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)

Creative Commons: http://flickr.com/photos/degerstrom

About the time I was pressing a crease in the top of my shirt sleeve a few weeks ago, the TV commentator’s words traveled directly to my gut. Now, a story in today’s New York Times puts an interesting bookend on my thoughts.

Should you back up a few steps?

It’s my habit to iron my own shirts. Has been since I joined the ranks of the professionals oh-so-many years ago. And like many who find unexpected inspiration in routines, it was my turn for a light bulb on this otherwise typical morning.

As she addressed the shakeup in the financial markets, this commentator (unfortunately, I didn’t write down her name) highlighted something I hadn’t yet grasped — the coming void of talent in innovation in the United States.

For years now, the highest-paying jobs have been in financial services and investments. More of the brightest minds in our country have gravitated to Wall Street because the rewards there were greater. No great surprise there. While not particularly revolutionary or insightful, her prescription for the problem was essentially a realignment of society’s reward system.

This perspective cracked opened a window in my head.

And, today, the New York Times features an article by John Markoff, which throws open the whole sash by asking a pretty big question, “Do we need a new Internet?”

Citing significant security concerns about the way the current network is structured, Markoff reports on several experts who believe it’s time to start over. They believe the next version of the Internet may require us to give up some privacy in order to maintain security. I’ve already seen Twitter traffic about whether or not this story is a scare tactic. Regardless of hype, the underlying motivation seems valid to me.

Some big hand in the sky has fingers on the “option” and “command” keys and is getting mighty close to pressing “escape” (substitute ctrl-alt-del if you are a PC).

Is it really time for a restart? Do we need to go back to square one in the societal reward structures? In the fundamental composition of our worldwide computer network?

I’m not the first to write about the reliance we all have on each other and the trust it takes to get through the day. Adrian posted a piece on interconnectedness that is still rattling around in my noggin. Umair has penned a post or two on the need for innovation if our global economy is to truly recover. And, I’m sure you could point me to countless other examples from much smarter people than me.

Ironically, the dearth of innovators, relative to the opportunities at hand, and the concept of starting over with the Web is oddly invigorating to me.

Perhaps it is a sign of the times. The inability to find permanence in anything but the most foundational concepts like family, friends and real relationships. I’m ready for the challenge.

In many ways, great marketing thinkers have long seen this change coming. Starting with the erosion of confidence post dot-com and culminating in the current economic recession, we are all familiar with the need to create authentic relationships.

However, this time it feels different.

Have you seen it coming? How are you going to innovate? Are you prepared to reinvent what seemed untouchable just a year ago? To sacrifice something short-term for long-term rewards?

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Umair Haque has a post at Harvard Business on the seven lessons learned from the Obama campaign. It’s very thoughtful, clear and insightful.

There is always someone who can say it better. I knew there would be. I would definitely suggest you read it.

I’ve recently come across Umair’s writings and find them fascinating. His words got me thinking about how these lessons overlap nicely with the notion of interconnectedness or selfless altrusim.

As crazy as it sounds, I even think the passage of laws regulating treatment of feed animals in California could be evidence that a higher purpose is evolving in our country and our world. Does enlarging chicken coops indicate a larger ideal for treatment of all citizens of the globe? Or, is it simply giving the birds more room to breathe?

Did the world cross the threshold this week? Like Umair says, are we seeing the 21st century evolution of business organization and strategy?

In the 21st century, there is nothing more asymmetrical – more disruptive, more revolutionary, or more innovative — than the world-changing power of an ideal.

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).