FT.com - Professional networks surge in popularity
The following article talks about just how good social networking sites are doing despite the tumultuous economic times we're living in right now. In fact, professional networks such as LinkedIn and Xing, are thriving as the markets turn worse. LinkedIn has a new member join every second. The network is now over 30 million strong, and the sites traffic is growing at a rate of 123% year on year.
Sounds right to me. As the economy continues to turn south and people lose their jobs (see nonfarm payrolls down 533,000 jobs during November '08 and unemployment up to 6.7%), more individuals are joining these professional and social networks in order to find jobs. Even those who are still employed are joining and updating their information as they worry about their own job security. The network effects are certainly at play here. The more people that are in these networks and the more people that are looking for jobs, the more valuable these networks become.
What I'll be interested to follow and learn is whether these social networks will actually help bring us out of a recession faster. Supposedly, these networks help people find jobs, and there are thousands of examples of exactly that happening. But the sites are not creating jobs themselves. Are these networks going to add to the rifts between the upper, middle, and lower classes of society? Are these networks merely making it easier for the "haves" to find jobs and leaving the "have-nots" out in the dark?
Seems to me like the safe thing to do is to join lest be left behind.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Who’s Going to Blink First
TV Sales Becoming Litmus Test for U.S. Economy - NYTimes.com
The attached article talks about how many economists and electronics industry analysts are using sales of televisions as a litmus test for the American economy. Sales of high-definition and flat-screen TV’s were, until recently, been increasing rapidly as prices dropped, more HD channels became available, and people prepared for the national switchover to digital broadcasting occurring on February 17, 2009. These sales, however, have slowed significantly in the past few months. Retailers are not able to move the products as swiftly as expected, and as a result, have aggressively advertised sales, discounts, package savings, and extended price guarantees leading into Black Friday.
The early word is that TV sales have not been as high as the retailers had hoped. There currently looks to be a stand-off between the customers and the retailers. The manufacturers have claimed that the prices are “to the point of irresistible”, but the customers think that, “I’m sure the price is going to comedown.” The article asks the question, “Who will blink first?”
Not the consumers.
The consumers have no driving impetus forcing them to make these purchases. Sure there will always be people buying TV’s because they have too much money to spend or they need to replace a broken TV, but for the most part, purchasing a large flat-screen, plasma, or high-definition TV is a luxury. It’s a discretionary purchase. This is the reason the customers are not going to blink first. The discretionary budgets aren’t there like they were a short time ago.
The US is entrenched in the largest economic crisis its faced in decades, and it doesn’t look close to being over. In fact, now much of the rest of the world is slipping into a recession. House prices are dropping. People owe more on their mortgages than their houses are worth. Unemployment is rising quickly. I believe that people aren’t buying TVs now because (1) they don’t have the money (2) they are saving their money in anticipation of a difficult time, or (3) they are waiting for a really, really good price.
So who’s going to blink first? My money’s on either the manufacturers or the retailers. They need to make the sale worse than the customers need to buy the product. So TV sales do seem like a pretty good litmus test for the American economy, we just might not like what they tell us.
The attached article talks about how many economists and electronics industry analysts are using sales of televisions as a litmus test for the American economy. Sales of high-definition and flat-screen TV’s were, until recently, been increasing rapidly as prices dropped, more HD channels became available, and people prepared for the national switchover to digital broadcasting occurring on February 17, 2009. These sales, however, have slowed significantly in the past few months. Retailers are not able to move the products as swiftly as expected, and as a result, have aggressively advertised sales, discounts, package savings, and extended price guarantees leading into Black Friday.
The early word is that TV sales have not been as high as the retailers had hoped. There currently looks to be a stand-off between the customers and the retailers. The manufacturers have claimed that the prices are “to the point of irresistible”, but the customers think that, “I’m sure the price is going to comedown.” The article asks the question, “Who will blink first?”
Not the consumers.
The consumers have no driving impetus forcing them to make these purchases. Sure there will always be people buying TV’s because they have too much money to spend or they need to replace a broken TV, but for the most part, purchasing a large flat-screen, plasma, or high-definition TV is a luxury. It’s a discretionary purchase. This is the reason the customers are not going to blink first. The discretionary budgets aren’t there like they were a short time ago.
The US is entrenched in the largest economic crisis its faced in decades, and it doesn’t look close to being over. In fact, now much of the rest of the world is slipping into a recession. House prices are dropping. People owe more on their mortgages than their houses are worth. Unemployment is rising quickly. I believe that people aren’t buying TVs now because (1) they don’t have the money (2) they are saving their money in anticipation of a difficult time, or (3) they are waiting for a really, really good price.
So who’s going to blink first? My money’s on either the manufacturers or the retailers. They need to make the sale worse than the customers need to buy the product. So TV sales do seem like a pretty good litmus test for the American economy, we just might not like what they tell us.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
I Need My Shiny, New PC
The Shiny, New PC Syndrome - Forbes.com
This article talks about lean computing and calls into question whether companies are doing enough to make their employees computers more efficient rather than just newer. This seems like an issue I have to deal with on a daily basis, as I regularly need to run about 15 different applications on my computer at a given time to effectively do my job. I constantly deal with system issues, bog-downs, and processing shortages.
The company does constantly work on improving the systems and the computers I use at work. Extra, unused applications are removed and it is often rather difficult to actually get applications added to a machine even if it is required for your job. But I guess that's just corporate America. The article talks about improving the interaction between applications, and I would like to see that happen, but I don't know how effective that is with half of my applications built in-house and the other half purchased. Knowing how long it takes to get new systems created, or even just getting existing systems upgraded, I can't imagine how long it would take to do the analysis of everything my computer uses and how it could be improved. And then to have all the code changed, tested, and put into production? And then deal with the glitches and downtime while they fix the things they missed or forgot about?
Doesn't sound too much like a money saver to me.
For me, please give me the shiny, new PC. Keep upgrading my processor and bandwidth as they become available.
Oh yeah, anyone have a shiny, new PC to spare? We have a new system going live in a couple more weeks...
This article talks about lean computing and calls into question whether companies are doing enough to make their employees computers more efficient rather than just newer. This seems like an issue I have to deal with on a daily basis, as I regularly need to run about 15 different applications on my computer at a given time to effectively do my job. I constantly deal with system issues, bog-downs, and processing shortages.
The company does constantly work on improving the systems and the computers I use at work. Extra, unused applications are removed and it is often rather difficult to actually get applications added to a machine even if it is required for your job. But I guess that's just corporate America. The article talks about improving the interaction between applications, and I would like to see that happen, but I don't know how effective that is with half of my applications built in-house and the other half purchased. Knowing how long it takes to get new systems created, or even just getting existing systems upgraded, I can't imagine how long it would take to do the analysis of everything my computer uses and how it could be improved. And then to have all the code changed, tested, and put into production? And then deal with the glitches and downtime while they fix the things they missed or forgot about?
Doesn't sound too much like a money saver to me.
For me, please give me the shiny, new PC. Keep upgrading my processor and bandwidth as they become available.
Oh yeah, anyone have a shiny, new PC to spare? We have a new system going live in a couple more weeks...
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Google - The Green Machine?
Financial Aspect of Google’s Environmental Goals Grows - NYTimes.com
So this article that Professor Kane posted talks about Google’s foray into the world of the energy sector. The article talks about how Google has always spent millions in improving the efficiency of their data centers, but they have recently upped their involvement by investing in renewable and alternative energy sources.
At first this may look like a huge mistake for the company because energy research and production is so far away from their core business of information gathering and advertising. Google has no expertise in this field and over-extending their involvement in this sector could spell disastrous results for the company.
That being said, I think it’s an excellent idea for Google to be involved in the industry. Their core business is not in energy, but every company in the world has a responsibility to its shareholders and to itself to operate in the most efficient manner possible. This almost always means minimizing expenses. For Google, one of their largest expenses is its energy consumption, so it seems like good business practices to spend resources to find ways to minimize these costs. Suppose Google is successful in finding a way to produce renewable energy cheaper than current energy costs. Any company that could turn its largest expenses into a profit center would be well-advised to do it.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Jonah's MI703 Blog: Working the network
Jonah's MI703 Blog: Working the network
I saw Geoff and Jonah’s responses to the “Working the Network” article and wanted to chime in.
There’s a very fine balance that both corporations and individuals must find when utilizing the newest forms of media and technology. We’re in a unique point in history where technology is progressing so rapidly that we’re not able to receive a new tool or application and fully understand its potential, scope, benefits, and perhaps most importantly, its drawbacks, before the next best technology hits the shelves or the web and we’re back off to the races again. As we chase down the next greatest gadgets, we rarely look back and objectively consider what the ramifications of these technologies are until we’re dealing with the storm they created. Even less objective contemplation occurs while we are building the technologies of tomorrow. We don’t stop to consider the ramifications that they will have, put in proper controls and protections, and ask “Should we be doing this?” We’re only asking “Can we do this?” The answer to the second question is more often than not “Yes”; however, the answer to the first question is generally not known until many years later.
This is the situation we find ourselves in with these new social networking tools. We’re still learning how to use them - and how they’re being used against us. What we’re learning is that there are consequences for the things we do and say now that were never an issue in the past when our work and personal lives were more distinct. As technology increasingly shapes our lives, and as we become a “virtual world”, it is more difficult to separate the two spheres.
I have never been a fan of “Big Brother” looking over our shoulders, and as such, I was reluctant to join the social network websites (although now I’m a fan of Facebook). However, I do not have an inherent opposition to companies researching their employee candidates. I work in the asset management industry, and job interviews for me include fingerprints and background checks. Shareholders for large corporations want to have assurances that the employees are competent, ethical, and are not a risk to the corporation.
Time and time again in the news we hear stories of criminals working as security guards in airports and sex offenders driving school busses. The same question is always asked, “How did the person get the job?” Society today is demanding more and more background checks on people in every industry. In this regard, a company researching potential employees seems to be taking a prudent course of action. It can be used as an inexpensive alternative and/or addition to the formal and expensive background checks to help paint a more accurate portrait of the candidate, and more accurately assess their risk.
But can corporations take this too far? Absolutely. These checks should merely be supplemental to resumes, personal interactions, and interviews. Companies need to understand that not all the content on a person’s page is necessarily under their control and that one questionable photograph does not a miscreant make. Individuals must also realize that the lines between work and play are blurring and ought think twice about posting that bikini picture from their honeymoon.
I saw Geoff and Jonah’s responses to the “Working the Network” article and wanted to chime in.
There’s a very fine balance that both corporations and individuals must find when utilizing the newest forms of media and technology. We’re in a unique point in history where technology is progressing so rapidly that we’re not able to receive a new tool or application and fully understand its potential, scope, benefits, and perhaps most importantly, its drawbacks, before the next best technology hits the shelves or the web and we’re back off to the races again. As we chase down the next greatest gadgets, we rarely look back and objectively consider what the ramifications of these technologies are until we’re dealing with the storm they created. Even less objective contemplation occurs while we are building the technologies of tomorrow. We don’t stop to consider the ramifications that they will have, put in proper controls and protections, and ask “Should we be doing this?” We’re only asking “Can we do this?” The answer to the second question is more often than not “Yes”; however, the answer to the first question is generally not known until many years later.
This is the situation we find ourselves in with these new social networking tools. We’re still learning how to use them - and how they’re being used against us. What we’re learning is that there are consequences for the things we do and say now that were never an issue in the past when our work and personal lives were more distinct. As technology increasingly shapes our lives, and as we become a “virtual world”, it is more difficult to separate the two spheres.
I have never been a fan of “Big Brother” looking over our shoulders, and as such, I was reluctant to join the social network websites (although now I’m a fan of Facebook). However, I do not have an inherent opposition to companies researching their employee candidates. I work in the asset management industry, and job interviews for me include fingerprints and background checks. Shareholders for large corporations want to have assurances that the employees are competent, ethical, and are not a risk to the corporation.
Time and time again in the news we hear stories of criminals working as security guards in airports and sex offenders driving school busses. The same question is always asked, “How did the person get the job?” Society today is demanding more and more background checks on people in every industry. In this regard, a company researching potential employees seems to be taking a prudent course of action. It can be used as an inexpensive alternative and/or addition to the formal and expensive background checks to help paint a more accurate portrait of the candidate, and more accurately assess their risk.
But can corporations take this too far? Absolutely. These checks should merely be supplemental to resumes, personal interactions, and interviews. Companies need to understand that not all the content on a person’s page is necessarily under their control and that one questionable photograph does not a miscreant make. Individuals must also realize that the lines between work and play are blurring and ought think twice about posting that bikini picture from their honeymoon.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
