BP: beyond irony

Stephen Hsu posted this image on his blog under the heading “BP advertisement from 1999”. The date (1999) seems improbable, in that BP didn’t enter the US market until 1998 (when it merged with Amoco) and the logo wasn’t launched until the company rebranded itself as BP plc in 2001. That doesn’t mean that the image of the ad is faked, only that the date attributed to it is wrong. Whatever the truth of the matter, it’s clever.

LATER: Mystery solved. Dermot Casey tweets that it’s from a t-shirt made by Despair Inc..

The Pain Caucus

Further to my musings about the new definition of ‘courage’ as the willingness to inflict financial pain on others, here’s an interesting NYT column by Paul Krugman.

The extent to which inflicting economic pain has become the accepted thing was driven home to me by the latest report on the economic outlook from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an influential Paris-based think tank supported by the governments of the world’s advanced economies. The O.E.C.D. is a deeply cautious organization; what it says at any given time virtually defines that moment’s conventional wisdom. And what the O.E.C.D. is saying right now is that policy makers should stop promoting economic recovery and instead begin raising interest rates and slashing spending.

What’s particularly remarkable about this recommendation is that it seems disconnected not only from the real needs of the world economy, but from the organization’s own economic projections.

Thus, the O.E.C.D. declares that interest rates in the United States and other nations should rise sharply over the next year and a half, so as to head off inflation. Yet inflation is low and declining, and the O.E.C.D.’s own forecasts show no hint of an inflationary threat. So why raise rates?

The answer, as best I can make it out, is that the organization believes that we must worry about the chance that markets might start expecting inflation, even though they shouldn’t and currently don’t: We must guard against “the possibility that longer-term inflation expectations could become unanchored in the O.E.C.D. economies, contrary to what is assumed in the central projection.”

With one bound, the Times’s law-blogger is free!

Well, well. BabyBarista, whose witty law blog has hitherto been a must-read on the Times site, has jumped ship.

I have today withdrawn the BabyBarista Blog from The Times in reaction to their plans to hide it away behind a paywall along with their other content. Now don’t get me wrong. I have absolutely no problem with the decision to start charging. They can do what they like. But I didn’t start this blog for it to be the exclusive preserve of a limited few subscribers. I wrote it to entertain whosoever wishes to read it. Hence my decision to resign which I made with regret. I remain extremely grateful to The Times for hosting the blog for the last three years and wish them luck with their experiment. I hope very much you like the new site and also the addition of the wonderful cartoons by Hollywood animator Alex Williams who also draws the Queen’s Counsel cartoons for The Times.

Good for him.

LATER: Just noticed that Roy Greenslade has more on this. It seems that BabyBarista (aka Tim Kevan) has some reservations about the Murdoch paywall:

I think the decision will prove to be a disaster. There are so many innovative ways of making cash online and the decision to plump for an across-the-board blanket subscription over the whole of their content makes them look like a big lumbering giant, unable to cope with the diversification of the media brought about by online content, blogging, Facebook, Twitter – the list is endless.

Canute-like in their determination to stop the tide of free content and using a top down strategy which makes even the Post Office look dynamic.

Now for the next interesting question: what will Mary Beard, the Cambridge Professor of Classics, do? Her blog has hitherto been the other reason for reading the Times.

Pigeon held in India on suspicion of spying for Pakistan

No, I have not made this up. It was in the Daily Telegraph, so it must be true, mustn’t it?

Indian police are holding a pigeon under armed guard after it was caught on an alleged spying mission for arch rivals and neighbours Pakistan, according to reports in local media.

Published: 4:33PM BST 28 May 2010

The white-coloured bird was found by a local resident in India's Punjab state, which borders Pakistan, and taken to a police station 25 miles from the capital Amritsar.

The pigeon had a ring around its foot and a Pakistani telephone number and address stamped on its body in red ink.

Ramdas Jagjit Singh Chahal, a police officer, said he suspected that the pigeon had landed on Indian soil from Pakistan with a message, although no trace of a note has been found.

Officials have directed that no-one be allowed to visit the pigeon, which police say may have been on a “special mission of spying”.

The bird has been medically examined and was being kept in an air-conditioned room under police guard.

Senior officers have asked to be kept updated on the situation three times a day, according to a report from the Press Trust of India (PTI) news agency.

What motivates us?

As a co-founder and director of a technology start-up, I’ve thought a lot about what motivates staff. And I’ve been puzzled for years by a contradication that I’ve continually encountered. I’ve known lots of successful people in my time, and yet I cannot think of a single one who’s been primarily motivated by financial incentives. That’s not to say that they don’t like earning a decent salary, just that they’re not driven by money. And yet in business — and, during the New Labour years at least — in the public services also, the conventional wisdom is that financial incentives are the way to get higher performance from staff.

So you can see why I was fascinated by this cleverly-illustrated version of Daniel Pink’s RSA lecture about motivation, which is based on his book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. (Full lecture here.) The essence of it is that financial incentives and penalties work well for jobs/tasks that are dull and repetitive and impose a low cognitive load on those who do them. But the minute one’s dealing with roles which are intellectually challenging, then the carrots-and-sticks approach fails.

Interesting, don’t you think? It becomes even more interesting when one sees that Neil Davidson, the co-founder of Red Gate Software, one of the most interesting and admired companies in Cambridge, decided to abandon the complex commission structure the company had developed to motivate its salesforce and replace it with a system based on (increased) flat salaries. Guess what? It works just fine, and Red Gate is taking its market by storm.

Now, here’s the really interesting bit. You may remember that whenever the issue of paying obscene bonuses to investment bankers is raised, we are solemnly informed by the directors of publicly-rescued banks that it’s essential to continue to pay said bonuses because otherwise the aforementioned wizards will go elsewhere. The clear inference is that they are entirely motivated by financial incentives, viz bonuses. But if it’s really true that financial incentives are what motivates bankers, then doesn’t it follow that the work they do is repetitive, dull and imposes a low cognitive load? And if that is indeed the case, then why don’t we just replace them with software and have done with the whole grisly business?

So does the Telegraph have a political agenda?

Silly question, I know. All papers have political agendas. But it’s interesting to note that Danny Alexander, the Lib Dem MP who has stepped in as Chief Secretary to the Treasury as replacement for Mr Laws, has now also been fingered by the Daily Telegraph on the basis of what they’ve uncovered in their precious unexpurgated CD of the Commons Fees Office’s records.

Now of course one could argue that this was just a further example of the Fourth Estate fulfilling its constitutional duty. But, if one had a nasty suspicious mind, one might wonder if it were a symptom of the proprietors’ disapproval of the coalition idea.

Spot the balls

The madness begins. Lovely piece by Emine Saner in today’s Guardian. It seems that England’s spoilsport manager Fabio Capello has limited the access his players will have to their wives and girlfriends to one day after each game, with further restrictions should the team progress.

“There is a historic element that has become a kind of mythology in sport,” says Greg Whyte, professor of applied sport and exercise science at Liverpool John Moores University. “The Ancient Greeks believed that sex was detrimental in the build up to the Olympics – that it sapped energy, lowered test-osterone and reduced aggression. But research runs counter to this. There have been a few studies on sex before sport and they have shown it has no effect on performance. However, sleep quality is crucial in terms of performance and sex can enhance sleep, so therefore it may enhance performance.” Unless it’s preventing them getting any sleep.

But it seems that not all teams are facing a sex ban. Argentina’s team doctor Donato Villani was reported in the Sun (where else?) last week as saying:

“Sex is a normal part of social life and is not a problem. The disadvantages are when it is with someone who is not a stable partner or when the player should be resting.” It is very important, he notes, that “the action should not reverberate in the legs of the players.”

Quite so. I’m depressed about this. One of the most entertaining aspects of the last World Cup was the spectacle of the England Wags wandering like a cloud through a host of upmarket shopping malls.

Behind the Digger’s Paywall

The FT has an interesting peek behind the impending Murdoch paywall.

“It looks a lot like a newspaper, which I don’t think we’re apologising for,” said Tom Whitwell, assistant editor of the Times. “The article pages we think are simple and clean, and easy to read.”

He talks of a “news hierarchy”, with fewer stories thrown at the reader than most newspaper websites. “We are not going to show you all the news,” he says, comparing that favourably with “Google News showing you 4,000 versions of the same thing. We are giving you our take on the news.”

The Times’ stories will not be among those 4,000, with not even a headline visible in the Google index (or indeed that of any other search engine). Peculiarly, the existing TimesOnline site will live on after the paywall goes up for an indeterminate time, although it won’t be updated – an admission, perhaps, of how baked into the web its links already are.

The funniest thing in the piece is the burbling of Danny Finkelstein, the engaging Times Comment Editor:

“We can project the Times with all its tradition and iconography, but on the web,” he enthused.

Few of the Times employees presenting their plans used the word ‘paywall’ unprompted. But Mr Finkelstein insisted this barrier would not prevent him from sharing links to his articles on Twitter or cut the newspaper out of a wider online conversation. Rivals without the protection of a paywall “won’t go viral, they will go out of business”, he said.

Although there were hints that extracts might occasionally be visible to non-subscribers in the future, the Times’ content will remain tightly locked up with not even a first paragraph to tease in new customers. This apparently aids the “clarity” of the offering, in contrast to the less binary model offered by the Wall Street Journal and the FT.

“We are unashamed about this,” said Mr Finkelstein. “We are trying to make people pay for the journalism…. I want my employer to be paid for the intellectual property they are paying me for.”

Aw, shucks. It was nice knowing these guys. But I guess they’ll find jobs outside the paywall.

I liked what Steve Hewlett said about it on the Today programme this morning. To paraphrase him, everyone in the newspaper business is cheering them on and hoping it will work — but thinking that it won’t.

tblair@khoslaventures.com – the new tech guy on the block

Truly, you couldn’t make this up.

SAUSALITO, Calif. — Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, is turning his attention to Silicon Valley. Mr. Blair is becoming a senior adviser at Khosla Ventures, the venture capital firm founded by Vinod Khosla, an investor and a proponent of green technology.

Khosla Ventures, which Mr. Khosla founded in 2004 after leaving the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, made the announcement here on Monday at a meeting of its investors. The firm is investing $1.1 billion in clean technology and information technology companies.

Mr. Blair will offer strategic advice on public policy to the firm’s green portfolio companies. They include Calera, a manufacturer that uses carbon dioxide to create cement products; Kior, which converts biomass like wood chips into biofuels; and Pax Streamline, which aims to make air-conditioning more environmentally friendly.

“The more I studied the whole climate change issue and linking it with energy security and development issues, I became absolutely convinced that the answer is in the technology,” Mr. Blair said in an interview.

You know what this appointment reminds me of? Mike Lynch’s decision to appoint Richard Perle (aka the US Prince of Darkness) to the Board of Autonomy.