We have an update from Jules Yap, Ikea-hacker in chief, from episode 128! She was invited to the Ikea mothership in Sweden and reports back:
I was nervous, actually, about meeting the “IKEA people”. Before the trip, I play a thousand different permutations of how the discussions could go. I brainstormed possible “objections to my site” and how I would counter them. I did my homework and downloaded charts of my site’s pageviews, unique visitors, Facebook Likes. I practised my poker face and steely gaze. And told myself to remember to breathe.
Instead, I was surprised. They were open, warm and came bearing hot cinnamon rolls. A few IKEA co-workers, when they knew that I was in the building, came to say hello and affirm their support for IKEAHackers. I think after the third handshake, my apprehensions melted away.
At the end of the discussion, we agreed that there would be a written agreement - that IKEA will continue letting me use its trademark as long as my site does not bring harm or damage to the IKEA brand. And no, they will not be paying me or employing me. :D As of now, I have yet to receive a draft of the agreement. My lawyer is on standby to vet it with a fine tooth comb. Till I sign the dotted line, I can’t really put this behind me yet.
EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO REBLOGS THIS WILL GET THE FOLLOWING IN THEIR INBOX.
- A BRIEF ORIGIN STORY
- A SUPERPOWER OR THREE, MAYBE FOUR DEPENDING
- A SUPERHERO OR VILLAIN NAME
- YOU MIGHT ALSO GET AN ARCHNEMESIS WHO HAS REBLOGGED THIS ALREADY
AND YES I MEAN EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO REBLOGS THIS. UNTIL, SAY, AUGUST 2015. A FULL YEAR. LONG ENOUGH, RIGHT?
LET’S DO THIS THING.
"My suspicion is that the efficacy of crowdfunding will in fact decline in inverse correlation to its success. Put differently: the more money that’s raised, the less wise will be the crowd that raises it. I call this theory – contra Surowiecki – “The Idiocy of the $49,000 Apple Pie”. Here’s how the web works to produce such dumb collective judgements: 1. Homogeneity of opinion – the apple-pie funders’ opinions are based securely on information common to them all: apple pies are yummy, moms are great and it’s nice to make apple pies for moms. 2. Conformity – simply by spending enough time on the web to become aware that some schmuck has posted such a crowdfunding appeal, these people are exhibiting a worrisome conformism. 3. Centralisation – also termed “googlisation”, this is a function of the way commercially oriented search engines act as positive feedback mechanisms to pump-prime consumer (or donor) demand. 4. Aggregation – this is the only proposition my theory shares with Surowiecki’s; I agree with him that the web can take all these individual judgements and turn them into a collective decision."