That being said I vehemently oppose the idea of legislatures mandating curriculum even when the intentions are as noble as they are in this case.

You think its good to protect gay people’s rights? sure, so do i but this has nothing to do with their rights.

You think its good for the legislature to advance this great cause? well then you’re also OK when the conservatives decide to do the same thing and dictate the teaching of intelligent design or banning the teaching of anything to do with gays, gay culture etc. One need only look to the texas school board who had no historians, teachers, etc on it, and decided Thomas Jefferson wasn’t that important, capitalism doesn’t sound as good as “free-market system”, Jefferson Davis should be studied right alongside Lincoln, and hip hop is not culturally relevant.
The legislatures job is to ensure its citizens have equal rights, its to ensure students have the opportunity for education, it is NOT to dictate what is part of that education it is NOT to tell people what they should think or believe. They should absolutely make laws to ensure those rights are protected and if it takes the national guard to enforce those rights like was needed to protect african-american school childrens access to education then call them out. However then its time for them to rely on the experts to make the judgement about how to teach and what is important to teach in the math, science and history classroom.

So how should these important accomplishments find their way into the history books, who should decide whats taught?

Ideally these accomplishments should find their way into history books the same way Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr did — historians who write the books eventually decide their accomplishments were significant enough to warrant inclusion. Just like we trust mathematicians to set the math curriculum why wouldn’t we allow historians to do the same for history class?

Historians are biased and historians certainly aren’t always right but wouldn’t you take their judgment over that of a politician? You know, historians, the ones that have degrees in the subject, who have studied and devoted their lives to it, ones who have collaborated with other colleagues to further their understanding of a subject; well I’m going to take their consensus of whats historically important over yours or a legislatures any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I have to believe a historian is going to look at the inclusion of ballot initiatives in states across the country against gay marriage, look at Don’t Ask Don’t Tell being a major issue in the 2010 lame duck session and are going to include them in future text books. Thus making the California law somewhat irrelevant anyway.  I have to believe a diligent historian is going to read the writings of gay people, anti-gay people and others to get a more complete picture of how the issues of the day were seen. They will NOT simply find a gay person to write the chapter unless that gay person was also a fellow historian who they are collaborating with. Otherwise it would not only be biased but not uninformed and being well informed is most important.

Will this make it perfect? Nope. As i said historians are biased and aren’t always right. Even when they try to be unbiased and work as hard as possible to get it right there’s always going to be a different part of the story that goes untold.

However even a cursory examination of history will show when legislatures, politicians, churches and other non-historians are left to tell the story it is one that is exclusive, MORE biased and MORE inaccurate. It is one that likely to suppress facts rather then work to get as close to the true story as possible.

So while this decision may be a rare instance of moving towards inclusion I’d rather the legislature just stay out the history making altogether… that is to say unless they do something significant enough for the historians to put them in it.

Often no matter what product you think you’re selling or what you set out to sell it isn’t at all what your audience is buying.

If you sell baking soda for cooking but your customers buy it for its ability to keep their fridge smelling nice you aught to change your marketing focus; or at the very least add to it. Well it would be very easy for minor league baseball teams to sell baseball but that’s not really why most fans buy it. Most teams are smart enough to realize this unfortunately some are not including one local team and its sad to see the resulting marketing efforts.

So what are minor league baseball fans buying if they’re not buying baseball? Several things including:

1) Entertainment- Pre-game shows, post game fireworks, in-game promotions like dizzy bat races, nightly promotions like Hawaiian night or Jersey Shore night.

2) Chance to see future stars- This really only applies to affiliated teams but its fairly self explanatory folks like to see rising stars as they try to make the majors.

3) Bonding – Chance to spend time with family/friends

4) Community – This is your team they’re part of your community and you’re proud of them.

Things you’re not selling?

1) Wins and losses – You’ve got your die-hards certainly but most fans aren’t concerned with your day to day wins and losses.

2) Your lineup – Its going to change with callups and player movement year to year anyway and most players the fans could care less about.

Why does this matter? Well take that local team i was talking about. Their facebook messages are about what their lineup is for the night. Their tweets are updates on the score of the game every inning. Their website doesn’t have a daily promo calendar. Their lineup is full of washed up ex major league players some of whom have had legal troubles and none of whom have ties to the community or who will likely be around long.

Not coincidentally they’re last in their league in attendance and one of the smallest drawing teams in any league. As always there’s a myriad of other issues effecting their attendance some positive some negative but i can tell you when added up they should not make them last.

With the minors as a whole setting attendance records and some teams struggling mightily its clear some teams get it and some teams just don’t.

To summarize it seems he was writing the article in response to the fact that there are lots of folks in sports business and business as a whole who talk the talk but can’t or don’t walk the walk. They’re all style no substance and he wrote a nice list of how to identify these folks. If you pay attention to their actions and ask yourself the questions he asks you should be able to determine who is the real deal.

These people absolutely exist.  His concerns are on point. His list is on point.

My concern though is when we look at others we are ignoring the possibility that in some circumstance’s we’re the problem. Not because we don’t know our stuff not because we don’t take care of our own business but because we don’t foster an environment that encourages those around us to do so.

It’s nice to think that superstar employees, co-workers and partners will perform in any situation. Its not unfounded. In business we need to have personal responsibility. However i think we’re being naive if we don’t think the way we handle our relationships with others effects the way they perform in relation to you.

So i ask you to ask these questions of yourself to make sure YOU are the real deal (and i invite you to come up with your own).

1) You’ve just asked or told someone something. They’ve disagreed with you, or they’ve had some questions about the information/assignment. Do you examine these questions,suggestions and disagreements thoughtfully or simply find ways to reject their points?

2)When someone says perhaps I’m not the best person for this job do you automatically think less of them? Even when they are correct? Do you think about could i find someone better or simply give them better resource to enable them to better do the job?

3)Someone agrees to do something for you and realizes it might not get done on deadline. They keep you informed of their progress but its not going well for very legitimate reasons. Do you write them off or consider would someone else have really done a better job and what you could have done to ensure better results?

4)How do you react when someone tells you the truth? Does it benefit them in the short term and or long term to exaggerate, stretch the truth or flat lie?

Over time you’ll find if you foster a culture of honesty and openness you’ll find that’s what you get. If you support those you work with by giving them the resources they need to accomplish their goals you’ll find they meet their goals more often. You’ll find when YOU are truly the real deal you’ll be surrounded more often by those who are.

As Lou so rightly pointed out it won’t always be the case, “there are certain self absorbed folks that no matter how you treat them it really doesn’t matter.”

But when we’ve examined ourselves it’ll be that much easier to recognize those who truly need to be avoided. And you’ll have no remorse in doing so.

I hope that’s the case but I’m not so sure it is.

We get all kind of shootings reported on because apparently it gets ratings, people love to read entertainment news and gossip, michael jackson’s death was the biggest story since JFK’s death.

Is that news?

It’s popular sure and there’s absolutely something to be said for writing about topics people want to read about. However that doesn’t make it hard news, it doesn’t make it important. Maybe we need to find ways to present hard news in a more reader friendly way. But again, popular doesn’t make it important.

I guess at the end of the day running what’s actually popular may be a better thing then an editor deciding what they think is popular and running that. Lets just hope there’s enough demand for the important stuff that it doesn’t disappear.

Bye, Bye, Splat

I first heard Nickelodeon was changing its logo yesterday on twitter and initially i thought hmmm curious. The article i read initially talked about mostly the technical side of it; specifically about unifying the brands and making sure all the stations include the name Nick in it. Sounded like a decent idea… if they had done that originally.

Not having done it originally it seemed like a needless waste of money to go back and do it. Is anyone really going to make a deal with Nick or watch their stations more because of a new logo and names? probably not.

Then I read the following quote on a Fast Company article (that came from the Variety article) and my head started to spin a bit…

“The decision to streamline the network identities came after [Nickelodeon execs] started putting all of the channels’ logos on the same business card–and decided that it looked like a mess.”

Really? We’re making the changes because the logos look like a mess on business cards???

Strategic rebranding isn’t a bad thing. The car makers in the US needed to loss a few brands and redefine what their current ones were all about. Nickelodean? Admittedly  I can’t speak much to specifics of their business but i can’t imagine lack of cool business cards was on top of the list of their problems…

All “socially-conscious” stuff.

I get it… CSR is in right now. I get that the commercial was being played before an online video of a person being interviewed about socially conscious stuff. I get that the ad spend was probably not nearly as much as a comparative tv spot. So it was hitting on a trend, it was well targeted and relatively speaking cost effective.

So it was a great ad right? I’m not so sure.

You’re advertising for telecommunications company; phone, TV, etc. While being socially conscious is good, and may cause me to differentiate between low cost items (like cereal) I have trouble thinking someones going to choose to switch to a new cellphone service based on what kind of trucks AT&T uses.

I’ll bet they even did surveys that said people were morely likely to use AT&T products after seeing these commercials. But remember, more likely doesn’t always mean likely.

Now when he came on the show he had a suit on which was nice, but his hair was long, braided and basically looked like something you would associate with a hippy.

I have no problem with his hair, nor do I have any problems with hippies. Yet they’ve been associated with/mocked for lazyness, drug use, and unrealistic idealism. And by allowing himself to be put into that box I fear it distracts from his arguments. He’s essentially asking people to make fundamental changes in the way we build things and do things. These are not simple requests.

When he has hair like that he gives small minded people an easy excuse to dismiss him. They can say oh look he’s clearly a hippy just trying to do some silly idealistic stuff that will never happen.

He’s giving them a chance to focus on who he is rather than the strength of the arguments.

The same applies for the marijuana activist appearing to be a hippy stoner or gay rights activist appearing to be overly flamboyant.

Certainly in some cases an image can help you make an argument. An insurance guy will wear a suit when he wants to look professional or a polo shirt if he wants to appear casual/part of the family.

The point? Don’t give people the chance to dismiss you; make them focus on your arguments.

Don’t be that guy.

However, when i say be a yes man i mean it in opposition to being a no man. A no man is quite simply someone who looks for ways to say no. They say things like: this won’t work because, we can’t do this because, there’s no way we can make this happen because, etc etc etc. Whether the idea would be good for the company or not, whether its feasible or not they look for ways to say no. Unless the idea is so foolproof they can’t find holes in it, they’ll look for those holes and seem them as reasons to say no.

Finding ways to say no is easy too. There’s very rarely a perfect idea and even when there is its usually not perfect on the first try. Most times good ideas aren’t easy to accomplish or convenient so its easy to reject them.

Don’t be that guy either.

Instead of finding ways to say no, find ways to say yes. Take those problems and say how can we do something great inspite of them.

When you look for ways to say yes you inspire everyone around you to think big, you encourage them to come up with new ideas and most importantly to share them. Why is this important?  Rarely has a business grown when people just did things as usual.

So be a yes man, or more importantly don’t be a no man.

This allowed them to debate, get as heated as they want, go out to get some dinner and a drink, go to sleep and come back at it the next day.

Think about that for a second, they didn’t send out a newsletter, or a town crier, and they certainly didn’t tweet or blog about it. No reporter or constituent was badgering them about the previous days debate, they could just get back to work.

Now there were some flaws in the constitution (slaves being 3/5 a person being the most obvious) but overall i’d say there were pretty darn successful.

So the question is… is LESS transparency a good thing?

Do we need CSPAN covering every word congress utters?

As a fairly liberal person it strikes me as odd to say less transparency in the debate might actually be a good thing, but it might be. If it could foster open and honest debate that’d be great.

HOWEVER, the problem is I think it really requires a complete lack of transparency that in today’s world of 24/7 media would never work. We’d get bits and pieces of the debate which would be even worse.

So are all the lessons of the Consitutional Congress lost?

I don’t think so. I think the idea that we can get as heated as we want in a debate than go home and come back at it anew the next day is invaluable. I think we’ll learn that when we have an problem maybe we don’t have to tweet it or blog about it immediately. Maybe we let it play out a little bit and see if we can’t come to a better solution.

I think the main point is there’s always better ways you can debate, better ways to solve problems… got any suggestions?

When I say don’t pass the buck I don’t mean not to delegate responsibilities. I certainly don’t mean you should do everything or know the answer to every question.

No what I mean is when you start a relationship with a customer, business partner, employee, etc. OWN IT. What’s a relationship? It’s anything. Clearly it’s any time you reach out to someone but it’s also an e-mail sent your way, a phone call to customer service, it’s a tweet sent your way. A relationship especially in the digital age is started anytime someone contacts you.

The first thing you do is listen; the next thing you do is own that relationship.

Let me give an example of what not to do. I’m working with a team (which in our business is essentially a business partner) and they gave me a specific contact as the point person for our event. So when I need to ask him something in preparation for our event he’ll often say well you’ll need to contact this person. The stuff I’m asking is not technical questions that require a specialized knowledge that only another expert in the organization can answer properly. So while he could very well walk down the hall and ask his colleague the question and get back to me he does not.

Now certainly I can ask this person the question, but its almost always easier for people within a company and a building to get hold of each other than someone outside the organization.

Think about how much better your customer service would be if each representative took ownership of each question they were asked.If they saw it through and made sure that if they couldn’t answer the question that someone did.

So don’t pass the buck, DO take responsibility and OWN your relationships.