Archive for the 'Random thoughts' Category

Boston Pizza’s Recent “Foodie” Ad

I got into a discussion on Twitter today about Boston Pizza’s recent ad that claims their pasta might turn people into Foodies. It was prompted by @ClickFlickCa’s question about the ad.

Here’s the commercial – Joallore linked to it in a subsequent tweet.

I think the commercial is well made. It targets Boston Pizza’s audience; down to the distain you hear in the final declaration “Just be careful you don’t become a foodie.” Boston Pizza doesn’t do anything special or original.

My view of the term foodie doesn’t much matter. I said earlier that I think there’s a lot of pretentiousness behind the term. Not that I think everyone who self-identifies as a foodie is pretentious.

Foodie culture has done a lot of great things for the restaurant and food supply industry. Niche markets have expanded and the number of premium prepared foods has increased.

Chefs have more opportunities to practice their art, and are allowed greater creative freedoms as people’s pallets have become more adventurous. Restaurants have diversified and raised the bar in many markets.

How do I define the term “foodie”? They are a food geek, someone whose passions include food and the food industry. Sharing a great restaurant or ingredient discovery, or a special recipe is truly rewarding. I enjoy food quite a bit, and I find the experience of sharing an excellent meal with friends a fantastic pursuit. However, I have too many interests that I geek out over already, and can’t give food the necessary attention to cross into foodie territory!

So where does the pretentiousness come in? When one attaches social status to the list of restaurants they have visited, or number of syllables in the name of the cheese they used in their latest recipe.  The enjoyment of food is deeply personal and subjective, not something to connect to status.

This is how Boston Pizza is positioning their menu – tasty but unpretentious.

Did Boston Pizza put the last nail in the coffin of the word “Foodie”, or did they just nail their objective?

Is The Brochure Dead?

Who still writes brochures? I mean, I do on occasion. Grudgingly.

Surely this time-honoured communications medium still has its place in marketing and communications. But do they still work, when nearly everyone has ubiquitous web access from connected smartphones?

Sometimes an organization’s clients like to receive brochures, even request them. They’re easy to file, they’re portable, and can be passed between hands.

Not everyone is immersed in the world of the social web, where links are shared like words at the water cooler. For those who operate outside of this space a brochure might be the equivalent to these hyper-sharable links.

But if your brochure is going to be effective, it has to resonate with the reader in some way. Think about the things people share online. They elicit a reaction; they make the reader laugh, or cry, or they inform and teach something interesting or useful. They connect with us on some level.

Does your brochure do that? If not, it’s inert. Maybe even dead and likely to wind up in someone’s recycling bin. My title wasn’t really asking if THE brochure is dead, but whether YOURS is.

I’m not suggesting that brochures are websites, photos or videos. I’m suggesting that a brochure is like a short story. Maybe it could be the 4-pane comic adaptation of your company or organization’s novel. Those 4-pane comics get stuck to refrigerators and bulletin boards all the time.

Maybe your story needs to be told with some slick photos or graphics, and words you could fit into speech bubbles.

Albatross and Teen Memories of Big Wreck and Soundgarden

Albatross is the first album released under the name Big Wreck since the 2001 release The Pleasure and the Greed. I decided to pick up Albatross today, on it’s launch.

Of course, this album is really Ian Thornley’s post-Big Wreck bandmates, Thornley, re-adopting the Big Wreck name.

It’s a really good album, and I enjoyed my first listen a lot. It reminded me of how much I enjoyed the first Big Wreck album, In Loving Memory Of…

This takes me back to 1997, when Soundgarden announced that they were breaking up. Soundgarden was one of my favorite bands as a teenager; and the first favorite of mine to break up. Before then, I just hadn’t considered that people in bands would decide to stop working together, when they seemed to be making good music. Give me a break, I was 16 years old. :)

I mean, Nirvana split after Kurt Cobain’s sudden death. A far more tragic and shocking end.

I knew bands split up when members died, or retired at a ripe old ages. Or joined other bands.

But to just call it quits? I didn’t realize there was such a thing as “Creative Differences” before then. Of course, I came to grips with it after I thought about it a lot, listened to Badmotorfinger fifty-thousand more times, and discovered Big Wreck.

The striking similarities between the vocals of Chris Cornell and Ian Thornley, as well as Big Wreck’s similar if slightly more upbeat musical composition was a consolation. They were kind of like “Soundgarden Lite” for me, and over time and repeated listening, I gained a deeper appreciation for Big Wreck’s first album, and their songwriting. They became their own sound, in my mind.

Albatross is every bit a Big Wreck album, and I like it a lot. It certainly reminds me those innocent days when I thought bands just had fun, made music, and got along like best pals. Probably even more than Soundgarden’s reunion reminded me of those days… Kind of weird, eh?

Photo Credit: David Patte/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

A Remembrance Day Thought

The men of my family weren’t soldiers. They were farmers and tradesmen.

My father’s father was a jew from Eastern Europe, who managed to make it to Canada before World War II. He came to Canada to make a better life than he could in his home city of Cluj. As far as I know, he was the only one of his family who came before the war.

But his cousins, siblings, aunts, uncles, and friends that he left behind were captured by Nazi Germany and many were thrown into concentration camps. Some of them survived. And the survival of those who experienced the horrors of the camps is owed to the soldiers who risked, and gave, their lives to defend the values we hold dear.

11/11/2011

I’m Glad I’m Not The Only One Having These Thoughts.

Whether you listen to Podcasts or not, check out my friend Eric Portelance‘s show Attention Surplus. Listen to one episode. It’s 30 minutes of your time, and I will firmly say it’s a worth the listen.

In episode 10, Eric and co-host Sean Howard continue a discussion from episode 9 with their first guest Douglas Reid.

In # 10, they talk about how we measure our lives. Is it meaningful to use quantitative measurements, like salary, possessions, job title, number of subordinates on the org chart, or formal education?

They’re all very simple things to measure. But are they really meaningful to anyone outside of the CRA or IRS?

Douglas spoke of two people he recalls fondly.

  • One who has a PhD in Biology and did some amazing research,  and then went on to become a fine woodworker and lead a fulfilling life;
  • and a former student of his who changed her course of study, traveled, married and settled down to become a potter, and do other things that are meaningful to her, I’m sure.

I’ve considered both fine woodworking and pottery as ways I would like to spend my days.

I’ve also considered finding an apprenticeship to become an electrician – something I strongly considered when I was in high school. And, I could also become a Kung Fu master (do you think I’m joking?)

Right now, I’m doing interesting work that I like, and I enjoy a stable salary and some benefits. In the long term, I want to do different things and listening to Eric and Sean’s podcast may have ratified my thoughts a little bit more. Not that I needed it, but it’s encouraging to hear.

So give Attention Surplus a listen, and it might resonate with you, too.

The Cultural Firewall and Intrapreneurs

Today, GovCamp was good.

If I had to pick one session that really got me thinking…

Not even session… expression…

It would be the cultural firewall.

The elephant in the room when we discuss tools and technologies that enable communication and collaboration.

The barriers to collaborative technology are dropping and have little to do with technical know-how in  2011. Where there’s a will there’s a way, and most people are capable of learning.

It’s culture. The absence of willingness to collaborate on a broad scale. And no matter how much a majority of people in large organizations are rapped over the head with benefits to collaboration and open communication, they won’t do it. In some cases it’s perceived risk. In other cases it runs much deeper.

Grudges that co-workers have harbored for well over a decade can be a huge impediment to collaboration; grudges are very common in large organizations.

How can we begin to expect bottom-up collaboration within an organization under these conditions.

Senior managers need to force these changes in practices down to middle managers and to staff. Or, the only people who will leverage the tools that organizations offer are the “intrapreneurs” who gather with like minded colleagues to develop and implement innovative ideas.

Marj Akerley and Ryan Androsoff pointed out this elephant in the room during their Innovation, Culture and Risk session, but addressing it isn’t enough to affect growth.

In some cases the 90-9-1 rule (where 90% lurk, 9% contribute and 1% lead) is acceptable and to be expected. Like the case of the Mozilla browser. In other situations we need to expect better than 9% contribution in our organizations. We need to tear down the cultural firewall one worker at a time.

Intrapreneurs can achieve a lot by working together and sidestepping the non-innovators. But not as much as an entire organization of innovators.

Thoughts on The High Road

** Disclaimer ** I’m a public servant. I don’t talk about politics on this website. Not in concrete terms. But in this book review, I will speak of politics in abstract terms. Lets keep it in terms of abstractions and not bring our real-life politicians into any discussion here.

I just finished reading The High Road, Terry Fallis’ second novel. In the sequel to The Best Laid Plans Angus doesn’t run for candidacy by chance. Excited by the new life he’s found in public service, he runs willingly for the C-P seat in the House of Commons.

Terry’s first novel, The Best Laid Plans, won the Canada Reads 2011 title last month. The stories are satire of party politics in Canada. I hope they find a place in Canadian high school curriculums soon. Terry writes with a very light, accessible style.

Angus McLintock stumbles into politics with Daniel Addison, his new friend and campaign manager, in an absurd tale of an honest, intellectual engineering professor who steps up to wrestle with sharks.

In the second novel Angus chooses the proverbial high road when faced by a rough-and-tumble political opponent, and tries to rise above the negative smear campaign that is led against him.

It’s a feel-good story where smart men stick to their principles in a world where winning is a higher priority than doing what is right for the country. Reading The High Road was as insightful as it was funny; and it’s really funny! Though I found fewer laugh-out-loud moments than in The Best Laid Plans.

One character that definitely plays a larger role in the second novel is Angus’ beard. I think it deserves to be recognized as a sentient being, based on its many descriptions. It certainly had a mind of its own. Of course, Daniel, Lindsay, Muriel and the two Petes are all back for this one.

Both novels feature themes of trust and loyalty.

I found the coining of “The Angus Effect” to be funny because it really just means trust. But in politics, trustworthiness was so badly missing that nobody could remember another politician as trustworthy as Angus. So a new term had to be made up to describe  the trust citizens have in him.

Angus follows as strong a moral compas as any one, always considering the interest of Canada over those of himself and the C-P riding he aims to represent. He is fiercely loyal to Canada, his friends and his constituents; and in that order. Most importantly, Angus will choose what is right over what is popular.

You’ll find yourself wanting to live in a world where every politician is like Angus McLintock. And if citizens of democratic countries made the time to really think about the people they elect to lead our country – not only who they are, but the problems they create and overcome as flawed human beings – we would all be better for it.

Nowhere in these stories is Angus shown to be perfect. But he’s the best sort of leader you can find.

Could Canada Be a World Leader in Internet Service?

I wrote a passionate and hasty post on Sunday evening about Usage Based Billing and a controversial ruling made by the CRTC for the Internet in Canada.

After thinking about the subject for a few days and having a couple of interesting conversations, I’ve revised my view on the matter somewhat.

Some time back in the 90s, the CRTC mandated Canadian telecom companies that owned network infrastructure to sell network access to 3rd part ISPs at a particular wholesale cost. This situation seems to favour the 3rd party providers. It created a false economy where 3rd party ISPs reaped a lot of benefits and really profited from the networks without having to maintain or upgrade a network of their own. It created false competition in the Canadian market. And, most importantly, gave no incentive for other companies to develop competing infrastructures.

Now this new CRTC ruling swings things to the opposite extreme, giving too much market power to the big telecoms. I still think this is bad for the future of Canadian Internet access, bad for consumers, and particularly harmful for small business owners, educational institutions, and application developers.

Today there were some announcements that Ottawa will review the ruling. Political parties also chimed in on the issue.

In an ideal world, I’d like to see a new CRTC ruling which pressures and facilitates the development of new network infrastructure by 3rd party ISPs. The world is increasingly consuming audio and video content over the internet. Not having Internet access that is independent of conglomerates with stakes in ‘classic’ television service seems contrary to the interests of Canadian consumers.

Usage based billing, as a concept isn’t bad. If prices per gigabyte are fair it should dissuade people from running quasi-commercial web servers on residential internet services. But it shouldn’t hold people back from learning about the most current possibilities and innovations that today’s high-bandwidth Internet allows.

Fair and affordable access to broadband fits with mobility of digitally connected populations who want to consume their favorite podcasts, shows and films as downloads on portable devices. It supports digital distribution of video games via Steam and other software from similar services. As well as IPTV and streaming services like Netflix, remote file and media sharing services, and other new high-bandwidth services.

Canada’s adoption of broadband is some of the widest in the world, but the level of service we enjoy is not in the same class. This is partly because we’re a big country, geographically speaking, but a small country in terms of our widely dispersed population.

What do you think? Is Usage Based Billing a threat to Canada’s ability to remain competitive in a world becoming more digitally connected? Could a well developed plan bring Canada’s Internet service beyond the service levels seen in other geographically large and diverse countries, creating excellent conditions for both ISPs and Canadian consumers?

Usage Based Billing in Canada

Have you heard of “Usage Based Billing”? It’s the hottest craze around the CRTC (Canadian Radio-Television Commission).

Basically, the CRTC recently approved a ruling that lets the country’s major ISP and owners of the network infrastructure charge more to resellers – ISPs who purchase bandwidth from those who own the infrastructure.

Learn more on OpenMedia.ca.

Basically the major ISPs and CRTC have sold this to the few Canadians who pay attention to this sort of thing by saying “The few people who use the internet heavily are taking your bandwidthz and slowing your Internetz.”

This is bunk, and it’s bad for Canada. Internet service in Canada is already some of the worst in the developed world. This new ruling will set us back years.

It’s going to hold back citizens, and small businesses who develop web services for us, from keeping up (or catching up) with our world partners in the use of high-bandwidth applications. Netflix, a newcomer to Canada, and Apple’s iTunes downloads will fail because our ISPs will have strangled our free access to competitive service providers.

Now, lets go back to the sales pitch we’ve been fed. “We don’t want to pay to support the heavier usage of internet power users, so the ISPs are protecting our interests, and making the power users pay more.”

It’s like saying “I don’t want to pay taxes to support a healthcare system where other people need it more than I do.” I don’t know about you, but I’m freaking proud of Canada’s healthcare system, flaws and all. I think most Canadian’s are happy that we have universal healthcare. And if you support ubiquitous access to healthcare, wouldn’t you support ubiquitous access to the vast amount of information, art, entertainment, and the people in your lives via the Internet for a competitive price?

Maybe you don’t use the Internet much, but you have a kid who does. When you start getting extra charges on your ISP bill after March, don’t blame your kid for surfing too much. It’s the CRTC and our major ISPs. They changed the game, your kid is doing the same thing they’ve done in the past.

If you’re upset about this, add your name to the petition on OpenMedia.ca and write nice, handwritten letters to your MPs, to Tony Clement, Minister of Industry, and to Stephen Harper, our Prime Minister. Make a stink. This is for Canada.

The changing world of management

On Monday, November 18, 2010, I attended The Art of Management. The speaker lineup was fantastic. I was able to chat with a few good folks who were also in attendance – Martin Cleaver, Darren Chartier, and Rob Lavigne to name a few. I even bumped into my former manager from Ryerson at the conference.

Management, as the concept we know today, really only dates back as far as the early industrial revolution. First, management meant having sufficient labour in the right places to complete a job. Some marketing functions could have been mixed in as well.

As industries became more complex, so did management.

Management continues to change as organizations become more and more complex, and people’s skills become more and more specialized.

Here are some factors I considered when thinking about changes in the art of management.

Technological Change

People are more connected than ever. Mitch Joel spoke on the idea of a connected workforce and client base. The evolution of the Internet and connected devices have largely contributed to this. They enable collaboration, idea sharing, learning and teaching in ways that simply did not exist previously.

Managers who are unaware or do not understand the advances in technology face challenges in managing staff who are aware. Knowledge workers who are unable to access the tools that they use in their personal lives to exchange information may experience frustrations.

Social Change

Workers have different expectations. Lifestyles, standards of living have changed. Globalization and multi-cultural workforces have made management more complex. More people in North America are considered knowledge workers. Knowledge workers have specific areas of expertise based on their personal career experiences. These knowledge workers expect to use their expertise to make an impact in their roles.

Managers who are very aware of the strengths and expertise of their staff are better positioned to support innovation, will work with more satisfied teams. Collaboration must be empowered by good management. Collaboration is fantastic, but if left unchecked can meander down many paths. A manager must provide guidance and cull ideas when necessary. Or place ideas on the back burner for a time when they can be pursued. Nilofer Merchant advocated for the collaborative construction of ideas, and their destruction. But leaders must be there to guide these processes.

Organizational Change

Companies, organizations, expectations, have all changed. They’ve gotten bigger. Richer. Faster. More powerful. More complex.

Job functions have become more specialized, tougher to recruit and train for. With specialization the tendency became for companies to recruit for skills. But one thing has never changed – people need to work well together. Simon Sinek stressed in his presentation that companies should establish a “why”, or a reason for their being, and hire people who fit with their philosophy. In other words, hire for fit, train for skills.

Obviously there are some professions which require training that is too specialized to do this. A law firm or engineering firm would never hire a 19-year-old off the street and then send them for years of university to acquire the necessary accreditation.

In Conclusion

I left the Art of Management Conference with enough information and thoughts to discuss more than this. But, I’m sure you’re finished reading what I have to say for now. Check back in coming weeks for more discussion inspired by the conference.

Where you there too? Share your thoughts on the conference, or what I’ve written about it. I’d love to hear what you took away, and whether it compares to my take home points.


Add Me

Add to Technorati Favorites View Rick Weiss's profile on LinkedIn

Delicious

Flickr Photos

Casino in Downtown Toronto? WTF?

Casino in Downtown Toronto? WTF?

Casino in Downtown Toronto? WTF?

More Photos
Support Wikipedia

Archives


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.