Friday, April 29, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
A Portrait of Structural Change
An interesting article from the Economist on how technology can reduce a profession to becoming a commodity. It discusses professional photographers, but it applies to many other careers, business models, and industries.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/04/tech_demand_and_unemployment?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/portraitofstructuralchange
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/04/tech_demand_and_unemployment?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/portraitofstructuralchange
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
I'm Reconsidering the Value of my College Degree
The University of Florida bass fishing team has won their second National Guard FLW College Fishing National Championship title. I've never been prouder.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
QWERTY Explained
In an article on www.edge.org the author John McWhorter explains how our keyboard originated.
... (the) example is the seemingly illogical arrangement of letters on typewriter keyboards. Why not just have the letters in alphabetical order, or arrange them so that the most frequently occurring ones are under the strongest fingers? In fact, the first typewriter tended to jam when typed on too quickly, so its inventor deliberately concocted an arrangement that put A under the ungainly little finger. In addition, the first row was provided with all of the letters in the word typewriter so that salesmen, new to typing, could wangle typing the word using just one row.
Quickly, however, mechanical improvements made faster typing possible, and new keyboards placing letters according to frequency were presented. But it was too late: there was no going back. By the 1890s typists across America were used to QWERTY keyboards, having learned to zip away on new versions of them that did not stick so easily, and retraining them would have been expensive and, ultimately, unnecessary. So QWERTY was passed down the generations, and even today we use the queer QWERTY configuration on computer keyboards where jamming is a mechanical impossibility.
... (the) example is the seemingly illogical arrangement of letters on typewriter keyboards. Why not just have the letters in alphabetical order, or arrange them so that the most frequently occurring ones are under the strongest fingers? In fact, the first typewriter tended to jam when typed on too quickly, so its inventor deliberately concocted an arrangement that put A under the ungainly little finger. In addition, the first row was provided with all of the letters in the word typewriter so that salesmen, new to typing, could wangle typing the word using just one row.
Quickly, however, mechanical improvements made faster typing possible, and new keyboards placing letters according to frequency were presented. But it was too late: there was no going back. By the 1890s typists across America were used to QWERTY keyboards, having learned to zip away on new versions of them that did not stick so easily, and retraining them would have been expensive and, ultimately, unnecessary. So QWERTY was passed down the generations, and even today we use the queer QWERTY configuration on computer keyboards where jamming is a mechanical impossibility.
Do the Math
The government shutdown was averted by a deal to cut $38 billion from the budget. Yippee. It's not much of an accomplishment when the annual deficit is $1.4 trillion.
Before claiming any victories Congress should understand that they just reduced the annual deficit by 2.7 percent. BFD.
Someone wake me up when the actually make meaningful budget progress.
Before claiming any victories Congress should understand that they just reduced the annual deficit by 2.7 percent. BFD.
Someone wake me up when the actually make meaningful budget progress.
Friday, April 8, 2011
The Phoenix of Finance
For the past several years I have not had much respect for banks. They essentially stopped lending money to anyone except those who didn't really need it. If you had a small business then you were out of luck. Your banker was unwilling to help.
Of course they told you differently. But the reality was that very few loans were being made.
For a while there was a trend of non-bank lenders becoming more aggressive. Private financing sources were actually doing a few deals that banks wouldn't touch.
Not all of this was the fault of all the banks. The economy was battered and regulators tightened lending standards. Banks had to heal their balance sheets. They had little choice but lend to only "perfect" customers.
Things now appear to be loosening, at least a little bit. Today I met with some bankers who have created lending products that can be obtained by strong (not perfect) customers. This comes on the heels of another banker who told me of the relaxing standards of the SBA.
This appears to be real progress. Not just political maneuvering of the financial system. If I am correct in my assessment, then it may be one of the first signs of economic recovery in the small business sector.
Let's hope I'm right.
Of course they told you differently. But the reality was that very few loans were being made.
For a while there was a trend of non-bank lenders becoming more aggressive. Private financing sources were actually doing a few deals that banks wouldn't touch.
Not all of this was the fault of all the banks. The economy was battered and regulators tightened lending standards. Banks had to heal their balance sheets. They had little choice but lend to only "perfect" customers.
Things now appear to be loosening, at least a little bit. Today I met with some bankers who have created lending products that can be obtained by strong (not perfect) customers. This comes on the heels of another banker who told me of the relaxing standards of the SBA.
This appears to be real progress. Not just political maneuvering of the financial system. If I am correct in my assessment, then it may be one of the first signs of economic recovery in the small business sector.
Let's hope I'm right.
Shutdowns We Don't Care About
This post is being written on Friday, April 8th, with about 4 1/2 hours to go before the Federal Government is scheduled to shut down.
Excuse me while I yawn.
I know this is a bad attitude. But only in the macro perspective. Halting government services places workers' paychecks at risk, reduces essential services, and ruins the plans of thousands of visitors to national parks. I get all of that, and more.
On the other hand, at midnight nothing will happen to me. The lights in my house will still work, I will be connected to the Internet, and I will probably be watching sports highlights on TV.
So why don't I care more about this? Because I am normal -- I am selfish. If something doesn't cause me to change behavior, cost me money, or impact the health of someone in my family, then it gets placed lower on my list of concerns. It's all about me, just like it's all about you.
The government's status is not the only recent shutdown to impact my world. The NFL players strike may stop professional football. The tsunami in Japan has stopped factories from making products that I buy. And the shutdown of a favorite retailer in my neighborhood looks like it will be permanent.
I still don't care all that much. I will watch college football. I will find other stores that sell similar goods. And I won't be upset about any of it.
Eventually I will miss these things. But for the short term there is little disappointment or discomfort. My attitude will eventually change, but that's a long way off in the future.
I'm not sure politicians understand this. They talk about the grave dangers of a government shutdown. Most people can't relate to it any more than being able to comprehend a budget deficit of $1.4 trillion. It's too large and too distant.
So when you're reading the news or listening to interviews about the mess in Washington, ask yourself, "are they helping me relate to what's going on in terms that I can really understand?"
Then turn around and ask if your business is helping customers relate to what you do in terms that they can really understand.
Excuse me while I yawn.
I know this is a bad attitude. But only in the macro perspective. Halting government services places workers' paychecks at risk, reduces essential services, and ruins the plans of thousands of visitors to national parks. I get all of that, and more.
On the other hand, at midnight nothing will happen to me. The lights in my house will still work, I will be connected to the Internet, and I will probably be watching sports highlights on TV.
So why don't I care more about this? Because I am normal -- I am selfish. If something doesn't cause me to change behavior, cost me money, or impact the health of someone in my family, then it gets placed lower on my list of concerns. It's all about me, just like it's all about you.
The government's status is not the only recent shutdown to impact my world. The NFL players strike may stop professional football. The tsunami in Japan has stopped factories from making products that I buy. And the shutdown of a favorite retailer in my neighborhood looks like it will be permanent.
I still don't care all that much. I will watch college football. I will find other stores that sell similar goods. And I won't be upset about any of it.
Eventually I will miss these things. But for the short term there is little disappointment or discomfort. My attitude will eventually change, but that's a long way off in the future.
I'm not sure politicians understand this. They talk about the grave dangers of a government shutdown. Most people can't relate to it any more than being able to comprehend a budget deficit of $1.4 trillion. It's too large and too distant.
So when you're reading the news or listening to interviews about the mess in Washington, ask yourself, "are they helping me relate to what's going on in terms that I can really understand?"
Then turn around and ask if your business is helping customers relate to what you do in terms that they can really understand.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
They Put a Lid on the Basket
On Monday evening Butler and UConn played for the NCAA basketball championship. Most viewers and commentators thought it wasn't a good game. While both teams played hard and fair, they didn't do a good job of shooting the ball. The field goal percentage for Butler was the worst in the history of the championship game.
So why was everyone disappointed? Because we expect the championship of any sport should be the best and most memorable game of the year.
Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. But each time we want it to be. After all, this is the ultimate game. Why shouldn't it have the best players making the best plays?
The basketball game that was played featured two outstanding defenses. And while we say we appreciate defense, it's the offense that generates the highlights. We like big scores. It's more interesting to see points go up on the scoreboard.
Our tastes translate across the sporting spectrum. Despite decades of American children playing little league soccer the game is nowhere near achieving a solid following on a professional level. One of the arguments about football eclipsing baseball is the one-hit pitchers' duel. Yes, that type of baseball game may be a gem, but there is so little scoring that the average fan becomes disinterested.
We like to see point production. It shows us that the players are succeeding within the contest. We become frustrated when players can't score points. It seems announcers would rather talk about scoring droughts of an offense than the prowess of a defense.
Is this because we hold athletes to a higher standard? In a word, yes. They are the best and we want to watch them achieve greatness. Unfortunately, defense can't be appreciated as easily as swishing the ball through the net from 28 feet. We want to see great skill and the results it creates.
This also applies to business. The salesman who lands a large account is lauded. The salesman who saves an unhappy customer is often overlooked. The painter is more visible than the bricklayer. And the doctor is more valued than the nurse who receives the urine sample.
Is this correct? Sometimes. You need years of training to diagnose and heal patients. You don't need nearly as much training to walk down the hall with a container of pee.
The challenge we all face is to give proper value for the job. It's not easy. The UConn defense will be written about to a lesser degree than the Butler shooters who went cold. It's probably not right, but it's the way our perceptions work.
Make sure you're correctly looking at your own business. Are you being impressed by the superficial, or are you appreciating the benefits of your company's unseen foundations? Take a step back and figure out what would happen if any of these foundations were to go away. Then you'll know what's most important instead of what's easy to appreciate.
So why was everyone disappointed? Because we expect the championship of any sport should be the best and most memorable game of the year.
Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. But each time we want it to be. After all, this is the ultimate game. Why shouldn't it have the best players making the best plays?
The basketball game that was played featured two outstanding defenses. And while we say we appreciate defense, it's the offense that generates the highlights. We like big scores. It's more interesting to see points go up on the scoreboard.
Our tastes translate across the sporting spectrum. Despite decades of American children playing little league soccer the game is nowhere near achieving a solid following on a professional level. One of the arguments about football eclipsing baseball is the one-hit pitchers' duel. Yes, that type of baseball game may be a gem, but there is so little scoring that the average fan becomes disinterested.
We like to see point production. It shows us that the players are succeeding within the contest. We become frustrated when players can't score points. It seems announcers would rather talk about scoring droughts of an offense than the prowess of a defense.
Is this because we hold athletes to a higher standard? In a word, yes. They are the best and we want to watch them achieve greatness. Unfortunately, defense can't be appreciated as easily as swishing the ball through the net from 28 feet. We want to see great skill and the results it creates.
This also applies to business. The salesman who lands a large account is lauded. The salesman who saves an unhappy customer is often overlooked. The painter is more visible than the bricklayer. And the doctor is more valued than the nurse who receives the urine sample.
Is this correct? Sometimes. You need years of training to diagnose and heal patients. You don't need nearly as much training to walk down the hall with a container of pee.
The challenge we all face is to give proper value for the job. It's not easy. The UConn defense will be written about to a lesser degree than the Butler shooters who went cold. It's probably not right, but it's the way our perceptions work.
Make sure you're correctly looking at your own business. Are you being impressed by the superficial, or are you appreciating the benefits of your company's unseen foundations? Take a step back and figure out what would happen if any of these foundations were to go away. Then you'll know what's most important instead of what's easy to appreciate.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
I Trust Your Cothes So I Also Trust You
The Eonomist recently reported on a study of perceptions about designer labels (http://www.economist.com/node/18483423?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/ar/ivegotyoulabelled). The conclusion of the researchers was that we attach positive qualities to someone wearing clothes with recognizable brands of status. It gives us comfort and helps to quickly build trust.
Is this superficial? You betcha. But we are only human. And we need mechanisms to size up the strangers in front of us. So the labels are one method of short cutting the process.
It seems as though the clothes don't make the man, but the labels do.
It's great news for marketers who want justification for building brand names. It may also be a confirmation for businesses that feature recognizable brands; perceptions don't have to be built with customers who already have been impressed by the names and logos.
Is this superficial? You betcha. But we are only human. And we need mechanisms to size up the strangers in front of us. So the labels are one method of short cutting the process.
It seems as though the clothes don't make the man, but the labels do.
It's great news for marketers who want justification for building brand names. It may also be a confirmation for businesses that feature recognizable brands; perceptions don't have to be built with customers who already have been impressed by the names and logos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)