So you are upset about Americans losing jobs?
1. Telemarketing Jobs Lost Due to "Do Not Call List" - 2 million to 6.5 million, according to the Direct Marketing Association.
2. Jobs Lost in U.S. Due to Outsourcing - Hard to find an exact number for an issue so many people are upset about, but halfway down this article it states that Forester Research estimates 3.3 million jobs will be be outsourced by 2015
So if you are upset about 3.3 million jobs going overseas in the next decade and want to so something, it seems to me that getting rid of the Do Not Call Registry will be a much faster and easier way to bring back jobs to America. After all, as I stated before, one of the riskiest things about doing business in the U.S. is being regulated out of existance by the government - which also leads to a loss of jobs - which is what happened to telemarketers.
Funny, getting rid of those 2 million+ telemarketing jobs was soooo popular with politicians of both stripes...
Window Manager - A (Now Retired) Executive Who has Nothing to do but Look out the Window
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Outsourcing as Consumer Choice
If outsourcing is a concern to Americans, a better solution would be for companies to offer consumers a choice. In today’s WSJ (requires paid subscription) there is an article about E-Loan doing just this by giving their customers the following choice:
1. Have your loan processed in India for fast turn around, or
2. Have your loan processed the U.S., which will take, at minimum, two days longer than if you choose India (but with no additional cost)
I expect to see more of this, probably with monetary incentives given to customers who choose overseas support and those picking U.S. support paying more. After all, those who want to prevent offshoring should be willing to pay more for customer support, 24 hour service and fast turn around to keep jobs in the U.S. The rest of us who don’t have a lot of money to throw around can save a few bucks by having our services go to the place where it saves us money or gives us faster service, or pick according to the situation (I don't care if my PC support is in India, but I think I will keep my tax preparer state-side, but it's MY choice).
1. Have your loan processed in India for fast turn around, or
2. Have your loan processed the U.S., which will take, at minimum, two days longer than if you choose India (but with no additional cost)
I expect to see more of this, probably with monetary incentives given to customers who choose overseas support and those picking U.S. support paying more. After all, those who want to prevent offshoring should be willing to pay more for customer support, 24 hour service and fast turn around to keep jobs in the U.S. The rest of us who don’t have a lot of money to throw around can save a few bucks by having our services go to the place where it saves us money or gives us faster service, or pick according to the situation (I don't care if my PC support is in India, but I think I will keep my tax preparer state-side, but it's MY choice).
Sunday, March 07, 2004
Since When Did Coffee Need Ordering Instructions?
I was at Starbucks this morning for my daily amphetamine caffeine fix and noticed that, in order to help their clients, Starbucks has published an instruction book on how to order coffee.
Obviously this book is not for boring people like me (just coffee, please), but for people who like showing off how sophisticated they by ordering complicated drinks (you know the type). Here are the instructions for entering your order at Starbucks and some examples:
Step 1: Cup
Step 2: Shots and Size
Step 3: Syrup
Step 4: Milk and Other Modifiers
Step 5: Drink
So you order an Iced, decaf, tripple-grande, cinnamon no-fat, no-whip mocha, or Grande quad ristretto non-fat dry cappuccino.
Got it? Me neither. I'll just stick to coffee. It's the caffeine that's important anyway. And you can check your personality type by entering your Starbucks order here.
Obviously this book is not for boring people like me (just coffee, please), but for people who like showing off how sophisticated they by ordering complicated drinks (you know the type). Here are the instructions for entering your order at Starbucks and some examples:
Step 1: Cup
Step 2: Shots and Size
Step 3: Syrup
Step 4: Milk and Other Modifiers
Step 5: Drink
So you order an Iced, decaf, tripple-grande, cinnamon no-fat, no-whip mocha, or Grande quad ristretto non-fat dry cappuccino.
Got it? Me neither. I'll just stick to coffee. It's the caffeine that's important anyway. And you can check your personality type by entering your Starbucks order here.
Friday, March 05, 2004
The Search for Blame is Always Successful
Quite frankly, I am a little surprised at the Martha Stewart Verdict. I am not a lawyer or legal scholar, and I didn't follow the case closely, but based on what I knew about the case it seemed that the government's case was pretty weak and nothing more than a political effort to show a few CEOs swinging from lamp posts after the bursting of the internet bubble, Enron, Worldcom, etc.
However, I am not holding Martha blameless. Here are a few pointers that were hammered into my head by my business ethics prof (It was a fun class. The prof was like a young version of Professor Kingsfield from The Paper Chase, intellectually skewering young minds that would dare debate with him - and you had no choice but to debate him since he would call on you, ask your opinion about the case being discussed and automatically take the opposite view):
The Line Between Legal and Illegal Isn't Fixed - The prof drew up a wavy line on the board and said that was the line between legal and illegal. And - oh yes - this wavy line moved up and down. In other words, things that were perfectly legal one year could easily be found to be illegal the next year. And a lot of it depended on politics. If you want to stay clean, DON'T stay on the "just legal" side of the line - you could find yourself on the wrong side of the line in a heartbeat. Stay FAR onto the legal side of the line and you will stay in the clear.
Use the Smell Test - The prof liked this one and used it throughout the semester. If something even smelled unethical - even if it was legal - avoid it like the plague. During case study discussions he would often pick out a hapless classmate and simply ask "Does this pass the smell test?". Of course, whatever he said the prof would take the opposite view, so the trick was always to back up your opinion with facts.
The U.S. is NOT the Safest Political Place to Do Business - This was a good lecture. The topic was "safest political places to do business in the world". Everyone assumed that we were going to talk about countries that have a Dictator of the Month. The prof said he was going to start listing countries from top (safest) to bottom. "Wait", he stopped at turned to the class, "who do you think is first?". Everyone assumed the U.S. Wrong! The U.S. wasn't even in the top five.
The risk of doing business in the U.S. is being too successful. Become too big a target and the government will come after you, guaranteed. Standard Oil (broken up the government despite the fact that oil prices dropped for consumers in every single year of its existence), Microsoft (constantly on the defense from government), Halliburton (constantly on defense from the Left), the list goes on and on and on. Or you can be regulated out of existence, have your profits taxed away (anyone remember the Windfall Profits Tax on oil companies?), or attacked just for doing economically savy business decisions (there was an item today on CNN attacking companies for doing things to lower their taxes - like putting subsidiaries overseas. Lowering your taxes isn't illegal - avoiding them is - and there was nothing illegal by what these companies did - and I would say it would pass the smell test since this is like being attacked for deducting your mortgage interest, but my prof would, of course, debate me on that).
This goes into the whole discussion of business bashing by politicians, typically the Left. They love jobs but hate the businesses that provide them. I have never have figured this one out.
The Very Big Fish and The Very Small Fish Typically Get Away - This little rule of thumb didn't hold up for Martha (and maybe not applicable after 10 years): The law is like a fishing net. The really big fish can break through and get away. The really small fish slip through the holes in the net and aren't interesting to catch anyway. It's all the medium sized fished that get caught and eaten.
The warning 10 years ago was this: If as a middle manager at a company you know about malfeasance going on, you are more likely to serve time than the CEO (so come clean, turn State's, etc.). I think this was true a decade ago when I was in business school, but I think after the past few years with Enron and what not, the CEO is more likely to serve than the middle manager. But I think it is still something to keep in mind.
The Search for Blame is Always Successful - This wasn't in business school, but a quote I read somewhere (and can't find who to attribute it to), but a truism whether discussing political grandstanding by prosecutors or office politics.
So while I disagree with Martha's conviction, I think she could have avoided her situation all together if she had known about these little lessons.
However, I am not holding Martha blameless. Here are a few pointers that were hammered into my head by my business ethics prof (It was a fun class. The prof was like a young version of Professor Kingsfield from The Paper Chase, intellectually skewering young minds that would dare debate with him - and you had no choice but to debate him since he would call on you, ask your opinion about the case being discussed and automatically take the opposite view):
The Line Between Legal and Illegal Isn't Fixed - The prof drew up a wavy line on the board and said that was the line between legal and illegal. And - oh yes - this wavy line moved up and down. In other words, things that were perfectly legal one year could easily be found to be illegal the next year. And a lot of it depended on politics. If you want to stay clean, DON'T stay on the "just legal" side of the line - you could find yourself on the wrong side of the line in a heartbeat. Stay FAR onto the legal side of the line and you will stay in the clear.
Use the Smell Test - The prof liked this one and used it throughout the semester. If something even smelled unethical - even if it was legal - avoid it like the plague. During case study discussions he would often pick out a hapless classmate and simply ask "Does this pass the smell test?". Of course, whatever he said the prof would take the opposite view, so the trick was always to back up your opinion with facts.
The U.S. is NOT the Safest Political Place to Do Business - This was a good lecture. The topic was "safest political places to do business in the world". Everyone assumed that we were going to talk about countries that have a Dictator of the Month. The prof said he was going to start listing countries from top (safest) to bottom. "Wait", he stopped at turned to the class, "who do you think is first?". Everyone assumed the U.S. Wrong! The U.S. wasn't even in the top five.
The risk of doing business in the U.S. is being too successful. Become too big a target and the government will come after you, guaranteed. Standard Oil (broken up the government despite the fact that oil prices dropped for consumers in every single year of its existence), Microsoft (constantly on the defense from government), Halliburton (constantly on defense from the Left), the list goes on and on and on. Or you can be regulated out of existence, have your profits taxed away (anyone remember the Windfall Profits Tax on oil companies?), or attacked just for doing economically savy business decisions (there was an item today on CNN attacking companies for doing things to lower their taxes - like putting subsidiaries overseas. Lowering your taxes isn't illegal - avoiding them is - and there was nothing illegal by what these companies did - and I would say it would pass the smell test since this is like being attacked for deducting your mortgage interest, but my prof would, of course, debate me on that).
This goes into the whole discussion of business bashing by politicians, typically the Left. They love jobs but hate the businesses that provide them. I have never have figured this one out.
The Very Big Fish and The Very Small Fish Typically Get Away - This little rule of thumb didn't hold up for Martha (and maybe not applicable after 10 years): The law is like a fishing net. The really big fish can break through and get away. The really small fish slip through the holes in the net and aren't interesting to catch anyway. It's all the medium sized fished that get caught and eaten.
The warning 10 years ago was this: If as a middle manager at a company you know about malfeasance going on, you are more likely to serve time than the CEO (so come clean, turn State's, etc.). I think this was true a decade ago when I was in business school, but I think after the past few years with Enron and what not, the CEO is more likely to serve than the middle manager. But I think it is still something to keep in mind.
The Search for Blame is Always Successful - This wasn't in business school, but a quote I read somewhere (and can't find who to attribute it to), but a truism whether discussing political grandstanding by prosecutors or office politics.
So while I disagree with Martha's conviction, I think she could have avoided her situation all together if she had known about these little lessons.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Convergence: Inevitable or Marketing Minefield?
Convergence is a word thrown around a lot in several industries - mainly by marketing people like myself - to describe new products that will combine the functions of several distinct products. Today, the term can be found in marketing literature on portable devices (converging the portable phone, PDA, and digital camera), the home network (converging the TV and PC systems in the home), and in several other areas. But these aren't the first areas where convergence has been attempted. While some convergence areas look like a sure thing, a look at earlier efforts at convergence shows that the results aren't always pretty:
The post war boom of the 1950s saw unprecedented growth in purchases of both cars and leisure boats. Some marketing genius decided why not combine them into one?!? While the boatcar did make it easier to tow your leisure craft to the nearest lake or bay, the inability to throw out a good cast from a fishing rod relegated this to the collectors' market, where the few that still exist bring in high prices today.
After the fiasco of the carboat, the boys in marketing (they were all boys back then) went back to the drawing board and figured out their problem: they mixed the wrong product with the car. It should have been a plane instead of a boat! Alas, this attempt also resulted in failure, mainly due to the inability to find wide enough parking places at the new indoor malls that were starting to crop up by the end of the decade.
The 1970s saw new advances in science and the produce people figured they would get into the convergence game by combining two vegetables few liked into a single one everyone could hate. They succeeded by creating a vegetable that had the blandness of cauliflower with the rough texture of broccoli. While you can occasionally find broccoflower in the store, it has never been offered at any of the finer (or less fine) dining establishments of the U.S.
The 1980s found convergence success in the Multifunctional Printer (MFP) by combining four products that functioned poorly by themselves - fax machine, printer, copier and scanner - into a single product that functioned even worse. But people needed to reclaim desk space from all the gadgets that were taking over their office, and trying to get help from a single source when things went wrong was easier than trying to call four different help lines.
The 1990s saw politicos getting onto the convergence bandwagon with their introduction of Billary. Fortunately the initial product was rejected, although there is a reintroduction planned for 2008.
And the 00s? I think we'll see many more attempts my marketers to converge dissimilar products since it is easier for a marketing person to combine two or more products that are already on the market than to create a brand new product. The proposed business plan is deemed less "risky" since markets already exist for the current single products, meaning it is easier to get buy-in from management. Sometime convergent products make sense, but as I think I have shown here, the result is often ugly.
Extra Credit: Can anyone name the "convergence product" from a Classic Saturday Night Live "commerical"?
The post war boom of the 1950s saw unprecedented growth in purchases of both cars and leisure boats. Some marketing genius decided why not combine them into one?!? While the boatcar did make it easier to tow your leisure craft to the nearest lake or bay, the inability to throw out a good cast from a fishing rod relegated this to the collectors' market, where the few that still exist bring in high prices today.
After the fiasco of the carboat, the boys in marketing (they were all boys back then) went back to the drawing board and figured out their problem: they mixed the wrong product with the car. It should have been a plane instead of a boat! Alas, this attempt also resulted in failure, mainly due to the inability to find wide enough parking places at the new indoor malls that were starting to crop up by the end of the decade.
The 1970s saw new advances in science and the produce people figured they would get into the convergence game by combining two vegetables few liked into a single one everyone could hate. They succeeded by creating a vegetable that had the blandness of cauliflower with the rough texture of broccoli. While you can occasionally find broccoflower in the store, it has never been offered at any of the finer (or less fine) dining establishments of the U.S.
The 1980s found convergence success in the Multifunctional Printer (MFP) by combining four products that functioned poorly by themselves - fax machine, printer, copier and scanner - into a single product that functioned even worse. But people needed to reclaim desk space from all the gadgets that were taking over their office, and trying to get help from a single source when things went wrong was easier than trying to call four different help lines.
The 1990s saw politicos getting onto the convergence bandwagon with their introduction of Billary. Fortunately the initial product was rejected, although there is a reintroduction planned for 2008.
And the 00s? I think we'll see many more attempts my marketers to converge dissimilar products since it is easier for a marketing person to combine two or more products that are already on the market than to create a brand new product. The proposed business plan is deemed less "risky" since markets already exist for the current single products, meaning it is easier to get buy-in from management. Sometime convergent products make sense, but as I think I have shown here, the result is often ugly.
Extra Credit: Can anyone name the "convergence product" from a Classic Saturday Night Live "commerical"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)