It started with a little "sketchy sketch" in a pod, it then became a comment on a post by C4Chaos to which he answered at length. Since I do believe this is an important issue, I have moved it to this blog to be able to take a closer look at it. So here we go:
My original statement:
To understand this you would need to know some basic about Ken Wilbers 4 quadrants - abbreviated:
upper left is all about “I”, the individual interior (UL)
lower left is all about “we”, tthe collective interior (LL)
lower right is all about “them”, the collective exterior (LR)
upper right is all about “it”, the individual exterior. (UR)
Mostly value is generated in the right quadrants; and science and economics only recognises value as generated there.
The value in social networks (zaadz, gaia, facebook etc.) is basically created, though, in the lower 2 quadrants. This value is harvested, though, as UR financial profit by a few persons - Brian, when he sold Zaadz + his investors got a lot of cash (millions? we'll find out later this year when Gaiam has to publish its figures).
The community, all the people writing blogs and pods, has created 95%, I guess, of the LL value and a lot (percentage, I don't know) on the LR. Yet the community creating this value has not received anything on the UR, right?
So what is being created in the lower half of the 4 q's is monetized through UR and LR mechanisms and not fed back to the people who created this value in the first place; what they receive is entirely within the LL and UL q's.
The z/G team and management is being paid - they are getting UR rewards (and value on the other q's as well in as far as they are open to and involved in those) for their work which mainly consists in creating the tools (UR & mostly LR), and some - anybody else exept you C4Chaos? - are creating blogs. So one could say that the z/G team is getting the most value in a 4q view.
Hmmm, this is a sketchy sketch, and probably an AQAL expert can do this analysis much better, but it somehow shows, maybe, what the direction should be, if we really want a change to happen through this medium that goes beyond the nice and cozy left quadrant interior; if we want to effect the change we believe ourselves to be in the exterior world as well…
And here is C4Chaos answer (in navy blue; not meant as a subtle SDi statement!) (an where he quotes my statement its in maroon:
Mushin,
i'm kind of amused that you use Wilber's quadrants to take subtle pot shots at Brian, the company, and the team. ok, i'll play.
first, your use of quadrants is very shallow, very unbalanced and seemingly aimed at insinuating that Brian, Gaiam, and the Team are using the content created by members to “harvest” a “UR financial profit”. while it is true that we get a lot of value (as a team because we are passionate and happy with what we do), your definition of value is very limited to begin with at best, and biased at worst.
allow me to build on your incomplete and biased 4Q analysis.
“The community, all the people writing blogs and pods, has created 95%, I guess, of the LL value and a lot (percentage, I don't know) on the LR. Yet the community creating this value has not received anything on the UR, right?”
if you mean “monetary” and physical “stuff” then you are partly correct (we did send out free t-shirts, free books, free magazines, etc. to our early ambassadors). however, your definition of “value” as “stuff” on the UR is incomplete and misleading. when people get inspired by content on the site, when they are engaged in intellectual discussions, when they get a sense of camaraderie and community, then these are all “value” which has “physiological” effects (i.e. endorphins, dopamine, etc. these are the UR correlates). not to mention that people around the world started meetups via Zaadz/Gaia. those are physical meetups (UR+LR).
“So what is being created in the lower half of the 4 q's is monetized through UR and LR mechanisms and not fed back to the people who created this value in the first place; what they receive is entirely within the LL and UL q's. ”
you seem to focus on monetization when you say “not fed back”. yet you don't mention that majority of our members don't pay anything for the service that Gaia provides. have you paid anything to get into Gaia? why do you keep coming back? it's because you get value! maybe not financial or material “stuff” but you do get value (which have physiological UR correlates), otherwise you won't be here in the first place.
“The z/G team and management is being paid - they are getting UR rewards (and value on the other q's as well in as far as they are open to and involved in those) for their work which mainly consists in creating the tools (UR & mostly LR), and some - anybody else exept you C4Chaos? - are creating blogs. So one could say that the z/G team is getting the most value in a 4q view.”
of course we're being paid. otherwise we can't do our job and we'd look for somewhere else to get our livelihood. but to say that we're “getting the most value in a 4Q view” is again, another (not so) subtle insinuation that we're unfairly profiting from our members.
yes, we're happy to work here. we're passionate with our work. each of us has different areas on the site we're passionate about. in fact, you only see a few of our team members here. most of them work in silence (e.g. Dev team, marketing team, etc.). and we do owe our community members gratitude for this opportunity. in return, we work our asses off (in a good way because we love doing it), to keep the service running, keep the integrity of the site, so we can continue to offer it for free to people who are interested to join. you don't pay us directly. members do not pay us (financially) directly. so we have to figure out a way (read: business plan) how to get paid to keep the service going, for free. in this sense, if you look at it from a collective 4Q (i.e. accumulate the value of the service provided by Gaia), then members (collectively) get more “value” than the Team (due to the fact that the team is outnumber by hundreds of thousands of members). but from another perspective, yes, you are partialy correct in saying that we as a team “get the most value” because what keep us going is knowing that we are getting paid (fairly) and at the same time provide value to a lot of people. in that sense, we're a happy and passionate lot as compared to some members who maybe are, unfortunately, working on jobs they dislike.
personally, i get more value from being happy working in Gaia knowing that we're having impact on other people's lives, even if i could get a job somewhere else with higher pay.
and btw, working at Gaia empowers me to blog my heart out. it's not that Gaia is paying me to blog. it's that i could blog because Gaia provides a space for me to do so. unlike previously, i don't have to hide my blog from my employers. and there are other tasks i do in Gaia which i won't bother to bore you with ;)
“Hmmm, this is a sketchy sketch,”
there's nothing sketchy about it whether you look at it using AQAL lens or whatever lens you want to use. it's just the dynamics, economics, and technical realities of running a social media service. look it up.
now let me ask you this? when was the last time Google gave you stuff? did you directly receive profit-sharing (in terms of money) from their billions? i doubt it. yet Google would not exist without the collective content created by people on the web. Gaia is a service like Google (and ALL other social networks and other social media services). Gaia would not exist without our members and their collective content. Gaia provides the space where people could meet and add content. it's like a beneficial symbiotic relationship. the value that Gaia provides differs on every individual who gets value out of it. some people use it for networking, some people use it to express their creativity, some people use it to communicate with people around the world, and so on.
the bottom line is: your analysis downplayed the value that members get from Gaia by focusing too much on physical stuff and monetization.
criticize by creating, my friend. criticize by creating.
Dear C4Chaos, I greatly appreciate you taking up the issue and giving a lengthy answer, stating your position quite clearly and also confessing up to your feelings in how you perceive my critique.
You read what I have to say basically as me trying to take subtle potshots at Brian, the company and the team, and you say that my use of the four quadrants is very shallow, very unbalanced and seemingly aimed at insinuating that Brian, Gaiam, and the Team which, so you read me is using the content created by members to “harvest” a “UR financial profit”.
So let me state quite clearly here and now that looking at the value of Zaadz/Gaia through a monetary lens is certainly limited - but here and there and everywhere I have written often about how much I appreciate the non-monetary value of this community, particular persons in the team, the team as a whole and the management. What has not been regarded by hardly anyone anywhere as far as I know is the monetary side of value. So now focusing on that "UR financial profit" can be regarded as shallow, unbalanced and seemingly aimed at insinuating, but certainly that was not the aim of my original comment and my intent
Moreover I'm sure that my use of the four quadrants is indeed shallow, as is my knowledge - I just studied the integral view for a couple of years some years ago, and have had quite a few discussions with people who are into the integral world of Ken Wilber, but I am sure that your view is much clearer (and I don't mean this sarcastic at all).
You say that my definition of value is very limited to begin with at best, and biased at worst. But it was not meant to be a sketch about what value is, nor have I defined it properly - it was my aim to point out the financial and monetary side of it; something that's not being discussed as often here as we are saying so nice and beautiful things to each other and talk about the great personal value that this community brings. And it strikes me that when I do speak about the monetizing side of value being created by the community without first mentioning at length the beauty of the other sides of value, it is being regarded as aimed at insinuation. But I guess that is because there are so many fears and anxieties connected with money as value, and with value as a financial asset that it shouldn't surprise me.
In my original comment I say, “The community, all the people writing blogs and pods, has created 95%, I guess, of the LL value and a lot (percentage, I don't know) on the LR. Yet the community creating this value has not received anything on the UR, right?”
And you answer: "if you mean “monetary” and physical “stuff” then you are partly correct (we did send out free t-shirts, free books, free magazines, etc. to our early ambassadors). however, your definition of “value” as “stuff” on the UR is incomplete and misleading. when people get inspired by content on the site, when they are engaged in intellectual discussions, when they get a sense of camaraderie and community, then these are all “value” which has “physiological” effects (i.e. endorphins, dopamine, etc. these are the UR correlates). not to mention that people around the world started meetups via Zaadz/Gaia. those are physical meetups (UR+LR)."
So yes, I like to embark on what you deem to be partly correct (and I guess the mention of the free T-shirts etc. that was given away by the company in the beginning makes up the "partly"). So then you embark on the value that is nonmonetary and point out the physiological effects, also pointing out that there are indeed physical meetups. And you are correct, those are obviously UR correlates. So probably my main point cannot be clarified in this way; I am talking about monetizing the value that is being created by a large community of people who blog their hearts out.
What I find troubling in this respect - but I can understand it since you felt that my original comment was mainly insinuating and therfore feelings may have clouded your intelligence - is that it is next to impossible to have a discussion that looks at "cashing in on the free lunches that are being provided by large numbers of people." You see, all the physiological effects and a sense of camaraderie and community, all the love and beauty and joy that is being spread and felt particularly in this community - all of that is being acknowledged tons of times, and talked about all over the place. But anytime I mention that there is money involved, and that a very few people make money, effectively cashing in on the productivity of tens of thousands of people, it is as if I touch a huge taboo, and I have the feeling that there is not even a wanting to understand.
So when I say "that the z/G team is getting the most value in a 4q view" you prefer to understand that this also is an insinuation. You could have also understood it as admiration. And as someone that is also managing a community and creating instruments for it (getting budgets together to do so; which is also a very interesting thing) I know how beautiful that is: doing a job you love to do and getting paid for it. I'm just stating a fact. Could it be that an old psychological mechanism is surfacing here that says that we are not really entitled to have joy, beauty and fun in the work we are being paid for? You say, "you seem to focus on monetization when you say “not fed back”. yet you don't mention that majority of our members don't pay anything for the service that Gaia provides. have you paid anything to get into Gaia? why do you keep coming back? it's because you get value! maybe not financial or material “stuff” but you do get value (which have physiological UR correlates), otherwise you won't be here in the first place.
Interestingly enough, whenever this discussion happens, it is being mentioned that the "majority of our members don't pay anything for the service" - what is not being mentioned is that in the business plan of social networks this is clear and ovious from the very beginning (nobody pays anything for Facebook, YouTube etc.). Also in those business plans mostly what is counted upon is the revenues through advertisement (and I won't go into many other possibilities to monetize social networks; also here it's up to the creativity of the owners - the people who determine what the " terms and conditions" are). It's not that I wouldn't appreciate these or other social networks but I wonder why that argument always comes up at his place in the discussion.
So yes, C4Chaos, I keep coming back to Zaadz-now-Gaia because I get value - and for the sake of all those who have not understood so far: I hereby solemnly declare that I recognize, appreciate and love the value that I'm getting in this social network. I really do! So now we have got that out of the way, can we talk about money and monetizing social networks again?
C4Chaos: now let me ask you this? when was the last time Google gave you stuff? did you directly receive profit-sharing (in terms of money) from their billions? i doubt it. yet Google would not exist without the collective content created by people on the web. Gaia is a service like Google (and ALL other social networks and other social media services). Gaia would not exist without our members and their collective content. Gaia provides the space where people could meet and add content. it's like a beneficial symbiotic relationship. the value that Gaia provides differs on every individual who gets value out of it. some people use it for networking, some people use it to express their creativity, some people use it to communicate with people around the world, and so on.
I think you are right, in many respects Gaia is just another service like Google, and so there is a beneficial symbiotic relationship. It's a bit like a relationship in religion: the church or temple or whatever gives you value and the instruments to communicate etc.. This value is helping you in other surroundings, the economic ones for instance. What I was getting at, and I would find a discussion very interesting if we could have it, is that the next step in capitalism in my view is one where we also find ways to have the participants in a Gaia or Google - meaning the people that create the content that makes the service financially so valuable - also participate in the monetization. That doesn't mean they should get all the money that is being made but some of it would be good. Most of us are trying to change the world in such a way that it is a more flourishing and beautiful place to be in, where everybody has the possibility to move according to their heart's desire. And I happen to think that, since more and more people are moving into social and online communities and networks, we might better get creative about how to create new ways for all of us to share the wealth in all quadrants and on all levels. That is the main aim I'm getting at with my "sketchy sketch" - and I would very much appreciate someone who is well versed in the all quadrant view to look at the monetization of the free work that so many people are giving to the community.
C4Chaos: the bottom line is: your analysis downplayed the value that members get from Gaia by focusing too much on physical stuff and monetization.
I agree in as much as I was focusing on the physical stuff and monetization. I do not agree that I was downplaying anything - I was simply not mentioning it because it is mentioned all over, as I said before. (I have been doing a lot of mentioning of the nonphysical and non-monetized value. And I do mean a lot!)
C4Chaos: criticize by creating, my friend. criticize by creating.
I don't know why you used that statement in the end of your comment, but I do think it is meant to even out the bad feelings you had about my critique. I hope by creating this blog post you now see more clearly where I'm coming from and what I'm aiming at, and I do hope that this will marshal some brilliant thinking that will help us co-create a more beautiful world for everyone.
Help
Sign In
between-us
March 2009 
Mushin
Access: Public
