My Theory of Change
by Brian Reich | 8 Feb 2010, 1:54pm
Beth Kanter is asking what people’s theory of change is, as a part of a program that HP is running. Here is what I wrote:
My theory of change is that everything has to change. Everything needs to be re-visited, re-considered, re-evaluated, and ultimate re-worked. Until we do that, nothing will change - at least not on the scale that we desire, and not in a way that is sustainable. So my theory of change is really focused on setting us up so all the other theories of change are even more likely to realize success.
I believe in the power of community and the marketplace, I am confident that people, especially now that we are all connected, have the ability to radically shift the way we organize, communicate, educate and act (read: behave) if given a solid platform from which to launch their efforts. But for those powers to be activated, for those forces to have their influence, we have to change the way we are structured, the very way we look at how theories of change themselves are implemented. We have to knock the meteor that is currently hurdling towards the planet (apathy, focus on activity and not impact, serving the cause instead of solving the cause) and threatening to destroy everything off course, if you will.
Thus, my theory of change is:
1) Review everything. Start by looking at every organization, plan, structure, message, tactic, and activity to understand what is working and what isn’t. There are too many legacy systems and failed approaches being used ‘because that is how we have always done it’ to expect real change to flourish. This is true as a nonprofit community, and for individual organizations. That’s step one.
2) Break the big pieces into small ones. By reviewing everything you open up the possibility of considering everything. You can break the big systems down into little pieces — each goal can be isolated, each strategy left to stand on its own, each tactic able to be considered in a very narrow, specific context. When each challenge, each opportunity and each approach is on its own two things happen: a) you can more easily prioritize and organize what you are doing, and b) you can determine what is working and what isn’t more easily.
3) Put the pieces back together. No single activity or goal, no matter how exciting, will have a significant impact on its own. Everything is connected. And each piece plays a very specific role - they compliment each other, they expand the reach and impact of whatever came before them. When we put the pieces back together, and look at the whole picture of what needs to happen and the steps required to get from start to finish, we have a chance to do some real damage. So step three is to start to re-connect the pieces, and understand the relationships that exist between individual areas of focus, goals, the roles and responsibilities of those involved, the actions we all take, and the outcome we are seeking.
4) Divide and conquer. Right now, we mostly compete - for attention, for dollars, for ownership and control. Collaboration is nice. But in reality, to realize change we have to divide and conquer. We need to distribute responsibility and ensure that the necessary talent, energy and focus is applied to each of the key pieces along the path towards change. So, rather than invite people to participate, or throw open the challenge so that everyone can meet, we need to clearly identify the specific things that need to be figured out, at all levels, and make sure someone takes responsibility for each (and is held accountable). Until we all get out of our own way, not to mention each other’s, we won’t get anywhere.
5) Evolve. The last, and perhaps most important aspect of my theory of change, is change itself. Evolution. We have to grow. We have to try things and fail, but be comfortable in getting up and trying again. We have to be willing to accept that mistakes are part of the process of change, and embrace the fear, anxiety and difficulty that comes with doing new things. We have to be patient, and self-aware (or aware with help from others) so we can apply the lessons to our work in real-time. That will allow us to improve, our work and our plans, and the whole movement can evolve.
My theory of change is that you have to start by changing everything. You have to start by looking at everything we are doing, accepting it isn’t working, and start fresh. That doesn’t mean throw everything out, it means look at the game film and find the good stuff. It means ask tough questions. It means challenge existing assumptions. It means nothing that we are doing is working exactly as we had hoped and nobody who is doing anything is without a need for change.
Until we do that, things might look different, but nothing will change. That’s my theory anyway.
What do you think? Go post your own theory on Beth’s blog (not that you need a reason, but you might win a really neat prize too).
TAGS
: Beth Kanter Department of Ideas HP Theory of Change
leave a comment
Department of Ideas: Revisit Everything
by Brian Reich | 31 Jan 2010, 11:21pm
I have an idea: We should revisit everything.
We spend so much time looking forward these days, its easy to forget what happened in the past — and why its important. Newspapers and magazines don’t offer much context, choosing instead to offer predictions and prognostications (that sometimes don’t even seem to be based on fact - or reality). Television news barely acknowledges that anything aside from ‘breaking news’ is even happening. Save for the death this week of noted historian and author, Howard Zinn, most people wouldn’t talk about history at all… and surely that interest will only last until someone embarrasses themselves during tonight’s live telecast of the Grammy’s.
The truth is, we don’t know much about the past. History isn’t important to most people. We don’t pay close enough attention to the events that shaped our society. And we do so at our own peril.
Personally, I’d say I know enough history to be dangerous. On a good day I can name all the US Presidents — and the major accomplishments of the most notable ones. I am pretty confident that I know when (and in some cases, where) most of the major conflicts, from the Trojan War to Operation Enduring Freedom, happened. I can sound authoritative when I explain the origins of the Israel/Palestine conflict or the factors that led up to the genocide in Darfur. And if pressed, I can hold my own during a cocktail party conversation about the various economic and cultural influences that have shaped our society.
Still, as I walked through the Lincoln and New York exhibit at the New York Historical Society earlier today it was clear I don’t know much at all. I consider myself pretty knowledgeable when it comes to Abraham Lincoln. I certainly know the highlights or our 16th President’s life — the big milestones in his rise to political power, his leadership during the Civil War, the content of his big speeches and proclamations, the events surrounding his assassination, etc. But I admit, the details are fuzzy, at best. The names of most supporting players are unfamiliar. I don’t know the exact dates of anything.
History is powerful. Knowing our history is important. But history is often overlooked, forgotten - or worse ignored. How can history compete with the present - the constant flow of information, the battles for attention, the speed and excitement of the new and shiny? With everything about the world changing quickly and constantly, do we even have time to pause and reflect on where we came from?
We do have time. We have to make time. Our survival in the future is as much dependent on our ability to understand the events of the past as our capacity to manage what is happening in the present day. That means our current situation, where history plays little or no role in our daily life, is both unsustainable, and ultimately dangerous. If we don’t pay more attention to history, take the time to consider the past, the consequences could be quite significant.
What should we do? Revisit everything.
One by one, subject by subject, we should be revisiting history. We should be reviewing what happened in the past and trying to make sense of it given our knowledge and experiences from current times. We should look at the big events, as well as the small happenings. We should pay attention to the big names, but also the people who surrounded and influenced them. Remember, new history is created every day — the studying never stops.
There should be more than one cable channel devoted to history. There should be movie studios that specialize in re-telling old stories - without ruining them. Television networks should build their programs around past events instead of ripping everything from the headlines. Publications, online and offline, should re-publish more articles from the past. For every book offering a new model or approach to conducting business online there should be a biography or historical analysis published as well. People should spend as much time looking through archives as they do on Facebook.
NBC had a great slogan when promoting their summer reruns a few years back. They said “If you haven’t seen it, its new to you.” That’s true for history also.
There is no time to waste. We should revisit everything.
Its just an idea…
Department of Ideas: Real Time TV Programming
by Brian Reich | 31 Jan 2010, 12:07am
I have an idea: television programming should reflect what is happening outside.
When a massive snowstorm hit the east coast the weekend before Christmas, everything stopped - planes were grounded, trains were delayed, the streets were (mostly) empty of cars and sidewalks (mostly) devoid of pedestrians. Millions of people from Washington, DC to Boston found themselves having to fill an entire day’s worth of time without being able to venture outside. I don’t know for sure, but I’m guessing many of them turned on the television.
I was in our apartment in New York — my wife and son had driven to Connecticut ahead of the storm and were spending a few extra days with family before the holidays. I had stayed behind to get some work done and spent most of the day in front of my laptop. By mid-afternoon, however, I needed a break. My brain was tired. I sat down to find something to watch on television.
There was nothing.
Nothing? Of course, there were plenty of things to watch on television. There were hundreds of channels and shows to choose from. I had a full TiVo as backup. But there wasn’t anything good. There wasn’t anything that would give my brain the needed rest. There wasn’t anything I was willing to sit still and watch. I was stuck in my apartment with nothing to watch on TV.
I was hoping for a Law & Order marathon or maybe some episodes of Criminal Justice or CSI. I probably would have been satisfied with a marathon of any TV show - even an old cycle of America’s Next Top Model, or maybe a Family Ties retrospective. I was out of luck. Channels like TLC, HGTV and Discovery offered no relief. MTV was blah, even for MTV. The 24-hour news channels were mostly offering coverage of the snow (no thanks). ESPN could have saved the day with a PBA event, but instead were still looping Sportscenter. It was bleak, let me tell you.
Were the television gods not speaking to mother nature that day? Had the folks who choose programming hit play on a loop before heading out for the holidays? Were the station managers not aware of the massive snowstorm that had blanketed the entire eastern seaboard and the need for quality television programming on a Saturday afternon?
The television world missed a huge opportunity when the snowpocalypse hit the east coast. What a great chance to put the Freaks & Geeks or Sports Night back on the air for a day. With people scanning the channels hoping for something good, why not trot out an old comedy like Fletch or Wildcats, even Ghostbusters?. After surfing and surfing and surfing for something to watch with no luck I probably would have settled for a few episodes of the Golden Girls. Seriously. The television networks had a chance to show that they understood what we were going through - to recognize that the terrible weather would drive us to our idiot boxes in desperation. But they couldn’t do it. Millions of people were looking for help to pass the time and they found nothing.
The people running the television stations weren’t paying attention. They didn’t seem to care. If the networks had changed their programming, they could have re-ignited the love affair that people have with their televisions. Had even a single television network put together some snow-friendly viewing, the audience would have responded. If I knew that a channel would adjust its programming to help support audiences when inclement weather strikes, I would have become a loyal fan instantly and tuned in regularly.
The people who run television networks spend millions of dollars each year trying to figure out what the audience wants, how to meet our needs. But when presented with a golden opportunity to engage TV watchers, to tap into a captive audience (ever so rare these days) they blew it. It was a no brainer than nobody thought of doing.
I think television programming should reflect what is happening outside.
Its just an idea…
Department of Ideas: The White House Is Just The Beginning
by Brian Reich | 28 Jan 2010, 5:14pm
I have an idea: I don’t think President Obama should run for re-election… he has a better chance of changing the world on the outside.
I am a Democrat. I voted for Barack Obama. I want to see the Democrats control Congress, and the White House, and the issues and ideals that I believe are important advance and guide our nation. I also think the likelihood that any of the issues and ideals that I believe are important will advance and guide our nation, whether we have a Democrat in the White House or a majority in the House and Senate, is pretty slim.
So I have this crazy idea — it doesn’t really matter anymore who is in the White House. We shouldn’t care. We definitely shouldn’t spend billions of dollars on political campaigns each year, get our hopes up, and think that the next election will change the course of everything, that next decade will be different than the previous decades of disappointment. Does it matter anymore who gets elected and who doesn’t? Sure, I suppose a little bit - as long as we have the current system, elections will always have some importance, and there are some specific issues and situations where having power will be better than not having power. But overall, I don’t think we need to control the White House or Congress to get things done anymore. They aren’t getting things done anyway.
Government is broken. Washington sucks. Our elected officials - at the very top, but increasingly at all levels - clearly care more about getting re-elected than governing. The media eggs them on. No meaningful legislation can get through Congress. The legislation that does make it to the President’s desk is so weighted down with pork or so toothless to ensure passage it has little impact in most cases. I realize its a cynical view, and I am happy to consider evidence that challenges this point, but facts are facts.
In the silver lining category — there is lots of change happening outside of halls of power. There are lots of innovations being pursued, solutions being developed, ideas being explored beyond our nation’s capitol. Foundations are doing incredible things to cure disease, address the education crisis and re-envision the future of philanthropy. Nonprofits are feeding people, vaccinating against disease, rebuilding communities and responding to disasters. Colleges and Universities are conducting pioneering research and training talented, capable leaders. And individuals, regular ol’ people, thanks to the reach and power that technology and the internet offer, are able to make a difference as well.
The balance of power has shifted. The President doesn’t have the same street cred that he did in the past. Congress doesn’t have the influence it thinks it does. And worse, the most they fight, the more that real solutions are held up because of partisan wrangling or procedural gamesmanship, the frustration grows among the public and the interest in politics and government wanes.
There are exceptions, of course. The Obama administration is trying new things, talking about big issues, challenging the old rules and protocols. But they aren’t making a lot of headway. And even if President Obama successfully positions his administration as innovative and post-partisan, the realities of voter turnout, citizen engagement in the political debate and process suggest its not trickling down.
I suppose we could all continue to look to the President - and this President in particular - and the Congress to shape the policy of the nation. But I have a better idea. President Obama and the handful of legislators who really are committed to change, who want to find real solutions, should move on. President Obama should announce that he will not run for re-election because there is more potential for him to have an impact on the big issues that are facing our nation if he’s not stuck inside the beltway.
Sure, he would have to give up the fancy plane and — to a certain extent — the bully pulpit. He wouldn’t have the treasury to keep coming up with funds to promote his ideas. The media wouldn’t go live to every event he spoke at or discuss, ad nauseum, every idea that he shared. There are other planes. There is no reason, in today’s society, that a former-President Obama couldn’t command attention and spread his message around the world just as effectively by creating his own communications channels online. There is plenty of money available to solve the world’s problems. And the media… well… the media isn’t going to help, it seems, no matter what angle you come at them from.
The solutions to the world’s most complex challenges are increasingly being found outside of government. The most influential people in the world, in fact, are not Presidents or Prime Ministers. Bill Clinton had a lot of influence when he was President, but his ability to direct action on the world stage is greater now that he is a private citizen. Jimmy Carter’s post presidential life is a case study in second chances. Nelson Mandela became a global icon when he assumed the Presidency of South Africa, but his work in the years since have likely had a more significant impact. Lucky for George Bush (#1, the jury is still out on #2), the work he has done post presidency is going to provide him with a powerful legacy, much greater than if he had just been known for his work during one term in office. And don’t forget people like Bill and Melinda Gates, who are redefining philanthropy. Don’t forget the entrepreneurs and the advocates and the volunteers who toil every day in obscurity but whose work is redefining our society.
Barack Obama doesn’t need to be president to change the world. In fact, I doubt he’ll make significant progress on healthcare, education, and dozens of other issues he cares deeply about if the Republicans have anything to say about it. If President Obama wants to have a real impact on the world, he should get out now. He should not run for re-election. He should acknowledge, loudly and publicly, that our system is broken and the prestige of the highest office of the land doesn’t carry the same weight it once did. And then as soon as he does that, in the same breath, he should commit to a post-presidential life of advocacy, fundraising and change. He should resume his natural role as a community organizer, but on a global scale, and actually fix what is wrong with our society.
The White House has become the ultimate steppingstone - the gateway to really doing something special in the world. You don’t need to be in the White House, but if you are, you are probably having less of an impact than the rest of us who are not.
I don’t think President Obama should run for re-election… he has a better chance of changing the world on the outside.
Its just an idea…
TAGS
: Department of Ideas
1 comment
Department of Ideas: Life Transcript
by Brian Reich | 27 Jan 2010, 3:02pm
I have an idea: I want a transcript of my life.
Within minutes of the President delivering his State of the Union Address tonight the White House will release a transcript of his remarks. Even though millions of people will watch in real time, many will TiVo, and the video will be available online (on YouTube, C-Span.org, as well as most television and newspaper websites), the written record of what the President spoke about will still be published online and the transcript will appear in the print edition of many of the nation’s largest newspapers. If the speech is really good, you may be able to walk into a bookstore next week and buy a copy.
Of course, all of the President’s public remarks are transcribed and made available to the public. But you will also find transcripts for a lot of television news programs — like Meet the Press or Larry King Live — available for free online. NPR makes transcripts of its programs available through its iPhone app within minutes of them being aired. Even some major conferences are starting to publish transcripts. Of course not everyone makes their transcripts available for free — it costs $19.95 to get a transcript of the Oprah Winfrey Show for example.
Clearly, transcripts have value. In addition to being able to watch or listen to someone speak, a transcript gives you the ability to compare the substance of the speech to the delivery (they reveal very different things). You can analyze a speaker’s use of language - look for the subtext and meaning behind what they are saying. When trying to quote a speaker or cite a fact, having the transcript will help to ensure that key points aren’t missed. In short, words are important.
I am not the President of the United States. I am not a regular guest on a television news program or the host of a show on NPR. I do give a lot of speeches and lead a lot of discussions, but while most of the events I attend videotape my talks, few make the extra effort to create a transcript. And, while I do spend a lot of time narrating life for my two-year old son (particularly as we walk around New York City), I don’t have a personal stenographer who keeps a written record of my daily dialogue.
I wish I did have a written record of my life. I think there should be a way to create a transcript of everything you do and say during the course of a day, and then refer back later. I know there are applications designed to convert audio to text that you can get for your computer or iPhone — they are designed to help people keep track of their to-do lists, manage their voicemail, or record the contents of a meeting. There are websites that can generate closed captioning for an online video. You can even pay someone to sit in a meeting and take copious notes, or listen to a recording afterward and type of a transcript.
I want a transcript of my entire day. I want the details of every conversation I have with someon. I want to be able to review the stories I told. I want a record the answers I provided when my son, Henry, asked me a question. I want to remember what I told my therapist. If my wife and I remember the details of a past conversation differently, I want to be able to look up what I said previously. And I want to be able to capture the ideas and insights that I share with clients, or groups that I speak with.
There are lots of ways to track what you have done throughout the day. Your calendar offers some details about how you spent your day (or at least were scheduled to spend your day). You can review your emails to see how conversations developed over time. Depending on how you use it, Twitter acts as a partial transcript as well. And of course, you can always record everything and watch/listen later.
I’m not interested in being on my own reality show - or anyone else’s reality show for that matter. I want to be able to review how I spent my time, what I talked about, what I was thinking (out loud). I want to be able to engage in a conversation with another person and focus entirely on what they are saying without having to worry about not capturing a detail in writing that might be important later. I am not very old. I don’t have memory issues (that I know of anyway). But I don’t remember all the wonderful moments - and not so wonderful moments - from my childhood. I don’t remember the particulars of every conversation that I have. I don’t have the ability to review something that I said, or that someone said to me, to ensure that my interpretation was correct. And I think I would benefit from that — and others might as well.
I want a transcript of my life.
Its just an idea…
TAGS
: Department of Ideas
1 comment
Department of Ideas: High Expectations
by Brian Reich | 26 Jan 2010, 9:16am
I have an idea: We should have (and set) really high expectations — and then go out and meet them.
I flew United Airlines from New York City (LGA) to Washington, DC (IAD) this morning for an event. The flight was smooth, the crew was friendly and the plane landed on time. I was pleasantly surprised. Scratch that - I was completely amazed. I had given up long ago on the prospect of having a good experience when flying United. My expectations were so low that anything short of the door falling off of the plan mid-flight would have seemed like a huge improvement over past experiences with United.
I can’t remember the last time I said something nice about United Airlines. Then again, I can’t remember the last time I flew United and the flight was smooth, the crew was friendly and the plane landed on time. I had originally planned to take a (very slow) train to DC, and then a (very expensive) cab from the train station out to my event, all because I didn’t trust that United would be able to get me to DC in time for my event. Think about that - I was willing to pay more money and have my trip take roughly twice as long to complete because I didn’t think that United could deliver on something as basic as a trip from New York to DC.
I tweeted the following when I landed: “Dear United: That strategy of setting painfully low expectations and then barely meeting them is really paying off.”
Congratulations, United. You have in fact set the bar so low when it comes to air travel that even you couldn’t manage to screw it up. That’s right, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.
Setting painfully low expectations is, indeed, a brilliant strategy. How can you go wrong? You can’t, at least in theory, do any worse than doing nothing. You can’t, at least in theory, frustrate your customers any more if you don’t actually promise them anything. You can’t, at least in theory, do any worse than you have done in the past if things just continually get worse. By simply doing its job, the most basic of operations that an airline is in business to do, United Airlines has redefined success.
Of course, I am not satisfied. The flight was unnecessarily expensive. The plane cabin was cold (I kept my jacket, hat and gloves on). The speaker that delivered the safety and in-flight messages was way too loud. My seat wouldn’t stay reclined. There were plenty of things that could have been better about my experience flying United this morning. And I still have to fly on United back to New York this afternoon.
I know better than to expect anything from United. I have good reason to keep my expectations low. This one successful flight won’t be enough to change my opinion of the airline. One trip with an on time arrival won’t be enough to rebuild the trust that I lost in United so many bad flying experiences ago.
That’s the problem with low expectations. When you set low expectations, and barely meet them, there is little opportunity to grow. You never really improve. There is almost no chance that my faith in United will be restored, even if they continually meet the low expectations that they have set, and I now hold, for their services because I know that they aren’t trying very hard. I know that they aren’t interested in my comfort. I know that they don’t really care about my well-being. I get that feeling when I fly United that I am just a number, a line on a spreadsheet, another tiny piece in their quest to make money.
Low expectations may allow a company like United to stay in business, to keep operating. But that’s all low expectations do. Low expectations don’t make United a good airline. Low expectations aren’t going go make United a successful company. High expectations make companies strong. High expectations give employees something to work hard to achieve. High expectations give customers, like me, a reason to keep coming back - to give an organization another chance when they make a mistake. High expectations demonstrate help to demonstrate that a company has higher aspirations for its products and services — something as a customer that I believe can be realized. High expectations help make things better.
We should all have high expectations, and we should meet them. Companies should have high expectations for the products and services they offer - that they will be the best, meet the audience’s needs. Companies should have high expectations for their employees and how they conduct business. Companies should set high expectations for customers, and not be satisfied until they are met. Customers should have high expectations, that the companies will have our best interests in mind, and meet our needs and when something doesn’t go well we should do what we can to help — by giving feedback, being even more clear about what we want, offering suggestions for how to improve, and being patient while adjustments are made.
Without high expectations, we’ll never be satisfied. Without high expectations, nothing will every change or improve. Without high expectations, we aren’t really ever going to be successful.
So yes, I think we should set really high expectations — and meet them.
Its just an idea…
Department of Ideas: Wear sneakers to work
by Brian Reich | 25 Jan 2010, 12:20pm
I have an idea: Everyone should wear sneakers to work.
I wear sneakers to work. Every day. They are comfortable. They are functional. They are stylish. I wear them with suits. I wear them with jeans. I honestly think I do better work when I am wearing sneakers. I feel smarter wearing sneakers. I have more confidence when I am wearing sneakers. Sneakers can literally transform my mood - if I ‘have’ to wear something other than sneakers to an event, it can literally be the difference between a good day and a bad one.
I think everyone should wear sneakers to work. Some people already do, of course, especially those who are on their feet all day - doctors, waitresses, postal employees. I suspect most of those people wear sneakers for practical reasons, like comfort. Those sneakers are boring. They are just a more comfortable version of the same old boring dress shoe essentially. Meanwhile, there are plenty of other professions where sneakers are not considered acceptable attire. Why not? Why couldn’t a lawyer wear pair of sneakers with their suit - would it impact a jury’s decision in a court case, or result in a less effective review of a contract ? What would be wrong if the President of the United States walked into the Capitol building to deliver his State of the Union address later this week and was wearing a pair of sneakers?
I think sneakers should be encouraged in any work place - not just for comfort, but because they would help to improve performance. I would bet that people who wear sneakers - employees who are encouraged to show a little bit of their creativity or to express some perspective through what they have on their feet - would perform better at their jobs. Productivity could be enhanced if more people ditched their pumps for a pear of Pumas. The attitudes of employees would improve if Cole Haans were replaced by a pair of Converse. I wouldn’t be surprised if the people ideas were more creative, reports were better written, and sales pitches more more effective coming from people who donned Lacoste instead of the same-old leather things.
The shoes you wear say a lot about you. I think that dress shoes (mens and womens) are quite boring. In my experience, most people who wear dress shoes do so because they are told that is what is acceptable in the workplace. Our society has come to believe that if you wear a suit or have an important title that sneakers can’t be part of your image. That’s crazy talk. Maybe lawyers are boring, so dress shoes are the shoe that reflects their personality best. But I don’t want to hire a boring lawyer, and I’m not sure anyone does. Nobody wants to wear boring, uncomfortable shoes. Putting on a pair of sneakers doesn’t mean you have to dress casually. Does pair of shoes sends a message about who I am, or what I am capable of doing? Shoes are about the individual’s personality, not their actions or behavior, their intelligence or their capability. A Cole Haan doesn’t make me more capable, just as a Saucony won’t mean I am a smart ass (that happens regardless of my shoe selection).
I want to be clear, I don’t have a problem with dress shoes. I just think sneakers are better. But maybe I am the only one. I work for myself, and by myself (for the most part), so I don’t need to ask permission to wear sneakers to work. But I have worked in plenty of offices where sneakers are specifically prohibited. Why? Do those people think that the way a person dresses significantly impacts how they operate? I wore sneakers when I worked in the White House and nobody every complained. I wore sneakers when I worked for one of the nation’s most successful digital agencies and it never impacted someone’s interest in hiring me or willingness to follow my advice. I wear sneakers when I give speeches. I wear sneakers when I sign copies of my book. I have worn sneakers while giving interviews on television. If wearing sneakers makes me less credible, or less interesting, I haven’t seen any evidence of that.
At the end of the day, shoes are shoes. A sneaker is just like any other shoe - only better. You can express a lot about your personality with a sneaker. You can navigate most terrain or weather situation easily wearing a sneaker. You can match a sneaker to any type of outfit. And, if sneakers were to become common workplace items, I know that we would see an explosion of interesting sneaker options. Go ahead, lace up a pair, let’s change how things are done in the world, starting from the ground up.
I think everyone should wear sneakers to work.
Its just an idea…
Department of Ideas: Stroller Parking At Sports Venues
by Brian Reich | 25 Jan 2010, 2:07am
I have an idea: Every sports venue should offer stroller parking.
Karen, Henry and I went to Madison Square Garden earlier today to watch the Dallas Mavericks pummel the New York Knicks. We didn’t bring a stroller. We didn’t need a stroller, but it certainly would have made the whole adventure easier (and less physically demanding).
We didn’t bring our stroller because Madison Square Garden isn’t welcoming to strollers. The ‘world’s most famous arena’ doesn’t prohibit you from bringing a stroller. As best as I can tell, none of the sports facilities in the nation prohibit them. But they also don’t try to make it easy on you.
The official stroller policy for Madison Square Garden says clearly that they are allowed, however the stroller that you bring “must be collapsible and fit under your seat.” The policy also notes that “you may not leave strollers in the walkways, gates, or concourses and our staff will not guard these items for you.” I get it. MSG is not in the stroller parking business. They are in the charge-you-a-ton-of-money-so-you-can-have-the-privilege-of-watching-your-basketball-team-get-its-ass-handed-to-them business. But they should be in the stroller parking business too.
I like to bring a stroller when Henry and I go places. I would guess this is true for most parents who have young kids. Its easier to have Henry sit in the stroller when he gets tired of walking, as opposed to having to carry him everywhere. And, if I have anything else that needs to come along on the trip - a snack, toys, diaper/wipes, etc - the stroller serves as a convenient storage option, compared to carrying a backpack or other bag.
I am also a big sports fan. Given the opportunity I would be a season ticket holder for every team within a hundred miles of where I live. I would go to games every day, every night. And I would bring Henry (and my wife too, but I suspect she has other ideas for how she would want to spend at least some of that time). In reality, of course, I don’t have time to be a season ticket holder. So I only get to a handful of games each year, in each sport, and I am happy with that. But almost every game I attend I make sure to bring Henry along. And every time I go I have the same problem with the stroller.
Yes, I can bring a stroller to a basketball game at Madison Square Garden (or any other sporting event, at any other venue), fold it up when I get there and stuff it under my seat. But, I don’t want to. If you have ever been to Madison Square Garden, or any other arena, ballpark or stadium, you know that there isn’t much room under the seats to put anything. Putting a stroller under there not only impacts your own seating comfort, it makes it nearly impossible for someone to walk in the aisle to/from their seats. Even a collapsed stroller gets in the way. Also, the area underneath the seat is probably the dirtiest place in a sports facility — everyone puts their food there, sticks their gum, etc. Odds are the guy behind you is going to spill his soda all over your stroller anyway.
There is no reason that Madison Square Garden couldn’t have a stroller parking area, or a designated drop point for parents who want to leave their toddler transportation behind while they enjoy the game and buy a lot of overpriced food and souvenirs. First of all, there aren’t that many parents bringing toddlers to games. Second, the strollers don’t take up that much space — clearly the people who created the policy believe they can fit underneath the seats without much trouble. I know there is an extra conference room or closet area that could be utilized. Third, its cost neutral - or possibly even could generate some cash. I know I would pay a couple of bucks for the ability to store the stroller somewhere on-site, so that I could use the wheels to make the trip to/from the arena that much easier, and not have it get in the way while I was watching the game.
One last thing… Last year, Henry and I took in a game at Fenway Park. It wasn’t planned - we were out for a walk on Patriot’s Day (also known as Marathon Monday in Boston, the one day each season when the Red Sox have a special start-time of 11:00am) and I decided it would be fun if we headed over to the ballpark. We bought tickets through an official Red Sox ticket exchange program and were ushered into the ballpark within minutes of arrival. As I walked through the gate, jog stroller in tow, a Red Sox representative said “if you’d like, you can leave your stroller at the guest services booth” and pointed straight ahead. Henry and parked the stroller, grabbed our stuff, gave our phone number, and left the stroller in the capable hands of the Red Sox customer service staff. We returned later and claimed our ride.
Its a no brainer. Every sports venue should offer stroller parking.
Its just an idea…
Department of Ideas: Put The Tonight Show Online
by Brian Reich | 23 Jan 2010, 4:17pm
I have an idea: Conan O’Brien should put the Tonight Show online.
Last night was Conan O’Brien’s last night as the host of the Tonight Show on NBC. His next show should be online. David Letterman, Craig Ferguson and Jimmy Fallon should also be putting their shows up online, instead of on TV (note: I didn’t say Jimmy Kimmel, because I don’t think he’s funny, and I don’t think Carson Daly would be a good host no matter what platform you found him on).
I am obviously not the first person to suggest this. But unlike most of those who are speculating about what Conan O’Brien great adventures online might look like if they were put online, I don’t want Conan (or any other late night hosts) to change anything. The format of the show works. The monologues are still funny. The skits are appropriately awkward. The celebrity and musical guests remain a solid reason to watch. The bands play great music. The big, glossy set and a live studio audience tie the whole experience together.
What doesn’t work is the fact that the shows air on TV — which most people aren’t using as their primary source of entertainment any longer. What doesn’t work is that the shows have a set time slot, after late local news that nobody wants to stay up and watch because its worthless, mind-numbing drivel. What doesn’t work is that the brands who buy advertising don’t understand the show or the audience and don’t produce ads that keep you from wanting to change the channel (because they make their choices based on demographic information and their deals with the network brass). What doesn’t work is that the people who run television networks see the Tonight Show, and all the others like it, as just another piece of their nightly schedule - a line in the TV guide — and not the unique, entertaining, and socially important programming that it has become.
The Tonight Show will be successful, with Conan O’Brien as the host, if it was distributed online. It will work because the audience that wants to watch, myself included, is more likely to sit in front of their computer screen or stream it on their iPhone then turn on their TV at that hour. It will work because the costs of distribution online are much lower than on television, so more time could be spent focusing on entertainment — which will keep viewers engaged — and less going to breaks to watch bad commercials. It will work because online advertising can be more interactive and creative than TV ads — and because the online ads that support the show could be targeted, and delivered, only to audiences who care most about certain products or brands - which means they’ll generate more revenue to support what the show wants to do. It will work because Conan O’Brien will be able to tell jokes and talk about subjects (or to guests) that might not translate well, or that wouldn’t be allowed on TV (i.e. a couple of f-bombs each night). It will work because information about the show’s best moments will spread online, in real-time, which will allow larger and more loyal audiences to build. It will work because a Tonight Show that is distributed online will the flexibility and the freedom to create the kinds of great content that we all want, but clearly can’t be done on TV.
There are some reasons why it wouldn’t. It wouldn’t work if it was treated like a television show that is simply put up online — like most shows that you see today. Everything inside the cameras can be done exactly the same, you don’t have to muck with a good thing. However, because the online environment where people go to watch is different, the audience’s ability to interact with a show and get additional information, provide feedback and similar is even more important. Whatever you put around the show online would need to be tailored to match the behaviors of people in today’s hyper-connected society. It also wouldn’t work if unnecessary restrictions on the way the show was done were imposed. The internet is free of the kinds of limitations that exist in other mediums. Nobody quite knows what will work or not. But we know that good, funny content will always find a loyal - and viral - audience. Allowing Conan O’Brien and his team to be funny will work, and work better online than anywhere else — but you have to let them do their thing.
Everything we know about how people get and share information, what we are willing to watch, and why people tune in for certain shows or log on to get certain information is changing. The reasons that Conan O’Brien has an opportunity to put The Tonight Show online has more to do with NBC’s inability, or unwillingness, to change how they operate to respond to the massive shifts that our society is undergoing as a result of the impact of technology and the internet on our lives. Its their fault, not his. Its NBC’s responsibility to put the tonight show in a position to succeed, not the Tonight Show’s job to adapt its show to meet outdated demands of the broadcast TV world. It wasn’t because Conan isn’t funny - he is. It wasn’t because the Tonight Show brand didn’t fit with Conan’s style or brand of comedy - Conan O’Brien, as host, was the Tonight Show brand as we now know it. It wasn’t because the internet is killing TV. Conan O’Brien has an opportunity to put The Tonight Show online and change the way we think about ‘television’ programming forever, because its (long past) time that we started to do some things differently in terms of late night talk shows.
Its simple: Conan O’Brien should put the Tonight Show online.
Its just an idea…
Department of Ideas: Helmets For All Occasions
by Brian Reich | 22 Jan 2010, 1:04pm
I have an idea: There should be helmets for all occasions.
Our society is obsessed with safety - and for good reason. We live in a dangerous world. Nobody wants to get hurt, or worse. Nobody wants to live in fear. I suppose we could avoid certain neighborhoods or refuse to travel to certain countries or events. We could certainly stay inside all the time, on the theory that we are safer there than out in the world. But that’s no way to live. Instead we should look at ways to make safety a part of our everyday life.
The fashion world has started to see safety as a trend. Sports Illustrated talked about “An online retailer advertising a 2010 World Cup-themed ’stab resistant’ vest with an optional patch touting your favorite national team” as their “Sign of the Apocolypse” for the week of January 25, 2010. And Thursday’s New York Times featured an article about how body armor has become popular among the hollywood and hip-hop crowd, suggesting that the trend will likely blow up (sorry) in the near future. They write:
A stepped-up demand for vests, blazers and hoodies tough enough to deflect a .22-caliber blast but sleek enough for a night of clubbing suggests that body armor is not just for the security-conscious. Fake or real, it exerts a pull on those inclined to flaunt it as a flinty fashion statement.
My question is this: why is the safety focus always on bulletproof, knife proof, bomb proof jackets? Why does your torso get all the love?
When I think safety the first thing that comes to mind is my head. There are so many reasons that a good helmet is more important. But helmets aren’t seen as cool. Few people regard protective head ware as a necessity. Is it so much more important that your hair look nice that you don’t see it as a priority to wear a helmet while biking to work? Do snowboarders really think that wearing a ‘brain bucket’ is going to impact their performance (the pros wear them, why doesn’t everyone else)?
The way I see it, helmets should be a priority for everyone. There should be helmets for all occasions. For helmets to be a priority, and for a market to develop, they need to be cool. The same way certain clothing and accessories became a must-have/wear item — think trucker hats, puffy jackets, baggy jeans, an American flag pin, Jets t-shirts, etc — we have to make the helmet part of a statement. That usually starts with high fashion. Karl Lagerfeld has created a designer motorcycle helmet covered in tweed (and lined with lambskin). A Danish company, Yakkay, offers a series of fashionable bike helmets. And though I don’t know if I would call it high fashion, I have an OSHA-approved construction helmet with the logo of the Seattle Seahawks on it.
But what about non-athletes? What if I am not dropping into a half pipe but want to protect my head? I love my Seahawks construction helmet, but its not practical to wear on my walk to the subway. A day-to-day helmet would have to be functional… provide safety, keep your ears warm, no limit sight lines and similar. The helmet would need to have earphones embedded, so people can listen to their music or tune in to NPR while walking around. You would need to be able to take phone calls, or drink a cup of coffee without the helmet causing problems. And you would need to be able to put the helmet on, and take it off, with relative ease. Pretty easy stuff I think.
I appreciate the need to be safe, and the desire to make safety fashionable. But I don’t think it should be limited to flak jackets and other torso-protecting articles. There should be helmets for recreational use, for walking around, for going to work. We should be able to protect our heads all the time - without seeming extra nerdy. And when we can, when there is a huge market for every day protective head ware, we’ll all be a little bit better off.
Its just an idea…
