Left, Right, and Center From Sep 26th

Read more on this article...

Left, Right, and Center From Sep 19th

Read more on this article...

Left, Right, and Center From Sep 12th

Read more on this article...

Conagra Foods Plots World Takeover Via Secret Food Weapons (Assuming The World Still Exists After Tomorrow)

I'm not out to ruin anyone's day but... by tomorrow afternoon (Wednesday, September 10th, 2008) the Earth may no longer exist. This potential planetary pummeling comes to us courtesy of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) which lies under the border of France and Switzerland.  Without getting too technical, the LHC is the worlds largest and most powerful particle accelerator and some have theorized that its activation tomorrow could wipe out the planet (or even the universe) in anywhere from a couple of months to a couple of nanoseconds.

Luckily, the "some" in question here are the vast minority and seem to be little more than a crazy (and potentially violent)  group that doesn't have its facts straight.  According to Wikipedia, "The consensus in the scientific community is that there is no basis for any conceivable threat from the LHC particle collisions." (a discussion on the merits of trusting the fate of the world to a Wikipedia article may be prudent, but that's another topic).  If everything goes to plan, the LHC could soon produce for the first time the theoretical Higgs Boson particle  which could lead to scientific breakthroughs in electromagnetism and nuclear forces.  

Truthfully, I have little to no understanding of the details of the LHC research... it's way over my head.  From what I have read though, it appears to have a great deal of potential and could unlock several scientific mysteries if it works as hoped.  So, on the eve of what could be a landmark day in the scientific community I thought it appropriate to point out a breakthrough of monumental proportions that is sitting right under our noses (and in our kitchen pantries).  I am of course speaking of PAM Cooking Spray.

As I was watching TV the other night, I noticed a commercial for PAM Cooking Spray with a tagline that I hadn't seen before; "Food Sticks To Nothing".   I didn't think much of it at first, but for some reason the phrase "Food Sticks To Nothing" kept popping back into my head.  After a time, the light went off and I realized why that ad was rubbing me the wrong way; at some point the last year I had read and article or heard an interview in which the scientific discovery of "nothing" was discussed.  Upon further research I found an article from Discover Magazine that states that "The discovery of nothing (also called dark energy) - and its ability to influence the fate of the cosmos - is considered the most important astronomical discovery of the past decade."

To break it down a little by borrowing heavily from the Discover Magazine article, scientists now believe that the universe is around 74% "nothing" and only 4% "something" (the remaining 22 percent is a property called dark matter, which are particles that are not visible to humans). Additionally, even something is mostly nothing as atoms are mostly empty space.  The solid appearance of matter is actually an illusion caused by electric fields created by subatomic particles.  The article goes on to point out that more nothing is created every second as dark energy  pushes the universe apart.

(Please wait for a moment as I don my sarcastic, conspiracy theorist, marketer's hat... ok, still fits, we can now proceed).

After refreshing my memory on some of the finer points of nothing, I returned to the advertising tagline in question.  If we are to take them at their word, ConAgra Foods, the makers of PAM, have actually found a way to interact with nothing... specifically, they have developed a spray that makes food stick to it.  I don't really understand what they gain from producing this product, but I'm not sure I like the idea of ingesting large quantities of nothing stuck to my food (sounds like too many empty calories... zing!).  More importantly is that thanks to years and years of dedicated movie viewing I can be pretty sure that if a major corporation took the time to develop a method with which to stick food to nothing; which according to Discover  "could be the key to the theory of everything", then it must have a nefarious motive.  God only knows what other dastardly space and time bending food products the evil geniuses at ConAgra have up their sleeves or already in our kitchens.

  Believing these could be clues to other ConAgra foods that can alter what we know about space and possibly time, I am hereby proclaiming that the "Break-O-Morn"(destroying the sunrise?) , "Parkay" (you thought those commercials with talking margarine containers were just a joke, didn't you?), "Lucks" (as in, we're going to need it?), "El Extremo" and "The Max" (could these be anything but super weapons?) brands are most likely secret tools for world domination and/or destruction.  We might as well start practicing groveling to our future ConAgra masters as they are obviously technologically light years ahead of everyone else and will soon enslave us all.

Read more on this article...

Left, Right, and Center from KCRW

At least through the election, I'm going to try and post this podcast on my blog every week. This is one of my favorite resources for political information and analysis because all sides are represented and the conversation is always informational and argumentative while staying friendly.  The show is a little under 30 minutes, if you have time and are interested in the election it is definitely worth checking out.

Read more on this article...

"The Daily Show" Reveals Hypocrisy In Politics... Shocking, Isn't It?

For those of you like myself who follow politics, have a sense of humor, and can laugh at people on both sides of the aisle in Washington, there are few things more entertaining than watching "The Daily Show" during a presidential election year.  The show is always funny, occasionally truly informative, and has always done a good job of catching politicians and/or members of the media who attempt to take advantage of the fuzzy long-term memory of the American public.

To be clear, I don't think the public is to blame for not remembering exactly what a person said some weeks, months, or years ago.  People are bombarded with so much information on a daily basis that they couldn't possibly remember everything... and they probably wouldn't want to if they could.  This makes it easy for politicians/members of the media with an agenda to change their positions on an issue or talking point without much fear of repercussion.  Thankfully, Jon Stewart and his team are able to catch some of these people in the act, and when they do it is always funny (and unfortunately a little depressing when you realize that these people are either running our country, attempting to gain a position in the federal government, or acting as trusted sources for news and opinion while they are trying to pull the wool over our eyes).

The video below is one example of "The Daily Show" catching a few people in the act while talking about John McCain's Vice Presidential pick Sarah Palin.  In fairness, I should point out that while the show is a switch hitter, it definitely steps up to bat against the right more often than the left when it comes to this issue.  Personally, I'm pretty sure that both sides are equally guilty of this maneuver, and enjoy watching the show reveal hypocrites no matter who they support.  

Read more on this article...

Opinions Needed: Sports Jersey and Band T-Shirt Wearing Etiquette

I'm hoping some of you who have been contributing to the great discussion re: "The Dark Knight" are still stopping in and may be able to help me gain a better understanding on an issue my friends and I have discussed occasionally.  

My main concern is the question of when it is appropriate to wear a jersey from your favorite sports team.  My personal opinion is that almost never is too often.  Anyone over the age of 13 should not attempt to wear a jersey anywhere other than at a stadium/arena/ballpark/tailgating area while attending a game, and I personally don't even like to do that.  Special dispensation might be provided for wearing a jersey at home during a big game, especially if fans of the opposing team will be at your home during the game, but even that is pushing it in my mind.  Note that under no circumstances should a jersey be worn to a bar or public area, no matter the magnitude of the event being watched.  Finally, I think it should go without saying that anyone wearing a jersey who has no intention whatsoever of watching a sporting event should be immediately incapacitated and delivered to the nearest mental facility for a thorough examination.  

It's not that I'm against being a passionate fan and rooting for your team.  I grew up in a suburb of Columbus, Ohio and am a huge Ohio State Buckeyes fan.  I never miss watching a football game and make every effort to see the Buckeyes in person at least once during each campaign.  I just feel that grown men walking around in jerseys look ridiculous.  You're not on the team, you'll never be on the team, so please dress like a fan and not a player.  (I wonder if baseball is to blame for this trend?  It's the only sport that requires non-athletic non-participants to wear the uniforms of the players.)

On the other hand, I have been told that some people share a similar view in regards to band or concert t-shirts.  I have no problem with this at all and do not understand why this would be an issue in most situations.  I can only think of one situation where it would definitely be inappropriate.  That would be if one were to wear a shirt from an artist in one genre (e.g. country) to the concert of an artist in an incompatible genre (e.g. alternative) in a non-ironic fashion.   Attending a Death Cab For Cutie concert in a Kenny Chesney shirt would definitely not be cool.  Some have argued that wearing the t-shirt of the band that you are going to see that night is also inappropriate, but I think that can go either way.  As far as day to day fashion goes, I think the band/concert t-shirt can be worn anywhere a normal t-shirt is welcomed.

I'd like to know what others think on this one.  Post a comment if you have an opinion!

Read more on this article...

Over 2300 visitors on Thursday... All I can say is Wow.

I just wanted to take a quick second to thank the Freakonomics blog for linking to my post about "The Dark Knight" and to welcome over 2300 new visitors to this blog... especially those who have created such a great conversation in the comments for that post.  I hope you enjoy what I've written so far, continue interacting with each other, and check in again in the future to help me begin discussions on new topics.

If you have any comments or advice for me on the blog or blogging in general (I'm new at this, just wrapped up my first month of blogging) please leave a comment or drop me an email.

 

Read more on this article...

Well Done Northwest Airlines

After railing on the airlines in a previous post, I feel that I have to give credit where credit is due for a solid idea from Northwest Airlines.  According to this post on the Freakonomics Blog, Northwest is changing the way they handle overbooked flights and crediting passengers willing to wait for a later flight.  Now, if you check in online before heading to the airport you will be notified if the flight has been overbooked and asked if you are interested in giving up your seat should they need volunteers.  If you answer yes, you will then be asked how much compensation you require for giving the seat up.  If the plane needs 10 seats to be volunteered they will take the 10th lowest offer and give that amount to those who bid at or below that price.

This is an interesting cost cutter for Northwest, and one that requires no decrease in customer service.  I would assume there is a cap on how high of an offer they will accept otherwise they would open themselves up to possible losses (imagine if NWA needed 3 seats and Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Steve Jobs were the only 3 that volunteered... their cost for wasted time would probably be a bit higher than the average flyer).  Most of the time, however, NWA will likely wind up spending less per seat than they would have with a flat rate given for volunteering.

This is a very smart, very common sense idea that could wind up paying dividends for the company... On the other hand I'm still an aairlineist (definition: one who does not believe that intelligent designers exist in the airline universe), so I assume it will take a few years before the savings can match the outrageous fees they paid their consultant to actually develop an original idea.

Read more on this article...

"The Dark Knight" and Philosophy

First and foremost, you have to go see "The Dark Knight" if you haven't already (considering the movie had the highest opening weekend of all time last weekend I would assume at least some of you have already seen it.)  It is an all around excellent movie and by far the best superhero film I've seen.  The amazing thing is the amount of depth it contains and the dilemmas it presents to the audience without forgetting to provide an entertaining and engaging experience throughout.  I'm hoping to start some discussion on one of those moral and philosophical dilemmas. 

Spoiler Alert!!!!   If you have not seen the movie and do not want to know about a scene that occurs towards the end, please stop reading.  I will describe the scene in detail but will not reveal its resolution, so if you can live with that please continue reading.

Towards the end of the movie, Heath Ledger's Joker has done enough damage and posed enough threats to Gotham City that the police are attempting to evacuate as many people as possible (without using bridges or tunnels, which the Joker claims to have booby-trapped).  One solution is to use two large ferries which hold 500 people each.  For very practical reasons that I won't go into here one ferry is used to transport 500 civilians and the other is loaded with 500 prisoners and guards from a city jail.

Once the ferries are far enough from land, the Joker begins to broadcast through the speakers on the boats and informs the people that they will be partaking in what he calls a social experiment.  In a certain amount of time (I can't recall what it was, but I would guess it was in the neighborhood of an hour or so) both boats will explode, and there is only one way to stop this from happening.  Each boat has a detonator mechanism on it (which were found by the ships crew after the Joker remotely shut off the engines), and if one boat activates their trigger the other ferry will explode killing everyone on it, but the aggressive vessel will be allowed safe passage.  The people are also told that if anyone attempts to leave either boat, both will be blown to bits.  It is also notable that the radios were rendered inoperable, so the two groups had no way of speaking with each other.  

As I remember it, the scene on the civilian boat played out something like this:

Quick gut reaction from some to press the trigger.  Assumption that prisoners will likely take control of their detonator by force and will not hesitate to destroy the civilian boat.  Aggressive side (not surprisingly) is more vocal and pushing for quick action.  Some argue that prisoners lives are less valuable, the already had their chance and blew it, etc.  Eventually determined to put it to a vote and rely on majority rule.

As I said at the beginning, I don't intend on revealing the conclusion of this "social experiment" but the sequence was extremely well done and it seemed that anything could happen.  What I hope to discuss here is what people would do if they were on that civilian boat.

My wife and I ran through this scenario in detail after the movie.  I said I hoped that if I were in that situation I would cast my vote for not blowing up the other ferry and accepting the likelihood of death.  I qualified with "hoped" because it's easy to look at this objectively while sitting on the sidelines, but obviously emotions can sometimes win out over logic or morals and I can't think of a much more emotionally charged situation than this one.  My reasoning for voting for self sacrifice came to me in three different waves, two of which I am proud of, one of which I almost wish I hadn't thought of:

Level One Reasoning:  Tactical

•   I don't think it's right to take another persons life if they are not a direct threat to you (there could be some argument here that the prisoners are a direct threat in a way as their potential for ongoing life is in direct conflict with mine. Nonetheless, I still find it hard to define their position as a direct threat.)

• The "criminal's life is worth less" argument doesn't fly with me.  Mainly because in this situation if I were to choose to end the convict's lives because they were less valuable I would then essentially commit murder and would then be no better than any of the prisoners and much worse than those who committed a lesser crime.  Additionally, even if I agreed with the argument, I would have to take into account those on the other boat who were not criminals (crew, guards, etc) and would still die.

• To Quote Fight Club, "On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero".  Taking the easy way out of this situation may buy you more time, but you'll still end up in the same place in the end (A.K.A. the William Wallace "every man dies but not every man truly lives" argument).
  

Level Two Reasoning:  Strategic

• The Joker's goal in the movie was to be an agent of chaos and basically show the people of Gotham City just how easily civilized society can turn into anarchy and bedlam.  In my opinion, were I to vote for killing prisoners to save my own skin I would be playing right into his hand and giving him ammunition in his quest to prove that people are mostly evil with nothing but a tiny layer of civility separating you from your neighbor's inner demon (for those of you who watch "Scrubs" this is the Dr. Cox/Dr. Kelso "people are bastard coated bastards with bastard filling" argument).  As I see it, the best possible outcome of this experiment for the Joker is the "good people" proving the Dr. Cox/Kelso argument and murdering the "bad people".  I'd rather not help the homicidal maniac.

• Knowing that the Joker would benefit most from the good people doing the bad thing, there is a reasonably good chance that the prisoner boat would explode and the civilians would be blamed regardless of which detonator was triggered, or even if neither were used before time expired.  Under these guidelines, the only negative consequence would be found in voting yes to detonation, watching the prisoner ferry explode, and having to live with that decision every day going forward.  Voting no would have a neutral expectation as the outcome was determined before I was inserted into the equation.  

It's worth noting that this particular line of reasoning may be:

1.  A little more involved than the average panicking, minutes from death individual may be capable of (although with my propensity for overanalyzing situations ranging from ridiculously mundane to life altering important I'd like to think that I'd be able to get there).
   
2. Unavailable to those on the boat who did not have the chance to watch the first 1.75 hours of "The Dark Knight" wherein the greatest hits of the Joker's strategy and motivations were on display.

Level Three Reasoning:  Cynical

•  If there's one thing I can count on it's for people to generally look out for themselves.  With that in mind, I can vote no to detonation and be reasonably certain that the majority will vote yes and detonation will in fact occur and I will be spared.  Voting no in this case allows me to tell myself I did the right thing but entails very little actual risk. (This is the one that trips me up.  From a logical standpoint, I'm glad I thought of this because it makes sense.  However, I'm simultaneously slightly troubled that I so easily figured out a completely amoral solution to such a complex problem.)
  

OK, I think that's all I have on this one.  Leave a comment and let me know where you'd fall on this issue and why.

Again, I can't stress this enough:  Go See The Dark Knight!!!  The best thing I can say about it is that I can write 1400 words on one scene and not even scratch the surface.  If you're in Chicago and want someone to see it with, I'll be happy to go for a repeat viewing.

Read more on this article...

Computers and Kids: Advancement Through Technology or the Digital Menace?

(I'm definitely looking for opinions on this one, so please leave a comment)

For the record (yet again), this blogging thing is hard!  Hopefully I'm my toughest critic, because if not you people are saying some nasty stuff about me right now.  I've written 4 or 5 partial posts over the last week or so, but nothing really came together.  I am, however, intrigued by a couple articles that were published on the internet on back-to-back days at the start of the month about kids and computers.

The first article from July 5th, titled "So How Dumb Are We"  focuses on whether the computer and internet habits of kids are turning them into "The Dumbest Generation".  Author and English professor Mark Bauerlein wrote the book which led to this article, and he is of the opinion that young American kids are still intelligent, but not intellectually healthy.  His basis for this is kids' lack of reading skills and new habits developed from growing up with the internet.  The internet is vilified here because it teaches kids to access information and not retain it, to gloss over things instead of committing them to memory.  Bauerlein says this translates to the classroom, where students carry over these bad habits and consequentially fail to learn.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is an article from July 6th titled "Technology Reshapes America's Classrooms" .  This piece shines the spotlight on a state-funded school in Boston where every day 650 students are handed a Apple MacBook Laptop when they walk into school.  The school does not buy textbooks, it merely updates software.  Much of the work is also done using free applications from Google and Apple, along with specialized educational software.  According to the schools principal, since the laptop program was put into place attendance has risen 2% and disciplinary actions have fallen 30%.  Most interesting in my opinion is when the principal points out that the computers allow the students to work at their own pace.  She says that special needs students can share a classroom with advanced students and teachers can individually tailor lesson plans based on aptitude levels recorded by the computers.

Personally, I'm all for using computers and new technology for teaching.  I have a hard time believing the internet can be a net negative for anyone.  I'm more inclined to think that the education system needs to adjust in order to keep kids interested and engaged.  I also love the thought of students being able to progress through lessons at their own pace.  People work at different speeds, and using computers could allow everyone to maximize their time instead of waiting for others to grasp a topic or struggling to keep up in class.  The article doesn't mention it, but I would assume that computer based teaching would also allow for teaching to be tailored to each student's best learning methods (reading, hearing, working through examples, etc.).

So, what do you think?  Are computers preventing kids from learning or are they a potentially significant teaching tool that is not being utilized enough?

Read more on this article...

It's An Odd Strategy, But At Least It's A Strategy

At the risk of boring some readers to sleep, I have decided to do another business-related post after sharing my thoughts on the legacy airline companies.  If you found my last post to be somewhere slightly lower than watching "Groomer Has It" (seriously, who thought it would be a good idea to make a reality show about grooming animals?) on the interesting scale then my only hope is to mention that this post will also revolve around beer.

I'd like to take a share my very broad view on the marketing strategies of the top three domestic breweries in the United States.  In order these are:  Anheuser-Busch, Miller Brewing, and Coors Brewing (Rankings based on sales volume for 2007 as found here).

(Note: upon further thought, these strategies only apply to the light versions of each brands most popular beer... Bud Light, Miller Lite, Coors Light.  Budweiser, Miller Genuine Draft, Coors Original, and secondary brands at each brewery are exempt).

1.  Anheuser-Busch (Bud Light)-- 

Strategy:  Mention the beer as little as possible.  Design (occasionally) funny and/or sexy ads (e.g. Real Men of Genius, the "Dude" commercials, Carlos Mencia Ads, etc) which are completely unrelated to beer but feature the Bud logo at the end of each spot.  

Assumed goal:  Generating a variant of this conversation between men - "Dude, did you see that new Bud Light commercial?  It was hilarious!"

Honorable mention:  To the marketing team behind Michelob Ultra for their valiant attempt at branding their product as some sort of pseudo sports drink.

2.  Miller (Miller Lite)--  

Strategy:  Continually stress that their beer is better than the competition.  Design (occasionally) funny and/or sexy ads which normally conclude with some mention of how their beer tastes better, is more refreshing, has fewer carbs, is less filling, etc.  

Assumed goal:  Make people believe that if they value quality they should choose Miller Lite. Authors note: I can verify with nearly 100% certainty that this campaign is effective on 27 year olds who write blogs and are named Sean Maconachy as Miller Lite is my favorite out of the three options presented here.

Honorable mention: To the High Life team for having the audacity to still refer to a barely mediocre product as "the champagne of beers".  All is forgiven, however, for having the best current commercials with the High Life delivery man repossessing beer from establishments that are not worthy.

3.  Coors (Coors Light)--  

Strategy:  Generally ignore actual product.  Design (rarely) funny and/or sexy ads based around packaging gimmicks including: frost brew liners; cold activated, color changing labels on bottles; and specially ventilated cans for a smoother pour.

Assumed goal:  I have absolutely no idea.  I really don't think people put a lot of thought into their beer delivery method.  I also struggle to see how blue mountains on a bottle can be viable competition against the number one selling beer in the country and a brand that focuses on having the highest quality product.  My best guess is that one of the top marketing execs at Coors had his first great idea with hypercolor, has had a major brain cramp for the last 18 years or so, and has just been recycling that idea over and over whenever he/she gets into a bind.  I can even picture the strategy session in my head...

Frank/Suzie: "People, we're in trouble.  Bud and Miller are kicking us to the curb and we need a fresh new idea to keep this brand relevant.  I've been up for 4 nights straight trying to think of the next great idea and I have it... We make the bottle change colors!!!"

Rest of Room:  "Umm, yeah,  haven't you had that same idea for every product you've worked with in your entire career?"

Frank/Suzie: "Well, sort of.  But what works for t-shirts, toy cars and nail polish should definitely work with beer, right?"

Honorable Mention:  To the Coors Original team for sticking with the "Banquet Beer" thing for all this time.  Not only have I not heard of anyone attending a banquet in at least 10 years, but what does it even mean to be a Banquet Beer in the first place?

The one saving grace in my opinion, is that unlike the fine people at the airlines, at least the people at Coors were smart enough to know that they needed to do something to differentiate their product, even if it did wind up being totally strange.  'Tis better to do something dumb than to be dumb enough to do nothing at all.

Authors Notes:  During my research for this post I noticed that as of today, July 1, Miller and Coors have merged and are now collectively known as MillerCoors.

As a big fan of beer, I would be remiss in not recommending some of my favorite breweries from the top 50 list:

Number 5:  Boston Beer.  Lots of great styles beyond just Sam Adams Boston Lager.

Number 8:  New Belgium Brewing Co.  Makers of Fat Tire and other quality beers.

Number 25:  Goose Island Beer Co.  A Chicago staple with over a dozen great varieties.

Number 34:  Rogue Ales/ Oregon Brewing.  Love their Dead Guy Ale.

Number 38:  Dogfish Head Craft Brewery.  If you like IPA's check them out.

Number 40:  Great Lakes Brewing Co.  Cleveland brewer.  Great (and potent) Christmas Ale.

Let me know what you think, or let me know of some great beers that I'm missing in my list... Leave a comment please!

Read more on this article...

How to Run an Airline: The Fine Art of Blaming the Customer and Energy Costs Instead of Yourself

There has been a lot in the news this week about airlines. I've seen multiple reports of carriers cutting routes, dropping service to some destinations entirely, and then there was this article from the Chicago Tribune titled "You are now free to take a flying leap".

The article details a forum sponsored by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation this past Tuesday to bring disgruntled consumers together with the airlines to discuss problems. Two statements from the article stuck out:

1.  "The message from airlines wasn't reassuring either.  Essentially, they said, if you think it's bad now, you ain't seen nothing yet.  They warned of shrinking service and higher fees for everything from preassigned seats to bottled water."

2. "Airline officials made it clear that much of the burden for having a successful flight rests on passengers."

In my opinion, this paints a pretty bleak picture for the U.S. airline industry, specifically the legacy carriers (American, Continental, Delta, Northwest, United, U.S. Air).  There's no doubt that the current cost of fuel is putting quite a burden on these companies, and there's also no doubt that you'll hear them whining about it every chance they get.  However, I have a hard time feeling sorry for them, because in my opinion they've brought this on themselves.

I came to this conclusion after reading a post on the Freakonomics blog about American Airlines beginning a test of in flight wi-fi on two planes.  This sounded like a great idea to me and a potentially large source of revenue for American.  More importantly, this made me realize that outside of these two American planes, there's really not much of a difference between any of the "Big Six" airlines for the average traveler.  

I hope you can forgive me for my lack of in depth knowledge regarding the Airline Deregulation Act.  I was negative two years old at the time, which I feel is a decent excuse.  Having said that, it seems pretty obvious that the legacy carriers have dropped the ball on two of the most fundamental aspects of succeeding in a free market; innovation and product differentiation. One of the first lessons you learn as a marketer is that it's always a good idea to develop a product or service and focus your marketing efforts on one specific thing that you do better than your competitors.  Creating and successfully marketing a competitive advantage fosters customer loyalty.  A market absent of niches really only leaves one point of competition: price.  

When your only competitive advantage is price, you throw customer loyalty right out the window.  Why would anyone choose a more expensive flight over a cheaper one given equal travel times, connections, and terrible service?  Even frequent flier miles, the great loyalty tool, are becoming less and less about fostering loyalty and more about getting additional revenue through B-to-B partnerships (case in point, Delta and U.S. air are now charging fees to redeem points for air travel).  If, years ago, someone had put some thought into the customer experience, product differentiation the air travel market today would be able to compete on multiple levels beyond price.

When I began writing this post, I had intended on concluding with the thought that 30 years of poor planning and mismanagement since deregulation has resulted in the situation these businesses face today.  What I realized while writing this piece was that the airlines probably would have been ok if similar, adjusted for inflation, oil costs had arrived in the 80's or the early to mid 90's.  The Internet was the game changer as it gave consumers more information.  I missed this originally as I have only been a direct consumer for airline fights since graduating college in 2003.  More information always leads to more efficient markets, and thanks to the Internet a potential flyer can see each airlines' price in one convenient location instead of having to call every carrier individually.  15 years ago, if you found a price that seemed reasonable, you would book it and be happy.  Today, if the price looks good you still use a few extra mouse clicks to make sure the grass isn't greener somewhere else.

Let's hold out hope that this announcement of new service from American Airlines is a harbinger of good things to come from an old-fashioned industry that has either refused to or has been unable to adjust to the current competitive landscape.  On the bright side, if tradition holds and no real innovation comes from these seemingly paleolithic organizations, at least we have companies like Southwest Airlines to rely on.  Incidentally Southwest does a great job with customer service, does not charge for checking bags, does not use the hub and spoke system of the legacy carriers, books a majority of its flights through its own website, doesn't charge for changing a flight reservation, just so happens to have been profitable for each of the last 35 years, and is currently the number one airline in the world by number of passengers carried.  You don't need an executive level salary to understand that if a competitor is unquestionably succeeding while you are declaring bankruptcy and asking for government bailouts that you might want to take a look at their business model instead of blaming the rest of the world for your problems.

Agree, Disagree? Let me know what you think by leaving a comment.

Read more on this article...

(Sort of) In Memory of George Carlin

First thing's first... This writing a blog thing is freaking tough!!  I wanted to find something in the news to comment on, but couldn't come up with anything for my first real post.

But I digress.  Without anything much of substance today I'll rely on the "random musings" that I warned of in the introductory post.

(Warning:  This rant turned out much longer than I anticipated.  Again, this blogging thing is tough!)

I found the George Carlin Stand-Up acts running as a tribute last night on HBO and decided to tune in for a bit.  I happened to jump in right at the point during the "George Carlin: Again!" special (circa 1978) where he was talking about death and dying.  During this portion of the show he made a comment that often one receives more flowers after they have died than they do during the entirety of the time they are alive.  This led me back to a thought I had recently regarding flowers and death:

I think we need to reexamine the current policy of bringing flowers to sick people in the hospital.   I think most would agree that in most cases the goal of a hospital visit is to cheer someone up.  I would argue that the unspoken goal of this cheering up is to aide in the recovery process or slow the deterioration process of the infirm individual.  Essentially, the endgame is to make people want to continue living, no?  In the short term (i.e. the length of the visit) I believe that flowers are usually suitable tools for the advancement of that goal.

However, what the flower giver is likely overlooking is the long term consequence of their choice in cheer spreading device which they are not witness to.  I imagine myself in a hospital bed battling back and forth with a life-threatening condition.  Each day would be both a mental and physical struggle as I tried to outwit my opponent in this most ultimate of endeavors.  I imagine my friends coming to visit to raise my spirits and bringing a nice bouquet of flowers.  The visit would be great, I would appreciate the gift and their concern, I would feel a new resolve to conquer my nemesis so that I could spend more time with the people I love, and my friends would leave congratulating themselves on their successful endeavor.  Everything is coming up roses right?  (sorry, couldn't resist the pun)

Fast forward a few days and I think things would be a little different.  The cheery scene of friends, fun, and flowers is no more.  I'm now stuck in what I could only assume would be the depressive equivalent of the soul-crushing loneliness felt by a character in an Edward Hopper painting multiplied by the abject terror felt by Raoul Duke (A.K.A. Hunter S. Thompson) while attempting to check into the Mint Hotel in "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas".  Not only am I all alone and frightened for my life, but I now get to watch the flowers that were so thoughtfully placed in my room slowly wilt and die.  I can't think of anything that would be less helpful at such a critical and desperate time than watching something that was once beautiful slowly give in to its inevitable end.

So, in summary, if you happen to be a friend or loved one and you hear that I'm on the verge of death, please come visit if you're able but leave the flowers at the florist.  Acceptable substitutes include pictures of friends or loved ones, a quality book, interesting artwork (no watercolors), or a million other things that won't remind me of my impending doom for a week after you're gone.  If for some reason you just can't go to a hospital without foliage, how about a nice cactus?

Truth be told, I don't even like fresh flowers that much anyway.

Read more on this article...

3, 2, 1... Context

Context:  "The parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning."  (Oxford American Dictionary)

A broad interpretation of that definition sums up what I hope this blog will be.  My goal is to post topics and ideas that I have either come across or developed on my own and generate a discussion in the hopes of gaining a better understanding of said topic/idea.  My subject matter will likely be quite eclectic, possibly scatter-brained, and may include:

• Literature
• Film
• Politics
• Philosophy
• Music
• Technology
• Marketing/Business
• Current Events
• Random Musings From My Sometimes Twisted Brain
• Ad Infinitum (or Ad Nauseam?  I guess you'll decide)

This being my first attempt at blogging, I beg for your patience as I try to learn the ropes.  More importantly, I beg for your input on individual issues or just how to be a better blogger.  

Read more on this article...