It’s been a crazy week. Trying to launch a business is fun. Full of pitfalls, but fun. I am so grateful for the huge numbers of people who took the time to read my blatherings and actually send me comments in return. I’m attempting to respond in kind to each of you. If it takes a while, please be patient.

Some great opportunities and interesting conversations already. One thing is for certain. The spirit of entrepreneurship is alive and well out there. It’s sort of like an underground protest against the macro-economic conditions. Many of the people I conversed with today are thumbing their noses at the bleak outlook and remaining optimistic. They like the idea of 8th Idea. The niche of working with the “care” businesses — healthcare, animal health, hospitality and not-for-profit. They are encouraged by the spirit of collaboration with small- to mid-size advertising and public relations firms.

How are you feeling? Are you optimistic or pessimistic? Do you fall on the side that think this is a great time to be entrepreneurial or a great time to hunker down?

In men, images they consider to be beautiful appear to activate brain regions responsible for locating objects in absolute terms — x- and y-coordinates on a grid. Images considered beautiful by women do the same, but they also activate regions associated with relative location: above and behind, over and under. The difference could be the result of evolutionary pressures on our hunter-gatherer ancestors.

With something as ethereal as beauty being linked to specific, gender-based neurological pathways, can we begin to consider the same processes valid for other subjective judgements? Are the same neurons firing as customers interact with and adopt our brands? How should marketers and planners account for these variables of perspective and behavior?

John Tierny posted a story to his blog last week that related to an interview I saw on, of all places, The Colbert Report. In it, Tierny reports on the study by UCLA geography professor Thomas W. Gillespie in which he applies two aspects of the island biogeographic theory to posit theories on where Osama Bin Ladin may be hiding. The concept is that, like wildlife, a human dispersion pattern will decline exponentially the farther you look from the point of origin. Tierny pulls a key quote from the report featured in the M.I.T. International Review that can explain it much better than me:

Distance-decay theory states that as one goes further away from a precise location, there is an exponential decline in the turnover of species and a lower probability of finding the same composition of species. The theory of island biogeography states that large and close islands will have higher immigration rates and support more species with lower extinction rates than small isolated islands.

These theories can be applied over varying spatial scales to posit bin Laden’s current location based on his last reputed geographic location. Distance-decay theory would predict that he is closest to the point where he was last reported and, by extension, within a region that has a similar physical environment and cultural composition (that is, similar religious and political beliefs).

They’ve even identified the building in which they think he could be hiding. It’s in Parachinar, Afghanistan, 12 miles from Tora Bora.

Fascinating.

What I’m wondering is how this relates to marketing.

Can we apply similar principles to products?

To distribution strategy recommendations?

How do definitions of geography shift when discussing the plane of ideas? Do trends behave in the same way? Do human connections and/or relationships decline exponentially the farther you get from the source? Or, does technology allow us to maintain the strength of this connection regardless of time and space?

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Image: http://flickr.com/photos/1yen (CC)

Adrian Ho at Zeus Jones has raised some interesting questions in the past. Lately, he has posited a hypothesis for this decade’s “theme.”

His excellent post today on interconnectedness as the motivator for this decade makes a lot of sense. As he points out, there are countless examples of the ways in which we are more overtly relying on one another. From media to motor vehicles, society seems to be moving in the direction acknowledging our mutual and infinite connections to one another.

This movement certainly gives me hope for my family and our place on the planet, but is this a new development or simply the wave from a ripple created long ago?

Interestingly, last night, at a dinner-table discussion with my 86-year-old grandmother, we touched on this exact topic. We talked of her experiences growing up during the depression in a small West Texas town. One of the takeaways from that conversation was the notion that people made do with less and banded together to ensure they all survived.

In addition, I recall a Bill Moyers interview with author Richard Rodriguez, which suggested the United States has a fundamental cultural contradiction. To poorly paraphrase Mr. Rodriguez, we have a “pronoun conflict” — “we” celebrate the “I.”

The collective right to be self-determining.

The unity of individualism.

Rodriguez fears that this lack of tribal/communal support structures will cause continued conflict in the world. As I recall, this interview also contained a sense of hope for the future. The belief that this philosophy will change and the balance will shift back to a reliance on the “we.”

Finally, in comments on the ZJ site, I echoed some remarks I heard at the AAAA Account Planning Conference this summer. Alex Castellanos, a Republican campaign strategist, predicted that the world would move toward an era of selfish altruism. He cited the works of Ayn Rand and made the example of barn raising in the early days of western expansion in this country. Castellanos felt that we would help each other in the expectation that assistance would be reciprocated. I’ll help you raise this barn because I’m going to need help in a few weeks, too. Clearly a market-driven take on this movement.

So, is this enough evidence to confirm the trend? Is it a return to a bygone era? Selfish altruism?

Or, is interconnectedness the best description?

I don’t know. Whatever it is, I find it inspiring (and much better than thinking about the financial markets).

2008 will be much better than 2007.

Has to be.

The girls and I just put together our resolutions for the coming year. It is quite an exercise to explain the concept of “resolutions” to a four-year-old. The nice thing is that going through this process tonight has reminded me of the power of simplicity and the importance of periodically taking stock.

I’ve certainly got a ton of things I can do professionally to make me better at what I do. It’s nice that I’ve just had my annual performance review to give me a clear report card. But, for my youngest, I just needed to boil down the concept to its essence.

“We’re just trying to do something to make ourselves better people, honey.”

That’s it.

The action needed to realize this promise can be large or small, but in the end, we’re aiming for improvement. In many ways, this is a tidy parallel to what we’re doing for our clients. We’re asking customers to do one thing. That’s it. Right?

As I turn the page on ‘07, I am glad to see a fresh slate before me. 365 open blocks of time to clarify and simplify. 12 months to take both large and small actions with a goal of improvement.

2008 will be much better than 2007.

There’s no question in my mind.

It’s sort of like the Gestalt principle of nature.

What does that tell us about the field of marketing? Have the marketers been trying to act as the smart solitary member, yet the consumer masses are really better at adapting to accidental discoveries? Or, are the marketers starting to awaken to the rising pheromone levels launched by the discovery of conversation and authenticity?

“[These] rules allow thousands of relatively simple animals to form a collective brain able to make decisions and move like a single organism.”

Couzin and his colleagues tested their theories of chemical trails and behavioral “norms” using mathematical and computer models. They discovered that among these , and other swarms (birds, fish, locusts), each individual has to regularly choose between its desire to move in a particular direction or to follow the group path. A small number of leaders can turn the swarm by changing the input and that entices the rest of the group to “spontaneously come to a consensus and move in the direction chosen by the majority.”

Brainless animals.

If only it weren’t being found to occur in our species as well. Couzin has found in recent experiments that humans make eerily similar unconscious swarming decisions — influenced by a small group of leaders, we tend to follow a path because of popularity.

Is that why The Blair Witch Project was successful? Does that explain The Tipping Point with empirical proof?

Seems to me to have a great deal of implication on behavior when it comes to marketing. That’s also why I subscribe to the opinion that we should be helping our clients to be noticed for the right reasons with a small, influential audience. I think it was Seth Godin who said we should be creating marketing that is remark-able.

Getting noticed for energy and excitement will capture the attention of the leaders and the swarm will soon follow.