Is it just me, or is marketing getting a bit too personal these days? As the New York Times points out, marketers are now delivering custom messages to consumers via digital billboards that are controlled by RFID technology:

"Each day, it seems, marketers go further in their quest to deliver messages so engaging and personalized that one cannot help feeling special. The latest step will be seen today in four cities when Mini USA begins delivering custom messages to Mini Cooper owners on digital signs the company calls “talking” billboards.

The boards, which usually carry typical advertising, are programmed to identify approaching Mini drivers through a coded signal from a radio chip embedded in their key fob. The messages are personal, based on questionnaires that owners filled out: “Mary, moving at the speed of justice,” if Mary is a lawyer, or “Mike, the special of the day is speed,” if Mike is a chef."

Apparently, Mini users are looking forward to these billboard messages, viewing them as fun, playful and whimsical. Likewise, marketers love the idea, since it will reinforce the "tribal feeling" that the brand creates. As the head of North American operations for Mini Cooper suggests, "People buy Minis because they really want to have more fun in their days. We want everything about our marketing to fit that."

[image: Mini-Cooper Billboard]

In the current issue of The New Republic, art critic Jed Perl complains that too much money washing into the art world has swept away traditional benchmarks of aesthetic value. Instead, the art world is consumed with "laissez-faire aesthetics," defined by a belief that the value of a painting or other artwork is "simply what everybody or anybody says it is." (This isn't good, if that "everybody or anybody" is some recently-minted Russian petrodollar billionaire, or someone else who lacks a sufficient amount of art-world snobbery to appreciate a truly great work of art).

Anyway, the Wall Street Journal highlighted the article in its "Informed Reader" column of January 29, hinting that throwing money at art isn't really a good thing, since it tends to erase the distinction between high art and pop culture (think Harley Davidson exhibits at the Guggenheim, or Star Wars exhibits at the Brooklyn Museum of Art). Art is at risk of being turned into something along the lines of TV, as galleries and auction houses cater to the lowest common denominator. Instead of being an object of private contemplation and appreciation, art is at even greater risk of being turned into an object of personal conspicuous consumption. No longer able to make the distinction between "pop art" and "high art," we will be forced to use price as our only guide.

Anyway, I wonder if an analogous case can be made for the world of innovation. Is "laissez-faire innovation" sweeping away all notions of what separates "great" innovation from "good" innovation or "average" innovation. All innovation is good, as long as companies are willing to pay for it?

[image: The Art of the Motorcycle at the Guggenheim]

As Camille Ricketts of the Wall Street Journal points out, Silicon Valley is "establishing an outpost in London, bringing its laid-back office culture - including company gyms, relaxed dress and office kitchens full of snacks - with it." (The eating habits are particularly difficult for the Brits to understand - they can't seem to figure out why Americans are always stuffing their faces with snacks and soda in the office, yet don't seem to have any special inclination to hang out at the local pub to have bangers and mash or a proper pint). Anyway, the flow of talent and know-how from Silicon Valley to London has been accelerating over the past 12 months:

"Just last year, about 30 California companies opened offices here, and nearly one of every three U.S. companies in London hails from California, including Apple, Google and MySpace. London also has become an attractive springboard for smaller tech companies from the state that are seeking a European toehold. In fact, if California were a country, it would rank second -- after the rest of the U.S. and before Canada -- as a place of origin for foreign companies setting up shop in London, according to Think London, a nonprofit consultancy that recruits foreign companies to the city."

[image: Londonist]

As The Practice of Leadership blog points out, the Center for Creative Leadership has developed the following 5 principles that form the essence of innovation. In short, these five principles give life to the process of innovation:

(1) Innovation starts when people convert problems to ideas. New ideas are born through questions, problems and obstacles. The process of innovation is indebted to the trouble that comes about when we are surrounded by that which is not solved, not smooth and not simple.

(2) Innovation needs a system. All organizations have innovation systems. Some are formal, designed by the leadership, and some are informal, taking place outside established channels.

(3) Passion is the fuel, and pain is the hidden ingredient. Ideas do not propel themselves; passion makes them go.

(4) Co-locating drives effective exchange. Co-location refers to physical proximity between people. It is a key for building the trust that is essential to the innovation process. It also increases the possibility for greater exchange of information, cross-fertilization of ideas, stimulation of creative thinking in one another and critique of ideas during their formative stage.

(5) Differences should be leveraged. The differences that normally divide people — such as language, culture, race, gender and thinking and problem solving styles — can be a boon to innovation.

[image: Center for Creative Leadership in Colorado Springs]