So I guess print is not dead. In fact, it is quite alive, according to the Financial Times. Readers of Entertainment Weekly will soon be privy to moving video-style ads within the pages of the magazine. Hogwarts grads and fans of dragon-related foods may find this exciting as similar concepts have been featured in "Harry Potter" books/films.

When some readers of Entertainment Weekly open their magazines next month, they will discover characters from US television programmes speaking to them from a wafer-thin video screen built into the page.

The marketing experiment – which is being conducted by CBS, the US broadcaster, and Pepsi, the soft drinks maker – recalls the fantasy newspapers of the Harry Potter films and works much like a singing greetings card, with the video starting once a reader turns the appropriate page.

The cost of the full-motion video ad was not disclosed, but it will be far more expensive than traditional print ads, according to executives familiar with the technology, developed by a US company called Americhip.

The willingness to spend on such a promotion highlights the radical means marketers are employing to reach consumers at a time when a growing number of people are using new technologies such as digital video recorders to avoid ads.

“It’s part of the future – a way to engage consumers in new and surprising ways,” said George Schweitzer, president of CBS marketing group. “How do you sample a drink? You give them a taste.”

In the Harry Potter films, the “Daily Prophet” newspaper has pictures that move. The ad in Entertainment Weekly will feature characters from several Monday night offerings on CBS, as well as a video promoting a Pepsi diet cola for men.

The video, which will play on a screen about the size of those found on mobile telephones, will appear in copies of the Time Warner magazine sent to subscribers in the New York and Los Angeles areas.

Oh, the agony of job searches. There’s the time-consuming process of developing a summary of your many accomplishments and attributes (as hours pass, you begin to wonder if you’ll be finished when Haley’s Comet reappears in 2062). Nail-biting interviews also take a toll (sadly, willing the telephone to ring won’t guarantee a job offer). Here’s the good news: Your best weapon in the “job search jungle” is something you have complete control over — your résumé.

But, be aware: typos translate to trouble.

A recent article I saw polled senior executives at the country’s largest companies. Forty percent of respondents revealed they would disqualify candidates who submitted résumés containing grammatical errors.

Talk about having one chance to make a first impression!

The story also revealed some sloppy mistakes that sent the candidate packing:

• Hope to hear from you shorty.
• Have a keen eye for derail.
• I’m attacking my resume for you to review.
• Dear Sir or Madman (this is one of my favorites. Unless you really are applying to work for a madman, this salutation won’t earn you any points.)

Evn if re-reading you’re résumé becomes less appealing than other tasks such as tackling outdoor chores – during a blizzard – give it one last look (did you catch my misspelling of “Even” and "your?”). Otherwise, one mistake could bring it a one-way ticket to a potential employer’s trash can.  

Critics of cap and trade remain unconvinced that tightening the reins on CO2 emissions in America would have much impact on global pollution — and thus would hinder American businesses with little benefit. That’s a sentiment echoed by the Heartland Institute:

Already responsible for one-third of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, China, India, and other Asian nations are on pace to generate more than 40 percent of the world’s emissions by 2030, according to data released at a climate change conference in Manila, Philippines…

Following a recent visit to Beijing by U.S. climate change envoy Todd Stern, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang indicated his country has no plans to curb emissions in the near future, regardless of whether the United States does so.

“China is still a developing country, and the present task confronting China is to develop its economy and alleviate poverty, as well as raise the living standard of its people,” Gang told reporters. “Given that, it is natural for China to have some increase in its emissions, so it is not possible for China in that context to accept a binding or compulsory target.”

Max Schulz, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, observes China and India have both publicly stated they have no plans to slow their growth.

“The steep growth in emissions by developing Asian countries, combined with clear statements that these nations have no plans to curtail their emissions, further highlights the futility of the United States’ plans to make drastic cuts in emissions,” said Schulz.

What do you think? Would cap and trade be futile due to the impact of Asian polluters et al.?

While many agree that health care reform is necessary, the level of disagreement on the current proposals in Washington is extremely high. Let’s hope that reasonable debate and compromise will lead to a sensible solution.

No matter how that plays out, one aspect that needs to stop is the all-out attack on the insurance industry. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) has made insurance companies the primary culprit. "It’s almost immoral what they are doing," Pelosi told reporters, adding, "Of course they’ve been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure. They are the villians. They have been part of the problem in a major way."

President Obama, in discussing the public option for health insurance, said, "We want to keep the insurance industry honest" and that can be done by having a public option that will compete with private insurers.

I understand that many folks don’t like the fact that insurance companies make a profit. Profit in this country, for some unknown reason, has become an evil pursuit. In a recent Fortune magazine ranking of industries, health insurers ranked 35th with a 2.2% profit margin. (The larger numbers cited for earlier in the decade were primarily a result of significant consolidation in the industry).

Let’s face it: Either the employee-based system of using private insurance to provide for our health care needs is a good thing or it’s not. If it’s not, then go to the public plan and be honest with the American people. If it is good, let’s promote an environment that allows insurers the ability to compete and make a profit while holding them accountable to improve administrative efficiencies.

Without the ability to underwrite business, an insurance company can’t make a profit. That ability is what has afforded us the best policy benefits and coverages in the world. It also has resulted in private initiatives between insurers and employers to address some of the system’s runaway costs. Let’s work together to continue to do a better job in that area instead of simply casting blame on insurers.

No matter which side of the aisle you’re aligned with, one thing all Hoosiers can agree on is that our U.S. Senate races haven’t exactly been competitive lately. Brian Howey examined the issue in a recent column, noting the Hoosier state’s senatorial seats were once hotly contested. He also posted these past election results to consider:

Modern Indiana U.S. Senate races

1958
Vance Hartke – 56.5 %
Harold Handley – 42.4 %

1962
Birch Bayh – 50.3
Homer Capehart (i) – 49.7

1964
Vance Hartke – 54.7
Russel Bontrager – 45.3

1968
Birch Bayh - 51.7
Bill Ruckleshaus – 48.2

1970
Vance Hartke – 50.1
Richard Roudebush – 49.9

1974
Birch Bayh – 50.7
Dick Lugar – 46.4

1976
Dick Lugar – 58.8
Vance Hartke (i) – 40.5

1980
Dan Quayle - 53.8
Birch Bayh (i) – 46.2

1982
Dick Lugar - 53.8
Floyd Fithian – 45.6

1986
Dan Quayle - 61.1
Jill Long - 38.9

1988
Dick Lugar - 67.7
Jack Wickes – 32.3

1990
Dan Coats – 53.7
Baron Hill – 46.3

1992
Dan Coats - 57.3
Joe Hogsett – 40.7
Steve Dillon – 1.6

1994
Dick Lugar – 67.4
Jim Jontz – 30.5

1998
Evan Bayh – 63.7
Paul Helmke – 34.8
Rebecca Sink-Burris – 1.5

2000
Dick Lugar – 66.5
David Johnson – 31.9
Paul Hager – 1.6

2004
Evan Bayh – 62.0
Marvin Scott – 37.0
Al Barger – 1.0

2006
Dick Lugar - 87.4
Steve Osborn – 12.6

I guess I better keep working hard and keep the job I’ve got. Because while I’m very comfortable sitting down with business and political leaders for interviews when I’m asking the questions, I’m not a big fan of social events or that one-on-one process of making contacts.

New survey results, however, put networking at the top of the effectiveness list for job seekers. In somewhat of a surprise, HR pros ranked social/professional networking sites (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter) second on the list of top tools. Least effective among the respondents were job fairs and newspaper help wanted ads.

While the Internet has the potential to be very useful for job seekers, John Challenger of the Challenger, Gray & Christmas firm said that it has become the primary tool for many, when it should be considered secondary to the traditional technique of networking and meeting prospective employers in person.

“It is important to remember that the job search is a multifaceted process.  Those who rely on just one tool, even if it is networking, will take longer to find a position.  The problem with the ease and accessibility of the Internet is that many job seekers make it their primary job search tool. 

“Overuse of the Internet also threatens to prolong the hiring process on the employer’s end, as well, by inundating employers with irrelevant resumes.  Some human resource executives complain that for every qualified candidate that comes in from the Internet, there are 10 to 20 who do not even come close to being a good fit,” said Challenger.

“The more irrelevant resumes that hiring managers have to wade through in order to select the handful to bring in for interviews, the longer it takes to fill the position.  One result of this has been the increased use of digital screening software that scans incoming resumes for keywords.  Resumes without the right words are filtered out of the process.  This will make it even more difficult for job seekers to get their resume in front of the hiring executive," said Challenger.

“Job seekers must learn how to use all of the tools at their disposal, including networking, the Internet, newspapers, job fairs and even cold-calling employers,” he concluded.

Stateline.org recently examined state and federal initiatives to bring broadband service to America’s rural areas:

Maine gives out about $1 million about every 10 months to help its residents get high-speed Internet connections. In July, it approved nine projects costing the state almost $800,000 to get 5,000 families hooked up.

States across the country have pursued similar efforts toward creating statewide broadband policies and better access for their residents. But their scale pales in comparison to the $7.2 billion in stimulus money the federal government has committed over the next two years to improve high-speed Internet connections around the country.

Every state is supposed to get a share, and every governor will get a chance to weigh in on how the funds are spent. In this wash of new money, state officials are scurrying to identify the states’ greatest needs, coaching providers applying for stimulus money and developing overarching plans for how to roll out expanded service.

Most of the stimulus money will go toward building out high-speed connections to people in hard-to-reach places. Larry Landis, an Indiana Utility Commissioner active in national broadband efforts, says states have an “obligation to address those who are currently unserved” by broadband.

“What we need is a broadband consensus which nurtures state initiatives to build out to serve the least, the last and the lost,” he said.

The “least,” he says, are the working poor who haven’t been able to afford broadband. The “last” are those “currently on the fringes of the infrastructure to deliver on the promise of broadband.” The “lost” are consumers who could buy broadband but don’t.

Currently, 63 percent of adults have broadband at home, compared to just 7 percent who use dial-up connections, according to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, which, like Stateline.org, is funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts. Half of the U.S. adults who don’t have broadband at home say they don’t see the need for it, the study said. One in five respondents said they didn’t get a high-speed connection because it was too costly.

Also, take a look at how a Noblesville company is working to help Alabama with its broadband efforts in the May/June BizVoice.