O'Roma

Well, it's only been a few months since my last post. Since then I studied abroad for a semester in Roma, Italy, traveled throughout Italy, visited relatives in Sicily, got to experience the final weekend of Oktoberfest in Munich, and spent Halloween weekend in Barcelona. I'm not going to go into great detail (although I would love to) about my time abroad, that will be another post-it won't be months away either. Anyway...

My experience abroad was incredible. However, while I had the chance to live and learn about Italian and european culture--they are very different--what I miss most is the people I met and the friendships that were made.

When Derek and I landed outside of Roma I had a permanent smile despite having been awake for nearly 24hrs. The Swiss Air flight lasted about 8hrs and for two relatively big guys--it was not very enjoyable (we didn't sleep at all)...

Getting back to the topic of this post, after the van dropped us off at our new home (apartment building) in Trastevere, Roma we checked in got our keys signed our $$ away and proceed inside. Now, when you hear that Europeans drive smaller cars etc. OK that's fine, but 2 person elevators?? That was interesting.

Finally, while laughing on the ride up I walked across the hall and into my new home. Derek and I lived with six (6) other guys from all over the states. Jason, Bobby and Dorian were from San Fran, Nico Texas, Nikhil Ohio, and Del Wisconsin. Until this trip I had never roomed with a group of guys who all got along--it made the trip that much better.

The entire apartment wing was filled with American students except for a few Italian families, who I feel really bad for...

In the airport we found our study abroad supervisor and got acquainted with the people who were there. We introduced ourselves to Amy, Lauren and Mike and agreed to find the nearest bar for a welcome to Roma drink!

Amy and Lauren ended up living a block away from our apartment on Pascarella (Amy said it best). We met them and their new roommates, Jill, Jen and Aly for lunch.

As I write I wish, at that very moment, I made the decision to stay for a full year. Dave Matthews said it best in his song titled, 'The Best of What's Around' he said, "it's not where, but who you're with that really matters".

I've heard this song, maybe a thousand times (for those who know me that might be accurate), and I always knew what he meant, but I never felt or understood the emotions behind it. Roma, made it pretty clear. Every person I met abroad I connected with, there was never any awkward moments and if they were we laughed about it; if someone was on the run they would still smile & wave. I don't know how to best describe it, but we were all friends on some level everyone got along with each other; we were different, yet somehow all the same. It was an incredible experience to be apart of. While, I miss the culture, nightlife, and amazing european weekend adventures, I miss the all the new people I met and new friendships that grew the most.

Until next time...

WSJ & The Groundswell

 Before I dive in here, I would like to clarify the fact that there will be no facts in this post. This is something I have thought about and pondered here and there. Nearly every morning I go to Bogues Alley and grab my breakfast and paper - if I get there early enough its the Wall St Journal (WSJ) if not the NY Times... Anyway I've noticed that most papers if not all of the major ones (USA Today, NY Times, Boston Globe...etc) have raised their rate if you buy a tangible paper usually by 50cents while they continue to provide free content online, except for the WSJ. They provide a decent amount of articles for free, but the WSJ also gives you little summaries of stories and then if you want to read more you have to "be a subscriber". 

So who's doing better the WSJ business model or the NY Times? (I've decided to make that my comparison for any research I might do). Two NY papers, with two different target markets. One is more liberal one is more conservative. Is this the difference? I guess this is where I ask what are the benefits of providing free content online vs. some free content?  I love to share articles on Facebook or Twitter (@Nesurf11). I've just decided that the WSJ business model is better and would be even better if more newspapers followed it. Here's why:

People will always share, especially the younger generation. Facebook and twitter dominate the social media realm and this exposes your business to millions of people maybe not all are going to read it, but this is free marketing for your newspaper. You (NY Times or WSJ) don't have to spend your time having employees think of genius new ways to get the paper out to your audience, because they will come to you. This goes in a different direction - brand loyalty - which I think is the main reason why paper A will eventually defeat paper B. 

I read the WSJ because I want to know what the hell is going on financially and I enjoy what I consider a moderate political view.  They talk about money and the economy which is the lifeblood of the people and to me this is most important. I would rather read an article that unlike this little babble session has a focus beyond politics. I don't want to read an article where someone tells me that Blue is better than Red or whatever. When you focus on improving the economy, well you have a focus: the economy. Whatever politics it takes to make the economy stronger is all I care about. Okay, enough of me telling you why I read the WSJ. 

Back to the real question: Will the WSJ be more profitable than the NY Times? Yes, the NY Times can only survive for so long. By providing free content online they had to raise the price (I'm sure that's not the only reason) of their daily paper. Now the number of people who purchase the daily paper will begin to shrink. When the price increases you will loose your younger readers first because we are the computer savvy generation. We are all you have left, life is a cycle. So eventually papers are going to have to follow the WSJ business model. Times are changing and businesses have to adapt or fail.

Now this means going against the consumer or does it? Not necessarily, I feel like newspapers have become overwhelmed in the groundswell. They feel like they need to provide free content, but, don't people always want the news?  I believe that people will pay for the news regardless if it free. Yes there are blogs out there i.e. Newsvine that provide a place for news stories to be posted and commented on, but where do those articles come from? Without newspapers would we have Newsvine? Maybe, but it would be a lot smaller because w/out papers we only have the media, but anyway, the bottom line is that in order for newspapers to be profitable they should follow a business model similar to that of the WSJ.    

Guerrilla Marketing, Jay Conrad Levinson

One day, this bookstore owner came to work to see that the competitor on his right had unfurled a huge banner: "Monster Anniversary Sale! Prices slashed 50%!" THe banner was larger than his entire storefront. Worse yet, the competitor to the left of his store had unveiled an even larger banner: "Gigantic Clearance Sale! Prices reduced by 60%!" Again, the banner dwarfed his storefront. What was the owner of the little bookstore in the middle to do? Being a guerrilla marketer, he created his own banner and hung it out front, simply saying "Main Entrance".

Just a little story I happen to love mentioned in the first chapter. 

Lets take networking outdoors!

I'm a member of the Plymouth State University AMA (American Marketing Association). As many of you may know golf tournaments are a huge fundraiser, but they are also extremely popular which makes starting you're own difficult. So here is what I have come up: a networking golf tournament. The idea is to mix it up from the normal conference/networking rhetoric. 

Instead of going from presentation to presentation we can start by going from hole to hole. This should provide for a more relaxed atmosphere. 

Conferences I have attended it seems that people put on their professional mask and you don't really get to know who they are. Everyone is so proper and nice. Lets all relax and get to know one another outside the office. For employers this would be a great way to get to know who you really would be hiring. It might even save you some money and time during the interview process. 

Bring your clients too! Connect with them on a deeper level and maybe even pick up a few referrals too. 

Presentation topics will certainly be incorporated in the weekend, but I would like to leave time for an open discussion where we can take ideas that have developed over the weekend or just popped into your head and share them with all attendees hopefully expanding or improving upon the original idea. 

Presentations should include social media case studies-successes and failures. 

Share your thoughts and comments here! Will this work? What should we add or remove to improve this idea? Feedback is much appreciated and necessary in the development of this idea!

A nation trying to tax itself into prosperity is like a man trying to drink himself sober.

Taxes... yes I know you're probably sick of hearing about the topic, but I've held back for to long. I don't quite get it, I'm talking specifically about the Federal Income tax. To me it doesn't make any sense. Why does Uncle Sam take tax me and you for getting working? This doesn't make any sense. We the consumers, the driving force of our economy, are having our hard earned pay taken away from us. That's not fair ( I feel like a 12yr old when I say that). We work to spend money which drives our economy and theoretically, if there was no Federal Income tax more people would have more money to spend and the government would have less. Sounds good to me so far. Keep the state tax that's fine, but don't raise it. The Federal Income tax is the highest amount deducted from your paycheck w/ Social Security coming in a strong 2nd. I understand Social Security it's not a tax, but at least give me the option. That's my problem w/ the Fed I want control over my finances I don't want the government to control my finances, I want to control where my money goes. I am perfectly capable to deciding if I want to set aside a certain percentage of my income for my retirement. I can set up my own account and if I choose to use the governments retirement plan then so be it, but if I don't want to then what's the big deal??? 

The State Income tax I'm fine with. All residents should contribute to the well being of their state. Maybe I'm crazy, but if the Federal Income tax was levied or reduced to that of Medicare then maybe, just maybe citizens would develop a little more respect for their home state. I'm a CT resident and we pay pretty high taxes all around gas kills me... Anyway as I drive of the road here... Transparency-- if state residents are able to see where their money is being spent, if the politicians even bothered to try to reach out to their constituency other than during campaign season maybe residents would develop a little more pride for their state. What I'm saying is reduce or eliminate the Federal Income tax, let ME keep MY paycheck and I'm going to spend more. This is going to help small businesses prosper and increase competition locally and among the states which I think would be great for our economy. -For the record I'm an Independent. As far as corporate taxes... another topic for another post coming soon to a blog near you.  

The Uninsured

·      “People who lack insurance but do not qualify for one of the government programs often put off seeking health care unless and until a problem becomes acute and disabling.”

This is true with so many who are not insured. This does not justify the means for having others pay for your problem because you put off seeking health care until a problem turned into a personal issue. The majority of those uninsured or ‘lacking’ insurance have decided they do not feel the urgency to put aside the money to pay for insurance. Of the 46 million uninsured 17 million earn over $50k and 9 million earn $75k. They certainly can afford to pay for insurance they simply chose not to. 26 million people without health insurance can more than afford the costs associated with health insurance, but chose not to insure themselves for a reason or reasons only known to them. 18 million of the 46 million uninsured are between the ages of 18 and 34. Of this number many see other activities as a more valuable expense than paying for health insurance. 

source: www.freemarketcure.com

Senator Chris Dodd seeks ideas from "we the people" on health care reform

Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) posted a brief youtube videohttp://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/dodd-seeks-health-care-ideas-on-youtube/   

asking for our ideas about health care reform. Finally a politician that took the time to reach out to the people. I've always been under the impression that as a politician it is your job to ask for the opinion of the people and to then express their views to your fellow members of congress... Anyway the idea behind the video is great ask the people what they think should be changed in our current health care system. But how many people really know anything about our health system or understand how it operates? 

I've done some research and there are compelling arguments from both sides: those that want a "single payer system" and those that want to keep health care as is aka "free market cure." Obviously there are pros and cons to everything so why not make the system a combination of private and government sponsored health care?  

Here's my thoughts on a new health care system: 

-Don’t make it mandatory, but offer free health care paid for by the government for all those under age 18. 

-College students will not have to pay for health care insurance during their years of enrollment.

-Offer more scholarship opportunities or an easier repayment plan for those attending medical school

Freemarketcure.com--Of the 46 million uninsured, 7 million earn over 50k  9 million earn over 75k 

-Health insurance will COVER EVERYTHING

-Insurance companies will no longer tell hospitals what they are going to receive. Insurance companies will pay hospitals and its doctors for all expenses incurred.    

-Insurance fee according to tax bracket/income 

-Everyone will receive the same quality of care as members of congress, but will pay according to income (progressive tax). 

-->If you make less than $50k you are covered FREE?

Married couples based on individual income all offspring will be covered until 26^th birthday. At this point you will pay a % according to your income.

-Health insurance policies are guaranteed for life, but you have the choice to switch insurance companies at the end of each calendar year, if you so choose.   

-If health care is put into a single payer system we will loose the quality and efficiency of our current system.

If you want health insurance and can afford to pay then you must pay, if it is determined by some elected agency that you cannot pay and you do want health insurance, you do not have to pay.

Include dental insurance as medical insurance under same plan.

-Those uninsured age 50+ are now covered under Medicare

-Medicare policies will cover all or discount prescriptions according to income  

-Medicare will pay for all or majority of surgery expenses.

--31-49k you are required to pay $X amt semi annually  

--50k plus it is your choice whether or not you want government health care or not

CHOICE: Unhealthy people are more likely to purchase health insurance because they anticipate large medical bills. On the other side, people who consider themselves to be reasonably healthy may decide that medical insurance is an unnecessary expense; if they see the doctor once a year and it costs $X, that's much better than making monthly insurance payments of $X.