In the industrial mode it was “big is beautiful”. The larger your purchasing power, the better prices you would get. You needed to get big to be competitive.

For a couple of years i’ve been trying to spread the meme of doing it the other way around. Especially in the digital field with no inherent costs pricing is much more dynamic. A great web app is more valuable to a large organization than a small. (and no i’m not talking stuff like per-user pricing – i’m talking have different rate cards for different sizes of organizations). Basic stuff – but tough in the real world and very much value-based.

The launch of Amazon S3 made me realize that in the services age democratic pricing is a real possibility if not an inherent core part of it. Since it’s a total self service model there’s almost no transaction costs that makes the deal sweater for the customer with the large volume. It’s democratic pricing that levels the playing field.

Same with Google AdWords that to some extent is levelling the playing field since volume won’t give better prices (not really sure of AdWords since i keep hearing rumors that Google is being squezed to give 5-20% percent discount to existing middlemen, large accounts, etc).

So what does all this mean?. It’s a pretty symbolic testiment to “Small is beautiful”. Not only in creation mode where nobody will disagree that small organizations are much more agile and innovative – but in operations mode where large organizations won’t have many, if any, pricing advantages due to volume/size. It’s a levelled playing field – the big corps will have to get busy because their “easy advantages” isn’t making it into the digital world.

Innovation = People creating something that creates new meaning

People because it ultimately isn’t about processes, diversity or design, but about human individuals with empathy, cognition, ideas, values, goals, need for recognition, backgrounds and relationships. Creation because it isn’t about academic design processes or industrial product development, but about the type of creation everyone has in us from day one we enter this world, we can all create – we can all innovate. Meaning because value is to vague and minor, meaning because it’s new meaning in terms of how look at ourselves and how we perceive the world around us.

Customer needs versus the corporations’ needs:
Corporations today spend 80% of their time/attention obsessed with their own needs (grow revenue, competitors, customerservice optimization, corporate strategies, shareholder value, etc.) and 20% on the actual needs of their customers (share my pictures, online access, easy travel from a to b, healthy food, etc).
What would happen if they instead spend 80% of their time on solving their customers needs?
Wouldn’t it all just flow along anyway since the company would be highly competitive with all the customer centered insight and meaningful conversations.
Especially since the corporation in the process might realize who it’s customers really is…
Wouldn’t corporate politics be easier if everyone continuosly spend 80% of their attention on the real goals?

This would off course require that corporations got away with the thought that they’re in control of their own destiny and can “manage” it…

“The idea for the project came from several comments from customers who had moved out of city areas to places that doesn’t offer as many organic products. They have that offer now”.

Aarstiderne at least have the courage to give credit to what international projects inspired them with the concept of subscription boxes packaged according to season – and Aarstiderne’s innovation has been to make it accessible and understandable to the public in a way no subscription service in the world ever has done before.

One should send a copy of the Cluetrain Manifesto to Coop!

Ideas?

HAAS Berkeley: 14 million service jobs in the United States vulnerable.