Slashdot Mirror
The Economist Magazine Looks Outside For Insight
An anonymous reader writes "All of traditional media is scrambling to remain relevant on the Net, but The Economist of London is taking it to extremes, with a skunkworks operation called Project Red Stripe. The magazine gathered six staffers from around the world, set them up in a London office, and gave them six months to come up with a radically new idea for the business. As a magazine for free markets, they figured others would have the best ideas — so are throwing open the doors for community input."
Man, that rules as a business model.
I'm hired to come up with new ideas. Paid who knows how much $$. So rather than do any actual work, I'm going to let the internet schmucks do it for me! I just have to pick which ideas are best.
Man, I'm in the wrong job...
We make a beer. But just not any beer. A beer that's brewed in Jamaica mon.
God spoke to me.
The magazine gathered six staffers from around the world, set them up in a London office, and gave them six months to come up with a radically new idea for the business.
In the first week, the staffers bought beer, wine, wisky, condoms, flat screen televisions and gaming consoles.
In the second week, the staffers hired a young graphic artist through the internet for $35 per hour to set up a rudimentary web page asking for innovative ideas.
The next 5 months is a blur.
The final two weeks were a flurry of activities. So many good ideas to review! So little time!
They want us to come up with their business plan?
Well, ok. for a price I'll let them in on a way to turn their debt into wealth following my easy five step program. Soon, they will be able to afford the lifestyle they deserve. This is a risk free, money back guarantee on how to turn their outstanding debt into outstanding wealth.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
They should start a business consulting for other groups who want to go into business but can't quite figure out what business they want to be in...
This raises an interesting question about the value of ideas. Naively, one might guess that anyone with sufficiently good ideas for the Economist's future are a) already working there, b) already working for some other organization that will use them, or c) independent entrepreneurs, implementing their ideas themselves. However, there is a real possibility that forward-thinking people do exist outside those categories, and who are perfectly willing and able to articulate their ideas to others in an actionable way.
From the Economist's standpoint, however, creating an "innovation group" seems misguided. You can't *cause* innovation and creativity; you can only *allow* it to happen on its own. This occurs through maximal exposure to atypical influences, such as books, activities, people, and entertainment that one might not ordinarily choose. This, in fact, is how the brain grows -- by forming new synaptic pathways among its neurons.
The Economist, or any organization, can best innovate by encouraging *all* its employees to, in the course of their ordinary work, occasionally take a moment to submit to management their views of how the organization's processes or other aspects can be improved, as it occurs to them. Good management must know how to create this culture. Everyone can be an innovator.
I'm sure as hell not giving a money-making idea to the Economist Group if I'm not getting a piece of the pie. If it might save the world, maybe; if it's not money-making and helps folks, I probably would.
Give me $10000 a month, every month for the next 100 years. Your business will improve every year. If it doesn't, I'll just blame uncontrollable global market forces and claim your losses would have been more significant if not for me. It's bloody brilliant.
Live according to the Categorical Imperative. If the Categorical Imperative tells you not to live by it... ignore it
Ya know, this does explain the wacky-ness of the idea. It sounds just like what would come out of a brainstorming session with Red Stripe neuron lubricant.
[exec 1] *glug* *glug* *glug* *belch* Yeah, like lets ask the Internet what to to...
[exec 2] whadda we gonna call it? *glug* *glug*
[exec 1] [voice type=bevis-n-butthead] hu-hu-hu hu-uh like Red Stripe hu-hu-hu
SciTechPulse. Geek News Netcast. Hot Polynesian Geek Chick Host Silulu.
I'm hired to come up with new ideas. Paid who knows how much $$. So rather than do any actual work, I'm going to let the internet schmucks do it for me! I just have to pick which ideas are best.
Laugh as you might, but this is almost exactly what Venture Capital firms do. People beat on their door with business ideas, they pick the most profitable, dump some money in with ludicrously favorable (for them) terms, and see what happens.
One might say, "ah, but people benefit from VC money; here, people just get a magazine subscription." Well, I'd argue that the benefit to the idea-holder is about on par, comparing the two...
Please help metamoderate.
It's interesting how in every modern war, the government that wins (assuming there is anything even vaguely like a winner) invariably puts a very small group of top military minds in charge of the war effort, even to the point of managing relevant aspects of the economy. Losers do just the opposite -- they let their legislature, congress, senate, president, chairman, corporate interests, beauracrats, and cronies make war decisions. And naturally, they either make retarded decisions or they rob the public blind at the expense of the war effort.
Comittee thinking is a disease. The bigger the comittee, the worse it gets. Human collaborative efficiency for creative works tops out at around 4 or 5 people. If you hope to invent new paradigms, you'll be hard-pressed to accomplish it with even as many a three people, and even two is pushing it.