Direct to conclusion:
Things to ponder:
- The combination of people-based and computer-based networks (Twitter, Lotus Connections) brought forth the story in three hours. Social networks answer questions at business speed. It verified what Google couldn’t.
- It pays to “cultivate your margins” and pay attention to interesting people outside of your normal channels. Gifts come from unexpected places. Who would expect a Midwestern body shop owner would find this nugget? If she didn’t, would any of us ever have known it was a 3M product down there? You won’t get as many good stories if you communicate with just the same people you see every day.
- It was four degrees of internal separation, including me, to answer the question “is that our product?” It was answered in three hours from people on the other side of the world. Each person knew just the next person in line. If you add the Twitter feeds to me, that was two more people for a total of six. @laughingsquid found the Newsweek article, @jacquebona, who I follow, ‘RTed’ it.
- Google grabs what’s published, not what’s talked about. The social network rocks because it promotes what’s naturally interesting to people. The Google robot emulates people, but not as well, or as quickly.
- The little projector is STILL down there, used every day in non-spec conditions. It’s 90F and very humid down there. There’s a “takes a licking” story here.
Tip of the Hat to Stan Garfield at LinkedIn.