Kiva’s micro-financing model, which allows people to acquire loans of as little as $25, has transformed the way many entrepreneurs in the third world conduct business. For social investors however, the relationship with these entrepreneurs and the products and services they offer can be detached and distant, lacking a real connection with the product being made. Presented with a very brief business biography and engaged with entrepreneurs in little more than a quick transaction, few lenders truly understand the financial context of the seamstress in Tajikstan, the lumber delivery woman in Peru or the rice farmer in Laos.

Here’s a concept that we developed here at Idea Couture (not commissioned by Kiva) to illustrate how social enterprises can apply whitespace mapping to create new customer experiences. From the several strategic themes that emerged from the mapping exercise came the Kiva Tea idea. The Kiva Tea Gallery bridges the investor and the entrepreneur by extending the relationship from lending to spending. This natural extension of the brand connects people across borders through sharing some of the experiences that surround tea and global tea cultures. The Kiva Tea Gallery was designed to create a greater engagement between the cultivators and consumers of tea as well as a deeper appreciation for its economies and gastronomies. Indexing the very best of old and new world Japanese architecture, with past retail experiences, Kiva Tea Gallery offer customers a series of curated tea products, services and entrepreneurial opportunities. More than a teashop, Kiva Tea Gallery makes for a truly fulfilling engaging multi-sensory experience.

Customers are invited to taste teas from independent tea producers from all over the world. Like a certain tea? Buy a bag of it. Better yet, loan funds to the farmer. The same goes for tea paraphernalia. A collection of handcrafted ceramic and cast-iron teapots, cups, trivets and steepers are exhibited and displayed for sale in the gallery. If a particular piece speaks to you, you can purchase it and even lend money to the artisan who crafted it. For the entrepreneurs supported, Kiva Tea Gallery generates increased income by setting them up not only with the resources to produce but an inherent mechanism to promote and sell. The structure is set up so that the partners and wholesale distribution channels bypass layers of middlemen.

Education is a big part of the experience at Kiva Tea Gallery. The physical locations regularly offer tastings, tea-knowledge seminars, pottery classes in the ceramics studio and nursery tutorials including gardening tips and a take-home plant. These programs and events educate the patrons in traditional and regional tea cultures and histories. Kiva Tea Gallery offers something for tea lovers and conscience consumers at all levels of engagement – whether you want to buy a bag of tea, lend $50 to a tea producer, or learn to grow and ferment your own iahpet – the Myanma pickled tea for eating.

For more active lenders, Kiva Tea Gallery offers tea travel and volunteerism programs. How would you like to visit the Sri Lankan plantation where your favorite tea is produced? Meet the farmer, smell the terrain, exchange knowledge and maybe even put in some grunt labor. Perhaps you’re more interested in a month of pottery training from the rural Chinese artisan whose teapot you purchased. Experience fascinating cultures and customs, exotic cuisine – and learn the intricacies of the tea industry – all while you establish an authentic connection through your social investment.

With its interactive platform, Kiva Tea Gallery opens the gateway to new tastes, wellness therapies, social experiences, global stories and business relationships that allow lenders to understand, experience and reap the rewards of their loans. Online visitors can surf profiles, lend money or make purchases and view Kiva-produced videos from tea growers all over the world – sharing healing and wellness knowledge as well as growing techniques. The resulting Kiva experiences can provide new and engaging experiences to anyone willing to enjoy them. The opportunities are limitless.

The name Kiva and its logo are trademarks of Kiva microfunds, a California non-profit public benefit corporation.

Cheesan Chew is VP Head of Digital Innovation at Idea Couture, a global strategic innovation and experience design firm. She spends her time between San Francisco and Toronto.

This Article has been taken from The Customer Experience Issue (Issue #3, Fall 2011) of M/I/S/C/ Magazine – a magazine dedicated to design thinking and innovation available in over 25 countries. To purchase a digital copy of the full issue and for other issues please click HERE.

Common sense would suggest that 78% of the advertising budget should be spent on something else, no?

The media landscape is constantly changing. Technology is constantly changing. Power is now with the customer. Experience is the new brand playground. It’s engagement we’re after, not just eyeballs. There is a greater demand for transparency. A more cynical attitude towards push marketing. Brands are more vulnerable than ever.

Maybe that 78% should be spent on embracing the changes. Accepting the new rules of engagement. Turning the mass media mindset into a customer relationship mindset.

It’s time to let customers into the conversation. Or more importantly, win the right to be included in theirs.

Seems like common sense. So why aren’t we doing more of it? wn

The man pictured above is Umair Haque, head of the Havas Media Lab in New York City, and author of a new book, The New Capitalist Manifesto, published in January of this year. Like the book its title plays on, The New Capitalist Manifesto calls for a new economic order, but not of the hammer and sickle variety. He calls for a version of capitalism which creates ‘meaningful brands‘, brands that make a tangibly positive impact on peoples’ lives, whether physically, financially, or environmentally. No need for pitchforks and molotov cocktails.

In recent research conducted by the Havas Media Lab, most respondents wouldn’t care if 80% of the brands out there right now were to disappear tomorrow. According to Haque, it’s because traditionally, brands have been indifferent to customers. Their primary concern has been to deliver financial value to their shareholders. To serve that goal they have been engaged in what GM research head Charles Kettering called in the 1920s, “the organized creation of dissatisfaction”, designed to appeal to the egocentric aspirations of  conspicuous consumption.

In the midst of post-industrial economic turmoil, Haque concludes, people are less and less interested in brands that will do any kind of harm to their families, their communities, their society or to nature. They are beginning to choose brands that can actually improve their lives and the lives of their grandchildren. Brands that enhance their human potential. He calls this the ‘values revolution’.

There is a pattern quickly emerging in business and brand discourse. First we have Michael Porter’s notion of ‘shared value’ in an HBR article entitled Rethinking Capitalism, then Umair Haque’s ‘values revolution’ in The New Capitalist Manifesto, and then Bruce Philp’s ‘values-based’ branding in The Consumer Republic.

In their deep re-evaluation of capitalism, these three thinkers are all saying the same thing: the best way to fix capitalism is with a better version of itself, one which profits from saving the world, not exploiting it. One that makes a business of solving problems instead of creating them. A force for good, not for greed. wn

Some years ago, in the course of researching what kinds of positive values could be associated with ‘brand Canada’, it occurred to me that we might be able to build a platform around the notion of helping to solve some of the world’s most pressing problems. But to do that would require thinking outside the box about the role of both politics and business.

It became clear to me that business, with its vast resources of both human and financial capital and its immense impact on the global community, not only had a responsibility to embrace the challenge of making the world a better place, but could in fact profit from it. It just felt naturally logical. But I was not at the time capable of articulating how this could come about.

Thankfully, no less a business thinker and thought leader than Harvard professor Michael Porter has thought this through and is now actively evangelizing the idea. He has called it ‘Shared Value’ and has proposed it as nothing less than an opportunity to rethink capitalism – and change the world.

Building on some of his previous thinking on the role of corporate social responsibility, Professor Porter points out that Corporate Shared Value is a much bigger and far more urgent imperative. It is not about charitable giving, and it is not something that can be funded by the limited means of a typical CSR budget. It is nothing less than a re-assessment of the entire value chain.

The idea is generating a great deal of buzz right now, and I strongly encourage everyone to investigate it, from the C-suite on down. It’s time to harness the most powerful forces at our disposal and do what we need to do, folks: save the world. wn

The concept is being misappropriated, misrepresented and misunderstood to the point where it now runs the risk of being dismissed as yesterday’s donuts. In fact Bruce Nussbaum, who in his former role as assistant managing editor at Business Week was one of its earliest proselytizers and most vocal promoters (he is now Professor of Innovation and Design at Parsons), has grown tired of the term and has climbed onto a new soapbox called ‘creative intelligence’.

While he may have traded his fedora for a mortarboard, Nussbaum still seems prone to the journalist’s hunger for novelty. And like many a designer, he has lost interest in his own ideas long before those whom they were meant to benefit have had a chance to absorb them or experience their value.

On the face of it, ‘design thinking’ is shorthand for ‘thinking like a designer’. But that is a very superficial definition. At its core is the notion of abductive reasoning, which, unlike deductive and inductive reasoning, seeks not so much to define an absolute truth but to explore what could be true. Unlike the deductive and inductive, which are based on the observation of past or current phenomena, the abductive is interested in what hasn’t happened yet. And, in stark contrast to the comfort zone of most businesspeople, that is exactly the realm in which good designers love to tread.

In his 2009 book, The Design of Business, dean of the Rotman School of Business Roger Martin acknowledges that designers think abductively, “always looking for new data points, challenging accepted explanations, and inferring possible new worlds”. The meat of his message is that in order to compete in the future – or even to have a future – businesses must do the same.

For me, design thinking, which relies on collaboration among designers, social scientists, and business strategists, is the realization of a long-held dream. In the hands of giants like William Morris and Walter Gropius, design was originally focused on making the world a better place. In the hands of its less profound practitioners, it has come to be about making the world a prettier place. Design thinking stands a good chance of reversing that unfortunate misconception.

What was missing in Morris’ and Gropius’ times was integration with the disciplines mentioned above, which didn’t even exist at the time. You could say that, in imagining a better future 100+ years ago, Morris and Gropius were behaving in exactly the abductive way described by Martin. Now that this integration is possible, let’s not abandon the potential for the dream to be fully realized. wn

Applied Design Thinking practices help manage risks and avoid critical failures.  But it’s not just about mitigating mistakes; it’s about managing and making the most out of them.  Instead of ‘fail early and fail often,’ why not fail strategically?

Greatness embraces mistakes: “I’ve missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I’ve lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I’ve been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I’ve failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.” 
- Michael Jordan

Strategic failure can be designed into an organization’s innovation apparatus. The U.S. DoD’s technology-unit DARPA for example accepts a 90% failure rate against its innovation investments, but the 10% of successful projects have proved to be world-changing technologies, in line with the agency’s mandate of staying on the leading edge globally. Error, when calculated and effectively analyzed—accelerates progress. It’s the rationale for rapid prototyping. Increase your odds with every try, while you learn what doesn’t work, and arrive at surprising outcomes. Says James Dyson of the eponymous appliance manufacturer and bagless vacuum fame: “It’s accident. Serendipity—but the serendipity that occurs through never giving up and through just going on and on and on, testing, searching new avenues—and going up many, many blind avenues!” Error in this case, isn’t failing (an end result); it’s part of the process of design-doing.

Part of organizing for innovation involves giving space for researchers and creatives to break frame—to diverge from predetermined strategies and follow the trajectory of their serendipitous ideas. Google famously provides its employees with Innovation Time-Off (ITO), which allows one day a week to explore whatever projects inspire their attention. The employee-driven apparatus accords the space to create but also to fail without too much fear or consequence. In it self, letting-people-do-whatever-they-want is not sound innovation strategy. There’s no mechanism to mitigate risk and the efforts lack determination. In spite of that, ITO has generated popular applications including Gmail, AdSense and Google News. When ITO initiatives do go unfavorably, Google capitalizes in retrospect—analyzing and harvesting from failed pursuits. Remember Wave—it was supposed to replace email? Well, if you can’t make a mistake you can’t make anything. When Google Wave failed to accumulate users, its successful collaboration and communication features were applied to Gmail and Google Docs. What failed as a disruptive innovation succeeded by providing iterative improvements to existing products.

"Enjoy failure and learn from it. You can never learn from success." - James Dyson

"If you can't make a mistake, you can't make anything." - Marva Collins

Because error really is part of innovation, it’s essential that organizations design a system to harvest from the messy and serendipitous process. Fail hard, fail fast, fail cheap and—fail strategically, in such a way that salient knowledge can be taken away.  If your team really is inventive, there should be some value in what they make—even when it seems to fall flat. Harvesting from failure involves applying purpose to newness. Leveraging assets from error demands a system and culture where employees are unafraid to fail, but more importantly, comfortable reporting on failure.

Avoid making the same mistakes, accelerate progress, and follow the interesting surprises. As the Irish novelist and poet James Joyce put it: “A man of genius makes no mistakes; his errors are volitional and are the portals of discovery.” Make your mistakes with purpose.

"The mistakes make the music." - Miles Davis

"A man of genius makes no mistakes; his errors are volitional and are the portals of discovery." - James Joyce

However, we are now experiencing another evolution in Industrial Design as it appears to be reaching the end of an evolutionary plateau, with emerging industrial economies such as China and India set to take over  the way things get made (for better or worse).  It is important to note that Industrial manufacturing will continue to exist, yet it must evolve to keep up with emerging needs of society and the new rules of global responsibility.  In a similar way that Industrial processes in Europe became focussed on premium quality rather than mass-quantity, North American manufacturing will need to re-examine and re-evaluate where their strengths are and what long term potential exists based on examining holistic risks and opportunities.

Since the 1950′s manufacturing expertise in North America has been systematically reduced to ever more efficient assembly lines with ever increasing regulations and manufacturing processes with more emphasis devoted to marketing and advertising.  As a result of this, manufacturers have become increasingly more clever at reducing the number, complexity and cost of manufacturing.  However as we look forward to the next phase of evolution in our emerging world economy, the core Industrial Design skills and manufacturing expertise appears to be set for going open and experiential.

It is this technical know-how that is gradually being re-distributed throughout the Internet and it is allowing new micro-assembly methods for independents, proving a way to bypass traditional investment heavy processes and procedures.  This is proving to be most beneficial for the emerging economies and independents start-ups.  Fisker Automotive and Tesla Automotive are both companies who are touting their independent green credentials, and yet they using the same supplier base from larger OEMs to create their more sharply defined and powerful Premium Electric or Plug-in Hybrids vehciles. Most important to note however, is that these are still early days for these type of innovators.

Already there are other new (smaller scale) business models which are begining to pop up.  As with many innovations, it is not always the originator of an idea who benefits from an idea or technology first.  Sometimes the groundwork that has been laid down by previous business experiments and prototype models leads innovators to other business models with separate and an un-intended technologies and they are able to realize a novel new approach for use in a new type of product.  An interesting example at this end of the spectrum is BPG Motors; an small start-up company born from a highschool science project in which the technology of Segway’s personal transporter was reformatted to fit into a motorcycle style package.  After only a few short years, the company is now experimenting with a fold-up scooter prototype, the UNO III, which can transform itself to save space to be taken indoors and up an elevator.  None of this would have been possible if not for the accessibility of open-source know-how and shared technologies (such as the out-sourced rapid prototyping of aluminum parts).

Are brand names, badges or marques of a manufacturer more important than what the physical product is?  These are questions that I often think about.  I think automotive manufacturers also need to address these kinds question before taking their brands into the realm of experience design.  If a manufacturer of a brand cannot impart a more compelling story beyond what the end customer picks up from their  dealership, then perhaps it is time for an investigation  around what kinds of experiences, journeys and alternative narratives can be provided to consumers.

Industrial Design has often been criticized as one of the most destructive professions due to the resulting industrial waste,  shortened mid-cycle enhancements and associated pollutants with the entire socio-economic, industrial and commercial program.  There are several leading minds in  transportation design and automotive design experts who acknowledge that the only way to improve current and emerging issues related to transportation and mobility is in collaboration with non-automotive sectors.  More importantly there is now an industry awareness and emphasis on designing experiential brands, that take consumers beyond the realm of “yes or no type offerings” or other stand alone products, and instead focuses on delivering a participative experience.  This is the next evolution for Industrial Design as it requires a breadth of knowledge of both product, process and positioning.

So what does all this mean to brand-name manufacturers?    Manufactures can do much more for consumers, and  there are real needs that can be addressed right now beyond simply offering more products.  The short answers could be in developing alternatives to car ownership, and alleviating time wasted for commuters stuck in traffic.  There are many forms this could this take, most obviously transit buses and ride/share programs.  But how could an automotive brand use experiential marketing to provide a premium service?  Would there be anything from a brand to add to the experience beyond simply being an “outstanding, compelling or gotta-have-product”?   Imagine an autonomous limo that picks you and and delivers you your destination, that is piloted by Google, co-branded by Apple and offers passengers an engaging experiences designed by Universal Studios.  Or how about stopping off at Starbucks to recharge your electric hybrid while you enjoy your favorite cup of coffee?

The path forward is not yet clear, and there is still much deliberation about what vehicle architectures, electric infrastructure and vehicle servicing that will be needed in the future.  However, industry already knows about the more immediate and frustrating issues of traffic, pollution and insurance premiums.  If foresight indications are correct, then the R&D groups of large OEM’s need to begin re-evaluating what mobility means, and what role their brands will play in a service oriented economy.   Creative technology environments are generally reserved for work in manufacturing R&D silos, however I know from experience that they can be quite flexible in accommodating new types of design and engineering (see my earlier post here).  In order for OEM brands to gain access to the next evolution economy, the Researching-of and Designing-exercises for consumer experience based offerings, must be opened up beyond the silo of transportation designers.  What is needed now, is a new platform to engage policy makers, urban planners and non-automotive businesses with those in the Automotive Corporate world.

When you work at an innovation consultancy, you take the word innovation seriously. For three years, I’ve worked at Idea Couture helping dozens of organizations  design disruptive future scenarios based on real consumer insights, social and societal needs, economic imperatives, and technological signals. For many of these clients, I’ve seen real innovation happen.

What’s interesting is that none of these clients talk about how “innovative” they are. But they live it. In the grand scheme of things, these are the companies pushing the boundaries of their industries and changing their own internal values systems. That’s real innovation to me.

For your average everyday consumers, innovation means disruptive innovation. Does a car that reads your Facebook news feed really deserve to be called innovative, or is it just novel? Is a CPG company that releases Organic shampoo in 2011 really innovative, or are they just opportunistic? Is a communications campaign that crosses multiple channels really innovative, or could it just be clever? I’d argue that very few of the “innovations” that companies advertise are really innovations, and even fewer of them are truly representative of a general organizational culture.

As a result, in the corporate and consumer world, the word is at risk of completely losing its meaning.

These days, it seems impossible to turn on the TV, open a magazine, read a blog post or listen to a CEO without hearing a company’s “commitment to innovation”. What’s I find truly unfortunate is that the disciplines of PR and marketing are bastardizing a term with immense power and meaning. Having spent plenty of time studying the internal models of innovation at some of the world’s most “innovative” firms, I can tell you that their internal processes are innovation blockers, not innovation enablers.

The dirty truth is that while most of these firms love the idea of innovation (and may even be filled with innovative people), they hate innovation in practice. Innovation “introduces risk” instead of mitigates it. Innovation casts doubt on how things have traditionally been done. Innovation results in disagreements. Innovation unearths cultural gaps within organizations. Real innovation is culturally hard.

Most companies are happy make incremental improvements or to explore novel changes. The refusal is to reset their understanding of their competitive landscape and to accept that their industries are fundamentally at risk. They’re fine with turning money into ideas (R&D), but not turning ideas into money (innovation).

So please, stop calling your company “innovative”. Yes, you make incremental improvements to your products. Yes, you invest in R&D. But at the end of the day, if you’re unwilling to shift adapt your core organizational values based on societal, social, and technological changes, you’re just fooling yourself. Until your organization is willing to rethink its relationship with its customers, reimagine what the future will look like, and reset its view of the industry it competes in, it’s not really innovative.

If you’re really committed to innovation, don’t just tell us about it. Live it.

So, Facebook is evolving.

With emphasis on at least 3 core web services – search, chat and the upcoming email – Facebook is getting more serious about functions that Google, among others, are doing well at providing. It makes sense. So here are some quick thoughts on what 400 million users are experiencing on Facebook these days:

A bigger search bar, center stage.

Why it’s good for Facebook:

Keeps users in the site; search is clearly important, if it’s done well people may use it. Facebook controls not all but a lot of social capital on the web. Social search has obvious value for them (and us), but will it be enough? Not quite. Then… wait for it…. Bing! At least it’s trying now. With a lot of help from Microsoft meaningful search results can surface from within the Facebook wall.

Why it’s lame:

Integrated search is not executed well at all. Maybe I just don’t know about the secret and strategic plan to roll out reasonable usability at a snail’s pace? The search results don’t integrate with the Bing-driven web results that remain a click away from the sidebar. Google is always atop my browser, one click or keystroke away (F6 for those who don’t know). Why would I switch? Un. Bloody. Likely. Here’s a free tip for you, Facebook: if you can’t solve the true integration challenge, simply try placing Bing results right next to social results. Make that more visible right off the bat and some of us might actually intend on typing something into your search box rather than doing so accidentally. (But as of course that’s unlikely to happen, because we’ve got F6.)

Slightly more accessible chat.

Why it’s good:

Keeps users in the site; chatter is constant. Lots of people sign into this feature already. Maybe now the rest of us who don’t use it a lot will think of turning it on now and again. You know, because your chat box isn’t only available from the bottom-right anymore (a location also known as “the last place a person in the western world naturally directs their eyes towards”)

What’s missing:

3rd party email service integration, Facebook content integration, voice and video chat. Lots of work to do here, but doable, and potentially very useful. What else is missing? My objectivity. At some point in this post I began addressing Facebook as “you”. Ha.

Upcoming email service.

Why it’s good:

While they won’t likely get my business in this area, if rolled out properly they could get a lot of newcomers rockin’ the …@fbmail.com or ….@fb.com – if they could somehow pry that domain from the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Why you’ll wait for version 2:

Facebook will probably push social context down our throats, ignoring that email experience that do not need to evolve into a frenzy of likes and threaded rambling. After all, Google provides Wave for that. If my email procedures get just 5% less efficient, a huge time-suck will ensue. I can’t risk that. This’ll be a tough one for Facebook to generate conversion from, but new adoption is another story.

Ready? Set? Now race to the middle!

In a way, as Google gets more serious about the social game and Facebook moves towards the domains of the Mountain View Machine, we’re looking at a race to the middle that will have some very interesting outcomes, and perhaps some friendly ones as well. Clever mashups are already around; check out Threadsy. Some cool integration there. Now if only it was executed by the data sources themselves, in collaboration with each other. Imagine if Google and Facebook innovated together? Unlikely, I know. But the economies of scale could be there for their servers appetites. Lotta pictures on that site. And growing. Okay okay, enough economic rationale. It’s complex and they are fighting for glory. One is focused on implicit results and the other, explicit. And yes, the fight is too good for now. Like most of us, I enjoy watching it. I also find value in multiple services. I enjoy many benefits from several cloud services, and as for the drawbacks, I try to minimize my encounters with them. I like that the industry is busy and competitive because it’ll make result in better products, ones of better value. Mistakes along then way, for sure. But reasonable competition for the masses. I like that they’re trying.

Trying… and killing it out there… here are some recent stats… go to Facebook the source.

More than 400 million active users

50% of our active users log on to Facebook in any given day

More than 35 million users update their status each day

More than 60 million status updates posted each day

More than 3 billion photos uploaded to the site each month

More than 5 billion pieces of content (web links, news stories, blog posts, notes, photo albums, etc.) shared each week

More than 3.5 million events created each month

More than 3 million active Pages on Facebook

More than 1.5 million local businesses have active Pages on Facebook

More than 20 million people become fans of Pages each day

Pages have created more than 5.3 billion fans

For the last several weeks, much has been written about Rupert Murdoch’s plans to de-index from Google and put up pay walls for News Corp’s digital media properties.

Variety.com (the Hollywood trade publication) has also announced that it will revert back to erecting a pay wall for its content.  Variety.com had this model in place as recently as 2007 when it decided a pay wall didn’t work.  Well, I guess that was then…

And now, we have three major publishing houses announcing that they will hold back e-book versions of some titles, making them available several weeks to several months after the initial launch of the hardcover.  Hey, movie studios have been doing that for years, right?

Finally, the major music labels have announced that they will cease the production of all recordings, digital or otherwise, and force people to attend live concerts if they want to hear their favorite music.

OK, I made that last one up.

Where’s the innovation?  It’s undeniable that traditional media companies are under a lot of pressure to hold on to their revenues.  Some are fighting for survival.  But shouldn’t such circumstances spark innovation?

Let’s look at publishers’ plans for holding back e-book versions of some of their titles.  Is it really a good idea to force consumers to buy hardcover versions when so many of them have already demonstrated that they want e-books?  Is it really a good idea to artificially prop up the value of a hardcover, at the expense of making an e-book a less attractive product, when the trend seems to clearly favor e-books going forward?

Insights into customer needs (e.g. people want to buy, carry around, and read books conveniently) and foresight into the evolving market (e.g. e-book market is growing very quickly; and every electronics manufacturer and their cousin are readying better, faster, do-more e-readers) should be driving innovations at these media companies.

Instead, they seem to be gripped by the fear that consumers who grow accustomed to paying $9.99 for an e-book won’t want to pay $25 for a hardcover.  That may be true.  But what exactly are they hoping will happen?  That consumers who have already invested in an e-reader, and who have already been enjoying e-books, will be willing to pay a premium for a product they don’t really want?   Or that, by making e-books less attractive for consumers, they will simply forget about them and return to buying big, heavy hardcover books?

The ground around media companies is definitely shifting.  The environment is ripe for innovation.  Some will survive.  Some will not.  But I think the ones that will thrive will be the ones that innovate.  I just haven’t seen any shining examples of innovation from the incumbents lately.

What do you think?  Am I glossing over any innovations from the big media companies?