Showing posts with label risk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label risk. Show all posts

Thursday, July 23, 2015

The Entreprenurial State


It has become common to believe that the government should keep its hands off business and job creators.  This idea is amplified by the right wing.  It is very true that individuals have intelligently, persistently, luckily and perhaps above all courageously brought civilization forward in an economic sense.  Real innovation is often against the status quo.  It also is true that when people band together they can accomplish more things.

There will always be a delicate balance between individuals and the collectivity.  It is true that we are all pressurized by our peers not to step too far out of line.  Status quo is comforting for many people.

I first saw Mariana Mazzucato on TVO's The Agenda with Steve Paikin.  Her comments stood in stark contrast to what I consider blow-hard opinions.  The blow-hards are basically self righteous individuals who have achieved success or visualized it, as separate from government.  They overlook their good fortune and the support they received from many quarters including government.

She links herself to John Maynard Keynes and Joseph Schumpeter.  Keynes is the one known for advocating increased government spending when the economy is depressed and Schumpeter is the one known for advocating innovation as the key to growth.  When times are tough private businesses curtail their spending including research leaving the government, if willing, to pick up the slack.  In good times Mariana finds that private business is really only interested in the short term.

Risk is a term used a lot, particularly to justify higher returns.  Another term Mariana likes to draw attention to is "uncertain."  There are many factors (including risks) that can be gauged as probabilities, but there are many other factors (unknown unknowns) that are not at all predictable.  These other factors can have a positive or negative impact on success, but in the field of basic research they can lead in new directions.

World War II provided an opportunity.  During the war scientists were gathered together to work on many military tasks perhaps culminating with the the Manhattan Project.  Working together and across disciplines they pointed the way to maintain military superiority.  After the war, groups developed to maintain competitive strength.  Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency known as  DARPA was one result.  Sputnik spurred even more research funds as the whole country felt threatened.  The Japanese were a few steps ahead regarding semi-conductor research and this was also a concern.

Their research provided the basic building blocks for iPhone, iPad, GPS, many pharmaceuticals, etc. etc.  After the expensive and risky steps had been taken some sharp people like Steve Jobs and many others were able to put products together that were commercially viable.  In fact most businesses and even venture funds shied away from expensive risky research, especially where they could not see a quick commercial application.

Today many see climate change as the number one priority.  Usually successful new technologies are disruptive to old technologies, i.e. creative destruction. The fossil fuel industry (oil, natural gas and coal) have had a long development (entrenchment) with large very significant sunk costs.  They have all the power to resist and the comfort of consumers on their side.

Bottom line:  do innovators give back to the community that supported them when it was needed?  Apple is used as an example--much of the basic research and development was done through government resources. But jobs go where they can be done cheapest and the company has developed strategies for minimizing taxes.  They are not unique.

A few conclusions.  The government can have a critical role in innovation and is in a position to take necessary risks on behalf of its citizens.  The government needs to recover some of its costs from developing innovations in part to continue its role in innovation.  Taxation is one way and even equity positions might be another.  The government above all needs to be recognized for its role.  Marianna makes many too often overlooked points and some useful suggestions.

I would add one more detail that the government provides towards innovation and that is education.  Some will point out innovators who dropped out of school and to be sure there are plenty to be found.   There are just as many innovators who were inspired by a teacher (in the formal system or outside).   To communicate their discoveries someone needs to read, write and understand, skills most often acquired in formal education.

The lion and the pussy cat on the cover were inspired by some words of John Maynard Keynes who was talking about animal spirits with regard to business.  The question is which animal represents business and which the state.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Bollywood stars

Where is the line between established and promising?  After two or three movies some actors are already established if not yet major stars.  Depending on how you view it there are only a very few major stars and lots of established actors with a following. They jockey for fan support and suitable job opportunities.  Eventually the major and established stars will move on and need to be replaced.

To make a living in Bollywood (or Hollywood) you have to be willing to cater to what the market expects.  I like to think of myself as selective in my viewing, but recognize money is made by catering to consumers who expect sex, violence, action, romance and not simplicity.  If actors and technical staff want to survive they have to fit in.  When I see an interesting actor in an above average movie I want to see more of them, but they have to make a living.  Aamir Khan is admired and respected because he is very selective and then very focused.  He has earned that.  It is too bad that new talent has to go through a lot of hoops.

Trusting an untested actor to help carry a film is risky, but a bonus is that it is cheaper. Often it is a producer director team that decides  Sometimes an established producer has the confidence and desire to launch a new star and gain new respect.  When an actor is hot they generally have new opportunities, but they have to be careful not to get bogged down in mediocre or worse films.

Ayushmann Khurrana starred in "Vicky Donor"  and came from  a tv background.  This first movie was a big winner with critics and fans.  The more recent "Bewakoofiyaan" with Sonam Kapoor, an enjoyable, but not excellent romance comedy.

Alia Bhatt in "Highway" showed good acting, but not sexy in my opinion.  "2 States" was, one of my favourites for the year  and Alia was a big part of my enjoyment.  Not so impressive in "Humpty Sharma ki Dulhania" but it must be said a script and director do make a difference.  Looking forward to watching her in future projects.  Check out post on "2 States" at http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/07/2-states-new-favorite.html

Sidharth Malhotra got off to an unusual start as an assistant director for "My Name is Khan."  His screen debut was with "Student of the Year"  I watched and enjoyed him in "Ek Villain"  and "Hasee toh Phaee"  Apparently he will be playing opposite Katrina Kaif which represents a step up in box office acceptance.

Yami Gautam in "Vicky Donor" got off to a good start in Bollywood, but I was not impressed with "Total Chaos"  I watched an earlier Punjabi movie,  "Ek Noor" where she had a bit part in a movie I loved.  I hope she gets a chance to show her talent.

Ileana D'Cruz comes from non Hindi background, but once established in Telegu and Tamil films Bollywood brought her to be  one of three leads in"Barfi" a critically acclaimed move that was a lot better than the trailer led me to believe it would be.  Ileana played a philosophical woman who lost her love over many years.  She seems to have been in a few poorly reviewed movies since then, but still seems possible to break through.

Varun Dhawan got started with a showcase movie, "Student of the Year" directed and written by Karan Johar with two other debutantes which did well at box office, but not with critics.  I missed that one, but did see him in "Humpty Sharma ki Dulhania" and although ok, not impressed.

Sonaski Sinha apparently had good connections and started off as a leading lady with the likes of Salman Khan, Akshay Kumar, Ajay Devgn, Saif Ali Khan and Shahid Kapoor in mostly action movies.  I saw only clips of most of them, but can say she is an impressive dancer.  She was exceptionally good opposite Ranveer Singh in "Lootera," but  just fluff in "Holiday" a very successful movie and one of Akshay Kumar's better movies.

Sushant Singh Rajput got his start in television series and did his movie initiation with "Kai Po Che"  Since then has done "Shuddh Desi Romance"  He has a few interesting movies lined up. Check post on "Kai Po Che" at http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/05/kai-che-po.html

Rajukumar Rao was first noticed by me in" Kai Po Ch"e which was a movie from a book by Chetan Bhagat.  But Raj upset me by playing the role of the guy who broke Kangana Ranaut's heart as an arrogant, indecisive fiancee, in "Queen" but in all fairness we weren't supposed to like him.  "Shahid" was not a big money maker, but he played a sympathetic character. In "City Lights" he also showed a great emotional range--a country bumpkin coming to the big city and right away being ripped off and later being led into a corrupt job.  He has taken some tough roles and has shown some versatility.

Shradda Kapoor has done a few movies, but stepped up to an impressive leading role in "Asqui 2" and followed it up in "Ek Villain" where she was killed off in the beginning, but seen in many flashbacks.  I haven't yet seen what some describe as the best Bollywood film of 2014, "Haider" but I understand she played a difficult supporting role well.  This last movie was such she will probably be given more opportunities.

Parrineeti Chopra  started in "Ricky Bahl vs the Ladies" supporting the stars, but drew attention from both reviewers and movie goers.  Saw and enjoyed her in "Hassee toh Phasee" where she played a really odd character.  "Shuddh desi Romance" was her first solo movie and she performed very well in a so-so movie.  A big surprise was Vanni Kapoor who took a bit role and left an impression.  Parineeti is appearing next in a Tamil film that seems a remake of "The Wedding Planners" that launched Ranveer Singh and helped boost Anuska Sharma to an established star.  Parineeti is the most likely to succeed-- as she not only has good screen presence, but I read she gets along with those she works with.   "Kill Dil" is getting mediocre reviews, but I want to see it for her and the Shankar Ehsaan Loy music.

I am waiting for one of my new favourites to emerge in bigger roles.  Rajeev Khandelwal, like a few others started in television.  In 2008 his first movie was "Aamir" followed by other critical successes, "Shaitan", "Soundtrack" and "Table no 21"  Not quite in the big leagues, but an established recognized star.

There are many more that could have been mentioned, but the ones in this post I have been fortunate enough to have seen and for the most part enjoyed.  If your favourite or someone you think noteworthy was left out please feel free to comment.

It boils down to selection.  If you are too fussy you won't get a chance to know and be known, but if you accept a pattern of roles you can be type cast.  The budget dictates the support any individual actor will get.  Every detail adds or subtracts from the impression.  All a movie fan can do is support what you like as best you can and hope others share your preferences.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

WE ARE ALL THE MIDDLE MAN EVERYONE WANTS TO ELIMINATE?

Have you ever heard the phrase we have lower prices because we eliminated the middle man?  Sales people are all too familiar with efforts to cut out the middle man or at least his commissions.  What is the middle man and why does he (or she) exists in the first place?  Can you survive as a middle man (or woman)?

What is the role of a middle person?  The term implies a connector.  The middle person is one person bringing resources from one party to a second party who can use the resources.  At one time people did everything themselves, but not too many recall those days.

The first selling efforts were directly from one seller to one buyer.  Somebody had something someone else wanted and they bartered.  Might have involved goods (like meat, tools, weapons) or services (like protection, hunting or sex).  Previously one of them might have beaten up the other, but that is not "civilized."  We progressed to higher levels of specialization and at some point developed an idea of a currency so that the seller could use the proceeds to buy something else entirely.

The emergence of a middle person occurred when retailing evolved with one smart person selling goods they accumulated from different sources and could sustain a living and even wealth.  Really all he was doing was bringing buyers and sellers together in a more convenient manner (early one stop shopping).  It would have started on a local scale with perhaps one person agreeing to sell a variety of produce from one farmer or from a group of farmers and hunters.  As society prospered the concept of luxury and beauty became more prominent.  A merchant would seek luxuries and beautiful things from further afield to re-sell to those who could afford more expensive items.  Manufacturing could start to thrive perhaps in the field of textiles (clothing, bedsheets, etc) or furniture or utensils and tools.  Sometimes it might be on consignment or other times the merchant would take the risk of buying.  This would let the farmer or manufacturer concentrate on putting out the goods

The merchant has taken a risk.  As time went on innovations became more common.  Someone found a better tool.  Prosperous people wanted to surround themselves with beautiful (and prestigious) objects.  The middle person can help bring new and aesthetic goods into our world meaning they ave to be concerned about fashion tastes and competition.

Gradually many manufacturers became bigger, but most did not have the network or the expertise to actually sell all their goods.  Wholesalers took some of the risk by buying inventory ahead of time. Now you have three levels--the producer of goods, someone storing the goods until someone else can relieve the risk and finally the retailer who puts the goods up for sale.  It eventually got more complicated with consumers buying at one level and tradespeople buying the same or similar goods as part of their services at another level.  Eventually there would be more than one level of wholesaler.

On one hand it is risky to take on or create inventory that might not sell enough for a profit.   Then there is the human tendency to get comfortable with previous choices that worked out acceptably. There has always been another way of doing things and often they were better than our comfortable habits.  The manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers all were involved with selling to the next level and developed employees or agents that concentrated on the selling part of the business.

The middleman can be found at different levels.  Someone was employed to get manufactured goods to the wholesaler.  Someone else was employed to get the goods from the wholesaler to the retailer. And the retailer is really a middle man as well between the wholesaler and end user.  They are each taking a cut of the profit and each performing a service in a competitive market.  If after all the effort the end user decides it is not an acceptable value then everyone in the chain will lose repeat and referral business.  It might also be useful to remember that each cut of the profit allows the middle man to be an end user for someone else.

The problem today has evolved.  With computers and communications it is far easier for the actual producer of products and the people who want to use them to find each other.  This eliminates the need for many middlemen.  We can easily bypass not only a single middleman, but a variety and of course the price is lowered. There is of course a few complications with perhaps the biggest being the competitive intertwined market place.  There are so many products from a variety of sources that offer  a very wide range of problems that it is often very difficult to determine what is the best fit.

I remember a sociology professor saying a bigger population allows more complexity.  I also remember a sales tape that talked about how everything is getting more complex.

As a consumer I enjoy this new power, but am behind many of my more sophisticated colleagues. Recently I made a purchase of an e book.  Several middle people were cut out.  The author and publisher still got a cut and someone had to provide the mechanism for transmitting the words to my Kobo reader and someone to let me transfer the money from my possession to the seller's possession. But we cut out the printer, the person who sold the ink and another person who sold paper to the printer, the person who would have sold the book to a wholesaler and of course the staff who stacked the shelves, advised interested readers and took my money or credit card at the cash register.  From my view point pretty good deal--I saved money and inconvenience.

Why did I buy that particular ebook.  Well there was a marketing effort for sure to get my attention and I had already been persuaded that computers would help me in various ways and that reading ebooks makes a lot of sense.  I looked over various options for reading and made my decision based on what I knew and felt.  I realize I cannot read every book and did not necessarily choose the most ideal choice for my tastes, but I was able to consider a much wider range than I could have with the resources available to me even five years ago.

Efficiency has done away with many middle men (and women).  Is there any room left for the middle person?

One way of looking at it is that a middle man is between a resource and a need/want.  You can make a living producing goods and services if you can somehow find a way get your goods and services to the market.  A prospective consumer has a problem and is looking for a solution.  Often the deciding on what is the best solution can be very complicated and they only have so much time and energy.

How can you provide a service that facilitates exchange of goods and justifies a cut for you.  The first thing is knowledge.  Knowledge is a very big deal including not only what products/services are available, but what the consumer actually wants or needs or can be made aware of.  Nobody knows everything they need to get through the day and maximize their enjoyment of life.

One special source of knowledge is what might be called applications.  I used to sell a cleaner and as time went by I learned it would do a lot more things than I was originally told and many of them unexpected.  How did I find out?  My own personal experience was important, but even more important was the experience of my customers.  They found the product would do the things I had said and when they encountered another problem they tried it and often found that it worked.  When they told me I suggested it to other people.  All I was really doing was spreading knowledge that made life more pleasant for some people.  A lot of products do more than they are marketed for (and all products have limitations).  A good middle person can help point them out.  To find out more about applications.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/03/applications-in-selling.html

Travel agents used to be a lot more common, but many have been cut out by online purchases.  Most of us are focussed on the bottom line, but in fairness we also have access to opinions.   Opinions of individual users can be dangerous.  Someone who has accumulated a wide variety of opinions is in a better position to advise.

The ideal salesperson is pro active.  The other kind is reactive, in other words waiting for someone else to make the first move.  There are a lot of order takers and sometimes they are so busy processing orders they don't have much spare time.  They are taught to add questions like "with fries?"  Salesmen have always realized they make more sales for items that people want more than what they need, however in today's confusing market it makes sense to make people aware of what they really need to simplify their life.

Another factor is trust.  Indeed there are many opinions, but who do you trust?  Ideally someone who knows both the product or service we are considering, but also who knows just what the potential buyer really wants.  In the past a sales person learned as much as possible about what they were asked to sell and tried to fit it into the needs of prospects.  The more choices available the more confusing the decision process.

In truth the position of the middle person has shifted.  Instead of being between the manufacturer and the retailer they might be working for a manufacturer who deals directly with the consumer.  Usually they are restricted in what they can offer the consumer, but often they do have access to a wide range of products and services to match the consumer's needs.  They could also be a complaint centre representing a manufacturer who realizes it is more effective to deal with difficult situations rather than have a retailer intermediary.

All this is general thinking and you have to sort out what is unique in your experience and where there might be a need not being met.  If there doesn't seem to be a very good fit between your resources and future consumer needs you need to develop one.  In one sense we are all middlemen. But you have to protect your position--using knowledge, being pro-active and earning trust.