No surprise, but Gruber gets it. Performance is a distraction, and it all comes down to control. Going back to my point about Apple producing its own processors from the other day, you can look at the introduction of the iPod, iPhone&iPad as evolutionary steps towards greater and greater control of the device ecosystem – all the way down to the silicon.

What would happen if we decided at the beginning when a company should die?

I’ve had a few conversations recently about the idea of businesses with expiration dates and I thought maybe it was worth getting some thoughts down. Essentially I’ve been playing with the thought that instead of puttering out 8 years down the line there might be an opportunity for a company to choose its end date and put itself to rest peacefully.

Nobody wins forever. It just doesn’t happen. The big company who have been successful for a century can be counted on your hands. Of course there are Harvard Business Review case studies written about them and they’ve been massively successful, but they are anomalies. A company like GE really shouldn’t exist according to most of what we know about the world. (They are a client of mine, so take whatever I say about them with a grain of salt.) They’re massive, in a ton of different businesses and have existed for over 100 years. This isn’t normal.

What we see in reality are millions of corpses of businesses and ideas that have made their impact (or not) and then petered out into oblivion without leaving much more than a memory. Some of them get bought and swallowed by a bigger company, others have their ideas copied and commodotized and many just don’t have the business or financial chops to make it all work for more than a few years.

So what if instead of worrying about all that you just decided at the beginning you were going to end it all six years in? I’m not sure how you’d decide the timeframe, but let’s put that aside for a second and imagine what would happen if you did. One hope is that it would solve the short-term over long-term problem. Part of the long-term issue is that you have no idea how far into the future “long-term” really is. Company management doesn’t know how long the company will last, so they optimize for the now (they also don’t know how long their jobs will last, but I’ll get to that in a minute). It may be overly hopeful, but as long as one choose a reasonable time-frame (5-10 years) I wonder if you couldn’t lift the decision-making out of the immediate.

The problem here, of course, is that the employees will likely not plan on sticking around for all that time. This, I think, is actually the biggest problem in most of business at the moment. It’s certainly the shortcoming of my business expiration idea, because if employees aren’t in it for the full haul we’ll have the same sort of misaligned incentives and general screwups (at least at the beginning). So on this one, what if we started making jobs with expiration dates? Most of the people I know go into jobs at the moment with little plans of making it beyond three years (as of 2008 the average job tenure for Americans between 25 and 34 years of age was 2.7 years ). Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing isn’t what I’m really interested in at the moment, instead I wonder what would happen if you just capped it. Especially in the advertising industry, where turnover seems higher than most, what if you just signed people up for 2.5 years in the first place. Companies would know what to expect out of the employees and could plan their transition far better and employees wouldn’t have to stew as they got bored. Obviously you’d have to figure out a financial incentive system that worked with this sort of arrangement so that the person didn’t check out at year two, but that could be figured out I suspect.

Anyhow, as usual, this is just me thinking out loud. Happy to hear any thoughts. I don’t know if either of these are actually good ideas, but they at least seem theoretically intriguing.

I quite liked the following description of the state we’re all left in by the glut of food books on the market at the moment (from an otherwise unremarkable ”
>Lunch with the FT with Jonathan Safran Foer

:

I suggest that the effect of all these books could be to provoke a kind of ethical paralysis. A couple of years ago writers such as Barbara Kingsolver, Alisa Smith and JB MacKinnon argued for local food because of the ecological cost of transportation – which made sense to me until I read Professor James McWilliams’ Just Food (2009), which argues cogently against this locavore approach. Pollan has praised producers such as Joel Salatin of Polyface Farm, known for its sustainable farming methods; Foer interviews another farmer, who thinks Polyface is “horrible” because it produces “industrial” rather than “vintage” birds. One side gives us permission to eat something; another denies it, so we end up walking out of the supermarket with no food.

I know it’s not new, but it’s nicely described and ethical paralysis is a good name for the situation.

COMMENTS OPEN

Wired has a real nice article on Google’s search algorithm . It’s a real score for the Mountain View massive as it makes the whole process seem not evil at all … It actually feels quite quaint:

Recently, search engineer Maureen Heymans discovered a problem with “Cindy Louise Greenslade.” The algorithm figured out that it should look for a person - in this case a psychologist in Garden Grove, California - but it failed to place Greenslade’s homepage in the top 10 results. Heymans found that, in essence, Google had downgraded the relevance of her homepage because Greenslade used only her middle initial, not her full middle name as in the query. “We needed to be smarter than that,” Heymans says. So she added a signal that looks for middle initials. Now Greenslade’s homepage is the fifth result.

COMMENTS OPEN

File this under: Data that seems like it might come in handy at some point.

Sociological Images (one of my favorite blogs) has a list of male and female starting salaries broken down by undergraduate major . Women lead the way in 25 majors of the 68 (37%) majors listed: Agricultural science, management information systems, marketing, advertising (by $7,100), computer programming, computer science, computer systems analysis, physical education, aerospace/aeronautical engineering, bioengineering&biomedical, chemical engineering, electrical engineering, environmental engineering, industrial technology, industrial engineering, materials engineering, mechanical engineering, mining&mineral engineering, nuclear engineering, petroleum engineering, systems engineering, nursing, clothing/apparel/textile studies and history.

For what it’s wroth the highest differential between male and female starting salaries is in the “other humanities” major, where men make $19,600 more than women.

COMMENTS OPEN

As someone who does a lot of screwing around on the internet in the name of creativity, it’s always nice to read an article like this from Wired about the value of distraction (especially the kind you run into on social networks).

A random scrap of information can trigger just the right conceptual collision. It’s hard to know which scrap might do the trick, but that’s the beauty of social networks—they constantly produce potential sparks, for free.

In all seriousness, though, two things jump out at me about this: First, it falls into some of the thinking I’ve had about the role of serendipity tools in the creative process. What makes the web magical is it’s ability to deliver the information you didn’t know you were looking for and I absolutely believe you can optimize services for that (I’m working on one now). Second, and I think I’ve mentioned this in the past, I see a real connection between input and output: When I stop spending time on the web consuming content, I don’t think as well.

via The Awl

COMMENTS OPEN

Maybe the most interesting part of this new Johnson&Johnson online stress consultation (plus fragrance) subscription service is how they’re launching it:

Upliv will be introduced with a 30-minute infomercial, intended to begin later this month in Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas and Atlanta. The infomercial, by Cesari Direct of Seattle, features the actress Angie Harmon, Upliv’s spokeswoman, as well as scientists, a fragrance specialist and several women who participated in a trial run of the program.

I’m super curious a) how a paid web service from a packaged goods company will work out and b) how the promotion strategy will play. I’ve often wondered if you could use infomercials to drive serious web traffic for little money and I guess Jwill find out. Will probably just be worth whatever they spent on the site to learn that.

COMMENTS OPEN