The sad state of newspapers is something never far from my mind. I'm a black-ink addict and value what a free and vibrant press contributes to our civic discourse and our democracy. Unfortunately, the dailies are hemoraging more red ink than they are printing black. Readership is down, advertising is down, spirits are down.
Much of this has been attributed to the dessertion of young people from the daily paper habit. They get their news on-line.
Why bring this up yet again? This mornnig I was reading Tony Wagner's excellent book, The Global Achievement Gap: Why Even the Best Schools Don't Teach the New Survival Skills Our Children Need -- and What We Can do About It (the sub-head is way too long, Tony). Wagner argues that while children may be learning to read, they "are not learning how to think or care about what they read." Much of this he attributes to "teaching to the test" where teachers spend far more time preparing students get ready for standardized tests then teaching them to think critically. In other words, we are creating a generation of people who don't know why what is in the newspaper is important (whether it appears on- or off-line) nor do they know how to use what they read well enough to ask tough questions or reason through complex issues.
The consequence, however, is not just that we may be losing the chance to get our fingers dirty reading each morning, but that we will lose a vital pillar of our democracy because we aren't raising students who understand what it means to be well-informed. Blogs and Facebook applications alone won't do it.
This is an unintended consequence of having the media be part of the Wall Street economy. The news outlets give the market what it wants (or try to); those that try to deliver what they think their mission mandates may kill themselves financially. This is one time that I think markets are wrong. We must have a robust press if we are to have a robust democracy.
I'll report more on this book when I finish it. In the meantime, I can only hope that serious education reform is high on the agenda of the incoming Obama administration and that anyone with thoughtful advice -- Democrats, Republicans, Independents, hell, Socialists and Communists, too -- is invited to help solve this pressing problem.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
A New Morning in America
I have to admit that I was nervous last night. I voted early and then spent the day canvassing in the nearest battleground state. I saw the energy and excitement, the lines at the polls, and the army of volunteers. In my head, I knew that Obama would be our next president and that a victory would likely be by a significant margin. I was doing what I could to to help. But still, as the early returns came in, I was nervous that something was going to snatch this away.
This morning, the energy and excitement are still there and nothing can change the outcome now.
So how did it happen? Why was Obama successful where Kerry and Gore were not?
There will endless disection of McCain and Palin's missteps and opportunities lost as well as Obama and Biden's successful moves. In the end, however, I think that there are four major causes:
- First, divisive politics has played itself out. It seemed that even those who played that game were sick of it. It's exhausting. Any government that emphasizes ideology too much over practicality unltimately falls in on itself (no matter what the ideology). People have real problems and, here among the general populace, it is pretty obvious that the challenges we face are enormous and that it is going to take all of us pulling together to solve them. Obama has tapped into that desire to be one country again.
- Second, the kid came to play. Obama's team ran a campaign designed to win. From the fund raising to the efforts on the ground, these folks understood that they had to organize, mobilize, and execute. Although the big bucks get the attention, the innovation, discipline, and execution were an equal part of the victory. Howard Dean may be the unsung hero here as he was the one pushing for a 50-state strategy early on; coupled with Obama's message and delivery, it was a strategy that just out-matched McCain.
- Third, the next generation is ready to take on the responsibility of leadership. With McCain's defeat and Obama's victory, we are seeing a true generational transition. The contest in four years will feature Obama and a Republican from his age cohort. Stepping up to shouldering our challenges comes just in time because there is plenty of work to do. This is when we of the post-WWII/post-Vietnam cohort step out of the shadows and look the future square in the eye.
- Fourth is luck. Had the economy melted in December instead of October, the outcome of the election might have been different. Show me a successful candidate who thinks luck wasn't a factor in his or her victory and I'll show you one who is lying.
We should be proud that we have elected our first African-American president. It is a divide that needed to be crossed. We have not worked out all of the issues of race relations but we have raised them to a new (and hopefully more productive) plateau.
We should also be proud of the roles that Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin played in this race. Though neither of them will be in the White House this time, no one will be surprised when a woman is on a national ticket again nor will we be shocked if she wins. In fact, we'll be surprised if a woman isn't on the ticket. That glass ceiling has been shattered.
Senator McCain was particularly gracious and generous in his concession speech. If we had seen more of that John McCain in the campaign, he might have been delivering an acceptance speech instead. It was not to be for Senator McCain but we should all be proud of his long and continued service.
I was drawn to Senator Obama early in the primaries. Despite the lack of a long resume, he inspired me in ways that the other candidates did not. I felt that was important -- as important as the ideas and the specifics (or lack thereof) in the policy proposals. But the job we have before us will not be solved by one man no matter how charismatic he may be. He is going to need us to be as passionate, as involved, and as ready to work as we have been over the past two years. We didn't just elect him; we elected us.
This morning, the energy and excitement are still there and nothing can change the outcome now.
So how did it happen? Why was Obama successful where Kerry and Gore were not?
There will endless disection of McCain and Palin's missteps and opportunities lost as well as Obama and Biden's successful moves. In the end, however, I think that there are four major causes:
- First, divisive politics has played itself out. It seemed that even those who played that game were sick of it. It's exhausting. Any government that emphasizes ideology too much over practicality unltimately falls in on itself (no matter what the ideology). People have real problems and, here among the general populace, it is pretty obvious that the challenges we face are enormous and that it is going to take all of us pulling together to solve them. Obama has tapped into that desire to be one country again.
- Second, the kid came to play. Obama's team ran a campaign designed to win. From the fund raising to the efforts on the ground, these folks understood that they had to organize, mobilize, and execute. Although the big bucks get the attention, the innovation, discipline, and execution were an equal part of the victory. Howard Dean may be the unsung hero here as he was the one pushing for a 50-state strategy early on; coupled with Obama's message and delivery, it was a strategy that just out-matched McCain.
- Third, the next generation is ready to take on the responsibility of leadership. With McCain's defeat and Obama's victory, we are seeing a true generational transition. The contest in four years will feature Obama and a Republican from his age cohort. Stepping up to shouldering our challenges comes just in time because there is plenty of work to do. This is when we of the post-WWII/post-Vietnam cohort step out of the shadows and look the future square in the eye.
- Fourth is luck. Had the economy melted in December instead of October, the outcome of the election might have been different. Show me a successful candidate who thinks luck wasn't a factor in his or her victory and I'll show you one who is lying.
We should be proud that we have elected our first African-American president. It is a divide that needed to be crossed. We have not worked out all of the issues of race relations but we have raised them to a new (and hopefully more productive) plateau.
We should also be proud of the roles that Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin played in this race. Though neither of them will be in the White House this time, no one will be surprised when a woman is on a national ticket again nor will we be shocked if she wins. In fact, we'll be surprised if a woman isn't on the ticket. That glass ceiling has been shattered.
Senator McCain was particularly gracious and generous in his concession speech. If we had seen more of that John McCain in the campaign, he might have been delivering an acceptance speech instead. It was not to be for Senator McCain but we should all be proud of his long and continued service.
I was drawn to Senator Obama early in the primaries. Despite the lack of a long resume, he inspired me in ways that the other candidates did not. I felt that was important -- as important as the ideas and the specifics (or lack thereof) in the policy proposals. But the job we have before us will not be solved by one man no matter how charismatic he may be. He is going to need us to be as passionate, as involved, and as ready to work as we have been over the past two years. We didn't just elect him; we elected us.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Jenna v. Elizabeth
I'm watching a documentary on the Windsors on PBS. It's a glowing portrait with nary a negative word -- one of those classic admiration fests. But still I was struck during the footage on WWII that then Princess Elizabeth volunteered for the Ambulance Corps. She may not have done much beyond attempt to change a tire for the benefit of the cameras, but she donned the scratchy uniform and gave the feeling that they were all in the fray together -- from the palace to the trenches.
It made me wonder why we'd never seen a Bush daughter doing something similar during our many years fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The United States has lost a sense of common purpose and sacrifice for the greater good. It was both dishonest and dishonorable for President Bush to have taken the nation to war without asking everyone to sacrifce. While bullets flew in the desert it was tax cuts on the home front. IEDs ripped through Humvees while Americans cruised happily to the mall in their SUVs.
We have been a divided nation for too long. While the war should never have been started, once the tanks were rolling there should have been a concerted effort to bring people together through sacrifice. It is yet another opportunity missed by this administration.
It made me wonder why we'd never seen a Bush daughter doing something similar during our many years fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The United States has lost a sense of common purpose and sacrifice for the greater good. It was both dishonest and dishonorable for President Bush to have taken the nation to war without asking everyone to sacrifce. While bullets flew in the desert it was tax cuts on the home front. IEDs ripped through Humvees while Americans cruised happily to the mall in their SUVs.
We have been a divided nation for too long. While the war should never have been started, once the tanks were rolling there should have been a concerted effort to bring people together through sacrifice. It is yet another opportunity missed by this administration.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Free Christopher Buckley!
I'm fascinated by the ouster of Christopher Buckley from the National Review. I know Christopher a bit and he's a smart, funny guy. He certainly is capable of making up his own mind and is more than articulate.
The part that amazes/outrages me is that he had to offer his resignation, and that it was accepted, because he expressed his own opinion. He looked at two candidates and picked one. Isn't that what America is all about?
Granted, the first amendment was an amendment. It's a bit like the leather package you pick for a car -- it wasn't on the original spec sheet but you chose it and it came with the car. Freedom of speech means that speaking your mind shouldn't get you pushed out the door.
Peggy Noonan was also in the firing line after her "Failin' Palin" column in the Wall Street Journal. Peggy didn't go so far as to endorse Obama but said that Palin had yet to make a sufficient case for herself. When I went to offer my comments, the other commenters were vociferous in calling for her to be tossed off the pages of the WSJ. I tried to offer come to her defense, it's the least a gentleman can do, but comments were closed.
The Republican party of Bush/Cheney/Rove reminds me of the Communists under Mao when ideology trumped all. Smelt iron in the backyard to give power to the people even though the iron was lousy. Make the farms communal even though food production plummets. Clamp down on any press that doesn't agree with you.
And so we are back in 2008. Buckley, Noonan, who else? What kind of country have we become when you can't say what you think without consequences?
The part that amazes/outrages me is that he had to offer his resignation, and that it was accepted, because he expressed his own opinion. He looked at two candidates and picked one. Isn't that what America is all about?
Granted, the first amendment was an amendment. It's a bit like the leather package you pick for a car -- it wasn't on the original spec sheet but you chose it and it came with the car. Freedom of speech means that speaking your mind shouldn't get you pushed out the door.
Peggy Noonan was also in the firing line after her "Failin' Palin" column in the Wall Street Journal. Peggy didn't go so far as to endorse Obama but said that Palin had yet to make a sufficient case for herself. When I went to offer my comments, the other commenters were vociferous in calling for her to be tossed off the pages of the WSJ. I tried to offer come to her defense, it's the least a gentleman can do, but comments were closed.
The Republican party of Bush/Cheney/Rove reminds me of the Communists under Mao when ideology trumped all. Smelt iron in the backyard to give power to the people even though the iron was lousy. Make the farms communal even though food production plummets. Clamp down on any press that doesn't agree with you.
And so we are back in 2008. Buckley, Noonan, who else? What kind of country have we become when you can't say what you think without consequences?
Saturday, September 6, 2008
The Spin Cycle -- RNC style
I didn't watch as much of the RNC as I did the DNC -- a bit of convention fatigue plus the abbreviated schedule -- but I did catch the speeches by both Sarah Palin and John McCain. I give Palin credit for the excellent delivery of a ho-hum speech and McCain demerits for the mediocre delivery of a better speech.
Palin certainly knows how to charm a room. She pauses naturally for the laugh and applause lines, knows when to wink or smile to reinforce a point, and chums the water with base bait like a pro (then again, she once was a commercial fisherwoman). She did smile too much, as did McCain though in her case I chalk that up to those years of beauty pageant training. When you are making a serious case, you need a serious face.
When she spoke about her own story, she was compelling. When she launched into distortions of Obama's stated positions and other partisan mud-slinging, she lost me entirely. I heard the "red meat" but had to ask: Where's the beef? The speech was extraordinarily light on concrete policy recommendations or other substantive material.
McCain is not a natural speech maker and it shows. His speech was well-crafted -- especially when he took his own party to task in order to reburnish his credentials as a maverick. But for too much of the speech, he would deliver a line and then smile like a kid who had made it successfully through a difficult fingering exercise on the piano.
When he spoke about his past and about his desire to change Washington, he was compelling. The blatant pandering to the party base and his distortions of Obama's positions were also awkward and off-putting. He didn't feel comfortable in his own skin while he was doing it.
Of course so much of the conventions is about spin and counterspin. It matters less what the candidates say than how it is interpretted by the pundits afterwards. Palin's selection had several Republican spokespeople spinning in reverse as you'll see in this brilliant video montage from The Daily Show.
Palin certainly knows how to charm a room. She pauses naturally for the laugh and applause lines, knows when to wink or smile to reinforce a point, and chums the water with base bait like a pro (then again, she once was a commercial fisherwoman). She did smile too much, as did McCain though in her case I chalk that up to those years of beauty pageant training. When you are making a serious case, you need a serious face.
When she spoke about her own story, she was compelling. When she launched into distortions of Obama's stated positions and other partisan mud-slinging, she lost me entirely. I heard the "red meat" but had to ask: Where's the beef? The speech was extraordinarily light on concrete policy recommendations or other substantive material.
McCain is not a natural speech maker and it shows. His speech was well-crafted -- especially when he took his own party to task in order to reburnish his credentials as a maverick. But for too much of the speech, he would deliver a line and then smile like a kid who had made it successfully through a difficult fingering exercise on the piano.
When he spoke about his past and about his desire to change Washington, he was compelling. The blatant pandering to the party base and his distortions of Obama's positions were also awkward and off-putting. He didn't feel comfortable in his own skin while he was doing it.
Of course so much of the conventions is about spin and counterspin. It matters less what the candidates say than how it is interpretted by the pundits afterwards. Palin's selection had several Republican spokespeople spinning in reverse as you'll see in this brilliant video montage from The Daily Show.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Words Can Move
I am in awe at the level of oratory in evidence at the Democratic National Convention this past week. At a time when media is fragmented and attention spans are even more so, when ear buds seal out the outside world, when we're all Facebooking, blogging, and twittering, it was wonderful to have four evenings of well-crafted, superbly delivered speeches.
From Kennedy, to both Clintons, both Obamas, Gore, Biden, and more, we heard words that informed and inspired. You might not agree with the politics but you have to admire the level of public discourse. These speeches both preached to the choir and challenged the opposition. They set forth lofty goals and practical policy direction. They started conversations, at least in my circle, and brought focus to the importance of the election ahead.
I am grateful for the break from the attack ads and blathering pundits. Words still have power. Oratory is alive. Let's hope the Republicans can keep the level high.
From Kennedy, to both Clintons, both Obamas, Gore, Biden, and more, we heard words that informed and inspired. You might not agree with the politics but you have to admire the level of public discourse. These speeches both preached to the choir and challenged the opposition. They set forth lofty goals and practical policy direction. They started conversations, at least in my circle, and brought focus to the importance of the election ahead.
I am grateful for the break from the attack ads and blathering pundits. Words still have power. Oratory is alive. Let's hope the Republicans can keep the level high.
Monday, August 25, 2008
How Much is That Puppy in the Window?
The last time I got a dog, it was easy. Then again, I was young and naive. It was a simple trip to the shelter at 92nd and York, picked out a pooch, and headed home. Sure, choosing a border collie/spaniel mix was a bit nuts given that I lived in a studio apartment in Manhattan. But he was such a cutie.
He was also a triple reject and came with claims that he couldn't be housebroken. With a little love and structure, he was easily housebroken. In fact, he was curb trained. There was a learning curve, sure, but we wound up having 12 great years together.
This time around couldn't have been more different. There were many more considerations about breed: small enough for the city, mellow enough to live with a persnickety cat, and non-shedding. That led us to seek out Cockapoo breeders.
The nearest one didn't return our outreach calls. The next one required that we clear our schedules for at least four months and not leave the pup alone for more than two hours (and that commitment was just the first step in the approval process). The third required a four page application that was similar in depth to the vetting for a spot as candidate for Vice President.
Finally, the fourth (the farthest, the most expensive) had pups available and mad
e it no more difficult (and only slightly less expensive) than buying a Porsche. Truth be told, the breeder was a great help. She set us up with lots of supplies and answered all of our questions.
e it no more difficult (and only slightly less expensive) than buying a Porsche. Truth be told, the breeder was a great help. She set us up with lots of supplies and answered all of our questions.Once we had our little guy (and he is a cutie), things got even more complicated. Which vet to choose? Which trainer to engage? Which puppy socialization group to join? To crate train or not? What about doggy day care? The questions cascade like a spilled bag of kibble.
The vet and breeder told us to keep contact with other dogs to a minimum until he had had all of his shots (16 weeks). Then the trainer said that weeks 12 - 14 are critical to his socialization. Screw this up and we'll need to engage a doggie therapist later on. We decided to take our chances and he's enjoying his canine companions.
We've engaged, I'm almost afraid to admit, a Zen dog trainer. Grasshopper, when you can snatch this training treat from my hand... She's great, but I do feel like we've crept a bit too far up Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
The search for doggie day care keeps me up nights. Friends have conflicting recommendations and the online reviews for each provider seem to range from "they make my little darling feel like a king" to "my little darling came home with a gaping chest wound that no one at XXX seemed to notice." There's even a puppy prep school.
I am going out to buy several pair of cargo pants as each walk requires paper for picking up droppings, treats to reward the dropping process, a flashlight after dark, and occassionally the puppy training manual for last minute reference in the field. We've even found a doggie water bottle that flips down for easy Fido sipping and that clips onto my belt.
I wouldn't trade this dog for anything, but I miss the days when a dog was just a dog.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
An Energy Policy, Please
Thank you to the New York Times for today's "Energy Fictions" op-ed piece. Both McCain and Obama are doing disservice to the energy issues before us. The blathering about thumbs up or down on offshore drilling, proposed windfall profits taxes, proper tire pressure, and the rest just nibble at the edges. These are tactics when what we should be talking about is an energy policy. We need to move the focus off of the price of gas this week or next and talk about what we're going be doing for the next 10 to 20 years.
It's sad when Paris Hilton offers the most coherent take on an energy policy.
First, we don't need energy independence. We don't have food independence or clothing independence. What we need is strategic interdepedence. We don't need to stop importing oil from Canada or Mexico -- they are our friends and neighbors. We need a broad, unbiased look at all of our energy options from solar to nuclear. We need investment in basic science that can help fuel the growth of a world-class alternative energy industry. We need a President who will craft and implement an energy policy that panders neither to Big Oil or the most strident environmentalists.
We're going to have to blend energy sources to meet our needs. We consume a lot of energy and we have increasing competition for fossil fuel resources from China, India, and other emerging economies. We need to get as serious as Finland (yes, Finland) in facing this critical challenge that will have such impact on individuals and businesses across the country.
It's sad when Paris Hilton offers the most coherent take on an energy policy.
First, we don't need energy independence. We don't have food independence or clothing independence. What we need is strategic interdepedence. We don't need to stop importing oil from Canada or Mexico -- they are our friends and neighbors. We need a broad, unbiased look at all of our energy options from solar to nuclear. We need investment in basic science that can help fuel the growth of a world-class alternative energy industry. We need a President who will craft and implement an energy policy that panders neither to Big Oil or the most strident environmentalists.
We're going to have to blend energy sources to meet our needs. We consume a lot of energy and we have increasing competition for fossil fuel resources from China, India, and other emerging economies. We need to get as serious as Finland (yes, Finland) in facing this critical challenge that will have such impact on individuals and businesses across the country.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Boycotting Olympic Ceremonies
I am boycotting the Olympic opening ceremonies in support of the people of Tibet, a free press, and a free Internet in China. I will watch the Games themselves in support of the Olympic ideal of peace and productive engagement through athletic competition as well as of the athletes themselves.
This boycott is highly symbolic as I'm just not watching TV. However, symbolic action by ordinary citizens is important if we are to make concrete progress on human rights, freedom of expression and protest, and democracy.
China's model is a dangerous one: free markets without protections for speech, religion, the right to vote, or other basic rights we enjoy in the West. People are too easily seduced by rising standards of living to fight for the rights that will give them greater control over their lives and their government. That's the bet that the ruling powers in Beijing are making.
Unfortunately, its not much different than the bet made by the Bush administration after 9/11. When Bush told the nation to "go shopping" he was urging them to indulge in material comfort rather than worry about the draconian measures being taken to reign in rights under the guise of the war on terror. The lack of greater protests in the streets over the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, the abuse at Abu Graib, and other outrages can be attributed, in part, to the generally good economy up until 18 months ago or so. So long as you could still fill up your cart at Wal-Mart (or Gucci), why worry?
Might that be the ultimate trump card of authoritarians? Let the people shop and they won't care about much else. Religion may have been the opiate of the people in Marx's time but consumer goods seem to have taken its place in the 21st century.
So, as much as it may be a small tree falling deep in the forest, I am boycotting the opening ceremonies tomorrow night. I won't see the commercials of the sponsors. I won't help the network make its numbers. Consider joining me.
This boycott is highly symbolic as I'm just not watching TV. However, symbolic action by ordinary citizens is important if we are to make concrete progress on human rights, freedom of expression and protest, and democracy.
China's model is a dangerous one: free markets without protections for speech, religion, the right to vote, or other basic rights we enjoy in the West. People are too easily seduced by rising standards of living to fight for the rights that will give them greater control over their lives and their government. That's the bet that the ruling powers in Beijing are making.
Unfortunately, its not much different than the bet made by the Bush administration after 9/11. When Bush told the nation to "go shopping" he was urging them to indulge in material comfort rather than worry about the draconian measures being taken to reign in rights under the guise of the war on terror. The lack of greater protests in the streets over the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, the abuse at Abu Graib, and other outrages can be attributed, in part, to the generally good economy up until 18 months ago or so. So long as you could still fill up your cart at Wal-Mart (or Gucci), why worry?
Might that be the ultimate trump card of authoritarians? Let the people shop and they won't care about much else. Religion may have been the opiate of the people in Marx's time but consumer goods seem to have taken its place in the 21st century.
So, as much as it may be a small tree falling deep in the forest, I am boycotting the opening ceremonies tomorrow night. I won't see the commercials of the sponsors. I won't help the network make its numbers. Consider joining me.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Home Delivery is (pre) Fab!
I was fortunate to visit Home Delivery, a new exhibit on pre-fabricated housing now at the Museum of Modern Art in New York today. It is an engaging history of pre-fab along with a display of five new prototype dwellings that have been built in a parking lot adjacent to MoMA.
Attempts at pre-fabricated housing have been made since the Industrial Revolution with a particularly active period in the early 20th century. Frank Lloyd Wright, Thomas Edison, Walter Gropius, Moshe Safdie and a host of others – some well known, others not – have tried to use industrial methods to make home construction faster and cheaper. They’ve tried metal, concrete, wood, container cars, trash – an amazing panoply of materials.
But pre-fab housing has never generated great enthusiasm from the public. Perhaps we all want to see our homes as individual even though many of us live in condominium buildings, sub-divisions, planned communities, and other configurations where there is more similar than different between our dwellings and those of our neighbors.
There’s a real divide between those designers who want to see what new materials and processes they can use to bring efficiency to what we think of as a home and those who want to use new materials and processes to reshape what we think of as a home. Edison’s poured concrete houses, some of which can still be found in Union, New Jersey, don’t look pre-fabricated at all while Moshe Safdie’s Habitat ’67 is obviously a construction of identical concrete cubes.
The prototypes displayed outside are particularly fun because you can go inside most of them.
There is the Cellophane House – a steel structure with a clear skin that absorbs solar energy. It’s a three-story, two-bedroom, two-bathroom Modernist dream. There are two balconies and a roof deck. And it’s all hyper-efficient. Next to it is a one-room “shotgun” house designed for post-Katrina housing in New Orleans. It is made of plywood and features gingerbread details reminiscent of the original shotgun houses in the Big Easy. There’s a metal cube that puts a full range of amenities into a space under 80 square meters (just don’t be tall or like to walk around much). Its designer intends this unit for young single people without a lot of possessions.
All of the new prototypes emphasize environmental consciousness and control of the accumulation of physical possessions. It’s a IKEA mentality of simplicity, function, and lack of clutter. I don’t think that these designs will gain great acceptance in the U.S. either except perhaps in areas where they are a superior alternative to a FEMA trailer. We love our space – the average American home has doubled in size over the past 25 or so years – and we love our stuff. There are parts of the world, however, where any of these units would be a vast improvement over what people are living in now. The ingenuity, the innovation with materials and construction, and the commitment to sustainability, however, are all adaptable to homes even Americans could love.
Attempts at pre-fabricated housing have been made since the Industrial Revolution with a particularly active period in the early 20th century. Frank Lloyd Wright, Thomas Edison, Walter Gropius, Moshe Safdie and a host of others – some well known, others not – have tried to use industrial methods to make home construction faster and cheaper. They’ve tried metal, concrete, wood, container cars, trash – an amazing panoply of materials.
But pre-fab housing has never generated great enthusiasm from the public. Perhaps we all want to see our homes as individual even though many of us live in condominium buildings, sub-divisions, planned communities, and other configurations where there is more similar than different between our dwellings and those of our neighbors.
There’s a real divide between those designers who want to see what new materials and processes they can use to bring efficiency to what we think of as a home and those who want to use new materials and processes to reshape what we think of as a home. Edison’s poured concrete houses, some of which can still be found in Union, New Jersey, don’t look pre-fabricated at all while Moshe Safdie’s Habitat ’67 is obviously a construction of identical concrete cubes.
The prototypes displayed outside are particularly fun because you can go inside most of them.
There is the Cellophane House – a steel structure with a clear skin that absorbs solar energy. It’s a three-story, two-bedroom, two-bathroom Modernist dream. There are two balconies and a roof deck. And it’s all hyper-efficient. Next to it is a one-room “shotgun” house designed for post-Katrina housing in New Orleans. It is made of plywood and features gingerbread details reminiscent of the original shotgun houses in the Big Easy. There’s a metal cube that puts a full range of amenities into a space under 80 square meters (just don’t be tall or like to walk around much). Its designer intends this unit for young single people without a lot of possessions.
All of the new prototypes emphasize environmental consciousness and control of the accumulation of physical possessions. It’s a IKEA mentality of simplicity, function, and lack of clutter. I don’t think that these designs will gain great acceptance in the U.S. either except perhaps in areas where they are a superior alternative to a FEMA trailer. We love our space – the average American home has doubled in size over the past 25 or so years – and we love our stuff. There are parts of the world, however, where any of these units would be a vast improvement over what people are living in now. The ingenuity, the innovation with materials and construction, and the commitment to sustainability, however, are all adaptable to homes even Americans could love.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Inflation vs. Imagination
While it is only in the past few months that Fed chairman Ben Bernanke has focused on inflation as a threat to our economic well being, it has been obvious for several years that it has been having a detrimental effect on American families. The consumer price index, the most broadly referenced statistic on inflation, has looked benign for a long, long time but the CPI doesn’t take into account costs like healthcare and higher education – both of which have been skyrocketing for more than a decade.
Ask the wage earners you know what they are concerned about and you’ll likely hear about health care costs, saving for retirement (which has a large health care component), and putting the kids through college. These fundamentals have been getting more and more expensive – and increasingly out of reach for even middle-class families. Layer that with the recent inflation in food and energy costs (likely to last five to ten years according to the experts I speak with) and you can see the storm clouds darkening.
Ask those same wage earners if they would trade our system for the European model with higher taxes but universal health care, college tuition, and generous government pension programs and they’ll likely shriek and label you a Commie sympathizer. Better to keep the money for yourself so that your fate is in your own hands.
But of course most people don’t save enough to take care of any of these needs. College is increasingly funded through loans (that’s debt, kids) and the national savings rate is at just about zero.
There are debates about how the savings rate is calculated but, in any event, basic building blocks of economic mobility are becoming less and less attainable for more and more people. The amount of debt being carried by the average family increasing. Half of all personal bankruptcies are caused by unexpected medical expenses.
The underlying issue that I see is that it is increasingly difficult for one to live what I call a “rich poor” life. A rich poor life is what your old English and Math teachers likely lived. They didn’t earn a ton of money but they could afford a house, healthcare came from the job and the deductions weren’t overly burdensome, and retirement was covered through a traditional pension plan. They managed to live interesting lives – traveled, went to the symphony, ate out now and again -- and could do it rather frugally.
That is increasingly difficult to do. First, as mentioned above some of the basics for long-term economic stability are harder to attain. Second, with the expansion of easy credit it has been easy for everything to go upscale. That quaint out of the way inn is now likely a quaint out of the way inn and spa with rooms at $500 a night rather than $50; the little Italian joint is now a fancy trattoria where the pasta is $20 a plate. A cup of coffee has morphed into a $4 latte.
It was in this context that I read about Berea College in today’s New York Times. This college in Kentucky charges no tuition, requires that its students work on campus, and handles almost as many students as prestigious Amherst College. Best of all, those graduates enter the world with no student loans to pay back. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all graduates were as fortunate.
Wouldn’t it be a grand goal to set for ourselves to have every graduate from an accredited college or university leave campus with no financial debt to the institution? Imagine if instead of starting one's working life able to save and invest rather than pay back?
Berea is interesting because they have dared to think differently about how – and why – they provide an education. It is a pretty bare bones place but that is how they make their model work. Imagine if we could spread that imagination both to other educational institutions and also to other facets of our lives.
Imagine if we, as a society, put $2,000 into an interest-bearing retirement account for each child born in the U.S. The principal could be automatically repaid when the child turns 18 but the accrued interest could be the beginning of a retirement fund. Eighteen years of compounded interest can be significant.
Imagine if we thought about optimizing outcomes rather than spending so much time trying to ratify processes through ideological filters that worry about public vs. private.
Imagine.
Ask the wage earners you know what they are concerned about and you’ll likely hear about health care costs, saving for retirement (which has a large health care component), and putting the kids through college. These fundamentals have been getting more and more expensive – and increasingly out of reach for even middle-class families. Layer that with the recent inflation in food and energy costs (likely to last five to ten years according to the experts I speak with) and you can see the storm clouds darkening.
Ask those same wage earners if they would trade our system for the European model with higher taxes but universal health care, college tuition, and generous government pension programs and they’ll likely shriek and label you a Commie sympathizer. Better to keep the money for yourself so that your fate is in your own hands.
But of course most people don’t save enough to take care of any of these needs. College is increasingly funded through loans (that’s debt, kids) and the national savings rate is at just about zero.
“US consumers’ savings rates are among the lowest in the OECD. They always have
been, but the wedge has widened in recent years. Back in the early 1990s, US
consumers saved about 7% of their disposable income. By the latter 1990s that
was down to the 4% level, and in the new millennium the rate sank to 2%. This
dropped further – close to zero – as booming growth continued. Americans spent
nearly all that they earned in the 2005-07 period.”
There are debates about how the savings rate is calculated but, in any event, basic building blocks of economic mobility are becoming less and less attainable for more and more people. The amount of debt being carried by the average family increasing. Half of all personal bankruptcies are caused by unexpected medical expenses.
The underlying issue that I see is that it is increasingly difficult for one to live what I call a “rich poor” life. A rich poor life is what your old English and Math teachers likely lived. They didn’t earn a ton of money but they could afford a house, healthcare came from the job and the deductions weren’t overly burdensome, and retirement was covered through a traditional pension plan. They managed to live interesting lives – traveled, went to the symphony, ate out now and again -- and could do it rather frugally.
That is increasingly difficult to do. First, as mentioned above some of the basics for long-term economic stability are harder to attain. Second, with the expansion of easy credit it has been easy for everything to go upscale. That quaint out of the way inn is now likely a quaint out of the way inn and spa with rooms at $500 a night rather than $50; the little Italian joint is now a fancy trattoria where the pasta is $20 a plate. A cup of coffee has morphed into a $4 latte.
It was in this context that I read about Berea College in today’s New York Times. This college in Kentucky charges no tuition, requires that its students work on campus, and handles almost as many students as prestigious Amherst College. Best of all, those graduates enter the world with no student loans to pay back. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all graduates were as fortunate.
Wouldn’t it be a grand goal to set for ourselves to have every graduate from an accredited college or university leave campus with no financial debt to the institution? Imagine if instead of starting one's working life able to save and invest rather than pay back?
Berea is interesting because they have dared to think differently about how – and why – they provide an education. It is a pretty bare bones place but that is how they make their model work. Imagine if we could spread that imagination both to other educational institutions and also to other facets of our lives.
Imagine if we, as a society, put $2,000 into an interest-bearing retirement account for each child born in the U.S. The principal could be automatically repaid when the child turns 18 but the accrued interest could be the beginning of a retirement fund. Eighteen years of compounded interest can be significant.
Imagine if we thought about optimizing outcomes rather than spending so much time trying to ratify processes through ideological filters that worry about public vs. private.
Imagine.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
The Muffin Man
Perhaps it is because the economic news is just too depressing -- Fannie, Freddy, and Indy all melting down, inflation is up -- that I've been musing about muffins. Simple, sweet, escape.
A great muffin is wonderful. It's a small indulgence that induces less guilt than cookies or cake. It only costs a couple of bucks (well, getting closer to $3.00 every day) and it is beautifully self-contained. The tactile experience of bottom and top are generally just different enough to make a single muffin feel like a double treat. The top is a bit crunchier and a little less dense; the bottom moister and more compact.
I hold that blueberry is the muffin flavor by which one can best judge a muffin maker. Blueberry may not be your muffin of choice, but like vanilla ice cream it has the privilege of being quintessential. You may prefer corn, cappuccino, or cinnamon but we need a single variety to stand as the yardstick. Blueberry muffins make the grade because they require the baker to balance fruit and dough and there's no hiding behind icing or other gimmicks (and, blogger's prerogative, they are my muffin of choice!).
My favorite blueberry muffins feature whole berries and plenty of them. The muffin should be moist enough not to crumble at the touch. The fruit should be distributed throughout the muffin so that there is some in every bite -- no cheating by dropping berries on top like baubles on an Easter bonnet. New York coffee shops used to feature berries that had been minced and mixed throughout the batter. These weren't bad, especially when grilled, but they can't stand up to a whole berry creation.
Most important, the muffin should be no sweeter than the berries themselves so that the flavor of the fruit dominates. The batter is like a character actor: important, but charged with completing the scene without stealing it. The muffin needn't be large. Too many muffin makers have given in to the urge to supersize their treats and often that means spreading the expensive ingredients -- the fruit -- too thin. About the size of a baseball seems right to me (also making the muffin a potent weapon in a food fight:)).
Another common mistake is to try to compensate for less fruit with more sugar. If your teeth hurt when you bit into the muffin, you know that there has been too heavy a hand with the sweetners.
Too much sweetness is something I find common at places like Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts where muffins are often delivered flash frozen to the local establishment; sweetners must keep the muffins feeling fresh long after staleness should have crept in. The compromises made in the name of cost control and supply chain efficiency result in muffins that feel artificial in the mouth. I'm sure that there are other multi-syllabic enhancements that add to the plasticity of these products. That's it these are products, muffin-like products in the way that American cheese slices are "cheese food product," not cheese. The benefits accrue to my waistline as I can't bear to eat muffins at either establishment any more.
Au Bon Pain seems to be able to balance scale with authenticity in its blueberry muffins better than most of the other chains. Their muffins are somewhat inconsistent but I did have a wonderfully fruity one yesterday.
Best of all are homemade muffins or those from stand-alone shops that bake their own. I had a wonderful blueberry corn muffin at a little roadside bakeshop in Wellfleet last weekend that was everything that a muffin should be. As in so many things, it is artisan craft and pride that bring out the best in food. Time and care create great rewards in both the baking and the eating. Ah, I think I hear the oven calling me now...
A great muffin is wonderful. It's a small indulgence that induces less guilt than cookies or cake. It only costs a couple of bucks (well, getting closer to $3.00 every day) and it is beautifully self-contained. The tactile experience of bottom and top are generally just different enough to make a single muffin feel like a double treat. The top is a bit crunchier and a little less dense; the bottom moister and more compact.
I hold that blueberry is the muffin flavor by which one can best judge a muffin maker. Blueberry may not be your muffin of choice, but like vanilla ice cream it has the privilege of being quintessential. You may prefer corn, cappuccino, or cinnamon but we need a single variety to stand as the yardstick. Blueberry muffins make the grade because they require the baker to balance fruit and dough and there's no hiding behind icing or other gimmicks (and, blogger's prerogative, they are my muffin of choice!).
My favorite blueberry muffins feature whole berries and plenty of them. The muffin should be moist enough not to crumble at the touch. The fruit should be distributed throughout the muffin so that there is some in every bite -- no cheating by dropping berries on top like baubles on an Easter bonnet. New York coffee shops used to feature berries that had been minced and mixed throughout the batter. These weren't bad, especially when grilled, but they can't stand up to a whole berry creation.
Most important, the muffin should be no sweeter than the berries themselves so that the flavor of the fruit dominates. The batter is like a character actor: important, but charged with completing the scene without stealing it. The muffin needn't be large. Too many muffin makers have given in to the urge to supersize their treats and often that means spreading the expensive ingredients -- the fruit -- too thin. About the size of a baseball seems right to me (also making the muffin a potent weapon in a food fight:)).
Another common mistake is to try to compensate for less fruit with more sugar. If your teeth hurt when you bit into the muffin, you know that there has been too heavy a hand with the sweetners.
Too much sweetness is something I find common at places like Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts where muffins are often delivered flash frozen to the local establishment; sweetners must keep the muffins feeling fresh long after staleness should have crept in. The compromises made in the name of cost control and supply chain efficiency result in muffins that feel artificial in the mouth. I'm sure that there are other multi-syllabic enhancements that add to the plasticity of these products. That's it these are products, muffin-like products in the way that American cheese slices are "cheese food product," not cheese. The benefits accrue to my waistline as I can't bear to eat muffins at either establishment any more.
Au Bon Pain seems to be able to balance scale with authenticity in its blueberry muffins better than most of the other chains. Their muffins are somewhat inconsistent but I did have a wonderfully fruity one yesterday.
Best of all are homemade muffins or those from stand-alone shops that bake their own. I had a wonderful blueberry corn muffin at a little roadside bakeshop in Wellfleet last weekend that was everything that a muffin should be. As in so many things, it is artisan craft and pride that bring out the best in food. Time and care create great rewards in both the baking and the eating. Ah, I think I hear the oven calling me now...
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Sometimes It's Painfully Clear
We have a houseful on the Cape each Fourth of July. This time it was seven adults and five kids spread across three small cottages. The parade, the pancake breakfast, the fireworks were all delightful.
It was a rainy weekend here in the northeast and that means that movies are often substituted for the beach. There was debate across the ages about what to see (the crowd ranged from four to 73 years old). When we had narrowed it down to Wall-E, The Golden Boys, and some other I've now forgotten, we had to decide when to go.
That's when the differences in the generations became oh-so apparent. My mother-in-law asked if anyone had bought a paper, my wife went looking for a phone, and my nephew asked if I'd fire up the laptop.
There, unprompted, were three generations expressing their preferences for retreiving information. The reactions were instantaneous; the arc from printed page to wireless Internet connection hung like a rainbow above us.
The phone was the fastest, the laptop most information-rich, and the newspaper the most diverting (the story about Mabel's prize hydrangea bushes would otherwise never have been seen). As much as I prize efficiency and the ability to find reviews, actors' bios, and the director's previous credits, I have to say that I was sorry that no one had bought a paper. I missed the excuse to page through The Cape Codder marveling at the price of real estate, checking the tides, and reading about hydrangea bushes.
We did get to the movies -- The Golden Boys was the choice as it had been filmed on the Cape. It was awful. I guess that's one more point for the information-rich digital connection.
It was a rainy weekend here in the northeast and that means that movies are often substituted for the beach. There was debate across the ages about what to see (the crowd ranged from four to 73 years old). When we had narrowed it down to Wall-E, The Golden Boys, and some other I've now forgotten, we had to decide when to go.
That's when the differences in the generations became oh-so apparent. My mother-in-law asked if anyone had bought a paper, my wife went looking for a phone, and my nephew asked if I'd fire up the laptop.
There, unprompted, were three generations expressing their preferences for retreiving information. The reactions were instantaneous; the arc from printed page to wireless Internet connection hung like a rainbow above us.
The phone was the fastest, the laptop most information-rich, and the newspaper the most diverting (the story about Mabel's prize hydrangea bushes would otherwise never have been seen). As much as I prize efficiency and the ability to find reviews, actors' bios, and the director's previous credits, I have to say that I was sorry that no one had bought a paper. I missed the excuse to page through The Cape Codder marveling at the price of real estate, checking the tides, and reading about hydrangea bushes.
We did get to the movies -- The Golden Boys was the choice as it had been filmed on the Cape. It was awful. I guess that's one more point for the information-rich digital connection.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Growing Old, Living Fully
There's a fascinating story in today's Wall Street Journal (try the link but a subscription is required to see most stories) on green houses. No, not the kind where you grow exotic orchids, but rather small group homes for the elderly that proponents will someday replace nursing homes. Each home houses 10 - 12 residents in what looks and feels like a traditional home yet provides advanced medical care.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is putting some serious cash behind a plan developed by Dr. Bill Thomas to try to reach critical mass -- green houses operating in all 50 states -- in hopes that the movement will gain enough traction to be self-sustaining. He's just one proponent of this alternative to traditional nursing homes.
I think that this all sounds wonderful. One of my grandmothers spent her final three years in a nursing home and I can't recall ever being to a more depressing place. I hope to secure the right pill so that I can end things before I get to that state but might reconsider that chilling option if something like green houses are available.
One challenge is keeping this within the reach of average people. Current "assisted living" options are pretty darn expensive. I would hope that the group setting would encourage mutual care that might lower some costs. One study mentioned in the WSJ showed that the costs in a green house can be lower than in a traditional nursing home despite the scale advantages of the larger institution.
The capital costs of building the facilities is one thing that makes the green houses difficult financially. I wonder, however, if existing urban building stock could be adapted and repurposed for use as green houses. The density of urban areas lessens the need for cars, offers greater opportunities for social interaction, and may offer amenities such as movie theaters, drug stores, etc. I can even imagine several green house "condos" in relatively close proximity that could benefit from some centralized back office efficiencies.
The population is aging and we need to rethink how the elderly live their final years. There are enormous opporunities that can come from rethinking current approaches and being bold enough to try new ideas. It is heartening to hear about efforts such as this one. Please, build a green house in my backyard.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is putting some serious cash behind a plan developed by Dr. Bill Thomas to try to reach critical mass -- green houses operating in all 50 states -- in hopes that the movement will gain enough traction to be self-sustaining. He's just one proponent of this alternative to traditional nursing homes.
I think that this all sounds wonderful. One of my grandmothers spent her final three years in a nursing home and I can't recall ever being to a more depressing place. I hope to secure the right pill so that I can end things before I get to that state but might reconsider that chilling option if something like green houses are available.
One challenge is keeping this within the reach of average people. Current "assisted living" options are pretty darn expensive. I would hope that the group setting would encourage mutual care that might lower some costs. One study mentioned in the WSJ showed that the costs in a green house can be lower than in a traditional nursing home despite the scale advantages of the larger institution.
The capital costs of building the facilities is one thing that makes the green houses difficult financially. I wonder, however, if existing urban building stock could be adapted and repurposed for use as green houses. The density of urban areas lessens the need for cars, offers greater opportunities for social interaction, and may offer amenities such as movie theaters, drug stores, etc. I can even imagine several green house "condos" in relatively close proximity that could benefit from some centralized back office efficiencies.
The population is aging and we need to rethink how the elderly live their final years. There are enormous opporunities that can come from rethinking current approaches and being bold enough to try new ideas. It is heartening to hear about efforts such as this one. Please, build a green house in my backyard.
Friday, June 20, 2008
An End to Airline Hell?
It’s not news that flying is becoming less fun by the day. Actually, it’s not news that flying was never as easy and convenient as the airlines wanted us to believe, but it sure beats the bus. Now, like millions of other regular business travelers, I have grown accustomed to arriving extra early so that I can spend thirty-seven minutes in line to be wanded, prodded, stroked, and searched by security guards (slip them a couple of bucks and, if you’re lucky, I hear they’ll use hot oil).
I know that there are solid reasons for enhanced security. What the early arrivals have given me, however, is the extra time to wonder why the rest of the process is so difficult. After all, you can’t swing a laptop in an airport without hitting a consultant. Can’t anyone reengineer this process?
For example, think about trying to get something to eat at the airport. You may think it’s easy given the plethora of stalls, stands, and snack shacks that line the endless walkways between the check-in counter and the departure gate, but I don’t say it’s hard to find something to eat, it’s just hard to get it. And, now that the airlines have stopped feeding us the food we complained about so much, airport eating has become a necessity.
Of course there is no food service directory, so you never know what you’ll find for food on your journey through the Tolkein-like maze of the terminal. My doctor has suggested that I limit myself to no more than two complete meals a day from Starbuck’s so I cruise for something at least minimally nutritious to carry onto the flight. After too many runway-side dining experiences I have learned that nutrition is not something that comes naturally to food served in airports so it takes some work.
I’ve also learned Murphy’s Law of Airport Cuisine. For departing flights, the food gets worse as you get closer to the gate. For arriving flights, the opposite is true. I think of myself as an average business traveler. I lug a briefcase that holds eight pounds of laptop and accessories, three and a half pounds of files and other work-related reading, the day’s newspaper, eyeglasses, sunglasses, a paper-clipped bundle of receipts from the last business trip, my keys and $7.83 in loose change that I’ve accumulated because I throw it my bag rather than play the “what else that’s metal do you have in your pocket” game with the security guard at the metal detector. All told, it’s a load that guarantees my chiropractor an income for life. I pull along a wheeled suitcase that holds everything else.
Maneuvering into a self-serve line at Junk Food Hut with an overstuffed briefcase and a suitcase is like driving with a U-Haul trailer on your car at rush hour. I don’t dare leave my things by a chair that I hope to occupy because a sweet, manufactured voice broadcast from loudspeakers every few minutes reminds me that unattended items are considered a safety threat and will be confiscated by the authorities for immediate destruction. I always thought that you shouldn’t leave luggage sitting unattended because someone might steal it, but I guess that thinking is just too 20th century. Now that anyone could be an international terrorist I have to worry about the police making off with my socks and undies.
Either way, my baggage and I must remain a unit as I pick up an orange plastic tray and attempt to fetch my meal. I grab an individual mini-pizza from a shiny metal warming stand while balancing the briefcase, the suitcase, and the tray. I stand in back of six other people and pity the women around me who manage to do all of this in heels. Finally, at the end of the line, I find someone ready to help me. “You wanna drink?” he asks in a voice bursting with indifference. “Large decaf. Milk, no sugar,” I reply, sagging under the weight of my load. The rushing throng of travelers buzzes like swarming locusts on a summer afternoon, but the hollow sound of an empty Styrofoam cup hitting the tray resonates above the din. “Coffee’s behind you.” He turns slightly to the person behind me. “You wanna drink?”
I fumble with my wallet to pay a ransom to his cohort at the register and slalom my way across the seating area to another counter marked “Beverages” in warm, cheery, modern letters. There, balancing the briefcase, the suitcase, the tray with pizza and the tottering empty cup, I must pour coffee, add milk, stir, and cover. Can’t forget napkins. And have to keep the receipt from blowing off the tray. Finally, I set down like a helicopter for a brief moment to rebalance my cargo. With a prayer to my dry cleaner, I jam the receipt into my pocket, stuff the napkins into my briefcase, and double-check the lid on the coffee.
OK, fifteen minutes to boarding. I’m by Gate A3 and, let’s see, my flight departs from Gate A147. We’re off. Feeling like a cruise ship waiter in a gale, I maneuver toward my far-off awaiting aircraft, bobbing and weaving with my precious payload. The briefcase fits atop the suitcase that I pull with my right hand. I have the pizza balanced on top of the coffee cup in my left. How, I wonder, will I ever pull out my boarding pass?
However, once on the moving sidewalk, I can ignore the colorful ads from consulting firms and think of the many simple things that could make this whole process – from check-in to in-flight meal – easier, more pleasant, and even more profitable. Here are six.
First, let’s talk about check in. At 6’3” with a 34” inseam, I am an exit row fanatic. That extra legroom is far closer to necessity than luxury, yet my chances of getting it are purely a matter of chance because the seats aren’t preassigned (the airline has to make sure that you are able bodied and thus assigns them at check in). Some charge extra exit row fees -- an upgrade where you are required to help in case of disaster that you have to pay for. Why not offer exit row certification? I would fork over $99.95 to take a three- or four-hour course so that I would actually know what opening an exit door is all about so long as it would qualify me to request a exit row seat when I book my ticket. The certification would come with a solemn pledge that I not show up on crutches and expect to sit there. The airline would get better-trained emergency assistance and tall people like me would get a more comfortable ride.
Second, hasn’t anyone at an airline ever been to a trade show? When I check in, why not give me everything in a little plastic pouch on a lanyard that can go around my neck? Even the picture ID, once checked, could slide into the front. The information on my checked luggage could be bar coded onto my receipt. The gate agent could then retrieve the plastic pouch at boarding and simply hand me back my boarding receipt and ID. No fumbling in pockets or searching madly in handbags for anyone, not to mention the environmental benefits of eliminating all of those paper folders.
Third, let’s move to security. How about large plastic bottles into which I can dump their change as I approach the metal detector? The proceeds could go to support the victims of terrorism worldwide. If most people are like me, they’d be happy to toss in their 79 cents and the sum could easily result in millions of dollars for people in need. This is in place at Heathrow but I haven't seen it elsewhere. And could we please all acknowledge that the chances of someone hijacking an airplane with a nail file or corkscrew are all but nil? A cup of hot coffee is a greater threat (especially the coffee they serve onboard).
OK, now on to my beloved food. Question to the airlines: why not just let me preorder some food? I know that you aren’t making any money. You know I have to eat. So, why not offer a simple meal for a $10 surcharge -- but let me guarantee that there will be what I want waiting? They've figured out the selling part but you haven't lived until you get on a long flight and find out that they run out of everything two rows in front of you. They could serve it onboard like the old days or just hand me a box meal at the gate. If there’s an “M” on my boarding pass, I paid for a meal and I get one. Everybody’s happy.
If that’s too complicated, let’s move onto Plan B. We live in take-out nation. If the airlines won’t deliver the food, why can’t someone else? Take-out kiosks could let me place an order for food that could be delivered to me at the gate. I just punch in my name and flight to ensure that there’s enough time to deliver and I can sit back and wait, with my luggage safely beside me, for my junk food of choice.
Finally, a plea to the policy makers of corporate America: shouldn’t the right to fly business or first class be determined by total miles flown for the company rather than rank in the organization? The people who regularly show up at five in the morning for a seven o’clock flight away from their families – whether salespeople, mid-level managers, or top executives -- are most deserving of the shorter lines, greater leg room, and better food that comes with upgraded seating. And, best of all, the Senior Vice President who only flies two or three times a year needs to experience first-hand what the rest of us go through all of the time.
I know that there are solid reasons for enhanced security. What the early arrivals have given me, however, is the extra time to wonder why the rest of the process is so difficult. After all, you can’t swing a laptop in an airport without hitting a consultant. Can’t anyone reengineer this process?
For example, think about trying to get something to eat at the airport. You may think it’s easy given the plethora of stalls, stands, and snack shacks that line the endless walkways between the check-in counter and the departure gate, but I don’t say it’s hard to find something to eat, it’s just hard to get it. And, now that the airlines have stopped feeding us the food we complained about so much, airport eating has become a necessity.
Of course there is no food service directory, so you never know what you’ll find for food on your journey through the Tolkein-like maze of the terminal. My doctor has suggested that I limit myself to no more than two complete meals a day from Starbuck’s so I cruise for something at least minimally nutritious to carry onto the flight. After too many runway-side dining experiences I have learned that nutrition is not something that comes naturally to food served in airports so it takes some work.
I’ve also learned Murphy’s Law of Airport Cuisine. For departing flights, the food gets worse as you get closer to the gate. For arriving flights, the opposite is true. I think of myself as an average business traveler. I lug a briefcase that holds eight pounds of laptop and accessories, three and a half pounds of files and other work-related reading, the day’s newspaper, eyeglasses, sunglasses, a paper-clipped bundle of receipts from the last business trip, my keys and $7.83 in loose change that I’ve accumulated because I throw it my bag rather than play the “what else that’s metal do you have in your pocket” game with the security guard at the metal detector. All told, it’s a load that guarantees my chiropractor an income for life. I pull along a wheeled suitcase that holds everything else.
Maneuvering into a self-serve line at Junk Food Hut with an overstuffed briefcase and a suitcase is like driving with a U-Haul trailer on your car at rush hour. I don’t dare leave my things by a chair that I hope to occupy because a sweet, manufactured voice broadcast from loudspeakers every few minutes reminds me that unattended items are considered a safety threat and will be confiscated by the authorities for immediate destruction. I always thought that you shouldn’t leave luggage sitting unattended because someone might steal it, but I guess that thinking is just too 20th century. Now that anyone could be an international terrorist I have to worry about the police making off with my socks and undies.
Either way, my baggage and I must remain a unit as I pick up an orange plastic tray and attempt to fetch my meal. I grab an individual mini-pizza from a shiny metal warming stand while balancing the briefcase, the suitcase, and the tray. I stand in back of six other people and pity the women around me who manage to do all of this in heels. Finally, at the end of the line, I find someone ready to help me. “You wanna drink?” he asks in a voice bursting with indifference. “Large decaf. Milk, no sugar,” I reply, sagging under the weight of my load. The rushing throng of travelers buzzes like swarming locusts on a summer afternoon, but the hollow sound of an empty Styrofoam cup hitting the tray resonates above the din. “Coffee’s behind you.” He turns slightly to the person behind me. “You wanna drink?”
I fumble with my wallet to pay a ransom to his cohort at the register and slalom my way across the seating area to another counter marked “Beverages” in warm, cheery, modern letters. There, balancing the briefcase, the suitcase, the tray with pizza and the tottering empty cup, I must pour coffee, add milk, stir, and cover. Can’t forget napkins. And have to keep the receipt from blowing off the tray. Finally, I set down like a helicopter for a brief moment to rebalance my cargo. With a prayer to my dry cleaner, I jam the receipt into my pocket, stuff the napkins into my briefcase, and double-check the lid on the coffee.
OK, fifteen minutes to boarding. I’m by Gate A3 and, let’s see, my flight departs from Gate A147. We’re off. Feeling like a cruise ship waiter in a gale, I maneuver toward my far-off awaiting aircraft, bobbing and weaving with my precious payload. The briefcase fits atop the suitcase that I pull with my right hand. I have the pizza balanced on top of the coffee cup in my left. How, I wonder, will I ever pull out my boarding pass?
However, once on the moving sidewalk, I can ignore the colorful ads from consulting firms and think of the many simple things that could make this whole process – from check-in to in-flight meal – easier, more pleasant, and even more profitable. Here are six.
First, let’s talk about check in. At 6’3” with a 34” inseam, I am an exit row fanatic. That extra legroom is far closer to necessity than luxury, yet my chances of getting it are purely a matter of chance because the seats aren’t preassigned (the airline has to make sure that you are able bodied and thus assigns them at check in). Some charge extra exit row fees -- an upgrade where you are required to help in case of disaster that you have to pay for. Why not offer exit row certification? I would fork over $99.95 to take a three- or four-hour course so that I would actually know what opening an exit door is all about so long as it would qualify me to request a exit row seat when I book my ticket. The certification would come with a solemn pledge that I not show up on crutches and expect to sit there. The airline would get better-trained emergency assistance and tall people like me would get a more comfortable ride.
Second, hasn’t anyone at an airline ever been to a trade show? When I check in, why not give me everything in a little plastic pouch on a lanyard that can go around my neck? Even the picture ID, once checked, could slide into the front. The information on my checked luggage could be bar coded onto my receipt. The gate agent could then retrieve the plastic pouch at boarding and simply hand me back my boarding receipt and ID. No fumbling in pockets or searching madly in handbags for anyone, not to mention the environmental benefits of eliminating all of those paper folders.
Third, let’s move to security. How about large plastic bottles into which I can dump their change as I approach the metal detector? The proceeds could go to support the victims of terrorism worldwide. If most people are like me, they’d be happy to toss in their 79 cents and the sum could easily result in millions of dollars for people in need. This is in place at Heathrow but I haven't seen it elsewhere. And could we please all acknowledge that the chances of someone hijacking an airplane with a nail file or corkscrew are all but nil? A cup of hot coffee is a greater threat (especially the coffee they serve onboard).
OK, now on to my beloved food. Question to the airlines: why not just let me preorder some food? I know that you aren’t making any money. You know I have to eat. So, why not offer a simple meal for a $10 surcharge -- but let me guarantee that there will be what I want waiting? They've figured out the selling part but you haven't lived until you get on a long flight and find out that they run out of everything two rows in front of you. They could serve it onboard like the old days or just hand me a box meal at the gate. If there’s an “M” on my boarding pass, I paid for a meal and I get one. Everybody’s happy.
If that’s too complicated, let’s move onto Plan B. We live in take-out nation. If the airlines won’t deliver the food, why can’t someone else? Take-out kiosks could let me place an order for food that could be delivered to me at the gate. I just punch in my name and flight to ensure that there’s enough time to deliver and I can sit back and wait, with my luggage safely beside me, for my junk food of choice.
Finally, a plea to the policy makers of corporate America: shouldn’t the right to fly business or first class be determined by total miles flown for the company rather than rank in the organization? The people who regularly show up at five in the morning for a seven o’clock flight away from their families – whether salespeople, mid-level managers, or top executives -- are most deserving of the shorter lines, greater leg room, and better food that comes with upgraded seating. And, best of all, the Senior Vice President who only flies two or three times a year needs to experience first-hand what the rest of us go through all of the time.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Remembering Russert
I, like most people, was shocked to hear that Tim Russert died last Friday. He was young and, more important, a ubiquitous authority during this momentous presidential campaign. Tim Russert was someone you could count on to help you make sense out of whatever was unfolding.
There has been enough said about his many great qualities as journalist, mentor, colleague, friend, and political insider. All of it is richly deserved, I’m sure. I never met Russert though we did once share a stairway at Rockefeller Center. He was yammering on his cell phone. I was trying hard to pretend that I wasn’t impressed that I was standing next to him as I ascended.
What I will mourn is the loss of another knowledgeable, authoritative voice in our civic discourse. Russert was consistently lauded for fairness, toughness, and a drive to make complex issues “make sense to the folks in Buffalo.” He didn’t make his mark through partisan tirades or gotcha questioning. His strategy was consistent and straight forward: ask pertinent, direct questions and push until he got answers. To be able to do that, he prepared rigorously for each show.
There aren’t many Russerts in the wings. Nightline has lost it punch without Ted Koppel; Meet the Press will have to work hard not to suffer the same fate. When CBS tried to revamp their evening news, they turned to Katie Couric and look what a laugher that has turned out to be. To be fair, CBS tried to make her more of an entertainer than a hard-nosed journalist so let’s not blame it all on Katie. But you see where the great minds of television news production want to take us.
Russert always seemed committed to raising the level of discussion about critical issues, not using them as a stepstool for his own self-aggrandizement. A Chris Matthews or Keith Olberman can’t simply step in and do the same thing. Wolf Blitzer or Lou Dobbs couldn’t carry Russert’s luggage.
We’ll miss Tim Russert in more ways that we know. It will be especially evident as we head into the general election. This also provides an opportunities for others to step up and show us what they’ve got. There’s no one who can measure up to Russert today but let’s hope that someone can grow to fill those shoes in the months ahead.
There has been enough said about his many great qualities as journalist, mentor, colleague, friend, and political insider. All of it is richly deserved, I’m sure. I never met Russert though we did once share a stairway at Rockefeller Center. He was yammering on his cell phone. I was trying hard to pretend that I wasn’t impressed that I was standing next to him as I ascended.
What I will mourn is the loss of another knowledgeable, authoritative voice in our civic discourse. Russert was consistently lauded for fairness, toughness, and a drive to make complex issues “make sense to the folks in Buffalo.” He didn’t make his mark through partisan tirades or gotcha questioning. His strategy was consistent and straight forward: ask pertinent, direct questions and push until he got answers. To be able to do that, he prepared rigorously for each show.
There aren’t many Russerts in the wings. Nightline has lost it punch without Ted Koppel; Meet the Press will have to work hard not to suffer the same fate. When CBS tried to revamp their evening news, they turned to Katie Couric and look what a laugher that has turned out to be. To be fair, CBS tried to make her more of an entertainer than a hard-nosed journalist so let’s not blame it all on Katie. But you see where the great minds of television news production want to take us.
Russert always seemed committed to raising the level of discussion about critical issues, not using them as a stepstool for his own self-aggrandizement. A Chris Matthews or Keith Olberman can’t simply step in and do the same thing. Wolf Blitzer or Lou Dobbs couldn’t carry Russert’s luggage.
We’ll miss Tim Russert in more ways that we know. It will be especially evident as we head into the general election. This also provides an opportunities for others to step up and show us what they’ve got. There’s no one who can measure up to Russert today but let’s hope that someone can grow to fill those shoes in the months ahead.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Rethinking the American Diet
Blogging live from lunch at South Water Kitchen in Chicago.The photo on the front page of today's New York Times is astounding: hundreds of thousands of people in South Korea protesting U.S. beef imports. I guess that U.S. beef is not what's for dinner in Seoul and fear of mad cow disease (and a desire to protect the local beef producers) is why. The wide shot of the crowd doesn't pop up on the Times' Web site but this AP shot from Yahoo will give you the meaty flavor of the gathering.
I've been thinking a lot about beef ever since I read a piece in the Times a few months back about its environmental impact. Everyone eliminating 20% of one's beef intake, as I recall, was the equivalent of switching from a Camry to a Prius (if the Times' search engine wasn't so feeble I'd link you to the article). I've been trying to do that both for the health and environmental benefits (Hint: making breakfast meatless is an easy start; one or two dinners a week isn't that hard either. Harder but effective is to restrict oneself to small farm, grass fed beef -- it's just that much harder to find, especially in restaurants).
I tried being a pescitarian for a few weeks last year but, well, it only lasted a few weeks. I'm an omnivore and there isn't anything I can do about that. No apologies from me for eating things with faces. I could never do the no carb thing; the smell alone of fresh baked bread makes me weak in the knees. Vegetarianism? That is great until the ecoli shows up in the spinach or salmonella gets tomatoes whisked from the shelves faster than Obama signs at a McCain rally.
Mark Bittman's excellent piece in today's Dining In section (hey, I was on an airplane and the Times was all I had to read today) gives great ideas for putting meat in its place. The one that struck me most was conceptual: think of meat as a treasure, a jewel, rather than as the center of the meal. This is how meat is thought of in much of the world and this subtle mental shift makes portion control a lot more palatable. Think, for example, of answering the "what's for dinner" question with "A great caprese salad with fresh mozzerella a little sliced tenderloin" instead of "steak and salad." The ingredients don't have to change in order to alter expectations.
Here at the South Water Kitchen, the burger is advertised as a half-pounder. Who needs a half pound of beef for lunch? I remember when the Quarter Pounder was introduced and it was played up as an enormous amount of meat. Increasingly, restaurant burgers are 8, 10, or more ounces of beef. The USDA reports that per capita meat consumption is up 57 lbs per year (2000 vs. 1950).
Americans have steadily increased their caloric consumption between 1970 and 2000 (22% for women; 7% for men as of 2000 according to the National Center for Health Statistics; USDA suggests that it has grown by 24% overall). Soft drink consumption is up five-fold over the past 50 years. And we wonder why so many of those around us are obese.
With more people working more hours, dependence on convenient foods (ready to eat, take out, restaurants, etc.) will continue to grow. This means a greater dependence on a corporate food supply -- you don't get a lot of heat-and-serve options at your local farmers' market. While there are healthy options, too much of what we grab to go is laden with salt, high fructose corn syrup, factory farm bred meat and poultry, and other ingredients that are far from the best you can put in your body.
It's time to rethink the American diet. We need to make the personal and policy efforts necessary to increase local food production, small and medium-sized farms, and fresh, unprocessed foods. We need to acknowledge that most of us should be eating less and virtually all of us should be eating differently.
Then again, we may not have a choiceTom Pawlick is eloquent on the larger issues that may cause the current food system to collapse in The End of Food.
Now I'm off to produce an event at (sigh) Morton's Steak House. See how hard it is to eat small?
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Evolution, Creation, Solution?
Overshadowed by yesterday's flurry of stories about Obama crossing the delegate threshhold to claim the Democratic nomination was a piece about the Texas School Board in the New York Times. Supporters of intelligent design/creationism are once again taking a run at how evolution is taught in schools.
I spent a couple of years attending an evangelical church in my teen years. I was active in youth groups and new people from several other like-minded congregations. I learned that true believers hold tight to the idea that there is one way, that all other options are the work of Satan, and that one's calling in life as a Christian is to spread the Word. In short, as moderate as opponents of teaching evolution try to sound, they are serious and they aren't going away.
Rather than delve into the argument over whether alternatives to evolutionary theory should be taught in science classes, I'd like to propose an alternative: teach religion in schools.
Note that I said "teach," not "preach." Understanding religion is critical to understanding both current affairs and history and I believe that there should be a required high school course that educates students about the major religions (without dogma). Everyone should know the the basic beliefs and history of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus. It should be an active class with many guest lecturers, field trips, and research projects.
This class would be the place to present the Christian view of creation (along with lots of other concepts from the various religions). It would provide a respectful evironment for the airing and exploration of all sorts of faith-based ideas. And it would let us reserve science class for scientific theories rather than putting students in the middle of the age-old battle between science and religion (although what a great history class that topic would make!).
"Opponents of teaching evolution, in a natural selection of sorts, have
gradually shed those strategies that have not survived the courts. Over the last
decade, creationism has given rise to “creation science,” which became
“intelligent design,” which in 2005 was banned from the public school curriculum
in Pennsylvania by a federal judge.
Now a battle looms in Texas
over science textbooks that teach evolution, and the wrestle for control seizes
on three words. None of them are “creationism” or “intelligent design” or even
“creator.”
The words are 'strengths and weaknesses," the Times reported.
I spent a couple of years attending an evangelical church in my teen years. I was active in youth groups and new people from several other like-minded congregations. I learned that true believers hold tight to the idea that there is one way, that all other options are the work of Satan, and that one's calling in life as a Christian is to spread the Word. In short, as moderate as opponents of teaching evolution try to sound, they are serious and they aren't going away.
Rather than delve into the argument over whether alternatives to evolutionary theory should be taught in science classes, I'd like to propose an alternative: teach religion in schools.
Note that I said "teach," not "preach." Understanding religion is critical to understanding both current affairs and history and I believe that there should be a required high school course that educates students about the major religions (without dogma). Everyone should know the the basic beliefs and history of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus. It should be an active class with many guest lecturers, field trips, and research projects.
This class would be the place to present the Christian view of creation (along with lots of other concepts from the various religions). It would provide a respectful evironment for the airing and exploration of all sorts of faith-based ideas. And it would let us reserve science class for scientific theories rather than putting students in the middle of the age-old battle between science and religion (although what a great history class that topic would make!).
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Kaffiyeh Kerfuffel (or Rachel Ray Suicide Bomber)
I first learned of the dust up over the scarf that Rachel Ray wore in a Dunkin' Donuts online ad yesterday morning on LinkedIn, the business networking site, of all places. In the "Answers" section there was a question from a branding professional asking for opinions on DD's decision to pull the ad after protests from conservative commentators. A few minutes later the anchor at Boston's WCVB-TV announced that the story about Rachel's scarf was among the most popular on its web site.
This isn't really about a silly ol' scarf; what has been classified until now is a CIA discovery that virtually all terrorists can prepare their meals in 30 minutes or less -- and how could that be possible without some covert coaching from the diva of rapid cuisine?!
DD obviously blew this one. In response to the taunts from a few shrill voices, the chain overreacted and now faces charges of racism, corporate cowardice, and serving weak iced coffee. The ad has probably been seen by more people than ever would have seen it otherwise and most of the comments I've seen online are strong protests against the donut maker. One organization has called for a worldwide boycott.
Blogs are buzzing with comments on this incident: Jake Summers, The Jawa Report, Ugly Doggy, The Conglomerate, and Lalablahblah are just a few. It's been picked up on Yahoo, Newsweek.com and other outlets. This has become a textbook example of how not to respond to hot headed criticism.
If you are going to play in the online world, you have to learn how to deal with situations like this. You are in the land of conversation, not monologue and people are going to comment positively and negatively on what you are doing. You have to know when and whether to engage. In this case, either silence or a simple clarification that the scarf wasn't a kaffiyeh but that kaffiyeh's are worn by millions of non-terrorists (some DD customers, no doubt) --without pulling the ad --would have been much more appropriate and productive for the brand. Personally, I would have sent the offending paisley scarf to Michelle Malkin -- the commentator who got much of this fired up -- with a suggestion that she wrap it around her own neck really tight.
Malkin and her fellow travelers in Arab bashing and fear mongering, nattering nabobs of negativism, to borrow a phrase from one of their conservative forebearers, must be thriled at all of the attention this story has received.
But Rachel Ray a terrorist sympathizer? Get real. She only terrorizes with her ubiquitousness and indeftatigable drive to be perky at all times. Check the lists of the top 10,000 people most likely to be abetting terrorists and you won't find her Ray-ship there except those kept by the truly delusional and paranoid.
The upside that I see is all the commentary from those of us who are appalled at all of this and who decry the racism in the equating a commonly worn garment with terrorism. Shame on Malkin. Shame on Dunkin' Donuts. I'm going to go buy a kaffiyeh and wear it out to buy coffee!
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Gas prices and the Arctic
I was listening to a report on NPR this morning about the Congressional hearings at which the heads of the big oil companies were called to testify. The senators gassed on about the impact of the high cost of oil on American families -- the impact on families is true enough but they should have thought of that before starting a war in the Middle East that both consumes a lot of oil and raises uncertainty in the region -- and the first (reported) response from an oil executive -- if we'd only let them drill more places in the U.S. all of this wouldn't be happening.
It made me think -- is part of the rising price gas (and the tolerance of it by the White House and others in Washington) a plan to make the pain at the pump intense enough that Americans drop their opposition to drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge and other environmentally sensitive spots?
The people I know in the oil business realize that they are in the energy business, that fossil fuels are only part of the answer, and that U.S. reserves are too tiny to provide a long-term solution. However, I only know people at one big energy company well and they've been out front in talking about strategic energy interdependence and the need for alternatives to fossil fuels. Needless to say this wasn't the company quoted in the story.
Many, many in the oil business drool at the thought of drilling in the Artic and off our coasts. I don't want to claim a vast oil-wing conspiracy, but I wouldn't put it past these companies to try to take advantage of any opportunity to finally get what they have lusted after for years.
It made me think -- is part of the rising price gas (and the tolerance of it by the White House and others in Washington) a plan to make the pain at the pump intense enough that Americans drop their opposition to drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge and other environmentally sensitive spots?
The people I know in the oil business realize that they are in the energy business, that fossil fuels are only part of the answer, and that U.S. reserves are too tiny to provide a long-term solution. However, I only know people at one big energy company well and they've been out front in talking about strategic energy interdependence and the need for alternatives to fossil fuels. Needless to say this wasn't the company quoted in the story.
Many, many in the oil business drool at the thought of drilling in the Artic and off our coasts. I don't want to claim a vast oil-wing conspiracy, but I wouldn't put it past these companies to try to take advantage of any opportunity to finally get what they have lusted after for years.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Microsoft and Yahoo!
Microsoft is back in the hunt for at least part of Yahoo! They are desperate to gain ground on Google in online advertising. To me, Microsoft's great interest is an indication that the party is about to be over in online advertising (and eventually people will realize in all advertising).
Quick show of hands: how many of you have ever clicked on a banner ad (on purpose)?
Advertisers keep trying to get more and more clever (and intrusive) because consumers are getting better and better at avoiding ads -- we don't like them very much. They are annoying. We put up with them because advertiser-supported content is generally free (or at least low priced) content and we all like free. Those two trains -- advertisers wanting advertising that is measurably effective and consumers wanting free content -- are on a collision course.
More important, Microsoft is better at being big than it is at being good (ask the users of Vista). Perhaps they would be better served by spinning some cash out as investments in other companies and then leaving them alone to grow. They could harvest innovation, technology and financial returns along the way if they can just get over the need to suck them all into the mothership. They need new thinking more than greater heft.
Microsoft has long lived with a world view that offers two options for any obstacle they encounter: eat it or kill it. Neither of those will work for them now. They need to adopt a Save-the-Children model -- let's call it Save the Start Ups. They need to start sending money without expecting much in return for awhile. They need to learn to nurture.
Quick show of hands: how many of you have ever clicked on a banner ad (on purpose)?
Advertisers keep trying to get more and more clever (and intrusive) because consumers are getting better and better at avoiding ads -- we don't like them very much. They are annoying. We put up with them because advertiser-supported content is generally free (or at least low priced) content and we all like free. Those two trains -- advertisers wanting advertising that is measurably effective and consumers wanting free content -- are on a collision course.
More important, Microsoft is better at being big than it is at being good (ask the users of Vista). Perhaps they would be better served by spinning some cash out as investments in other companies and then leaving them alone to grow. They could harvest innovation, technology and financial returns along the way if they can just get over the need to suck them all into the mothership. They need new thinking more than greater heft.
Microsoft has long lived with a world view that offers two options for any obstacle they encounter: eat it or kill it. Neither of those will work for them now. They need to adopt a Save-the-Children model -- let's call it Save the Start Ups. They need to start sending money without expecting much in return for awhile. They need to learn to nurture.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Obama Rubin '08
I had the chance to spend time with a senior strategist from the Boston Consulting Group. Among the things he told me was that he believes we are entering a period of significant inflation that could last 10 - 15 years. The inflation will be driven by demand for basic commodities thanks to the growth of China, India, and other emerging economies as well as our own lust for consumption.
We've already begun to see it with rising prices for gasoline and many food products. What was interesting was his forecast that it could last for more than a dozen years. We haven't had an inflationary spell like that since the 1970's. I'm old enough to remember those days (and was getting my undergraduate degree in Economics at the time) but many business leaders have never been through these conditions. It's going to be a rough ride.
This got me thinking about the upcoming election and Barack Obama's options for vice president. I'd like to suggest that he consider Robert Rubin. In case you've forgotten, Rubin was a senior advisor and then Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton administration. He's about the smartest people I've seen on economic matters, has a passion for building economic literacy, and has great credibility on Wall Street.
The next President is going to inherit an economic mess and, according to my BCG colleague, it isn't going to get better for quite awhile. S/he'll need solid financial advice from a trustworthy source. Rubin would also add a bit of gray hair that an Obama ticket could use.
Obama/Rubin '08. It has a ring to it.
We've already begun to see it with rising prices for gasoline and many food products. What was interesting was his forecast that it could last for more than a dozen years. We haven't had an inflationary spell like that since the 1970's. I'm old enough to remember those days (and was getting my undergraduate degree in Economics at the time) but many business leaders have never been through these conditions. It's going to be a rough ride.
This got me thinking about the upcoming election and Barack Obama's options for vice president. I'd like to suggest that he consider Robert Rubin. In case you've forgotten, Rubin was a senior advisor and then Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton administration. He's about the smartest people I've seen on economic matters, has a passion for building economic literacy, and has great credibility on Wall Street.
The next President is going to inherit an economic mess and, according to my BCG colleague, it isn't going to get better for quite awhile. S/he'll need solid financial advice from a trustworthy source. Rubin would also add a bit of gray hair that an Obama ticket could use.
Obama/Rubin '08. It has a ring to it.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Happy, happy, happy
I spent the most wonderful day yesterday leading a discussion about happiness and its implications for business. It may seem a bit esoteric to the unitiated but there is a fair amount of hard science in the study of happiness and its benefits for us.
The meeting was convened at Harvard with the support of Coca-Cola. Among those participating were Annie McKee, Robert Provine, Ellen Langer, Nancy Etcoff, Marc Mattieu, and Robert Biswas-Diener.
Beyond the hard science was the general belief that a positive approach to life yields greater benefits than a focus on weaknesses and faults. Businesses that want to engage customers and employees would do well to gain a deeper understanding of happiness.
I'll be posting more on the discussion in the days ahead. For now, I'm just basking in the glow of a great meeting with wonderful people.
The meeting was convened at Harvard with the support of Coca-Cola. Among those participating were Annie McKee, Robert Provine, Ellen Langer, Nancy Etcoff, Marc Mattieu, and Robert Biswas-Diener.
Beyond the hard science was the general belief that a positive approach to life yields greater benefits than a focus on weaknesses and faults. Businesses that want to engage customers and employees would do well to gain a deeper understanding of happiness.
I'll be posting more on the discussion in the days ahead. For now, I'm just basking in the glow of a great meeting with wonderful people.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Health Care Idiocy
Why are we still on first base with our national discussion of healthcare reform when the rest of the industrialized world has figured it out? Almost all of them pay less and get better results. A recent Frontline laid it out pretty clearly.
Why aren't we discussing how we can adapt what others have learned to work here?
Enough worrying about rejiggering competition or becoming more patient-centered. Just look around, see what everyone else is doing that works, and appropriate it for ourselves. Yes, it will take toughness to stand up to those who do well under the current system but that's called l-e-a-d-e-r-s-h-i-p.
Short, obvious post for a short, obvious solution to the healthcare problem.
Why aren't we discussing how we can adapt what others have learned to work here?
Enough worrying about rejiggering competition or becoming more patient-centered. Just look around, see what everyone else is doing that works, and appropriate it for ourselves. Yes, it will take toughness to stand up to those who do well under the current system but that's called l-e-a-d-e-r-s-h-i-p.
Short, obvious post for a short, obvious solution to the healthcare problem.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
The High Cost of Media Efficiency
Mr. Gimbel (or was it Mr. Macy) famously said that he knew that half of his advertising was wasted but he didn’t know which half. That inefficiency funded a wide array of magazines, television and radio stations, and newspapers. It made it possible to field teams of investigative reporters to keep an eye on government and corporate malfeasance. It funded the publishing of essays and fiction and poetry; new voices, quirky voices, defiant voices. It allowed us to see and better understand the world around us.
The richness of those days is soon behind us. Yes, the Web has brought us even more content and greater choices. But the hyper-efficiency of measuring activity on the Internet means that the successors to Mr. Gimbel and Mr. Macy know exactly what they are buying with each dollar of advertising. They know which half of their advertising is wasted and they do something about it.
Publishers are trading analog dollars for digital pennies as the economics of off-line media collapse. The actions of the advertisers are perfectly rational and the consequences for publishers easily predictable. This is an example of classic market behavior where the actions of buyers and sellers drive out inefficiency.
What we are missing, however, is a way to calculate the cost of the lost benefit of the original inefficiency to the society as a whole. We benefited – as consumers, as citizens, and simply as human beings – from the abundance of the inefficient mass media. It as if a farmer planted a wide range of crops in all of his fields because he didn’t know which would provide get him the highest price that season and, as a result, the people around him could feast on everything from asparagus to yams. Then, through better forecasting tools, the farmer learned how to plant just the crops that would be in highest demand and in quantities that would maximize his return. Does the farmer benefit? Certainly. Are the people around him poorer for it? Absolutely.
As newspapers, then magazines, radio, movies, and television came on the scene, they expanded and enriched the dialogue in the public square. Despite predictions that each would kill its predecessors, they complemented each other because they were relatively equally inefficient in terms of measurability by the advertisers that supported them. The Internet, however, is the game-changing killer app that can obliterate it predecessors simply by allowing capitalists to do what they do best: make rational microeconomic decisions.
The macroeconomic costs will be paid and it may be too late to do anything about it by the time that the check arrives on the table. Who would have uncovered the disgraceful conditions at Walter Read Army Hospital besides journalists given time and resources to pursue a story over time? Which on-line news organization has reporters in Darfur, Iraq, and other global hot spots? How many bloggers are covering the Supreme Court effectively? How many Web sites have fact-checking departments? The heavily lifting to get us all the information we need – information we can trust and on which we can base decisions -- is still being done by the AP, the New York Times, the BBC, NPR, CNN, and the rest of the much maligned “mainstream media.” The Internet has democratized publishing and shrunk the costs of distribution to near zero. That’s wonderful. It has not produced any viable model to allow the workhorses of content generation to thrive or new peers to emerge.
The technology has been abetted by regulators who encourage media consolidation. As corporate ownership of media has grown – more capitalists making rational microeconomic decisions – so too has the need to produce profits. Gone are the iconoclast publishers and broadcasters who valued voice over shareholder value. Dying are the journalists able to tell truth to power from a position of strength. Dwindling are the muckrakers willing to take on industry or government with only determination and a broadsheet.
There is a high cost to media efficiency that we’ll all have to pay. Unfortunately, no one is watching the tab.
The richness of those days is soon behind us. Yes, the Web has brought us even more content and greater choices. But the hyper-efficiency of measuring activity on the Internet means that the successors to Mr. Gimbel and Mr. Macy know exactly what they are buying with each dollar of advertising. They know which half of their advertising is wasted and they do something about it.
Publishers are trading analog dollars for digital pennies as the economics of off-line media collapse. The actions of the advertisers are perfectly rational and the consequences for publishers easily predictable. This is an example of classic market behavior where the actions of buyers and sellers drive out inefficiency.
What we are missing, however, is a way to calculate the cost of the lost benefit of the original inefficiency to the society as a whole. We benefited – as consumers, as citizens, and simply as human beings – from the abundance of the inefficient mass media. It as if a farmer planted a wide range of crops in all of his fields because he didn’t know which would provide get him the highest price that season and, as a result, the people around him could feast on everything from asparagus to yams. Then, through better forecasting tools, the farmer learned how to plant just the crops that would be in highest demand and in quantities that would maximize his return. Does the farmer benefit? Certainly. Are the people around him poorer for it? Absolutely.
As newspapers, then magazines, radio, movies, and television came on the scene, they expanded and enriched the dialogue in the public square. Despite predictions that each would kill its predecessors, they complemented each other because they were relatively equally inefficient in terms of measurability by the advertisers that supported them. The Internet, however, is the game-changing killer app that can obliterate it predecessors simply by allowing capitalists to do what they do best: make rational microeconomic decisions.
The macroeconomic costs will be paid and it may be too late to do anything about it by the time that the check arrives on the table. Who would have uncovered the disgraceful conditions at Walter Read Army Hospital besides journalists given time and resources to pursue a story over time? Which on-line news organization has reporters in Darfur, Iraq, and other global hot spots? How many bloggers are covering the Supreme Court effectively? How many Web sites have fact-checking departments? The heavily lifting to get us all the information we need – information we can trust and on which we can base decisions -- is still being done by the AP, the New York Times, the BBC, NPR, CNN, and the rest of the much maligned “mainstream media.” The Internet has democratized publishing and shrunk the costs of distribution to near zero. That’s wonderful. It has not produced any viable model to allow the workhorses of content generation to thrive or new peers to emerge.
The technology has been abetted by regulators who encourage media consolidation. As corporate ownership of media has grown – more capitalists making rational microeconomic decisions – so too has the need to produce profits. Gone are the iconoclast publishers and broadcasters who valued voice over shareholder value. Dying are the journalists able to tell truth to power from a position of strength. Dwindling are the muckrakers willing to take on industry or government with only determination and a broadsheet.
There is a high cost to media efficiency that we’ll all have to pay. Unfortunately, no one is watching the tab.
Monday, April 28, 2008
The Big Squeeze
Tom Ashbrook had the NY Times' Steven Greenhouse on OnPoint today to discuss Greenhouse's new book, The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for American Workers. It was an interesting discussion that is worth a listen.
It isn't hard to see that American capitalism is broken. We're extracting more at the top (a significantly greater percentage of income goes to the top one percent of earners than did 20 years ago) while retirement and health care coverage have become less secure. Income disparities are growing while social mobility is decreasing.
Markets can be wonderful but they are not perfect. I'm working on an essay on the myth of free markets and the unfortunate consequences of thinking that supply-and-demand are infallable and predictable forces, that unfettered competition is always beneficial, and that efficiency is always desireable. Watch this space for more soon. In the meantime, check out Greenhouse -- he's put together some compelling work.
It isn't hard to see that American capitalism is broken. We're extracting more at the top (a significantly greater percentage of income goes to the top one percent of earners than did 20 years ago) while retirement and health care coverage have become less secure. Income disparities are growing while social mobility is decreasing.
Markets can be wonderful but they are not perfect. I'm working on an essay on the myth of free markets and the unfortunate consequences of thinking that supply-and-demand are infallable and predictable forces, that unfettered competition is always beneficial, and that efficiency is always desireable. Watch this space for more soon. In the meantime, check out Greenhouse -- he's put together some compelling work.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Pod Report -- A Big "Ehhh"
I spent my first night at The Pod Hotel in New York last night. I was expecting something futuristic and so was a bit disappointed to find out that it was the old Pickwick Arms Hotel (a real hot pillow joint when I stayed there when I was just out of college and pinching pennies many years ago). It was trying hard to be cool on a budget -- sort of an Ikea hotel -- with the requisite (and annoying) dimly lit hallways and lounge music pumping throughout the property.
The room was small but no smaller than rooms I've had at the Paramount or Hudson Hotels. It was just fine given that I was only there to sleep. There was plenty of room to hang clothes and the desk was serviceable. There were plenty of outlets for recharging my various appliances.
The bed, however, was only OK. It was a far (and much firmer) stretch from the luxury beds at higher priced hotels and the pillows were spongy and cheap. But with a little help from Tylenol PM, I got a decent night's sleep. That was until my neighbors came home at 3:30 a.m. and I discovered how thin the walls are.
The bathroom is a feat of space conservation. In about the space of two phone booths they get all of the necessary equipment. Those with lots of product won't be happy with the small sink but I'm a low maintenance metrosexual so I was able to manage. It is best to visit here alone as it makes a great spacial difference to keep the bathroom door open. Otherwise it can feel like you are relieving yourself in a space capsule.
My biggest complaint is with the alarm clock. They tried to be hip -- it was an iPod docking station -- but I couldn't figure out how to set it. The time was wrong and there was no clear way to make things right.
The verdict: the Pod Hotel is not bad if you need a budget hotel, are traveling alone, and are OK with no food service, no mini bar, no business center, etc.
The room was small but no smaller than rooms I've had at the Paramount or Hudson Hotels. It was just fine given that I was only there to sleep. There was plenty of room to hang clothes and the desk was serviceable. There were plenty of outlets for recharging my various appliances.
The bed, however, was only OK. It was a far (and much firmer) stretch from the luxury beds at higher priced hotels and the pillows were spongy and cheap. But with a little help from Tylenol PM, I got a decent night's sleep. That was until my neighbors came home at 3:30 a.m. and I discovered how thin the walls are.
The bathroom is a feat of space conservation. In about the space of two phone booths they get all of the necessary equipment. Those with lots of product won't be happy with the small sink but I'm a low maintenance metrosexual so I was able to manage. It is best to visit here alone as it makes a great spacial difference to keep the bathroom door open. Otherwise it can feel like you are relieving yourself in a space capsule.
My biggest complaint is with the alarm clock. They tried to be hip -- it was an iPod docking station -- but I couldn't figure out how to set it. The time was wrong and there was no clear way to make things right.
The verdict: the Pod Hotel is not bad if you need a budget hotel, are traveling alone, and are OK with no food service, no mini bar, no business center, etc.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Going to the (Wine) Dogs
High on the list of business ideas I wish I'd thought of first is the Wine Dogs series of books and calendars. I encountered them recently when staying in Healdsburg, CA. -- The Winery Dogs of Sonoma County was an irresistable collection of handsome pooches who get to hang out at some of my favorite places (Wine Dogs and Winery Dogs are competitive series so perhaps there is hope for late entries).
Yes, despite the obvious sentimentality and blatant commercialism I plopped down $38 for a copy. But it was a gift.
What could be more fun than visiting wineries around the world and photographing cute K9s? I'm sure there's a fair amount of sampling the wares on a visit. The dogs from the book we met were all delightful. It might help if I was a photographer, but aside from that small consideration I'm sure I could have done this myself.
Once again, a day late and a Milk Bone late.
Yes, despite the obvious sentimentality and blatant commercialism I plopped down $38 for a copy. But it was a gift.
What could be more fun than visiting wineries around the world and photographing cute K9s? I'm sure there's a fair amount of sampling the wares on a visit. The dogs from the book we met were all delightful. It might help if I was a photographer, but aside from that small consideration I'm sure I could have done this myself.
Once again, a day late and a Milk Bone late.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Enough Scranton, Already!
These words haven't passed my lips since I was nine years old and stuck in the back of a car on a tour of Civil War battlefields: "Is Pennsylvania over yet?!"
We're about 28 hours away from the finish of the endless Hillary/Barack slog through the Keystone State. Mud has been slung, working class roots have been preened and flaunted, gallons of sludgy diner coffee have been consumed, highways and backroads have been both crissed and crossed. And all that most of the electorate can say is "Isn't it time for you two to go bug Indiana?."
Note to Howard Dean: next time around, require the candidates to take a mandatory two week spa vacation when there is this much time between primaries. Wrap them in mud and seaweed so that all of the toxins can be sucked from their bodies. Then they won't be tempted to flail at each other as H and B have done over this last stretch.
Have there been any major new policy pronouncements? If there have, I've missed them between Obama being called an elitist (by a Wellesley grad, no less) and Hillary labeled a flip-flopper.
But they have discovered that in between Philadelphia to the east and Pittsburg to the west lies a great big state that acts a lot like Alabama. Don't go messin' with anybody's guns, Bibles, or bowlin' balls. You better drink draft beer and wear a flag in your lapel if you want to cut a stump with these folks.
Tomorrow, at long last, we'll see who can run with the big dogs. Most likely the margin of victory will be too narrow to make much of a difference and Pennslyvania will have endured all of this for naught.
We're about 28 hours away from the finish of the endless Hillary/Barack slog through the Keystone State. Mud has been slung, working class roots have been preened and flaunted, gallons of sludgy diner coffee have been consumed, highways and backroads have been both crissed and crossed. And all that most of the electorate can say is "Isn't it time for you two to go bug Indiana?."
Note to Howard Dean: next time around, require the candidates to take a mandatory two week spa vacation when there is this much time between primaries. Wrap them in mud and seaweed so that all of the toxins can be sucked from their bodies. Then they won't be tempted to flail at each other as H and B have done over this last stretch.
Have there been any major new policy pronouncements? If there have, I've missed them between Obama being called an elitist (by a Wellesley grad, no less) and Hillary labeled a flip-flopper.
But they have discovered that in between Philadelphia to the east and Pittsburg to the west lies a great big state that acts a lot like Alabama. Don't go messin' with anybody's guns, Bibles, or bowlin' balls. You better drink draft beer and wear a flag in your lapel if you want to cut a stump with these folks.
Tomorrow, at long last, we'll see who can run with the big dogs. Most likely the margin of victory will be too narrow to make much of a difference and Pennslyvania will have endured all of this for naught.
Friday, April 18, 2008
The Dalai Lama on Happiness
From the Detroit Free Press:
Happiness: "I believe that the purpose of life is to be happy. From the moment of birth, every human being wants happiness and does not want suffering. Neither social conditioning nor education nor ideology affect this. From the very core of our being, we simply desire contentment. I don't know whether the universe, with its countless galaxies, stars and planets, has a deeper meaning or not, but at the very least, it is clear that we humans who live on this earth face the task of making a happy life for ourselves."
Happiness: "I believe that the purpose of life is to be happy. From the moment of birth, every human being wants happiness and does not want suffering. Neither social conditioning nor education nor ideology affect this. From the very core of our being, we simply desire contentment. I don't know whether the universe, with its countless galaxies, stars and planets, has a deeper meaning or not, but at the very least, it is clear that we humans who live on this earth face the task of making a happy life for ourselves."
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Is It Time to Re-regulate the Airlines?
I wrote this while stuck in the Tucson airport last week. Today, the New York Times advanced a similar question.
Before you flame me with “regulation never works” rants, here me out.
The airline business is a mess. Everyone who flies or invests in it knows it. Customers are aggravated, employee morale is in the toilet, and carriers are into and out of bankruptcy as often four year olds running in and out of the back door on a hot summer day.
With high fuel prices, expensive labor agreements, and customers demanding low, low prices, it is incredibly difficult to make money as an airline. Carriers are charging for extra bags, reservation changes, seat changes, and anything else they can think of to generate revenue without raising prices. They are cutting costs wherever they can. In the process they are irritating everyone up and down the value chain.
And still they can’t generate a consistently acceptable rate of return for investors. The business is trapped in an alternate reality – or surreality, really.
What is needed is a chance for the industry to regain its footing. A period of stability when they can reexamine, and perhaps reinvent, their business models. A chance to inject some rationalism into the system. A viable, robust airline industry is in the interest of management, labor, investors, and customers – not to mention the other players in businesses that support the industry or that are dependent upon it (travel and tourism is just the most obvious). .
I believe that this is a challenge that markets alone cannot solve. Government, however, can stabilize the situation as they have tried to do recently in the financial markets. They can create a "time out" when everyone can take a much needed deep breath.
Here is what I propose:
Declaration of a 24-month period of reregulation (funny, MS Word declares this a non-word with “deregulation” as the first suggested alternative – it shows you how far we have gone toward complete laissez-faire) of the industry. This would need to be legislation with a rock solid, iron-clad termination date. No extensions would be possible. This is meant to be a time-out, not a new way of doing business, and the knowledge that open competition is only two years away should keep everyone’s game sharp.
During this period, fares would be set so s to provide airlines a modest but reliable rate of return based on cost-plus pricing (the old standard was 12% profit margin for flights at least 55% full according to the Times). We need to get customers used to paying at least the marginal cost-per-mile to fly. A reliable rate of return would be attractive at least to conservative investors and keep capital flowing into the industry. I advocate that rate of return be a rangeto encourage the airlines to find new ways to create value and keep a level of competition in the system.
Let’s say that the range is 7 – 17%. In return for the guarantee of 7%, the airlines would have to agree to give up anything more than 17%. Customer service standards would be part of the plan and those carriers that make customers happier would get to keep a greater percentage of their revenue. Customers would be financing this guarantee but we already pay the price for the sad state in which the industry finds itself.
All compensation would be frozen except for cost-of-living raises – that goes for the CEO as well as the flight attendant. And any stock options granted during this time would vest over five years. There should be no surprising giant paydays during this period.
The government would convene a group of industry experts to put together the details of a proper framework. I’d give them 90 days to figure it out. If they didn’t have it ready, I’d sequester them in a cheap motel at the end of a runway somewhere to provide the extra incentive to get them to finish their work. .
Things are unsustainable the way they are now. It’s time to take a hard look at any and all alternatives the might save this industry from itself.
Before you flame me with “regulation never works” rants, here me out.
The airline business is a mess. Everyone who flies or invests in it knows it. Customers are aggravated, employee morale is in the toilet, and carriers are into and out of bankruptcy as often four year olds running in and out of the back door on a hot summer day.
With high fuel prices, expensive labor agreements, and customers demanding low, low prices, it is incredibly difficult to make money as an airline. Carriers are charging for extra bags, reservation changes, seat changes, and anything else they can think of to generate revenue without raising prices. They are cutting costs wherever they can. In the process they are irritating everyone up and down the value chain.
And still they can’t generate a consistently acceptable rate of return for investors. The business is trapped in an alternate reality – or surreality, really.
What is needed is a chance for the industry to regain its footing. A period of stability when they can reexamine, and perhaps reinvent, their business models. A chance to inject some rationalism into the system. A viable, robust airline industry is in the interest of management, labor, investors, and customers – not to mention the other players in businesses that support the industry or that are dependent upon it (travel and tourism is just the most obvious). .
I believe that this is a challenge that markets alone cannot solve. Government, however, can stabilize the situation as they have tried to do recently in the financial markets. They can create a "time out" when everyone can take a much needed deep breath.
Here is what I propose:
Declaration of a 24-month period of reregulation (funny, MS Word declares this a non-word with “deregulation” as the first suggested alternative – it shows you how far we have gone toward complete laissez-faire) of the industry. This would need to be legislation with a rock solid, iron-clad termination date. No extensions would be possible. This is meant to be a time-out, not a new way of doing business, and the knowledge that open competition is only two years away should keep everyone’s game sharp.
During this period, fares would be set so s to provide airlines a modest but reliable rate of return based on cost-plus pricing (the old standard was 12% profit margin for flights at least 55% full according to the Times). We need to get customers used to paying at least the marginal cost-per-mile to fly. A reliable rate of return would be attractive at least to conservative investors and keep capital flowing into the industry. I advocate that rate of return be a rangeto encourage the airlines to find new ways to create value and keep a level of competition in the system.
Let’s say that the range is 7 – 17%. In return for the guarantee of 7%, the airlines would have to agree to give up anything more than 17%. Customer service standards would be part of the plan and those carriers that make customers happier would get to keep a greater percentage of their revenue. Customers would be financing this guarantee but we already pay the price for the sad state in which the industry finds itself.
All compensation would be frozen except for cost-of-living raises – that goes for the CEO as well as the flight attendant. And any stock options granted during this time would vest over five years. There should be no surprising giant paydays during this period.
The government would convene a group of industry experts to put together the details of a proper framework. I’d give them 90 days to figure it out. If they didn’t have it ready, I’d sequester them in a cheap motel at the end of a runway somewhere to provide the extra incentive to get them to finish their work. .
Things are unsustainable the way they are now. It’s time to take a hard look at any and all alternatives the might save this industry from itself.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
The Future of Magazines
The always amusing New York Observer recently featured its magazine issue – a surefire way to sell copies in media-crazed Manhattan. Among the articles was a piece with several prominent editors like Wired's Chris Anderson and Esquire's David Granger about the future of magazines. Their conclusion: not much is changing except perhaps the technology that constitutes the flipable page. Vanity Fair’s Graydon Carter had visions of a flexible plastic screen to which magazines could be beamed that I’m sure I saw in Popular Mechanics 10 years ago.
But beyond the speculation about various whatsamagoogies that might make paper irrelevant, the rest of what constitutes a magazine will have the stability of the molecular structure of water. Long-form article? Here to stay. Glossy ads? Ditto. The magazine, you see, is well loved by millions and so is largely immune from the forces ravaging newspapers. At least according to these editors.
I am an old magazine guy myself. I’ve worked for them and been published in them. I love to read them. Magazines are like that old love you can’t help thinking about every once in awhile even though you are happily married and doing well, thank you very much. If I’m sitting with a buddy at a bar and the conversation turns to what we’d be doing if we weren’t doing what we are doing now, starting a magazine will always be at or near the top of myself. That will be met with a chuckle and a snappy retort along the lines of “Right, and maybe you’ll be Hillary Swank’s date to the Oscars next year, too.”
For as much as millions of us are in love with magazines, almost all of us know that the magazine business is right up there with buying a boat as a sure way to be relieved of a lot of money in a hurry. And there are lot more zeroes involved with a magazine.
The shift that these editors seem to have missed, as gauzy eyed infatuateurs might be expected to, is that the magazine is no longer the entity that matters. It is but one of many delivery vehicles for content in a world in which the audience likes to dictate its preferred channels for communication.
Vanity Fair – I’ll continue to continue to pick on Mr. Carter as I’m a happy and loyal subscriber -- is content that embodies and expresses a certain perspective on the world to readers who are intrigued, entertained, and engaged by that perspective. That it happens to occur on glossy paper is largely a result of the time at which it was relaunched.
Who gets this shift? The unsinkable Martha Stewart and Martha Stewart Omnimedia. Note that it is omnimedia. That may reflect her deep-seated desire to be the ruler of all she surveys, but is more likely a realization that you have to be able to deliver the goods to your audience in as many ways as they want to get them. One can no longer be a magazine with a web site (or a web site with a magazine for that matter). Martha’s presence on radio and television, in magazines, and on-line are extensions of a singular editorial point of view. There are experts at Omnimedia who know all about how to put out a great magazine, but they are counterbalanced by experts in flowers, cooking, and crafting who know how to best leverage all of their media options for maximum impact. Each piece is integral to the whole, not a second-tier appendage to a mothership medium.
Who else gets it? That other diva of the daytime, Oprah. She has branched out into multiple media and even pushes the envelope even farther than Martha. Who is trying to create the world’s largest online classroom? It ain’t Harvard, it’s Oprah.
Are magazines here to stay? I hope so and think that as long as there is a desire to curl up on the couch on a rainy day, read at the beach, tear out a cartoon to stick on the fridge, catch up on the news when all electronic devices must be switched off, and for a hundred other reasons, traditional print media will continue to exist. They’ll just occupy a very different part of the value chain for readers, editors, and publishers alike.
But beyond the speculation about various whatsamagoogies that might make paper irrelevant, the rest of what constitutes a magazine will have the stability of the molecular structure of water. Long-form article? Here to stay. Glossy ads? Ditto. The magazine, you see, is well loved by millions and so is largely immune from the forces ravaging newspapers. At least according to these editors.
I am an old magazine guy myself. I’ve worked for them and been published in them. I love to read them. Magazines are like that old love you can’t help thinking about every once in awhile even though you are happily married and doing well, thank you very much. If I’m sitting with a buddy at a bar and the conversation turns to what we’d be doing if we weren’t doing what we are doing now, starting a magazine will always be at or near the top of myself. That will be met with a chuckle and a snappy retort along the lines of “Right, and maybe you’ll be Hillary Swank’s date to the Oscars next year, too.”
For as much as millions of us are in love with magazines, almost all of us know that the magazine business is right up there with buying a boat as a sure way to be relieved of a lot of money in a hurry. And there are lot more zeroes involved with a magazine.
The shift that these editors seem to have missed, as gauzy eyed infatuateurs might be expected to, is that the magazine is no longer the entity that matters. It is but one of many delivery vehicles for content in a world in which the audience likes to dictate its preferred channels for communication.
Vanity Fair – I’ll continue to continue to pick on Mr. Carter as I’m a happy and loyal subscriber -- is content that embodies and expresses a certain perspective on the world to readers who are intrigued, entertained, and engaged by that perspective. That it happens to occur on glossy paper is largely a result of the time at which it was relaunched.
Who gets this shift? The unsinkable Martha Stewart and Martha Stewart Omnimedia. Note that it is omnimedia. That may reflect her deep-seated desire to be the ruler of all she surveys, but is more likely a realization that you have to be able to deliver the goods to your audience in as many ways as they want to get them. One can no longer be a magazine with a web site (or a web site with a magazine for that matter). Martha’s presence on radio and television, in magazines, and on-line are extensions of a singular editorial point of view. There are experts at Omnimedia who know all about how to put out a great magazine, but they are counterbalanced by experts in flowers, cooking, and crafting who know how to best leverage all of their media options for maximum impact. Each piece is integral to the whole, not a second-tier appendage to a mothership medium.
Who else gets it? That other diva of the daytime, Oprah. She has branched out into multiple media and even pushes the envelope even farther than Martha. Who is trying to create the world’s largest online classroom? It ain’t Harvard, it’s Oprah.
Are magazines here to stay? I hope so and think that as long as there is a desire to curl up on the couch on a rainy day, read at the beach, tear out a cartoon to stick on the fridge, catch up on the news when all electronic devices must be switched off, and for a hundred other reasons, traditional print media will continue to exist. They’ll just occupy a very different part of the value chain for readers, editors, and publishers alike.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Airline Mergers
I posted a question on LinkedIn that asked if people saw any potential benefit to the proposed airline mergers that have been drifting about lately. It generated a flurry of responses.
Aside from one person associated with the industry who saw benefits for customers, employees, and investors alike, everyone was pretty vitriolic that there would be no benefits at all. I agree with the voice of the crowd.
The research with which I am familiar shows that 60 - 70% of all mergers fail to deliver any shareholder value over time. In a struggling industry where the mergers are combinations of operationally and profitability challenged players, I would say that the odds are lower still. Some, however, disagree.
As a frequent flyer, I haven't seen anything make the flying experience better in some time. Worse still, there doesn't seem to be much effort being exerted by the airlines. It seems more like they are putting up with customers (especially in coach) rather than trying to satisfy them. Airplanes are more crowded, staff is more stressed, and the amenities ever fewer. The latest report on customer satisfaction with U.S. airlines is due out tomorrow and was previewed on Good Morning America today.
I am on the US Air shuttle between Boston and New York or Washington on a regular basis. Once US Air merged with America West, the only change I saw was fewer options available at the automated kiosks. It became harder and took longer to check in. And have you tried to use your miles to get a flight lately? Don't get me started.
Now that all of the majors seem to be edging closer to the M&A dance floor, there could be a significant impact on a number of routes.
The rumour mill has quieted a bit in recent weeks but don't expect it to stay that way.
What do you think? Will the mergers, should they come to pass, benefit or hurt passengers?
Aside from one person associated with the industry who saw benefits for customers, employees, and investors alike, everyone was pretty vitriolic that there would be no benefits at all. I agree with the voice of the crowd.
The research with which I am familiar shows that 60 - 70% of all mergers fail to deliver any shareholder value over time. In a struggling industry where the mergers are combinations of operationally and profitability challenged players, I would say that the odds are lower still. Some, however, disagree.
As a frequent flyer, I haven't seen anything make the flying experience better in some time. Worse still, there doesn't seem to be much effort being exerted by the airlines. It seems more like they are putting up with customers (especially in coach) rather than trying to satisfy them. Airplanes are more crowded, staff is more stressed, and the amenities ever fewer. The latest report on customer satisfaction with U.S. airlines is due out tomorrow and was previewed on Good Morning America today.
I am on the US Air shuttle between Boston and New York or Washington on a regular basis. Once US Air merged with America West, the only change I saw was fewer options available at the automated kiosks. It became harder and took longer to check in. And have you tried to use your miles to get a flight lately? Don't get me started.
Now that all of the majors seem to be edging closer to the M&A dance floor, there could be a significant impact on a number of routes.
The rumour mill has quieted a bit in recent weeks but don't expect it to stay that way.
What do you think? Will the mergers, should they come to pass, benefit or hurt passengers?
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Important Bird Areas
I went to an interesting fund raiser for the Massachusetts Audubon Society last evening. It was held to highlight the important bird area program (in Massachusetts and globally). The important bird area program, or IBA -- even birders aren't immune to the three-letter anagram disease -- puts forth a simple proposistion: there are certain places more critical to the survival of birds than others and those should be prioritized for conservation.
What I liked most about this event was that there was no glitz, no society photograhers, no air kisses. The people there wanted to be there, cared about birds and the environment, and were having a good time. There were many generous donations of items for the silent auction and raffle prizes (thanks to Blackstone's of Beacon Hill for organizing the evening).
Ray Brown, host of Ray Brown's Talkin' Birds on WATD-FM (and streaming on-line) hosted a panel Q&A session but that was about as serious as the content got. But there was plenty of talk of osprey and finches and even robins.
I like, too, the idea of designating areas as important. Development deals trade open space parcels as if all land has equal value as habitat (or with no concern about its value as habitat). Towns preserve land the land that is available (and lots of preservation is at this micro level). Our ecosystems are vast and complex, and we've only scratched the surface in understanding the interdependencies. Migratory species like birds cross continents, time zones, and political boundaries without a second thought -- their survival depends upon it.
A recent NY Times Op-Ed pointed out that many of our everyday shopping choices can have an impact on the health of migratory bird species.
We need to look at habitat and species preservation at the scale and scope at which they function. The designation of important bird areas will help different counties, states, and countries coordinate efforts and focus on the most critical projects. They may also help raise the awareness that we are but one part of the web of life and that we, too, require healthy, vibrant, varied habitat for our own survival.
What I liked most about this event was that there was no glitz, no society photograhers, no air kisses. The people there wanted to be there, cared about birds and the environment, and were having a good time. There were many generous donations of items for the silent auction and raffle prizes (thanks to Blackstone's of Beacon Hill for organizing the evening).
Ray Brown, host of Ray Brown's Talkin' Birds on WATD-FM (and streaming on-line) hosted a panel Q&A session but that was about as serious as the content got. But there was plenty of talk of osprey and finches and even robins.
I like, too, the idea of designating areas as important. Development deals trade open space parcels as if all land has equal value as habitat (or with no concern about its value as habitat). Towns preserve land the land that is available (and lots of preservation is at this micro level). Our ecosystems are vast and complex, and we've only scratched the surface in understanding the interdependencies. Migratory species like birds cross continents, time zones, and political boundaries without a second thought -- their survival depends upon it.
A recent NY Times Op-Ed pointed out that many of our everyday shopping choices can have an impact on the health of migratory bird species.
We need to look at habitat and species preservation at the scale and scope at which they function. The designation of important bird areas will help different counties, states, and countries coordinate efforts and focus on the most critical projects. They may also help raise the awareness that we are but one part of the web of life and that we, too, require healthy, vibrant, varied habitat for our own survival.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Scary tracking
I've noticed that the ads that appear in my Gmail account are tightly aligned with the content of the e-mail messages. I corresponded with one friend to find out how she liked South-by-Southwest and all of the ads are music related; I wrote to my attorney about a routine matter and all of the ads that appear are legal in nature. Very scary, Google. Very, very scary.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Reading on the Road
One of the things I enjoy about traveling is getting the chance to read local newspapers and see what constitutes news in different places. For the past two days I've been reading the Santa Rosa Press Democrat.
The big kerfuffle in these parts is the decision against Starbucks in a California court in a case questioning whether shift supervisors can share in pooled tips. The court said they can't and has ordered the ubiquitous coffee chain to pay $106 million in damages to baristas. Starbucks is appealing. The story made page one two days in a row -- today's installment reports that other blended drink companies (Jamba Juice was included along with coffee shops) share the same practice.
The management employees seem to feel that if they are serving customers they are entitled to share in the tips. This all highlights the blurry line between front line staff and management that is common at most retail businesses. Companies want the line clear so that they don't have to pay overtime to one extra person but they also seem to also want the supervisors to benefit from extra cash that doesn't cost them a dime. My opinion is that managers and supervisors should keep their hands out of the tip jar. They get paid more and should view the tips as a motivational tool for the staff.
Other, more upbeat news here in Sonoma County is bud break in the vineyards. The chardonnay buds have burst right on time -- at the spring equinox -- with pinot noir fast on their heels. Zinfandel, Cabernet, and the other varietals will follow in turn. There has been a perfect run of weather for the bud break and those of us who love wine are hoping that favorable weather continues throughout the season. Variations in weather patterns have an enormous impact on the final product.
The big kerfuffle in these parts is the decision against Starbucks in a California court in a case questioning whether shift supervisors can share in pooled tips. The court said they can't and has ordered the ubiquitous coffee chain to pay $106 million in damages to baristas. Starbucks is appealing. The story made page one two days in a row -- today's installment reports that other blended drink companies (Jamba Juice was included along with coffee shops) share the same practice.
The management employees seem to feel that if they are serving customers they are entitled to share in the tips. This all highlights the blurry line between front line staff and management that is common at most retail businesses. Companies want the line clear so that they don't have to pay overtime to one extra person but they also seem to also want the supervisors to benefit from extra cash that doesn't cost them a dime. My opinion is that managers and supervisors should keep their hands out of the tip jar. They get paid more and should view the tips as a motivational tool for the staff.
Other, more upbeat news here in Sonoma County is bud break in the vineyards. The chardonnay buds have burst right on time -- at the spring equinox -- with pinot noir fast on their heels. Zinfandel, Cabernet, and the other varietals will follow in turn. There has been a perfect run of weather for the bud break and those of us who love wine are hoping that favorable weather continues throughout the season. Variations in weather patterns have an enormous impact on the final product.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Local Flavor
I'm in Healdsburg, CA for a couple of days of R&R and I must note how refreshing it is to have so much local retail. Around the plaza at the center of town are a couple of dozen of shops and restaurants but not a single Gap, Restoration Hardware, Abercrombie, or Starbucks. This mix of local businesses gives a distinct energy to the downtown area.
Granted, Healdsburg is a particularly precious town where everything is upscale. It's easier to find a $100 pair of sunglasses than a $ .39 bolt and the locals at the lower end of the economic ladder aren't going to be doing much shopping around the plaza, but these shops are the work of a couple of dozen local owners -- people who are making a living and bringing their unique perspective to the local economy. To me it is much more authentic and interesting than a "quaint" collection of national retailers that would be, in essence, a mall without a roof.
Places like Harvard Square have become much more homogenized as locally owned retail shops have been replaced with chain outlets. It becomes much less appealing to spend time in those cookie-cutter places.
I'm not sure what it takes to keep the locals in charge -- visionary landlords, committed merchants, a concentration of purchasing power, or perhaps all of the above. All I know is that despite its preciousness, Healdsburg is an appealing place to be.
Granted, Healdsburg is a particularly precious town where everything is upscale. It's easier to find a $100 pair of sunglasses than a $ .39 bolt and the locals at the lower end of the economic ladder aren't going to be doing much shopping around the plaza, but these shops are the work of a couple of dozen local owners -- people who are making a living and bringing their unique perspective to the local economy. To me it is much more authentic and interesting than a "quaint" collection of national retailers that would be, in essence, a mall without a roof.
Places like Harvard Square have become much more homogenized as locally owned retail shops have been replaced with chain outlets. It becomes much less appealing to spend time in those cookie-cutter places.
I'm not sure what it takes to keep the locals in charge -- visionary landlords, committed merchants, a concentration of purchasing power, or perhaps all of the above. All I know is that despite its preciousness, Healdsburg is an appealing place to be.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Guns on Campus
There is a growing debate about whether guns, including concealed weapons, should be allowed on campuses. The enthusiasm for arming students and faculty comes on the heels of recent shootings on campus.
I have only one question: Are they out of their minds?
Arming the average student, staff member, or faculty member may make sense if you have watched enough movies to think that the good guys never miss a shot and that morally superior always win. They picture a high noon showdown with Clint Eastwood gunning down the villians. Folks, it just doesn't happen that way.
First, even those who are range trained and certified to shoot aren't necessarily ready to react appropriately in the midst of a chaotic crowd. Once multiple people draw and start firing, how likely is each person to know who the real "bad guy" is? And, when the police arrive, how will they know who to take out? It's a recipe for mayhem and more needless deaths.
Second, we must factor in the other shootings that could occur. None of us were on best behavior throughout our college years -- we got rowdy, drank too much, perhaps experimented with a controlled substance or two, stayed up all night studying until our eyes were blurry, had our hearts broken once or twice -- in short, we did lots of things that put us in situations where everyone should be happy that we didn't have ready access to firearms. College is a time to get a little wild and that's better done without live ammunition.
We ought to be looking at the root causes of violence in our society rather than planning on arming every Tom, Dick, Harry, Jane, Kate, and Sally.
I have only one question: Are they out of their minds?
Arming the average student, staff member, or faculty member may make sense if you have watched enough movies to think that the good guys never miss a shot and that morally superior always win. They picture a high noon showdown with Clint Eastwood gunning down the villians. Folks, it just doesn't happen that way.
First, even those who are range trained and certified to shoot aren't necessarily ready to react appropriately in the midst of a chaotic crowd. Once multiple people draw and start firing, how likely is each person to know who the real "bad guy" is? And, when the police arrive, how will they know who to take out? It's a recipe for mayhem and more needless deaths.
Second, we must factor in the other shootings that could occur. None of us were on best behavior throughout our college years -- we got rowdy, drank too much, perhaps experimented with a controlled substance or two, stayed up all night studying until our eyes were blurry, had our hearts broken once or twice -- in short, we did lots of things that put us in situations where everyone should be happy that we didn't have ready access to firearms. College is a time to get a little wild and that's better done without live ammunition.
We ought to be looking at the root causes of violence in our society rather than planning on arming every Tom, Dick, Harry, Jane, Kate, and Sally.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Micro v. Macro
One of Boston's radio stations, WBOS, recently went to a DJ-free format. It is the second station in the market to do so (Mike 93.7 is the other). Both seem dedicated to "never two good songs in a row" but that's OK for me as I'm an NPR junkie.
The format move made me think, however, about job loss and the trend across industries to shed employees wherever possible. From a microeconomic perspective, each business wants to keep its costs as low as possible and employ no more workers than it needs to create the most profit. However, each business also needs enough employed customers to buy its products and services.
The problem, as I see it, is that we have largely abandoned macroeconomic policy as it relates to employment. Under both Republican and Democratic administrations of recent years, the only two policy tools that seemed to be available have been deregulation and tax cuts. The rationale seems to be to let "1,000 micro decisions bloom" in hopes that the wisdom of crowds will be an effective substitute for actual macroeconomic policy.
Now, neither deregulation nor tax cuts are necessarily bad but you can't play 18 holes well with only a 3 wood and a 5 iron. The recent subprime mortgage mess can be seen largely as an unintended consequence of deregulated financial markets. With no one at a macro level ensuring that the credit risks being taken were good, individual players were simply satisfied that they were good enough for them to take their little piece and pass them on the next player in the chain.
What does the subprime mortgage mess have to do with jobs policy? Look at the jobs that have been lost in the financial sector alone and the tens of thousands more that are being swept away in the riptide of that situation.
What, you may also ask, does this have to do with the format choices of radio stations? Simply that I posit that each job lost -- even a few djs -- create costs for society and that some of those costs should go back to the organizations that choose to replace people with technology. I don't advocate being so severe as to restrict innovation or create featherbedding, but I do think that we should have tax and other policies that reward job creation and penalize job elimination (unlike the current situation where there are significant tax benefits for investing in technology rather than people).
Microeconomic logic says to keep as few employees as possible; macroeconomic logic says that the closer we are to full employment we are, the better for all of us. I'm with the macroeconomists on this one.
The format move made me think, however, about job loss and the trend across industries to shed employees wherever possible. From a microeconomic perspective, each business wants to keep its costs as low as possible and employ no more workers than it needs to create the most profit. However, each business also needs enough employed customers to buy its products and services.
The problem, as I see it, is that we have largely abandoned macroeconomic policy as it relates to employment. Under both Republican and Democratic administrations of recent years, the only two policy tools that seemed to be available have been deregulation and tax cuts. The rationale seems to be to let "1,000 micro decisions bloom" in hopes that the wisdom of crowds will be an effective substitute for actual macroeconomic policy.
Now, neither deregulation nor tax cuts are necessarily bad but you can't play 18 holes well with only a 3 wood and a 5 iron. The recent subprime mortgage mess can be seen largely as an unintended consequence of deregulated financial markets. With no one at a macro level ensuring that the credit risks being taken were good, individual players were simply satisfied that they were good enough for them to take their little piece and pass them on the next player in the chain.
What does the subprime mortgage mess have to do with jobs policy? Look at the jobs that have been lost in the financial sector alone and the tens of thousands more that are being swept away in the riptide of that situation.
What, you may also ask, does this have to do with the format choices of radio stations? Simply that I posit that each job lost -- even a few djs -- create costs for society and that some of those costs should go back to the organizations that choose to replace people with technology. I don't advocate being so severe as to restrict innovation or create featherbedding, but I do think that we should have tax and other policies that reward job creation and penalize job elimination (unlike the current situation where there are significant tax benefits for investing in technology rather than people).
Microeconomic logic says to keep as few employees as possible; macroeconomic logic says that the closer we are to full employment we are, the better for all of us. I'm with the macroeconomists on this one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
