Jessica L. Owens

I was so intrigued from this article by MarketingCharts that I had to share all of the details and add my comments. It is truly a to-do list for you and I- so print, share, and bookmark this article. Even better, add this to your company’s marketing strategy and do whatever it takes to make these a reality. This is a list from your upcoming consumers.

What they want from their phone:

Guarantee secured data access to the user only (80%)

Provide accessibility to personal health records (66%)

Present opportunities to be educated anywhere in the world (66%)

Bring users closer to global issues impacting teens’ world (63%)

Are shockproof and waterproof (81%)

Have endless power (80%)

Feature a privacy screen (58%)

Are made of flexible material and fold into different shapes and sizes (39%)

Have artificial intelligence – ask it questions and it gives answers (38%)

My takeaways:

• despite the trend of posting what you do online, our future users are extremely private and will continue to be that way. They want to share only what they want to share.
• As a corporation, if you are not mobile, to them you don’t exist. Nearly half (47%) of US teens say their social life would end or be worsened without their cell phone, and nearly six in 10 (57%) credit their mobile device with improving their life.

In the past century, we’ve seen some great new technology that allows others to maximize their use and efficiency of certain products and services. Consumers love this technology, and it tends to become a great hit. Manufacturers and suppliers of the old processes, products, and services really don’t like this new technology. It’s called the process of destructive technology.

We’ve seen examples of this happening over and over. Many times, the companies of the old products try to persuade government or the new technology owner to limit the use or ability of the new technology just so the old guys can stay in business.

A good leader will learn to respond to this new challenge, they’ll change their business plan, and they’ll come up with something better. Things like destructive technology and competition keep innovation pumping and consumers buying.

In recent years, we’ve seen a couple of great examples of destructive technology: Netflix & the Kindle.

Netflix

Netflix is interesting because they’re just putting a new process on something that was already well established: renting movies. Of course, the movie publishers don’t like Netflix’s new strategy and their ability to stream movies online. Warner Brothers (WB) has taken steps in 2009 to reach an agreement with Netflix so that they can only rent WB movies 28 days after they are available elsewhere on DVD.

Essentially, WB is leveraging their power to potentially damage Netflix market share because Netflix came up with an innovative new way to get people what they want in the most efficient way possible– and people love it. WB should reevaluate their business strategy to shift how money is made if this is damaging their profits instead of forcing other corporations to work in a way that WB feels is acceptable to their profits.

Kindle

You may have seen my recent post or have read in the news about Kindle’s recent fiasco. They were in a “price war” at the end of January and for the beginning portion of February over the price of their e-books. Amazon has built their Kindle brand by keeping bestsellers at $9.99. Beginning with publishing giant, Macmillan, Amazon was forced to raise their prices to up to $14.99 matching the rival iPad’s announcement on average book prices on their e-reader platform.

In economics, the first thing we learned was that price depends on supply and demand. When it comes to electronic products, supply is virtually unlimited! So the price depends on what the demand is… some more basic economics say that when a buyer is shopping for two identical products, they will tend to purchase the cheaper version, leaving competition in the hands of the manufactures in creating a competitive advantage for their product.

How do you get a competitive advantage if the PUBLISHER is influencing it all?! The publishers’ competitive advantage lies in the quality of their books and writers! If they aren’t making the profits, adjust the business plan of the affected company, not the ones who already have a successful one!

I have 2 philosophies that I go by. My classic philosophy is to ask “why?” I do this for a couple of reasons:

• To understand how and why others do things in order to expand my horizons.
• To challenge others to understand why they’re doing things and to ask others step out of line to potentially make processes better.

My most recent philosophy is based on “why” and adds on to it a little more. It’s almost a visual thought process for me. When I hit a brick wall, I picture the problem to be inside a box. I ask myself, “What are the lines or obstructions that are keeping this problem or situation contained?” I ask, are they rules? Are they processes? I think of my first philosophy and maybe ask why they exist? Do they really serve a function anymore? And if not, I find a way to lighten the intensity of that line in the box and find a way around them.

We create the box that we’re trying to think out of. When that brick wall approaches us, how will we get around it? Who or what is blocking the success of what we are trying to do? Why? What resources do I have that I can use to bypass it? When Professor Rummel first mentioned this in my Marketing Management course, I knew she was right, but I didn’t realize how many different situations this applied in. I use this philosophy every single day when I run into a problem or negative situation. If we all used this philosophy, think of how much more efficient we could make the things we do for the next person or next time around.

When I logged on to Facebook today, I saw that I had an invite to a group called Nobrokenpromise.com. I knew it was related to the Michigan Promise Scholarship (or lack thereof) and was glad but before I joined, I went to the site and the Facebook group to see what it was about. I was immediately turned off by the site.

The site simply blamed Granholm for the entire situation. There was no information regarding why the promise scholarship was eliminated from the budget, nor where there any proposed solutions on how they could make this better. I looked for a place to contact the blog creators or comment on a post. Nothing of that sort even existed.

I went back to Facebook to see how the group members felt. The comments were limited but I was pleased to see that somebody started a discussion. It was a brief statement mentioning that the members of the group should look at the issues of the congress members.I was happy at how simple and honest his post was. He did not blame a particular person nor did he blame a political group. I joined the group for a moment only to commend him and agree.

12/10/09 Update: The group moderator removed the discussion I just mentioned and replaced it with his own…

I’m pleased to see that people are politically active… but I’m concerned when these activists are so politically ignorant. The site is written at a level of a Jr. High student when the authors are actually students at Central Michigan University.

If college students can’t make a good political argument how will the future of the United States turn out? In my opinion, there will be a lot more government control and a lot more dependent citizens. Worst of all, I fear these dependent citizens will not be those that are low income citizens or people who dropped out of high school. These people will be college graduates. These people will be leaders in our society…

Oh wait. It’s already happened. Our largest corporations have failed and depended on the government to make corrections. Many of my working peers are applying for the bridge card to keep their spending habits at a desirable level. My peers are depending on money from the government to get a higher education.

Guess what? The government is not in the business of education.  The government is not in the business of medicine or health care. The government is not in the business of real estate. The government is in the business of international defense and securing our boarders from outside attacks.

The only thing I can do to protect what the founding fathers had originally planned for the United States is what I know best. I am writing to those who will listen. I am educating to those who are open for knowledge. In the matter of the Michigan Promise Scholarship, I took the time to contact the people who actually make decisions… Below is the email communications:

From: Senator Tony Stamas [ofctstamas@senate.michigan.gov]
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 9:35 PM
To: Owens, Jessica L
Subject: Re: Other issues not listed=OTHER

October 8, 2009

Dear Jessica:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Michigan Promise Grant scholarship. I appreciate knowing how important this scholarship is to you.

First and foremost, I feel the Michigan Promise Grant is a valuable program. I have supported it, and fought to protect it from budget cuts in the past. As such, making the decision to eliminate funding for the program was difficult. I am taking this opportunity to explain my reasons for ultimately doing so.

Michigan’s budget struggles through the last decade are well known. As over a quarter of our manufacturing jobs have evaporated, efforts to balance the state budget have produced one time adjustments, short term fixes, clever accounting and significant tax increases. In the last 14 months however, we have gone from difficult and challenging budgets to an unprecedented decline in ours state’s economy. Since the fall of 2008, we have seen a 21% drop in revenue. Michigan’s general fund – the dollars over which the state has discretion – has dropped from $9.3 billion to $6.9 billion.

The options facing the State are either cut state programs to the extent proposed in the State Senate’s budget, or increase revenues by increasing taxes, reducing or eliminating tax credits, or completely restructuring our tax system.

As to the first option, the proposed cuts are slightly mitigated and restricted by Federal stimulus dollars. After using stimulus dollars for the current year budget, which ended September 30, the state is left with roughly $1.4 billion in unrestricted dollars. If these dollars are divided over the next two budget years, as allowed, the current year deficit could be reduced by $700 million, still leaving a roughly $1.7 billion current year deficit. The restrictions on these dollars prohibit the state from cutting in several areas: non-optional Medicaid services, appropriations to public universities, and funding of our K-12 system.

The second option is looking at increased revenues. In 2007, this was an option advocated by many, and was, in large part, the resolution of the budget stand-off in Lansing. We saw an increase in our individual income taxes from 3.9% to 4.4%. Many businesses saw dramatic increases with the new Michigan Business Tax and certainly many saw an increase in the MBT surcharge (which replaced the short-lived service tax). Understandably, given our unemployment numbers and business struggles, very few are actively advocating an increase in individual and/or business taxes as a resolution for the 2009-2010 budget year. The most serious debates in this area are proposals to eliminate tax loopholes (in essence, a tax increase). While there are suggestions of temporarily reducing tax exemptions, such as the Home Heating Credit or the Earned Income Tax Credit, no firm plan has been put forward. Some groups have advocated changing Michigan’s tax structure by either reducing or eliminating items such as the MBT surcharge, while other groups have called for a Constitutional amendment in order to institute a graduated income tax.

Taking these options into account, the budgets presented by the Senate presume no new revenues. They present an honest picture of the decisions facing the Legislature and the Governor. While additional revenue may, ultimately, be deemed necessary by a majority of the Legislature, it is fair to assume a large portion of the remedy will have to come from cuts to current programs. I have heard from many constituents and representative groups regarding the effects of such dramatic cuts. While it is fair to say in many cases the state would be forfeiting additional federal dollars by cutting programs, it is also fair to say if the state does not even have the dollars to spend to begin with, we will not be able to see the federal return. Lacking those funds, we certainly are unable to reap the less measurable investment returns from the Promise Grants and early childhood programs.

There is no question, program cuts proposed in the budgets are painful to many, especially those who, in the case of the Promise Grant, were depending on the scholarship for tuition. In the past, the Legislature and the Governor have tried to prioritize funding for programs, but the dollars to fund these very necessary programs simply no longer exist. The hard reality is that Michigan’s revenue base has dropped 21% in the last fiscal year. The elimination of the Promise Grant does not reflect a lack of importance in priority by the Senate, far from it, but simply a lack of resources to pay for the program at this time.

As Legislative leaders and the Governor negotiate final agreements on these important budget issues, some programs, such as the Promise Grant, may be saved and funded (to a certain extent). Many will not. It is a reflection of Michigan’s economic reality. As mandated by our State Constitution, Michigan must have a balanced budget and we are working towards that end. However, it is important to realize Michigan can no longer afford to pay for many programs to which we have become accustomed.

Despite these hard economic and budgetary realities, I remain optimistic Michigan will weather this storm, as we have in the past. Michigan will once again become a thriving economic state. Until that time comes, the State, like every Michigan family, must live within its means.

Again, thank you for writing. Please know I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind as debate on this matter continues. In the meantime, if I can be of assistance with any state government matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

TONY STAMAS

State Senator

36th District

In one of my recent courses, the professor explained how society needs to look at the meaning of the things we say and do. Individuals need to get to the root of the word and look at it in a literal sense to really understand why we do the things we do and in turn, make better decisions in our business and personal life. This was a 4 credit course so I’m not going to discuss everything we learned related to this, but one of the topics we discussed were the meaning of institutions.

For example, after people attend rituals, do they come out feeling renewed and fulfilled like they learned something new and that the institution ritual was truly beneficial to their wellbeing? Or do most people attend and practice rituals because that’s what they’ve always done? In reality, many people belong to institutions and attend institution rituals for what they stand for not for what they actually do.

Politics is a great example of practiced institutions. Some people call themselves a democrat or a republican. They will only vote for the democratic party no matter who the candidate is and no matter what he or she stands for. “The democratic party is right,” they say, “They’re always right!” Many times, people belong to an institution for what it means to them, not for what the positions the candidates stand for really are. These positions change from time to time and people just change with them instead of looking at what it really means and thinking for themselves.

Have people gotten so stuck in the beliefs of their institutions that they are hurting their institutions? Absolutely! It is okay to go to church and be close to God or whatever individual believers do when they go to their place of worship, but when practicing these rituals, it is important to understand what the ritual means to the religion and what the rituals mean to the individual.

As a citizen of the free world, we have the duty to vote for congressmen and other politicians who we believe will represent our beliefs in government, democracy, and whatever else we believe is right for our country and it goes the same for every institution we belong to, formal or informal.

By only conforming to what the institution condones, we are loosing control of what matters most within the institution. We are losing our voice and becoming robots. We are missing chances to create change and reformation within our institutions. We are missing opportunities to update the institution mission and goals.

As an institution member in many ways and in many institutions, I’m using this philosophy to be a leader in my work, my church, my community and anywhere else that institutions continue to form and exist. I will continue to ask ‘why?’ and learn what my institution means and how it conforms to my beliefs, and not how my beliefs conform to their current ways. I challenge you to do the same in your work and community.

By now, I’m sure you’ve heard or read about the Swine Flu comment made by our Vice President in the past week. I’m not sure about you, but for me, it went in one ear and out the next.

I was watching The View this morning and one of the first things they discussed was this episode that VP Biden put himself in. I keep thinking- what is the big deal? 

Whoopi seemed to share my opinion, but some of the other ladies were a little upset about what Biden had said. “When you run for office, America is like your familly” they said. 

I beg to differ. I care about my co-workers, but they are not my family. I will give them advice on anything they’d like to hear but honestly, they are not my family. This is the same situation for the Vice President; it’s his job, not his family. On top of it all- he doesn’t even know America personally. He knows America as a whole, but not personally- so why should he feel so close that he should consider the people of America ‘family.’  That’s just creepy.

I think this is a great example showing how America is so dependant on the government. We all can understand that there is a very strong strength of the flu traveling thoughout our society. The President’s kind word of assurance isn’t going to change this. He should not be speaking to America about whether or not we should be riding the train to and from work. He should be discussing the fact that we have a job and start working on the economy. 

Instead, American citizens need to turn to their doctors. Ask a professional  on the topic. Obviously when there is a strong flu traveling, people don’t want their families in harms way. Don’t look to the government to help from this- work on making a healthier society on one’s own. Maybe if we did this, we could start taking steps for being independent from our government.

These are just my opinions. How do you feel on the topic of American dependancy, VP Biden, and the Swine Flu, I’d love to hear it!