P.S. You Should Read This

I found an article on BusinessWeek which talks about how college graduates are turning away from jobs on Wall Street. As I am currently studying in a top-tier business school myself, I am able to appreciate many of the ideas brought up in the article.

Call me cynical, but I believe that the media has sensationalized students who have chosen alternative careers to either financial services or consulting. I applaud those who had the option of choosing a profitable career path but chose a more humanitarian cause, especially if there was a huge difference in the salaries and stability. That is an extremely hard decision to make, and one which few would attempt to do. For others who say that they are looking at alternate career fields because they became ‘philanthropic’, I’m a lot more skeptical of their actions. I believe that the primary reason why they would switch out of the traditional career paths is when these fields are no longer as optimal, such as in these currently depressed markets. Should you offer these recent college graduates a top job, I am positive that many, if not most, would drop their philanthropic interests in a hurry.

This brings me to my next point. If given the choice, should recent grads be choosing the more charitable job? Don’t pelt me with stones, but I’m going to have to answer: not necessarily. I’m a firm believer that every person has their own niche, and that their goal should be to maximize their marginal utility to society. For example, if you are a much better banker/consultant than a NGO worker, don’t drop everything you have to try and save the world. Both you and society would be a lot better off if you did what you were best at. Should you continue to have humanitarian inklings after working in your career for years, you should then take the leap and do what you desire. You’d have a much larger say in the world by then, and therefore, you could make that much more of a difference.

Something else that would make me reconsider working in philanthropy upon graduation is the fact that many of the organizations (such as the World Bank or the United Nations) are very bureaucratic. Starting off your career by working there could mean that you would have to spend years trying to rise up the ladder before you can make a significant impact in your projects.

I recently read an article that looks at the clash between choosing a business idea as being a business and being a hobby. The author proposes that no successful idea can be both a business and a hobby, and that the originator of the idea has to choose between either of the two. Although I believe that there will be many who would disagree with such an opinion, I think it is important that people should go into implementing any business idea with a clear picture of what they want it to be. Some might say that it is impossible to truly succeed at something that isn’t enjoyed, and therefore any business should also be a hobby. On the other hand, I believe that once the business becomes too much of a hobby, it becomes harder and harder for business decisions to be made objectively. For example, you could be a manager with numerous employees under your watch. Just because you become good friends with your subordinate does not mean that you can turn a blind eye to his performance. Should there be a need to replace him with a better performing individual, emotions shouldn’t be allowed to cloud your judgment.

There might be individuals who take pleasure in making money, forming cordial non-personal relationships, and being completely objective in all their decisions. I believe that in such scenarios, there really isn’t much of a difference between their hobbies and business interests, and that only in such a scenario can a business also become a hobby.

What I find to be a far trickier situation is when a business turns into a hobby or vice-versa during the course of running it. Person X might initially enjoy his car-washing business, in which he leisurely mingles with his regular customers as he washes the car. Clearly this qualifies as a “hobby”. Over time, his customer base might get larger and larger, and he may realize that the opportunities he now faced were endless should he turn his “hobby” into a business. So what does he do now? Stick to keeping the washing service as a hobby and limit himself or take the leap and convert into a business? What about those relationships that he formed —- Is he willing to sacrifice them?

It is often extremely hard for someone to realign his or her goals midway through the implementation of the business idea. The business environment might also change during the process, requiring a reevaluation of whether the right choice had been made. I therefore propose that such a “biz vs. hobby” evaluation be conducted throughout the implementation process, and even during the running of the business.

Time recently published an article called “Your Laptop’s Dirty Little Secret”, and it brought up a number of issues. It focuses on the fact that electronic waste gets shipped off from western regions such as the U.S. to emerging countries, and explores the impact of this on those countries. I found the article truly eye-opening, as it isn’t one which gets a lot of press or media coverage, in contrast to other forms of pollution. More traditional industries such as the heavy metal industry have been sensationalized whenever they raise any environmental issues.

The fact that it does not get as much press has also meant that the electronics industry has been thought of as a “clean” by much of the public. This in turn has resulted in the average consumer feeling a lot more comfortable buying from the electronics industry, armed with the knowledge they aren’t doing too much bad in the world. The article also noted that the U.S had refused to join a convention to ban such an export of toxic waste, and that it was the primary reason why the dumping has continued. I found that especially surprising, considering that the U.S. has taken such prominent steps to be Green. Looking at the other side, it is quite saddening to see that developing nations are willing to take on such waste for money, but altogether not very surprising. Often, there is a cost to economic growth and developing, and the environment usually bears that cost. I guess that the only way such a dumping will stop is if greater awareness is raised, countries start developing a conscience, and we as individuals start taking the initiative in curtailing our purchases of electronic products.

Looks like not everything that gets outsourced is good.

I recently read a fascinating article on Business Week which focused on the use of biomaterials in consumer electronics. One of the devices featured is Morph, by Nokia. It truly is a remarkable invention, as it is a cell phone which is flexible enough to wrap around your wrist, can self-clean, have its own source of energy, as well as be able to analyze the air around it. What’s more, it isn’t even entirely made from your traditional electronics materials such as silicon and metal. The proteins found in insulin are melded together like spider silk, which is both and tough. Nokia recently released a video for the phone, outlining its potential.

Although there have been numerous innovative gadgets which have been invented recently, I was particularly struck by use of biomaterials. Morph isn’t the only one which uses it, as bioplastics have been invented to cope with rising fuel costs and DNA is being used to create extremely dense memory chips. Biomaterials and nanotechnology are the way of the future, and I find it ironical that we are no longer trying to shift away from our reliance on Nature. The globe’s current focus on being “green” and on “sustainable development” is a sign that we are finally coming to terms with the fact that we need nature, and will be dependent on it for years to come.

One of my college professors once told me that the one most important thing one should know about monetary economics is the word: expectations. Expectations apparently drives everything and countries can rise (or crumble) based on people’s opinion. Sounds implausible? Think again.

I guess that it is really during this tremulous period that the true effect of market expectations can be seen. The Dow, S&P 500 and NASDAQ plunged again today, just like as they have for the past few months. According to the WSJ , the drop was due to “worries about economic growth.” While I’m no genius, I’ve known for quite some time that the U.S. economy hasn’t been in the best the shape. So what was the reason for the drop? The simple concept of “Expectations”. People (investors in this case) fear that the economy is in tatters and expect it to remain that way. They then trigger a sell-off by selling the stocks they own, driving the stock prices down, and effectively, cause the major indices to drop. This drop then affects other people, who start panicking and selling, effectively causing the light drop to become a free fall There you have it: a self-fulfilling prophecy. It really is a fascinating concept, but one which most people would be unable to appreciate in these dire circumstances

Expectations can be seen everywhere, and not just the macro level. Take a small bank for example. Imagine that a rumor gets started that the bank was in a crisis (even if it actually wasn’t), and that people would lose all their savings. What happens next is a bank run, in which everyone “runs” to the bank to try to recover as much of their savings. The bank, facing a sudden escalation in demand for cash, finds itself short of cash as it had given out loans. It is then forced to close simply because customers “expected” it to, rather than due to any actual problems of its own. This is just another example of the role expectations can play in people’s lives.

So the next time you see someone believing that he was meant to do great things, don’t rebuke him. For all you know, he really could become great. I think it’s about time that we all started believing in something and expecting the best out of any situation. I’m sure that it would do us a world of good.

Google was recently asked to hand over records of video viewership to Viacom by a federal judge. Viacom had earlier filed a 1 billion dollar suit against Google for copyright infringement, due to the number of videos which had been posted illegally on YouTube, the largest video site on the web.

The main objection to the decision was the fact that user information, such as the login name and the IP address, would be handed over to Viacom. The implications: Viacom would be able to tell exactly which users watched which videos, thus exposing the habits of millions of people. Although both Google and Viacom have said that the IP addresses do not allow the exact identification of individuals, IP addresses have been used in the past in combination with other data to identify people.

This in turn raises many questions and concerns. Does Google even have a right to pass over such information, especially as it violates the privacy of the users? Viacom also claims that the viewer information is necessary to analyze the popularity of copyrighted clips, but surely a simple view count of the clips, rather than the IP addresses, would be able to determine that. So why is such information needed? While I may not have the answers to those questions, what I do know is that users in the future will be a lot more careful with the websites they give their personal information to. I’m afraid that the popularity of websites such as YouTube could get hurt by this ongoing saga.

I chanced upon the news last week that Wal-Mart was undergoing a radical change, with the unveiling of a brand new logo. At first, I was baffled by the announcement. Why would they get rid of something which the whole world has gotten used to over the last couple of decades? The logo had been a symbol of the discount giant and everything that it stood for, ranging from low prices to massive stores.

It was then clear to me that the logo also weighed down the multinational corporation in more ways than one. The company had been receiving bad press from all directions, ranging from its poor environmental practices to its treatment of employees and suppliers. The negative connotations associated with the logo far outweighed the positives, and CEO Lee Scott decided that it was time for it to go. After all, what better way to kick start the new campaign to freshen up Wal-Mart’s image than by changing fundamentals such as the logo?

So how does the new logo compare with the old one? Well for starters, the bold capital letters have been replaced with lowercase letters. One interpretation of this could be the company’s desire to portray a warmer, friendlier image. The hyphen/star is now gone, and the company’s name has become a single word. What’s more, a sunburst has been added to end of the name, brightening up the logo with the role of cementing the cleaner feel to it.

Will it be successful? Only time will tell. There have been numerous companies which have changed their logos over the last few years, but that hasn’t necessarily made them more successful. Take Starbucks for example (forgive my harping on the company). The company came up with a new logo, but that hasn’t stopped it from having to shut down stores and shelve expansion plans.

One thing is for certain though. If Wal-mart believes that changing the logo alone, without altering its’ business practices, will remake the company’s image in the public’s eye, then it is deeply mistaken. It will have to continue showing the world its eco-friendly stance on a sustained basis, and avoid as much bad press as possible. The new logo could prove to be a useful stepping stone, but it is nothing more.

Everyone seems to love taking a shot at Starbucks. Its stock price has plummeted over the last couple of years, it has started scaling back expansion plans, and even has a new CEO. What’s more, the company just announced plans to close 600 stores in the U.S. There are also those who complain about the Starbucks service, ranging from breakfast sandwiches which “interfere with the smell of coffee” to their new Piker Place Roast Coffee, which isn’t “boldenough”. Apparently, even McDonald’s serves better coffee. The sign of a crumbling empire?

No way.

Could you possibly imagine the world without Starbucks? I couldn’t. Its about time that people realize that Starbucks isn’t about just coffee, but rather, the experience. It’s a place where people hang out, take a break from life, or even get work done in a great ambiance. You wouldn’t catch me saying: “Hey, want to grab coffee sometime?… We could go to that McDonald’s down the street.” No coffee company is the world has nearly as much brand recognition or as strong a fan base. Sure, Starbucks may not grow as much as it used to, but then again, which company grows for eternity? It also has great prospects internationally, and being a mature company is not necessarily a bad thing.