Social Cache.
A Nemo blog. Dealing with uncommon cents.

Image via http://www.masternewmedia.org

Tammy Erikson, the award winning author, will have her latest book released in December. It is titled ‘What’s Next, Gen X? Keeping Up, Moving Ahead, and Getting the Career You Want‘ and is the result of her studies and interviews with people born roughly during the years between the 1960’s and the 70’s.

She has an article on the Harvard Business Publishing web site where she gives a top level view of her work in this arena. She makes a compelling case for how the next generation of business leaders will be unlike any who have gone before. As she points out in the article – “Perhaps the biggest change from the past: leaders will have to listen and respond to diverse points of view. There will be no dominant voice.” I sense that her book will be a fascinating read. Below are some of the important elements that she says will have shaped the Gen Xers as future business leaders:

“In this context, I’m convinced that Gen X’ers will be the leaders we need. The experiences that shaped those of you who were teens in the late ’70s and ’80s, as I’ve outlined in past posts, translate into valuable contemporary traits and perspectives.

• Your accelerated contact with the real world, for many through a “latch-key” childhood, has made you resourceful and hardworking. You meet your commitments and take employability seriously.

• Your pragmatism has given you practical and value-oriented sensibilities that, I believe, will help you serve as effective stewards of both today’s organizations and tomorrow’s world.

The most difficult elements of your past may well be those that provide you with the strongest capabilities for today.”

From the Streetfilms site – “The first time you visit Portland, Oregon, the gaggles of cyclists streaming over the Hawthorne Bridge during rush hour is a sight you will never forget. It’s something other cities need to see and be inspired by.”

Tacky Souvenirs of Pre-Inaugural America.

“As Ice-T implies, the thing called authenticity seems self-evident: obvious in its presence, glaring in its absence. As a question of being true—to beliefs, institutions, and traditions—authenticity strikes many as worth defending, or mourning. The epitaph “Hip-hop is dead,” for instance, is almost as old as hip-hop. Typical is the reaction of Ice-T, a rapper since the heyday of beatboxing, against Soulja Boy Tell ’Em, who’s still too young to drink. Soulja Boy, who produced his breakout singles in a home studio and became famous through social-networking sites, is emblematic of a new and notably independent moment in musical promotion. But to Ice-T’s aged ears, he’s complicit in the desecration of hip-hop’s authentic essence—the raw sound, the social message—in favor of the saccharine hook.

……authenticity today, in the expanded field of media, is more deeply in crisis. This crisis does not involve mere negation, but inversion. Inauthenticity, which looks a lot like the opposite of authenticity, is actually its successor—or its mirror.”

Because of the harsh economic climate, people are attempting to cut back on expensive extras. But, The Wall Street Journal is reporting that an undercurrent of guilt is pushing some to keep spending, even when they don’t really need certain items and services. A sense of empathy is sweeping over some who know that others are closer to the brink than they are. Instead of donating to charities and food banks, people are choosing to spend their money on those whom they’ve developed close personal relationships with.

Even though her fridge is already full, one lady faithfully spends close to $50.00 a week at a local ethnic market because she likes the family that owns it and knows that they’ve both taken on second jobs to stay in business. Another lady purchased breakfast at a local Starbucks three times a week, running up $80.00 in bills a month simply because she liked the barista. And, another pays $60.00 a month to have a gardener she’s known for 10 years mow her tiny lawn, even though she recently lost thousands of dollars in a personal business.

This handful of individuals might not reflect the entire U.S. but what these people realize is that their communities depend on small businesses (minus the lady that handed over her money to Starbucks) and they treasure the personal interactions that have been cultivated. Behind someone providing a service is a human being and most customers appreciate that more so versus the drone of a faceless corporation.

Our budgets now don’t just reflect the needs of ourselves, but often the needs of others as well. Though, it should be noted that there is also a sense of self-interest that keeps people spending money on everyday luxuries. They know that if they (along with everyone else) stop handing over their money, these businesses might not survive the economic climate and be there to service them when things improve.

The companies and the customers they serve are even more dependent on each other right now. Of course, rationality and personal budgets need to stay in check, but if you have extra money, give some thought to where you’re spending it.

After being published for nearly 150 years, the Seattle Post Intelligencer is ending production of its print edition next week. Other papers including the Rocky Mountain News and Tuscon Citizen have also met similar fates.

Though Seattle, Denver and Tuscon still have daily papers, the NY Times is predicting that it’s only a matter of time before some major cities in America are left without any prominent local newspaper at all.

Joel Kramer, an editor and publisher in the newspaper business says that:

It would be a terrible thing for any city for the dominant paper to go under, because that’s who does the bulk of the serious reporting. Places like [online news sites] would spring up but they wouldn’t be nearly as big. We can tweak the papers and compete with them, but we can’t replace them.

To make matters worse, many of the top papers in big cities including The Philadelphia Inquirer and The New Haven Register are owned by companies that have already filed for bankruptcy. Many other large papers have been put up for sale, but there haven’t been any buyers so far.

Newspapers have been struggling financially because their main source of income, based on ad revenues, has shrunk by 25 percent in just the last two years. Some of the slide is directly related to the popularity of classifieds sites like Craigslist and the other contributing factor has been the recession.

In the last 20 years, the daily print circulation of U.S. newspapers has dropped from 62 million to 49 million. In comparison, the number of online news readers keeps climbing, now with 75 million Americans.

Newspapers are cutting down on the amount of times per week that they publish new editions, as well as going completely digital in some circumstances not because they want to, but because they have no choice. “It’s not so much that everyone has a great plan. Everybody is so desperate, they’re looking at every possibility,” said John Yemma of the Christian Science Monitor.

Back in 2006, Vanity Fair ignited an uproar with its cover featuring the naked duo of Scarlett Johansson and Kiera Knightley getting cozy with a fully clothed Tom Ford, who was about twice their age. Though the photo was beautifully shot by Annie Liebovitz, many were left wondering why Ford got to keep his clothes on.

Now comes word that the infamous cover has been spoofed by Jonah Hill, Seth Rogen, Jason Segel and Paul Rudd. Though, it’s not in the way that you would think. The guys are posed provocatively in similar positions as Johansson and Knightley, but they aren’t naked at all. Instead, they’re sporting flesh-toned bodysuits.

These guys are funny and nearly everyone featured on the cover shoot has had scenes featuring some degree of nudity in their films. Though this cover is a spoof, it’s not a very good one. Why do the guys get to stay covered up? Was the magazine afraid to show a few naked overweight men or was it up to the guys to make the decision? Do you think that there’s a double standard?