When a Stwanger Tweets

There is no doubt that since its popular emergence in the 1990s, the internet has provided the world with the means to become, socially, much smaller. From the chat rooms of yore, to instant messaging services such as ICQ and MSN Messenger, to blogs and forums and, of course, now to the giant social media sites Facebook and Twitter, we are provided with a vast amount of opportunity to easily connect to each other.

However, we do not seem to do this to the extent that it is popularly believed. We commonly have Facebook and Twitter profiles that are packed with friends, or in the case of Twitter, followed by friends (though we may also follow famous people). Yet, by friends I specifically mean friends as people we know, have known and have developed relationships with, people who, more often than not, may share similar experiences, outlooks and lifestyles. Even when one’s “friends list” doesn’t necessarily reflect this, it will still be more than likely that the friends they most regularly interact with will. Either that, or their list will be semi-regularly purged of friends with whom they rarely communicate (a practice which I have never understood, I mean, it’s not like they’re actually taking up space or cluttering a physical area, but I digress).

What this seems to point to is an inherent contradiction in the social outreach capabilities of the internet. We don’t necessarily seek to make our world smaller through relating to others, rather, we seem to simply better organize our social world as it would otherwise exist. It is an opportunity afforded to us that we, more often than not, refuse to accept. After all, how often has it happened that you have rejected the friend request of someone whom you neither knew nor shared friends with (spam and porn aside)?

To this end, the question is raised as to whether or not we are stunting our own social development? By consistently adhering to only our immediate networks, we deprive ourselves of the richness and plurality of all the different people and social experiences that we could easily engage with. Even if we do not agree with the perspectives or lifestyles of an individual whom do not actually know, by simply relating to them in some way or another, we can chance the positive growth of our understanding of the world and all those around us.

Enter The Stwanger. After hearing an episode of CBC Radio’s technology program Spark, which was addressing this contradiction, a developer in Toronto created a Twitter based program that connects users to complete strangers. Based both on taking advantage of the internet’s communicative possibilities, as well as on the philosophy that expanding our networks and relationships to include those who we share little to nothing in common with makes us personally richer as global citizens, the Stwanger opens the door for us to, at least, peer into a world in which we would otherwise have no connection. Check out the “Huh?” section on the Stwanger’s website for a better explanation on how to use it, and how it can even be used as a game.

Straight Tacheles

Increasingly, the benefits of urban gentrification are being hailed as hugely important to the cultural development of communities, and broadly, cities. By no means a new, positively received concept, it is certainly one that has powerfully come in vogue within, at least, the past two decades.

Specifically, the reversal of old industrial, or commercial, structures into modern, artistic and cultural hubs is a component of this trend that has proven extremely popular in many municipalities. Immediate examples can be seen in the project properties of Hamilton, Ontario's Imperial Cotton Centre for the Arts; the Cotton Factory and the recently opened Hamilton Hotel, as well as Toronto’s Wychwood Barns, overseen by ArtScape.

However, bucking this trend of renewal, with no less of a creative and cultural vengence, is East-Berlin's Tacheles. This aging commercial complex, has housed, at different points in its long history, an in-door market place, a new-technology showroom, a Nazi prison, a theatre, and low rent housing. During the 1960s and 70s, after decades of consistent and intense usage, Tacheles was evaluated by engineers and ultimately slated to be demolished, a process that was initiated in 1980 and to be completed by 1990.

Yet, in 1990, two months prior to the final detonation which would have leveled the remaining majority of the complex, the artists’ initiative group Kunstlerinitiative Tacheles occupied the building and had it designated a historical site. Upon initiating another engineering survey of the Tacheles, it was found that the complex was, in fact, still sound, despite its semi-demolished appearance.



Since this time, the complex has become officially known as Kunsthaus Tacheles, and has become an art center and nightclub that is a central destination to a number of Berlin’s arts, activist and cultural groups. What is particularly interesting about this is that, unlike the trend of targeted, cultural gentrification, Tacheles' emergence as an arts centre has been a wholly organic one, lead by a gradually developing grassroots arts community.

Moreover, the most interesting facet of the Tacheles is not even necessarily in the groups that it hosts, but rather its manifestation as a gigantic, and continuously evolving, mixed media work of art. Boasting an ever-changing, eclectic array of murals, sculptures and other pieces, the deceptively un-dilapidated Tacheles is less a gentrified example of old into new, than it is fateful study of cultural
(r)evolution.

Albeit, one with an uncertain future.

I, Telenoid

One sometimes wonders if the whole effort to create humanoid robots that will fulfill various household tasks is actually derived out of necessity, or some sort of Popular Science-Fiction/fantasy wish-list. Sure, various types of robotics and machines can, could, and do make our days more convenient, but making it into some sort of cyborg android seems more in line with frivolity than utility.

It is this thought that occurs to me as I look at the Telenoid R1, a nightmarish, android, alien baby with a body like a semi-formed tad-pole. Designed and constructed by roboticist Hiroshi Ishiguro, in collaboration with Osaka University and Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International, the Telenoid is intended to aid in long-distance communication. Functioning somewhat like a telephone, you speak to the Telenoid, and as the person on the other end of the line replies, the Telenoid program picks up their facial cues and physical language and mimics it.

Apparently, speaking to the alien from Cocoon, who has inexplicably assumed your friend’s voice, eases the pain of distance more than Skype does. And this is precisely the question, sure the Telenoid is terrifyingly neat, but is it (and would future ancestors of it) be truly more effective at personalizing long distance communication than future incarnations of a service such as Skype? I think, in the future, I would much rather speak to that ridiculous CNN hologram of Will-I-Am, than I would C-3PO with Will-I-Am’s voice.

That is, of course, until Apple gets a hold of it and creates an entirely new, hip, lifestyle changing, tech product, that they tell us we need, the iPerson.

Comedic References Across Time

Having finally caught up to the current season of Mad Men, I found myself struggling to understand, why, in its first episode, Peggy and her new creative department employee keep purring “John” and “Marsha” back and forth to eachother.

After conducting some thorough Googling, I found that what they were doing was carrying on with an inside joke/popular comic reference from the era. This, of course, is not so surprising, but what does make it interesting is that, on the one hand, it further represents the fine toothed comb which the Mad Men creators use to ensure period accuracies, and on the other, it represents a very well placed gimmick by the writing staff to not just portray an organic and realistic workplace, but one that the viewer can also associate with.

The whole “John and Marsha” thing was a skit that satirized soap operas, recorded in 1951 by comedian Stan Freberg. The skit consists of two characters continually repeating each other’s names, a narrative is made out of the overindulged intonation that the actors apply to the speaking of their names, playing on the hammy, melodramatic acting found in soap operas. Though recorded in 1951, the skit would have maintained popularity through Mad Men’s 1964, and even to modern day where it is still occasionally performed.

In regards to how this is clever writing, representing an organic and easily relatable workplace, simply consider, how frequently in a given day (especially in this time of viral videos that are instantaeneously spread through emails and links on Facebook and Twitter accounts) you might repeat fad-like jokes or phrases with co-workers for a comic cathartic release. How many times did you refer to “Charlie bit me,” the grape stomp lady, “I like turtles,” or perhaps deliberately interrupt someone with “I’m really happy for you and Imma let you finish but...”? How often do (did) you reference shows like Simpsons, Saturday Night Live, Seinfeld, Dave Chappelle, Family Guy or even How I Met Your Mother?

Though it was an obscure and out of the blue reference, kudos to the Mad Men writing staff on their insightful attention to detail, as well as effectively illustrating the cross-generational connection inherent in these sorts of workplace comedic quips.

The Undead Book

Books currently "developing character" in my bag: A Confederacy of Dunces (John Kennedy Toole), Chief Culture Officer (Grant McCracken), Wikinomics (Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams).

“Death of” media predictions have persisted for some time and in reference to many different types, notes a recent New York Times article. For example, TV was supposed to kill the radio and the movies, and the internet was supposed to kill TV. However, as the article goes on to detail, none of these forms of media have ever truly died, but rather, have evolved to fulfill other roles or, particularly in the case of vinyl, re-emerged to fulfill new niches.

Yet, a question still remains as to how literature will evolve. Certainly we see obvious indications as to the future of non-fiction print, the increasing prevalence of online news sources, the decline of the literal newspaper, the popularity of topical blogs. Such media has well begun carving out its future existence as widely available, short-burst bites of information. Nevertheless, and at least for me, the future of long-form non-fiction and fictional literature remains less certain. I say at least for me because, though some may roll their eyes and say “obviously, they’ll be translated to ebook formats to be read on the iPad or Kindle,” I, honestly, want nothing to do with those formats or products.

Now, I am not saying that the iPad or Kindle are non-functional or pointless products that I would never use, but they are products that I would prefer not to use to engage myself with a book. A couple summers ago I went on a Cross-Canada train trip for roughly a month. Going from Toronto to Vancouver, back to Toronto and then to Halifax with a number of spots in between, takes a lot of days aboard a train, and unless there are Aussies aboard doing it too, reading material becomes your best friend for the long stretches between great views, destinations, arrivals, departures, and daylight.

The novel that most notably accompanied me on this trip was Michael Chabon’s The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay. As a piece of literature it provided an amazing escape from train induced boredom (which, despite the views, is bound to happen), but more importantly, as a solitary traveller, it became an appreciated companion. Physically, its appearance and development matched my own, the less I shaved, the more creased its covers became, the more thoughts I had while reading it, the more notes were jotted down inside its cover. It became less a book in my bag than it did a partner, accompanying me on my journey and developing its own character along the way.

It seems unrealistic to me that an iPad or Kindle could ever provide such appreciated (and durable) company. The sterile, glowing screen aside, even if I were to decide to bring one on any form of rugged adventure, I sincerely doubt that I would view a broken or chipped screen as proudly (or, at least, indifferently) as I would a ripped, coffee stained cover.

I guess the point to be made is that literary print, as it exists and has existed for centuries, remains a much more flexible format than those that are vying to be the next link in its evolution. Looking back at the aforementioned examples of TV and Radio, in their evolution their ease of use and application has been increased. Radio has gone from large, immobile, wooden units to personal devices that tune into digital signals (which can also be personalized). TV has gone through very similar transformations. Books, on the other hand, have always been a highly personalized experience (personalization being a decidedly central concern of all media evolution). If anything, those products trying to push the medium forward seem more like a step back. I’d rather lose a single, beat-up paperback worth $10.00, than my entire library contained on a pristine, plastic device worth $500.00 alone.

Of course, and as the article further points out, the real question in literature’s evolution is not necessarily “is the print format dead?” But rather, “is our attention-span?” Certainly, having all your social media available on the same medium as your book is not conducive to dedicated reading time.

So, books, what’s next?

Sterling-Cooper Lands Mattel

In a promotional tie-in, that kicked off the fourth season of the TV sensation MadMen (now in full-swing, having premiered Sunday, July 25), toy-maker Mattel teamed with the show’s production company, Lionsgate, to release four, very limited edition, MadMen Barbie dolls. Being translated into doll form, sharp suits, high retro fashion and all, are the characters Joan Holloway (Christina Hendricks), Roger Sterling (John Slattery), Don Draper (John Hamm), and, most appropriately, Betty Draper (January Jones).

Though every TV show, movie, video-game, and their aunts seem to have collector’s edition action figures/dolls tied into their promotional/product strategy, the MadMen partnership with Barbie stands alone in that it is a very well suited one, no pun intended. As Robert Thompson, professor of television and popular culture at Syracuse University put it in a New York Times article, “Mad Men’ represents so beautifully the universe that created Barbie.” This is particularly evident when considering that Barbie was introduced to the world in 1959, and the first episode of MadMen takes place in 1960.

Further bolstering this is simply taking into consideration the character of Betty Draper, the conflicted and seemingly soul-less, Barbie-resembling, ‘50s/60s housewife. Not to overly simplify the Betty character, but she does often come across strikingly doll-like, blonde outside, hollow plastic inside. One wonders if perhaps this partnership better serves MadMen and the themes it presents, rather than Barbie and the, continuously, under-fire image of females that it represents.

Nevertheless, this strategy continues to cement MadMen’s place as a modern, pop-cultural phenomenon, and though I would never fork over the $74USD to purchase any of the dolls anyway, I do find it unfortunate that the Betty Draper doll doesn’t come with an air-powered rifle and her neighbour’s doves to use as target practice (remember that? Wow! Craziest/funniest way to end an episode).

Design Advancement in Frog-Leaps and Bounds

How does someone in Shanghai reduce the power cord clutter in their workspace? Does someone in Seattle have an interesting way of organizing this chaos? And, what are the many ways in which bikes are used for work worldwide?

A new site, Frog Mob, aims to make an instant ethnographer out of all who visit it. Through crowdsourcing people’s creative solutions to common obstacles, a visitor can instantly research how these problems, circumstances, or obstacles may be addressed by various cultures.

Essentially, a topic is created on FrogMob, and then visitors are prompted to submit simplified pieces of media pertaining to the topic, primarily photographs and a brief note. In regards to submissions, FrogMob maintains the following rules:

"1. Keep it visual. A primary goal of this study is to get as many photos as
possible.
2. Be original. All photos must be your own: no stock photography
or published database images.
3. Make it conversational. Whenever possible,
talk to people. Save notes/quotes along with your pictures.
4. Keep it
simple. No reams of notes or audio/video recordings to help us streamline
analysis and synthesis.
5. Make it quick. All photos and insights due back
within one week.
6. Share your findings. Upload and tag your photos to the
active frogMob.
7. To see examples, please view the synthesized results of
past frogMobs"

Beyond the stated ethnographic intent, FrogMob also aims to provide inspiration to designers and manufacturers to aid them in the creation of products and services that are of greater benefit to the user/consumer, on this, FrogMob states that:

“At frog, design research is a tool we use to make sense of human behavior. It
helps us to find those nuggets of insight that lead us to create products and
services that make people’s lives better. With this in mind, we are opening up
our design research process. And we want you to join in.”

Despite the prospects that FrogMob holds for intellectual inspiration and design research potential, it is still in its infancy, with only three topics to date (the third, power solutions, is still open for submissions). Nevertheless, its functionality is still there for anyone looking for creative solutions for the existent topics, whether it be cluttered power cords or the ways in which people effectively take part in social contexts, despite differences in place and time. Moreover, the future potential for crowdsource-inspired easing of humanity’s daily experience, certainly makes it a website to watch and continually check in on.

An Inopportune Education

Monty Python's value of academia.

In a recent article in the Harvard Business Review, author, and research fellow at MIT’s Sloan School’s Centre for Digital Business, Michael Shrage extols the virtues of applicable skills over levels of higher-education in making oneself more attractively employable. Though stopping well short of stating that post-secondary levels of education are worthless, Schrage describes an ever widening gap between success in the classroom and success in the career path.

“...Education is a misleading-to-malignant proxy for economic productivity or
performance. Knowledge may be power, but "knowledge from college" is neither
predictor nor guarantor of success. Growing numbers of informed observers
increasingly describe a higher education "bubble" that makes a college
and/or
university education a subprime investment for too many attendees.”

Such an assertion, as that made by Schrage, is not wholly unbelievable. Up until even the mid-90s, job prospects for post-secondary grads were not bad by any stretch of the imagination. Now, however, it seems almost rare that a Canadian University grad will not complete an additional form of training or education beyond their initial undergrad. Furthermore, what it is particularly telling, and is entirely related to the notion of an education “bubble,” is that much of this additional training will be done in what are often more practical and applicable College programs, particularly those that are more closely tied to a field of choice. Within the education realm, Schrage posits that:

'...alumni networks may be more economically valuable than whatever one studied
in class. "Where you went" may prove professionally more helpful than "what
you
know."’

Of course, and not in disagreement with Schrage’s argument, perhaps it’s not the institution, but the student that is creating this unemployable “bubble.” Whereas the boomer generation, which found employable gold in the cultivation of a bachelor degree, may have been more prepared to apply their education to their existent skills and make their own way in the world, this (aka. my) generation maybe less independently trailblazing, and more expectant of things to come through simply following the same educational process as their parents. Heck, even the former President of my alma mater used to tell crowds of first years during Welcome Week that among the more important things they’d learn at school is what they learn outside of the classroom. Though these words may have been more in reference to important life lessons and relationships, they could also very easily apply to getting involved in extracurricular activities that hone your skills and give you something to talk about later.

Either way, this is something to seriously consider, especially for those of us looking towards our careers and especially for those of us looking towards our careers with a decent bachelor of the arts background and making our way through MBA programs (both of which are referred to somewhat gloomily in the second paragraph... doh!).

Denim Futures

Now, I do not want to get into the habit of talking about the same topics/organizations within short time spans (see Urban Outfitters last week, and now Levi’s), but sometimes curiosity is peaked by interesting ideas worthy of being shared.

Braddock, Pennsylvania was once a thriving municipality with an economy built around the steel industry. Following the decline in the North American steel industry in the 1970s and 1980s, and an influx of drugs, Braddock saw such a fall from prosperity that by 1988 it was declared a financially distressed municipality. However, since 2005 Braddock has seen growth in its creative sector with the targeted attraction of artists, urbanists and other creative individuals, and it is because of this that the city has begun to see a grassroots driven reversal of fortune.

Enter Levi’s Jeans and their We Are All Workers campaign. Telling the tale of how work is in everything (and presumably, how such various workers enjoy Levi’s clothing), Levi’s has invested in Braddock, both physically, in providing urban infrastructure funding, and public relations wise, through its short film episodes detailing the story of Braddock and its citizens, (see We Are All Workers: Episode 1 –Seeds of Change).

Related to my previous post on Levi’s jeans, the marketing goal here seems to be in linking the story of Levi’s being a pioneer of cool to the grassroots pioneers of a reinvented community that are the current citizens of Braddock. Such investments in social causes are not rare for large corporations; Nike, for example, has in the past put much in the way of resources towards sponsoring inner-city athletic programs (among many other things). What is particularly interesting here is the promotion of the city, and results that the seemingly selfless short films could yield. As well as the inspiration that the activities of the citizens of Braddock, as documented in the film and its following episodes, could provide to likeminded individuals in similarly afflicted municipalities.

Many in Hamilton, Ontario could likely sympathize with the residents of Braddock, PA. Some may even feel that they could directly and understandably identify with them, though luckily, Hamilton’s fortunes did not reverse to the same tragic extent. Nevertheless, Hamilton, like Braddock, is a city of proud citizens, new and old, that are working to rebuild the city under a new image and with a vibrant creative sector.

As stated, an important component of Levi’s investment in Braddock is the public relations contribution made through the short film and its following episodes. In doing this, Levi’s has made less a public service announcement than it has a declaration that creative labour and gentrified communities are cool. As far as attraction and development are concerned, it is this partnering, of the work going on in Braddock and the iconic brand image of Levi’s, that may be the most resounding effect offered by the We Are All Workers film. Moreover, it is this identification of grassroots, sleeve-rolling, creative community development work as cool, that similarly afflicted municipalities may want to leverage (properly) as they look to push things forward.

Cyclical Trends are So Mainstream

Today's post is short and sweet. A funny, yet telling, infographic detailing the cyclical nature of fashion (and other) trends, specifically from the perspective of that love to hate cultural icon, "the Hipster."
Created by designer Emily Miethner, and appearing on Flavourwire, this cycle accurately depicts what retailers, such as Urban Outfitters, have been implementing as a product strategy for years.
With a continuous resurgence in fashion and styles from as recently as the mid-1990s, there is an undeniable truth to this graphic. However, as Laura Feinstein of PSFK points out, not all things return, such as the hyper-wide rave jeans of the late 90s. These simply seem to exist outside the world of cyclical fashion. So far...

Pioneer of the Cool

As one’s stylistic tastes mature, one’s relatively low-priced denim preferences tend to shift from your American Eagles, Gaps, Guess’ and other brands that rely on contrived concepts of fashionable cool, to brands that have earned their identity through blood, sweat and generations of legendary figures. Levi’s has been producing denim clothing since the 1870s, when it was used primarily for labour, with the copper rivets punched into the material in places where wear typically occurred (around the pockets, crotch). Though introduced in the 1920s, Levi’s modern jeans became the official jeans of youth subculture in the latter half of the 20th century, being the bottoms of choice for everyone from greasers to mods, to hippies, to punks.

Denoted by numbers coded in the 500s, Levi’s offers a wide array of fits that has serviced each of these subcultures and more, from punk skinny 510s, to “dad-jeans” 550s, bootcuts 517s, and the brand’s iconic, stand alone, 501s. Though Levi’s tend to fade in an out of popular tastes, particularly among modern youth, it is never too far from the fashionable fore, and always remains as constant as the symbolic chevron sewn onto the back pockets.

Reinforcing its role as the longstanding lower half of the official uniform of undeniable style, Levi’s has recently initiated a unique promotional campaign under the banner of Levi’s Pioneer Sessions. Working with a number of today’s most interesting/talented musicians, the Pioneer Sessions engages these artists in the re-crafting of classic songs that have helped define Levi’s continuing era of cool. These songs, freely available for download, include Ernie Hines’ “Our Generation” (covered by John Legend feat. The Roots), Norman Greenbaum’s “Spirit in the Sky” (covered by Jason Mraz), and even the Smashing Pumpkins’ “Tonight, Tonight” (covered by Passion Pit). Additional featured artists include Raphael Saadiq, the Swell Season, and Nas.

Now, of course, variety is necessary, and one must not solely pledge allegiance to the Levi’s chevron, slips are permissible. After all, even Gap, founded in 1969, started as hip San Francisco store that sold only Levi’s and LPs.

Glen Hansard and Maria Irglova of The Swell Season.

An Online Game Played in the Real World

Geo-social networking site Foursquare is now a little over one year old and playable at any location worldwide. Though originally providing its location based service to only roughly 100 metropolitan areas, anyone can now "check-in" at any location internationally through the use of a smart-phone application, text message or checking-in online. With mild similarities to popular social networking sites Facebook and Twitter, Foursquare differentiates itself by making an online game out of the real world.

Going to the cafe down the street? Check-in online. Is that cafe a site-specific venue in your city? If so, you might earn a badge. Have you now been to that cafe more times in the past week than anyone else? You are now its online Mayor. Through travelling to, engaging with and spending time at real locations, Foursquare players compete by encouraging real experiences.

The competitive aspect aside, what makes Foursquare truly unique as a social networking site, is that all of its social networking takes place face to face. Criticism is often heard that though Facebook and Twitter may connect people, they do little to produce the real, interpersonal interactions that modern society is so often accused of lacking. Foursquare, on the other hand, encourages people to not just engage in location based competition, but to meet up with friends, share a location, or join a friend for a drink upon noticing that they have once again "checked-in" at that cafe down the street.

Though it is reminiscent of those times when you might coyly put something in your Facebook status (for example) like "studying hard at the library, 3rd floor, 8th desk on the left near the window," but really mean "please, please, please come visit me, distract me, take me from this hell," through Foursquare, you unabashedly make your location known for the purpose of social play. And though some may feel that frequently letting people know of your whereabouts may encourage real world "creeping" (also known as stalking), well then, simply don't check-in if you don't want to.

Though it is now internationally available, Google Trends shows that Foursquare is still relatively unpopular in Ontario. Despite ranking third in searching trends, the majority of top searched cities are in British Columbia, and only one is an Ontario urban centre, and it is not even Toronto, a city that tends to be on the trend-edge (or thinks so). With Foursquare's inherent capabilities to inform, mobilize and foster greater social interactions, here's hoping that it begins to catch on more locally.

Imagine using Foursquare to make a game out of, and encourage more people to come out to, events such as the recent Open Doors Hamilton. Checking in at the Blue Grotto (pictured left), the nearly forgotten lounge located above the Capri, and motivating friends to either meet you there, or try to track you down as you visit other sites.

"These aren't the Fly Kicks You are Looking For"

Ask any fan of Star Wars/child of the late 70's and early 80's "what happened at the Mos Eisley cantina?" And you will be regaled with tales of bargaining for a trip to the Alderaan system, aliens that look like devils, a farm boy being threatened by space pirates, and bounty hunters being pre-emptively shot under a table (depending on version), if lucky, you might even be treated to a tune, one of Figrin D'an and the Modal Nodes' greatest hits.

You likely will not hear anything about Beckham, Snoop Dogg, Ian Brown, Noel Gallagher, Jay Baruchel or Daft Punk (among others). That is until now, in a new Adidas ad to be aired during the World Cup, the athletic apparel company has found promotional inspiration in events that took place "...a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away."

With seamless editing, the various pop culture figures effortlessly appear in this famous film setting, as though it were any other pub (on this world) airing a World Cup match. What is particularly interesting about the ideas inherent in this ad, is that it more or less defies typical modern marketing strategies of encouraging individualism and instead focuses on a sort of collective/generational identification with Star Wars. Though comparable to celebrity endorsements (which, obviously, it does include) this spot pushes further by recognizing a collective experiential enjoyment, if not nostalgia, for Episode IV: A New Hope, and specifically this scene.

Of additional interest is that current branding trends see firms wanting to create stories surrounding their brand identity. This begs the question, if Adidas is following this trend, then what is the story here? Perhaps it is the retro significance of 1977's A New Hope, and its era-relation to iconic Adidas imagery. In using the Trefoil Adidas symbol that emerged in the early 1970s, and tying it to the original Star Wars, there is undoubtedly an inference to the symbolic retro-cool imagery associated with the brand, immediately recalling, among other things, ringer-tees, tri-striped canvas sneakers, Bob Marley, and of course, football (read soccer).

Regardless, for any undercover geek, this is just one of the coolest things, ever... ever! Well, maybe not, but it is fun nonetheless, particularly given Adidas' dedication the strategy, to the extent of creating Star Wars themed athletic wear and packaging shoes in blister packs remarkably similar to the old action figure packaging. The whole approach simply makes me feel "strong enough to pull the ears off a Gundark" just to get at a Vader track jacket.

The Irony of Intrapreneurship: Looking Out from Within

In the recent comedy She's Out of My League an awful ex-girlfriend of the central character attempts to shame him by stating that her new squeeze is an "Entrapener" (spelling error intended). To this, the central character incredulously retorts "he owns a Pizza-Hut franchise!"

Now, the blurred lines of franchise ownership vs. entrepreneurship aside, the scene both highlights and lampoons a prominent social trend , that being the romanticism placed on being an entrepreneur. Granted, as far as business trends go, particularly in the west, much importance is placed on the growth of entrepreneurs and the emergence of small business start-ups. This is rightfully so, particularly from a macro-economic perspective. As certain manufacturing and production costs increase in developed nations, larger and less encumbered firms will continually search for, and shift to, inexpensive location alternatives. For many regions in developed nations this leaves a commercial gap, a gap that many thinkers and leaders have identified as needing to be filled by empowered entrepreneurs and small business owners. Though this heralding of the socio-commercial heroics of entrepreneurship is not without its numerous truths, it does unfortunately obscure an (in many cases safer) alternative, Intrapreneurship.

Coined in the late 1970s by Gifford Pinchot III and Elizabeth Pinchot, intrapreneurship is essentially the translation of the same sort of risk-taking, ideation and project-management behaviours commonly associated with entrepreneurs, but into the boundaries of a larger organization. A popular outcome of intrapreneurial behaviour, but little known example, includes the creation of the Macintosh in the early 1980s, done by a project group working within Apple Computers. Of course, such intrapreneurial developments do not need to be technically inclined, nor directly responsible for a firms revenue. With many large organizations placing a greater emphasis on social-responsibility, they can also be socially beneficial developments and enterprises existent under the larger organization. An example of this can be seen in Nokia's "Nokia Life Tools" initiative, which aims to "brige the digital divide in emerging markets."

Not only does the notion of intrapreneurship minimize the risks commonly associated with entrepreneurship, it also minimizes the by-product noise inherent in a market made up of myriad small businesses, all struggling for their own recognition. An example can be seen in the microcosm of university campus environments, where in some cases over 250 student clubs exist (many similar in mandate), all fighting for the same captivated audience of students and pool of funding. Intrapreneurs can, and in many cases much more easliy, leverage pre-existing pools of resources, partners, and channels. Yet, it is also not without its failings. Organizations that are not horizontally structured, have myopic vision, or are overly possessive of information or employee creations might not only squelch potential intrapreneurial behaviour, but in-fact may prompt the departure of employees who would rather be entrepreneurs.

In a recent report on Intrapreneurship, Beyond Profit begged the question "Is it the future of social business? And if so, how do we make it the 'new sexy'?" In response to this, I would say that there are many ironies inherent in the idea of intrepreneurship, among them are the idea that in an increasingly individualistic world the idea of working for a larger organization could actually, once again be vogue. As well as the conflict of whether or not one can be truly, individually empowered under a larger organizational umbrella (no matter how horizontal its structure). Yet, perhaps the most prominent irony, and relevant to their question, is that despite the individual bend of intrapreneurship, it is not about "we," nor is it about the individual, but rather "them," and the idea that a firm would first need to enact large cultural shifts and relinquish much control before it can be truly, intrapreneurially attractive.

Photo by Me.