Good Point
From Colby Cosh:
One thing Easterbrook might have expanded upon in exploring our material condition, a thing that's fascinated me since my days awash in Edwardian and interwar newspapers, is the way that people used to die of infection, and of now-easily-treatable medical problems, so easily. The slightest scrape could do in a healthy adult until after the Second World War.
Sunday, January 11, 2004
Saturday, January 10, 2004
Tribal Politics
From the American Spectator:
The substantive issues of this next election are going to be few and far between. Assuming the nominee is Dean and that Bush doesn't decide to quit while he's ahead, both candidates will tilt away from gun control, toward more entitlement spending, toward liberalized immigration policies, toward staying in Iraq, and against reducing the size of government. The issues don't matter nearly as much as either keeping or gaining power, if they matter at all.
Rather, the contrast is, for lack of a better term, tribal -- though the affinity is cultural rather than genetic. Red and blue state designations are still in use because different voters feel that that says something about who they are. If you want to see yourself as a progressive, affluent, educated type and you live in a red state, you're likely to gaze longingly at certain parts of the map.
From the American Spectator:
The substantive issues of this next election are going to be few and far between. Assuming the nominee is Dean and that Bush doesn't decide to quit while he's ahead, both candidates will tilt away from gun control, toward more entitlement spending, toward liberalized immigration policies, toward staying in Iraq, and against reducing the size of government. The issues don't matter nearly as much as either keeping or gaining power, if they matter at all.
Rather, the contrast is, for lack of a better term, tribal -- though the affinity is cultural rather than genetic. Red and blue state designations are still in use because different voters feel that that says something about who they are. If you want to see yourself as a progressive, affluent, educated type and you live in a red state, you're likely to gaze longingly at certain parts of the map.
What they mean by the right stuff
You have got to read this account of the Gimli Glider.
HT: Hell in a Handbasket.
You have got to read this account of the Gimli Glider.
HT: Hell in a Handbasket.
Friday, January 09, 2004
Trendsetters and Beer Drinkers
Interesting column in Ad Age on marketing to hipsters. The author likes the current Miller campaign (see why i disagree) because it appeals to the trendy consumers without seeming to target them. That sounds like marketing nirvana.
The column hits on one major problem with marketing to the hip.
Until recently, my drinking crony Dan -- a just-hip-enough Brooklynite who knew trucker caps were trendy before anyone else (but had the decency never to wear one) -- was a Pabst Blue Ribbon drinker. When I last saw him he had switched. Why the new brew, Dan? "I knew Pabst was over when I saw it in the [New York] Times," he half-joked.
This is tough on the Times. And it's unfair to Pabst, which has sustained a sales resurgence based on working-man brand values, scarcity and price. But it shows how easily an influencer can be turned off a brand by the knowledge that the masses are being turned on to it. Patrick Meyer, founder of marketing consultancy Fusion 5, is passionate on this. "Brands get hot and respond by turning up the volume with huge media buys," he says. "But blasting the public just switches the core consumer off."
It is a looking-glass kind of world where marketing success ("we're trendy") can immediately lead to failure ("that's so yesterday, everyone drinks it"). If the goal is to win over a lot of average consumers by being hip, what happens when the mass popularity drives away the "trend-setters"?
This type of marketing just seems self-defeating, not to mention overly complex. It depends on influencing a market segment with a veiled message so that they will create the main message that will drive purchases by the profitable segments.
Interesting column in Ad Age on marketing to hipsters. The author likes the current Miller campaign (see why i disagree) because it appeals to the trendy consumers without seeming to target them. That sounds like marketing nirvana.
The column hits on one major problem with marketing to the hip.
Until recently, my drinking crony Dan -- a just-hip-enough Brooklynite who knew trucker caps were trendy before anyone else (but had the decency never to wear one) -- was a Pabst Blue Ribbon drinker. When I last saw him he had switched. Why the new brew, Dan? "I knew Pabst was over when I saw it in the [New York] Times," he half-joked.
This is tough on the Times. And it's unfair to Pabst, which has sustained a sales resurgence based on working-man brand values, scarcity and price. But it shows how easily an influencer can be turned off a brand by the knowledge that the masses are being turned on to it. Patrick Meyer, founder of marketing consultancy Fusion 5, is passionate on this. "Brands get hot and respond by turning up the volume with huge media buys," he says. "But blasting the public just switches the core consumer off."
It is a looking-glass kind of world where marketing success ("we're trendy") can immediately lead to failure ("that's so yesterday, everyone drinks it"). If the goal is to win over a lot of average consumers by being hip, what happens when the mass popularity drives away the "trend-setters"?
This type of marketing just seems self-defeating, not to mention overly complex. It depends on influencing a market segment with a veiled message so that they will create the main message that will drive purchases by the profitable segments.
Case Studies
One of the real problems with business education is the heavy use of prepackaged case studies. While they purport to hone critical thinking skills, they also impart false lessons. Future managers come to believe that the information in front of them is complete, reliable, and predictive. The only thing left to do is exercise some thinking and then make a decision.
In real life it will never be that simple. Numbers are shaky and dirty data is a persistent problem. In the beginning there won't be enough critical information on the matter at hand. At the same time , there will be a flood of trivial and irrelevant material that demands attention.
It is tempting to wait until more data and better data can be obtained. Unfortunately, time is often a critical competitive dimension.
One of the real problems with business education is the heavy use of prepackaged case studies. While they purport to hone critical thinking skills, they also impart false lessons. Future managers come to believe that the information in front of them is complete, reliable, and predictive. The only thing left to do is exercise some thinking and then make a decision.
In real life it will never be that simple. Numbers are shaky and dirty data is a persistent problem. In the beginning there won't be enough critical information on the matter at hand. At the same time , there will be a flood of trivial and irrelevant material that demands attention.
It is tempting to wait until more data and better data can be obtained. Unfortunately, time is often a critical competitive dimension.
Thursday, January 08, 2004
New Orleans
On this day in 1815, Andrew Jackson decisively defeated the British Army at New Orleans.
Robert Remini, in The Battle of New Orleans, wrote:
The victory was unexpected. The British had had the better of it in most of the land and sea battles and even burned Washington, DC. At New Orleans they had 8,000 regulars who were veterans of Wellington's army that had defeated the French in Spain. Jackson had only 4,000 troops most of whom were militiamen and recent volunteers.
Even more surprising was the lop-sided outcome. British losses were 291 dead, 1,262 wounded and 484 taken prisoner. The Americans lost only 55 KIA, 185 wounded and 93 missing.
We rarely commemorate the battle today, but for those who were alive in 1815 and for their children, it was a different story. Remini, again:
On this day in 1815, Andrew Jackson decisively defeated the British Army at New Orleans.
Robert Remini, in The Battle of New Orleans, wrote:
There was a time when the United States had heroes and reveled in them. There was a time when Andrew Jackson was one of those heroes, along with the men and women who stood with him at New Orleans and drove an invading British army back into the sea.
The victory was unexpected. The British had had the better of it in most of the land and sea battles and even burned Washington, DC. At New Orleans they had 8,000 regulars who were veterans of Wellington's army that had defeated the French in Spain. Jackson had only 4,000 troops most of whom were militiamen and recent volunteers.
Even more surprising was the lop-sided outcome. British losses were 291 dead, 1,262 wounded and 484 taken prisoner. The Americans lost only 55 KIA, 185 wounded and 93 missing.
We rarely commemorate the battle today, but for those who were alive in 1815 and for their children, it was a different story. Remini, again:
Americans in the first half of the nineteenth century did believe that January 8 would be remembered like July 4-- both dates representing the nation's first and second declaration of independence from Great Britain. Indeed some called the War of 1812 the Second War for Independence. Generally speaking, widespread observance of January 8 as a day of national celebration continued for the next fifty years.
Wednesday, January 07, 2004
Huh?
Jeff Jarvis is discussing John LeCarre:
Which seems to imply that he thinks the Cold War was not about good and evil. Come on, more Poles died at Katyn Forest than the total deaths on 9-11-01. How is opposing Stalin and his heirs more complicated morally than the struggle with Iraq or al Qaeda?
The only world le Carre could understand was the world of the cold war. Today's world, which really is about evil and good, is beyond him. He wants to complicate it. He wants to turn it into an overcomplicated fable. But it's not. Osama is bad. Saddam is bad. Blair is not. Bush is not. It's really rather obvious.
Computer Models
Earlier i quoted Michael Crichton:
This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynmann called it a disease. I fear he is right
Clifford Stoll cuts to the heart of why this is so:
Computers hide mistakes in logic while sanctifying information with an aura of truth.
(Sorry, i wrote down the quote but failed to get the proper citation. It's from several years ago, probably from Silicon Snake Oil.)
A model will spit out reams of information and data. It seems so concrete and precise: percentages are calculated to two decimal places.
Yet deep in the unseen guts of the model are a bunch of WAGs and SWAGs put there at 1.30 in the morning by analysts desperately trying to make their deadlines.
In Denial
FrontPage Magazine has a brief article on the non-reaction to John Earl Haynes’s and Harvey Klehr’s book.
Liberal mainstream publications largely ignored the book, with reviews mostly appearing in conservative newspapers and magazines, such as the Washington Times, Commentary Magazine, and the Weekly Standard.
***
The lack of reaction to In Denial is a reflection of the difficulty that anticommunist historians, such as Mr. Klehr and Mr.Haynes, have had in challenging the academic establishment on its assessment of American communism.
The piece is short and doesn't do justice to the research that went into the book. The authors show how the "revisionists" have obstinately refused to revise their conclusions about Stalinism, American Communists, and anti-communists despite a flood of new documents. Creationists do fewer contortions to hold onto their worldview.
FrontPage Magazine has a brief article on the non-reaction to John Earl Haynes’s and Harvey Klehr’s book.
Liberal mainstream publications largely ignored the book, with reviews mostly appearing in conservative newspapers and magazines, such as the Washington Times, Commentary Magazine, and the Weekly Standard.
***
The lack of reaction to In Denial is a reflection of the difficulty that anticommunist historians, such as Mr. Klehr and Mr.Haynes, have had in challenging the academic establishment on its assessment of American communism.
The piece is short and doesn't do justice to the research that went into the book. The authors show how the "revisionists" have obstinately refused to revise their conclusions about Stalinism, American Communists, and anti-communists despite a flood of new documents. Creationists do fewer contortions to hold onto their worldview.
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
A quiz with a point
Found this via Ipse Dixit:
Holocausts of Communism Test
For the record, i scored as "an Advanced student of Communist atrocities." Just goes to show that reading the Reader's Digest can pay off.
Found this via Ipse Dixit:
Holocausts of Communism Test
For the record, i scored as "an Advanced student of Communist atrocities." Just goes to show that reading the Reader's Digest can pay off.
Monday, January 05, 2004
Central Staffs
Corporate staffs, especially central planning staffs, have few defenders anymore. Since In Search of Excellence most businesses writers have come down in favor of decentralization and line units. GE used to have a large and powerful planning staff, but Jack Welch dismantled and dispersed it. Most turnaround CEOs have followed suit.
The critique of planning staffs argues that they just generate paper, distract line managers, and generally make the business slow to respond. Nearly every indictment of GM and Ford notes that they were hamstrung by the power of their Finance department while the Japanese ate their lunch.
This critique is largely correct in my experience. The plans and projects are bureaucratic exercises, not courses of action which yield marketplace gains.
But what i find intriguing is that it is a different story in the military sphere. The rise of the staff-- especially the general staff-- is a critical element in operational prowess and military effectiveness.
The German experience is the most studied. A strong general staff was a key part of the Prussian military reforms which revived the army after Napoleon crushed Prussia in 1805-06. It played a key role in the rapid victories in the wars of unification (1864-1871) and was the critical instrument in the development of the Blitzkrieg.
The importance of a general staff is almost universally accepted by military historians. Lee's failure to develop a modern staff is one of the causes for the CSA's defeat. Patton had a good staff which was why he could respond so quickly in the relief of Bastogne. The French general staff was the antithesis of their German opponents which explains many of their failures between 1914 and 1940.
I'll hazard a few reasons for the difference in performance of military and corporate staffs.
1. The best military staffs are made up of officers who previously served in line positions and know they will return to such positions. The worst corporate horrors seem to come from companies where the staff world can provide a career path (Finance, Audit, HR, etc.). Staff-line rotation serves to broaden perspectives and as a reality check.
2. The German staff officers were trained in the totality of war-- history, planning, tactics, leadership. All too often corporate staffs have a limited, specialized toolkit that they apply to every problem. Not every situation can be approached as a question of financial control or process reengineering.
3. General staff officers were selected after a rigorous screening process which looked at intellectual potential, past-military performance, and academic preparation. Combined with their service in line positions, this ensured that they were respected by the officer corps as a whole. Too many corporate staffs fail to win this respect and must rely on executive fiat to gain even minimal cooperation.
4. Business staffers generally operate with the assumption that the world is predictable. Most of their efforts are devoted to measuring, explaining, and eliminating variances. The German General Staff understood that war was unpredictable-- as von Moltke said, "no plan survives contact with the enemy."
5. Business staffs generally assume that they have the answer and success is just a matter of applying the right template. Often those templates and methods come prepackaged by consultants. The best general staffs serve a vital role in creating new doctrine by studying past operations and potential enemies. The US Marine Corps had worked through the problems of amphibious warfare by 1937, The roots of Blitzkrieg are found in von Seeckt's creation of 57 study groups tasked to analyze the 1914-1918 war. He did this in 1919 and assigned nearly 10% of the officer corps to this task.
See also,
Waiting for our Clausewitz
Clausewitz (II)
Corporate staffs, especially central planning staffs, have few defenders anymore. Since In Search of Excellence most businesses writers have come down in favor of decentralization and line units. GE used to have a large and powerful planning staff, but Jack Welch dismantled and dispersed it. Most turnaround CEOs have followed suit.
The critique of planning staffs argues that they just generate paper, distract line managers, and generally make the business slow to respond. Nearly every indictment of GM and Ford notes that they were hamstrung by the power of their Finance department while the Japanese ate their lunch.
This critique is largely correct in my experience. The plans and projects are bureaucratic exercises, not courses of action which yield marketplace gains.
But what i find intriguing is that it is a different story in the military sphere. The rise of the staff-- especially the general staff-- is a critical element in operational prowess and military effectiveness.
The German experience is the most studied. A strong general staff was a key part of the Prussian military reforms which revived the army after Napoleon crushed Prussia in 1805-06. It played a key role in the rapid victories in the wars of unification (1864-1871) and was the critical instrument in the development of the Blitzkrieg.
The importance of a general staff is almost universally accepted by military historians. Lee's failure to develop a modern staff is one of the causes for the CSA's defeat. Patton had a good staff which was why he could respond so quickly in the relief of Bastogne. The French general staff was the antithesis of their German opponents which explains many of their failures between 1914 and 1940.
I'll hazard a few reasons for the difference in performance of military and corporate staffs.
1. The best military staffs are made up of officers who previously served in line positions and know they will return to such positions. The worst corporate horrors seem to come from companies where the staff world can provide a career path (Finance, Audit, HR, etc.). Staff-line rotation serves to broaden perspectives and as a reality check.
2. The German staff officers were trained in the totality of war-- history, planning, tactics, leadership. All too often corporate staffs have a limited, specialized toolkit that they apply to every problem. Not every situation can be approached as a question of financial control or process reengineering.
3. General staff officers were selected after a rigorous screening process which looked at intellectual potential, past-military performance, and academic preparation. Combined with their service in line positions, this ensured that they were respected by the officer corps as a whole. Too many corporate staffs fail to win this respect and must rely on executive fiat to gain even minimal cooperation.
4. Business staffers generally operate with the assumption that the world is predictable. Most of their efforts are devoted to measuring, explaining, and eliminating variances. The German General Staff understood that war was unpredictable-- as von Moltke said, "no plan survives contact with the enemy."
5. Business staffs generally assume that they have the answer and success is just a matter of applying the right template. Often those templates and methods come prepackaged by consultants. The best general staffs serve a vital role in creating new doctrine by studying past operations and potential enemies. The US Marine Corps had worked through the problems of amphibious warfare by 1937, The roots of Blitzkrieg are found in von Seeckt's creation of 57 study groups tasked to analyze the 1914-1918 war. He did this in 1919 and assigned nearly 10% of the officer corps to this task.
See also,
Waiting for our Clausewitz
Clausewitz (II)
Peter Drucker
Provocative as usual in this Fortune interview.
I believe you should outsource everything for which there is no career track that could lead into senior management. When you outsource to a total-quality-control specialist, he is busy 48 weeks a year working for you and a number of other clients on something he sees as challenging. Whereas a total-quality-control person employed by the company is busy six weeks a year and the rest of the time is writing memoranda and looking for projects.
Provocative as usual in this Fortune interview.
I believe you should outsource everything for which there is no career track that could lead into senior management. When you outsource to a total-quality-control specialist, he is busy 48 weeks a year working for you and a number of other clients on something he sees as challenging. Whereas a total-quality-control person employed by the company is busy six weeks a year and the rest of the time is writing memoranda and looking for projects.
Michael Crichton
Let me add my voice to the chorus. These two speeches by Michael Crichton are brilliant.
Aliens Cause Global Warming
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
***
This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynmann called it a disease. I fear he is right
Why Speculate?
Today, of course everybody knows that “Hardball,” “Rivera Live” and similar shows are nothing but a steady stream of guesses about the future. The Sunday morning talk shows are pure speculation. They have to be. Everybody knows there's no news on Sunday.
***
We need to start remembering that everybody who said that Y2K wasn't a real problem was either shouted down, or kept off the air. The same thing is true now of issues like species extinction and global warming. You never hear anyone say it's not a crisis.
Let me add my voice to the chorus. These two speeches by Michael Crichton are brilliant.
Aliens Cause Global Warming
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
***
This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynmann called it a disease. I fear he is right
Why Speculate?
Today, of course everybody knows that “Hardball,” “Rivera Live” and similar shows are nothing but a steady stream of guesses about the future. The Sunday morning talk shows are pure speculation. They have to be. Everybody knows there's no news on Sunday.
***
We need to start remembering that everybody who said that Y2K wasn't a real problem was either shouted down, or kept off the air. The same thing is true now of issues like species extinction and global warming. You never hear anyone say it's not a crisis.
Saturday, January 03, 2004
"Blogs vs. journalism"
Julie has a long and thoughtful response to Jessica's question mentioned earlier.
Julie has a long and thoughtful response to Jessica's question mentioned earlier.
Friday, January 02, 2004
Favorite Posts
I've decided that these are my favorite posts for each month that i've been doing this:
March, History, Italy and the Nazis
April, Waiting for our Clausewitz
May, The Agony of the Agency
June, Good Old Boys
July, Rise of the Creative Class
August, The Miracle On The Vistula and Forgotten Men (Jim Ryun)
September, Better than fiction (Charles Goodnight)
October, Mission to Niger and a Cautionary Tale from Vietnam
November, Getting Hip to Squareness
December, Software
I've decided that these are my favorite posts for each month that i've been doing this:
March, History, Italy and the Nazis
April, Waiting for our Clausewitz
May, The Agony of the Agency
June, Good Old Boys
July, Rise of the Creative Class
August, The Miracle On The Vistula and Forgotten Men (Jim Ryun)
September, Better than fiction (Charles Goodnight)
October, Mission to Niger and a Cautionary Tale from Vietnam
November, Getting Hip to Squareness
December, Software
Taking Stock
I had originally started to put together a subject index for last year's posts. But it turned out that i had posted more than i thought and on too many topics. Still, it was interesting to go back and look at what i've written.
The first post was nothing special. And the plain fact is most of what ended up here had a pretty short shelf-life-- Janeane Garafolo? Michael Moore at the Oscars?
Over the year i got Instalanched, twice. I got drawn into blog controversies. I wrote a lot about Rick Bragg and the NY Times but took the unpopular side. Like a lot of bloggers i defended Gregg Easterbrook and i got ticked off about the Kobe Bryant case.
And, like many others i blogged about blogs and the blogosphere.
I planned to write more about business and marketing. I did write a fair amount about advertising. Somehow I also ended up defending Walmart repeatedly.
This post brings more visitors via search engines than anything else here.
I had originally started to put together a subject index for last year's posts. But it turned out that i had posted more than i thought and on too many topics. Still, it was interesting to go back and look at what i've written.
The first post was nothing special. And the plain fact is most of what ended up here had a pretty short shelf-life-- Janeane Garafolo? Michael Moore at the Oscars?
Over the year i got Instalanched, twice. I got drawn into blog controversies. I wrote a lot about Rick Bragg and the NY Times but took the unpopular side. Like a lot of bloggers i defended Gregg Easterbrook and i got ticked off about the Kobe Bryant case.
And, like many others i blogged about blogs and the blogosphere.
I planned to write more about business and marketing. I did write a fair amount about advertising. Somehow I also ended up defending Walmart repeatedly.
This post brings more visitors via search engines than anything else here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)