Este ano, o Top 100 Most Valuable volta a demosntrar a força que as marcas possuem no mercado de valores e a Apple volta a liderar. No entanto, com um crescimento de apenas um por cento, vale actualmente 185 mil milhões de dólares (cerca de 144 mil milhões euros).

Já a Samsung mostrou um crescimento de 51% face à sua concorrente, ocupando a 30ª posição  do ranking , com um valor de 21 mil milhões de dólares, cerca de 16 mil milhões euros.

De acordo com o estudo, a Google ocupa agora a segunda posição no ranking, bastante próxima da Apple, com um valor de 114 mil milhões de dólares, cerca de 89 mil milhões de euros.

A IBM encontra-se na terceira posição com um valor de marca na ordem dos 112 mil milhões de dólares, cerca de 87 mil milhões de euros.

A Visa também surpreende ao demosntrar um crescimento de 46%, ocupando agora a 9ª posição do ranking das 100 marcas mais valiosas a nível global.

Mais detalhes do estudo, em http://www.wpp.com/wpp/press/2013/may/21/apple-remains-no1-in-the-brandz-top-100-ranking-of-the-most-valuable-global-brands/

O evento, que contará com a presença do Sr. Embaixador dos Estados Unidos da América em Portugal, Sr. Alan J. Katz, terá lugar nos dias 24, 25 e 26 de Maio no Parque das Nações, em frente ao Centro Comercial Vasco da Gama.

O Programa incluirá acções direccionadas para as empresas e candidatos mas também diversas actividades lúdicas para famílias:

• Workshops sobre como poder vir a estudar e trabalhar nos Estados Unidos da América
• Conferências sobre Empreendedorismo nos E.U.A. e Best-Practices a serem seguidas por empresas portuguesas
• Acções lúdicas de promoção da cultura americana, incluindo concertos, filmes, e dança e actividades infantis

Para inscrições e mais informações sobre o evento, por favor consultar: http://thisisamerica.eventbrite.pt/?ref=ecount

Solar Collector: Image credited to Gorbet Design Inc

Take the Solar Collector, for example. A sculpture created by artists Matt Gorbet, Rob Gorbet, and Susan LK Gorbet, this large scale project features several shafts which create patterns of light performed at dusk each evening. And yes, it’s entirely powered by solar. You can even create your own pattern online.

Or take the beautiful works of Sarah Hall – photovoltaic installations that look more like stained glass. She captures images of waterfalls cascading down buildings, or leaves floating across a wall, and makes you forget that this is a working solar installation. It’s generating electricity as you look at it.

Leaves of Light by Sarah Hall: Image credited to Sarah Hall

The possibilities for combining solar with aesthetically pleasing design are endless. Take the Blue Forest project in Abu Dhabi, for instance. Working in collaboration with Solar Artworks, Blue Team Architects are creating a public area, shaded by solar panel “trees”. When the sun goes down, the clean energy that has been collected can be used to power LED lights to illuminate the space after dusk.

So solar plants and visually appealing installations need not be mutually exclusive. Whether on a large or small scale, with a bit of ingenuity and a whole lot of creative talent, I envisage it won’t be long before the phrase “solar installation” conjures up a very different image indeed.

With Earth Day activities in progress across the Unites States and the rest of world, I am wondering what relevance this day of activism still has. In an excellent blog post, my colleague Lena Davie rightly points out that it is great that people dedicate a day to the environment, but action on just one single day each year is hardly going to have much effect. This is a timely reminder. While Earth Day has become part of American national culture and as such is important on a symbolic level, it is questionable how effective it really is in light of today’s environmental challenges.

Historically, Earth Day certainly was significant. A recent study by the historian Adam Rome, The Genius of Earth Day, reminds us of the scale of the original 1970’s event, and tracks its impact. Rome shows how the idea of a nation-wide environmental teach-in, proclaimed by Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson on September 20, 1969, inspired more than 12,000 events across the country on the original Earth Day on April 22, 1970. This success was largely due to the fact that Nelson was smart enough to hire dedicated staffers to organize the teach-in but also allowed his idea to go viral by not insisting on top-down control of the individual events and their messaging.

And so a diverse group became a movement, consisting of liberals looking to better the quality of life; scientists concerned with, and documenting, the level of pollution of water, ground and air; middle-class women worried about their deteriorating environment; young activists interpreting the fight for the environment as just another incarnation of the fight against the ‘system;’ and conservationists active since the era of Teddy Roosevelt. Nelson didn’t mind these groups taking ownership of his idea, and this helped the idea to go viral and ultimately to form a generation of environmentalists and environmentally conscious citizens. So nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come, it seems. And indeed: Earth Day 1970 highlighted an environmental crisis in the U.S. that quickly became apparent and tangible to every citizen. Remember, this was before any efficient regulation of polluting industries was in place.

Rome’s study also shows, however, that the original Earth Day was about much more than these tangible quality-of-life issues. While pollution of rivers, lakes and the oceans, of air and soil certainly stirred up much attention, it was also largely noncontroversial that this was not a good thing. The questions posed by the movement in 1970, however, were more fundamental. I find two points are of particular interest today: What I would call the question of a sustainable way-of-life, and the question of sustainable growth.

Inquiring about a sustainable way-of-life, for instance, was largely questioning the suburbanization of the United States. A lot of attention in the late 1960s was given to the fact that with the growth of suburbia the natural land is shrinking, and often valuable habitats are destroyed. This criticism of suburbia has great implications, because suburbia is the home of hydrocarbon man and to a large degree based on the availability and affordability of cars and fuel. With suburbia come motorways, and traffic, and the national fixation on the gas price. Living in New York City it is easy to forget, but my impression from recent travels is that the Earth Day movement did not succeed in changing this, but that the development of ever more suburban sprawl continues today. And with it, the issue of sustainability.

The question of sustainable growth is even more interesting. The argument was that gross national product (GNP) is an insufficient indicator of wealth because its logic suggested that polluting and cleaning up would be more desirable than not polluting because the cleaning-up effort would also contribute to total GNP and thereby factor into the national wealth. If this ‘wealth’ includes negative environmental impacts, the argument goes, it is questionable that ‘wealth’ is so desirable after all. Sustainable growth would need a combination of quantitative and qualitative measurements which would allow marking pollution and counting it as a negative. Again, as fascinating as this argument is, I am not sure that this idea has much traction amongst economists and the informed public today. (It would certainly create a number of issues on its own.)

Coming back to the question of Earth Day’s significance today, I’m afraid it is a mixed bag. While it is great to have a dedicated, nation-wide day to think and learn about the environment and about sustainability, tangible action would be much preferred. I personally think that the only way to achieve real change would be an adequate price on pollution. Recent experiences with carbon trading in the European Union do not support much optimism.

Dos 1835 euros gastos em média em compras de hipermercados/supermercados, 80% foram para comprar produtos alimentares, o que representa um aumento de 135 euros face a 2010.

Este aumento do consumo revela que os portugueses estão a fazer mais refeições em casa devido à redução dos rendimentos, tendo o primeiro trimestre deste ano registado um aumento no consumo de frescos (inclui carne, peixe, frutas, legumes, charcutaria, queijo) com uma subida de 32%, seguido dos básicos (ovos, cereais, pão e bebidas quentes) com 5%, e do prazer (gelados, chocolate e bolachas) com uma subida de 2%.

Leia a notícia na integra em: http://bit.ly/ZZZ4aZ

The German government is unlikely to support import tariffs for solar panels made in China despite domestic opposition to their policies. Veterans of the German renewable energy community, such as Hans-Josef Fell, have suggested that the German government’s decision to significantly reduce Feed-in-Tariffs for solar photovoltaic energy would be destroying the German solar industry. While it is true that the entire sector has come under increasing pressure, this is hardly a phenomenon that is limited to Germany. China, in fact, currently seems to suffer just as much as any other country, as the recent bankruptcy of Suntech suggests. And despite the recent stock price surge for First Solar, this doesn’t seem to be much different in the U.S., despite the trade war the country started with China.

It is important to keep in mind, that behind the push for protectionism in the U.S. is a German company, SolarWorld, which has a significant manufacturing footprint in the United States. In a paper published last year by Germany’s Heinrich Böll Foundation as second installment of a series on the German Energy Transition, Craig Morris explains why. The quick answer is, as a leading exporter Germany cannot afford a trade war with China. Morris quotes Fell acknowledging that.

More importantly, however, is the business case behind it. And Morris lays out how Germany benefits economically even if the panels installed are made in China. There are two main reasons for this. Firstly, the German solar industry is strong all along the value chain which leads to the fact that products made in China will likely lead to some value creation in Germany. Germany is particularly competitive in the equipment sector which exports production lines to China which is a more sophisticated technology than producing solar panels. Secondly, the value of services and components that are needed to install and connect the panels is actually higher than the value of the panel, and the services can only be sourced locally. Morris estimates that more than 50% of the total value creation is local.

So far, so good. Morris states that a large solar market helps Germany to secure these advantages. And here is where I would start questioning his very positive assessment of the economic benefits on Germany. The fact is that the solar boom in Germany is paid by all consumers of electricity, with energy-intensive industries paying a much-reduced fee. The size of the German market is driven by the level of Feed-in-Tariffs that the German renewable energy law guarantees. So to answer the question whether Germany really profits from local installations of solar panels made in China, we would need to consider the question whether (a) the subsidies are necessary and (b) efficiently allocated.

It seems to me that while German electricity consumers are doing the world a favor by driving down the cost of solar with the demand created by the Feed-in-Tariffs, they may not profit that much themselves as the total cost is still quite high. Morris is right to call for the U.S. to jump into solar now, because with the more beneficial weather conditions the cheap panels make even more economic sense. The U.S. would only need to brush aside bureaucratic hurdles, and a solar boom may be coming.

As to the question of why Germany is against a solar trade war, I think Morris is right: The question of Feed-in-Tarrifs aside, free trade is Germany’s best option.

My first music video – a satire of Gotye’s “Somebody That I Used to Know.”

The Washington, DC office of the Heinrich Böll Foundation, a think tank close to Germany’s Green party, recently concluded a series of short papers on Germany’s Energiewende (energy transition) which aims to explain what is going on with Germany’s energy policy, and why. As the question what the world could learn from Germany’s experiment, if anything, is a major concern of my blog posts, it is worthwhile reviewing the articles individually.

The first installation of the series, Angst or Arithmetic?, by Paul Hockenos, a Berlin-based American writer and author of a well-received book on Joschka Fischer and the German green movement, is looking to put the German energy transition into perspective. The author is making the case that Germans are neither irrationally afraid of nuclear energy nor is the nuclear phase-out driven by “postwar angst”. Quite to the contrary, the author claims, Germany finds itself in the midst of other European nations such as Sweden, The Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland, all of which are phasing out nuclear as well. What does make Germany’s energy transition unique in the author’s eyes, however, is the fact that the country is aiming to phase-out nuclear while maintaining its status as an industrial heavyweight and meeting ambitious decarbonization goals.

To make his point, Hockenos skillfully lays out the development of the anti-nuclear protest movement in Germany, starting with demonstrations in the early 1970s in Wyhl, where conservative farmers were joined by conservationists and left-wing environmentalists to force a powerful utility company to cancel plans for a nuclear power station. This headline-making success catapulted the movement to national prominence and consequently helped to form its national footprint. Decisive then, in Hockenos’ eyes, was the fact that experts, some from Germany’s nuclear industry, like Klaus Traube, joined the movement to create a fact-based approach which was, if you want, political education based on liberal enlightenment ideas. These experts published widely read bestsellers and also formed think tanks, such as Öko-Institut, or Institute for Applied Ecology, which still exists today. Finally, Chernobyl, which almost created mass hysteria, with closed playgrounds, destroyed produce, and kids and pregnant women ordered to stay inside, made the risks of nuclear energy obvious to everyone. The author concludes that the nuclear phase-out is not “the reaction of a spooked people to Fukushima” but that it “has arguably been part of Berlin’s energy agenda since the early 1990s.”

While the historical facts are correct, it strikes me that the initial question is only superficially answered, if at all. Hockenos is certainly right when he claims that the German anti-nuclear movement was well entrenched in Berlin’s political class, if not hegemonic, before the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Just think of the first Atomausstieg (nuclear phase-out), which the Schröder-Fischer government (“red-green” coalition) negotiated with the nuclear power utilities in 2000 and which became law in 2002. But he fails to address the question, why this was the case. Here are three factors which I believe need to be taken into consideration:

Firstly, Germany’s anti-nuclear movement is, to a large extent, a not-in-my-backyard coalition which prima facie is interested in (a certain understanding of) the good life, here and now, but does not necessarily act politically responsibly. Hockenos provides great insights in the local roots of the movement and its broad coalitions, from Wyhl to Gorleben (which was long planned to be the permanent repository site for nuclear waste), but fails to analyze this critically. I would argue that a small group of anti-nuclear protesters, mostly academically educated activists from urban areas with experience in previous protests (using tactics they learned from the American civil rights movement), used the protective instincts of conservative local groups and skillfully turned this into a movement. The nuclear power plant was not supposed to be built here. This legacy still resonates when, today, local “green” groups protest against desperately needed grid extensions to transport wind power from the North to the South because they literally do not what the pylons in their backyard. Politically, this is obviously not very satisfying, because it does not provide a solution to the problem but only criticism. (Arguably, the national leadership of Germany’s Green party is aware of this now and addresses this critically and responsibly.)

Secondly, the German perception of nuclear energy can only be understood in the context of the cold war and the fear of nuclear annihilation. This fear proliferated in Germany from the 1970s onwards and culminated in the Friedensdemonstration, or peace demonstration, in Bonn, the old governmental seat of West Germany, in 1982. Roughly half a million citizens protested NATOs “double-track decision” and, more broadly, American nuclear weapons on German soil. While the history of the so called Friedensbewegung, or peace movement, is complex, it is fair to say that is built on 1950s protest against German rearmament, 1960s radicalism and criticism of the Vietnam war, as well as specifically German ideas of a “third way” between Russian communism and American capitalism which have a long intellectual genealogy in Germany and which gained momentum in the 1970s. The German anti-nuclear movement is intimately linked to the peace movement, and managed to link the public’s fear of nuclear annihilation with questions about the civil use of nuclear energy. So when German’s think nuclear, they think death. I am not so sure that this is rational, even while I may have the same thoughts, as I am a (German) child of my time.

Finally, Hockenos fails to address the German Technikskepsis, or skepticism of technology, which is deeply rooted in the country’s political culture and crucial to understand the German debate on nuclear energy. While Germany has a globally renowned engineering expertise, there is also a long intellectual history of fearing the (unintended) consequences of widespread use of technologies. Note that the German term Technik only inaccurately translates into the English word technology. Technik it is much closer to the Greek τεχνικός (technikós) which includes human systems, and is distinct from the German Technologie, a distinction that is absent in the English language. Technikskepsis, again, is a complex matter, and while this blog-post cannot adequately spell out its genealogy, it is worth noting that it has roots in Martin Heidegger’s philosophy from where it spread to political ideas on the left with Herbert Marcuse, a student of Heidegger who later joined the legendary Institute for Social Research. It’s most influential rendition is arguably Hans Jonas’ The Imperative of Responsibility (Das Prinzip Verantwortung, German 1979, English 1984) which lays out an ethical principle for the age of technology: “Act so that the effects of your action are compatible with the permanence of genuine human life.” And this imperative, of course, is precisely what the critics claim nuclear energy cannot meet. If, and how, these ideas are compatible with a sustainable energy transition in Germany is a different question which I will address in another blog post.

For now it suffices to conclude that Hockenos short analysis is a great start of what should be a much bigger project: to bare the roots of the German anti-nuclear movement and the Energiewende.

O protocolo foi assinado no Ministério da Saúde Saudita pelo ministro Paulo Macedo e pelo seu homólogo, Abdullah al Rabeeha, na sequência de um convite do ministro saudita após a visita que efectuou a Lisboa e ao Porto em 2010. «Pretendemos formalizar este acordo no sentido de permitirmos que as empresas portuguesas saibam exactamente quais são as necessidades e o que Arábia Saudita pretende, as oportunidades que existem», disse Paulo Macedo após a formalização do acordo.

Leia a notícia na integra em http://bit.ly/YIKZmW.

Certainly, we all know people who seem to have one disaster after another and others who glide through life unscathed by the “slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune”.

In the case of the Canadian oilsands industry, recent events suggest they would fail Napoleon’s test. There has been one unlucky break after another.  The latest came on the eve of a Canadian government news conference, aimed at assuring the population of coastal British Columbia that the authorities had robust idol spill defences in place and therefore need not be unduly concerned about the prospect of bitumen exports to Asia.

The event didn’t quite go as planned, as you can read here.

Photo credit: Photonut on rgbstock.com

In the beginning, there was expensive solar…
The issue began with the Chinese solar industry’s ability to manufacture solar panels and components at a much cheaper price than any other market. And as the most attractive market for renewable energy in the world, this had quite an impact on prices globally. Chinese manufacturers were able to flood the market with solar components, all offered at a price that made it hard for US and European markets to compete. So why was China able to do this? Recently, the Chinese Government has placed great emphasis on cutting their carbon emissions and increasing the share of energy generated from renewable resources. As a result, solar panel production in China is heavily subsidised by the Government, making Chinese solar panels the cheaper option for installers in the US and Europe. This allows China to increase their share of the global solar manufacturing market at the expense of manufacturers elsewhere.

Obviously, this was not an ideal situation for the global solar PV manufacturing market, and in May last year, the US became the first country to introduce anti-dumping tariffs on all solar imports from China. Dumping, in this context, is a form of predatory pricing which involves selling products in an international market at a price too low for producers in the export markets to compete with. US Senator, Charles Schumer, confirmed that these measures where tough, but also necessary if the interests of the American solar manufacturing market were to be protected. China’s Commerce Ministry spokesman, Shen Danyang, counteracted this assertion by declaring their intention to fight this “unfair” ruling.

The result of this is the setting of a precedent for other global markets to follow suit, with Europe being the most recent of these. Last September, EU Prosun, an industry action group, launched a campaign against Chinese imports into Europe, asking the European Commission to investigate any alleged anti-competitive behaviour. Despite a strong counter-argument that any tariffs would damage the global solar market by pushing up installation prices, the European Commission announced their intention to continue with their investigation into the Chinese market. 

So what does this mean for the UK? 
Following the EC’s announcement, the European Union imposed the mandatory registration of all solar components imported into the EU from China. Between March 2013 and the predicted resolution date of 6 June, any Chinese solar imports have to be registered. This will allow the EU to retroactively impose anti-dumping tariffs should the Commission rule against the Chinese manufacturers. The impact of this move is already being felt in the UK market, where solar providers are facing cancelled orders from installers. With a high level of uncertainty over whether tariffs will be imposed retroactively, importers are unwilling to take on the risk, instead passing this on to installers in the form of price increases. In a report commissioned by AFASE, a body representing European solar manufacturers against the trade duties, Swiss analysts Prognos announced that the move could ultimately cut the UK solar industry by 80%, as well as costing the UK economy £3.46 billion and 38,600 jobs. The Solar Trade Association has voiced their opposition to any trade duties, asserting that any tariffs would damage confidence in what is already seen as an unstable market. Furthermore, the Chinese Government has announced its plans to retaliate if any duties are imposed.

In short, the imposition of trade duties on Chinese solar imports will have a far-reaching impact on the European and UK market. Manufacturers will gain a level playing field and an increased ability to compete, but at the cost of a severely reduced solar industry. The end customer will bear the brunt of price increases, and, in a fragile industry, the fate of many wholesale solar importers and installation companies hangs in the balance. So the question remains, is the cost of this investigation, and the price of market intervention, simply too high?

MINDSPACE (Dolan et al., 2010)

+  +  +         #2  Incentives         +  +  +

Incentives can be a powerful tool in harnessing the power of the public – engaging people and motivating behaviour change. The impact of incentives clearly depends upon factors such as type, magnitude and timing of the incentive. In a competitive economic environment brands are increasingly using incentives to attract consumers and stand out from the competition.

The power of incentive

Brands in the service industry – such as high-street banks, mobile phone network providers – are using incentives and rewards to become more attractive to consumers. However, the behavioural economic insight loss aversion is important in order to understand how best to use incentives in marketing. Loss aversion is used to explain that we dislike losses more than we like gains of the equivalent amount. What this means, for example, is human beings feel the loss of losing  £1 more than we feel the elation of being given £1. Therefore, brands that emphasise the money (or reward) that people will lose out on by not taking an action/purchasing can have a more powerful impact and motivation on people’s behaviour, rather than simply highlighting the amount they could be given if purchasing.

Brands in the fast-moving consumer goods industry consistently have to compete for consumer’s attention. Unilever’s Magnum icecream is an example of a brand currently (April 2013) using incentives as a marketing strategy to drive sales and engage consumers. The incentive Magnum is giving consumers is the chance to win a designer handbag worth £800 every day. However, now understanding loss aversion, if Magnum had framed the incentive in a way that consumers feel that they are losing out if they do not purchase, then this could have a more powerful impact on people’s behaviour to drive sales. Although, the type and magnitude of the incentive of a £800 handbag could be significant enough in itself to demand attention from some consumers. Furthermore, people have a habit of over-weighing small probabilities – for example lotteries – and so consumers may over-weigh the small chance of winning the handbag.

Magnum - win a designer handbag everyday

Another example of using incentives to engage a community is ConAgra Foods. In order to increase engagement on it’s Healthy Choice Facebook Page, users who “liked” the brand received a coupon for 75 cents off their next Healthy Choice purchase. ConAgra then coaxed more consumers to join its Facebook page by dangling a “buy one, get one free” coupon offer. In other words, the coupon’s value grew as more consumers joined the page.

However, a fundamental problem with using incentives, is that once an activity (such as buying a Magnum) is associated with external reward (chance to win a handbag), then individuals are less inclined to participate with the activity in the future without further incentives. Furthermore, and worst still, is if a brand fails to deliver on a reward/incentive – an example would be Red Bull’s VIP trip of a lifetime to the Belgium Grand Prix Competition. Red Bull was censured and criticised by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in February 2013 after sending competition winners on a budget trip across three countries, making them share a bed and then sending them home early after they were barred from entering the race’s VIP enclosure.

Incentives - influencing behaviour and engaging consumers

In summary, incentives can be a useful tool to engage people’s behaviour – and the impact of the incentive depends upon type, magnitude and timing. People have a habit of over-weighing small probabilities, meaning competitions can be effective. Losses loom larger than gains, and so framing incentives to consumers in such a way that they feel the loss if they don’t participate can be a powerful communication and marketing tool. However, if brands become associated with external reward/incentive then consumers can be less inclined to participate in the future without these external rewards/incentives.

Follow @AndrewPCBarratt

A nova plataforma utiliza as coordenadas do utilizador de forma a apresentar conteúdo relevante e sugeri-lo aos demais visitantes.

Direccionada à partilha de informação de uma determinada rua ou zona, posiciona-se de forma a “ajudar todos os visitantes e até outros moradores a captar o que de melhor a sua localidade ou rua tem”, informação esta relevante também para a procura de casa ou de local para passar férias.

Junto do utilizador, o Soccial dispõe a informação de forma atractiva em quadro de inspiração e listas inteligentes.

Segundo a Exame Informática, a rede conta já com cerca de dois mil utilizadores registados e o projecto ainda está em fase beta, sendo necessário solicitar um convite para se registar.

Leia a notícia na integra em http://bit.ly/14lfEtx

•  The end of the Age of Enlightenment has produced societies less persuaded by facts and more swayed by emotion.
•  The arrival of the Postmodern Age, in which there is a widespread acceptance of the notion that there is no such things as absolute truth and that “what is true for you need not be true for me”.

 The challenging environment has been further complicated by the rise of the Internet, which has profound implications for many companies, not least those in the energy industry.

 Every significant development in communications technology has had societal implications well beyond what the technical innovators could have imagined:

•  The fact that the printing press was introduced in Europe at the time of the Reformation was not a coincidence.  This revolutionary technology turbocharged the spread of new ideas.
•  More recently, it was the fax machine which effectively brought down the Iron Curtain at the end of the Cold War.  This (very) slow-motion Twitter enabled like-minded individuals to network and the Communist authorities lost their monopoly control of the mass-dissemination of information.

 If knowledge is power (and it always has been), then, in our own era, the Internet is moving power from institutions to networks.  The Internet enables individuals who share a common interest to identify each other and then coordinate and organise at close to zero marginal cost.  This is bringing tremendous benefits in areas such as medical research and less desirable outcomes for those engaged in anti-social or criminal activities.

 Many companies in the energy industry have yet to think through the implications of this shift in power.  In their project management, for example, they still think in terms of linear, predictable regulatory approval processes, while the unfolding reality is something much more akin to political theatre as a number of hitherto extraneous actors make uninvited but impactful appearances on a stage which the companies thought they controlled.

 Many of these NGOs are small, but they are savvy in their use of the new technology and, like the mass of tiny Lilliputians, can tie a giant Gulliver down to the ground with their thousands of individually tiny strands.

 The creation of networks is of course, a game that two can play, but energy companies will need to completely re-think their approach to what now needs to effectively be a political campaign strategy in the light of this new reality.

 The Internet is also, counterintuitively, contributing to a feeling that, while many of us are more connected than ever before, we also feel more alone.  This observable increase in alienation is one of the reasons why we’re seeing a marked decline in trust in many types of institution: a subject we’ll get to in the next blog posting.

On one innocent Thursday afternoon last week at 5.23pm, news got round that an amorous and extrovert couple could be spotted in a rather compromising position in the yellow building opposite ours. Needless to say the whole of the 4th and 6th floor at H+K ground to a halt as our voyeuristic tendencies got the better of us. Human curiosity (and behaviour) never ceases to amaze.

3D printing is already a relatively established technology in industrial manufacturing but now we are seeing the technology becoming more readily available to individuals and small businesses.  This begs the question…could 3D printing for the consumer be just around the corner?

There have been some amazing stories in the media recently illustrating how 3D printing technology could have a profound impact on healthcare; take the 3D printer which produced a jaw bone for a transplant patient, or the news that donor organs could soon be printed on demand.

The fashion industry has also followed suit, with Dita Von Teese stepping out last week in the world’s first dress produced with a 3D printer. It seems like almost everything from organs to clothing, and even garden gnomes like these showcased by Makerbot last week at SXSW, is within the realm of possibility.

Excitement around this phenomenon has reached an all-time peak, but tongues are wagging as experts question what such a shift could mean for both intellectual property rights and public safety.

Firstly from a copyright perspective, there has been concern that ability to share and print digital files will make Intellectual Property regulation almost impossible.  There are worries about the implications in terms of the repercussions for businesses; what impact could 3D printing have on the economy if we can print off products on demand?

Moreover, in the face of the recent US gun crime debate, concerns have been raised that one day it could be possible for people to download files for weapons. CNET reported that Alice Taylor, CEO of Makie Labs doesn’t believe the dangers are imminent.  She said “I feel like it’s going to be easier for at least a decade to go and buy a gun off the shelf…I think this is a problem of the future, but it’s a long way away.”

The general consensus on 3D printing seems to be – as with many technology innovations – although there are risks and challenges, the pros outweigh the cons.  The move of 3D printing to a more consumer market could help to empower entrepreneurship, innovation and creative thinking and there could be huge potential health benefits. Although there are certainly substantial flaws which need to be ironed out and regulations which will need to be introduced, we’ve already got our thinking caps on in the office as to what we’d like to try our hand at printing!

From the repeated lies of Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce during trial, to the sub storyline of Huhne’s fractured relationship with his son, this car crash of a soap opera-like story has been played out in full fanfare under the media spotlight. No one likes to air their dirty laundry in public. Perhaps the eight months sentence the pair faces, will draw an end to this thoroughly modern-day Shakespearean saga. Alternatively perhaps they will use the publicity to secure book deals.

Image source: Flikr

2. Britain loses its fizz

The fizz has officially fallen flat as Champagne has been cut from the basket of goods, alongside Freeview boxes and round lettuces. According to Mintel figures, sales of the bubbly have fallen by more than 30% since the hey-days of 2007, from £1billion to an estimated £690million. Trading in bottles of Champagne, typically around £40, are bottles of white rum which can be bought for a fraction of the price.

3. Sterling stagnation is here to stay

This week the ever-struggling sterling hits a two and half year low. Good news for British investors, bad news for holidaying Brits (of which sadly, I will be one of them).

4. There’s no Pope without fire

On Wednesday, for the first time in 1,300 years, a non-European Pope was elected as head of the Roman Catholic Church. A sea of faces welcomed Argentinian Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio as he stepped onto the balcony to rapturous applause. Bergoglio will now live as Pope Francis and take up residence in the Vatican. A far cry from his one bedroom flat in Buenos Aires…

5. Can women have it all?

An interesting commentary piece in the New York Times written by former CFO of Lehman Brothers, Erin Callan on wanting to “have it all” and failing. This was in response to a heated debate sparked by the launch of Sheryl Sandberg’s new book, “Lean in” – and much of our conversations here in the team as well.

Can women strike the perfect work/life balance and really “have it all” or is it simply about “having enough” and being happy with it? What do you think? Leave us a comment below.

Thanks to @goldtorpedo for contributing to this week’s Friday Fiver

Of course, the NHS library could become a sort of stamp of approval for health apps in the UK, although with 70 apps already featured and seemingly minimal entry requirements, it will be interesting to see how they ensure people are being directed to the most useful and relevant apps for them. One consideration is that the scale of apps included could become overwhelming, while the quality and effectiveness of an app in itself will not necessarily be guaranteed provided it is not unsafe. The website does state that the review process will be updated and improved over time though, and this is still an important development for the industry.

In a similar vein, this post on The Health Care Blog by Leslie Kernisan, who practices in geriatrics, provides some excellent insight into how and why health apps should, if at all, be prescribed. Kernisan suggests that while many digital health enthusiasts expect that apps will become routinely used tools in healthcare, clinicians need be more thoughtful when recommending apps, basing their recommendation on medical rather than marketing considerations.

The article is an absolute must-read for people with an interest in digital within the health industry. It is really interesting to see someone take a step back from all the noise there is about apps and provide some genuine insight. Although the post focuses on the attitudes of healthcare professionals, there’s a lesson in there for communications professionals and the industry too. While it might be tempting to develop an app or some other creative digital tool every time you are handed a brief, it is worth taking a step back and assessing how appropriate and valuable this will actually be on a case-by-case basis.

Finally, it is worth reading this from the social media team at Intouch Solutions. On March 7, Facebook announced a major redesign to its News Feed and this article looks specifically at the implications the design change will have on pharma Facebook pages. If you or a client you work with community manage any pharma Facebook pages this is absolutely essential reading.

Image source: Flickr

Given Twitter’s unique ability to latch onto specific issues in the news agenda and flood your feed with jokes about it, it was probably inevitable that this week’s post focused on the papal election. For that I apologise, though the tweet I have chosen is SO INTERESTING it had me looking like the above lion. Well, almost.

Everybody’s favourite former Baby of the House, the Rt. Hon. David Lammy MP gave us all a timely reminder of the dangers posed by absent-minded tweeting. Really, I can’t remember such a good example since Ed Balls’ infamous tweeting of his own name.

Thankfully, Mr Lammy soon realised his mistake and shared the moral of today’s story in the following tweet. It’s a simple lesson that we should all bear in mind, though I rarely tweet from the Chamber myself:

A Cemusa é uma das líderes mundiais de publicidade em outdoor e detém presença em mais de 110 cidades de 11 países na Europa, EUA e América Latina, incluindo Brasil; Costa Rica; El Salvador; Espanha; Estados Unidos da América; Guatemala; Itália; México; Panamá; Portugal e República Dominicana.

A CEMUSA, lider de mercado na Península Ibérica, está presente em Portugal há mais de 20 anos, país onde (tem vindo a assumir uma expansão constante, registando) actualmente uma presença (directa) em 37 concelhos nacionais. Possui uma vasta carteira de clientes e relações com as autarquias em diversas cidades de Portugal e Espanha.