I read recently that it was economist Joseph Schumpeter who observed that
originality is an act of creative destruction.  We have to demolish the old
way of doing things when we advocate for new systems.  As someone who
applies complexity to changing public policy, I feel I have no other
choice.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Michael Stevens <m...@strategicwriting.com
> wrote:

> I have lot of experience in high tech marketing. I can say that the term
> “disruptor” has become a bit of a cliché. A high tech company billing
> itself as a disruptor really has to have a so-called secret sauce (also a
> cliché) that is both genuinely unique - nobody but nobody else can do it,
> and there are high barriers to entry - and  it must be easy to explain. In
> marketing materials (white papers, presentations, etc.) I would lead with
> the secret sauce, outline the pain that it relieves (most important point),
> and then say, “We think this is a disruptor.” The word “enabler” is pretty
> weak in my opinion, even though it might be accurate for some technologies.
> To me, saying “We’re an enabler” has the connotation of “We want to be
> acquired.” For what it’s worth.
> Mike Stevens
> On Oct 18, 2016, at 9:00 AM, friam-requ...@redfish.com wrote:
>
> Send Friam mailing list submissions to
> friam@redfish.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> friam-requ...@redfish.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> friam-ow...@redfish.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: enablors vs disruptors (Eric Charles)
>   2. Re: enablors vs disruptors (Prof David West)
>   3. Re: enablors vs disruptors (?glen?)
>
> *From: *Eric Charles <eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com>
> *Subject: **Re: [FRIAM] enablors vs disruptors*
> *Date: *October 18, 2016 at 6:10:12 AM PDT
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
>
>
> "If you ARE (factual) or WERE (counter-factual) a technology startup, do
> you (would you) advertise yourself as a disruptor? "
>
> Ooooh, THAT is a messy question. If I was technology startup, I would be
> priming whatever words/concepts Venture Capitalists are receptive to this
> week. That is because, alas, alas, alas, the goal of most tech startups is
> to be invested in, and then bought out, before anyone is certain whether we
> have done anything that will last. Don't get me wrong, I don't think most
> are trying to snow investors, only that their goal is not to run their
> company for the next 50 years, and so the short-term prospects of the
> company are more important than the long-term prospects, and those
> prospects are driven my markets that are not dominated by mortal
> "customers." In that context, the ability to "disrupt" has been
> consistently held in high regard. At the least, if you can make the
> argument convincing. People getting products for little-to-no money like to
> try potentially disruptive things, and investors like to see large customer
> bases, even if those customers have provided little-to-no money.
>
> In contrast, if I was a non-technology startup (say a co-owner of a
> solar-panel installation company presided over by a brother), my goals
> would be quite different: Slowly and systematically building
> a local-community client base, on a foundation of treating my employees
> well and providing good value to my customers. I wouldn't want to be
> disruptive at all, outside of disrupting the market share held by my
> competitors.
>
>
>
>
> -----------
> Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
> Supervisory Survey Statistician
> U.S. Marine Corps
> <echar...@american.edu>
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Nick Thompson <
> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, everybody,
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess I have one more question before I try to respond to some these
>> excellent comments:
>>
>>
>>
>> If you ARE (factual) or WERE (counter-factual) a technology startup, do
>> you (would you) advertise yourself as a disruptor?  What would the
>> promotional THEORY  behind doing so?  What market share would you be hoping
>> to capture.  What would be the business model?
>>
>>
>>
>> N
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>
>> Clark University
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Gillian
>> Densmore
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2016 5:55 PM
>>
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>> friam@redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] enablors vs disruptors
>>
>>
>>
>> Enablers are things like an enabled (turned on) WarpCoil or Inertial
>> Dampeners or Teleporters.  Disrupters shoot stuff to blow up rocks.
>>
>> But  I suspect nick or his friend don't mean as in from StarTrek.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Sure, mobile internet & cloud was a disrupter to the PC industry and to
>> the business of selling analog landlines.
>>
>> Intel recently had layoffs of more than 10k workers as a result.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Owen
>> Densmore
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2016 3:47 PM
>>
>>
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>> friam@redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] enablors vs disruptors
>>
>>
>>
>> Was the iPhone a disrupter?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I’d say the folks that think a jackhammer is needed, aren’t a victim of
>> the folks with the concrete in a truck (that presumably pour it on anything
>> they can!), they *are* the sites where a jackhammer is now a useful
>> instrument.  This makes me think of those bathtubs that can be installed
>> right on top of old tubs.   Pour baby pour!
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Carl
>> Tollander
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2016 2:04 PM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>> friam@redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] enablors vs disruptors
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, there's the concrete truck and then there's the jackhammer.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 17, 2016 1:24 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <mar...@snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>>
>> It depends on whether, like David, you point to liberalism as the threat
>> to individual freedom and productivity, or the momentum of conservativism
>> and oligarchy to constrain lives.    Some (like Assange) can’t stand either
>> one.   A disruptor seeks a benign sort of chaos when power can shift hands
>> quickly, and repeatedly.  The people that are all used up and have limited
>> skills *should* give way to those that do.   Sure they can try to elect
>> someone like Trump, but that’s where sophisticated “liberal autocracy” must
>> step-up to outmaneuver the reactionaries.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Nick
>> Thompson
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2016 12:18 PM
>> *To:* friam <friam@redfish.com>
>> *Cc:* 'Stephen Guerin' <stephen.gue...@simtable.com>
>> *Subject:* [FRIAM] enablors vs disruptors
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Friammers,
>>
>>
>>
>> A close friend of mine has gone to work in marketing for a Startup
>> Incubator in Another City.  I have been perusing the website and I notice
>> frequent use of the word “disruptors”, as if disruption was a goal in
>> itself.  This puzzles me.  I have always thought of technology as
>> “enabling’ and have thought of its disruptive effects as a kind of
>> collateral damage that needs to be mitigated.  Now I recognize that one of
>> the properties of a really good technology company is the ability to
>> respond quickly to disruption, and to provide solutions and open up
>> opportunities for those whose lives are disrupted.  And I realize that if I
>> owned a technology company, I might want to produce disruption in order
>> that I might supply “enablors” to the disrupted.  But isn’t it a case of
>> industrial narcissism to MARKET oneself as a disruptor, a kind of
>> “preaching to the choir”, rather than outreach to potential purchasers of
>> one’s technology?  Or is my thinking “oh so 20th Century.”
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>
>> Clark University
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm>
> *Subject: **Re: [FRIAM] enablors vs disruptors*
> *Date: *October 18, 2016 at 7:46:40 AM PDT
> *To: *friam@redfish.com
>
>
> If I was head of marketing for any company, but especially a tech company
> startup or otherwise, I likely would be enamored of using taglines like,
> "This changes everything!" Connotations of the future, of excitement, of
> adventure, just the right amount of tension (fear) from uncertainty,
> promise of new opportunities, etc. etc.  I.e., I would market as a
> disruptor without using the word.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016, at 09:29 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
> Thanks, everybody,
>
> I guess I have one more question before I try to respond to some these
> excellent comments:
>
> If you ARE (factual) or WERE (counter-factual) a technology startup, do
> you (would you) advertise yourself as a disruptor?  What would the
> promotional THEORY  behind doing so?  What market share would you be hoping
> to capture.  What would be the business model?
>
> N
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Gillian
> Densmore
> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2016 5:55 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] enablors vs disruptors
>
> Enablers are things like an enabled (turned on) WarpCoil or Inertial
> Dampeners or Teleporters.  Disrupters shoot stuff to blow up rocks.
> But  I suspect nick or his friend don't mean as in from StarTrek.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com>
> wrote:
>
> Sure, mobile internet & cloud was a disrupter to the PC industry and to
> the business of selling analog landlines.
> Intel recently had layoffs of more than 10k workers as a result.
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Owen
> Densmore
> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2016 3:47 PM
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] enablors vs disruptors
>
> Was the iPhone a disrupter?
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com>
> wrote:
>
> I’d say the folks that think a jackhammer is needed, aren’t a victim of
> the folks with the concrete in a truck (that presumably pour it on anything
> they can!), they *are* the sites where a jackhammer is now a useful
> instrument.  This makes me think of those bathtubs that can be installed
> right on top of old tubs.   Pour baby pour!
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Carl
> Tollander
> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2016 2:04 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] enablors vs disruptors
>
>
> Well, there's the concrete truck and then there's the jackhammer.
>
> On Oct 17, 2016 1:24 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <mar...@snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>
> It depends on whether, like David, you point to liberalism as the threat
> to individual freedom and productivity, or the momentum of conservativism
> and oligarchy to constrain lives.    Some (like Assange) can’t stand either
> one.   A disruptor seeks a benign sort of chaos when power can shift hands
> quickly, and repeatedly.  The people that are all used up and have limited
> skills *should* give way to those that do.   Sure they can try to elect
> someone like Trump, but that’s where sophisticated “liberal autocracy” must
> step-up to outmaneuver the reactionaries.
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Nick
> Thompson
> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2016 12:18 PM
> *To:* friam <friam@redfish.com>
> *Cc:* 'Stephen Guerin' <stephen.gue...@simtable.com>
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] enablors vs disruptors
>
>
> Dear Friammers,
>
> A close friend of mine has gone to work in marketing for a Startup
> Incubator in Another City.  I have been perusing the website and I notice
> frequent use of the word “disruptors”, as if disruption was a goal in
> itself.  This puzzles me.  I have always thought of technology as
> “enabling’ and have thought of its disruptive effects as a kind of
> collateral damage that needs to be mitigated.  Now I recognize that one of
> the properties of a really good technology company is the ability to
> respond quickly to disruption, and to provide solutions and open up
> opportunities for those whose lives are disrupted.  And I realize that if I
> owned a technology company, I might want to produce disruption in order
> that I might supply “enablors” to the disrupted.  But isn’t it a case of
> industrial narcissism to MARKET oneself as a disruptor, a kind of
> “preaching to the choir”, rather than outreach to potential purchasers of
> one’s technology?  Or is my thinking “oh so 20th Century.”
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *┣glen┫ <geprope...@gmail.com>
> *Subject: **Re: [FRIAM] enablors vs disruptors*
> *Date: *October 18, 2016 at 8:56:37 AM PDT
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
>
>
>
> I think Eric did a good job demonstrating that the use of "technology" in
> "technology startup" is at least ambiguous, if not a straight-up misnomer.
> But another ambiguity lies in the word "startup".  My company is routinely
> misclassified as a startup simply because we're small and have our hands in
> some (seemingly) novel pies.  But we're just a "boutique" company, which is
> decidedly different from the VC-seeking, market-focused, pockets of
> turbulence one usually means by "startup".
>
> All this yammering the marketeers do about disruption is red meat for the
> audience of the business books section at Barnes & Noble, right next to the
> self-help and homeopathy sections.  It's not quite nonsense, though.  The
> myth that any single innovation, linearly drives the market this way or
> that is caused and maintained by the same psychological condition that
> makes us think Einstein, Newton, Hitler, or whoever was pivotal to the
> development of mankind.  These Great People were drafted by the collective
> to play those roles.  They were not causative, isolated, instances.
>
> The same is true of any other technological advance from beer brewing to
> germ theory to the iphone.
>
>
> On 10/17/2016 08:29 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
> If you ARE (factual) or WERE (counter-factual) a technology startup, do
> you (would you) advertise yourself as a disruptor?  What would the
> promotional THEORY  behind doing so?  What market share would you be hoping
> to capture.  What would be the business model?
>
>
> --
> ␦glen?
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Friam mailing list
> Friam@redfish.com
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>



-- 
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
merlelef...@gmail.com
mobile:  (303) 859-5609
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Reply via email to