Political Gastronomica : October 2007
« September 2007 | Main | January 2008 »
Is the second canary signalling? You decide...
This morning, I saw an article that made my heart run slightly cold - which lead me to post it on my Facebook Notes. The response was quite intriguing that I decided to republish it here on my site.
So this morning, I see an article in the International Herald Tribune which made me stop cold (please, note the pun)
As temperatures rise, a greening of Greenland
NARSARSUAQ, Greenland: A strange thing is happening at the edge of Poul Bjerge's forest, a place so minute and unexpected that it brings to mind the teeny piece of land that Woody Allen's father carries around in the film "Love and Death."
Its four oldest trees - in fact, the four oldest pine trees in Greenland, named Rosenvinge's trees after the Dutch botanist who planted them in a mad experiment in 1893 - are waking up. After lapsing into stately, sleepy old age, they are exhibiting new sprinklings of green at their tops, as if someone had glued on fresh needles.
"The old ones, they're having a second youth," said Bjerge, 78, who has watched the forest, called Qanasiassat, come to life, in fits and starts, since planting most of the trees in it 50 years ago. He beamed like a proud grandson. "They're growing again."
When using the words "growing" in connection with Greenland in the same sentence, it is important to remember that although Greenland is about four times the size of France, it has only nine conifer forests like Bjerge's, all of them cultivated. It has only 51 farms. (They are all sheep farms, although one man is trying to raise cattle. He has 22 cows.) Except for potatoes, the only vegetables most Greenlanders ever eat - to the extent that they eat vegetables at all - are imported, mostly from Denmark.
But now that the climate is warming, it is not just old trees that are growing. A Greenlandic supermarket is stocking locally grown cauliflower, broccoli and cabbage this year for the first time. Eight sheep farmers are growing potatoes commercially. Five more are experimenting with vegetables. And Kenneth Hoeg, the region's chief agriculture adviser, says he does not see why southern Greenland cannot eventually be full of vegetable farms and viable forests.
As someone who recently read and watched Gore's Inconvenient Truth, looks like the second canary is signaling...
Posted by Sanford Dickert at 10:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Will Social Networks Impact the 2008 Election? I think NOT.
On the 12th of September, it will be was the fourth anniversary of my involvement in US politics - from the presidential to the state level - and I have worked on campaigns from as lofty as JK's 2004 Presidential effort to a local run (Jennifer Gottlieb's run for an At-Large seat on the Broward County School Board). In this cycle, I find myself on the sidelines - due to forces beyond my control (thanks to the "speed and rapidity" of the NY Supreme Court System).
In 2003, I came into politics with the enthusiasm as any American school kid does - fed the stories of civic action, civic duty and the thinking that with good intention and hard work, you could make change happen in the political process. And, from my experiences, I think for the most part, you can - especially in the primaries or on the edges where the elephants (and donkeys) will not risk to play. But when risk is mitigated, the older, wiser "A-team" comes calling, and the younger, less-experienced are layered, transferred or simply pushed to the edges. The process teaches you valuable lessons for both politics and life in general - if properly seen in context.
But being on the outside of the campaign cycle this year has given me a chance to see if the hub-bub about this being the Year of the Internet is all that it is cracked up to be. From my vantage point, I think the hype is not going to make up for the lack of connectivity that people think the Internet (and social networks) are supposed to bring.
Will Social Networks Impact The Election?
I was asked this question last year by my friend from Wired, after I finished with another campaign, and I can STILL heartily say - even with techpresident's MySpace, Facebook and YouTube counters - I believe that social networks will still NOT impact the coming 2008 election.
"Wha?", I hear my poli-tech friends gasp. "Didn't you read the study that shows Facebook numbers are an indicator of relative success of drawing voters?" "Weren't you at the Facebook Political Summit?" "Aren't you impressed by / using the new Facebook tools?" "Aren't you impressed by the incredible reach of all of the candidates and their supporters through MySpace, facebook, flickr, YouTube?".
No.
And why not? I think they are missing an essential ingredient: simple, human contact.
All social networks are not the same
Funny thing, these social networks; there are over 100+ of them - addressing various issues, spaces and sundry interests. MySpace - the behemoth that is (IMHO) on the wane is not a place to connect, it is rapidly becoming the place to be a surrogate website for candidates - not for people to connect. Consider the actions you can take on MySpace:
- Email Your Friends
- Invite to an Event
- Post on the Bulletin Board
- Comment on their Page Blog
....and? Well - you can add widgets, videos, and other visual attractors - but, between you and me, how often does Jack and Jane Voter plan on watching the same video over and over again? Read the same blog post which more than likely came from the candidate's main site? And, for anyone who truly believes that they are speaking to the national candidate or the candidate is actually listening on that comment site, please know that Suzy Intern really appreciates your involvement.
I could go on about Ryze, LinkedIn, hi5, tribe.net, Friendster (that is soooo 2003), Orkut, myyearbook, eons, mygrito, think MTV, flickr....oy! I could go on, but what are the campaigns actually doing?
Social networks (in version 1.0) have been about exposing data and allowing for a simple search query to allow you to discover other like people in your interest sphere. Web 2.0 suggests that social networks are about a fundamentally different, albeit enabled premise - being social - not simply by having a profile presence, but seeing what is happening in your network and becoming part of the life within that network. Living the pulse of the network and either being part of it - or wanting to be part of it. Do candidates offer a glimpse of that life within the network that is something supporters want to be part of? Does the campaign truly offer a chance to engage in simple, human contact?
When I go to the local mall, county fair, outdoor market - I can often see the ardent supporters of candidates "tabling" in the flow of traffic - holding their campaign literature, sign at the edge of the table, looking for eyes that are ready to learn more about the person running for State Senate, Congress or even President. You and your friends are there, giving each other moral support as the throngs of people walk by - nary paying attention to you, until a person walks up and says, "So....tell me about Senator X."
Where does this happen on social networks? Can I put up a "table" and engage in a conversation? Where is the flow of people that are milling about that can be "chatted up"? Certainly not on MySpace or many of the other social networks.
While I may have sounded dismissive earlier, Facebook does something that others do not - provides a news feed on my friends. Coined as "exhaust data" by my friends at Yi-Tan, the news feed - if updated regularly, gives me a sense of who is "walking around the mall" of Facebook - 'specially ones that are part of my social graph. This is where the campaigns would benefit.
Where are the Virtual Tablers?
This is where the campaigns can use their volunteers and give them the power to reach across their own networks and chat up people when they are interested in learning more about the candidate. But, it is not easy to go and "speak" to someone in Facebook since all of the communications are not interrupt-driven (as a face-to-face might be), they are addressed whenever the receiver wants to. How do you get people to accept the interrupts? Usually, that is the sense of presence - of human contact. Once that magic ingredient is "captured" and enabled, then I could see social networks truly engaging people.
Posted by Sanford Dickert at 3:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Part 2 of 2: Mayor Bloomberg at Cooper Union
After watching Mayor Bloomberg on the stage and looking at the candidates - I have been forming a greater interest in seeing a candidate like him step up to the plate. Even if he does not take the steps to become a candidate, at least he is causing a conversation to be engaged.
One of the challenges the mayor put to us was to outline what we were looking for in a President. And interestingly enough, I have had some thoughts on this. In a later post, I promise to outline these thoughts and put it to my faithful readers as to what you think should be some of the qualities that become our next President of the United States.
Continuing from the prior post:
TB: Nothing was asked of us in this war - we have two militaries: one in uniform, one is not.
MB: The challenge is that we have no draft - all volunteer. The rest of us feel no pain. Rest of us do not feel it. A very small number of American are feeling the real pain. GWB needs to find a better way to explain the what and why of this war. We no longer trust the military leadership - a lot of the decisions made are political. For example - weapons that are being built for our country are being built for political reasons. A ship is constructed with parts from all 50 states to satisfy the political needs of the politicians. Back in Boston, American farmers were part of an unconventional war, using guerrilla tactics to fight off the British. Now, in Iraq, we are the British and the Iraqis are the colonists.
We are being constantly being attacked - while we have lots of technology advantages, it is not guaranteed to be useful man-to-man. A lot are going to be useless.
TB: Let's switch topics: education. Congrats on the success of NYC schools!
MB: Overall, there was a 43% improvement - with enough credit to go all around. This improvement was the "easy part" - it will be tougher from here on out. We have a long way to go.
Before, we used to say that there was a two class structure - black/latino and others. Now, we eliminated the gap. All of the students are showing improvement. People ask "could we have done more?" It seems to easy to blame the teacher unions. In NYC, there are 300K workers here - all hardworking. Unions want to improve the lot and the City.
We now have accountability - much better in the NYC school system. Parents get a report card to grade the schools. Principals are held responsible, and staff jobs are in jeopardy - nothing is sacred. People want to work in NYC for the school system. Working in the NYC School System is not a cushy gig - people are held accountable and responsible. Bonuses are given based on performance and we use metrics to measure success. We spend over $20B / year for the school system - vested interests already exist, but they will retire.
TB: What is your take on the differences between public schools, charter schools and vouchers?
MB: I believe it is good to have competition - charter schools are great for innovation. And the essentials for innovation are challenges. If a particular program works, we can do it with public money. Breaking up large programs into smaller ones is good for relationships. We have seen an increase in graduation rates from 30% to upwards of 80-90%.
With regard to vouchers - they are a politically explosive topic - I am not sure of the 100% viability of vouchers over all.
TB: So, why would you not run (for President)?
MB: There are lots of candidates and lots of options to make a difference. There are 828 days left to go until the Election. I believe in Making Every Day Count - there need to be successes to build upon. After being Mayor, I think philanthropy is the best job for me. Being the Mayor of New York - I have to deliver results. It is the ultimate executive job - if I wanted to change the direction of traffic on Fifth Avenue, I could have it change tomorrow morning. That is incredible.
In terms of improving the city - it has always been about crime. Crime brings down the tax base. If we bring down the murder rate, we see growth. The city is booming - 47M tourists this year, original aim was 50M in three years - we will hit it. More corporate headquarters are coming here.
TB: And what happens after Super Tuesday? What if you are not happy?
MB: All I can say is - the Yankees are two games out - I need to get us a Subway Series.
I am not a candidate for President.
I think we, as voters, need to ask the basic question: what do we think are the qualifications for being the President of the United States? What if we did a scorecard?
The press always seem to focus on the missing elements - while the public wants to know about what is good about the people they are electing. The American Public is a lot smarter than what people seem to give them credit.
Yes, American can be considered arrogant - but remember, people are always wanting to move to America - our culture is accepting and draw people in. People, no matter where they are from, vote with their feet. They are always walking toward America, not away.
Yes - someone is always unhappy about something - not that I know anything about that with raising taxes, smoking bans, etcetera.
Posted by Sanford Dickert at 1:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Impressed by the Hillary/Obama fundraising totals? I'm not...yet.
You know, reading the news cycle, I was amused at what is the game of this season - portraying numbers as measures of success for future electability. Reading the news, I see that Obama generated $19M with 93K new donors and Hillary generated $22M with 100K new donors. But, as any economics professor knows, it isn't the revenues that make a company - its profitability that's important.
Campaign Marketing Spend
In the 90s, with the dotcom era running rampant, companies would spend extravagantly to generate buzz int he ever increasingly injured public. Nary a day went by without a new press release trying to tout why this company was going to be the market definer in X, the global solution in Y - all fueled by the largess of the venture capitalists that were looking to increase the interest of the IPO public - who, at that time, was the individual investor.
Flash forward to 2007. This year, the Internet is playing big - where the news is served via feeds, the video is captured on mobile phones and a rumor can fly with the speed of a google web crawl (or references from your friends). With so much happening in the world (credit crunch, Iraq war, global warming) and the election still only three months away, how does one make their mark - if they can not spend on advertising? Via earned media.
Public Relations = Earned Media
In the tech world, we spend money so people can learn about our product through magazines, conferences, and (perchance) a mention on an influential page - where a blog, a newspaper or even a news-magazine. This is the concept of earned media - and what PR professionals get paid to do ALL THE TIME. When you have a piece of news that is good - you trumpet that - disregarding those niggly things called "details". But with an economist in the house, who is interested in profitability, we concern ourselves with those "details".
In finance parlance, it is called Cost of Goods Sold or COGS - which is usually what it takes to make and market the product. In widget companies - you think of this cost as what determines the margin - profit which is money paid for the product by the consumer minus the costs into selling it to the consumer. In movies, this cost can often be much higher than the box office receipts (think Godzilla) since the marketing effort is not simply for the product (in-theater, domestic movie launch) alone. They consider the expense a long-term investment - keeping the brand in the mind of the consumer when it hits DVD rental and sales and pay-per-view and so on.
So, what does this have to do with these numbers? Well, in politics, rarely do people spend time evaluating COGS since the only number that matters are the ones you can trumpet. While the candidates trumpeted the receipts and numbers, did you notice that the cash on hand number was not discussed? Or even how much they spent on fundraising.
What if I told you that for every dollar collected, a candidate spent two or three to collect it? What if the value of slowing momentum in a race was more important that the actual amounts collected - and you had the money to spend, would it be worth trumpeting?
The Heinz Method
A friend of mine told me the story about Senator John Heinz who, when first running, had a bunch of money behind him (his own) but needed to build a "base" to show others that he had support from "the people". So, as in all political campaigns, then Mr. Heinz spent a large amount of his own money to ask for donations - through fundraisers and particularly direct mail. While I do not have the numbers from that effort, you could see how someone could potentially generate X dollars in donations from Y supporters while spending 3X to 5X on acquiring those dollars and donors.
So, come October 15th - when the numbers come out from the campaigns, I am going to take a look at the CODC for the campaigns. And then I will see who really is generating "grassroots" support. Will anyone care then? Not sure. We may have moved onto some other major policy discussion.
In politics, the challenge for a candidate is making an efficient political "machine" - and the hype says Hillary has built it. Maybe yes, maybe no. If you are interested, check back on October 17th.
Tags: Campaign Fundraising, Campaign 2008, Presidential Campaign, Hillary Clinton, Obama Barack
Posted by Sanford Dickert at 9:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
