (Ref. Clayton Christiansen in Innovator's Dilemma). Examples of risk-takers for positive outcomes include Jeff Bezos and Steve Jobs.

What approaches can help us manage these parameters? Does innovation have a role to play?

Kicking off the Thought Process and the Initial Hypothesis
An Accounting researcher***, who I happened to have the pleasure of listening to recently, tackled the topic of business trust and the role of accounting, in which two things stood out:
1. A "laboratory experiment" seemed to indicate that record keeping, as a function of measurement in accounting, helped build trust across multiple transactions between anonymous parties,
2. Bonuses- as a function of incentives, which in turn are a function of organizational control- are better tools than penalties for trust within an organization.

This led me to think about the relationship between trust and risk-taking, and specifically this relationship:
Trust > Bonus Incentives > Risk-Taking

The hypothesis is that bonuses, as a means of control, are not great for some types of risk-taking.

Paradigms from Strategy and from Psychology
The "mom" readers of this post would point out the abundance of literature around child development and types of positive reinforcement. Case in point, this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/opinion/sunday/raising-successful-children.html?pagewanted=all

Some strategic thinking readers might also frame this as a Fox vs. Hedgehog problem. Their point could be that organization must clearly choose between being a fox and being a hedgehog. If If you want your organization to focus on repeatable execution, then bonuses work well under the hedgehog paradigm.

In reality, most organizations have to do a balancing act between the two. So, how do you solve this problem for most organizations?

Some Pathways Towards Resolution
Here are a couple of thoughts:
1. Personnel:
Jack Welch has stated previously that, at GE, he looked for folks who had some failure under their belt. I take that as a proxy for an appetite of risk taking and an understanding of its potential consequences.
2. Innovation Program:
If bonus incentives are not helping with an organizational desire for risk-taking, then the positive reinforcement incentives need a more refined structuring. Innovation programs fill this gap for a more refined structuring.

Innovation
Several approaches to innovation are available to help make the appropriate trade-offs in the spectrum between the Fox and the Hedgehog. These focus on making innovation flexible and adaptable, and are available commercially, as well as in research literature.

However, structuring an innovation program in an organization is never easy, especially when it pertains to the core activity of a business unit, or even an organization. Enabling risk-taking though innovation requires a level of communication and buy-in across the organization that may take some time and sustained effort to achieve.

Do innovation programs at Google, Yahoo, and Amazon have interesting tales to tell? I have also previously posted about Netflix on this front:
1> Netflix bids for Original Programming: http://insightplusideas.blogspot.com/2011/03/innovation-and-tactics-series-netflix.html
2> Netflix and Organizational Capabilities: http://insightplusideas.blogspot.com/2011/03/netflix-and-organizational-capabilities.html

How would these contrast against innovation at a bank, at a perishable goods supplier and at a metals company?

Would an organizational skeptic call the innovation program old wine in a new bottle? Or is it all about results, and a rose by any other name is still a rose? Amazon has invested in risks for positive outcomes despite negative signals from the stock markets. Jeff Bezos had apparently asked potential CFOs if they had invented anything.

What do you think?


*** Many thanks to Dr. Kristy Towry at Emory.

Film Industry, Digitalization and Creative Empowerment: "Side by Side"

Executive Summary: In the context of the excellent documentary, "Side By Side", here is a quick snapshot of digitalization's impact on the film industry along the dimensions of film making process, creativity, innovation, innovation collaboration, end product quality-trade offs between digital and film, the human factor, and history and trends. Is it digital vs. film, or digital and film? Or is this debate a distraction? From the desk of No-Industry-Is-An-Island-Unto-Itself.

Overview

Digitalization has impacted our lives in many ways, specifically, how we-
- Connect with people,
- Search for, find, and utilize information and entertainment, and,
- Get things done.

Over the years, there has been quite a bit of news about digitalization's impact on the publishing industry (you could blame the NYT's media desk for a lot of it). I have talked about a "fly on the wall" documentary, "Page One: Inside The New York Times", which describes the impact, here.

On the other hand, there has been relatively less news about digitalization's impact on the film industry beyond the usual reviews about special effects laden movies.

How has the film industry been dealing with the digitalization of the world around them?

Some Initial Questions

Waiting in a standby line for the sold out film, "Side by Side", at the Tribeca Film Festival, I roped in fellow film enthusiasts, waiting in line, into an interesting discussion about digital technology's impact on the film industry. Some of the questions raised were:
- Do you lose out on quality (cinematic experience) with digital films?
- Is 3D really better?
- Would actors be replaced by machines?
- Digitalization impacts jobs and people's lives- is it really a good idea if it does that?
- Wouldn't human experience be lesser in movies driven by machines?

Thoughts Before the Screening- Baseline Ideas

My initial reaction to a lot of these challenges was:
- Human beings have been telling stories for ages- this is just another tool to help us tell stories.
- Any narration would always have to rely on creativity in the story, and on how well the story is told.
- Film was a technological advancement in telling stories. Digitalization is just another step in this story telling evolution.
- Human beings would always want "real world" contact with another person (there are anecdotes about conversational skills of teenagers that seem to prove otherwise).

I am of the view that this digital vs. film debate is a distraction. The conversation should be able the story *you* want to tell, and the story *you* want to hear.

"Side by Side"

The documentary, "Side by Side", premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival, provides a bird's eye view of how digitalization has affected the film industry. It was surprisingly well equipped to handle a lot of the questions raised.

Here are a few of the areas it covered:

Film-making Process and Creative Empowerment:

An anecdote by a woman filmmaker summed up the empowering outcome of digitalization. A woman filmmaker (an actor on Girls, on HBO) admits that she would not have been able to make a movie if it were not for digital technology. She was daunted by movie making process as a complex film "undertaking".

As the documentary slices through the various facets of film making you can see this creative empowerment theme through the various film making steps below:
1. Movie development and production:
- shooting and production
- acting and actors
- film direction,
- cinematography and camerwork,
- film editing, and,
- post production
2. Film planning and budgeting decision making
3. Film distribution,
4. Film screening, and finally,
5. Film archiving.

Digitalization has forced changes in the degree of creative control and influence asserted by each step of the creative process. While independent movies had embraced digital technology early on, fully aware of the detrimental impact on cinematic quality at that time, big budget movies appear to have  begun to embrace digital technology as a tool for budget control.

Movie making creativity:

The documentary covers while getting industry greats and pioneers, from George Lucas to Scorsese, to spill their guts about the creative impact of their choice between using film and digital media for their film releases.

While some directors have relished
- the flexibility and freedom of instant feedback,
- the removal of the 10 minute shot, and,
- the cost constraints of using expensive film for footage,
some others have decried the loss of cinematic experience in moving to digital.

One filmmaker was concerned that the quality of films has dropped drastically since anyone can now make a movie thanks to digital technology. Quote: "there is no taste maker". Christopher Nolan believes (and correctly so, for now) that digital does not match film in quality.

Scorsese points out that for effective storytelling, you must return to the wells of human creativity. David Lynch summed the pro digitalization view on storytelling and cinematic experience aptly, by drawing a parallel with the publishing industry, through the analogy that "everybody and his brother has paper and a pen..."

Innovation, and  Innovation collaboration:

A striking example of innovation was the team behind RED cameras talking about how they rigged a camera mechanism overnight to enable the rowing sequence for "The Social Network" to be shot. While George Lucas had collaborated with Sony on "Star Wars: Episode 2" to move digital camera technology along, this is a different order of innovation collaboration.

As with changes in creative control and influence exerted by each step of film making, the potential for innovation is leading to a need for greater collaboration and participation across each area associated with movie making.

End Product Quality- Trade offs between digital and film:

The documentary pulls no punches on the technical details of how film captures images and how digital technology has advanced over the years. Digital technology, in many ways, is still short of the cinematic experience that film can provide.

While digital technology is catching up, it has a lead in:
1. Night sequences of the type shot in the movie "Collateral",
2. Movies of the type "Star Wars",
3. The active sequences of the type shot at the beginning of Danny Boyle's "Slumdog Millionaire", and,
4. The rowing sequences in the movie "The Social Network".

The Human Factor:

The movie making team is changing on the dimensions skills, creativity expectations, collaboration, creative control and turnaround time.

"Side by Side" clearly lays out the human impact of this massive change. George Lucas had to call a summit at his home to deal with the backlash from his decision to shoot Star Wars: Episode 2. Some members of the industry accused him of shooting on film and claiming he was shooting in digital, because "digital could never be that good".

It has been a tumultuous period for the film industry, with old skills being replaced by new, especially in functions like editing, and post production.

History and Trends:

The film covers the gamut of the movie making ecosystem, from George Lucas' and James Cameron's big budget movie technology toys to a student at NYU's film school, shooting a film on a Canon 7D. Her take was that while the Canon 7D is not a movie camera, it allows her to focus on the story and turn in her project within the time and budget constraints.

Conclusion:

The film industry has had its fair share of upheavals, like the publishing industry.
It will continue to embrace the advantages of digital technology.
Story telling skills will always be in demand.

Finally, this all hinges on the movie goer enjoying the experience. That has been a different story altogether, as you can see in this article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/magazine/how-to-enjoy-going-to-the-movies-again.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto

My view? This documentary put me firmly on the side of the view that this debate is a distraction. It should be able the story you want to tell, and the the story you want to watch. Use the tools you believe will help you deliver and enjoy the experience your way.

What do you think?

Creativity, Market Domination and Innovation

Executive Summary: Filter thoughts on creativity, competition, and market domination, through the lens of experience and business history. Play devil's advocate to the obvious- Is all creativity about finding monopolistic market positions? How about sustaining advantages through competition? From the desk of Silver-Bullets-Are-Often-Traps.

Overview
David Brooks wrote an interesting article on creativity, and the importance of creative minds seeking monopoly like market domination, for society:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/opinion/brooks-the-creative-monopoly.html?_r=1&ref=davidbrooks&pagewanted=print

The article has some great lines, like "we sometimes confuse what is hard with what is valuable." I also found this article to be a good springboard to sift through some common thoughts and touchstones about creativity, competition, monopoly, and market domination.

An example from the non profit world, ModelAlliance.org, and its founder, Sara Ziff, may well be textbook cases for David Brooks' article. To get us started, let's break the article down into two contexts: Creativity in Industry and Business, and Individual Creativity.

A. Creativity in Industry and Business:
Let's pick key thoughts in the article around this context and find supporting cases for them.

Quote 1: "We often shouldn’t seek to be really good competitors. We should seek to be really good monopolists."
If you are familiar with the different flavors of innovation, David Brooks appears to be saying that breakthrough, disruptive innovation trumps incremental innovation.
Let's take Pharma industry as an example- the policy support for orphan drugs dovetails with this view.
In the technology industry, Facebook could be touted as an example of this strategy.

Quote 2: "It’s often more valuable to create a new market and totally dominate it."
Besides Facebook, Apple products like the iPod, iPhone and the iPad come to mind.

Quote 3: "The competitive spirit capitalism engenders can sometimes inhibit the creativity it requires."
Clayton Christiansen's examples from the hypercompetitive hard disk industry seem to support this. Business is littered with examples, where an organization's momentum often prevents it from acting differently, when required, to maintain leadership through market change. IBM had to face a major crisis to undergo change.

Quote 4:  "Value to society is often bigger (with dominant market positions)".
Facebook is being valued at over $100 Billion. That is a useful yardstick for impact on society.

Following this train of thought leads to these questions:
1. First Mover Advantage:
Are we only talking about the first mover advantage here?
There are very few business contexts where a first mover maintains a competition free market position indefinitely, or for a long time.

2. Sustaining the first mover advantage:
Once the market has been created, would you need skill in competition to find dominating differentiation, and to maintain profit margins?
Would you call that incremental innovation?
Or would you call that moving the market/ shifting the goal posts every time competition makes a move?
The current Apple iPhone 4S, and iPhone 5 rumors, are examples of this tactic.

3. Supporting Environment:
What kind of industry, business, public policy and cultural environment would support this consistently?
Would society be able to substantially increase the number of disruptively innovative people, and also allow a significant percentage of them to demonstrate achievements at a significant scale in society (these are two separate things)?

4. Impact on Society:
Given that several world economies have lost out on manufacturing exports, where sustained, incremental innovation is important, would it be fair to call breakthrough innovation a silver bullet?
Would a "portfolio" strategy toward innovation be more effective, whether active or passive (creating the right conditions for all type of innovation to prosper)?


B. Individual Creativity:
An individual's decision paths are complex, and heavily driven by the environment he/ she operates in. However let's simplify this section with some "devil's advocate" questions:

Quote 1: "Instead of being fastest around the tracks everybody knows, creative people move adaptively through wildernesses nobody knows."
This is a great description of one type of creativity. This type of person would be in the same category as Beethoven and Picasso. If even Steve Jobs could be said to have x number of great products in him, would you say this type of creativity is common?
What social, economic and cultural context would you need to harness this creativity?

Quote 2: "Competition has trumped value-creation."
In an effort to create value, wouldn't you need skill at competing for resources to achieve your monopolistic position?

Summary
Creativity and innovation come in many flavors. Diverse social, economic, cultural, and market structures may be required to support them all. Can we tweak these structures to support one type of creativity and innovation, with the intention of benefiting society more? Would it work, i.e. would it truly benefit society?


What do you think?

Consumer Behavior Changes due to Technology.

Are there some "behavioral ecosystems" (driven by technology, or otherwise) and "contexts" that are simply "better" for human behavior? Are there "contexts" that "stretch" human behavior?

Executive Summary: A quick three pronged approach- a question to start us thinking about the impact technology has on the world we live in, a thought experiment to help us think through this impact, and then some quick thoughts as a check, and as an inflamatory contrast, to throw our own thinking in sharp relief. From the desk of Three-Pointers-Aren't-Just-All-Basketball.

The Question

A conversation with some bright digital media folks bubbled up this question: how has technology changed consumer behavior?

To each of us, the answer may be obvious, however, it is well worth stepping back and taking a moment to think through this as an exercise. This helps us become more aware of technology's impact on consumer behavior.

A Thought Experiment

Here is a visualization thought experiment, with apologies to the GEICO Caveman- The Neanderthal cave paintings were a "Gossip Girl" of the age.

Some Quick Answers

A wise, experienced response:
Within the framework of behavior in a country, nothing much has really changed. The context? As far back as the 80's and across the pond, folks were leveraging consumer analytics to sell financial products (Hats off, Ritesh).

Another view: Technology impact consumer behavior by 

1. aggregating numerous individual decisions,
2. making consumers aware of these aggregations, and,
3. allowing game theory to have a field day via exchange of, or lack of exchange of, information.

The underlying theme across these points is the development of markets- either intra or inter country- and the development of context for human behavior.

I know, your first reaction here would be- do you really think Facebook, Twitter, and Groupon have not changed how we live? Sure, they have helped "cultures"/ "markets" evolve, by changing their context. However, have these forces of technology changed fundamental human behavior?

The Twist in The Tale

This leads a different line of thought:

1. How is technology changing the context we live in?
2. How does human behavior adapt to changed context?
3. Are there really new contexts that have not existed before?
4. Are there some contexts that are simply "better ecosystems" for human behavior than others?

What do you think?

US Credit Rating Downgrade- The S&P AA+ Club

Executive Summary: Standard and Poor's downgrade of the US credit rating can be evaluated in terms of signaling power, economic comparisons of countries, and a review of the members of the S&P AA+ rating club. We take a brief look at two countries with sovereign debt ratings the same as that of the United States. From the Desk of If-It-Talks-Like -A-Duck-But-Does-Not-Walk-Like-A-Duck... What do you do? Worry about a double dip instead!

For a little while, folks were focused on the possibility of the US economy slipping back into a recession. Then, Standard and Poor's downgraded the US Credit Rating to AA+. There are various ways to review the implications of this move. Below are three. We take a quick look at two countries in the S&P AA+ club. This is just a quick look, since my take is that the core focus needs to be the possibility of a double dip recession.

1. Signaling Power:

Review and compare economic fundamentals across the OECD and come to your own conclusion on whether this credit rating event is a response to an economic reality that have already been factored in by the market, or this rating provides new information (broadcasts a new signal?) to the market that needs an economic reaction.

Here is a scenario analysis of the downgrade's impact on U.S. based financial institutions sectors:
http://swampland.time.com/2011/08/06/sp-downgrades-itself/

Here is another view of the impact of this downgrade:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/07/usa-ratings-financialsystem-idUSN1E7760AD20110807

2. Relative Macroecnomic Performance:

Review relative economic fundamentals across the globe, and reevaluate if there is a relative change in the US economy vis-a-vis the rest of the global economies, and if there is an across-the-board change in a set of economies across the global.

Here is Standard and Poor's view of the European economies and that the US credit rating downgrade means for them:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44053959

At the bottom of this article below is an opinion of the coupling of the APAC region economy with the US economy:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/07/us-global-economy-weekahead-idUSTRE77628V20110807

3. Review Members of the Standard & Poor's AA+ Credit Rating Club:

To get started, here is S&P's sovereign ratings page:
http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/sovereigns/ratings-list/en/us/;jsessionid=6TZhT1HpLpw3Slb1QjJZM1NR4wLTThcH4MfNp4JHbLZcGVHG0yhL!603717864?subSectorCode=39&start=100&range=50

Let's review two members of this club:
1. Belgium:
Here are some quick statistics on Belgium:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/be.html

Belgium set a record for the number of days without a government. If you think there's a message in there about fractious politics, here an extract about Belgium as a poster child from the Economist:

“Most surprising, perhaps, maddeningly ungovernable Belgium is being held up by many as a model for debt-crippled euro-zone governments.”http://www.economist.com/node/18988904?story_id=18988904&fsrc=rss

If you thought Texas was its own country, here are more details on the political stress and strains at work in the country:
http://www.economist.com/node/18988904?story_id=18988904&fsrc=rss

You could also review Belgium's interest rates in the context of the European Central Bank long-term interest rate statistics for member states.
http://www.ecb.int/stats/money/long/html/index.en.html

In contrast to the Economist article about Belgium a few weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal reports growing concerns about Belgium's borrowing costs:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904007304576494042192351786.html

Les Belges thought setting a record for existing without a government was worth a party:
http://www.france24.com/en/20110217-belgium-world-record-longest-period-without-government-iraq-election

If you were Belgium, what would you do?

What do you think?

2. New Zealand:

Here is the NZ treasury's review of the NZ economy:
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/overview

The factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nz.html) tells me that New Zealand has the following key industries:
Food processing,
Wood and paper products,
Textiles,
Machinery,
Transportation equipment,
Banking and insurance,
Tourism,
Mining

New Zealand's economy is coupled to the Australian economy, and you may review the industry sectors to understand weaknesses in the economy relative to the other members of the AA+ club. This would be my starter list:
- Banking and insurance,
- Textiles,
- Machinery.

While you are at it, here is New Zealand's reaction to the United States joining the AA+ club:
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110806-700118.html

If you were New Zealand, how would you react?

What do you think?

Economic Recoveries.

Executive Summary: What would explain the length of the jobless recovery phase in an economic recovery? Would we find answers by comparing trends across recessions, or by comparing trends across countries, or by both? From the desk of I-Think-Therefore-Economics-Exists.

 

The employment/ population ratio has hit a low point not seen in a long while:  http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/net/page10.pdf

While you can utilize publicly available statistics to make your own charts and form your own views, here is a way to structure thoughts around it:

1. How do you compare recoveries and the nature of unemployment across recessions in the same country?
2. How do you compare recoveries and the nature of unemployment across countries during the same recession period? 

Comparing Economic Recoveries Across Countries During the Same Recession Period.

Since there have been comparisons between the European economies and the American economy:

1. How do the trends in the employment/ population ratio compare across countries?
2. Are European economies more likely to have structural changes in unemployment rates than the US?

Comparing Economic Recoveries Across Recessions in the Same Country.

What does the increasing "length" of the jobless recovery phase in a recovery mean, as a trend across recessions?

Is there something in the nature of the economy, the nature of the macroeconomic entities in the economy, the depth of the recession, or the boom period prior the recession that has primacy in terms of its impact on the nature of the recovery?

Here is one pattern of Socratic thought that explores the two questions above.

Is the increasing length of jobless recovery phase in a recovery, as a trend across recessions, a function of:

1. The increasingly service oriented nature of the economy?
2. An increasing dependence on large monolithic corporate entities over time as drivers of economic performance, with the dependence changing from direct hiring to a greater multiplier effect across the economic ecosystem in terms of dampening hiring?
3. The nature of work available to labor, which has changed from hyper-local activity, to increasingly being touched by global supply chains?
4. An increasing delinking of corporate performance, financial institution performance and "real" economy performance?
5. The degree of specialization, and education, require for work, requiring a greater time for individuals to unlearn, turn around and relearn?
• E.g. I talked about Baked by Melissa here, and surprise, surprise, it has expanded to four stores in NYC.
6. A greater population density in large metropolitan areas over time?
• This may be counter intuitive, if you think in terms of supply, where people band together to create economic activity (not everybody can be an entrepreneur).
• However, if you think in terms of depressed demand, which translates into opportunity for economic activity of a certain type, this may be a worthwhile line of inquiry.
7. Our lifestyles, which are less community driven, and hence make turnaround during recessions more difficult?
• E.g. This may be an effect seen in decreasing labor activism (ed- analysis to be done) with each passing recession.
8. A psychological effect (animal spirits) of the nature of the boom period that preceded it?
• E.g. How long did the Dutch economy take to recover from the tulip boom?
9. Simply the depth of the recession?

What do you think?

Note: Throw someone a thought provoking point about economics, and ye shall reap many more thoughts in return. These thoughts were first published in a macroeconomics forum, in the week of July 16th, 2011. Thank you, Prof. Rosensweig.

Google Plus and Apps.

Executive summary: App downloads continue to explode across various mobile and non mobile platforms. Are apps secondary to the Google Plus strategy? No. Here is why.

The Overview

In response to my last post on Google Plus, a wise man (thank you JJ) asked me whether I think products, not apps, are core to Google Plus' success. 

App downloads across various mobile and non mobile platforms (have you downloaded Spotify yet?) are exploding, and both paid and free app download projections till 2015 indicate they will become an integral part of our lives, if they aren't already.

So, the obvious answer? No.

Google Plus' Avenues to the Apps Superhighway
How does google plus play with apps? Here are some ways:

1. Android Mobile Platform Apps:

Google already has a mobile app platform with ready apps. Make it really easy for the apps to integrate with google plus.

2. Google Products as Apps:

Google products as apps are already a reality. Plug Google Plus into them.

3. Leverage/ Create an App Partner Ecosystem:

Android already has one for mobile apps. Google plus becomes one becomes the ecosystem for social across mobile. As I mentioned previously, the google ecosystem needs to spawn a few Zyngas, a few angry birds (while watching out for privacy trade-offs).

Easier said than done, right? The really interesting question? Can Google Plus also be the social collaboration framework for folks at work, and not just for folks at play?

What do you think?

Google Plus, and the Facebook and Apple Context

Executive Summary: Google Plus' future is for Google to throw away. It is in the hands of the marketing team (because I think the product is on a Moore's Law-ish trajectory), and in the hands of the unknown disruptive forces hiding in dark alleys. Yes, this is an unabashed, quick and dirty speculation on Google Plus' opportunity. From The Desk of Talking-About-Google+-As-a-Social Network-Is-Like-Calling-Le-Louvre-a-Little-Hovel.

After living with google+ for a while, here are some key, qualitative thoughts.

Throw away all that propaganda about Google Plus as a social network. Calling Google Plus a social network is like trying to fit an elephant into a refrigerator. Evaluate Google Plus against Facebook and Apple on the following dimensions:

• Core Company Products

• Digital Platform Integrating Core Products as an Ecosystem

• Flexible Social Platform

• A Gateway to a Digital Life
 
Now that we have got the obvious Big, Hairy, Audacious Ideas out of the way, here are the qualitative teasers I was talking about:

1. For The Believers:
Are you already a googlephile who cannot live without, atleast a few, google services? Then, Google Plus is, for now, google accounts on steroids, with controls and features staked onto it.
 
Very nicely done, though. Thank you. Not tacky at all. Now, segway to that Journey song from Glee.
 
2. Indicative Product Feature- Circles:
Very nicely done. Again. Lives up to its billing as the slayer of social network privacy concerns.

The circles model of relationships reminded me of a "brain's trust" model shared by a macroeconomics professor in graduate school. The graphical privacy controls makes you want to get comfortable by tweaking privacy to your comfort level.

Note, I have not talked about features like Hangout. All of those also falls under the "Nicely done. Thank you" category. Why pick Circles? It jumps at you like no other Google Plus feature.

3. Integrated Digital Platform:
Picasa for pics. Videos.YouTube. Yeh. Google has some pretty powerful and mature products. Google Plus comes "preloaded" with some of these google products. Google Plus is a great way to sew these products together, making it a complete and a serious digital platform.
 

Would you say that Google Plus is like an Apple ecosystem? Can it be like an Apple ecosystem? Can it be better than an Apple and a Facebook ecosystem rolled into one?

I think it can, but that is a different story, a different blog post. All Google has to do is light a few fires. Keep doing what it is doing on products. Keep integrating them. Oh, and spawn a few Zyngas now and then.
 
4. A Social Platform:
Will Google Plus be a serious social platform? That would be a function of adoption (think share of social life) and switching (think identifying this as a primary social platform).

Google Plus may hit 20 million + users by July 20. However, how many users will migrate from Facebook to Google Plus? How many will live in animated suspension between the two worlds? Finally, how many will use Google Plus as a glorified GMail service?

What would be your estimate of an equilibrium/ steady state Google Plus user base? 150+ MM? 250+ MM? 400+ MM? While staying out of China (for how long?)? What is your sense of the tipping point when Facebook users start migrating from Facebook to Google Plus, network by network?
 
5. Privacy Controls:
Yes, finding myself in a few folks' circles, when I hopped onto the platform, freaked me out a little.

Also, Google Plus, better than google accounts, brought home the fact that I use a lot of google products and all that information is a sneeze away from being mapped into a digital life.

If you live off GMail, this should not surprise you. However, since I can claim to understand a little bit about security, privacy concerns will always pop up in my mind. Maybe it is just me.

6. A Gateway to a Digital Life:
To borrow from a wise man I know (who is also on Google Plus) - can Google be my gateway to a digital life?

The Pitch? Without much ado (to all the Google engineers, yes I am being simplistic :-)), Google can be my online identity, my Netflix, and my computing device on a cloud. Even as a glue for the google products we already (or will) use, Google Plus will be a formidable doorway.

I am inclined to draw a bubble chart mapping how the Apple, Facebook and Google future state ecosystems would look 5 years from now. For now, all I will say that in his early days, Henry Ford would have been proud to call his company Google. Think Google Products + Android + Cloud + Google Wireless (Definitely Maybe?).

That's enough crystal ball gazing for now. I have stretched my definition of "key qualitative thoughts" far enough. Moreover, I would like to sneak in the crystal ball gazing in digestible chunks.

What do you think? If you do, you know where to catch me for a lively conversation.