Many have considered Al Gore, former Vice President, and Jonathan Abrams, Friendster founder, to be losers who were once winners.  But Al Gore’s already made it back and is much richer and happier than before.  Jonathan Abrams also appears to be back on a successful trajectory.  These articles are from last month.  Guess what?  They’re still relevant!

Fast Company’s Ellen McGirt has a nice piece on Al Gore’s rebranding success titled Al Gore’s $100 Million Makeover:

One problem he had in politics, he says, was identifying an issue too early–"’predawn’ is the term I use"–to be able to act on it. But "in the business world, particularly at a time when things are moving so swiftly, if you can see it early, you can make a business opportunity out of it." He pauses. "For whatever reason, the business world rewards a long-term perspective more than the political world does."

I already knew Gore was doing well but Max Chafkin’s Inc. article, How to Kill a Great Idea!, clued me into Jonathan Abrams comeback, though it focuses on Friendster’s death by expertise:

By the rules of Silicon Valley, Friendster–a bold idea backed by experienced investor and the best managers money could buy–was destined for greatness. Instead, it failed spectacularly. "I did what you’re always told to do as a young entrepreneur," Abrams says. "I brought on experienced investors to help Friendster fulfill its potential. But the all-star team was the curse of death."

Unless he’s trying to generate some artificial dramatic tension, Chafkin’s closing remarks seem a bit clueless as to why Abrams can’t describe his new project, Socializr, three years out (that’s a fake and, possibly, foolish exercise for this kind of thing) or why Abrams would start a nightclub where he appears to rule (what’s not to like?).  Sounds like a lot more fun than dealing with VCs and watching your reputation tank.

Update:
I’m probably being a bit hard on Mr. Chafkin, though I do believe the nightclub is a nobrainer and that making public statements about Web 2.0 projects three years in the future is a questionable endeavor.

But that doesn’t mean that there is no longer value in thinking three years out, as long as you remember that at any point in the past ten years, almost anybody’s three year vision didn’t hold up.

We’ve finally moved into a period where our feedback mechanisms, from blogs to popular opinion to the stock market, are now fast enough that one can see that reality is complex and nonlinear without having to read Chaos or Linked or The Tipping Point.  That calls for a different approach to planning and, if you buy into Abrams claims about the death of Friendster, he’s in a more appropriate mode than any of his former board members cause he’s living in the present in a manner that puts him on the breaking edge.  And that’s real in a time when traditional biz dev is being outflanked by open platforms with widgets.