sorry this is so late!

So my computer crashed about a week ago and I totally forgot to post my make-up participation from class in April on optional books!

I missed our class discussion on the optional read on April 14^th  - I was up at Army for a tennis match.  I read through all of your blog posts – looks like a lot of good material for strong discussion.  Here some reactions I had while I was reading:

Annamaria’s Paper: Nice book choice! As I wrote in my blog post, I’m a big fan of Friedman’s books and globalization theories. I was having a hard time applying the lexus and olive tree symbols to my life, but your anecdote shed light to their meanings. I agree with you – I think it is crucial to have both types of connections. Having read Shirky’s Cognitive Surplus, I wonder what his response to this would be. Shirky argued a collaboration of surplus information avails itself through communications technology.  It seems the one flaw or hole in Shirky’s argument is the lexus and olive tree concept – to successfully globalize, you must have both.  Shirky does not elaborate on this concept, instead argues connection over media platforms yields collective learning. I wonder if the two would butt heads or agree.

Steph’s paper: I didn’t read The Gutenberg Revolution (though I bought a copy for my Kindle when it was still required reading). The blending of concepts from all the books we have read thus far really shed light to what I think is the main concept of the book: “We have all of the tools. We just have to figure out a way to utilize them properly and make them revolutionary.” Pretty optimistic model to apply given graduation’s date closing in. What kind of tools do you think are most useful to put together in today’s society to be revolutionary?

Andy’s paper: I really enjoyed your post. The first thing I did, of course, was answer the question and I actually got it right! I found this ironic because I hate standardized tests and have thus avoided opening my LSAT prep books sitting in my desk drawer.  My high school chemisty teacher would call your test question example a “Sesame Street” question. The question tries to trick the readers’ attention away from the obvious – the first sentence about avoiding a doctor if you have a sore throat disagrees with the remainder of the paragraph. To apply the “Sesame Street” theory, you find the answer that doesn’t fit amongst the bunch – if four of five answers are similar, the fifth outlier is correct.  I agree with you that standardized tests do not test intelligence – anyone can do the “Sesame Street” method with a little practice, hence its name. You suggest the people who play by the rules perform the best, but are not necessarily the most intelligent. . Do you think this is a good way to test students or do you think it adds to the unoriginal type of person discussed in Lanier’s book?

Gotta get back to my final #J325 paper now - post to come soon! I really enjoyed our class this semester, getting to know you guys ... good luck next year to our seniors!

Cognitive Surplus Reflection

According to Shirky, gin and television have provided people throughout time with distractions from their daily life, despite negative impacts. Shirky references Jib Fowles’ concept of “social surrogacy” to explain this phenomenon; “Fowles expresses the first – we have historically watched so much TV that it displaces all other uses of free time, including time with friends and family. The other is that the people we see on television constitute a set of imaginary friends” (Shirky, p.7).

Skirky’s solution to this is cognitive surplus; “Imagine treating the free time of the world’s educated citizenry as an aggregate, a kind of cognitive surplus” (Shirky, p. 9).  He argues social media and the Internet have taken place of the ‘boob tube’ and allow people to connect, comment and share, adding to the cognitive surplus. 

While I can’t argue against his numerous examples to support this claim, I feel technology affords college students a go-to distraction from their work than an addition to their surplus of knowledge. More over, students fail to see the benefits and opportunities of connecting through social medias.  What happens to the surplus of time when it’s wasted; “Our cognitive surplus is only potential; it doesn’t mean anything or do anything by itself. To understand what we can make of this resources, we have to understand not just the kind of actions it makes possible but the hows and wheres of those actions” (Shirky, p.28).  Perhaps the average student is not taking advantage of the surplus. I decided to test out some of Shirky’s theories amongst my peers.

While I sit in the library writing, I couldn’t help but notice the overwhelming amounts of technology surrounding me. More than half of the students, myself included, have a lab top on their desk and roughly a third of them have their cell phones in their hands.

I asked a table of students studying how they use their technology while studying.  I was not surprised by the overwhelmingly unanimous responses I heard. The majority of students were only using their computers for either music or study breaks with Facebook, video games etc.  I then asked how many times the student was interrupted by a text or call on their cell phone in an hour. I barely got an answer because the student was texting while answering me. Again, the majority of students used their cell phones intermittently while they were studying instead of putting it away.  Finally, I asked why they chose to have technology at their fingertips if they didn’t need it to complete their homework. The group of eight students all answered “for a distraction.” It seemed the students were so attached to their various technological products; it would have been weird for them to put them away to study. Without the constant distraction of a ringing phone or computer video games, the students all agreed they probably would complete their work more efficiently.  It didn’t take a genius to conclude the abundance of technology at these students’ fingertips hindered them from their work.

Now back to Shirky. He argues, “…we must combine our surplus free time if it is to be useful, and we can do that only when we’re given the right opportunities” (Shirky, p. 97). While Shirky enumerates professional opportunities on the global scale due to Linux, open source software, Apache etc, what opportunities do students have to expand on their surplus of classroom lessons?

At Lehigh, Multimedia Reporting was the only class I’ve taken that expanded classroom ideas through social media such as Flickr, YouTube, and Twitter. I felt the use of these medias expanded my interpretation of classroom concepts by connecting with similar interests groups.  Through my semester-long project, I not only gained substantial knowledge of the area’s restaurant industry, but also was also able to share my knowledge and receive feedback. That’s learning full-circle.

This semester, one of my classes connects attempts to expand our surplus through Course Site’s “conversation forum.” After in-class lectures and videos, the students are required to post a personal response and then a respond to another students’ response by the next class. While, this is an attempt at social media to grow the class conversation, it has definite limits. The task of posting responses becomes arduous and annoying, another thing students have to do to make good grades. The conversations are consequently too forced, have no flow, and do not benefit the group as a whole.

So I wonder, are Lehigh students really learning if they are not making use of their surplus of knowledge?  What would happen if students actively used their surplus?

For the remainder of the semester, I will complete a group multimedia project to promote social change. The project will embody Shirky’s idea of cognitive surplus: We are creating a website, Twitter account and blog for student-athlete endorsed community service projects. Our goal is to connect the area universities in hopes they can team up on service projects together. As a student-athlete and member of Lehigh’s student-athlete community service organization, C.O.A.C.H., it is a long-standing goal to do as much service work as possible to better the community.  I know social media would enhance our opportunities to find projects to work on and gather more student-athletes to organize and implement the projects. Perhaps we can use the success of our project as a model to apply to other courses of study at Lehigh to further exercise students’ surplus.

Reflection #7 (optional choice book) – “The Lexus and The Olive Tree” by Thomas Friedman

I chose to read The Lexus and the Olive Tree this week because I’m a
big fan of Friedman’s globalization theories, having read his more recent
book, The World is Flat in high school. For those who are unfamiliar with
Friedman’s dissection of the world and international relationships, The
Lexus and The Olive Tree, explains the transition toward globalization made
possible by technology. His analogous explanations make his argument, the
world is becoming interconnected through technology, resonate with the
reader.
Friedman is a world leader in foreign affairs and columnist for the
New York Times (not to mention three time Pulitzer Prize winner). In The
Lexus and the Olive Tree, he splits foreign affairs into the “Cold War era”
and “globalized, democratized world” that exists today.
According to Friedman, the Cold War set boundaries for foreign
affairs:
“Globalization replaced the Cold War as the defining international
system…neither superpower would encroach on the other’s sphere of influence
in economics, less developed countries would focus on nurturing their own
national industries, developing countries on export-led growth, communist
countries on autarky and Western economies on regulated trade” (Friedman,
7).
The “information arbitrage” makes this transition possible; “…you have
to learn how to arbitrage information from these perspectives [politic,
culture, technology, finance, national security, and ecology] and then
weave it all together to produce a picture of the world that you would
never have if you looked at it from only one perspective” (Friedman, 20).
To best understand Friedman’s argument regarding the transition from
Cold War foreign policy to globalization, it’s crucial to understand his
analogy about the Lexus and the olive tree:
“…Lexus and the olive tree were actually pretty good symbols of this post-
Cold War era: half the world seemed to be emerging from the Cold War intent
on building a better Lexus, dedicated to modernizing, streamlining and
privatizing their economies in order to thrive in the system of
globalization. And half of the world – sometimes half the same country,
sometimes half the same person – was still caught up in the fight over who
owns which olive tree” (Friedman, 31).
Friedman further explains the symbolic meaning of each; “the Lexus is
the drive for sustenance, improvement, prosperity and modernization – as it
is played out in today’s globalization system…represents all the burgeoning
global markets, financial institutions and computer technologies with which
we pursue high living standards today” (Friedman, 33) and “…olive trees are
essential to our very being, an attachment to one’s olive trees, when taken
to excess, can lead us into forging identities, bonds and communities based
on the exclusion of others” (Friedman, 32).
Now that you have a little background on Friedman’s language, I’ll put
his theories into context of our J325 class discussions. The olive tree
represents the strong ties, connections between real people that develop
slowly over time and have great value. He mentions the olive tree is the
root that which connects people, much like strong bonds made through
bonding capital. The Lexus represents the weak ties, connections made
through Twitter, Facebook, blogs; larger forums, often dependant on the
Internet, to connect people of similar interests, similar to bridging
capital.
As I kept reading, I began to notice some wholes in Friedman’s
examples. Then I checked the publication date – 1999. Over ten years have
passed by since Friedman declared we are in a globalized world. I decided
to update his examples to make them relevant today.
Friedman lists various ways the world has become “democratized.” The
first example, the “democratization of technology.” The advent of advanced
communications tools “is what is enabling more and more people, with more
and more home computers, modems, cellular phones, cable systems and
Internet connections, to reach farther and farther, into more and more
countries, faster and faster, deeper and deeper, cheaper and cheaper than
ever before in history” (Friedman, 47). Friedman’s examples include
innovations from the 80s and 90s in telecommunications.
Today, new telecommunications tools like Skype, BBM, and FaceTime enable
people and companies to connect instantly at the global scale. For example,
my roommate is studying abroad in Spain this semester. It was her goal to
secure a summer internship before she left, but unfortunately, she was
unable to do so. She reached out to many companies, told them she was
abroad for the semester, and offered to do Skype interviews to make up for
face-to-face interviews. I thought this was a great concept, effective in
saving time and money to meet face-to-face. Not to mention, saving her from
a job search scramble when she returns home in May.
The second facet of democratization is of finance, enabled by the
democratization of technology. According to Friedman, during the Cold War
era, banking was done primarily through “white-shoe institutions” – large
and trust worthy investment banks and insurance companies (Friedman, 53).
He notes the explosion of junk bonds in the 1980s as the beginning of the
democratization of finance – investors like Michael Milken began to get
more creative bonds and portfolios they sold to consumers. Investors began
to think outside the box and used technology to invest in global markets,
truly diversifying their portfolios. If Friedman were to add an addition
today, perhaps he would attribute the creative investing that began with
junk bonds to the recession and stock market crash in 2008. Technology
allowed the investor to diversify their funds on a global scale, stirring
greed and unethical creative choices. What would Friedman think of the
mortgage-backed securities, the housing market plunge and joblessness in
America today? Would he connect the dots back to the democratization of
finance - did it spread investors too thin by providing too many
opportunities?
The last way Friedman sees democratization is through information. Much
like his explanation for the arbitrage of information, the democratization
of it relies on getting information faster because it is a commodity; “…
information is increasingly being democratized thanks to advances in
compression technology, such as the digital video disk, DVDs and CDs”
(Friedman, 62). These information storage items are all widely used today,
but USB flash-drives, and a slew of products beginning with a lowercase ‘i’
have become a more efficient way to store information. No longer do
consumers have to worry about losing their address book, as a colleague of
Friedman experienced in Israel; Backing up information is as easy as
connecting the external device with a USB cord to the computer. This
proved quite useful to me today. I recently switched over from BlackBerry
to iPhone and was offered a 60-day free trial of MobileMe. Of course, I
took the bait and tried the service. Today, my free trial expired and I
received a notice if I did not delete my account, I would be charged $100
annually to maintain the service. I didn’t want to pay for this fee because
I had never actually used MobileMe. I should have realized before I hit
“delete account” I was also hitting “delete all contacts, calendars, and
alerts.” I panicked when I saw the majority of my contacts had been removed
from my iPhone. After a small freak-out, I realized my computer had all of
my contacts backed up from my iPhone. I under five minutes, all of the
contacts I had lost on the iPhone was quickly restored, thanks to my USB
cord and iTunes.
In that small amount of time, I also realized I far too dependent on
technology. So what if I loose the contacts I made in the last few months?
Is my mini panic attack the product of Friedman’s new globalized world?
Perhaps I just proved Friedman’s argument to be true – ten years ago, the
world began to become one, globalized playing field via technology. And
today, it can’t live without it.

Taking on the System reflection

In 1999, Sean Parker created Napster, the first file sharing music database.  I was nine years old, but fondly remember many nights spent with my older cousin downloading music. Everything was instantaneous. It was so new to me at the time.  I was still asking for Britney’s latest album for my birthday and my cousin, only three years my senior, already had it on her computer on the day it came out - for free and without asking for moms help.  I knew this was super cool, but was not adept enough to download music myself. 

Soon enough, the record labels and musicians caught wind of the mass quantities of illegal downloading.  Artists were producing albums and loosing their demographic to Napster’s easy access and free downloads. And so, the record labels sued for piracy and won.

But did they really win? To quote The Social Network’s portrayal of Sean Parker, “the record labels won in court. But who wants to go buy a CD at Tower Records today?” While Parker’s entrepreneurial spirit got in him in trouble with the law, he’s the perfect example of one who took advantage of the Internet’s limitless bounds.  He changed the music industry by providing the consumer with the same material available in stores – less the drive to the store, the wait in line, and of course, $14.99. 

In Markos Moulitsas Zuniga’s book “Taking on the System,” technology and the expansiveness of the Internet are vital components to take on the system. According to Zuniga, technology is in fact saving today’s society:

“Traditionally, these self-appointed and unaccountable gatekeepers have purported to operate in the public interest, but they are grossly out of touch with the public. Rather than empower the people, they designed rules to keep the rabble out of their inner sanctums, where our ideas wouldn’t infect their decision making-process. Whether it was record label executives, or Hollywood studio moguls, or editors and producers in the media, or the clubby D.C. politicians, consultants, and lobbyists – many built walls to protect the sanctity of their turf” (location 51-61). 

The “gatekeeper” suppresses individual ideas from developing in society by creating norms and mass produced material. Much like Parker’s pioneer music sharing program, Zuniga’s site, “The Daily Kos,” embodies the “new generation of participants taking an active role in our culture and democracy” (location 61-72). 

Zuniga accuses the gatekeeper of “muzzling the new voices rising up from the ground.” Zuniga makes valiant points regarding the Internet’s ability to feed the public’s interests where the “traditional gatekeeper” cannot:

“Fiona Apple made a three-song demo tape and passed it on to a friend. That friend gave the tape and passed it on to another friend, who passed the tape to a producer at Sony Music, and Apple soon had a recording contract.”

Today, an artist seeking attention for their work would simply post their material to YouTube, just as Justin Bieber and Rebecca Black did. YouTube provides a platform for up and coming artists to get their name out there and be seen, just as Apple had done by passing around her demo tape.  However, the gatekeeping record label is avoided. The amount of hits the page receives will reflect on the public’s interest level. Under the video, there’s room for viewer comments, along with endless sharing and embedding possibilities. 

Perhaps this media platform would have been useful for Apple in the 90’s, who felt the pressure to conform to Sony’s interests in the music she produced.  Apple finished her third record with Sony in 2003, but the album’s release date continued to get pushed back.  The record company prohibited Apple’s creative interests. Instead, tracks were leaked onto the Internet, where they received a multitude of praise. Her album entitled “Extraordinary Machine,” received so much support from Apple’s fans that 37,000 of them signed a petition to “free Fiona” from the record label’s restrictions. Through their continued support, Apple’s fans assisted her to a Grammy nomination; “‘the label isn’t putting out her record, so we’re going to do it for her’” (location 786-97).

Nearly ten years later, fan support for artists continues through blogging and file sharing. What began as a gutsy move by Parker has stemmed into a counter-culture of music supporters, all connecting through the Internet. File sharing gives the “underdog” a chance to connect with the public and be inspired to create new music.  Websites like “FratMusic.com” and “8track.com” allow users to upload their own material and mixes.  This is the new music industry at work.

After all Zuniga has said, I am still at a crossroads. It still seems incredibly unethical to underscore the record labels and high profile artists through music piracy. It seems too easy and a little wrong to download the product someone has worked so hard to produce.  Is it better to contribute to the conversation on the Internet through file sharing, music blogs and the like to inspire artists to produce new material?

I’m going to go download another song from Mediafire.com and get back to you on that…

Reflection for "Made to Stick"

Addicted to 'Dash'

I began reading Chip and Dan Heath’s Made to Stick while my roommate and I were getting ready for class. Immediately after reading the kidney-heist anecdote, I turned to my roommate and explained the story to her. She was stunned by the story (I think she even smudged her make up).

And then I kept reading… What a great way to open up a book! I completely fell prey to the urban legend. I even followed the paragraphs following the kidney story to a tee – I did not read from the text even though it was right in front of me, I excluded the bit about Atlantic City for a business trip, and the friend of a friend source.

This was not the only time I have fallen prey to a myth. I will take this time to confess my recent, but short-lived obsessed with the Kardashian family. I began watching their various reality TV shows this fall and have been trying as best I can to “keep up” ever since. Their shows are addicting, but it’s almost like a car crash, you know it’s bad, but you can’t look away.

Soon after watching my first show, I became hooked on anything Kardashian. I took serious advantage of Netflix instant play to catch up with all thirty episodes of “Keeping up with the Kardahsians” and both seasons of “Kourtney and Kim Take Miami.” I still could not ‘keep up’, and began to take extreme measures - I began following all five members of the ‘Kardashian Klan’ on Twitter; I checked out their blogs; signed up for “Shoe-Dazzle,” Kim’s design-your-own shoe company, and bought their autobiography on the first day it came out. I even had my hair stylist cut my hair like Kim.

It was at this point my friends confronted me about my “Kardashian problem.” My roommate was convinced I began to talk like Kourtney, as she was my favorite, and called me out on this every instance it occurred. I couldn’t help it – I felt like I was best friends with each member of the famed family because I knew so much about their lives.

What was it about the Kardashians that provoked my obsession? I hate reality TV, fake girls, drama, and am not that interested in fashion. Was it their long, black hair? The off-chance Rob Kardashian would make an appearance on the show and brighten my day with his charm? Perhaps a combination. But what dragged me in and more so, what kept me so interested with their lives? Aside from their Brady Bunch sized family, aren’t they just another glamorous, wealthy family from Los Angeles?

It was not until I unmasked what the Heath brother’s called “villain” or “curse of knowledge” that my interest began to fade. Over Thanksgiving break, I ventured to the Kardashians’ newly opened store, “Dash – NYC.” I dragged my dad, who was also very confused by my addiction, to SoHo to check out the store in the first week it opened. I got dressed up for the event, styled my hair similar to how they would, and brought Kardashians Konfidenial (even though I knew from their tweets they were no longer in New York to sign my book).

And then we arrived at the store … or a half a block away from it, where we began to wait in line. After a short wait amongst several giddy fans like myself (and their bored, tag-a-long friend), we arrived at the storefront where two huge bouncers greeted us and made us throw out our food and drinks. Posh night club? Exclusive museum gallery opening? No - this was just a clothing store.

Inside, the store was packed. Once a bouncer ended my mini photo shoot of the store’s interior, I began to shop.

It did not take me a long time to realize why my dad was so bored. The clothes were not as I expected them to be - they lacked variety, color, and most of all quality. The sales clerks were helpless – none of them could answer my simple questions about sizes and colors.

But me being the optimist that I am had to make the most of my trip – I trusted the Kardashian girls would not let me down. I decided I had to buy something as a souvenir, so I asked a ‘Dash Doll’ (Kardashian for sales clerk) about the Dash products. I presumed these would be the cheapest products in the store, but I was stunned to find out the cheapest product on the line was a 16 ounce bottle with the name “Dash” on the label for $10. As if this was not enough to drive my father out of the store, the plain, v-neck shirts with “Dash” screen-printed across the chest were $60! To add insult to injury, they were already sold out of all white shirts and two sizes of grey ones. It was at this point my dad told me he would wait for me outside. I decided to buy the most practical and inexpensive item I could find – a Kim Kardashian roller ball perfume for $20.

When I met my dad outside the store, I was excited about my purchase and Dash shopping bag. He was so confused and disappointed in me for having any interest in “talentless celebrities” and thought the perfume smelled horrible. He suggested we, “do something that will expand your mind, not limit you to media-forced stars.”

We spent the rest of the day walking around SoHo, browsing art galleries and high-end fashion boutiques. My dad pointed out the various Armani and Chanel products that were cheaper than the, “stupid Dash t-shirts that I could have made myself for $12.”

It was at this point that I almost threw out my Dash purchase. I was so appalled by my stupidity over the Kardashians. Were they credible sources for fashion? No. But did they do a fabulous job to appeal to my emotions, wow me with unpredictable drama, and engaged me with stories from their fab lives? Yes. They had a sticky idea and followed the Heath brothers’ S.U.C.C.E.S. steps perfectly. I decided to give a Heath brothers-approved break-down of the Kardashians’ ability to be “sticky.”

Simplicity: The Kardashians are everywhere. They have made it a “relentless priority” to market themselves on every social media imaginable, take over the tabloids, and dominate the reality TV scene.

Unexpectedness: The late Robert Kardashian Sr., who was a successful attorney for O.J. Simpson, originated the Kardashians’ fame. The trial gave featured the catchy, Armenian last name in the media long after the trial ended due to a divorce between Kris and Robert, and an untimely death of the famous attorney. Then came the recreation of the Brady Bunch – a marriage between gold medal Olympic athlete, Brody Jenner and Kris. The history attached to the ‘Dash’ name, coupled with their 13-member family and two clothing stores in Calabasas, California was enough to engage an audience to “keep up” with them.

Concreteness: The Kardashians have an uncanny ability to connect with their audience because all of their actions are followed by camera and publicized in every media platform known to man.

Credibility: They’re on TV, so of course they’re credible, right? Of course - everything the media produces is pure fact and the Kardashians have the stores, wealth, and fame to blind you from questioning their credibility. Or their fame.

Emotions: If you can’t feel Khloe Kardashian’s seething vengeance for her sister Kourtney’s boyfriend Scott Discik, then you pretty numb. The show provides a something for everyone. If you like the diva, you’ll love Kim. Want volatile and boisterous? Khloe is your girl. Kourtney is the stereotypical valley girl, and their ‘mom-manager’ Kris takes controlling mom to a new level. Like the example in Heath’s book about regular popcorn, a regular family isn’t interesting, but add the strong characters of the Kardashian Klan and you have a hit.

Stories: They “take” Miami, New York, and L.A. Each episode features a hot nightclub, a cool PR guy, an adventure through the swamps of Florida, and more. The Kardashians show us their story by taking us along for the ride of their own story. It makes the viewer feel “cool” and apart of their fun activities.

So there is my confession. I am no longer addicted to ‘Dash’ because I have seen through their myth. I may have cheated a bit this weekend and watched an old episode on Netflix though. The Kardashians are masters of marketing themselves, riding out their ability to “be sticky," and are the perfect example of a modern-day myth.  Perhaps they are they are simply, "made to stick."

Tipping Point Reflection

When I saw a Malcolm Gladwell book on our syllabus, I was not excited after reading Gladwell’s other rendition of talking in circles, “Blink,” for pre-orientation my freshman year. Similar to his other white-covered, and simple graphically designed books, Gladwell does a great job establishing his main idea and thesis in the first 10% (Kindle version – no page numbers) of the book through an abstract example, which in this case is the Hush Puppy epidemic.
However, as I kept reading, I was pleasantly surprised by The Tipping Point’s interesting connections between otherwise unrelated events. The epidemic examples reminded me a lot of the book Freakonomics. Similar to Gladwell, economist Stephen D. Levitt weaves together seemingly unrelated events, ranging from decreased in crime in Manhattan to sumo wrestlers, all under the lens of economic theory. Much like Levitt’s everyday examples, I found it easy to relate to Gladwell’s “three rules of epidemics.”
Recently in my Finance Guest Speaker-Lecture series class, a managing director from the investment banking division at Credit Suisse spoke about his company, his department, and day-to-day activities. The speakers’ words rang through my head as I read about “the law of the few.” Investment banking is divided into parts that cooperate together to provide capital for clients. The divisions - sales and trading, research, and investment-banking department, line up perfectly with Gladwell’s examples of “connectors, mavens and salesmen.”
The investment-banking department is responsible for underwriting securities, mergers and acquisitions and financing, or in Gladwell-words, “connectors.” The i-bankers’ role is meet with clients, build relationships and make successful initial public offering (IPO) deals. In order to do this, they must work with the research and sales and trading divisions, who have insight into the marketplace, who are essentially the “mavens.” Sales and trading are responsible for buying and selling securities on financial markets, which the speaker mentioned could be very exciting and fast-paced. Research, as to be expected, follows stocks to create reports for the investment bankers or “connectors” to use with clients to seal deals.
But what about the “salesmen” – where do they fit into this model? They don’t, but they do fit in with private banking and wealth planning, another division at Credit Suisse. Unlike the investment banking division, who manage corporations’ capital, private banking manages the wealth of high net-worth individuals’ personal assets. To acquire a new client, the speaker said it is imperative to approach gain the clients’ trust. This is how I connect private banking to Gladwell’s “salesman.”
The speaker discussed the correct way to build trust and meet new clients requires years of experience in dealing with financial services and high net-worth individuals’ private assets (his clients’ assets range from $10-30 million – WOAH) to have a legitimate reputation. Unlike the Credit Suisse speaker from the investment banking division, the private banking speaker was, as Gladwell would say, charismatic and hooked the audiences’ attention easily. It was almost as if each student in the classroom was a potential client because he presented his material in a persuasive and relatable manner. It’s clear the speaker would be fantastic at persuading clients to work with him if he was able to persuade a room of college students to believe his industry is the most interesting and lucrative.
Is this also where we can see the “stickiness factor” coming into play? It’s been a week since I have learned about private banking, and as a result, I am more engaged in financial news. This is because I can relate to it - the material I learned was entertaining, memorable and educational.
As I relate Gladwell’s terms to my finance presentations, I can’t help but notice all corporations are built around “the law of the few.” Generally speaking, the “connectors” are the management and marketing departments. They need to be social and well connected, and understand “weak ties” to direct people’s attention. The “mavens” are most comparable to the IT, accounting and/or financial departments, responsible for providing the “connectors” and “salesmen” with figures and information to make profits possible. The “salesmen”, obviously, represents the sales department, who need an uncanny ability to negotiate and persuade customers to buy the firms’ product.
Perhaps Gladwell’s theories applied to corporate America are proof-positive epidemics are possible. Just take the financial crisis from 2008 as an example. Given my application of Gladwell’s “law of the few” holds water, all corporations are structured the same way. Therefore, the domino effect of the financial institutions can be interpreted makes sense as an epidemic reaction. There was a “tipping point” with one firm’s failure that spread like a virus, impacting all of corporate America with ease because the corporate structure is the same at every firm.

I’m not a know-it-all, but I think the intent of The Tipping Point is to make the reader more aware of how the environment around us inter-connected. Much like the memes we discussed last week, epidemics like the financial crisis or the Hush Puppy craze, spread rapidly in accordance with the 80/20 rule. Going forward with my new found Gladwell knowledge, I’m going to pay more attention to the “how” aspect of new trends. Maybe I’ll find another epidemic.

Missed class on Memes

I missed class discussion this past Thursday on the memes articles, but I've caught wind of the discussion via an emailed update to catch up. Is it ironic I was able to have my own mini "meme" with a classmate about the discussion on memes?

After reading through the articles emailed to us on memes, I was quite intrigued. I didn't realize video clips that "everyone" has seen that catch fire on the Internet had a classified name, and furthermore, specific way of transmitting from one computer to the next. I thought the article that went of the specifics on how the networking and routing of the Internet work was particularly important in relation to how information goes viral.

Annamaria caught me up on the following discussed in class (THANKS!):

-They are a way of organizing ourselves and connecting to others
-we can relate to them
-a type of grouping
-memes are symbols, messages that stand for something larger
-we identify with them
-to understand a meme is to understand a community

I wish I had been in class to join in, but was playing a tennis match vs. UDel instead. I always feel "left behind" on meme videos that "everyone" has seen. I think it's crucial I become more involved and pay more attention to Internet trends. Or perhaps the exact opposite makes more sense - the more I ignore Internet trends, the more I will find reaches me an effective meme.

While reading through the articles, I did not associate memes with a community, much like the ones we've read about in "We the Media" and "Here Comes Everybody." Now that I am putting the memes concept into perspective, it makes a lot of sense - memes really do create communities by uniting the viewership.

I am often the "only person who has no idea who ex) Antoine Dobson" is and feel clearly left out amongst group discussions on these popular YouTube phenom stars. This exemplifies the community build around a meme, such as bed intruder video. I was one of the last people to have seen this video (and the catchy hip-hop remix that accompanied it). I definitely felt left out when all of my friends were singing along about "climbing through your windows" and was more concerned than anything, before I understood the video behind it. However, when I finally watched the video and listened to the song, I too was hooked. I felt apart of the community that laughed at the bed intruder remix ... and popular Halloween costumes that followed it.

I guess at this point I am unsure if it's better to search for a meme or let it hit me in the face, but either way, it's clear they create a following, fans and communities.