Miles To Go.

Holy crap everything is mobile now

Don Draper and the Mad Men gang from Sterling Cooper return Sunday on AMC’s four-time Emmy Award winner, after a seemingly interminable 17 months away.

But a lot has changed in the 17 month hiatus. Not with the sixties, in which the show is set, but the ‘teens in which it is viewed. The Mad Men of the show were trying to grapple with the new medium of TV, which was a big departure from how people were spending time, and how advertisers spent money. They had a raw take on manliness, and a pretty much anti-PC bent to everything that transpired. I’ve written about it before (relating to another Vaux investment). They also wear pocket squares.

But in the here and now, the M’ad Men are on the scene (that’s Mobile ad men, and I’m among them) and there is another mass transformation in process.

Let me try to explain it this way: there is a scene in an early episode where John Hamm’s character driving upstate, listening to the radio (speeding, with a drink and no seat belt but that’s considered period charming). He hears a traffic report (backup on the bridge), and dismisses the information (ending up in a caught in the same). It was just the beginning of how ad-supported media would become capable of delivering information that is both timely and relevant, if not always used.

Today, a larger and larger audience will hear of Don Draper and Mad Men, watch his show, and comment on his show through mobile devices. It is the harbinger of the greatest transfer of time spent since the TV entered Don’s creative agency: out of no-where, people are now spending 10% of their total screen time on a mobile device. People are starting revolutions, looking up recipes, avoiding disasters, and of course watching MadMen videos on mobile devices. It’s going to get a lot bigger, at the expense of most other media out there. There are a few billion mobile devices in the world today, and it’s still growing.

I believe it will set off the greatest traffic jam of all time, in a digital media sense, anyways. Heres how it happened, in grossly oversimplified terms only I could dare to paint!

The publishers may have figured this out first. Companies like Time Inc, ABC, NBC Universal saw their audiences begin to shift. As their inventory of available pages evolved (aka circulation, or eyeballs in digital media speak), their mobile strategies got serious. They monetized through ad networks (see below), then other point solutions (see below also), some even tried to get online ad-networks to work in this new medium. Finally, they concluded that they needed a platform to run and maximize the yield on their entire mobile inventory. Lucky for them, there was one that served their needs.

The Early Mobile ad Networks were the first prospectors in this brave new worked of mobile, and they did well, stringing together exchanges of advertisers and publishers and taking a cut for matching them up. Though a hard business to differentiate in, the early winners were great exits. Enpocket to Nokia for a couple hundred. Third Screen to AOL for a little under fifty. Quattro to Apple for almost three hundred. Admob to Google for over seven. There are several more.

But a funny thing happened in almost all of those acquisitions: I truly believe the buyers really thought they were getting a technology platform that they could scale across their larger organizations, so they paid up. We’re talking billions of dollars in the hopes there was some tech under there somewhere that could give them a commanding lead in mobile.  But when I look at what those buyers are doing with the assets, I have to conclude they all didn’t get that. Not even the recent S-1 filings are all that impressive when it comes to ad tech. Facebook even acknowledged it as a risk- 122 times in their filing.

The point solutions came next into the market, trying to get attention (from anyone!) with their latest idea that would revolutionize mobile. Mobile Thumbprint (the equivalent of an internet cookie), video, full screen takeovers, SDK’s, app networks, real-time bidding and every other feature and business process under the sun has launched, and maybe saw Series A funding. Some were just too early. Most of them tried to give away the farm to get clients, and the VC money won’t last long with that model. Many are starting to top out, and will soon realize they have to bolt onto an enterprise with scale and relationships. It’s not going to be a pretty story as they get caught in the rush.

The Social Networks and social gamers have grown large and influential, but they too are noticing a problem- their audience is spending more and more time on mobile. Facebook is a game changer of epic proportions (here’s my take on a portion of that story) and they have massive advertising revenue from their online sites, but most of the leaders in the field have not figured out how to monetize mobile. If the trends continue (doubtless they will), they will be lined up at the mobile bridge in no time.

The Online ad networks may be themselves facing a rude surprise soon enough as more of their audience bolts to mobile. Online ad servers didn’t translate to mobile for a few very simple reasons, none of which I am about to give up here. But it doesn’t work, or it hasn’t until now and the bigs have been losing customers left and right because they could not get some basic mobile parameters to work. They need a bridge to mobile, and they will need it soon. Tailoring the existing online platforms hasn’t worked. They will need a bridge.

And so, the traffic jam begins to form at the bridge to mobile ad serving. Hundreds of online ad networks have to deliver on a mobile solution, but theirs have not worked to date. The remaining large publishers, and indeed the mediums and the smalls will have to finalize a sophisticated mobile strategy in order to compete as well. The point solutions who have entered the market will have to seek out scale. And they look across that yawning chasm to those that have made the move to mobile and are beginning to ramp (some thirty mobile ad networks, and about thirty of the largest publishers by my count) and they are thinking oh shit, if this trend continues I’m gonna get killed on this side of the divide.

It looks to me like there is only one bridge, and people are going to want to cross it sooner than later. Even a one-hand driving, seatbelt-scoffing, scotch-in-hand Don Draper would see that signpost up ahead.

Note: I founded, with Krish and Dan, and financed Mojiva, owner of the Mocean Mobile Ad Serving Platform. That is the bridge, IMHO.

Fred w phone. No unlimited data plan just yet...

There is a yawning gap emerging in the world and I think this gap will define the advancement of societies, the creation of jobs,  and even the happiness of populations in the decades to come: it is access to mobile data and I call it Flintstones vs. Jetsons. (shout out to April Rudin for the headline).

• Generation segue: Some of us remember Fred Flintstone. Worked in a quarry, drove a foot pedal car. Loved to bowl and eat steaks. Life was simple, and there was not a lot of reason to innovate. Pebbles and BamBam didn’t seem to be a big generational culture gap. A loveable guy in the Jackie Gleason vein.
• And his cartoon counterpart, George Jetson. Worked are Spacely, drove an automated space scooter. Astro walked himself, Rosie the Robot did the chores. Skyped with the office, used the tele-puter on his wrist. Loveable knucklehead is in a fast-moving world, but he kept adapting and he kept pace.

So my point, my belief, is that we have arrived at a crucial inflection point in our history, where people, countries, leaders (and entire industries) are choosing to go Flintsone or Jetson. And the catalyst for this decision is, clearly, the smart phone and the data it generates. The Flintstone are content with how things are. They have found ways to live until now without technology, and they resolved they would coast from here on in, whether in their carreers or their lives. Financial planners are on the list. So is much of the financial services (non retail) industry. Traditional media has hated the transition. KONY is no fan. Nor is Assad, or Mubarak. People of a certain age (but not all!). There are lots more.

Meanwhile, the Jetsons accelerate. The gap has not even yet begun to present itself.

mOcean at Mobile World Congress

If you have any doubt of how quickly this industry has grown, check out the Mojiva/Mocean (I am an investor) booth at The Mobile World Congress. MWC was, five years ago, just a bunch of suits from Nordic and Asian countries wielding flip phones for voice and text. Today, MWC is heralded as the biggest and the best mobile technology event in the world. According to conference organizer the GSMA, this year’s event played host to a record number of attendees, topping out at 67,000 visitors from 205 countries; an 11% increase over the 2011 show. The four-day conference and exhibition attracted mobile operators, software companies, equipment providers, Internet companies and media and entertainment organizations, as well as government delegations from across the globe. More than 50 percent of this year’s attendees hold C-level positions, including more than 3,500 CEOs.

Most telling perhaps, CEO’s were wearing jeans, T’s and blazers…

So here’s the shocker datapoint from cisco: 40% of the worlds smartphone data is consumed by… 1% of the world population. That means a small group of people are gaining an unfair (perhaps) advantage because of their access to information

• The subways are down: take the bus.
• This new place is overcrowded: here’s another local option.
• Gas prices are skyrocketing, but discounted in NJ this weekend.
• This client has spent xxx seconds on the site and is ready to take the next buying step
• Yo Twitter! The rally to unseat the government has been moved to the following sidestreet!

The examples go on and on. A few minutes saved. A better solution for the moment. A bit more background before the interview. A better way, on the way. Compound that millions of times over billions of people and guess what: you have a new gap between the haves and the have-nots. Food for thought before you make your choice between Flintstone or Jetson!

Ride share with this gang?

I’ve been spending some time learning more about the sharing economy and some of its players. As an angel investor accustomed to clearly defined problems, grand solutions and natural revenue models, it seems like the beginning of the story. Kinda like a lot of people showing up in munchkin land- somewhat disoriented, terribly excited, not sure of the path forward.

Dorothy was pioneer when it came to couchsurfing (wimdu perhaps?), but she woke up in a terribly different world. She had to make snap judgments about people, and she had very little context to help (The Good Witch of the North notwithstanding). She was taking very real risks with herself, her dog, and her ruby slippers. But she had to rely on her wits: no help from web 2.0 and social media to help her make big decisions on risk  (one of the great segues of all time folks).

Nowadays, there are more ways to make an assessment about people. People vouch for each other on sites like LinkedIn, Honestly, and Connect.me. People accumulate likes and helpfuls from sites like TripAdvisor, Facebook and Yelp. And some products go further, combining those elements plus offline verification to develop multi-layers scores, like TrustCloud (I’m an investor). Through all these inputs, we have begun to infer things about people based on their actual behavior over time. Here’s how a well-designed trust solution might have helped with her key judgments:

1. The Scarecrow- great domain expertise and happy to assist. Probably a contributor to Yelp or TripAdvisor and frequently tagged helpful.
2. The TinMan- experienced and analytical, probably has people vouching for him like the static inputs of Honestly and Connect me
3. The Lion- I have this guy tagged as a reputation guy. Very proud and looking to clean up what people think of him. Uses Reputation.com a lot.
4. The Wizard- He’s all about influence, which means he spends most of this time on klout.
5. Dorothy- a teambuilder and leader. Probably destined for LinkedIn. But having trouble verifying place of residence!

The point is (and I have taken a veritable yellow brick road to get there) that we no longer live in Oz. There is real, relevant data out there that when properly gathered, weighted, and presented can really help the sharing economy navigate their challenges. (Here’s a great blog from Charles Greene on Trust). But no single point of reference and no rigid formula will serve the Trust needs of every community, let alone every situation.

This is a challenge and a journey that requires multiple layers, great heuristics, and the power of the network effect. (which is one super reason for all these layers to work together). I look forward to watching how this evolves, and who gets to the Emerald City first.

Life in 140 character bursts

Here’s one way to wrap up 2011:

World 2011in<140: ArabSpring Tsunami Wedding(Royal,Kim) Osama DSK Jobs(Steve,austerity) Riots Floods OWS PepperSpray Mobile!

Me 2011in<140: Wedding (mine) New Jobs (Mojiva-106) Angel ($500k) Venture ($25M) Contractions (hers) Startup (WellAware) Move (Greenwich) Baby (First) Sleep (Last)

Twitter was one thing I learned in 2011. Like most things in my life, I had never done it before. I just observed for a bit and waded right in. I ended up tweeting or retweeting 1,300 times or 100+ a month which turned out to be not at all a waste of time. Looking back at my tweets over time I recognize some basic trends that may help others considering jumping on Twitter on 2012. A few rules I learned:

• Add something to the conversation: This was #1 for me. I always try for, and sometimes fail at, a witty or creative thought, a piece of news before it’s over-reported, or a new point of view. I never tweeted “wonder if that cloud will pass behind that building”, or “bacon egg and cheese sandwiches umm”. As in life, the less you say, the more likely people will think you have something interesting when you finally speak. At least that worked for me, so far.
•  Follow a few people you respect: Fellow EO member David Kerpen  does an excellent job of outlining social media and has been a good one to follow. Henry Blodget has it covered in digital media. Irshad Manji is great on Middle East issues, Nick Kristoff on global. Dave McClure is hilarious on angel investing. Bill Gross is great on start ups. Joe Navarro is great at just reading people. April Rudin is awesome on the HNW community.
• Follow a few topics of interest: The topics I followed were angel investing, venture capital (though they play it pretty close to the vest), Middle East conflict, cooking, a few football players, local news, and disaster recovery (twitter is a great way to track fast breaking news).
•  Keep it light, and consider the consequences: I also follow some hilarious parodies and humor, not all of which I have the guts to retweet. Miguel Bloombito  is a farcical twitter account of NYC’s Mayor trying to get by in Spanish. Ricky Gervais is just raw sewer level humor that keeps coming non-stop. FAKEGRIMLOCK is supposed to be a software coder on a mission, but it’s likely just Brad Feld’s alter ego. AdamU has perfected the 140 character definition of snark. I love Henry_Kissinger (paraody)

I should also add it is a good way to make notes to yourself, make a legit complaint to an airline (they monitor those things), keep track of people in a disaster, and wedge your way into an important discussion. I did all these things in 2011. So I’m glad I jumped on Twitter, finally. It hasn’t changed me much, just made me more of who I already am. Remains to be seen if that’s a good thing.

No, they don't.

It’s been said 2012 will be the year of Social Media in Business; for the meta travel site KAYAK, it couldn’t come soon enough.

While some businesses are evolving or even transforming how they buy and sell products, many are fast becoming social businesses. In a Fast Company article by Drew Neisser, “Move Over Social Media; Here Comes Social Business” he explains the reasons why every company should be thinking about becoming a social business. According to Neisser, IBM is moving themselves and their clients “well beyond social media into a new era of collaboration, insight sharing and lead generation it calls social business”.

It only takes one disaster, and the whole company focusses on getting social media right.

So big news this week was KAYAK pulled some ads from TLC recently on a previously under the radar show called “All-American Muslim”. In fact, seems 65 other advertisers have done the same, including Lowes. None cited any reason for pulling ads, and so the logical media man assumes it was for underperformance. Advertisers advertise because they are in business. They want to reach customers and have a finite marketing budget to do it.

KAYAK is a small entrepreneurial company, the type that we need badly in America. Unfortunately, KAYAK’s explanation came out in the form of a (likely) hastily written blog post from the CMO right out of the classic Gas-on-the-fire PR strategy. It starts with a typo (as I often do as well), and rambles just enough to contradict between backing a show for moral reasons and pulling out for performance reasons. I’ve written worse. (full disclosure: I know the CEO and have shared beers on occaision).

Here’s that first post:

We would like to apologize to anyone who was offended by how we handled our decision not to continue advertising on All-American Muslim when it
returns in January. We decided to advertise on it in the first place because we  adamantly support tolerance and diversity. Our 150-person team includes people
from all over the world, and from all walks of life. Our team includes people who are descended from early Europeans who came here escaping religious
intolerance, and newer Americans who include many religions. We get what America is about.

For the record, we didn’t “pull” our ads. Our ads kept running on this program, but we have made the decision not to give TLC more money when the show returns in January.

Unfortunately, this decision comes across as bending to bigotry. It also appears that we did not support people who deserve support as people and as Americans. For that, I am profoundly sorry.

I should have communicated more clearly. We would not want anyone to think that we caved to hatred. I wish I could share some of the emails I’ve received from our team. They are also very unhappy with how I handled this. Please allow me to explain the decision. First, our approach to advertising decisions is to choose advertising based on who watches it, not the political leaning of the program.

When we decided to give our money to TLC for this program, we deemed the show a worthy topic. When we received angry emails regarding our decision to advertise, I looked into the show more thoroughly. The first thing I discovered was that TLC was not upfront with us about the nature of this show. As I said, it’s a worthy topic, but any reasonable person would know that this topic is a particular lightning rod. We believe TLC went out of their way to pick a fight on this, and they didn’t let us know their intentions. That’s not a business practice that generally gets repeat business from us. I also believe that it did this subject a grave disservice. Sadly, TLC is now enjoying the attention from this controversy.

I then checked the Florida Family Association website to see how this was portrayed. Besides the regrettable hatred, I also noticed that we weren’t listed. The email was a template, so people who sent thousands of emails seemed to be unaware they were sending it to us. The amount of vitriol in the emails was saddening, but I didn’t exactly feel pressured (not to mention we wouldn’t bend to such pressure). Many of the emails I’ve received expressing disappointment in our decision have been much more civil, and I applaud you for that.

Lastly, I watched the first two episodes. Mostly, I just thought the show sucked. Based on our dealings with TLC and the simple assessment of the show, I decided we should put our money elsewhere. Apologies again.

- Robert Birge, KAYAK Chief Marketing Officer

But then social and traditional media kicked in, picking apart the post and accusing the company of pandering to religious groups (who pointed out, correctly, the show had no bomb makers). This, to them, implied TLC was going light on Islam and they called for support to be pulled. Meanwhile, support was being pulled, likely for entirely different reasons- economics. But I think the big lesson learned is that businesses are beginning to wade into social media, and they have to get a handle on the tremendous benefits and swift dangers of living in that world. As for KAYAK, the best thing they can do in this Holiday season is to focus. Sure enough, this clarification just came out from CEO Steve Hafner.

This is actually my first blog post ever. Frankly, I wish it was on a different topic.

I want to respond to the questions and comments we’ve been receiving about KAYAK’s advertising on the TLC show “All-American Muslim”. We’re a small company with fewer than 200 employees, and we advertise on a lot of TV shows. We don’t have the resources to vet the content of each show. We also continually adjust our media mix – meaning we start, stop,  and restart advertising on specific shows periodically.

Our decision regarding advertising on All-American Muslim was in no way influenced by demands from third parties such as the FFA. We do try to avoid advertising on shows that may produce controversy, whether we support the content or not. We simply don’t want people to confuse our choice of where we spend our TV dollars with a political or moral agenda. Plus there are plenty of shows that are just as effective from a marketing perspective.

We’re not bigots, and we’re not experts in TV programming. We are trying to make the world’s best travel site. I hope this blog post puts this issue to rest and allows us to get back to work.

Please enjoy the holiday season. Steve Hafner

 Simple, focussed and to the point. Good CEO reaction.

Mobile Global: Click 2 see cool pic

I work hard to get lucky.

1. The Carriers used to think they were content curators. Seriously, there was no other way to get distribution than to program in bizarre carrier languages (BREW, etc) and pay them through the nose to be “on deck”. Hey, they got the idea from the old AOL days. But these people did not realize the comic effect of managing content on a 2″x2″ screen. Plenty of money was wasted getting on those decks, and getting the content optimized. At one point, I counted an easy $500MM of venture money was poured down that rabbit hole.
2. Eyeballs began to shift. First it was getting email and text on phones. Then a few games and stock quotes. But the iPhone and its 250,000 apps out the gate brought all manner of information and entertainment to the mobile screen. The PC reached a plateau.
3. People were no more willing to pay for apps than they were to pay for the “old fashioned” internet. It should be free, man continued as the digital credo. And except for very few exceptions (iTunes being one), the entire mobile revolution has been driven to date with ads.
4. Tablets followed shortly, and guess what: they’re mobile too. Meaning all the ad serving technology, all the geo-location and device data was much more like a mobile phone than a PC.

With a little knowledge as an angel/board member with digital yield optimizer operative (now Operative One) and some domain expertise from Cellufun, I went on to start mobile ad network/ad server Mojiva with co-founders Krish and Dan.  And I have since been founding angel in mobile powered projects like MyBailiwick (crowdsourcing too early!), TrustCloud (trust in the sharing economy getting hotter now) and WellAware (mobile health and wellness platform). I think my bets in mobile media have been pretty lucky, and i will continue to make them for all the basic reasons above (and many more that are regularly laid out by tech guru Mary Meeker).

I just never knew where the tipping point was.

I do now. High five.

PT Barnum would have been proud

I was heartbroken this week as news that the wedding of the century lasted 72 days… Actually, what brought tears to my eyes was that the American public took yet another collective step down the ladder in race to the bottom, and this particular bottom is a big one, if that shot from the New York Post isn’t retouched!

How does anyone assemble such a large group of lazy, nihilist, shallow, hopeless aspirationalists and suck them into actually believing that shallow self-absorbed and dumb as a clogheel is any way to go through life (to quote Judge Smails from Bushwood CC). Oh, and all the while selling them products and services that redefine trashy?

1. Turn on a camera I guess.

P.T Barnum may have said “sell to the masses, eat with the classes… the Kardashian Empire has somehow gotten Americans to consume endless hours of totally worthless pettiness, appears to be selling them fairly lame clothing (with what is best described as VS syndrome it looked so good on her…), and almost loading all those follower/purchasers into a ridiculous fee loaded credit card. That was finally pulled, as the smell from the fees and interest must have even penetrated the perfumed confines of the Dash boudoir. It seems no one every got poor underestimating the class of the American people.

So truth be told, I don’t mind Kim. She’s pretty. And she is not the first to run the table in the star-infatuation for profit racket.

Elizabeth Taylor carried that type of fascination factor throughout her live, and was no stranger to quickie marriages and headline grabbing affairs. But she actually DID stuff. Decent movies. Ardent support of AIDS victims. Classy as hell fashion. And articulate positions on a variety of issues that concerned our society. On the other side of the spectrum of nothingness, there is Paris Hilton, who is furious she can’t muscle onto a magazine cover lately, having contributed equally as much to society’s table as Kim, to date.

Kim has become the most extreme symbol, so far, in just how low and desperate America’s aspirations are for something better, and how totally devoid too many Americans are these days of the skills and work ethic required to actually earn any of it. That’s the saddest part of this progression, and it won’t stop until we find something better to do with our time. Like developing a skill, or creating something that benefits society, our community, or just a circle of friends. And it will take tuning the crap out of our lives and getting on with something more rewarding and redeeming.

And what’s next for Kim and the value of the throne as Queen of Nothingness? Perhaps the best answer came during lunch with Sam Zell yesterday while he talked about distressed assets: price is the cure for any perceived defect.

Sponsorship for her next wedding, or a ringside seat at the birth of her as-yet-un-announced secret love baby (no doubt conceived during an yet-to-be announced affair while married to her now belatedly-beloved for 72 days) may well fetch less that $17M. How much less and how quickly her price falls depends on how soon America snaps out of it, and moves on to something with meaning.

I’m counting on that happening, but not fast enough.

The Kardashians next season begins November 27th. Plans for her run for the Senate are as yet un-announced…

I didn't have a pic for this one, so Baxter is up

Lao Tzu, with that simple phrase, would have been a mover and shaker in digital media. Here’s one reason why…

I had time for a cup of coffee with Charlie Greene, a trust advisor who has carved out a unique niche teaching Trust-Worthiness to all sorts of companies, corporate citizens, and high level advisors. In fact, I would venture to call him The Trust Advisor, not just a trust advisor. Check out his multiple books on the subject here.

I came into the meeting wondering if the processes he had developed would be applicable in the Sharing Economy where TrustCloud functions.  What he told me opened a whole new perspective on the concept. In his words, the basic elements of trustworthiness are contained in the Trust  Equation.

(T+C+R+I) / S

Now let me explain:

1. T stands for trustworthiness—how much the  buyer/client trusts the seller (or vice versa)
2. C stands for credibility—it speaks to words and credentials.
3. R is  reliability—how others perceive the consistency of our actions, and our actions’ connection with our words (integrity).
4. I is intimacy— how secure or safe the client feels sharing with us.

The lone term in the denominator is Self-Orientation, and it has a  double meaning. Partly it’s about selfishness. But Self-orientation is also about our attention, our focus. Are we  listening ? Or are we listening to truly hear.  Are we obsessed by our own desires, by our  insecurities? Or do we truly focus on others needs, paying attention even when it doesn’t necessarily benefit us?  Only the latter builds deep, long-term relationships.

I love exploring the dynamics of Trust (and trust-worthiness), and have written regularly about what I have learned on the subject (here’s the Trust tag in my blog) including such favorites as MadMen, Catfish, and Fool me Once. I have also been speaking on the topic: one fun afternoon was spent with Cam Tonkinwise of Shared Square and his class of students at the New School  studying (you guessed it) the sharing economy. I was hit with a ton of new questions about Trust and its components.  Every time I think I have explored every corner, I get another view that gives me deeper understanding and deeper desire to dig deeper. As the dinosaur product development monster FAKE GRIMLOCK famously said: RIGHT IDEA MAKE BURN INSIDE TO FIX. CAN TAKE DAY OFF FROM IDEA? IT WRONG ONE. Trust has that grip on me.

So I began to think Trust as it applies to our online “social vapor” (a term Xin Chung coined to describe all the low stakes, hi volume events we participate in online that form a picture of our offline personality).

How much better would you feel about sharing a ride, if that someone had done the same with others. (C above) Even better if that share was with someone we knew. How confident might we been lending out our powertools if the borrower had proven reliability in a similar sharing economy circumstance. (R) How important would it be to know someone you were about to give the housekeys was actually connected to others in your network. (I) And, of all these data points, what does the denominator of paying attention to the needs of others affect our trust. (S). The formula works, even when applied in rudimentary terms to the sharing economy.

The sharing economy has some really cool companies that are just starting to get some traction:

• Share a room with airBnb  or wimdu
• Share a ride with getaround or relayrides
• Share a skill with zaarly
• Share a (tool) or thing with neighborgoods or snapgoods
• Share a project ($) with kickstarter
• Share your driveway with Park at my House

Each of them have a unique idea to change the way our planet consumes resources more efficiently. and they have domain expertise in forming and communicating with that specialized market. Now, imagine an eco-system where people are doing more and quicker exchanges with each other because trust had been built within the community. Awesome power. All from a simple equation. But to make a sharing economy-type point to the sharing economy, would it not make perfect sense to use and re-use one common asset to track trust-worthiness across the eco-system?

I think so. How ’bouts you?

~~

Charles Greene’s trust indicator test is here… http://trustsuite.trustedadvisor.com/landing/A/C

My Disclaimer Here:  I have an investment in, and a deep belief for, the benefits of  TrustCloud, mentioned above.