Friday, December 31, 2004
Keeping in touch, or not
It is tradition at the end of a year to recall those who passed away during the preceding 12 months. Among those whose name and face is not recognizable to most people was Joseph Zimmermann Jr., the inventor of the first telephone answering machine to become a commercial success (in the 1950's). A recent New York Times article notes that "...Zimmermann's invention was also a key marker in a less celebrated history -- the history of what could be called the technology of avoidance [Rob Walker, "Only Disconnect," Dec 26, 2004]. Although the original intent was to enhance our ability to communicate, people quickly discovered that it also could be used to avoid talking to someone they do not want to speak with--a luxury that previously had been affordable for only the wealthy and powerful who employed others to act as "gatekeepers."
Zimmerman's invention was the first of a string of new ways to make communication both easier and more difficult. Today, voice mail, email, hundreds of television channels, and Internet information services are at our fingertips. We have become so enamored of these innovations that we are spending more than three times (in constant dollars) the amount that we did thirty years ago when the typical family had one telephone line and television was received through a (free) over-the-air antenna [Rob Fixmer, "It Adds Up (and Up, and Up)" New York Times, April 10, 2003].
Modern communications technologies offer an undeniable example of how the future that inventors and marketers thought they were creating turned out quite differently than expected. These services do make it possible for us to connect with each other and quickly obtain information, but they also are being deliberately used as a barrier. For example, "...by punching or typing in a sequence of numbers, or by speaking to a machine that has been programmed to understand human speech, you can have access to information previously impossible to obtain without a human - the whereabouts of a package, for instance, or the balance of a bank account. What is increasingly difficult to obtain, though, is the actual human" [Katie Hafner, "Customer Service: The Hunt for a Human," New York Times, Dec 30, 2004].
In short, it seems that our society welcomes ways to contact anyone anywhere any time, while simultaneously adopting methods that limit who can easily contact us. This effect may not be as contradictory as it seems. These technologies are relatively new, and our culture is still figuring out how to assimilate and adapt to them. We are likely to be alternately thrilled and frustrated by how they are used for some time. What's more important is the lesson that "progress" isn't as predictable as we think and controlling the consequences of our "advances" isn't as easy as we'd like to think it is.
And, by the way, there is a website (what else) with corporate consumer contact phone numbers for many organizations that deliberately or otherwise omit them from their own web pages (courtesy of the U.S. Government).
Zimmerman's invention was the first of a string of new ways to make communication both easier and more difficult. Today, voice mail, email, hundreds of television channels, and Internet information services are at our fingertips. We have become so enamored of these innovations that we are spending more than three times (in constant dollars) the amount that we did thirty years ago when the typical family had one telephone line and television was received through a (free) over-the-air antenna [Rob Fixmer, "It Adds Up (and Up, and Up)" New York Times, April 10, 2003].
Modern communications technologies offer an undeniable example of how the future that inventors and marketers thought they were creating turned out quite differently than expected. These services do make it possible for us to connect with each other and quickly obtain information, but they also are being deliberately used as a barrier. For example, "...by punching or typing in a sequence of numbers, or by speaking to a machine that has been programmed to understand human speech, you can have access to information previously impossible to obtain without a human - the whereabouts of a package, for instance, or the balance of a bank account. What is increasingly difficult to obtain, though, is the actual human" [Katie Hafner, "Customer Service: The Hunt for a Human," New York Times, Dec 30, 2004].
In short, it seems that our society welcomes ways to contact anyone anywhere any time, while simultaneously adopting methods that limit who can easily contact us. This effect may not be as contradictory as it seems. These technologies are relatively new, and our culture is still figuring out how to assimilate and adapt to them. We are likely to be alternately thrilled and frustrated by how they are used for some time. What's more important is the lesson that "progress" isn't as predictable as we think and controlling the consequences of our "advances" isn't as easy as we'd like to think it is.
And, by the way, there is a website (what else) with corporate consumer contact phone numbers for many organizations that deliberately or otherwise omit them from their own web pages (courtesy of the U.S. Government).
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
What happens if we do live forever?
The New York Times: Just How Old Can He Go?: "...most people would scoff at [Mr. Kurzweil's] notion that emerging trends in medicine, biotechnology and nanotechnology open a realistic path to immortality - the central claim of a new book by Mr. Kurzweil and Dr. Terry Grossman..." Essentially, the forecast is that, in 25 years or so, human beings will be able to halt, or at least drastically slow down, the aging process using technology that permits changes to the body at the cellular level.
The notion of "reprogramming our biology" brings to mind Bill Joy's "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us." Dr. Joy's article ponders the potential for dire unintended consequences of commercializing cutting-edge technologies that are so new that we don't yet fully comprehend their implications.
It's possible to dismiss Mr. Kurzweil and Dr. Grossman's book as wildly optimistic and Dr. Joy's article as excessively gloomy, but the idea that we are on the verge of developing biotechnology that might continue extending life expectancy while at the same time creating the potential for substantial environmental damage doesn't seem all that farfetched.
So, before we find ourselves confronted with a fiat accompli whether we like it or not, shouldn't we consider whether a world in which many human beings live well into their second century makes sense?
Any of us would look forward to living a longer, healthier life, but there are some downsides. Would we restrain birthrates in order to limit overpopulation? How would we finance all those extra years? A higher average age is one likely consequence. Do we simply re-scale the periods of our lives (schooling, working, retirement years), or will other social adjustments be required. Will there be more of a burden on younger people to contribute to the care and upkeep of older generations? Will we be "manipulating our cells" during the period of our lives when we are reproducing--that is, might we alter the genetics of our offspring as well?
There are also moral issues. The cost of the technology is likely to make it disproportionately available. Is wealth (particularly inherited wealth) the most socially desirable way to allocate access to a longer life? Assuming the technology can't be made readily available to everyone, how will who benefits and who will not be decided?
The notion of "reprogramming our biology" brings to mind Bill Joy's "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us." Dr. Joy's article ponders the potential for dire unintended consequences of commercializing cutting-edge technologies that are so new that we don't yet fully comprehend their implications.
It's possible to dismiss Mr. Kurzweil and Dr. Grossman's book as wildly optimistic and Dr. Joy's article as excessively gloomy, but the idea that we are on the verge of developing biotechnology that might continue extending life expectancy while at the same time creating the potential for substantial environmental damage doesn't seem all that farfetched.
So, before we find ourselves confronted with a fiat accompli whether we like it or not, shouldn't we consider whether a world in which many human beings live well into their second century makes sense?
Any of us would look forward to living a longer, healthier life, but there are some downsides. Would we restrain birthrates in order to limit overpopulation? How would we finance all those extra years? A higher average age is one likely consequence. Do we simply re-scale the periods of our lives (schooling, working, retirement years), or will other social adjustments be required. Will there be more of a burden on younger people to contribute to the care and upkeep of older generations? Will we be "manipulating our cells" during the period of our lives when we are reproducing--that is, might we alter the genetics of our offspring as well?
There are also moral issues. The cost of the technology is likely to make it disproportionately available. Is wealth (particularly inherited wealth) the most socially desirable way to allocate access to a longer life? Assuming the technology can't be made readily available to everyone, how will who benefits and who will not be decided?
Pay attention to marketing
In 1937 Ronald H. Coase published "The Nature of the Firm," a brilliant analysis of why organizations and their managers exist. That article also provides the economic rationale for today's "downsizing" and "outsourcing," and Dr. Coase eventually received the Nobel prize in Economics for the body of work that followed.
However, the theme of this web log comes from Dr. Coase's reply, in 1997, when he was asked whether he believed we are "embarking on a golden age of economic expansion." "I think we could be," he said, but he added a note of caution. "Whether we'll mess things up is another thing," Coase said. "There are more wrong ways of doing a thing than right ways."
I have been teaching the subject of marketing to college students for 34 years. Marketing managers and their organizations pursue their goals individually, but the collective social consequences of their decisions influences how we think about ourselves and others.
Marketers seek to achieve their goals by providing goods and services that people want but in doing so they also influence what we want. Everyone who grows up in our modern consumer societies develops beliefs and attitudes that are strongly affected by what we learn as consumers and the object of marketers' attention.
In short, marketing and our reaction to it is creating the future we all will live in. The implication of Dr. Coase's note of caution is that if we don't individually and collectively think about the implications of marketing decisions, we are likely to be creating a future that is less satisfactory than what would could otherwise achieve. That is, if we don't actively manage the direction our society is taking it is more likely to turn out badly than well.
Two examples of marketing's effect on our present and future are: violence as entertainment and an obsession with body-image. Young people today grow up inundated by vivid images of violence in publications, in cinema, on television, and in video games. It's hard to believe that exposure to all the violence doesn't have some negative impact--insensitivity to the plight of others, for example. The fact that females are so much more likely than males to suffer from eating disorders is hardly surprising given the heavy promotion of slim, carefully lit and made-up women in images retouched to eliminate even the slightest blemishes.
Marketing does matter; it is largely responsible of our extraordinarily rich standard of living, but it also can lead to less desirable consequences. Therefore, it is important that we take note of the current state-of-the-art of marketing practice and to ponder the extent to which we are (or are not) creating a future we want to live in).
However, the theme of this web log comes from Dr. Coase's reply, in 1997, when he was asked whether he believed we are "embarking on a golden age of economic expansion." "I think we could be," he said, but he added a note of caution. "Whether we'll mess things up is another thing," Coase said. "There are more wrong ways of doing a thing than right ways."
I have been teaching the subject of marketing to college students for 34 years. Marketing managers and their organizations pursue their goals individually, but the collective social consequences of their decisions influences how we think about ourselves and others.
Marketers seek to achieve their goals by providing goods and services that people want but in doing so they also influence what we want. Everyone who grows up in our modern consumer societies develops beliefs and attitudes that are strongly affected by what we learn as consumers and the object of marketers' attention.
In short, marketing and our reaction to it is creating the future we all will live in. The implication of Dr. Coase's note of caution is that if we don't individually and collectively think about the implications of marketing decisions, we are likely to be creating a future that is less satisfactory than what would could otherwise achieve. That is, if we don't actively manage the direction our society is taking it is more likely to turn out badly than well.
Two examples of marketing's effect on our present and future are: violence as entertainment and an obsession with body-image. Young people today grow up inundated by vivid images of violence in publications, in cinema, on television, and in video games. It's hard to believe that exposure to all the violence doesn't have some negative impact--insensitivity to the plight of others, for example. The fact that females are so much more likely than males to suffer from eating disorders is hardly surprising given the heavy promotion of slim, carefully lit and made-up women in images retouched to eliminate even the slightest blemishes.
Marketing does matter; it is largely responsible of our extraordinarily rich standard of living, but it also can lead to less desirable consequences. Therefore, it is important that we take note of the current state-of-the-art of marketing practice and to ponder the extent to which we are (or are not) creating a future we want to live in).