Miles To Go.

I just flew over America again.

I went to LA and was pitched in the Palisades Room at the Santa Monica Fairmont for two straight days and all I ever saw were VC’s, bankers and their cars rolling up to the front entryway. We didn’t see any Occupy groups, but they would have had a blast I’m sure. I took a break and saw my Choate roommate Michael Scott for dinner in West Hollywood and it was plenty more of the same with a few stars and starlets thrown in (not typical VC fare, that).

All good and all nice people. But I have this palpable sense that, slightly below the surface of the Brave Face of America (any in many towns between LAX and JFK), there is a shitstorm brewing among people who are tired and distraught. It’s probably about jobs, and the fact that we really don’t have enough of them to go around. That and the facts that, despite the 1,000 attendees at the Monty Conference, we are throttling the engine to create them. The coming world war will be an all-out global war for good jobs, says Gallup’s chairman Jim Clifton. I couldn’t agree more, and they won’t come from shovel ready Government civil works, nor from meaningless tax credits and incentives.

More proof of the disconnect irony comes from the Daily Beast’s Zach Karabel: The last time the markets were at their current levels—the tech-heavy NASDAQ index is also at its highest since the Internet bubble burst in 2001—sentiment was radically different. In May of 2008, Bear Stearns had nearly collapsed, only to be bought on the cheap by J.P. Morgan, and the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers was a nightmare scenario that had barely been contemplated. The housing bubble in the U.S. was clearly deflating, but unemployment had not yet spiked. And while many believed a recession was looming, few forecast a financial crisis. Still, the outlook was cloudy at best, and a descent from 13,000 seemed likely. The strength in financial markets, and stocks especially, is not a proxy for real-world economies.

It’s been said before and needs to be said again: Wall Street isn’t Main Street. The Dow can be 13,000 or 14,000 and it won’t matter a whit to the millions of unemployed and underemployed. Few jobs are created by rising equity prices, and companies will not hire unless there is stronger demand, no matter how high their shares climb. They will sooner pay a dividend to shareholders, buy back stock, or acquire competitors than hire extra bodies that are not necessary for managing current business or creating new ventures.

And that’s the root issue: though America has a GDP of about 3x the nearest competitors (being japan, UK, France, Germany, Italy) its growth has been anemic compared to China, who still lags the top five. We spend too much, we don’t take in enough, and it’s becoming a bad running joke in world lending corridors (where are those)? As any creditcard will remind you, in 20-30 years, 10% growth compounded beats just about anything. But last time we heard footsteps, we hit the dot.com boom and pulled away with innovation and productivity gains never seen before.

That’s what is needed now. And I think Mobile, social and sharing will be three places where innovation will lead.

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.

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.

Now everyone knows...

It’s been a busy few weeks for Trust.

When Fast Company covered the concept recently, they called it “The Sharing Economy”. Now more light and more capital has begun to flow toward companies that are enabling the peer to peer trading that the web promised long ago. (Isn’t it funny how the web delivers, if you can afford to wait long enough)!

Rachel Botsman coined the term  Collaborative Consumption ( or “CollCons”) and has  written about it in “What’s Mine is Yours” . She’s become a bit of an evangelist for the power of sharing and consuming, peer to peer. Besides getting cred for the concept at TED , she’s been right on top of every move in the CollCons space. Like Getaround winning the battle of Tech Crunch. And Ashton Kutcher investing in AirBnB. Full disclosure: I have an investment in, and a deep belief for, the benefits of  TrustCloud, mentioned below.

So what, if anything, is holding this movement back from breakout growth? Why can a neighbor lean over the fence and ask for something, but the online equivalent results in apprehension?  When you hand the housekeys  to a couchsurfer, leave the kids with the new sitter, or hitch a ride with three total unknowns, it’s not a natural feeling. I’ve written about it in my MadMen post, as well as the downside in my Catfish story. CollCons could be sooooo good if we could only enjoy the benefits of peer to peer –without that dollop of angst in the pit of our stomachs.

The antidote?  Trust. It’s kind of the reverse of the behavior I blogged about in Race to the Bottom. And it’s closer to becoming a reality in the CollCons space.  I’ve determined  six qualities that can be measured and portable (to a variety of sites) and will help achieve the comfort levels needed to scale users and usage.

1. I’m Helpful: I contribute online; so I’ll be considerate and prepared as your host.
2. I’m Local: I grew up or lived here for a while, so I know the best places & activities around.
3. I’m a Connector: I’ve got many local friends, so I can introduce you to interesting folks.
4. I’m Worldly: I’ve travelled a lot, so I know what makes a good host in a variety of cultures.
5. I’m Authentic: I’m open about myself online, so the description about my product (self) is also genuine.
6. I’m Consistent: I’ve got an established history with school & work, so I’m a more responsible.

While some companies in the CollCons community are thinking of ways to develop this algorithm themselves, TrustCloud has begun to test its beta “Trust Indicator” integration in three CollCons leaders. The advantage to using the TrustCloud API is that CollCons brands will have a trust indicator with no development costs, the scores leverage the power of the entire CollCons network, and the scores are portable.  [Unlike eBay Power Scores, with TrustCloud, good behavior on a shared room makes for good ratings in a ride share, etc.]

I’m deeply committed to “trust” in the real world, and I’m excited about its prospects to enable more peer to peer sharing online. But I’m also aware of how online behavior can be gamed and trust abused or never created.   So I’m excited about the day when this artificial drag is finally removed from the CollCons market. Meanwhile, I’m jazzed to help all members work more effectively toward this goal.