When the Male Market Softens...Hooters Discovers Demographics

51% of the population are women. So are 60% of college students. And you know what is happening in the work force.

So it is no surprise that a bar/restaurant chain catering egregiously to 'dudes' is not enjoying the same financial success it might once have done. With household incomes in decline, there isnt enough money to go around for segmented family entertainment. Family, more than ever, has to be inclusive. Places where women feel uncomfortable, never mind unwelcome, have some 'splainin' to do.

In addition, getting expense account charges approved when the boss is just as likely to be a woman as a man makes submitting bills from the raunchy bar scene a more questionable career-enhancing strategy.

The larger issue is change in the face of demographic and psychographic changes that portend shifts in mores, values and, ultimately, purchase decisions. In the post-industrial economy, people are what they buy. Their choices broadcast more about them they did when price was all that mattered.

Men, perhaps more than women, have had to adjust. It's a process - and it is far from over. But any enterprise that assumes attitudes are static is likely to find itself on the wrong side of history. JL

Duane Stanford and Leslie Patton report in Bloomberg Businessweek:

Four years of revenue declines have forced Hooters to revamp its appeal. Women, even fully dressed ones, are welcome

You Are What You Retweet: Twitter Presents New Targeting Method for Advertisers

You are the key to you. And to others you know.

This is the essence of the new targeting capability Twitter is providing advertisers. Whether by interest or device or a host of other factors, advertisers, whether commercial or political, can target the audience most likely to be susceptible to their message.

The targeting is based on the preferences of the individual user and those in his or her network. Those preferences may also permit the advertiser to know whether Android, iPhone or Blackberry users are more or less likely to vote or buy what's being sold.

No consent is required - yet. Privacy advocates are, once again, raising concerns about the implications for misuse or abuse of the data. But consumers have steadfastly ignored all previous entreaties in this regard. Given the choice between a discounted latte and protecting personal information, that'll be half-caff soy milk, thanks.

Twitter is rather late to this party. Google, Facebook and others have already taken the leap, with mixed results. But it is clear that the trade of information for service is considered a fair one by consumers, so far. And that both the targeting and the sale of that information will only escalate. JL

Steve Friess reports in Politico:

Twitter is finally joining its competitors in making money off of what it knows about its users.

The booming microblog quietly rolled out to advertisers earlier this month a new targeting method, one that helps campaigns and companies reach people based on what users they follow and what they retweet

Rhetoric versus Revolution: Why Tablet Prices Need to Drop Below $100

'The revolution will not be televised.'

That was the name of a 1970 song and poem by Gil Scott-Heron. What he meant was that people could not be passive, sitting and waiting for change to come without their participation.

It is noteworthy in the context of Amazon's announcement of new tablets that directly challenge Apple's iPad - and of the annual circus surrounding the debut of whatever new device Apple is promoting this season. And it goes without saying that there is a small irony in the timing of such new product introductions to coincide - intentionally or not - with fashion week.

The point is that for the next communications revolution to begin, prices are going to have to drop below $100 so that usage becomes truly universal. At those levels, the mobile phone IS the computer in China and many other parts of the world. But for more robust exchanges of information that may actually become knowledge, and even wisdom, broader accessibility will be necessary. And that will only come with broader affordability.JL

Vivek Wadhwa comments in the Washington Post:

The high definition screens, faster processors, and enhanced Wi-Fi capabilities of Amazon’s new Kindle Fire tablets are making big news. The price of these devices is getting even more attention: $199 for the 7-inch and $499 for the top-of-the-line 8.9 inch 4G LTE-enabled models. Amazon will undoubtedly sell millions of these.

But I’m not excited.Here’s why: These tablets won’t catalyze the revolution that is waiting to happen. The magic will happen when the price-per-unit drops below $100 on its way towards $50

Tech Design and Human Behavior: When Did Addiction Become a Good Thing?

Ethics and design.

The issue has been lurking out there for a while but we've ignored it, largely because we're so fascinated by the marriage of technological wizardry with behavioral manipulation. It's astonishing what people can be convinced to do without their realizing it.

But how is this different from what marketers have done for ages? From the earliest dealers in grains and fruits, to rug merchants, encyclopedia sales and TV pitchmen ('call now, operators are standing by...'). And why now?

Well, scale is one reason. The 'net has given us the ability to reach vast new audiences instantaneously. Unlike TV or radio or other media, there is no regulatory oversight governing truthfulness. So, the impact may be greater and the damage, when it occurs, both more widespread and harder to correct.

Secondly, there is that queasy human reaction to being manipulated without realizing it. Tell us partial truths, disguise the downside? Caveat emptor; let the buyer beware. Do your homework, check your sources, take responsibility. That is the mantra of the new age. Corporations have offloaded that burden on the rest of us, claiming somewhat virtuously, that self-governance makes for a stronger economy and probably makes us better people, too.

We could quibble with that, but in the service of greater convenience we have largely capitulated. The problem in technology and internet commerce comes with the absence of transparency. The lack of any explanation, let alone sufficient. Is it legal? Probably. Is it moral? Depends who you ask. Is it a positive development? We'll have to see. But we have some experience with this in the world's housing markets: Ireland, Spain, China, the UK, the US. And it ended up crashing the economy. The questions raised by the article below therefore pose some worthy questions the implications of the answers to which hit us where we live. JL

Jason Dreha comments in GigaOm:

Tech companies have become increasingly adept at manufacturing desire, but to what end? Behavior designer Jason Hreha argues that the industry needs to seriously consider the impact of its products. Are we helping our users lead better lives, or are we making them compulsive, impatient and distractible?

The Social Media Paradox

Social media is such a ripe target.

The breathless hype. The overeager advocates. The self- promotional ethos. And the under-performance personified by the disappointment in Facebook, Groupon, Zynga and a host of other new-age avatars.

The critics are legion and occasionally number this blog among them. But they are characterized by a paradoxical conflict. Which is that their success as critics is dependent upon - and one might fairly claim - created by the very medium they so enthusiastically scourge.

There appear to be elements of discomfort and self-doubt in all this. Taking advantage of something one professes to despise will do that. But there is also some honest reflection on the false claims and misdirection so conspicuously prominent in the medium's essence.

The following essay, by Bob Hoffman, eloquently captures that paradox. He is an veteran advertising guy who has created an online persona called The Ad Contrarian and he has benefited mightily from his critique of social media myopia in his industry. He articulates why it can work for some, but probably wont work for most. And his honesty is as valuable as his clarity. JL

Bob Hoffman comments in his blog, The Ad Contrarian (hat tip Greg Satell):

I was invited to speak at a social media conference. The hen was in the fox house. My presentation was billed as a "fireside chat" between the organizer of the event (a guy I like and respect, Jason Falls) and myself.

The first question Jason asked me went something like this... "You have been critical of the social media marketing world from the get-go, yet you use it… quite well I might say. What's your point of contention and how can you reconcile that with your prolific use of the medium?"

Digitizing Dollars: If You Don't Like This Price, Wait a Minute. Literally.

For all of our highly caffeinated 24-7 affect, when it comes to shopping for many items, we remain in horse-and-buggy mode.

Occasional sales at certain times of the year for specific items. Essential commodities whose price changes barely register.

But technology and the winner-take-all mind set are bringing the casino mentality to the retail environment. Tracking software enables companies to monitor their competitors and adjust accordingly. Those with the ability and the desire to take the lead in this movement - like Amazon - may changes prices on the same item numerous times daily.

If it sounds like the trading floor of an investment firm, that's because it should. The algorithmically-driven pricing gives businesses better control of their sales, market share and margins.

Research suggests that this approach is not yet so casino-like that the house always wins. Consumers and sellers are evenly matched in terms of whether they are buying or selling on an uptick or down - so far. Companies believe they are coming out ahead not because they are taking advantage of their customers (heaven forfend!) but because the ability to better manage inventories and margins enhances cash flow, receivables, payables and a host of other variables that impact the bottom line.

Consumers have become inured to the price fluctuations in airline ticketing and though resentful, have not revolted. We can probably expect the same in retail prices - as long as the buyers continue to perceive that the system gives them a fair chance of benefiting. The exit of retail investors from the capital markets provides a useful primer on what happens when that sense of fairness dissipates. JL

Julia Angwin and Dana Mattioli report in the Wall Street Journal:

The fast-moving Internet pricing games used by airlines and hotels are now moving deeper into the most mundane nooks of the consumer economy.

Deploying a new generation of algorithms, retailers are changing the price of products from toilet paper to bicycles on an hour-by-hour and sometimes minute-by-minute basis.

Chinese Market Success May Prove a Challenge for Apple

Size matters.

And in China, that has two implications. One has to do with market share. The other with screen size. One of which is decreasing and one of which is increasing - and they are most emphatically related.

Questioning Apple's success is generally considered the province of the ill-informed or intellectually challenged. The company simply doesnt lose - at least from the perspective of those whose world view encompasses the past five years and the continental confines of Europe and North America.

But the reality outside that happily affluent slice of demography is somewhat different. Apple's Chinese sales have risen consistently, as the company will be first to tell anyone who will listen.

Which has driven them to an exalted SEVENTH place in the Chinese market for mobile phones.

Yes, you read that right. Seventh. Behind Samsung, Nokia (!), Lenovo and a bunch of other Chinese brands.

Apple advocates anticipate that the iPhone 5 will change all that. Isn't there always a 'this time it's different' chorus? But there may be a structural challenge for Apple on top of the financial challenge. First, the Chinese economy has slowed demonstrably. This is not to say their run at global leadership is over, simply that it is taking a breather, like most economies must do from time to time. But Chinese consumers have less to spend and costs matter to them. Even in the affluent major cities.

A separate but related structural development may cement Samsung's lead. As the following article points out, the mobile phone is now, for all intents and purposes, the computer in China. Which brings us back to size and specifically to screen size. Apple's is among the smallest on the market. And it is also among the most expensive. Which is not a healthy strategic combination. On top of that, Asian support for Asian brands may be a significant force in determining retail success.

Apple has proved itself nimble, intelligent and ruthless when necessary. Adjustments will be made and the race is far from over. But nothing is forever and as in every aspect of life, little things matter. JL

Abe Sauer reports in Brand Channel:

If leading rumors are true and the iPhone 5 increases its screen size from 3.5 to 4 inches, it will still be smaller than Samsung's--as well as smaller than products from LG, HTC and Huawei.

Why does this matter? Because in China, the mobile phone is now the computer.

Why Today's Consumer Cares About Corporate Reputation

It used to be so easy.

Consumers did largely what they were told. Even when there was a choice, it was probably between two competing brands. And the way to get one's message across was similarly focused: one or two or three TV channels, a couple of newspapers, drive-time radio.

But then things got complicated. Better data allowed manufacturers and their marketers to profitably target ever smaller slices of humanity. And communications? Do you have to ask?

But eventually the costs of global competition limited pricing flexibility. Perhaps most significantly - and subversively - in a bid to save money and margins, companies began demanding that consumers do more work: figure out treacherous voicemail customer service trees, bag their own groceries, manage their own accounts online or elsewhere. And business derived some advantage from this originally. People were confused, or short on time or lazy, so they did what came easiest, which generally redounded to companies' benefit. Homo Sapiens, however, did not win the evolutionary battle by being stupid. They figured out how to make this new system work for them, or at least not so well against them.

One of the things they learned was the relationship between the brands they bought and the companies that owned them. And they began to figure out which brand conglomerations represented what they wanted and who they wanted to be. Suddenly, companies found themselves being judged on a whole range of attributes they didnt realize they had to have, let alone master. Ethics, environment, employee treatment. The list is as long as the internet allows it to be.

Consumers are not making these judgments solely on emotional bases. They get that mores and values and ethics impact the quality of the goods and services they purchase, the prices they pay, the speed of the wait times they must endure, the ease of interacting with the company that sold them whatever they bought. In other words, the stuff that matters to them and that will influence their purchase decisions. Because they get that attitudes and behaviors in one realm probably reflect those in many others.

And since corporations have fought for the controversial right to be recognized as 'individuals' under law, consumers want to be treated like individuals by them. Corporations demanded that consumers take more responsibility for themselves. So they have. Even though it's not really clear to anyone what they were getting in return. But people want to know - and everyone is watching. JL

Richard Warnica and Tim Shufelt report in Canadian Business:

The commercial has no products, no voice-over, no sign at all of what’s being sold. Just images of athletes and their mothers. A quick flash of brands follows—Tide, Pampers, Gillette, Duracell—then a slogan: “P&G, proud sponsor of moms.”

Procter & Gamble’s “Thank you, Mom” campaign, rolled out at the London Olympics, is the most ambitious in its history. It’s also part of a growing trend that sees parent companies promoting their overall corporate brands rather than just those of products.

Can Electronics Stores Survive?

Labor Day has evolved over the years from a day of rest to a day of sales. Back to school, end of summer clearance, pre-Christmas.

Humans love to shop and they love gadgets. It is - or was - a match made for marketing. Some of the earliest innovations in consumer hard goods marketing came out of this industry. EJ Korvette, Kresge and Sears. Then came the major discounters like Crazy Eddie. His prices were insane, as the ads screamed, but so was the business. And it soon demonstrated just how much, by going bankrupt.

The ease of ecommerce - comparing, buying, returning when dissatisfied - has taken the rest of the pizzazz out of going to the store. So the retail industry - with its penchant for strip malls as well as the jobs and state and local tax payments that go with them - is powering down.

The initial counter-strategy was large screen TVs. Too bad virtually everyone had the same idea, prices plummeted, margins evaporated and everyone who wanted one, got one. Plan B? Mobile phones. And, what a surprise, everyone glommed on to that notion as well. Mere humans generally need only one, prices are consistent with a band of options, packages likewise and so much for that.

There may, eventually, be a market for used devices but Amazon is already on top of that one. GameStop grabbed first mover advantage with its iPhone resale concept, but the same dynamics apply: how many of the things do we really need, or where need is not part of the equation, want?

We suspect humans will always want to shop with other humans around. The concept of the market is as ancient as civilization. Surveys continue to report that shopping is the most popular form of entertainment in many societies. But the evolution must continue. Costs must come down. Real estate prices and taxes must moderate. Reliance on the auto must be supplemented. We love to look - but we also love convenience. There's a market opportunity in there for someone. JL

Ann Zimmerman reports in the Wall Street Journal:

Is there a future for electronics specialty stores? Not long ago, retailers such as Best Buy Co., GameStop Corp. and RadioShack Corp. were outmuscling competitors across America by offering one-stop shopping for the latest televisions, computers, videogames and gadgets.

Now all three are fighting to survive. The rise of online competitors like Amazon.com Inc. that offer low prices and downloadable products have siphoned customers and sales from these once-powerful retailers

Content Is No Longer King? The Rise of Visual Social Media

Content was supposed to be king.

But then a funny thing happened on the way to our love affair with literacy. Or, more accurately, our fling.

Actually, two funny things happened: Steve Jobs reminded us that design and visual presentation can sell; while mobile phones changed the way we look at the world.

Smaller screens, on which we have begun to view everything, made it harder to read both the fine print as well as the large. How things looked, how they grabbed our attention and communicated their essential being, became more important than what was said about them. And in our ADHD world, Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest and even Instagram reminded us that the unique essence of any message could be condensed with a bit of effort, a camera and a smattering of creativity.

Will it last? Whatever does? It's here now and businesses have to respond. Marketing and communications companies - and their clients - have begun to register that simply making an add small enough to fit on the screen of an Android or iPhone does not make it effectively mobile. In fact, it may be the opposite of what is required.

Fortunately, we homo sapiens have gotten pretty good over the centuries at figuring out how to communicate representative messages using illustrations rather than vocabulary. The combination works even better, if that can be managed, but we've had a lot of practice what with war, religion, family, emotion, work and entertainment to stimulate demand. Iconography R Us.

Businesses that adapt will probably flourish. Those that remain wedded to the beauty of their own verbosity may be in for an unpleasant surprise. JL

Ekaterina Walter reports in Fast Company:

Social media sites like Facebook, Instagram, and Pinterest have ushered in visual marketing as the breakout trend for 2012. When it comes to their products, businesses are learning to show, not tell, and visual content sites are fueling our desire for beautiful photography and sensational design.

Two years ago, marketers were spreading the maxim that "content is king," but now, it seems, "a picture really is worth a thousand words."

The Untouchable Economy: Why Are Gen Y - and American Business - Turning Against Stuff?

Once upon a time, like about four years ago, real men and women didnt deign to think about intangibles.

They were considered 'soft.' And Serious People only thought about what was 'hard.' Things you could count. That you could find on a balance sheet or income statement. Especially if they had been audited by a reputable firm. Because, it was believed, Serious People making Serious Money couldnt afford to spare the time to worry about mere concepts.

But yeah, that was before hard assets like real estate lost 70% of their value. And before it was learned that banks, those avatars of Seriousness, had leveraged their hard asset balance sheets up to 40 times their value. Which turned out not to be quite so hard once all their creditors started making not-so-polite inquiries about who owed what to whom - and who was actually good for it.

So we can forgive the Gen Yers - and most business people - for beginning to realize that in this economy, value and impact are where you find them. Not where some accountant whose fee depends on corporate largesse says it is. Sensibly, they are beginning to assess the value in entrepreneurial enterprise over a traditional job with benefits (assuming one can be found).

And the trend extends to other facets of the economy like housing and automobiles. Rent rather than buy. Lease rather than own. Because if businesses are sitting on the economic sidelines with billions they are unwilling to invest, why should mere mortals do any different?

The reality is that risk has never been higher, at least in the lifetimes of most people now living. But neither has opportunity been more manifest. Societal disapproval has been swept away by the tidal wave of failure associated with the financialized economy. You can try anything. And companies with silly names like Yelp or Zynga or Google can make people rich.

So give it a go, all you Softies. The hard dudes got nothing on you. JL

Michael Mandel reports in The Atlantic:

Young people are thinking entrepreneurially, viewing themselves as microbusinesses operating in a highly uncertain economic environment

Millennials are shifting from tangibles (cars and homes) to intangibles (education and access to data), but they are not alone. In today's data-driven economy, the business sector is moving along the same tangible-to-intangible path as the Millennials, perhaps at an even faster pace

The Impact of Technology on Advertising? Look at Financial Markets

Data.

One word is all we need. Sort of like that scene in 'The Graduate' when the recent graduate's uncle tells him, "I have one word for you young man."

Only this time that word is not 'plastics.'

A lot of people went into advertising and public relations and marketing and a bunch of other communications-related fields because they hated high school math. And managed to avoid it in college. So when they got out they looked for a job that involved personality. Writing skills. Public speaking ability.

And that was not a bad call. Then.

And the thing is, finance used to be the same way. Providing your clients with 7% annual returns had pretty much been the norm for almost a century (except for that nasty patch in the 1930s). Commissions were fixed by law. Investments were sold over lunch. And golf. Or on the tennis court. Or even at poolside. No heavy lifting. Numbers? There were guys in a back office somewhere who could provide numbers if you were going to be anal retentive about it.

Until the end of the US's golden post-WWII reign ended in the late 1970s. And business became globally competitive. Suddenly, you really had to know stuff. Numbers were everywhere. And people really had to know what they meant, because that could be the difference between contentment and unbe-freaking-lievable wealth.

Technology just turbo-charged the process. By making the identification, manipulation, reorganization and investment of data more effective and efficient. It has also created new markets for new products and new services. And it has tied the whole together in a truly global web.

It hasnt stopped and it never will. Managers and clients will always want to know more because it will give them more power to sell more ideas and products and services to more people in more places. And no matter what business you are in, that is very much the point. JL

Andrew Nibley comments in Advertising Age:

If you want to see the future of the ad-tech industry, look to the history of the financial- services industry.

Amazon's Next Disruptive Competition: Cloud-Based Web Services

Publishing's eviscerated. Retailing's devastated.

Lots of smug tech analysts are chuckling and saying 'we told you so.' Disintermediation. The web changes everything. Traditional markets and the companies that depend on them are history. We're smarter than you are - and we're richer, too.

Our advice to the brogramming brotherhood and their cheerleaders:look over your shoulder. Amazon's now coming for you.

On the way to dominating those markets, the company had to use a lot of data storage and computer server space. So it figured out how to reduce its own costs. And in the process a business was born. If was doing it for itself, why not sell that expertise - and those services to others? Defray costs, maybe make a few bucks. Only it turned out to be a bigger idea than that. Way bigger.

In the same way that Amazon reduced the expense and increased the convenience of shopping - and even reading - it has now fixed its sights on web services. Which puts it into direct competition with Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, Google and a host of other companies whose business acumen has generally been validated over the years. About which it has no fear. With good reason.

Because it has redefined markets before by lowering costs and raising convenience. So the betting is, based on its record, it will do so again. JL

Quentin Hardy reports in the New York Times:

Within a few years, Amazon.com’s creative destruction of both traditional book publishing and retailing may be footnotes to the company’s larger and more secretive goal: giving anyone on the planet access to an almost unimaginable amount of computing power.

Waste Not, Want Not: Why Targeted Internet Ads Aren't Working Like They're Supposed To

Knowing just enough to be dangerous.

How many times does the average person hear that about someone who is supposed to be an expert? Or receives it as a kind of false self-deprecation from a colleague trying to play down how much he or she believes they really do know?

We can not help with office anthropology, but that criticism may capture the problem with the current generation of targeted internet ads. Sharing propositions allegedly designed for you but containing a fatal marketing flaw has become a source of cult humor. Yes, I live in an affluent zip code. But no, I am not personally wealthy enough to be in the market for a butler. Or a chilled wine cooler. Or a BMW that costs more than my rent.

The problem seems to be just enough information to appear interesting but not quite enough to ensure accuracy. There is a debate about whether there is enough information available yet or whether marketers are just too lazy and/or cheap to really dig into it.

Defenders of the first proposition (mostly marketers) - insist that there is not yet enough information - claim that privacy rules and public sensitivities prevent them - as yet - from developing the sort of precise targeting that would accomplish the goal. Supporters of the second proposition (mostly tech and data geeks)are certain its just that the first crew either doesnt know how or doesnt want to be bothered spending the time and money to get the results they want.

We throw our lot in with the latter group. The public has proven time and again that matters of privacy and sensitivity are somewhat interesting to talk about if you have nothing else to do, but utterly irrelevant if they can scarf up a 10% discount at their favorite merchant in return for a few pieces of 'harmless' information. In other words, the data are there. And more is coming. Government regulators are supine in the current political environment and consumers just do not care enough, despite the efforts of civil libertarians to warn them of the dangers.

The issue may be that we have not yet developed sophisticated enough methods, especially given the budget constraints in a recessionary economy in which senior executives are demanding certainty before releasing funds. So marketers do the best they can with what they have, meaning the results are disappointing - and the 'production quality' is too often somewhere between cheesy and embarrassing. The executives may well be short-sighted and the marketers may be struggling to put it all together, but the future is clear. Targeting will work eventually. And we may all be shocked by what appears to be how much the 'they' know about us.

We may forget that we have provided them with all the information they need. But if past is prologue, our complaints will be about the size of the inducements, not the data that got them to us. JL

Farhad Manjoo comments in Slate:

Targeted Web ads are too dumb to be useful and just smart enough to make you queasy.

Why We Choose the Brands We Do

The first indication we were in a post-industrial society came when it was apparent that price was not necessarily the most important factor in a customer purchase decision. Our Maslowe-vian needs had been addressed. Other forces compelled us to act.

We may now be entering a second phase: where the product and its features dont even matter.

It seems like the science of analyzing why we buy has been around forever.

Package design, store layout, catalogue product placement, the demo and psycho graphics of just about everything. Been there, done that.

But we can not leave well enough alone. The Holy Grail of Marketing remains being able to predict the purchase decisions of a single consumer based on their history. Researchers have come tantalizingly close, but the ultimate prize remains elusive.

The latest iteration employs scientific research-based principles involving eye movement and a host of other involuntary reflexes. While earlier efforts may have been aware of such impulses they were not always able to capture them. Now they are.

There are, of course, concerns about what might happen if this data falls into the wrong, unscrupulous hands. It goes almost without saying that they may already have. But given society's penchant for convenience, the evidence suggests that we are, so far, comfortable with the trade-off. And probably will continue to be. JL

Christie Nicholson reports in Scientific American:

A recent study finds that we might often choose brands and products for reasons that have nothing to do with the actual brand or product.

Quantifying You: The Business Proposition

Analyze this, indeed.

CEOs have been paying lip service to the value of their employees for a couple of decades now. That is, ever since it became fashionable during the run-up to the dotcom bubble. Lots of variable costs like people were assigned value in those heady days. With the valuations going the way they were, who cared about impacts the size of minor rounding errors?

But no one took the rhetoric too seriously, especially the executives themselves. It was a throw-away line that curried some favor with the troops but no one really expected the bosses to be held to it. And as the cataclysmic lay-offs of the post-financial era have demonstrated, they werent.

It would be easy to point all the fingers at the nasty guys and gals in the corner offices - and they deserve plenty of blame for heedlessly destroying value - but there was another issue: no one had successfully quantified the intangible inputs and outcomes statistically linked to the notion that people contribute to organizations in ways that can be identified, measured and managed.

Yes, that was a problem. We could talk around and about it. We could allege and declaim and assert and even correlate. But establishing causality was not often achieved. And many doubted it was achievable.

Which is why the latest developments in personnel management are such a welcome relief. Because all those ephemeral attributes that we know, can see and can feel make a difference between a highly functioning organization and a less successful one can no be isolated and connected to outcomes that matter. To the managers, investors and colleagues of those in question.

So the C-suite dudes no longer have an excuse when they are asked to assess the value of their staff - and what the impacts of layoffs - or, perish the thought, hiring might be. And neither do the rest of us. JL

Ciara Byrne reports in Venture Beat:

Talent Analytics measures people, weighing their preferences and motivations and how those characteristics predict job performance. ”Our niche is companies who have employees,” jokes founder Greta Roberts.

The company surveys employees and summarizes them in 12 numbers that cover work style (“What kind of tasks do you prefer? Are you detailed-oriented? Collaborative?) and motivators like creativity, bottom-line, or a sense of mission.

There Goes the Neighborhood: Artists, Organic Groceries and Real Estate Values

Life follows art. Literally.

As earnest politicians call for cuts in anything that does not have science, technology, engineering and math as its purpose, actual people around the world are following artists into derelict industrial neighborhoods once thought notable only for their aged brick and copper wiring.

Whether in London, Rio, New York, Paris, Shanghai or dozens of other cities around the world, the arrival of artists, organic grocery stores and chic cafes signals the start of urban revival. In fact, we may have become too clever by half in anticipating these movements. As in so many other facets of life, computer algorithms assist businesses in identifying the potential elements essential to reclamation and naming them before the first coffee shop even hoists its marquee.

The public policy implication is that people may work on serious math-based tasks to pay the bills, but universal education, communication and travel have enhanced appreciation of a more diverse lifestyle. Auto registrations are down from Beijing to Brooklyn. Big companies are moving back downtown from their leafy enclaves in the suburbs because that is where the talent they seek wants to live. Urbanization is the mega-trend on which every demographer and economist agrees.

But one has to enjoy the irony that this massive readjustment is being led by people whose value to society is dismissed by those who ostensibly are elected to lead us into the future. JL

Will Doig reports in Salon:

Trendy enclaves get discovered right away. Artists leave, Starbucks arrives!

Are You Worth More Dead Than Alive?

Wouldnt it be lovely if this were a theoretical question?

For increasing numbers of people, it represents a hard-nosed series of calculations about risk, chance and economics.

As the financial crisis, jobs crisis and recession continue to take their toll on formerly middle and working class families, the unpleasant reality of sickness, health and survival mandate that value - and values - relative to their longevity and what may be left over for their survivors becomes a much more urgent conversation.

The immediate issue is life insurance. And whether you are sufficiently ill or old or both to optimize the chances of cashing in so that you and yours can figure out how to capture and optimal slice of the proceeds.

This is not a game, though one might argue that game theory may be relevant. Lots of data are required and lots of assumptions must be tested. But technology and science have now given business the tools to better predict one's chances as well as to assign a value to them.

The life insurance industry has always done this, of course. That is how they make their living. It's just that the erosion of other form's of income now make the analysis and its outcome more important to more people. It is unfortunate that it has come to this, though others might argue that it is fortunate at least one alternative exists. That said, if the cost gets too high, this benefit, like so many others, will be withdrawn in the name of yet more efficiencies whose ultimate beneficiary will be anyone but the people for whom they were originally designed, back when human life had more value for society than it appears to do today. JL

James Vlahos reports in the New York Times:

Selling your life and selling a house have more in common than you’d think. The seller puts a listing on the market. Prospective buyers do research and get inspections; there are offers and counteroffers until the seller accepts a bid. The seller doesn’t literally peddle his own life, of course, but his life-insurance policy.

The distinction is in many ways moot, however, as the sales value is inextricably linked to a cold-eyed estimation of how much longer the seller has to live.

Location, Location, Location: Big Box Retailers Lost in Suburbia

'If you build it, they will come.'

That was the mega-trend think that drove big box retailers, the massive one-theme stores which dominate the commercial landscape, to follow the real estate industry into the 'burbs.

They passed go and kept going into the exurbs, thinking, as one of the most famous movie lines of all time had it, that if they built it, customers would come.

Land was there for the taking. Mortgages were cheap. Homes were America's magic money machine. Buy a stake with OPM (Other People's Money) and sell to the next family in line when you're ready to move on. No muss, no fuss. And nothing but upside. And, of course, all those home buyers were going to need garden tools, bed linens, large screen TVs, cocktail glasses, storage cabinets, guacamole and chips. So the companies that supply all that stuff could just follow the discarded cash register receipts to glory.

And then that huge bummer called 'the downside,' which everyone had heard about but no one believed existed, actually poked its head out of the dumpster. The financial markets crashed, jobs evaporated, savings disappeared and the housing market melted like an ice cube on a hot day. Suddenly, no one needed all that cool stuff. At least compared to food and clothes and gas and health care. Even in a values-laden post-industrial economy, money started to matter. Cities are looking better to people who have to be concerned about the price of cars, insurance and gas. On top of the prices for mortgage payments, air conditioning, heating oil and property taxes.

So now, in addition to empty houses with unaffordable mortgages, we have empty stores with unaffordable leases.

The US is a consumer driven economy. That but presumes the consumer has a job and some income to spend. The growth strategy the retailers pursued was a natural extension of that first initiated by the construction of the first shopping mall outside Minneapolis in the 1950s. It has never stopped. And the stores that both drove and pursued it had no reason to look back. But strategies based on the assumption that the consumer would always bounce back to buy have left their parent companies with too many locations in too many ghost towns. On top of the drain that ecommerce represents. 'Lookin' for love in all the wrong places,' as the 1970s tune had it.

The real mega-trend is urbanization and an aging population. The retailers are going to have to figure out how to write off those under-utilized locations and remember that customers have to be followed. They can't always be led. JL

Justin Lahart reports in the Wall Street Journal:

Best Buy and Lowe's don't seem all that similar. But they have a common problem: location, location, location.

Should Nike Cancel Release of Its $315 Sneaker?

Rights versus responsibilities. Free markets versus regulation. Ethics versus economics.

And the subject is: health care? oil drilling? income inequality? Or sneakers?

Yeah, sneakers.

Or, to be more precise, basketball shoes.

There has been concern for some time that the marketing by Nike, Addidas, Reebok and the other major athletic apparel firms - but especially Nike - of ever more expensive sneakers was exploitative and ethically questionable. The people to whom they are marketed, young men and women, age 12-24, put pressure on their parents to purchase slickly advertised vanity products that their families can ill afford. Especially as recent reports note middle class incomes have dropped precipitously and the numbers of families considered middle class has shrunk by over 10%.

Nike answers virtuously - and a tad defensively - that no one HAS to purchase the shoes, that less expensive versions are available (in what sizes, quantities and locations it does not specify)and that, well, it's a free country, a man's got a right to buy what he wants, etc.

But the debate is intensifying. Fights have broken out at stores because one of the company's marketing ploys is to create an aura of exclusivity around the product by limiting the number available for sale. And the argument about pricing wont go away. It's one thing to fight about the cost of life-saving pharmaceuticals, but play shoes?

The argument touches a nerve in our civilization because people are torn about the trade-off between opportunities and obligations. Questions about the individual's expectations from society versus his or her responsibility to contribute to it. And what of the role of business? Nike argues it is simply addressing market demand. Others claim companies have a broader role than they may be willing to acknowledge.

The sense here is that you can not legislate common sense. But spurring people's worst instincts may not be a wise long term strategy either. JL

Emily Chertoff reports in The Atlantic:

Nike touches a nerve in the debate over race and marketing with $315 shoes -- and black leaders may finally be saying 'enough.'