Tag Archive: Gordon Moore


Does every image portraying Millennials always include a smart phone or does it just seem that way?

Soon – if not already – Millennials will be the world’s largest-ever generation.

Pew Research projects they will bypass the Baby Boomers as America’s most populous next year, not a moment too soon.

Millennials already are saluted and celebrated for being the planet’s most educated, caring and experiential generation.

This distinction favorably compares those born between 1980-2000 with their immediate predecessors: the nondescript, desultory X-Gens (1965-1980), and the sex, drugs and rock n’ roll Worst Generation, The Baby Boomers (1946-1964).

Is it fair — let alone accurate — for Almost DailyBrett and presumably thousands of other societal observers to instantly equate noses buried in a smart phone or other digital device when discussing, assessing and critiquing Millennials?

In the last two years of my face-to-face teaching tenure, your author has required Millennial students to put their phones into the “penalty box” during the course of graded classroom presentations or face the consequences of a game misconduct or worse, league suspension.

At first, the reaction was one of shock, horror and withdrawal. How can you take away the 21st Century equivalent of the teddy bear or security blanket?

Gasp …”What about my Snap, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram … accounts?”

“Can I visit and … even pet my smart phone during breaks in-between presentations? Pretty please with whipped cream and a cherry on top?”

Something magical happened when student devices were in the penalty box … the presentations were not only better; the follow-up questions from the audience were relevant. The reason: Student attention was focused, not divided.

Yes, these digital natives can actually live … for short periods of time … without the binary code of digital communications.

The Serendipity of Moore’s Law

The number of transistors that can be placed on an integrated circuit doubles every 18-24 months – Paraphrase of Intel co-founder Gordon Moore’s 1965 “Moore’s Law

Almost DailyBrett remembers being asked as the director of communications for the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) in 1994, whether Moore’s Law would still be intact in 2000.

The media question seems almost silly now. Moore’s Law is alive and well a generation later.

What does Moore’s Law have to do with Millennials? Everything,.

As a result of Moore’s Law, every subsequent generation of gizmos is more functional, more powerful, faster, smaller and consumes less energy than its predecessor. The smart phone, tablet, VR, AR or whatever device being used by Millennials is at least the 22nd iteration of the technologies available 1965.

Without any doubt, Millennials are the first generation, comprised of digital natives. If a Baby Boomer needs tech support, it is better to first talk to a … Millennial.

Should we care if Millennials are characterized by the device in hand? Should Millennials lose sleep over this perception and/or metaphorical portrayal?

Just think, driving is improved when one is not jabbering on the phone, much less sending and responding to text messages.

Almost DailyBrett reported about the book by MIT prof Sherry Turkle: “Alone Together, Why We Expect More From Technology And Less From Each Other.”

And what do we find on the book cover? What appears to be Millennials consumed with their smart phones.

Turkle’s main thesis is we have become a society — much more than Millennials alone — which can be physically present with living, breathing people, each with a pulse, and you would never know it because everyone is consumed with their own Bitmoji digital world.

There is good news for Millennial public relations practitioners and bad news.

The positives: There are more algorithmic tools than ever to micro-target and instantaneously communicate with virtually anyone of this planet in two-nanoseconds or less.

The negatives: Good luck breaking through to Millennials, who are addicted to their devices and rarely if ever come up for air.

As the author of Almost DailyBrett prepares to celebrate another happy class of Millennials graduating tomorrow, we need to be reminded that when it comes to Millennial metaphors, sometimes perception is indeed reality.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/01/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers/

http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/millennials/

http://alonetogetherbook.com/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2015/07/06/the-worst-generation/

“There are 47 percent who are with him (Obama), who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. These are people who pay no income tax.” – 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney caught on a planted Mother Jones videoromney47

“I want a Lamborghini.” – Mary Gatter, Planned Parenthood Pasadena and San Gabriel Valley medical director, caught on a planted Center for Medical Progress video.

Hall of Fame football coach and legendary commentator on CBS, ABC, NBC and Fox for three decades, John Madden, was asked on KCBS-Radio what was one of key reasons for his unprecedented run on four major networks:

“Never say in private, what you wouldn’t say in public.”

Also remember that allegations make headlines; rebuttals are buried in the story.

Saying that you were quoted out of context is weak, defensive and sounds lame.

How about not making inexpedient or arrogant comments in the first place?

How about assuming that you are always on-the-record regardless of where, when, what, why, how and to whom you are speaking?

The cameras are everywhere. The microphones are ubiquitous. And soon the drones will be swooping in. And thanks to Gordon Moore’s Law (e.g., the number of transistors on a piece of silicon real estate doubles every 18-24 months), ever more complexity can be packed into smaller and more powerful than ever before devices using a fraction of the power as in the past.

Think of it as the serendipity of the consumer electronics business.

The Cameras are Everywhere

The Mother Jones hidden video of Romney’s 47 percent remark, made to a supposedly private meeting with wealthy donors, immediately fed to the growing perception of the former Massachusetts governor as a heartless plutocrat. Whether that image was real or not, really didn’t matter at that point … the damage was done.

The Center for Medical Progress hidden video of Planned Parenthood’s Gatter discussing the dollars-and-cents pricing of tiny body parts of aborted fetuses over salad and wine in a tony Pasadena (CA) restaurant, ended with her visions of an Italian sports car. She inadvertently put Planned Parenthood’s $542 million in federal subventions into the crosshairs of a Republican-controlled Congress.Lamborghini

Think of it this way: a Mother Jones planted video came from the left side of the political spectrum and a Center for Medical Progress planted video came from the right side of the political spectrum. As Mary Matalin once said: “Politics is a contact sport.”

At the same time, publicly traded technology companies, such as GoPro (NASDAQ: GPRO) and others, are pioneering ever-smaller, more reliable cameras with excellent sound pickup, which are available for reasonable prices. Top it off, uploading these videos and having them go viral is easier than ever.

Digital is Eternal.

The candidates for the presidency and everyone else serving as the FrontMann/Frau(lein) or mouthpiece for any political sensitive organization or profitable business is now on record: No conversation is harmless. You should trust no one. Should you be a tad paranoid? Hello!

Take a mundane chore, such as Hillary Clinton heading off to Bergdorf Goodman on New York’s Fifth Avenue for a $600 haircut at the John Barrett Salon. Reportedly, her entourage closed down one side of the store on a Friday and marshalled a private elevator so the inevitable nominee could have her hair done.

July 26, 2015 - Ames, Iowa, U.S. -  HILLARY CLINTON speaks during an organizing event at the Iowa State University Alumni Center .(Credit Image: © Brian Cahn via ZUMA Wire)

July 26, 2015 – Ames, Iowa, U.S. – HILLARY CLINTON speaks during an organizing event at the Iowa State University Alumni Center .(Credit Image: © Brian Cahn via ZUMA Wire)

Does this $600 haircut square with championing the needs of the struggling middle class? Or does it add to the notion of privilege?

Once again in our Twitterverse, second-screen world, everything and anything is in play. Nothing is off-the-record. Literally anything is discoverable. Have we lost to a large degree our privacy? Yes, we have.

Thirty years ago, we were all told to be wary of anything that you wrote down or typed because scary Xerox machines existed. Your ill-advised words could be copied and delivered to a non-friendly reporter, looking for “good dirt,” in a plain-white envelope.

Life was so innocent back then.

Today is so different. Who would have thought that munching on an overpriced salad, sipping nice wine, while dreaming of a nice car with the top down, could be so dangerous to the political and economic health of your organization and/or campaign?madden

Once again contemplate the wise words of John Madden: “Never say in private, what you wouldn’t say in public.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-barbarity-of-a-nation/2015/07/31/344f5140-36eb-11e5-9739-170df8af8eb9_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-price-of-fetal-parts/2015/07/23/13cb5668-316d-11e5-8353-1215475949f4_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/07/21/antiabortion-group-releases-second-planned-parenthood-video/

http://pagesix.com/2015/07/28/hillary-clintons-600-haircut-puts-bergdorf-on-lockdown/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/leaked-videos-show-romney-dismissing-obama-supporters-as-entitled-victims/2012/09/17/5d49ca96-0113-11e2-b260-32f4a8db9b7e_story.html?hpid=z2

http://www.biography.com/people/john-madden-9542594

http://gopro.com/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/08/planned-parenthood-receives-record-amount-taxpayer-support/

 

 

 

 

 

 

There seems to be an ongoing national sport associated with categorizing and contrasting generations.

If you listen to Tom Brokaw, there was “The Greatest Generation” (born 1922-1943) who overcame the Great Depression and Fascism and is now heading for the history books.

Next up were the Baby Boomers (1944-1963) with the defining events of the Kennedy assassination, Vietnam, and Neil Armstrong on the moon. The most mature of this group are now entering their Golden Years.

Behind them are the X-Gens (born 1964-1980), coming to age with the Fall of the Berlin Wall, and now in their prime working years.

Generation Y or the Millennials (born 1980-1999) are now in their high school and college years and supposedly will only take a “yes” for an answer. Reportedly, they are the most educated in history.

And finally, there is Generation Z or the Zeds (born 1995-2009). The acronym “GM” means genetically modified to this generation with the more mature just entering college.

Much has been made about history and the interdependency and clashes between generations (e.g., “Turn that s… off!”), particularly the generational theory work of historians William Strauss and Neil Howe.

But please allow Almost DailyBrett to ask: Is it really this complicated?

digitalimmigrant

Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives

Instead of getting our collective knickers in a twist over generational divides, let’s just focus on the most important divide of all: The difference between Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives.

During the course of the lifespans of Baby Boomers and for the most part, X-Gens, occurred the most important-to-date technological changes.

Bob Noyce (Intel) and/or Jack Kilby (Texas Instruments) invented the integrated circuit in 1959, allowing more than one function to be included on a single piece of silicon.

Gordon Moore promulgated Moore’s Law in 1965, simply stating the amount of complexity that could be incorporated onto a defined slice of silicon real estate doubles every 18-24 months. This law has been accurate for nearly 50 years, and is responsible for more functionality in smaller spaces (e.g., iPhones).

IBM invented the PC and Apple the Mac computer in 1981 and 1984 respectively.

Web 1.0 (websites for surfing) came on the scene in 1990 and Web 2.0 (interconnectivity of wired and wireless computation devices) followed five years later.

First-mover and now all publicly traded social media companies came of age in the last decade-plus: LinkedIn, 2002; Facebook, 2004; and Twitter, 2006.

The point of this discussion is that all or the vast majority of these seminal technology changes came during the lifespans of the Baby Boomers and X-Gens. Under the Diffusion of Innovation Theory, a few will be “innovators”, more will be “early adopters”, even more will be “early majority”, the same amount will be “late majority” and then 16 percent will be bah-humbug, curmudgeon “laggards.”

Alas, many in the Digital Immigrant category fall into the late majority or laggard camps.

Teaching Digital Natives

The challenge lies with Digital Immigrants, whether they be Baby Boomers or X-Gens, teaching Digital Natives, whether they be Millennials/Generation Y or (gasp) Generation Z.

digitalnative

What this means is that Digital Immigrant educators must “get it” when it comes to meaningful technology shifts.

Does that translate into playing “Candy Crush”? Not exactly.

What it does require is daily participation in social media and/or blogging. Whether the good folks at the conventional media outlets like it or not (and in most cases they are kicking and screaming), digital publishing via mobile devices, and in declining cases with a mouse, is now a permanent and irreversible feature of our society.

When it comes to brand and reputation management, one needs to be afraid, very afraid. Yelp, TripAdvisor, Angie’s List and others are there to help settle the score. If you are teaching brand management, your Digital Native students need to understand that you get it when it comes to the very fact that reputations can be drastically altered in a matter of seconds.

Only Digital Immigrant innovators, early adopters and early majority denizens can teach the Digital Natives. And that requires keeping pace with the inevitable changes that will occur. Amazon was born 20 years ago. The wildly successful IPO of China’s Alibaba was just this past Friday.

What will be the next killer app and where will it come from?

For Digital Native students, they have their own forms of angst, and they are having their fair share of troubles in finding a job in a stubbornly difficult economy. For them, there is no excuse. They are expected to “get it” when it comes to not only deciphering social, mobile and cloud technologies, but more importantly how to monetize these complex ones-and-zeroes.

It sounds like a mismatch: Digital immigrants, the majority of which did not initially appreciate the technological changes in their lives as they were happening, are mentoring the Digital Natives, who were born seemingly with a video game controller in their hands.digitalnative1

Nonetheless, there are still analog skills (i.e., to-the-point persuasive writing, overcoming Glossophobia, parallel construction, financial communications) that can be communicated to the Digital Natives. After all, Digital Immigrants had to find a job when they graduated too.

Now it’s time for Digital Natives to write their own cover letters, curriculum vitaes and of course, LinkedIn profiles, to compete for the jobs of the 21st Century.

Don’t forget your attachments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatest_Generation#The_Greatest_Generation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Brokaw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory

http://www.techopedia.com/definition/28139/digital-immigrant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_native

 

“There in the floodlit night, jammed together like sardines, in one massive formation, the little men of Germany, who have made Nazism possible, achieved the highest state of being the Germanic man knows: the shedding of their individual souls and minds – with the personal responsibilities and doubts and problems – until under the mystic lights and at the sound of the magic words of the Austrian they were merged completely in the German herd,” William L. Shirer, The Nightmare Years

williamshirerrome

 “The power which has always started the greatest religious and political avalanches in history rolling has from time immemorial has been the magic power of the spoken word, and that alone. The broad masses of the people can be moved only by the power of speech. All great movements are popular movements, volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotional sentiments, stirred either by the cruel Goddess of Distress or by the firebrand of the word hurled among the masses.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

It was a disheveled Landsberg Prison inmate who wrote these prophetic words about mass movements egged on by provocative speech and transmitted over recently built networks by newly developed mass-media technology.

Soon he would emerge from his jail cell to take full advantage of a perfect storm of never-before-assembled circumstances to unleash upon the world a gathering storm of fury with profound implications for society then and now.

To many the Perfect Storm is a novel and a movie about the crew of the fishing boat Andrea Gail from Gloucester, Massachusetts, lost at sea during severe conditions while longline fishing for swordfish 575 miles out in the Atlantic.[1]

In this case, the “Perfect Storm” can be seen as a unique confluence of political, economic, philosophical and technological events that produced the backdrop that led to the Gathering Storm of 1930s Nazi Germany. This essay evades discussions about the impacts of the Industrial Revolution, the Rise of Bismarck, the Bolshevik Revolution, Germany’s loss in World War I, the hatred of the Versailles Treaty, the fragility of the Weimar Republic, the Great Depression and the many other macro political and economic events that contributed to or constituted the discontinuous model of history of 20th Century Germany.

The key point for this survey is that all of these historical epochs, coupled with startling new advancements in mass culture technologies and networks, culminated in a unique climate that was fully exploited by Hitler and his disciples, in particular Nazi Germany’s Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945).[2]

Political pros, including the late presidential campaign strategist Lee Atwater (1951-1991), have preached the virtues of “message, candidate, campaign” in this particular order to captivate the masses or an electorate in a democratic setting. In the case of totalitarian Nazi Germany’s use of mass culture for political purposes it must be asked: What were the origins of the message? (There is obviously no need to inquire about who was the “candidate.”) And how was the campaign conducted with frightening results?

This discussion assumes the reader’s more-than-adequate knowledge of the macro political/economic influences that contributed to die Weltanchauung of Nazi Germany. This focus instead touches upon Germany’s philosophical underpinnings that contributed to the message. There is also the need to adequately, but not exhaustively, weigh the impact (at the time) of new mass media technology — most notably radio, cinema, recorded sound and telephony – all of which made their collective power known for the first time in the 1930s/1940s. Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill used these tools to inspire. Hitler had other designs for these new breakthroughs in mass media.

FDRmedia

It is no mistake that the majority of these advancements occurred in the mid-to-late 19th Century, basically coinciding with the Industrial Revolution. Samuel Morse invented the telegraph in 1837; Alexander Graham Bell, the telephone in 1875; Thomas Edison, the phonograph in 1877; Louis Lumiere, the motion picture camera in 1895 and Guglielmo Marconi, the radio also in 1895.

As important as these inventions were, there still needed to be time for related communications networks to be built and expanded to the masses on a global scale. The true, cumulative impact of Bell’s telephone, Marconi’s radio, Lumiere’s cinema camera were not truly felt until the early decades of the 20th Century or about the time that Hitler and his Brownshirts were agitating and fighting in the streets of München and eventually spreading their sinister Nazi web over Germany.

Borrowing from Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan’s (1911-1980) “The Medium is the Message,” University of California Professor of Sociology Manuel Castells Olivan[3] coined his own version of this concept, “The Network is the Message.” Castells’ contention (even though he was writing about the Internet) is that the network is more important than the message, and without the former the latter is essentially of no consequence. (“If a tree falls in a forest…).

Goebbels would have gladly not argued; simply combining the two – message and network – to completely hold sway over the thinking of the German public.

Most of all, it was how the National Socialists took full advantage of these developments to wage a mass-culture campaign never before seen in the modern world that revolutionized the use of propaganda. It was no mistake that one of the first actions undertaken by the Nazis upon assuming power in 1933 was to secure immediate control of the means to influence and subjugate the masses.

Goebbels and his ministry took supreme control of what French philosopher Louis Althusser (1918-1990) labeled as the Ideological State Apparatuses or ISAs. In his Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses essay, Althusser included religion, education, family, legal, political, trade-unions as ISAs. For this discussion, we are focusing on two of Althusser’s ISAs: Communications (e.g. press, radio…) and cultural (e.g. literature, the arts, sports etc.).

Althusser distinguished ISAs from what he called “Repressive State Apparatus” (e.g. government, administration, the army, the police, the courts, the prisons), which he said “functions by violence.” He said that ISAs “must not be confused with Repressive State Apparatus.” With all due respect to Althusser, the Nazis skillfully used both the tools of repression (e.g., violence) and the new means of ideological persuasion, particularly the spoken word, to physically and mentally dominate the German public and eventually the majority of the populations that they subsequently conquered and enslaved.

“It is interesting that the only developed ‘mass’ use of radio was in Nazi Germany, where under Goebbels’ orders the Party organized compulsory listening groups and the receivers were in the streets,” Welsh academic Raymond Williams (1921-1988)[4] wrote in Technology and Cultural Form. “There has been some imitation of this by similar regimes, and Goebbels was deeply interested in television for the same kind of use.”

“…As the years went by, Dr. Goebbels proved himself right, in that the radio became by far the regime’s most effective means of propaganda, doing more than any other single instrument of communication to shape the German people to Hitler’s ends,” wrote William L. Shirer (1904-1993), in his Pulitzer Prize winning The Rise and the Fall of the Third Reich. He was the Universal News Service and CBS correspondent out of Berlin, who obviously understood the power of radio.

goebbels

German-Jewish, philosopher-sociologists Theodor Adorno (1903-1969)[5] and Max Horkheimer (1895-1973), both of the “Frankfurt School,” were compelled to take flight from Germany when Hitler and Nazis claimed power and with it, put in motion what would become the Holocaust. The two exiles introduced the notion of The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. They correctly concluded that the Hitler/Goebbels propaganda machine seized control of this “industry” to make the regime sound more reasonable than it was in reality.

“Society is full of desperate people and therefore prey to rackets,” they wrote. “… The attitude of the individual to the racket, business, profession or party, before or after admission, the Führer’s gesticulations before the masses, or the suitor’s before his sweetheart, assume specifically masochistic traits.” They added that life in the late capitalist era is a constant initiation rite in which everyone must show identification with the power that is “belaboring him (or her?).”

And what were the messages emanating from Hitler’s version of the Culture Industry that constituted required listening im Vaterland?

Several philosophers and prominent German thinkers in the late 19th Century and the early 20th Century contributed to the notion of a strong nation state, the rise of militarism and the glory of modern-day warfare…all of which were wholeheartedly embraced by Hitler and his followers.

German historian Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911)[6] provided a glimpse into this way of thinking in his Formation of the Historical World essay. “The goals of war permeated all parts of (early German) life. They asserted themselves in the relationship of the family to the military order…The military ethos also produced the system of devoted followers that was so important for military and political development.”

Dilthey said that we must add the “individuality of national spirit” to this commentary. “The life-value of the individual person is shifted to his martial qualities.” And what is the highest value and enjoyment of existence? “This characteristic, which finds its highest expression in the joy of battle, influenced the entire development of our political institutions and our spiritual life.”

Georg Wilhelm Hegel (1770-1837)[7] is most commonly known for his dialectrics, which inspired Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin and the founding of Communism. In the case of the Nazis, who violently opposed Marxism, they preferred to gain strength from Hegel’s celebration of the supreme power of the state. The state, he wrote in his Philosophy of History, “has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the state…for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.” And what about the individual’s pursuit of happiness? To Hegel this notion needs to be subordinated, if not outright crushed.

“World history is not an empire of happiness,” Hegel wrote. “The periods of happiness are the empty pages of history because they are periods of agreement, without conflict.” Taking it a step further, Hegel said that war makes for “the ethical health of peoples corrupted by a long peace, as the blowing of the wind preserves the sea from the foulness which could be the result of a prolonged calm.”

Dueling Hegel when it comes to the glorification of the state was nationalist political historian Heinrich von Treitschke (1834-1896)[8], who bluntly stated to the individual: “It does not matter what you think, so long as you obey.”

He said that martial glory is the basis of all political virtues, rivaling the “masterpieces of our poets and thinkers.”

“The concept of the state implies the concept of war, for the essence of the State is power,” von Treitschke wrote. “That war should ever be banished from the world is a hope not only absurd, but profoundly immoral.”

Books paying homage to authoritarian disciplines, the magnificence of the state, the subordination of the individual and the glory of martial conflict were not the only ones sitting on the night stands of the Fascists (literally Mussolini’s bedside) during the first-half of the 20th Century. Reportedly, Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”[9] drew heavily on the propaganda techniques of French social psychologist Gustave Le Bon’s (1841-1931) [10] The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind.

“The great events of history have been brought about by obscure believers, who have had little beyond their faith in the favor,” LeBon wrote in 1895. “It is not be the aid of the learned or of philosophers, and still less of skeptics, that have been built up the great religions which have swayed the world, or the vast empires which have spread from one hemisphere to the other.” LeBon was obviously referring to St. Paul, Christopher Columbus and others (Hitler no doubt would have liked to mentally associate himself with this elite company).

LeBon said that the leaders of crowds wield a very despotic authority, and whether they are intelligent or narrow-minded is of no real importance because the world belongs to these popular leaders. They persist by demonstrating a force of will that LeBon said was both immensely rare and powerful, “nothing resists it; neither nature, gods, nor man.”

LeBon refers to the tactics of another European conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, who said that there is “only one figure in rhetoric of serious importance, namely repetition.”

“The opinions and beliefs of crowds are specially propagated by contagion, but never by reasoning,” wrote LeBon. “The conceptions at present rife among working classes have been acquired at the public-house as the result of affirmation, repetition and contagion.” Wonder if there were any public houses in 1930s-era Germany?

Shirer saw as much each day and night in 1934 as thirty thousand jammed into Nürnberg’s Luitpold Hall, packed the city’s narrow streets or participated in a mass rally of a half million strong at the Zeppelin Meadow.

nazirally

“You have to go through one of these to understand Hitler’s hold on the people, to feel the dynamism in the movement he’s unleashed and the sheer, disciplined strength the Germans possess,” Shirer wrote in his Berlin Diary.[11] “And now – as Hitler told the correspondents yesterday – the half-million men and women who’ve been here during the week will go back to their towns and villages and preach the new faith with new fanaticism.”

In his Revolt of the Masses, Spanish liberal philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955)[12] prescribes how skillful propagandists (he was absolutely no fan of Fascism) exploit the masses going about their daily business. He said the majority of men have no opinions of their own, so these have to come from external forces, “like lubricants into machinery.”

“Hence it is necessary that some mind or other should hold and exercise authority, so that people without opinions – the majority – can start having opinions,” he wrote. “For without these, the common life of humanity would be chaos, a historic void, lacking in any organic structure. Consequently without a spiritual power, without someone to command, (author’s emphasis) and in proportion as this is lacking, chaos reigns over mankind.”

LeBon takes up this mantle to introduce the notion that prestige is an essential ingredient in order to influence the crowds and control the masses. “The great leaders of crowds, such as Buddha, Jesus, Mahomet, Joan of Art and Napoleon, have possessed this form of prestige to a high degree…The special characteristic of prestige is to prevent us seeing things as they are and to entirely paralyze our judgment. Crowds always, and individuals as a rule, stand in need of ready-made opinions on all subjects. The popularity of these opinions is independent of the measure of truth and error they contain, and is solely regulated by their prestige.”

Shirer saw first-hand how Hitler’s oratorical skills held his German audiences spellbound. Der Führer developed a special rapport with the crowds that “it did not matter so much what he said but how he said it…I would pause in my own mind to exclaim: ‘What utter rubbish! What brazen lies!’ Then I would look around at the audience. His German listeners were lapping up every word as the utter truth.”

“No one who has not lived for years in a totalitarian land can possibly conceive how difficult it is to escape the dread consequences of a regime’s calculated and incessant propaganda,” Shirer wrote. And if someone dared to doubt the message of Goebbels’ propaganda machine?  “…One was met with such a state of incredulity, such a shock of silence, as if one has blasphemed the Almighty, that one realized how useless is was even to try to make contact with a mind which had become warped and for whom the facts of life had become what Hitler and Goebbels, with their cynical disregard for truth, said they were.”

Ortega y Gasset grouped Syndicalism and Fascism together is his 1932 book (one year before the ascension of Hitler) and said that Europeans are inflicted with a strangeness” for “elements of novelty.”

“Under the species of Fascism there appears for the first time in Europe a type of man who does not want to give reasons or to be right, but simply shows himself resolved to impose his opinions,” he wrote. “This is the new thing: the right not to reasonable, the ‘reason of unreason.’”

The reason for this exercise is not to merely recount how the Perfect Storm of history, macro-economic factors, technology and sinister intent led to the most efficient propaganda machine the world had ever seen. Many before have written extensively about what Winston Churchill called The Gathering Storm.[13] This voice will not be added to that chorus.

Instead, present-day society and future generations must be mindful of this history and then ask whether a similar repository of elements and events could ever again form the nucleus of a propaganda machine that has even scarier implications for civilization in this era of terrorism and nuclear proliferation?

Shirer and other observers before, during and after what the German’s refer to as the NS-Zeit have questioned how a nation that produced “some of the most elevated minds and spirits of the Western World” (e.g., Kant, Humboldt, Goethe, Schiller, Bach, Beethoven…) could fall completely under the sway of an Austrian corporal.

We have already answered the question of whether this kind of repressive control of the vehicles and networks of mass culture coupled with the spread of incessant propaganda can occur in the 21st Century. One only needs to look north of the 38th parallel on the Korean Peninsula for the answer. But in all due respect, did the rural and backward hermit kingdom of what now constitutes North Korea ever produce the thinkers and the civilization even remotely equivalent to the major countries (e.g., Germany) of the industrialized world?

Theoretically anything is possible, but Goebbels would have quickly confronted what the People’s Republic of China is combating today: the global impact of a vast network of PCs and servers, guided by ever more powerful microprocessors, governed by clever software operating systems and tied together with a worldwide web of cyberspace.

Wonder what would be the popular reaction to vivid Google Earth satellite photos of Auschwitz downloaded onto millions of computers, replayed repeatedly on YouTube, written into encyclopedic script on Wikipedia.org and served as the subject of blogs, Tweets, LinkedIn and Facebook entries?  How would Hitler, Goering, Himmler, Goebbels et al. explain satellite transmissions of concentration camps or mobilized infantry/armor/Luftwaffe in the face of a digitally informed global population?

moore2

The greatest threat to modern-era propaganda makers, even though he certainly did not know this in 1965, was most likely Gordon Moore.[14] One of the three founders of Intel (NASDAQ: INTC) postulated that year that the number of transistors on a given piece of silicon real estate doubles every 18 months.

“Moore’s Law” has not only been 100 percent accurate since its inception, it may even be judged to be conservative. The net result is an explosion of mass communication access devices (e.g., PCs, tablets, digital readers, cell phones) that are smaller, faster, better and consume less power.

In his Parisian lecture this past September, New York University Journalism Professor Jay Rosen[15] wrote about the disintegration of the atomized “mass” audience. He asked what if society turned away from the television tube en masse, similar to crazed television newsman Howard Beale in the 1976 film Network.

“Immediately people who happened to be watching would alert their followers on Twitter,” Rosen wrote in his The Journalists Formerly Known as the Media: My Advice to the Next Generation. “Someone would post a clip the same day on YouTube. The social networks would light up before the incident was over. Bloggers would be commenting on it well before professional critics had their chance. The media world today is a shifted space. People are connected horizontally to one another as effectively as they are connected up to Big Media; and they have the powers of production in their hands.”

Bottom-line conscious global businesses are moving away from top-down control where everything is designed, manufactured and sold under one roof and instead concentrating on their bread-and-butter raison d’etre and outsourcing the rest. Rosen said a similar worldwide shift from vertical-to-horizontal is occurring in how the public receives news and information (North Korea and few others are exceptions).

There still are some very famous media brand names, but the number of “journalists” harnessing digital ones-and-zeroes to self-publish is growing with every passing day. The vehicles of choice are not just wireline or wireless networked servers and PCs, but a growing variety of mobile communications devices.

tiananmen

The most populous nation on the planet, authoritarian China is struggling against the massive weight of sheer math and the tyranny of numbers: 1.5 billion people, millions of mobile devices, millions of PCs, millions of television sets, thousands of servers, thousands of miles of fiber-optic cable and a vast worldwide web to tie them all together. No one should underestimate the lengths the regime will go to protect its hegemony (e.g., Tiananmen Square in 1989), but nonetheless Moore’s Law continues unabated.

Does anyone want to take a wager that Moore’s Law will outlast the Communist Party of China (CPC) or other despots who try to use mass media to wage a stifling propaganda campaign with chilling impacts for not only the subjugated but for their neighbors as well?

Even though there are no guarantees in life, it can be argued that rapid advancements in innovation and humanity’s insatiable demand for the marketplace of ideas will severely curtail, if not put an end, to systemic, one-sided propaganda efforts such as the one unleashed and waged by Goebbels. The impact of today’s information technology (and the killer apps still to come) will digitally expose the lies and deception behind Goebbels-like modern day messages. It was another form of technology, the cyanide capsule, that put an end to Goebbels’ life in a deep bunker underneath a bombed out city, not far from the remains of what was once his grandiose Propaganda Ministry.

Soon thereafter his loud speakers finally went silent.

  1. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Perfect_Storm
  1. [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Castells

[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Williams

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_W._Adorno

[6] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dilthey/

[7] http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/hegel.html

[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_von_Treitschke

[9] http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/

[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Le_Bon

[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_L._Shirer

[12] http://www.historyguide.org/europe/gasset.html

[13] http://www.rosettabooks.com/title.php?id=82

[14] http://www.intel.com/technology/mooreslaw/

[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Rosen

 

“If you must use more than 10 slides to explain your business, you probably don’t have a business.” – Silicon Valley Author and Venture Capitalist Guy Kawasaki.

“The number of transistors incorporated in a chip will approximately double every 24 months.” –  Moore’s Law.

kawasaki

Guy Kawasaki’s 10-20-30 Rule for PowerPoint presentations may not have the lasting power and global prominence of Intel co-founder Gordon Moore’s “Law” for the expected growth of semiconductor complexity.

Having acknowledged the obvious, Kawasaki’s rule does provide guidance for using presentation graphics to make a persuasive case to critical audiences.

Kawasaki recommends 10 slides; 20 minutes; 30-point font or above. There is a beauty in the simplicity of this rule.

One must wonder why so many rebel against this wisdom.

Sitting through more New York and San Francisco investor conference presentations than I care to remember in my Silicon Valley days, there was a War of the PowerPoints.

Companies were dueling each other with dazzling colors, impressive content and how many graphics could be jammed into a 30-minute time slot to extol their respective technology bits, bytes, bells and whistles. In short order, these presentations started to resemble real estate tours with each one-story ranch-style house with vaulted ceilings looking the same as every other one-story ranch-style house with vaulted ceilings.

Eventually these conference-sponsoring, sell-side companies rebelled (e.g., Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Morgan Stanley)  against the so-called Death by PowerPoint. No more PowerPoints …replacing them with FDR-style ”Fire Side Chats.”

Instead of curing the problem, the sell-side folks killed the patient. There were no more projected-onto-the-screen facts and figures for the audience to chew on. Instead there was an overpaid analyst quizzing a grossly overcompensated CFO about a myriad of gross margin, operating margin, cap-ex, R&D, SG&A numbers and percentages without any visual aid for the struggling audience.

Was that 15 percent growth or 50 percent growth?

No bueno.

Reflecting back on my trips to Tokyo with the Semiconductor Industry Association and LSI Logic, I was fascinated by how much detail our Japanese colleagues in particular could pack onto each PowerPoint slide.

Some of these slides reminded me about the bewildering grid of the Tokyo subway system regardless of whether it was in Kanji or English. Both, the PowerPoint slide and the Tokyo subway grid, resembled a plate of spaghetti with meat balls, tomato sauce and parmesan to make the picture even more complicated.

tokyosubway

There was a message in these PowerPoints begging to be released, but it was trapped in the barbed wire of complexity.

Fast forwarding to our present information overload society, PR/Marketing/IR pros are even more challenged than ever to break through the competing noise and deliver messages that resonate with low-attention span, easily bored and constantly distracted target audiences.

Is Guy Kawasaki’s 10-20-30 Rule perfect for all situations? Almost DailyBrett will let the reader make that determination.

There is no doubt this rule is far better than what is informally called, PR Agency Disease. What is this contagious malady, and how should avoid this addictive carcinogen?

Let’s say an agency is competing against seven others in responding to a huge multi-billion corporate client’s RFP (Request for Proposal) “cattle call.” The client has generously allotted 80 minutes for an agency presentation.

The agency responds with six speakers … no let’s make that eight speakers … and 60 PowerPoint slides … oops, we need 64 PowerPoint slides. Even someone with zero math acumen knows the number of presenters and the diarrhea of slides does not correspond with the time set aside for the presentation. One of the symptoms of PR Agency Disease is the insistence by the agency types to talk about themselves and not the potential client.

Approximately one week or more after this 64-slide (no typo) orgy with the potential client having virtually zero opportunity to ask questions, the competing agency finds out it was not selected. There is anguish. There are fingers pointed internally. Someone must be held responsible. Here’s the solution:

There were not enough PowerPoint slides. When in doubt: Add more slides to the presentation.

As a venture capitalist, Kawasaki, and his colleagues have sat through more PowerPoint (and conceivably Prezi) presentations than they would care to count. Obviously, some are better than others.

sleepingaudience1

Likewise students have endured PowerPoint-assisted lectures (including my musings), which brings to mind the research by University of Oklahoma Professor L.D. Fink. His findings indicate that approximately 15 minutes into a lecture, 10 percent of the audience is showing signs of inattention, and after 35 minutes everyone is inattentive. Fink concluded that as the length of a lecture increases, the proportion of material remembered by students’ decreases.

When one contemplates Kawasaki’s 10-20-30 Rule, one pictures the ubiquitous service club luncheon. There is the pre-lunch grip-and-grin, followed by the rubber-chicken entrée covered by a mysterious sauce, the 20-minute presentation by the invited speaker, the obligatory Q&A and followed by Rotarians, Optimists, Lions, Tigers and Bears etc. glancing at their watches to get back to the office.

The general rule for PowerPoints is two minutes per-slide with some taking less than that time and some taking more.  This simplistic math translates into 10 slides for 20 minutes.

Keep in mind the poor folks in the back of the room have to be able to read the slide, and that’s where the 30-point font comes into play.

And if you can add a photo, pie or bar chart or caricature to graphic without complicating the message all the better.

moore

Here’s to hoping that Kawasaki’s 10-20-30 Rule matches Moore’s Law in terms of longevity and influence. Maybe, there will even be a museum dedicated to the man who saved the world from Death by PowerPoint.

http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2005/12/the_102030_rule.html

http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/10-20-30-rule-guy-kawasaki-powerpoint/

http://www.guykawasaki.com/about/

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/history/museum-gordon-moore-law.html

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/no-more-plugging-chugging-and-forgetting/

http://finkconsutling.info/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_PowerPoint

 

 

 

Suppose an industry staged an annual forecast and awards dinner (e.g., SIA on November 29), and virtually no one gave a particle?

Considering that I worked directly for the Semiconductor Industry Association for two years, and later for a company run by one of its founders for a decade, it is difficult for me to say this, but I must: Semiconductors are now (and maybe forever) a taken-for-granted commodity.

sleepingaudience1

Would you like some salsa with your chips?

Yes, they power every digital and the remaining analog gadget under the sun just like ground beef, chicken or carnitas are essential for making tacos, burritos and enchiladas. Everyone knows this.

So what else is new?

The semiconductor industry is going to be flat this year at $300 billion. It seems like the industry is always at $300 billion. I wrote a speech in 1996 projecting a $300 billion industry in 2000 or 12 years ago for those of you scoring at home.

One company, Wal-Mart alone at $464 billion in revenues (and growing) is larger than the entire chip industry. This is not news.

Earlier this month, the stately Economist published a cover piece “The Survival of the biggest; The internet’s warring giants” about Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google with peripheral mention of Microsoft.

What happened to Intel, let alone AMD?  They didn’t even make the cutting-room floor.

What happened to the wonders of (Gordon) Moore’s Law (intellectual property content doubling on the same-sized piece of silicon real estate every 18-24 months)? Anyone want to hear that story for the umpthteen time?

What happened to the epic tales of the fight against the evil predatory-pricing, two-headed monster in the form of Japan’s “Business is War” government/industry?

All these stories are now contained in a coffee table book coming to a deep-discount rack near you.

The “Mass Intelligence” Economist references the great technology fights of yesteryear: IBM and Apple in the 1980s in PCs, and Microsoft and Netscape in the 1990s in web browsing. The U.K. popular “newspaper” displays a map, vaguely similar to England, Normandy, Bavaria, Prussia und Dänemark.

England is the “Empire of Microsofts.” Normandy is “Appleachia.” Bavaria is “Google Earth.” Prussia is “Fortress Facebook.”  Dänemark is “Amazonia.” There are small islands occupied by RIMM (Research in Motion) and Nokia, and a nest dedicated for microblogging, “Eyrie of Twitter.” The lowly chip is nowhere to be seen on this map or in the expansive article. Intel is not even afforded a shrinking iceberg.

Some may want to dismiss my musings contending that I am only focusing on one article in one magazine, albeit an incredibly influential publication. They will say the article can be seen as a mere anecdote. These critics could be correct. However, in this case I humbly opine the anecdote represents a trend. For the metaphor types: It is the sick canary inside the mine.

Certainly, there are 250,000 Americans employed in semiconductor innovation and (some) manufacturing. With all due respect to the engineering types in particular, they are mere role players. They are throwing the screens and opening up holes in the line for the superstars: Tim Cook of Apple, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Larry Page of Google.

The chip is essential, but so is the sun. They are everywhere. The sun is there. What is commanding attention are mobile platforms and the software that makes them do what they do. Algorithms über alles!

algorithms

Rarely did a day go by in the 1990s and the post-Bubble era when the San Jose Mercury, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times (not suggesting equivalency of influence) would write another gushing, fawning piece about “The Chip Giant,” Intel. No one could accuse the media of shorting the stock.

Today, Intel is trading at $20.52 with a market cap of $101 billion. Ten years ago on this date, the company’s stock traded at $17.58…sounds like a good stock to avoid. Even with all angst, Sturm und Drang about Facebook’s IPO FUBAR, the company still commands a $28.24 stock price and $60 billion in market capitalization. All things considered, this is not bad for a company publicly traded only since May 18 and which was founded in a Harvard dorm room less than one decade ago. If only Intel could grow this fast.

Don McLean in American Pie asked: If the music would ever play again? For the chip industry, the band could start playing if the industry starts growing again; if it comes up with a new way of making chips (e.g., nanotechnology); if it spearheads a new revolution. Incremental changes won’t cut it. And staying stuck in neutral at $300 billion will elicit the same yawns but only 10 years down the road.

Silicon Valley is called “Silicon Valley” for a particular reason that was germane decades ago. Let’s just hope no one seriously suggests changing the name to “Algorithm Valley.”

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4374705/SIA-expects-flat-chip-sales-in-2012-

http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/WMT

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21567355-concern-about-clout-internet-giants-growing-antitrust-watchdogs-should-tread

http://www.economist.com/news/21567361-google-apple-facebook-and-amazon-are-each-others-throats-all-sorts-ways-another-game

http://www.sia-online.org/events/2012/11/29/public-event/35th-annual-sia-award-dinner/

http://www.lyrics007.com/Don%20McLean%20Lyrics/American%20Pie%20Lyrics.html

Move over Gordon Moore, there is a new law in town: Digital is Eternal.

Intel Corporation co-founder Moore is famous for his 1965 “law,” stating that every 18-24 months the amount of capability/complexity that can be incorporated into a silicon piece of real estate doubles. The law is still applicable nearly two generations later and it explains how we can have ever-smaller devices (e.g. fourth generation cell phones with tons of apps) that are faster, quicker, more powerful and burn less power in doing so. It all adds up to the serendipity of the semiconductor business.

moore

A net effect of Moore’s law is the proliferation of the ones-and-zeroes that make digital possible. And with the global spread of digital technology comes the undeniable and inescapable fact that anything and everything that is rendered digital is there forever…and can come back to bite you. Digital is eternal.

Back in my analog days working in the California governor’s office in the 1980s, a frequent refrain heard in the corridors of the capitol was, “If you don’t want to read about it in the Sacramento Bee, don’t write it down.” The big fear at the time was copy machines, lots of copy machines. Members of the Capital Press Corps would soon be receiving white envelopes with no return addresses and inside of these envelopes were photocopied “good dirt.” This practice almost sounds quaint compared to today’s digital TMZ, Deadspin, National Enquirer world

Fast forward to the digital days of the Internet Bubble in which stocks rode the roller coaster up and the same thrill ride to the bottom, we heard another refrain, “Everything digital is discoverable.” Translated: A plaintiff attorney firm filing a strike suit against your company could, and most likely would, demand in the discovery process all corporation e-mails, notes, transcripts, documents, anything and everything even remotely relevant to the matter being litigated. And there was no excuse for digital data being routinely purged after an appropriate period of time; a judge would simply order a company to digitally comply regardless of the IT data recovery costs involved. No wonder so many cases were settled out of court to the delight of the strike suit firm.

Today, we live in the age of Google. The company’s name is no longer just a proper noun, but a verb as in “Google this” and “Google that.” What is being Googled in many cases is a person’s reputation and personal brand.

If you are Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian (you get the digital picture), money and attention is the draw; reputation is clearly secondary, if not tertiary. So a supposedly private sex tape or commando raid becomes public or pubic…or lack of pubic. Will they ever regret that their sexual escapades are permanently captured and literally viewed by millions all by means of digital ones and zeroes? Wonder if Brett Favre and/or Anthony Weiner have any regrets about digitally transmitting images of their respective junk?

Go ahead and “Google” Olympic Gold medal swimmer, “Michael Phelps bong” and 505,000 pages including the infamous stoned photos (first item) come rushing at you. Will the public remember his 16-gold medals or his famous bong pipe escapade? What is really sad is the bong pipe photo, which reportedly cost him millions in endorsements, will not only follow him to his grave, but actually will be a permanently black mark on his reputation beyond his grave.

phelps

“Some day that party picture is going to bite them when they seek a senior corporate job or public office,” said Don Tapscott, author of Grown Up Digital. “I think they should wake up now, and become aware of the extent to which they’re sharing parts of themselves that one day they may wish they had kept private.”

More than one person has labeled college as “Life’s last playground.” And as a teaching assistant, I run into students who are having plain old fun and enjoying their college years to the max. They should also keep in mind, whether they like it or not, that they are also in the midst of making a transition from being student to becoming a professional.

If a student is neck-and-neck with another student for an entry-level job and the employer Google’s both and finds a bong pipe, a drunken stupor or an inappropriate display for body parts that should be private on one student and none of the above on the other, who are they going to be inclined to hire?

And this cautionary note goes beyond the prospective work place and also includes a potential lover. In this era of Internet dating, it is routine for a partner-to-be to surf your reputation to determine if there any game-changing, unpleasant sides to your personal brand. What may be playful and fun to you, may be interpreted as showing a total lack of judgment.

In this era of smaller and smaller cameras and more powerful microphones, all for reasonable prices, it is better to think twice and to exert caution. My intent here is to not be an old-fashioned party pooper. Instead, I would like to ensure that student careers do not come crashing to earth, before they even have a chance to get launched into the professional stratosphere. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Moore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_Law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Phelps

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=4&oq=Michael+Phelps+&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS373US374&q=michael+phelps+bong&gs_upl=0l0l0l13120lllllllllll0&aqi=g4s1

“Yeah, just sitting back trying to recapture a little of the glory of, well time slips away and leaves you with nothing mister but boring stories of glory days.” Bruce Springsteen, Glory Days.

glorydays

Remember the PC/Internet connectivity era?

The one that ended about a decade ago?

Remember when investing in Intel (NASDAQ: INTC); Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT); Cisco (NASDAQ: CSCO) and Dell (NASDAQ: DELL) was close to automatic profits on Wall Street?

Of course, you wanted to invest in these stocks and so did everyone else…but over time the world changed: Pentium processors became a commodity, just like all other semiconductors.

Microsoft operating system announcements became less-anticipated and the results less than stellar…most of all they were being used for ubiquitous PCs.

Cisco makes switches and routers. They work. The Internet works. Thank you very much…and just this week the company laid off 6,500 workers.

And Dell? Well, Dell produced a great model for inventory…How about big-time results?

If you are engaged in public relations, marketing, employee communications and social media for these four companies, you are probably singing Bruce Springsteen’s “Glory Days,” if you are singing anything at all.

So what is the connection between music and technology public relations?

Two days ago CNBC after-market anchors were hyperventilating about another blow-out quarter for Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL), they really had nothing negative that they could say about the company as the stock reached $400 a share for the first time. Reportedly, the company sold every iPad that it made.

And then one of the talking heads asked the rhetorical question: “What happens when the music stops?”

For companies such as Apple, search engine Google (NASDAQ: GOOG), social media Facebook, cloud computing Salesforce.com (NYSE: CRM) and social media LinkedIn (NYSE: LNKD), it is downright heresy to suggest that the music will stop someday…but based upon history it will because in virtually all cases it has to.

Ten years ago, Apple was trading at $9.07 per share. Today, Apple is listed at $387.90. Anybody remember Gil Amelio? Hint, he was the guy running the show before the resurrection of Steve Jobs. Remember all the hoopla about Blackberry’s and Research in Motion (NASDAQ: RIMM)? The music stopped.

Ten years ago, Google didn’t exist. All the search discussion focused on Yahoo (NASDAQ: YHOO)…but the music stopped for Yahoo as Google went public in 2004 at $101 per share. Today the Google is trading at $606.78: Yahoo at $13.61. And just this month, the company introduced Google+, taking dead aim at its chief competitor, Facebook.

Facebook didn’t exist 10 years ago. Its eventual founder Mark Zuckerberg was a secondary school student attending Phillips Exeter Academy in Massachusetts. He was still a couple of years away from that famous dorm room at Harvard University.

Ten years ago, Salesforce.com was privately held and still going through the growing pains of a two-year old company. The company went public in 2004 at $15 per share. Today Salesforce.com trades on the big board at $149.16.

LinkedIn.com was the first social media company to go public, debuting two months ago at $45 per share and today trading at $101.02 per share. The biggest question is whether the shadow of Facebook will stomp on little ole LinkedIn, if Zuckerberg et al decide to take Facebook public.

The music is playing fast and furious for Apple, Google, Facebook, Salesforce.com and LinkedIn. Times are good. Reporters/editors/analysts/investors can’t get enough of Jobs, Zuckerberg, Larry Page and Sergey Brin of Google and to a lesser extent Marc Benioff of Salesforce.com and Reid Hoffman of LinkedIn.

Now imagine for comparison reasons if you were managing public relations/marketing/employee communications/social media for Intel, Microsoft, Cisco and Dell. These used to be hot jobs; not as much today…Keep in mind that a job is a job in this economy.

Ten years ago, Intel traded at $29.97; today, $22.69.

Microsoft was priced at $33.60; today $27.10.

Cisco was a $20.61 stock 10 years ago; today $16.39.

Dell traded at $27.61 a decade ago; today, $17.46.

dell

Anyone want to hear another story about Moore’s Law? How about the genius of Bill Gates and Paul Allen? Bet ya it’s a whole lot easier to get an interview with John Chambers of Cisco, but does he really want to talk about layoffs? And how many Silicon Valley-based reporters are accumulating frequent flyer miles to spend time with Michael Dell in Austin?

The point of this Almost DailyBrett exercise is to remind PR types that nothing lasts forever. If things are going great, don’t get giddy. If things are heading south, keep your wits about you. And if you have stock options in a high-flying company, start selling in increments as the stock moves upward. There are two kinds of remorse when it comes to options; the one that you sold too early…and then there is the other one.

And never lose hope. Apple was a dead company before Steve Jobs came back. But also don’t be guilty of drinking your own bath water. In most cases as Don McLean once wrote in “American Pie” there comes a day “when the music died.”

DISCLOSURE TIME: The author of Almost DailyBrett presently owns shares of Salesforce.com and LinkedIn. Decisions regarding the impartiality of my rhetorical ramblings are left to the discretion of the reader.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/07/19Apple-Reports-Third-Quarter-Results.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salesforce.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linkedin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_Exeter_Academy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gil_Amelio

Johannes Gutenberg got into a fight with Gordon Moore … and lost.

Considering that the lifetimes of these two innovators, visionaries, inventors are separated by more than five centuries, Gutenberg’s loss is obviously figurative — but a defeat nonetheless.

gutenberg

As anyone even remotely familiar with the history of Journalism knows, Gutenberg is regarded as the first European to use moveable type in 1439 and is credited with the invention of the printing press. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg

Conversely, Moore, one of the founders of Intel Corporation (NASDAQ: INTC), is universally hailed in the technology world for “Moore’s Law.” In its simplest form, Moore’s Law states that the number of transistors that can be placed a piece of silicon real estate doubles every 18 months. This “law” has been 100 percent accurate since its inception in 1965 and in some respects has been even conservative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Moore

Why are these two luminaries from completely different backgrounds and eras joined at the hip when it comes to a discussion of Journalism? The answer is that Gutenberg represents Journalism’s past and Moore, the industry’s future.

Gutenberg’s printing press led to dawn of modern Journalism and even the anachronistic labeling of the profession, known simply (and most likely, always) as “The Press.” Over time, printing presses enveloped the world, morning and evening papers were produced, delivered to doorsteps by an army of news carriers in dilapidated cars, Sting Ray bicycles or sold at downtown newsstands.

This high-cost (in many cases monopolistic) business model worked for decades and led to the development of some of the most famous mastheads on the planet. Even the Gray Lady each day offers, “All the News That’s Fit to Print.”

What happens when the day inevitably arrives that all the news (or at least the lion’s share) is no longer printed? That’s where Moore’s Law enters the equation.

moore

Moore’s Law essentially says that complexity and functionality increases every year-and-one-half. The tyranny and the serendipity of his theory is that each succeeding generation of devices — let alone breakthrough applications — are better, faster, smaller and consume less power.

As a result, the mainframe computer spelled the end to the IBM Selectric with its novel correcting tape. Mini-computers retired the mainframe. PCs and servers vanquished mini-computers. And the PCs started talking to each via millions of miles of fibre-optic networks or even wirelessly. And now Internet content (e.g. news, information, voice, data, video) is being delivered to tablets, cell phones and digital readers. What is the next Killer App? It’s out there.

Clay Shirky, 46, who teaches New Media at NYU, in his Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable takes issue with the kickers and screamers, trying desperately to cling onto a traditional newspaper business model that no-longer works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Shirky

“Round and round this goes, with the people committed to saving newspapers demanding to know, ‘If the old model is broken, what will work its place?’ To which the answer is: Nothing. Nothing will work. There is no general model for newspapers to replace the one the Internet just broke.”

Essentially Shirky is saying that those who are refusing to confront the digital facts of life are, “demanding to be lied to. There are fewer and fewer people who can convincingly tell such a lie.”

If you apply Shirky’s commentary to those still clinging to the tried-and-true print journalism business model, you would say they are have already passed denial and are situated somewhere between anger and bargaining with depression and acceptance still to come. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_K%C3%BCbler-Ross

Some of the bargainers will even point to Rupert Murdoch’s $5 billion purchase of the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones news service in 2007 as an example that validates that the old business model lives on. Looking more closely, even this acquisition confirms that digital ones and zeroes are changing Journalism forever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch

murdoch

Murdoch bought the globe’s largest newspaper, the industry’s most valued brand and with it, a record 1-million-plus paid Internet subscribers. He also acquired the publication most closely connected with the 95 million Americans constituting the “Investor Class” (and millions more international investors). The impressive growth in day traders and retail investors largely resulted from the invention of the Internet, the availability of online digital investing tools and the dot.com euphoria. Murdoch bought a brand. He bought an Internet savvy audience. And he tapped into the Investor class. He did not buy a printing press and an antiquated business model.

“Society doesn’t need newspapers,” Shirky concluded. “What we need is Journalism…When we shift our attention from ‘save newspapers’ to ‘save society,’ the imperative changes from ‘preserve the current institutions’ to ‘do whatever works.” And what works today isn’t the same as what used to work.”

So what works today? If you look at Journalism through a supply-and-demand prism, you can safely conclude that the demand for fair, complete and objective information is there and quite possibly has never been greater. The question comes down on one of supply; exactly how will this supply be provided to the public?

One answer comes in the form of 24-7-365 news networks, such as CNN, Fox News, BBC and others that can instantaneously cover any flash point in the world.  There is no such thing as the first edition “going to bed at 11 pm.” Another related response comes in the form of specialized around-the-clock broadcast networks, such as CNBC for global financial news, ESPN for sports, E for the Entertainment business, VH1 for music and the list is almost endless.

Some contended that the golden age of radio ended with the proliferation of television in the 1950s and 1960s. Whatever happened to these social critics? Radio is enjoying a renaissance, particularly when you consider that sociological impact of longer commute patterns and the almost kinship between motorists/public transportation riders and their “drive-time” companions.

The Internet has served as the backdrop for a growing array of bloggers, some of them written by very serious journalists weighing-in conclusively on politics, government, business, sports, entertainment and the environment. Their names are famous within their appointed disciplines such as the Drudge Report, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, RedState, The TMZ, Gizmodo, RealClearPolitics, TechCrunch and the Silicon Valley Watcher.

Social media is still in its infancy as LinkedIn debuted in 2003, Facebook, 2004 and Twitter, 2006. Imitators or pioneers with brand new approaches and business plans will inevitably follow. The net result is that the average citizen has an unprecedented ability to self publish. If you don’t believe this contention, then just ask Dan Rather who “retired” as a result of bloggers and the 2004 Rathergate controversy.

The future of Journalism does not just rely on machines that are either plugged into a wall or are battery-powered handheld devices, albeit the trend toward receiving our content electronically – radio, television, PC, hand-held – grows with every passing day.

Satisfying the insatiable and growing public demand for news and information lies with professionals who in the words of another NYU Professor, Jay Rosen, have the authority to say, “I’m there, you’re not, let me tell you about it.”

The “I’m there” reporter can be stationed next to the flood-lit portico at the White House, against the backdrop of St. Basil’s Cathedral in Red Square, on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, at centre court at Wimbledon or an average citizen holding a video camera as a BART officer is shooting Oscar Grant on New Year’s night at the Fruitvale Station in Oakland, California.Train Station Shooting

As a result of the effects of Moore’s Law, and not Gutenberg’s printing press, we can all be there. Potentially we can all tell the story. Knowledge is power, and we need this power to go about our daily lives and to be better informed and more productive citizens.

Regardless of the business model, the principles outlined by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in “Elements of Journalism” still apply. The public needs and expects reports that are dependable, verifiable, measurable and transparent. “Journalism is story telling with a purpose.”

Whether that purposeful story is told via an outdated printing press or via social media is really irrelevant, except to those desperately clinging to the old way of doing business. What is more important is fulfilling the public’s need for accurate information, being there and transmitting the news…most likely by means of 21st Century innovation and a new business model.

%d bloggers like this: