Posts tagged enlightened conflict

here an insight, there an insight, where an insight?

So.

Every once in awhile in the ad/marketing business we talk about “what’s the insight that will help us create the big idea?”

Ok.

Not every once in awhile.

Actually ad nausea.

So often your head hurts.

In fact it may be the reason why people in the industry drink as often as they do.

Wow.  I wonder if that is an insight.

Anyway.

Here is an insight to the aggravating people always asking for “an” insight.

There are product insights.

Company insights.

Consumer (or user) insights.

There are category insights for gods sake.

Insights are all around us (I wanted to use a gnat analogy but that could be construed as sarcastic).

Here an insight, there an insight, everywhere an insight (I believe that is a nursery rhyme insight reference).

In the end … a really good insight in marketing/brand management/product development/whatever development … marries the product and consumer needs.

Here is an insight.

Consumers don’t care about products or brands. All they care about is outcomes and results. Let’s , for simplistic sake, suggest that is “need.”

Some marketing insight guru described a consumer insight as “penetration into the target’s collective subconscious to unearth a link between untapped attitudes and behaviors to discover a deep-seated truth that reveals important needs/values the brand can exploit to connect with the target to impact attitudes and behaviors.”

That insight definition made my head hurt.

Especially the “exploiting” part.

But.

I do like the ‘deep seated truth‘ part.

Regardless. Suffice it to say the guru meant “an insight into need.”

<oops. Too simple>

Anyway.

There is no one insight.

And rarely is an insight more than just a window of opportunity (only to be replaced by another “insight” at another time).

The only thing that stays the same? That truth part.

Because the frickin’ truth is that if you want to change something in a consumer mindset (attitude) leading to purchase/usage (behavior) which benefits the brand (sales) … focus on some outcome/result.

Yeah … yeah … yeah … that ‘outcome’ may be a Maslow type outcome (self-worth, appearance, esteem, actualization, etc.) but that is outcome for god’s sake … not some mumbo jumbo on a voodoo thing I want to penetrate and exploit.

It is something real to a person. And if it is real … it is a truth. And if it is a truth it cannot be exploited … it can only be something that can be ‘met.’
And, by the way, if you happen to wrangle up an insightful truth (and make it through the mumbo jumbo marketing maze internally and externally) it really can impact what you do:

-          Product design: how it looks and what it says on shelf or wherever you sell it. Why? Well. Now we can talk about exploiting. Because if you DID make it through the maze I can guarantee you are the exception to the rule … most of your competitors didn’t … therefore you can exploit their failure to do so (marketing gurus call this “weakness”).

-          Marketing communication: this is obvious … but easier than you think (assuming you have made it to a ‘deep seated truth’) … why is it so much easier? Well.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm <I am thinking not humming>… because you have an opportunity to … well … speak the truth. Ok.  It’s harder than you think despite that fact. Because even if you make it to this point (having identified the truth) a shitload of people will panic … they will want to dress the truth up in Lady Gaga like clothing trying to make the truth look ‘sexy’ (or more appealing). Why? Because sometimes people think the truth is too bland and needs to be spiced up.  Marketing gurus make you think this way because they want to call his truth thing something like “an untapped compelling belief”. Yeah. Right. Marketing bullshit. Run away. As fast as you can.

So.  This is easy if you are around people who accept that it is easy.

Ok. Next.

A lot of good insights are wasted. Not just because the window of opportunity closes while you dither around with whether the insight is really an insight or whether it is sexy enough … but because even with a good, or even mediocre, insight it gets wasted because then no one wants to identify who the insight should be communicated to.

Huh?

Yup.

It can be a real head scratcher but let’s say you find a nifty insight against a specific group … and then all of a sudden some genius stands up and says “tell everyone that … maybe they just didn’t know ‘x’ and we need to tell them … because … well … your presentation was great … and we should tell everyone the truth.”

In marketing layman’s terms this is some spineless jellyfish who doesn’t want to agree on a targeting choice but rather go to some broad audience (this is the infamous shotgun versus rifle battle).

Suffice it to say if most CMOs/Marketing/Agency decision makers were generals their armies would be carrying around shotguns and not rifles.

I think the Cosa Nostra called them “luparas” (lupara is an Italian word used to refer to a sawn-off shotgun traditionally associated with Cosa Nostra. The shortened barrel of a lupara lend itself to easier concealment and the lack of choke contributes to a wider spread of shot when the weapon is fired).

Yeah.

Well.

This is sounding more and more like the Valentine’s Day Massacre so maybe it is appropriate.

And it all starts so innocently.

“We need an insight.”

And it sounds simple … align purchaser need, an insight, and customer benefit and you can typically have a great opportunity to identify a good marketing idea.

Maybe it is simple because, once again, success revolves around the truth.

And maybe it is so frickin’ hard because, well, once again, it revolves around the truth.

In the end?

I end up discussing the mafia and shooting myself with a Lupara.

rome & atlanta have something in common

So.

Whoda thunk Rome and Atlanta would have something in common.

Not a Bernini statue (although Atlanta has a rusting Olympic torch).

Not a square… albeit it is really a circle <St. Peters> (although Atlanta has a dome that would make the Vatican envious).

Nope.

Snowplows.

Neither of them has any snowplows.

This week Rome had an Atlanta-like freak winter snowstorm of eight inches of snow. Apparently Snowdrifts reached 6 feet outside the city (not sure how that happens with 8 inches of snow but … whatever ..).

Cars were abandoned on roads.

Grocery stores were running out of milk & bread (someday someone will have to explain the correlation between snow/ice & milk/bread).

I heard that even dogs & cats started living together (sorry … Ghostbusters reference).

Anyway.

Italian newspapers reported Rome has only three true snowplows. But. Italians being industrious folk … have rigged up some tractors to help clear streets.

Ah ha!

But here is where Atlanta could learn something.

The Italian National Civil Protection Agency handed out 4,000 shovels to residents.

Shovels.

What an awesome idea.

Could anyone speculate the response in America if the government suggested that in times of snow you, god forbid, take a shovel (we will give you for free) and shovel your own streets.

Yikes.

The National debt debate would pale in comparison.

Ah.

But what if we encouraged everyone to do it in Italian?

To shovel: spalare

A shovel: badile

Ah.

But if you have any doubts as to the smarts of the Italians … they actually disrobed a woman with a shovel (albeit a big one) … on television … http://www.break.com/index/woman-stripped-by-mechanical-shovel.html

Show this to Atlantans and I bet guys will be lining up to shovel on their own.

For the women?

Geez. Even their shovels look like designer shovels.

but.

This isn’t about shovels.

This is about the fact that neither Rome nor Atlanta hasn’t any snowplows.

How about that?

Enlightening one may even say.

friends, feedback, influencing & a new economy

So.

My thoughts on this topic were inspired by a trendwatching’s briefing called “The F-Factor.”

Their briefing (another excellent one by the way) discusses focuses how the impact of influencers’ on purchasing has increased because of the web (and the dynamics associated with the web).

By the way. Trendwatching has another excellent briefing called Crowd Clout from about 2007 or so which makes essentially the same point.

I am going to try and put my spin on their insights by talking a little about the past (the evolution of this whole influencer explosion) and the future (how it is creating a new economic model).

Let me begin by saying despite the advent of “social media & social marketing” that consumer decision-making has always been personal and social.

The truth is that consumer decision-making has always been about seeking feedback, leaning on what friends say and seeking ‘influencers’ thoughts … all of which influence the ultimate purpose.

This was true even before the media (or people seeking to create some ‘buzz’) added the word “social” to the marketing world. Yes. Even the marketing dinosaurs knew decision making ultimately had a significant social aspect.

What do I mean?

People talked amongst themselves.

People talked to their neighbors about home services.

People talked to relatives or friends about more personal decisions.

People reached out to trusted advisers (doctors for medical, veterinarians for pet stuff, dermatologists for skin stuff … well … you get the picture).

People talked and discussed.

In fact The Economist just did a great article on how Martin Luther built the entire Protestant faith off of ‘buzz.’

(boy … that is social media working at levels they could typically only dream of these days)

The difficulty we face in the current “what is buzzworthy” world we live in today is that it wasn’t called social back then therefore we seem to struggle in finding ‘successful past case studies’ (or at least ones that someone will pay attention to). In the “old” days … people simply sought out ‘experts’ (I use the term loosely … let’s assume the definition here is “someone who probably knows more than I do and can inform my decision making process”) to make a better decision.

Before social media you could always count on the following two factoids with regard to who influenced a purchase the most.

“Who do you speak with about making a purchase?”

1. Family. 1a. Friends. (you could flipflop or call it a tie pretty much all the time)

But something HAS changed.

The internet has changed our worldview on friends (and influencers).

“Our definition of friends has changed because of Facebook, and Twitter, where quantity as opposed to quality is now almost a mantra”.

Rick Murray, President, Digital Edelman Digitas

Well.

I don’t know that I totally agree with Rick from Digitas.

Oddly while social networks do increase quantity research has shown three key things (to indicate that quality is tagging along with the quantity characteristic):
1. A Pew Internet research study shows that internet has actually strengthened and expanded existing social roles of churches and fraternal organizations.  Therefore the quantity has simply strengthened existing quality.

2. the same research showed that more frequent communications via text actually ENCOURAGES the desire to spend more face-to face time

3. the research also shows that texting requires more careful crafting than a telephone or face-to-face communications and 3 out of 10 teens say “that they are more honest with friends when they talk online” therefore quality is the underlying foundation among all this “random quantity” discussion.

Next.

And while we often talk about how internet is influencing people we need to be careful with the ‘influencing’ word.

Research shows that the web can assist in education but ultimately the final influencer remains one and the same as the past.

The most tangible example I have at my fingertips of this notion is the most recent 2011 NPD Group Aftermarket Consumer Outlook Study:

Q: “Where would you go to learn how to do repairs on your vehicle?”

- Friend/Family                                                57%

- Vehicle Repair Manual                               46%

- Mechanic                                          42%

- Internet                                            42%

- Store Personnel                            16% (yikes)

Basically a Mechanic is AS influential as the Internet in this decision.

One word thought here. Wow.

So.

The main point here is that a consumer now has access and is aware of more people (true friends as well as web based friends) and can have more frequent communication due to the digital revolution. Yet. Social media is simply the fact that the traditional benefits of an acquaintance network (personal or professional) and friendships can be more expansively realized than before.

The other truth is that products today are at the mercy of crowds of friends. Crowds providing unsolicited feedback and influencing hordes of consumers making decisions on a daily basis.

Yes.

This is the “F-Factor:”

It is the expanding scenario of consumers increasingly tapping into their networks of friends, fans, and followers to discover, discuss and purchase goods and services, in ever-more sophisticated ways. (source: trendwatching.com)

The F-Factor is a real part of people’s lives because it provides real value. Value in that it offers a purchase decision making opportunity that is more efficient, more relevant, and more interesting and provides more “depth/breadth” than before. In the past consumers either had to spend endless time and effort on trying to discover the best of the best, or had to rely on sources that were distant, unknown or untrusted, and therefore potentially unreliable or irrelevant.

Now the six degrees of separation (at least in the influencer world) has shrunk significantly to a “no degree of separation” influencer world (this entire phenomena is inherently changing the trust value equation).

So.

Trendwatching does a nice job of identifying five ways that the F-FACTOR can influence consumer-buying behavior:

1. F-DISCOVERY: How consumers discover new products and services by relying on their social networks (Friends).

2. F-RATED: How consumers will increasingly (and automatically) receive targeted ratings, recommendations and reviews from their social networks. (by the way … this is creating an entirely new industry of something called ‘curated consumption’ where non-experts become distributors of expert like information).

3. F-FEEDBACK: How consumers can ask their friends and followers to improve and validate their buying decisions.

4. F-TOGETHER: How shopping is becoming increasingly social, even when consumers and their peers are not physically together. (in other words, the web permits consumers to share real time information and feedback and opportunities … and this is like a pebble in a pond syndrome where relevance & interest creates ripples difficult to quantify when it works).

5. F-ME: How consumers’ social networks are literally turned into products and services (curated consumption at its best).

This is one of those situations where the internet has unequivocally changed the dimensions of existing attitudes & behaviors. Simplistically the web has put the old F-Factor on steroids. I say it that way to point out that the web has not created anything new (attitude wise) but rather has encouraged a desired behavior to new boundaries.

The internet has also expanded an interesting existing consumer aspect to this entire “influencer” situation.

It is expanding the entire trend of putting consumers to work (whether they recognize it or not).

Think about his for a second.

This trend existed before the web. The easiest early example of this was in the fast food industry. For example the consumer of the fast food restaurant is also to some degree an actual producer of the meal.

-    Among other things, diners are expected to serve as their own waiters carrying their meals to their tables or back to their cars, sandwich makers (by adding fixings like tomatoes, lettuce, and onions in some chains), salad makers (by creating their own salads at the salad bar), and bus persons (by disposing of their own debris after the meal is finished).

This trend has existed for some time.

Putting consumers to work gained momentum with companies/brands after the birth of the fast food restaurant and has expanded to other industries:

-    Being a gas attendant  by pumping your own gas

-    Serving as a bank teller at the ATM machine

-    Working as the checkout cashier at the supermarket by scanning one’s own food, bagging it, and paying for it by credit card

-    Being a ticketing agent by using electronic kiosks to check in at the airport

-    Serving as an entertainment guide by co-creating a variety of experiences such as moving oneself through Disney World and its attractions

-    Performing traditional medical professional services by using do-it-yourself medical technologies (e.g., blood pressure monitors, blood glucose monitors, pregnancy tests) that allow patients to perform their own medical tasks

-    Being a caller on a call-in radio show

-    Being part of a Reality TV show

And now the web has enabled brands (or is it consumer empowerment like everyone suggests) to put consumers to work in a wide range of sometimes subtle and less material ways (this is where the F Factor truly comes into play).

Once again.

Think about that.

Much of what happens (and is created) online is generated by the user. Today’s web experience is often being defined by users producing content (individually as well as collaboratively). It wasn’t that way in the beginning when most of what existed on the original web was provider-generated but lately there has been an explosion of “consumers doing the work.”

Some examples of how the internet is putting consumers to work:

-    Wikipedia – where users generate articles and continually edit, update, and comment on them

-    Facebook, MySpace, and other social networking websites – where users create profiles composed of videos, photos, and text, interact with one another, and build communities

-    Second Life – where users create the characters, communities, and the entire virtual environment

-    Blogs – where the commentary is produced by the consumer

-    eBay – where users are their own selling agent & shipper

-    YouTube and Flickr – where mostly amateurs upload and download videos and photographs

-    Craigslist – where consumers (mostly) create the market

-    Amazon – where consumers do all the work involved in ordering products and write the reviews. (in addition users’ buying habits and site navigation are documented to recommend products)

-    Yelp! – where users create an online city guide by ranking, reviewing and discussing various locations and activities in their area

-    The GeoWeb, which consists of online maps where, increasingly, users are creating and augmenting content with Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo tools. In fact. Google Maps users can fix errors; add the locations of businesses; upload photos; link Wikipedia articles to, and blog about their experiences with, or reviews of, places on the map.

And that’s not all.

Start thinking about the new “location awareness” tools, often used in conjunction with ‘smart’ cell phones with GPS technology, which allow users to track where they are at any given moment and upload this information to websites such as Facebook, Twitter or one’s blog (Google Latitude, Yahoo’s Fire Eagle and Loopt mobile phone application).

Sure.

This type of consumer involvement in consumption was certainly not invented by the internet, but given the massive involvement in popular online sites, it can be argued that it is currently both the most prevalent location of this new type of consumption (consumer) purchase model … and it is certainly the most important facilitator as a means of consumption.

Bottom line.

It can be argued that the web is influencing an entirely new consumption model.

A new economic model (as I so succinctly suggested upfront).

This leads me to my big finish.

Friends, feedback and influencers is bigger than simply the web or how brands can compete in this transparent world (where putting consumers to work doesn’t mean they are an employee).

The F Factor is impacting America & capitalism (forget about the whole brand and branding discussion … this is much bigger than that).

Capitalism itself will be transformed, perhaps radically, in this F-Factor world we live in. Several thoughts lead me to this conclusion.

First. The inability of companies (brands) to control consumers in the way, and to the extent, that they have been able to control consumers in the past. Due to increased transparency there is a greater resistance to the incursions of obvious capitalism (e.g. efforts to gain greater control and greater profits).

This does not bode well for the companies dabbling in Facebook & twitter & social marketing who are doing so with the intent to “influence or guide purchase behavior.”

Second. It is difficult to think of today’s consumer, mentally & attitudinally, as being exploited in the same ways as before. The whole idea of exploitation is contradicted by, among other things, the fact that today’s consumers seem to enjoy, even love, their involvement and what they are doing and are willing to devote long hours to it … for no pay.

Third. The emergence of a whole new economic model to conduct business because of the internet. Traditional capitalism is dependent on the notion of the exchange of money for goods and services and profits are made in those exchanges. However, little or no money changes hands between the users and the owners of many websites (for instance, users do not pay Facebook or Twitter to use the services).

For one thing there is the unwillingness of corporations and other organizations to pay for work done by these new web based influencers. This is compounded by the fact the new consumer increasingly prefer, and are able, to pay little or nothing for that which they consume on the internet (news, blogs, social networking sites, and so on).

Think about this as part of a new economic model.

Friends … family … influencers … or extended employees?

Yikes.

That will raise some hackles.

Yeah. Think about it.

What I have outlined is contrary to what Humphreys & Grayson (2009) argued that when corporations are involved this type of consumerism is simply the creation of “temporary employees” and thus does not indicate a fundamental change in capitalism.

However I contend that entire business models based around these new consumer types (the so called “temporary employees”) who are unpaid and given the product for free indicates the possibility of a new form of capitalism.

Now.

If you are a business and you are reading this, think about the implications.

All these “friends” providing feedback (unasked for or asked for) and influencing gazillions of attitudes (which generate some type of behavior) are your employees (paid or not).

They are your associates.

They are an extension of all those people who come in every morning, drink your own bad coffee and use the internet inappropriately during business hours in your office.

When you look at them that way would you choose to treat them differently?

Do things differently?

Think about your “social media” plans differently?

Even sit down with strategic planning and think about your business model differently?

I will help out here.

The answer to all of those questions should be “yes.”

The web is a powerful powerful facilitator of influence & business.

You may elect to call it “friends & feedback quantity” architecture but I suggest if you want to be successful you think about it as a “quality” mechanism which can impact a new economic model.

Intimidating? Possibly.

But if you don’t think of it that way you will probably influence no one and end up on the slippery slope of irrelevance (with no friends).

my thoughts on education inspired by The Wire

So.

Every time I walk into a high school I have a feeling that education … well … that it could be better. For everyone. Teachers & all kids (no matter their socioeconomic status or whether they live in an urban or rural environment).

Shit.  Not could … that it should be better. And I imagine the crazy thing about educating our youth is that everyone wants it to be better.  I cannot envision anyone in the education system seriously not having the best intentions or wanting every kid who walks through the door on day one to learn more and get an education.

I don’t know what happens in other countries but in America’s case we are more class/caste driven which has an impact on kids’ education from the earliest age.

Simplistically … the more affluent send their kids to well financed school systems (public or private) while lower income families traditionally get a worse education (for a variety of reasons) in lower financed systems. By the way … this is not an indictment of teachers because i believe great teachers exist in all school systems.

And even if a lower income kid fights their way through the system to get to college … well … the system is still against them. A Dept. of Education study states low income family students with high test scores are less likely to complete their studies (cross the finish line as it were) then high income family students with lower test scores. In other words, poor children are much less likely to make good then we often like to think. Oh. And the information shows that this fact is truer in America then in Canada and Europe.

The Australian Education system also conducted a similar study.

Let me be clear (and the rest of the post will focus on this point).

Kids are no more, or less, smart based on their associated socioeconomic background.  A brain is a brain.

But.

Their socioeconomic background affects their ability to dedicate themselves to learning.

All that said … if you are interested in this topic you should watch season 4 of The Wire. It is the season which uses the high school education system as the main thread for the story line.

This season was so well done a number of universities actually use it to discuss the challenges within our existing education system.

Ok.

Let me begin by saying … if you truly believe in your heart that each and every kid deserves a “chance” then be prepared … the season is simultaneously hopeful, yet hopeless and, ultimately, disturbing … all at the same time.

You can see the challenges and opportunities all at the same time.

And it is an additional maddening aspect in that everyone who tries to fix the system loses.

I admit. It’s disturbing & demoralizing to see good intentioned people (and kids) repeatedly getting crushed (even though it is just a TV show).

And you wonder why you see good intentions squandered until you hear one of the characters on the show say something that is so sadly true … “This game is rigged.”

Look.We all know the system is “broken.”

And good income people can beat the system.

And, frankly, it is those people who suggest “there are no excuses for not getting an education or having an opportunity.”

And, frankly, that’s a bunch of bullshit.

Go teach at an inner city school for a day.

Shit. Go teach at any public school for a day.

“No excuses” is a phrase of blatant ignorance when you see what stresses face many of the lives of the children you see which actually are not ‘excuses’ but in fact … realities. Realities they must face day-to-day.

As you will see, for example, on The Wire is the drug addiction, the crime connected to the drug trade, the business of the drug trade, the barely functioning families, and the poverty which are realities impacting a young student’s ability to be engaged or even be consistently involved (and that doesn’t even touch upon the emotional “hope” aspect).

In that Wire season there are four boys who try to engage with learning and with school, and are occasionally successful (which each student recognizes and are extremely engaged in those situations) but their life situations just do not permit ongoing consistent progress.

The Wire clearly shows us that many kids, many good smart kids, will fail in school through no fault of the schools or of their own.

Ok.

On the other hand, on the ‘hopeful side’, the show showcases the amazing potential our youth exhibits – even in the face of the direst situations. I actually believe it showcases, almost better than I have ever seen, how young people grasp the ‘light’, even if it only appears for seconds, even within the darkest environments.

It is within those moments of viewing the season that you just want to pick up a phone and call someone and say “fix the education system” because it tears your heart into pieces to see what ’could be.’

I also loved how the show so definitively states that only an incredibly small number of students are so emotionally damaged by their circumstances that they are totally unable to respond to what school has to offer (and I happen to agree with them).

The show does this extremely well by taking a group of ‘project kids’ who are the most disruptive and troubled but showing how they are potentially capable of functioning in a learning environment.

The project is where they pull a small number of disruptive students out of regular classes and puts them in a special, smaller, class with a larger number of adults. The students in the project group are involved in the drug trade or are heading down that path. The project succeeds in two ways. It reduces disruption in the regular classes and it allows focused and appropriate attention, with a greater adult-to-student ratio, to the students in the project class.

Oops. Here is where a flaw in our existing system rears its ugly head … the program is terminated when the city’s educational administration decides that a program that is not raising test scores and that smacks of “tracking” is too politically risky. Oh. ‘Tracking’ or ‘profiling’ … swear words in today’s environment (although … I admit it is a slippery slope).

In other words … a promising initiative is eliminated because of rigid bureaucratic goals.

A promising initiative eliminated … that worked. And worked despite the issues that undermine learning in urban schools (although I would argue that it isn’t just urban schools but everywhere) like fragmented families, no families, teachers required to teach to the test, declining neighborhoods with few legitimate jobs, overwhelmed or indifferent leaders.

Oh.

And good initiatives get eliminated due to the fact that the education system is beholden to stats (or “jukin’ the stats” as the show reminds us).

Ah. The ‘stats’ (scores).

This season of The Wire discusses the statistics in that the school system needs to produce raised scores on standardized tests. As a result actual learning and teaching are deeply compromised. The Wire is particularly critical of the testing regime associated with the 2002 No Child Left Behind law in that just as the teachers (and the project class) are beginning to discover some viable strategies for teaching to the students they have to shift to prepping them to take the standardized tests. It is a vivid demonstration (albeit a theatrical one) of an empty gesture within the education system in which the students learn nothing of value and which derails their interest, and growing, if shaky academic engagement.

The system was set up with good intentions but the show displays the flaws.

The show also showcases another thing I encounter (nd this is my opinion) … that many of our schools seem to sanitize the troubling, often offensive, and challenging aspects of real life while the Life reality is that students are surrounded by a popular culture which deals bluntly, graphically, and harshly with real life reality. Ok. I admit I am not sure we want our schools to include all the inappropriateness that is commonplace in the popular culture because one would hope (or, let’s say I believe) our schools should show students what ‘could be’ (from a ‘taste of what is finer’ perspective). It is probably unrealistic on my part but ultimately my hope is that schools would teach the best of the best and give kids something to aim for (without ignoring what is real).

The balance is that the education system needs to exercise discretion but I believe we tend to underestimate what students can appreciate and understand.

I don’t know how schools and education can ignore perspective when teaching. The Wire reminds us that all education, whether you want to define school rules versus street rules or not, have to deal with any aspect of the following (I pulled this list from a formal sociology & education article):

-          intersections between representations of race, economy, and criminality

-          issues of masculinity

-          gender and sexuality in police and criminal cultures

-          the family, childhood, parenting, and criminality

-          re-imagining of the heroic beyond traditional narratives of America

-          roles for women in urban America (and roles for women in general)

-          the technology of crime

-          street speech and class-based communication

-          cultures of addiction and treatment

-          constructions of violence

-          stress and trauma narratives

-          education and class

-          interest groups and issues of governance

Some of these are big emotional issues and some may appear to be “not my kid’s type of issue” to some more affluent family readers …. but these are real issues … to all our kids (so don’t be fooled by what you think you see in your own life).

Anyway.

Four features of The Wire’s depiction are particularly worthy of note.

First, the “inner city” kids, like kids anywhere, are shown as bright and curious, and capable of learning. Second, the ability of the schools to educate these children is shown to be strongly compromised by the kids’ world outside of school—their absent or dysfunctional families, their distressed communities, and the lack of any visible accessibility of the world of legitimate work.

Third, despite these negative forces in the students’ lives, teachers and school personnel are capable of making small but significant contributions to children’s educational and personal growth.

Fourth, public schools are portrayed as natural and appropriate places for young people to be in the context of their developing lives (although the particular distressed school the boys attend is deficient in many ways).

In addition.

The Wire did a great job showing us how, in a broad perspective, we are failing our youth with regard to education.

Oh. And it reminds us that good things don’t always happen to good kids. And life can get in the way of even the best education.

But. The main thought?

The show wants to say that most of the kids in school, even in public schools, would be capable of making significant educational progress were their lives and communities not so chaotic and troubled. The Wire portrays the students as naturally curious and constantly learning.

In conclusion, one character on The Wire states the issue better than I could ever.

He predicts …  if we don’t solve it … “there will be an endless stream of kids who are not prepared for productive lives.”

hard choices

Ok. Let’s talk a minute about Kodak.

And the fact that their demise had nothing to do with lack of foresight or inability to innovate (because they actually invented the digital camera). Kodak is about leadership, or the lack thereof, and people and decisions (or the lack thereof).

When an iconic company and brand like Kodak goes bankrupt everyone should think about hard choices and people who make them.

Oh. And people who don’t make them.

I am sure in 1976 when Kodak had 90% of film and 85% of camera sales in the US and was regularly rated one of the world’s five most valuable brands that it would seem inconceivable to company decision makers that the company could disappear. I do not have to imagine that we the people couldn’t conceive it.

In addition.

What’s not often recognized is that it was actually Kodak that invented the digital camera (in 1975). And, interestingly, four years after that a Kodak executive issued a report that predicted, in some detail, how different parts of the market would switch from film to digital with an inevitable digital mass market by 2010 (whew. Pretty close, huh?).

Look.

This is surely not the first time a company, and its leaders, has decided it is so self-important it can ride out what is happening in the market.

But I believe people are focusing on the wrong things.

Successful organizations are rarely successful because of foresight (or fortune telling or predicting the future). They are typically successful due to thoughtful reaction and response to change … and making the inevitably hard decisions when the change is truly disruptive to their core business.

Yes.

Decisions get significantly harder when a company is faced with truly market disruptive innovations/actions.

And, no, corporations don’t have to inevitably die. It depends entirely on their adaptability.

So.  Let’s talk about the decisions to adapt.

What I mean by that is … why couldn’t Kodak and its leaders make the hard choices to avert this demise?

I disagree with the popular opinion that it was their lack of vision with regard to the role digital in the photo business that led to their demise.

Why?

Many organizations make big innovation or lack of vision mistakes and don’t go bankrupt. Why don’t they?  They make the hard decisions to course correct.

Yup. Hard decisions are called hard because they are just that – hard.

Difficult.

Not soft.

Not soft?

“I want (and need) to make significant changes. But I want to retain the core.”

(Oops … that is  decision with high potential for ‘soft characteristics’).

Why? That core, or what is deemed most important, always seems to grow and grow when being discussed internally. It is almost within the DNA of an organization to think in these terms. And, inevitably, those ‘significant changes’ become soft changes.

Hard means sacrifice. Not cutting back on the decision. Making a real sacrifice.

I wrote about it in a post called “how far would you go to solve a problem?” http://brucemctague.com/how-far-would-you-go-to-solve-a-problem

Hard decisions could have saved Kodak. I truly believe that.

But let’s maybe discuss why hard decisions are hard to make (even by people who are quite capable of making a good hard decision).

Here is something to ponder.

Hard choices harden the person who makes them.

You have to harden yourself.  You have to harden yourself, insulate yourself a little, from the human aspects of the decision and focus on the bigger picture and the horizon. Please don’t mistake this for minimizing the ‘little people’ or the individual. This is the forest or trees type decisions leaders need to make. It may sound callous but it is just like firefighting a big fire … burn some trees to save the forest.

Oh.  And sometimes burn a shitload of trees to save the forest.

Leaders make the same decisions.  In this case it is people & buildings and not trees.

Regardless.

The big hard decisions, when they are made, harden you as a person. It’s just life.  It’s not personal.

Here is what makes it even tougher.

I believe all of us who make hard decisions worry a little bit that it … well … becomes too easy.

That we become so hard that we lose sight of everything else.

Oddly Richard Gere in Pretty Woman reminded us of this – if you got past the fact he was hiring a hooker in the Beverly Wilshire Hotel – in that his character lost sight of ‘being human’ as he became quite good at making hard decision for business successes.

And it was a true depiction of what can happen. Hard decisions are difficult because there is not only a financial risk & toll … but a personal toll. Each one affects you.

As with everything in life (it seems) … it is a balancing act.

I say all of this to try and share that there is a human aspect of any hard decision.  And leaders don’t overlook that (despite what everyone else may want you to think).

Every one understands the repercussions.

Every. One.

Now.  Having said that.

Someone at Kodak couldn’t make the hard decision.

I truly believe that.

Were they soft with regard to people or whatever? Heck. I don’t know.  I believe they just inevitably made soft decisions. Soft decisions that possibly gave a glimmer of hope but once you begin the slippery slope of business issues (particularly if you are a large company and gravity really takes over) the glimmer becomes dimmer and dimmer over time.

To stop the slide a really hard decision needed to be made.

A big hairy audacious decision.

Anyway. I often believe business leaders could learn a lot from the military on how to win a war.

Do I believe a general wants to lose a single soldier’s life? No. He does not.

Do I believe a general understands that he needs to lose soldiers’ lives? Yes. He does.

Do I believe those decisions weigh upon him (even if we elect to judge the decision on the final successful outcome)? Yes.  I do.

But they make the hard decisions.

And no one at Kodak did make the hard decision.

It wasn’t lack of foresight.

It wasn’t a lack of understanding of what was happening in the market (trust me … they probably saw dozens of reports of what was happening in the marketplace).

It was a lack of ability to make the hard decision.

And … it’s a shame.

facts and creation

“Without the hard little bits of marble which are called ‘facts’ or ‘data’ one cannot compose a mosaic; what matters, however, are not so much the individual bits, but the successive patterns into which you arrange them, then break them up and rearrange them.” - The Act of Creation

I find it tragic to watch bright, energetic youth become lethargic and uninspired in the workplace.

Yes. Tragic. Because it is such a waste of not only mindpower but, well, will power.  And it is also tragic to the work company because lethargy does not lead to ideas/ideation/creative thinking.

To me? The real problem lies with the older folk (in manager positions) who seem to lack a comprehensive relevant view of learning.  Or maybe better said … they have an archaic way of viewing the way it should be done.

There are a lot of leaders (management whatever you want to call them) who appear to be guilty of classifying learning as being a difficult and frustrating experience.

This is in combination with the fact they also tend to have odd views on ‘how to make it fun.’ Oh. And to complete that thought … they have a belief that they have to ‘make it fun’ because learning is difficult/frustrating. Therefore it is a flawed belief system.

Look.

Creative thinking and innovation does not arise out of a vacuum but must be supported by a culture that encourages people to experiment. To experiment with facts, with ideas and products. With the hard little bits of marble as it were.

Original thinking and new ideas has to be nurtured and rearranged in successive patterns … not destroyed and scattered.

We can all encourage creativity by helping young people learn to assess the bits of marble and take intellectual risks in their work & ideation. Does this have to be “made” fun? Nope.  And it is, frankly, silly to think it has to be.

Instead this is like providing a spark to combustible matter. I am not suggesting it should be painful but rather fun is slightly less relevant than providing the inspiration to learn and become engaged.

Ultimately I don’t believe management should teach people how to create ideas.

The goal should be to prepare young people to be competent and original in their thinking.

Do that and they will create mosaics like you have never seen before.

Oh.

And in successive patterns.

(by the way … that is a good thing)

the silence lie

“just because you didn’t speak the facts out loud didn’t erase their existence. silence was just a quieter way to lie.” – unknown

I am fairly sure I found these words in some tween blog.  I don’t remember the frame of reference but I wrote down the words because … well … I don’t really give a shit about the frame of reference because it defines the ‘silent lie’ better than anything else I have ever seen.

“silence was just a quieter way to lie.”

Boy oh boy.

That is a powerful thought.

I guess the funny thing is truth is truth … whether it is spoken or silent.  So why wouldn’t a lie be exactly the same?

A lie’s existence is not defined by words or lack of words … it is defined by whether it exists or not.

Maybe I say this because anything that exists can take on a life of its own.

It breathes and lives and, well, it actually eats.  It eats away at your thoughts and, if you are unfortunate, it eats away at your soul.

And if a lie exists then it does all that.

Frankly, I am not sure you can ever kill a lie. Even by eventually speaking the truth. I believe even in that case it doesn’t cease to exist but maybe by speaking it … it attains a more tangible form.  And maybe that makes it easier to accept … ok, well … maybe not accept.  Maybe it’s just live with it.

So if I believe that, when does a lie stop existing? When does it take its last breath?

Well.

I actually believe they take their last breath the same time you do. Yup. I believe lies are things you carry with you until the end of your days. You cannot erase their existence by ‘speaking the facts out loud.’ They are one of Life’s burdens.

I imagine we all lie at some point or another.

A white lie.  A lie of omission. A lie of silence. A lie of words. I personally don’t believe Life weighs lies … like there are ‘big lies’ and ‘little lies’ … I just believe Life counts them all simply as lies.

So.

Maybe the measure of our life is … how many lies take their last breath when we do at the end.

black white and gray

“In the course of your education you’ve always been taught to look for the right answer but you must also know that in life sometimes the right answer is that there isn’t one.”

-          Mr. Feeny, Boy Meets World.

So.

I do know for sure, having been in the business world for too many years to count, that rarely is there one answer to the question … or challenge … or whatever.

There are multiple “right” answers to just about everything.

And I guess, if I want to get philosophical, that makes me wonder if anything is certain or concrete anymore.

Maybe I really am getting old … but black & white seemed clearer to me years ago.

In fact, some of my past team members may remember the “McTague good – bad scale.”

I would often simply sum up something by saying “well, on the McTague good – bad scale, well, that would be good.”

(or bad when appropriate)

These days I almost feel like I would have to shift the scale to a rating instead of an unequivocal good or bad.

Is there truly an unequivocal non debatable good and bad?

Or a right and wrong?

How about truth or lies? (where omission can be deemed a ‘lie’)

Or is it just mixed together and upon us to decide for ourselves?

Oh.

And say we decide for ourselves … judge our own actions … but the other person has a different judging scale. What happens then? Who is right or wrong?

(hey. maybe there is a new business idea here where everyone carries a little card they can hand someone before speaking which outlines the boundaries of their ‘persona right & wrong’ scale.)

Anyway.

Does the end really justify the means when it comes to good or bad or right or wrong?

And is it your end or ‘their end’ that really matters in your own black or white judgment?

It kind of makes you question the whole concept of ‘Is everything either black and white’ or even worse is anything black or white?

Or is everything somewhere in the middle, in the gray?

Wow.

Sadly this make you start believing the world is built in shades of gray. Everything becomes negotiable, flexible or left to interpretation.

Maybe that is life.

Because the reality in day to day life is sometimes we are forced to bend the truth or sometimes transform it because we’re faced with things that we did not choose to happen but are demanded to deal with it.

And sometimes ‘bending the truth’ simply catches up to us.

And it makes me wonder if this is right.

So.

If there is anything that is ethical in our day, where is the line drawn?

Is it simply if what we feel is right … well … then it really is.

And if we are forced to do what we think is wrong, should we do it anyway or reap the consequences that come with refusal to go along with the way life pushes us?

Ok.

All of that makes my head hurt.

I know one thing for sure … I would like to be certain of one thing.

That somewhere there really is an absolute truth.

Somewhere.

Tricky to find but there.

Maybe that is the truth.

That it is a journey for truth.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … I like that (although that is a gray answer isn’t it?).

Maybe the best way to think about black, white and gray is this way:

“Dawn and sunset are the times when Nature herself is unstable and in flux. The nocturnal world and the daytime world are meeting, and for a brief time coexisting. It’s not a neat hard cut, but a blurred, irregular dissolve. These moments are the seams in existence through which we can get a glimpse of the deeper, fundamentally random, chance workings of a system in which we are only a small, insignificant player.” Bill Viola

Is it possible we can find solace in this question through some poetic thought like this?

Shit. I don’t know. Most of us would seek to find some more clarity then this.

But maybe he is right. Maybe truth coexists in day and night.

Blurred by the edges of right and wrong.

I do know no one will ever get “black & white” right all the time.

But I imagine that is not a reason I shouldn’t try for the absolute at all times by constantly seeking ‘truth’ whatever that may be.

Make the attempt to find the black or the white.

Avoid the grey.

And maybe this is the best reason of all:

“There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.” - Ayn Rand

Avoid gray because it is evil.

global generation 11: learning by lurking

I called this “learning by lurking” but this is all about how the project global generation education initiative, because of its web based platform, creates learning through a unique aspect of web based collaboration.

This is thinking about the project global generation education initiative with a focus on collaboration for learning.

Oh. And, of course, how the project GG initiative can assist in reducing the children out of school numbers, increase literacy and most likely reduce future conflict … all through the collaborative aspects of the initiative.

Let me get a thought out of the way.

I have written a variety of articles on how collaboration is misused in the business world. Misused in that I believe ideas are driven by individuals and collaboration often dulls the edges of individual ideas (under the guise of improvement).

On the other hand … the traditional education system is ignoring the benefits of collaboration for learning … or maybe better said “the gathering & sharing of knowledge” particularly with regard to the global youth.

What I mean is that there is an opportunity within this context where children, utilizing a web platform,  could be driving the ideation (versus the current system where teachers facilitate learning and ideation).

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … sound like the inmates running the asylum? Not even close.

Anyway.

The focus of this write up is to sync up the idea of collaboration (due to the initiative’s web platform) and the original generational idea of “community individualism.” (global generation 1)

Web based children’s education collaboration represents an opportunity because:

1.            The existing way we view the education system, based on brick & mortar, is archaic. For a variety of reasons … collaboration included.

2.            The existing education system is archaic from a sociological perspective (creating a healthier collaborative mind).

But (ponder this):

“We are now at a point where we must educate our children in what no one knew yesterday, and prepare our schools for what no one knows yet.” – unknown author from an education article

So. It is possible archaic is a strong word … but maybe we should be using stronger words as we discuss education children (and improvements).

Yet. What I know for sure is the current global education structure misses the opportunity to globalize socialization of knowledge/education. What I mean by that is the existing brick & mortar inherently diminishes some education opportunities because of the face-to-face “clique” challenges.

Ok. I will come back to that last one because it is a humdinger of a thought.

-          Collaboration and education

Collaboration when discussing the internet is obvious.

I am going to avoid the obvious and utilize a twist on the idea by taking advantage of global consumer trends.  Two trends called Casual Collapse and Mass Mingling (source: trendwatching.com).

Casual Collapse and Education

Casual Collapse is the current seeming  ongoing blurring of many beliefs, rituals, formal requirements and laws that have defined specific societies.   And it continues to collapse because of the internet (to be specific – the cross-cultural sharing of information and knowledge empowered by the internet) and all this is happening without causing any particular apocalyptic aftermath. But it also appears In mature countries/cultures a ‘CASUAL COLLAPSE’ seems unstoppable (whether a government or an elderly culture wants it to happen or not).

People have grown up immersed in consumer culture – they ‘get’ it. But as everyone becomes more savvy about ‘what is happening and what people are thinking’ half way around the world they begin questioning the status quo conventional thinking. It is less tribal thinking but more global perspective.

Casual Collapse is not a negative trend but rather it is indicative of a variety of things (of which the web is a significant component).

But the web is a layer on a natural progression happening – the urbanization of emerging countries.

There’s an obvious link between the broad spread of more liberal attitudes and increasing urbanization globally (in Africa alone in 1980 28% lived in cities while today its 40% – 40 million people). As new arrivals find themselves distanced from traditional social and familial structures, and are exposed to a wider range of alternative goods, services, lifestyles, opinions and experiences, their tolerance to these alternatives grows, as does their interest.

The web simply accelerates what would have been happening naturally.

I am certainly not suggesting this will happen overnight. As trendwatching suggests … “compared to much trend thinking, CASUAL COLLAPSE moves at a glacial pace.”

And I am certainly not suggesting that everyone becomes overwhelmingly liberal as soon as they move to the city. but there is a clear trend for urban populations to have more socially liberal and tolerant views on a wide variety of issues.

And from Casual Collapse I shift to Mass Mingling.

Mass Mingling and Education

Within the construct of the Global Generation Children’s education initiative I am certainly not suggesting a Global mind. Nor is the intent to create a “global mind” (as one) or even a “Global society.” I am rather discussing the benefit of a global education initiative. And therefore I am  discussing collaboration as an extension of Mass Mingling through educational platforms to build empowered (or enlightened) individualism with a respect for the global perspective.

This is a big difference then creating a global mind.

This is about fostering innate curiosity and sharing knowledge … where children are then empowered to create their own ‘mind.’

This initiative is built upon the power of an individual’s mind (and the fact of power of one to make a difference).  So how the heck does that lead, or encourage, collaboration?

it maybe be easiest for me to discuss collaboration specifically within a construct of the “community individualism” generational characteristic I have proposed in terms of community, individual and the crossing of the two.

Nothing is more powerful within the individual child’s mind than curiosity.

A web based education initiative should encourage/enhance Collaboration that cultivates curiosity.

Most dictionaries define curiosity as something like “a state in which you want to learn more about something.”

(Bruce NOTE: they could possibly have made this a definition for children at the same time).

But it is also about being comfortable with uncertainty and not knowing, whilst at the same time being motivated to explore and discover more.

It is a human characteristic that as soon as you think you know something with certainty you no longer want to learn more about it, i.e., you are no longer curious.

But children are endless vectors of curiosity.

With children there’s a sense of not knowing it all going in with an innocent, open mind and an intention to learn more.

We are tapping into an unfillable well at this age (as long as we nurture it).

“The important thing is not to stop questioning… Never lose a holy curiosity. – Einstein

Yes. A bunch of people will say ‘it cannot be done through the internet.” Or. Even better … how can kids collaborate without guidance or a teacher.

Mass Mingling actually thrives on curiosity. Think about the characteristics of curiosity.

-          Most of the time, when we make a mistake, or see someone else making a mistake, our automatic reaction is to start making judgment and blame – we tell ourselves off, beat ourselves up about it, and we might even give someone else a hard time if we see them make a mistake. An d this only has the effect of triggering our stress response, which causes our thinking to become more rigid in our thinking.

Mass Mingling permits millions of young children to browse socially through information, existing knowledge and mingle with other’s thoughts – making mistakes along the way as they mingle.

But this curiosity needs to be nurtured by teaching children that mistakes are just information and feedback from the real world, letting us know how things are in the real world, and telling us what’s working and what’s not working, what the blocks and obstacles to progress are, and even tipping you off on opportunities to solve problems and meet needs that other people might have.

Children will be exposed to the idea that their mistakes can be the very things that lead you in the new direction that turns out to be way better than you’d previously conceived.

And, frankly, today’s education system doesn’t foster curiosity.

I find it tragic to watch bright, energetic youth become lethargic about education. The real problem lies with adults who lack a comprehensive view of learning, adults who are guilty of classifying real learning as being a difficult and frustrating experience. The focus on tests is creating a generation of students who equate learning with test results.

But ideas & innovative enlightened thinking does not arise out of a vacuum. It must be supported by a culture that encourages people to experiment with ideas and products. Original thinking and novel ideas should be affirmed and honored and cultivated. Even if it is simply original/novel in the eyes of the young.

A web based initiative can encourage creativity by helping students learn to assess and take intellectual risks as they learn more. In my eyes the goal of education should be to prepare children to be competent and original in their thinking … at any age.

The value of Casual Collapse & Mass Mingling

This is where Community and Individualism become interconnected. And the foundation of the Global Generation takes root.

A collaborative group of kids who have learned together, made mistakes together, learned FROM each other and maybe even laughed at, if not with, each other creates stronger respectful individuals … within an interacting global community.

It is a fact that education at an early age (and hopefuly continued) is indispensable in equipping citizens with the abilities and skills to engage critically, and act responsibly.

Anyway.

I found an interesting project being conducted along these lines (although I don’t believe they are thinking big enough).

a collaborative effort is under way on the issue of educational assessment and it offers insight into how it can happen and what motivates the companies involved.

Cisco is in a partnership with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Association of the Evaluation of Educational Achievement aimed at transforming global educational assessment and improving learning outcomes. Joining Cisco in this effort are Intel and Microsoft. Thomson says the three companies came together at the Learning and Technology World Forum in London “with the intention of changing the world.”

The three large, global technology companies have different business models – Cisco sells networks, Microsoft sells licenses and Intel sells devices – but they all compete for attention in the education market. All three are also committed to changing education in the United States and globally, and, according to Thomson, their leadership became convinced through the World Economic Forum that “education itself was still the best way to drive change in the world.”

The sheer number and variety of educational systems worldwide poses a significant challenge to any effort to effect change on a global scale. Thomson points out, however, there are three characteristics common to any system of education that guides the partnership’s work:

Here is the best thing I found …

Education everywhere is a social construct. It is not an industry or a vocation. “People come together to provide skills competencies and abilities for their children to succeed.”

  1. Systems are comparable enough in their desire to measure progress. A kind of assessment unique to education is common across all systems.
  2. There is still an economic component to education. In all countries its purpose includes fostering social development, citizenship and an ability to participate in the economy.

The spokesperson  says that collaborating to tackle the issue of educational assessment worldwide requires Cisco and the others to step out of their “comfort zone.” They are accustomed to relationships through which they sell billions of dollars in technology to the education sector. Now they have to listen to those same customers and ask what they are using it for.

“And sometimes saying to customers you don’t really need to buy more technology from us.” Thomson remarks. “What we need to do is figure out a better way to use it.” Figuring these things out cannot be driven by revenue generation, he stresses. “It’s not about selling more. It’s about changing things.”

The kind of change that Cisco, Intel and Microsoft are striving for will not happen without involving academics, countries (the owners of the educational systems) and corporations in identifying and assessing 21st century skills.

Thomson says that the “Uncommon Table” the Boston College Center seeks to create for collaboration on education will need a “big tent.” That’s just the approach being taken by Cisco and the other companies. Their initiative on assessment draws from educators in Australia, Finland and Portugal, parts of Asia, and the United States, if the fragmentation of the U.S. educational system can be worked with. He says success will take willing partners open to foreign advice and academics prepared to collaborate and ready to adapt change into their own systems.

“If we can find that right way to keep that disparate group of people working together; if we can find that right ecosystem at a national level to actually implement, we’re going to make a tremendous difference,” the spokesperson predicts. “And that’s a difference that’s not there to drive revenue. It’s not there to create new product streams. It’s there simply to create a better world.”

(I would like to note that this can actually be found in my Global Generation how to make it happen & fund write up … and I said a similar thing).

I applaud Cisco, Intel & Microsoft … although I would point out to them that they could do it another way … the project global generation way.

What I DO like about what they are trying is that they are potentially solving a core issue – funding.

Ok. Moving on.

Socialization and a web based Education

Beyond collaboration ‘missed opportunities’ let me go back to how brick & mortar is archaic from a socialization perspective.

Existing education systems are a breeding ground for a caste system.

Kids are brutal in a face-to-face system.

Online can be just as brutal … but in a faceless way.

Who you are and how you dress and what you say (even the language you speak) becomes secondary to “what you say and what you think” in an online community.

All people are equal in body online. sociologically this means that ideas and thinking create the caste system.

And before someone begins slamming on “decreasing social skills because of the internet” take this factoid along for the ride …

PewInternetResearch: “Our research shows face-to-face time between teenagers hasn’t changed over the past five years. Technology has simply added another layer on top. Yes, you can find studies that suggest online networking can be bad for you. But there are just as many that show the opposite.”

In my eyes the value of an educational  web world is that it permits a child to regularly place themself in unfamiliar situations, or with unfamiliar people, and provides  the opportunity to be exposed to ideas and views that they’ve not been exposed to before.  And all of this provides an opportunity for real-life evidence/knowledge to challenge existing certainties – and open the way for curiosity.

We have the opportunity to integrate the newest forms of interactive technology with children’s natural curiosity (and a generation that has web abilities almost beyond our understanding) to create natural conditions in which collaboration can occur.

-          The natural anonymity of online tools frees us from tacit biases or self-doubt and encourages individual leadership.

-          Asynchronous tools allow global work teams release from the bonds of time zones to tackle projects with increasing effectiveness and productivity.

-          Social networks now become visible through community tools allowing financial, time, human and other organizational assets to be redeployed toward developing innovative approaches to unique problems, rather than reinventing solutions to problems that have been previously solved.

So.

Lets move along from socialization socializing and discuss socializing learning.

I call it … Learning by Lurking

Twitter has certainly taught us you don’t have to be an active participant … you can be a ‘lurker’ … and participate (or build a viable network system and have people be involved). And in education’s case it isn’t creepy … it can actually benefit a dormant mind … or a personality that doesn’t feel comfortable stepping forward. In other words, all have the opportunity to benefit from the few great minds.  And providing an opportunity for the few who don’t have a voice (but have the mind) to be able to finally step forward at some point.

THAT is the benefit of a global NON brick & mortar system.

Online permits some of the best minds, but possibly not the most socially acclimated, to rise and maximize their talent.

Such places could even be more than just schools but genuine hubs for related activities for the entire community. With a global connection to the net – maybe not the net but another layer (along the lines of facebook which is also another layer of net) an education/informational platform awaits to be activated by a mind. (note: as outlined in global generation 6 this is hardly pie-in-the-sky nor cost prohibitive in this day and age)

Another ‘lurker’ (or maybe better says ‘anonymity’) aspect of the web enabled platform  is that it permits mistakes … maybe some spectacular mistakes … with little or no social repercussions.

Now.

Am I suggesting social skills aren’t important? Nope. They are.

But here and now I am talking about education and enlightenment.

Frankly the current education system is not about enlightenment.

Sorry folks.

That just is the truth.

The benefits of Lurking & Collaboration summary (or … The Big Close …)

At its most basic level we are teaching our children the way they need to act within a learning construct at such an early age that when they grow up they will not depart from such behavior because it is ingrained (positively).

Behaviorally the child’s mind experiences the right way of dealing with issues & thinking & ideation so that it becomes a natural instinctual act. It becomes habits that produce profitable outcomes in their adult years (hopefully in the form of ideas & accomplishments).

This idea is truly about teaching kids, beginning at the preschool age, relationship-building collaborative skills that creates a mental foundation on how to deal with others AND educate.

Even prior to a child entering a traditional classroom (should that opportunity exist) there are opportunities to teach them how to interact & ideate with other people in a positive way. And the project global generation children’s education idea is truly about learning collaboration skills at their most rudimentary level.

I also believe, in my heart of hearts, that this is the best way for humankind as a great way to preserve and instill languages and cultures to counter the homogenization of urbanism combined with globalism.

Yes.

That is fostering Community Individualism.

When collaboration takes place between people who realize the benefit of smooth working relationships then higher creative achievement and productivity is accomplished. Healthy cross-functional teams working in concert for the greater good eventually translates into efficient operations, regardless of whether in an academic, work, social or home environment. In the end, society benefits from groups performing productively with another. Of course, teaching the basics of all of this at the preschool age means a greater likelihood of kids continuing positive collaboration abilities as they progress in life.

And I do believe that the structure of web based schools/schooling with children as young as five or six in which they can express their opinions, share thinking & ideas and ultimately propose their own solutions creates a solid foundation for a ‘community individualism drive/intent’ Global Generation. It is this kind of attitudinal construct which offers unlimited opportunities for leadership and engagement.  And it is this type of education structure which, by the time those five- and six-year-olds reach an appropriate graduation age, they will have a profound and enduring understanding of what it means to be in a collaborative society and have the ability to contribute within their own community … as well as a global level if given the opportunity.

This is an idea of molding a people from diverse origins, cultural practices, languages, into one collaborative group of thinkers, within a framework which has to be democratic in nature (because it crosses any and all geographic boundaries, yet it can be absorbed within any cultural construct.

And by doing so it mitigates conflicts and adversarial interests without oppression and injustice but rather through expanding brain power.

Whew.

Sound big and audacious? Yup.

Sound like it could better individuals? Yup.

Sound like it would therefore better any country construct (regardless of its unique government or religious direction)? Yup.

Sound possible? You bet. I call it the Global Generation children’s education initiative.

its all about the balance sheet, baby

So.

This is about the American economy and a plea for all of us to quit bitching about how the government is the fault for all our economic woes.

Yeah, sure, the government could (and should) take some actions to help … and improve their own balance sheet.

But. The combination of the US population (people) and corporations have more money on their balance sheets at their disposal than the government (therefore can make a bigger impact).

And.

Remember.

Its all about the balance sheet baby.

What do I mean? Savings & cash.

And I mean we are finally heading in the right direction (so quit looking at unemployment and government balance sheet for a moment).

Overall households have increased their % of hhld savings as a percentage of disposable income.

I won’t get the numbers right but suffice it to say people are improving their household balance sheets.

And.

Corporations are flush with cash. As they have become more conservative and banking money for the future their balance sheets have become quite healthy with cash.

These are indicators of good things in the future.

Oh. And before I get to the crux of the consumer/corporate balance sheet dilemma let me share one quick factoid about US debt, their own balance sheet and how we make money (as a country).

I share this factoid slide from a presentation because, I admit, I do get a little tired of how Michelle Bachman and lots of other people so casually focus on debt:

————————————–

(this comes from an Economic Summit presentation in London)

US is a Giant Investment Bank

- The Asian Savings Glut enabled the US household to “Borrow” money cheaply from savers looking for Capital Preservation and Security and then “lend it back” as risk capital

- If you borrow $100 at 4% over 7 years and set aside $28 to pay the interest, you can then buy “equity” in emerging markets with the remaining $72

- If this “only” produces 10% pa, then over the life of the bond you have doubled your equity capital, you now have $144 after interest, and $44 after principal

- Traditional balance sheet measures such as debt to GDP ignore the asset side of the equation, while liquidity measures such as debt service to income ignore the different nature of equity (capital growth)

- Traditional economic measures fail to capture the real balance sheet and cash flow situation and declare this to be an “Imbalance”

-          A slide from Economic Symposium London march 2011

——————————————–

I shared that just so I could get beyond the country’s balance sheet discussion and get to what you & I can do and should do.

So.

On to us consumers … and what we can do to insure some economic growth in the future.

Its about the savings.

Uh oh.

I didn’t say spending (which spurs the economic outlook).

Yeah. Its true that the economy demands increased consumer spending. The problem is that millions of lower- and middle-income households have lost their capacity to spend – in actual dollars as well as mentally ‘scared’ to spend even if they have the dollars.

Despite the growth in savings as a percentage there is an overall lack of savings ‘safety net’ and a level of debt (even if it is small) that hovers like a gargoyle looking over most people’s shoulder. Although it would be helpful if affluent households spent more, we shouldn’t be calling upon a struggling majority to do so. In the long run, the health of the economy depends on the financial stability of our households.

Therefore we need to reduce our own debt on the balance sheets. Oh. In addition we (the people) need to become less dependent upon social security as “the” retirement fund (I will get back to that point).

Attitudinally it appears like we are making the needed shifts.

In the second quarter of 2009 households put away 7 percent of disposable income, compared with under 2 percent in the third quarter of 2007. Yet the savings rate is falling again, down to 5.3 percent in December.

(note: I added that last point because that is our biggest issue … changing long term behavior and our desire to want to spend versus save)

According to a Harris Poll (maybe in 2010?) 27 percent of Americans have no personal savings and 34 percent have no retirement savings, an increase from over a year ago.

Here is the tricky part.

US consumers want to reduce their debt, but the economy’s recovery depends on their spending. By some estimates, de­leveraging is happening more because of defaults than because of people opting to pay down their debts. A decline in credit-card debt, for example, closely tracks the rate at which banks are charging off delinquent card loans.

In addition job losses are leading to foreclosure or bankruptcy. In others, borrowing has stalled because card issuers have reduced credit limits or raised interest rates.

Think about this …

These are all “forced” balance sheet improvement behavior patterns.

These are not “choice” behavior changes.

That is a point I am making so that we don’t get fooled by numbers …. but rather focus on behavior.

Any behavioral model will show you that forced behavior creates only short term behavior change. And that is why many Media & Economic reporting information is flawed and misleading to the general public.

Yes. Once again I will point out there are some encouraging signs which we should nurture.

The cost of debt payments as a share of personal disposable income, has fallen to around 12 percent, from nearly 14 percent when the recession began. But that overall figure masks wide disparities – millions of households have no debt at all, while others are deep in debt (go back to my “the Two Americas PewResearch post).

Yes.

By looking only at numbers it appears the trend is moving in a positive direction.

But (and this is a big but) …. we need a change in attitude (which will create the behavior necessary to make it all work).

American people are addicted to spending (this is probably an entire post all in itself on breaking down the addiction culturally).

But let’s instead think about some things.

Americans definitely spend more than people in western Europe and Asia.  Definitely. Its part of our DNA.

You can look at consumption levels and control for purchasing power over the last several decades, and America is simply in a league of its own. The only people who come close are people in Britain, but they are about 85 percent of the level of American consumption. Germans, French and others are in the 70 percent range, Japanese even a little lower. So Americans spend like no one else.”

So what can help us become better savers.

I guess I think about this like any addiction.

It has to be part personal responsibility and part ‘system’ (a system that enables us for success).

I think we need to improve the access of lower-income households to savings institutions.

We just saw Bank of America and other banks trying to charge an extra fee on people with debit cards, particularly with low minimum balances. That tends to discourage people especially among lower-income households.

We need to remember about 25 percent of lower income America is unbanked (they don’t have bank accounts).

So.

First.

Similar to Europe we need to incentivize banks to create small savers accounts. They have a low or minimum balance, that have no fees, and pay a recognizable interest rate. These can be subsidized by government working with banks (and that, my friends, is a good use of government spending).

Second.

we need to revise our tax laws.  There are too many tax exempt advantages incentivizing borrowing. We need to incent saving.

Third.

Learn from others.

We can learn from societies that promote a more balanced approach to saving and spending.

Few Americans appreciate that the prosperous economies of western and northern Europe are among the world’s greatest savers. Over the past three decades, Germany, France, Austria and Belgium have maintained household saving rates between 10 and 13 percent, and rates in Sweden recently soared to 13 percent. By contrast, saving rates in the United States dropped to nearly zero by 2005; they rose above 5 percent after the 2008 crisis but have recently fallen below 4 percent.

Unlike the United States, the thrifty societies of Europe have long histories of encouraging the broad populace to save.

During the 19th century, European reformers and governments became preoccupied with creating more frugal citizens. They focused on creating hundreds of savings banks that enabled the majority (pretty much anyone) to save by accepting small deposits. Central governments established accessible postal savings banks where small savers could bank at any post office. In addition, to encourage thrifty habits in the young, governments also instituted school savings banks.

All these actions fostered a culture of saving that endures today in many countries (and fosters a certain type of economy). For example … the French government attracts millions of lower-income and young savers with its Livret A account available at savings banks, postal savings banks and all other banks. This small savers’ account is tax free, requires only a tiny minimum balance, and commonly pays above-market interest rates. And in German cities, one cannot turn the corner without coming upon one of the popular savings banks, called Sparkassen.

Legally charged with encouraging an overall savings mentality these banks offer no-fee accounts for the young and sponsor financial education in the schools.

Ok. And while we may not have all those governmental driven opportunities here (and want to use that as an excuse) we need to get in our heads that even with the economy we can save. Even with reduced income we can save.

We only have to look to Africa, where millions who have just risen above the poverty level, have created savings accounts despite the fact their disposable income does not permit any luxury.

In addition, many foreign countries have also restrained the expansion of consumer and housing credit with the intent to minimize being personally over-in-debt. Home equity loans are rare in Germany, and Belgians, Italians and Germans are rarely offered an American-style credit card that allows the user to carry an unpaid balance.

Oh.

Lastly.

Savings & retirement.

Your retirement isn’t about social security.

When Social Security came about in the 1930s, it was largely a program to keep families from starving and from going absolutely broke.  It was never intended as a long-term benefits program.  Yet life expectancy has increased over time and now today, many Americans depend on Social Security as their primary source of retirement. We need to change our ‘entitlement’ attitude on this.

That’s it for today.

At the end of the day, someone, somewhere in America has to save. In fact a lot of someones somewhere have to save.

Save a lot, save a little …. just save.

And, remember, it’s all in your head. Because if an African earning 5,000 dollars a year can figure out how to save money I imagine we can figure out how to set aside some money.