The Church of TED

Re:The Church of TED by sylvinus on Sunday March 15, 2015 @10:28PM (#9209421)

You talk about TEDx like if it is a single entity, but it is actually thousands of individuals making independent decisions, with minimal oversight from TED. So of course there are going to be a few mistakes and if anything we should respect TED for opening up their brand and allowing experimentation.

The whole point is staying alert to see these mistakes, whether they come from TEDx organizers or from TED itself because nobody is right 100% of the time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Church of TED by peteretep on Sunday March 15, 2015 @11:36PM (#9209675)

Combining your brand name with minimal oversight is a poor choice. TEDx has a very strong signalling mechanism to me, which is "I couldn't get my ideas accepted anywhere else, but I think they are important enough for TED".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Church of TED by jeffdavis on Monday March 16, 2015 @01:02AM (#9209958)

For most things, opening up is noble. But not for a brand -- can you imagine Apple allowing other companies to use their brand for experimentation? Or Coca-Cola?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Church of TED by sylvinus on Monday March 16, 2015 @02:27PM (#9213283)

Those brands are for-profit and opening up may indeed not make sense financially.

TED is a non-profit, and their goal is to build an efficient platform for sharing ideas (and not only theirs). In this regard, opening up makes total sense, even if brand damage is a risk. (hence the respect)

[ Parent | on HN ]