What career should you choose?

Serious advice. Obviously you won't get that from me. But how about from one of the most respected economists in the world? It may sound like a made up name, but Dr Hal Varian has had a long career in both business and academia, and he suggested this answer at the Freakonomics site:

If you are looking for a career where your services will be in high demand, you should find something where you provide a scarce, complementary service to something that is getting ubiquitous and cheap. So what’s getting ubiquitous and cheap? Data. And what is complementary to data? Analysis. So my recommendation is to take lots of courses about how to manipulate and analyze data: databases, machine learning, econometrics, statistics, visualization, and so on.

Unfortunately, that description does not match any of my top five jobs. Fortunately, it all sounds very familiar.


PS Unsurprisingly, Hal Varian now works for Google.

The Perfect Recruitment Process?

I am only an advisor to the client, but I am aware of their difficulties in recruiting suitably skilled staff. When doing any recruitment, whenever you can't find the "right" candidate, you always need to ask if you are doing something fundamentally wrong, if you need to tighten or relax the criteria.

I know that the client was looking to fill a contract vacancy last year, and they utilised a recruitment agency to advertise the position and pre-screen the candidates. Sixteen people passed these initial tests. In a nonexistent ideal world, every one of those candidates would be perfect for the role. But that is only ideal for the employer. It is not necessarily ideal for a society to be in a situation where fifteen candidates are all equally capable of the job, invest equal time and effort and are equally disappointed by the outcome.

But as a practical target, if you are looking to judge if your criteria were too strict or too lax, if about half of the applications are rejected at each stage of the process, then you shouldn't be going too far wrong.

Let us look at historical (hypothetical) example. Out of those sixteen pre-screened candidate CVs, eight were considered suitable for interview. Of those eight, after initial phone discussion about the logistics of the position, four actually turned up for interview. Of those four, two were offered the position. Of those two, one accepted it.

So I conclude that, in this case, the client was doing things about right. I only wish they would do things more quickly.

The Physics of Violence

This subject still troubles me. Because as the days pass, the country seems to be moving from a desire to stamp out [sic] this type of incident to a sort of resigned acceptance that these things happen in football. They do. But they should not.

I tend not to post pictures on this site, but you can look here for the money shot.

Now of course I am not saying that Taylor meant to snap Eduardo's leg and possibly end his career. True he did not "go in with both feet", the oversimplified litmus test for footballers' assessment of intent. But he did mean to strike with his studs first in the general direction of his opponent's leg at sufficient velocity to smash through human bone.

Forces, levers, pivots. The result was inevitable.

American Inventor

I just watched the first programme in a series called American Inventor. Well, it was the first of the second series - either the first series was not shown in the UK or it just passed me by.

The thing that amuses me is that the publicity for this show seemed to imply that it was a "serious" entrepreneurial programme, something like the BBC 's Dragon's Den. But despite the presence on the panel of Peter Jones, the self-proclaimed business tycoon, as the show progressed I realised that it was actually much closer in spirit to another show, American Idol. And only at the end credits did I spot the explicit reference to Simon Cowell.

The BBC show tries desperately to be a serious business programme. It even has the BBC economics editor as presenter. Yet sometimes I dislike its approach, as described in an earlier post. So despite the tacky gameshow format, in some ways the American show is more honest entertainment. There is much less of the collusion, negotiation, bullying, and psychological pressure that is evident in the den. Yes those things are interesting, but we see them in work every day anyway - we don't need them on television too.

Marketing Maths Money

I quoted about organ donors from the Data Strategy editorial only a few days ago, but the cover story from this month's issue has an equally relevant message: Clients, suppliers and agencies are crying out for data analysts and database managers, but the small number of recruits available is a growing problem for employers.

There is a very obvious first cause for this. Again quoting directly from the printed article: the number of students taking A Level Maths fell by nearly 40 per cent between 1989 and 2002. This was against a backdrop of a 15 per cent overall rise in the number of A Levels being taken.

As a fairly new and emerging industry, the employment market for these people should be fairly flexible. There is an obvious requirement for these skills, in fact the writing here always seems to return to the same theme of the need for better targeting, better measurement, and also the the growing requirement for increased statistical analysis as a compensating factor for increased data protection.

But these same skills are also in demand in the slightly stratospheric world of financial risk analysis and hedge fund management. Understandably, many maths graduates are drawn to the City to manipulate and model with numbers that are even further removed from the real world of people and commodities. It could be argued that there is a case for outsourcing of this analysis, but that is easier said than done, and at least in the marketing arena there is huge added value in knowing the local market as well as the local model. This again suggests that more skilled graduates are needed here.

So there should be a natural tendency for prices (salaries and contract rates) to rise to match the increased demand. If this does not happen, then it is hard to see how employers can complain about insufficient supply. And over time we should even see a regression of graduates back to the more "difficult" subjects.

There are alternatives. Perhaps the government will submit to industry demands for more professional immigration. Perhaps more jobs will be outsourced despite their practical difficulties. Or perhaps we will learn to value scientific skills before we become a nation of hairdressers, TV producers, insurance salesmen, personnel officers, security guards, management consultants, telephone sanitizers and tired bloggers.

Torres

Before a return to serious issue tomorrow, another brief comment on yesterday's Premiership matches. Yesterday, I sympathised with Arsenal FC. They were genuinely unlucky. Or in the eyes of the "true fan", they were cheated out of a deserved win by incompetent or biased refereeing.

To some observers, Liverpool were lucky yesterday. They won 3-2. However, I was expecting that Mr Lineker would bring up a specific point on Match of the Day, he did not, so I mention it here:

When Fernando Torres capitalised on the poor defensive header to score the first goal, in addition to the invariably quoted qualities of pace, awareness and cool-headedness of top strikers, there were three outstanding attributes displayed that were even more unusual:

1. He gambled. Gary Lineker is one of the few analysts who regularly talks about this. But Torres hung back behind the defender just on the slight chance that he would fumble his back pass. He did not "track back". Most of the time those gambles are wasted. But the best strikers gamble most.

2. He was tripped in the penalty area while rounding the goalkeeper. But he did not fall down, despite the obvious foul. A specialist striker would never give up a chance of goal to a specialist penalty taker.

3. As he was preparing to shoot, another striker was running in behind with a better angle. But as with Michael Owen getting in front on Paul Scholes after rounding the Argentine defence in 1998, having done the hard work, there was no way he would pass on the scoring opportunity.

Selfish? Probably. Also the best centre forward I have seen in a long time. Well played Fernando.

Break a Leg

Both my dad and my brother have performed on stage many times. That is not just amateur dramatics, my dad is a member of Equity and is off filming something in Wales next week. Within theatrical circles, I have heard the phrase "break a leg" used as an expression of support before a show.

Even the most casual perusal of this blog will make clear my opinion on such superstitions. I'll just say that they deserve as much respect as religions.

But I appreciate some human psychology. If a dumbo actor thinks carrying around a little lucky feather makes him perform better, then he is likely to perform better with it. If someone feels better after being wished good fortune, I will wish them good fortune.

I'm getting up early to play football tomorrow. And over the years I have witnessed the genuine breaking of legs right in front of me many times, and I can still recall the sight and sound of a snapping limb. For all of Sky's sensationalist coverage of the Premier League, I am pleased they did not replay the Eduardo incident today. Though even news programmes have now shown it.

So I have never used that phrase. And I never will. Is that superstition?

Painting the Forth Bridge

I have crossed the legendary Forth bridge, and I know of the story:

So much steel is involved in the 1.5-mile long rail bridge over the Firth of Forth that, the legend goes, by the time the painters finish, they need to start over again at the other end.

But I was always skeptical of that ... that would mean nothing large can ever be completely painted. Which is rubbish. If you want something finished earlier, you usually just need more money or more effort thrown at it.

In fact, for a large static structure, it seems to make perfect sense to employ just the right number of workers so that the rate of paint application is equal to the rate of paint degradation. Any more workers, and the "burn rate" is higher than it needs to be.

However, according to the Reuters news report, Balfour Beatty has been paid 74 million pounds to complete the job by 2012. You thought your house painters charged a lot. The job started in 2002, and the new coating lasts 20 years. So in 2022 the whole thing starts again. And the legend lives on.

Holy Cash Cow

It is usually considered humiliating for a person to be sold off like a piece of meat. For privileged football stars and unprivileged technology contractors, this usually tends to happen only at the conclusion of contracts. And even then, the transactions are usually conducted privately, the commodity is allowed some opportunity to negotiate a personal rate, though the buyer has the upper hand with the opportunity to walk away and leave the seller with nothing.

Over in India, they have not turned to capitalism in a half-hearted manner. The players in the Indian Premier League were simply sold off at auction, all at once, a single day's bidding. The cricketer who was bought is contractually obliged to play for the buyer for three years for the auction price.

But we shouldn't pity them too much. A million dollars a year for playing a handful of short games. That's preity nice by anyone's standards.

Productivity, Sex, Kids

OK, time to get accusations of sexism and anti-family bias. Yesterday's headline from the British Psychology Digest had the simple headline:

Childless Women Are The Most Productive

While you pause on that headline, also take into account that there were broadly four groups being compared:
- Women with school-age children
- Women without school-age children
- Men with school-age children
- Men without school-age children

The article was peer-reviewed research in the Journal of Vocational Behaviour. Abstract here.

The study seems quite explicit that women without school-age children are more productive than those with them. The BPS summary suggests this is due to "domestic responsibilities" though of course it presents this as explanation not as endorsement.

The study also seems explicit that men without school-age children are less productive than those with them. It suggests that this result is explained by the stereotype of "breadwinners", where increased family responsibilities required the men to work longer hours to earn more.

But that last line hints at the misleading nature of the headline. By productivity, the study measured it simply by counting billable hours. More hours worked equals more productivity. Perhaps true for lawyers in Canada, but is that generally true in the workplace?

And another implicit message in the headline. Free of childcare responsibility, women are more "productive" than men?

Bank-ruptcy

At the time of the original Northern Rock crisis, I diverted from usual blog subjects to politics just because the hype and public opinion and even the news were so divorced from economic reality. That time has come around again.

After much consideration, the treasury has decided to reject the option of selling out to one of the interested parties, it has also rejected the idea of letting the bank collapse into bankruptcy, and has instead decided to nationalise it.

And for taking this decision, nothing but opprobrium.

Fair enough, the result will be risk to the taxpayer, loss of shareholder value and possible loss of jobs. All points accepted.

Yet in analogy with marketing, the absolute result is possibly less relevant than the comparative result. What were the alternatives? It is well documented that even the sale to the bidding consortium necessitated huge taxpayer guarantees. In fact, those guarantees were what prevented the sale. Also the offered price was less than the compensation expected from the government, so the shareholders also benefit from the nationalisation. The third option, liquidation, would have even more drastic effects on shareholder value and on jobs, and the government would still have been left with huge liabilities.

So really, at this moment in time, was there any need for the sudden outburst of anti-government vitriol? Only if you have an anti-government agenda anyway.

Social Notworking Sites

As we try to develop more effective and better targeted advertising, the "social networking" sites leap out as the new frontier. Yes there is a ready-made self-defined expression of particular individual likes and dislikes. But two questions, both mentioned here recently, mitigate the potential benefit:

1. Do we have permission to use the data?
2. Will your target actually notice the ads?

So relating the two questions we have a third, even if they notice, will they be positively inclined to follow through?

Regardless of whether they are useful for marketers, the question remains about whether they are of net benefit to society as a whole. The legendary Freakonomics blog asks

Two little words — “social networking” — have become a giant buzzphrase over the past couple of years, what with the worldwide march of Facebook and headline-ready stories about Web-assisted suicides. So what’s the net effect of social networking?

However, the sort of people who tend to be asked those questions, the self-proclaimed and industry-acclaimed gurus of the new world economy, they are surely those who who would tend to say the potential benefits outweigh the costs. I would agree.

But I still think the "site of the month" (last year MySpace, this year Facebook, next year LinkedIn, whatever) has very risky growth potential. Perhaps the future could be in individually hosted personally tailored networked sites. A bit like this one.

Who checks your adverts?

I listened to a couple of senior marketers from Google last week. Their themes were consistent, how the developing models behind concepts such as AdWords were changing the nature of the industry. They quoted an old marketing favourite: "I know half of my advertising is wasted," John Wanamaker famously said; "I just don't know which half."

And senior management at Google are not the only people to use that and similar quotes as a sign of the changing times. I often say it too. The work-related portions of this blog constantly suggest the identical message - modern marketing should be measurable, we should know which half works.

However, yes you should learn the results, but you may not like what what you learn. The Virtual Economics site provides an excellent summary of the potentially uncomfortable results. I won't repeat everything here.

But as I see it - in the TV advertising world, those who you would most like to target with adverts for the funky new gadgets that you are trying to sell are precisely the people who are most likely to have the PVR that lets you skim past all the ads.

And even in the new web world, where these stats are more easily measurable, for example by WebTrends or Sophus3 or a myriad of other companies, still less than 1% of visitors to a site in a month click on an ad. Easy stats. Given enough visitors, still maybe ok.

But who are these visitors? I will quote directly from the first reference to the original AOL survey that I can find: Not surprisingly, they look at sweepstakes far more than any other kind of content. Yes, these are the same people that tend to open direct mail and love to talk to telemarketers.

And three conclusions about these visitors drawn from the survey here:

• More representative of lower income households than the average user.
• Less educated than the average user (or from less-educated environments in the case of minors).
• More likely to live outside of the major metro regions.

Are these the people who you most "want" to click on your banners?

Celsius 233

I am sadly ignorant of much "serious" literature, and I only mention this for the ethical interest rather than the literary one.

But according to the famous Tom Stoppard in the Times, regarding an unpublished work that an author wanted burned after his death, there is a very simple answer: It’s perfectly straightforward: Nabokov wanted it burnt, so burn it.

That is probably the majority opinion. But this blog does not follow the majority. Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution offers a very different view. Dead people don't count in the social welfare function.

That is true. The degree to which we respect historical legacies is a decision for those who are currently alive. The question remains: do future people count in the social welfare function?

Circumcycle

Some great news. According to a front page story on the BBC today, a British man has smashed the record for cycling round the world.

I used to ride daily in my college days, so I can trivialise a couple of the supposedly noteworthy highlights. He was knocked off his bike in the American state of Louisiana by an elderly motorist who drove through a red light. Well I was knocked off my bike by a red bus that cut a corner. And Mr Beaumont, who is originally from Bridge of Cally in Perthshire but now lives in Newburgh, also had his wallet and camera stolen from a motel. Across so many motels in so many third world countries, Pakistan, Malaysia, America, that isn't too surprising.

Seriously, it is a very impressive achievement. But I am still skeptical of one thing. Because look at the map. Obviously he didn't cycle all the way around the world. I would more impressed if somebody did, swapping between racing bike and mountain bike and pedalo depending on terrain. But it seems fair game to take a boat across the oceans in these events. Even then, he didn't always take the minimal route across the ocean, that would have involved the Bering Strait.

So he didn't really cycle around the earth. He cycled across twenty countries. Still damn impressive.

Take my organs, send me emails

This month's editorial in Data Strategy starts with the simple sentence: "Gordon Brown supports opt-out".

The magazine is presumably supported by the direct marketing industry. Clearly, from an industry perspective, the larger the potential market then the more opportunity for marketers. A voluntary "opt-in" principle reduces the target size. So the magazine's encouragement of a default marketing-accepting position is perfectly understandable.

I'm reading from the printed copy in front of me, so apologies for limited direct quotation, but the deliberately provocative opening of the editorial was actually referring to the government suggestions towards implied consent for organ donation, and then compares that with the increasing permission-based requirements for marketing communication.

The common view on marketing strategy is quite clear: targeted communication is good, junk mail is bad. The editor's view on this is also quite clear, and he does not try to mislead the reader about the PM's views on the matter. I actually doubt that his view differs from the common one.

But the editorial also raises an interesting point: "In the legal world, precedent is all. So establishing an operating principle of opt-out can be taken as useful support if a new debate arises around data and permissions".

So presumed consent for organ donation might lead to presumed consent for direct mail?

Spirited away

I spotted this story in the local newspaper yesterday. Now it seems that the world has caught up, it is national news. I will name and shame.

Some batty fruitcake of a woman (Sabrina Fallon) heard odd noises in her loft and called in the council to investigate. The council called in a lying fraudster (Suzanne Hadwin) who put down some salt and claimed to "exorcise" the spirit.

The council paid the con artist. The council spokesman (Andrew Burnip) defended the decision. If you live in Durham, those are your taxes being stolen.

Technology for Marketing

Today I paused from daily project estimation to look further ahead.

The over-riding theme of the new media gurus is the racing pace of opportunity, the relentless surge of ever faster processing and ever bigger databases. Goodbye to the old snail's pace of Moore's law - doubling every 18 months. While the number of worldwide web users grows even faster, the network also becomes even more of a collaborative medium, so the number of content suppliers is growing faster still. And that content becomes ever richer with information. Within a few years, some believe that the volume of captured measurable usable information will be doubling every few days.

Meanwhile, in another strand of technology for marketing, we need more and more powerful algorithms to analyse all this data. All the ancient laws of CRM are being re-written. An oft-quoted ideal is to go back to the personal relationship of the local corner shop but with ultimate choice and flexibility. All that personal data, we just need to learn to use it in the way that best satisfies the customer.

So far so predictable.

But there is a parallel development, something that is not so welcome to the marketer. Something that is just glossed over by the futurologists. It is true that we are getting more types of information, but at the same time we are getting more careful about how it is used. Thanks to the legacy of the junk mailers and spammers and ID fraudsters, the customer is understandably cautious about leaving identifiable data. Marketing did jump ahead on the coat-tails of speeding technology, but legislators are catching up.

Meanwhile the organisations that are collecting the data are changing all the time - every year there seems to be a new social networking site of the moment. So the sources of data are becoming more fragmented too.

This still means that there is new opportunity. But it is a different sort of challenge. We need to be more sophisticated in our marketing. More careful with use and audit of data. Where we do not have all the personal information that we would like, we need to make greater use of probabilities and control groups and statistical models. It needs a new type of marketing. Maybe a new type of marketer.

Another paradox?

I don't really encourage debate here. I want to make you consider a different point of view, but do not want to have a serious argument.

So I never tend to end posts with a question along the lines of "what do you think?"

But the main reason that I don't end my notes with a question is only the same reason that the following of a link is always optional and not the reason for the post. That is, however short, every post should be an independent cohesive article in itself, it should not need either an internal diversion or an external answer to make it complete.

So each post should be self-sufficient without a comment. However, not only would I like more people to read this, but I also genuinely want to get your comments. Hmmm.

Estimating Project Delivery Time

I have spent a lot of my working life doing IT Project Estimation and IT Project Proposals, it is not the most interesting subject in the world, but it is important, and I touched upon it in an earlier post.

I could throw in a few key words used to manage the estimation, words like originality, uncertainty, statistics, experience, reductionism, but it would need thick volumes to explain them properly. What is interesting is why people keep getting their estimates wrong.

It is obvious that people tend to over-estimate their own abilities. That is such basic human nature and so well-documented that we may as well just call it fact.

But many people, even educated ones, seem to have trouble with simple extrapolation, even for things as commonplace as car journeys. The British Psychology Society just published a simple study that asked:

for both pairs, just make an intuitive judgement about which jump in speed will make the largest difference to your time of arrival (i.e. save the most time):

a)Travelling at 50km/h instead of 40km/h.
b)Travelling at 130km/h instead of 80km/h.

a)Travelling at 50km/h instead of 30km/h.
b)Travelling at 130km/h instead of 60km/h.

If you're like most of the participants in Svenson's study, you will have assumed that option (b) in both pairs is the most time saving.

That guess is simply wrong. In each case, option (a) saves more time. However far the journey.

Share ya' laws

A regular theme of this blog is an objective view of marketing hype, or indeed of any hype, but the principle remains that something is only worth noting here if the view here differs from the common view.

The common view at the moment, front page news across Britain, is that the Archbishop of Canterbury has said something really stupid, that he recommended that particular communities should be allowed to use Sharia law as an alternative to British law for certain types of case. He did not say that. Read his actual words. But even those who quote his actual words seem to be drawing another conclusion from them, that although he did not recommend it, he thought that this was inevitable. No, he did not say that either.

My view on this is simple - no religious law has any place in a modern state. However a fair analysis of the Archbishop's actual words is provided at the Language Log, I have neither the time nor space to replicate the linguistic analysis here, but I will repeat just two conclusions from it:

One that I agree with: Dr Williams is a gentle, learned, brilliant, scholarly man, and a bit of a public relations doofus.

And one that I don't: Someone duller, more political, less original, and less intelligent must be found for that job.

American Football and Cricket History

I prescribe targeted marketing. I live in a transatlantic world. A few days ago I hinted at the biggest event in the "football" calendar, but I know that the terms used in "American" football mean nothing to most Europeans. I often mention cricket, but that means nothing to most Americans - and also to most Europeans. So this is going to be understood by a very small intersection indeed:

Superbowl - In football, a big game. In cricket, Shane Warne to Mike Gatting, setting the tone for a decade of Ashes dominance

Tight End - In football, offensive journeyman. In cricket, Glenn McGrath bowing a consistent line to keep the score down at one end, while Brett Lee attacks the other

Wide Receiver - In football, the guy who tries to run behind the defense and catch the forward pass. In cricket, standing behind the stumps to Steve Harmison on the first day of an away series

Time Out - In football, enough time for a few extra commercials. In cricket, enough time for a decent break, say 40 minutes for lunch, 20 minutes for tea

Touch Down - In football, possession in the opposing end zone. In cricket, Ricky Ponting claiming a disputed catch. Sorry.

... of the god in the night-time

As you would expect from the Economist, yesterday's article was almost completely positive and optimistic, saying how globalisation, technology and free trade were making the world so much better. And it suggested that the curious incidence of little current news from many regions that previously had bloody conflicts was because those regions were now free and stable.

However, there was one standout exception to the general increase in security and stability. Quoting directly:

A big exception to the rule of declining political violence is the rise of terrorism. Despite claims to the contrary by the Bush administration, the number of international terrorist incidents has risen since September 11th 2001, after a decade of decline. The number of deaths from terrorist acts has climbed almost everywhere. Yet this picture of worldwide growth is misleading. While it is true that Asia, Latin America and Europe have all experienced more terrorist attacks than before, they are still rare. Since 2001, the Middle East has suffered more violence and fatalities than the rest of the world put together.

So the Middle East brings you Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed, and this is how you behave?

Meanwhile, as millions of Americans were voting in Democratic and Republican primary elections on Super Tuesday, many southern states experienced the worst tornadoes for decades. Many people died. The religious loonies are always quick to blame any catastrophe in New Orleans or California as God's vengeance upon immoral lifestyles, yet it seems that the most religious parts of the nation are those that are most affected by these natural disasters. Is it that the prayers of the supposedly faithful increased the likelihood of natural disaster there, or did the prayers make no difference whatsoever?

The curious incident of the dog in the night-time was that the dog did nothing.

The curious incident ...

Before yesterday's diversion around the super bowl, I was discussing the impact of technology, how this was creating an environment where many commodities were becoming "free". This still allows profit if you can find ways to create generative value, a strong concept that is broadly a re-branding of our "old" individualised marketing principles.

Unsurprisingly, the Economist seems to think these principles are pervasive and persuasive, global and inevitable. The magazine does not publish the names of individual journalists on articles, but a certain undercover economist is a strong suspect. Anyway, the article argues that despite the current credit crunch and fears of western recession, the people of the world have never had it so good.

Three main reasons were given, primarily affecting the emerging markets: social changes, globalisation, reduced wars. And the three were somewhat tied together by two factors: technology and free markets. The article admitted, even highlighted, the rise in economic inequality also associated with those two factors.

I particularly liked one phrase mentioned in passing. The title of this post. Countries like Nepal have dropped out of the news. The article notes this as a good thing.

But in the midst of the positive news, there were a few glaring exceptions - countries and regions that were failing badly. The article did not bark out a link between them. Tomorrow I will turn it completely around to demonstrate one ...

The Souper Bowl

The last couple of notes, by the standards of this blog, were both fairly long and serious economic pieces. Today a quick sporting diversion.

Generally I think that balls should be round. However this weekend there was a fairly significant match involving an oval ball.

I live and work in a new england town. And although not especially fervent, to some extent I am a patriot. Our team has been arguably the best in the world within the last few years. According to all pre-match predictions, we should have won comfortably. But the opposition were giants. They were looking doomed at the interval but fought back brilliantly. When the final score was touched down after the long play it was thoroughly deserved, despite the wails from the locals around here. Well done to the underdogs. You merited the win and I was delighted with the result.

Anyone who thinks I am talking about "American" Football is on the wrong continent.

Everything is free - profit from it

I have been involved with Interactive Consumer Marketing and Customer Relationship Management since long before those terms existed, at least in common usage. I could write books about this subject, if you add up my writing around this area over the years then I already have.

Of course I am still looking for ways to enhance, refine and develop these concepts, to push it to its boundaries. And I was pointed towards an article that does just that.

Kevin Kelly is the author of New Rules for the New Economy. He started by looking at the proliferation of websites that were virtually (or literally) giving away their products. You know there are thousands of examples today, from Sun to Google, but as a business model it almost turned traditional micro-economic models upside down.

The proposition relies on the older concept of economies of scale and also on the newer concept of network growth effects, where pushing your product into the market has a substantial positive value on the value of your products that are already in the market. That is evident not just in the obvious world of compatible software solutions, but even in physical products such as mobile phones - again the value of the individual item to the consumer increases with the number of compatible products also out there.

Now he has pushed the envelope. He has suggested that basic price of everything is moving towards zero, everything is becoming free. If a product or service is to be worth paying for, then it must have "generative value".

A generative value is a quality or attribute that must be generated, grown, cultivated, nurtured. A generative thing can not be copied, cloned, faked, replicated, counterfeited, or reproduced. It is generated uniquely, in place, over time.

The analysis is sound and the insight is excellent. Broadly speaking it is the same message that proponents of CRM have been pushing for years, but as I stated at the start, he has pushed the envelope. In fact, the article appeared to have a focus on suppliers of software and services, but to me exactly the same principles apply to any commodity product. Wait long enough, other people will be able to build it cheaper than you. You need to make your product unique.

However there was one point that was glossed over. The article clearly refers only to products that can be copied, although Kelly's optimistic tone seemed to generalise that to everything. He talks of a world where not just manufactured products but even food and other essentials are free and unlimited. That is not true. For those basic commodities, for unpolluted water, for personal space, for that genuine experience of nature and history that ties us to our past, there is only a limited supply. The marginal cost for these items does not tend to zero. But it should.

Rewarding Mediocrity

Tim Harford, the undercover FT economist, recently wrote an article for Forbes with the same title as this post. Forbes magazine is a collection of glossy advertisements interspersed with the odd article defending the lifestyles of those who look at the glossy ads.

The article has some very good points. The basic argument is a Forbes-friendly line that government handouts are bad. That is what you would expect him to say. The main reason is because the handouts tend to go to the most mature, bloated, consolidated industries, not to the developing emergent industries that need the most encouragement. But this was not a simple regression-to-the-mean argument.

The subtle point is that because the most bloated industries are the most mature, they are already the most consolidated and have already built up the highest barriers to entry. However, whereas small startups in biotechnology may be the ones with the most potential for government kickstarts, there is less incentive for the individual entrepreneur to lobby for industry assistance. By contrast, in mature markets, industry assistance is almost inevitably targeted to those who organise the lobby.

All that does not necessarily justify the catastrophic destruction of "uneconomic" communities, as seemed to be deliberate policy in Thatcherite times. Neither does it necessarily eliminate the possibility of supporting key strategic interests to reduce unmanaged risk, for example to maintain basic self-sufficiency in basic foods to avoid being "held-hostage" by monopoly suppliers. Tim should have noted these mitigations. But the basic point remains, those who shout loudest for handouts may be those who least deserve them.

Miles Away

I am not going to write an obituary for Miles Kington. Although I should. This after all was the guy who "wished his obituary to begin with a series of utterly false statements".

But he managed to do every day for many decades what I struggle to do for just a day - to write an original topical witty grammatically perfect concise funny article and deliver it to a rigid journalistic schedule. If only this blog was like that.

So instead I will just recall his poetic advice to anyone in this field:

You can say all you like
About science and art
But if nobody's listening
It's not worth a fart.
You can utter pure wisdom
On art and on science
But none of it works
If you haven't got clients.

And the moral of the tale, The Leaf on the Tree:

Get a life. And leave it gracefully, when the time comes.

My Religious Space

I am skeptical of all publicity campaigns, even those largely populated by skeptics.

I used to have a MySpace page. In fact I still do, but I have not updated it for many months. Over the last few days there has been a bit of a stir in the online world about the apparent deletion of that site's "Atheist and Agnostic Group", largely due to complaints from people who find atheism offensive. The complainers also presumably find other "religions" offensive.

I was not a member of the group. In fact I am not a member of any atheist or agnostic group, unless you count the entire human race as a group. Anyway, everybody is somewhat atheist or agnostic really, even the most deluded religious devotee does not believe in the sacred revelations of most of the gods that have been acclaimed by humanity.

As a peripheral point, I don't think this apparent censorship is an excuse to move to Facebook or Orkut or whatever happens to be the next social networking site of the day. The reason that Myspace is losing share is because of its ugly, noisy, cluttered bug-ridden interface, not the fact that it is owned by the Murdoch Media Machine. It is true that News Corp follows a broadly conservative agenda, but there is still a fair degree of diverse opinion there, at least in its UK operations.

But their main agenda is profit. So I find it very difficult to comprehend how the owners of a commercial networking site can deliberately choose to antagonise tens of thousands of members. I know they are outnumbered by the religious majority, but it is still a substantial chunk of annoyed revenue. A group of concerned christians can easily control a local community, keeping jobs and opportunities only to the chosen believers, but it is much more difficult to control a global web.

In this case, the group organiser's account was hacked and the group disabled, but the delays in reinstatement may possibly be due to incompetence and lethargy rather than malice. Surely no social networking executive is going to be so bigoted or so stupid as to deliberately engineer this mess?

Olla

At lunch today the subject turned to food. The rice was undercooked, but that was just normal for the client office restaurant. But I was reminded of two basic marketing areas, and another one has just occurred to me now.

1. Brand value:

One person commented that he had eaten a particular brand of pie only once and had fallen spectacularly ill immediately afterwards. He had never touched that brand again. Now that brand is well-known and respected, and I would have thought that if you must have a pie, then at least choose a well-branded product. But first impressions count and the guy's reaction was perfectly understandable.

2. Product Currency:

A second person at the table recently got married. Between the reception last Saturday and the vultures in the office, we have polished off most of the wedding cake. However, pre-deep-freeze tradition dictates that a piece of cake is saved for a year. But I really don't think a year-old cake would be too healthy.

Yet sometimes the "maturing" of a dish is what provides its special flavour. We can create a new more valuable product in the eyes of the consumer by appealing to grounds of tradition and maturity, regardless of its intrinsic value.

3. Lying in advertising:

And coincidentally Bill Poser at Language Log brought up exactly the same subject only yesterday. He provides an excellent analysis of how deteriorating food sometimes becomes valuable delicacy. He started his analysis with a recipe printed in the New York Times, the dish was called "Olla Podrida", that means "Rotten Pot", the etyomology has been verified.

Yet the author of the Times article admits: she and her consultants and editors were aware of the correct name and etymology but thought that some readers might be put off by the notion of rotten food, so they changed the name a little and made up a fake etymology.

So the restaurant owner is quoted as saying: "Olla means pot, and the original name was olla poderida, which comes from poder, which means strength"

But if the newspaper editors were the people who changed the name, then how did the restaurant owner who sourced the dish provide that quotation?

How many people will select the same option as you?

The slashdots site had a recent "survey" that prompted a lot of discussion. I won't try to collect your response here, that would count as one of those reading "interruptions" that I try to avoid, but it had just one simple question in it:

How many people will select the same option as you?

• 0%
• 1-25%
  
• 26-50%
• 51-75%
• 76-99%
• 100%

It looks very obvious. Cognitive Daily summed up the basic proposition:

At first pass, you might figure that there are 6 possible responses, so if people respond randomly then about 16 percent will choose each answer, so the correct response would be 1-25 percent. But of course, if everyone used that same logic, then many more than 25 percent of respondents would choose that answer. The next logical response would be to move on to 26-50 percent. But once again, if everyone used that logic, the correct response would be higher still.

Very sensible analysis. If over-analysed then it might seem paradoxical. But basically common sense. I do have one further point, for as with my dislike of interruptive multimedia, another blog rule is that I do not just post stuff without adding an original thought. Incidentally, I guessed correctly. Even more incidentally, I work in marketing.

In marketing, we cannot stock every alternative, so we regularly have to predict the "most popular option". Of course that is not necessarily the option that we personally would choose, despite overblown arguments for "you must have personal experience of what you are selling".

For we try to predict the option that the consumer will choose, but that is not necessarily the option that the consumer should choose. We also need to account for the influence of other people's selections upon that choice. We need to guess the proportion of people who will behave rationally, the proportions who will act in isolation or in collusion. We should determine the evolving Nash equilibria. We should resolve the prisoner's dilemma.

The King of Paine

Today, while the impoverished Indian sub-continent is taking steps to catch up with the modern world, even supposedly enlightened nations such as the United Kingdom are still trying to justify and encourage the caste system. I had thought a convincing argument for rejecting it was published way back in the 18th Century - that book was called Common Sense.

Today religious fundamentalists are still trying to justify selected brands of fascism by claiming that their policies have been inspired by divine revelations. I had thought a convincing argument for rejecting it was published way back in the 18th Century - that book was called The Age of Reason.

Just a couple of days I dropped in a comment that skyscrapers divide people, bridges connect people. Thomas Paine (b. 29 January 1727, d. 8 June 1809) wanted to build bridges. "Society in every state is a blessing, but government even its best state is but a necessary evil". Happy Birthday Tom.

Hippo Suits

A couple of days ago I mentioned the hippo in a metaphorical sense. Today I talk about the real thing, the species of animal that kills more people in Africa than any other. And time to go back to Zambia…

The Times yesterday had a feature on a man who traveled out there to get really close to the animals in order to collect samples of sweat for scientific analysis. The article links through to a video of him. It is quite preposterous.

The guy sounds like a Jackass. I don't actually mean that pejoratively, I mean he sounds like one of those guys from the TV show who deliberately put themselves into the most uncomfortable, painful, dangerous and scatological positions simply because they enjoy it. Absolutely fair enough, entertainment for the rest of us, no problem with that at all.

But this guy justified the need to get his expensive kicks for scientific research. That justification is hippodung. It is worth going to the Luangwa valley to study wild animal behaviour. But it is not worth investing the resources of the Smithsonian Institute and countless airmiles to collect some hipposweat - get that at your local zoo.

After all his cost and effort, the "researcher" did get his African adventure holiday and his tailormade armoured suit. But he did not get his sample. I'm not surprised, he wants to go back for more.

High Five

The advantage of finally mentioning High Fidelity is that it allows you to take the easy option of dropping in a personal top five list, anyone who remembers either the book or the film will understand.

So here we have, in no particular order, a top five of very predictable childhood dream jobs:

1. Professional footballer. I wouldn't need to be paid Premiership wages, but being paid anything to do what for most people is an expensive hobby would be marvellous. Methinks the chance has passed me by.

2. Lead guitarist. I didn't want to be the singer, but I did want to write the songs. Of course I can't actually play anything now.

3. Architect. Not of databases and system processes, as I did end up anyway, but of real structures. And not of tall buildings, like pseudo-macho how-high-can-you-go modernists, but of bridges, like Tom Paine did after inspiring US independence. Skyscrapers divide people. Bridges connect people.

4. Pilot of Thunderbird Two. A very noble dream. Not only would I be saving the world from potential disaster as part of my job, I would also get to play with the biggest most fantastic toys in the world.

5. Cartoon superhero.

High Fidelity to Sweeney Todd

Weekend break from serious economics to popular culture. The flagship BBC "movie" programme Film 2008 was repeated this afternoon. Much of the show focused on this week's big release, a dark musical epic about Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street.

The film review is for other times or other blogs, today I just comment on something unusual about the promotional activity on the show. Quite rightly, the focus was on the director - whatever the source material, he imprints his own personal inimitable style upon the creation. And wherever he pushes his visions, Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter are often not far away, so they were interviewed too. Generally actors need to be paid well to say loyal to their directors, but you feel that those two would do almost anything for Tim Burton.

But what surprised me is that they only mentioned in passing the character playing Adolfo Pirelli. I just caught that it was someone called Sacha Baron-Cohen, then I realised that he is the guy responsible for Ali G and Borat. Given his fame and profile, I would have thought that his participation would be a big story. It was not, and I hope that the reason for that is a perfectly justified focus on the main creative talent rather than the local star.

Yet I wonder if the omission was deliberate. Perhaps Sacha did not want to get involved with the promotion, perhaps he only feels comfortable in public while "in character", though I am fairly sure his name remains in the picture. But it could be something else. You sometimes hear of actors being "uncredited" in roles, but usually that is where the finished movie is a disastrous mess and the actor wants nothing to do with the fiasco. But for films that are both critically acclaimed and also financially successful, you wonder why they disown the work in those circumstances.

The example that still puzzles me is that of Catherine Zeta Jones. High Fidelity is one of my favourite books, and she was typically stunning in the film adaptation. But she was completely uncredited in it. Why?

Animal Magic

For anyone who read yesterday's post who was a kid in England in the 1970s, it might be possible to think that I was referring to the guy who presented animal behaviour from Bristol Zoo every week on children's television. There are many similarities, but one fundamental difference.

Both characters had an infectious love of wildlife in all its forms. Both had long and varied careers across the mass media of the twentieth century. Both presented television programmes that showed nature at its most basic level - great popularisation to some, dumbing down to others.

However, the fundamental thesis presented by Desmond Morris was that people behave like other animals. The fundamental thesis presented by Johnny Morris was that other animals behave like people. Both arguments have elements of truth. But anthropomorphism of other animals has less relevance to economic policy than zoomorphism of other humans.

Or to put it another way, dubbing an elephant with a silly voice may be very funny but it is not very educational.

Animal Management

A few days, in an oblique reference to our overcrowded island, I thanked the author of The Human Zoo. He was born eighty years ago today. As a populariser of science, someone who brought the immense timescale of evolution down to simple schoolboy comprehension, Desmond Morris was a giant of the twentieth century.

He has immense detailed knowledge and scientific qualifications, he even studied under the genius Niko Tinbergen and published nearly fifty scientific papers. However in his popular books he sometimes oversimplified his arguments with the broad brush strokes of a trained artist. Some of those arguments have been refined and adopted into today's acknowledged facts, others are still contentious to this day. But his single basic point was blindingly obvious yet fundamentally enlightening - if we accept that human beings are animals, then much is explained.

After a few years of engineering, I studied economics and management at college. And I still remember sitting in lectures about management theory, some of it based on serious psychology experiments, some of it based on solid economic statistics, and some of it just the buzzword bullspeak that still resounds today. Normally I read the recommended books and did the recommended work. But one time, and it was just the once, in a graded essay about the definition of an organisation, where I was expected to discuss leadership concepts of "common goals and shared consciousness" (I can't believe I even vaguely remember that), I dropped in a line that said that we should also explore how some ideas from the Naked Ape could help to define and explain organisational behaviour.

That line got a big red question mark next to it. My university was fairly unusual in facilitating cross-disciplinary migration, we were encouraged to drop into lectures in totally different departments if we found interest there, but my idea did not come from any lecture. To credit my tutor, he did not completely rule out my suggestion, but he strongly emphasised that if I wanted to make such points in future then I should back them up with proper academic references instead of popular paperbacks.

But I stuck to books from the management library for the rest of the course, and indeed through my career. Meanwhile Dr Morris has continued to educate and entertain on the page and on the screen while I see his ideas validated everywhere. Happy birthday Desmond.

The Dark Night

The star of A Knight's Tale had just finished filming a new Batman movie in which he plays The Joker, surely the ultimate scary clown. He died young.

Many blogs seem to have a periodic "random factoid", often once per week. Today, in this link, something horrific ...

But in a blog as holistic as this, nothing published is really random. My last four posts:

One day ago: I used to live in Zambia
Two days ago: Some African animals are in trouble
Three days ago: I no longer fear clowns
Four days ago: "39"

Factoid: The average life expectancy in Zambia is 38 years for men and 37 years for women.

Chipolopolo

As mentioned before on this blog, I enjoy playing football. We played after work today. We missed a few open goals and also gave away a dubious penalty. Their keeper had a blinder. We lost by one goal. I thought our team was unlucky today.

I also enjoy watching football. This evening I had a choice of viewing - Tottenham were playing Arsenal in the Coca-Cola semi-final, but instead I chose to watch Zambia play Sudan. Why?

While at primary school, I supported Liverpool, enough to have LFC mugs and souvenirs, posters of the team on my wall, even a club logo sewn onto my shirt. Some other time I will explain the attraction of the beautiful game. But today I no longer support Liverpool.

One reason that I stopped supporting any particular club was that we moved around a lot, I never really had a local, and spent many of my secondary school years living in Zambia.

According to the BBC Guide to the African Nations Cup: Zambian coach Ben Bamfuchile, who engineered Namibia's shock qualification, died last month. The country also lost 12 supporters in June during a stampede that followed a qualifying win over Congo. Two months later, international Chaswe Nsofa died of a heart attack while training with his Israeli club. The 27-year-old, who scored in the 2006 Cosafa Cup final as Zambia won the Southern African tournament, was a key player.

And some fans of international football are not even aware that he was part of a new generation of talent. Just 15 years ago, the plane carrying the National Football Team home from a World Cup qualifier crashed into the Atlantic. Not a single player or official survived the crash.

Our team was not unlucky today.

Hippos and Cheetahs

Having spent part of my childhood growing up in Africa, I will always have a special affection for the continent. I will not mention the African Nations Cup that started in Ghana yesterday. But I will mention a widely distributed lecture by the Ghanaian economist George Ayittey that I saw at Greg Laden's site. The talk seems to have drawn great reviews from most people, but I have both a trivial and a serious disagreement with it - simple evolutionary principles explain both.

The minor disagreement regards the economist's choice of analogy. The headline of the piece is Hippos and Cheetahs, and the speaker pushes the basic theme that many African nations that gained independence in the latter half of the twentieth century have behaved like the slow lumbering hippo whereas they need to behave like the modern dynamic cheetah. That sounds unquestionable.

But cheetahs are not modern. And cheetahs are not doing so well. There are only small numbers left in the wild. Despite their great speed, they are able to kill only a few specific kinds of small antelope. Even when they manage to catch one, they are easily chased off the kill by lions or hyenas or packs of wild dogs, and these other animals have a much broader range of diet anyway. Basically, the most successful genes are not necessarily located in the fastest animals but in the most adaptable. In the long run, adaptability is key to success.

That was trivial. My major disagreement is about the ferocity of attack upon the "post-colonial" economic systems of the newly independent states. The speaker lamented the lack of economic progress and was angry about "swiss bank socialism" where much of the wealth of the continent was expatriated to Europe. This was a justified argument, but the speech then degenerated into a generic attack on any form of socialism or market restrictions.

But hold on a minute George, the theft of Africa's resources is not a "post-colonial" issue - the expatriation of wealth was surely even more significant when much of Africa was ruled by European states? The real issue that he touches upon (without considering the implication) is the immense centralisation of power and resources in very few people. So in a land where much of the population is still hovering around the border between poverty and famine, there may still be a case for actively seeking wealth redistribution as well as economic freedom. You cannot separate the economic from the political. We cannot just transfer limited resources from an unelected dictator to an unelected monopoly. Economic freedom needs to evolve at the same time as economic controls.

After all, hippos may well survive and prosper for much longer than cheetahs.

Coulrophobia

It's still weekend, so before serious economics tomorrow, another personal diversion. I don't really have a fear of clowns. Many do. But I did have a fear of one particular clown. He goes by the name of Andrew Symonds.


Of course I am not trying to start another monkey trial - I really do not want to restart the row that flared up after the last test match. But being called a clown is different - Symonds deliberately paints his face with sunblock into a strange pattern that looks clown-like to me.


But the reason that we feared him was not for his ridiculous makeup but simply because of his phenomenal talent. He is the Freddie Flintoff of the Australian cricket team, arguably the most destructive batsman, the best slip catcher, the best outfielder, and in his own style possibly their most effective bowler. In Sydney last week he nearly won the match on his own.


But something big happened down under overnight. No innuendo please. I woke up on birthday morning to hear that the invincible Aussie team, Symonds included, had finally been beaten for the first time in many years and at Perth for the first time in many eons. And so we no longer fear the clown.

Thirty Nine

It is a big day, so please forgive a short personal diversion. My excuse is that today is the half-birthday of a true inspiration, definitely my favourite guitarist and quite probably my favourite musician of all time. Of course I refer to Dr Brian May.

According to the editor of the rocksnobs website, quoting his exact words including the original emphasis: "Always and forever, my favorite Brian May composition is '39. As far as A Night At The Opera goes, '39 is the sparkling jewel."

Exactly my sentiment. It is certainly my favourite track on the album too. Yet it is a statement of surprising contrariness when you remember that a little tune called Bohemian Rhapsody is also on there.

It is often difficult to explain why any particular song has special meaning to any particular person. This really is a case of art rather than science. Most of the music in '39 is a simple folk skiffle, but there is a magnificent soaring time-shifting instrumental in the centre of it that really makes it special.

Matching the melody, the lyrics are simple and heartfelt too. The BBC H2G2 site has a rather childish oversimplification of them, but on this one day of the year when I forsake marketing analysis for personal indulgence, allow me to finish by quoting the traveller from the song: Oh so many years have gone, though I'm older than a year. For my life still ahead, pity me.

Bookdroplifting Revelations

I referred earlier to the phenomenal talents that can be hidden away developing software when sometimes these people have more vision, more creativity, and perhaps even better writing style than so many currently published authors. Another day I will explain my theory for the reasons that they stay and succeed in technology. But today just another eulogy to their genius.

The wasted Mark Abbott and the driven Stephen Lees were continuing a tradition started by the late great Paul Coombs, instigator of the cryptic creative epics that still confound that consultancy at the end of each year and author of well-respected guides to IT Project Estimation and IT Project Proposals.

Paul also wrote a novel. He described Revelations as "a cyber-novel packed with adventure, romance, jokes, brain-busting philosophy...". However all he got from every major publisher was a pre-printed rejection slip saying something along the lines of "we have read and enjoyed the book, but unfortunately did not feel it was worthy of publication".

I do not have the vested interest of the next Harry Potter hidden up my sleeve, but what is pathetic about those publishers is that they lied. Yes, that is a strong word, but various studies have shown that the publishers have neither the time nor inclination to read unsolicited manuscripts, fair enough, but they should just admit that. Though it would be a sorry state if new talent is forever stifled by this process. Paul paints an eloquent picture of a world where none of the biggest players in the industry actually ever read books, they just talk about them.

However he was not prepared to see his work disappear without a fight. So with typical tenacity and creativity, he instigated a process of "droplifting". That is the opposite of shoplifting. He invested his own money to get an ISBN and got a few hundred copies of his book privately printed and bound, then strategically left them in carefully selected bookshops. As each copy was in pristine condition and had a valid barcode, some were presumably rung up as normal by the shop assistants by the time that Paul went back to check a few weeks later. He hoped that word of mouth would gradually spread news of the novel, but sadly he did not live to see it.

However, somewhere at a store near you, his revelations may still survive.

Scieligion

You could be amazed by the vastness and beauty of the universe, and wish to explore it further. You may think it wonderful that we can predict the development and motion of both immense and miniscule bodies with simple heretical scientific rules. You may also think that observation and measurement of systems may give us lessons to be learned about the history and future of life itself. Your predictions may be conservative or radical, but they are verified or rejected depending upon the evidence.

Or you could think the particular revelation of a particular being will individually affect the future of humanity in ways that only the spiritually chosen can understand. You live your current existence as though it were some sort of test for an imagined future existence. You dismiss statistics and genetics that you cannot comprehend by calling them part of a higher plan. Your revealed predictions are either worthless platitudes or simply wrong. You are aware that the cognitive system of the human mind looks for patterns that can be matched to known objects, but your endless search for supernatural guidance means that you attribute spiritual meaning to these patterns.

Combining the two makes as much sense as Astrolomy.

The fine art of marketing

I work in marketing. But as with psychology, is it art or is it science?

Marketing is not about award-winning advertising or sophisticated value propositions or refinement of sales techniques. It is not about "the creation of something original and beautiful", although that should be a required by-product. It is the creation of something effective. And it is only effective if we can measure the results.

A few years I worked with a great character at a nearby client site. Although very creative and nominally a business marketing guru, he was extremely capable of delving into technical detail, for example to verify suspected anomalies in reports. However he was also perfectly aware of the time and effort required to get the precise answers, and the consequent practical necessity of making broad yet inaccurate estimates instead. And he would often justify his approximations with the same phrase: "this is an art not a science".

I completely understand his sentiment. I fight the same questions every single working day. But marketing is not art. It is just that we rarely have sufficient time, resource, skills or commitment to do the required scientific measurement and to properly evaluate its effectiveness. But marketing is science.

Auto-bituary

As I mentioned before, my drive to work spans the BBC thought for the day, which instead of being a genuine alternative viewpoint on the day's news is usually just a short snatch of religious dogma. And today the speaker gave a short lecture on organ donation.

There are victims who are suffering and dying every day because of a lack of sufficient people who are willing to donate organs after they die. Some members of parliament have proposed that we amend the process from the current "opt-in" system to an "opt-out" system - so you would still be allowed to insist that essential organs should not be removed from your dead body, but that denial option would no longer be presumed as it is today.

But instead of using his privileged slot to argue for the benefit of real diverse people instead of for the benefit of imaginary christian souls, the speaker blathered about "both sides being right" and came down with the recommendation that the opt-in process should stay. Pathetic.

Recently posted on the web was the obituary of a soldier who just died in Iraq. Interestingly, the obituary was self-penned, the soldier kept a blog, but had requested that one post be held back until after his death. But I think that things should be said while you are alive to hear the response to them.

I don't even know if I have a donor card. But when I am gone, do whatever you like with my body. Cut it, burn it, sell it, whatever. Please just wait until I'm dead first.

Astrolomy

There is no such word.

You could be amazed by the vastness and beauty of the universe, and wish to explore it further. You may think it wonderful that we can predict the development and motion of immense celestial bodies with simple heretical scientific rules. You may also think that observation and measurement of other systems may give us lessons to be learned about the very earliest steps in the evolution of stars, planets, and of life itself. Your predictions may be conservative or radical, but they are verified or rejected depending upon the evidence.

Or you could be so narrow minded as to think that the relative visual positions and brightness of stars and comets as seen from a small backwater planet will individually affect specific human beings in ways that only higher powers can understand. You are aware that the visual recognition system of the human mind looks for patterns that can be matched to known objects, but your desperate search for supernatural guidance means that you attribute personal meaning to these patterns. You cannot see massive black holes and dark matter so you dismiss them from your charts. Your predictions are either worthless platitudes or simply wrong.

The words do not mix. The worlds do not mix. You choose one or the other.

School Ties

This is unusual, but almost a short "this is what I did today" post. Perhaps it is justified because the last two posts have been comparatively lengthy pieces about the tenuous nature of measurable marketing (about which I could write books), and also because at the lunch today I promised to provide some "publicity".

The lunch followed an informal alumni meeting. And I heard that Woodstock School appears to be having some trouble with recruiting and retaining staff, and also with attracting students from its traditional sources. I am sure it could get more than enough students if it just filled the intake with all the newly minted from India's growing middle class, but that would dilute the well balanced diversity that was so prominent twenty years ago.

I have neither the space nor the authority to provide details here, but there are various programs available to allow high school kids from Europe and America to spend an exchange year in the Himalayan foothills, and equally there may be contracts available for qualified teachers willing to spend some time there.

This is the official school website. I should confess that I disagree with the stated christian ethos, but other than a request to "bow your heads" for a few minutes after assembly while the principal waffled a prayer, I did not find that religion was forced upon me. Back to the brave new world of proper marketing tomorrow.

Consumer driven sales Ikea style

An article in today's Financial Times connected the new consumer driven internet with a big blue and yellow Swedish furniture store. As the thing that connected them was alleged to be web 2.0 and the new world of consumer driven marketing, and as that is the core of my work, and as I despise the Ikea sales model, this note was inevitable.

Ikea is great at marketing. The vision that they sell is one that the FT suggested was like the consumer driven web because they provide a user-defined flexibility and customisation that is very different from the old model of the store. They make the buyer do the work in order to provide a richer more flexible more tailored shopping experience.

But the reality is not so great. Ikea does make customers do much of the "sales" work, that much is true, but they actually sell very narrowly defined visions. They are encouraging particular designs, colour schemes and combinations - as the show rooms that line the tortuous paths through the store will demonstrate to anyone. The store is the antithesis of Google, it is deliberately slow and awkward to find a specific product quickly. Even the catalogues promote particular cohesive styles - selected sofas, shelves, rugs etc together form a specific "dream" to which specific target groups will aspire - they do not give quick answers to consumer questions.

I'd suggest that small niche suppliers (or even Argos) are closer to the pure web 2.0 business model and are much closer to the Peppers ideals for consumer driven marketing. The new world was supposed to provide more choice, more vision, more speed and more convenience than the old world. Ikea makes decisions easy for those who lack imagination while complicating the sale for those who lack time.

But the Ikea marketing sells the dream not the reality. I hate it. But it is genius.

Interactive Marketing and Patient Choice

When we prepare direct marketing, in order to enable calculations of incrementality and return on investment, we often use the principle of a control group - that is a randomly selected sample of the population chosen using exactly the same criteria as used in the main selection. However as targeting improves then target populations get smaller, and then the control group can become statistically insignificant. It is a significant problem.

There are various statistical methods that can help to estimate result reliability more accurately, from simple chi-square tests to complex Fisher analysis. Every day we need to make decisions about balancing the time and effort required for further predictive analysis with the expected impact on statistical result validity and campaign execution timescales.

Sometimes these same issues crop up in far more critical arenas than in the marketing of optional consumer goods. I have suggested that you are more likely to die in a hospital than anywhere else. I still suggest that the marketing of patient choice is over-hyped.

I recently learned of research published in an American medical journal that compared mortality rates in different hospitals. The article looked at very similar operations, and questioned whether those hospitals with a zero mortality rate did better than those with a non-zero mortality rate. Even just judged on that single measure, the subsequent evidence concluded that hospitals with a history of zero mortality subsequently experience mortality rates that are the same or higher than those of other hospitals. Yes, choose a hospital with historically zero mortality and you are more likely to die there.

This is relevant to public health policy in England too. There is regular shouting for more patient choice, particularly by the main political opposition party, but the usefulness of those choices needs to be considered in the light of this kind of statistical evidence. More importantly, you personally may need to make life changing decisions if you ever have to choose a school or hospital.

And a very similar issue affects how we interpret football results :)

Eight polo teams

A rather horrific story was front page news in England yesterday. Thirty two dead horses were found at a farm in the home counties not far from London.

English people love horses. They are pets and also working animals. The idea that some people breed them for food is considered fairly repulsive. Yet, in some parts of the world, horse meat is just meat.

It is not just the fact that it was horses that is so disturbing. But that number. Except around royal palaces, the south of England is an expensive congested area. Even when underfed and mistreated, these are big beasts. Did people really not realise that that all these animals were disappearing? Did nobody notice thirty two dead horses?

Random numbers and letters

Measurable marketing requires the use of control groups. Control groups require the selection of random samples. Ensuring statistical validity across overlapping groups, even with normal distributions, can be difficult. But randomization is easy.

The New Hampshire Democratic primary has just given Hillary Clinton a shock victory, whereas Barack Obama was predicted to win by the pollsters. I am not going to comment on policies, just on the most pathetic randomization that I have ever heard seen. Not in the poll sample selection, which can be difficult. But in the ballot itself, which is ridiculous.

It has been suggested, and tests have proved, that a name listed at the top of the ballot is more likely to be picked than when placed at the bottom. The effect could be up to 3%, but I think we still do not have enough data yet to quantify exactly.

As ABC News reported: This year, the secretary of state changed the procedure so the names were alphabetical starting with a randomly selected letter, in all precincts. The randomly selected letter this year was Z.

Now that is just ridiculous. So given the lack of surnames ending in Z, the order was simply alphabetical. The fact that "this year" it was Z implies they are going to maintain this crazy idea. So a name like Miller is nearly always going to be above a name like Nader, in fact about 96% of the time. How is that random? And a name like Cleasby is always going to be above a name like Courtney.

Life is unfair, but ballots should not be.

Mind Your Language

There has now been a lot of media attention on yesterday's story. Though the coverage has tended to concentrate not on the actions but on the words.

The main fuss has been about the allegation that, in response to provocation from the dark skinned Andrew Symonds, the equally dark skinned Harbhajan Singh answered by calling him a "monkey". The umpire did not apparently hear the phrase, but after discussion with the those involved, the Indian has been banned for three matches.

Words can be bad. But actions can be much worse. I do not blame Symonds for not "walking", he left the umpire to make the decision. I do not even see a major problem with "sledging". Those are just words...

I think yesterday's picture is worth a thousand words.

But that does not excuse saying anything, you should still mind your language. Incidentally, that TV show from the late 1970s was a selection of the worst national stereotypes thrown together, and by the standards of today it was hideously offensive. But my parents enjoyed it. I guess because, however ridiculously they were portrayed, it was just an unusual joy to see a couple of brown faces on the television. Each character on the show had his own catchphrase...

I think yesterday's picture is worth a thousand apologies.

How Low Can Ponting Go?

Apologies in advance, an insular cricket article, and a picture …

As usual, I agree with the more considered cricket commentators such as Lawrence Booth and Peter Roebuck, and hence disagree with many of my fellow Indians … I think the umpire's decision is final and we should respect the result of the test match. We lost. The incompetence of the umpires contributed to the bad luck. Yet there is no reason to suspend the tour, or even to threaten to suspend the tour. If Bhaji wins his appeal, great. But we cannot threaten to pull out just because we can afford to do so. It's financial bullying and brinkmanship.

And the picture ... I fully credit the blogger Prem Panicker for it, but I cannot verify its authenticity, and if it is revealed to be doctored then I will take it down immediately. It does not change the result of the test match, we still lost. But if the picture is genuine then the Australian captain has some serious explaining to do.