A new CNBC All-America Economic Survey of 800 Americans shows 53 percent of men are mainly pessimistic, with 42 percent optimistic. Women are more evenly split at 48 percent pessimistic and 46 percent optimistic.
Put it all together, and the nation as a whole splits 50-44, favoring the pessimists over the optimists.
Married men are especially discouraged: 60 percent say they are pessimistic, compared to 44 percent of unmarried men.
"Men are more downbeat than women about America's future."
CNBC: "Men More Downbeat Than Women About US Future":
On Fire but Blacked Out: The Thomas Ball Story
I have an article up on the Ball case at PJM. You can read it here.
Blogger concerns
Some of you have mentioned that blogger is not allowing you to post comments or is deleting your comments. Others are concerned that I am deleting these comments. I am not. If I delete a comment for some reason (which is rare), I will typically warn you first.
In fact, there have been times when I have posted a reply to one of you and blogger has eaten my comments. So,I am just letting you know it is a blogger problem and to keep trying or copy your comment prior to hitting the publish button and try again.
In fact, there have been times when I have posted a reply to one of you and blogger has eaten my comments. So,I am just letting you know it is a blogger problem and to keep trying or copy your comment prior to hitting the publish button and try again.
"The report's findings fly in the face of conventional wisdom that says married people have it better economically than their unmarried counterparts."
CNN: "More U.S. couples living together, study finds":
I wonder if more people (especially men) want to live together because in a contractual marriage, the stakes are higher. How long will it be before there are "common marriage" laws that will make even living together more risky for a man--if he stays too long? Or will living together give men more freedom with less government regulation?
What do you think?
Stephanie Marshall and her fiance, Kelton Scott, are college-educated, gainfully employed and living together. They pay their bills separately but "get together on common things like the rent," said Marshall, who just finished medical school in Atlanta.
The couple is part of a growing segment of American couples who choose to cohabit -- and a new report from the Pew Research Center, released Monday, says financially, those couples are making out like bandits compared to their married and single counterparts.
Not only are there more of them today -- the number of cohabiting couples has doubled since the 1990s, according to Pew analysis of U.S. Census numbers -- but they make more money than other segments of college graduates....
"Working" in more ways than one: Among the college-educated, the study said, in 78% of cohabiting couples, both partners had jobs. For college-educated married couples, only 67% were in two-earner marriages.
The report's findings fly in the face of conventional wisdom that says married people have it better economically than their unmarried counterparts.
"When we started writing this report, we thought that people who were married, and not those just living with each other, would be better off. But that's not the case," said D'Vera Cohn, the study's co-author.
I wonder if more people (especially men) want to live together because in a contractual marriage, the stakes are higher. How long will it be before there are "common marriage" laws that will make even living together more risky for a man--if he stays too long? Or will living together give men more freedom with less government regulation?
What do you think?
My take on the Thomas Ball case
If you don't know the story by now, Thomas Ball is the New Hampshire man who set himself on fire on the courthouse steps and left a 15-page note outlining the abusive family court system and his reasons for killing himself. Many of you have emailed or commented about this case (thanks very much) here and I think his story is an important one in understanding the psychological and physical damage that the law is inflicting on men in this country. Here is an excerpt from Mr. Ball's statement that I think makes some very salient points:
I saw over at Antifeminist tech blog that some are trying to cover up this story, while others, such as man-hater Amanda Marcotte said that Bell's goal was to use his fiery death to "make his ex-wife's life a living hell." This twisted "analysis" is hardly worthy of a response, but I will say that if Ball wanted to make his ex's life a living hell, killing himself was not the answer. The ex may not have even given a damn.
Rather, it seems that Ball was using his extreme way of committing suicide to make a more important point than revenge against an ex--that is much too simplistic and reductionist. Instead, it seems to me that he was trying to highlight the hypocrisy of a government that professed to be against oppression and discrimination but succeeded in neither when it comes to the male gender.
His statement is not the ramblings of a madman, it is the mission of a warrior in some sense. He was fighting for his rights and for yours, if you are male. He was trying to bring some urgency to the male plight in this country, one that no one appreciates or cares about until they are engaged in the battle of the courts. If you want to understand more about how men's rights are being stripped by family courts, take a look at Stephen Baskerville's book Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family.
Mr. Ball's death should serve as a wake-up call to the men and their supporters in this country to continue to fight for equal rights in the area of marriage and family law.
Update: Commenter and blogger Assistant Village Idiot writes to Glenn:
This has not been my experience in the family courts. I have seen men denied custody, charged for domestic violence for the "crime" of spanking or slapping a child, and denied child support enforcement. It may be different in New Hampshire.
I am due in court the end of the month. The ex-wife lawyer wants me jailed for back child support. The amount ranges from $2,200. to $3,000. depending on who you ask. Not big money after being separated over ten years and unemployed for the last two. But I do owe it. If I show up for court without the money and the lawyer say jail, then the judge will have the bailiff take me into custody. There really are no surprises on how the system works once you know how it actually works. And it does not work anything like they taught you in high school history or civics class.
I could have made a phone call or two and borrowed the money. But I am done being bullied for being a man. I cannot believe these people in Washington are so stupid to think they can govern Americans with an iron fist. Twenty-five years ago, the federal government declared war on men. It is time now to see how committed they are to their cause. It is time, boys, to give them a taste of war.
I saw over at Antifeminist tech blog that some are trying to cover up this story, while others, such as man-hater Amanda Marcotte said that Bell's goal was to use his fiery death to "make his ex-wife's life a living hell." This twisted "analysis" is hardly worthy of a response, but I will say that if Ball wanted to make his ex's life a living hell, killing himself was not the answer. The ex may not have even given a damn.
Rather, it seems that Ball was using his extreme way of committing suicide to make a more important point than revenge against an ex--that is much too simplistic and reductionist. Instead, it seems to me that he was trying to highlight the hypocrisy of a government that professed to be against oppression and discrimination but succeeded in neither when it comes to the male gender.
His statement is not the ramblings of a madman, it is the mission of a warrior in some sense. He was fighting for his rights and for yours, if you are male. He was trying to bring some urgency to the male plight in this country, one that no one appreciates or cares about until they are engaged in the battle of the courts. If you want to understand more about how men's rights are being stripped by family courts, take a look at Stephen Baskerville's book Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family.
Mr. Ball's death should serve as a wake-up call to the men and their supporters in this country to continue to fight for equal rights in the area of marriage and family law.
Update: Commenter and blogger Assistant Village Idiot writes to Glenn:
I deal with that agency all the time, though not the children's services - I have for 30 years. They are entirely reasonable people who make adjustments and accommodations for people who don't like them or are suspicious of them all the time. Hell, they are a mental health center, so most of their clients are difficult and suspicious. They are not some Orwellian controlling agency. Ball decided that being pissy and proving that he was right about one incident ten years ago was more important than seeing his daughter. He's no victim.
Family courts may indeed be prejudiced against fathers - I hear that, but I don't know. I've certainly dealt with many cases of NH courts ruling in favor of fathers in custody disputes, though, and I don't see a massive trend here. It pays to remember that MFS cannot tell its side of the story because of confidentiality, and that some pathological people hide by trying to tie themselves to legitimate causes. Wolves hide in sheep's clothing, because it doesn't do any good to hide in wolves' clothing, does it?
This has not been my experience in the family courts. I have seen men denied custody, charged for domestic violence for the "crime" of spanking or slapping a child, and denied child support enforcement. It may be different in New Hampshire.
How a hobby grew into a $100M business
I am reading a new book by CD Baby creator Derek Sivers entitled Anything You Want.
The book boasts "40 lessons for a new kind of entrepreneur." And indeed, Sivers is one of a new breed. He chronicles his own experience going from starting up CD Baby to help his friends sell their CDs online to turning it into the largest seller of independent music on the web.
Sivers has some rather unorthodox advice that frankly, looks refreshing. When his company grew to fifty employees, business-to business services told him he needed an "official review plan, sensitivity training, Terms and Conditions postings, and all this corporate crap." He said "no" to all of it. His advice? "As your business grows, never let the leeches sucker you into all that stuff they pretend you need."
He talks about the strength of many little customers and suggests you design your business to have "NO big clients, just lots of little ones. When you build your business on serving thousands of customers, not dozens, you don't have to worry about any one customer leaving or making special demands."
Overall, this seems to be a great little book if you are an entrepreneur with your own business or aspiring to be one.
The book boasts "40 lessons for a new kind of entrepreneur." And indeed, Sivers is one of a new breed. He chronicles his own experience going from starting up CD Baby to help his friends sell their CDs online to turning it into the largest seller of independent music on the web.Sivers has some rather unorthodox advice that frankly, looks refreshing. When his company grew to fifty employees, business-to business services told him he needed an "official review plan, sensitivity training, Terms and Conditions postings, and all this corporate crap." He said "no" to all of it. His advice? "As your business grows, never let the leeches sucker you into all that stuff they pretend you need."
He talks about the strength of many little customers and suggests you design your business to have "NO big clients, just lots of little ones. When you build your business on serving thousands of customers, not dozens, you don't have to worry about any one customer leaving or making special demands."
Overall, this seems to be a great little book if you are an entrepreneur with your own business or aspiring to be one.
John Hawkins interviews Ann Coulter about her new book, Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America.
I have read part of the book and I must say that Coulter has some fascinating points about mass psychology and how it is used to incite mobs.
I have read part of the book and I must say that Coulter has some fascinating points about mass psychology and how it is used to incite mobs.
USNews.com: "One fifth of all men of prime working age are not getting up and going to work."
While this number may be accurate, I wonder how many men are actually just working "off the books?" This seems pretty common--and I would guess that as the burdens on employers go up, more and more people will be joining the underground economy.
While this number may be accurate, I wonder how many men are actually just working "off the books?" This seems pretty common--and I would guess that as the burdens on employers go up, more and more people will be joining the underground economy.
Don't get married in Massachusetts unless you make less than your future wife.
Forget the The First Wives Club,
now it's the second wives (and higher earning women) who are upset. From the The Boston Herald (via Instapundit):
It looks like the law may be changed but only because women might suffer from it as they may have to pay (gasp!) hundreds of dollars a week to an ex-husband like one woman in the story. A man mentioned in the story had to pay his ex $39,000 per year but somehow the only problem with that was that the second wife had to chip in when the law said her income had to be counted when the man was laid off. Yes, it's unfair that the second wife has to pay, but notice that when it was just the man, no one cared--maybe not even the man himself.
Now that these alimony laws are starting to affect women--both second wives and first wives who make more than their husbands, most likely the law will change. When men alone are being harmed, no such luck. If you want to protect yourself and see the law change, only marry a woman in MA who makes more than you. If divorced, sue for alimony. You just might get hundreds of dollars a week.
now it's the second wives (and higher earning women) who are upset. From the The Boston Herald (via Instapundit): Scanlon notes that current law, originally enacted to protect less-skilled women from being left destitute by husbands who walk out, reflects antiquated notions of a woman’s ability to earn a living in the 21st century.
Today, welfare laws reflect current expectations of self-sufficiency, allowing able-bodied persons to receive public support only temporarily. Yet, under Massachusetts divorce law, first spouses can collect alimony for life (even after the payer has retired) regardless of the duration of the marriage.
Thus, a man who earns more than his former spouse of less than five years may be forced to pay lifetime alimony, even if the ex is an educated 30-something fully capable of supporting herself.
It looks like the law may be changed but only because women might suffer from it as they may have to pay (gasp!) hundreds of dollars a week to an ex-husband like one woman in the story. A man mentioned in the story had to pay his ex $39,000 per year but somehow the only problem with that was that the second wife had to chip in when the law said her income had to be counted when the man was laid off. Yes, it's unfair that the second wife has to pay, but notice that when it was just the man, no one cared--maybe not even the man himself.
Now that these alimony laws are starting to affect women--both second wives and first wives who make more than their husbands, most likely the law will change. When men alone are being harmed, no such luck. If you want to protect yourself and see the law change, only marry a woman in MA who makes more than you. If divorced, sue for alimony. You just might get hundreds of dollars a week.
"As OK Cupid has demonstrated, women rate 80 percent of men below average."
Vox at Alpha Game Plan: "Don't listen to female advice on dating":
It cannot be stressed enough that female dating advice is aimed at ALPHAS and concerns how women wish ALPHAS would behave. It isn't aimed at the majority of men, because to women, the majority of men simply don't figure into their calculations at all. As OK Cupid has demonstrated, women rate 80 percent of men below average.
"Females of OkCupid, we site founders say to you: ouch! Paradoxically, it seems it’s women, not men, who have unrealistic standards for the “average” member of the opposite sex."
This is why all of the myths so cherished by deltas and gammas are precisely that, myths. Women aren't attracted to a man who is a gentleman, they are attracted to an Alpha and they would like him to behave like a gentleman.
"It’s not how much money you have, or looks, or power, its PRESENCE.."
I read an article this morning (via Instapundit) entitled "18 Things Men Need To Know That Women Won’t Tell Them." The Your Tango expert article is written by Deanna Frazier, the author of Dating 101: The Second, Third, or Fourth Time Around.
She states that "It’s not how much money you have, or looks, or power, its PRESENCE.."
Really? Then why is all the advice given about how to improve your looks, confidence (which on some level gives the illusion of power), and money, because without it, you can't hire the coaches, and buy the manicures and hand lotions you need to impress the women.
Let's take a look at her advice on how to improve your luck with the ladies. First up:
If this is true, why are there so many balding, overweight broke guys out there who can't get a date? Why are most women fighting over the "alpha males" while leaving the rest home playing video games if they really wanted the bald and broke? If these guys had the "presence," outlined in the article, would they get a date? Somehow, I doubt it.
"Presence" seems to be obtained by looking good with expensive haircuts, manicures and lotions. The right haircut will impress as "the look of money or prosperity comes from shiny, healthy well-trimmed ends and natural looking color" (#9). If women aren't impressed by money, then why is the author telling men to have expensive looking hair that "looks like money." I thought money didn't matter. I'm confused, are you?
And men aren't even supposed to look like men. They should not be wearing plaid or flannel shirts (#10) and if they mow the lawn, they shouldn't let anyone know it. Cover it with a manicure or hand lotion (#13 and #14).
If any male reader out there has gotten a date by walking up to a woman and saying "You look very elegant and sophisticated" (#18), while sporting hand lotion, a manicure, and a non-interrupting style while she talks (#3), let us know. Perhaps I'm missing something here.
She states that "It’s not how much money you have, or looks, or power, its PRESENCE.." Really? Then why is all the advice given about how to improve your looks, confidence (which on some level gives the illusion of power), and money, because without it, you can't hire the coaches, and buy the manicures and hand lotions you need to impress the women.
Let's take a look at her advice on how to improve your luck with the ladies. First up:
It truly doesn't matter how much money you make, whether or not you’re overweight, walk with a limp or are going bald. Many wonderful women would love to have you in their lives.
If this is true, why are there so many balding, overweight broke guys out there who can't get a date? Why are most women fighting over the "alpha males" while leaving the rest home playing video games if they really wanted the bald and broke? If these guys had the "presence," outlined in the article, would they get a date? Somehow, I doubt it.
"Presence" seems to be obtained by looking good with expensive haircuts, manicures and lotions. The right haircut will impress as "the look of money or prosperity comes from shiny, healthy well-trimmed ends and natural looking color" (#9). If women aren't impressed by money, then why is the author telling men to have expensive looking hair that "looks like money." I thought money didn't matter. I'm confused, are you?
And men aren't even supposed to look like men. They should not be wearing plaid or flannel shirts (#10) and if they mow the lawn, they shouldn't let anyone know it. Cover it with a manicure or hand lotion (#13 and #14).
If any male reader out there has gotten a date by walking up to a woman and saying "You look very elegant and sophisticated" (#18), while sporting hand lotion, a manicure, and a non-interrupting style while she talks (#3), let us know. Perhaps I'm missing something here.
Stuart Schneiderman is skeptical of David Eagleman’s new book Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain.
"No one asked questions when her last husband died."
I was reading the Washington Examiner in DC this morning and saw a story about a woman who left five dead husbands in five different states over decades. I looked the story up online and found this story about her case:
Authorities in the story didn't seem to try too hard to catch this woman or look too deeply into the "suicides" of two of the husbands or her son who she collected insurance money off of. Apparently this woman isolated the men from their families and no one seemed to care much.
I wonder how many murdered men have been unaccounted for in the crime statistics. As Warren Farrell points out in his book The Myth of Male Power,
To the outside world, Betty Neumar was a diminutive Georgia grandmother with a shock of white hair who operated beauty shops, attended church and raised money for charity. No one asked questions when her last husband died.
It wasn't until North Carolina investigators in 2008 reopened a 25-year-old murder case that the dark secrets of her past began to unravel. Police discovered that Neumar had left behind a decades-long trail of five dead husbands in five states.
Authorities in the story didn't seem to try too hard to catch this woman or look too deeply into the "suicides" of two of the husbands or her son who she collected insurance money off of. Apparently this woman isolated the men from their families and no one seemed to care much.
I wonder how many murdered men have been unaccounted for in the crime statistics. As Warren Farrell points out in his book The Myth of Male Power,
How about the perils of too much estrogen in the room?
ABC's This Week with Christiane Amanpour had a ridiculously sexist exchange this week with an Economy panel suggesting that women are superior to men in politics and business (thanks to the reader who emailed this story):
Can you imagine if a bunch of couple of male panelists were talking about "the perils of too much estrogen in the room?" This exchange is sexist and inaccurate. If you want my further thoughts on what would happen if women ran the world, you can read an old PJM article of mine here.
AMANPOUR: And, no, they don't. You'd be hard-pressed to find a sex scandal involving a female politician these days, which begs the question, what if there were more women in politics and in positions of power? Would they change the way business is done from Wall Street to Washington and beyond?
We decided to explore that issue this morning with Torie Clarke, the former assistant secretary of defense for public affairs in the Bush administration, with Cecilia Attias, the former first lady of France who was married to president Nicolas Sarkozy, and she is the founder of Cecilia Attias Foundation for Women, and ABC's Claire Shipman, author of "Womenomics: Write Your Own Rules for Success."
Can you imagine if a bunch of couple of male panelists were talking about "the perils of too much estrogen in the room?" This exchange is sexist and inaccurate. If you want my further thoughts on what would happen if women ran the world, you can read an old PJM article of mine here.
How to profit from "death panels"
I am taking some CE credits online and am reading an article with the learning objective outlined as "Learn areas where professional psychologists might need to respond over the next decade to practice ethically." Apparently, if health care is rationed to the elderly, the psychologist simply helps them adjust or simply moves onto greener pastures:
What about the ethics of fighting back against rationing healthcare to those over a certain age? I just got back my bill from the hospitial for my ICD battery change --the charge was high. As I get older, instead of a battery change, will I just get sent to a psychologist who can help me adjust to dying without treatment? Or perhaps the psychologist will be too busy trying to move to "greener pastures" with younger patients. What an opportunity (or is it a challenge?) for the psychologist.
But at least compassionate psychologists will make a buck! And why is it that when Sarah Palin talks about "death panels", she's an idiot, but when a psychologist does (because isn't that what is implied by restricting care to the elderly?), his ideas are printed up in a journal?
I sometimes wonder if the movie Logan's Run
One supporting argument for age-based limiting of care is that increased spending for seniors deprives younger patients of resources that are rightfully theirs, and thus the ratio of cost to benefit justifies and validates age related rationing of medical services for seniors. Those in opposition stress that age is a weak marker for predicting clinical benefit, and further emphasize that such rationing will lead society to be less and less troubled about this apparent devaluing of elders (Gordon, 2000). Psychologists have been well schooled in the treatment of older patients (American Psychological Association, 2004; Hinrichsen, 2010), but have not been trained to face situations where medical and mental health care are rationed. Through research and clinical experience they might be called upon to help shape the allocation of resources among older patients.
Professionals are placed in a difficult position when asked to screen for problems if services to address them are not readily available. For example the suggestion that primary care physicians routinely screen all their patients for depression must be tempered with the fact that these physicians do not have the time or expertise to comprehensively treat those found to endorse depressive symptoms, and mental health referral systems may be limited in their ability to handle a large influx of depressed patients (Linton, 2004). Psychologists may face a similar ethical quandary when diagnosing dementia or geriatric depression if rationing withholds services from older patients, eliminating their chance to be treated. This trend might offer a challenge or an opportunity for psychologists. Psychologists in settings that care for the elderly might lose jobs or be relocated to working with younger patients, but since psychoactive medication accounts for a good deal of the cost associated with care of older patients, if such medications are restricted or eliminated, there may be an opportunity for psychologists to expand their roles by filling the void with non-pharmacological (and hopefully more cost effective) behavioral interventions.
What about the ethics of fighting back against rationing healthcare to those over a certain age? I just got back my bill from the hospitial for my ICD battery change --the charge was high. As I get older, instead of a battery change, will I just get sent to a psychologist who can help me adjust to dying without treatment? Or perhaps the psychologist will be too busy trying to move to "greener pastures" with younger patients. What an opportunity (or is it a challenge?) for the psychologist.
But at least compassionate psychologists will make a buck! And why is it that when Sarah Palin talks about "death panels", she's an idiot, but when a psychologist does (because isn't that what is implied by restricting care to the elderly?), his ideas are printed up in a journal?
I sometimes wonder if the movie Logan's Run
"A hope is not a plan."
I am reading Dave Voda's book How to Protect Your Money from the Coming Government Hyperinflation
on the Kindle. The book is a must if you are worried about high inflation as it gives what seems like good strategies of how and where to invest your money in the coming years to hedge against inflation.
Voda points out that the government talks a good game of "hope" that things will turn out alright but he states "a hope is not a plan. So while our politicians have adopted a policy of 'hoping' everything will turn out okay, it would be prudent for the average citizen to plan what to do in case it does not."
Some highlights include how to buy silver (he doesn't seem as big a fan of gold), the warning signs of an imminent currency collapse, tangibles to keep at home and the reason your IRA may not be safe. Scary stuff. But I guess it's better to be prepared than be caught by surprise.
I just hope the plan I put in action is the right one. The book seems helpful and for $2.99 on the Kindle is definitely worth it.
on the Kindle. The book is a must if you are worried about high inflation as it gives what seems like good strategies of how and where to invest your money in the coming years to hedge against inflation. Voda points out that the government talks a good game of "hope" that things will turn out alright but he states "a hope is not a plan. So while our politicians have adopted a policy of 'hoping' everything will turn out okay, it would be prudent for the average citizen to plan what to do in case it does not."
Some highlights include how to buy silver (he doesn't seem as big a fan of gold), the warning signs of an imminent currency collapse, tangibles to keep at home and the reason your IRA may not be safe. Scary stuff. But I guess it's better to be prepared than be caught by surprise.
I just hope the plan I put in action is the right one. The book seems helpful and for $2.99 on the Kindle is definitely worth it.
Is marriage without romance a good thing?
Time.com has an interesting article based on a book by author Pamela Haag entitled Marriage Confidential: The Post-Romantic Age of Workhorse Wives, Royal Children, Undersexed Spouses, and Rebel Couples Who Are Rewriting the Rules
(via Hot Air). The author argues that "the 21st century is all about the postromantic marriage — one based on obligation, partnership and, yes, convenience." The article asks the question "How Married are You?" and goes on to describe five different types of marriages, none of which sound all that great.
One is a kind of business partnership, the next is for purposes of parenting, another is a "workhorse wife" who does pays the bills and does all the chores (where can we all find one of those?), another just agrees with anything the spouse says to get along, and the final couple is "semi-married" and simply functions separately.
Does this ring true for any of you? Rather than "Rebels rewriting the rules" as the book title suggests, it sounds to me more like people who have given up on romance. Is that really a better option?
(via Hot Air). The author argues that "the 21st century is all about the postromantic marriage — one based on obligation, partnership and, yes, convenience." The article asks the question "How Married are You?" and goes on to describe five different types of marriages, none of which sound all that great.One is a kind of business partnership, the next is for purposes of parenting, another is a "workhorse wife" who does pays the bills and does all the chores (where can we all find one of those?), another just agrees with anything the spouse says to get along, and the final couple is "semi-married" and simply functions separately.
Does this ring true for any of you? Rather than "Rebels rewriting the rules" as the book title suggests, it sounds to me more like people who have given up on romance. Is that really a better option?
Five mistaken beliefs business leaders have about innovation
The vast majority of companies want to be innovative, coming up with new products, business models and better ways of doing things. However, innovation is not so easy to achieve. A CEO cannot just order it, and so it will be. You have to carefully manage an organisation so that, over time, innovations will emerge. And CEOs often make a number of common mistakes, that hamper rather than induce such processes.
Believe the numbers
One common mistake is to insist on �seeing the numbers� too much too soon. �What is the size of the market?�, �what is the Net Presen Value calculation?�, �payback time?�, and so on. What they are forgetting is that, for a truly innovative product, for example, it is impossible to reliably produce any numbers. If a CEO insists on hard numbers before the project is even started, it will by sheer definition kill off any truly innovative ones, simply because you cannot compute the size of a market that does not exist yet.
One CEO who understood this well was Intel�s Andy Grove, at the time that an engineer proposed to him to work on something called a �microprocessor�. The engineer could not produce any numbers, consumer research, and not even a good idea in what sort of applications this product was going to be used, but Grove gave permission and a budget anyway. It made Intel one of the most successful companies the world of business has ever witnessed.
Believe success has been attained
Another innovation killer is sustained financial success. We call it the success trap. When an organisation becomes very good at something, top of its industry, it usually starts to focus on the thing (product, technology, or business model) that made its success, crowding out other options and points of view. Initially, this may make it even more successful, but there is going to come a time that its business context is going to change: new technologies, consumer preferences or foreign entrants emerge. And then the company and its top management finds itself trapped in the one thing it does so well, rigidly believing that what brought it its success, will continue to make it prosper. But, in reality, it is rapidly becoming obsolete.
A great illustration of this is the 43 companies featured in the famous business book �In search of excellence� by Peters and Waterman in 1982. These companies were considered to be the most excellent companies in the world at the time but, at present, only 5 of them would still make the list; many of them having disappeared altogether (e.g. Atari, Tupperware, Digital). It illustrates that, paradoxically, it is especially the most successful companies, the top performers of their industry that find it difficult to adapt and survive when the world around them changes.
Believe they know the competition
What always strikes me, if I ask a CEO (or anyone else in an organisation for that matter) �who is your main competitor?�, they always reply with the company that is most like them. And subsequently they can tell me anything about that firm; its strength, weaknesses, products and plans. But in a way, when it comes to innovation, that is slightly delusional. The company that is most like you is really the least important competitor, simply because they are in the same boat as you are.
The most threatening competition often comes from a completely different angle: an adjacent industry, innovative start-up, or substitute. And that is a phenomenon of all times. Sailing shipping companies suffered from the steam engine, radial tyre champion Firestone was brought to its knees by the introduction of bias tyres, newspapers are being squeezed by the internet, while watchmakers suffer from the fact that nowadays everybody already has the time at hand on a mobile phone or laptop. Thinking your biggest competitor is the company most like you, will leave a company dangerously exposed to outside innovation.
Believe that because everybody had always done it this way, it is the best way of doing things
Industries are rife with habits and business practices from which no-one can quite remember why we do them this way. When challenging a CEO on one of those business practices, he lamented to me �Freek, everybody does it this way, and everybody has always been doing it this way; if it wasn�t the best way of doing things, I am sure it would have disappeared by now�.
And standard economic theory would support his point of view: The market is darwinian, therefore it should be weeding out bad practices. But, in reality, he is wrong. In many businesses, practices emerged with good reason, but once the circumstances changed, firms carried on using them for no reason whatsoever. Did newspapers have to be printed for so long on ridiculously large (and expensive) sheets of paper? Heck no; the english law, set up in 1712, that newspapers were going to be taxed based on the number of pages they printed was abolished in 1855. Could low-cost airlines not have worked many years earlier? Are buyback guarantees in book publishing (set up during the Great Depression) really still needed? Is detailingin the pharmaceutical industry still a useful practice? That everybody does it this way is no reason not to challenge it. The greatest innovations often come from challenging industry convention.
Believe the customer
The final error CEOs often make when it comes to innovation, is to ask their customers for their opinion. Pretty much any company I know has a yearly customer survey. However, there are two things wrong with this. Firstly, these people are already your customer; sure they are going to be satisfied with you; the others have already long voted with their feet. We call it selection bias. You are selecting to ask the ones who already like you, but what about the ones who don�t?
Secondly, even when a company is asking potential customers about their ideas for innovation, in the form of market research, it is tricky. It is usually some shape or form of asking respondents whether they would like (and buy) the new idea. Consumer research often is useful but not for truly innovative ideas and markets that do not exist yet. Research on the fax machine came back unambiguous: every respondent answered that they would never buy a machine like that; likewise for the mobile phone. As Farooq Chaudhry, producer at the highly innovative Akram Khan Dance Company, once put it to me: �Customers? Forget about them�; if you want to be really innovative, you have to be leading the customers; not be led by them.
Believe the numbers
One common mistake is to insist on �seeing the numbers� too much too soon. �What is the size of the market?�, �what is the Net Presen Value calculation?�, �payback time?�, and so on. What they are forgetting is that, for a truly innovative product, for example, it is impossible to reliably produce any numbers. If a CEO insists on hard numbers before the project is even started, it will by sheer definition kill off any truly innovative ones, simply because you cannot compute the size of a market that does not exist yet.
One CEO who understood this well was Intel�s Andy Grove, at the time that an engineer proposed to him to work on something called a �microprocessor�. The engineer could not produce any numbers, consumer research, and not even a good idea in what sort of applications this product was going to be used, but Grove gave permission and a budget anyway. It made Intel one of the most successful companies the world of business has ever witnessed.
Believe success has been attained
Another innovation killer is sustained financial success. We call it the success trap. When an organisation becomes very good at something, top of its industry, it usually starts to focus on the thing (product, technology, or business model) that made its success, crowding out other options and points of view. Initially, this may make it even more successful, but there is going to come a time that its business context is going to change: new technologies, consumer preferences or foreign entrants emerge. And then the company and its top management finds itself trapped in the one thing it does so well, rigidly believing that what brought it its success, will continue to make it prosper. But, in reality, it is rapidly becoming obsolete.
A great illustration of this is the 43 companies featured in the famous business book �In search of excellence� by Peters and Waterman in 1982. These companies were considered to be the most excellent companies in the world at the time but, at present, only 5 of them would still make the list; many of them having disappeared altogether (e.g. Atari, Tupperware, Digital). It illustrates that, paradoxically, it is especially the most successful companies, the top performers of their industry that find it difficult to adapt and survive when the world around them changes.
Believe they know the competition
What always strikes me, if I ask a CEO (or anyone else in an organisation for that matter) �who is your main competitor?�, they always reply with the company that is most like them. And subsequently they can tell me anything about that firm; its strength, weaknesses, products and plans. But in a way, when it comes to innovation, that is slightly delusional. The company that is most like you is really the least important competitor, simply because they are in the same boat as you are.
The most threatening competition often comes from a completely different angle: an adjacent industry, innovative start-up, or substitute. And that is a phenomenon of all times. Sailing shipping companies suffered from the steam engine, radial tyre champion Firestone was brought to its knees by the introduction of bias tyres, newspapers are being squeezed by the internet, while watchmakers suffer from the fact that nowadays everybody already has the time at hand on a mobile phone or laptop. Thinking your biggest competitor is the company most like you, will leave a company dangerously exposed to outside innovation.
Believe that because everybody had always done it this way, it is the best way of doing things
Industries are rife with habits and business practices from which no-one can quite remember why we do them this way. When challenging a CEO on one of those business practices, he lamented to me �Freek, everybody does it this way, and everybody has always been doing it this way; if it wasn�t the best way of doing things, I am sure it would have disappeared by now�.
And standard economic theory would support his point of view: The market is darwinian, therefore it should be weeding out bad practices. But, in reality, he is wrong. In many businesses, practices emerged with good reason, but once the circumstances changed, firms carried on using them for no reason whatsoever. Did newspapers have to be printed for so long on ridiculously large (and expensive) sheets of paper? Heck no; the english law, set up in 1712, that newspapers were going to be taxed based on the number of pages they printed was abolished in 1855. Could low-cost airlines not have worked many years earlier? Are buyback guarantees in book publishing (set up during the Great Depression) really still needed? Is detailingin the pharmaceutical industry still a useful practice? That everybody does it this way is no reason not to challenge it. The greatest innovations often come from challenging industry convention.
Believe the customer
The final error CEOs often make when it comes to innovation, is to ask their customers for their opinion. Pretty much any company I know has a yearly customer survey. However, there are two things wrong with this. Firstly, these people are already your customer; sure they are going to be satisfied with you; the others have already long voted with their feet. We call it selection bias. You are selecting to ask the ones who already like you, but what about the ones who don�t?
Secondly, even when a company is asking potential customers about their ideas for innovation, in the form of market research, it is tricky. It is usually some shape or form of asking respondents whether they would like (and buy) the new idea. Consumer research often is useful but not for truly innovative ideas and markets that do not exist yet. Research on the fax machine came back unambiguous: every respondent answered that they would never buy a machine like that; likewise for the mobile phone. As Farooq Chaudhry, producer at the highly innovative Akram Khan Dance Company, once put it to me: �Customers? Forget about them�; if you want to be really innovative, you have to be leading the customers; not be led by them.
NPR had an interesting discussion recently with journalist Jon Ronson, the author of a new book The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry.
The book uses the work of Dr. Robert Hare who developed the PCL-R to determine if people are psychopaths. I attended training with Dr. Hare some years ago and one of the things the professionals there taught us in terms of using the PCL-R was to be very well trained and to avoid using it frivolously. It is also important to use more than one test and other methods (such as third party interviews) when determining if one is a psychopath. But that aside, the book looks interesting.
The book uses the work of Dr. Robert Hare who developed the PCL-R to determine if people are psychopaths. I attended training with Dr. Hare some years ago and one of the things the professionals there taught us in terms of using the PCL-R was to be very well trained and to avoid using it frivolously. It is also important to use more than one test and other methods (such as third party interviews) when determining if one is a psychopath. But that aside, the book looks interesting.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)