Let's be honest, we've all been pretty shocked by the celebrity deaths in the past week. One has grabbed the media spotlight more so than others, but it doesn't make the others less important. I'm not going to pretend like I know any of them, or even know a lot about them. My only memories of Ed McMahon are from Star Search and I only know Farrah Fawcett from pictures. Enough will be said about Michael Jackson--musician, songwriter, dancer, entertainer--but I feel the need to make sure Billy Mays gets a proper send-off as well.
This is no way a shot at Michael Jackson. I wasn't a huge MJ fan. I enjoy his music and appreciate his long-lasting impact, but what else can I say that you haven't heard already? There will never be another like him, but he'll live on through his music.
I've written in the past that I'm not an idea guy--my brain just isn't wired that way. But I love being around idea people. I love that they live up in the clouds and they aren't confined to what is. Billy Mays was an idea guy. He was a self-made successful entrepreneur that got his start selling products on the Atlantic City boardwalks. He ran the circuit across country pitching products, sacrificing his family in turn and ultimately divorcing his first wife. But he kept at it, developing his signature style and rising to the top of the infomercial industry. Billy only recently started to gain the acclaim and respect that he truly deserved as he flourished in the so-called "prime" of his career. He started doing numerous commercials parodying himself and his style and even appeared on The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien with fellow pitchman Anthony Sullivan. Billy and Sully's show, Pitchmen, on The Discovery Channel allowed viewers a peek into the inner-workings of the industry and Billy's daily grind.
Billy was a successful entrepreneur because he cared about the products, proud to say that he owned every product he promoted on television. He wasn't bullshitting in his ads--if he was then I bought it hook, line, and sinker--and you could tell because the passion for the products was evident. And like a true entrepreneur, Billy wanted to help others reach the level of success he'd achieved. He knew what it felt like to have a product he knew people needed and how hard it is to catch the big break. Pitchmen became one of my favorite shows because Billy and Sully were giving inventors the chance to realize their dreams. Some succeeded, some failed, but they never would have gotten the chance if not for Billy and Sully.
From the show, Billy just seemed like a really nice guy. He remarried and appeared to be a loving father to his two kids--one of which bears his name and aims to follow in his footsteps. It would take Billy hours to walk through an airport to his gate because everyone wanted to stop and talk about how they loved the products he pitched. Sully even brought him along on his personal charter in an effort to convince Billy to travel hassel-free. But Billy wouldn't give in--probably I think because he loved that interaction with the people. Knowing that makes it even harder to fathom that his death may have been due in part to his last flight on a commercial airline.
Everyone will mourn Michael, but Billy's passing won't have the same impact. I hope he gets the respect and due that he's earned. He wasn't the Michael Jackson of entrepreneurship, but he was great at what he did and he had a great heart. Sometimes people like that deserve just as much credit as even the most acclaimed superstars.
Fashion Disasters '09
Let's be honest, some fashion trends just don't stick and then end up becoming the poster-child for a time period's fashion mistakes. Each decade has been characterized by a few trends that were "in" at the time but cause an awful lot of head-turning when we look at old photos. Surprisingly, most embarrassing trends of decades past have come back around in recent years. So it begs the question, what trends of today will be the "frosted tips" of 2009?
The Seventies had afros and bellbottoms and the Eighties had neon, wigwams, and the Canadian Tuxedo (denim jacket, denim pants). The Nineties had the aforementioned frosted tips, flannel shirts, and mini skirts, and the early 2000's featured baggy jeans, throwback jerseys, and Capri pants. In the late 90's, the bellbottoms of the 70's came back, and afros go in-and-out of style every so often. Recently, we've seen some of the 80's fasion come back in style. Neon, denim jackets, and even mullets are back in! Of course, "in" is a relative term--none of these are "in" in Middle America. So give it about 5-10 years and the fashion of the early 90's is going to creep back into our lives--just watch.
All this is beside the point. So what are people wearing today that when we look back in 10 years will make us utter that poignant and powerful three-letter acronym--WTF?
1) Ski
nny Jeans. Why the F would I wear jeans suctioned onto my legs? Is this the single-most impractical invention ever? Aside from the physical existence of pockets, which you couldn't use on skinny jeans anyway, what's the difference between skinny jeans and saran wrapping your entire bottom half when you get dressed? I think this will even be seen as a bit ridiculous for girls, who have looked good for decades before this absurd trend.
2) Scarf...with a tee shirt. Ok...so...see...you wear...huh? Really? I don't even know how to start this line of questioning. Short sleeve shirt--so it must be warm enough. And a scarf...ok...why? Did we suddenly evolve into a species where the body temperature in our necks is far colder than the rest of our bodies? I'm seriously confused here.
3) Graphic button downs. The buttons say "I'm sophisticated" while the graphics say "I'm craaaaaazy!" What's next? The graphic tuxedo?
4) B
ug-eye Sunglasses. They go from eye brow to lower cheek bone and sit on the tip of the nose. The perfectly matching item for this accessory is a bright red pair of clown shoes.
5) The Faux-Hawk. If you're not familiar, it's a mohawk withou
t shaving the sides of the head, just grooming around the mohawk. Nothing says "I have no balls" like going for the mohawk half-heartedly. Go big or go home, my friends.
So there you have it. If you are a victim of one of these trends, live it up while you can and then feel free to laugh at yourself in a few years. We've all been there before, and we'll all be there again.
The Seventies had afros and bellbottoms and the Eighties had neon, wigwams, and the Canadian Tuxedo (denim jacket, denim pants). The Nineties had the aforementioned frosted tips, flannel shirts, and mini skirts, and the early 2000's featured baggy jeans, throwback jerseys, and Capri pants. In the late 90's, the bellbottoms of the 70's came back, and afros go in-and-out of style every so often. Recently, we've seen some of the 80's fasion come back in style. Neon, denim jackets, and even mullets are back in! Of course, "in" is a relative term--none of these are "in" in Middle America. So give it about 5-10 years and the fashion of the early 90's is going to creep back into our lives--just watch.
All this is beside the point. So what are people wearing today that when we look back in 10 years will make us utter that poignant and powerful three-letter acronym--WTF?
1) Ski
nny Jeans. Why the F would I wear jeans suctioned onto my legs? Is this the single-most impractical invention ever? Aside from the physical existence of pockets, which you couldn't use on skinny jeans anyway, what's the difference between skinny jeans and saran wrapping your entire bottom half when you get dressed? I think this will even be seen as a bit ridiculous for girls, who have looked good for decades before this absurd trend.2) Scarf...with a tee shirt. Ok...so...see...you wear...huh? Really? I don't even know how to start this line of questioning. Short sleeve shirt--so it must be warm enough. And a scarf...ok...why? Did we suddenly evolve into a species where the body temperature in our necks is far colder than the rest of our bodies? I'm seriously confused here.
3) Graphic button downs. The buttons say "I'm sophisticated" while the graphics say "I'm craaaaaazy!" What's next? The graphic tuxedo?
4) B
ug-eye Sunglasses. They go from eye brow to lower cheek bone and sit on the tip of the nose. The perfectly matching item for this accessory is a bright red pair of clown shoes.5) The Faux-Hawk. If you're not familiar, it's a mohawk withou
t shaving the sides of the head, just grooming around the mohawk. Nothing says "I have no balls" like going for the mohawk half-heartedly. Go big or go home, my friends.So there you have it. If you are a victim of one of these trends, live it up while you can and then feel free to laugh at yourself in a few years. We've all been there before, and we'll all be there again.
Organizational Misbehavior
Let’s be honest, some organizations have absolutely no idea what they are doing. A friend of mine named Al Clifford played for a baseball team whose problems strongly resemble those of your average corporation. In order to protect the team’s identity, I’ll call them the Maitland Vulture Claws. It is frustrating to hear Al talk about how the team is run, and I’m just glad that I don’t have to put up with an organization like this.
The Maitland Vulture Claws are a subsidiary of a cricket team called the Maryland Isotopes. The cricket team is based in Maryland, saw baseball as a similar game, and planted the baseball team’s headquarters in Florida (Maitland) since baseball is played there year-round. While synergies exist between the two sports, cricket and baseball are quite different. Unfortunately for the Vulture Claws organization, most of its upper management hails from the cricket world and maintain the idea that the two are the same and can be run in a similar fashion. When baseball was at its peak (during the “steroid era”), the Maitland Vulture Claws decided to build and build, expanding its stadium to hold an unbelievable number of guests beyond what many knew the demand required. This strategy quite obviously proved short-sighted, however, since the stadium is now a heap of unused seats and excess inventory. Moreover, the ancillary outlets on-site—snack shacks, merchandise stores, etc—are running at huge losses because not enough visitors come through the doors or care to spend money in addition to the ticket price if they do.
To complicate manners, the Maryland Isotopes recently bought a high-end cricket team in another league in Maryland called the Rockford Cartographers. Seeing the success of the Vulture Claws in their heyday, the Cartographers pushed for its own baseball team and also put it in Florida, right down the west coast of the state, calling it the Riviera Coast Clubbers. As the Rockford and Riviera Coast teams are much more high-end, the required levels of service are much higher and employees are paid a premium. The Riviera Coast Clubbers expanded its stadium as well during the “steroid era” and are left in even worse shape in a poor economy because no one cares to spend the ungodly amount of money charged for ticket packages or concessions on-site.
As if the operations of each of these organizations weren’t jacked-up enough, the ticket sales department is just as bad, if not worse. While logically the sales team should be selling season-ticket packages while appealing to customers’ emotions (since there is no financial return on this kind of purchase), they have instead chosen to market the stadiums themselves. The stadiums have become the selling point—not the games. The sales team has also largely focused on selling to existing season-ticket holders rather than trying to bring in new customers, a strategy that makes no sense since that’s not actually considered growth! Furthermore, season-tickets are not for everyone, yet the sales team pressures customers into purchasing by using up-front discounts. When the early-stage benefit runs out, these customers have realized they cannot afford the package and default on their payment.
Tough economic times have forced both the Vulture Claws and the Clubbers to go through an organizational restructuring, and poor Al was let go. If the organizations were performing so badly, you’d think the President, CEO, COO, or even GM would be fired, correct? Instead, they have chosen to cut the players on the field, opting to play without a catcher and an entire outfield! They’ve even taken some of the players out of the field and moved them to managerial roles thinking that more chiefs and less Indians will solve the problem. Meanwhile, the team only sends 5 players to bat in the lineup, rolls the dice on defense, and fails to address the question of where all that work will go. Releasing all these players will reduce the teams’ salary expenses in the next quarter and they can avoid paying severance to high-paid 20-year management veterans, but the underlying problems remain.
Al couldn’t be happier to be out of that organization, and I couldn’t be happier for him. He’s going to move on and never look back while using that experience to help educate his future teams on what NOT to do. If you’re in a similar situation as Al, hang in there but look for alternative opportunities. Those organizations have it coming to them—and if you’re still around then you might end up as the shit in the proverbial fan.
The Maitland Vulture Claws are a subsidiary of a cricket team called the Maryland Isotopes. The cricket team is based in Maryland, saw baseball as a similar game, and planted the baseball team’s headquarters in Florida (Maitland) since baseball is played there year-round. While synergies exist between the two sports, cricket and baseball are quite different. Unfortunately for the Vulture Claws organization, most of its upper management hails from the cricket world and maintain the idea that the two are the same and can be run in a similar fashion. When baseball was at its peak (during the “steroid era”), the Maitland Vulture Claws decided to build and build, expanding its stadium to hold an unbelievable number of guests beyond what many knew the demand required. This strategy quite obviously proved short-sighted, however, since the stadium is now a heap of unused seats and excess inventory. Moreover, the ancillary outlets on-site—snack shacks, merchandise stores, etc—are running at huge losses because not enough visitors come through the doors or care to spend money in addition to the ticket price if they do.
To complicate manners, the Maryland Isotopes recently bought a high-end cricket team in another league in Maryland called the Rockford Cartographers. Seeing the success of the Vulture Claws in their heyday, the Cartographers pushed for its own baseball team and also put it in Florida, right down the west coast of the state, calling it the Riviera Coast Clubbers. As the Rockford and Riviera Coast teams are much more high-end, the required levels of service are much higher and employees are paid a premium. The Riviera Coast Clubbers expanded its stadium as well during the “steroid era” and are left in even worse shape in a poor economy because no one cares to spend the ungodly amount of money charged for ticket packages or concessions on-site.
As if the operations of each of these organizations weren’t jacked-up enough, the ticket sales department is just as bad, if not worse. While logically the sales team should be selling season-ticket packages while appealing to customers’ emotions (since there is no financial return on this kind of purchase), they have instead chosen to market the stadiums themselves. The stadiums have become the selling point—not the games. The sales team has also largely focused on selling to existing season-ticket holders rather than trying to bring in new customers, a strategy that makes no sense since that’s not actually considered growth! Furthermore, season-tickets are not for everyone, yet the sales team pressures customers into purchasing by using up-front discounts. When the early-stage benefit runs out, these customers have realized they cannot afford the package and default on their payment.
Tough economic times have forced both the Vulture Claws and the Clubbers to go through an organizational restructuring, and poor Al was let go. If the organizations were performing so badly, you’d think the President, CEO, COO, or even GM would be fired, correct? Instead, they have chosen to cut the players on the field, opting to play without a catcher and an entire outfield! They’ve even taken some of the players out of the field and moved them to managerial roles thinking that more chiefs and less Indians will solve the problem. Meanwhile, the team only sends 5 players to bat in the lineup, rolls the dice on defense, and fails to address the question of where all that work will go. Releasing all these players will reduce the teams’ salary expenses in the next quarter and they can avoid paying severance to high-paid 20-year management veterans, but the underlying problems remain.
Al couldn’t be happier to be out of that organization, and I couldn’t be happier for him. He’s going to move on and never look back while using that experience to help educate his future teams on what NOT to do. If you’re in a similar situation as Al, hang in there but look for alternative opportunities. Those organizations have it coming to them—and if you’re still around then you might end up as the shit in the proverbial fan.
The Last Great Generation?
Let’s be honest, there will never be another “Greatest Generation.” Years ago, Tom Brokaw authored a book singing the praises of the World War II generation, appropriately calling it the “greatest” because of its role in changing the world. It’s unfortunate, but because of the attitudes of Gen X and Gen Y, this level of appreciation will likely never resurface.
I myself am part of Generation Y, and proud of it. We’re smart, capable, non-traditional, and fun-seeking. We’re also demanding, though—not necessarily in a bad way, but we demand answers for what doesn’t make sense. “Because it’s the way we’ve always done it” no longer suffices for a Gen Y’ers question about operating procedure or policy. We see the way our parents (Boomers) are treated by their companies and don’t want the same outcome. Ok...so what does this have to do with anything? Because so much has been written about Gen Y, and Gen Y’ers have embraced the persona, a noticeable chip has formed on our collective shoulder. As far as we’re concerned, we can often do no wrong. And because we’ve seen the way our parents were treated or disagree with how they treated us, we naturally resent authority. We can’t conceive that some old hag could possibly share our ideals or put programs/policies/initiatives in place that are in line with what we believe.
I don’t mean for this to be politically charged, but an obvious example is the attitude toward World War II versus the War in Iraq. Soldiers from the Iraqi War will never be appreciated the same way as WWII vets because of the failure to get behind the cause. Whether you agree with the war or not, you must support soldiers risking their lives to preserve American freedom. But this is often overlooked because we are too concerned with our own agendas and what’s in it for us.
Since the heroes of war will seemingly never be appreciated again, what will it take to garner that same level of respect and appreciation? Our country is currently struggling through a terrible financial crisis the likes of which we’ve never seen. We’re going to get out of it…we all know this. But will we champion those responsible for leading us out of the recession and into the impending cyclical boom? Will we all take credit for it? Because of political agendas, will the true heroes be overlooked? Who knows. These last few years have been world-changing, just as WWII (although on a completely different and incomparable scale) was world-changing. What is going to take for us to consider another generation truly “great?”
I can only hope that the next time a global conflict of WWII-stature arises that a) I can live through it, b) good prevails over evil, and c) we realize the importance and heroism of the game-changing players. We need to get rid of the shoulder-chip, remain somewhat humble, and keep things in perspective. Only then will we be able to appreciate the greatness of a generation.
I myself am part of Generation Y, and proud of it. We’re smart, capable, non-traditional, and fun-seeking. We’re also demanding, though—not necessarily in a bad way, but we demand answers for what doesn’t make sense. “Because it’s the way we’ve always done it” no longer suffices for a Gen Y’ers question about operating procedure or policy. We see the way our parents (Boomers) are treated by their companies and don’t want the same outcome. Ok...so what does this have to do with anything? Because so much has been written about Gen Y, and Gen Y’ers have embraced the persona, a noticeable chip has formed on our collective shoulder. As far as we’re concerned, we can often do no wrong. And because we’ve seen the way our parents were treated or disagree with how they treated us, we naturally resent authority. We can’t conceive that some old hag could possibly share our ideals or put programs/policies/initiatives in place that are in line with what we believe.
I don’t mean for this to be politically charged, but an obvious example is the attitude toward World War II versus the War in Iraq. Soldiers from the Iraqi War will never be appreciated the same way as WWII vets because of the failure to get behind the cause. Whether you agree with the war or not, you must support soldiers risking their lives to preserve American freedom. But this is often overlooked because we are too concerned with our own agendas and what’s in it for us.
Since the heroes of war will seemingly never be appreciated again, what will it take to garner that same level of respect and appreciation? Our country is currently struggling through a terrible financial crisis the likes of which we’ve never seen. We’re going to get out of it…we all know this. But will we champion those responsible for leading us out of the recession and into the impending cyclical boom? Will we all take credit for it? Because of political agendas, will the true heroes be overlooked? Who knows. These last few years have been world-changing, just as WWII (although on a completely different and incomparable scale) was world-changing. What is going to take for us to consider another generation truly “great?”
I can only hope that the next time a global conflict of WWII-stature arises that a) I can live through it, b) good prevails over evil, and c) we realize the importance and heroism of the game-changing players. We need to get rid of the shoulder-chip, remain somewhat humble, and keep things in perspective. Only then will we be able to appreciate the greatness of a generation.
The Yankee Way
Let’s be honest, if you have a problem with the Yankees, you have a problem with capitalism. It’s one thing to dislike the team because you root for a rival squad or prefer pulling for underdogs, but to say the Yanks “cheat” or “buy championships” is another. They play within the rules of a system, and if you don’t like it then you can move to Russia circa 1918.
The Yankees are a business. The baseball team is a subsidiary of a parent company, Yankee Global Enterprises, which also owns the YES Network and several real estate holdings. The YES Network is the largest and most successful regional sports network in baseball, and likely in all of sports. Because of the worldwide fan base, the YES Network can sell ad space at a premium on its 24-hour Yankee-based programming channel. This is what we in the biz call a “cash cow.” So all the money is funneled up through YGE and gives the Yankees access to unmatched amounts of capital. The team itself has actually been running at a loss in recent years, but it doesn’t matter because the team is only one branch of the company. Plus it’s privately owned, not public, so the gain or loss only truly affects the owners. Some seats in the new Yankee Stadium have not yet been sold, but even still the increased ticket prices over the life of the Stadium show a great revenue increase. And the way to justify higher ticket prices? World class facilities and world class athletes. The Yankees are providing both in 2009.
Since the rules in baseball promote a free market system, why do people get fired up when the Yanks spend money? If they have the most money, why can’t they spend the most? I made this point in a blog last year—if a company has excess cash, it can either pay a dividend (the baseball equivalent would be giving money back to the fans through ticket price decreases) or reinvest (purchasing new assets, ie players). The Yankees have chosen to reinvest in risk-associated assets with the hope of making a good return. Would you rather the owners sit on the cash and get richer? They could easily do that, but then they would be the Kansas City Royals. The Yanks can afford to shell out money for players because the money is there and a spending limit is not. Paying a player millions of dollars hurts a salary cap-bound NFL team more than it does a baseball team.
And for the communists out there, baseball even installed a Joe the Plumber-esque revenue sharing program that forces all teams in the league to spread the wealth amongst each other. MLB taxes teams over a certain payroll threshold and distributes the money among the less financially savvy--err...fortunate teams. So what do the Yankees do every year? They hand over a check to MLB for millions of dollars that owners of competing organizations stuff into their pockets. Do these other owners use that money to go purchase free agent contracts? Some do, but most don’t. Instead, they sit on the money, cover losses from bad management, and complain about another team overspending.
It’s hard to dispute that the free market system works, too. In the last 9 years, 8 different teams have won the World Series. In the same time frame, only 6 different teams have won the Super Bowl, 5 different teams have won the NBA championship, and 6 teams won the Stanley Cup. With those results, how can anyone argue that baseball teams play at a disadvantage?
The Yankees have a business plan like everyone else. Does it always work? Of course not—it clearly hasn’t worked in recent years. But it’s just another way of doing business well within the rules of the capitalist system, and there is simply no disputing that.
The Yankees are a business. The baseball team is a subsidiary of a parent company, Yankee Global Enterprises, which also owns the YES Network and several real estate holdings. The YES Network is the largest and most successful regional sports network in baseball, and likely in all of sports. Because of the worldwide fan base, the YES Network can sell ad space at a premium on its 24-hour Yankee-based programming channel. This is what we in the biz call a “cash cow.” So all the money is funneled up through YGE and gives the Yankees access to unmatched amounts of capital. The team itself has actually been running at a loss in recent years, but it doesn’t matter because the team is only one branch of the company. Plus it’s privately owned, not public, so the gain or loss only truly affects the owners. Some seats in the new Yankee Stadium have not yet been sold, but even still the increased ticket prices over the life of the Stadium show a great revenue increase. And the way to justify higher ticket prices? World class facilities and world class athletes. The Yankees are providing both in 2009.
Since the rules in baseball promote a free market system, why do people get fired up when the Yanks spend money? If they have the most money, why can’t they spend the most? I made this point in a blog last year—if a company has excess cash, it can either pay a dividend (the baseball equivalent would be giving money back to the fans through ticket price decreases) or reinvest (purchasing new assets, ie players). The Yankees have chosen to reinvest in risk-associated assets with the hope of making a good return. Would you rather the owners sit on the cash and get richer? They could easily do that, but then they would be the Kansas City Royals. The Yanks can afford to shell out money for players because the money is there and a spending limit is not. Paying a player millions of dollars hurts a salary cap-bound NFL team more than it does a baseball team.
And for the communists out there, baseball even installed a Joe the Plumber-esque revenue sharing program that forces all teams in the league to spread the wealth amongst each other. MLB taxes teams over a certain payroll threshold and distributes the money among the less financially savvy--err...fortunate teams. So what do the Yankees do every year? They hand over a check to MLB for millions of dollars that owners of competing organizations stuff into their pockets. Do these other owners use that money to go purchase free agent contracts? Some do, but most don’t. Instead, they sit on the money, cover losses from bad management, and complain about another team overspending.
It’s hard to dispute that the free market system works, too. In the last 9 years, 8 different teams have won the World Series. In the same time frame, only 6 different teams have won the Super Bowl, 5 different teams have won the NBA championship, and 6 teams won the Stanley Cup. With those results, how can anyone argue that baseball teams play at a disadvantage?
The Yankees have a business plan like everyone else. Does it always work? Of course not—it clearly hasn’t worked in recent years. But it’s just another way of doing business well within the rules of the capitalist system, and there is simply no disputing that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)