I’ve just had the frustrating experience of watching “The Truth According to Wikipedia“, featuring Mr Andrew “Buy My Book” Keen. Many of those featured in the video have valuable input, but Andrew seemed to wind me up somewhat (probably his aim).

He calls those that take part in Web 2.0, social media, etc. members of the “Cult of Amateurs”. That without “educated”, “experienced”, “authoritative” experts, the “truth” falls away. I wouldn’t hesitate to place Andrew Keen within the “Cult of Ignorance”.

An educated person does not have anything to university, degrees, 25 years training, or published papers. An educated person is someone that can make sense of valuable information, and apply it in a constructive and appropriate manner. Richard Branson didn’t attend university when society tells us to (and, let’s open our eyes, university is an extended night out on the town, more booze than books).

The main flaw in the argument against democratisation of information is the professed death of truth. To those in the Cult of Ignorance, truth is something definitive and authoritative, spoken by someone who went to Oxbridge and landed a job in the city, to a flock of sheep not trusted enough to speak for themselves. Truth is an absolute statement, albeit conveniently taken from someone just as likely to have the human traits of being mistaken, lying, or both as the next person.

If members of the Cult of Ignorance took a moment to question themselves, they would soon realise that truth is nonexistent (in the terms they talk about it). The closest avenue to truth is always a best guess. What Andrew Keen and his pals don’t realise, is that 10,000 people have better odds of creating that best guess, than one man in a suit trying to protect his status in academic society.

He mentioned that “no one would be interested in what an uneducated kid would want to express”. That “uneducated kid”, of course, being a member of the next generation to take hold of society, once our lot is 6 foot lower, Andrew. Yes, that’s right, us at our desks in our own bubbled-version of the “truth” often live in a different world than the most important generation currently alive, believing that what we know is what they need to know and any attempts to think for oneself must be stopped or woe is us.

I hate giving this guy any attention, but I need an example of a cultist of the ignorant crowd to use. And he was just convenient. For those interested, I’ve no formal qualifications above high school GCSE’s, and didn’t come from a rich family. I could see that university would be too expensive for me, so I took the initiative to find other avenues of education. Last year I earned more than my mother (HR Officer, blue-chip company) and father (Mainframe expert for international bank) combined.

Not to brag, but Andrew Keen and other cultists, you have been disproved a thousand times over.

Yep, time to name names. Today I was the chosen escort for a very close, female, friend of mine. The task? Clothes shopping, of course. I’ve studied the female-fashion industry both on projects, and when something peeks my interest. I’m by no means a gospel speaker on the subject, but I have some tricks up my sleeve (pun intended).

New Look was about the fourth/fifth/lost count shop we entered, and she instantly spotted a full outfit carefully shown on a mannequin directly in front of us. My first reaction: that looks like it would really suit you. Her first reaction: oh my god, I love it.

So we glance at the nearest rack of clothes to said mannequin. Are the promoted clothes there? Are they heck. Are they in instant sight? You guessed it, bad luck. Where the hell are they? We begin hunting.

At the point that we gave up, the top and skirt had been found. The shoes and rather kinky jacket were nowhere to be found, as were the staff. The result? Top and skirt go back, we walk out, frustrated (well, she was, I was relieved).

I have no clue why the mannequin’s apparel was not stashed within easy reach, for easy purchase. The only possible explanation I can come up with is the idea that walking around the shop increases your chance of finding other items to buy (and thus a bigger sale for the retailer - think where the milk and bread are in relation to each other at your supermarket). This theory fails here though, as our minds were fixed on a target, we were hunting for specific items of clothing. Our eyes discarded everything but dark navy jackets and tinkerbell thingy kinda shoes objects stuff.

When will they learn? New Look could have took around £120-150 of her hard-earned cash today. Instead they got zilch, and we took up floor space looking for non-existant items.

Design trends exist in all industries that require original creative thought. On the web, the 1990s were an explosion of everything moving - marquee scrolling bars, flashing GIF images, “Click here, win a Skoda!” adverts. Today, browse any latest website and you will find (mostly) clear, crisp designs with a generous helping of whitespace. Less is now more.

Television advertising has also adapted to a similar trend in terms of imagery. Many adverts today are “minimalist”, giving the impression that the product “talks for itself” whilst it rests upon a clear glass shelf, with invisible brackets and a white wall in the background. Clear point, clear sale.

But I cannot remember an example that suggests any market force, any consumer demand or input, went any way towards any of these shifts in design preference. I very much doubt any one has wrote to Sony and complained that their adverts on Channel 4 are “too busy”, causing a marketing boardroom meeting.

The truth is this: the design involved in marketing products and services, on the web and beyond, seem to be an open outlet for expression of the marketer’s own creativity, and in no way reflect consumer preference. Do you agree?