On Google Search Page My Birthday Greeting and Cakes. I Especially Like the Jelly Roll!
And when I moused over the image it said "Happy Birthday Patti"! How cool is it to have a Google Doodle personalized for you? Is this brilliant marketing? Indeed it is as I am blogging about it.
But, there's more. They gave me a present, too!
They offered me a personalized URL and of course I snapped it up:
Not to grouse over this, but it is about time because a personalized URL is the best way to help drive people to Google+.
I haven't seen Google in a hurry to pass them out. In their typical style, they offer products selectively and roll out new services by word of mouth and invitation only. Compare this to the land rush Facebook conducted when it opened up their URLs on a first come first serve basis in one day.
Why are these personalized URLs important to individuals beyond mere status symbols? Why have I made a point to get my name in every URL that I can and in every email service offered? Yes, I own pattiwilson in Yahoo, Outlook, and Google email. Well one's name is part of one's brand isn't it? It is how you are found in a Google search.
People, hiring managers, headhunters, customers, networking contacts, blind dates will all search on your name in Google not your company. Think about it. You do it yourself when you want to find out about somebody. Moreover, Google's search algorithm gives preference to someone's name + a URL like pattiwilson.com or pattiwilson.net. It really doesn't matter what specific domain comes after it. It could be .me, .ca, .us, .whatever. The name attached to the domain is of key importance.
If you have a common name, like mine, then owning multiple URLs in required to hold your place at the top of the first screen in a Google name search. If you share a name with someone famous who is in IMDB or Wikipedia, for example, then it is crucial to have multiple social sites and URLs with your name to compete against the big databases.
It all adds up to greater visibility and a bigger digital footprint. What is the point of good branding if nobody can find you online? Thanks Google!
I don't often post promotions of this sort, but I like this company. I have read all three of their $5.99 eBooks on Management, Leadership, and Entrepreneurship. They are a bargain packed with great advice and information. Their website, Caliper Corporation has white papers, case studies and podcasts...all for free. And the event below is free! Caliper is in Princeton, NJ.
Why Women Leaders Are One of Your Greatest Talent Assets.
I’d like to invite you to attend a complimentary
networking and learning event we’ll be holding in Newport Beach, CA on November 7th from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
at The Island Hotel Newport Beach on Why Women Leaders Are One of Your Greatest Talent Assets.
This event will feature a panel discussion with three influential women leaders who will discuss their leadership journey as well as the challenges and successes they’ve dealt with in their careers.
Also, Caliper expert Carol Chenot, VP of Organizational Development Services
will facilitate further discussion by sharing the results of Caliper’s Women Leaders study, which will help you:
· Ensure that gender diversity aligns with your corporate values
· Build that diversity into your selection process
· Understand the unique development issues that women leaders face and how can they be addressed
· Learn how women in 2013 are addressing work-life balance proactively and productively.
To reserve your spot and to view the agenda, click here
This will be a great opportunity for you to network with other Southern California leaders, hear the latest research, and explore practical tools for ensuring that gender diversity in your organization leads to targeted business results.
Senior Vice President of Sales CALIPER Helping Companies Hire and Develop Top Performers Sloan Award Recipient for Excellence in Workplace Effectiveness and Flexibility
506 Carnegie Center, Suite 300 | Princeton, NJ 08540 | Office: (609) 524-1323
This Fortune article drills down into the world of APIs (application programming interface). An API is a building block of a program much like an amino acid is a building block of protein. The article goes on to explain how APIs will integrate everything and to everybody. What does that mean to you? Travel, leisure, work, socializing made easier, more expedient and productive through technology. As my clients grasp the portent of this message, they stop arguing about whether or not they need to build an online brand and have a big digital footprint. They see the value of having a website of their own
. And, they realize how crucial it is to stay up to date tBusinesses must embrace the programmable world. Or die.
October 22, 2013: 10:49 AM ETHow APIs are disrupting every business
By Promod Haque
FORTUNE -- The havoc the Internet has wrought on traditional business already dwarfs previous economic transformations, but we haven't seen anything yet. Companies of all sizes and across all industries are now facing a massive digital disruption that will permeate their cores. Information technology has been working its way into business processes for decades, but this is different: The apps, data and APIs that are driving this digital transformation are not just enabling business; they are becoming its very fabric. Whether digital native or analog immigrant, today's digital pioneers recognize that an app strategy is the key to customer engagement, user experience and business success. API management
The programmable world depends on a powerful and flexible digital-ecosystem infrastructure that is invisible to the user. Implementing and managing all this hidden complexity is a massive undertaking, and most companies lack the necessary resources.
One element critical to the programmable world -- API management -- is particularly complex. Fortunately, this complexity can be offloaded onto API platforms like Apigee (disclaimer: one of our portfolio companies), which is already enabling businesses such as Walgreens (WAG
), Marks & Spencer and eBay (EBAY
) to build powerful digital ecosystems that transform their business, without losing their focus on core competencies.
For example, Walgreens uses APIs to leverage existing photo-printing services, letting customers print photos directly from their mobile phones to a local Walgreens store. The company has found that customers who engage with Walgreens in person, online and via mobile apps spend six times more than those who only visit stores.
Similarly, AppDirect uses open APIs and IaaS with a new platform that connects developers to channel partners across different industries. This lets companies like Staples (SPLS
) and Bell Canada (BCE
) launch state-of-the-art app stores in just a matter of weeks.
These app stores have ushered in a mobile post-PC era in which people increasingly expect a rich and personalized experience that seamlessly spans any app and device. Open-API platforms like Twilio help to enrich the mobile experience by letting developers add voice and messaging functionality to their applications.
In the transportation industry, Twilio powers the Uber mobile communications platform that connects passengers to drivers of vehicles for hire. Customers tap a smartphone button, and the Uber cloud matches them to the nearest available member limo. Payment is made through the smartphone, so no cash is involved.
In the hospitality industry, Twilio underlies Airbnb, which provides a trusted community for listing, finding, and booking unique accommodations around the world. The Airbnb cloud matches travelers with lodgings ranging from apartments for a night to villas for a month, and helps property owners to promote and monetize unused spaces. Participants can text each other through Airbnb anonymously, without revealing their phone numbers. Emerging digital ecosystems
However, the really big opportunity is in helping traditionally analog industries -- such as healthcare, professional services, manufacturing and consumer packaged goods -- to emigrate to the programmable world.Finish reading the article here:
Well we just couldn't keep calling it mobility as in "mobile phone" when it is all pervasive, ubiquitous, and omnipresent in how we live, do business, and search for meaning.
I know a couple who never use the ATM, and do not own smart phones nor a computer. They have no clue about Facebook, GPS, Yelp, Amazon, and Google. Seriously. I used to call them Luddites, but now I call them Neanderthals. They are about to go extinct.
There is a lot of content noise on the web arguing about the need or ROI of a college degree. While that debate can rage on, I know that there is no debate over the need to have our young people fully wired, connected, and technically savant.
Regardless of training, diploma, or degree if they can't access and fluently use the Internet of Things, they will be unemployable.BUSINESS INSIDER
INFOGRAPHIC: How The Internet Of Things Connects Everything And Everyone
May 8, 2013, 3:20 PM
In just seven years, there will be anywhere from 24 to 50 billion Internet-connected devices. That's three to 6.5 devices for every man, woman, and child on the planet.
Those devices aren't just PCs, smartphones, and tablets, but also smart watches and eyewear, along with a lot of “things” we don’t usually think of as connected to the Internet: TVs, cars, appliances, shipping containers, and jet engines, to name a few.
We're starting to live more connected lives through these “things.” Consider this example: A woman jogging through a park gets thirsty. She does a voice search on her smartphone for bottled water and is directed to a nearby vending machine, where she buys water using a mobile payment account on her phone.
Sensing its supply is low, the machine alerts the distributor, whose automated supply chain management system adds that machine to the route of a passing delivery truck. Meanwhile, the jogger stops at a grocery store. Based on her recent activity, the beverage company sends a promotion to the jogger’s smartphone. She gets it just as she is deciding what drink to buy.
Check out the infographic below for more ways in which the Internet of Things is changing our personal and corporate lives. And if your company wants to stay ahead of the curve, find out how to take advantage of the mobile technology that's connecting devices by unlocking exclusive content from the Harvard Business Review. Read more at the site:
It sure can and has been repeated. I have watched Whole Food gentrify an entire locale all buy themselves in less than 6 years. Now that is brand magic! Status by association, indeed.
Who are you networked with? Who are you name dropping in your CV and on your blog? How can you shine in the glow of an other's radiant sun? There is a lesson to be learned here aside from eating organic and free range. If we worked as hard on our brands and reputations as Whole Foods has then people would want to hang by with us too, and even hire us.Can the Whole Foods Effect Be Repeated?
By Kriston Capps
Urban-issues columnist Will Doig tackles the so-called Whole Foods Effect
in a Salon story about development in Detroit—and well, development in every city that’s seen significant gentrification in the last decade or so. Detroit is the latest—following Washington, D.C., in 2000, Pittsburgh in 2002, and Boston last year—to see a neighborhood jolt following the announcement of the arrival of a Whole Foods.
In Detroit, developers are betting big that the Whole Foods Effect will transform Midtown—$4.2 million big, Doig reports. “That figure suggests city leaders believe that Whole Foods is a force unto itself that can give a neighborhood the escape velocity it needs to break free of its doldrums,” he says, and then asks: “Are they right?”
Doig writes that Whole Foods occupies a unique position in the food-market eco-system: It’s a debt-free company with 50 new stores coming online. Businesses piggyback off of Whole Foods’s advance work: The company looks for neighborhood areas with 200,000 people (a college-educated set at that) living within a 20-minute-drive radius. That may be Whole Foods’s greatest signal to developers and businesses: They’ve done the math so you don’t have to.
The numbers bear out, Doig writes:
An exhaustive 2007 study by Johnson Reid quantified the effects that individual urban amenities have on home prices. Using hedonic modeling, it found that a specialty grocer will increase surrounding home prices by an average of 17.5 percent, more than bookstores, bike shops or gyms (with the caveat, of course, that this varies greatly depending on the situation — in the instances studied, the increases ranged widely from 6 to 29 percent).
Then he digs into the effect it’s had on D.C.’s Logan Circle neighborhood (which is a stone’s throw from ARCHITECT’s offices):
When Whole Foods moved onto P Street in Washington, D.C., 13 years ago, the only nightlife on the block was a divey (and awesome) rock club called the Vegas Lounge. The Lounge is still there, but it’s since been joined by a popular burger joint called Stoney’s, a “food-to-fork” locavore restaurant called Logan Tavern that owns a farm 30 miles south of the city, a Starbucks (open till 8 p.m.), a coffeehouse-slash-bar called Commissary and several retail stores, all squeezed onto the same block as Whole Foods.
His D.C. example raises a couple of salient points. One big plus to the P Street N.W. Whole Foods is its design: Its parking lot is small and underground, as it was clearly meant to fit into the neighborhood, not replace a big chunk of it. Many of the Whole Foods throughout the U.S. Northeast, in fact, are designed to encourage walkable communities. Other grocery stores in D.C. looked like the original Whole Foods in Austin, Texas—that is, a stand-alone, big-box grocer with a great deal of its footprint set aside for parking. When the D.C. Whole Foods opened it 2000, it was the only grocery store signaling urban density at the time.
Back then, Whole Foods was also one of relatively few grocery stores serving D.C. at all. A Safeway store popularly known as the Soviet Safeway—so named for its frequent shortages—was then the closest grocery store, and that one was a neighborhood away. It’s hard to say whether the Whole Foods Effect is the function of a singular urban-organic-brand signaling, or if Whole Foods is just a savvy company identifying niches in the marketplace.
Doig puts this question another way: “Could a Safeway gentrify a neighborhood like Midtown Detroit? Could a Wal-Mart?” Doig says no—but Safeway and Wal-Mart want this answer to be yes. Wal-Mart is opening six new stores in D.C., and the preliminary designs
that the company has released for its first foray into the capital look nothing at all like their sprawling cousins in the suburbs. They look like Whole Foods. Chains such as Safeway and Giant are updating their brands to follow; a popular Giant a mile or two up the road from the Logan Circle Whole Foods is known widely as the Gentrification Giant—because it appears to have contributed to (or to have benefited from) the sort of growth that the Whole Foods Effect describes.
One thing is clear: When it comes to big-store grocers spurring urban growth, Whole Foods has won the first-mover advantage. Here is the source of this article
This article was written at the beginning of the now overheated job market in the San Francisco Bay Area. Today, the competition to hire talent is verging on crazy. We are back to pre-dot.com hiring levels of employment. And that is a good thing because this is not a bubble and the rank and file of Silicon Valley was decimated during the bust. Over 3000+ companies went bust and tens of thousands lost their jobs.
between 2000 and 2002.The downside now is that the cost of already expensive housing is on another vertical trajectory.________________________Investors may Request Acqui-hire Protection: Some VCs think they're getting cut out of their fair share.
By Michael Arrington, contributor
Fortune Magazine article read here
Acqui-hires, if you aren't aware, are the acquisitions of startups by large companies (usually Facebook, Google and Twitter) that are made primarily for the teams, not the products..............Investors see themselves as being taken advantage of, providing capital for founders to essentially buff up their resume to get their dream job. When a company is acquired, they say, the value of stock grants should be considered acquisition value and divided up among all stockholders. If a founder leaves stockholders behind to take a lucrative side deal, they're not acting ethically.
They haven't been thrilled for years now, but something's starting to change. There have been Bin 38-like whispers
of some investors acting to fight back on these deals. A lawyer I spoke with says there are a variety of causes of action in an acqui-hire deal, all centered around the notion that there's a lot of money going to some shareholders (founders/employees) but not to others (investors). Specifically, the longstanding notion of equal treatment of shareholders codified in California, Delaware and most other state corporations codes.
If deals are specifically being architected to give key employees very large payouts and investors very little, there are probably fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and other causes of action available to shareholders.
The cause of action is relatively straightforward – the deal as a whole would be considered fraudulent based on the fact that the team's value is based largely on the fact that it has become a cohesive whole on the shareholder's dime, and is worth far more as a group than the aggregate of the individuals.
No investor in her right mind would bring such an action, of course, because of the reputational fallout from doing so. I have heard of a couple of threatened and settled lawsuits, though, that never became public.
What's really pissing off investors are the stories that get back to them. Statements made by high level executives like "f%$# the investors, there's nothing they can do" sound fine in a closed door meeting with an entrepreneur. It sounds less defensible in a deposition that becomes public.
I doubt we'll see much of that, though, given the reputational issues I brought up above, plus the fact that most investors honestly aren't angered by these deals.
But what I do believe we'll start to see are clauses being added to investment contracts that are designed to change these deals. Specifically these clauses would force all deal consideration around a deal – including stock options and stock grants to employees – to be pooled and distributed pro rata among all shareholders.
This would likely kill many of these acqui-hire deals, since the stock grant portion of the deal is a compensation expense to companies. That means the government is paying for a sizable chunk of these acquisitions. Any attempt to pool the consideration and distribute away from employees would not only suck for employees, it would no longer be a tax expense for companies. That would make these deals some 50% more expensive to the buyers. Obviously employees wouldn't be thrilled to lose most of that compensation to investors, either.
Ultimately the market will decide if these clauses stick, but when there's a downturn (and there's always a downturn around the corner) onerous clauses often find their way into deals, and can eventually become "standard."
We would never ask for a clause like this at CrunchFund, and would counsel our companies only to consider it as a last resort. Additionally we would often counsel companies we've invested to take these types of acqui-hire deals when offered, if it's in their best interest.
But, in the meantime, it would probably be a good idea for the buyers out there – specifically Facebook, Google and Twitter – to consider toning down the anti-investor rhetoric in these meetings. They're injecting a lot of emotion into a difficult issue, and that doesn't help anyone in the long run.Michael Arrington (@arrington) is a partner with venture capital firm CrunchFund, and was the founder of TechCrunch. This post originally appeared on his blog.
The article below was written when endorsements were launched last year.
After a year of testing the results are in on Linkedin.com endorsements and connections.
The new rule of Linkedin is connections over the magic 500 with lots of endorsements that those connections will help generate.
You need 50 skills listed with 50+ endorsements for each skill? Why? Well Linkedin has an algorithm that measures the value of each skill by the number of votes it accrues in relationship to your job title. This data is then aggregated and sold to recruiters. Voila! It is easier for them to find profiles that fit the jobs they are trying to fill.
What goes by the wayside? Well remember long time ago (like 3 years) when Linkedin told you to connect to only people you trust? But now it gives you connection suggestions of profiles and people that may you know because they know that you need many more connections to get a reasonable number of endorsements per skill listed regardless of trust.
Out of 100 connections maybe ten people will bother to endorse your skills when your profile is offered up to them. Another way to get more endorsements is to endorse everybody presented to you to endorse whether you have any knowledge of their abilities or not. People tend to reciprocate in kind. Some have even thanked me. Why LinkedIn’s Endorsements are Awful But You Should Use Them Anyway
By David Wolinsky
| Wednesday, Oct 3, 2012 | Updated 8:18 AM CDT Linkedin's new feature makes the profile from hell.
Have you logged into your LinkedIn account lately? You should. It’s okay. Go ahead. We’ll wait.
Back? Okay. The site has been getting a major makeover lately, and the latest wrinkle is the ability to endorse your colleagues and contacts. This is separate from the personalized recommendations. This lets anyone who is on your LinkedIn list who may or may not have ever worked directly with you acknowledge one of your skills.
This is incredibly stupid for a variety of reasons. But I’ll start off with the first sign that shows this wasn’t fully thought through: When you endorse someone’s skill, an individual skill, it shows up in all your contacts’ feeds for each skill. You think Davis is really great at “magazines,” “marketing,” and being “friendly?” Well, everyone know now knows that you think that about Davis: Because they get an individual update about each individual skill.
That’s just sloppy for a social media site. No offense, Davis, but I don’t really care that Evan -- who I haven’t spoken with since last September -- thinks you excel at “magazines.” I don’t even know what that means, but it’s a real skill people I know have listed.
The other main point is what I already sort of touched on. Recommendations are great because they’re personalized. These are just random fist bumps from your Rolodex.
So why should you use it? Because it’s LinkedIn’s attempt to “gamify” its site, and it lets you better assess someone’s skill set. If a master at “magazines” thinks you’re great at “magazines,” then that can only be a good thing, or at least better than Eli Whatshisname appreciating your skill.
It’s a shaky first step towards further enhancing LinkedIn, but it needs a little more time in the oven. David Wolinsky is a freelance writer and a lifelong Chicagoan. In addition to currently serving as an interviewer-writer for Adult Swim, he's also a comedy-writing instructor for Second City. He was the Chicago city editor for The Onion A.V. Club where he provided in-depth daily coverage of this city's bustling arts/entertainment scene for half a decade. When not playing video games for work he's thinking of dashing out to Chicago Diner, Pizano's, or Yummy Yummy. His first career aspirations were to be a game-show host.See original article here
I can't disagree. He is absolutely right. All the people in Starbucks with laptops are entrepreneurial wanna bees not really in the game. People I have seen really make it in the Valley have eaten, slept, and lived their businesses at the expense of all else, including family. Then they run their companies expecting their employees to do the same. Just ask people former employees of Apple, Google, Oracle, etc.
The latest shot in the work-life balance debate was fired by Mukund Mohan, a Bangaolore-based serial entrepreneur with roots in Silicon Valley, and author of the “Be a Force of Good” blog
. Mohan’s most recent entry
, “My discipline will beat your intellect,” argues that the key to start-up success is to recognize that it’s necessary both to “work smart” and to “work hard” – really, really hard.
“Some ‘older’ entrepreneurs (usually over 35 years of age) will share their ability to ‘strike a balance’ between work and life. Practically speaking (I hate to break this to them) that does not exist in a startup. If you have that balance, you are not serious enough about your startup.read complete article here
This comes as no surprise. I do a values assessment with clients to determine what has worked in previous jobs and what they want in future positions. I have seen the majority of people leave for the lack of value satisfaction primarily caused by a bad boss, carnivorous teammates, or a toxic corporate culture. It was rarely if ever the money. Money factors in leaving if they have not gotten raises in several years or been passed over for promotions.
Typically people focus on negotiating the money on the way in, so they know what they are getting. They often ignore the red flags on the people and culture.
Hard to believe? According to Michelle McQuaid
, a world leader in positive psychology interventions in the workplace, if you feel unappreciated, uninspired, lonely, and miserable, you’re not alone.
In a survey
of 1000 American Executives McQuaid found a “whopping” 35 percent of Americans are happy at their job. And, 65 percent say a better boss would make them happy. Only 35 percent say a pay raise will do the same thing.........A 2009 study published by the Harvard Business Review
suggested, “…the majority of people say they trust a stranger more than they trust their boss.”read more here
I woke up and logged into my phone to read the trending news on Flipboard :Flipboard is your personal magazine, filled with the things you care about. Catch up on the news, discover amazing things from around the world, or stay connected to the people closest to you--all in one place.
I next click on the news headlines from Yahoo News. Then I check out the weather.com box to see the beach weather and surf advisory. Finally I check the text messages from family. The information is all condensed, succinct and exactly what I want to read. Why? I pick the weather location, choose and curate by topic the magazines, and the news publications that I want to see.
Well I don't pick my family.Then I go to Linkedin.com. I spend a lot of time there helping my clients build jaw-dropping profiles (just kidding, really, how much can you do with an inflexible template?
I actually help them quickly build out their networks to number in the thousands not the hundreds, decide on the best skills to list for endorsement, the most strategic groups to join, and the optimum wording for the over-structured profile template.While on
Linkedin I go to my home page and there, chosen by Linkedin, are articles they have curated for me (they call it recommended). Why are they there? They did their algorithms on me and assume that's what I want to read based on my job and work experience. But, I don't want to read about my business. I know my business. I am an expert in my business. I want to read other news.I want to choose what I want to read!
Search engines, social sites can do their algorithms and then use it to display ads to me and suggest topics they think I want to click on in the sidebar. But they cannot present me with totally curated pages of content they have decided I should read. I will leave as they aren't the only game in town.
You can't do that on Linkedin.com they have a captive audience who have to follow their rules if they want to benefit from their service. Their rules have always been crystallized into precise, demanding structure that has worked for Linkedin from day one, but not necessarily for the user.They have been dogmatic and
domineering about what kind of profile to fill out and how much information to provide. They demand dates, locations, chronology, and detailed structure. Why? Because then they can better slice, dice, and aggregate the information to sell it to recruiters and hiring entities who have been their main source of income.But now they are moving to a content model to become the one-stop business portal for all their members. True to form, they have decided what you will read and curated the content for you. Oh sure you can pick from their selected list of "influencers" but then that's all that they display to you. The image with this post is my Linkedin Home page today. None of it interests me.The updates that my 7000+ connections post are far more interesting and that's what I read. Just like you are reading this. And my updates to Linkedin come from, ironically, my curated boards on Flipboard
or my blog posts.
Will somebody tell Linkedin that their members would be stickier on their site if allowed to curate and share the content they choose and not what's chosen for them? And that people would work harder to build great profiles if they had more options, flexibility and control over them?