As I reported a couple of weeks ago, Russell Davies, God of planning, asked me to sit in as an instructor in his Account Planning School of the Web. I was happy, indeed, honored to participate.
Russell has now posted my assignment here and I was moved to attach this comment. Anything in italics was added after the fact (of posting the comment).
Russell, this looks great. Looking forward to new species springing to life first as assignments, then as realities. Russell Davies and company, lifestyle architects.
This is a start up we must start up. I’m thinking of a subscription model. Consumers/clients pay us $112 a year for a new lifestyle every quarter.
Come to think of it lifestyle instruction is the sort of thing we, sometimes, we read magazines for and its not clear that there is a niche here for us to occupy. On the other hand, if what we are offering is a deep cultural specification of the style in question, this might be different and interesting. (And like totally worth $112.00 per annum.)
Those who want a more complete specification of the cultural meanings and objectives of the style in question or deeper instruction in the "script" for same can pay us more.
And a lot more would not be out of the question. Some will take umbrage at this abrogation of the individual’s right and responsibility to define the self by the self. But golly, we call on experts to help us design everything else in our lives. And this is pretty close to what many Manhattan psychiatrists do…and surely we can do better than this community of professionals. I mean, we actually know something about the culture in question.
Absolutely, custom made, bespoke lifestyles, well, those cost more.
In a transformational, Ovidian culture, surely this is an idea well past due.
As to our business model, or better, our business style, I’m thinking of something along the lines of Saville Row tailors. You and me and others standing around thinking deep thoughts on what lifestyle might "suit" this particular client. Me: "I’m thinking this fellow needs a home in the south of France." You: "No, no, no. Rykivik (sp!) one weekend. Mexico City the next."
Thanks, Grant
References
I am almost certain that the front cover of Fast Company pictured here features a picture of Russell Davies. But I might be wrong. And if I’m wrong, I’m really embarrassed.
An article in the NYTimes today on the psychology of the home environment. A bit ho-hum — her solutions included returning to the liveability it’s hard to understand anyone leaving — but it shows it’s a hot topic: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/garden/09wini.html
And for “push cool,” see this: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/garden/09bond.html
Since most of our so-called “personal” preferences for music, films, clothes, careers, and leisure activities, are heavily socially-influenced or even socially-constructed by our peers and our aspired-peers, then I see nothing wrong with going the whole way, and outsourcing the creation of a complete lifestyle.
I don’t see a reason why everyone wants a different, creative and unique lifestyle. If it’s possible someday, people will get bored and the talk of the twon would be somewhat like: “why can’t we have one lifestyle or lets make this lifestyle a standard” You see, we human beings are never satisfied. Our wants, hence lifestyle preferences, continue to grow and change over the time.