How many articles have you read about “leveraging social media” yet how much real implementation have you seen? Researchers, companies pay attention. Memes provide very specific opportunities to participate in social media phenomena. And The 25 Random Things about [insert your product or service here] sweeping FaceBook – among others – is a no brainer to both implement and learn from.
People love to talk about themselves. They also love to talk about the things they love (and hate for that matter). Using FB or Ning or any other social network to initiate research on your product using this format has tremendous potential because it: 1) requires a long list…this means patterns will emerge; 2) it also means that people will be forced to think beyond the top well-published “issues”, they’ll be forced to think about the emotions and situations which cause them to love or hate – this leads to real usable insightful information; and 3) besides yet another reason to publish a personal opinion, who doesn’t love participating in the trendiest thing out there?
Innovation is born of necessity. And strangely the carbon cap and trade system just might fit into that category. History has proven that we need crisis to catalyze change. And then it requires everyone, and I mean everyone, to understand and participate in the solution. So while the cap and trade system is targeted at businesses, consumers will play a huge reinforcement role. Enter ideas like the Carbon Quotient Project. The CQ is an extension of similar concepts launched in Thailand and Japan that essentially strive to create a standard unit for product labels. Much like the nutritional fact labels that adhere to all packaged food products, the CQ could give us GHG’s emitted, reduced or otherwise advise on a stand unit of measure for the carbon footprint of each product. We, the consumer, then have the ability to offset our bag of potato chips or bottle of beer by riding our bike to work or simply not purchasing. There are actually a million different behaviors that this could launch but the bottom line is that we would start to become educated relative to a standard unit (so the theory goes), hold businesses accountable and gradually start to bring about global responsibility and accountability for how businesses are impacting the deteriorating environment around us. It has been said before but change is incremental.
At first I loved this idea: a clock-radio that racks up the cash contribution to charity every time you hit the snooze alarm! How clever I thought. This takes real innovation in terms of examing our every day behaviors for the purpose of mining it for something good. But then I read, and actually re-read, the copy. You’re supposed to set it to the charity that you hate so that the double-negative of “wasting” your money while wasting away your productive hours angers you into getting up…..huh? Why all the negativity? Is that a way to start the day? Why not set it to your favorite charity and enjoy the fact that those needed extra minutes of sleep are not only helping your body recover but helping someone else too?
In the context of a world largely screaming for regulation, we once again see a visionary business man at work. The Washington Post reported that Bill G distributed 104 grants of $100,000 each through the Gates Foundation to grants that may prove productive partially because they don’t incorporate the traditional peer review requirements that seem a necessary, but stifling requirement of medical research. While I am all for accountability and a dose of fact-checking, innovation happens when you break the mold, push the boundaries and dare to think out loud (over the protests of your peers). And while we’re at it…..there’s wild speculation about his new company bgC3. Is it a business venture? Is it a philanthropic venture? Call me crazy but given his background….would it be that outlandish to think its a think tank for philanthropic business ventures?