kristineberth

Better yet, comply and get your privacy/data management chops together so that you're comfortably able to navigate a world where this type of legislation is likely to become more and more common. Not to mention the fact that there's an increase in interest/awareness about these matters amongst the general public.

It depends. When Canada's anti-spam law was introduced in 2014, the intent was to allow a private right of action effective July 1, 2017. This would theoretically mean US/foreign companies could be dragged into class-action lawsuits in Canada. This private right of action was delayed and is currently under review, but nevertheless anyone marketing to Canadians is subject to CASL laws, regardless of where their business is located. We'll see what happens, but if/when the private right of action is implemented it could potentially be a big deal.

IANAL but I can imagine a similar situation happening with GDPR.

I have a sneaking suspicion that in the not-too-distant future there will be a very significant cultural backlash against all of this noise, all of this hyper-connectedness.

Nearly all the revenue in ads has now been captured by Google and Facebook, which is the far greater challenge for publishers.

Gotcha, thank you for the explanation.

> Disconnect a country from the Internet (or filter the traffic) and you're forking the chain.

Is this necessarily true? Forgive my ignorance but if we're talking Bitcoin, wouldn't the rest of the remaining miners around the world be able to account for this? And would the situation be meaningfully different in the country in question were China (or another of similar size/mining power)?

Frankly I'd be surprised if she had never been harassed in some way. I know a grand total of zero women a decade into their careers who have literally never experienced some kind of harassment. Without being able to speak for her, I can surmise that maybe she just doesn't feel it needs to define her.

Depends how you define results. As a "woman in tech," I don't actively participate in these movements that much, but I certainly benefit from the extra visibility they give to women who are succeeding in this industry. I often think one of the biggest hurdles is finding relatable role models that can serve as a template for your own success and career path. When I first started out, there were a couple of obvious examples, but it was hard for me to picture what a female 'leader' should look like, aside from the old stereotype of a ball-busting corporate woman who acts like a man. That has meaningfully changed in the last few years. I now know -- and see -- a lot more examples of women who I can relate to, who are finding lots of success in this field. I realize this is anecdotal but in terms of my own career development, it feels significant. I tend to think it will benefit other women as well, and perhaps serve to normalize the idea of women succeeding in what was traditionally a male-dominated field, thereby attracting more young women to the field.

That said, I definitely recoil at the idea of being selected for any role or being treated differently simply because I'm female, since I would put my own abilities up against my male peers without hesitation. Special treatment feels condescending.

I didn't interpret that comment as a suggestion that you have an interest in suppressing women and minorities. But you might have a subconscious interest in maintaining your own worldview, wherein you're part of a group of people that 'gets' or 'finds value in' tech, and others aren't.

The subconscious forces that shape the way people think about these issues are the most pernicious.

Absolutely. The right marketing people will take that entire lead gen/relationship building/RFP process to a whole new level.

I'm all for flexible work arrangements for people, no matter what their gender. But I have to say I disagree with you. Many roles are not necessarily customer facing but require a lot of interaction with a team. In the startup world the pace at which you have to operate is relentless, and in many roles it's critical that numerous people work together on a variety of projects. Yes, you can dial someone in. You can try to schedule meetings around their particular schedule. But ultimately it is SO much easier to get things done if you're all in the same place (the office) for relatively similar core hours day-in and day-out. Ideas arise out of conversations. People end up becoming privvy to information and conversations that are perhaps only tangentially related to their role. Or they end up joining new projects rather informally and organically. Which is exactly what often leads to (and prepares you for) more senior roles.

There are trade-offs that have to be made to work remotely or to have less face-to-face interaction with your teammates than others. In many cases these negatively impact your ability to move up, to succeed or to function well with a team. This is of course not true for every role or company, but it's true for many.

Bummer, they were on a hiring rampage here in Vancouver last year.

Or travel and meet face-to-face. Works just as well.

The problem with finding great marketing people is that there's no barrier to entry into the profession. Anyone can (and does) say that they're a 'marketing expert,' a 'growth hacker' or a 'marketing guru' [gag]. To be great at it, yes, people need to have technical ability. But they also need a sort of sixth-sense intuition (visual sensibility, language skills, an understanding of psychology) that can't be taught or bought.

In my decade in the field I've observed almost zero correlation between marketing-specific education and ability. Experience yes, but education no.

It's a frustrating profession to be in sometimes because often only great marketers can spot other great marketers. Meanwhile sh*tty ones ruin the field's rep for everyone else.

PressReader.

6,000+ publishing partners around the world (USA Today, Washington Post, The Guardian, Le Monde, Newsweek, Bloomberg Businessweek, Vogue, GQ, etc.) Unlimited access model, all you can read on your smartphone or tablet.

Two business models: (1) Consumer subscription ($29.95USD/mo) (2) Sponsored by a business (stay at one of 10,000+ hotels who sponsor PressReader access for their guests, fly with airlines like Qantas, visit a local library that sponsors access, etc.)

Millions of MAUs and growing at light speed.

Business model: royalties paid to publishers whenever someone reads their content, so generates revenue and audience for publishers.

(Full disclosure: I work for PressReader.)

Sure, but asking about marital status isn't the 'shocking' behavior I'm thinking of, personally... unfortunately, people who get upset about tiny little 'offenses' often discredit entire (very valid) movements designed to eradicate much more pernicious behavior than that.

You can read up to 90 days of back issues, full-version. If you have a subscription ($30USD/month) it's all-you-can-read unlimited access to everything. If you'd like to purchase a single issue instead of subscribing, you can, but the subscription model gives you full access.

Better yet, visit the PressReader HotSpot Map and you'll see all the places you can get full access to PressReader for free. You just have to access it while you're connected to their WiFi: http://www.pressreader.com/hotspot/map

"What we realized is that while many women shared similar workplace stories, most men were simply shocked and unaware of the issues facing women in the workplace."

This point is bang on. Nice guys often assume other men think like they do, but that's not always the case. Ask some women you're close to about their experiences -- it's likely to be educational, at very least.

PressReader does this at a much bigger scale than Blendle. It's truly Netflix-for-newspapers-and-magazines. 5,000+ titles, full versions, current day, all-you-can-read model. It's paid for either by personal subscriptions ($30USD/month) or sponsored access is provided by businesses (airlines like Qantas and Virgin Australia, thousands of major hotels around the world, 20,000+ libraries, a partnership with Uber in France for the Cannes Film Festival, etc.) Users can download full titles onto their own device and save them for later reading too.

Full disclosure, I work at PressReader. But it surprises me sometimes when we're not mentioned in these conversations. We do huge business internationally, have millions of active users, have been profitable for years, and are growing at an absolutely insane rate. It's a win-win business model because readers get content (often for free since it's sponsored by a brand they're a customer of), publishers make money (we pay royalties when their content is read), and brands have the opportunity to offer something tangible and personalized to their customers.

Are you Safe Harbor compliant?