Going to the root…
I’ve been thinking about this issue recently…
Formulating my beliefs…
At the root of it, what is an exclusive business relationship and what is its purpose?
On the other hand, what would inclusive business relationships look like and what would be their purpose?
And right at the root what effect does each have on the end user, what can we view, historically, as the results from each approach…
Hypothetically speaking…
Let’s say, hypothetically, that I’m (or my company is) the designer of my Throw-away Invention Idea and I’m (or my company is) the only person (company) in the world who can design this. Let’s then say, hypothetically, that I’m approached by a company who could mass produce this and market it. In their ‘pitch’ to me, they guarantee me a steady stream of royalties for providing this design and ongoing design services exclusively to them. If I (or my company) were to agree to this proposition it would ensure that I (my company) would be wealthy forever. They, hypothetically, make me ‘an offer I can’t refuse’. On the flip-side, what they do with my (companies) invention after this, is completely out of my hands, I would have no say in terms of who, as the end users, would gain access to it or whether it would really meet the purpose and solve the issue which I envisioned when I created it. Whether the people who most needed it would receive it or again whether just an exclusive group of end users would be offered it or able to afford it…
Let’s say, hypothetically, that instead of this approach my company decides to offer the production, supply and marketing of this invention to whoever has the capability and desire to produce, supply and market it, i.e. inclusivity. In this world, my company would again make royalties of whatever amounts we agreed (perhaps of lower individual values than the original companies offer), company by company, to provide the design and design services for but there would be a greater likelihood that the diversity of producers/suppliers/marketers would saturate the full spectrum of the market which my company had intended to meet. Each company would know that they were not the sole producer/supplier/marketer of this invention and each would try harder to find their own niche, that area of the market where they truly felt they could add value. The invention at its core would technically be the same but their expression of it would be unique and tailored to the individuals whom they were trying to reach. In my mind, this second approach seems a) fairer – more likely to get the product to all, b) more diverse – likely to appeal to more people, c) more powerful – as multiple companies can produce more of the invention and on multiple platforms all at the same time, d) more lucrative for my company as the total amount of loyalties combined (even if offered at lower individual rates) would surpass that of the ‘amazing offer’ of the single first supplier and most importantly, e) competition would force all the producers/suppliers/marketers to keep their prices fair and reasonable…
What do we learn from history?
What has history taught us about exclusivity and inclusivity?
Monopolies and oligopolies keep a select few incredibly rich not because they have better ideas or are more innovative but just because they got there first, protected their patch and didn’t allow any other competition to spring up…
Have monopolies or oligopolies throughout history served the best interests of society – and by society let’s take as our definition any continuous 80% socioeconomic slice through the bell curve of society…
No, they have not…
Has ‘free competition’ (the laws of supply and demand) served the best interests of society – again taking that same definition as above…
Yes, it has…
In wartime (the Second World War) in New Zealand where the Labour Party and the National Party worked together (and not against each other) for the sake of our country, was that successful?
Yes, it was…
Thinking globally…
If we were to think even more macro on an international level, if ‘free trade’ was really allowed instead of the huge tariffs placed by governments on goods & services imported into their countries, then in not too long we wouldn’t have a third world, second world, and first world system anymore. Things would be much more balanced and the international society (by the same definition as above) would be much better off…
Yes, that would be quite a shake-up, wouldn’t it?
But if as a whole we are all (by that 80% definition) better off, then all our countries would be better off and this would have amazing flow on effects into the enjoyment of life, the environment and the communities experienced in all these countries – think of the flow on effects, for example, less sickness and disease, fewer hospitals, less crime, fewer prisons, less war, less stealing so less need to insure everything, a more diverse representation in our tertiary education facilities which would bring more balanced assessments of the real needs of society…
It’s not a silver bullet but it would certainly be a step in a much more positive direction…
Who benefits?
Exclusivity only benefits an elite few…
It prohibits entry into the market place for new, creative and innovative ideas…
It stagnates and prevents progress…
It has a negative mindset, i.e. ‘protect what is ours, don’t let anyone steal it’ but that focus inhibits the ability to look forward to the future, where new ideas are released…
It is not thinking proactively or for the good of society (as we’ve defined it above) as a whole…
How many inventions over the course of history have been ‘snuffed out’ by these ‘incumbents’?
The exclusivity mindset is a ‘master, slave’ mindset, it keeps the power forever where it already is, it makes attaining anything but slavery a ‘pipe dream’ for society as a whole…
Why do I care?
Why am I saying all this? This is probably not going to be a very popular message…
This is one of the Goliaths which needs to have its head chopped off…
I believe we, as professionals, hold the key to this battle…
The internet has to a large extent levelled the playing field in the knowledge area…
Thank God for Google and I say that genuinely…
This is a good thing, the battle is turning…
Via social media, those of us who have a social conscience can take this fight to those who need to be confronted with it, by making them aware that we, as professionals, are not willing to proliferate this approach for another generation, that we are the generation who will make the change…
We will be inclusive with each other…
We will encourage the startups who dream big and want to change the world…
We will invest ourselves in those whom we see are thinking about the good of society (as defined above) and we will use our talents and our courage to say ‘No’ (politely but firmly) to be bullied into mediocrity by perpetuating the same, ‘No, I can’t work for you because I’m already working exclusively for them’ approach which has diminished the generations before us…
Level playing field…
We will level the playing field…
Knowledge is power and when freely shared in unity and not held in locked silos, all will benefit and a knowledge revolution will take place that will unite the world… 
Andrew J Horton
26 July 2017
Leave a Reply