flights

Have you ever noticed the way American beer commercials emphasize packaging gimmicks? The wide-mouth can. The label that turns blue when it’s cold. The easy-pour vent. The shelf pack that fits better in your fridge.

Are there people who peruse the beer aisle thinking, “hmm… you know I really enjoy [favorite microbrew/import], but it pours all splashy, and I can’t tell if it’s cold without picking it up. I guess I’ll take the Coors.”

In the same vein, I was listening to the radio the other day, and a commercial for Miller Lite came on. Apparently, they took the top award for “American Style Light Lager” at the World Beer Cup in 1996, ‘98, ‘02 and ‘06. Well whoop-dee-doo. American Style Light Lager? Really? There’s an award for that? How many beers could possibly be competing in the American Style Light Lager category? “American Style” itself narrows the field quite a bit, since American microbreweries typically produce traditional European style beers. This leaves you with just the big brands. When you add “Light” to the mix, you’re down to what, three beers? And Miller Lite is bragging that they won the top award only four times in the last twelve years.

The thing is, I don’t actually have a problem with the taste of some of the big brand American beers. I’m more than happy to drink MGD at a ball game.

They way these guys mostly brag about the packaging though, you’d think they’re embarrassed about their own product.

“Hillary can’t win, and Obama can’t beat her.”

This seems to be the bottom line in the endless slog toward choosing the Democrat who will run against McCain this fall.

Obama’s platform is “change,” so it’s ironic that nothing changed in the six weeks between Super Tuesday and the Pennsylvania primary.

The American people are certainly craving change, starving for it, so why can’t Obama close the deal? Is he offering the wrong kind of change? Too much change? Too little? Too unspecific?

I admit I’ve sort of stopped paying attention to the Democratic race because frankly the media coverage is painful (all bowling scores, flag pins and other sensationalist trivia), and the candidates themselves seem intent on wallowing in the muck. But when I was more actively following the campaigns of Obama and Clinton, my impression was consistent with the early primary results: Obama was incandescent, dynamic, something new. Clinton was pedestrian, wonky (not to mention cool, ruthless, shrewish).

Obama’s “change” has a lot to do with rejecting the politics of polarization. Obama’s message is about hope and unity (“yes WE can”). When the American people first heard his words, they resonated, and he performed well in the early races. The idea of unity (“not red states and blue states… but the UNITED States”) is powerful, and it’s what Americans want.

But it’s not enough, and that’s what Hillary recognized. That’s why she has been so effective in the last couple of months.

The last eight years have certainly been polarizing, but they have also been characterized by incompetence, arrogance, secrecy and dishonesty. Obama has got the honesty issue in the bag, and he’s effectively positioned himself as the candidate who can unify the country. But Hillary has done a much better job on the issue of competence. On openness and humility it’s probably a toss-up.

Americans want all of this, and so the two candidates – together – sum up the change Americans are craving. That’s the real reason the voters are split almost down the middle. For Hillary to have any hope of securing the nomination (and the presidency), she needs to convince America that she is honest, open and can be a unifying force (not gonna happen). For Obama to win, he needs to convince America that he is no less competent than Clinton.

I can’t believe I’m writing about Britney Spears, but bear with me.

One would hope that Britney bottomed out somewhere around the head-shaving or the crotch-flashing. Now it seems the gossip mill’s coverage of Britney has finally bottomed out as well.

Yesterday I was in the checkout line at the Safeway – where I get most of my celebrity gossip – and I noticed the usual array of Britney shots on the covers of the usual magazines. But something was amiss.

The normally snarky Us Weekly had Britney’s face dominating the cover, but instead of the obligatory jab about her latest booze binge or child-endangerment episode, the headline simply read, “Living With Mental Illness.”

Adjacent to this on the shelf was Star magazine, whose cover story was something about how Britney and K-Fed are working to come up with a parenting agreement that will be good for their kids.

All of this on the heels of the recent South Park episode (“Britney’s New Look“) lampooning our insatiable appetite for tabloid news. Key quote, “I know watching celebrities go down can be fun. Me and my friends were just as guilty as all of you, but maybe, just maybe it’s time to let this one go.”

Amazingly, the tabloid press is listening, and it seems they’ve agreed to a ceasefire.

Of course, Craig Fergusson called for it a long time ago.

I was reminiscing with my colleagues yesterday about the dawn of the ATM machine. We were remembering how, when banks first started to install them, they all used to charge you a small fee for the convenience of using it – whether you belonged to the bank or not. Thankfully, banks abandoned this practice, although many will still charge you for using an “out-of-network” ATM.

When I was in Singapore doing some consulting for Singapore Airlines, they weren’t really down with the whole e-ticket thing. Labor is cheap in Southeast Asia, so travel agents are still the main outlet for sales of airline tickets. One of our initiatives with Singapore Airlines was to expand their e-ticketing capabilities, and we had to repeatedly push back on their desire to demand a convenience fee.

We poked fun at notoriously-stingy Singapore Airlines about this behind their backs. It all seems so archaic, but I still occasionally run into service fees here and there – like when I buy baseball game tickets online, as I did today.

So let’s get this straight… I’m making things more convenient for you, so you want to charge me a fee.

Actually, I suppose it’s more convenient for both of us, which is apparently a problem. So your fee is designed to counter-balance this dangerous increase in net convenience?

Just like the “patriot” act, this “convenience” thing isn’t fooling anyone. Let’s come up with a better name for your fee.

How about simply, an INconvenience fee? Maybe a We’re Sorry fee? Sucka fee?

I can barely remember now, but before the age of MapQuest (and, subsequently, Google Maps), if I needed to go somewhere I’d never been to before, I rarely planned my route. If, for example, I wanted to go to a furniture store in a suburb on the other side of town, my process went something like this…

1. Get in the car and start driving in the general direction of my destination.
2. Once in the general vicinity of the destination, consult a map or get exact directions from a knowledgeable human.

This makes perfect sense to certain kinds of people, but various of my friends and past significant others found it absolutely maddening. How can a person get in a car and start driving if they don’t know exactly where to go?

I was thinking about this today in the context of product development. Recently, I wrote about the value of “process,” and I think this makes for a pretty good analogy.

The Web is a very forgiving platform in the sense that building things for it is very easy, and making changes is often trivial. It’s all just pixels and code. I love this because it allows for experiments and mistakes. It encourages mistakes, because you can learn and adjust so quickly.

I have no problem putting something imperfect into the hands of the crowd and then watching it to see how and where it falls short – within reason. If the breaking of something will result in loss of life, or a lot of money, I’m very very careful of course, but such situations are rare.

I have no “brand” to protect – or, rather, a willingness to experiment is consistent with my “brand” – so this is easy for me.

What’s really difficult sometimes, though, is to get clients and stakeholders to feel comfortable with things unfinished and imperfect. Companies are understandably careful about everything they unveil that has their mark on it. When careful goes too far, however, one pitfall is a culture of fear, where people are afraid to make mistakes or deviate from what is safe and known and familiar. This is the same kind of culture where people are unwilling to deliver bad news to the boss.

Not to venture too far into another analogy, but I once had a music teacher say to me, “if you’re going to make a mistake, make it loud.”

I love this philosophy, but to make it work for a company or a client requires certain controls. Some options are…

• Brand it with beta. This is a popular Web 2.0 approach. Just put a “beta” badge on it, and people will know it’s a work-in-progress.
• Launch a laboratory. Google and Digg have pretty nifty public ones.
• Encourage your employees. There’s no encouragement like time and money. Google, again, is the obvious example. They famously encourage their employees to use 20% of their time to work on side projects. Some of these – like Gmail – have become key parts of Google’s portfolio.
• Limit exposure. Create a panel of people with whom you can share your wild ideas and works-in-progress. Or do live A-B testing, where the experimental stuff is only put in front of people who meet certain criteria.

That’s four ideas, and there are certainly lots more, so get in the car and start driving. Make loud mistakes.

(to the editors at the New York Times)

Dear Sir:

An editorial in the Times, April 5, observes that “a decade of fierce polemics has failed to resolve this ongoing quarrel” between two contending views: that “the war to preserve a non-Communist, independent South Vietnam could have been waged differently,” and that “a viable, non-Communist South Vietnam was always a myth.” There has also been a third position: That apart from its prospects for success, the United States has neither the authority nor competence to intervene in the internal affairs of Vietnam. This was the position of much of the authentic peace movement, that is, those who opposed the war because it was wrong, not merely because it was unsuccessful. It is regrettable that this position is not even a contender in the debate, as The Times sees it.

On a facing page, Donald Kirk observes that “since the term ‘bloodbath’ first came into vogue in the Indochinese conflict, no one seems to have applied it to the war itself — only to the possible consequences of ending the war.” He is quite wrong. Many Americans involved in the authentic peace movement have insisted for years on the elementary point that he believes has been noticed by “no one,” and it is a commonplace in literature on the war. To mention just one example, we have written a small book on the subject (Counterrevolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact and Propaganda, 1973), though in this case the corporation (Warner Brothers) that owned the publisher refused to permit distribution after publication. But quite apart from this, the observation has been made repeatedly in discussion and literature on the war, by just that segment of opinion that The Times editorial excludes from the debate.

Sincerely yours,
Noam Chomsky
Professor, MIT

and

Edward S. Herman
Professor, University of Pennsylvania

I want to like, Hillary Clinton. I really do.

She’s an accomplished and well-regarded senator, and she’s the only First Lady in my lifetime who tried to make a meaningful contribution during her tenure in the white house.

I want to like her, but she’s making it really hard.

In her presidential campaign, she could choose to focus on her strengths and her many accomplishments. Instead, she keeps inventing stories, revising history, taking cheap shots and insulting our intelligence.

In the last two weeks alone…

• She invented details about her Bosnia visit and then insulted our intelligence by claiming she simply misspoke (um… misspoke dozens of times?)
• She’s taken great pains to make the case that she’s always opposed NAFTA, despite copious evidence to the contrary.
• Responding to calls for her to drop out of the race, she charged that Obama doesn’t want to give Pennsylvanians their chance to vote. It doesn’t rise to the level of the “plagiarism” allegation, but it’s still a cheap shot, considering no such calls have come from Obama or anyone on his staff.
• Finally, when a reporter asked for her to comment on the recent gains Obama has made in the superdelegate count, she feigned ignorance, claiming she doesn’t pay attention to those numbers.

Even if you take her at her word, is this the kind of leader we want? I don’t know about the rest of America, but I’m done with cheap shots. I can’t take any more sniping. And I know it was just one of those obligatory remarks, but if Hillary isn’t paying attention to the superdelegate count, then there’s something seriously wrong with her. The superdelegates are crucial to the outcome of the most important contest of her life. We want her to be paying attention to that.

The narrative the media has painted about Hillary is that she will do anything, absolutely anything, to win the nomination, that she doesn’t have the capacity to put the party or the country ahead of her own ambitions. This is probably unfair, but she hasn’t done a whole lot to dispel this impression.

As a result, she has completely alienated young voters – a constituency that has always favored Obama, but I have to imagine there was a time when they might have warmed to her. At this point, however, judging by the Digg crowd (a skewed lens, I admit), they are passionately anti-Hillary. This is a pretty powerful segment of potential voters, and it’s unfortunate that she has failed so badly with them.