Yesterday I had a conversation with Grant McCracken. Grant is an anthropologist deeply interested in the impact new technologies and the digital era are having on our culture. Plus he’s the author of several books on the matter including his latest: ‘Transformations: identity construction in contemporary culture’. Grant beautifully describes all the transformations of the individual from traditional societies to the post-modern era. In my opinion that has led to what I would call hyper-individualism…

Yesterday I had a conversation with Grant McCracken. Grant is an anthropologist deeply interested in the impact new technologies and the digital era are having on our culture. Plus he’s the author of several books on the matter including his latest: ‘Transformations: identity construction in contemporary culture’. Grant beautifully describes all the transformations of the individual from traditional societies to the post-modern era. In my opinion that has led to what I would call hyper-individualism…

“Online social networks form around social objects and if those social objects are absent, the social network will be in trouble and most likely cease to exist.” Such was the premise of Jyri Engeströms presentation at the opening day of the Dutch new media conference Picnic08. People don’t meet randomly according to sociologist Engeström, they form around shared objects of interest, such as photo’s on Flickr, video’s on YouTube and status updates on Twitter. It’s an interesting line of thought to see what will happen if those social objects are taken away: would the network really collapse, and if so: is it really a network?

Last Monday I was visiting the digital cinema track of the IBC in Amsterdam. The entire day was all about 3D and I was listening to a parade of speakers that all showed the amazing possibilities and difficulties in creating 3D live action feature films, from a technological perspective. As a result all the speakers focussed on the features aspect of 3D movie making and all concluded that 3D held the promise of a bright future for the motion pictures industry. I tend to disagree with that as I believe that adding a dimension actually means reinventing the entire craft of making a movie.

As we are studying networks these days at the Lab, Moore’s Law, Sarnoff’s Law, Metcalfe’s Law and Reed’s Law are mentioned quite a lot (if you’re really interested, do read up on those Wikipedia-links). But it seems to me, all these ‘laws’ seem to miss out on what might be the most important feature of the network in our current era: the social. Or: that what is running over the network. Their descriptions have a systemic approach: they study ‘things’ or ‘users’, but not that what might be most valuable: the interaction that is facilitated by the usage of the network’s infrastructure. To my opinion that’s the true value of a network.

Recently a friend talked to me about the ‘renaissance of relationships in the media environment‘. He argued that it was the Black Death that sparked the Renaissance in the 16th century in Europe. Why? Because after the Black Death people focused more on the quality of their present day lives instead of that in the afterlife. In his view the status quo of the way we are doing business these days is a new form of the Black Death that will lead to a Renaissance of Relationships: interactive, true experiences, really listening, etc. As one of our studies focuses on the future of media, I think that Black Death takes another form.

In several of our Future Studies a strong driver for change is the rise of micro-economies. Whereas we see an increasing rise of international treaties and co-operation several regions are striving for independence on a smaller level. Fueled by the rising prices of natural resources (like oil and gas), these regions see an opportunity to be independent from their original ‘motherlands’. Ever since the independence of Kosovo this movement is speeding up. And with the recent recognition of South-Ossetia and Abkhazia by Russia, a new step has been taken.

Over the years, ever since Chris Anderson published his book ‘The Long Tail’ in 2006, he has been criticized by some about his conclusions. Grant McCracken has pointedly debated with Chris about the impossibility of a ‘million niches’, leading in his opinion to niches of ones, and therefore unprofitable, unlike Anderson likes to suggest. Recently associate professor at Harvard Business School, Anita Eberse, has conducted research and comes to similar conclusions. What does that mean for the tail everybody seems to want to have these days?