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" <merlelefk...@gmail.com> 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 <
> 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
>
============================================================
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