 |
     |
|
|
Some would say this covert "Operation Turkey Trot" is no lose. Others that it's no win. The politics of pictures.
Write your own caption.
Down below is a post about an article that found sex was being used to sell drugs [shock, horror, indignation]. I think I said something to the effect of . . . "What-eeevvvverrrrrr." Today, another item about cell phone ads being sexed up. This time it's a wireless telco, an electronics monolith, and several academics saying, yeah that's how we sell stuff in broadcast.
So, again, not to put too fine a point on it: What-eeevvvverrrrrr.
According to this article, apparently AOL is giving its subscribers the opportunity to access their accounts and the Internet wirelessly using Spotnik Mobile's hotspots. Sounds like AOL members get discount rates on Spotnik access. Wow! Just think if it was merely another way for AOL subscribers (which I am not) to access AOL and the Internet at no more than their monthly subscription. OK, so the wireless accounts would be -- like high-speed -- premium priced. Just so long as the access was unfettered.
Now I'm sounding like Doc.
I am willing to pay GOOD CANADIAN (tire) MONEY to anyone who helps spread the word about this blog by referring the URL (http://recursive.blogspot.com) to everyone they've ever collected an email address from.
All you need to do is prove that you've made the successful referral (and I'll know by the Site traffic) to collect the reward. I promise, it'll be worth it -- to me.
Here is one and another innocuous press items about an impending stamp price change.
It's no secret: around the world, this is an industry under seige. Volumes are begining to decline under pressure from alternate delivery sources led by the Internet. And, although "new economy" type of initiatives are being explored and deployed for renewed purpose and vigour in a changing market, there is always "the core."
Notably, the largest price increase is for US-bound letters. Meanwhile, the incoming prime minister intends to have better relations with the United States. As the former Minister of Finance and budget balancer extraordinaire, I guess he'll be looking to contact his American counterparts by IM, email, and phone. Draw your own conclusions.
We live in a politically correct (read: artificially puritanical -- when convenient) time, so it's no surprise that a story like this one about sex being used to sell drugs would command national media attention.
Questions: (1) This is a surprise? Substitute any other commodity, service, or need for the word "drugs" and you have a truism for the ages. (2) Would it be better or worse to have drugs used to sell sex? (3) Why did it go on unreported and unaddressed until it became a practical class action? (4) So where are these calendars? [It's about the proof!! ed.]
So AOL sold the Warner Music unit to Edgar Bronfman Jr. This guy is a real infinite player. Inherits the Seagram liquor empire and, rather than "get back to the core" or "focus on the mission" (of a booze maker??) or whatever would have been the safe and simple modus operandi, he unloads it. Gets into Vivendi (I think) then out. Now, after a season of rumors that he was back in the market for his birthright, this inheritor is in the music business again. He sees a long-term opportunity in this industry which has serious problems with its near century-old business model. Persisting.
I'm in no position to weigh judgment on whether his choices have been good or bad, since I've had absolutely no interest in obtaining detail on the deals let alone analysing it. Time and history will tell the tale. Having said that, the morphing and seeking are hallmarks of the infinite game, and I hope that he's successful at it.
On the theme of opportunism and evolution that I began well below, here's an ephiphany I had this morning. Again: look out HBR.
I think that the fundamental problem with strategy and strategists in business, by and large, is that they are like the "Irishman who brought a knife to a gunfight." [Hey, we don't make this stuff up: just repeat what we've heard. Ed.] By which I mean most strategists, along with the gurus and other authors on the subject, make their prescriptions and operate within implicit assumptions and metaphors that may not be operative.
The acceleration of market cycles, technological development, and so forth may have gone a long way to proving that what we perceive -- because we're taught and devevloped on the job this way -- as a finite game may in fact be an infinite game. Within the framework defined by James Carse, a finite game is one in which there are rules, a fixed time of play, and a winner/loser. An infinite game is one in which there are no fixed rules, the game continues until all participants choose to end it, and there are no winners save those who persist to continue play. Look around you: business is a finite game. At least that's what we're led to believe; it's what is rewarded and punished. Look deeper. I am.
First, the reality of business, such as the continual change and evolution, the fact that the truly successful people and businesses are those that don't just bend the rules but make their own, etc., suggests that business may in fact be an infinite game perpetuated as a finite game (which are easier to understand for us Occidentals). Second, the metaphors we choose, such as the military/war metaphor that permeates business (we "capture" and "target" markets, go "head to head" with competitors, "flank" them, etc.) implies the finite game. It's also a misguided metaphor, but let's not even go there yet. Anyway, there is more and the essay is forthcoming. If HBR won't take it, it'll be here for you three anyway.
Think about it.
My new friend, Director Mitch at The Window Manager, has excellent taste. [My aren't we just a little full of ourselves. Ed.] He's linked to little old me!!
I think it's only fair since I told him that I thought his blog was like Stanley Bing's (of Esquire and Fortune fame). It is. You should check it out. He doesn't hold my being Canadian against me -- as far as I know. So please extend the same courtesy to him, even though he's from Orange County of all places . . .
To show that I stand behind my words, I've added Mitch to the blogroll on the right. But, bookmark it for yourself. Make it easy.
[OK, so the Globe and Mail is my preferred online source for daily news in the morning. So what! The National Post's online offering blows big time. Sue me. ed.]
Anyway, here's a trio of articles all in the same paper on the same day. Item one, on page 5 is headlined Forecasts for U.S. economy brighten. Gist of it is that "forecasters" in the US are predicting 2.9% growth in 2003 (with only 5-weeks remaining, confidence levels should be high!) and 4% in 2004. All good stuff. Very bullish.
However, as one moves to the buried bits on page 27, this pair of headlines is there to welcome: U.S. high-tech jobs continue to disappear (blogged this below) and Many Canadians fear job loss next year. This latter one is not just Canadian neurosis though, as the article goes on to say that even more people in each of Hong Kong (>25%), the USA (>25%), and the United Kingdom (just under 30%) feel similarly gloomy.
Could this imply that the happier people are the ones who only skim the front pages?
I've seen several unsettling articles and blog posts that have the same theme: high tech jobs in the US are disappearing. For example, this one in the Globe and Mail notes that it seems to be peaking. An item in the VentureBlog points to technology outsourcing. In any case, it might be a good adaptation strategy to NOT be too tightly personally-identified with high technology. In other words, be
Just a thought.
A writer of some volume, Peter Urs Bender, has provided in today's Globe and Mail, a primer in how to shake hands. Of course I was aware that there was something of an etiquette about it and read many times about the power representations a handshake made. I think we all know about firm handshakes, blah, blah, blah.
I don't know about you, but I have enough trouble when I meet people for the first time just keeping their names in my head long enough past the handshake to be able to refer to them in the first person again during the remainder of the meeting. Now, while I'm focusing on my internal dialogue: "It's Bill . . . rhymes with swill . . . we're going for a drink . . . Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill . . ." I have to consciously consider whether my palm is up, down, or vertical; should I hold on tight, let go early, pump more than three times, less than three times, get the left hand in there somehow. AND, I have do do this without having a strained look on my face.
Screw it, I'm going to hug everyone from now on!
The headline refers to Conrad Black: media mogul, pedant, and personality extraordinaire. It also refers to where I put him in my mind. Conrad was one of three reasons I didn't go to medical school. The other two were Sandy Weill and Bruce Wasserstein. All of whom were role models at the earliest part of the 1980s for the wonder of success in business -- cutting deals, wheeling 'n dealing, and so forth. J.R. Ewing brought to life. Now, we can be certain that in spite of all his capabilities and skills, Conrad is a bit of an asset shuffler who let the press go to his head (in so many ways, some of which are the reason he was where he was). Now, like so many of recent days before him, he's on his way up the scaffold. Yet, in a fashion that from him one would expect no less of, he does not go gently into his good night as this article (among many) shows.
He remains a marvellous historian and a wonder with words. Maybe it was time for a second career anyway.
Below, I mentioned that there were technologies to protect the mail system from attacks that are just way too easy if the system is open as it has been for. . . ever. Well, from Wired -- not exactly where you'd expect information about the USPS -- comes a couple of articles that indicate I'm not the only one on the idea.
First, on October 27th, came an article entitled, Post Office Wants to ID the Mail. It describes a change the USPS is implementing -- which has value to mailers and does not impose on consumers -- to make each item of bulk mail identifiable. Then, yesterday, came another item entitled, Post Office Gets Pressured to Pry. This one spends a little more time getting in to the recommendations of the President's Commission on the United States Postal Service as made in its July report. The most significant of which (at least for this harangue) is that the post office "should explore the use of sender identification for every piece of mail." [More about this below.] In addition, two congressional committees have urged the USPS to explore unique sender identification.
It should be noted that the USPS has indicated the bulk-mail rule changes are the first of many changes to come in making mail intelligent (on the outside anyway; the post office has no control over the degree of intelligence on the inside of the envelope). They are a little bit vague on the question of whether the requirements and changes will migrate to the consumer side. Maybe; maybe not. The proposal is not with out opposition.
However, on the question of opposition by citizens, the Commission had this to say:
Requiring all mail to identify its sender would likely have a negligible impact on most users of the Postal Service who readily identify themselves when they send mail and would consider such a requirement a relatively modest concession. . . . The greatest inconvenience, most certainly, would be to those who use the mail system for unlawful purposes, since such a move would hand law enforcement a powerful new tool to identify and prevent such abuse.
According to this item in the Telegraph, the Royal Mail earned a profit in the first half of this fiscal year. A whopping 3-million pounds sterling! Better than last year though, when it lost 542-million pounds in the same period. Still, probably shouldn't break out the Bollinger.
Chairman Allan Leighton resigns himself to the fact that this is an abberation. Postal administrations make a fair amount of revenue from a stamp increase and the Royal Mail bumped their price by 1 pence. Moreover, the results don't include the period when an unofficial labour strike whacked the Mail hard operationally. But, this admission:
Crucially, Royal Mail has still not implemented key operational changes in most of the letters business. We did not earn this profit from efficiency gains through much needed operational changes.
I never did tie the text together with the title in the post below. In short, I think that too many business people (and probably politicians, professionals, scientists, athletes, and artists of every stripe) focus way too intently on their vocation. Those superiors and peers that have looked down on me because I was obviously not thinking about the right things implicitly believe that their narrow view gives them strength of purpose, value, and/or power. It makes their work and contribution more valuable. In other words, those who exclude all BUT the important things, do better at those things they work on.
What baloney. Such single-mindedness achieves nothing but smallness. I contend that, on the whole, a full life with wide interests and thoughts provides greater value even to the singular purpose of a vocation than does intense focus. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Creativity, after all, requires stimulation. Without adding new stimulus (e.g., information, thought, etc.) to what one does necessarily inhibits the output. Einstein (no slouch in the intellectual, creativity, and fashion(!) areas) said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting a different result.
If the results of your work -- of your organization's efforts on the whole or your profession's capabilities -- are good enough, stick to it. Don't change a thing. Follow the rules. Don't get any additional information, ideas, or sparks of knowledge from anywhere else. Especially not from anything hundreds of years old or outside the realm of commerce. Concentrate on the important things that provide real value.
This is a great little story/parable that kind of goes a long with the last post. It gives me some comfort from time to time.
The Useless
"Hui Tzu said to Chuang Tzu: 'All your teaching is centered on what has no use.'
Chuang replied:
'If you have no appreciation for what has no use / You cannot begin to talk about what can be used. / The earth, for example, is broad and vast / But of all this expanse a man uses only a few inches / Upon which he happens to be standing. / Now suppose you suddenly take away / All that he is not actually using / So that, all around his feet a gulf / Yawns, and he stands in the Void, / With nowhere solid except right under each foot: / How long will he be able to use what he is using?
Hui Tzu said: 'It would cease to serve any purpose.'
Chuang Tzu concluded:
'This allows / The absolute necessity / Of what has no use.'"
I'm still thinking about opportunism and evolution as I posted below last week. But, instead of coming to closure, the idea is getting bigger. That is, I'm thinking it could be a philosophical matter that can't be resolved in five easy actions. HBR look out!
A little background. For as long as I can remember, I've been derided by my superiors and peers (and even the odd fast-climbing subordinate) for thinking about the wrong things. In the context of BUSINESS that means markets, targetting, SWOT, finances, need satisfaction, etc., etc. ad infinitum. Look at an MBA core-programme syllabus and you get the idea. Some things are simply assumed in all of this. And, I guess, I've always questioned those assumptions. [Bad boy! Be a good soldier and do as you're told. ed.] So, when I read or hear about business strategy, and focus, and core, and . . ., I begin to wonder if it's really a good thing in the circumstance.
Let me elaborate in a round-about way. Some of the implicit assumptions that permeate the way we think about business are:
You gotta love this story in the LA Times. If the headline doesn't get you wondering, the first graf has to. Together they read:
Schwarzenegger Plans Inquiry Into Groping AllegationsSACRAMENTO--Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger said Thursday that he is in the process of hiring a private investigator to look into allegations that he groped more than a dozen women over a 30-year period.
This article from the Washington Post about 10 USPS postal outlets in the DC area being shut down due to an anthrax scare is both concerning and banal. Concerning because despite the initial anthrax scare two years ago costing tons of money and creating all kinds of havoc, subsequent scares WITH THE SAME TOXIN, installation of irradiating equipment in postal plants, and the removal of postal drop boxes from most public places, it's still happening. Banal because it's become practically routine.
The USPS has acknowledged it's "erring on the side of caution" with the actions taken in shutting down the location and contacting CDC. But, it's still happening. [Did I say that already once or twice? ed.] Perhaps its the price of an essentially open mail system. There are, of course, a variety of technological ways to make such a crime if not impossible to do, then impossible to get away with even once. The trouble is, that might seem like an invasion of privacy, possibly increase the cost of doing business, and reduce the convenience of the postal sytem to its individual users. It's an (digital) identity matter.
So, amp up the juice on the irradiator and dole out the rubber gloves and face masks.
A couple posts ago, I took a run at what might be a developing trend in management advice to count on "gut instinct." For those just tuning in, I was a little snarky arguing that instinct is generally the result of experience. Still think I'm right there.
But, commuting via public transit today gave me time to get back into a book that's been on my nightstand: Rational Choice in an Uncertain World. [Got insomnia problems? ed.] In the chapter I read, the authors make the case that based on extensive empirical study, human judgment in decision-making rarely -- if ever -- beats the success score of a simple linear decision model (i.e., an Excel-based algorithm).
As intuition, or gut instinct, is the basis for human judgment in decision-making, I think the case just got stronger for not using your gut quite so much as your brain.
Uh-oh! Something else is on my mind.
This time it's objectives or goals, interesting study on innovation and strategy, and a statement made by Stewart Brand that I just can't shake. Luckily for me, this new thought is thematically connected with all the other thoughts through the notions of complexity. Let me take you through what's on my mind. First, however, a place of honour for a statement that I read nearly a decade ago (maybe more) in an interview that Fortune did with Stewart Brand. (For those of you unfamiliar with Stewart, go here, here, and here.)
Nature does not evolve toward goals but around constraints.
Everywhere I turn the business grist mill is churning out story and book specifically and generally about "the gut." Look here and here and here for example (although not here). The number of articles, essays, and blog items that deal with "gut" or "instinct" relative to business is overwhelming. Questions: