I blogged yesterday about the awful presentation the Not Very Big 3 gave to Capitol Hill last week and how they really needed to improve their presentation skills. Then last night, I flicked through a recording of the American Music Awards (watching these shows live takes toooo long) and thought – most of these guys and gals get it. The know how to present and grab the audience attention.
I know you are saying ‘but these are singers, they are performers.’ Sure, but their objective and that of the Detroit Downers is the same. Present well, get your message across and get someone to buy your product or message. Now if you want to maintain the music analogy, the automakers performance was similar to the disastrous Britney Spears MTV awards appearance last year.
So who could the car guys learn from? Really good performances at the AMA awards came from Christina Aguilera, Pink, Beyoncé and someone who put on a ridiculously accomplished performance for a 16 year old – Miley Cyrus.
The Not Very Big 3 would benefit from looking at her performance before they are hauled back for another ritual whipping. This kid was fully prepared, obviously well rehearsed and sang (presented ) with a passion that grabbed the audience. Parents of 16 year olds might not appreciate some of her more raucous motions as she pranced around the stage like a young Mick Jagger, but she really held the audience.
Here’s an instructive exercise for the Wagoner, Nardelli and Mulally handlers. Get them to watch the Britney Spears disaster from last year and compare it with Miley Cyrus. As I wrote yesterday, Detroit actually does have a half decent message to communicate about the (slow) progress it is making, but it needs to really get its presentation act together. There are too many jobs on the line for these guys to put on another Britney Spears performance. The good news is, Ms. Spears, who never lacked for talent seems to be learning from her mistakes.
Sock it to ‘em Detroit and save those jobs.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
Presentation Skills 101 for the Big 3 (Correction: Not Very Big 3)
Can the Not Very Big 3 get anything right? Actually, they are getting quite a few things right – especially Ford – but it is taking far too long. But let’s not damn them with faint praise.
So there they are in Washington, making probably the most important sales pitch of their business lives and they blew it – Big Time. The best way to put this is that if any of their respective executive made a presentation of this quality to Rick Wagoner, Alan Mulally or Bob Nardelli, they would probably have kicked them out the door and told them never to return – and rightly so.
Their supplications were amateurish and ill-rehearsed. The executives of the Not Very Big 3 need to go back to basics about presentations. Here are a few tips for them
1) Know Your Audience
This is basic. Your message must be crafted so your audience can understand it, relate to it and buy into it. A few things our Detroit friends did not seem to appreciate. The audience was a group of publicity hungry politicians with a two-fold objective – a) Determine if a bailout was appropriate and, b) Look good to their constituents. I would not dream of suggesting which objective is more important to the wise inquisitors. Thus the Motor City men should have been aware that the politicians would throw cheap shots and be just as haughty and arrogant as they claimed the car men are.
Many would have taken extreme satisfaction in seeing Nardelli in particular being quizzed aggressively. The last time he had to endure something like this was when he was Home Depot Chairman. Famously at a company AGM, he was the only director to turn up, refused to answer questions from the floor, and closed questioning within 30 minutes. Despite the bad rap he got when ousted by Home Depot, taking $210m in payout, he did increase profitability, he did reduce costs. In other words, while he will never win a popularity contest, he probably is the right man for Chrysler. He just didn’t bother to take the time to know his audience at Capitol Hill or for that matter when he was at Home Depot.
2) Know Your Message
There is almost universal consensus that the Not Very Big 3 executives were not very convincing at the hearings. Part of the problem is that they failed to lay out what they are going to do, but even more say, they failed to identify clearly and repeatedly what they have done to date.
Ford in particular has a pretty good case to make. Product quality is improving, design is good and the company even made a small profit earlier this year. How many people are aware that Mulally made the following statement in his testimony? "Tomorrow at the Los Angeles Auto Show, we unveil two all-new hybrids, the Ford Fusion Hybrid and the Mercury Milan Hybrid. Both beat the Toyota Camry Hybrid in fuel efficiency by at least five miles per gallon. The conventional versions of these new vehicles also beat the Camry in fuel economy."
As for GM, how many people know that the 2009 Chevy Malibu is rated higher than the 2009 Toyota Camry on Overall Initial Quality and Overall Performance and Design by J.D. Power and Associates? This and other information on substantial improvement made by the automakers should have been clearly and loudly presented to Congress and repeated, repeated, repeated every time they had the microphone. The clear message should have been, “We are making real progress, we are cutting costs, we are improving quality – look at the data Mr. & Mrs. Politician and we will continue to do so. This is how we will continue to do it, when and where.”
3) Practice, Practice, Practice and when you are finished - Practice again.
These guys should have run their presentations by the best consultants who know the ways of Washington, been beaten up by them and then run their presentations again. Then they should have been beaten up by them again before they presented again. Instead, they went into the ring, like some fat flabby overweight boxer who thinks he knows it all. As they should probably know by now, those boxers tend to get beaten up.
As a Chicago based Irish keynote speaker, I really try to live the basic messages outlined above. I will not present to my best if I have not researched my audience, developed a clear cohesive message and practiced it numerous times. Hopefully, Wagoner, Mulally and Nardelli will get that message so that they can present their message in a persuasive manner.
So there they are in Washington, making probably the most important sales pitch of their business lives and they blew it – Big Time. The best way to put this is that if any of their respective executive made a presentation of this quality to Rick Wagoner, Alan Mulally or Bob Nardelli, they would probably have kicked them out the door and told them never to return – and rightly so.
Their supplications were amateurish and ill-rehearsed. The executives of the Not Very Big 3 need to go back to basics about presentations. Here are a few tips for them
1) Know Your Audience
This is basic. Your message must be crafted so your audience can understand it, relate to it and buy into it. A few things our Detroit friends did not seem to appreciate. The audience was a group of publicity hungry politicians with a two-fold objective – a) Determine if a bailout was appropriate and, b) Look good to their constituents. I would not dream of suggesting which objective is more important to the wise inquisitors. Thus the Motor City men should have been aware that the politicians would throw cheap shots and be just as haughty and arrogant as they claimed the car men are.
Many would have taken extreme satisfaction in seeing Nardelli in particular being quizzed aggressively. The last time he had to endure something like this was when he was Home Depot Chairman. Famously at a company AGM, he was the only director to turn up, refused to answer questions from the floor, and closed questioning within 30 minutes. Despite the bad rap he got when ousted by Home Depot, taking $210m in payout, he did increase profitability, he did reduce costs. In other words, while he will never win a popularity contest, he probably is the right man for Chrysler. He just didn’t bother to take the time to know his audience at Capitol Hill or for that matter when he was at Home Depot.
2) Know Your Message
There is almost universal consensus that the Not Very Big 3 executives were not very convincing at the hearings. Part of the problem is that they failed to lay out what they are going to do, but even more say, they failed to identify clearly and repeatedly what they have done to date.
Ford in particular has a pretty good case to make. Product quality is improving, design is good and the company even made a small profit earlier this year. How many people are aware that Mulally made the following statement in his testimony? "Tomorrow at the Los Angeles Auto Show, we unveil two all-new hybrids, the Ford Fusion Hybrid and the Mercury Milan Hybrid. Both beat the Toyota Camry Hybrid in fuel efficiency by at least five miles per gallon. The conventional versions of these new vehicles also beat the Camry in fuel economy."
As for GM, how many people know that the 2009 Chevy Malibu is rated higher than the 2009 Toyota Camry on Overall Initial Quality and Overall Performance and Design by J.D. Power and Associates? This and other information on substantial improvement made by the automakers should have been clearly and loudly presented to Congress and repeated, repeated, repeated every time they had the microphone. The clear message should have been, “We are making real progress, we are cutting costs, we are improving quality – look at the data Mr. & Mrs. Politician and we will continue to do so. This is how we will continue to do it, when and where.”
3) Practice, Practice, Practice and when you are finished - Practice again.
These guys should have run their presentations by the best consultants who know the ways of Washington, been beaten up by them and then run their presentations again. Then they should have been beaten up by them again before they presented again. Instead, they went into the ring, like some fat flabby overweight boxer who thinks he knows it all. As they should probably know by now, those boxers tend to get beaten up.
As a Chicago based Irish keynote speaker, I really try to live the basic messages outlined above. I will not present to my best if I have not researched my audience, developed a clear cohesive message and practiced it numerous times. Hopefully, Wagoner, Mulally and Nardelli will get that message so that they can present their message in a persuasive manner.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Dallas November 22nd 1963: The Speech JFK Never Gave
I was but a wee lad when Charles Mitchell - the Walter Cronkite of Irish television - came on our black and white TV to announce the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. At a time when the world was less intrusive, we were not aware of the man's weaknesses and foibles. It is not an exaggeration to state that he was adored in Ireland, the land of his forefathers and which he had visited in June on the same trip at which he made his famous Ich bin Ein Berliner speech. On that trip Kennedy spoke to the Irish Parliament (Dail Eireann) on June 28th 1963.
The following is the address that Kennedy was due to make in Dallas on the fateful day he was assassinated.
***************
I am honored to have this invitation to address the annual meeting of the Dallas Citizens Council, joined by the members of the Dallas Assembly--and pleased to have this opportunity to salute the Graduate Research Center of the Southwest.
It is fitting that these two symbols of Dallas progress are united in the sponsorship of this meeting. For they represent the best qualities, I am told, of leadership and learning in this city--and leadership and learning are indispensable to each other. The advancement of learning depends on community leadership for financial and political support and the products of that learning, in turn, are essential to the leadership's hopes for continued progress and prosperity. It is not a coincidence that those communities possessing the best in research and graduate facilities--from MIT to Cal Tech--tend to attract the new and growing industries. I congratulate those of you here in Dallas who have recognized these basic facts through the creation of the unique and forward-looking Graduate Research Center.
This link between leadership and learning is not only essential at the community level. It is even more indispensable in world affairs. Ignorance and misinformation can handicap the progress of a city or a company, but they can, if allowed to prevail in foreign policy, handicap this country's security. In a world of complex and continuing problems, in a world full of frustrations and irritations, America's leadership must be guided by the lights of learning and reason or else those who confuse rhetoric with reality and the plausible with the possible will gain the popular ascendancy with their seemingly swift and simple solutions to every world problem.
There will always be dissident voices heard in the land, expressing opposition without alternatives, finding fault but never favor, perceiving gloom on every side and seeking influence without responsibility. Those voices are inevitable.
But today other voices are heard in the land--voices preaching doctrines wholly unrelated to reality, wholly unsuited to the sixties, doctrines which apparently assume that words will suffice without weapons, that vituperation is as good as victory and that peace is a sign of weakness. At a time when the national debt is steadily being reduced in terms of its burden on our economy, they see that debt as the greatest single threat to our security. At a time when we are steadily reducing the number of Federal employees serving every thousand citizens, they fear those supposed hordes of civil servants far more than the actual hordes of opposing armies.
We cannot expect that everyone, to use the phrase of a decade ago, will "talk sense to the American people." But we can hope that fewer people will listen to nonsense. And the notion that this Nation is headed for defeat through deficit, or that strength is but a matter of slogans, is nothing but just plain nonsense.
I want to discuss with you today the status of our strength and our security because this question clearly calls for the most responsible qualities of leadership and the most enlightened products of scholarship. For this Nation's strength and security are not easily or cheaply obtained, nor are they quickly and simply explained. There are many kinds of strength and no one kind will suffice. Overwhelming nuclear strength cannot stop a guerrilla war. Formal pacts of alliance cannot stop internal subversion. Displays of material wealth cannot stop the disillusionment of diplomats subjected to discrimination.
Above all, words alone are not enough. The United States is a peaceful nation. And where our strength and determination are clear, our words need merely to convey conviction, not belligerence. If we are strong, our strength will speak for itself. If we are weak, words will be of no help.
I realize that this Nation often tends to identify turning-points in world affairs with the major addresses which preceded them. But it was not the Monroe Doctrine that kept all Europe away from this hemisphere--it was the strength of the British fleet and the width of the Atlantic Ocean. It was not General Marshall's speech at Harvard which kept communism out of Western Europe--it was the strength and stability made possible by our military and economic assistance.
In this administration also it has been necessary at times to issue specific warnings--warnings that we could not stand by and watch the Communists conquer Laos by force, or intervene in the Congo, or swallow West Berlin, or maintain offensive missiles on Cuba. But while our goals were at least temporarily obtained in these and other instances, our successful defense of freedom was due not to the words we used, but to the strength we stood ready to use on behalf of the principles we stand ready to defend.
This strength is composed of many different elements, ranging from the most massive deterrents to the most subtle influences. And all types of strength are needed--no one kind could do the job alone. Let us take a moment, therefore, to review this Nation's progress in each major area of strength.
I. First, as Secretary McNamara made clear in his address last Monday, the strategic nuclear power of the United States has been so greatly modernized and expanded in the last 1,000 days, by the rapid production and deployment of the most modern missile systems, that any and all potential aggressors are clearly confronted now with the impossibility of strategic victory--and the certainty of total destruction--if by reckless attack they should ever force upon us the necessity of a strategic reply.
In less than 3 years, we have increased by 50 percent the number of Polaris submarines scheduled to be in force by the next fiscal year, increased by more than 70 percent our total Polaris purchase program, increased by more than 75 percent our Minuteman purchase program, increased by 50 percent the portion of our strategic bombers on 15-minute alert, and increased by too percent the total number of nuclear weapons available in our strategic alert forces. Our security is further enhanced by the steps we have taken regarding these weapons to improve the speed and certainty of their response, their readiness at all times to respond, their ability to survive an attack, and their ability to be carefully controlled and directed through secure command operations.
II. But the lessons of the last decade have taught us that freedom cannot be defended by strategic nuclear power alone. We have, therefore, in the last 3 years accelerated the development and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons, and increased by 60 percent the tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe.
Nor can Europe or any other continent rely on nuclear forces alone, whether they are strategic or tactical. We have radically improved the readiness of our conventional forces--increased by 45 percent the number of combat ready Army divisions, increased by 100 percent the procurement of modern Army weapons and equipment, increased by 100 percent our ship construction, conversion, and modernization program, increased by too percent our procurement of tactical aircraft, increased by 30 percent the number of tactical air squadrons, and increased the strength of the Marines. As last month's "Operation Big Lift"--which originated here in Texas--showed so clearly, this Nation is prepared as never before to move substantial numbers of men in surprisingly little time to advanced positions anywhere in the world. We have increased by 175 percent the procurement of airlift aircraft, and we have already achieved a 75 percent increase in our existing strategic airlift capability. Finally, moving beyond the traditional roles of our military forces, we have achieved an increase of nearly 600 percent in our special forces--those forces that are prepared to work with our allies and friends against the guerrillas, saboteurs, insurgents and assassins who threaten freedom in a less direct but equally dangerous manner.
III. But American military might should not and need not stand alone against the ambitions of international communism. Our security and strength, in the last analysis, directly depend on the security and strength of others, and that is why our military and economic assistance plays such a key role in enabling those who live on the periphery of the Communist world to maintain their independence of choice. Our assistance to these nations can be painful, risky and costly, as is true in Southeast Asia today. But we dare not weary of the task. For our assistance makes possible the stationing of 3-5 million allied troops along the Communist frontier at one-tenth the cost of maintaining a comparable number of American soldiers. A successful Communist breakthrough in these areas, necessitating direct United States intervention, would cost us several times as much as our entire foreign aid program, and might cost us heavily in American lives as well.
About 70 percent of our military assistance goes to nine key countries located on or near the borders of the Communist bloc--nine countries confronted directly or indirectly with the threat of Communist aggression--Viet-Nam, Free China, Korea, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Greece, Turkey, and Iran. No one of these countries possesses on its own the resources to maintain the forces which our own Chiefs of Staff think needed in the common interest. Reducing our efforts to train, equip, and assist their armies can only encourage Communist penetration and require in time the increased overseas deployment of American combat forces. And reducing the economic help needed to bolster these nations that undertake to help defend freedom can have the same disastrous result. In short, the $50 billion we spend each year on our own defense could well be ineffective without the $4 billion required for military and economic assistance.
Our foreign aid program is not growing in size, it is, on the contrary, smaller now than in previous years. It has had its weaknesses, but we have undertaken to correct them. And the proper way of treating weaknesses is to replace them with strength, not to increase those weaknesses by emasculating essential programs. Dollar for dollar, in or out of government, there is no better form of investment in our national security than our much-abused foreign aid program. We cannot afford to lose it. We can afford to maintain it. We can surely afford, for example, to do as much for our 19 needy neighbors of Latin America as the Communist bloc is sending to the island of Cuba alone.
IV. I have spoken of strength largely in terms of the deterrence and resistance of aggression and attack. But, in today's world, freedom can be lost without a shot being fired, by ballots as well as bullets. The success of our leadership is dependent upon respect for our mission in the world as well as our missiles--on a clearer recognition of the virtues of freedom as well as the evils of tyranny.
That is why our Information Agency has doubled the shortwave broadcasting power of the Voice of America and increased the number of broadcasting hours by 30 percent, increased Spanish language broadcasting to Cuba and Latin America from I to 9 hours a day, increased seven-fold to more than 3-5 million copies the number of American books being translated and published for Latin American readers, and taken a host of other steps to carry our message of truth and freedom to all the far corners of the earth.
And that is also why we have regained the initiative in the exploration of outer space, making an annual effort greater than the combined total of all space activities undertaken during the fifties, launching more than 130 vehicles into earth orbit, putting into actual operation valuable weather and communications satellites, and making it clear to all that the United States of America has no intention of finishing second in space.
This effort is expensive--but it pays its own way, for freedom and for America. For there is no longer any fear in the free world that a Communist lead in space will become a permanent assertion of supremacy and the basis of military superiority. There is no longer any doubt about the strength and skill of American science, American industry, American education, and the American free enterprise system. In short, our national space effort represents a great gain in, and a great resource of, our national strength--and both Texas and Texans are contributing greatly to this strength.
Finally, it should be clear by now that a nation can be no stronger abroad than she is at home. Only an America which practices what it preaches about equal rights and social justice will be respected by those whose choice affects our future. Only an America which has fully educated its citizens is fully capable of tackling the complex problems and perceiving the hidden dangers of the world in which we live. And only an America which is growing and prospering economically can sustain the worldwide defenses of freedom, while demonstrating to all concerned the opportunities of our system and society.
It is clear, therefore, that we are strengthening our security as well as our economy by our recent record increases in national income and output--by surging ahead of most of Western Europe in the rate of business expansion and the margin of corporate profits, by maintaining a more stable level of prices than almost any of our overseas competitors, and by cutting personal and corporate income taxes by some $ I I billion, as I have proposed, to assure this Nation of the longest and strongest expansion in our peacetime economic history.
This Nation's total output--which 3 years ago was at the $500 billion mark--will soon pass $600 billion, for a record rise of over $200 billion in 3 years. For the first time in history we have 70 million men and women at work. For the first time in history average factory earnings have exceeded $100 a week. For the first time in history corporation profits after taxes--which have risen 43 percent in less than 3 years--have an annual level f $27.4 billion.
My friends and fellow citizens: I cite these facts and figures to make it clear that America today is stronger than ever before. Our adversaries have not abandoned their ambitions, our dangers have not diminished, our vigilance cannot be relaxed. But now we have the military, the scientific, and the economic strength to do whatever must be done for the preservation and promotion of freedom.
That strength will never be used in pursuit of aggressive ambitions--it will always be used in pursuit of peace. It will never be used to promote provocations--it will always be used to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes.
We in this country, in this generation, are--by destiny rather than choice--the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of "peace on earth, good will toward men." That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago: "except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain."
The following is the address that Kennedy was due to make in Dallas on the fateful day he was assassinated.
***************
I am honored to have this invitation to address the annual meeting of the Dallas Citizens Council, joined by the members of the Dallas Assembly--and pleased to have this opportunity to salute the Graduate Research Center of the Southwest.
It is fitting that these two symbols of Dallas progress are united in the sponsorship of this meeting. For they represent the best qualities, I am told, of leadership and learning in this city--and leadership and learning are indispensable to each other. The advancement of learning depends on community leadership for financial and political support and the products of that learning, in turn, are essential to the leadership's hopes for continued progress and prosperity. It is not a coincidence that those communities possessing the best in research and graduate facilities--from MIT to Cal Tech--tend to attract the new and growing industries. I congratulate those of you here in Dallas who have recognized these basic facts through the creation of the unique and forward-looking Graduate Research Center.
This link between leadership and learning is not only essential at the community level. It is even more indispensable in world affairs. Ignorance and misinformation can handicap the progress of a city or a company, but they can, if allowed to prevail in foreign policy, handicap this country's security. In a world of complex and continuing problems, in a world full of frustrations and irritations, America's leadership must be guided by the lights of learning and reason or else those who confuse rhetoric with reality and the plausible with the possible will gain the popular ascendancy with their seemingly swift and simple solutions to every world problem.
There will always be dissident voices heard in the land, expressing opposition without alternatives, finding fault but never favor, perceiving gloom on every side and seeking influence without responsibility. Those voices are inevitable.
But today other voices are heard in the land--voices preaching doctrines wholly unrelated to reality, wholly unsuited to the sixties, doctrines which apparently assume that words will suffice without weapons, that vituperation is as good as victory and that peace is a sign of weakness. At a time when the national debt is steadily being reduced in terms of its burden on our economy, they see that debt as the greatest single threat to our security. At a time when we are steadily reducing the number of Federal employees serving every thousand citizens, they fear those supposed hordes of civil servants far more than the actual hordes of opposing armies.
We cannot expect that everyone, to use the phrase of a decade ago, will "talk sense to the American people." But we can hope that fewer people will listen to nonsense. And the notion that this Nation is headed for defeat through deficit, or that strength is but a matter of slogans, is nothing but just plain nonsense.
I want to discuss with you today the status of our strength and our security because this question clearly calls for the most responsible qualities of leadership and the most enlightened products of scholarship. For this Nation's strength and security are not easily or cheaply obtained, nor are they quickly and simply explained. There are many kinds of strength and no one kind will suffice. Overwhelming nuclear strength cannot stop a guerrilla war. Formal pacts of alliance cannot stop internal subversion. Displays of material wealth cannot stop the disillusionment of diplomats subjected to discrimination.
Above all, words alone are not enough. The United States is a peaceful nation. And where our strength and determination are clear, our words need merely to convey conviction, not belligerence. If we are strong, our strength will speak for itself. If we are weak, words will be of no help.
I realize that this Nation often tends to identify turning-points in world affairs with the major addresses which preceded them. But it was not the Monroe Doctrine that kept all Europe away from this hemisphere--it was the strength of the British fleet and the width of the Atlantic Ocean. It was not General Marshall's speech at Harvard which kept communism out of Western Europe--it was the strength and stability made possible by our military and economic assistance.
In this administration also it has been necessary at times to issue specific warnings--warnings that we could not stand by and watch the Communists conquer Laos by force, or intervene in the Congo, or swallow West Berlin, or maintain offensive missiles on Cuba. But while our goals were at least temporarily obtained in these and other instances, our successful defense of freedom was due not to the words we used, but to the strength we stood ready to use on behalf of the principles we stand ready to defend.
This strength is composed of many different elements, ranging from the most massive deterrents to the most subtle influences. And all types of strength are needed--no one kind could do the job alone. Let us take a moment, therefore, to review this Nation's progress in each major area of strength.
I. First, as Secretary McNamara made clear in his address last Monday, the strategic nuclear power of the United States has been so greatly modernized and expanded in the last 1,000 days, by the rapid production and deployment of the most modern missile systems, that any and all potential aggressors are clearly confronted now with the impossibility of strategic victory--and the certainty of total destruction--if by reckless attack they should ever force upon us the necessity of a strategic reply.
In less than 3 years, we have increased by 50 percent the number of Polaris submarines scheduled to be in force by the next fiscal year, increased by more than 70 percent our total Polaris purchase program, increased by more than 75 percent our Minuteman purchase program, increased by 50 percent the portion of our strategic bombers on 15-minute alert, and increased by too percent the total number of nuclear weapons available in our strategic alert forces. Our security is further enhanced by the steps we have taken regarding these weapons to improve the speed and certainty of their response, their readiness at all times to respond, their ability to survive an attack, and their ability to be carefully controlled and directed through secure command operations.
II. But the lessons of the last decade have taught us that freedom cannot be defended by strategic nuclear power alone. We have, therefore, in the last 3 years accelerated the development and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons, and increased by 60 percent the tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe.
Nor can Europe or any other continent rely on nuclear forces alone, whether they are strategic or tactical. We have radically improved the readiness of our conventional forces--increased by 45 percent the number of combat ready Army divisions, increased by 100 percent the procurement of modern Army weapons and equipment, increased by 100 percent our ship construction, conversion, and modernization program, increased by too percent our procurement of tactical aircraft, increased by 30 percent the number of tactical air squadrons, and increased the strength of the Marines. As last month's "Operation Big Lift"--which originated here in Texas--showed so clearly, this Nation is prepared as never before to move substantial numbers of men in surprisingly little time to advanced positions anywhere in the world. We have increased by 175 percent the procurement of airlift aircraft, and we have already achieved a 75 percent increase in our existing strategic airlift capability. Finally, moving beyond the traditional roles of our military forces, we have achieved an increase of nearly 600 percent in our special forces--those forces that are prepared to work with our allies and friends against the guerrillas, saboteurs, insurgents and assassins who threaten freedom in a less direct but equally dangerous manner.
III. But American military might should not and need not stand alone against the ambitions of international communism. Our security and strength, in the last analysis, directly depend on the security and strength of others, and that is why our military and economic assistance plays such a key role in enabling those who live on the periphery of the Communist world to maintain their independence of choice. Our assistance to these nations can be painful, risky and costly, as is true in Southeast Asia today. But we dare not weary of the task. For our assistance makes possible the stationing of 3-5 million allied troops along the Communist frontier at one-tenth the cost of maintaining a comparable number of American soldiers. A successful Communist breakthrough in these areas, necessitating direct United States intervention, would cost us several times as much as our entire foreign aid program, and might cost us heavily in American lives as well.
About 70 percent of our military assistance goes to nine key countries located on or near the borders of the Communist bloc--nine countries confronted directly or indirectly with the threat of Communist aggression--Viet-Nam, Free China, Korea, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Greece, Turkey, and Iran. No one of these countries possesses on its own the resources to maintain the forces which our own Chiefs of Staff think needed in the common interest. Reducing our efforts to train, equip, and assist their armies can only encourage Communist penetration and require in time the increased overseas deployment of American combat forces. And reducing the economic help needed to bolster these nations that undertake to help defend freedom can have the same disastrous result. In short, the $50 billion we spend each year on our own defense could well be ineffective without the $4 billion required for military and economic assistance.
Our foreign aid program is not growing in size, it is, on the contrary, smaller now than in previous years. It has had its weaknesses, but we have undertaken to correct them. And the proper way of treating weaknesses is to replace them with strength, not to increase those weaknesses by emasculating essential programs. Dollar for dollar, in or out of government, there is no better form of investment in our national security than our much-abused foreign aid program. We cannot afford to lose it. We can afford to maintain it. We can surely afford, for example, to do as much for our 19 needy neighbors of Latin America as the Communist bloc is sending to the island of Cuba alone.
IV. I have spoken of strength largely in terms of the deterrence and resistance of aggression and attack. But, in today's world, freedom can be lost without a shot being fired, by ballots as well as bullets. The success of our leadership is dependent upon respect for our mission in the world as well as our missiles--on a clearer recognition of the virtues of freedom as well as the evils of tyranny.
That is why our Information Agency has doubled the shortwave broadcasting power of the Voice of America and increased the number of broadcasting hours by 30 percent, increased Spanish language broadcasting to Cuba and Latin America from I to 9 hours a day, increased seven-fold to more than 3-5 million copies the number of American books being translated and published for Latin American readers, and taken a host of other steps to carry our message of truth and freedom to all the far corners of the earth.
And that is also why we have regained the initiative in the exploration of outer space, making an annual effort greater than the combined total of all space activities undertaken during the fifties, launching more than 130 vehicles into earth orbit, putting into actual operation valuable weather and communications satellites, and making it clear to all that the United States of America has no intention of finishing second in space.
This effort is expensive--but it pays its own way, for freedom and for America. For there is no longer any fear in the free world that a Communist lead in space will become a permanent assertion of supremacy and the basis of military superiority. There is no longer any doubt about the strength and skill of American science, American industry, American education, and the American free enterprise system. In short, our national space effort represents a great gain in, and a great resource of, our national strength--and both Texas and Texans are contributing greatly to this strength.
Finally, it should be clear by now that a nation can be no stronger abroad than she is at home. Only an America which practices what it preaches about equal rights and social justice will be respected by those whose choice affects our future. Only an America which has fully educated its citizens is fully capable of tackling the complex problems and perceiving the hidden dangers of the world in which we live. And only an America which is growing and prospering economically can sustain the worldwide defenses of freedom, while demonstrating to all concerned the opportunities of our system and society.
It is clear, therefore, that we are strengthening our security as well as our economy by our recent record increases in national income and output--by surging ahead of most of Western Europe in the rate of business expansion and the margin of corporate profits, by maintaining a more stable level of prices than almost any of our overseas competitors, and by cutting personal and corporate income taxes by some $ I I billion, as I have proposed, to assure this Nation of the longest and strongest expansion in our peacetime economic history.
This Nation's total output--which 3 years ago was at the $500 billion mark--will soon pass $600 billion, for a record rise of over $200 billion in 3 years. For the first time in history we have 70 million men and women at work. For the first time in history average factory earnings have exceeded $100 a week. For the first time in history corporation profits after taxes--which have risen 43 percent in less than 3 years--have an annual level f $27.4 billion.
My friends and fellow citizens: I cite these facts and figures to make it clear that America today is stronger than ever before. Our adversaries have not abandoned their ambitions, our dangers have not diminished, our vigilance cannot be relaxed. But now we have the military, the scientific, and the economic strength to do whatever must be done for the preservation and promotion of freedom.
That strength will never be used in pursuit of aggressive ambitions--it will always be used in pursuit of peace. It will never be used to promote provocations--it will always be used to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes.
We in this country, in this generation, are--by destiny rather than choice--the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of "peace on earth, good will toward men." That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago: "except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain."
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Yugo, Yu Gone!
Take out the Kleenex. You may be distraught to know that the Yugo motor car (if this were advertising 'motor car' might be described as mis-leading!) is no more. Production has ceased in central Serbia, part of the former Yugoslavia.
Time magazine included this car in its list of 50 Worst Cars of all time. The car has become a cultural icon in a sense and a world-wide laughing stock.
To commemorate the demise of this wonder car, I thought I'd provide a few very old jokes about the car you never wanted to be seen in.
So - in the spirit of a motivational and business humorist, hitch up your pants, get on your bicycle which can probably go faster than any Yugo and enjoy a set of really corny but sometimes funny Yugo jokes.
BUT before we go to the old hoary old jokes, here's my very best original joke as a business humorist.
Q: What should Congress say to GM management?
A: Yugo (ba...boom)
Q: What did Alaska voters say to Ted Stevens?
A: Yugo (hey I'm on a roll here)
Q: What did the traffic cop say to the motorist?
A: You - GO
Maybe that is what you dear reader should say to me!
and the oldies but goldies!!
Q: Why does a Yugo have heated rear window?
A: To keep your hands warm when pushing.
Q: What do you call Yugo shock absorbers?
A: Passengers.
Q: What do you call a Yugo at the top of a hill?
A: A miracle.
Q: Did you hear the Yugo has an airbag? Yup, you start pumping just before you hit something.
Q: How do you get a Yugo to go 80mph?
A: Drive it over a cliff.
Q: What do you call a convertible Yugo?
A: A skip.
Q: How do you double the value of a Yugo?
A: Fill it with gas.
Definition of an optimist: Yugo driver with a radar detector!
Time magazine included this car in its list of 50 Worst Cars of all time. The car has become a cultural icon in a sense and a world-wide laughing stock.
To commemorate the demise of this wonder car, I thought I'd provide a few very old jokes about the car you never wanted to be seen in.
So - in the spirit of a motivational and business humorist, hitch up your pants, get on your bicycle which can probably go faster than any Yugo and enjoy a set of really corny but sometimes funny Yugo jokes.
BUT before we go to the old hoary old jokes, here's my very best original joke as a business humorist.
Q: What should Congress say to GM management?
A: Yugo (ba...boom)
Q: What did Alaska voters say to Ted Stevens?
A: Yugo (hey I'm on a roll here)
Q: What did the traffic cop say to the motorist?
A: You - GO
Maybe that is what you dear reader should say to me!
and the oldies but goldies!!
Q: Why does a Yugo have heated rear window?
A: To keep your hands warm when pushing.
Q: What do you call Yugo shock absorbers?
A: Passengers.
Q: What do you call a Yugo at the top of a hill?
A: A miracle.
Q: Did you hear the Yugo has an airbag? Yup, you start pumping just before you hit something.
Q: How do you get a Yugo to go 80mph?
A: Drive it over a cliff.
Q: What do you call a convertible Yugo?
A: A skip.
Q: How do you double the value of a Yugo?
A: Fill it with gas.
Definition of an optimist: Yugo driver with a radar detector!
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The Gettysburg Address
I was just about to close down the system for the evening when I realized the date – 145th anniversary of The Gettysburg Address. A piece of writing that any keynote speaker would be proud to have written. I’ve reviewed a number of books on the subject over the past few years and thought it might be a good idea to re-run them here. It really is amazing how so much can be written about a piece that consists of less than 300 words, got very few positive reviews immediately after presentation and took a maximum of four minutes to communicate. The world works in mysterious ways.
Review I
THE GETTYSBURG GOSPEL: THE LINCOLN SPEECH THAT NOBODY KNOWS
Author: Gabor Boritt
It truly is amazing that so many words and books can be written about a speech that is but 272 words long. Gabor Boritt's book is an enjoyable and easy read on Lincoln's most famous speech.
Much of the book deals with the immediate aftermath of the terrible Gettysburg battle with the author painting a vivid picture of the terrible scene which must have greeted the eye on July 4th. It is interesting that the famous address did not get immediate general approval. Boritt shows that the great leader’s speech was almost forgotten until the 1880's. As with most Lincoln supporters, the author attempts to show that the speech was not written on the train to Gettysburg and that Lincoln gave the speech considerable thought. The truth is no one knows, but a good argument can be made for the proposition that Lincoln must have given it little thought prior to the event. Who in their right mind is going to travel from Washington to Gettysburg and DECIDE to present an address of only 272 words? The words came from the heart and from years of experience and empathy. Just as Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech was somewhat spontaneous (although a very similar speech was presented at Cobo Hall, Detroit some weeks previously), there is strong circumstantial evidence that Lincoln put this speech together at short notice.
I have no idea why the book is sub-titled "The Lincoln Speech that Nobody Knows," but Boritt does provide a number of slightly different versions of the speech in the appendix. Most of the differences are minor to put it mildly. The author's description of how the speech initially got little response but grew to be appreciated over time to be a work of genius is well developed.
Paradoxically, the most enjoyable section of the book is the full text of Edward Everett's speech which I read fully for the first time. You can appreciate why Everett was seen as a great orator because of his ability to paint pictures with words although his two hour address can hardly be described as uplifting. Almost all of the speech was taken up with a chronological history of the events at Gettysburg (spoken from memory) and the aging orator failed to properly commend and eulogize the thousands who had given their life on the adjacent battlefield.
Everett did appreciate that his speech did not match Lincoln's eloquence. He wrote the President, "I should be glad if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes."
The book has copious appendices, bibliography, notes which provide a rich resource for serious students of Lincoln and Gettysburg. Overall, an enjoyable not too studious read on the topic.
Review II
LINCOLN AT GETTYSBURG – THE WORDS THAT REMADE AMERICA
Author: Gary Wills
This is one scholarly work. It is also a work that takes slow careful reading. The author devotes more than one page to each of the two hundred and seventy two words in the famous Gettysburg address.
Wills suggests that Lincoln was heavily influenced by the oratorical skills of the Greeks and also Transcendentalists – a nineteenth century philosophical movement much advocated by Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau and other luminaries.
One fascinating aspect of the Gettysburg address is how brief it was. Lincoln was not the featured speaker at the event, indeed by some accounts he was invited as an afterthought. This may well be one of the reasons why his speech was so brief, particularly as short speeches were not the norm. In 1858, Lincoln and Stephen Douglas engaged in three hour debates, while Edward Everett delivered a two hour oration prior to Lincoln’s Gettysburg address. While the three minute address was out of character for the period or indeed any period, the speech proves the point “that less is often more.”
The book should be of particular interest to the Lincoln scholar, but beware, it is a tough book to get through, simply because it is such a detailed, intense work.
One of the many interesting elements in the book is the full reproduction of Everett’s speech. Everett was lauded as the finest speaker of his generation, but to be honest, I found his speech to be tedious, lacking in passion and being primarily a chronology of the events at Gettysburg. Everett wrote to Lincoln following their respective addresses, "I should be glad if I could flatter myself that I came as near the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes." How right he was.
Review I
THE GETTYSBURG GOSPEL: THE LINCOLN SPEECH THAT NOBODY KNOWS
Author: Gabor Boritt
It truly is amazing that so many words and books can be written about a speech that is but 272 words long. Gabor Boritt's book is an enjoyable and easy read on Lincoln's most famous speech.
Much of the book deals with the immediate aftermath of the terrible Gettysburg battle with the author painting a vivid picture of the terrible scene which must have greeted the eye on July 4th. It is interesting that the famous address did not get immediate general approval. Boritt shows that the great leader’s speech was almost forgotten until the 1880's. As with most Lincoln supporters, the author attempts to show that the speech was not written on the train to Gettysburg and that Lincoln gave the speech considerable thought. The truth is no one knows, but a good argument can be made for the proposition that Lincoln must have given it little thought prior to the event. Who in their right mind is going to travel from Washington to Gettysburg and DECIDE to present an address of only 272 words? The words came from the heart and from years of experience and empathy. Just as Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech was somewhat spontaneous (although a very similar speech was presented at Cobo Hall, Detroit some weeks previously), there is strong circumstantial evidence that Lincoln put this speech together at short notice.
I have no idea why the book is sub-titled "The Lincoln Speech that Nobody Knows," but Boritt does provide a number of slightly different versions of the speech in the appendix. Most of the differences are minor to put it mildly. The author's description of how the speech initially got little response but grew to be appreciated over time to be a work of genius is well developed.
Paradoxically, the most enjoyable section of the book is the full text of Edward Everett's speech which I read fully for the first time. You can appreciate why Everett was seen as a great orator because of his ability to paint pictures with words although his two hour address can hardly be described as uplifting. Almost all of the speech was taken up with a chronological history of the events at Gettysburg (spoken from memory) and the aging orator failed to properly commend and eulogize the thousands who had given their life on the adjacent battlefield.
Everett did appreciate that his speech did not match Lincoln's eloquence. He wrote the President, "I should be glad if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes."
The book has copious appendices, bibliography, notes which provide a rich resource for serious students of Lincoln and Gettysburg. Overall, an enjoyable not too studious read on the topic.
Review II
LINCOLN AT GETTYSBURG – THE WORDS THAT REMADE AMERICA
Author: Gary Wills
This is one scholarly work. It is also a work that takes slow careful reading. The author devotes more than one page to each of the two hundred and seventy two words in the famous Gettysburg address.
Wills suggests that Lincoln was heavily influenced by the oratorical skills of the Greeks and also Transcendentalists – a nineteenth century philosophical movement much advocated by Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau and other luminaries.
One fascinating aspect of the Gettysburg address is how brief it was. Lincoln was not the featured speaker at the event, indeed by some accounts he was invited as an afterthought. This may well be one of the reasons why his speech was so brief, particularly as short speeches were not the norm. In 1858, Lincoln and Stephen Douglas engaged in three hour debates, while Edward Everett delivered a two hour oration prior to Lincoln’s Gettysburg address. While the three minute address was out of character for the period or indeed any period, the speech proves the point “that less is often more.”
The book should be of particular interest to the Lincoln scholar, but beware, it is a tough book to get through, simply because it is such a detailed, intense work.
One of the many interesting elements in the book is the full reproduction of Everett’s speech. Everett was lauded as the finest speaker of his generation, but to be honest, I found his speech to be tedious, lacking in passion and being primarily a chronology of the events at Gettysburg. Everett wrote to Lincoln following their respective addresses, "I should be glad if I could flatter myself that I came as near the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes." How right he was.
SEO & SEM: A FEW LEARNINGS
If you wanted to get a feel for what is hot in marketing right now, it would have been instructive to attend the Business Marketing Association (Chicago Chapter) breakfast meeting this morning. The topic: Search Engine Optimization and Search Engine Marketing generated THE largest turnout for these very enjoyable breakfast meetings.
The promotional piece read “SEO and SEM: A match made online. Learn the success strategies for pairing SEM and SEO to drive better results in your online marketing campaigns when a panel of experts, led and moderated by Jennifer Howard, head of B2B markets, central region, at Google, discusses this topic at BMA’s Nov. 19 Breakfast RoundTable at IIT’s Stuart School of Business. Panelists S. Ryan DeShazer, director of interactive strategy at HSR Business-to-Business, Kristen Nomura, search & analytics manager at Google, Lisa Schmitt, interactive marketing media manager at USG and Jeff Woelker, senior digital strategist at Slack Barshinger, will discuss why SEM and SEO are essential to any successful online marketing campaign and how, when used well together, can accelerate and lead to better results.”
Things I learned that you should know (and which further reinforced my belief that one of the best ways to fill my calendar as a keynote business speaker and motivational humorist is to work on web optimization) include:
1) There are 11.8 billion searches monthly. In my off beat Irish manner I wonder if this is a 28 or 31 day month! But you get the picture.
2) Google’s share of search is 63% with Yahoo now generating just 20% of searches. And if you were curious as to why Microsoft initially wished to acquire Yahoo – well the MSN share is currently running at 8.3%. (Market data provided by comScore who are the big dogs in measuring digital media). Just in case you are interested: At time of writing, Yahoo share price is $9.55 compared to the rejected $31 Microsoft offer in February … and you thought your portfolio was doing badly! Anyway – back to things I learned that you should know.
3) Computer security queries up 27%, Energy & Utilities search up 35%. No figures were provided as to search queries for “Chicago based Irish keynote speaker.”
4) 67% of C-Suite executivess consider the internet their primary source of information. 86% of them use a search engine daily. Someone should query who the 14% are who do not!
5) 70% of business decision makers use search engines FIRST in their decision making process and when it comes to seeking a humorous keynote business speaker, the percentage is even higher.
Re Networking. Join your local BMA chapter. If it is half as good as the Chicago chapter you will get a real return for your money. Check www.marketing.org for details.
The promotional piece read “SEO and SEM: A match made online. Learn the success strategies for pairing SEM and SEO to drive better results in your online marketing campaigns when a panel of experts, led and moderated by Jennifer Howard, head of B2B markets, central region, at Google, discusses this topic at BMA’s Nov. 19 Breakfast RoundTable at IIT’s Stuart School of Business. Panelists S. Ryan DeShazer, director of interactive strategy at HSR Business-to-Business, Kristen Nomura, search & analytics manager at Google, Lisa Schmitt, interactive marketing media manager at USG and Jeff Woelker, senior digital strategist at Slack Barshinger, will discuss why SEM and SEO are essential to any successful online marketing campaign and how, when used well together, can accelerate and lead to better results.”
Things I learned that you should know (and which further reinforced my belief that one of the best ways to fill my calendar as a keynote business speaker and motivational humorist is to work on web optimization) include:
1) There are 11.8 billion searches monthly. In my off beat Irish manner I wonder if this is a 28 or 31 day month! But you get the picture.
2) Google’s share of search is 63% with Yahoo now generating just 20% of searches. And if you were curious as to why Microsoft initially wished to acquire Yahoo – well the MSN share is currently running at 8.3%. (Market data provided by comScore who are the big dogs in measuring digital media). Just in case you are interested: At time of writing, Yahoo share price is $9.55 compared to the rejected $31 Microsoft offer in February … and you thought your portfolio was doing badly! Anyway – back to things I learned that you should know.
3) Computer security queries up 27%, Energy & Utilities search up 35%. No figures were provided as to search queries for “Chicago based Irish keynote speaker.”
4) 67% of C-Suite executivess consider the internet their primary source of information. 86% of them use a search engine daily. Someone should query who the 14% are who do not!
5) 70% of business decision makers use search engines FIRST in their decision making process and when it comes to seeking a humorous keynote business speaker, the percentage is even higher.
Re Networking. Join your local BMA chapter. If it is half as good as the Chicago chapter you will get a real return for your money. Check www.marketing.org for details.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Doris Kearns Goodwin - The Election Winner!
When published in 2005, Doris Kearns Goodwin must have thought she would receive nice sales and publicity out of Team of Rivals for a few months. That indeed is what happened. Few could have thought that the book would be hitting the best-selling charts again in 2008/09. That though is exactly what has happened as the Barack Obama phenomenon continues. Comparisons of the President Elect with Lincoln drip from commentators lips (unless the commentators are right wing idealogues). Much of the comparison relates to Obama's (to date presumed) adoption of his rivals into cabinet posts. As speculation mounts that he will offer the Secretary of State position to Hilary Clinton, it seems as if DKG's book is being quoted on every talk show and by every political pundit. Now if only I could achieve the same Lazarus effect for my own humorous business book and masterpiece Why Ireland Never Invaded America, I'd be a very happy motivational humorist and keynote speaker!
I might as well get in on the Team of Rivals act. I reviewed this book in January 2006 on Amazon and on my website at http://irishmanspeaks.com/cms/content/view/47/37/ Herewith is the review.
The book's premise is that Abraham Lincoln was not just a great President but one who also had the motivational ability to create a highly effective team comprised of many of his rivals. These were men who had hoped to become President. Instead, they took a subservient role to a President whom Goodwin writes about in hagiographic terms.
The team of rivals consisted of one time Republican presidential candidates William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Salmon P. Chase, Treasury Secretary, and Edward Bates Attorney General. The other major player in this detailed work is Edwin M. Stanton, War Secretary.
This is a good read although the author is stretched at times to continually bring the overall premise together. The opening section of the book paints individual pictures of the major players, which I did not find particularly interesting. This I think is partly because some of the characters - Chase and Bates, at least to this reader are just not compelling in their own right. Thus it takes quite some time for the book to grasp this reader's attention.
Although peripheral to the main story, the hardships of life during the first half of the 19th century become very obvious. Chase lost three wives and two daughters before he was forty four, while Stanton between 1841 and 1846 lost his wife, a daughter and his only brother.
Another fascinating and heart rending aspect portrayed is how the Civil War tore families apart. Four of Mary Lincoln's siblings and three brothers-in-law fought on behalf of the Confederacy, while Bate's son also took up arms for the seceding states.
Team of Rivals is basically a biography of Lincoln with a different twist. It is not as detailed as other works - especially in relation to some Civil War episodes, because the author tries to paint pictures of so many characters. Her portrait of Lincoln to some extent lacks objectivity. Every Lincoln weakness or vacillation has a logic or rationale.
Lincoln undoubtedly was underestimated by rivals and media. One Democratic newspaper referred to him as "a third rate Western lawyer ... a fourth rate lecturer, who cannot speak good grammar." As a lawyer and in his early presidential years, the term "inspirational" does not come to mind. To some extent, his behavior did warrant this lack of respect.
His lack of authority over his generals in the early stages of the war must have been disturbing for his cabinet. General McClellan treated him with a disdain and discourtesy that was mind boggling. Had Lincoln been more forceful with Generals Meade and McClellan, it is entirely conceivable the war would have ended much earlier. Kearns (and other writers) has tried to paint Lincoln as an accommodating, understanding head of state. It is probably more accurate to suggest as Martin Luther King did that he was at some stages a "vacillating" president. Much has been written about Lincoln's leadership, but I think, the student of leadership can learn as much from what Lincoln did poorly as he did well.
Lincoln "grew" into the Presidency, winning over doubters and opponents slowly but surely with his down to earth, homely style. He most definitely has won over the author who paints Lincoln in very favorable terms no matter what the occasion. There is a tendency for the reader to become seduced by the portrait. Lincoln becomes more and more likeable, more and more presidential as the book develops. Ultimately, the reader does appreciate what a dreadful tragedy the death of this president was for the nation and almost certainly for what had been the confederate states. Although, no one can say for certain, it does seem likely that the assassinated president would have been able to salve much of the bitterness and hatred that followed the cessation of violence.
I might as well get in on the Team of Rivals act. I reviewed this book in January 2006 on Amazon and on my website at http://irishmanspeaks.com/cms/content/view/47/37/ Herewith is the review.
The book's premise is that Abraham Lincoln was not just a great President but one who also had the motivational ability to create a highly effective team comprised of many of his rivals. These were men who had hoped to become President. Instead, they took a subservient role to a President whom Goodwin writes about in hagiographic terms.
The team of rivals consisted of one time Republican presidential candidates William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Salmon P. Chase, Treasury Secretary, and Edward Bates Attorney General. The other major player in this detailed work is Edwin M. Stanton, War Secretary.
This is a good read although the author is stretched at times to continually bring the overall premise together. The opening section of the book paints individual pictures of the major players, which I did not find particularly interesting. This I think is partly because some of the characters - Chase and Bates, at least to this reader are just not compelling in their own right. Thus it takes quite some time for the book to grasp this reader's attention.
Although peripheral to the main story, the hardships of life during the first half of the 19th century become very obvious. Chase lost three wives and two daughters before he was forty four, while Stanton between 1841 and 1846 lost his wife, a daughter and his only brother.
Another fascinating and heart rending aspect portrayed is how the Civil War tore families apart. Four of Mary Lincoln's siblings and three brothers-in-law fought on behalf of the Confederacy, while Bate's son also took up arms for the seceding states.
Team of Rivals is basically a biography of Lincoln with a different twist. It is not as detailed as other works - especially in relation to some Civil War episodes, because the author tries to paint pictures of so many characters. Her portrait of Lincoln to some extent lacks objectivity. Every Lincoln weakness or vacillation has a logic or rationale.
Lincoln undoubtedly was underestimated by rivals and media. One Democratic newspaper referred to him as "a third rate Western lawyer ... a fourth rate lecturer, who cannot speak good grammar." As a lawyer and in his early presidential years, the term "inspirational" does not come to mind. To some extent, his behavior did warrant this lack of respect.
His lack of authority over his generals in the early stages of the war must have been disturbing for his cabinet. General McClellan treated him with a disdain and discourtesy that was mind boggling. Had Lincoln been more forceful with Generals Meade and McClellan, it is entirely conceivable the war would have ended much earlier. Kearns (and other writers) has tried to paint Lincoln as an accommodating, understanding head of state. It is probably more accurate to suggest as Martin Luther King did that he was at some stages a "vacillating" president. Much has been written about Lincoln's leadership, but I think, the student of leadership can learn as much from what Lincoln did poorly as he did well.
Lincoln "grew" into the Presidency, winning over doubters and opponents slowly but surely with his down to earth, homely style. He most definitely has won over the author who paints Lincoln in very favorable terms no matter what the occasion. There is a tendency for the reader to become seduced by the portrait. Lincoln becomes more and more likeable, more and more presidential as the book develops. Ultimately, the reader does appreciate what a dreadful tragedy the death of this president was for the nation and almost certainly for what had been the confederate states. Although, no one can say for certain, it does seem likely that the assassinated president would have been able to salve much of the bitterness and hatred that followed the cessation of violence.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Friedman Is Wrong on Detroit
New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman is getting a lot of air time re his commentary on the Detroit auto mess. I no longer calling it the “US auto mess,” because Toyota, Honda, Nissan ARE profitable and manufacture product (good, reliable, cost effective product) in the United States. Toyota for instance produced 1.3m cars in the US last year which is about 10% of this year’s projected market. Friedman blames Michigan politicians as much as anyone for protecting the Decimated 3 (maybe I won’t call them the Detroit 3 anymore), an argument that has some merit.
I rarely disagree with Friedman who is a superb writer (The World is Flat is awesome) on world issues – economic and political, but to suggest that the answer to the D3 woes is fire all management and impose a government mandated seer is not something that stands well to examination.
Like many other observers, I am gob-smacked at the poor sales and market share performance of Detroit over the last 40 years. I mean these companies have recruited some of the best and brightest marketing, sales, development people in the US over the years with little success. Ford and Chrysler have had management makeovers in the past two years. Chrysler most obviously has brought in Bob Nardelli, a very effective if unpopular executive, recruited respected Toyota veteran Jim Press to head up sales and poached a number of other executives from the Japanese car companies. Chrysler seems to be getting the right people on the bus, just as it is veering off the cliff.
Ford’s recruitment of Alan Mulally appears to be a good move and this company whose market share was 50% higher than its current 16% at the start of the decade is getting its act together in terms of product design and quality.
GM management is GM management which must be part of the problem. This company needs a giant kick in the butt with a major change in marketing and production mindset. For instance Bob Lutz, GM vice-chairman recently told journalists that “global warming is a crock of shit.” How can that mentality still exist in a car company? How can that mentality drive eco-friendly, green, low consumption vehicles. Change in GM is unlikely to happen without serious outside involvement. Of course, if the government does bail out D3, it will be tied to uncompetitive executive compensation which IS a crock! GM and others need the likes of Nissan’s Carlos Ghosn to give them some chance. He ain’t gonna take a job like that for peanuts!
I visited the GM plant in Janesville, WI last year when things were still going relatively well. The people were quite simply nice and friendly. Now they and thousands of others are out of work with bleak futures. This whole thing is a complete mess and worst of all, no one seems to have a good answer.
I rarely disagree with Friedman who is a superb writer (The World is Flat is awesome) on world issues – economic and political, but to suggest that the answer to the D3 woes is fire all management and impose a government mandated seer is not something that stands well to examination.
Like many other observers, I am gob-smacked at the poor sales and market share performance of Detroit over the last 40 years. I mean these companies have recruited some of the best and brightest marketing, sales, development people in the US over the years with little success. Ford and Chrysler have had management makeovers in the past two years. Chrysler most obviously has brought in Bob Nardelli, a very effective if unpopular executive, recruited respected Toyota veteran Jim Press to head up sales and poached a number of other executives from the Japanese car companies. Chrysler seems to be getting the right people on the bus, just as it is veering off the cliff.
Ford’s recruitment of Alan Mulally appears to be a good move and this company whose market share was 50% higher than its current 16% at the start of the decade is getting its act together in terms of product design and quality.
GM management is GM management which must be part of the problem. This company needs a giant kick in the butt with a major change in marketing and production mindset. For instance Bob Lutz, GM vice-chairman recently told journalists that “global warming is a crock of shit.” How can that mentality still exist in a car company? How can that mentality drive eco-friendly, green, low consumption vehicles. Change in GM is unlikely to happen without serious outside involvement. Of course, if the government does bail out D3, it will be tied to uncompetitive executive compensation which IS a crock! GM and others need the likes of Nissan’s Carlos Ghosn to give them some chance. He ain’t gonna take a job like that for peanuts!
I visited the GM plant in Janesville, WI last year when things were still going relatively well. The people were quite simply nice and friendly. Now they and thousands of others are out of work with bleak futures. This whole thing is a complete mess and worst of all, no one seems to have a good answer.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Don't Believe Your Own Blarney
The demise of Circuit City is just one more horrible casualty of the current economic climate. In a press release yesterday, the company announced it was filing for Chapter 11 protection – in effect, bankruptcy.
Another example of how the mighty have fallen. Jim Collins, in his excellent book Good to Great referenced Circuit City as a “Great” company. I went back to the book to see just what he had written about the now fallen electronics retailer. The biggest surprise for me was that this was not the only “Great” company cited in the 2001 publication which has fallen on hard times. Would you believe Fannie Mae also passed the “Great” test?
This is not a criticism of Jim Collins’ work. Rather, it shows once again how difficult it is to stay on top.
It is quite amazing how many once really successful companies fall fast and precipitously, either losing their independence or becoming at best also-rans. I don’t know enough about Circuit City to know if it was hubris that brought them down, but it is often a key reason in the demise of companies.
Wendy’s for instance loved to claim it was better than McDonald’s on many key metrics when the burger leader was in the toilet earlier this decade. The only trouble is, the firm Dave Thomas founded believed its own blarney, sat back which McDonald’s did a fantastic re-engineering job and today Wendy’s is no longer independent and basically looking for an identity. Sears, Yahoo, Pan Am (remember them),Yankees, Dell have fallen from grace big time. The lesson – don’t believe your own blarney (which is a key lesson in my book Why Ireland Never Invaded America) and do listen to your market. Failure to do so means – Goodnight, Goodbye (but not Good luck.)
Another example of how the mighty have fallen. Jim Collins, in his excellent book Good to Great referenced Circuit City as a “Great” company. I went back to the book to see just what he had written about the now fallen electronics retailer. The biggest surprise for me was that this was not the only “Great” company cited in the 2001 publication which has fallen on hard times. Would you believe Fannie Mae also passed the “Great” test?
This is not a criticism of Jim Collins’ work. Rather, it shows once again how difficult it is to stay on top.
It is quite amazing how many once really successful companies fall fast and precipitously, either losing their independence or becoming at best also-rans. I don’t know enough about Circuit City to know if it was hubris that brought them down, but it is often a key reason in the demise of companies.
Wendy’s for instance loved to claim it was better than McDonald’s on many key metrics when the burger leader was in the toilet earlier this decade. The only trouble is, the firm Dave Thomas founded believed its own blarney, sat back which McDonald’s did a fantastic re-engineering job and today Wendy’s is no longer independent and basically looking for an identity. Sears, Yahoo, Pan Am (remember them),Yankees, Dell have fallen from grace big time. The lesson – don’t believe your own blarney (which is a key lesson in my book Why Ireland Never Invaded America) and do listen to your market. Failure to do so means – Goodnight, Goodbye (but not Good luck.)
Monday, November 10, 2008
What A Car Wreck!
Lordy Lord! GM's share price at a six decade low! No matter how bad you think it is going to get for the US auto industry, it just gets worse. GM’s announcement of a 45% drop in car sales for October is mind-boggling. Some might argue that the Toyota sales decline of 23% is even more astonishing given that the Japanese behemoth has apparently been able to walk on water over the past twenty years. (Their success of course had nothing to do with walking on water – Toyota implemented the shocking concept of making good products which consumers wanted.)
Can GM survive? Can Chrysler survive? Can Ford survive? I don’t know but Chrysler seems to be the one that is in the most precarious position. I find it astonishing that the current triumvirate at Chrysler – Nardelli, Press and LaSorda are still (correctly) decrying product quality. Chairman Nardelli and President Press can not really be blamed for the Chrysler quality reputation and performance given their relatively short period in the job, but the company’s quality performance is just amazingly bad. In its most recent survey on car reliability, the 2008 Consumer Reports survey suggests that almost two-thirds of Chrysler brands are rated below average. How can this happen after so many years of saying “we must improve our quality”?
It is not too surprising that the government is baulking at providing additional support for a GM/Chrysler merger. Politically, Obama will not be able to leave GM fail because of the job fallout, but the concern must be that it is throwing good money after bad. Many commentators have made the unions the whipping boys for the problems of the US auto manufacturers. While they can shoulder a lot of the blame, they were not responsible for (lack of) product development, design, supply chain, consumer understanding and much more. Not so long - early 1980s' - GM's US market share was hovering at 50%. Today, it is less than half that! How can so many high paid, intellectually bright people get it wrong for so long?
Once I've figured out how we all got suckered into this sub-prime fiasco, I'll let you know. Don't hold your breath though!
Can GM survive? Can Chrysler survive? Can Ford survive? I don’t know but Chrysler seems to be the one that is in the most precarious position. I find it astonishing that the current triumvirate at Chrysler – Nardelli, Press and LaSorda are still (correctly) decrying product quality. Chairman Nardelli and President Press can not really be blamed for the Chrysler quality reputation and performance given their relatively short period in the job, but the company’s quality performance is just amazingly bad. In its most recent survey on car reliability, the 2008 Consumer Reports survey suggests that almost two-thirds of Chrysler brands are rated below average. How can this happen after so many years of saying “we must improve our quality”?
It is not too surprising that the government is baulking at providing additional support for a GM/Chrysler merger. Politically, Obama will not be able to leave GM fail because of the job fallout, but the concern must be that it is throwing good money after bad. Many commentators have made the unions the whipping boys for the problems of the US auto manufacturers. While they can shoulder a lot of the blame, they were not responsible for (lack of) product development, design, supply chain, consumer understanding and much more. Not so long - early 1980s' - GM's US market share was hovering at 50%. Today, it is less than half that! How can so many high paid, intellectually bright people get it wrong for so long?
Once I've figured out how we all got suckered into this sub-prime fiasco, I'll let you know. Don't hold your breath though!
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Echoes From The Past in Obama Victory Speech
I love the journey I am on as a keynote speaker on business and communication topics. As well as keynote speaking on communication, I am a deadly serious student of the process. I have learned so much. One other person who has learned so much and who knows how to use that education better than probably any other living politician is President-Elect Barack Obama.
I thought the delivery of his victory speech last night was a little flat but the core message, the word-smithing and the sentiments expressed were excellent. I don’t know when Obama gets the time to craft his speeches. I am sure much of his material is written by professionals but the man has fantastic skill as a wordsmith.
Obama’s acceptance speech contains echoes of many other fine speeches. “(A) government of the people, by the people, and for the people has not perished from the Earth,” evokes Lincoln’s Gettysburg address while “We may not get there in one year or even in one term” has echoes of Martin Luther King’s final speech in Memphis, the night prior to his assassination.
JFK’s inaugural request to “Ask not what your country can do for you” is mirrored in “It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice. So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other.” And of course, Obama referenced Lincoln directly saying “As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, we are not enemies but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.”
When Obama said “To those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: We support you,” he again reminded one of Kennedy’s inaugural “To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.”
Obama struck the right tone last night. We can only hope that a wonderful orator becomes a wonderful President.
I thought the delivery of his victory speech last night was a little flat but the core message, the word-smithing and the sentiments expressed were excellent. I don’t know when Obama gets the time to craft his speeches. I am sure much of his material is written by professionals but the man has fantastic skill as a wordsmith.
Obama’s acceptance speech contains echoes of many other fine speeches. “(A) government of the people, by the people, and for the people has not perished from the Earth,” evokes Lincoln’s Gettysburg address while “We may not get there in one year or even in one term” has echoes of Martin Luther King’s final speech in Memphis, the night prior to his assassination.
JFK’s inaugural request to “Ask not what your country can do for you” is mirrored in “It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice. So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other.” And of course, Obama referenced Lincoln directly saying “As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, we are not enemies but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.”
When Obama said “To those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: We support you,” he again reminded one of Kennedy’s inaugural “To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.”
Obama struck the right tone last night. We can only hope that a wonderful orator becomes a wonderful President.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
The World's Favorite Airline
One of the most interesting European and Irish success stories of recent years is Ryanair. This low cost airline dominates the low fare market in Europe and is THE largest passenger carrier on the continent. It is also profitable which makes it virtually unique. Half-yearly profits of €215m while down 47% down on last years interim profits are very impressive, this despite the fact that fuel costs doubled from €392.7m to €788.5m. Unlike virtually every other airline, traffic grew by 19% to 32m and wait for it average fares fell - yes that is right, average fares FELL by 4% to €47.
How does Ryanair do it? Primarily because of an unrelenting focus on being THE low cost carrier in Europe. The airline does not mess about. It is not interested in being just a low cost carrier. Its overarching, never deviated from goal is to be THE low cost carrier. Led by Chief Executive Michael O’Leary, Ryanair has grown from being a weak, poorly capitalized airline twenty years ago to an absolute industry behemoth. O’Leary is not your typical suave Wall Street type of CEO. He is foul-mouthed, disdainful of government and European Union officials and an arrogant (normally correct) critic of other airlines to whom he loves sticking it to. Ryanair has literally lifted what was the BA tagline “The World’s Favorite Airline” and now uses it at investor presentations and in financial results, because it can legitimately make this claim based on passengers flown.
O’Leary is also brilliant (or at the very least produces consistently brilliant results.) Ryanair studied Southwest in some detail and has learned a lot from this great US airline. Much of the Southwest financial discipline, aircraft policy - 737s only, low cost airports etc. has been copied from Southwest.
One quite visible difference is customer relations. Southwest has a well deserved reputation for treating customers like gold. Ryanair has a well deserved reputation for treating its customers – well – let’s put it this way – not like gold. O’Leary though will tell you that his airline keeps it customer promise better than any other airline – “We will fly you there and back for the lowest price BUT don’t expect us, to provide you with a nice cup of tea and a biscuit (cookie to US readers) or a smile or a food coupon when your flight is delayed for three hours because of bad weather- because we don't promise that!
”
As a keynote speaker, my Brand Promise is E4: Educate, Energize, Entertain AND Easy to work with. Why mention this? Well log onto the Ryanair investor relations site to hear Michael O'Leary at the half yearly conference. I promise you, you will get the first three E’s from this man. No one will ever say he is Easy to work with. But if you want a lesson in focus, clear sighted vision and quality execution, you will find few better examples in the commercial world.
How does Ryanair do it? Primarily because of an unrelenting focus on being THE low cost carrier in Europe. The airline does not mess about. It is not interested in being just a low cost carrier. Its overarching, never deviated from goal is to be THE low cost carrier. Led by Chief Executive Michael O’Leary, Ryanair has grown from being a weak, poorly capitalized airline twenty years ago to an absolute industry behemoth. O’Leary is not your typical suave Wall Street type of CEO. He is foul-mouthed, disdainful of government and European Union officials and an arrogant (normally correct) critic of other airlines to whom he loves sticking it to. Ryanair has literally lifted what was the BA tagline “The World’s Favorite Airline” and now uses it at investor presentations and in financial results, because it can legitimately make this claim based on passengers flown.
O’Leary is also brilliant (or at the very least produces consistently brilliant results.) Ryanair studied Southwest in some detail and has learned a lot from this great US airline. Much of the Southwest financial discipline, aircraft policy - 737s only, low cost airports etc. has been copied from Southwest.
One quite visible difference is customer relations. Southwest has a well deserved reputation for treating customers like gold. Ryanair has a well deserved reputation for treating its customers – well – let’s put it this way – not like gold. O’Leary though will tell you that his airline keeps it customer promise better than any other airline – “We will fly you there and back for the lowest price BUT don’t expect us, to provide you with a nice cup of tea and a biscuit (cookie to US readers) or a smile or a food coupon when your flight is delayed for three hours because of bad weather- because we don't promise that!
”
As a keynote speaker, my Brand Promise is E4: Educate, Energize, Entertain AND Easy to work with. Why mention this? Well log onto the Ryanair investor relations site to hear Michael O'Leary at the half yearly conference. I promise you, you will get the first three E’s from this man. No one will ever say he is Easy to work with. But if you want a lesson in focus, clear sighted vision and quality execution, you will find few better examples in the commercial world.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Steve Martin: The Performer and the Man
I watched Steve Martin on Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show recently and was once again intrigued by the difference between the performer and the man. Martin was promoting the paperback edition of Born Standing Up which reminded me of the review I posted on Amazon some months ago about this book. I thought I’d re-run it here.
************
On the back cover, Jerry Seinfeld writes "Absolutely magnificent. One of the best books about comedy and being a comedian ever written." I thought this was standard hyperbole until I read the book. Seinfeld is spot on.
The irony is that I don't think I laughed once while reading the book - a few smiles, yes, but no side splitting laughter. Steve Martin off stage is a quiet almost shy person and this personality comes through in the book. He tells us very little about his private life although he does write with some angst about his lack of relationship with his father.
So why rate it so highly especially as the early part of the book is not very inspiring?
Martin shows just how difficult it is to make it in performance art. It took him well over a decade to become an overnight success. For the budding performer -comedian, actor, professional speaker, the book shows just what it takes to `make it.' Martin uses the word "precision" quite often in the book, originally in reference to an e.e. cummings quote "Like the burlesque comedian, I am abnormally fond of that precision which creates movement." The artist in Martin ultimately appreciated that every movement, every gesture counts on stage. When he writes "I tried to make every voice and gesture as crucial as jokes and gags," it reminded me of the thought and planning that the first great American humorist Mark Twain put into his performances.
If you want to learn about Steve Martin, this is not the book for you. Quite amazingly, he mentions his divorce twice in passing without ever telling you who he divorced. He was apparently married for fourteen years!
However, if you want a book on what it takes to `make it,' buy this book and learn that that "every second mattered. Every gesture mattered."
Great read for the wannabe artist or performer.
************
On the back cover, Jerry Seinfeld writes "Absolutely magnificent. One of the best books about comedy and being a comedian ever written." I thought this was standard hyperbole until I read the book. Seinfeld is spot on.
The irony is that I don't think I laughed once while reading the book - a few smiles, yes, but no side splitting laughter. Steve Martin off stage is a quiet almost shy person and this personality comes through in the book. He tells us very little about his private life although he does write with some angst about his lack of relationship with his father.
So why rate it so highly especially as the early part of the book is not very inspiring?
Martin shows just how difficult it is to make it in performance art. It took him well over a decade to become an overnight success. For the budding performer -comedian, actor, professional speaker, the book shows just what it takes to `make it.' Martin uses the word "precision" quite often in the book, originally in reference to an e.e. cummings quote "Like the burlesque comedian, I am abnormally fond of that precision which creates movement." The artist in Martin ultimately appreciated that every movement, every gesture counts on stage. When he writes "I tried to make every voice and gesture as crucial as jokes and gags," it reminded me of the thought and planning that the first great American humorist Mark Twain put into his performances.
If you want to learn about Steve Martin, this is not the book for you. Quite amazingly, he mentions his divorce twice in passing without ever telling you who he divorced. He was apparently married for fourteen years!
However, if you want a book on what it takes to `make it,' buy this book and learn that that "every second mattered. Every gesture mattered."
Great read for the wannabe artist or performer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
