WPP’s game plan is pretty clear – simplifying the holding company’s ‘holdings’, integrating agencies and driving for greater efficiencies. In the last few months, it has folded Possible into Wunderman (digital), merged Maxus and MEC into Wavemaker (Media), merged five design agencies into one Superunion (Design), amalgamated Burson Cohn & Wolfe (PR) and two attempts at mixing digital and creative with VMLY&R and Wunderman Thompson.
I hope this strategy works out. And I believe there will be a phase 2 to this consolidation with a layer of AI backed efficiency improvements in the future. But if that was the case, why would WPP have given away some of its stake in Kantar? From an AI strategy point of view, the research agency’s knowledge could be made useful in a specific way. The sale tells me that they have either, found no usable database or have found no way to turn its existing knowledge into usable database or, have a different AI strategy in place that doesn’t need research data. (which i find implausible, but hey, what do I know? I am a thousand miles from decisions and people who matter.)
Merging People
Coming back to the present, I really hope the objectives of mergers are achieved. The merger is supposed to bring together “award-winning creativity alongside deep expertise in technology, data and commerce.” My first concern is, does it really happen like that? Can creative companies successfully merge their people, their capabilities? Is the sum greater than its parts? I tried to find answers to these questions in research papers, but couldn’t find any. Anecdotally, I have witnessed (and know of) more merger failures than merger successes. I guess, data companies (epsilon) and consultancies (Accenture, etc) have been fairly successful in bringing in new capabilities. But agencies aren’t as well positioned to integrate other capabilities as easily. Let alone integrating capabilities, integrating people with similar capabilities hasn’t always been easy. Look at any of the mergers in Indian advertising industry for instance. More often than not, legacy clients leave the merged agency as soon as founder’s grip on the agency weakens. A merged agency is fundamentally a leaky enterprise – the brand gets absorbed, people leave and so do the clients. There is no intrinsic value enhancement with mergers (apart from providing scale. This proposition was deal maker in the last century. It is hygiene now though.) I don’t want to take agency names here; a cursory look at the history of most of the merged agencies in India will testify.
So if merging is so difficult to pull off for a 100-200 people enterprise, wouldn’t it be exponentially difficult for companies with 10,000 people in employ each?
Scalability
There are specific processes through which say a Oil refinery’s capacity, Google’s computing power or amazon’s warehousing can scale. Before they scale, they would have a roadmap to implement.
I hope WPP has thought about the processes needed to scale successfully. There is much to unpack here.
What would a successful scaling look like for an agency? For physical infrastructure scaling, installation and servicing are easy to monitor and measure. A failure would be apparent soon enough – an oil spill, a data security vulnerability, service outage, etc. However, the results of a failure for creative industry would not be immediate.
What failures do we need to look for? Our success is measured in Marketing effectiveness, Creative excellence. To make this a reality, we need capable people working together. So we have four variables to track our success/ failure.
Marketing effectiveness, Creative excellence, Talent’s capability & Ability to work together.
Effectiveness & creativity – essentially a track record. You can put a dashboard ideally. (screw awards. waste of time.) But you will have to wait a year or two to see if this works.
The second two are interesting. They are about people. Companies merge, people don’t. So upon announcement people won’t acquire each other’s capabilities through osmosis. Nothing is going to change unless there is a systematic plan to help people improve their processes, learn new skills, move across departments fruitfully, and so on.
Publicis potentially can have that capability, if it improves its Marcel attempt.
I hope WPP has such plans afoot. There are two components to it – process improvements to make collaboration and learning easy & training programs. Again, if past is any evidence, I haven’t witnessed any meaningful program to improve my skills, help me collaborate or even to make me aware of new emerging tools. (Well, truthfully, there was one instance in my first year, where i lead efforts to build an in-house Knowledge portal. I wouldn’t say it was a grand success though. We learnt quite a bit with that project.)
So I am skeptical of holding company’s ability to institutionalize capacity building. Agencies prefer throwing money at recruiting new talent, instead of systematically investing in imparting skills.
I hope WPP institutionalises efforts to plan for and measure improvements in capabilities and co-operation.
The sum total
Successful mergers create value that would have been impossible for the merging companies by themselves. For a commodities & service companies, that value might arise from process & cost efficiencies or competitive ‘moats’. Marketing services/ advertising industry is different though. For Wunderman Thompson to be successful, it needs to change its processes so that its data, strategy, creative people work together meaningfully, resulting in a new experience for clients – where the client shares a marketing problem and agency provides a plug & play solution utilizing mediums and people effectively and efficiently. This will require creation of bespoke tools for collaborative work. But knowing agencies I feel the management will go for off the shelf solutions, creating newer silos. I am hopeful though – after all I certainly don’t know as much as the industry stalwarts do. They perhaps know of a better way to integrate than the ones I am suggesting.
Here’s hoping for the best.
An alternative – decentralize
I believe, there’s a better alternative to this merging mania – improve processes & help distinct companies with distinct core competencies collaborate better in a plug and play manner. I have written about the thinking behind this approach – here and here. I will write a followup about exactly what this translates to in the near future.
This is in response to Mr. Rory sutherland’s article about targeting in advertising. Read that article before reading this one.
______________________________
“By deluding everyone that the whole of advertising is reducible to “the efficient and inexpensive delivery of targeted messages” through the extensive use of data and algorithms, two companies have gained a multi-billion-dollar rent-seeking monopoly over the majority of advertising activity.”
Bang on. But right after identifying the problem correctly, he then completely misses the big picture.
1. Platforms are relevant beyond advertising. Agencies aren’t. Yes, facebook and google create the illusion of measurable effectiveness of comms through targeting, even as it turns out, it is just as much a gamble as traditional media was. But Mr. Rory doesn’t comprehend the broader utility of these technological giants. They aren’t simply channels of communications. They are default platform of commerce, knowledge & social connections. They inform not just marketing but supply chain strategies, go-to-market strategies and even new product development. These platforms are fundamentally shaping the new era of business growth. The ‘sudoku’ like big picture consciousness needs to take this into account. It needs to take into account the fact that these platforms are fundamentally changing the way we work, we behave, we interact and we live.
So, my first moment of ‘wtf’ came when Mr. Rory thought that the multi-billion dollar rent-seeking was just about ‘advertising activity’. Either he needs to appreciate the far broader footprint of that ‘activity’ where creative agencies don’t compete or he should look for reasons within the creative industry for why we aren’t getting a share of any of that activity.
I don’t particularly like the tech giants myself. But advertising industry is no innocent minnow either. It has always been a morally grey industry. So for its statesman to target the tech industry while absolving itself of its failing fortunes, felt a bit weak. The sense one gets is “we don’t need to change, you should. we are not muddled in our heads, you are.” Which is horseshit ofcourse.
2. False duality of Targeting/ Creativity:
I wholehearted agree that obsessing about targeting is problematic, not just strategically but even morally and hopefully eventually legally. But with metaphors of sudoku and door man, he ends up creating a false sense of comprehensiveness with targeting & creativity. Indeed he talks about sudoku – the big picture consciousness needed to solve the problem, but doesn’t take into account the big picture of advertising operations. We are way too busy advising businesses about their transformation to notice the need for our own transformation.
He essentially creates a false duality about targeting & Creativity. Advertising comprises of far more acts than that of creative messaging and targeting. As a matter of fact, technology’s relevance for advertising is precisely outside of these two acts – servicing, client feedback, HR, research, basic analysis even creative inspiration … all these tasks that support creativity can be improved with technology. And they can improve only by ‘breaking-down-to-manageable-parts’ approach. The sudoku metaphor, though very enticing feels wrong. The sudoku metaphor is relevant for big picture strategy or pure acts of creativity. But no other process beyond it. and there are far too many processes beyond these two processes in advertising.
3. The untold story about the doorman: So in Rory Sutherland’s piece, tech company automates the door and boom – end of the hotel. But in reality, there is a story after that. Unlike our industry, tech industry is notoriously good at improving with feedback. They are famously ‘forever in beta’. They would recognise the error, and plan ahead. perhaps by creating gadget for the doorman to greet different patrons in different language. Perhaps, by creating a entry chamber that is even more secure and pleasurable to enter into. The possible improvements are endless with creative thinking.
What I am trying to get at is… tech will improve the processes that it can improve until no improvements are needed. And unless agencies get on with the ‘arms race of feedback led improvements’, we are doomed to get thrown out by the doorman like he would a bum.
4. Tech’s role in advertising:
Do clients want us to be more nimble, more responsive? how can it happen without tech?
Digital media is creating a Just-in-time and plug and play mentality for solutions. can we deliver solutions JIT and PnP without tech?
Agencies service just the largest corporates in the world. we can’t profitably service SMEs. Is that the world we want to be in where the biggest get unfair advantages of our talent? Can technology help agencies in servicing at scale?
Most of our time goes in idiotic tasks such as filling time sheets, arranging meetings, reworking forever due to bad feedback… Each of these tasks can be improved with tech.
We are using tech to reduce productivity actually – Take for instance the process of installing a font currently – raise a ticket, wait for technician, who installs it. the first two steps are completely unnecessary. but we do it, because we don’t take tech led improvement in processes seriously, even as we idolize Apple.
Most importantly, effectiveness of campaigns is still akin to picking a lottery ticket. There is no scientific algorithm to achieve right effectiveness. Similar to the problem faced by stock-brokers. But people like Mandlebrot have been suggesting scientific and a different approach to that problem. Maybe, there is much to learn for us from that approach. (Stochastic and as such programmable to an extent. but not anytime soon.
5. ‘Creativity’ has been agencies’ excuse for long to get away with their privileged complacency. Advertising agencies are too expensive, unreliable and inaccessible. Tech will disrupt advertising agencies soon enough, because industry leaders echo Rory’s myopia.
Google, FB etc keep buying smart companies all the time.
A handful of global companies keep buying smart companies before they can get a product out to the market.They are essentially creating monopolistic moats over not just cutting edge intellectual property, but also the intellectuals – the men and women capable of creating/ leveraging new technologies.
So many startups now start with the end in mind, the vaulted ‘exit’. What happens when all the technological advancements get concentrated in fewer and fewer hands? The only anti-dote to Marx’s dystopia of ever accumulating capital was the intellectual capital that allowed anyone to give it a go with limited risk and succeed. Is that anti-dote of intellectual capabilities relevant any more?
Any body can learn to code, etc. But can everyone access the infrastructure and the necessary accelerating feedback loops to improve as fast as these few companies can? That pace of accelerating innovations is the new Capital for 21st century.
If we don’t want an increasingly unequal world, we will need to view this capacity to rapidly innovate as a capital that needs to be seen similarly to other capital assets – land, machinery, channels of access to consumers.
Which means, it is time for regulations. We can’t let ever fewer investors and companies to corner the ability to rapidly innovate.
This is essential. Unlike 15 years ago, when a zukerberg could code out of his dorm and build an empire. Now another zukerberg could code just as well, but if his idea & code is any good, it will either get copied by these juggernauts or get bought early on. Look at how FB is copying snapchat to its death. It is not a level playing field anymore. A successful digital company now will require a war chest of billions. There are investors ready to fund these war chests. But the problem is, that these investors are same few folks from California (and one notable Japanese guy).
There is no Nigerian, no Indian, no Brazilian, no Greek, no Swedish….(and a 190 countries later) person among those few people who control the new engine of human innovations.
A side effect of this narrow competition is the poverty of ideas that the best minds are working on – google glasses, automated vehicles, AI assistants … are these the biggest challenges for the humanity? As Climate change, growing inequality and rising xenophobia tear the world apart, should the people who can create the infrastructure of the new world be spending their times on elitist pursuits?
It is not difficult to copy them and become the new age capitalist. However they have created a high-entry barrier by turning it into a mad game of bluff. Their tactic is to value companies at ridiculous valuations. The valuation is divorced from reality and based solely on the potential of possible monopolistic leverage. Naturally, most sensible people, stay away from this capricious game.
These people are feverishly gambling with the intellectual capacity of humanity. It is a mad mad world. They need to be stopped if we want a better world.
Yes. Self -respect, not self-esteem. They hold themselves in high enough esteem. Many of them could be rightly called out for their arrogance or over-confidence. It is not an issue of self-image as much as it is about an internal moral framework.
I am specifically talking about the way the client-agency relationship is deteriorating and how the advertising bros are reacting to it. What happens when we lose business now? What happens when we keep getting invited to pitches that do not end with change of AORs? What happens when a not-so-smart client gives you useless feedback or worse, hopes you to decode his/her grunts, nods and irrelevant comments? What happens when clients don’t give you enough time or money for the stars and worlds it wants to create for its brand? What happens when they squeeze you for margins, favors and extra un-billed work? What is happening with talent? Are they getting proper feedback, proper support to do their work?
I see the management, across most agencies & globally, conceding ground at each of these moments. The dialectic is totally absent. Apart from a few vanity browny points, we hardly see agency management taking stand when it really matters. I am not talking about pride. I don’t see pride as a virtue. We don’t need to be proud of our work. Pride is a negative emotion. What we need is a sense of self-respect independent of our work, independent of our financial leverage, independent of our contractual obligations and rights. Self-respect that is grounded in our humanity, in our ‘agency’ as human beings. That I feel is absent.
That self-respect powers you to ask the right questions, to stand for your right to your time, your money. That self-respect helps you see things clearly. Without that self-respect, convenience blinds you from reality. Without that self-respect, we accept client’s gibberish or half-baked thoughts as concrete orders. Self-respect gives you the power to very humbly ask the questions that must be answered. Without self-respect, the management ends up piling on more work than the team can handle and with far too many reworks and rounds of reviews. Even if they feel sorry for it, what good is that remorse? What force is marrying them to this situation? It is a simple issue of proper feedback and setting the right expectations. Self-respect propels you towards clarity, towards equal terms of engagement, towards a work-ethic that leads to joyful work not dreadful work.
i hope for agency leaders to grow respect for themselves in their own eyes.
So the research suggested the consumer as a patriarchal housewife – a woman who listens to, and seeks her husband’s suggestion. A woman whose day revolves around catering to the needs of her children and the husband. Surprise surprise, patriarchy exists. But client won’t buy it as it is, won’t really engage with the reality, probe the ‘why’. Patriarchy doesn’t exist in the world of client’s brand guidelines. Now only if by closing one’s eyes to reality, one could change the reality.
The client leader probes the poor researcher, ‘Did she ask for ‘opinion’ or ‘suggestion’? I think the modern woman is a ‘progressive’ equal partner’. “Isn’t she happy to help her family members succeed in their lives?‘ That was expected: the generous reinterpretation of truth to fit their narrow worldview. The VP says so, because the global brand guidelines tell her so. The brand’s consumer is the mythical progressive smart housewife who is modern and yet not outraged by patriarchy. The thing with personas molded by corporates is – it is an exercise where wishes and projections of multiple ivory tower dwellers, coalesce. They fling their narrow world-views and politics at each other, reality be damned. What matters is to sidestep contentious issues and go for the middle path to profit.
Ok fine. so profit motive is critical. Then why do the whole ‘persona’ bit – why go after ‘life insight’ and ‘cultural insight’? Why not simply stick to the need your product is actually solving. Sell the goddamn soap for what it does. Find insight about the product relevance. It does not need to ’empower’ to sell more. But no. “We are a progressive company”. yeah right.
Solving a problem, needs recognition of the problem, recognition of agency of others. With corporate mandated blinkers, all one can do is provide lip-service to ideals and do nothing that would really do anything ‘real’ about the issue.
I wish for brands and agencies to leave the ‘movements’, ‘revolutions’, ‘activism’ alone. Any of it done in ‘bad faith’ only harms the movement, not help it. The powerful usurp the social dialogue and the issue gets ‘managed’.
Sell your damn soap. Don’t bother with being ‘progressive’ or ‘activistic’.
Most governments, as agents of power, bother about creating and maintaining public good only so far as it helps the cause of those in power. Governments are shaped by the need of those in power to remain in power. Govt can afford to bother about public good only when the electorate is wide enough – when there are many essential and influentials. (Refer ‘The dictator’s handbook‘ for the concept, or this video for a quicker appreciation of it.)
With the rise of digital platforms we have seen rise of super rich, super powerful corporations and individuals. Their rise has contributed to the the deepening of inequality. They have boldly ‘disrupted’ lives of many for concentrated profit for a few people. Economically, platforms are disenfranchising people while creating a few super powerful elites.
What does it mean for democratic power?
Rising inequality means fewer ‘essentials’ needed for rulers to remain in power. (In a dictatorship typically, there is a ruler, a few essentials and many ‘interchangeables’: Whereas in a democracy, there is no absolute ruler, ideally there are many influencers, many essentials and few interchangeables.) Rising inequality directly affects the power and leverage that people hold. It leads to dictatorial power relationships. In a sense, in the domains of knowledge, markets and online relationships, Google, Amazon & Facebook are quite dictatorial, even if their beliefs are egalitarian. They can dictate the terms of accesses to their services. Indeed, have you ever thought of disagreeing to their ‘terms of conditions’? Is there a space to negotiate? and what happens when you start depending on these services completely, but cannot engage with these services meaningfully to negotiate with them?
When power relations are conducive for dictatorships, why would governments or corporates bother about the public good? What incentive do they have?
Platform monopolies are a threat to democracies. The possible knee jerk reaction to their hegemony, would be as well.
Facebook, Google, Amazon… are behemoths shaping our world. They are doing so not for public good, but rather private gains. Consider Amazon’s stock market performance for example. Why would people be investing in a loss making company? They are doing so for the long punt. People are investing in a monopoly of tomorrow in the form of Amazon. They are investing in Bezos’ vision of a complete monopoly. They want a piece of that monopoly’s obscenely fat profit. That is why investors allow him to put all the money at its disposal to expand its reach and locking consumers in its value chain. Consider the impending value explosion when Amazon can start leveraging the IOT (Internet of things) at its disposal – usage, user preferences, supply chain intelligence, user financial wherewithal, spy called alexa, vendor data… It is about to become the single biggest market that consumers across the world would have to deal with. It will not make economical sense for consumers to pursue an alternative. Amazon plans to be the default platform of economic exchange. Do you really want the complete global market to be owned by a few individuals?
Amazon hopes to become the ONLY global market platform for a majority of earthlings.
Similarly – Google is almost the ONLY global definitive knowledge and information platform.
Facebook hopes to be the ONLY global online relationship building platform.
Thank god, Uber faltered and hopefully can’t be the ONLY mobility platform.
Uber faltered because it very visibly threatens existing economic exchanges and consequently current livelihoods. It is visibly pitting one labour force against another. Amazon does too, though it is surprising that it hasn’t faced public wrath yet. Wars have happened for lesser losses of power & economic leverage. Consider the Knights Templar in 13th Century, the early European Banking Platform. They were burned at the stake by France’s king then, to take back the financial leverage that he had ceded to them. It is not 13th Century anymore, but it isn’t an utopia either. There are massive number of people who are getting left behind with the platform revolution and they are bound to react, in modern ways perhaps, hopefully peacefully, but there will be a reaction.
The most plausible reaction could be regulations. There is a trade-off there. The libertarian ideals of most of these platform owners meant that the digital realm was a egalitarian & non-judgemental space for conversations, exchanges. That libertarian ideal is under threat from regulations. China has successfully managed to create an internet for its citizen that is heavily censored and spied through. Unfortunately, other governments would be just as keen to use the economic loss to legacy businesses due to platforms as an excuse to change the nature of platform instead – from trustworthy exchanges to tools of surveillance.
Understanding the power of platforms
I define platforms as enabling environments/ infrastructures, that –
Gives egalitarian access to other people/ services through
Unique and valuable exchanges that would not be possible outside of that platform
And allow people to improve upon, enrich the platform – either with APIs or engagement
Historically, such platforms were either pre-existing, or created and maintained by governments or community collectives. No private enterprise had the incentive or wherewithal to create platforms. Consider a road that gives access to people to move through that would not have been possible without it – a road is a platform then. It was cost intensive to build, so governments built it. It was a public good. It was part of the ‘commons’.
Consider a river. Communities access water for their use through it. Communities built dams, turbines, irrigation channels for the benefit of the collective. As such, a river is a platform for access to water that is also a part of ‘commons’. No one, in right conscience, would think of owning it.
Consider the 6 inch of top soil that the earth is blessed with. Without it humanity would not have existed. It is the platform of food supply. It enables farming, forests and the food cycle. No one can own it, unless they want to destroy humanity.
Consider the renewable energy decentralised grid that is powering much of Denmark. In this grid, people with solar panels installed on their roofs, sell their surplus electricity to the grid and can tap into that grid electricity when they are in want. Now this is a platform with an exchange of electric power too. Many private companies facilitated its creation, installation and maintenance. However, they don’t stake a claim on the electricity thus generated. They understand themselves as enablers, not usurpers or rent-seekers.
Soil, water, electricity, roads… these are fundamentally empowering platforms, the access to which is a fundamental human right.
In the 21st century, similar access to knowledge, financial exchange, access to markets, relationships-at-distance… are all fundamental human rights.
Can you imagine a life today without being plugged into these various platforms? Such a life is possible, but it would be very disadvantageous for the minority activist. Without access to google & FB powered intelligence and communication, without amazon’s substantially cheaper goods, without uber’s efficient mobility, without convenience of credit cards/e-money, the minority activist is at a severe disadvantage.
So if these accesses are that crucial, can we trust them with far removed private interests? Typically, a white male from California is embedding his biases in these platform’s algorithms. A few of these men own the vast platforms that men and women from the farthest corners of the globe depend on. Even if they were to be epitome of moral righteousness (which they clearly aren’t), they are still just individuals amenable to influence of their investors, their immediate social circle, the government where they operate from. Consider Facebook’s misuse to influence election in US for example.
There is a fundamental conflict of interest. Lack of subjectivity allows for evils such as hate speech to gain access. But imposing a certain subjectivity curtails freedom of speech for another set of people, perhaps as an unintended consequence. There is no easy way out of this catch-22 situation. Consider the example of facebook banning breastfeeding pictures. It had to #freethenipple eventually. But the same issue will get vastly different responses in more conservative countries. How does a global platform manage such differences? Facebook is trying its luck with denial – “we are not a media company“. But soon enough, it will have to take sides. Like when Scott Galloway implies for it to be American first!
In his otherwise excellent talk here exhorting these big platforms to be broken up, he brings in nationalism and suggests a smaller solution – to break them up. If global platforms earn revenues through global operations, why should they put any one nation first? Why should they prioritise paying tax in one country? They must give back in every country where it gains from. To be a global entity is to be globally accountable, globally responsible, globally adaptable.
Secondly, the solution of breaking the companies up – is inadequate. If the ownership does not change, what difference does it make if Zuckerberg presides over one large corporate or a dozen smaller ones to the same effect?
Besides, the integration of amazon, aws, alexa etc makes sense. It makes markets more efficient. The aggregate efficiency due to integration increases, which is good news for Humans who are going to soon suffer with human-excess-led climate change.
Scott Galloway has a soft corner for capitalism and its potential. He doesn’t want to see the obvious socialist ramifications of his argument.
Platforms as commons ruled by the principle of self-rule
The integrated platforms are powerfully useful for all. They should not be broken up. The ownership has to be broken up. More accurately, they should not be privately owned at all. Private ownership creates disparity of wealth, invites biases and prioritizes innovations that serve the needs of elite, instead of the majority. And unlike other businesses, platforms are critically important for civic life. Would you want water, road or soil to be privatised? For the 21st century that list will include mobility, relationship, intelligence and market platforms too.
Ideally Bezos, Zuck and Sergey should create a plan to divest their companies’ ownership to the commons. They should steward their companies into becoming true platforms relinquishing their direct control. If Buffett and Bill Gates can give away their wealth, why can’t these platform makers instead give away control? Keep the wealth created thus far. Let the future wealth go into commons to make the platforms more resilient, useful and responsive to the diversity of the global exchanges.
Imagine all these platforms employing open source principles, becoming openly accessible, and evolving with the people they serve.
Imagine, all cab drivers, logistic companies, courier companies having access to the Uber algorithm, modified to serve their needs; modified to give every driver and rider a say in formulating the policies that govern them and others like them in their locality. Imagine, all businessmen and individuals with access to amazon-based markets, governed by direct digital referendum based consensus making.
Amazon and Uber cut out the middle men. In turn they themselves became giant middlemen. It is time we do away with them too.
A solution like this would not have been possible 5 years ago. But with blockchain technology, there is a potential for mass democratic participation in platform management.
Blockchain based democratic platform management
Blockchain is an elegant solution to an important societal problem Earth is facing. It’s most promising feature is its ability to enable strangers to cooperate and trust each other. It enables ‘decentralised consensus’. This is a powerful ability that, I believe, has the biggest possible impact in democratic processes in every aspect of civic enterprise.
This technology would enable governing of platform by direct participation and consensus among users and vendors possible.
Watch this interesting documentary by Mr. Jeremy Rifkin. He talks about the three essential enterprises that shape us – energy, communications and mobility. And with digital technology and principles of open source, humanity can finally increase the aggregate efficiencies, productivity of human enterprise and bring down marginal costs of these enterprises down to almost zero. Why does this matter? Because, without this idea, we are at an economic and ecological dead-end.
Again like Mr. Scott Galloway, Mr. Rifkin too is afraid to unsettle the capitalists and shies away from taking his argument to logical conclusion. (look how he cleverly deflects the TTIP question. I won’t hold it against him though. He has a great idea and he needs to sell that idea to humanity. Tact is more powerful than hardheadedness when you want to bring about real change.)
Now consider this – every conceivable platform – energy platform, utilities platform, knowledge platform, mobility platform, market platform… Consider all platform are components of collectively owned infrastructure for humanity. Like with renewable energy platform in Europe, there might be an initial cost that consumers and vendors would have to pay in the form of taxes to help build them or buy them off. But then the marginal cost of running them in the future is minimal.
Imagine that world – People being able to access platform services in their context whenever they want, on their terms and without the fear of losing control of one’s own agency, one’s own destiny.
I believe that that would be a better world – a world which won’t depend on a single currency (read the first section on the link to understand why single currency ‘money’ is not that good an idea). The integrated platforms would enable seamless exchanges of products and services, the utility of the individual to the collective becoming the currency du jour.
The world would not need the ‘universal basic income’ that is being touted now as the solution to the impending mass class of ‘useless people’ and the Goliathan inequality that AI revolution will engender. If we charter an integrated platform access to all humanity as a human right, we will, in a sense, enable basic welfare of all individuals. Rifkin’s view of bringing the marginal cost down to zero is critical here… which means that there is gradual upfront cost of creating that infrastructure, that integrated platform of platforms. But once that is done, the costs would be manageable.
To make it a reality, it will require a ‘disruptive’ shift in corporate ownership, structures of governance and redrawing of notional national boundaries. All tall orders. It is a humongous project that would pan the globe and require cooperation among all governments. Not an easy task at all. But I am convinced of it being an essential disruption. Let me know if you have a better idea.
