It’s all about cycles… One day a guy wants to eat duck, the next day lobster. The bigger picture of American Consumption is no different. Herbert Marshall McLuhan described “all of human history as a process of change in which successive media technologies rendered preceding modes of human consciousness obsolete.” (Slade 182) And, he continues “if a technology is introduced either from within or from without a culture, and if it gives new stress or ascendancy to one or another of our senses, the ratio among all our senses is altered. We no longer feel the same, nor do our eyes and ears and senses remain the same.” (Slade 183) There it is… People like to feel good!
At one point during the timeline in the auto industry, what made people feel good was they liked to drive a Cadillac. Then, in the 1960’s, what made them feel good was not driving a Cadillac. Theodore Levitt described Henry Ford as the “most brilliant and most senseless marketer in American history.” (Slade 181) The point is… people like to feel good, and they get bored with what makes them feel good. Now, we can complicate that by saying that ‘death-dating” is wrong or evil or not environmentally sensitive. But think about, nobody says anything until the cycle is in full swing… and then they get a conscious.
In the 1960’s the Volkswagen gained popularity because it was “utterly dependable and trouble free.” (Slade 173) VW ran an advertising campaign illustrating that they did not make “superficial model changes” (Slade 174) which led to more sales. In the previous decades making superficial changes sold more cars. Interestingly enough, however, apparently it was ok for men to change their wardrobes more often. At the same time counterculture was telling Americans it was wrong to purchase cars with superficial changes, it was saying it was cool to buy more clothes. Esquire columnist George Frazier called it “The Peacock Revolution.” (Slade 178) Colors and different changes became acts of rebellion in the clothing in this industry while buying a non-superficial VW was also an act of rebellion. Madison Avenue caught on, and engaged in “cycle after cycle of rebellion and transgression, marketing new goods, new fads, new symbolic gestures of defiance” (Slade 179).
Slade attempts to say that the VW ad campaigns were the impetus for change because he embraces the “anti- death-dating” liberal mind-set. However, what he fails to understand or admit is the utter hypocrisy of this thinking. Lets protest by buying Volkwagens because they last longer, but lets throw our perfectly good clothes away to make a fashion statement. The very act of changing one’s style of clothing is an embracing of the death-dating one is supposedly defying. People were trying to feel good long before the 1960's and the emergence of the VW. Innovation makes people feel good, and the downside of innovation makes people feel bad...
It’s all about cycles.
“Throw away the briefcase: you’re not going to the office. You can kiss your benefits goodbye too. And your new boss won’t look much like your old one. There’s no longer a ladder, and you may never get to retire, but there’s world of opportunity if you figure out a new path.” --TIME
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The Social Network...
The Social Network is a film about the founding of Facebook by Harvard dropout Mark Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg founded the website while a sophomore at Harvard in 2004 and within less than seven years the social networking website has 550 million users. Zuckerberg, played by Jesse Eisenberg comes across as a bit arrogant, an anti-social nerd and very angry. It’s hard to tell how angry actually, because the acting is not that great. If I was not interested in the details of Facebook’s origins, I might have walked out. The film is based on the book “The Accidental Billionaires” by Ben Mezrich, who got most of his information from co-founder, Eduardo Saverin. Zuckerberg comes across as a genius computer programmer who wants to create “something cool.” At first, he is not motivated by money. In the movie when Facebook had reached 4,000 users, Saverin, Zuckerberg’s Harvard classmate, argued that it was time to monetize the website by selling advertising on it. Zuckerberg disagreed, saying: “Facebook is cool. If we start installing pop-ups for Mountain Dew it’s not gonna be cool.”
The movie clearly shows that Zuckerberg got the idea for Facebook after listening to the Winklevoss twins, also Harvard classmates, who discuss their social networking site called Harvard Connection. But Zuckerberg argues persuasively in the movie that the basic idea was his. Competitors should be given the freedom to see who can best turn an idea into a marketable product. The brothers who would later row in the Olympics sued Zuckerberg for allegedly stealing their idea. They "settled" in 2008 for $65 million.
On a business trip to New York City, Saverin and Zuckerberg set up a restaurant meeting with Sean Parker the 20-something founder of both Napster. Up to this point in the movie, Zuckerberg was usually glum. But he suddenly his face lit up in a huge smile once Parker started talking. Zuckerberg appreciated Parker and they both were entrepreneurial at heart. Zuckerberg was mesmerized by Parker’s vision of Facebook’s future he told him, “A million dollars isn’t cool. You know what is cool? A billion dollars.” Later, at a San Francisco night club, Parker tells Zuckerberg the story of the founder of Victoria’s Secret who sold the company to Limited Brands for $4 million only to regret it two years later when the company was valued at $500 million. According to Parker, the founder was so distraught at selling too early that he jumped to his death off the Golden Gate Bridge. The lesson for Zuckerberg was simple, be patient and you’ll maximize the value of the business.
In the end… great story, so-so acting. I loved watching the entrepreneurial vision of Parker and Zuckerburg combined and the twists and turns of the companies development, all played out within the framework of the Winklevoss and Saverin lawsuits. My final thought… wait for the Red Box release…
The movie clearly shows that Zuckerberg got the idea for Facebook after listening to the Winklevoss twins, also Harvard classmates, who discuss their social networking site called Harvard Connection. But Zuckerberg argues persuasively in the movie that the basic idea was his. Competitors should be given the freedom to see who can best turn an idea into a marketable product. The brothers who would later row in the Olympics sued Zuckerberg for allegedly stealing their idea. They "settled" in 2008 for $65 million.
On a business trip to New York City, Saverin and Zuckerberg set up a restaurant meeting with Sean Parker the 20-something founder of both Napster. Up to this point in the movie, Zuckerberg was usually glum. But he suddenly his face lit up in a huge smile once Parker started talking. Zuckerberg appreciated Parker and they both were entrepreneurial at heart. Zuckerberg was mesmerized by Parker’s vision of Facebook’s future he told him, “A million dollars isn’t cool. You know what is cool? A billion dollars.” Later, at a San Francisco night club, Parker tells Zuckerberg the story of the founder of Victoria’s Secret who sold the company to Limited Brands for $4 million only to regret it two years later when the company was valued at $500 million. According to Parker, the founder was so distraught at selling too early that he jumped to his death off the Golden Gate Bridge. The lesson for Zuckerberg was simple, be patient and you’ll maximize the value of the business.
In the end… great story, so-so acting. I loved watching the entrepreneurial vision of Parker and Zuckerburg combined and the twists and turns of the companies development, all played out within the framework of the Winklevoss and Saverin lawsuits. My final thought… wait for the Red Box release…
Friday, October 29, 2010
Billionaire Entrepreneur and Financier of Politically Conservative Activist Rutgers Grad James O’Keefe wants to give kids $100,000 to Drop Out of College
PayPal Founder and early Facebook investor Billionaire Peter Thiel a technology entrepreneur who has been widely recognized by the World Economic Forum (which honored Peter as a Young Global Leader) and by BusinessWeek, which named him one of the 25 most influential people on the web has announced a unique program for young people in the changing economy. Last month Thiel invited controversy by announcing the Thiel Fellowship, a program offering young entrepreneurs $100,000 to drop out of college and launch high-tech start-ups. In a press release Thiel said some of the innovations that changed the world the most were created by college dropouts who had “ideas that couldn’t wait until graduation.” Thiel, who has made billions with PayPal, Facebook and the Clarium hedge fund, cites such examples as Elon Musk who dropped out of graduate school to start Zip2, which he sold to Compaq for $307 million. Thiel is a billionaire as a result of early Facebook investments and being the co-founder of PayPal. He is calling this his "20 under 20" program, and he thinks that by doing so he is encouraging young adults to not limit themselves with inside the box thinking.
Thiel when asked about his political beliefs in a 2006 interview, stated, "Well, I was pretty libertarian when I started [in business]. I'm ‘way’ libertarian now." Theil’s offer has provoked different reactions. Higher education, directly confronted by the Thiel Fellowship, has also weighed in. Dr. Jeff Cornwall at Belmont University posted an invitation for Thiel to come visit Belmont’s programs for experimental learning. Cornwall wrote that he would introduce Thiel to some student and alumni entrepreneurs who came back to school after they dropped out when they realized what they were missing. On the other hand, Nick Saint at Business Insider said “it’s ridiculous to suggest that most people who go to college do so from the love of knowledge for its own sake.”
Thiel gets at the heart of the jobs issue and the sky rocketing costs of a college education with his Fellowship. Universities continue to cavalierly raise tuition prices in spite of the down economic time. After graduating, students are saddled with thousands of dollars in debt and no jobs. Thiel’s offer is bound to inspire some students who are probably already questioning their future economic situations to look in a different direction.
“There are a lot of things people learn in school, but they don’t learn much about entrepreneurship. We think that actually trying to encourage this is good” the billionaire stated. He believes there is more value for the entrepreneur to launch a tech or scientific idea immediately that to wait the full four years of college or eight years of grad school…
And, in 2010, working for yourself seems a safer bet than going to college, getting oneself into debt and not finding a job…Thiel may be on to something
Thiel received a BA in Philosophy from Stanford University and a JD from Stanford Law School.
Thiel when asked about his political beliefs in a 2006 interview, stated, "Well, I was pretty libertarian when I started [in business]. I'm ‘way’ libertarian now." Theil’s offer has provoked different reactions. Higher education, directly confronted by the Thiel Fellowship, has also weighed in. Dr. Jeff Cornwall at Belmont University posted an invitation for Thiel to come visit Belmont’s programs for experimental learning. Cornwall wrote that he would introduce Thiel to some student and alumni entrepreneurs who came back to school after they dropped out when they realized what they were missing. On the other hand, Nick Saint at Business Insider said “it’s ridiculous to suggest that most people who go to college do so from the love of knowledge for its own sake.”
Thiel gets at the heart of the jobs issue and the sky rocketing costs of a college education with his Fellowship. Universities continue to cavalierly raise tuition prices in spite of the down economic time. After graduating, students are saddled with thousands of dollars in debt and no jobs. Thiel’s offer is bound to inspire some students who are probably already questioning their future economic situations to look in a different direction.
“There are a lot of things people learn in school, but they don’t learn much about entrepreneurship. We think that actually trying to encourage this is good” the billionaire stated. He believes there is more value for the entrepreneur to launch a tech or scientific idea immediately that to wait the full four years of college or eight years of grad school…
And, in 2010, working for yourself seems a safer bet than going to college, getting oneself into debt and not finding a job…Thiel may be on to something
Thiel received a BA in Philosophy from Stanford University and a JD from Stanford Law School.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Made to Break ...
In Made to Break, Giles Slade illuminates the dizzying shift America has made to a throw-away society. The author tells us that, “Not only did we invent disposable products, ranging from diapers to cameras to contact lenses, but we invented the very concept of disposability itself, as a necessary precursor to our rejection of tradition and our promotion of progress and change” (Slade 4) Made to Break is a history of twentieth-century technology in terms of obsolescence. Americans love new stuff… it’s that simple. We like cool phones, cars, clothes… any cool stuff. The problem, Slade tells us is that the old (or not so old) stuff is piling up. However, it’s really not the consumers fault. Planned obsolescence is defined as an “assortment of techniques used to artificially limit the durability of a manufactured good in order to stimulate repetitive consumption” (Slade 5).
Dating back to the auto industry manufacturers realized that consumers would trade up for style. Henry Ford made his Model T automobile to last many years after purchasing it. General Motors later discovered that car buyers would make choices on fashion as well… This revelation changed the way American business was done. Companies profit more when products have shorter shelf lives - because they sell more products that way. This is no conspiracy theory but, rather, simple economics. Henry Ford’s vision of a classless American transportation device would become a “social stratifier” (Slade 41)
As we move forward into a new millennium, the author asks readers a disturbing question about the future of a society based on consumption. The author calls it “product addiction” (Slade 51) Addicts base how they feel on external stimuli, and Americans judge themselves by the newest or nicest car, phone, computer or bestseller. And, manufacturers understand this, they supply the “drug” to provide the temporary “high.” The problem... where to put the not so old stuff...
Personally, I have faith in the “process.” I believe Americans in the future will come up with a way to recycle the “old stuff.” As I have stated in earlier posts predictions of our societies demise always arise, and we overcome, because the human mind is an unlimited resource. Usually some self-appointed intellectuals blow some “hot air” when the economy is in a downtown. Slade reminds us, “Most of the utopian plans-technocratic or otherwise- that emerged during that troubled year of 1932 spoke of the need for a body of experts who would restructure society so as to achieve a balance between supply and demand“ (Slade 71). These “experts” are always, always, always intellectuals from some college campus. Then, things get better, and they go back to teaching their unproven theory to 20 year olds.
Pain is a great motivator, and we overcome and innovate… History has proven that and there is no reason to think any differently now…
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Life Lessons From Wikipedia… Dalby Part 2
I am sorry, but I had to do it… For all the students at Middlebury College…
The following is taken from the “Wikipedia” entry at Wikipedia.org …
-The Wikipedia community has developed many policys and guidelines to improve the encyclopedia; however, it is not a formal requirement to be familiar with them before contributing.
-What is contributed is more important than the expertise or qualifications of the contributor.
As a contributor using the pseudonym “The Cunctator explains on his user page: To be a good Wikipedian, be respectful, overly combative, self-critical, vulnerable, hortatory, ambitious and analytical. Above all, to be a good Wikipedian, edit and create entries.(Dalby 121)
After finishing Andrew Dalby’s book, I think what I like most about Wikipedia is the fact that there is no hierarchy. The Cuncatator, which means the ‘delayer,’ understands that the human condition is one long extended process. The principles which Wikipedians practice to ensure the their community lives on are based on progress, not perfection. And, as Dalby explained to his readers, the community good is larger than any one person. When co-founder Larry Sanger tried to enforce, what he believed, was his authority by stating on a Wikipedia talk page that: “When push comes to shove, if a decision must be made and there’s a serious controversy, and I’m partaking of it, sorry, but I’ll get my way. And you’ll be expected to hold your tongue after that.”(Dalby 122) The co-founder, after some communal debate, was informed that his employer could no longer afford his salary. Wikipedia, as a group, apparently has a conscience, and it won over Sanger’s ego.
Dalby, who is obviously a passionate supporter of Wikipedia, does not hesitate to outline the downside of Wikipedia which according to their website is "written collaboratively by volunteers around the world" who write without pay. He talks about the commercial spam and vandalism (purposeful misinformation) on the site as problems which undermine the credibility of Wikipedia as a reliable news source. But, as the author states, “vandalism and spam are not the fault of the servers, ot the site itself, or the software. They are our fault as human beings. We’re given access to the site, we’re bored and stupid and we write childish and unpleasant things and leave a mess; we’re greedy and we add links that we think will bring us money. (Dalby 212) Dalby might as well be talking about the population in general, not just Wikipedia." By this I mean, usually it's a small minority who step out of line and cause trouble for the larger population. Most folks on Wikipedia play by the rules, and the few that don't cause most of the trouble.
“The officially openly-stated view of Wikipedia is that it’s a work in progress. It isn’t a reliable source and shouldn’t be cited as if it were.” (Dalby 191) However, the author concludes his book by summarizing the site’s cooperation with the global media in the kidnapping of New York Times reporter David Rohde. Wikipedia showed it’s maturity level by keeping any facts about the incident off it’s site until after the reporter had escaped and was safe. (Dalby 223-225) It seems the site and the community may be growing up. And with 3,445,161 articles, 21,896,032 pages in total, 420,535,401 edits, 852,833 uploaded files and 13,249,643 registered users, Wikipedia is probably here to stay.
PS The above statistics were taken from the Wikipedia site… so be careful, they may unreliable…(Another win for the students at Middlebury!)
The following is taken from the “Wikipedia” entry at Wikipedia.org …
-The Wikipedia community has developed many policys and guidelines to improve the encyclopedia; however, it is not a formal requirement to be familiar with them before contributing.
-What is contributed is more important than the expertise or qualifications of the contributor.
As a contributor using the pseudonym “The Cunctator explains on his user page: To be a good Wikipedian, be respectful, overly combative, self-critical, vulnerable, hortatory, ambitious and analytical. Above all, to be a good Wikipedian, edit and create entries.(Dalby 121)
Dalby, who is obviously a passionate supporter of Wikipedia, does not hesitate to outline the downside of Wikipedia which according to their website is "written collaboratively by volunteers around the world" who write without pay. He talks about the commercial spam and vandalism (purposeful misinformation) on the site as problems which undermine the credibility of Wikipedia as a reliable news source. But, as the author states, “vandalism and spam are not the fault of the servers, ot the site itself, or the software. They are our fault as human beings. We’re given access to the site, we’re bored and stupid and we write childish and unpleasant things and leave a mess; we’re greedy and we add links that we think will bring us money. (Dalby 212) Dalby might as well be talking about the population in general, not just Wikipedia." By this I mean, usually it's a small minority who step out of line and cause trouble for the larger population. Most folks on Wikipedia play by the rules, and the few that don't cause most of the trouble.
“The officially openly-stated view of Wikipedia is that it’s a work in progress. It isn’t a reliable source and shouldn’t be cited as if it were.” (Dalby 191) However, the author concludes his book by summarizing the site’s cooperation with the global media in the kidnapping of New York Times reporter David Rohde. Wikipedia showed it’s maturity level by keeping any facts about the incident off it’s site until after the reporter had escaped and was safe. (Dalby 223-225) It seems the site and the community may be growing up. And with 3,445,161 articles, 21,896,032 pages in total, 420,535,401 edits, 852,833 uploaded files and 13,249,643 registered users, Wikipedia is probably here to stay.
PS The above statistics were taken from the Wikipedia site… so be careful, they may unreliable…(Another win for the students at Middlebury!)
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Wikipedia...
As discussed in our first “Technology and Culture” class, the internet is sometimes similar to the “wild west.“ A Harvard professor who included nine Wikipedia articles for his Jewish history class stated it best by saying, “Wikipedia represents all that is great and all that is dangerous about the Internet. It is incredibly powerful and readily available, and yet can mislead the unwary and spread disinformation.”(Dalby 104) In Technopoly, Neil Postman proclaims, “Information has become a form of garbage, not only incapable of answering the most fundamental human questions but barely useful in providing coherent direction to the solution of even mundane problems.” (Postman 69) I don’t know this for a fact- maybe I’ll start a Wikipedia page about it- but I get the notion that Professor Postman probably does not have “warm and fuzzy” thoughts and feelings for Wikipedia. A journalist from the venerable New York Times referred to Wikipedia as an “intellectual lunatic asylum.” (Dalby 62) Personally, I like a little insanity.
For the same reasons that many intellectuals would not embrace Wikipedia, including Middlebury College in Vermont which outlawed references to Wikipedia in student papers, (Dalby 105) are the same reasons Wikipedia is so appealing to me. Wikipedians, especially people who contribute to the online encyclopedia regularly, seem like such a fun bunch of folks. How can you not like someone who calls themselves “Cereales Killer” and the community in which such creative pen names are the norm?
I find disorganized, self policing groups like the “people who wiki” extremely fascinating. They understand that their survival and that of Wikipedia is based on their abiding by a set of rules and traditions. In a mass collaboration such as this, one would think that volatile topics like political allegiances would produce tense exchanges, but as Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Whales explained, “It turns out it’s actually the party of the thoughtful and reasonable people and the party of the jerks. And those aren’t left or right, they can come from all sides.” (Dalby 111) Historian Roy Rosenzweig said that “Wikipedians say they want to describe disputes rather than to take sides in them, to characterize differing positions fairly.” (Dalby 78) And this is because the common welfare of the group comes first in this community. They know that close-minded folks like those at Middlebury College will have evidence to fuel their ignorance if Wiki entries are inaccurate and the only way to continue to grow is to put the good of Wikipedia first and ego second. Dalby details a couple of misinformation mishaps in the first half of the book, but in comparison to number of articles on Wikipedia, they are minimal.
As my favorite French admin Cereales Killer concluded, “… and that’s why Wikipedia corresponds to my vision of the sharing of knowledge, the common ownership of gray matter, with no partisanship, for the good of all… I see Wikipedia as a great way to share knowledge in a completely disinterested way. (Dalby 79) I think Thomas Jefferson would agree with Cereales Killer!!
"Information is the currency of democracy."
Thomas Jefferson
American 3rd US President (1801-09). Author of the Declaration of Independence. 1762-1826
For the same reasons that many intellectuals would not embrace Wikipedia, including Middlebury College in Vermont which outlawed references to Wikipedia in student papers, (Dalby 105) are the same reasons Wikipedia is so appealing to me. Wikipedians, especially people who contribute to the online encyclopedia regularly, seem like such a fun bunch of folks. How can you not like someone who calls themselves “Cereales Killer” and the community in which such creative pen names are the norm?
I find disorganized, self policing groups like the “people who wiki” extremely fascinating. They understand that their survival and that of Wikipedia is based on their abiding by a set of rules and traditions. In a mass collaboration such as this, one would think that volatile topics like political allegiances would produce tense exchanges, but as Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Whales explained, “It turns out it’s actually the party of the thoughtful and reasonable people and the party of the jerks. And those aren’t left or right, they can come from all sides.” (Dalby 111) Historian Roy Rosenzweig said that “Wikipedians say they want to describe disputes rather than to take sides in them, to characterize differing positions fairly.” (Dalby 78) And this is because the common welfare of the group comes first in this community. They know that close-minded folks like those at Middlebury College will have evidence to fuel their ignorance if Wiki entries are inaccurate and the only way to continue to grow is to put the good of Wikipedia first and ego second. Dalby details a couple of misinformation mishaps in the first half of the book, but in comparison to number of articles on Wikipedia, they are minimal.
As my favorite French admin Cereales Killer concluded, “… and that’s why Wikipedia corresponds to my vision of the sharing of knowledge, the common ownership of gray matter, with no partisanship, for the good of all… I see Wikipedia as a great way to share knowledge in a completely disinterested way. (Dalby 79) I think Thomas Jefferson would agree with Cereales Killer!!
"Information is the currency of democracy."
Thomas Jefferson
American 3rd US President (1801-09). Author of the Declaration of Independence. 1762-1826
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Solo Presentation... and an unexpected email validation
Go to school... get a job... retire with a gold watch... In 1950, that may have been a reality. In 2010, in the current and future economy, that formula is leaving and will leave many folks angry, confused and unemployed. And when questioned about an alternate income stream they shrug their shoulders and roll their eyes. The reality is that safe… has become the new risky. Most people in the workplace are seeking safety and security and being an employee has become a precarious existence. And people who insist on utilizing an outdated income producing model like the traditional workplace are about to be placed on the endangered species list. The truth is the current workplace is broken and it has been for a long time. Working for someone else- being dependent on someone else for a paycheck- has become a recipe for personal economic disaster.
The question for the average person then is, “What is a viable Plan B? The network marketing business model is a possible answer. Once viewed in a negative light, direct sales or network marketing has become the wealth creation vehicle of the new millennium. Economist Paul Zane Pilzer, in his new book The Next Millionaires explains how old models of opportunity in physical distribution have given way to new opportunities in intellectual distribution, defined as teaching people about products or services that they didn't even know exist.
This Just in… I just received an email (Oct. 12th) from the Rutgers Bookstore which is owned by Barnes and Noble that Avon will be doing a presentation of their products and business opportunity at 40 different college bookstores (including Rutgers) around the country. And, when clicking on the link in the email, a Facebook page “pops up.“ The incorporation of technology into the changing culture is under way. It was only a matter of time before a network marketing company realized there are no jobs in the private sector and started to recruit hard at college campus locations. I actually have been telling my friends this for months. Avon will be the first of many direct-sales companies bringing their opportunity to college campuses. Why wouldn’t they? There are no jobs.
It’s funny because I was about to describe the lukewarm response that the class gave to the industry. And the point is that people are resistant to change. Those who embrace change in this economy will leave those holding on to the traditional work model behind. It’s happening right now. The gap between the “have’s and the “have-nots” will keep increasing because those who cling to the go to college-get a job plan will find themselves deeply in debt and unemployed. The death of the W-2 wage earner is near and the rise of the 1099 worker is under way.
Professor Pilzer predicts that ten million new millionaires will be created between 2006-2016, and The Next Millionaires explains how you can become one of them-- especially if you are in direct selling, technology, home-based business, product distribution, or an emerging trillion-dollar industry like wellness.
Avon… which does 8 Billion dollars a year in sales understands that ThereAreNoJobs and now the company is going to tour the country to show college kids a Plan B…
The economy is changing… those who can’t let go of the past will sit on
the sidelines and watch … those who embrace change will prosper…
The question for the average person then is, “What is a viable Plan B? The network marketing business model is a possible answer. Once viewed in a negative light, direct sales or network marketing has become the wealth creation vehicle of the new millennium. Economist Paul Zane Pilzer, in his new book The Next Millionaires explains how old models of opportunity in physical distribution have given way to new opportunities in intellectual distribution, defined as teaching people about products or services that they didn't even know exist.
This Just in… I just received an email (Oct. 12th) from the Rutgers Bookstore which is owned by Barnes and Noble that Avon will be doing a presentation of their products and business opportunity at 40 different college bookstores (including Rutgers) around the country. And, when clicking on the link in the email, a Facebook page “pops up.“ The incorporation of technology into the changing culture is under way. It was only a matter of time before a network marketing company realized there are no jobs in the private sector and started to recruit hard at college campus locations. I actually have been telling my friends this for months. Avon will be the first of many direct-sales companies bringing their opportunity to college campuses. Why wouldn’t they? There are no jobs.
It’s funny because I was about to describe the lukewarm response that the class gave to the industry. And the point is that people are resistant to change. Those who embrace change in this economy will leave those holding on to the traditional work model behind. It’s happening right now. The gap between the “have’s and the “have-nots” will keep increasing because those who cling to the go to college-get a job plan will find themselves deeply in debt and unemployed. The death of the W-2 wage earner is near and the rise of the 1099 worker is under way.
Professor Pilzer predicts that ten million new millionaires will be created between 2006-2016, and The Next Millionaires explains how you can become one of them-- especially if you are in direct selling, technology, home-based business, product distribution, or an emerging trillion-dollar industry like wellness.
Avon… which does 8 Billion dollars a year in sales understands that ThereAreNoJobs and now the company is going to tour the country to show college kids a Plan B…
The economy is changing… those who can’t let go of the past will sit on
the sidelines and watch … those who embrace change will prosper…
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Thank God for the Neil Postman’s of the world ...
And we should all live in communes, wear khaki pants and grow our own broccoli…
Thank God for the Neil Postman’s of the world exist to save us idiots from our “massive ignorance.” (135) The second half of Neil Postman’s book Technopoly did not state that we should all live in communes so our society could operate on a higher plane, but only because the author ended the book. Somehow, technology has become a “malevolent force requiring opposition” (177) and educating our children with his agenda will improve society. Postman accuses 18th century statistician Francis Galton of being guilty of having a pathological romance with numbers (129) because he has to… The author’s zeal in attacking technology would seem crazy if he didn’t have someone to call fanatical. Time has already begun to prove the author mistaken. In Chapter 6 the author expresses his opinion that technology has corrupted the field of American medicine which , Postman claims, is “notorious for its characteristic aggressiveness.” (95) Since the author has no medical credentials this may or may not be true. However what has happened as a result of technology is an emergence of a new industry. The word “wellness” probably didn’t exist in 1993 when this book was penned, but it has become an exploding industry because of technology and consumers ability to access health information via the internet. Vitamins, food supplements and gym memberships are all an integral part of popular culture. The wellness industry has created an increased awareness in preventative health. New technologies and information availability are responsible for this paradigm shift. As I stated in my first post regarding this book, the author’s fear-based scarcity mind-set sought to isolate a period of history and call technology “malevolent.” The emergence of the wellness industry has given the consumer the ability to educate and implement new health related products because of technological innovations. This reader gives the American patient or consumer much more credit than Professor Postman.
In the next couple of chapters Postman invokes a new word -Scientism- to describe the fields of anthropology, psychology and sociology and proclaim then not sciences. (144-163) He says technology has made them sciences when they really are not. If you are confused, that’s ok, because so am I. And, of course he takes a shot at President Reagan. (162) It would not be a book by a college professor without a Republican bash. Anyway, he proceeds to tell his readers that technological advances have left society without a “moral center.” (179) The author then presents his agenda to correct all the wrongs technology has wrought on society.
The final chapter of the book called The Loving Resistance Fighter reveals the authors cure for our massive ignorance. And, shocking as this may seem, Postman wants to change the curriculum in the school systems. Of course this includes waxing poetic about the good old days. Pop culture bad, humanities good. (If this were a documentary, I would have walked out by now.) The computer is evil and “our youth must be shown that not all worthwhile things are instantly accessible and there are levels of sensibility unknown to them.” (197) According to the author, this return basics will “allow us to distance ourselves from our current ignorance and then “criticize and modify it.” (199)
In his introduction, Neil Postman claims that “the uncontrolled growth of technology destroys the vital sources of our humanity. It creates a culture without a moral foundation. It undermines certain mental processes and social relations that make human life worth living.” (vii) This reader could not disagree more. I embrace and welcome change, both personal and technological. I do agree with the author’s concept of the ascent of humanity. He says it is idea-centered and coherence-centered.(188) However, in my opinion technology is an integral part of the evolution and ascent of mankind. I believe that Professor Postman’s Technopoly concepts will be proven wrong over time and we will all live healthier, fuller, more abundant lives because of technological innovation.
Thank God for the Neil Postman’s of the world exist to save us idiots from our “massive ignorance.” (135) The second half of Neil Postman’s book Technopoly did not state that we should all live in communes so our society could operate on a higher plane, but only because the author ended the book. Somehow, technology has become a “malevolent force requiring opposition” (177) and educating our children with his agenda will improve society. Postman accuses 18th century statistician Francis Galton of being guilty of having a pathological romance with numbers (129) because he has to… The author’s zeal in attacking technology would seem crazy if he didn’t have someone to call fanatical. Time has already begun to prove the author mistaken. In Chapter 6 the author expresses his opinion that technology has corrupted the field of American medicine which , Postman claims, is “notorious for its characteristic aggressiveness.” (95) Since the author has no medical credentials this may or may not be true. However what has happened as a result of technology is an emergence of a new industry. The word “wellness” probably didn’t exist in 1993 when this book was penned, but it has become an exploding industry because of technology and consumers ability to access health information via the internet. Vitamins, food supplements and gym memberships are all an integral part of popular culture. The wellness industry has created an increased awareness in preventative health. New technologies and information availability are responsible for this paradigm shift. As I stated in my first post regarding this book, the author’s fear-based scarcity mind-set sought to isolate a period of history and call technology “malevolent.” The emergence of the wellness industry has given the consumer the ability to educate and implement new health related products because of technological innovations. This reader gives the American patient or consumer much more credit than Professor Postman.
The final chapter of the book called The Loving Resistance Fighter reveals the authors cure for our massive ignorance. And, shocking as this may seem, Postman wants to change the curriculum in the school systems. Of course this includes waxing poetic about the good old days. Pop culture bad, humanities good. (If this were a documentary, I would have walked out by now.) The computer is evil and “our youth must be shown that not all worthwhile things are instantly accessible and there are levels of sensibility unknown to them.” (197) According to the author, this return basics will “allow us to distance ourselves from our current ignorance and then “criticize and modify it.” (199)
In his introduction, Neil Postman claims that “the uncontrolled growth of technology destroys the vital sources of our humanity. It creates a culture without a moral foundation. It undermines certain mental processes and social relations that make human life worth living.” (vii) This reader could not disagree more. I embrace and welcome change, both personal and technological. I do agree with the author’s concept of the ascent of humanity. He says it is idea-centered and coherence-centered.(188) However, in my opinion technology is an integral part of the evolution and ascent of mankind. I believe that Professor Postman’s Technopoly concepts will be proven wrong over time and we will all live healthier, fuller, more abundant lives because of technological innovation.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Scarcity... Neil Postman's misguided perspective
If the second half of Computers: The Life Story of a Technology was defined by abundance, then the first half of Neil Postman’s Technopoly illustrated scarcity. As a discriminating reader, I find it helpful to due some due diligence on an author when I am engaged in reading any text. And, it wasn’t surprising to discover that Mr. Postman was a college professor. As a forty-something year-old guy returning to college, I find the onslaught by some professors against technology to be somewhat tedious. The waxing poetic about the simpler times of tool-using cultures (20) by Postman is in the same vain. My personal opinion is that this stems from fear. University professors, in the past, could spoon feed their dribble to naïve 20 year-olds who had very little life experience against which they could weigh the theory presented to them within the confines of the university classroom. In the first class I took after my “brief 18-year hiatus,” I heard something in a class of over four hundred students that I knew, from personal experience, to be misinformation. I get the same vibe when reading Postman. The author claims to be a dissenting voice (5) but, I would argue, that he is actually mimicking what many in his profession believe. And, dissenting opinions very rarely reach the insulated world of a college classroom. Postman is afraid of information because now his profession is not in charge of its dissemination.
The very act of seeking information is the essence of the human experience. One of the first things a child learns to do is ask… why? Postman says that, “Unforeseen consequences stand in the way of all those who think they see clearly the direction in which new technology will take us.”(15) The author apparently wants humans to stop asking questions. What his scarcity, fear-based mind can’t comprehend is that to survive is to rely on constancy, but to change is to grow. The author admits that “history takes a long time” (81) but his fear wants to isolate modernity as negative. A great paradox of the human existence is the fear of change versus the desire to grow and create. In the past which Postman is describing during the first half of the book and apparently where he wants us to stay, there was some security in doing things the same way, but what any forwarding thinking person understands is that the only security that really exists is embracing growth.
Postman references God often in the first half of the book. He often implies that technology has replaced spirituality, or at least is in conflict with it. Somehow he has concluded that penicillin is an alternative to prayer. (54) This is the essence of a scarcity mindset. “In the Middle Ages, people believed in the authority of their religion, no matter what. Today, we believe in the authority of our science, no matter what,” claims Postman. (58) What he doesn’t and will never understand with a scarcity mindset, is that theology, spirituality, economics and technological innovation are all the same thing. All of these factors contribute to the idea that God has given us the tools to go out and create an abundant life. There is no such thing as a trouble-free world. But, information combined with new technologies will create a better more abundant world for all who embrace, not run from change.
The very act of seeking information is the essence of the human experience. One of the first things a child learns to do is ask… why? Postman says that, “Unforeseen consequences stand in the way of all those who think they see clearly the direction in which new technology will take us.”(15) The author apparently wants humans to stop asking questions. What his scarcity, fear-based mind can’t comprehend is that to survive is to rely on constancy, but to change is to grow. The author admits that “history takes a long time” (81) but his fear wants to isolate modernity as negative. A great paradox of the human existence is the fear of change versus the desire to grow and create. In the past which Postman is describing during the first half of the book and apparently where he wants us to stay, there was some security in doing things the same way, but what any forwarding thinking person understands is that the only security that really exists is embracing growth.
Postman references God often in the first half of the book. He often implies that technology has replaced spirituality, or at least is in conflict with it. Somehow he has concluded that penicillin is an alternative to prayer. (54) This is the essence of a scarcity mindset. “In the Middle Ages, people believed in the authority of their religion, no matter what. Today, we believe in the authority of our science, no matter what,” claims Postman. (58) What he doesn’t and will never understand with a scarcity mindset, is that theology, spirituality, economics and technological innovation are all the same thing. All of these factors contribute to the idea that God has given us the tools to go out and create an abundant life. There is no such thing as a trouble-free world. But, information combined with new technologies will create a better more abundant world for all who embrace, not run from change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)