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
In case you were not yet aware: the US lags other developed nations in broadband and wireless infrastructure and services. Our federal government is currently working on a National Broadband Plan to try to catch up – or at least to get into the game.
Sascha Meinrath, director of the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative, criticizes the plan. Meinrath says it’s “like entering a race and saying: ‘Let’s go for last place.’” His organization is cited as the source of this info: a 100-megabit broadband connection costs as little $16 per month in Sweden and $24 per month in Korea. Meanwhile, service only half as fast costs $145 per month in the U.S.
So,South Korea is among the leaders. I’ve already taken an extremely indirect route to my point, so here’s a quick sampling of their many achievements in communication technology:
This leadership also comes with problems. As illustrated in Frontline’s Digital Nation series,internet addiction among Korean teens and 20-somethings is a serious problem. Kin to a young person falling off the face of the earth for a few days on a heroin bender, they disappear for great lengths into video games and virtual worlds by way of high-speed internet cafes (PC Bangs).
In Virtual Reality, No Child is Left Behind - by Greg Garvey
Here it is: a South Korean couple let their 3-month-old girl die of starvation, neglecting her in favor of raising a virtual child in a nearby internet cafe. The real infant was fed once a day between “marathon sessions” in a “fantasy role-playing game.” According to a police officer, the couple “seemed to have lost their will to live a normal life because they didn’t have jobs and gave birth to a premature baby. They indulged themselves in the online game of raising a virtual character so as to escape from reality, which led to the death of their real baby.”
Isolated incident or microcosmic glance into the fallout of racing into all things high-speed, digital and virtual? I think it’s more the former, but with overtones of the latter. Regardless, this is a new low at high speed.
I’ve blown over a huge topic area on this one. A few personal notes:
I spent much time as a child playing Atari, Intellivision, Colecovision and Nintendo (NES, 8-bit)
I find new technology interesting, exciting and challenging; I’m not an early adopter
To say that I strongly favor the real over the virtual is an understatement of high order
I’d probably be a Luddite if not for the fact that I help feed, clothe and house my family by working in marketing
I simply cannot afford to wake up ignorant of trends and opportunities presented by technology
Hopefully, these outrageous stories will give us pause before our perpetual hurtling into tomorrow at high-speed continues.
Note: “In Virtual Reality No Child is Left Behind” (image above) was created by artist Greg Garvey, whose digital work can be seen here.
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’ve never been a regular viewer of The Daily Show; we’ve not been cable or satellite subscribers in years. Since I fanned the show on Facebook, however, I’ve seen one or two episodes a week – embedded right in my news feed.
Observation: the show does a fantastic job of calling out politicians and pundits for changing positions and for all-purpose disingenuousness.
In this clip, Jon Stewart sends up John McCain for suggesting he never though of himself as a “maverick” in an interview with Newsweek magazine. McCain was begging for this parody; this is the same guy who ran a Presidential campaign ad in 2008 called “The Original Mavericks” and rode around in “The Straight Talk Express.”
Stewart runs through a list of stands on which McCain has doubled back. Among them: Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, redistribution of wealth, intolerance, tax cuts, torture, cap and trade, the deficit, the Confederate flag and others. To illustrate the first three position changes, Stewart tees up clearly sourced and date-stamped video clips – in the first, McCain takes a position and in the second, McCain contradicts that position.
In his rant on how ridiculous the “never considered myself a maverick” statement is, Stewart refers briefly to his regular modus operandi – tossing to a montage of clips in which the subject talks out of both sides of his or her mouth, generally for political expediency. In this case, he decides the montage is unnecessary because of how embedded the “maverick” concept is in McCain’s persona.
These montages are a standard tool for the show – and they’re powerful. They’re smart and useful. They’re simultaneously hilarious and disheartening.
Regrettably, they’re alsopartisan, which limits their range and effect. Michael Steele and the RNClesbian bondage club incident provided days of fantastic material. Whether it’s highlighting “ramming-cramming-jamming down our throats” health care debate talking points or using crowd shots from a wholly different event to make a Tea Party look bigger,Fox News is practically a constant stream of content ripe for Daily Show montages. In contrast, there was a recent segment called “Tenacious O,” which lauds Obama’s incredible accomplishments … what can’t he do … does he ever sleep … “even Jesus rested on Sundays.” Note: it was quite hilarious with an 80’s themed Obama-Biden montage in the middle.
Under the cover of satire and parody, Jon Stewart and The Daily Show call people out and hold them up for public review. Scoff at this programming as simple entertainment at your peril; its reach and influence are strong … and young. Fox News is paying attention (see end of clip).
The “watchdog” is a valuable function in service to an informed voting public. Fact checking and credibility metering tend to be the province of smaller outfits. Few large, mainstream media outlets have the willingness or ability to take on double speak so openly, aside from the seasonal reviews of political ads.
While there are many solid news organizations that tackle difficult and complex situations year-round, including corruption, waste and fraud, most outlets tend simply to pick up and cast wide the day’s sound bites and talking points. If those words contradict what the same source said previously, there’s no criticism or even awareness. We frequently get rote regurgitation … content providers playing friendly to stay friends and retain access to sources.
Idea: this could be a direction forCNN, who’s getting beaten very badly by both far-right Fox News and far-left MSNBC. The original cable news network and current ratings laggard, CNN seems to want to hold the high ground with the guise of objectivity, distance and non-partisanship.
CNN, may I kindly recommend devoting some resources to drawing attention to politicians’ and pundits’ double speak, hypocrisies, flip flops and other sleights?
It won’t be as funny as The Daily Show, but it could have more range and broader effect. It might also be sufficiently entertaining to help your ratings and revenue.
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.
