« Newsjacking with a B2B infographic and blog post | Main | The HubSpot Culture Code: Creating a Company We Love »

April 15, 2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jeff Gundy

i would love to read this book. I have purchased it today, can't wait

Stan Dubin

I know your post isn't a political one, David, but I cannot believe you just labeled the Tea Party a fringe group with extremist views. Limited government, free markets, balanced budgets. Ouch, very extreme!

You are a super bright guy, David, but it seems you are still being affected by Big. Big media.

I’m not a Tea Party member. But it is clear what they stand for. If you were to simply and dispassionately look over their stated purposes, you’d have a different picture than what big media has been pushing.

And that is a real benefit to the end of “Big.” One can turn off the main stream media for a bit and research for themselves how to think, what to buy, who to support.

Sidenote: When the Tea Party went out and protested, they cleaned up after themselves, caused NO damage to property and retailers and still were maligned. But not the Occupy movement folks, who caused untold damage to people, businesses and property in most of their protest locations. Which group did the mainstream media support? Not a difficult one to figure out.

Sometimes we need to just look, David, and not listen to what we’re being told. The end of Big is certainly helping us in this.

David Meerman Scott

Stan, you are correct that this is not a political blog. Therefore I have no intention whatsoever to enter into a discussion about politics with you here. Nor am I prepared to defend myself against what you say about me.

This particular post is a book review. It is not a political statement. Nicco, the author of the book I am reviewing, labeled the Tea Party as a fringe group. I then repeated his characterization in my review of his book.

Stan Dubin

It’s not my style to enter politics into these discussions either. When I didn't see quotes around your statement, David, I concluded they were your political views… and I felt compelled to not let a potshot against a decent group of Americans go unanswered. Thank you for the clarification.

David Meerman Scott

Stan - I didn't use quotation marks in that paragraph that you've challenged me on because I didn't directly quote the author. Earlier in my review I did quote him directly so I used quotations.

In the paragraph that concerns you, I opened with "While there are many exciting aspects of the end of big in every area Nicco covers, in each there are also threats." I assumed that my readers would understand that the remainder of the paragraph I am indeed talking about areas that the author covers. If that assumption was wrong, then I accept blame for that error and that error alone.

I'd also point out that the sentence you talk about also includes Nicco's characterization of Wikileaks as a fringe group.

Since it is your opinion that I took a "potshot," you are the one politicizing my review.

Stan Dubin

I like your work, David. I've bought most of your books. You provide great content. I leave what I hope are thoughtful comments on your blog posts from time to time.

But I think we both somewhat politicized this book review.

Wikileaks IS a fringe group. The Tea Party being mentioned in the same sentence as such was a potshot, whoever was making it.

Stan Dubin

I gave this considerable more thought, David. I reread what you wrote a couple of times.

I want to apologize for taking your post so off topic. It wasn’t completely off-topic, but it was enough so that I feel an apology is in order.

When I saw the remark about the Tea Party, it had a very strong effect on me. Very strong. I see those folks as carrying on a tradition that was started back when this country was founded. They protest peacefully about things our original colonies found objectionable. To see them cast as fringe and extreme just caused a very strong reaction.

Reaction notwithstanding, I should not have used your blog in this way.

David Meerman Scott

No worries, Stan. We all have our passions and it is great to be able to share them with the world using social media.

I appreciate you reading my stuff and for commenting on my posts from time to time. I do hope you continue to do so.

John Eberhard

This is a very interesting concept and fits in with another book I am reading right now, "Freedom Shift" by Oliver Demille. He talked about the pre-modern, modern, and post-modern world views. Pre-modern was "God will save mankind." Modern was "God hasn't stepped up, so institutions like the church, government, or corporations will save us." The post-modern is "Institutions have not saved us, so we have to rely on ourselves."

The end of big seems to fit in with the post-modern idea of loss of confidence in our institutions.

David Meerman Scott

John - Thanks for suggesting "Freedom Shift" by Oliver Demille. I hadn't heard of the book but will check it out. Interestingly, there have been three major periods in human communications that I frequently consider - 1) pre printing press (knowledge is very, very expensive) 2) printing press (the last 550 years - knowledge is cheap but only one way and 3) Web (last 15 years) information is two way. I'm going to blog about that - thanks for the spark.

Alex

I have just started Reading this book, I have high expectations :)

David Meerman Scott

Hope you enjoy it as much as I did, Alex.

Cwlafontaine

A little late to the party commenting on this, but I felt this was relevant.

This book, and your discussion around it, reminds me of an interview with Peter Drucker with BusinessWeek or Newsweek (can't remember which one) in 2003 wherein he forecast that big business, as we have known since the mid-40s, would be obsolete within the next 15-20 years. His case to support it was that big corporate structures had lost all their advantages and were actually going to be a hindrance in the future competing with small to mid-size companies.

His supporting statements to this were:
1.) Big companies once had economy of scale in raw material costs - supplier competition for revenue has resulted in small companies buying raw materials at only 1/2% more than the big guys.
2.) Big companies had the ability to cover internationally - that's to the internet, a consultant in a spare bedroom had international coverage (his analogy).
3.) The product lifecycle used to be much longer and more conducive to larger capital requirements - it is now very short and subject to constant change and disruption; something big companies are not agile enough to handle.
4.) Because of the above, big companies can no longer effectively compete while maintaining massive executive overhead that the above once allowed. Therefore, they are becoming noncompetitive in price or inferior in quality. As a side, he noted that big American companies in particular were subject to massive disruption because their executive scales were so massive compared to their counterparts in other countries around the world.

Sorry for the long post, but I always enjoyed this interview and the subject matter of the review seemed relevant to post.

The comments to this entry are closed.

@DMScott


Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

follow me


David Meerman Scott books


I want to speak at your next event!


Newsjacking!


David Meerman Scott e-books

David's iPhone and iPad apps

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 12/2004