Bird's Eye View

What Will We Talk About Now That Weiner's Resigned?

So U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner has resigned. 

Now what do we talk about?  Will the conversation return to important things like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?  To our involvement in Lybia?  In Pakistan?  To the Economy?  Health Care?

 

 

Sadly, no.  None of those things were the focus pre-Weiner. Before his sad story it was--well, name your scandal (John Edwards' trial? The arrest of Dominique Strauss-Kahn for alleged rape of a hotel maid? ), name your celebrity bash (Royal Wedding, anyone?).  Or name any of so many media-fueled distractions from the important life-changing, world-shifting stuff going on.

I had a fascinating conversation this morning with Tim Murray, Managing Partner of J Capital Research in Beijing, who will be attending the Inner Circle I will be facilitating in Beijing next week.  Tim used to be in media and for some years published a magazine.  We talked this morning of the demise of the print industry, especially newspapers and magazines.  We talked about what happens when we have fewer and fewer news organizations that can afford to continue their role of providing the public with first class journalism.  In the past great journalists could be found in many places, in many publications, and their work was read by the masses. 

 

In the future, with the demise of newspapers, Tim posits that "quality information will become the territory of the elite."

Hmmm.  In other words, a small number of people--because they are both able and willing to pay a great deal for it--will continue to be informed by the world class journalists that remain.  The rest of the public won't see this information because it will no longer be available to them.

I suppose our conversations of today about Anthony Weiner, or the latest celebrity gaffe, or the gossip about some politician's child out of wedlock, are harbingers of what is to come: very few conversations over dinner will be about the universally important news of the day.  Because most won't hear about it.   At least they won't have that news delivered to them by seasoned, objective, journalists who are great writers to boot.

Remember the old rule that great people talk about ideas, average people talk about things, and small people talk about other people?

Yikes!

 

 

 

How Long Will They Talk About Spiderman?

Ben Brantley is the top gun in the NYTimes review team that covers Broadway.  His talk about a show can help make a show a hit and it can be the kiss of death that makes a show close quickly.

His first review of Spiderman, which came out shortly after I saw it myself, was pretty tough.  But I agreed with every word.  It was mixed up, the music was forgettable, the actors sang in voices that couldn't be distinguished from one another, the flying overhead was nifty the first couple of times and--after that--lost its appeal, and anyway looked pretty fake with all the wires and strapping and other obvious effort to keep the guys in the air.  And we know that even that didn't always work.  Some people said they were buying tickets just to see if anyone fell (must be the same kind of people who like car racing for the crashes).

 

Well, Julie Traymor was dismissed and the show was reworked--again--and it has finally opened for real, after 183 previews (a record in Broadway history).  So today Ben Brantley delivered his second review. 

I'm sure the producers were holding their breath. 

It is not good.  Perhaps the worst news of all for them is Brantley's four word sentence early in the review: "It's just a bore."

 

 

Ouch!  $75 million dollars later and we have a boring night on Broadway.  Argh.  Brantley says that his only reason for going to see it now would be "If I knew a less-than-precocious child of 10 or so, and had several hundred dollars to throw away, I would consider taking him or her to...Spiderman."

Yikes.  Now, the question is, will audience word of mouth somehow trump Ben Brantley?  Will the out of towners who have already bought tickets talk themselves into loving it so they don't have to feel bad about shelling out hundreds of dollars for what the critics are calling a big loser?

  

Word of mouth can on occasion propel a show forward in spite of critical panning.  But if you were to engage me in a conversation about it, you'd know I'm on Brantley's side. Here is his review.

Read the comic book.  It's better than the show.

How Soon Will Business Cards Go Paperless?

I'm down to my last handful of business cards and have been dragging my feet to order new ones.  Somehow, it all seems like an anachronism, handing out these little pieces of card board and accepting other's card boards in return.  Then, getting back to the office and trying to remember who was who and why we exchanged cards in the first place.  I'm pretty good at the little tricks like immediately after meeting someone writing notes on the card to remind myself of the connection, yet it all seems kinda 20th century.

 

 

So I was fascinated by a column in the New York Times last Sunday riffing on the demise of the business card.  Especially fascinated by the people cited in the article as declaring the business card extinct. 

Not sure that is totally true, but I would like it to be.  Check out the blog called hashable.com site which allows you to create and share virtual business cards.  The NY Times writer, Austin Considine says that sites like this integrate social networking functions similar to some of those on Facebook and Twitter, plus digital calendars and the like.  Will hashable.com and its brethren be a business card killer?  Not sure but I'm still avoiding calling the printer for my card replacements.

Maybe I should just print cards that have my QR code on them (that's the quick response code you see all over the place now).  That would allow people to just scan the QR with a smartphone and put my info wherever they want it. 

 

 
We'll see.

Inner Circle in Beijing

I'm thrilled that on June 24 we'll be conducting an Inner Circle in Asia, specifically Beijing.  I facilitated one several years ago there, in 2006 to be exact.  And I know the truth to the saying of those who spend lots of time in China that "If you haven't been to China in the last six moths, you haven't been to China." Things change.  Quickly.

 

Last time I was there, I noted the frenetic pace (and when a New York talks of other places being fast, we mean FAST).  And that pace appears to be just as speedy, although there are signs from many quarters that China's many challenges in shaping it's future are daunting and may slow things at some point.

Meanwhile, though, we'll be talking in Beijing with a terrific group of senior leaders. Some are leading their company’s global initiatives, while others head Western businesses seeking access to Chinese markets and resources

At our Inner Circle in Hong Kong just a few weeks ago, as I reported here on May 31, the conversation was lively, reflecting a number of perspectives on just what it takes for Western companies to be successful in China and vice versa. 

 

 

In some of my pre-Inner Circle calls for this Beijing program, I have already heard comments about Google's problems in China and how much of it is due to what some Asians refer to the arrogance of Western companies who feel they can simply transport their Silicon Valley culture to Asia and have it work smoothly.  Not so.  What I'll be interested to hear is their advice as to what does work.  Is one of the requirements that you hire local people who can steer the culture bus as you are trying to introduce your product or service?  If so, just how difficult is it to find people who can bridge the cultural conversation so that both sides feel they are being heard? 

We know Google is not alone in being challenged in its efforts to operate in China.  It would be great if I could have someone from Google join us.  Thus far, haven't found anyone who will be in Beijing on the 24th.  But I'll keep at it.

 

Why Learning Conversation May Trump Tweeting

I just watched Mark Zuckerberg's speech to the middle school graduating class in Belle Haven, California.  He looks as though it was only moments ago that he graduated from middle school himself. If you want to watch the video (looks like it is recorded on someone's phone or a hand held so lousy production quality), here's the link.

 

 

As I heard his comments, I listened for advice that is sadly lacking from the speeches of those advising our graduation classes from middle school, high school, and college: the importance of conversation.

I talked recently with a senior executive of one of the largest banks in Asia.  He spends a lot of time concerned about the "pipeline" of the next generation of leaders.  He worries about the fact that young Asians (and he is himself Asian) because of their educational system (think serious rote learning) and the cultural norms in place as they have grown up, do not know how to address superiors.  They are shy about asking questions and they generally hope their work will be noticed rather than consider self-promotion of any kind.  This executive said "until we teach them how to carry on a serious conversation with superiors, we have to understand that they will not be equipped to lead."   I'm looking forward to working with him to set up a global program in his company to do just that.

The kid Mark Zuckerberg was addressing are Americans, in a wealthy suburb of California.  They have had a different kind of education and although they are still barely teenagers, are not shy about making their opinions heard and asking questions.  But they, too, are ill equipped for leadership roles in the future.  Not because they are too shy, but because they often don't know the simple rules of etiquette that continue to govern much of the business world.  Saying please and thank you are right up their as requirements, yet I am surprised on a nearly daily basis by the lack of knowledge of the simple rules of courtesy among our Nation's millennial and even younger folks.

A senior executive of one of the world's largest media agencies told me recently of a conversation she had with a fast climbing young executive who has been given some terrific breaks by informal mentors along the way.  The senior exec told me that when she asked, "Have you formally thanked each of these people for helping you?  Have you sent a letter (a real letter, sent by mail) or picked up the phone to say how much their advice or introductions or references have meant to you?"  The answer was no.  It had not occurred to this young man to thank those who have helped him along the way.  We agreed that he may be fast-rising now but at some point he needs to learn his manners or he'll be passed over by someone who knows how to form relationships with people crucial to the firm, like clients for example, by following  simple rules of etiquette..

 

 

I was told recently by a friend of mine how shocked he was when he turned over to his adult children the insurance policies he had taken out for them when they were infants. As a result of his purchasing those policies--and paying the premiums for twenty plus years on each of them, his children have a nest egg of life insurance on which the premiums are inexpensive and which comprise a valuable piece of their financial portfolios.  He told me that not one of his three children bothered to say thank you in any meaningful way.  In one kid's case, the father told me he thinks he is resented for creating an additional financial burden since that young adult is now required to pony up $20 per month--the cost of several Starbucks lattes or one dinner at Chili's--to cover the premium.

Most of us would assume the recipients of such largesse would be grateful and say thank you.  In this man's case, his children sent him impersonal one line emails.

 

 

Hmmm.  Time for reminders of some old fashioned conversational rules.  It may be easier to set up conversational training for the Asian youth than it will be to instill polite conversational skills in Western youth. 

 

Has Weiner's Bad Behavior Initiated A New Conversation Between The Sexes?

How many couples do you think have initiated a conversation--for the first time--about what is appropriate behavior and what is now, thanks to Anthony Weiner's salacious on-line sexual activities?

I'll bet there are many couples having an unprecedented conversation about this topic and I'll be virtually all of them have been initiated by the woman. In fact, I'll bet on it. 

 

That's probably a good thing. There is a saying,that families-and individuals--"are as sick as their secrets," and by that token the relationship between Representative Weiner and his wife was diseased, even though she was totally unaware of it.  That's not to say it is incurable. It's up to her, really, what she wants to do in this sad circumstance, exacerbated by the fact that she is newly pregnant.

But unless you know you have a disease, you can't cure it.  Kind of too bad that the whole world has to be in on the news, but at least it is known and can now be dealt with. 

Back to those conversations taking place in so many households all over America--and elsewhere too (did I hear someone say, France?), how many spouses are learning for the first time that their husband--or wife--has been engaging in phone sex, sexting, whatever else?  I talked with a friend of mine yesterday and learned of a thirty-something wife who just the other day heard her husband's cell phone while he was elsewhere in the house and saw a sex message to him.  When she confronted him with it, she learned he and his old fraternity brothers had all gone in on a "share" arrangement pursuant to which they each pay a certain amount of money a month, in return for which each gets a certain number of sexting messages and more.  She was floored.  He couldn't understand why she was so perturbed.

 

Well, well, well.  Thank you, Mr. Weiner, for initiating a whole new conversation about sex between couples you don't know and will never meet.  No question about it, your recent behavior has had impact beyond what you had envisioned when you set out on your career as a U.S. Congressman.  I assume it isn't the impact for which you had hoped.  Chalk it all up to the unforeseen consequences of bad behavior.

 

Shelly Palmer Says Weiner Too Digitially Dumb To Govern

I met with a group of business execs this morning, all women.  When the Weiner issue came up, it was unanimous: he's a sleaze, doesn't deserve to be a governing official.  But the discussion then went to just how prevalent is this behavior and what does it mean to our Nation's values? There are folks who feel people have sinned since the Adam and Eve story and now we just have more knowledge about their indiscretions. There are others who say, no, it's worse now because we have lost the central values core that kept behavior in check. The small town correctness versus the anonymous big city depravity.

I'm not sure where I come out on this but it suggests to me that more families need to have conversations about just what values-driven behavior is and why it is important if you want a culture to operate effectively. 

But Shelly Palmer wins the prize today, for putting the Weiner episode in a new light. 

 

 

Here's the gist of Shelly's take:"...Representative. Weiner is too digitally illiterate to hold public office...There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the information age. None. And that's just for average people.  If you choose a career in the public spotlight, you have to assume that your life is an open e-book. Everyone has access to everything you say, to, type, text, shoot, tweet, update, buy, sell, borrow, steal, eat, drink, wear and, they can easily learn where you are and who you are with.

 

People are saying that our elected officials need to be held to a higher standard. I disagree. I think that we are all human and that we all make mistakes. However, I do think that in 2011 if you don't know that a Tweet and a yfrog.com account are publishing platforms, you are too ignorant of our world to do anyone any good in Congress, or any other body tasked with crafting laws for the betterment of our society."

Here's Shelly's column today. Love it. Especially since Weiner has held himself up as being so technically savvy. 

 

 

 

Gender Views Of The Anthony Weiner Debacle

First of all, I'm disgusted with Anthony Weiner.  Who ARE these people (Spitzer, Schwarzenegger, John Edwards, etc., etc.) that have been elected to office and can't seem to keep their zipper zipped or, in Weiner's case, can't seem to tamp down their libido which compels them to expose themselves and their sexual appetites via the web.

 

Other people are disgusted, too.  What I'm noting, though, is that there appears to be a difference along gender lines to the reaction and to the discussion of whether Weiner should resign from his office.

Shall we even consider what would happen if a female congresswoman were caught in the same kind of situation?  And lied about it?  C'mon, people!  She would be run out of office so fast she'd not have time to resign on her own. 

So why let guys like Weiner off the hook?  I just watched a pundit who said "C'mon, lots of us have done this; we're just smart enough not to use our own name."  Oh, really?  Is this kind of behavior the norm and I just haven't noticed?  And by the way, isn't part of the point here that Weiner used his name and identified himself as a Congressman precisely because it allowed him to exploit his political celebrity for sexual gratification?  (One of the young women to whom he sent pictures says when she expressed disbelief that the person with whom she was communicating was actually Weiner because she felt anyone in such an elected position would not do something like this, he sent a picture of himself holding up a note that said "me.")

So where does this leave us?  The NY Times editorial today says that if the ethics investigation, which Nancy Pelosi was correct to initiate, reveals that Weiner abused the resources of his office, then he should resign. 

No kidding! 

But let's go back to the conversation about all this.  Do the men you know think this was just stupid?  Or that it shows such poor judgment and character (consider the lying...many times...about it) he should resign?  And what about the women you know?  Have a few conversations with men and women you know.  I suspect there may be a division along gender lines in the responses you get.

I'm just sayin'...

 

 

Groupon May Be Worth All $30 Billion

Wow!  So Groupon is being valued somewhere in the stratosphere (did I hear $30 Billion?  Less than six months ago they were talking about maybe $15 Billion.  Can't recall when a company doubled in valuation in less than six months, especially in those numbers).  And that makes it sounds like a really, really big company.

But, maybe not.  Just an extremely valuable company.

 

I became a Groupon member some time ago but just never bothered to buy anything.  I finally did so last week and after I bought it, realized that I'd failed to take advantage of the "$10 bucks off on your first purchase" deal.  So I sent an email, using their really easy communications setup to ask a question about it.  Frankly, I would not have been surprised if their response was a kind of "you snooze, you lose" answer since I'd had notice of the $10 off deal and ignored it until too late.

Wrong.  I got an answer back in what seemed like minutes from someone with a real name.   Here is what Andi W of Groupon wrote to me:

"Hi Susan,

Sorry for the trouble.  I have placed $10 credit in your account to use toward Groupon purchases.

The credit is available in your account immediately and does not expire.  You can see your available credit by selecting "My Account" or "My Gifts" from the drop down menu that appears when you place your mouse over your name in the top right corner of Groupon.com.  Your available credit will be displaced in the green box to the right.  Groupon credit will automatically apply to your future purchase until it runs out.

Please enjoy and let me know if I can help you further. 

Regards,

Andi.W"

And Andi W. gave an email address for me to write back.  So I did, simply saying thank you.  And guess what?

Andi W wrote back:

"Hey Susan,

Glad I could help!

Take care.

Andi W."

 

How great is this? So Groupon has me as a customer. 

Why is it that when I have a problem with an airline that I've flown for millions of years, it takes forever to get someone to just answer the phone?  Or how about the pure hell my husband and I got embroiled in with Verizon just to set up installation of FIOS service?.  I'll probably spend an entire blog post just on that one, but suffice it to say it involved 8 different Verizon employees, none of whom could confirm the installation.  Or how about U-Haul last weekend, when they told us we had to return the van at 5 PM because they had someone else waiting to rent it at 5:30, so if we were held up in any way to call them...and then when we tried to call to report we would be there at 5:10 we found the number they gave was forwarded to U-Haul headquarters somewhere else in the US...and a person there (yes I finally got to a real person) said they would try to notify the drop-off place while I held on the line...but of course, they got the same forwarding message so there was no way to notify the drop-off place that we were going to be 10mins late).

I say let's go with the Groupon folks.  They have figured it out.  It's--surprise!--all about the customer.  I swear I felt it was nearly a face-to-face conversation I had with Andi W..  Chatty, friendly, like a neighbor. 

 

 

 

 

Talking With God In Tree Of Life

 The remarkable new film conceived of and directed by Terrence Malick is a tour de force.  It is admittedly "not a mainstream movie," as the critics keep telling us.  There is no clear ending, for example, or even much of a beginning.

 

 

What's more, there is little by way of conversation in the film.  Then why, you may ask, does someone l obsesses with conversation (like me) find it so interesting?

It's because the few conversations that take place in the film are spellbinding.  They are significant, about life's biggest questions and the difficulty we have answering them.  In fact, a number of the conversations are really one-sided pleas from one or more of the characters, to God: "Where are you?  Why am I here?"...that kind of thing.

As we are inundated with information and data from all sides, a film like this that has much of the action take place in Waco, Texas in the 50's, reminds us of just what we miss when we are tweeting, or on facebook, or looking at email on a laptop.  The kids in the film grow up in a town where they found their own fun, played games, built stuff, without the distraction of the Web.  It's a life forever gone, it appears, everywhere.

 

 

What Tree of Life does do is generate conversation among film-goers after the fact.  What was it about, in your opinion?  How much does religion have to do with all of this?  Does Malick appear to be a religious man?

Several times in the film, characters do not talk, even though we expect them to.  They are people who have come to learn that sometimes the best thing to do when faced with an unthinkable, even unbearable revelation, is to say nothing and just contemplate what has happened.

There are many silences in Tree of Life.  Which makes us appreciate what characters have to say when they get around to talking with one another.

I'm still thinking about it...