The man who used to be the next president of the United States is taking the blogosphere seriously. We’re not talking peppering paid speaking engagements with an updated version of his “information superhighway” message of old. According to a new article in Wired magazine, blogs are influencing where Al Gore does – and doesn’t – put his money.

His new global fund, Generation Investment Management, takes a different approach to analyzing prospective investments. Before Generation invests in a business, it checks out how much the firm’s profits depend on high carbon output. That isn’t all, as reported in The Resurrection of Al Gore:

When considering an investment in an energy company with operations in the Rocky Mountain area, for instance, [Generation] analysts looked to community blogs, where they found considerable local opposition to the company’s strategy. “That business plan had a huge vulnerability that was outside the scope of its financial reports,” Gore says.

Clean profits. Clean image in local blogs. Two more things prospective investors might look for in companies of the future.

“There is nothing easier than lopping off heads and nothing harder than developing ideas.”
- Fyodor Dostoevsky

In Huffington’s blog flexes its muscles, Adrianna Huffington tells USA Today how the blogosphere can affect what’s covered by mainstream media (MSM):

We are living in a 500-channel universe. There is so much happening, and it is so easy for even front-page stories to die [in MSM]. What [the blogosphere provides] is staying on a story, developing it until it does break through the static.

For decades, it’s been a one-way communication — MSM to consumers/citizens. Now it’s common folk-driven blogs increasingly telling MSM what to cover.

In this post, I provided some of venture capitalist Tim Draper’s recent comments on how Sarbanes Oxley is driving increasing numbers of emerging U.S. companies to seek alternatives to capital from New York. USA Today confirms Draper’s views in Europe widens playing field, and presents other factors which are contributing to the growing role of London and Europe as global financial centers:

Tougher U.S. regulations following the collapse of Enron are making New York less attractive to foreign and domestic companies seeking capital. And tighter immigration rules following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks make New York less welcoming to financial firms and their clients and staff.
At the same time, London and Europe are close to some emerging markets and are enjoying lower interest rates. The relaxation of economic and immigration borders in the European Union has stimulated foreign mergers and acquisitions, and made London, Amsterdam and Brussels more attractive to a highly skilled financial workforce.
A less-stringent regulatory atmosphere across the Atlantic is attracting capital and emerging companies that seek it.

That sucking sound from London and Europe? It’s the financial centers drawing increasing numbers of emerging companies and financial talent from the U.S.

Earl Woods
1932 – 2006

Roland Piquepaille thinks that podcasts might be good for you, but not for him.  He offers a comprehensive view of the state of podcastville in What is the Future of Podcasts?

Powered by Qumana

Dennis Howlett points us to Vyew, a new web conferencing platform. The price point of $0 and the blank “Want to advertise here?” column on each page of their site suggest that they’re joining a growing group of free online apps relying on an advertising revenue model. The implications of Vyew are profound, as Dennis notes: “So now distance is no barrier in sharing ideas.” I’ve tried it once, and it seems to work just fine for basic web conferencing needs.

By the way, I’m creating this post using a new desktop blog editor called Qumana. Credit goes to Guy Kawasaki for bringing it to my attention.

Powered by Qumana

I love these new TV ads from Apple. Doc Searls’ assessment is spot-on: “Brilliant.”

Sounds like Guy Kawasaki has been drinking the Seth Godin juice. Not only does he suggest that all marketers are liars, but he lists their top lies. Here are the three from Guy’s list that I’ve heard all too often:

“Conservatively, the total addressable market for our product is $50 billion.”
I recently spoke to Rory Small, Director of Marketing at the Indiana Venture Center. This not-for-profit organization is approached by some 3 to 4 companies per week seeking various forms of funding and/or business advice. Rory notes that most of those companies overestimate the scope of their market to include what she calls “the inner Milky Way.”

“We found a rock star to join our marketing team.”
Everyone is looking for the star player. In doing so, most overlook candidates which lack the deep credentials but bring a sharp mind and a hunger to succeed.

“Our product is so unique that it has no competition.”
Sometimes your competition is a different category. Take grocers. Forty years ago, consumers spent about 70 cents of every food dollar in the supermarket. Now the portion is less than 50 cents. The competition for grocers isn’t just other grocers, it’s restaurants. My point is that everyone makes choices as to how they spend their time and money. Your competition is always the current choices people are making, regardless of how closely those choices resemble your offering.

Whether it’s bodies or brochures, people tend to aspire to the same goal: perfection. Show your best side. Boast on your company’s successes. Hide the blemishes on your body. Don’t bring up the Achilles Heel of your business.

Those who do so are doomed to become indistinguishable.

Alan Brown explains what he calls the mirage of perfection:

As an ideal, in the abstract, perfection is a noble pursuit, no? But everyone understands intuitively that without the blemishes, the perfect face is meaningless. That irreguarities add character to anything natural or human.

Cindy Crawford comes to mind after reading Alan’s comments. From her first trip down the catwalk, Cindy had the look to become a successful model — except for that mole on her face, which seemed to some (even Cindy herself, at first) a hindrance. Yet her rise to supermodel status may not have happened without the mole, according to Las Fashionistas:

[Cindy Crawford] almost had [her mole] removed. What a mistake that would have been. She might have ended up being just another model at that rate.

Take Superman. Perfect in every way except for bouts of weakness when exposed to rocks from Krypton. Brian Lanahan of Character LLC suggests that kryptonite made the caped hero’s career: “Superman is boring without kryptonite.”

See a pattern? It’s the flaws that make people in life — and characters in a story — interesting. Same goes with organizations. Yet many of those don’t see it that way. In The power of flaws, Andrew Taylor describes what he sees too often among arts organizations:

It’s an insight as old as theater — conflict, flaw, and tension are what make narratives compelling. And yet, read through most . . . marketing materials . . . and what will you find? Perfection, triumph, success, and positive spin.

Showing your flaws doesn’t just make you more interesting; it also gives you more credibility. Shaula Evans, a member of David Maister’s tech team, builds trust quickly by taking her “dead opposite” approach, as described in Why You Don’t Want Me:

[M]any people approach business relationships like a romantic courtship: they put their best face forward, make outlandish claims and set incredibly high expectations, and then, over time, they fail absymally at the impossible standards they’ve set and great frustration (and often high drama) ensues for everyone.
My approach (when I’m on my game) has been the dead opposite: I tell the other person all the very worst things about me, all the things that make me hard to work with or that might make him or her choose a different partner.

Being brutally honest about my own flaws and weaknesses and particular needs seems to have encouraged the person or people on the other side of the table to respond in a direct, honest way (instead of an over-inflated, artificial way), so we could have a real conversation about whether we met each others’ needs.

Shaula’s remarks remind me of the experiment conducted by Cleveland State University researchers in the mid-1980s. As I recall, they created two fictitious job candidates — David and John. Each had identical resumes and letters of reference, with one key exception: John’s letter included the sentence “Sometimes, John can be difficult to get along with” (or something to that effect). The researchers showed the resumes to dozens of personnel directors. To their surprise, John was the overwhelming favorite of the two candidates.

The lesson: Get real. Shun perfection. Show your warts.