I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…

By “technology” here you imply “product.” Would that belief then also apply to financial institutions? Organizations that “… focus entirely on (finance) without any end goal.” The bigger question is what is the “end goal” of a business? Web 2.0 has nothing to do with it whatsoever. The principles are universal or not. In fact, you too are using Web 2.0 as a buzz word. What I assume you are really suggesting here is that the end goal of a business is some type of increased profitability. Put another way, it’s about revenue. If not, perhaps you could define what is the proper “end goal” of a business. Would your theory hold to the political enterprise of Ron Paul, or Steve Jobs’ initial Apple start-up, or even something more basic as WordPress?

How would your argument apply to the arts or arts as a business? Whatever that might mean. Is profitability the end goal of artists or even a museum? Almost never. They are almost always subsidized. This is a struggle that artists have faced for generations. Is it always necessary to have such an end goal? For some, it is “intrinsically” valuable to simply create even at a loss. Do not free-ware an open source developers do this every day? My experience is that many in the Web 2.0 space are moved by artistic, creative, innovative and utilitarian expressions often beyond their desire for wealth or sustainability. For many, their “product” may reap only minor profits and non-sustainable ones and they are more than happy to accept that outcome.

Some theorists emphasize sustainability or longevity as the end goal measurement (Jim Collins). Tom Peters has been stressing the role of design as the ultimate competitive advantage and has little interest in sustainability, but instead nimble businesses that grow and die intentionally and predictably. Still, others like Stephen Covey believe that businesses exist to increase all stake-holders value (i.e. community, employees, shareholders and customers). Each hold the end goal differently. Consequently, each emphasize different measurements as well. It is possible that each may be correct when applied to the proper context.

To your second point:

Realize that Internet companies are marketing companies first and technology companies second.

Are you actually arguing that a company that has this “elusive” “undefined” “end goal” hire sales people before they develop a product or service? This is putting the cart before the horse don’t you think? When Peter Drucker argued that businesses have two major “functions” being marketing and innovation he was not suggesting that they were the end goal or the “purpose” of a business. Instead, they were the means by which a business served its product or service. The end goal as defined by Drucker is what the benefit obtained from the product, service or technology is! That he understood this so well is what allowed him to be such a powerful voice in the non-profit sector. Facebook, Digg, YouTube, Wordpress and the like have created value for consumers even if their “end goal” is not clearly understood, defined or even sustainable. If marketing people came first, there often would be no technology nor the product.

Again, by “marketing” you meant no doubt sales. By which you imply again “some type of sustained revenue.” Yet, marketing, technically, is not sales and so you confuse the two. Nevertheless, one can neither market nor sell what doesn’t exist. I suspect Dave you are tying to argue that the marketing function is to demonstrate that any given business enterprise must first prove its financial viability before building the product. That is a good goal. And perhaps for VCs this is a solid requirement, but obviously it hasn’t been. But more to the point, if we were to apply your argument across the board then Ron Paul’s investors would be throwing their money to the wind, Steve Jobs would have closed down Apple a decade ago and the blogging software you use here would not even exist.

I ask you this: When your daughter has a lemon stand outside the house what was the end-goal? Was is profitable? Certainly not. It was entirely subsidized by mom. But a lesson was learned and skills were gained perhaps for another day and another enterprise. That is valuable. That is a good end goal. But even more, it was enjoyable to the child. It holds intrinsically its own end goal that has nothing to do with marketing. Many of these businesses you are chiding live in a similar world. Thank God for them.

Thank God some people believe in having audacious goals that move forward with a zeal that do not necessarily make financial or other rational sense. Thank God there are people willing to challenge the status quo and start a revolution in audio, video, publishing or politics when number crunching nay sayers argue it isn’t viable or possible. Thank God there are some politicians like Ron Paul, no matter how much I may despise some of his policies nor want him elected, that challenge the notion that we should do something “with a clear value proposition” as an end goal.

Your final argument that we should look at “history of business and technology” as a role model is an excellent one. Unfortunately, I am afraid you haven’t. Most of the radical innovations that we rely upon each day came about from those bold, radical, free thinking, passionately absurd people who chose to do what their hearts desire led them to regardless of a clear value proposition.

The fact that the internet can be used to channelize the marketing resources is what small businesses need to emphasize on…