The Mental Shift in the Collaboration Economy and Why it Matters to Everyone

I am a strong believer in the increasing strength of the collaboration economy where we share things and resources rather than own them or use commercial options.

On a personal basis we no longer have a second car. I use Flexicar here in Australia to get a car when I need it. This reduces our costs of car ownership, reduces the resources we use, and reduces the parking pressure on crowded streets in our neighbourhood. In addition I have used airbnnb quite a bit for travel, staying in other people’s homes and apartments at a lower cost but also for an improved experience.

There are two points that are interesting to me about how this might change the nature of how we make decisions and act together.

The first is that in the car sharing example it changes the decision point on costs. You no longer have the big decision to make on a major capital expenditure, but the main thing is that the cost gets transferred from a distant, annualised cost and is applied to the decision to do something at the time of making it. For example I am doing gym rehab for a broken leg and dislocated ankle that I suffered last year by being hit by a car while triathlon training. Previously I went to a YMCA gym around the corner but as that is closed for refurbishment I have to drive to another YMCA gym. Our first car is mostly unavailable during the week as my partner has to use it to get to work. Therefore every time I go to the gym in the share car it costs me $19.90 including petrol. Whilst previously I would just jump in the car and go, now I think about the cost every time I make a decision to go or not. Previously I was happy to have the second car sitting around most of the time at a cost of about $200 a week. Now I baulk at spending 10% of that to go to the gym. I still go because it is important to my health but moving the cost to the point of making that decision really makes me think about the value. The arrangement has certainly got me walking, cycling, and using public transport more which is a great thing.

The reason I am writing this post is that it got me thinking about the nature of decision making and value. If the collaboration economy grows it means more and more decisions are made at the point where we decide if they are valuable or not. That combined with increasing transparency and social media recommendation systems mean real value becomes even more important.

The second aspect of the collaboration economy is a longer term one. Systems like GetAround which supply technology for your car so you can rent it out to your social network are building user groups based on social interactions. As numbers grow these groups are going to become more powerful in our economy and move beyond just car sharing. They will put relentless pressure on prices for all sorts of things including tyres, petrol and insurance. Beyond that why will they stop at motor vehicle related products? For instance they provide a massive group that can decide to support a charity and make a huge difference to the mission of that charity. Due to their social nature they are likely to vote on what to support so true value and results will become far more important in the not for profit sector. I see these sorts of groups as the next generation beyond the current group buying sites like Living Social and Groupon. The key differences will be that they will be driven by the user base and their social nature rather than the core company. Therefore value and purpose will be more important to them. This will be a fundamental shift.

I would be interested in what people think. Meanwhile I am off to rehab in my share car

Paul Higgins


Why Great in the Market Place of Ideas Means a Power Drill not a Revolver

Last week Jason Calacanis sent out an email of his post that was up on The Launch blog called The Age of Excellence. In the post Jason argued that in a world of relentless openness and transparency it was no longer enough to be good, you had to be great.

Jason illustrated this by an image of a revolver, saying that your reviews had to look like a gun with lots of five star reviews making up the barrel, a few four stars making up the chamber, and very few 3 to 1 star ratings making up the handle. This creates an image as follows (from the launch post)

I agree that this totally applies to the world of start-ups and applications where the user experience and word of mouth from that experience is all important. However it is a dangerous analogy or way of looking at things in the world of ideas even though I have followed it almost exactly when buying books on Amazon. Reading this post has made me change my behaviour which is the greatest compliment anyone can pay to someone writing about an idea.

If you are involved in making applications for tablets or smartphones, or in producing movies for pure entertainment value  then you should be aiming for this sort of picture. However most of our work is involved in the marketplace of ideas and we deliberately avoid trying to achieve this picture. When I present a keynote at a conference I am actually looking for a picture that looks more like a portable power drill with a batter pack at the bottom:

Image from Amazon

With lots of fives, a few fours, then hardly any twos or threes but a fair number of ones.

The reasoning behind this is that we are trying to push people to change their thinking and re-examine their mental models in order to actually change what they do. The people that will do that are contained in the group that gives us a five star review. However if everyone loves what I have said or presented then I have not pushed the 5-star group hard enough. If I haven’t done that then there is likely to be less action in the five star group. Our mission is to leverage our skills and thinking to enable other people to take action.

There are plenty of quotes out there about ideas that change things first have to be seen as subversive or ridiculous. Therefore it is my view that if everyone likes what is being presented to them then it is too bland and too mainstream. That is fine in the area of entertainment or applications but it is dangerous in the market place of ideas. Our mission is to leverage our skills and thinking to enable other people to take action so if we are not pushing hard enough we are failing to be great. I agree totally with the sentiment of Jason’s overall post which is that in a modern world you have to be great because good is not good enough. However being liked and being great are not always the same thing.

Paul Higgins

If you want to see more about how we present and some of our audience ratings go to the Keynotes and Presentations section of our website

The Key Driver of Change for the Future

Key Drivers of Change

As a futurist I am often asked what the future will look like. Apart from the fact that there are many possible futures, presenting one view of the future limits people’s thinking.

I would much rather talk about multiple futures and the major drivers that will shape those futures. This is because the audience I am talking to can then take away that information, critically review it and how it applies to their own circumstances as things change. This provides far more value.

One of the frameworks that we use to look at what might happen is the Three Tees – Technology, Trust, and Transparency. These three are shaping change but they are also interacting with each and changing each other as we move into the future. This is how I think about them:


Despite the fact that people love to get their hands on new technology I see technology as secondary in the processes that are driving change. If we look at the IT and telecommunications (ITC) area of technology as an example, we have moved from single function devices to technology platforms. A smartphone is essentially a portable mini-computer and people are building different applications and using those applications in different ways every day. This means that the technology is the ticket to play in the game, not the main game itself. It is what is built on top of the technology that counts.

However the ITC technology is fundamentally changing the world in other ways as well. The technology is driving connections all over the world that mean anything that can be digitised can be moved around cheaply and easily and processed in the most effective place. It is also allowing mobility of communications, work and play that are altering how and where we use the technology.


What is really driving change is the social application of technology. Kevin Kelly, the author of What Technology Wants says social use of technology is making prediction of what might happen very difficult. You might produce a piece of technology or an application to be used on that technology and have a view about how that might be used. Once that technology or application is in the hands of 5 million people they will all have different thoughts on how it might be used and they will innovate in ways you never thought of.

So social use of technology is increasing levels of innovation and change and how that is shaped is largely being driven by trust. If someone I trust recommends that I try an application on my iPad I am likely to do it. In order to populate that iPad with useful applications when I first played with it I reached out to people that I know and trust through email, through Twitter, and via Tumblr the micro-blogging site that we use. That behaviour is being replicated all over the world through social networks, cafe rating sites, hotel complaint sites, etc. If someone I know and trust, or someone who is connected to someone I know and trust tells me something is great I am far more likely to try it. If they give the same business or product a bad rating I am likely to avoid it. Humans have done this for thousands of years; the technology is just amplifying the behaviour and widening the network of people who can take notice. This brings us to transparency.


The combination of social networks and the technology that is enabling them is rapidly increasing the level of transparency occurring in all aspects of our lives. Here are just a few examples:
  • You can now use your mobile phone to read bar codes and product labels and get information on that product before you buy it. There are services available that will also give you a price comparison on the same product for shops in your area based on your location being recorded by GPS on your phone.
  • Just recently Real Time Farms has been started by an engineer from Google who describes the service as: 

“Real Time Farms is a crowd-sourced, online food guide, and we’re all about connecting you to fresh sources of food — items you can trust, whether eating in or out,” he explains. “We aim to be the IMDB of food transparency.”

This is opening up where food comes from and displaying it in easy ways for people to find out and also share information with people in that network.

  • Another start up in the transparency area is where people can post up their complaints about products and services and seek to have them addressed. The key to this site is that it shows those complaints to all the connections that people have. I recently looked at a complaint that a consultant I know put on their site and it reports the complaint was influencing 487,000 people. Now I am sure that the real number that is influenced is lower than that but it is still a substantial number.

So the technology is enabling connections and forming a platform to build applications on. The social use of that technology is changing how the technology and applications are being used. One of the prime outcomes from this is a rapid change in the transparency we all face and a lot of that change is being driven by the levels of trust we feel for people , products, or organisations. So why is that important.

What Does This Mean and What Should You Do?

I think that these changes are primarily for the good. What they will do is provide greater reward for good behaviour, great service and great products. They will punish bad behaviour and bad products at a much higher level than in the past. They will also mean that branding and marketing will have to change significantly because trusted information and real experiences will become far more important than marketing messages and hype.

This will apply to small business, large business, not for profit organisations, and government alike. Just think of the example of a not for profit organisation that is not telling the whole truth of what they do, or where only a small proportion of donated money goes to the actual cause. That organisation is at much greater risk of being found out and then that message getting out to a much larger number of people. If this makes people and organisations more likely to behave in an ethical manner then I am all for it.

When I talk to people about these changes their first response is they do not have the time to jump in and be involved in these social networks, monitoring what is being said about them and responding. That they are too busy just getting their day to day jobs done. While I can sympathise with that view my response is:

  • First and foremost concentrate primarily on providing a great product, a great service, or great customer service. This is more important than ever and its importance will only grow. These social networks and connections will amplify good signals and bad signals alike. You cannot manage them by being on the networks and influencing the conversation. You primarily manage them by delighting your customers.
  • The conversation about you or your product will happen whether you get involved or not, so not getting involved is not going avoid the issue.
  • Have a good look at using these sorts of technologies and networks to improve your marketing or reduce the costs of your marketing. I recently attended a presentation from the banana industry. They described how they have managed their marketing in the face of significant reductions of marketing dollars due to the crop damage the industry has faced. Innovative use of social media enabled them to gain more marketing exposure than they had when they had much more money. Necessity is the mother of invention and they freely admit they were forced into an action they should have done earlier and voluntarily.

In this article I have not even touched on the increased competition that technology is bringing to our worlds through global connections and the destruction of business models. More on that later