Comments on: Physics and Ideation: Customer Entanglement http://frogblog.biz/2009/04/30/physics-ideation-series-part4-customer-entanglement/ Jump In, The Water's Fine Tue, 22 Nov 2011 04:28:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Fred H. Schlegel http://frogblog.biz/2009/04/30/physics-ideation-series-part4-customer-entanglement/comment-page-1/#comment-339 Fred H. Schlegel Tue, 05 May 2009 14:12:58 +0000 http://frogblog.biz/?p=1054#comment-339 Great insight Salvador. This really ties the difficulties marketers have in understanding influence and behavior in more closely with Guilder's book than I had anticipated. Just as the mainstream seemed to ignore the entanglement issue, marketing is forced to set aside influencers they have difficulty measuring or predicting until tools catch up. Maybe a policy of entanglement would accept this lack of control and in fact encourage it with the goal of increasing the attractive force overall. Sorry about the hair :) Great insight Salvador. This really ties the difficulties marketers have in understanding influence and behavior in more closely with Guilder’s book than I had anticipated. Just as the mainstream seemed to ignore the entanglement issue, marketing is forced to set aside influencers they have difficulty measuring or predicting until tools catch up. Maybe a policy of entanglement would accept this lack of control and in fact encourage it with the goal of increasing the attractive force overall.

Sorry about the hair :)

]]> By: salvador bali http://frogblog.biz/2009/04/30/physics-ideation-series-part4-customer-entanglement/comment-page-1/#comment-337 salvador bali Mon, 04 May 2009 21:21:15 +0000 http://frogblog.biz/?p=1054#comment-337 thanks. "entanglement" was schroedinger's word, and he just casually tossed it off, i think he didnt take it seriously, and it is a fine word for the phenomenon. ...however, the word IS conceivable, it can have meaning. and the "force" at issue, is essentially inconceivable, which is why they say no one can "understand" the quantum physics. so in your context here, i'd suggest entanglement be "undefinable" as part of its definition. but then it could be described for example by how it is unlike a network, or what things are possible under entanglement, which are not possible in a network, or are there improvements to be applied to network? redundant nodes. but that's getting into the quantum cryptography, and my hair's on fire already. thanks.

“entanglement” was schroedinger’s word, and he just casually tossed it off, i think he didnt take it seriously, and it is a fine word for the phenomenon.
…however, the word IS conceivable, it can have meaning. and the “force” at issue, is essentially inconceivable, which is why they say no one can “understand” the quantum physics.

so in your context here, i’d suggest entanglement be “undefinable” as part of its definition. but then it could be described for example by how it is unlike a network, or what things are possible under entanglement, which are not possible in a network,
or are there improvements to be applied to network? redundant nodes. but that’s getting into the quantum cryptography, and my hair’s on fire already.

]]> By: Fred H. Schlegel http://frogblog.biz/2009/04/30/physics-ideation-series-part4-customer-entanglement/comment-page-1/#comment-336 Fred H. Schlegel Mon, 04 May 2009 21:03:43 +0000 http://frogblog.biz/?p=1054#comment-336 Good catch Salvador, simultaneous is the whole point isn't it. I've been thinking about how to show the difference between what I mean by entanglement and what folks usually consider a network. I don't consider them synonyms in this context although network is an important component in entanglement. I think your question leads to my next post. Thanks! Good catch Salvador, simultaneous is the whole point isn’t it. I’ve been thinking about how to show the difference between what I mean by entanglement and what folks usually consider a network. I don’t consider them synonyms in this context although network is an important component in entanglement. I think your question leads to my next post. Thanks!

]]> By: salvador bali http://frogblog.biz/2009/04/30/physics-ideation-series-part4-customer-entanglement/comment-page-1/#comment-335 salvador bali Mon, 04 May 2009 18:00:45 +0000 http://frogblog.biz/?p=1054#comment-335 In physics - when you measure one entangled particle that somehow determines the state of the other Simplified, I know - if you can say it better please do frogman, only a small edit: when you measure one entangled particle that simultaneously determines the state of the other. 'simultaneous' conveniently contains the entire disagreement with Relativity. and i took out the 'somehow', because that is exactly "entanglement", its not a somehow, it's a how. i'd like to look at how 'entanglement' differentiates from 'network'. In physics – when you measure one entangled particle that somehow determines the state of the other
Simplified, I know – if you can say it better please do

frogman, only a small edit:
when you measure one entangled particle that simultaneously determines the state of the other.

‘simultaneous’ conveniently contains the entire disagreement with Relativity.

and i took out the ‘somehow’, because that is exactly “entanglement”, its not a somehow, it’s a how.

i’d like to look at how ‘entanglement’ differentiates from ‘network’.

]]> By: Fred H. Schlegel http://frogblog.biz/2009/04/30/physics-ideation-series-part4-customer-entanglement/comment-page-1/#comment-328 Fred H. Schlegel Fri, 01 May 2009 21:56:21 +0000 http://frogblog.biz/?p=1054#comment-328 Hi Bill, Noise in the system is a huge problem. Costs money as well as time. As always need to be consistently balancing the usefulness of each method in relation to the specific brand and product. The nice thing is with immediate feedback is that organizations get additional perspectives on what they are trying to do. That doesn't mean management needs to make changes called for in every blog post (now, more than ever, companies need visionary leaders that can set a consistent course), or that every consumer is going to be reached with a conversation. In the end the new tools used well will improve loyalty and used poorly will turn folks off. Hard learning curve, but one most companies probably need to be on. Hi Bill,

Noise in the system is a huge problem. Costs money as well as time. As always need to be consistently balancing the usefulness of each method in relation to the specific brand and product. The nice thing is with immediate feedback is that organizations get additional perspectives on what they are trying to do. That doesn’t mean management needs to make changes called for in every blog post (now, more than ever, companies need visionary leaders that can set a consistent course), or that every consumer is going to be reached with a conversation. In the end the new tools used well will improve loyalty and used poorly will turn folks off. Hard learning curve, but one most companies probably need to be on.

]]> By: Bill Welter http://frogblog.biz/2009/04/30/physics-ideation-series-part4-customer-entanglement/comment-page-1/#comment-327 Bill Welter Fri, 01 May 2009 17:15:13 +0000 http://frogblog.biz/?p=1054#comment-327 Fred, Interesting concept and application. My only concern, using an older communication metaphor, is that noise in the system may overcome the real communication. Just because we can use social media doesn't mean we should use it all the time and for meaningless broadcasts. The quality of the communication is important and should not take back seat to ease-induced noise. Bill Fred,
Interesting concept and application. My only concern, using an older communication metaphor, is that noise in the system may overcome the real communication. Just because we can use social media doesn’t mean we should use it all the time and for meaningless broadcasts. The quality of the communication is important and should not take back seat to ease-induced noise.
Bill

]]>