Yes, when I grow up I too want to be able to monetize without money exchanging hands. That would be “transformation,” I suppose.

My good friend Frank Comes, ex-Business Week and now at McKinsey, puts it this way: In the past, economic value was generated by transaction. Increasingly, economic value is generated through interactions. The key is monetizing those interactions. That’s the heart of an economy built on social media.

I am too dumb or too blunt to bill at the hourly rate of a McKinsey consultant, but I would advise my client to:

1. Sell their services
2. “Monetizing those interactions” = sales transaction
3. Hire someone dumber, blunter, and cheaper than McKinsey

Therein lies the crux of the matter: he can’t. There’s no there, there. It’s a difference manufactured for polemics and promotion, not illumination.

Sorry to be entering 2009 on a bit of a cynical and intolerant mood, but enough is enough. :-)

Nussbaum is making incredibly sloppy use of “memes” (I might use the label “term” or the term “label” :-)) like transformation and innovation. He does not define them specifically enough for me to understand the differences, nor does he support his points with any building of his evidence towards his conclusion. Sadly, I think his is another of many articles I see where the writer is clearly paid by traffic, so makes outrageous statements that draw vigourous debate.

Put another way, he said “God is Dead, because Death and Mortality are different male-dominated economic train-wreck iPhone Google Nike Facebook”.

I could re-write my resume to get more hits from the scanning/matching stage to job requirements, but it would look just as laughable when a human being set eyes on it.

I went to Nussbaum’s article from your link, and found most of the feedback to fall into two groups: those who mocked his article, and those who agreed weakly, trying to draw naive readers to their consulting businesses / books / websites with equally tenuous links.

Peter Jones – January 3, 2009 06:00 PM – made some wonderful comments on the Nussbaum article. It takes a very good talent to interest me when discussing corporate-speak. If I am not able to leave the room quickly, corporate-speak takes my mood from apathy to cynicism to trapped rage.

Here’s to straight talk, honesty and plain speaking in 2009.

I thought for a moment that it’d go something like:

God: “Who’s Nussbaum?” :-)

I don’t want to sound mean, but this ceaseless re-re-re-defining of “design” is most irksome. Especially coming from self-appointed “thought leaders” who make a career of promoting “memes” like Nussbaum on “innovation” and “design thinking.” Especially when he betrays such a fundamental lack of understanding of the meaning of “innovation.”

I think he confused schemers with designers. Here’s the difference: iPhone is designed by designers. All follow-up “touch” devices from others are slapped together by schemers. Just because “derivatives” overwhelms the scene, it does not mean there are no more new designs possible.