In this election season, while Republicans and Democrats are busy loudly fighting it out, a quiet revolution completed it's final phase, and with all too little fanfare. I'm speaking of course of the very recent wedding between Katie Perry and Russell Brand. Where is the outrage, folks? You do realize that Katie Perry is... I mean, have you SEEN this woman?! She is like the first experience through the tunnel entrance into Yosemite... waterfalls, naked cliffsides and verdant valley stretched out in all its glory before you.
Now, imagine that same Valley with the British Redcoats plodding through with their boot-stepping phalanxes, desecrating that beauty... Getting the picture? And for those of you modern-day Loyalists, you multi-nationalists who would defend this piracy, I say "The Tree of Celebrity must be watered with the Lime Juice of the occasional over-reacher." ...Still getting the picture?!
Monday, November 1, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Whitman and the Principle of Negative Returns
During a recent session of cold call phone banking for Jerry Brown's gubinatorial reincarnation, I struck upon a thought about my days as a high school economics teacher that I could not shake. For those familiar with the term, cold calling is blind outreach, for you have no list of names or affiliations, and consequently the results of these contacts can often be comical. It was on such a call that my former lessons came back to me in a flood:
Caller- "Hello?"
Me- "Hi sir, I am calling on behalf of education supporters who believe..."
Caller- (interrupting) "If you are calling to support Brown, I'll listen...you wanna know why?"
Me- "Well sir..."
Caller- (interrupting) "Because anyone who would spend 150 million to get a job that pays $200,000 is up to something..."
It is then that the Principle of Negative Returns came back to me from those senior economics classes I taught all those years ago. Simply stated, companies increase different inputs (raw materials, labor, etc.), with the goal of increasing product, and thus, profit. On rare occasions however, a sort of paradox emerges. There is a point at which increases actually have an overall adverse impact. A simple example would be a tomato farmer who could invest in fertilizer to increase his production. There is a point, however, at which the further heaping of manure will actually hurt, rather than help the plants.
And so it is with Meg Whitman. Her initial investment of tens of millions of dollars had a profoundly positive impact and made her a frontrunner. She continued along successfully through the summer, dispatching Republican challenger Steve Poizner in due course. As summer stretched into fall, however, the cracks began to appear. The advertising blitz, so effective against her initial rival, seemed to have little effect against her general election foe, Jerry Brown. Now, as we head into the campaign's waning days, Meg's crew is left to deconstruct the current state of affairs, for it seems more money is an exercize in futility. So, were the miscues strategic? tactical? Certainly that is true to some extent. It should not be understated, though, that the path to negative returns began with the audacity of her expenditures.
In a time when austerity should be a guiding rule, Whitman's "make it rain" approach to campaigning has been too much for the electorate to swallow.
Caller- "Hello?"
Me- "Hi sir, I am calling on behalf of education supporters who believe..."
Caller- (interrupting) "If you are calling to support Brown, I'll listen...you wanna know why?"
Me- "Well sir..."
Caller- (interrupting) "Because anyone who would spend 150 million to get a job that pays $200,000 is up to something..."
It is then that the Principle of Negative Returns came back to me from those senior economics classes I taught all those years ago. Simply stated, companies increase different inputs (raw materials, labor, etc.), with the goal of increasing product, and thus, profit. On rare occasions however, a sort of paradox emerges. There is a point at which increases actually have an overall adverse impact. A simple example would be a tomato farmer who could invest in fertilizer to increase his production. There is a point, however, at which the further heaping of manure will actually hurt, rather than help the plants.
And so it is with Meg Whitman. Her initial investment of tens of millions of dollars had a profoundly positive impact and made her a frontrunner. She continued along successfully through the summer, dispatching Republican challenger Steve Poizner in due course. As summer stretched into fall, however, the cracks began to appear. The advertising blitz, so effective against her initial rival, seemed to have little effect against her general election foe, Jerry Brown. Now, as we head into the campaign's waning days, Meg's crew is left to deconstruct the current state of affairs, for it seems more money is an exercize in futility. So, were the miscues strategic? tactical? Certainly that is true to some extent. It should not be understated, though, that the path to negative returns began with the audacity of her expenditures.
In a time when austerity should be a guiding rule, Whitman's "make it rain" approach to campaigning has been too much for the electorate to swallow.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Clay Shirky: nonprofits must become new-style convenors – or lose their members
An interesting article and video about the author we mentioned at our workshop:
http://socialreporter.com/?p=516
Also check out 4 Ways Social Media is Changing the Non-Profit World:
http://mashable.com/2009/05/22/non-profit-social-media/
http://socialreporter.com/?p=516
Also check out 4 Ways Social Media is Changing the Non-Profit World:
http://mashable.com/2009/05/22/non-profit-social-media/
Handouts from our session
Bill, Ed and Meg are working to post handouts from our session. Be sure to check back later for the links.
You may also enjoy the MTA Networkers Blog.
You may also enjoy the MTA Networkers Blog.
He's the CLEAN winner!
Many more photos and videos on our Facebook Group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10150100363400245
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
The Old Days....
I miss the old days when, as a chapter president, I had a plethora of offers to visit school sites and participate in Read Across America.... I guess it's time to get in my presidents' grills, and force an invitation!!! LOL!
Follow us on Twitter
Even if you cannot make it to Las Vegas, you can participate in the 2010 NEA ESP conference by following us on Twitter. http://twitter.com/neaesp2010.
If you're coming to the conference, and would like to shoot some photos and video, interview other ESPs and otherwise provide coverage for the folks at the conference and at home, please come to our workshop, Saturday morning at 8.
We'll be using the hashtag #neaesp to tag news about the conference.
See you in Las Vegas!
--Meg
We'll be using the hashtag #neaesp to tag news about the conference.
See you in Las Vegas!
--Meg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
