"The fact that Hamas and Hezbollah pursue democratic legitimacy within the state while also employing violence on their own marks a watershed in Middle Eastern politics. For one thing, the boundary between state and nonstate violence has essentially been erased. Has the Palestinian government demanded an exchange of prisoners with Israel, or has the Hamas militia? Israel has been acting as if it were at war with Lebanon — its targets have included a Lebanese Air Force base and Beirut's international airport - but Hezbollah began the hostilities, not the Lebanese government."
Friday, July 21, 2006
In the GME ..state boundaries change their meanings
Ballots and Bullets - New York Times:
Thursday, July 06, 2006
It's Not Personal or Political, It's Business
It's now become pretty clear that the US political system is dysfunctional. Many are involved in trying to figure out how to fix it. Perhaps it's so difficult because people are using the wrong language, combined into an inappropriate narrative, to shoe horn the new reality into the conventional wisdom.
Red state, blue state, moderates, left, right, middle, extremes, base, conservative, liberal are all word concepts that are based on a world is disappearing.
Maybe a more useful narrative comes from the world of the net and business. In the GME all businesses are moving to understand that success comes from focusing on the transaction. Success comes from making the transactions easier, faster, simpler, and standards based. The web has demonstrated that brand loyalty and the customer purchases that derive from them can all be thought of as transactions. And every touchpoint has to deliver value to the customer.
Creating more time by eliminating unnecessary, unprofitable activites seems to be the key to sustainable efficiency. Eliminating anything that does not directly contribute to an improved customer experience is the key to an expanding profitable market position.
And so with politics in the US.
Consider the poltical industry using the terms that are commonly used to think about the auto industry. Let's say the GM is the Democrats and Ford are the Republicans.
General Motors (The Democrats) are presently trying to stay alive. Management has blamed everyone else for their persistant failures. It's the legacy expenses, it's global competition, it's the high cost of labor, it's the union. (In politics, it's the ruthless, unfair competition from the Reupblicans).
In fact, the real problem was that they were unable to produce a product that people wanted to buy.
Just to continue the metaphor....
The internet removed information advantage. Few people buy a car without searching the web for price, feature comparisons. The traditional channel model had to be changed very quickly. Then competition for market share, for GM and Ford (the only American competition), increasingly depended on massive advertising. To make matters even worse the "advertising" was mostly in the form of rebates and should have been seen for what it was - lowering prices.
GM management focus was on their most profitable item, SUV's, innovating around emission requirements by calling their SUV's trucks. In retrospect for management,this was clearly unsustainable as everyone understood that energy efficiency was the wave of the future. But it produce some profit for the quarterly reports, and so the reality of secular trends was ignored.
Top managment was focused on the stock price, the quarterly profits,and somehow keeping the whole thing going. My guess is they defined "insuring access to oil" as the most serious challenge of the 21st century. From their limited narrative it's only common sense.
But if management was focused on that, they didn't focus on the central problem-
make a product that people wanted to buy.
Toyota is the counter example. They didn't have to resort to rebates (lowering prices). They seem to be doing just fine, opening plants, creating jobs in America and all over the world. Increasing market share through internal growth, not purchases.
The GM management lived in a pretty protected world. No matter how much they failed, as long as they were able to hold onto their jobs, their comp didn't go down. Until private capital came into the game. It's likely that after Kerkorian finishes with these folks, they're going to be working for Renault/Nissan.
How might this narrative apply to politics?
The traditional political business is essentially no growth. Based on the number of people who regularly participate, it seems the entire industry has about a 25% market share (that's the number that typically vote in a non presidential election.
The industry is managed by professionals who are relatively insulated from risk, as long as they stay in the game. Even if one loses a particular election, the career benefits of having been an elected or non elected player are high. There is a very complex supply chain for the industry that has been growing quickly as the political parties have become revenue generators that keeps everyone satisfied with the status quo.
An innovative way for winning elections started being developed in the late 70's. It was an incremental improvement, but seems to have lead for predictable results for the Republicans. Use any means necessary to get customers loyal to your brand to vote (the central transaction), and do everything you can to keep the other brands loyalist from voting. Being able to consistently win, is a very effective revenue generating tool. Much easier to raise money, if you can offer a reasonable certainty that the money will be well spent.
This was an incremental improvement as this has been the way the industry has worked for a long time, perhaps since it's inception. The first innovation was the insight that in a stable market, you can consistently win elections by motivating a very,very small number of voters. The second innovation was the willingness to use any means to get those small number of brand loyalists to vote. Not surprisingly, an appeal to fear and greed can be very effective. The use of the best technology was not really an innovation, just a normal practice of a good technician. Technology is hardly ever a sustainable advantage. But it does give a major first mover advantage.
These incremental innovations have now become the primary technique of both the Democratics and Republicans, as rebates were the primary technique of the traditional Auto industry. They will continue to be the primary technique, because in a stable, almost niche, market, it works time after time. It delivers the "quarterly results". It is very difficult, as we can see from GM. Toyota was spared the problem. Probably becuase they decided at their founding that they could only become a global powerhouse by building a better product at a competitive price. (A similar situation to many big businesses now growing in India,Korea and China and other developing economies.)
The fact that the unintended consequences might lead to wholesale taking of power from top management was hard to see when all time and mangement focus is devoted to doing the wrong thing, faster and cheaper. But, once the information advantage was taken away and the industry was exposed to true global competition, most interested, but even casual observers saw the coming problem pretty clearly.
And, for the auto industry, when one person, with the resources and interest, believed that the risk of unlocking the underlying value of the enterprise was worth it, he joined the game. ( Perhaps this is analgous to Bloomberg, Cosine and other billionaires who have recently joined the political game.)
The immediate result is that the top management no longer lives in a risk free environment. The possible end result is the disappearance of GM as an entity, becoming instead a subsidiary of some network driven by Nissan/Renault.
If this analysis makes sense, the way to fix politics, might come from a truly disruptive innovation, that expands the market in internet time.
It's likely that from the conversations taking place on the web coupled with the wide access to communication tools, and the now impossible to ignore dysfunctionality of the present system, a truly disruptive innovation is already in formation.
It's always important to remember that Google was started and grew from 2 graduate students - albeit very, very talented - at Stanford.
Sooner or later, a team, a group, a person, will build a functionality that delivers the appropriate customer experience for the non consumers of politics. It will probably be based on delivering useful (that is understandable) information, within an actionable time frame. It will probably focus on real things - how much money am I spending, who benefits from that money, and am I getting value received for the money I'm spending. It's essentially IAI, instantly accessible information.
And it will not be as simple as a rebate. It's clear that people understand and value, perhaps even more than money, a lowering of risk and a increase in their individual possibility of pursuing happiness. In an information scarce society, the underlying expectation was that no one would willingly agree to spend money on making the society as a whole a better place. In an information rich society, there is enough evidence that voluntary giving, at all income levels, is a natural human impulse. The outpourring of money and time after Katrina or the Tsunami are the most recent examples.
As in business, so in politics.
Love the customer, trust the customer, do everything you can to make sure the customer is getting value at every touch point. Management in business has already seen the long term advantages to them of this approach. Sooner or later, professional politicians will probably get it, or a new management team will be brought in to unlock the value in the American enterprise.
Red state, blue state, moderates, left, right, middle, extremes, base, conservative, liberal are all word concepts that are based on a world is disappearing.
Maybe a more useful narrative comes from the world of the net and business. In the GME all businesses are moving to understand that success comes from focusing on the transaction. Success comes from making the transactions easier, faster, simpler, and standards based. The web has demonstrated that brand loyalty and the customer purchases that derive from them can all be thought of as transactions. And every touchpoint has to deliver value to the customer.
Creating more time by eliminating unnecessary, unprofitable activites seems to be the key to sustainable efficiency. Eliminating anything that does not directly contribute to an improved customer experience is the key to an expanding profitable market position.
And so with politics in the US.
Consider the poltical industry using the terms that are commonly used to think about the auto industry. Let's say the GM is the Democrats and Ford are the Republicans.
General Motors (The Democrats) are presently trying to stay alive. Management has blamed everyone else for their persistant failures. It's the legacy expenses, it's global competition, it's the high cost of labor, it's the union. (In politics, it's the ruthless, unfair competition from the Reupblicans).
In fact, the real problem was that they were unable to produce a product that people wanted to buy.
Just to continue the metaphor....
The internet removed information advantage. Few people buy a car without searching the web for price, feature comparisons. The traditional channel model had to be changed very quickly. Then competition for market share, for GM and Ford (the only American competition), increasingly depended on massive advertising. To make matters even worse the "advertising" was mostly in the form of rebates and should have been seen for what it was - lowering prices.
GM management focus was on their most profitable item, SUV's, innovating around emission requirements by calling their SUV's trucks. In retrospect for management,this was clearly unsustainable as everyone understood that energy efficiency was the wave of the future. But it produce some profit for the quarterly reports, and so the reality of secular trends was ignored.
Top managment was focused on the stock price, the quarterly profits,and somehow keeping the whole thing going. My guess is they defined "insuring access to oil" as the most serious challenge of the 21st century. From their limited narrative it's only common sense.
But if management was focused on that, they didn't focus on the central problem-
make a product that people wanted to buy.
Toyota is the counter example. They didn't have to resort to rebates (lowering prices). They seem to be doing just fine, opening plants, creating jobs in America and all over the world. Increasing market share through internal growth, not purchases.
The GM management lived in a pretty protected world. No matter how much they failed, as long as they were able to hold onto their jobs, their comp didn't go down. Until private capital came into the game. It's likely that after Kerkorian finishes with these folks, they're going to be working for Renault/Nissan.
How might this narrative apply to politics?
The traditional political business is essentially no growth. Based on the number of people who regularly participate, it seems the entire industry has about a 25% market share (that's the number that typically vote in a non presidential election.
The industry is managed by professionals who are relatively insulated from risk, as long as they stay in the game. Even if one loses a particular election, the career benefits of having been an elected or non elected player are high. There is a very complex supply chain for the industry that has been growing quickly as the political parties have become revenue generators that keeps everyone satisfied with the status quo.
An innovative way for winning elections started being developed in the late 70's. It was an incremental improvement, but seems to have lead for predictable results for the Republicans. Use any means necessary to get customers loyal to your brand to vote (the central transaction), and do everything you can to keep the other brands loyalist from voting. Being able to consistently win, is a very effective revenue generating tool. Much easier to raise money, if you can offer a reasonable certainty that the money will be well spent.
This was an incremental improvement as this has been the way the industry has worked for a long time, perhaps since it's inception. The first innovation was the insight that in a stable market, you can consistently win elections by motivating a very,very small number of voters. The second innovation was the willingness to use any means to get those small number of brand loyalists to vote. Not surprisingly, an appeal to fear and greed can be very effective. The use of the best technology was not really an innovation, just a normal practice of a good technician. Technology is hardly ever a sustainable advantage. But it does give a major first mover advantage.
These incremental innovations have now become the primary technique of both the Democratics and Republicans, as rebates were the primary technique of the traditional Auto industry. They will continue to be the primary technique, because in a stable, almost niche, market, it works time after time. It delivers the "quarterly results". It is very difficult, as we can see from GM. Toyota was spared the problem. Probably becuase they decided at their founding that they could only become a global powerhouse by building a better product at a competitive price. (A similar situation to many big businesses now growing in India,Korea and China and other developing economies.)
The fact that the unintended consequences might lead to wholesale taking of power from top management was hard to see when all time and mangement focus is devoted to doing the wrong thing, faster and cheaper. But, once the information advantage was taken away and the industry was exposed to true global competition, most interested, but even casual observers saw the coming problem pretty clearly.
And, for the auto industry, when one person, with the resources and interest, believed that the risk of unlocking the underlying value of the enterprise was worth it, he joined the game. ( Perhaps this is analgous to Bloomberg, Cosine and other billionaires who have recently joined the political game.)
The immediate result is that the top management no longer lives in a risk free environment. The possible end result is the disappearance of GM as an entity, becoming instead a subsidiary of some network driven by Nissan/Renault.
If this analysis makes sense, the way to fix politics, might come from a truly disruptive innovation, that expands the market in internet time.
It's likely that from the conversations taking place on the web coupled with the wide access to communication tools, and the now impossible to ignore dysfunctionality of the present system, a truly disruptive innovation is already in formation.
It's always important to remember that Google was started and grew from 2 graduate students - albeit very, very talented - at Stanford.
Sooner or later, a team, a group, a person, will build a functionality that delivers the appropriate customer experience for the non consumers of politics. It will probably be based on delivering useful (that is understandable) information, within an actionable time frame. It will probably focus on real things - how much money am I spending, who benefits from that money, and am I getting value received for the money I'm spending. It's essentially IAI, instantly accessible information.
And it will not be as simple as a rebate. It's clear that people understand and value, perhaps even more than money, a lowering of risk and a increase in their individual possibility of pursuing happiness. In an information scarce society, the underlying expectation was that no one would willingly agree to spend money on making the society as a whole a better place. In an information rich society, there is enough evidence that voluntary giving, at all income levels, is a natural human impulse. The outpourring of money and time after Katrina or the Tsunami are the most recent examples.
As in business, so in politics.
Love the customer, trust the customer, do everything you can to make sure the customer is getting value at every touch point. Management in business has already seen the long term advantages to them of this approach. Sooner or later, professional politicians will probably get it, or a new management team will be brought in to unlock the value in the American enterprise.
Monday, July 03, 2006
IAI is moving from the economy to the society
Instantly Accessible Information (IAI) is a central feature of the Google-Mart Economy. As Toffler points out in Revolutionary Wealth, the society's relationship to time is changing in a fundamental way.
Time delay has always been a central strategy of maintaining the information advantage. Decisions have to be made in real time. Information delivered too late to inform a decision is no longer useful information. As the expectation of IAI becomes mainstream, it will become much more difficult to claim authority merely by claiming to have access to better information.
We saw it first in the financial industries, where time is most clearly related to money. It is now moving quickly through retail, service and manufacturing industries. The wave is just now starting to reach some of civil society's central institutions - education and government.
The enterprises in these sectors are particularly vulernable. They were formed in information scarce environments, and many have based their value creation on their information advantage. As that advantage slips away, the very basis of their power and authority will inevitably be redefined in fundamental ways.
They will be forced to innovate to maintain their position. As in business, so in education and government, flawless execution and information based decisions will be increasingly demanded by the customer.
The story is starting to appear in the mainstream media.
On Higher Ed:
Which colleges are really delivering $30,000 per year of value?
Panel's Draft Report Calls for an Overhaul of Higher Education Nationwide - New York Times:
And in government
Here is an issue on which both left and right agree. There are no cultural divides. It is only the professional politicians who have problems with it.
But what will happen to a political system where many of the primary incentives are based on the power to control resource allocation, with almost no personal accountability?
On Right and Left, a Push for Government Openness - New York Times:
By JASON DePARLE
Time delay has always been a central strategy of maintaining the information advantage. Decisions have to be made in real time. Information delivered too late to inform a decision is no longer useful information. As the expectation of IAI becomes mainstream, it will become much more difficult to claim authority merely by claiming to have access to better information.
We saw it first in the financial industries, where time is most clearly related to money. It is now moving quickly through retail, service and manufacturing industries. The wave is just now starting to reach some of civil society's central institutions - education and government.
The enterprises in these sectors are particularly vulernable. They were formed in information scarce environments, and many have based their value creation on their information advantage. As that advantage slips away, the very basis of their power and authority will inevitably be redefined in fundamental ways.
They will be forced to innovate to maintain their position. As in business, so in education and government, flawless execution and information based decisions will be increasingly demanded by the customer.
The story is starting to appear in the mainstream media.
On Higher Ed:
Which colleges are really delivering $30,000 per year of value?
Panel's Draft Report Calls for an Overhaul of Higher Education Nationwide - New York Times:
"Nearly every aspect of higher education in America needs fixing, according to a draft report of a national commission that calls for an overhaul of the student financial aid system, better cost controls by colleges and universities and more proof of results, including testing.
The report by the panel appointed last year by Education Secretary Margaret Spellings was highly critical of the nation's institutions of higher education. It said there was a lack of accountability to show that students were learning, that college costs have risen too high, and that 'unacceptable numbers of college graduates' were entering the workforce without skills that employers say they need.
In addition, the draft said, 'rising costs, combined with a confusing, inadequate financial aid system, leave some students struggling to pay for education that, paradoxically, is of uneven and at times dubious quality.'"
And in government
Here is an issue on which both left and right agree. There are no cultural divides. It is only the professional politicians who have problems with it.
But what will happen to a political system where many of the primary incentives are based on the power to control resource allocation, with almost no personal accountability?
On Right and Left, a Push for Government Openness - New York Times:
By JASON DePARLE
Published: July 3, 2006
WASHINGTON, July 2 — Exasperated by his party's failure to cut government spending, Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, is seeking cyberhelp.
Jamie Rose for The New York Times
Mark Tapscott of The Washington Examiner has promoted the spending database in that newspaper and on his blog, Tapscott's Copy Desk.
Mr. Coburn wants to create a public database, searchable over the Internet, that would list most government contracts and grants — exposing hundreds of billions in annual spending to instant desktop view
Type in 'Halliburton,' the military contractor, or 'Sierra Club,' the environmental group, for example, and a search engine would show all the federal money they receive. "
Monday, June 26, 2006
Buffet to give nearly $31 billion to Gates foundation
Buffet to give nearly $31 billion to Gates foundation:
When Bill Gates and his foundation will control $60 billion dollars in the service of fixing the world's health and education problems, what does that potentially do to the common wisdom of nation states and big NGO's as the only formal networks capable of focusing on the big issues?
"In an interview with Fortune magazine, Berkshire Hathaway Chairman Warren Buffett announced he will give nearly $31 billion -- most of his wealth -- to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.As the world moves from an information scarce to an information rich environment, the concepts that organized 20th century reality become a little less useful.
When Bill Gates and his foundation will control $60 billion dollars in the service of fixing the world's health and education problems, what does that potentially do to the common wisdom of nation states and big NGO's as the only formal networks capable of focusing on the big issues?
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Letter: Not a better mousetrap
Letter: Not a better mousetrap:
"In regard to your editorial (“Closed primary means low turnout,” The Daily Astorian, May 25) you correctly point out that there are a number of reasons for low voter participation in the primaries. Your solution is to allow the independent voters to participate in the partisan political process. Unfortunately, this defeats the purpose of primary elections.C'mon.. most of the folks who are "independents" are not consumers or fans of the political industry. They don't vote because they don't care. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing can be legitimately argued, but a mediocre product, with a terrible customer experience, will not attract grow it's market. even with huge infusions of cash.
They were originally set up to allow party members full participation in their party’s selection as opposed to the decisions of a few powerful men in a smoke-filled room. This has generally been successful. Yes, it does exclude the uncommitted independent, but then this was also true under the old system. Should Oregon institute open primaries, I will not vote in them, since they no longer serve the purpose for which they were intended."
The Morning News :: Opinion Page
The Morning News :: Opinion Page:
And it's NOT the politicians fault. What would you do in the same position. If you don't get elected, it doesn't matter what you believe.
"Election day will come, and it won't matter how many people rallied in the park.As long as the election system is based on the niche market that votes, it doesn't supply a very sustainable incentive structure for finding the best solution for the most people.
Springdale saw 5,000 people in the park in April. Another large rally for immigrants' rights took place in May. Then a couple of months passed. Thursday, Republican party nominee for governor Asa Hutchinson came to Springdale to announce how he'd curb illegal immigration."
Tougher laws in Arkansas won't slow immigration to the United States but could divert it to other states. That's victory enough for many. My problem is this: There is no way to be tough on immigrants who arrived today and not be tough on immigrants who arrived years ago.
The people who arrived years ago broke our laws too. However, we showed little interest in enforcing our laws until this election year. Even the most ardent anti-immigration forces acknowledge that. It's a sore point with them.
And it's NOT the politicians fault. What would you do in the same position. If you don't get elected, it doesn't matter what you believe.
Friday, June 23, 2006
International IDEA | Electoral System Design
International IDEA | Electoral System Design:
"The choice of electoral system is one of the most important institutional decisions for any democracy. Electoral systems define and structure the rules of the political game; they help determine who is elected, how a campaign is fought, the role of political parties, and most importantly, who governs. "
It's the rules that create the strategies that win. Within our rules and history. MVC has been the best strategy to win.
"The choice of electoral system is one of the most important institutional decisions for any democracy. Electoral systems define and structure the rules of the political game; they help determine who is elected, how a campaign is fought, the role of political parties, and most importantly, who governs. "
It's the rules that create the strategies that win. Within our rules and history. MVC has been the best strategy to win.
International IDEA | Voter Turnout
International IDEA | Voter Turnout
And here's a place to find international stats, that are not about winning elections, but about using participation rates to say something about the political industry.
And here's a place to find international stats, that are not about winning elections, but about using participation rates to say something about the political industry.
NOW with Bill Moyers. Politics & Economy. Election 2004 — America Votes | PBS
NOW with Bill Moyers. Politics & Economy. Election 2004 — America Votes | PBS
A great resource for why people do or don't vote. But still it concentrates only on the cost of voting. Not the benefit that is received.
According to NOW, America participation in elections has rarely reached 50% in the US.
A great resource for why people do or don't vote. But still it concentrates only on the cost of voting. Not the benefit that is received.
According to NOW, America participation in elections has rarely reached 50% in the US.
SpringerLink - Article
SpringerLink - Article:
"
You can lower the cost of playing to almost zero, but if the product still stinks, nobody is going to play.
"
Like other administrative reforms designed to make voting easier, postal voting has the potential to increase turnout. However, the expanded pool of voters will be limited most likely to those already inclined to vote but find it inconvenient to go to the polling place. This conclusion is consistent with the growing body of research that suggests that relaxing administrative requirements is not likely to be the panacea for low turnout among the disenfranchised."
You can lower the cost of playing to almost zero, but if the product still stinks, nobody is going to play.
Pasadena Star-News - Draw California voters back to the polls
Pasadena Star-News - Draw California voters back to the polls:
It's hard to acquire customers, when your product is sub optimal and your process is broken. It's very hard to grow a market, when customer acquisition costs go through the roof to try to make up for a bad customer experience.
"IN the recent election, voters were asked to cast ballots in a statewide primary election. Less than a third of registered voters cast ballots.So how much does this sound like a "blame the customer" excuse of a failed marketing campaign?
This was one of the lowest turnout gubernatorial primary elections in California's history.
Why were most voters no-shows?
It is hard to know what was driving such miserably low levels of voter participation. But a few hypotheses are floating around that merit research in coming months.
First, low voter participation in statewide primaries is not a new phenomenon. In fact, as I've written recently, since California's experiment with the 'blanket primary,' voter interest in statewide primaries has dropped considerably.
In 1998, when the state used the blanket primary in a gubernatorial primary, 42.5percent of registered voters participated. But in the 1994 and 2002 primaries, with more restrictive participation rules like those used in the recent primary, voter participation was 35 percent or less.
So one important explanation for low voter turnout in our recent primary is how participation is restricted for primary-election voters. If voters can't cast meaningful ballots, they don't turn out to vote.
Second, for many registered voters in the state, given the rules restricting which primary they could cast ballots in, there was little on the ballot to drive them to the polls. Republicans (making up around a third of registered voters statewide) had few choices to make on the ballot. So, after the final tallies are completed, we'll likely find that participation by registered Republicans was slight.
Third, registered Democrats (and the 'decline-to-state' votes who could cast ballots in the Democratic primary if they wanted) had important choices to make in a number of statewide races. But in general, unless they were political junkies, it was impossible for them to figure out which Democratic candidate might be best suited for a particular statewide seat, as there are few differences between most Democratic candidates in California.
Further, the campaigns that Democrats ran didn't help. Even though many millions were spent in the Democratic contests on candidate advertising, little of it was informative. Instead of informative campaign communications, the advertising blitz was mainly mudslinging. It's also worth noting that a lot of the campaign money was spent on uninformative mailers and those idiotic recorded telephone messages that turn voters off."
It's hard to acquire customers, when your product is sub optimal and your process is broken. It's very hard to grow a market, when customer acquisition costs go through the roof to try to make up for a bad customer experience.
FedSmith.com News Articles: Readers Identify Issues, Preferences for Upcoming Elections
FedSmith.com News Articles: Readers Identify Issues, Preferences for Upcoming Elections
Here's the outlook for the folks who actually do the work of government. FedSmith is an information website for federal employees.
Here's the outlook for the folks who actually do the work of government. FedSmith is an information website for federal employees.
The Smoky Mountain News
The Smoky Mountain News
One of the best descriptions i've ever read of life on the ground for state legislators. It's no wonder it's so hard to get it right!
One of the best descriptions i've ever read of life on the ground for state legislators. It's no wonder it's so hard to get it right!
Lebanon Daily News - Update from the 48th District campaign trail
Lebanon Daily News - Update from the 48th District campaign trail:
So a relatively unknown mounts a grass roots campaign and scores a stunning upset..And then fires the manager who got him there and hires a "Professional".
When will people learn that professionals can do the wrong thing for years, and call it experience?
Professionals trained in 20th century forms, are usually exactly the wrong folks to lead a 21st century enterprise.
"Out on the campaign trail, there has been a significant change to Folmer’s staff. Joe Sterns, a political consultant for West Lawn Graphics, has taken over as Folmer’s press secretary and spokesman, replacing Laurel Lynn Petolicchio of Mt. Gretna.
Petolicchio and husband Louis are close friends of Folmer and with him founded the Constitutional Organization of Lebanon political-action committee last year. Folmer said the couple played a key role in convincing him to run, and then in organizing his campaign.
It was a mutual decision for Laurel Lynn Petolicchio to step aside.
“They are dear friends of mine, and they have a life to get back to,” Folmer said.
Sterns began working for Folmer during the primary. Although just 31, he brings a wealth of political experience to the campaign.
He worked four years for the state House Republican Caucus as a speech writer and was campaign spokesman for Pat Toomey during his unsuccessful run for U.S. Senate against incumbent Arlen Specter in 2004. He is a director on the board of the Schuylkill County Young Republicans and a former chairman of the Pennsylvania Young Republicans. He also currently serves as the vice chairman of grass-roots coordination for Young Conservatives of Pennsylvania.
While Petolicchio was no political novice on the local level, Sterns said his experience in handling a major campaign should help Folmer, whose political experience is limited.
“It is important to have somebody with experience in dealing with the media these days,” he said. “You need a full-time professional to help a candidate manage his time.”"
So a relatively unknown mounts a grass roots campaign and scores a stunning upset..And then fires the manager who got him there and hires a "Professional".
When will people learn that professionals can do the wrong thing for years, and call it experience?
Professionals trained in 20th century forms, are usually exactly the wrong folks to lead a 21st century enterprise.
The Norman Transcript - Illegal aliens, family values featured on campaign trail
The Norman Transcript - Illegal aliens, family values featured on campaign trail:
"Independent voters" are more accurately thought of as non consumers of the poltical product. Getting their "attention" is non trivail because the product is sub standard. It's a normal business problem in the GME.
"For Republicans, the goal is be as conservative as possible — think Ronald Reagan. “Republican themes will hit on immigration, tax cuts and Christian values,” said Don Hoover, a campaign consultant. “They will play as far to the right as possible.”
For Democrats, the goal is outreach and the middle ground — a replay of Bill Clinton. “Democrats want to talk about investing in the future and, to a lesser degree, bipartisanship,” he said.
The goal, Hoover said, is to get the undecided voter to pay attention. And those voters are only about half-listening. “Right now the undecided voter isn’t too focused on the campaign — yet. But, slowly, they are beginning to pay attention.”
To turn those heads, candidates will need money — lots and lots of money. “It takes resources to campaign,” he said. “Especially on a statewide level.”"
"Independent voters" are more accurately thought of as non consumers of the poltical product. Getting their "attention" is non trivail because the product is sub standard. It's a normal business problem in the GME.
Cantwell's lead over McGavick nearly gone
Cantwell's lead over McGavick nearly gone: "Dwindling voter support for U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell's re-election bid has put her in a statistical toss-up with her Republican opponent, according to a new poll announced Wednesday.
Rasmussen Reports, an independent national polling firm, said a survey of 500 likely Washington voters June 13 showed the Democratic incumbent leading challenger Mike McGavick 44 percent to 40 percent. The margin of error was plus or minus 4.5 percentage points."
So if the general picture is correct that politics has about a 20% penetration of the market. Then 50% of 20% is 10%.. so Senator Cnatwell's future is in the hands of 10% of eligible voters.
Politics is a tough business.
Rasmussen Reports, an independent national polling firm, said a survey of 500 likely Washington voters June 13 showed the Democratic incumbent leading challenger Mike McGavick 44 percent to 40 percent. The margin of error was plus or minus 4.5 percentage points."
So if the general picture is correct that politics has about a 20% penetration of the market. Then 50% of 20% is 10%.. so Senator Cnatwell's future is in the hands of 10% of eligible voters.
Politics is a tough business.
Internet-Based Software Helps Political Candidates to Get Out the Vote and Cut Campaign Costs by 80 Percent
Internet-Based Software Helps Political Candidates to Get Out the Vote and Cut Campaign Costs by 80 Percent: "According to Voter Lists co-founder Donald Quaid, 'GOTVoters Online levels the political playing field. Even independent candidates on limited budgets can use it to get elected. Our advanced filtering of voter information enables political campaigns to target voters based on their specific concerns and interests. This is considerably more effective than targeting all voters on all issues. In a primary, a candidate can focus on just the 20% of voters who always turn out, saving money and more efficiently utilizing their time."
Go for the most valued customer. Based on this story the stable customer base for politics is about 20% of the potential market.
You would think that 80% of the population would qualify as underserved market that could possibly be a site for explosive growth.
Go for the most valued customer. Based on this story the stable customer base for politics is about 20% of the potential market.
You would think that 80% of the population would qualify as underserved market that could possibly be a site for explosive growth.
Internet-Based Software Helps Political Candidates to Get Out the Vote and Cut Campaign Costs by 80 Percent
Internet-Based Software Helps Political Candidates to Get Out the Vote and Cut Campaign Costs by 80 Percent: "Voter Lists LLC announced a new Internet-based service today called GOTVoters Online(TM) that helps political candidates to Get Out The Vote (GOTV) on Election Day. GOTVoters Online(TM) cleverly combines state-supplied registered voter records with Internet-based software developed by Voter Lists LLC.
Brunswick, ME (PRWEB via PR Web Direct) June 22, 2006 -- Voter Lists LLC announced a new Internet-based service today called GOTVoters Online(TM) that helps political candidates to Get Out The Vote (GOTV) on Election Day. GOTVoters Online(TM) cleverly combines state-supplied registered voter records with Internet-based software developed by Voter Lists LLC.
Public voter data and our GOTV Internet software make it even more critical for voters to vote often. Political campaigns are evolving to target only those who vote regularly and to safely ignore those who do not vote. Only the interests of frequent voters, not those of the general population, will be represented by elected officials.
GOTVoters Online(TM) allows political campaigns to manage voter information online. Campaign managers can filter voters by gender, ethnicity, age, and other criteria and assign them to campaign volunteers, who gather voter opinions on key issues. Candidates then use the data to get only their supporters to the polls on Election Day.
Online at http://www.voter-lists.com, the new service cuts political campaign costs by allowing political campaign workers to use their own computers, Internet connections, and phones. GOTVoters Online(TM) eliminates the need for large campaign offices with dozens of phones and computers. GOTVoters Online(TM) works with any computer through any Internet browser.
GOTVoters Online(TM) targets candidates with 5,000 to 200,000 voters. Those mid-sized political campaigns have never before had access to advanced Internet-based technology. Typical costs, which include both the Internet-based software and many states' voter lists, are about $1,600 for a small mayoral campaign with 5,000 voters or $5,500 for a large judicial campaign with 200,000 voters."
And the marketplace will supply the technology to get to most valuable customers, better, faster, cheaper.
Brunswick, ME (PRWEB via PR Web Direct) June 22, 2006 -- Voter Lists LLC announced a new Internet-based service today called GOTVoters Online(TM) that helps political candidates to Get Out The Vote (GOTV) on Election Day. GOTVoters Online(TM) cleverly combines state-supplied registered voter records with Internet-based software developed by Voter Lists LLC.
Public voter data and our GOTV Internet software make it even more critical for voters to vote often. Political campaigns are evolving to target only those who vote regularly and to safely ignore those who do not vote. Only the interests of frequent voters, not those of the general population, will be represented by elected officials.
GOTVoters Online(TM) allows political campaigns to manage voter information online. Campaign managers can filter voters by gender, ethnicity, age, and other criteria and assign them to campaign volunteers, who gather voter opinions on key issues. Candidates then use the data to get only their supporters to the polls on Election Day.
Online at http://www.voter-lists.com, the new service cuts political campaign costs by allowing political campaign workers to use their own computers, Internet connections, and phones. GOTVoters Online(TM) eliminates the need for large campaign offices with dozens of phones and computers. GOTVoters Online(TM) works with any computer through any Internet browser.
GOTVoters Online(TM) targets candidates with 5,000 to 200,000 voters. Those mid-sized political campaigns have never before had access to advanced Internet-based technology. Typical costs, which include both the Internet-based software and many states' voter lists, are about $1,600 for a small mayoral campaign with 5,000 voters or $5,500 for a large judicial campaign with 200,000 voters."
And the marketplace will supply the technology to get to most valuable customers, better, faster, cheaper.
RIC - News and Events
RIC - News and Events:
"Cranston Mayor Steven Laffey is in a virtual tie with U. S. Senator Lincoln Chafee for the party’s nomination for Senate in the September Republican primary, according to a new statewide survey of 256 likely Republican primary voters conducted by the Bureau of Government Research and Services at Rhode Island College. If the September primary for the U.S. Senate election were held today, 39 percent of voters would support Chafee while 38 percent would back Laffey, if half of those voting in the primary are Republicans and the other half unaffiliated voters. One in four likely primary voters say they are undecided.
Among men, Laffey leads Chafee by 44 to 34 percent, while Chafee’s lead among women is only 37 to 35 percent. Regionally, Chafee appears to be strongest in Providence (73 to 27 percent), western Rhode Island (43 to 21 percent), and in the East Bay (44 to 33 percent). Laffey is strongest in Blackstone Valley (50 to 40 percent), Newport County (46 to 23 percent), and in the Providence suburbs south of the city (39 to 31 percent). Among age groupings, Chafee is strongest with voters older than 64 (49 to 37 percent), while Laffey’s greatest strength comes from voters 39 or younger (55 to 33).
According to the survey, the key to the primary outcome will be the number of unaffiliated and Republican voters coming out on election day. "
In a protected low growth market, you have to focus on your most valued customer. Every smart business knows that.
"Cranston Mayor Steven Laffey is in a virtual tie with U. S. Senator Lincoln Chafee for the party’s nomination for Senate in the September Republican primary, according to a new statewide survey of 256 likely Republican primary voters conducted by the Bureau of Government Research and Services at Rhode Island College. If the September primary for the U.S. Senate election were held today, 39 percent of voters would support Chafee while 38 percent would back Laffey, if half of those voting in the primary are Republicans and the other half unaffiliated voters. One in four likely primary voters say they are undecided.
Among men, Laffey leads Chafee by 44 to 34 percent, while Chafee’s lead among women is only 37 to 35 percent. Regionally, Chafee appears to be strongest in Providence (73 to 27 percent), western Rhode Island (43 to 21 percent), and in the East Bay (44 to 33 percent). Laffey is strongest in Blackstone Valley (50 to 40 percent), Newport County (46 to 23 percent), and in the Providence suburbs south of the city (39 to 31 percent). Among age groupings, Chafee is strongest with voters older than 64 (49 to 37 percent), while Laffey’s greatest strength comes from voters 39 or younger (55 to 33).
According to the survey, the key to the primary outcome will be the number of unaffiliated and Republican voters coming out on election day. "
In a protected low growth market, you have to focus on your most valued customer. Every smart business knows that.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Multinational Corporation Out - GIE In
IBM chief calls for end to colonial companies:
When the Chairman of IBM, invests $6billion in India, then announces that IBM is not a multi national corporation, but a global intetgrated enterprise, something is going on. It might just be spin, but it could be something a lot more important.
From yesterdays, FT.com,
In the GME the most valuable commodity is time. The most dysfunctional aspect of the multi national "colonial corporation" is that it's not built for speed, but for risk management. Perhaps the GIE (global intergretated enterprise) can solve that problem for business. And has implications for the rest of us.
The issues raised have been articulated at least 15 years ago. In 1991 Robert Reich, in The Work of Nations said
If Mr. Palmisan is correct, maybe the implications for the welfare of national populations of GIE's are more promising than within the context of Multinationals.
According to him, the model is no longer, keep the high paying jobs here, and the low paying jobs there, but rather level the playing field. Jobs are located where they create the most value, the customer defines the value created, and the challenge is to deliver value at a profit.
When the Chairman of IBM, invests $6billion in India, then announces that IBM is not a multi national corporation, but a global intetgrated enterprise, something is going on. It might just be spin, but it could be something a lot more important.
From yesterdays, FT.com,
"Sam Palmisano, head of IBM, on Monday called on multinationals to evolve into a new type of corporation if they are to avoid an anti-globalisation backlash that leads to the election of governments hostile to the interests of big business."
He says traditional multi-national companies were designed to deal with the “protection and nationalism” that held sway in the 20th century. The modern company, Mr Palmisano writes, is a “globally integrated enterprise”, which spreads its strategies, production capacity and management around the world in order to be close to markets and customers.
“The globally integrated enterprise is an inherently better and more profitable way to organise business activities – and it can deliver enormous economic benefits to both developed and developing nations,” he writes.
In the GME the most valuable commodity is time. The most dysfunctional aspect of the multi national "colonial corporation" is that it's not built for speed, but for risk management. Perhaps the GIE (global intergretated enterprise) can solve that problem for business. And has implications for the rest of us.
The issues raised have been articulated at least 15 years ago. In 1991 Robert Reich, in The Work of Nations said
In the United States and probably in Canada as well, there is the supposition that national competitiveness is tantamount to the profitability or world market share of the nation’s major corporations. That is no longer the case. Corporations head quartered in whatever nation are rapidly going global and employing large numbers of non-nationals, often to do complicated work. To the extent that a corporation is profitable or enjoys a large world market share, the citizens of that nation may or may not benefit. Perhaps some of them will benefit by having larger dividends, but they may not be getting the best jobs or the most important experience. The “us” is the nation’s people and their intellectual capacities.
If Mr. Palmisan is correct, maybe the implications for the welfare of national populations of GIE's are more promising than within the context of Multinationals.
According to him, the model is no longer, keep the high paying jobs here, and the low paying jobs there, but rather level the playing field. Jobs are located where they create the most value, the customer defines the value created, and the challenge is to deliver value at a profit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
