28 Wednesday Dec 2011
How many hours of dedicated children’s programming are on PBS stations in the western United States? This graph shows that after KNPB cuts 2.5 hours of children’s programming on January 2nd, it will be tied for third among 30 western US PBS affiliates for the least amount of children’s programs (programming survey based on changes to be made in January 2012.) KNPB will also be the only station among those surveyed without after-school programming.
Click on graph for larger image
09 Wednesday Nov 2011
Posted in Ethics, Government, Politics, Travel
Tags
African Americans, Alabama, Governor Robert Bentley, HB - 56, Hispanics, Illegal Immigrants, Immigration, immigration laws, racism
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype: 775.624.5679]
Paul Kiser
Racism is not a ‘card’ to be played, nor is it something that a person absolves themselves from by saying, “I’m not a racist!” Racism is determined by the act(s) of a person and one single act can reveal subconscious or hidden attitudes of a person or group of people who betray their desire to put other races down and keep them there.
Alabama doesn’t have a great record when it comes to racism. The State has a history of implementing laws to obstruct, intimidate, and harass minorities in order to retain the power of government in the hands of white men. When that was ruled illegal by higher authorities, white men used terrorism tactics to suppress and/or drive African-Americans out of Alabama. This was done with the blessing of the State government that enacted laws, and when necessary, involved the Governor and State Police to force minorities to comply.
There you go playing the Racism card
The tactics were effective. African-Americans consisted of almost half (47.7%) of the population of Alabama in 1870. It declined until the 1970 census when the African-American population was down to almost one-quarter (26.2%.)
But all that is in the past. The racial violence of the 1960’s is all over and everything is better in the South. White men no longer have a need to target minorities with laws that harass and intimidate. Governors in Alabama do not support laws that target a certain race, nor enforce laws intended to obstruct, harass, nor intimidate them. Racism is not the way of the New South.
So, this past June, why did Alabama pass the toughest immigration law (House Bill 56 – 2011) in the country that targets Hispanics and anyone associated with them? Hispanics only consisted of 3.9% of the Alabama’s population in the 2010 census, which was up from 1.7% in the 2000 census. Could the new law that harasses and intimidates anyone who even looks Hispanic be a response to their population doubling in ten years?
The law was sponsored by 25 Republicans in the Alabama House of Representatives. All 58 Republicans in the House voted for the bill along with 9 Democrats. One Democrat voting for the bill, Representative Pebblin Warren told me that her vote was misreported and that she voted ‘Nay.’ Of the other eight Democrats who voted ‘Aye,’ five has since changed parties and are now Republicans. Those five are Representatives Alan C. Boothe, Lynn Greer, Steve Hurst, Mike Millican, and Lesley Vance. Below are pictures the 63 Republicans and the 3 Democrats who voted for HB – 56:
Alabama Representatives Voting For HB -56
In the Alabama Senate, all but one Republican voted for the bill along with five Democrats. Below are the pictures of the 20 Republicans and 5 Democrats who voted in favor of the immigration reform bill:
Alabama Senators Who Voted For HB - 56
If the ethnic background of the politicians behind this law seem to lack diversity, they do. The lone African-American who voted for the law, Senator Rodger Smitherman, is confusing because the month before the vote he was quoted as saying:
“We’re going back to some day we don’t want to see, where people can be pulled out of a car because they look like somebody,”
I contacted a member of his staff to determine if he intended to have his vote recorded in favor of HB – 56; however, he has not responded by the time this was published. Regardless, this bill that targeted one race was proposed and passed almost exclusively by white, conservative politicians.
The final player in this saga is Governor Robert Bentley.
Alabama Governor Robert Bentley
It seems that ‘Happy Days’ of the Old South are back.
This article first published as
If You’re a Conservative in Alabama, You Just Might Be a Racist
on Technorati.com
08 Saturday Oct 2011
Posted in Business, Communication, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Public Relations
Tags
DVD, DVD Rental, Media, Netflix, price increase, Qwikster, Reed Hastings
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype: 775.624.5679]
Paul Kiser
I lied today. I had to lie. Netflix gave me no choice. Today I canceled our Netflix membership and afterward they ask me why I was canceling. All the choices for why I was canceling were designed to avoid identifying the real reason I, and one million other former members, have quit. We don’t want to be victims of Netflix investors anymore.
I would have said so in their survey, but Netflix doesn’t even give an ‘Other’ option. That tells me that they don’t want to hear why people are really quitting. I can understand why. It’s easier to tell your investors that every customer is asked why they quit and none of them said, “because you screwed me”…or some more appropriate answer that clearly identifies the unacceptable aggressive profiteering decisions made by Fortune magazine’s 2010 Business Person of the Year, Reed Hastings.
So Long Huckster!
On September 18, Hastings made a rambling, PR spun statement that sort of acknowledged the growing customer anger at Netflix, but then put the blame on the customers. Basically Hastings said that, yes, my monthly service fee was increased over 40% in nine months, and yes, the included streaming video service became an extra fee, and yes, the main supply of premium movies, the Starz Network, has pulled the plug on Netflix, but it was all a big misunderstanding…by the customer. Had he (Hastings) just explained he was going to jack up the fees and split up the service for an extra cost beforehand, all of us silly customers would be happy.
I’m not happy and it has nothing to do with Netflix’s communication skills, or lack thereof. Dramatically increasing prices in the 2011 economy not only shows incredible arrogance and insensitivity, it demonstrates that Hastings and Netflix is completely investor focused. He is positioning the company for profits and corporate bonuses and let the customer be damned. My guess is that the ‘apology’ was geared to appease investors when Netflix stocked tanked a couple of weeks earlier after Starz jumped ship.
I would expect that the next shoe to drop is downsizing. Less customers service, longer DVD turn arounds, and poorer customer service as Netflix looks to shore up profitability by cutting labor costs. Greed is good, and when you’ve sucked the customer’s goodwill dry, then you sell the company. This is a good time for customers to divest their interest in Netflix.
Reed Hastings has the last laugh. When a customer quits Netflix, they cut off service immediately….even if the customer has paid for the next month, so congratulations Mr. Hastings, I guess that makes you the winner.
Original article first published as
Netflix Member Since 2007…No More
on Technorati.com
12 Monday Sep 2011
Posted in Business, Ethics, Government, Government Regulation, Politics, Taxes
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype: 775.624.5679]
Paul Kiser
Smaller government. It sounds great. Less taxes, less regulation. It’s the song that conservatives and Tea Partists have been singing for over a decade. The problem is that the conservative tune is exactly wrong for what our country needs.
Government is the basis good business in America. Regulation creates the level playing field that keeps commerce from becoming a cesspool of corruption and unethical greed, where the ones on top are the ones that play the dirtiest games. Recent history has shown us that when government regulation is not present, businesses (e.g.; Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, etc.) will sacrifice the entire nation’s economy for their own bonuses and dividends. Government regulation is absolutely necessary for ethical business to rise above the base nature of men and money.
As far as taxes, they are the dues we pay to live in the greatest country in the world. More importantly, unlike private business, almost every dollar we pay to the government flows back into the economy through, 1) private businesses for services to the people of our community and country, and/or, 2) jobs for government employees who provide vital services and infrastructure (fire, police, roads, teachers, etc.) for the American people. Despite the slanderous statements made by conservatives, most public employees meet or exceed the quality of work and productivity of private business employees, and far exceed the value per dollar of executives in major corporations. Government employees often do the work that private business wouldn’t do because there is no profit in providing honorable service for America.
Less government has only one effect…it makes our economy smaller and increases unemployment. That is exactly why America’s economy is not growing and why unemployment is so high. A smaller government is a stupid idea, but conservatives and the TP people seem to have a corner on the stupid market.
26 Thursday May 2011
Tags
Blogging, compliance, FINRA, investment firms, New Business World, New York Life, Public Image, Regulatory Notice 10-06, Rule 10-06, SEC
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype: 775.624.5679]
Paul Kiser
Can your investment advisor write a blog about his or her job? Can they Tweet that they just read a great article on oil futures and add a hyperlink? Can they post that they had a big day in the market? Prior to January 2010, the answer was no…not unless they wanted to risk her or his job.
Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) rules didn’t specifically prohibit business-related Social Media participation, but SEC regulations on advertising and communications have been presumed to extend to online engagement and in a vacuum of good guidance, most major firms took the position of forbidding their representatives from participating in Social Media formats. This removed the fundamental aspect of Social Media that benefits commerce on the Internet, the one-on-one connection.
In January 2010, FINRA issued Regulatory Notice 10-06, which gave investment firms parameters for allowing their representatives to use Social Media within the bounds of SEC and FINRA regulations. The reaction was not instantaneous because firms had to solve the issue of how to supervise agent’s online communication. Protocols had to be established, software had to be adapted and installed, and training of agents had to be implemented; however, there has been a rapid Social Media ‘evolution’ in investment advising during the past 12 months.
For some firms, a deliberate, but ‘conservative approach’ to implementing Social Media engagement is being employed. One industry representative said, “…we had to help agents know what they can talk about and what they can’t talk about.” But she added, “…I’d rather be doing this now than wait three years and try to figure it out…Social Media exists and it’s not going away.”
For New York Life the direction was made very clear according to Ken Hittel, Vice President, Corporate Internet, who said, ” Our CEO, (Ted Mathas) made it very clear that agent participation (in Social Media) is a requirement.” New York Life uses a software program to meet SEC and FINRA regulations of supervising agent’s Internet interactions. Hittel said that the implementation of the program, “…went smoothly and was completed in a couple of months.”
The SEC regulations on advertising and adviser/investor communications are not new and apply to all methods of interactions, including those performed via the Internet. A FINRA podcast outlines five issues that apply to all forms of investment communications. All statements made by an agent must:
Each investment firm is expected to train their agents on how to comply with SEC and FINRA requirements. Hittel said that the New York Life agent training program is “..not just compliance.” He pointed out that Social Media creates 12,000 “Brand Ambassadors” for the company and they based their Social Media training on a “best practices” approach. Hittel said that there is a saying at New York Life, “…that you can do anything, not everything,” which is reflected in New York Life’s approach to Social Media engagement. The firm has established a progressive program for Social Media participation by their agents…within the scope of SEC and FINRA regulations.
25 Wednesday May 2011
Tags
compliance, deregulation, FINRA, investment, investment firms, SEC
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype: 775.624.5679]
A version of this article first published as
Investment Firms Allowed to Use Social Media Under SEC/FINRA Rules
on Technorati.com
Eighteen months ago a game launching bird heads at pig heads didn’t exist.
Eighteen months ago Tony Hayward was a star as CEO of BP.
Eighteen months ago most people thought Charlie Sheen was an actor.
Eighteen months ago most investment firms thought that financial advisors were prohibited from using Social Media in business.
Now Angry Birds is near world domination, now Tony Hayward is a footnote in public relations infamy, now we know Charlie Sheen is Charlie Harper…the possessed version of him, and now Social Media is not taboo in the investment business.
…in the world of investing, the Social Media ‘evolution’ has had to meet the compliance issues of the regulatory agencies meant to protect the investor from unethical advisors…
The world is evolving faster than most people can absorb, so it’s not surprising that some industries are adapting to new technologies faster than others, but in the world of investing, the Social Media ‘evolution’ has had to meet the compliance issues of the regulatory agencies meant to protect the investor from unethical advisors.
Social Media tools like blogs and Internet-based social networking tools have opened up a new environment for business by allowing a rapid-response connection between the customer and the seller of a product or service. In most Internet commerce it is a caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) situation, where the buyer must pursue legal remedies for a broken contract or unethical representation of a product or service after the fact. In investment advising the company or firm is expected to protect the buyer before, during, and after the fact, which requires the firm to intercede and supervise interactions that involve investment advice. That has led many firms to prohibit all Social Media involvement by its representatives.
However, seventeen months ago the largest independent financial regulator stepped forward with a road map for investment firms on how Social Media could be used by their representatives while meeting the need to protect the investor.
…the regulations only effect business communications that involve investment advising and promotion. Personal blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and other Social Media tools are not a concern for the regulators…
Joseph Price, Senior Vice President of Advertising Regulation/Corporate Financing at FINRA (Financial Industry Financial Authority) discussed the issues with investment firms and Social Media with me earlier today. Price is one of the authors of Regulatory Notice 10-06 titled Social Media Web Sites – Guidance on Blogs and Social Networking Web Sites that was published in January 2010. Price said that using Social Media, “..depends on the firm’s business model,” and that it, “..has to make sense for the firm.” He confirmed that the regulations only effect business communications that involve investment advising and promotion. Personal blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and other Social Media tools are not a concern for the regulators even though individual firms may have policies prohibiting personal on-line interactions.
Price said that a common question he hears from firms is from those who prohibit all Social Media involvement by their representatives. Their concern is whether a firm is meeting the regulatory requirements when they have no Social Media supervisory functions in place because they have prohibited the activity.
Another question that FINRA has had to deal with involves deleting inappropriate user comments in chat rooms and on blogs. Price asked, “..by selective deletion, has the firm adopted the posts they haven’t deleted?” His suggestion to firms is that they have a policy in place that outlines the approval/deletion of comments. As long as a firm follows the policy and doesn’t prejudice the comments to favor the firm and its products, the company will likely not be considered to have approved and adopted the user comment.
Regarding investment business blogs, Price explained that they “require prior approval” by a firm before they are published because they fall into the category of a static communication that includes any form of advertising.
The Regulatory Notice 10-06 answers ten questions for firms about guidelines for using Social Media in the industry of investment advising. FINRA has followed up that document with webinars, podcasts, and seminars to assist their member firms in the ongoing process of adapting regulatory requirements to Social Media tools available to the rest of the business world.
Firms now the option of fully engaging in Social Media, which is rapidly becoming less an option and more a matter of survival.
21 Saturday May 2011
Posted in Ethics, Lessons of Life, Random
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype: 775.624.5679]
Paul Kiser
If you’re reading this then you didn’t get saved either. Allow me to offer some reasons why this may be.
Reason One: We didn’t get saved because we’re bad and now we’re going to suffer. I lived through LBJ, Nixon,Reagan and Bush (x2) and heard Sarah Palin speak, so…. been there, done that.
Reason Two: There is no God and all of this is a pointless fantasy of mythology.
Reason Three: God couldn’t find anyone to save so he’s just going to wait until October 21, 2011 and flush us all.
Reason Four: God decided that we’re all saved and this is Heaven. That’s the most disturbing of all of the possibilities.
Reason Five: Harold Camping and his followers have exploited some people’s need to feel anxiety and fear about our lives and our future, even though they would be eventually exposed as frauds.
I’ll leave it for you to choose the reason that works for you, but personally I…..
19 Thursday May 2011
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype: 775.624.5679]
Paul Kiser
Last year I managed to offend some investment and financial professionals when I said that their industry would have to engage in Social Media, including blogs, if they were going to stay competitive. They told me that their firms and industry regulations prohibited them from using Social Media tools in their business practices. They also said that some firms that prohibited personal involvement in Social Media. The reaction during and after the meeting was one of a strong denial of the usefulness of Social Media in their industry mixed with a ‘kill-the-messenger’ attitude. It was a typical response by business people who have been blindsided by Social Media.
…Professionals that rely on personal contact and personal relationships are finding that effective use of Social Media is key to maintaining and growing their business.
It is hard to start a dialogue with business professionals on how to use Internet tools such as blogging, Facebook and Twitter when the attitude is that Social Media are an encompassing evil that must be avoided, or at the very least, ignored. The problem, and opportunity, is that business professionals who can use Social Media to engage with others will have an advantage over those who are mystified, or more typically, scared by the power of Social Media. Professionals that rely on personal contact and personal relationships are finding that effective use of Social Media is key to maintaining and growing their business.
The fact is that since that meeting many investment related firms have changed their positions by at least 90° and some have done a 180° shift in their attitude about Social Media in business. That is not surprising considering that their future is at stake; however, investment firms do have strict guidelines on advertising and investment advisement, so using Social Media is not the ‘anything goes’ environment for which most of us are accustomed.
Both the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)[1] are charged with protecting investors by establishing rules to govern investment-related activities. Among those rules are requirements for firms on educating, monitoring, supervising, and document the activities of brokers representing their company. In January 2010, FINRA issued Regulatory Notice 10-06 titled Social Media Web Sites – Guidance on Blogs and Social Networking Web Sites. This notice did not prohibit firms from engaging in Social Media activity, but rather offered common-sense guidelines for investment firms on how Social Media tools could be used to meet FINRA and SEC requirements.
(End of Part I)
(Note: Part II will be posted by 5 PM PDT, Monday, May 23rd)
[1] FINRA is the largest independent regulator for all securities firms doing business in the United States. FINRA’s mission is to protect America’s investors by making sure the securities industry operates fairly and honestly. All told, FINRA oversees nearly 4,550 brokerage firms, about 163,500 branch offices and approximately 631,110 registered securities representatives. (From About FINRA at www.finra.org.)
(This article is advisory in nature and the author does not represent the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA,) the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC), nor any federal or state regulatory authority. The opinion expressed should not be considered as a legal or official position regarding the use of Social Media tools in industry practices. The author has sought out publicly available relevant documents and information as the basis for the opinions expressed; however, final authority on the issues discussed in this article rests with the appropriate government, regulatory, and/or company division that oversees the area of concern.)
18 Wednesday May 2011
Posted in Ethics, Lessons of Life
Tags
2011, Armageddon, Christian, end of the world, Faith, May 21, Rapture
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype: 775.624.5679]
Paul Kiser
Christ is coming this Saturday…look pious.
This Saturday (May 21, 2011) is the date of Rapture according to a California Christian church that I won’t dignify by identifying. As a former Christian who has studied the Bible from beginning to end, I am amazed by Christians who seem to lust after predictions of Armageddon, especially those who claim to know when the actual date of Rapture or the end of the world. There are few things that scream, “I’m a fake Christian!” more than someone who is obsessed with the end of the world.
Real Christians know that their owner’s manual for life, the Bible, clearly states that no human can predict the end of the world (Matthew 24:36,) so a ‘Christian’ who states they know that the end is coming this Saturday is claiming they have knowledge which equals that of their God, which is supposed to be heresy. That doesn’t stop people from doing it. Some of the end-of-the-world predictions according to Wikipedia:
These predictions have caused believers of the mythology to ‘check out’ of the real world and in some cases kill themselves before or after the date. The latest prediction has caused at least one couple to sell everything and move to Florida…I could make guesses about why Florida was their end-of-the-world destination, but I don’t want to offend Floridians who will still be around on Sunday.
These predictions by church leaders illustrate the an inherent problem with mythology, which is the lack of boundaries on ‘having faith.’ Anyone can say anything and insist that it is true because they ‘have faith.’ ‘Faith’ allows people to ignore common sense and often, even the Bible, in their pursuit of teachings that they personally favor and can’t justify. ‘Faith’ allows people to impose their hate and judgement on other people when the Bible clearly states that their God is to be the only judge over other people.
All of us have faith in something and faith, by itself, is not bad. I can respect anyone who has ‘faith’ providing their ‘faith’ is self-contained, but in the past three decades, ‘faith’ has become cry of racists and misogynists who use it to convince governments to pass laws that reflect their desire to inflict their beliefs on others. ‘Faith’ is a dangerous concept in civil society where majority-rule is supposed to be guided by common sense, reason, and respect for all.
May 21, 2011 is only significant in showing us the folly of blind faith.
03 Tuesday May 2011
Tags
airline safety, cell phones, Commercial Airlines, electromagnetic interference, FAA, FCC, Federal Aviation Administration, GPS, iPod, PED, PED's, Personal Electronic Devices, WiFi
by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype: 775.624.5679]
Paul Kiser
Recently, a 73 year-old man flying from Minneapolis, Minnesota to Winnipeg, Canada was ordered by the flight crew of an unnamed airline to stop using his Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) device during the flight. The GPS device tracks the user’s current position by receiving (not transmitting) a signal from orbiting satellites. Currently over half the world’s airlines allow it to be used during a flight, but not this airline. The man was arrested and fined for not obeying the flight crew instructions to turn it off and also refusing to buckle his seat belt. Not surprisingly his last name was, Ego…I’m not making this up…his name was Michele Ego (See article in Winnipeg Free Press.)
…the incident was based on the Flight Attendant enforcing an 18 year-old policy of restricting the use of personal electronic devices (PED’s) that has little or no real experimental data to justify it…
Are these really a threat to airline safety?
Clearly Mr. Ego was in the wrong by refusing to obey the instructions of the flight crew; however, the incident was caused by a flight crew enforcing an 18 year-old policy of restricting the use of personal electronic devices (PED’s) that has little or no experimental data to justify it. The zeal of some flight attendants in following this baseless policy creates a source of conflict and mistrust between the flying public and the flight crew, all of which could be avoided, if not for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the airlines.
…the policy uses decades old research that could only pose a theoretical threat by PED’s, without any experimental proof…
The lack of evidence for the restrictions on PED’s (such as MP3-4 players, GPS, cell phones, etc.) is well-known, and yet, airlines stick to a policy of restricting them, especially during takeoffs and landings because of the FAA’s order issued in 1993, that each airline must prove a PED will not interfere with the plane’s avionics before passengers are allowed to use them during a flight. The reasoning for the policy uses decades old research that concluded that PED’s pose a theoretical threat.
During a Congressional Hearing on the issue in July of 2000, over a year before the first generation of Apple’s iPod was sold, the issue of PED’s impact on a plane’s avionics was discussed. During the hearing a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) database of anonymously submitted in flight incidents was presented. Of 69,000 reports, 52 flight crews blamed passenger PED’s for the plane’s avionics problems. In most of the cases from 1992 to 1998, incidents on planes as small as a Cessna and large as a Boeing 757, related problems in navigational readings that seemed to be corrected when passengers were asked to turn off the devices.
…In each case the problem could not be duplicated under controlled test conditions…
In several of those cases, the alleged offending PED was purchased from the passenger and attempts were made to reproduce the problem. In each case the problem could not be duplicated under controlled test conditions. These results were fortified by two commissioned studies of PED’s, including cell phones, in 1983-8, (a study for the airlines,) and 1992-6, (a study for Congress.) Both studies offered no real evidence of avionics interference caused by PED’s.
Regardless of the lack of evidence, neither study could prove that PED’s were absolutely incapable of interference, and in a British study on cell phone transmissions, it was determined that the threat from PED’s was from pre-1984 devices that could theoretically cause interference with a plane’s avionics. Despite a lack of real evidence of a threat, the FAA issued its 1993 ruling that said that airlines should restrict the use of all PED’s below 10,000 feet (for takeoffs and landings) and only allow use of PED’s above 10,000 feet if they could prove it didn’t interfere with the plane’s avionics.
The fact is that today’s commercial airliner has been designed with shielding on all electronic systems to protect it against all types of electromagnetic radiation, including a strike from a lightening bolt, which seems far more likely to happen than an incident of electromagnetic interference caused by a PED like an iPod, GPS device, or cell phone*.
(*Interestingly, it was not the FAA, but the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) who issued a rule in 1991, that cell phones could not be used by any aircraft –including private planes and lighter-than-air balloons– because of the fear that phones in a line of sight of multiple cell phone towers could cause problems with ground-based cell phone traffic.)
With the airlines blessing, both the FAA and FCC have created an environment that forces flight attendants to be the voice of ‘Chicken Little’, by enforcing flight rules governing PED’s that make no sense in 2011. The ineptness of the FAA and the airlines in their handling of the issue of PED’s undermines the relationship of trust that passengers must have in the flight crew if they are to be believed and obeyed during critical situations involving a real threat to passenger safety.
The question that remains is whether or not the mythological threat of PED’s to aircraft safety is greater than the loss of trust of the flying public.
04 Friday Feb 2011
Tags
CHEA, College, college loan crisis, cost of college, Council on Higher Education, higher ed, higher education, independent study programs, online learning, privatization, universities
by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]
Paul Kiser
Article first published as
Is Higher Education Doomed? (Part III): The Missed Opportunity – A Viable Alternative To The Status Quo
on Technorati.com
Part III
(Click on link for Part II)
In Part I of this series we reviewed the factors that are setting the stage for a major paradigm shift in Higher Education. In Part II we discussed a hypothetical scenario involving the two people who matter in higher education: the Professor and the Student.
Is the Sun setting on the state-run university?
Unfortunately, when considering how to resolve the current financial crisis confronting higher ed, state-run university administrators have tended to focus increasing class sizes, cutting class offerings, and replacing permanent faculty with less costly contract lecturers as is the case in Iowa (Article: Iowa State increases class sizes.) No one can defend this strategy as beneficial to the Professor or the Student.
So what is the solution?
Some have proposed replacing public, state-run universities with private, for-profit schools (See: Are America’s University In Danger of Being Privatized?;) however, substituting a public bureaucracy with profit-motivated, uncaring people does not solve the financial pressures crushing higher education. Past attempts to privatize public sector industries demonstrates that the concept rarely offers the results promised (Ellen J. Dannin paper on privatization.) Existing private, for-profit universities are already under fire for mining federal loan programs for their financial gain (See: For-Profits High Risk Loan Strategy.)
Another alternative are online and/or independent study programs. These programs have been around for decades; however, both have a questionable track record with some programs being too expensive, lacking quality learning objectives, and/or being illegitimate scams to trade money for a diploma. The parent university accreditation group (The Council For Higher Education Accreditation or CHEA) encourages universities to aggressively discredit any higher education program that might be a ‘Diploma Mill’ (CHEA paper,) so most alternative higher education programs risk unwanted negative publicity from traditional schools.
Yet, the current crisis in higher education offers an opportunity for a Socrates-type model of learning that re-establishes the Professor/Student focus without the costly baggage of a brick and mortar university. The use of Social Media blogs, webinars, and other online connection tools have the potential to re-invent higher education; however, there is little evidence that these tools will replace the traditional university system of teaching.
No one can doubt that higher education will survive this crisis, because it has too. Our economic success is driven, not by people who have a college degree, but by people who have a higher education. In the end, the success of any post-secondary teaching program will be measured by how well it educates, not how much it costs.
Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related
Rotary Related
Science Related
Personal Experience Related
Our Country and History Related
01 Tuesday Feb 2011
Posted in College, Ethics, Government, Higher Education, Independent Studies, Internet, Taxes, Universities
by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]
Paul Kiser
Article first published as
Is Higher Ed Doomed (Part II): The cost of Higher Education doesn’t add up
on Technorati.com
Part II
(Click on link for Part I)
Since 1983 college tuition increases have not only significantly outpaced cost of living increases, but they have also outpaced the spiraling inflation of medical costs (Wikipedia.) Those involved in Higher Education admit that a major change is needed to address the financial factors crushing affordable education and are throwing around ideas like a ‘three-year’ degrees (Inside Higher Ed article: A Call For Change, From Within,) but these changes seem to only tweak the existing paradigm.
To find a solution to the existing crisis will require stripping higher education down to the basics: The Professor teaching the Student. Consider a hypothetical scenario for an undergraduate degree program.
If a college student paid $250 to each of his or her professors per semester, and this student took five classes (3 credits per class) for 15 credits, then the total amount paid would be $1,250.
College Student – 5 classes @ $250/class = $1,250
Assuming the college professor was paid $250 from each student, and if she or he taught five classes per semester of 20 students per class she/he would earn $25,000 per semester.
College Professor – 5 classes x 20 students @ $250/student = $25,000
Assuming two semesters per year, that makes the annual cost to the student for tuition $2,500 and the total annual salary for the professor will be $50,000.
College Student – $1,250/semester x 2 = $2,500
College Professor – $25,000/semester x 2 = $50,000
Taking this one step further, let’s assume the student pays someone (an ‘Educational Coordinator’) to create an individualized college-degree program, select qualified professors for the desired degree, and coordinate the students schedule with the professor’s availability. For this service the student will pay the Educational Coordinator $150/class. Assuming five classes per semester and two semesters per year the student will be paying $1,500 per year for his or her Educational Coordinator. Assuming the Educational Coordinator handles 50 students per year that gives them a salary of $75,000.
College Student – Tuition of $2,500 + Educational Coordinator for $1,500 = $4,000
Educational Coordinator – 50 full-time students @ $1,500/student = $75,000
Finally, let’s assume that instead of using textbooks, each professor provides electronic versions of her or his own research/writing and selected scholarly papers and verified information available from the Internet. For this, the student pays a $25 fee per class for an electronic data transfer of documents and URL addresses of the subject matter needed for the class.
State-run universities continue to dig themselves deeper in a hole
The totals are as follows:
The student pays a total of $4,250/year for tuition, individual educational counseling, and digital versions of all required written materials.
The Educational Coordinator earns $75,000/year for giving one-on-one counseling to 50 students
The College Professor earns $55,000/year for teaching 10 classes of 20 students per year.
In 2010, the average annual cost for tuition and fees at a four-year state-run university, excluding textbooks, was $7,605 (College Board website: ‘What It Costs To Go To College.’) This is $3,355 more (almost 180% more) than the hypothetical scenario from above and the student does not need to buy any textbooks. In addition, the student is receiving one-on-one educational counseling and a program individualized to their interests.
The financial burden that is not included in this hypothetical scenario are the student activity fees, housing fees, construction, building maintenance, parking fees, athletic programs, administrative staff, grounds keepers, security, Deans, Presidents, etc. The question that reality forces us to now confront is whether or not we can afford these extra costs.
NEXT: Is Higher Ed Doomed? (Part III): The missed opportunity – a viable alternative to the status quo
Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related
Rotary Related
Science Related
Personal Experience Related
Our Country and History Related
31 Monday Jan 2011
Posted in College, Ethics, Government, Higher Education, Universities
Tags
colleges, cost of college, faculty, funding cuts, higher ed, professors, student loan crisis, students, universities, university administration
by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]
Paul Kiser
Article first published as
Is Higher Education Doomed (Part I): Driving Off a Cliff Near You – The State-Run University
on Technorati.com
Part I
The average cost of a college degree is rapidly rising. In 2006, the annual average cost for tuition and fees at a state-run (public) four-year school was reported to be $5,836. In 2010, that cost was $7,605, an increase of 30% in the time it takes to earn a typical undergraduate degree. This follows a 46% increase in tuition and fees in the previous four year period (2002 to 2006.) What is even more disturbing is that there is no end in sight in the rapid escalation of the cost of higher education. (What does it cost to go to college? Click on this link to the College Board website.)
So where is all this going? Consider these six facts:
Students are the victims of the Higher Ed crisis
Put these six facts together and there is one unmistakable conclusion: state-run universities cannot continue in their present form, and may not survive at all.
In addition to the major problems crushing state-run universities, the refinement of learning/teaching alternatives and an Internet system that removes the ‘it-has-to-be-taught-here’ mentality of campus administrators is presenting options that have yet to be fully explored.
NEXT: Is Higher Ed Doomed? (Part II): The cost of Higher Ed doesn’t add up (Click for link)
Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related
Rotary Related
Science Related
Personal Experience Related
Our Country and History Related
28 Friday Jan 2011
Posted in Branding, Customer Relations, Ethics, Management Practices, Pride, Public Relations
by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]
Paul Kiser
Article first published as
Taco Bell Says Taco Meat is 88% Real Beef, Not 36%
on Technorati.com
On Wednesday, Taco Bell issued an updated response to a lawsuit claiming that its taco meat was only 36% beef. In this statement Taco Bell CEO and Chief Concept Officer Greg Creed gave facts and figures to challenge the assertion that its taco meat consisted of largely fillers and extenders.
According to Taco Bell, its taco meat consists of 88% beef, and up to 10% of the remainder consists of water and/or spices. Creed again repeated that Taco Bell would ‘vigorously defend’ the claims against the quality of its products. (Read the full statement here.)
This statement clearly refutes the heart of the matter raised in the lawsuit. Two previous statements implied a denial of the accusations, but stopped short of offering facts and figures regarding the content of fillers and extenders of its product. The lawsuit was widely reported on Tuesday by most major news outlets and many online blogs.
Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related
Rotary Related
Science Related
Personal Experience Related
Our Country and History Related
27 Thursday Jan 2011
by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]
Paul Kiser
(NOTE: Below is a statement by Taco Bell Corp. made yesterday regarding the lawsuit filed against them for false advertising stating that their taco meat was only 36% beef. I am publishing this statement now with an additional article on the issue to follow.)
From: Greg Creed, CEO and Chief Concept Officer of Taco Bell Corp.
UPDATED STATEMENT REGARDING CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
“The lawsuit is bogus and filled with completely inaccurate facts. Our beef is 100% USDA inspected, just like the quality beef you would buy in a supermarket and prepare in your home. It then is slow-cooked and simmered with proprietary seasonings and spices to provide Taco Bell’s signature taste and texture. Our seasoned beef recipe contains 88% quality USDA-inspected beef and 12% seasonings, spices, water and other ingredients that provide taste, texture and moisture. The lawyers got their facts wrong. We take this attack on our quality very seriously and plan to take legal action against them for making false statements about our products. There is no basis in fact or reality for this suit and we will vigorously defend the quality of our products from frivolous and misleading claims such as this.”
What is in Taco Bell’s recipe for seasoned beef?
“We’re cooking with a proprietary recipe to give our seasoned beef flavor and texture, just like you would with any recipe you cook at home.
For example, when you make chili, meatloaf or meatballs, you add your own recipe of seasoning and spices to give the beef flavor and texture, otherwise, it would taste just like unseasoned ground beef. We do the same thing with our recipe for seasoned beef.
Our recipe for seasoned beef includes ingredients you’d find in your home or in the supermarket aisle today:
Our seasoned beef contains no “extenders” to add volume, as some might use. For more information about our ingredients go to http://www.tacobell.com/”
26 Wednesday Jan 2011
Posted in Business, Customer Relations, Ethics, Management Practices, Public Relations
by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]
Paul Kiser
Article first published as
PR Epic Fail: Taco Bell meat only 36% beef?
on Technorati
(NOTE: This article was submitted to the Technorati.com editors on Tuesday evening (January 25) and published Wednesday evening. On Wednesday, Taco Bell Corp. gave a definitive statement of the quality of its meat and claims that its taco meat is 88% beef. To read this statement and a follow-up article, click on this link: Greg Creed’s statement on Taco Bell’s taco meat.)
It’s not too early in the year for the first entry in the “Worst PR of 2011” contest and that dishonor may go to Taco Bell. The fast food chain is facing a controversy that has all the makings of a classic Public Relations Epic Fail award.
Cat treats or Taco Bell taco meat? Which has more protein?
News media (See USAToday article) and online blogs have buzzing about a lawsuit that is seeking class action status against the Yum! Brands subsidiary stating that the taco meat at Taco Bell is only 36% beef, which is less than the USDA minimum of 40%. The suit seeks to have Taco Bell either rename their products or add more beef.
This controversy would be bad enough with just the lawsuit, but the company counter attack will undoubtedly generate more public focus on the issue. Taco Bell’s strategy raises the stakes in a Public Relations battle that now has to be 100% successful or else the company will lose all credibility for the foreseeable future. The response so far seems to indicate that Taco Bell is walking a fine line in denying the accusations about their product.
According to Associated Press reporter, Bob Johnson, the first company response was from Taco Bell spokesperson, Rob Poetsch:
“Taco Bell prides itself on serving high quality Mexican inspired food with great value. We’re happy that the millions of customers we serve every week agree,” Poetsch said. He said the company would “vigorously defend the suit.”
Poetsch’s response carefully avoids denying the accusations, but is worded to imply that since the customers buy the product, it must be okay.
Later the Greg Creed, President and Chief Concept Officer of Taco Bell Corp. put out a stronger, but still carefully worded statement that again walked a fine line in denying the accusations. His statement said that: 1) Taco Bell buys beef, 2) the beef is 100% USDA inspected, 3) the process begins with simmering beef, 4) seasonings and spices are added, and 5) the ‘signature Taco Bell’ taste and texture results from the process. He then added that the ‘lawyers….got their “facts” absolutely wrong’ and that Taco Bell plans to take legal action for false statements made about their food.
While this sounds like a denial, Creed avoids saying anything about the use of fillers and extenders in their taco meat by referring to all added ingredients as “seasoning and spices.” According to the Taco Bell website the ingredients for the ground taco meat include the following (ranking added):
#3 – Isolated Oat Product, #8 – Oats (Wheat), #9 – Soy Lecithin, #12 – Maltodextrin, #13 – Soybean Oil (Anti-dusting Agent), #15 – Autolyzed Yeast Extract, #17 – Caramel Color, #18 – Cocoa Powder (Processed With Alkali), #19 – Silicon Dioxide, #21 – Yeast, #22 – Modified Corn Starch, #25 – Sodium Phosphates
Both the website and Creed refer to these ingredients as “seasoning”, implying they add taste to the product and are not fillers or extenders. However, if the lawsuit is accurate, Taco Bell may have a hard time convincing its customers that ground taco meat requires 64% ‘”seasoning” and only 36% beef.
Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related
Rotary Related
Science Related
Personal Experience Related
Our Country and History Related
27 Monday Dec 2010
Posted in Ethics, Lessons of Life, Random
Tags
by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]
Paul Kiser
“…and your little dog, too!”
It’s a line that people recognize. Most people can even name who said it and to whom they said it. The words drip with a mortal threat and we seem to know that the person speaking is pure evil.
The original L. Frank Baum book, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, did not have that line in it. The 1939 film adaptation of the book is the original source of the quote and those words establish that the Wicked Witch of the West is evil. Don’t take my word. The Wicked Witch is listed No. 4 among the American Film Institute’s Best Villains in film. She ranks behind Hannibal Lecter, Norman Bates, and Darth Vader. She is the best female villain on the list. But why is she so evil?
Note that in the movie the Wicked Witch’s sister is killed when Dorothy’s house falls on her. Dorothy and her little puff of a dog, Toto, come out of the house and procure the shoes of the corpse. Sure she is encouraged by Glinda, “the Good Witch of the North,” and sweet Glinda, with all the sympathy of a Wells Fargo Bank foreclosure specialist, waves her wand to transfer the shoes to Dorothy’s feet. So Dorothy is innocent of theft…”no, honest officer, the shoes magically appeared on my feet!”
But really, is that an acceptable excuse? Imagine someone in a car killing a pedestrian and upon getting out of the car hears someone say, “…you should take the shoes, man…” and then that person pulls the shoes off the dead man not walking and puts them on the drivers feet. Would that be okay? Of course not! Is there some special precedent in the Oz legal system that makes robbing a corpse legal if they’re under your house?
Glinda, the Good Witch?
So innocent Dorothy and Toto have inadvertently killed the Wicked Witch’s sister and now Dorothy stands there with the dead sister’s shoes on her feet. I think the Wicked Witch of the West has some cause to be ticked at Dorothy. The Wicked Witch, quite reasonably, demands the shoes and Dorothy refuses (again, sweet Glinda is her advisor.) If the Wicked Witch had just said, “I’ll get you, my pretty,” it would seem somewhat justified. In the United State Dorothy could be charged with manslaughter…okay, witchslaughter, and the Wicked Witch should be able to sue for the return of the shoes.
But the Wicked Witch doesn’t stop with a threat against Dorothy. She adds, “…and your little dog, too.” That’s it. The Wicked Witch lives up to her name and threatens the DKD (drop kick dog.) What did Toto do to deserve a threat? His only crime is to be the pet of a witch slayer. But it is with that threat that we learn the witch is evil. Her words betray what is in her heart. We don’t need to see the Wicked Witch set in motion her evil plans, because we know she will not give a fair and/or reasonable response to the little shoe thief. Our sympathies are instantly turned to Dorothy and Toto and any wrong they may have a party to is ignored.
So what is the moral of the story? The evil witches are easy to identify, but beware of the Glinda’s of the world.
Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related
Rotary Related
Science Related
Personal Experience Related
Our Country and History Related
20 Monday Dec 2010
Posted in Ethics, Honor, Membership Recruitment, Membership Retention, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Rotary, Rotary@105
by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]
Paul Kiser
Last week I offered my thoughts about Re-Imagining Rotary. That was the first part of what I wanted to say.
Early in 2010 I wrote an article about ‘Dissatisfiers.’ The point of the article was to suggest that before a decision to make a significant life change (switch to a competitor, quit a job, or leave an organization, etc.) a person has typically will have experienced a series of negative events with the company or organization that sets the stage for them to make that decision. In the end, the reason for making a change is about the series of dissatisfiers, not a single event.
I now have arrived at that place with Rotary. While the final decision to leave Rotary was reached in the last week or so, the stage has been set for me to leave for some time. The final reason is simple. Rotary no longer offers the satisfaction it once did and that is largely due to an ongoing series of smaller, but significant, dissatisfying experiences.
However, I still have great admiration for Rotary and many of the great people who are a part of this organization. The concept of Rotary is a brilliant one. It is place where business professionals from all trades and industries can meet, share ideas, and help to build better communities by donating their vocational skills. It is an organization that we sorely needed in a world that has become increasing motivated by selfish and unethical desires.
Rotary is an organization with the most crystal clear guiding principles of any organization I have ever known. The Four-Way Test is a standard that brings morality to any situation or person. The Test is simple:
We would have no need for government oversight of any business endeavor if the legal standard was the Four-Way Test. To be certain, not every Rotarian, including those in a leadership position, abides by the Four-Way Test everyday. It is a difficult, and somewhat unnatural, philosophy to maintain. But just the attempt brings honor to those who try.
What I discovered in Rotary was that many of those who were members were among the best of the best in the business world. If the founder of Rotary, Paul Harris, were alive today I would love the opportunity to introduce him to some of the people who served as great examples of what it now means to be a Rotarian. I would find people like Mike Hix who was President of the Rotary Club of Sparks, (Nevada, USA,) the year I was inducted. Mr. Harris would be well pleased with Mike and what he has done for his club, his community, and his Zone.
There are thousands of examples of great Rotarians who have made the world a better place and are working hard to keep Rotary relevant in a rapidly evolving new world of business and I am honored I have had the opportunity to work beside just a few of them in the last 9 1/2 years.
But Rotary faces a huge challenge in the next few years. Because of Rotary’s close attachment to the business world, the organization is mired in same traditions of hierarchical structures and slow responsiveness to change that currently plague many American industries. Younger professionals typically ignore and/or bypass most of the traditional business concepts of leadership and organizational structure that restrict change, which is why many young professionals find Rotary outdated. That is why Rotary’s future lies in its ability to adjust to the expectations of younger professionals.
Can Rotary overcome challenges it faces? It will because it has to, and I will cheer on those who make it happen. Thank you to Rotary and to those who cheered me on for most of this last decade.
Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related
Rotary Related
Science Related
Personal Experience Related
Our Country and History Related
06 Monday Dec 2010
Tags
by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]
Paul Kiser
Blogging is about open discussion and the expression of opinion, so I hesitate to contradict someone’s blog; however, when someone titles their blog referencing ‘doomed’ with any aspect of Social Media it gets my attention. I am trying to help older professional adults understand Social Media and what it means to business and organizations like Rotary. Rotarians are sometimes hesitant to engage in Social Media tools like Facebook and Twitter because of irrational fears and a lack of good information.
Last week a blog was published by Gini Dietrich, who has the credentials to be knowledgeable in the field of Social Media and I do not call her experience or professionalism in to question; however her article called, “Creative Destruction: Why Facebook and Twitter May Be Doomed” requires a strong response.
Announcing the possible ‘doom’ two of the most significant tools in the digital world is clever because traditional media professionals and Social Media-phobs drool over anything that smacks of the end of the Internet and its place in civilized society. If I want to get a 10,000 hits on my blog this week, (and ongoing hits from Google searches,) including the words ‘doomed’, ‘Facebook’, ‘Internet’, and ‘Social Media’ would be one of the best tactics I could use. The problem is that the aside from pandering to those who remain firmly entrenched in 1989 thinking, Ms. Dietrich has little substance to support her dire prediction.
(Original blog by Gini Dietrich)
The blog focuses primarily on Facebook and the ongoing whining by non-Facebook users about privacy issues. Ms. Dietrich’s argument is essentially that the masses are ready to revolt and leave Facebook to ‘better’ networks that will be more restrictive to protect the user’s privacy. She goes on to suggest that Facebook and Twitter will be replaced just as they replaced earlier Social Media networking tools.
While every enterprise faces the same potential for creating its own demise, I strongly disagree that Facebook or Twitter may be ‘doomed’. Yes, users are a fickle group, but Friendster and MySpace were first-efforts in creating a comprehensive, open-networking Social Media tool and they had shortcomings that made them annoying (MySpace still does). It is true that Facebook and Twitter’s growth have been driven partly by capitalizing on the weaknesses of their predecessors; however, the major success of both was by bringing new people into the Social Media world with greater connectivity to quality users.
Dark clouds over Facebook?
Facebook attracted a larger segment of the population, including older users that suddenly became addicted to the connections that it provided. Today, even those who dislike Facebook have had a hard time detaching themselves from it because 540 million Social Media users cannot be ignored without sacrificing something significant. The problem is that another networking service may solve certain dissatisfiers of Facebook, but until everyone you know, or want to know moves to that service, you have to try to live in two or more networking worlds, and that is a pain. So a person has to weigh whether they are frustrated enough to add one more networking group to their attention span or live with Facebook.
Ms. Dietrich ignored the other possibility. That instead of leaving, people may realize and accept that online privacy is a myth. I am constantly amazed by people who believe that they can be anonymous on the Internet. They think that a nondescript user name means that their identity is protected or that a comment they make will disappear the next day. I don’t disagree that there are some legitimate privacy issues and the FCC is proposing new regulations to address many of these issues, but a significant part of the problem is not a problem of Facebook’s creation, but of the gullibility of the user who thinks that they are ‘in disguise’ when they are on the web.
Regarding Twitter, Ms. Dietrich gave little reason for her ominous prediction. Yes, this year Twitter was having many problems with service failures and even I have said this is a problem that must be fixed, but in the 4th quarter I have experienced nothing but reliable service from Twitter.
Personally, I think I think most people have undervalued Twitter. It is perceived by many non-users as a network of celebrities and pointless dribble of ‘what-I-just-did’. However, the core of Twitter consists of people discussing cutting edge issues. It is the only service that brings together people around the world who are focused on one topic with searchable hashtags. If it can overcome its poor public image and be recognized for what it can do, it could jump from 100 million users to 500 million users in 6 months. It is more likely to be the center of business discussion than any other service out there. LinkedIn (started May 2003) is older than MySpace (started Aug. 2003) and it is has been leapfrogged by Twitter (started July 2006) with over twice as many users (41 million vs Twitter’s 98 million.)
The wanna-be replacements for Facebook and Twitter have one big problem. Some of the very things that users say they want to protect them also restrict the connections that give Facebook and Twitter advantages in adding new users and making new connections. If any networking service is doomed it is LinkedIn because it has such a complicated system to add new connections (How do you know this person?) that it renders itself irrelevant.
Yes, Facebook has made some stupid mistakes, but if everyone organization that made stupid mistakes was ‘doomed’ then Wal-Mart, Target, HP, Microsoft, Apple, Exxon, and thousands of others mega organizations are all ‘doomed’.
Will Facebook and Twitter be the giants in 2015? I doubt it, but I don’t see any other Social Media tool that will challenge them in the next two years and is why my response to the suggestion of ‘doom’ is simply: Chicken Crap.
Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related
Rotary Related
Science Related
Personal Experience Related
Our Country and History Related
24 Wednesday Nov 2010
Tags
Blogging, Blogs, Democrats, Governor, Management Practices, Nevada, New Business World, Newspapers, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, Publicity, Republican, Republicans, Rory Reid, Sandoval
by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]
Paul Kiser
Article first published as
Sandoval/Reid Campaign Money Not a Stimulus for Nevada
on Technorati
We endured relentless political ads on television and radio, but Nevada didn’t hit the jackpot in campaign dollars flowing into the State from the Governor’s race. Despite the fact that almost $3.8 million dollars was spent by the Sandoval for Governor Campaign in the months leading up to the election, 80% of the money was payable to recipients outside the State. Rory Reid’s campaign also spent a significant portion of its money to out-of-state firms with MSR Media Strategies, LLC in Fairfax, Virginia netting almost $2.8 million from the Reid campaign.
Sandoval Campaign Expenses
(Spreadsheet listing all campaign expenses through October 21, 2010)
In a detailed review of Governor-Elect Sandoval’s campaign reports, 63% ($2.4 million) of campaign expenses were made payable to Strategic Media Services, inc. in Washington, D.C. for advertising. While some may argue that money spent for advertising comes back to the State in the form of purchased television and radio air time and newspaper ads, one Nevada media consultant pointed out that most media outlets in Nevada are owned by out-of-state media corporations, so political ads that ran on many local stations were payable to non-Nevada interests. The one exception is the Intermountain West Communications Company that owns several television stations including in the western United States including KSNV-Las Vegas, KRNV-Reno, and KENV-Elko. 
David Neal, President of Strategic Media Services, inc. (Sandoval’s leading campaign expenditure) and Kyle Osterhout, Partner of MSR Media Strategies, LLC (Rory Reid’s leading campaign expenditure) were not immediately available; however, two media experts with campaign related experience said that the standard fee for media agencies is 15% of the advertising purchase. In some cases a campaign may negotiate rebates from the media agency based on volume of business; however services such as the production of the ad are typically not included in the 15% fee.
The Las Vegas area did benefit from 19% (over $720,000) of the campaign funds with over $400,000 paid to political and media consultants. Almost half a million dollars went to the three Las Vegas firms of October, Inc., Autumn Productions, and Autumn EMedia. The latter two are subsidiaries of November, Inc.
The Reno, Lake Tahoe, and Carson Valley garnered only 1 percent (less than $30,000) from the Governor-Elect’s campaign and rural Nevada received less than $10,000.
NEXT: Where the money came from in Sandoval’s campaign
Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related
Rotary Related
Science Related
Personal Experience Related
Our Country and History Related
05 Friday Nov 2010
Tags
auto theft, Blogging, Blogs, crime rate, crime statistics, Employment, Executive Management, HR, Management Practices, Nevada, New Business World, Newspapers, Public Image, Public Relations, Publicity, rapes, robbery, Rotary
by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]
Paul Kiser
Article first published as
Nevada #1 Crime Rate Not Acknowledged
on Technorati
On a late October morning a Wal-Mart employee was ‘disgruntled’ and he decides it’s time to take action. He smuggles a gun into the store and buys ammunition for it in the Sporting Goods department. He then goes to the restroom where he hides in the handicapped stall mulling his decision. He makes a final commitment to confront his bosses and leaves the restroom, straight toward the manager’s office. Once there he confronts the manager, the one he likes, and, at gunpoint, orders him to call two other managers to the office. When they arrive they find an angry man with a gun. At some point the three managers make a run for it and all three are shot. All three live, but their lives will never be the same.
Last week’s shooting of three managers in a Wal-Mart in Reno (Nevada, USA) should not be surprising in a State that has the worst crime rate in the United States. Nevada has been ranked as the Most Dangerous State for the last four years (2006-09) by Morgan Quitno’s (morganquitno.com) annual crime rate report.
Nevada’s Crime Story
What is a surprise is the deafening silence about the State’s notorious ranking by local media. The top 50 hits of a Google search of ‘Nevada High Crime Rate News Media’ offer no mention of the issue among the State’s primary television and print media resources. It also was not an issue discussed in most of the major political contests this year despite the fact that Nevada’s #1 status in unemployment, foreclosures, and bankruptcies were all fodder for candidate mud-slinging.
It should be noted that Nevada’s crime rankings are not an artifact of the 2007-09 Recession. The State has been a leader in crime independent of the economic environment. It is unknown if Nevada’s out of control crime issues are effecting tourism because for over half a decade the State has experienced a steady decline in gaming revenues because of increased competition due to Indian gaming in California and other States. Any impact of Nevada’s high crime reputation would be masked by the larger trend; however, as there seems to be little awareness of the State’s crime issues, it is unlikely that it has had an impact…yet.
Nevada’s gaming industry would likely suffer more revenue losses if the crime woes were widely publicized and lower gaming revenues would have a trickle down effect on newspaper and television advertising revenue but, there is no evidence that the local media intentionally avoids the subject to risk offending their advertisers. Gaming also plays a significant role in Nevada politics but, there is no evidence that politicians avoid discussing the issue for fear of offending potential major contributors to their campaigns.
However, the lack of discussion seems to only be feeding the problem. If any effort is being made to turn around Nevada’s position as the Most Dangerous State it is being done without fanfare ….and without success.
NOTES:
(1) – Statistic for 2008 (from crimeinamerica.net)
(2) – Statistic for 2009 – #2 in 2005-08 (from disastercenter.com)
(3) – Statistic for 2006-09 (from disastercenter.com)
Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related
Rotary Related
Science Related
Personal Experience Related
Our Country and History Related
03 Wednesday Nov 2010
Posted in Communication, Crisis Management, Ethics, Government, History, Honor, Politics, Pride, Print Media, Public Relations, Respect, Rotary, Traditional Media, US History
by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]
Paul Kiser
Article first published as
Vote Brings Out the Vultures
on Technorati
Tuesday’s vote put the Republican Party back in charge of the House and significantly reduced the Democratic majority in the Senate. The polls prior to Tuesday had already signaled that the Democrats would face near historic losses and that news brought out the vultures (hawks is too nice a metaphor). A full-page ad in USA Today by Let Freedom Ring used the opportunity of a Democratic blood-bath to promote their fear-mongering agenda.
The unknown author(s) titled the ad with: “When will President Obama Accept Reality?” They use the recent incident of two printer bombs (not to be mistaken with any products sold by Hewlett-Packard) addressed to synagogues in Chicago to argue that we “..clearly remain under attack.”
The ad proclaims that they:
…will seek out candidates that a not afraid to praise and defend America. We will elect those who are not afraid to put a strong America first.
Who is the terrorist?
Clearly the fact that we did not respond with a nuclear bomb in Yemen last weekend has offended these people. I say these people because they seem to wish to remain unknown. Not only do they avoid listing any names in the advertisement, their website is absent of any responsible party. As typical with this type of propaganda, the people behind this effort don’t stand behind the statements. The anonymous statements have the same value to our country as gang graffiti on a dumpster.
However, this ad is a big win… for those who are responsible for shipping the printer bombs from Yemen last week. A handful of criminals who wanted to make a name for themselves could not hope for a better result from two failed bombs that never came close to a target. They got a full-page ad in USA Today and they didn’t have to pay a penny for it. They are now the toast of every other criminal out there who wishes people would pay attention to them.
Who is the real terrorist? The nameless person who made the bomb, or the nameless people who try to take an incident and use it to promote fear for their political agenda?
I know who has my vote.
Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related
Rotary Related
Science Related
Personal Experience Related
Our Country and History Related
02 Tuesday Nov 2010
Tags
Blogging, Blogs, Employment, Ethics, Executive Management, Management Practices, Public Relations, Rotary, Seminars, speakers
by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]
Paul Kiser
Business ethics have waxed and waned over the centuries, but recently we have observed a severe lack of ethical conduct on a large-scale in recent years. The most recent world-wide economic crisis was triggered by years of unethical business practices that nearly put the United States in its first depression in almost a century. In hindsight the questionable business practices were often created by a subtle system of pressuring employees to take actions that were demanded by executives and managers in order to improve earnings for stockholders. This type of ethical dilemma often leaves no one person to blame, and even those involved sometimes do not realize that they are participating in inappropriate and/or unethical acts.
I have been caught in ethical dilemmas that created a moral challenge for me and in one situation I lost a stream of revenue in a seemingly no win scenario.
For a time I assisted a seminar speaker who was considered to be an expert in his field. He hired me to participate in group activities during his seminars. Occasionally, he would ask me to update or write scenarios for his seminars. In one case I based the scenario on someone I knew, but I added the possibility of suicide. The scenario was also combined with a possibility of doing harm to someone else. We used the scenario in one of his seminars and it went very well.
Bigger horns make the bull seem smaller...just like some consultants
A few weeks later we used the same scenario, with minor revisions, with another client. Interestingly enough, the night before the seminar, the speaker told me that someone else had just written the scenario. However, when I read it I realized that it was the same one I had written for him a few weeks earlier. When I mentioned to him that I was familiar with this scenario and tactfully reminded him that I had been the original author he quickly acknowledged it and moved on.
The next day exercise went well and afterward the participants were given the opportunity to discuss the activity. Participants began asking him about what happened in real life to this person. Instead of explaining that this was a fictional scenario based on a combination of multiple real situations, the speaker began explaining that in the real life situation that the person did indeed kill himself. He continued to answer more questions that were also fabrications, but passed off as his ‘research’. Afterwards I did not mention anything to him about his handling of the post-activity questions. He was hiring me to assist him, not criticize him and so I did not pursue it with him.
He had already hired me to work with two more clients in the next few weeks and at both he insisted that I stay out of the room, except during the group activity. He stressed that it was not good for his clients to ‘get to know me’ too well. He also did not schedule me for any more work with his clients.
Later I tried to understand what I might have done to cause an abrupt end to our relationship. He and his clients raved about my work. I then realized that the sudden changes occurred after I witnessed his unethical handling of questions in the previous seminar. Apparently it had a significant impact on him that I observed his breach of trust with his client and that earned me a permanent seat on the bench.
Perhaps I should have confronted him, but I think that would have just made him mad, with the same result. It was a good lesson: A lack of ethics by one person…sucks.
Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related
Rotary Related
Science Related
Personal Experience Related
Our Country and History Related
29 Friday Oct 2010
Posted in Ethics, Government, Government Regulation, History, Passionate People, Politics, Pride, Respect, Rotary, Taxes, US History
Tags
2007-09 Recession, Blogging, Blogs, Democrats, Ethics, GOP, Illegal Immigrants, Political Parties, Recession, Republicans, Sharron Angle, Tea Party
by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]
Paul Kiser
Article first published as The Quality of Mercy on Technorati.
William Shakespeare’s play, The Merchant of Venice, tells the tale of Antonio, a wealthy merchant who can’t lend money to a friend in need because his money is leveraged until his ships return to Venice. To help his friend, and having no other options, he goes to a moneylender named Shylock who despises Antonio, but surprisingly he agrees to lend the money without interest. The only condition is that if the money is not paid back in full by a certain date, Shylock will be allowed to take a pound of Antonio’s flesh.
In Act V, Antonio’s ships have apparently been lost as sea and he is arrested and brought before the Duke of Venice and Shylock. The moneylender is adamant that the contract is valid and he should be allowed to collect on his debt by taking the pound of flesh ‘nearest Antonio’s heart’. The root of the issue is not about the loan contract, it is about the long-standing conflict between Antonio and Shylock.
The Tea Party is playing the role of Shylock in American politics. Feigning some fictitious abuse in order to convince others that something horrible has happened to them, when in fact the Tea Party doth protest too much. Next Tuesday they seek their pound of flesh from the rest of our country and unfortunately they will likely get it. Sadly, the village idiots have told their lies enough that many people are starting to believe them.
It strikes me that our political uproar caused by the alleged ‘anger’ of the Tea Party and other extreme conservatives has nothing to do with the state of the economy, healthcare reform, higher taxes, immigration, nor government regulation. Like Shylock, it is the desire to destroy that drives the Tea Party, not rational thought. No rational person would accept:
Angle: Manning up in stupid
Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related
Rotary Related
Science Related
Personal Experience Related
Our Country and History Related
28 Thursday Oct 2010
Posted in Branding, Business, Communication, Consulting, Crisis Management, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Ethics, Government Regulation, Honor, Human Resources, Information Technology, Internet, Management Practices, Pride, Privacy, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Recreation, Relationships, Respect, Rotary, SEO, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Violence in the Workplace, Website
Tags
background checks, Blogging, Blogs, case law, Employee evaluations, Employee privacy, Employer liability, Employment, Employment Law, employment verification, Executive Management, Facebook, HR, Human Resources, Internet, lawsuit, LinkedIn, Management Practices, monitoring employees, New Business World, performance reviews, Privacy, Privacy on the Internet, Public Image, Public Relations, Publicity, Rotary, security, Social Media, Social Networking
by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]
Paul Kiser
One of the hottest topics in the world of employment is whether or not an employer should monitor his or her Internet activities. This is a subject I’ve written about before, but it is an issue that is still emerging and has yet to have any significant case-law to provide guidance to employers.
It is well-known that a large number of employers perform a ‘Google’ search on the Internet before they hire an applicant, but now companies are feeling the need to continue to monitor an employee’s Internet activities after hire. Many experts, especially those involved in employee liability prevention support an employer’s right to monitor an employee’s Internet activities even when those activities occur off-duty and offsite. The logic is that it is prudent to aware of anything an employee might say or do that could embarrass the employer, or any indication that the employee might take an action that might involve the company and its facilities.
These are rational arguments, but I believe that monitoring an employee’s activities is opening the door to bigger liability issues. Sound odd? Here’s the scenario I see happening in three Acts.
Should the Employer be Big Brother?
Act One: A busy-body employer or manager casually checks his or her employee’s Facebook, MySpace, and/or Twitter accounts. The employer might even do a Google search on an employee from time to time. When the employer or manager finds something that they see as objectionable they confront the guilty employee and take the proper action. It becomes known throughout the company (and the employee’s family) that the employer monitors its employee’s personal Internet activity.
Act Two: An employee has been reprimanded for content they have posted on the Internet. Six months later the same employee posts information on the Internet that he is considering suicide and describes in detail how he is going to kill himself. Two weeks later the employee carries out the suicide as described. The family is aware the employer monitors the employee’s Internet activity and sues the employer claiming that the employer should have reasonably been aware of the planned suicide and taken action.
Act Three: Companies find themselves with two polar opposite choices. Either the company does not monitor their employee’s Internet activities or the company assigns resources to constantly monitor the Internet on every employee to insure they capture any relevant data for which the company should take action.
I was trained in Human Resources under the policy that what the employee did on her or his own time was off-limits to the employer unless it had a direct impact the job performance. That policy has had to be adjusted in a world where work and off-duty time can often be hard to differentiate, and where drug testing, researching credit scores and background checks have become standard operating procedure for many companies. However, an employee’s personal Internet activities is almost impossible to track in a society that is increasing involved in hours of daily online social networking. The question is whether an employer wants to be liable for monitoring its employees 24/7/365 and being held responsible for taking the appropriate action, or whether the employer would be better served by not being sucked into liability issues that can be avoided by simply not playing the role of Big Brother ?
I know which strategy I would recommend to my clients.
More Articles
Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related
Rotary Related
Science Related
Personal Experience Related
Our Country and History Related
