Last week I read an article online by Diana Middleton of the Wall Street Journal about a study of the difference in pay received by male and female MBAs. The study was conducted by Catalyst, a non-profit organization that works to create more opportunities for women in the workplace.
I found this article disheartening. However, I also felt it was important to share. While I wish this was a perfect world, it is not. Inequalities and discrimination still exist in the work place – at all levels – for women and people of color.
The first step to overcoming discrimination and inequality is awareness. I hope to see the day when these injustices are only a part of history.
Here is a link to the WSJ article: Women M.B.A.s Continue to Lag in Pay, Promotions
February 26, 2010
February 25, 2010
Why Wikipedia?
So, in a post I wrote a few weeks ago I quoted a definition from Wikipedia. I did not quote a traditional encyclopedia, a reference document, text book, academic journal, a highly respected news source, or even Dictionary.com – I chose Wikipedia as my source of information. Why?
But, first, what is Wikipedia? On its own pages it gives the following description:
“Wikipedia is a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation...”
When Wikipedia launched, there was a great deal of speculation if it would ever be a reliable source of information. In other words, there was concern that the crowd-sourcing of knowledge and peer editing would never be a substitute for information experts. However, I think Wikipedia has not only prevailed but also flourished. And in doing so, it has shown what is possible when a community works together. In the 8 years since it was launched, Wikipedia has changed the way we look for, share, and consume information.
In today's networked society, often the best answer or solution is found through collaboration. The world is becoming more complex and at times it feels as though history has accelerated. By using new social web technology to communicate and pooling our knowledge and expertise, we can achieve things that were not even conceivable in the recent past. Locality is no longer a restriction. We can share, communicate, and collaborate with individuals across vast stretches of geography.
We have changed the way we obtain news and absorb information. When I was a child I remember my grandparents watching the evening news. It was at a set time, on a set channel every day. It was a passive act. Today my mother, now a grandmother herself, consumes and shares information via Twitter, Facebook, and other web portals. She participates in online discussions, rather than just receiving news passively.
In addition, the quantity of information available has increased since the advent of the internet and continues to grow. “Information growth is a distinctive phenomenon of the late 20th and early 21st century, which refers to the increasing amount and variety of information produced and circulated in various institutional domains” (The Information Growth And Internet Research programme, London School of Economics and Political Science). IDC refers to all this information as the Digital Universe and in May 2009 estimated the size of this universe to be 500 exabytes (or 500 billion gigabytes). We add more data to this Digital Universe every day with each picture we upload and share, each tweet we post, and each blog entry we write.
All of this changes the information landscape. There is more information. It is easier to share and collaborate. Knowledge and information are becoming more open. And Wikipedia has benefited from all these changes. It was launched at a time when the amount of information was rapidly increasing, sharing information was on the rise, and people were looking for new ways to sort and consume information. Wikipedia provided a place for people to share and sort information – both old and new. It gave the community tools to question and correct inaccuracies. It allowed people to participate in the storytelling.
Of course, there are erroneous pieces of information on Wikipedia, as there are in other, more traditional information sources. I think the tools Wikipedia has provided to mark and track inaccuracies and annotate citations has helped streamline the process to present the most fact-based information available. But, the critics will always point to the imperfections and flaws as a reason that information compiled by experts is better than that amassed through community collaboration. However, there are flaws in traditional expert information sources as well. One reason for this is obsolete information remaining after new discoveries have changed the generally excepted truth. I wonder how many references are still out there in reference materials, science books, and other information sources referring to Pluto as the ninth planet in the solar system rather than a dwarf planet it was redefined in 2006 by the International Astronomical Union.
Information is constantly evolving and we live in a society where often the story is told or the correct answer is chosen by the victor. Historian Howard Zinn was a master at retelling past events from the viewpoint of the average individual, not the hero. His book A People's History of the United States shed a new – and often surprising – light on generally accepted facts of history. There is always another side to each story. Therefore, we must always allow for flaws and corrections. In a world with so much information we will only hope to learn the full story when everyone is given an opportunity to participate.
What Wikipedia has done is demonstrated that through collaboration, the collective knowledge of a community can create a reliable source of information. By doing so, it has given the community credibility. Now, it is time we listen to the community's story.
But, first, what is Wikipedia? On its own pages it gives the following description:
“Wikipedia is a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation...”
When Wikipedia launched, there was a great deal of speculation if it would ever be a reliable source of information. In other words, there was concern that the crowd-sourcing of knowledge and peer editing would never be a substitute for information experts. However, I think Wikipedia has not only prevailed but also flourished. And in doing so, it has shown what is possible when a community works together. In the 8 years since it was launched, Wikipedia has changed the way we look for, share, and consume information.
In today's networked society, often the best answer or solution is found through collaboration. The world is becoming more complex and at times it feels as though history has accelerated. By using new social web technology to communicate and pooling our knowledge and expertise, we can achieve things that were not even conceivable in the recent past. Locality is no longer a restriction. We can share, communicate, and collaborate with individuals across vast stretches of geography.
We have changed the way we obtain news and absorb information. When I was a child I remember my grandparents watching the evening news. It was at a set time, on a set channel every day. It was a passive act. Today my mother, now a grandmother herself, consumes and shares information via Twitter, Facebook, and other web portals. She participates in online discussions, rather than just receiving news passively.
In addition, the quantity of information available has increased since the advent of the internet and continues to grow. “Information growth is a distinctive phenomenon of the late 20th and early 21st century, which refers to the increasing amount and variety of information produced and circulated in various institutional domains” (The Information Growth And Internet Research programme, London School of Economics and Political Science). IDC refers to all this information as the Digital Universe and in May 2009 estimated the size of this universe to be 500 exabytes (or 500 billion gigabytes). We add more data to this Digital Universe every day with each picture we upload and share, each tweet we post, and each blog entry we write.
All of this changes the information landscape. There is more information. It is easier to share and collaborate. Knowledge and information are becoming more open. And Wikipedia has benefited from all these changes. It was launched at a time when the amount of information was rapidly increasing, sharing information was on the rise, and people were looking for new ways to sort and consume information. Wikipedia provided a place for people to share and sort information – both old and new. It gave the community tools to question and correct inaccuracies. It allowed people to participate in the storytelling.
Of course, there are erroneous pieces of information on Wikipedia, as there are in other, more traditional information sources. I think the tools Wikipedia has provided to mark and track inaccuracies and annotate citations has helped streamline the process to present the most fact-based information available. But, the critics will always point to the imperfections and flaws as a reason that information compiled by experts is better than that amassed through community collaboration. However, there are flaws in traditional expert information sources as well. One reason for this is obsolete information remaining after new discoveries have changed the generally excepted truth. I wonder how many references are still out there in reference materials, science books, and other information sources referring to Pluto as the ninth planet in the solar system rather than a dwarf planet it was redefined in 2006 by the International Astronomical Union.
Information is constantly evolving and we live in a society where often the story is told or the correct answer is chosen by the victor. Historian Howard Zinn was a master at retelling past events from the viewpoint of the average individual, not the hero. His book A People's History of the United States shed a new – and often surprising – light on generally accepted facts of history. There is always another side to each story. Therefore, we must always allow for flaws and corrections. In a world with so much information we will only hope to learn the full story when everyone is given an opportunity to participate.
What Wikipedia has done is demonstrated that through collaboration, the collective knowledge of a community can create a reliable source of information. By doing so, it has given the community credibility. Now, it is time we listen to the community's story.
February 23, 2010
Can a Bad Company Become Good?
This morning I read a short blog post in the New York Times titled “It’s Getting Harder to Hate Wal-Mart”. Yes, Walmart's aggressive business tactics, poor labor practices and methods for discouraging union organization have been repeatedly documented in books, news articles, television news magazines, and documentary films. But, after reading this short blog I started to wonder, can a bad company become good – and how?
In the blog the author discusses how in a blind taste test people preferred vegetables from Walmart over higher priced produce from Whole Foods Market. This test was part of research by journalist Corby Kummer for an article about Walmart's efforts to purchase more organic, sustainable, and locally grown produce. I went on to read Mr. Kummer's article and agreed – the information he presents does bode positively for Walmart. In addition, the movie Food Inc. which is intended to reveal the horrors of the industrial food system devotes time to discussing how Walmart is affecting the organic food industry in a relatively positive way by increasing availability.
So, that leads to a few questions. First, can we start to look at Walmart in a new light given its efforts in the areas of organics and sustainability? And then, can Walmart become good?
Now, this is just one part of Walmart's global operation. And there still remain serious concerns about other aspects of the company's operations, including the areas of labor practices and human rights.
In Food Inc. the discussion about Walmart and organics centers around how the company entered the organic food business because of money. (Customers wanted to buy organic products and the company knew that if they did not start carrying these items they would loose customers – and therefore loose business and money.) Individual customers (lots of them) were the catalyst for this huge corporation entering a new market (organic food).
This brings me to more questions. Will there be a catalyst for Walmart to improve its labor practices? And what will that catalyst be?
In the blog the author discusses how in a blind taste test people preferred vegetables from Walmart over higher priced produce from Whole Foods Market. This test was part of research by journalist Corby Kummer for an article about Walmart's efforts to purchase more organic, sustainable, and locally grown produce. I went on to read Mr. Kummer's article and agreed – the information he presents does bode positively for Walmart. In addition, the movie Food Inc. which is intended to reveal the horrors of the industrial food system devotes time to discussing how Walmart is affecting the organic food industry in a relatively positive way by increasing availability.
So, that leads to a few questions. First, can we start to look at Walmart in a new light given its efforts in the areas of organics and sustainability? And then, can Walmart become good?
Now, this is just one part of Walmart's global operation. And there still remain serious concerns about other aspects of the company's operations, including the areas of labor practices and human rights.
In Food Inc. the discussion about Walmart and organics centers around how the company entered the organic food business because of money. (Customers wanted to buy organic products and the company knew that if they did not start carrying these items they would loose customers – and therefore loose business and money.) Individual customers (lots of them) were the catalyst for this huge corporation entering a new market (organic food).
This brings me to more questions. Will there be a catalyst for Walmart to improve its labor practices? And what will that catalyst be?
- Read the New York Times blog here: Idea of the Day – It’s Getting Harder to Hate Wal-Mart
- Read Corby Kummer's article from The Atlantic here: Will Walmart, not Whole Foods, save the small farm and make America healthy?
February 7, 2010
Promoting Cupcakes
So, I recently posted an entry about Georgetown Cupcake on Through My Eyes (my food and travel blog). That entry was about the reason for my obsession with this little shop – the cupcakes. However, here I want to talk about something else – the recent Facebook and Twitter campaign that Georgetown Cupcake launched.
In January Georgetown Cupcake started making a daily secret “Fan Favorite” cupcake. The secret cupcake flavor is announced on Facebook and Twitter each morning and is free for Georgetown Cupcake fans. What a cool marketing idea! And I have to admit, I've fallen into the trap. Yes, I'm a Georgetown Cupcake fan on Facebook and I follow @GTownCupcake on Twitter too. The flavors are normally posted around 10 AM in the morning. So, every morning all 11,000 plus fans on Facebook and the 3000 plus followers on Twitter get a message about Georgetown Cupcake's secret cupcake of the day. And then they all start thinking about cupcakes. (Yes, this includes me.)
I think this is a great use of social media to promote a small business.
In January Georgetown Cupcake started making a daily secret “Fan Favorite” cupcake. The secret cupcake flavor is announced on Facebook and Twitter each morning and is free for Georgetown Cupcake fans. What a cool marketing idea! And I have to admit, I've fallen into the trap. Yes, I'm a Georgetown Cupcake fan on Facebook and I follow @GTownCupcake on Twitter too. The flavors are normally posted around 10 AM in the morning. So, every morning all 11,000 plus fans on Facebook and the 3000 plus followers on Twitter get a message about Georgetown Cupcake's secret cupcake of the day. And then they all start thinking about cupcakes. (Yes, this includes me.)
I think this is a great use of social media to promote a small business.
February 1, 2010
Cause Marketing is Here to Stay
A lot of things have changed in media and advertising in the last decade. We have seen social media become part of our everyday culture. This has given way to many changes in how advertising messages are delivered and how companies vie for your patronage.
So, what is cause marketing?
Wikipedia defines cause marketing or cause-related marketing as “a type of marketing involving the cooperative efforts of a "for profit" business and a non-profit organization for mutual benefit. The term is sometimes used more broadly and generally to refer to any type of marketing effort for social and other charitable causes... Cause marketing differs from corporate giving (philanthropy) as the latter generally involves a specific donation that is tax deductible, while cause marketing is a marketing relationship generally not based on a donation.”
In other words, it is when a company does something good for society in order to win over the hearts and minds of consumers. It allows a major brand to participate in the community through helping solve social problems. (One could also argue that this really just creates the illusion of a big corporation participating in a neighborhood.) The infusion of social media into our daily lives has allowed marketing professionals to give this type of campaign a real local feel which adds to the appeal of these messages.
This morning I read an article in the New York Times about the Pepsi Refresh Project, the new cause marketing campaign being launched by Pepsi-Cola. The author of the article describes the intention of the campaign like this –
Cause marketing is not new. Companies like American Express and Avon have connected with customers using this type of campaigns for decades. However, the launch of the Pepsi Refresh Project (http://www.refresheverything.com/) shows that it is now a mainstream way to connect with customers. Cause marketing is here to stay.
Here is the link to the New York Times article that inspired me to write this –
So, what is cause marketing?
Wikipedia defines cause marketing or cause-related marketing as “a type of marketing involving the cooperative efforts of a "for profit" business and a non-profit organization for mutual benefit. The term is sometimes used more broadly and generally to refer to any type of marketing effort for social and other charitable causes... Cause marketing differs from corporate giving (philanthropy) as the latter generally involves a specific donation that is tax deductible, while cause marketing is a marketing relationship generally not based on a donation.”
In other words, it is when a company does something good for society in order to win over the hearts and minds of consumers. It allows a major brand to participate in the community through helping solve social problems. (One could also argue that this really just creates the illusion of a big corporation participating in a neighborhood.) The infusion of social media into our daily lives has allowed marketing professionals to give this type of campaign a real local feel which adds to the appeal of these messages.
This morning I read an article in the New York Times about the Pepsi Refresh Project, the new cause marketing campaign being launched by Pepsi-Cola. The author of the article describes the intention of the campaign like this –
- “The project is meant to tap into a booming trend for what is called cause-related marketing or pro-social marketing, by which corporations seek to back up their talk about benefiting society.”
Cause marketing is not new. Companies like American Express and Avon have connected with customers using this type of campaigns for decades. However, the launch of the Pepsi Refresh Project (http://www.refresheverything.com/) shows that it is now a mainstream way to connect with customers. Cause marketing is here to stay.
Here is the link to the New York Times article that inspired me to write this –
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)