DrContrarian

  There is meme floating around social media that goes something like this: Think of how dumb the average guy is. Then realise that half the population is dumber than that. Whilst there is a level of smug superiority in that, there is also an element of truth. An IQ of 100 isn’t much intellectual horsepower. Not that great thinking is a prerequisite to all that matters, but by the same token the invention of mathematics, technological advancement and great art was probably not produced by the bottom half of the bell curve. Averages being what they are; gets us cultural norms that are, well, mediocre. And such is life. The people who created Facebook as a technological platform undoubtedly had well above average IQs. The platform has the potential to be and do amazing things, some of which we have experienced. But consider the average (normal) Facebook post and social experience. It’s about screaming goats on the one hand or people gloating about their breakfast o...

(Or, other people’s money...) Over the years business organisations have been eaten away slowly from the inside by social justice warriors. How this happened, requires us to go back a few years and in the evolution of the business organisation. Business organisations used to have a simple, clear objective: to make a commercial return to their shareholders. To do this, they innovated, developed products and served the needs of the people in a market place where those solutions are traded for cash – at a profit. The business wins and the consumer wins. The thin edge of the wedge has been sustainability, introduced some two decades ago, by the proponents of sustainability who proffered a solution to a problem that did not exist. They suggested that organisations should broaden their focus to include an emphasis on environment and on community. Broadening the focus automatically and explicitly also equates to a dilution of focus – that stands to reason. That is the guarante...

Be secure in the knowledge that all humans have insecurity in common. The two biggest money-making sectors on the internet (porn and self-help) tap into this limitless pool of opportunity. (And any business model that does this, will succeed.)

Focus more on the similarities, less on the differences.

If the internet is ubiquitous and the content is hence 'everywhere'; can someone explain why there is a need for an iPOD to store music? Surely you only need a device to access this perpetual inventory on-demand? I am sure people will get over the need to 'own' the music if you can play it anytime anywhere anyway. Is that a new business model that will save music? That is: Originators or publishers can own the content on a server and distribute free iPOD-like devices and charge a fraction of a cent every time the song is played. Kinda like mobile phones without the plan.

It really grates when people have to qualify what they say with 'to be honest...' I reckon you should just be honest, right? I wrote a review of a book (Selling: Powerful New Strategies for Sales Success) that I bought (on Amazon ) recently. It was written by Kevin Hogan et al - someone whom I follow closely on the net, and whom I admire for subject knowledge as well as marketing savvy. I gave it 2 stars. Seventeen other reviewers averaged 5 stars. Should I have been brutally honest? (See previous post.) Is that really what is wanted in 'comments' sections? Is that the right forum? If I can't write a better book, do I have the right to criticise? How many of the 5-star comments are seeded by friends and fans and how many are genuine? Having said all of that, I thought the book did offer a few nuggets that are worth the $20 -odd bucks spent on it. But then again, I think any book on the planet represents great value, because one sentence could change your life.

Knowledge is fossilised intuition. Love is built on a foundation of fear. Your senses bring the trouble. Pornography is a mirror, Art is a window. Passion is ignorance. Enjoyment requires the temporary suspension of reality. Fun is a requisite illusion (for sanity.) Hierarchy is a circle. Nothing is more important. Personality is the projection of consensus. All invention is rediscovery. The end is radical step change. Everything is natural. Happiness is not meant to be. Consequence is the shadow of living. Poetry is the language of pain. (Pain is the language of poetry…) Feelings are over-rated electrical connections. Equality is an error of measurement. Luck is being surprised by destiny. A path offers least resistance. You can only see as far as you can think. Greed is the fuel of the universe. Process determines outcome. All people are afraid. (Because we think more than we are.) Values are anchors of insecurity. An ounce of failure weighs more than an ounce of success. All the...

What’s not… I read a piece today that made me think about the difference and the impact of what is and what is not. The author draws a parallel between a style guide and a menu. ‘A manual of style () and a menu share one important point in common: both impose limitations. The word "menu" is from the Latin - minuere, to diminish. You can tell as much about a restaurant by what isn't on the menu as by what is: a chef doesn't try to cook everything, or to appeal to everyone's tastes. A stylebook imposes its limitations on the varieties of a written language: it's from these many acts of limitation and diminishment that a style is formed.’ Marketers are guilty of always focusing on the point of difference, the proposition, the benefit, the key feature. We often ignore what the product/ service does NOT do or offer. Just like a menu tells you about what you can eat, what is not on the menu possibly says more about the restaurant and the chef than the ...

As an entrepreneur/ consultant/ author, you are always interested in finding a new angle to write about. As a free tool, I have created a marketing buzz-generator – for all to use… Pick-and-Mix one word from each of these tables, combine…. and off you go: Integrated Brand System Connected Market(ing) Solution Authentic Customer Theory Sustainable Consumer Framework Collaborative Value Platform Dynamic Communications Proposition Strategic Community Outcome(s) (Just don’t expect me to buy the book L )

"The purpose of a company is to create a customer. ... The only profit center is the customer. ...The business has two – and only two – basic functions: marketing and innovation. Marketing and innovation produce results: all the rest are costs." (Peter Drucker:)

Margaret Wheatley asked this question: Who are you? http://www.margaretwheatley.com/articles/eightfearlessquestions.html The question is not new - in fact it is probably the original question (or maybe even the primordial) question. But her take on the response is interesting: Your answer should be 'big' enough to hold your life. Do you define yourself as a cancer survivor? A father? A marketer? Are any of these answers 'big' enough to hold your whole life? Suddenly we start needing multiple lables - and maybe that is a cop out? What is the 'lable' that will define who you really are? And here is my little insight: Those who can define who they are most clearly and soonest, are the ones who become who they think they are best, and hence are the most successful? It is the philosophical equivalent of a USP or a brand proposition, or maybe even the sales equivalent of your 30 sec elevator pitch. You don't only need it - but you need to live it. That is when the...

Evolution dictates that one 'species' eventually emerges as the 'winner': the one that adapted the best I suppose. Does this notion also apply to more metaphysical concepts/ formats/ ideas in the world? Can't see why not, even if the real winner can't be known until the end of the world, but it is fun trying to think of what the winning bets in our time frame are. So here goes: 1. English. 1. China (although I think India is a dark horse). 1. Islam. 1. Capitalism. 1. An e-Virus. 1. A Virus (or possibly a bacterium). 1. Women. 1. Co-habitation.