Both ’startup’ and ‘entrepreneur’ are terms that immediately evoke an often false reaction from an audience and I would personally prefer not to describe my work using those words. In the following post, I write about three associations in regards to entrepreneurship, one positive, one negative, both somewhat false, and one what I see entrepreneurship as really: just a job. As usual, these diary posts, which I try to write in a short amount of time, are produced with minimal editing. I hope it makes sense. All my entrepreneurial diary posts can be followed under the tag ‘Vincent’s eDiary.’ I don’t write about what we do as a company on purpose, but you can always ask in the comments or via the email address on the right.

The popular associations
The word entrepreneur has two popular and a third upcoming association. One association is negative, that of a risk-taker and in some ways a loser—this would be more in a European context where job-security is highly valued. The other is positive, that of a potential Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, i.e. the smart entrepreneur who sees a big opportunity and has the drive, intelligence, and access to other resources to make it very big.

Of these two, the latter is what we are all aiming for, but realistically that applies to less than 1% of entrepreneurs today (using the very broad definition of someone that starts anything from 1-man webdesign company to an ambitious cure for cancer). The first association is also a misunderstanding of entrepreneurship, as entrepreneurs are not blind risk-takers, or at least they shouldn’t be. I would say and hope that it applies to a minority of entrepreneurs also.

The third association: a career-choice
The third association is that of an upcoming trend: entrepreneurship as simply a job. You’ll find plenty of job-adverts with “entrepreneurial attitude a plus” or similar in the job-description, a term I hate just as much as the often mis-used “business development,” standing for just B2B sales.

Added to the job-description part comes that there are plenty of entrepreneurial courses and full academic programmes available to the public, one of which I enjoyed, though I know from personal experience that that doesn’t make a person an entrepreneur.

A third factor contributing to the ‘entrepreneurship is a job’ association is easier access to the marketplace. I’ve had some online discussions with Cecil Dijoux on this blog about today’s technology culture in the context of enterprise software development, and there is as much a democratisation of software-/web-ware development, as there is of other increasingly “low-tech” industries. (As a side note: My definition of low-tech is a technology something has very low barriers to developing it.).

I think that the abundance of resources (not just) in regards to programming, to very well developed (internet) distribution methods for getting products, tangible or intangible, out to customers, as well as more-and-more programmes for funding/assisting startups, means that entrepreneurs have access to a better developed funnel where it comes to their profession of gathering resources and marketing their products.

That doesn’t make it easy, and actually brings other challenges like being one tree in a very large forest, but it does mean that it can be seen as a type of job.

Now, what is there not to like about the word ‘entrepreneurship’?
Maybe it’s a personal thing, but I feel very uncomfortable telling people I meet that I’m an entrepreneur. One, I do see it like a job, a job that I have to do well, and nothing special really. The term ‘entrepreneurship’ makes it sound fancy, which it is not. Two, I’m a European and I do feel the same association that many Europeans have to the word, which is that it’s “less than a real job.” Rationally, I don’t think that’s true, but emotionally I have found myself feeling the following initial reaction more than once when someone comes up to me and describes himself as an entrepreneur:

“Get a job, you hippie!”

Add to this that a startup is not a company until it makes money, and an entrepreneur is not an entrepreneur until he makes money doing what he does.

So I think the term ‘entrepreneurship’ is glorified, perhaps invented to make entrepreneurs feel like they’re doing something special, same as the term ‘Artist’ or ‘Inventor.’ Art isn’t art unless the audience considers it so, and people have invented plenty of mousetraps that are now collecting dust in a garage somewhere.

Suggest something new please
I’d like a new term for what I do and maybe you can suggest one. It should perhaps be related to a startup, which immediately summarises what is happening: A company that is starting up and isn’t there where it wants and needs to be yet.

The problem is that an entrepreneur is not always in the same class as a startup. He can be 50 years old and have a long and successful career behind him. Would you call him a “starter,” a term often used for people fresh out of college applying for a job at Consultant X or Multinational Y? Generally, entrepreneurs are responsible for the activities that happen in a startup in order to make it a success. Their chances of success increase if they have prior experience, resources, and networks to build upon, that make it easier to access the three pillars of “starting up,” as I’ve summarised in the picture above.

In regards to the above, I personally like to describe my work as “I’m running a small company and we’re developing a new product X,” but that is also a bit of a mouthful.

The other side of the coin is that entrepreneurs are in (desperate) need of marketing, where glorification does play a part. I read somewhere that entrepreneurship can be described as the process of developing something irregardless of resources currently in possession. That suggests a pitch is necessary, and perhaps already being termed an entrepreneur helps getting a foot in the door. I doubt it and it would personally bother me if that’s all it took, but I’m smart enough to realise that we “entrepreneurs” need to do whatever it takes to acquire resources, as long as it fits our code of ethics of course.

So, entrepreneurship, yes or no? I don’t like the term, but I may be stuck with it. If I come up with something more apt, I’ll let you know. And same for you please!

Hi, Vincent here. I have neither the intent, nor the talent to develop this application, but it was a thought/pain I experienced at a museum today and an iTunes search didn’t reveal an app like it.

A brief background. I’m pretty a-cultural, but I find audio-tours in museums generally a must, which means I usually spend the 5 or 10 euros extra to get one of those players to walk around the exhibition with headphones on. A little anti-social, but it helped me discover the lives of some amazing artists, like Vincent van Gogh, Rembrandt, Toulouse-Lautrec, etc. And my favourite nation of artists: Japan!

Yesterday, I was an an exhibition of “That Scream Guy” Edvard Munch. I was there with my sister and it seemed a little wasteful (it was only 3 rooms of lithographies), not to mention anti-social, to get an audio-guide. Still, it helps tremendously to get just a little background on a picture, really adding to the experience.

Here’s the iPhone app I would like to see.

1. Point the phone at a painting (an immediate weakness there),
2. image recognition happens (how?),
3. it hooks into a source of info about it (preferably in an audio-format) such as Wikipedia,
4. and you get to hear or see a description of the painting you are seeing.

It’s nothing genius and apart from perhaps the image recognition part, it seems fairly cheap/easy to produce.

The one weakness: cameras in museums aren’t always allowed. I would guess this means that you have to work together with museums to get things going (which sucks!).

Well, this is just something I want to throw out there, a la the much underused twitter hashtag #freeideasiwanttoseehappen

So if someone is looking for a creative challenge, you have your first customer right here!

/Vincent

There’s talk on the web about “thought leadership” (I prefer the term “thought inspiration”), so I felt like writing something about what sources, podcasts this time, inspire thinking with me. An obvious example would be TED, which I think most of us know, but today I’ll list a few that I listen to regularly, which you might not.

Here goes:

• The New Yorker’s Out Loud series: I find myself listening to a variety of topics through this 10 min. podcast, from Barbar the elephant and how its idea was inspired by French colonialism; to the murder of Russian investigative journalist, Anna Politkovskaya; to the history of (the horrible) auto-tune, which can make anyone a vocalist.
• Big Ideas, which is a Canadian educational broadcast on iTunes, and basically showcases some excellent lectures on topics ranging from: the sense and senselessness of stretching; to Naomi Klein on her book, The Shock Doctrine; to author Robert J. Sawyer on why Star Wars shouldn’t belong to the science fiction genre and is actually quite a devolution to that genre.
• Scene Unseen, in which two students of film go back and forth on movies that came out this week, as well as picking some pretty damn interesting DVDs to watch. A must-listen for film-lovers!

Of course, there’s also iInnovate, Stanford’s Entrepreneurial Thought Leaders, This American Life, and the, now finished, Game Theory podcasts, some of which I’ve written about before on this blog, and which are most definitely worth checking out.

As might be clear from this selection, to me, thought inspiration (or leadership) can come from all kinds of directions, not just technology or business expertise.

Have some podcasts that you find interesting? List them in the comments!

Vincent

I’m a little sick with the flu, hence a few days off blogging, but I just wanted to share this with you (the video from vbs.tv does not seem to show up in the rss-feed).

It’s the story of Carlos Amorales, a Mexican visual artist, who does some pretty interesting things, including: graphic design, installations, performance art, and co-founding a record-label. If you don’t have time to watch the whole thing (it’s only 14 min.!), worth checking out is:

• 01:15, when he shows how me makes his illustrations by keeping a digital database of images in different shapes. All in black, though he occasionally uses red. If you think these simplistic, then look at some of his installations (next point), and you see that these are just the beginning, really.
• 04:40, when he shows some of his installations and talks about how they give the audience the ability to enter the work. It made me think about how creative developers/artist can use the new technology of “augmented reality” to create layers above art-installations that take you more into the experience. Any museum I go to these days, I always get the audio-tour as  it adds to my understanding of what I’m seeing. The same could apply to pointing your mobile camera at it and seeing a visual augmentation. Of course, this is where those infernal copyright laws come in; I think this is something that should be done first with certain avant garde / independent artist, to show-case the potential…
• 09:20, when he talks about his record label, Nuevos Ricos (turn down your speakers before clicking this link), for which they created a manifesto, which included giving all the music away for free. Instead the focus was on performance, on entertainment. I mean, well it’s completely ridiculous and you can see that it’s more of an experiment to understand youth culture. At the same time, it is something that many anti-copyright people (including me) have argued for, that music should be about the performance, not about making money from a shiny disc / digital file. But in the end, maybe music/art should be about self-expression and we all express ourselves in different ways. Some, like the clowns in the video, who have very little musical talent, will prefer showcasing themselves. Others will prefer to just make music and make a living from that. We live in a very nuanced world, after all…

End thoughts, hope to be back this Monday.

Vincent

By the sea, you mostly think about people, pedicure, skin, sand, seaweed, tennis balls and of course you try to make a link between innovation, start-ups and their connection with guerilla marketing.
what? you don’t? come on, you are not even geek enough …

Keyword of this head-on-the-sand brainstorming : Guerrilla Marketing
Always very impressive.
Knitting sockets for street-lamps, waking up your co-citizens,  or printing you “tete” (head) on the floor out of the metro to sell records or ray ban glasses…. ah ! fascinating – respect for the brand / checked . prescription circle short-circuited and the brand needs a promotion to an icon.
I had kind of forgotten of this silly risky stuff going back to my mentally safe and rigid country-cocoon. Until a few days ago I stumbled over a campaign made for Media Markt from Leo Burnett that is actually a guerrilla marketing study-case. click it!
Media Markt Junkmen.
In two words the guys used an ancient  hoaxing mechanism for the real world and attempted to turn it into a sales channel. Actually  since it had a guerilla conotation the guys just tested reactions without really managing the channel. And of course they raised comments, digs and lifted eyebrows in various shapes.

Doesn’t advertising need it’s own R&D space? Second life what? Real life needed… To my attention, there are no real start-ups in the advertising space (end-to-end) so this risk had to be integrated into a big corporation’s structure like Leo Burnett. (ok maybe there are, but that’s another post)

Three comments from my side.
one : they and us have to get used to it, interactivity is here.
two : guerrilla has the same connotation as innovation, as for now (this is why geeks like that stuff)

three : next week, the time I hold my breath underwater I am going to take this further — How do you turn  guerrilla heroes and heroism into sustainable business and transform surprise to respect from the mass and their structured values ?

some of your good ideas might help me … breathe better

Georgia

We’ll be migrating Tech IT Easy from wordpress.com to a self-hosted solution these coming days, so I won’t be posting much, I don’t think. In the mean time, here are a few things flying through my head.

Men can’t get away with this !!

Jason Kottke pointed me towards an anti-fashion-industry trend lead by some women: the wearing-one-dress-slightly-altered-day-in-day-out-trend. Somewhat jealous, because it seems so efficient (and thus manly), but I don’t think men can get away with doing something like that, do you? Then again, men also don’t look quite as attractive…

Factors influencing the ‘virtual office’

I’ve heard several stories of entrepreneurs setting up their companies that they can operate it independently from a location, and if you’ve read some of my posts on “designing companies” and mobility, you know that I feel very strongly about doing something similar. In VAT-law, there’s the rule that you can’t locate your VAT-payments to a VAT-friendly country if you’re doing significant business in the VAT-unfriendly country. I’m guessing it’s quite similar with virtual offices. If your business activities tie you to a particular location, than that is a ‘tax’ that you have to pay.

Since there are plenty of smart tax-lawyers around who know their way around the loop-holes, perhaps it’s time for some ‘expert-consultants’ that help entrepreneurs become location-free?? The 4-hour workweek guy comes to mind.

On building (corporate) Knowledge Centres

I grew up in a library, one which my father built, so I may have a different perspective from people growing up in the more digital, paper-free world. But, to me, libraries are magical and comforting. One of the first things I did, moving to Luxembourg, was to move many of my books here (with more on the way) and asking my boss whether we can set up a library.

More broadly, a library to me stands for building and storing knowledge, whether for individuals or groups, and is a source of creativity, innovation, and also trust. Large consultancies are most famous for doing such things and if you saw the virtual universities some of them have train their staff, you’d be amazed.

No great point to this story, except that I hope that as an entrepreneur/manager/CEO you’ll also consider how to improve the lives of your employees sometimes, as well as consider that your company, which is essentially a living organism, will only benefit from having more knowledge inside of it.

On that philosophical note, I.. am.. out.

Vincent

I took part in a seminar on venture financing yesterday, at the ABN Amro headquarters in Amsterdam, as part of the New Venture business-plan competition. Some very dry material and not much to report, I’m afraid. I did get some positive signals that this recession will not hit banks as hard as the media makes it out to be, and similarly, equity financing, which makes relatively little use of debt. More on that perhaps when I get sent a copy of the presentation given by Maarten Holleswinkel, from Holland Corporate Finance.

The really enjoyable part is, as always, meeting bright entrepreneurs and inventors, and you can smell the energy in the room, particularly when ideas are being discussed and explored. Last year, I heard that anyone that can create an effective, efficient way to store and transport large amounts of energy will have hit upon a gold mine, and yesterday I happened to meet someone that studied exactly this problem, designing solar-powered micro-sattelites at a Delft company in the Netherlands. The guy went completely nuts on the idea and pretty soon others joined in too. Loved it and I’ll be sure to stay in touch with those guys.

The “Quit Hill”

But the highlight of the evening was definitely when I met a marketeer / artist, called Jan Willem Wartena of urbanjoy.org. He developed this weird park attraction, called “de FLUISTERHEUVEL” (translated: The Quit Hill; see picture) for a park in Utrecht and is a big favourite at the competition.

Google-translated, the “Fluisterheuvel” can be described as:

The Quiet Hill consists of two opposing hills, with parabolic collapsed wall in the form of a half circle, the size of a football goal. When whispering into the focal point of one parabolic, you can hear it in the opposing parabolic as if you were wearing headphones! The unit invites you to play an innovative communicative game, use it as a football goal, a climbing device, and as an open gaming platform.

Talking to him was a real joy because he’s both very kind and constantly talking about different creative ideas. I liked the process in which he came up with the concept of the Quit Hill, which involved first of all, observing how different groups of people, young and old, use the park on a day-to-day basis, and coming up with a contraption that is both fun, multi-usuable, and in it’s own fashion durable and timeless. It’s a great example of what I’m coining a “living portfolio,” and I think is the most effective way for creative types to market themselves.

I decided pretty quickly that he is the perfect candidate for positioning products in a unique communicative fashion, particularly in markets which you hadn’t thought of before. In other words, relevant to most startups! It is the one business card, I’ll be sure to use this year and, who knows, maybe you’re interested in working with him too.

Take care,

Vincent

A week with an iPod Touch… time flies by! a few Pros & Cons so far:

Pros

1) It’s nice, flat (8mm) and light (120g): no bulk here, it’s even more convenient than regular iPods. I haven’t had the chance to test its solidity, but I’m not going to do that voluntarily, even for the sake of scientific progress -sorry.

2) The OS is really intuitive, everything rolls out smoothly and without time-loss. Operating it is nearly a game in itself.

3) The Wi-fi capability is really great, and was one of the main reasons I chose it over a regular iPod. Also, attachments can be opened -which is impossible to do on blackberrys for instance, as far as I know. It is a bit slow, but hey, I didn’t expect anything much faster.

4) Earphones (regular Apple earphones) are pretty comfortable. I often have trouble adjusting to earphones, but not this time, so hurray! However if I wanted to run (which I don’t), I guess I wouldn’t be so happy.

Cons

1) I must say I hate the way it organizes songs with iTunes. I have lots of music with no (or little, or miswritten) ID3 tags, and I litteraly spent a day re-organizing everything, putting right tags and creating lists. Would it have been that hard to be able to keep original folders? (This is a first-approach impression, as I had never installed or extensively used iTunes before. Still, this first impression is a really bad one)

2) The video system is outrageous. It turns out you have to buy an additional software (Quicktime Pro) in order to convert your videos so you can read them on your iPod -and I’m talking legal, .mov movies shot with my point & shoot camera!

3) No plug-ins (flash, shockwave, etc) are accepted while surfing the web -but I imagine it was technically difficult to implement. Still, it is a disappointment.

4) 8 or 16Gb is not a lot. It’s great, but I can’t have ALL my music on it -however I knew that when I bought it, so there.

But nevermind all that, I must say I’m still having lots of fun with my new toy.

Hi, Fidji here. In the context of my thesis on the democratization of art via the Internet, I had the chance to interview Alain Romang, in charge of the online communication of Les Abattoirs, a modern and contemporary art museum based in Toulouse (France), which has developed a real Internet strategy to reach a new audience. I find really interesting to understand how the Internet, based on open access, has been used by museums, which have tried for a long time to cultivate their sacred atmosphere, whereas their mission is to make their collections as accessible as possible. Here are the most interesting pieces of the interview.

What is the purpose of the online communication of the museum? Attract different people on the website, or in the museum, or is it essentially a loyalty tool?

The first objective was to give some elements of information on opening hours, driving directions… to an audience that starts all its searches on the Internet. Our stats prove that most of the site visits are related to the planning of a visit to the museum. But what we appreciate is that the Internet is also a way of preparing people to the visit of the museum by giving some background on the artist, so that they really can make the most of the exhibition. We can also follow-up after the visit by providing tools to go deeper into the understanding of a particular piece. In terms of finding a new audience thanks to our online initiatives, it is clearly one of our objectives but we haven’t done any survey to prove that it is working yet. Let’s say that we strongly suppose the correlation between the increase in number of visits on our site and the increase in number of visits of our museum.

You offer the possibility of accessing 2000 pieces of art virtually: do you think that it is possible to feel a real artistic emotion on the screen of a computer?

It is almost a philosophical question, but yes, I sincerely believe it, at least if we believe that there are several types of artistic emotions. In the physical museum, there is a relation to the architecture, to a particular atmosphere, and also the intervention of simpler things such as the reaction of other visitors, that you obviously don’t have online. Which is why you really need to use the most appropriate tools online to compensate this, and some virtual exhibitions have clearly manage to achieve this goal.

Do you think that there is a risk of cannibalization of the offline by the online, if most of the collections are accessible online?

I think that the contrary is more likely. I feel that a certain audience, who is not used to visiting museums (for geographical, cultural or sociological reasons) will be more likely to plan a visit to a museum if it had the opportunity of discovering some pieces online. I believe that both experiences are interesting: the Internet is for example much more appropriate for educative purposes since we can put more information online. The two experiences feed each other but there is no cannibalization.*

What are the different objectives of the tools that you use: video, blog of the museum, Facebook page?

The blog allows a better reactivity. We have created it to talk about news of the museum, events or marginal subjects with a more original view that don’t fit within the website. The possibility of commenting is also interesting, since it is, at least for most museums, a new kind of interaction with the audience. And obviously it improves our referencing on search engines thanks to more content and key words.

Concerning pictures and videos on Flickr/Youtube, it is part of the mission of archiving of the museum, but also allows new interactions: Flickr announced the creation of « pools », which will allow visitors to post their own pictures of the museum directly in Les Abattoirs’ Flickr space.

Facebook is more of an experiment so far. Of course the idea of federating a community around the museum is really interesting, but so far we’ve been there only because it is a tool with an amazing growth and I didn’t want to be “late” on such a tool. And thanks to all the new apps, we find new useful modules to add every day, so it forces us to keep being innovative.

What are the next steps to be sure that your museum will remain on top of the new Internet initiatives?

So far we are focused on improving the current tools: redesigning the blog, feeding Flickr and Youtube, expanding our Facebook network. We also want to develop podcasting, targeted to specific exhibitions. Finally, there is the debate on the presence on Second Life: we have done a simple ROI calculation and it seems that at this stage, the time spent to create Les Abattoirs in Second Life is not justified by the frequentation. Of course it creates some media exposure, but we don’t want to do that only to appear in blogs and newspapers. We want to launch this initiative only when we will have more visibility on our return on that, especially since the hype around Second Life is already declining. But we are watching it closely.

* A survey realized by the Institute of Museum and Library Services proves Alain’s point: it shows that people connected to the Internet go to museums 2.6 times more than people without any access. Among the respondents, 45% have visited both a virtual and offline museum, 50% a real museum only and 5% a virtual museum only.

I was just commenting on Vince’s last article Copyright or the Right-to-Eat and realized that my comment was getting so long that I should better write an article on the subject. This actually funny because I was about to write a piece on exactly the same subject, and for most of it with the same opinion, because I attended on Friday a conference called “New Media Artists and The Law” organized by California Lawyers for the Arts and I wanted to share the thoughts of this conference on this blog. It gathered Emily A. Berger, Intellectual Property Fellow with Electronic Frontier Foundation, Mike Linksvayer, Vice President of Creative Commons, and Joel Slayton, Director of the CADRE Laboratory for New Media, and exploring the ways copyright laws are implicated in new media art and the challenges artists face in this evolving area of the law.

In direct connection with Vince’s article, Mike Linksvayer, VP of Creative Commons defended the idea that there are plenty of ways to make a living while giving one’s art for free. But I had the same issue as Vince’s about the status of the artist in our society: what does this reveal if people are not willing to pay for art anymore? I personally believe that the Internet and the culture of gratuity and open access is an opportunity for unknown artists because giving their art away for free allows them to get some market traction and then, be able to sell some “derivatives” of their art, and make money that they wouldn’t have made without this strategy. So for this specific kind of people, I would say that it shouldn’t be an ethical problem to make money on things that are not the product of their art itself, because the product of their art itself wouldn’t have generated any money otherwise. But of course there is the other portion, which can have an opportunity of making money from its art directly, but which will start feeling a certain pressure to give this art for free. I was kind of shocked during this conference to hear artists in the audience speaking about offering their art on the Internet as a fatality, a trend they were obliged to follow, as if the “Myspace success story” was the only hope left. But as Emily A. Berger mentioned during the conference, referring to Chris Anderson’s article “Free”, you will always have free to compete with you: so either you try to make it better than what is offered for free, or you try to tackle the niche of people having more money than time (the iTunes niche, which, with the right pricing, is actually not a niche anymore), or you make it free and find ways to make money otherwise.  An excellent article from Kevin Kelly called “1000 True Fans” argues that an artist only needs 1000 True Fans to make a decent living, since a True Fan, that you can “recruit” via the free offering, will after that be ready to pay for anything related to you. And he also mentions that the Internet allows you to reach this number more easily than traditional channels and therefore find a middle way between the long tail and the superstar.

But while all this talk is perfectly understandable in the case of the music industry which is a market based on volume, it is a totally different story when it comes to visual arts. Which is why I have trouble understanding a copyright law which seems to tackle all the artists as if they were a unified world facing the same challenges. And this is also why I welcome initiatives like Creative Commons which allows people to give away some of their rights when they feel that the copyright law doesn’t answer their needs and that these new licenses can benefit them, as long as (and this is a major risk) it doesn’t put any pressure on other people in the industry to do the same. But how do you adapt these notions of derivatives in the case of visual arts? It is way harder for a painter to get True Fans, and even if he manages to get some, I am not convinced at all that a person falling in love with the image of a painting will be ready to buy a T-shirt with this same image: it is just not the same feeling. The visual art market has somewhat been already confronted to the same kind of problem outside the Internet, like how to monetize a happening or short-lived works of art. When Christo decided to wrap the Reichstag in Berlin and the Pont Neuf bridge in Paris, he had to find ways of monetizing a work of art that was offered for free to the inhabitants of these cities, and therefore he sold some pictures of the different stages of the experiment. But, to go back to Vince’s point, this is Christo, and a lot of people are interested in those pictures, whereas an unknown visual artist doesn’t have the traction.

Actually, the major paradox is that only artists who would manage to sell their art directly are able to sell derivatives in a significant amount, whereas the starving artists who would be ready to give their art for free and make a living by selling derivatives don’t have the market traction to generate enough interest around their derivatives, especially in visual arts. And after all, even if Emily A. Gerber said “get your art out there by any means, get market traction and after that you’ll see”, a thousand fans is a pretty large number don’t you think?

This morning, I read an interesting piece written by Steven Poole, and just had to comment on it. In it, he discusses his book, which he released for free (and DRM-free) around the net, and which has received ca. 30,000 downloads so far. But he also discusses the idea of artists, or creators in general, making money, and how that + giving away stuff for free, doesn’t compute.

He also refers to what he calls the “Slashdot argument,” one, I should add, I’ve used myself several times, that (music-)artists should keep giving away their creations for free, because it’s possible, and instead collect revenues from live-performances. As a counter-argument, he uses the programming-profession:

Oh Mr Freetard, you work as a programmer, do you? How interesting. So do you perform all your corporate programming duties for free, and earn your keep by selling personally branded mousemats on the side?

It is actually interesting, because the live-analogy actually applies to programming also; where is software slowly but surely moving too? Towards hybrids, like Software-as-a-Service, Software+Service, and other incarnations, as well as a 100%-on-the-internet model. A hybrid model is, incidentally, also the way gaming-companies like Shanda combat the problem of piracy in China.

But a large part of what he’s saying, I do agree with. Releasing your stuff online, for free or a freemium, is most suitable to artists whose concerts are sure to be sold out: NiN and Radiohead. Plenty of artists, like my mother who paints, just want to create art and sell it; not release it for free and do crazy live stunts to earn a living (even though that’s what’s entrepreneurship is all about).

I guess, when he calls for a renaming of copyright to Right-to-Eat, that perhaps he has a point. There are plenty of people out there, who don’t get copyright, don’t care about it, or justify it through a self-serving argument.

I don’t particularly think that prosecution works that well here—crime is global, while crime-prevention is local—but perhaps we need more education; perhaps we need the equivalent of pictures of blackened lungs on cigarette-packs to be extended to media? The only problem with that are videos like this (couldn’t find the original, so enjoy the parody), which, ironically, mainly target those people who paid for a DVD, while pirates smartly removed that “feature” long before releasing the DVD into the wild. Or perhaps we do need DRM, like the kind that Steven Poole refers too, tying you to your Kindle or iPod?

It’s definitely a tricky situation, and I’m not sure there is an easy answer that works for everyone. I’ve heard of people pasting a big copyright-sign across their pictures; of authors, who read chapters or the whole book for free through a weekly podcast, while selling the book on the side for the impatient. And of course, of Radiohead and NiN, both of whom are huge artists, but who didn’t exactly employ an all-your-eggs-in-one-basket formula either.

But what about my namesake, Vincent van Gogh, an incredibly talented, yet socially awkward individual? If we expected people like him to “perform live” to earn money, perhaps we would have never seen his art today.

This piece is written by Vincent van Wylick, co-author on Tech IT Easy. The picture is courtesy of csauce.wordpress.com.

Hello, Fidji here. I remember that, for one of my first articles on Tech It Easy, I spoke about it with Jeremy and he told me “that’s interesting, but there is no way you are going to make your point if you don’t draw something to show it”. And I didn’t, because I couldn’t find a way of summarizing it all in a simple picture. I thought it was better with words only, but truly it wasn’t. That’s the point that Dan Roam is trying to make in his book “The back of the napkin”.

Dan was today’s speaker at the eBay Speaker Series conference, so I had the chance to enjoy hearing him explain his theory. He is convinced that any business problem can be solved by a simple picture, that anybody has the ability to draw. But we often believe that we are not able to draw anything because the current educational system doesn’t give us many opportunities to use our visual thinking – even if it is an innate form of thinking as a child.

He shared a funny anecdote with us: he was advising Microsoft on a UI type of problem, and to foster the discussion, he showed them some handmade drawings. The people in the room were enthusiastic about this new support for their discussion, and at the end of the meeting some exec went to see Dan and asked him: “what software did you use to make the UI seem as if it is handmade?”.

And I definitely agree with Dan when he says that some software help and stimulate our thinking whereas others (and a lot of them) just block us: as a strategic analyst, I personally thinks about a problem only in terms of “what is it possible to show about it in a PowerPoint?”. I know it sounds kind of pathetic, but it is clear that my brain is now used to think about solutions in terms of slides.

So Dan’s solution (which can of course be summarized in a picture drawn on a napkin as you can see in this article) is to use the swiss knife of visual thinking:

• Use our built-in tools: eyes, mind, hands.
• Use the “look, see, imagine, show” process when approaching a problem, like we would do in poker game (we look at the cards, we see the patterns, we imagine what we could have, whe show our cards).
• When you arrive at the “show” step, use the SQVID framework: try to understand wether you need, for your audience to understand, to make you picture Simple or elaborate, Qualitative or quantitative, to focus on the Vision or the execution, to adopt an Individual or a comparative view, and finally to show your problem as a Delta (change) or as a status quo.
• Match your picture with one of the way we see the world: to answer a What? question, draw a portrait; to answer a How many? question, draw a chart; to answer a Where? question, draw a map, to answer a When? question, draw a timeline, to answer a How? question, draw a flow chart, and finally to answer the Why? question, draw a multidimensional picture, often a combination of the previous questions.

What I also find interesting is his classification of people into 3 categories regarding visual thinking: the black pen guys, who are the ones that can’t help jumping from their chair during a meeting and drawing things everywhere on the white board; the yellow pen guys, who are the ones good at highlighting the important areas in a picture and improving what’s be drawn; and the red pen guys, who hate drawing but who usually think that what the black pen guys are writing is bullshit and feel so exasperated that they end up amending the whole thing. I took Dan’s test and it happens that I fall into the second bucket; and I’m really curious to know where you think you fit the most to see if it confirms the repartition that we had within the eBay audience!

Uf!

My faith has been restored: we live in a civilized business world where everybody can be a winner, sky is the limit etc.

More specifically, as far as the 700Mhz part of the sky is concerned, the breaking news are that there are no breaking news and no disruptive solutions:

Winners

US government has won

~ 20 billions of declining US  $.

AT&T has won

the C-block and the pride of carriers being carriers.

AT&T’s lawyers have won

significant fees and gem experience from lawsuits concerning the Openness clause.

Google has won

• the right to patch their apps on (carter)mobiles,
• access to the mobile advertising market (~ 3 billions d.US $)
• and saved ~ 5b.d.US $ to invest on their core business and on P&L  communication (partnerships and lobbying)

Consumers have won

• a stable thus fitter-happier-more productive market
• having the actors empowered and doing their best to focus on client satisfaction with the cease of this corporate battle
• a monetization of their mobile clicking
• federal income

(others)

… you’re welcome to brainstorm.

Geometry: Symmetry and a 3D market that moves in balance.

The equilibrium of this auction is a piece of art.

The main financial flows are organized symmetrically, in analogy of size.

This is my oversimplified prism:

• Big still pay the Big (B to B) : AT&T pays FCC
• MicroPlayers AKA “consumers” pay attention that pays Google (MP to G)

The notorious interoperability in telecommunications could actually apply to business models as well , since each one has found its place in this multidimensional world.

As you can see above  the 700 MHz space has been defined in 3D :

Little red axe: MP to G

Big red axe: B to B

The long red tail: their future interactions.

I commit to review my proposition to do away with auctions as sales procedures, taking off my hat to these infamous Google game theorists.

Hey guys, would you care to take a look into tougher games once you’ve finished with business peace?

Georgia

As some of you have read from the news, a couple of days ago Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails released their new album for free on the net. The first part of the four part Ghost I-IV was uploaded to the Pirate Bay and is also available from its website.

Two days after the release, Ars Technica reported that the $300 limited edition, which was available on the site had sold out, meaning that NiN had made at least $750,000. In initial reporting many likened NiN’s approach to that of Radiohead’s In Rainbows, but as Ars points out, the strategy was different in many important ways.

First of all, Reznor uploaded the first part as a torrent, but even so, the album’s website was pretty soon on its knees – a reality check on the true adoption rate of bittorrent or web design/e-commerece mistake, as the free download section didn’t mention the torrent-option at all?

Secondly, and more interestingly, the whole album was released with a Creative Commons license and in the text-file accompanying the Ghost I goes so far as to say this:

We encourage you to share the music of Ghosts I with your friends, post it on your website, play it on your podcast, use it for video projects, etc.

This was missed by many news outlets, like New York Times and even The Register, which went as so far as to call people who uploaded the rest of the album to Pirate Bay as freetards and that they were robbing Reznor off “a cool $2m”. Sure, $2 million in that same opportunity cost money that copyright lobby is always talking about when talking about piracy. Unfortunately, opportunity cost is not real money.

Undoubtedly you’ll be able to find the complete collection on the same torrent network you found this file, but if you’re interested in the release, we encourage you to check it out at ghosts.nin.com, where the complete Ghosts I-IV is available directly from us in a variety of DRM-free digital formats, including FLAC lossless, for only $5.

FLAC? Blu-Ray? Creative Commons? Bittorrent? 320kbps MP3s that beat Radiohead’s 160kbps MP3s to the ground? It sounds like this band knows a thing or two about the interwebs.

So, this guys know what’s high-tech, but that’s not the end of the story. Now, limiting all the fun only to the first part would be traditional. Sharp-eyed fans were quick to note another thing on the website:

Ghosts I-IV is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license.

So, even though NiN didn’t make a big fuss about it, uploading and sharing the rest of the work was OK by them. Well, it was inevitable that the full album would hit the nets anyway. NiN simply encouraged their fans to get it from their website, apparently with good results. Paradoxically this approach means that each fan who gets the Ghosts I-IV from NiN’s website will make them at least $5 – while in Radiohead’s version, even then fan-income is not guaranteed, because the free version is always available (legally or not). So, the paradox becomes that by setting a fixed price they might end up better off.

It was really interesting (especially as a decision analyst) that fans were given five price-points, $0, $5, $10, $75 and $300 – each offering more value. In my opinion, this shows a good model for future internet distribution – differentiate between listeners and fans. This shift of focus from unrealized sales to realized value added sales was the innovation in this approach.

Unfortunately, it seems that this whole internet approach seems to work only for major, already known, bands. Hopefully things like SXSW’s massive 4 gig torrent Vincent mentioned earlier are ways to get the internet working for the smaller bands too.

Radiohead’s experiment really pales in comparison NiN’s. In retrospect, who could justify paying more than what was necessary – in this case nothing – for the same product while knowing there were people doing exactly that. Plain simply it didn’t make sense to pay for something if you could get it free. Note that in Radiohead’s model, those who wanted a CD or special editions were told to wait and go to a store, whereas all version were available at launch at ghosts.nin.com.

Then again, what else would you expect from the man who promoted his previous album with hidden USB drives at concerts and made the soundtrack for Quake – the game that pioneered internet gaming? NiN seriously raised the bar for the next high-profile band attempting internet distribution.

PS. If someone missed out on the Radiohead’s free In Rainbows, tough luck. It’s not available for download for anymore for any amount of money.

hello hello

It’s a sunny sunday so I will share my idea rapidly and kick off to photosynthesize.

Techiteasy is a community blog so we tend to interact, ping pong ideas etc. Kari was sharing some thoughts about gaming experiences, Vincent some others on blogging about books and I was trying how to o’reillishly “Learn Japanese in 24 hours” to get a glance of some Japanese neo authors who write novels on mobile phones, using the rules and language of mobile communication.

Interaction is an effort to extend your actions to enter another domain, act and receive action. In Gaming you choose among a list of actions on a specific domain. When you blog about books you do exactly the same but with ideas in the place of actions.

These two forms of interaction are both quite:

• Technically complicated (developing the book/game, mastering the actions/ideas, add your input).
• Imprisoned in a specific domain. (Kari cannot play the books Vincent is blogging about even if he had Windows)

Rin from Kokura (a primitive greek way of naming people that are distant but important) removed some bricks from my thought wall. Mostly, in terms of her functional proposition. (24 hours haven’t lapsed yet to understand Japanese)

Writing books on your mobile, much resembles coding, you have to keep it simple and efficient.

A hidden catch is that you can probably make it extensible and platform-independed.

Result? If you extend the functional proposition, you can possibly write a mini novel that will be playable for other users on other media.

…and pass from gaming, to authoring, to blogging for both…

How to extend the functional proposition? Starting from basic technical standardization:

XML will-it be sufficient enough to create scenery taxonomies, character ontologies and plot relationships?

XAL Extensible Authoring Language, does it exist?

Throw me the apples

Georgia