Posted by Adam Gordon on Sep 18, 2009 in all, innovation, lifestyles & values, strategic foresight, technology change
Picture: londonfashionweek.co.uk
London Fashion Week, the UK’s slice of the $300-billion global fashion industry, starts today with flash of couture, whirring of camera and, no doubt, glug of Veuve-Cliquot. All the sass and celebrity pizzaz, and the actual catwalk schedule, can be found at londonfashionweek.co.uk
So… it’s teen giraffes tottering around in outrageous stuff, the watered down version of which will be pumped through the supply chain until it appears at your local department store in six-to-nine months. Same as it ever was, right?
In fact, not really. One of the gathering trends of the current era, across many industries, is the empowerment of consumers as ‘taste-makers,’ circumventing designers and specialist advisers. This is currently putting fashion executives through the wringer as “who decides” what is good, what is made and marketed, is being wrested from the fashion elite and from fashion intermediaries (glossy magazines like Vogue and Elle) by the “woman-in-the-street.”
The industry’s longstanding top-down orientation — where “we” told “you” what next year’s ‘look’ will be — is cracking as consumers who can easily access, share, and discuss every fashion preference, including their own, now get ‘networked affirmation’ rather than affirmation from the top.
Internet and mobile communications, and social networking technologies are behind this, of course. Access to style and fashion advice now comes anywhere, anytime. The stuffy catwalk shows are not open to the public (ah, the whiff of elitism still breathes for now,) but as a recent story in the LA Times points out: “Images can be seen online minutes after a designer shows them… The Internet makes it possible not only to read about fashion but to participate in it. The use of sites that enable users to create their own fashion-spreads, share photos of themselves in different outfits and elicit wardrobe advice from their peers is skyrocketing.”
The news for elite arbiters of taste in every industry in the 21st Century: it’s game-over. You will have to participate with your customers in their socially-networked formation of perceptions and opinions, a process you will be able to sometimes lead, but more often have to follow.
read morePosted by Adam Gordon on Sep 14, 2009 in 2025, all, emerging technologies, failed predictions, foresight tools & methods, managing uncertainty, Perils of Prediction, technology change
I note from a link on the Ian Miles Futures blog that “2025: Scenarios of US and Global Society Reshaped by Science and Technology” by Coates, Hines, & Mahaffie, is now available free for full-text download.
For full disclosure, I should say I worked in the Coates office in Washington D.C. during the mid-late 1990s (but got there just after the book was done.)
There are deep and ultimately overwhelming problems with the book itself. It sees science-technology as the primary driver of change, when what science is done and what technology is produced is often the product of policy or economic or values / zeitgeist decisions further up the chain. It also has an astoundingly poor conceptual framework (‘Worlds 1, 2, 3′) for dealing with non-US societies and cultures, and their economic and social development: one that would make Tom Friedman (‘World is Flat’) giggle and Hans Rosling surely cry. Truly there are many reasons they have to give this book away for free.
But its importance is elsewhere. It remains remarkable for one thing — the thing that the Coates & Jarratt foresight firm was known for — a willingness to speculate confidently and in detail (and sometimes even stupidly) about future changes. The book is likewise exemplary in its commitment to concrete, interesting, ‘fearless’ long-range speculation, in a world where most analysts waste most of their foresight ink timidly equivocating and covering their back.
Quality, reloaded
Evocative, concrete speculation is important, even if it is wrong. It is commonly misapprehended that the purpose of foresight work is to “predict the future,” (and someone with this perspective is going to pop up in 2025 and say “so, how right or wrong was this book?”) But, nobody can be right. The real value of foresight work is other: to know as much as we can about the present, and the forces and factors changing it, to be able to preconceive the full range of possible future outcomes that pertain, in order to make decisions today towards an outcome we prefer. (Who “we” are and what “we” prefer — social welfare; shareholder value maximization; environmental sustainability, etc., — will vary hugely among interest groups of course.)
This preconception (of a range of scenarios, if you like) is what allows truly effective discussions and debates to take place in considering alternatives, and therefore promotes better decision-making regardless of whether the scenarios ultimately turn out to have been, in themselves, ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ High-quality scenarios are to be preferred of course, but quality is in the ability to stimulate and provoke management attention to the right areas in a timely manner, not in having been right in prediction. As Coates used to say (and I echo this to my Industry Foresight students): “You don’t have to be right, you just have to be interesting.”
read morePosted by Adam Gordon on Sep 7, 2009 in all, economy & finance, failed predictions, forecast filtering, Future Savvy, strategic foresight
Listening to the radio this morning there was a review that quoted a news room adage — one that I am indeed old enough to remember from my days as a newspaper reporter — which is: “if it bleeds, it leads.”
That is: disaster, mayhem, and death goes to the top of the page and towards the front of the newspaper.**
“If it bleeds, it leads” can be interpreted more or less narrowly. Mostly it means, literally, that accidents, explosions, injuries, and deaths will take page priority in the news over “talking stories” about politics and government and society. Disasters sell more newspapers than policy debates. But more generally it means bad news is more arresting and interesting, and will get more attention (and, again, sell more newspapers or gather more listeners and viewers) than good news, therefore it takes priority.
Now, if you were a ‘forecasting pundit’ or a think tank, or investment institution with an interest in getting media attention for yourself, which route would you choose in garnering media exposure? Good news or bad news?
Bad news. Of course. Russian Professor Igor Panarin gets an insane amount of publicity because his book claims that the United States could collapse soon (in two months time, I believe.) Ditto asset manager, Egon von Greyerz, who bangs on, for example saying: “America is hemorrhaging financially and economically. Other countries now realize they hold ‘worthless’ US dollars” in a piece called: The Dark Years Are Here. And just in case you think these are all gloomy foreigners, consider how Bronx boy, Gerald Celente, has dominated media coverage in the credit-crunch era predicting doom-and-gloom in every way, including riots and revolution on U.S. streeets within in the Obama-presidency term. For example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46MEqEgdLTg
These are just three that I single out just to make the point, but they are not different from many hundreds that trawl for media attention by predicting, essentially … “bleeding.” In fact, the real future will have good and bad in balance, just like the past. One of the lessons of Future Savvy is: if a prediction bleeds, it probably shouldn’t lead your thinking.
** In fact, the task of deciding what story to lead page one (or any other page) with, and what other stories to run, in what order, and at what length, is one of the more intellectually demanding tasks around, and one that quality journalist take seriously. So, “if it bleeds, it leads” is, in part, cynical journalist-ese for saying that the popular audience doesn’t have the time, patience, or interest in the deeper issues.
read more