Our strategic situation is shaped by three inescapable realities. First is the inherent conflict between the creative destruction involved in free-market capitalism and the innate human propensity to avoid risk and change. Second is ever-increasing international competition. And third is the growing disparity in behavioral norms and social conditions between the upper and lower income strata of American society.

These realities combine to form a daunting problem. And the task of resolving it turns out not, by and large, to be a matter of foreign policy. Rather, it compels us to consider how we balance economic dynamism and growth against the unity and stability of our society. After all, we must have continuous, rapid technological and business-model innovation to grow our economy fast enough to avoid losing power to those who do not share America’s values — and this innovation requires increasingly deregulated markets and fewer restrictions on behavior. But such deregulation would cause significant displacement and disruption that could seriously undermine America’s social cohesion — which is not only essential to a decent and just society, but also to producing the kind of skilled and responsible citizens that free markets ultimately require. Moreover, preserving the integrity of our social fabric by minimizing the divisions that can rend society often requires government policies — to reduce inequality or ensure access to jobs, education, housing, or health care — that can in turn undercut growth and prosperity. Neither innovation nor cohesion can do without the other, but neither, it seems, can avoid undermining the other.

Basically, we’re handling a double edged sword. If you increase the speed of innovation, you also increase job losses at the lower end of the economy. On the other hand, if you work to protect the job losses due to innovation, you decrease the pace of innovation. In a global economy, that can lead to other problems which  could then result in serious problems for the economy (ie. job losses).

Increasing economic growth through innovation is vital to our economy, however it’s a foregone conclusion that doing just that will ultimately displace jobs. And those who lose their jobs, what will they do? They fight (as anyone would) to have the government protect those jobs. They become angry when the government fails to do so, which results in social unrest and creates populist political movements (ie. The Tea Party) that do more harm than good.

But what I really find disheartening, is that those movements are not necessarily driven by those same angry people who lost their jobs. In fact, many of those movements are often engineered by the individuals and companies who are seeking solely to have the government prop up their existing markets in the face of competition driven by innovation.

So what’s the answer? I have no idea. What I do know is that the two sides of this complex issue are inextricably intertwined. Yet, we let the debate be framed by those who reduce it to a shouting match, completely unaware that they need the other side just as much as they need them. All the while, the real profiteers lurk in the background, pulling the strings of the people to protect their entitled prosperity at any cost to their own country.

This music video from a relatively obscure artist is spreading across the net.

“There is a vitality, a life force, a quickening that is translated through you into action, and because there is only one of you in all time, this expression is unique. And if you block it, it will never exist through any other medium and be lost. The world will not have it. It is not your business to determine how good it is, nor how valuable it is, nor how it compares with other expressions. It is your business to keep yours clearly and directly, to keep the channel open. You do not have to even believe in yourself or your work. You have to keep yourself open and aware directly to the urges that motivate you. Keep the channel open…
 
No artist is pleased… There is no satisfaction whatever at any time. There is only a queer, divine dissatisfaction, a blessed unrest that keeps us marching and makes us more alive than the others.”

-Martha Graham

With the technology in place to make us all reporters of “the news”, who is left to live in the moment we are so intent on documenting?

For another example of this and more insight on this topic, see this article on TechCrunch.

We feel authenticity, transparency and responsibility goes both ways…

In this recession, marketers have learned that interactive marketing is more effective, and advertising less effective, per dollar spent. While budgets for online have decreased, they decreased less than other budgets. Six out of ten marketers we surveyed agreed with the statement “we will increase budget for interactive by shifting money away from traditional marketing.” Only 7% said “we have no plans to increase our marketing budget.”

Josh’s article and Forrester’s research brings to my mind the quote “the only thing constant is change”. As an industry of advertising and marketing companies, our job is simple: do what works and know that what works now, may not work 6 months from now. And furthermore, what works 12 months from now might not even exist yet.

Maybe “advertising will change forever”, but more accurately, I think advertising will forever change.

With Wave, Google (once again) is both leading the charge and taking cues from almost every communication tool that’s ever existed. A “Wave” is equal parts conversation and document that’s shared and live. It can be difficult to wrap your head around, but it has the potential to change (and improve) the way we collaborate and share information across the organization. Think email, IM, chat and wiki all as one and in real-time.

Wave will be realeased to the general public within the next few months and I’m excited to see it in action.

Here’s a screenshot from today’s event: