Author: Douglas Galbi

communication: three business visions

In Sense in Communications, I distinguished among three models of communication: information transfer, story-telling, and presence. These models of communication directly relate to business visions. Information transfer is central to Google’s mission: “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” Story-telling is at the heart of the television and film entertainment business. Presence has been an implicit aspect of some successful telephone company promotions, e.g. “reach out and touch someone,” “the friends and family plan.” Communications companies lacking vision might benefit from thinking more about communication.

advertising and information

Back in 2001, I documented that the share of advertising spending in total economic output (GDP) and real advertising spending per person-hour of media use has been roughly constant since 1925. The development of new sensuous forms of media, such as radio and television, did not change the macroeconomics of advertising.

Google (GOOG) has acquired a market capitalization about $125 billion using text-based advertising. Google has created value in advertising not through media innovation but by making advertising much more information-intensive.

Perhaps such a change in advertising will make possible sustained growth in the share of advertising spending in GDP.

What's The Frequency, Kenneth?

I applaud important new research from MIT on the frequency attenuation properties of aluminum foil deflector beanie helmets (AFDBHs). This research concludes:

It requires no stretch of the imagination to conclude that the current helmet craze is likely to have been propagated by the Government, possibly with the involvement of the FCC. We hope this report will encourage the paranoid community to develop improved helmet designs to avoid falling prey to these shortcomings.

The research indicates that AFDBHs disturb radio frequency waves. Nonetheless, the FCC has never regulated the use of AFDBHs. Thus the FCC is probably not responsible for the rapid growth in the use of this radio device.

secure rights to use radio devices

A lot of ink has been spilled about “defining property rights in radio spectrum.” Unfortunately much of the discussion has lacked sufficient appreciation for physics and for institutions. In “Property Rights in Spectrum: Taking the Next Step,” Dale Hatfield and Phil Weiser discuss some important issues of signal characteristics that have been largely ignored in the U.S., but not in Britain and Australia. For more details, see Section II of my work, “Revolutionary Ideas for Radio Regulation.”

Update: Playing around with blog searching, I found two blogs (here and here) presenting this article. These blog entries seem to me to be focused on fostering publicity (a fine and important communication function) rather than on advancing discussion of the article. Am I missing some aspect of blogging here?

too many words

Some friends and colleagues that I’ve tried to cajole into reading my work have gently complained that it has too many words.

I said, “I will watch my ways,
lest I sin with my tongue;
I will set a curb on my mouth.”
Dumb and silent before the wicked,
I refrained from any speech.
But my sorrow increased;
my heart smoldered within me.
In my thoughts a fire blazed up,
and I broke into speech