I.T. Erudio

Once more unto the breach …

  • 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 …

  • Team building

    The word “team” implies a coordinated ensemble. The word comes into the English language via Old High German with obvious “draft animal” connotations.

    Since modern English is a combination of Germanic and French/Latin vocabularies, we tend to have multiple words for the same concept – e.g. the French/Latin companion to “team” is probably “companion”/”company” (please excuse the mild attempt at word play).

    Both “team” and “company” imply functional relationships but different connotations. If you Google for “company building” (images) you will probably get pictures of “office buildings”/real estate. Search for “team building” (images) and you will probably get groups of smiling people “doing things.”

    Corporation

    Even less personal is “corporation” which comes from the Latin “corporatus” – “to form into a body.” In modern English the name implies a formal “legal” structure designed to allow “association” without liability – e.g. a “limited liability company” is a corporate form.

    One of the first “corporations” – the British East India Company (BEIC) – formed in 1600 for “Trading into the East-Indies.” They grew to the point where company activity accounted for half of ALL world trade in the mid 1700s/early1800s. “The Company” got so big that they had all of the issues of a nation-state – and the British Crown became increasingly entangled in “company” affairs to the point that the corporation was dissolved in 1874 and the “British Empire” assumed control.

    The relevant point of the BEIC story is that they were more of an “accidental empire” than a planned endeavor. The same ends up being true of MOST “startup companies.”

    Startups

    Just for fun we will define “startup success” as “lasting longer than 5 years” and hiring at least 1 employee. Historically “successful” startup companies consist of (at least) 3 “founders.”

    In general those three founders consist of:

    1. the “visionary/sales” person – who is good at explaining what the company does.
    2. the person actually skilled at doing “whatever” it is the company does
    3. the “operations” person who handles the “business” side

    In the last half of the 20th Century “venture capital” became a thing – and modern examples abound e.g. Intel, Apple, Google all instantly come to mind.

    This isn’t a “carved in stone” rule, the idea is that no one person is going to be able to perform all three functions for a large organization simply because they involve different skillsets. One function is not more important than another – all three have to work together for the startup/company/TEAM to succeed.

    It is in that “working together” where “team building” happens.

    Team

    The “division of labor” concept has an interesting history – that I won’t bother going over (“The Wealth of Nations” – Adam Smith 1776).

    To point out the obvious “team sports” a require a “team” of players. The number of players varies by sport but what makes a “team” a “team” is that you need more than 1 member. The degree of specialization between team members also (obviously) varies by sport – BUT understanding “player specialization” becomes the first step when we are “building a team.”

    Selection

    Being able to attract, select, and retain the right “team members” is essential to any organizations success and continued existence – not just “nice for growth.”

    Something like “talent” or “experience” aren’t major considerations if you are struggling to fill a vacant position. In that scenario the major challenge becomes placing “marginally qualified” players in positions.

    The small “startup” faces the same challenge – but a startup is literally “betting the company” on each new hire. A “bad hire” when the company consists of a handful of employees will have a larger impact on the company’s future than “massive corporation” making a bad hire.

    Remember – just in general – most startups fail. “Cash flow”/lack of financing is the major REPORTED reason for failure. While industries differ – saying that “employees are any organizations most valuable asset” is a cliche for a reason. Once an organization “settles” on hiring “lower grade” employees they are on their way to extinction.

    The problem is that those “lower grade” employees will tend to stick around and hire even lower grade employees to make themselves look good. It is possible to reverse the trend – but it isn’t easy. Arguably we are discussing a “normal” cycle of “organization” life and death – but again “normal” doesn’t mean “desirable” or “inevitable.”

    Retention

    If you get the “selection” part right then the need to retain those employees should be clear.

    For the record – the reason “good employees leave” is probably NOT “money.” Dig a little and you will find a lot of “advice” about how “money doesn’t motivate” – which is only partially true. i.e. the point becomes that if the organization is paying folks “enough” then paying “more” won’t increase retention.

    BUT if the organization isn’t paying “enough” – then that is obviously the easiest part of the “retention” equation to fix.

    The other parts of the “retention equation” are things like “mission”/”purpose” and then “interpersonal relations” within the organization.

    e.g. if someone feels they are making a valued contribution and serving a worthwhile purpose – then they will probably stick around until they are forced to retire. Then if someone feels like they are taken for granted and EVERYTHING is a whining contest – well, the competent employees probably leave the first chance they get …

    I’m also fond of pointing out that “job seekers” are “interviewing” the organization as well as “being interviewed” during the hiring process.

    If you don’t like the way you are treated during the hiring process – then you should have serious thoughts about accepting a job offer. A professional company staffed by competent employees is NOT going to have a “third rate” hiring process.

    Team Building Exercises

    I question the benefits of artificial “team building” exercises. You know, the “obstacle course” rope climbing sort of thing that is supposed to build “team spirit.”

    Motivational speakers are a dime a dozen. Forcing folks to socialize while doing make work activities is ACU = Almost. Completely. Useless.

    There is a lucrative market in selling those ACU activities because, well, there are a lot of incompetent executives out there looking for easy solutions to low employee moral, high turnover, and general under productivity.

    HOWEVER, real, productive “training” is something it is hard to have too much of.

    Elite

    There are no easy solutions to guarantee “good hires.”

    HOWEVER, the first step is setting high standards and having a worthwhile mission.

    Comparing the U.S. Marines to the other services is a little deceptive – i.e. the “Marines” are a component of the Depart of the Navy – still “the few, the proud, the marines” rarely had to resort to “drafting” recruits.

    In comparison the U.S. Army is twice as big as the U.S. Marines (well, Google tells me the Army has around 500,000 active duty soldiers and the Marines under 200,000 active duty), the U.S. Navy is around 350,000 active duty, and the U.S. Air Force also “around” 350,000 active duty

    Within the Army and Navy you have “special services.” How those “special services” folks are selected and trained is the stuff of legend – and not what I’m concerned with here.

    The “big concept” from a team building point of view is that those “special services” folks need the “regular service” in much the same way that the ‘edge of the knife” doesn’t exist without the rest of the knife.

    They work together to serve a common mission – i.e. they are a “team.” The “rank and file” need to be treated with respect even if the “Elite” deserve a little preferential treatment.

    From a “non military organization” point of view – the top 20% (i.e. the “Elite“) of employees in a large organization are probably more productive than the next 70%, and the bottom 10% probably need to be “eased out the door.”

    The goal of “leadership” should be to retain that elite 20%, work with the 70% who are solid contributors (and might move into the 20%), and also treat the bottom 10% with respect while helping them find their way (which may not be with the organization).

    Remember: Yes, “rank has its privileges” but that is always because “rank also has obligations.”

  • Random thoughts on Time, Distance, and Faster Than Light Travel

    The good folks at Merriam-Webster give us 14 definitions for “time” as a noun, another 5 as a verb, and then 3 more as an adjective.

    A quick peek at the etymology tells us that the “time” came into the English language by way of Old English and (Old Norse) words for “tide.”

    That “time” and “tide” are related shouldn’t surprise anyone — after all “time and tide wait for no man” is one of those “proverb” things. e.g. If you make your living next to/on a large body of water then the tide going out and coming in probably greatly influences your day to day activities as much as the sun rising and setting.

    From an “exploration” point of view “precision time keeping” was essential for sailors because they could use it to determine their longitude. Not being a sailor or even mildly comfortable on a boat that doesn’t have a motor – I’m told you can use a sextant to determine your latitude using the moon and stars.

    Obviously in 2023 GPS is used for most voyages. Some high up officials in the U.S. Navy pointed out that we should still teach “basic seamanship.”

    I’ve had a career that revolves around “fixing” things because, well, things break — so teaching basic navigation without GPS sounds obvious. e.g. the U.S. Army initial entry training (“basic training”) used to spend a little bit of time teaching the POGs (“persons other than grunts”) how to read a map and use a compass.

    “Way back when” I was trained as a medic – which used to mean nine weeks of “basic” and then another period of “AIT” (advanced initial training) — all of which I seem to remember took 6 months in real time. In 2023 Google tells me that the “11B Infantry” training is “One Station Unit Training” lasting 22 weeks.

    The “Distance” Problem

    Before the “industrial revolution” in the 18th century gave us things like trains, and eventually planes, and automobiles – the fastest human beings could travel on land was on the back of a horse.

    Which basically meant that the “average human being” would live and die within 20 miles of where they were born. Since MOST people were ‘subsistence farmers” they probably didn’t have a pressing need to travel exceptionally far.

    Of course “ancient peoples” probably formed the first “cities” as equal parts “areas of mutual protection” AND “areas of commerce” — so the “local farmers market” today might be described as an example of the foundation of modern society – “people gotta eat” and “people like to socialize” …

    Those ancient subsistence farmers no doubt figured out the cycles of the moon as well as the yearly seasons so they could optimize the output of their farms. Those folks not concerned with the tides still had to “plant” and “harvest” – so “time management” was a consideration even if precise time keeping wasn’t an issue.

    Those Ancient Greeks even went so far as to create the idea of a “decisive battle” so they could decide conflicts and get back to their farms with minimal disruption (i.e. if you don’t plant, you can’t expect to harvest) – but that is another story.

    The point being that “time” was a constant – how we “redeem the time” is up to the individual – but part of being human is dealing with the inevitability of “time passing.”

    The relationship between “distance” (d), “speed” (s), and “time” (t) is probably still a “middle school” math exercise (d= st) which I won’t go into – but it is hard to overstate the impact that “fast and safe high speed travel” changed human society.

    My favorite example is “transcontinental” travel in North America. Before the U.S. completed the first transcontinental railroad in 1869 the fastest you could travel from “coast to coast” would take 6 months – e.g. you could probably take a train to Nebraska in a couple days, but then the trip from Nebraska to the west coast would take several months. Or you could sail around South America (Cape Horn) which would also take 6 months (it was probably safer but much more expensive).

    btw: Canada’s “transcontinental railroad” opened in 1881 – and is still in operation. Parts of what was the U.S. Transcontinental railroad are still around – but the rise of “automobiles” and the Interstate highway system made “interstate railway passenger travel” unprofitable.

    AFTER the transcontinental railroads you could travel coast to coast in about a week. The original “intent” of the U.S. transcontinental railroad was that it would open up trade with Asia – i.e. good shipped in from the “far east” could be shipped across the U.S. — the bigger impact ended up being allowing immigrants from Europe to settle “out west” – which is again, another story.

    It is safe to say that the “problem” of distance for “human travel” was solved by the industrial revolution. e.g. Google tell me I can DRIVE from southwestern Ohio to California in 2 days – although I could hop on a plane and travel from CVG to LAX in about 6 hours if I was pressed for time.

    If I wanted to go to Chicago (298 miles from Cincinnati) the drive is about 6 hours – but with the cost of gas (if I schedule far enough in advance) the plane trip would still take 4 hours, but probably cheaper than driving.

    The point being that “Travelling around the world” in ANY amount of time USED to be an unthinkable adventure because of the distances involved and the lack of safe/speedy travel options – now it is about time management and deciding on how comfortable you wanna be while you travel (and of course whether you want to be shot at when you get where you are going 😉 — and THAT is another story …

    Faster Than Light

    Back when I was teaching the “Network+” class multiple times a term – the textbook we used would start out comparing/contrasting common “networking media.” The three “common” media covered were 1. coaxial – one relatively large copper cable, 2. unshielded twisted pair (UTP) – 8 smaller copper wires twisted together in pairs, and then 3. “fiberoptic” cable – thin “optical fiber” strands (“glass”).

    SO I would lecture a couple hours on the costs/benefits/convenience of the three “media type” – spoiler alert most “local area networks” are using some flavor of UTP because it is still hits that sweet spot between cost/speed/convenience. The take away from that “intro to networking class” about “fiberoptic cabling” was that it was exceptionally fast, but more expensive, and harder to install than the other two.

    The “exceptionally fast” part of fiberoptic cabling is because we are dealing with the speed of light. Yes, there are other factors in network “speed” but physics 101 tells us that it is not possible to go faster than the speed of light (which is 300,000 kilometers per second or 186,000 miles per hour)

    (oh, and the “slow” part of most “computing systems/networks” is the human beings involved in the process – so UTP is just fine for 99% of the LAN implementations out there – but once again, that is another story)

    I’m not a physicist but saying that the speed of “light” is the speed of energy without mass is accurate enough for today. The point being that unless you can “change the rules of the universe” as we understand them today – it is NOT possible to go faster than light (FTL).

    There was a lot of optimism that “science” would solve the “interstellar distance” problem during the “space race” period of human history. But “interstellar distance” is mindboggling huge compared to terrestrial travel – AND we keep hitting that hard barrier of the speed of light.

    Of course neither “subsistence farmers” OR “trained thinkers” 2,000 years ago comprehended the size of the earth in relation to the rest of the universe – “educated types” probably thought it was round, and might have had a good idea at the earth’s circumference – but travelling “around the world” would have been the stuff of fantasy.

    Some well meaning folks were predicting “moon tourism” by the end of the 20th century – and I suppose the distance isn’t the problem with “moon tourism” so much as “outer space” being VERY non-conducive to human life (read that as “actively hostile” to human life).

    Gene Rodenberry (probably) came up with the idea for “Star Trek” as a direct result of the “moon mania” of the late 1960’s. Yes, “Star Trek” was conceived of as a “space western” so it was never a “hard” science fiction program – so the “Star Trek” universe tends to get a pass on the FTL issue.

    After all humanity had created jet engines that allowed us to break the speed of sound, wouldn’t it be natural to assume that someone would come up with FTL engines? With that in mind “dilithium crystals” fueling warp drive engines that allow our adventurers to go multiples of the speed of light doesn’t sound that far-fetched.

    Folks were using “Mach 2” to signify multiple of the speed of sound – why not use “Warp speed” for multiples of the speed of light.

    It is easy to forget that “the original series” (TOS) was “cancelled” each year it was produced – after seasons 1 and 2 a fan letter writing campaign convinced the network folks to bring the show back. TOS was always best when it concentrated on the characters and stayed away from the “hard science” as much as possible.

    BUT I’m not picking on “Star Trek” – just pointing out the physics …

    Time Travel

    Mr Einstein’s theory sometimes involves a “though experiment” where we have two newborn babies (or feel free to think of newborn kittens/puppies/hamsters/whatever if the “baby” example gets in the way) AND we put one of the newborns on a “spaceship” and accelerate that ship “close to the speed of light” (we can’t actually go the speed of light – we are just getting as close as possible).

    When our imaginary thought experiment ship returns – the newborn on the ship doesn’t appear to have aged but the newborn that stayed behind is now extremely old. This is the “twin paradox” and a lot of folks smarter than me have spent considerable time examining the question –

    The point is that Mr Einstein’s theory does not allow for “travelling backwards” in time.

    Again, “Star Trek” (TOS) became famous for slingshotting the Enterprise around the sun, and going faster than the speed of light (“light speed break-away factor“) to travel backwards in time.

    Of course, if you have “suspended disbelief” and have accepted that the warp drive engines can routinely achieve multiples of the speed of light – then the “Star Trek” writers are just engaged in good storytelling, which again interesting characters and good stories has always been the best part of the “Star Trek” universe.

    btw: the most plausible “time travel” in a TOS episode was “The City on the Edge of Forever” – that is the one with Joan Collins for casual fans (season 1 episode 28). It tends to be listed near the top of “best episode” lists for TOS.

    I seem to remember someone asking Stephen Hawking about the possibility of time travel “way back when.” (btw: Mr Hawking was a Star Trek fan and has the distinction of being the only “celebrity guest star” to play themselves – TNG Season 6, episode 26 – Data on the holodeck playing poker with Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, and Stephen Hawking) – as I remember it, Mr Hawking’s response was something along the lines of “if you could travel faster than the speed of light, then time travel might be possible”

    Of course that is probably the same as him saying “… and it is also possible that monkeys might fly out of my butt …” – but you know, it is entertainment not “hard science.”

    While I’m at it

    The “time traveler” in HG Well’s “The Time Machine” explains traveling in time as travelling in another “dimension” – since humanity had created machines to let us travel in the other dimensions (up, down, side to side – e.g. length, width, height) then travel through “time” would just require a new machine.

    That “time travel device” just becomes an element of good storytelling – i.e. best practice is to tell what it does and NOT spend a lot of time explaining HOW it works.

    Doctor Who and the TARDIS (“Time And Relative Dimensions In Space”) get a short explanation when required – and they added the ability to travel instantaneously through time AND space, probably both as storytelling device and as a nod to Mr Einstein’s “space-time” concept.

    “The Planet of the Apes” (1968) used the basic “twin paradox” idea – but then “something happened” and rather than landing on a distant planet they end up back on earth.

    In the 1970 sequel “Beneath the Planet of the Apes” the “rescue team” has followed the first group – and this time they say they were caught in a “tear if the fabric of space time” or something. Of course they conveniently land in the same general area as the first crew and everyone speaks English.

    There were three more “Planet of the Apes” sequels – they travel back in time in “Escape from the Planet of the Apes” (1971) – I don’t think they bother to explain how the got back, but I haven’t been able to sit through “Escape from the Planet of the Apes” recently.

    I think “Planet of the Apes” (2001) was a victim of a writer’s strike – it isn’t particularly re-watchable for any number of reasons – not least of which is that they jump through illogical hoops to have Mark Wahlberg end up back in the present with a monkey Lincoln memorial.

    The Andy Serkis as Caesar “Planet of the Apes” trilogy doesn’t bother with the “time travel” trope – substituting a “engineered virus” that (unintentionally) kills most of humanity and makes the surviving humans less intelligent.

    “The Final Countdown” (1980) has an aircraft carrier go back in time to 1941 just before the attack on Pearl Harbor. The movie revolves around the “can/should they change history by intercepting the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor” question – you can watch it for free on Tubi.com if interested.

    This time around the time travel is a “finger of God” sort of thing – as I remember it a mysterious storm just appears and the 1980’s era aircraft carrier ends up in 1941. I’ll just point out that it is “plausible” but won’t spoil the ending …

    Fred Ward had a long career as a “character actor” that died in 2022. He tried to make the move from “grizzled nice guy co-star/sidekick” to “leading man” multiple times in the 1980’s. He appears destined to be remembered as Kevin Bacon’s co-star in “Tremors” (1990) – he was one of those “instantly recognizable faces but you might not be able to recall his name” actors.

    Mr Ward starred in several movies that qualify as “cult classics” (i.e. well made movies that didn’t find a mass audience at the time of release but continue to be popular years later). Mr Ward’s “time travel” movie was 1982’s “Timerider: The Adventure of Lyle Swann” – which isn’t available streaming, but has a blu-ray release which probably illustrates the “cult classic” concept better than anything

    As I remember it (I haven’t see the movie in years) – Mr Ward is a dirt bike rider that accidently gets sent back in time (1870s American West) by “secret government experiment” of some kind which he accidently stumbles into — the memorable part is that they manage to slip in a version of the classic time-travel “grandfather” paradox.

    Normally the “grandfather” paradox is similar to “Back to the Future” where the time traveler does something to keep their ancestors from meeting/reproducing/whatever. “Timerider” is the other option – where he ends up being his own great-great-grandfather – enjoying the movie doesn’t revolve around that point and it looks like the movie is still being sold on blu-ray in Italy and Spain, so …

    The whole “time travel machine” trope got called for its inherent silliness with “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” (1989) – the movie is funny on multiple levels, and it is safe to say it skewered the whole “travel in time and change events” movie genre — “Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey” (1991) takes the joke even further but it suffers a little from “sequel-itis” …

    I’ll finish with a nod toward “Land of the Lost” both the 1974-1977 kids tv show and the 2009 Will Ferrell movie – where they “slip through” rips in time or something.

    I suppose the “science” behind the movie/series is similar to “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” where it is implied that there are “rips in time” or something that can be predicted and then travelled through.

    Yes, I am ignoring the various “multiverse” shows out there – simply because they are just modern “duex ex machina” plots. Worth noting because they reflect humanities desire to be able to go back and “fix” the past, but they quickly wore out their novelty …

  • Mr Warhol and photography copyrights

    Since Andy Warhol died in 1987 – the Supreme Court was probably/technically ruling against his “estate” in their recent decision.

    Mr Warhol had used a photograph of Prince (“The Artist”) in a 1980’s painting (“Orange Prince”) – money changed hands among the concerned parties back in the early 1980’s so there wasn’t any problem until Prince Rogers Nelson died in 2016 and the Warhol image was used in some publications

    the crux of the issue was that back in the early 1980s Mr Warhol had paid for “one time use” of the photograph – SO was using Warhol’s painting in a magazine 30 years later a violation of the photographers copyright?

    Obviously the issue was convoluted enough that it ended up before the Supreme Court – so I won’t try to summarize it here – short form: the Supreme Court said “yes, the usage violated the copyright holders rights”

    Wait, what about Prince…

    now, ordinary folks might ask – what about the estate of “Prince Rogers Nelson” shouldn’t they have been involved somehow? well, again, the case was about COPYRIGHT – so it is the COPYRIGHT holder that was seeking redress

    SO when Prince’s music was played (assuming his estate still owned the copyrights) – THEY got paid, but the copyright holder of the photograph was/is the photographer.

    Just like in the music industry where “every time the music is played, SOMEONE gets paid” because of copyright – in the photography business “every time the picture gets used, someone gets paid” i.e. the copyright owner.

    Of course there is also the concept of “work for hire” – e.g. when Perry White sent out cub reporter Jimmy Olsen – the pictures Jimmy took belonged to the newspaper because they were paying young Mr Olsen to do a job.

    Peter Parker on the other hand was a freelance photographer for the JJ Jameson at the Daily Bugle – so Mr Parker got paid for his photographs and probably retained the rights to his work.

    I suppose if we could find a real copy of the Daily Planet the copyright notice on a picture Jimmy Olsen took would say “Copyright YEAR Daily Planet publishing” but a real copy of the Daily Bugle with a picture from Peter Parker would say “Copyright YEAR Peter Parker”

    In either case Superman or Spider-Man weren’t getting paid because they were performing in the public arena. Maybe they would have been received a “session fee” if they arranged a time and intentionally posed in front of the camera – but you get the idea …

    Public Photographs

    just in general if you are a “public person” doing your thing “in public” then photographs taken of you “in public” are the property of the photographer – e.g. this is how “paparazzi” make a living

    if you go to a Taylor Swift concert and take pictures of the performance – then YOU own the photographs and can do what you want with them.

    which means that it is possible for an artist to violate the copyright law by using a picture of themselves without the permission of the photographer. It happens on a regular basis.

    of course there is also the “Dave Chappell” solution where the performer can prohibit phones/cameras at the performance as a condition of entry — but that is an additional expense and MOST of the time performers want the publicity when they are “performing.”

    when they AREN’T performing is when the “negative” side of fame becomes an issue – but that is a different subject.

    Copyright

    The point of having “copyright laws” is to allow artists to profit from their creative work.

    There are folks out there that will argue that copyright laws “stifle creativity.” Well, you don’t need to be a student of history to see through that strawman argument.

    Consider Mr Shakespeare – writing 400+ years ago before “copyright laws” – how did he make “money?” Well, his “acting companies” had “benefactors” – which was why they were the “Lord Chamberlain’s Men” and then when King James I became their benefactor in 1603 thy became “King’s Men.” Then they also received money from performing productions/ticket sales.

    The idea of “publishing rights” back then was non-existent. The moveable type printing press had only made it to Europe in 1455 – so obviously “copyrights” were not an issue.

    Which means there were no “professional writers” back then – maybe a lot of “playwrights” and folks that had time to “write” as a hobby, but it was not possible to “make a living” as a “writer.”

    “If you would not be forgotten, as soon as you are dead and rotten, either write things worth reading, or do things worth writing.”

    Benjamin Franklin

    It should be pointed out that Mr Franklin made his fortune as a PRINTER. Ol’ Ben was obviously a gifted writer – but he made money by printing and selling his writing – so he understood the need for “copyright laws” as a profit incentive to creatives.

  • The GREATEST movie of ALL TIME

    well, the obvious problem with the title is “how do you define ‘great’?”

    of course everyone that has answered the question has been “correct” – “greatness” is determined by individual tastes. Consider that the credit for creating the “modern summer blockbuster” belongs to “Jaws” (1975) – which was the “greatest box office success” of all time until “Star Wars” (1977) – but if we did a survey of “movie critics” my guess is that neither movie would be in the top 10 if the question is “Name the greatest movie of all time”.

    Box Office

    Using “raw box office” as a measure of greatness had obvious problems. Most obvious is that “ticket prices” have increased greatly – e.g. in 1940 you could buy a movie ticket for $0.25 – a quarter of a dollar, in 2023 it is considerably more.

    If you want to use “ticket sales” as a measure of “greatness” OTHER problems pop-up. In this case “modern movies” expect to make MOST of their ticket sales in the first two weeks or release, will probably not be in wide theatrical release after four weeks, and will probably be available for “home consumption” (in the form of a digital download) in a few months after release.

    Before the mid 1980’s “home consumption” of a “major movie” would have been to show it on network television. There were “annual events” for some traditional favorites – “The Wizard of Oz” (1939) was shown annually from 1959 to 1991, “The Ten Commandments” (1956) is still shown annually around “Easter” Time.

    Once upon a time “Gone With the Wind” (1940) had been shown in the same theater for decades – so it is the hands down, never gonna be beat “ticket sales” champion movie of ALL TIME.

    Awards

    Remember that ANY “awards show” is inherently biased. The “Academy Awards” in particular are an “industry insider” group that – for the most part – gives out awards to other “industry insiders.”

    SO I notice the Academy Awards when they come out – but I do not consider them a “measure of greatness.” I’m not saying the awards are “not important” – certainly they are important to the folks that get nominated and/or win. I’m just pointing out that the awards are “voted on” by some group and are NOT useful for comparative purposes – e.g. if “movie A” won an Oscar but “movie B” did not win any awards does it automatically mean that “movie A” is BETTER than “movie B”? Nope.

    Categories


    Is being “ground breaking” the measure of “greatness?” “Birth of a Nation” (1915) helped create the “cinematic vocabulary” we take for granted (but the ending is obviously ‘problematic’) – “Citizen Kane” (1941) also broke ground on “camera movement and special effects” (which is why the ‘movie critics’ tend to love Orson Welles in general and “Citizen Kane” in particular) – “Casablanca” (1942) is in a category all its own but I’ll hold it up as an example of “script greatness.”

    to be fair (and for convenience) – there need to be multiple categories, “maybe greatest movie BEFORE ‘television’” (because the “studio movie” standards had to be raised when folks could get “basic entertainment” for free over the air – e.g. a lot of those “old movies” from the 30’s and 40’s feel like “television productions” in terms of length and content – e.g. “Frankenstein” (1931) and “Bride of Frankenstein” (1935) are around 1 hour each – watching them back to back tells a complete story)

    then we need to have a “greatest movie under the ‘studio’ system” AND “production code” category – if you are thinking “production code? what is that?” – well, there was a time when ALL movies where “general admission” – the MPAA didn’t come up with the “rating” system until 1968, BEFORE 1968 the “Production Code” was a form of self-censorship that put restrictions of “language and behavior” (e.g. try finding a “major U.S. movie” from before 1968 with profanity or nudity – I always love to point out “The Dirty Dozen” (1968) as working very hard to not use profanity)

    oh, and then there are the “not in English movies” – “Breathless” (1960) is a great movie (French crime drama). Akira Kurosawa’s work (Japanese director) had a HUGE influence on American cinema – e.g. even casual “western fans” have probably heard that “The Magnificent Seven” was based on Kurosawa’s “Seven Samurai”

    Personal Bias

    Since I was young and impressionable in the 1970’s the work of Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and Francis Ford Coppola has a special place in the “nostalgia chest” – intellectually I can say that “Schindler’s List” (1993) is Mr Spielberg’s “greatest artistic achievement” while still saying I love “Jaws” and “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”.

    The Godfather and The Godfather part II are great movies – but my personal favorite “Coppola” movie is “Apocalypse Now.”

    As for Mr Lucas – “American Graffiti” (1973) is still a lot of fun to watch (and it foreshadows the “story telling” techniques used in the “Star Wars” franchise – at one level you can say that Mr Lucas was exploring the relationship between “man and machine” in both movies). “The Empire Strikes Back” is arguably a “better” movie than “Star Wars” or “Return of the Jedi”, but c’mon they didn’t even blow up a Death Star!

    No discussion on “big budget blockbusters” would be complete without mentioning James Cameron – I was blown away by the 3D effects in “Avatar” (2009) and “Titanic” (1997) was so full of special effects that people don’t think of it as being full of “special effects” (e.g. no, they did not build a replica of the Titanic – it was mostly “computer generated images” (CGI) – and that CGI was part of why it was the “most expensive movie” of all time back in the 20th Century).

    BUT my favorite “James Cameron” movies are “The Terminator” (1984) and “Aliens” (1986) – as always YMMV

  • Marketing and Propaganda

    In its best form “marketing”/”advertising” is just “information”

    If you have a great product that does “whatever” the best use of your “marketing” budget is to build awareness of the products benefits among folks that need to do “whatever it is that your product does”

    e.g. say you make beer or running shoes – and your goal is to continue to sell beer or running shoes.

    Spending time educating potential customers about the benefits of your beer or running shoes is gonna be much more effective than – I don’t know, randomly pushing a social agenda.

    e.g. The “craft beer” industry got its start by educating folks on how “good beer” should taste. The “athletic shoe” business had to educate/inform how their shoes improved performance.

    Leadership

    This is where competent leadership would say “hey, we are NOT a social advocacy company — we sell beer (or running shoes) so we are gonna concentrate on making the best beer (or running shoes) and leave the social advocacy for other folks”

    That doesn’t mean your company can’t be a “force for positive change” — i.e. being a “good corporate citizen” is always “good business.” It just means that your company has a product to sell and that shouldn’t involve “propaganda.”

    Donating to charities or allowing employees “personal time” to volunteer will have intangible benefits — but taking a “corporate stance” on “controversial” issues with marketing decisions is a pointless gamble.

    Studio System

    For most of the 20th century the above would PROBABLY have qualified as “corporate dogma” for MOST large corporations.

    Back in the old “movie studio system” where actors were “under contract” – the studio made an effort to control the public image of “movie stars” and wouldn’t let the actors express “controversial opinions.”

    why? because folks on both sides of the issue were potential customers – an actor expressing an opinion would (probably) offend SOMEONE – and that would mean “lower sales”

    Yes, they were selling an illusion, but the point was that the studio was NOT in the “advocacy business” – they were selling “escapism”/”entertainment”

    Michael Jordan pointed out that he intentionally was NOT “political” because “Republicans and Democrats both buy shoes” (or something along those lines).

    Freedom of Speech

    The modern business of sport is inherently tied to the “endorsement deal.” I don’t know if anyone can truly claim to have “invented” the idea of celebrity endorsements – i.e. the birth of “mass media” and “marketing” go hand in hand.

    Babe Ruth was the best baseball player in the world (and an all time great) at a time when “mass media” was shifting from newspapers to radio. Baseball was helped by radio, which meant that Babe Ruth’s value as a “celebrity endorser” was helped by radio. BUT while the Babe endorsed everything from “cereal to Girl Scout cookies to soap” I’m not sure if he made more money from “playing baseball” or from endorsements.

    Arnold Palmer (professional golf great) on the other hand made much more money from “endorsements” than he did from winning golf tournaments. This time Mr Palmer benefited from the growth of “television.”

    If a “modern sports star” was looking for an “endorsement” role model – Mr Palmer is probably hard to beat. I’m not a golfer – but I still think of his commercials for a particular motor oil when I’m buying oil.

    Of course the “products” that Arnold Palmer was selling were “golf” AND “Arnold Palmer” – I’m sure he had opinions of the controversial subjects of his day, and I’m sure he contributed to multiple charities, he just kept those opinions separate from his “golf professional image.”

    In 2023, I’m not opposed to an athlete expressing an opinion on “controversial subjects” – I just prefer that they have an educated opinion on the subject BEFORE they comment.

    Of course then “product endorsements” might be impacted by an athlete expressing their opinions. This withdrawal of “corporate approval” is NOT an attack of “freedom if speech” – again, the “company” needs to remember that it is in the business of selling a “product” NOT active propaganda.

    You keep using that word …

    Propaganda is “ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause” — so is “propaganda” a form of “marketing?”

    well, maybe – “propaganda” USUALLY has a very negative connotation. Propaganda is biased and “selectively true” – i.e. trying to present YOUR idea/product in the best possible way – which might also be true of “marketing.” BUT propaganda allows for “allegations” meant to “damage the opposition” – which implies (at best) unethical behavior, which tends counter productive in the long term.

    Again “Good marketing” starts with a quality product/service. The goal is to educate folks on how YOUR product can help them solve a problem NOT convince them that your competitors are evil.

    Maybe if you have an inferior product/idea then selling “fear uncertainty and doubt” (FUD) is your only option — but wise leadership better serve a company by “repositioning” the product or developing a better product/idea.

    Marketing is NOT Manipulation

    My point is that “marketing” should equal “education” but NOT “manipulation.”

    If a group of “corporate executives” is sitting around thinking “We have the most popular product in the land. We have so much market share it is hard for any new marketing campaign to make a BIG difference one way of the other – you know what we should do? How about we hire a ‘spokesperson’ to advocate for a ‘controversial’ subject!” – well, it is probably time to get some new “corporate executives.”

    I cannot think of ANY product at ANY time that has been so popular that the parent company could try to “force feed” a radical agenda to their customers without losing a significant market share.

    If a company has “monopoly power” then their “marketing” doesn’t matter – but if there are multiple competitors and the cost of switching is just “I’m never buying that brand again – I will buy this other brand readily available from a competitor that hasn’t insulted my intelligence/integrity” – well, you will probably get “new executives” when the ones that made the terrible marketing blunder get fired

  • Profit Margins

    If a company is “profitable” over a long period of time that PROBABLY means it is “well run” or “managed properly.”

    Of course we need to define “long period of time” — in a healthy economy companies will come and go just by the natural cultural shifts and technological advances.

    e.g. Thirty years ago multiple companies making a nice profit from selling “long distance” phone service. Then the “interweb” exploded and “cell phones” became ubiquitous and I’m not sure anyone sells “long distance” phone service anymore.

    Prices

    the price of whatever “product/service” that “profitable company” makes is gonna be influenced by a wide range of variables

    A company can’t “lose a little money” on each transaction and expect to stay in business – so MOST reasonable people can appreciate that the idea of “profit” is not evil. However calculating acceptable “profit margins” (in the real world) is harder than plugging numbers into a formula (something like “profit = (revenue – cost)/revenue”)

    First – the sector/industry which the company is competing influences the idea of acceptable “profit margins.”

    e.g. the “oil industry” has to include some % to finding/acquiring “more oil” – the “lumber industry” has to include some % to “planting trees” – the “pharmaceutical industry” has to include some % for “research, development, and approval” of new drugs

    Second – “marginal utility” comes into play and really messes with “prices.”

    How much “the market” is willing to pay for a product is influenced by how much of that product they “need.”

    Remember there is a difference between “need” and “want.” Real “needs” are things like food/water/shelter. Needs are (relatively) limited. “Wants” on the other hand are unlimited – but will vary wildly between individuals.

    e.g. an individual that is hungry, cold, and lost in the wilderness would be willing to pay much more for a “plate of beans by the fire” than someone that is living in a nice warm house with plenty of food.

    The “value” of diamonds and water are another classic example – if you are dying of thirst, you will “pay” for water and (probably) aren’t concerned with diamonds of any quality. But if you have all the water you need (you know, it tends to fall out of the sky in certain places) – then “shiny things” like diamonds are worth a lot more.

    Cost

    Of course just because “water” can be obtained for free – that doesn’t mean there isn’t a “market” for water. The problem with water is that it is easily contaminated. Historically “dirty water” has been the cause of a LOT of epidemics – which is another subject.

    “Water” may be obtained for “free” – but “clean potable water” doesn’t happen by accident. SO “bottled water” is its own little industry. The larger point being that the “product cost” is not directly linked to the “product price.”

    The same would be true for diamonds – i.e. raw diamonds require some additional work to become “jewelry.”

    SO with any product the company selling the products has other “production costs” than just “materials.”

    If those additional costs are managed poorly – then a product that costs $0 could be sold for “$large number” and the company might NOT be “profitable.”

    OR if those additional costs are managed properly – then the “total cost of production” might be lower so the “product price” might be lower AND the company would be “profitable.”

    Of course it is also possible for a company to have “record profits” despite poor management — but those tend to be short lived “bubbles.”

    As for the stock market: what the “stock market investor” wants to see in a company is “slow and steady” long term growth. Meanwhile the “stock market speculator” is looking for “wild swings” in profits.

    The “intelligent investor” will do more “investing” than “speculation” – I think someone won a Nobel Prize in economics for pointing out that “diversification” was a good thing – which is basically saying that a little “speculation” is a good thing for “long term profits.” This is why “investment professionals” will talk about “risk appetite.”

    In an ideal case our ‘well managed company’ would see slow and steady profit growth year over year. Each year may not set a new “record” for profits, but the graph line would be sloping upwards.

    While that “hot new company” in an “emerging industry” PROBABLY won’t show profits at all for the first few years – but that doesn’t mean an investor shouldn’t risk a small % …

    SO “diversification” is going to look differently for different investors at different points in their lifetime – but the “big idea” is that (from a financial planning point of view) you should never put EVERYTHING into anything …

    Government intervention

    My internal alarms start going off anytime a “government official” starts talking about a company/industry having “record profits” and how this isn’t “fair” to the public.

    Well, we have the “history of socialism/communism in the 20th Century” to point out the dangers of “centrally planned economies.”

    If you want to argue that the USSR and Maoist China were not “true communism” – fine. I understand the difference between the “speculative economics” that Karl Marx wrote about and the “real world implementation” of tyranny done under his name – that isn’t the point.

    The point is that any human government intervention into individual sectors of the economy tends to be counterproductive. Modern economies are vast and complex and change at a pace faster than human government and effectively regulate.

    I can appreciate the goal of “fairness” – but the problem is human nature and “information flow.” Is the purpose of government is NOT to make society “fair.” That simply is not possible with human government.

    I’m not questioning the “intent” of attempts at socialism – I’m pointing out the failures of trying to arbitrarily change human nature and the problems of “scarcity.”

    Mr Marx expected “capitalism” to solve the “scarcity” problem – and then “communism” would happen naturally. I tend to disagree with his hypothesis that if all of humanities basic needs were met that we would live together in peace and harmony – again, “human nature” comes into play.

    But it is pretty to think that Mr Marx wasn’t completely wrong (but again, 20th Century history isn’t on his side)

    The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.

    Ronald Reagan

    All of which means that by the time “government reacts” the problem has probably changed and any government regulation is going to be pointless and ineffective.

    This is why “do something” legislation after a “disaster” might actually make the root problem worse — and “don’t make things worse” is probably a good goal for any human government.

    Of course being able to tell the difference between “we must act now” and “it is better to do nothing” is VERY hard. It does illustrate why “politicians” tend to be despised and true “statesmen”/leaders are few and far between …

  • … have a drink on me

    … “spirits” as a reference to “distilled alcohol beverages” apparently traces back to the belief that they drinks held the “life force” (i.e. “spirit”) or the “essence” of the grains or plants that were used.

    the English word “spirit” (first usage as a noun – 14th Century) traces back to the Latin “spiritus” (literally, breath, from “spirare” to blow, breathe – thank you Merriam-Webster)

    SO most likely folks figured out how to make wine and beer first – then the wine makers figured out the distillation process, and we got things like “aqua vitae” and whiskey/whisky. fwiw: If the product is made in America or Ireland – it is most likely called whiskey (notice the ‘e’) and the rest of the world spells it without the ‘e’ – so we get “Scotch whisky” but that is “Jim Beam Bourbon Whiskey”

    for most of American history (well, probably right up to the “prohibition era” – 1920-1933) whiskey almost had the status of “legal tender.” In an era before mass transit and refrigeration making whiskey was simply good business – i.e. an in demand product that had a long shelf life and could be transported (relatively) easily.

    Of course in 2023 making “spirits” is still very profitable for the same reasons – but distillation of alcohol is also heavily regulated for various reasons — e.g. protecting public health (e.g. if done incorrectly you get methanol – which will kill you fast – instead of ethanol – which will also kill you, just a little slower), and collecting tax $$ being the big factors.

    Oh, and “home brewing” of beer became legal in the 1970’s — I don’t know if “making wine” for “personal consumption” has ever been illegal in the U.S. (i.e. I’m pretty sure “home wine making” was still allowed even during the “prohibition era” – for “religious/cultural” reasons, but I’m not 100% on that)

    … but of course if you mess up the wine or beer making process – you just end up with something that tastes bad, but isn’t likely to kill you fast. Transporting beer between state lines used to be illegal (e.g. the plot for “Smokey and the Bandit”). Living in Ohio we couldn’t (legally) get “Yuengling” beer from Pennsylvania until 2011 – there are conflicting stories on “why” it took until 2011, but I’m sure its “root cause” goes back to prohibition era laws (e.g. the two states border each other – so you would think that Ohio would have been one of the first States to get “Yuengling distributors” rather than the last).

    random observation — a “beer truck” was involved in an accident in Ohio recently – I was a little concerned and then I saw pictures of cases of “Coors Light” and thought “that wasn’t a beer truck – that was Coors Light – which isn’t the same thing (ok, I like darker, heavier beers – neither “Bud” and/or “Coors” are at the top of my “preferred list”)

    ANYWAY – the idea of the “mixed drink” is probably as old as “drinking.” From an “ancient history” point of view alcoholic beverages were always “watered down” before being consumed – this was probably the same idea as modern “carbonated beverage” distribution. e.g. “fizzy drink maker” sells the “drink syrup” to establishments that then add the carbonation before serving to customers – which is how restaurants are able to give “free refills” on “fountain drinks” and “fast food chains”/”convenience stores” can sell “huge drink” for $1 — so the “wise ancients” would have stored their wine/liquor in a more concentrated form – and then added water to adjust for “proof”/potency

    random thought: for “mixed alcohol drinks” larger ice cubes tend to be used (primarily) because the cubes melt slower, and therefore don’t dilute the drink as much – and if you are paying for some exotic concoction that comes with ice in the glass, you might care how it tastes – i.e. no ice served with “shots” but they will probably have been “chilled” if requested or if the bartender wants to put on a show.

    For whiskey they have “whiskey stones” that can be chilled and won’t melt – but they come across as gimmicky to me – maybe add a drop of water to that high quality whiskey/whisky to activate the flavors, and if you are “drinking for effect” don’t pay for the good stuff

    The “modern cocktail” is sometimes described as the United States’ contribution to world “liquor culture.” The short form idea being that a lot of “cocktails” were created to mask the taste of bad liquor mass produced (illegally – you know gangsters/bootlegging/that whole thing) during prohibition — Winston Churchill’s quote about how to make a martini (“Glance at the vermouth bottle briefly while pouring the juniper distillate freely.”) illustrates the point that “high quality gin” (which Mr Churchill would have been drinking) didn’t require vermouth to make it palatable).

    That same concept kind of applied to “tough guy” drinks – e.g. the cowboy is drinking whiskey while standing at the bar – the hard-boiled private eye had a bottle of whiskey in a desk drawer. Philip Marlowe tended to drink “Gimlets” which (originally) was just gin (or vodka) and lime juice – but you can add simple syrup if you want it sweeter. The “Gimlet” name most likely traces back to a 19th century British Navy Doctor (Rear-Admiral Sir Thomas Desmond Gimlette) – who suggested adding lime juice to Officers “daily ration” of gin (enlisted men got rum – add lime juice to the rum and you get “Grog”)

    Glance at the vermouth bottle briefly while pouring the juniper distillate freely.

    Winston Churchill

  • To REALLY mess things up …

    SO, I tried to change “permalinks” in WordPress and ALL the links broke.

    I’ve been using WordPress for years – but to be honest I’ve never tried to do anything “complicated” (i.e. beyond the “content management” for which WordPress is designed).

    Of course this “blog” thing isn’t making me an $$ so I don’t put a lot of effort into WordPress “customization” – i.e. it doesn’t REALLY matter what the “permalinks” look like.

    “Optimized URLs” used to be a “search engine optimization” (SEO) thing (well, it probably still is a SEO thing) — so I’m not saying that “permalink structure” isn’t important. I’m just pointing out that I haven’t had a reason to change it from the default.

    And Then…

    Like I said, WordPress is great for the occasional “blog” posting – but then I wanted to do some “web 1.0” type file linking – and, well, WordPress ain’t built for that.

    Yes, there are various plugins – and I got it to work. AND THEN —

    I should also mention that I’ve tried launching various “Facebook pages” over the years. One is Old Time Westerns.

    Now, Facebook as a platform wasn’t real sure what “pages” were for – my opinion is that they were basically TRYING to create a “walled garden” to keep users on Facebook – and then of course users see more Facebook ads.

    No, I am NOT criticizing Facebook for offering new services trying to keep people on Facebook — but “Facebook pages 1.0” weren’t particularly useful for “page creators.” In fact Facebook wanted (wants) page creators to PAY to “boost posts” — which functionally means NOTHING goes “organically viral” on Facebook.

    Again, I’m also NOT criticizing Facebook for wanting to make $$ – but no, I’m not going to PAY for the privilege of doing the work of creating a community on a platform, which can decide to kick me off whenever they like.

    Did I mention …

    … I have the required skills to do the “web publishing” thing – so for not much $ I can just setup my own servers and have much more control over anything/everything.

    SO the motivation behind the “Westerns” page was more about me getting in my “amateur historian” exercise than about building a community.

    Ok, sure, I would love to connect with people with the same interests – which is one of those things the “web” has been great at from the “early days.” Notice that I didn’t day “Facebook” is great a finding people of common interests, but the Internet/Web is.

    Facebook is great to “reconnect” with people you once knew or have met – but not so good at “connecting” new people with a common interest.

    Hey, if you are “company” selling “product” and you have a marketing budget – then Facebook can help you find new customers. If you are “hobbyist” looking for other “hobbyists” – well, not so much.

    Yes, Facebook can be a tool for that group of “hobbyists” – but unless you have a “marketing budget” don’t expect to “organically” grow you member list from being on Facebook.

    fwiw: “Facebook pages 2.0” has become “groups” or something – Wikipedia tells me Yahoo! pulled the plug on “Yahoo! Groups” in 2020. The “fun fact” is that the whole “groups” concept predates the “web” – that sort of “bulletin board” functionality goes back to the late 1970’s early 1980’s. Remember the movie WarGames (1983)? That was what he was “dialing into.”

    ANYWAY …

    I have various “example” sites out there – I’ve pointed out that WordPress does somethings very well – but doesn’t do other things well.

    Yes, you could “extend” WordPress if you like – but it isn’t always the “right tool for the job.”

    SO “data driven example” https://www.iterudio.com/us —

    small “progressive web app”: https://media.iterudio.com/j/

    Another “data driven example” – but this time I was trying to create a “daily reading app” from a few of the “wisdom books”: https://clancameron.us/bible/

    A “quote app”: https://clancameron.us/quotes/

    AND then the latest – which is just javascript and css https://www.iterudio.com/westerns/

    The original plan was to just create some “pages” within WordPress – and I wanted the URL to be “page name” — which is why I was trying to change the “permalinks” within WordPress.

    My guess is that the problem has to do with the fact the the “uniform resource locator” (URL) on my server gets “rewritten” before it hits the WordPress “permalink” module – which then tries to rewrite it again. The error I was getting seems to be common – and I tried the common solutions to no avail (and most potential solutions just made the problem worse).

    To err is human; To really foul things up requires a computer.

    Anonymous