Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts

18 December 2013

Solving Puerto Rico 006: Gabriel Pagán

Here's the thing about ideas: the best ones are often the most startling.

On that note, welcome Gabriel Pagán. His idea is simple to express and once you get past the "Huh?" factor, it makes a ton of sense: spread Our government agencies around the Island.

Simple, right? At least in concept, for execution will take some effort. But once you get into the idea, you'll see it has more pros than cons. And no, I won't make a joke about "cons" and government workers. It's your turn.

You can explore this idea with Us by clicking here, or just aim your mouse at the video link below:



You will note that I don't appear at all, except as a disembodied voice. Cheer if you must. A technical glitch kept the camera on Gabriel the whole time, or maybe he rigged the system because he needed the attention.

I doubt that, though. A little.

Either way, take a look at decentralizing Our government and if you notice a trend in these videos, it isn't an accident: many of Our solutions have a common thread.

Enjoy!



The Jenius Has Interviewed.



05 December 2013

Choking Our Information Stirrer-Straw

Look what I just found: an executive order that seeks to centralize all--ALL--digital information sources and services of Our hideous shitfest of a government under one shitpile, the Office of Management and Budget.

Really.

Now I'm not going to sit here on what was supposed to be My week off and tell you that Our digital information system is A+. Or C+. Or even D+. It's more like a D--, but it is making progress. Here are some highlights, in just 7 months:

* Oracle contract reduction cost from $33 million to $16 million.

* Mobile phone compatibility (finally) for government webpages.

* The discovery and elimination of over 64,000 viruses infecting government computers, most of them originating in Russia and China.

* A centralized portal for government tech projects, to avoid waste through repetition or needless redundancy.

* Coordination of agency groups for enhanced inter-agency communication and collaboration.

* Database contract cost reductions, the first ever.

* A Tech Summit, the first such high-profile event in Puerto Rico.

* The implementation of transparency and open source software as the official policy of the government.


In the words of a Mythbuster, "There's your problem!" This power ploy by the OMB--OGP in Spanish, as in Over-Grown Pus-heads--is pretty transparent, seeking as it does to quash not only the notion of "open government data," but also that of "open source software." The order issued would consolidate all purchasing power and purchasing-related decisions into the hands of the OMB, leaving the tech experts as before, "advisors" with the power of watching their best efforts be derailed.

I can practically smell the crabbed hands of Micropore and Bore-acle in this mess.

Now I'm not a techie. Can't program an 8-track to record a video for My Nokia. But I do understand one thing: change hurts. But change is needed, and in Our tech environment, it is absolutely necessary. The change coming out of the technology director's office is a breath of fresh air for two very basic, very cogent reasons:

1) True techies are finally in charge of tech development and policies, and...

2) The established providers are being shown up for what they are: money-grubbing, bribing apes.

Okay, not convinced? Then look at it from another direction, in step-by-step fashion:

Step 1: The current (faux)governor, Alejandro García, "The Ova," made transparency and open source a commitment of his (faux)administration.

Step 2: The OMB Director, one Carlos "¿Quéseyo?" Rivas, decides to unilaterally erase that policy, effective December 15th, 2013.

Carlos ¿Quéseyo? Rivas
Now, analyze:

* Did The Ova decide the policy's time was ova, uh, I mean, over? If so, he is now several parsecs further from considering the potential of maybe having a spinal cord than he was before.

* Has ¿Quéseyo? decided that The Ova is too soft to stop him? In so much hot water that he'll crack before taking action? That The Ova is fried from too many problems and nowhere near enough solutions? Or is it that ¿Quéseyo? thinks The Ova is ultimately a chicken?

* Yes, I enjoyed writing all that.

You see, this 3-page document is not just another dosage of stiff toilet paper, this is a battle for the type of government We will have. On one side sits a group of tech experts who want to implement best practices and truly place Puerto Rico at the forefront of tech innovation. On the other side, you have whores. Nothing more, nothing less.

I know what side I'm on, and there's only side to be on. The days when whores run rampant on Our dollars should have ended long ago. Transparency is a sure way of starting to run them off.

So Let's make sure they stay on the run.



The Jenius Has Spoken.



27 November 2013

Solving Puerto Rico 004: Marcos Polanco

Continuing The Jenius's vidcast series, Solving Puerto Rico, We come to Marcos Polanco. Not only is Marcos a serial entrepreneur, he also worked for the government agency called Puerto Rico Industrial Corporation, better known as TRASH, er, I meant PRIDCO.

Marcos is closely involved with Our start-up community and was a major force behind the successful TEDx San Juan Conference. We cover a series of topics in almost rapid-fire fashion, and leave many more for future chats. Check it out here, or simply click below.



I'm very sure that, time permitting, Marcos will be back on the vidcast. There's too many ideas We could discuss to leave unexplored.



The Jenius Has Interviewed.

13 November 2013

Solving Puerto Rico 002: María José de Mata

The second Gil The Jenius: Solving Puerto Rico vidcast features a talented young lady who is looking to make her way in films and multimedia. Although Puerto Rico is a huge consumer of entertainment, the only genre with a great number of projects is music. Local films are few and far between, and the obstacles We face to increase their number are many.

Some folks might consider that government monies used in supporting films are wasted, when there are drug addicts on the streets, battered women without shelter and politicians needing a late-model Lexus. But it isn't a matter of "or," but of "and." We should have the flexibility and support systems to foster films, decrease the number of addicts, protect battered women and run politicians over with their current Lexus.

María focuses on the film side of the equation, and the chance to develop Our own stories. Use the direct link or just click below.






On the off-chance that you might ask, the cat's name is "Sally."



The Jenius Has Interviewed.



23 September 2012

Transparency FTW

[My Thanks to Janine Mendes-Franco for selecting My recent "We're #1! We're #1! (In Corruption)" post for Global Voices Online. It's been a while since I was honored that way, but that's not Janine's fault; I wasn't producing that much worth looking at. Happy to see it happen again.]


Things on My Island--for it is still My Island--are atrocious, in many ways. We have politicians stealing millions of dollars and names have been named repeatedly, most of the prominently placed in the statehood party, currently running the show like their own carny. We have government services gouging citizens to enrich """public"""" servants and private pockets, which leads back to politicians stealing Our money. Again.

We have a declining economy, further saddled by a government debt fueled by politicians stealing Our money. Parts of Our public property are being sold to line the pockets of private companies and politicians stealing Our money. And the watchdogs We are supposed to have are lapdogs licking the balls of those who feed them the merest scraps of the loot they've stolen over the years.

My go-to solution would be to shoot the vilest offenders, in the face. That--amazingly--is frowned upon. When so-called drug lords do it to each other, over mere money, it's okay, but start talking about shooting thugs and thieves that steal Our money, Our rights and Our future and--Whoa, Nelly!--now We got some 'splainin' to do.

Fuck that. The reasons are obvious: if We don't exterminate the vermin, they will ruin Us. They are close to doing so on a scale that would turn this Island into the second book of the Bible...and no need to re-CGI the parting of a sea. So wiping them out is rational, a measure of sanity and sanitary behavior. That is frowned upon. No wonder We're getting screwed.

But what is really going on? Is the level of corruption so dense and broad and deep that no solution can be implemented? No, it isn't that bad...yet. How do We know? The majority of Our population is still outside of the thievery. If a majority of Us were involved, like the drug lords, the bullets would have been flying. 

Thus: a solution is possible. And the word to trigger it is transparency.

Obviously We can't count on Our media to do this. The newspapers We have are inked toilet paper with their own feces pre-imprinted between pestiferous ads. Radio """pundits""" are very much based on the "ideological idiot" model wherein your personal stupidity in regards to political preferences has to be waved like a party flag in drunken paws. Not to mention that radio journalists suffer the same sans cojones and shit-for-brains mush that affects nearly all Our so-called newspaper and TV journalists, where courage and conviction are tossed aside in favor of gossipy questions, empty-handed rants and huge proclamations of integrity that add up to old triple-penetration whores claiming virginity in any one of their cash-crop holes.

No, We can't count on Our media. The transparency push We need will come from the Internet. Our version of the Internet. To make it work will take a concerted effort, a multi-layered, 24/7, laser-focused charge against "politics as usual, business as usual" and the self-fucking chronic "We're helpless" stupidity of "Ay bendito, what can We do?"

We have the Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, investigative journalism under a non-profit model. We have News Is My Business. There's NotiCel and CaribNews Puerto Rico. There's Think Puerto Rico. There's José Maldonado and Luis Villanueva. We have bloggers like Michael Castro, the pseudonymous Elco Lao and Kofla Olivieri. We have many many more resources that indicate a band of dedicated newshounds who are more interested in facts than fluff, in the grubby details of Truth than the airy bubbles of gossip and who strive to cut through the bullshit because We've had enough of it all.

These are some of the people I follow closely, on Twitter and blogs. I don't agree with them all the time; I don't have to. But what they say is often pointed squarely at Truth and that's a hell of a lot more than what I get from Our so-called "prensa".

Some of them won't want to become part of a "Journalism Strike Force," but I believe enough will want to, those will attract more and We'll have the deep, broad and focused spotlights We need to truly stamp out most of the corruption that rots Our society.

But separately, We can't do as much as We can united. The paucity of local government statistics can be remedied by folks like Leo Gómez and fellow economists, and with those stats, We can challenge the fetid utterances that pass uncontested in press conferences. But stats without analysis and context are useless, so the news sources have to come together to use them. And there have to be outlets for these analyses, ones that don't already have their asses owned by politicians and corporate thieves.

What's needed is a unit formed by as many competent players as possible that not only gathers the news, but studies it and reveals its truths. One that challenges the status quo every day, systematically, loudly and with the conviction that doing so is not obstruction, it is duty. Because I have to keep saying this: the government works for Us. And their dealings in Our name are subject to every--I mean every--level of scrutiny We have the will to apply. If they don't like it--good. They work for Us. We can fire them at will, in lieu of just firing at them.

It will take some time to get this unit to converge and start rolling. But once it does, it will pin elected officials like bugs to cardboard and make them offer proof of what they do and how. Cockroaches flee when light shines upon them, and try as they might, no politician, no political party, no government, has ever effectively shut down the power of a crusade for Truth without using guns. And if they go that route, well We can too. Count Me in either way.

The power of the Fourth Estate is the power of the citizenry to remind the government that it is a servant, not a master, and that it remains only by sufferance. The call to transparency will be fought--bitterly, savagely, criminally, even--but when many lights shine, darkness is ultimately banished.

We can do this. We have to do this. Or the visible future of Our media talent will be scattered jottings about Our collapse and a few maudlin essays of "What once was and could have been."

And that's an Island I won't give a damn about.



The Jenius Has Spoken.



04 May 2012

We're #27...That's Great!

You've probably never heard of The Founder Institute. Some of you may have, but I bet most of you haven't. Don't feel bad: I only learned about them last year. But since that day, I've been a fan.

In a nutshell, The Founder Institute helps create "meaningful and enduring technology companies." It does so using a four-month "idea to execution" process that even allows entrepreneurs the capacity to launch their new venture while working a job. Their process is not for the wishy-washy toe-dipper: it requires a  healthy dose of commitment and sweat. But the results are often fantastic.

Given the paucity of entrepreneurial resources on My Island--a situation akin to finding monkeys in the Arctic--it is a true pleasure to learn that The Founder Institute is now launching its 27th chapter in Puerto Rico. For what can be considered the first time, We will have a world-class entrepreneurial resource helping Our high-energy start-up folks truly reach their potential. It's like the arrival of Major League Baseball to a sandlot park that looks more like a cattle yard.

Okay, maybe Our entrepreneurial environment is not that bad, but it certainly ain't anywhere near being average. Say a 2 on a scale of 1 to 10. But as Jenius Friend Ramphis Castro--he of TedX San Juan fame--said, this is a game-changer.

Now for those of you who want to participate in The Founder Institute development process, you have until May 13th to complete your submission. Yes, Mothers Day; deal. If you really believe you can create a new company that will change the world, or help others change it substantially, then I urge you to believe in yourself 100% and make your way to the Founder website and toss your name into the ring.

The Founder Institute's goal is to create 1,000 new tech companies a year in 30 cities worldwide. Only those of us who have slogged and slugged and struggled with what passes for an entrepreneurial "process" here can appreciate what this means: a chance to finally stand on the global stage as equal partners. We always had the talent to do so: now We have the toolkit to make it happen.

Let's make it happen, over and over and over again.


The Jenius Has Spoken.



28 March 2012

Is The Tech Industry Racist?

So I'm glancing through My e-mail and I notice one from Jen Rhee.

Don't know who that is. Clicked it open.

Hi Gil,


While searching for resources about tech and social media, I came across your site and saw that you had talked about the current digital divide. I wanted to reach out with a graphic about the absence of minorities in today's booming tech industry, which I think would be a great fit for your site. Would you be interested in taking a look?


Thanks in advance,


Jen

Quick Google search satisfied My low-key "Is this spam?" filter. But I took an unconscionably long time to respond to her. Happily, she replied:

Hi Gil,


Thanks for getting back to me. The graphic I was referring to lives here: http://www.onlineitdegree.net/is-tech-racist/


I think your readers will enjoy it, so feel free to share it and let me know if you do! I’d love to get your thoughts as well.


Thanks again,


Jen


The infographic is very large, but here are two facts that are quite stunning:

Population of the U.S of part of A.: Black, 12.8%; Hispanic, 15.4%, Other, 71.8%
Silicon Valley Employment Population: Black, 1.5%; Hispanic, 4.7%, Other, 93.8%

Internet Company Founders, Nationwide: White: 87%; Asian: 12%; Black: 1%


And lest you look at these numbers and think they are merely part of the past, the infographic also reveals that although employment in the 10 largest companies of the tech industry has risen 16%, the number of Hispanics employed in those companies has dropped 11% and the number of Blacks has dropped 16%.


Racist?

Let's start with labeling. In the Silicon Valley Employment Population stat, Asians are classified as "Other," and yet they are 12% of the Internet company founders. By that measure, 99% of all Internet companies are founded by "Whites/Asians" and only 1% by Blacks. And that 99% would ostensibly include Hispanics, lumped with Whites out of carelessness, bias, negligence or because their numbers are too small to separate (in which case they should have been listed to contrast with the size of the Hispanic population.)

In short: the way the data is presented obscures or obfuscates the conclusions...but only to a certain extent. When 28.2% of a nation's population equals barely 6.2% of a major industry's workforce and barely more than 1% of its entrepreneurial founders, there has got to be more than an "oops factor" involved.

So what could they be?

1) Education: The numbers for Hispanics and Blacks are far below Whites and Asians when it comes to college degrees, even in technology-related fields. They have been for a long time.

But isn't Silicon Valley the proud poster child of the college dropout who built a company and changed the world? In fact, isn't the image of the industry one that often eschews "book learning" or "theory" in favor of "just doing it"? Since when did "doing it" have a skin color?


2) Economics: The Silicon Valley scene is rife with venture capital money, in the same way some parts of Colombia are built on cocaine. From a 2011 survey on venture capitalists comes this conclusion: "When looking at race, 86% of investors identify themselves as Caucasian, 10% as Asian and 1% as African American." [Jenius Note: Apparently 4% don't care what they are or don't want to be scrutinized too closely.]

Let Me save you the trouble of scrolling back up for the comparison:

Venture Capital Racial breakdown: White, 86%; Asian, 10%; Black, 1%.

Internet Company Founders, Nationwide: White: 87%; Asian: 12%; Black: 1%


See that? You could make a case that Whites fund Whites, Asians fund Asians (and a little more beyond that) and Blacks fund Blacks, only that Whites and Asians (but especially Whites) seem to have way more money than Blacks.

And if that has been going on for a long time--and it has, because venture capital is about investing in people more than technology or business models--then the more Whites fund Whites, the more Whites there are to fund Whites.

But. If Whites-only VC funds only funded White start-ups, We'd have a clear case of racism. I don't know if We do. If Asians-only VCs only funded Asian start-ups or Blacks-only VCs funded only Black start-ups, would it be racist of them? Couldn't they state that their investments are made to "Offset the limited opportunity (translation: racist policies) offered by Whites-only VC firms"? And would that make it right? [For the record: Exclusion of others because of skin color is racism, no matter who does it to whom. Period.]

And yet, successful VC firms, like most companies, thrive on having a variety of peoples with a variety of skills and outlooks. Racism that seeks to limit the potential of a team, group or company to "Only those that look like Me" run the very real risk of getting their asses handed back to them waxed and pounded flat by companies who know that talent, skill and energy come in all skin colors.

However, that leads to a third possible factor:

3) Social inequality: Not that Asians, Hispanics or Blacks are less capable, only that their opportunity set is smaller because society has barriers for them that don't exist for Whites.* Asians are expected to do well in school, particularly math and technology. Given their relatively small percentage of the population (4.4%), they account for a significant amount of college degrees (2008-2009): Bachelor's: 7%; Master's: 6.1%; Doctoral, 5.7%, and an impressive 10.4% of First Professional degrees. In every case, they exceed their population percentage, whereas Hispanics and Blacks are below their population percentage at every degree level.

Is that racist? I don't think so; it's merely a series of factual data points. But is the opportunity set the same? Here's a litmus test: Jeremy Lin. Apple Store Genius you want fixing your MacBook Pro or last man chosen at a pick-up basketball game...and only because he brought the ball? Most likely both, though he's really a key component of the Knicks in their run to the playoffs, a major story because he is Asian-American. And why is that? Because Asians are not really supposed to be major basketball stars, or athletes in general. Mathletes, sure. Feisty-gutsy point guards with skillz? Not so much.

The opportunity set, the potential pathways to growth in a society, are not truly equal. Never have been, anywhere. In the U.S. of part of A., Whites have advantages over Non-Whites, mainly in that they go to jail far less often though Whites commit as many crimes as Non-Whites. Education is highly-praised and touted by all races, but Asians are perceived to be tigerish about it, while Blacks and Hispanics are perceived to be trapped by a system and Whites are perceived to be gliding through it in pursuit of high grades that don't entail effort.

Those are perceptions. The realities are that Whites have more college degrees, more money and more access to both than Asians, Blacks and Hispanics. What the IT industry reflects in Silicon Valley is most likely a snapshot of nearly all other "knowledge economy" industries in the nation. I dare say that others are worse; Wall Street, for example. And beyond private enterprise, the disparity is similar, as a glance at the justice system or Homeland Security will reveal.

What the infographic doesn't touch is the male/female breakdown of Silicon Valley, the Top 10 tech companies and VC firms with their investments. Racism and sexism often go hand -in-hand, so maybe that data would help clear up the picture, though clarity may have already been achieved.

Again, does all of the above mean that the IT industry is racist? Yes, it does. There is definitely a racial component to the huge disparities, a consciously chosen set of decisions that produced these results. Just like the conscious decisions of a nation have led to the following results, a horrendously damning indictment of the entire society Silicon Valley is ultimately part of:


Notice how in this "industry," Hispanics and Blacks have truly higher percentages than Whites...which is how Whites want it.

Racist? From Silicon Valley to Wall Street and everywhere in between in this once-great "Land of the Free"?

Definitely racist.


The Jenius Has Spoken.


* If you don't think there are barriers for Non-Whites in the U.S. of part of A., you have obviously never heard of Arizona, Alabama or Georgia, don't understand the true target of "the Drug War" (hint: it has NOTHING to do with any drug) and are completely delusional. Which means you vote Republican. But I repeat Myself.

27 February 2012

Symantec Bullshit

What two things do the capital cities of Buenos Aires and San Juan have in common?

Kudos to you if you came up with two that aren't "The primary language is Spanish." And kudos to statehooders who know (or look up) that Buenos Aires is the capital of Argentina. All six of you deserve a medal.

But I bet none of you guessed that "dangerous Internet" links both cities. According to a report by Sperling's BestPlaces and Symantec, Buenos Aires and San Juan are the two cities with the highest risk during Internet access, primarily from WiFi networks and cell phone use.

Do tell. Who benefits from this news? Going back to the report's authors, We have BestPlaces, who wants you to go "there"...and Symantec, a cyber-security company.

Do tell.
Now the article cited goes on to say that the report is based on a projected risk, in other words, it amounts to someone's opinion that these 2 cities are dangerous for Web users. And even though the report cites the "high number of reported cyber-crimes" in Buenos Aires, they also note this is in direct relation to the high usage rate of social media, computers and broadband access that the Argentina capital has.

Tack this on: Symantec admits that the "highest risk" cities are not necessarily those "with the highest rates or instances of viruses or cyber-attacks." Oookay...


In other words, Symantec is saying: We made this shit up to scare you.

Do tell.

Are We surprised at this tactic? No. It happens all-too-frequently and for nebulous goals more atrocious than trying to sell security software and hardware. What frosts My perineum in this case is that Symantec chooses to use My Island's capital city in its bullshit report.

I've lived and worked very happily never having spent a second's notice on Symantec, and will go back to that state of bliss after this post, but for now, I call "Bullshit!" on these cyber-pests and wish that they choke to a horrible death on their idiocy in the coming tech cycle.

As for BestPlaces, I strongly suggest that in the future they avoid being drunk before getting into bed with someone. Especially one as stupid as Symantec.



The Jenius Has Spoken.

24 February 2012

TEDx San Juan: Giovanni Rodríguez - Part One

Sometimes an interview unleashes so many angles and threads that bringing it together in one article is either an exercise in futility, unintended censorship, cherry-picking (a form of intended censorship almost indistinguishable from editing) or an article so long it becomes practically unreadable.

In the case of My conversation with Giovanni Rodríguez, social media expert, I chose to follow part of the tapestry of topics We created in one post and come back to other parts of the tapestry later.

So here We go, with Part One of Our conversation with the Parranda Man.

Giovanni is the Chief Strategy and Marketing Officer for Deloitte Postdigital Enterprise (enabling government and business to better engage with employees, consumers, and citizens), a founding board member of LATISM and serves as advisor to the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics. He's also a blogger for Forbes Magazine and ClickZ. His presentation at TEDx San Juan was about the power of social media and its connection with the growing power of Hispanics.

A key point to grasp about Giovanni is that he is very much Puerto Rican, although Bronx-born and despite having not visited the Island for a couple of decades. The connection? Family. The daily give-and-take of culture and mores that make up a national feeling. That's why Giovanni's return to Puerto Rico was--in his words--such a seminal moment, for he understood the deeply-felt connection that people can have with their homelands, that yearning to go back someday.

This insight helped Giovanni recast his work in a different light, more about the connecting and less about the technology aspect. In his work, scanning and analyzing approaches to Hispanics, Giovanni has seen a change based on non-Hispanic realization that Mexicans are not Puerto Ricans are not Cubans. "Hispanics" are not all one people, and yet within that variety, there exists commonalities, primarily centered on education and immigration. (Not applicable to Puerto Ricans, but We get lumped into the debate in other ways.)

The commonalities are such that often an attack on one Hispanic group causes a ripple effect of support from other nationalities, a form of "We demand respect" unity that has profound and far-reaching repercussions. Giovanni pinpointed that reality by coining the term "metatribe" to describe what happens with Hispanic variety/commonality.

The fact is that Hispanics are now the largest minority group in the U.S. of part of A. and by 2050 could exceed being 33% of the nation's population. With that increase in numbers comes a consequent rise in buying power, as businesses have noted...and a rise in voting power, as Democrats and Republicans have noted.

It is fair and accurate to say that Barack Obama's rise to the presidency was fueled by cutting-edge integration of the Internet and social media...and Hispanic voters. The support generated by savvy new media strategies and get-out-the-vote grassroots campaigning was enormous, but the power of Hispanic votes was vital in major key states.

As Giovanni points out, it still is: the first ads of the 2012 campaign--of both parties--were targeted at Hispanic/Latino (choose your term) voters...and one was in Spanish. Imagine: a U.S. of part of A. presidential campaign ad not in English. Eso es poder, compadre.

However, Giovanni noted that the parties differ greatly in their approaches. By philosophy, the Democratic Party is more compatible with most Hispanics (Cubans being a notable exception), with the party's emphasis on broadening immigration quotas, social services, education and minority rights. The Republican Party, currently spearheading a wide series of anti-immigration laws, is seen as anti-Hispanic. Toss in their focus on reducing social services and education for minorities and you have the makings of a very interesting media experiment in "whitewashing" a party's image for a primary voter group in 2012.

For both parties, Giovanni says, the key is to merge offline and online activities. The Obama 2008 campaign success was built on that merging, but time and technology have created a greater potential platform with the concomitant greater reward/risk factor. Hispanics are very keen users of social media (ranking first in Facebook, a close second on Twitter and again first in average cell phone usage), so the improved platform allows for faster, more focused and responsive organization.

Two recent examples of this new paradigm are the reaction to a perceived slur on ABC's now-defunct "Work It"--galvanizing Puerto Ricans and Hispanics to protest vehemently and effectively--and the Susan G. Komen Foundation fallout after the breast cancer awareness group chose to stop supporting Planned Parenthood. Both ABC and the Komen Foundation were forced to back down from the fallout--and unlike previous "retractions"--these were clearly not based on profit losses, but solely on the public image of their new (recast) positions.

Giovanni said that the Hispanic's growing population, power and presence needs to be understood in order for the conversation it engenders to be guided and molded. He wasn't speaking about "manipulating" Hispanics, but about the communities themselves grasping what their power is, how they can use it and on what issues they can best take advantage of that power. In classical terms of realpolitik, Giovanni is describing the "It isn't power if you don't use it" and the "Fringe groups must move to the center to consolidate power" tenets.

If that sounds menacing, then you haven't understood what it is all based on. As Giovanni discussed, the technology that enables and enhances social media is available to "everyone" (keep this in mind; another angle below), and what it has done is to take what was once "limited" and given access to all. In the past, publishers, newspapers, radio and TV had unique channels they controlled: now We have blogs, self-publishing, aggregators, YouTube, podcasts, Twitter, Facebook and 24/7 access to the world in Our hands. The growing power of Hispanics in this new world is built on the growing power We all have. That means We all have a responsibility to use that power wisely, and Giovanni is at the forefront of that movement.

And yet, not "everyone" is equal: there does exist a digital divide, a chasm between the haves and have-nots in terms of technology and Internet access. At first, that digital divide was structured around economic classes, poor versus rich. Technology and Internet access is now so cheap and ubiquitous that the digital divide is reframed as "levels of use," non-user versus power user. And as Giovanni wrote about a year ago, guess who leads the nation in "power use"?

Again, the implications are enormous. If the education divide between minorities/poor and  the non-minority/wealthy (very real, very pernicious) continues, but the digital divide "flips" the equation, what does that mean for the nation's future? An obvious point: most of the content is non-Hispanic in origin, so crossing this "digital divide" into content production is a key step. What would a more "Hispanic" Web or social media environment be like? What would it mean for marketers, businesses, industries and consumers? What would it mean in terms of public debate and policy?

Neither those questions nor a responsible conversation on the use of this growing power will happen unless commitments are made and kept. Giovanni is working with LATISM and the White House to partner with communities and organizations nationwide to develop that broad-based, effective network for the future. In essence, the focus is on learning to navigate what is an often confusing mélange of data, trends, technologies and opinions. It is the landscape of the early 21st century, it is disruptive and chaotic...and yet it is created by Us. Non-participation won't change it. Only by actively and intelligently slicing and dicing can anyone have a true impact. In Giovanni's words, "Even a tiny slice can yield great results...the challenge is to figure out how and how to do it consistently."

There's more to this topic and a whole new set of topics touched on and discussed by Giovanni that will become posts here in the near future. For now, keep this in mind: the event that galvanized and launched an entirely new social media reality with truly global implications is happening again this year: the Presidential elections. Only this time, the toolkit is larger, the strategies are sharper, the stakes are higher and Hispanics are bigger players on this stage.

And Giovanni is spotlighted on that stage. Cool, huh?



The Jenius Has Spoken.

[Update: 7 March 2012: From Foreign Policy, an eye-opening examination of how the Republican Party is driving Hispanic votes towards Presdient Obama.]

16 February 2012

TEDx San Juan: Ramphis Castro

Ramphis Castro, a computer engineer in his non-secret identity, is a key member of the TEDx San Juan  event group. Through him, I learned about the effort to do a TEDx conference on the Island and We talked about that, as well as the entrepreneurial environment of Our Island.

For the TEDx San Juan team, the goals for the event were to reveal the people who were doing noteworthy projects, get them and the invited audience to meet and hopefully establish new collaborations. In those respects, Ramphis feels that the event was truly a major success. However, getting there was not so easy.

The search for sponsorships to secure funding for the event started with, reasonably, major companies. What the TEDx San Juan group discovered was that these big corporations didn't really understand the TED concept and were more concerned with the group's "track record" than anything else. Their general take was "Have the event and if it succeeds, then We'll be interested." In addition, there was a sense that these "established entities"--maybe We can call them the "Establishment"--were less-than-keen to support an event that didn't fit their limited "box" of ideas or didn't seem to directly support their "agenda."

The cold-calling slog at that level was quickly replaced with a new strategy: approaching small businesses and non-profits. The amount of money needed to hold the event was not that much; as Ramphis pointed out, many of the large companies spent many times the TEDx San Juan budget on crap (My word). It wasn't like TEDx was a "break the bank" (pun intended) risk.

[Aside: I've decided not to mention the companies Ramphis and I talked about, not because they deserve anonymity--they don't--but because TEDx San Juan is about synergy and collaboration: dissing anybody at this early stage amounts to closing doors needlessly. But you can call Me to ask who We talked about.]

What was slow bureaucratic protocol based on "Who are you?" and "Why do you want to do this event?" in the Establishment was replaced by quick acceptance and support from small companies and non-profits, who didn't care that Ramphis, Marcos Polanco and the rest of the TEDx team had never done this event before, or that the event had a global focus rather than a local one: what mattered to them was that it was a potential lever for change.

Ramphis discussed how what the Establishment has is power, and though they could make great changes with that power, their focus above all is self-preservation; the status quo must be defended. For the rest of us, isolated from the progress We should be able to achieve because those with the responsibility of helping changes emerge refuse to "open certain doors," shredding the status quo is a good thing.  As Ramphis pointed out, We search for options for progress, and in the TEDx case, the smaller companies are not only more nimble to react, they are more willing to embrace change. And they did, usually with one just call.

TEDx San Juan hit the local scene like a flash-bomb of creativity and passion. Ramphis noted that the most important results would be seen post-event, as the ideas and collaborations start spreading their influences. He replied to My observation about the "high energy" at the event with, "It was one thing to anticipate it, because We did, but it was another to actually see it."

Switching gears, I asked Ramphis for his overview of the entrepreneurial environment here. His first observation was that although We do have an entrepreneurial streak in Our culture, most of Our entrepreneurs are "accidental," i.e., folks who've lost their jobs and are forced to start a business to secure income. In Ramphis' view, We aren't taught how to be entrepreneurs and the resources at hand are not truly geared to helping a business get off the ground. For one, there's protectionism by larger established companies, limited financial supports and though there has been some reduction in government red tape, there's still an often-bewildering array of steps to complete to just start a business. Faced with that panorama, Ramphis says, many of Us just "give up and sit in a corner to cry."

But Ramphis goes on to say that "Everywhere is hostile to entrepreneurs." Starting a business is not easy and that's simply a fact. Those who succeed don't care that it's difficult because their focus is on change. In Our case, Our reliance on "the government" is a barrier because, Ramphis notes, they don't know how to change the system to create an environment of true economic progress. For example, the government looks to big companies to increase jobs, but 2/3 of new jobs are created by start-ups and new companies. If a big company does add 400-500 jobs, it's because they cut 2,000 jobs someplace else, and the same can and does happen to Us when We're (increasingly) on the losing end.

Once again, the Establishment serves more as obstacle than as facilitator, self-preservation trumping "a rising tide to lift all boats," for fear of sinking the ship. But Ramphis notes that entrepreneurialism is not a "magic bullet": it will not "cure" an economy nor is it to be some isolated tool for economic progress. It has to be coordinated with other changes to create a support system that helps create more opportunities across the board, rather than just for new companies.

To Ramphis, the biggest change for economic progress is the Internet because it drastically lowers entry barriers for nearly all businesses. However, by itself, it doesn't change the need for financial support or the reliance on knowledge, specifically education on being an entrepreneur, a subject Our school system doesn't even glance at. And yet, for knowledge, the Internet is its own solution, and thus there's no excuse for anyone to say they can't learn about a product, service, market or industry: it's within keyboard reach.

However, to sell to foreign markets, Ramphis acknowledges We have an "island mentality" that doesn't look outward very often, but he points out that face-to-face, feet-on-the-ground contact is still a key component to secure sales. He notes that local entrepreneurs are missing the point with a strictly-local focus, or a vaguely "global" one, when he points out that We have 4.7 million of Our Brethren populating the States, more than doubling Our Island population. Selling and marketing to them is as easy as being Ourselves with people like Us who want to support Puerto Rico. Ignoring that market is short-sighted and the sooner companies realize that, the better.

As Ramphis discussed, being an entrepreneur is not about just creating companies, it's about creating wealth. Not in the sense of "I'm going to be rich!", but in the sense of creating an ecosystem of value that benefits more than a handful of people. The lack of vision about this key point is seen in that the only major local "offering" for venture capital funding is basically a business plan competition, where a "home run with one swing" mentality is backed by a limp-wristed $5,000 "pledge" based on a document and process that are largely irrelevant to cutting-edge start-ups. Yes, planning is important, but planning for a year is much less a wealth creator than actually doing the business for most of that year. That myopia is not enough for a powerful vision of progress and never will be.

To My remark about the underground economy flourishing as evidenced by the huge expansion of (permanent) flea markets, Ramphis feels that more than anything else, this is a symptom reflecting the failure of public economic policy, which is lost and confused. What this underground economy does is serve as a "safety net" for those who are left out of the economic loop, but it also traps them there, unable to grow. Few start-ups in Puerto Rico grow to be big, but the flea market environment won't change that reality. What Ramphis does see is that start-up processes at this level are lightning-quick, with clear and simple procedures. Although a government has to be aware of more details, it also has more resources to do so, so streamlining red tape and simplifying procedures should be a true economic boost, as has been shown several hundred times around the world.

A deeper look at economic progress and synergy can also be seen in Ramphis' work with Startups of Puerto Rico, a tech-centric push for entrepreneurial development on Our Island. The goal is to create the environment that start-ups can thrive in. In a nod at the Establishment, Startups of Puerto Rico has a focus where older companies help the newer ones make progress. Although the focus is tech-centric, agility is also a vital trait, so non-tech companies with emerging or created markets can also benefit from the group's expertise.

As for TEDx San Juan, the tentative date for 2012 is December 14. Ramphis indicated that the entire group was not only revved up for this year, but also to support any and all TED-type events that might be held locally. The support gos beyond logistical to include sponsorships, so that the synergy and collaboration can spread even wider.

On a closing note, Ramphis and I agreed to collaborate on highlighting noteworthy projects that barely missed the cut for TEDx San Juan and within Startups of Puerto Rico. Synergy and collaboration.

It's so good to be back in that flow.



The Jenius Has Spoken.

10 December 2011

TEDx San Juan: We're Not Alone

Oh yeah, I was wrong.

TEDx San Juan was a rousing success. As I tweeted: I'll eat some of My words, happily.

Let Me dismiss My off-targets first: I sill don't agree with hiding the speakers line-up until just before the event. Sharing of anything is enhanced by symmetry and symmetry means We have the same or as much of the same (information) as possible. I would have gone to TEDx San Juan no matter the line-up, and...

Given that over 1,000 people applied and only 100 were allowed (My second point) by TED guidelines (for a first event), then there would have been no problem filling up the event. Only 100 was a stipulation, not a whim: I would have liked to know that beforehand. So picking Me to attend was not a mistake (I don't know what criteria applied), but a a pondered decision that actually honors Me.

Now for the positives: TEDx San Juan is the first event I have ever attended locally that exceeded My expectations. My biggest Congratulations go to the organizing team: Ramphis Castro, Iván Ríos, Marcos Polanco, José Padilla, Arelys Rosado and Héctor Ramos. They did a magnificent job.

A special Congratulations goes to Marcos Polanco for coordinating the speakers. I understand the selection was made by a group, but Marcos had the direct responsibility for the line-up and the agenda and his choices in both regards were impeccable.

Another special shout-out goes to Jenial Friend Luis Herrero as his company was in charge of the video and livestreaming, which I understand was world-class.

The speakers deserve their own recognition, to wit:

Justo Méndez, Nuestra Escuela: Born from the tragic loss by auto accident of his daughter, Nuestra Escuela takes in troubled kids and gives them back their capacity to dream and reach that dream.

Fernando Lloveras described why he created an organization to rescue Puerto Rico's rapidly-diminishing land area, preserving it for Our future.

Jorge Rigau presented his two proposals, a Metropolitan Walking Paths project that could easily and economically provide San Juan with some 3,000 miles of "urban walking paths," rescuing little-used spaces and a project, already done once, to convert a 35-kilometer irrigation canals infrastructure into a passive recreation/tourism attraction.

Dr. Daniel Colón talked about the exponential impact and importance of basic research, so strongly-maligned now, in healthcare and broad-based public benefits.

Tara Rodríguez described her Department of Food company, linking organic farm products with urban and suburban deliveries of high-quality vegetables and fruits.

Jorge Gaskins spoke about microalgae and the enormous potential they have for both food and fuel. Key number: microalgae can produce over 10,600 gallons of biofuel per acre per year; no plant can produce more than 780 gallons per acre per year.

Noel Quiñones spoke about and showed excerpts of his documentary about a school in Maricao that after 9 years of failing the standardized department-wide tests, and facing closure if it failed again, dramatically rocketed its scores to pass the tests...in 60 days.

Lawrence La-Fountain spoke of "sexiles," Puerto Ricans who leave the Island or are marginalized because of their homosexuality and how they respond through artistic expression to that exclusion.

Andrea Pérez (daughter of My Friend Lovely Laura) spoke about her personal decision to truly give, consciously developing sustainable charitable work, based on her experiences in Sudan (yes, Sudan) and Haiti.

Giovanni Rodríguez reconnected with his Puerto Rican roots and described his path to becoming a (cheer)leader for social engagement, social media use that foments change amongst Latinos, the "original retweeters." (In joke...)

Mayra Santos, accomplished writer and teacher, told Us two powerful truths: We need to lose Our fear of literature (We don't read enough) in order to tell the world Our stories, for without Our stories, the world and Us are diminished from full potential.

Four videos were shown: Emiliano Salinas on the attitude change needed to properly face up to the horrendous crime wave in his native Mexico; the Khan Academy's re-framing of education; Joan Halifax on the powerful nature of compassion and a brief video with Joachim de Posada indicating that delayed gratification--not eating the marshmallow for 15 minutes (watch the video)--is an almsot 100% predictor of success.

Three artistic presentations, a TED conference requirement, had strong impact as well: Y No Había Luz, Andanza and Time Machine Squad.

For My money, every speaker was a huge hit. I was especially moved by Andrea Pérez, Noel Quiñones and Lawrence La-Fountain, intrigued by Fernando Lloveras, Jorge Rigau and Jorge Gaskins and I fell in love with Mayra Santos (who is a sex symbol and rightly so.)

I must give a special thanks to Dana Montenegro who served as an energetic, quirky and hugely engaging emcee. I can offer no greater praise than "I couldn't have done it better."

Suggestions? Tables so attendees can sit and share, better monitoring of time so We can start/finish and explore with each other during the event and some stronger form of "connecting," like maybe setting up the tables with names so that you end up sitting with a group of (hopefully) strangers that you can then engage with.

But these are minor quibbles, at best. TEDx San Juan was interesting, dynamic, moving and impressive. Three thoughts came together during the event:

1) I'm so used to events like these being "what could have been" that I have become too cynical about "what could be." I won't do that again.


2) I, and We, are not alone. There are plenty of My Brethren who not only want to make a difference, they actually are making a difference.


3) The next TEDx has already begun. And it will be even better than this one.


The Jenius Has Spoken.


[Update: 11 December 2011: Videos of the TEDx San Juan speakers are here.]

08 December 2011

TEDX San Juan: Stale Cracker Or Artisan Bread?

As I write this, TEDx San Juan, first edition, is to start in 17 hours.

I have no idea who's speaking. Or what they'll talk about.


The only information I have is that the theme is "Bursting the Bubble," referring to My Brethren who are pushing the envelope, boricuas breaking new ground. Good. Marvelous. But to be blunt: so what?

Now for the two of you who don't know what the TED events are, they refer to a series of brief (10-20 minute) presentations on topics related to technology, education and design--TED. (Careful: the website is addicting to curious minds. The average statehooder will be bored.) The driving force behind the concept is to bring to light new ideas and have them create synergies. For that to happen, information must flow...so not sharing information defeats the whole purpose of TEDx.

Let Me point out something else: to be able to attend TEDx San Juan, you had to be selected. By who knows who based on who knows what. My feelings about this are best defined by quoting Marx: "I don't want to belong to a club that would have me as a member." What's the idea behind this? (And the Marx quoted was Groucho.)

If the purpose is to "create a better atmosphere/event," then it begs the question: Better for what? And for whose benefit? With no criteria/explanation/definition/reason/plausible excuse offered, then I think the only reason for this little exercise in pedantry is ego: the organizers want to exert a "zero-sum" level of control over an event that is meant to be the total antithesis of that (poor) posture.

More proof? No agenda yet, a "You can't prepare for this until we say you can" gambit.

Now maybe, as friend Kevin has pointed out, the idea is to enhance the event's appeal or manage expectations by using "surprise" as a marketing tool. I give these a 3 on a scale of 1-10 for marketing ideas, with 1 being tossing a dead cat on the salad bar. I don't buy these as good marketing, much less for a TEDx-caliber event. On the other hand, I've also been told that I shouldn't seek conspiracy where incompetence can be the answer.

I know two of the lead organizers of the event; one I have direct negative experiences with and the other I know only through e-mail exchanges. Of the one I know well, this petty power play seems quite in character, the kind of action a low-level bureaucrat would take in office politics. Given his background of several years in government, where his endeavors labeled him as nothing more than a stale cracker in an artisan bread convention, I can see where TEDx is shaping up to be a severe letdown.

(Clarification: The government of Puerto Rico is by no stretch anywhere near being as good or as productive as an artisan bread convention. I was using the analogy so I could write "stale cracker." My blog, My rules.)

So Jenius, if you're so down on the event, why are you going?

Because I could be wrong. I could be wrong that the agenda, when it is finally revealed, will be a flop, a collection of butt-buddies brought in to present a skewed shadow of "Bursting the Bubble" excellence. I could be wrong that the speakers chosen qualified more as "personal networking" for the Speaker Coordinator than as the antithetical proof that We don't need to live with a zero-sum mentality. I could be wrong that TEDx San Juan has a somewhat hand-picked audience solely/primarily in order to establish a power-base for one or more of the organizers. I could be wrong that I shouldn't have been "selected" to go (and buy a $20 ticket) over others I'm aware were told "You aren't worthy." I could be wrong that this event will fail to coalesce its enormous potential and become another in a long line of "what should have beens."

For those of you not deemed worthy and who believe that not sharing basic information is cool, you can tune into the live stream of the event.

And don't bother looking for @GilTheJenius tweets or live-blogging during the event. I'm not going as a reporter, though I can. I'm not going as a social media user, or even as a blogger: I'm going for My sake, to see if My vision of what's possible in Puerto Rico has been discovered by TEDx San Juan.

If their intent was to control the event to manage My expectations, they failed: I have My own. Always have, always will. Bottom line now is that the organizers have to prove to Me that they can live up to Mine.

Good luck.



The Jenius Has Spoken.

21 May 2011

Blogging At The End of The World

I just had to do something with this, what with the deadline looming and all that...

Good Jenius Friend Gabo Pagán forwarded an e-mail to Me. It was sent by one Saraí Meléndez Rodríguez, who alleges, in the e-mail, to be undertaking a survey amongst local bloggers for her thesis on bloggers' relationship with public relations. Why do I say "allegedly"? Because Gabo pointed out to Me that Saraí works for local advertising agency De La Cruz & Associates.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Saraí Meléndez Rodríguez   
Date: 2011/5/19 
Subject: Investigación sobre blogs en PR 
To: p@upr.edu, a@yahoo.com, o@gmail.com, f@blackberrypr.com, k@gmail.com, p@gmail.com, m@gmail.com, i@carlosambert.com, i@miwindowsphone.net, y@gabopagan.com, r@gmail.com, l@prtc.net, p@gmail.com, p@indymedia.org, y@gmail.com, i@educandoamihijo.com, s@hotmail.com, a@gmail.com

Saludos! 

Mi nombre es Saraí Meléndez y estoy realizando una tesis sobre la relación de los relacionistas profesionales con los blogueros. Haz clic sobre el enlace para contestar un cuestionario sencillo. Te agradeceré que lo compartas con tus amigos blogueros. 

¡Gracias mil! 

Saraí Meléndez 
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/DLR7GC7


I've removed all but the first letter of every e-mail address because (A) It's not My intention to reveal somewhat personal information and (B) to prove (if anyone has any doubt) that Saraí, in Gabo's words, "doesn't seem to know about BCC."

No, she don't.

Now I'm obviously posting this to mock Saraí. What do I care? It'll all be irrelevant by tomorrow, right? But even to the end, I can't help but point a finger at something like this and...snicker.

Maybe Saraí is doing her thesis on bloggers. Perhaps it is merely a coincidence that she works at an advertising/Public Relations firm, or maybe it isn't given that she may be fascinated by the topic. And she did send the e-mail from her personal account, right? So maybe I'm just being a jerk instead of a Jenius.

But.

Here's a question near the end of the of the survey. Up until that point, I was willing to mock gently, as per the post above. You'll see--maybe--why I upped the ante.

¿Existen en tu país listas negras de relacionistas, empresas o marcas con los que los blogueros no quieren trabajar?

Is there in your country a blacklist of public relations (agencies/personnel), companies or brands that bloggers don't want to work with?

Come again? What the hell is this question doing here, aside from pissing Me off? If--and I must emphasize, IF--this claptrap e-mail/survey is about discovering or exploring the relationship between local bloggers and Public Relations, then answer this Saraí, De La Cruz or whoever pooped this crap: Why are you asking "in your country" and about "blacklists?" Is Saraí an alien, a foreigner or worse, a muddle-headed Niuyorican? And is asking about "blacklisting" the way to build rapport and truly explore the growing blogger culture and what it does and can mean to your """thesis""" cum con-job?

And guess what the first request is in the survey? Your name.

Just wondering: does this have anything to do with Burston-Marsteller taking a sponsorship role in this month's local BloggerCon? Is this some sort of Public Relations "land grab" into bloggers and blogger territory? Are they sending some unprepared intern into the blogger wilderness to flush out a quail or an ostrich or something?

So I went back and filled in the survey. With My real name. And then I proceeded to answer the questions any way I wanted to and with venom when it suited Me. Some of what I submitted includes:

*** My blog's name? EstoMepareceunapendejada.com. {In English, ThislookslikebullshittoMe.com}.

*** When asked if I made money with My blog, I used the text box for the next question to say: I lied on the previous question because the option that SHOULD be there is "No and I don't want an income from My blog." But since you're all skanks (flejes) to the highest bidder, everything I wrote between "No" and "But" is like Babylonian cuneiform to what little neuronal tissue you have. 

*** A comparison between P.R. personnel and crack whores. Redundant, but appropriate.

*** That My blog has Chippendale ads run by Alpo.

And when "thanked" for filling out the survey, I wrote: Mierda es.

Bullshit.

Indeed.

As they say in Georgia: Don't you bring that Kool-Aid to My whiskey end-of-days party.



The Jenius Has Spoken.


P.S.
Just as I finished this post, a second e-mail from a___________f@gmail.com (redacted to protect the innocent) came into My Inbox. I called the person whose e-mail was used this past Monday and today, with the recent one saying: "hi gil, i had to fill you in" followed by a link.

She hasn't used her Gmail account in months.

The first e-mail I erased Monday without opening. I went back and checked the link and found it blocked by bit.ly because it had been reported as problematic. The link in the second e-mail is this one: http://burstonmarsteller.com/redirect.php?to=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5jbmJjNy5jb2(Removed 18 alphanumeric characters.)

DON'T CLICK ON IT, PLEASE! (Even with the removed characters.) It's about some work at home bullshit spam scam. But it's nice to know Burston-Marsteller thinks enough about Me to send Me e-mail.

[Update: 22 May 2011: Vía a Google Buzz confab, a LinkedIn profile of Saraí: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/saraí-meléndez-rodríguez/25/b68/a65]

30 July 2010

Political Prognostication

Here are 4 political prognostications you can take to the (failed) bank of your choice:

1) (Non)governor Luis "The Larva" Fortuño will lose the opposition party's primary. (By "opposition party," I mean the statehood party. That he won under in 2008.) The Larva is toast. Cooked like a skinny goose. Walking around with a fork jutting out of his bony ass and several knives lodged in and through (non)vital organs. Done. The product of being a political baby with no plans, no guts, no charisma, no leadership mojo, bad judgment in selecting advisors and Cabinet members and no ability to defend his party base as it was eroded on all sides like a sand castle in a raging flood. On the positive side? He dodged an egg.

2) The Popular Democratic Party (neither one nor the other nor the other) will not select a candidate so much as pick the slowest-moving idiot who doesn't step back fast enough. Remember the Bugs Bunny cartoon where he's in the Army and the sergeant asks for a volunteer and everybody but Bugs steps back? Bingo. That's where the populares are headed. They ain't totally stupid: they know Our economy is a wreck (they helped make it that way) and they know full well that government cuts in jobs are vitally needed (they helped create that mess, too.) With the "threat" of a statehood shadow play--er, referendum--out of the way, why fight hard for a win 2012 when the global economy will still suck? Better to aim for 2016 and hold the fort until then. And who do you hold the fort with, your best guy or your most expendable one? If you find that to be a circular argument I created, then how about this: would the populares rather have Thomas "Mad Führer" Rivera inherit this mess (knowing he's bound to make it worse what with his brain-dead attitude and Pedro Stupid Rosselló connection) or one of their own? 

3) The youth (under 35) vote will become the prominent bloc. Although voting in Puerto Rico has traditionally been in the low to mid-80s (percentage), the bulk of the vote has always been the above-35 crowd. Not so in 2012: for the first time ever, the youth vote will decidedly swing the election. Why? The economy. Jobs are gone and with the (non)administration and the latrinous legislature We have, they aren't coming back anytime soon. (Yes, I wrote "latrinous." It's a word. Now.) The university students were not protesting over "academia's right to exist" or any somesuch bull crap, they were protesting for fear of losing their incubator of prolonged adolescence...and the alternative to finding a job. Think of this: the under-35 demographic is facing the reality of less opportunity, less growth and less reward, the first generation in 70 years to do so. You think the last 2 years haven't shown them--beyond a shadow of a doubt--that their future is looking more and more like garbage every day, that the implied promises of the value of education and hard work are looking more and more like lies, lies that look and sound the same as those the vermin in government spout about their own interests?

4) The campaigns will be almost totally about personalities and almost nothing about issues. We've already walked in that swamp, but the 2012 election will make that swamp look like a rose-water fountain. The 2012 campaign is shaping up to be the "Yo Mama" (or to use the local vernacular, Tu madre) elections. Aside from paying lip service to the economy (jobs, health care, education), but doing so with no hard data aside from self-serving "studies," the campaign will morph from mud-slinging to turd-tossing...and the Internet will lead the way. Unlike the U.S. of part of A., where there's still (barely) a tradition of the media holding candidates and parties accountable to the issues, and the Internet has developed a grass-roots strength, We have media with a long tradition of fearful butt-kissing and collaboration in avoiding serious issues, and Our Internet has the grass-roots ADD of a frat party beer keg Happy Hour. Who will "benefit" from that? The under-35 crowd, for whom technology is a substitute for thinking. And that's where the election will be molded, modded and mutilated. The winners will be those who hit first, hit often and hit with the cleverest lies (marketing, anyone?). The losers will be, as ever, Us.

The Jenius Has Spoken.

19 April 2010

Cellular Li(f)e

From The Economist Online, a website so valuable it should have an ATM in the site map: Puerto Ricans use more cell phone minutes on average than any other country.

And it ain't even close.

Ranked #1 in monthly cell phone use are We, with an average of 1,866 minutes. Second place goes to the U.S. of part of A. with 835 minutes. The rest of the list don't matter, but I find it odd that Japan isn't in the Top 5...

Some conclusions:

--The Economist calls Us "chatty." Let's face it: We just don't know how to shut up. And "free minutes" makes shutting up harder.

--Could We take this as evidence that We can't stand to be by Ourselves, malcontent in Our solitude, outer-directed and insecure to the point of calling someone just to not be alone? I'll say "Yes."

--Why aren't We THE social laboratory for cutting-edge cell phone apps and units? Because We don't care about the rest of the world, so Our opinions don't rate high enough to be worth the investment. (That's My take; you probably have yours. I might even see some validity in it.) 

--Couldn't The Economist find a picture of ANY OTHER Puerto Rican than the one they ran? The shirtless, boxers-peeking young man might be a very nice person, but is that specific picture of him the only fucking choice the editors had for this piece? Really? Like there are NO OTHER fucking pictures of Puerto Ricans wearing suits, semi-formal wear or even stinking bathing suits on Our filthy beaches to choose from other than showing a shirtless guy on a broken sidewalk? Really? Really?

I can think of only one reason why The Economist chose to run that picture (I can think of several, but if I eliminate racism, abject stupidity and a high asshole factor, I'm left with one): To show contrast. The shirtless guy with high-riding underwear is the "freak show" factor underlying the "Would you believe those people are cell phone consumers of the first order?!"

Okay, I was wrong: I included racism, abject stupidity and a high asshole factor in My reason...because The Economist did and I merely called them on it.


The Jenius Has Spoken.

 

29 March 2010

VC In PR

Once again, like a seasonal bout of malaria, the muddle-headed EnterPRize "Business Idea for Venture Capital" ripoff is amongst Us.

For the past several years, Guayacán Venture Capital Fund, along with cronies, has put on a "competition" wherein local entrepreneurs can fling themselves through hoops like sun-stroked seals in the hopes--dim if not totally blind--of receiving a small bucket of cash.

Now the bucket is a thimble: $1,000. For a business idea. In 2010. Uh-huh.

Now I have met several of the "winners" of the EnterPRize competitions and remain in frequent contact with one of the first year winners. By and large, none of the companies selected as winners has set the world on fire, though some have done fairly well.

The problem with the EnterPRize and most venture capital efforts locally are due to 2 factors:

1) The "Every swing a home run" mentality. This mindset leads to two interrelated problems: (1) Not enough money is placed for venture capital to truly develop, and (2) Each potential project is squeezed to a point of paralysis. Venture capital is not a game of home runs, but a game of at bats. It's a game of numbers where the more projects you help develop, the greater the return. Played "Our way," venture capital becomes a miser's dance of well-meaning pressure brokers (the minority) undermining creativity and outright gangsters (the majority) angling to make their money and only their money grow. That isn't venture capital: that is loan sharking. And if you run into a local "venture capitalist" whose initals are "CM," I would advise you to run like hell in any direction away from it.

2) The lack of a "global vision" in Our business community. Very few of Our entrepreneurs have a global vision, an ability to see themselves as affecting people all over the world. Even fewer people on the so-called venture capital side have the global vision. Taken together, what We have is an "Island mentality" further narrowed down by greed. VC business development is not a matter of flinging money blindly at every cockamamie idea that floats by, but it is definitely not achievable with "gator arms" thinking. (To clarify: gators have really short "arms" with barely any reach. Think the rest of it out yourself.)  Hell, We'd be better off with the wild flinging for at least that way We'd get more "at bats" than We have now.

Now when Our (non)government tries to "finance business development," a third factor kicks in: cronyism. Or in its more legal sense: corruption. Our government's track record on helping destroy businesses far far outweighs any pitiful efforts it may have made in developing them. The only reason these programs keep getting funded is so that the ruling party can buy votes.

How should We do venture capital? Glad you asked:

--Establish a VC fund with a minimum of $10 million. Better yet, $25 million. 

--Set a deadline for investing the entire amount at a rate of at least $1 million a month. (A $10 million fund goes out in 10 months or less.)

--Open the competition for funding ONLY to projects that meet the following criteria: Are aimed at existing markets or creating markets of at least 100 million users/clients; aimed at middle-income and low-income users/buyers; are based on integrative technology (not necessarily software, but all technology, capable of linking with exisiting technology, i.e. no "stand alone" products/services) and capable of outsourcing qualified components.

--Have prospective entrepreneurs develop their ideas in 5-10 day workshops running continuously, with the best projects in each group geting $35,000-$50,000 to launch their new businesses.

--Provide the start-ups with "smart offices" in a central facility (if they choose) under a rising commercial rent scale: 0% for 120 days; 33% rent for the next 120 days and 100% rent after that. The purpose: Grow or get out.

--Review each start-up every 90 days. Growers get more resources to speed up; those stuck in neutral get a review to give them 90 more days to get growing; start-ups that aren't holding their own are cut off from the fund and its resources. The 90-day period allows start-ups a chance to flex their skills and creativity without having someone riding their shoulders every day (unless they request that.) Winners get more support and losers get dumped. Simple system to understand and by Jiminy, it works.

--The VC fund investors will get a share of 10% of every start-up launched, with additional percentages per business available through negotiation. If the start-up wants to go elsewhere for funds, fine: that's global thinking. What they cannot do is sell the business without the VC fund's consent. Why? To avoid the flipping of marginal businesses that could undercut the VC fund's long-term gains.

Does any local VC find fit this model? Does the Pope cover up for pederasts? (Oh, sorry, wrong answer.) Of course no local VC fund fits this model. Y Combinator kinda does, but it's up in Yankee territory. No, what We need to do is develop Our own similar model, start giving an incentive to develop global vision amongst Our entrepreneurs and make venture capital an economic engine in its own niche, not to build all of Our economy, but to build Our economy's new cutting edge.

The Jenius Has Spoken.

10 March 2010

F___ The Tourism Company

Here's a way Our (non)governor Luis "The Larva" Fortuño can save about $175 million from what passes for a budget in his (non)administration: Fire the Tourism Company. (You thought it was some other verb with the letter "f," right? So did I. Still do.)

Fire them all. Close down the damn pigpen of corporate interests unrelated to true Puerto Rico tourism growth. Do. It. Now. Before We lose more than We can recover in a generation.

Think I exaggerate? A generation ago (circa 1990), We were the Number 1 Caribbean destination. We had slipped in Our lead, but We were Number 1. Guess where We are now? Not Number 1. And slipping year after year.

The Tourism Company is to marketing Puerto Rico what Genghis Khan was to the Church of Rome: a smelly scourge. The pigpen serves a master of rapine beast called the "Big Industry Airline Travel Corporate Hotels" cartel, better known as BIATCH. They call the shots and narrowly define tourism as "what's good for them" rather than "what's good for Puerto Rico." And so far, the twain seldom if ever meet.

What airline dominates air travel to Puerto Rico? American Airlines. What airline has the most former high-ranking employees now "serving" in the Tourism Company? Uh-huh. What percentage of the estimated $175 million budget goes to marketing Puerto Rico? About 13% if you round way up. How much goes to marketing Puerto Rico outside of the U.S. of part of A.? 11%, if you round up in a good year. That means that roughly 1.5% of the puny marketing budget of the BIATCH-led pigpen goes to advertise in markets other than that dominated by...American Airlines.

Is it any wonder that the Dominican Republic gets about 2.4 million tourists a year from Europe while We get about 200,000--basically those stranded at Our airport on the way to some other place?

How much of the BIATCH-pigpen "marketing" effort goes to the Internet? Guess. No, go ahead, guess. Yours is as good as Mine which is as good as "who the f--- knows?" Here's what We do know and can prove easily: Do a search as if you were traveling to Puerto Rico then rate the results as either positive or negative about Us. That's where the money should be spent, where roughly 61% of travelers are starting their travel plans. Then notice how many of the Puerto Rico sites are in a language other than English or Spanish...

The Tourism Company has had one brilliant idea in the past 20 years and because it happened on a holiday weekend, no one knew what it was. From changing slogans just to spend money ("Come to the Continent of Puerto Rico," "Puerto Rico Does It Better," "Puerto Rico U.S.A.," "Go Puerto Rico" and My suggested-but-never-used "Puerto Rico: Closed For Repairs") to subdividing the Island into "tourism regions" and then STILL spending money to push only the BIATCH-rich San Juan area, the Tourism Company is to Our beaches what an oil spill is: a noxious ugly stain.

So, fire 'em.

What do We replace them with? Why slap My buns and call Me Trixie, I got ideas:

--Create a contest and pick the 10 best website designs and campaigns to promote Puerto Rico.

--Hire 10 local ad agencies and have them compete for tourism marketing contracts ranging from one to 3 years in duration. Cap the maximum contract at $3 million and all the others maxing out at $1 million.

--Spread funds to the regional areas such as Porta del Sol (west coast) and Porta Caribe (south coast) so they can implement their own marketing campaigns. Give the small hotel associations their own funding for marketing.

--Create a "Tourism Evaluation System" database that not only targets visitors to Puerto Rico for their opinions, but also monitors what's being said about Our tourism components on the Web. Use that to improve the overall quality of experience amongst the related companies (hotels, airlines, transportation, restaurants, shops, etc.)

--Partner with the Dominican Republic to offer 2-for-1 deals--2 Islands for the Price of 1. Yes, they have lower labor costs and more hotel rooms, but if We focus on what We have instead of what they have, We can find a solid market that benefits both countries. First step: We need to lose the attitude that they are "beneath" Us. My Brethren know exactly what I mean.

--Create Our own airline, by either buying into someone other than American Airlines and its prima puta attitude or partnering routes with other airlines. As for the other way to bring people here, lower the damn port fees for cruise ships and add companies capable of providing "4 Hour Experiences" to cruise ship passengers. Unless We offer them Our unique attractions in user-friendly ways, We'll never get them off the damn boats to spend more money here. (Yes, I called them "boats.")

I've got more ideas, but so do you if you set your mind to it. Making Our tourism better is one of the few industries We have near-total control over, thus it is a powerful tool in Our arsenal of economic growth. We need to improve it by making it Our own tool again, wresting it from the hands of a greedy BIATCH who for all intents and purposes hates Us.


The Jenius Has Spoken.

20 January 2010

Old World, New Look

In what is deemed a bold move by the Tourism Company, Puerto Rico's equivalent to the Cops of Keystone City, We are now--gasp--trying to attract European tourists.
Gee. Finally.
Now We could look at this as a bad move since the last time We went whole-hog for European visitors, Our natives got killed.
I'm kidding. They were raped, then they were killed.
But that's all water under the bridge, or in Our case, water that washed out the bridge built for 265% actual costs. The bottom line is this:
1) Puerto Rico is no longer the #1 tourist destination in the Caribbean, having been displaced by the Dominican Republic in 2008.
2) The Dominican Republic received a little over 2.4 million European tourists in 2009; We had "about" 200,000, which given the accuracy of El Nuevo Día's future burger flippers masquerading as journalists could mean 2,450.
3) The average--average--European stays two weeks in the Dominican Republic. Two. Weeks. The average European stay in Puerto Rico is called "layover."
Local dingbats affiliated with the tourism industry, like the Puerto Rico Hotel and Tourism Association and the Tourism Company's acephalic "programs" whine that "We can't compete with the Dominican Republic's all-inclusive packages, 70,000+ rooms and cheap labor."
Boo-hoo. Have you crybabies in smelly diapers ever imagined where the D.R. would be if they had the same attitude back in the 1960s and 70s? "We can't compete with Puerto Rico's infrastructure, no-passport access to the U.S. of part of A. and massive marketing efforts." I  bet you never heard that from them. And that's why their kicking polvo in Our faces now.
Before I paint My buns with nitric acid, here's three points that the dingbats mishandling Our tourism efforts need to get into their gullets (since We've established that they have no craniums):
1) Tourism is intrinsically a geosocial experience. I made that word up, but it makes sense, so it is now an official word in the English language. One travels to Venice to explore its canals. In Vegas, a traveler gambles and takes in shows. In other words, a tourist visits a place to encounter a location and a set of experiences that are unique. Therefore what We need to focus on is not "price" or "rooms" but "unique experiences." And that, My Brethren, goes far beyond beaches, El Yunque and tacky Chinese gewgaws in Old San Juan.
2) You don't advertise to would-be travelers, you engage them. Where? On the Internet.  More than 68% of travelers explore their potential destinations by surfing the Web, and on the Web, We rank somewhere between goat liver recipes and toejam remedies. In short, We are not web-savvy. We--or rather, the whiny headless dingbats--spend Our money on TV ads aimed  at folks older than Mount Rushmore and ignore the thousands of active travelers on the Internet that We can reach for pennies a day. Here, try this experiment: do a travel search to Puerto Rico and check out the comments people leave about hotels, services and amenities. Tally up the negatives and positives. Note how many comments are addressed by the owners or tourism-related personnel. Than you'll have your proof on why I call these people "dingbats."
3) Why advertise blindly in Europe when you have 2.4 million Europeans a 25-minute flight away? You mean to tell Me that, if given the chance, some 200,000 of the Europeans spending 2 weeks in the D.R. wouldn't hop over here and spend a day or two doing something geosocial? (See? I told you it was an official word.) If We did that, We could double Our European influx and gain some additional voices in the Old World to talk about Us.
Granted, We'd have to work on Our sorry (oh so very sorry) service skills and on Our sorry (oh so very sorry) language skills, but at least We'd be making a start. Otherwise, We face dropping to #3 when Cuba flings open its doors to rampant capitalism...and it will. You can bet a dingbat's ass on that.
Hell, We already have.


The Jenius Has Spoken.

11 January 2010

Back To Business

Way back when, The Jenius was launched as a biz-tech thingy of a blog where I could take notice of things--good and bad--in the local Internet/small business realm that were largely ignored by the media and the masses. Lately, as in the last 97% of the time, The Jenius has been more of a political/social slingfest. And yet, I still think and work in the biz-tech world, mainly focused on education and communication.

So Let's get back to that, shall We?

Here's My short list of the Biz-Tech Action Steps We need to take now to start transforming Our economy from carpet beater to world beater:

1) The number to focus on is "businesses," not "jobs." We still have the mentality that ScrewThee Conglomerate International is going to plunk a container-load of Franklins on Our Island and create several hundred jobs. That's like trying to catch "The Daily Show" interactive clips on radio. The new driver of the economy--as was the old driver--is small business, but the new small business has global reach from Day One. In Puerto Rico, 64% of all private employment (roughly 34% of all employed) is in small businesses: to transform Our economy, We need to focus on developing more businesses and stop the chasing the stuoid myth of "big company jobs."

2) Make starting a small business as easy as ABC. A) State your name, physical address, phone number and Social Security number. B) State your business name, whether you get paid under that name or your own and the related bank or credit union account number. C) Define your business and ensure it does not violate the new short-list of environmental or commercial laws.

That's it. Have that one-page form on the Web for easy download and immediate e-mailing to the business owner's Municipal Tax office and Hacienda (the Treasury.) Nothing else needed. Note that the physical address need not be a commercial or business location; home businesses don't need the extra hassles they go through now. Yes, the business owner must have a bank or credit union account. And as far as laws go, just list the requirements for a business to request additional permits and/or licenses and if none are needed, let the business launch. (Cull the list so We eliminate the bogus permits and licenses like the "waste permit" beauty salons supposedly need because they use water.) The current system would make a Byzantine bureaucracy fetishist lapse into an ecstasy-excess coma, so streamlining it makes sense. And has since the early 1970s.

On the topic, when will the sorry excuse for a government We call Our own actually freaking USE technology in the ways it is supposed to? Case in point: To request the Added Value Tax certification, from the Treasury, you have to prove you don't own any money...to the Treasury. Who either know you already (from tax filings) or can't find you (for whatever reason), but the point is: they already know. That's why they bought computers and supposedly spend millions every year tending to them or buying new ones. So why in the name of holy hell do they make you get the motherbleeping certification at another office

Frosts My perineum, I tell you.

3) Give every small business launch a two-year tax exemption and extend it another two-years if it employs 10 or more persons. We give ScrewThee Conglomerates 10, 15 and even 20 year tax exemptions worth billions of dollars. So why not extend the same advantage to the billions of dollars created by small businesses? (Our GNP is about $74 billion a year of which small businesses produce roughly $24 billion.) In fact, We already have a tax mechanism to "deduct" business expenses from personal income (how almost all start-ups are primarily funded), so all We need to do is remove the cloying and annoying rigamarole and let the business owners build their companies without having to waste time and money on working the tax code.

And why cap the employee number at 10? Because it allows a business to grow within reason without striving to (a) Hire people just to get a tax break, which really means just added expenses and (b) Focuses a company on being a viable economic engine by Year Three. True, most small businesses fail in 5 years or less, but We're not trying to create a welfare economy for small businesses (We already have that for the ScrewThee Conglomerate crowd), but a faster start-up system to increase the numbers of small businesses and thus the chances of more successful businesses.

4) Convert downtown empty spaces into biz-tech labs. Note I said "labs," not incubators. Labs are places where people work in a structured setting to achieve results; incubators are where debilitated babies are kept on life support. We need results, not life support. Have towns convert a few or several empty buildings into office spaces, conference rooms and work centers with broadband Internet access. Let anyone who wants to use the facility do so for 90 days at no cost. Then if the person wants to continue using any facility, they pay a nominal fee per use or a small amount of rent. Those fees/rent increase every 90 days until they match commercial rates.  The purpose is two-fold: Create networking centers of entrepreneurs, techies and just plain business-oriented developers to engage in creative exchanges and secondly, to make them aware that they have to grow their business to pay market rate rent or get out.

Now some of you might note that We have several coffins, er, incubators on the island already, such as ViTEC2 in Mayaguez, the CyberCenter in Guaynabo and whatever the hell Caguas has with INTECO. They are stand-alone boxes with an ICU-type death watch feel to them, where businesses are subjected to the lengthy bureaucracy found elsewhere and lured by the promise of free digs and maybe--maybemaybemaybe--a paltry sum of money from government dunces.

Of course they don't work: they're not meant to. Their goal is to somehow snag a Google or Facebook out of a process meant to wean such possibilities out. It's like trying to find a diamond in a pile of cow shit. Why? Because a Google or Facebook-type success is not a question of picking the right project, it's about fostering the right environment. And the right environment doesn't happen overnight and isn't built on government red tape: it takes years and it is entirely removed from red tape.

It takes years, so We have to start now, building on the minds We have now and those that join the fray when the fun starts. It takes the absence of red tape, so Let's eliminate all that We can and let the creative types find ways to ignore what's left.

And yes, it takes money, so here's Action Step #5:

5) Give a 100% tax credit to local investors who support a local start-up. Oooh. That sounds heavy... It is. You say there's no money here? On Christmas Eve 2009--Christmas freaking Eve, people--the government had a bond issue that raised $1.36 billion...from local investors. Now maybe a lot of that money was local only in that it was held by local institutions, but if even 10% of that cash was in "private" hands, that means some $103 million were pushed around in about 12 hours. Between legitimate revenue, underground revenue and outright crime, there's millions of dollars in Puerto Rico--maybe even billions--looking for a legitimately strong investment and 100% tax-deductible is pretty strong. Hell, just talk to Nelson "Valley of the Dolls" Valle's mom: she's got plenty of cash.

For you Fools out there, cap it at $100,000 so that the big crime bosses (other than elected officials) can't easily smear legitimacy over sin. And no, don't expect venture capital dollars to drop like snowflakes in Norway within a few months. It will take 2-3 years and a string of small-to-moderate successes before the investment money starts trickling in and rising. But the time is going to go by anyway and the dollars, well, they'll keep on flowing...someplace else.

We're long overdue on the "Take Action Steps" front. Take these 5 and Let's get back to some real business growth. For a change.


The Jenius Has Spoken.