And here's one for bands: Do a better job choosing your venue. The Wilbur Theatre is a straight-up terrible place for Sonic Youth to play, and it was a puzzling choice given the many great venues in the Boston area. Your fans are going to come out to see you wherever you play, and you owe it to them to choose places that don't suck. Find a booking agent that cares about the quality of your fans' experience and be certain to speak up when the agent makes a mistake. Reward venues that embody a friendly, punk rock ethos ("Gabba, gabba hey!") and avoid places that treat customers like cattle.

AK: Only poll that matters is the poll on election day. I haven't been in politics, I don't have a big name, I haven't raised as much money because I'm not taking special interest money. I have grassroots support [sound familiar?].

ER: Deval Patrick, Barack Obama came from nowhere and got a lot of money faster.

AK: People are undecided, people are leaning toward me.

ER: I thought you didn't believe in polls.

AK: This isn't polls, this is talking directly to people. It's different from polls.

ER: SP, you hold Celtics ownership. If elected will you put ownership on hold?

SP: I've already resigned off all the boards I've been on... I have to check on the Celtics, they don't pose a lot of conflict with the government.

ER: Coakley, why haven't you saved more money?

Coakley: I've worked as a public servant for a long time now. I put money into a house, sold it to run for office. State pension, money in home, insurance. Husband has assets. "I think we've focused on what's important to us.... I've never made a big salary."

ER: Is it a point of pride not to have money?

Coakley: It's neither here nor there.

[Again, is this relevant? Shouldn't we be focusing on issues, not candidates' personal lives? Their individual financial habits don't necessarily relate]

ER: RI bishop asked Patrick Kennedy not to take communion because of his position on abortion. How do you reconcile your religious POV?

AK: I'm Catholic, I take communion, I'm pro-choice, I would keep taking communion even if asked not to by a bishop. I follow Jesus. We need to take care of the poor. "My whole career has been about bringing people in who aren't heard."

Capuano: I consider myself a Catholic but I disagree with the church on many issues: abortion, gay marriage, women priests. I think it's good for the church to have a position. I think the bishop crossed the line by telling Kennedy not to take communion. Religion is between you and god. [Hear hear!]

SP: God shouldn't be an issue in any elections, I think we've gone way beyond that at this point. [Oh snap! My vote is trending Steve.] People have to live by their own beliefs.

Coakley: I grew up Catholic. Faith is personal but you make decisions about the community you worship with. I think this is a rogue bishop [phrase of the day!]

Capuano: This has happened to others, this is not new [being refused communion].

ER: Lots of action in the senate over the weekend. Some say we need tort reform to reform health care. Would you eliminate malpractice suits to make health care affordable?

SP: We need to pass health care reform. I would pass the health care bill. We need malpractice reform. Protect patients and bring costs down. I think evidence-based care you don't need caps.

AK: I've put out a comprehensive health care plan, I'm the only one. Mediation first. I propose a health fund. Dollar of federal money, dollar of matching funds.

SP: Evidence-based care!

Coakley: [Coming off as very smooth so far.] Judgments have been vastly overstated.

Capuano: There's plenty of middle ground here. We should review punitive damages, not compensation. Defensive medicine is an issue. We can't make it so doctors are never sued. Anyone who says we can't pass this bill without tort reform is wrong.

AK: We can't take just one piece of the system. We need comprehensive reform. Defensive medicine costs too much, it's real.

Coakley: I've talked to doctors who feel they're being left out of the discussion, but the cost driver is the lack of competition.

ER: Taxes! Bush tax cuts will expire. Would you extend them?

Coakley: No. I think those tax cuts were primarily helpful to the top end of the spectrum. They should expire. They did not appear to stimulate the economy.

Capuano: I would not extend them. I would love to rewrite the entire tax code. We're in the worst recession in the world and have a huge deficit due in part to the tax cuts. Almost nobody said to me they wanted those cuts. We need the things that taxes pay for. As long as people feel government is providing them a service they appreciate, they'll be okay.

SP: We can't extend these cuts due to the deficit.

[Score thus far: the MCs seem the most relaxed and political. No one has gotten in a killer point yet.]

AK: The real economic issue is jobs, we need jobs. I was the only candidate who would support a second stimulus. We need to put money in it. 22 months of job losses.

ER: Would anybody now support a second stimulus?

Coakley: We still need to see if the first one's effective, I want to make sure it's focused. We need to focus on other pieces besides stimulus.

SP: Debts paid back by job growths. We cannot tax enough to pay these deficits back. The stimulus has to be for long-term productive jobs.

Capuano: When we did the last stimulus, I didn't hear from anybody. I was the only one on stage fighting for more jobs. Now, people are demanding them. Money can be used for jobs. I've already asked the president to use money for jobs, so we don't have to go back for another stimulus.

[Everyone is talking over everyone else. Capuano/AK spat!]

ER: We need to pay for this health care bit. Should there be a tax on the rich?

AK: I would tax the gold-plated health care plans. Now we not only don't tax that, we subsidize it. If you want a $40k health care plan, okay, but I will tax it. I wouldn't have a general tax on rich people, but excessive health care plans. We should tax health care.

Capuano: House bill has provision to tax couples earning over a million. This would create a surplus. The senate bill has other provisions, but I prefer the house bill. Senate has nickel and dime provisions. I would prefer tax on degree of income.

Coakley: We'll figure out a way to pay for it. Cut costs.

SP: We gotta get everyone in the system to reform it. Coakley and Capuano will not vote for health care.

Capuano: I'm only one who voted to advance HC bill. You can buy ads and misrepresent me all you want. I've said when the bill is done I will read it and make my decision then. How do you feel about the provision that lets people opt out? I don't like it because I think it undermines the serious ability to have a public option. Learn what's in the bills.

SP keeps spouting numbers.

Capuano is agitated! The house bill is not coming back.

AK: I'm for the public option. I'm against the senate bill.

Coakley: There was never any need to surrender women's rights for health care.

Capuano: We should have the option to make this bill a better bill, the kind we can all support. If we can merge the best of both bills, we can all support it.

SP: I'd support either bill. The MCs won't.

Capuano: That means you would have voted for the Patriot Act. Read the bills. Know what's int he bills.

ER: Let's move on. Deficit! Jobs!

Capuano: We need to protect jobs, help Mass. grow. Our senators have done well by us.
ER: You talk about creating jobs but your business has been about personal profit, not creating jobs. How is it relevant?

SP: I'm a venture capitalist as well. 61,000 jobs in MA trace back to VC. I actually got into this because I was going to be a teacher, I did well at growing a company, so I specialized in that... We need more investment, not less investment.

ER: Companies are in debt for as much as 80% of worth of own company.

Coakley: I'm concerned about lack of Wall Street regulation. This is not the time to pull back on regulation. We need to make sure businesses are sound.

SP: The real crisis is in mortgages, trillions at risk.

Coakley: States saw it coming first.

SP: I want strong state laws but we have to have strong national laws and global coordination. Can't jump from state to state to exploit people.

ER: Stimulus for footbridge at Gillette. OK?

Capuano: No federal directions on stimulus money so you can't have it both ways.

AK: I think we can use that money for other jobs. I think that money could go to better uses.

SP: We had an emergency, a financial crisis, we still haven't had regulations. We may have wasted some stimulus money but I'd rather have that than have nothing.

ER: What about rolling back the state sales tax increase?

AK: No, not now. The state is suffering. Maybe when we get out of the recession. Only national politics will get us out of the recession, not just local.

Coakley: Are you giving us new senatorial powers? I think the state needs things now but I wouldn't repeal the tax.

Capuano: Sales tax is bad and regressive, but I am against it knowing that the state is in budget trouble.

SP doesn't support it either.

ER: Eric Holder announced trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in NYC. Do you agree with this?

SP: America is the best country in the world. We have to show that these people can get a fair trial.

AK: We need to be able to uphold our values.

Capuano: It's been a long time coming, we need to give people a trial. "The fact that we have gone this long without a trial is a blemish on our reputation."

ER: Where do you stand on waterboarding? Should government agents be prosecuted?

[What, is someone for it?]

Coakley: That's what's under investigation. What are the facts? We had trials after WWII. It's a disturbing chapter in our history as many other things have been in the last 10 years under the Bush administration. It's good that Holder is running an investigation and I trust his decision on this as on the trials.

Stark silence in response to ER question of whether anyone would support trials for agents who may have tortured.

Capuano: It appears as though the order came directly from Cheney, if that's the case he should be prosecuted. Torture is a violation of United States law. If it's about prosecuting CIA agents as scapegoats, no. We should go up the chain to see who made the determination to violate the law.

SP: Get the facts, I agree with Coakley.

ER: Afghanistan.

Capuano: What was the mission? To chase Al Qaeda out. There are more Al Qaeda in America than in Afghanistan. Are we supposed to occupy the US? Chase where the bad guys are, don't go where they were yesterday. No reason for us to have so many troops in Afghanistan if mission is to get Al Qaeda.

Coakley: Four soldiers killed today in Afghanistan. Staging ground for 9/11 was here.

SP: I wouldn't say it's helpless. No good history of nation building since WWII.

AK: Reevaluate priorities, set timeline, pressure Karzai. Focus on Pakistan, where Al Qaeda is. We need a new international version of NATO to fight terrorism, a new Marshall Plan.

ER: Senators often have to take unpopular positions. Would anyone meet with Ahmadinejad?

Coakley: Mistake we've always made in sending military forces is assuming other cultures will respond to these forces.

ER: Running out of times.

Capuano: I would assist on meeting with Ahmadinejad. If you won't look evil in the eye and call its by its name, you can't be a peacekeeper.

SP: Thankful for the people of Massachusetts.

Coakley: I'm thankful for Thanksgiving with my family even though I outsourced the turkey.

Capuano: Thankful to be an American.

ER: I thank you all!

Immediate reaction: Coakley came off silky smooth, Capuano capable of being needled, Khazei as a little stiff, and Pagliuca as a number-spewer with not a lot to say about 'em. We have to say our vote is still uncertain, and we'll be tuning in for the final debate on NECN on December 2.

Among the panelists was Dan Goldman, CFO at Great Point Energy. Calling himself a "financial entrepreneur more than a technology entrepreneur,” Goldman says he looks for gaps in the financing of energy. Though it seems odd and indeed somewhat exploitative to look at the environment as an economic issue, it’s not likely that real progress will be made without either government intervention or a clear path for capitalizing on environmentally friendly goods and services. Most likely, it will take a combination of communism and capitalism to rectify our environmental troubles.

Andrew Friendly of Advanced Technology Ventures and Bob McGrath from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory joined Goldman on the panel, as did Frank van Mierlo of 1366 Technologies and Nick D’Arbeloff from the Clean Energy Council.

Perhaps atypically for technology companies, green companies require a certain amount of infrastructure and support to truly succeed. Rather than being able to found a Facebook in your dorm room, green technology is something that exists for a purpose both other than itself and other than making money. As a result, it may require a great degree of cooperation. Frank van Mierlo put it well: “My takeaway from [attending] MIT was that there were a lot of people smarter than me and it as good idea to start a company with one of them."

Image tagged Bostonist by RajRem

Not surprisingly for a business school conference, this panel featured a distinct emphasis on promoting the economic benefits of environmentalism. McGrath suggested that we need carbon legislation soon or we'll be “at a competitive disadvantage economically” with developing countries. Friendly lamented the disconnect between a focus on jobs and denunciation of environmental policy, suggesting that environmental regulations could lay a clear path for new “green” jobs rather than eliminate existing positions.

It’s not just our businesses, our jobs, and our personal habits that need to change. McGrath pointed out that “existing buildings and infrastructure [are] responsible for 71% of our electricity production and 38% of our carbon emissions.” With modifications such as solid state lighting or advanced air conditioning systems, our buildings could stop being such a big environmental liability.

As the conversation degenerated into a lamentation about the need to select one technological approach and stick with it—one company cannot necessarily specialize in solar, wind, and alternative fuels—D’Arbeloff brought it back to another crucial point. He described how deployment technologies enable the existence of companies focused on multiple approaches to resolving the crisis, and brought up “time of day” pricing as a critical component of raising awareness about energy use.

An audience member raised the question of carbon capture and sequestration, and Goldman responded with enthusiasm. His company has invested in storing CO2 in oil reservoirs, which promotes oil production and could be used to recover as many as 118 billion barrels of oil in the United States alone. He views this approach as a money-making opportunity, which means it may inspire greater adoption in the U.S. With regard to capitalist adoption of the environmental cause, Friendly brought up another obstacle: intellectual property. U.S. companies can be hesitant to implement their climate-protecting techniques in other countries for fear that those countries will steal them. Acknowledging the opportunities there, Friendly underscored the hesitation from the business side: “We don’t doubt that there are growing markets, but we need to make them pay for themselves in developed markets.”

Lassiter encouraged panelists and audience members alike to “think internationally” in their approach to the climate crisis, and shared data reflecting the different approaches to climate change even within the U.S. In Boston and Northern California, audience members had“ voted” 80% to 20% in favor of quick government intervention to combat global warming. In contrast, the vote in NYC was split, with some folks fearing all our action would be undercut by pollution from China and Brazil. Our friends in Houston, not surprisingly, voted 80% to 20% against intervention.

Lassiter summed up the panel well, saying “The future is a thing of our choosing; the past is a thing we have to live with.” By taking advice from today’s panelists and other experience figures in green technology, HBS students and other aspiring climate defenders can live with the vagaries of the past while crafting a planned, preferable future.

Andrei Hagiu, who teaches strategy and technology at HBS, opened the “Mobile Consumer” panel by thanking everyone for attending despite the beautiful weather. He didn’t moderate as much as Lassiter had, leaving the panelists and audience members free to direct the conversation in their own direction. Todd Brix from Microsoft, an HBS grad, actually cofounded the conference in his days at Harvard and said it inspired him to “get out of engineering.” Glenn Broderick from AT&T brought a focus on games and the convergence of different devices in support of gaming, while Rich Miner represented the interests of the Google venture capitalists—aka the “so much richer than you’ll ever be” sector (some of whom, like Miner, may ironically be named Rich). Roger Letalien from IBM, Princeton dropout Seth Priebatch of SCVNGR (who called himself “pretty much unqualified to be here” despite his company’s approaching its first million in revenue), and MSpot’s Daren Tsui rounded out the panel.

Image tagged Bostonist by Chip Py

Miner shifted the conversation to a billing perspective, noting how the built-in billing system on mobile devices gives rise to easy, one-click consumption that can drive application and other purchases. Letalien expanded the one-click capabilities to encompass mobile banking, a major convenience for people in developing countries who may live 30 or more miles from the nearest bank, and discussed how IBM is working with credit card merchant FirstData to create a mobile payments ecosystem for buying anything with your phone. Tsui stressed the need for a more open system without need for permission from carriers.

Priebatch broke down the purchasing process into three portions, perhaps unintentionally echoing the three-phase 1. Action 2. ???? 3. Profit meme. He cited enterprises, user-generated data for locations, and monetization as important components of the business process. Continuing on the monetization track, Brix emphasized the "need to have a healthy ecosystem for developers to get paid for their applications.” While one-click transactions support this from a technical perspective, there still need to be improved business plans to support applications. These might include social recommendation engines for apps, or app placement systems that echo the shelves at the grocery store—targeted at eye level, sugar-free or no-ad brands down low. Miner described how your 99 cent app could get downloaded a million times and make you a lot of money—but you still wouldn’t have a sustainable business model capable of producing returns for investors. From a venture capitalist perspective, it’s hard to justify investment in apps.

The discussion then broke down into contemplation of the potentially limited market for advanced or smartphone-only applications. Tsui described us as being in a “transition period” toward smart phones, noting that the iPhone is only 5% of the U.S. market—so even if your app is rockin ‘on the iPhone you’re missing out on 95% of potential users. Priebatch’s company is unique in using a multi-tier approach to its technology, allowing it to run on everything from text messages to smartphones: "build one game and our game engine will scale it." Texts account for 60% of SCVGR use, reflecting the significant demand for “applications” accessible via SMS.

An audience member asked if applications would die out in favor of the web. Miner asserted that phone browsers are nearly as capable as desktop applications, but Tsui pointed out that browsers don’t accommodate technologies such as DRM—particularly critical to applications designed to provide music and movies to customers.

In sum, the mobile market is open, evolving, and inconsistent. You can’t count on any one device or platform to represent the future, so it’s necessary to make smart choices in developing business plan. If focusing in a particular direction or on a specific technology, recognize that it may not remain central for long. Even more than other technology spheres, mobile is rabidly used and rapidly evolving, making it easy to take advantage of—but not necessarily for very long.

The ephemeral mobile app and the enduring environment: our Cyberposium 15 experience contrasted these two elements, revealing the perpetual necessity of acknowledging the past and present while focusing, always, on the future.

These asymmetrical, seemingly off-balance shots could be read (as one audience member suggested) as creating a visual counterpart to the off-kilter neuroses of the characters. Willis himself, however, vetoed that idea, separating his shooting techniques from the meaning of the movie. Throughout the question and answer session, Willis repeatedly discouraged viewers from “intellectualizing” his filming choices, noting that many scenes were more circumstantial or instinctual than minutely planned. He acknowledged his affection for the long take, and emphasized that editing is ultimately up to the director (though did note he attempts to give the director the tightest amount of material possible).

Willis is often recognized as an autodidact, but we learned last night that he actually gained his first exposure to film as a documentarian in the Air Force, following his initial forays into still photography. We not only appreciated his filming expertise but also his no-nonsense style in the Q&A. We’re not sure you’ll get much out of him, but we do recommend attending some of the screenings if you want to learn more about this chronically underappreciated filmmaker.