That was a discussion question posted online by a smart, tech-savvy entrepreneur and media expert. And it got me thinking: are we surprised about any place a person or company advertises these days?

So many people used to question the value of advertising online, because it was either overvalued, overpriced or the ROI was non-existent. Now, the traditional forms of media, like radio, are having their value questioned. Interestingly, it is because radio is somewhat cost-effective, undervalued and the ROI is thought to be difficult to determine.

The truth of the matter is, while traditional media still outstrips digital in terms of reach, we cannot even think of advertising in terms of technology or form of media. We actually have to think of media in a more singular tone and realize that by NOT using all techniques together whenever possible we are really limiting the effectiveness of our own efforts.

Today’s technology enhances the effectiveness of all media. And in the years ahead, the expansion of mobile networks and satellite will take what we think of radio today and shatter it completely. Just imagine if you are a small, cable-casted and/or Internet streaming station? And we go from 4G to the next generation in wireless? People will be able to get Internet feeds in their cars. This potential alone connects to advertising in ways that are not realized, but soon will be.

In 5 years, voice recognition, Internet streaming via subscription and the like will enable even the smallest station or lone individual to reach an unlimited audience, deliver targeted marketing message via SMS and wireless (to a car or mobile device – though, cars themselves might be considered the ultimate mobile devices soon), and then track user activity to gauge the effectiveness of such a marketing campaign.

All this brings me back to the original questions.

1) Are we still amazed that there advertisers on the radio?

2) Are we surprised about any place a person or company advertises these days?

I think the answer is clear: We should not be amazed. Unless, of course, we are talking about newspaper!

Apparently, Williams does not know what to say to the White House about the current economic crisis, and posted as much on Twitter (see image courtesy of BusinessInsider)



For Williams to suggest that the White House must be “really out of ideas” is either an immature remark designed to be funny, or more proof that you do not need experience to be President or the leader of one of the most popular companies in the world.

Of course, dare I point out the obvious that neither the above have viable business models and neither can demonstrate any future profitability.

Allow me to get started by offering two ideas on how the White House can get us out of this economic crisis. And in true digital age fashion – comments are not just welcomed – they are encouraged. So, let’s get started:

1) The President and his team need to stop selling panic and building demons (Bush, Limbaugh, etc), and start focusing on building hope. Confidence in markets, in the economy and in taking business risks cannot exist if every day the message is not based on what we can do to succeed.

2) We cannot spend our way out of this economic crisis. It may seem hard to fathom, but expanding the deficit by $1.5 to $2 trillion dollars has not exactly bought us very much except higher interest payments and a larger debt that you, I and our children will have to pay in the not-so-distant future. The automotive industry is still plagued by its bad decisions, over-paid workforce and out-of-whack health care benefits. If a tech company starts-up and fails, it does so because its was not meant to succeed. Sorry, but we need to let some of these companies fail and start eliminating our debt for future viability.

3) Spend less, reduce the size of government so its more agile and fuel economic growth through upper middle class tax cuts. We cannot afford to punish wealth-builders, and likewise, we cannot afford to provide additional money to people who do not currently pay taxes or who have a small tax burden.

That is my start… Your turn, America…

This question got me thinking last week, and even more this weekend as yet another newspaper went down for the count and talk of a “global new deal” emerged from British PM, Gordon Brown. What I started wondering was, “What is really going on?” Is this a recession, a depression, or is something more profound taking place here?

On my radio show yesterday, I concluded that what we are witnessing was an event driven more by technology than we realize, and by institutions and policies that are based or structured on the models of the industrial age and not the digital age.

Digital age strategies are based on individualization – meeting the specific needs of a person, as opposed to one cookie-cutter solution designed for everyone. They also are based on demassification as opposed to massification. In other words, the digital age ethos is that smaller, more agile entities will thrive, while larger and more bureaucratic ones will wither and eventually fade away.

So, what does this mean in context with the current economic crisis?

For starters, command and control economies are passe. However, we seemingly have not learned the lessons the failures communism and European-styled socialism brought to light. Namely, we still rely on large scale institutions to hold almost monopolistic like control, both in the public sector and the private sector, over our economic welfare. Then we act surprised when a bubble pops and the small number of large organizations the government encouraged and at times directed to make bad decisions go under. Everyone is stuck in the same pot, a collapse ensues and then everyone is scrambling around trying to do the same thing: save the system that caused the very problems in the first place.

If the digital age has shown us anything, its that going backwards to the future just will not work. The kind of “New Deal” era set of policies on a national scale (and especially on an international scale) will simply not do the job. What we need to face is that a reorder of power needs to take place. We need get smaller, more personalized and more technologically driven in our approach to solving the problems government has created today and the problems we will face going forward.