Tuesday 30 November 2010
Website Update
The MTP website has just been relaunched. Take a few moments to look around to see examples of the programmes we run for some of our long-standing clients such as BP and Unilever, an overview of the learning methods we employ, our latest events, publications and find out more about our tutors.
Tuesday 2 November 2010
Writing Training Products with Punch, by Rob Ashton, Training Journal, September 2010
I was drawn to this article because it is closely related to my current role at MTP - the production of learning material. Even though the writer is in the very different business of developing generic training products, many of the principles apply to the more interactive and tailored programmes that we design.
The article starts by providing a useful reminder of research findings that tie closely to the principles of programme design followed by MTP; it is suggested that learners only retain:
- 20% of what is heard
- 10% of what is read
- 70% of what is discussed with others and
- 80% of what is experienced
Having got off to such an excellent start, the author then slows things down by quoting some rather basic and obvious points about questions to be asked before material preparation is started. He also states a rather old fashioned opinion that early design preparation should be done ‘with pencil and paper’. Though this is a practice that I apply for certain types of preparation, I think that the younger generation, brought up on clipart and PowerPoint, may well have a different view.
Much of the rest of the article is confirmation of principles that many business writers would see as common sense, but which may be helpful for those with less experience. The author is in favour of bullet points in the right context but only in moderation; and, whilst he warns against too much jargon, he also makes the point that it can be used to advantage, to reinforce and show understanding of the learner’s familiar terminology.
The author also shares my preference for frequent subheadings and suggests snappy titles that make people want to read on. Though he quotes research evidence on the importance of visual appeal, he also makes it clear that this does not apply to everybody and that some learners will be more responsive to words and sounds.
There is more interesting research data which suggests a maximum sentence length of 34 words (must be careful to count!) but the author does not mention my own way of solving the length problem - the use of semi colons. (Sorry, that last sentence was over the limit). He also puts forward his own recommendation of one idea per sentence with a limit of 20 words, which seems to me to encourage too many short staccato sentences within a paragraph.
My own differing views perhaps illustrate the problem of being too prescriptive in this area; a lot depends on personal style, content and the nature of the audience. Also, despite the earlier reference to the research on learning retention, there is little mention in the article of the importance of interaction to learning design. Perhaps this is because the author specializes in the writing of ‘one-way’ material; however the fact remains that, if you believe his quoted research, only 10 per cent of what he writes is likely to be retained.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/writing-training-products-with-punch/
The article starts by providing a useful reminder of research findings that tie closely to the principles of programme design followed by MTP; it is suggested that learners only retain:
- 20% of what is heard
- 10% of what is read
- 70% of what is discussed with others and
- 80% of what is experienced
Having got off to such an excellent start, the author then slows things down by quoting some rather basic and obvious points about questions to be asked before material preparation is started. He also states a rather old fashioned opinion that early design preparation should be done ‘with pencil and paper’. Though this is a practice that I apply for certain types of preparation, I think that the younger generation, brought up on clipart and PowerPoint, may well have a different view.
Much of the rest of the article is confirmation of principles that many business writers would see as common sense, but which may be helpful for those with less experience. The author is in favour of bullet points in the right context but only in moderation; and, whilst he warns against too much jargon, he also makes the point that it can be used to advantage, to reinforce and show understanding of the learner’s familiar terminology.
The author also shares my preference for frequent subheadings and suggests snappy titles that make people want to read on. Though he quotes research evidence on the importance of visual appeal, he also makes it clear that this does not apply to everybody and that some learners will be more responsive to words and sounds.
There is more interesting research data which suggests a maximum sentence length of 34 words (must be careful to count!) but the author does not mention my own way of solving the length problem - the use of semi colons. (Sorry, that last sentence was over the limit). He also puts forward his own recommendation of one idea per sentence with a limit of 20 words, which seems to me to encourage too many short staccato sentences within a paragraph.
My own differing views perhaps illustrate the problem of being too prescriptive in this area; a lot depends on personal style, content and the nature of the audience. Also, despite the earlier reference to the research on learning retention, there is little mention in the article of the importance of interaction to learning design. Perhaps this is because the author specializes in the writing of ‘one-way’ material; however the fact remains that, if you believe his quoted research, only 10 per cent of what he writes is likely to be retained.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/writing-training-products-with-punch/
Schumpeter; Money and Power, Economist, 2nd October 2010
Again we find that this relatively new column in the Economist discusses a topical theme in a thought-provoking way. It makes the point that business people and business skills rarely transfer into the political and public service environment, whether it is the USA, UK or the rest of Europe.
The article starts by describing the most recent examples of business people going into politics, both female; Meg Whitman, founder of EBay and Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett Packard are both spending some of their fortunes on political ambition. Whitman is trying to displace Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California and Fiorina to secure a Senate seat.
Schumpeter also quotes the UK’s new coalition government and their decision to bring in high profile figures like John Browne and Philip Green to work in government. However it is early days to evaluate these moves and it might have been more relevant to describe the failed transitions into politics of successful industrialists like Archie Norman and Digby Jones, who could not cope with - or tolerate - the very different pressures of political life.
The article confirms that, in general, the transfer of business skills to the public sector is not easy and should not be assumed. In the USA there have been a few honourable exceptions - Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York is mentioned - but many more failures, the most notable of whom were Paul O’Neill and Donald Rumsfeld from the Bush regime.
The reason for the majority of failures is that very different skills are required in the public sector environment; bosses tend to be more protected in the private sector and can make better use of their leadership charisma; also they are less constrained by regulation and employee resistance. Schumpeter argues that, rather than trying to make these difficult transfers, it would be better to make the public sector develop more choice and competition in its decision making. However, this begs the question - who else is likely to introduce these disciplines, apart from business managers?
As often happens with Economist articles, the reader is left wanting more and I would certainly have liked to explore the above question further. It would also have been interesting to explore whether, after the relative success in politics of Schwarzenegger, Heston and Reagan, could it be that the skills of a film actor are more transferable to politics than the skills of a business person?
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.economist.com/node/17147638
The article starts by describing the most recent examples of business people going into politics, both female; Meg Whitman, founder of EBay and Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett Packard are both spending some of their fortunes on political ambition. Whitman is trying to displace Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California and Fiorina to secure a Senate seat.
Schumpeter also quotes the UK’s new coalition government and their decision to bring in high profile figures like John Browne and Philip Green to work in government. However it is early days to evaluate these moves and it might have been more relevant to describe the failed transitions into politics of successful industrialists like Archie Norman and Digby Jones, who could not cope with - or tolerate - the very different pressures of political life.
The article confirms that, in general, the transfer of business skills to the public sector is not easy and should not be assumed. In the USA there have been a few honourable exceptions - Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York is mentioned - but many more failures, the most notable of whom were Paul O’Neill and Donald Rumsfeld from the Bush regime.
The reason for the majority of failures is that very different skills are required in the public sector environment; bosses tend to be more protected in the private sector and can make better use of their leadership charisma; also they are less constrained by regulation and employee resistance. Schumpeter argues that, rather than trying to make these difficult transfers, it would be better to make the public sector develop more choice and competition in its decision making. However, this begs the question - who else is likely to introduce these disciplines, apart from business managers?
As often happens with Economist articles, the reader is left wanting more and I would certainly have liked to explore the above question further. It would also have been interesting to explore whether, after the relative success in politics of Schwarzenegger, Heston and Reagan, could it be that the skills of a film actor are more transferable to politics than the skills of a business person?
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.economist.com/node/17147638
Designing e-learning for business impact, by Lars Hyland, Training Journal, September 2010
This is an article that makes a number of good points but appears out of date in its thinking. It starts by a strong advocacy of e-learning as the way of achieving ‘productivity gains and tangible business improvement’ during these hard recessionary times. This seems to me to ignore an important point; that the recent development of live on-line sessions, led by a facilitator, can often provide more effective learning at lower cost than traditional - and less flexible - e-learning solutions.
The author has developed a rather clever pneumonic to describe his ‘IMPACT’ framework, though I confess to a certain suspicion of such convenient word matches. IMPACT stands for:
- Interaction
- Multimedia/Multimodal
- Personal
- Actionable
- Challenging
- Timing
It would certainly be difficult to disagree with any of these headings but the subsequent content of the article does not always match the chosen words. I certainly agree with his emphasis on interaction; there are still many e-learning packages that are merely ‘text on screen’ and add even less value than a text book. Multiple choice questions and short exercises are essential ingredients of effective e-learning, particularly in the areas of business and finance where we operate.
I was curious about the term ‘multimodal’ but it turns out to be another term for blended learning (perhaps this was rejected as there is no B in impact!). I would also like to have heard more about the practical implications of making learning ‘personal’; one of the limitations of the early e-learning packages was the need to make them generic, because of the high initial investment and the extra costs and complexity of tailoring. It would have been good to have the author’s views on the extent to which self-design packages like Adobe Presenter have solved this problem; our own concern is that these do not do much more than add voice and a limited quiz facility to PowerPoint slides.
Under the heading of Challenging it is suggested that too much e-learning is simplistic and does not challenge the learner. Whilst accepting that this is true in some cases, there are some advantages in ‘easy questions’, particularly during the early stages; it makes sense to start with some simple content to build up confidence and then gradually increase the challenge. There is as much danger in being too challenging and frightening the learner away, as there is in being too simplistic.
My final concern about the article is a weakness that is typical of those who write on this topic, a reluctance to accept that e-learning is better suited to some subjects than others. It is fine for knowledge-based topics with clear content and accepted right answers; it is less appropriate for skills based areas where experience and discussion are essential for learning. And blended solutions can be designed to integrate the different approaches into a coherent whole.
I guess that the kind of narrow, self-serving approach shown by this article is inevitable when magazines like the Training Journal accept contributions from those who are selling specific products. Though you can gain some insights from such articles, much more would be achieved if the publishers would look for more contributions from those who are at the user end of the market.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/designing-e-learning-for-business-impact/
The author has developed a rather clever pneumonic to describe his ‘IMPACT’ framework, though I confess to a certain suspicion of such convenient word matches. IMPACT stands for:
- Interaction
- Multimedia/Multimodal
- Personal
- Actionable
- Challenging
- Timing
It would certainly be difficult to disagree with any of these headings but the subsequent content of the article does not always match the chosen words. I certainly agree with his emphasis on interaction; there are still many e-learning packages that are merely ‘text on screen’ and add even less value than a text book. Multiple choice questions and short exercises are essential ingredients of effective e-learning, particularly in the areas of business and finance where we operate.
I was curious about the term ‘multimodal’ but it turns out to be another term for blended learning (perhaps this was rejected as there is no B in impact!). I would also like to have heard more about the practical implications of making learning ‘personal’; one of the limitations of the early e-learning packages was the need to make them generic, because of the high initial investment and the extra costs and complexity of tailoring. It would have been good to have the author’s views on the extent to which self-design packages like Adobe Presenter have solved this problem; our own concern is that these do not do much more than add voice and a limited quiz facility to PowerPoint slides.
Under the heading of Challenging it is suggested that too much e-learning is simplistic and does not challenge the learner. Whilst accepting that this is true in some cases, there are some advantages in ‘easy questions’, particularly during the early stages; it makes sense to start with some simple content to build up confidence and then gradually increase the challenge. There is as much danger in being too challenging and frightening the learner away, as there is in being too simplistic.
My final concern about the article is a weakness that is typical of those who write on this topic, a reluctance to accept that e-learning is better suited to some subjects than others. It is fine for knowledge-based topics with clear content and accepted right answers; it is less appropriate for skills based areas where experience and discussion are essential for learning. And blended solutions can be designed to integrate the different approaches into a coherent whole.
I guess that the kind of narrow, self-serving approach shown by this article is inevitable when magazines like the Training Journal accept contributions from those who are selling specific products. Though you can gain some insights from such articles, much more would be achieved if the publishers would look for more contributions from those who are at the user end of the market.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/designing-e-learning-for-business-impact/
‘Learning the hard way’ by Peter Bartram, Director, October 2010 and ‘Will an MBA keep your career buoyant?’ by Philip Delves Broughton, Management Today, October 2010.
These two magazines both included articles on the current state of the MBA and I am covering them both together. I suspect that their coverage of this topic is more about attracting advertising than increasing knowledge and both articles have elements of superficiality that are typical of these magazines’ contributions on learning and development. Nevertheless there are some interesting insights and recent statistics.
The Management Today article is much the better of the two, because it is written by someone who has an MBA from Harvard and has written a book and other articles on the topic, as covered in earlier blogs. Broughton makes the following points:
- The days of fat salaries and easy jobs for MBAs are over
- Employers are now looking for functional specialists rather than qualified generalists
- These trends have been made worse by the sullied reputation of the MBA following the recession; too many bankers and failed/crooked CEOs had those three letters after their names
- The result is that applications are well down and newly qualified MBAs - even from the top schools - are not finding it easy to get jobs
- Those taking an MBA to achieve a career switch from one sector or function to another are finding that this is not easy either
- Emerging markets provide the best opportunities; their economies are more buoyant and the MBA is more highly regarded
Many of the same points are made in the Director article and there are some specific statistics to confirm the downturn in MBA enrolments. It quotes some interesting and surprising research by ‘Beyond Grey Pinstripes’ which showed that only 5 UK schools were in the global top 100 and the highest was Nottingham University at 23 with London Business School trailing in the 90s. However a quick search showed me that Harvard and MIT were not even in the top 100, presumably because they did not respond to the researchers. It does the Director no credit to be publishing such superficial and misleading data.
This article also suggests that a major factor in the decline is major companies’ lack of willingness to invest in MBAs for existing managers, even though they may need that kind of broadening (an interesting statistic is that 60% of managers did not plan to be at that level and many are ‘reluctant’ and therefore unprepared for managerial life). However their employers are tending to prefer more tailored and targeted solutions, with on-line learning as the major growth area. Whether this can achieve the same benefits for a manager who needs to broaden horizons and enhance business acumen is not discussed. Our experience and strongly held view is that this is only possible from ‘face to face’ programmes or tutor-led virtual classroom sessions, not from conventional e-learning.
Click here to read the articles in full;
http://www.director.co.uk/MAGAZINE/2010/9_October/learning-the-hard-way_64_02.html/
The Management Today article is much the better of the two, because it is written by someone who has an MBA from Harvard and has written a book and other articles on the topic, as covered in earlier blogs. Broughton makes the following points:
- The days of fat salaries and easy jobs for MBAs are over
- Employers are now looking for functional specialists rather than qualified generalists
- These trends have been made worse by the sullied reputation of the MBA following the recession; too many bankers and failed/crooked CEOs had those three letters after their names
- The result is that applications are well down and newly qualified MBAs - even from the top schools - are not finding it easy to get jobs
- Those taking an MBA to achieve a career switch from one sector or function to another are finding that this is not easy either
- Emerging markets provide the best opportunities; their economies are more buoyant and the MBA is more highly regarded
Many of the same points are made in the Director article and there are some specific statistics to confirm the downturn in MBA enrolments. It quotes some interesting and surprising research by ‘Beyond Grey Pinstripes’ which showed that only 5 UK schools were in the global top 100 and the highest was Nottingham University at 23 with London Business School trailing in the 90s. However a quick search showed me that Harvard and MIT were not even in the top 100, presumably because they did not respond to the researchers. It does the Director no credit to be publishing such superficial and misleading data.
This article also suggests that a major factor in the decline is major companies’ lack of willingness to invest in MBAs for existing managers, even though they may need that kind of broadening (an interesting statistic is that 60% of managers did not plan to be at that level and many are ‘reluctant’ and therefore unprepared for managerial life). However their employers are tending to prefer more tailored and targeted solutions, with on-line learning as the major growth area. Whether this can achieve the same benefits for a manager who needs to broaden horizons and enhance business acumen is not discussed. Our experience and strongly held view is that this is only possible from ‘face to face’ programmes or tutor-led virtual classroom sessions, not from conventional e-learning.
Click here to read the articles in full;
http://www.director.co.uk/MAGAZINE/2010/9_October/learning-the-hard-way_64_02.html/
‘Stress-test your strategy’; the seven questions to ask’, by Robert Simons, Harvard Business Review, November 2010
I was initially attracted to this article because it seemed to offer a practical approach to assessing strategy, which is quite unusual from a Harvard Professor. But I ended up disappointed and quite surprised that Harvard Business Review would publish something that was so lacking in academic rigour; anyone with business experience could develop a similar list of questions to test a strategy; the key issue is whether it can be justified compared to others.
The seven questions, each of which has to receive ‘clear, consistent answers’ are:
1. Who is your primary customer?
2. Are your core values prioritized between shareholders, employees or customers?
3. What critical performance variables are you tracking?
4. What strategic boundaries have you set?
5. How are you generating creative tension?
6. How committed are your employees to helping each other?
7. What strategic uncertainties keep you awake at night?
I am not suggesting that there won’t be some benefit from posing some of this rather random collection of questions but the author does not do enough to explain why he has chosen these rather the many others that could have been listed; none of the questions seem as fundamental as those asked by leading strategy gurus, like Levitt’s ‘what business are we in? or Hamel/Prahalad’s ‘what are our core competences?’. There is also no progression from one question to another and, in some cases, no convincing explanation of what the answers to the questions should be. The rather optimistic suggestion is that the very asking of the questions is enough.
As one would hope from a Harvard Professor, there are some interesting insights and examples to justify each question. But not all these examples are convincing, for instance the suggestion that McDonalds turned things round in 2003 because the new CEO asked question one and decided that the consumer (rather than the franchise owner) should be the primary focus. Or that Home Depot sold its wholesale business through asking the same question. Though there is clearly benefit from focusing effort and resources, it seems simplistic to suggest that top CEOs are incapable of managing the needs of more than one customer group.
Among the powerful points is the suggestion under question three that most companies have too many ‘KPIs’ and that this confuses management and diverts their attention. He also suggests under question four that it is vital to tell innovative people what they should NOT do so that there efforts are not wasted; he suggests that this is one of the secrets of Apple’s success since Steve Jobs returned.
Questions five and six are interesting in that there seems to be potential contradiction; five says that everyone should be competing with each other and looking to be top of the league whereas six says that everyone has to work together and show trust and flexibility. And question seven seems to be the strangest of them all; there is no argument to justify why losing sleep will test your strategy and what sort of answers should be forthcoming.
So, while any checklist of questions can be a helpful in developing a strategy, this one is unlikely to help companies who are looking for structure in their planning processes. Any group of academics or managers could come up with a similar or better list after an hour or so of brainstorming. But of course our efforts wouldn’t get into the Harvard Business Review!
Click here to read the article in full;
http://hbr.org/2010/11/stress-test-your-strategy-the-7-questions-to-ask/ar/1
The seven questions, each of which has to receive ‘clear, consistent answers’ are:
1. Who is your primary customer?
2. Are your core values prioritized between shareholders, employees or customers?
3. What critical performance variables are you tracking?
4. What strategic boundaries have you set?
5. How are you generating creative tension?
6. How committed are your employees to helping each other?
7. What strategic uncertainties keep you awake at night?
I am not suggesting that there won’t be some benefit from posing some of this rather random collection of questions but the author does not do enough to explain why he has chosen these rather the many others that could have been listed; none of the questions seem as fundamental as those asked by leading strategy gurus, like Levitt’s ‘what business are we in? or Hamel/Prahalad’s ‘what are our core competences?’. There is also no progression from one question to another and, in some cases, no convincing explanation of what the answers to the questions should be. The rather optimistic suggestion is that the very asking of the questions is enough.
As one would hope from a Harvard Professor, there are some interesting insights and examples to justify each question. But not all these examples are convincing, for instance the suggestion that McDonalds turned things round in 2003 because the new CEO asked question one and decided that the consumer (rather than the franchise owner) should be the primary focus. Or that Home Depot sold its wholesale business through asking the same question. Though there is clearly benefit from focusing effort and resources, it seems simplistic to suggest that top CEOs are incapable of managing the needs of more than one customer group.
Among the powerful points is the suggestion under question three that most companies have too many ‘KPIs’ and that this confuses management and diverts their attention. He also suggests under question four that it is vital to tell innovative people what they should NOT do so that there efforts are not wasted; he suggests that this is one of the secrets of Apple’s success since Steve Jobs returned.
Questions five and six are interesting in that there seems to be potential contradiction; five says that everyone should be competing with each other and looking to be top of the league whereas six says that everyone has to work together and show trust and flexibility. And question seven seems to be the strangest of them all; there is no argument to justify why losing sleep will test your strategy and what sort of answers should be forthcoming.
So, while any checklist of questions can be a helpful in developing a strategy, this one is unlikely to help companies who are looking for structure in their planning processes. Any group of academics or managers could come up with a similar or better list after an hour or so of brainstorming. But of course our efforts wouldn’t get into the Harvard Business Review!
Click here to read the article in full;
http://hbr.org/2010/11/stress-test-your-strategy-the-7-questions-to-ask/ar/1
Wall Street 2 – Money Never Sleeps
I decided to watch the original Wall Street before seeing this film and I was surprisingly disappointed. It had its good moments but seemed long, dated and unrealistic, very different to how I remembered it. This may be because it is more than 20 years old but really good films tend not to feel dated, or at least you accept them as right for the period.
This lowered my expectations for the follow up but I was pleasantly surprised. Though the story line had elements of soap opera in it, the film was much more engaging than the original and, with a few exceptions, quite realistic for a film of its kind. And Michael Douglas was superb, acting his younger cast members off the screen and presenting – at least initially – a new and humbled Gordon Gekko, sobered by his years in jail. The opening scene where he collects his belongings – including a brick size mobile phone – on leaving prison and has no-one to meet him outside, is a masterpiece.
The setting for most of the film is the height of the financial crisis which Gekko, now earning his living as a hired speaker and business guru, has been forecasting for some time. The crisis meetings are portrayed very credibly except for the characterisation of one senior investment banker who seems about 100 years old and totally senile, yet is supposed to exert great influence over his younger colleagues. The early personal focus is on Gekko’s estranged daughter – the ubiquitous British Actress Carey Mulligan – and the attempts of her boyfriend to reconcile her with Gekko. The boyfriend is a successful investment banker whose firm is hit by the crisis and whose CEO throws himself under a train in a devastating but tastefully handled scene.
Eventually father and daughter get together and it turns out that Gekko has stashed away 100 million dollars which together they access in a Swiss bank account. There is a double twist at the end which stretches credibility to some extent, particularly when Gekko converts the 100 million into 1000 million within a few months and has investment bankers pleading to join his fund. But by that time you are hooked on Gekko and, largely due to Douglas’s brilliant performance, disbelief is suspended.
It would be good to think that there could be a Wall Street 3 but that is probably the last thing on Michael Douglas’s mind right now. Any future film from this outstanding actor will be a bonus.
This lowered my expectations for the follow up but I was pleasantly surprised. Though the story line had elements of soap opera in it, the film was much more engaging than the original and, with a few exceptions, quite realistic for a film of its kind. And Michael Douglas was superb, acting his younger cast members off the screen and presenting – at least initially – a new and humbled Gordon Gekko, sobered by his years in jail. The opening scene where he collects his belongings – including a brick size mobile phone – on leaving prison and has no-one to meet him outside, is a masterpiece.
The setting for most of the film is the height of the financial crisis which Gekko, now earning his living as a hired speaker and business guru, has been forecasting for some time. The crisis meetings are portrayed very credibly except for the characterisation of one senior investment banker who seems about 100 years old and totally senile, yet is supposed to exert great influence over his younger colleagues. The early personal focus is on Gekko’s estranged daughter – the ubiquitous British Actress Carey Mulligan – and the attempts of her boyfriend to reconcile her with Gekko. The boyfriend is a successful investment banker whose firm is hit by the crisis and whose CEO throws himself under a train in a devastating but tastefully handled scene.
Eventually father and daughter get together and it turns out that Gekko has stashed away 100 million dollars which together they access in a Swiss bank account. There is a double twist at the end which stretches credibility to some extent, particularly when Gekko converts the 100 million into 1000 million within a few months and has investment bankers pleading to join his fund. But by that time you are hooked on Gekko and, largely due to Douglas’s brilliant performance, disbelief is suspended.
It would be good to think that there could be a Wall Street 3 but that is probably the last thing on Michael Douglas’s mind right now. Any future film from this outstanding actor will be a bonus.
Social Network
I started with a positive attitude towards this film, having read the book on which it was based. Often the film does not match the book that has been read before but in this case it was even better. It is highly enjoyable, even though it is has a number of dark settings and every character turns out to be completely unlovable. You end up thinking that they all deserve each other.
The story revolves around the founding of Facebook and the legal wrangles that took place following the early development of the concept at Harvard University. The founder Mark Zuckerberg is accused of stealing the idea from the Winklevoss twins who hired him to programme their similar concept. The scene where the twins visit the President of Harvard to complain about Zuckerberg’s ethics is a great piece of cinema and worth the entrance fee on its own. Another great scene is where Zuckerberg is interrogated by the twins’ lawyer and raises arrogance to new heights. (‘Are you giving me your full attention Mr Zuckerberg? I’m under oath to tell the truth so the answer is no’)
Zuckerberg then (allegedly - how do they avoid libel suits from this kind of film?) double crosses the partner who has funded the early investment and goes off to California where he hooks up with Sean Parker, the founder of Napster and the only person who Zuckerberg seems to rate and respect. Parker is played by Justin Timberlake whose performance proves to be a rare example of a singer who is an even better actor.
In the end everyone ends up rich but also seemingly unhappy with life, which perhaps sends a message to us all. The film does not take us beyond the first year of Facebook’s life and you wonder how Zuckerberg feels now, as the owner of a billion dollar business and one of the world’s best known brands. It cries out for a sequel but I suspect that it will not be allowed to happen.
Altogether this is an excellent film, also enjoyed by my wife, daughter and granddaughter, which says something for its wide appeal.
The story revolves around the founding of Facebook and the legal wrangles that took place following the early development of the concept at Harvard University. The founder Mark Zuckerberg is accused of stealing the idea from the Winklevoss twins who hired him to programme their similar concept. The scene where the twins visit the President of Harvard to complain about Zuckerberg’s ethics is a great piece of cinema and worth the entrance fee on its own. Another great scene is where Zuckerberg is interrogated by the twins’ lawyer and raises arrogance to new heights. (‘Are you giving me your full attention Mr Zuckerberg? I’m under oath to tell the truth so the answer is no’)
Zuckerberg then (allegedly - how do they avoid libel suits from this kind of film?) double crosses the partner who has funded the early investment and goes off to California where he hooks up with Sean Parker, the founder of Napster and the only person who Zuckerberg seems to rate and respect. Parker is played by Justin Timberlake whose performance proves to be a rare example of a singer who is an even better actor.
In the end everyone ends up rich but also seemingly unhappy with life, which perhaps sends a message to us all. The film does not take us beyond the first year of Facebook’s life and you wonder how Zuckerberg feels now, as the owner of a billion dollar business and one of the world’s best known brands. It cries out for a sequel but I suspect that it will not be allowed to happen.
Altogether this is an excellent film, also enjoyed by my wife, daughter and granddaughter, which says something for its wide appeal.