Minimize Contagion & Impact of "Non-Credible" News? An Open Source Idea for a Pragmatic yet Audacious Project To Support Democracy

Executive Summary: News and journalistic organizations believe that "non-credible" news will invariably seek to impact key democratic processes like elections across democratic societies going forward. Case in point: France. Some approaches have already been implemented by Facebook, Google and news organizations. Can a digital approach (project?) become part of democratic institutions that support a democratic society? 

Yes! Below is one approach to protect democratic processes digitally- implementable in many ways, open sourced, free to use as necessary in your part of the world. Details of this approach have been continually fleshed, augmented and shared since late 2016. From the desk of no-substitute-for-transparent-democratic-institutions-and-journalistic-standards-but-there-are-still-gaps.

Why Now?

Some would argue that fake news has always been part of elections. Even the U.S. founding fathers engaged in leveraged untruths.

What's different now?

The hypotheses that are our baseline assumptions:

• Fake news by existing stakeholders in a society did not have the contagion powers it has today. 
• Foreign powers, and parties influenced by foreign operators in any democratic society, can now frequently and easily access asymmetric information contagion tools and their associated effects at a level previously unavailable as societies were not as interconnected digitally. 
• Separately, democratic institutions across the world have been undermined, which has a multiplier effect on asymmetrical power that a non-credible information contagion can wield.

So, We Have A Problem? Houston, We Have a Problem!

Yes, voila, some information to support the contention that we have a problem:

• A story by the Independent on the possible deluge of fake new stories in France: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-voters-deluge-fake-news-stories-facebook-twitter-russian-influence-days-before-election-a7696506.html
• An ABC story on tech driven fake news possibly influencing the US election: http://abc7.com/politics/russia-used-tech-fake-news-to-influence-us-election-expert-tells-senate-committee/1826410/
• A Vice news story about a "fake new machine" targeting the French elections: https://news.vice.com/story/russias-fake-news-machine-is-now-targeting-the-french-election
• An Oxford study on fake news and the French election reported by the Verge: http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/21/15381422/france-fake-news-election-russia-oxford-study

What Has Been Done So Far?

Some solutions have been put in place. there has been an improved focus on fact checking. The press and also social media and digital behemoths like Google and Facebook have taken the actions toward being effective corporate citizens in ways that also strengthens their business.

• Facebook and Google have already implemented tools and processes to delegitimize non-credible news: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/04/25/google-overhauls-search-algorithm-bid-fight-fake-news/
• Facebook and Google are partnering with news organizations: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-facebook-idUSKBN15L0QU
• Journalism organizations are taking action too: http://researchguides.journalism.cuny.edu/factchecking_verification_fakenews

The problem is not easily solvable though:

http://fortune.com/2017/03/29/facebook-google-fake-news/


Is Digital Action Needed, and Enough?

No. Digital action is no substitute for democratic and journalistic institutions, even if they have been undermined by internal social, economic and political forces. Are these institutions active, responsive and keeping pace with the digital change flooding society?

The true ring fences for any democratic society:
1. The Executive- Federal and State
2. The Legislature- Federal and State
3. The  Judiciary- - Federal and State
4. Strong and Free Press
5. Engaged and Skeptical Citizens

If nothing else, the media, upon self-reflection, would agree that #4 has been severely compromised. They've been impacted by the same digital forces that have become risks to democratic processes- there was even a movie about this; more from a previous post here:
http://insightplusideas.blogspot.com/2011/07/news-new-york-times-and-movie-about.html

This is not solved just by funding journalistic and media institutions (reference here to great journalistic institutions like the New York Times, the Atlantic, the Economist, Financial Times and others) that, as individual organizations, would have challenges with *fully* and *comprehensive* representing any richly diverse (viewpoints or other) democracy, regardless of their adherence to journalistic standards and to a mission that supports society's "growth".

I can attest to listening to the personal (and harrowing) story of an editor of a Philly newspaper who moved on to managing content for a small pharma company. A story told over lunch. Neither of us were really having lunch and I suspect neither of us had appetite for lunch after. Here is more food for thought:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/how-americas-coastal-cities-left-the-heartland-behind/478296/

Even if we doubt that these ring fences are no different that they used to be two hundred years ago, they are uniquely threatened by the digital nature of a more complex society today. Even with strong local and state institutions a strong local press, and locally active and organized citizens, a digital forum that allows these institutions to weave together, be aware of and respond to digital threats from non-credible information may now be a critical need.

This leads us to a need for a separate digital forum that sheds light on "non-credible" information that impacts citizens and democratic processes and allows them to react.

The assertion, in conclusion: No, what has been done so far is not enough. Yes, more, on many fronts, especially digital, is needed.

Succinctly: We are at "necessary, not sufficient". We would be remiss to not pursue a digital framework.

What Can A Society Do Digitally?

Below is a digital approach that supports the creation of another ring fence to augment those that have already been acknowledged as core for democratic societies for a long time.

The focus is to foster transparency on non-credible information available to people in a society, and to foster channels, forums, tools and pathways for democratic institutions and people to swiftly counteract the effects of non-credible information on the democracy.

A Project to Support Democracy and Transparency Digitally

Why Open Source?

• It's an idea.
• A functioning democracy requires a panoply of processes, institutions and approaches. This is one. 
• It can be implemented in many ways. 
• The focus is on post facto management of response to "non-credible" news contagion- this is a non trivial problem.
• It requires strong partnerships across companies and existing democratic institutions. 
• It requires vision and long term support and action. 
• As an engaged human being on this planet, I will be glad to support anyone who can run with this.
• Even if it fails, this is an experiment we would be remiss to not try. 
• Feel free to contact me for more information.

Note: This approach has been shared previously (early 2017) in various forums and individually with folks and startups seeking to solve this problem. This approach follows a clear path from questions about transparency with democratic institutions and processes that gripped a nation's consciousness in late 2016, and has been continually fleshed and augmented with more public information updates since late 2016. Separately, I am glad to see the press and social media and digital behemoths like Google and Facebook take the actions they have. They are being effective corporate citizens in ways that also strengthens their business.

Creativity, Market Domination and Innovation

Executive Summary: Filter thoughts on creativity, competition, and market domination, through the lens of experience and business history. Play devil's advocate to the obvious- Is all creativity about finding monopolistic market positions? How about sustaining advantages through competition? From the desk of Silver-Bullets-Are-Often-Traps.

Overview
David Brooks wrote an interesting article on creativity, and the importance of creative minds seeking monopoly like market domination, for society:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/opinion/brooks-the-creative-monopoly.html?_r=1&ref=davidbrooks&pagewanted=print

The article has some great lines, like "we sometimes confuse what is hard with what is valuable." I also found this article to be a good springboard to sift through some common thoughts and touchstones about creativity, competition, monopoly, and market domination.

An example from the non profit world, ModelAlliance.org, and its founder, Sara Ziff, may well be textbook cases for David Brooks' article. To get us started, let's break the article down into two contexts: Creativity in Industry and Business, and Individual Creativity.

A. Creativity in Industry and Business:
Let's pick key thoughts in the article around this context and find supporting cases for them.

Quote 1: "We often shouldn’t seek to be really good competitors. We should seek to be really good monopolists."
If you are familiar with the different flavors of innovation, David Brooks appears to be saying that breakthrough, disruptive innovation trumps incremental innovation.
Let's take Pharma industry as an example- the policy support for orphan drugs dovetails with this view.
In the technology industry, Facebook could be touted as an example of this strategy.

Quote 2: "It’s often more valuable to create a new market and totally dominate it."
Besides Facebook, Apple products like the iPod, iPhone and the iPad come to mind.

Quote 3: "The competitive spirit capitalism engenders can sometimes inhibit the creativity it requires."
Clayton Christiansen's examples from the hypercompetitive hard disk industry seem to support this. Business is littered with examples, where an organization's momentum often prevents it from acting differently, when required, to maintain leadership through market change. IBM had to face a major crisis to undergo change.

Quote 4:  "Value to society is often bigger (with dominant market positions)".
Facebook is being valued at over $100 Billion. That is a useful yardstick for impact on society.

Following this train of thought leads to these questions:
1. First Mover Advantage:
Are we only talking about the first mover advantage here?
There are very few business contexts where a first mover maintains a competition free market position indefinitely, or for a long time.

2. Sustaining the first mover advantage:
Once the market has been created, would you need skill in competition to find dominating differentiation, and to maintain profit margins?
Would you call that incremental innovation?
Or would you call that moving the market/ shifting the goal posts every time competition makes a move?
The current Apple iPhone 4S, and iPhone 5 rumors, are examples of this tactic.

3. Supporting Environment:
What kind of industry, business, public policy and cultural environment would support this consistently?
Would society be able to substantially increase the number of disruptively innovative people, and also allow a significant percentage of them to demonstrate achievements at a significant scale in society (these are two separate things)?

4. Impact on Society:
Given that several world economies have lost out on manufacturing exports, where sustained, incremental innovation is important, would it be fair to call breakthrough innovation a silver bullet?
Would a "portfolio" strategy toward innovation be more effective, whether active or passive (creating the right conditions for all type of innovation to prosper)?


B. Individual Creativity:
An individual's decision paths are complex, and heavily driven by the environment he/ she operates in. However let's simplify this section with some "devil's advocate" questions:

Quote 1: "Instead of being fastest around the tracks everybody knows, creative people move adaptively through wildernesses nobody knows."
This is a great description of one type of creativity. This type of person would be in the same category as Beethoven and Picasso. If even Steve Jobs could be said to have x number of great products in him, would you say this type of creativity is common?
What social, economic and cultural context would you need to harness this creativity?

Quote 2: "Competition has trumped value-creation."
In an effort to create value, wouldn't you need skill at competing for resources to achieve your monopolistic position?

Summary
Creativity and innovation come in many flavors. Diverse social, economic, cultural, and market structures may be required to support them all. Can we tweak these structures to support one type of creativity and innovation, with the intention of benefiting society more? Would it work, i.e. would it truly benefit society?


What do you think?

Consumer Behavior Changes due to Technology.

Are there some "behavioral ecosystems" (driven by technology, or otherwise) and "contexts" that are simply "better" for human behavior? Are there "contexts" that "stretch" human behavior?

Executive Summary: A quick three pronged approach- a question to start us thinking about the impact technology has on the world we live in, a thought experiment to help us think through this impact, and then some quick thoughts as a check, and as an inflamatory contrast, to throw our own thinking in sharp relief. From the desk of Three-Pointers-Aren't-Just-All-Basketball.

The Question

A conversation with some bright digital media folks bubbled up this question: how has technology changed consumer behavior?

To each of us, the answer may be obvious, however, it is well worth stepping back and taking a moment to think through this as an exercise. This helps us become more aware of technology's impact on consumer behavior.

A Thought Experiment

Here is a visualization thought experiment, with apologies to the GEICO Caveman- The Neanderthal cave paintings were a "Gossip Girl" of the age.

Some Quick Answers

A wise, experienced response:
Within the framework of behavior in a country, nothing much has really changed. The context? As far back as the 80's and across the pond, folks were leveraging consumer analytics to sell financial products (Hats off, Ritesh).

Another view: Technology impact consumer behavior by 

1. aggregating numerous individual decisions,
2. making consumers aware of these aggregations, and,
3. allowing game theory to have a field day via exchange of, or lack of exchange of, information.

The underlying theme across these points is the development of markets- either intra or inter country- and the development of context for human behavior.

I know, your first reaction here would be- do you really think Facebook, Twitter, and Groupon have not changed how we live? Sure, they have helped "cultures"/ "markets" evolve, by changing their context. However, have these forces of technology changed fundamental human behavior?

The Twist in The Tale

This leads a different line of thought:

1. How is technology changing the context we live in?
2. How does human behavior adapt to changed context?
3. Are there really new contexts that have not existed before?
4. Are there some contexts that are simply "better ecosystems" for human behavior than others?

What do you think?

Google Plus, and the Facebook and Apple Context

Executive Summary: Google Plus' future is for Google to throw away. It is in the hands of the marketing team (because I think the product is on a Moore's Law-ish trajectory), and in the hands of the unknown disruptive forces hiding in dark alleys. Yes, this is an unabashed, quick and dirty speculation on Google Plus' opportunity. From The Desk of Talking-About-Google+-As-a-Social Network-Is-Like-Calling-Le-Louvre-a-Little-Hovel.

After living with google+ for a while, here are some key, qualitative thoughts.

Throw away all that propaganda about Google Plus as a social network. Calling Google Plus a social network is like trying to fit an elephant into a refrigerator. Evaluate Google Plus against Facebook and Apple on the following dimensions:

• Core Company Products

• Digital Platform Integrating Core Products as an Ecosystem

• Flexible Social Platform

• A Gateway to a Digital Life
 
Now that we have got the obvious Big, Hairy, Audacious Ideas out of the way, here are the qualitative teasers I was talking about:

1. For The Believers:
Are you already a googlephile who cannot live without, atleast a few, google services? Then, Google Plus is, for now, google accounts on steroids, with controls and features staked onto it.
 
Very nicely done, though. Thank you. Not tacky at all. Now, segway to that Journey song from Glee.
 
2. Indicative Product Feature- Circles:
Very nicely done. Again. Lives up to its billing as the slayer of social network privacy concerns.

The circles model of relationships reminded me of a "brain's trust" model shared by a macroeconomics professor in graduate school. The graphical privacy controls makes you want to get comfortable by tweaking privacy to your comfort level.

Note, I have not talked about features like Hangout. All of those also falls under the "Nicely done. Thank you" category. Why pick Circles? It jumps at you like no other Google Plus feature.

3. Integrated Digital Platform:
Picasa for pics. Videos.YouTube. Yeh. Google has some pretty powerful and mature products. Google Plus comes "preloaded" with some of these google products. Google Plus is a great way to sew these products together, making it a complete and a serious digital platform.
 

Would you say that Google Plus is like an Apple ecosystem? Can it be like an Apple ecosystem? Can it be better than an Apple and a Facebook ecosystem rolled into one?

I think it can, but that is a different story, a different blog post. All Google has to do is light a few fires. Keep doing what it is doing on products. Keep integrating them. Oh, and spawn a few Zyngas now and then.
 
4. A Social Platform:
Will Google Plus be a serious social platform? That would be a function of adoption (think share of social life) and switching (think identifying this as a primary social platform).

Google Plus may hit 20 million + users by July 20. However, how many users will migrate from Facebook to Google Plus? How many will live in animated suspension between the two worlds? Finally, how many will use Google Plus as a glorified GMail service?

What would be your estimate of an equilibrium/ steady state Google Plus user base? 150+ MM? 250+ MM? 400+ MM? While staying out of China (for how long?)? What is your sense of the tipping point when Facebook users start migrating from Facebook to Google Plus, network by network?
 
5. Privacy Controls:
Yes, finding myself in a few folks' circles, when I hopped onto the platform, freaked me out a little.

Also, Google Plus, better than google accounts, brought home the fact that I use a lot of google products and all that information is a sneeze away from being mapped into a digital life.

If you live off GMail, this should not surprise you. However, since I can claim to understand a little bit about security, privacy concerns will always pop up in my mind. Maybe it is just me.

6. A Gateway to a Digital Life:
To borrow from a wise man I know (who is also on Google Plus) - can Google be my gateway to a digital life?

The Pitch? Without much ado (to all the Google engineers, yes I am being simplistic :-)), Google can be my online identity, my Netflix, and my computing device on a cloud. Even as a glue for the google products we already (or will) use, Google Plus will be a formidable doorway.

I am inclined to draw a bubble chart mapping how the Apple, Facebook and Google future state ecosystems would look 5 years from now. For now, all I will say that in his early days, Henry Ford would have been proud to call his company Google. Think Google Products + Android + Cloud + Google Wireless (Definitely Maybe?).

That's enough crystal ball gazing for now. I have stretched my definition of "key qualitative thoughts" far enough. Moreover, I would like to sneak in the crystal ball gazing in digestible chunks.

What do you think? If you do, you know where to catch me for a lively conversation.

News, New York Times, and a Movie about Publishing

Executive Summary: A review of "Page One: Inside the New York Times"- a documentary that provides an inside view of a market leader in publishing through some changes in the industry. From the desk of If-It-Sounds-Like-the-NYT-But-Reads-Like-Twitter, It-Really-Isn't-A-Documentary, It-Is-A-Reality-TV-Show.

Introduction

The last time I posted about a movie was the opening weekend of Iron Man, over 3 years ago. This one is about "Page One: Inside the New York Times", a "fly on the wall" account of a desk at the New York Times.

The Key Theme: Challenges

The movie gets three challenges facing the New York Times right:

1. A Market Leader's Core Differentiation in a Seemingly Fragmented Ecosystem:
Where does the paper, and in comparison, the rest world, stand on news accountability, quality, objectivity, and transparency? The movie touches upon the difference between Journalism and activism, in the Wikileaks context.

2. The Survival of Publishing as a Well Oiled "Machine", and Its Metamorphosis :
The documentary covers Der Spiegel, Guardian and NYT partnering with WikiLeaks, and alludes to the shifting sands of the publishing ecosystem where a publisher could be a source.

3. Funding to Sustain a News Enterprise:
It touches upon the launch of the metered paywall at NYT (in line with the FT, and the Economist).

Finally...  The Opinion

As for the documentary experience, it stays true to the fly on the wall theme. Its like what reading Twitter is to reading the NYT. However, it does a great job of juxtaposing current changes in the industry impact the market leader, against its storied past.

If you are looking for more detail on the trends, you would be better served by visiting the Economist website (or reading this week's print edition) here:
http://www.economist.com/node/18904136. More on that to follow.

At worst, you may end up feeling like you watched some reality TV about a desk at the NYT, and even then, you will find a memorable line or two. "A textured life", for one.

What do you think? If you saw the movie, what did you think?

Sustaining a Brand Conversation: Behavior Tracking and Measurements Notes for Brand Marketers

Executive Summary: How do you deal with a profusion of social media metrics which often have an unclear context? We need metrics with clear semantics. Some of these metrics may be custom created for a specific brand, consumer profile, activity and social media context. We could create two categories of metrics- generic, infrastructure metrics of the type that are commonly thrown about and need contextual understanding, and functional metrics that have clear semantics attached.

The Story So Far
We covered a need for strategic thought behind social media marketing investments below:http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/07/to-strategize-or-not-to-strategize.html

The next step is to generate a picture or customer touchpoints/ interactions with the brand across various channels. Besides qualitative insights, you would like concrete measures that support these insights.

There are challenges in tying in consumer behavior in a "regular" distribution channel with that across social media channels. Leveraging your existing, real world consumer profiles in the social media world is a separate theme. Our focus in this post is to find ways to measure and track consumer behavior in the social media channels.

Challenges with Interactive Metrics Today
There are two challenges with social media metrics today:
1> A profusion of metrics.
2> A need to understand the context in which these metrics are being generated.

David Berkowitz has a great post here on the various metrics available to marketers today, and a proposed Cost Per Social Action (CPSA) metric:http://www.marketersstudio.com/2009/08/cpsa-cost-per-social-action-the-new-pricing-model-for-social-media.htmlThere are third party companies like Visible Measures doing interesting work as well.

As for context, a wise man once said, context is everything. Does a metric mean the same coming from a face to face interaction as opposed to one over twitter, or even one from a different social media platform?

A Potential Solution
Some new metrics are needed. However, they need to be functional in nature. By functional- I mean that the metrics need to carry a consistent meaning for brand marketers. CPM clicks could be meaningless in some contexts. You might argue that this is true of all metrics. True. Hence the need for metrics with specific meaning and context attached to them.

I am not saying this is the end of the existing metrics. We could have two classes of metrics- the infrastructure metrics and the functional metrics. All metrics have semantics, hence I am calling these new metrics "functional" metrics, instead of calling them semantic metrics.

Future Shock
There lies the key. While generic, industry standard metrics are important, there is a huge *future* potential for metrics customized to the brand. These will hinge on the data collection capabilities of social media platforms, and their ability to share it in a cheap, safe, anonymized manner with third parties for further analysis. Additional factors that come into play- quality of data, privacy concerns and analytics capabilities.

What Can We Do Now?
While it is great to theorize about the future, there is opportunity today to develop measures that make sense for a specific brand, consumer profile, activity and social media context.
You are welcome to contact me for a conversation on these.

Update 1 (Thanks to David's followup): Functional Metrics Example
Craig has a great illustration of my distinction between infrastructure and functional metrics here:
http://www.funnelholic.com/2009/03/12/memo-to-the-cfo-3-lead-generation-metrics-that-matter/
Cost Per Lead (CPL) could be called an "infrastructure" metric, as opposed to Cost Per Opportunity (CPO) which could be called a "functional" metric. CPO is tied to the lead and pipeline generation funnel, and not to the various tools and mechanics that cause CPL number variation. CPL feeds into CPO generation.

Update 2: Caveats and Another Functional Metrics Example
The challenges the metrics are expected to address:
1. In metrics, we often miss the forest for the trees. As I have mentioned before- Marketing is following Social Media.
2. Given the context of the million dollar Superbowl ads, we need to build the kind of "bridges" in social media that already exist in traditional media and which allow traditional media to justify its spend to some extent. That's a separate problem.

So taking the sales theme further (you can see I am trying to leverage my B2B sales/ account management experience) here's what I would call an infrastructure metric derived out of a sales force effectiveness ratio: social media effectiveness ratio = social media "wins"/ customer "contacts".

Now, you might call sales force effectiveness metric a functional metric that has been translated into an infrastructure metric. True, wins and contacts are tied to the platform. We then build a cross platform metric that takes this data and spits out the "functional metric" results.

The Four Philips brand equity measures- Uniqueness, Relevance, Attractiveness and Credibility- are a tougher portability nut to crack. However, a quick metric that is "translatable" that would be familiar to brand and category managers- ACV.


What do you think?


Additional Background
A backgrounder to help you develop your own perspective on the ideas here:
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/06/brands-economics-blink-twitter-facebook.html


--

Brands, Economics, Blink, Twitter & Facebook: Part II

Almost titled Part II: Economics, Brands, Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, and Social Networking- Twitter & Facebook. Brevity is the soul of the blog... oops.

Part I of this Post:
Thanks to Twitter, I was reminded of an article on “Predictably Irrational” behavior:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19231906

Some more background can be found in my Part I post here:
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/06/economics-brands-blink-twitter-facebook.html

Marketing and Behavioral Economics.
The day care center experiment on the effects of social and market norms colliding provides interesting results. More importantly, it can serve as an interesting starting point for marketers to think about how to participate in conversations with their customers on social media sites.

Looking at the social media marketing vehicle as a "participant" on the social marketplace, it may help illuminate patterns that help the marketing vehicle navigate uncharted 'mindfields' with their experiential partners (read customers).

While this perspective should not be news to skilled brand managers, the key here would be developing patterns and tools that help brand managers make more effective decisions.

These theories could be used to:
1. Create markets with specific incentives (watch out for unintended consequences),
2. Make decisions that drive the market entity's/ brand vehicle's behavior within a marketplace, and,
3. Leverage various market players' behavior in a marketplace to your market entity's/ brand vehicle's advantage.

Points 2 & 3 can be interpreted as old school, carpet bombing, bulk-broadcast-media-buying strategy & social network or conversational marketing respectively.

Social Media and Behavioral Economics.
A potential application- could it help a brand decide which social media site to develop its presence on, especially if the brand could utilize all 3 approaches to negotiate? There are social marketers that would recommend using the third approach listed above as it is more "authentic". This seems to have become the prevailing thought in the B2C arena.

Where does Microsoft's strategic investment in Facebook, more a B2B deal that has B2C impact, fit across the 3 approaches listed above?

What do you think?

Update: To be even more explicit in my messaging:

1> Everything Must Go!?
As a marketer looking at the channels to reach out to your customer, you may need to understand how to leverage the new channels that have sprung up where your customer is not a "couch potato". As you learn more about the new channels and more about your customer, you will find new ways to apply your experience, knowledge and acumen in the new channels. You do not necessarily have to toss everything out of the window. :-)

2> Marketing Future 2.0
Marketing Future 2.0 arrives in baby steps- while there is an advantage to be being ahead of the learning curve, your best friend is still your ability to distill it into impact on consumer buying.

Now, what do you think?

Economics, Brands, Blink, Twitter & Facebook: Part I

Almost titled Part I: Economics, Brands, Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, and Social Networking- Twitter & Facebook.... As if that wasn't enough, did I mention Physics? I will, however, refrain from mentioning Star Trek... oops.

Some thoughts on Bob Pittman's perspective of the money making potential of the internet in this post, to give you some background:
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/02/consumer-behavior-and-robert-pittman-on.html

Behavioral Economics: Isn't that an oxymoron?
Have you read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell? There is an economics' field that seems to agree with Gladwell that human beings are not all rational masters of their emotions.

Behavioral Economics around us.
Thanks to Twitter (Paula Drum RT), I came across an article talking about behavioral economics:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104803094

Most of us have helped implement a behavioral economics based solution to the pension enrollment challenge: If you want people to enroll in the pension plan, then automatically enroll them — and let them opt out if they want to.

The article also covers an example of how government intervened to incentivize teens against getting pregnant. Predictably, this will get you thinking about how this theme ties in with prevailing thoughts on financial market regulation. The article cautions that the government could itself become an "imperfect decision maker" as a market participant.

The physicists amongst us must be wondering whether economics and psychology got together to give birth to either the observer effect or the uncertainty principle.

Behavioral Economics and Game Theory.
The article got me thinking about the interplay between behavioral economics and game theory. How would an approach to less-than-fully-rational-decision-making impact game theory cases like prisoners dilemma where rational decision making leads to "seemingly sub optimal" outcomes?

I found a paper that talks about behavioral game theory:
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/hoteck/PAPERS/BGT.pdf

The tweet also reminded me of another article on "Predictably Irrational" behavior:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19231906

Now, what has all of this got to do with Marketing, Tweeting and Authentic Branding?

What do you think?

Part II of this post can be found here:

http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/06/brands-economics-blink-twitter-facebook.html

Microeconomics, Synergies and Operational Portfolio

A case discussion link below would give you background perspective on this post { Private Equity Case: Dialogic Carve Out from Intel}:
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/02/private-equity-case-dialogic-carve-out.html

Synergies
I checked with a technology industry focused private equity investor on whether his investment committee considers synergies across its operational portfolio in its investment decision making. After all, technology is a pretty broad term- do they see an advantage in narrowing their focus?

His rejection of the idea was couched in an excellent example. The investment team would not buy competitors. This was a pretty straight forward discounting of the potential of merger efficiencies, and we can list numerous reasons for it- from strategic ones like the hypercompetitive nature of the technology industry, to investment ones like the heightened risk of a larger company’s underperformance weighing down upon the rest of the portfolio.

Microeconomics
However, this should remind you, as it reminded me, of microeconomics. Does rejecting competitors also mean you would reject complements? Strictly as an investment strategy, wouldn’t investing in complements also increase the correlation across investments?

Investment examples in the technology industry would be:
1. Investing in Facebook and Fun Wall, or investing in Twitter and Twitterdeck.
2. Investing in the Transmeta Crusoe process and a windows power management utility for that processor

Would this mean that the investing team needs to have processes in place to monitor revenue correlations across portfolio companies?

The Venture Capital Context
Lets look at this in the venture capital context, discussed in my post here: {Venture Capital: “If it ain’t broke…” Does the VC Model Need Fixing?}
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/02/panel-venture-capital-if-it-aint-broke.html

Investing in startups, especially the very early stage ones, needs to account for some strategy shift. However, sometimes even late stage startups may need to adjust their strategy to account for monetization opportunities in tough economic times.

How would the venture capital firm react if this strategy shift made this investment a complement of anther portfolio investment?


What do you think?


The Usual Disclaimer: This is purely a knowledge sharing resource and I have been careful to protect panelist/ speaker interests. Ethically, context is everything, and I will gladly retract anything that affects the parties mentioned. Call this my mini OpenCourseWare, if you will, where Open signifies life experiences.