Here at MBC we have a genuinely broad portfolio of
skills. One recent concern that we have helped advise on is the content
characterisation of different delivery mechanisms, for accessing your multimedia
fix, between this side of the Atlantic and the
other.
Very learned commentators have written about such a split - recently in the
Financial Times of the UK,
Eli Noam said:
"Much
attention has been given to the middling rank of US
broadband penetration, which is lower than in several European countries or Japan. But this
obscures the more fundamental, costly, and time-consuming platform upgrades
that are taking place in the US.
In
much of Europe, broadband is carried to the
user’s home over the copper phone lines of the telephone companies, using a
technology known as DSL. DSL is the cheap way to go and does not require much
investment. But it is relatively limited in data capacity and range. In
contrast, in the US
broadband is in the process of increasingly being carried over fibre telecom lines
and cable television networks, which are vastly more powerful."
He
concludes with the more societally subtle point that, as these two delivery
infrastructures embed, they will bring with them greater regulation on the part
of European countries lacking such a cable infrastructure - and greater competition
in the US,
where there will essentially be two competing networks. One will, through
regulation, foster greater participation as entry costs will be monitored
(despite the greater cost to the consumer). The other will be both more
commercial and more dynamic.
Cable companies in the UK have not been noted for their
successes. Only recently did NTL announce the loss of 6000 UK based jobs
(a net loss lower than this, of 3,600 once newly created outsourced jobs
accounted for). This is on top of an already poor quality of service record. We
believe regulation itself is to blame for the failure to thrive of the cable
companies; regulation of traditional telecoms, in itself stifling competition.
 Are we any more obsessed with health matters than in the past? Resoundingly the answer is yes. This does not mean though that the results from this obsession are positive – indeed, for all our attention, affectation and concern – in key areas we have never been so unhealthy.
This Blog occasionally touches on big issues and this is one of those areas that doesn’t lend itself to an easy answer. Why with all the sophistication at our disposal are more children being hospitalised from second hand smoke than ever before? Why are obesity levels unprecedented? Why are heart disease and illnesses related to physical inactivity actually on the rise in our image conscious and sport fixated nation. Appearance has greater sway and yet more than at any time in the recent past, is this appearance built on slight foundations.
Bill Clinton several years back pointed to the fact that this was the first generation where the children could realistically be expected to have shorter life expectancies than their parents….fast food, the sedentary lifestyles that accompany the demise of physically demanding labour and the high toll of the “me” culture – all contributing to a society where image dominated over substance.
A ban on smoking in public places comes into effect in England in July 2007. Schools are being shamed into pressing their controlling Councils to allocate more money to school meals; schools themselves belatedly recognise a lack in the equality of academic outcomes between girls and boys has some root in the limited time given to physical play for boys – their natural adventure being channelled instead into disruption in the classroom. Slowly we are making the case for substance over style, but appearances still matter.
Voluntarism is a vital form of community involvement, it provides a bond between the citizen and their broader grouping, whether it be social or civic. Business can benefit hugely from “deploying” people on various community activities: they provide ambassadors for the company, giving it credence and relevance to the neighbourhood, and they can bring some of the district back into the company, helping it to remember its core ‘stakeholders’ – be they a potential employment pool, or a new source of customer.
Big companies have been doing this for many years now. Companies with designated PR budgets ensure that their employees are seen volunteering – and, more importantly for them sometimes – where they volunteer. Just as with everything, there are fashionable causes to contribute time and attention to. As Sarah Murray says in a FT article from the tail end of last year, when speaking about Cisco:
"It tends to give people a broader perspective - they often come back with ideas as to the way we do business,"
Employees are allowed to take sabbaticals, typically of about three months, to volunteer on this and other philanthropic projects to which Cisco contributes. As well as being seen as an appealing perk, the sabbaticals allow the company to give its staff valuable opportunities of a break from routine.
Cisco also uses volunteering for team building. Through its work with Habitat for Humanity, for example, the company sends teams to work on construction projects with the charity, which builds affordable housing.
"As part of their development during the year, they do these projects jointly, and you usually have various skills in the team, from technicians to sales people, so it's interesting to see how these people gel in an environment that's more level," says Mr Smith. "Taking them out of their normal comfort zone and putting them somewhere different can often be very powerful."
Environmentalism is the main recipient of new volunteering schemes, its cache resounds around the workforce and this usually means that it’s easier to obtain willing supplicants to whatever new idea the Chief Exec’ wants to pitch his people into. However, it is vitally important – indeed we have done work on this in the past ourselves, that the “old society” (see dot com distinction between ‘old economy’ and ‘new economy’) is well represented in this largesse of time giving. By this, we mean Scouting, the National Trust, Church groups: Civic Society. We all benefit if we know the people with whom we entrust our children; if we understand the work that it has taken to restore the local park, if the old folk’s home has a brighter cheer to it, as people call in, even just to spend some time. An older and often more rewarding form of currency.
“They disembarked in ‘45
And no spoke and no one smiled.
There were too many spaces in the line”

Yesterday was our National Remembrance Day in the UK, and we attended services in the morning. Our Vicar is an impassioned and resolute intellectual, with true warmth and compassion towards the subject. Also, in his case, experience, as a former Naval Chaplain.
Damian Merciar too has several years' personal experience of the Forces, and, like most families of this country, experience of the losses from both conflicts. His Great Grandfather was one of the tens of thousands killed in the early days of the Somme, and his Grandfather a veteran of the Royal Artillery Regiment, wounded in action in occupied France – after doubling up as a paratrooper.
This was precisely the point about the Sermon delivered yesterday – that it is only with personal experience that we are able to honour what is meant by Remembrance. This is distinct from a call for Peace. A separate and necessary time for reflection, mourning and a possible tempering of the will towards not letting this happen again. Mankind is a violent animal, and the latter point is uttered as much in hope as anything else. See Rwanda, Darfur, recent (and historical) Balkans’ implosions – let alone what passes for ‘calming’ measures in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Pain is a universal leveller; there are economic, societal, psychological and emotional losses to be borne as a result. Remembrance is a necessary balm.
Chris v Rob is a Lambyweb Production. Lambyweb is an as yet unlisted private operation, owned managed and promoted by a very serious animator. Oh, and he happens to thirteen years old.
“There’s money in them there hills” seems to be the resounding phrase of the moment, and in this analogy, the hills are the imaginations and creativity of our young people. Today, Google paid $1.65 BN for a very new kid on the block - YouTube . This is a “social networking” site where the young (and everyone else) can gather to view, critique, upload and engage in home produced video shorts. Films filmed by us, for us, with no higher agenda than simply to be noticed – a small flag in Cyber Space.
That was until today. Google has said it is potentially keen to share in the revenues it hopes to generate with advertising on the site, with those key filmmakers who prove the biggest draw. In one fell swoop, the innocence and carefree attitude of the site has been changed. We wait to see if this proves significantly detrimental to the site, in fact it could conversely create a legion of Minnelli’s (both Vincente and Liza with a “Z”), Truffaut’s and Scorsese’s. However, intimacy and atmosphere are crucial to these hybrid networks. They can easily become overwhelmed with corporate polish and presence – a presence many young people will run a mile from.
|
|