If you ever wondered where new internet ideas come from – they come from places like the minds of the people who entered the Exit ‘09 contest. The contest, sponsored by a slew of Israeli companies (chief among them Israeli development house Sergata) is open to anyone with a good idea – and if the idea is good enough to get into the contest, they could win a “startup package” worth $250,000 (including $100,000 in cash)! Even better – the format of the contest is a sort of “reality TV” show, where fans of startup ideas can vote for their favorites, with a panel of judges (top people from Google Israel, IBM, The Marker, and others) picking the winner.

Most of the 26 contestants put up a video on the Exit ‘09 site describing their idea or technology. I wrote about the contest in a Jerusalem Post article (which you can see here), but here I wanted to say something about the videos (ie, the ideas) – which got me thinking about the whole business of “innovation.”

There were a couple of really original ideas – one entrepreneur wants to put up a site where people who wear hearing aids can adjust them using a website, another plans a “pet interface” site for dogs and cats who are at home all day alone (they can communicate with their masters, or even with other pets!). Another site would provide a “virtual shrink” for counseling and coaching.

But many of the other ideas seemed to be very similar to already existing web sites and services. So, if the contest was based on “innovation” – having a really good, different idea – many of the contenders wouldn’t have qualified to be in the contest, based on what I could see.

But modern “innovation” – the kind that makes you hundreds of millions on the internet – isn’t necessarily just about having a unique idea. It can be about having a unique twist on an existing idea. It’s about the packaging, the marketing, the way you convince people to use it – the way YOU see it being used. You can take an existing idea and tweak it, turning it into something big – much bigger than the original idea you were tweaking. That’s really all you need!

Believe it or not, one of the biggest “breakthrough ideas” of the internet era – distributing music over a network – is actually a century old! The Tel-Musici Company of Wilmington, Delaware, was, according to this article, streaming music directly to users’ homes in 1909 – via the telephone! Customers would call Tel-Musici and order a selection, and for three cents (seven cents for lengthy operas), the company would stream music to the customer’s phonograph, via a special transmitter connecting the phone and the phonograph that “intensifies and enlarges the volume of sound of all phonographic records but eliminates the metallic, rasping and grating features which have heretofore constituted an objectionable feature of phonographic concerts.”

I couldn’t find any references on whether Napster inventor Shawn Fanning was aware of Tel-Musici, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he was. And there are lots of other examples of successful programs that conquered the market from less well-marketed previous offerings.

In other words, to succeed in the internet business, you don’t necessarily even need an original idea! And one thing I get from watching the videos on the Exit ‘09 site is that you don’t necessarily need much technical knowledge either (many of the presenters say straight out that they don’t have a technical background). And in fact, the premise of Exit ‘09 is that the winning idea gets lots of help from the dozen or so companies offering programming, marketing, and branding help. All that gets outsourced to the service providers. In other words, the only thing you have to bring to the table is the “tweak” – the little twist that will put even an already existing idea into a new light. Exit ‘09 proves it (and a number of friends of mine who began successful startups prove it too).

Wow! It that’s all it takes, what’s stopping us from raking in the bucks?!?

Lest you think the Arab boycott of Israeli goods has passed from the earth, rest assured that it has not – and its latest victim is Israeli cellphone application maker Trixcell. This is the company that makes professional-looking magic tricks for cellphones that anyone can do. I’ve interviewed the guys from Trixcell (Shlomi Grandes and Menny Lindenfeld, who is a world-renowned professional magician) a couple of times, and have written a couple of articles and blog posts about them.

The tricks are really good (check out the videos on their site), and what’s most amazing to me is that this is the first time in history that sleight of hand is now possible for everyone; before, you had to spend weeks, if not years, perfecting the kinds of tricks you can perform using your cellphone and Trixcell’s illusions. What Photoshop did for graphic art and Quark xPress did for page layout, Trixcell is doing for magic – namely, putting it in the grasp of the non-professional, thus breathing new life into it and opening up many more markets for the profession.

But in my latest conversation with the Trixcell guys, they told me that their applications – which are sold in 90 countries around the world – have been banned in Egypt, because someone figured out that they were an Israeli company. Apparently they left the name of one of their developers in the credits of an application, and an Egyptian customer of Mobinil, the country’s largest cell service provider, complained that there were Israelis involved in the tricks. Not wishing to seem too “Jew-loving,” apparently, Mobinil dumped the Trixcell tricks. Grandes told me that it never occurred to him and Lindenfeld to hide the origins of their applications, and they had no intention of doing so either. He also told me a couple of things I promised not repeat; his official comment was “Israel has a peace treaty with Egypt, and even if they criticize Israel there, Trixcell only deals with business, not politics, so it’s a very unfortunate reaction on their part.”

Egyptians may be willing to boycott Israeli magic tricks – and Ariel detergent, since it shares a name with a former Israeli prime minister, and has a logo sort of looks like a Star of David (Proctor and Gamble, no stranger to logo lunacy, changed Ariel’s logo in order to de-emphasize the ‘Israeli’ connection). Maybe none use Motorola phones, because of the company’s Israeli connections, preferring Nokias or Sony-Ericssons.

But how do they handle Intel? I mean, since most of Intel’s processors were designed at least partly in Israel (nearly all of the company’s laptop processors were), and since so many computers carry an “Intel Inside” logo, what computers do Arab Israel-haters use? AMD? Well, some boycott sites do instruct their lackeys to do just that. But then, they probably didn’t hear about AMD’s eventual intention to open a research center in Israel, since “AMD considers Israel as a center of knowledge and innovation, and we do consider making a strategic investment here.” But you have to believe that at least some people – even among those advocating boycotts of Israel – are using Intel-based computers. If you ask me, it’s chutzpah of the first degree – using the computer or laptop brought to you by Israeli brainpower to advocate a boycott of that same Israeli product! Bizarro!

Thanks to the internet, we can share our most intimate ideas and thoughts with people all over the world. With Twitter, the privilege of getting thousands (or tens of thousands) of people to check out what you think is important in life is accelerated and democratized even further, since you don’t even have to bother with a blog if you want to reach “your public.” In a sense, we’re all celebrities now – just like Tom Wolfe predicted forty years ago, in the midst of the “Me Decade.”

That term, so closely associated with the 1970s, came from the name of an article Wolfe wrote for New York Magazine (it’s a great story, and if you’ve never read it, click on the link!). The article investigated some of the (then) new phenomena that really took hold during that decade – things like religious and secular cults, the sexual revolution, huge divorce rates, and the first stirrings of Christian “Moral Majority” style politics. Wolfe traces these developments to the Sixties, but by the mid-Seventies, they were part of the mainstream, no longer reserved for the hippies.

Americans have always been rugged individualists, and during the Seventies, Wolfe says, they took that individualism and combined it with the money they earned during the (then) “Thirty Year Boom” after World War II to start engaging in activities previously reserved only for the rich and powerful – namely,

“remaking, remodeling, elevating, and polishing one’s very self . . . and observing, studying, and doting on it. (Me!) This had always been an aristocratic luxury, confined throughout most of history to the life of the courts, since only the very wealthiest classes had the free time and the surplus income to dwell upon this sweetest and vainest of pastimes.”

In other words, all Americans could now become part of that class of aristocrats who could see

“my life becoming a drama with universal significance . . . analyzed, like Hamlet’s, for what it signifies for the rest of mankind.”

Wolfe called the new attitude to “Me” the “Third Great Awakening,” comparing it to previous religious movements that changed the face of the world. The “liberation of the self” was a kind of religious movement – it was the liberation of the repressed who for so long had been treated like “the proletariat” by their self-proclaimed social betters. Now, everyone was important, said Wolfe – it was the logical end-product of democracy.

At the end of the article, Wolfe asks:

“Where the Third Great Awakening will lead—who can presume to say? One only knows that the great religious waves have a momentum all their own.”

A great question, at the time, and Wolfe’s article was one of the most influential in the late seventies (at least two professors in my college had us do assignments on it!). But it’s now been forty years since that article was written, and the results of the Me-based  Third Great Awakening can now be analyzed.

Most social analysts agree that the internet is the most democratic vehicle for expression in human history. For better or worse, anyone can proclaim him/herself an expert on anything – whether or not they have a graduate degree or years of experience in a field. Of course, if you want people to take you seriously, it helps to have the credentials.

But short of declaring myself a medical doctor or lawyer (or other government-licensed professional), I can pretty much brand myself any way I want. And thanks to blogs, Google (thanks to which we have SEO and can theoretically be seen by hundreds of millions) – and especially thanks to Twitter, I can believe and say anything I want about myself, and broadcast my “Me-ness” to tens of thousands, or even millions. There are so many “marketing experts” out there who claim to have “the secret” to making millions on-line, and maybe they do. But a world (and a platform, like Twitter), where everyone is an expert can only be possible in a world after the Me Decade.

Not that there’s anything wrong with it! I remember a discussion on a Quark xPress newsgroup from about ten years ago, where one of the posters once mourning the “lower quality” of publishing as a result of DTP. In the old days, the guy said, you had to be an “expert” – using the hot type, setting up the plates, etc. Now, any kid could make their own newspaper or magazine, and it was ruining business! As one of those “DTP kids,” I felt bad for this gentleman, who was obviously losing out in what had become an outmoded, dinosaur business. But why shouldn’t I have an opportunity to have my say if the technology allows it?

If there’s anything Twitter proves, it’s that there’s room at the top for everyone. Just like anyone could be an expert on DTP or marketing, and everyone can have their own blog, Twitter lets everyone take advantage of technology to market or brand themselves any way they want. The ability to be who YOU want – and to get others to take it seriously – is the ultimate end-product of the Me Decade, and Twitter is the tool that makes it happen!

So people check out your tweets, or surf to your Facebook page. What does it get you – directly, I mean? Sure, there’s the “value-added” of your enhanced online reputation that can get access to useful information – or even help you land opportunities- but you don’t get any specific benefit when people actually visit your pages. In the case of Facebook, clicking on your page lets them charge more money for ads, and find more customers for their “gifts” – and Twitter will figure out how to cash in one day very soon, as well. But what about YOU? Where’s YOUR payday?

Right here – at Inter8ing, an Israeli company, which holds social media popularity contests, where you get your buddies to vote fpr your profile. The most popular profiles on Facebook, MySpace, Bebo, Friendster, My yearbook, Netlog or Hi5 – meaning the profiles from these sites that garner the most votes at Inter8ing- win cash prizes! The top prize on the page right now is $200 (they pay through Paypal).

It looks like anyone from anywhere with a profile on these sites can join, and anyone can vote on the web (Israeli voters can vote via SMS).

According to the site’s rules, you can solicit friends, or even vote for yourself. All they care about is the votes. Why not use Twitter to get your buddies to vote for you? It could work like Twitter followers – “you vote for me and I’ll vote for you.” The $200 winner has 436 points, which I take to mean 436 votes. That’s small change for Twitter members with 4,000 or 5,000 followers! Talk about “monetizing” your Twitter popularity!