The long answer:

We exchange something of value to consume goods and services. Typically this is done with currency (though bartering is also applicable) because either way, producer/distributor and consumer are entering an agreement on an exchange of stored value.

A producer or distributor is able to set the price when they dictate the perceived value. Save strong-arming customers mafia-style, that ability turns out to be relatively simple (although generally short-lived).

To produce a marketable good with no competition begets the ability to name price.

Worth will always be relative to competition. A desired good that does what the competition does, but better, will always command a higher price than the competition. Likewise, a good of lower perceived quality than the market leader is subject to a price ceiling (equal to that of it’s more capable competition).

Without an available comparison, consumers are unable to accurately judge value.

The NASDAQ composite chart above (QQQQ) shows that during the highflying tech bubble of the late 90’s, prices were wildly high; there was simply no way for buyers to judge relative value. Prices stabilized only after the viability of business models and rationality entered the market.

Live in the third order and innovate. Commodities are subject to supply and demand pricing, while edge-facing goods can defy gravity.

Google confirms it, year after year people forget how poorly they can predict the future. I’ve seen a flurry of 2009 predictions come across my screen, which is not surprising as evidenced by the chart. However it is supremely annoying, nonetheless.

Where is the culpability? People who’s predictions pan out claim victory. The other side quietly accepts defeat, rarely calling attention to their misguided “foresight.”

I’m no longer fooled by probability, and neither should you.

Consider a game: Start with 64 participants in a single elimination tournament. Each round, participants are paired. Before flipping a coin, paired players negotiate who will win if it lands heads and who will win if it lands tails. After each flip, the winner advances, new pairs are formed and the cycle repeats. From 64 players, to 32, on down to the final 2 and eventual winner. The winner of the tournament won 7 times in a row. Was he smart? Absolutely not. He was P(1 % (2^7)) lucky!

Would you ask him how he won? His advice would be worthless. If you asked him to win again, and he does, I’d check the weighting of his coin not the weight of his words.

If you throw in enough predictions, statistics dictate that some will be correct. Those that are were on point are a gift of probability, not foresight, which make them trite.

It would be nice if people properly labeled their opinions about the next 365 days but apparently no one does:

</rantoff>

Body Language was the second of book I’ve read by the Pease duo and it was as effortless read as the first.

The couple writes in bathroom-visit sized chunks which makes reading approachable for anyone.

1) Open my bookmarks
2) Find my amazon associate’s link
3) Search for the book
4) Click
5) Switch the link type to Text
6) Finally, snag the link

I never did understand why my Amazon.com consumer and Amazon.com Associate accounts were treated as discrete. These were two accounts with the same (notoriously smart) company and they never talked. It was like Camp Bezos viewed me as a schizophrenic.

I’m delighted to find something has changed. Logged in associates now have an Associate Toolbar at the top of product pages. So, today I got an associate link in a single click.

Making it 600% easier for your customers to become your sales force: smart.

What is striking is how much of the conversation flows around the few at the top.

Below is a chart of the 225 most active participants discussing stocks and finance on Twitter. The orange bars represent the number of times a user was included in a tweet (an @reply in Twitter parlance). The green bars represent how many times the same user included an @reply to another user.

Not only are top disproportionately spoken about, but understandably, they are also driving the conversation by speaking to others. They disproportionately converse.

What does this mean to you on Twitter and beyond? Conversation at its root is speaking with, not at or to; both are required to build trust and presence through dialogue. Seth Godin would be proud. The top few percent really do rule this roost. The good news is that everything you need for organic growth is in place, you just have to be willing to put in the work.

Even after the distance grows, it is easy to focus on the same target.

And lose sight of what is really going on.

When you recognize a way out.

You realize there is only one thing missing.

A change in perspective.

Which can come with completing a goal.

And with what seemed difficult behind you, your spirits lift.

Because newer opportunities await.

Look at Yammer. They bring Twitter to work. What happens when I quit? Can I still talk to my “friends” on your network (and who owns my chatter)?