Comments on: “markets are relationships”/hughtrain wiki

By: atomic

atomic — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:28:55 +0000

Relationships plus Market for Something to Believe in is Infinite = Scientology

By: sig

sig — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:11:31 +0000

Next thing? Stop patching the problems and dig deep and fix the underlying issues perhaps?
From separate-boxes-company-oriented hierarchies to customer-initiated-process-flow organisations – now that would help. (That was rather obscure, or what?)
The “flow-organisation”. You heard it here first, at Gapingvoid

By: Larry Borsato

Larry Borsato — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:57:34 +0000

Now that’s funny.

By: hugh macleod

hugh macleod — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:48:04 +0000

Larry Borsato, …and most companies are in a suicide pact with the people doing their marketing.

By: Larry Borsato

Larry Borsato — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:18:09 +0000

To the person who said that markets have always been collaborations, I must disagree.
When was the last time Nike called you to ask about what kind of shoe you would like?
Or Macdonalds called you to ask what kind of food you would like?
Surveys and focus groups are not collaboration, and most companies are push only.

By: Christopher Carfi

Christopher Carfi — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:03:09 +0000

and, as doc would write... Bonus link #1: http://www.socialcustomer.com/2005/03/communities_cus.html Bonus link #2: http://www.socialcustomer.com/2005/03/we_v_they.html

By: Christopher Carfi

Christopher Carfi — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:56:23 +0000

transactions => conversations => relationships => communities
“markets are transactions” : the crap-ass state where 99% of business is stuck
“markets are conversations” : good! yes! but still, doesn’t imply longer-term thinking. a “conversation” may be a one-shot deal
“markets are relationships” : great! better! yes! however, still, has a feel to it where the “market” is a collection of disjoint pieces; it’s a collection of disjoint, unconnected relationships. still, relationships are longer-term, long-thinking, persistent things. this is good.
“markets are communities” : perhaps, the logical conclusion. markets are groups of interconnected relationships, where the collection of relationships are all pulling in the same, positive direction.

By: jason

jason — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 02:59:19 +0000

see you in Paris!

By: frosty

frosty — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 01:45:08 +0000

It might be interesting to try something Wiki-like but not exactly a Wiki.
This is just off the top of my head, so maybe it’s a very messy idea.
I imagine something where there’s an original article (by Hugh) and some combination of alterations, expansions, comments (with threads), and so on. Then there are different views of this collection, and you can switch between the views.
For a limited example, let’s say you can comment on a particular word or phrase in the article. So I comment on “Cluetrain/Hughtrain” – now there’s a view of the article where hovering on those words brings up a floating box with my comment. Sort of like what Flickr does, but with text, and probably with a lot more permutations.
It would be an interesting experiment. Has anybody seen anything like that around?
Maybe I should build a prototype…

By: Timbo

Timbo — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:39:28 +0000

the less we concentrate on esteem, the better our choices.
the less we concentrate on self, the better our relationships.

By: joey

joey — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 19:17:49 +0000

“relationships are something to believe in”

By: jbr

jbr — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:06:18 +0000

add the two together and we have the next 2 steps in Maslow’s hierarchy.
once we have food, safety and love…we begin to desire esteem and self actualization. much of the market is driven by a desire for esteem and self actualization. we want to feel good about ourselves and after that, we want to help others feel good as well.
somewhere along the way, we became mired in the need for esteem. it seems much of our current marketing/branding is about feeling good about yourself. if we can’t get past esteem – especially self esteem – we can’t get to self actualization.
so, it is my hope that when the cluetrain and hughtrain meet, the end result is a fast track to self actualization. if you will – the pinnacle of needs express.
this should make for interesting conversation….

By: john t unger

john t unger — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:01:33 +0000

So does everything always need to be rolled into a single catchphrase? I mean, I know it’s convenient as shorthand, but nobody ever wrote a good novel in shorthand. Maybe if we got somebody like James Joyce to write a realllllly long catchphrase, with lots of buried puns. I think there’s a danger of tunnel vision in playing by labels… it’s perhaps too easy to lose sight of a broader picture. On the other hand, it doesn’t seem to have fettered Hugh or English Cut
If we must have a name for the “next thing” I still like “better choices,” which I see as including reputation, filtering (blogs, relationships, google, etc), maybe even things like experimentation, improvisation, openness.
I think collaboration is going to continue to play a more and more important role also…

By: mike dunn

mike dunn — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 09:49:06 +0000

“pr guy that gets it” + tattoo = brilliant
but, i’ll still take the t-shirt dave
how about “creating markets that believe in infinite relationships”…

By: dorothy

dorothy — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:36:14 +0000

Hugh train wiki.. yessss. Great idea !