Slashdot Mirror
The Cluetrain Manifesto
Scratch that last part. In any case, it is true that I usually manage to avoid "business" writing. I've mostly found that the point the authors attempt to make could have been said in 15 pages, versus the 150 they took to say it. Even the most beautiful graphs cannot disguise a lack of content.
However, when Doc Searls (one of the authors of The Cluetrain Manifesto) passed along several copies of the book, I was a bit taken aback. I'd heard it being talked up by quite a number of people, all of whom were (hurried intake of breath!) Manager-types! But the people writing it -- from Doc, to Christopher Locke, Rick Levine and David Weinberger -- are all folks I've either met, heard or read before and people I respect.
That left me with a bit of a conundrum. If this book was written by people I respected, but as a rule business books have been the closest to Harlequin romances in terms of worth, what the heck was going on? The answer, my dear Watson, is quite elementary: this is not a business book.
Or rather, it is. But not a book about how business today should run and operate, about "disintermediation" and other piles of drivel that I think should be apparent for what they are to anyone willing to think. Instead, Cluetrain gets at the heart of what's actually going with this whole "Internet Revolution" -- people talking to people. And I think that particular message has gotten lost in the haze of convenience, price-difference and all the other media hyped ideas about what's going on with the business side of the Internet. What the authors of the book argue is that what's actually happening, in many ways, is that we are ripping down the artifical walls between producers and sellers. I agree. Disintermediation by any other name, maybe, but their treatment is refreshing in that it focuses on the human side. Any book that includes the mantra: "I am not a business. I am a human being." is good by me. And they also mention "undead evil." I'm serious.
OK, here's my take on the book with some sembalance of mental order: Cluetrain does a great job of exploding much of the hype about the present revolution. Instead, the revolution we're creating is something that humanity had for a while, and lost. We're bringing back the conversation now, and we're taking it global. That's the book in a nutshell. But the folks writing it can actually make that message interesting enough to read for roughly two hundred pages -- enough that you want to read the author credits, and drop them a line, like I did. The book also gathers strength from its use of excellent quotes and examples.
Who should this book be read by? You, of course, but also passing the book along to bosses and friends who are afraid of the Internet. I'm serious -- this book has become my defacto primer for people who don't understand what the Internet is going to do -- and doing -- and are scared about it.
And even if you don't trust me, read the sample chapter. Review Two: Jason Bennet
BackgroundGreetings, all, and good to be back. After finishing some books in the past month, as well as finally getting some others written up, I'm ready to unleash a string of reviews on Slashdot. The first of these is one of the more talked-about books to come out recently, The Cluetrain Manifesto. I have to admit I didn't see the Web site until recently, and thus am a newcomer to the movement, but I must say the rhetoric is revolutionary, regardless of how much impact it eventually has. If nothing else, take a look at the site and read over the 95 theses. You may or may not agree with them, but they will make you think.
What's the book about?Before addressing the various essays that make up the manifesto, I'll try to summarize the ideals and ideas behind the movement. Basically, commerce as we know it is a lie. For most of human history, trade has been about interacting with other people. Going to the market, seeing your friends, checking out the various stalls, conducting business, and generally doing the important things of life. Craftsmen proudly displayed their wares to all who would see, touch, and smell them. People discussed which merchants were fair, who had the best quality, and so on. The market was the center of human interaction, where politics, society and business merged (see the Greeks for an excellent example). The Industrial Revolution changed all that, however. With the advent of mass production and economies of scale, production and consumption became all important. Craftsmanship was discarded in favor of turning out as much interchangeable product as possible, using interchangeable workers in interchangeable factories. The marketplace ceased to be a conversation, and became a one-way street, aimed directly at the consumer. The rise of mass media completed the transformation from conversation to lecture. No longer did customers roam the marketplace, but instead consumers were lulled, bribed and manipulated into buying the latest and greatest, because TV told them so. The idea of the interchangeable consumer came to be the industrial ideal. Nothing was left to chance: You could get anyone to buy anything made by anyone, and all that mattered was the money. This ideal never totally came to pass, of course, but it was the driving force behind many decades of business.
The Internet has broken these chains, however. The market no longer stares exlusively at the great tube, but instead is engaged in the greatest conversation in human history. Customers now tell each other what is happening, and shoot down the grandiose marketing schemes of giant corporations. You can now talk to hundreds of people in your town about the latest restaurants, which car dealer is best, or what doctors give the best care. The bazaar has returned with a vengeance. The mass media assume we are stupid; the Internet makes us collectively smart. The Internet is a conversation.
Commensurate with the redemption of customers from the bondage of industry, workers are no longer cogs in a great production machine, but are now talking to each other in ways they never could before. Hierarchies are broken when you can e-mail anyone, anytime, to give or get help. It doesn't matter where you sit, or what your place is, everyone has access. Even worse, those employees (nee' resources) and those customers can now talk to each other easily. The two great conversations, inside the business and inside the market, are on a collision course. The only question is, will that collision propel your business to new heights, or destroy it?
Chapter 1 is more or less an overview of what is to come, and where I drew the above summary from. In short, because of the Internet, you, the customer, now have a voice, the ability to make yourself heard to others over the din of advertising and other stilted "business communication." You know what business-speak sounds like, you know what people sound like, and you know what you prefer and who you believe. Just as the customer is empowered, so is the worker, precisely because of the knowledge that a network allows to flow. These conversations threaten to completely overthrow business as we know it, and their merger will transform the market.
Chapter 2 quickly sums up why we so desperately want our voice back: because we sacrificed it, traded our souls, to be good professionals. The Web allows us to be ourselves again.
Chapter 3 discusses what's behind the Web: the unique voice of each person participating in the conversation. These voices are carried along various conduits: e-mail and mailing lists, newsgroups, chat rooms, and personal Web pages. The chapter details various ways that these modes of communication are already breaking down the barriers among customers, and between business and customers, including a very interesting newsgroup exchange about Saturn automobiles. Most of this will be old hat to Slashdot readers, but likely not to suits. Authenticity is the key here, along with spontaneity and a human touch. All of these things are conveyed by people in a conversation, and not conveyed by brochures or Powerpoint presentations. It doesn't matter so much that your company participates in all of these conversations, as it does that it is honest when is does participate. Some examples of honest, open organizations (United, Sun's Java team, at least at first) and closed organizations (Intel with the Pentium bug, Java later on) are analyzed, with clear results: those companies that try to talk succeed, while those that don't talk only hurt themselves. Someone will be talking, and it had better be you.
The anecdote which opens chapter 4 sums up the theme: even after hearing about markets as conversations for several hours to a group, some people still don't get it. The first few paragraphs basically repeat what has already been stated: markets stopped being conversations around the time mass production and mass marketing took over. What replaced this conversation was a one-way message, delivered from business to consumers. Unfortunately, no one really wants to listen to an overblown hype machine. The entire role of marketing is to make us want what we are supposed to want, but don't really want. This anti-conversation, however, is slowly but surely being pushed back by the rich tones of conversation on the Web. The knowledge contained in these conversations increases exponentially as more and more people join the party. Attempts to dominate this conversation with targeted message, i.e. push technology, have failed utterly. No one wants another television. In point of fact, conversation built the Web, manifested in the open source movement. Apache, Linux and the rest are all products of conversations. These are living examples of what can be accomplished when the market talks. The only way for marketing to survive is to work with the conversation, to give it what it wants. No more brochureware, but real information that the market recognizes as such. Work with the customer on price. Truely reposition, don't just spout different lines. Marketing sees the consumer as the enemy. The conversation is waiting for them to realize what's happening. All you have to do is talk honestly, and people will listen and talk back.
Chapter 5 details the other side of this sea change -- the change within business. In a "hyperlinked organization," people don't need the fancy office building or the top-down bureaucracy, they just want to be able to work with those people that best let them get a job done. Employees (or, dare I say it, resources) need no longer be bound by lines on an organizational chart. People go to who they need to get what they need. Centralized control is replaced by a web of people working with whoever they need. Groups form and collapse on an ad-hoc basis to meet the demands of the moment. All of the knowledge generated is managed through people telling each other stories. We already have tons of information; what we need is more knowledge, more understanding. Human communication generates this understanding. Because of all of this communication, and lack of hierarchy, it is inevitable that your customers will join in. Business intranets will expand to include customers along with employees, working together to make sure everyone gets what he needs. Business as a message is dead; Business as a conversation is beginning.
Chapter 6 summarizes the points made so far, then launches into a treatise on the future of the Web. Unfortunately, we're asking the wrong questions. We don't need to ask questions out of fear of the Web, but out of our desire to converse. The conversation we have will shape the Web the way it needs to be. There's no easy way to do this, just a journey into the unknown.
Chapter 7 concludes the Manifesto by stating that the revolution has already begun, and it's too far gone to stop. What we must do now is break our old habits, and start behaving in a new way. It's so tempting to keep an old, patched machine going even when everyone knows it needs to be replaced. Just remember, "I am not a company, I am a human being."
What's Good?This book will blow your mind, all the more so if you're new to the Internet or unsure about what it means. It presents a radical new way to think about how we interact with commerce and with each other. To some extent or another, I think we all feel what is being communicated here. We're all tired of being cogs, of being consumers, of being resources. We want to be people, friendly customers, employees. As the conclusion says, it's already too late to stop this transformation. The Internet will only grow, and its fundamental nature means that the old is gone, and the new is come. If you are in business, you need to understand what is happening. You can either surf the wave, or drown in it.
What's Bad?Any controversial book has its issues, and Cluetrain is no exception. The only reason I gave the book a Geek rating of 7 is because you already know what is being said. You know how people talk in newsgroups, and you probably don't want to read 50 pages telling you that. You don't need to hear this message repeated five times in the course of 200 pages. It's a good read, but know that you're likely to skip some parts, because you're tired of being beaten over the head with something you've already figured out.
Having said that, I do have quarrels with a few points that Weinberger makes when he discusses how the Internet came to be. I get the impression that he feels that the Internet sprung from chaos like Athena from Zeus, magically appearing out of the mist of conversation alone. He certainly believes that hierarchy is counterproductive in the Internet age. "[T]he most complex network ever imagined...[the WWW] has been implemented without any central control whatsoever," he writes on page 130. What exactly are the IETF and the W3C then? Didn't a small group of people design TCP/IP? There was a conversation, of course, but there was also control and hierarchy. No good open-source project lacks a leader, and every movement needs its inspiration. The Internet might not be the encrusted bureaucracy of a megacorporation, but authority is helpful in getting things done. I find the quote "[t]he Web succeeded where the Internet failed ..." (page 142) especially interesting. Although, as he says, the Web gave us the user-friendly browser, I'd rather think the Internet spawned the Web, since it is what transports the Web. Oh, and if someone can tell me what a "Unixlike language (145)" is, I'd appreciate it. I also find humorous the notion that e-mail has to be poorly written to be authentic. Finally, Chapter 6 is far too much of a political rant for my taste. Wanting to push pornography to the side does not make one a control freak. Control is not a bad thing. Anyway, I'm ranting now myself. It's a good book, despite these issues.
So What's In It For Me?I think I've already said that. :-) This is an important book. You might love it. You might hate it. You'll likely feel threatened by it. Nevertheless, you owe it to yourself to at least read the 95 Theses. They will make you think. If you're a business type, read this. You need to, especially if you're still learning this Internet thing. If you've been around, read it if you want. There'll be some full parts, but it will mean a lot. The revolution has already begun.
Purchase this book at ThinkGeek.
- Table of Contents
- Foreward
- The Cluetrain Manifesto
-
Introduction
- Internet Apocalypso
- The Longing
- Talk is Cheap
- Markets are Conversations
- The Hyperlinked Organization
- EZ Answers
- Post-Apocalypso
- Acknowledgements
- About the Authors
Amazing.
A list of the things that have been screwed up by people like you with no idealist spirit:
1. the Communist revolution in China. Things would have been fine if there weren't so many profiteers like you without any real Communist spirit who decided that they may as well become cadres and corrupt and get rich off of other peoples' misery.
2. just about every single US election. People consistently vote for the lesser of the two evils instead of who they really want. And look where it's gotten us.
3. the stock market. If people would just have some faith that the market isn't going to take a nose dive, it never would, because people would start buying quickly enough after a sell-off that things wouldn't have a chance to get bad.
4. religion. If people would simply go by the words of their favorite religious books instead of by what they think would benefit them most, the world would be a much better place. After all, didn't Christ say that the most important commandment was "love thy neighbor as thyself"? Why do Christians constantly insist on placing other parts of scripture above that?
5. Slashdot. If all the spammers who spam Slashdot because they think it's fun and Slashdot's bad enough anyway realized that it would be much better if they would work to make it that way, Slashdot would be a far better site for everyone, instead of the troll-infested hole it is now.
Really -- people need to have idealistic spirit, and not get caught up in the base impulses that end up ruining everything.
When the message people are trying to get across is "Think for yourself, dammit!", how exactly does "getting it" become some type of conformity to a behavioural pattern?
Because "think for yourself" is far different from "read this book and agree with what it says" which seems to be the attitude I can see. There are a number of people on /. with sigs which say "Don't get it - read the Cluetrain Manifesto" or something similar, and I've seen plenty of posts saying "get X to read the Cluetrain Manifesto - that'll tell them what's *really* going on". How is this thinking for yourself?
By reading some person's own personal political agenda about the internet you aren't forming your own opinions, you're just sucking up someone else's. How is it that other books like this which purport to explain just "how it is" get slated here on /., but this one doesn't, just because it agrees with the naive idealist politics of /. readers? Hypocrisy? I think so.
IMHO, this heavily hyped book was a total waste of money. The book basically takes a few central themes and repeats them over and over again, finding about 100 different ways to say the same thing. To make things worse, most of its points are obvious to anybody who has been on the internet for a while and they do come to some fundamentally wrong conclusions.
They seem to approach the subject as if they had just discovered the wonders of computing, and seem to forget about all of the scientists and engineers that have spent over 3 decades bringing their visions of the information age to reality. Also, they seem naive about issues of control over infrastructure and information. Unfortunately, this is the kind of book that will appeal more to a socialogist than an engineeer/geek.
The only explanation why Hemos could possibly give it a good review is that he is a friend of some of the authors. To me, it was a fluff piece.
Whilst I'm sure this is an interesting book and that /.ers will all find it a great read, I'm sick and tired of the constant pressure for people who use the internet to "conform" to some kind of behavioural pattern. And I'm even more tired of being told that the net is bringing about some kind of radical "paradigm shift" in the way individuals and organisations interact.
All of this is just a dressing up of the naive political ideals of the majority of /. readers - that things are changing for the better, that world peace is possible and even round the corner and that technology will make the world a fundamentally better place to live. These ideals, while all very noble, don't seem to correspond to any kind of reality experianced by people living on the Earth today.
And yeah, I'm sure I'm going to be told I "don't get it" or some other platitude, but what people seem to forget here is that we all have our own views of life, and that these views are all valid in their own ways. But holding idealistic, head in the cloud views is just foolish - the only way you'll change the world is by looking at it and not some "manifesto" claiming to contain all the answers to the world's problems.
When people stop trying to control the thoughts of net users then things might change, but until then communist ideals of everyone being alike (or "getting it") will hold these changes back.
I guess that depends on how you define "market" and how you define "community". They're not saying that everyone you shop with is going to be as close to you as your friends mudding, it's more like, to fit the analogy of a medieval marketplace, back then you knew Bob the Farmer way better than you know Wal-Mart today. It's all a matter of scale.
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
I don't remember which of their 95 "theses" it is, but the gist of it is that "Your customers often know more about your stuff than you do - and they talk to each other about you, and your services"
:)
Well done.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
1. I will always perview everything I
post and check for speling mistakes.
2. I will make sure the subject of my
post/story is descriptive.
3. I will close my tags at all
times.
4. I will not post redundant messages.
and will stay on topic.
5. I will use the proper formatting
option.
6. I will terminate all my urls.
Thank you for your time.
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
Actually, in regards to the length of the review, it does go on for a while, but I felt with the depth of the book that a longer review was necessary. If it is too long, though, please let me know.
Comments on the reviews:
- Most business books are tripe. Not all business books are. Read Drucker, Senge, Hock, or Tom Peters. They're all quite good (most of the time). There seems to be almost a smug ignorance of business in the Slashdot community, as if this makes one intellectually superior or something... isn't it ironic how much we chide business people for not knowing anything about technology?
- There seems to be a profound ignorance of history, economics and business in the second review. Were people really just mindless TV zombies for the past 50 years? Not exactly. TV has a big influence, but it isn't the only influence. Nor is it an evil influence.
Was the industrial revoltion an evil conspiracy that homogenized work and workers into meanlingless jobs? In some ways, yes, though some companies were better than others. In other ways, no: it dramatically increased productivity, and hence the standards of living for capitalist Europe and North America to levels never before known in the general populace.
Did craftsmanship create better quality products and happier consumers than mass production? Okay, would someone prefer a crafted refridgerator, or a massed produced on? "Oh, but that's different." Is it, really? Yes, technology has changed to a point where we (consumers) now want & deserve "mass customization". But at the beginning of mass consumer production, after just coming off of a war-time economy, we were just happy to get our hands on stuff, period.
About the book:
- Very thoughtful, but also very repetetive. Chris Locke is a great writer, and I liked his pieces best.
- Contrary to popular belief, this book does not say "down with marketing". It actually says "up with marketing", just in more dynamic forms.
- I like the idea that an organization should more be a "society of individuals" than a "hive mind like the borg". Ironic how just 8 years ago many of us were wearing our Star Trek uniforms discussing over cheesy poofs how perfect a society like the Borg really was.
- There seems to be this overall disinterest in economics. What's interesting is that many economists have been saying exactly this message for the last few years: The Internet gives power to the consumers, hence pushing competition up to never-seen-before levels.
- "Profit margins are YOUR problem. We don't care if you are a company." Well, that's fine actually from a consumer perspective. They should have all the power that this manifesto is predicting will come to them. But being a book catered to businesses, they're placing the hard work in the hands of the readers - how do you adopt these ideas into a viable business model? Perhaps, one would hope, that these ideas are naturally leaning towards easy to find business models.
On a side node, this position also unfortunately leads some with particular political biases (ahem), to believe that it's a call to eliminate intellectual property laws because "I'm a consumer dammit, and I don't care if you're a business that wants to make money off of your IP. I want to copy it freely and not pay for it."
Sure, you one day will probably be able to copy it freely and distribute it far & wide to whomever you please. It doesn't mean, however, that you shouldn't have to pay for it, and some day, there'll be technology that does this non-invasively. "It's about freedom, not money." Sure - and If you believe that, more power to you. I just think there's too many people on the bandwagon for free beer.
-Stu
Cool. Thanks for the reply, Chris.
Perhaps I'm just a little guilty of being too confident in market & competitive forces, my opinion is that a lot of what the cluetrain prophesizes is going to happen with or without the shouting.
I guess it's good to at least TRY to warn the complacent companies, but it would be so delightful to see some big-boys fall out of ignorance...
-Stu
Yes, this is an excellent point. I think Deming sits next to Taylor as the most important contributor to understanding how to make work productive.
And this reminds me of one part of Chapter 1 of the cluetrain: I think Chris Locke misrepresents Fredrick Taylor (understandably, since many people do out of fashion).
I'd argue that the misapplication of Taylor's techniques were inhumane, not Taylor's work itself. Taylor's contribution to management was in "work analysis" i.e. what's the most efficient way to perform a task? Often the inhumane part was "job analysis", i.e. in a production process, how should you organize the division of labor? Taylor had little to do with the latter... unfortunately managers took the liberty of designing jobs along the lines of the work.
Taylor made it clear in his writings & testimony that he cared deeply about treating workers as "humans", to be paid well and treated well. Managers, under his system, were the servants of workers. That he didn't know post-Freudian psychology is akin to blaming IssacNewton for not knowing about quantum mechanics.
Deming essentially updates Taylor for the late 20th century...
-Stu
Yeah, I think that's what he was saying.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Consider by analogy our experience with certian software and vendors today - you have to ask questions like:
- Does it perform a useful function, or is it merely a parasite? (desired program vs. virus)
- Does it interact well with other memes, or is it exclusonary? (modular vs. monolithic)
- Is it reliable, or does it fail at inopportune times? (how buggy?)
- Does it help/prevent you from adding newer useful memes? (open/closed systems)
- Does it make it harder/easier for distructive memes to proliferate? (secure/insecure)
- Is it acessible to improvement/modification based on experience, or is it rigid and brittle? (open/closed source)
And so on. Memes are our mental tools individually and collectively and exist in extremely large numbers, more so in healthy populations. (Limited meme (mono)cultures are extremely unhealthy: like any (ecological) system, a complex web is an indicator of health).Enough with these meta-meme anologies... :)
--
An esoteric scratched itch:
Homeworld Map Maker Tool
Clueful indeed.
/. and 86 the Katz? His book, comparatively speaking, sucked.
Can we make these guys regular columnists on
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Algo for getting the most out of reviews
... then depending on hum much you liked the subject you will read the review.
:-)
:-)
:-)
1. Read the first few paras till you come to know the subject. If you don't like the subject go to 100.
2. Read the last para and chk out the conclusion. If you trust the author and the conclusion is bad got to 100.
3. Chk the size of the review..if it is short enough read it, and go to 5.
4. (REview is too frickin long case) Read the user comments and see if they agree with the reviewer. If the comments agree with the conclusion
5. goto 101
6. If you do not trust trust the author but you are really interested, go to other sites (amazon? is the best) for more reviews and go to 101 else go to 100.
7. If you reach here get an AMD processor.
8. NOP
9. NOP
.
.
99. NOP
100. exit (1)
101. exit (0)
The above algo has many loose ends. Each reader should fill them up in his own way. That's life for you.
Over and out
CP
P.S: Would appreciate if someone can give a more efficient algo.
Miscommunication and Rudeness? I agree for the most part.. But how else do we overcome miscommunication and rudeness? It is to communicate more not less. Most of the rudeness comes from people hiding behind one or more levels of nicks. IMHO this anonymous nature of a lot of net communication fosters a sense of not being responsible for what we say. If no one can track down what you say and hold you responsible for it, then you can be as rude as you want. I have to wonder if the level of rudeness would be the same if the communication was done face to face.
Jason, not to quibble over semantics, but I think there's a difference between the Web's infrastructure (the Internet) and the Web itself.
;-)</apology>
You're right that the whole thing didn't happen in some digital parthenogenesis of computer geeks, Amazon wannabees, Buffy otaku, Russian mail-order brides, and wave after wave of AOL newbies. But beyond the top-level domains, IETF and W3C didn't really do anything about the structure and community of the Web. They just built the superhighways. We lined them with subdivisions and shopping malls.
<apology>I know I dragged the "information superhighway" metaphor out of its tomb, but it's not a bad description of the infrastructure. Blame the clue-impaired politicians and media slugs for ruining it.
Every day we're standing in a wind tunnel
Facing down the future coming fast - Rush
This sig intentionally left blank.
What an egocentric viewpoint. Yeah, sure maybe your life is great and full of all these wonderful advances, but try living in say, the Taliban-controlled parts of Afganistan and see how "wonderful" this period of time is. The 20th century has been the home of some of the worst violence and atrocities in history, and it is only people like you who are secure in your luxury that have the gall to say that.
/.er to be capable of that level of introspection.
Eh, I wish my life was great and wonderful, and to many people I'm sure it is, but I have my own problems, as I'm sure everyone does. And yes, as i stated, the world will always have suffering, but I wonder what the population/suffering ratio is nowadays, I'm willing to bet it's lower now then it ever has been. And do not forget the atrocities of the past...what about the crusades? Or the Spanish Inquisition ( ob "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" )
You say you want individuality, and then go and say this rubbish. A manifesto is a tool for pushing conformity, even if, as it is in this case, an illusionary tolerance of "individuality". True individuality doesn't come from being brainwashed into false beliefs, it comes from within a person. But then again, I wouldn't expect the average
A manifesto is NO such thing, the dictionary defination is: manifesto (mn-fst)
n., pl. manifestoes or manifestos.
A public declaration of principles, policies, or intentions, especially of a political nature.
Cleary states that it is simply stating what you believe, nobody says YOU have to believe it has well, it is simply what THEY think. And think about the word idealistic for that matter...in order to call it idealistic you must share their ideals, or else it ISN'T idealistic? *sigh* Not that I would expect you to understand the concept.
BTW: The plural of pen is pens, not penses. (ha)
Peace
pronoblem
pronoblem
Actually, I haven't read the book. I was talking about the CTM posted at their site.
...works. Is the CTM a founding document? Something we'll look back on in a few years, and say, "I remember when cluetrain.com went up, I was at... doing..."? No. It'll have it's 15 minutes and then fall out of fashion. But, in the meantime, it served a purpose for me, and so it can't be all bad.
And I agree, what I read is not a business plan. It's simply a loooonnngg checklist of things that are different online than in the storefront world.
We didn't take direction from it per se, but instead it was able to provide a common language where I could start to explain to the sales/marketing types about why some of their plans were silly. Most of them have very little direct experience with dotcoms, and the CTM is an easy way to get them up to speed.
I don't plan on reading the book, given the reviews here. Some hundreds of pages expounding on 95 self-evident and/or redundant points doesn't seem like a good way to spend my time.
Ultimately, if it works, it
dns down? try http://208.12.21.18
and the PHB, sales and marketing people all loved it. That site opened a dialogue I'd been trying to have with them for weeks, but wasn't able to get started. Perhaps because it carried the authority of being a nicely done page, or it had the presentation of being another revolutionary dotcom manifesto, I don't know. But I sent the link to the head of Marketing, and he read it and sent to everyone, with a "required reading" subject line.
Things have gotten better at our site and in our company. No longer is there a battle between the sales/marketing people and IT. We're on the same page, and we develop our site for the customer's experience. I like my job better, because I'm building technologies that make the web a nicer place for users. Marketing/sales likes their job better, because they understand what it's about now. And we all work together to make it happen. I haven't said, "There's no way any of my servers are going to do that, I'm not wasting cycles on that project" since that link went around.
And that is what the manifesto is, it's a translation of everything us webheads take for granted into business-speak so it's palatable to the phb's. Is it dumbed down in some places, and full of self-evident truisms? Sure, from our perspective. But anything that can help us show the rest of our companies what we do and where we need to go is ok by me.
Listen, as one post pointed out, people love to hear what they already know, but in a way they have not heard it before.
It is amazing to watch people call a book insightful when it is just parrotting back to them what they want to hear or already know.
I can see the use for this material to the stodgy old school business types. However, I do not think the writer really ever took his ideas far enough in some cases or even worse he got idealistic to the point of being silly in some other parts of the book.
ACK
As someone who works both sides of the fence so to speak (I have a vast resource of Check Point FireWall-1 related material on phoneboy.com and I work for a Check Point partner who works very closely with Check Point), I think both types of support have their place. With all the voices out there that are now heard loud and clear on the Internet, someone has to listen to them and sort out which is bullshit and which is the gospel. A vendor on the cluetrain is actively listening to what customers are doing and actually reacting in a positive manner.
I think what's happening in a lot of companies is that there are people who are taking it upon themselves to interact with the public and provide discourse in this conversation called the Internet. There is no "corporate directive" saying to do this. In fact, in some companies, it is actively discouraged because they feel the individuals can't be trusted to "speak the corporate speak." That may be true. The fact of the matter is the smart companies are allowing their employees to participate, even encouraging it. The dumb ones (most are) have tyrannical policies discouraging people from participating.
However, since I actually get paid to support people, I personally have a very fine line to walk. Obviously, for paying customers, my job is to solve their problem. For customers who have problems and say so in a public forum, I make sure they don't or they get where they need to for proper help. For those who aren't paying for support but need help, I do my best, but obviously paying customers get priority. Actually, my needs get priority. After all, I'm human, right, and isn't that what this is about, treating everyone as a human being?
-- PhoneBoy
The views expressed herein are not necessarily those of anyone, including the poster.
These things are things I've felt for quite some time, and have articulated in various clumsy ways. It's so nice to see that someone else really understands what I'm thinking, and has packaged it up into such well written words.
On a mailing list about the evils of Microsoft and the antitrust trial, I complained that I was tired of being a consumer, and that I felt somewhat ambivalent towards both the DOJ and Microsoft because they both treated me like one. Nobody got what I meant. The website (and I would assume the book) explain it perfectly.
We're setting up a corporate intranet. I want to be sure that the people in my department have personal space to publish things on their own internal web pages. People were afraid of the idea, and didn't understand why it was so important to me. Again, the site explains it perfectly.
There are numerous other thoughts I've had on various aspects of how our culture is organized that this site expresses well too. I'm very impressed and will buy the book today. Thank you Slashdot for pointing it out!
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
P.S. the title sucks too
I think one of the reasons this book (and the Web site) is resonating with so many people is that it's telling people what they already know...but they didn't know that they knew it (confused yet?).
I mean, this is all stuff wired folks have known for ages, having had 5+ years experience with e-mail, Usenet, and the Web, interacting in the "new economy". What Chris and Co. did was to write the whole thing down, so that everyone could get a sense of how things are playing out.
And this isn't just preaching to the choir, as some critics have said. It's evident from reading the book that it is, like Hemos said, a business book aimed at business people...people who don't know who their audience is and need to relearn how to be people and businessmen and businesswomen at the same time.
... and fatbrain and bn.com?
The Glue Train Manifesto
While I appreciate the effort and chutzpah it takes to prepare a review and place it out there for everyone to dissect and attack, I can't help but comment that there is far too much bootlicking going on with respect to a rather pretentious little book.
. html
I find the concept of the 95 thesis to be yet another attempt to claim that the 'netted world we live in is somehow going to "change everything" and put an end to economies and business models as we know it. In order to poke a little fun at the Cluetrain Manifesto and deflate some of the air out of the train jumpers flocking to this book, I've posted my rebuttals to the 95 theses on my site:
http://www.scottbushey.com/aboutme/oldaboutme36
Especially the Jason Bennet thing: "Commensurate with the redemption of customers from the bondage of industry" ?? which winds it's wordy way down to "This book will blow your mind, all the more so if you're new to the Internet or unsure about what it means." ?? This is like bad 6th-grade writing edited by someone who thinks wearing out a thesaurus will make it better. I can only assume that this sort of (clue?)train wreck article is the result of have one's mind blown by the book in question.
Just kidding, what I really want to do is to buy the book and make it required reading for all the PHB's (aka clueless managers) in my company in the hope that maybe one or two of them might actually climb on the clue train as well.
Note to Hemos et. al: while a long KISS, is good, a review has to KEEP IT SHORT and SWEET to be any good...
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
We're gonna take this horse to the Glue Factory!
And he won't be allowed on the tour.
Pope
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
The Cluetrain Manifesto takes something interesting--the way the Internet makes it easy for people to talk to people they would otherwise never meet--and turns it into something boring--a new way to sell stuff.
That's like saying that the most exciting thing about television was that people making products could now finally show what they looked like in action without having to knock on your door.
Look at their very first thesis: ``Markets are conversations.'' First of all, I doubt it. There are probably ten different organizations who bring tomatoes from Mexico to the local supermarket where I buy them, and I sure don't spend much time talking, or even listening, to any of them.
But even if markets are conversations, guess what? Conversations are not markets.
There are a lot of interesting things to be said about conversations on the Internet, and about the benefits and drawbacks of virtual communities. Compared to what could be said, the Cluetrain Manifesto is pretty dull.
I really cannot find enough forum to really discuss the true nature of The Cluetrain Manifesto outside the limited confines of the Middle-Management Memespace (that little area wherein all the buzz finds it namespace -- the library of code, mostly written by the Harvard Business School Press) areas on this or that BBS.
There is a really cool Mailing List but I started an Online Discussion for The Cluetrain Manifesto on the MemeSpace virtual communtiy called The Cluetrain Conference.
-- memoid
I think this is not about making us geeks feel happy, its about "Clueing" the powers that be.
Here is a favorite poem my friend Mark Harrison that is on Coelaboration:
Oppression: a haiku
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The Man keeps me down!
But wait, I am the Man.
Ah, a paradox.
-- memoid
I have seen the same thing happen with teaming where the hierarchical system is replace with a teaming environment and then there is not training and follow through -- also with other forms of Orgainizational Development (OD) -- these consultants are expensive and they might not all be Clued themselves.
I would hate to be in a company that is being Clued by force with out training, without the concept being sold, and with no followthrough.
-- memoid
Check it out if you like. We try to explore the Memetics shrapnel of these ideas. Their complexities and outlying influence.
I personally am surprised there is not an alt.cluetrain newsgroup on usenet.
-- memoid
Oppression: a haiku
The Man keeps me down!
But wait, I am the Man.
Ah, a paradox.
©1999 Mark Harrison
-- memoid
If you enjoy reading articles where companies get royally trashed for internet-related-stupidity, subscribe to Entropy Gradient Reversals, an email newsletter from Chris Locke (one of the co-authors of this book), and his alter-ego, Rageboy.
========
<sig>Guvf vf abg n frperg zrffntr
advances, but try living in say, the Taliban-controlled parts of Afganistan and see how "wonderful" this period of time is. The 20th century has been the home of some of the worst violence and atrocities in history, and it is only people like you who are secure in your luxury that have the gall to say that.
/.er to be capable of that level of introspection.
The Taliban is overtly hostile to technology and Western ideals, so how can you blame technological progress for the condition of Afganistan? The county is controled by a bunch of crazy fundamentalist militants. They are about as far from the "cluetrain" as one can get. People like the leaders of the Taliban are directly responsible for the atrocities you speak of, and guess what, they've been around since the beginning of history! The Greeks, the Romans, the Vandals, the Aztecs, the Vikings, the Manchurians, etc. etc., they all slaughtered millions. There was no Golden Age, there was no primeval perfection, so get off your elitist moral high horse.
True individuality doesn't come from being brainwashed into false beliefs, it comes from within a person. But then again, I wouldn't expect the average
I suppose your entire worldview was constructed in isolation, in some godlike feat of deduction? Oh tell us, great one, what wonderous insights you have divined in your solipsitic introspection!
the truth is that the Internet is making people aware that there ARE chains on their backs.
Not only that, but it is giving them the tools to break those chains.
--
+&x
Stimulus != response
I get your point, just going through the motions doesn't help anybody. Let me try and make my point again ('cause if you didn't get it, I'm sure someone else missed it too)
By reading some person's own personal political agenda about the internet you aren't forming your own opinions, you're just sucking up someone else's.
In this case, "sucking up to someone else's" == "forming your own" BECAUSE that's what their agenda is. If I say "Think for yourself", and you say "No", I say "Thanks"
--
+&x
...are you listening? We know you read Slashdot. Or do you only read the DeDSS threads? The stuff applies to you in spades.
" Marketing sees the consumer as the enemy."
Imagine trying to jail your own customers, who have paid good money to buy your product, simply because they want to access their purchases in ways you don't approve. If this isn't treating your customers as enemies, I don't know what is.
And as you may have notice from reading Slashdot, there is a conversation going on. Your customers are talking to each other. Among other things, they are talking about how you are treating them like enemies. And Slashdot isn't the only place this conversation is happening.
Also, its not just about DeCSS anymore. Its also about things like region coding. Notice how sales of models of DVD players that can bypass the region codes are booming? Your customers know what they want and they are all talking to each other.
While you and your battalions of lawyers work feverishly in your vain attempt to stick your finger into the leaks in the CSS dyke, the conversation grows louder. And there is nothing, NOTHING you can do to quiet it.
Unless you listen, and particate, honestly.
Maybe we should send Jack Valenti and the heads of the major studios some complimentary copies of The Cluetrain Manifesto.
Ideology is for ideots.
A movement so unabashedly full of itself deserves a good parody....and here it is:
The Gluetrain Manifesto
I have to agree. When I was a kid, I thought, just wait till I grow up, and other kids like me, and we'll all change things. Hasn't happened yet :( everything is still the same. I just don't have as much nuclear anxiety.
...A manifesto is a tool for pushing conformity..
:-
:)
Ok my manifesto is
1. Think for yourself.
2. If in doubt see Manifesto point 1.
Time for some deep-deep-deep recursion
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
I would disagree with this on the premise that rather than breaking the chains, the truth is that the Internet is making people aware that there ARE chains on their backs..
:)
"You're here because you know something. What you know you can't explain. But you feel it. You've felt it your entire life. That there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is but it's there, like a splinter in your mind driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about?"
Spooky....
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
Wasnt the whole point of that to put the means of production in the hands of the masses? Looks like technology is doing a much better job than violent revolution, maybe there is a lesson somewhere...hmmm..
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
To put the RIAA's actions in Industrial Revolution terms, what they are doing is tantamount to buggy whip manufacturers filing injunctions against Ford Motor Company over the Model T.
And that's my bad analogy for the day.
--
This is not my sandwich.
I wonder if the Internet is really a revival of community and human interaction. I spent a fair about on time on the internet and the only time I have any sense of the market place interaction that is talked about in the Clue Train is when I'm mudding. That is not really a community in the sense what the world needs. The problems Industrialization caused the market place are shared in all different parts of our world. The World Wide Web may break Industries but it hasn't caused a revival of community. I believe the WWW has made community harder. Slashdot has the ability to build community but how much slower does the community build. The WWW has built many marketplaces but few communities and most of the oldest are dying from the WWW. Look at usenet and IRC.
This is a offtopic rant sorry but I felt like it.
Tackle
:)-
Why is it that the day after my moderator points run out, someone actually says something worth moderating up?
This book has the "ring" of truth to it. You can tell it's right, it's instictive. I read it eagerly, and plan to re-read it at least once in the future. I've also taken it to the marketing person at work, (for her reaction, and a reality check) and She said "That's what I've been trying to tell people"... which caught me off guard, but made me feel MUCH better about my job.
--Mike--
Marketing sees the consumer as the enemy.
That perception is completely correct, but it must be understood as well. The consumer, from the point he recognizes the hype of marketting, is its enemy. He doesn't want to be targetted. But he is the enemy of the process that has been marketting in mass media. He is not necessarily the enemy of marketters or the companies they work for. The marketters don't have to continue to fight for that side. They have to option of working to transform their side into a participant in the conversation.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
You dont like the hamsters? Dance the night away, baby!
YEAH!
As we all think so often when reading slashdot, signal to noise becomes a larger and larger issue as the Internet/web community grows. The Cluetrain Manifesto has many good points as it pertains to smaller communities, but to my mind loses its luster I try to reconcile it to a larger community.
Using the example of Slashdot, as we are all familiar with it and its tremendous growth, we can see that outside points-of-view are for the most part moderated down or ignored. It is thought that the cream rises to the top, but I think that this gives too much credit to the average Joe who doesn't necessarily grasp all of the issues surrounding a subject. I'm not saying that there is no forwarding movement in the collective thoughts of Slashdot and I do feel that I'm better for reading it constantly, but the nuggets of goodness have to be searched for at this point.
Not to poke holes in the great American ideal of democracy, but I don't take comfort in knowing that it is the "everyman" who is for the most part making the decisions.
When you can observe everyone's point of view how do you determine what to see?
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
If you all nonconform, won't you all just be the same?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I'm not accusing the Cluetrain authors of spamming, but a company has to be really clueless to harvest email addresses from the Cluetrain. If anybody is going to be anti-spam, signers of the manifesto have to be among the most likely.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Now right up front I must say that I have not read the Cluetrain Manifesto... But having *especialy* read Jason Bennet's take on the book I can't help but wonder what Karl Mark would say.
It appears to proclaim the internet as the medium to liberate, educate, and give voice to the poeple and upset the economic system we see today. It thereby seems like the Socialistic reform step towards Communism. To put an end to the exploitation of the worker from their identity (i.e. more than simple uncreative resources), to destroy the mass production machine created by the Industrial Revolution, and replace it with the Craftsmanship of the past. I can think of nothing else that drips with such Marxist beliefs.
Question 2:
If this is indeed a Marxist or at least Marxist tinged book then why is the business sector frothing at the mouth over something they would usually shy away from if they were told it was fundamentaly Marxist/Communist/Socialistic?
Just Thoughts
(Disclaimer: I just read some Marx yesterday, so I'm bound to want to read it in a little more into things than usual, but I can't help but see parallels)
Just from the review alone, I get the feeling that this book will come across more as a "feel-good for Geeks" kind of thing. Happily seeing as I fit the category I expect that this would be a great read. I especially like the choice quotes:
The Internet has broken these chains, however. The market no longer stares exlusively at the great tube, but instead is engaged in the greatest conversation in human history
I would disagree with this on the premise that rather than breaking the chains, the truth is that the Internet is making people aware that there ARE chains on their backs.. And the other bit about
The rise of mass media completed the transformation from conversation to lecture. No longer did customers roam the marketplace, but instead consumers were lulled, bribed and manipulated into buying the latest and greatest, because TV told them so. The idea of the interchangeable consumer came to be the industrial ideal. Nothing was left to chance: You could get anyone to buy anything made by anyone, and all that mattered was the money.
would seem to be the very definition of the current war being waged between Corporatism and Individualism on the net..
And do not forget the atrocities of the past...what about the crusades? Or the Spanish Inquisition
Sorry, but the previous poster was right on the money here. Bad as the crusades were, I have no trouble at all picking out three wars of the 20th century that were more horrible, meaningless, and deadly, by any measure.
And the way the 20th century has dealt with AIDS is even worse. When AIDS was spreading in the American gay community, Hollywood celebrities wouldn't shut up about it. As it spread more to straights, the media still covered it plenty. But now AIDS is killing a third of Africa, as effective a killer as the Black Death ever was, and in America there is nary a red ribbon to be seen.
I for one would far rather live in the 13th century. (As for the 14th, I'd have to think about it.)
And just so I can pretend this is on topic, I admire the sentiment of the Cluetrain Manifesto. But I think their admiration of the internet is misplaced. Email and web sites seem to be the most effective communication yet devised for fostering miscommunication and rudeness. Just set your threshold to -1 to see an effective illustration of this. (Also I am irritated since this manifesto's practical application seems to be as yet another source of buzzwords.)
As a matter of fact, the 'net seems to be bringing about the Deming business model exactly as he predicted. (Deming's 14 points in many ways seem oddly similar to the '95 theses')
It's been a long time since I read "Out of the Crisis". I think I'll have to dig it out again...
In Ender's Game ( by Orson Scott Card ), one of the main characters was a kid that, under the fictious name of Locke[or some very similar name], exploited a futuristic version of The Internet to become one of Earth's 'intellectual leaders'. Any relation?
Ciao
----
FB
2. Where has it gotten us? We are better off than we've ever been. I certainly don't believe in the "golden age of yore". Think of the acceptance of divirsity.
3. The stock market is just another legal casino. It hasn't taken a fatal dive in a long time. It sounds to me like you are guilty of your own concerns about people reacting to the market.
4. People always do what they want. If their ideals are strong enough they will live by them, otherwise they'll make excuses later. Oh well - accept them.
5. Surf at +2 and Slashdot is a great place.
I am an idealist, but I am also realistic.
or, for another example, read Genesis chapter 1, the part about the snake.
Whew. Glad you included that second point... will try not comment on the first (unsuccessfully, i'm sure.)
uh, just for some perspective, let's not forget that their "various stupid ideas" are in many cases a combination of their ideas and the ideas of those who colonized them, which judging by the tone of your post, could probably be called "our stupid ideas." your solution (a) to Africa's problems (which are in general highly variable by locality) is refuted well by historical data. i'm not saying nothing's changed since the dutch and the french and the english decided they could "help" (and turn a tidy profit too), not to mention the various missonary groups (jesuits, etc.), but i'd hold off on the idea that someone else could solve 'their' problems better than they can. help, yes. solve, no. no way... just more confusion - the 'fix' needs to be internal.
it also needs to avoid the influx of 'our' stupid ideas, which include (for example) the british trying to convince the people living in the area that has become kenya that terracing crops was a good idea, the only way to go to get high enough food production. part of kenyatta's rise to power was based on the (overwhelming, inarguably correct) assertion that the land could not support terraced crops and that 'native' agriculture was the way it was for a very good reason.
now, just to be on-topic, it would be interesting to do a little historical analysis of the 'net in the same way as physical space (ie africa, northern ireland, whatever) is analyzed - no, scratch that. way too easy to manipulate towards an end.
[|]
Hey rageboy, Saw you speak at the Netrepeur.org event I think i got the message after about halfway through and so I took off. Because I agree with what you have to say I went about applying it, I had subscribed to an account at www.startupnetwork.com where people get together to form internet startups, and I posted a job posting. After all 0 replies that I got to my somewhat off the wall remarks, I decided to take it a step further more for my own amusement and put up some of those "kill the dot" slogans on my page. Well I got my account terminated and they won't give me my money back. I told them it was just humour, they didnt think so. Anyway, I'm pissed, they'll get theirs. When this new generation of hackers goes mainstream and corporate, theres gonna be a can of whupass coming down that sites way and by that I mean legal competition not DOS attacks. Aiiight. ova and outa -=Griffis=-
Nobody but boys in junior high school and yourself would go by the name "Rageboy". From a middle-aged man, that's just pathetic. You and the Cluetrain are the perfect example of smug platitudes covering up a lack of substance. No wonder you're so popular with PHB's.
Essentially, I enjoy and respect this community.
Louis Wu
Louis Wu
Thinking is one of hardest types of work.
There's a good webcast & transcript of an event that Locke & Weinberger spoke at here in DC:
http://www.netpreneur.org/e vents/cluetrain/default.html
GollyGee Blocks -- 3D creativity software for kids.
In some ways this book is nothing new; the same old "don't be evil" message that's been used since Carnegie's How To Win Friends & Influence People and even then it probably wasn't new. In other ways this book has a lot to say.
It seems to me that the book overlooks the whole race of former-frat-boys who have turned into suits and say things like "killer differentiator app". These people actually think the way marketing people tell them to with TV ads, and frankly I don't think the internet is changing them -- they're just trying to make a buck off of it by starting "pure-play B2B" internet startups.
GollyGee Blocks -- 3D creativity software for kids.
You are in need of the platitude. When the message people are trying to get across is "Think for yourself, dammit!", how exactly does "getting it" become some type of conformity to a behavioural pattern?
Repeat after me "We are all Individuals"
WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!
I'm not!
Sorry. Had to do it.
"Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun
Okay, fine, you'd rather live in the 13th century? Okay. Statistical odds speaking, you're never born. There, that's it. The population in modern day is obscene compared to the rest of time. The world is a huge place right now, so of course catastrophe's are going to be more impressive now then they used to be. You belittle the black death, but think about the fact that it wiped out a full 1/3rd of the population of Europe, and you'll realize that, if that happened now, it'd be the greatest tragedy of the century. Think about it per person, percentagewise, and life is pretty sweet. Could be a lot better, but don't get too nostalgic. I mean, think about all the natives of South America, there're damn few. The Jews, as a whole, survived WWII, albeit severely scarred. The Aztecs didn't survive the conquistadors. Don't take today for granted. I think modern medical science alone is worth today. My dad's diabetic.
You have a valid point, it isn't as cut-and-dried as many would have it seem. I think the thing to keep in mind is that books and articles like this -- understanding, I haven't read it -- tend to be very general in the changes they speak of. It won't be good for everybody , nothing in a capitalist society truly can be. It also can't because this still is a society of free-thinking people, and many simply will not allow themselves to take advantage of advances and things considered "new." The thing to remember is that it doesn't make them wrong; it merely shows that they think differently, which is what communication is really about.
On the net, you can compare prices for virtually any mass-produced product, be it books, music, clothing, or what have you. There are many really good comparison sites such as mysimon or bestwebbuys that let you compare prices and get the best price on the internet for these. Its my feeling that the internet really lends itself to using comparison shopping services. However, the end result is more often than not no profit or even a loss for the retailer. I predict that it will be impossible for a company such as amazon.com to ever become profitable.
With that in mind, given the fact that so much of our economy is based on mass-produced goods, I think we are headed on a collision course. Either there will be no retailers, and people will buy their products directly from the manufacturer, or the internet will expose the flaws of capitalism to a point that it becomes an unusable model for our economy. If the former happens, that will be bad for the public in general - everything will be produced by those massive companies capable of competing. I don't think the internet public is going to stand for that. Therefore, the only realistic thing I see happening is that the internet will destroy capitalism. If you'll recall the writings of Karl Marx(please don't call me a commie) he stated the theory of synthesis: every economic or political model would be faced with a competing model that would by the nature of that competition create a new and better model for humanity. Supposedly communism was the answer for the conflict between the money-hungry industrialists and the working class poor. We've seen that that was a mistake. The internet however, is going to completely shake up capitalism, and something(although I don't know what) is going to take its place.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
I recall reading the Web site on a friend's advice, and I was impressed only with how seriously these people took themselves and how repetitive and preachy the text was.
Frankly, as avaricious and clueless as the modern traditional and ebusiness community is, these folks are equally pedantic and impractical in their approach. Good luck on the book going a long way in making you "suits" so you can come full circle guys.
-L
When I started reading down the list of the Cluetrain web site, my initial reaction was something like yes!... yes!... yes!... huh? It started out by hitting the nail on the head (about markets being conversations), but quickly devolved into a little too much mumbo-jumbo.
Another recent book covers much of the same ground from a different perspective. The Monk and the Riddle is written by an apparently successful Silicon Valley business type, and, while it's unfortunately written mostly in the first person, it avoids straying into self-indulgence. But he does a really good job of explaining why the by-the-numbers approach just doesn't cut it. Most fascinating thing was that I guess he was at Apple when the issue of licensing the OS came up, and he tells how the numbers folks prevailed over the vision folks. Just a short mention of the incident, but it seemed to really hit the mark.
1. Step away from your computer. Computers did not exist.
2. Go turn off your electric power main. Ditto water, gas, sewer, cable, telephone, cell, etc., etc.. None existed.
3. Leave your house. If you have a dirt-floored shed, that's an accurate alternative.
4. Get rid of your clothes and make your own. No pre-made cloth -- get your own fiber.
5. Ditto shoes. Kill your own leather.
6. Forget about the grocery store or Domino's. Get your own food. (Make the tools & fire yourself, too.)
7. Want to talk to a friend? Have a nice hike!
8. Got a sniffle? Good luck -- hope you survive! God help you if you actually get injured. 13th c. medicine was not known for either effectiveness or pleasantness.
Let us know how it turns out! (Oh, wait, you won't be able to -- do you know smoke signals?)
Actually, simply going to Africa yourself would provide a decent simulation. Perhaps that's the problem, eh?
Liberty in our Lifetime
This seems a perfect place to plead guilty to all the charges that have been leveled here. speaking strictly for myself and not my co-authors, I take this opportunity (and what a relief it is to finally come clean!) to admit to being everything everyone has said. It's all true. I'm boring. I'm a communist. I'm a drug-addled hippy. I pander to suits. I'm naive. I desperately want to control your thinking. More than that, I'm a secret agent for the NSA. I have a side deal going with Microsoft to destroy the Internet. I once kicked Little Elian Gonzalez's adorable furry puppy.
As a card-carrying anarchist, I love the mayhem and disinfotainment going on here with respect to the book. Gluetrain is excellent, yes. Pouring hot grits down your pants: highly recommended. But my favorite has been "I'm fed up with being told what to think (Score:4, Insightful)" -- which begins: "Whilst I'm sure this is an interesting book..." I translate this as meaning: "Although I haven't actually read the book, that's not going to stop me from telling you what to think about it." (btw, "whilst" -- nice touch!) That this spew about "communist ideals" and (far worse) "paradigm shifts" would be considered insightful begs the question of what passes for insight these latter days. but everyone's entitled to an opinion, right? here's mine: learn to read, bunky.
forgive me for saying this, but the detractors here have been so pedestrian! surely this group is bright enough to do better. for a real slash-and-burn job on the manifesto, see my own review: Clues You Can Lose.
anyway, great fun to read this stuff. allow me to leave you with one quote from the book, which /. itself proves so well: "Armed only with imagination, we're gonna rip the fucking lid off. There's your market."
thank you,
Dale Carnegie
EGR
Gonzo Marketing: Winning Through Worst Practices
good point about the refrigerator. mass production was not an evil conspiracy, no. it had its downside with respect to craftsmanship -- that is, understanding the whole product -- but it was right for its time. and it brought widespread prosperity, as you say. it isn't right for this time, though, and has been less and less so since the dawn of the global economy. it's especially unsuited to a networked world. yet mass production, mass marketing and mass media are still the triple pillars on which most "e-commerce" plays are founded. Cluetrain focuses on the critique and doesn't talk much about alternatives. working on that part...