JOUR 651 Lecture 24: The Analytics Process Elements to Shape Data Insights

9 views2 pages

periwinklemammoth360

7 May 2020

School

Ball State University

Department

Journalism

Course

JOUR 651

Professor

Robin Blom

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

The analytics process: elements to shape data insights. There"s a process that comes with using analytics, and we aren"t really sure if we still have the access we need to produce immediate actionable insights. Even though we can simplify reports, we still need to have analysts to create insights. Human intelligence is still a vital part to the process of analytics. We have access to systems that facilitate and run paid promotion of digital ads/content that run by themselves. When you start to work on more complex strategies and start to consider the community that is with you, you need to realize you are still the person who makes it happen. You should consider the human aspect and element when analyzing something because you"ll find that there is often a more clear planning and more structured approach to using analytics.

Related Questions

What do you believe is the ultimate impact of technology on job creation? Should there be curbs to the pace of modernization?

(Answer in a paragraph(around 200 words))

What Econ 101 Can Teach Us About Artificial Intelligence

Here's why advancing technology often leads to more jobs for humans, not fewer

A Tesla Model X 75D semi-autonomous electric vehicle is parked at the Governor's Mansion in Olympia, Wash., this year. Goldman Sachs predicts that 25 years from now, driver employment will be growing by 300,000 less per year because of autonomous vehicles.

By Greg Ip

Aug 9, 2017

The first chart you draw in Economics 101 is the downward-sloping demand curve. It shows that when the price of something drops, people consume more of it.

This elementary rule of economics is remarkably helpful in discussing the effects of technological change. As I wrote last week, when technology makes something cheaper, we consume more of it, often by finding new uses. This lesson repeats through history: When coal-fueled steam power became more efficient in the 1800s, demand for steam power and coal spread. When automated teller machines made it cheaper to operate bank branches in the 1980s, banks opened more branches.

My column cites spreadsheet programs like Lotus 1-2-3, whose arrival in the early 1980s made repetitive recalculation vastly simpler and faster. This reduced demand for bookkeepers but created more demand for people who could run numbers in new and interesting ways, such as accountants and management consultants.

In a recent article for the Harvard Business Review, Ajay Agrawal, Joshua Gans and Avi Goldfarb, economists at the University of Toronto who study artificial intelligence, say that in the 1990s, economists didnât buy into the hype that the internet and the World Wide Web would upend everything:

âIt wasnât that we didnât recognize that something changed. It was that we recognized that the old economics lens remained useful for looking at the changes taking place. The economics of the âNew Economyâ could be described at a high level: Digital technology would cause a reduction in the cost of search and communication. This would lead to more search, more communication, and more activities that go together with search and communication. Thatâs essentially what happened.â

They apply that lesson to artificial intelligence and more specifically to machine learning, the use of powerful algorithms to make predictions from patterns in large quantities of data. Machine learning, they say, means many problems will be reframed as prediction problems. Autonomous driving no longer involves programming the car to respond in a certain way to a variety of controlled scenarios, but instead, to watch what humans actually do and then respond the same way.

How does this affect jobs? The authors says it depends on whether the technology competes with or complements what you do. Spreadsheets competed with what bookkeepers do (record keeping and calculation) and thus made them less valuable, but complemented what accountants and consultants do (analysis), and made them more valuable.

Mssrs. Agrawal, Gans and Goldfarb say that AI reduces the value of those who predict things for a living, such as whether a mark on an X-ray is a tumor, but it raises the value of those who use predictions to make judgments:

âWhen prediction is cheap, diagnosis will be more frequent and convenient, and thus weâll detect many more early-stage, treatable conditions. This will mean more decisions will be made about

medical treatment, which means greater demand for the application of ethics, and for emotional support, which are provided by humans.â

So AI will create winners and losers within and among industries and occupations. But what will the net effect be? More jobs or less, and for whom? This isnât knowable, but history suggests that while a specific occupation or industry may suffer losses, the aggregate effects will be positive. The growth in accounting and analytical jobs since the early 1980s is much larger than the loss of bookkeeping jobs.

Nor did all those bookkeepers necessarily lose jobs; many probably became accountants or analysts. As Mr. Gans told me, bookkeepers may have been best placed to exploit the capabilities of spreadsheets: âIf you were doing calculations all day as a bookkeeper, chances are you thought a bit about why you are doing that. When you got a spreadsheet, rather than doing one calculation per day you could do 10 to 50, so you had a better sense of what the [calculations] might say.â

Some readers said AI is a much bigger threat than spreadsheets because it has so many more potential applicationsâand they displace uniquely human abilities. I agree with the first part, less so with the second. I suspect workers in previous eras, whether they drove a horse and plow, handled a stock trade or connected a phone call, thought there was something about their job that a machine could never replace.

Will the disruptions this time around be greater? Maybe, but not necessarily. Goldman Sachs predicts that 25 years from now, driver employment will be growing by 300,000 less per year because of autonomous vehicles. Thatâs 25,000 jobs per month to make up, compared with the 5,000 per month that the decline in bookkeeping since 1985 represents. But itâs hardly insurmountable in a labor market where five million jobs are created and destroyed each month.

Others said I was ignoring the potential for rogue algorithms and robots to turn on us or strip us of our freedom.

The experts, of which I am not one, tell me AI is nowhere near that capability. (Before the robots can kill us they must first stop killing themselves.) And donât assume spreadsheets have been all benign. Excel may not have slain anyone Terminator-style, but it did help wound J.P. Morgan through its role in the âLondon Whaleâ trading disaster.

Which brings me to the final point. We should not confuse what technology enables us to do with how much better off it makes us. Spreadsheets enabled analysts to construct much more intricate forecasts of stock prices and the economy, but didnât make those forecasts any more accurate. AI may enable companies to better manage the risks of their products and actions, but those products and actions may not be more profitable. Many a CEO has wondered whether the money they spend on spreadsheet-wielding consultants yields any real value. Some day they may wonder the same thing about their AI-wielding consultants.

What valuable company is nobody building? This question is harder than it looks, because your company could create a lot of value without becoming very valuable itself. Creating value isn't enough -- you also need to capture some of the value you create. This means that even very big businesses can be bad businesses. For example, U.S. airline companies serve millions of passengers and create hundreds of billions of dollars of value each year. But in 2012, when the average airfare each way was $178, the airlines made only 37 cents per passenger trip. Compare them to Google, which creates less value but captures far more. Google brought in $50 billion in 2012 (versus $160 billion for the airlines), but it kept 21% of those revenues as profits -- more than 100 times the airline industry's profit margin that year. Google makes so much money that it is now worth three times more than every U.S. airline combined. The airlines compete with each other, but Google stands alone. Economists use two simplified models to explain the difference: perfect competition and monopoly. "Perfect competition" is considered both the ideal and the default state in Economics 101. So-called perfectly competitive markets achieve equilibrium when producer supply meets consumer demand. Every firm in a competitive market is undifferentiated and sells the same homogeneous products. Since no firm has any market power, they must all sell at whatever price the market determines. If there is money to be made, new firms will enter the market, increase supply, drive prices down and thereby eliminate the profits that attracted them in the first place. If too many firms enter the market, they'll suffer losses, some will fold, and prices will rise back to sustainable levels. Under perfect competition, in the long run no company makes an economic profit. The opposite of perfect competition is monopoly. Whereas a competitive firm must sell at the market price, a monopoly owns its market, so it can set its own prices. Since it has no competition, it produces at the quantity and price combination that maximizes its profits. To an economist, every monopoly looks the same, whether it deviously eliminates rivals, secures a license from the state or innovates its way to the top. I'm not interested in illegal bullies or government favorites: By "monopoly," I mean the kind of company that is so good at what it does that no other firm can offer a close substitute. Google is a good example of a company that went from 0 to 1: It hasn't competed in search since the early 2000s, when it definitively distanced itself from Microsoft and Yahoo! Americans mythologize competition and credit it with saving us from socialist bread lines. Actually, capitalism and competition are opposites. Capitalism is premised on the accumulation of capital, but under perfect competition, all profits get competed away. The lesson for entrepreneurs is clear: If you want to create and capture lasting value, don't build an undifferentiated commodity business. How much of the world is actually monopolistic? How much is truly competitive? It is hard to say because our common conversation about these matters is so confused. To the outside observer, all businesses can seem reasonably alike, so it is easy to perceive only small differences between them. But the reality is much more binary than that. There is an enormous difference between perfect competition and monopoly, and most businesses are much closer to one extreme than we commonly realize. The confusion comes from a universal bias for describing market conditions in self-serving ways: Both monopolists and competitors are incentivized to bend the truth. Monopolists lie to protect themselves. They know that bragging about their great monopoly invites being audited, scrutinized and attacked. Since they very much want their monopoly profits to continue unmolested, they tend to do whatever they can to conceal their monopoly -- usually by exaggerating the power of their (nonexistent) competition. Think about how Google talks about its business. It certainly doesn't claim to be a monopoly. But is it one? Well, it depends: a monopoly in what? Let's say that Google is primarily a search engine. As of May 2014, it owns about 68% of the search market. (Its closest competitors, Microsoft and Yahoo!, have about 19% and 10%, respectively.) If that doesn't seem dominant enough, consider the fact that the word "google" is now an official entry in the Oxford English Dictionary -- as a verb. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen to Bing. But suppose we say that Google is primarily an advertising company. That changes things. The U.S. search-engine advertising market is $17 billion annually. Online advertising is $37 billion annually. The entire U.S. advertising market is $150 billion. And global advertising is a $495 billion market. So even if Google completely monopolized U.S. search-engine advertising, it would own just 3.4% of the global advertising market. From this angle, Google looks like a small player in a competitive world. What if we frame Google as a multifaceted technology company instead? This seems reasonable enough; in addition to its search engine, Google makes dozens of other software products, not to mention robotic cars, Android phones and wearable computers. But 95% of Google's revenue comes from search advertising; its other products generated just $2.35 billion in 2012 and its consumer-tech products a mere fraction of that. Since consumer tech is a $964 billion market globally, Google owns less than 0.24% of it -- a far cry from relevance, let alone monopoly. Framing itself as just another tech company allows Google to escape all sorts of unwanted attention. Non-monopolists tell the opposite lie: "We're in a league of our own." Entrepreneurs are always biased to understate the scale of competition, but that is the biggest mistake a startup can make. The fatal temptation is to describe your market extremely narrowly so that you dominate it by definition. Suppose you want to start a restaurant in Palo Alto that serves British food. "No one else is doing it," you might reason. "We'll own the entire market." But that is only true if the relevant market is the market for British food specifically. What if the actual market is the Palo Alto restaurant market in general? And what if all the restaurants in nearby towns are part of the relevant market as well? These are hard questions, but the bigger problem is that you have an incentive not to ask them at all. When you hear that most new restaurants fail within one or two years, your instinct will be to come up with a story about how yours is different. You'll spend time trying to convince people that you are exceptional instead of seriously considering whether that is true. It would be better to pause and consider whether there are people in Palo Alto who would rather eat British food above all else. They may well not exist. In 2001, my co-workers at PayPal and I would often get lunch on Castro Street in Mountain View, Calif. We had our pick of restaurants, starting with obvious categories like Indian, sushi and burgers. There were more options once we settled on a type: North Indian or South Indian, cheaper or fancier, and so on. In contrast to the competitive local restaurant market, PayPal was then the only email-based payments company in the world. We employed fewer people than the restaurants on Castro Street did, but our business was much more valuable than all those restaurants combined. Starting a new South Indian restaurant is a really hard way to make money. If you lose sight of competitive reality and focus on trivial differentiating factors -- maybe you think your naan is superior because of your great-grandmother's recipe -- your business is unlikely to survive. The problem with a competitive business goes beyond lack of profits. Imagine you're running one of those restaurants in Mountain View. You're not that different from dozens of your competitors, so you've got to fight hard to survive. If you offer affordable food with low margins, you can probably pay employees only minimum wage. And you'll need to squeeze out every efficiency: That is why small restaurants put Grandma to work at the register and make the kids wash dishes in the back. A monopoly like Google is different. Since it doesn't have to worry about competing with anyone, it has wider latitude to care about its workers, its products and its impact on the wider world. Google's motto -- "Don't be evil" -- is in part a branding ploy, but it is also characteristic of a kind of business that is successful enough to take ethics seriously without jeopardizing its own existence. In business, money is either an important thing or it is everything. Monopolists can afford to think about things other than making money; non-monopolists can't. In perfect competition, a business is so focused on today's margins that it can't possibly plan for a long-term future. Only one thing can allow a business to transcend the daily brute struggle for survival: monopoly profits. So a monopoly is good for everyone on the inside, but what about everyone on the outside? Do outsize profits come at the expense of the rest of society? Actually, yes: Profits come out of customers' wallets, and monopolies deserve their bad reputation -- but only in a world where nothing changes. In a static world, a monopolist is just a rent collector. If you corner the market for something, you can jack up the price; others will have no choice but to buy from you. Think of the famous board game: Deeds are shuffled around from player to player, but the board never changes. There is no way to win by inventing a better kind of real-estate development. The relative values of the properties are fixed for all time, so all you can do is try to buy them up. But the world we live in is dynamic: We can invent new and better things. Creative monopolists give customers more choices by adding entirely new categories of abundance to the world. Creative monopolies aren't just good for the rest of society; they're powerful engines for making it better. Even the government knows this: That is why one of its departments works hard to create monopolies (by granting patents to new inventions) even though another part hunts them down (by prosecuting antitrust cases). It is possible to question whether anyone should really be awarded a monopoly simply for having been the first to think of something like a mobile software design. But something like Apple's monopoly profits from designing, producing and marketing the iPhone were clearly the reward for creating greater abundance, not artificial scarcity: Customers were happy to finally have the choice of paying high prices to get a smartphone that actually works. The dynamism of new monopolies itself explains why old monopolies don't strangle innovation. With Apple's iOS at the forefront, the rise of mobile computing has dramatically reduced Microsoft's decadeslong operating system dominance. Before that, IBM's hardware monopoly of the 1960s and '70s was overtaken by Microsoft's software monopoly. AT&T had a monopoly on telephone service for most of the 20th century, but now anyone can get a cheap cellphone plan from any number of providers. If the tendency of monopoly businesses was to hold back progress, they would be dangerous, and we'd be right to oppose them. But the history of progress is a history of better monopoly businesses replacing incumbents. Monopolies drive progress because the promise of years or even decades of monopoly profits provides a powerful incentive to innovate. Then monopolies can keep innovating because profits enable them to make the long-term plans and finance the ambitious research projects that firms locked in competition can't dream of. So why are economists obsessed with competition as an ideal state? It is a relic of history. Economists copied their mathematics from the work of 19th-century physicists: They see individuals and businesses as interchangeable atoms, not as unique creators. Their theories describe an equilibrium state of perfect competition because that is what's easy to model, not because it represents the best of business. But the long-run equilibrium predicted by 19th-century physics was a state in which all energy is evenly distributed and everything comes to rest -- also known as the heat death of the universe. Whatever your views on thermodynamics, it is a powerful metaphor. In business, equilibrium means stasis, and stasis means death. If your industry is in a competitive equilibrium, the death of your business won't matter to the world; some other undifferentiated competitor will always be ready to take your place. Perfect equilibrium may describe the void that is most of the universe. It may even characterize many businesses. But every new creation takes place far from equilibrium. In the real world outside economic theory, every business is successful exactly to the extent that it does something others cannot. Monopoly is therefore not a pathology or an exception. Monopoly is the condition of every successful business. Tolstoy famously opens "Anna Karenina" by observing: "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." Business is the opposite. All happy companies are different: Each one earns a monopoly by solving a unique problem. All failed companies are the same: They failed to escape competition.

According to the article above by Peter Thiel do you think perfect competition is best for the economy and for consumers? Why or why not? What does Peter Thiel think about perfect competition versus monopolies?

Small business management class.

Please answer the two questions from the article belowplease.

Q1)Which one of the techniques to increase cash inflows is bestillustrated in the article? Explain how you know. ?

Q2)Which one of the techniques to decrease cash outflows is bestillustrated in the article? Explain how you know. ?

The article:

The financial crisis on Wall Street is quickly spiraling down tosmall businesses, making it extremely difficult for them to securefrom large banks the credit they need to start and maintain theiroperations.

Some businesses that currently have good relationships withbanks are getting more scrutiny and higher interest rates -- suchas 15% or more. Riskier borrowers are being denied creditaltogether.

Aside from falling back on friends or family -- or charging upyet another credit card -- here's a look at five alternatives forgetting extra cash to run a business in this economy.

-- Peer-to-Peer Lending Sites

Several Web sites now facilitate loans between individuals whodon't know each other. Typically, the prospective borrowers createprofiles that include how much they need to borrow, what the moneywill be used for and some credit history.

Other individuals can browse the loan requests and make offersthat include payment terms and interest rates. Prospective lendersalso get a risk assessment of the borrower generated by the Website based on the borrower's credit history.

Some "peer-to-peer" lending sites include LendingClub.com,Prosper.com, RaiseCapital.com and Zopa.com.

On Prosper.com, for instance, 25% of borrowers are individualsrunning or looking to start businesses, says Chief Executive ChrisLarsen. The site facilitates loans between individuals from $1,000to $25,000, and interest rates on those loans right now range from6% for those with the strongest credit ratings to about 30%.

Prosper, which has 800,000 registered users, is seeing moreentrepreneurs with good credit scores signing up. "We're certainlyseeing a steady increase of the quality of borrower coming to oursite," Mr. Larsen says. About 55% of the loans being funded are forborrowers with credit scores above 720, he adds, while only about5% are for those categorized as "subprime" borrowers.

-- Community Banks, Credit Unions

While big banks are being battered by all the financial turmoilon Wall Street, many local banks and credit unions are far morestable.

In fact, community banks continue to expand, although some havesuffered losses on securities issued by troubled mortgage giantsFannie Mae and Freddie Mac, says Camden Fine, chief executive ofthe Independent Community Bankers of America, an industryassociation in Washington.

Still, he says, even the community banks are more hesitant tolend to companies that lack rock-solid balance sheets.

-- Factoring, Asset-Based Loans

Though certainly not a cheap route to capital, some banks andnon- bank financing companies offer financing that is backed by abusiness's assets or accounts receivable.

So-called factoring, where a lender might, say, outright give aborrower 80 cents on the dollar for the company's accountsreceivable, can be a good option for businesses like manufacturersthat are owed a lot of money by customers and that have no betterlending option right now, says Raphael Amit, an entrepreneurshipprofessor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.

Interest rates on such financing can sometimes run 15% orhigher, so it's best to only resort to this approach when there'sno lower-cost option.

So-called asset-based loans -- loans in which assets such asinventory, equipment or real estate are used as collateral -- canbe good options for companies with lots of assets. But again, ratestend to run much higher than on traditional bank loans. The loanamounts are often capped at a percentage of the assessed value ofthe assets, such as 65%.

Also, even loans backed by assets can be difficult to get forcompanies with less-than-stellar credit ratings. Mark Sunshine,president of First Capital, a West Palm Beach, Fla., financecompany, says he's seeing more demand for loans based on accountsreceivable or assets, but isn't necessarily doing much morebusiness. "There's a reason local banks won't lend them money," hesays of riskier small companies. He says he's sticking to companieswith lots of assets to use as collateral.

-- Negotiating With Customers or Suppliers

Another smart strategy for helping cash flow -- perhaps even ifyou do have access to loans -- is striking better payment termswith customers and suppliers, Prof. Amit says. Especially whenbusiness relationships are strong and long-lasting, many companiesare willing to help each other out in tough economies.

A business that usually gives customers 30 to 60 days to pay thebills, for instance, might require customers to pay upon receipt ofgoods. A supplier, on the other hand, might be willing to extendlengthier payment terms to a business customer if it feels thecustomer is trustworthy and vital to its own business. Somesuppliers also will lend money to their longstanding, most valuedcustomers.

-- Changing Behaviors

Hard times call for small businesses to be nimble andentrepreneurial. Many businesses are using the tough economy toscrutinize their business practices and find creative ways tocreate better cash flow.

Some turn to leasing instead of buying equipment they need.

Others are identifying areas of the business that will tend tobe more lucrative in today's economy and shifting their resourcesin those directions.

JOUR 651 Lecture 24: The Analytics Process Elements to Shape Data Insights

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

JOUR 651 Lecture Notes - Lecture 23: Creative Commons

JOUR 651 Lecture Notes - Lecture 36: Bar Chart

JOUR 651 Lecture Notes - Lecture 21: Social Media Analytics

Related Questions