I recently caught an article called The 8 Greatest Strengths of Generation Y on YoungUpstarts.com (a great site from Singapore that you should read if you aren't already). I hope they won't get upset with me for using parts of their article here, but I wanted to offer my take on some of what they reported. As a former university prof who's spent a lot of time with the fine folks of Gen Y I've found this particular cohort to be great fun to work with and very energetic, but at the same time, perhaps a bit too full of themselves (as I think every generation tends to be, especially when they're young). This article was written by a Gen Y-er who lives in the US, and I think it's worth offering another view to balance out the rosy picture they painted.
1.All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
Divorce rates in the U.S. peaked almost simultaneously with the beginning of Gen Y. As the children of broken homes, Millennials resolved to not let work ruin their marriages and relationships...Millennials are strong at balancing their professional and personal lives.
Millenials certainly focus more on the personal over the professional, but that's not necessarily "balance." If your desire for fun trumps your responsibilities toward others all the time, you've simply tipped the scales in the opposite direction. The goal is to try to meet ALL your responsibiltiies, toward others as well as toward yourself, and I'm not sure we're there yet.
2.The value of a dollar
Despite a bad rap that paints us as reckless spenders, a recent survey found that Millennials are up to three times as likely to want to save money compared to our parents and grandparents...Eighty-five percent of us that graduated in 2011 moved back home with our parents, a cost-saving measure that previous generations shunned, regardless of need.
Someone who can afford an iPhone but can't afford rent has a misplaced sense of priorities. Many Gen Y-ers have learned the value of their parents' dollars, but not their own. Too many people graduate from school expecting to live the same life they lived before they went to school, forgetting that it took their parents years and years to work up to that point. Many of them moving back home are doing so not out of need but out of a desire for a certain standard of ilving they can't afford on their own...and frankly, haven't earned.
3.Get involved
Although the baby boomers certainly made their voices heard by the politicians of their day, they fell far short in community activism...In 2006, 61% of 13- to 25-year-olds said they feel personally responsible for improving the world.
The people involved in the civil rights movement would disagree. So would those who challenged America's involvement in the Vietnam War, who ensured the passage of the Clean Air Act and the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, and who led the fight for womens' equality. The protest movements of the 60s and 70s had goals and agendas and strategies, a sharp contrast to the Occupy movement. Many Gen Y-ers have enjoyed living in a society with no understanding of what it took to create that society. It's great that 61% of 13- to 25-year-olds feel personally responsile for making the world a better place, but what percentage have actually committed themselves to doing something?
4.I have confidence in me
Gen Y-ers are nothing if not confident...In the workplace, we are outspoken and not afraid to challenge outmoded ways of doing business.
This is true, and one of the greatest strengths of this generation. It will be interesting to see if they maintain this outloook when they are in charge someday. In the meatime, while an enthusiasm for tackling the status quo is great, it's important to have the education and understanding of why things are the way they are before you try to change them. Too many Millennials walk in and assume they know more than the people already there without committing the time and energy to learning first.
5.We don’t stand on ceremony here
Generation Y is all about efficiency. Laptops instead of desktops. Cell phones instead of landlines. Telecommuting instead of polluting commuting. We aren’t afraid to cut something that’s always been done before just because that’s how it’s always been done.
Good point, and as long as they do that to get things done, rather than just for their own convenience, then "bravo!" I've found many people, though, who break the rules, not to get things done better, but just because they find them inconvenient. It's one thing to break the rules (customs/traditions/protocols) if that's what it takes to accomplish your mission; it's another thing to ignore them just because you're lazy.
6.Give us tech and watch us go
The boomers were too busy with work to pay attention to what was happening, but we factored it in to our growth and made it part of ourselves. Herein lies our greatest strength: we use technology as well as anyone, but we know what to do when the tech breaks down, because we know the steps it took to get us where we are.
I literally laughed when I read this. When the office network goes down, work stops. Period. This generation is so reliant upon technology (which was invented by previous generations, by the way) that when it fails, they're screwed. How many people carry change for a pay phone in case the cellular network fails? How many offices have typewriters in a closet in case the server is down? I'm sorry, but while it's great that Millennials are so confident with technology, they're hosed when it fails. (BTW, it'll be interesting to see how comfortable they are with modern technology when THEY are in their 50s and 60s and their kids and grandkids are using the latest gear).
7.Zero intolerance
Changing social values and an increasingly diverse population have made us Millennials a pretty tolerant group...Fortunately, the blind prejudices and bigotries of our ancestors are mainly a thing of the past.
Have you read all the stories about bullying in the last couple years? It's not Boomers or Gen X who have taken bullying from a schoolyard problem to a 24/7 social media event that pursues some poor kids no matter where they are. When gay teens stop committing suicide then I'll believe in zero tolerance.
8.The joy of teamwork
Maybe it’s our desire to be well-liked and to have a high friend count, but Millennials are great team players...Where other generations may have seen in teamwork only the danger that hard work will not be rewarded and poor work will blamed on a scapegoat, Millennials thrive on being part of a team.
This sort of conflicts with numbers 1 and 4 above. While I've mostly worked with and been friends with great people from this generation, and I do believe the "slacker" label they got starting back in the 90s was defnitely undeserved, I don't detect a lot of teamwork skills here. I often find Gen Y'ers who love being on a team IF they can be the star, an outgrowth of the constant "you're so great" feedback they got from parents. Being a team member means acknowledging your own limitations while contributing your strengths, which often means doing things you don't want to do, or working hard but getting little recognition, and that's hard for many.
I think Generation Y brings a lot of great ideas to society in general, the workplace in particular, and the creative world absolutely. I wish, though, we could focus a little less on how super they think they are, and instead emphasize what they can offer. There's a lot of "style over substance" that, to be honest, has been around in every generation, probably dating back to the American Revolution. How about just getting to work and letting the results speak for themselves?
Friday, January 27, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Chickens and Eggs
Here's a random question that is academic for some Creatives, but immediately relevant for others:
Does economic freedom encourage political freedom, or does political freedom encourage economic freedom?
Discuss.
Does economic freedom encourage political freedom, or does political freedom encourage economic freedom?
Discuss.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Distribute Wisely
All the recent discussion about SOPA and other attempts to stop online piracy have, to a large extent, ignored the business models that content owners are following. For many of them, like television networks, they've continued to ignore changes in technology and obvious consumer demand in favor of litigation and legislative changes to protect their old way of doing business. While that doesn't justify the misuse of someone else's intellectual property for commercial gain, it does serve as a reminder that content owners could avoid losing money if they'd act a little smarter.
Take TV networks, for example. Viewers have demonstrated a willingness to pay to watch programs online, or watch ads in exchange for new programs. Distribution through sites like Hulu.com and iTunes have clearly shown this. Yet many content owners still refuse to put some shows online during their current seasons, or make their older series available for streaming on Netflix, because they are still trying to make money through older distribution methods, methods for which consumers are showing less and less interest (e.g., selling DVDs). Because consumers know that easy and inexpensive online distribution is possible, they are coming to expect it, and resent content owners trying to force them into other methods that have been a moneymaker in the past but which are simply falling out of date and out of favor. Viewers overseas are generally unable to access sites like Hulu because TV series are released later overseas and the networks don't want shows available online until they've been on TV there. In a way that makes sense, but since overseas viewers are already going to pirate sites to get their current shows, wouldn't it make sense for networks to adjust their timing to take advantage of that demand? Consumers who would be willing to pay are instead turning to pirating sites not because they're free but because for many series that's simply the only way to watch a show online. Networks end up leaving money on the table because they aren't wilng to adjust their business model.
They probably do this because it's worked for them before, but that past success in the courtroom and other arenas has made them lazy now. In 2001 a group of TV networks filed suit against ReplayTV, which produced a DVR with an automatic "commercial skip" feature that detected commercials during playback and skipped past them. Rather than finding other ways to generate revenue the networks instead turned to the courts, their justification being that this technology fundamentally altered their ability to make money (kind of like electric lights fundamentally altered the oil lamp industry's ability to make money, though I don't see anyone pining for that). ReplayTV filed for bankruptcy in 2003, so the networks won, but their success kept them from devising better alternatives. Today, DVRs still have fast forward buttons, and I doubt very many people who watch a recorded program are still watching commercials, so the networks still face the same problem.
(By the way, one justification Fox TV uses for not making shows available online until 8 days later is that the new method of counting viewers that get reported to advertisers is a "telecast plus 7 days" model, which assumes people record shows for later viewing and then watch the commercials -- a total scam, in my opinion, since as mentioned earlier, very few people are likely to actually be watching those commercials)
This isn't just limited to the networks. Music companies were successful in shutting down Napster but only later did they start getting smarter about actually distributing music digitally themselves. Had they focused on their business practices rather than litigation, they could be a lot farther along. Digital content carries a marginal cost of 0 (that is, an additional customer doesn't carry additional costs, unlike a DVD, which requires a disc, packaging, and shelf space for each additional unit to be sold) so it can be a great moneymaker even at a low price, because once the fixed costs are paid, everything beyond that is profit.
The lesson here is that, when your industry goes through fundamental changes, you need to adapt to that change and take advantage of emerging opportunities, rather than expecting the government to fix your problem or otherwise sticking your head in the sand and ignoring those changes. Sure, you might be successful in suing someone, but once the public knows that other, better distribution methods are available, they're going to demand them, and if you ignore that and try to stick with outdated methods, you will lose legitimate customers who will otherwise turn to pirating (or its equivalent for your product) or just quit consuming your product altogether.
The idea of looking for the best distribution method isn't restricted to those who produce content. You might think that hairstyling doesn't really lend itself to methods other than cutting hair in a salon, but give it some thought. Is there a market for house calls? What about doing hair for a wedding onsite rather than having the wedding party come into the salon in the days leading up to the ceremony? If you can provide a desirable distribution method while your competitors aren't, you can soak up part of the market that they're leaving behind.
None of this is a justification for illegal behavior on consumers' part, but at the same time, there's not much excuse for using taxpayer funds to support dumb business decisions by content owners who are too lazy to make changes or too incompetent to be able to. If you're smart, you'll focus on making the best business decisions rather than counting on the courts or the Congress to protect you from yourself.
Take TV networks, for example. Viewers have demonstrated a willingness to pay to watch programs online, or watch ads in exchange for new programs. Distribution through sites like Hulu.com and iTunes have clearly shown this. Yet many content owners still refuse to put some shows online during their current seasons, or make their older series available for streaming on Netflix, because they are still trying to make money through older distribution methods, methods for which consumers are showing less and less interest (e.g., selling DVDs). Because consumers know that easy and inexpensive online distribution is possible, they are coming to expect it, and resent content owners trying to force them into other methods that have been a moneymaker in the past but which are simply falling out of date and out of favor. Viewers overseas are generally unable to access sites like Hulu because TV series are released later overseas and the networks don't want shows available online until they've been on TV there. In a way that makes sense, but since overseas viewers are already going to pirate sites to get their current shows, wouldn't it make sense for networks to adjust their timing to take advantage of that demand? Consumers who would be willing to pay are instead turning to pirating sites not because they're free but because for many series that's simply the only way to watch a show online. Networks end up leaving money on the table because they aren't wilng to adjust their business model.
They probably do this because it's worked for them before, but that past success in the courtroom and other arenas has made them lazy now. In 2001 a group of TV networks filed suit against ReplayTV, which produced a DVR with an automatic "commercial skip" feature that detected commercials during playback and skipped past them. Rather than finding other ways to generate revenue the networks instead turned to the courts, their justification being that this technology fundamentally altered their ability to make money (kind of like electric lights fundamentally altered the oil lamp industry's ability to make money, though I don't see anyone pining for that). ReplayTV filed for bankruptcy in 2003, so the networks won, but their success kept them from devising better alternatives. Today, DVRs still have fast forward buttons, and I doubt very many people who watch a recorded program are still watching commercials, so the networks still face the same problem.
(By the way, one justification Fox TV uses for not making shows available online until 8 days later is that the new method of counting viewers that get reported to advertisers is a "telecast plus 7 days" model, which assumes people record shows for later viewing and then watch the commercials -- a total scam, in my opinion, since as mentioned earlier, very few people are likely to actually be watching those commercials)
This isn't just limited to the networks. Music companies were successful in shutting down Napster but only later did they start getting smarter about actually distributing music digitally themselves. Had they focused on their business practices rather than litigation, they could be a lot farther along. Digital content carries a marginal cost of 0 (that is, an additional customer doesn't carry additional costs, unlike a DVD, which requires a disc, packaging, and shelf space for each additional unit to be sold) so it can be a great moneymaker even at a low price, because once the fixed costs are paid, everything beyond that is profit.
The lesson here is that, when your industry goes through fundamental changes, you need to adapt to that change and take advantage of emerging opportunities, rather than expecting the government to fix your problem or otherwise sticking your head in the sand and ignoring those changes. Sure, you might be successful in suing someone, but once the public knows that other, better distribution methods are available, they're going to demand them, and if you ignore that and try to stick with outdated methods, you will lose legitimate customers who will otherwise turn to pirating (or its equivalent for your product) or just quit consuming your product altogether.
The idea of looking for the best distribution method isn't restricted to those who produce content. You might think that hairstyling doesn't really lend itself to methods other than cutting hair in a salon, but give it some thought. Is there a market for house calls? What about doing hair for a wedding onsite rather than having the wedding party come into the salon in the days leading up to the ceremony? If you can provide a desirable distribution method while your competitors aren't, you can soak up part of the market that they're leaving behind.
None of this is a justification for illegal behavior on consumers' part, but at the same time, there's not much excuse for using taxpayer funds to support dumb business decisions by content owners who are too lazy to make changes or too incompetent to be able to. If you're smart, you'll focus on making the best business decisions rather than counting on the courts or the Congress to protect you from yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)