Profits & Prophets

Su Doku

Check out this nifty new puzzle craze that has migrated from Japan to England and is now making inroads in the U.S.  It looks pretty cool and people are addicted to it.  Here's a Website with more information about Su Doku.

Advertainment - Unintended Consequence of IP Piracy?

Geoffrey Fowler of The Wall Street Journal has a very interesting article [subscription required] about the intersection, or as he writes, "virtual merging" of advertising and entertainment in Asia.  In the U.S., though product placement and promotion is tolerated (if frowned upon), in Asia it is seamlessly woven into the artistic medium:

One of the stars in the music video for the South Korean pop song "Anymotion" is bare-bellied teen idol Lee Hyo Lee. The other is a $600 Anycall cellphone sold by Samsung Electronics Co.  In the video for the song, Ms. Lee dances with the phone and declares she can "watch anybody, sing any rhythm, show any people, call any number."

Samsung paid all the costs of making the song and the video -- and even hired the music producer and choreographer.  "We hope the lyrics will remind people of Anycall when they hear the word 'any' several times," says Jong Hyun Kim, a manager at Samsung's ad agency, Cheil Communications. Samsung's Web site features a computer-generated Ms. Lee teaching teens the hip-jostling Anymotion dance.

Other examples listed in the article include Philippine dance hit "Hello Moto," a song commissioned by cellphone-maker Motorola, and "Go Ahead, Win Hearts," a theme song composed by Samsung's ad agency for the Samsung-sponsored historic India-Pakistan cricket match (the video received a lot of airplay on video stations).

The article explains that one of the driving forces behind Asian artists being agreeable to this form of blatant promotion is piracy.  With illegal downloading of music, movies, etc., traditional business models are being thwarted and forcing artists to find new ways to both make it big and make a buck.  Wang Leehom, a recording artist in China who in his "I'm Lovin' It" song sings "You know what I really, really like?  McDonalds!," has this to say:

"There is so much piracy that it is just not happening with the record sales," [Wang Leehom] says.  But success can be ensured if he has a hit song and McDonald's uses it in commercials on nationwide Chinese television. "When I want to give a concert tour, I am selling out stadiums," he explains.

We've all heard about the financial impact of piracy on intellectual property, but this is the first time that I've seen an example of how piracy is impacting the very integrity of that IP.

Of course, the merger of marketing and entertainment is impacting artistic integrity on this side of the Pacific as well.  I recently heard a story on NPR about how the growing competition for advertising dollars is pushing product placement deeper and deeper into the artistic medium in which it is embedded.  We've gone beyond the Coke can conspicuously placed on the table to developing actual scripts that extol the virtues of Coke.  For example, part of the script of a "Life According to Jim" episode was developed to draw attention to the re-release of the movie E.T.  Jim Belushi was apparently furious about the intrusion and refused to be part of that scene.  Not every artist has Belushi's clout, however, and the other actors filled the void and plugged the movie.

Whether it's due to piracy or dwindling advertising dollars, society's inexorable march towards advertainment is accelerating.

Protectionism in an Age of Economic Uncertainty

As Joseph Schuman pointed out in this morning's Wall Street Journal "Morning Brief," the increasing trade-related saber rattling by the U.S., Europe and China, is directly related to growing economic uncertainty around the world.  The trade disputes grabbing most of the headlines right now:

• China is striking back at the U.S. and Europe who have implemented restrictions on Chinese textile imports, which have experienced unprecedented growth since the lifting of decades-old trade quotas at the beginning of 2005.  Yesterday, China rescinded its promised export tariffs on textiles and threatened to take the U.S. to a trade dispute proceeding at the World Trade Organization (WTO).
• Though the U.S. and Europe are united in the fight against Chinese textile imports, they are waging their own trade battle over subsidies that U.S.-based Boeing and European-based Airbus receive from their respective governments.  After months of apparently "fruitless" negotiation, yesterday [WSJ subscription required] it was announced that the U.S. is taking the EU to the WTO for resolution of the U.S.'s complaint that Airbus is unfairly benefiting from subsidies that are helping the company launch of the proposed A-350, which will compete with Boeing's 787 "Dreamliner."  Of course, the EU has a different take on things and points out that Boeing benefits from substantial indirect governmental subsidies through lucrative research and military contracts.

But these trade disputes may be symptomatic of a more general, global economic anxiety.  This weekend, French voters rejected the EU's first constitution, which was signed by EU leaders in October 2004, but which needed ratification by each member state and the European Parliament.  The apparent cause of the non vote - concerns over high levels of unemployment in Europe and the EU's incorporation of lower-wage countries into the trade mix.  It would be the equivalent of the U.S. developing a trade treaty with Central America that allowed U.S. manufacturers to tap cheaper labor in Central America.  Hey, wait a minute . . .

European countries from Germany to France to Italy and beyond are suffering from very difficult economic circumstances, for which a solution has not been easy to find.  If the EU constitution falls apart (not a done deal yet but certainly on life support - it is looking like Dutch voters will also reject the constitution), investors could pull out of the EU for more greener (read "more stable") pastures (read "the U.S."), which will strengthen the dollar but worsen our trade deficit.  Is anyone else's head hurting yet?

This just in - I just read that the EU has decided to file counterclaims [WSJ subscription required] with the WTO regarding the Boeing/Airbus spat.  Good times . . .

Random Thoughts

Perhaps it's because we're getting out of work early today or because we have a long weekend ahead of us, but today's post is mostly an exercise in randomness.

New word I learned today: fungible, which according to the American Heritage Dictionary means "interchangeable" (adj.) or "something that is exchangeable or substitutable" (n.).  Thank you to Mark Walsh at Fast Company for today's word.

New factoid I learned today: The nation's first 911 call was placed in Haleyville, AL, in February 1968.  Thank you to Tim McElligott at Telephony for today's factoid [no link - this came from this week's "Software Decode" eNewsletter].  They recently unearthed a transcript of that first 911 call in Haleyville, AL:

"Quick, Betty Sue, send the fire department!  Bubba's done got his head stuck in the wood chipper again!"

[Disclaimer: I'm from Alabama so I can make this sort of joke; all of you Yankees best keep your mouths shut]

Today's most overlooked cause for an effect: According to the BBC:

US health officials are examining reports of varying degrees of blindness among a small number of men using the anti-impotence drug Viagra.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has identified 50 cases of the condition, which can occur in men with heart disease or diabetes.

The FDA says it has as yet found no evidence that Viagra is to blame for the condition.

Oh come on!  Here's a hint: it's not the drug but what they're doing after they take the drug that's causing the blindness.  Don't you remember the warnings from your parents about how too much of a "certain activity" will make you go blind?  In a related story, the FDA is also examining reports of Rogaine users complaining of growing hair on their palms.

Today's sign that Fox News has given up all pretense of being an independent news organization: While interviewing Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) about this week's Senate filibuster compromise, Fox News anchor David Asman accidentally used the pronoun "we" when referring to the Republicans in a question about the use of the "nuclear option."  Why compromise, Asman asked, "if we should have done it and if we had the votes to do it." [emphasis added]  For a transcript and video clip of the Fox Freudian slip, go here.

Happy Memorial Day, everyone!  Don't forget to take the time to give thanks for the freedoms we all enjoy as a result of the sacrifices of others.  See you Tuesday!

The Two Terminations of Voyager

On Tuesday, Voyager 1's mission team announced that "the little probe that could" had crossed the "termination shock," entering the zone of the solar system where the sun's influence ends and the solar wind (electrically charged gas blowing continuously outward from the sun) crashes into the thin gas between the stars.  Voyager 1, which was launched on Sept. 5, 1977 (16 days after Voyager 2 was launched, incidentally - those nutty NASA guys), is the most distant human-made object in space, having passed the then most distant object, Pioneer 10, in February 1998.  It is poised to bring us new, first-hand insights into space outside of the sun's influence - if its funding doesn't get cut.

Voyager's funding for fiscal year 2006 (which begins in October 2005) has been cut.  Its entire $4M+ budget has been reappropriated in a "penny wise, pound foolish" decision that has generated an outcry from the scientific community and general public.  Fortunately, there will be a review this fall before the funding is officially terminated (and funding has apparently been guaranteed through February 2006 to ensure continued funding during the review).

Hopefully, the review will include a cost/benefit analysis that demonstrates that the potential scientific gains of the Voyager program (even at a reduced budget) outweigh any cost savings generated by cancelling the program altogether.

The Perception Gap about the Media

I am pretty swamped with work right now, but wanted to quickly post about an interesting new study published yesterday by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center.  In the survey comparing the media's perception of itself with that of the general public, there was a pretty big perception gap in terms of the role of the media, its reliability and its accountability.  Some of the more interesting statistics:

• 48% of the public believe news organizations are "often inaccurate."  Only 11% of journalists felt that way.
• When a news organization makes a serious mistake, 74% of journalists believed that they quickly report the error.  Only 30% of the public felt that way.  24% of the public said news organizations try to ignore the errors while 41% felt they tried to cover up errors.
• When the general public was asked if the government "has the right to limit the right of the press to report a story," 29% said "never," 17% said "rarely," 37% said "sometimes" and 14% said "always" (I guess that 14% would be happier in a police state).  Not too surprisingly, the media was much less open to government intervention.

What is the most surprising to me (aside from the huge perception gap between the media and their audience), is that the general public seems to trust the government more than the media.

I'm not saying that the media doesn't have its corrupting influences (e.g., corporate owners dictating or suppressing editorial topics, the sometimes porous wall between editorial and advertising, etc.), but the media, by and large, works to expose and root out its own corruptions.  Politicians, on the other hand, benefit from a system in which potentially corrupting special interests have undue sway on public policy and that influence is difficult to counteract.  Additionally, if a news outlet is corrupted, you can choose not to be exposed to it.  If the government is corrupted, you have no escape from the laws enacted by that government, save leaving the country.

The media, for all its faults, is a "check and balance" on the government.  The government is not a check on the media.  That is why the founding fathers of our country established a free press in the first place.  One need only look to other less-free countries around the world to see the stifling effect of a state-controlled press on the general population in terms of rights and knowledge.

What do you think?

Signs of the Apocalypse

For those of you who were looking for proof that there is no level to which marketers will not stoop, check out this new company dedicated to creating greeting cards that cater to the "cheating" market.  They have created greeting cards for when folks who are having affairs want to "send the very best."  A few sample lines:

• "The weekend apart is finally over . . . I missed you terribly . . ." (with a graphic of a silhouetted couple behind an office door)
• "Wishing we could be together on your Birthday . . ."
• "As we each celebrate with our families, I will be thinking of you" (a holiday card)
• "I can't go on like this anymore . . ." (for when it's time to end the affair)

I guess this shouldn't be so surprising in a country where "Desperate Housewives" is a top-ranked show . . .

Energy from Algae

c|net published a profile of GreenFuel Technologies today.  I met the president of GreenFuel and saw a demo of his algae bioreactor system at last year's Future Forward - they are doing some very cool stuff.

Basically, GreenFuel takes algae, water and carbon-based emissions from power plants and runs them through a triangular glass tube system (adding sunlight to the mix) to create biodiesel fuel, with lower power plant emissions as a nice side effect.  GreenFuel claims that the system recycles up to 86% of NOx and 40% of CO2 emissions.

If you ever have a chance to go to Future Forward, you should go.  You will get to see some amazing technology and hear some truly visionary tech leaders.

Should Companies be Socially Responsible?

Alan Murray of The Wall Street Journal, wrote an interesting column [subscription required] this week in which he argues that being “socially responsible” is detrimental to a company’s business goals as they are defined by the theories of Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations.  Though I disagree with Mr. Murray’s conclusion, he does pose an interesting question – do companies have an obligation to be socially responsible or is that outside their charter?  I’m still working the issue in my head, but my initial thought is that Mr. Murray may be defining a company’s stakeholders too narrowly, choosing only to focus on the folks who own shares of the company.

The people who own shares of a company, if they are not connected to the company in any other way, have little vested interest in the company having any priority other than generating profits.  If that were the only group that could have impact on a company, Mr. Murray would have a very valid point.

The problem is that there are numerous individuals and groups who can have a vested interest in a company and can have an impact on a company regardless of whether they own a single share of the company – e.g., employees, partners, customers, communities in which company locations are found, local and federal governments and even nongovernmental organizations.

One of the reasons that we have recently suffered a barrage of corporate malfeasance, I believe, is that some companies have forgotten that their stakeholder base extends beyond their shareholder base.  When companies only focus on the next quarter’s earnings and keeping their shareholders happy, it is tempting to take actions that are detrimental to a company’s other stakeholders.  One of the most telling signs of skilled corporate management is how well a company is able to balance all of its stakeholders.

As such, companies such as General Electric that take a “socially responsible” stance with potentially (but by no means certain) detrimental effects on shareholders are actually demonstrating strong corporate leadership that recognizes it has responsibilities to stakeholders outside of Wall Street.

A New Day

I’m in the midst of developing a new communications program offering for my agency that will target “non-traditional media” (e.g., blogs, podcasts, etc.).  I’ve spent a good bit of time wading through numerous blogging opinions and perspectives of varying weight.  At this point, I am inclined to follow Forrester Research’s lead and say that blogs aren’t going to take over the world, but it’s probably a good idea for companies to keep an eye on them.  Anyway, as I try to develop a credible and effective blog communications program, I thought I should give blogging a spin so I can speak from practice as well as from theory.

Of course, I have little interest in just talking about blogging (a pretty boring subject that is being rehashed over and over again in countless blogs already).  I would rather discuss business, politics, religion, culture, and whatever else happens to strike my fancy.  To set the stage for anyone who happens to find this blog, a little about me:

Though I like to think I’m politically middle-of-the-road, most people would probably call me a liberal.  I tend to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative.  I consider myself a Christian but the Christians getting most of the press these days would most assuredly call me a heretic, if not an apostate.  By the way, I’m a United Methodist minister on a leave-of-absence currently (burned out on parish ministry).  I’m married with kids and a house/mortgage.  I guess Zorba would call it the whole catastrophe, but I think it’s pretty cool.

Anyway, enough about me, let’s start blogging.