Posted by: Stephen Baker on December 04
Over the years, we've blogged painfully bad pitches, but I don't any can compare with the one that just landed in Rob Walker's inbox. On his Murketing blog, he quotes an email using the Wal-Mart trampling tragedy to pitch a shopping etiquette story:
In light of the recent Wal-Mart tragedy, I would like to offer a conversation with [redacted; name of consultant], who can offer tips on holiday shopping etiquette during the craziest shopping days of the year.
[Redacted] can discuss best practices consumers should consider when venturing out to the major shopping centers in the weeks leading up to the holidays.
Note contextual relevance of "venturing."
Posted by: Stephen Baker on December 04
My thinking about the BWinfrastructure crowdsourcing project keeps changing. At first, the hope was to have vibrant discussions in 50 different "state" forums, with people arguing about dams and bridges and new high schools.
First lesson: People who contribute ideas seem to prefer to dance on the big stage, for everyone. The tendency is to push macro (ie. green energy), not micro. To get micro ideas, I'm probably going to need to push and prod.
Second, I hoped that this would be entirely a grassroots network. But now I'm adjusting my thinking on that, too. My new plan is to interview experts and post their ideas--and hope others respond. So I've interviewed O. Sami Saydjari, the CEO of Cyber Defense Agency, one of the leading experts on the need to protect our information networks. And I've posted his thoughts and various links on the Ning site. (Incidentally, he makes a very strong case that vulnerabilities in our networks and computers lead us open to attacks that could utterly paralyze our economy.)
If anyone wants to leave thoughts on the site, you can write your own blog post there with about 2 clicks. It's a piece of cake. And of course, if you want to focus on a state, those groups are still available. But I've moved them toward the bottom of the page.
Posted by: Stephen Baker on December 02
As I mentioned last week, we've launched a Ning site, BWinfrstructure.ning.com, to generate ideas about how the Obama government should spend billions in economic stimulus funds.
Got some good feedback this a.m. from Janet Ginsburg, a journalist, friend and social network savant. Here's a selection:
Since there are only one or two members in most of the groups, perhaps it makes sense to rethink the division of groups. Although it is true that all infrastructure projects are local with funding wiring through the states, there are too many groups theoretically covering the same territory. There is also that marketing maxim where if you present a consumer with too many choices of just about anything, his response is "gotta run!"
I think it might be smarter to have fewer groups defined by types of infrastructure: Roads, Bridges, Water, Schools, Electric Grid, Parks, Whatever.... Then, each group needs a champion who will keep it moving with blog posts, links and questions. The champion should be someone who can bring in a few experts to be part of the group, so you begin to be sticky.
Bottom line: If everybody's busy, you have to make a case for why it's worth participating. They have to know they're part of something that might make a difference (see Barack Obama's web campaign strategy...). It's unclear why you've started this Ning. Is it to mine info for articles? Or, or, or???
If you hadn't created this Ning, would you participate in it? When the answer is a resounding Absolutely! - mission and website will be in sync. It's not quite there yet...
Posted by: Stephen Baker on December 01
Randy Albelda argues in the Boston Globe that Obama's proposed stimulus spending leans heavily toward traditional male jobs. He She calls it "macho stimulus" (which sounds like some of the drugs you see advertised on TV). Investments in education, health care and child care, she writes, would help greater numbers of women, and benefit society as a whole.
I've posted a link to this story on our burgeoning social network. Please pay a visit and help us figure out how best to spend a half trillion dollars. We're planning to feature the ideas and their proponents in a BW piece in January.
Posted by: Stephen Baker on November 27
I'm trying to get some discussion started on our new BWInfrastructure ning community. So I posted this comment on the forum. Anyone agree? Disagree? Head over to the page and weigh in.
The timing is not great, as we head into a painful recession, but we need higher fuel prices to attract investment into new energy technologies. The way to do this, I believe, is to put a rising floor under the price of oil (or fossil-generated BTUs, in a broader scheme). This floor could start where oil is right now, which is fairly low, say $60 per barrel. Then every year it goes up by, say, $7. A year from now, if oil is below $67 per barrel, taxes lift it to that level. The following year, $74. There's a good chance that oil will be higher than that, in which case the tax is will not be levied. But it gives alt-energy investors the assurance that they'll never have to be competing with $25 oil.
I know this will be hard to implement. Raising taxes is always tough. To make it politically palatable, the government could use every dollar raised from an oil tax to reduce payroll taxes. That way people are taxed for consuming energy, which hurts the trade balance, pollutes, and strengthens Russia, Iran, etc., and they're rewarded more for working. Another idea would be to give states the revenue they collect, so that they could use it as they see fit, for tax reduction, education investments, etc. (But it's important to keep in mind that these energy tax dividends won't be something to bank on; they'll disappear when energy prices rise above the established floor.)
