Quick is not always best.

If Shakespeare was alive, would he use Twitter? What about Da Vinci? Or Mozart? Would they blog? Or use Facebook?

Maybe they would. Let’s say that Mozart could certainly see the value in a networking site that let him organize wild parties* and Da Vinci would have loved to let the world know in 140 characters or less how he really felt about Michelangelo**. But would they have used those tools to write Romeo and Juliet? Or to show off the Sistine Chapel ceiling?

Probably not. Here’s the message: some things are just complicated.

Some things take time and effort to learn, to do and to explain. In a culture in which we’re constantly offered newer, faster ways to do stuff, we can sometimes feel that taking time and care over things is a bit old-fashioned. But that’s okay. Quality is worth the wait. Don’t confuse blogging, tweeting and so on with work: it isn’t always. It has its place, but sometimes a church ceiling just takes 40 years.

* Even if it enabled the the authorities to raid those parties.
** He hated his guts. Really, really despised him. Seriously.

Your Market Needs You

"Long live the web!" "And long live the people who use the web!"

I'm sure we all want the web to continue to succeed, inspire and grow, don't we? Most of us now recognise the enormous potential it has to enrich all our art, our intellectual lives and our culture. We love to talk about and share those things, at length in blogs, tweets, sites, feeds and just day to day chatter.

But we're noticeably silent when the question turns to one particular matter. It's the dirty word in business - we love to talk about exciting products and projects but there's inevitably shuffling of feet, red faces and mumbling when it's time to talk about how much they'll actually cost. Nobody likes the M word. We'd rather call it something nice like "revenue", "capital", in fact all in all we'd probably prefer to call it something nice and non-scary like "candy floss".

And that's a problem. It's a problem for most of us, but it's most especially a problem for the web, in fact it's a great big elephant in the room that we're all not talking about. We're not talking about how Facebook has 200 million active customers and makes hardly any candy floss. We're not talking about the real struggle to get any candy floss at all out of Twitter.

This coyness is partly to do with the way the web grew up. At most of the parties we call industries, the entrepreneurs arrive first with the great ideas, then the financiers turn up with the candy floss, the marketers arrive to sell the tickets and last but not least the geeks build the thing and the party gets started. Part of the difficulty on the web is that at this particular party the geeks turned up first, not last. They were there for a long time making small talk about computers before some entrepreneurs arrived and started phoning the financiers to drag them out of the wine bars and along to the party. It was much, much later that the marketers got to the party and found that it was very much in full swing with candy floss everywhere - and nobody had thought to sell any tickets.

What the web needs, what Twitter and Facebook needs, is marketers. Not the old-fashioned Sherriff of Nottingham type who sees something people like and simply slaps a tax on it and asks for your credit card number - a new breed of marketer who can see ways to make these incredible online communities produce candy floss and lots of it, without shouting stand and deliver every someone touches a keyboard. This is a once in an eternity opportunity for marketers to change society and commerce as we know it by finding creative ways to produce money (there, I said it) without charging at the point of receipt. Marketers are the experts in finding ways to generate revenue from ideas, the experts in making industries sustainable and stable by incorporating them into the fabric of our economy. We need you, marketers. We need you for a task as far removed from washing machine insurance and cheap deals as going to the moon is from selling bus tickets. A task that really, truly matters to every single one of us, and a task which could change the public's view of marketing forever. Can we count on you?

We're a people company. Stop laughing, it's true.

How many times have we heard big organisations say they are "people companies" or that they believe "people are our number one asset"?

Suppose this were true. When times got tough as they are now and companies needed to save money and cut costs, would the employees be the first thing to go or the last? Yet we all know that when belts are being tightened, the people in these "people companies" are the first thing to get the chop.

This is stupid for numerous, obvious reasons: if I wanted to build a really cheap car I could in theory at least do it by getting rid of the most expensive bit: the engine. The car would certainly be cheap, but it wouldn't be much use because I'd got rid of the bit which makes it go. The same is true of companies: the people are not "assets", they're what makes the company go. No people, no company.

So for all their posturing and bluster about being "people companies", we all know that really, if the cost-cutting were to continue as far as most companies wanted, all that would be left would be a building containing only furniture, computers and the board of directors. We all know reality is harsh and times and are tough, but if you're really a furniture, computer and director oriented company, do us all a favour and at least stop lying about it.

The Simple Questions

The most complex, difficult issues we face often stem from very simple questions. But these are also the most important ones to ask.

A good example of this is Albert Einstein's theory of relativity.

You've probably heard of it, and you probably know very little about it, in fact you may well think it's a hugely complex and difficult subject.

And it is. But it all started with a very simple question. Einstein was a genius, and he loved to ask questions. In doing so, he often asked questions other people thought were stupid or irrelevant. One such question was this:

If the earth is travelling through space, why is the speed of light measured at the "front" of the earth as it moves not higher than the speed of light at the "back" of the earth?

It's a simple question. It makes sense: after all if we're moving "into" light falling onto the front of the earth and "away" from the light falling onto the back, the light at the front should appear to be moving faster, like two cars moving towards one another.

The answer is both incredibly simple and incredibly complex. We calculate the speed of things - their velocity - by dividing distance by time. That's easy. But in the case of light falling on the earth, there's a problem. We know that the distance the light travels in each case is different. So in order for the velocity to come out the same each time, something else must be changing too.

Einstein came to an unbelieveable but extraordinary answer. He realised that if the distance was different then to give the same velocity, time must be changing. It's bizarre, incredible and profound, but it's true and it's the entire basis for the theory of relativity, which has now been studied worldwide for over almost 100 years.

There are no stupid questions.

This is your life (minus the assholes)

Clearly the explosion in social networking is having far-reaching effects. Ordinary people (that's us) are discovering that the scribbly, chaotic mess which serves them for thoughts and ideas are genuinely interesting, in fact other people are actually willing to read them and even follow us in the hope that we'll make more.

So what happens when ordinary people start to credit their own opinions and ideas? Well, lots of things. But here's an idea for you: in a world where we have access to a vast audience who take what we say seriously, what happens when organisations or people treat us badly? Well, we tell people about it. And maybe they tell other people.

Obviously we can't lie about how we were treated. That's libel (or slander) and is illegal, for good reasons. But if we're telling the truth... what happens? Most of us know a business sociopath or two, maybe a middle manager at work or a telephone company. And most of us know that they continue to be employed and continue to dish out totally unacceptable behaviour precisely because until now, we had no way of letting other people know what these lunatics were doing. So there were little in the way consequences to their behaviour, and on they went with it.

Well, now there is a way we can let people know. Welcome to the age of treating each other fairly.

The BNP: please don't shut your stupid, fascist face.

So the BNP, the British National Party, have had two representatives elected. Debate has exploded all over the country. Even the BBC, advoctes of the cheap and lowbrow, are screening a debate this morning entitled, "Does the BNP have the right to be heard"?

This is an issue which is close to home for me. The BNP's racist policies mean that if they were elected to government my adopted brother, who is half West Indian, might well be forced to leave Scotland, the country of his birth, possibly with his children - tearing both his and my family apart.

So surely I must think the BNP should not be heard?

Well, no. I'm sure everyone recognises the parallels between the state of our country now - the economic difficulties, the social unrest, the weak government, the emerging fascist sympathies - and Germany in the nineteen thirties (beautifully parodied by The Daily Mash here).

And yes, there are consequences to allowing extremists like fascists to be heard. In fact there are two chief consequences:

1. The risk of extreme policies being implemented.

2. Freedom of speech.

Are you prepared to lose the second to avoid the first? If so, should you not ask yourself whether there's really much difference between saying that one section of society should be silenced based on their race and saying that another should be silenced based on their politics?

All's Fair in Love and Religion?

On 30 September 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons lampooning the prophet Mohammed and other icons of Islam, saying it wished to “contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship”.

But you know this already.

So was it fair?

I doubt anyone really questions that discussion about religion is necessary – after all, any idea that isn't discussed and criticised surely fades inevitably into obscurity, so those on the religious side should be just as keen as anyone else to see it examined. So it follows that the freedom to conduct such discussion, even if it offends some taking part, is necessary.

So far, so obvious.

But there's another side to the issue. Yes, the paper obviously wanted to “discuss” Islam. Yes, some Muslims entered into the debate by protesting the cartoons. But the vast majority of Muslims have no desire at all to enter into some sort of “robust debate” about their beliefs in which those beliefs are mocked and made fun of; in fact all they want to do is live out their lives and religion in peace.

They have a right to do so. Everyone has the right to live their lives free from harassment and abuse, in fact most reasonable people regard this as a basic human right. So if Muslims don't want to take part in a “debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship” then that shouldn't that be respected? Don't get me wrong, the minority of Muslims who protested, preached, shouted and argued about it are absolutely fair game – they entered the discussion and need to go where it goes, even when the direction offends them.

But this is where I think the cartoons went wrong, badly wrong. They didn't just target those Muslims who were willingly participating in the discussion, they targeted all Muslims, and in doing so attacked the innocent majority who wanted nothing to do with them and violated their right to live in peace.

There is a word for people who pursue and abuse those who want to be left alone. That word is “bully”. By publishing cartoons which abused and mocked the beliefs and religion of people who had said and done nothing at all to deserve it as well as the few who had, it seems clear that Jyllands-Posten stepped far, far over the line between “robust debate” and nasty, petty bullying. No one who genuinely appreciates informed debate which leads to greater understanding and tolerance will want that kind of small-minded hate-mongering being passed off as productive discussion.