Department of Ideas: Share the coaches film
by Brian Reich | 21 Jan 2010, 10:23am
I have an idea: The NFL should make the ‘coaches’ film available to the public.
There are lots of factors that make up a successful football team. Personnel is important - you need to have the right players on the field when the game is on the line. Execution is important — those players need to run routes, make blocks, catch balls in coverage, and kick field goals if you expect to be in a position to win games. Home field advantage is important — historically the home team wins roughly 70% of the time in the playoffs. But more important than all these factors combined is coaching.
The coach makes all the final personnel decisions — who plays and who doesn’t (and in some cases, who is on the team as well). The coach decides what the offensive and defensive strategy will be — run or pass on offense, blitz or zone coverage on defense, go for it on 4th down or punt it away (though in some cases coordinators are the ones calling the plays). The coach is the first one into work, that last one to go home, person who ultimately determines whether an NFL team is successful on the field. The coaches that make the best personnel decisions, build the best strategy - and everything else - are successful. The coaches that win championships, who build dynasties, they are on a different level — they see things others don’t, plan schemes that nobody else could think of, make decisions that others won’t make.
I have been to my share of football games. I watch at least two football games on TV each week during the season. I listen to the commentary on sports radio. I read the news and blogs. I think I have a pretty good understanding of how the game works. In fact, I know — with all the insights I have gained from the comfort of my living room — I would be a terrific NFL coach. But there is one considerable gap in my knowledge. There is one hole in my football-related information consumption. I can’t see the ‘coaches’ film.
Basically, every play of every game in every NFL game is filmed from both the sideline and the end zone perspectives. The tape offers a view of a football game that fans never see through traditional broadcasts. Its called the ‘coaches’ film because the tape is distributed throughout the league to help teams prepare for future opponents. What coaches see on those tapes, their ability to process how a game unfolded and teams organized their plays, is what determines how a game plan is built. What goes into that game plan differentiates the good coaches from the great ones.
The tapes are only available to NFL teams and the league’s own in-house production folks (NFL Films). You might catch a few highlights on the NFL Network or during NFL Matchup on ESPN, but that’s it. The tapes aren’t available to fans, or the media. They aren’t shown on TV or leaked on the internet. The only way to view the tapes — and to prove that you can be an NFL-caliber coach — is, well, to be an NFL-caliber coach.
I am not the only person who thinks fans should have access to the ‘coaches’ tapes. Aaron Schatz, who runs the website FootballOutsiders.com, thinks access to the tapes would help fans to better understand the game. He wrote for Slate.com in 2007:
Anyone who has watched Matchup knows the benefits of watching coaches’ film. Since the sideline camera is placed much higher than standard television cameras, you can see all 22 players at all times. Each player’s number is visible, so it’s elementary to identify each formation. It’s also much easier to identify defensive coverage and the cause-and-effect of actions on the field is clearer. On television, run blocking looks like a big pile of players smashing into each other; the end-zone perspective illuminates the interplay of the offensive and defensive lines, making it easier to identify traps or pulls by individual linemen. With coaches’ film, we could do a better job assessing individual offensive linemen and track how well defenses play in both nickel and dime formations.
Schatz also argues that making the ‘coaches’ tapes available would deepen fans interest in games, improve the quality of analysis of individuals teams and players — and probably make some good money for the league. He wrote:
The NFL has surpassed every other sports league when it comes to turning a filmable event into profitable entertainment. Yet for some reason, the league is sitting on hours of footage that dedicated fans—and dedicated statisticians—would kill to see. Broadcasts that incorporated the official coaches’ film would be hugely popular with hard-core fans, even if the league showed these enhanced telecasts only during the offseason. Why not package the coaches’ film for each team’s 16-game season as a DVD set? The league would make a huge profit, devoted fans would have a great souvenir, and football analysis would take a huge step forward.
The NFL, perhaps more than any other professional sports league, seeks to control every aspect of its operations. For whatever reason they believe that this should include access to the ‘coaches’ tapes. They are wrong. I applied for the head coaching job with the Seattle Seahawks but never got a call back. I am sure one of the primary reasons they wouldn’t take my offer seriously was because I couldn’t demonstrate my knowledge of the game — and I can’t demonstrate my full knowledge without access to those tapes.
I want to have access to what the teams do so I can understand more about how decisions are made on, and off, the field. I also want the media to have access so that they can offer perspective that will help me enjoy the game and think about what I am watching differently. I want to be given the opportunity to analyze the tapes and make my own decisions about whether my team, or any team, is playing well. And most importantly, I don’t want the NFL telling me what I am supposed to think.
So Commissioner Roger Goodell — and anyone else who is interested –I think the NFL make the ‘coaches’ film from NFL games available to fans. And if it helps, I would be willing to pay.
Its just an idea…
Department of Ideas: Sick Day(s)
by Brian Reich | 21 Jan 2010, 12:20am
I have an idea: We should get a day (or two) each year to just recover from being sick.
I have a cold. Its not a bad one — stuffy nose, scratchy throat, dull headache. Pretty standard stuff. I’ve had it for three days. I think it will take another three, maybe four days to feel fully recovered.
My cold would probably go away more quickly if I took better care of myself. I don’t take bad care of myself. I drink lots of fluids. I eat my fair share of soup. I bundle up extra well when I go outside. What I don’t do is hit pause on my life. I can’t. It doesn’t take a medical degree to know that one the best things you can do to get rid of a cold is to rest. And that means sleep — going to bed early, waking up late, maybe even taking a nap. But how are we supposed to do that? Where is that time supposed to come from?
An extra hour or two of sleep can make all the difference when battling a cold. It can take days off your recovery time. But the world doesn’t stop because you get a cold. You may be able to stay home from work or school, but the pile of things on your desk doesn’t magically disappear. The other people in your life still need you - especially when you have kids. When you are asleep, or resting in bed, you can’t run errands or check things off your to-do list. And of course, your brain doesn’t shut off when you don’t feel well - in fact, I often find the anxiety cortex works overtime as I think about everything that I am not getting done, or doing as well, because I am not feeling well.
So instead, I never focus fully on my recovery. I always choose to keep going. I go to work. I keep my normal schedule. I try to act as if there is nothing different about this week than any other week. Why? Because I would rather spend a week with a cloudy head, sore throat and runny nose then face an overflowing inbox and missed deadlines when I come back online after a couple of days taking care of myself. I don’t need a lecture about work-life balance or how to prioritize. And I am not blaming our highly-connected society, or complaining about how much work I have to do.
My point is simply this: I think we should be able to take (at least) one day each year as a sick day. If you get a cold, you can stay home. You can sleep. You can focus on doing whatever it takes to get yourself back on track without having it impact everything else in your life at all. Nobody needs you. Nobody expects anything of you. The only thing that you can do is get better.
Think of it as a 366th day in the year, a magical gift from the scheduling gods. The world will, essentially, take a pause on your sick day. Your meetings would automatically be rescheduled. Your deadlines would automatically be extended. Nobody would expect anything from you. You don’t have to explain yourself to anyone. The only thing you would need to do is get better. And because when you devote all your energy and attention to feeling better you can usually make it happen more quickly, one or two sick days should be all you would need.
The sick day isn’t designed for serious illnesses. Its not for chronic illnesses. Its not to be used to run errands or take care of things you can’t done because of work or other commitments. A sick day is just for people with colds that won’t go away without some extra attention. People who won’t - or can’t - just stop everything and take care of themselves. A sick day is just for people who need to pause everything about their lives for long enough to feel better.
Aside from the fact that you can’t just add a day to the calendar, or pause the world without anyone else noticing, or the logistical challenge of everyone being able to pause things for a day or two, without impacting anything else, this idea is genius - and needed. Or maybe that’s my cold talking.
Whatever, its just an idea…
Department of Ideas: Documentary Viewing
by Brian Reich | 19 Jan 2010, 3:38pm
I have an idea: People should be encouraged - or maybe even forced - to watch more documentaries.
This past weekend my wife and I watched the film ‘Nursery University,’ which followed a group of parents through the oddly competitive, yet often humorous, world of nursery school admissions in New York City. Last week, we watched the first part of This Emotional Life, a three-part series on PBS that explores improving our social relationships, learning to cope with depression and anxiety, and becoming more positive, resilient individuals (the last two parts are waiting on TiVo for us). And earlier this month we finally downloaded Food Inc, and spent a Friday night learning about the dark side of America’s corporate controlled food industry.
All three films made me a little uncomfortable. The issues touched a little close to home. The comments of the people interviewed were tough to hear. In some cases the images, all of them real of course - no actors involved — were hard to stomach. All three films also made me think and consider issues in a different way. When I can squirm a little and learn a lot, I know its a good movie.
Of course, all three films I mentioned are documentaries.
I don’t know if there is a formal definition of a documentary, but for me the definition of a documentary is a film that is focused on a serious issue. Its not designed to be entertaining. Documentaries exist to educate (though obviously the good ones are both entertaining and informative). Documentaries have the power to change the world. When people watch documentaries they (tend to) learn something new. After watching a documentary, people are (or tend to be) more interested in an issue. Many go on to take some kind of action that helps advance the cause.
There are (at least) two problems with documentaries: First, very few people watch them. The top grossing documentary of all time, Farenheit 9/11, had box office receipts of just under $120 million worldwide. An Inconvenient Truth, the Oscar-winning documentary that is credited with sparking a global movement to address the climate crisis, made just $24 million and ranks 5th on the list. By comparison, Avatar, the science fiction epic (now in 3D!) that is being credited with changing the future of the movie industry, had an opening weekend box office take of $242 million, worldwide, and has already surpassed $1 billion in box office sales with no signs of the momentum slowing. Unless, or until, documentary films are promoted like blockbusters, and get blockbuster size audiences, their issues will have trouble capturing truly mainstream attention. Second, the majority of people who watch documentaries are already interested in an issue, and in many cases already agree with the perspective of the filmmaker. The film is preaching to the choir. The facts may be new, the stories more powerful — but the opportunity to change someone’s mind, spark a new interest, or mobilize an audience that wouldn’t otherwise act, is missed.
That’s why we need to make it possible for more people to see documentaries. The media, the movie industry, and our society generally need to make the viewing of documentary films a higher priority. Documentary films need to be seen as a public service, a PR-boon… like corporate giving or cause marketing. Imagine if we created a partnership where the studies that promote big blockbuster films paired them with documentaries, so a ticket to one ensures you a viewing of the other. Documentary films, along with all other kinds of media, need to be seen as powerful tools for educating audiences. What if schools could carve out a few extra hours each year to make sure kids watched an extra documentary film or two, or maybe organized a parent/child viewing program for after school or evenings. Documentary films need to be moved out of the movie industry and into the public space. What if we could tie documentary film viewing to other activities, such as requiring people to watch a documentary film before getting their driver’s license or as a part of paying their taxes? Treating documentary films like a special division of the film industry only serves to marginalize them. Making documentaries part of the public dialogue could change everything.
I’m not pushing for people to watch one documentary or another. You don’t have to watch what I watched, or consider the issues I find interesting. There are more than enough good documentary films out there, offering a variety of different perspectives on important issues. I am simply arguing for more documentary film viewing. Period. Film is a powerful medium. Documentaries, no matter who makes them and what agenda they are choosing to promote, can have a huge impact on how we think as a society. And so I am confident that the more documentary films that people see, the more issues we will consider as a society, and the better off things will be.
Why shouldn’t people be encouraged - or maybe even forced - to watch more documentaries?
Its just an idea…
Department of Ideas: Target NYC
by Brian Reich | 18 Jan 2010, 10:53pm
I have an idea: Target should open a store in New York City (and by that I mean Manhattan)
I love Target. I love their brand. I love their marketing. I love their shopping experience. There isn’t anything about Target that I don’t love, save for one thing: I hate that there isn’t a Target store in Manhattan.
Not only isn’t there a Target store in Manhattan, the closest Target stores to my apartment on the Upper West Side are, in order, are: Edgewater, NJ followed by North Bergen, NJ followed by Bronx Terminal. I love Target, but not enough to go to New Jersey. And though a subway ride to the Bronx is no big deal, schlepping several shopping bags full of purchases back would certainly ruin the whole experience.
Its not like Target hasn’t been to Manhattan before. In 2003, a 1500 square foot temporary Target store ‘popped up’ in Rockefeller Center so that Isaac Mizrahi could offer his exclusive-to-Target stylish yet affordable women’s clothing line to locals for a month. In 2008 Targeted opened four of its Bullseye Bodegas so that locals could shop ‘for chic deals in home, fashion, accessories and beauty from our acclaimed roster of design partners.” And this past December, Target set set up a ‘Target To-Go‘ shop for three days in the Meatpacking District in order to make holiday shopping easy (shoppers picked out gifts, ordered them by number, and walked out with a pre-wrapped gift within a matter of minutes). Smart marketing for sure, and from what I have heard, the stores were also wildly profitable.
If the pop-ups are such a success, why not place a permanent store? New Yorkers are the definition of chic (or at very least think they are). New Yorkers like a good bargain as much as, if not more than, anyone (and we’ll fight you for it if needed). New Yorkers are naturally (or in some cases not so naturally) younger, hipper, edgier, and more fun than people who don’t live here. If that’s the crowd that Target is trying to brand itself for, Manhattan has roughly 1.6 million people who fit the mold of the target audience. And remember what they say, if you can make it here (and Target can), you can make it anywhere.
There were some rumblings, as recently as the last few months, that Wal-Mart was looking to open a store in New York City. I have nothing against Wal-Mart - I’m actually a big fan for a variety of reasons - but I assure you that the culture of Wal-Mart does not fit Manhattan. From a business standpoint I understand Wal-Mart’s desire to be here — any big box retailer who set up shop here would make crazy money. But while there are plenty of places where Wal-Mart makes sense, New York City is not one of them.
Manhattan needs a Target. Target needs Manhattan. Its a perfect match.
Its settled then, Target should open a store in New York City (and by that I mean Manhattan).
Its just an idea…
TAGS
: Department of Ideas
1 comment
Department of Ideas: One Big Schedule
by Brian Reich | 17 Jan 2010, 11:52pm
I have an idea: There should be one big schedule for major events… to keep there from being competition for what to attend, watch, and talk about.
I am not one of the millions of people who is obsessed with Lost. However, I can appreciate the anxiety that fans expressed online over whether President Obama would be delivering his State of the Union at the same time as the show’s 3-hour final season premiere (don’t worry, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs used his January 8, 2010 White House Briefing to reassure worried Lost watchers that there would be no conflict, saying “I don’t foresee a scenario in which the millions of people that hope to finally get some conclusion in “Lost” are preempted by the President.”). But I have my own issues when it comes to being able to watch what I want, when I want.
Earlier today, I wasn’t able to watch the first quarter of the Cowboys vs Vikings playoff game because I was watching the Michigan Wolverines beat the UCONN Huskies (Go Blue!) on another channel. Despite what my wife says, I know I am not the only person who wanted to watch both the end of the Jets vs. Chargers game and the ‘Live From The Red Carpet’ special on E! — but that wasn’t possible because they were both happening at the same time. And after my two-year-old son was finally asleep and I had a chance to look back at some old tweets, I learned that I had missed what may have been the must-watch segment of the year on 60 Minutes about Haiti.
Is there really too much good stuff to watch on TV? Are there really so many important live events, big happenings and others day-and-time-specific things that they all have to happen at the same time? I can’t be the only person who has been forced to choose between attending, or watching, two big events because of scheduling conflicts. And no, this problem doesn’t happen only with sporting events and award shows. Every day, and especially on the weekends, we have to make choices about how to spend our time — and in most cases we end up missing something because of a scheduling conflict.
It doesn’t have to be this way.
There are 24-hours in a day. There are 365 days in the year. There are plenty of available times to schedule all the big, important events in the world so they don’t conflict. And that is especially true when it comes to things like football games and awards shows. Today’s football games could have started an hour earlier without any real problems. The Golden Globes could have been scheduled for a Sunday night that didn’t conflict with anything else (e.g. the off-week before the Superbowl). If President Obama can make sure that his State of the Union Address doesn’t happen the same night as the premiere of a TV show, everyone else can try a little harder too. What we need is one big schedule, so that the people who organize big events, who air must-watch shows on TV, can stay out of each other’s way.
Look… I realize that being able to watch a football game on TV is far from the most important thing in the world. And if I am really worrying about whether I will be able to tweet, in real-time, about the fashion choices of the Hollywood elite, then I am doing pretty well for myself. But when you live in a real-time society, that means that being able to watch, and then talk-about, what is happening in the world is actually important. I don’t think the people who invented TiVo, or made it possible to watch TV on the internet, think that we should time-shift everything. And for the same reasons, I think that major events should be coordinated in some way so that these kinds of conflicts don’t exist.
I work. I have a family. I have other commitments and responsibilities. I live in the real world. All I want is to be able to watch the big, important, exciting, interesting, amusing, occasionally mind-numbing, events that I believe are important — and that millions of others also believe are important — when they are happening, without having to choose one over another, without having to tune in late, without having to save it and watch it later, after everyone else who didn’t have to choose had already watched it and talked about.
I think there should be one big schedule for major events… to keep there from being competition for what to attend, watch, and talk about.
Its just an idea…
TAGS
: Department of Ideas
1 comment
Department of Ideas: The Saturday Paper
by Brian Reich | 16 Jan 2010, 11:03am
I have an idea: The Saturday newspaper should be special (also).
Newspapers follow a pretty simple pattern. Monday through Saturday most newspapers are organized into the same handful of sections: international, national and local news, business, sports, arts/culture. The basic layout never changes — the editorials always appear on the last page of the front section, box scores from the previous day’s baseball game are always on B6, etc. USA Today took this concept one step further by organizing their four main sections - News, Money, Sports, and Life - by color (blue, green, red, and purple respectively) so you could always find the information you want without delay. Of course, some newspapers offer a food or real estate section once a week. But, for the most part, the pattern holds.
Sunday is different. Sunday newspapers feature expanded coverage in each of the core sections — the first of a series of investigative articles will appear on the front page of the Sunday paper, for example, the business section will include a special interview with a notable CEO, the sports section will offer detailed analysis of an upcoming game. Sunday newspapers also include extra editorials and op-eds, book reviews, a week in review, or week-ahead section, and of course the comics. Some newspapers, including the Washington Post, New York Times, Boston Globe, and Los Angeles Times, have special Sunday magazines, while others include a copy of Parade magazine with the Sunday paper. Toss in the ads and circulars and you get a newspaper delivered to your front step that looks (bigger) and feels (heavier) much different than any other newspaper.
Beyond the size and weight, there are two things that make the Sunday paper unique in my view: First, the focus and tone of the Sunday paper is different. The articles are longer. The coverage is more detailed. The number and diversity of issues and stories that are included is far greater. There is less concern, it seems, that the paper needs to include the latest news - however that can be delivered before the paper must go to print – and more emphasis on publishing what is the most important news, or a better/different/expanded way of looking at an issue and learning about what is happening in the world. Second, because there are more sections, a greater number of issues covered, and the articles are longer and more substantive (often), the Sunday paper takes longer to read. Its not a thing, its an experience. You can plan a whole weekend around reading the Sunday newspaper.
Of course, as a subscriber to the New York Times, and a resident of New York City (although it is true, I believe, for people who live in most major cities along the eastern seaboard), I get some of my Sunday paper delivered on Saturday morning. The Sunday New York Times Magazine, the Book Review, and the Arts section arrive on Saturday, along with the Saturday newspaper. On Sunday morning the Week in Review, Style and other sections are delivered along with the standard (but expanded for Sunday) fare. The extra day gives me time to read and reflect on what is in the paper - a real treat.
Of course, one of the criticisms of the newspaper industry - and print newspapers in particular - is that the print edition doesn’t have much/any value. Most of the information that you find in the print edition of the newspaper is available online, for free (at least for now), hours - and in the case of the Sunday papers, sometimes days - before it is delivered to your doorstep. But there are plenty of stories, particularly in the Sunday paper, that don’t benefit by being made available online the instant they are finished. There are stories designed to offer information, or perspectives, whose relevance aren’t dictated by time. There are stories that take a few extra days to develop, because issues take time to develop over the course of a week. The experience of reading the Sunday newspaper - the opportunity to slow down, focus on different issues or from different angles - is important, not only in terms of our ability to understand and retain the information itself, but also to consider the broader implications of what we are reading on how we live our lives and what is happening all around us.
As far as I am concerned, the Sunday newspaper isn’t enough. The biggest limitation to the Sunday paper is the fact that it only comes out on Sunday. Newspapers aren’t filled with must-read articles every day, and the Sunday paper is no exception. It might take me three or four hours to read through all the interesting coverage in a Sunday New York Times. Its not uncommon for me to keep sections of the Sunday paper around all week (or in the case of the magazines, longer) if I don’t have time when it is first delivered to give all the good articles the attention they deserve. But its increasingly the case that I might be able to pour through every section of the Sunday New York Times in an hour and not find much, or anything, worth spending extra time to read. I can’t subscribe to every Sunday paper in the country (and get it delivered on Sunday), and even time spent online looking through those editions can’t replicate that Sunday paper reading experience. Moreover, there are issues and subjects I know the paper isn’t covering — that I wish they would. And there are stories that deserve more attention than even one story in the Sunday paper affords them.
That’s why we need to make the Saturday paper special, like its Sunday counterpart. The Saturday paper should feature the same types of expanded coverage as you find on Sunday. There should be more special sections and deeper analysis of important issues. Stories should start on Saturday and finish on Sunday. The excitement that I feel when I receive some of the sections from the Sunday New York Times a day early should be true for both weekend days, and shared by more people. More voices could be included. More perspectives could be considered. More topics could be addressed. And in terms of the value that newspapers (still) provide to our society — more opportunities for people to learn and gain insight about what is happening in our world, and why its important, could be shared by everyone.
There are always going to be economic issues with newspapers. People will always confuse information — what flies around online at dizzying speeds and many newspapers pass off as quality coverage about something — and news. The Sunday paper, typically, is filled with news — news you need, news you want, news you learn from, and news that is important to understand, because it relates to everything else we do in the world. People will pay for things that they find valuable. People will subscribe to newspapers that offer timely, relevant, and compelling content. More often than not, and far more often these days than on the other six days of the week that you get the newspaper as a subscriber, the Sunday paper offers must-read information. The Sunday paper is valuable. And when you have something that is valuable, you should do more of it.
I think the Saturday newspaper should be special (also).
Its just an idea…
TAGS
: Department of Ideas
1 comment
Department of Ideas: Shift How We Think
by Brian Reich | 15 Jan 2010, 12:03pm
I have an idea: We should shift how we think… about something.
I firmly believe that we can all change. We can change how we act. We can change the things we like and don’t like. We can change where we live and how we spend our time. We can change anything we want. I also believe we would all benefit from a little change. Imagine if you ate more vegetables or got 30 more sleep each night, and the health benefits that might result. Consider how picking up the phone to call someone on their birthday, instead of posting a message to their Facebook profile might change their day, or gain you a piece of insight into their live that sparks a wonderful new angle to your friendship. Think about how one little alteration to your daily schedule, your consumption habits, your way of interacting with people, or just how you think about a certain subject could change your life, and the world around you. Pretty cool, right?
Of course, some change happens naturally — when we grow up and are introduced to new experiences, for example, its natural for our perspectives to change because we have had new, and different experiences. Other change is more difficult to realize — the old ways of thinking and acting put up a pretty strong fight. And people don’t like to change. As one of my high school teachers used to say “its easier to sit on the couch than it is to go running.” So true. We get comfortable in our ways. We feel confident when we have mastered an issue or become satisfied with how we view the world. Change disrupts all that. Change introduces new variables into our lives, things we can’t predict or in some cases can’t control. And that makes us uncomfortable. But just because change is hard, or scary, or takes time you don’t think you have in your day, doesn’t mean it isn’t possible. And it certainly isn’t an excuse for not considering what change might mean.
To change something you have to work at it. You have to be committed to change. You have to invest time and energy to make sure you achieve the right changes. In many cases, to make real changes happen, you have to ask for help. Of course, big changes often result from very small actions. Change is change - just doing something is a start. In fact, changing how you think is surprisingly easy. If you listen more, and seriously consider what someone else has to say — what you know about something will likely change. If you read/watch/listen to something that you wouldn’t normally — what you were aware of would likely change.
I believe that real change starts with one thing: how we think. If what we believe about people, or issues, or how the world works never evolves, we can’t expect anything else about how we operate in life to follow suit. But if we can change how we think, we open up the possibility to change our own behavior — but also to change how other people think, how they act, and how the world works. I don’t see people willing or interested in changing how they think very often, but I am hopeful that it will happen more. I see people every day, all the time, more interested in defending their turf, justifying their behaviors, and refusing to act differently. They say ‘that’s how it has always been done’ - but to me, that’s not a good reason.
We should shift how we think about something, anything. I won’t tell you what to think, or what to think about differently. I am going to start today with how I think about causes and issues. Tomorrow, I’ll shift my thinking on something else. Every day, going forward, I am going to do what I can to shift how I think, or what I think, about something… anything.
So yeah, I think we should shift how we think.
Its just an idea…
Department of Ideas: Pause, Focus, Prioritize
by Brian Reich | 14 Jan 2010, 12:41pm
I have an idea: When a major disaster strikes, the global community should pause, focus, and prioritize… then act.
The humanitarian crisis that is unfolding in the wake of the massive earthquake in Haiti on Tuesday is a sobering reminder of how fragile life is and how quickly everything can change. The swift and dramatic response has been an inspiring reminder that our society is truly global and that technology has the potential to engage and mobilize action in the most critical of times — governments across the globe didn’t hesitate to deploy military and other support, relief organizations were able to offer life-saving supplies within a matter of hours, millions of dollars (particularly contributions made online or via text message) poured in from individuals and corporations everywhere… and the full extent of the support those impacted will receive is still being assessed.
Of course, its all happening at once. There are dozens of organizations competing for attention and donations. New information about the extent of the crisis are being delivered in near real-time, and its difficult to figure out what is accurate and what is not. Everyone seems to have an opinion about what the greatest need is, or how people should respond. Too many people are jockeying for position, trying to be first, or be recognized, for their contribution to the response. Its chaos. And chaos serves nobody.
I understand that people want to get involved — and how easily people can take action (especially today, with access to technology and the speed at which information moves) that seems like it will have the desired outcome. But, its also clear that some actions are proceeding without anyone having taken the time to think about what actions might make the most sense. There is always some measure of confusion and chaos in the wake of a disaster, so I am not surprised that its hard to make sense of what is going on. But I also know there are better options and strategies - or given the tools available today - could be more effective ways to organize the response.
Where do you start?
Pause: An immediate response is necessary, and critical — supplies need to be sent, troops need to be mobilized, money needs to be raised. Governments and relief groups need to connect. Individuals and corporations need to prepare for action. Websites need to be launched. All that takes coordination. That takes quick thinking. And sometimes that means taking action without the opportunity to think before you act. But today, with the speed at which information is moving and the ability that we have to connect - and mobilize - individuals and groups from anywhere and everywhere almost instantly, there are no excuses for making bad choices. We have plenty of information. The challenge, it seems, is making sense of it all. In today’s media environment everyone is on their own island. Everyone has their own channel from which they can share their perspective and offer their voice. Thousands - even millions - of competing messages and campaigns are flooding our airwaves, clogging our inboxes, and consuming our mindshare. Even a disaster can’t fully break through any more. That’s why, when disaster strikes we need to pause everything. Just for a few minutes, maybe a day or two. Companies should pull their advertising to clear the way for other, critical messages to get through. The media should focus its resources and attention on what matters most. Organizations should pause their other campaigns and shelve their other priorities. Individuals should take the time to listen, learn, and understand what is happening - not just re-tweet or give attention to whatever comes down the pike. By pausing, just briefly, we’ll be better prepared to respond going forward.
Prioritize: There are some clear priorities when mobilizing a response to a disaster. For most organizations, money is needed before anything else. From the public’s standpoint, good, timely, relevant information is the priority. For people who are directly impacted, there are certain products (types of food, medical supplies, etc.) and capabilities (translators, doctors) that are often in short supply. For family members, a way to ensure your relative is ok trumps all. But often, because of the chaos, a huge response is mobilized and critical needs are not met. We gravitate towards what is easy to do, compelling to talk about - but not necessarily what is most urgent. To truly address a disaster appropriately we need to focus the interest and attention. We need a priority list. Rather than celebrating how much money has been raised or how many people are involved, lets make sure that the money being raised is going to the organizations that need it most, or to meet the most critical needs. If there are specific products needed, lets ensure that the companies who can help are being contacted - and supported by the public in their efforts. Only by prioritizing can be sure that the most urgent needs have been identified.
Focus: Its always tough to focus - to make sure you get the most important things done on your to-do list before moving on to something else. When chaos reigns, its even more difficult. When disaster strikes, its impossible. In the critical moments and says after a disaster it is challenging to determine whether we have been truly successful in meeting the most critical needs. But if we can establish a clear set of priorities for how to respond to a disaster, we can also apply the discipline necessary to ensure that the needs are met. We can focus. Lets decide that one organization should receive all the money in the days following a disaster, instead of having dozens of groups all making a case that they need funds - and allow that group (with help) to make sure everyone who needs resources gets them. Lets designate a handful of channels where information can originate from, and everyone else can help to spread the word - instead of competing for attention and risking the spread of bad information. Lets identify how many doctors are needed to treat the injuries, make sure we have recruited them all, arranged for flights into the disaster zone, and provided them with the necessary support — instead of having volunteers converge on areas where their support isn’t being managed well, or their expertise isn’t a match for the particular need. By focusing on more specific, measurable outcomes we can be clear about whether the effort is successful, and more easily assess what additional support is needed.
We are connected - online and offline - in ways that we never imagined. When a disaster occurs, word spreads quickly. That’s a good thing. Awareness spurs action and our ability to respond has grown exponentially. But the fact that we are all connected and empowered to act also adds new complexity to the challenge of coordinating a massive, inter-connected, distributed audience of people to respond to a disaster. We need to make sure we are using the tools and the community to achieve the desired impacts. To do that, we need to pause, focus, and prioritize… and when we have, we can act, and act more effectively.
Its just an idea…
Department of Ideas: Host a salon
by Brian Reich | 12 Jan 2010, 5:32pm
I have an idea: its time for salons to make a comeback.
A salon is simply a gathering of intellectual, social, political, and cultural elites under the roof of an inspiring hostess or host. The idea isn’t new. Since the beginning of recorded history people have gotten together to discuss the survival and progress of their communities. In the 17th and 18th centuries, Salons were a popular activity of the French literary and philosophical crowd. In modern times, the intellectual glitterati gathered in Upper West Side apartments and London flats (and all places in between for sure) to exchange news and ideas.
Today, the idea of the salon has all but disappeared. There are some ad-hoc gatherings of intellectuals for sure. There are sites like Salon.com that are trying to bring together thoughts from smart people on smart subjects - the digital equivalent of that living room gathering. And the internet has already proven its ability to create platforms from which new conversations, about important subjects, can emerge. But salons, in the truest sense, they are not.
Salons are needed today, more than ever. We need smart people to come together and discuss the news and happenings of the world — not with an eye towards identifying potential personal gains, but with a commitment to finding how to create opportunity and benefit for everyone. We need new, fresh, and innovative ideas for how to shape our future society — not concepts that reinforce a single perspective, or advanced by a single set of actors. We need innovations that ensure the wonderful diversity that exists in the world is reflected in anything and everything that we do as a society going forward — not horrific acts that result from a narrow-minded view of outsiders or other people. There are serious issues facing our society that need to be addressed and those challenges require solutions designed to benefit all, and move us forward as a community. That means more voices, and more insights, more ideas and more action - but it also means better ideas and deeper focus.
There is nothing keeping us from having more salons. They can happen in any city, at any time. There doesn’t need to be an agenda or a format - in fact agendas and formats undermine the very concept of a salon. We need people interested in hearing the ideas of others and sharing their own. We need people committed to collaboration and not focused on competition. We need people of varying political views and professional backgrounds, different faiths and different experiences, to come together. But more than anything, we need hosts. The key to a successful salon, it seems, is the host (or traditionally hostess) — people to open their homes, invite people in, ensure a diversity of perspectives, a vibrant conversation, and maybe some snacks to keep the whole machine moving.
I can do that. I can host salons. And so can you. So why don’t we start?
Its just an idea…
TAGS
: Department of Ideas
1 comment
Department of Ideas: Day Jobs
by Brian Reich | 11 Jan 2010, 3:33pm
I have an idea: We should all have the chance to get day jobs — not the kind of jobs we already have (apologies if you work nights, I was trying to be creative in naming the idea), but jobs that we are interested in, or curious about, just enough to try it out, without having to make a commitment.
I want to drive the construction crane that is parked outside the window of my apartment — not every day, just once. I want to deliver packages for UPS — not for a living, just long enough to get a real sense for how the system works. I want to call the shots inside the production trailer during a live sporting event, be a flight attendant, teach elementary school, repair sewers, drive a monorail, install an elevator, be a commercial fisherman, inspect bridges, drive a garbage truck, work a homicide case… and more. I don’t want to get a new job, or change careers — I just want to see how other people spend their time, what its like to work in a different industry, see what others types of skills people use every day, what their work environment is like, etc. I don’t want to do any of these jobs every day, just for one day, or maybe a week - as long as it takes to get some new experiences and perspective.
There are TV shows devoted to this kind of idea — like Dirty Jobs on the Discovery Channel, where Mike Rowe is trying to “labor as an apprentice with regular men and women, doing the kind of jobs that make civilized life possible for the rest of us.” There have been books written with this concept in mind, like Stefan Fatsis’ ‘A Few Seconds of Panic, where the sportswriter went through training camp and suited up as a placekicker for an NFL team, or Katherine Newman’s ‘No Shame In My Game‘ which explores the life of the working poor (the author, and her research students, took up work behind the counter of a fast food restaurant alongside some of the people they were researching). Over the course of a political career that lasted almost 30 years, Former Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) worked more than 921 different jobs to experience what the people he represented were going through every day (he also took meticulous notes of every aspect of his daily life, so the insights into these work experiences are documented, and no doubt incredible to read).
What about the rest of us?
We should all have an opportunity to experience something new - without making a huge financial commitment or being directed down a different career path. And not just once, or when we are dying. We should be able to walk in someone else’s work boots, log on to someone else’s daily life, or do another person’s heavy lifting for a day. We should be expected to do this.
Aside from the curiosity that it would satisfy (c’mon — who doesn’t want to know what its like to swing the arm of a crane around 200 feet off the ground or put on a pair of waist high rubber pants and wade around in the bowels of the New York City sewer system) there are real learning opportunities. We’d gain valuable perspective on our own lives, and what’s easy - or not-so easy - by comparison to what others experience every day. We’d learn new skills and have different insights into how to address the challenges that we face in our lives, at work or at home. The groups that would host these day jobs might gain some outside perspective that would help them. If nothing else, walking away with a good story (or maybe a safety helmet, photo ID, or product you helped to assembled as a small souvenir of your efforts) would be worth the effort, right?
It wouldn’t be that difficult to make something like this happen. Sure, there are some liability and logistical issues that need to be worked out in any of these types of adventures, but nothing we haven’t seen before. And while not everyone would be interested in getting a ‘day job’ and not every employer would find it valuable to welcome an untrained or uninitiated employee for the day, I know there are enough people out there to take an idea like this and create a business around, or maybe start a movement of some kind. There are so many jobs out there to try and so many new and different things to explore — the options seem endless. So there, go get a ‘day job’ already.
Its just an idea…
TAGS
: Department of Ideas
2 comments
