I think this speaks greatly about the nature of relationships nowadays, and how they’re moving online, but that’s not what I want to highlight here. What I do want to highlight is the opportunity here for other companies. Imagine if Amazon implemented something like that. They already have an option to ship an object as a gift to someone else, why not allow the shopper to send the gift to a virtual recipient in the same process that TigerBow does? Shouldn’t take too long, and shouldn’t be too hard for them to implement.

Or what about other startups? Why hasn’t someone built a system like that, but allowing the user to choose any object from Amazon? In my mind, it could be as simple as a 3 page process. On the first page, let the user input his name, the recipients name, and the Amazon product url. On the second, let the user select a delivery method, and optional wrapping/card, etc. And the third page would be for checkout. The system then sends a message to the recipient, like Tigerbow does, and if the recipient wants to receive it, he inputs his mailing address. The system can then place an order on Amazon for the object, ship it to the startup’s office, where it can be wrapped and all, and then send it out to the recipient. If the startup’s office is in America, the shipping costs wouldn’t increase too much, I think (it’d just be one additional local shipment to America).

It’d take some manual effort, but I definitely think it’s feasible. What do you think? Anyone up for trying it?

There are a lot of people questioning Robinho’s move to Manchester City, saying he chose the club for the money. One of the ESPNStar analysts was even saying that Chelsea should be happy that they didn’t get the player, because that isn’t the type of person they would want.

It is undeniable that on the pitch, Robinho is a great player, but the analyst’s point was basically that there is more to the player than that. The club isn’t just getting the player, they are getting the person.

The lessons and thoughts behind this go beyond soccer, though. The same holds true in any company or organization. When you’re hiring somebody, when you’re working with someone, it’s not just about performance. Who the person is is just as important.

It’s not just what a person does (or can do). It’s who he is.

I was thinking about what went on during the conference, and something stuck to me. If you ask any start-up consultant or anything, most of the time you’ll get similar advice. 2 parts of this advice you’ll probably get is, 1) how important an elevator pitch is (or the ‘escalator pitch’), and 2) that it’s not just about how cool your idea is, it’s about the need for it (this second one was something that Marc Hedlund from Wesabe.com mentioned today).

And in most cases, these are really good suggestions. Elevator pitches are important. And having a market for your idea is really what’s important, of course.

But there are some cases when it’s hard to think about things like this – when you are doing something truly revolutionary. When you are opening up a new market, doing something that has really never been done before.

Take Twitter, for example. Anyone who uses Twitter has probably tried (and failed) to explain it to others. It just can’t be done as an elevator pitch. And if you ask around, most people who haven’t used Twitter won’t see why such a tool would be useful.

Twitter would have failed in coming up with a good elevator pitch. I still haven’t seen a good elevator pitch for Twitter. And if you think about it, there wasn’t really a market or need for a service like Twitter. Nobody knew or thought they needed something like Twitter. No market research or anything would have revealed a need for Twitter. It was only through trying it out that they found out that there indeed was a market for it.

That’s just one example, but it demonstrates my point quite well, I think. Yes, there are standard tips and suggestions that we should all think about. Not only in starting a company, but whatever you’re doing, there’s always going to be standard suggestions and tips and advice from others. And that advice works 95% of the time.

But when you’re doing something revolutionary, standard advice and procedure just doesn’t cut it.

More often than not, you can’t do something revolutionary by following common advice.

It’s a small image, just 16×16. But the change did cause a bit of a stir online, with a lot of blogs running the story and a couple of forum threads being started. It’s even spurred questions about whether Google was going to undergo a rebranding process.

I’m not going to speculate about any of this, but what I do want to point out is this. Even such a small scale change caused such a stir. Why? Yes, part of the reason is because of the size of Google. But I think it’s also because Google’s brand had been associated with the old icon (the capital ‘G’). People were used to that. And when it changed, people noticed – some praised and supported it, others criticized it.

Once you’re associated with something – a word, an image, an icon, even an attribute – no matter how small that “something” is, people will notice when you change it. It’s up to you to ensure that the change is met well.

I agree with Paul’s view on this, and I’m glad to see the article. It’s a good viewpoint.

Sometimes, having people leave can be a good change. Losing ‘resources’ (and people are resources) offers the chance for change, and can be a good thing.

The beauty of Bug Labs, in my opinion, is this. It’s a tool that is inherently personal. It gives the user freedom to choose how they want to use it. By its very nature, it is customized, tailored to their own needs and wants.

When you provide a personal, customized solution – like Bug Labs has – you’re really likely to succeed.

It’s no longer about generic tools and services. It’s not about the mass anymore. It’s about the individual. It’s about being personal.

How can you make your product – or whatever you’re selling – more personal?