The Real Deal

Last week, I shared publicly why I chose not to be involved with Innovation Philadelphia’s Global Creative Economy Convergence Summit.

Response was mixed, to say the least. In a dozen comments, views ranged from surprise to support, from dismay to disgust, from confusion to confederation.

I also had some offline conversations with friends, peers, and mentors, and the majority of the things discussed in “meatspace” are what led me revisiting the topic to this post.

I appreciate all of the feedback, from everyone…in my mind, anyone who takes the time to feedback at all cares one way or another, even if we’re not on the same page.

A part of me likes the debate, too. I think disagreement is important. As much as I preach alignment = execution, unique viewpoints involve new perspectives. That’s what leads to growth, evolution, diversity, and richness of culture.

The most dangerous thing in the world for me would be to think I operate in a bubble.

I’m not sure what I expected, to be honest. What I am sure of is that my post probably did not have came across the way I really wanted it do, mostly because I was trying to play the hand diplomatically.

I had help refining and honing my thoughts, and I was pleased with what came out…if it was for somebody else. I re-read my post and I can’t hear my own voice. That’s a problem.

So I’m trying again, and taking some risks. I’m drawing some lines in the sand, and I’m sure that I’m raising some eyebrows. I may burn bridges. I will alienate individuals, even some that I know and care about.

My goal is not to be destructive. It’s to open peoples eyes to what I see going on around me. If I’m completely off base, I expect to be told so, and I’ll be better off knowing that. If I’m not off base, and I cause someone to look at the world around them in a new light, then we’re all making that progress together.

Those of you who’ve been around me for more than a few minutes, you know that’s the true blue Alex Hillman.

Let’s go back to the beginning. How far? Pretty far.

3 years.

Almost to the week.

I put out a very specific call to action that I’ve been riding ever since.

Dare to be great. Together.

Please read this post from 2006 before moving on, it provides a ton of context for my conclusion.

Re-reading this post in light of my self-removal from GCECS2009, I realize that I strayed from that call to action for the first time that I can remember. Much like reading my own blog post and not hearing my own voice, straying from that call is a problem.

My post framed the discussion as “top down” vs. “bottom up”, and I essentially boiled it down to “you can’t be both”. I still stand by that, but I was making the wrong point.

I’ll circle back to 2006 in a moment.

The real point I was ineffective at making in my last post is:

I don’t believe that Innovation Philadelphia has been, or can be, 100% effective at its mission of “working to establish the Greater Philadelphia Region as a national leader and world-class destination for Creative Economy industries, businesses and talent”, because Innovation Philadelphia itself has an identity crisis. It doesn’t know what it’s supposed to do, so it does whatever it can to make sure it looks busy (pdf available in case it asks you to log in).

I want to be clear that what I’m about to share is my personal opinion. Not that of any organization I represent, partnership I share, or otherwise. I know that I’m not the only person that shares this viewpoint, but other people are tied to organizations and partners in ways I am not. I respect their desire to keep our conversations behind closed doors, unless they themselves decide to speak out.

I see Innovation Philadelphia as an under-used and over-produced attempt at being a regional resource for a good cause, the betterment of Philadelphia’s creative industry.

I see Innovation Philadelphia as an entity that thrives primarily by associating itself with lots of goings-on, effectively looking busy without necessarily contributing to the things it is associated with. It doesn’t serve its own purpose well, so it places itself alongside everyone else’s.

What bothers me is that this organization hasn’t been involved with these communities that they’re claiming to spotlight until now, when they stand something to gain from it.

For the last year and a half, since our new mayor was elected, Innovation Philadelphia has been reacting to significant budget cuts. In fiscal 2008, they received $2.5 million from the city of Philadelphia. In fiscal 2009, they were not even included in city budgets and pleaded for $1 million of city dollars for the year.

I don’t know where things ended up after that. In fact, a big part of my hesitation to even bring this up publicly is that I don’t know what I don’t know. I’m not an investigative journalist.

What I DO know is that IP’s news site is a reblog of everything else that’s going on in the region. Google searches for “Innovation Philadelphia” budget turn up very little, positive or negative, since mid 2008.

In light of that, GCECS2009  feels like a landgrab for where the real activity in this region is, in an effort to justify existance. They’ve admitted to co-opting a number of other successful formats from the community, including things that mimic Ignite Philly and BarCamp Philly.

Kelly Lee’s persistence over the last 3 months towards my involvement with the event leading up to (and even since) my declination also supports my instinct.

Without my support and involvement, there’s a void in the honesty of how this event represents Philadelphia. Comments on my original post support that.

From the Philadelphia Business Journal:

The conference format combines a mix of structured and informal meetings, panels and presentations with DIY elements borrowed from the tech sector’s bar camp model. For example, “unconference sessions” will be free and open to the public for sharing best practices. There will also be pecha kucha sessions, which are fast presentations kept to under seven minutes to allow a lot of people to showcase their work. Free meet ups will be held throughout the city to give the public opportunities to network and brainstorm outside of the conference format. Twitter and blog feeds will provide live feedback as the events unfold.

Let me be clear: “Free” isn’t the distinction between their events and ours. When we, the grassroots, plan and execute an event, we aren’t doing it to justify budget spending or even our existence. We plan them to satisfy a human nature to share, and the mutual benefit of the members of this community. When corporations hold the same type of event, free or not, their gain is different from that of the participants.

Like it or not, intent affects the execution.

—

Even the way that speakers were placed into panels for GCECS09 feels dodgy. I was asked to speak on a panel about alternative workspaces, along with two other people from outside of the region and one local. The fact that these people were from outside of the region wasn’t what had me puzzled, in fact I think that balance may have been beneficial. When one of the other panelists e-mailed me before I confirmed involvement saying, “Hey, I heard we’re going to be on a panel together”, I turned to some people who’d been involved with my deliberation and asked, “What’s up with that?” The other two non-locals happen to be people I know through my own network. Given the way that the first candidate approached me, I have to wonder if Innovation Philadelphia led them to believe that we’d be on a panel together, and if that had any influence on their decision to participate? I don’t know. I haven’t asked them. I hope they speak up in the comments of this post.

The outreach into other grassroots organizations has felt awkward as well. The inception of NxtUp Philly ties a bunch of independently operated events into a unified calendar of creative stuff to do for the first 2 weeks of October. Once again, whose logo shows up on the “partners” page? You guessed it. Innovation Philadelphia.

I was surprised that even the pre-party event was copy-catted. There are hundreds, into the thousands, of bars in Philadelphia. Why would they choose National Mechanics, a known hotspot for our community’s social events, as the location for their party?

Part of me says, “Well, why wouldn’t they?” I think National Mechanics is a phenomenal venue and their continuing support of community projects has been instrumental in the social side of our community’s growth. We are the way we are, largely in part, thanks to National Mechanics. Business is business, and I don’t expect their management team to have made a different call.

But why, when there are dozens of great bars and venues closer to the Philadelphia Convention Center in Center City? Doesn’t it seem strange to host a bunch of people to the Philadelphia Convention Center, one of the most bureaucratic (not to mention expensive) event venues in Philadelphia (compared to the likes of University of the Arts, or Johnny Brendas), but first haul them 10 blocks to another part of town place just because there’s a local hangout for the geek crew? Do they expect to recruit us as conference attendees while we’re hanging out with our friends and enjoying our veggie burgers and Yards IPA?

I’ve taken my parents to National Mechanics and they love it, so I know that this place most certainly can cater to any age range. But lets put the bacon vodka and weekly karaoke aside, consider the context, and think about how odd choosing this venue seems unless it’s a blatant ripoff of a significant number of events put together by our communities.

I’m not very good at arithmetic, but even I can tell things don’t add up.

I stand by my biggest concern about GCECS2009, as an event hosted by Innovation Philadelphia, is that it’s positioned itself as a platform for the often underproduced but highly energized grassroots movement that’s taken Philadelphia by storm over the last 2+ years. The energy of the grassroots that has impacted more than just the local community, but outside of Philly as well. The energy of the grassroots that Innovation Philadelphia has had nothing to do with.

I travel a fair amount, for business and pleasure. In every city, I’m meeting the leaders of their local “creative economies”. Emerging creative regions like Omaha, Des Moines, Salt Lake City, and dozens of other cities I’ve been to in the last 3 months alone cite Philadelphia’s metamorphosis over the last 2 years as not just an inspiration, but as having turned Philly into a potential destination for them to come and grow. Even established cities like New York have begun to interact with Philadelphia closer to equals in the creative/business world than ever before.

Consider this exchange between three New York independent creative business people:

“I like Philly a lot. That’s my Plan B.” “Me too. I would totally live there.” “Sigh, me too”.

Things have changed. A lot.

Just this week I received an e-mail from a journalist in Berlin. He asked me one of the hardest questions I’ve ever been asked:

You’re not the first coworking space, nor the biggest, yet you’re often referenced by start-ups all over the world as their point of inspiration. Why do you think that is?

In other cities, they’re looking to Philly as a model. But none of these have ever heard of Innovation Philadelphia. All of them have heard about our meetup community, Refresh, Ignite, Junto, and without letting my head swell too much, IndyHall.

Given Innovation Philadelphia’s identity crisis, I’m concerned about it appearing as if Innovation Philadelphia has in any way contributed to that grassroots until now.

It’s not just gut instinct. While the business journal makes it clear that they’ve co-opted formats from the DIY culture, other releases make it seem as if the format was something “innovative”.

New Topics, Innovative Format and More Speakers Highlight 2nd Global Creative Economy Convergence Summit

The language they chose makes things really scary for me. DIY activity IS usually pretty innovative. Innovation is not necessarily transitive. That is, co-opting something innovative doesn’t make you innovative.

The odd ball amongst my criticisms: The GCECS keynote presenters.

Well, they did something right.

There are 4 keynotes lined up that bookend each day. Three out of four of the keynotes, I’ve seen speak (in person or online). I’ve watched Elizabeth Gilbert’s Ted Talk on genius, and had my breath taken away. I’ve saw Jane McGonigal speak at SXSW08 and she brought the house down. I’ve read a bunch of Peter Shankman’s blog, and if I remember right, my first introduction was a HARO livestreamed giveaway he did celebrating the 1 year anniversary of Help A Reporter Out. The 4th keynote, Randall Kempner I’m not familiar with, so I can’t say much.

But the other three, though, I can verify with my own experiences as winners.

Presenters worth seeing.

In fact, the prospect of Elizabeth Gilbert, Jane McGonigal, and Peter Shankman being in Philadelphia alone had me glamoured when Kelly told me they’d signed on. I realize that now, and have to imagine I’m not the only person to have felt that effect.

I don’t think that the keynote speakers have anything to lose for participating in this event, though, since they’re effectively hired guns to motivate and inspire. They have a different set of responsibilities that, quite frankly, I do understand. Their individual impacts are larger than this conference itself, and that perspective is helpful for all of us.

While others haven’t been nearly as verbose, or had so many points to reference related to a single event, I’m not the first person to express these opinions:

Innovation Philadelphia has been relentless in getting its message out. I’ve probably received more newsletters, studies and e-mail updates from it than any other economic development agency. Perhaps Lee will raise the money she needs. But if July 1 spells the end of Innovation Philadelphia, I won’t miss it.

For a long time, I’ve shared this sentiment. This is the honest explanation of my previous post was charged with “top down” vs. “bottom up”, and quite frankly, any tone of “us” vs. “them”.

So back to my call to action, 3 years ago.

“Swallow your pride. Dare to be great. Do it together.”

And yet, considering the statements and observations above, I’m conflicted.

I know, I understand, I believe that the message that I can bring to this conference is positive and constructive.

I know, I understand, I believe that the perspective that I can share with people who I haven’t met is important.

I know, I understand, I believe that I need to swallow my pride, dare to be great, and do this together.

That means us.

That means them.

That means the entire city of Philadelphia, regardless of age, race, gender, sexual orientation, industry, employment status, living arrangement, preference of Pepsi vs. Coke, consumption of decaf or regular. Top down. Bottom up. Upside down and inside out.

The big picture is just that. Big.

Unfortunately, things became cloudy in my last post because of a poor judgement call on my part to use speaker compensation as an easy out. Luckily, there are digital paper trails and verifiable discussions to back the fact that my motives have been consistent prior to this judgement call, and that I’ve never been comfortable being involved with this event. My busy schedule this summer provided a front for the time it took me between correspondence with Innovation Philadelphia/GCECS2009 planners, and in that time, I spent a lot of time deliberating my involvement with both. I’ve been hesitant and cautious since first contact back in early June.

If I’m sure of anything, it’s my desire for Philly to continue to evolve, gather momentum, and for the hard work of today will live long past tomorrow.

In order for Philly to win, I need to figure out how to stand my ground and swallow my pride at the same time.

But this isn’t like walking and chewing bubble gum. It’s more complicated than that.

Mark Naples asked me,

If you were offered an editorial board with the Wall Street Journal, would you decline it because that organization is “too top down” for you? Doesn’t that sound silly?

First, I don’t like my values being called “silly”. But given the context of this conversation, I’ve swallowed my pride. Mark doesn’t know me, and I don’t know him. Mark doesn’t know about my motives because he hasn’t felt the effects of my actions.

What this comment illustrated to me, though, was that an ever-increasing part of my role in Philadelphia needs to be a part of closing this gap.

I don’t exactly know how, though, so I’m looking for input.

Is it possible for me to speak at this event while still expressing my concerns? What sorts of things do people need to hear from me in order for my presentation to be effective? What kinds of takeaways can I provide the larger community, the one beyond the grassroots, while not compromising my integrity and values, speaking openly and freely?

The comments and discussion that follow this post will be important. I don’t know the answer, because it’s not simple. I won’t find clarity without your help.

Please, share this post with others, and be honest in the comments. When I sat down to write this post, I committed to being honest and open, and if you’re planning on responding I ask the same of you.

That includes commenting with your name. While I haven’t disabled anonymous comments, I place a whole lot more stock in comments from real people.

September 10, 2009 | Filed Under 2009, business, community, coworking, philadelphia, public speaking | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments 

Comments

  • I'm kind of an outsider to the whole world that both IndyHall and Innovation Philadelphia exist in; I went to my first RefreshPhilly and a BlobLive within a week of each other and I don't have the tech geek background that draws the biggest groups to each organization (although I've been going to National Mechanics since 2007 if that counts for anything).

    Ultimately I think that there is, most certainly, a place for both IndyHall and Innovation Philly to exist and enhance this city. Obviously it is possible for top-down and bottom-up styles to coexist, as you say different viewpoints offer an enriching experience. But it makes total sense to me that you would refuse, on principle, to speak at this conference. And it also makes complete sense that the organizers and supporters of the conference either won't understand or will wish for you to reconsider.

    It seems to me that not participating in this conference as a speaker is a political/ideological decision that you are perhaps in a unique position to make. IndyHall is, after all, in many ways a political institution inasmuch as politics=ideology. The driving motivator of IndyHall is a belief that the system needs to be changed. By contrast, Innovation Philadelphia is driven less by ideology than by the ethics of a business. This isn't a value statement anymore than recognizing top-down/bottom-up structure is; I'm personally just as much a management type as I am a creative type and I've only met 1 or 2 people affiliated with Innovation Philly, they seemed just as cool as anyone I've met from IndyHall.

    It is only appropriate that you would draw lines in the sand though; IndyHall's role is to change rather than compromise. Of course the risk of alienating, dividing, starting civil war exists and in many ways that sort of thing would be ultimately distracting and dangerous for two groups who share a common goal despite having radically different beliefs about how to get there. But I can also see how the 'how to get there' part is the most important aspect to you. From Innovation Philly's perspective I would imagine the goal supersedes the means; if you can get there and be a successful top-down business in the process that's still reaching the goal. But it doesn't seem like your mind works like that, and I think that is a key to IndyHall's success as a grassroots organization.

    I don't really have a dog in this fight; if Innovation Philly had offered me a job when I was looking I would have taken it proudly and would have worked hard to promote their goals. I'll be going to BarCamp but not the GCECS conference because of scheduling/budget conflicts, but I'm excited to live in a city where the GCECS can take place and I think it's designed more for industry types than for observers/students like me. And Alex, I might suggest you register for the conference and attend as an attendee, which wouldn't detract from your goal or message at all. But as a panelist it makes sense that you might feel like you're betraying an ideology; you're implicitly saying that 'the way Innovation Philadelphia is getting to the goal' is fine, or good enough. Clearly you don't believe that, and your role in this period of Philadelphia history is one of the ideological zealot rather than the moderate compromiser. Both, though, are important roles that history will, hopefully, look upon kindly once the goal is finally reached.
  • jonnygoldstein
    Starfish, meet Spider. I came from Washington DC before Philly, a city full of the National Association of This, and the National Association of That. Basically they exist to give big conferences in DC once a year for their members. They seem very empty to me. They are part of the emptiness at the heart of DC. So I share your wariness of top down empty suit organizations.

    In the 90's I lived in Seattle and saw the vibrant local cultural scene spotlighted and then strip mined by corporate media. The attention was fun for awhile, but the aftermath was brutal.

    You're in a tricky spot. You are offered a chance to get your message out to a new group of people, but you oppose the existence of the organization that is giving you the opportunity. I guess you could make this clear as you participate, but it seems like a tricky minefield to navigate. Of course you have already ridden your bike into the minefield, so you may just want to keep going and hope you get out the other side.
  • One last piece of advice inspired by the other commenters.

    Given your feelings about Innovation Philadelphia and this conference, the key question for you is: How do you maximize the impact of your protest?

    The two main choices are to boycott the conference or to speak out at the conference.

    To frame the choice, think about it this way: Would Obama turn down the opportunity to speak at the Republican National Convention? I'd be shocked if he would.

    If you can speak your mind directly to the people who support and fund Innovation Philadelphia, all in one place, imagine the questions you can raise in their minds -- questions they will never have to grapple with unless they read this blog or hear someone mention this conversation.

    So accept their invitation and say exactly what you think about the conference and the organization, directly to the people they depend on. If you are censored or muzzled, it confirms everything you've said.

    You can't lose, can you?
  • It's always good to hear your insights Alex, and there are plenty here. Thanks for sharing them.

    I want to share a frustration I had reading this and some of your earlier blog posts. When you cite examples of what's is causing the remarkable change in the Philly tech and creative scene that we've seen in the last two years, you seem to focus on the same set of organizations that you are involved with and leave out others like Philly Startup Leaders (PSL), MakePhilly and the Hacktory.

    PSL, MakePhilly, and IndyHall were all born in the same year and, together, had an enormous role in creating today's Philly creative movement. They have inspired (and even groomed) the leaders of some of the groups and events you cite more often.

    There's a danger that as our ecosystem grows, it becomes parochial and divided. Innovation Philadelphia operates in a radically different way than our grassroots groups do, and one can certainly argue that these differences make us incompatible.

    That said, I worry that this same judgmental thinking may be causing the grassroots groups in our community to drift apart from one another, often over differences in style that are minor by comparison.

    There are many right ways to be grassroots, and it's extraordinarily healthy that we have so many different approaches here in Philadelphia.

    "Dare to be great together" is a powerful motto for our community. But togetherness requires openness and tolerance, and we're losing this amidst all this critique and judgment of one another.

    The good news is that there is a new opportunity for leadership - towards the openness and tolerance that helped bring this community to life in the first place.
  • Hey Blake!

    I don't think Alex is leaving out those organizations. The organizations Alex does mention are the ones whose ideas and formats are basically being ripped off by the GCECS2009. The pecha kucha sessions exist in the form of Ignite Philly, the "unconference sessions" are borrowed from BarCamp, etc. The conference touts new styles of interaction, but none were invented by IP.

    Reading the "about" about the GCECS2009 is like reading a list of the events that this community has put on for years now, without a $225 price tag, and without any mention of Innovation Philadelphia - which is where IP SHOULD have been all these years.

    In no way is it a "too little, too late" thing - it's entirely a "this is not the real creative community" thing. Philadelphia's creative community is the one that created or organized PSL, MakePhilly, Ignite, Refresh, BarCamp, and yes, often use National Mechanics as a secret lair, without a drop of a $2.5m investment from the City - and yet PSL, MakePhilly, Ignite, Refresh, BarCamp, IndyHall, the Hacktory, Hive76, etc., are the grass-roots organizations and communities that have reshaped Philadelphia over the past 2-3 years - a movement that Innovation Philadelphia has been almost completely absent from.
  • geoffd
    I could not agree more, Dave.

    Thanks for writing this so I didn't need to figure out the best way to word this.

    This is really not about being together or not. It is about the reality that Innovation Philadelphia has been absent from the scene that it could have been supporting but was not and still is not.

    Personally, I don't really care if Innovation Philadelphia is co-opting the ideas and work of others, because I know that the scene will come up with new ideas and create new organizations. I do know this... if Innovation Philadelphia is doing these types of things... it is time to move onto the next thing!

    Glad we have their attention, and glad they are taking over this work from us. Now I can spend my time solving some other problem.

    Geoff DiMasi (in case my user name is not clear enough)

    P.S. The new shit we are working on is so rad. You are going to love seeing it at the Global Summit in 2015 (and/or drop me a line if you want to get involved now.)
  • As the guys below pointed out, I was focusing on event models.

    And if you're concerned about ego, take notice that I only mentioned IndyHall once in the entire post.

    This argument is coming from me, NOT from IndyHall and I made that clear. Members and supporters of IndyHall have individual voices, and I consciously made a decision not to represent those in this post.

    I've never been a part of the team behind Ignite or Barcamp. Ignite came from my business partner Geoff DiMasi's team at P'unk Ave along with the some people from other groups like the Hacktory. It's always been produced by them, I've only ever been a participant and an advocate.

    Same with BarCamp. In fact, I made it a point for the first 2 years of me being a part of this initiative NOT to be the BarCamp guy. Ask JP Toto what I said when he came to me to ask me questions about BarCamp in Philly, after having experienced a BarCamp in Orlando (a very popular one, multiple years in a row).

    I said to JP, "THANK GOD! Someone's going to do a BarCamp!". It NOT having anything to do with IndyHall and instead being championed by JP and Roz Duffy was a huge relief to me, and that moment became a cornerstone in my mental roadmap for Philadelphia's tech and creative scene, where new leadership began to emerge from within.

    I also only included events that I'm directly related to because they're the ones I know the most about. I wanted to make sure that everything I was citing could be substantiated either by external sources, or a very specific experience I've had.

    You also make it sound as if I don't have support for Philly Startup Leaders, an organization that you co-founded and have grown in a big way over the same historical trajectory as IndyHall.

    I was honored that you'd include me in your board of advisors along side a dozen + representatives of Philadelphia's leadership, both institutional and grassroots. Being involved in that is a lesson in itself, one I'm grateful for, and an opportunity to observe the interactions and motives of the individuals helping support the leadership team of Philly Startup Leaders.
  • Forgive my naïveté, but is IP got $1M for a budget, what are they doing with it besides holding this conference, paying a staff, and making the city government feel better? I bet if Bar Camp Philly wanted to it could solicit enough donations to get some great speakers for the event. In a different conntext Alex said "bootstrap, bootstrap, bootstrap."
    I'm wary of big money.
  • netbanshee
    I think it's good you're being open and honest about this, Alex. It shows that you're a man of integrity and that's something worth striving for.

    I say that if you feel you can maintain your integrity while being a contribution to others, you're on a path far bigger than one that involves technology and community in a particular region. It's always about playing a bigger game.
  • In my opinion, if everyone likes what you're doing, you're doing something wrong. If everyone hates what you're doing, you're doing something wrong. If half of the people like what you're doing, and half hate what you're doing, then you're probably doing something right.
  • gregwilder
    Re: Post Opening

    Drawing lines in the sand is never a bad idea -- provided they're based in the core principles critical to your character. All things change in time, but in my experience, these guiding principles rarely stray very far, if at all.
  • gloriabell
    I refrained from commenting on your last post because a few others had already expressed the same thing that I was thinking at the time. This time, since you specifically asked for comments, I'm going to jump in with my opinion. Anyone who knows me, knows that I feel as strongly and passionately as you do about developing and nurturing communities. As strong as we are as individuals, we are stronger as a community. That said, I also believe that we have to reach out to those with different perspectives and be inclusionary when we try to build those communities. We can not affect change only standing on the outside complaining about "the establishment".
    I don't disagree that Innovation Philadelphia may not have the best track record. What I think we do need to look objectively at is the steps they are currently taking. Maybe they are not the same ones that we would take in their shoes, but credit has to be given to the attempts. We have to acknowledge that not everyone does things the same way. It is a difficult task to reach across multiple levels and cultures and try to find the common ground that will bring them all together. I believe that is what Innovation Philadelphia is trying to do with the Global Creative Economy Convergence Summit. It is also one of the reasons I am proud to have accepted their offer to speak at the Summit. It needs to be looked as an opportunity to reach out to many different viewpoints and cultures and spread what we know and believe. Whether we agree with everything that Innovation Philadelphia has done up to this point, if nothing else, the Summit is an opportunity for those of us who know and love this city and the diverse communities that reside here to show it off.
    Alex, you are correct when you state that your role as a community leader is to bridge the gap. The gap that is only being encouraged by the "us" vs "them" mentality that seems to be growing in this city. (And to be honest, that was encouraged by your last post) It is possible for us to stand our ground without violating our beliefs and still find ways to spread the word about what we believe in. Sometimes, it means stepping inside the world that we may not agree with and reaching those who need to hear the message. Sometimes it means even speaking that message in their language. That is not a compromise of our beliefs, it is being smart enough to know that somewhere inside that world that we choose not to reside in, maybe there are others who need to hear our message to open their minds and ideas and give them the fuel to begin to initiate change.
    You asked if it was possible to speak at the event while still having reservations. Of course it is, you let your track record speak for itself. What you stand for is demonstrated by your past and future behavior. You let your message and your actions speak for themselves. Anyone who would think you are violating your principles by agreeing to participate in an event like this, doesn't know you very well or doesn't believe in what you say you stand for - Daring to be great. TOGETHER

    (Not to shamelessly plug my own blog, but I think I made a fairly relevant related point recently in a post entitled "Community or Clique." http://asseenthroughmyeyes.wordpress.com/2009/0... )
  • Right on, Alex. I feel your pain.

    In the work we do with our communities, one truth keeps coming up again and again:

    "In the absence of moral leadership, there are plenty of amoral fucks ready and willing to take the lead."

    Now, I don't know anything at all about how Philly really works or who these people are, but this sounds to me like an evolution of that concept. There is moral leadership (your good selves in the community of awesomeness that you love) but another group is taking things up to the next level, where a vacuum could be perceived to exist by those used to working on that level.

    My questions would be:
    - Does a starfish need that level?
    - Do you need to turn things up a notch?
    - Or does what you're building work perfectly well where it is?
  • rozduffy
    As someone actively involved in both attending and organizing events that rely on small amounts of sponsorship from the community or else no sponsorship at all, I'll admit that I was both baffled and dubious as to why there was a $25,000 sponsorship option for this conference. On top of that, there is a pretty steep attendance fee that is actually excluding people from attending. It's hard to justify that in a city where there are so many interesting events available to us for free or at minimal cost.

    I'm really curious to see what new elements of the community will emerge as a result of this conference. I feel pretty strongly that the biggest changes happen when you get people together in a room or space and see what happens.

    Whether people like what you have to say or not, it's admirable to stand strong for what you believe in and open yourself up for feedback. I respect that you took the time to craft your response and find your voice.
  • annieh
    Love the honesty, that's always refreshing in this day and age. My thoughts, since you kindly pointed to comments, are "no big deal." We're not all always going to agree in this world, that's part of having a working brain and freedom as Americans. That's cool.

    You're not down with Innovation Philly. Some other people might latch on to IP and not find a home in one of the events or communities you'd give a pint of blood for. No sweat. Maybe your pause and post will incite change in the organization? Or, maybe it will goose it into another direction? Or, maybe it won't impact it at all. I think the most important thing is that you clarified your own personal direction and took proactive steps to pursue that.

    It's all good.
  • In the words of Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters, Innovation Philadelphia may know 'where it's at but they don't know *what* it is'.

    About three years ago (right before Alex wrote about 'Dare to be great. Together'), I first met Alex at CreativeCamp. Kristin Motta, the organizer and an amazing brilliant confident individual and young co-founder of a successful creative talent firm, introduced Alex, an amazing brilliant confident individual with piercings. Of all the presenters that day, Kristin was most enthused about Alex. How he was going to talk about coworking. How it was awesome. I don't remember the details of what he said - it's been too long - but I do remember how passionate this kid Alex about coworking, a simple but not easy concept. And how Lauren Galanter, in a flash of shouted inspiration came up with the perfect name.

    I tried lamely to connect Alex with my commercial real estate contact but that fizzled and went nowhere. A year or more passed and I remember being flabbergasted to read in the Philly Inquirer's business section about the grand opening of IndyHall. I had underestimated Alex. So many people have ideas but so few individuals can execute. I went to the grand opening to tell him that and congratulate him and he remembered me (wow).

    I feel that Alex has always known 'what' coworking and a sustainable technical community/culture. I mean, three years ago, he was fired up. Maybe he's mellowed in his old age :)

    I've followed Alex and IndyHall's trajectory from a distance. How Alex connects with like-minded individuals in Philly and *outside* of Philly. How he inspires and motivates creative individuals to become more business like and the other way 'round. How he isn't afraid to get something going.

    Around the time of IndyHall's town meeting to discuss the expansion to 2.0, I remember starting to hear that IndyHall and Philly were a model for coworking and the like. Didn't every technically-credentialed city have a cashflow-positive coworking space that connected people and a sustainable technical culture and community? I guess I had taken IndyHall and Philly for granted. At the same time, I felt that is still much more potential to be realized for IndyHall and Philly - that it is not grown up, there is still a lot of talk vs action. And Alex and the community are iterating and moving towards it (with or without the support of government and quasi-government organizations).

    Perhaps another reason Alex chose not to speak at GCECS2009 (what a mouthful that name is) is because he realizes that IndyHall is much bigger than him now. That he is not Mr. IndyHall (maybe that is Dana V. :) ). It's not just Alex that knows 'what' coworking and community is now.

    Kevin
  • You're underestimating yourselves if you're threatened by Innovation Philadelphia copying your ideas.

    Is Matisse threatened when an art student tries to copy his works? Not at all. He knows that if his work is great, this is inevitable.

    If anything, attempts to copy him only elevate his work. They fall short, even to the untrained eye. In doing so, they help highlight what makes the original so rare and powerful.

    Innovation Philadelphia can copy our formats and they can take over one of our hangouts for a night, but that doesn't mean they have produced anything resembling what we have produced.

    Give your works the credit they deserve. They are powerful and durable, and their magic is subtle. They aren't going to surrender themselves so easily.

    Also keep in mind that we didn't event the Ignite format or the BarCamp format here in Philly. We took them from others as a starting point and made them our own.
  • Matisse might have a real problem on his hands if that art student is funded by Philadelphia taxpayers. If the art student is able to afford better canvas, finer brushes, brighter paints, and have government funding to put all his works in a massively expensive gallery which dwarfs Matisses own.

    Edit: D'oh! Just read Cera's comment, if IP is indeed entirely privately funded then this makes my above analogy null and void.

    HOWEVER, since they are pursuing (kind of) the same end as many of the grassroots groups the economic argument can be made that any private funding they receive is by it's very nature private funding that is not going to the grassroots groups.

    Example: If IP is fishing in the same pond as PSL, Ignite, Barcamp, Indyhall, etc. etc. then it means there are less fish for these other groups to catch. Perhaps IP catches a fish and doesn't do anything meaningful with it (like trades it for nice boardroom chairs) whereas perhaps the grassroots orgs. are more efficient with how they use their fish (like use their fish wisely so they 'go farther' and allow for more funding of events).
  • You're missing my point, Blake. It's not that they're copycatting events, especially models like Barcamp and Ignite that weren't founded here. These models are intentionally open, welcome to copying.

    Think about this: BarCamp Philly was held last year, had close to 300 attendees and dozens of sessions. More than one of those sessions spawned an entire new special interest camp.

    It's the intent with which they're copying them that makes a difference.

    *Like it or not, intent affects the execution.* <--from the post above.

    My sadness and worry comes from the fact that they're using models that are part of the reason Philadelphia HAS made a mark as a ventilator for their own barely-breathing organization.

    People besides me (and you) invest immense amounts of their volunteer time to make worthwhile things happen in Philadelphia. Those people don't do it for money, or recognition.

    I haven't jumped into the money discussion yet because again, I don't know what I don't know. My hope is that somebody who DOES know can speak up and share facts on consumption and production.
  • I don't know enough about politics or economic development to know whether or not IP Philly's existence is a net-gain or -loss for the region. I think it's worth exploring, but I don't think any of us can easily assert either way. They are now privately funded, so IP Philly is a different beast 2009/2010. Maybe they will build great things, maybe they will die next year, who knows.

    You think the organization has employed some nefarious tactics, and therefore rebuke the conference they are hosting. I respect that decision, but I haven't scrutinized everything you cited yet to form an opinion yet on those tacticns.

    I think events like this are good for our region internally and externally. Internally we grow our relationships, and externally we establish thought leadership. Commercial events/conferences blur the lines b/w Top-Down / Bottom-Up since they recruit many local volunteers.

    I don't think IP Philly promoting themselves for using unconference formats is a big deal b/c it's not much different than claiming that they came from Barcamp. Unconference formats existed well before Barcamp (OpenSpaces is one reference, probably much earlier than that too).

    I think the dilemma of most non-profits is that they spend X resources on program services, and Y resources on existing (e.g. financing, revenue, etc). This is entirely different than a volunteer operation, and so it makes them easy targets.

    Disclosure: I co-founded a company that received investment capital through a fund founded by, but managed separately from, Innovation Philadelphia. The fund was established from private sources (like a VC fund). You can still hate on me though :-P
  • Alex, Why not talk on this exact topic on the panel? You could use this as an opportunity to "dare to be great. together" and have "Philadelphia win" This blog connects to the audience you already know and their audiences. Why not take your ball and glove to their field and speak passionately about how the creative scene works here and if government wants to foster it, what your ideas for how that could work are.
    This is an opportunity for everyone to win and for Philadelphia to look great in the process.

    my 2 cents.
    -Phil
  • chucksacco
    Alex,
    As a sponsor and technology provider for this event, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to provide specific arguments pro v. con. However, I respect your views and think you doing a lot for the tech community by getting people to think and speak their views about this topic. I'd just like to state a few personal views:

    Never turn down a chance to take the pulpit whenever you are offered an opportunity, especially when you can reach a new audience.

    Don't make it about what's wrong with someone else's approach, but always make it about what's good and right with your approach.

    When you can, always leverage someone else's marketing efforts to get your message out.

    Go wide my friend. It's break-out time for the Philly tech scene and we all need your help to get/stay on the national map.

    Chuck
  • mnips22
    Alex, you have long been one of the many people here who had identified a need for a bus. Someone (not you) got some public funding for this bus and then asked you to help drive it, and you declined.

    As you sit on the curb and watch it drive away, you are criticizing the people who got the funding, and are criticizing that it doesn't look like the bus you had in mind. The fact that you even criticize the driver - someone who works her ass off for the same cause you do - is most revealing.

    Alex, if you care so much about Philly, the place to offer your ideas would have been on stage as you supported this national-caliber event, not on your blog as you try to shoot it down. Most of the people involved in this - like me - are donating their time and ideas. And every one of the active, local organizations mentioned on this page by others was invited to participate in this event.

    What is the real reason why you aren't helping? Seems to me that this is mostly about local politics; not about ideas - about the ownership of them. That's too bad. That's the sort of provincial thinking that will prevent things from changing so much here any time soon. I’ve worked in the national digital market for well more than a decade now, and watched it expand and contract three times. I’ve never heard anything like this in any community I've worked in (DC, SF, Chicago, NY) until now. Bummer for Philly.
  • I think everything can be summed up this way.

    Be authentic.

    If you are a sheep, be a sheep. If you are a wolf, be a wolf. Don't be a wolf showing up in sheep's clothing.
  • "Is it possible for me to speak at this event while still expressing my concerns?"
    >>>If the invitation for you to participate still stands, and you're willing to allow yourself the option to accept it, despite any frothy brewhaha it provokes internally (in you) or your communities, I think the question you've posed actually becomes a pre-condition...meaning, the only way it would be possible for you to speak at this event would be IF you will be free to express your concerns while doing so. Whether IP would green-light this is another issue entirely. But, I am certain you would have no problem holding true to this, and would in fact make it a requirement, if you would allow yourself the opportunity to participate.

    "What sorts of things do people need to hear from me in order for my presentation to be effective?"
    >>> 1. Your "concerns", 2. Your perspective on "alignment" (you touch on this in the blog post above), and 3. What it means to "dare to be great. together" and how that plays into the example that co-working sets in this regard, and the role that co-working plays as one of many potential means for furthering everyone's higher purpose of building a more vibrant, robust, fulfilling, TRULY creative economy.

    "What kinds of takeaways can I provide the larger community, the one beyond the grassroots, while not compromising my integrity and values, speaking openly and freely?"
    >>>The community's takeaway = the remembered experience and resultant new/reaffirmed enlightenment of having witnessed Alex Hillman's uncompromising participation. If you are there, you WILL be true, you WILL speak openly and freely. But of course, if you are NOT there, it WILL be impossible to do so.

    You've got so much to offer, and anyone witnessing your participation will be the better for it. I hope to see you there Alex!

    Cliff Stevens
  • Cliff,

    I want to thank you for actually taking the time to address my questions thoughtfully. It means a lot to me.
  • Absolutely my pleasure to do so Alex. Glad it was worthy. See you 'round!
  • traceywelson
    Just to clarify - IP did not receive any money from the City for their budget in 2009. They have received funding from other sources, some of them private.
  • matthew j roberts
    you're a great voice for philadelphia. keep it up. i dont even know what innovation philadelphia is, but i know who you are and i know what independents hall is, so take that for some perspective on what matters to folks looking back longingly at philly from west of city line ave.
  • "Life is pretty simple. You do some stuff. Most fails. Some works. You do more of what works. If it works big, others quickly copy it. Then you do something else. The trick is the doing something else."
    - Tom Peters
  • Quickly, background: Alex, I've met you once briefly at National Mechanics when I was there with Matt Mullenweg. You ignored my email once and some tweets asking you to read that email too. I was trying to get a coworking space in Phoenixville going and was asking for your advice. You know, the community/sharing kind of advice. Nevertheless, I'm not in a situation where I could take on this project anymore so I've had to stop working that project. For now.

    Some things about this whole saga seem off to me. And I'm no Philly tech/creative scene insider at all. I know some people vaguely, slowly trying to make more connections. And look, I'm even late to this party.

    "Without my support and involvement, there’s a void in the honesty of how this event represents Philadelphia. Comments on my original post support that."

    "I have to wonder if Innovation Philadelphia led them to believe that we’d be on a panel together, and if that had any influence on their decision to participate? I don’t know."

    There's a debatable level of hubris in these two statements which colors my perception of other points being made in this post. There I said it.

    I'm hunting for concrete details about this overpowering "top down"-edness and bureaucracy which renders the IP conference unbearable for any self respecting freedom loving independent worker. Not found a lot so far. But I'm hunting...

    Also, I don't know a lot about IP. In fact I'd never heard of them until I stumbled onto this post. Probably proves your point about what they've managed (or not) to do with this money they have. But I did some quick research and it seems that IP created, or was involved in creating the Creative Economy Investment Fund. Which in turn funded DreamIt Ventures, or invested in it, in some fashion. I don't know the details. It seems to me that good things are flowing down this river. In fact I'm reading something here indicating that you, Alex, get involved with a DreamIt funded project called Anthillz? I don't see bad here only good. I want to see more of this.

    So my vote would be for more conferences, not less. I'm hoping for IP to do more, not do less. And they should be free to use any format. In fact, if they want to use an overhead projector, like my 7th grade math teacher Mrs Rogers was the very first in our entire school to do, then I say go for it.

    I want to see more guys in pin stripe suits listening to a tattooed guy tell them how he built a web application that is better at solving a certain problem than the Oracle solution that their company dropped eighty grand on. And those guys in the suits go to the IP conference (probably) where they can get a Danny De Vito Limoncello at the open bar. They should hear the good news right?

    "The most dangerous thing in the world for me would be to think I operate in a bubble."

    "He asked me one of the hardest questions I’ve ever been asked:"

    Now if that's really the most dangerous thing in the world for you to think, and if that's really one of the hardest questions you've ever been asked, then Alex my friend your life is goddamn awesome. Possibly even Dangerously so.
blog comments powered by Disqus