• Why Gen Y workers bypass IT usage policies
• How Gen Y workers turn CIOs into IT watchdogs
• Gen Y workers: We know all about this IT stuff
• CIOs: Learn the wireless workaholic ways of Gen Y
• One in five choose relaxed IT policies over money

Shane also followed up with a really good blog post about the series. He asks:

Much in the way we try to encourage bookworms to take up sports, and get the jocks singing and dancing in high school musicals, wouldn’t employers prefer a Gen Y that was a little more well-rounded in their approach to work and IT? There could be young employees who tap into social networking services, but who also keep a log of what they’re doing for potential audit purposes. There are those who use mobile computing devices, but who also demonstrate leadership in backing up data and ensuring antivirus software is updated. Imagine a Gen Yer who not only thinks they’re computer-proficient but can identify areas about technology they still need to develop.

To which I responded:

I really like your last point, and I think it’s an important one. Am I, as a 25-year-old guy in the business world, fully developed? As much as it’s tempting to throw to the ego and say ‘Hell yeah; I’m the best at everything there is!’ I’ve been smacked down enough times in my three years on the job that I know that I still have a lot of things left to learn and a lot of skills to acquire.

It’s a bit of a cop-out answer: but the solution here really is a matter of balance. Gen Y will try to convince managers to throw out all their policies and just go with the groove. The other side will just tell Gen Y to shut-up and be thankful they even HAVE a job. There’s a ton of value in the middle: in questioning long-standing probably nonsensical policies, in exploring new technologies and ways of working (’going with the groove’), and, then, synthesizing all of that into something that can work, and make money, and be tracked, and shared vertically.

I’m biased, sure. And I have a strong voice. But I think strong, sensible voices in organizations are always valuable, even when they’re wrong. Or thought wrong.

Lots of interesting stuff here — and much of it very positive. There wasn’t even any real, solid examples of someone saying “Let’s ban all fun websites from work!!! For productivity!!” Granted, I think that might be because IT companies are a few steps ahead of other sectors when it comes to understanding these kinds of things, but it’s good to know that the leaders in the race are running in the right direction.

1. He even spelled my last name in a couple of totally awesome ways — it has too many l’s and t’s as it is.

Just an idle thought to keep this site going this week: do people who exhibit so-called “workaholic” tendencies inevitably end up out of touch with the the latest goings-on?

I think they do. I don’t see a way around it.

One of the first things people sacrifice when they get overwhelmingly busy is their intellectual curiosity and inventiveness. When you’re stressed, you stop learning, and just start relying on the things you already know — the old chestnuts that have worked in the past and will, presumably, continue to work.

Further, this kind of work environment kills any kind of cultural connection. And I don’t just mean that in the “let’s go look at paintings or listen to beat poetry” sense. I’m speaking more broadly: of tech culture, of greater trends and shifts, of people and how they think and what they do.

It may not seem like much when your overworked co-worker tells you they haven’t seen a movie in years, haven’t finished that book they started five years ago or that their RSS reader has over 40,000 unread items in it, going back months, but these things don’t just happen in a vaccuum. Any employee that far removed from the world at large is, at best, going to be operating at a diminished capacity for creativity.

It’s an odd situation we find ourselves in with work culture, because while we’re finally starting to understand on a macro level that people working themselves to death isn’t a very good thing, we still tend to see honour in burning the midnight oil (or the candle at both ends, or whatever you happen to be setting afire) to get work done.

We need to get away from that. It’s not a good idea in mental or physical health terms, and it’s not a good idea in the knowledge economy, because working all the time impedes knowledge.

Take a break. Read a book. Go to the movies. Learn something. It’s important.

Photo by truthlying. Licensed under Creative Commons

You know, regardless of your political stripe or even if Obama fails as president, there’s a greater conclusion we can draw from the campaign that put this man in the white house. It was a intergenerational effort, with young people at its heart. Much of it happened online, driven by web technologies that facilitate communication.

Is it a perfect analogy? No. But it is something to point to when people claim that Generation Y doesn’t fit in with other generations at work. The message to be delivered today is simply this: We do matter. We can get things done. We can be part of and leaders in tremendous success.

And you can’t ignore us.

In the meantime, check out this little article from ZDnet: Businesses Struggle to Serve Gen Y.

It’s a standard article on Generation Y and businesses’ total inability to rationalize how things are changing and what they need to do to meet those changes:

Although 75 percent of respondents said the Gen Yers will impact their organization as consumers in the next three years, 54 percent have yet to establish business or marketing strategies for this generation, despite wide recognition that such steps are needed.

That’s not surprising data, though I do love uncovering stats like this, especially in the face of those who still have trouble admitting anything is changing with Generation Y coming into maturity. The flip side of that, of course, is the crushingly depressing reality that, despite struggling with generational differences, no one has any idea what they are going to do about it.

Even of the 46% that say they have have developed a strategy for Gen Y, I’m not sure many of them are getting it. Take Nokia, who seem to think they have it figured out. From the same article:

Nokia, for example, has added “Gen Y-friendly” features to its products, McCallum said. “Gen Yers want more features like music, imaging, games and Wi-Fi [capability] in their mobile devices, because they may not be able to afford multiple gadgets,” he said. “Acknowledging this, Nokia offers a wide range of convergent devices to suit the different needs and preferences of various Gen Y consumers.”

If that’s all Nokia has, they’ve got nothing. Marketing to my generation is about more than just ‘adding features’. It’s about way more than Wi-Fi capabilities. We do like those things. Hell, we even NEED those things. But they’re not what’s going to push a brand to success with a Gen Y audience.

I’m not arguing that Gen Y is somehow above long lists of features and standard marketing tactics. What sets us apart is that we’re the first generation that is in a position to think about products in a more contextual sense. Instead of simply asking “What does this do?”, we tend to ask “How does this fit into my life and my world?”

We demand more from our products, whether they be mp3 players or t-shirts. Some questions Gen Y might ask about a product they’re buying: how does this work with other products I own? Do too few of my friends have this product? Do too MANY of my friends have this product? Where is this product made? How is this product made? Does it look good? Does it look good next to the other products I own? Can I feel good about buying this? Do I understand this product and everything it does? Is this product artistic? Is the company that produces this product lying to me?

These questions are the difference between brands that I think are working with a younger generation and those that aren’t. It’s why a Nokia cell phone has less appeal than an iPhone. Why a T-shirt from Wal-Mart has less appeal than something from threadless. Why Microsoft keeps losing to google. Why people want to drive the Toyota Prius despite being entirely unable to tell you how a hybrid engine works.

We’re very image-driven as a generation. We’ve been criticized for it a lot, but I’m not sure it’s particularly a bad thing. It’s neither good nor bad — it just is. And it’s new, so it’s taking companies a long time to figure it out.

The thing is that, as we get older and get jobs and start to generate income, we’re very much looking for companies who create products that will fit into our lives.

P.S: Just to hammer home how international this generational shift really is, check out these stats from the aforementioned article:

According to Genesys, the research was designed to help enterprises identify key challenges and enable them to improve the overall customer experience.
Of the 164 executives who took part in the survey, 29 percent were from North America, 31 percent from Europe, 30 percent from the Asia-Pacific region, and 10 percent from the rest of the world. Participants represented 19 industry segments, and one-third of respondents’ organizations had annual revenue greater than US$1 billion.

The study found that two of the top five places to work were tech companies: Google and Apple. According to DECODE partner Eric Meerkamper, “The brands that were chosen are considered to be authentic and innovate; part of some new and important values emerging in the workplace. All of these organizations are places that resonate as being stable and secure. This is an important variable considering the substantial debt load many students will carry upon graduation given rising tuition costs.”

You could essentially distill this down to “people want to work somewhere cool.” And a lot of what’s cool is admittedly perception more than it is reality. Is that fair? Not particularly. But I’d argue that’s almost unavoidable. Think about this question, and answer honestly — would you rather work at Exxon Mobil or Google? Deloitte or Apple? Ernst & Young or Nintendo?

People tend to gravitate towards the younger, hipper companies, even if there’s really not a huge difference in individual experience at the entry-level. And what makes these companies seem “young” and “hip” are actually small things, which don’t have to impact your bottom line. In fact, employers can make their businesses instantly more Y-friendly through just a few small changes to their corporate culture.

Here’s five to get you started:

1. Cultivate an environment of questions — with answers

Current corporate culture often encourages passive learning. New people are expected to attend meetings, stay quiet, take notes, and learn slowly through osmosis. This doesn’t work in the twenty-first century. Without the expectation of a 25 year job with a gold watch at the end, young workers don’t really feel like we have time to just sit quietly and absorb information.

So we tend to ask questions. Often it gets us in trouble. There’s a comment thread on BrazenCareerist wherein Quarter Lifer Amanda notes she’s been fired for asking too many questions.

This is crazy. In the information age, questions are the foundation of learning. Think of google — each search query is a question, and answers are delivered immediately. This is the kind of information environment your new hires grew up with.

Obviously you can’t spend 8-hours a day answering questions, but don’t discourage people from asking. Set up infrastructure — like a twitter account — where employees can ask senior employees questions. That way, everyone will be able to follow along with the answers.

And, no matter what you do, don’t avoid the tough or “insulting” questions. Confront everything head on. If you can’t answer something, then maybe ask your new employee to come up with alternative solutions — you’ll have instantly made them feel valued.

2. Get away from the boring work environment

You don’t need to rip out all your cubicles or put down new carpet, but small things can quickly take an office from “soul-sucking” to “fun”. If your type of business allows, consider setting up a shared music system, where everyone can contribute mp3s or CDs. Instead of those cloying “Motivational” posters, throw up a bulletin board and let people post funny signs or photos (within reason, of course). Don’t use Group Policy to lock everyone to some bland desktop wallpaper — encourage people to individualize their computers.

And, when the situation calls for it, don’t be afraid to use a little bit of profanity around the office. It boosts morale. Really.

3. Embrace — and try — new technology

Too many businesses are still using sales software that’s straight out of the 1980s. Nothing kills morale faster than knowing that you have to deal with cludgy old technology. Especially when the employee knows that they could accomplish the same task in half-the-time if given better software.

This doesn’t have to cost you. A ton of software these days is open-source and free. If someone has a suggestion involving new technology, give them a chance to pitch it to you and, if it makes sense, give it a week-long trial run. What’s the worst that can happen?

4. Be Open

This doesn’t mean you need to hand out your budgets to all employees, but it’s no secret that closed door meetings are divisive. Inclusiveness is a vital part of retaining your Gen Y employees.

So be open. Invite people involved in other projects to sit in on meetings. They’ll feel more plugged in, and you may end up getting some interesting perspective. If something big has happened to the business — whether good or bad — consider letting the whole staff know about it. If you start crafting an ‘inner circle’ of only your senior staff members, those left out can easily become disgruntled.

If you’re worried about the time this might take, leverage technology. CEOs from all sectors are blogging regularly, to great effect. It lets people know what’s going on at the top-level, and also has the bonus side-effect of making people who can easily seem distant more relatable.

5. Don’t try too hard

The last thing I want is for people to take this list and instantly become the boss that wanders around trying to be everybody’s friend. Don’t be that guy. The kinds of changes outlined in this list shouldn’t be forced. Nor should you implement them then act like you’ve given all your employees a great favour.

This works in tandem with the point above — in addition to being open, you need to be honest. Ultimately, when it comes to managing people, if you’re not happy and motivated in YOUR position, none of the people under you will ever give a damn.

This kind of change needs to be made in the spirit of making your business more efficient and your team more effective. Go forward in that light, and your intergenerational team should hum along just fine. Start making changes because you just want those damned young employees to play nice and stop jerking you around, and you’re not likely to get anywhere at all.

Be open. Be honest. Be real. Be cool. It can be that simple.

Photo by Steve Deger. Licensed under Creative Commons

Some see the debate as pie in the sky. “The suggestion that Generation Y isn’t just different by degrees, but that this is a disruptive generation, is clearly constructed by someone who doesn’t remember the mods and rockers, the teddy boys, the hippies, the punks and the student revolutions in 1968 Paris,” says Valerie Garrow, associate direct of the Institute for Employment Studies.

I struggle with this idea, because there’s a ring of truth to it. I doubt any young generation in history has conformed easily. What makes Generation Y so different, when every other generation has essentially had to give-in and start playing the same game that’s been going on for years.

The boomers speak loudly about this, because they were quintessentially counter-culture. They were so loud and unwilling to conform that we still make movies about their exploits and adventures in the 60s. But look at them now: they’re Gen Y’s bosses, whining about our lack of ‘work ethic’ and our damned iPods.

Will history, in effect, repeat itself?

I can’t answer that definitively. My time machine is mostly useless. But my gut says it won’t. I think some sectors will see more change than others, but I think overall Gen Y will work as a change effect across the board. Primarily, it’s demographics. We’re in a climate where employees are given little alternative but to look closely at Generation Y when hiring for prime positions. (This goes a long way to explain why we’re so often described as cocky and brash, too.)

More than just demographics, though, I think one of our chief qualitative differences is that we, as a generation, find our nonconformist roots not in anything societal or political but rather (mostly) technological. It’s a little less noble, but more laden with potential.

With the 60s, business didn’t have any real need to change to accommodate younger workers. Because they didn’t really need them. And, well, the changes the then younger generation was asking for seemed so out-of-this-world. The boomers asked for change, but it was not specific — it wasn’t backed up with real, tangible solutions.

Technology is the game changer, because technology is change. For better or for worse, all of business is going through change as a result, and now, as a Generation, younger workers have the opportunity to drive that change.

That’s new. That’s different. That’s powerful.

Let’s take this point-by-point.

On demographics

Generation Y and the new Millenials that will be crossing your doorway looking for a job. Yes I said job, not necessarily a career, but a job. They may not stay; in fact it is likely they won’t. In the 1980s when I graduated from high school there was one job for every four students. Going to some post secondary school was a better option to wait and see if more jobs opened up. Today, there are four jobs for every student and the new graduates of high school and post secondary institutions have their pick. You may or may not be one of them.

I see these “4 for 1″ stats a lot, but I’m not sure I’ve ever seen the source. It seems pretty accurate, though, at least in the sense of all that it implies: this is a generation of employees that isn’t going to bend over backwards for you just because they want to keep their job.

On stereotyping

In comes Generation Y (1978-1994). These are our junior constables or new recruits. They have a casual attitude towards superiors and are opinionated and challenge the rules. Their parents were older when they had them and were more babied by their parents. They lived at home late in life – and may still live at home while working for you. They belonged to schools where you were never failed, there was no winner or loser and everyone got a “participant ribbon” just for showing up.

Some good and some bad here. Yeah, Gen Y tends to live at home longer. Often because their parents suggest they do until they can buy a house — there’s a pervasive “renting is throwing your money away” myth at work here. But I think this “participant ribbon” article falls fully into the realm of fantasy myth: I do recall there being things like that at various events, but even as an 11-year-old I knew not to take them very seriously. And there were still ribbons for first/second/third place, too.

I think you’d find it really difficult to find a member of Generation Y who doesn’t, when you get right down to it, have a good sense of what competition means. I think the difference is that we’ve been conditioned to see ‘winning’ as something else entirely than what the Boomers/Gen X are used to.

Here’s a hint: it’s not all about money.

On Gen Y’s future in policing

So now what? Flexible Management Leadership. Demographics don’t lie. Birth rates are down, retirement is up. There is more demand for people in management roles and a dwindling pool of talent for policing. 3% of young people think of policing as a career. 63% never would consider policing as a career. That leaves 34% undecided. It’s time to wake up and reposition ourselves as the employer of choice. Change is not a sign of failure and the failure to change in this case is not an option.

I think by and large policing is going to see the same problem that the skilled trades do now: teachers don’t tell their students about it, so students don’t consider it. There’s also the pop culture stigma: chart the evolution of the cop TV show from the 70s to now. It’s a lot grittier, and I can’t really think of a television police officer who is actually, you know, happy with their jobs.

But the change part is so critical. If I’ve hammered home anything on this blog since I started writing it is that change is at the foundation of real intergenerational progress in the workplace. It’s a bit of give & take, sure, but fundamentally I think most of the change has to come at the management and organizational level.

Photo by nyc arthur. Licensed under Creative Commons

Bauerlein recently contributed a Boston Globe piece on 8 reasons why this is the dumbest generation that achieves the rare double-feat of being both incredibly out-of-touch and remarkably ironic — it’s a piece that hopes to demonstrate how dumb, vacant and empty-headed Generation Y (and Gen Z, or Generation TBD, or whatever) is made up entirely of stock photos and three-sentence descriptors.

In any case, I think it’s supposed to be pithy and somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but even allowing for that it’s mostly stupid. So, in response, here are eight reasons why this is the smartest generation, presented without stock-photos and not split up across nine different pages.

They’re more politically & socially involved than ever before

Bauerlein writes that this generation is “encased in more immediate realities that shut out conditions beyond — friends, work, clothes, cars, pop music, sitcoms, Facebook.” This immediately brings to light the biggest problem with his arguments: while he claims to be criticizing this generation, he’s really just criticizing teenagers. Do teenagers tend to be egotistical and caught up in the goings-on of their own lives to the point of melodrama? They sure do. Is this a new phenomenon? Not at all.

Hell, the fact that Bauerlein thinks this generation is preoccupied by sitcoms shows how out-of-touch he is.

The big point is this, though: our generation is more politically involved and socially-conscious than ever before. Check out these stats from a USA Today article:

61% of 13- to 25-year-olds feel personally responsible for making a difference in the world, suggests a survey of 1,800 young people to be released today. It says 81% have volunteered in the past year; 69% consider a company’s social and environmental commitment when deciding where to shop, and 83% will trust a company more if it is socially/environmentally responsible. The online study — by two Boston-based companies, Cone Inc. and AMP Insights — suggests these millennials are “the most socially conscious consumers to date.”

They spend way less time watching TV and more time reading

Bauerlein trots out the old “Kids don’t READ any more!” argument, referring specifically to books. And, sure, books don’t sell great — they’re on the decline. But that doesn’t mean Gen Y doesn’t read. In fact, whereas the boomers and Gen X tended to employ television as their major source of media, Gen Y is turning to the internet. And even with advances in video & audio online, you know how the vast majority of the internet is experienced? By reading.

From an article in World News Australia:

The survey, commissioned by social networking website MySpace and conducted by UK-based analyst The Future Laboratory, found a quarter of 18 to 24-year-olds had reduced their television watching in favour of social networking on the web.

They have massive networks to call upon

Bauerlein brings up the abundance of typos, abbreviations and misspellings in IM and Texting communication as a point to prove this is a ‘dumb generation’. I don’t much like that kind of typing either, but it’s hardly a sign of ‘dumbness’. In fact, most of these short-forms emerge because Gen Y is trying to cultivate an absolutely astronomical number of friendships and relationships.

The networking we’re seeing with young people today is unprecedented and of incredible value to business. Whereas in the past people didn’t start building their networks until they were in their late teens or early twenties, this generation is establishing these connections at 12 years old.

They have a worldwide platform for expressing themselves creatively

Bauerlein makes the ridiculous argument that “On MySpace, if you write clearly and compose coherent paragraphs with informed observations on history and current events, ‘buddies’ will make fun of you.” I’m really not sure where he’s getting this, unless he’s hanging out in some really stupid corners of the internet.

One of the benefits to social networks, blogs and other online platforms is that young people can and do share their thoughts and ideas on everything from TV to video games to politics. The opportunity to make yourself visible at a young age leads to career and portfolio opportunities that were roadblocked before. Just look at the legion of bloggers who have found book deals.

They seek entertainment that’s active, not passive

Bauerlein points to the blockbuster sales of Grand Theft Auto 4 as a reason for this generation’s ‘dumbness’, but he doesn’t offer much in the way of argument. I’d make the argument that Gen Y’s appetite for video games as opposed to television or movies is a sign of intelligence, not anti-intellectualism.

Gen Y demands interactivity with their media. TV shows like Lost have derived popularity from the fact that fans love to come online and talk about them — develop theories and look for clues. Even American Idol, a show that takes a lot of crap for lacking substance, succeeds with youth because they feel like they can be a part of it.

Involvement, in a lot of respects, IS intelligence. There’s a lot more to be derived from playing Grand Theft Auto 4 than, say, watching an episode of Miami Vice.

They have quick access to an astounding amount of information

Bauerlein, again, makes a confusing argument: “Digital natives, however, go to the Internet not to store knowledge in their minds, but to retrieve material and pass it along. The Internet is just a delivery system.”

I don’t really know what he’s getting at, but that may be because I’m not storing enough knowledge in my mind. I just keep giving all my knowledge away to my online buddies!

One of my favourite archetypical Gen Y traits is their ability to quickly settle an argument. A group of people will be sitting around a table wondering, say, who Bob Dole’s Vice Presidential candidate was and suddenly, within seconds, someone will have pulled the answer from their laptop or cellphone. This tends to mystify the hell out of a lot of baby boomers.

If Gen Y memorizes less information, it’s because we know how to wield the enormous repository of information that is the internet.

They’re forcing huge changes in education

Education is a topic I’m passionate about, and there’s no doubt that a lot needs to change in the way teachers approach their Gen Y, and younger, students, but Bauerlein’s argument that we’re in an “era of child-centered classrooms and self-esteem grading” is just tired. Especially since nobody is really able to prove that today’s students are really lacking in the smarts department globally:

According to Reena Nadler, program director of LifeCourse Associates, a marketing and human resources consultancy in Great Falls, Virginia, founded by generational experts Neil Howe and William Strauss, the millennial generation is turning the clichés on their heads. “Student achievement is rising,” says Nadler, a millennial herself. Today’s youth dedicate more hours to their studies and extracurricular activities than previous generations did.

I think there’s very real issues that arise when the students are digital natives and the teachers barely know how to turn a computer on, and we’re seeing the fruits of that, but that doesn’t imply there’s anything inherently wrong with this generation. That they’re forcing change in the way education happens is actually a testament to their abilities.

Because we’re young

It looks like Bauerlein just plain runs out of arguments with his eighth point. He probably should have just gone with seven reasons. Seven is lucky. His eighth argument is simply “because they’re young.” And young people are… stupid.

He’s sort of right, actually. Young people lack experience and, indeed, tend to be egocentric and melodramatic and prone to screwing up (all part of learning). But youth also brings with it, by its very nature, an incredibly wellspring of potential, which is what a lot of companies are just starting to realize:

“We have the best qualified generation since history,” says Patricia Vendramin, a sociologist at the Work & Technology Research Centre of the Fondation Travail-Université in Namur, Belgium. Millennials get work experience early, they’re flexible, they’re willing to relocate, and they’re open-minded, she adds. Also, “they are very skilled at using technology” and they’re true team players, Redmond says.

So much left to say

It’s unfortunate that authors like Bauerlein are able to draw booksales by treading on the same old “kids are stupid” ground so many others have walked for decades. I bet when he was younger there were older people saying he was dumb, too. You would think that experience would have taught him better than trotting out this the-kids-aren’t-alright nonsense. But, then, maybe those calling him dumb back then just happened to be right.

Thanks to the Brazeen Careerist Forum for the link to this article.

He’s also brilliant.

I’ve yet to read Who’s Your City? but in the one-hour Q&A session he shared a number of ideas and themes from the book that are of particular relevance to Generation Y. I thought I’d share them here.

Where you live = most important decision of your life

Florida takes a different tact than Thomas Friedman and his belief that the World is Flat. He agrees that there is globalization and that we are seeing a diffusion of the labour pool across the world, but he also points out that, as this is happening, we’ll still see pockets of talent intensify in certain areas — cities — ultimately creating a labour market that is more spiky than it is flat.

So where you choose to live is still critically important, not only because that’s where the money will be, but also because that’s where the people will be. Florida points out that increasingly people are making decisions on where to live based on a city’s “personality” — the creative scene, the number of single people, etc. It’s not as simple as just “going where jobs are” — the city has to fit.

A lot of cities are missing the boat

Florida’s aroused controversy in the U.S. (and praise in Canada) due to his stated belief that the U.S. is going in the wrong direction and does not have many true ‘creative’ cities. (A lot of this seems to be motivated by his political views, but I don’t necessarily think that’s an irrelevant basis at all.) He points out that a lot of the US is littered with cities that were built on the backs of one industry (ie. manufacturing) and are now empty shells. Further, he says that there are cities that are actively booming currently that are likely destined for a similar fate, especially in the developing world (China, India, Brazil, etc.)

Cities that are destined for real success are those that work to establish their own ‘personality’ and a lot of that, he maintains, has to do with supporting creative industries. If a city isn’t appealing to artists, writers, musicians, stage performers, and so on, it’s not on the right track.

Helping the Valleys

Florida cautioned several times that the overarching message to the book wasn’t a positive one. One of the side-effects of the ‘spiky world’ will be that a lot of places will be stuck in metaphorical valleys — left without economic engines to power them, they’ll stagnate. (And the smart young Gen Y workers with talent will leave in droves for the cities at the peaks.)

He does point out, though, that sometimes it only takes one person or company to raise up a whole geographic area. The obvious examples are Silicon Valley in California and Waterloo in Canada, which were both turned into major economic hubs due to IT companies moving in, but there’s a little bit more to it than just a visionary or two coming to town: what really drives these people to establish their companies in these locations is the previous existence of talented people, ready to come work for them. To get those talented people to come, and stay, it’s important that municipal, provincial/state and federal governments put a strong emphasis in two areas: education and the arts.

Without them, you have no hook.

If you haven’t noticed already, all mediums are starting to shift towards the internet. People are actually spending more time on the internet than watching TV. (I know I do) The internet is too great a location for advertisers to ignore. I am inclined to believe that print media will suffer a lot in the coming years. Who needs a newspaper when you can go on to CNN.com? Perezhilton.com has all of the tabloid lovers. Anything you can find on the newstands, you can probably find on a blog or a website.

This is pretty much impossible to dispute. Circulation on magazines is way down and book sales have been mostly flat. I guess it makes sense, then, that the question everyone is asking is this: is print dead?

The Difference Between Death and Irrelevance

Erin and I have had lots of conversation about this topic (we both tend to side with the “yes, dying or dead” camp, for what it’s worth) but lately I’ve been thinking about the idea of print as an industry in a whole new light. The battle lines have been drawn as print-versus-technology but that’s not really apt, when you get right down to it. Because consumers aren’t buying the material — the paper, the ink, the glass, the microchips, the whatever — they’re buying the stories.

Products should be defined based on why the user buys or needs them, not based on the physical materials that make up the product. An example: We don’t (or, more accurately, didn’t) buy audio CDs because we liked the shiny colourful back surface or the way it spun in the player. We bought audio CDs because we wanted to hear music.

Painting the battle as print-versus-technology is akin to vinyl-versus-CD or, hell, buying coke in a plastic bottle versus a glass bottle. In either case, the product is the same. Schultz points that out perfectly in his post: the stuff on the internet is the same product as the stuff on the newsstand (or on TV).

No funeral march for ink and paper

The technology isn’t there yet, so we’re still a ways away from the true shift from print to purely tech-based content. But it’s looming, and anyone who claims otherwise is probably burying their head in the sand. And this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Like with any shift, the only people who will be hurt or left behind by the shift are those who refuse to see it coming.

The market still wants the product — they want news and gossip, comedy and drama, fiction and non-fiction, art and pornography — but now it will be beamed to them, through devices that sit on a desk or fit in a hand (some of these devices might look just like paper). And, yes, this draws all sorts of questions about monetizing and content customization and the dynamics of publishing-as-business but the bottom line is simply this: people still want what publishers are selling. You’ll be okay.

What Gen Y should do

One of the most changed dynamics will be the ‘opening up’ of the content creation process. Whereas in the past writing went through a sort of ‘funnel’ through editors, publishers and printers before making it to the public, we’re at a place now where any business can make themselves visible instantly. For most organizations, then, a good, solid, web-savvy writer is going to be nothing short of a weapon. Remember that as you build your skills for your career.

Photo by oskay. Licensed under Creative Commons