I used to dislike buzz words, believing that they were tools used to support weak/sparse arguements.
While reading the Globe this weekend I came across an article on the London 2012 Olympic logo.
Agreeing with the author’s take on the logo (eww) I found myself taking issue with his assault on a buzz word used by all parties involved, “brand”, simply because he identified it as a buzz word.
I have something to admit: I like buzz words. In fact, I not only like them, I fully support them and believe them to have an important place.
The more I dig into how to best disseminate ideas the more I realize the importance of wielding certain tools, at certain times, to certain audiences.
In a discipline where brevity generally always counts, the use of buzz words can prove a powerful tool. When everyone present shares a common understanding of all that the buzz word encapsulates, you can slash the level of effort needed to communicate elements of the idea.
That’s a wonderful thing.
Of course, like any tool, when misused, the results can be absolutely brutal. I’m increasingly content walking the line as I feel the return justifies the risk. Disagree? Let me know…
Kent, you’re being a bit too kind when you say that I’ve been blogging “intermittently” lately. I did appreciate the subtle nudge though. Between work and closing on a home / moving (yep, one down, one to go)… I’ve been busy. I’m not going anywhere though
Earl - how did you come across Disruptive Thoughts? And what made you stay? I’m always curious about this with people who read the site.
Kent, here are my recommendations:
Eric Olson: Eric’s a great guy with a sharp mind. His interests overlap with a lot of mine and when he’s not working for FeedBurner he’s getting trounced in our fantasy baseball league.
Josh Kopelman: Josh is an active early-stage investor who shares thought provoking insights. I’m surprised he only has 4,000 subscribers.
Jing Chen: Jing just comleted a cool degree and shares a passion for start-up companies.
Howard Lindzon: Howard’s a scrappy entrepreneur and sharp investor who recently sold his start-up, Wallstrip, to CBS, which will allow him to cover dinner (and dessert) next time he’s in T.O.
David Cohen: David, from Boulder, CO, is “a serial entrepreneur, investor, and technologist.” He’s part of the team behind the buzzworthy Techstars.
Bill Gates gave an excellent commencement speech at Harvard, touching on themes of why I’m optimistic. It’s inspiring and worth the read.
“The barrier to change is not too little caring; it is too much complexity. To turn caring into action, we need to see a problem, see a solution, and see the impact. But complexity blocks all three steps.”
“In line with the promise of this age, I want to exhort each of the graduates here to take on an issue – a complex problem, a deep inequity, and become a specialist on it. If you make it the focus of your career, that would be phenomenal. But you don’t have to do that to make an impact. For a few hours every week, you can use the growing power of the Internet to get informed, find others with the same interests, see the barriers, and find ways to cut through them.
Don’t let complexity stop you. Be activists. Take on the big inequities.”
In my process of tracking down a few links for a post on introducing ideas in an attention driven world I came across a post by Mark Pincus where he takes issue with Fred Wilson’s ruminations on the future of media.
In the post Mark asks/answers:
how many times do you ever watch a rerun of any show? you tivo the new series of the office, not an old ‘i love lucy’. the problem isnt that goog wants to charge $1.99 for it. free wouldnt help either. nobody is going to watch it either way, especially when you add the download.
I don’t agree with Mark’s statement, but that’s irrelevant. I share this to have an excuse to share some Nintendo news (yes, I have a love for Nintendo like I have for P&G).
Nintendo’s Wii sells old games from previous systems online through a virtual store. Players can download the original Mario Bros., Contra, Super Mario Kart, etc. The virtual store sells these games, available solely through download, for minimal amounts of money. With a cost to store/serve the games that’s negligible and sales of 4.7 virtual games to-date, Nintendo must be enjoying a hefty profit on the revenues generated.
With the recent chatter around the benefits of a free pricing model, I wonder where Nintendo’s virtual console profit would compare under a free, ad-supported, model.
