Kappa's case competition team took first at Reno PBLI this weekend. Pretty amazing experience. Here's some takeaways from the last month and a half:
Don't just look at a solution to a problem. Look for the underlying systems that affect it.
Cherish the work groups that treat you well and put a full effort in. Thank you so much team!
Whiteboards are awesome. I wish everything was a whiteboard.
A business problem does not need to be dry. You can always shape it into a story and connect emotionally with people.
Addressing interpersonal conflict opens the door to success in work tasks. Be understanding and treat people as human beings.
If you want to do well, rehearse a presentation until you want to kill yourself and everyone else in the room. Everyone take a break and let loose for a little. Then rehearse some more.
Note cards can be acceptable when used properly.
If you prepare enough, you will be proud of the work you did regardless of the outcome.
Winning is the greatest feeling in the world. Let no one tell you otherwise.
That moment of anxiety during the results announcement seems to go on forever.
A Stanford team is not all powerful.
Neither is the other Stanford team.
Prepare for technical disaster. If it happens, you're ready. Handle it calmly and everything will be alright.
Craps is still totally my game on the casino floor.
Engage your audience, even when you're just delivering a proposal. Find memorable ways to do it.
Learning something is great, but applying it is even better.
When you have a special opportunity like this, enjoy the ride. You have to go back to the real world soon enough.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Tis The Season To Be Negative
In a way, the residents of blue Oregon are lucky in 2012. This is not because Oregon has an overwhelming liberal majority, but simply because an obvious majority exists. Unlike swing states in an election year, we witness a seemingly reserved number of political attack ads. It's just not cost effective to fight the numbers if victory is highly unlikely.
But Oregonians are still aware of what the commercial airwaves turn into as the country approaches election day. It's gotten worse every year, and this year shows no signs of changing direction. Super-PAC's have drastically changed the form campaigning takes in the U.S. It's ugly out there and it's only going to get worse. Reading this Feb 13, 2012 article in The New Yorker got me thinking about parts of the pre-election system that grind my gears (all political beliefs aside).
Due to the political nature of negative political advertisements, they receive the highest level of protection under the First Amendment. You would think political free speech would always be a good thing, right? Well it also means that lying and misguiding is perfectly legal. As a result, the public is subject to six or more months of crude manipulation, often through flat out falsities. In an era where trust in businesses and politicians are at an all time low, its beyond disturbing to find that there's no burden of truth standing between candidates and control.
The man leading the Mitt Romney proxy campaign through Restore Our Future (he's one of three directors and the recipient of all the business) is Larry McCarthy. McCarthy is the mastermind behind the racially charged Willie Horton spot that supposedly sunk Dukakis is 1988, as well as countless other negative ads. He is dubbed "the attack ads go-to guy" by Politico and is deeply involved with every on and off election race. One of my overarching arguments for brands is that every touch point of the experience should ring true with the brand. Mitt Romney has positioned himself as the outsider in the Republican primaries. Unlike his counterparts, Romney has never spent time in Washington, and he is keen to use that as a weapon. However, McCarthy and his pseudo agency are in the heart of D.C. and is a master at playing the political games of Capitol Hill. There is a gap between the McCarthy line and the Romney line, leaving a critically thinking citizen wondering what the Romney message really is.
Attack ads usually look bad. You can see it coming before the dialogue even begins. They paint the world as good versus evil and tend to treat viewers as idiots. They look like cruddy PowerPoint presentations. Yet they work. Even when people don't think they work, they work. So for all the effectiveness, why don't we see this style of advertising in other sectors? It would certainly cut through the clutter. Still, the shear tone of it would probably offend people. Attack ads were originally regarded as horrendous, but have since become expected. The vulgarity is now ignored, and they work instead. Still, politicians are fleeting brands in the minds of consumers. Every few years they receive lots of attention and everyone seems to have an opinion, but it fades away quickly after election day. Each election season, candidates can choose to start fresh and re-brand themselves how it suits the times; the public tends to go with it. The brands we brush up against every day don't enjoy this luxury. Organizations that offer products and services need to maintain their brand persona 24-7, otherwise they risk losing long time supporters.
In February of this year AdAge heralded the top ten political ads of all time. Six of them were of a very negative tone. In Iowa alone 73% of the political spots were attack ads last December. What if all advertising was this negative? What if 60-73% of all messages from businesses were vilifying attacks on competitors? I think it would have a terrible effect of the psyche of the entire nation. We'd all be pissed off and judgmental around the clock as a result of seeing nasty messages everywhere we looked. Every fourth November the country gets swept up in the negativity of a black and white political fever. I shudder to think what our world would look like if the messaging from political campaigns spread to other parts of communication.
McCarthy says he's trying to make “what every ad guy is seeking: the Holy Grail of the perfect spot.” I guess I'm no ad guy in his book then. I'm seeking to make the world a better place and advertising is a way of getting there. Shit-slinging like this is not on my agenda.
But Oregonians are still aware of what the commercial airwaves turn into as the country approaches election day. It's gotten worse every year, and this year shows no signs of changing direction. Super-PAC's have drastically changed the form campaigning takes in the U.S. It's ugly out there and it's only going to get worse. Reading this Feb 13, 2012 article in The New Yorker got me thinking about parts of the pre-election system that grind my gears (all political beliefs aside).
Due to the political nature of negative political advertisements, they receive the highest level of protection under the First Amendment. You would think political free speech would always be a good thing, right? Well it also means that lying and misguiding is perfectly legal. As a result, the public is subject to six or more months of crude manipulation, often through flat out falsities. In an era where trust in businesses and politicians are at an all time low, its beyond disturbing to find that there's no burden of truth standing between candidates and control.
Political advertising has taken such a positive tone in America...
The man leading the Mitt Romney proxy campaign through Restore Our Future (he's one of three directors and the recipient of all the business) is Larry McCarthy. McCarthy is the mastermind behind the racially charged Willie Horton spot that supposedly sunk Dukakis is 1988, as well as countless other negative ads. He is dubbed "the attack ads go-to guy" by Politico and is deeply involved with every on and off election race. One of my overarching arguments for brands is that every touch point of the experience should ring true with the brand. Mitt Romney has positioned himself as the outsider in the Republican primaries. Unlike his counterparts, Romney has never spent time in Washington, and he is keen to use that as a weapon. However, McCarthy and his pseudo agency are in the heart of D.C. and is a master at playing the political games of Capitol Hill. There is a gap between the McCarthy line and the Romney line, leaving a critically thinking citizen wondering what the Romney message really is.
Little accountability and even less truth has become the norm.
Attack ads usually look bad. You can see it coming before the dialogue even begins. They paint the world as good versus evil and tend to treat viewers as idiots. They look like cruddy PowerPoint presentations. Yet they work. Even when people don't think they work, they work. So for all the effectiveness, why don't we see this style of advertising in other sectors? It would certainly cut through the clutter. Still, the shear tone of it would probably offend people. Attack ads were originally regarded as horrendous, but have since become expected. The vulgarity is now ignored, and they work instead. Still, politicians are fleeting brands in the minds of consumers. Every few years they receive lots of attention and everyone seems to have an opinion, but it fades away quickly after election day. Each election season, candidates can choose to start fresh and re-brand themselves how it suits the times; the public tends to go with it. The brands we brush up against every day don't enjoy this luxury. Organizations that offer products and services need to maintain their brand persona 24-7, otherwise they risk losing long time supporters.
In February of this year AdAge heralded the top ten political ads of all time. Six of them were of a very negative tone. In Iowa alone 73% of the political spots were attack ads last December. What if all advertising was this negative? What if 60-73% of all messages from businesses were vilifying attacks on competitors? I think it would have a terrible effect of the psyche of the entire nation. We'd all be pissed off and judgmental around the clock as a result of seeing nasty messages everywhere we looked. Every fourth November the country gets swept up in the negativity of a black and white political fever. I shudder to think what our world would look like if the messaging from political campaigns spread to other parts of communication.
McCarthy says he's trying to make “what every ad guy is seeking: the Holy Grail of the perfect spot.” I guess I'm no ad guy in his book then. I'm seeking to make the world a better place and advertising is a way of getting there. Shit-slinging like this is not on my agenda.
Why Ad Belongs In The SOJC
This post is in response to an opinion piece by Jonathan Bowers in the January 11, 2012 issue of the Oregon Daily Emerald.
Once again, the study/profession of "advertising" has received the scorn of nobler studies in the academic world. Jonathan Bowers, a journalism graduate student, argues that advertising and public relations are ill-placed in the School of Journalism and Communication because of their commercial nature. From Mr. Bower's perspective, J-School students "are taught how to be media-savvy and critical of what information is presented to them," and apparently the programs in question don't fit into that model. I couldn't disagree more.
Whereas I can't speak on behalf of public relations, the advertising program at the UO strives to teach its students to reach beyond moving products off shelves. Instead, those in the program are guided to bring new value to consumers (a.k.a. citizens) in ways beyond mere advertising and marketing. The Oregon SOJC is where that mentality is fostered.
SOJC Core Values Synonymous With Advertising's (at least what they should be)
Mr. Bowers views the role of the SOJC to be to "develop sharp, critical thinkers who look at information provided to them with a skeptical eye instead of blindly taking information provided to them." I see no harm in this outlook. But I don't see any reason why future adwomen and admen should be excluded from it. As distributors of information, advertisers should hold a high level of responsibility to those who receive it; this requires a critical view of the messages they are to convey. Just as traditional journalists a charged with a lofty ethical responsibility to the public, so should advertisers, perhaps even more so being the content is tied so strongly to private interests. I would have no desire to associate with the ad world were this duty of ethical and critical thought non-existent in its education. On the other end, don't think I have a delusional perspective of advertising as an ethically iconic industry with its primary job being to save consumers from malicious corporate entities. Advertising is commercial in nature. The critical approach to information taught in the SOJC is very much in the best interest of businesses as well.
Spoiler Alert: Business leaders don't always know what's best for their organizations. Confidence and self-affirmation are so important to business leadership in many managers' minds that they turn a blind eye to most insights that challenge the status quo. Challenging "the way it's done" is risky and risk is unwanted in commerce. So if every partner along the way simply agrees with the usual plan of action you can guess what the result often turns out to be. Hint: it's brown, steaming, and smells really really bad. The advertising industry is a two-way street, connecting the citizens to the people selling stuff. Advertisers are distributors of information to both sides (believe it or not) and often are positioned perfectly to redirect businesses away from harmful or otherwise worthless products, practices, and mentalities. Without a educational foundation in critical thinking and to the duties owed to the public, advertisers are just more yes-men in the machine and serve no benefit to consumers or commercial entities.
Business School Is A Worse Fit
To say that advertising being a branch in the Lundquist College of Business is "right up their alley" is an incredibly misinformed assumption. As I described before, even though the end goals of the two may be similar, the basis for getting there couldn't be more different: one creative, the other analytical; one public, the other private. Just because the two will work together in the future doesn't mean that they need to be taught the same material in the same building. Engineers are integral parts of many businesses. Does that mean our science majors should join the LCB? What about future doctors, designers, and musicians? They provide much of the content of enterprises, much like the professionals in agencies. Having divergent backgrounds in a working environment is perhaps the biggest key to success in organizations everywhere; advertising and business studies are not exempt to this. Conjoining the advertising program with the business school would be better than making the program separate from everything, but still remains worse than leaving it where it is.
Segregating Our Studies Is Beneficial To No One
The general lack of partnership between the LCB and the SOJC makes me sad. When I was studying music I was instructed that the only learning worth my time was within the School of Music's walls. I've since realized to ignore the walls. Curiosity and growth is too often limited in the university sphere to imaginary lines called "majors." The greatest results of history are achieved through the combination of linear, analytical processing and radical, intuitive creativity. Unfortunately the attitudes of the students between the two schools I'm mostly involved with now tend to stick to segregated stereotypical extremes. Business majors think that they aren't wired for creativity and that creatives are a bunch of hipsters with monster egos. Advertising students see mathematical thinking as something that escaped them in middle school and that Lillis is full of a bunch of uptight "suits." We should be reaching out more to studies and lifestyles unlike our own, not pushing them away. This is not a problem limited to this department relationship nor one to be solved by moving the location of a program. The issue is institutional, or maybe even human.
The whole concept of "schools" and "majors" is a little bull (to me at least) at times. They give structure and direction to many otherwise lost students, but they are restrictive to learning and open mindsets in a community full of young potential. I can understand Mr. Bower's frustration with the presence of advertising and public relations in a school of journalism (less so when I found that courses in ethics are not required of any student there). Still, I see proposing that a particular program should be removed from your college because it doesn't exactly match your purest vision of the craft is close-minded and stands to damage the education of more than just journalism students. What harm does the advertising program do to the rest of the SOJC other than slightly taint an idealistic view of journalism and communication academia? What does any program stand to gain from such an isolationist and exclusive standpoint?
Our world is not a collection of silos.
It is a complex network of differences and similarities.
I would love to see more collaboration between the J-School and the business school at the university without changing what makes each college great. It would add to the learning experience of both sides. Meanwhile it would be a shame to see the ad program get run out of the SOJC. The core values that make the school make the ad program great. Taking away the advertising program would take away from the learning experience of advertising students and others in the journalism school, regardless of where the program went. It certainly wouldn't make for a better University of Oregon or a better world.
Is the SOJC the perfect place at the UO for the advertising program? Perhaps not. But does the SOJC provide an education better suited for the industry and a progressive world than under the business school without infringing on the education of others? I see no reason pointing to no. So to Mr. Bowers, I encourage you to take another hard look at what damage the advertising program is doing to the SOJC. I think there is far more at stake than just the definition of "communication."
Besides, I have a hard time believing that most anyone in the SOJC would fit well into required business classes like supply chain management. Business students can hardly stand it.
Once again, the study/profession of "advertising" has received the scorn of nobler studies in the academic world. Jonathan Bowers, a journalism graduate student, argues that advertising and public relations are ill-placed in the School of Journalism and Communication because of their commercial nature. From Mr. Bower's perspective, J-School students "are taught how to be media-savvy and critical of what information is presented to them," and apparently the programs in question don't fit into that model. I couldn't disagree more.
Whereas I can't speak on behalf of public relations, the advertising program at the UO strives to teach its students to reach beyond moving products off shelves. Instead, those in the program are guided to bring new value to consumers (a.k.a. citizens) in ways beyond mere advertising and marketing. The Oregon SOJC is where that mentality is fostered.
SOJC Core Values Synonymous With Advertising's (at least what they should be)
Mr. Bowers views the role of the SOJC to be to "develop sharp, critical thinkers who look at information provided to them with a skeptical eye instead of blindly taking information provided to them." I see no harm in this outlook. But I don't see any reason why future adwomen and admen should be excluded from it. As distributors of information, advertisers should hold a high level of responsibility to those who receive it; this requires a critical view of the messages they are to convey. Just as traditional journalists a charged with a lofty ethical responsibility to the public, so should advertisers, perhaps even more so being the content is tied so strongly to private interests. I would have no desire to associate with the ad world were this duty of ethical and critical thought non-existent in its education. On the other end, don't think I have a delusional perspective of advertising as an ethically iconic industry with its primary job being to save consumers from malicious corporate entities. Advertising is commercial in nature. The critical approach to information taught in the SOJC is very much in the best interest of businesses as well.
Spoiler Alert: Business leaders don't always know what's best for their organizations. Confidence and self-affirmation are so important to business leadership in many managers' minds that they turn a blind eye to most insights that challenge the status quo. Challenging "the way it's done" is risky and risk is unwanted in commerce. So if every partner along the way simply agrees with the usual plan of action you can guess what the result often turns out to be. Hint: it's brown, steaming, and smells really really bad. The advertising industry is a two-way street, connecting the citizens to the people selling stuff. Advertisers are distributors of information to both sides (believe it or not) and often are positioned perfectly to redirect businesses away from harmful or otherwise worthless products, practices, and mentalities. Without a educational foundation in critical thinking and to the duties owed to the public, advertisers are just more yes-men in the machine and serve no benefit to consumers or commercial entities.
Business School Is A Worse Fit
To say that advertising being a branch in the Lundquist College of Business is "right up their alley" is an incredibly misinformed assumption. As I described before, even though the end goals of the two may be similar, the basis for getting there couldn't be more different: one creative, the other analytical; one public, the other private. Just because the two will work together in the future doesn't mean that they need to be taught the same material in the same building. Engineers are integral parts of many businesses. Does that mean our science majors should join the LCB? What about future doctors, designers, and musicians? They provide much of the content of enterprises, much like the professionals in agencies. Having divergent backgrounds in a working environment is perhaps the biggest key to success in organizations everywhere; advertising and business studies are not exempt to this. Conjoining the advertising program with the business school would be better than making the program separate from everything, but still remains worse than leaving it where it is.
An ad program based in the LCB would be bad for students, businesses, and the public.
The general lack of partnership between the LCB and the SOJC makes me sad. When I was studying music I was instructed that the only learning worth my time was within the School of Music's walls. I've since realized to ignore the walls. Curiosity and growth is too often limited in the university sphere to imaginary lines called "majors." The greatest results of history are achieved through the combination of linear, analytical processing and radical, intuitive creativity. Unfortunately the attitudes of the students between the two schools I'm mostly involved with now tend to stick to segregated stereotypical extremes. Business majors think that they aren't wired for creativity and that creatives are a bunch of hipsters with monster egos. Advertising students see mathematical thinking as something that escaped them in middle school and that Lillis is full of a bunch of uptight "suits." We should be reaching out more to studies and lifestyles unlike our own, not pushing them away. This is not a problem limited to this department relationship nor one to be solved by moving the location of a program. The issue is institutional, or maybe even human.
The whole concept of "schools" and "majors" is a little bull (to me at least) at times. They give structure and direction to many otherwise lost students, but they are restrictive to learning and open mindsets in a community full of young potential. I can understand Mr. Bower's frustration with the presence of advertising and public relations in a school of journalism (less so when I found that courses in ethics are not required of any student there). Still, I see proposing that a particular program should be removed from your college because it doesn't exactly match your purest vision of the craft is close-minded and stands to damage the education of more than just journalism students. What harm does the advertising program do to the rest of the SOJC other than slightly taint an idealistic view of journalism and communication academia? What does any program stand to gain from such an isolationist and exclusive standpoint?
Our world is not a collection of silos.
It is a complex network of differences and similarities.
I would love to see more collaboration between the J-School and the business school at the university without changing what makes each college great. It would add to the learning experience of both sides. Meanwhile it would be a shame to see the ad program get run out of the SOJC. The core values that make the school make the ad program great. Taking away the advertising program would take away from the learning experience of advertising students and others in the journalism school, regardless of where the program went. It certainly wouldn't make for a better University of Oregon or a better world.
Is the SOJC the perfect place at the UO for the advertising program? Perhaps not. But does the SOJC provide an education better suited for the industry and a progressive world than under the business school without infringing on the education of others? I see no reason pointing to no. So to Mr. Bowers, I encourage you to take another hard look at what damage the advertising program is doing to the SOJC. I think there is far more at stake than just the definition of "communication."
Besides, I have a hard time believing that most anyone in the SOJC would fit well into required business classes like supply chain management. Business students can hardly stand it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)