Flickr Photostream

Wednesday, 8 May 2013

My comments re What Would Ashton Do—and Does It Matter? - Harvard Business Review

What Would Ashton Do—and Does It Matter? - Harvard Business Review:
(must read article & research links above)

I would like to argue that most things relating to celebrities are meaningless.. as per the brilliant documentary done by Chris Atkins shown on Starsuckers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starsuckers

although some celebrities are using their fame to help people, invest in firms like Ashton and maybe likes of @Stephenfry is doing something more by engaging & challenging our mind with his learned intellectual programs (I have to confess I don't watch much TV even before seeing starsuckers)

IMHO, present days popularity and fame is very much like in the 20/30s , they can only influence how you spend the leisure pound, and how they can potentially manipulate media for a 'cause'... 

love the comments made by @annielennox made when she received the HONORARY SKOLL AWARD FOR SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP @skollworldforum  this year reiterating her previous points (Annie Lennox attacks 'horrible' TV talent shows with 'stupid row of judges' - Telegraph http://bit.ly/16giVM2 ) but pointing towards the kardashians (still don't know what the fuss is about, beyond me)

please do not forget that Ashton does not mean anything outside of the popular culture, I am quite sure he is a lovely guy and happy to share a cup of tea with him if he is a down to earth guy.. 

you asked the 1 right question, which is "real influence" should be measured by money or time spent that is done based on suggestions by the influencer.. good example is money spent (e.g. donation to church, local community centre, charity) or time spent /habit change, like joining a martial art club to church choir or really get involved with a local homeless charity, local farm or even create own transparent foundation (not one of those that create one's own worshipping community, fine line, I know!)

Online/mobile, it is very difficult to fit into my definition above as people just change the habit of location of consumption (How to waste one's time)... the best measure I would like to argue then is how much money is spent (only viable measurement) but we human would not like to ask obvious questions, as typically we KNOW we do not like the answers (like why our banks do not know how risky their positions are!? ) .. 

the question is how much money is spent online based on the 'influence', have you guys noticed that there is no research whatsoever on how much total money spent online by whom, via whom and for what!? likewise, if google is the defacto standards, why they charge on per click and why not through per transaction done via their system?? (I love Google services though, as I cannot find any alternatives! so, pls don't break it up yet until I find a replacement for the G-services)

fact of the matter is most people (me included) do not challenge ourselves enough and it is much easier to consume (passive, to be influenced but hardly lifting off fingers, let alone butts) than to create (get involved, try to understand real issues and put some plans into action).. 

This highlight real opportunity for whoever, @aplusk  included if he/she can really affect influence and change the world for the better (via whatever platforms) or just influence how you spend/preserve your resources. 

good luck to us all!

BR

No comments: