For one of our clients at Zilver (with Ralf Beuker and Edwin Rooseman). we’re mapping the mechanisms behind corporate blogging and other corporate 2.0 initiatives. We’re looking for the balance between (design) research opportunities on the one hand (getting to know the end user through meaningful online interactions) and marketing/communication opportunities on the other (showing the end user how you can be relevant to him or her). What’s vital is that there has to be a relationship with mutual benefits, where both parties benefit from giving and taking. It could look like this:
Now I’ve been looking at brands lately as ‘the vision organisations and end users have on the relationship they have with each other’ (my definition). Web 2.0 can be a very nice vehicle for exploring/establishing this relationship. This same reasoning gives credibility to what’s been referred to as design 2.0, where the design of meaningful interactions is an activity that is shared between organisation and end user. I do have my thoughts on this issue but that’s a different post.
Now this is all great stuff so let me rain on my own parade for a bit:
While I am writing this I am waiting for a reply to an e-mail I sent to what Business Week refers to as a ‘white hot’ company (I won’t name any names here, that’s not my style). In the e-mail I accuse them (in a very polite manner) of plagiarism.
What has happened is that in a lecture they’ve quoted my 2005 paper on Brand Driven Innovation literally, word for word, without any reference to me. How do I know? The conference video is on line. Web 2.0 remember?
Am I honoured? Of course. Am I pissed: very much. Am I dissapointed in human kind? Yabetcha.
I mean, of course you can download my work right here, and I want you to. I want reactions and discussion, I love it when people are inspired by my work and it brings them new insights, in general I’m a very open source, 2.0 kind of person. But don’t run off with my ideas, quote them literally, and pretend they’re yours. Especially when you are claiming to have a new angle to innovation that’s all about the idea.
There’s nothing wrong with building on other people’s ideas. In fact, the essence of web 2.0 might be the sharing of knowledge for the better of all stakeholders. But let’s have the decency to distinguish an original idea from a derivative and give credit where credit’s due.
From now on this blog and my dissertation are licenced under a creative commons licence (non commercial, attribution, share alike, version 3.0). Brand Driven Innovation is a zilver innovation bv trademark.
epilogue: the person in question has offered his sincere apologies plus dinner on him plus an explanation on how this could have happened. With that the case is closed; sorry Ralf, no name dropping and black listing!
my linked in profile
cc
Ralf Beuker
Well Erik, this reminds me on a blog post I’ve read today which said that such behavior says a lot about the one/organization that is acting that way.
Ironically you should see it from the Asian perspective of martial arts: Beat the enemy with his own energy: Instead of holding against it simply turn back the energy to the originator!
Accordingly I would love to read the name of the company and the source where to find the video
And more importantly use the video in one of your next lectures in order to demonstrate your ideas in action 
Cheers, Ralf.
Mar 03, 2008 @ 2:32 am
André Weenink
The problem that I have with the model is that it suggests that when interactions between people occure, they are merely a trade of ‘stuff’. I give you this, you give me that.
I don’t think it works this way (at least not in every case) Compare it to the following:
If I have an idea and I share it with you and if you have an idea too and share it with me. Then we both have two ideas, right? I haven’t lost mine and you haven’t lost yours. This way of sharing is, I think, really authentic.
When money or any other sort of trade (giving, taking) is involved, it disturbs a true relationship. Your model will not help very much I guess. (at least not to me)
Mar 20, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
erik roscam abbing
good point André! and i couldn’t agree with you more. I think that in your example, when you are talking about sharing ideas, the relationship is built around the exchange of thoughts. The exchange in my model may look a bit businesslike (i give you something I have and you want and I get something you have and I want in return). But it’s essentially the same exchange. The point I’m making is the same as yours: in this kind of exchange both parties benefit. Giving doesn’t mean losing. Getting doesn’t mean stealing. I made the model so simple and businesslike because it clarifies things: I share my idea with you, because you have feedback I want, and I think my idea might be valuable to you. Of course you’re free to share ideas without this exchange, but in a commercial web 2.0 context we have found that focussing on this kind of exchange where both parties gain helps us come up with concepts that work.
. Maybe it would help if the text would read:
The model is by no means meant to convey a sort of ‘the winner takes all’ transaction. if it does convey that I’m back to the drawingboard
share what you have – and what your end user values
so the end user shares what he has – and what you value
thanks for the comment!
Mar 20, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
André Weenink
What things are there to be traded then? Can you give an example other than an idea?
Mar 30, 2008 @ 9:52 pm
erik roscam abbing
well, information, inspiration, knowledge, insights, presence, fun, a platform, access, etc.
for example wikipedia gives their users a platform to share their knowledge plus access to a lot of other knowledge. What they get in return is a lot of useful contributions (which makes them relevant) and peer2peer quality control (which makes them reliable). Everyone wins, in a mechanism of giving and taking (or, as I learned from you, sharing what the other values). now ofcourse this is a non commercial application, but the point is that a commercial application can only work if the same kind of relationship is built.
A commercial relationship could revolve around the organisation providing a platform for their end user to share or discuss something, and getting insights in what that end-user values. See philips’ next simplicity, boeing’s dreamliner community, etc.
But the possibilities are endless: the relationship metafor can be a good brainstorming tool
Mar 30, 2008 @ 10:05 pm
André Weenink
I think you are right about the examples. And I think that all is screwed when a company brings in the trade again (trying to seduce customers with free gifts, pricing strategy, etc.)
Actually, there are two general sorts of relationships: one that involves sharing and one that involves trading. The latter has been the model for the past millenniums (until the 90′s) where producers provided goods in exchange for money. But this is shifting (caused by internet, conceptual age, etc.) to the sharing paradigm. (of course not for all and not everywhere)
How ’bout that?
Mar 31, 2008 @ 7:37 am
Ralf Beuker
André, Erik, good dialogue you’ve developed here!
@André: I have some ideas what you are aiming at here especially in the context of Web 2.0 aka the social web. However I think that many people mix up ‘social’ with ‘no commerce involved. I don’t believe these two contradict.
If you reflect on your criticism from an abstract level you will recognize that money in the end is only a metaphor and (as Erik tried to explain) is standing for a variety of ‘objects’: time, love, effort, pain, empathy, etc. while time being the top of a (say Maslow inspired) triangle. In the end it depends on how I/you ‘value’ this time (and from social psychology we know that ‘true’ altruistic behaviour is very rare.
So even while writing these lines I do not only ‘share’ my ideas with you, but I’m also working on my ‘reputation’ (even though I don’t know if this response increases or decreases my reputation taken my good intentions aside
Accordingly I think that all the stuff that is going on these days on the Web 2.0 layer of the internet is about these transactions Erik described.
Apr 02, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
André Weenink
Ralph, can you define a ‘social relationship’?
Apr 03, 2008 @ 10:44 pm
Ralf Beuker
André, the longer I think about your question I do believe that Watzlawick’s 5th axiom on communication applies here as well: ‘You can not not communicate’. By the same token I can hardly imagine any relationship that is not social which means not comprising any form of interaction (verbal/non-verbal). Maybe the difference between several forms of relationships vary by the triggers of a communication pattern: money, love, etc.
Apr 03, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
André Weenink
… and information, inspiration, knowledge, insights, presence, fun, a platform, access, etc. (like Erik mentioned above) right?
Social interactions involve love and non-love. Love is about sharing, having fun, laughing, forgetting space and time, etc. Non-love is about formal trades, alpha/beta behavior and ‘you’ and ‘I’.
The two can be subtly interwoven (or parallel, not sure yet): Last week I had a chat with a sales-representative of ABN-AMRO. We laughed, had fun; let’s say there was a short moment of love. At the same time some formal thing was taken care of.
I think that this is increasingly important for companies to understand these dynamics. To apply it internally and make sure everyone has the feeling of working together on something extraordinary and to radiate this situation of love on the outside world.
Apr 04, 2008 @ 12:00 am
Vol. 2: design-management.de
Design Management and Social Networks…
I thought I’d want to post my very own comment on this here since the interview is touching some good arguments that summarise my recent efforts (both theoretically as well as practically) on building an argument why it is essential for the design ma…
Apr 29, 2008 @ 9:52 am