…great talent but not as we know it…

I’ve been reading Global Remix by Richard Scase over the last week or so; it’s one of those books where you can visualise the author speaking out the words. If you’ve met Richard, you’ll know what I mean. It’s a larger-than-life high-speed book concentrated on his vision of the future.

In a chapter headed Global Remix: the new corporate playlist, Richard makes some interesting comments on Generation M:

More young people attend universities and institutions of higher education than ever before. If ever there were a link between talent and qualification, this has been made tenuous by governments’ commitment to expand higher education opportunities. No longer can companies assume that university graduates have employable skills. High-performing companies demand additional qualities. They want potential employees with imagination and ideas that will make up the talent pools for future innovation and growth. Do universities encourage these qualities? Some do, but on the whole it is left to a minority of elite institutions to perform this task. But there is also the bedroom.

Many parents have teenage and younger children who spend quite a lot of time in their bedrooms. They respond to parental commands through text messaging, e-mails and, occasionally, grunts. Parents with children of this kind should be congratulated for bringing up normal, well-adjusted youngsters. But they fear for their children’s futures. Will they ever be employable? But — what is going on in the bedroom?

More often than not, the unleashing of talents far greater than those of their parents when they were of a similar age. Some of them are producing their own music CDs; not simply downloading them but actually creating them. Others are doing the same with DVDs, while even others are playing games on the internet, assembled in global-based virtual teams.

[….]

What this means this that companies will have to change. As discussed earlier, they will need to be cafe corporations. But, more than that, they will have to tolerate non-conformity and individuality in terms of attitudes, behaviour, dress codes and lifestyles. Small businesses are more likely to allow for these personal differences than large companies. That’s why the iPod generation is more attracted to working in small firms; they are given more space and personal autonomy.

I think Richard’s on to something when he talks about what’s going on in the bedroom. Sure, you’ve heard a lot of it before, but I think there’s a subtler point.

In the previous generation of entrepreneurship, all the creativity and talent was in the garage. That’s where the elephant organisations of today were conceived and birthed. In the garage. With all its attendant tools and toolsets and minds and mindsets, never straying far from their DNA of Taylor and Coase and McLuhan.

It’s different for Generation M. This time the creativity and talent has been in the bedroom, not the garage. The DNA is different. Today’s entrepreneurs have no idea who Taylor was, don’t care who Coase was, and don’t like what McLuhan stood for.

And much as I’d like them to, they don’t know who Jerry Garcia was, haven’t heard of Richard Stallman and Eric Raymond or even Linus Torvalds, but they know Linux. They know Skype. They know Open. They know Convenient. They know Simple. And they know Stupid.

They know.

Barry Schwartz understands our generation and why we feel imprisoned by choice. And he articulates, very well, why we feel that way. Now, slowly, I’m beginning to understand why Generation M is different. They’re impervious to McLuhan, so they don’t have the same post-marketing expectations. They’re immune to information overload, so they don’t get stressed out by megachoice. They know what they like and what they don’t like.

So I’m going to continue to study them, continue to help them conquer the challenges I know, and hope they can help me conquer the challenges  they know.

On the point of things like YouTube

Ricky Gervais was recently quoted as saying:
“You can’t knock up an episode of The Sopranos or 24 on a little handheld digital camera. I don’t think you’ll ever be able to sidestep TV or DVD. But TV companies will embrace it.”

I’m not sure that TV companies will ever be able to embrace things like YouTube that easily, not unless they give up on the Hit Culture Needs Heavy Investment Lie. Even the CBS approach is to use YouTube as a delivery mechanism, a “channel”, for their “hit content”.

I think this is a variant of the infrastructure lie that seeks to suppress social software. Why do people think that good robust production of digital things needs heavy infrastructure investment? Maybe it’s because nobody got fired for buying .

I need to think about it. There is something disturbing about that lie. In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy YouTube, as long as they let me see clips like this one and this one and this one.

Are patents toast?

No.

It appears, though, that toast may be patentable, especially if what is toasted is a sandwich.

McDonald’s have filed a patent in the US and Europe for “simultaneous toasting of a bread component“. I thought I would have better things to do than to read the whole 55-page document, but I may be tempted. How else would I come across terms like “bread component” and “sandwich delivery tool“?

How else would I learn that “Often the sandwich filling is the source of the name of the sandwich; for example, ham sandwich?” Wow. I shall wait eagerly for the powers-that-be to apply that logic to a hamburger.

Maybe I have it all wrong. Maybe I shouldn’t be striving to get the IPR and DRM processes radically changed. Maybe there’s a better way.

Maybe I should come up with a new business plan. Buy up all the rights to the publishing of patents. And start a new journal, publishing them.

In the humour section.

Now if we could convince Hugh Macleod to do the artwork, we could have a 21st century Heath Robinson, with all the raw material coming from the patent filings. Hugh? Anyone else? Borat Sagdiyev maybe?

Thanks to Cory for the tip-off.

Customer availability

Take a look at what Sean’s been doing with The Intention Economy. I’ve tried to cover some of that space over at Shane Richmond’s blog; if you’re interested, read this piece on Customers and Differentiation.

All this brings to mind a wonderful photograph I saw over at Christopher Carfi’s Social Customer Manifesto, which I reproduce here. [thanks to Chris and to Carlson C, who did the original upload].

274343446_0b4ce3a813_m.jpg

Updates on NewTailBlog

Looks like a few people like NewtailBlog; as Dave points out, people have tried it before, with varying levels of success.

Not everyone likes it, or maybe Sid was making some other point. That’s a prerogative that every one of us must have.

Stephen’s comment, following up on Sid’s, mentions the “rehearsal” attraction of blogging. I think that’s what Doc Searls meant when he said that blogging was provisional. For sure I use blogs to help me think things through, to improve my understanding of things, to learn from the bouquets and the brickbats.

So anyway.

Staying with . I was privileged to have quite a few really talented bloggers at the last place I worked, and want to use this opportunity to introduce them to you:

Sean Park A great read for all kinds of subjects, but particularly on digital markets
Malcolm Dick Malc is one of the most thoughtful people I have ever known, objective and dispassionate
Phil Dawes He was the first real external blogger at the bank, and is a tour de force on the semantic web amongst other things. An absolute must-read for those more technically minded
Dominic Sayers Like Malc, a very thoughtful guy with real insights on aspects of IT, well worth tracking

Can’t remember where I saw it, but I recall someone describing Einstein as having real trouble with understanding things that others considered obvious.

Maybe that’s what real curiosity is. Having trouble with understanding the obvious, while having the passion to do something about it.
That’s what Sean, Malc, Phil and Dom do. And they’re my NewTailBlogs for today.