Intel Corp To Invest $7B in Arizona In Worlds Most Advanced Plant

Posted on February 8, 2017 by Alex Popovic

Intel Corp just announced that it is investing $7B right here in Chandler, AZ in the most advanced semiconductor factory in the world.

The plant, aptly named Fab 42, will take 3-4 years to complete and will create approximately 3,000 high-tech jobs for engineers, technicians and other support personnel.

 

intel-ceo-brian-krzanich-2_600x400

Intel CEO Brian Krzanich

 

The factory will produce 7-nanometer chips that “will be the most powerful computer chips on the planet,” the company said in a statement.

Over the long run, the facility is expected to create more than 10,000 jobs in Arizona. This is great news for Chandler and Arizona as a whole. There are currently a slew of tech companies based here such as Amazon, Yelp and Yodle to name a few.

President Trump called the investment “a great thing for Arizona.”

You can follow Alex Popovic on Twitter or Instagram

Posted in Business and Entrepreneurs, Internet Technology | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Alex Popovic Blog Hits 10 Thousand Unique Visitors

Posted on February 7, 2017 by Alex Popovic

Thank you to everyone that’s come to take a peek at what mundane and boring things I write about, my blog aptly named after me is still morphing into I don’t know what.  It’s kinda cool to think that this blog that started off as a pastime (it still kinda is) and has gotten outsiders to come comment and create discussion about a variety of topics.

alex-popovic-dot-com-10k-hitsI hope to be able to keep you guys coming back for more in the future.  We’ll see what comes of it and where things go, in the meantime, strap in, visit often, share my blogs a lot and help me out any way you can with the Google gods.

You can follow Alex Popovic on Twitter or Instagram

Posted in blogs | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Strategies Amazon Used To Become a Business Juggernaut

Posted on February 6, 2017 by Alex Popovic

Introduction

During its early days, it was just another start-up in the 90’s that hadn’t defined the industry it wanted to partake in and hadn’t been profitable for the first three or four years. However, Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon has set his sights, and the company’s, on long-term strategies to ensure dominance in the marketplace.  He would do so by using unconventional business strategies most have argued against yet scratch their heads on how and why they work. Amazon has set its sights on becoming the most powerful company in an online world, and will probably get there over time. These are the key strategies it used to get this far.

What key strategies did Bezos use to grow the company in just 17 years?

It is truly difficult to comprehend, even for a die-hard business enthusiast, just how dominant Amazon has become and how it has managed to do so in just 17 short years. Its revenues have topped $48B and it continues to grow by acquiring smaller struggling companies and using them to position itself for continued long-term strategic growth. Make no doubt about it, Amazon’s success is due to Jeff Bezos’ unbelievable vision and unconventional business practices. He became a pioneer “in delivering unmatched customer service, which back in the early days of Internet commerce was “iffy” to say the least.” (Parker, 2012)

In conducting research to ascertain the strategies that Amazon employed and why it employed them several key strategies stood out:

  1. Be like the Godfather: Make them an offer they can’t refuse
  2. Don’t give up information unless absolutely necessary
  3. Keep teams small enough that members can be fed with two pizzas
  4. Stop talking so much
  5. Get adversarial (Baer, 2014)

There’s a story that no one really knows about when amazon wanted to purchase Melville House, a publishing company when during negotiations things got tense. The owner went on a tirade about it in a blog and the day after, the “buy” button on Melville Houses amazon home page was gone. Bezos made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. The message was clear. Amazon will never disclose Kindle sales, nor will it disclose how may employees it has, its Seattle headquarters has been aptly named Area 51. Amazon doesn’t give up information. Its internal teams or task forces are limited to just 5 or 7 person teams; if 2 pizzas can’t feed them in Bezos’ mind they’re too big and ineffective.

During the early days of Amazon someone brought up how communication needs to be more robust and Bezos angrily stood up and said “No, communication is terrible,” in his mind cross-team communication leads to too much agreement and appeasement toward management. Which brings up strategy 5, Bezos encourages adversarial atmospheres with constant friction and almost exclusively employs people with these qualities.   One of Amazons’ key leadership principals is: “Have a Backbone; disagree and Commit.” (Baer, 2014)

Conclusion

In conclusion Amazons’ revenues actually just went over $78B, it has managed to take over the known universe of the retail world, by methodical, unconventional business practices that have been shunned by many business gurus and enamored by others as cutting edge and forward thinking far beyond its years. Whatever the reason, the five key strategies that Amazon has employed have no doubt contributed to that success.

References

Baer, D. (2014, March 17). The Strategies Jeff Bezos Used To Build The Amazon Empire – Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/the-strategies-jeff-bezos-used-to-build-the-amazon-empire-2014-3

Parker, G. (2012, December 18). Why Amazon Is So Hugely Successful – Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/why-amazon-is-so-hugely-successful-2012-12

Posted in Business and Entrepreneurs | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

How Netflix Crushed Blockbuster.

Posted on January 27, 2017 by Alex Popovic

Introduction

It was started in the mid 80’s and grew into a multi-billion-dollar empire. Blockbuster became the ubiquitous name associated with anything outside of movie theaters. At its peak, it had about 9,000 retail stores and even went public in the late 90’s. By 2010 though it filed for bankruptcy protection and shortly thereafter would close all its stores and lay off all its employees. This short paper will look at 5 key missteps Blockbuster made that led to its ultimate demise.

How did Blockbuster end up in bankruptcy court?

Many business people and just about every business class across every higher learning institution have studied this classic case of David and Goliath, how a giant rose and fell, and how a small start-up grew to be ten times larger than Blockbuster ever was. From its founding in 1997, Netflix had a vision, it was a very simple concept—provide its customers a simpler and more convenient way to rent movies—the problem it faced though was how could it grow against the market domination of Blockbuster Video?

The initial model was similar to that of Blockbuster i.e. charge a set fee for each DVD rented. However, its CEO Reed Hastings made a strategic business decision that would ultimately lead to Blockbusters demise. Why not charge a flat monthly fee and let the consumer rent as many movies as they want—with no late fees! Keep in mind, in 2000 Blockbuster took in almost $800 million in late fees, which accounted for roughly 16% of its revenue.” (Phillips & Ferdman, 2013)

What a huge loss it would be to lose 16% of your revenue stream in a very short period of time when your customers simply switched their preference overnight. This was the first nail in Blockbusters coffin. There would be several more missteps and those who have studied what happened place the blame for its demise on its CEO John Antioco. We will look at those missteps and how their totality, combined with decisions made within Blockbusters board and key management, or lack thereof, would ensure a relatively quick death for Blockbuster.

Blockbusters top five (5) missteps over the last decade that doomed it.

In 2000, after founding Netflix 3 years earlier out of frustration over late fees from renting Apollo 13, Reed Hastings flew to Dallas to propose to Blockbusters CEO, John Antioco a merger whereby Netflix would run Blockbuster’s online brand and Blockbuster would promote Netflix in its brick and mortar stores, which at that point amounted to over 9,000 worldwide. He was laughed out of the room. Many pundits agree that Antioco was a very competent and smart CEO. His greatest shortcoming was not being able to see, or understand, networks of unseen connections. (Satell, 2014)

The five key areas that caused Blockbuster’s demise were:

  • The social epidemic it caused
  • The threshold model Netflix employed
  • A different network altogether
  • New Strategy in a networked world
  • Failure to adapt and identify and mutiny from within Blockbuster

The social epidemic Blockbuster caused was forcing people to come to its locations and the fact that they charged late fees. By getting rid of costly retail locations, Netflix passed on these cost savings to its customers. You paid one flat subscription fee monthly and could watch as many movies as you wanted and could keep them for as long as you wanted. This niche service would be the final nail in Blockbusters’ coffin.

Next, the threshold model that Netflix relied upon, tapped into people returning the movie when their threshold for watching it was reached. This was a brilliant model and required a unique perspective that understood, people would eventually return the movie, without any penalty.

Still though, the biggest hurdle was getting people to understand that a movie being mailed to you wasn’t cumbersome and Blockbuster hedged its future growth on the fact that people liked coming in to browse at their selections. “Scientists call this the threshold model of collective behavior.” (Satell, 2014)

So how did this apply to Blockbuster and Netflix? It became a matter of varying levels of resistance to any given or new idea. In this case, I will no longer go into a building to decide what DVD I want, instead, I’ll order it and keep it for as long as I want and order as many movies as I want. Everett Rogers’ formulated the “diffusion of innovation”diagram below in the 1960’s and best explains this model.

diffusion-of-innovatins

Diffusion Of Innovation

After Blockbuster’s CEO finally saw that Netflix and Redbox for that matter were real threats to Blockbuster, he began the knee-jerk executive decision of trying to stop the bleeding by discontinuing late fees and investing heavily into digital platforms. This was one of his next missteps and miscalculations by failing to understand a different network was emerging.

The result was $200 million dollars of lost revenue in the form of late fees that were scrapped and another $200 million that was spent investing into a digital platform. Profits plummeted and in 5 years Blockbuster would be bankrupt. Antioco failed to understand and realize how quickly a niche could snowball into a viral cascade. Then he failed to create a network that could support the transition of his new ideas of change throughout the entire organization.

The new strategy in a networked world that was emerging was one of online social platforms; companies such as Facebook, Twitter and others began to change our social paradigm and habits as consumers. Blockbuster thought it would forever be the largest player in the industry and that people would always go to its stores, even if the technology changed by which they viewed movies.

The failure to adapt and evolve caused Netflix to take market share from Blockbuster. “The irony is that Blockbuster failed because its leadership had built a well-oiled operational machine.  It was a very tight network that could execute with extreme efficiency, but poorly suited to let in new information.” (Satell, 2014)

Conclusion

Blockbuster’s rise to dominance and subsequent fall from grace has been studied intently. In less than 30 years it rose to 9,000 stores globally, was worth about $8.4B and even went public, by 2013 though it was completely gone. One thing is glaringly apparent; there are no definitive answers in a world that still thinks there is a recipe for business. So long as business people understand that understanding how networks work and researching the ones that affect your business, you may be able to forego the trials and tribulations blockbuster went through.

References

Satell, G. (2014, September 5). A Look Back At Why Blockbuster Really Failed And Why It Didn’t Have To – Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/09/05/a-look-back-at-why-blockbuster-really-failed-and-why-it-didnt-have-to/

Newman, R. (2010, September 23). How Netflix (and Blockbuster) Killed Blockbuster – US News. Retrieved from http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2010/09/23/how-netflix-and-blockbuster-killed-blockbuster

Phillips, M., & Ferdman, R. (2013, November 6). A brief, illustrated history of Blockbuster, which is closing the last of its US stores – Quartz. Retrieved from http://qz.com/144372/a-brief-illustrated-history-of-blockbuster-which-is-closing-the-last-of-its-us-stores/

Posted in Business and Entrepreneurs | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Rise and Fall of MySpace.

Posted on January 26, 2017 by Alex Popovic

Introduction

Over the last decade or so, social media has exploded and become a part of our daily lives and changed the way business is conducted around the world. In the early 2000’s, when social media was in its infancy, and just after the dot-com boom, a company named Friendster penetrated the industry, followed by MySpace and finally FaceBook. They all had something in common, they were platforms for social media and interaction, however, all of them either went on to prosper, be bought out or died a slow death on the vine. This white paper will examine what happened and why.

Was it reasonable for Facebook to ignore part of the market during its infancy?

Facebook, or “The FaceBook,” as it was first named was created by Mark Zuckerburg during his time at Harvard in 2004. During this time, MySpace was the biggest company in an emerging and changing social media industry. FaceBook didn’t ignore part of the market during its infancy. Remember why it was created?

“Facebook was created by college students for other college students, and only in September 2006 did it become open to all Internet users: kids, students, young adults, and adults.” (Shamia, 2007) So Facebook didn’t really ignore it, instead, it really wasn’t even looking at it. When it did finally penetrate the market, it quickly began to capture large swaths of market share and even began stealing it from MySpace.

Friendster turned down a $30M acquisition offer and MySpace accepted one for $580M how did these decisions hamper their ability to compete with Facebook?

One took the money and the other did not and held out thinking it was the only dominant player in the industry. So why did neither course of action help either company become more dominant than Facebook?

Friendster simply did not know what it had nor how to capitalize on its success. Subsequently, when a newer, cooler thing i.e. MySpace came along, people simply stopped using it and it died a slow death on the business vine.

MySpace, on the other hand, took an offer for $580M, a wise thing, but failed to capitalize on several key problems within its platform, that Facebook did not. Firstly, Myspace failed to restrict user’s ability to customize their profiles; this exposed them to multiple security holes that lead to hacking and spamming. (IBT Time Reporter, 2011)

Secondly, advertising on MySpace cluttered its pages, whereas Facebook’s didn’t, and users liked Facebook’s layout more and slowly merged over to it instead. Lastly, MySpace’s strategic failure was its platform was “meet your friends, versus, Facebook’s meet new friends.”

Should they have taken the money? And how do you know, as a company, when to take the money?

Hindsight is always 20/20; just about any businessperson will say “they both should have taken the money!” Some will point out that when Friendster didn’t take an offer for its acquisition, it failed to capitalize on its growth, and place, within a dynamically changing industry.

Yes, it was the first to market, but that didn’t mean it could maintain its position and stay there. MySpace, on the other hand, took the money, yet still failed within the industry. So it comes down to asking a few key questions of yourself (the owner) and/or other company members. “Do I have a viable business model? If not, is there one on the horizon? If yes, is it one I can tolerate? Do I have an A+ team? Can I recruit one? Can I afford them? Could a sale solve my problems?” (Harrison, 2013)

It is my belief that Friendster’s founder/founders simply didn’t have the understanding or experience to see what Social Media was becoming and could be. MySpace, on the other hand, did understand its possibilities but failed to understand its platforms problems and gave it away slowly over time to Facebook.

MySpace later become known as the Social Media site for music, could it build a highly profitable business around this niche?

Simply put, No! MySpace lost its mojo with savvy young users early and once gone it’s almost unrecoverable. The brilliance of FaceBook was Zuckerburg allowed it to go wherever the market wanted it to. “Facebook pushed its tech folks to make it happen.  And they kept listening.  And looking within the comments for what would be the next application – the next promotion – the next revision that would lead to more uses, more users and more growth.” (Hartung, 2011)

The new word that was created in the business world was White Space management. No rules. No plans. No forecasting markets. Instead, it was about reading, listening, adding, adding, adding, more and more of what users wanted. MySpace was run by corporate hacks who sat around Wall Street and investment firms looking at from and ROI point of view. Facebook listened and changed almost hourly.

The chart below shows just when the change occurred and how Facebook grew and MySpace never recovered.   Remember, Justin Timberlake recently purchased ownership in MySpace, and announced “huge changes” were going to bring back MySpace as the predominant music niche platform. That was four years ago and nothing has happened. To say MySpace is dead and gone would be putting it mildly.

facebook-vs-myspace-visitors

Conclusion

Social Media has evolved rapidly in the last decade or so, with three key participants that have either, come, gone or managed to stay. The free market and nature of social media has changed business and particularly the business of being the Social Media platform, which Facebook has become. The question now is, how long will Facebook manage to stay in the market for, and can it sustain growth and competition?

References

Hartung, A. (2011, January 13). How Facebook Beat MySpace – Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2011/01/14/why-facebook-beat-myspace/

IB Times Staff reporter. (2011, July 18). Social Network Food Chain: Friendster, MySpace, Facebook, Google+ and Next? Retrieved from http://www.ibtimes.com/social-network-food-chain-friendster-myspace-facebook-google-next-299697

Harrison, K. (2013, December 13). How Do You Know When It Is Time To Sell Your Company? – Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/kateharrison/2013/12/13/how-do-you-know-when-it-is-time-to-sell-your-company/

Shamia08, G. (2007, November 8). Facebook, Market Segmentation And a Discussion Mark Zuckerberg Never Had | Gadi Shamia [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://gadishamia.com/2007/11/08/facebook-market-segmentation-and-a-discussion-mark-zuckerberg-never-had/

Posted in Business and Entrepreneurs | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

How Did Google Get Its Name? It Was Almost Called Backrub.

Posted on January 23, 2017 by Alex Popovic

I was recently watching a new show called the “The Wall” which asks certain questions of contestants who are trying to make millions of dollars by answering them right. One of the questions that was asked was the “Google” name was derived from the word “googol” for a very large numerical number followed by how many zero’s?

alex-popovic-googleThe contestant was a former Marine who was on the show with his wife. I was rooting for him hard having been a Marine Scout/Sniper myself. It was good to see one of my own have a life changing opportunity.

When Larry Page and Sergey Brin were graduate students at Stanford University back in the 90’s, they were working on a search engine and called it Backrub, because their search engine searched through backlinks.

They realized that name wasn’t a good one for a company and their friend Sean suggested the word googolplex. Googol was a term that nine-year-old Milton Sirotta, nephew of American mathematician Edward Kasner came up with, after he asked him to come up with a name for a very large number, then to the power of one hundred.

When the “backrub” founders didn’t like Sean’s googolplex suggestion as the name for the new company, Larry Page said he’d like a smaller term and shorten the name to googol, which today reflects the company’s mission to “organize the immense, seemingly infinite amount of information available on the web.”

When they searched the net to see if the domain googol, Sean misspelled the world and searched for google.com. See his accident misspelling came up with a word that changed the entire world and way we live our lives……boom, Google was born.

You can follow Alex Popovic on Twitter or Instagram

 

 

Posted in Business and Entrepreneurs, Internet Technology | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How Mark Zuckerberg Gave Away Facebook A White Paper Study

Posted on January 10, 2017 by Alex Popovic

Introduction

Just about every and any business institution and every college around the U.S has studied the story of Facebook. It was even made into a movie. One thing is obvious to those that aren’t familiar with its history during its idea, conception and subsequent start-up is that it gave away a lot of money in litigation and contractual obligations due to poor business decisions being made early on by Mark Zuckerberg. This paper will examine the precautions that could have been taken by Zuckerberg and the types of contracts or agreements that could have been used that would have made life much, much easier later on.

Can you know if you have a potentially hugely successful company early on?

Ask any entrepreneur about their start-up company and chances are every one of them will say their company is going to be hugely successful and it’s one of a kind. The reality is much, much different, as statistically it’s been shown that over 75% of new businesses will fail over time.

But ask a seasoned entrepreneur who has failed once or twice, and kept at it starting new venture after new venture, and chances are they’ll know deep down how potentially successful that particular business venture will be. Sometimes, a certain product or idea will create so much buzz early on, that the possibility exists that it is immediately known “we have something big on our hands here.” This is the exception and not the norm though.

Should all companies take the precautions Facebook failed to take, or can some companies be more relaxed about such legal issues?

Every company, no matter how small should take every precaution possible to avoid the legal catastrophe FaceBook went through, because of either a lack of knowledge or a lack of planning. As a new start-up,  you will face a litany of huge amounts of risk, which can have tremendous consequences. According to Steven Gladstone, a lawyer in Atlanta with over four decades of experience forming companies and structuring private placements, “Not getting legal assistance from the beginning is the number one mistake made.”

A recent study by LegalShield found that, while 60% of small businesses experienced a “significant legal event” in the last two years, just half of those sought the help of a lawyer to deal with them. (Nelson, 2013) While some may be able to “wing it” and perhaps get away with not seeking legal advice, statistics show that when a new business, two years or less, has a major incident that results in litigation almost none make it.

So what are new entrepreneurs to do? Lawyers are expensive, see if you can use SCORE or find an attorney that works pro-bono, or research yourself and incorporate your decisions and ideas into the business plan.

What types of agreements and contracts could Mark Zuckerberg and his partners, and early investors have drawn up?

Early on Zuckerberg had no idea how big Facebook would become one day, all he knew was he had an idea that was receiving a lot of attention which told him there was a demand for it. What he didn’t do though was study that demand or even write a business plan. Instead, he began writing code in his Harvard dorm room and as the Winkelvosses would later contend, stole their idea for what would ultimately become Facebook.

What Zuckerberg should have done was write a business plan. The fact that he didn’t and Facebook grew into what it was is astounding, nonetheless, at a minimum Zuckerberg should have divvied up equity by vesting persons he needed early on. Namely Saverin and Moskovitz. Instead, he chose to arbitrarily give up huge chunks of the company in an almost willy-nilly fashion late one red bull fueled coding night.

“Vesting is the simplest way to meet halfway between giving it all away before a person has proven themselves and not giving them anything at all (which obviously risks losing a good team member).” (Bergamnn, 2014) Zuckerberg should have compensated value, not time, which is what he required early on.

At a minimum, he could have downloaded management agreements that he could have had all new hires sign, non-disclosure agreements, and an operating agreement after he incorporated Facebook. Saverin, Facebooks, first investor, should have had an investors agreement for shares etc which spelled out what was going to be given in return for his $15,000 investment and over what period of time.

What contracts could have the Winkelvosses and and Divya Narendra drawn up when they hired Zuckerberg to work for their company?

There is no doubt that Facebook will always have to face the fact that its inception based on the idea of a social media networking capability was stolen by Mark Zuckerberg from 3 other Harvard students, the Winkelvoss twins, and Divya Narenda. Originally it was called “Thefacebook.com,” The ensuing lawsuit filed by the 3 Harvard students against Zuckerberg and Facebook (the name was changed later), centered around had they entered into any agreements.

The Winkelvosses had no formal contract that outlined what Zuckerberg was going to do and what his compensation was going to be, neither did they have a Non-Disclosure agreement signed. “In 2007, Massachusetts Judge Douglas P. Woodlock called their allegations “tissue thin.” Referring to the agreement that Mark had allegedly breached, Woodlock also wrote, “Dorm room chit-chat does not make a contract.”

A year later, the end finally seemed in sight: a judge ruled against Facebook’s move to dismiss the case. Shortly thereafter, the parties agreed to settle.” (Carson, 2010) Facebook had grown so much that it understood that settling now would save money in the long-term as its value grew. The Winkelvosses and Narenda got lucky, had they taken 30 minutes to draft at a minimum two agreements, one for work performed and a Non-Disclosure non-circumvent agreement they probably could have prevailed in court and Facebook’s owners may have been different people.

Conclusion

In conclusion Facebook, or better yet its creator Mark Zuckerberg, could have done a whole bunch of things early on that would have saved the company millions if not billions of dollars down the road. Had he just taken the time to draft several contracts (readily available from the internet) and spelled out roles, responsibilities, and compensation, most if not all of its legal problems may have been alleviated.

The Winkelvosses and Narenda too, had a similar fate, and it demonstrates how a lack of basic business comprehension and a failure to get sound legal advice can cost an organization dearly both in monetary and a public relations point of view. Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and all the other parties involved got lucky that Facebook was such a huge success that was growing, and while the money was flowing freely able to settle. Most companies that would have started off this way would not be around today to talk about it.

References

Bergamnn, W. (2014, May 28). How to Split Equity Without Giving Away the Company. Retrieved from http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/234230

Nelson, B. (2013, August 29). Seven Sadly Common Mistakes When Forming A New Company. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/brettnelson/2013/08/29/seven-sadly-common-mistakes-when-forming-a-new-company/

Carson, N. (2010, March 5). How Facebook Was Founded – Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/how-facebook-was-founded-2010-3

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Business and Entrepreneurs | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Several Body Language Mistakes Not To Make If You’re Going To Be Successful In Business.

Posted on December 29, 2016 by Alex Popovic

It’s often been said, and even studied, that verbal versus non-verbal communication is divergently different and statistically worlds apart.  Below we will take a look at the most common non-verbal mistakes people make.

According to Dr. Albert Mehrabian, author of Silent Messages, “7% of any message is conveyed through words, 38% through certain vocal elements, and 55% through nonverbal elements (facial expressions, gestures, posture, etc).” Pretty incredible right?

the-10-worst-body-language-presentation-mistakes-2-638

Photo courtesy of SOAP

The fact that non-verbal communication constitutes such a high percentage is almost irrelevant, what is relevant is how you can recognize what you are doing in a given situation while interacting with different individuals. Let’s take a look at some key mistakes to avoid if you’re going to be successful.

  1. Looking at your Phone constantly during meetings screams “I have more important things to do than this and it also signals a sign of disrespect to those around you.
  2. Blading off or turning away from others sends a message that you’ve got one foot out of the door given the current situation. It say’s you are uninterested, unengaged or that the person speaking is beneath you.
  3. Crossed arms and to some degree legs, even I am guilty of this and we’ve all heard it before right…It projects a wall or barrier between you and the person/s you’re interacting with. Your face might have a smile and say one thing, the folded arms though say something completely different and use a larger body part to project that.
  4. Slouching, nothing screams louder that you do not want to be there and actually signals disrespect. In nature, the brain equates power with how much space animals take up. Think males courting females and puffing up to attract them, it projects power and importance. Maintaining posture commands respect and promotes engagement from both sides.
  5. Avoiding eye contact says a couple of things, I am hiding something or you are not confident. Either way, this is probably one of the first things to work on because the eyes are one of the first things we see during an interaction. Looking down projects meekness while looking up projects lying. Complete and constant eye contact communicates confidence, leadership, and self-confidence.
  6. Fidgeting and big hand movements.   In business deals, small gestures tend to make the biggest impact, just like a well timed and drawn out pause in a conversation gets the point across, so do gestures. Big movements tend to demonstrate over compensation.
  7. Failing to smile, the smile is accompanied by increased activity in the left pre-frontal cortex — the seat of positive emotions. It welcomes openness, warmth and displays a positive energy. The opposite of this what I call the “permasmiler” who smiles too often and when it isn’t warranted. They are perceived as insincere and misleading.   Think of a car salesman.
  8. Imposing demeanor, this is sort of a catch-all, clenched fists, intense eye contact and angry looks or what may be “perceived” as a scowl are non-verbal cues to be avoided at all costs.

Remember, people see what you say more than what you are actually saying, be cognizant of how your nonverbal communication impacts others. Practice in front of a mirror, or, have someone record you when you are interacting normally with someone and go back and review it, you’ll be surprised at just how many nonverbal gestures you make, I know I was.

Are there any other blunders I should add to this list? Please share your thoughts on body language in the comments, as I learn just as much from you as you do from me.

You can follow Alex Popovic on Twitter or Instagram

Posted in Business and Entrepreneurs, Informative | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Googles newest AI and its war against Internet trolls

Posted on September 19, 2016 by Alex Popovic

Google has been doing a lot of interesting things lately, and there’s been a lot of speculation about a plethora of different programs, algorithm’s and rules related to them, much of which has been just that……speculative. One definite program it is implementing is an algorithm called Jigsaw,  Jigsaw is a subsidiary of Google and it is about to release it any day now (if they haven’t already) via a set of tools called Conversation AI.

google-jigsaw

Google Jigsaw

So what exactly will it do? It’s software that learns automatically to spot abusive language and harassment, something very, very common with Internet trolls. What are Internet trolls? Good thing you asked. It’s not the Scandinavian mythical folklore creature that lives in dark places or underneath bridges. An Internet Troll is “Someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response.” (Moreau, 2016)

One of the worst places for trolls, (who hide behind proxy servers, fake names and accounts) are blogs.  Just ask Leslie Jones, the Ghostbusters actress whose life was turned upside down by trolls, whose vile, racist online abuse went viral when her Twitter account became a platform for trolls calling her some of the most shameful names.  Be forewarned before you click the link about the language contained within.  She shut her account down, but not before Twitter owner, and founder, Jack Dorsey vowed to fight the abuse.

I can tell you I’ve personally dealt with Internet troll’s and continue to via two online blogs who posted complete false claims about stolen valor and my military service, when I was my company’s (Greyside Group) CEO.  Make no doubt about it, these blog owners know who these commentors are, because people who want to comment must provide a valid email address in order to comment on their blogs as they want to screen for potential trolls on their own blogsites……ohhhh the irony.  My own personal interaction with trolls was all started by a former terminated employee and self-proclaimed “Google god that hacks people’s lives.” Much more about this later, but suffice it to say, the comments section is where these losers like to hang out and post their hate comments and demonstrate their pretty sad existence. This is the very thing that Jigsaw has been created for. Jigsaw, in other words, has become Google’s Internet justice league. These low life’s and bottom dwellers won’t be able to hide behind anonymity for much longer.

The algorithm still has some lessons to learn and kinks that need to be ironed out, but it’s changing the landscape and evidence suggests that this kind of quick detection can, and will, tame trolling.

You can follow Alex Popovic on Twitter or Instagram

Posted in Internet Technology | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment