InfluencerCon

Don’t Be PC & Don’t Be a Dick

Don’t Be PC & Don’t Be a Dick

/

By Michael Jamal Brooks & Philip L. Mckenzie

The war on language and PC culture has been waging across college campuses since the 80s and through the 90s. In the 21st century, the battlefield has shifted primarily online via social media and other online mediums. Both the political Left and Right find a leg to stand on in this ongoing debate. The Left focuses on an almost obsessive attention to the “right code” of speech; the Right in turn digs in its heels and resists any critique of the “good ol’ days”. Neither of these is particularly appealing. As a result, the internet is filled with spectacles such as #CancelColbert, the men’s rights movement, as well as finely worded but otherwise misplaced PC critique such as Jonathan Chait’s anti-political correctness essay. Battle lines are drawn and you engage at your own peril.

The almost always hilarious and almost always tasteless podcast “Race Wars” mocks the obsessive attention on speech and code words. Shock jock Anthony Cumia was rightfully taken to task for his openly racist diatribes but conversations he would have with late great comedian Patrice O’Neal were often cathartic, uncomfortable and sometimes enlightening. These conversations need a place to take place and take root in our collective consciousness.

As two dudes, who attempt (and sometimes succeed with mixed results) to treat people respectfully, act with empathy and consider power and privilege in society we have a simple rule: “Don’t be PC & Don’t Be A Dick”. In the tradition of Pope Francis we are invoking a new “golden rule” of the highest order.

Being PC & being a Dick are two shortcuts with a different nature but they are shortcuts just the same. Being PC stifles tension and debate. In short, we have to be more comfortable with being uncomfortable. Political correct tone is a short cut that leads away from discourse and the necessary complicated conversations that are needed to make genuine progress. Our complicated issues require rigor, not knee jerk reactions despite the fact that we live in a knee jerk world. It’s also not fun and turns to speech obsessive, emotionally hollow humorlessness really fast.

Being a Dick is the shortcut of wanting everything to remain the same simply because you are used to it. It is lazy and it is mean and has no place among thoughtful people who truly want to engage in serious issues. A Dick wallows in their own privilege rather than coming from a place of empathy and compassion. What is more galling is that Dicks often think they are being provocative or edgy when in actuality it is the exact opposite. There is nothing “edgy” about punching down and reinforcing racist, homophobic or misogynist views. Sadly that is as mainstream as it comes. Dicks need to grow up, reform their views and check their bullshit at the door. If Sarah Silverman can self reflect, anyone is capable of jumping off the “being a dick” shortcut.

We want a culture that is free, open, self critical, creative, empathetic uncomfortable and honest. We want comedy that is above all: funny! The two shortcuts of PC and Dick are narrowing the frames of our collective discussion and turning social media into yet another dull echo chamber focused on the petty and the small. If we want to cover everything from being entertaining to confronting massive levels of social injustice we need to be unafraid and transcend the dull shortcuts of “PC” and “Dick”.

What We Miss When We Talk About the Sharing Economy

What We Miss When We Talk About the Sharing Economy

/

Written by Philip L. McKenzie

Two year ago I published a white paper titled “Is Ownership Obsolete? When Sharing is Not Enough”. This paper used research, case studies and expert interviews to determine if the current nomenclature and branding around the so-called sharing economy was relevant. The reality is the fall out from the financial crisis so altered the social and political landscape that it was possible for economic alternatives to flourish. Many of the ideas to gain traction and flourish did so under the “shared economy” moniker. I determined that this language was useful to an extent but ultimately fell short of a radical reimagining of our economic destiny. The sharing economy does not allow for the sophistication necessary to critique the current hyper capitalist financial environment. Hence, two things are at work here. First, discussing the shared economy is a smoke screen, as I offered in the paper the issue is not sharing but rather ownership and our relationship to the subset of values around that concept. Second, sharing is not a viable alternative to ownership hence I introduced the concept of stewardship.

Stewardship is defined as, shared responsibility of a society to oversee, protect and pass on its critical resources over the course of generations. Stewardship and traditional Ownership have distinct value propositions that align themselves with particular outcomes. If we desire different outcomes from our structural systems we have to reward different behaviors. Much of the sharing economy does not accomplish this. There has been success in a limited sense but the adherence to the VC/PE culture of raising money (beholden to investors), desire and need to scale (exponential growth), and reliance on “freelance” economies makes them Ownership stories with sleight of hand branding. Nowhere is this more evident than with Uber, which is a darling of shared economy adherents. Uber meteoric rise has been celebrated even as it has had high profiles PR gaffes, and questionable employment practices. Outside of the “innovation” of finding easy rides and passing cost on to drivers it’s hard to see how in either spirit or operation Uber is changing the paradigm of traditional ownership business practices. Sharing is being used to put the proverbial lipstick on the pig. Uber, however is merely a useful example, this conversation is bigger than any particular company.

Traditional Ownership models, even those that have a component of so-called sharing economics still reward the same values: Control, vertical hierarchy, conformity, entitlement, zero-sum gaming and skepticism. Stewardship in contrast relies on: a “Matrixed” network, collaborative environment, non-zero sum gaming, trust and transparency. Most notably the multi-billion dollar Spanish Co-operative Mondragon is an example of a company surviving and thriving despite economic turmoil due to its adherence to principles of stewardship. US based Patagonia is another, as their commitment to stewarding the world’s environmental resources impacts how they do business and position themselves as a brand. We have an amazing opportunity to recalibrate the conversation away from so-called sharing economics and toward a more fruitful embrace of the values of stewardship.

 

Why Brands Need A Cultural Prime Directive

Why Brands Need A Cultural Prime Directive

/

Written by Philip L. McKenzie & Michael Brooks

Two cinematic experiences, one just released in theaters the other celebrating its 25th anniversary, have injected tremendous cultural insight and energy into the public conversation.

Sundance indie favorite, Dope, directed by Rick Famuyiwa made its theatrical debut a couple of weeks ago. The critically lauded film takes us into the lives of three California teens. These likable, self described nerds, geek out on 90s hip hop (the star Shameik Moore rocks a High Top), play music, deal with teen sexual frustration and navigate the dangers and excitements of their Englewood neighborhood.

The film is a smart look at both the teenage coming of age story and urban lifestyles. It is told through a unique culture lens that requires you literally have to be “dope” to get Dope. It drops you into a particular cultural context and dares you to keep up. It is clearly created by and for those who will understand its cultural intricacies but is inviting enough that any engaged and empathetic audience can join the adventure. Dope, gives a beautiful formula for the relationship between local, specific expression and larger cultural communication. It takes a lot of patience and genuine engagement to get this path right and Dope gives great insight into how to do it.

Paris is Burning, created by filmmaker Jennie Livingston, chronicles the life and times of NYC’s African American and Latino gay and transgender community and their identification with ball culture. This film is an in depth look at a world that was so far outside of the mainstream, and was driven solely by its participants desire to create world for themselves. It is a spectacle in the finest form of creativity, passion and desire to be oneself but countered with an equal desire to be seen and heard.

Watching this movie, you are forced to ask yourself, could something this distinct and commercially unbound manifest itself in today’s market saturated culture? Could the search for more lucrative brand opportunities kill any cultural expression before it even gets a chance to find its own legs? These questions lead us to believe that we need a new set of rules when we think about brand engagement in cultural spaces.

Culture by its nature is difficult to define though it is almost universally accepted as an important part of our social and corporate lives. We often discuss culture and its relationship with brands and their desire to connect with audiences. Most recently here and here. Noted author and anthropologist, Grant McCracken does a great job of parsing the challenges of identifying culture and its importance in a blog post earlier this year. These lines immediately leapt out:

“Normally, culture supplies the meanings and rules with which we understand and navigate the world. And normally, it does this invisibly, effortlessly, in real time. We don’t sense culture operating in us. It just does. It’s like language; it’s just there.

But sometimes culture is a little shaky. It has found a world it can’t quite render or organize. And when that happens, wonderful things happen. We understand that we are no longer under “strict instructions.” We are no longer the captive of meanings made. We are now living in a world where meaning and rules are up for grabs.”

McCracken is correct. We like to say change is created on the margins. This is essentially ideologically similar to the idea of no longer having strict instructions. This is the essence of creating something new, having a world that is unclear made clear by new cultural norms. Creative’s, miscreants and other people of that sort are very good at this because they often need this skill to survive. Or at the very least this skill allows them to make sense of the world around them. Brands however, are less good at this because they are by definition organizations of hierarchy and structure. They can however be cultural allies, and that is where the Cultural Prime Directive comes into play.

The Prime Directive is a reference from the Star Trek Universe. It is general order #1 for Starfleet and is considered one of the guiding principles of the United Federation of Planets. Simply put, the Prime Directive prohibits the Federation from interfering with new cultures or playing an active role in their development. The purpose is to allow societies to develop at their own pace without interference by those who have (usually technological) advantages. Now this does not mean that culture creators are disadvantaged players but relative to corporate players their intent can be outmuscled and gentrified. A Brand Prime Directive will set the stage for brands to be cultural allies without being cultural gentrifiers. We will outline principles and corresponding rationale that can serve as a blueprint for both strategic and behavioral shifts.

Do No Harm – This is where it begins. Brands must become allies of cultural movements. They can’t control them or co-opt them. They must resist the industrial age notion of ownership and instead embrace a stewardship role ensuring that these movements can benefit from patronage.

Reevaluate Your Time Horizon – The old adage says, anything worth doing is worth doing well. Which also means it should be done with care. Care means time. In our current quarter-by-quarter “Wall Street-ification” corporate viewpoint time is seen as the enemy. Every program, every initiative must work immediately or it is scrapped and replaced with something newer, something shinier. Often with the same mixed results. Brands must engage with a time horizon that encourages true organic cultivation of culture.

Be Brave -Long term thinking and cultural insight require courage. Not everything can be wrapped in a bow of analytics and “cool hunting”. Brands must be okay with allowing cultural movements to “simmer”. Only then can they establish the right relationships at the right time. In short this requires taking deep breaths and being bold.

Love Centered Revolution – “At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality.” ― Che Guevara

Revolutionary Che Guevara can be considered our first Chief Cultural Officer. Centering a revolution on the concept of love is well…revolutionary. Love as the predominant decision making tool rather than fear will allow brands to exercise a new found freedom to engage with culture.

With this skill set, and attitudes for approaching culture, brands can align, learn from and facilitate, instead of distort, rush and homogenize. Brands are the Medici’s of today’s world and they need the wisdom of the Cultural Prime Directive to guide their actions and frames. With this approach culture can reemerge and brands can be in target. Or put in a “dope” way: “play your position”.

 

I Am Not a Business, Man!

I Am Not a Business, Man!

/

Written by Philip McKenzie and Michael Brooks

“This ain’t no tall order, this is nothin to me
Difficult takes a day, impossible takes a week
I do this in my sleep,
I sold Kilos of coke, (so?) I’m guessin’ I can sell CD’s
I’m not a businessman; I’m a business, man
Let me handle my business, damn!” – Jay-Z, Diamonds from Sierra Leone (remix)

The above quote from Jay-Z is not only a great example of the type of clever wordplay the rapper is known for; it also explains the guiding idea of our times. Jay-Z, isn’t simply a successful musician or even entrepreneur, instead he is an embodiment of business itself. This is no simply braggadocio, Jay-Z in that one line has reversed engineered what corporations have long sought to do which is have themselves classified as people. Jay-Z is a person heralding himself as a corporation. In today’s economy it isn’t just Jay-Z who is a “business, man” you are too, and with respect to Jay’s lyrically capacity this is bad news for our economy, social and ecological lives. But, first back to Jay.

Given his rags to riches story, and his extreme financial success this boast is one of pride. He has beaten the odds and achieved what few ever could. This is a very traditional American narrative wrapped in Jay-Z’s own particular charisma. But, the line goes deeper than rags to riches and points to a market philosophy that has created mass insecurity, skyrocketing inequality and forced each of us to define personal brands and identities in a competitive and complex marketplace. This philosophy and decades of Neo-liberal policy has made our existence as mini-businesses rather than human beings more and more a reality.

Corporations loom larger than ever in our national discourse. Huge multinationals dominate not only our economic reality but our social reality as well. In the past, a corporate job came with stability and benefits (healthcare, pensions). In an economy still dealing with a new corporate reality post-2008 meltdown, that stability is a thing of the past. Not only did the crisis not reign a runaway corporate sector it broadly reinforced its power.

Corporations in their current incarnation leave more and more of their workforce unprotected with no sign of that trend reversing. Our public policy discourse advocates continued dismantling of the social welfare state leaving citizens with fewer options. Even those businesses that proclaim to “disrupt” the old way of doing things are more of the same. The so-called “Sharing Economy” populated by companies such as Uber, Lyft, AirBnB and others often find themselves aligned with those whose rallying cry is de-regulation at all cost. As the marginal cost of production nears zero are these companies best equipped to provide long term viable work. And how are we defining viable? Is it merely an economic measurement i.e. minimum wage/salary or does it address the quality of our work. Are we doing work that is meaningful not only to ourselves but to the world that we live in.

Where does that leave us? How does one compete in an environment when we are all charged with becoming a business? The implication of this on our psychological, physical and financial well-being is precarious at best.

If we are to assume we are businesses, then we are in a constant state of branding and product launch. Even if that product is us. In a zero-sum capitalist model how do we collaborate if each of us is running their own going concern? The popular edict that triumphs business success over all else is problematic when applied to human beings. The same rules don’t apply, nor should they.

We should not be driven by the whims of a marketplace that favors the monied, the privileged and the powerful. After all, if a business fails we are taught a better business will take its place. But what about those of us in our society who are “failing”? Absent employment options, social services, educational opportunities we cannot merely write them off as poor corporate citizens. In order to confront increasingly daunting social realities we must not reject our humanity instead we should unapologetically embrace it. Technocrats want to reduce us to streams of data removing us from our flesh and blood selves. This too must be rejected. Adopting the language of the powerful is not by default an empowering act. We are in the midst of writing an incredible new story capturing how we see ourselves and the world around us. One of the first chapters must be to reject the notion that we, as a common humanity, are a business, man!

Why if you’re talking about ROI you’re not talking about culture

/

I have been giving this quite a bit of thought over the last few years since I live firmly in the “culture space”. As the curator of a global conference, I spend most of my time attempting to understand the role that culture plays in our collective world. My attempt to do goes hand in hand with my accepting that the definition of culture stands on constantly shifting ground. Culture can mean the art and creativity of a particular community or the social conventions of an organization as well as the larger societal behavioral trends. Each of these, and more, can be relevant when discussing culture. But for simplicity, I am going to focus on culture as defined as the groundswell of music, media, and art forms that people share in a particular place or time. Institutional players, often in the form of brands (notably but not exclusively CPGs), look to gain entry into the culture space, as they believe, rightly so, it will drive consumer loyalty and engagement. Facing a wide range of options, ROI (Return on Investment) is the chosen metric most often used to assign value to a potential project. The reliance on ROI, however, to determine the value of a project is commonplace and I would argue has no place in a conversation about culture.

In my prior life, I spent years working for Goldman, Sachs. I attended business school with a focus on Finance. I left the world of Wall Street, a world filled with all sorts of arcane financial measurement including ROI, only to find myself right back in the same type of conversation in the culture space. When ROI is mentioned more frequently in a music conversation than it is on a trading desk we have a problem. ROI can be a useful measure when comparing one investment alternative (or opportunity) to another but I find it less effective when measuring cultural impact. Ultimately, this is what makes culture so damn frustrating. We intrinsically know culture is important to us but we can’t quite put a finger on why. Brands know they must be in the culture space but very rarely know how to do so effectively. Hence the reliance on co-opting financial measurements for use in a space that is at its most basic human and emotional. Its very nature defies the type of measurement that financial models rely on. So why is ROI thrown about so frequently? The answer is because it’s easy and convenient. If you can assign a measurement (even a flawed one) to a variable it makes your decision making process somewhat justifiable. The dirty secret about ROI, whether in a financial setting or not, is that it is only as good as the inputs that make up the ratio. Additionally one can modify ROI to suit your specific purposes, it all depends on what is included as return and costs. So a measurement that is held up as unassailable it actually quite subjective. Is this the most effective way we have to gauge impact for something as vital as understanding culture and how we interact with it?

Culture is messy, hit & miss, alluring and intoxicating. Culture drives our conversations and often times our passions. It encompasses music, film, visual arts, fashion and beyond. It’s easy to understand why brands would want to play a role in these multiple worlds. What is the best way to accomplish that without being perceived as an interloper? That remains the central debate but whatever the answer I know it does not involve dissecting cultural opportunities with an arbitrary method like ROI.

Red Pills Unite! Good Riddance Jedi

Red Pills Unite! Good Riddance Jedi

/

“Try not. Do or do not. There is no try” – Yoda

“You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.” – Morpheus

The Star Wars series and its accompanying mythos has become one of the most popular and referenced stories in the world. There is scarcely a place where people are not familiar with at least the basics of this world. It is the classic good versus evil story. The upstart, scrappy Jedi warriors are the defenders of all that is good, with high-minded ideals and powers that allow them to use the mystical energy of the Force. The evil, as personified by villain (and then redemptive hero) Darth Vader, use the Force as well but theirs is a twisted art popularly known as the “dark side of the Force”. Since Star Wars ascension into pop culture this language has become the metaphor of choice in describing business culture. Startup culture in particular is attracted by the rebellious, against all odds coda of the Jedi. The “new agey” nature of the Force appeals to those gurus and mystics who are seek answers in the onscreen lessons of Jedi Masters like Yoda and Obi-Wan Kenobi. On the surface, all of this seems harmless. What does it matter if some random entrepreneur describes himself as a Jedi, using his hard won mastery of the Force to create the next dating app? How many people have referenced the above quote by Jedi Master Yoda to focus their energies and push through boundaries? As a self-described nerd and fan of all things Star Wars, I too have been inspired by this fantastic world. I believed being a Jedi would be one of the most amazing things ever. It’s only more recently that I have come to realize I don’t want to be a Jedi. Though portrayed as the heroes in the films, the Jedi actually suffer from deep flaws that contributed to their demise and the downfall of the Republic they were sworn to protect. The Jedi were so assured of the correctness of their position they failed to realize they personified many of the problems they wished to solve. I have now come to realize that the Matrix is a better metaphor for a culture of change that is essential to solve daunting societal issues. The blue pill/red pill dynamic of the Matrix is far more relevant to those who are on the front lines advocating for change and reform in our current structure. In the Matrix, the hero Neo realizes that the entire world he has known is actually a construct of machines. The real world is long dead, the machines have taken over and keep humans in a dream like state where they live lives they believe are real. They do this in order to serve as living batteries plugged into the Matrix providing the machines with power. Very few in the Matrix sense that something is off, fewer still are identified and given the choice that Morpheus gives Neo. Take the blue pill, and remain asleep or take the red pill and enter the “real world”. Taking the red pill and unplugging from the Matrix immediately drops you into a harsh, unforgiving reality where you represent a threat to the very existence of the Matrix.

The Jedi mythology is easy, heroic and by extension seductive. Who wouldn’t want to cast themselves as enlightened monk-like warriors? But with a closer look, those before mentioned flaws are more nagging. The Jedi are the sworn protectors of the Republic. The Republic they are tasked to protect however is crumbing and corrupt. The Jedi spend little time, debating on whether the system they are fighting to protect is worth the effort or whether their considerable talent and skills should be used to build something new. Though they mean well they prop up the existing system and benefit from the status quo. Jedi are dogmatist; their belief system trumps anything else…unless of course it conflicts with their allegiance to the existing power structure. In that case, their belief system is second; maintaining the status quo always comes first.

Contrast the Jedi mythos with the liberated humans in the Matrix. The world of the Matrix is a more realistic portrayal of what life is like for those who are breaking the rules. The rules of the Matrix (the program) run on a set of presets that are meant to do one thing, control the population. Freeing yourself from the Matrix requires 1. Recognition of the existence of the Matrix (even in the abstract) 2. Commit yourself to becoming free from the Matrix (a one way decision) and 3. Commit yourself to building a new system that is wholly incompatible with the existing system. These options are not easy, nor are they glamorous. In fact, they are fraught with danger. The real world is not sexy. It’s dirty, the food is disgusting and your life is under constant threat by those who have a vested interest in keeping the Matrix intact. Sound familiar? Every great idea, every leap forward is a result of either perceiving the world in a different way or being in opposition to the status quo. It is not enough to ask questions, but one must ask the right questions in order to solve serious problems. We need more “red pills” that are committed to examining the very real structural issues of privilege, wealth inequality, gender bias and faux diversity that hold back true innovative progress that benefit all of us. So my choice is to turn away from the Temple, toss away the light saber and grab the red pill. The real world is waiting….

The Myth of Scarcity

The Myth of Scarcity

/

“Life is this simple: we are living in a world that is absolutely transparent and the divine is shining through it all the time. This is not just a nice story or a fable, it is true. ” ― Thomas Merton

There just doesn’t seem to be enough. Enough time, enough money, enough of this, or enough of that. If you’re like most of us, with long daily “to-do” lists, and seemingly endless appointments and obligations it seems as if there is never enough time to do the things we need to. In many ways, we have become conditioned to believe that the things we need most are in short supply. It’s important to address these feelings of scarcity because in turn it will effect how we view the world and our place in it. If we internalize this idea that the things we need are in short supply it supports the current zero sum mentality you find everywhere. Like an oxygen-depleted tank we begin to take short breaths with our very lives. Preferring to hoard for fear of not having enough. A win for you, in the zero sum model, becomes a loss for me. In an environment of perceived scarcity there is no room for collaboration or authentic connection. It is you against me and vice versa. This is a dangerous worldview as it restricts our solutions to real problems to the existing broken paradigm. If we are to make substantive changes to how we construct our perspectives we must address the myth of scarcity.

In reality, resources are not scarce at all. It is our warped perception that makes it appear so. On a macro level, the planet is more than capable of supporting our needs. Waste rather than scarcity is a far more significant problem even with something as serious as our food supply. In the marketing/advertising game, lack of budget (client mandated scarcity) is hardly a problem as global adverting spends reached an all time high in 2012. So if the facts don’t support scarcity then what’s gone wrong? Simply put, our zero sum attitude, fueled by perceived scarcity prevent us from combining intellectual, physical and economic resources for fear of “losing”. If you perceive my success as being opposed to yours how can we partner to create something new that could actually be mutually beneficial.

The world is bountiful and we should view it through those eyes. The things we need to make our lives productive and worthwhile are here in abundance. Love in all its facets, love for each other, love of what we do, love of our potential to create great things are all overflowing. We need only to embrace a different outlook and throw off this notion of scarcity. This single act is not a cure all. But it does allow us to begin to build new processes, new institutions with a clean slate. After all, what is there to be afraid of if there is nothing to lose?

In Each Other We Trust

In Each Other We Trust

/

When I was in business school at Duke University we didn’t talk much about the idea of trust. We emphasized teamwork a ton, and actually the “Team Fuqua” culture was a huge part of my decision to attend school at Duke and I loved every minute. One could say that the idea of a team culture implies a trusting culture. After all, can teammates work effectively if they do not trust one another? Lack of trust between teammates can make it a harder road but it won’t necessarily doom the team to failure. The reality is many teams in academia or in traditional workplace environments are hoisted upon us. We don’t make the choice to team up, so the team whether dysfunctional or not must find a way to produce “something” even if that output is not the potentially best result. My point is that even in a leading institution like Duke, with a strong culture of teamwork doesn’t directly address the concept of trust. This is not unusual as a discussion of values, whether trust, sharing, collaboration, love are not usually front and center in the “alpha-type” construct of business and its training ground, business school.

It is outside of a traditional corporate environment that trust must be one of the most important working facets of any relationship. In fact, it is likely #1. Relationships are ultimately about how we choose to transact with one another. The classic language of “give and take” is a simplistic rendering of a relationship. Beginning a relationship with a foundation of trust has the power to place into motion meaningful actions that will drive the success of that transaction. Too often we think about our transactional future in terms of devices, speed of transfer of data, or the language of contracts. Our transactional future turns most significantly on how we choose to interact with one another. That begins with whether or not we value trust as a key component in our interactions.

Trust is both the easiest and scariest thing one person can do. Trust requires you to be open. If you are open, you must be vulnerable. Our fear of being vulnerable comes from a fear of being hurt, or taken advantage of, or duped. If we confront this fear we will find we have the capacity to be comfortable within our vulnerability and draw strength from it. Trusting becomes an active choice in the faith of other human beings to not harm us. Our transactions can now come from a place of bravery rather than fear providing a much stronger foundation. The old model of transactions is fear based. We enter relationships, thinking about what we have to lose, how can we get hurt, how do we protect against the “down-side”? Trust makes us work to keep the fear at bay. Bad things can and always will happen but it shouldn’t color the way in which we treat one another. In an increasingly fragmented creative world, it should be a core operating strength that smaller organizations work together. Big organizations have the advantage of resources and scale. Smaller organizations should build coalitions of trust in order to create better work and establish better working economies for themselves. Instead smaller organizations often act like serfs toiling on the land of the corporate landowner. At a time in history when our goals have never been more aligned many are resistant to scrapping the old “fear based” ways of working and creating. If we can embrace trust as a starting point to forge a different transactional future we can go a long way toward creating a new normal that is braver than the old.