I used to coach kids baseball and football when I could still actually play some (I liked teaching the mechanics and playing stuff). Nowadays there is this kind of wacky thing going on where kids, learning to play, can’t lose. Sometimes they don’t even keep score. They play games with a tee ball where you can swing as often as you want until you hit it.
I am sure there are dozens of psychology (or psychiatry … I can never keep ‘em straight) papers suggesting that in some way not losing encourages kids to keep playing or feel better about themselves or something.
Ok. Here the deal. In games. In school. In whatever. Someone wins and someone loses. I won’t list all those situations again but in addition to winning and losing, there are some people smarter than you, some less smart, some will be better at things than you and some who don’t do some things as well as you. Sorry folks. That would be called Life.
Somewhere along the way we seemed to have lost sight of the issue.
It isn’t about winning or losing.
It is all about how you handle winning or losing. That is the lesson we should be teaching kids (and there are a boatload of adults who could probably use the lesson too).
So now we are heading down a path where the initial lesson we are teaching a generation is that winning or losing doesn’t matter. And I don’t care which side of that equation you take…each side matters.
Yes. It matters if you win.
And, yes, it matters if you lose.
If you don’t think that, then you don’t learn from each time. It isn’t that losing is bad (although winning feels better), it is that losing should show you something. Can I improve? Should I invest time improving? Is it that maybe there are too many others better than I am at this particular thing?
Winning is the exact same thing. But winning in childhood is tricky and addictive. Winning can fool you into believing different things about yourself and your abilities. But that is a lesson also.
But none of that really matters because we are bringing up a generation where we are missing the opportunity to teach kids that. Why? Because no one is frickin’ winning or losing. We are building a generation of nonwinners where everyone is truly losing in the end.
It’s hard to believe it’s been 12 years since Barenaked Ladies dominated the radio with One Week(a song which I hated). And, I admit, I have never really been a Barenaked fan. But this new song is really really nice. Kind of a mid-tempo, sorrowful ballad, but really nice.
The band has had some issues. Co-founder/vocalist/songwriter Steven Page left the band last year (and his iconic voice wasn’t replaced with anyone). The bands other singer, Ed Robertson, has in amazing voice, and the song is serene and melancholy and an almost tragic beauty. If You Run Away is representative of the album, All In Good Time it should be a good record.
The song is beautifully textured. It could be a song about a failed relationship (it could be about Page’s departure), but it’s not an angry song. The melody may be one of the finest Barenaked Ladies have crafted in their 20+ years together.
Oh. And here is a neat thing. The new album from the Barenaked Ladies is coming March 30th. But this first single from the album hit the web January 8th on the band’s website, MySpace, iLike, Facebook and Twitter (and is getting some airplay on the radio now). Nice example of how to introduce something in a grassroots kind of way. Also a nice recognition on their part of choosing the right song to do this plan of action with.
Anyway. it’s a nice song. I can’t envision many people disliking it.
(a male view of the Valentine’s situation having also accumulated a zillion research data points over multiple beer events discussing everything but Valentine’s Day)
All this talk about Valentine’s Day being created by Hallmark, the myth behind St. Valentine … a massacre for god’s sake.
Confusing.
Well … maybe confusing to some but I have put some strategic thought to this whole concept.
Because the thought behind it is really very simple.
Basically we men are idiots <that is the theorem underpinning>.
Therefore Valentine’s Day plays an important role in a “stimulus-response” type model for men.
The day is a valuable stimulus to stop us from thinking solely with our dumb stick and with some random portion of our brain that isn’t being used for sports, work, alcohol, oogling <not ogling … there is a difference>, mindless daydreaming or sleeping.
Below you will see a diagram that outlines how we think without Valentine’s day and then with Valentine’s day.
(click on the image for a larger, somewhat more legible version)
As you see.
Valentine’s Day is not something created by Hallmark.
Nor is it stupid.
It is an important event with a use benefiting men <kind of like the Super Bowl and March Madness but not as important>.
Strategically Valentine’s Day makes sense to the existence of men <and possibly romance but in a non linear way>.
This is the time of the year I start paying attention to college basketball.
Most teams have worked out all the kinks and the kids are starting to get tired transitioning from high school to college and the coaches have figured out how to juggle what they have and don’t have.
In addition, I believe the NCAA has become incredibly good at encouraging teams to schedule those awesome interconference games on occasion <which college football season begs for>.
So.
Here you go. Not everything I am thinking, just some highlights.
The Big B’east’
Big East. This conference is a beast. I think it is consistently the toughest and best conference (sorry ACC) top to bottom. I don’t know that I particularly care for the conference style (a little rough & tumble) but boy they are good. And they have an elite group of coaches on top of it all. Figure Connecticut is a fucking good team and they cannot even crack the top 8 teams in the conference. And their top 6 will pound or run with anyone (where the heck do all these 6’6” to 6’8” greyhounds come from?):
Lately Georgetown is kicking the crap out of everyone. And it isn’t even the best team in the Big East, let alone the country. Like all the top teams this year, Georgetown runs into problems on the road.
In the end I believe Syracuse and Villanova will be the only two who keep it going because they have coaches who can figure out how to get their teams to win on the road. But. Don’t count Connecticut out. If Calhoun comes back, like him or not, the guy can coach and bring out the best in a team. And if push comes to shove maybe they could borrow Gino from the women’s team for the tournament (he doesn’t lose either).
Those random little guys you gotta love
New Mexico, Rhode Island, Siena, Butler and Northern Iowa just to name a few (thank you ESPN 2 for showing some of their games). I still tend to believe if they were in conferences with bigger more talented teams they would get worn down and lose some more games.
But.
One game. One day. Can get one win.
Sustainable? Nope. But put them on the big stage for a game and this is one of those games you love to watch. Come the Big Dance they make it out of first weekend and get knocked out weekend two. Except for one. And, no, I won’t tell you who I think that one is gonna be (mostly because I have no clue).
The Ivy League
Cornell. Princeton. Harvard. All three will end up with over 20 wins at the end of the season. Sure. No one truly believes they can knock off any of the big boys (let alone any of the top notch mid majors) but it sure is fun to see them playing “smart basketball” as everyone inevitably says when talking about one of these schools. I always chuckle about that.
Look.
They don’t play any smarter than say a Duke team or a Carolina team or a Gonzaga team. They are talented teams. Period. It is impossible in this league to sustain over a period of years but I truly hope Cornell’s ‘Big Red’ (the best of them) steps up and wins some games in the Big Dance.
They’re Kids
I had a fun conversation with a buddy of mine after Texas beat the crap out of Carolina. I simply pointed out that Texas’ kids just manned up better. Well. Let’s remember. Freshmen are maybe 17 years old. They are kids. They may look like men but they are not. All the top level teams dependent on a youngster or two in their lineup are gonna run into some problems at some point. John Wall. Awesome. Can still look like a freshman every once in awhile. And UK is still very young and continues to make mistakes. Turnovers and the inability to maintain intensity with a lead are the big problems. And Kentucky is just one example (throw in Texas, Syracuse, Connecticut, etc.). Great coaches, a Tom Izzo or a Rick Pitino or whomever, always figure out how to rattle a kid at the time they need to do it. When in doubt, for a long run in the Dance I still bet on a mediocre great team that has a very good senior tandem than a great team dependent upon a freshman superstar.
But.
When in doubt (should your team be dependent on a ‘diaper dandy’).
Remember Kevin Durant. I think he weighed 100 pounds at 6’ 8” when he left Texas after his freshman year. I was relatively confident he would turn out to be another one of those college greyhounds who got killed in the NBA. Wrong wrong wrong. Cool as a cucumber in college. Ain’t disappointing in pros. So. It can happen.
The Mysterious Big Guys
Texas, Duke, Gonzaga … they tease us.
Almost every year in fact.
Just my opinion but some of these teams are coached over their true ability. Works to a point. A point where they rack up a boatload of wins and everyone overlooks who and what they really are. And then they run into a reality buzzsaw in the form of a team that has talent.
So.
How do I tell them apart? Less talented teams overachieve in big games. And surprise you upwards. The truly talented teams surprise you downwards sometimes. They underachieve when not focused. The great coaches make talent focus when it counts (the NCAA tournament).
OK, Jerry Rice and Emmitt Smith were first ballot shoo-ins. They were kickass players that pretty much everyone liked. Even better (to those old enough to remember) both came into the NFL without ringing endorsements. Rice wasn’t fast and didn’t have good hands (wow. Someone looks pretty stupid now, huh?). Smith was too small and not tough enough (ok. someone feeling stupid number two.)
Anyway. The 44 Hall of Fame selectors spent a lot of time debating the other 13 finalists, but these two all-time record-holders who epitomize the very best of the NFL were the worthiest of first ballot recipients.
Nobody could stop Rice. He is the league’s top pass catcher and all-time touchdowns leader mostly as a 49er. The bottom line is he’s first in touchdowns (208), pass receptions (1,549) and receiving yards (22,895), besides the most touchdowns in a single season (22) in 1987 and had 14 1,000-yard seasons and scored 208 touchdowns. Beyond the numbers the dude caught balls everywhere … in the middle, in traffic, slants, screens, posts, wherever Montana or Young put the ball. He always seemed to be open and he always seemed to hold onto anything he got a hand on.
Nobody could stop Smith. Like Rice, he won an MVP award in the NFL’s championship game. Smith, who led the Cowboys to three Super Bowl titles, retired in 2004 with the most carries (4,409), most rushing yards (18,355) and most rushing touchdowns (164). He also owns the most rushing touchdowns in the playoffs. Once again, beyond the numbers Emmitt was just always “there” … I just don’t remember him missing a game. And I remember 75 yard games where the Cowboys won and I remember 75 yard runs to win a Cowboys game. He was the unselfish running back that I wish today’s running backs would aspire to emulate.
Records are made to be broken, but Rice’s and Smith’s will take a while.
But I thought his year’s class was even more special because of the two nominees from the seniors’ committee:
– Steelers defensive coordinator (and Detroit Lions cornerback) Dick LeBeau
– Broncos running back Floyd Little
Now, many will question Little and LeBeau’s selections because they were another generation (and that makes them “out of sight out of mind”).
But LeBeau did retire from the Detroit Lions with 62 interceptions, which ranked third in history at the time. He has been a coach for 37 years in the NFL and is considered a defensive genius. He should be remembered as a ballplayer not a coach. Most importantly Lebeau reminds me of the old black and blue division (Lions, Bears, Packers, Vikings). Oh, and when the Lions actually won games. Dick Lebeau was a cornerback ball hawk but in the old school of bringing the big hit. And those were the days that the Lions uniforms (although they almost look exactly the same today) somehow just looked cool. Lebeau embodied the old school big hit but smart ballplayer.
Floyd Little. Another little man like Emmitt but probably a little shiftier. Looking good in the old AFL style Broncos orange crush uniforms chewing up yardage by disappearing in crowds and appearing somewhere downfield. As a running back, Little was the only great player on subpar teams, and many said his greatest runs were getting back to the line of scrimmage after being hit in the backfield. Little is the only runner on a last-place team to ever lead the NFL in rushing. He had no quit in him and still got his share of yards.
Off the field Little may have saved the Broncos in Denver. He went door-to-door trying to persuade voters to improve their stadium before the AFL-NFL merger, and if new taxes weren’t approved, the Broncos, who have since played in six Super Bowls, might have relocated.
Awesome Hall of Fame class this year. All class acts. All deserving. All non-fancy schmancy, hard working, hard playing players. I do not believe a single player in the class ever avoided a hit.
“… a bad idea is a bad idea and will never be a good idea no matter how well you dress it up.”
—
Bruce McTague
===
So.
Comcast, perhaps having just seen their 100th consecutive consumer research study showcasing their lack of customer service (Hey. All cable companies are in this boat. So it’s not just them) and massive customer dissatisfaction scores, had an inspiration (some may call it a brain cramp) and announced that it plans to change the name of its cable TV, Internet and phone services to XFinity.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Okay.
Comcast EVP, operations David Watson tells us the brilliance behind this re-branding maneuver:
“XFINITY represents the future of our company and it’s a promise to customers that we’ll keep innovating. When we launch XFINITY in a market, we’ll rebrand our products: XFINITY TV, XFINITY Voice and XFINITY Internet (our company, of course, remains Comcast). This transition is already well underway across the country. [On February 12], XFINITY will roll out in 11 markets including: Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington D.C., Chicago, Portland, Seattle, Hartford, Augusta, Chattanooga, parts of the Bay Area and San Francisco, with more markets to come later this year.”
This is the kind of crap that makes everyday consumers crazy and drives those of us in the marketing world to drink heavily <Ok … more heavily then we may normally do>.
Dear David at Comcast,
I don’t want you to promise me you will keep innovating I would like you to promise me you will show up at 10 when you say you will fix my TV so I can watch Oprah.
Sincerely,
XCustomer.
I have the utmost respect for Jeff Goodby and Goodby Silverstein (Comcast’s ad agency) but this is kind of nuts. I guess I can take some solace in that a Comcast representative confirmed that this is actually a Goodby, Siegel+Gale, and other agencies brain trust endeavor.
(although I would tend to blame Siegel+Gale as having been paid a boatload of money and arriving at some unbelievably “insightful in presentation but unrealistic in practicality” conclusion)
Well.
I guess if they spend enough money it will work.
Spend enough and people will forget Comcast and only remember XFinity.
But.
Here’s the deal. Every day they will still be delivering the same ole same ole (which ain’t so hot). Therefore, in the end they will have spent gobs of money on this new “brand” and achieve exactly the same results.
Some would tend to believe this is a definition of insanity. I just tend to believe this is a stupid idea.
Anyway.
And wouldn’t it have been cheaper if they had all sat in a conference room contemplating their navels?
Here I am minding my own business … typing and emailing away with SportsCenter on in the background and a familiar voice comes on in the background.
You know.
One of those voices that sound slightly familiar but you haven’t heard it in a long time so it’s just a slight tickle in your memory banks.
And then the ESPN announcer (can’t remember which because they are mostly interchangeable) says “and now we have Gavin Keefe in Connecticut covering UConn for ESPN.”
Next thing I know Gavin is yakking away about the UConn-Syracuse game and Jim Calhoun back on the bench coaching UConn men’s basketball.
Gavin and I went to high school together in Vermont.
I don’t remember how and when we met (I moved to Vermont in-between freshman and sophomore years) but we ended up in this inseparable group of friends, 4 or 5 guys, who did everything together in high school. We all continued to keep in touch through college. And then marriages kept getting us back together for awhile. Then, as high school friends do, we started slipping apart. But it doesn’t mean that all those great memories don’t pop back up again when you regain contact.
When I heard his voice I immediately started chuckling over some pretty funny and stupid memories. Gavin was the guy who slept through the SATs with me. He had stayed over at my house when my parents were away on a trip.
Anyway.
Story for another day.
Oh my.
How cool is it that he is on ESPN.
Here is my old buddy’s mug shot <just to embarrass him>.
Gavin has worked at The Day since 1990 and is in his 19th season of covering the UConn men’s basketball team, including the national championship teams of 1999 and 2004 (what an awesome gig).
I think it’s kind of funny because he went to St. Michael’s College in Vermont (living in a pit called ‘The Slant’ because the entire building slanted) where college basketball ranked behind beer drinking, ice hockey and snowball fights on the popularity scale. And now he is on ESPN. He just started doing stuff for ESPN last year. And was on ESPN First Take yesterday talking about the UConn-Syracuse game. And did another ESPN NEWS segment again today.
Well done my old friend.
I think it’s just cool when someone you know from a completely different world and in a different way end up doing something that … well … you didn’t think wasn’t possible for them … but is just so far removed from the kid you grew up with … well .. it’s cool.
That’s the only way I can describe it.
Oh.
He is very worried because now that he is in the big time I have a boatload of pictures from high school and college.
What he doesn’t realize is that I am in all those pictures too.
Plus.
Why would I wreck it. Now I can say “hey, I drank beer with that guy on ESPN.”
I was surprised yesterday morning watching SportsCenter that the opening ceremonies for the Winter Olympics are today (Feb. 12th).
Shit. I didn’t even know where the games were being played.
(Vancouver … or better said … “somewhere in Canada”)
So. I went to the website to check it out. A little confusing (because the Olympics claim to be all about “with glowing hearts” … huh? … and Canada is all about “together in 2010” … which makes me think they were apart in all the other years … anyway). But. They do have some very cool merchandise so you can act like you went there. And maybe even supported it. Once again. anyway.
So. What’s happened to the Olympics? (big sigh here)
I remember when the Olympics was truly “appointment viewing.” And it was a source of country pride. Did we win more medals then the evil Soviets or luging Germans (who the heck decides to become a luge expert?) or those Swiss knife-wielding skiers.
I believe the Olympic Games have lost their allure. Before I say why i believe it is so I wanted to reminisce a little. Reminisce about why I loved the Winter Olympics (am going to stick with Winter reasons and not Summer) and maybe we can ponder why we don’t have these gems anymore. (and I will offer a reason why at the end):
– Awesome reason number 1. Eddie the Eagle. Crazy Eddie.
He soared like a dodo, but Britain’s Michael “Eddie The Eagle” Edwards endeared himself to fans at the Calgary ski jumping competition (really, who remembers that Matti Nykänen won three golds? Plus, he was later thrown in jail for stabbing a man in the back). The plasterer with the oversized glasses was comically inept: Edwards, describing his first forays into ski jumping, said: “When I looked from the top of the jump, I was so frightened that my bum shriveled into a prune.” He finished dead last, but not dead.
The non awesome? Because of Eddie the Eagle, I assume the Olympics went into the “law suit avoidal muscle spasms” they changed the rules and countries cannot simply enter people because they want to enter someone in an event. They actually have to qualify. What bullshit. If Sudan wants to enter a dance figure skating team, let ‘em. I don’t care. It’s the Olympics.
– All those Swiss/Austrian/Whatever skiers.
Ah. The Olympic skiers. Franz Klammer was a hero in Austria. A winner of 8 of 9 World Cup downhill races in 1975. The guy was fast. Really fast. And fearless.
Oh. And then there was Italy’s Alberto “La Bomba” Tomba, big talker (“I am the new messiah of skiing,” he once said), and an ever bigger playboy. The 1988 Games were one big party. He toyed with the competition. Right before going out of the giant slalom start gate, he turned to all the other nervous skiers and said “O.K., boys, keep calm. And good luck to all.” He blew the field away, then won the slalom two days later. He spent the rest of the Games sipping champagne, posing for the camera, and trying to woo Katarina Witt, the East Germany beauty who won the figure skating gold that year.
Next. The Austrian guy Hermann Maier. “He could be dead, right?” During the downhill competition, off a steep turn, he flew 30 feet into the air before landing on his helmet and crashing through two fences. He settled on a patch of snow far off the run. After lying still for a few minutes, Maier walked away from the cartoonish crash with just a bruised left shoulder and sprained right knee. Three days later, with the memory of the downhill disaster dogging his concentration, Maier won the Super-G. “Maybe he really is an alien, I don’t know,” his girlfriend, Petra Wechselberger, remarked. Three days after that, he took Giant Slalom gold. Awesome stuff.
And in my memory it began with the name. One man’s name. Debonair skiing sensation Jean-Claude Killy. He owned the 1968 Games, held in his native France and owned downhill skiing for years.
Hey. I am all for Americans stepping up to the competition but please bring back these mysterious, blond haired, glacier eyed, carefree playboy Austrians who bring a little flair and charisma and less American bombast to the sport. Plus. Their crashes are pretty spectacular.
– Ice skating.
All that ice skating judging crap. C’mon. Russian judges scoring Americans like they didn’t even watch. French judges being coerced. While having men in tight outfits doing something called a “camel” doesn’t float my boat, there is something tense about a 3 minute program conducted on a very very thin blade of metal that makes it worthwhile as long as you know the judging is crap and you can yell at the TV (and when would I EVER envision yelling at a television over ice skating? Answer: never). There is Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding. Sonja Henie. Bad music. Silly costumes. What makes this awesome is most of us have no clue how they are judged, the judges have no clue how to judge and the skaters are trying to impress all of us. The sheer randomness of this event makes it all worthwhile.
– Ice Hockey.
We all know the story. Set against the backdrop of the Cold War, the United States took on the heavily favored Soviet Union team in men’s ice hockey in 1980. I cannot remember any other ice hockey Olympic game I have watched since. Who cares. Olympics were made for a once in a lifetime Olympics story like this.
– Bobsled and Luge.
WTF. Even better, is “Luge” isn’t even recognized as a word in my spell check. So. Of course there is the Jamaican bobsled team story (the bad movie Cool Runnings). More importantly is when else do you ever watch someone (or two) sit flat on their back or on their stomach and go 100+ miles per hour on a flexible flyer on sheer ice. And actually watch. This is like watching NASCAR on ice just waiting for the crash. All the good teams are from countries you think have the coolest flags but have no clue where they are. And, once again, how does one decide that they are going to become the best “bobsledder” in the world? We would never know if it wasn’t for the Olympics.
So. With all these great things why don’t we care about the Olympics anymore? (Beyond the fact they have eliminated any possibility of another Eddie the Eagle type participant):
In the battle for relevance I am not sure the right side is winning.
Will I ever care for or watch the Biathlon? Nope. I am not sure I will ever care there is someone out there that can ski a zillion miles and still stop and shoot the eye out of a squirrel unless World War 3 rolls around (then I am gonna wish our guys are better). But who cares? It’s one of those nifty random things that make the Olympics special. I would rather someone try and make this skiing/shooting thing cool rather than bring in some new cool TV viewing activity and relegate the skiing/shooting thing to some obscure corner of Canada. I believe in our attempt to keep the Olympics “up-to-date” and relevant to a “new viewing audience” we have started including some very non-Olympic like activities. Just make the old school stuff cool and we get back to Olympics basics. Let’s teach the “new viewing audience” what was cool about what we already had.
The pros have diminished the randomness.
I won’t argue the whole higher moral value of amateurs competing. Rather, let me argue that bringing in obvious pros has diminished the event in another way (although the first one is valid also).
Similar to college basketball to pro basketball there is always a little randomness, humanness, maturity struggle, whatever that made the Olympics special. Sure. There were always “veterans” and they performed with that veteran experience but even they on occasion got knocked around by some young upstart who didn’t know any better who got caught up in the moment. Allowing professional athletes is killing the Olympics. Do I know where to draw the line? Nope. Allowing professional skiers in Olympics? Yeah. I am ok with that. Professional basketball players? Nope. Professional tennis players? Shit. I don’t think tennis should even be an Olympics sport. But. If it is? No pros (on the tour). Tennis club pros? Sure. That would be a blast. Anyway. I am rambling. I don’t know where the line is but we have crossed it.
Americans win too Often.
Okay. That’s a big statement. So let me qualify it. I am not sure if we win too often and too easily (meaning the types of games are skewed to United States capabilities) or if we simply don’t showcase the events where other countries kick the shit out of the American contestants. In the old days we saw year after year the US hopeful flameout on the ski slopes to one of those Nordic studs but we enjoyed the hope. Sure Americans started winning some but it was challenging the Viking-like athletes as an underdog. I miss countries coming to the Olympics under the guise of “sports fellowship” but really there to wear their country’s flag and shove it up someone’s ass when they won. I like the Russian judge never scoring the US team over 4 in a 10 scale even if they skated on their heads the entire routine. In the end I keep coming back to Americans winning too often. Make it hard for us. We will figure out a way to win. And when Americans are focused and grumpy and the underdog, people globally pay more attention also.
Anyway.
Now that I actually know the Olympics are here I may watch. I am hoping that I was in a minority with regard to Olympics awareness (or lack thereof). A great event. It shouldn’t be missed.
This is about the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts … and little things <but big differences>.
Sometimes in the business world we are always seeking something big.
I know for sure that everyone wants to make a big impact <sales, results, behavior, etc.>. But we are almost always seeking the ‘big’ when something small may be the path to success.
Sometimes we invest so much energy into trying to find something big to make a big impact when something very little can create a big impact.
In addition … sometimes trying to convince people to do something small … takes a big effort <because if it looks small people seem to worry it will not be noticed>.
In any case … small can make a big difference.
Ok.
What do I mean?
Let me use two organizations I think very highly of and wish they were doing better:
Girl Scouts
Boy Scouts
Let me begin by saying my sister was a Girl Scout (and I don’t hold that against her or the girl scouts) … and I beat up Boy Scouts (and I am hoping they don’t hold that against me).
It was right for her … and maybe not so right for me.
But.
That said.
I believe the organizations are very right for younger generations.
Particularly for the current generation and the next generation (which I call the Global generation).
The values and responsibility teachings they share are invaluable to creating a foundation for responsible humanity <and doing the right thing>.
In addition, while some things may seem archaic in their teachings, they create a nuts & bolts type timelessness of practical life (which is something I believe is often underrated in this world of “we need to stay ahead of the curve”).
I guess what I mean by that is maybe showing youth what was behind the curve may be helpful in life.
But, hey, that’s me.
Anyway.
Both these organizations seem trapped in an outdated image. Perceptionwise not appearing relevant.
<note:
I use perceptionwise because I believe in reality if you took the time to look inside, many of the things they share are quite relevant>
But I believe some little things could help make a big impact on perceptions.
For example.
Boy Scouts … who would love to communicate they are not ‘lily white’ and are all inclusive … could use the current words in their vision statement (meaning I am not trying to change who they are and what they stand for) and simply communicate those same words in a different style.
Say graffiti.
It says the same thing they have always been saying but also says so many other things.
Little change. Big difference in perception.
And imagine LL Cool J, an ex boy scout, standing in front of these words … talking about the Boy Scouts.
Well.
I am no genius but I can almost guarantee people would not only be thinking about the Boy Scouts … but they would be starting to think about them in a different way.
Ok.
Next.
And how about the Girl Scouts?
How do we show they are inclusive and relevant?
How about showcasing the “new green.”
Young girls, and den mothers or whatever they are called, with green fingernail polish, green eye shadow, green streaks in their hair, whatever … you get the idea.
The green becomes a badge for cool, relevant inclusiveness … and the fact the organization is open to things other than add-a-beads (I think that’s what they are called) and pleated skirts (gosh. I am hoping they are not cool again).
Once again this is using little things to create the response you are looking for.
Is this big?
Nope.
It is something little.
But makes some big strides in moving both organizations in the direction they want to go.
I would kill to help both of these organizations.
I believe in what they are all about and the intent behind their vision.
I am probably a little liberal for their tastes but I believe what makes any good liberal a great liberal is a foundation of some good ole conservative responsibility and values.
Anyway.
The point of this isn’t ‘being liberal’ or conservative, it is that little things can make a pretty darn big impact.
Oh. And then there was Italy’s 
