The Value of Zaadz/Gaia & social networks - a controversy?
Mushin
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:
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.
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.
Access: Public
Mushin, this a big and important draft. And I am endosing it fully as it provides perspective and new hori-zones. Buidling the arc over lots of discussions of the last yeas I am too was involved.
The new understanding and measuring of Values in networks. Universities, branches, free agents from across the globe, creative talents, Forums like World Economic Forum TED and others have touched it. Integral Institute, Chuches,Enlightenext, VC`s, Otto Scharmers work, Evolutionary Nexus, Investmentn Banker, filmmakers, Producers, Erich Poettschachers Shapoeshifters. Miilions In Franchising and Network marketing, Re-tailers, -thousands of projects at the edge….are in the transition to re-define the measuring of values in money too.
It has simply to be integrated. And it was nobody less than Howard Bloom, himself successful in music and other businesses, who created the Pentagramm of diversity generators, conformity enforcers, inner judges, resssource shifters and intergroup .tournaments (in Global Brain)
Its a Big, BIG Issue for next decade. And even Don Beck who last year wrote about meshworks foundations….hasnt grasped it completely. This is pioneering work at a VERY RELEVANT EDGE.
Will come back to this theme often this year. Deserves top attention.
The TABOO of speaking cleary and in transparent ways about money and flows of liquidity must be broken.
Mushin,
my apologies if i have misread your intention. but please look at what you wrote and your tone of writing and some of the selected words you used and tell me if it's not suspect of insinuations. try reading it from someone other than yourself.
putting the “controversy” aside. (i see no controversy here, btw. so i suggest that you refrain from conflating this issue). let me address your main concern which is:
“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.”
then why didn't you just say so? we could've discussed this on a more level intellectual playing field to begin with, sans subtle pot shots at Gaia :) people write thesis about this topic you know. so this is not primarily a Gaia issue. it's a bigger issue of “capitalism” for you. for example, Michel Bauwens has been exploring possible alternatives in his P2P Foundation blog.
check out this P2P Newsletter from Michel Bauwens, wherein he discussed P2P and Capitalism.
the reason why i brought up the phrase “criticize by creating” is that, in your original comment, you sound so overly critical, yet you didn't even include a proposal or even point to alternatives.
thanks for clarifying your intention. i hope i've clarified mine as well.
Albert said: “The TABOO of speaking cleary and in transparent ways about money and flows of liquidity must be broken.”
it's just a matter of framing the question and issue lucidly.
~C
This is awesome, on both your parts; thank you, both, for being able to touch on those issues of interpretation and reading, and thank you, Mushin, for bringing up issues of money. It's one of my favorite topics… and I mean that sincerely. For me, at least, there's so much ENERGY around money and what it means. It fascinates me, and makes both curious and sad and hopeful all at once.
Anyway.
I don't know whether we'll be able to “solve the problem” of monetizing community here. (I put that phrase in quotation marks because I don't really see it as something with a solution; to my mind it's a process that requires an ongoing balance and consideration, and that the 'solution' is, in many ways, the mere practice of keeping that proverbial ball in play.) I say that in part because we're a US-based business, bound by certain legal obligations, and there are myriad legal constraints around what we can and can't do when it comes to ownership and decision-making and privacy and the rest.
At the same time, this doesn't mean we shouldn't talk!! What if this was the beginning of a new model? Even if Gaiam itself, as it stands as a corporate entity, can't implement the model that we discover or dream up or design, the mere exercise of creating a set of by-laws or creating a proposal from which another organization (be it a non-profit or privately-owned business or some here-to-fore unacknowledged structure) might spring would be, to my mind, incredibly valueable.
Just my $0.02, and just my from-the-inside perspective. :)
Rommel,
right you are. Framing the question is important. My intention is to get this issue into a general context. And beyond Bauwens more abstract musings. To create prototypes and define in very clear, concrete case studies and appications how to deal in a practical way with all of that.
The writers in L.A. have lots of considerations already aggregated. I could easily create adossier of hundreds already existing drafts, models and examples. Suggest even to not align it to the Gaia Discussion.
its a Hotspot of discussion in business already. Will later in the year come back to it.
Regarding the owner of GAIAM and GAIA: it will be nice to analyse the business model and what their envision in terms of revenue…Probably other places than here are adequate for it.
Measuring Values in business, economy and financial world since Silicon Valley a new theme. One only needs to read “The new new thing” from Michael lewis about Jim Clark, “Burn Rate” by Michael Wolff of 30 other Bestseller of their time….one needs to ask people like Robb Smith whats going on in VC….or Guy Kawasaki,….the theme is so big in its cultural and social dimension that at least a symposion of 4 weeks would be the minimum! Or Tony Robbins, Michael Chrichton or the Wachowsky Brothers for Film…
Would greatly appreciate to involve professionals from the financial markets and economy and entrepreneurs of all kind here. Hard facts, numbers and charts are essential too in this context.
i know from conversations with Top Investors worldwide last years lots of what is going on behind the scenes. Time to put it in context with change and social Values.
Best, Albert
Albert said: “right you are. Framing the question is important. My intention is to get this issue into a general context. And beyond Bauwens more abstract musings. To create prototypes and define in very clear, concrete case studies and appications how to deal in a practical way with all of that.”
thanks Albert. would really appreciate it if you could share your knowledge on your blog and link to the relevant topics that address this issue. you know i'm all eyes and ears on these things :)
“Regarding the owner of GAIAM and GAIA: it will be nice to analyse the business model and what their envision in terms of revenue…Probably other places than here are adequate for it.”
GAIAM is a public company. people who are interested would be more than welcome to do the analysis. i personally, welcome them to do so, especially if done using AQAL lens.
~C
Rommel,
the basic gesture….I mentioned it already…would be the GaIA Owner(s) show up at any given time and declare their intentions. Jirka and Lynn are business People….so , lets say in 10 months or so I would like to have clarity and transparence -as far as they agree - about the deal, about further plans and how they think about making Gaia profitable.
What role is seen in the context of GAIAM. Are there further investors? What about the premier investors of Zaadz? Are they involved anymore? Whats about Brians vision he articulated in WIE Interview? Is this shared vision and mission still? Is GAIA- if yes, then it what timeline? - expected to generate profit? How? What role is sponsoring playing?
So just some simple questions. i know from experineces in film financing, from private equity realm, from deals in Arab Gulf Region, from InvestmentFonds, from diverse spectrum of investment areas, from small medium sized enterprises that an infinity of details is always involved.
Just getting the ball roling. Relaxed….consciously…but with focus, focus, focus….
Co-creating with you, and as always utterly apreciating your special energy and mixture of compassion and passion,
Albert
Albert? I'll speak to this a bit.
Jirka's not a blogger or writer. When we first connected I had mixed feelings about this… Why, I felt, wouldn't you want to come on here and create and account and talk and share and play? It took me a little bit to remember, and appreciate, that not everyone is as passionate about virtual correspondence and online spaces as I am, and that just as I'd feel awkward standing in front of a television camera and communicating that way, others feel clumsy in this world. I don't need to try to change that. We've all got our strengths. Anyway, I just want to make clear that any perceived silence there is really my fault, and if I'm not doing a good job as a leader of Gaia and communicator for Gaiam, I'd love to know.
I'm sure you've read Brian's blog and experiences with their discussions about the vision for creating the space for a community of like-minded people to come together and support each other in following their hearts, creating a shift in consciousness and a change in the energy (and systems!) of the larger collective. I know from my own regular conversations that this is a passion of Jirka's, and I have a deep and heartfelt respect for the way he's trusted us to facilitate and realize this vision. The feeling I get is one of mutual support–so much of his dream involves supporting us, as Zaadz / Gaia, in realizing ours.
I hope this helps.
As to the profit model, well, we're a business still! We need to demonstrate to the shareholders who own stock in the company that we're capable of creating value. So we still sell ads. We're still working on Pro (Dave Pearson, who's also been with Zaadz since day one, is currently heading up that side of things, so feel free to drop him a note if you have particular questions). We're also going to offer subscription communities, in addition to this always-free and absolutely essential central space.
And oh, Albert. You are so right… an 'infinity of details' does not even begin to describe it. I've learned more in the past few months than I have in YEARS. It's crazy.
Gabriele. My heart just melted reading this. You've put that all so beautifully, and I'm so grateful and happy that this space has played such a special role in your life. What you wrote describes so perfectly what brought me here, and describes why it is I'm still around and so committed to seeing the ener
Mushin, I've deleted my earlier posting here. I'm afraid I ended up saying what I felt inspired to say at the wrong party… you guys seem to be about something entirely else then where my focus is… feels pretty embarrassing… oh well.
anyway, I've copied my contribution and will use it for a blogpost. it seemed quite out of space here, kind of alien…
Gabriele: Well, my comment still stands, and though I appreciate your consideration of Mushin's space and the topical nature of this discussion, please don't feel embarrassed. Your words were from the heart, and Mushin and ~C inspired them, and it's okay, I think, to get a bit carried away. I liked the energy your words brought. :)
Speaking to the sensation of a 'battle' I had reading some of the interchange between C4 and Mushin.
Perhaps because I personally know Mushin, when I read his words I 'heard' no insinuation or pot shot-ness. I 'saw' his face and heard how he speaks in person and it felt clear to me – available for input and dialogue. On the other hand, C4 you 'sounded' touchy and almost as if you took personal offence. I'm looking at this, I am sure if I knew you as well as I know Mushin, I'd probably 'hear' something totally different - humour, lightness etc.
I realise this is not to the topic, and like Siona, it is a topic I'm very interested in. At the same time one of my 'pet' subjects is how to dialogue online in a way that transcends the limitations of the medium: holding space for each other, listening, not holding on too tightly to ideas, seeing if something 'more' can arise out of the space, as opposed to trying to get the other one to see one's own point of view.
So for me this is a very exciting dialogue with a lot of potential. I'm reading avidly, (also with 'mixed' feelings!)
Thanks both
Sandra
As a lover of the philosophies of the sannyasin, i feel obligated to offer my solution to this dilemma. If ya'all give all this money to me i promise you i have the integrity to make sure everyone i know will get a year off in a meditation center in Costa Rica. Just think of the karmic potential here!lol
Siona. thkx for your statment. of course Jirka is no blogger…_=):)I would expect only some limpses about his BUSINESS perspectives. At least a Welcome Message…The silence around him in thisi regard isnt helpful for me.
Once again: No Online Ralley about possibilities is intended. I am in business myself and every hour of online activity is a tough additional. challenge for me. My interest, perhaps futile at this moment , is simply to et points for transparence in the business stratewtgy of the owner.
Its futile for me to talk about conscious business in great pictures if not this minimum gestures are made. Not by you, Siona and the team. Great work! Congrats for you and the team again. I am fully trusting and appeciating your efforts.
So I will relax and just let things happen at the business frontier. :):)
Maybe next year, same time new developments down the road are more visible in business terms.
Dear friends, I’m happy with this discussion about value and money and everything else (and I don’t mind if it’s off topic for a comment or two as we can always return there again).
C4Chaos, I can only assure you once more that neither the tone of my writing nor what I wrote was intended to insinuate anything. I do see, though, that in it’s extreme short statement, sketchy and excluding all kinds of other value-considerations apart from money it was prone to be misunderstood – and I do understand, and even sympathize with the way you read it and responded to it. There are no hard feelings there for me.
I also think that by stating in the headline “a controversy?” I am not conflating the issue – I’m calling attention to it. I do think that within this community, and other spiritual communities as well, this issue is worth using the term “controversy” with a question mark behind it. Also even spiritual persons at times just love controversies, so having that in the headline is drawing a bit of attention to something I feel is important. And I don’t think that you object to that.
You’re right, my main concern is:
“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.”
And then I find it interesting that after lamenting that I did not say so before, and after stating that it’s a bigger issue, you merely point me to Michel Bouwens (a ‘pen-pal’ of mine) great P2P foundation blog, and his ideas about p2p and capitalism.
I find that interesting because you apparently do not (want to?) voice your own ideas around that “main concern”. Is that because you have non? Is it because you subscribe to Michel’s views? Is it because the thought I’m proposing are utterly new, and you need some time to make up your mind? Or are you still irritated by the way that I originally didn’t frame the issue lucidly enough?
Whatever the reason may be, I would be interested to hear your point of view on the issue at hand; and it is not only a general issue, it is a particular issue within Gaia.
I, by the way, do not wish to force anyone into taking a stance in this issue, especially not if you don’t feel comfortable with that – Gaia is the hand that feeds you, so I would understand if you rather keep it general. Nevertheless, after you’ve now tackled the emotional issues that my original comment kindled: Is there someone, a group in Gaia’s management or staff thinking about: “How can we return some of the value that the community creates back to it in monetary ways?”
And if there isn’t, do you feel there should be one?
Albert, I very much like how you expand the issue to inquiring into the business plan of Gaiam and Gaia. I don’t know how far we can have insight into that; from having created a few of them (or been party to the creation of them) in the last year I can only say that I wouldn’t want them to be public. They are full of information that I wouldn’t want to disseminate all over the place; especially in a time when in the US a major shift is happening in the LOHAS area of the economy where fierce competition is still the name of the game. So giving away the content of your business-plan might not be what you want…
On the other hand I think there is a legitimate interest in the price that Brian achieved for Zaadz (or the price Gaiam paid for its acquisition). If I understand it rightly we will know it once it has to be published because of American company law, so we will know at the end of this year; but it would be good to know now, I think, because it would give us a good indication of what kind of monetary gains from the Zaadz community we are speaking about in this particular case.
And yes, I think an important larger issue that we touch upon here (and that we’re not going to solve, but who wants to solve? We want to discuss and widen our horizon around these issues so that we might contribute to a future solution) is the issue of measuring Value in business, economy and the world of finances. There are triple, quadruple and what have you bottom-lines. An interesting discussion…
Siona, I think one of the larger issues around this is, certainly, the “issue of money” and what happens inside us, our soul, our mind, our consciousness and unconsciousness when we are facing a lack of it, or perceive that it is not being equitably spread among the people.
I find that ‘larger issue’ also interesting as a “Collaboration Ecologist”, and in this regard there are two natural laws of collaboration (there are more laws/principles involved – but these are the ‘natural’ two that I’ve been able to identify):
1) Trust in the other collaborator(s); that everybody concerned has faith in that the other(s) are acting from a wise point of view in regards to the issue/project one is collaborating in, and
2) Fair share; everyone knows/feels that he/she is being recompensed for their input into the issue/project according to what the added to the value of the issue/project.
If we are struggling financially the likelihood of being able to collaborate is not high; usually people will have a strong incentive to “take care of myself first.” It requires quite some personal development to be able to really collaborate under such circumstances. And even then it can be a ‘hot issue’ that immediately whips up strong emotions (that have the tendency to carry away everybody touched by these emotions). So yes, there is very much energy tied up in that issue…
The closer issue at hand, and the one that I would really come to a closer “collective wisdom” about (meaning that I’m not interested in being right in this matter but finding out if we can come to a wider understanding that we can all support from our heart of hearts) is the issue of: “How can we organize our service (the social network; in this case Zaadz/Gaia) in such a way that (some of) the monetized value can flow back to the community and its (active, of course) members?”
So I’m happy that you mention the possible restrictions that the laws pose for a company or conglomerate of them. There is a larger discussion that I was made aware of when in San Francisco in November of what form an enterprise needs to have to be both non-profit and for profit (or neither).
So as (and if) we come up with some wise ways to address the issue of monetized value of large online-communities and how to have them participate, we certainly need to address the hurdles that laws and regulations – which differ between the states in the US I learnt – poses.
Regarding Jirka: Maybe, dear Siona, you could suggest writing a welcome letter to him. I think that would be a nice gesture (I come from the premise that he is the main owner and founder of Gaiam, the company who bought “us”). And, even better, also a response to the feed-back that he might get to his “welcome letter”. I can imagine that the community would feel greatly supported by some such gesture of mutual appreciation…
Gabrielle, I’m happy that you again pointed out the kind of ‘intangible’ value this community has for you. And, may I guess?, you might be uncomfortable with the thought that all those values could, or maybe should, flow into the equation when we talk about monetization. How does inspiration, that people find in this community, show up in a values estimate of this social network as a business?
And please, I hope you don’t feel that you need to delete postings as not too much to the point; whatever you feel needs to be considered in this conversation is to be considered. I can always simply ignore it, if I feel that way. I, for one, do not wish to exclude anything from this conversation as off-topic; we simply might not be able to see that it is on-topic, yet…And Sandra, thank you for pointing out how you feel about where my statement comes from – I feel honoured and seen. And, in a way, the emotions rising and falling, the waves of that, are on-topic for me. They contribute our emotional intelligence – which also in my life is all to easily impaired when it comes to money issues. I have been known to “struggle” with that issue and my girlfriend at present is struggling with her financial situation very much.
Therefore I’m not amazed that people (including myself here) can become very emotional.
And it can be seen as quite audacious to state that one is really looking for ways to turn the free lunches provided by a large community of content-contributors into paid lunch; or to put it less provocatively (emotionality!): I’m looking for emotional, mental and spiritual intelligence towards how to spread the financial gains of a social network back to the community, at least to a substantial extent.
Andrew, I can sympathize with your suggestion J - thank you for poking fun with us. We might become too serious on this important and serious matter otherwise.
OK the ball is rolling for the moment…thats fine…of course no sensitive data of businessplan can be discussed. However, John McKay from Wholefoods.com has demonstrated to a certain degree how to communicate as corporate CEO.
Its all about learning to understand new business models on a global scale. Fast Company, Red Herring, WIRED, ChangeX, Brandeins, Economist, TIME Magazine..Huffingtonpost, CNN, Forbes, Fortune, BBC…lots of Mainstram Media and alternative media too are already on this bandwaggon.
The whole creative industry (see Richard Florida)is discussing it. The Issue is not only the cycling of LOHAS market, but new values chains and forms of marketing including direct marketing. Here it is about community. Fine.
The thinking about the net value is a huge wave already in diverse orbits. I guess its to early for GAIA..maybe in two years from now a new window of opportunity is open.
Only one, very clear question remains: To GAIA team AND Owner:
What about the vision Brian spoke about in WIE interview last summer?
Is it on hold? Is it exmatriculated?:):)Does it still live? And when…yes, how is the baby going? Well and Alive?
Wishing a wonderful year for all,
Albert
Briefly - I love your idea of a welcome letter to Jirka, Mushin : I can imagine that the community would feel greatly supported by some such gesture of mutual appreciation…
I too feel that the community would very much appreciate and feel supported by 'knowing' him a little more - even if he doesn't respond personally, and even if he is leaving the management of Gaia in the hands of Siona and the team, he is a fundamental part of Gaia and at the moment is a slightly 'shadowy' background figure of some power (projected or otherwise), something which could have a somewhat negative effect on people's subconscious fears.
Love,
Sandra
Mushin: You humble me, as usual, if one can feel humbled while at the same time wearing a broad grin. I'll come back to your comment, or, if I don't continue this dialog with you here, immediately, I'll say only that I'm honored and excited and grateful to be engaged, and fantastically hopeful about the potential. I think what I'm most struck by in all this is the willingness on the parts of so many to accept the current realities of the situation and, after embracing that 'where-we-are' place (with all its shortcomings and frustrations and challenges!), looking at how we can cooporate together to change things.
Again, it gives me great hope.
Sandra and Albert… thanks for highlighting Mushin's suggestion. Perhaps it is time for another welcome letter and mission statement, hm? We were going to write an unsigned one, but perhaps a bit of a more personal note would be best. I like, Sandra, what you wrote about projections, and in some ways I think they'll be unavoidable–I could just as easily interpret the most loving and welcoming note as being calculated and insincere–but I do agree that a gesture would be dear.
Albert: The vision in that interview (and goodness… I remember talking to Carter then; it feels like a lifetime ago!) was broad but included specifics; which part do you mean? To my mind, the core and the heart of the vision, that is, of creating a company that benefits the planet and of growing a community of like-minded others who've committed to inspiring and empowering each other to live as their highest selves and fulfill their greatest potential, is still very much alive… perhaps now more so than ever. If you mean the oases and resorts and the like, well, that I'm not sure of. Is “first things first” an okay reply for now?
It was at the end of This Interview
First things first.is ok for every business . As operative action is the basics. A possible discussion about new developments in creating transparence for the way from producer to consumer is another thing. Its topic already at Harvard Business School and in Bussness Media already. CEO“s like John McKay have begun -as CEO- to practice it. Would like to discuss business models of spiritual communities too. Or the conection between Profit and Non_Profit models. We had in Germany years ago already some stormy and productive debates…
Innovation, transformation and Values creation must earlier or later result in new concrete business models. First things first means also for me that a constant discussion in public about ressource shifting-as always done in the media- can and must be aligned to purpose , potential , planet and passion.
Markets -red and blue oceans -business cycles, busienss thinking and entrepreneurial acting .all of this is a matter of constant learning, education and doing too. So again:
No matter if today or in two years or even later: How is GAIA and GAIAM in the background intending to create revenue? What criteria`? No specifics are necessary of businessplan. Just some thoughts.
If not here…others will do it other…places…with other intentions…
This Revolution will be Digitized
The team behind Zaadz, the internet's popular new alternative community, shares the inspiration behind their bold vision to become the first global brand of the integral revolution.
Interview by Carter Phipps and Andrew Cohen
1 | 2
Interview
….
Christiana: My vision for the future involves Zaadz providing a platform for conscious capitalism, changing the way the world does business. What I see for us in 2020 is the facilitation of complete transparency between producer and consumer. What we have now is a disconnect between ourselves and our stuff. We're cut off in so many ways from understanding where it comes from, who makes it, and what the social or environmental cost is. Now, though, people are bringing more and more awareness to what and how they choose to consume. As a society, we're demanding authenticity and responsibility from the businesses that serve us. The internet has given us windows into worlds that were previously hidden from the consumer's perspective, and I can only imagine the evolution of that transparency as we develop more tools for communication and expand our awareness and care. Zaadz is in the process of building the structure that facilitates the shift-while being a model of conscious business ourselves.
Brian: I'm passionate about taking the online experience offline. How do we go from ten, twenty-five, fifty, a hundred thousand, one million, ten million, twenty-five million online members within this worldwide community to the offline experience? The Zaadz Oases are going to be exciting, as is the impact of transparency and conscious capitalism.
I'm also excited about creating the greatest place in the world to work. Fourteen years might seem a short time to get to the point of having a hundred thousand people on our team. Right now we have fourteen. But for whatever reason, when I'm quiet, that's a goal that comes through me. I feel personally compelled to create the infrastructure to support that.
So 2020? I've said before that our goal is to become the most impactful and trusted company on the planet, and I have no doubt that in 2020 we'll still be working toward that vision. We might be a great deal larger and we might look nothing like our current online incarnation, but we'll still be striving to do whatever we can to inspire and empower everyone we touch.
Siona, Mushin,
just a brief and heart felt thank you for your kind responses…
I did delete my post when I saw it was still here… it's my neurosis, I'm sure, that makes me feel uncomfortable when I'm going off topic that far and only notice after the fact… I really would love to play here with you guys but my brain just doesn't function that way.
Mushin, I'm not uncomfortable with anything around the business aspect, simply because I don't have that on my screen at all. it's just not there, it's of no interest to me. I'm not against the business aspect either. I don't see this lack of interest as a virtue, on the contrary, I judge it as a limitation of my mind's capabilities.
that's one reason why I withdrew my post. I can't help it, my point of view on things is strictly personal and therefore, as I thought, too limited and useless. (of course everybody can simply chose to ignore it - unfortunately another aspect of my neurosis is that I really hate being ignored! ;)
so, I've edited my post a bit and it has found a new home on my blog.
thank you again for your kindness.
with love.
Gabriele
:)
This topic is also being discussed as “Wealth for All” over here.
I just discovered it last night, and it will take some time to read up on it…
And I still expect C4Chaos to reply here some; but we'll see.
Dear Ones,
The conversation between Brian and Christiana gets exactly to the point that Albert raised with his question as to the where-have-they-gone-now of these powerful and suggestive early values of conscious capitalism. When I first encountered Zaadz and poked around a bit, this concept leapt out at me. I am no fan of capitalism, let that be said up front. It is, however the game of the moment and like it or not, one must play. But conscious capitalism? Now that sounded like an oxymoron. I was intrigued, read more, and joined.
Conscious capitalism - that sounds a bit like conscious imperialism or conscious colonialism - laughable on its face. Still, I joined, thinking that it might be edifying to put my mind to the task and see if some form of transitional economy might be wrested out of the friggin' mess that we are in. Brian's comment,
“I'm also excited about creating the greatest place in the world to work. Fourteen years might seem a short time to get to the point of having a hundred thousand people on our team. Right now we have fourteen. But for whatever reason, when I'm quiet, that's a goal that comes through me. I feel personally compelled to create the infrastructure to support that. “ was instrumental in securing my participation in Zaadz.
Has, as Albert asked, this fundamental founding value been “ex-matriculated?”
Mushin, I have to agree with Sandra, and correct dear C4 that your initiating “tone” was respectful overall, not antagonistic and right to the point. The AQAL analysis for this simple paradigm does not need any further “expert” analysis as your reduction was sufficient to the situation as I see it.
Frankly C, I thought your comeback to Mushin in the beginning was defensive and a trifle petulant, erudition notwithstanding. Jirka can continue to play the forest guru and leave Siona to try and interpret his mysteries to us little lemmings, but the fact is that he bought Zaadz lock, stock, and barrel. We members are the “stock” imo, and we members came into this thing riding on the possibilities that Brian and his original crew outlined in the early days. As far as I can tell, everyone who is standing up here from the membership is part of that original vibe. I have put a good deal of that past year of my life into up-jacking this very opportunity. I am not selling anything or pushing anything except the notion that this website can be more than a little get together place where people can just “play” with one another.
Several really good ideas have been passed across this interface and not one of them has even garnered a comment or a dismissal except what I consider the irrelevance of Google, Facebook and the rest of the non-competition. None of them ever set out to do what Zaadz intended and provide services that are primarily self-satisfying - an end unto themselves. Zaadz was about change, being the change, designing and engineering the change, promulgating and implementing the change. I still am.
best,
Michael
Michael; Albert. I was part of that conversation with Brian and Christiana. I'm still here, and so is Dave, and so is the rest of the team. I still believe, whole-heartedly, in the vision of Zaadz. And my goodness, people. Does Brian leaving mean that somehow we all throw up our hands and consider this dream done?
Gah.
Fine. Watch ME pour a litle biofuel on the flames.
You can see my very first post on conscious capitalism here. While I don't have some fabulous new ideology or better system to impose, I do happen to believe that for anything significant to occur, consciousness must play a part.
Capitalism is no exception.
However, I do think the issue is more nuanced than this (and it would be hubris to even think of encapsulating the intricacies of this topic in a few paragraphs!). Still, it's a great start. It's going to take the dedication of all of us to continue to increase this awareness, what I've so admire and so love about this group is their / our ability to raise awareness in a fashion that's not alientating or condemning, but that includes, and encouragies, and inspires, and supports. (There's another part, too–the role of transformation–but more on this in a bit.)
When it come to what Christiana wrote about transparency, I think the team and I are doing a damned good job being transparent about this business. (Yes, we could always do better, but as a member of this site reminded be recently, it's important not to let perfection become the enemy of the good.) It's not easy (open the doors a little, start answering questions, and suddenly it becomes a full-time job…), but I'm committed, and we're commited, and I do hope this model works so that other businesses might take heart and do the same.
We're also working hard to get the Pro suite we've been dreaming about for so long polished and working and ready for use, so that we can realize our vision of circulating wealth and wisdom among the conscious community, and among people who are clear about their values and who want to keep voting with their dollars and, hopefully, who be then able to create even deeper change.
This is all good. This is all what we dreamed of to begin with.
Me, though, I think it'll take more than even that. I think that for true change to happen, and for commerce to continue, we NEED community. We need to honor conversation, to reward circulation over accumulation, to encourage money to flow rather than stagnant, and to value services and experiences and being and giving more than products and consumables and having and taking.
And I see Gaia as being a place where this conversation might be nurtured and where a plan might take place and where we work together on this, instead of in opposition.
Again. I'm still here. I'm now the Director (The mommy bear? The torch-bearer? The holder-of-space?) of the Gaia Community. And over my dead body is the spirit that sparked Zaadz going to die.
Ahem.
Anyway, speaking from where I sit, and as someone who's been here since Zaadz was just a wee little seed, I'm proud of what's unfolded. I've witnessed a community that's come through a great deal together, and watching this group grow and mature and transform and affect each other, sometimes in profound and life-changing ways, has been just amazing. We have a vision to uphold, true, but with that we're learning how to live together, and how to be in community together, and how to respect and honor and grow together, and to my mind, these qualities and lessons can't be underestimated. It's not technology that will save us. It's not better systems in which we'll find a solution. And it's certainly not Brian, or Jirka, or me. It's being human together.
I think we're doing a damn fine job.
Before I close (why do I always end up responding at 1 am, hm? ;) I can certainly come back to both the conversation Albert referenced above, and speak, too, to the good ideas that Michael brought up. A parital answer is that we're still noses-to-the-grindstone on our Pro aspects (Dave Pearson is heading up the project), and it's taking time. It's designed, again, to be the structure Christiana mentioned in the interview above. When that's done, we can move on, but I think there's some value in focusing.
Finally, I said I'd come back to the role of transformation in all this.
I've found, as I'm sure many of you have, that certain experiences, and certain conversations, and certain books / movies / narratives / etc. have the potential to transform at a level that's far more significant than the sort of micro-change brought about by traditional education-through-information. I think most people are quite well-informed, but it takes somethihng extra before we'll put that information to use. The question of transformation is one that deeply concerns me, and I see this community, and, dare I say it, this company, as beginning to facilitate that.
And yet. And yet. And yet. Despite this whole spiel about needing to change, and what we must do, and how things ought go, I'm still pretty absurdly content in the here and now, engaging in this dialogue with you, unspooling my dreams and desires and cares and concerns, and letting my heart flow out through my fingers and onto the screen.
Thank you so much for reading all this, and for inspiring it, and responding. I can't help but think we've got a beautiful tapestried future sketched on the loom, and all that's required is for us each to pick up our own spindle (of the millions and millions involved) and continue to weave.
Mushin,
my apologies for responding to this thread this late. i was busy running around with other things to do. i also took a break from this thread to be more objective in responding. i admit that i was a bit offended by your post on my blog. it's the limitation of written language and absence of face to face communication. but trust me, if you're on the receiving end of that post, you'll feel the same thing. but i've already rid myself of any emotional reaction (i hope so) from that original post. so here i am being objective again :) allow me to address your concerns.
note: when i say Gaia i mean Gaia Community.
Mushin said: “And then I find it interesting that after lamenting that I did not say so before, and after stating that it’s a bigger issue, you merely point me to Michel Bouwens (a ‘pen-pal’ of mine) great P2P foundation blog, and his ideas about p2p and capitalism. ”
the reason i linked to Michel Bauwen's ideas is to make a point that the real issue here (which is “the next step capitalism” and monetization) is a complex topic to discuss. it's my own way of saying that people write thesis about this so i don't expect us to have a conclusive discussion about this topic in this blog or in any forum without us devoting a lot of time on it. i simply don't have the luxury of time to get lost in this discussion. i'd rather leave it to people who are more educated than me when it comes to market, economics, social media, technology, and capitalism.
“I find that interesting because you apparently do not (want to?) voice your own ideas around that “main concern”. Is that because you have non? Is it because you subscribe to Michel’s views? Is it because the thought I’m proposing are utterly new, and you need some time to make up your mind? Or are you still irritated by the way that I originally didn’t frame the issue lucidly enough?”
i did voice my opinion, albeit indirectly. so i'm voicing it now directly. your concern is not new. but i admit that i have no idea how to “solve” your main concern which is “the next step in capitalism” when it comes to “monetization.” i still don't know whether i will subscribe to Michel's view or not (that's why i'm watching his progress on his site). but there are other ideas out there! for example, people have tried ad revenue sharing. look at Metacafe's Producer Rewards program. but i'm not a business analyst. i don't have training in economics. i'm not an economic theorist. so i pointed to Michel as an example of someone who is devoting his talents, intellect, and time to address your main concerns about capitalism.
what i'm trying to say is that this issue of monetization is still an on-going experiment in the business of social media. for now, most (if not all) social media services (i.e. social networks, social blogs, social bookmarking, etc.) rely on user-generated content to generate traffic and then use the traffic data to attract advertisers. social media sites provide services. most of them don't charge a penny. all of them have to generate revenue to keep on providing service. they have bills to pay and investors to appease. this is capitalism 101. Gaia is on the same boat (i.e. capitalism, social media). however, where we do strive to be different from other social networking sites is that: we're not focusing on attracting millions of members (although that is ideal). we're not bombarding our members with random ads to make profit (that's not our style and we respect our members too much to go that route). for now, the way we share wealth is by providing a valuable service for free while at the same time, not bombarding our members with ads. although not everyone would be happy with all the ads we serve on the site, we do our best to work with sponsors and pick ads that (we think) our members would be interested with.
in any case, like i said, this monetization issue is not confined to Gaia. this issue is about the complexity of capitalism and monetization of social media services. let's use Facebook as an example. it's worth billions right now (on paper). but it has yet to prove its viability as a profitable enterprise (as compared to MySpace and YouTube). that's why Facebook is still experimenting with ways on how to serve ads. (case in point: see the controversial Beacon).
having said all that, what now is my proposal? like i said, personally, i have no viable solution on the issue of capitalism and “the issue of monetized value of large online communities”. however, my proposal is: let's not focus too much on monetization per se, because i think that is a *narrow view* of value. allow me to go back full circle to my original blog post wherein i addressed the issue of copyright.
people who expect to get “monetized” value from Gaia (or from other social networks or social media services) should be willing to let go of the traditional meaning of copyright. case in point: check out this very insightful essay, The Grand Unified Theory On The Economics of Free. [note: please read this article because it covers my essential points on both copyright and content monetization.] in short, the value of Gaia is providing service to creative people so that they could use Gaia as a vehicle (or launchpad) to monetize their creation (for those who want to). Gaia is offering its services for free. members should be comfortable to share their creativity for free without fear or worry that Gaia would intentionally profit and infringe on their copyrights. Gaia is here to provide a space for people's ideas and creativity. Gaia provides a safe haven (from spammers, cyberbullies, etc.) wherein people could express their views and creativity and meet with like-minded people. by all means, use Gaia as a platform (within the bounds of our Terms) for monetizing your content or your existing business. don't wait on Gaia to do the monetizing for you. be creative :)
again, my point is: social media and monetization in a capitalistic society is an on-going experiment. Google and Myspace hit it big with ads. We at Gaia could not depend solely on that same business plan because our niche, which is our strength, is also our weakness (e.g. our traffic is too low to monetize compared to leading social networking sites). and besides, we're not in the business of bombarding people with ads. so we continue to press on and experiment on that sweet spot of profitability and existing. and we thank all you, our members, for staying with us and participating in this experiment.
what about you, Mushin? any ideas on how to address this issue? are you contented that you have framed your issue? i'd like to hear if you have any theory, proposed solutions, insights, ideas, or if you can point to any theory or solution (which i causally did when i pointed to Michel's essay).
we're all listening.
thanks again opening up this conversation.
~C
Thank you for your kind and in depth answer. Let me mull over it a bit, and also over Michaels and Siona's and get back to you in the next days or two - I'm actually quite busy on all kinds of fronts as well.
Great to read your comment C4.
I recently made a short post to the Wealth for All thread and mentioned Jeffrey Skoll ( ex Ebay) and Craig Newmark of Craigslist. Nothing anyone here doesn't know already – I'm fascinated that Craigslist makes so much money with such a 'narrow revenue' base, and it's not Gaia, I realise that.
What is happening here ( ie. Gaia & social media and monetization & “conscious capitalism” ) is an exciting experiment, very.
Mostly this note is one of appreciation, and to say I'm looking forward to reading more.
Sandra
~C4Chaos: “it's the limitation of written language and absence of face to face communication. but trust me, if you're on the receiving end of that post, you'll feel the same thing”
As someone who stands at said 'receiving end' (at least when it comes to Mushin's initial post) I didn't feel offended. Again, it might be because I have a different understanding or set of assumptions around Mushin's questions here; I feel quite confident that he's not approaching this in an accusatory or condemning fashion, but in one of collaboration and awareness and hope.
At least that's my sense.
I want to bring up the notion of risk for inclusion in this discussion. Brian, and Zaadz's original investors, took a substantial monetary risk in getting this site up. (It's my understanding that no one lost money, though I'm not sure how many actually made anything substantial None of the community members did so. To my mind, it's only fair that those initial brave souls would get something in return for their belief in the feasibility of this project. Also, as I mentioned before, Gaiam is a public company–unlike Zaadz–so it's now possible to buy shares and to participate in any accruing value.
And as an aside… I posted a Team blog about my own role here, though it does just elaborate on what I wrote above. Someone had mentioned that there might be the perception in the community that Jirka had replaced Brian; I don't think that's accurate. Had Brian chosen to stay with the company (and he was encouraged / invited to do so) he'd have the position similar to that which I currently hold. Jirka might provide the direction of Gaiam as a whole (again, I'd point to their mission statement, in the same way I used to reference Brian's welcome letter), a direction which I'm happily and comfortably in alignment with, but he's explicitly placed the Gaia Community, and the future of this free site, in my hands.
I'd also like to clarify a few levels in this discussion.
There's the practical issue of the business model / plan of Gaiam and the Gaia Community. I appreciate Albert's comment and understanding of the difficulties of addressing this in too detailed a fashion; after all, I do hope we all want this company to survive. :) I don't want to bracket the conversation entirely, or purse my lips and refuse to say anything more on the topic, but I'm grateful, again, for Albert's mindfulness and I'd love for others to recognize the same point.
There's the issue of community, commerce, and value in general. Is it possible to place a measurable value on community? Is there something inherently wrong with even trying to valuate it–akin to trying to place a dollar amount on spirit, or a human life? If so, why so? Is it an inherent property of comparison or measurables, or is it more that our 'attitudes' or issues around money are somehow tarnished or shadowy? Is it that we're uncomfortable with material desires? I don't know. But I think Mushin is doing a beautiful job gently bringing this into the light.
And finally there's the issue that we care enough (and are aware enough), as a group, to consider these questions. To my mind, the significance of this can't be underestimated. To my mind, the fact that these sorts of conversations are rare–and yet they can be found here–is important. If all we do is contribute to multiple inner transformations, so that more and more people start at least paying attention to this topic (not to mention being willing to discuss it), that, to my mind, will be enough.
I can't justify this, and can't explain it, but can only hold up my heart and mouth a few words about a tipping point, or transformation… one that might see enough of us committing to continually, ongoingly, passionately grappling with these issues, to changing our behavior, inspiring such shifts in others, and thus sustaining that endless tension that is life, that are systems, and that is us.
Maxie -
“We members are the “stock” imo, and we members came into this thing riding on the possibilities that Brian and his original crew outlined in the early days. As far as I can tell, everyone who is standing up here from the membership is part of that original vibe.”
That is a powerful observation. I am a person who, specifically at times, ferrets out survival in noticing details - patterns - trends. This one flew under my radar. In fact, I am noting that some of the “original vibe” membership that is standing up have also “returned” from being somewhat dormant on the site.
I really have no comment on this, except to say that that this probably has meaning, and may be powerful. Instinct tells me it is, but I cannot put a finger on it. Must meditate. :)
Perhaps linked to this are several folks I know who are of the “original vibe” crowd that feel disenfranchised about zaadz having been sold - something supposedly Brian stated would never happen, but a possiblity about which I care too little about to research and validate/invalidate - and hence, without even seeing Gaia, will not return.
.
Siona..your work and the dedication and committement of the whole team is utterly clear for me. This not the point for me.
Would have been nice to see a Welcome Gesture from Jirka and his people. As he is the owner. And the fingerprint of the owner (as in vC Business obvious) is ALWAYS playing a role.
So Jirka prefers to be hidden behind the fogs of Avalon?..):)My best wishes to him. In an emerging world wherew transparency and even translucidity are buzz of the decade I do NOT congratulate him to this form of communication.
Albert
Thank you all for your wonderful and interesting comments, and thank you C4chaos for your long and helpful answer… I now can understand muc