Comments on: NetSquared First Take http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2007/05/netsquared-first-take Fri, 05 Sep 2008 18:25:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: David Brazeal http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2007/05/netsquared-first-take#comment-263 David Brazeal Wed, 30 May 2007 20:38:50 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2007/05/29/netsquared-first-take/#comment-263 I think you're right -- competition will make all the projects stronger when they return from the conference and seek more funding. The real beauty of social networking is that organizations like these 21 -- and hundreds of others -- really only need to start with a great idea that will change the world. They can use the Web to help them shape that idea, and spread it, and if the idea has merit, there's a decent chance it will take off. Ten years ago, this kind of opportunity was a complete fantasy, no matter how great your idea. I think you’re right — competition will make all the projects stronger when they return from the conference and seek more funding.

The real beauty of social networking is that organizations like these 21 — and hundreds of others — really only need to start with a great idea that will change the world. They can use the Web to help them shape that idea, and spread it, and if the idea has merit, there’s a decent chance it will take off. Ten years ago, this kind of opportunity was a complete fantasy, no matter how great your idea.

]]> By: Tim Ogden http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2007/05/netsquared-first-take#comment-262 Tim Ogden Wed, 30 May 2007 04:59:36 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2007/05/29/netsquared-first-take/#comment-262 Couldn't agree more with your comments about the scarcity of resources and the value of competition. I don't understand what those who are oppossed to the competition aspect of NetSquared think is going to happen after the conference. No project is going to be "fully-funded" here so all of the projects are going to go back out and compete for funds -- just outside of the structure of the event. In fact, I really think that NetSquared should take the concept a step farther. At the end of the conference we should not only be voting for the best three, but for the worst three. Those folks can either go back to the drawing board or through their time and talent into one of the other projects here. Couldn’t agree more with your comments about the scarcity of resources and the value of competition. I don’t understand what those who are oppossed to the competition aspect of NetSquared think is going to happen after the conference. No project is going to be “fully-funded” here so all of the projects are going to go back out and compete for funds — just outside of the structure of the event.

In fact, I really think that NetSquared should take the concept a step farther. At the end of the conference we should not only be voting for the best three, but for the worst three. Those folks can either go back to the drawing board or through their time and talent into one of the other projects here.

]]>