I.T. Erudio

Category: business

  • “Customer service”

    … a well trained “customer service representative” (CSR) – when dealing with a “customer” – will never use the phrase “I’m busy” or “I don’t have time”

    first of all the customer doesn’t REALLY care – they are contacting “customer service” because they had a problem, the fact that the occasional individual CSR is new (and learning) or is just incompetent becomes another hurdle to overcome in getting “problem fixed”

    the “good customers” will politely wait (because yelling at the CSR ain’t gonna make things happen faster) – but the chances of that customer leaving/switching/never coming back will increase if the “customer service experience” is bad enough

    NOW if the “cost of switching” is zero (0) and customer service is “bad” then that means that “customer loyalty” will be non-existent

    Business plans

    if the “business” in question operates on high volume and low profit margins – then the amount of “customer service” is guaranteed to be “low”

    this is by design – think “big box store” – they have low prices, but getting “help” will be a challenge. Which isn’t necessarily a problem – as long as “customer expectations” are still met – i.e. I don’t EXPECT a high level of service when I go to “big box store”

    still – CSR’s should be trained to actually be helpful and polite – “helpful and polite” goes a long way (and yes, sometimes the customer IS the problem – still “helpful and polite” is the best option)

    BUT the other end of the business plan spectrum is “low volume and high profit margins” — think “luxury brands” – e.g. someone can buy a watch/jewelry at Walmart or Tiffany’s but the “customer expectations” will be totally different

    of course at “luxury brand” the CSR to customer ratio might be close to 1:1 – the customer is paying a lot more, so they expect a lot more

    Personal Brand Building

    THEN somewhere in the middle are folks trying to build an “influencer”/”artist” brand of some kind. Again the terms “I’m busy” or “I don’t have time” aren’t going to be in the competent influencer’s vocabulary.

    Well, if the influencer wants to minimize the effort and lower the value of their “personal brand” – then of course tell everyone how busy you are, and that you don’t have time to interact with lowly peons like “fans.” (yes, that is sarcasm)

    WHY? well – assuming the customer isn’t a sociopath they will understand the the influencer/artist is “busy” and has time constraints – responding with “I’m busy” gets interpreted as “your concern/request is not important and/or valued” – and “I don’t have time” just comes across as “go away, you’re bothering me”

    umm , and if the customer IS a sociopath – well, that is why the modern world is kinda scary sometimes. Be polite, but also be careful …

    again, this is from a “business” non-intimate interpersonal communication point of view — if someone you have known for years tells you they are “busy” and can’t do “whatever” it PROBABLY means they respect you enough to be honest – i.e. they ARE busy, and offers to help might be appreciated but aren’t practical

    oh, and the “signal to noise” ratio for that hypothetical influencer/artist should heavily favor the “signal” side – i.e. “useful information/entertainment” should heavily outweigh requests to join their various paid subscription options.

    STILL “helpful and polite” go a long way.

    Yes, there are countless real (and AI generated) artists out there trying to build a personal brand. Well managed “automatic responses” can be extremely useful – but they shouldn’t become a replacement for REAL “customer engagement”

    the various “comic cons” become great case studies for real world brand management and “fan engagement” – “fans” are not only willing to stand in line to meet “celebrity” they pay for the privilege of a brief interaction.

    The classic example of “fan engagement” is still athletes signing “whatever” for fans – again, folks willing to wait in line for a brief interaction.

    BUT in both “comic con” and “athlete autographs” the “brand” has been built by the actor/athletes performances.

    If the “brand” is a tree – then “fans” are the fruit of the tree – and “fan engagement” becomes an exercise in meeting expectations.

    Oh, and “come see me in person” has been a good business plan since Mark Twain’s time.

    Did I have a point?

    well, no.

    The joke about “agents” is that when they say “trust me” what they mean is “f*** you” – and when “customer management” says “I don’t have time” or “I’m busy” what they mean is “you should go somewhere else where they value your time and business”

    ’nuff said

  • Vince Lombardi – Speech 1970

    SO “back in the day” (in another lifetime, in a small town in southwestern Ohio when I might have described myself as an “athlete”) a high school teacher gave me a mimeograph (“ditto sheet”) copy of a speech by Vince Lombardi.

    Yes, that is the “Vince Lombardi” for which the “Lombardi Trophy” is named.

    The speech came to mind because I used the “winning is a habit” line (again).

    Mr Lombardi gave the speech in July of 1970. I’m guessing at the time of the speech he was planning on coaching in the NFL that year, but he died in September 1970 (colon cancer, he was 57).

    The mimeograph copy I had was PROBABLY a transcription of the speech. From a “document” point of view that means that “paragraph breaks” were a little arbitrary – i.e. the “ditto sheet” version was a couple VERY large blocks of text.

    The full speech was probably around 50 minutes (5,000 words, “paid after dinner speech” length) – again, just me guessing after spending 10 years teaching/getting paid to talk.

    I did a little more light editing this morning, changed the font, increased font size for readability, more paragraph breaks. The U.S. Copyright act of 1976 started automatically granting “copyright protection” to any and all “creative works.”

    Before 1976, to get copyright protection you needed to place a “copyright notice” on the work in question – which means I’m 99.99% sure THIS speech is in the public domain


    I want to talk a little bit about attaining a goal, a success what I think it is. I want to say first that I think you’ve got to pay a price for anything that’s worthwhile and success is paying the price. You’ve got to pay a price to win, you’ve got to pay a price to stay on top, and you’ve got to pay a price to get there. Success is not a sometime thing it is an all the time thing. In other words, you don’t do what is right once in a while but all of the time. Success is a habit, just like winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. So it has been the American zeal, gentlemen, to be first in everything that we do and to win and to win and to win.

    Vince Lombardi

    Random thoughts

    There is a lot of “meat” in the speech which is still valid in the 21st century.

    Vince Lombardi often gets depicted as “legendary football coach” standing on the sidelines and yelling. Leadership styles are obviously influenced by personality – and Mr Lombardi was certainly “explosive.”

    BUT his success did not come from “yelling on the sideline.” We could fill up a small library with books “related to” Vince Lombardi – so he made that transition from “Hall of Fame coach” to “cultural icon” at some point.

    I’ve read a few Lombardi biographies so some random thoughts:

    • He was an assistant coach at the U.S. Military Academy West Point when they were still a national football power – under “legendary” coach Earl “Red” Blaik
    • coaching in the NFL was (probably) a second choice – i.e. there were rumors that “major colleges” at the time wouldn’t want to hire an Italian head coach – I’m not making any accusations, but it was a different time.
    • it is easy to forget that “college football” was more popular than the NFL “back then” – the rumor is that Earl Blaik encouraged Vince Lombardi to take an assistant coach job in the NFL
    • Woody Hayes (as the story goes) called Vince Lombardi the best coach he ever met – Mr Hayes is another example of “great football coach” whose “sideline antics” got a lot of press, but had little to do with his success (but a lot to do with his “fall from grace” – umm, ’nuff said)
    • The NY Giants won the NFL championship in 1956 – with Vince Lombardi as offensive coordinator and Tom Landry as defensive coordinator — Mr Landry would win a few games (and 2 Super Bowls) as head coach for the Dallas Cowboys, ’nuff said
    • There was a LOT less money floating around the sport of football “back then” – pro football was NOT a “full time”/year round job for a lot of players from that era – but I wouldn’t over sympathize the lack of money into thinking of that time as some sort of “when the game was pure” era …
    • from an “armchair amateur historian” point of view – the fact that OTHER coaches considered Vince Lombardi a great coach says a lot more than any win/loss record. I’m sure they didn’t all LIKE him, but they RESPECTED him …

    Would Vince Lombardi be successful in 2024?

    Short answer: Yes.

    The game is obviously very different. There is a lot more competition, players make a LOT more money, but (just me guessing) Vince Lombardi would have adjusted.

    Bill Parcells had a very “Vince Lombardi” coaching style and I would describe (waiting to be inducted into the Hall of Fame) Bill Belichick as another example of a “Lombardi like” approach to the game.

    Again “side line personality” is an increasingly small part of the game of football. e.g. You have to pay the price to win.

    Sports Psychology

    Another famous “Lombardi quote” (when he was coaching in Green Bay) was that he wanted players to place the Green Bay Packers “third” on their list of priorities.

    What should be first and second on the list? “God” and “family.”

    This is important as the “balance point” to another famous “Lombardi quote”: “Winning isn’t everything. It is the only thing.”

    From a “practical sports psychology” point of view – those concepts met at a point where “playing performance” is very high.

    i.e. “football” is important, but not the REASON for existence. Relationships OFF the field are MORE important than on the playing field – but those “on the field” duties shouldn’t be neglected.

    Lose a football game and you shouldn’t be happy, but it isn’t the end of the world. The same applies to “winning a game” – yes, enjoy when you win, but it isn’t permanent.

    The “desired performance state” is where the athlete can go at “full speed” but still be in control. That involves “being in the moment” and not worrying about past OR future possibilities.

    Mistakes are going to happen – but don’t let the “last play” (good OR bad) get in the way of the “current play.” e.g. ok, you messed up, don’t spend time apologizing, worry about getting the next one right – there is plenty of time AFTER the game to dissect what went right/wrong

    i.e. save the “After Action Review” for AFTER the action …

    Of course “elite athlete” doesn’t achieve that without a lot of work/practice. They can’t just “show up” and expect to win.

    e.g. You have to pay the price to win.

    If there are “life lessons” to be learned from “sports”, then that is a still a big one …

    Success consists of getting up just one more time than you fall.

    Oliver Goldsmith

    Management Theory

    There is a lot of talk about how “leadership theory” changes between generations.

    Tom Landry once said that when HE played the game, if the coach had told them to lay on the ground while coaches kicked them in the stomach, THEY would have done it.

    The point being that “back then” players didn’t dare question coaches. Of course “coach” was supposed to have a reason for doing what he did – but he wasn’t expected to share that reason with players.

    THAT type of “centralized command and control” was the norm when Vince Lombardi was coaching.

    Obviously trust has to be earned – and no, I don’t think Tom Landry had coaches kicking him in the stomach. I’m guessing that Tom Landry had players asking him “why are we doing this.”

    Of course “American History” is kind of centered on “questioning authority” – but that is a different subject.

    Random thought: One of the “colorful” personalities in American Revolutionary history was Inspector General Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben who CLAIMED to be a Prussian officer. He wrote the “Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States.” The rumor is that General von Steuban complained about “American troops” always wanting to know “why”/asking questions – i.e. as opposed to the obedience of Prussian troops …

    (… btw: the “von” part of his name implies that he was an “aristocrat” – which would have been expected of an “officer” in Prussia/Europe – BUT he probably wasn’t. Like I said he was a “colorful” personality ..)

    MEANWHILE …

    SO Vince Lombardi’s “leadership style” was typical for his generation — but again, he was a “teacher of football.” His view of human nature was that humans are naturally lazy (in general) and need to be “encouraged” to work.

    Of course I’m sure he “encouraged” individual players differently – recognizing that the way “rookie” needs to be “encouraged” is different than they way “veteran player” needs to be “encouraged.”

    Putting a label on his management style isn’t important – the grand “management” concept is ALWAYS that “management equals communication.”

    “Basics of leadership 101” in the 21st Century PROBABLY starts off with the concept that “folks” are going to be better “employees” if they understand the “why” of their job.

    From an “amateur armchair historian” point of view – I would argue that understanding the “big picture” has been the ideal/goal for MOST of human history. It was only after the industrial revolution allowed “management” to “deskill” labor by extreme job specialization that phrases like “that isn’t my job” became possible.

    Random thought: IF I was ever shown a “job description” for a job, there always was an “other duties as assigned” line – which basically meant my job was to do what they told me to do.

    THAT concept might be a good dividing line between “skilled” versus “unskilled” labor – i.e. if they can train your replacement in a short amount of time, you are VERY replaceable.

    How do they learn the “why?” Well, obviously someone needs to teach them – and making sure that happens is “management.”

  • value, price gouging, and, monopolies

    Every “introduction to economics” book will have a chart showing the relationship between “supply” and “demand.” Pointing out that as supply (of a manufactured product) goes up, unfulfilled demand goes down probably sounds obvious, but the relationship works both ways — i.e. if “demand” goes down, then “supply” will decrease.

    However the relationship between supply and demand quickly get “weird” in the real world when talking about specific products. The problem isn’t the relationship between “supply” and “demand” – no, the problem in “real world” applications is that there tend to be “alternative choices.”

    For a real-world example just go to the “cereal aisle” of any “supermarket” in these United States. A well stocked supermarket will have abundant choices of various “breakfast cereals” – IF a specific type/brand isn’t available, then there are obviously alternative choices.

    Of course ONE of the “alternative choices” is always “don’t buy breakfast cereal.”

    Value

    With that “economics 101” review out of the way, the “big picture” of “supply and demand” always includes a third variable: “price.”

    Again, the “economics 101” textbook might have a dotted line pointing at the intersection of the “supply” and “demand” lines marked as “optimal price” but “real world” product pricing is REALLY weird/unpredictable.

    The problem here is that “value” and “price” are not ALWAYS the same. That econ 101 text MIGHT have a chart labeled “price elasticity” — and maybe a nice equation but that isn’t important at the moment.

    The “big picture” is that changes in price can impact both supply AND demand.

    Remember that cereal aisle? If “consumer” has budgeted $X to spend on “favorite cereal” and the price of that product changes to $2X then they MIGHT decide to buy a different cereal (or not buy anything).

    The “value” of the cereal didn’t change, just the “price” – and when value becomes less than the price (everything else being equal) the consumer will make an alternative choice.

    Marginal Utility

    Humans tend to be “predictably irrational” – which (for my purpose today) means that “pricing” can be used to manipulate consumer choices.

    What is something “worth?” Well, the answer is always “it depends.”

    e.g. How much would you pay for an umbrella on a sunny spring day walking in a park? How much would you pay for an umbrella on a rainy day when walking to a job interview?

    Well, if you brought an umbrella with you, both times the answer is probably $0.

    Walking in a park on a sunny day an umbrella might actually be a nuisance – so you aren’t even going to consider the purchase.

    BUT if that job interview is for your “dream job” and showing up looking like you just walked out of a rainstorm isn’t an option – then paying a LOT for that umbrella becomes an option …

    Price gouging

    Now imagine that you are the person SELLING umbrellas.

    If it is going to cost you $something to haul the umbrellas out of the park – and no one is buying umbrellas – you might start lowering your asking price. If folks see a “Free Umbrellas” sign then they might take an umbrella even if it is going to be inconvenient to carry …

    If your “umbrella stand” is on a busy corner in “big city” then you will maximize your profits by adjusting the asking price based on the weather forecast. This is just “good business.”

    The cool sounding term for adjusting price according to demand is “surge pricing.”

    Is surge pricing “fair?” Well, as always “it depends.” Fair to whom?

    The concept of “price gouging” implies taking advantage of folks in an emergency situation.

    Getting caught in the rain without an umbrella is (probably) NOT an “emergency situation” – so the umbrella stand isn’t “price gouging” customers.

    The real question on “price gouging” becomes “who gets to decide.”

    The United States Constitution has a “Commerce Clause”(Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) granting the Federal Government the power to “Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.”

    Notice the “among the several States” wording equals “interstate commerce.” This is the clause that justifies the Federal gov’ment building INTERSTATE highways. However, Commerce within a State is going to be regulated by THAT specific State.

    SO who gets to decide if something is “price gouging?” Well, if the commercial transaction is between citizens of the same State, then THAT State gets to decide.

    If the commercial transaction is between citizens from DIFFERENT States, then the State where the transaction took place PROBABLY still gets to decide the matter. BUT a lot of high paid lawyers will probably argue about it …

    Again, just charging different prices at different times is not “price gouging” – e.g. airlines have been doing that for years.

    Modern technology has made “dynamic pricing” possible which isn’t good or bad – just another example of “caveat emptor”

    Price fixing

    That “econ 101” textbook might also have a section about “monopoly pricing.”

    The basic idea being that if one entity has total control over a “resource”/product then that entity can charge whatever price they want. If it is one organization then this might get called “monopoly” pricing, if it is a collection of organizations the tactic might get called “price fixing.”

    Is that good or bad? Well, obviously if “price gouging” is also taking place it is very bad. It is also possible that prices might be “fixed” low in certain areas to prevent competition entering the market – which would also be bad.

    Now in a relatively free market – IF “price fixing” is going on, the unintended consequence might be to encourage alternatives.

    This is why in the “real world” examples of “monopoly pricing” becoming “price gouging” are hard to find. e.g. The “monopoly price gouger” is going to encourage competition to enter the market – which will end their monopoly.

    Add in that the gov’ment bureaucracy tends to be naturally slow and inefficient and by the time the typical “antitrust” case gets settled the “market” has innovated and ended the “monopoly.”

    IF the goal of “antitrust legislation” is to protect/benefit the consumer then it (probably) doesn’t have a great list of achievements. I’m not arguing for OR against “antitrust” laws – just pointing out that they are not a “fairness” magic wand …

    Again “competition” in the market if good for consumers – so encouraging innovation and competition should take priority over “punishing” successful companies for being market leaders.

    “Price gouging” is always bad – but State governments are responsible for deciding who is “price gouging.”

    Price fixing may or may not be price gouging – but neither one is legal. “Price fixing” requires a cartel/coalition within a market –

    The chances of a “secret cartel”/cabal manipulating prices on a large scale is the stuff of “thriller fiction” novels not real world economics …

    Gov’ment intervention

    Near the end of the “econ 101” textbook you might get a chapter on the pros and cons of “government intervention” in the marketplace. The U.S. Federal Reserve and “central banks” in general probably get mentioned …

    From a “theory” point of view a gov’ment should be able to easily influence things like inflation and employment – in THEORY.

    Limits on “real time market information” are the existential problem. It just isn’t possible to know EVERYTHING about a large, far flung, economy.

    Gov’ment also tends to be “reactive” – i.e. something bad happens, everyone says “there should be a law to prevent that from happening!” Then by the time a law gets passed attempting to deal with “issue” things have changed and the law is pointless and ineffective.

    The MOST effective thing “large bureaucracy” can do to “help” the economy (in general) is “stay out of the way.” Encourage research and reward innovation – don’t try to pick “winners” or push a pet agenda.

    Of course the government should be involved in the “economy” but that role should be “regulator”/referee NOT “market maker”/head coach.

  • look for the union label, corporate profits, and inflation

    A “meme” post caught my attention. I’ve seen various versions – but the gist is always that “corporate profits” are the cause of “inflation.”

    From a “marketing” point of view the meme does a lot of things right – the version that caught my attention “caught audience attention” by stating that “The profits of the top 6 most profitable corporations” had increased “huge%” THEN the meme tries to connect “corporate profits” with recent “higher than normal” rising inflation.

    Now, the INTERESTING part is that the meme is plausible but also “fact free.” Just who are these 6 corporations? Is it possible for their profitability to cause “inflation?”

    Profits

    What exactly are these “profits?” Google tells me “Profit = Selling Price – Cost Price.”

    Imagine a small business selling “product.” If the small business makes the “product” then the “cost” will include raw materials and labor. For the small business to stay “in business” they need to sell the product for more than it cost them to produce.

    e.g. if raw materials = 30 and labor = 40 – “cost” = 70. IF the business sells the product for 100 then “profits per unit” = 30.

    Then “Profit percentage” = (Profit/Cost Price) x 100. In this:

    Profit percentage = (30/70) x 100 = 43%

    The obvious question NOW becomes is that Profit % good or bad? Unfortunately the answer is “we don’t know.”

    Well, a highly paid financial consultant would say “It depends.” Which is kind of the answer to ANY “financial accounting” question.

    Of course pointing out the factors that profitability “depends” on is the more useful answer. THAT answer will vary depending on the “business industry/sector” – e.g. “costs” are much different for a car company than a pizza company .

    A business being “profitable” just means that it is being well managed. No business will stay a “going concern” long if they LOSE money on EVERY transaction.

    BUT a “well managed” company that makes a small % profit on each transaction …

    Oh, and if that all above sounds fascinating you might want to look into “corporate finance” as a career 😉

    Corporations

    The history of “corporations” is mildly interesting – but not important here.

    In 2024 “corporations” exist as a way for “business” to raise “capital.” A corporation’s “initial public offering” (IPO) involves selling “stock” to “investors.”

    THOSE investors aren’t guaranteed anything (as opposed to “corporate bonds” – did I mention that “corporate finance” is a career field).

    If they aren’t guaranteed ANYTHING why would anyone gamble on an IPO? Well, the obvious answer is that (assuming that the corporation meets some basic financial reporting requirements) the stock becomes an asset that can be traded on a “stock market.”

    The “corporation” gets the cash from the IPO – but the “share holders” can then buy and sell shares among themselves. Which is kind of a big deal in 2024 (and obviously “stock market investment” is beyond the scope of this article.)

    Rule #1 of the “stock market” might be “buy low and sell high” – i.e. the “profits” concept applies to stock trading as well.

    … and what is a big factor in how investors value shares of a corporation’s stock? Profitability.

    How do corporations use the money from an IPO/stock offering? To grow/expand their business.

    Eventually the “profitable corporation” MIGHT distribute “profits” to share holders in the form of “dividends.”

    The grand point being that “corporations” are not evil OR good – they are an investment tool. Corporate profits are also not evil OR good – “profitability” is a function of management and the “business sector.”

    Gov’ment Regulation

    Unrestrained human greed is never a good thing.

    The history of the United States “economy” is a story of “booms” and “busts.” Those swings in the business cycle illustrated an inverse relationship between “unemplyment” and “inflation.”

    During a “boom” the unemplyment rate would go down, but then inflation would go up. Then during a “bust” umemployment went up, and inflation would come down.

    Random thought: There is a scene in “Support Your Local Sheriff” (1969) that (humorously) show the impact “boom times” could have on “consumer prices” – a “mining boom town” has trouble hiring a Sheriff (for “plot” reasons) – James Garner’s character decides to take the job in part because it comes with room and board (and he had just payed a huge amount for a plate of beans).

    In 1913 the Federal Reserve was founded with a “mission” of trying to “smooth out” the business cycles.

    The “economics” text books will say that the Fed’s goal is (around) 5% unemplyment and (around) 2% inflation. How well the Fed has achieved those goals is debateable – BUT that is another topic

    Obviously if the Fed is making decisions based on “unemplyment” and “inflation” rates they need a method of calculating unemplyment and inflation.

    Unemployment seems simple enough – but it a little more complex than just counting people “out of work” – fwiw: the Fed has considered 5% as “full employment because in a large economy there will always be people entering/leaving the work force. e.g. The umployment rate at the height of the Great Depression (1933) was 25% but wage income for employed workers also fell 43% between 1929-1933. Things were bad …

    Calculating Inflation is even more complicated – first the (Bureau Labor Statistics) determines the “consumer price index” (CPI) — which is a “measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a market basket of consumer goods and services.”

    That CPI “basket of goods” contains 85,000 items spread out over various “sectors” of the economy. That number is important – I’ll mention that again later …

    IF the CPI goes up that equals “inflation.” If it goes down that is called “deflation” (last time the U.S. experienced “deflation” was 2009. Unemplyment rate peaked at 9.9% that year.

    BTW: the short explantion of the “Great Recession” revolves around “sub prime mortgages” – not it wasn’t the fault of “free market capitalism” it was “unrestrained greed” feed by poorly thought out gov’ment intervention in the housing market.

    i.e. the gov’ment was REQUIREING banks to give loans to folks that couldn’t afford to pay them back – not surprisingly when the whole thing expolded it caused a lot of problems. It became a worldwide financial crisis because those “sub prime loans” were “securitized” and sold on “exchanges” — again all fed by greed.

    I like to say that the BEST role for “government” to play in the economy is “referee.” To many unintended consequences are possible when the gov’ment starts CHOOSING “winners and losers” on a large scale. Yes, the economy needs “regulation” but NOT “central planning.”

    Unions

    The first labor union in the United States was the “Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers, founded in Philadelphia in 1794.”

    The United States was primarily an “agricultural economy” (as in most people working on/around farms) until the early 20th Century. Which kinda meant that the demand for “labor unions” wasn’t high.

    It is interesting that the first labor union was ruled a “criminal conspiracy” in 1806. Functionally that ruling made attempts at “organizing labor” a crime. It wasn’t until 1842 when “precedent” was set “de-criminalizing” union membership.

    AND the history of organized labor is also interesting – but not important at the moment.

    I’m not ignoring the sometimes adversarial relationship between “management’ and “labor.” Just like corporations, “labor unions” are NOT inherently “good” OR “bad.” Ideally “corporation management” and “labor unions” should work together for mutual benefit.

    BUT “greed” is never good. i.e. “Labor” is just as suceptible to “greed” as “management.”

    Both “labor” and “management” will better serve the “organization” if they understand each others function. The relationship is not “zero sum” or even “either/or.”

    Having an understanding of how the “corporation makes money” will help “labor” communicate with “management.” Of course “management” ALSO needs to appreciate the work performed by “labor.” …

    Corporate Profits

    “Large Corporate profitability” tends to involve a LOT of “Generally accepted accounting principles” (GAAP). The point being that a “multi-billion dollar corporation” is going to generate “profits” from a lot of sources.

    Again, if you find “corporate finance” interesting there are a lot of career options. MY guess is that any of the top 10 “most profitable” corporations COULD adjust their profits up or down (using GAAP) without doing anything illegal.

    ANY “global corporation” will have multiple “books” depending on the audience – i.e. one set of “books” for the U.S. Federal gov’ment, one for each State the do business, one for “management decision making”, and the “books” for whatever other nation-states they do business.

    Oh, and remember that 85,000 sources in the CPI “basket?” That large number of sources used to calculate “inflation” kinda makes it hard for any single “corporation” to have a large impact on the number.

    THEN the large number of “corporations” competing in a particular “business sector” makes it even harder for 1 corporation’s profits to impact inflation.

    There are also laws against “price fixing” (the good ol’ “Sherman Antitrust Act”) – so if a bunch of “cereal makers” got together and decided to “raise prices” to increase “corporate prices” the Federal Gov’ment would NOT be pleased.

    The “market” tends to prevent “excess profits” in established industries. Plain old “competition” between corporations will prevent anyone from “price gouging” —

    e.g. I went to the store to buy “breakfast cereal” and there was an entire aisle dedicated to “cereals” at various price ranges – I bought the ‘store brand’ because it was “good enough quality” and 1/3 the price of “brand name”

    MAYBE that “brand name” was engaging in “price gouging” but it is also (probably) a superior product than “store brand” – either way that ONE corporation isn’t goign to impact the CPI/inflation

    Top 6 corporations 2023

    My original thought was “who are these 6 corporations that are supposed to be causing inflation?”

    Well, the MOST profitable corporation in the world is ..(drum roll) Saudi Aramco. Obviously this “oil” stuff is in high demand and, Saudi Arabia has vast oil reserves. BUT they aren’t an American Corporation. I’m also not sure if their “profitability” changes much year over year — Saudi Arabia is a founding member of OPEC. ’nuff said

    Of course “increased energy costs” is a HUGE factor in recent inflation across all sectors of the U.S. economy. IF the top 6 profitable corporations were “energy companies” then MAYBE they would deserve a look to see if they are “price gouging.”

    However, none of the top 10 most profitable corporations are “energy companies.”

    the list:

    1. Apple, Inc
    2. Microsoft, Inc
    3. Alphabet, Inc (Google)
    4. Berkshire Hathaway, Inc (Warren Buffet’s company)
    5. Industrial and Commercial Bank of China
    6. JPMorgan Chase
    7. China Construction Bank
    8. META (Facebook)
    9. NVIDIA Corp
    10. Amazon.com, Inc

    Under “just my opinion” – I’m not a fan of “Apple, Inc’s” products BECAUSE I think they are over-priced and not “developer friendly.” The latest iPhone PROBABLY qualifies as a “luxury” item – but it isn’t a source of “inflation.” They do make very good “consumer electronics” though …

    Looking at the rest of the list – Alphabet, META, and Amazon might actually help LOWER the CPI/inflation by making it easier for OTHER companies to sell products.

    Berkshire and JPMorgan’s profits are very much “stock market” related – which might impact folks retirement planning 401ks but aren’t moving the dial on the CPI

    Corporations 5 and 7 are obviously based in China — one more under “just my opinion” – ANY company data from Chinese corporations requires an asterisk – maybe an “approved by the Chinese Communist Party” disclaimer

    The “global supply line” issues are part of the inflation story – but again, it is hard to blame any single corporation for those issues …

    Supply and Demand

    The “introduction to economics” text book would also have a section talking about the relationship between “supply” of a product and “unfulfilled demand” for a product. e.g. as “Supply” goes up the “unfulfilled demand” goes down.

    The “slightly unintuitive” concept is that “price” is a third variable NOT ALWAYS related to “supply and demand”

    e.g. Q: if “company” raises the price of their product (and keeps supply constant) how will that impact demand? A: it is impossible to tell.

    Remember the cereal aisle – If “company” raises their prices, then customers MIGHT buy a lower priced alternative product or maybe not buy anything at all.

    This is “price elasticity” – and is another subject 😉

    now if there is only ONE company making “product” – and they keep their prices “high” – all that company is doing is encouraging competition to enter the market.

    I’ll point at “personal computer” sales in the early 1990s as a (kind of) recent example – the cost to buy the “parts” for an “IBM PC compatible” personal computer were (relatively low) compared to selling price.

    IBM being “IBM” made the PC a standard piece of office equipment – but in 2005 sold off their “personal computer division” (to a Chinese company – Lenovo)

    The “IBM price point” encouraged a LOT of “PC clone companies” — e.g. Some young college student at the University of Texas started building and selling PCs out of his dorm room in 1984. In 2024 Michael Dell is worth $96.5 billion …

  • memoirs of an adjunct instructor or What do you mean “full stack developer?”

    During the “great recession” of 2008 I kind of backed into “teaching.”

    The small company where I was the “network technician” for 9+ years wasn’t dying so much as “winding down.” I had ample notice that I was becoming “redundant” – in fact the owner PROBABLY should have “let me go” sooner than he did.

    When I was laid off in 2008 I had been actively searching/”looking for work” for 6+ months – certainly didn’t think I would unemployed for an extended period of time.

    … and a year later I had gone from “applying at companies I want to work for” to “applying to everything I heard about.” When I was offered an “adjunct instructor” position with a “for profit” school in June 2009 – I accepted.

    That first term I taught a “keyboarding class” – which boiled down to watching students follow the programmed instruction. The class was “required” and to be honest there wasn’t any “teaching” involved.

    To be even MORE honest, I probably wasn’t qualified to teach the class – I have an MBA and had multiple CompTIA certs at the time (A+, Network+) – but “keyboarding” at an advanced level isn’t in my skill set.

    BUT I turned in the grades on time, that “1 keyboarding class” grew into teaching CompTIA A+ and Network+ classes (and eventually Security+, and the Microsoft client and server classes at the time). fwiw: I taught the Network+ so many times during that 6 years that I have parts of the book memorized.

    Lessons learned …

    Before I started teaching I had spent 15 years “in the field” – which means I had done the job the students were learning. I was a “computer industry professional teaching adults changing careers how to be ‘computer industry professionals’”

    My FIRST “a ha!” moment was that I was “learning” along with the students. The students were (hopefully) going from “entry level” to “professional” and I was going from “working professional” to “whatever comes next.”

    Knowing “how” to do something will get you a job, but knowing “why” something works is required for “mastery.”

    fwiw: I think this same idea applied to “diagramming sentences” in middle school – to use the language properly it helps to understand what each part does. The fact I don’t remember how to diagram a sentence doesn’t matter.

    The “computer networking” equivalent to “diagramming sentences” is learning the OSI model – i.e. not something you actually use in the real world, but a good way to learn the theory of “computer networking.”

    When I started teaching I was probably at level 7.5 of 10 on my “OSI model” comprehension – after teaching for 6 years I was at a level 9.5 of 10 (10 of 10 would involve having things deeply committed to memory which I do not). All of which is completely useless outside of a classroom …

    Of course most students were coming into the networking class with a “0 of 10” understanding of the OSI model BUT had probably setup their home network/Wi-Fi.

    The same as above applies to my understanding of “TCP/IP networking” and “Cyber Security” in general.

    Book Learning …

    I jumped ship at the “for profit school” I was teaching in 2015 for a number of reasons. MOSTLY it was because of “organizational issues.” I always enjoyed teaching/working with students, but the “writing was on the wall” so to speak.

    I had moved from “adjunct instructor” to “full time director” – but it was painfully obvious I didn’t have a future with the organization. e.g. During my 6 years with the organization we had 4 “campus directors” and 5 “regional directors” — and most of those were “replaced” for reasons OTHER than “promotion.”

    What the “powers the be” were most concerned with was “enrollment numbers” – not education. I appreciate the business side – but when “educated professionals” (i.e. the faculty) are treated like “itinerate labor”, well, the “writing is on the wall.”

    In 2014 “the school” spent a lot of money setting up fiber optic connections and a “teleconferencing room” — which they assured the faculty was for OUR benefit.

    Ok, reality check – yes I understand that “instructors” were their biggest expense. I dealt with other “small colleges” in the last 9 years that were trying to get by with fewer and fewer “full time faculty” – SOME of them ran into “accreditation problems” because of an over reliance on “adjuncts” – I’m not criticizing so much as explaining what the “writing on the wall” said …

    oh, and that writing was probably also saying “get a PhD if you want a full time teaching position” — if “school” would have paid me to continue my education or even just to keep my skills up to date, I might have been interested in staying longer.

    Just in general – an organization’s “employees” are either their “biggest asset” OR their “biggest fixed cost.” From an accounting standpoint both are (probably) true (unless you are “Ivy League” school with a huge endowment). From an “administration” point of view dealing with faculty as “asset” or “fixed cost” says a LOT about the organization — after 6 years it was VERY clear that the “for profit” school looked at instructors as “expensive necessary evils.”

    COVID-19 was the last straw for the campus where I worked. The school still exits but appears to be totally “online” –

    Out of the frying pan …

    I left “for profit school” to go to teach at a “tech bootcamp” — which was jumping from “bad situation to worse situation.”

    The fact I was commuting an hour and a half and was becoming more and more aware of chronic pain in my leg certainly didn’t help.

    fwiw: I will tell anyone that asks that a $20 foam roller changed my life — e.g. “self myofascial release” has general fitness applications.

    I was also a certified “strength conditioning professional” (CSCS) in a different life – so I had a long history of trying to figure out “why I had chronic pain down the side of my leg” – when there was no indication of injury/limit on range of motion.

    Oh, and the “root cause” was tied into that “long commute” – the human body isn’t designed for long periods of “inaction.” The body adapts to the demands/stress placed on it – so if it is “immobile” for long periods of time – it becomes better at being “immobile.” For me that ended up being a constant dull pain down my left leg.

    Being more active and five minutes with the foam roller after my “workout” keeps me relatively pain free (“it isn’t the years, it’s the mileage”).

    ANYWAY – more itinerate level “teaching” gave me time to work on “new skills.”

    I started my “I.T. career” as a “pc repair technician.” The job of “personal computer technician” is going (has gone?) the way of “television repair.”

    Which isn’t good or bad – e.g. “personal computers” aren’t going away anymore than “televisions” have gone away. BUT if you paid “$X” for something you aren’t going to pay “$X” to have it repaired – this is just the old “fix” vs “replace” idea.

    The cell phone as 21st Century “dumb terminal” is becoming reality. BUT the “personal computer” is a general purpose device that can be “office work” machine, “gaming” machine, “audiovisual content creation” machine, or “whatever someone can program it to do” machine. The “primary communication device” might be a cell phone, but there are things a cell phone just doesn’t do very well …

    Meanwhile …

    I updated my “tech skill set” from “A+ Certified PC repair tech” to “networking technician” in the 1990s. Being able to make Cat 5/6 twisted pair patch cables still comes in handy when I’m working on the home network but no one has asked me to install a Novell Netware server recently (or Windows Active Directory for that matter).

    Back before the “world wide web” stand alone applications were the flavor of the week. e.g. If you bought a new PC in 1990 it probably came with an integrated “modem” but not a “network card.” That new PC in 1990 probably also came with some form of “office” software – providing word processing and spreadsheet functions.

    Those “office” apps would have been “stand alone” instances – which needed to be installed and maintained individually on each PC.

    Back in 1990 that application might have been written in C or C++. I taught myself “introductory programming” using Pascal mostly because “Turbo Pascal” came packaged with tools to create “windows” and mouse control. “Pascal” was designed as a “learning language” so it was a little less threatening than C/C++ back in the day …

    random thought: If you wanted “graphical user interface” (GUI) functionality in 1990 you had to write it yourself. One of the big deals with “Microsoft Windows” was that it provided a uniform platform for developers – i.e. developers didn’t have to worry about writing the “GUI operating system hooks” they could just reference the Windows OS.

    Apple Computers also had “developers” for their OS – but philosophically “Apple Computers” sold “hardware with an operating system included” while Microsoft sold “an operating system that would run on x86 hardware” – since x86 hardware was kind of a commodity (read that as MUCH less expensive than “Apple Computers”). The “IBM PC” story that ended up making Microsoft, inc a lot of money. — which was a fun documentary to show students bored of listening to me lecture …

    What users care about is applications/”getting work done” not the underlying operating system. Microsoft also understood the importance of developers creating applications for their platform.

    fwiw: “Microsoft, Inc” started out selling programming/development tools and “backed into” the OS market – which is a different story.

    A lot of “business reference applications” in the early 1990s looked like Microsoft Encarta — they had a “user interface” providing access to a “local database.” — again, one machine, one user at a time, one application.

    N-tier

    Originally the “PC” was called a “micro computer” – the fact that it was self contained/stand alone was a positive selling point. BEFORE the “PC” a larger organization might have had a “terminal” system where a “dumb terminal” allowed access to a “mainframe”/mini computer.

    SO when the “world wide web” happened and “client server” computing became mainstream the concept of “N tier” computing model as a concept became popular.

    N-tier might be a the “presentation” layer/web server, the “business logic” layer/a programming language, and then the “data” layer/a database management system

    Full Stack Developer

    In the 21st Century “stand alone” applications are the exception – and “web applications” the standard.

    Note that applications that allow you to download and install files on a personal computer are better called “subscription verification” applications rather than “N Tier.”

    e.g. Adobe allows folks to download their “Creative Suite” and run the applications on local machines using computing resources from the local machine – BUT when the application starts it verifies that the user has a valid subscription.

    An “N tier” application doesn’t get installed locally – think Instagram or X/Twitter …

    For most “business applications” designing an “N tier” app using “web technologies” is a workable long term solution.

    When we divided the application functionality the “developer” job also differentiated – “front end” for the user facing aspects and “back end” for the database/logic aspects.

    The actual tools/technologies continue to develop – in “general” the “front end” will involve HTML/CSS/JavaScript and the “back end” involves a combination of “server language” and “database management system.”

    Languages

    Java (the language maintained by Oracle not “JavaScript” also known as ECMAscript) has provided “full stack development” tools for almost 30 years. The future of Java is tied into Oracle, Inc but neither is gonna be “obsolete” anytime soon.

    BUT if someone is competent with Java – then they will describe themselves as a “Java developer” – Oracle has respected industry certifications

    I am NOT a “Java developer” – but I don’t come to “bury Java” – if you are a computer science major looking to go work for “large corporation” then learning Java (and picking up a Java certification) is worth your time.

    Microsoft never stopped making “developer tools” – “Visual Studio” is still their flagship product BUT Visual Studio Code is my “go to” (free, multi-platform) programming editor in 2024)

    Of course Microsoft wants developers to develop “Azure applications” in 2024 – C# provides easy access to a lot of those “full stack” features.

    … and I am ALSO not a C# programmer – but there are a lot of C# jobs out there as well (I see C# and other Microsoft ‘full stack’ tech specifically mentioned with Major League Baseball ‘analytics’ jobs and the NFL – so I’m sure the “larger corporate” world has also embraced them)

    JavaScript on the server side has also become popular – Node.js — so it is possible to use JavaScript on the front and back end of an application. opportunities abound

    My first exposure to “server side” programming was PHP – I had read some “C” programming books before stumbling upon PHP, and my first thought was that it looked a lot like “C” – but then MOST computer languages look a lot like “C.”

    PHP tends to be the “P” part of the LAMP stack acronym (“Linux OS, Apache web server, MySQL database, and PHP scripting language”).

    Laravel as a framework is popular in 2024 …

    … for what it is worth MOST of the “web” is probably powered by a combination of JavaScript and PHP – but a lot of the folks using PHP are unaware they are using PHP, i.e. 40%+ of the web is “powered by WordPress.”

    I’ve installed the LAMP stack more times than I can remember – but I don’t do much with PHP except keep it updated … but again, opportunities abound

    Python on the other hand is where I spend a lot of time – I find Django a little irritating, but it is popular. I prefer flask or pyramid for the “back end” and then select a JavaScript front end as needed

    e.g. since I prefer “simplicity” I used “mustache” for template presentation with my “Dad joke” and “Ancient Quote” demo applications

    Python was invented with “ease of learning” as a goal – and for the most part it succeeds. The fact that it can also do everything I need it to do (and more) is also nice 😉 – and yes, jobs, jobs, jobs …

    Databases

    IBM Db2, Oracle, Microsoft SQL server are in the category of “database management system royalty” – obviously they have a vast installation base and “large corporate” customers galore. The folks in charge of those systems tend to call themselves “database managers.” Those database managers probably work with a team of Java developers …

    At the other end of the spectrum the open source project MySQL was “acquired” by Sun Microsystems in 2008 which was then acquired by Oracle in 2010. Both “MySQL” and “Oracle” are popular database system back ends.

    MySQL is an open source project that has been “forked” into the “MariaDB foundation.”

    PostgreSQL is a little more “enterprise database” like – also a popular open source project.

    MongoDB has become popular and is part of its own “full stack” acronym MEAN (MongoDB, Express, Angular, and Node) – MongoDB is a “NoSQL” database which means it is “philosophically” different than the other databases mentioned – making it a great choice for some applications, and not so great for other applications.

    To be honest I’m not REALLY sure if there is a big performance difference between database management back ends. Hardware and storage space are going to matter much more than the database engine itself.

    “Big Corporate Enterprise Computing” users aren’t as concerned with the price of the database system they want rock solid dependability – if there was a Mount Rushmore of database management systems – DB2, Oracle, and Microsoft SQL server would be there …

    … but MariaDB is a good choice for most projects – easy to install, not terribly complicated to use. There is even a nice web front end – phpMyAdmin …

    I’m not sure if the term “full stack developer” is gonna stick around though. Designing an easy to use “user interface” is not “easy” to do. Designing (and maintaining) a high performing database back end is also not trivial. There will always be room for specialists.

    “Generalist developer” sounds less “techy” than “full stack developer” – but my guess is that the “full stack” part is going to become superfluous …

  • Plot holes and “Star Wars” …

    “Telling stories” is a euphemism for “lying.”

    “Lying” obviously requires a “lie” to build around – with the definition of “lie” (the third definition from Merriam-Webster: “to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive”) being the relevant point.

    Not that INTENT is required. SO it is POSSIBLE for someone to “tell a story” that is not true, and not be “lying.”

    “Telling tall tales” has probably been a kind of “sport” to rascals, rogues, and tramps as long as there have been “rascals, rogues, and tramps.” Maybe a form of good-natured “right of passage” – e.g. think “wide-eyed novice” listening intently to “grizzled veteran” telling “stories” that get more and more “factually challenged.”

    IF at SOME point the “grizzled veteran” passes a point where the “wide eyed novice” gets the joke – then everyone laughs. The “novice” isn’t as wide-eyed and is on their way to “veteran” status.

    (of course if “wide-eyed novice” DOESN’T get the joke – then, well, that is a different problem)

    “Campfire stories” take on a general form. SOMETIMES there is a kernel of truth – i.e. “legends” are born in the “additions” to the TRUE story. It is probably in those “additions” that we can track “cultural value changes.”

    Art reflects …

    Does life imitate art, or does art imitate life?

    And the answer is, well, “yes.”

    We can quickly get lost in definitions – e.g what is “art?” How about if we agree that “art REFLECTS an IDEAL of life.” Art must be “created,” which requires a “creator” — i.e. the “art” reflects the character of the “artist”/creator.

    Creativity is allowing oneself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.

    Scott Adams

    Since the “artist” does not exist in a cultural vacuum the “art” ends up reflecting the society in which the artist lives.

    Plot and Story

    The difference between “plot” and “story” is that “plot” requires causality.

    e.g. “A” happens, then “B” happens, then “C” happens is a “story” but NOT a plot.

    If “A” happens, then “B” happens BECAUSE of A, and then “C” happens because of “B” (or “A” or “A&B” – depending on just how complicated you wanna get) – THAT is “plot”

    Someone “telling stories” will have a “plot” but there will be intentional “plot holes” testing the listener’s level of gullibility.

    e.g. grizzled veteran: “There I was – just me and my horse, supplies running out, horse almost dead. Suddenly, I was attacked by a gang of 40 cut-throats that would kill me just for my boots.

    I shot the nearest on in the leg, jumped on my horse and headed up the mountain. Now, those cut-throats were REALLY angry and were threatening to bury me up to my neck and leave me to die. SO I managed to find a small cave where they could only get at me 1 or 2 at a time – let my horse go and waited for them to find me. I was down to just 3 bullets and my knife.

    Sure enough, they found me, and then …”

    wide eyed novice: ” … and then?”

    grizzled veteran: “well, I died of course” (laughter, insults, etc)

    (and when that former wide-eyed novice has become “grizzled veteran” they will probably tell the same story to the next batch of wide-eyed novices …)

    Stories …

    If everyone involved KNOWS the story being told is just a “story” then the audience can willingly engage in “suspension of disbelief” and just enjoy the story.

    The required amount of “disbelief” will obviously vary based on genres. The folks “performing” aren’t “intentionally” trying to deceive they are engaging in “storytelling.”

    e.g. the audience at a performance of Hamlet doesn’t ACTUALLY believe that they are watching a “Prince of Denmark” wrestling with the fact that his Uncle may or may not have murdered the former King (Hamlet’s father). Hopefully, the audience puts aside “critical thinking” and plays along with the story.

    Obviously the folks putting on the performance try their best to be convincing. The highest praise that can be given to a “working actor” MIGHT be that they are ALWAYS “convincing” no matter what role they are playing.

    (fwiw: playing “Hamlet” is considered a test of an actor’s acting ability – this is probably why you see so many “famous movie stars” attempt the roll. I have seen a LOT of versions of Hamlet – and most of them are “ok.”

    If I’m watching “Hamlet” and I think “that is so and so TRYING to do Hamlet” – then that qualifies as an “ok performance” — but if I forget that it is “BIG NAME” playing Hamlet, then that is “VERY good” performance … and moving on)

    Random thought: Strange Brew (1983) borrows plot elements from Hamlet – catching the “Hamlet” references elevated the movie from “cute buddy comedy” to “funny at multiple levels” – and yes, INTENTIONAL plot holes-a-plenty …

    Star Wars plot holes …

    I have been re-examining WHY I loved the original “Star Wars” trilogy. In part this is because of the “fan reaction” to the latest “Star Wars product.”

    Apparently others have done this “re-examination” as well. One such re-examination was trying to point out “plot holes” in “Star Wars” (1977)

    In particular they didn’t like the fact that if the “Empire” had blown up the “escape pod” at the beginning the movie ends there. i.e. blow up the escape pod with R2-D2 and C-3P0 and the story ends there.

    BUT that is NOT a “plot hole” – yes, the movie turns on that point BUT it also helps establish that the “Empire” are the bad guys.

    The scene could easily have been taken out – but it serves a “storytelling” purpose. The “Empire” is the “evil authoritarian organization” – notice that the anonymous characters WOULD have blown up the “escape pod” IF they had detected “life forms.” i.e. the anonymous character’s (lack of) action illustrates that “fate”/luck is gonna be part of the story.

    “Fate” interferes throughout “Star Wars” – with “Stormtrooper’s” marksmanship being another great example (e.g. they are extremely precise when shooting at “not major characters” but can’t hit anything important when “major character” is involved)

    Now, if the movie was trying to be “gritty and realistic” then “fate interfering” might constitute “plot hole.”

    I also like to point out that R2-D2 in the “Star Wars universe” is an “agent of fate” or the “finger of the divine” — apparently immortal and all-knowing. Seriously, notice how many times R2 is instrumental in things “working out” for the heroes.

    Sure, R2 get “blown up” a lot – but always returns good as new. If “Star Wars” was hard core science fiction THAT would be a HUGE plot hole – but since it is a space fairy tale set in a galaxy far, far away, just part of the suspension of disbelief.

    BUT if you want to talk about REAL plot-holes – I have always been (mildly) bothered by the fact that after the heroes escape the Death Star – and KNOW they are being tracked – that they (apparently) go straight to the Rebel Base.

    By this point George Lucas has done a masterful job of storytelling – and the fact that the Empire easily tracks the heroes to the Rebel Base – setting up the climactic battle – is easily overlooked.

    Ok, Leia tells Han they are being tracked – Han doesn’t believe her, but even if there is a slight possibility of them being tracked then they should logically have gone ANYWHERE else except the Rebel Base.

    THEN when they are far away from danger AND the Rebel Base – they could have easily transferred the data as required. Or maybe find the tracking device – and send it ANYWHERE else than the Rebel Base.

    “You’re going to need a bigger boat.”

    Chief Brody

    The “Battle of Yavin” is kind like the oxygen tank exploding at the end of Jaws (1975). If the audience has to THINK about it, then it becomes a problem.

    If we have been guided along properly then we are probably “all in” on that plot hole. The plot hole goes completely unnoticed and even gets cheered when told by “expert storyteller.”

    I suppose “storytelling 101” always starts with some form of “show don’t tell” – if the “plot” requires 120 minutes of talking heads then you are telling a much different type of story that if you have “action”/pause/more action/short pause/etc.

    none of this is a secret. The audience expectations on the ratio of “drama” to “relief” is determined by genre — if you are doing “romantic comedy period piece” then long periods of “talking heads” is expected, BUT if you are doing “space fairy tale” then keep the “talking heads delivery exposition” to a minimum …

    it is the genre, silly …

    I’m also fond of pointing out that their is plenty of room for different stories and genres – but trying to fit “agenda” into “genre” is almost always a recipe for commercial failure.

    random thought: a famous “hamburger chain” started offering salads back in the late 1980’s. I think they were responding to “market demand” for “healthier” options. They are a world wide operation that regularly introduces new items to their menu – so offering salads wasn’t a “bad” idea

    the funny thing was that those “hamburger chain salads” could be LESS healthy than the “regular menu” (with salad it is usually the “dressing” that becomes the problem – which had a lot of fat and calories …)

    the same chain sells a “fish sandwich” – that is very popular but definitely NOT the “healthy option”

    HOWEVER “hamburger chain” never lost sight of the fact that their core product is “meat and potatoes” – they make $$ selling hamburgers and fries

    NOW imagine that the “hamburger chain” powers that be decide to turn the menu over to someone that HATES hamburgers and fries – or thinks that “salads” are why people go to “hamburger chain” – well, things aren’t going to go well

    the “new menu maker” might blame the customer for them NOT wanting to eat bad salads instead of hamburgers – but that is not gonna change the customers preference.

    “New menu maker” will almost certainly get bombarded with criticism from lovers of “hamburger and fries” – and sales/profits will plummet.

    Of course the folks that hired “new menu maker” will defend their decision – but that just means that THEY are (probably) the franchises (REAL) problem not the “new menu maker” and certainly NOT the fans …

    if you want another “movie franchise” example – compare and contrast the first “Matrix” (1999) with “Matrix Resurrections” (2021) – notice the difference in the ratio of “action” to “exposition” …

  • random thoughts on “Acres of Diamonds”

    Russel Conwell (February 15, 1843 – December 6, 1925) (from wikipedia) “was an American Baptist minister, orator, philanthropist, author, lawyer, and writer. He is best remembered as the founder and first president of Temple University in Philadelphia, as the Pastor of The Baptist Temple, and for his inspirational lecture, ‘Acres of Diamonds’.”

    A link to the full text of Mr. Conwell’s speech is available on the Temple University page

    The story given as inspiration for the lecture (and as the introduction to the longer lecture) is available here

    100 years ago …

    Mr. Conwell would give the speech 6,000+ times – which is impressive. The “legend” is that when arrived in a new town (where he was going to perform the speech) that he would find out the “prominent”/successful folks in the town and work them into the performance.

    ONE of the “points” of the speech being that “opportunity” can be found everywhere. The entrepreneur doesn’t (automatically) need to travel far away looking for opportunity, it (might) be in the backyard.

    A hundred years ago, Mr. Conwell had to argue that “making money” was a worthwhile endeavor. The “common wisdom” of the day being that “extreme wealth” MUST have been achieved by some form of skullduggery.

    Historically, the human “founders” of these United States had come from a culture where land equaled “wealth.” In the “old world” land was in short supply AND passed down by inheritance. Someone born a “peasant” was going to stay a “peasant” because those “to the manor born” controlled the vast majority of land – and therefore “wealth.”

    A rising “merchant class” was in the process of disrupting things when the American Colonies and the U.K. had a disagreement in the late 18th Century — BUT most folks still lived/worked on farms until the early 20th Century.

    It is unfair to call ALL of those born into privilege “parasites.” However, 18th Century England is a good case study of “those in power” using the system to keep themselves in power AND wealthy.

    The grand point being that “money”/wealth is not evil. Money is a tool which can be used for good purposes OR for bad/”greed.” 1 Timothy 6:10 tell us that “LOVE of money is the root of all evil.”

    “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”

    1 Timothy 6:10

    Note that “greed” is never “good.” Greed implies “getting more” at the expense of others – which is obviously impossible to reconcile with “loving your neighbor as yourself.”

    New World

    It is fun to point out that “technology” has always been a disruptive force. Technology is always about “application” of knowledge. Advances in “farming technology” helped farmers be more productive – while also freeing up “labor” for the factories of the industrial revolution.

    If we could do a survey asking “average farm workers” (back when Mr. Conwell was giving his speech) how they could get “wealthy” they PROBABLY would have said some variation of “striking gold.”

    (… and historians can point at the “gold rushes” in the middle of the 19th Century as helping populate the western United States. Of course more “wealth” was generated from folks helping the “prospectors” than from folks “striking it rich” pulling gold/silver out of the ground …)

    Of course if one of those “average farm workers” that sold everything to go gold prospecting had created a “better plow” they would have been much better off.

    e.g. A Vermont born blacksmith solved a common problem for farmers – and both he AND the farmers prospered. John Deere, Inc is still helping farmers be productive in the 21st Century.

    Transportation

    If you look at the “super wealthy” from the late 19th and early 20th Century, the common theme might be “transportation.”

    e.g. Cornelius Vanderbuilt built an empire from ferries – from the time when “waterways” were the primary means of transportation in the U.S.

    John Rockefeller built an oil empire – from the time when oil was used for light and heat. When Henry Ford made the horseless carriage affordable, “oil” being refined into gasoline made the Rockefeller clan even more wealthy.

    Sandwiched between Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Ford as “wealthiest American” was Andrew Carnegie – who had worked his way up from “child labor” to “steel magnate” – from a time with “railroads” and the telegraph were the latest and greatest “technology.”

    No, I am NOT holding up ANY of these men as “moral exemplars” – the grand point is that they helped “solve problems” for a large number of folks, and solving those problems was the root of their wealth …

    The musical “Oklahoma!” (1943) has a song where “rural residents” marvel at the advancements of Kansas City (“She went about as fur as she could go!”). By the mid 20th Century things like automobiles and the telephone system were commonplace enough to be a plot point in a musical.

    (“Oklahoma!” is set around the time the territory became a State. Oklahoma was the 46th State admitted to the Union in 1907)

    Again, the grand point being that some folks got wealthy from disrupting the status quo, and MANY more got wealthy by making incremental advances to cars and phones.

    e.g. Thomas Edison’s “diamonds in the backyard” looked like improvements to the telegraph system of his time long before “Edison Electric.”

    random thought – I’m sure there is an interesting story with the “cigarette lighter” technology. The actual “cigarette lighter” part isn’t a “standard feature” but you can find a lot of “accessories” that use the “automobile auxiliary power outlet.”

    Modern Times

    The sad fact is that in a LOT of nations the “economic game” IS stacked against the “average individual.” Which is why we see so many folks willing to risk everything to immigrate to “opportunity.”

    Obviously a complex subject – and someone living in a “warzone” is more concerned with survival than anything.

    For those NOT living in a warzone or an extremely dysfunctional government the big question becomes which “career path” to pursue.

    Charlie Chaplin made a movie called “Modern Times” back in 1936. Mr. Chaplin was a world famous “movie star” at the time – the movie sometimes get held up as an example of “radical political beliefs.” I’m not sure the movie has any agenda except “entertainment” – e.g. Mr Chaplin’s “tramp” character is pursuing “happiness” NOT a political agenda.

    That same idea applies to “modern workers” in the 21st century. “Happiness” probably won’t come from a “job.” Generic advice like “follow your bliss” is nice, but not particularly useful.

    There is nothing wrong with “working for a paycheck.” The best case scenario is to “do what you love” for a living. the WORST case scenario is doing a job you hate to survive …

    Education, intelligence, and “degrees”

    “Education in the United States” has changed a great deal in the last 100 years. The first “colleges” in the North America existed to train “clergy” (e.g. Harvard was founded in 1636) and then “academics.”

    The “Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges” came along later with the “land grant” colleges in the late 19th Century. The GI Bill sent 2.2 million WWII veterans to college AND 5.6 million more to other training programs.

    Sputnick I (1957) had the unintended consequence of changing national educational priorities in the U.S. – as well as kickstarting NASA (founded July 29, 1958). Both events helped the U.S. get to the moon 11 years later.

    World war and cold war politics aside, the 20th Century workplace was probably the historical “anomaly.” At one point in the 20th Century a “young worker” could drop out of high school, go to work at the local “factory,” and make a “good living,”

    Remember that for MOST of human history, folks lived and worked on farms. Cities provided a marketplace for those agricultural products as well as “other” commerce. Before mass media and rapid transportation MOST people would live and die within 20 miles of where they were born.

    Again, maybe interesting BUT I’ll point out that “compulsory” public education PROBABLY doesn’t have a great record of achievement in the U.S. (or anywhere). i.e. if the ONLY reason “student” is in “school” is because they “have to” – then that student isn’t going to learn much.

    This has nothing to do with “intelligence” and everything to do with “individual interests” and ability. “Education” is best understood as a live long process – not a short term goal.

    “I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.”

    — Mark Twain

    Part of what makes us “human” is (probably) the desire for “mastery” of skills. In the “best case” this is how “education” should look – a journey from “untrained” to “skilled.”

    If an individual’s investment (in time and money) results in them having a valuable “skill set” – then they are “well educated.”

    The contrast being the “academic” that has a lot of “degrees” but no actual “skills” — i.e. having a “doctorate” doesn’t automatically mean anything. “Having” a degree shows “completion” of a set of requirements not “mastery” of those subjects.

    Of course that distinction is why we have “licensing” as well as “degree” requirements for some professions. e.g. The law school graduate that can’t pass the “Bar examination” won’t be allowed to practice law, but might be allowed to teach.

    Nepo babies

    Now, imagine we did a survey of “modern high school students” in the United States asking them “how can you become wealthy?”

    It would be interesting to actually perform the study – i.e. I’m just guessing here from MY personal experience.

    We would also have collect data on the parent’s education and career — i.e. if a child grows up in a family of “fire fighters” then they are (probably) more likely to pursue a career as “fire fighters” simply because that is what they are familiar.

    The term “nepo baby” gets used (derisively) for some entertainment industry professionals – but if mom and dad are both “entertainment industry professionals” then a child pursuing an acting/performance career kind of becomes “going into the family business.”

    Now, “having good genetics” (you know “being ridiculously good looking”) is always a positive – so there are certainly “nepo babies” out there.

    I’m not throwing stones at anyone, “hiring” is not an exact science in ANY industry. That “genetic component” probably applies to families of doctors, lawyers, and educators as well — i.e. if mom and dad were both “whatever”, it is possible that “junior” will have those same skills/personality preferences.

    … and it is also possible that “junior” will want to do something completely different.

    BUT if “student” has minimal exposure to “work life” outside of what they see at home and school – MY GUESS is that the majority (of my hypothetical survey of high school students) will say the “path to wealth” involves professional sports or “entertainment industry.”

    umm, both of which may be more likely than “winning the lottery” or speculating on the stock market — but not exactly “career counsellor” advice

    (… oh, and you only hear about the “big rock stars” being told by their “career counsellor” that they couldn’t make a living as a “rock star” AFTER they became “big rock stars” – if someone quits after being told they “can’t do it” or that the chance of success is small, then they PROBABLY didn’t want to do “it” very much …)

    “Keep your feet on the ground and keep reaching for the stars.”

    – Casey Kasem

    Did I have a point?

    “Well, the “message” in “Acres of Diamonds” is still valid 100+ years later.

    A certain amount of “knowledge” is required to be able to recognize opportunity. e.g. The person to “build a better mousetrap” is someone that has experience catching mice.

    BUT simply inventing a “better” mousetrap is only half of the problem – the mousetrap needs to be produced, marketed, and sold.

    Two BIG things that weren’t around when Mr. Conwell was giving his speech are “venture capital” and “franchising.” Neither of which “negatively” impacts the argument he was making – and if anything make his argument even stronger …

    check out https://curious.iterudio.com for a short (free) class on “success”

    You might also find this book interesting

  • Feedback, praise, and constructive criticism

    Starting with a definition: Communication is “a process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs, or behavior” (thank you Merriam-Webster — emphasis mine)

    Notice the emphasis on “information is exchanged.” If INFORMATION is NOT being EXCHANGED then you don’t have “communication.” Two people yelling at each other might be “fighting” and “sending messages” but calling a screamed insult “information” is true only at the lowest level.

    Remember “communication” involves a “message” being “sent” AND “received” — e.g. if both sides are “sending” at the same time (e.g. two folks yelling at each other) then accurate reception of the “sent” message is unlikely.

    My completely made up on the fly “communication rule #1” is to point out that “active listening” is part of “effective communication.”

    Know the audience

    Imagine a radio station BROADCASTING a signal. That “signal” has to be “received”/interpreted for “communication” to take place.

    If a “sender” wants their message to be understood – then they need to tailor the “message” to the recipients. That radio station is sending out a signal on a specific frequency which recipients will need a “radio receiver” tuned to the correct frequency to receive.

    BUT the “message” also need to be crafted with the recipients in mind.
    e.g. someone is giving a speech to “college presidents” the form of the message will be much different than someone giving a speech to “elementary school students.”

    The “message” will also need to be adjusted based on the “media” involved — e.g. a “published article” in a scholarly journal will be crafted differently than an op-ed for a local newspaper.

    What should be “obvious” is that NOTHING should be assumed to be “obvious.” The more familiar a “speaker”/”writer” is with their audience the better they will be able to communicate a message.

    e.g. Assuming that “EVERYONE knows” something can cause problems – “Well, everyone knew I was joking” becomes a recipe for misunderstanding (especially if you are in a leadership position)

    btw: I’m NOT saying to avoid “humor” – I’m pointing out that attempts at “humor” can easily be misunderstood. “Joking around” with people you have known for years will (almost certainly) be taken differently than “joking around” with someone you just met …

    Feedback

    Definition time: Feedback “the transmission of evaluative or corrective information about an action, event, or process to the original or controlling source”

    “Feedback” covers a LOT of communication territory – it can be positive or negative – constructive or destructive – and will obviously vary in “usefulness” based on a combination of “sender” AND “receiver” characteristics.

    Effective feedback takes effort and a willingness to listen. Honesty is essential – BUT “honesty” should not be an excuse to be mean/insulting.

    “Honest” feedback is NOT just pointing out everything someone did WRONG. Honestly pointing out the positives is also not “flattery.”

    Feedback is (drum roll) “communication” – and to be effective must be tailored to the individual/audience AND be “actionable.”

    A “fan” telling their favorite artist how fantastic they (the artist) is might be “honest” and appreciated – but isn’t exactly “useful feedback” – e.g. Fan: “YOU are great I love your work” Artist: “Thank you”

    Same is true of a “manager” heaping abuse on an “employee” during an “annual review” – e.g. manager: “I haven’t given you any feedback all year, but now I am going to tell you how terrible a job you have done so I can justify not giving you a raise!” Employee: “Thank you for the motivation to look for another job!”

    The “actionable” part if important for something to be “feedback” – i.e. if I just say “I liked x and y” then I am giving my opinion – If I say “X and Y seemed to work well, Z could have been better – maybe try ABC next time” then THAT is “feedback”

    Praise

    A specific type of feedback gets called “praise.” By definition praise is favorable BUT it is not just giving compliments or saying “positive” things.

    For “praise” to be effective it needs to be specific. e.g. “I watched your performance and I thought you did x, y, and z REALLY well” is better than “You looked good out there” (though both may be appropriate at certain times).

    Compliments also work best when they are specific – with “honesty” being the difference between a “compliment” and “flattery.”

    When “awards” show season rolls around I tend to point out that giving out awards for singing/acting/artistic impression is a little pointless from a “fan” point of view (i.e. I don’t need someone to tell me what I should like) BUT that doesn’t mean the awards are pointless.

    Hey, fans “voted” on what they like by buying tickets – so a lot of awards become “recognition by peers.” e.g. If “people that do X” for a living all get together and vote on who did “X” best this year – and then give out an award – the award becomes a form of “peer praise”/recognition, which is always nice

    The point being that “knowledgeable praise” – as in “praise from people that honestly understand the act being praised” – is much more valued than “random praise from non-experts”

    Constructive Criticism

    Of course “perfect performances” tend to be rare – so pointing out “what didn’t go so well” is also important.

    “Criticism” implies “unfavorable feedback” – which is why you often hear the term “constructive criticism” used for the process of “evaluating or analyzing” an event.

    “Youth coaches” will talk about “praise sandwiches” as a model for constructive criticism – e.g. start the feedback with a “positive” (praise), mention a “corrective” (criticism), and then end with another “positive” (praise)

    Once again, audience matters – if you are coaching a “Little League Baseball” team and are talking to the team after a game, then “praise sandwiches” all around. If you are doing film study with older athletes then “praise sandwiches” will probably come across as a little disingenuous.

    The Pet Peeve

    Occasionally I see a “social media” post that goes something like “I don’t know who needs to hear this – but you are doing a great job!”

    “You can do it!”

    Townie (Rob Schneider) from “The Waterboy“

    Now, I appreciate the sentiment – but generic affirmations from someone that has never met me are not particularly useful.

    I’m not particularly offended by those type of posts – but I wouldn’t classify them as “feedback” in any form. Maybe call them a “positive thought broadcast” but not “praise.”

    BUT I could always be wrong …

  • Markets and Competition

    True innovation is rare. Ecclesiastes 1:9 is several thousand years old and tells us that “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.”

    Of course when we aren’t talking about “big picture life” – innovation on a smaller scale happens every once in a while. Historians can argue about the number of truly “world changing innovations” – things like development of agriculture, domestication of animals, improvements in building materials, etc but that isn’t what I’m concerned with today.

    Markets

    I enjoyed The Outfit (2022) – which is nominally about a master English tailor who has ended up in a small shop in mid-1950’s Chicago (Mark Rylance’s character describes himself as a “cutter” – it is one of those rare “character driven” gangster movies, the movie has a “tense” energy and we get some “action” – I liked it).

    Near the end of the movie a character complains about how her “organization” had been ignored until they started making some “real” money. Which is plot driven exposition as much as anything.

    THEN I saw a promo for a new “streaming series” – were the main character makes the same complaint – something like “no one paid attention till we started making money, now everyone wants to take over.”

    Ok, both of those examples are “plot driven” but it is important to recognize that the complaint both (fictional characters) are making is that they “innovated”, created a “new” market segment, and then when that market segment became increasingly popular – competitors entered the marketplace.

    “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness”

    – Oscar Wilde

    This is the same concept found in the “innovation acceptance curve.” The “innovation acceptance curve” looks like the classic “normal distribution” bell curve – with “innovators” and “early adopters” on one side and “laggards” on the other – and “early” and “late” majority in the middle.

    My point is that there is probably a similar “number of competitors” curve that mirrors the “innovation acceptance curve.”

    Cell Phones

    Think “cell phones” – the first “cell phone” was invented in 1973. In the 1980’s cell phones were extremely rare – and if someone had one it probably looked like a World War 2 “walkie talkie.” By the end of the 1990s cell phones were common. The first iPhone was released in 2007 – which sparked another “innovation acceptance curve” for “smart phones.”

    Look at the “cell phone market” – Nokia dominated the early stages of the acceptance curve – but back in the 1990s the “cell phone service providers” tended to “give away” the phone in exchange for the monthly service fee.

    I’m sure there were a LOT of other companies making “cell phones” in those “early adopter”/”early Majority” days – and there were obviously other innovators (BlackBerry comes to mind).

    If we set the “way back machine” to 2005 (2 years before the iPhone) and asked a random sampling of cell phone users if they would ever think of paying $500 for a cell phone – the response would have been overwhelmingly low, simply because the average user only used their cell phone to take the occasional low resolution picture and make phone calls.

    (fwiw: I used to leave my flip phone in the car 99% of the time – because that was where I would need it, and the battery retained a charge for weeks at a time)

    Of course in 2005 folks might have also carried around a laptop, a “personal digital assistant”, and/or a dedicated MP3 player (the first Apple iPod released in 2001 – but “portable personal music players” had been around for years).

    The point here is that “innovation” is NOT always “market driven.” Successful innovation that results in “market disruption” is about providing something the “masses” didn’t realize they needed.

    “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”

    -Henry Ford

    Legendary Apple founder Steve Jobs once said that he didn’t rely on “market research” when developing new products. I’m not questioning Mr. Jobs – but (my opinion) his “genius” was in seeing what people “needed” which was often different than what the “thought the wanted.”

    Apple, Inc under Mr. Jobs was also known for making superior quality products that fell into the “elegant” category – i.e. achieving “product elegance” required a lot of “product testing” and development. SO Steve Jobs didn’t come back to Apple from the “wilderness” in 1997 and hand down from on high the “iMac”, and then the “iPod”, and finally the “iPod” – but he did create the innovation environment that made them possible.

    Market Leaders and Innovation

    After Apple disrupted the cell phone market by introducing the “iPhone” – Google, inc acquired the Android operating system and the HTC Dream was the first Android “smart phone” (September 2008)

    In 2023 Android OS is the most popular operating system in the world with 70% of the market share. Apple iOS has 28% of the market.

    From a “device” point of view – Samsung is the largest “Android” device manufacturer. Apple iOS is “closed source”/proprietary so obviously all “legal” iPhones are running iOS.

    From a “profitability” point of view – Apple, Inc is making a good living off of the selling iPhones for $1,000 and the “App Store” brings in $billions a year. So at the moment they are happily perched atop the “market profitability leader” stack – i.e. they don’t have the largest number of “devices” but they dominate the “top end” of the market and are far and away the most profitable.

    i.e. you can buy a $50 Android smartphone and you can probably find a $100 iPhone, but it will be several “generations” old …

    If you are curious about that other 2% of the mobile market (Android 70%, Apple 28%, other 2%?) – well, in 2023 I’m not sure –

    Microsoft tried to have a “mobile” version of Windows for a long time, Microsoft announced “end of life” for Windows Mobile back in 2017, which means 2022 was when Microsoft support ended.

    BlackBerry is also still around – so that 2% is mostly old Microsoft Mobile and BlackBerry devices.

    The “modern business” cliche is that companies must “innovate or die” – but any “market” will tend to be irrational/unpredictable at a basic level because, well, “people” are involved.

    “Innovation” for the sake of “innovation” is a bad idea – hey, if it ain’t broke, don’t perform radical surgery trying to “fix” it. “Intelligent innovation” with an eye on shifting market demands is always a good “long term” plan.

    What Happened to Nokia?

    ANYWAY – there is a very good documentary on the “Rise and Fall of Nokia Mobile” (2017)

    Just like our fictional “market creators” at the start of this article – Nokia was an innovator and dominated the early mobile industry, then the market got big and profitable and then what happened …

    Well, Nokia is a case study for why “market share dominance” does not always equal “profitability” – but the answer to what “happened” to Nokia is that Microsoft acquired them in 2013.

    You can still buy a “Nokia” phone – they even have the classic “flip phone” – but the Finnish telecom company “Nokia” doesn’t make phones in 2023.

    I’m not giving anything away by pointing out that the “old Nokia” employees blamed the “fall of Nokia” on the Microsoft acquisition – i.e. there is a LOT of “Microsoft as evil American corporation” bashing in the documentary – and for-what-it-is-worth they are probably right in their criticism of the contrasting corporate cultures.

    BUT “Microsoft/Nokia” isn’t at the top of “worst mergers” of all time by any measure (hey, someone is gonna have to do something SPECTACULARLY stupid on a “Biblical” scale to be worse than AOL/Time Warner).

    With 20/20 hindsight – “Nokia mobile” might be in exactly the same spot they are NOW if the Microsoft deal hadn’t happened – i.e. making mid-range Android phones. They certainly didn’t have the resources to compete with Apple and Google for users – so at some point they would (probably) have stopped trying to develop their own mobile OS and thrown in with Google/Android and be exactly where they are today.

    Competition

    Healthy competition drives intelligent innovation. At a “nation state” level this means that “protectionism” is usually a bad idea.

    The “usually” qualifier sneaks in there because of “national security.” Outside of a “national security” concern the best thing for “politicians” to do in regards to “market competition” is “as close to nothing as possible.”

    Yes, rules need to be enforced. Criminal activity should be dealt with as “criminal activity” NOT as an excuse for politicians to “wet their beak” meddling in market regulation. e.g. politicians are great at throwing money at bad ideas and extremely bad at encouraging actual “market innovation.”

    (just in general the most cost effective thing the “gov’ment” can do is “have a contest” and then encourage the free market to solve the problem and win the contest)

    Of course “cronyism” is ALWAYS bad at any level. The Venezuelan oil industry under Hugo Chavez becomes the cautionary tale of “cronyism” disguised as “nationalization.” e.g. no, a “centrally controlled economy” run by “human experts” won’t work on a national scale – and only the greedy and ignorant will try to tell the “masses” that you can get “something for nothing.”

    Acres of Diamonds

    Russell Conwell (February 15, 1843 – December 6, 1925) is remembered for giving a speech called “Acres of Diamonds” (feel free to read the lecture at your leisure)

    One of the lessons that could be taken from Acres of Diamonds is that the best “market” for someone looking to “innovate” and “compete” is the market that they know best.

    I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.

    – Henry David Thoreau

    Just because someone else is doing something similar doesn’t mean that there isn’t room in the marketplace for your idea. e.g. Everyone told Dave Thomas that the United States didn’t need ANOTHER hamburger chain – but in 1969 he started “Wendy’s Old Fashioned Hamburgers” in Columbus, Ohio.

    Mr Thomas had worked for the real Colonel Sanders and Kentucky Fried chicken before starting Wendy’s – so he didn’t need “new clothes”, he understood fast food franchising and customer service. btw – Dave Thomas at Wendy’s deserves credit for perfecting the “pick up window” and the
    “salad bar” among other things.

    When Jack Welch was running G.E. they encouraged suggestions/feedback from “ordinary” workers – the idea being that the person that knows how to do the job “better” is probably the person doing the job.

    Yes, for every “introduced into production” G.E. probably had hundreds of “impractical” suggestions – but that is like saying that most rocks in the diamond mine are not diamonds, you don’t stop mining for diamonds because of the “not diamonds”

    (any organization that encourages suggestions should also have a way of quickly evaluating those suggestions – I’d be happy to take a big consulting fee to figure out a way, but with modern I.T. there are a lot of easily implemented solutions).

    Textbooks will through out terms like “unique selling proposition” (USP) – which boil down to “just because other folks are doing it doesn’t mean your slightly different idea won’t work.”

    Ideally your idea will do “something” different/better/cheaper — but the fact that a LOT of other folks are doing “whatever” just means that there is a DEMAND for “whatever.” i.e. if you think that you have a truly unique/innovative idea that no one else has thought of – you might be wrong.

    It is POSSIBLE that your idea has been tried (and failed) OR that there simply isn’t a profitable market for “whatever.” This is where doing a “competitor analysis” becomes informative – if you can’t find ANY competitors than I’d be worried …

    e.g. not surprisingly McDonald’s sells the most hamburgers in the United States but there are 91,989 other “hamburger restaurant businesses” in the U.S. and the number continues to grow.

    I don’t know if I would suggest starting a “hamburger restaurant” if you have 20 years of completely unrelated experience – but this is where “franchising” tries to fill in the knowledge/experience gaps for prospective entrepreneurs.

    Probably having a good location is just as important as having a recognizable brand – e.g. if I have been driving for 8 hours and I’m hungry and have to use the restroom if “anonymous greasy spoon truck stop” is the only place in sight they would look REAL attractive …

    Unlimited Demand

    Usually when doing a competition assessment you will factor in the impact that changes in price will have on “market demand” as well as the cost of “switching.”

    Specifics aren’t important -this is where the textbooks will talk about “elasticity” – but the core idea is that changes in price can have a large impact on “demand.”

    i.e. if you are selling “product x” for $1, something happens, and you need to start charging $2 to stay in business. There are 3 possibilities – you could lose customers, your retain the same number of customers, or you might gain customers (in rare situations).

    Your customer reaction to the price change will probably revolve around the “cost” of switching. e.g. how much do competitors charge and how much trouble is it to switch to one of those competitors?

    To make up a story – imagine “local gas station” increases their prices. Some folks won’t notice because it is inconvenient to go somewhere else, and some will rearrange their lives so that they never have to buy gas at that location again – and probably the only way a “local gas station” INCREASES customers is if traffic patterns change.

    Of course if a competitor is charging 10¢ less and is just across the street – well, that competitor will have long lines and probably put the first station out of business. btw – the cost of gas at “big chain” stations tends to reflect local taxation just as much as the cost of the gasoline – but that is another subject.

    BUT if the price of gas gets too high – folks will buy more gas efficient vehicles and cut down on their driving – so gasoline does not have UNLIMITED demand.

    The number of items with “unlimited” demand are kind of small – “air” comes to mind, but even then “no longer breathing” is a drastic option, and when “basic necessities” become scarce the breakdown of civil society is gonna happen (riots/war/anarchy).

    On a less apocalyptic level – “entertainment” tends to have unlimited demand and also zero switching costs. This is (probably) obvious – the challenge for “creators” becomes not just “making an entertaining video” but finding an audience.

    A tiny audience could equal “profitability” – if production costs are controlled and enough “sponsors”/subscribers found. A large audience could equal “huge losses” – if production costs are high and “advertising”/subscribers are not “large enough.”

    The same math applies to podcasts, broadcast/cable stations, and motion pictures. When “Superman Returns” was released in 2006 it had a $200 million budget. When it made almost $400 million worldwide it returned a profit, but not enough – e.g. a planned sequel was cancelled

    At the same time “The Devil Wears Prada” was released with a $35 million budget. It would make $327 million in box office – AND be considered a huge success making back 8x its budget.

    (umm, it isn’t important that I’ve seen one of those movies and it isn’t the one about the fashion industry – the point is one that Disney, Inc is relearning in 2023, i.e. heavily marketing a polished piece of tripe doesn’t make the tripe into a hamburger)

  • Talking Football – August 2023

    Back when the B1G was actually 10 teams – “two yards and a cloud of dust” was sometimes used to describe the offense philosophy of most coaches in the conference.

    The forward pass might have been added in 1906, but to paraphrase a coach “three things can happen when you throw the ball, and two of them are bad” – and of course that same coach lived by the “off tackle” play (in his defense Woody Hayes believed that “off tackle” could be adjusted as needed – in the same way that Vince Lombardi described the “power sweep” as “running to daylight”)

    Philosophy

    I’d argue that “ball control and defense” is still a sound starting point for a coaching philosophy – but it obviously won’t win video games where running and defense are after thoughts.

    Remember the point of a football game is NOT “score as many points as possible.” The goal in football is to score MORE points than the other team.

    Example: quick which NFL team holds the record for “points scored per game?”

    If you said that the 1950 L.A. Rams scored 38.8 points per game then you are truly a football historian.

    Of course if you also knew that those 1950 Rams went 9-3 in the regular season and then lost the (pre Super Bowl era) NFL Championship to the Cleveland Browns (Rams 28 – Browns 30) then you are probably a Cleveland Browns fan …

    Team Game

    The point is that football is a “team game” – i.e. offense isn’t more important than defense. This idea that “defense matters just as much as offense” applies to MOST team sports.

    At various points in modern sports history “genius coaches” have come up with the idea to “emphasize” offense over defense – and they tend to score a lot of points, but give up more points than they score.

    To be fair – coaching philosophies like “run and gun” (basketball) and “run and shoot” in football came about as creative ways to deal with a lack of “player size.”

    If you put on your “defensive coordinator” hat and imagine the offense that is hardest to defend – and you will probably come up with some version of an “option” offense (i.e. an offense where the play can change in reaction to the defense). The classic “triple option”/wishbone offense comes to mind – which is still successfully used at various levels.

    BUT all of the above goes out the window when you start talking about “professional sports” where “big and fast” players are the norm. Yes, there are still different coaching philosophies – but dealing with an organizational lack of “size and speed” goes away when you can just “draft”/hire big and fast players

    (btw: Glenn Ellison – the football coach not the economist – earned “Ohio Coach of the year” in 1961 for developing the Run N’ Shoot offense at Middletown High School in Ohio – his book on the offense is available on Amazon.

    As I remember the story he also advocated putting the “best 11” players on offense and trying to outscore the opponent. I don’t think he ever had an “undefeated season” but his “run n’ shoot” teams were always competitive.

    Ohio high school football didn’t start having “playoffs” until the 1970s – BUT I will just point out that his offensive philosophy has won a lot of “State Championships” at the High School level. At the NFL level it was kind of a “fad offense” until defensive coordinators “figured it out”)

    Turnovers

    The “traditional Big 10” offense implies a field position philosophy. Part of that philosophy is a practical recognition of traditional Big 10 “winters” and general “not southern California” weather patterns which account for SOME of those “traditional” low scoring games.

    Remember the point of football is to “score MORE points than the opponent” – we could express that as a Win (W) happens if Points Scored (PS) minus Points given up (PGU) is greater than 0

    W = (PS – PGU) > 0

    the “Win” equation

    Simple enough – the nuance comes in when we recognize that EITHER team can score on any play. This is the dreaded “turnovers” statistic.

    To expand the equation “Points Scored” can be broken down to “offensive points scored” and “defensive points scored” and “Points given up” broken down to “offensive” and “defensive” (and no I didn’t forget about “special teams” – feel free to add them as their own category or combine them either offense or defense)

    Then a statistic like “net points off turnovers” could be positive (if the team minimizes turnovers and/or creates more net turnovers) or negative (the inverse)

    Saying that “turnovers” can decide a game is obvious – but from a “team” point of view what matters is how they react to the turnover more than the turnover itself – which is another subject for another post.

    It is a cliche to say that “every play matters” and then point out that most football games are “decide” by 5 plays.

    TODAY I’m just pointing out that “field position football” revolves around the idea that the key to winning is not making “big mistakes” close to your end zone (and giving up points).

    I suppose a true “field position” practitioner would try to “surprise punt” if they are inside their own 10 yard line and try to reverse the field position – but you will never see that in the NFL simply because the athletes involved all have “big play – 90 yard touchdown” potential.

    ANYWAY that “elongated sphere” tends to be slippery in bad weather and bounces funny even in the best of conditions – so “ball control” (don’t turn the ball over on our side of the field) and “defense” (don’t give up big plays) remains a sound coaching philosophy starting point …

    Playbooks

    Imagine that “Team A” gets their hands on a copy of “Team B’s” offensive playbook – does “Team A” get a substantive advantage?

    Well, no. The specific formations/plays don’t matter as much as “real time general tendencies.”

    IF a player has a “tell” then that is going to be useful – i.e. if a receiver only puts in his mouthpiece when it is a ‘passing play’ and holds his mouthpiece in his hand when it is a ‘running play’ then THAT is actionable intelligence.

    Trying to recognize tendencies is the point of “film study” in the NFL.

    The “old school football” idea that you can tell the other team what you are gonna do and they still won’t be able to stop it – MIGHT still work if your players are MUCH physically superior than your opponent.

    Just having the opponents “playbook” is useless – knowing the opponents “tendencies” is priceless.

    This is the substance of “traditional rivalry” games in any sport at any level – i.e. both teams are well acquainted with the other teams players and tendencies so we get the basis for another cliche about “throwing out the win/loss records” because it is “rivalry week”

    At the pro level it tends to be EXTREMELY difficult to “blow out” the same team multiple times in the same year. Yes, statistically “good teams” are going to beat the “not as good teams” on a regular basis – but if they play two times a year every year the chances of two “easy victories” decreases – after all they are all “professional athletes” on both sides of the ball.

    Divisions and Television Rights

    When you are talking about “College football” in 2023 there are obvious divisions – the “small school nonathletic scholarships” folks are still called “Division III” (250 schools), there are 169 “Division II” schools (about 60% of DII athletes get “athletic aid”)

    I will say that the athletic facilities of the “average DIII school” are probably a little nicer than the “average large high school” – and yeah, the best large high school programs might be “competitive” against the average DIII team — but DIII is still “college football”

    For what it is worth – the NCAA runs the “college football” championship playoffs in DII and DIII. “Division I” football has “Champions” going back to 1869. The “National Collegiate Athletics Association” was founded in 1906 – but “Division I” football is still kind of an outlier in the overall “college sports” landscape.

    From a business point of view this “outlier” status is interesting because the NCAA does NOT control the television rights.

    until the mid 1980s the NCAA had control over which teams would appear on television. Which might sound like a “monopoly” if you are not working at the NCAA – and the Supreme Court of the United States agreed in 1984 when they ruled 7-2 in favor of the lawsuit Georgia and Oklahoma (well, the Universities in those States – but it might as well have been the general population) had brought against the NCAA challenging control of “college football on television.”

    (random great line from the lawsuit = “we thought that NCAA stood for ‘Never Compromise Anything Anytime’”)

    The 1984 ruling opened up the television market for individual athletic programs – but (as I remember it) conferences inherited a lot of the “television” control that the NCAA used to have – but that would obviously only apply to “conference games” and certainly didn’t preclude individual Universities from signing contracts for “non conference games”

    ANYWAY in the 1980’s “regional coverage” was the rule – probably an example of the last days of NCAA television control – but you could watch college football all day if you wanted.

    In 1991 Notre Dame Football signed a exclusive contract with NBC for national coverage of their home games – which illustrates the history/popularity of “Notre Dame football” as well as recognized their on the field success.

    In 1993 ESPN started broadcasting “Thursday night college football” – which still seems to feature teams I’ve never heard of on a regular basis. It became a “weekend preview” show just as much as competitive football game.

    The Big 10 had ceased being a 10 team league when Penn State (which along with Notre Dame had up till that point been an “independent” football program) joined in 1990. Penn State football was fully integrated into the Big 10 schedule until 1993.

    The addition of Penn State to the “Big 10” seemed natural – if not inevitable just from the geography involved – i.e. Pennsylvania is in the “mid west” along with Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa (out of order from memory – did I mention I live in Ohio?).

    FWIW: There were (*cough*) rumors (*cough*) of Notre Dame football “flirting” with the Big 10 in the early 1980s – I honestly don’t know how close Notre Dame Football came to joining the Big 10, but that would have felt like “organic growth’ as well. Notre Dame “athletics” joined the Big East (everything except football) in 1995 and then made the same deal with the ACC in 2013.

    “The Big 10” remained 11 teams as a conference took a little risk by starting the “Big 10 Network” in 2006. Ok (pun alert) it may not have been a “big risk” but is also was a guaranteed success.

    The problem with running any “television network” is content. ESPN had successfully launched “ESPN classic” in 1995 – which had proved that there was a market demand for “classic sports coverage.”

    “ESPN Classic” shutdown in 2021 – probably in part because of the success of “conference television networks” – but that is just me guessing. I wasn’t a huge fan of “ESPN Classic” but I remember watching a rebroadcast of a “game from the 1980s” and getting drawn into the broadcast like it was a live event (since I didn’t remember who won the game).

    The Next Big 10 addition was Nebraska in 2011 – again still felt like “organic growth” – but by this time the “Big 10” network was a success and my guess is that “folks in charge” started seeing the possibility of a truly “national conference” – but I’m just guessing again.

    The Big 10 adding Rutgers and Maryland in 2014 only really makes sense if you have “coast to coast” conference aspirations.

    btw: I am not criticizing either school. I was stationed in Maryland when I was in the Army – I like Maryland – e.g. The Maryland Terrapins beat Indiana to win their National Championship in 2002.

    I’m just pointing out that they may not be on the same “major sports” level as the other teams added to the Big 10 but their addition makes sense if you are building a “national conference.”

    The “Big 10 Network” was a joint venture (51% for the conference and 49% for Fox) with Fox Sports in 2006. In 2022 the conference signed a $7.5 billion deal that was described as using an “NFL approach” i.e. with multiple networks not just Fox Sports.

    With all of the above in mind – well, adding USC, UCLA, Washington, and Oregon in 2024 begins to look like “part of a plan.”

    In the “just my opinion” category ‘super conferences’ have become easier to manage/pull of because of modern technology. With 18 teams it really becomes a “League” with two “conferences” – which is a time tested formula for pro-sports in the U.S. – I’m not in the “predictions” game so I’ll wait and see how they implement the 18 team “B1G” conference …