Anybody who has spoken with me about business and global development knows that I am a HUGE supporter of Coca-Cola and their role as a responsible business in sub-Saharan Africa. Whether you like the product or not, the company has setup massive distribution networks tapping local entrepreneurial talent in a way that supports local businesses and opens the door for innovative nonprofit work like that being done by Cola-Life. If you haven’t read it already, watch this video about Coca-Cola in Africa. Also take a look at this blog post from the archives on statistics related to Coca-Cola in Africa. (Interesting Fact: Coca-Cola is one of the consistent top keywords driving traffic to this site. In fact, somebody arrived to the site by searching ‘How Do I Get Coca-Cola Delivered to My House?’ in Google!)

Anyways, Melinda Gates agrees that Coca-Cola is a force to look at in the developing world. In this very interesting TED talk, Ms. Gates highlights the lessons that nonprofits can learn from Coca-Cola. The three key characteristics that the development community can learn from Coca-Cola include:

Real-Time Data Immediately Fed Into Product

The key here is “real-time”. Too often, nonprofits conduct their evaluations at the end of a project to measure its impact. The obvious problem with this is that it is typically too late to make any changes that might maximize their impact. Coca-Cola has a team called “Knowledge and Insight” continuously monitoring distribution and sales in real-time so they can understand what is going on with their product, why, and how to adapt to increase sales. This is the mindset that nonprofits need to adopt into their own monitoring and evaluation programs.

Tap Into Local Entreprenurial Talent

As I mentioned already, my favorite part about Coca-Cola is its distribution networks. Coke recognized local entrepreneurs who were buying Coca-Cola and then reselling it in hard-to-reach places. In 1990 they begin training these local entrepreneurs and providing them with small loans to setup local distribution centers. Those entrepreneurs would then hire sales people to go out with bicycles, push carts, and wheelbarrows to sell the product. In Tanzania and Uganda, these local distribution centers represent 90% of total sales.

Incredible Marketing

Coca-Cola’s marketing is “aspirational” — it associates its product with a “lifestyle” that people want to live. Their global campaign is “Open Happiness”, but this takes on different meanings based on local cultures and how they define happiness. Happiness in Latin American is associated with family life. In South Africa, happiness is associated with community respect. Coca-Cola’s marketing focuses on appeal,celebration, and unity. Development marketing tends to be focused on “avoidance” rather than “aspiration”. Changing the tone can go a long ways in creating an environment where social change can thrive.

[Transcript of President Obama's Speech...Visit the Website if You Can't See Video]

Tonight, I’d like to update the American people on the international effort that we have led in Libya –- what we’ve done, what we plan to do, and why this matters to us.

I want to begin by paying tribute to our men and women in uniform who, once again, have acted with courage, professionalism and patriotism. They have moved with incredible speed and strength. Because of them and our dedicated diplomats, a coalition has been forged and countless lives have been saved.

Meanwhile, as we speak, our troops are supporting our ally Japan, leaving Iraq to its people, stopping the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan, and going after al Qaeda all across the globe. As Commander-in-Chief, I’m grateful to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and to their families. And I know all Americans share in that sentiment.

For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That’s what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.

Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt -– two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny. For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant -– Muammar Qaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world –- including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents.

Last month, Qaddafi’s grip of fear appeared to give way to the promise of freedom. In cities and towns across the country, Libyans took to the streets to claim their basic human rights. As one Libyan said, “For the first time we finally have hope that our nightmare of 40 years will soon be over.”

Faced with this opposition, Qaddafi began attacking his people. As President, my immediate concern was the safety of our citizens, so we evacuated our embassy and all Americans who sought our assistance. Then we took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Qaddafi’s aggression. We froze more than $33 billion of Qaddafi’s regime’s assets. Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Qaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes. I made it clear that Qaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.

In the face of the world’s condemnation, Qaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. Water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misurata was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques were destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assaults from the air.

Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan opposition and the Arab League appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. And so at my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass a historic resolution that authorized a no-fly zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.

Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Qaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing, or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear.

At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Qaddafi declared he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we have seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we wanted — if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.

It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973.

We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Qaddafi’s troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit Qaddafi’s air defenses, which paved the way for a no-fly zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities, and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Qaddafi’s deadly advance.

In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies -– nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey –- all of whom have fought by our sides for decades. And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their responsibilities to defend the Libyan people.

To summarize, then: In just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a no-fly zone with our allies and partners. To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians. It took us 31 days.

Moreover, we’ve accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America’s role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge.

Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and the no-fly zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Qaddafi’s remaining forces.

In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role — including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation — to our military and to American taxpayers — will be reduced significantly.

So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: The United States of America has done what we said we would do.

That’s not to say that our work is complete. In addition to our NATO responsibilities, we will work with the international community to provide assistance to the people of Libya, who need food for the hungry and medical care for the wounded. We will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the Qaddafi regime so that it’s available to rebuild Libya. After all, the money doesn’t belong to Qaddafi or to us — it belongs to the Libyan people. And we’ll make sure they receive it.

Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than 30 nations. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Qaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve — because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people.

Now, despite the success of our efforts over the past week, I know that some Americans continue to have questions about our efforts in Libya. Qaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous. Moreover, even after Qaddafi does leave power, 40 years of tyranny has left Libya fractured and without strong civil institutions. The transition to a legitimate government that is responsive to the Libyan people will be a difficult task. And while the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community and –- more importantly –- a task for the Libyan people themselves.

In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all -– even in limited ways –- in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing needs here at home.

It’s true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country -– Libya — at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Qaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.

To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and -– more profoundly -– our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Qaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful –- yet fragile -– transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the United Nations Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling that institution’s future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.

Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Qaddafi and usher in a new government.

Of course, there is no question that Libya -– and the world –- would be better off with Qaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.

The task that I assigned our forces -– to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a no-fly zone -– carries with it a U.N. mandate and international support. It’s also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Qaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground to accomplish that mission, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.

To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.

As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do — and will do — is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supplies of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Qaddafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Qaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Qaddafi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on Qaddafi’s side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.

Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of America’s military power, and America’s broader leadership in the world, under my presidency.

As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe. And no decision weighs on me more than when to deploy our men and women in uniform. I’ve made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies and our core interests. That’s why we’re going after al Qaeda wherever they seek a foothold. That is why we continue to fight in Afghanistan, even as we have ended our combat mission in Iraq and removed more than 100,000 troops from that country.

There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and our values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and our common security -– responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us. They’re problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.

In such cases, we should not be afraid to act -– but the burden of action should not be America’s alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.

That’s the kind of leadership we’ve shown in Libya. Of course, even when we act as part of a coalition, the risks of any military action will be high. Those risks were realized when one of our planes malfunctioned over Libya. Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United States –- in a region that has such a difficult history with our country –- this American did not find enemies. Instead, he was met by people who embraced him. One young Libyan who came to his aid said, “We are your friends. We are so grateful to those men who are protecting the skies.”

This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer.

Yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time. Progress will be uneven, and change will come differently to different countries. There are places, like Egypt, where this change will inspire us and raise our hopes. And then there will be places, like Iran, where change is fiercely suppressed. The dark forces of civil conflict and sectarian war will have to be averted, and difficult political and economic concerns will have to be addressed.

The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference.

I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed at one’s own people; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.

Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. Ultimately, it is that faith — those ideals — that are the true measure of American leadership.

My fellow Americans, I know that at a time of upheaval overseas — when the news is filled with conflict and change — it can be tempting to turn away from the world. And as I’ve said before, our strength abroad is anchored in our strength here at home. That must always be our North Star — the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources, to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a wellspring for our power, and to live the values that we hold so dear.

But let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer, our own future is brighter, if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity.

Tonight, let us give thanks for the Americans who are serving through these trying times, and the coalition that is carrying our effort forward. And let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around the world.

Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Thank you.

As revolutionary movements steamroll across the Middle East and North Africa, the United States cannot idly standby and hedge between liberalism and despotism. The US, as the largest and strongest global power long-representative of liberty and democracy, must take a clear and well-defined stance. The risk of standing idly by while global citizens risk their lives fighting for liberty are too great. While many of the rulers now facing strong opposition from their own people have been US allies, the United States cannot risk a future where a democracy emerges questioning why the world’s greatest symbol of democracy and freedom did not stand by their side. The future of our strategic position on the world stage and in the Middle East depends on the positions that we take today as revolution takes foot at a rapid never before seen pace. We were lucky in that Tunisia saw a fairly peaceful transition of power without the need for US participation. Our good fortune drew thinner as we hedged our bet in Egypt and waited out the departure of President Mubarak. However, the situation currently in Libya will not allow us the privilege of not taking a hard stance. How we position ourselves in Libya will greatly influence hard decisions that we will inevitably need to make as revolutions grow more tense in Bahrain, Yemen, and other countries teetering on the edge of potential chaos. Understanding the dynamics of US leadership and our role in Libya are critical to not only defining and achieving success in that country, but in sending a clear message to other countries as to where we stand and how we will react in relation to other countries.

From the front-end, it was clear that Gaddafi would not leave power without a fight. Peaceful protests leading to an eventual acquiescence of power, as occurred in Tunisia and Egypt, would not repeat itself in Libya. This was clear to anybody who has paid close attention to the  egomaniacal and abrasive leadership-style of Gaddafi, and the early warning signs of the Libyan military’s advances of opposition-held strongholds. For a period of time early in the Libya’s revolution, the opposition had momentum on their side. France was quick to recognize the opposition government that had formed in Benghazi and, alongside Britain, call for the enforcement of a no-fly zone. NATO waited almost a week after this point before even gathering to discuss possible military intervention, at which time they decided to “continue to monitor the situation.” Almost a month into the conflict, and after the momentum had shifted back to the Libyan military who had regained former opposition-held territories and had a chokehold on Benghazi, did the United Nations pass resolution 1973.

At this point, the United States took a leading role in enforcing the no-fly zone that had been called for. But the United States also failed to accomplish several important political objectives:

Defining the Justification for Military Intervention in Libya

What makes the situation in Libya different from that in Egypt and Tunisia? More importantly, what makes Libya different from Bahrain or Yemen? If violence persists in Bahrain and Yemen, for instance, will the United States military intervene? Is our hand being pushed by political pressures, media pressure, and the momentum of events? Or do we have a set of clearly defined guidelines that determine whether intervention is necessary? This is vitally critical to defining a precedent and determining how we will act with other countries (including allies) that are also facing instability popular uprising. This sends a clear message to the United States citizens making the sacrifice militarily and economically, it sends a clear message to citizens and protestors in other countries where uprisings are emergent, and it sends a clear message to the leaders of countries where uprisings are active or eminent.

Defining the Scope of Our Mission, Objectives, and What Success Looks Like

The other area where we failed was in clearly defining the scope of our military mission, objectives, and what success looks like. Granted, in such a military context the situation on the ground is so rapid and dynamic that defining these elements can prove moot in a matter of moments. Dwight Eisenhower once said, “Plans are useless, but planning is invaluable.” While the situation on the ground might rapidly alter our defined objectives and what we see as ultimate success, it is absolutely critical that there is some sort of plan exists before committing blood and treasure to a military operation. Is the military objective to oust Gaddafi and his forces? Or are simply providing air-cover to prevent and humanitarian crisis? Will we provide explicit or implicit support to the opposition should they advance on Libyan forces? Should Gaddafi remain in power, would we continue to institute this no-fly zone? Would our policy change if he didn’t leave? Would his military and strategic position change with our being there? What was the end-game? These were absolutely critical questions left unanswered.

Even more troubling, in this situation, there were different messages coming from the military and from the White House. President Obama and Secretary Clinton continued to explicitly say that is was US policy that Gaddafi leave power — a mixed message particularly when the United States is leading a military intervention in the country. Meanwhile, military commanders took a more reserved position that the United States military had no interest in driving Gaddafi out of power and that their mission was to secure and hand-off the no-fly zone. However, in the early days of the intervention it appeared the the military was taking a more aggressive stance than was expected by both the American public and the international community. In fact, the international community (particularly the Arab League) began to waver a bit after seeing how aggressive a stance we took. No matter, this could have easily been cleared up and we could have rallied unwavering support had we clearly defined the scope of our missions, the objectives, and an ultimate measure of what success would and could look like.

In Retrospect, What Should Have Been Done

While hindsight is 20/20, these failures were not the result of a lack of understanding, but rather that of political hedging. I can’t fully criticize the seemingly slow nature of our response, as the events of the last several months in the Middle East caught everybody by surprise. It was not that we didn’t recognize the angst and strife boiling in many of these despot-controlled countries, but we had no idea that citizens would be able to successfully organize using tools like Twitter and Facebook to rally in such large numbers it would put the amount of political and international pressure on these longtime leaders to step down. Policymakers around the world have been scrambling to quickly assess each country’s individual situations, their immediate and potential impact on the stability of the region, the impact of the international community’s actions on each country and on the region, and how geo-strategic interests are shifting and that impact on the global economy. Every policy decision and statement must take into account dozens of different angles, possible scenarios, and domestic as well as international consequences. It is certainly not a time to be rash.

However, from an outsider’s perspective, I believe that military intervention in Libya could have been much more swift had we played our cards differently. First off, we should have recognized immediately that Gaddafi was going to fight to the end and the potential for massacre was imminent. The first thought I had when I learned that Libya was the next domino to fall was that we had better be decisive in our positions (unlike our political posturing in Egypt weeks before), because the players involved were volatile on both sides with nothing to lose. Before even hearing the comparison in the news, I feared a repeat of a Rwanda-style massacre. Moving quicker, particularly when momentum was on the side of the opposition, would have allowed us to move in and provide air support while the opposition moved ever-closer to Tripoli to put more heat on Gaddafi and his forces.

Secondly, President Obama should have taken a clear and well-definined position and articulated that to the country and to the world. Like it or not, the United States is the largest power in the international system and the country that all others turn to for guidance in crisis. We failed to provide that leadership and guidance. The aforementioned points of defining the justification, scope, objectives, and ultimate definition of success for military intervention in Libya were left unanswered as we intervened in a country with a broad mandate from the UN. President Obama should have spoken to these points early on, instead of leaving the country and the world out of the loop as he moved troops into an offensive position. While President Obama’s speech on March, 28 served to answer some of the questions about why we acted in Libya and what it means relative to other countries where oppression exists, he continued to postpone a definition of success and withdrawal. This can only lead one to speculate that we are headed to a stalemate pending any drastic changes in the on-the-ground situation.

Moving Forward in Libya: What the United States and International Community Should Do

I’m careful when comparing US intervention in Libya to that of Iraq, but several parallels are too hard to avoid. A tyrannical (one could argue crazed) despot has attacked his own people, is tied to acts of international terrorism, is outspoken against the United States, sits on an underground sea of oil, an opposition that is relatively unknown is being rapidly thrown together, a fractured civil society, institutions tightly built around a specific leader rather than civil society, and the list goes on. The US and the international community have called-for and implemented sanctions and a no-fly zone. The situation appears to be headed toward a stalemate. The United States has led an opposition with a seemingly fractured “international coalition” under a broad UN mandate. All of these points apply aptly to both Iraq under Saddam Hussein and the current situation in Libya. Clearly, Iraq is a fresh wound in the hearts and minds of Americans and the global community — so parallels are inevitable and the world’s eyes are paying careful attention that we don’t repeat our past mistakes.

Moving forward, President Obama needs to step up and play a leadership role in the international community. He has avoided this for political reasons and because of the already wary perceptions (domestically and globally) of US intentions after Iraq and Afghanistan. But he can ameliorate this be clearly defining the points mentioned earlier. Clarity on these points will resonate across the region and in leading a unified international position. We must also ensure that our political and military objectives are in sync, both in rhetoric and practice. And we must tell the world what we need to support new governments born out of revolution: a political and economic plan moving forward, confidence that security can be held and maintained, etc. The world, and in particular the Middle East, is changing at a rapid pace. The more we can define and clearly articulate our position, the more likely it will be that we can expect broad support and smoother transitions. We need to stand up and be the voice of calm and reason, of hope and liberty that the world looks to. We have touted these principles for ages, and have in-part inspired citizens around the world to stand up for their rights and to bear the fruits of democracy and liberty. We need to decide what side of history we are going to be on, and what we will be remembered for during this historical moment.

The other day I was sitting on the Metro watching people reading their Kindles. Why I was so intrigued by everybody else’s Kindle while I had my own in my hands, I have no idea — but it got me thinking about something. Why did Amazon decide to make the Kindle exclusively white for so long?

Most designers, when trying to tap into a market, will design their product to appeal to the masses — the reason so many computers, phones, and other electronic devices tend to be black. Apple shook things up with the iPod, introducing a white device with white headphones. I think from a design perspective, Apple recognized the need to not only create an amazing and revolutionary device — but to create an Iconic Product.

Iconic Products go against market trends to create a type of “cult following”. The design of the product stands out in such a way that it gets noticed as something we haven’t seen before. If Apple had designed the iPod to look like every other MP3 player on the market, I doubt it would have captured the market share that it did (even if it had twice the functionality). Amazon made a very similar move with its Kindle: ensuring that the device stood out from its competitors not only in functionality, but in design as well. This white e-reader wasn’t just another product on the marketplace, it was an icon blazing the path for the future of digital publishing and print-media.

Here’s some great content from around the web:

How to Manage a One-Person Sales Force [Inc. Magazine] – This is such an important point that many entrepreneurs (including myself) struggle with. Great list here to tips to stay on top of both games!

50 Ways to Get Your Life in Order [LiteMind.com] – This is a great list of best-practices to keep a clear mind and achieve peak performance!

Social Media Grows Up [Inc. Magazine] – Twitter co-founder Biz Stone shares his thoughts on how social networks will change your business!

How To Be A Better Improviser [Dan Goldstein] – Many entrepreneurs say the best business advice they learned had less to do with business, and more with the art of improvisation! Here are some great practices!

11 Free Tools Every Young Entrepreneur Must Use! [Under30CEO] – I 100% agree with these choices! Great free tools!

8 Funding Contests to Kick Start Your Big Idea [Mashable] – I think the next wave of seed funding for entrepreneurial ventures is going to come in the form of crowdsourced fund raising. These cool online tools are great places to consider kick-starting your venture or cool idea!

Ten Founder Success Factors – And a Few Surprises [Startup Professionals]

Six Keys to Being Excellent at Anything [Harvard Business Review]

The Five Levels of Communication in a Connected World [The 99 Percent]

Here’s some great content from around the web:

Washington, We Have a Problem [Vanity Fair] – A day in the life of President Obama

While Kenya Votes, Ushahidi Does Its Part [Fast Company] – Eric Hersman (aka WhiteAfrican) is an awesome guy and a great leader in the world of ICT4D. In this interview with Fast Company Magazine, Eric talks about how Ushahidi is being used in Kenya’s Constitutional Referendum and gives his thoughts on the future of crowdsourcing.

6 Secrets to Achieving Entrepreneurial Success [Inc.com]

11 Paradoxes of Being a Better Public Speaker [Stepcase Lifehack] – Public speaking is one of the biggest fears people have, but here’s an interesting list of tips for getting through it and excelling!

HOW TO: Crowdsource Funds for Causes, Creativity and Startups [Mashable] – Crowdsourcing is trending, and is probably one of the best ways to get the seed capital you need to start a new venture!

How Mobile Technology is a Game Changer for Developing Africa [Mashable] – Not too much new for those of us that follow ICT4D closely, but exciting to see in a mainstream blog!

I’ve always thought that entrepreneurship was in-part about being a perpetual optimist and balanced pragmatist. The other week in New York (in line at the infamous Shake Shack), I was talking the art of entrepreneurship with Kyle Westaway and he said something that completely changed my vision of being an entrepreneur: A responsible entrepreneur dreams big, and then immediately tears apart that vision to see if a viable business model remains. As entrepreneurs, we are responsible for being our harshest critics. If we have not put our own ideas through the shredder, we run the risk to wasting our own and others’ time and money.

Many people say the difference between the US and many other parts of the world is that here in the US we “live to work” as opposed to “work to live”. As we make career decisions, it is smart to work backwards by thinking about the lifestyle that we want to live and the type of career path that can get us there.

Entrepreneurship is often described as the ultimate lifestyle/career choice — you can work your own hours, be your own boss, and you live the fruits of your labor. But it is also a great deal of work before you get to that euphoric image of the entrepreneur running his business from a private island — your company becomes a part of your life 24/7, a lot barriers must be broken down and mountains to be moved, you rarely have the full-resources to put behind your idea to execute efficiently, and even if you are bringing in millions of dollars you will be pinching pennies.

Sometimes the 9-5 job can give you your ideal lifestyle: you have structure, security, can afford nice dinners and buy rounds of drinks, you can get the resources you need to advance a project or idea, be paid to travel the world, and continually have short-term victories as opposed to continually chasing a long-term outcome.

Neither career path is right or wrong…better or worse. Each provides a different lifestyle, and as we make our career choices in life we must take into consideration whether that decision will get us closer to the lifestyle that we want to live.

Do you “live to work”? Or do you “work to live”?