I have written about the meaning and implications of 'social' before and I will continue to do so, because I believe it to be a fundamental issue that so far is not getting the attention it deserves. Just look at the never ending debates about Facebook's privacy policies.

Let's face it. Facebook and the other networks are nothing more (and nothing less) than very smart programs, systems of communication that allow their users to express themselves and exchange ideas as well as information. The networks are NOT social, because they are not human beings. The people that run the networks and their users can be social, but not the communication systems themselves.

Let's look at Facebook for a moment. It can not redefine social norms, as has been suggested recently. However I do believe that its owners are trying to do so and that is an important difference. From an economic perspective, the people that run Facebook are acting very rationally: The less privacy there is, the more they know about their users. The more they know about their users, the higher the price that they can fetch for those users, when renting them to the advertising industry. After all, how else are they going to make a profit? Sounds familiar, doesn't it? It should, because that's exactly what traditional media was and is doing.

Whether or not the owners of Facebook are going to be successful, depends on us, i.e. users. If we disapprove, we are free to leave Facebook. Facebook depends more on us than we do on them for the time being. I personally would prefer to see many more 'smaller' networks, catering to very specific needs. Diversity with Facebook as one of many networks is for the public good, a Facebook monopoly is not.

Rather than focusing on the tools we use, we should take the time to think a bit more about why we do what we do, as this will raise our awareness for the social implications of our behavior.

Posted via email from You-Brand

Brands also spend a lot of time, money and sometimes creativity to find the right name. It is important as it influences awareness, aspirational as well as brand values. The results are sometimes tragic, especially in the age of globalization. One of many examples is the Irish liqueur 'Irish Mist'. In German 'Mist' means 'dung', 'garbage'

But the power of nomenclature strikes elsewhere as well, in words that we see and use daily without thinking about the real meaning. One example that struck me today is the 'Value Added Tax'. The value added tax, expressed in a percentage of the price of a product, is a major source of state income. It makes products more expensive for the consumer, but most certainly doesn't add value to them. The nomenclature is manipulating the consumer in a very subtle way. It is also interesting to note that in Germany the value added tax is 7% for dog food and 19% for baby food, but that is a different story.

There must be many more examples of subtle manipulation like this. Thinking about and analyzing the words, especially the descriptive terms, we use can be quite enlightening.

Posted via email from You-Brand

Consumer Electronics have certainly come a long way. It is fascinating to see what technology is capable of. We can receive hundreds of programs via satellite or cable on bigger and bigger screens. One of the latest examples is the 3D plasma TV presented at the CES. Often I ask myself, how much value this piece of technology really adds with the present state of TV programming. After all a 3D plasma TV doesn’t transform a lousy program into a fantastic program. However it is probably fantastic for aquarium, fish tank or fireplace DVD’s and some people would also consider it to be a beautiful modern design object. None of which are reasons to buy a TV, or are they?

Many broadcasting stations prefer to copy successful programs in order to maximize short term profits. I wish producers would invest more time and budget in quality content. Unfortunately technological overkill with a trivial storyline is becoming the norm, rather than being the exception. The regular excuse is that what is being aired is what people want to see (and what is being watched brings in the advertising revenues). I don’t buy that. There are those that stop watching TV. There are those that spend their time desperately zapping from one channel to the other. There are those that consume TV without enjoying what they are seeing. And there are some that actually like what they see.

Are public or private broadcasting stations still appropriate in today’s environment or isn’t it time to think about new business models in the age of the Internet? Look at what the iPod in combination with individualized quality content via iTunes did to the big record labels. Consider the success of the iPhone in combination with the individualized quality content via the App Store.

And yes, Casablanca with Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman in B&W still is fantastic

Posted via email from You-Brand