Books, Berkeley and Brazil--even after 500 years, it is still all about distribution:

Let’s begin at the risk of being trite—modern copyright began with the invention of the printing press and the ability to make multiple copies of a single work. Sometimes, however, we forget that mere mass production of content was not enough to transform the book into a commercial proposition. In addition to production, the book had to be distributed in some manner. Without effective distribution, the printing press and its aftermath would have been of little commercial importance. It is popularly observed that the digital online environment has brought together production (or at least reproduction of content) with distribution, whereby content can be reproduced and then digitally distributed in a seamlessly connected manner. While this is of course true, there is an element of over-simplicity in viewing digital online distribution in such a stripped down fashion. The reality is often more nuanced, as evidenced in two recent news items, the first about distributing science research contents and the second about the commencement of the sale of Kindle readers in Brazil. Let’s look at each in greater detail.

“The way scientific journals are run” was the focus of an article, entitled “What’s wrong with Science”, that appeared in the December 14, 2013 issue of The Economist, here. The gist of the piece is that Professor Randy Schekman, of the University of California, Berkeley, and a co-winner of the 2013 Nobel Prize in Medicine, here, has announced that he will henceforth “boycott” what he terms “luxury journals”, such as Cell, Nature and Science. Sheckman’s dissatisfaction with these journals is two-fold. First, he claims that they ‘artificially” limit the number of papers that they accept for publication in order to stoke demand by creating false scarcity, à la “limited-edition handbags”.

In so doing, this false scarcity serves the interests of the journals by enhancing journal subscriptions, but at the social cost of not necessarily publishing the best current research. Second, these journals help distort the enterprise of science by perpetuating the “tyranny of the ‘impact factor’ ”, which is a value that purports to show how “important” a given journal is (emphasizing “hype and faddishness”, and rewarding “who is first” rather than “who is thorough”).

It has to be noted that Schekman also edits eLife, here, an open-access journal (which means inter alia that readers are not charged) that seeks to compete with the glitzy likes of Cell, Nature and Science. The eLife journal is being supported by a number of established science charities. The premise of the journal is that scarcity of publication space is no longer limited by the number of pages in a physical copy. Freed from commercial distortions, it is claimed, eLife can better serve the scientific community by making available more quality research papers.

The second item appeared on February 7, 2014, on Reuters.com. Entitled “Amazon tests Brazil’s retail jungle with its Kindle”, here, the article describes how Amazon has begun to sell Kindle e-readers online. Note carefully, we are not speaking about the contents of the Kindle e-reader, which continue to be delivered digitally online, nor bricks and mortar stores, where a customer can purchase a Kindle reader. Rather, what Amazon seeks to do is take online orders for the sale and distribution of the device itself. This means that Amazon must find a way of delivering the e-reader to customers throughout the vast territory of Brazil, 200 million residents strong. Interestingly, shipment of the Kindle will be free and customers will be able to pay off the e-reader in up to 12 instalment payments (though the mark-up, if any, in paying for the device on an instalment basis was not specified). In so doing, Amazon is taking head-on the challenges posed by the well-known logistical and transportation problems in Brazil, not to mention high labour costs and rigid labour law provisions as well as an oppressive tax regime. Indeed, unlike in the U.S., where Amazon relies on its own distribution network and warehouses, in Brazil, Amazon will rely on distribution of Kindle devices through what are described as “external partners”. No further details were provided about the identity of these external partners.

So what do we make of these items? As for Professor Schekman and the eLife journal, we see an attempt to break the alleged privileged position of the elite science journals and the false scarcity that they allegedly create in publishing science research, while at the same time “democratizing” the distribution of worthy scientific research. Lurking behind this effort, however, is really a tale of trade marks and goodwill. The “impact factor” is both a cause and result of the goodwill enjoyed by the elite commercial journals. The challenge of Schekman and his associates is to neutralize the goodwill enjoyed by these journals, or at least to create sufficient goodwill in the eLife journal so that it can effectively compete. Aiding this effort is the reputation that Schekman enjoys by virtue of his Nobel Prize award. Seen in this light, what appears to be a matter of finding a better way to distribute the contents of scientific research becomes a battle over establishing viable goodwill in the online publishing project.

As for the sale of the Kindle online in Brazil, the focus is not directly on the distribution of the contents per se, but the distribution of the device necessary to read online content that is accessed and stored on the e-reader. The centrality of the device in the distribution of literary content can be seen, in some sense, as an extension of the home computer (and later the laptop and the tablet). However, none of these devices, being general purpose computer machines of various kinds, is solely dedicated to accessing stored literary contents. Moreover, the special challenge of distributing content digitally is joined with the long-standing problem of physically distributing the e-reader to far-flung customers Seen in this way, Kindle’s initiative in Brazil constitutes a new form of distribution of content, reaching back to the dawn of the age of the printing press and the challenge then, and now, of how to get this content into the hands of readers.

Take Control of Student Loan Debt

According to the Federal Reserve, student loan debt is the only form of consumer debt that has grown since the peak of consumer debt in 2008. The latest Fed reports states, “Balances of student loans have eclipsed both auto loans and credit cards, making student loan debt the largest form of consumer debt outside of mortgages.” The Fed keeps an eye on these numbers to determine their impact on the nation’s overall economic growth. On an individual level, most student loan holders are well aware of the direct impact on their lifestyle. A significant portion of their income has to be allocated toward student loan debt payments. That means less money for other expenses like mortgages, automobiles and daily living. Since lenders consider debt/income ratios, borrowers with high student loan debt may be denied loans or face higher interest rates.
Student loan debt does not magically go away. So, the best strategy is to take action. Find out exactly how much you owe and the type of loan – federal or private. You can retrieve information about federal student loans at  www.nslds.ed.gov . In the case of federal student loans there are many types of repayment options. A repayment and comparison calculator to help you analyze those options is available at www. studentaid.gov  .  If you are employed in the public sector investigate the Public Student Loan Forgiveness program. Try to avoid delinquencies and default. These options can be costly and can  lead to wage or other types of garnishments.

Special issue of Cultural Studies

Everyday Debt and Credit: Special Issue of Cultural Studies

CULTURAL STUDIES

Special Issue: Everyday Debt and Credit

Co-edited by Gregory J. Seigworth (Millersville University) and Joe Deville (Goldsmiths, University of London)

 

Call for Papers

 

How do ordinary matters of credit and debt circulate through the space-times of the everyday and the intimate? How has their manner of circulation and the nature of their saturation into the lives of borrowers changed in the age of the app, of the mobile interface, of social media? What are the new technologically enabled effects of debt and credit? Where and how is everyday indebtedness felt by its users and inflected in and through the architectures and atmospheres surrounding them? And, further, what are these postures and practices of our emerging economy of debt and credit pointing toward? From the advent of digitally mediated peer to peer lending to credit scores consulted on first dates (calculating risk before date #2), from cloud-connected loyalty cards to mobile payment and wallet technologies, from the multi-pronged and carefully designed affective tactics of debt collectors to the strategies of gamification for savings and personal finance and more – the material and immaterial articulations of debt and credit have woven themselves ever more ubiquitously into the ecologies of the everyday. If the sheer pervasiveness of credit and debt has become a defining feature of our era, we argue that their omnipresence cannot be confronted as merely one more topic for consciousness-raising and ideology critique. From the data-defined subjectivities of instantaneous algorithmic calculations to those age-old debates over the moralities and immoralities of debt to the emergence of redrawn bodily capacities (extended? shrunken?) and institutional/networked accesses (granted? denied?) that arise with evermore technologically-mediated credit/debt relationships, our contributors will reveal how matters of credit and debt must be met in their myriad relational entanglements with both the fine-grained and roughhewn practices of daily life.

 

Thus, we welcome essays that provide an empirics of indebtedness as it traverses this varied social and material terrain of the everyday. This includes a contextual focus on the specific apparatuses, devices, encounters, dispositions and affects of routine indebtedness and how different forms of credit reach into and attach themselves to domains often coded, as private, domestic, mundane, and non-economic. In attending to the particularities of daily intersections with credit and/or debt contributions might also consider how these mundane mediations of the economic connect to and shape apparent contextual commonalities, how the politics of ubiquitous credit is distributed, and where and in what form resistances, hacks and new debtor publics might be found. The issue aims to be disciplinarily diverse, to potentially include sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers, political economists, cultural theorists, critical analysts of finance, and those working in science and technology studies, while also inviting contributions from designers, architects, managers and activists. We welcome diverse and innovative takes on everyday indebtedness, ranging from (but not limited to) auto-ethnographic accounts to those investigating through a mix of sensory and/or digital approaches to credit & debt practices.

 

Please contact the editors with a proposal of 500 words presenting an orientation/overview of your angle of approach to this topic by February 15, 2014. Finished articles are also welcome at anytime but of course slight revisions to better address our issue’s themes should be expected.

 

Final full paper submissions are due no later than July 15, 2014. Articles are generally between 5000-8000 words (double spaced, size 12 font), including abstract and references. An abstract of 300 words (including 6 keywords) must be included for purposes of journal review. Please supply an email address and other relevant contact information with your submission. Multi-author works should clearly designate a corresponding author. Manuscripts must conform to the Harvard reference style. Consult the journal’s Taylor and Francis website for further specifics on formatting and author guidelines.

 

Send any inquiries, comments, proposals and papers to both co-editors: Gregory Seigworth

The Performativity of Strategy, Call for Papers – Special Issue of Long Range Planning

Special Issue Guest Editors:

Laure Cabantous, Cass Business School, City University London

Jean-Pascal Gond, Cass Business School, City University London

Alex Wright, The Open University Business School

Deadline for submission of 1000-word long abstracts: 30 September 2014

Deadline for submission of papers to the Special Issue: 15 March 2015

Contact details: performativity.strat@gmail.com.

 The Performativity of Strategy
Although it is widely acknowledged that strategy matters to society and has multiple effects on organizations and markets, the processes whereby strategic ideas, theories and models influence individuals, organizations and markets remain under-studied. In addition, despite extensive research on strategy, we still know little about how strategy theories “work” in practice. This special issue is a forum to study the performativity of strategy and to answer the following questions: How and why are strategy theories and concepts used and “performed” in practice? What are the implications and impact of the performativity of strategy?
We would like management scholars to engage thoroughly with Michel Callon’s idea that economics and management theories are performative, that is they perform and shape the external world. However, we also consider that other conceptualizations of performativity – such as the conceptualization developed by the Communicative Constitution of Organization perspective, Barad’s post-humanist approach to performativity, or the concept of performative praxis – offer promising avenues to address these questions. The purpose of this Special Issue is to engage scholars who have an interest in the discursive, social-material or practice-based dimensions of the performativity of strategy. We will therefore consider conceptual and empirical manuscripts as long as they explicitly mobilize one (or several) conceptualizations of performativity and they seek to create a new body of knowledge concerning the relationships between strategy theories and practice. We also welcome manuscripts that critically reflect on strategy theories’ influence on organizational reality.
We encourage papers from researchers and practitioners that address, but are not limited to, the following topics:
*  How and to what extent does strategic management acquire the power to shape organizational life and the organizational field? Are strategy theories self-fulfilling prophecies? Can strategy be approached as performative praxis—a set of activities that contribute to turning a theory into social reality?
* How are some strategic management frameworks and tools such as Porter’s five forces framework, Barney’s VRIN model or Freeman’s stakeholder theory more performative than others?
* How do performativity struggles between alternative models or theories of strategy in organizations emerge? For instance, how do strategy theories compete with economic representations of the firm, financial models (e.g., real option modelling) and theories, models and concepts from other disciplines (e.g., decision theory, sociology, ecology) to shape organizational strategies?
* How do academics and practitioners interact (or compete) when designing or diffusing innovative strategic concepts, such as the Bottom of the Pyramid, Blue Ocean Strategy, Coopetition or the Red Queen Effect?
* If business models are models encapsulating an organization’s strategy, to what extent are these models “performative”? Where does the performative power of business models come from?
* How are strategy and management consultants, and other professionals involved in the performativity of strategy?

 In responding to this call, we particularly welcome empirical contributions that document the concrete and practical effects of strategy theory. In terms of methodology, we welcome submissions in which a variety of research strategies and methods for collecting and analysing data are used.

 Process and Deadlines

Stage 1: Submission of a 1000-words abstract by 30 September 2014

Please submit an extended abstract or a clear expression of interest to the guest editors by 30 September 2014 at the email address that follows: performativity.strat@gmail.com. All abstracts will receive a first screening and feedback by the guest editors who will encourage authors of promising abstracts to submit full manuscripts to the Special Issue.

Stage 2: Papers for the special issue will have to be sent by 15 March 2015

Papers for the special issue should be prepared according to LRP’s guidelines for authors (www.lrp.ac). Papers will undergo a normal reviewing process. Please submit full manuscripts to the online submission system of LRP before 15 March 2015:

http://ees.elsevier.com/lrp/default.asp

 Should you have any questions about the Special Issue process and deadlines, please contact the guest editors at performativity.strat@gmail.com.

30 September 2014 Submission of abstract

15 October 2014 Notification to authors regarding their abstract submission

15 March 2015 Submission of full paper to Long Range Planning

Winter 2016 Intended publication of Special Issue

Suggested References

Barad, K. 2003. Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3): 801-831.

Barad, K. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning: Duke University Press.

Cabantous, L., & Gond, J.-P. 2011. Rational decision-making as a ‘performative praxis’: Explaining rationality’s éternel retour. Organization Science, 22(3): 573-586.

Cabantous, L., Gond, J.-P. & Johnson-Cramer, M. 2010. Decision theory-as-practice: Crafting economic rationality in organizations. Organization Studies, 31(11): 1531- 1566.

Callon, M. 1998. The Laws of the Markets. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Callon, M. 2007. What does it mean to say that economics is performative? In D.MacKenzie, F. Muniesa, & L. Siu (Eds.), Do Economists Make Markets? On the Performativity of Economics. Princeton University Press.

Cochoy F., Giraudeau M., McFall L. 2010. Performativity, economics and politics: An overview, Journal of Cultural Economy, 3(2): 139-146.

Cooren, F. 2004. Textual agency: How texts do things in organizational settings. Organization, 11(3): 373-393.

Doganova, L., & Eyquem-Renault, M. 2009. What do business model do? Innovation devices in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 38(10): 1559-1570.

Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. 2005. Economic language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30(1): 8-24.

Ghoshal, S. 2005. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1): 75-91.

Hardy, C., Palmer, I., & Phillips, N. 2000. Discourse as a strategic resource. Human relations, 53(9): 1227-1248.

MacKenzie, D., & Millo, Y. 2003. Constructing a market, performing a theory: the historical sociology of a financial derivatives exchange. American Review of Sociology, 109(1): 107-145.

Orlikowski, W., J., & Scott, S. V. 2008. Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1): 433-474.

Vaara, E., Sorsa, V., & Pälli, P. 2010. On the force potential of strategy texts: A critical discourse analysis of a strategic plan and its power effects in a city organization. Organization, 17(6): 685-702.

Ingestion without indigestion: a good year for Rightscorp

2013 seems to have been a good year for Rightscorp, Inc., which in a recently-received press release describes itself as "a leading provider of monetization services for artists and holders of copyrighted Intellectual Property". The company reported revenues for its fourth quarter which, at $155,381 were up 194% over $52,739 in the same period last year. Revenues for the full year 2013 were $324,000, up a remarkable 236% from $95,565 for the full year 2012. Explains the company:

"The growth in revenues was driven by the Company’s ability to increase the amount of copyrights in its automated system by 135% from approximately 17,000 in the fourth quarter 2012 to more than 40,000 in the fourth quarter of 2013".

According to Robert Steele, COO:

“... We currently have over 1 million copyrights under contract and we are loading thousands more every month. Our operational model is proving its ability to scale into a large and successful business as we help collect on behalf of artists and copyright holders. The increase of our ingestion rate will be our primary focus as it is a direct revenue driver in hand for 2014. We can expect our $750,000 annual revenue run rate to accelerate as we are at 4% of our copyrights under contract ingested. Additionally, increases in the number of ISP’s forwarding our notices should further drive our growth rate and increase revenues. 

“The metrics are clear. As we continue to ramp up our copyright inventory, we expect our revenues to increase proportionally. To date, we have closed on more than 50,000 cases of copyright infringements, and we have paid the owners of those copyrights for their work. We are currently in talks with the owners of millions of additional copyrights. Rightscorp is pleased to offer a technology and an operational system that enables the creators and owners of intellectual property to be rightfully compensated for the use of their assets.” 

This blogger notes that neither IP Finance nor the copyright-oriented 1709 Blog has featured Rightscorp before and he is also slightly embarrassed to confess that he cannot recall having come across it before. Do any readers have experiences of it, whether from the perspective of rights owners or from that of being on the receiving end of its attentions? If so, do let us know.

So, What Are Annuities?

Annuity contracts are purchased from a life insurance company. The buyer gives the company a lump sum or a series of payments. In return the company will provider the consumer with a stream of payments. Annuities are classified as immediate or deferred annuities. Immediate annuities start making payments within a year. Deferred annuities stipulate payments in a more distant future –such as 10-20 years.
An immediate annuity is purchased as a way to avoid the risk of outliving assets in retirement. It is paid for with a lump sum payment. In return the insurance company starts making scheduled payments. The payments can be structured for the life of an annuity owner or an owner and his/her spouse. The risk of depleting the asset amount is transferred to the insurance company and the company charges fees to assume this risk.
Deferred annuities are a tax advantaged vehicle used to accumulate funds for retirement, so there are penalties for withdrawals prior to age 59.5. Most workers first look to workplace retirement plans and Individual Retirement Plans before deferred annuities. These plans can offer tax deductions and may have less fees.
Like all investments, annuities have advantages and disadvantages. One of the advantages is that earnings grow tax deferred until withdrawals are made. A disadvantage is that if you need to access funds before the payment time stipulated in the contract there will be a surrender charge. In addition, fees & expenses may be higher than other investment vehicles.
For more information view our recorded webinar, “Annuities 101” at http://bit.ly/19h7VQT

How Much Should We Spend?

There are many rules of thumb for how much to allocate for specific items in your personal budget. For instance, it is often said that a consumer should set aside 10% of their income towards savings and/or investing. For some this will work just fine, for others (such as those of us who did not save enough early in our working life), this amount may be too small. The truth is there is no definitive answer to the question of how much should you spend and save. Your budget allocations will depend on your personal goals,  circumstances, and stage in the life cycle. However, it may be helpful to consider some general guidelines and national consumer trends before you dive in and evaluate your own budget.
Housing: The guideline is to keep the amount spent for  housing expenditures (mortgage loan principal & interest, taxes, and insurance) to about 25-29% of your income. Insurance and tax expenses tend to increase each year. So if housing expenses start off at a high percentage of income they may increase to an unaffordable level if your salary does not keep pace.
 Transportation: The 2011 Consumer Expenditure (CE) survey reported that US consumers on average spent about of 16.7% of their income on transportation. This included gasoline and other transportation related expenses.
Food: In 2011, spending on food averaged about 13.0 % of income. This included 7.7% for food at home and 5.3% for food away from home.
Debt: The general rule is that non-mortgage debt repayments should consume 15% or less of take-home income. 
Planned Saving: As mentioned, there is a general 10%  rule of thumb. But if debt repayment is a priority you may need to allocate more for debt and less for saving. The key point is to find a savings amount that is achievable and making this a regular fixed allocation.
The goal with budgeting is to cover all the necessary allocations and some non-discretionary items such as entertainment and vacations. High spending in one area may necessitate reductions in other areas.