PeppercomBlog

Missing, Inaction

Posted by Matt Purdue

Where, oh where, has my little chief executive gone? Where, oh where, can he be? Two high-profile men have been playing cat-and-mouse with the media lately, providing communications professionals with very clear lessons in what not to do. 

First, Apple leader Steve Jobs has reportedly returned to work at the company in Silicon Valley following a liver transplant. Jobs’ health (or lack thereof) has spurred nagging questions for five years now, since he announced in 2004 that he was having surgery to remove a cancerous tumor on his pancreas. During this crisis, Jobs was open with employees, investors and the media, informing them that his cancer was a rare, less-aggressive form of pancreatic cancer than the grave condition most of us have come to expect from this disease. 

The media’s been abuzz over Jobs ever since, commenting ad nauseum on his appearance and his disappearances from industry events. In September 2008, Jobs implied that he was fine, and announced that he would no longer answer questions about his health. But this year, Jobs revealed both that he’s suffering from a hormone imbalance, and also that he had a liver transplant. The media—print, digital and social—continue to follow his every move with baited breath.

Citizen “Journalists”?

Posted by Matt Purdue

Real journalists are headed to the blogosphere in droves, and this trend bears watching--and celebrating--by all of us. 

Just the other day, I heard that Kerry Peckner, formerly of Retirement Income Reporter, has begun blogging professionally. He’s the third print journo I’ve noticed in the past two month who has gone out into the digital world on his/her own. As a former ink-stained wretch from the land of print newspapers, I have to give these folks a tremendous amount of credit. They’re a little late, but they’ve finally realized that print media is going the way of the dodo bird. (Of course, as I write this, Kerry’s site won’t load. The digital realm is not without its set of challenges.)

God knows we need more “professional” bloggers. With apologies to all the legit bloggers out there, the blogosphere remains more like a flea market of information than a healthy exchange of real ideas. In fact, we may be about to reach the absolute bottom of the blog bargain bin with the release of the new film, Julie & Julia. From the syrup-addled mind of Nora Ephron (Sleepless in Seattle, Bewitched), this bit of treacle tells the true story of a “lowly cubicle worker,” Julie Powell, who spent a year making all 524 recipes in Child's cookbook and blogging about it. It “changed her life,” the trailer intones. Holy crossover, Batman: an excruciating blog has been turned into a saccharine Hollywood onslaught.

Trustbusters and Troublemakers

Posted by Milos Sugovic

Giants have every reason to dread the perception of price-fixing and the actions of their “competition,” at least until June 23 of this year when the most effective cartel-fighting tool expires. Tech titans, or Googlopolies, are already on the radar as the Obama administration revs up its fight on predatory pricing and price-fixing. It seems the feds are increasingly turning their attention to the latter, and will continue to rely on none other than the prisoner’s dilemma framework.

The prisoner’s dilemma has helped antitrust authorities protect consumers and fight cartels via a section of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004. It worked thus far by providing tempting offers to crooked companies and letting them off the hook for ratting out fellow price-fixers. Giving a break to tattletales is nothing new; it’s the age old prisoner’s dilemma game which can result in and preserve sub-optimal market outcomes, or, if used strategically, can ensure market outcomes that improve the welfare for all.

How is the latter achieved in antitrust legislation? By tempting squealers. 

Junk Math and the BMI Charade

Posted by Milos Sugovic

Numbers are our best friend, unless of course, they’re used irresponsibly. The BMI or body mass index is one of the most widely used (or misused) mathematical formulas out there. Why? Because it’s a formula that generates a magic number which is scientific, accurate, and easy to understand. And like most formulas, it plays a key role in decision-making. Too bad it’s complete garbage. 

Nowadays, there’s a formula or index for virtually everything out there, and like the BMI, claims accuracy beyond its statistical power. Unfortunately, the PR industry, one that has traditionally struggled with quantifying qualitative data, isn’t immune to this predisposition. So it’s important for all of us to approach “diagnostic” measures, like the BMI, with a critical eye.

One doesn’t need a course in multivariate calculus to understand why the BMI measure is nonsense. Just look at the infamous formula:

BMI = weight in pounds / (height in inches x height in inches) x 703

First of all, it leaves out measures such as waist size, as well as the importance of relative densities of muscle, bone, and fat. But let’s ignore those for a minute and assume they’re irrelevant for the sake of simplicity. Just look at the formula. Why is height in inches squared? Is there any scientific reasoning behind squaring one’s height? What about the random 703? Where did that come from?