marginally subversive

Seth Godin asks "Is it worth it...?"

Seth Godin always has a way of writing that makes it seem he's writing based on the past events of my own life.  Of course, that's preposterous and as my friends would say, "very assuming".  But one of his latest posts did just that.  In his blog, Is It Worth It?, he writes (after asking a lot of questions):

The object isn’t to be perfect. The goal isn’t to hold back until you’ve created something beyond reproach. I believe the opposite is true. Our birthright is to fail and to fail often, but to fail in search of something bigger than we can imagine. To do anything else is to waste it all.

The past few weeks (when I was on holiday - and I am still on holiday!), I have been thinking about the same question - "Will these new adventures and ventures be worth it?" 

I left a pretty good (read: 9to6, 8hours-a-day, no-stress, no-working-on-weekends) job and took on a 1month break (and counting) with nothing but my savings in the bank to search for new adventures and ventures that I could be part of.

For four weeks, the thought - and yes, the fear - of having nothing to come back to after my holidays was there.  And the thought of "will these things that I am thinking about be worth it?", I would admit, keeps on coming to me - whilst lying by the pool, whilst swimming, whilst doing the rounds in my apartment, whilst running errands, whilst playing with my best friend's kids...

And then suddenly, I realized: I wouldn't know if any of these will be worth it unless I get myself into doing any of these.

The object is no longer to find the perfect situation to grow in - or the perfect company or venture or partnership or business to get myself involved in. 

And as Seth wrote on the 17th of June: The object isn't to be perfect. 

And in the same manner, my object isn't to be in a perfect situation - whatever and however that situation may be.

My object is to find a system - or systems -  to which I can be committed to, whose vision is aligned with my personal vision, and whose values are interlinked with my values.

And I believe I have found it

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: SethGodin, Excellence, Arete, Remarkability

Making Sense of Location-/People-Tracking Data

This is a piece of interesting news that I picked from the NYTimes:  a company in the US, called Sense Networks (in NY), has launch an analytics program that will help analyze data on people's movements, routines, and trips - and potentially encounters with other people (or crowds), ads, and the retail shop.  This comes after NATURE published a study on how people of an unnamed city roam around their city/locale using cell-phone signals.

From a research perspective, this is a lot of data - a treasure trove of data.

From a marketeer's POV, this is a something like a dream come true: knowing where your consumers are, what kinds of media/communications they encounter with on the street, how they behave alone versus in groups versus in crowds of people, and how they behave inside the store en route to buying your product.  A savvy marketeer can immediately see the value (I hope) of such information - and how it can be deployed to improve one's investments across different kinds of media and non-media channels.

I can imagine, for example, a marketeer or a media planning company in NY tagging all their outdoor sites, bus-/train-ads with GPS data - alongside shopping centers that carry their brands or their competitors. 

I can also imagine marketeers and data-miners having a grand time consolidating information in-store with those gathered from these troves of consumer- and ad-/media-locator data - and creating predictive models and algorithms that would make brand campaigns more effective. 

I can also imagine how these sort of data will move adspends away from TV and potentially other in-home media, including the internet because "the last golden mile" in retail marketing is still the most important part of the buying process...!

But I am also pretty sure that this will attract a lot of controversy: privacy and individual anonymity.

It's going to be - hmm - intrusive.  It could very well be the start of conspiracy theorists' and privacy advocates' nightmare:  Big Brother On The Loose.  I can't imagine what would stop governments using this kind of technology (if they don't already have it - now that sounds a little like a conspiracy theory...) to track down individuals of interest to the state/nation in order to "protect" and ensure the safety of the public.

So - given these imagined possibilities, what should we think of these developments?

Well, I think we need to carefully think through this one very carefully.  Whilst it is great technology - and it could benefit marketeers (and, marketeers would argue, it could also benefit consumers), I think that it furthers the questions on privacy, ethics in marketing research, and corporate social responsibility:

• While individual-level data is good for business (think CRM, think CLV analysis, think RFM, think HB Regression and Clustering), how "individual" should individual-level data be?  How much is enough?  And how much is too much?

• How do we ensure that the guidelines set by and through marketing research societies all over the world about consumer privacy and about ensuring respondent-anonymity are followed to the letter?  The commercial reasons sometimes may well override these guidelines - and who doesn't want to earn some money?

• What kinds of information are off-limits and what are not?  People going to and from a grocery store after having gone through the train, for example, would be pretty good data for media planners and outdoor specialists.  Marrying those tidbits of information with purchase data would provide very good information of how people buy things.  But where would data-gathering stop?

I think that there must be an answer somewhere - or at least, a set of guidelines - of how these kinds of information are used.  They are great sources of information - and with proper manipulation would be great sources of insight and knowledge that could prove to be valuable to businesses.

However, there are also repercussions that come with the availability of these kinds of data.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: Data, Analytics, Research, Marketing Research, Media Planning

Why Be Modest? Yahoo Finance Blows Away the Competition

Picked this up from the Yahoo! news RSS - and as a user of Yahoo finance, I will have to agree that yes - it is indeed a great resource.  Significantly better than Google's Finance Pages, Yahoo Finance's pages (US-based, I think, but accessible to SG-users) are a great way to learn about investing - and well, invest.  The real-time prices and the technical graphing capabilities are awesome.

Time Magazine is out with its list of "10 Essential Sites" and we're front and center: "A haven for armchair investors and money junkies, Yahoo! Finance has everything you need to keep up with business — news, stock-specific research,

View Original Article

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: Yahoo, Finance, Internet, Web2.0

Value Proposition versus Price Proposition

I have been trying to put a "dollar value" to my day.  This is part of my personal goal of setting up my own shop - an advisory shop for small to mid-sized entrepreneurs in Singapore and in other countries in Southeast Asia on how to break-through their respective markets and create compelling stories for investors. 

For the past several days, I have been looking at different ways of doing this.  I first looked at the idea of "direct salary costs" + "overhead/capitalization" + "preset profit margins".  But quickly, I saw the weakness in such an attempt.  My salary - or at least, my former company's salary - could not be a benchmark, because that is not necessarily the value that I can bring to the table.

I tried a different approach - benchmarking.  I started calling friends who have been in the business of consultancies (the closest I could get to "advisory") - and started to rack my brains in search of memories that could lead me to a number.  I then compared my credentials with their own credentials, their clients with my target clients... But then again, I realized,well, mine is an entirely niche target altogether.  My credentials - or anybody else's credentials - are not a sure-fire way to measure value.  And besides, how does one quantify the value of one's credentials - and those non-dollarizable values?

Then I recalled I had this book called "The Business of Consulting".  I started to look at the advice the author gave - and devised my own way of looking at how I should be charging - or perhaps, 'dollarize' my time. 

1. Start treating yourself as a company.  So list down all your possible expenses - knowing full well that you now are a company, not just an employee.

2. Determine how many days in a year will you be working to create noticeable value.  This may or may not be 8hour days.  There is no "number of hours" involved - the ultimate goal is "noticeable value-creation" for clients.

3. I had to be realistic - this would be a stressful endeavor.  So I figured there should be days wherein I will do nothing BUT nothing.  There will also be days when I will need to catch up on readings and learn new things.  And there will be days when I will have to market the company - well, that's also creating value, but not to the clients that I will be serving.

4. Only then did I arrive at a number.  It seemed high - at first.

5. I immediately tried it out with a trusted business partner - and told him what my rates are going to look like for the projects that I will be doing for his team.  Of course, I had to show him the value of the projects that I will be working with him on - and how these could potentially lead to better processes, better returns, better people.  He said yes.

So - value proposition versus pricing proposition?  I think looking at 'dollarization' from both angles is perhaps necessary.  "Pricing" however, tends to undervalue the "real value" - because "we have to be competitive, we have to get more sales volume, we have to get more pick-ups and empty the shelves, we have to have more sales units sold!"

So I am going to say, it's all about dolarization should never be driven by what's cheap, what's in the market, what the rest are doing, and what we think would make people buy ("People love cheap prices!" - to which I say, "Not really...")

And funnily enough, Seth Godin in his latest blog talks of this thing.  He says -

Your sales force and your customers may scream that you need to lower your price.
It's not true.
You need to increase your value. If people don't want to pay, it's because you're not delivering enough value for the money you're charging.
You're not selling a commodity unless you want to.

Coincidences.  How I love them.

(I would like to say "great minds think alike..." but then again, I don't think I can compare with THE Seth Godin...!  Haha!)

Your sales force and your customers may scream that you need to lower your price.
It's not true.
You need to increase your value. If people don't want to pay, it's because you're not delivering enough value for the money you're charging.
You're not selling a commodity unless you want to.

LinkedIn and other social networks...: Beyond Advertising

The news on LinkedIn.Com being valued at about 1Bln USD after having been infused with 53Mln USD of investments has made a lot of people asking:  "So how will LinkedIn.Com's business model be?"

A lot are speculating that their current revenue streams won't be enough.

Right now, LinkedIn.Com is all about delivering ads - with premium CPMs/CPCs considering the quality of the audiences that LinkedIn reaches - and premium subscriptions.  A lot of industry watchers are asking "will this be enough?", adding that "Nobody would pay for a subscription if social networks such as Facebook, Ning, MySpace, and Friendster would do" and "Nobody clicks on text ads anyway... so if they are to rely on advertising, it wouldn't be sustainable".

I beg to differ, though.

I think that so long as LinkedIn.Com sticks to its principles - to what got them here (i.e., their audiences and the trust that they have built amongst their members - paying or non-paying) - they should be OK on the batteground for subscriptions.  For one, I can stand and raise my hand that my LinkedIn subscription has paid for itself many times over.  And I am sure those folks who are also subscribers to LinkedIn are getting the same value out of it - more than the "free" spaces that they get on Facebook et al.

On the advertising front, I think LinkedIn has got something valuable - their audiences.  My impression is that the people who are in LinkedIn are the ones who are deciding the fates of major companies in major industries.  OK - perhaps, not the C-level people - but people who have the C-level executives' ears.

I also would like to argue that advertising is NOT the only way that LinkedIn can capitalize on their services.  Advertising - i.e., "forcing people to look at messages and forcing people to respond to them" (which is essentially what advertising traditionally is all about) - is not the only way for LinkedIn - or any social media - to realize their potentials.

I believe that the phenomenon of social media - the social web - needs to be approached differently from merely forcing people to consume ads.  It needs to be more intimate, more relevant, more personal - and more social.

I know that's a paradox - to be "personal" and yet "social".

How then?

That is the big question that I think LinkedIn - and anybody in the social media world - should try to answer:  How do we monetize the social networks that audiences voluntarily create without alienating and annoying the very audiences that created these social networks in the first place?

For now, I don't have an answer - and I also have the impression that anybody has the answer.

So... I guess the race is on...  Again.

LinkedIn versus Facebook: Shall they ever meet - and compete?

Will we ever see LinkedIn and Facebook meeting - and competing?

There is a view that most would have a Facebook account for 'fun' and LinkedIn for a more serious, professional image.  That's what I do, too.  I think - though - that there is more to LinkedIn that just that.

I have used LinkedIn to be heard - one of the major sources of traffic to my blog Marginally Subversive is my LinkedIn profile.  I have had projects - and job inquiries - on LinkedIn, and I have also established 'connections' (for lack of a better term) with other professionals in my field and with people who I would not have had a chance to connect with in the real, flesh-and-blood world.  I have, for example, academicians in my extended network - people who have accepted my request to connect for the purpose of perhaps, helping me out in the future when I hit a snag in my academic quests or projects.

LinkedIn's two-pronged strategy of generating revenues through subscriptions and through ads is interesting.  But I think there is more to that:  sure, LinkedIn's probably limited in terms of its inventory and its ability to deploy ads (i.e., it doesn't have Google's Ad-serving strength), but the quality of the people who are in LinkedIn is significantly higher than any other social network that I know of.

That's the beauty of social networks - the value of social networks do not rely on mere "quantity" and "breadth" or number of users.  The value of social networks is also based on the quality of its users.

Look at Facebook:  Its exclusivity to university students was what made it interesting and unique.  Now that anybody can have a Facebook account, its sexiness has gone - and it has gone the way of "portals" and "search ads".

LinkedIn's business model is by no means perfect.  But it is teeming with opportunities.  However, it should be careful with how it evolves.  Its users are what make LinkedIn precious - and I hope (as a user) they don't evolve into another "too-ad-driven" site.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: LinkedIn, Social Networking, Social Web, Digital Web, Digital Advertising, Digital Models, Business Models, Strategic Planning

Does God play dice?

Einstein said that "God does not play dice".  But perhaps, Fate does?

I have been trying to understand the concept and the philosophy of probability - and whilst I am getting glimmers and glances into the it (and sometimes, I am getting some probable - hmmm - nuggets of wisdom from my readings), I still don't think I get it fully.

Some would probably say, isn't that a bit too odd to study?  Or perhaps, argue that "it's too academic - of what use will it be in your work?"

The truth is, I happen to believe that probability - and its related themes: randomization, the search for truth, measurements, errors, risks - are all interesting - and important - stuff that have wide applications.

When one goes to a doctor and presents his symptoms, the doctor actually makes educated guesses based on her experience - which we hope would be deep - and her knowledge - which we hope would be sufficient and inclusive of the latest technologies and advancements.  Her prescriptions are based on educated guesses - and that's why there's almost always that advice to "see me 7 days from now if it doesn't improve".

It gives the doctor - and the patient - the chance to "course-correct".

I think at any given time, we are presented with information.  Whether those information are perfect or imperfect, complete or incomplete, is immaterial: what we do with those data points and how we scrutinize them in search for nugget of deeper information, insight, knowledge, wisdom - or mere alternate views is what's more critical.

In due time, more information will come in.  And that is the time we take corrective action.

This is from _mpd_, from this site.  _mpd_ called this "Einstein was wrong".

** And now here comes my diatribe or my discourse on media planning...

One of the missing tools that we have on media planning is risk management - and the basic understanding of measurements.  We take Nielsen's or TNS' ratings figures at face value.  We assume that the last 13 weeks - and the average of those last 13 weeks - would be a good indicator of the future performance of any certain program.  Why 13?  Well, because it's always been the case.

We do not take into consideration the variation of the numbers.  And the probability of these averages and estimates happening again in the next week, in the week after next, 3 weeks from now, 4 weeks from now.  We don't create enough scenarios.  We don't apply strict- and rigorous-enough portfolio management principles to media plans.

And let's not get into the "validity" issues:  are we measuring program ratings or title ratings, or specific ad/timing- and pagination-rating?

All these need to be taken into account in media planning - and in the calculations of other metrics.

We also do not take enough corrective action.  In Singapore (as far as I know and I could be wrong), overnight ratings are not available - data are delivered 48hours/2days (I think - I have been too removed from the buying field).  I think overnights would have been ideal - but 2days are still enough to take corrective action against the benchmarks and goals that we have.

Once the plan has been signed and booked and logged into the system, it seems, there is little that one does on the media plan - to take corrective action.

(OK.  It just doesn't happen in media planning.  It also happens in promotions planning.  I have encountered clients who wanted to increase their media investments - "go for more GRPs!" - if the promo doesn't take off.  Sure - there is corrective action, but rather, it is a questionable corrective action.)

There just isn't enough thought put into media plans - and promo plans - and marketing plans.  There just isn't enough risk management, scenario planning, decision-making disciplines that get into marketing planning.

As the market for consumer goods and services soften in the US - and potentially in other regions - we need to be more aware of the investments - and the associated risks (and probabilities).  We owe it to those paying the bills - nope, not the brand managers - the shareholders.

"it's nothing personal..."

One of the things that keep on popping in my head when I am thinking about management is an ex-boss' advice: "In business, don't take things personally; separate the personal from the professional".

In the years that I have managed and interacted with people in the corporate world, though, I have come to realize that it is inevitable that the "personal" will be separate from the "professional".  I also think that such categorizations are misplaced and misinformed.

Companies hire people - and people being people, they are imbued with their rationalities and their irrationalities.  The "personal" is not distinct from the "professional".  And vice versa.  Dealing with people means dealing with the whole and the totality of each individual.

Such rationalities|irrationalities come with the entire "talent resource" package.  Defining one from the other is rather impossible - because people are people.  And people are complex.

I don't know where I read this - but it's probably in one of the microeconomics or behavioral economics books or perhaps, in one of the management magazines that I have been reading:  (I am paraphrasing)

"It is the irrationality of people that makes it difficult to predict human behavior.  Rationality of individuals is an assumption - not a given - in any situation, such that when the assumption of rationality is removed, all bets are off."

Should we give up then?

I think not.

The essence of leadership, I believe, is at the core of this realization: that people are people.  And whatever leadership or management style or theory we adopt, it is never - and will never be - perfect.  It is only when we truly understand people as people can we lead, inspire, impassion, involve, engage, enroll people.

 

From kellypuffs, aptly called Rational-Colored M&M's from Flickr

LinkedIn is worth 1Bln USD... Only?

LinkedIn.Com is valued now at 1Bln USD.

For someone who's been using LinkedIn.Com for more than 2years now - and have used most of the other social networking sites, both for professional and "fun" purposes... it seems like a very low valuation in comparison to Facebook.

So when are they going to go IPO? There seems to be no rush.

Which is good.

I guess.

Are clients moving into the turf of agencies?

If Microsoft's move of buying and grabbing Navic is any indication, then the answer is yes.

From AlleyInsider.Com:

At some point, someone is going to figure out targeted, Google-style TV
advertising. Startups and ad agency holding companies are trying their
hands at it. So are the cable operators and Google (GOOG) itself. Now
Microsoft (MSFT) is, too.

My thoughts about this? It's a natural progression. The divide between marketing communications and technologies that empower marketing communications - and (all together now) accountability, measurements, and ROI - is narrowing. And it cannot be helped.

On a separate note, I didn't know until today that IPG owned 0.5% of Facebook - and also had some stake in Joost TV and other emergent media. IPG made the investment a year and a half before MSFT took its 1.6% share of the social networking site. 0.5% may not be enough these days - but at least it does indicate something about IPG.

Oh - and IPG's stocks? They seem to be rebounding after hitting 7.22USD, its 52week low as of 19th June 2008...

Something's going on - and I am guessing the sleeping IPG giant has finally awakened.

I hope.

The whining of Gen-X'ers...

This from BusinessWeek is so far the only compilations of why Gen-X'ers are unhappy and are considered to be a whiny bunch.  The truth is, there is far more to us being whiny. 

As one of "us" commented: "When we had new ideas at work, nobody cared to listen; now that we're 'old' and mature enough, everybody's looking at the Gen-Y as if they held the panacea to all our worries."  And oh, we do make a distinction between shareholders and stakeholders. 

Oh well.

On Networking, Schmoozing, and Building "Street Creds"

I am perhaps the worst "networker" around.  An introvert - bordering on being a hermit, I have been one who has had to make an effort to socialize.  I am - what you may call - a "learned, really-trying-hard extrovert".

Through the course of my career, I have learned the value of networking - not just schmoozing part, but perhaps more importantly, building a network of people who trust, believe, and are confident in me and my capabilities.

My ex-boss, KT, calls this - in one of our recent conversations - "spreading seeds of goodwill and excellence".  I couldn't have defined it better.  Across time, you'd see these seeds blooming into plants.

I am heeding the advice of Jeremiah Owyang and cutting/pasting *shamelessly* what he has to say about the art and the science (I think it is a science - there is a structure, there needs to be a structure...) to networking.

Thanks, Mr. Owyang.

=================

Here’s a few things I’ve learned, and hope you intake, invest, and pass on:

1) You’re always looking for the next opportunity, simply shutting down what else is in the market is fool hearted. It doesn’t mean you need to jump ship before 1 month, or 1 year, but it means you should be talking to recruiters, companies, and hiring managers to see what next skills are needed now, and in the future. This will actually help your current employer, as you continue to skill up, take on new projects, as they invest in you. Remember, even if you work for someone else, you are a company of one.

2) Those who ignore the party/conversation/network when they are content and decide to drop in when they need the network may not succeed. It’s pretty easy to spot those that are just joining the network purely to take –not to give. Therefore, be part of the party/conversation/network before you need anything from anyone. Start now, and continue to build relationships by giving now: share knowledge, help others, and become a trusted node and connector, not just an outlying ‘dot’ of a comet that swings in every 4 years or so.

View Original Article

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: Career, Jeremiah Owyang, Networking, Networking Strategies, Career-building, Growing, Personal Growth

"S-Curves"

I cannot remember where I read this statement:  "When looking out for trends, watch out for the big and the small S-curves".  However, I have been studying S-curves for quite sometime now.  I have used it in projecting how technologies could emerge. 

When 3G mobile handsets were emerging in Singapore - and there were some data on the first six months of 3G handsets' penetration from the IDA - I tried my hand on modeling how the eventual penetration of 3G handsets were going to be.  I was asked by a journalist from one of the leading newspapers when I thought it would hit critical mass - and I said "in the next 3-6 months". 

She guffawed and didn't believe me. 

(I checked back a few months after that conversation in 2005 [or was that 2006] - I was right.  It's just that, ownership of a 3G-enabled handset didn't necessarily mean usage of 3G technologies.  That's for another day.)

When I was also trying to look at the penetration of new technologies - such as social-networking sites in some of the countries in the Southeast - I managed to fit them in an S-curve.

During a conversation with a potential employer, I blurted out that "I loved S-curves!"  Well, that's probably an exaggeration - but I find it to be very useful.

S-curves, I think, are very helpful.  It describes social and tech phenomena quite nicely - for example, how rumors, epidemics, new technology, and new ideas spread have been modeled using S-curves.  The proverbial "last straw that broke the camel's back", "tipping point", and "critical mass"  can also be thought of as the inflection point of the S-curve.

There are a number of S-curves that I know of.  Most are quite complicated.  The logistic/sigmoid function is one of them - very powerful, very interesting, and very useful specially if one is working with individual level data.

One of the S-curves that I found really interesting is Frank Bass' Diffusion Curves.  It uses 3 parameters:

• The maximum capacity, which in the case of "penetration" figures, would be 100.
• The Coefficient of Innovation
• The Coefficient of Imitation

I typically explain the Coefficient of Innovation as the innate power of a new technology (or product/service) to generate a following amongst the target population.  It's the innate or initial momentum that the technology (for example, Google's search engines back in the early 2000s) to be used by others.

The Coefficient of Imitation is the impact of others using the same technology.  It could be in the form of "perceived peer pressure" - a person's circle of friends upgrading to a 3G-enabled handset and therefore influencing that person to upgrade as well.  It could be in the form of word-of-mouth or endorsements.

The diffusion curves of Bass, I think, explains a lot - and does so elegantly and simply.  (Of course, there's more to the model than just mere projections and S-curves.)

Anyway, I have set up a spreadsheet called SCurves.Xls that would help in estimating S-curves given at least three data points (in percentage) using the diffusion curves of Frank Bass. 

Download SCurves

These data points may or may not be continuous or complete.  For example, you may have data for Year-1, Year-5, and Year-10 - this simple spreadsheet should still work.  Of course, the more data you have, the better.

(And if you have sufficient data, then reserve about 20% of these data as "counterchecks" or "validation data".)

You should have Excel's SOLVER Add-In enabled, though, for it to work.  (If you want the unlocked file, let me know by leaving a comment and I'll send it through to you by email.  You'd be surprised how simple it is.)

I cannot guarantee that the spreadsheet would work in all versions of Excel.  I have only one version at home (Office 2000 for XP).  I also cannot guarantee that there are no viruses.  I have pretty much a good antivirus in my system - but I could be wrong - so if you don't trust me enough, don't download it.

Below is a screenshot of the outputs:  It shows the Innovation and the Imitation Coefficients, the projected % at time, t, (which could be years, months, days, hours...), and a ghastly chart.  The chart is 'unlocked' and therefore, you can change and beautify it.

You enter your data in the yellow region.  In the file, there are 7 hypothetical data points entered.  These were not "continuous data" points.  But they seem to be working.

Try it out and let me know if it works.  If it doesn't, let me know, too.

And supposedly, the war for talent continues

In an earlier post, I wrote about talents, potentials, and Ferraris that are encumbered by speed limits that are imposed on them.  I have not really gotten to the point of accepting that an HR Manager - somebody high up the HR chain - would say something like "You may be a Ferrari outside - but here, inside this company, we have speed limits".

Oh well.  That is done.  The deed has been done - and I have stopped the hypocrisy.  Talent management is very prone to lip-service.  I wouldn't go as far as saying it is in the same league as "shareholders are our first priority".  But I guess, they're pretty near in the cliches that I have heard in the past.

Lest I be seen as a anit-corporate man, let it be known that I do like the corporate world.  We just need to be honest - and stop the pretensions that "people come first, then profits".  Companies train people so people can become more effective and efficient - and ultimately benefit the company.  Let's stop the charade about "we believe that our greatest assets are our people" - nope, it's the things that these people produce that companies tie in as "corporate properties unless these can be proven to have been done beyond and outside company hours and without any use of company resources".

OK.

Enough of that.

As I have said, I have ended the charades and the hypocrisy.

I am no longer that naive - though my naivete have indeed hurt me.  I guess, I was idealistic - and I had to learn the lesson.

- - - - - -

In Jack and Suzy Welch's latest BusinessWeek column, they were asked this question:

When you have a capable person to promote in your company but that person does not have appropriate tenure, is it better to hire from outside? — Natalia Salistean, Bucharest, Romania

The answer of the Welches: No.  And they continued to explain why tenure need not be a major, critical consideration.

To quote:

... why would any company put a high-performer through unnecessary paces just to satisfy a bureaucratic requirement? That uncompetitive practice is a throwback to the days when an employee's time served could, and often did, trump his value added.

- - - - - -

Well said.

Oh well.

marginally subversive thought of the day

People don't care about the technologies that they are using - they care about the brands that these technologies are powering. 

The brand promises - and engenders hope; the technology delivers.  If the technology does not deliver, the brand gets spanked.  If the brand does not deliver, the technology - no matter how good it is or how superior it is against its competition - won't survive.

Think MSN's Live Search - or better yet, Yahoo Search versus Google Search.  We can safely assume that all three are 'good' search engines - with the backing of great software engineers, academicians, algorithm designers, and specialists.  But why does Google dominate?  How did "Google it" become an intelligible sentence?  How did "Google" become a verb?

Or Creative Technology's ZEN products versus Apple's iPod.
Or Dell versus Sony Vaio versus HP versus Gateway versus Asus?

The brand creates the promise - that the technology behidn the brand does and will deliver.  The brand opens the door for technology to do its work.  If the technology behind the brand sucks, the brand suffers.

But it is the brand that starts it all.  And to paraphrase my former professor in Cognitive Psych would have said: No brand, never mind.

magazines and websites: round 1

I just got off the phone with the customer service of the only one magazine that I subscribe to - BusinessWeek.  The purpose?  To cancel my subscription to the magazine.

Don't get me wrong - I love the magazine.  I love reading it week after week after week.  I thought it had pretty good thoughts and viewpoints about current socio-political and economic issues in the US and around the world.  I was not perfect - I still read a few more other magazines that I could get my hands on.  But I thought it was a good starting point.

But then, I realized after having gone through several issues - "paper" and online - there was no significant difference.  In fact, when I tried to check out the latest paper-issue against their online-issue, I didn't see a big difference between what I wanted to read on-paper versus those that were online.

In fact, the one online was a lot more updated.  Perhaps, not as deep as I wanted the discussions to be - but still, good enough.

So I cancelled by BusinessWeek subscription.

Did BusinessWeek lose me as an audience?  Of their magazine, yeah.  But of their brand?  Nope.  I still will read their articles.  I am just going to do it online - and well, free.

I know some would think that this is no longer an issue - this thing about 'paper versus digital' media.  But I think one has yet to win over the other.  And in fact, it is possible for a brand to never lose in this battle.

If only media-publishers would treat their businesses as brands - real brands - in the same way that Coke, Pepsi, IBM, Dove, and Pantene are brands.