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)

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.

But today, I’m stuck.

I’ve found it absolutely impossible to adequately reflect on the results of the presidential election from a societal, cultural or political perspective. There are many more people who will address the 2008 election more eloquently and insightfully than I could ever dream to, so I won’t even attempt it.

Suffice it to say, I am proud of my country for many reasons, and last night amplified my hope for the future. But the lens I will use as I try to cobble together my thoughts is one focused on ideas, communications and business.

To me, last night was the manifestation of Web 2.0.

The power of the collective one.

The collapse of the Berlin Wall and communism both occurred during my adult life, but I didn’t feel personally attached to these world events. Don’t get me wrong, I remember processing the significance of the pictures on my television, but there remained a disconnect.

Right or wrong, as far as I was concerned, these seismic shifts in world order happened because of government intervention and global pressures. Big entities clashing. The movement of the many, reacting to pressure from the top down. (Glossing over subtleties? Without question. But, that was my state of mind in the early 90s.)

Last night, as the tide of history washed in to shore, and the pictures of both celebrations and concessions came in from around the world, I was struck by how personally involved I felt.

This was not just the movement of many.

It was the power of the collective one.

How could a moment of initial curiosity about this first-term Senator from Illinois move from an innocent Google search to the perception that I made a difference? Not only was I witnessing the epic event in Grant Park, but I was also sharing the success of a candidate with whom I had developed a multi-faceted relationship.

A seemingly insignificant donation, made in response to an email request, became enveloped in emotion. Like a child bringing a box of coins to Sunday school with wide-eyed hope, mine was a contribution that, in campaigns past, would have not even been felt (or sought) by political elders.

Certainly he received contributions from many wealthy donors giving large sums, but by building and nurturing relationships on an individual level — something unattainable or untried in the last couple of national elections — Obama was the first that I know of to authentically harness the power of citizens to act.

A clear, compelling position, communicated across media, that started contextually relevant conversations. It demanded participation and collaboration. It allowed me to have a unique relationship with a concept and to see the importance of my story in that of the masses.

I am but one voice. Yet I feel it has risen above the din. I don’t believe there is a more powerful example of the way to make a brand work in the world today.