We've all got that MASSIVE excel file sitting somewhere on our computers.  We meant to do great things with it.  The numbers could have spoken volumes, adding new dimensions to our presentations, to our proposed business plans, to our perspectives and to our proposed strategies. 

However, in the interest of keeping it clean, making the information we were looking to impart both clear and digestible, we dumbed down the data, sacrificing nuance for actionable results.  In an ideal world, we could have both nuance and action.  However, the demands of time-pressed reality occasionally demand that this sacrifice be made.

Consider the topic of web 2.0.  I have presented on the topic dozens of times.  My presentations have ranged anywhere from a single slide, picture or video, to 80 page manifestos on strategy, tactics, implementations, best practices, etc.  And as much I as would like to believe that my presentation skills are strong, it is impossible to impart an entire discipline in a single image.

Is it possible to boil down complexity without losing nuance?

Consider the illustrations below. 

• Do they say the same thing? 
• Are they equally accurate, equally nuanced?

(photos credits here, here and here)

Jessica Hagy recently posted the graphic above under the title This is what web 2.0 means.

While this is generally true, I don't know that this is quite accurate. 

It's not about who you know, it about the value of your connections. 

Value doesn't equal volume. 

You may have hundreds connections on LinkedIn, but that doesn't mean that you have a single "real" relationship, (hence limiting both the number and the value of the "things you can do" with this network).

The underlying principle behind this chart is not far off, and I highly encourage you to regularly read Jessica's blog, this however, is one instance where I will have to beg to differ.

Kudos to Andrew Parver for sharing.

Image by obieta via Flickr

Call it nDVR.  Call it VOD.  Call it on-demand streaming.  Call it ad skipping.  Call it TIVO, SlingBox, or ORB.  Call it place-shifting, copyright infringement or distribution democratization.

The outcome is the same.

The present is changing.  The past has changed.  Now is too late, but Tomorrow may be to soon.  The key to success in today's market is adaptive innovation, planned flexibility that protects today's revenue streams while laying the foundations of tomorrow's solutions.

Broadcast Networks and Content Owners will by and large continue to cling to what is known, familiar and therefor immediately advertiser friendly.  They will fight change for the upheaval and turmoil it will cause the industry, for the massive investment and effort required of both manpower and resources (not to mention infrastructural costs) towards deploying a new model.

But a new model will emerge.  And fighting the future will not keep it from coming.  I tried.  I took the batteries out of my watch.  But the day ended.  And tomorrow came.

The battle over nDVRs will continue.  And it should.  This court battle matters.  It sets a strong precedent for future technologies... which will in turn demand new models.

The Mainstream Media outlets and Cable Providers are smart.  They are battling to protect their current revenues.  But most importantly, while they are battling to protect their wallets today, they are innovating, fostering tomorrow's future all the while.  Hulu is out and is (to my mind) a success.  TheWB relaunches in weeks.  But this is only the beginning. 

The entire concept of change is still in it's infancy.  And I for one, am looking forward to quite a ride.

• advance08: The Future of Media
  I know this is old, but coming back to it, it's a good one. My favorite quote: brands are no more than a series of interactions and a combination of experiences between an organization and its customers.

• Context is to Chicken as Content is to Egg - mediabistro.com: AgencySpy
  WOW. While I'm a big Allen Wolk fan, this article is mindbogglingly deep. That's right - mindbogglingly. A must read for all agency types - and unagency types as well.

Last week I finally gave in and made that "impulse purchase" that was 12 months in the making.

I bought Wii Play (with the WiiMote), new and in a sealed box on Amazon for $37.  What a deal.  No retail store could possibly match that price.  And I was on Amazon anyway, making a necessary purchase... and the deal looked to good to pass up.  Let's face it, I gave in.

While tracking the package I noted the shipping location, California.  I'm in NYC.  What a waste.

There must be hundreds of perfectly usable units within blocks of my office.  But these units were not available on Amazon at this price point.

Amazon is amazing when it comes to enabling long tail markets and offering best value fulfillment to customers.  But with the rising cost of transportation and general social awareness around "buying local", wouldn't it make sense for Amazon to offer a green option?  Shouldn't I have been given the option of choosing a retailer in my state, or even within a hundred mile radius?

Sure, I may not pay an extra 40 percent to buy local, but I would pay an additional dollar or two to avoid unnecessary waste!

Just two weeks ago I received a package shipped from New Jersey to NYC via the Midwest.  One would hope that today's massive digital database management systems would have prevented this waste. 

But then again, I could also be taking a walk in the park instead of playing the Wii.

photo credit: here