Says what it is. Does what it says. Solves your problem. Exceeds your expectations. That’s all I want in a purchase – how about you?
I really love to hike and to climb mountains. I don’t do it as often as I would like, but I appreciate every opportunity I get.
Several times in fall or spring, I’ve been out in conditions in which snowshoes would have been a serious benefit. I’d casually surveyed the market for several months, never quite serious enough to commit to a purchase. A friend recommended the MSR Lightning Ascent.
MSR Lightning Ascent
It’s a serious product. Cut from aerospace-grade aluminum. Lightest in its class. Heel lift to support steep climbs. A “total traction” design with teeth around the entire frame. In short, it was designed to serve my purpose in an exceptional way. I also expected to have the shoes for decades, perhaps handing them down to my son should he want them.
I probably would not have dropped the full retail price ($260-300); I wanted them, but did not need them. I did, however, find a pair at one of the finest little shops in downtown Colorado Springs, Mountain Chalet. End of season – $105 off. Um, OK.
The MSR Lightning Ascent performed beautifully on hard pack, soft snow, deep powder, ice, steep slopes and all else we encountered. Though only about 3 miles to Sentinel Point, the elevation gain is about 3,000ft. Much of that gain is in the last mile and a half. The heel lift proved to be an extremely valuable feature.
Approaching Sentinel Point on the west side of Pikes Peak
Said what it was. Did what it said. Solved my problem. Exceeded my expectations. That’s what I got in the purchase.
Worth noting: they have a similar similar design at a lower price point in the Denali Ascent and Denali Evo Ascent.
Anderson seems to have a strong vision and strong voice for what’s going on and what’s happening next.
Chris Anderson sees a future for magazine publishing; it's all about the tablet.
His idea involves Wired, Adobe, Apple’s iPad and a healthy future for magazine publishers like Conde Nast (Wired, Vogue, GQ, and loads more).
He’s presented this idea for a few months now, so I won’t belabor it. Instead, I’ll share my version of it in bullet-point form.
The tablet is the “third great platform” (PC > phone > tablet)
The tablet is permitted by the movement of of storage and computing/processing off the local machine and into “the cloud”
The web lowers barrier to entry and eliminates scarcity so competition is wide open
If the tablet goes rich and dynamic, traditional media may once again be able to deliver their skills in a commanding way
Wired/Conde Nast is working with Adobe to establish new publishing process
They’re seeking the efficiencies of digital, but with the pricing of analog – need a new economic model to survive, tablet era provides opportunity to create new model
Magazines provide the height of production value – layout, design, photos, etc
HTML and browsers limit the reproduction of this rich experience online – the magazine is lost in translation
At present, Wired magazine and wired.com are produced and sold by two separate groups
In a new future, digital can be designed and sold in parallel with print, simultaneously
Same thoughts, same people, same process
Print, portrait and landscape displays all laid out at once
It can be made to be worth paying for, not “less than print” like HTML/browser reproduction, but actually more
For the first time ever, Anderson sees a 21st century magazine business
I don’t have the knowledge, foresight or even interest to judge whether or not the tablet will, in fact, become the third great platform.
I support the production values argument, but the web has proven “good enough” for most people.
I also feel strongly that new economic models for publishers based in yesterday’s media must be developed. So many people take such great pride in not watching TV, not reading magazines and not subscribing to newspapers. Example: “I just get my news from Google.” Meanwhile, a disproportionately high portion of their media consumption online is provided free by television-, magazine- and newspaper-based publishers. This can’t go on forever.
So: good luck to Anderson, Adobe and Conde Nast – I wish healthy futures for all content producers, especially ones pushing forward production and display.
HP Slate (their tablet) versus Apple iPad: engadget
I seeded it with about 50 photos I shot on a morning walk this week; I grouped them loosely into themes.
My primary hope is to represent the many things I love about our neighborhood. The neighborhood is more than 100 years old; it’s got mature trees and lots of character. We’ve got a great Indian restaurant (Little Nepal), a family pizza joint (Panino’s), a fantastic brewery (Bristol), an innovative culinary experience (Blue Star) and many other fine establishements.
My secondary hope is that neighbors, visitors, local businesses, realtors and others might start posting stories, photos, reviews and other info about my ‘hood.
I came across Albert Maruggi‘s “Marketing Edge” podcast a couple years back in the iTunes store. Albert’s a smart and likable guy. He used to be in television and now does social media and public relations consulting with Provident Partners in Minneapolis.
I probably would not be on Twitter if not for his advocacy. Admittedly, I don’t use it to its full potential. Regardless, I’ve learned a lot from his insights, observations and guests … which brings me to the topic.
Last May, I listened to his interview with Dr Paul Schempp, a professor at the University of Georgia and president of Performance Matters. The focus of Schempp’s life and work is understanding what it takes to be an expert performer. Consistent with this theme, he consults many world-class athletes on expert performance routines.
Schempp’s ideas have been condensed and clarified into 5 Steps to Expert, his fourth book. Though I’ve not yet read the book (I’ve got so much reading to do), I’ve listened to Albert Maruggi’s interview with Schempp a few times. I heard it again last night.
A stand-out takeaway: experience is not expertise. This point is raised in Part 1 (link below) and illustrated by an example involving a student teacher who became teacher of the year in California a few years later. It seems obvious, but the distinction seems lost on many people. In my view, the concepts are related, but not in a causal way.
Just because someone’s been doing something a long time does not mean that he or she is getting any better at it. Many people achieve level of competence that feels sufficient … they settle … they stagnate. They’re competent performers, but they’re not on the road to expert status.
A smaller takeaway: the gentlemen briefly discussed point guard Terrell Brandon, a two-time NBA All-Star. I don’t know why, exactly, but I really liked that guy.
Give the podcast a listen. It’s a good conversation on a powerful topic.
Here’s Part 1 of the Paul Schempp interview on the Marketing Edge
Here’s Part 2 of the Paul Schempp interview on the Marketing Edge
Any company can compensate its employees any way it sees fit
I don’t begrudge a person for using what’s made available to him or her
A publicly held company should be held accountable by its stockholders
I have no stake in this company
Now to the story:
Michael Jeffries, A&F chief executive since the 90’s, received a $4,000,000 payment in exchange for limiting his “personal use of the corporate jet.” He’s now limited to just $200,000 of personal use per year.
That’s limiting? OK, what did “unlimited” look like?
From 2006-2008, “he booked an average of about $850,000 a year worth of personal travel time on the corporate jet.” In 2008 alone, he racked up $1,100,000 of use.
Let’s break that down in a hypothetical scenario:
Let’s use $1,000,000 as the annual use – it’s not too far off the 3-year average, it’s under the 2008 total and it’s easily divisible.
Let’s say he uses the jet every single weekend of the year … except for six.
Let’s say over those six other weekends, he’s actually on four longer vacations.
So: 50 trips total.
That’s $20,000 per trip.
Wow.
Honestly, I’ve never shopped for personal or chartered use of a jet. I will say that $20,000 per trip seems a bit high. Also, my proposed annual schedule of every weekend, plus four longer vacations is a pretty aggressive recreational schedule for the CEO of a company with $3.5B in annual sales; it seems like Jeffries might be more busy than my hypothetical scenario suggests.
In short: he loves to fly – on what must be a luxurious corporate jet – for personal use – a lot.
A&F CEO Michael Jeffries loves to fly ... and it shows!
Brief background:
Abercrombie & Fitch has more than 350 stores, most of them in the US (3 in Canada and 1 each in London, Milan and Tokyo). You might recognize A&F as the clothing store in the mall in which the male models don’t wear any shirts, the female models are half naked and none of them are minorities. They also own the Hollister, RUEHL and Gilly Hicks brands and operate more than 1,100 total stores. They also sell direct by web. They sell apparel primarily targeted to people under 30.
The A&F brand has been alive since the 60’s and today is rooted in “East Coast traditions and Ivy League heritage” and taps into the “essence of privilege and casual luxury” (seriously, you have to read their self-description in the open of their latest annual report). It’s been owned by The Limited since 1988. Here’s a look at their 10-year stock performance:
Jeffries has presided over a very nice growth story. If you want to call $1M/yr in personal use of the corporate jet excessive, at least acknowledge that his use peaked during years in which his company was performing.
Today, however, times are tough. Here’s a brand approach to their problems from Brandchannel. Here’s an image and financial approach to the situation from MSNBC’s “The Big Money.”
Naturally, then, they’re looking to reduce costs – hence the $4M buyout of Jeffries’ unlimited personal flying privileges.
Questions:
Would a CEO who really cares about the fate of his company accept a $4,000,000 buyout in exchange for dropping his personal use of the corporate jet down to $200,ooo/year? Why would he not of his own volition simply agree to a cut back?
When you identify unlimited personal flying as a costly sinkhole for your ailing company, do you take your observation to the legal department to start structuring a deal or do you take it straight to the CEO?
Does your in-house legal team put this deal together or do you hire it out? Do A&F and Jeffries have separate representatives in the negotiation? Was it contentious (as in “No way! $3M is insufficient compensation for limiting my client’s personal use of the corporate jet. That’s less than the value of his next 3 years of personal use of the corporate jet.” | “OK, how about $4M?” | “Deal!”)? What were the total legal fees incurred?
What would you make of this whole thing as a stockholder? Would there be any way a stockholder would even know about such extensive personal use of the jet?
Bottom Line:
This isn’t some populist rant about CEO’s running out of control. As mentioned off the top, I find the whole scenario perfectly acceptable, though fascinating in its outrageousness. I also find it a little offensive from a potential shareholder’s standpoint.
I’m as tired of the Tiger Woods story as you are. Really.
However, I’ve seen a ton of nonsense about the first Tiger Woods ad to appear since the revelation of his extensive sexual indiscretions.
Two main categories of nonsense:
The ad is an expression of greed by Tiger Woods and Nike
The ad is a personal message from Tiger Woods himself
First: of course it’s greed! The primary reason any athlete signs an endorsement deal and the primary reason any company extends one is, not surprisingly, profit motive on mutually acceptable terms. The athlete provides associations the brand, product or company wants in order to increase sales. The brand, product or company provides the athlete money in exchange. It’s really that simple, so I won’t go any further with this ridiculously easy criticism of the ad and its existence.
Second: an agency (Wieden+Kenney) carefully created this message on behalf of Nike and Tiger Woods. It’s not a personal message to you from Tiger Woods; do not accept it as such, narcissist. It’s not a public acknowledgment of indiscretion by Tiger Woods – he’s provided one (sadly, by force). It’s not a public apology by Tiger Woods – he’s already provided this, too.
So what is it? It’s polarizing. It’s talked-about. It’s the beginning of the reconstruction of Tiger Woods’ image by a brand that stuck with him through the debacle.
Most of the negative remarks are the rightful result of Tiger-fatigue, so nonsense gets a pass.
Here’s the ad:
Here’s a transcription: “Tiger … I am more prone to be inquisitive … to promote discussion. I want to find out what your thinking was. I want to find out what your feelings are. And did you learn anything.”
Though it would have beenthe safest option, the absence of a Tiger Woods ad altogether during The Masters would have been quite conspicuous.
Since Nike decided instead to be present, their agency was presented a serious creative challenge. Nike needs to turn back on as soon as possible the Tiger Woods cash machine they’ve built over the past decade or so. The challenge: where and how does the reconstruction of the TW personal and brand images begin!?
A few thoughts about this execution:
Took the situation head on (did not gloss over it, ignore it or jump past it)
Visually simple and clean (no amazing shots, cheering crowds, triumphant victories)
Audibly simple and clean (no music, a couple bird chirps, dad’s voice)
Dad-as-conscience device works (no one wants to hear from Tiger or generic voiceguy)
Message is vague, curious and sensitive (no bold statements or declarations)
White logos over black vest and cap absolutely jump off (clearly present with being in your face)
All things considered, an above-average starting point (where would you have started!?)
I personally abhor Woods’ selfish and unfaithful behavior. Though I know nothing about the science behind it, “sexual addiction” strikes me as a weak excuse for weak-minded, shameful behavior. Climbing down off my moral high horse, as too few are wont to do, I accept this commercial message as the start of the reconstruction.
The commercial doesn’t “speak” to me. It does not feel to me significant, impressive or provocative in any way. It does feel a bit human, which is a good start.
Bottom line: Tiger Woods is a living case study that will eventually be published in formal marketing texts. I don’t know how it will read or how I will feel about this commercial a year or two from now, but today it feels OK. Nike’s got to fire back up that cash machine slowly and carefully.
Related: I’m quite curious about the original context of the recording, as Earl Woods passed away in 2006.
Also related: considering the financial stakes, “Brand Tiger Woods” moved far too slowly as the PR crisis rolled out and built up. They had no control over public perception as more and more women emerged with allegations. The online, print and television tabloids went burned wildly with the story. To control the flames, it’s always best to be firstand to be honest and to in times of crisis.
