 |
     |
|
|
Technology fails eventually. It always does. That's why humans -- so far -- are superior to machines. The human mind "thinks" and makes connections, acts in ways no computer could. Maybe that's why Microsoft has a former U.S. Marshall on board to track down spammers (using technology at first) to show them the old school way.
Anybody with more than a passing interest in online activity, security, privacy, etc., etc. ought to know that security and privacy are opposite sides of the same coin. Greater security (esp. in the national interest) eats privacy; exercised privacy entitlement by its nature inhibits security. To a fair degree privacy advocates have been "winning" despite a widely understood security issue. Consider the US Total Information Awareness program (in truth an excessive bit of oversight) as a high-profile example.
The weight of support on the side of "freedom" and "privacy" is a good thing because of the well-meaning excesses of those fighting terrorism in every form. But, fact is, security of every sort is limited by those rights. Most "Liberal" media come down in support of those natural and constitutionally-protected rights because of stories about (and actual activity!) governments mining data like this one in the NY Times: Survey Finds U.S. Agencies Engaged in 'Data Mining'.
So, Heather MacDonald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, has this to say in Washington Post op-ed piece entitled, Common Sense and Computer Analysis:
A prestigious advisory panel has just recommended that the Defense Department get permission from a federal court any time it wants to use computer analysis on its own intelligence files. It would be acceptable, according to the panel, for a human agent to pore over millions of intelligence records looking for al Qaeda suspects who share phone numbers, say, and have traveled to terror haunts in South America. But program a computer to make that same search, declares the advisory committee, and judicial approval is needed, because computer analysis of intelligence databanks allegedly violates "privacy."This nonsensical rule is the latest development in the escalating triumph of privacy advocacy over common sense. Unfortunately, the privacy crusade is jeopardizing national security as well. . . .
Apparently science is proving that obesity is has a lot to do with sitting on your ass.
Media notice or general sentiment? A recent poll says we Canadians are unsteady and our confidence has deteriorated a little. Not weeks ago the reports were all that Canada has a bright future in the coming years. I guess that was before gas went up and extra oil production was inhibited in Saudi Arabia, and housing starts modestly declined . . .
We're kind of funny. It's good; no, it's bad. It's bad; hey, it's so good. When I was learning about economics and business many years ago, I thought the "macro economy" bore little resemblance to most people's "micro economies." Now I really have no idea. Globe and Mail story here.
Information Week is carrying a story entitled, Survey Shows Online Security Breaches Have Doubled In The Financial Sector. It shouldn't be entirely surprising -- or disconcerting. After all it begs the question of whether the incidence are higher or the awareness/acknowledgement is. Either way though, it's not a "happy place" online. First grafs:
Security attacks at major financial institutions more than doubled over a year ago, according to a survey of leading global banks, securities firms, and insurance companies.The survey, released Thursday, is the second conducted by consulting firm Deloitte & Touche LLP. It showed that an amazing 83% of financial-services firms acknowledged that their IT systems had been compromised by attacks from the outside in the past year. In 2003, only 39% of the companies surveyed admitted to a breach.
In addition, 40% of the companies polled--which included a quarter of the world's top 100 banks, about a third of the top 100 financial-services firms, and 10% of the 100 largest insurance companies--said they had suffered financial losses due to the attacks.
U of Michigan did a study that supports an idea I had for putting Air Canada to good use a few years ago. Download the essay here. The story from the G&M is: Exercise can help trim health care costs -- study. A snip: Companies can save millions in health care costs simply by encouraging their employees to exercise a little bit, say researchers at the University of Michigan.
They said obese employees have higher health care costs, but lowered those expenses by exercising just a couple of times a week -- without even losing any weight.
Interesting, the kinds of studies that get commissioned. Take this for instance: Sex beats out careers for traffic-jam fantasies from the Globe and Mail.
Went to the GasPedal sponsored "Feast for Marketers" yesterday evening. They promoted it as a schmooz-fest for serious marketers. It didn't disappoint. The Chinese food was good and the conversation was great. And the people!!
Doin' deals at the Feast
Met a few really interesting and interested folks -- some heavy hitters -- which made the whole thing worth the price. Besides, one guy at the table with a crack-berry kept us all informed about the progress of both the Lakers' and the Flames' games (We won!). Here's Christine talking shop -- or kids -- with Dana and Jennifer.
There was talk of deals -- and maybe even some deals -- everywhere. Yours truly was doing his part by chatting and doing demos (pitching, if you will) until his throat was raw and only sated by single malt.
I was presenting to a ton of people, like this guy: Michael Reedy a product manager at Verizon SuperPages. Nice guy in from Richardson, TX. Too bad I was the one to tell him that Verizon was unloading the Canadian Superpages business (see below). That's just not fair of the company to do to its own.
I snuck down to the exhibit hall for a little corporate espionage and schwag (some decent stuff too -- Razorfish, I think, was passing out gel insoles. Excellent idea, probably well used by their competitors who were also standing up all day.) and this was the typcial scene.
The officials here say that the attendance total was 4,000. Donna-Maria takes exception to the number; thinks its lower. I don't really care. There were lots of people everywhere.
Found where all the good stuff is going down.
Eric Idle sings. Funny but not for the kids. Most funny if you aren't a big fan of the present US administration.
Thanks to Doc for the pointer.
Geoff Ramsey, CEO and co-founder of eMarketer, is taking the stage to give us his assessment of TV v. Print v. Radio v. Online. He says, "The basic question is: why do we in business use statistics?" His answer is: "To convince others." To justify what we've already decided to do. OK, it sounds promising and Geoff is charismatically wandering about with his lavalier mike.
Five trends "Mega Media & Marketing Trends" are:
1. Consumer skepticism and resistence to advertising.
2. Increasingly the consumer is in control.
3. Media fragmentation is out of control.
4. Mass reach efforts are being complemented by improved targeting.
5.
Geoff Ramsey
To support these trends, he's brought forth the Yankelovich study done for the 4As that says, effectively, advertising is failing today. Also a quotation from Bill Gates about entering a new era of advertising: to an empowered consumer. Again, about half the audience raises its hands in response to the question about who has a TiVo.
Geoff brings up the same word that Peter used in the keynote "relevance." Specifically, how are you as an advertiser remaining relevant to your customer and your audience. To quote Yankelovich: 59% of consumers feel that most advertising has little relevance to them.
I can't blog this in real time because Geoff is way too compelling. I would rather watch and listen. Not to worry, he's offered to send the PPT to anyone who asks. I've asked and will post it here when I get it -- if he's cool with that. [LATER: He's not: they would prefer to keep distribution of this one a little more controlled.]
The presentation resonates with us here from Fetch because it's our story! His 92 charts and slides represent the first half of our Fetch argument and leave us to answer the challenge he raises. This is very reassuring. [I promise to post about -- with an overview -- Fetch if 20 of you (that means my readers will have to respond 10 times each ;-) ask for it. ed.]
The session I'm in is called 2006: The End of Television as We Know It. The presenter is Geoffrey Meredith. I've been enjoying it for about half an hour wihtout blogging. The gist of the message is in the title: digital television (recorders), etc. and the Web are changing the nature of television advertising. He's put a number of $54-billion lost (50% of the 20% of TiVo owners by 2006) in the television advertising business.
The essence of the message is that the industry now has to choose a new model, be it changing the nature of the ad structure themselves (block the commercials at one point in the program for those who are interested), better custom targeting (he had an interesting Bermuda tourism working demo here), better creative, linking to Internet versions, etc. Of course, not having an axe to grind nor shilling for anyone, he's done a fine job of annotating the level of denial in the industry (including a quotation from an industry executive who actually said that zapping commercials is illegal and they'll sue!).
Geoffrey Meredith
Among other things, he's suggested that the :60 commercial will be back. Most interesting to me, because it resonates with me and with the undercurrent of the conference, is that the consumer is going to be "invited" to engage (interactively or not) with a marketer's message to them. I can not underscore the importance of this paradigm change.
All of which has been interesting, and not just because he's providing research and quantitative evidence and samples. About 40 minutes in though, we seem to have shifted to the "next world" when interactive digital (HD?) television is real in a lot of homes. But it doesn't end there: Phase II will be the integration of television and Internet (heard this at the keynote this morning). Expecting it to be available by 2008 (when we've got 20Mbs pipe feeding the home). Naturally this will result in the single-screen "media center" environment so that programming is actually interactive. That means interactive selling.
For all this to happen, standardization will have to emerge technologically and with the consumer behaviour.
A problem identified, which we've identified in the Internet space, is privacy. Who gets and owns the information about what the consumer's doing? Another problem is legal: who owns the rights, and, to what exactly? Measurement will be a continuing problem because you can't tell who's watching the ads and who's zapping. In the spirit of industry denial though, does anyone really want to know?
And, as he ends his presentation: "It's just the tip of the iceberg."
Saw this story about Verizon selling it's Canadian "Superpages" directory business in the Wall Stree Journal. The Forbes.com item is here: Verizon seeks buyers for Canadian directories-WSJ. A snip:
NEW YORK, May 25 (Reuters) - Verizon Communications (nyse: VZ - news - people) is looking for buyers for its Canadian telephone directories business, the Wall Street Journal said on Tuesday. . . The unit is marketed in Canada as SuperPages.f
Susan Bratton, of Maven Networks and chair of Ad:Tech, is on stage announcing that things are going well: 4,000 attendees; moving to Marriott next year because it's too big for the Palace; WOMMA (Word of Mouth Marketing Assoc.) launched yesterday at the conference. Getting ready to introduce today's keynote speaker: Peter Weedfald, SVP Strategic Marketing and New Media at Samsung.
Wicked intro video from Samsung! Good speaker, nice intensity. So far he's acknowledging the facts around the Internet. It's a disruption. Things are different for a lot of industries and it's starting and going to affect advertising. He's fixed on the word "relevancy." How is YOUR business going to remain relevant; how relevant are you to the industry? It's changing and we've got to accept it.
He's now onto a position that says there are only three real categories of business remaining. Three legs of a stool, if you will. These are:
Content business -- making stuff that we can see, read, hear, watch.
Pipe business -- moving the data and content from A to B.
Our business [Samsung's?] -- "the first inch of the glass" for the consumer who is using the pipe to access the content.
We've interrupted the discourse for a plug about Samsung's business results and how well it's doing these days. All is growing very rapidly; capturing markets left and right from entrenched competitors. [Want to know why? Read Innovator's Dilemma. ed.] This guy must do this a lot: very good. Keeping everyone's attention with anecdotes and asides.
Now we've moved to a second three-legged stool: I think he's building a bar. This one is the paradigm for the information economy. The legs are:
Value Creation -- "you've got to have the freshest lettuce" because people are trading up for value not trading down for price.
Governance -- you've got to have the best channels and means to the market or you're screwed.
Economics -- "unionization of push and pull at the speed of sound" is a phrase he's used several times essentially meaning moving as fast as can be moved (for value and governance but not faster
I'm loving this guy. He just told the audience that preference marketing and getting the details on every customer (what' his shoe size and when did he last buy what brand of toilet paper) is stupid. Marketers don't need to know it, and it doesn't matter.
Not sure why it came up, but he's given us a paradigm of a sort. Against a "bell curve, he says on the far right, "complexity is the refuge of the unsure," and on the extreme left "consistency is the refuge of the unsure."
The cocktail parties and mixers that I saw or was at appear to have been pretty good. Based on the decibel level of the chatter, it was either enjoyable or successful or both. The schmoozin' and cruisin' crowd was in fever pitch -- and I don't think I even got to the good events. Here's a shot of the crowd at the Overture-sponsored event.
Being neither young nor dumb (any more) we took off from all the (FREE) cocktailing going on and went for dinner. Not sure where it was, but it was good. Took a new friend, Michael Engen from Disney Internet, and an old friend Donna-Marie Antoniadis, with us. Had a great time. Picture of my colleague and hero, Peter MacKechnie of Innovapost (l), with Michael (r).
Here's a shot of Christine Hamilton, our steady-beam (l) and my friend Donna-Maria Antoniadis (r) who I bumped into at the crowded mixer and couldn't believe seeing for the first time in a couple years IN SAN FRANCISCO.
Then of course, there were a few of the sights. Like the Trans America building, which, as my tour guide chauffer cabby told me, used to stand up and could be seen by all. Now, poor thing, it's buried in the middle of a city core of high rise buildings that all but dwarf it. Good view from here though -- trolley car electric cables notwithstanding.
Speaking of trolley cars, here's a night-time view of a trolly somewhere in the San Francisco down-town-ish region. Not a great shot, but it was night time.
Long day. The closing session of day one was a panel billed as a "General Session: Advertising's Horizon" presumably to have the thought-leaders at the front telling us in the audience what might be. Moderated by John Battelle, former publisher of The Industry Standard and now Visiting Professor at UC Berkeley, it was a bust in my view.
The panel blathered on for their hour shifting from esoteric dreaming and lectern-pounding repetition of either the obvious or prevailing wisdom of the day. Re: the Internet's evolution, the underlying theme was "it's getting bigger and more important; it will be omnipresent; and it will change how we intereact" or something to that effect.
IMHO . . . so? "Well, it means new revenue streams and business models." Really? No kidding?
Moving to the impact on advertising, the conversation seemed a little bit more valuable. Advertising will change. There will be more interaction (probably as a function of capabilities emerging). Where there was some energetic debate, if you will, among the panelists was in addressing the question of what this would do to other media -- particularly TV. No consensus except that there will be an effect. Maybe TV will consume (or be consumed) by the Internet medium.
Talk about TiVo (huge portion of the audiences here, when asked, have a TiVo) and its effect on advertising: gonna have to get better at the creative to keep people coming back to the ads. On the business side Battelle wondered to the panel what that will do to the consumer's costs and the business model, given that prevailing wisdom says that the advertisers pay for the programing.
My recollection may be a little hazy because I'm posting the day after and I was a little pre-occupied during the session. WiFi got finicky in the session room and I spent the better part of the first half pissing with my computer trying to get through the hotel's gateway. It was all resolved later -- after the session, of course.
Looking forward to today's program.
This is a definite hot topic here at Ad:Tech. I couldn't even get into the room. It was packed to the rafters. Apparently it covered the social web as well as blogging. Have to check the official site for the coverage.
Ed Keller is talking about the "influentials" in the word-of-mouth world of communications. It's germane and interesting in the hard-to-get-past-the-gate-with-advertising world of today. He's starting with a description of who these people are and how they are recognized. Oddly enough, I read Rosen's book The Anatomy of Buzz, on the airplane down here. Most of the first half of his presentation is in that book. Probably in Keller's own book, The Influentials.
We're not yet half way through the presentation, and I'm wondering if the audience -- good sized one too -- hasn't heard all this before. And, if they haven't, why not? (They're in marketing!)
I think I'm most enjoying what I've seen and who I've talked with so far because it is all confirming the research and thinking we've done on Fetch. This, of course, means that in a universe of about 4,000 attendees from around the world (met a guy here from Germany this morning), our little group at the post office has a level of expertise in tomorrow's world of marketing that is well beyond the second standard deviation on the right hand side. That's fulfilling.
This presentation is chock-a-block with data supporting the contention that word-of-mouth (a.k.a. "buzz") is important, getting more important, and is pervasive. So, marketers, don't ignore it. I know I'm repeating myself, but it's not very enlightening -- for me. The topic right now is that influentials have a lot of knowledge and are taking control of what goes on about them. The example is that the influentials will complain and demand that their "problems" with products and services be remedied by the marketers.
Making the transition from "what" and "who" to "how" -- as in how to get to influentials. He notes that the best brands develop "trust" with their customers in addition to providing excellent service and a great product. [Yawn] "TV" is the number one item on the list of how to reach these people. The next three are: (2) magazines and Internet; (3) Direct-to-consumer marketing; and (4) Customer contact points. That's pretty standard fare, no?
OK, now we're getting somewhere. The slide on the screen is titled, "Your Message Needs to be Right." The first point is a big one: not sure if the audience understands how big. It says, "Invite them in." This presumes that the marketer/advertiser has to stop pushing messages at unwilling and uninterested "influentials." They have to send them a message that invites them in to learn more through (and here's bullet no. 2) "a dialogue; allow them to interact." I firmly believe that this is applicable to all marketing at all consumers; not just to the influentials sub-market. I wouldn't say that the whole presentation was worth being here for this one slide, but it is seriously important. The audience really needs to dwell on it and think about it because it is a shift that will bite them on the ass.
In the title-noted session, being presented solely by Lee Cooper, professor at UCLA's Anderson School. Referring to Stuart Kauffman's work, particularly to the number of phylum that existed at one point, some of which survived and evolved into the many fewer species that exist now. Making a parallel to the development of bicycle from its earliest days. The pictures are showing how these many forms serving the same function coalesce into what becomes quite standardized. Also notes that many things happened around the development (long term) of the bicycle, such as paving of more roads to accomodate bicycle riders.
Interesting fact: the term "bamboozled" comes from the (loss people took on a) penny stock that went up and down on the success and then failure of the "bamboo bicycle."
His thesis is that "radical innovation is like a long leap across a rugged landscape. If the new venture cannot find an ecological niche that fundamentally values the kernel of the innovation, it will die." Points out that "in areas of high uncertainty, traditional marketing research is less applicable. Market finding is what's needed."
Describing types of innovations: continuous (plus-ones), dynamically continuous (plus-10, maybe), and discontinuous (changes the consumption pattern radically). Notes "alpha" changes (consumers' perceptual changes), "beta" changes (perception doesn't change but sonsumers' values do), "gamma" changes (a radical change to the perceptual map, e.g., adding another dimension to the perception). Referring to Geoffrey Moore's framework (refer to "chasm" and "tornado" books) as one he prefers.
Now talking about getting to the "kernel" of the innovation (from a business rather than a technology perspective), which, he says, is confusing to most people. Seems to be right: I'm not following except at the level of "the kernel is the important part of the innovation." D'Oh! Put another way, it's not the many innovative technical capabilities that are "features" of the product, but the fundamental value offering to the market. Then, one has to determine what the minimum augmentation to that kernel is that will compel the market. OK.
Interesting that Lee just said he "went back to the marketing fundamentals of: segmenting, targeting, and positioning" to resolve a particular e-commerce business problem he was not willing to take on. It's only interesting because of the context here. In the last session I was at, Tim Smith essentially painted a picture (which I tend to agree with) that in this technology-enabled world of the 21st-century these linear "push" approaches are no longer operative.
Apparently Lee is not compelling many of the attendees (who are typically advertising types, not business planners) because there is a steady flow out. I'd guess about one third of his audience has disappeared. Personally, I'm enjoying it despite it being geared to the completely uninitiated and a little tedious given my research and reading over the past year. . . . TIME PASSES . . . We're getting really boring now, delving into the standard elements of business planning and market definition (opportunity/market analysis, value drivers, benefits, key differentiators, etc.) for a business case/plan. Pretty traditional stuff. Holding back an opinion on this viz. the non-linearity of the business world today. Also, waiting to ask how his view (sympathetic to G. Moore) jives with Christensen's (and Raynor's) thinking.
In responding to a question from Susan Bratton he mentions the key factors for the success of marketing are that it be "relevant, timely, and anticipated." I like it and I'm going to use it for Fetch.
This guy has gone the full circle since we first learned about him, hasn't he? Ray Sobeski waited almost a full year and got himself legal counsel to "protect" his windfall before coming forward. What that appears to mean is that he didn't want to share anything with any of his three ex-wives and children. Globe and Mail story is here.
The wife and I have talked about it, and like some others we think he's mishandled this whole affair. Instead of just going to each of these "interested parties" and giving them a few million bucks each for a release, ending up with the lion's share and no claims against, he tried to hold it all. Greedy putz!
Serves him right.
So it's official. We go to the polls at the end of June. Sorry for being so late to comment but I was on a plane all day yesterday. Anyway, I'm sure it'll be an entertaining way to get to the official start of summer when school ends. My guess, for what it's worth, is that it'll be a minority government that will fall at the very first opportunity because the NDP will hold the balance of power. So we can bookend the summer with elections (well, maybe not THAT fast...)
Chosen to attend the presentation by Cliff Kurtzman (CEO and Chief Soothsayer) at ADASTRO Inc. ADASTRO seems to be a futurology organization and part consultancy that helps add value to the clients' futures. Cliff is a rocket scientist -- really!
First step, before looking at the future, is to look at the past. Got some slides running through things from species loss in the great extinction -- and later rise well beyond what was there previously -- through tulip-mania (1630s) and one-way marketing communication (1900s).
Six key areas for brand building in the future. Demographics. Globalization. Workplace. Interactivity (mobility collaboration and augmentation of capabilities). Accessibility. Interconnectivity (social Webs and the bringing together of diversive people in unexpected ways). From a quotation attributable to an HP marketing person: According to an HP study 30% of a corporation's stock value is attributable to its brand.
The way to brand is changing: FROM one way mass media; awareness; positioning; advertising; public relations TO interactive and interconnected; accessibility and visibility; differentiation; supply chain communication; and strength of relationships and community. Going through the scenario-planning critical areas of Society Technology Environment Economy Politics and Legal as crucial factors for planning how to develop a brand.
Now Tim Smith, self-defined as independent investor/entrepreneur. Trying to think about process for how to think about looking at the future. Noting a few trends that may have an impact on the world: things like power shifts, disintermediation, time-shifting, etc. Tim's moving real fast to allow time for questions, so it's a little hard to keep up with all the ideas.
Funny: the target market a.k.a. "sheeple."
Talking about "Evolution of a consumer" moving to: control (consumers are now controlling the message that's getting to them; they are "active" participants); collaboration (p2p interactivity, e.g., IM, is letting consumers collaborate with each other to support one another in the advertising paradigm); creation (people are creating valuable assets and resources for each other separate and apart from the typical communication model we know now).
Concept: "the ambient Internet": it's just there, like electricity. Between hot spots, personal area networks, and so forth, there will be many always-on spots that will let us move back and forth through and among connections. Well presented and entertaining, but this meme is nothing new. Tim acknowledges that some of his slides are dated -- but still relevant. Showing an interesting pie chart that shows how linear (broadcast) and non-linear interactive can and will have to holistically work together. [Feeling good: this is our story for Fetch.] His ultimate point is that it's crucial to know the story and the flow of how the consumer interacts with the brand through the day and "be there" for them at the next step. Makes sense.
The "official" -- as opposed to yours truly's unofficial ramblings -- is located at http://www.adtechblog.com
It would be nice if at least some of you came back here too.
Busy conference!! Took a few minutes to charge the notebook and grip/grin with a few of the attendees; got lost on the way to the Ralston room; went to the can and BANG -- no space for the first Keynote. Overflow was packed into another room where her presentation ("The Changing Role of Interactive in Global Marketing") was being broadcast on monitors. Would have liked to have heard what she had to say.
Went to the Google breakfast forum this morning. They had two case study "clients" present their business experiences. It must have been interesting to somebody -- not me. All about keyword use, etc.
Big surprise, I suppose. It looks like the bulk of the audience is interactive people and so forth. Looking for the traditional advertising folk who are looking for more from interactive. That's where Fetch works. Watch this space for more about Fetch.
OK. It's way too much of a pain in the butt -- without my Webmaster -- to set up a new set of directories for a second blog in real-time. So, postings are going to go here.
For those interested in filtering, the category you want to see in the archives is AdTechnology.
We're live and active at Ad:Tech San Francisco. Trying to set up new blog for the show/subject matter.
802.11 connected. (Shamefully downcast eyes: I think that the problem was mostly with my home WiFi router. Don't know what it is, but with only minor tweaking, we're going here at the Palace Hote.) Watch this space for news.
Heading out of town to a conference. One of two things is going to happen.
1. There will be no blogging for the week because I can't get my PC (Piece of Crap) to connect to the Internet; or
2. I'll make the 802.11g connection from the conference floor and be blogging the conference pretty much in real time. If so, it will be at a different blog. For those interested in advertising technology and wanting to read a little about Ad:Tech San Francisco, I'll post here with a link to the new blog.
Cheers
I'm all for orthodoxy and such, staying true to a vision and design, and so forth. So (not having read the white paper) I have sympathy for Tim Berner-Lee's opposition to the addition of more TLDs. I don't agree so much with the economic argument that was picked up in this article from the Sydney Morning Herald: Web creator opposes more TLDs The first graf:
The inventor of the web, Tim Berners-Lee, has argued strongly against the creation of more top-level domains, saying they tend to partition the web into bits and undercut its universality.The Internet and World Wide Web are not even close to the same thing they were when they were "invented." The genie was loosed and has changed to accomodate other purposes, needs, and desires. That's what evolution is all about.
Frankly, what's needed is probably more rigor to the process by which TLDs are provisioned and used. That, too, will evolve as our understanding of the changing system catches up with the state of the art, such as it is. Read the white paper; I'm going to.
The Reuters headline reads: OPEC Sees No Quick Fix for Oil Prices. The story basically says that $40 a barrel for crude may be here for a while. The reasons, though, are a little more interesting -- at least according to this snip:
U.S. refinery bottlenecks, Middle East security worries and heavy speculation on crude futures by investment hedge funds have all helped drive up oil prices.Note especially the artificial increase effect from the investment hedge funds driving up futures prices. I used to say it more often when I was closer to that business: these MBA and CFA traders are doing stupid things to the underlying economy.
Frankly, none of us would give a crap about the whole thing except on a macro scale it threatens economic growth that's just starting to take hold. And, at a more micro-level, it makes me sad to see prices at the pumps over $4 a gallon (that a pretty conservative guess at $0.91/litre turn into). I remember when it was $0.35/gal. Or should I have let everyone know that?
Bell is taking Manitoba Telecomm to court with an injunction to prevent it from closing its purchase of Allstream. The deal would make MTS not the regional player in an insignificant market: i.e., a good friend and ally for Bell; it would be a major national player in the business market among others, i.e., a competitor. So, what's a former effective monopolist (Ontario/Quebec, d'uh!) to do. Put a stop to this troublesome change. Well, they're trying. Story here: MTS-Allstream deal hits Bell roadblock.
The part I truly dislike about this is that Bob Milton appears like a saver: Air Canada, CAW cut a deal. Whatever. I recently had someone tell me that there are people who like upheaval so much (they were raised in that environment and expect it) that they foment it out of stability just for the "rush" as it were. Hmmm.
In Air Canada's hometown, The Gazette remains cautious in its reporting: Their future is still up in the air (note: subscription required).
Schulich school economist, Fred Lazar, rises to Air Canada's defence in an essay published in the G&M. His point, in my skim, is that AC needs better policy and fewer tax burdens to lighten its load a little. A bailout isn't necessary, but in the Canadian scheme of things, Air Canada is (Take the load off Air Canada). He makes an argument; I'm not sure I can agree except that a bailout should be out of the question. Whether Air Canada is an essential element of the Canadian economy, that many airports and centres rely on it, is, I think, a spurious conclusion based only on the historical foundation of Air Canada's existence. That is, as a counter-factual: what if Air Canada never existed? Would something not have filled that essential economic void? Probably. So, then, why would the void not be filled if Air Canada were to stop existing?
There's an interesting Chinese aphorism that goes like this: Want to know how big a hole you'll leave when you go? See how big a hole your finger leaves when you pull it out of a cup of tea. [I'm sure it's more eloquent in the original. ;-)]
The TorStar title says it all: Ex-Tory PM Clark campaigns for the Liberals
I got an 802.11(g) card to use with an IBM notebook running Win 2K. The card is found in the PCMCIA slot. I've set up the Internet connection because I get the little: "you're connected" icon in the tray and the status window shows it speaking through a wireless gateway. BUT, I can't connect applications. Being a Mac user I don't know what the hell is going on.
Questions:
1. Is there an application that I need to get (from MS?) that will show a view of the available WiFi signals, so that I can program the SSID, etc. and connect? Where do I get it?
2. Why won't IE see the connection?
3. Why does my Internet preferences setup-a-new-connection not show the WiFi card as an option and ALWAYS (and I mean always) assume I'm going to dial in to a host?
Free subscription for a year to any user who can pass on a few helpful hints. (And this is even before the Spring readership drive kicks in!!)
Thanks in advance.
At least the Globe and Mail (maybe others) are telling people not to worry about Air Canada yet. I'm not quite there, although I'm not worried either. I'm flying Air Canada next week to SFO and back, though. Let's hope I don't get caught in the Memorial-Day-there-isn't-a-ticket-to-be-found-because-everyone's-headed-home-for-the-long-weekend-sales rush and have to camp out at the Presidio for a day or two.
Everyone else -- especially those flying or monitoring their Aeroplan miles for the right balance to tour the world from business class with their families might want to check out this item in the G&M.
This headline (Judge summons Hargrove, Milton to meeting) could have read: Judge needed to reign in overweaned egos in failing attempt to save bankrupt airline.
You're right, a little long.
I worked for a guy named Peter Nygard. Some people know him as the king of (Canadian-made) women's (polyester) fashion garments. Others know him from his absurd Nassau, Bahamas, compound with dynamite-enhanced beaches and tree fort offices. Peter has more money than he knows what to do with.
He lost a court ruling on a child support case that's been going on for a while. The judge just awarded the petitioner costs of $1-million in legal fees as well, according to this story (Nygard ordered to pay ex-lover's $1-million legal tab). He paid them, allegedly.
Peter was playing a game that he paid to play -- reluctantly, no doubt. Story is interesting reading, if you like a little voyeurism with your breakfast.
Liberal support hovers on verge of majority status. According to a Globe and Mail/CTV poll released this morning, the natural governing party has rebounded.
Yup. It didn't take Nostradamus to figure that one out.
Yippee! Cowtown will see at least two Stanley Cup playoff games. Flames in Stanley Cup playoffs
Good thing these guys have their strategy down, otherwise the in-and-out of wireless might look like their experimenting with it in real time. AT&T is going back into wireless according to this item in the Washington Post: AT&T Back in Wireless Business.
Apparently bundling services to include land-line phone, say Internet service, and wireless phone keeps people with the same provider for all. Hmmm. And this wasn't well known prior to leaving the business?
Laugh if you want. It is, right now -- today -- just a business confrontation in the search (on the PC) application/service area. Each trying to invade the others' "turf." Story here: The New York Times > Technology > Google Moves Toward a Direct Confrontation With Microsoft
Tomorrow, though it could appear on a civil litigation docket.
No surprise here. The digital identity need has just made a remarkable leap ahead. All that being said, they're probably fibbing just a little bit. Story from the Mercury News here: Wal-Mart: test of 'smart' tags has gone smoothly
Toronto Star runs a story entitled, Canada's place in the world is rapidly changing. Apparently its come to some think tanks' and investment analysts' attention that Canada doesn't deserve to be on the G7/G8 because our portion of global trade is just south of F-all (1.9%). And, we're exceeded by China, India, and Brazil in global trade so they should probably be there rather than Canada and Italy.
D'oh! Just catching on, now? Good analysis but you're forgetting one important point. Canada is the United States's single biggest trade partner. We're also their strongest ally in world aff. . . well, we're still their single biggest trading partner AND our prime minister speaks English just like their president AND we're the second-biggest country in geographic terms AND our soldiers were there for WWI and WWII before the Yanks AND . . .
Two different items in the Globe and Mail about Air Canada. Same question applies.
Item one: CAW, Air Canada don't agree, with a photo of Buzz Hargrove on the mobile phone (congressing with the members, no doubt) while continuing to hold out for the union.
Second item: Air Canada investors wait in wings is the Toronto Star pointing to the so-called "investors" that Buzz Hargrove keeps referring to (who will come to the table if the Deutschebank deal falls through due to his intransigence).
"Quality of service going up," is what I believe I said in the last post. That goes double when you find out that the breadth of service is being restricted as noted here. A snip:
Beginning this fall, the provincial government will no longer pick up the tab for Ontarians requiring chiropractic services, routine optometry examinations and physiotherapy.
It had to happen (and that's not a political statement -- just reality): Ontario Liberals raise taxes. [Q: Why "Liberals?" Why not "government?" Interesting editorial slant. ed.]
Of course, with gas prices going up already, getting whacked over the wallet with a TAX on health care is tough. I'm OK with it IF, and this is a big IF . . . IF the quality of the service goes someplace above abyssmal. We'll see.
I'm not complaining, not by any stretch of the imagination, as Greenspan's regnum at the Fed continues. The NYTimes has this: The New York Times > Business > Greenspan Nominated for 5th Term at Fed. I don't remember a time in my adult life that Greenspan wasn't running the American world economy. A snip:
President Bush formally nominated Alan Greenspan for a fifth four-year term as chairman of the Federal Reserve . . . Mr. Greenspan, 78, has already been Fed chairman for nearly 17 years and has navigated the economy through the boom of the 1990's as well as through two recessions, two stock market crashes, terrorist attacks and two separate wars in Iraq.
I can't be bothered reading the whole story, let alone anything the Conservatives have published to support their idea of lowering taxes. It's a shell game anyway. The simple fact is that the money has to come from somewhere to cover the costs of maintaining a country and its services. Still, in the Globe and Mail (again), Steven Harper is planning to run on lowering taxes. Wow, totally didn't see that coming, just like Ross and Rachel . . . . Story here.
Whatever. Was on a plane with Harper the other day and it turns out he's a Scotch man. I'll put a point on the positive side for him. So, I'm sure his people can figure it out. [Spurious logic alert !!]
Don't get me started. It was a little hard to emulate the Dryden look, chin perched atop the goal stick waiting at the other end for another chance to save the team, being about a foot shorter. Still, if ever there was a perfect hero for me as a young boy -- exceptional goalkeeper winning accolades in the NHL, lawyer (or at least working toward it), well-spoken smart guy -- Ken Dryden was it. I even insisted on wearing "29".
Now after being a businessman, writer, committee chairman, commentator, and sports star, he's headed for parliament (The Liberals are set in goal).
Always on my list of people I'd like to have over for dinner sometime, maybe . . . He'll be in Ottawa a lot, anyways . . .
Geez, this is a problem for me. I'm gleeful about my anticipation regarding Air Canada's end being accurate, albeit a little early. But, no matter how much Robert Milton deserves the mantle of failure permanently sewn to his shoulders, I can't help but figure that Hargrove's got a hand in this. See this Globe and Mail piece (Air Canada gets 'no' from CAW).
Hard call here. On one side, I wouldn't be willing to give up more salary to save the organization if I were making an average of $35,000 - 49,000, while the executive cadre -- led by Baron von Milton -- is hardly taking any of the suffering in this. Particularly if I'd given in for the greater good before.
On the other hand, the world is a somewhat different place and the Westjets and Zooms of the world, operating on lower labour structures, are going to be part of the end of my job -- at any salary.
I dunno. C'est toute la faute de Milton!
The first question that comes to my mind viewing the head and first few lines of this item ("West urged to share Internet governance") in the Toronto Star is, "Why?"
Notwithstanding that we don't share so well anyway, why would anybody share the control of the destiny of their emerging communications paradigm with anybody who isn't or hasn't spend an equal amount of time developing, refining, and nurturing it? D'uh!
Mentioned this meme (neat new word I've decided to use recently -- much "cooler" in the blogosphere than the simple "IDEA") before:
New Way to Combat Online Piracy
It's all about making the target of desire less desirable except for those with a right to it.
The venerable old Star of Toronto runs a story with this headline: Talks impasse may ground Air Canada. Some other news outlets were a little more circumspect about the situation with Air Canada. The Globe and Mail, oddly enough was positively positive (Air Canada inching toward deal), suggesting the deal is almost done.
I like this take. The soap opera will have a full summer run before somebody does something to change the storyline.
I wouldn't profess to have uncovered something new or particularly revolutionary. On the other hand, simply remembering some very basic economics – brought to me via a recent read of The Innovator's Dilemma, might be revolutionary. Here are a couple stories that make me remember vividly that "any competing technology that provides the same benefit at a lower cost will, all things being equal, prevail:"
Ventures Aim to Cut Cost of Overseas Cell Calls to Pennies
WiFi calling seen as next money-saver
Late-state publication (i.e., VoIP and WiFi hotspots are not exactly "news") notwithstanding, it's something to watch. And, it all points to that simple economic fact.
My dad, a lawyer, used to say, "I may not agree with you but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." That was his way of saying that's the nature of democracy and the freedom it allows/demands. I guess the Iraqis are still getting the hang of the constraints of the freedom bestowed on them: Head of Iraqi Governing Council killed in bombing.
Little item from the Globe and Mail entitled, Toronto tech sector rated as third-busiest in North America. A hurtful (to those of us who would rather not work in Toronto -- and enjoy being in "Silicon Valley North" aka Ottawa/Kanata) snip:
With more than 148,000 workers at 3,330 facilities in the high-tech sector, the Greater Toronto Area ranked behind San Francisco and New York, the study says.WE BEAT DETROIT !!!! Mind you, how are they feeling in Calgary and Vancouver?Montreal ranked ninth in North America while the Ottawa-Gatineau region, traditionally seen as Canada's high-tech capital, ranked 14th, just ahead of Detroit and just behind Houston.
There's already the national microbiology lab (think: the US Center for Disease Control system without armed guards protecting the strains of ebola lounging in petrie dishes) in Winnipeg. And, it's not a bad thing to have parts or all of the operational ends of federal agencies outside of Ottawa.
Here's a snip from the Globe and Mail story:
Critics of the Winnipeg location have expressed concern that morale among Ottawa staffers could suffer [And what about the morale of talented people in every other part of the country that haven't had such opportunities? ed.], and that much of the agency's resources will eventually flow to the city, leaving the four other regions to play second fiddle. [Again, so what? ed.]
The New York Times > Washington > Harsh C.I.A. Methods Cited in Top Qaeda Interrogations
These techniques were authorized by a set of secret rules for the interrogation of high-level Qaeda prisoners, none known to be housed in Iraq, that were endorsed by the Justice Department and the C.I.A. The rules were among the first adopted by the Bush administration after the Sept. 11 attacks for handling detainees and may have helped establish a new understanding throughout the government that officials would have greater freedom to deal harshly with detainees.
Defenders of the operation said the methods stopped short of torture, did not violate American anti-torture statutes, and were necessary to fight a war against a nebulous enemy whose strength and intentions could only be gleaned by extracting information from often uncooperative detainees. Interrogators were trying to find out whether there might be another attack planned against the United States.
What's one to think when even the members of the task force have very low expectations?
FWIW, I don't think spam can be stopped or even curtailed through legislation. More than that, I don't think it should be. On the other hand, there should be a cost to doing it and a means to regulate the content to some extent. Check what Microsoft and the industry are doing (see below).
What's one to think when even the members of the task force have very low expectations?
FWIW, I don't think spam can be stopped or even curtailed through legislation. More than that, I don't think it should be. On the other hand, there should be a cost to doing it and a means to regulate the content to some extent. Check what Microsoft and the industry are doing (see below).
I've been reading in far-flung places such as Macleans that Canadians are becoming know-it-all, critical, pains in the ass to our American cousins. (This is, of course, the conclusion of a poll, which, as we all know, is a statistic, which is in turn worse than "damn lies." So, a health disrespect for the conclusion is warranted. But, perception is reality . . .)
Here, though is .a story about the Paris-based OECD's economic forecast that shows good things coming for all, even Canada. The best part of the snip -- make the correlation to my POV yourself -- is bolded.
The world's richest economies are in the midst of a strong, sustainable recovery, fuelled by the United States, China and Japan, according to the latest forecast from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.Hand . . . mouth . . . chomp.The upturn in world trade and stronger domestic demand will help boost Canadian growth to 2.8 per cent this year and 3.3 per cent in 2005 . . .
According to a CBC radio news story I heard this morning on the way to work, Australian authorities got their hands on an Al-Qaeda document which lists the preferred targeted nations of the Western pig-dog world. The Australians were concerned that they were first in the Asian area and fourth overall (behind the US, Britain, and Spain -- new and veyr old injuries to Islam, apparently).
Since posting this last week, I was interested in the fact that Canada was specified as the fifth most popular target behind Australia.
I've heard that too early is as good as wrong. I was wrong. Finally, four years later, the online travel business is, to quote the interviewee in this G&M item, "eating [their] lunch." Snip:
More than ever, Canadians are turning to the Internet for travel purchases.Now all one of the survivors past 2000 needs to do is provide a real online wizard that makes booking vacation packages simple and I will be COMPLETELY wrong.
A study released yesterday by Reston, Va.-based comScore Networks Inc. found that on-line travel spending in Canada soared 53 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2003.ComScore said Canadians spent $349-million buying travel over the Internet in the fourth quarter, up from $228-million in the same period a year earlier.
Internet purchases on non-travel items were up just 1 per cent in the quarter -- to$408-million, compared with $403-million. (On-line auctions are not included in the numbers.) . . . an increasing number of consumers feel that they don't need a travel agent to hold their hands when they buy travel, and are turning to the Internet to do it themselves.
One of the more overworked phrases of the dot-com era that stuck around is a variant around eating your own dogfood. "After all, if you won't why should your dog," is a logic that never really resonated with me, but I digress. Anyway, in the area of spam-solving, where Microsoft has been putting a lot of energy and generating a fair chunk of media coverage, they are eating their own Alpo. Though in this case while the same general look and consistency, it is branded differently. They've signed up their own MSN and Hotmail services for a reputation-based spam-reduction program they've touted for a few weeks now, as noted in this InformationWeek piece.
Great that the other parts of the company are commiting early to what they'd like the rest of the world to do. And, since individual Hotmail rank way up there on the spam-generator list, their success should be success for all of us. We'll see though.
Keep your eyes open.
I've said it before (though not the first to say it): one key to making thinks you want to protect safer is to decrease their value. Alternatively make it not worthwhile to get or have it. It may seem counterintuitive, but consider that if you have something that can only be valuable under certain conditions that are better controllable or reducible, then the item you wish to protect is no longer worth stealing or pirating. Same goes with making it uneconomical or not worth the trouble to get. There is a point at which the trouble to get something is just not worth the value of having the thing itself.
This is what makes this "P2P spoofing" patent so interesting. Who wants to take the trouble to sort through all the chaff to get their stolen MP3 when 99-cents (or a more localized sharing group) will get you the tune anyway?
Some numbers just sound stupid. Imagine for a moment that you are one Lord Black of Crossharbour and a nondescript man serves you with papers, and the papers say that you're being sued for $1.3-billion (Hollinger seeks $1.3 bil. from Black). Your first reaction might be something like "Oh my goodness, that's a big penalty and awful risk to my personal and financial well being." Then, even if you didn't have the single-most powerful force of high-vocabulary self-assuredness in Canada -- maybe North America or even the western hemisphere, you might sit down with a glass of single-malt and re-evaluate.
The re-evaluation might go something like this. "Hey! I've sheltered a lot of assets and money: hidden them from government and others that might want to put their hands on it -- I'm not stupid, after all. And, $1.3-billion is an awful lot of money to have to pay back anyway. And, I'm going to put up a good fight, cause that's what I do. And, HEY DON'T THEY KNOW WHO THEY'RE PISSING WITH? I told them they could sue me and they did. But, they can't get shit from me and I'm already a "social pariah" with a litigious streak (for libel, mostly). And, what's the downside anyway? What could any Judge Judy wannabe mete out to me in the worst case that could have any significant impact?"
Now, bottle finished, you peacefully hit the mattress (self)re-assured that it will be all right. After all, as the man once said: If you owe somebody a hundred dollars, you have a creditor. If you owe them $1.3-BILLION dollars, you have a partner.
Here's an EWeek item that might have you wondering just what to do with the gigabytes of backup and storage you've amassed on CDR and DVD. Remember when "they" said CDs were practically indestructible? And you believed them?
Interesting CP item about the Canadian Assoc. of Journalists awarding Health Canada the distinction of being the most secretive government department here. Snip:
"Government officials everywhere hide vital information that they think might embarrass them, their departments or their political leaders," CAJ president Paul Schneidereit said in announcing the prize.I guess the big question is: Why does Health Canada need to be so mum?"This award honours their efforts to shroud open government."
This Globe and Mail story, McLellan clashes with CSIS over al-Qaeda, is interesting both because the retiring head of CSIS (a cautious man not known for overstatement or hyperbole) stated very publicly that al-Qaeda is operating in Canada and that Canada is in al-Qaeda's crosshairs for an attack and because his political master quickly did panic control.
Ward Elcock (CSIS) addressed the Justice Committee and advised that CSIS has been monitoring al-Qaeda fundraising and recruitment in Canada, that CSIS has broken up pending terrorist activity in Canada at recently, that individual Canadians have been specifically targeted recently, and that there is cause to believe al-Qaeda will attack Canada ("not if but when"). All of which is not unreasonable given the widening of the al-Qaeda sphere of targets (e.g., Madrid).
Anne McLellan, rather than owning up to this simple matter of worldliness in outlook takes up the pacifying position that "there is no known specific terrorist threat. . . at this time." Right. Nice parcing of words: if it's not specific nor known nor at this time, we're OK. Which is not the same as saying we're out of the line of fire, although it's meant to sound that way, I'm sure.
Ms McLellan's language skills get an even better work out later in the piece when she's quoted as follows:
“I'm not sure that I would say it [an al-Qaeda attack] is inevitable,” she said. Because Ottawa beefed up security measures in the past two years, “I would like to think . . . that specific attacks directed at this country could be broken up and prevented before they're actually carried out,” she added.Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't she misdirect: deny while acknowledging (i.e., "not inevitable" because "specific attacks directed at this country")? Then again, with any such attacks would "be broken up and prevented before they're actually carried out." Doesn't that acknowledge exactly what Elcock said. Shouldn't we at least be aware and cautious about this new world reality?
Now children of the peaceable kingdom, lay gently to sleep. All is well. That scary Mr. Elcock is just telling stories . . . Everyone loves us . . .
I don't know where to come down on this one: Air Canada furious over data leaked to WestJet. Obviously Air Canada has to deal with the president of the Calgary Airport Authority viz. the meaning of confidential information. Still, Sun Tzu ranked the use of spies as worthy of being in the top nine commandments for the Art of War.
Interesting item in Australian IT about Microsoft using IronPort Systems for message gateway to reduce spam. We mentioned this a while back, among solutions Microsoft was examining to rid the world of the scourge of spam. This is the economic penalty option. Let's watch and see what happens.
One way or another, validating or authenticating "mail" is the rightful purview of the postal administration if it's willing to take up the guantlet.
I've recently helped a couple of aging relatives with, and instituted for myself, a notarized DNR (Do Not Rescusitate) wish. It's called different things in different provinces/states but the effect is the same. It's a wish of a person NOT to be revived through (often) "heroic measures" or life support in the event of a mortal health event (i.e., let me die). Corporations deserve the same opportunity, with shareholders being allowed to determine whether there should be a DNR. Air Canada is one such entity that ought to have had a DNR in place long before Robert Milton, the corporate Dr. Kevorkian, took hold of the patient. It seems that withDeutsche Bank and GE Aviation Capital, along with a "smaller quarterly loss," Milton has convinced the court to extend its CCRA protection for a little while according to this Globe and Mail item.
Whatever. At least now there will be something to entertain us all what with Friends ending tonight.
On a related note, Westjet has increased its April traffic 31% year over year. Increased trafffic; profits; expansion . . .