Tag Archives: IanAyres

Finance and Google

Only two topics today, although there is a lot of meat on the first one…

Finance: There has been a lot of talk recently about the future of publishing, especially newspapers.  The financial subscription and advertising models that used to work are not working now; actually they haven’t been working for years, but it has finally caught up with the publishers. 

Walter Isaacson, former managing editor of Time Magazine, wrote a Time cover story that advocated the utilization of micropayments.  In this model, the reader would pay some small amount to access the articles they wish to view.  The income generated in this manner would fund the operations of a complete news organization, advocates believe.

I am not so sure. There are a lot of problems with this idea, including the transaction costs and the nuisance of nickle and diming customers. Michael Kinsley, writing an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, agreed with me.

Jack Shafer believes that we already have a model for paying for discrete units of information.  We just need to think outside of the box, the browser box, that is.

The debate continues. On the Freakonomics blog, they asked 4 experts their thoughts on micropayments. Ian Ayres believes the solution to be creation of national endowments for investigative journalism by all world democracies.

Another interesting discussion is going on at Harvard’s Law School Blog, where Doc Searles and others are debating the micropayments issue.  A compelling side point in the comments talks about users willingly paying papers for coverage of certain topics.  In other words, changing the entire newspaper business model on its head.

Google: Google has made a couple of announcements this week that add some neat features to some of their products:

Google Docs has added the ability to have validation for cells in Spreadsheets.  This will allow you to check for valid email addresses or dates and not allow bad data to be saved to your spreadsheet. (via Blogoscoped)

GMail has added the ability to define custom colors to its screens.  Now, I am not a designer, so I will continue to use the themes that they announced in November, but if you have the color sense, you can now craft GMail into your style.

Strategy, Business and Legos

Big Picture: Paul Graham is a very strategic thinker.  In his essay, “Keep Your Identity Small“, he compares religious and political arguments to most others.  The key, he opines, is that you don’t have to be an expert to argue about either topic.  In most other areas, one doesn’t usually participate in an discussion unless she has a minimum level of expertise.  In religion and politics, anything goes.  Paul advises us to keep our Identity small, so that we can be more tolerant of other’s positions.

Consulting: Ian Ayres talked about relational versus non-relational arrangements with large consulting companies.  Pretty dull stuff, until Ian related these to Charlie Sheen‘s trial for using prostitutes and his quote “I don’t pay them for sex.  I pay them to leave.”

Chicago: What if Oprah bought the Chicago Sun-Times?,  Phil Rosenthal muses.

Business: Time Magazine discusses how this recession compares with others regarding job losses.  It is scary out there folks.

Art: Something about the economy must be helping the Lego folks.  There was a creative look at New York via Lego.  And then this story about an artist who uses Lego bricks in his creations. And the inauguration in Lego.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The Ethics of Opting In

Today, Ian Ayres on the Freakonomics blog talked about a serious topic, opting in or out of options on an e-commerce site.  There were two cases discussed in the blog post.  The first was about  Orbitz adding a check box that was prechecked for the purchase of  travel insurance through a third party insurance company.  Unwitting consumers have had charges of over $100 added to their bill.  The second case revolved around a user design issue where an unnamed airline’s check-in kiosk made it too easy for a harried traveler to inadvertently choose an option for a $75 “more legroom” seat.

There was a healthy discussion on the comments page with passionate voices on both sides.  On one side, there were those who said “Caveat Emptor“; people need to read the fine print and be sure that they are aware of what they are buying. The other side was concerned about the ethics of companies that intentionally mislead their customers.

I fall squarely on the second side of this question.  Yes, we need to understand what we agree to, but businesses need to take a lead on ethical behavior in our world.  There is absolutely no reason for companies to engage in deceitful behavior in order to make a couple of extra bucks.  Straighten up, folks.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]