a new kind of terror

I like this statement from Richard Siklos' article in the NYT today:

These are new-media ventures that leave the competition scratching their heads because they don't really aim to compete in the first place; their creators are merely taking advantage of the economics of the online medium to do something that they feel good about. They would certainly like to cover their costs and maybe make a buck or two, but really, they're not in it for the money. By purely commercial measures, they are illogical. If your name were, say, Rupert or Sumner, they would represent the kind of terror that might keep you up at night: death by smiley face.

I can agree with that. Sure, money is good. It gives you greater control. Greater flexibility, maneouverability (is that word? is now). But what gets me most motivated is the idea of DISRUPTIVE CHANGE. I'm motivated by building the new media, creating more diversity, greater debate, discussion, helping everyday people get heard, the changing of the guard.

I'm a businessman - of sorts. I want TPN to be successful. Profitable. Enduring. All those things. And to do that, the money needs to get made. But it isn't the only metric that I think about. In fact, it isn't even the primary metric. Sometimes I think that's weird or naïve. Then I pull out my copy of "The Fountainhead" and re-read it, like I've been doing lately, and I feel better about committing to a vision.

Comments

[Rob Irwin]

No, I don't think it's weird or naïve. I think it's different, but not out of step with a lot of people I know -- myself being one of them. The accumulation of wealth pales in comparison to other legacies. The classic example being Bill Gates. He goes down in history as a rich man... but he's also sitting, figuratively, on top of Windows, which even fans of the OS often think is a pile of crap. I'd rather have 1/10 of Gates' fortune and be known for something amazing and world-changing than all the money in the world, and a product like that at the top of my CV. Another example is George Lucas. He's built amazing technologies and technology companies. He has a stack of money and, until the recent prequels, was untouchable as the guy behind the Holy Trilogy. Nowdays, of course, he still has all that money and all those companies and technologies at his fingertips... yet he'll be remembered for making the frigging prequels so awful. Oh, and making Han shoot first. Yes, Cameron, there's more to this world than the accumulation of vast wealth and I'm happy to see that you "get it".

[William Dutton]

i agree to the sence that you need to have enough wealth to live on comforatbly eg 40 to 200grand a year and to pay your staff if you to, any more and it makes you a really bad person/company unless it all goes onto helping out many small villiages in india of iraq.