Our Trend Blend 2007+ map based on the London subway map spawned an entire genre of trend maps based on city train lines.

Here is Richard’s Trend Map for 2012, once again breaking new ground in communicating trends and ideas. Enjoy!

Click on the image for full-size pdf

I have just finished producing a new keynote speaker video. This was long overdue as the last one wasn’t nearly as good as it should be. The new one is a big improvement, though I think there is more scope for improvement yet. This video is also on the front page of my new rossdawson.com website and on the video page.

I will soon write more about the process of creating a keynote speaker video. In the meantime, I would love your feedback on the video, including any suggestions for improvement.

A few key points I covered:

* Mark Zuckerberg was keen to keep the company private, but the number of shareholders reached the point at which they had to disclose information, so there was no reason to wait to do an IPO
* The billions they raise could be used to build a social commerce platform and develop its financial services
* The primary driving intention is to change the world, however as a public company they are responsible for their shareholders
* Revenue is currently around 85% advertising, including a significant part internal promotion of Facebook pages, and also Facebook Credits
* Consumer response to personalized advertising will drive the future potential of not just Facebook, but other social networks and media companies
* Facebook makes far less money from mobile than web, which is a key challenge as social network usage shifts to mobile
* Facebook is getting closer to saturation in many developed countries, so growth in its number of users will come primarily from countries such as India, Brazil, Russia, and potentially China
* Funds from the IPO may help to drive even faster innovation, not least through acquisitions
* Facebook aspires to be at the center of our lives, including for shopping and financial services

While there is heated debate about whether the current proposed approaches to life extension being proposed have any merit, there is no question that major advances are possible in the field.

For the last two centuries, life expectancy has increased by very close to 2 years for every decade that has passed. The rise in life expectancy generally seems to be continuing to rise at the same pace, though it is plateauing in some developed countries where for example obesity and other lifestyle diseases are having an impact. If it does continue, then by the end of the century there will be countries where life expectancy at birth is 100.

It is possible that over the next decades developed country malaises, pandemics, and other factors could stop the very consistent trend of increased life expectancy.

However it is more likely that gerontological, medical, and other advances strongly accelerate the current pace of our increase in lifespan.

In fact some believe that we will be able to entirely stop the aging process and live forever, barring accidents.

Aubrey de Grey is a credible person though highly eccentric scientist who promotes Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence (SENS), which basically means ‘how to stop growing older’.

Apostle of the Singularity Ray Kurzweil believes we will transcend our mortality in a number of ways. I have just received a copy of his book written with Terry Grossman TRANSCEND: Nine Steps to Living Well Forever, which looks largely at the basics of living a healthy life, as well as some of the techniques that could extend lives, potentially indefinitely.

All of this begs the question: DO YOU WANT TO LIVE FOREVER?

Some respond immediately and vociferously that of course they do, and anyone who doesn’t is deranged.

Others blanch at the very idea, and besides thinking that it would be wrong to live forever, would never want to.

I was thinking about this question today. I don’t know.

I deeply appreciate the extraordinary wonder of life, and yes, something deep in me rails against my mortality.

Yet mortality defines the human condition, it is part of what makes us who we are, and acceptance of our mortality in fact can allow us to transcend our condition.

It is possible that in the next decades we will all have to make the choice about whether we live forever.

If so, there will of course be massive disruption to economies, financial systems, and religions that are hard to envisage today.

I will think more about whether I want to live forever. Perhaps one day I will have that choice to make.

How about you? Do YOU want to live forever?

It was a wide ranging discussion, and we covered a lot of territory. At the conclusion of the program, when we were each asked to give our vision for the future of radio, I described what I see radio becoming.

As I pointed out, just as what we have thought of as TV is shifting to multi-channel video, radio is shifting to multi-channel audio, distributed over IP to a multitude of devices, notably mobile phones. However audio will remain an important media channel forever, as there are many reasons we sometimes want just audio without visual accompaniment.

Radio is still a dominant media in cars, where people are not supposed to be watching TV while they drive, in homes as people wander about or do housework, and sometimes in the workplace, where many tasks can be done with partial attention on audio, but probably not with on a screen.

One of the reasons people listen to the radio is for weather and traffic news. As I pointed out back in 2006, the rise of mobile traffic data continues to put pressure on local radio. As people can get weather and traffic information on their mobile phones, or through their car AV systems, they don’t need to listen to the radio, though it can sometimes be a convenient way to get the information.

However people certainly want to hear local news, and often listen to and engage with local personalities or celebrities who they can feel more connected with than global mega-stars. A breakfast show almost always includes local color as it makes it more personal for the audience.

There is a real potential for true community to emerge from radio. Many people say that talk-back radio was the first community media. True to a point, but it is still a hub-and-spoke model. What is now possible is for groups in the audience to have conversations between themselves, spinning off what the host is talking about, and parts of these conversations can be incorporated back into the main broadcast audio channel.

When it comes to music, that’s when the global jukebox comes to the fore. A world of audio channels means that people can choose their favorite genre, era, band, DJ, or a personalized radio station that understands their taste.

National or global news will come from a trusted source, probably with a political bent to match the listener.

From all of these every listener will be able create their own personal mosaic of global and local audio segments, woven together to create a radio channel that works for them.

This suggests that local radio has a future. Of course the revenue and financial models will be quite different from today. However as local and global content is syndicated and monetized locally through subscriptions and advertising, radio (or rather multi-channel audio) has a rich future.

Their website includes a podcast and transcript of the segment. Below are the parts where I spoke.

BAHFEN: The question I put to Ross is…what do these excerpts from Facebook’s IPO filing say about its intentions, with regard to China?

DAWSON: Facebook has global ambitions and the biggest potential market of all is China. So Facebook has been very keen to get into China for some time, yet it is blocked inside China. In fact Mike Zuckerberg has been learning Mandarin which seems to probably reflect his ambition to get Facebook into China. At the moment there seems to be no possible way in the short to medium term that China will open up to Facebook, but it is possible and it’s certainly something which is high on the long term strategic agenda for Facebook.

BAHFEN: The filing also mentions competition from Mandarin language social media sites like Sina or Renren. Do you think those sites pose serious competion if Facebook were to somehow miraculously find a way to operate in China?

DAWSON: Absolutely. Renren is the closest equivalent to Facebook in China. In fact Renren mimicked everything about Facebook. It started in universities then opened out to the broader community. If you look at it, it has the same look and feel as Facebook and it has – I don’t know the latest figures – but it has hundreds of millions of users. Most Chinese are in fact quite nationalistic. While Facebook would allow them to communicate with people around the world and would probably gain some traction, I think Renren and some of the other similar tools such as Sina Weibo (which is touted as a microblogging platform like Twitter) are ones where the Chinese are currently comfortable, where they’re spending their time now, and I think it would be really difficult for Facebook to gain significant traction in China given the existing competition.

BAHFEN: The IPO aside, I ask futurist Ross Dawson if he thinks Facebook is likely to continue trying to get into the Chinese market in the future.

DAWSON: Absolutely, China is a very high strategic priority for Facebook over the long term. It seeks to be global and it cannot be global unless it is in China. At the moment of course they have other priorities such as the IPO. They will have a very large cash stockpile to make acquisitions which they will no doubt do. So they’ll have a lot on their plate but there’s do doubt they’ll continue to do what they can to be able to tap the Chinese market.

BAHFEN: With Twitter’s announcement, and Facebook’s comments in its IPO filing, are social media companies rethinking compromising, in order to get into the lucrative Chinese market? Futurist Ross Dawson’s thoughts.

DAWSON: Twitter’s move reflects legal realities. They do need to respond to countries’ legislation in the countries in which they operate. In some cases they may choose to not operate in those countries if that goes against what they believe is right. But Twitter is saying we need to accommodate the legislation in the countries in which we’re working and I suppose some would see it as compromise but it’s a reality of doing business in the global world.

To save you reading it all, here is a highly selective summary of just a few of the interesting risk factors Facebook points to in its IPO filing:

If we fail to retain existing users or add new users, or if our users decrease their level of engagement with Facebook, our revenue, financial results, and business may be significantly harmed.
…
Any number of factors could potentially negatively affect user retention, growth, and engagement, including if:

* we are unable to successfully balance our efforts to provide a compelling user experience with the decisions we make with respect to the frequency, prominence, and size of ads and other commercial content that we display;
* there are changes in user sentiment about the quality or usefulness of our products or concerns related to privacy and sharing, safety, security, or other factors;
* we are unable to manage and prioritize information to ensure users are presented with content that is interesting, useful, and relevant to them;
* we adopt policies or procedures related to areas such as sharing or user data that are perceived negatively by our users or the general public;
etc.

Growth in use of Facebook through our mobile products, where we do not currently display ads, as a substitute for use on personal computers may negatively affect our revenue and financial results.
We had more than 425 million MAUs who used Facebook mobile products in December 2011. We anticipate that the rate of growth in mobile users will continue to exceed the growth rate of our overall MAUs for the foreseeable future, in part due to our focus on developing mobile products to encourage mobile usage of Facebook. Although the substantial majority of our mobile users also access and engage with Facebook on personal computers where we display advertising, our users could decide to increasingly access our products primarily through mobile devices. We do not currently directly generate any meaningful revenue from the use of Facebook mobile products, and our ability to do so successfully is unproven.

Our business is highly competitive. Competition presents an ongoing threat to the success of our business.
Our competitors may develop products, features, or services that are similar to ours or that achieve greater market acceptance, may undertake more far-reaching and successful product development efforts or marketing campaigns, or may adopt more aggressive pricing policies. In addition, Platform partners may use information shared by our users through the Facebook Platform in order to develop products or features that compete with us. Certain competitors, including Google, could use strong or dominant positions in one or more markets to gain competitive advantage against us in areas where we operate including: by integrating competing social networking platforms or features into products they control such as search engines, web browsers, or mobile device operating systems; by making acquisitions; or by making access to Facebook more difficult.

Action by governments to restrict access to Facebook in their countries could substantially harm our business and financial results.
It is possible that governments of one or more countries may seek to censor content available on Facebook in their country, restrict access to Facebook from their country entirely, or impose other restrictions that may affect the accessibility of Facebook in their country for an extended period of time or indefinitely.

Improper access to or disclosure of our users’ information could harm our reputation and adversely affect our business.
Our efforts to protect the information that our users have chosen to share using Facebook may be unsuccessful due to the actions of third parties, software bugs or other technical malfunctions, employee error or malfeasance, or other factors. In addition, third parties may attempt to fraudulently induce employees or users to disclose information in order to gain access to our data or our users’ data…. Any incidents involving unauthorized access to or improper use of the information of our users could damage our reputation and our brand and diminish our competitive position.

We currently generate significant revenue as a result of our relationship with Zynga, and, if we are unable to successfully maintain this relationship, our financial results could be harmed.
In 2011, Zynga accounted for approximately 12% of our revenue, which amount was comprised of revenue derived from payments processing fees related to Zynga’s sales of virtual goods and from direct advertising purchased by Zynga. Additionally, Zynga’s apps generate a significant number of pages on which we display ads from other advertisers. If the use of Zynga games on our Platform declines, if Zynga launches games on or migrates games to competing platforms, or if we fail to maintain good relations with Zynga, we may lose Zynga as a significant Platform developer and our financial results may be adversely affected.

We have been subject to regulatory investigations and settlements and we expect to continue to be subject to such proceedings in the future, which could cause us to incur substantial costs or require us to change our business practices in a manner materially adverse to our business.
It is possible that a regulatory inquiry might result in changes to our policies or practices. Violation of existing or future regulatory orders or consent decrees could subject us to substantial monetary fines and other penalties that could negatively affect our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, it is possible that future orders issued by, or enforcement actions initiated by, regulatory authorities could cause us to incur substantial costs or require us to change our business practices in a manner materially adverse to our business.

Our CEO has control over key decision making as a result of his control of a majority of our voting stock.
As a result, Mr. Zuckerberg has the ability to control the outcome of matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, including the election of directors and any merger, consolidation, or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. In addition, Mr. Zuckerberg has the ability to control the management and affairs of our company as a result of his position as our CEO and his ability to control the election of our directors. Additionally, in the event that Mr. Zuckerberg controls our company at the time of his death, control may be transferred to a person or entity that he designates as his successor.

We recently began to own and build key portions of our technical infrastructure, and, because of our limited experience in this area, we could experience unforeseen difficulties.
The infrastructure expansion we are undertaking is complex, and unanticipated delays in the completion of these projects or availability of components may lead to increased project costs, operational inefficiencies, or interruptions in the delivery or degradation of the quality of our products.

We cannot assure you that we will effectively manage our growth.
The growth and expansion of our business and products create significant challenges for our management, operational, and financial resources, including managing multiple relations with users, advertisers, Platform developers, and other third parties. In the event of continued growth of our operations or in the number of our third-party relationships, our information technology systems or our internal controls and procedures may not be adequate to support our operations. In addition, some members of our management do not have significant experience managing a large global business operation, so our management may not be able to manage such growth effectively.

Payment transactions on the Facebook Platform may subject us to additional regulatory requirements and other risks that could be costly and difficult to comply with or that could harm our business.
Depending on how our Payments product evolves, we may be subject to a variety of laws and regulations in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere, including those governing money transmission, gift cards and other prepaid access instruments, electronic funds transfers, anti-money laundering, counter-terrorist financing, gambling, banking and lending, and import and export restrictions. In some jurisdictions, the application or interpretation of these laws and regulations is not clear.

We plan to continue to make acquisitions, which could require significant management attention, disrupt our business, result in dilution to our stockholders, and adversely affect our financial results.
As part of our business strategy, we have made and intend to make acquisitions to add specialized employees, complementary companies, products, or technologies. However, we have not made any large acquisitions to date, and, as a result, our ability to acquire and integrate larger or more significant companies, products, or technologies in a successful manner is unproven.

This is very significant. One of the biggest threats to physical retail stores is that shoppers do price, service, and delivery comparisons while in the shop. Unsurprisingly, better options often come up.

The very high uptake in this study shows this is not an outlier behavior – it is mainstream and it won’t be too long before the significant majority of people will do mobile research while in stores.

Of course this does not mean that physical stores will not exist. They have many reasons to have long and sometimes prosperous lives ahead. However it does mean that their value proposition becomes fundamentally different. Given the overheads of physical retail it is almost impossible to compete on price. This means other factors, of course including the immediacy of customers getting what they want, as well as service, advice, relationship, and other issues, will hold sway.

Retailers must embrace and not deny this future. This study suggests it is not the future, it is the present.

Click on the image to watch the interview on the ABC website

I’ll add some more comments on these very interesting topics shortly.

An interesting article in Techworld titled How to manage your online reputation goes into the issue, describing how pharma firm GlaxoSmithKline had one of its trademarks hijacked by a dodgy company. The piece goes on:

“Reputations are more visible – and more vulnerable – than ever before,” says futurist Ross Dawson, who cites reputation as one of the key themes for 2012. So what can you do to ensure that your organisation is remembered for the right reasons?

The article then suggests some strategies, including this quote from me:

“If companies are illegally using social media sites, for example by misusing brand names, the first port of call is to ask the social media site to close the infringing account. Social media services want to avoid problems, and if there is obvious abuse they will take action,” says Dawson.

“You do need to be careful with this approach and only use it when it is legitimate. For example the social media furore Nestle experienced about its use of palm oil from rainforest areas came only after it asked YouTube to take down a Greenpeace video by saying it infringed its trademarks.

“If you can identify the infringing company and it is based in a country with a strong legal system, you can issue a cease-and-desist notice and otherwise take legal action, though in many cases this isn’t viable.”

“If there are no legal or other direct remedies, while it is frustrating it is often better not to take action. Drawing attention to what might be a small issue would just make the problem bigger.”

There is far less control than ever before in corporate reputation. Yet there are possible responses.

More importantly, the best way to manage potential negative reputation issues is to build a highly positive online reputation, which among other things can crowd out negative attention. Reputation, by its very nature, cannot be neutral. It is only either positive or negative.

From my 12 themes for 2012 deck, here is what I said on REPUTATIONS EXPOSED:

Reputations are more visible – and more vulnerable – than ever before. Beyond Wikileaks and its imitators the powerful amplification provided by social media means more shocking secrets than ever will be brought to light, with media organizations, corporations, and governments caught naked. While reputations can and will be trashed in moments, the rise of increasingly accurate reputation measures will also make visible the best companies and talented individuals.