The tricky thing about the web is that it seems overwhelming. And, by and large, that's because it is--from a certain perspective. The fact that billions of web pages exist and millions of people are sharing their voice online, however, need not cause us concern. We can make sense out of the web, and we can use it effectively to create a better future.

The first step to understanding how to use the web for purpose and profit is to see that the internet itself is merely an architecture that people--human beings--infuse with their own consciousness, values, and perspectives. It's like Times Square--you've got everything from high-couture Broadway to low-brow panhandling and theft. The web is literally just that: a web of human emotion, thought, and action.

The way I like to describe this is that "Before the web, there were humans." That is, if you spark a compelling conversation, people will engage with you--provided that you get the word out. If your marketing doesn't convince people that they can trust you, and if it doesn't stir their emotions, they won't buy from you. If your website doesn't have interesting content that people value and want to share with friends, you'll have a hard time building traffic.

Similarly, if your website is confusing, with too many options, you'll make it difficult for the human beings coming to your site to make decisions with ease and confidence. Consider the following scenario:

-Someone visits your website, and you present 10 options--from subscribing to your newsletter to buying your latest e-book. They now have to take the time and effort to decide what they want to do. That's a generally unpleasant experience.

-Someone visits your website, and you present 1 option very prominently--subscribe to your newsletter--and 2 other options less prominently. Now they only have three decisions to make, and it's clear what you want them to do. That's a much more manageable experience from your visitor's perspective.

This is just one example of how applying human principles--making it easier for someone to decide--can have a big impact on your efforts to use your web presence to change the world. Hope this helps, and let me know what you think--or if you have any questions--in the comments below!

Chris Anderson, of Long Tail fame, just wrote a great post on niche branding. The central thesis: niche brands do better because they're more authentic.

Brands like Converse. Which is vegetarian. And also happens to be owned by Nike. Which has significantly improved its business practices-but is still equated with sweatshops and blah couture.

What is interesting here (to me at least) is that the increasing preference for authenticity is a strikingly postmodern phenomenon-a reaction to the corporatism and mass marketeering of modernity. That is, wanting small over big certainly reflects a desire for the "micronarratives" of postmodernism that stand in contradistinction to the "macronarratives" of modernity.

The economic system, though, as evidenced by Anderson's post, continues to run on industrial scales: corporate behemoths like Hershey's end up gobbling gems like Dagoba (one of my favorite chocolate brands), and often the consumer is none the wiser. Small business may drive the economic engine of America, but we consumers still mostly buy brands that we can find most easily (I know I shop most frequently at Banana Republic-owned by Gap, Inc., which apparently is become a better corporate citizen).

Is it "bad," though? What if all of the behemoths began adopting more conscious practices? Could big business save the world (after they save the cheerleader)?

No easy answers, to be sure. But at least let's start the conversation.

Cross-posted here.

Barack Obama's recent presidential bid announcement alluded to Lincoln's famous quote: "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Allegations of Obama as a would-be supporter of slavery notwithstanding, the freshman presidential-hopeful evoked an ever-powerful force in American political rhetoric: encapsulation of Honest Abe's spirit.

Yet I couldn't help but think: we're facing different challenges today than Lincoln did in his time. That much is obvious, you might say. But more subtle is how our present life conditions impact the way we think.

For example, the problems of Lincoln's time focused mainly on externally visible division within the body politic-namely, the debate on slavery and, as a result, the increasingly imminent threat of civil war.

Yet today, for those of us with the greatest amount of time, education, and wealth, we have evolved beyond (for the most part) the divisions our 19th century ancestors faced. This is especially true for my generation: we grew up well after Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson, not to mention Brown v. Board, and assume political equality as a basic value and right.

Yet the problems keep on piling up. We know the system's not working. And we know it's not because of a dearth of "good ideas." The barrier, as we've seen, is in coming together and collectively solving pressing issues.

What could possibly keep us from coming together? Well, for one... us! Our own commitment to seeing ourselves as separate-which isn't our fault, but rather simply a product of the individualism of the Enlightenment and relativism of postmodernism-acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In other words, as long as we see our selves as separate, we'll remain divided-even if only subtly so. And because our perspectives define our actions, and our actions impact the world around us, changing our perspectives would inevitably have demonstrable impact on the world. And if the impact we want to have is to create a more whole, unified, cohesive body politic, then our perspectives must reflect an equal wholeness.

Which means that we must see ourselves as whole-that we must evolve beyond internal division, so that our actions can result in external unification.

Maybe the signpost of our generation is, "A self divided cannot stand." Maybe then we could really come together and accomplish something extraordinary.

Cross-posted here.

"If 70 percent of all affirmative action recipients failed out of UCLA, should the policy be continued?"

"Have we evolved as a country to the level of ‘race-blind' consciousness-that is, like Stephen Colbert, do we no longer see race?"

"Does affirmative action help or hurt minorities?"

Interesting questions. What's the answer?

Well, it's either "yes" or "no." That's a problem.

Why? Because affirmative action-along with any political issue-is actually a collection of issues, all of which have surface-level manifestations (like "racial quotas") and deeper dynamics (like the belief 'codes‘ the define the questions we're asking about them).

People have become accustomed to answering "yes" or "no" when it comes to politics. We love to complain, to make the other side wrong, to get stuck in a position. And since politics concerns values, we can get pretty emotional about the things that matter to us.

I want to propose something radical: we're addicted to ‘dichotomous egotism'-to being right, to ‘winning' at the expense of the other, to being better than ___________. And for some reason, that egotism manifests most strongly in political contexts.

But that can change. Indeed, in my own experience, when a person gets the permission to take on multiple perspectives, to really open up, to go beyond argumentation and look for collaborative solutions-miracles can happen.

I witnessed it tonight. Four people, all from different backgrounds, all with seemingly divergent views, came to an agreement about affirmative action, one that transcended and included traditionally partisan debate.

Transpartisanship is real-but first, we need to give each other the permission to look beyond the divides. And ultimately, that means going beyond any division whatsoever, inner or outer.

Cross-posted here.

There is a term in the social sciences called the "Shadow of the Future." It refers to the incentive political actors have to cooperate in the present based on (fearful) anticipation of the future.

The Shadow of the Future comes from a thought experiment call the Prisoner's Dilemma, in which the police hold two prisoners in separate cells.

Say you're Prisoner A.

Here's what I tell you:

"If you don't squeal, and your partner does, you'll get 20 and he'll walk free. If you do squeal on your partner, and your partner doesn't, you'll get 0 and he gets 20. If neither of you confesses, you both walk free. And if both of you confess, you'll each get 5."

If you trust each other, you'll both get the best possible outcome by not squealing: 0 years in prison. If you don't trust each other, you assume your partner will squeal on you-if he does, you get 20. And if you squeal and he doesn't, you walk free. If both of you squeal, you only serve 5.

So what do you do? Squeal, of course. Why? Because you don't trust each other.

What changes the potential outcome of the Prisoner's Dilemma, according to social science, is the knowledge that you may meet your partner again the future, that your paths will cross-in this context, politically. And because you will likely either (a) want something from him or (b) be in a compromised position in relationship to him, you do the right thing.

This assumption-that human relationships are grounded in a fundamental lack of trust, based on entrenched self-interest-underlies our approach to politics. In fact, it is the foundation of our very institutional design.

This is, in many respects, a good thing: tyranny, in the form of fascism, totalitarianism, nationalism, will always represent a threat to humanity. We need institutions, those with checks and balances, to protect our basic rights.

But is the assumption of competition and mistrust all for which we can hope? Is that it?

Only if we believe that consciousness is a static, permanent ‘thing': human beings will always be so self-interested that they cannot trust each other.

But if consciousness can evolve, the picture changes: rather than making a statement about how human beings "are," we ask a question about what they could become. And we inquire into we need to do and think to enable the evolution of consciousness, rather than assuming it's idealistic or impossible; otherwise, we must accept the Prisoner's Dilemma as reality and the Shadow of the Future as the incentive for right action.

But what if humans could develop a purity of motive that aligned with the evolutionary impulse? And what if that turned into integrity in action?

In other words, are we basing our actions on the shadow of the future, or the light?

Cross-posted here.

When visitors come to your website, do they know what you're asking of them? Have you provided clear directions-and direction? Does your design make navigation ‘easy as 1-2-3′ (there's a reason the saying doesn't include ‘4-5-6-7...'), or are you assuming they'll just ‘choose their own adventure'?

This is a sign in the cafe at Penn's main library. It reads, "Food Must be Consumed in Mark's Cafe." The intention of the message is pretty obvious, and it took me a couple of seconds to think about the other meaning: whenever you are in Mark's Cafe, you MUST consume food.

It's subtle, but there's a qualitatively better way to phrase the sign: "While in the library, please consume food in Mark's Cafe only"-or simply the second clause alone.

Now, this is a university, and Penn's goal is not to maximize the "conversions" of people who eat at Mark's based on that sign. But the point still stands: how clear is your message? It's something worth considering-for more than two seconds.

No, not those kinds of relationships...

I'm referring to the kinds of relationships that fuel successful businesses - you know, professional relationships.

I've mentioned the "mystical internet" before. One of my goals when wearing my marketing hat is to demystify the internet for readers, friends, clients, and, perhaps one day, my nieces.

Email marketing is one of the least understood aspects of interactive marketing. From my experience, the success of an email marketing program - even beyond granular testing and segmentation, which is undoubtedly critical - is directly correlated to the quality of relationships within the email marketer's niche.

The ideal scenario for building a highly responsive email list is one that is both low-cost and high-leverage (gets you the largest bang for your buck). And there is no better way to "guerilla" your email marketing program than to develop an uncommon depth of relationship with those in your network.

How do you do that? Focus on their goals first. Help them get what they want. Do as much work for them as you can. It's common sense, but I've seen this technique foiled or forgotten time and time again.

For whom are you most likely to do something? Either those whose attention and respect you want to gain and/or those who have done the most for you. So if you already have people beating a path to your door, then you're the one others want to impress. But if you're still looking for that "golden" strategy to build your list, look no further than the people in your Rolodex (or, in my case, Gmail).

Next, I'll focus on the importance of building relationships with those who have entrusted you with their email addresses (aka, "your" list)...

Cross-posted here.

During a conversation on politics, culture, and technology with a friend the other day, the issue of "what is and how do we explain transpartisan?" came up. I told him how, while waiting for the bus earlier this week, I attempted to explain transpartisanship to a couple.

"It's looking at politics from a more complex, multidimensional frame."

"It's recognizing that policy solutions are more than just ‘yes' or ‘no,' that we need to explore stratified solutions based on multiple variables."

On our call, another description arose: "It's the ability to take on multiple perspectives on any given issue."

A little more complex is the integral description: "It's looking at any political issue as both individual and collective, subjective and objective."

All of these point toward "something," yet they remain too ambiguous and unsystematized to take seriously as a political theory. (We'll be publishing a paper on Transpartisan.org (once the site is up--you can sign up in the meantime), that represents the most in-depth description of transpartisanship yet.)

What I do know is that the idea itself, and the model that is beginning to merge, are both attractive to everyday concerned citizens and recognized as valuable to the political process and society as a whole.