sábado, 20 de noviembre de 2010
martes, 26 de octubre de 2010
miércoles, 6 de octubre de 2010
martes, 21 de septiembre de 2010
Renta óptima ...
Siguiendo con la temática de la felicidad y el ingreso de las personas.
Happiness Money Report
Happiness Money Report
lunes, 20 de septiembre de 2010
domingo, 5 de septiembre de 2010
miércoles, 1 de septiembre de 2010
Economía Internacional UDP: Taller de blogs
Estimados alumnos,
1: Pobre/poco original 2: Bueno/normal 3: Excelente/Muy original
El blog que obtenga el puntaje máximo, corresponderá a la nota máxima obtenida, y desde ahí, se hace la distribución del resto de las notas por grupo.
Este taller considera dos notas, una por asistencia (100% = 7,0) y la nota específica por grupo.
Carlos Rojas
durante el curso de economía internacional, deben desarrollar un blog en grupos de 3 compañeros. Este blog se evalúa en base a la entrada realizada durante la clase (las entradas subidas fuera del horario no se consideran) y en los siguientes criterios:
- Actualización,
- Análisis económico
- creatividad de tema
El blog que obtenga el puntaje máximo, corresponderá a la nota máxima obtenida, y desde ahí, se hace la distribución del resto de las notas por grupo.
Este taller considera dos notas, una por asistencia (100% = 7,0) y la nota específica por grupo.
Carlos Rojas
lunes, 30 de agosto de 2010
Empresas 2.0
Empresas que no tienen puestos de trabajo fijos asignados a sus empleados. De hecho, tienen menos puestos de trabajo que empleados.
Teletrabajo extremo. No solo trabajar desde casa en ocasiones, sino tener empleados en otras ciudades o incluso en otros continentes.
Un tamaño pequeño (menos de 150 personas), elegido voluntariamente.
Empresas unipersonales, la reputación profesional como el mayor activo.
Uso de herramientas y recursos gratuitos o baratos. Elegir lo simple y práctico antes que lo perfecto y complejo.
Meritocracia frente a autoridad impuesta. Estructuras planas frente a jerarquías complejas.
El método de probar-medir-corregir frente a la planificación y el control de la ejecución.
El respeto al sentido común de los empleados frente a la imposición de procedimientos.
El cliente es más importante que el producto. Crear experiencias duraderas, no momentos de venta.
Hipercomunicación entre empleados, con clientes, con socios… usando múltiples tecnologías y en tiempo casi real.
Empresas abiertas, que comparten información y crean entornos en los que generan oportunidades de negocio para otros.
Hiperespecialización, empresas que hacen muy pocas cosas pero son excelentes haciéndolas.
Redes de cooperación entre empresas que se complementan o incluso pueden competir en un momento y cooperar en otro.
Micromultinacionales, empresas con empleados en varios países, con subcontratistas en varios continentes y con clientes en todo el mundo, formadas por un puñado de personas y con pocos recursos económicos.
Empresas flash, que se crean rápidamente y mueren rápidamente para aprovechar una oportunidad puntual.
Artesanía, ofertas personalizadas, creadas a medida de un cliente con preferencias muy particulares. Explotación de la long tail.
Empresas con sentido, ONGs con ánimo de lucro. La “responsabilidad social” no es una excrecencia añadida, sino que la propia empresa tiene clara su aportación a la sociedad en la propia manera de hacer negocio.
Teletrabajo extremo. No solo trabajar desde casa en ocasiones, sino tener empleados en otras ciudades o incluso en otros continentes.
Un tamaño pequeño (menos de 150 personas), elegido voluntariamente.
Empresas unipersonales, la reputación profesional como el mayor activo.
Uso de herramientas y recursos gratuitos o baratos. Elegir lo simple y práctico antes que lo perfecto y complejo.
Meritocracia frente a autoridad impuesta. Estructuras planas frente a jerarquías complejas.
El método de probar-medir-corregir frente a la planificación y el control de la ejecución.
El respeto al sentido común de los empleados frente a la imposición de procedimientos.
El cliente es más importante que el producto. Crear experiencias duraderas, no momentos de venta.
Hipercomunicación entre empleados, con clientes, con socios… usando múltiples tecnologías y en tiempo casi real.
Empresas abiertas, que comparten información y crean entornos en los que generan oportunidades de negocio para otros.
Hiperespecialización, empresas que hacen muy pocas cosas pero son excelentes haciéndolas.
Redes de cooperación entre empresas que se complementan o incluso pueden competir en un momento y cooperar en otro.
Micromultinacionales, empresas con empleados en varios países, con subcontratistas en varios continentes y con clientes en todo el mundo, formadas por un puñado de personas y con pocos recursos económicos.
Empresas flash, que se crean rápidamente y mueren rápidamente para aprovechar una oportunidad puntual.
Artesanía, ofertas personalizadas, creadas a medida de un cliente con preferencias muy particulares. Explotación de la long tail.
Empresas con sentido, ONGs con ánimo de lucro. La “responsabilidad social” no es una excrecencia añadida, sino que la propia empresa tiene clara su aportación a la sociedad en la propia manera de hacer negocio.
miércoles, 25 de agosto de 2010
sábado, 14 de agosto de 2010
viernes, 6 de agosto de 2010
The Newsonomics of the Fading 80/20 Rule
The Newsonomics of the Fading 80/20 Rule
de Newsonomics de Ken Doctor
Jim Moroney thinks he may be on to a new formula. It’s not as great — not nearly as profitable — as that old newspaper formula, but it’s one that may sustain his company into the future.
“The Dallas Morning News now gets 38 percent of its revenue from circulation, 54 percent from advertising, and 8 percent from contract printing plus,” the Morning News’ publisher tells me.
Those numbers are a far cry from the way it used to be for newspaper companies. They long used one of the many 80/20 rules out there: 80 percent of their revenue came from advertising, and 20% came from circulation.
Now, as ad revenue has been on a precipitous decline — down from almost $50 billion in 2000 to $24 billion in 2009, and still sliding a bit more — that old formula is out the window.
While the digital news world seems consumed with conversations about paywalls and memberships, it is old-fashioned print circulation revenue that is the gainer in the post-80/20 formulas. Sure, advertising’s ski slope decline has greatly altered the 80/20. So has, though, the significant up-pricing of both subscriptions and single copies over the past three years.
At the Morning News, Moroney — aided by research from consumer products company The Modellers — took monthly subscriptions from $18 to $30, in one fell swoop. Many other publishers have upped prices, though most have done it more gradually. Pick up a slim copy anywhere in your travels, and you see it now costs 75 cents or a buck; it used to be the “25-cent or 35-cent?” discussion that consumed executive committees.
The impact of the pricing moves is still uncertain. Short-term, they seemed to work. Though circulation continued to decline, circulation revenue was mildly up. The central notion: Get those with the newspaper habit to pay more of the freight, figuring that few would drop the newspaper because it cost two Grande Mochas more.
As we look at last quarter’s financial reports, we have to wonder how the up-pricing of circulation will work. As many companies showed a decline in circulation revenue in the second quarter as showed an increase.
A few of the numbers:
Gannett: down 5.9%
McClatchy: down 2.5%
Lee: down 4.4%
Gatehouse: down 2.5%
Moroney’s own company, A.H. Belo, of which he is an executive vice-president, reported a 6.6-percent increase. Additionally, The New York Times Company reported a 3.2-percent increase and Scripps a 4.5-percent increase (from 1st quarter data; 2nd not out until Aug. 9). Significantly, I think, each of those companies may have done a better job of minimizing newsroom cuts and reinvesting — at least a little — in that now higher-priced product.
While the jury is out on the stickiness of price increases, it’s clear the old 80/20 rule is gone.
Broadly, in research I conduct annually for Outsell, we track the global moves in ad, circulation and digital revenue. In 2009, circulation revenue was up more than a point over 2008 to 41 percent. Significantly, Japanese publishers continue to get a majority of their revenue from circulation, while much of Europe and UK see their percentages in 35-45 percent range.
ln the U.S., let’s just pull some data from the second-quarter reports. They show:
New York Times: Circ: 40%, Ads: 53%, Other: 7%
Scripps: Circ: 28%; Ads: 67%; Other: 5%
Gatehouse: Circ: 27% , Ads: 71%, Other 2%
Lee: Circ: 24%, Ads: 70%, Other: 6%
McClatchy: Circ: 20%; Ads: 76%, Other: 4%
Several factors will continue to push and pull the new ad/circ breakdown.
For one thing, we’re moving into an era of “reader revenue,” one that will roll up print subscriptions, single print copies, digital pay per view, digital subscriptions, all-access (across platform) subscriptions, memberships and more. For a next generation of reader revenue, tablet access is the big prize in the sights of publishers; witness, for instance, the likelihood of a News Corp. “iPad division.” Further, advertising will continue morph greatly, as digital marketing replaces some of that spend, enlarging and changing definitions.
Finally, don’t forget “other.” For A.H. Belo, it’s 8 percent now, but growing at at 35-percent clip. As news companies find “other” ways to make “other” revenue, we’ll see new formulas begin to make sense.
The Newsonomics of the Fading 80/20 Rule
de Newsonomics de Ken Doctor
Jim Moroney thinks he may be on to a new formula. It’s not as great — not nearly as profitable — as that old newspaper formula, but it’s one that may sustain his company into the future.
“The Dallas Morning News now gets 38 percent of its revenue from circulation, 54 percent from advertising, and 8 percent from contract printing plus,” the Morning News’ publisher tells me.
Those numbers are a far cry from the way it used to be for newspaper companies. They long used one of the many 80/20 rules out there: 80 percent of their revenue came from advertising, and 20% came from circulation.
Now, as ad revenue has been on a precipitous decline — down from almost $50 billion in 2000 to $24 billion in 2009, and still sliding a bit more — that old formula is out the window.
While the digital news world seems consumed with conversations about paywalls and memberships, it is old-fashioned print circulation revenue that is the gainer in the post-80/20 formulas. Sure, advertising’s ski slope decline has greatly altered the 80/20. So has, though, the significant up-pricing of both subscriptions and single copies over the past three years.
At the Morning News, Moroney — aided by research from consumer products company The Modellers — took monthly subscriptions from $18 to $30, in one fell swoop. Many other publishers have upped prices, though most have done it more gradually. Pick up a slim copy anywhere in your travels, and you see it now costs 75 cents or a buck; it used to be the “25-cent or 35-cent?” discussion that consumed executive committees.
The impact of the pricing moves is still uncertain. Short-term, they seemed to work. Though circulation continued to decline, circulation revenue was mildly up. The central notion: Get those with the newspaper habit to pay more of the freight, figuring that few would drop the newspaper because it cost two Grande Mochas more.
As we look at last quarter’s financial reports, we have to wonder how the up-pricing of circulation will work. As many companies showed a decline in circulation revenue in the second quarter as showed an increase.
A few of the numbers:
Gannett: down 5.9%
McClatchy: down 2.5%
Lee: down 4.4%
Gatehouse: down 2.5%
Moroney’s own company, A.H. Belo, of which he is an executive vice-president, reported a 6.6-percent increase. Additionally, The New York Times Company reported a 3.2-percent increase and Scripps a 4.5-percent increase (from 1st quarter data; 2nd not out until Aug. 9). Significantly, I think, each of those companies may have done a better job of minimizing newsroom cuts and reinvesting — at least a little — in that now higher-priced product.
While the jury is out on the stickiness of price increases, it’s clear the old 80/20 rule is gone.
Broadly, in research I conduct annually for Outsell, we track the global moves in ad, circulation and digital revenue. In 2009, circulation revenue was up more than a point over 2008 to 41 percent. Significantly, Japanese publishers continue to get a majority of their revenue from circulation, while much of Europe and UK see their percentages in 35-45 percent range.
ln the U.S., let’s just pull some data from the second-quarter reports. They show:
New York Times: Circ: 40%, Ads: 53%, Other: 7%
Scripps: Circ: 28%; Ads: 67%; Other: 5%
Gatehouse: Circ: 27% , Ads: 71%, Other 2%
Lee: Circ: 24%, Ads: 70%, Other: 6%
McClatchy: Circ: 20%; Ads: 76%, Other: 4%
Several factors will continue to push and pull the new ad/circ breakdown.
For one thing, we’re moving into an era of “reader revenue,” one that will roll up print subscriptions, single print copies, digital pay per view, digital subscriptions, all-access (across platform) subscriptions, memberships and more. For a next generation of reader revenue, tablet access is the big prize in the sights of publishers; witness, for instance, the likelihood of a News Corp. “iPad division.” Further, advertising will continue morph greatly, as digital marketing replaces some of that spend, enlarging and changing definitions.
Finally, don’t forget “other.” For A.H. Belo, it’s 8 percent now, but growing at at 35-percent clip. As news companies find “other” ways to make “other” revenue, we’ll see new formulas begin to make sense.
The Newsonomics of the Fading 80/20 Rule
jueves, 15 de julio de 2010
Los hechos nunca son lo que parecen
Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds.
Facts often do not cure misinformation.
Facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.
Facts often do not cure misinformation.
Facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.
viernes, 9 de julio de 2010
¿Quién es dueño de las noticias?
I gave a talk as part of a seminar on ‘Who owns the news’ last night. For those interested, my speaking notes are below. Thanks to Megan Richardson, Beth Webster and others for organising the event – it led to a very stimulating discussion.
Who owns the news: competition and the internet.
Presentation at the Melbourne Business School
July 8, 2010.
1. Approach
I approach this talk from the perspective of an economist. Thus I will not talk about the legal intricacies of copyright law and fair use. Rather I will concentrate on the changes that have happened to technology for news delivery and media more generally and analyse how these changes are altering the market for news production and delivery.
2. Why are we asking the question?
2a. Does the question make any sense?
At one level the question is nonsensical. If ‘news’ simply refers to public events then the ‘news’ as such is not owned by anyone. So to make sense of the question we need to consider a particular embodiment of the news in a written/spoken or video form that is subject to copyright and has a property right associated with it. This may be simple reporting of the facts or include commentary and opinion. So the question is really “who owns a particular report of news events”?
2b. Starting point is taking copyright law and fair use as given.
Copyright laws with provisions for reasonable use can be debated by the lawyers. So my starting point will simply be a non-lawyers approach to these rules. First, as a general approach if you ‘write it’ then you own that particular written version (or equivalently for other delivery modes). Second, small amounts of that written version may be reproduced without violating copyright.
2c. So what has changed?
My understanding is that the copyright laws are neither new nor have they been recently changed. So why is it topical today to ask the question “who owns a particular report of a news event”. The reason must be that something else has changed in the production and distribution of the news. That thing is obvious – the internet.
2d. Rationale for the question.
So the only reason that we are asking the question ‘Who owns the news’ is that the internet has fundamentally altered the business model for news production and distribution. The ‘narrow question’ of ‘who owns the news’ is really simply part of a broader debate about the interaction between the internet and the media.
3. What has the internet done to the economics of news delivery?
3a. Convergence
The internet has led to a convergence in media delivery modes. This convergence is continuing and involves a variety of models:
3ai. Distribution by a common mode – the internet.
Media are distributing the same product via multiple media. For example, newspapers, magazines and other printed media have been putting their content on the internet for many years. More recently, video media has been offering their content via the internet. For example, following the US and the BBC, Australian networks (most prominently the ABC) are putting their television content on the internet for viewing after it has been screened on free-to-air.
3aii. Convergence of types of delivery modes used by single new outlet.
Traditional media using the internet are using tools ‘outside’ their standard repertoire to deliver content via the internet. Thus, traditional printed media outlets are using multi-media tools in their internet content – for example embedded video that is tied in to their printed media. Similarly, traditional free-to-air radio is using print (e.g. transcripts) on the internet.
3aiii. Using the internet to complement traditional delivery.
Traditional media are using the internet to complement their traditional delivery and improve the quality of that delivery. For example, edited interviews will be shown on free-to-air television with the ‘full interview’ able to be viewed on the internet. In this sense the outlets are cross selling between delivery modes.
3aiv. Convergence of traditional and new delivery modes.
The delivery modes themselves are converging. The i-Pad is simply the latest element of this. The mobile phone has been a multi-media delivery mode for almost a decade (think original ’3 -mobile’ business model). LCD screens mean that the computer is a traditional TV as well as a high quality internet TV. Internet speeds have been increasing and download costs dropping – although Australia is still well down the list of OECD countries in terms of penetration and speed. So homes may still have devices that are dedicated to a single media such as a free-to-air TV or a digital radio. But homes will also have computing resources that allow them to access multi-media via the internet. And traditional devices will have internet capabilities (e.g. the Telstra T-box). From the Age July 5 2010: “according to a study commissioned by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, which revealed that one in five Australians had already viewed full-length television programs over the internet with one in eight full-length films online.”
3b. Capacity.
A key constraint that has been reduced through the internet is capacity. It is easy to add more detail to documents on the internet, to allow for links to further information and to simply make more information available to consumers. As internet speeds increase capacity constraints will become less relevant for audio and video news delivery via the internet. Time will not be a constraint as it is on standard television and radio. Pages will not be a constraint as per standard newspapers. The reduction in capacity constraint has fed into the convergence noted above.
3c. The internet has lowered the barriers to expansion and entry.
3ci. Local media now compete against the rest of the world for non-local news.
If I want news on the performance of the Australian cricket team in the recent one-day series, I can access Australian media or I can now access international media. Indeed, the best place to get coverage is the BBC website although I can also look up the website of other UK media outlets. When I want to check out the morning business news I can still use local media or I can read the NYT via the internet. This reduction in barriers to expansion is massive (e.g. when I studied in Boston 20 years ago!)
3cii. Entry into media and news delivery.
The internet has led to a range of new entrants in news and media. In entertainment, we now have youtube stars who have millions of viewers. In news, there are professional internet startups (Salon.com, crikey.com, Business Spectator) as well as amateur sources such as blogs. Of course, there is a cross over here – many professional journalists have blogs and the sites are linked to their traditional media and are used to enhance the traditional media.
3ciii. Advertising entry has destroyed the ‘rivers of gold’.
The internet has allowed entrants to take over the traditional ‘rivers of gold’ classifieds that funded newspapers in Australia. Realestate, automobile and employment advertisements have largely moved to the internet and are no longer tied in distribution to newspapers. Not only have entrants emerged to compete against the traditional newspapers, the war has been waged and, in Australia at least, the newspapers have lost.
3d. The internet has lowered consumer search costs for the news.
3di. Comparisons of alternative websites.
It is very easy for consumers to quickly compare media outlets on the internet. A consumer interested in a major Australian news story can quickly check the news and commentary on a wide range of local and international media outlets by simply accessing the relevant sites. Thus News, Fairfax, ABC, Business Spectator, Crikey, BBC, NYT, etc can all be accessed and compared in a matter of a few minutes.
3dii. Aggregators reduce the search costs even further.
The internet has created a new way for consumers to compare and contrast news stories through an aggregator. The most obvious version of this service is Google News. Using this service the consumer can isolate groups of stories that may be of particular interest to them and quickly compare small portions of each story through the ‘fair use’ policy. For example, lets say I am interested in news items on ‘antitrust and google’, I can put this into the Google News web site and get stories on Google’s proposed acquisition of ITA Software from Bloomberg, Fortune, San Francisco Chronicle, the Daily Mail and numerous other sources, using the ‘first line’ provided by Google to quickly check the angle of the story (e.g. straight news, commentary relating to the DoJ, commentary relating to share price, etc.) If this is not what I am interested in then I can check out other grouped stories (for example, the French decision against Google relating to advertising, the interaction between Apple and Google Ads and so on). In other words I can quickly check out the world for news stories from a huge variety of sources.
Summary of part 3:
So the internet (and the development of devices to use the internet) means that news delivery has gone from an industry that had high barriers to entry, very specific delivery modes that did not compete, and relatively localised geographic markets for most news sources to an industry with cross-mode competition, low barriers to entry, broad geographic reach. Consumers have been empowered to easily search between different media sources for news content. The internet has turned straight ‘news’ reporting into a commodity business. Information about mainstream news items can be accessed easily from numerous sources. Consumers can easily find those sources. If there are profits to be made by reporting news then entry or expansion will ensure that those profits are quickly dissipated.
4. What are the consequences for the production and distribution of news?
4a. Consumers have benefitted greatly – and will continue to benefit.
Consumers are hugely better off. Consumers have and will continue to have a vast array of sources for news. They will pay very little for much of this news. Consumers will also be able to tailor the news to their interests. Much of this is already available via the internet but it will come to dominate news delivery in the lounge room. Reading the paper on the train will simply disappear, replaced by electronic delivery of news. This means that news will be much more timely than traditional delivery.
4b. Consumers will pay little if anything for ‘commodity news’.
For general or commodity news of broad interest consumers will have to pay very little if anything. There will be a variety of delivery modes and the marginal cost of delivering to another consumer will be zero. Revenues for commodity news will be generated by advertising and so the competition will be for eyeballs.
4c. Consumers may pay for some ancillary or specialised products.
Consumers may pay for a variety of ancillary news products. Commentary on the news will be valuable and consumers may subscribe to their favorite individual commentators either directly (via a blog) or through a news provider.
4d. We do not know what the successful models for news production and distribution will look like.
There are likely to be a variety of different models tried in the next few years and some will fail. For example a news provider may make general news content available free (or supported by advertising) but ‘wall’ commentary to subscribers.
Alternatively, commentary may be placed around a ‘news feed’ and supported by advertising (like Business Spectator).
Alternatively, intrusive advertising may be used that can be avoided by subscription.
The successful models may depend on the type of news. For example, subscriber business commentary is likely to continue as a successful internet product just as it has succeeded as a successful ‘paper’ product for years. Some subscriber services will be tied to products (e.g. banks provide free analysis services to their clients at present).
Specialised business commentary comes close to a ‘long tail’ product. Specialist sports commentary, highly localised information and other ‘high value/small demand’ products may succeed on a subscriber model. But direct customer pricing will not work where there is not diversification and distinction. Products like Google news ensure that consumer search costs are trivial for low value news content.
4e. The next battle is about content source.
There has been an ongoing argument about whether content or delivery channel will dominate news.
The delivery channel of the future is wireline and wireless networks on electronic devices of various shapes and sizes. These networks raise a wide range of issues relating to investment and regulation – for example the NBN. These go well past the issue of today.
As noted above, content will matter, in the sense that consumers will only pay directly for content that is unique and cannot be easily replicated. In contrast standard content will need to compete for eyeballs and raise revenue via advertising.
But unique content depends on the source. This may be an individual journalist, writer or producer of content. But it will also be unique ‘events’.
One obvious example that is on at the moment is the world cup football. As competitive news providers vie to distinguish themselves, gaining the rights to unique events such as the world cup or different aspects of the news of the event (e.g. exclusive interviews in dressing rooms) will become increasingly important.
We have already seen that with the AFL and News Corp and Telstra. This means that significant winners in the battle for news media will be the creators of news-worthy events. While sporting competitions are an obvious example, events of narrower interest will start to attract interest, particularly if they can have wide distribution (potentially world wide via the internet). The annual Melbourne Institute – Australian conference is an early example of this broader ‘creation’ of unique news events, but it is likely to expand. So the battle is not between content and delivery – it is about the source of news.
4f. There will be significant industry rationalisation.
There are likely to be fewer standard ‘news’ companies. This will simply reflect declining profits for news delivery companies as consumers access news from a wide range of sources including direct reporting. Those companies that survive are likely to have lower cost models. This may be driven by low cost community journalism. It may be based on economies of scale and sharing of news – along the lines of press agencies. As noted above, commentary will still be unique and of value and the news delivery may be simply a side activity to commentary – essentially background for readers to know the issues the commentators are addressing. Accuracy and reputation of news source will be important and inaccuracy will be quickly discerned and communicated through ancillary news media such as blogs, facebook and twitter.
4g. Incumbents will battle to raise barriers to entry and expansion.
As with any industry where historic profits are being eroded by technological change, incumbents will attempt to either keep the new technology to themselves or to block the technology to keep barriers to entry high.
Remember the early ‘horseless carriages’ in the UK that were required to have a person walking in front with a red flag to warn of the danger (“In England, stupidity triumphed when Parliament passed the Locomotive on Highways Act in 1865. Popularly referred to as the “Red Flag Law,” it stipulated that all self-propelled vehicles on public highways be limited to a maximum speed of four miles per hour and be preceded by a man on foot carrying a red flag to warn oncoming horse-drawn vehicles.” Wikipaedia).
More recently it was illegal in Australia to colour margarine until the 1960s – which meant it had to retain its unappetising white colour. Even worse, some parts of the US required it to be coloured pink in the late 1800s. Guess who lobbied for the laws in each case!
Expect similar battles over the news. In my opinion, Murdoch’s attacks on Google News have little if anything to do with fair use of material. News can withdraw its papers from Google News anytime it likes (but it has not). However, Google News makes the market for news far more competitive and transparent by lowering customer search costs – something that reduces News Corps profits. News Corp and others will use legal means to try and block news aggregators in order to reduce customer information and keep up barriers to entry and expansion. Other news outlets have also been attacking news aggregators and search engines.
4h. ‘Unfair’ competition with public broadcasters like the ABC and BBC.
A major issue for news companies in Australia, the UK and other countries with a government owned broadcaster is the competition from this publicly funded broadcaster. Both the BBC and ABC are leaders on the internet – presumably because they do not need to make a profit. In the past this competition did not really matter. Public broadcasters tended to service niches that were not large enough for capacity constrained traditional media. However, the internet massively increases capacity and makes niches valuable to differentiate and charge for consumption. Thus the traditional BBC and ABC ‘space’ is now a valuable product. Further, these companies have their own capacity expanded by the internet, digital TV and digital radio – enabling them to compete head-to-head with traditional media, but without the need for profit. The role of public providers and attacking the BBC has also occurred through News Corp (e.g. James Murdoch speech – ABC background briefing).
5. Will the traditional news company (like News) survive?
Some will survive in a changed form. Some new companies will thrive and grow into the new news giants. But many news companies will go the way of the local blacksmith and the typing pool – driven out of existence by new technology.
Who will the corporate winners be? No idea – but if I knew I would be very rich!
http://economics.com.au/?p=5909
Who owns the news: competition and the internet.
Presentation at the Melbourne Business School
July 8, 2010.
1. Approach
I approach this talk from the perspective of an economist. Thus I will not talk about the legal intricacies of copyright law and fair use. Rather I will concentrate on the changes that have happened to technology for news delivery and media more generally and analyse how these changes are altering the market for news production and delivery.
2. Why are we asking the question?
2a. Does the question make any sense?
At one level the question is nonsensical. If ‘news’ simply refers to public events then the ‘news’ as such is not owned by anyone. So to make sense of the question we need to consider a particular embodiment of the news in a written/spoken or video form that is subject to copyright and has a property right associated with it. This may be simple reporting of the facts or include commentary and opinion. So the question is really “who owns a particular report of news events”?
2b. Starting point is taking copyright law and fair use as given.
Copyright laws with provisions for reasonable use can be debated by the lawyers. So my starting point will simply be a non-lawyers approach to these rules. First, as a general approach if you ‘write it’ then you own that particular written version (or equivalently for other delivery modes). Second, small amounts of that written version may be reproduced without violating copyright.
2c. So what has changed?
My understanding is that the copyright laws are neither new nor have they been recently changed. So why is it topical today to ask the question “who owns a particular report of a news event”. The reason must be that something else has changed in the production and distribution of the news. That thing is obvious – the internet.
2d. Rationale for the question.
So the only reason that we are asking the question ‘Who owns the news’ is that the internet has fundamentally altered the business model for news production and distribution. The ‘narrow question’ of ‘who owns the news’ is really simply part of a broader debate about the interaction between the internet and the media.
3. What has the internet done to the economics of news delivery?
3a. Convergence
The internet has led to a convergence in media delivery modes. This convergence is continuing and involves a variety of models:
3ai. Distribution by a common mode – the internet.
Media are distributing the same product via multiple media. For example, newspapers, magazines and other printed media have been putting their content on the internet for many years. More recently, video media has been offering their content via the internet. For example, following the US and the BBC, Australian networks (most prominently the ABC) are putting their television content on the internet for viewing after it has been screened on free-to-air.
3aii. Convergence of types of delivery modes used by single new outlet.
Traditional media using the internet are using tools ‘outside’ their standard repertoire to deliver content via the internet. Thus, traditional printed media outlets are using multi-media tools in their internet content – for example embedded video that is tied in to their printed media. Similarly, traditional free-to-air radio is using print (e.g. transcripts) on the internet.
3aiii. Using the internet to complement traditional delivery.
Traditional media are using the internet to complement their traditional delivery and improve the quality of that delivery. For example, edited interviews will be shown on free-to-air television with the ‘full interview’ able to be viewed on the internet. In this sense the outlets are cross selling between delivery modes.
3aiv. Convergence of traditional and new delivery modes.
The delivery modes themselves are converging. The i-Pad is simply the latest element of this. The mobile phone has been a multi-media delivery mode for almost a decade (think original ’3 -mobile’ business model). LCD screens mean that the computer is a traditional TV as well as a high quality internet TV. Internet speeds have been increasing and download costs dropping – although Australia is still well down the list of OECD countries in terms of penetration and speed. So homes may still have devices that are dedicated to a single media such as a free-to-air TV or a digital radio. But homes will also have computing resources that allow them to access multi-media via the internet. And traditional devices will have internet capabilities (e.g. the Telstra T-box). From the Age July 5 2010: “according to a study commissioned by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, which revealed that one in five Australians had already viewed full-length television programs over the internet with one in eight full-length films online.”
3b. Capacity.
A key constraint that has been reduced through the internet is capacity. It is easy to add more detail to documents on the internet, to allow for links to further information and to simply make more information available to consumers. As internet speeds increase capacity constraints will become less relevant for audio and video news delivery via the internet. Time will not be a constraint as it is on standard television and radio. Pages will not be a constraint as per standard newspapers. The reduction in capacity constraint has fed into the convergence noted above.
3c. The internet has lowered the barriers to expansion and entry.
3ci. Local media now compete against the rest of the world for non-local news.
If I want news on the performance of the Australian cricket team in the recent one-day series, I can access Australian media or I can now access international media. Indeed, the best place to get coverage is the BBC website although I can also look up the website of other UK media outlets. When I want to check out the morning business news I can still use local media or I can read the NYT via the internet. This reduction in barriers to expansion is massive (e.g. when I studied in Boston 20 years ago!)
3cii. Entry into media and news delivery.
The internet has led to a range of new entrants in news and media. In entertainment, we now have youtube stars who have millions of viewers. In news, there are professional internet startups (Salon.com, crikey.com, Business Spectator) as well as amateur sources such as blogs. Of course, there is a cross over here – many professional journalists have blogs and the sites are linked to their traditional media and are used to enhance the traditional media.
3ciii. Advertising entry has destroyed the ‘rivers of gold’.
The internet has allowed entrants to take over the traditional ‘rivers of gold’ classifieds that funded newspapers in Australia. Realestate, automobile and employment advertisements have largely moved to the internet and are no longer tied in distribution to newspapers. Not only have entrants emerged to compete against the traditional newspapers, the war has been waged and, in Australia at least, the newspapers have lost.
3d. The internet has lowered consumer search costs for the news.
3di. Comparisons of alternative websites.
It is very easy for consumers to quickly compare media outlets on the internet. A consumer interested in a major Australian news story can quickly check the news and commentary on a wide range of local and international media outlets by simply accessing the relevant sites. Thus News, Fairfax, ABC, Business Spectator, Crikey, BBC, NYT, etc can all be accessed and compared in a matter of a few minutes.
3dii. Aggregators reduce the search costs even further.
The internet has created a new way for consumers to compare and contrast news stories through an aggregator. The most obvious version of this service is Google News. Using this service the consumer can isolate groups of stories that may be of particular interest to them and quickly compare small portions of each story through the ‘fair use’ policy. For example, lets say I am interested in news items on ‘antitrust and google’, I can put this into the Google News web site and get stories on Google’s proposed acquisition of ITA Software from Bloomberg, Fortune, San Francisco Chronicle, the Daily Mail and numerous other sources, using the ‘first line’ provided by Google to quickly check the angle of the story (e.g. straight news, commentary relating to the DoJ, commentary relating to share price, etc.) If this is not what I am interested in then I can check out other grouped stories (for example, the French decision against Google relating to advertising, the interaction between Apple and Google Ads and so on). In other words I can quickly check out the world for news stories from a huge variety of sources.
Summary of part 3:
So the internet (and the development of devices to use the internet) means that news delivery has gone from an industry that had high barriers to entry, very specific delivery modes that did not compete, and relatively localised geographic markets for most news sources to an industry with cross-mode competition, low barriers to entry, broad geographic reach. Consumers have been empowered to easily search between different media sources for news content. The internet has turned straight ‘news’ reporting into a commodity business. Information about mainstream news items can be accessed easily from numerous sources. Consumers can easily find those sources. If there are profits to be made by reporting news then entry or expansion will ensure that those profits are quickly dissipated.
4. What are the consequences for the production and distribution of news?
4a. Consumers have benefitted greatly – and will continue to benefit.
Consumers are hugely better off. Consumers have and will continue to have a vast array of sources for news. They will pay very little for much of this news. Consumers will also be able to tailor the news to their interests. Much of this is already available via the internet but it will come to dominate news delivery in the lounge room. Reading the paper on the train will simply disappear, replaced by electronic delivery of news. This means that news will be much more timely than traditional delivery.
4b. Consumers will pay little if anything for ‘commodity news’.
For general or commodity news of broad interest consumers will have to pay very little if anything. There will be a variety of delivery modes and the marginal cost of delivering to another consumer will be zero. Revenues for commodity news will be generated by advertising and so the competition will be for eyeballs.
4c. Consumers may pay for some ancillary or specialised products.
Consumers may pay for a variety of ancillary news products. Commentary on the news will be valuable and consumers may subscribe to their favorite individual commentators either directly (via a blog) or through a news provider.
4d. We do not know what the successful models for news production and distribution will look like.
There are likely to be a variety of different models tried in the next few years and some will fail. For example a news provider may make general news content available free (or supported by advertising) but ‘wall’ commentary to subscribers.
Alternatively, commentary may be placed around a ‘news feed’ and supported by advertising (like Business Spectator).
Alternatively, intrusive advertising may be used that can be avoided by subscription.
The successful models may depend on the type of news. For example, subscriber business commentary is likely to continue as a successful internet product just as it has succeeded as a successful ‘paper’ product for years. Some subscriber services will be tied to products (e.g. banks provide free analysis services to their clients at present).
Specialised business commentary comes close to a ‘long tail’ product. Specialist sports commentary, highly localised information and other ‘high value/small demand’ products may succeed on a subscriber model. But direct customer pricing will not work where there is not diversification and distinction. Products like Google news ensure that consumer search costs are trivial for low value news content.
4e. The next battle is about content source.
There has been an ongoing argument about whether content or delivery channel will dominate news.
The delivery channel of the future is wireline and wireless networks on electronic devices of various shapes and sizes. These networks raise a wide range of issues relating to investment and regulation – for example the NBN. These go well past the issue of today.
As noted above, content will matter, in the sense that consumers will only pay directly for content that is unique and cannot be easily replicated. In contrast standard content will need to compete for eyeballs and raise revenue via advertising.
But unique content depends on the source. This may be an individual journalist, writer or producer of content. But it will also be unique ‘events’.
One obvious example that is on at the moment is the world cup football. As competitive news providers vie to distinguish themselves, gaining the rights to unique events such as the world cup or different aspects of the news of the event (e.g. exclusive interviews in dressing rooms) will become increasingly important.
We have already seen that with the AFL and News Corp and Telstra. This means that significant winners in the battle for news media will be the creators of news-worthy events. While sporting competitions are an obvious example, events of narrower interest will start to attract interest, particularly if they can have wide distribution (potentially world wide via the internet). The annual Melbourne Institute – Australian conference is an early example of this broader ‘creation’ of unique news events, but it is likely to expand. So the battle is not between content and delivery – it is about the source of news.
4f. There will be significant industry rationalisation.
There are likely to be fewer standard ‘news’ companies. This will simply reflect declining profits for news delivery companies as consumers access news from a wide range of sources including direct reporting. Those companies that survive are likely to have lower cost models. This may be driven by low cost community journalism. It may be based on economies of scale and sharing of news – along the lines of press agencies. As noted above, commentary will still be unique and of value and the news delivery may be simply a side activity to commentary – essentially background for readers to know the issues the commentators are addressing. Accuracy and reputation of news source will be important and inaccuracy will be quickly discerned and communicated through ancillary news media such as blogs, facebook and twitter.
4g. Incumbents will battle to raise barriers to entry and expansion.
As with any industry where historic profits are being eroded by technological change, incumbents will attempt to either keep the new technology to themselves or to block the technology to keep barriers to entry high.
Remember the early ‘horseless carriages’ in the UK that were required to have a person walking in front with a red flag to warn of the danger (“In England, stupidity triumphed when Parliament passed the Locomotive on Highways Act in 1865. Popularly referred to as the “Red Flag Law,” it stipulated that all self-propelled vehicles on public highways be limited to a maximum speed of four miles per hour and be preceded by a man on foot carrying a red flag to warn oncoming horse-drawn vehicles.” Wikipaedia).
More recently it was illegal in Australia to colour margarine until the 1960s – which meant it had to retain its unappetising white colour. Even worse, some parts of the US required it to be coloured pink in the late 1800s. Guess who lobbied for the laws in each case!
Expect similar battles over the news. In my opinion, Murdoch’s attacks on Google News have little if anything to do with fair use of material. News can withdraw its papers from Google News anytime it likes (but it has not). However, Google News makes the market for news far more competitive and transparent by lowering customer search costs – something that reduces News Corps profits. News Corp and others will use legal means to try and block news aggregators in order to reduce customer information and keep up barriers to entry and expansion. Other news outlets have also been attacking news aggregators and search engines.
4h. ‘Unfair’ competition with public broadcasters like the ABC and BBC.
A major issue for news companies in Australia, the UK and other countries with a government owned broadcaster is the competition from this publicly funded broadcaster. Both the BBC and ABC are leaders on the internet – presumably because they do not need to make a profit. In the past this competition did not really matter. Public broadcasters tended to service niches that were not large enough for capacity constrained traditional media. However, the internet massively increases capacity and makes niches valuable to differentiate and charge for consumption. Thus the traditional BBC and ABC ‘space’ is now a valuable product. Further, these companies have their own capacity expanded by the internet, digital TV and digital radio – enabling them to compete head-to-head with traditional media, but without the need for profit. The role of public providers and attacking the BBC has also occurred through News Corp (e.g. James Murdoch speech – ABC background briefing).
5. Will the traditional news company (like News) survive?
Some will survive in a changed form. Some new companies will thrive and grow into the new news giants. But many news companies will go the way of the local blacksmith and the typing pool – driven out of existence by new technology.
Who will the corporate winners be? No idea – but if I knew I would be very rich!
http://economics.com.au/?p=5909
miércoles, 23 de junio de 2010
Presentaciones del curso
En clases de Innovación con Inti Nuñez y Juan Pablo Garcia
-- Desde Mi iPhone
-- Desde Mi iPhone
Ubicación:Sazie,Santiago,Chile
lunes, 7 de junio de 2010
La visión de Google, de la industria de la prensa escrita.
Interesante analisis de Google, de la industria de la prensa escrita. La baje de slideshare
A Google View of the Newspaper Business
View more presentations from Raulzito Pereira.
viernes, 21 de mayo de 2010
Google TV
Parece una buena idea, veremos la calidad ... ¿cómo se financiará? ... ¿mismo paradigma? ¿publicidad?
jueves, 20 de mayo de 2010
martes, 18 de mayo de 2010
Excelente comentario, así se solucionan los problemas ...
If consolidation creates a crisis, the answer is further consolidation. If economic centralization has unintended consequences, then you need political centralization to clean up the mess. If a government conspicuously fails to prevent a terrorist attack or a real estate bubble, then obviously it needs to be given more powers to prevent the next one, or the one after that.
Ross Douthat
"Si las consolidaciones crearon la crisis, la respuesta es más consolidaciones. Si la centralización de la economía tienen consecuencias indeseadas, entonces necesitamos centralización política para ordenar el desorden. Si un gobierno falla de manera evidente en prevenir un ataque terrorista o una burbuja inmobiliaria, entonces obviamente es necesario entregarle más poder para prevenir el siguiente o el subsiguiente"
Ross Douthat
viernes, 14 de mayo de 2010
viernes, 30 de abril de 2010
A propósito de la última réplica de Federico Sánchez
Acabo de leer el blog de Federico Sánchez, a propósito del terremoto que afectó Chile.
Tal vez mi posición es más general que la que Federico propone.
En mi humilde opinión simplemente: No existe problema medioambiental alguno con el terremoto.
Quizás tiene que ver con que la arquitectura y el diseño tienen que ver con el Hombre, y no con la naturaleza, ambiente dónde Federico tiene una opinión relevante.
Es un hecho factual simple: lo que la naturaleza hace (terremoto) no puede afectar su sistema natural (ecosistema). Estos eventos sísmicos han estado presentes como un continum desde el inicio de los tiempos (si es que seguimos la teoría del movimiento de las placas tectónicas), con o sin la presencia del hombre como eje de análisis.
martes, 27 de abril de 2010
¿Pueden las PYMES seguir ignorando las redes sociales?
Los negocios están basados en relaciones mutuamente beneficiosas. Las personas compran un producto/servicio para obtener valor. La suma de esas experiencias es mayor que sus partes.
Las Pymes han sido tradicionalmente un sector productivo olvidado por los proveedores de soluciones Tecnológicas. Ofrecen productos caros que requieren de la compra de licencias y contratos anuales para su correcto funcionamiento. Para una administración eficiente de tiempos, recursos humanos, publicitarios y tecnológicos hacen falta productos al alcance del presupuesto de las Pymes.
La tecnología ha avanzado rápidamente y es cada vez más barato acceder a ella. Quizás el mejor ejemplo de las economías producidas por las redes son: las redes sociales. Las redes sociales son una fuente de valor agregado para las PYMES ya que permite crear conexiones y construir relaciones, mejorar el trafico a su sitio Web, establecerse como lideres e innovadores, administrar la marca y sus reputación online, crecer de manera orgánica y más rápido que la competencia. Son también, una fuente de ventaja competitiva a través del flujo de la información, la coordinación y la cooperación asociativa.
¿Qué tan productivo puede ser para un pequeño empresario navegar por Internet unos minutos?, seguramente mucho más de lo que cree. Ya no es solo revisar el email y algunas portadas noticiosas del día. Un pequeño empresario puede concretar negocios, conocer las necesidades de sus clientes, encontrar empleados competentes y expandir su mercado. Las Redes Sociales sirven para ampliar y fortalecer nuestras relaciones.
¿Qué hacer para que las Pymes aprovechen la oportunidad de incrementar su negocio captando más clientes mediante el uso de las redes sociales?, es necesario darle importancia a la presencia en
Las Pymes deben aprovechar la oportunidad que las redes sociales le ofrecen con la cantidad de usuarios que día a día consultan sus espacios en
lunes, 19 de abril de 2010
lunes, 5 de abril de 2010
El trabajo ajeno siempre es fácil
miércoles, 31 de marzo de 2010
Como se distribuyen los ingresos de la música
Es un pensamiento común, creer que los músicos se benefician de los Copyright, y que son ellos quienes evitan la distribución gratuita.
al parecer no es así, observen esta gráfica:
Lectores, los creadores de verdad, no necesitan ser protegidos, ya que sus ingresos provienen de otras fuentes. Tienen una ventaja competitiva inimitable: su capacidad de creación infinita.
al parecer no es así, observen esta gráfica:
Lectores, los creadores de verdad, no necesitan ser protegidos, ya que sus ingresos provienen de otras fuentes. Tienen una ventaja competitiva inimitable: su capacidad de creación infinita.jueves, 25 de marzo de 2010
martes, 23 de marzo de 2010
Respuesta a José Manuel ...
Hola José Manuel,
yo tengo la impresión de que en tiempos pasado (siglo XX), las cualidades más relevantes eran: capacidad de almacenar información (hoy, prácticamente vale $0, un pendrive de 4 gigas vale 10 euros) y la de procesar información (un computador vale nada ... considerando su capacidad de proceso) (http://www.intiteke.blogspot.com/); tal como tu bien dices, hay una abundancia excesiva de datos y poca información (hago la diferencia de términos). En base a eso, la capacidad que se hace relevante es la de Filtrar datos y convertir, esos datos, en Información..
Estoy de acuerdo que la web semántica, al centrarse en la terminología y sus relaciones, hace más fácil este filtro de contenido; sin embargo no olvidemos que a pesar del rápido avance de la tecnología, realmente no sabemos donde iremos a parar. Solo considera que la web, como tal, SOLO tiene 20 - 30 años , nada en el tiempo histórico.
Quizás te parezca un poco futurológico, pero pienso que en la web semántica o más allá, lo que ocurrirá sera algo contrario a esto de la "comunicación humana", seremos (como dice Kevin Kelly) las extensiones biológicas de una inteligencia artificial.
Ahora aterrizando un poco la idea, y sin llegar la Matrix, creo que el camino tiene que ver con transformaciones a nivel de relaciones empresariales, o Enterprises 2.0. Para este tema, te sugiero leer a Andrew McAfee del MIT. Si logramos generar un cambio cultural, respecto de tres conceptos: Colaborar, Cooperar y Compartir; podemos pensar que nos acercamos a la creacion de una relacion colaborativa en red.
quedo atento a tus comentarios,
Carlos Rojas A.
Cartografía de las noticias en EE.UU.
This cartogram, originally from the August 2004 issue of Science News magazine, where it illustrated an article entitled ‘A Better Distorted View: The Physics of Diffusion Offers A New Way of Generating Maps’. Many thanks to Christian Schumann-Curtis, who sent it in.
Blog para el iPhone
estimados lectores,
Ahora podrán leer este blog en sus iPhones con un diseño ad hoc.
Cada vez que ingresen, podrán tener la misma información (RSS) y mis comentarios en Twitter ( reds_cl).
disfruten, espero sus comentarios.
Carlos
martes, 23 de febrero de 2010
viernes, 15 de enero de 2010
Perdimos el rumbo económico
Ricardo J. Caballero
(El autor es economista chileno, Ford International Professor of Economics y jefe del Departamento de Economía del MIT)
Chile es una economía pequeña, y por ende se habla poco de ella fuera de nuestra región. A pesar de esta realidad ineludible, hasta hace unos años era una fuente de orgullo para los que emigramos hace mucho tiempo el que aquellos más informados dentro del mundo económico sí nos conocieran y hablaran de nosotros como uno de los tigres del mundo emergente.
Por desgracia esos halagos ya se desvanecieron, y si aún perduran en forma atenuada provienen no de los inversores y analistas informados, sino de aquellos que se quedaron pegados en los datos del Chile de hace más de una década o de quienes tienen algún motivo diplomático en vez de sustantivo. La admisión de Chile a la OCDE tiene algo de esto último y además es un reconocimiento a la historia acumulada, no al progreso reciente.
¿Qué le pasa a nuestra economía que hoy crece a niveles mediocres a pesar de tener grandes ventajas institucionales y financieras respecto de gran parte de las economías de nuestra región y del mundo emergente? ¿Cómo puede ser que nuestro crecimiento de la productividad, el principal motor e indicador de crecimiento de aquellas economías que lo hacen bien, esté a niveles históricamente bajos y comparable al de países africanos?
¿Cómo puede todo esto haber ocurrido a pesar de haber tenido excelentes ministros de Hacienda en Eyzaguirre y Velasco, un Presidente a nivel internacional como Ricardo Lagos, y una Presidenta que contra todas mis preconcepciones —sí, confieso mi error— en muchas ocasiones supo darles el poder a los equipos técnicos cuando la política y su instinto dictaban lo contrario?
No tengo ni la respuesta ni la receta mágica. Pero creo que el párrafo anterior da luz a la principal pista a investigar. Gran parte del mérito de nuestros recientes ministros de Hacienda y gobernantes ha estado no en los grandes avances, sino en parar o reducir la magnitud de los disparates (al menos desde el punto de vista económico) con que sus equipos políticos y bases organizadas de apoyo los bombardean. ¿Cómo puede crecer un país cuando la energía de sus técnicos y gobernantes se gasta en frenar errores y presiones al interior de su núcleo de poder en lugar de avanzar?
En el contexto de las elecciones se habla mucho de la necesidad de un cambio. No sé muy bien que significa esto a nivel general, pero circunscrito sólo al pobre desempeño de nuestra economía sí me parece que se requiere un cambio de giro urgente.
La Concertación tiene excelentes técnicos. Pero desde mi punto de vista, esto sirve para reforzar en vez de debilitar el argumento para un cambio de dirección. El sopor económico en el que nos encontramos, a pesar de estos buenos técnicos, refleja que hay algún cáncer profundo en la operación-país que necesita ser erradicado luego, o de otra forma corremos el riesgo de consumir por completo nuestras energías de crecimiento. El alto precio del cobre ha tapado gran parte del costo de esta enorme ineficiencia, pero es irresponsable seguir contando con la buena fortuna para aumentar nuestro ingreso nacional.
En general, el solo hecho de que haya un desajuste económico no es razón suficiente para un cambio de liderazgo político. Mal que mal ésta es la receta para la elección de gobernantes populistas que tanto le ha costado a nuestra región en su pasado y presente. Pero creo que en esta ocasión se juntan dos condiciones que justifican este cambio.
Primero, por el lado del candidato de la Concertación, Eduardo Frei, un reestructurador no se inventa de la noche a la mañana, ni menos aún cuando él ha sido parte integral del proceso de acostumbramiento al poder permanente bajo el cual se produjo el gradual pero profundo deterioro de nuestra capacidad de crecimiento.
Segundo, Sebastián Piñera, el candidato de la oposición, está hecho a la medida para las necesidades del país del momento. Él, que sin lugar a dudas dista mucho de la perfección, tiene la gran virtud de ser un especialista en arreglar organizaciones productivas que no andan bien, y nuestra economía decididamente cae en esta categoría. Es el momento de darle una oportunidad de reorganizar y energizar la infraestructura de crecimiento de nuestro país. Hecho esto, los políticos podrán volver a su negocio, hasta que el próximo ciclo se repita.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)