When Donald Trump’s organization turned to “network marketing” to me it was a sign that times were really tough. But now that I’m hearing ads on the airwaves to jump on board with The Donald before it is too late I have to laugh.
I come from an area that at one time was ground zero for pyramid schemes such as Glenn W. Turner’s Koscot International cosmetics and Dare to Be Great Seminars. Get rich quick artists have been praying on Floridians for years. They all seem to roll through here.
Network marketing, on the other hand, claims to be the honest answer for those who can’t wait for the bucks to roll in: the ones who would rather make money by selling other people the right to work for them.
The downside of all these schemes … the legal and the not-so-legal … has always been that the string eventually runs out. Those who get in early make money. And when the ball stops rolling as the string gets taught, the ambitious would-be-Trumpsters who bought in late in the game end up holding an empty bag. It almost never fails because eventually the driving forces in the middle get tired of seeing all the dough to the doughnut maker.
I’m not saying the one with the best known hair in maledom would scam anyone, but there’s a subtle message in his radio ads: “those who recognize the opportunity early will thrive.”
Wonder what the future will look like? Thomas Friedman sees a dimly lit future if we don’t start teaching critical thinking in our public schools.
Employers of tomorrow – for that matter, today – can’t afford to staff their businesses with order takers. We need innovators … and innovators are people who can think over the horizon, spot a need and create solutions to problems that often haven’t yet been recognized.
If you’re like me, you’re looking for people who look at life like one big iPhone waiting for apps to be written. I like to think of them as “opps,” things that create opportunities.
A while back I wrote about invective and how the volume of online conversation is making life in the digisphere more and more unpleasant.
Just as interesting as the volume of passionate advocates and combative opponents alike is the tendency to anoint themselves as experts … whether they are talking about fried shrimp dinners, health care reform, their favorite martini bar or least liked public official.
And, because so many people are talking on almost every topic imaginable, both the proponents and their foes seem to be claiming the collective voice as being on “their side.”
Seth Godin suggests in “True Believers (and the truth)” that the Internet is what has amplified the volume of debate and that the loudest voices may not be the best point of reference when making the case for or against something, suggesting “they’re wrong far more than they are right.”
Coming as I do from a background in the dying art of journalism, I’m tempted to say “yes, Seth … I think you’re right. In fact, you’ve proven your point because you have failed to quote anything – statistical evidence from research, anecdotal evidence, etc. – that proves how right or wrong the voices really are.”
It strikes me – but I have nothing to back up my position – that the Internet isn’t to blame for the decibel level. Rather access has provided us all with an endless roll of free paper on which to write, ALL TO OFTEN IN SHOUTING CAPITAL LETTERS, whatever we believe to be true as if it were of biblical veracity.
Whatever happened to judgment? When did we stop questioning things before we started preaching them as gospel? Where did we lose our collective ability to study things before proclaiming ourselves experts?
As investigations are underway regarding last Thursday’s “Balloon Boy” fiasco, we start to wonder more and more: did they really do “this for the show?”
Colorado authorities as well as the media began drawing inferences from the Larry King Live interview on which 6-year-old “Balloon Boy,” Falcon Heene, made the assertion.
As the story slowly unravels we start to wonder how honest, candid and transparent these parents really are.
Whether the Heene Family was seeking publicity or not – if they ever want another moment (15 minutes of fame) the ball(oon) is in their court to help us understand and to clarify the communication break down.
I’ve decided to expand on that and put a new sign on my wall:
“Honesty is a value.
Candor is a risk.
Transparency is a must.”
It comes down to some simple concepts.
We simply expect people to be honest with us. Don’t you hate it when someone says “I’ll be honest with you”? It always makes me wonder when they stopped being honest with me … or whether I should assume they usually aren’t.
Candor is something altogether different. Many people would rather you not be candid with them. For instance, if you think I made a huge mistake in my choice of ties this morning I’d likely prefer to hear about it later if I’m in an environment where a tie is required but I have no chance to replace the monstrosity I am wearing.
Transparency, on the other hand, is a topic of much discussion in today’s often highly charged conversations about ethics. You could be both honest and candid with me, but if you have an agenda for being candid, the fact that you told me the truth is tainted.
Often in business you find someone attempting to reel you in with “total honesty” (one of life’s great oxymorons) but when it comes at you with what I like to call wide-eyed candor – that “golly gee I’m being open with you” look – beware.
Tell me the truth. Be candid with me. Tell me why.
Here I am at 60, proud of myself for adapting to much of the digital lifestyle but openly frustrated sometimes by my missteps at the keyboard and occasional (oh, all right, frequent) confusion when it comes to some things techie.
My iPhone is always at my side and I participate aggressively in online conversations via Twitter and Facebook almost anywhere and anytime. I have two monitors on my desk at work and keep up with the social network comments of dozens of folks … both personal friends and luminaries of the digital space I’ve come to respect for their blogs and tweets.
Now my young partner Kim Taylor, unquestionably the firm’s creative and social media conscience, tries to make me feel better about my struggles by sharing this item from lifehacker suggesting multitasking may not be all it has been cracked up to be.
So here I sit, trying to figure out if it is more productive to write this post for our blog or read another post I found on lifehacker, a site that promises to deliver tips and downloads for getting things done.
I think I’ll just go home because I have to install that second monitor on my home PC.
I sat yesterday morning in a room full of professionals, some from the C-suite and some with the word “coordinator” still in their title. The presenter, Dr. James Hogg from the UCF Rosen College of Hospitality, asked the audience, “How many of you know what Web 2.0 is?” Of course every hand went up, as this was a session about honing social media and networking strategies. But, when he followed with, “Okay, who would like say what it is?” The audience was motionless.
Could it be that these seemingly skilled and respected folks were in the dark on a commonly used term? These people lead board meetings, provide communications consultation to high-level executives, create corporate branding campaigns, manage hundred person teams and have credentials a mile long. But they can’t explain “Web 2.0.”?
Well, I guess I really couldn’t either. I was in that room too, and all of a sudden motionless.
The answer is easy, he explained. It’s two ‘A’ words. Anytime. Anywhere.
Web 2.0 is what the Web is right now. It’s an interactive platform where users can input something and get something else out of it. You can log on to the “Internet” and get the same thing no matter where you access it. I think I knew that, I just couldn’t put it into words.
Shareable platforms like RSS Feeds, Blogs, Wikis, and even Delicious all make up Web 2.0.
Hogg said we’ve been calling it Web 2.0, because it’s different from the original Web 1.0, which was made-up of Web sites that displayed information but didn’t allow two-way communication or interactivity. Web 1.0 had simple pages that told you something you should know, and didn’t ask you anything about you. (Kind of like talking to a narcissist.)
So now you can explain Web 2.0 too.
But beware, just when you’ve become comfortable giving an answer in a presentation about any of the above terms, a whole new slew of them will be out there to learn.
The cavalier use of words … whether in political rhetoric or news headlines … seems to have become so acceptable these days that studying their meaning is almost not worth the effort.
Why, for instance, would we call a publication a newspaper when we can just as easily refer to it as a rag … or a fish wrapper?
After all, isn’t that what the Orlando Sentinel Web site did with its use of the term “fake” to describe the proposal to enhance the look of a bridge? Dictionary.com makes it pretty clear that fake is not a nice word.
Is the newspaper suggesting that Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer is trying to deceive someone?
Newspapers and politicians alike need to think twice before using words that can so easily be taken as offensive. Using them without considering their meaning, or the potential for misinterpretation is careless in any business.
It was one of those moments. Who ever thought they’d hear shouting from the floor of Congress … much less a member calling The President of The United States of America a liar.
Joe Wilson of South Carolina will never again be known as a relatively obscure member of Congress, but wanted or not, his 15 seconds of fame could change debate in this country just as the Obama administration is selling a change in its health care system to more closely resemble that of Great Britain where outbursts like Wilson’s are the norm. In fact, they’re great sport for Parliament watchers.
It is routine for a Member of Parliament to hear heckles and jeers, and it really doesn’t matter who is in the house … including Her Majesty or the current resident of 10 Downing Street.
We really don’t know what we’re missing. Watch here as Gordon Brown gets shouted down by MPs:
We might actually have more fun watching politics if we let them liven it up a bit.
Ever wonder how people survive in Washington? Do you sometimes think that people have to be crazy to run for Congress what with all the anger and microscopic media coverage that go with the territory?
Former U.S. Rep. Lou Frey, who ably represented Central Florida in Congress for a decade beginning in 1969, has – along with UCF Political Science Professor Aubrey Jewett – compiled a fascinating book titled “Political Rules of the Road” which contains responses Frey got from asking nearly two hundred former members of the nation’s lawmaking branch to share their rules for success in Congress, politics and life.
Founder of the Lou Frey Institute of Politics and Government at the University of Central Florida and this year was the recipient of the U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress Distinguished Service award for his passionate efforts to advance civics education. Frey’s own two rules make sense in or out of politics:
1) If you have to explain you are in trouble; and,
2) Don’t get in a fight with someone who buys his ink by the carload.
While many sent rules you would expect, there are some gems in this tome.
In a chapter on Media, Ethics, Speeches and Public Relations, the first President Bush reminded “there is no such thing as ‘off the record,’” something we teach in our Message Matrix® program. Former Congressman Rod Chandler of Oregon suggested “the truth always makes a good story.” Many of today’s politicians would like to know the reporters Chandler knew.
But the gem in this chapter came from a former representative from Minnesota William Frenzel who first advised Congressmen to “never miss any good opportunities to sit down,” which may relate directly to this:
“One hour speeches can be made off-the-cuff; 30 minutes speeches require at least an hour of preparation; speeches of 5 minutes or less require at least a day’s work including several trial deliveries.”
So true, Congressman: It is a determined communicator who captures his thoughts in as few words as possible so as to have time to listen to his audience’s questions.
Posted by Curley & Pynn - The Strategic Firm 
Posted by Curley & Pynn - The Strategic Firm 
Posted by Curley & Pynn - The Strategic Firm 
RSS - Posts