On Feb 16, 2010, at 1:06 PM, Jerome Chang wrote: > I've been hearing that some of you out there have not been so happy about my > mentioning of executive suites and therefore, not adhering to the ethos of > coworking. I want to clarify that my previous emails were only to propose > utilizing some resources that I've come across, and as a way to expedite some > progress toward two milestones that I do wish we all hit: conference and > organization/alliance/league. > > The exec suites owners are not the "Evil Empire", even though like you, I > openly criticize their model and practices. They merely are based on a > culture that we coworking people feel needs to adapt and evolve. Besides, > they are fully aware of our coworking movement and some of them have already > re-appropriated their spaces for coworking. If they are already doing so, > shouldn't we at least collaborate with them on a discussion level so they > subscribe to our ideals?
The problem is that exec suites are the incumbent industry and they currently have a lot more money than coworking space operators. The Coworking "movement" is one that seeks to be a change agent. Anyone who has read "Innovator's Dilemma" will know that incumbents will fight change unless it's in their selfish best interest. Positive change that's not aligned with entrenched interests need to come from the outside, not from the inside. If we engage the exec suites industry the likelihood is they will use their funds to extinguish the nascent coworking space operations who are in the formative stage. I'd really prefer to see coworking grow and become it's own thing rather than see it be subsumed as just another exec suite option. (Rereading that last statement, I realize I sound more like a revolutionary than I ever knew! :) > Otherwise, their huge market presence and marketing power will effectively > confuse and dilute our own efforts to communicate coworking to the general > public. That discussion can be done, albeit briefly, at their annual > conference to be in SF this year, should we find ourselves piggybacking on > their plans. That is a big IF [we piggyback]. Remember, no one has really > stepped up to the plate either to plan this conference or even get everyone > to agree on the format; meanwhile, we have all agreed we want to convene in > some format. Not if collectively we control the Coworking.com domain and hence its brand. I'd propose that we collectively establish a set of criteria for Coworking much like the Open-Source Initiative defines "open source" and that way we'll have far more control of our message. We can even create a logo that is used to signify "real" coworking so that we have copyright over it and can keep spaces that don't adhere to the definition from using it. > On a similar note, this fundraising for the coworking.com domain does bring > up some concerns for me... Agreed. My comments above imply a single legal entity which I proposed earlier as a "co-op" but it could be any format as long as it meets our collective needs. It's time to form such an entity, isn't it? -Mike Schinkel Ignition Alley Atlanta Coworking http://ignitionalley.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Coworking" group. To post to this group, send email to cowork...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to coworking+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en.
