It seems like there are an endless amount of “thinkers”, people who simply wax theoretical on things but never actually follow through. To the same degree, there are plenty of “doers” as well, people who exist solely to execute the vision of others. What we really need more of, and what I’m endeavoring to be, is “thinkers-and-doers”, a hybrid that not only has the creative ability and long-term vision, but also the drive and follow through to bring those ideas to fruition.

I started thinking about all the things that keep me from following through on my ideas, and over time, most of them could be systematically discounted as “not really great reasons”. Then I got to thinking about what would be some legitimate reasons for not acting.

Here’s two:

1) It could hurt someone - Doesn’t matter if it’s physically, emotionally, or monetarily. If you’re idea/action could lead to harm, you better think it through. Now I’m not talking about “bucking the status quo” or “fighting the man….man” but things like “I’m going to run this investment pool with a Ouija board!” or “I’m pretty sure I can jump this motorcycle over that preschool playground!” – you see the difference.

2) You can’t adjust/amend/iterate – If your idea is being presented, ran, launched (physically), or otherwise needs to be in a final form, running with anything other than a complete version would be shortchanging it. Things like paintings, rockets, pilot episodes, etc. need to be ready before they go.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against action, in fact I’m all for it now, but sometimes you have to know when to take a little more time to make sure it’s right.

Those are just two that I came up with, do you have any more?

One thing this got me thinking about was the fact that to be “social” doesn’t necessarily mean you have to tweet or have a Facebook page. If you offer services or technology that works with, augments, or improves inherent social behavior, you can have more of an effect than any number of tweeted links.

Inspired by this tweet from Paul Isakson, which was inspired by this piece from Ad Age, I got to thinking about the general concept of ideas and executions. Paul says “ideas are ideas” and I’m inclined to agree.

So many times, ideas get pegged as Online or Offline and then executed independently. The problem with this is that it’s not how people operate. My online life might be more tied to my offline life than the average person, but just look at how many people are active on Facebook (250 million!), not to mention Twitter, Blogs, and e-mail. People don’t consciously think “this is an online action” and “this is an offline action”. A social action is social, it doesn’t matter if its a tweet, text message, or lunch plans.

The fact that many companies have different agencies for online and offline efforts certainly doesn’t help, but that’s a poor excuse. If the best ideas and efforts really tap into the markets behavior, then why do we still insist on segregating ideas. If the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing, it makes it really easy to get punched in the face.

Synopsis: Thunderheads is an online brainstorming tool designed to facilitate easy collaboration for both local and remote teams.

Background: With all the work being done remotely, across town and across the world, I was looking for a way to capture the spirit of brainstorming, but over the web. Thunderheads would be as close as you can get to “getting people in a room” together and working on possibilities via the web.

Features: Thunderheads would be comprised of 4 main areas, shown in the (really rough) mock-up below.

1) Brainstorming Window – This is the blank canvas, participants would be able to draw and type in addition to dropping in photos, videos, or sound clips. By making this a collaborative environment, it enables people to show what they’re thinking in various different mediums. Plus it’s great for doodling.

2) Team Video Chat – Webcam equipped participants will be able to use full video capabilities, which is better for interaction, and is way more fun. Also, you can see my sessions is with Albert Einstein, muppet Bunsen Honeydew and Phillies manager Charlie Manuel. That’s a brain trust right there people.

3) Inspirations – This is where team members can link, upload, or post any materials that might be inspiring for the challenge at hand. Poem by Frost? Sure. Music videos from Youtube? Go for it. Whatever gets the fire going.

4) Keepers – This section is where you can place any of the more formed and finished ideas. Good for takeaways and getting ready to move on to the next steps. The fruits of your labor.

That’s about as far as I got on this one. What do you think? Anyone want to actually make this?

2) User Experience Design is both extremely intriguing and intimidating at the same time. While most types of design are concrete and finite, i.e. a the Mona Lisa is always going to look like that, UX is inherently transient and ephemeral. It’s the only type of design that re-invents itself with each experience or user.

3) We need to be careful to not turn social media into celebrity endorsements. I know the point is to “Influence the Influencers”, but when you give those people wild perks/free stuff, it doesn’t do anything for me. So some A-Lister liked their free meal? Where’s the connection? Why not spend that money and give all their readers a $5 coupon?

4) The only way to not be lumped in with spammers/auto-dm’ers/shady practitioners and others that give marketers a “bad name” is to go out of your way to make a good name for yourself. Be known for not only preaching the right thing, but for following through and doing the right thing too. Show people that you’re above all the crap that brings “us” down.

We’re not on Facebook to click on your ads.

We’re not checking email to read your press releases.

We’re not on Twitter to read your Auto-DMs.

We’re not commenting on your corporate blog unless you have something real to say.

We’re not watching the video for your pre-roll (but we appreciate when it’s short).

We’re not checking out new platforms just so you can “leverage” them.

Just thought you should know.

First off, it’s really hard to coherently follow someone who is live tweeting a speaker or a series of speakers. Like many of you, I have a lot of action in my feed. If you’re following hundreds/thousands of people, despite being hashtagged, there’s no sense of continuity. It get’s lost in the stream.

Piggybacking on that point is the fact that I don’t think live-tweeting does the event justice. There’s no context, no visuals (which good presos usually incorporate), no completeness. I think there’s so much more to these presentations, and while I’m grateful for the quotable nuggets that people pull out, it doesn’t really illuminate much.

But that’s just me. How do you feel about the whole thing?

But that’s just me. How do you feel about this stuff? What’s your take on the shifting focus of a blog? How have you grown changed as an author or a reader?

Fire away.

Another idea spurred by that Clay Shirky post I mentioned a little while ago.

I think a big takeaway here is that we have to be careful when we look for or label something “revolutionary”. Mainly because if something really is revolutionary, then it’s definitely going to screw things up, at least for a little bit. Who could have ever guessed we’d end up at 1, 2, or even (gasp!) 3, when we’ve been so used to A, B, and C?

Also, many times people don’t even want something revolutionary. They’re okay with just better, faster, stronger (resisting the pull to link to that Kanye song…didn’t work) and don’t need a game changer.

Be careful when you’re blowing minds.

His post got me thinking:

• I have to say that right now I don’t think newspapers will continue to exist. At least not in their current form. Whereas the transition from LPs, to 8-tracks, to cassette tapes, to CDs, to MP3s went somewhat smoothly, I don’t think newspapers will share the same ease. In the case of the audio mediums, the changes represented an evolution. Better quality, improved portability, etc.. However it didn’t really mark a seachange in the way we consumed audio media or the “purpose” that it served. But as Shirky mentions, the internet more-or-less breaks the model of most publishing. It’s not a matter of evolution, it’s a matter or revolution.
• I don’t read hard copies of newspapers and I don’t think anyone in my immediate circle of friends does either. I’m not suggesting that this is representative of Gen-Y, but I also don’t think it’s an uncommon scenario. By contrast, I know that the parents of many of my peers are still reading the papers. Is this a trend that’s going out with the changing of the guard? And why do our parents still read hard copies? Is it because it’s what they’ve always done?
• As a society, I don’t think we “owe” anything to newspapers. I can understand the government backing banks and carmakers because they’re a backbone of our economy, but I don’t think newspapers fit into that category. I’m not sure they deserve any special help. If the question of “Where will we get our news?!” is so relevant, then why are we having this discussion about newspapers dying anyway?

Steal This Idea!
That being said, I think there will be a short term business opportunity that will come about as a result of all this. As more and more newspapers shift their content to online-only, a market will be created to provide hard copies to people still interested. This might provide an opportunity to a small 3rd party printer that can efficiently make small runs of several different publications. They would be able to contract with the subscribers individually to get their hard copies, maybe even customized versions, after the papers go digital. However, this wouldn’t last forever, as eventually the demand for a paper copy will probably decline to the point of not being profitable anymore.