How to Have an Impact on the World With Persuasive Speaking

October 20, 2015, 8:22 am

≫ Next: You May Get a Better ROI Ditching the Ivy Leagues for Public Universities

≪ Previous: How to Enhance Your Market Value Through Discomfort

To make a big impact, we need to be persuasive in public speaking.

But there are so many things we can focus on: storytelling, humour, body language...

What should we focus on first?

Author of The Essentials of Persuasive Public Speaking, Sims Wyeth shared with me 6 quick tips to become more persuasive and make a bigger impact:

1. Take an acting class
You don't need to be a Hollywood star. You just need to express emotions effectively.

Taking an acting class makes you comfortable about speaking in public. By improving your body language and voice, you become more persuasive (And yes, you might become a famous actor too).

2. Sound more interesting
As a speaker, sameness is your biggest enemy. To grab and keep people's attention, make your voice interesting.

Use high notes when you're happy. Use low notes when you're sad.

Speak fast to show excitement. Speak slowly... to get attention.

Speak LOUDLY to show STRONG emotions. Speak softly to make the audience curious.

3. Speak more, improve more
Your speaking ability is a muscle. The more you train it, the stronger it becomes.

Former U.S. President Ronald Reagan said if there was no speech on his daily calendar, he would demand an opportunity to speak.

Speak as often as you can. Go to rotary clubs. Join conferences. Volunteer to be a speaker.

4. Focus on the audience
Are you interested in showing off? Or are you interested in helping the audience? The audience hates speakers showing off. If you brag about your success, people will stop listening.

Focus on serving the audience. Interview five of your audience members beforehand. Ask them:

What's your biggest frustration when it comes to (your speech topic)?

What's the No.1 result you want to get from my talk?

Write down the answers and use their own words in your speech. When you use their language, you connect and build trust.

5. Turn your speech into a story
There are two types of storytelling: you can tell stories or turn your speech into a story.

Structure your speech with storytelling elements, including character, conflict and change. You will connect with people's emotions and inspire action.

Sims explained the idea with former U.S. President Abraham Lincoln's famous speech, The Gettysburg Address:

Character(s): Soldiers in the American Civil War

Conflict: Two parties were fighting. Many people died.

Change: The war could bring more freedom to America.

This 272-word speech impacted the world in the form of a story.

6. Practice out loud
You cannot impact people unless you've practiced the speech out loud. Rehearse your speech until you don't have to read slides or notes. You'll be present and connect with the audience.

Get feedback from a test audience. It could be your partner, friends or colleagues. Keep what you did well. Work on areas for improvement.

With practice, your speaking muscle gets stronger and you impact more people.

Use these 6 speaking tips so you will be more persuasive and impact the world.

What impact do you want to make? What's your favourite tip on persuasive speaking? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

↧

You May Get a Better ROI Ditching the Ivy Leagues for Public Universities

October 20, 2015, 8:22 am

≫ Next: Women in Small Business: Cracking the Glass Ceiling

≪ Previous: How to Have an Impact on the World With Persuasive Speaking

In 1972, the yearly tuition cost for a private school was about $1,832 and for public schools it was $428.

Today, these yearly costs are $31,231 and $9,139 respectively.

It's no secret the cost of education has imploded to rates that leave some people completely turned off to the idea of higher education.

In fact, earlier this year, Kate Gibson stated on CBS Money Watch that folks opt out of going to back to school due to finding better jobs, school closures, and folks just being exhausted with the whole education concept.

Then there's the impression that you must attend an outrageously unaffordable Ivy League school to get the edge you deserve in a fiercely competitive job market.

Luckily, it's not as bad as you think.

Folks at Lexington Law, did a study comparing the ROI of the top 20 public and private universities in the nation. And the results may surprise you.

Bottom line, unless your family has old money stashed away somewhere, you're more likely to get a better return on investment from a public school than most private schools in the country.

So let's take a look at some of the more compelling findings of the study to justify this.

Save over $22k choosing public over private
The study reported that the average yearly tuition of a private institution is about $31,231 and $9,139 for public schools. Simple math shows a difference of over $20,000.

Let's add on some common lifestyle expenses. On average, you'll shell out about $14,000 a year on caring for a kid, $30,000 just to marry your sweetie, and $30,000-$35,000 paying off student loans for the next several years.

The decision to save $20,000 should a no brainer to the average Joe or Jane going to school for the first time or returning to school to complete a second or third degree.

You'll have better ROI with public schools
The most compelling part of the study includes a ROI analysis against public and private schools.

The study states that private intuitions could add an additional 4 four years of student loan debt to your tab, possibly interfering with your retirement savings. On the flipside, it also states that a private school degree could add an extra 10% to your income.

But you may not even see that 10% if you have other expenses in life like a family and a mortgage.

A peek at that chart below shows a similar rate in earnings netted from a public and private degree, especially when someone's in their 40s and 50s. The earnings change, favoring private school degrees, but not by much.

2015-10-17-1445053178-5231163-ScreenShot20151016at11.06.43PM.png

So if you feel a certain degree of jealousy because your Ivy League friends appear to be better off than you, you can stop now. Considering their family obligations and debt, you may in fact be far better off.

Additionally, the money you make from your degree versus what you paid for can be the main reason for choosing private over public. But you may want to reconsider when looking at the next chart from the study.

When you're making a decision to attend a school, you want to make sure your money is not being spent in vain. The chart below shows that, on average, the top 20 public schools in the nation could give you anywhere from almost 5% to 2.5% ROI, while the top 20 private schools may produce 2.1%-1.3%.

2015-10-17-1445053317-5285365-RankingUniversitiesROI.png

No one should ever argue the prestige that comes with schools like Princeton, MIT or Yale, which could never be measured.

But good grief! Do folks have to be in mountains debt till their 70 just enjoy the full benefits of those schools simply because they didn't come from well-to do backgrounds? We've all heard about that awfully gifted young man or woman who sadly had to bow out of Northwestern or Notre Dame because their folks simply couldn't carry that financial weight for decades.

But it turns out a degree from these schools simply may not always make financial sense, even if mom and dad can afford it.

You may ultimately get a better bang for your buck turning down the prestige of saying you graduated from Duke for a more economical but still impressive education from the University of Florida.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

↧

Women in Small Business: Cracking the Glass Ceiling

October 20, 2015, 8:25 am

≫ Next: The Four Hs of SendGrid

≪ Previous: You May Get a Better ROI Ditching the Ivy Leagues for Public Universities

Recent headlines have celebrated the success of women chief executives at Facebook, IBM, General Motors and other corporate giants. But this misses a much bigger story: women-owned small businesses - already numbering nearly 10 million - are starting up at twice the rate of men-owned businesses, and they are succeeding despite an all too real glass ceiling. At the same time, women in Congress are leading the legislative fight to crack that glass ceiling and level the playing field for women-owned businesses.

As the lead Democrat on the Senate's Small Business Committee, I've had countless conversations with businesswomen from across the US. They are proud to be successful business owners and job creators. But they tell disturbing stories of barriers confronting women entrepreneurs that aren't encountered by their male counterparts. They face longer odds in getting access to credit and capital, winning government contracts, and accessing the business counseling they need to succeed.

In a Harvard Business School study, potential investors watched two videotaped entrepreneurial pitches, one with a voiceover using a man's voice and the other using a woman's voice. The content of the pitch was identical; the only difference was the gender of the person delivering it. Sixty-eight percent of the investors chose to fund the venture pitched by the man's voice, and only 32 percent chose to fund the one pitched by the woman's voice.

It is a shocking fact that, as recently as 1988, many states had laws requiring women to obtain the signature of a husband or other man in order to establish business credit.

This legacy of sexism and discrimination partially explains why women, today, receive just 7 percent of venture capital funds, and why women-owned small businesses secure less than 5 percent of federal government contracts and account for less than 5 percent of the total value of all conventional business loans.

The good news is that big changes are underway, led by women in Congress in concert with organizations such as Women Impacting Public Policy and the Association of Women's Business Centers.

In July 2014, women entrepreneurs from across the country packed a hearing of the Senate's Small Business Committee to demand reforms aimed at increasing women-owned small businesses' access to federal contracts, capital and business counseling. It is unacceptable that the nearly 10 million women-owned small businesses are awarded less than five percent of federal contracts. Soon after the hearing, I joined with Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) to pass key elements of the Women's Small Business Procurement Parity Act. This law will give women-owned small businesses more opportunities to compete for federal contracts, on par with other traditionally disadvantaged groups.

Access to credit is another huge challenge facing women-owned businesses. Unable to obtain a traditional bank loan, many women rely on personal credit, loans from family and friends, credit cards, or even liquidating retirement accounts. These unstable and costly sources of financing put women-owned small businesses at a sharp competitive disadvantage.

Since most women-owned start-ups require modest capital and are up to five times more likely to be approved for a Small Business Administration (SBA) loan than a conventional loan, we passed the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 to increase the maximum SBA Microloan amount from $35,000 to $50,000, while also creating a new Intermediary Lending Pilot Program to provide SBA loans between $50,000 and $200,000.

Our next priority is to improve women's access to specialized business counseling and training, especially in economically disadvantaged communities. More than 100 SBA-funded Women's Business Centers serve tens of thousands of clients annually, helping women-owned businesses to get off the ground or rise to the next level. For years, these centers have been hamstrung by funding uncertainty and a 1990s law that does not meet the needs of the 21st century. This month - in a fitting salute to National Women's Small Business Month - our Small Business Committee passed legislation to reauthorize and modernize this very successful program.

Forbes says that women-owned businesses have become "the nation's job-creation machine." Between 1997 and 2014, according to an American Express study, the number of women-owned firms grew at 1½ times the national average; revenue and employment growth among women-owned firms tops that of all other firms except for the largest, publicly traded corporations.

This is progress, but we must do better. The glass ceiling in small business is not only holding back women; it is also depriving our economy of vast human capital, creativity, and innovation. We need to level the playing for women in small business, ensuring more equal access to credit, capital, counseling, and contracts.

Warren Buffett famously said that one reason for his extraordinary success is that he was competing with only half of the world. It's time to fully unleash the other half.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen is the lead Democrat on the Senate's Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

↧

The Four Hs of SendGrid

October 20, 2015, 8:26 am

≫ Next: Lessons on Information Governance and eDiscovery: United States ex rel Guardiloa v. Renown Health

≪ Previous: Women in Small Business: Cracking the Glass Ceiling

According to Google Ngram, there has been a surge in the use of the words happy, honest, hungry and humble after a steady decline over the last century. The popularity of these adjectives may be a reflection of societal values. These are the same values that are fundamental to SendGrid's corporate culture.

If you've ever used UBER, AirBnB, or Spotify, chances are, you have used SendGrid's technology. SendGrid processes over 19 billion emails monthly. "That is as many monthly emails as tweets" says SendGrid's CEO, Sameer Dholakia. A Stanford (BA, MA) and Harvard (MBA) alumni, Sameer cut his teeth on growing software based businesses, including Trilogy and Citrix.

From the modest beginnings at TechStars, SendGrid has become a darling amongst B2B SaaS companies. With a 100% CEO approval rating on Glassdoor, Sameer reveals his secrets behind continuing the Four-H legacy:

Happy
Originally, SendGrid had three "H"s and one "S" (which stood for Smart). Happy replaced Smart because it had universal value, which was reiterated out of the hiring cycle. At SendGrid, work is emulsified with life. Based in Boulder, Colorado, SendGrid has adopted the Silicon Valley way of life with generous perks, including (non exhaustive list):

- Monthly Stipends
- Stock options
- Free Lunches
- Flextime
- Unlimited sick days

But happiness isn't about free food or matching 401Ks, it's about the people. With 4.3 stars (Glassdoor) for Culture & Values from it's own employees, happiness is healthy at SendGrid.

Hungry
If you over fertilize grape vines you get leaves, not fruit. Since Sameer took the reigns as CEO in Q4 2014, he has been fiscally conservative in response to uncertainties in the world economy.

(Vertical values intentionally censored)

Endurance is the ability to overcome pain over an extended period of time. Although Sameer's discretionary spending may not be pleasant, it helps the team overcome challenges using creativity. In the long run, hunger pays off during lean times because a company learns to be effective with less.

Honest
With over 300 employees dispersed across four cities in America and supporting offices in Europe, Sameer relies on open and transparent communication. What was remarkable was the coordination of a weekly, all office video chat. Despite the time zone discrepancy, these standing meetings allow for team members to report the good, the bad, and the ugly. Sameer explains that this is critical for operations to run smoothly across different departments in various cities.

Humble
Of all the "H"s, Sameer singles out humbleness as the one he holds dear. It may seem verbally cosmetic if a team member uses "I" during meetings, but the vocabulary was quickly cut and pasted with "We." Sameer emphasizes that the company only works if it works together. This attitude is consistent during success and failures.

"I deeply believe that the CEO's job is as much about being a Chief Cultural Officer than anything else. So it's important for me that I do a good job of continuing to reinforce and protect that culture. I view that as one of my responsibilities."
- Sameer Dholakia, Sendgrid CEO

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

↧

Lessons on Information Governance and eDiscovery: United States ex rel Guardiloa v. Renown Health

October 20, 2015, 8:26 am

≫ Next: The Origin Of The Pumpkin Spice Latte

≪ Previous: The Four Hs of SendGrid

Absent Congressional intervention, proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will become effective on December 1, 2015. Proposed changes include reduction of costs, production time and scope of eDiscovery. A recent Nevada district court decision is more surprising under this backdrop. The court in United States ex rel Guardiola v. Renown Health rejected defendant's claim that emails stored in back-up tapes were not reasonably accessible. Defendant had argued they were inaccessible because they were not in a searchable format and would require restoration. The court rejected the argument that costs of restoration were excessive.

The primary question addressed by the court was whether restoration of the back-up tapes would constitute undue burden or undue cost. Defendant was unable to show undue burden because of its intention to hire a vendor. This would reduce the burden of in-house production but add cost. The court held restoration costs were not excessive because (1) the amount was a fraction of party's annual revenue (0.005%) and (2) Renown elected to use back-up tapes to store information.

The case provided a number of key lessons for business executives, document retention personnel and lawyers:

Business decisions today can have eDiscovery consequences tomorrow. Courts may consider business decisions on how to manage information made in the absence of pending discovery.

Information should be stored in an up-to-date and indexed or otherwise searchable manner. The Renown court stated Defendant's information governance practices were out-of-date. The court held the information was not inaccessible because of Renown's "failure to implement a sensible email retention policy and its choice to use an archival/backup solution that did not maintain ESI in an indexed or otherwise searchable manner."

Poor information governance practices do not necessarily open the door to unlimited discovery. Perhaps an obvious lesson but notable for this case. Although the court found the data reasonably accessible, the court still considered whether good cause existed to order production under FRCP 26(b)(2)(B).

No format is inaccessible per se - to argue inaccessibility you must prove undue burden or undue cost. The Renown court rejected the notion that any format was inaccessible per se, particularly given today's technology. A party seeking to establish inaccessibility "must establish that restoration and production of its particular tapes or other storage media, due to their particular aspects and features, would impose undue burden or cost. [. . .] There will be a[n] undue burden or a cost, but not both."

Cost shifting only considered when requested information is not reasonably accessible. The court reaffirmed precedent by holding that cost shifting is only considered in "one, limited, circumstance," when ESI is reasonably inaccessible because of undue burden or undue cost. The court relied on the Zubulake factors when considering cost shifting.

The results of this case serve to warn companies to carefully consider document retention practices. These decisions can have long-term repercussions on future litigation. An appropriate policy can simplify the eDiscovery process, reduce current costs of retention and prevent future litigation costs. A poor retention strategy also increases risk of spoliation claims. There is no substitute for an appropriate up-to-date document retention strategy that maintains ESI in an indexed or otherwise searchable manner.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

↧

The Origin Of The Pumpkin Spice Latte

October 20, 2015, 8:41 am

≫ Next: Need Money for Your Business Idea? Here are Some Options

≪ Previous: Lessons on Information Governance and eDiscovery: United States ex rel Guardiloa v. Renown Health

How did Starbucks initially market the pumpkin spice latte? originally appeared on Quora: The best answer to any question.

Answer by Paul Williams, former Starbucks partner in branding and marketing, founder of Idea Sandbox, on Quora.

The pumpkin spice latte was originally featured in in-store signage (the banner, posters, counter card), it was sampled in-store at the point-of-sale (as well as walked around the cafe on a tray by a barista).

The fact it was a limited time flavor made it more attractive to customers, kept it special. This is the same we found with eggnog latte, gingerbread latte, peppermint mocha for the holiday season.

The pumpkin spice latte was launched at Starbucks in 2003. It was rolled out as part of the fall promotional campaign which runs from the beginning of September until mid-November (when the Holiday promotion begins).
We had a lot of success with Holiday seasonal beverages - peppermint latte, gingerbread latte - the decision was made to figure out what espresso based beverage could be featured in the Fall time period. They tried different flavors... I remember white chocolate mocha was the featured flavor in 2001.

Pumpkin spice made sense as a flavor because it is a flavor of the autumn season. The year before pumpkin spice latte launched, the promotion during the fall was for Tazo Chai Latte (not that far a stretch from chai spice to a pumpkin flavor).

While every product manager wants their creation to be popular, no one anticipated how popular the drink would be. It is tasty, sweet, and - I think - has helped contribute to the pumpkin-flavored-everything we see during September / October / November in the US.

This questionoriginally appeared on Quora. Ask a question, get a great answer. Learn from experts and access insider knowledge. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.

More questions:

Starbucks: What is it like to work at Starbucks?

Product Marketing: What are some examples of great marketing?

Autumn: Why do Americans call Autumn "Fall"?

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

↧

Need Money for Your Business Idea? Here are Some Options

October 20, 2015, 6:31 pm

≫ Next: 6 Reasons Why Your Coaching Business Isn't Taking Off

≪ Previous: The Origin Of The Pumpkin Spice Latte

Business ideas are a dime a dozen. The biggest divider between wantrepreneurs and entrepreneurs is the ability to execute their ideas. If you're an entrepreneur with a grand vision -- but stuck at a job you hate -- you're probably anxious to throw in your two-week notice and begin building your dream. Before you take the leap into full-time entrepreneurship, make sure you have a solid exit strategy and the necessary capital to bring your idea to life.

As you're researching how to acquire funding, consider these four routes.

1. Personal Savings: Self-funding is the best choice if you don't want to fork over equity. However, if you're planning to bootstrap and are seriously flirting with the idea of quitting your 9-5, it's vital to stash sufficient funds to cover your business and living expenses for at least six months to a year. Even when you develop that magic number, multiply it by four. During the first year of business there are always unexpected variables that have the potential to eat up your savings.

2. Moonlighting: You can get a part-time job to cover your expenses and other resources you need for your idea. If you do it this way, you'll be able to accumulate enough money in your savings to self-fund your idea, without sacrificing your current lifestyle.

3. Crowdfunding: Crowdfunding is the optimal choice for garnering community support and building brand awareness for your product. With popular crowdfunding websites such as Kickstarter.com and Indiegogo.com, your seed money is just a click away.

4. Investors: Whether you're looking for Angels or Venture Capitalists (VCs), be prepared to give away a portion of your business. If you're wondering where to find investors, MBA@UNC, UNC Kenan-Flagler Business School's online MBA program, used CrunchBase's Investor Leaderboard data to create a visualization of current VC hotspots in the U.S. Caution: Before accepting an investment, be absolutely clear on the terms. Some investors choose to be silent partners, while others want a more involved role.

Don't be a wantrepreneur. There are a plethora of options available to get you on the right path to executing your grand vision.

Sources:
https://www.crunchbase.com/investor-leaderboard
https://onlinemba.unc.edu/blog/where-to-find-VC-dollars-map/

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

↧

6 Reasons Why Your Coaching Business Isn't Taking Off

October 20, 2015, 6:41 pm

≫ Next: Car Wars: Will the Phantom Menace Win or Does the Empire Strike Back?

≪ Previous: Need Money for Your Business Idea? Here are Some Options

You've started your coaching business, you've put yourself out there, and you've made your voice heard. You're excited to utilize your talents to help others. But after the big launch, you're hearing ... crickets.

If your business just can't seem to generate any buzz, don't worry: I've got you covered. I've seen it all -- both in clients' experiences and my own -- and I know what's keeping your goals from manifesting.

Once you can identify what's holding you back, you'll have the tools to turn the chirping of crickets into a much sweeter sound: cha-ching.

1. You're marketing to your peers instead of your clients.

This one comes up all the time with my clients: let's say you're a life coach, and you help people overcome their limiting beliefs. So, who are you pitching your services to?

If you're marketing your services primarily to a group of already-evolved people who have a substantial set of tools under their belt, you're missing the big picture. Unless you're trying to coach other coaches, you should be directing your services to people who haven't already discovered these tools and skillsets.

2. You're using language you've evolved to with clients who don't yet understand it.

Think about the lowest point in your life. Were you saying, "I need to manifest abundance" or "I am self-sabotaging my results"? Most likely, you were probably saying something more along the lines of, "I need to get my sh*t together and start doing something with my life."

If you use language that your clients don't understand, they'll leave feeling worse about themselves and certainly won't follow up with you. You need to put yourself in your clients' shoes and use language that they can relate to.

3. You're biting off more than your clients can chew.

I know for a fact that I can help my clients make six-figure incomes. But if I lead in with a new client by promising $10K a month, it will seem too good to be true, and will turn my clients away from me. It will more likely sound overwhelming than inspiring.

Think about where your clients' headspace is: your sweet spot isn't their ultimate goal, but rather the next best place that they can feasibly get to.

4. You're talking about tools your clients don't understand.

WTF is EFT? These were my exact thoughts before I embarked on my self-development journey and learned about the Emotional Freedom Technique. Fast-forward to today, and I'm a huge fan.

The important point here is that learning terminology is a gradual process, which is easy to forget when it's such a natural part of our vocabulary. Use language that any client can understand, even one who isn't quite up to speed with the industry jargon. Instead of talking about "Reiki sessions", for instance, use more accessible descriptions, like "transformational healing tools" or "integrated healing techniques".

5. You're making decisions for your clients instead of letting them come to you.

Once you have a business plan, it's easy to become fixated and rigidly stick to your original idea. But to be a successful coach -- and a successful entrepreneur -- you've got to be flexible.

When I first launched my business, I had no idea that my tribe was struggling to the degree that they were in finding their ideal clients. So I changed my business model -- and even its name -- to helping people find and vibe their tribe.

When I deviated from my original plan and responded to the needs my clients presented to me, I was met with instant success: within three weeks, I was completely sold out of my coaching program.

6. You're caught up in someone else's process.

When you see other successful entrepreneurs, it's easy to try to exactly imitate their systems and delivery. This happened to me: at first, I thought that my services had to look exactly like theirs in order to be successful.

While others' businesses can serve as models or inspiration, remember that your success is about you. Nobody can think or strategize like you: use this to your advantage! The second I started showing up as myself, the sales followed.

You've got the skills, you've got the talents, and now all you need is to get people talking about your business. And I can speak from experience: once you remove the things that are in your way, the money will flow. Do what you love and have faith: the universe has your back, and so do I.

Danielle Sabrina is a heart-centered business intuitive, monetization strategist, and writer who contributes regularly to the Huffington Post. After leaving a successful career in Financial Planning, Danielle developed her freedom-based business What Vibes Your Tribe, where she helps purpose-driven entrepreneurs monetize their passion and do what they love full-time. Danielle is known for helping her clients connect with their tribe, turn followers into fans, and fans into paying clients.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

↧

Car Wars: Will the Phantom Menace Win or Does the Empire Strike Back?

October 20, 2015, 9:57 pm

≫ Next: Action to Achieve Inclusive Capitalism in the Words of James Norris, Managing Director of Vanguard International

≪ Previous: 6 Reasons Why Your Coaching Business Isn't Taking Off

The auto industry is on a collision course with the forces of digital disruption. You may think you have seen this movie before. After all, so many other century-old industries have collided and crumbled. This collision may, however, be different, with forces more complex on either side than those that took down Kodak or Blockbuster. Consider five forces of change that may well constitute the phantom menace in the Car Wars saga:

1. Driverless cars

From Google's -- now Alphabet's -- obsession with the self-driving car to Uber's cleaning out Carnegie Mellon's National Robotics Engineering Center staff, there are multiple high-profile attackers seeking to displace the human at the steering wheel with a digital phantom.

2. Combustion-less cars

The traditional internal combustion engine is also the single most important source of more than half of the carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides, and almost a quarter of the hydrocarbons emitted. Concerns about the impact on climate change have spurred an interest in electric and hybrid alternatives now helped by Tesla's envy-inducing Model S that passed 90,000 units in sales and news of Apple's 2019 launch of an electric vehicle.

3. Less cars

The very idea of car ownership seems old-fashioned. First, came car-sharing a la Zipcar - and now the "sharing economy" is in full swing, with Uber, Lyft and many regional variants, Didi Kuaidi (China), Ola (India) or Bla Bla Car (France).

4. The rise of connected cars

The idea of the car as a self-contained pod is also being revisited. Smarter cars could, instead, sense their surroundings and, in turn, feed data back to the environment as an integral part of a smart city. Already, with more than 100 million lines of code in high-end cars today -- twice as much code as in all of Facebook - the age of data-generating vehicles for more efficient urban decision-making may be here.

5. Don't forget about drones

The first delivery by drone, approved by the Federal Aviation Administration, occurred in July this year in Wise County, Virginia by Flirtey, an Australian drone-delivery start-up.

No wonder, the much-overused phrase "creative destruction" may be due for a turbocharged makeover when applied to the auto business. Who wins and what happens in its aftermath? The status quo is still formidable.

The Empire Strikes Back

Americans love their cars -- 86 percent of U.S. workers get to work in a car with the vast majority driving alone. Having crossed a trillion dollars in revenues in the U.S. alone in 2014 and with strong growth in China and other emerging markets, the traditional auto industry is a hefty incumbent. To their credit, several automakers have embraced change.

Consider the comment: "Some might find this massive change to be daunting, but we look at it and see the opportunity to be a disruptor." That was not one of the protagonists behind the phantom menace, but Mary Barra, the chief executive of General Motors. When was the last time you heard of a company founded in 1908, aspiring to be a disruptor?

GM is attempting to even the score a bit with its own fleet of self-driving plug-in gas-electric hybrid Chevrolet Volts -- equipped with sensors technology, precision mapping and artificial intelligence -- doing the rounds on its Warren, Mich., campus. Many major auto companies, Mercedes, BMW and Volkswagen, followed by Honda, Nissan and Ford, have made the trek to Silicon Valley to breathe in some of the magic and create their own breakaway units.

Others have experimented with big bang approaches. Toyota, for example, is preparing the launch of the first hydrogen-powered sedans. And if that were not enough, Toyota has even filed a patent for a flying car. On balance, this is an industry that has plenty of innovation collecting on both sides of the collision.

The dark side

The empire has two major problems. First, the perennial challenges of incumbents: organizational antibodies that reject new ideas because business models are built around existing paradigms; car companies are no different. Managers are reluctant to prioritize unproven future alternatives over known profit-generators.

There is a second form of defensiveness that has not served the industry well. In case you have been under a rock for the past few weeks, Volkswagen has been embroiled in a scandal about its diesel cars equipped with software to fake its emissions data. VW was following a long tradition within the industry to creatively bypass regulatory and environmental measures. Every time such an incident occurs, it sets the car company back and takes focus away from innovation. Indeed, the newly appointed chief executive of Volkswagen, Matthias Mueller declared: "We don't want a smartphone on wheels" -- a reversal of plans announced earlier by his predecessor.

A new hope

Regardless of the outcome of the collision, my hope is that more fundamental unmet needs get addressed as well, before we get too caught up in the Next Big Things.

For one, automotive transport is highly inefficient at a societal level. America's drivers whiled away 6.9 billion hours stuck in traffic in 2014, according to the Texas A&M Transportation Institute and INRIX. That's 42 hours a year per rush-hour commuter on average and $160 billion in wasted time and fuel last year. I hope the sharing economy makes a dent in this problem and the driverless cars don't exacerbate it.

Second, there are losses even when cars are on the move; according to the World Health Organization, road traffic accidents are now the eighth leading cause of death globally, killing one child every three minutes.

The region most affected by these challenges is sub-Saharan Africa, where road deaths are expected to increase 80 percent by 2020, according to a World Bank report.

Crashes are estimated to cost African countries between 1 and 3 percent of their GNP each year. Proponents of driverless cars have talked about the benefits in terms of reduced traffic accidents. Unfortunately, these innovations are being targeted for the world's safest roads; is anyone planning driverless cars for sub-Saharan Africa?

Besides these risks, auto innovations have unintended consequences. What happens if ride-sharing prices rival city subway and bus fares and end up starving public transit systems? What if research in more essential areas of, say, robotics gets starved? While self-driving cars wend their way around Silicon Valley, no robot can, as yet, mimic the human hand, a greater unmet need as societies age. I hope there is still science and engineering talent spared by Uber and others to help solve these other, larger problems.

In the meantime, watch out for this epic saga playing near you, where even the phantom menace will have collisions within itself. A Lexus RX450h outfitted with Google/Alphabet self-driving technology was rear-ended by a Tesla Model S, this summer. The crash at the corner of Shoreline Boulevard and High School Way in Mountain View, was a fitting reminder that the car industry is at a real crossroads. Driving in the next 25 years will not be what it has been for the last 100.

This article first appeared as an op-ed in theWashington Post.

Chakravorti is senior associate dean of International Business & Finance at Tufts University's the Fletcher School. He's also the founding director of the Institute for Business in the Global Context and author of The Slow Pace of Fast Change. Formerly a partner at McKinsey, he taught innovation at Harvard Business School.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

↧

Action to Achieve Inclusive Capitalism in the Words of James Norris, Managing Director of Vanguard International

October 21, 2015, 2:16 am

≫ Next: Why TPP Is a Feminist Issue

≪ Previous: Car Wars: Will the Phantom Menace Win or Does the Empire Strike Back?

The use of the term 'inclusive' as an adjective to complement the noun 'capitalism' implies that there is something inherently 'exclusive' about a capitalist system. Presumably, the belief is that this exclusivity manifests in some of the systemic challenges that society faces today, including poverty, climate change and political violence, to name just a few. There is no question that these issues exist and imperil the future of humanity and our planet. However, it is not at all clear whether capitalism is the cause of these problems, the solution to these problems, or simply an innocent witness to the travails that humans have faced for thousands of years.

It is my strong belief that the solutions to these problems are more likely to be identified under the auspices of a capitalist system than any other political or economic system known to us today. But the very fact that so many of us are gathered here in London for this forum suggests that capitalism as we know and understand it could use a few adjustments. So what might those adjustments look like? I would humbly suggest two areas that are worthy of careful consideration, both of which get to the heart of what I think most of us would agree are the fundamental underpinnings of capitalism.

First, enterprise must re-embrace the concept of long-term investment, which has become the exception in a society where so-called investors are obsessed with short-term profitability. The performance of the enterprise is no longer measured in years, but quarters, a mindset that drives opportunism and transactional behaviour both inside and outside the organization. The reaping of shortterm profits enriches the individual but destroys long-term benefits for clients, investors and society as a whole. My firm is the only client-owned asset management company in the world, operated exclusively for the long-term benefit of our clients, and we attribute a significant amount of our success over the past 40 years to that longterm alignment between us and our client-owners.

Second, it is a misconception to assume that capitalism promises equal outcomes for all; it does not. That said, it is hard not to be troubled by the divide that exists in our society today - and that has in many ways always existed - between the haves and the have-nots. Clearly, the benefits of capitalism have not been enjoyed in equal measure by all of humanity. The challenge for capitalism in the decades ahead is to provide, as Milton Friedman, the noted economist suggested, equality of opportunity. The steady advance of the wired world is a significant step in that direction, but enterprise, governments and NGOs must collaborate to bring much broader access to education and training, to engage more people in the global economy and make equal opportunity more real.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

↧

Why TPP Is a Feminist Issue

October 21, 2015, 3:29 am

≫ Next: Corporate Vultures Circling the Dead for Profit, Seeking to Change Unclaimed Property Laws

≪ Previous: Action to Achieve Inclusive Capitalism in the Words of James Norris, Managing Director of Vanguard International

Do you want your tax dollars to go to companies in countries like Brunei, where unmarried women who get pregnant are sent to prison and gays and lesbians are sentenced to death by stoning?

Do you believe the official trade policy of the U.S. should make it easier for corporations to outsource majority-female jobs -- not only in low-wage workplaces such as call centers but also better-paying sectors like human resources?

Do you support an agreement that gives pharmaceutical companies a green light to keep lower-cost generic drugs, including HIV/AIDS medication, off the market in developing countries?

Of course you don't.

These are just a few of the reasons why women are speaking out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which would codify these and other horrific policies.

Women like Hillary Clinton.

Although Anderson Cooper called Hillary Clinton's opposition "political expediency," and asked, "Will you say anything to get elected?," I admire her for paying attention to actual facts, and being responsive to actual voters. (Note to pundits: responsiveness to voters is also called democracy.)

As Yale Law Professor David Singh Grewal wrote here last week,

Clinton's response was cool and collected. She reminded Cooper that the TPP negotiations were only concluded earlier this month, and stated that the negotiated deal "didn't meet [her] standards." When she was Secretary of State, she had hoped that the TPP would represent the "gold standard" in new trade deals, as she expressed in a speech in 2012. But as anyone who has studied these trade deals knows, the devil is in the details -- and Clinton was not in charge of the final talks that produced the details of the TPP. Now that Clinton knows what was negotiated, she has decided she doesn't support the agreement. As she explained, "I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, 'this will help raise your wages.' And I concluded I could not."

In an op-ed titled "The Trans-Pacific Partnership clause everyone should oppose." Elizabeth Warren wrote about "Investor-State Dispute Settlement," or ISDS.

The name may sound mild, but don't be fooled. Agreeing to ISDS in this enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty.

That tilted playing field should have all of us alarmed. Just to take one example of how it could work: California recently passed a Fair Pay Act which requires employers to affirmatively justify their wage structure if it systematically pays women less than men. In other words, the law requires equal pay for substantially similar work. It's a much stronger way to close the gender and gender-race wage gaps than anything currently in federal law. It's great, and it should be a model for all states to implement similar legislation.

However, suppose that the TPP is in place and then Oregon enacts a Fair Pay Act like California's. The way this ISDS seems to be set up under the TPP, any multinational corporation could haul the state of Oregon to an international tribunal and demand compensation for lost profits resulting from Oregon's new law. You read that right. A state could be forced to compensate a multinational corporation for complying with the state's new anti-discrimination law.

What about a state that adopts a state Equal Rights Amendment? Or a state-level living wage law? Or a state or municipal ordinance extending its human rights law to transgender people? Suppose a corporation believes that complying with human rights laws would hurt its bottom line? Under the TPP, if a state's law would impinge on the profits of a multinational corporation that is thinking about opening a plant or making some other kind of investment in that state, the corporation would be entitled to use this ISDS process to seek compensation.

Or, as Senator Warren put it in her op-ed,

...with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn't be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions -- and even billions -- of dollars in damages.

If that seems shocking, buckle your seat belt. ISDS could lead to gigantic fines, but it wouldn't employ independent judges. Instead, highly paid corporate lawyers would go back and forth between representing corporations one day and sitting in judgment the next. Maybe that makes sense in an arbitration between two corporations, but not in cases between corporations and governments. If you're a lawyer looking to maintain or attract high-paying corporate clients, how likely are you to rule against those corporations when it's your turn in the judge's seat?

As this fact sheet explains, TPP is a recipe for disaster for women and LGBT communities.

The TPP would undermine competition from generics by, among numerous other provisions, extending pharmaceutical companies' patent rights and allowing such companies to extend their monopolies and continue to charge artificially high prices for key drugs.xi High prices mean more lives lost - already AIDS is the leading cause of death for women of reproductive age worldwide and discrimination against LGBT communities hampers their access to life-saving medical and health services.

Here's the key question that Hillary Clinton and others are asking.

What's the reason to support a trade agreement that rewards governments that put women to death by stoning and jails gay men, lesbians and so-called "adulterers;" forces Americans to compete against workers from extremely low-wage countries; makes it easier for corporations to out-source majority-female jobs and allows foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws designed to protect our health, economic security and fundamental rights?

The answer is simple. There's no reason to support this TPP. No reason at all.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

↧

Corporate Vultures Circling the Dead for Profit, Seeking to Change Unclaimed Property Laws

October 21, 2015, 5:27 am

≫ Next: Whipsaw Wednesday: Fake Futures Move Makes Great Short Entries

≪ Previous: Why TPP Is a Feminist Issue

Over the weekend, the New York Timespublished a sprawling, nearly eight thousand-word story detailing for readers the fate of those who die alone in the Big Apple.

Using the life and death of George Bell, who passed away some days before he was discovered in his home this past July, the Times recounts the painstakingly arduous process that New York City public employees embark upon to make certain the estates of people like Bell end up in the hands of its rightful beneficiaries.

In the case of Bell -- spoiler alert -- distant relatives and friends he had not communicated with in many years inherited his nearly half a million dollar estate no doubt surprised both to have been named beneficiaries in the first place and also that Bell could have had such ample means considering his modest lifestyle.

George Bell lived an obscure life and like thousands of other New Yorkers each year, he had no close family or friends to help settle his estate when the time came. While Bell's beneficiaries were eventually united with their share of his estate, an untold number of Americans never learn that a loved one who has passed has made arrangements for them leaving behind life insurance policies, bank accounts, and other property.

By law, insurers and banks are required to try and find those entitled to this "unclaimed property." How hard these companies actually work to carry out the decedent's wishes is debatable. If they are unable to find the beneficiaries, they are required to turn the money over to state unclaimed property departments.

Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but all too often life insurance companies are unable to find the beneficiaries of a policy. If they fail to turn the money over to state unclaimed property departments and instead choose to sit on it, they are unjustly rewarded with the ability to continue profiting from the investment of someone who is now deceased.

In order to make sure this does not happen, states are authorized to audit these companies and often contract with professional non-government auditors to help assure compliance with state laws.

In a perfect world, that would be the end of this story, but powerful corporate interests are working hard to quietly influence a little-known commission with the power to reshape state unclaimed property laws. These interests are single minded in their focus to make it far more difficult for states to return unclaimed property to its owners.

According to its website, the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) "provides states with non-partisan, well conceived, and well drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas" of state law. In other words, this arcane non-profit organization gives states model legislation on a host of issues where having similar laws from state to state can be important.

The ULC's involvement with state unclaimed property law dates back more than 60 years. Most recently, it made revisions to the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act in 1995, stating at the time that the measure was aimed at preventing "ordinary people for the most part, from losing their rights to property that is justifiably theirs. It is theirs because they earned it, inherited it, or were given it. Those entities and institutions that hold property are its custodians, not its owners."

Now, almost exactly 20 years later, the ULC has convened a drafting committee to revise the Act. If this committee's first round of suggested changes is any indication, it is the interests of the aforementioned "ordinary people" that appear to be in jeopardy. Since about 40 states have enacted some version of the ULC's unclaimed property legislation, efforts to water down safeguards that protect hardworking Americans could have a disastrous impact.

A letter sent to drafting committee members by several national consumer watchdog organizations earlier this month detailed several of the "detrimental revisions" being considered noting they "would be harmful to consumers throughout the country, making it more likely that they will lose property that today would be found and reclaimed."

That such dramatic changes to the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act are being considered is not by accident. Powerful special interests are actively pressuring committee members to alter the model legislation in their favor. Among those leading the charge are the American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI), whose member companies stand to make a windfall if laws are changed making it more difficult for states to recover unclaimed property and reunite it with its rightful owners. The ACLI's efforts have the backing of America's leading corporate special interest group - the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Meanwhile, Michael Houghton, a longtime ULC commissioner responsible for co-chairing the this drafting committee has fought to undermine state unclaimed property laws and works as a partner in a law firm whose clients would benefit greatly if the Act is gutted. In fact, a few years ago, Houghton co-authored an article praising state legislation to weaken Delaware's unclaimed property law, indicating that while it did not go far enough "to completely address complaints [of] the national business community," it was a step in the that direction "and hopefully the start of a process."

It is hardly a surprise then that the "national business community" has taken such a keen interest in Houghton's drafting committee.

The sad truth is that the Uniform Law Commission's Drafting Committee to Revise the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act is considering a number of changes that would keep beneficiaries separated from property that is rightfully theirs for as long as possible and thus enabling big corporations like life insurance companies and banks to make even bigger profits.

That means, for example, hardworking men and women who do not know they are entitled to a claim on an insurance policy taken out by a loved one who has passed away will not receive money when it might be needed most. Worse still, these loved ones will lose the peace of mind they thought they had purchased with their policy.

Americans win when big corporations hand over unclaimed property to the states. Because states are legally obligated to return property to the owner whenever it is claimed, they make it easier for consumers to search through websites to see if they are entitled to unclaimed property they may not have even known existed.

If the ULC's drafting committee is guided in such a way that it betrays a conflict of interest in its leadership or succumbs to pressure from industry, it is the "ordinary people" who will lose what they rightly earned, inherited, or were given. And it is precisely this type of corporate excess that this Uniform Unclaimed Property Act was initially developed to guard against.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

↧

Whipsaw Wednesday: Fake Futures Move Makes Great Short Entries

October 21, 2015, 6:23 am

≫ Next: Collaborative Innovation: You Can't Do It Alone and Win

≪ Previous: Corporate Vultures Circling the Dead for Profit, Seeking to Change Unclaimed Property Laws

What an insane market!

At 4 a.m., just after Europe opened, the Futures blasted off for no particular reason. It wasn't too surprising as they were the same long lines we played in yesterday's Live Futures Trading Webinar - so great money to be made by the early risers but now we're back to the lines we shorted earlier yesterday, at 11:10, when I said to our Members:

Lines of the moment are /YM 17,200 (below), /ES 2,035 (below), /NQ 4,450 (below) and /TF 1,165 (below) with /ES at 2,028.5 playable short with a stop over 2,030 (or any of the others going over) and then short the laggard if we're back at 2,035.

This morning we're right back at 17,200, 2,030, 4,445 and 1,165 so of course we're back in the saddle again - taking our short entry on the Russell as we follow our shorting rules, which are:

I do like shorting our majors this morning at 17,200, 2,035, 4,450 and 1,166 – ONLY ON CROSSES BELOW by the 3rd of 4 and out if ANY of the 3 cross back over and needing to quickly see the 4th index confirm the drop.

Follow those simple rules and, as we demonstrated in yesterday's webinar, you can limit your losses while waiting for that big victory when things break your way. We made about $200 live for our Webinar participants - who else gives a webinar where the attendees come out ahead?

As you can see from Declan's S&P 500 chart from PSW's Chart School, 2,050 is a major line of resistance but 2,035 (see yesterday's post) is the 5% line on our Big Chart and that has been unbreakable during the live sessions so the market manipulators are now pulling out all the stops to push us over the line in the thinly traded futures to keep the retailers thinking Everything is AWESOME - even when the data shows that it clearly is not.

We're not going to complain about the blatant market manipulation because we're part of the Top 1% that's able to profit from it. Yesterday we rode those Futures shorts down to 17,100 on /YM for a $500 per contract gain, 2,020 on /ES for a $425 per contract gain, 4,420 on /NQ for a $600 per contract gain and 1,155 on /TF for a $1,000 per contract gain. This is how the Bottom 99% of the Top 1% get their share of the FREE MONEY the Fed is giving away.

There's nothing fundamental driving these moves, we're merely moving higher on bad economic news, like this morning's 11% decline in Japanese imports that the MSM hasn't said a word about - instead focusing your attention on the 0.6% increase in Exports over last year that still sucks, but doesn't sound as bad. Do you know why it sucks? Because it's measured in yen and $XJY was at 95 last October and now it's at 83.42, which is 12% lower so the same VALUE of exports would have to be 12% higher just to be the same as last year.

Even so, leading Economorons surveyed by Bloomberg expected a 3.8% increase, which wasn't too unreasonable given the huge head start the weak Yen was giving it paired with Abe's $1Tn stimulus program BUT Noooooooooooooo!, it's failed to help. In fact, 42% of the economorons surveyed by Bloomberg now expect the BOJ to boost the stimulus further this month. Overall, Japan's Trade Deficit was 114.5Bn yen vs "expectations" of an 87Bn yen surplus - oops!

QE policies ARE NOT WORKING, people! Doing more of the same is monetary madness, we are propping up the economy by charging stock market gains to our credit cards without creating any real assets and that's a very, very stupid thing to do. We need INFRASTUCTURE projects that use those excess materials we have laying around and create some jobs and we need policies that spur REAL housing growth, not the BS multi-family housing growth that was used as an excuse for yesterday's rally (thanks Pharmboy):

This is what our housing "recovery" looks like - less and less single-family homes being bought and more and more 5+-unit structures for our indentured servants to cower in until it's time to work again. Yes, indentured because that's what someone is when they can only get a job after the go to college and college costs $100,000 and the job pays $25,000 so even if they manage to live on $10,000 a year (half of their after-tax $20,000 take-home pay), it will still take them 15 years to pay off the loan with interest. THAT'S WHAT INDENTURED SERVITUDE IS!

And that student loan can't be discharged in bankruptcy. That's how the Banksters get their claws in your children as soon as they are old enough to vote. The credit card debt they use to get by while paying off their loans also may not be discharged in bankruptcy thanks to Bush's 2005 rule changes. That's why Bernie Sanders wants to reform Student Loans and eliminate college tuition altogether and that's why the MSM refuses to cover the man - lest you proles get any "ideas."

In fact, student loan balances grew another 15% this year and are now miles above auto loans and credit cards as the number one source of US debt, having grown 300% since 2004. A combination of rapidly rising college costs, parents who can't afford to help and declining wages after college means these loan balances are just growing and growing every year yet this is another thing your MSM does not want to cover because it doesn't fit the current AWESOME propaganda:

Of course, none of this affects the children of the Top 1%, their kids have fully-funded 525 plans that will pay for their college and still have some left over for graduate school. Top 1% kids won't need to take a crappy job to pay off their student loans and that will leave them free to take internships at law firms and other start-up positions that will lead them to the high-paying jobs that are their birthright while your children will work at Starbucks making coffee for the top 1% as they hurry off to their important jobs.

THAT IS THE STATUS QUO - this is what you are supporting, folks - shame on you!

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

↧

Collaborative Innovation: You Can't Do It Alone and Win

October 21, 2015, 7:00 am

≫ Next: Entrepreneurs Are Everywhere Show No. 7: Betsy Corcoran and Miriam Altman

≪ Previous: Whipsaw Wednesday: Fake Futures Move Makes Great Short Entries

Fail, fail and fail again.

No executive wants to hear these words, let alone report them to his or her boards, or worse, shareholders. But when you look at the new product failure rate--a stunning 85%--and realize new products often generate 30%-50% of best in class company revenues, it's easy to understand why many executives are scrambling to fill their pipelines with a constant stream of fresh offerings.

Yet in today's complex world, companies can't do everything they need to alone. Cisco's leaders realized this more than five years ago with a benchmark study on collaboration, noting that partnerships enable companies to act faster, work smarter and improve value to create economic growth.

Today, it's clear this was one of the tipping points for the rise of collaborative innovation. Such innovation-focused alliances between companies transform business and drive growth, says the World Economic Forum in a report issued in August. Although collaboration can bring together a variety of companies, the authors note, these partnerships often involve firms of young, dynamic individuals, who use new ways of working, collaborating with larger, established companies.

2015-10-19-1445284185-6221391-serviceengineerscloseup.jpg

Apple pioneered this model with the iPhone, which spawned hundreds of global partnerships through its apps. Now developers are creating apps for various operating systems and platforms, taking collaborative innovation to new heights. For instance, this year, Fly Labs' mobile iOS video editing apps--Fly, Clips and Crop--ranked No. 1 on two lists: Apple's Best New Apps and Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies of 2015 in Video. Earlier this year, Oracle won Facebook's Excellence in Innovation award for using Datalogix's Relevancy Engine to reach grocery stores' current customers on Facebook with personalized coupons, recipes and deals.

Today, this collaborative model extends into nearly every business arena, not just tech, and makes companies more successful. DuPont's CEO Ellen Kullman notes, "global partnerships ... are the key to meeting customer and consumer needs in critical areas such as food security ... the protection of people and the environment."

It also can focus on intrapreneurship, says Mark Esposito, business professor at Harvard University Extension School. For example, Kraft's Lunchables redefined its brand in 2013 with in-house partners, such as Oscar Mayer, and external partners, such as Pringles, to win a new market with Uploaded, a version of its popular lunchbox meals targeted at teens, and raked in $125 million in sales that year, notes Ad Age.

Collaborative Innovation Drives Growth

Collaborative innovation drives growth through new or improved products or services that tap into marketplace demand, creating additional value for companies and consumers, and increasing each partner's productivity, says the World Economic Forum. It also lets companies leverage creativity, experience and resources to fuel better ideas; lower innovation costs; and improve decision-making, execution and speed to market, notes research from innovation consultancy Kalypso.

This helps explain why 81% of respondents in KPMG's 2015 Global Manufacturing Outlook Survey are adopting collaborative innovation models with suppliers and customers. Yet, no matter how innovative a product is, to succeed, it must put customers' needs first.

Collaborative innovation can also result in differentiation, which often leads to growth. In today's crowded marketplace, where products must stand out on the shelves or even small smartphone screens and pass product reviews, companies must work to differentiate new products and make good on marketing messages to rack up sales.

Collaborative Innovation Creates Value

In my industry, food packaging and processing, a quick stroll down an American retailer's crowded beverage aisles shows an array of flavors, sizes, nutritional niches and package offerings. How do consumers decide what they want, and how do companies tap into those wants and needs?

For Millennials in particular, who now hold an estimated $1 trillion in annual purchasing power, low prices aren't the issue. They find value in authenticity, style and convenience, as well as products that appeal to their social and environmental values.

Those points form the basis of a collaborative innovation between my company, Tetra Pak, and JUST, a new brand with an ethos based on responsibility, transparency and inclusiveness. JUST needed a unique package reflecting its tenets for its first product, spring water from the Glen Falls watershed at the base of the Adirondack Mountains, which is supplied through a community-based ethical-trade agreement that uses only a small amount of the community's excess water supply.

Tetra Pak's Tetra Top carton bottle is a perfect fit for the JUST Water proposition. It is made of more than 50% paper, a renewable resource from sustainably managed forests; is water and energy efficient; and is recyclable. With its extra-wide mouth and streamlined shape, it blends the functionality of a bottle with the environmental profile of a carton. And in a collaborative innovation journey Tetra Top was enhanced to package water and ensure the pure taste of JUST Water was preserved.

Collaborative innovation, by driving growth and creating value, benefits not only the partnering companies but also consumers. Every day, it leads to breakthroughs in a range of industries. We know such a business model is not only pivotal to the future of our business--it's indispensible to most companies. Any CEO worth his or her salt should have a collaborative innovation strategy in place. Do you?

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

↧

Entrepreneurs Are Everywhere Show No. 7: Betsy Corcoran and Miriam Altman

October 21, 2015, 7:01 am

≫ Next: Why You Can't Call Customers' Names on Your Facebook Page

≪ Previous: Collaborative Innovation: You Can't Do It Alone and Win

Startup success starts with passion for a job you want to spend your life doing. And great founders never stop to wonder if they're qualified to do a startup.

Passion and fearlessness -- two key ingredients the latest guests on Entrepreneurs are Everywhere, my radio show on Sirius XM Channel 111, leveraged to build their companies.

Joining me in the Stanford University studio were:

Betsy Corcoran, co-founder and CEO of the education technology news site EdSurge

Miriam Altman, co-founder and chief business officer of Kinvolved, which is working to improve high school graduation rates by increasing student attendance

Listen to the full interviews by downloading them from SoundCloud here and here. (And download any of the past shows here.)

Clips from their interviews are below, but first a word about the show:
Entrepreneurs are Everywhere airs Thursdays at 1 p.m. Pacific, 4 p.m. Eastern on Sirius XM Channel 111. It follows the entrepreneurial journeys of founders sharing their experiences of what it takes to build a startup - from restaurants to rocket scientists, to online gifts to online groceries to entrepreneurial education and more.

The program examines the DNA of entrepreneurs: what makes them tick, how they came up with their ideas; and explores the habits that make them successful, and the highs, lows and pivots that pushed them forward.

Betsy Corcoran was a science and technology journalist for many years, working at Scientific American, The Washington Post and Forbes. While at The Washington Post, she broke stories on the Microsoft antitrust case from Washington before establishing the paper's Silicon Valley office. She left journalism in 2009 seeking a way to bridge the education and technology spaces, and went on to co-found EdSurge.

She told me that she received the best career advice of her life as she looked for her first job out of college:
As I was graduating, I was coming out of Georgetown with a degree in economics and math and all this weird stuff in the background. I did a number of different interviews for jobs ... with people who came to school and that included banks. I would have these interviews and the bank would say to me, "So why do you want to work for Irving Trust?"

... I'm a terrible liar, so I would say things like, "Well ... I have an economics degree, we have a lot in common, right?" These were by far the worst interviews of my life and it was so bad ... that some guy leaned across the desk and said, "I've got an idea for you. Why don't you apply for a job you'd like to have? ... It was the single best piece of career advice I've ever received."

To hear the clip, click here.

Miriam Altman got her career start through Teach for America teaching in the New York City public schools. There she saw inequities in the education system that inspired her to act.

Her first idea for a startup was not Kinvolved, but was also education-based. She never paused to consider whether she was qualified to do it.
My idea, and what I wrote about in my application to go to grad school, was to start a school. That was my plan. ... charter or public, either one, but I really wanted to stay in education, so the experience of the classroom had gotten me hooked. And I wanted to do something entrepreneurial. ...

Steve: What make you think you were qualified to do this?

Miriam: ... I don't know if I ever thought about qualification. ... I don't really know if I ever really thought about that in particular.

Steve: I want you to know that's one of the key characteristics of a great entrepreneur. My wife used to explain to me that I was too dumb to know I wasn't qualified for whatever job I was attempting to do. And I've heard that implicitly or explicitly from a number of entrepreneurs, but I think you just nailed it. Right, it's like well, if I would have thought about what's required, I never would have started that company, right?

To hear the clip, click here.
--
Both women cultivated a love for entrepreneurship from an early age.

Betsy enjoyed participating in Junior Achievement, a hands-on program that introduces high school students to entrepreneurship:
... I was in Junior Achievement like so many kids, and I went out and I hit the streets, I sold plant hangers. ...

Junior Achievement is a program for high school kids to start companies. ... It's been around forever and what you do is come together, create a product. In those days, we made things out of wood, so we made wooden plant hangers and we made these really really awful wall hanging things that you could use as a cork board and chalkboard. They were terrible looking. And then you'd go out and sell the thing. And you created a full company and you ran it, and competed in sales competitions. ...

The astounding thing is that I sold more plant hangers than anyone in their right mind should have sold. ... I was the best salesperson in the Northeast corridor one year. ... Those plant hangers were moving like crazy. ...

... I did Junior Achievement for a couple of years and I did wind up as CEO of my little Junior Achievement company and I loved running the company. I think what I took away from that experience (was that) I loved coming up with an idea, I loved making something, and then I loved getting it in the hands of people who got excited about it.

To hear the clip, click here.

That passion for starting things grew during her work as a journalist, particularly when she was at IEEE Spectrum, where she created a new section:
What I found most fascinating and what maybe kind of does go back to the early days of Junior Achievement was the chance to create something. I was creating it within a framework, within the context of the magazine, that I was creating my own section, I was creating kind of new types of ways of talking about things. (It felt) great. I loved it ...(although it was) very scary.

To hear the clip, click here.

Miriam was similarly introduced to entrepreneurship at a young age:
My father, Frank Altman, is the founder and CEO of an organization called Community Reinvestment Fund. They ... work to ... help get capital to communities that typically can't receive traditional capital to grow small businesses and fund charter schools ...

When a lot of other kids during breaks from school were playing or doing other fun activities, I was going to work with my dad, which maybe didn't seem that fun at the time but I actually thought it was a pretty cool experience. ...

Lots and lots of filing and lots of uploading business cards. At the time it wasn't really that simple to digitize. ...

It definitely built character. It was fun to see how an office operated and really from an early age learn about he mission and be surrounded by professionals who were really focused on social impact work.

To hear the clip, click here.

Betsy shared why she created EdSurge:
I quit a very well-paying, very prestigious job in the middle of what will hopefully be the biggest economic downturn we will experience in our lifetimes. 2009. And I took a deep breath and said the only way I'm going to figure this out is if I really set aside time to do it.

And so I quit and then I devoted the next year to really understanding what was going on in education, what was happening in the schools. I worked as an IT person in the local public school, and plugged in computers and did professional development for teachers and learned a lot about what the problems were that were going on in the schools as well as what's emerging in technology. And around that time, I started to see new technology companies starting to pop up and at that moment I realized what I could do. ... When a new industry is emerging, there needs to be some way of pulling people together, some sort of information source, some sort of water cooler, because people who are coming into an industry have several characteristics in my opinion. ...

... No. 1 when they are really, really smart and really talented and critically don't actually know very much about the business they are starting to get into, because if they really understood it and they really understood how hard it was, they'd probably choose not to do this. So they need someone ... who helps introduce them to other people in the industry, who shows them what's going on in the landscape. So that was one idea.

The second, really powerful idea in education which is that this is a marketplace where people -- schools -- were starting to buy millions of dollars worth of technology without any kind of outside commentary, without any third voice, without any independent analysis of was this stuff the right stuff for them.

So we started EdSurge with two very strong ideas. No 1: support this emerging ecosystem of companies, but No. 2, help the buyers, help the schools get an idea of what they are getting themselves into and make smarter choices.

To hear the clip, click here.

A grad school competition got Miriam and her co-founder, Alex Meis, started building Kinvolved:
We saw an email on the Student ListServe, (and said) why not enter this competition? It sounds like fun. It was open-ended what you selected as your issue area, and I said I definitely want to do education. I threw out a couple of ideas. Alex said parent engagement is something I really am concerned about and focused on. We had that in common so decided to put together just a one-pager and advance through the process, really talk to 100s of people.

... I definitely think that's a huge part of the process,, not keeping your idea within your own head, but talking to people in a variety of different areas -- potential customers, school leadership, administrators, district leadership, teachers, colleagues, but also researchers, people who develop technology and really understand how you can put this kind of idea into action.

... We wanted to focus on improving family engagement, which is a very broad goal. As we were talking to more and more people, we said, 'So how are we going to do that?' and what does that mean? We decided to really target the issue of absenteeism and try to engage families more towards the end goal of trying to improve student attendance rates. And decided, again through conversations with people, that developing an app was the best tactical way to do that. Certainly we tightened our business model by talking to many different people.

... Neither Alex nor I have technical background. We have a lot of deep passion for the issue areas and experience in the community, but not a technical expertise. So we found ourselves at a hackathon at Pace University one nice Friday night. We had no idea what a hackathon was. We sort of found it in an email and said, Let's try and see if we can get someone to develop a prototype that we can present at this competition and sure enough, we go the prototype developed. It was like a 48-hour thing and there was also a competition associated with that particular hackathon, which our team won. So I guess that was our first success early on.

To hear the clip, click here.

Miriam also shared her startup lessons learned and advice for other founders:
I think most broadly no matter how you think things are going to go, they never go that way, so being flexible and comfortable with uncertainty is necessary.

Steve: You mean no business plan survives first contact with customers?

Miriam: That's true! ... we developed our business model canvas ... through NYU's Summer LaunchPad -- the accelerator program that we participated in -- that really practices and enforces Lean Startup (methods). Every single week within that 10-week program, we were going back and revising our business model canvas... and I would say that is a practice we've taken on with us since 2013. ...

... Being able to talk to customers, realize that nothing is static is also an important lesson we learned, and always being as nimble as possible ... and really taking data from your customers to understand what's working, what's not working, what needs improvement, and implementing that in the product roadmap.

Steve: What's the one piece of advice you would tell aspiring entrepreneurs?

Miriam: ... Don't worry if you're qualified or not. ... Don't be afraid of taking risks. Don't be afraid of failure. You're certainly going to along the way. And take a moment to celebrate the successes, because they are all so easy to overlook but really important to your team.

To hear the clip, click here.

Listen to my full interviews with Betsy and Miriam by downloading them from SoundCloud here and here. (And download any of the past shows here.)
•
Next on Entrepreneurs are Everywhere: Phil Randazzo, founder of American Dream U; and Derek Andersen, founder of Startup Grind.

Tune in Thursday at 1 p.m. PT, 4 p.m. ET on Sirius XM Channel 111

Steve Blank's blog: www.steveblank.com

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

↧

Why You Can't Call Customers' Names on Your Facebook Page

October 21, 2015, 7:19 am

≫ Next: Feedback: A Combustion Engine Is Much Better Than a Bomb (9.5)

≪ Previous: Entrepreneurs Are Everywhere Show No. 7: Betsy Corcoran and Miriam Altman

It seems nearly everyday you read a headline of a brand in trouble for not handling customer complaints on social media appropriately. I'm seen some brands go so far as to call their customers names on Facebook. Crazy!

Social media has forever transformed the nature of customer complaints. Customers have greater control, a louder voice and much broader reach; which can have serious impacts on your reputation.

So how should you manage customer complaints on social media?

2015-10-19-1445222597-4615041-Dontloseyourcoolonsocialmediacapture.JPG

Facebook is customer service

Often we think Facebook interactions are different to customer service, when in fact they aren't - the premise is the same. All businesses rely on customers so we have to treat them with respect, whether it's in person or on social media.

It's crucial you respond to complaints quickly, be helpful, treat customers with respect, and always be friendly and polite. The worst thing you can do is ignore the tweet, or Facebook comment, or respond in a negative or abusive way.

Deal with it privately

The general rule when dealing with customer complaints on social media is move it from public to private as soon as possible.

Be a respectful customer

Complaining has never been so easy. Customers can hide behind anonymity to make complaints that they may not have made in person.

Customers can complain with very little thought or respect for the people that hear it. Everyone has the responsibility to stop and think about how their remarks impact the business owner or their staff.

I do think that business owners have a "right of reply," so long as the reply is done in a respectful and tactful way. If a customer is being unreasonable or abusive, comments can be deleted or responded to.

Top tips to help you respond to a negative comment on Twitter, Facebook or a blog.

Post a polite public reply in response to the negative comment and offer a clear process for resolving the issue.

Deal with the issue on a more personal level by asking for their contact details. Send them an email or call them on the phone.

Always stay calm and do not aggravate the situation further by getting angry or responding negatively.

It's all about treating people the way we would like to be treated. Speaking up when we need to and always being respectful.

About the author
Catriona Pollard is the author of From Unknown To Expert, a step by step framework designed to help entrepreneurs develop effective PR and social media strategies to become recognised as influencers in their field. www.unknowntoexpert.com

Catriona is also the director of CP Communications, which merges traditional PR tactics with cutting-edge social media strategies that engage consumers as well as business. www.cpcommunications.com.au

Follow Catriona:
Twitter: @catrionapollard
Facebook: www.facebook.com/catrionapollard
Blogs: www.catrionapollard.com | www.unknowntoexpert.com/blog

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

↧

Feedback: A Combustion Engine Is Much Better Than a Bomb (9.5)

October 21, 2015, 7:27 am

≫ Next: What Was Missing From the Democrats' Debate Stage

≪ Previous: Why You Can't Call Customers' Names on Your Facebook Page

How often could you productively get together with your colleagues and ask, "How are we working together? Is there anything I could do to make your work better? Or to improve our relationship? Or to help increase your well-being and happiness?" Or to share, "I thought of something you could do to help me do my work, improve our relationship, and make me feel better; do you have a moment for me to tell you?"

Certainly more than once or twice a year, almost surely more than once a quarter, and probably more than once a month.

Then why have these conversations only as formal "feedback sessions" come performance evaluation time?

And if this is a good idea at work, why not also do it at home?

In this video, I suggest how to use performance improvement conversations as a way to express to others how much you care about them. And I extend the idea to express to your loved ones how much you care about them.

9.5 Turn A Bomb Into A Combustion Engine from Fred Kofman

Should you have any difficulty viewing the video please click here to view on Slideshare.

Readers: Is there a conversation you could have right now that would help you and a colleague improve the way you work together?

Fred Kofman is Vice President at Linkedin. This post is part 9.1 of Linkedin's Conscious Business Program. To find the introduction and full structure of this program visit Conscious Business Academy. To stay connected and get updates please and join our Conscious Business Friends group. Follow Fred Kofman on LinkedIn here.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

↧

What Was Missing From the Democrats' Debate Stage

October 21, 2015, 7:58 am

≫ Next: How I Became an Authority Online in a New Niche

≪ Previous: Feedback: A Combustion Engine Is Much Better Than a Bomb (9.5)

Last Tuesday, five Democrats took the stage in the party's first national debate. There were differences no doubt. But what was striking was how much they agreed upon -- if not in what they said, at least in what they ignored.

The night was filled with plans. Plans for breaking up the banks. Plans for fixing the tax system. Plans for strengthening social security. Plans for dealing with income inequality. Plans for regulating guns.

But what all these plans depend upon is the one institution that no one dared mention: Congress. Because the unavoidable truth is that there is no chance that Congress would enact any of these right and ambitious plans. With things as they are, the Democrats' plans are just fantasies.

The Democrats would argue that that's precisely why we ought to elect a Democratic Congress‚ too. But few believe the Democrats can regain control of Congress next year, and even if they get the Senate, none believe they'll have majority enough to neutralize the Republicans. The Democrats' debate was thus an elaborate hypothetical -- if we had a Congress that we could actually lead, then look at all the wonderful things we would do.

Yet even this makes the problem sound too simple. The issue with Congress is not a party. The issue is corruption. Not the corruption of criminals, but a corruption of the most basic value of any representative democracy: that it represent its citizens equally.

Congress has allowed a gross and corrupting inequality to grow within its institution. And until we have leaders willing to call out this corruption and show America how it could be remedied, nothing real is going to change.

This inequality shows itself in two very different ways, one familiar and one less understood.

The familiar is campaign finance. Members of Congress are dependent on the tiniest fraction of the 1 percent to fund their campaigns. That makes them hypersensitive to the needs of that tiny minority. That in turn leads government policy, as political scientists have shown, to bend to that tiny, unrepresentative minority. That bending breaks the ability of Congress to address a whole host of fundamental problems -- from climate change to clean air and clean water, from gun safety to securing social security. Practically everything every one of those Democratic candidates wants to do would be held hostage by this inequality. Yet none of them even acknowledged this absolutely obvious fact.

But just as important, if less commonly seen, is the inequality created by the way Congress selects its Members. Relying on politically gerrymandered districts produces a brittle and polarized House, one increasingly incapable of even governing itself, and certainly unable to address fundamental problems sensibly. We don't have immigration reform in America because of hypersensitivity not to money, but to an extremism that gets voice in America because of how Congress gets chosen.

Both of these inequalities could be solved. But that would take leaders willing to address them. Yet none of the Democrats even acknowledge the inequality in how the House gets constituted, and though most of them talk about the problem of money in politics, not a single candidate in that debate even mentioned the only immediately feasible change in how campaigns are funded -- public funding. Certainly none of them helped America to see why this corruption must be fixed first if any of the promises they are making are to be even credible.

It is in the nature of politicians of course to promise the moon -- whether or not the rocket can fly. But we won't make progress on what Al Gore has called our "democracy crisis" until there's someone on that stage willing to say what is true: that if the system is rigged, we must unrig that rigged system first. Or else all the dreams that these Democrats are so passionately describing will be just fantasies. Again.

This post originally appeared on Medium.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

↧

How I Became an Authority Online in a New Niche

October 21, 2015, 8:01 am

≫ Next: The Not-So-Secret Service: What Your Company Can Learn From the Rep. Chaffetz Scandal

≪ Previous: What Was Missing From the Democrats' Debate Stage

Peter Daisyme is the co-founder of Palo Alto, California-based Hosting, a hosting company specializing in helping businesses with hosting their website for free, for life.

While it certainly has its challenges, I would prefer becoming an online authority in a new niche rather than trying to gain the thought leadership position in an existing one, where many already claim to be experts. While running my current business, I've been able to create a large following and shed light on online invoicing solutions. This has also helped to propel the Hostt.com brand into a more well-known and admired name.

However, reaching this authority status didn't happen overnight. Here's what I did to get that top spot:

Give your new niche a definition and value proposition. In existing niches, it is a matter of educating yourself and researching the topic. Also, I needed to understand how to position the new niche. I learned what customers were using for invoicing processes and platforms so that I could get a better idea of what was working and wasn't, and speak directly to these needs and challenges. As a leader in the industry, creating this vision is an excellent way to immediately establish authority. However, I have to keep on top of changes or shifts in order to hold onto that authority position while continuing to evolve the definition and value proposition.

Teach others about this new niche to help them make smarter decisions. Taking on the role of a teacher through my blog has provided a learning arena for others. On my blog, I share that information to illustrate ways in which readers can improve their invoicing methods, speed up payment, and address non-payment issues and other problems that impact their business cash flow. There are many small-business owners and freelancers who are looking for this type of guidance. In teaching them about online invoicing, I become a mentor rather than the salesperson they are trying to avoid. Being a teacher requires ongoing professional development.

Be authentic. Your audience wants to hear the truth and they want to know that they can trust your ability to supply them with the information they need. This ability to be authentic is especially important when trying to be an online authority, where you are a virtual version of yourself and people can't see your expressions. I have to imbue my personality into what I share online so they feel the real me coming through. To help with this, I have made many online videos and shared them on my website and social media channels, and have made myself available at industry events.

Conceptualize and write relevant and engaging content. When it's a new niche, the idea of creating that "wow" factor content seems a bit easier than trying to stand out in a sea of existing content. However, I quickly learned that there still had to be just as much time, effort, research and creativity devoted to a new niche as to an existing one. In order to be that authority, I had to provide a lot of content that informed and offered solutions in a digestible way so that the audience could understand and use it. If I put up something that isn't relevant, that reputation as an authority is essentially lost. Like everything, it takes a while to build a reputation but only seconds to completely destroy it. I make sure all content is meaningful to my audience.

Find places that are in need of content related to the niche. Beyond my blog, I know that to be a real authority in this new niche, I have to get this relevant content in front of others who may not have discovered it. That means offering to provide guest posts on other sites, including business publications, where this content can be shared.

Tell others about your content. I'm not shy: I shout the information I have from every platform I can, including LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. I've also created a team of influencers who are willing to evangelize my content among their social networks. These followers also illustrate my leadership position when they tell others how and why they believe in what I'm saying. The viral nature of social media spreads the content quickly, which also helps to boost my authority figure.

Leverage other areas of established authority to build a personal brand. Beyond just showing that I'm an authority in this new niche, I integrate my other authority figures. Having these multiple authority positions helps bolster my position in online invoicing. My entrepreneurial background and experience has developed into a personal brand that I can leverage to nurture a reputation in other new areas.

Slow, steady and consistent wins the race to the top of the heap as the online authority figure in a new niche. Of course, when you get people willing to tell others about your knowledge and capabilities to lead, you can move the process forward more quickly. It takes many channels and significant amounts of engaging content to develop the authority that puts you in the enviable position of having followers from the beginning, rather than having to try them to win them away from the competition.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

↧

The Not-So-Secret Service: What Your Company Can Learn From the Rep. Chaffetz Scandal

October 21, 2015, 8:05 am

≫ Next: The Secret to Attracting Top Millennial Talent to Your Firm - By a Millennial

≪ Previous: How I Became an Authority Online in a New Niche

Of all the scandals that have struck the U.S. Secret Service over the past few years, I can't think of any more damaging than the current controversy involving Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman.

While it's probably safe to assume the U.S. Secret Service (like most government agencies) has established policies, procedures, practices and standards to prevent events like this from happening, It shocks and amazes me (in a bad way) how they have managed to internally disrupt so many basic security principles over the confidentiality, integrity and availability of such sensitive data. Yet, on the upside, the risk management professional in me sees this salacious incident as a learning opportunity for business owners and security professionals everywhere, because if it can happen in the Secret Service, it can happen in any organization.

The scurrilous events began earlier this year after Chaffetz's committee admonished the Secret Service and assistant director, Edward Lowery, for numerous misconduct and security mistakes. Chaffetz's accusations angered numerous agents who felt compelled to retaliate against the Congressman.

A recent investigation by the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General found that Lowery emailed a colleague in March, commenting on Chaffetz's personal file that was being widely circulated inside the Secret Service, writing, "...some information that [Rep. Chaffetz] might find embarrassing needs to get out. Just to be fair."

Two days later, the news website, The Daily Beast, reported that Rep. Chaffetz had applied to be a Secret Service agent in 2003, ultimately being rejected for the position.

In an attempt to embarrass Chaffetz publicly, his personnel file from his 2003 application - located in a "restricted database" - was accessed by about 45 Secret Service agents, some of whom reportedly shared it throughout the agency.

Further review from the Inspector General's office found that Chaffetz's file was spread to nearly "every layer" of The Service; from administrative staff to top directors. The report further indicated that 18 supervisors (including assistant directors), the deputy director and director's chief of staff knew the information was being widely shared through agency offices. A Secret Service agent also reported that at a briefing for the visit of the Afghan president, nearly all 70 agents who attended the briefing were discussing it.

So how can your company learn from the U.S. Secret Service's mistakes? Start by developing (or confirming that you have) basic information security guidelines with respect to who can access sensitive data (such as personnel files or other confidential data) within your organization. Here are some key tips:

Start by following time-tested, industry, security best practices to review periodically (i.e., at least annually) the policies, procedures, practices and standards that protect sensitive data, files and records within your organization. Controls should include both logical (electronic) as well as physical access to data.

Have a discussion with appropriate IT security management staff within your organization to understand what processes are in place and gauge whether they have employed adequate preventive controls to thwart access to confidential files, particularly those in a "restricted database." Additional discussions should cover the entire enterprise architecture including the network, the operating system and the application itself. Also ask which detective controls (e.g., audit logs) are being utilized to monitor access to these critical systems and question who (if anyone) is reviewing these reports and at what intervals.

Inquire if the organization is using role-based access control (RBAC) - a common method of regulating access to data resources based on the roles of individual users within the company based on their job competency, authority and responsibility within the company - when assigning access to data files or systems.

Ask what software is being utilized to monitor or prevent confidential data from leaving the workplace. There are many data loss prevention (DLP) solutions that can monitor your network to prevent data exfiltration and inspect and/or deny egress traffic from carrying unauthorized content beyond the perimeter of the enterprise.

Lastly, gauge the adequacy of any privacy or human resource training that teaches employees what to do - and what not to do - if they come across confidential, internal information. This training should also cover topics such as not sharing user IDs or passwords and how to handle situations from management or colleagues when being encouraged to engage in unethical behavior (such as email threats or lying to/ concealing information from management, compliance, or audit personnel).

Like most government agencies and mature organizations, we can speculate that the Secret Service has data security policies, procedures and practices in place, but the questions are whether or not they were truly following them and whether so many employees need such pervasive access to data, like Chaffetz's file.

Sadly, this is one of many incidents that can be reviewed as a case study in non-compliance to Information Security 101 principles. Your task - if you are unsure of the answers presented above - is to inquire if your company, and any third parties accessing such data, has implemented proper controls so you don't fall into the same trap.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

↧