7/09/2010

CHALLENGING SOCIAL DOGMA

The marketplace of conversations is filled with social dogma — “a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative.” Social marketing, SEO, social advertising, get twitter followers, make money online etc. and the dogma proliferates our attention and steals our time while the meaning and value becomes useless.

What does it mean to challenge the social dogma? Creative thought challenges existing dogma, instead of complying with it: to reject what is and instead creates something that isn’t.
People and organizations tend to buy into the dogma: “this is how things are done,” they think — and then they do it over and over and get the same results but at higher cost. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

Social dogma needs to be challenged or the value of social media gets diminished. Here is my list of common things we are seeing in the social space that I would consider dogma:

Social products. Most companies use social media to do the same thing they have always done, push their products in our face. Even companies that are producing social products have designed them to do what has always been done. A product isn’t innovative unless it does what has not been done. Consider Apple’s products.

Social strategy. Everyone seems to be adding the term “strategy” to their online presence. Yet few seems to have any experience thinking strategically. Strategy and strategist means to think differently because the aim of a strategy is to do things differently. What is it — really — that makes you different? Facebook created an experience and an experiment in social interaction — and that’s why its rivals are desperately playing catch up. Playing catch up is missing the point: It’s not about following Facebook. It’s about challenging the dogma of your own thinking. Will your strategy produce anything different that isn’t already being used or available?

Social distribution. Social technologies are rolling out wave after wave of portals, channels, and platforms: all new distribution mechanisms. The problem is that they quickly become the same old distribution mechanisms, with a slightly different interface. Linkedin, Facebook, Twitter and whatever else you use will eventually be challenged. The preconception that content could only be distributed in walled gardens will be torn down. As the social technology moves to more of a truly open market it will challenge anything that came before it.

Social business models. Have you noticed that publishing business models has turned upside down and inside out? Have you also noticed that all business models are being effected by all things social? Governments, organizations and people are trying to adapt to the impact and dynamics of all things social. Social media are communications and one thing is certain about communications, it will change. Change is the business model. Wasting time investing in a model for today means you have to waste more time chasing tomorrows model.

Social sales and service. Now organizations are discovering how to use social to better serve the customer and enhance sales. The art of engagement has become personal, passionate, and in real-time. The sales process has inverted where the customer is now the sales person and the process. Service has where self-service is the mantra at the moment. Group buying is reducing the cost of middlemen and technology is advancing which is enabling buyers and suppliers to connect directly. Suppliers using social to sell and service will awaken to enabling the buyer to choose what they want, when they want it and do so with seamless virtual service.

As soon as you stop challenging the social dogma your thinking begins to accept the “code of beliefs as being authoritative and definitive”. The reality is that all things social are changing everything and thus nothing will remain in a constant state. To see and create change requires you to challenge your own thinking and those who believe their own dogma.

Jay Deragon

The Relationship Economy

July 9, 2010

7/05/2010

IN THE ARENA - TEDDY ROOSEVELT

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

Theodore Roosevelt said those words one hundred years ago at the Sorbonne in Paris in 1910.

7/04/2010

HAS THE FINANCIAL SERVICES INDUSTRY FAILED ITS CLIENTS TOO?


Give clients more help with savings, investing decisions

It sounds like the country’s finance ministers are coming to the realization that Canada’s public pension system needs some beefing up. The financial services industry should face up to its failure to deliver an effective alternative. At the same time, it should work to bolster private savings.

Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and most of his provincial counterparts are warming to the idea of a more robust Canada Pension Plan. In the months ahead, they may agree on some expansion of the CPP, to shore up basic retirement savings, without imposing onerous new costs on employers.

At the same time, the ministers have also indicated some support for new ways to boost savings, such as multi-employer pension plans, which would be delivered by the private sector.

Although creating more ways to save is surely welcome, the financial services industry shouldn’t just be waiting for governments to create new vehicles to accomplish this goal. Rather, the industry must recognize that, to some extent, the shortfall in retirement savings represents its own failure. While the design features and limitations of existing savings vehicles can be blamed for a small part of the savings deficit, the fact that there is more than $540 billion in unused RRSP contribution room suggests that the industry has fundamentally failed its clients, too.

Canadians aren’t saving enough for the future; instead, they are consuming too much and taking on too much debt. It may be that many of these “bad” financial decisions are not due to ignorance of financial fundamentals, but are actually rational consumer responses to the products and services offered by the industry. Canadians may be discouraged from saving and investing by products that are too costly, due to hefty fees or expensive guarantees that eat up a large portion of investment returns. Poorly performing products, inadequate advice, unfair dealing and a perceived lack of investor protection all encourage people to spend rather than save.

The private-sector solution to the retirement savings problem in Canada is not to wait for policy-makers to create new marketing opportunities. The industry should be looking to improve its value proposition to clients, in terms of the products it produces and the advice it provides, while also seeking to bolster confidence generally with fair dealing, honest, up-front disclosure and greater accountability.

Read original article

http://www.investmentexecutive.com/client/en/News/DetailNews.asp?Id=54150&cat=25&IdSection=25&PageMem=&nbNews=&IdPub=197

Investment Executive
Insights
IE Staff
June 28, 2010


7/02/2010

LIVE TO WORK OR WORK TO LIVE? A CULTURAL DIVIDE IN WORK ETHIC - TRADITIONALISTS - BOOMERS - GEN X


Traditionalists (aka The Silent Generation)

Born between 1927 and 1945, Traditionalists (also known as the Silent Generation) are in their 60s, 70s and 80s. About 95% of the Traditionalists are retired from the workforce. Those who remain in the workforce are at or near retirement age and many work reduced hours. Traditionalists in the legal workplace are largely aging partners, managers, senior support staff and "of counsel" to law firms.

Below are a few common characteristics of Traditionalists.

Hardworking:
Raised by turn-of-the-century farmers, Traditionalists brought a strong work ethic into the factories of industrialized society. Traditionalists grew up during lean times and consider work a privilege. This generation believes you earn your own way through hard work. Traditionalists are willing put in long, grueling hours to get ahead in their legal careers.

Loyal: Traditionalists are civic-minded and loyal to their country and employer. Unlike younger generations
Generation Y and Generation X, many Traditionalists worked for the same employer their entire life and are less likely to change jobs to advance their careers than younger generations.

Read entire article:

http://legalcareers.about.com/od/practicetips/a/Traditionalists.htm

Sally Kane
About.com
July 2, 2010

Baby Boomers

Born between 1946 and 1964, Baby Boomers are predominately in their 40s and 50s. They are well-established in their careers and hold positions of power and authority. This generational segment constitutes a large majority of today's law firm leaders, corporate executives, senior paralegals and legal managers. In fact, nearly 70 percent of law firm partners are Baby Boomers.
Labor statistics indicate that nearly 80 million Baby Boomers will exit the workplace in the next decade. These employees are retiring at the rate of 8,000 per day or more than 300 per hour. This unprecedented loss of skilled labor in the legal profession, consisting largely of partners, executives, senior support staff, legal managers and other legal thought leaders, may dramatically impact the legal industry.

Below are several common characteristics of the Baby Boomer generation.

Work-Centric:
Baby Boomers are extremely hardworking and motivated by position, perks and prestige. Baby Boomers relish long work weeks and define themselves by their professional accomplishments. Sine they sacrificed a great deal to get where they are in their career, this workaholic generation believes that Generation X and Generation Y should pay their dues and conform to a culture of overwork. Baby Boomers may criticize younger generations for a lack of work ethic and commitment to the workplace

Read entire article:

http://legalcareers.about.com/od/practicetips/a/Babyboomers.htm

Sally Kane
About.com
July 2, 2010

Generation X

Generation X encompasses the 44 to 50 million Americans born between 1965 and 1980. This generation marks the period of birth decline after the baby boom and is significantly smaller than previous and succeeding generations.

Below are a few common characteristics of Generation X.

Individualistic: Generation X came of age in an era of two-income families, rising divorce rates and a faltering economy. Women were joining the workforce in large numbers, spawning an age of “latch-key” children. As a result, Generation X is independent, resourceful and self-sufficient. In the workplace, Generation X values freedom and responsibility. Many in this generation display a casual disdain for authority and structured work hours. They dislike being micro-managed and embrace a hands-off management philosophy.

Technologically Adept: The Generation X mentality reflects a shift from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. The first generation to grow up with computers, technology is woven into their lives. As law firms and corporate legal departments integrate new technological tools, Generation X has learned and adapted.This generation is comfortable using PDAs, cellphones, e-mail, laptops, Blackberrys and other technology employed in the legal workplace.

Flexible: Many Gen Xers lived through tough economic times in the 1980s and saw their workaholic parents lose hard-earned positions. Thus, Generation X is less committed to one employer and more willing to change jobs to get ahead than previous generations. They adapt well to change and are tolerant of alternative lifestyles. Generation X is ambitious and eager to learn new skills but want to accomplish things on their own terms.


Value Work/Life Balance: Unlike previous generations, members of Generation X work to live rather than live to work. They appreciate fun in the workplace and espouse a work hard/play hard mentality. Generation X managers often incorporate humor and games into work activities.

Read entire article

http://legalcareers.about.com/od/practicetips/a/GenerationX.htm

Sally Kane
About.com
July 2, 2010

7/01/2010

THE ART OF THE DEAL: A ROBUST RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK IS A HYBRID OF BOTH ART AND SCIENCE - THE RESULT OF INFORMATION AND INTUITION -


AN ITERATIVE PROCESS - SUCCESSIVE APPROXIMATION

At the end of June 2009, it wasn’t unusual to see most
bond investors looking pale and nervous. After all,
they had just experienced an extremely volatile year in the
market. The last six months of 2008 had produced massive
sell-offs and the first half of 2009 turned in massive rallies.
Trying to suppress their queasiness, investors mulled over
their concerns for the immediate future. Where would
returns come from for the remainder of 2009 and 2010?
And what would be the risk or cost of that return?

The whole experience of volatility also had many
investors asking more fundamental questions about their
approach to the market: “How good is the risk management
process that my portfolio is using?” or, “How good is my
portfolio manager?” and, “What type of risk management
tools do I need to use?”
These are all valid concerns, in stable periods as well as
volatile times. And the answer to all of them lies in the art
and science of fixed-income risk management.

The science of risk management is based on a set of
tenets that have proved effective over time—tenets best
followed through a combination of strong quantitative
risk management systems and a robust investment
process. Measurement techniques that are informative, and
thorough, consistent selection and divestment processes
are simply fundamental to portfolio building.

The art lies in interpreting market conditions, in reading
what the market is saying and acting on it. In this, the past
year’s volatility has been very instructive. The sell-offs of
late 2008 and the subsequent rallies of early 2009 provide
some useful lessons regarding risk management.
To understand how combining the art of interpreting
markets and the science of the selection of individual
securities can help in risk management, let’s review the
turbulent events of 2008/09. We’ll examine them through
the prism of different quantitative measurements, some of
which led to mistakes, and others to sounder decisions.

How Excess Returns Can Fool Models

The first area we are going to look at is excess returns
and how the variance in those returns in recent times led
investors astray. The measurement of excess returns looks
at the degree to which individual securities or sectors of the
bond market underperform or outperform a theoretically
riskless investment, in this case U.S. government bonds.
To take one example, in the second half of 2008, U.S.
corporate bonds underperformed U.S. government bonds
by 20%, the worst negative excess return we have ever
seen. During the first half of 2009, however, U.S. corporate
bonds outperformed U.S. government bonds by 12%. For
the 12-month period then, corporate bonds had an overall
negative excess return of about 8%, calculated simply.

Unfortunately, most corporate bond investors keyed
their risk management models to what happened before
the second half of 2008, with the result that the models
underestimated risk. Had the models been keyed to the
more tail-extreme excess returns experienced between July
2008 and June 2009, risk management would have been
much more closely aligned with what actually happened
in the marketplace. In other words, if these investors
had modified their models (the science) to allow for the
potential behaviour of the market in the first half of 2009
(the art), they might have had better results and certainly
would have enjoyed better risk estimates.

Read entire article:

http://www.investmentreview.com/files/2010/04/The-Art-of-the-Deal.pdf

Jeff Moore
Canadian Investment Review
Winter 2009

SEC WILL IMPOSE FIDUCIARY STANDARD ON BROKERS: BARNEY FRANK


US Congressman Barney Frank makes prediction moments before House passes financial-reform bill; Senate up next

The overhaul of the U.S. financial system took a big step toward becoming law Wednesday evening when the House passed reform legislation 237-192. As a result, it's also looking more likely that brokers may soon be held to the same standard of care as investment advisers.

Indeed, just before the House vote, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., highlighted the fiduciary duty section of the bill — a proposal Mr. Frank championed during two weeks of House-Senate negotiations on the final legislation.

The bill empowers the Securities and Exchange Commission to impose the same fiduciary duty on broker-dealers and insurance agents currently met by investment advisers. If the regulator chooses, it can require anyone providing personalized investment advice to retail clients to act in the client's best interests and to disclose any conflicts of interest.


Read entire article:

http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20100701/FREE/100709995/-1/INDaily01

Mark Schoeff Jr
Investment News
July 1, 2010

CANADA'S GREEDIEST MAN? REALLY? BY WHOSE STANDARD? THE RULES WERE NOT WRITTEN FOR HIS UNIQUE ACHIEVEMENTS


Frank Stronach’s big payout

For much of the past decade, the annual meetings of auto parts giant Magna International followed a rhythm as familiar as it was frustrating: a handful of shareholders would stand up and express outrage at founder and chairman Frank Stronach’s hefty annual pay packages; the Austrian-born Stronach, with the squinted eyes of a gunslinger at high noon, would respond by effectively telling everyone to go to hell. In 2003, for example, Stronach bluntly told reporters “I should get more” when asked whether he deserved the $58.1 million he pocketed a year earlier.

The following year he offered his personal philosophy on why company founders should continue to receive rich pay packages even if they’re no longer occupying the job of CEO—it helps foster an entrepreneurial spirit, he explained­—but not because he felt the need to justify himself to critics. “I could say, ‘Look, if you don’t like it, sell your shares. It’s a free country.’ ”

Read entire article:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/06/28/canadas-greediest-man/

Chris Sorenson
MACLEANS.CA
June 28, 2010