Vy Blog

Here in the middle

You know how you have a morbid fascination with things you never hope to experience personally but can't look away from?  Like, for example, driving by a traffic accident. 

Me, I'm overtired of trumped-up conflict, particularly in the broadcast media.  You can't flip on the TV without a bullshit escalation of nothing into something.  "Reality" shows (a term that should be used horribly loosely)?  Not much more than squaring off groups against one another and hoping people won't look away when the catfights start. 

Even in non-TV land, reality is skewed -- in politics, for example, it's de rigeur just to drive as hard as you possibly can from the first word.  "Nancy Pelosi is an arrogant, look-down-her-nose, smarmy, left-coast, let-me-coddle-you-through-life liberal who wouldn't know the real world if it walked onto the floor of the House.  Let me tell you why she embodies the problems of this country."  That kind of thing.

I've said before that it's prevalent online as well.  I was talking yesterday with someone about this and told him that any issue seen through your computer screen is a) distorted, and b) over-magnified.  My theory is that this is due to several phenomena, but the mere fact that you can attack with the assurance of no consequence is primary.  (In a PR sense, this is a problem -- how do you accurately measure the temperature of an issue that affects you and respond correctly?  It's easy to overreact -- e.g., Cheney shooting, or under react, e.g., Dell and Jarvis.)

Some people love it.  OK, whatever -- wallow in that if you want.  You should never be afraid to back yourself up, but conflict where none truly exists is a giant waste of time and energy.

And further, I have a hard time believing anyone really lives in that kind of world.  We're too busy trying to get our crap done.  Most everyone, I would bet, would be just as happy without Jerry Springer as with.

So, just when I thought I might be the only one who thought that, I ran across this from Morgan Spurlock.  Thank God I'm not alone.

Friday head gravel

Happy Friday.

Great new job board: CrunchBoard from Arrington's Crunch group.  This guy is the Cap'N.

Re: Mel Gibson and his "PR problem" -- first, there's solid commentary by David Parmet, and here's a link to an analysis by Laura Ries and some recommendations by Dave Weinberger.  I agree with Ries' main point that Gibson has to go do the right things if he's going to recover, but I disagree with viewing this through the lens of "recovering his brand."  But she's in that business, so that's her world view.  My own view is he'll always have this issue hanging over him -- some people simply won't forgive it, no matter what he does -- and the best possible way to salve all this is to simply behave authentically well.  That's it.  And if he were asking me for advice, I'd tell him that a) you have to keep doing the right things, no matter what, and b) when you're attacked anyway, even after you've honestly changed your views, just express regret that your authentic actions can't be seen for what they truly are, and you're getting back to doing good things, thank you.

Great new filmloop review of all of Hugh MacLeod's 2006 cartoons.

What the hell is the deal with the Cardinals?  It's like they forgot how to win.  Thank God Cincy has lost the last five.

Event this weekend.  Must...keep...going.

OneBallot: Signatures and gatherers needed for final push

Word today that the Oregon Open Primary initiative has hit the 85,000 signature mark.  They need several thousand more to be sure to have enough valid signatures to get the issue on the November ballot.

If you're in Oregon, there are three things you can do to help:

1. Contact the campaign to have signature sheets sent to you.  Even if you can only sign up a few folks near you, every little bit helps.  You can sign up online or can call the campaign office at (503) 736-2552.
2. Volunteer to work as a signature gatherer at one of the following events:
   • Hillsboro 4th of July parade
   • Portland Blues Festival
   • Any 4th of July event on the Oregon Coast
   • The St. Paul Rodeo
   • The Ashland 4th of July parade
3. Sign the petition.  Look for a volunteer at one of these events.  Or contact the campaign office to find out where you can sign.

The campaign is asking the current gaggle of voluenteers already holding petition sheets to mail them by july 3 or get them to the campaign office by july 5.   The address is:Oregon Open Primary, 921 SW Washington St. -  Suite 810, Portland, OR 97205.

This is a smart iniative, the kind of thing that keeps Oregon the progressive place it is.  Pitch in -- it will be worth it.

Portland Stormhoek Geek Event

Ray and I hosted the Portland version of Stormhoek's and Hugh's 100 Dinners in 100 Days at his house last night.  We had a great turnout -- half marketers and half wiki enthusiasts.  Probably 25 people total.

Ray had a good idea for an opening -- we organized into a circle for introductions, and as you made an intro, you took a picture of the person next to you.  We'll post it all up on Flickr or something later.  Everyone talked about their backgrounds and why they were interested in collaboration, as it applies to development or marketing.  It set a solid context for the event.

After getting food (which was fabulous) and a glass of wine, I gave an abbreviated opening presentation about collaborative marketing, followed by a demo by Ray of the use of wikis in the world today.  They were good interactive sessions with ideas and questions flying around the room.  Afterward, we stuck around, meeting new people and exchanging notes.  It was very positive and productive.  And we all took away a signed print from Hugh as a way to remember the evening.

And Erika Polmar was there and shared pics from her Mt. Hood climb.  She summitted early Sunday and met her fundraising goal (a buck per foot, so that's $11,235 plus) for the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.  Well done.

Thanks for a great idea, Hugh, and Sam, thanks for the great wine.  See you next time.

Are we outflying ourselves?

A few years ago I saw a documentary on Discover or whatever about fighter jets.  More specifically, the program was about the fact that engineers had finally built airplanes that were so fast, maneuverable and complex that pilots had a hard time keeping up with them.  There was even footage from inside the cockpit showing a pilot passing out attempting a maneuver. 

Obviously that's a problem -- it's particularly a problem in aviation, where safe flying requires that you think well ahead of the airplane.  And the faster the airplane, the further ahead you need to think.  An airplane can fly you into bad weather or congested airspace quickly, and you need to have planned for that two hours ago, not when you're about to fly through a cell.

The same concept comes to mind when I look at the relationship between the US government and the developing technology world.  (And, to be fair, I'm not just singling out the US -- I believe gov'ts everywhere are having the same issue.)  The patent office is backlogged by years and will soon change the way it handles incoming claims for intellectual property.  The Congress is woefully underequipped to take an accurate read on what's developing, anticipate needs and react appropriately.  And surely the federal bureaucracy is the least nible and capable entity known.

I've had lots of reasons to think about this, but the most recent was listening to David Broder this morning on XMPR, where he does a regular Monday morning review of what's happening in Washington.  There are issues the congress is particularly capable of dealing with, but mostly they're socio-economic in nature -- the war on terror, the immigration issue, the economy -- and one could plausibly argue that there's way too much rancor in Washington now for those things to be effectively handled.

The world is so much more complex than it was thirty years ago.  It's not so easy as to point to DC and lay all the blame.  But, it's clear we need pilots there who are more capable, and we need to be thinking way ahead of this airplane.

UPDATE:  Mike Arrington posts about former Sen. John Edwards getting ahead of things.  I spoke too soon, at least in this case.  Bravo to Sen. Edwards.

How politicians will talk

I keep hearing interesting things on Bob Edwards' program on XMPR.  This morning his guest was Joe Klein, the Time magazine columnist and infamously known as the "anonymous" author of Primary Colors, the book that loosely fictionalized Bill Clinton.

Klein's new book is about American politics and -- very basically put -- the way we've allowed the political process to be made artificial and inauthentic (almost to the point it's also fictionalized).  Consultants drive the images and bites that we use to make interpretations about those who govern (by pushing phrases like, "We need not only family values policies, but policies that value families!"), to the point that we've abandoned our duties as citizens.  His plea in the book, he says, is to 1) inspire at least one 2008 presidential candidate to speak like a normal human being, and 2) get us to embrace our duties as citizens in a representative republic.

As if he knew he was pushing my hot button, Klein had me nodding affimatively to the part about speaking as a normal person.  His belief is that there's a difference between an oration and a speech. 

An oration is lofty, meant to inspire, has grand vision and uses language we don't employ every day (think of Kennedy's "ask not").  Klein thinks politics would be better served if orations were kept to symbolic and very ceremonial occasions -- inaugurals, for example.

A speech -- and that's not even a great term for it -- is the everyday impartation of information about how a leader feels or a direction s/he is assuming.  It's not a good term because, as Klein points out (and here's the marketing tie-in), today it needs to be a conversation.  Equal parts talking and listening.  In everyday language.  With the humor and inflection and emotion that we all use with our families and in the hallways.

Of course, I'm thinking that's great, I'd vote for anyone that genuine as long as s/he's not a facist or something otherwise vile, but how is that possibly going to happen in the age of television and packaging?

Klein says, and I'm inclined to agree, that it probably will change because of two factors.  First, the next set of problems for Americans is coming into clearer focus.  We haven't had a challenge that can be clearly defined (even the war on terror took a good while to understand) since the end of the cold war.  We now have several: the violence and hatred espoused as terror due to cultural intolerance, the very real problem of global warming, the need for energy independence, and the decline of American competitive capability. 

Think about the 1996 presidential election and compare it to the coming one in 2008 -- ten years ago, the U.S. was as fat and happy and secure as it's ever been, maybe as it ever will be.  Can you remember one thing that Bill Clinton or Bob Dole elucidated in that race?  Me either.  In retrospect, Clinton said in everything he did, "Don't upset this apple cart. We're doing great."  And Dole said, "Well, maybe, but that guy's a sleazebag."  There wasn't anything on which to truly focus.  That's changed and will not be repeated in 2008.

Second, there now is the evolving ability for political leaders to adapt to the way things are discussed now.  Just as companies used to do command and control, but cannot now because of the world's vast ability to converse, so politicians will move to understand and adapt.  And it's not necessarily their embrace of the technology -- anyone can blog -- but rather the current generations' ability to sniff out the BS quickly and ignore it.  If one aspires to leadership, one can't be ignored.

I did political work way back when, but have been turned off for some time now because of the amount of anger and rancor in the U.S. political system.  I'm getting more optimistic, however, that it will be different thanks to these changes.  I hope I'm right.

What does a name tell you?

On XMPR this morning, the program "On Point" featured an interview with the writer Colson Whitehead about his new book, Apex Hides the Hurt.  The interview was fine, but I'm particularly intrigued with the idea behind the novel.

In the story, there's a town that named itself Freedom during the days of slavery, an aspiring and hopeful name.  Not long after, an industrialist named Winthrop rides into town and opens a very ironic barbed wire factory, and while he's at it, strong-arms everyone into naming the town after him.  After the barbed wire market falls off, the town sort of settles into a rut, as many small towns do.

Years later, here comes another CEO who plans to move his computer company to town, and also has renaming on his mind.  He's pitted against the African-American mayor, who wants to call the place Freedom again -- but the exec thinks it'd be better to give the town a new name that's reflective of the "new economy" era, and hires a naming specialist to suggest a new moniker.  They decide on New Prospera, and the rest of the book is about the argument over which side wins.

The story is interesting, to be sure, and I've already ordered the book.  What interests me, though, is the practice of naming.

In the interview Whitehead said his inspiration for the story came from an article he read about a couple of maverick marketing guys way back when who are the ones responsible for naming the drug Prozac.  It described the careful look they took at human relationships with language, the use of syllables and language rhythm, and the reactions we have to words and thoughts.  They were charged with coming up with a name that would make the product fly off the shelves.  Looks like it worked.

This is perversely interesting to me, because I see the idea of naming all around me.  Parents don't name their kids Steve and David and Lisa and Jennifer any more -- it's MaKynzi and Talon and Ja'aron and Petraya.  No one lives on Elm or Main or Highland, they live on Enchanted View Drive and Sir Lancelot Lane.  I remember helping a company once with the idea of renaming -- it had a perfectly usable name but the CEO really wanted a new economy name, and decided on Encenda, to give the idea of being "on fire."  Aptly named, as it eventually turned out.

What I keep coming to is the dividing line between the authentic and inauthentic.  I'm not pining for the days of old, when it was all ever so simple -- I'm interested in what I think is the use of words, concepts, sounds, syllables and ideas to establish pretense.  That is, the attempt at influencing or predisposing thoughts even prior to engagement.  As though the one giving the name is saying, "If I use this name, you'll think the way I want you to think about this person/company/street/neighborhood/town even before you meet that person/go through the company's door/arrive at that place.

It's a careful line, and humans always have injected at least a little ambition into names.  Nothing wrong with that.  But at what point does it pass the line of the ridiculous, or at least the productive?  My thought is you know it when you see it -- a ridiculous name is just a ridiculous name and it's obvious that it's trying to hard.  At that point, you're over the line.

But isn't there an area in front where a company or place can get creative and interesting and still describe what it does or something about its rich history or the experience you'll have?  I think so.  But you tell me.

Speak English only? Bleak outlook for you.

Reuters reports on a study by the British Council that says if you speak only English, you'd better get on the stick.

The dominance of English as the world's top language -- until recently an advantage to both Britain and the United States -- is now beginning to undermine the competitiveness of both nations, according to a major research report.

The report commissioned by the British Council says monolingual English graduates "face a bleak economic future" as multilingual competitors flood into the workforce from all corners of the globe.

A massive increase in the number of people learning English is under way and likely to peak at around 2 billion in the next decade, according to the report entitled "English Next".

More than half of all primary school children in China now learn English and the number of English speakers in India and China -- 500 million -- now exceeds the total number of mother-tongue English speakers elsewhere in the world.

Emphases mine. 

Can't say I'm surprised.

Thursday buckshot

Coupla riffs:

• I read Tom Asacker's blog daily.  I was skimming through this post yesterday and wasn't paying a lot of attention until I got to the last paragraph, which is a perfect summary for why I write this blog.  If I get famous and make money from this somehow, fine, but really I'm doing it because it helps me learn and understand.
• It was good to see U2 win a Grammy or five last night.  My feeling is they're the band of our age.
• Speaking of music, I can't stand Mariah Carey.  Her music is good and she's very talented, no doubt.  But she radiates phoniness to me.  If you like her, fine, but I have to change the channel if she's on.
• Interesting findings reported here on the Chicago Midway runway accident in December.  I did not relize there was that little standardization in stopping distance calculation methods.
• I have yet to see that kind of offense, either, Jeff.

Amateur political handicapping

USA Today notes that there are 1,000 days left until the 2008 election, and presidential contenders are already aflurry.  It's nuts, the amount of time you have to spend and money you have to raise to be elected.  One observer in the article points out that there's a big chunk of actual governing thanks to the campaigning.  I agree and it's getting worse all the time.

Here's my eyeball of '08 contenders:

Democrats

• Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh:  Popular in Midwest, relatively unknown.  Wants to jump ahead of his father, who served the seat and lost to Quayle in '80.  Can't raise enough money to get his name out there.
• Delaware Sen. Joe Biden:  Better known than when he ran in '88.  Respected.  Understands issues across the board.  Telegenic.  Great speaker.  If he can cut his talking time in half, he's got a shot.  A pretty good one, too.
• Former NATO commander Wesley Clark:  Couldn't do it in '04.  Can't do it now.
• NY Sen. Hillary Clinton:  Elephant in the room, so to speak.  Certainly can raise the money.  Probably can get the nomination.  Female nominee would appeal to progressives.  Doubt she could win the election in the end -- too polarizing, plus general Clinton fatigue.
• Former NC Sen. John Edwards:  Dark horse that could build some momentum if Hillary or Biden falter.  '04 nominee for VP showed great campaign skill and confidence.
• Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold:  Well respected on campaign finance issues.  Other than that, forget it.
• Mass. Sen. John Kerry:  Wants it bad, feels entitled to it, furious that he's not in the White House.  Still can't believe he couldn't beat Bush in '04.  Will try to shove everyone aside.  I actually doubt he can get the nomination this time; Dems will want a fresh face.  They probably could have won in '04 with someone with vision rather than "I'm not Bush."
• New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson:  I like this guy personally.  Widely varied experience, cares about his region, Hispanic heritage.  He could sneak in there if he builds early momentum.  Raising money will be key for him.
• Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack:  I hear about this guy all the time but couldn't tell you what he's about.  He's a rare visionary in the Midwest, someone who wants to move his state in a progressive direction.  He'd make a smart candidate for that reason, but he's got too much unknown to overcome.
• Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner:  Wildly popular in his home state.  Was a great success as governor.  No foreign policy experience, not well known outside the insiders.  Probably can raise enough money to get himself into the top three, doubt he can do it in the end.

Prediction:  Clinton gets the nomination, chooses Bayh or Vilsack as running mate to try to pull in red state support.  If I'm wrong and Biden pulls it off, he'll pick Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

Republicans

• Virginia Sen. George Allen:  Folksy, very popular at home.  Charms you to death.  Might not have enough timber behind the charm.  Will run but won't get the nomination.
• Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback:  I admit I don't like this guy, never have.  Reminds me too much of the closed-minded, provincial thinking that pervades the plains and Midwest.  Will try to build momentum to locking up the religious conservative vote.  He's articulate and smart; in the end, won't be able to raise enough money.  Reps know they need some progressiveness to maintain wider appeal, and this guy won't give them that.
• Tenn. Sen. Bill Frist:  Whip smart.  Became Senate Majority Leader by being in right place at right time.  Probably wants to run because he thinks this is his only chance, and if he's ever thought of doing it at all, he'd better not pass it up.  He wouldn't be a bad nominee, but wouldn't be great either.  Does not stir emotions or pull heartstrings (figuratively, that is).
• Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich:  On the plus side...learned his lessons, smartest person in the room, has put out some very progressive and forward-thinking ideas.  On the negative side....who the hell would vote for this guy?  No way he can win it. 
• Former NY mayor Rudy Giuliani:  Has the spine, has the skills, has the reputation for leadership.  Has embraced some progressive ideas.  Messy personal life.  I'd bet he can keep the religious right at bay, and if Clinton could lie about his slimeball personal habits and pull it off, this guy can keep his divorce in check.  Real contender.
• Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel:  Smart, interested in domestic and foreign policy, making himself visible.  Not afraid to buck the White House.  Doubt he's got the horses to inspire a following.  Reps might be pissed that he's been sticking his finger in Bush's eye.  Will run but won't win.
• Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee:  Lost 100 pounds, saved his health, has made personal health responsibility his hallmark in a state that needs that kind of message.  Articulate and doesn't take himself too seriously, widely liked.  Can't claim any credential beyond his borders.  Not a contender.
• Arizona Sen. John McCain:  Widely admired, maverick, can raise copious money.  Unafraid to take a stand.  Probably the front-runner if you want to designate one this early.  Has the horses, the desire and the capability.  Only downside: age -- he'll be 70 before long, if he wins general election, will be older than Reagan at inauguration.  Not as big an issue today, but he'll need to be energetic and keep progressive ideas at the fore.  Probably will pull off the nomination.
• NY Gov. George Pataki:  Came out of nowhere to knock off Mario Cuomo in '94, has built big power base in New York.  Known, but not well known, and not known for very much other than running New York.  Did well after 9/11 but was in Giuliani's shadow.  Not this time around for him.
• Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney:  Smart, telegenic, capable, effective governor.  Nearly beat Ted Kennedy for Senate seat in '94, came back to win as governor in '02.  Strong, varied background.  Dark horse for the Republicans, could move up a few rungs if he raises a lot of money.

Prediction:  Probably McCain, but Giuliani will make him work for it.  McCain will try to break the wide-right's hold on the party and will look to the Northeast for blue-state crossover appeal.  Would love to run with Giuliani, but doubt he'd take the #2 spot.  McCain picks Romney.