By Connor C. Introna As markets continue to climb to historic heights, the likelihood of a potential market-wide pullback grows with each passing day. In just a year, both the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the NASDAQ have zoomed upwards to the tune of around 30% while the S&P 500 has gained more than 20% without any major disruption. With really no market-wide downturn of more than 5% within the past 20 or so months, some Wall Street bears might argue that stocks are due for a correction soon. By the very nature of cyclicality, investors could soon acknowledge that a lot of stocks have become very expensive, and then be desperately waiting for the next excuse to liquidate and hide in cash. Regardless whether the next hit on the overall markets is a result of events out of Washington, actions from North Korea, interest rate adjustments by the Federal Reserve, or a combination of the above, something might be around the corner to trigger a downturn for stocks. This article is not dedicated to uncovering what that something is, or implying that the markets are necessarily about to fall; rather, its goal is to play devil’s advocate for the sake of education. When markets experience downturns, stocks crumble under selling pressure, and news causes investors to panic, there is still a way for traders to profit. Where there is a way to do something, there is always also a way to do it much more intelligently. On the subject of trading, that means minimizing risk and loss, and increasing potential for gain. It is a difficult subject to grasp at first, however, once it is understood, it could be a powerful and lucrative weapon in the trading arsenal. This article is dedicated to shedding light on the method bearish traders use to make money: short-selling. For those who are unfamiliar with the convoluted, controversial, and incredibly risky activity of short-selling, this article will explain the process and provide one of the smartest ways to do it. For starters, short-selling is a practice by which bearish traders could profit off of the falling price of a security. Just as a bullish trader buys a security (such as a common stock) at a low price with the intention of later selling it at a higher price, the bearish trader does the exact opposite. When short-selling, a trader will essentially borrow securities that they do not own in order to sell them at a specific price. Once having done this, the proceeds of this sale will go into the trader’s account. If the price of the borrowed security falls below what the trader sold it for, the proceeds would be used to buy it back, and the trader would keep the difference as a profit. For a better understanding, take this example: say a trader wants to short-sell 10 shares of Company A, whose stock price is $1,000. This trader believes that shares of Company A are going to plummet 10% to $900, so they short-sell the shares with a broker; $10,000 is credited to their account, and a short position with negative shares appears. If they are correct and the price of Company A shares falls to $900, then the trader has the option to do what is known as “buying to cover.” Once the shares fall to a certain price (in this case, $900) the trader buys those 10 shares, now for a total of $9,000. This covers, or corrects, the short position with the negative shares, as the only way to make a negative number equal zero is to add back in the positive equivalent. After using $9,000 from the original sale to buy to cover, the trader is left with $1,000, which is now profit. After brokerage fees and taxes, the trade might be lucrative for the trader, which is exactly the idea. Short-selling allows the bear to make money, ensuring someone can benefit when others lose. As great as this may sound, it does not come without risk and a major catch. When a bullish trader buys stock, their potential profits are virtually unlimited given a stock could travel higher to an astronomical price. A bullish trader can really only lose what they bought, as stock prices stop at zero. Unfortunately, the bearish trader is forced to take the opposite end of this undertaking -- having gains capped and losses virtually unlimited. Because security prices have no limit of how high they can travel, the trader might have to pay up more than the $10,000 they originally invested if the security’s price becomes greater than what they sold it for. In the case of the earlier example, if the price of Company A common stock increased to $1,100 per share, the short position would have a value of $11,000, reflecting the additional $100 increase times the position of 10 shares. Once the trader buys to cover, they still need an extra $1,000 in order to come up with the money to pay for the securities they first sold. At a maximum, if Company A’s stock decreases 100% to $0.00, the trader makes $10,000. However, if Company A’s stock increases 100%, 200%, or 300%, the trader must come up with an additional $10,000, $20,000, or even $30,000 respectively to cover the original bet. This makes the method of short-selling incredibly risky, especially because it is usually done with margin from a broker, who reserves the right to do whatever they must in order to cover the sale. These are some of the risks short-sellers take for the opportunity to make money when no other conventional investor is. This is what also makes the process controversial, as some view shorts like those seen in Michael Lewis’ 2010 novel and eventual movie The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine as immoral and dishonest. Some could make money while many others lose money. But what if there was a smarter way to engage in short-selling, and to hedge that a stock will fall? Wall Street is a crafty and complex place with many ways to make money. There is a method to short stocks, all while capping potential losses, eliminating the need for margin, and adding greater efficiency: enter the Put Options contract. Trading options contracts is a subject for another entire article, but in short, options essentially allow traders to make riskier bets in either direction without worrying about losing more than what they invested. Put Options allow investors to sell a stock that they do not own at a higher price than what it is currently trading at. Therefore, if a trader buys a $100 Put Option contract for Company A at $1,000, and the price of the shares fall to $900, the Put Option contract invariably becomes more valuable. If the contract is exercised (actually used to sell the stock), the owner of the option will have potential to make a larger amount of money. They then could, at this point, sell the $100 contract to another investor at a premium that reflects this greater value. The worth of an options contract could increase anywhere from 100% to 1,000% depending on the volatility of movements of the underlying security. Because of this potential increase in value (which is greater than the regular way of shorting stocks), and because they too stop at $0.00, trading Put Option contracts can be a smarter way to short stocks. After all, who would not want to make less-limited profits with more-limited risk, especially when others are left scratching their head and even losing money on the same securities?
0 Comments
September 25-28, 2017By Kaelyn Digiamarino If there is one way for a coffee-addicted, espresso-obsessed marketing student to become completely and absolutely enamored with her major, it is to sit five rows away from Howard Schultz. In the unseasonable heat of late September, Times Square buzzed with professionals of all different backgrounds and ages, industries and levels, as Advertising Week took over New York City for four days. Sessions were held throughout different venues across Midtown, as attendees were free to walk back and forth among the ones that piqued their interest the most. Topic tracks ranged from data analytics to storytelling, from brand innovation to the future of media, from Millennials to agency culture to leadership. Food trucks offered free wood fired pizza and coffee, while another sponsor’s booth challenged passersby to stop and anonymously divulge their deepest professional confessions. Tantalizing previews of the latest AR and VR innovations filled the Tech X exhibit, where there were conversant dragon robots, and holograms that offered recipe suggestions for dinner. On Tuesday night, the Impact Awards showcased companies that were breaking ground in environmental, humanitarian, cultural, and economic awareness initiatives. But while all of that contributed to the energy and impressiveness of AdWeek, there was nothing that quite matched the brilliance of the speakers themselves, who each in their own way proved that great minds think unalike. Notebook in hand, it was not possible to scribble down quickly enough the words that spilled offstage from industry leaders I never fathomed being near. First to take the stage was Andrew Keller, Facebook’s Global Creative Director. He led a panel of speakers in discussing creativity and collaboration, addressing mobile specifically as a consumption platform. “Mobile is with you at your best and worst moments,” Keller pointed out, noting that it changes not just our minds but also our brains. Our brains are fast; and they are getting faster. It takes the average person just 13 milliseconds to identify and develop an emotional response to an image. Keller later cited that people thumb through 300 feet of content in their social feeds every day, a figure equal to the height of the Statue of Liberty. This overwhelming amount of content has resulted in the decoupling of reach and attention. To capture an audience you must bring your brand message to life in a way too compelling to be ignored. You must think braver, bolder and stand out in a way that is contextually relevant. Modern consumers look for the promise of personalization and want to be engaged in the process. On the note of collaboration, one panelist emphasized that, “Collaboration is at the heart of any creative genesis.” Furthermore, friction between people who think differently leads to innovation, and being comfortable with being uncomfortable is a must when embracing the messiness of collaboration. Protection, trust, generosity and empathy are the keys to this approach. “Thinking like a startup” can also transform collaboration and creativity; startups are committed, resourceful, resilient and have skin in the game. Next up was a session with Allan Thygesen, the President of the Americas at Google, and Keith Weed, the CMO and CCO of Unilever, that discussed marketing in the age of assistance. The age of assistance is characterized by increased empowerment of consumers, a result of the democratization of information and connectivity through the rise of mobile, social, and real-time web. Thygesen began by remarking that for these reasons, today’s consumer is more demanding, more curious, and more impatient than ever before. The hyper-connected consumer is changing how they engage with products and in turn is transforming the traditional path to purchase. To navigate this new landscape, Weed suggested following a framework of “5Cs” to resonate with today’s consumers: consumer, connect, content, community, and commerce. Give users real utility and real value in the moment, because the best strategy a brand and its marketers can have is to become consumer centric. Jessica Alba, founder of The Honest Company, Neil Blumenthal, co-founder and co-CEO of Warby Parker, and Harry Kargman, founder and CEO of Kargo, took on the topic of building a brand in a mobile-first world. Both Alba and Blumenthal believe that the best businesses are those that solve real problems. The Honest Company and Warby Parker each rewrote the way consumer-packaged goods were sold when they began their online, direct-to-consumer business models. Both companies received unprecedented attention from the start because their ideas innovatively launched entirely online, and because both supported ethical initiatives. Blumenthal credited the phenomenal success of Warby Parker to good timing in entering the market, and to deliberate serendipity—putting in the work to help create luck, and then taking advantage of it when it appeared. Warby Parker and The Honest Company thrive because they are simple solutions to customer pain points, because they clearly define the purpose of their brands, because they use details and specificity to create authenticity, and because they understand that consumers buy products based on attributes and price, not just for the good of other people. My time at Advertising Week ended with Howard Schultz, and as he began, it became clear his session would be the most impactful. Schultz started with a provocative statement, one that might have made accountants shudder: not every business decision should be a financial one. Schultz mused that Starbucks’ purpose as a business is to build shareholder value, but making money is not its mission. Starbucks is a financially driven company. But, it is one so that it can scale for good and through the lens of humanity. He challenged the audience: what is the courage of your convictions? Schultz explained that he is adamantly against the way people and companies are conditioned not to talk about certain subjects, such as race and sex. Except Schultz believes that there are some topics you simply cannot start the workday without first discussing and addressing. Furthermore, Schultz emphasized the need to be curious and the need to see around corners, but not just in terms of products and innovations. We, as marketers and people, cannot be indifferent; companies must use their sphere of influence to demonstrate that there is another way. The need is to be sensitive to human experience, because that is where you learn. Advertising Week was impactful in ways that words cannot fully describe. The train ride home from New York was a bittersweet one, as I sat with mixed feelings of melancholy and exhaustion. But also with feelings of excitement and empowerment and confidence, and with feelings that could not quite capture the invigorated passion for marketing instilled in me. And with the feeling that I really, truly needed another shot of espresso (or two). By Nicholas Maldarelli It seems that no matter where one shops today, every business has the same gimmick, “We do things differently.” Be it product or service differentiation, or customer service, or product design and quality, businesses want to be different. More importantly, however, is that businesses want their target markets to perceive them as different. This is especially true with clothing companies between which rivalry is high and product differentiation is relatively low. Companies that sell affordable yet stylish clothing have ultimately failed to achieve different; that is, except when Dov Charney created American Apparel in 1989. The story of American Apparel’s rise and fall as the iconic “cool clothing” brand is one that could likely be featured in undergraduate business management and marketing textbooks for decades to come. The company existed as a vertically integrated manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of domestically produced apparel and accessories. Its business model of backwards integration and a streamlined value chain propelled the company into the hundreds of millions of dollars range in gross revenue and facilitated its opening of over 200 locations across three different continents. During American Apparel’s 28-year tenure as an emblem of non-conventional style and dress, the company prospered financially and socioculturally as both a lifestyle brand as well as a general statement to society: “Products of value and quality can and will be produced in America, and people will pay more for them.” This was the essence of the company’s mission statement, and it proved profoundly lucrative and scalable up until Dov Charney engaged in corporate misconduct. From a marketing perspective, American Apparel thrived and simply did business different. From a corporate management perspective, the company performed poorly, and top executives, including and especially the founder and former CEO Charney, made poor judgements that inevitably sunk the company into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Before his inevitable downfall, Dov Charney had been an ambitious hustler. His entrepreneurial spirit, backed by a loan from his father, helped him import clothing from his hometown in Canada across the border into the United States. This brought to life the beginnings of American Apparel. Charney opposed corporate America, suits and ties, HR departments, memos, weekly meetings, banter next to the coffee machine at break time, and the like. He resented everything that had to do with conventional American business; and so by building a textile importer whose values and business practices worked against the current of American corporations, Charney felt comfortable defying the status quo at nearly every turn during his tenure as CEO. For much of its existence, the apparel company was revered for being sweatshop-free, instituting a liberal hiring process for immigrants, paying above-industry average wages for employees, and implementing edgy and largely controversial advertising, which most often featured scandalous outfits worn by young women. It was by these latter means that American Apparel differentiated itself, albeit in a way that inevitably corroded its brand reputation. Most importantly, however, American Apparel went into business at perhaps the most auspicious time for a progressive fashion company; young men and women with money to spend were searching for a sense of identity and meaning, and so often self-identity is discovered through forms of self expression i.e fashion. Impressionable teens and young adults distinguished themselves by thinking and acting differently, and tucking in a white t-shirt into one’s Made-in-America blue jeans consummated that identity shift. American Apparel displayed some foresight about this change in consumer tastes, attitudes, and preferences, and cashed in by building a product line that facilitated that exact aesthetic…hipster. Backed for its edgy, promiscuous advertising, which was also demolishing boundaries of ethics and respect by women, American Apparel commodified the hipster aesthetic and allowed anyone willing to spend big to come along for the ride. Nearly three decades later, Dov Charney was ousted by his executive board, the stock subsequently plummeted, the business began to crumble in all levels of management, and American Apparel eventually filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. As of June 2017, Canadian-American clothing manufacturer Gildan Activewear agreed to buy out American Apparel as a company, but opted out of keeping any retail locations open for business. Since this past summer, the company has quietly withdrawn from gentrified neighborhoods and cities across the country and abroad, and is currently under capital and financial restructuring with Gildan at the head. The reasons why American Apparel ultimately failed are numerous and complicated. Changing market conditions such as the rise of e-Commerce detracted from the company’s brick-and-mortar sales and branding, fashion trends changed over time, and management fiascos corroded company reputation. However, perhaps the most pernicious influence on American Apparel’s demise was its inability to keep up with its customers’ attitudes and values. American Apparel found its identity in basic apparel produced and distributed in the USA, but failed to understand the ethical and legal implications of its business policies. As Millennials with moderate-to-high purchasing power begin to take notice of ethical standards within a company, any company that targets those consumers must heed these priorities. They drive purchasing behavior and manifest brand loyalty. American Apparel lost touch with the very people who put the company in business in the first place. By Taylor Nesnay As the consumer landscape is taken over by Millennials – the age group now accounts for $2.45 trillion in spending power – it is essential for brands to pay attention to shifts in values. According to the American Marketing Association, 70% of Millennials will spend more on brands supporting causes they care about. This value proposition, typically referred to as corporate social responsibility, has been proven historically to be successful when executed correctly. Companies that make it their mission to not only “do well,” but also “do good,” can foster a relationship between consumer and product/service that goes far beyond a value proposition. Who are some leaders in the corporate social responsibility landscape? Google, Starbucks, and Ben & Jerry’s, to name a few. All three companies have commonalities: celebrated leaders, cult followings, and clear visions. It is no secret that intertwining a good cause with business strategy helps guide strategic brand decisions. As Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, said during an interview at Advertising Week 2017 in New York City, “our purpose is not to make money…we are a financially-driven performance-based company through the lens of humanity.” In current times of political and social reaction, it is now more important than ever for companies to join active conversations, no matter how controversial their stances may be. This delicate balance can undoubtedly be a challenge. During a session at Advertising Week 2017 in New York City entitled “Red, White, and…Blue?”, panelists discussed the concept of America as a brand and how certain companies have navigated political commentary better than others. For example, Nike condemned President Trump’s immigration ban by writing an open letter, which was viewed as only 40% favorable and most frequently categorized as political mudslinging by consumers. Additionally, Budweiser ran a Super Bowl ad campaign addressing this topic entitled “Born the Hard Way,” which met a 50% favorable rating. The message of this contrast is that not all activism in inherently appealing. Moving forward, highly popular brands must be willing to take a stand and be able to do the rigorous research – both qualitatively and quantitatively – that ensures that their campaigns will be viewed favorably among consumers. As Elicia Greenberg, program director of The Advertising Club of New York, reminded the audience attending Advertising Week, “Be the difference…it’s not about the talk – it’s about the doing. It’s time for advertisers and marketers and creatives to work to fix the problems in our nation and bring Brand America to new and innovative heights.” By Jillian Marbach When it comes to marketing products or services, there is one basic rule every student will come to know: you can’t please everyone. This is why we spend millions of dollars analyzing trends to break customers up into target market segments. These segments can come from geography, age, interests, or another more obvious division: gender. There has been a lot of buzz around the topic of gendered marketing, especially in the last few years. In a quick search of the term “gendered products,” millions of results come up featuring lists of the most ridiculously gendered merchandise (my personal favorite: men’s bread) and outcries for the trend to stop. One criticism that blew up was Ellen DeGeneres’ comedic critique of pens made specially for women: “You can use it to write down a grocery list, or even recipes for when you need to feed your man.” Despite the growing number of people opposing extreme product gendering, those in branding point out if you don’t understand this method, the product probably isn’t targeted at you. They say, with such a wide range of products being available, that customers need help narrowing down their options. A simple way to do that is by emphasizing gender. Although some of these gendered products may come across as weird, branding professionals argue that there is surely a segment of people weird enough to buy them. Although this message may be true of quirky products, like sausages for girls and “mansize” facial tissues, gendering may not be favorable for all mainstream products. A prime example of a popular industry that may need to change is children’s toys. In a recent TED Talk about the subject, Elizabeth Sweet analyzes the issue from the perspective of a mother. She explains that strict gendering of toys does not allow children to fully explore all of their interests. Instead, they are shamed and teased for wanting to do things outside their gender “bubble,” and will ultimately give up these interests. In many cases, this means that little girls will not want to buy a boys’ science kit and little boys will shy away from girls’ dolls or cooking sets. If these psychological effects weren’t enough to make marketers think twice about promoting strict gender guidelines for kids, the feelings of customers might. In a recent consumer report by Havas that studied over 12,000 consumers from 32 countries, it was found that 61% of women and 46% of men felt that, as much as possible, parents should raise their children in a gender-neutral way. The demographic most likely to express this opinion was Millenials, the generation that will be buying kids’ toys next. This survey shows that parents are changing the way they look at the toy aisle; and marketers should, too. Some companies have been anticipating this change. In 2015, Target announced that it would no longer label its aisles by gender, including its toy aisles. Additionally, the superstore introduced its first line of gender neutral kids’ clothing this summer. The White House made moves to support this movement under the Obama Administration. In 2016, it hosted a conference titled, “Helping our Children Explore, Learn and Dream without Limits: Breaking Down Gender Stereotypes in Media and Toys,” which worked to rethink the products and media designed for future generations of kids. For those working on branding products specifically for children, it’s obvious that a change in strategy is needed. As for those in wider sectors, profits can still be found by falling back on a gender-divided market. But for how long? According to the 2017 Havas report, 52% of women and 44% of men agreed strongly or somewhat that they did not believe in set genders and that gender is fluid. Gender-neutral trends appear to be here to stay. It will be up to marketers to respond to these trends or get left behind. Understanding the Basic Accounting Equation, Part I By Carolyn Previti Simply say the word “accounting” and watch the collective shudder of TCNJ business students. The term alone causes flashbacks to two arduous semesters of required coursework for any business major. A topic deemed to be worthy of a full year of study, however, is worth a few minute’s read. I promise, no journal entries required.
Accounting is said to be the language of business. In particular, financial accounting is the system that records and analyzes economic transactions to provide information for decision-making. It is the system upon which all other business disciplines rely for accurate financial data. Any introductory accounting course introduces the basic accounting equation: Assets = Liabilities + Stockholders’ Equity. As a student of business, you have most likely memorized this fact of accounting, perhaps without truly understanding its implications. In a three-part series, I will address each component of this mathematical expression to provide clarity of this tenant of not only accounting, but of business as a whole. Assets are, quite simply, items of value that are used in a trade or business. In a lemonade stand, the assets of the business are the stand, the lemons, sugar, and ice, as well as the refrigeration system. We can further break this term “asset” and the preceding examples into two categories: “property, plant, and equipment” (PP&E) and “inventory.” While in practice there are many more types of assets, we will focus on the listed two for simplicity. Inventory refers to the finished product(s) your lemonade stand sells, the lemonade, as well as any ingredients or components of the lemonade. The ingredients are your ice, sugar, and lemons. The property, plant, and equipment of the business would be the stand itself and the fridge. By the definition of PP&E, the stand and fridge both have longer useful lives than the business’s inventory. This makes sense; fresh lemonade lasts a few days, whereas a refrigerator can be used for quite a few years. Another important distinction between inventory and property, plant, and equipment is that PP&E is less easily converted to cash. In essence, this means it is easier to sell your lemonade, lemons, ice, and sugar to generate revenue than to find another lemonade stand entrepreneur to buy your stand and minifridge from you. Despite these differences, all the above-listed items are assets because they carry value for the business. They represent future benefits, aka lemonade sales, to your small startup. Whether they do so by facilitating the production process or by being a component of the finished good helps us distinguish them as inventory or as PP&E. So whether you are operating a lemonade stand or perhaps manufacturing pixels for TCNJ’s campus, assets are those tools used in the business to create future value and that represent future benefits. By Kaelyn DiGiamarino A book review of Sheryl Sandberg's book. Two years ago, two words shook the way I perceive myself and my place in business: “Too nice.”
I walked out of my first professional interview expecting not to receive an internship offer, and I was correct in that expectation. What I did not expect was the feedback I received from the interviewer a few weeks later. I was not told I was under-qualified. I was not told I did not speak well, or that I was not presentable. I was not told that I was too young, or that I lacked the proper credentials. I was told that I was “Too nice.” Too nice—it is a phrase that turns a complimentary adjective into a derogatory one. In high school, my senior superlative in the yearbook was “Nicest girl” in my graduating class. The superlative I once took so much pride in now seemed to have been turned into one that indicated I was somehow unfit for the world of work. Two words turned a characteristic I once used to define myself into venomous self-doubt. In Lean In, Sheryl Sandberg points out that if a woman is seen as “nice,” she is often considered more nice than competent. Conversely, if a woman is viewed as competent she is unlikely to be seen as nice regardless of how nice she may, in fact, be. This juxtaposition of niceness with competence is just one of many perceptual imbalances that Sandberg discusses in her book. She describes both the major reasons as well as the lesser ones whereby women hold themselves back, “by lacking self-confidence, by not raising our hands, and by pulling back when we should be leaning in.” Whatever a woman’s hesitation to raise her hand is—perhaps a fear of not sounding intelligent enough, or a fear that the words she speaks may come out imperfectly—that hesitation is rooted in mental barriers women put up themselves. How easy it is for a woman to sit in a room thinking she is out of place, when in fact she may be one of the most valuable contributors in the room. Sandberg confronts the way women internalize the negative messages we get throughout our lives, whether it is being told we are too bossy or too nice. The internalization of these messages builds mental barriers that cause such hindering hesitation. As the Chief Operating Officer of Facebook and a former Google employee, Sandberg has spent a significant amount of time in the male-dominated world of Silicon Valley—the Silicon Valley of Ellen Pao’s discrimination lawsuit, of the forced resignation of Uber’s Travis Kalanick, and of a seemingly ubiquitous frat house atmosphere. In Lean In, she lays out and discusses in intimate detail the stumbling blocks she faced on her journey to the C-Suite. Sandberg’s book is indeed intimate in detail; she uses her own mistakes and insecurities as vivid examples, and she supports them with compelling data and research on the subject. Powerful writers and speakers do not just pass on a message to their audience; they inspire and motivate the audience. Powerful writers and speakers leave their audience with a feeling they cannot shake. Sandberg makes women feel capable. She tears down the instinctive tendencies women have to question our own abilities. She writes that, “When a man fails he points to factors like, ‘didn’t study enough’ or ‘not interested in the subject matter.’” But when a woman fails, her reasoning likely includes inherent lack of ability and unfitness. Self-doubt is an all-too-commonly seen self-defense mechanism. Sandberg makes women feel bold. The bright red signs in Facebook’s Menlo Park, CA headquarters read, “Fortune favors the bold”, “Proceed and be bold,” and “What would you do if you weren’t afraid?” The signs are not placed there without purpose. Be bold,” encourages Sandberg, because “opportunities are rarely offered; they’re seized.” These are the types of messages women must internalize and translate into action. Sandberg makes women feel ambitious. In a Hewlett-Packard internal report, it was revealed that women apply for open jobs if they think they meet 100% of the listed criteria. Men apply if they think they meet just 60% of the requirements. Sandberg states that women need to shift from thinking, “I’m not ready to do that,” to thinking, “I want to do that—and I’ll learn by doing it.” Sandberg makes women feel grounded. She recommends relinquishing the constant quest for perfection because it causes frustration and paralysis. Be a perfectionist in that which matters most, but embrace the “individuality that is honestly and sometimes imperfectly expressed” in true leadership. It is okay if a woman raises her hand and what she says is imperfect. What matters is the confidence she holds in her worth, her intelligence, and her ability to learn. Lean In is a vehicle to understanding the underlying forces of personality and place that shape the perspectives we assume and the positions we take. Lean In upends the feelings of reticence, tendencies toward self-doubt, or qualms about confrontation that are instilled in so many women from an early age. The business world can be relentless; match that relentlessness with your own insistence, your own confidence—your own niceness. Be relentlessly persistent. Take your place at the table, and raise your hand. Lean in, not out. By Jared Kofsky All across New Jersey, local, regional, and nationwide companies are planning to open new locations in both urban and suburban markets. Here is a look at some notable recent business news from municipalities across the Garden State, as initially reported on JerseyDigs.com. Shake Shack is continuing its expansion into New Jersey. The Manhattan-based chain of restaurants serving burgers, fries, frozen custard, and more just opened its first Essex County location along Route 10 and Eisenhower Parkway in Livingston. The new location, which is situated at the site of the former Margarita’s Mexican Restaurant, is within a new shopping plaza known as The Corner at Livingston Circle. Closer to campus, the company is proposing a new restaurant near the Quaker Bridge Mall at 3303 Brunswick Pike/Route 1 in Lawrence Township, according to a legal notice. The location, which would be built at the site of Patio World Home and Health, would be 35 feet tall and cover 3,622 square feet. Seventy parking spaces would be provided for customers. A new Shake Shack is also in the planning stages for opening in Evesham Township in Burlington County. New York Waterway may have ‘New York’ in its name, but New Jersey is where the Weehawken-based company has been focusing its expansion plans. The transportation provider, along with Mack-Cali subsidiary M-C Harborside Promenade, LLC, is in the process of constructing a new ferry stop along the Hudson River Waterfront Walkway near the Exchange Place PATH Station in Jersey City. The proposed terminal has already received approval from the Jersey City Planning Board, and is part of a $75 million rehabilitation and expansion of the Harborside complex. Service will be offered to Midtown West and Lower Manhattan. Pig and Khao, the restaurant on Manhattan’s Lower East Side serving Southeast Asian cuisine, now has an outpost on this side of the Hudson River. The business, owned by Leah Cohen and Benjamin Byruch, opened the Piggyback Bar on September 21st. Located at 200 Hudson Street in Jersey City’s Harborside development, Piggyback Bar successfully obtained Harborside Hospitality Corporation's liquor license earlier this year. The new 6,000-square foot location offers skyline views, an outdoor patio with 100 seats, and a menu ranging from watermelon juice to mapo chili dogs, according to Eater. YCS Investments, LLC is hoping to put ‘Trenton Makes’ back in the slogan ‘Trenton Makes, The World Takes.’ The company, which is based in Brooklyn’s Gowanus neighborhood, has applied for approval to open a manufacturing plant in a historic Trenton building. The two-story structure at 725 East State Street in the East Ward is slated to be converted into a facility that would make light fixtures. Parking would be provided for employees on the premises, according to a legal notice. This building is notable for the inscription reading 'Trenton Poster Advertising Company' atop a facade of the structure, a sign of the city's industrial past. The company merged with the R.C. Maxwell Company in 1923, according to Duke University, and created billboards along East State Street in this structure until 2000. By George Seitis Every once in a while, there comes a film that restores my faith in cinema as an art form. This summer, that film arrived: Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk. Dunkirk recounts the World War II story of Operation Dynamo, the evacuation of approximately 400,000 British and French soldiers from the beaches of Dunkirk, France while the German forces inexorably closed in on them, picking the soldiers off from the air. In the hands of any lesser director, this film might have been synonymous with any of the many other cookie-cutter blockbusters that constitute a given summer film season. Gratefully, Dunkirk isn’t one of those.
Dunkirk deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as David Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia and Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, two films that will remain classics for as long as humans value the cinema as an art form. Like those two classics, Dunkirk needs to be seen on as big a screen as possible, in as large a format as possible (preferably IMAX 70mm). While many audiences today can get by streaming most of today’s films on laptops and smartphones, doing so with Dunkirk would vastly diminish both the film’s impact and artistic merits. One such artistic merit is Hoyte van Hoytema’s miraculous large-format cinematography which somehow manages to capture the chaos of war austerely and with tremendous restraint. Another instantly noteworthy technical achievement is Lee Smith’s editing, which both trims fat from the film, and disassembles a simple linear story and reassembles it into something of a mean, lean, adrenaline-fueled film that wastes no time with backstory and instead focuses on the battle itself and the hell it truly was. But at the helm of the film is the man himself: Christopher Nolan, whose decisions as the film’s director are masterful. Nolan purposely refuses to show the Germans, and instead focuses on the evacuation through three distinct perspectives: the mole (the dock where many of the soldiers try to escape by boat, only to be bombed by German airplanes), the sea (a civilian ship that travels to Dunkirk to save as many men as possible), and the air (we ride along with Tom Hardy as he flies his Spitfire plane into peril, and tries to shoot down the German planes terrorizing the British and French soldiers). As mentioned before, in any other director’s hands this film would have been told linearly, which would have diminished the film’s quality; Nolan’s decision to let editor Lee intertwine the three perspectives into an unconventionally cohesive whole is part of what makes Dunkirk several cuts above any other war film in recent memory. As Nolan’s decision to interweave nonlinear storylines to compose a vast landscape of war suggests inspiration from the French New Wave era of filmmaking (particularly the films of Jean Luc Godard), his decision to focus on specific actions as opposed to grandiose battle scenes within these storylines mirrors the precise directing of French filmmaker Robert Bresson. Additionally, Nolan refuses to give many characters names; and while the film’s detractors could view this as a flaw, Nolan beautifully uses the tactic to put you, the audience in the role of the protagonist. It’s a micro war story told on a macro scale, which serves as the perfect metaphor for Dunkirk actually being an arthouse film disguised as a blockbuster. The film industry can--and should--take notes from Dunkirk. Unlike most Hollywood blockbuster films, Dunkirk proved to be a risky film to make; in an era of the cinema dominated by tentpole films, sequels, and superhero movies, Dunkirk uses innovative and unconventional directing techniques to convey a virtually “plotless” story told by an ensemble of actors, many of whom are acting for the first time. The risk involved was whether audiences were going to accept such an unconventional film in terms of Hollywood summer blockbuster standards. But they did, and this is thanks to two reasons: the first being Christopher Nolan himself. Nolan’s previous films include Inception and The Dark Knight, two films that were critically acclaimed and huge box-office successes. Audiences know what to expect when it comes to Christopher Nolan movies: films that are simultaneously complex, original and thrilling; yet possess wide audience appeal. The two dimensions are not mutually exclusive, and Hollywood studio heads should be aware of this fact if they want to increase profits. Recently, Dunkirk passed $500 million dollars in worldwide sales, so audiences still care about cinema as an art form and as a means of popular entertainment. The hope now is that studios increase the supply of these original concepts, which earn back their budget (Nolan made Dunkirk for $100 million) and much more (the only other original this year that achieved box-office success like Dunkirk was Edgar Wright’s original Baby Driver), and make more films that audiences clearly want to see. By Paul Mulholland Mark Zuckerberg has been causing a stir since last November. By Christmas, he had declared himself to no longer be an atheist, and claimed religion to be very important in his life. He then declared, by way of New Year’s resolution, his intent to visit every state in the Union and meet their inhabitants. He was sure to stop by, and be noticed in, Iowa this last June to speak with truck drivers and small business owners, and at Glacier National Park to speak with Park Rangers about global warming last July. These are the actions of a man who is, at a minimum, exploring the option of a Presidential run.
For Zuckerberg to make sure his curious religious awakening and New Year’s resolution were noticed publicly and to make them less than two months after Donald Trump’s surprise election victory seems to require an explanation. The fact that Zuckerberg, born May 14, 1984, will finally pass the minimum age of 35 set by the Constitution to be the President by 2020 seems to supply it. There is one major concern that comes with a Zuckerberg campaign, and it technically comes whether or not he runs at all: to what degree can Zuckerberg get away with using Facebook to help win an election? Zuckerberg would certainly not be the first candidate to use his own assets to his advantage; President Trump used his personal aircraft and real estate to facilitate his own campaign. The degree to which Facebook as a social media service can influence an election is currently being investigated. At the time this article was published, Facebook is still turning significant information over to Congress concerning Russia’s influence in the last election. Facebook claims that it has detected roughly 3,000 ads totalling $100,000 in value, connected to some 470 fake accounts based in Russia. The ads mainly emphasized divisive “social” issues (as opposed to non-social issues?) such as immigration and race, and included Facebook’s most popular Texas secession page which was mysteriously taken down, suggesting that Russia’s goal was to further divide and isolate Americans politically. In large part due to the last election, Facebook has improved its capacity to detect and remove undesirable content. Last December, Facebook announced new features for users to report “fake news”, as well as fake accounts four months later. Zuckerberg was also overheard speaking to German Chancellor Merkel two years ago in regard to the Syrian refugee crisis, and he appeared to offer to censor bigoted posts. Facebook has also been accused of having intentionally and systematically suppressed conservative news in its trending stories. If Facebook were to become more politically engaged, perhaps as a result of its CEO running for president, this behavior could escalate. How Zuckerberg plans to counter any accusation of stifling his opponents on Facebook would be interesting to see. Facebook’s increasing capacity to control the information that appears before its users, as well as to influence what readers think of those stories by labelling them as disputed, can potentially give it enormous clout in American politics. According to Pew Research, 62% of Americans get news through social media. This potential problem is compounded by the monopolization of social media: if Zuckerberg used Facebook to favor himself or an ally in a presidential campaign, would it discourage Facebook’s users from using the site? Probably not, where would they go? YouTube is in a similar position; it has recently removed precious historical content from the war in Syria in the name of fighting terrorism which could have been used in war crimes investigations and to study terrorism, and has demonetized accounts that are not “brand friendly”. There is a concerning lack of competition and rivalry in social media markets. Dominance in most markets translates into political power, but dominance in the market of information dissemination could translate into still greater political power. Facebook deliberately influences the content shared on its network and is perfecting its methods. Facebook’s influence on political campaigns is formidable, as is becoming clear, and that will remain true whether Zuckerberg runs for president or not. |