In my perusal of the corporate philosophy of google, I was struck by two points that perfectly embody the sometimes destructive nature of our current society. The first was that "fast is better than slow." On first glance, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with this point of view because for most of us, it is exactly how we feel. But the question that should be asked is, is it really better all of the time? There are many situations where it would be good for people to slow down and be careful. One example that stands out to me in particular is the clothing industry. I know I am not the only person who has bought an item of clothing and had it fall apart within a year of the purchase. I find it sad that there is so much rush to produce something to turn a profit that the only way to get real quality is to spend hundreds of dollars on things. This is one of the central standpoints of Google that I think is has already pervaded society, and it can only get worse as time passes and urbanization becomes more prevalent.

The second thing that I found interesting in their belief system was that "Great is never good enough." It fascinates me that we have come to a point in our society that you can never be good enough. I mean, mediocrity is never a good thing but at the same time, the stress that is put on us either by parents or ourselves is destructive because it causes us to constantly strive for the next level. I'm not saying that I believe in giving up at any level, but because of the fast paced society that we live in, people are scared to slow down and reflect on what they are doing and where they are going because those few minutes that they spent thinking could cost them the promotion that they had been working non-stop for for so long. To say that being great, which is basically as good as you can get, is not good enough is basically to promote a dog-eat-dog lifestyle that makes relationships so hard for people to develop. The philosophy of Google basically sums up the actions of our evolving society, and the biggest question I have is, when do we get to the point where we realize the destructive nature of our lifestyles?

The Impact of Google

Over the years, I’ve become an avid “googler”. I’ve often taken it for granted, but the work that Google has done (it’s search engine) has made looking for information fast and convenient. Looking for a definition or explanation? Need directions? Working on a project? Pretty much anything you want to know, Google makes finding that information very easy. Try imagining what life would be like without Google’s efficient and easy to use search engine. But taking a closer look at Google’s philosophy, I’ve become even more impressed with the way they handle their business than the actual “product” they provide.

Google’s “Ten Things We Know To Be True” struck me as very accurate. One of the main reasons why Google is so effective is that they focus on the needs of the consumer/user. Many times, businesses focus on how best to increase their net worth, and unfortunately, that often means skimping on the consumer. Instead of a positive-negative effect some businesses may take, Google focuses on making a positive-positive effect, both for itself and their consumers. Personally, that makes sense to me: if you make your consumers/customers happy, then they’ll support you more. Google has a clear understanding of the win-win situation and I think that’s a fundamental aspect to their success. Also, Google works hard to make sure that their search engine provides material related to the topic a user is searching for. That way, the user doesn’t become engulfed with nonsense material that has nothing to do with what they’re looking for. By providing the user with only what is needed or related to the search, Google is focusing on what the user/consumer wants, not necessarily which ad/information benefits Google’s company more.

If more companies and businesses adopted Google’s philosophy, where the consumer is seen as the key to their success instead of the obstacle that needs to be manipulated in order to reach success, then I think people would view consumerism in a more positive view. In the next 10 years, I believe Google will continue to be a successful company (especially if they hold true to their philosophy). Google is a business dealing with information and increasing the speed by which that information is obtained. Because information is constantly increasing and changing, Google will never be out of business. But while Google definitely has its perks, in a way it has a negative effect because it makes people lazy. Google makes information gathering faster, but how do they know that the information their providing is accurate?

What Will Google Do?

According to Jeff Jarvis, Google is the new Jesus. The iconic company is the guiding light for all the other businesses wandering in the darkness and confusion of the internet age. By applying Google's principles to a company's life, any CEO can redeem the bottom line. Jarvis claims Google's success stems from the company's total embrace of the fundamental changes caused by our newly networked society.

For its part, Google does not claim to be divine (at least not obviously). According to its website, Google's mission is: "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful". Obviously, such a task will never be complete, but Google has made significant progress toward accomplishing that goal. Perhaps the only "company" who can rival Google's efforts is Wikipedia. But what would happen if Google did complete its mission and made every single bit (and byte, page, word, idea, thought, picture, etc.) of the world's information quickly and easily accessible to anyone within the next ten years? I believe the world would be a different (and not necessarily better) place.

One current example that is likely to continue is how the easy access of simple information is likely to change education. The presence of Wikipedia and Google, two websites that provide a plethora of well-organized information, has led to new distinctions in information: information that can be obtained quicker from memory and knowledge that can be found faster online. Interestingly, such division are based on the increased value of time expressed in one of Google's "Ten Things" as "Fast is better than slow".

Such externalizing of information is not surprising considering the phenomenal increase in knowledge humanity has achieved in the modern era. Yet, the consequences of a well-organized "collective intelligence" have yet to be realized. With the creation of writing, humanity was able to build off the discoveries of others. This is the basis for our current education system: certain information is required to productively function in society and that information is what schools exist to impart on anyone who desires to know. (The efficiency and efficacy with which this information is passed is debatable, but the transfer of knowledge from one generation to the next seems to be the core reason education as we know it exists.)

Yet, if the trend towards a separation of information based on efficiency of retrieval (memory vs. megabytes) continues into the future, the very purpose of education is likely to change. Education will still need to provide a certain knowledge base (of some size which many will likely argue about), but it will also need to equip students with the tool necessary to survive a world of information overload. Accurate evaluation of the relevance, authority, and authenticity of information will be even more important in ten years than it is today. Such critical thinking skills are what will help people succeed, even just survive, in both the work world and society as a whole.

In the end, Google's philosophy combined with the spread of the internet is sure to continue changing society in new and unexpected ways. Changing the nature of knowledge and education is only one part of Google transformative force. From the aggressive openness and transparency seen in Google's Android phone and Google Voice service to the unexpected new services Google and the internet as a whole is likely to provide, the world will never be the same. If nothing else, the mindset of freely accessible services and information (almost communist in nature) that the internet embodies and Google provides will affect humanity's worldview into the foreseeable future.

(Longer Essay #2)

Where Google is Taking Us

I shudder to think what would happen if we were suddenly stricken with a lack of internet, or for that matter, a lack of communication and information-gathering technology in general. We might note that certainly for our generation, internet has become, as Veblen has put it, part of our base-level living package. Google has definitely been a big part of it becoming so, and seems likely to continue in that fashion.

It seems that Google's "Ten things we know to be true" are a craftily named mission statement--we see first that they are "true" and then watch them applied to Google itself. In the list of ten, I notice a couple of themes that definitely speak the language of the direction in which our world is headed. There is a definite focus on the individual. The user is important. Self must be satisfied. You do not have to be at work or in an office. You do not have to be in a suit. You can be home, by yourself, seeking out great information. A second focus is placed on convenience. According to Google, fast is better than slow. Information ought to cross all borders. Instant information at the fingertips is a necessity. There's always more information out there to get, to read, to see. A third focus that I see is placed on success. Google has found that Democracy on the web works. You must do one thing really, really well. Great isn't good enough--you must be the best.

Aren't these the same things we hear around us every day--the intense focus on the individual, the focus on convenience, the focus on success? If we are already headed in this direction, I see Google taking us further in the next few years. The search for efficiency goes on, the "need" for immediate information keeps growing. We already see the advertisements change as our search on the web changes. We already see pages and pages of resources within a fraction of a second. We already work from our homes as conveniently as we can at an office. But as stated in Google's top ten, this is not enough. The search will go on. Great just isn't good enough.

Google's Newest "Product"

(Long essay)

I was extremely impressed with Google's Business Model. Facilitating access of information to the entire world is a commendable feat and no one has succeeded in such a task better than Google. Not only does Google provide accessible facts and figures but perhaps even more importantly, it allows you access to individuals,communities, and society itself. Even more impressive, is that Google accomplishes all this with no charge to you. Indeed, as each new free gadget and feature of Google is introduced increasing convenience of the internet for its user, Google feels almost too good to be true.

Which is why, I set about the grueling task of finding something "not-so-phenomenal" about Google and their future effects on the consuming habits of our society. What I found was a very interesting article.(Ironically, I "googled" it). To summarize, the writer analyzed the motive behind Google investing in great products only to give them away for free to the "consumer" or us. Yet, truth be told, we aren't the consumers (seeing as we buy absolutely nothing). The consumers, rather would be the advertisers that pay to put their advertisements in Google's system. So what products is Google offering their "real" consumers. The answer is us. We are Google's products: packaged, susceptible and ready to be exposed to the advertisers.

An example would be when you type in something in a Google search engine and several advertisements pertaining to what you searched appear at the side of the screen. At first glance, this form of targeted advertising seems more helpful than harmful and if anything yet another convenience of Google. So what if it's a slight encroachment of privacy and it makes you more susceptible to advertising? Another example, is the new Google latitude that allows you to share your location with your friends and family. A worried mother has but to look on her i-phone to notice that her rebellious son is skipping school again and while she is thinking of how best to punish Billy, her i-phone can probably give her a few good book suggestions about wayward children-compliments of Google. One more example. Remember, those spiffy google maps, that allow you to look at where you live, and where everyone else lives-via satellite? How convenient, and it's free! Albeit, you were slightly horrified the first time it dawned on you that anyone could potentially stalk your residence, but sooner than later, you realized it to be nothing more than a convenience of Google, provided...just because.

Notice these examples have one thing in common and that is that privacy has been violated and this violation is actually welcomed. When one combines a loss of indignation when privacy is violated with efficient advertisements that broach the privacy of their targets, an interesting combination is made. As the articles says, "by making the violation of our privacy something we want and welcome, they are making a better product for advertising."

Now if that's not creepy, I don't know what is! However, in light of not wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist I am more than willing to admit that Google has done many good things for our society. They've made inaccessible information accessible, built a sense of community and connection with society and the world of ideas. When anyone has a question that they desire an answer for, they don't go searching through volumes of books for the answer then give up in dismay at the sheer immensity of the information on the topic-they "Google-it" and get their answer within a tenth of a second. Now is such convenience worth the drawback of a loss of privacy and susceptibility to advertisements? Maybe, maybe not. (I for one decidedly ignore the advertisements on the side of the web-page and continue in my search queries, however apparently it is thought behind these scenarios that count). In any case, I have learned to think before accepting free, efficient, convenient products with open arms. After all, I want to benefit from using products, not become one myself.

websites used: http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/article.php/3801006/Googles-Business-Model-YOU-Are-the-Product.htm

http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html

Google

Nowadays Google has become a very useful tool for a great number of people, not only in America but around the world. Google has helped people to look for the information they need
in a very efficient and very fast way. Google has become so popular in this country that we actually have the verb "google". But how is Google going to influence this country in the next
ten years?

As I read Google's philosophy, out of the ten points, I found three of points that caught my attention:

-You don't need to be at your desk to need an answer
-You can make money without doing evil
-You can be serious without a suit

These points caught my attention because it shows that Google is an innovative company. They are trying to make information as accesible as possible. Also, although Google is a very strong company, according to its philosophy it has good intentions. And the last point talks about how
serious they take their job but at the same time they have fun doing it.

So if we consider the first point, that Google is trying to make information more accesible, it's possible that in 10 ten years, for example, people are no longer going to go to libraries to get information; instead, they are just going to rely on Google, making us, as Sharmila said, lazier researcher. So in that sense, Google might affect our country in a negative way in the next 10 years. But if you consider the second point, I believe that Google is going to become an even larger company in the future, which will benefit a lot of people by giving them jobs, so that would benefit our economy.

In conclusion, I believe that Google is going to affect us both, positive and negative, ways in the next 10 years.

Google

One company that I really respect is Google. And although I have read their philosophy and goals, I think the one thing that they did that earned my respect was the way they treat their employees. One day I was randomly flipping through the channels and I saw a documentary on Google. I became intrigued and I started to watch. The one thing that I remember is their cafeteria. Google has hired amazing chefs that could cook anything and has offered it to their employees for free! No wonder they are so successful. Could you imagine how happy those employees must be? But besides the free amazing food for their staff, I believe that Google has helped shaped the economy to what it is today and will continue to do so. Google has expanded the horizons for consumers and now we can get access to practically anything just by "googling it." This company has probably put so many companies on the map. I have bought clothing from places that I didn't even know existed until I "goolgled it."
I think that Google will change the consuming habits of America by making everyone an expert. I was watching the series House. In this particular episode House was in rehab. and there was a man with a mystery disease that came. When the doctors met with them, he told them the symptoms and possible diseases that he could have. The man had no prior medical experience, but what he did have was the internet. He had made an ad of his symptoms, promising to pay the person that could properly diagnose him. I believe that these are the kind of consumers that Google is creating. Consumers who are more educated about products. Google has allowed consumers to compare prices and services so now stores from different regions of the country have to compete and come correct. They are coming out with Android, a program that works with mobile phones. This program can read bar-codes and get information as you are standing at the shelf considering which brand to buy. I think Google has made more informed consumers. Producers beware.

Google's Philosophy and How it Affects Consumption

I happen to be an avid googler. I google anything I have a question on. From a possible sickness I think I may coming down with, to what colors/fashions look better on which skin tones or body types. Google is my main source of information, so imagine my excitement when, for class, we were asked to write a blog about Google's philosophy and how it could affect our consuming habits and America's consuming habits over the next ten years.

Through Google, I've found that Google's philosophy is summed up into 10 short statements:

1. Focus on the user and all else will follow.
2. It's best to do one thing really, really well.
3. Fast is better than slow.
4. Democracy on the web works.
5. You don't need to be at your desk to need an answer.
6. You can make money without doing evil.
7. There's always more information out there.
8. The need for information crosses all borders.
9. You can be serious without a suit.
10. Great just isn't good enough.

I believe we'd be smarter consumers if we followed Google's philosophy. Google believes in the collective sharing of information and that there's always more to learn. If we approached our shopping endeavors that way, and if businesses would see consumers more as partners than as fresh bait, I think we'd all benefit more from comsumption. We need to be smarter consumers. We need to research products and ask ourselves, "Do I really need this?" and "How often will I use this in the future?" before indulging in reckless shopping. If businesses were to follow Google's philosophy, by making sure to advertise their products without evil intentions, then they'd have more loyal customers who trust them. I'll believe Google has a great philosophy that would benefit the world of consumption if consumers and businesses alike followed it.

Google It

If you ask almost anyone around the world what Google is they, more often than not, will be able to tell you. Google has become a popular search engine worldwide because of its accurate and fast searches. From a personal perspective I don't know how I would have a survived a time without Google. That means I would have to hit the library to find something as simple as the capital of Germany. Google is one of the major search engines that I use to find information for school or just to fulfill my curiosities. Our class was asked to research Google just to see what they are all about. I actually googled Google (go figure) and found that the company is all about the users. They workers of Google try to find the fastest and most efficient way to to give information to people. I feel the best part of the Google company is that they rely on the feedback of the users to make the searches better. So essentially the more feedback people give, the better Google works for the rest of us. Google is even expanding its search to mobile phones so that people don't have to wait until they're sitting at a computer to search. The no pop-up aspect of the site is really important for someone like me, who gets fed up with pop-ups. All of their advertising is done with subtle ads that pertain to my search and may even help find what I am looking for. Google is definitely something that does not seem to be going anywhere for a long time.

Our class was also asked to predict what the future holds for Google in the next ten years. Honestly, I don't know what Google has in store because I can't imagine the searches being faster and more effective than they already are. But I think Google will have something greater in store for us as users that is free and easily accessible. I just hope it does not make us lazier researchers than we already are. What would be cool though is if Google bought literature from various books and we were able to access these books online for free, like a free online library. But who knows what the future holds for Google?

Do No Evil

Searching around for Google’s business philosophy, I came across Google’s “Ten things we know to be true” that is the basis for their business model. The list consists of many points that Google stresses in their business, such as putting the focus on the user first and always striving to improve, but one point in particular stood out at me. Point number 6 Google’s list of ten things says, “You can make money without doing evil.”

In today’s economy, we hear about how companies try to nickel and dime consumers to try to improve their bottom line. Companies seem to be always searching for ways to make more money regardless of how it affects consumers. Banks came up with predatory adjustable rate mortgages, restaurants use mass produced substitute ingredients, and airlines are charging for stowing luggage. Its seems like everywhere we turn, another corporation is working to improve their profit margin at the expense of their customers.

It was truly refreshing to see how Google puts the wants of the consumer first in their business. Ads are strategically placed to be unobtrusive and relevant to what the consumer is searching for. They work to make their product as easy and as convenient to use as possible. Pop-ups are not allowed. All of these factors make Google a very consumer-friendly business. The result of this philosophy? Google is one of the leading corporations in the world today. Many corporations in our country are struggling, whether it be the auto industry, banks, travel, or others. If these corporations simply took the stance of doing no evil, putting the consumer first, I believe our economy would be off and running in no time.

To Google

What I find most impressive about Google is the fact that they are honest and simple. They keep things sleek with the understanding that a consumer will find it easier to search for what they need. It makes one less fearful of falling for some gimmick because of the small print at the bottom of the page. Their simplicity goes so far as to speak colloquial English with those interested in knowing about their products. I was spared pulling out the dictionary to understand highly technical computer-world terms and they wrote in a way that made their goals and philosophy clear-cut. They are so effective in what they do that google is even a verb.

The ability to find quick answers to questions allows consumers to consume more readily and easier. If I am not absolutely desperate to find something out, then I will most certainly give up if I am unable to get a quality answer quickly. If the economy improves, I believe we will also see Google get richer from all of their products because they have proven themselves to be reliable year after year and there is no respecter of persons with Google. I, however, do not believe Google will get me to spend more of my money on their products. That is simply because I have learned and continue to learn how to prioritize and question what I consider to be of necessity. Usually I come to the realization that I have what I need and have no valid reason to throw out my hard-earned money. But it has been a long road to this point and if my past were different, my present would be, too.

Google

Its no doubt that Google has indeed been key in the way we as people can access information. Millions of results can appear almost instantaneously and we have a vast arsenal of material with which to use. Google has revolutionized the way that we gain information, from just the everyday search to research for a college paper. Its efficiency and speed have rendered almost all other forms of information searching as almost obsolete.

I think the way that this companies brings in revenue is very interesting and creative. Posting advertising on the side has turned out to be a very profitable method and doesn't attract unwarranted attention and detract from the actual search. Google is so great because it can accessed virtually anywhere and is constantly being upgraded to newer and more efficient forms. Google's commitment to customer service has proved to be a huge success for them. Perhaps if other companies placed more emphasis on quality, then they would be more successful.

Google Searching Google and Consumption

In class we were asked to search Google and find out what they are about. When I Google searched Goggle, I found that Google enables users to search the web, use net, and images. Features included page rank, caching, translation of results, and an option to find similar pages. There was also a link to show a stock quote for Google. The search also brought up links to the services that Google provides, such as Google reader, maps, videos, etc.
Their philosophy consists of ten things. To focus on the user and what else follows, focused on providing the best user experience possible, and focusing on serving the consumer. It's best to do one thing really, really well. Fast is better than slow. Democracy on the web works. You don't need to be at your desk to need an answer. You can make money without doing evil. There's always more information out there. The need for information crosses all borders. You can be serious without a suit. Great just isn't good enough. Google tries to anticipate the needs of their not yet articulated global audience and introduce them with products and services that set new standards. An example of this was them launching Gmail, which had more space than any email service available. These are the type of changes they are interested in making.
We were also asked to Google what will happen with consuming habits in the next ten years. When I searched this I found an article, “In Ten Years Your Life Will Be Terrible,” by Mark R. Crovelli, that predicted that the American economy is deteriorating and will continue to do so as the years the pass. He also states in his article that the value of the dollar is going down and people will soon have to pay continuous increasing prices for the factors of production that go into one’s products. At the same time one will find it difficult to obtain credit to finance these increasing costs. So, I think it’s fair to say that consuming habits will soon decrease, since people won’t have enough to by the extra luxuries that they would normally buy in the future. People will probably but less expensive goods as well as think more about the need for the product that they are purchasing.

Google Business Model

Google's business goal is to provide the best and most efficient search engine possible. They try to find the most helpful websites to direct queries to and to put themselves in all the latest technological gismos. They claim their main focus is on the user and that they seek to make your search as quick, easy, and helpful as possible.
That was what I read on Google's actual philosophy. I also read something else someone wrote about Google's "product." They claimed that google's "product" is in fact the user because they "sell" their user's to their advertisers by conveniently placing ads relevant to what they see that you're searching for or suspect you are interested in. I also saw something throughly disturbing about google scanning your email to see what your interests are so that they can figure out what ads you'd be most susceptible to, but I don't really know if that's true or not.
Naturally Google has to have some way of supporting themselves, so it's only natural they would offer their site for advertising. And I think it is certainly admirable for them to want to do everything they can to make their search engine the best it can be. And if one is going to display ads, it is certainly sensible to try to display an ad related to what a person appears to be interested in. The odds of someone searching for a website about motorcycles being interested in an ad for coin collectors is rather unlikely after all. It's only logical to use people's interests to try to influence them to buy one thing or another, and I imagine advertising in this method is probably more effective than advertising on television or radio or billboards.
Overall I think Google's business model is likely to be very effective and that they can be a business and make money while being so diligent in endeavoring to provide a good service for people is very impressive.

Google's Philosphy

I have an inherent distrust in big businesses: Wal-Mart, McDonald's, Starbucks (although I do appreciate their promise to buy coffee from small farmers using environmentally sound practices, I often wonder if they're following through), and Google. Can something so prevelant be "safe" (whatever that means)?

I also believe that all good buisnesses should have a well thought out business model and philosophy. They should have a corporate, unified front, clearly stated goals, a defined method for dealing with problems, and a company "attitude". I was extremely pleased to discover that Google had this. And I was further pleased to find that what Google believes is important, I believe is important as well.

The first of these statements that caught my attention is: "Focus on the user and all else will follow". This makes me, a user, feel very safe. This company is commited to taking care of me. I am a priority--not profit.

The second is: "It's best to do one thing really, really well." I think this is a sound buisness model. One can either do lots of things mediocrally (Wal-Mart)--which has it's place--or one can do a single thing very well. I think the fact that Google has chosen the latter serves my needs better.

The rest have to do with fleshing out Google's business model. "Here's how we're going to do this one thing." type of statements, which I encourage you to look at sometime. But the statement I appreciate the most is: "You can make money without doing evil." This has become increasingly apparent over the course of Google's history. Google has, indeed, become a very large company and has made lots and lots of money yet, there has been no ill effects as felt by other large companies. I, as a user and a world citizen, feel like Google has added to the world instead of consuming it for the corporation's exclusive profit. Which, in the end, makes me happy.

The Effect of Google's Company Philosophy on Marketing Ideals in Our Current Society

(Please note that I would like this to be counted for one of my longer papers. And I made up for a lack of concluding paragraph by a really nice title.)

            You know a company has become famous when its name ceases to be a proper noun – Xerox, Kleenex, other X names I haven’t thought of yet. Google’s one-upped all of these companies – its name has become a verb. Google’s presentation, operation, and mentality have become a part of social consciousness, and it wouldn’t be surprising if other companies would follow suit. So, what would it look like if other companies radically adhered to Google’s philosophies? How would this affect the way they market and the way we shop? After researching Google’s methods of operation, I have brainstormed some changes we might expect to see in the future.

            The first aspect that a marketing company might adopt is Google’s emphasis on the opinions of all customers. Google searches aren’t organized by top paying advertisers, or most official website, or sometimes, even the most relevant fit for the term you’ve entered. No, it’s the most popular links. Millions of people accessing the websites determine which will rise to the top of the search. One of Google’s philosophies is that “Democracy on the web works”. Imagine if that kind of democracy took over marketing. Suddenly, shelf space wouldn’t be about companies elbowing their way to the center or top, it would be about calculating what people actually want and making that accessible to them. Advertising would probably become more personalized, the same way that Google ads correspond to your search term. All in all, advertising would be less about convincing people they want something they didn’t know they wanted and more about informing people about what options were available to them according to what they needed. I also see this focus on “democratic marketing” increasing the influence of user reviews and ratings. Word of mouth has always been big – under Google, it will just get bigger. It will be less about celebrity endorsements or impressive statistics and more about having satisfied people reporting that the product is legitimate. Think the reviews on Amazon Books. Now apply that to buying peanut butter or toothpaste. (And yes, there are people out there who have very strong opinions on different brands of peanut butter. You just have to look a little harder to find them.)

            The second change I foresee in marketing is increased efficiency through increased simplicity. For an illustration of this simplicity, just look at the Google homepage. When stating their philosophy, Google jokes that they “may be the only people in the world who can say our goal is to have people leave our homepage as quickly as possible.” 70 percent of the page is simply white space. I never even really realized that the “about Google” button was even there until I looked for it. No, the homepage is dominated by two things – the Google logo and the search box. The brand and the function. Nothing fancy or elaborate, no smoke and mirrors to jazz up the product. Rather companies will depend on the recognition of their brand and the evident efficiency of their product.  Another company that adheres to this type of advertising is Apple Products. Do Apple stores even have a name at the front? No, they just have a giant Apple logo. And everyone still knows where to go to buy an iPod. There’s something very attractive about simplicity. Will it work for all companies to try this? Probably not – it’ll seem gimmicky after a time. But I do predict an increase in simplicity, similar to Google’s easy-to-understand design for both its homepage and its search engine.

Google's philosophy...

is to provide users with an efficient and reliable tool that gives results instantly. Their ten core principles outline their mission in more detail, and a few of them specifically address how they practice advertising. The ads are located discretely on the side as a sort of list under "Sponsored Links" and only the ads that are relevant to your search are displayed. To test this out, I went to Google and typed in "cookies", and sure enough, there on the right side of the page was a neat little list of all the cookie companies I might be interested in, including names like "Cheryl&Co." and "David's Cookies." Then I typed in "chocolate" and got chocolate brands like Godiva and Ghirardelli. It's a little spooky how the ads are perfectly tailored to my searches..

I think it's pretty nifty how the ads are listed right there for me. They don't intrude my own searches and don't scream for my attention as other ads might do. Unconsciously, as consumers see these ads they might associate Google's authority with the quality of the product and assume that the higher up they are on the list, the better they are. What's more, the option to look and possibly purchase the product is only a credit card and few mouse clicks away. This is also part of Google's philosophy: to make life easier by providing a fast and easy method to get what you're looking for. Over the next several years, consumers might take to purchasing more things online to save time and energy. Who knows, we might even have the option of buying our groceries online. Google and many other internet sites have already made the task of choosing and buying easier for us by narrowing down our options and suggesting certain products. All we have to do is decide whether we want it or not. Or, we can ignore them completely.

BUY MORE!

I am walking down the cereal aisle in ten years, children lagging at hand, browsing for the newest and healthiest brand to feed my children. Whatever nano gadget i will be holding instantaneously pops up all the nutrition facts and reviews of that product, maybe even in a visual hologram. Maybe I will be able to scan the product with my new device and that way I would not even have to look it up. In ten years I could see such corporations such as Google creating this sort of easy-analysis-consumer heaven. Google's purpose is to create a sort of community and openness. With what society can already do today through Google is amazing, so imagine what Google and other large search engines will do to try and make consumer decisions more painless.

I absolutely think that Google encourages consumers to buy more! More! More! Because the more you know about a product the more likely you are or are not going to buy it. I think this will also cause some of the less competitive companies to fail because if there are so many good easy-access reviews about the major companies that everyone loves (coke, huggies, jiff etc.) then the less profiting companies will have little to no chance.

Descarte, Kant, Nietzche, and Google?

When I think of a list of viable philosophers and philosophy Google isn't the first thing that comes to mind. Actually, up until this week Google wouldn't have come to my mind at all. I guess I hadn't really thought about it before but I suppose all good companies (and plenty of bad ones too) have a philosophy - a model they run their business by. Google's philosophy is different than you might think. It involves openness, transparency, and community. The question is, does this model effect purchasing and consuming?

I believe that any company that uses an approach similar to Google's will see an increase in sales, therefore also increasing consumption. People are more likely to buy a company's product if they feel appreciated as a customer. On a different level Google encourages consumption itself simply by providing a chain link to practically every shopping site on the internet. Therefore which ever way you stack it, the creation of Google and the philosophy of Google does have an effect on consumption.

Google!

As a preface of sorts, I decided to limit my research to official Google websites, so my information could be biased. However, I think that Google isn't evil yet, so it is probably fairly accurate.

One large facet of Google seems to be advertising. Google's primary source of income, it would seem, is from their advertising. Yet the ads remain unobtrusive and clearly designated. They use technology to give each user very relevant ads. I particularly enjoy the ads that come up in gmail. It always makes sense that I would see those ads, even if that isn't really what I was looking for. It seems to me that if Google continues with it's smart advertising, pretty soon people won't ever have to go to stores to buy things. Whatever I want, even if I only hint at it, is presented in an ad in my email or on a search page. I won't have to look for things to buy, they will come to me. This makes shopping somewhat more convenient, particularly because there isn't as much hunting around to find what is really important. Of course, people might start spending a lot more money on things that they don't really need because the suggestions will be for things that they hadn't thought to buy previously.

Google's published philosophy includes a list of "Ten Things" with short descriptions. The first one is to focus on the user, first and foremost. It's nice to know that they are trying to make a product that will work as well as possible for me instead of just trying to make money at my expense. This likely serves to balance the great focus on advertising and will likely keep people more loyal because they will not be bombarded with advertisements instead of useful content. If Google suddenly started advertising like lots of other websites with ridiculous and irrelevant large distracting banner ads people would probably stop using it as much and would probably not use the ads to find useful items. This would mean consumerism wouldn't change much in the next 10 years due to Google.

Numbers two and three on the list of Ten Things basically amount to making sure that what Google started out as, a search engine, will work a well as possible. They will focus on making sure that search works well and quickly. With such a powerful tool for browsing such vast amounts of information as are available on the internet, people will most likely find new hobbies and items to buy, even without relevant ad placement. In the past, one might need to go to a store to find out about all the latest camping equipment or knitting paraphernalia, but now they can sit at home or in an office and browse things from all over the world. I'm sure people buy things that they otherwise wouldn't because they find it online, and this trend will probably increase with time as searches get more efficient and people get more used to shopping from their desk. Another aid to shopping is Thing number five, which emphasizes accessing Google from anywhere. Stuck on a train going across the country? You could shop online! Sitting in a boring meeting or lecture? You could buy plane tickets to a much more exciting place! You could do comparison shopping right from the aisle of your local store. Sure, lots of information is out there, but a lot of it just might affect consumer habits. Instant gratification is getting to be the norm, instead of the luxury.

Thing six is the every-popular "do no evil", though it is phrased a bit differently. Google states that "you can make money without doing evil". This is why they don't bombard people with ads, even though that is how they make money. Google works hard to build the trust of users. Breaking that trust at this point would be disastrous. People don't expect to be able to trust other companies, but Google has the power and the information to become very evil, so people need to know that Google can indeed be trusted. If people lost their trust in Google, Google wouldn't be able to change consumer habits in the nest 10 years, and the answer to the nebulous question posed for this blog assignment would be "N/A".

Another factor that might affect consumers is Google Ventures, which aims to invest in companies that could improve "consumer internet, software, hardware, clean-tech, bio-tech, and health care, just to name a few. Google doesn't require these companies to even use Google products. They just want to help companies that are doing a good thing to grow. Google could fund some of the most important consumer businesses in the future, which would steer consumers, though the exact ramifications of this are very difficult to predict.

In summation, Google does a lot that will undoubtedly affect consumer habits in the future. They make shopping more efficient and help consumers to be more informed, both of what exactly they want and what they didn't know they wanted until they saw it. People trust Google and will therefore keep using it and clicking on ads. Funds from Google Ventures will have an very unpredictable effect on the future.

Oh Google!

I ended up on google's corporate information philosophy page. They mentioned that in order for them to make money, they have to have advertisements, but they do it in a more discrete way. I never really knew these were ads, but when you google something and on the side there are links with little descriptions about something you are actually looking for, well those are their ads. And they have found those to be much more effective then having big picture ads or pop ups, which interfere with the searching process. I still don't see very many companies following this practice, because they still have the banners on top of their webpage or on the side, but I think what they will begin to conform too, is the way google only places advertisements that are similar to your search request.

If for instance I was searching for shoes, their advertisements would be related to shoes. And I think more websites will catch on to this, because no one wants to see or cares about a insurance ad if they are looking for information about biology. Another issue their tackling are the ads which offer free gift cards or ipods, but you have to sign up with one of their sponsors and pay a fee first, google is no longer tolerating those ads, and banning them from google. Maybe people won't feel scammed if they never recieve their free item or decieved.

Google is taking preemptive strikes I believe to offer us with more options on things that we actually want or looking for. Hopefully this makes us more conscious aware of what we are shopping for and it makes us more conscientious consumers. I think a downside could be that we may buy more of what we are looking for, but hey at least we aren't buying random things that we really don't need.

acumen fund

I thought that Seth Godin's video was interesting because he proposes a challenge that really made me think. To put it bluntly, he basically said not to become the typical doctors, but to lead and create a formula that everyone will eventually follow. The challenge really stuck out to me because these days, I have been thinking about what I want to do in the future. During my freshmen year of college, I was 100% sure about my biology/pre-med track because I thought that being a pediatrician was the perfect job for me. However, recently, I have been less sure about what I want to do. Science has become less appealing to me, and this video really gave me an opportunity to think about Seth Godin's challenge. It also gave me encouragement because I know to try again and again, and yet again, if everything fails.

Creative Problem-solving and the Acumen Fund as the Future of Charity

Having recently lost some weight, I went on a quest to find better-fitting pants. However, I had a dilemma--I couldn't go shopping with my mom. She always gave me her true (sometimes too true) opinion of what was appropriate and looked best. We might not have agreed--ok, never agreed--but I valued her honesty and sense of class. It might not seem like a big deal, but a mom is more worthwhile than a thousand girlfriends. So I started asking random mothers their opinions; it worked. As it turns out, almost all moms have similar opinions about how young women should dress.

But why is this important? A search for jeans isn't, really. But stepping outside my comfort zone and asking complete strangers for their opinions allowed me to observe something about a unique demographic and apply my new found knowledge to the problem at hand. When confronting a problem, whether individually or with a community, we need to keep in mind how to access opinions other than our own. Without a fresh outlook on a problem, the issue grows stagnant and no new growth can occur. Actively searching for new opinions keeps critical thinking from becoming redundant.

The Acumen fund does just that--it keeps itself from growing stagnant by using new and innovative ways to make charity a renewable resource for the giver and receiver. They search for methods that will keep both the receiver from becoming dependent on charity and the giver from thinking too narrow-mindedly.

Why aren't they doing that?

After reading Bill McKibben's chapter on eating locally, I wondered about restaurants' websites regarding their food. Most restaurant chains and some local restaurants have menu lists of how many calories each item has, not to mention fat content, percent daily value, and other tidbits about their food. But why not tell where they got the food? You can ask the chef what time the salmon was flown in that day, but can you ask where they got that broccoli?

I think that restaurants (and grocers) should provide not just nutritional information about their menus, but harvesting/fishing/slaughtering locations of where they got the ingredients for those items. It's just as important--if not more so--to know that your eggplant came from down the road as it is to know that a breadstick has 180 calories. Especially in the midwest, when we have so much fresh produce at our fingertips three quarters of the year, should we be aware of where the food we eat comes from.

Personal Giving

Most people think of charity as some sort of abstract establishment that we can donate to during Christmas and feel better about ourselves. But reaching the poor among us (monetarily or otherwise) is not just about giving money to an organization or government. Yes, that is a viable option for people who don't want to get their hands dirty, and there certainly would not be as much help for the poor without organizations to manage the funds; however, the experience of helping someone personally changes both the giver and recipient. (And no, giving pocket change to a street person does not count for the purpose of face-to-face charity.)

Personal experience with the situation of the poor--such as serving at a soup kitchen--makes their predicament real, and it helps us realize that this group of people we categorize as "the poor" is diverse. It also helps make it clear that they are real people, not just poignant pictures on the tv screen. Without a change in mindset about what these people need, and who they are, no government funding will work as a possible solution. And without real people to actually go out and do something with it, money is useless.

Rethinking laundry in the 21st century, from the NY Times' "Room for Debate" blog.

Acumen Fund

In the acumen fund video, “Seth Godin Wants You to Decide,” there are key point that are brought up in how people should go about helping others in poor countries. The speaker Seth Godin, is talking to student leaders about becoming a future entrepreneur and what they could do with this skill. Godin then tells of the goals of the acumen fund. They are to raise money to patient capital, invest in entrepreneurs to make stuff to sell to the poor, and change the world. In expanding on these points Godin gives an example of a person that makes $2 a day and a person that is selling soap for that same price. When a transaction is made both parties win, and make a profit. The seller gets money so they could expand business while the buyer is cleaner hence healthier, so they can spend more time getting an education rather than being sick. I felt that this point was very interesting and it is a good way to think of helping people.
Godin also brings up the point that the more people selling merchandise from door to door in Tanzania, the easier it would be to build up a culture of commerce that benefits people on both sides. These points are innovative, due to the fact that it brings people to view service in another way as well as open up the door for people to build up more business and expand in their areas of expertise rather than joining in on another company. It is also mentioned that acumen needs good competition so that more people can benefit from their mission. I would not have looked at that in this way, but it makes much sense. The more people competing to become entrepreneurs, sell their merchandise, and build up commerce in poor countries, the more these countries will learn to build up for themselves changing the world for the better.

Working for Acumen

The Acumen fund is one of many organizations that seek to take a revolutionary new approach towards international aid. A prime example of another organization is Heifer International, which provides livestock and education about agriculture rather than money to help relieve global poverty. In addition, there are multiple organizations that use microlending to help people start their own businesses with small investments. These organizations all seek to stop the system of giving handouts for a quick fix to poverty and hunger and want to switch to a system where aid agencies help countries develop the means to help themselves.

Seth Godin’s presentation on behalf of Acumen Fund brought up many interesting points about how organizations like Acumen can bring about lasting change in developing countries. Acumen provides capital for entrepreneurs in developing countries so that they can help to slowly bring their entire country out of poverty. Instead of giving handouts, Acumen is trying to change the culture of developing countries to enable them to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

After giving this introduction look into why Acumen fund is such a powerful agent of change, Seth Godin urges young people to go out and work to help Acumen change the world. He states that the “secret agenda” of the Acumen fund is to breed a culture of commerce in developing countries to ultimately enable countries to become successful on their own. This is possible through the work of bright young minds from developed countries going to help acumen kick start the competition and drive that will we help breed a culture of commerce.

In the end, Seth Godin’s presentation seems to encourage young people to embrace working for organizations like Acumen over entering fields like medicine. He claims that there will always be doctors, but working for Acumen could change the world. While he does present a good argument about how working for an organization like Acumen could have a greater long-term impact on the world, I feel that he is being unfair to students who chose to get an education instead of working for organizations like Acumen. While we need to do more for developing countries, we also need the best doctors, researchers, teachers and other professionals that we can find in our own country. Although working for Acumen is worthwhile, encouraging our young people to work for Acumen at the expense of training a new generation of elite doctors, scientists, and teachers is not something that I personally am fully willing to risk.

Entrepreneurship, a way out of poverty

Ever see those videos highlighting global poverty? They show clips of starving children, dilapidated homes, and houses made from trash. Most of the time, it’ll showcase really run-down and poverty-stricken economies that no one should have to live in. Personally, I feel extremely saddened whenever I see how much the children suffer. Living in the US where we’re more concerned about whether we’ve got the newest and shiniest things, watching those videos is like a wake-up call. Just like those videos strive to bring awareness to poverty-stricken people, organizations like TED and people like Jacqueline Novogratz work towards the same goal.

I’ve heard people comment that they feel sorry for people who are suffering from poverty; they just don’t see how anyone can truly get rid of poverty because the problem is just too big and complicated to solve. While the task is definitely a big challenge, I don’t think it’s impossible. In one of her talks, Jacqueline Novogratz told of how one woman, Jane, found a way out of poverty. Though Jane had tried many ways to earn money (even having to depend on prostitution), it wasn’t until she was able to begin her own business (fixing old garments/dresses and selling them) was she finally able to really escape from the chains of poverty.

I found it interesting that her answer to solving her problem was to develop her own business. While some (mostly western way of thinking) may consider the amount of money she earned wasn’t enough to categorize her as “not poor”, from her perspective, the limited money she was able to earn made a huge difference in her life. Her story made me think that a major key towards solving global poverty is to help people finance their own businesses, help them become entrepreneurs and find a way out of poverty for themselves. Like in Jane’s case, all she needed was some money to fund her business, and from there, she was able to make money and in a way, take herself out of poverty. She wasn’t completely reliant on someone else to carry her out of her troubles. Jane could have decided to continue living in poverty, but she took the initiative to find a solution. But, her solution wouldn’t have made a difference if she hadn’t met someone who could help make her idea become a reality (through funding). Entrepreneurship seems to be one facet in which to help lower global poverty, and people should take the opportunity to help others if given the chance. Who knows, some day it could be us needing the help some day.

Seth Godin and the Acumen Fund

I thought this video was very interesting - the opening sequence was inspiring, as was Seth Godin to a certain extent. I appreciated how he talked in simple terms, so that I could basically understand everything he was saying, and it wasn't as if he was preaching to me either, or at least his tone of voice didn't evoke that.

Now to address the actual content of the story: I found it odd that Mr.Godin would talk about how materialistic our society is, example of the woman with over 400 pairs of jeans, and then promote a movement which would basically lay the foundation for other countries to have people who do exactly the same, in due time. I think it's a really good idea, what the Acumen fund is doing, giving entrepreneurs an opportunity rather than handouts, but it still will lead to vast consumption and materialism. But how do you reconcile the benefits and the consequences? I don't know.

I also wasn't sure how I felt about his words on school. He talks about how it promotes materialism and I'm not exactly clear on how it does that still - I mean if we were not to go to school, we would still want to buy things, we would still see other people owning certain things and therefore want to follow the trend. What's wrong with being educated? He's obviously educated and he wouldn't pay these kids any attention if they weren't educated - he wouldn't be proposing that they join the cause if they were high school dropouts. Maybe I just didn't understand him completely.

One of the last things that really got my attention is when he very bluntly said that the world doesn't need more doctors, let other people become doctors, if you do you'll only be a cog in a broken system, instead "decide". I think it's odd that he thinks they should all decide to be entrepreneurs, and change the world, and then and only then, will they truly be helping. Sorry, but we all don't want to be entrepreneurs, what if one or two of them really really want to become doctors, will they seriously not be helping the world?

Overall, this video was truly thought-provoking.

acumen fund encouragement

Seth Godin's perspective on changing the world certainly has an interesting and encouraging perspective on making a difference. He mentions that to cause change is to retreat from your comfort zone; he warns us that things will be hard at first and that we "will fail, over and over again". What really caught my attention was the soap and $2 analogy. I like this analogy because it puts a different perspective to money and its worth. People often times think people with less money are less happy than those with more money, but in reality happiness is not weighed on a scale but rather in where your mindset is at. You control how happy you are.

The other point that stuck out to me was his example of pursuing a doctoral career. Seth Godin says that every one of us could be doctors but that would be a bad idea because we're signing up to be a cog in a broken system." I didn't really find this convincing or appealing to me because not everyone was meant to change the world. Some people actually want to be doctors, and thus, this becomes an insult to them in a small way. I'm also kind of confused about what the "broken system" actually is... Actually...the more I think about it, the more confused I get, but as of now, I feel as though some people are meant to create change, and others are meant to follow.

Not charity, choice. Not dependence but dignity. What can we say about the noble aims of the Acumen Fund and how they are empowering others to join the battle against poverty? If anything, the Acumen Fund inspires a feeling of hope about the future of our world, instead of of a sort of impenetrable dread that arose while reading Sachs. We see, in Acumen's mission, implementation, and spreading awareness, actual solutions that can work and real people who are working behind these solutions.

As inspiring as these messages were, I could not help but be struck by how radical and unique Seth Godin's approaches were. His assurance that the world had enough doctors and to forgo going to medical school while using your talents elsewhere was really quite an interesting thought. I couldn't help but wonder, if people really did that--- if individuals really forwent a future of stability and job security and high standard of living, to venture into an unknown area with only their brilliance and passion to change the world as support. Such an undertaking, almost reminded me of the missionary field that some of us at Andrews dedicate a year or more of our school year to. In both cases, I feel like it takes an incredible individual to step out into the unknown in an attempt to truly, and I mean truly, change the world. Such an active approach entails so much more then trying to shape the world in the confines of your comfy office in your city of choice amidst your familiar and predictable clientèle. Therefore, I value Seth Godin's radical (and kinda crazy) approach, if only because they illuminate certain ideals I thought were all but lost in society today.

Getting Off Our Fannies - A Perusal of The Acumen Fund & Entrepreneurship

"I want to make this world good. Not better, but to make it good. Why not? It is possible. Look around in this room -- all this knowledge, energy, talent, and technology. Let's get off our fannies, roll up our sleeves and get to work, passionately, in creating an almost perfect world" - these are the words of Isabel Allende, a speaker for the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) Conference (http://dotsub.com/view/32444fb9-72f7-4996-b826-27d1c0a9e491/viewTranscript/eng). The TED Conference's mission is "ideas worth spreading" (http://www.ted.com/pages/view/id/5). TED is a non-profit organization that people such as Isabel Allende and Seth Godin are a part of. I was immensely impressed with Ms. Allende's quotation - for no matter where one stands on the liberal/conservative scale, regardless of one's opinion on how much people should get involved in which organization, I believe that we all agree the world is messed up and needs fixing. There is no perfect solution; nor are we even remotely close to a consensus on what needs to be changed, but people are striving, in some small way, to get involved and add their contribution to making the world a better phrase, to borrow the oft-used phrase.
This is precisely what the Acumen Fund and its promoters (Seth Godin, for one) are attempting. The concept of supporting innovative entrepreneurs to change the economic backbones of their countries is brilliant. I have had my doubts and worries about how much welfare truly helps those at home and abroad. Do the funds truly help give people the financial boost they need in hard times or does it take away their independence and the independence of subsequent generations? I don't have an answer to that question, but I feel much more enthusiastic in backing a plan which allows the creativity and hard work of ingenious minds to pave a path for the financial development of struggling countries. All in all, I am curious to read and hear more about the Acumen Fund and entrepreneurs such as Seth Godin, who have the bravery, will, and desire to try something few of us are willing to attempt.

Acumen Fund

                  I like the philosophy of this fund for several reasons. First of all, I like the amount of respect they have for the people that they are helping. They're right when they say that charity isn't always the answer. Yes, there are desperate situations where immediate and free help is needed, but people can be intelligent and ambitious as well as being poor, so really it's better to work with them than to just throw money at them and then feel good about yourself. And as Seth Godin points out, there is no incentive to work harder with many charity cases. However, the Acumen Fund seeks to give people both help and respect, which I think is a vital combination for any charity that wants to succeed.

                  I also like how this concept is financially stable on it's own. I had a friend who was a member of the La Sierra chapter of SIFE, and he spent an entire year coming up with an idea that would help people and still make him money. And then he went to a conference where all the other chapters from all the other schools got together and shared their ideas for helping people and making money. And really, there are so many ways that's possible; we just haven't spend a lot of time generating ideas. I heard a great quote once about economics that basically said that while people often think that one side must give for the other side to gain, real economics can have both parties mutually benefit. And I think the Acumen Fund, even though it is not a commercial organization, is seeking mutual benefits, for the fund and for the people they help. And a nonprofit organization that gets money from more revenues than simple donation is an excellent idea.

Acumen Fund and Education

The story of the elderly Kenyan woman who had the privilege of using an Ecotact toilet instead of crouching behind a bush was touching and also brought back some memories. It is those little things in life, like being forced to go to a soup kitchen or sleep in a shelter or crouch behind a tree that can be so humbling, especially when you recognize that not everyone has to live that way. Driving a Toyota Camry instead of a Ferrari may be humiliating to some, however I believe that to be a small percentage of the world. At least you can get from point A to point B without being forced to walk. But that I should have to use a tree as a toilet on any occasion besides a week long backpacking trip in the Appalachians remarkable. I appreciate the fact that Acumen desires to give people a common dignity.

What I appreciate most about the Acumen fund, however, is probably their aim to educate people to change their lives and help them run their businesses more efficiently, for example. The Indian farmers that are earning $400 more a year have a simple irrigation system that they can pass on to further generations. It isn't just about a handout; it is about empowering and enabling someone to have a better, yet still simple life. They don't have to win the lottery and live in the lap of luxury. They can, however, enjoy the beauty of efficient work and steady food on the table.

Acumen Fund

The Acumen Fund video by Seth Godin was not what I expected it to be. They did show a video of the "typical" poor people and tell us why we need to contribute. I really like the idea of giving people in third world countries the opportunity to stimulate their economies instead of us ( as Americans) truing to 'spoon-feed' them so to speak. We, as Americans, think we do so much when we travel to third world countries and give a bag of food and some clothes--not to say there's anything wrong with that, however it is better for the locals to help their own countries for the long run. The video was very straightforward in acknowledging what needs to happen in these developing countries so that they can move forward.

The challenge that Godin presented to the college students was another aspect that caught mt attention. It is true that many college students have a set course in mind and usually don't deviate from their path. I thought it was interesting that he acknowledged, that in order for change to occur, we ( college students) need to step out of the area that we feel the most comfortable in. And in doing so we are going to fail. This is a big issue for me because I am in my career path hoping that I wont fail because I feel comfortable in my field. me, and many other college students are afraid to make the decision for change because it will bring a lot of failures and obstacles that may not be overcome until years later. when I think about all the positive changes that are effecting the world today, I imagine that someone had to take the first step to failure in order to succeed. The Acumen Fund is definitely one of those out of the box, yet obvious projects that should have been started a long time ago. Change lies in the hands of those who are willing to take advantage of an opportunity and do something out of the ordinary. The main question that looms in my mind from this video is what would happen if I decided to step outside of the box and do something that was never attempted before? Do I have the power to start a change? Its scary how much potential is wasted because people do not seize the opportunity.

Creative Problem Solving is Stepwise

I'm the "math" type. It isn't because I like numbers all that much, nor am I fantastically good at getting mathematical concepts. I like doing math because it is logical and somewhat finite; even if I'm not positive I know how to solve the problem, if given enough time, I could exhaust all the options to come up with the right answer. The satisfying part about it is that I can KNOW with a fair amount of certainty that I have the solution, even if I started without a clue. (Ironically, I'm a Bio major, so if I haven't memorized the answer, I am pretty much out of luck).

I think this shotgun approach of logically going through and exhausting the options is pretty effective when it comes to solving problems in the real world. Granted, most of the potential solutions must be weeded out by thinking about it rather than actually applying it to the situation. However, I think this is what Novogratz did in founding Acumen Fund. She was inspired because she was already actively thinking about making a difference. From there, she took the best logical choice, and when that didn't work out, she re-evaluated the situation to come up with new best options.

I think this is the key for motivation and inspiration, which are so elusive to college students today. These things rarely come at random; there is usually a trigger, and this trigger can be self-induced. By actively immersing oneself, by force if necessary, new ideas will become visible. As ideas turn into practical and measurable results, motivation will naturally increase. This is how I deal with my procrastination tendencies, and it is also the attitude I can adopt to be successful in the future.

I want to conclude by saying that I am very happy to know that there is a philanthropic organization such as the Acumen Fund. I think often times people are reluctant to donate to charity (unless it's for show) because they don't know if their contribution will even be that effective. Solving world poverty clearly needs philanthropic motives; there is no capitalistic incentive in investing in certain impoverished areas. That is why I am impressed with the thoughtful and intelligent means through which Acumen Fund guarantees the most impact per dollar.

Providing Tools for Dignity

The words of the flashing mission statement at the beginning of each Acumen film really struck me: "People seek dignity, not dependence, choice, not charity." So often we seem to think of acts of giving and service as an end. The Acumen project, on the other hand, points out that these acts are only means to the end of independence and dignity that all people deserve. The mission statement closes with the words, "which is why we invest in entrepreneurs who are building transformative businesses to serve the poor." And Acumen is seeking to do just that--supporting those who are reaching out to support humanity a step above the mere bestowal of physical goods.

After watching several of the videos about the leadership seminars Acumen has begun to offer and visions for the future, the video that caused me to stop and contemplate the most was the one called "There is a toilet!" in conjunction with Ecotact Limted.

As a business that Acumen has supported, Ecotact is beginning to build toilets and place them in areas where public restrooms often consist of squatting behind bushes in a park or flinging the contents into the alley way in a plastic bag. As Acumen's mission states, Ecotact is seeking to give people a sense of dignity that they have not had before, a lasting dignity evidenced in the physical presence of toilets.

It is rather like Acumen is providing an education and a new way of life, not just, say, a new house. I like to think of it being like a tool service, or even better, a tool borrowing service, where those in need can borrow tools, and then return them to be passed on to others--its sustainable, a growing experience for all involved, and an excellent ministry.

Seth Godin

Seth Godin's video helped me to understand a little bit more how the Acumen Fund works, and I really liked the way he explained it using the soap analogy. Also I think that what he says about not only giving blank checks to people is very true, it is way more beneficial to actually invest in developing countries in a way that they can become more independent, so they can have more jobs for the people, which will bring several other benefits to the country (healthier people, better educated, etc.)

A point that I did not like was when he said that they should not go to Med-School because we are never going to run out of doctors, I personally think that developing countries need a lot of doctors. So doctors will also help the people of the country to be healthier, so they can be better educated, work more, etc.

In conclusion, I agree with most of the points of Mr Godin, the Acumen Fund is a great idea, and
he explained pretty well, let just hope that this will be the solution to some of the problems in developing countries.

Acumen Fund

Above all, I'm impressed with how the Acumen Fund treats people at even the extreme poverty level with respect. They are not seen as victims, but as "potential customers and budding business people in their own right." From what I understood, selling things to people and encouraging them to buy more things in countries where the average person lives on only a couple of dollars a day can increase business commerce and subsequently lift many people up from living at a mere subsistence level. I respect Jacqueline Novogratz for giving up the "rewards of Wall Street" where she had previously worked, and instead dedicating her attention, time, and effort towards the things that really mattered in life: helping and benefiting others.

The part where Seth Godin talks about deciding to change the world and doing what no one has done before made a pretty big impression on me. It also made me question my motives for studying medicine. I know part of me is doing it for my pride, but I'm not so sure about the other part. For me, my definition of helping others was always physical. Doctors help patients by diagnosing illnesses, giving them the appropriate treatments, and essentially saving lives. But that is only a small portion of what it means to truly aid your fellow human being. Besides medical treatment, they need the basic of basics including food, water, shelter, and clothing. There are so many more ways to help and contribute to the world, but like 99% of university students, I'm afraid of deciding, or I don't want to decide to take that route. I want to do what is familiar, accepted in society, and is consistent with what I was taught. With the Acumen Fund, Godin guarantees that people will face failures over and over again, and this is what makes me hold back. Do I have it in me to give up the "rewards" of being a doctor to pursue a more challenging but rewarding moral vision that Jacqueline has set up? I can't say for sure, but it's definitely something to think about.

Seth Godin on the Acumen Fund

I liked the way Seth Godin talked about the Acumen Fund. He broke it down in a way that explained how education and factories have played a part in income throughout history and Acumen has incorporated this into its mission. I also felt he was being very real with us. He talked about all the benfits Acumen creates without writing a blank check. He showed us why Acumen is the best way to break the cycle of poverty, as opposed to government help: Help from the government is equivalent to a blank check. Those in poverty don't need this. Instead, they need people to meet them where they're at so that they can independently improve their lives.

We don't have enough money to be doing it the government way; there's only so many blank checks a nation can write. This type of help isn't a transaction in which both sides are profitting, which is why it sounds so unappealing to large corporations. The needy are recieving while wealthy are losing. But Acumen, on the other hand, creates a profit while helping the needy create a better lifestyle for themselves. In this way, the people receiving the help are less dependant and have an improved sense of life. In this way, the cycle of poverty can be broken as people are helped out of their seemingly hopeless situations and into a profitable, cleaner, healthier and educated lives.

Acumen Fund

Why do so many people tell us not to be doctors? We need doctors! The world needs doctors. That always bothers me.

On to the actual topic at hand...

Seth Godin's video points out that Acumen helps create societies of commerce throughout the world. I suppose this can be good, especially if they encourage local economies. True, you can't just give people things all the time, there needs to be a way for them to produce or procure it in a fair trade. I suppose I was just caught a little off guard by the commerce goal, though, considering all the things we've been learning in class. Maybe I don't understand exactly what the authors of the books we've been reading have meant, but it seemed to me that after a very small increase in economy, more growth would cause more harm than good. I always like to cite the world's overpopulation problem as a reason not to help people, but that is a very bad reason to do a bad thing (or not do a good one, as the case may be). I think small businesses can be great, especially when they provide a necessary service. I suppose that it is the duty of the Acumen Fund employees to help decide if various entrepreneurs have good and useful ideas or if they are just in it to make a buck or two.

Acumen is trying to encourage young professionals and other young people to get involved and do what they can to help. For those people blessed with a talent for understanding and prospering in business, sure, they can help raise money for the fund. However, this type of assistance is not for everyone. Not everyone is good at raising money. Not everyone is business-savvy. I feel like there is no place for me to help out. Acumen encourages everyone to be creative and entrepreneurial so that everyone can solve problems all by themselves. This is not a well-rounded approach. It may not be as glamorous to be the behind the scenes person who supports good work by copying papers or filing reports, but those jobs are nevertheless necessary. Even the children that came in on children's day were expected to come up with creative solutions to big problems and form businesses. Surely there were some children that didn't really make it on the video who just sat there and lettered posters because they didn't have any creative ideas.

Overall I think that Acumen probably does very good work. I'm sure they help out many people in a way that allows the people to begin helping themselves, which is very important. I don't really feel like I could help them out at all at this point in my life, or even for a while yet. Then again, I'm not trying to address the problems of the world. I just want to help the people I can, which are usually those around me. Maybe I'm just not seeing the big picture. However, I feel that if you always focus on the biggest picture possible and always look as distantly as you can you miss a lot of things going on right under your nose. Maybe not everyone can create a profitable business that can invest in and support Acumen. But maybe they can give some food to their neighbor who had an unexpected expense and can't afford groceries this week. Maybe they can fix something in the home of someone who can no longer do that sort of thing for themselves. Acumen isn't for everyone, but the concept of helping others is. People shouldn't be discouraged because large entities like Acumen encourage them to do things they aren't suited for.

Acumen Fund

I find it very refreshing to see a corporation fighting for the good of humanity. They use their money to support those who have innovative ideas about how to end world poverty. There's this TV show on ABC entitled "Shark Tank" in which people with inventions present their ideas to billionaires in order for them to invest in their product. I thought that this was good because it promotes and furthers people's dreams. However Acumen Fun has taken it a step further and are investing in those who have the ultimate goal of helping someone else. I find their efforts hopeful, yet discouraging.

Watching this group has forced me to question if whether I'm doing enough for those in need. In the clip I watched they had invited a number of college students who were driven to end world poverty. And although I am proud of Andrews for having all kinds of clubs and missionaries that also have the same goal, I wonder if we could do something bigger; something that could really change the world in a big way. Watching this makes me question whether or not we are doing the same things over and over, I'm not saying that what we're doing is bad and pointless, I am sure that we are helping a lot of people. But could we do more? Set up companies in which the people could support themselves, hold free workshops in Benton Harbor giving them the tools they need to survive. I know that we have health fairs and parades, but is that enough? I remember once I spoke to a teacher at the middle school in Benton Harbor and she said that the students needed speech pathologists to teach them how to communicate, and I thought to myself, "we have so many speech pathology majors who know how to give speech therapy." I guess this just led me to ask: could me be doing more? And the answer is it starts with me.

Mixed Feelings

As with Sachs, my feelings about the Acumen Fund are very mixed.
No. Let me rephrase that.
I really love what the Acumen Fund is doing to truly help people in developing countries--and not just in the short run. Seth Godin's video, however, gave me some distinctly unhappy feelings.
All my life, I was brought up to believe that we in the "First World" have a duty to help those who are incapable of helping themselves. As I grew older, that mindset has stayed with me, even though many around me are rather vociferously against "handouts" and seen to be very paranoid of being taken in by scams.
Even though I am all for aiding the poor, I was elated by the logic and vision of the Acumen Fund. As the Internet site says "Traditional charity often meets immediate needs but too often fails to enable people to solve their own problems over the long term." The site describes how the Acumen Fund works to actually give people not just food or medicine (which run out in a short time), but rather helps them make a living for themselves.

While the work of the Acumen Fund impressed and inspired me very much, Seth Godin's video bothered me just a little. At the beginning of his video, he talks about the purpose of education, claiming that it is to essentially dumb people down so that they would be complacent enough to work in a factory. This I must disagree with--heartily. If one takes the time to look at history, one would discover that the reason that education was revolutionized after the Civil War was because people--mostly women--were distressed that the population of the United States was caught in a cycle of uneducation, ill health, and poverty. A movement for public education was begun and became the school system that we all know now. Seth Godin's pronunciation that education was created for the appeasement and dumbing-down of the masses really bothered me. He's basically telling a great big lie to further an agenda. Granted, it's a very noble agenda, but that doesn't make lying about the past right.
Besides my problems with Godin's views on education, however, I found his speech to be essentially a rehashing of everything that the Acumen Fund is about. And I like the Acumen Fund. It's doing really good work for the world, really smart work.

"People seek dignity, not dependence." I love this concept of ending poverty. Why is it that the traditional view of aid has not effectively changed the impecunious situations that have arrested the vast majority of people across the globe. It is because we, as the privileged elite, have failed to empower those who are below us in financial class. I love the quote that people seek dignity, not dependence. This is what Acumen seeks to do, to empower and give people the means of improving themselves, not just giving funds that last a limited time.

I was watching a video of Jacqueline Novogratz and it was awesome to hear her story of the interconnectedness of the world. How a sweater given to a Good Will in VA can be transported all the way to Rwanda is pretty incredible and is a testament to how material goods can be circulated across the world. Her story and the aim of Acumen is very novel and has great potential. People don't simply want to receive aid that is temporal. People want to learn how to be productive and to contribute to the global economy. By investing in local entrepreneurs and encouraging business in third world countries, everyone appears to be benefitting, both the consumer and the producer.

It would be interesting to see if such concepts could be integrated to an organization such as Andrews University or the Adventist Church in general that has a an emphasis on missions and the general improvement of the world. I would love to integrate these principles on this campus and incorporate Andrews into the global pursuit of ending poverty.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jacqueline_novogratz_invests_in_ending_poverty.html

Seth Godin, No; Acumen, Yes

Seth Godin worried me. I wanted to be sure it was him and not some random mood swing so I watched the video twice at separate times. However, each time I saw it, I couldn't help but feel. . . unsettled. Unfortunately, I can't identify exactly what part of his speech had this effect on me and why.

Perhaps I feel he is being inconsistent. He extols spreading the capitalist model as a method to help the poor after criticizing it's implementation here in America. Yes, he envisions a new application with a focus on those in poverty, but I'm a little skeptical that the same model that caused the widening division between rich and poor can so easily be modified to close the gap.

Then there is his attitude toward school. I sense Mr. Godin would make a differentiation between school and education (which I wouldn't deny him). Yet, his assertion that school is designed to perpetuate the status quo seems unwarranted. Perhaps I'm idealistic but I don't see institutionalized education as an attempt to brainwash the populous. Yes, school is supposed to prepare us for our lives in society, yet a key part of that preparation is learning how to think for oneself. If schools really have become a 12 - 18 year propaganda campaign, then why am I writing this? Your education is whatever you make it to be, no matter what school you attend.

Despite my personal feelings about Mr. Godin, I feel the Acumen Fund is accomplishing much good in the world. Their working model makes sense and is getting results. I especially like their attitude. As Mr. Godin said, they seek to change the world, not come in first place. To me, that desire for change, instead of being the best, is the organization's strongest tool for fulfilling their goal.

Acumen Fund

I like what the Acumen Fund is doing. They seem to be using their money wisely--investing where it matters most like drip-irrigation, solar-powered ambulances, and even public restrooms in Mumbai where sanitation is an issue and where people don't have much dignity.

At first, I wasn't sure about Seth Godin's speech about encouraging poor people to be consumers because it will help buisnesses make a profit which will trickle down through goods and jobs etc. It seemed like we were thrusting the American ideal of consumerism on people who barely have enough to eat, which is foolhearty. And this would be true if we were encouraging them to buy Nike's. But if we encourage them to buy something valuable--like soap--then both parties win (as Seth Godin pointed out). People who can spend less energy on surviving can spend more energy on something to make the world a little better.

But this leads me to another question. Is it possible to create a perfectly balanced, closed system for goods and services? If all these people are now living and producing more than is required to survive, where will all that extra go (especially, if Americans stop consuming so much in order to save the environment)? I don't know the answer to that. But I do know, that we are called to relieve suffering wherever we can and this is what I plan to do.

Acumen Fund

Thank you so much for introducing me to the Acumen Fund! Finally a take on poverty solving that actually makes sense to me! I think the whole idea is absolutely brilliant. Why do we continue to give handouts to the poor, when teaching them how to take care of themselves is so much healthier? We all want to be independent and self sufficient. What little kid wants Mommy to tie his shoes forever? We all want to learn how to take care of ourselves and stand on our own two feet. I personally believe that if the Acumen Fund's concept was applied to the American Welfare system we might be in better shape today.

I am normally semi-turned off by non-prophet organizations which is terrible and I will probably suffer eternally for it. However, the main reason why I find the non-profit sector usually unappealing is because it often doesn't make sense to me. I'm not interested in putting bandages on wounds - I want to heal wounds. I don't want to give handouts that are often more crippling then instructive - I want to teach people how to support themselves and live independently. I'm very excited to have discovered the Acumen Fund and look forward to learning more about what I can do to get involved.