Archive for April, 2010

Frustration, gobbledygook and the state of polity

People are pissed.

At government, that is.

A bit crudely put, but that’s the latest from Andy Kohut and the folks at Pew Research.  According to the USAToday story, some 56% of us are frustrated.  About one in five were just plain mad.

Pew called it the highest anger-and-disgust level in a half-century of polling. It is due at least partially to the cumulative effect of political and institutional failure writ large.

Think of a whole nation of Howard Beale.

blahI’ve got a theory on why.  No, it is not the economy.  Stock market is up.  Unemployment is high but below double digits.  Hey, I’m not saying it is great out there but we seem to be muddling through.  Don’t think it is societal.  Lots of electronic toys, lattes, and other ‘necessities’ out there that people seem to be still enjoying.

I think the reason is a plethora of gobbledygook and a dearth of coherence.

We’ve always had gobbledygook.  It flourishes in both the private and public sectors.

But we’re aflood with it today.  It is everywhere.  And with all the blogging, tweeting, Facebooking, and God knows what social media activity going on … it is a virtual tsunami of gobbledygook.

With that has come a loss of coherence.  Coherence is as rare as liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats.  People say and do things that simple don’t correspond to any framework of real world experience.

Case in point – Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell’s recent prescription for the Democrats on how to avoid defeat at the polls in November 2010.  The article, “How the Democrats can avoid a November bloodbath,” is the latest in their attack on the Obama administration’s strategy on health care reform.  Being pollsters, they rest much of their case on surveys.  It’s ok.  Not terribly compelling or deep.  But ok.  But when they get to the punchline, the whole thing begins to get whacky.  Their prescription for winning in November?  Here ya go …

Winning over swing voters will require a bold, new focus from the president and his party. They must adopt an agenda aimed at reducing the debt, with an emphasis on tax cuts, while implementing carefully crafted initiatives to stimulate and encourage job creation.

Yes that is right.  To win in November we need to (a) reduce the deficit; AND (b) reduce taxes; AND (c) have a jobs program.

Sorta like telling someone deep in debt that they need to pay off their loans while taking a pay cut and buying (on credit) a shiny new hybrid.

Or telling a drunk that the way to sober up is to reduce your beer intake, increase your wine consumption, and buy a liquor store.

This, of course, is our problem in a nutshell — the idea that we can do three things that are IMPOSSIBLE to do simultaneously.   Then when we actually follow the gobbledygook we find that it doesn’t work.  So we gravitate to more … gobbledygook.

Ode to Humility

Blessed are the humble.

Really?  You’ve got to be kidding.  Humility?  Look around.  Any humble brands out there?  Any humble organizations?  Politicians?  Humility has gotten short shrift in popular culture.  And looking around you’d think it in short supply.

You’d be right.

humility_1But it is a value that I’d argue is at the heart of friendship and brand relationship.  It is the connective tissue that allows a brand or an individual to bond with an individual or idea.

Nearly eighteen months ago a good friend and expert in crisis communications, Fred Garcia, wrote this back in September 2008:

… a dollop of humility tempers other attributes, and makes a leader even stronger. Humility helps a leader to recognize that maybe – just maybe – he or she might be wrong; that there may be other valid perspectives; that he or she doesn’t have to be the smartest person in every room, at every meeting.  Humility also helps leaders to connect with others up, down, and across the chain of command; to build organizations and cultures that more likely thrive; to understand the perspectives of other stakeholders.

I thought about Fred’s post when listening to a recent podcast on the same subject.  The title of the podcast was “Winsome Humility.”  A warning to those who may want to listen.  It has a religious bent.  But that bent shouldn’t distract from the wisdom that Dr. John Dixson gives about this simple concept that is at the heart of every strong character.

Dixson’s definition of humility is simple: Humility is the noble ability to hold your power for the good of others.

He goes on to argue that humility makes very a lot of sense.  It is practical.  One person can’t know everything.  It is attractive.  It is part of being kind.  It is effective.  It allows you — as Fred pointed out — to develop strong relationships.

I find it ironic that in the new media world we see so many people (and brands) succumb to baser instincts and use the new media channels to bark, preen, preach, and lecture.

When the real opportunity is in using these new channels to do something much more attractive.

Be humble.

Einstein. Socks. Cab fares.

Yesterday coming home I was thinking about Einstein, socks, and cab fares.

Let me explain.

There are many things that baffle me.  Mens socks are one.  You never lose a pair of socks.  You always lose one sock.  Every six months I go to the closet and find a handful of socks none of which match.  Where did their pairs go?  So I go to the store and buy a dozen pair.  Slowly the phenomenon repeats itself.  Months later another drawerful of single socks each forlornly in search of its  match.  Back to the store.

Hold that.

einsteinSo yesterday I was on a day trip to New York.  I took the 8 am shuttle from DCA to LGA.  Caught the 7 pm back home.  Fare to the city:  $38.   Fare back from the city to the LaGuardia:  $30.

Then it struck me.  Why are cabs from the airport TO the city are ALWAYS more expensive than cabs FROM the city to the airport?  It was a phenomenon that has been bothering me for some time.  Just like socks.  I travel a lot.  Boston.  St. Louis.  Atlanta.  San Francisco.  Every time it is the same thing.  Cab fares from the airport to the city are X … cabs from downtown to the airport … less than X.

I’ve tried to identify all variables.  Time of day.  Tolls.  Traffic.  None seem to fully account for the difference.  After I net everything out it is always cheaper to go from the city to the airport than the other way around.

The only factor I can think of is that coming home always seems quicker to me than going away.  This is a phenomenon that is widely recognized.  There are all sorts of theories but as best I can tell they all boil down to how we perceive time.

Things seem longer when you are under stress (going away) and things seem shorter when you are in delight (coming home).

As Einstein once said:

“Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT’S relativity.”

So I get how the cab ride can seem shorter or faster or easier going one way or the other.

I just can’t figure out the fare part of it all.

And the socks.