How Not to Run an Awards Ceremony

1 Reply

Anyone who's spent time working in a trade association is probably familiar with that uneasy feeling that occurs when one of the organization's most prominent members gets upset and starts throwing its weight around. That feeling comes from the knowledge that if you find the member to be in the wrong and you have to stand up to its representatives, then you risk losing them as a member, and their hefty percentage of the budget as well. On the other hand if you cave in to their demands you lose credibility with the rest of the members, and in all likelihood you'll lose plenty of them as members as a result. All told it's a very uncomfortable situation, but ten out of ten times it's better to stand up for the principles of the association that were, after all, established by consensus of the membership.

For an example of exactly how NOT to handle a prominent member throwing a hissy fit we need only look to the British Institute of Innkeeping Scotland's handling of a pissy member at its annual awards ceremony. From the post on Boing Boing:

BrewDog is a spunky craft brewer in Scotland. Diageo is a titanic owner of bar chains, a kind of Wal*Mart of booze. The British Institute of Innkeeping is their mutual trade association. Last Sunday, the BII's independent judges awarded BrewDog a prize for Bar Operator of the Year. When Diageo found out — just ahead of the ceremony — that they hadn't won the prize, they threw a tantrum and said that they would cease all sponsorship of BII events unless the prize was given to them. So BrewDog — who'd been told in advance that they'd won — sat at their table at the banquet with jaws on their chests as Diageo's name was read out by the announcer, and representatives from Diageo got up on stage to accept an award whose plaque clearly said "BREWDOG: BAR OPERATOR OF THE YEAR." 

Of course this blew up in the association's face and it did no favors for the "prominent" member either. The folks at Brewdog, the offended party, are running with it on their blog and in the process highlight how the head of an organization such as BII can begin repairing its image after such a mistake:

On Tuesday, 2 days after the award, I (James) took a phone call from Kenny Mitchell, Chairman of the BII in Scotland and Chairman of the Award Committee explaining the situation. To directly quote Kenny:

"We are all ashamed and embarrassed about what happened. The awards have to be an independent process and BrewDog were the clear winner’

‘Diageo (the main sponsor) approached us at the start of the meal and said under no circumstances could the award be given to BrewDog. They said if this happened they would pull their sponsorship from all future BII events and their representatives would not present any of the awards on the evening.’

We were as gobsmacked as you by Diageo’s behaviour. We made the wrong decision under extreme pressure. We should have stuck to our guns and gave the award to BrewDog."

Here's the part where they have some fun:

As for Diageo, once you cut through the glam veneer of pseudo corporate responsibility this incident shows them to be a band of dishonest hammerheads and dumb ass corporate freaks.  No soul and no morals, with the integrity of a rabid dog and the style of a wart hog.

Perhaps more tellingly it is an unwitting microcosm for just how the beer industry is changing and just how scared and jealous the gimp-like establishment are of the craft beerrevolutionaries.

We would advise them to drink some craft beer.  To taste the hops and live the dream. It is hard to be a judas goat when you are drinking a Punk IPA.  

Walk tall, kick ass and learn to speak craft beer.

Those last two paragraphs are sage advice for us all – right up there with "Live long and prosper."

 

Tolerance and Prosperity

Leave a reply

Fred Wilson has a post titled Tolerance and Prosperity on his AVC blog that directly addresses one of the concerns with Amendment One here in North Carolina – the impact it might have on the state's economy:

I thought of my friend Bob Young's blog post about North Carolina's Amendment One, which seeks to ban same sex marriages…

Bob's argument is as much an economic one as a social one. Bob says:

This proposed amendment to our state constitution is specifically telling them we don’t want their friends and fellow Americans to come here.   We need these talented, intelligent young Americans to come to North Carolina to help our technology industries succeed, but they have choices.   They can go to states with mottos like “Live Free or Die” instead of states that attempt to tell them how to live their lives, such as this Amendment One does.  And trust me, these bright young Americans can and will chose to join my competitors in Seattle, or San Jose, or New York. 

North Carolina has enjoyed a vibrant tech/startup economy and Bob's Red Hat and Lulu.com are two of its best known successes.

The ultimate impact of Amendment One's passage is yet to be known, and probably won't be known for years to come. It will take time for the courts to sort things out after the inevitable lawsuits are filed, for our communities to determine exactly how many of their members have moved to greener pastures, and for companies in our increasingly complex industries to assess the impact on their ability to recruit a talented workforce. 

Earlier in his post Fred referenced a discussion he and the partners at his firm had just had with economist Paul Romer, who referenced the impact William Penn's policy on religious liberty had on Pennsyvlania and the reaction of its neighboring colonies:

William Penn was a Quaker and when King Charles II gave him a large piece of his land holdings in America, Penn created the colony of Pennsylvania and grounded it in the notions of tolerance and religious freedom. Instead of limiting Pennsylvania to Quakers, they welcomed all comers. And the result was that Philadelphia became the fastest growing city in America with a vibrant economy and lifestyle.

The neighboring colonies, which were initially centered around a single religion, reacted to Pennsylvania's and Philadelphia's economic success by opening up their cultural norms and becoming more tolerant as well.

It has been pointed out that until the passage of Amendment One North Carolina was the exception in the Southeast. Now, in a reversal of William Penn's approach, North Carolina has decided to join the less tolerant crowd and in the process has given away a competitive advantage it had on its regional economic competition. That's not likely to lead to greater prosperity for North Carolinians, and that's just more salt in the wound that the amendment inflicts on its citizens.

Of course that's the opinion of one person who was among a significant minority of the voters yesterday (only 39% voted against the amendment). The voters of NC have spoken, and now all of us will have to live with the consequences, whatever those might be. 

How Will Amendment One Affect Primary Voting?

Leave a reply

If you live in North Carolina and aren't living in utter seclusion, you're aware that the "Marriage Amendment" is on the ballot in today's primary. Normally a primary held after the presidential nominees have alreay been determined would draw only the hard core party faithful, but because of the amendment there's been an extraordinary amount of attention paid to this year's primary and it will be interesting to see how that affects the results.

Some questions to ponder:

  • In a state where 25% of the voters are independent how many of those unaffiliated voters will be drawn to the primaries because of the amendment?
  • Democrats make up 43%, and Republicans 31%, of registered voters. If independents decide to participate more heavily in the Republican primaries will they affect the outcome of some close races for NC Senate/House, city councils, county commissions, etc.?  
  • With either the Democratic or Republican primaries will the participation of independents skew the votes towards more centrist candidates?
  • If the independents participate more heavily in the Republican primary they will likely have a greater impact since there's a smaller pool of Republican voters. Assuming the independents will lean more towards the center will their participation hurt the more conservative candidates? If so, will the conservative Republicans' strategy of putting the Amendment on the primary ballot end up being viewed as a mistake in hindsight, even if it passes?

The 2008 primary was dramatic on the Democratic ticket because the presidential nomination was still up in the air at the time, but this year's primaries are dramatic all the way around due to the amendment. The debate about the direct consequences of the amendment has been well documented, but there hasn't been much exploration of the potential collateral damage the amendment might incur politically, and it will be fascinating to see how it shakes out.

Is Wealth Distribution a Problem?

Leave a reply

Dilbert creator Scott Adams has an interesting thought over at his blog:

Suppose you could snap your fingers and instantly reduce the huge disparity in income distribution across the globe. Would you do it?

Many of you will probably say yes. You'd take some of the "extra" money from the rich and use it to help the needy. But suppose I put one condition on this magic power of yours. Suppose the only thing you can do by magic is reduce by half the wealth of the top 1% while knowing the money would be transferred to no one. The money would simply cease to exist. The rich would have half as much, while everyone else remained the same. Would you use your powers then?

Of course he's right that burning half of Person A's money doesn't make Person B's life any better, but it's ludicrous to say that taking some of Person A's money and giving it to Person B wouldn't help make Person B's situation more comfortable. On the other hand giving Person B the money doesn't guaranatee he'll be any happier – money can't buy happiness and all that – but you can almost guarantee that Person B won't be any better off if Person A keeps all the money and helps engineer a system that insures that Person B won't have a chance to earn more money this year, next year and the years beyond.

Adams seems to be addressing the whole Occupy Wall Street – The 1% vs. The Rest of Us phenomenon, and focusing on the actual income disparity between the two groups in the process. That's a mistake. The real issue people have is with a system that appears rigged to insure that wealth continues to flow disproportionately to the already wealthy, and often to the detriment to those they employ. 

How can people not be enraged by a situation where executives garner huge financial rewards by running their companies for short term stock gains, without an eye towards long term health, and then walk away as their companies lay of thousands of employees in order to avoid bankruptcy? How can they not be disgusted by an economic/governmental system that rewards the executives who mismanaged their massive financial institutions to the point that it almost crashed the world economy? How can they not want to find a way to redistribute money from hedge fund managers who made their billions by not giving a flip about the common weal as they played with the economy like it was their own private bingo game?

Isn't it funny how you don't hear anyone complaining about how much the local car dealer, community banker, or restauranteur is making? No one cares because they can see what that person is contributing to the community, but that's not the case with the vast majority of the 1%, because most of them are perceived as leaches on the economy rather than contributors to it. That's probably not a fair assessment across the board, but in this world perception is reality and that's the perception many folks have of the 1% and that's why Adams' argument won't hold much water with the 99%.

Alliance Defense Fund Still Around

Leave a reply

If you thought the folks at the Alliance Defense Fund took their ball and went home after taking the Forsyth County Commissioners' prayer case and running with it all the way to the US Supreme Court and losing, you'd be wrong. They've reappeared as an influencer of the controversial NC Amendment One on tomorrow's primary ballots. From the Fayetteville Observer:

The official explanation issued by the state Constitutional Amendments Publication Commission on next month's measure, written to help voters understand it, acknowledges the "debate among legal experts" over the possible effects. It concludes: "The courts will ultimately make those decisions."

Stam, the Raleigh lawmaker, said he wanted a more narrowly worded amendment but was "overruled" by "national experts" he identified as the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal advocacy group.

Stam says the state needs the amendment to protect marriage from efforts to de-legitimize it. If unmarried straight couples want the benefits of marriage, he said, they should get married. 

Hurricane Lucy

1 Reply

If you know Lucy "Esbee" Cash, she of Life in Forsyth fame, you will not be surprised to learn that she's been named Winston-Salem Forsyth County Schools' 2012 Judy Mountjoy Volunteer of the Year:

Between Paisley, where her son Leon is a seventh-grader, and Whitaker Elementary School, where her younger son, George, is in the third grade, Cash spends about 20 hours a week as a volunteer. 

All the work that Cash does – and all the care she shows for students and teachers along the way – prompted the Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Council of PTAs to give Cash its 2012 Judy Mountjoy Volunteer of the Year Award last night. Established in 2000, the award is named for a former teacher and guidance counselor who has devoted countless hours as a volunteer.

It feels odd to be honored for doing something that’s so satisfying, Cash said. “I genuinely enjoy it.” 

If you've ever met Lucy you'll also not be surprised by these quotes from other volunteers:

“She has a lot of energy, and she is here all the time, no matter what,” said fellow volunteer Brierley Ash.

“If the teacher needs something, she’s going to figure out a way to get it done,” said Deena Dreyfuss, a Paisley volunteer who nominated Cash for the award. “She is here so much, she gets to know the kids. So many kids come up to her. She says, ‘How did you do on that math test?’”

Those of you who may have been wondering why her blogging at Life in Forsyth has been less prolific of late I think you have your answer as to why.

Well deserved Lucy. Congratulations!