It's nicely written but I don't know how thoughtful it is.
> Big institutions, whose dominance once seemed eternal, are on the brink of collapse.
> The explosion of information has undermined and obsoleted the 20th-century organizational model. Big brands are losing market share. Big universities are going bankrupt. Big political parties are splintering and losing their control over the political narrative.
Isn't the exact opposite happening? The big universities are getting bigger, richer, more exclusive. In practice, Trump is probably less divisive of his party than Obama. Brands are consolidating (particularly in this media landscape that is supposed to be so dizzyingly dynamic and fractured!) . And sure, people identify less with retail or luxury hotel brands. But you know what brands they love? Apple. Netflix. That crazy new starter, "McDonald's". And data is making their strangle grip tighter, not looser.
Information wants to...empower those who have the money to leverage it.
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose...I'm afraid this is a lot of words about Those Dang Kids Today
The point wasn't that David has beat Goliath. Netflix and Apple are examples of companies that changed the rules: when was the last time you visited a Blockbuster or used your Palm Pilot? What happened to companies like Sears, Border's, Radio Shack, Kodak? The point is that the mindset that used to enable these companies now works against them.
I could maybe see Netflix as an example of what the author was talking about, but how exactly does Apple fit in there? Apple is all about branding and mass-market appeal.
FWIW I had the same thoughts as the GP while reading the article. Look at the examples that it gives for brand fragmentation: Halo-Top, Talenti, So Delicious, Ciao Bella, and Coconut Bliss.
Talenti is a subsidiary of Unilever. Ciao Bella is 50% owned by Sherbrooke Capital Management. So Delicious is produced by WhiteWave which is owned by Danone (Dannon).
I think the article makes some good points, but ultimately gets a bit too cute trying to paint "information abundance" as the cause for all the discussed structural changes.
I wouldn't even give it "nicely written". Nicely presented, maybe...
Compared to all of the things he's quoting from--Chomsky, McLuhan, Caplan, etc.--this is far more sizzle than steak.
Maybe if he had some point to make with the source material, that would have saved it. Instead, it's like he couldn't choose between writing the McKinsey version of a book report, or an alternative intro to Fight Club.
> Big institutions, whose dominance once seemed eternal, are on the brink of collapse.
> The explosion of information has undermined and obsoleted the 20th-century organizational model. Big brands are losing market share. Big universities are going bankrupt. Big political parties are splintering and losing their control over the political narrative.
Isn't the exact opposite happening? The big universities are getting bigger, richer, more exclusive. In practice, Trump is probably less divisive of his party than Obama. Brands are consolidating (particularly in this media landscape that is supposed to be so dizzyingly dynamic and fractured!) . And sure, people identify less with retail or luxury hotel brands. But you know what brands they love? Apple. Netflix. That crazy new starter, "McDonald's". And data is making their strangle grip tighter, not looser.
Information wants to...empower those who have the money to leverage it.
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose...I'm afraid this is a lot of words about Those Dang Kids Today