« VRM Update and Overview, May 2008 | Main | Getting The Boot »
Defining "You"
In the old world, you were defined by what you consumed*. In the new world, you are defined by what you create.
*- your credit report, your vehicle, etc.
May 14, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c514b53ef00e552254e4c8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Defining "You":
Comments
Interesting comment on "Defining You." The surge in entreprenuership definitely supports this concept.
Posted by: Nicki Crane | May 14, 2008 6:47:13 PM
Actually, I think we are defined both by what we consume and what we create. I also think the weight attached to these two criteria varies based on our occupation or life situation.
However, I certainly believe that our creative activity has an increasing role in how we will be judged.
Posted by: Mark Dykeman | May 14, 2008 7:01:34 PM
In the new world, you could also be defined by what you destroy.
Posted by: PepperDigital | May 15, 2008 1:05:16 PM
I think it depends who's doing the defining. To most businesses, you are still what you consume. Some more progressive ones take a look at what you create and a deeper look at your demo, ethno, and psychographic information, but most don't. If you're talking about how people you socialize with define you, then yes I'd agree it's more about what you create.
Posted by: Jeremy | May 16, 2008 8:20:19 AM
That's a grand statement. Prove it, please.
Regards,
Glenn
Posted by: Glenn | May 20, 2008 6:47:49 AM
glenn, some back story here: http://www.socialcustomer.com/2006/05/i_like_words_i_.html
can that statement be "proven" mathematically? certainly not. can it be shown to be true? certainly.
if i were interested in the definition of "glenn ross," the starting point for my definition would be driven very much by the words here: http://www.allbusiness.com/sales/customer-service/10783-1.html
over time, that definition would be augmented and grown by what "glenn ross" does/creates during our interactions. those things that are created during the interactions define the relationship, don't they?
Posted by: christopher carfi | May 20, 2008 11:27:47 AM
Ahh, context. That's what I was missing. Alright, I'll go with you in defining "creative." But, it's your statement as a whole that seems oversimplified.
The statement as written, lacked context. Could be my fault, I'm a new fan here. The word that came to my mind was "binary." Once people were one way, then someone flipped a switch and they acted another way. Where's the evolution, the "in between."
I'm a big fan of simplicity. In fact, I was reviewing the book, The Laws of Simplicity this morning. But, to me, your statement needed more context.
I'll be reading...
Glenn
Posted by: Glenn | May 21, 2008 7:27:52 AM
