Merle, I hope that doesn't mean you think it's good to vote for Trump.
Frank Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Oct 18, 2016 10:49 AM, "Merle Lefkoff" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 < > [email protected]> 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, [email protected] wrote: >> >> Send Friam mailing list submissions to >> [email protected] >> >> 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 >> [email protected] >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> [email protected] >> >> 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 <[email protected]> >> *Subject: **Re: [FRIAM] enablors vs disruptors* >> *Date: *October 18, 2016 at 6:10:12 AM PDT >> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >> [email protected]> >> >> >> "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 >> <[email protected]> >> >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Nick Thompson < >> [email protected]> 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:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Gillian >>> Densmore >>> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2016 5:55 PM >>> >>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >>> [email protected]> >>> *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 <[email protected]> >>> 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:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Owen >>> Densmore >>> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2016 3:47 PM >>> >>> >>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >>> [email protected]> >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] enablors vs disruptors >>> >>> >>> >>> Was the iPhone a disrupter? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Marcus Daniels <[email protected]> >>> 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:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Carl >>> Tollander >>> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2016 2:04 PM >>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >>> [email protected]> >>> *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" <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Nick >>> Thompson >>> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2016 12:18 PM >>> *To:* friam <[email protected]> >>> *Cc:* 'Stephen Guerin' <[email protected]> >>> *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 <[email protected]> >> *Subject: **Re: [FRIAM] enablors vs disruptors* >> *Date: *October 18, 2016 at 7:46:40 AM PDT >> *To: *[email protected] >> >> >> 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:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Gillian >> Densmore >> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2016 5:55 PM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >> [email protected]> >> *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 <[email protected]> >> 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:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Owen >> Densmore >> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2016 3:47 PM >> >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >> [email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] enablors vs disruptors >> >> Was the iPhone a disrupter? >> >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Marcus Daniels <[email protected]> >> 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:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Carl >> Tollander >> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2016 2:04 PM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >> [email protected]> >> *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" <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Nick >> Thompson >> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2016 12:18 PM >> *To:* friam <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* 'Stephen Guerin' <[email protected]> >> *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┫ <[email protected]> >> *Subject: **Re: [FRIAM] enablors vs disruptors* >> *Date: *October 18, 2016 at 8:56:37 AM PDT >> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >> [email protected]> >> >> >> >> 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 >> [email protected] >> 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 > [email protected] > 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 >
============================================================ 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
