Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Jennifer Nelson
594 followers -
Local Digital Marketing Consultant
Local Digital Marketing Consultant

594 followers
About
Jennifer's posts

Post has attachment
The internet is a special place and we live in special times...listening to +Gary Vaynerchuk always gives me a good kick in the a** and simultaneously thoroughly amuses me...worth a watch...

Post has attachment
Great content marketing info...

Post has attachment
World's Toughest Job - #worldstoughestjob - Offic…: http://youtu.be/HB3xM93rXbY

Post has shared content
Love this idea! 
This is the coolest startup concept I've seen in ages. Get your hands dirty with real artisans.

Post has attachment
Interesting site- +GPlusData - Found myself at #3  for top Google + users working in #socialmediamarketing  in  #Dallas  and a whole lotta other searchable data.

Post has attachment
Wow. Just wow. This is so very ugly.

Post has shared content
HA! Good laugh from this one :)

Talking with Women  -  just too damn true.

Less than 2 minute video.  It's NOT about the Nail!

It's Not About The Nail


#menarefrommarsandwomenfromvenus   #communicationskills  

Post has attachment
:) This one is for +Scott Ellis 

Post has shared content
New tricks from Google
Many people turn to Google Search to ask health-related questions like “How many calories are in a banana?” or “How many carbs are there in an apple?” Starting today, you can find all kinds of nutrition information in Search—ranging from the basics like potatoes and carrots to more complex dishes like burritos and chow mein. Tap the microphone to give the feature a spin, and discover the ins and outs of 1,000+ of your favorite foods. More info: http://goo.gl/FoKQz

This feature is rolling out in English in the U.S. over the next 10 days. Over time we’ll add more features, foods and languages. 
PhotoPhotoPhoto
2013-05-30
3 Photos - View album

Post has shared content
Thought provoking #business 
Why Silicon Valley is not the second coming of the Gilded Age.

I love +Steven Johnson's rebuttal of George Packer's piece in the New  Yorker, which repeats the tired refrain about Silicon Valley solutionism and the bizarre notion that Silicon Valley is dominated by Randian libertarians. (I think Johnson is absolutely right in his definition of a new kind of political persuasion, which he calls the "Peer Progressive", and describes beautifully in his new book Future Perfect.

In this piece, I particularly liked Johnson's take on wealth creation in Silicon Valley.  While Packer decries the tens of thousands of millionaires as creating a new upper class, Johnson points out something more profound and important:

"Then there’s the issue of inequality, which is where Packer starts, observing the rise of homelessness and the staggering cost of real estate in the area. No doubt about it, the explosive rise in wealth and income inequality in the U.S. may well be the single most pressing problem that we face, the slow but steady reversal of the last century’s rising tide. Packer deserves serious props for shining a light on that disturbing trend. But here again, I think he gets the Silicon Valley part of the story wrong, even if his motives are in the right place. Early in the piece, he cites a telling statistic: “There are fifty or so billionaires and tens of thousands of millionaires in Silicon Valley.” Think about that for a second: tens of thousands of millionaires, almost all them created by companies that didn’t exist two decades ago.

"Why did that happen? Sure, companies went public or sold for staggering sums, but companies have been going public or selling out for generations without creating tens of thousands of millionaires along the way. The defining difference between Silicon Valley companies and almost every other industry in the U.S. is the virtually universal practice among tech companies of distributing meaningful equity (usually in the form of stock options) to ordinary employees. Before companies like Fairchild and Hewlett-Packard began the practice fifty years ago, distributing stock options to anyone other than top management was virtually unheard of. But the engineering tradition that spawned Silicon Valley was much more egalitarian than traditional corporate culture.

There’s a great book on this topic, called In The Company Of Owners, that documents just how distinct the Valley is from the rest of U.S. corporate culture. The top 100 tech companies granted 19% of their total ownership to non-senior-executive employees (i.e., everyone excluding the CEO and four lieutenants.) For the rest of corporate America, that number was 2%. In other words, when it came time to share rewards with ordinary employees, the Tech 100 were ten times more generous than low-tech firms. This is actually one of the hidden strengths of the tech sector in the US: its companies are much more competitive precisely because they are much more egalitarian in how they share their wealth internally. I would be surprised if there were any new industry in the history of capitalism that distributed its economic rewards to its employees as widely as Silicon Valley has. Billionaire founders or CEOs are nothing new. But multi-millionaire middle-managers? That’s something else altogether.

"This is the paradox that Packer elides with his New Gilded Age narrative....

"For Packer, the lesson seems to be: the excesses of the digital-era super rich give us a case study in the growing problem of inequality throughout the U.S.. But you could reasonably draw the exact opposite lesson: that one way to deal with rising inequality is to make the rest of corporate America act more like Silicon Valley."

I totally agree. The reason we have lost the middle class is because workers don't share in the success.  Supposedly, it goes to the shareholders, but the dirty secret is that much of the gain goes to the management.  A great book on the topic is Lynn Stout's The Shareholder Value Myth.
Wait while more posts are being loaded