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.

Monday, July 25, 2016

What should we do to protect our health from the air pollution killing spree?

When people are cold, they wear a scarf and gloves. A bit more than 1 000 people die from hypothermia in the US per year.
When they are hot, they wear a cap. Heatwave can kill a lot sometimes, 70 000 during a recent one in Europe.
To protect their feets, they wear shoes. (Did not found stats saying that not wearing shoes kills, sorry).
To do bicycle, they wear a helmet. To do motorbike, they have a motorcycle vest and a helmet. Half of 1,25 million people dying on roads each year are driving motorbikes, bikes or walking persons.

Terrorism is a huge society issue. 32 000 people were killed from it in 2014.
Malaria killed 438 000 persons in 2015. We fight hard against this.
Same thing for AIDS. 1,2 million people died from it in 2014.
Same thing for bad water, 2 million die from it every year.

What do we do to protect our health from pollution?  6,5 million people could die every year due to air pollution (or 5.5, another source)

As individuals, almost nothing.
We don't adapt our lives to avoid pollution peak (how many runners run in the middle of dangerous peaks).
We don't wear masks. Except some bikers, I've rarely seen people with masks, except in Asia, but they are not anti-pollution masks.
We rarely have an air filtering system at home.
We don't track peaks and monitor where we live's air quality using apps such as Plume.
Some laws are supposed to protect us and lower pollution. That's it.

What should we do, from easy to complex:

  • Install Plume and activate notifications.
  • Avoid doing sports or going out with babies during pollution peaks.
  • Buy an air filtering device at home.
  • Wear a mask when you do sport or when pollution is high, even if it's a bit strange.
  • Live where pollution is low (already asked Plume guys to build a system of label to distinguish cities making efforts to limit air pollution :p)
  • Do lobbying to reinforce anti-air-pollution actions.

Sunday, July 24, 2016

Boring real life vs amazing virtual realities

With our phones we're connected to thousand of people, we can order stuff, get super interesting content, see what's happening everywhere, create companies, fight for causes, help people, share love and get love.

Tomorrow, virtual reality will let us enter in fantastic parallel dimensions.

In comparison, our real life will be so boring.

That's why people check their phone constantly, even with friends or significant ones.
They're just bored. They're just attracted by more exciting content, more impressive dimensions.

The world waits for you - Facebook friends, Twitter followers, Whatsapp groups, Tinder dates, Snapchat friends, Pokemon Go pokemons and hunters- why losing time chatting about ordinary stuff with a handful of friends in an average café.

Why doing one thing in real life when you can at the same time do tons of things at the same time online, chatting with 10 persons at a time, playing and maybe working a bit too.

Why going out to do somewhat cool things while so many amazing things happen online and soon in VR (virtual reality) environments.
You can see a local music band walking 10 minutes or see superstars with a VR helmet. What will you choose?
Why watching a conference of local experts in your neighbourhood when TedTalks with super amazing speakers are free?
Note that Pokemon adds another flavor: it obliges people to go out and move to do stuff on their mobile.

Virtual realities will soon challenge reality.
A lot of people will surely prefer to be in the Matrixes than being in their reality.
Moreover, to have a cool VR you need a software. To have a cool reality, you need money, a lot.

Will reality by a luxury thing for rich people only while poor people escape in VRs?

Saturday, June 18, 2016

Random photo printing specs

Consumer’s problem

We have tons of photos and never print them, never see them.
We never think of printing them.
Selecting pictures across different places (iPhone, Instagram, Facebook), uploading them, paying is pain => we never do it.
We love touching photos. It just releases endorphins.


Automatically print photos shared on Facebook, Instagram, in the Photo directory of smartphones.

Step by step

1- Connect places you post photos on (Instagram, etc.) + your phone.

2 - Select frequency and number ex: 10 photos a month.

3 - Select a couple of options: only faces, no faces, never show my face (need face recognition), ski my ex’s face, skip my family’s face (to keep family photo private), exclude photo with too much skin, exclude explicit content, exclude a geo zone or focus on a geo zone (need geolocation), deduplication deletion, near duplication deletion (photos looking nearly the same are dedupted too as we doo rifles with our photos)

4 - Select post prod options: filters (B&W, hispster’s filters, etc.), anti red eyes, photo grouping, magic wand filter (just like on most photo editing tools)

5 - Select formatting: original format,square only, bigger, smaller, group pictures, album (different kind), sticker, magnet, paper (low quality paper like receipts, high quality papers, etc.)

6 - You receive your photos automatically at the frequency you want. You can also select a random frequency to have the maximum surprise.

You can also send it to your grandma living far away.

Would you pay for this?

Sunday, May 22, 2016

Brands who keep things simple, tell a clear story, limit the choice, will be big.

Before the internet, the biggest the mall was, the better is was, the better the shop was, the better it was.
When the internet arrived, the same logic was applied. Plethora is beautiful.
And with the internet, there were no logistical limits. 

But now that people face the biggest plethora of choice ever, what do they do?
They all get iPhones, all use Facebook, all shop on Amazon (letting algorithm and ratings defining what they should by, all check Google to search (the first page), all buy Starbucks coffees, all go to "at least 4 Tripadvisor star restaurants", all use Uber.

People don't like choosing. They don't like the risk and uncertainty of choosing.
People like picking among a short range of choice.
Brands were wrong when the duplicated the old world model in the web.
People don't like choosing. 
I bet that in the future this trend will be bigger.
We'll all buy from only a couple of brands suggesting us a couple things we like, small shops selecting food we like.
In this world, brands who keep things simple, tell a clear story, limit the choice, will be big.

Saturday, April 30, 2016

When was the last time you read 2 times the same book?

Every hour, the internet produce more content we can consume in dozens of lives.
Our purchase power allows most of the people to buy every month, more films they can see and more books they can read in their entire life.

Plethora is the new black.

With that said, when was the last time you read two times or more the same book?

I remember when I was a kid. I knew by heart my books because I did not have a lot, so I was re-reading them a lot of time.
Same for VHS videos.  I knew by heart Tintin, Disneys because I had only a few ones.
I still remember them pretty well.

Now we read dozens of books, thousand of web pages a day.
We see thousands of videos and hundreds of films.

Re-reading or re-seeing stuff seems anachronic.
Or maybe it's a way to stand up against content deluge and consumption spree...