"I should be able to get some sort of job…"

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Our nation’s newspaper of record, the New York Post, today chronicled the lifestyle of Christopher Poole. Poole runs 4chan, which is one of the most active web sites, but lives with his Mom and is about $20,000 in debt.

Poole’s story is markedly different from other computer wunderkinds – like Bill Gates – who dropped out of college to devote time to digital endeavors, and it’s reflexive of different times. Gates, Steve Jobs, and other innovators of the late 1970s and early 1980s used their own creative abilities to invent or build products that were commodities – software, computers, etc. – that could be bought and sold. These commodities became high in demand and served as the cornerstones of a revolution in computing, making the innovators rich.

Poole is successful on today’s internet because he built a successful forum that harnessed the creativity and imagination of its users; 4chan originated as a site about Japanese animation and evolved to serve a specific and active niche audience. And unfortunately for Poole, use of his product is free. It is also a bastion of free expression, meaning advertisers are loathe to be associated with the site’s often inappropriate content.

That Poole has had trouble parlaying his online success into offline profits speaks to the need for any individual to devote attention to his or her personal brand. Clearly, Poole is an expert at something, or has certain experiences no one else has. He could bill himself as an authority on running a website, creating an open forum, managing a product that takes on a life of its own, or even Japanese animation – or possibly all of the above.

Not to mention his whole situation could be a book in an of itself.

Bookmark and Share

Why haven’t I seen more from you?

~ Jim Eltringham ~ 1 Comment

Top 10 reasons I haven’t blogged in a week:

10. Holding out for stimulus bailout money.

9. Chimp attack.

8. Too offended by NY Post cartoons.

7. Shutting blog down, getting ready to take over the Tonight Show.

6. Was picking up a package from my cousin in the Dominican Republic.

5. Trying to have blog classified as “online home”; holding out for a mortgage bailout.

4. Relieved that, when I saw the headline “Burris Accused of Perjury”it was talking about a government official and not Plaxico.

3. I was blogging on the other Internet.

2. Since blog is “vehicle for communications” holding out for auto maker bailout.

1. Just one of many repercussions of the DC Metro’s Orange Line delays.

Bookmark and Share

Novel concepts from the 30s

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Mashable mentioned an interesting trend yesterday: businesses are building blogs that are focused on their area of expertise, but not necessarily on their products. The idea is simple: by building a media outlet that interests their target demographic, businesses hope to lure more customers.

As the post notes, some journalists would argue that private companies are not credible sources. You can probably find these journalists’ stories on the pages of your favorite newspaper – right next to the ads that fund those pages. Mass media has always relied on sponsorship – entertainment or information nestled around product pitches. Why take offense when the same thing happens on the internet that happened on the DuMont network in the 50s?

From the companies’ perspective, using online media makes perfect sense. There are few better ways to extend your brand – for instance, Whole Foods runs a blog about food and recipes to help establish itself as an expert in groceries. And it’s cheap to do – all the company really needs is the mental discipline to update a blog daily.

With ventures like this cheaper, easier, and more effective than traditional advertising, you can see why advertising revenues are declining. It’s another way the business community will have to adapt to a changing world.

Bookmark and Share

Lessons from the Calvin Coolidge Snack Bar: Diet Sprite, the Stimulus, and Creating Demand

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

I took two economics classes at the University of Massachusetts. One was ECON 103, a course in basic macro economics that taught freshman how to draw basic supply and demand curves. It was taught by a professor in a big lecture hall with smaller sections on Friday mornings (which were mercifully taught in classrooms that were just a few hundred yard from my dorm). I slept through most of it, and if it had been the only economics class I took, I might be shrugging my shoulders right now and saying “Stimulus? Sure, why not.”

The second class I took was in a building named, appropriately, after Calvin “Silent Cal” Coolidge (a staunch supporter of free market economics) when our dorm’s House Council decided to found a snack bar in the 19th floor lounge. I was one of the nerds involved in House Council – a quasi-governmental body which, up to that point, had focused on putting on educational and social programming that no one cared about and no one went to. We decided to put the tax money we had collected to a better, more productive use by launching a social hub for Coolidge residents. It also taught me a great deal about how business works.

We launched simply in Spring 1998, and sent one of our volunteers out to buy the first run of supplies. She came back with one twelve pack of every type of soda she could find – assuming that we needed variety. We learned that demand didn’t call for a wide variety – people were just happy to have a place in the building where they could get soda cheaper than the vending machines. We also learned that no one likes Diet Sprite. To get rid of the supply, I gamely purchased about eleven of the ten cans our supply director bought (so I can personally attest to how horrible it was – seriously, don’t ever buy Diet Sprite).

Essentially, I subsidized the purchase of a product no one wanted. If we had only looked at raw data about which sodas sold quickest for our next supply run, we might have thought Diet Sprite was selling like hot cakes and bought more. Luckily, we were a tight knit group, so I could express my distaste for Diet Sprite. (Have I mentioned it’s sickeningly sweet? Stay away from Diet Sprite.) What I had done is artificially create demand.

Eleven years later, our economy is lagging and President Barack Obama – in a phrase uttered last week that has been retooled for this week’s speeches and press conferences – is blaming lost demand. People are simply not spending money, so the government will start spending for them.

When I created demand, it was 50 cents per can and I spent my own money. But now, with this stimulus plan, we’re all chipping in.

And this is the problem with any government action under the umbrella of a so-called “stimulus package.” Government doesn’t seem to understand the world of business – which is why President Obama can say, with a straight face, that an entity with a trillion dollar operating deficit “is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back to life.” (Seriously – he actually said that.)

Since government doesn’t understand business, and doesn’t operate by the same rules, how can we expect government activity to turn the business world around? Maybe Obama is wrong to say doing nothing is not an option. Maybe doing nothing – for a change – would be the best option.

In the meantime, I hope you like Diet Sprite; since no one is buying it, we’re going to buy a whole lot more of it.

NOTE: After some cursory research, it appears “Diet Sprite” is the same product as Sprite Zero. You’re warned.

Bookmark and Share

SOMEONE has to be making money…

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

An economic recession is difficult on a personal level. I know several people who are looking for work right now, and still more who are worried about whether their job – or even their entire company – will exist next week.

That said, slow economic times provide a chance to make needed corrections. In his pro-stimulus stand up act at last week’s Democrat retreat, President Obama mentioned our economy losing trillions in demand. The stimulus, he said, is a way to artificially create demand.

There are, however, industries which are growing by leaps and bounds. Aging baby boomers are making assisted living and home health care major growth industries. Demand for office administrative services is growing – probably because top-heavy companies are recognizing that two or more cheap, administrative-level workers get more work done than an expensive partner-level executive. Outplacement firms are booming, helping laid-off workers with career changes.

I’ve worked at a company that went through what was called a “right-sizing” – and while some employees saw that term as a euphemism for down-sizing, it seemed appropriate to me. Tough times force belt-tightening and discipline – whether in personal finances or a national economy. It promotes efficiency. And the industries that thrive are usually stronger because they find demand that transcends the difficult times – versus boom industries, like late-1990’s dot-coms or mid 2000s real estate, that are based on people gambling to make a quick buck.

I drive less now than I did a year ago. The $4/gallon gas prices this summer led me to be more economical, and now I fill my gas tank usually about twice a month and no more. Similarly, I spend money a lot more intelligently now than I did four or five years ago with the knowledge that, even if I don’t get laid off, raises and bonuses that I was used to in the past may not be available now – realities also make me work harder and strive to expand my job-related knowledge.

As I work with fellow conservative activists to build new organizations, we realize that we cannot rely on an influx of donations to help fund our efforts so we must be streamlined and put an emphasis on providing a deliverable service to potential donors.

Tough times are leading to the development of good habits for me. Hopefully the same will be true nationally.

Bookmark and Share

Faux-miliarity

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Growing up, there were certain television personalities that were so familiar they seemed like family. Johnny Carson was one of these – I distinctly remember one of the few times I saw the Tonight Show when I was in elementary school, thinking that it wouldn’t be odd to run into Johnny Carson at one of my grandfather’s St. Patrick’s Day parties. I bet many people felt that way about Carson – and about Ronald Reagan, too, which as big a reason as anything for his political success.

That type of connection is hard to forge, and the bond is strong enough to withstand quite a bit of stress – which is why folks who wouldn’t otherwise agree with conservative policies voted for Reagan, and why Carson was the King of Late Night even if a joke fell flat now and then.

I thought of this when I read Judith Warner’s Friday blog post at the New York Times. Warner recounts several anecdotes from people who share that level of false familiarity with Barack Obama and his family. From folks who feel a jealous respect for Obama’s accomplishments to those that think about the activities of first family just a little too much, there’s a similar connection that Carson and Reagan enjoyed.

Immediately, this has ramifications on the debate over the stimulus package – the bipartisan opponents will have a better chance of defeating something if they can hang it on the “Democrats” in general rather than on a popular and apparently approachable President. Long term, it means that defeating one unpopular bill will not completely turn the tables, and that opponents of the President’s agenda won’t carry as much momentum from one victory into the next battle.

Even when Johnny Carson bombed, people still tuned in the next night, ready to laugh.

Bookmark and Share

Economic Policy presented by the Kids in the Hall

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

With all the talk about the stimulus package this week, I thought it might be useful to review some basic concepts of government intervention in the economy.

First off, government spending programs are frequently wasteful – Canadian broadcasting, for instance, is all publicly funded:

Second, handout programs may seem helpful to some people, but may have different consequences for others:

Finally, it’s nice to have outside-the-box thinking when dealing with problems, but eventually the bills will come due:

Bookmark and Share

Does this mean my Mom has to read a liberal blog, too?

~ Jim Eltringham ~ 1 Comment

I can’t imagine it actually coming to pass, but rumblings about reviving the inappropriately named “Fairness Doctrine” have sprung up around Capitol Hill. The Fairness Doctrine would be an FCC regulation that would force radio stations to balance their programming – so that station that plays Rush Limbaugh for three hours would have to balance it out with… um… well, whoever it is that liberals and Democrats listen to.

The impetus for the rule change is clear. Senator Debbie Stabenow claims that talk radio “overwhelms people’s opinions – and, unfortunately, incorrectly.” In other words, she’s worried about opinions she disagrees with being more persuasive. It’s completely antithetical to everything our country is founded on, but quelling dissent makes sense.

Beyond principle, though, the problems are in the details. For instance, who determines what “balance” entails? If Sean Hannity is in favor of invading Iran, is he effectively balanced by someone who is against invading Iran because they would rather invade North Korea? And how does a fairness doctrine account for “do-it-yourself” media?

The great thing about free speech is, if you disagree with what someone else is saying, you have every right to answer them and attempt to make a compelling case. Sometimes the other side has the advantage of experience and establishment – just ask any conservative reading the New York Times or watching CNN. (And incidentally – if the fairness doctrine is passed, it opens a can of worms for mainstream media.)

More avenues exist now than ever before to get a message out – which makes the fairness obsolete as well as being, well, unfair.

Bookmark and Share