Catarina's World

Leon Panetta just became a hero to American women by announcing that the U.S. ban on women in combat positions will be lifted. It’s hence an interesting  moment to look at gender equality in business. In this short video Tory Burch talks about how women entrepreneurs should find their passion and be just as ambitious as men:

Let’s hope it doesn’t take too long for the Pentagon to live up to Panetta’s promise. For about half a century women and men have been equal by law in Sweden. But inequality between the sexes is still so bad the government is of the opinion that to achieve equality in the business world it will be essential to legislate.

Out of 100 start-ups in Sweden only 23 are started by women and they are less likely to get financing than a company started by a man. So much for me telling my Saudi girl friends that in Sweden we are equal.

Davos: Women are important to the world economy

In Davos this year the World Economic Forum, for the first time, had a discussion on getting more women into economic decision making.  Prominent women such as Harvard president Drew Gilpin Faust, European Commissioner Viviane Reding, Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the IMF, Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook and Saudi business leader Lubna Olayan took part. They discussed how the gender gap at the highest levels of business can be closed.

Their conclusion was that ambitious women are often regarded as aggressive. The Harvard president pointed out that’s because women are judged according to the stereotypes we grow up with. It was also said on the panel that successful women are frequently disliked by both men and women. Why? According to them it’s again all to do with  the stereotype of a woman. It’s hence essential that we move away from such old fashioned stereotypes.

Lubna Olayan pointed out that King Abdullah has now appointed women to 20 percent of the seats in the shura council. (that’s as close to a parliament they get in Saudi Arabia). Immediately the objection was that the women were not qualified but appointed just because they are women. Their CV’s were published and that clearly showed that they were indeed qualified, not only highly educated but experienced as well.

We need more female business owners

Tory Burch who you watched in the video, started her company in 2004 and nine years later her clothes are sold in more than 800 stores all over the world.

She also leads the Tory Burch Foundation that offer mentorship and provide micro loans to women entrepreneurs. Her advice to female entrepreneurs is “don’t give up. There are so many times it seems insurmountable but keep the hard work going. It’s worth it and you and your hard work can make a difference”.

There is a need to make more woman start up their own companies and succeed. And get more women to sit on boards. Tory is not alone in having a foundation that makes a contribution in this respect. There are an abundance of such programs and with the European Union making it clear they want  to get more women into high level business it makes sense.

In the World Economic Forum panel discussion, Viviane Reding talked about how the EU first tried to persuade companies to get 40% women in leadership positions on a voluntary basis. Nothing happened. The EU hence legislated to get talented, educated women into top positions in companies. The law is intended to allow women to make a breakthrough into business, taking into account that 65% of university graduates in Europe are women. The first year saw 3% more women in senior positions in corporate Europe.

Do you believe it’s a good thing that Leon Panetta has lifted the ban on women in combat? Is it a good idea to close the gender gap at the highest levels of business? Should women be as ambitious as men not only in the military but in business as well? Do we need more female business leaders and entrepreneurs? Is it fair that successful women are regarded as aggressive? Would it be a good idea to have more qualified women on corporate boards? Should there be equality between the sexes when it comes to getting funding for a start-up? Has the time come for women to be proud of their accomplishments and be treated as equals in the corporate world? 

Video: stanfordbusiness

Would you buy a product you cannot see that hasn’t even got a name? Thought not. Still some people believe they can get a following on social media by branding themselves that way.

Would you do business with a ghost? Thought not, and the same applies to the rest of humanity. So leave covert branding behind and start reaping the benefits of social media.

How can you take people seriously when they hide their identity? Obviously you should not post your contact details on social media. But your name and picture are essential if you want to be taken seriously.

A statue cannot sign a contract

Hiding takes away fear and I can understand that to some extent. But what’s the point of using social media if you are afraid of it? And what’s there to be afraid of? Apart from people who, usually for dodgy reasons, are using a fake identity, social media is a wonderful thing that people should embrace and make the most of.

But when you hide behind a photograph of, say a rose, and an alias you give the impression you have something to hide. So if you haven’t, what’s the point in making people suspicious? Chances of getting new customers, a job offer or business proposals are next to none if you are not transparent.

Identity theft doesn’t only take place online

Some people hiding claim they are afraid of identity theft. Seriously that can unfortunately happen even if you have no presence whatsoever online. All it takes is for a letter with your essential details to fall into the wrong hands. And,deplorable as it is, it happens all the time. Both in the real world and online.

Fearful leaders and entrepreneurs

Is it really feasible that so many people priding themselves to be leaders and entrepreneurs are afraid of online identity theft and posting a photograph or name? Seriously they wouldn’t be leaders and entrepreneurs if that was the case. So why are they hiding? Far from all of them are con-men, so why don’t they post their names and photographs?

Linkedin is not Facebook

If you use Facebook to communicate with your friends only, anything goes. But on business networks, such as Linkedin, you have to come across as a serious person. Posting a picture of yourself half naked doesn’t do the trick. Or a picture that makes you look dishonest. Chose a photograph that makes you look business like. It’s not a question of being ugly or beautiful but looking like a person businesspeople would like to be associated with.

Like products without logos

Imagine walking into a supermarket with your shopping list and all the logos and descriptions had disappeared from the products displayed. How would you know what they were? Even a simple thing like buying a can of Coca Cola would be difficult because you wouldn’t know what was in the different cans. And how would you know if you were picking up a bottle of shampoo or body lotion?

Learn from 007

There are covert agents on social media aiming to influence public opinion pro whatever country they are working for. They don’t want to draw negative attention to themselves and I can guarantee you that they all post a name, appropriate photograph and a credible profile. If not, how would they be able to do their job?

Would you do business with a ghost? Exactly, and you are not the only one. The same applies to the rest of humanity. So do yourself a favour by refraining from covert branding and display your photograph and name on social media. When people take you seriously, things can happen out of the blue and the positive aspects of social media will be available to you. Invisible branding works against you so unless you are in a witness protection program, or something similar, be transparent and start reaping the benefits of social media.

Can't help wondering what the future has in store for newspapers? It's telling that even the New York Times are slashing employee benefits and laying off staff. Watch a very interesting interview with investigative journalist Russ Baker putting what's happening at the paper into a broader context: 

Should the US government have the power to shut down web sites world wide? Or do you agree with Wikipedia and Google that the proposed bills amount to Chinese style online censorship? Devote 2 minutes to watching an informative video about the bills:

If congress pass the bills, anyone posting a home video online with a song playing in the background could in theory be accused of piracy and their site shut down. The Obama administration has stated it's not in favour of the proposed legislation since it threatens an innovative and open internet. So if worse comes to worse, the president could presumably veto it? Some members of congress however, are keen on the bills in order to please Hollywood and the musical industy. 

Would the bills be the end of internet as we know it?

This is what Wikipedia has to say about the bills: ""They put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material and call for the unnecessary blocking of entire sites. Small sites won't have sufficient resources to defend themselves. Big media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for their foreign competitors, even if copyright isn't being infringed.

'Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. And, Sopa and Pipa build a framework for future restrictions and suppression. Proponents of Sopa have characterised the opposition as being people who want to enable piracy or defend piracy". 

According to Jimmy Wales, "The bill is so over broad and so badly written that it's going to impact all kinds of things that, you know, don't have anything to do with stopping piracy."

Sopa and Pipa actually propose that anyone found guilty of streaming copyrighted content without permission 10 or more times within six months should go to jail.

Would Sopa and Pipa completely change social media networks like Linkedin and Facebook because they would need to police everything their members post? Will online freedom of speech be severely resticted by the bills? Or do you agree with Robert Murdoch who has complained about the White House not supporting the most extreme elements of the bills? Do you want to keep the internet as it is or should it be censored world-wide by the US government? 

Video: Al Jazeera English – You Tube

Sounds like part of the plot to a thriller doesn’t it? Makes you think of Leonardo diCaprio and the movie that claimed “it will cost you everything” But it may actually be going on.

Would you buy conflict diamonds? Or make your purchase from someone hiding their identity on social media?

Now with restrictions in place to stop conflict diamonds financing wars and dictators it looks like social media unfortunately has become an outlet for blood diamonds.

Came across the following out of context comment in about ten different discussions in Linkedin groups. If it was discussions about diamonds, investing or any subject of relevance to the comment, I would have understood. But that was not the case: “i am the most individual effective diamonds seller in sauther africa region.My primary market are individual buyer, I also assist new buyer who want to explored the market of diamonds in Africa. Diamonds is the most profitable business which an individual can earn so much money with few stone you purchse.” Followed by a yahoo email address, a name and a different name for Skype.

The member had no photograph or information on his Linkedin profile. The only enlightenment was that he is a member of numerous Linkedin groups.

Desperate way of selling diamonds

Why would someone selling diamonds resort to the kind of tactics deployed by for instance people desperate for a job who, post their CV:s as comments in discussions? A reputable dealer would definitely not act like that. So if he is genuine, I strongly suggest that he stops behaving like a spammer to make people trust him. His current behaviour gives the impression he’s a person under pressure to sell the diamonds. If not, why would someone be that desperate to sell a valuable commodity that’s in high demand?

Would you buy diamonds from a spammer?

Who in their right mind would buy diamonds from someone that resorts to guerilla tactics to sell them? Few, if any. So what makes someone employ such methods? What immediately comes to mind is conflict diamonds because it’s difficult to sell them through normal channels.

Illicit diamond trade funding Ivory Coast conflict?

Can’t help wondering of the origin of those diamonds and which war lords the sales will fund? The conflict in the Ivory Coast comes to mind. But groups in, for instance, The Republic of Congo, The Democratic Republic of Congo and Angola are also selling diamonds, for instance to Ivory Coast groups, to finance their insurgencies and fighting. If so, his desperation makes sense. He is most likely under pressure to sell a certain amount or he is in trouble with his bosses.

Or maybe the Linkedin seller isn’t from Africa at all but working for, say, an Afghan war lord? Difficult to prove where someone posting on social media actually resides, isn’t it.

Social media – outlet for blood diamonds?

On social media networks we are already inundated with “Nigeria letters”, beggars and all kinds of shady deals. So it makes perfect sense that peddling conflict diamonds is also going on.

Spammers illegally selling Viagra send out millions of emails daily since one sale only generates massive profits. And you don’t have to be Einstein to understand that one sale of illicit diamonds generate much more money than a sale of Viagra.

Make sure you buy diamonds certified by the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme

We should all join forces to make it difficult for people to deal with blood diamonds on social media. If not, we help fuel conflict and keep tyrants in power. So I hope you make sure any diamonds you buy are certified by the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme. By doing so you will at least know the origin of the diamonds you buy. Can’t understand why, but diamonds from Zimbabwe are now cleared for sales on the international market. But is it really a good idea to buy diamonds from there? Don’t forget that by doing so you help keeping Mugabe in power.

Do you believe social media has become an outlet to sell blood diamonds? Have you also come across diamond dealers hiding their identity on, say, Linkedin, Facebook or Twitter? Would you consider buying diamonds from them just to make huge profits? If not, what do you suggest should be done to stop them from using social media networks to sell their goods? Let’s face it, if peddlers of conflict diamonds succeed in selling their goods on social media networks it will, as the movie pointed out, cost quite a few people everything.

photo: jenny downing – flickr