NOVEMBER 4, 2008

I hate waiting.

I joined National Car Rental’s Emerald Club so I can bypass the counter. I will happily ring up my own groceries at the self check-out lane. I often carry on my luggage- waiting at the baggage claim is excruciating.

There are some things I will wait for: a palace special #1 at Kabob Palace; a video to fully load on YouTube (and I know you’ve done it too); and if I’m Elliot Yamin, I’d probably wait for You.

Voting is something I don’t want to wait to do (now I’m more like Paula Cole). I am excited about this election and I am not alone. Many predict record voter turnout. This will be a race that will make history no matter who wins- and everyone wants to have their say.

Rise in registered voters + historic election = long lines.

This is a line I will stand in (because it’s certainly worth it), but it is not a line I’m looking forward to.

Of course, I could have bypassed the lines all together if I had decided to vote early. In at least 34 states voters cast their ballot in person before November 4th. Pretty convenient for those that wants to avoid the possible long lines. Virginia doesn’t have “Early Voting” like in other states, but those that qualify can vote early (in person or by mail) via absentee ballot. According to the AP, over 300,000 absentee ballots were cast in Virginia exceeding 2004’s number of 220,000.

We have been voting in this country since 1776, but we’re always looking for ways to make voting as convenient as many of our other daily errands. Let’s expand early voting to more states so that those that want to express their voice can do so when they want to. Wouldn’t you be more excited about voting if you weren’t dreading today’s long lines?

[Comments(3) »] [TrackBack »]

OCTOBER 14, 2008

“Change” is the word on everyone’s mind these days. What started as a political slogan quickly became the mantra of the American people: only 17% of us agree with the current direction of the country. Both candidates now eagerly seek the mantle of change: new John McCain attack ads flash the words “Change is Coming” at the viewer, while Obama’s original “Change You Can Believe In” continues to resonate with voters.

So in a time when the desire for change is palpable, why should sports be any different? Indeed, we’re seeing innovation in American football at a rapid clip. Strategies and tactics adapted at the high school level years ago have gradually filtered up to the college and pro ranks, resulting in a variety of new ways to play an old game.

One such example is the Miami Dolphins’ “Wildcat” formation, adapted from years of use in high schools around the country. In this formation, Dolphins running back Ronnie Brown receives what’s called a “direct snap”. This means that instead of the ball being hiked to the quarterback, it’s snapped directly to Brown, who can then hand the ball off to another running back, pass the ball, or run it himself. This flummoxes defenses and changes the traditional way that football offenses work, which places great responsibility on the quarterback to either hand the ball off or pass it down the field. It also changes the balance of the offense, which usually pits 10 players against 11 defensive players. The Dolphins add another wrinkle by placing two running backs in the Wildcat, meaning that the snap could possibly go to either one - making it much harder for defenses to predict where the ball will go.

Another novel scheme is the A-11, a high-flying, pass-oriented offense that features two quarterbacks, six wide receivers and two tight ends (most NFL formations have three receivers and one tight end). In this offense, the goal is to spread the field and create mismatches in coverage - for instance, forcing a lumbering linebacker to cover one of the six receivers, who are normally much faster players. And even if all of the receivers are covered, the quarterback usually has ample room to run the ball for a short gain. The scheme, invented only a year ago, has been embraced by many big high school programs, but rule differences make it impossible to use in the NCAA and NFL. Look for those rules to change if the formation becomes more popular in high school.

This kind of innovation stands in very sharp contrast to sports like baseball, which has not seen much tactical innovation since the modern rules of the game were codified early last century. I guess it’s not surprising that in our rapidly-changing society, the most successful sports are the ones that change along with it.

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]

OCTOBER 3, 2008

In case it hasn’t been obvious in my previous posts, I like to write about innovations in public policy. The idea that small changes in rules and practices can produce big benefits for society is fascinating to me.

For awhile now, I’ve been meaning to pick up Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler’s Nudge, a book about simple policy changes that can be made by governments and employers to encourage people to make better choices. The book is based on two papers authored by the pair in 2003 (sorry, you’ve got to pay for the second one!).

Backtracking a little bit: traditional economics - you know, the Adam Smith stuff - infers that people in general are “rational actors” - that we collectively make decisions based on our own personal interest. That makes sense in a lot of ways, and many think it’s the basis of how human beings act. For instance, I made a rational decision to come to work this morning because I know that: a) I won’t get paid otherwise; and b) I like what I do.

But in the past few decades, a new field has emerged called behavioral economics that investigates people’s irrational desires and actions, and how they affect the larger economy. Some examples of this can be seen in the poor understanding we human beings have of risk - a concept Kelly Stepno works on here at TMG - as well as the current economic crisis, which some believe was caused by an asset bubble driven by media hype rather than actual value.

The goal of Sunstein and Thaler’s work is to change people’s “choice architecture” by introducing policies that gently correct our tendencies toward irrational behavior. For instance, the authors identify savings rates as one area in which humans do not act rationally, and did a study of ways employers could help their employees save more money. They found that businesses who automatically enrolled their employees in 401(k) plans and offered an opt-out provision had dramatically higher savings rates than employers who had opt-in 401(k) plans. Thaler also experimented with a plan called “Save More Tomorrow” that allows employees to set aside parts of their pay raises toward their savings. The principle here is that people are irrationally loathe to give up any of their current income, but don’t have as much of a problem forgoing future gains. In this program, too, he saw the savings rates of participating employees more than triple.

The authors also discuss smaller policy changes, like removing key lime pie from a buffet line, that could help all sorts of pressing issues like obesity, indebtedness, and global warming. The basic theme is that changing people’s “choice architecture” is a way to deal with the irrational aspects of our behavior.

Like I said, I haven’t read the book yet, but I find a lot of the themes very intriguing. Of course, there are objections to this philosophy - who are you to tell me I shouldn’t have key lime pie? - but it’s refreshing to see people thinking outside left-right paradigms when it comes to public policy.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

SEPTEMBER 11, 2008

Most of my posts are sparked by something I’ve read, and this week is no different.  This time, I was struck by a news article talking about IKEA’s $77 million commitment to clean-technology start-ups within the next five years.  Talk about putting your money where your mouth is. 

IKEA’s Green Tech fund  has been operating for eight months, and it could invest in up to 10 fledgling companies in the next few years, perhaps first in Europe, where most of IKEA’s business is centered.  It will then sell the resulting products in its stores - anything from solar panels to efficiency meters, lighting, and sustainable materials.   As the article mentions, this could change the furnishings industry.

It’s clear from this example that companies can meld their business success with societal goals and actually be an agent for change.  Companies don’t have to be followers.  They can be leaders.  What matters is their degree of commitment and ability to act early, before everyone else has already jumped on the bandwagon. 

Jimmy Rogers at Geeks are Sexy helps us to visualize the store of the future.  

Imagine, if you will, a possible ‘future IKEA.’  In any section of the store that includes electronics, there will be a bin full of solar cells.  A lamp could be charged up during the day by a panel with suction cups for a window.  They could even sell home kits for roof-mounting solar cells to offset some of your normal electricity needs.

As Rogers goes on to say, IKEA’s aim is to make a good profit.  I like the synergy that IKEA has found between doing good for the environment and doing well for its business. 

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

AUGUST 27, 2008

Have you noticed lately the emergence of billionaire policy makers?  It really came to my attention when I saw the TV commercial by T. Boone Pickens promoting his personal energy plan.  That made me think of other uber-wealthy individuals who seem to be having more of an impact on public policy than the public officials we elected to do the job.  Certainly, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has helped millions in third world countries affected by malaria, and is pushing the envelope on education reform right here at home.   Warren Buffet’s genius is more influential as a guiding force in financial fortunes than are members of the Senate Banking Committee, and by supplementing the Gates Foundation he too is a major contributor to social change.  Billionaire George Soros is not only a relentless advocate of liberal causes but is a published author on globalization and the state of America.  

It’s not surprising that having reached the pinnacles of success in business, these moneymakers want to have a more indelible mark on society.  And maybe the fact that we are receptive to their influence isn’t new - certainly the Rockefellers have had their impact on policy and philanthropy over the past century.  But what seems unique is the shift to outside forces and campaigns taking the initiative and having a stronger voice than the government we have always relied on.  This goes beyond the billionaires to other non-profit organizations.  I count on the Save Darfur Coalition, made up of 180 faith-based, advocacy and humanitarian organizations, to be more effective at educating the world about that country’s genocide than I do our hamstrung political leaders.  The non-partisan ONE campaign is where I would turn to see a real change in fighting worldwide poverty.   These individuals and groups seem able to cut to the chase and get things done.

Is this a permanent shift away from government institutions as the game-changers in public policy to a reliance on independent, self-funded actors?   Judy Estrin, author of “Closing the Innovation Gap,” said on Good Morning America that “today, the problems that we have are so deep, that we need government, business and non-profits to work together to address them….. One of the things…  that I found the most hopeful was some of the things going on in the non-profits.”  Check out Estrin’s conversation with former Financial Times journalist Tom Foremski on his blog, SiliconValleyWatcher.

Personally, the idea that we can all become self-starters in solving the world problems and don’t have to wait for the grindingly slow pace of the legislative process to lead the way is very encouraging to me.  It may take billionaires with lots of cash to start the movement, but those of us with hours to give can make a difference too.   

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

AUGUST 15, 2008

According to Charles Murray, the W.H. Brady Scholar at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, that’s exactly what it is. In an op-ed in the August 13th issue of The Wall Street Journal, Murray poses a hypothetical question:

Imagine that America had no system of post-secondary education, and you were a member of a task force assigned to create one from scratch. One of your colleagues submits this proposal:

First, we will set up a single goal to represent educational success, which will take four years to achieve no matter what is being taught. We will attach an economic reward to it that seldom has anything to do with what has been learned. We will urge large numbers of people who do not possess adequate ability to try to achieve the goal, wait until they have spent a lot of time and money, and then deny it to them. We will stigmatize everyone who doesn’t meet the goal. We will call the goal a “BA.”

You would conclude that your colleague was cruel, not to say insane. But that’s the system we have in place.

Murray argues instead for a system of standardized certification tests specific to a person’s chosen career field:

The solution is not better degrees, but no degrees. Young people entering the job market should have a known, trusted measure of their qualifications they can carry into job interviews. That measure should express what they know, not where they learned it or how long it took them. They need a certification, not a degree.

The model is the CPA exam that qualifies certified public accountants. The same test is used nationwide. It is thorough — four sections, timed, totaling 14 hours. A passing score indicates authentic competence (the pass rate is below 50%). Actual scores are reported in addition to pass/fail, so that employers can assess where the applicant falls in the distribution of accounting competence. You may have learned accounting at an anonymous online university, but your CPA score gives you a way to show employers you’re a stronger applicant than someone from an Ivy League school.

My first thought upon reading all this is that education can’t be reduced to training. I’m of the opinion that well-rounded individuals tend to think more clearly and contextually and show a capacity for breadth of interest. Murray attempts to answer this:

Certification tests need not undermine the incentives to get a traditional liberal-arts education. If professional and graduate schools want students who have acquired one, all they need do is require certification scores in the appropriate disciplines. Students facing such requirements are likely to get a much better liberal education than even our most elite schools require now.

The problem I see here is that it makes a broad, liberal arts education contingent on utility. If your employer wants it, or your grad school wants it, only then do you make the effort to get it.

I’m not a fan of the idea that whether I want to be a marketing executive or a systems engineer, taking a course on Dante Alighieri’s Divine Comedy  or possessing a half-dozen college credits on the development of Western Civilization is considered essentially superfluous to my career path. Knowledge is edifying for its own sake, and understanding the world is a key to being successful in any endeavor. It also gives us something to fall back on in the event that we find ourselves in an industry that is in decline and we need to branch out or start over on a new path. I couldn’t tell you how many times a day I fall back on my liberal arts education (if for no other reason than to reference something I learned while writing a blog post about education).

On the other hand, I agree with Murray that the post-secondary educational system can be overly bureaucratic and ossified.  I like the idea of convenience and self-study, and universal standards for admission to the workplace that test knowledge rather than diplomas. Student loans are prohibitively expensive for many individuals, and college (and other) debt is on the rise. Worse, those seeking to go back to school after starting out on a career path often find that the time required is extremely prohibitive, and would be much better spent pursuing the credentials needed in as expeditiously and inexpensively as is possible.

As opportunities to participate in distance education become more widely available, and industries become more specialized, I think Murray’s vision is the more likely outcome. I just hope we don’t lose sight of the fact that there are things worth knowing that transcend the specific skills we want to put on our resumes.

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]

JUNE 6, 2008

All around me, I see a new era emerging - an era of collaboration. I believe we are turning the corner on an intense period of competition, where the philosophy of “win at all costs” is making way for “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.” Let me cite some examples.

Just recently, instead of focusing on the fight over nightly news ratings, the three network anchors announced that they were working together to raise money for cancer research. Barack Obama, the new Democratic presidential nominee, includes promised collaboration with Republicans as a key element of his “change” message. And Microsoft may partner with Yahoo in the latter’s search advertising business in place of its failed pursuit of a hostile takeover.

I think this opens up tremendous possibilities for innovation in our work, home, and entertainment.

For instance, we are all looking for flexibility in our work schedule. As a result, some of us have become telecommuters. Others are opting to become independent entrepreneurs or consultants. The problem is, when we are sitting at home alone in our pajamas, we miss the communal spirit of the office environment and the spark of ideas that comes from group collaboration. Hence, coworking sites are popping up where workers can keep their independence and still mingle with others to get the best of both worlds.

Consider this from felicityatcubes from Cubes and Crayons on the coworking blog site:

We have freelance workers in all walks of life from medical translators to biotech researchers to recruiters to professors. It had been a pleasant surprise to find that the common thread comes from the atmosphere we have created more than their careers.

I have also seen the new collaboration between the online video and the print worlds. Entertainment mogul Michael Eisner, seeking a way to engage the internet generation, has teamed with novelist Robin Cook (who was also looking to reach younger readers) to produce a series of 50 web videos - 2 minutes each to be broadcast once a day - as a prequel to an actual book. In a recent interview on NPR’s “All Things Considered”, Robin Cook put it this way:

The trouble is now, there’s so many other things trying to get people’s attention; in particular the younger people. And rather than try to fight it, you really have to kind of use it.

The Culinary Institute of America is collaborating with Harvard Medical School to train physicians how to cook healthy foods so they in turn can teach their patients. The Pittsburgh Pirates are working with the Natural Resources Defense Council to make their ballpark more sustainable and educate their fans about environmentalism. The list goes on and on. What examples do you know of? Please share them with me because I would love to track this trend of breaking down the traditional barriers between organizations and creating real opportunities for working together to benefit us all.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

APRIL 29, 2008

In the days following an enlightening conversation about what life would be like in 25 years and a similarly-themed Washington Post article, I’ve been shuddering at the thought of the future.  A lot of what I heard and read was pessimistic, filled with images of imminent dangers ranging from terrorist attacks and information security breaches to devastating natural disasters.

I found myself pondering these ideas further on a road trip I took this Sunday (my 24th birthday).  As I drove, thoughts gathered as I aged another year closer to 25, overwhelming me nearly to the point of an early quarter life crisis (Note to self: remember iPod for distraction on long car rides). 

And then, as I was on the brink of an emotional breakdown, juxtaposed by my soundly sleeping passenger as we neared our urban destination, I saw it.  Hope.  Hope amidst a weakening dollar, a struggling housing market, employment worries, and rising energy costs.  No, it wasn’t the apparition of Jesus Christ, or a billboard announcing I had won the lottery.  I saw hope in the distance as a tall, thin, white structure, surrounded by many others just like it.  Three prongs atop them, like desperate fingers, reached out into the air to capture as much energy as possible in a space shared by equally graceful soaring birds.  Yes, I saw hope in a windmill.

Their massive presence was impressive and their existence, not merely on their own, but as an addition to an already crowded urban landscape (which I’m sure big business developers and real estate entrepreneurs would much rather see devoted to new hotels or waterfront residential property), was the inspiration for my new outlook on our future.  The windmills represented the ability to change, to go against conventional thinking.

Relieved, for the moment anyway, that our future may not be so bleak after all, I glanced over at my still soundly sleeping companion and smiled, knowing that there are people out there who believe in positive change, who don’t shy away from complex issues in the face of adversity, and who aren’t afraid to take risks, standing out in the company of others who don’t have the courage to do the same.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

APRIL 21, 2008

By now, everyone has watched some sort of video on YouTube.  Many of these videos are funny clips forwarded around by friends that provide a quick distraction from whatever else it is we happen to be doing at the time. 

According to YouTube, the purpose of the website is:

[to] see first-hand accounts of current events, find videos about their hobbies and interests, and discover the quirky and unusual. As more people capture special moments on video, YouTube is empowering them to become the broadcasters of tomorrow.

I don’t think the founders of YouTube ever thought that it would become an outlet for teens to show off their malicious behavior or bitter wives to trash their husbands as part of divorce battles.

New York socialite Tricia Walsh Smith is using the site to trash her husband in their ongoing divorce battle by trashing his kids, his behavior in the bedroom and all around character. You have to see it to believe it.

Dr. Keith Ablow, a forensic psychiatrist, told “TODAY”s Meredith Vieira, “We’re at a critical moment where people are turning to public broadcasts to express private thoughts. But I don’t think it’s connecting people necessarily. I think it’s disconnecting them from their own life stories.”

In case you missed it, a couple weeks ago several teens lured another teen into a house for the express purpose of beating her up, filming it, and then posting the video on YouTube.  Local authorities intervened before the tape was posted and the girls are now in jail.  You have to wonder why these girls thought they would be able to post violence on such a public forum and get away with it.

One last example of using YouTube for personal “gain” involves the Toronto Blue Jays baseball team. The Sporting News Blog reports that fans sitting in the $2 cheap seats were getting drunk and causing fights, again for the purpose of posting videos of these fights on You Tube.  The Blue Jays management has since banned beer from being sold in these cheap seats.

With the advances in technology today, it is easier than ever for people to communicate and get their 15 minutes of fame. However, the negative side of these advances is becoming all too clear, which brings up the question: should sites like YouTube should be regulated? And, if so, how much?

One of the lawyers in the Walsh Smith case summarizes the issue by saying:

“Where does it end? Over the last few years, we’ve had to deal with e-mails getting into the press, e-mails that nobody thought would end up as Exhibit A. But throwing your secrets onto YouTube for the whole world to see — and comment on! That brings it to a whole new level.  There’s no such thing as a private life anymore.”

[Comments(2) »] [TrackBack »]

OCTOBER 18, 2007

Gareth Kay over at Brand New pointed me to this article from Campaign magazine about how today’s advertising folk are missing the point on new ideas:

As Mother’s Dylan Williams puts it: "Most of the stuff that inhabits popular culture starts from audience response and works back to an idea. We in advertising tend to start with our message and work outward. We are spending too much time on what we want to say, rather than what people want to hear. Maybe we should flip the traditional planning process. From message-out planning to audience-back strategy. Dispense with propositions and focus on more thoroughly understanding what people are into. Spielberg said he wanted to make everyone in a cinema feel joy. Then worked back to ET. What would we make if our development process worked this way around?"

The Chairman of Fallon London, Laurence Green, wrote the article.  He thinks that even when advertising is not for the Internet, it should be conceived as if it were:

And even when there is no strategic or executional online element to our
campaigns, we can still benefit from "thinking digital". Most simply by
asking: how can the consumer - or other parties - interact with, engage
with, or use our idea? Have we invited participation somehow, even if
our invite goes unanswered?

Advertising should start with the customer - not the product. 

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]