Sunday, October 23, 2016

Skin prostitution - no sex, just skin touching

Today prostitution equal sex.

What if a new kind of service were proposed, without any sex.
A prostitution where with our without light, you can just touch human skin, on non-erogenous places.

No talking, no need to see the face, no need reaction of the service provider, no need to have a long session.

Human skin is one of the most beautiful things on earth.
It’s a very sweet sensation to touch someone’s skin.

The peak of happiness touching skin gives in comparison with the simplicity of the action makes it super interesting.

Music industry: forget bands and singers, just focus on the composer + reinterpretations

Music is a performance.
A song sung ten times, even by the same person will lead to 10 different flavors.
Rhythm can also change, instrumental can change, the singer can change.
In the end, one song can be a huge variety of songs.

Album versions of songs are often pretty neutral.
The real interest is when songs are played live or reinterpreted differently.

Music majors could make much more money, creating value with live songs and different albums.

Classical music is a case in point: interprets are dead 200 years ago minimum, but I'm still hunting next great reinterpretations.
Note that in classical music; we care about the composer, not the singer or the band.
It makes the song atemporal

Consumer will be super loyal to brands... again

After glorifying disloyalty - yep, the customer is king...
People like less and less choosing, negotiating, taking risks.
If they like a brand, they'll stick to it.

Ask your grandpa. People were loyal before.

Being omniscient is so 2016

You can be at a diner with friends, replying to super important email, solving mom’s issues with her computer on FB Messenger and saying I love you to your GF on LINE.
You can be at work leading a confcall with the entire world while having fun on your Whatsapp groups, playing with Snapchat filters and posting serious stuff on Linkedin.

After glorifying this omniscient new power smartphone brought to us the last 10 years, I fell we'll progressively rediscover the joy of doing one thing after another.

Monday, October 17, 2016

Chat bots vs apps vs web - the chronometer test and other key indicators

I read articles saying that bots will replace apps, the web. 
First bots are not a new thing. 
Google search is a bot. 
You type a word or ask. It answers. 
Google Maps is a bot. 
You put a destination and it answers a variety of ways to go there. 
TripAdvisor is a bot. 
You put a city and a category like restaurants. 
It gives you back a list. 
Asking to get an answer is not new. 
Bots just do this in a different format, chat style. 

Second, what problem do they solve? 
If you order a pizza via the Pizza Hut bot, is it... 
... faster than through the app? No.
... quicker than the web? Mmmm no.

Chronometer test is important. People seek going fast. 
That's why we love Google, Mac products, Amazon, etc. 
If a new way to do something is slower than the previous, won't work. 
Except if it leads to better experiences - that's why we still go to restaurants which could deliver food at home - or provide more / unique value or cost less - that's why we still go to markets to get fresh food. 
For pizza delivery, going faster than ordering on Deliveroo app is a huge challenge. In 4 clicks I have my pizza ordered. It takes 15 seconds. 

Is ordering a pizza more agreeable than through the app? Don't feel that?
Is it more agreeable than the web? Don't feel that too 

Having the impression to have a very personal assistant knowing you well is what could be cool with bots. It means IA. It means giving to these bots tons of info. It means not having one bot for pizzas, one for plane tickets, one for film renting, one for bank account check.Tricky last point for brands. 

Is it cheaper? No, same price.

Does it provide more / unique value than web/apps? No, no special offers.

Is it cooler? Yes!! 

So in the end, bots will be used as we'll all test these new things by curiosity and because brands will market them a lot. In the long run, if brands want consumers to use them, they'll have to make them (and/or list) faster to use, more agreeable to use, provide cheaper offerings through then or provide more value. 

Personal view: I expect bots this kind of experiences: "I want 2 margarita pizzas from Joe's pizza and one large mango juice from Juice company and a bunch of red roses, wherever the place, 50 dollar budget asap at home." and have the bot saying after 2 seconds: "it will arrive in 15 minutes, M. Bentz. I'll notify you as soon as it comes." 

Friday, August 5, 2016

Media war makes the world stressful and fearful. We must resist

Media are in the worst ever situation.

End of paper (except for local news)

Insane digital competition. On the web, paper, news channels.

Free content overload.

Ad only business models.

GenY doesn't watch TV.

Each smartphone user is a media now.

Social media is where people get information now.

What is the result? Open fire strategies!

Media need to increase audience size by all means. War mode is on.

Media are addicted to buzz, intense info, breaking news, huge things, impressive stuff.

They need to trigger emotions: fear is one of the most effective.

They are super experts of making each and every event something emotional through marketing artifacts.

The only limit: deontology.

What is the result? Audiences stress and fear

Audiences, us, are bombarded with stressful information. All day long, rifles of shocking stuff are shot and hit readers and watchers.

Impossible to resist. In the end, everybody become stressed, afraid.

The world has never been that safe.

Threats we face are ridiculous. Example: ISIS is 30 000 people. We can defeat them in weeks if we want it.

Poverty is going down. People live longer. See Hans Rosling videos.

What is the solution? Protect yourself, be selective

As an audience:

  • Protect yourself. Skip media, hide friend publishing full of fear content 's newsfeeds.
  • Put your emotional par bullet proof vest. 
  • Step back. Select your sources with close attention. 
  • Consider paying for information if you're wealthy enough.

On a market standpoint:

  • I hope media will make people pay again and stop being traffic addict.
  • I hope news TVs will realize that quality makes more money than buzz.
  • I hope ad blockers will help regarding the point above.
  • I hope high-quality media will become more and more successful.

Saturday, July 30, 2016

We all love a lot of people's traits at the same time

We're supposed to love persons, one person to be precise in our modern societies. I think we love  different people's traits.


You’ll love the charisma of one, they kindness of another, the beauty of another, they eyes of another, they craziness of another, the smell of another, the voice of another, the skin of another, the imagination of another, the facial expression of another, the intelligence of another, the deep generosity of another, the wisdom of another, the smile of another, the style of another, the accent of another, the sense of humor of another, etc.
We all love a lot of people's traits at the same time, and not traits from one person only - our significant one.
We don't call it love because it's a cultural taboo to use this word outside of the classic schema where you love one person at a time. I don't see other words, though. Like is too weak to qualify a sentiment that can be very intense.

Note that love is one way, loving someone doesn't imply any reciprocity. You don't have to say it, write it, to possess the other person, to touch her, to sleep and live with her. People often mix love, reciprocal love and the desire to be with


I imagine we all tend to be in a relationship with a person having a lot of traits you love and - the most important point - who loves a lot of traits of you too. That's not all at all.
To move from pure love to relationship, you have to pass 3 - often non-explicit - steps:
1 - You need a common desire to be together,
2 - an alignment regarding what together meaning (examples: seeing each other sometimes, living together, doing everything together, having a family, being together forever, etc.),
3 - and a common will to satisfy this desire (here, context is important: work, families, age, past experiences, kids, social pressure, customs, etc.)

These 3 steps will be constantly challenged during the relationship.

Quote from Thich Nhat Hanh, quite famous Vietnamese Buddhist monk to finish:
We really have to understand the person we want to love. If our love is only a will to possess, it is not love. If we only think of ourselves, if we know only our needs and ignore the needs of the other person, we cannot love.

- - - -

En Français :

Dans nos sociétés modernes, on est supposé aimer des personnes, une personne pour être précis. Je pense qu'on aime des caractères de difféerentes personnes.


Vous allez aimer le charisme de l'un(e), la gentillesse d' un(une), la beauté d'un(e) autre, les yeux d'un(e) autre, la folie d'un(e) autre, l'odeur d'un(e) autre, la peau d'un(e) autre, l'imagination d'un(e) autre, le visage d'un(e) autre, l'intelligence d'un(e) autre, la générosité d'un(e) autre, la sagesse d'un(e) autre, le sourire d'un(e) autre, le style d'un(e) autre, l'accent d'un(e) autre, etc.

Nous aimons tous des caractères de différentes personnes au même moment, et pas JUSTE les caractères d'une personne, son/sa conajoint(e)
Nous n'appeleons pas cela amour car c'est un tabou culturer d'employer ce mot hors du classique schéma où on aime une personne à la fois. Il n'y a pas d'autres mots plausibles.

Noter que cet amour est unilateral, l'amour n'implique aucune réciprocité. Ce n'est pas nécessaire de le dire, de l'écrire, de posséder la personne aimée, la toucher, coucher avec ou vivre avec. On confond souvent l'amour, l'amour réciproque et le désire d'être avec.


J'imagine qu'on tend tous à être en couple avec une personne qui a beaucoup de caractère que l'on aime et qui - point très important - qui aime beaucoup de ses propres caractères.
Mais ce n'est pas tout. Pour passer de l'amour au couple, il faut passer 3 étapes, rarement explicites:
1 - il faut un désir commun d'être ensemble
2 - ête d'accord sur ce qu'être ensemble signifie (ex: se voir parfois, vivre ensemble, tout faire ensemble, fonder une famille, ête ensemble pour toujours, etc.)
3 - et un désilr commun d'assouvir ce désir. le contexte est important : travail, famille, age, expériences passées, enfants, pression sociale, coutumes, etc.

Ces 3 étapes vont être constamment remises en cause durant la vie de couple.

Citation de Thich Nhat Hanh, célèbre moine Boudhiste Vietnamien:
On doit comprendre la personne que l'on souhaite aimer. Si votre amour est uniquement un désir de posséder, ce n'est pas l'amour. Si on ne pense qu'à soi, si on ne connais que ses propres besoins mais qu'on ignore celui de l'autre, on ne peut aimer.