Hopefully, you are already convinced that Beyond is the essence of a great humanitarian idea, tapping into the yet untold human potential of a networking world of diversity, where human spirit can experiment with the best we can get at every local culture and cooperate in nature's grand living system design

As every marketer knows, timing the execution of a great idea can be personal make or break; be too far ahead and you invite commercial ruin. So our big question must be: has Beyond's time come for branding practice in global corporations? I have some heartening evidence that I will chronicle periodically on return from 2 weeks holiday. But here let me recap the history of a cynic

Back in 1989 I though it would be a good idea if the talk of world brands (some already budgeting a billion dollars of voice time each) matched the company's visionary walk. But my first book didnt realise how impractical that was at that time. Ever since then I have learnt more and more reasons why companies are dysfunctional between their promises and the way they measure/value trust (keeping promises). So yes timing is the big gutsy variable marketers must look into their corporate souls with and enable every co-worker to reflect with including every board member.

Let us however quickly adjudicate on Klein of No Logo and The Economist of Pro Logo. Klein scores by a knockout on soul - she reports how the most depressing local happenings track back to blind ignorance of people sitting in global hqs especially in global utilities -the beneficiaries of privitization of the wrong kind. The Economist has only two discernible points in Pro Logo that are so old as to be risible. yes back in 1988 when I contributed to Their Year of the Brand, I said theoretically the brand is our most democratic mechanism, walk with your wallet. But that doesnt mean that consumers individually can change whole suystems like global mass media budgeting control of companies' communications competences; out of the pan into the fire isnt a choice. Bill Emmott's other argument is that economically we're better off with globalisation. I have no contest with that - the net is here to stay and worldwide is our future - but the potentials of globalisation could multiply sustainably to hugely expand the human race or destructively if we leave the poorest with no hope. Oddly enough sitting at The Economist's editorial desk in 1984, my father wrote up that exact opposite scenarios : which way will the netwoking of globalisation systems spin to 2024 :
-to something that is far more terrifying then even Orwell's Big Brother

or to a world of win-win equity where we care for the basic rights of every human being in the way we promote the organisational identities we most look up to globally and because of that enjoy far greater economic success than Emmott's way ahead.

We are at a democratic crosswords of what networking corporations, governments and grassroots deep causes becomes systemically woven as. To be or not to be, that is the question every netizen must find their clued ways of conversing into every virtual and open space. posted by ..., 7:47 AM  permalink