Follow Your Passion? How About Letting It Follow You

It is supposed to be The Answer. Just follow your passion and, as countless movies and articles have promised, if you build it, they will come.

There is one problem. What if you dont have a passion? In fact, what if you can not even begin to imagine how you would identify such a thing?

All is not lost. In fact, there are those who have come to believe that you will actually be much better off if you let some experience, some age and some false starts guide you on your journey and inform your decision-making. It may well be that your early passion(s) are a kind of false lead, based, as they tend to be, on lack of information, absence of exposure to a broader set of possibilities, and, dare we suggest it without sounding judgmental, a tad less self-knowledge than might be optimal.

In the following article, Cal Newport, a professor of computer science at Georgetown University addressed these vexing issues through the prism of his own experience. Because he couldn't figure out what his passion was, exactly. His options and decision-making process offer some insights about how he eventually figured it out.

The reality for most people is that passion may never accurately describe the accomodations they make with choices based on family, geography, opportunity and responsibility. Not all of which come with identical measures of impact - but may still result in a pretty good life. JL

Cal Newport comments in the New York Times:

IN the spring of 2004, during my senior year of college, I faced a hard decision about my future career. I had a job offer from Microsoft and an acceptance letter from the computer science doctoral program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I had also just handed in the manuscript for my first nonfiction book, which opened the option of becoming a full-time writer. These are three strikingly different career paths, and I had to choose which one was right for me.

One Year Later: How Apple Has Changed - or Not

Subtle.

That's what everyone says the change has been. Maybe too subtle, depending on who is doing the talking.

Following a legend is the hardest act in human endeavor. As if the incessant comparisons arent bad enough, the over-weaning sense that something irreplaceable has been lost can become self-fulfilling.

But so far, so good. The workplace is, arguably, nicer. Relations with everyone outside the walls - customers, suppliers, regulators, whomever, are less fraught, less contemptuous, less tense. The stock price has almost doubled. The company reigns supreme as the most valuable on earth.

The Foxconn and iPhone 5 map fiascos have been handled with an uncharacteristic humility. All good.

The concern, to the extent it can be identified, is of the sort Sherlock Holmes might have characterized as 'the dog that didnt bark.' A clue, a feeling that perhaps something ineffable is missing, though there is no consensus as to what, specifically, that might be. A generalized worry is that the company is still on the cruise control set by Steve. That the products, design ethos and image are the way HE left it.

That, of course, does not do credit to all those who contributed to those efforts and continue to do so. It also neglects the fact that to be successful, companies have to build on their strengths and may best prevail through evolution rather than revolution. No one is exactly sure what the pipeline holds and how it might yet reshape the tech landscape.

So the hits just keep on coming. So far. But as another tech legend, Intel's Andy Grove, once said, 'only the paranoid survive.' And one senses there is no shortage of paranoia at Apple. JL

Heather Kelly reports in CNN:

In the year since Steve Jobs' death, Apple has undergone a gradual and subtle brand makeover, shaking off some of the more unpleasant characteristics associated with Jobs and taking on bits of the personality of its new leader, Tim Cook.

Decline in Immigrant Entrepreneurs Threatens US Economic Growth

Last year, the number of new firms with at least one immigrant founder dropped to the lowest number since 2005. The proportion of new companies founded by immigrants also declined. Meanwhile, the number of new US businesses formed in total is at the lowest level since the 1980s.

Visa restrictions. Citizenship challenges. Hostile anti-immigrant rhetoric. The politicians and anti-immigrant lobbying groups in the US assert that their primary motivation is protecting US jobs. But if they actually wanted to destroy US jobs, they could not have come up with a more effective strategy.

The US has withdrawn the welcome mat which fueled and characterized its success for 300 years. And the rest of the world is responding.

The US remains one of the relatively few locations where there is a unique combination of investment capital, professional expertise, comparatively benign regulatory oversight and, perhaps most significantly (and least appreciated) a robust rule of law protecting entrepreneurs and their success.

These attributes have succeeded in luring and keeping generations of immigrants who have spurred the growth of the US economy. The recent spate of anti-immigrant initiatives has been driven by the financial crisis and economic uncertainty. It is primarily a reflection of fear, of concern that the future will not be better than the past and of instinctive, if misplaced, belief that those already here had best protect what they already have because there will not be enough to go around.

The fears are understandable, though the sad irony is that the financialization of the economy - an internal phenomenon - is more responsible for declining prospects than are external commercial forces. The anti-immigrant attitudes are not new to the US - 'know-nothingism' in the 19th century and harsh immigration restrictions in the 1920s were reflections of similar concerns at those times. Such concepts fade as economic conditions improve. But in the interim, the US has spurred the very competition it has hoped to forestall. JL

JD Harrison reports in the Washington Post:

The once steady rise in immigrant entrepreneurship has stalled in the United States, threatening to further slow an already sluggish economic recovery.

If I Read One More Platitude-Filled Mission Statement...

When they see the term 'mission statement,' most sentient people have one of two reactions: they laugh or groan.

Too many mission statements have become meaningless amalgams of impossibly vague, grandiose and un-actionable, let alone achievable, verbosity.

Assignment to a mission statement drafting team is seen as either a cruel punishment suggesting that one's career path has taken a lateral arabesque - or it's an invitation to shirk real work for a couple weeks while scarfing lots of company-supplied soft drinks and chocolate chip cookies.

The crux of the problem is in fascinating contrast to the direction of the most pressing of current business trends: financial markets and compensation systems are designed to magnify the impact of short term performance. On the contrary, mission statements appear designed to avoid precisely that objective. The less specific and longer term they are, the more support they seem to garner.

There may be some good reasons for that. Business and organizational developments have become increasingly prone to uncertainty, and frequently, to surprise. We operate in an age where the gales of creative destruction inspire disruptive innovation. We embrace change even as it consumes us. In such an environment it is easy to understand why not wanting to appear tied irretrievably to any one notion or strategy would make sense. How keeping one's options open would be not just prudent, but essential.

However, it is one thing to scan a broad horizon, quite another to become lost in aimless rhetoric. Limpid phraseology being the refuge of those who are fearful of declaring anything for which they might be held accountable.

So natter on, you word-smithing technicians. You have nothing to lose but your sense of purpose. Unless, of course, you want to flout conventional behavior and deliver goals the organization can actually achieve. JL

Greg McKeown reports in Harvard Business Review:

Let's start with a game. Attached are three mission statements from three Fortune 500 companies. Try to match each company with its mission statement:

A Match Made In? Microsoft and Barnes & Noble Finalize 'Nook Media' Partnership

Snakes and snails and puppy dogs' tails.

Microsoft's strategy these days seems a tad, well, reactive. The latest major partnership initiative with Barnes & Noble, the largest US bookseller (bricks and mortar division) with a sizable web presence and an interesting entry in the e-reader category follows on the heels of MSFT's Nokia connection.

A generous interpretation would suggest that these are undervalued assets whose acquisition (broadly speaking) provides some quick-and-dirty counter-programming to the looming threats posed by Apple and Amazon.

But a less fulsome analysis might raise questions about why alliances with companies perceived to be also-rans in their respective markets enhances both the brand equity and the strategic positioning of the mighty Bellevue behemoth.

Perhaps the most apt metaphor is treading water. Microsoft continues to throw off lots of cash, has a bright staff and experienced leadership. But it has become the latter-day equivalent of the old AT&T. What analyst's used to call a 'widows and ophans' stock. Not a tech high-flier, but a safe investment that will generate unexciting albeit dependable returns.

And maybe that's enough for now. IBM went through a long period of experimentation and self-examination before it re-invented itself. Writing off a company of Microsoft's capabilities would be a mistake. It is applying its vast cash hoard judiciously to keep itself in the game until the next big thing or some strategic re-calibration pays off. It is not clear when or if that will happen but sometimes you just have to keep trying. And maybe those assets really are undervalued. JL

Laura Owen reports in GigaOm:

Barnes & Noble and Microsoft have finalized their previously announced partnership, which spins B&N’s digital and college businesses off into a subsidiary that will now be called Nook Media. Microsoft is investing $300 million in the new company and retains a 17.6 percent stake.

Back to fhe Future: Accounting Firms Are Outgrowing the Audit Market. Again

And then there were four.

Everyone in business remembers Enron. But more people may actually remember Arthur Andersen, arguably the most powerful and well-known of the elite global accounting firms - and Enron's auditor.

As a result of the misstatements found in Enron's books and the aggressive treatment of certain transactions which AA blessed or at least to which they did not raise objections, AA received the dreaded business death penalty. They lost what is politely and somewhat obscurely called the license to operate.

Almost never invoked, but there when governments afraid of angry voters feel they need it, the 'license' is really more of a theoretical construct based on legal interpretations of various statutory and regulatory codicils that could arguably be ignored or reconsidered if anyone wanted to do so.

One upshot of all this was that Arthur Levitt, then Chairman of the US Securities and Exchange Commission decided that the accounting firms' pursuit of consulting work in addition to its traditional audit and tax advisory franchise was a - or, perhaps - the - cause of the Enron debacle, since consulting was a distraction that happened to pay a lot more and was beginning to generate far more revenue for the firms. He felt this violated what he termed 'the sanctity of the audit,' based on his devotion to the memory of his father, who had been an accountant. Anyone who had worked in the industry understood that using the word sanctity in the same breath as the word audit was leaping a figurative chasm of considerable breadth, but he was not to be denied. The firms were forced to sell their consulting businesses.

It is worth noting, as a postscript, that the value of those businesses was, shall we say, open to interpretation. Ernst & Young sold its consulting division to the French firm Cap Gemini for @$11 billion, $9 billion of which CG wrote off several years later. Levitt pursued his notions of sanctity after leaving the SEC by becoming a partner in a private equity firm.

Which brings us to the present day, where the global audit business continues to grow at what might politely be called a 'mature' rate. So, the firms, looking for more robust results are tiptoeing back into the consulting business. The world has changed and the performance of the Chinese accounting industry, among others, has reminded investors that honest audits due perform a useful function. But as the following article points out, chasing growth is what businesses do. JL

The Economist reports:

IT IS hardly news that the “Big Four” accounting firms get bigger nearly every year. But where they are growing says a lot about how they will look like in a decade, and the prospects worry some regulators and lawmakers.

Why Are We So Rude Online?

Most reports about rude behavior online focus on anonymity. The assumption is that people are emboldened to say things they wouldnt in person because they think that others will not recognize who is making those comments.

But new research suggests that it may be far more complicated than that. That, in fact, people know they are not really anonymous on Facebook or Twitter. But they indulge because people tend to have an inflated sense of their self-image online which triggers 'the right' to indulge in behavior that may not only be injurious to others' feelings - but also injurious to their own health. Inflated self esteem evidently leads to poor self control. And this may affect diet, weight, debt and a host of other behaviors that the result of what the researchers term license people give themselves to act out.

A related factor may be the stress and frustration generated by the lack of control many feel due to the economic conditions of the past five years. The combination of supposed anonymity - or at least distance - and enhanced self esteem may give people the impetus to take their frustrations out in this somewhat removed forum.

The fact remains that email and other online forums appear to trigger harsher interaction than those in person. There are no excuses. But explanations for such behavior may provide more effective ways of responding - and perhaps of even forestalling such comments in the first place. JL

Elizabeth Bernstein reports in the Wall Street Journal:

Online Browsing Lowers Self-Control and Is Linked To Higher Debt, Weight

The Good Life? Factory Jobs No Longer Pay the Bills

Even if manufacturing is coming back, the compensation structure that accompanies it may no longer provide the income and benefits sufficient to rebuild a middle class life.

That is the reality after a generation of job cuts, benefit eliminations and outsourcing. As the following article illustrates, manufacturing jobs paying service industry wages are not a panacea.

The larger issue remains the financialization of the economy. There is a limited pool from which income distribution can be drawn. If, by historical standards, an excessive proportion of that pool devolves to a small segment of the population, than the rest of the consuming public will remain incapable of sparking the kind of demand that will stimulate private sector investment in new ventures, products and services. When that inefficiency is exacerbated by advantages such as carried interest for hedge funds and private equity firms, the impact is compounded.

In a technologically driven global economy, the distinction between manufacturing and service may have lost its meaning, at least as far as income distribution and consumer demand is concerned.

Companies espouse the notion that to remain competitive they must keep wages down so as not be further undercut by China, Brazil, India, et al. But as those countries face upward wage pressure themselves, western companies may find that the real source of their competitive disadvantage is not workforce compensation, but non-productive diversion of capital to the financial sector which raises costs without providing ancillary economic benefits. JL

Alejandra Cancino reports in The Chicago Tribune via Business Insider:

Factory jobs can still be good, but over the last three decades benefits have eroded and pay has stagnated for many, or even fallen. Some entry-level manufacturing jobs pay so little that workers depend on government aid to feed their families and pay for health care

Advertisers Arent Buying Mobile Clicks, So Google Explores Alternatives

Clicks are SO 2011.

A big problem is that on mobile, to which the world is migrating, as many as 40% of clicks are accidents. That is not just annoying if you are an advertiser paying for them, it is inefficient.

The larger issue is, well, larger. Everyone in the business of monetizing mobile is discovering that it is not just a lilliputian version of the full-sized world. New graphics, new electronic interfaces and new engineering is required. Which means new resources must be dedicated, upfront and not necessarily reimbursed, without any assurance that the first, second or third attempt is going to provide the right answer.

And not that anyone needs to be reminded, but this economy is really not big on research, thought leadership or exploring future opportunities - unless, of course, they are paid for out of someone else's budget.

So mobile, which is supposed to be The Future (as if it is not already The Present), is not delivering the financial goods as expected. No one even seems to have time for the usual finger pointing and recriminations - they are just withholding support and looking for alternatives.

Part of the problem - and, arguably, a key to the solution is that the history of ecommerce to date has come complete with the assurance that those paying the bills will have really good data that eliminates the uncertainty which has accompanied the business process for last two or three thousand years. This assumption may look like a logical strategic adaptation to new circumstances or it could be a profound mistake based on an anomalous and transitory development whose impact cannot survive the scalability test to which it is being subjected.

Google, among others, is looking at alternatives that sound even more retro than snap-brim fedoras: phone calls! foot traffic! What's next, cave paintings?

But seriously, the good news for advertisers and for the future of tech development is that some one is investing in experimentation. Because without it, the future looks pretty dim, even for those who refuse to look beyond the next quarter. JL

Sarah Kessler reports in Fast Company:

Advertisers aren't ponying up for mobile clicks. But might they pay more for a phone call or store traffic? As more of Google's users migrate to mobile devices, the company is working on new ways to measure mobile marketing success.

Can Manufacturing Play a Major Role in the American Economy's Future?

Manufacturing is back. Or so scream the headlines. And it appears that we really, really want to believe. Because for all the financial engineering and investment wizardry of the past decade, there is some deeply human, atavistic need to make actual stuff.

And so we view the return of manufacturing to the US and Europe as a return of hope for middle class jobs and incomes and hope.

But as the following article points out, the same forces that are bringing it back to developed countries are also delivering the marvels and capacity to the very same developing nations to which it departed. So, sustainable advantage it may not be. We'll take simply being competitive for now. But as with so much about this economy, we are not sure what else to believe in. JL

Michael Lind comments in Ideas Lab (hat tip Ken Jarboe):

Can manufacturing play a major role in America’s economy in the future? While the U.S. manufacturing sector continues to encounter some headwinds, short-term events and long-term trends augur well for a renaissance of manufacturing in the United States.

Americans Are Saving More Even as the Government Encourages Risk

The stock market is booming. There are signs real estate values are coming back. The restaurants seem full and merchants are upbeat about holiday sales. But Americans are pouring more money into savings accounts than they ever have.

Are they dumb? Ignorant? Or is something else going on. Did people actually learn from the financial crisis, recession, high frequency trading, exorbitant executive compensation for underperforming companies and all of the other stories related to unequal opportunity.

Have they, in fact, decided that they'll sit this one out, thanks very much, because they've seen booms before and they tended not to end well for the little guy?

With elections in full swing and resounding rhetoric about innovation and risk taking and job creation filling the air, a premium if being placed on investing for the future. Except that businesses appear to be keeping their proverbial powder dry, waiting for certainty, of what, it is not clear, since certainty in commerce disappeared about a generation ago.

Consumer-citizens, understanding that those with jobs are lucky to have them but wise enough to know that nothing lasts forever - or even for one quarter - are responding with a caution that is literally historic. Traditionally adventurous, if not profligate, Americans now realize that real estate and stock markets do not always go up. That good times can be followed by bad times and that acceptable risk is in the bank account of the beholder.

Americans may return to old behavior patterns. But no one should count on it. JL

Danielle Douglas reports in the Washington Post:

Americans have poured record amounts of money into savings accounts even though interest rates are at historic lows, new federal data show, a sign that average people may be missing out on a booming stock market and recovering real estate sector.

Belief Systems Are More Powerful Than Information Systems

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

We are drowning in data. And more of it cascades on to our mobile, lap top and desk top screens every minute. But instead of ushering in an age of hyper-rational secularism, the opposite may be occurring.

In an age of relative transparency, humans appear as inclined as in previous ages to filter information through a tightly woven screen of beliefs. If not more so. Though ostensibly counter-intuitive, this may be evidence of a natural response to confusion bred of uncertainty. Who does one trust? Whose numbers does one have the time to validate? We may have simply substituted one form of darkness based on lack of information with one based on fear of misinformation.

All spheres are affected: business, politics, not-for-profits. An advocate for a new project, a new candidate or a new cause can present overwhelming quantities of data, but if those making the decision are not inclined to believe or accept it, the data will not change their minds.

Appeals to emotion and passion may be far more successful than appeals to reason. Design triggers a positive inclination. Data serves to justify the rightness of the purchase decision. Which is not to say that one is right and one is wrong. In many, if not most spheres of influence, there must be a connection between the two. Which highlights another aspect of the required decision: another consequence of having access to so much information is that the gray areas have expanded at the expense of the black and white.

There are those who speak with great certainty about many topics, but in the real world, where bigger decisions must be made in increasingly shorter periods of time, the nuances and subtleties outweigh the absolutes. In the end, we are often left with our experience, our training and education. The problem is that the acceleration of knowledge and innovation frequently render that experience and training obsolete.

Marketers of every type are attempting to insert more certainty about their products and services into an uncertain behavioral environment. But they may well find that their path to that conclusion is most effectively couched in terms that appeal to the mysterious and ephemeral. JL

Leigh Drogen comments in his blog:

I am always deeply intrigued by irrational behavior and its effects on complex systems.

In my opinion, the job of an astrophysicist is far easier than that of an absolute return potfolio manager. In the former you get to work within the confines of science and rationality, in the latter you have to battle every inherent flaw we as humans possess. But that’s what makes markets fun, there is no right and wrong way to navigate them, because at the end of the day it’s about navigating the irrational actions of your peers.

Howdy Pardner: Hon Hai, Apple's Largest Supplier, Buys Patent Portfolio from NEC

The Marvelettes. 1966. "The Hunter Gets Captured by the Game." Nice hit for the Motown girl group - and prescient story line for the ongoing battle of wills between Asia and the west.

Apple's largest, most notorious supplier and partner is Hon Hai Precision Industry Co of Taiwan, better known as Foxconn, employer of over 1 million mainland Chinese and, until now, the perfect foil for Apple with its elegant minimalist designs and elitist culture.

There is nothing elitist about Foxconn. Huge factories, cities really, churning out marvelous devices for slivers of income. On the average iPhone or iPad or iPod, Apple captures somewhere between 75 and 85% of the value sold. The Chinese get pennies. But they watched and they learned and they bode their time. Everyone knew this moment was coming, but we suspect no one dreamed it would be this soon.

In purchasing a portfolio of patents from Japan's NEC, Foxconn is all but announcing its intent to start competing with Apple for the margins and influence that comes with being a creator of intellectual capital instead of merely the cheap labor export platform that won the right to assemble devices based on someone else's ideas. Brawn to brain.

Now, given its size and prominence in the global production firmament, Foxconn is probably not foreswearing interest in manufacturing for others. At least not entirely. And given the trend in China towards demanding IP in return for market access it was not as if this was a bolt out of the blue. But it serves notice that Foxconn thinks it is ready to make the next move up the value chain. Apple has other 'frenemies' in its supplier network, companies that are both suppliers and competitors. But none are as large, as comprehensive in their capabilities - and as well placed to take them on. JL

China Times reports:

Hon Hai Precision Industry Co, the world's largest contract electronics maker, has acquired patents related to flat panel production from Japan-based NEC Corp.

So, How Much is in Your Mobile Wallet?

It's classic. Everyone wants a piece of the action but no one wants to cooperate. Another tech free-for-all in which the visions of opportunistic sugar plums are more enticing than the actual market will prove to be.

The mobile wallet has become an avatar representing all the hopes and dreams of those who wish to control the future. Using the smartphone as a payment system to obviate the need for cash, for credit cards, for the hassle of transactional commerce. He or she who wins gets a slice of commission revenue plus data about consumer purchase preferences which some believe may add up to mastery of the sale.

However, it is, perhaps, reminiscent of the VHS versus Betamax video wars. There are lots of good ideas, but customers are leery of committing too soon to one technology when there are so many out there and it is not clear who will prevail. There is, also, the lingering suspicion that no one is doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, that the hidden costs will multiply, as they have for the mobile phone itself, to the point where Maslow-vian needs take a back seat to texting freedom.

Because we have seen this so many times before, there is not quite the sense of urgency there might once have been. Alliances will be formed, advantage will be won, leaders and followers will emerge. One year? Two? Four? Whatever. It will happen. Cost, flexibility, utility and, of course, convenience will determine the outcome. But not now, and maybe not soon. We're just not quite convinced - yet. JL

Robin Sidel and Amir Efrati report in the Wall Street Journal:

Leslie Fiet wouldn't mind if her customers paid for their sweet treats with a smartphone instead of cash or plastic. But in the eight months since the owner of Mini's Cupcakes in Salt Lake City installed a device that can accept mobile payments, no one has tried it.

"Nobody really has a mobile wallet," Ms. Fiet said, referring to the digital replacement for traditional credit cards and debit cards that can be loaded into a phone and used for payment

Where Are Dell and HP Heading?

The relentless gales of creative destruction about which Schumpeter wrote have always buffeted the tech industry. It has always been part of the ethos and the environment. No quarter, asked or given.

But some companies, like IBM and Oracle, adapt. And some, like Dell and HP appear to be having a hard time doing so.

There was a time when both Dell and HP were icons. HP was the original Silicon Valley garage start-up whose founders became billionaires. And this was even before there was a Silicon Valley. The company's success sparked the revolution that grew up around it and may ultimately consume it. The founders were known for treating their people well, back before anyone even conceived of terms like human capital, because their instincts told them that it was the brains and commitment of their collaborators that would ensure future success.

Dell had a similarly inspiring creation myth. Founded in a college dormitory by a smart, ambitious guy who was trying to make a few bucks on the side. Except that 'the side' became his life - and another billion dollar corporation.

For a time, these two companies defined the consumer side of tech. But not anymore. As the following article points out, they have squandered leads and failed to anticipate the mobile revolution now sweeping the industry. Their stories are similar in that regard. But the ways they got where they are and where they may be going may not be. Both are trying to break into services. Neither has had great success. Both are trying to redefine their markets. Again, without much evident impact. They are now in competition with everyone and everyone is in competition with them. Their leadership problems are well known, HP's embarrassingly so.

It may simply be that they no longer have the size, scale, vision and resources to compete effectively. They can stay alive until their boards give up and sell them - at what will no doubt be handsome multiples - but something will be lost. Austin, Texas, where Dell is located will feel the pain keenly because it is the alpha male in the smallish tech pack there. HP's followers have been in mourning for years, regretting that Dave's and Bill's vision was trammeled by lesser mortals.

The lesson, if one can be drawn at this stage, is that ephemeral qualities - intangibles - like leadership, culture and strategy execution can define a business in ways that may be more powerful than all the factories and sales reps and advertising can not, especially if the underlying insight that made it work is lost. JL

Om Malik reports in GigaOm:

Hewlett Packard and Dell, two companies that are the face of the PC business, reported terrible financial results for the second quarter of 2012. They talk about a cloud makeover. Too bad they missed the mobile opportunity and have no presence in tablet & smartphone business. Oops!

Philanthropists Ponder Impact Measurement

The world is in the midst of the largest inter-generational transfer of wealth in history.

As the WWII and post-war generations pass on, offspring are assuming their forebears' philanthropic mantle. But they bring a different mindset and approach to the task. Unlike their parents, many of whom were college educated but largely self-taught entrepreneurs, the younger generation have earned degrees at some of the world's most prestigious graduate schools of business and law.

And they are asking questions about impacts and outcomes that previous donors and recipients never considered. It was not that the earlier generation did not care, or hadnt thought about these matters, but they trusted their own judgment and, perhaps, believed that it was enough to give - or to have created the impetus to receive.

That is no longer the presumptive case. Now, debates about efficacy, timing, impact, ethics and context are as likely to dominate charitable boards' discussions as the amount to be given.

Just as importantly, there is a debate about the potentially misleading nature of measurement itself. As the scandals of the past decade, from Enron to the financial crisis have demonstrated, 'pay for performance,' 'transparency,' and 'metrics' are not panaceas. They can deceive and delude as easily as they illuminate.

Naive or misplaced belief in the power of numbers may prove as inefficient as simply trusting in the good will of others. At the moment, the measurement-obsessed appear to have the upper hand. Potential recipients increasingly have to demonstrate that the money received is being put to good use, by which they mean that the benefits of its application can be demonstrated. In time a fuller picture will emerge. In the interim it is hoped that the discussion about meaning will prove as fruitful as the numbers themselves. JL

Paul Sullivan reports in the New York Times:

ALL philanthropists want their donations to mean something, be it for a new wing for a hospital or to finance a program aimed at doing social good. Increasingly, though, philanthropists are looking for a way to measure the impact of their dollars.

There is certainly a lot of interest in impact investing — essentially investing money in an organization, either profit-making or nonprofit, with the expectation that it will generate a social benefit and perhaps a financial return. But people who embrace impact investing as the future of serious philanthropy often seem to me like scolds. Shouldn’t people be able to give away their money however they want?

Ferrari and Lamborghini Can't Outrun Economic Reality

It's not like the 1% in Europe or the US or Asia are hurting, exactly. But between the European debt crisis, the US Presidential election and the tense Chinese leadership change, some potential customers of premier auto marques are behaving just a tad cautiously.

The market for so-called ultra-luxury cars remains 25% below its pre-financial crisis peak. Those were the good old days in more ways than one. The crisis and subsequent (never-ending?) recession knocked the ultra market back and gave presumptuous rivals better known for 'affordable luxury' - like BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, Audi and Lexus - a chance to engineer some higher end products. With the newcomers reputation for quality, reliability and ease of maintenance, they are making some inroads in what was previously a very exclusive club.

Part of the reason for their success is geographic: one of the nations suffering most dramatically is Italy, home of both Ferrari and Lamborghini. Bentley and Rolls Royce, two other, ostensibly British, members of the ultra clique, are facing similar disappointments.

The reason for the slowdown in sales in this market segment is not, as we can imagine, because potential purchasers are economizing per se. Many collect these cars the way others collect Old Masters paintings or big houses. Some probably have a taste for all three. But with governments even in places like Russia and China casting a wary eye on egregious displays of wealth and with uncertainty in the global markets raising risk awareness, opting for greater liquidity over hard assets is what passes for prudent behavior these days. JL

Christian Wuestner, Tommaso Ebhardt and Alex Webb report in Bloomberg:

Ferrari, Bentley and Lamborghini are bracing for slower growth as the European debt crisis saps demand even for high-priced toys for the wealthy.