Doppelganger du jour: @andishehnouraee and ...

I just couldn't keep this to myself, and maybe I'm late to the party, but wow, has this occurred to anyone else?

We love you, Andy! Mmmmhmmmm.

Ultimately, additional road capacity does nothing to alleviate congestion.

Due to the absurdly parochial and arcane manner in which transportation issues are addressed and discussed in Georgia, I have stopped paying attention to the regional T-SPLOST voters in the state will decide in June. Until the final project list comes out in a few weeks, I remain solidly on the fence when it comes to my position of support, for or against.


That said, if I had the undivided attention of every voter in the state, this is the message I would deliver. Adding capacity in the form of new roads or expansions does nothing to ease traffic congestion in the mid-to-long term.


From "The Economics of Traffic Congestion," by Richard Arnott and Kenneth Small as published in American Scientist, Vol. 82, "Any reduction in congestion resulting from capacity expansion encourages others to drive during hours on routes they ordinarily would not use. So measures to relieve congestion are at least partially undone by latent demand.


"The other  reason capacity expansion alone does not work is that congestion is mispriced. Because drivers do not pay for the time loss they impose on others, they make socially-inefficient choices concerning how much to travel, when to travel, where to travel and what route to take... The combination of latent demand and mispriced congestion may be so perverse that an expansion of capacity brings about no change in congestion, or even makes it worse."


If you're a real transportation wonk, here's the link to the rather complex article. http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Courses/Ec1F07/traffic.pdf


There's also this little gem about "induced congestion" from researchers at UC Berkeley who found considerable empirical evidence that showed every 1% increase in new lane-miles generated a 0.9% increase in traffic in less than five years (emphasis added).


http://www.daclarke.org/AltTrans/analysis.html


So dear reader, whenever our transportation "leaders" roll out the project list for which they will ask us to decide whether or not we want to foot the bill, please, please, please remember that ultimately building new roads or adding to existing ones doesn't do a damn thing to relieve congestion.


Sincerely,
Pauly D

The top attribute in a new hire: keep calm and carry on.

 

How do you define a crisis? How do you respond to a crisis? Do you create them or tend to make them worse?

Those were the first questions that came to mind when my compadres with Soccer in the Streets (Twitter: @soccerstreets) posed the question, “When you hire new employees, what do you look for other than experience?”

After a decade in the public relations industry, and countless disappointments in junior new hires with PR or communications degrees, I’ve about given up on the skills element. Those are learned on the job, not in the classroom. Additionally, experience seems to be worth less because a lousy supervisor will put up with a great deal that a good supervisor will not. This can reinforce and exacerbate poor performance thus significantly devaluing a candidate’s experience line on his or her resume.

So what do I really want to know? How do you respond to a perceived crisis, and are you more likely to make it worse or better? Consider this:

Is your first reaction to a potential crisis (either via breaking news, a phone call, email from a client or partner, etc.), “Oh. My. Gawd!!!” Or is it something less reactionary? “Ummmmm, uh oh. This could be a problem.”

Who wouldn’t prefer a cool, non-reactionary, thoughtful reaction?

The truth is there are very few real crises in a given day, week, month, or year for that matter. My contention is that our reactions to perceived crises are more likely to create a crisis than the original situation. And given the immediacy with which we all demand information, benign situations can often spiral out of control quickly by an excitable, reactionary response.

High volume, reactionary responses raise the level of anxiety among the entire team especially in a form of open office environment, which causes the performance of all to suffer. Of equal import are the parties the “first responder” engages. Does the person carbon copy the entire agency or team (or worse, the client) on a forward or reply email unnecessarily consuming billable hours at high hourly pay rates as the branches of the correspondence multiply exponentially? Or do they calmly engage their immediate supervisor?

Really. With which would you prefer to work?

So, dear reader, my advice to you regarding new hires is find out how your candidates define and respond to crisis, either perceived or real. In most cases the skills required to do the job especially among junior candidates and new hires will be acquired by training the employer provides and on the job experience. But a generally calm demeanor and sound judgment in response to a perceived crisis may be the most valuable attribute a new hire can bring to any organization.

In the sagacious words of my friend and RedSky PR co-founder Jess Flynn, “Keep calm and carry on.”

Photo credit: RedSky PR www.redskypr.com

Cheers!

Pauly D.

NFL Commish needs a vacation, or better comms people

Because it's timely and I'm an NFL fan (and season ticket holder), I'll weigh in here with something I think is important for anyone in a position of authority or happens to work in the communications realm.

If the ratified CBA the owners sent to the NFLPA yesterday was not exactly what the players union saw earlier in the week, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell stepped right in the poo less than 10 seconds into his media briefing yesterday.

Because the last thing I need is some kind of copyright gripe, the video is easy enough to find over on espn.com.

Said Goodell, "... The clubs approved an agreement that was negotiated with the players..."

Whooooaaaaa, hold on a minute cowboy. Really?

There are two big problems with that. 1. As stated above, if what you (eventually) sent to the players was not exactly what they saw earlier in the week, then no, it was not fully negotiated with the players. And 2. If it had been negotiated with the players why would you make a statement that implied ratification by the NFLPA should be a foregone conclusion? Wouldn't a joint press conference with Demaurice Smith and the player representatives have made a lot more sense?

Maybe the commissioner, who is famous for his up at 5:00 a.m., done around midnight workdays, needs a vacation.

Now I'm thinking I might be setting myself up to be Sam "Ace" Rothstein in that car talking to Andy Stone about Nicky Santoro in "Casino," but I digress.

Nevertheless, this brings me back to a recurring theme in the communications realm lately. Who is writing this stuff? Doesn't anybody pay attention to detail anymore? Doesn't anyone understand the magnitude of their words, written or spoken, in the public realm?

I don't know or care who or what's to blame for this epidemic, but all the commissioner had to say was the following and there would have been no backlash.

"The clubs have  reached an agreement among themselves that they believe is in the best interest of all parties and will allow the NFL season to begin as early as Saturday morning. There are details within this agreement that still need to be reviewed by the players' association, but we believed this is the most expeditious way forward at this moment. It is possible additional negotiation may be required. We thank the players for their efforts in bringing these negotiations to their current state and look forward to concluding these matters in very short order."

Period. End of story. No ruffled feathers. Players, your move.

How hard was that?

Making peace with Neko Case

I’ve been promising this post for too long. And now that I’m on the mend and think I have the proper (read: non-reactionary) perspective, here goes.

Back in April, I saw my sixth or seventh live Neko Case show, this time at the venerable 40 Watt Club in Athens, Ga.

That I live in Atlanta wouldn’t seem to make a trip to Athens such a chore, but in reality, it was. That’s a long haul back on a school night even when there’s not any booze involved. Fortunately the set didn’t go a minute over what I’m certain was the contracted 90.

See what I did there?

Oh yeah, by the way, why the hell wasn’t there an Atlanta play as long as the crew in the neighborhood? Some “distance/radius” clause to which the promoter made the booking agent agree?  Bullsh*t. They could’ve done double the revenue with essentially zero travel by adding an Atlanta play with no harm done to the Athens sellout.

I knew exactly what I was getting into with this show: same crew, same material. I was holding out hope of the one percent possibility she’d get into some of the Furnace Room Lullaby and Blacklisted material. And perhaps that the cool 40 Watt vibe would elicit some, well, I don’t know what. Those are long odds and one would’ve been correct to bet the chalk.

Here’s the set list: “Things that scare me,” “Maybe sparrow,” “Fever,” “People got a lot of nerve,” “Pharaohs,” “Hold on, hold on,” New tune, “Margaret vs. Pauline,” “I’m an animal,” New tune “Calling card?,” “Fox confessor,” “Red tide,” “Polar nettles,” “The tigers have spoken,” “Middle cyclone,” “That teenage feeling,” “This tornado loves you,” “Vengeance is sleeping,” New tune “Friday night girl?,” “Don’t forget me,” “Knock loud.”

I could rant until I’m blue in the face about what a travesty it  is that the crew is traveling without a keyboard with so many tunes that necessitate it, especially “Vengeance is sleeping,” “Red tide,” and “Don’t forget me.” Or about the frequency with which Case and Rauhaus change instruments that it impedes the development of any kind of groove in the show, or about the redundant set list selection. Or about the start/stop that happened somewhere mid-show. Or about the sophomoric front-of-house sound engineer. But that’s not what this is about.

Then I realized what I wanted. And I’m as much to blame for not figuring it out sooner.

While later lamenting that there aren’t enough Sadies tunes on the jukebox at my local, I realized I don’t want to see another Neko Case show. What I want is to see Neko Case with the Sadies. Awesome on their own account, stuff like “Loretta,” “I’ll be around,” “Set out running,” “Soulful shade of blue…” THAT is what I want to hear live.

So, dear Ms. Case, I’d never begrudge an artist their commercial spoils, especially after years and years of toil for meager wages. You, however, earn no more ticket sales revenue from my wallet until you tour with the Sadies. And stop in Atlanta.

Respectfully, Pauly D.

P.S. There's only one audio channel on this here Youtube video, but here's a little Neko Case with the Sadies (and Rauhaus, too).

Want to get something done in your next internal meeting? F*ck courtesy.

Two weeks ago I attended an all staff meeting of 20 or so colleagues. The meeting required a 177-mile round trip drive and consumed six hours all tolled.

That I directly contributed very little and the fuel, time and CO2 emissions wasted is not the point of this missive. The problem was the meeting was so riddled with useless anecdotes, caveats and content that had zero to do with my work, I left with a high level of frustration because I felt like we didn’t accomplish anything. But, hey, it wasn’t my meeting.

One week later, I hosted a conference call with my boss (who reports to the president) and my boss’ counterpart on the academic side (who, while I do not report to this person, outranks me by a wiiiiiiiiiiiiide margin).

“Paul, this is your call,” boss says. “Go ahead.”

Instantly I moved into a mode I didn’t realize how much I missed. This was my meeting. Absolutely fucking right, and we’re going to get this done my way, which means I’ll get you out of here by the time I promised. And if you’ll indulge me just a little bit, we’ll get everything done we need to get done. I further promise that if I seem curt or rude, I apologize, but it is only in the interest of respect for your time and accomplishment of the goal.

“Thank you gentlemen,” I started. “I want to keep this to thirty minutes and I have five agenda items,” which I then read. At times I feared I was being curt, especially when speaking to two genteel southern superior officers for whom courtesy is highly important. Nevertheless, I was confident I was doing the right thing.

“I’m sorry to interrupt,” I said more than a few times. “But do I understand correctly that this is what you want? Ok. Just what I needed. Next.”

The call ended exactly thirty minutes after it began.

The feeling of satisfaction in my work at that moment was quite strong. I accomplished exactly what I set out to accomplish in the time allotted, managed to keep the conversation focused (even at the risk of offending two superiors), and left with a clear course of action agreeable and hopefully beneficial to all related parties.

My lesson for you, dear reader, is this. We have become overly courteous to the point of productivity loss and ultimately frustration. And yes, the title at the header was intended to draw attention, not to encourage you to be flat out rude.

That said, people would rather get through a meeting on time and accomplish the goals for that meeting than worry about being offended. Set your course, be direct, turn all conversation back to the topic, and move on.

Thank you and goodbye.

Pauly D.

Gospel truth: the ethics of sport fishing

Having recently seen a post in my Twitter feed concerning the ethics of fishing for sport, I felt compelled to address it here. It's mostly self-serving for both posterity and clearing my own conscience. But hell, it's my blog. I'll do with it what I like.


Since it is not possible to say it better than David James Duncan does in an interview with David Thomas Sumner from Weber State University, I'm just going to paste it here. Do with it what you will. Meanwhile, I'll be back on the water at the end of  the month.



[DTS] I have a lot of friends, eco-friends, who are good people but who give me a hard time about my fishing habit, telling me I am just torturing the fish. But I argue that there is a certain ethic found through that habit. How do you see it?


[DJD] I wouldn't call it an ethic; I would call it a spiritual truth. It's sacrifice that feeds all of us. Fifty-five pounds of toxic waste generated by the construction of a television set. Something slightly lower, but near that, to build a nice computer monitor. You drive up to the PETA [People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals] meeting and the grill of your car is covered with dead insects. You become a Jain where you only walk outside during the daylight so you don't crush insects, but you start to get sick and you've gotta take antibiotics and there is a holocaust that goes on inside you. You're killing these innocent organisms. I mean, there is no way to define anything as large and clumsy as a human being that doesn't involve an animal that is eating other animals the same as the rest of nature. We practice a beautiful traditional craft where you and I stand on land, and fifty feet away this creature from another realm is very quietly taking part in the food chain and through a work of deceit—a kind of low-level fiction—and through some incredible technology, we insinuate ourselves into that food chain, and we betray the sincerity of that creature. But in its struggle for life we feel its life in our hands. And that is important. Because we do hold other lives in our hands. Fly-fishing, in this sense, is an avenue to understanding gospel truth.


Amen, brother. Amen.