Jules et Jim (1962, Francois Truffaut)

Author: Jim Carroll, Chairman, BBH London

I was watching the splendid Truffault film, Jules et Jim. There’s a scene in which Jules, courting the mercurial Catherine, endeavours to impress her.

‘Catherine, I understand you’, he says.

Catherine replies,’ But I don’t want to be understood.’

I paused for thought. Don’t we spend our lives trying to understand consumers? What if, like Catherine, they don’t want to be understood? Understanding implies explanation, logic, rationality. And, critically, it suggests control. Which is precisely, I suspect, why Catherine didn’t want to be understood.

As a young Planner I’m not sure I completely understood the behaviour, ethics and attitudes of British consumers. But I did feel a strong sense of empathy with them. I felt for them in a way. I wonder now whether I’ve lost some of that natural, instinctive judgement. I wonder whether, in a data fuelled world, we have a diminished regard for feelings in our engagement with consumers.

A friend of mine occasionally dismisses films she did not enjoy with the simple assertion that she ‘did not feel it’. As an Anglo Saxon I was originally somewhat nonplussed. Surely a fuller explanation would help? Similarly we were always taught to grill Clients on their responses to work, to demand that they account for their instinctive immediate reactions. Now I wonder whether I have been wrong on both counts: in the way I expect my friends to assess movies and my Clients to judge work.

Shouldn’t  feelings always trump understanding? Shouldn’t feelings suffice?

Do you ever find it a little sinister when modern marketers promise to translate data into knowledge, and knowledge into sales? I do. I confess ‘hidden persuasion’ has never been my bag. I don’t aspire to that level of control.Of course we all want the web to be all-knowing, but should I want it to know all about me? Personally I don’t want the web to know me; I want it to feel me. And I find the prospect of an empathetic, all-feeling web increasingly attractive.

Who am I to talk? I’m generally uncomfortable with unfiltered emotional expression. I shudder at the prospect of corporate hugs. Nonetheless, I return to work with a modest resolution: in 2012 I want to base more of my judgements on empathy and feeling, rather than on logic and understanding. And I’d like the web to do the same please.

Chaka was, as ever, right all along. ‘I feel for you’…

The interesting thing about the Olly is that it is an attempt to add texture to wholly digital experiences. A decent proportion of my last job was spent arguing with people about page-turning animations in ebooks – I felt that they were a legacy metaphor and had no place in a purely digital experience. There are definitely things about the physicality of a book that would be great to transfer to an ebook. For example, knowing when you are nearing the end of a book by the distribution of weight in your hands feels different from the knowledge that you are on page 1324 of 1346. Such additions would add both context and texture to the ereading experience, wheras the page-turning animation is texture without context.

Brett Victor’s much-discussed rant (his word) on the ubiquity of the finger-swipe in visions of future interfaces suggests a disquiet with what is being sacrificed in the quest for frictionless interaction. As touchscreens increasingly become our interface to the web it is healthy that there are those out there documenting what we are losing whilst everyone else, including us at BBH Labs of course, celebrates the gains. Will the sound of an optical drive go the way of the rotary phone dial or an analogue tape rewinding or these other disappearing noises?

So, are we adding textures such as smells and page-turning animations because digital is less sensuous than the physical world? When we create new digital experiences should we think about adding textured UX as well as intelligent UI? And as brands transition more and more to digital marketing initiatives, should we worry about what sensory experiences they and we are losing, out here in meatspace?

Update 9 jan 2012: If you want your workstation to smell like teen spirit every time @justinbieber presses ‘send’ then you should head over to kickstarter where there’s a month left to back the project to make the dream reality!

Kotka @ Club Re, Krakow

Author: Nicky Vita (@stellavita), Strategy Director, BBH London

A few weeks ago, I was at the Temple Synagogue in Krakow’s historical Jewish district, Kazimeirz. It was the closing night for Unsound, an avant-garde music festival with the central theme of “Future Shock”.

As a whole, Unsound deliberately defies expectations – about how music should sound, how music genres should/ shouldn’t fit together, who should be collaborating, whom we expect to create modern music or art and even what ‘modern music’ actually means.

This – along with the music – got me thinking about a project I’ve been working on for client of ours, around ‘the lofty subject of human progress’ and what this means today. In a recent international survey, 96% of respondents agreed that‘It is important for me to continually improve as a person’. Ordinary people wanting to do extraordinary things.

While the desire to move forward is not new, the context or the approach required to achieve this has shifted radically. In the past, the key ingredients were focus, stamina and the wherewithal to keep slogging until the finish line. Tow the line.

And now? Well, there may not be a clearly defined ‘there’ or final end goal. There are fewer linear paths, one-way ladders and singular directions. The “tried & trusted” is no longer appropriate and all the rulebooks have been ripped up. Seemingly more than ever, people want to advance themselves. Technology is an especially great enabler. However, what you actually need to do to achieve this progress is less clear than ever before.

At a global level, this thought is either hugely terrifying or massively exciting. And what emerges is that the key to ‘success’ today is having the right attitude. Glancing at modern role models and entrepreneurs across the world, it isattitude that they have in common. No rules means you can try anything, explore everything, break things up and put them together in completely different ways.

Much of what I saw at Unsound reflected this attitude, so I thought I’d outline a few underlining principles for progressing in today’s modern world…

Retain a youthful mindset.
1960s pioneer Morton Subotnick & 1980s synth performers Chris & Cosey (ex-Throbbing Gristle) belonged at the festival as much as young, incoming acts such as Pontone (Poland) and Laurel Halo (USA). Curiosity, creativity and experimentation do not age.

Keep it open.
Music genres don’t sit in boxes. Or rather, amazing things can happen when you don’t assume that they should. Hype Williams threw together R & B, techno and dark ambient, coupled with constant strobe lights, to create a visceral, challenging performance. Trying different things and putting them together in unusual ways can create something special.

Lantern Awareness.
A wonderful term I picked up from Google’s Tom Uglow a while ago, speaking passionately about the wonderful things that could happen if we stopped focusing & opened up our awareness to the things going on around us. Every artist had taken a deliberate step away from his or her known individual sound and had nicked, borrowed or repurposed from the experiences around them. To capture this spirit, we’ve created team ‘Lantern Sessions’, as simple as a quick chat about the things that are exciting us or a good excuse to get out of the office and to an exhibition. Less focus creates more enhanced encounters.

Be bold.
With experimentation and exploration comes inherent risk. Some of what I saw and heard was massively improvised. Leyland Kirby’s mad video of his life on the road, wrapped up by a mimed rendition of Elton John’s ‘Can you feel the love tonight?” could have gone horribly wrong. It didn’t. Trying new things means allowing yourself to be at least a little open to potential failure.

Live in the moment.
For me, the entire festival was an immersive, immediate experience. This may sound obvious (being a music festival), but I came back feeling more excited about life because I’d allowed myself to be completely absorbed in an experience. If everyone there came away with this same feeling, you can feel confident that this will soon be manifested in a future performance, track or video. Soak up every encounter.

Go with your gut.
Everyone at Unsound was passionate about music. Not in a rational ‘let’s think about why this works’ way. It was much more of an emotional ‘how the music makes you feel’ way. Things were being put together in ways that were intuitive and based on gut impulses. Great things can happen when you go with the rhyme instead of the reason.

It’s about substance.
There were few ‘big names’ and while many of the artists were successful in their own right, at Unsound they were respected for their spirit, energy & experimentation in the moment. What you do matters more than what you have.

Act like an entrepreneur.
What makes an entrepreneur great is a bit of charisma. While many artists were there to perform, they were also there to create opportunities for future collaborations & endeavours, to show a difference side to themselves. Curiosity and a ‘can do, will do’ attitude is what made them interesting. Not so difficult is it?

The closing down party…

None of this might strike you as particularly groundbreaking. Steve Jobs spoke openly about the importance of connections, of being allowed to fail, of the opportunities that come up when you’ve tried different things. Einstein believed in experimentation and playfulness. Tom Uglow wondered what could happen if we all quit our jobs, played more and got closer to the edges. What is striking for me is that this attitude is shifting the way people think about progress at a universal level. This is not about the super elite, the super eclectic, the technologists at Google or Facebook or Labs, even. Sure, I am referencing some edgy artists, playing at a festival you’ve never have heard of. But we’re also talking about ordinary people wanting to apply this attitude to create extraordinary things.

I think it’s tremendously exhilarating. Can you even begin to imagine the great things that would happen, the progress that would come about if we all lived this way?

Source: http://acravan.blogspot.com/2010/09/echo-chamber-echo-chamber-cocktail.html

We regularly fear living in an echo chamber (this is especially true for us because our blog serves as a feedback forum from regular participants, even if many of the inputs driving its content originate from industries unrelated to marketing). In fact, the foolish, mutual reassurance of ad folks is one of the most common criticisms of our industry. But recently a study came out that got me to reexamine the so-called echo chamber.

The report was authored by Sinan Aral (NYU, Stern School of Business) and Marshall Van Alstyne (Boston University, School of Management) and ran in the American Journal of Sociology. It can be downloaded here.

The historical thinking around how one gets new, diverse information via their networks has placed a tremendous amount of emphasis on “weak ties,” those people you don’t know very well and don’t speak to very often. The most often cited study in this work is by Mark Granovetter and was done in 1973, before the invention of the web and digital social networks. Letting an outdated study drive our thinking in this space is an issue, as it assumes technology is simply facilitating what was previously true about relationships, rather than evolving it.

What’s more modern and practical about Aral and Van Alstyne’s study is that it accounts for bandwidth. In a world of unprecedented connectivity and content generation, the format of information shared (say 140 characters of text) and the frequency with which it’s consumed have to be accounted for. It seems ridiculous this day and age to think the depth of my relationship with people is the determining factor of getting new information from them. Aral and Van Alstyne ask a more contemporary question than simply where new information comes from. They ask “where does one find the most novel information per unit time?” In other words, they’re accounting for bandwidth. You talk to closer ties more often and distant ties less often, a critical issue neglected in the previous thinking about the value of weak ties. Bandwidth is simply too important a factor to ignore in a world where contact across miles, economic classes, and belief systems is easier than ever—especially when said contact is frequently asynchronous.

Aral and Van Alstyne also discuss a point about strong ties I found interesting: those who know you well know what type of information is novel for you. That’s a filtering mechanism we know most readers of this blog employ regularly (just glance at how community members caveat and source what they share back to us as the managers of the blog).

This natural filtering is what’s really the heart of the matter because it addresses homophily (the idea that we surround ourselves with like-minded people, or more colloquially, “birds of a feather flock together”). People who think like us, seek out our blog. We do the same, following twitter accounts, listening to speakers, taking meetings with those we think are similar to us. Thus, the echo chamber, right? We all just tell each other what we want to hear, limiting our new thinking.

Wait a minute. As someone who has a core job responsibility of innovation (i.e., “the introduction of something new”—in this case to BBH), I should fear an echo chamber more than anyone. Instead, I’ve found this supposed echo chamber is inhabited by people that are my most efficient means of learning something new. When I find time to be in the stream, I’m inundated with novel information. That’s partially because I’m forced to filter people based on how frequently I expect to be engaged (“I want to hear anything she says, but she says so much I have to tune her out”—efficiency decisions relating to bandwidth). Simultaneously, the very people I choose to listen to are filtering for people like them (or should I say “us”?), wanting to avoid saying something they can only assume I know—otherwise I may just have to filter them.

It may be an echo chamber. But at its core is a virtuous circle.

‘Is that all there is, is that all there is?
If that’s all there is my friends, then let’s keep dancing.
Let’s break out the booze and have a ball
If that’s all there is.’

Peggy Lee, image via peggylee.com

I remember the first time I heard Peggy Lee singing the classic Leiber and Stoller number, ‘Is That All There Is?’. The heroine relates how, through the course of her life, experiences that may initially have been exciting, had in fact turned out rather tiresome. From her home burning down, to going to the circus, to falling in love. It’s a hymn to disappointment and apathy. Like most teenagers I had spent large chunks of my short time on the planet lying in my room being incredibly bored. In amongst the bubble gum pop and dinosaur rock of Radio 1, a song that celebrated ennui was a rare and precious thing.

I remember the first time I heard the Clash sing ‘I’m So Bored with the USA’. I was simultaneously shocked and excited. Could one really so publicly proclaim disappointment with the home of rock’n'roll, the land of the free, the country that had given us Barry Manilow, Boz Scaggs and The Sound Of Bread? Was that acceptable? Was that legal?

I remember the first time I saw the painting Ennui by Walter Sickert. The bored couple cannot be bothered to look at each other. One stares into space and the other at the wall. The blank generation. Tedium in oils. And yet so utterly compelling.

Ennui, by Walter Sickert

It’s a curious thing. Apathy, boredom and tedium seem such dull, passive, inert qualities. Yet they can be exciting, inspiring, disruptive.

And I wonder whether this particular truth is lost on us and our world. We claim to be consumer experts. But are we not in denial of the fact that most consumers, most of the time are just not that into our brand or category? They just don’t care. We sustain a myth that the primary communication challenge is lack of attention, when really, more often than not, it’s lack of interest.

I started my career as a Market Researcher and occasionally I had to conduct focus groups to establish names and positioning concepts for industrial paints. I well recall the blank stares, the listless body language, the echoing silence. ‘Just call it paint’, one chap suggested.

I have often felt that a wholehearted recognition of the true level of consumer disinterest might conversely be the platform to build transformative engagement. Surely we can turn apathy, ennui and boredom into a positive force, a force for good. Would not an honest acceptance of the diminished role a brand or category plays in consumers’ lives encourage us to think harder about utility, experience and reward?

Whilst I am keen to embrace and celebrate the apathy at the heart of many markets, I’m conscious that within our own business failing to care can be corrosive. John Bartle in his closing address to BBH some years ago warned that ‘the opposite of creativity is cynicism.’ And I’m sure he was right.

As I have aged I’ve noticed, regrettably, an increasing inclination to dismiss the new and original as familiar and derivative. We veterans are cursed by the ability to see antecedents, to cite failed precedent. ‘We tried that and it didn’t work’. Far from the wisdom of age, we suffer the scepticism of age. It’s a cancer. And we must cut it out if we are to sustain our careers.

When I first joined the business I fell in love with the bright eyed enthusiasm that characterised ad people. They seemed to share a particular genetic strain, high on hope and positive thinking, resilient to any disappointment. Like Weebles they wobbled, but they wouldn’t fall down.

I once read about a West Coast experiment where half of the sample took a test fortified by free hamburgers and the other half tackled the same test without sustenance. It transpired that the burgered sample significantly outperformed the unburgered and the researchers concluded that happier people work more effectively.

Being an enthusiastic adman, I’ll not pause to address the obvious shortcomings of this experiment. But I do agree with the key finding. The longer I have worked in this business, the more I have come to believe that  enthusiasm is the critical factor that drives success.

We have a saying here that ‘positive people have bigger,better ideas’. I believe it’s true.

‘Is that all there is?’ You may well ask. Well,yes it is.

'Blackbird singing in the dead of night' (image by Dia, via Flickr)

Author: Jim Carroll, Chairman, BBH London

Sometimes recently I’ve woken up in the middle of the night and there have been birds singing in the street outside. Two or three o’clock in the morning, well before sunrise and they’re chirping away, casually, confidently.

I’m no ornithologist, but shouldn’t they be saving it for the dawn chorus?

Inevitably one is troubled by the abnormal. My initial concern was that their singing portended some dark event, an omen of impending doom.

But the world didn’t implode.

I wondered was I witnessing some form of ecological fallout? Was the nocturnal bird song an unnatural response to an unnatural environment?

The bird authorities’ website reassured me that our feathered friends sing primarily ‘to attract a mate and defend territory’ and that some species are just  happy to do these things at night.

I prefer to imagine that the birds outside my window are adapting to the modern world. Working, socialising, eating and courting on a more fluid, 24 hour, ‘always on’ basis.

Perhaps the collective unconscious of London sparrows has connected with humanity’s accelerating metabolism. Perhaps they’re embracing deconstructed social norms, flexible working, speed dating.

Maybe this also explains the migrant foxes that have long since given up the tedium and conservatism of rural life for the bright lights and diversity of the metropolis.

I have always liked the idea that change is a social, collective thing. That we like to change together, that we are reassured by community even when that community is evolving in different directions.

I have sadly found it frustrating to entertain philosophies to which my Clients do not yet subscribe.

As a student I was taught that a society in some respects behaves like an orchestra. It assigns ‘in tune-ness’  to behaviours that are consistent with everyone else and it rejects abnormal behaviour as ‘out of tune’.

This of course has its downsides. But it’s reassuring to consider that, as we run at the future, we may be taking the the wildlife with us…

These Parent groups are calling the advertisers who are running ads in Skins sponsors, or co-presenters of ‘filth’. Let’s be honest, very few brands have values that would align with the values of the show. It’s easy for marketers to make a case not to place an ad in programming like this, even when the eyeballs are there.

Not only were people watching Skins (3.26 million was the official figure) they were also talking about it online, co-viewing with their social network. They were using backchannels like Twitter, which indicated that Skins was the #2 worldwide trending topic and #3 in the U.S. during the premier.

The question is, “What would happen if Brands started watching shows with us? Being just as snarky as us? Pointing out character flaws or calling B.S. on how teens are portrayed?”

I believe an action like that would move the brand from a sponsor of the show to a peer watching the show in real time with the audience. If they have a strong, charismatic and unique voice the audience would pay attention to what they have to say.

Starling is a co-viewing backchannel of television show fans who have decided to log on and watch shows like Skins together. This behavior was identified by Saneel Radia (@saneel) last year in a post titled ‘Social Media Flings‘ where he describes a group of people connect online around a subject they are all interested in. I asked the Co-Founder of Starling, Kevin Slavin (@slavin_fpo) about his views on co-presenting and co-viewing. You can read his thoughts below:

Traditional co-presenting is built on a vector that travels from broadcaster to audience, wherein the audience is defined as passive consumers of media. The emergent behavior of co-viewing is built on an audience that’s engaged. That engagement is with the media, but it’s also with each other, and whatever they love, they love more because they experience it together.

Or, to put it simply: it’s the difference between talking to, and speaking with. Brands have begun to get their head around speaking with users through digital media. Now they can build those kinds of conversations around traditional linear media, and that’s in everyone’s interests.

If you haven’t seen Starling, log on tonight during the broadcast of Skins (10 p.m. EST) and see what this backchannel is all about.

Source: Starling.tv

As an Engagement Planner I would rather be associated with the chatter (good or bad) around the show Skins instead of the show itself because it puts the brand into a culturally contextual co-viewing position instead of a co-presenter position.

While I was participating in the Mullen/ Radian 6 Brand Bowl (hash tag #BrandBowl) yesterday I was happy to see some brands co-view the event with me. These brands included Onion Sports, Chobani Greek Yogurt, Vine Yard Vines and Tom Tom to name a few. However, community mangers we sill need to walk a fine line as they co-view events with us. Kenneth Cole took a lot of slack for twisting the Egypt revolution into a sales tweet last week.

Tell us what you think. Are community managers up to the task of being proactive during culturally relevant events like Skins, the Super Bowl, etc? Are brands interesting enough to add a point of view on a show? Are brands able to act like normal people online?

For years we’ve been talking about and developing communications for the shortening attention spans of consumers. We are bombarded with statistics about the average dwell time on a web page (43 seconds according to Comscore) or the lifespan of a tweet which, if it isn’t retweeted within 60minutes, will never be, according to Sysomos.

Today, we’re ascending the slopes of Mount Sinai, the computer ready in our pockets and the promised land of ubiquitous always-on connection is on the horizon. But before we get there maybe there is a place for long-form communications to occupy us at those times where we can devote our attention to a piece of content but cannot easily surf away when our attention wanders.

Certainly the uptake of instapaper and its integration into all sorts of web and mobile apps suggests that people are saving more articles to read later and longreads recent revamp makes it even simpler to get long form textual content onto your mobile device.

So is the decline of attention as inexorable as previously thought? As well as video we are both producing and consuming more text than ever and today’s devices allow comfortable on the go reading of long-form narrative.

Time to consider whether a digital communications strategy needs to allow for both a wide, shallow spread and a long, deep dive.

Long live attention.

Image by @LenKendall

Founded in 1984 as a one-off event in California, TED (Technology Entertainment Design) has come a hell of a long way. The numbers tell their own story. Since the launch of TEDTalks online in 2006, over 700 talks have been viewed 300m times and the non-profit has, in keeping with its tagline “ideas worth spreading”, expanded into a family of conferences and content available on an ever-growing number of platforms. The latter now include the TED Open TV Project (allowing broadcasters to incorporate TEDTalks into their programming without license fees) launched in May this year and an iPad app out in a couple of weeks. As they put it, TED is becoming “an organising principle for ideas.”

The theme of this year’s TEDGlobal in Oxford took a defiantly positive stance, drawing on recent data showing declines in infant mortality rates and extreme poverty, flattening population growth and increases in primary education enrolment, together with an “amazing array of new tech, new science, new social and political thinking, new art and new understanding of who we are.”

Whilst TED’s focus may be philanthropic, their approach to curation is unapologetically ruthless. The well-rehearsed speakers are world-class, with each talk adding a dimension to a central theme that builds over the course of a conference. It’s a highly structured, intelligent mash-up of very different perspectives on a series of themes, all serving a central thought.

We were lucky enough to be invited to an ‘Executive Briefing Day’ last week, where the experience was designed to give us a good flavour of the event. Sure enough, by 9am we were listening to Thomas Dolby play a blues set, having heard from Adrian Dolby (no relation), an organic farmer about his eco-centric vs tech-centric approach and Christien Meindertsma, an artist who with her PIG 05049 investigated the final destination of a pig (I gave up recording exactly where after I’d listed soap, bread, cellular concrete, train brake, cheesecake, fine bone china, paint, sandpaper, paint brushes, beer, wine, fruit juice, cigarette, injectable collagen and bullets). Shortly afterwards we were hearing from the ecological entomologist Marcel Dicke on why insects are a sustainable, viable food source for humans.

"Of all animal species, 80% walk on 6 legs" Marcel Dicke (photo: blog.ted.com)

And by lunchtime a further series of talks had examined the concept of fairness, from the likes of Tim Jackson, economist and author of Prosperity without Growth and Jessica Jackley, the entrepreneur who set up Kiva.org, the micro-lending site for the developing world.

Jessica Jackley, founder Kiva.org, announces launch of profounder.com (photo: blog.ted.com)

The afternoon continued with speakers exploring different “Unknown Brains” – including the neural maps defining our identity; the sentience displayed by the human stomach; and the edge of a leaf showing consumption of oxygen and a mesh of electric signals suggestive of a plant brain. The day concluded with a further four talks each of which challenged the state of global education, with a particularly powerful speech from the educational researcher Sugata Mitra sharing what he’d learned about self-organised, group-based education amongst children, having built computers into the walls of slums.

As all this should suggest, whilst there are ‘conversational breaks’ built into the day, attending TED is a non-stop, ‘live’ onslaught of information; a deluge of stimulating facts and ideas. Many of the themes that emerged in just one day of TEDGlobal’s four day program provide several weeks’ worth of food for thought. Last Thursday, the themes seemed to shed light on the tension between opposing forces:

• The ubiquity of corruption (according to Peter Eigen of Transparency International, bribery is still tax deductable in some countries) and the ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ facing many organisations, versus a moral and economic need for corporate transparency;
• The power of micro-lending (specifically, the catalyst for growth a few dollars can provide for an individual in a developing country) particularly when an entrepreneur by-passes institutions and instead connects a ‘crowd’ of lenders to the people who need the investment most;
• The paradox of thrift – at the very point we should be saving, our governments need us to spend to kickstart our growth-based economies;
• The need for multinationals in the private sector to drive change in protecting human rights in the global supply chain, versus the need to “trust but verify” (arms control maxim shared with us by Auret Van Heerden) that involvement;
• The human desire for novelty vs the human desire for altruism.

We were asked: what’s stopping us doing the blindingly obvious things to encourage sustainable production? To write tangible ecological and social goals into every business plan? To put the relationship between present and future at the forefront of our thinking?

As Tim Jackson summed up in his talk, we need to re-think how we perceive prosperity: “prosperity consists in our ability to flourish as human beings – within the ecological limits of a finite planet.”

"We're spending money we don't have on things we don't need to create impressions that don't last on people we don't care about." Tim Jackson (photo: blog.ted.com)

Over lunch came a briefing on TED’s performance, its aspirations for business partnerships and, with that, a parallel with one of the themes of the day: the future role of the private sector, this time in relation to TED itself. Any organisation dedicated to the spreading of good ideas needs to find like-minded platforms and partners to help it do so with maximum efficacy. With many of the annual TED prize winning projects requiring ongoing support, it struck us that perhaps it’s time we as marketers thought more imaginatively. A logo on a ‘sponsors’ page or a bespoke TEDTalks banner is one thing. Shouldn’t brands help make the ‘ideas worth spreading’ a reality? Through funding them, yes, but also through utilising the other resources they as organisations have at their disposal? Along the way, TED might employ the brand’s own network to further propagate ideas worth spreading and become a broker for making more of those ideas happen.

TED has all the hallmarks of an intellectually elite, yet super benign culture: the passion, commitment and zeal of its ‘super spreaders’, TEDsters, TED fellows, TEDx organisers and TED translators (as its curator Chris Anderson drily points out, 4.5 billion people on this planet do not speak English) can be a little unnerving to the uninitiated. However, by the end of just one day any residual British cynicism had given way, overwhelmed by the breadth and depth of individual and collective insight, conviction and challenge to conventional thinking.

A prolonged power outage half way through the day – temporarily reducing TED to ED, as several commentators couldn’t resist pointing out – was also revealing. Instead of ruining the day, it allowed for some particularly TED-flavoured spontaneity, with an opera singer (who also happened to be an entrepreneur running her own nanny network, naturally) pulled out from the audience to give a fantastic, impromptu performance on the spot, swiftly followed by a comedian. Such is the diversity of talent at TED.

Genevieve Thiers, opera singer and founder of Sittercity.com (photo: blog.ted.com)

Chris Anderson ended the day describing his vision of “crowd-accelerated innovation”, which echoed an earlier comment from Kiva.org founder Jessica Jackley: “The way we participate in each other’s stories is of deep importance.” As if to prove the point, the very next day Anderson was conducting a surprise interview with Wikileaks activist and spokesperson Julian Assange.

TED exists as a platform dedicated to ensuring an ever-increasing number of worthwhile stories are told, disseminated and acted upon. And that too, we’d add, has to be the good news.

***

FURTHER READING

TED site: http://ted.com

GOOD mag series on TEDGlobal 2010: http://www.good.is/community/brainpicker

Good mag digest of Day 3 of TEDGlobal 2010: http://www.good.is/post/tedglobal-day-3-what-you-missed/

Bruce Nussbaum: Is Humanitarian Design the New Imperialism?

7 must-read books by TEDGlobal speakers: http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2010/07/19/ted-books/