Fluffy, fluffy – Irish Times’ Lillington and her trends
Photo owned by digital_image_fan (cc)
‘Tis the season for predictions, tra la la la la la, la la la laaaaah…
So, last Friday in the Irish Times, technology correspondent Karlin Lillington looked ahead to trends she saw in the coming year. The piece outlines, in fuzzy terms, five trends that Ms Lillington sees as driving forces for the technology sector in 2009. Before we start, let’s all close our eyes and keep the image of the economic downturn in our minds. Books in the red. Jobs at stake. The Big R. Ready? Let’s go.
Trend 1: Consolidation
Ms Lillington cites it the year ahead as a time for consolidation. Consolidation means job losses in anyone’s speak. Describing recessions as times
… when the big companies really lick their lips and go on buying sprees, like well-heeled girlfriends hitting New York in January with their flexible friends
.. is not only heartless, but downright offensive to people who have lost the jobs in the past couple of months. Shall we salsa dance on their letters of foreclosure too? How very cold and patronising.
Referring to acquisition as a trend in an anemic economy where large companies are looking for fresh blood for the next boom amounts to crayon economics. Of course, large companies are doing this, if sparingly. Is this a significant trend that amounts to something notable that you and I, Joe and Jane Soaps, don’t see? Does it take a technology journalist to point this out to us?
Trend 2: Making money from social networking services and products
In this trend, Ms Lillington goes to great pains to outline what social networking is, before questioning how it can used to create revenue. She highlights the challenge of making money from social networking a conundrum before pointing to advertising as the “readiest answer”. It’s not just the readiest answer, it’s the only practical way. A slap in the face, shout out loud certainty.
Does anyone question the revenue generation power that television holds? No, they do not. Why? Because it is a mature medium. The Irish ad spread across social networking site does not sit anywhere near that of television at the moment (largely because of the sleepwalking rollout of broadband across the nation), but even in its infancy, it demonstrates good props for spend.
Look at yesterday’s numbers where 400,000 Irish people are using Facebook. That’s a doubling of Irish eyeballs in a year. A massive jump in ad audience. An audience that will, without a shadow of a doubt, continue to grow healthily throughout 09. Television viewership is in decline, but a social network can double its audience in a year? Is there any doubt of where the advertisers are and will be positioning themselves?
That’s not to say that advertising will pay all the bills, rather that it is the blindingly obvious way to do so. I agree with Karlin, though, in that consolidation will breach this sector too. Big fish eats minnow. But that’s part of our 101 lesson, right?
Oh and let’s be clear, Twitter is microblogging not text messaging although one can use text messages with the Twitter service from the USA, Canada or India unless Ms. Lillington is referring to the mode of messaging. But isn’t email and instant messaging text messaging also? Perhaps, she’s just confused.
Trend 3: Privacy moves to the middle
Surveillance of your messaging and online breadcrumbs is hardly a driving force in the coming year, any different from it being one in the past year. It’s a reality facing each and every one of us that uses the Internet to email, to leave comments on forums or blogs, use instant messaging or buy goods and services daily.
As for Ms Lillington’s ideas on where the burden of cost will be put in the coming year. Is there empirical data or examples that points to this trend? Which companies are bearing these costs and what do these figures look like? And just what kind of breaches of privacy are we talking about – unauthorised additions to mailing lists or 1984-style shadowing? Karlin’s concentration on shadowy intermediaries is fluffy. Just who are these boogey men? Give us examples!
Trend 4: How to go green
And lo, how the trend jockeys are jumping on this. Last year’s Social Media Ninjas are this year’s Green Energy Grand Masters! Ms Lillington points to the Green Energy as a driving bastion of hope to quell the costs of doing business in 2009. She notes that oil has dropped in price but that energy bills for organisations will be a “big issue” for 2009.
So, riddle me this, in a contracting economy that is employing less workers, has less individual organisations and pays less for a barrel of oil where does the pressure for rising energy prices come from? How can this economic environment so utterly change in a single calendar year so as to result in rising energy costs? Nothing short of the outbreak of war or severe bristling of relations with OPEC and the Russian Federation could result in this. These assumptions are not enunciated in Ms Lillington’s broad strokes, so we ought to discount them as preconditions for this eventuality.
Consolidation in the sector, our first tenet, would put the balance of power for bulk-buying of energy back into the camp of organisation too, right? A better bargaining position for business.
As regards initiatives to boost support for Green Energy technologies in the Valley, California is, for all intensive purposes, bankrupt. Private industry is feeling the pinch too. Look at Telsa. For all the claps and geek adoration, it hit hard times last year.
The tricky balance between demand and supply of Green Energy has not been hit, as recession has pulled us back from that point. The more consumption, the better. Real movement on Green tech can only happen when fossil fuels are so insanely expensive that business cannot scale those costs. I don’t see crude oil rising to those levels over the next twelve months as we’re in the belly of the worst economic nightmare since the Great Depression, do you? So where’s the impetus for this driving trend?
Trend 5: How to develop our own technology companies
This is not a mere driving trend of 2009, but the silent alarm bell that has bring ringing for nigh on a decade now. During the years of milk and honey, it sat in the back of the room. Waiting. Ms Lillington marks this as a trend for 09. This, is my opinion, is the single biggest question not only facing the technology sector, but indeed the entire economy. How can entrepreneurship be nurtured? Tagging it as a driving trend for 09 robs this problem of its weight and urgency.
Moving to technology specifically, supports from EI and government bodies aside, the country has virtually no VCs. There is no green Y Combinator. The idea of handing over €10K or €15K and incorporation documents to someone with a good demo isn’t so far fetched, is it? Build a million Euro fund. Even if only a tiny number of these projects strike gold and exit in the low single digit million mark, it seems like a good return.
There’s no easy answer to this question. Supports from governmental bodies need to be accessible, transparent and undertaken by people with a deep knowledge of the industry and healthy address books. Is enough being done by EI and other agencies to hook up businesses that could collaborate to build something truly exciting? Shouldn’t EI be Cilla Black, too?
When is a prediction, a prediction?
I hazard to call these trends, predictions. Are they perhaps just forecasts? What’s the difference? A prediction is a statement that claims a particular event will occur in the future. A forecast is an estimation. What sets a prediction apart from a forecast is certainty. Predictions pin theories on map and/or timeline. There are names, places and numbers in predictions. There are concrete actors and catalysts. Forecasts estimate the chance of rain.
Ms Lillington’s piece angles like a set of predictions by carving out a body of work focusing on “driving forces” trends that “drive”. Driving forces implies concise and clear moves. And these forces are moving to an end-point – an event, right? Trends that “drive” imply that there’s movement to an end-point, right? Hooking trends that don’t reference examples and concentrate on fluffy generalisations moves us back towards Forecastland or maybe perhaps off somewhere beyond it. So where are we now? What’s the point?
It’s disappointing to see the Irish Times, the only national daily newspaper that makes a stab at being serious about technology and its coverage, publish an ambiguous trend-watching piece, when the very exercise of predicting the moves that matter in the industry is about being measured, precise and logical. Ms Lillington’s piece was a fluffy addition to last Friday’s Business section. The Irish Times is usually head and shoulders above its competitors in the digestion of the events that matter and their reportage in the Irish press. Let’s hope they continue on this path and don’t fall into the trap of filler journalism.
Look at yesterday’s numbers where 400,000 Irish people are using Facebook. That’s a doubling of Irish eyeballs in a year. A massive jump in ad audience. An audience that will, without a shadow of a doubt, continue to grow healthily throughout 09. Television viewership is in decline, but a social network can double its audience in a year? Is there any doubt of where the advertisers are and will be positioning themselves?
How many ads have you clicked on from a social network site in the last year?
How many ads from a social network site can you remember?
Can you sing the Do the Shake and Vac and put the freshness back song.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=I8CTscW3dpI
Nice piece particularly your view on how to develop our own technology companies.
I for one am getting sick of Ireland getting more recognition for having US companies setting up their headquarters there rather than our home grown ones.
More innovation and capital is needed to start them up, the people are willing, but the gov is weak.
Very well written Alexia, though I dont agree on every point. I am not sure especially where the last point about predictions comes from. Nowhere is predictions mentioned in her story, and I think it fair to call them trends (though the word is most strongly used in the the first para).
In relation go point 4, I agree with Karlin. It is also a central plank of Obama’s incoming administration. I think what Karlin is getting at is not that energy prices will soar this year, but that a drive to more energy efficiency will be a trend for the year. They are not mutually exclusive.
The impetus driving the trend is realising the shock of oil at $145 a barrel, and the knowledge that we will see those prices again, and how we can best deal with that eventuality. It might also save on energy costs even when energy prices are comparatively low this year, and certainly in the future.
In point 2, to be fair, a sub may have inserted the mass text messaging in parenthesis. Or it may simply be due to lack of space (yes it was written for print) trying to explain it to a non-techie audience.
In broad terms I think you are right about advertising online becoming more mature, but is Karlin not also right to identify this as a trend. How will YouTube make money? Will new revenue models be advanced? I’m not sure it’s entirely as simple as growing audience + maturity + adsense (or whatever) = profit.
Lastly, Karlin never used the phrase driving forces. I am not sure why you describe what she writes in that way.
I am not sure we could characterise ourselves entirely as joe or jane soaps, we are techies.
It might actually be fair to call it filler, because often times that is what it is called. Editor rings up and says, i’d like you to do a filler piece on what you think are trends for 09… x amount of inches, have it in by Thursday. It also featured in the technology section of a business section – business people who are not techies.
I think you should link to Karlin’s own blog (she’s been blogging on and off for longer than almost anyone in Ireland) and give her at least right of reply.
Other than that, I LOVE your writing style. If only I could write like that
True. On the predictions reference. Nowhere in the piece does the word predictions turn up. But, I think this is on purpose. Tagging these five things as trends is an easy escape route.
However, at this time of year, the world and his pet cow are making predictions. I didn’t say these trends were predictions, rather that they read like a set of predictions. If she is not willing to staple her balls to the mast and call them predictions or even forecasts, why call them trends? Is there a reason why she’s believes that they are trends? Why not call them trifles? Or just five things? Trends mean movement.
Well, Karlin does say that energy prices will rise. I quote:
Going green isn’t just about being environmentally and socially aware. As a matter of fact, for most organisations those elements will not keep the management lying awake at night. Instead, it is a simple issue of rising costs. For companies that process increasingly large amounts of data and need the hardware to do so, costs of running data centres – which can have energy usage the equivalent of a small town – are an alarming part of the budget.
Cost the the problem is going up – “a simple issue of rising costs”. I also read “alarming” there too.
Cost is the trigger for Green Energy developments. Cost is the catalyst. Energy efficiency is the goal. If the cost of crude oil stays low, just where is incentive for innovation going to come from. Waiting for the Federal government to up sticks and jump on the problem will not solve this.
As for the advertising on social networks point, if this were a year ago then I believe her words identifying it as a trend would be more weighty. The horse has already bolted. She points to it as a “readiest answer”. Truth is, the homework has already been corrected and the report card sent to Mammy. This is not a trend, it’s a footnote.
True on the “driving forces”. I shall remedy that. She refers to trends that “drive”. But there’s still someone behind the wheel, going somewhere, right?
Joe or Jane Soap? Well, we’re all people first. I’m not making any assumption on the knowledge of the reader. Why are you? Even non-techies are allowed read the tech sections.
And you carry onto agree with me in your comment. Maybe non-business heads read it too. It was an important part of my Friday morning ritual in school.
As for right of reply, Karlin’s more than welcome to blog or comment here. I’m not barring her from replying. Let the web be conduit.
I still think her point RE Green Energy stands. She is referring specifically to data centres when talking about alarming. And she is right, and a conference in Cork that myself and Mulley attended said as much – indeed I was sitting next to a guy who works in exactly that area, as does T Raftery.
It is a simple issue of rising costs (medium term), and also an issue of costs that could be cut. Energy had been so cheap for so long that it was never much of an issue. The 2008 rise was a shock to companies, and I think regardless of whether oil goes to 145 a barrel in 2009 or 2012 or 2020, it will still be a factor for business this year. Indeed, recessionary times may force companies to seek to cut costs via green energy cost savings (esp in data centres). I would argue that is planning ahead, rather than waiting for oil to go back up and then implementing green energy policies.
Incentive and innovation come from the impetus of rising energy costs AND lack of secure energy supplies, especially in the US. Obama’s energy plan typifies this, and if he implements incentivising tax plans for businesses, IT or not, to go green, then they will (free market or not). If higher energy prices are inevitable, why wait for costs to rise before going green? I think smart businesses won’t wait.
I think it is still a trend, because many websites are simply not making money.
Well we could argue over semantics on the “driving” issue. I get where Karlin is going with the point, and don’t think using the word detracts from her point. It seems relatively minor to me.
So we agree that techies and non-techies, business people and non business people read her article. How you pitch it in terms of being tech aware or business aware is debateable — esp in a newspaper. I think it had a good tone, not too techie and not too businessy. Accessible even to school students who might not know 100% of what she is referring to – but will learn from what she is writing. Accessible to business people who might think her first point obvious, but read the others. Non-business techies who like the tech but might not have known some of the other bits.
I dont think Karlin was implying her readers were stupid by putting something you call obvious in. She just saw it as a trend and put it in. Consolidation applies across the board, IT or not, but she might have included it for the reason that future consolidation is quite important, even critical, and to leave it out of a list of trends would be remiss.
What I was hinting at was a link to her blog directly so it would appear on her radar via stats or technorati
You say:
It is a simple issue of rising costs (medium term), and also an issue of costs that could be cut.
I agree with you, but Karlin says:
Yes, pressure eased over the past two months somewhat as the price of oil dropped, but the energy bill for organisations will be a big, big issue in 2009.
That Gavin, is very different. Medium term in my mind somewhere in 3-5 years time, right? So, in your opinion is 12 months medium term?
I’d be the first to applaud any business that goes right ahead pursues Green Energy for as far as it is practicable, measurable, economically and ecologically sound. I, too, would to see Obama’s administration crack whip. I’ll stand by the sidelines and see how his first year in office goes before I judge progress on Green.
A trend because websites are not making money? Is this because the tone, delivery and mode of advertising online needs to evolve? Simply noting that advertising on social networks is a trend is over-simplifying the issue. Were this trend something like the evolving nature of advertising in social networks then we’d have a trend. But we don’t have that.
We have:
Making money from social networking services and products
And the “readiest answer” is advertising.
The use of “drive” is negated by the filler nature of the piece. Fly in ointment, you see. I think we’ll differ on this one.
Oh, the piece is not under the radar at all. IPs from the Irish Times have been visiting.
I think it will be a big issue in 2009. Indeed one could argue that the very existence of the green theme at the IT@Cork conference lends to this argument. While energy prices may or may not rise like that again in 09, cheaper/greener energy will still be an ever increasing factor for IT companies.
So I still agree with Karlin on this one. You might not see big capex in 09 on green energy, but you will certainly find companies coming up with ways to reduce opex without massive expenditure. I guess by the end of 2009 we will see. I certainly expect many more green themed IT confs!
I think there is merit in what Karlin is getting at about advertising. The model existing at the moment, that I think she is referring to here, is build a cool product that everyone uses, burn lots of VC cash in the process, and sell yourself to a bigger badder corporation that can absorb the continued burning of cash until a proper revenue model can be found. YouTube being perhaps the best example. Despite tens of millions of eyeballs, they still appear not to be actually turning a profit.
She suggests, perhaps vaguely, that identifying a profitable system within a recessionary 2009 (with much less of that cash floating about) will be specific trend for the year, especially since times are much leaner than they were in 03 – 07. I think this point does have merit.
On the “drive” point…:) I’m not sure we will agree hehe! But when I do look at the only use of the word in the context of being the introductory paragraph:
“IT GOES without saying that the economy will drive the fortunes – or lack of them – for the information and communications technologies sector in 2009.”
I think that’s a fair enough sentence on the face of it. The economy will do that. Perhaps it’s stating the obvious, but then it is the intro. Maybe it would have been better to use “decide”, or “direct”.
Well as far as I know, Karlin is not based at the IT offices. Given that she has a blog where she writes about the self same issues we are talking about here, it does seem courteous to link – what with a link economy we live in here in the blogosphere (gosh I sound like Jeff Jarvis!) lol I won’t include a link in the comments, since it is your blog, and entirely your call…
Gav
Great example of analytical writing and excellent commenting (I’m thinking of Gavin’s comments and the to and fro). Enjoyed both on their own terms.
A pedantic point: I always thought the phrase was ‘to all intents and purposes’ rather than ‘intensive purposes’. Am I wrong or have I learned something? I like ‘to all intensive purposes’, though, whichever it is. If I can find an intensive purpose for 2009 I’ll be away on a hack. :>)
@Gavin:
Hehe.. On Green Energy you are deflecting from my questions on the definitions on short and medium term. On how we both agree on rising costs of oil in the medium term, whereas Karlin sees this coming up in 2009.
How can you in one comment say that oil costs will rise in the medium term and then say it’ll be a big issue in 09? Are you now saying that this will be a big issue in the short term, effectively contradicting your medium term thinking?
The advertising mention was just a nod. It doesn’t merit anything in return. Had she outline a trend where this advertising was moving i.e. how advertising is going to evolve on socnets in the coming 12 months – that would have had merit. Again we’re at an impasse.
“Drive” sets the scene. “Drive” lines all the duckies in a row for shooting. “Drive” is the tuning key of the piece. There is no real driving in the piece. Just chugging along.
Ah, she’s knows about the piece. I know she knows. The community is very small indeed.
@Philip:
You’re right, it’s ‘to all intents and purposes’. I just listen to what the voices say and try to keep up with them. Keeping the fluff as a reminder to avoid it in the future.
Ah.
But I’m going to use ‘intensive purposes’, if I can find an opportunity, I like it so much…
Yes, the voices. They’re the only way.
I don’t see any deflection at all Alexia. It might be best to return to what Karlin said:
“Yes, pressure eased over the past two months somewhat as the price of oil dropped, but the energy bill for organisations will be a big, big issue in 2009.
Areas such as Silicon Valley have already experienced rolling brown-outs and creaky infrastructure everywhere around the globe is under pressure so expect lobbying on these issues and a focus on driving the cost down as much as possible within organisations.”
Expect lobbying on these issues in 2009. Check. Creaking infrastucture at the moment. Check. Drive down costs within organisations in 2009 (both within the context of general cost savings and seeking savings through green initiative). Check. I don’t see any deflection. I don’t see any problem with what Karlin is saying.
It is a big issue, it will continue to be a big issue. A drop in oil from $145 to $45 has not made the issue of energy savings go away – in 2009, 2010, 2015 or 2020. Perhaps you disagree and think it is less of an issue in 2009 than Karlin is saying – but it is an issue nonetheless. I happen to also think it is a big issue.
“IT GOES without saying that the economy will drive the fortunes – or lack of them – for the information and communications technologies sector in 2009.”
I’m still not sure what you’re critical of in this sentence. Do you not agree that the broader economy will drive the fortunes of companies in 2009? It seems like a pretty uncontroversial comment IMHO.
How you link the word “drive” to the rest of the piece is odd – the word drive is only used in reference to the economy driving the fortunes of companies. I think that is true.
To me, either you agree with this statement or you don’t. I don’t see how it is the “tuning key” to the rest of the piece in the way that you suggest. I would argue the tuning key was actually not written by her, but by a sub:
“Karlin Lillington identifies five trends to look for in the technology sector in 2009″
In relation to advertising. She is only talking about a trend, not predicting the future. A trend being defined as “a general direction in which something tends to move”. Perhaps you disagree on the merits of putting this into a list of trends, or perhaps you feel she should have been more specific about what the trend is – but it is arguably still something we will see in 2009. Perhaps we also had in 2007 and 2008, and we will continues to see in 2009. You could argue this means it is not a trend specific to 2009. But does that stop it being a trend?
I’m not sure how she would know about this, but if you say she does then I believe ya
G
Gavin, did you read my comment at all?