What Does Healthier Mean?

Words matter.

Organic food is the fastest growing segment of the food market.

The reasons are varied but are essentially based on the belief that organic foods are healthier because they are exposed to and contain fewer chemicals harmful to humans. The world has many developed, affluent societies with aging populations for whom longevity has become a prominent issue. In developing countries, especially China, food safety is quite literally a matter of life and death. Organics appeal to both sets of concerns.

So when researchers at Stanford University issued a study suggesting the additional health value derived from organics was illusory and quite possibly contrived, it caused quite a stir.

A few years ago, organic advocates would probably have been devastated by the criticism from one of the world's most prestigious universities. Not any more.

Critics of the study challenged the researchers' methodology while other commentators, such as the one below, raised pertinent questions about the vocabulary employed to communicate what may well have been a bias or predisposition inherent in the study.

Either way, notice has been served. Prominent academics and 'experts' no longer get a free pass when it comes to matters of popular concern. The internet has democratized knowledge and communications. And we are all healthier for that. JL

Curtis Brainard comments in the Columbia Journalism Review:

“Healthier” is a word the media often use without enough care, and that shortcoming was on full display during last week’s coverage of a study examining the nutritional value and presence of contaminants in organic versus conventional foods.

Deceptive Delight: Secrets of the Fast Food Industry's Dollar Menus

How do they do it?

How can they possibly sell food for less than it would cost you to make it at home - and maybe even buy the raw materials at the grocery store?

It is not, as surprised as you may be to hear it, out of the goodness of their hearts.

The dollar menus are not loss leaders in the classic sense, although they work in a similar fashion to increase volume by enticing more customers to buy. According to the industry, they do not lose money, though they barely make a profit. And as many consumers have noticed, the size of the offerings has diminished as the price of meat, vegetables and the energy cost of transportation has risen.

The real secret to the dollar menu's power is that very few people ever buy just the dollar menu items. And that is where the profit lies. The drinks (super-size me!), sides and desserts that people purchase to accompany the basic dollar menu are the highest margin items. Drinks are especially big money makers since the volume of ice and water in the biggest sizes disguises the fact that in terms of ingredients they are almost indistinguishable from the smaller ones.

So, the combination of increased traffic and additional purchases makes the dollar menu a profitable strategy option for an industry whose customers have seen their incomes shrink in real terms over the past generation.

This is a relatively benign form of advantage-taking, especially when compared with the truly predatory mortgage lending practices of the past decade. People can buy just the dollar menu if they want to, whereas in the financial services case, they were required to agree to conditions that were patently misleading.

Americans have become more cost-conscious as real estate prices, jobs and wages have declined. Household debt is being paid down and depressed retail sales suggest that an economy built on credit is readjusting to reality. What the dollar menu example does illustrate is that people have to be discerning stewards of their own resources, however small the costs involved, particularly in times of constraint. JL

Candice Choi reports in the Huffington Post:

That cheeseburger on the value menu may end up costing more than you think.

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

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.

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."

60% of US Workers Are Unhappy in Their Jobs

Be happy in your work.

That was the ironic advice given by the Japanese prison commander to the inmates of his slave labor camp who were beaten, starved and dying like flies in the Academy Award winning film "Bridge Over the River Kwai."

Not that your average cubicle patch is comparable to a slave labor camp. But surveys report that employees are mighty unhappy. A majority would rather be doing something else someplace else.

Employee satisfaction and commitment ratings have not returned to even their relatively anemic pre-financial crisis levels. The issue is, primarily, money. They are underpaid for what they do, at least by historical standards. And they are not mollified by claims of global competition as the reason for their new compensation standards because they see executives' salaries increasing exponentially relative to their own.

They understand that under current circumstances they have little bargaining power and even fewer options if they leave or are shoved out. Younger colleagues - the Gen Xers and Yers can afford to treat the situation like a great adventure. But those with homes, mortgages, car payments, school bills and the like, all of which they assumed based on their belief that the system was stable do not have that flexibility.

Furthermore, three decades of stagnant to declining wages have led to depleted savings and reduced circumstances. This could be chalked up to the typical grousing of people trapped in an economic down cycle. But the problem is systemic and structural.

The implications for business are worrisome. Unhappy employees are unenthusiastic and frequently disloyal employees. They will jump if they can. And the cost of replacing even lower level workers has been repeatedly quantified to demonstrate that losing an employee is as expensive as losing a customer. Unhappy employees tend to create unhappy customers. And unhappy customers are prone to share their dissatisfaction far more than happy ones. The result is that in an economy where personal recommendations or criticisms are crucial to sales, the impact can be devastating.

Managers ignore such warning signs at their peril. JL

The Huffington Post reports:

We can’t get no satisfaction.

Nearly 60 percent of American workers say they would choose a different career,

Is Marketing Dead?

Home phones. Mail. Television. Billboards. Flyers. Uh, computers.

The eternal verities. Except when they no longer were.

But even those old school methods may be beside the point. Even if you are online, connected, networked, channelled, mobile, global, 24-7-365, it is conceivable, even likely that no one is paying attention.

And not necessarily because no one cares. We are just not very good right now at figuring out how to get the message across in a compelling manner that consumers can actually do something about.

We get that mobile matters, but we have been slow to accept that shrinking the size of an ad may not be all that it takes to make it effective. We understand that everyone is online all the time and in constant communication with friends and family. We have even funded their ability to live that way. We just havent cracked the code of selling through personal networks.

We are also having trouble admitting that we honestly are not sure how this whole new technologically driven monster really works. We can push buttons here and occasionally see responses there, but the trees are definitely still dwarfing our view of the forest.

And as business people, managers, executives, frontline spear carriers in the war to make the world safe for even more consumerism, we are still having trouble accepting that supporting policies enriching a minority of senior people may be impoverishing the great mass who fork over the cash to keep the machine running.

We are in a time of transition. We have been running so hard that we havent had, nay havent MADE time to let it sink in. So everyone is frustrated. Everyone: sellers, buyers, managers, investors. Because we can count the inputs but we are not yet seeing the outcomes that justify them.

The issue may be that our ability to analyze has outpaced our capacity to interpret what we are seeing. It will come. But possibly not at the speed - and with the clarity - that we think we need. JL

Bill Lee comments in Harvard Business Review:

Traditional marketing — including advertising, public relations, branding and corporate communications — is dead. Many people in traditional marketing roles and organizations may not realize they're operating within a dead paradigm. But they are. The evidence is clear.

Microsoft Gets First New Corporate Logo in 25 Years

You have to chuckle.

The symbolic importance of a logo is often more significant than the design itself. Companies frequently use the design to communicate how they are becoming younger, nimbler, more focused on the future than ever. Typeface, color, graphics and styling can convey momentum, vigor, stability, strength - or whatever other attribute marketing strategists believe is essential to renew commitment with established customers while enticing new ones to join the fold.

In the case of Microsoft, we have a once dynamic brand that personified competitive dominance. Which has lately been overshadowed by newer avatars of technological prowess. This would have seemed to have been a great opportunity to remind the world of its historic successes while drawing attention to the brilliance of its newer initiatives.

And, despite its proud history, smart people and notable successes, Microsoft has come in for its share of ribbing, mostly from arch-rival Apple. Their founders, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, are likely to be remembered as the two most memorable and brilliant leaders of the computer/internet era. Their human personality traits, steady for Gates, versus mercurial for Jobs, seemed to capture, however fairly or not, the style of their businesses. And Apple took advantage of that in a series of wickedly pointed ads in which 'PC' came to personify the alleged stodginess of the Microsoft product and service.

So why, one must ask, did Microsoft, with billions in cash on hand and access to the best designers in the world, double down on that salubrious, disrespectful memory by embracing a new logo that, as its signature feature, is square and gray?

Calling Dr. Freud... JL

Tom Cheredar reports in Venture Beat:

Iconic technology giant Microsoft is rolling out a new corporate logo to go along with the company’s line of recently released or forthcoming major product updates — the first time its done so in 25 years.

Is Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg In Over His Hoodie?

It all seems a bit premature. And we mean all of it.

As Facebook's stock craters, hitting lows of approximately half its IPO value, the inevitable questions are being raised about the CEO's fitness to lead. This is the tech industry in America, people. Patience is not our forte. And we dont suffer disappointment quietly.

But the real problem lies with those who drank so deeply of the Facebook Kool-Aide in the first place. Yes, other Harvard drop-outs had gone on to astonishing business success - you do remember Bill Gates was a ruthless businessman who regularly screwed customers and competitors before he was global philanthropist, right? - but that does not mean every smart guy with an attitude is going to make it. Just look around you.

No, the issue was that the financial and commercial sectors were so desperate for a win that they suspended disbelief when it came to social media generally and FB particularly. The financial/real estate crisis had shaken the very foundations of American Exceptionalism (ya mean there really is a downside...?). The 'This Time It's Different' Choir was in full voice. Another easy victory over reality was at hand. We love those money-grows-on-trees stories because they confirm our hope that not-such-hard-work can still pay off.

But the questions about Zuck and his merry pranksters were always there. Facebook was the new China: a gazillion citizens or friends has to mean there's a buck in there for me somewhere...Except that sometimes it's a teensy bit harder to find than the superficial view would suggest. That monetization thing - you know, figuring out how to actually derive a profit from the enterprise - can be kind of tricky.

And let us also remember that Bill and Steve and Larry and Sergey and all the other boy wonders were quickly surrounded by Adult Supervision. Gates' dad brought in the accountants, lawyers and other suits early to help backstop Bill's techie intuition. But he learned fast. Steve Jobs was surrounded by VCs from the get-go. The board room coup that brought in John Sculley was evidence that older is not always wiser, but it also showed that there were adults in charge, for good or ill. At Google, Eric Schmidt came in explicitly to provide the management chops before all that value disappeared under scooters and Segways.

At FB, Sheryl Sandberg is the designated Manager, but she is of the same generation as the founders, and is more of an Ivy League public policy/finance/consulting type than a tech/business heavy - and no one thinks Zuck defers to her.

So, where does that leave us? Schadenfreude is rampant. The negative portrayal in a hit movie didnt help, nor does all the phony hacker referencing - the hoodie thing is getting WAY old. But Zuck probably deserves a little time. He IS a smart guy. And we know he's ruthless. He does need a few more Serious Business Dudes and a few (actually, a lot fewer) yes-men and cheerleaders (Nasdaq's CEO among them). He is not Steve Jobs, but neither does he appear to be Yahoo's Jerry Yang. The guess here is that he will survive. JL

Walter Hamilton and Jessica Guynn report in the Los Angeles Times:

The deepening slide in Facebook Inc.'s stock is fueling talk once considered implausible on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley.

Should Mark Zuckerberg, the social media visionary but neophyte corporate manager, step aside as CEO to let a more seasoned executive run the multibillion-dollar company?

Online Advertising...Matures?

They're figuring it out.

Not, as you might have expected, the question of how effective online advertising is, or might be (the industry has a ways to go on that one yet). But they are homing in on what might constitute an accurate measure of whether someone has actually viewed an online ad for a sufficient period of time to be influenced by it - at least theoretically.

This is progress, people. It may not be the invention of the light bulb or the cure for cancer, but given the amount of time consumers are spending on the web, figuring out what they are actually seeing is no small feat.

It has taken a while. The dotcom bust is already celebrating its tenth reunion. But before you critics become too scornful, remember that there have been some pretty significant evolutions along the way: desktop to laptop, social and mobile. The world has not stood still.

The issue is complicated by the fact that our understanding of what constitutes impact has become more sophisticated. This is not 1962. There is more than one medium, it is in as many colors as you want, and there are far more than three channels. That said, part of the problem is the one that has plagued business measurement since medieval Italian monks began trying to count stuff in an organized way: managers want measures that make them and their products and their bosses and their clients and their investors to look good. So they will fight for the metrics that do that and fight against those that do not. Needless to say, what side of the transaction you are on may influence which metrics you support - or not.

So the problem is not just mathematical or statistical or scientific. It is personal and political. Which is another way of saying to those seeking a solution, dont hold your breath. JL

Ashlee Vance reports in Bloomberg Business Week:

The online advertising industry—with all its data on who people are and what they like to buy—is a sophisticated animal … sometimes. At other times, it looks an awful lot like a gangly adolescent trying to figure out its place in the world.

Made for Mobile? Big Tech Forced to Answer the Phone

Mobile was a second class citizen. An afterthought. Something you used when you were away from your 'real' internet access.

Until it wasn't.

Which happened much faster and on a far greater scale than all the gurus and futurists and market analysts and strategic planners had predicted.

What they missed, surprisingly, was the devastating one-two punch of price and convenience. The combination suddenly made the world accessible to those with uncertain electric power and even less certain incomes. A small screen and awkwardly teensy keyboard were a small price to pay for the value received.

Everyone gets it now. Mobile is It. The next big thing. But what 'everyone' is finding - everyone from manufacturers to service providers to retailers (and all those in between) is that mobile is not just your PC with a smaller image. The entire relationship changes. The way it is used - optimally for the consumer - has to be rethought if those attempting to entice and sell expect to succeed. Which requires further investment and intellectual capital. Another outlay not anticipated.

The result, as in so many other tech transitions is that the previous eras dominatrixes, who bestrode the earth like colossi, are suddenly in a death match with start-ups - and with each other.

Who will emerge on the top of this heap remains to be seen. Google has surprised Apple with Android, for instance, but unknowns are crowding in to the market place. What can probably be predicted with some assurance is that the winners will be focused like a laser on price and convenience. JL

Tim Bradshaw and Richard Waters report in the Financial Times:

This year has seen a momentous change in the shape of the global internet. More people now access the web on mobile phones than PCs in China, home to the world’s largest population of internet users. North America and Europe are not far behind in making that digital switchover, as are fast-growing internet markets such as Turkey and Indonesia.

This presents a big challenge to today’s internet leaders – Google and Facebook, as well as Yahoo and Microsoft – that emerged when most of their customers typically used the web while sitting in front of a large, static screen.

Authenticity: The Market versus The Law

Art is where this story begins. But it is starting point for a bigger debate about expertise - and trust.

As in so many aspects of society today, people and institutions turn to the courts and the legal system to resolve disputes that might once have been decided by reasoned discussion.

Perhaps the financial stakes have become too high. Or perhaps we have lost patience with the seemingly interminable wrangling of the litigation process. Or maybe we just no longer trust anyone else sufficiently to render fair judgment. Not that public opinion polls about the judicial system are all that edifying.

But the issue has to do with values more than value. There was a time not so long ago when a person's or institution's reputation was like gold. An asset to be protected and cherished. It was the bedrock upon which commercial transactions between those who might never meet and whose correspondence was based on the often uncertain pillars of time and faith relied. Global commerce was dependent on trust. What courts there were could not be reliably render verdicts fairly, if at all.

Today's challenge is different. Communications are instantaneous - and sometimes, thanks to the algorithmic power available - anticipatory. But rather than cementing bonds of trust, this appears to have hastened the decline in 'sense and sensibility.' Once, a reputation besmirched meant a business destroyed. Today, we inhabit a world of endless rebranding and redemption.

We rely on judges and juries, whose knowledge - let alone wisdom - is no better than our own because we have come to see experts and expertise as suspicious. Anyone with resources can buy a favorable opinion. The weight of all that education and verbiage cancels each other out.

So whether it is the value of a painting, a house or a business, we defer to others. Perhaps not trusting our own beliefs as much as the verdict itself. JL

Patricia Cohen reports in the New York Times:

Federal District Court Judge Paul G. Gardephe’s résumé includes many impressive accomplishments but not an art history degree. Nonetheless he has been asked to answer a question on which even pre-eminent art experts cannot agree: Are three reputed masterworks of Modernism genuine or fake.

Judge Gardephe’s situation is not unique. Although there are no statistics on whether such cases are increasing, lawyers agree that as art prices rise, so does the temptation to turn to the courts to settle disputes over authenticity.

Not on Facebook? Employers and Psychologists Fear You May Be a Psychopath

Employers and psychologists are advising that Facebook is so pervasive a force in contemporary society that not having an account on the social network may be a sign of such significant personal dysfunction that it renders non-members unemployable, un-datable and potentially psychopathic.

Talk about competitive advantage!

This may actually reverse Facebook's stock price decline. Forcing members to have email accounts with telling them or sharing personal data with advertisers without permission were forceful statements of strategic business intent (if somewhat ham-handed public relations moves and, for the nit-picky, possibly illegal). But having your service become a certified proxy for sanity or normality? Priceless.

Of course, there will be naysayers who point out that giving a commercial enterprise that much control over citizens' rights and liberties probably violates a host of constitutional principles - to say nothing of myriad laws - but sheesh, some people will complain about anything, won't they?

Seriously, this does raise some fascinating questions about the role of democracy and the rule of law. If societal majorities choose to waive their rights and obligations for greater convenience, what grounds of challenge exist? Employers will easily claim that other factors led to their decision to reject an applicant or terminate a staff member.

Others will point out that society has a right to protect itself. However, the fact that several recent mass-murderers did not have Facebook accounts may be indicative of a deeper psychosis, but there is not yet any scientific evidence to support that conclusion.

The implication is that society may be, once again, surrendering rights it takes for granted - and obligations to be fair and just that it finds inconvenient - in order to get on with life as comfortably as possible. As the saying goes, 'you dont know what you've lost till its gone.' JL

The Daily Mail reports:

Facebook has become such a pervasive force in modern society that increasing numbers of employers, and even some psychologists, believe people who aren't on social networking sites are 'suspicious.'

Where Free Speech Goes to Die: The Workplace

Say what you will...and it could cost you your job.

Most Americans believe that their right to free speech is unfettered. And, by and large, it is. You can make truly hateful, hurtful statements; advocate radical and even bizarre theories; express how you really feel about almost anything and anyone. All without legal consequences.

The only downside is that employers are not required to continue your employment if they disagree with or disapprove of what you say. And they have the right to terminate your job if they want to do so.

This knowledge frequently comes as a shock, especially when the person affected has just been informed that his or her services are no longer required. Without wandering too deeply into the thickets of constitutional law, the basic theory is that speech is protected, but unless contractually protected, the right to employment is not. This will be particularly interesting in a Presidential election year in which much of the business establishment has lined up in support of one candidate over the other. The degree to which employees may feel that their right to say what they want, however valuable, is simply not worth losing a job in a lousy economy.

The broader question is whether companies suffer from such intolerance. Not so much for political speech, but because outspoken staff members often have good ideas about productivity, cost saving and sales opportunities. Be that as it may, the reality is that many, if not most, employees are retained 'at will,' which means the boss has the right to hire and fire without legal consequences. The market may ultimately dispose of those who are consistently immune to good advice or the loss of talented, if in-artfully vocal staff. But in the interim, free speech, like so many other 'free' assets, may actually have a price. JL

Michael Dolgow reports in Bloomberg BusinessWeek:

In America you can say pretty much whatever you want, wherever you want to say it. Unless, that is, you’re at work. Simply put, there is no First Amendment right to “free speech” in the workplace

Whatever Works: Stores Try Text Marketing

You've heard of test marketing. Get ready for text marketing.

Despairing of reaching teens, and adults, for that matter, advertisers are figuring that what works for parents as a last resort may work them as well.

Text advertising, primarily of the promotional variety is on the rise. The response rate is higher than it is for email. And the immediacy works well for that elusive convergence between mobile and retail.

Marketers are trying all channels, platforms and media in a bid to figure out what the key to monetization may be. Each has its detrimental aspects: social is too personal, email to boring, mobile to hard to read. Texting, however, if the message can be effectively communicated briefly, may be the optimal. It is fast, cheap, popular, does not appear to violate anyone's sense of personal space.

Convenience rules. JL

Christina Binkley reports in the Wall Street Journal:

"Forward 2 ur girls!" urged the text message. Using the text-speak that many teens see as their own secret code, trendy retailer Charlotte Russe was inviting customers to a "Happy Hour"—a late-afternoon sale offering $1 sunglasses for every $30 purchase.

Like many parents who have turned to texting to reach their teens, some youth-oriented fashion brands like Charlotte Russe, Claire's Boutique and Vans are finding that young people are most accessible by text.

Female Athletes Are Rarely Used - or Succeed - as Brand Spokespersons

She's an amazing athlete. Has an incandescent smile. And is extremely rare.

Because of her ability? Her race? Her personality?

No, because she's a woman.

Gabby Douglas, the 16 year old gymnast, has become the face of the London Olympics in the United States. A telegenic winner with a compelling life story, as soon as she won the gold medal in women's gymnastics, news stories about her potential windfall of product endorsement deals outnumbered those about her athletic achievement.

The number of female athletes has increased exponentially since the US Title IX statute required schools and universities to spend equivalent amounts on men's and women's athletics. But a recent study shows that female athletes rarely receive the same sort of marketing-based financial opportunities as male athletes, nor do they tend to be as effective with consumers.

The reasons have to do with traditional notions of how to market women that may no longer optimally correlate with current perceptions of women's roles in society. Sex appeal or youthful cuteness do not capture the sophisticated and complex self images that increasingly resonate with consumers. It is surprising that in an industry geared to identifying and measuring customer attitudes such nuances would not be apparent. But old stereotypes die hard.

Gabby Douglas may become the breath-through personage who forces the system to reboot. With social media and mature multi-channel campaign options available, the phenomenon could become more elongated and self-sustaining. Or she may be another one of a handful of Olympic one-offs, ice skating and gymnastic supernovas, who blaze brightly for brief moment and then fade. Stay tuned. JL

The University of Delaware reports:

Your best chance to see a female athlete endorsing a product will be during the next few weeks. The commercial breaks during the London Olympic Games may be littered with female swimmers, runners and gymnasts, but don’t expect to see them much again until the next Olympics.

American companies rarely employ female athletes as spokespeople and when they do, according to two University of Delaware professors, they most often do it poorly.

Hate Siri All You Want: It's Still the Future

Ok, haters, they get it. Siri isn't perfect.

But before anyone declares it a failed experiment, exhale. Voice is here. And in terms of what's next, you're probably looking at it. Social? Check. Mobile? Check. Voice? Comin' up.

The issue, as the following piece explains, is that Apple bought two different companies to provide the voice technology for the iPhone. One was Siri (uh-huh), which provided the 'assistant' feature based on a declassified military artificial intelligence program. But the diction and grammar, et al came from an entirely separate entity called Nuance. Indeed.

And the problem may not be so much with voice right now as with integrating voice with mobile. Which is part of a much larger mobile/mobility issue. Just ask any merchant or software developer. As an economy, we are playing catch-up on the whole mobile functionality thing. Not catch-up as in, 'who's ahead of us,' but as in meeting consumers' extraordinary expectations. And who can blame them? The developments to date have been mind-boggling. But we have come to expect perfection and we get cranky when we dont get what we want.

But the real driver of consumer technology is convenience. We have sacrificed almost everything of value at its alter. And voice is simply more convenient than the currently available alternatives. So laugh, disparage, criticize and dismiss poor Siri all you want. But she is the functional equivalent of those first hominids who walked off the African savannah. And her successors are moving very, very fast. JL

David Pogue reports in Scientific American:

Siri, as everyone knows by now, is a software assistant that takes spoken orders. No training necessary: just hold down the “Home” button and speak casually.

Siri lit the cultural world on fire. There were YouTube parodies, how-to guides and copycat apps for Android phones. Pundits have proposed new rules of etiquette for using phones in public now that people are speaking to them even when they're not on a call. Speech recognition became all the rage; suddenly, it popped up in television sets and, of course, rival phones. At the crest of the hype, it looked like the way we interact with our gadgets had changed forever. And then—the backlash.

The Twitter Olympics

We may not all medal, but we are all participants.

At least that appears to be the attitude of almost everyone attending the London Olympics.

Twitter use got so hyper in the Games' first couple of days that the organizing committee had to ask attendees to cut back on their tweeting as it was clogging networks, interfering with GPS and interrupting TV network news feeds. As if anyone with followers gives a hoot about the audience for those losers.

Social networking, blogging, tweeting and You-tubing do not appear to cut into television viewership. Despite the criticism in the US of NBC's network coverage, one senses from informal surveys that huge numbers of people are tuning in wherever they can - and often despite their own better instincts.

But the biggest story is of the ubiquitous twitter use by both athletes and fans. Everyone has a story to tell, a grudge to settle or a point to make. And no one seems to be tuning them out just yet. JL

Paresh Dave reports in the San Francisco Chronicle:

For all the talk about Michael Phelps vs. Ryan Lochte, security concerns and unfilled seats, the trending topic at the Olympic Games might actually be Twitter.

Combined Level of Online Robotic Chatter Soon to Exceed Human Conversations

HAL is back. And he has some things on his mind.

The number of machine-to-machine devices using the world's wireless networks will triple in five years, soon exceeding the number of human interactions on those same nets.

This is probably for the good. Robotic conversations can hardly be more inane than the average conversation overheard as a plane is about to take off. And there may really be some productive advances associated with the trend, as the following article elaborates.

The question is more complicated when it comes to public policy. These nets are generally controlled by governments. And they have a responsibility, often elucidated in numbing detail, as to whom the use of these networks should benefit. Those beneficiaries are usually human and citizens of whatever country is the domicile for the technology. Machines dont yet vote so do not receive much consideration from the people making the allocation decisions.

Clever lawyers will no doubt extrapolate from the original meaning of whatever ordinances and legislation were drafted to cover these matters in order to protect their clients' interests. But there will probably be strict constructionists equally determined to defend whatever purity - and economic advantage - is to be derived from the evolving state of affairs. This trend bears watching. JL

Kevin O'Brien reports in the New York Times:

The combined level of robotic chatter on the world’s wireless networks — measured in the digital data load they exert on networks — is likely soon to exceed that generated by the sum of all human voice conversations taking place on wireless grids.