If today’s media covered the Gettysburg Address…

President Lincoln’s Remarks at Cemetery Dedication Disappointing

---

President’s address, only 3 Minutes Long, Lacked Substance

It was the greatest battle ever fought to date on the continent - over 50,000 casualties were suffered.  So many of those in attendance at the dedication of the Gettysburg Nations Cemetery yesterday were somewhat taken aback by President Lincoln’s address to the crowd in this small southern Pennsylvania town.

In a three minute speech that contained only ten sentences, Lincoln offered nothing new in the way of strategy or a plan for winning the war, now approaching its fourth year.

‘There was no plan offered here today,” said one pundit. “It was just another speech from another politician.”

“Somehow, I expected more from him,” he added.

The President’s uninspired performance was judged by some to be a reflection of the Union effort in the battle at Gettysburg earlier this summer, and the Northern campaign as a whole.  Despite a major loss of life suffered by Union forces, the battle did not end in a decisive Federal victory.  In fact, many experts have severely criticized the Union Commander, Gen. George Meade, for his decision allowing Gen. Robert E. Lee’s crippled Army of Northern Virginia to escape across the Potomac River in the two week period following the battle. Lincoln did not address this issue in his speech.

The battle, culminating the second major Confederate invasion of Northern territory in as many years, was within minutes of becoming a catastrophic Federal defeat at several points.

Some military consultants say Lee’s defeat was due only to the absence of Gen. Thomas E. “Stonewall” Jackson, who died two months before Gettysburg at the Battle of Chancellorsville. 

The irony of the circumstances surrounding Jackson’s death was not lost on one expert at yesterday’s ceremony.

“It wasn’t even Union troops who killed Jackson,” chuckled the observer. “He was accidentally killed by his own men.”

This fact only reinforces the widespread belief that Northern forces, who have consistently outnumbered Confederate units throughout the war, can only win when Southern troops present them with a “can’t miss” opportunity to do so.

“Even then, it’s an iffy proposition,” the consultant added.

With Election Day less than a year away, most political experts saw today’s speech as a way for Lincoln, who only received 39% of the vote in 1860, to galvanize support. Most polls show the President trailing badly, and many Northerners have grown weary of the fight, as this summer’s draft riots in New York City showed.

“Lincoln’s political prospects are dim, and his lackluster performance today didn’t help him any,” said one Washington-based consultant. “He missed a golden opportunity to crystallize the case for the Union, outline a strategic plan for victory and help his re-election bid.”

Observers noted yesterday that even after the Federal victory at Vicksburg, touted by Lincoln as “cutting the Confederacy in two,” the South fights on ably and effectively.

Instead, the President offered a speech laden with platitudes about the battle and its fallen heroes. Short on facts and substance, Lincoln made no reference even to the number of Union dead felled at the battle. His awkward gimmick of “four score and seven years ago,” a device he used to note the 87 years which have passed since the signing of the Declaration of Independence, fell flat.

“The world will little note nor long remember what we say here,” Lincoln said. From the reaction to his speech, the President was right on both counts.

Nov. 20, 1863

The Patriots Were Ready in a Crisis

Loyalty is a two way street.  For instance, when a football team signs a player to a 7-year, $40 million contract, with $26.5 million of that guaranteed to the player, the team has a reasonable expectation that the player will not be indicted for first degree murder.

Aaron Hernandez didn’t keep up his end of the bargain this summer. As a result, the Patriots moved quickly and effectively to sever their relationship with him. Here’s how they got it right:

They Were Decisive

It’s rare for pro athletes to pay a price on the field, and in their wallets, for brushes with the law – particularly in the NFL.  What usually transpires is an elaborate rationalization of “errors in judgment” “regret", faux-“responsibility”, “let the process play itself out” - or just plain gibberish. 

The Patriots did none of that (although there was an initial stumble by owner Bob Kraft.)  Certainly the severity of the charge against Hernandez helped clarify their thinking, but the team didn’t indulge in the usual language of equivocation. They just cut him.

What makes this even more impressive is that according to media reports, had Hernandez been under contract and unable to play because he was in jail or suspended by the league, the Patriots might have been able to save up to $37 million.

They Understood that a Crisis is not the Right Time to Save Money

The Patriots calculated that the damage to the team’s brand was greater than the millions of dollars that it would cost them to cut Hernandez, plus the cost of some free uniform jerseys (see below).  Similar to US Airways brilliant handling of its passengers after one of their planes landed in the Hudson a few years ago, the Pats understood the costs and made the (correct) decision to pay them. 

They Were Prepared

The biggest enemy of preparedness is indecision.  Since the Patriots had taken the time to think things through and arrive at a decision, they were ready to act without delay when Hernandez was arrested.

It’s a Rule: The Media Needs Someone to “Take Responsibility”

The Patriots realized that, and Bill Belichick got the job.  "I'm primarily responsible for the people that we bring into the football operation.” Belichick had characteristically left you wondering about the depth of his sincerity, but he had checked the “responsibility” box, and defused the line of questioning.  (Conversation for another day:  You have to wonder how effective this would be if the Coach didn’t have three Super Bowl rings and a .729 winning percentage in New England.)

They Didn’t Add Fuel to the Fire

In this case, the Patriots got a “Twofer”, because nobody can remove fuel from a fire like Bill Belichick (see above).  Belichick’s unique ability to stick to his message worked well here.

Nobody Said “No Comment”

No comment – the worst possible thing you can say, at least explicitly.  In this case, particularly in the immediate aftermath, Belichick effectively delivered the “no comment” message, but in the most effective way –

• “I think we already addressed that.”
• “I don’t have anything further on that.”  
• “I’m not going to dwell on that.”  
• “I’ve got to focus on winning for our football team.”
• Etc.

The media knew they weren’t going to get anything more out of him, so they stopped asking.  And the fire goes out.

They Got a Little Lucky

Fortune favors the prepared they say, and in this case, the Patriots preparation yielded a little bit of luck: on the same day Hernandez was arrested and the Patriots cut him, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long awaited ruling regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  This helped reduce the intensity of the media spotlight on Hernandez, at least for that crucial day. If the Patriots had been indecisive and not prepared to act in the immediate aftermath of Hernadez’ arrest they would not have benefited from the dilution of the media attention created by the DOMA ruling.

They Thought of Practically Everything

Giving yourself enough time to think clearly in a crisis can pay enormous dividends.  In this case, the Hernandez arrest was actually more about the Patriot’s brand than anything else – including winning on the field.  The Patriots realized quickly that in a region where almost everyone owns a player game jersey it would be damaging to have thousands of people walking around wearing the team jersey of an accused murderer who was no longer on the team.

They acted quickly to get the Hernandez jerseys off the street by offering a free replacement at the Gillette Stadium gift shop.  (At the same time they also no doubt collected an enormous amount of very valuable consumer data about fans passionate enough about the team to drive to Foxboro to get new jerseys.)

“We know that children love wearing their Patriots jerseys, but may not understand why parents don’t want them wearing their Hernandez jerseys anymore,” Patriots spokesperson Stacey James told the media. “We hope this opportunity to exchange those jerseys at the Patriots ProShop for another player’s jersey will be well-received by parents.”

Post Game

In the aftermath of the team’s success in countering the crisis communications challenges raised by the Hernandez case, Coach Belichick would be justified in offering his standard analysis after a Pats win:  “I think we executed some things well today.  Anything else?  Thank you.”

What Does That Poll Really Mean?

Now’s the season for political “polls,” but what do they really mean – if anything?

There are two reasons to conduct a poll:
1. To find out information that you need to know.
2. To get some degree of validation for information that you want others to know.

Reason #1 is the political equivalent of market research. Some may find this idea unsavory because of worries that it could lead to pandering by candidates. Well, maybe. Certainly poll-driven candidates are out there, but I give voters more credit for seeing through them. In reality, it’s crucial for candidates to have good information about what voters care about in order to stay in touch with the electorate’s top priorities. If a candidate wants to talk about apples, but the electorate wants to know about oranges, the campaign’s in trouble. A poll can help a candidate know what voters want to know about – and address those concerns.

Unfortunately, polls with reliable numbers are hard to find and expensive. What makes it hard – and expensive - to conduct a good poll?
• You need good callers who understand the questions and ask them the right way;
• You need callers who can be trained to pronounce candidate names and place names correctly;
• Informative polls are long, and it’s difficult to get people to stay on the line all the way through to the end;
• It’s harder to find voters in the era of the cell phone, which are off-limits to pollsters by law;
• It takes time and a real expertise to draft a sound, useful questionnaire;
• It takes time and expertise to interpret the data, weighing it properly so it’s reflective of area demographics.

In short, the kind of good data you need for the first kind of poll is expensive and difficult to come by – and becoming even more so.

Which brings us to the second kind of poll. These tend to be notoriously unscientific and rigged to score points for whoever is releasing it. Your radar should really go up if poll numbers are released by a political party, an organization affiliated with one or a special interest group.

In reality, all public polls should be greeted with healthy skepticism. Media outlets used to do them with the necessary rigor, but few can afford it anymore, with some national exceptions (NY Times, CBS, etc.). Local media outlets are, for the most part, unwilling to spend the money it takes to get really good data. They usually settle for on-line polls or automated telephone polls. (I think my dog Buster responded to one of those the other day.) What you end up with is very cheap data that barely passes the accuracy laugh test – but is reported by the media with a straight face. The best information is usually found in the hands of well-funded candidates, and jealously guarded like the precious commodity that it is.

If you want to know who’s really up and who’s down, the best indicators are not public polls but the activities of the candidates. If they’re spending precious time and resources campaigning in neighborhoods, towns, counties or states they are expected to win, they’re in trouble. If they’re launching a desperate attack on an opponent, they’re in trouble. But if they’ve kept a consistent message, are counter-attacking from the high ground, and campaigning in areas that are considered a toss-up, they’re looking at good numbers.

What Could Schilling Have Done?

Below is an e-mail interview I recently did regarding the travails of Curt Schilling and his company, 38 Studios.  I’d be interested in your comments on my responses.
-  DP


From: Jeff Derderian [mailto:jeffderderian@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 11:43 AM
To: dpreston@nharbor.com
Subject: Schilling Piece-GoLocalProv.Com

Hey David--

I hope this note finds you well.

I write a weekly media piece for GoLocalProv these days and I am doing a piece on Schilling and his lack of media response.  We'll look at from PR perspective---what Schilling could have done differently to handle this better. 

I'm wondering if you might be able to answer a few questions for my piece---which will run Tuesday.  I'll put it together over the weekend if you have time to get back to me on it.

Thanks, David.

Jeff

Jeff Derderian
Media Writer
-----

From: David Preston [mailto:dpreston@nharbor.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 12:16 PM
To: 'Jeff Derderian'
Subject: RE: Schilling Piece-GoLocalProv.Com

Hi Jeff – Good to hear from you. 

These are hard questions to answer since I’m missing some key information: 

• What is this the financial condition of 38 Studios? (Other than “bad”).  
• What were/are Schilling’s business goals for 38? 
• Does he know of, or suspect, that there has been any malfeasance involved?  (I am an attorney, but before answering this last question, he would probably want to hire our firm as a sub-contractor to his law firm in order to preserve attorney-client privilege.  This is something we do quite often in a crisis communications situation.)

I should also note that I’m approaching your inquiry as if Schilling, personally, were the client.  If my client was an agency of Rhode Island state government, an individual in government, or the theoretical “Citizens of Rhode Island”, my answers to these questions would be very different.

Communications is not an end in itself -  all communication, crisis or not, should support the goals of an organization, and be designed to create a climate where those goals can be achieved.  38 Studios disintegrated so rapidly that there may not have been anything Schilling could have done business-wise.  If so, all that is left is to try and protect his reputation.

If, as it appears, this is a case of protecting his reputation, I’d advise him to be candid and forthright about how things happened, thank and praise his employees, express regret and accept responsibility for his role.  Above all, he should avoid bitterness or finger-pointing at all costs.

The only possible business scenario that works here would have been that some type of private investment was imminent, and 38 Studios just needed a bridge – money, time or both – to realize the new capital.  In that scenario, I would advise him to make the case that 38 was on the verge of new capital, and that the state would be positioned to preserve and reap the benefit of their entire investment with just a little more time and/or money.

The bridge scenario is unlikely, so it’s probably now strictly about his reputation.  The bottom line with Schilling’s silence so far is that what Rhode Islanders think about Curt Schilling may not be a priority for him.  He also knows that outside of Rhode Island very few people that matter to him will be concerned about this.  If this happened in Massachusetts, New York or California he would have to respond much differently.

Here's a list of questions--and feel free to add any perspective I may be leaving out. 

Q:  What should have Schilling done immediately---press release?  Sit down with all three TV’s? One on one interviews?  If so, why?  What would that have done? 
A:  In the scenario where funding was imminent, I would recommend that he define his position very quickly with a clear, direct written statement.  I would let that stand for about a day, and see what kind of reaction it gets, particularly from decision-makers in government, and in the private capital markets.  From there, I would follow up with a day or two of one-on-one interviews - Rhode Island, Boston and nationally - to further press the case for a bridge.  Stringing these out over a couple of days would allow him to calibrate his message in response to developments, and allow him to define the conversation by constantly creating “news.”  One-on-ones are more conducive to the appearance of a conversation.  They also convey a sense that regardless of what is going on around him, Curt Schilling is calm, rational, thoughtful and accessible, i.e., direct and has nothing to hide.

Q:  Allow workers to talk (about) how they tried to make it work, etc.?
A:  It’s very rare to see the kind of media discipline among employees that seemed to be almost unanimous at Studio 38.  (I would caution him, however, against overtly trying to manufacture expressions of support.)  At this point, with it likely that only Schilling’s reputation is at stake, the employees could be helpful in defining Schilling as someone who had built a strong, team-oriented culture.  Last Friday’s “We Love Curt” sign in the window, regardless of who posted it, reinforces the impression that Schilling is well-regarded by his ex-employees and that he had earned their loyalty.

Q:  Is too late for him to get in front of this?  Why – why not?
A:  From a business perspective, it’s probably over.  From the standpoint of preserving his reputation, I’d advise him to do a couple interviews with friendly reporters (probably in Boston or a couple national sports reporters).  He should be candid and forthright, thank and praise his employees, express regret and accept responsibility for his role. 

Q:  What would you advise him NOT to do?
A:  No finger-pointing or bitterness.  This is unlikely to damage him outside Rhode Island, unless he brings it on himself by appearing to be a self-absorbed, entitled jock who blames everyone but himself, tells lies or denies incontrovertible evidence (see: Roger Clemens, Pete Rose)

Q:  Does this hurt his baseball great image?
A:  This is an interesting question, because the consensus seems to be that he is “on the bubble” for the Hall of Fame, something that would matter very much to a guy like him. Fortunately for him, most – if not all – of the people who elect players to the Hall are from outside Rhode Island.  In order to make sure this doesn’t damage him with Hall voters, the interview regimen I outlined above becomes even more important.  If the interviewer is also a Hall of Fame voter, so much the better.

If he executes the interviews well, they should be enough to prevent this episode from damaging his Hall of Fame prospects - and there are scenarios where it might even help.

However, his career as a political activist may not be as robust as it once was, and the days of delivering his stump speech about how government should stay out of the private sector are probably over.

Q:  When advising crisis clients who don’t want to talk — what do you tell them and why?
A:  It is exceedingly rare for silence to be a good option.  In almost every instance I tell clients that they have to fill the vacuum and define their position on their own terms, even if it is only with a written statement.  Keeping silent is a dangerous choice – it lets other people define you on their terms, which is almost without exception a bad idea.  In this case, however, silence doesn’t seem to have done Schilling any meaningful harm – yet.  As facts become known, however, silence will become an increasingly risky choice for him.

Q:  If Schilling were to call you—what is the one thing you would tell him?
A:  I’d ask him how he viewed the viability of the business.  If, as I suspect, he told me it was over, I would suggest that he take steps to protect his reputation.  The lawyer in me would recommend that his attorneys hire our firm as a subcontractor.  We’d set up a couple interviews and we’d put him through some intense media training.

New Name, New Look

When you've been in business for more than 100 years, like the Visiting Nurse Service of Greater Rhode Island, changing your name and look is a very big decision. You have to get it just right, making certain that the change reflects your brand, your mission and - in this case - a long tradition of caring. Getting it right requires thoughtful research, constructive brainstorming, and strategic planning.

Yesterday afternoon, in the State House rotunda, the result was unveiled, when the non-profit, home health care provider announced it was formally changing its name to Visiting Nurse Home Care.

The process began last summer, as we helped their team navigate the complex process of the name change and rebranding. We helped outline the challenges inherent in their previous name and zeroed in on what the new name could say to better represent their services. They also wanted to reflect the unique human caring that every member of the VNHC team brings to what can be a challenging task. When it was over, we were confident that the new logo's look and feel was a perfect match for the new name and the 103-year old organization.

We want to congratulate Visiting Nurse Home Care on this major milestone, and we look forward to working with them in the months ahead to let people know about their new identity.

What a Man

Eulogy for Governor Bruce Sundlun
As delivered by U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Sunday, July 24, 2011

What a man. What a life.

Bruce Sundlun’s accomplishments -- as a record-breaking athlete, as a resourceful war hero, as a superb lawyer, as a successful business entrepreneur, and as political leader of our state -- would each on their own be significant. You could probably write a book about each. Together, packed all into one energetic life, it makes Bruce Sundlun one of the most accomplished and remarkable men in our state’s history.

And that’s not even counting five marriages, four children, three unsuccessful runs for governor, two dead raccoons, and one presidential inaugural parade run without a hitch through deep snow for John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

There’s really just no way to fit it all in.

Let me step into my role as a Sundlun staffer, and ask you to think just of his brief four years as governor. Hit (on Day One of his administration) by an unprecedented bank failure affecting 300,000 Rhode Islanders, AND by the worst budget deficit in state history, AND by an implosion of the state’s entire worker’s compensation system, AND with the urgent need to restore ethics in government, Bruce was the man for that moment, and swung into his customary decisive action.

The budget was promptly and fairly balanced and the whole budget process improved.

Inventive solutions to repay the depositors and clean up the RISDIC mess were found and implemented, and those at fault were made to pay -- over a hundred million dollars.

His worker’s compensation reform moved the state from an embarrassment to a model, moving what was then the business community’s worst problem completely off the problem list for now going on 20 years.

As a problem solver, he had no peer.

And that alone would be pretty extraordinary. But there was that ethics gap. So Bruce wrote Executive Order 91-One, the ethics executive order that succeeding governors renewed virtually unchanged. He reformed our Ethics Commission. He changed the way we appoint judges, to reduce the politics. He changed the way we fund elections, with a public finance plan and donor limits. Through an intense storm of legal and political opposition, he opened up the pension records; putting an end forever to backroom special pension bills. He got our State Police nationally accredited.

He even cleaned up the Capitol literally!

All that was extraordinary -- but still not enough.

In the worst economic times the state had seen since the Depression, with a shrinking budget, he decided to extend universal health care to children – and started the program that became Rite Care. Against immense opposition, he built our new airport terminal. He embarked on the Westin Hotel, the Convention Center, and the Providence Place Mall. He finished the Jamestown Bridge and built the Expressway. And even that’s not the end of it.

It was an amazing burst of activity. I will bet that almost every Rhode Islander, almost every day, is somehow touched by something Governor Sundlun did.

And through it all, he drove his staff crazy. He was irrepressible, impatient, imperial, unscriptable, combative, frustrating, willful, constantly threw caution to the winds, impossible to keep up with – he drove us nuts.

And we loved him.

We loved him because he was bold and brave, and was warm-hearted and trusting and generous, and because he was willing to throw caution to the winds to do what was right. We loved him because he never once had us make excuses or try to shift the blame.

That was not his style. “Never complain; never explain.”

We all remember his Bruce-isms:

“Always touch base with those concerned before taking action.”

“How fast would you get it done if the Russians were in South Attleboro?”

“When you’ve won, stop talking, close your briefcase and leave.”

“Message to Garcia.”

“Who, what, where, when; don’t bother me with why.”

The phone calls, at all hours, that began with no “hello” and ended with dial tone.

The road shows known to his staff as “Dome on the Roam”, or more precisely, “Bruce on the Loose.”

And sometimes just that big foxy grin.

We saw that his qualities of friendship and loyalty had an almost physical force; that he had your back even if you made mistakes (no one ever was thrown under the bus); and that he was a better friend the more the chips were down.

Politics is full of fair weather friends; Bruce Sundlun was your stormy weather friend. Politics is full of people who take tiny cautious steps with their finger up constantly testing the winds; Bruce stepped boldly down the path he thought was right, even if that meant stepping right in it.

People wonder what lives on after they die. Well, Bruce, we do. And every one of us has been changed: made better, and stronger, harder-working and more resourceful, by your vibrant elemental force in our lives.

We’ve gone on to be judges and lawyers, to run state and federal agencies, to become Senators and councilmen and Lieutenant Governors, banking leaders and senior partners in national accounting firms, but none of us ever will be more proud of anything than the simple title: “I was a Sundlun staffer.”

Soozie and Marjorie, Tracey and Stuart and Peter and Kara: Thank you. Thank you for sharing your husband and father with our state. For those who loved and were changed by him, I thank you. For those who knew and were touched by him, I thank you. And for those who never knew him directly, but whose lives are better today because of what he did, I thank you.

As I close, I want to take you back to a scene from that wonderful movie I saw as a kid, “To Kill A Mockingbird.” As you’ll recall, Atticus Finch takes on the courageous but unpopular defense of a black man wrongfully accused of rape. At the end of the trial, Atticus’s daughter Scout -- proper name Jean Louise -- is up in the gallery of the courtroom, with the black townspeople, who aren’t allowed down on the regular courtroom floor. The courtroom empties, but they remain, and slowly stand. As Atticus packs his papers together, closes his bag, and walks out, an elderly man leans down to the little girl and says, “Stand up, Miss Jean Louise. Your father’s passing.”

At the end of this service, as Bruce is taken to his gravesite after 91 years of a life well and fully lived, we will all stand up. And rightly so. A governor will be passing.

Khe Sanh

A little-noted passage in President Obama’s Inaugural Address perhaps served to close an important chapter in our nation’s history.

Citing American battlefield victories to highlight the bravery and define the sacrifices made on our behalf by previous generations, the President said, “For us, they fought and died in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sanh.”

The first three battles are well known to Americans, but the inclusion of Khe Sanh may well have been the first time that a Vietnam-era battle was included with the others – certainly in such a high-profile setting.

Forty-one years ago today the Marines at Khe Sanh stood their ground and won a savage 10-week battle there. Like Iwo Jima, Okinawa and the Chosin Reservoir, every Marine knows the story of Khe Sanh. It is another example of why the Marines are the Marines.

Khe Sanh was a base, with a dirt airstrip, in the northernmost reaches of South Vietnam. In January 1968, a few days before the Tet Offensive, the Marines at Khe Sanh were surrounded and attacked by tens of thousands of communist troops. The base was subject to an artillery barrage that hit the ammo dump and made the airfield – which the Marines relied on for resupply – completely unusable.

Meanwhile, the North Vietnamese advanced towards the perimeter of Khe Sanh, crawling through tunnels and trenches covered by jungle, drawing the noose tighter around the base. Finally, after two months, with the Marines still holding on and a relief force making slow progress, the communist troops retreated into the jungle under a blistering air and artillery bombardment. On April 8, the Marines and the relief force linked up near Khe Sanh.

President Obama’s inclusion of Khe Sanh with these other hallowed examples reflects his generational outlook that perhaps now is a good time to bring down the curtain on the proxy fights left over from the 1960s – battles that have overshadowed the last 30 years of American politics, and still echo in today’s debates about Iraq and Afghanistan. Looming over it all, the question: “Where did you stand on Vietnam?”

To his credit, the President moves beyond the political to a higher level of basic truth – that the bravery and sacrifices made in Vietnam are part of an American tradition that began at Concord, was confirmed at Gettysburg and reaffirmed at Normandy.

President Obama‘s careful, thoughtful style reflects a deep understanding of the power of words. He deliberately included Khe Sanh in the Inaugural to deliver the same message he sent by visiting Baghdad yesterday: The politics and noise that come with our democracy should never obscure the noble character of those who serve to protect it. And further, that the Marines at Khe Sanh, and everyone who served in Vietnam, should take their rightful, historic place alongside those who came before – and after.


Posted by David Preston

The Red Sox Are. Are You?

In the end, there are two kinds of companies: There’s the “Company Policy” Model. Their answer to any request that deviates even slightly from “Company Policy” is a resounding “NO.”

These are the places that won’t let your six-year old use the clearly visible restroom, even though his bladder is bursting. Why? Because Company Policy says it’s for Employees Only.

(A friend of mine gets even by asking to use the restroom after his purchase has been rung up. If the answer is “no” he puts the wallet away and leaves the merchandise on the counter.)
This isn’t necessarily a characteristic of big companies – this kind of self-defeating behavior is the norm at enterprises of every size. These companies are not centered on the customer. In fact, they seem to give off a vague sense of doing you a favor by taking your money.

The other model is the “Disney World/Nordstrom” model. At these places, they find a way to say “YES.”

Well, add the Red Sox to the Disney-Nordstrom list. Here’s why: We took our two kids to a rainy, damp Fenway Park Friday night. (Wakefield was awesome; Sox win 7-0.) Our seats were a few rows beyond the reach of the overhead cover. When we asked Alicia, the usher, if we could sit in some empty seats under the cover in order to keep out of the rain, she said….YES, without thinking twice. When the ticket holders showed up in the 4th inning (Who shows up in the 4th during a pennant race?!) we moved. By then, the rain had stopped and the night was saved.

Here’s to the Alicia, and the Red Sox, who understand that it’s all about the customers.

Why the Marines are the Marines

Every great organization has its legends. These stories define the mission and the traditions of the group, and set a standard of performance that current members can strive for. They also encourage others to want to join.

Few groups take more care with their legends than the U.S. Marine Corps. Every Marine knows the stories of the Marines who came before, and no Marine wants to be the one who fails to meet the standard of performance as defined by these legends. Every Marine aspires to be a worthy successor to the Marines who came before.

I’m reminded of this because today marks 63 years since the Marines landed on Iwo Jima in the Pacific during World War II. When the Marines tell their story to new recruits (like me 25 years ago) the story of Iwo Jima is right at the beginning. (The Marines even use video of the famous flag raising on the island in their advertising.)

Telling the Iwo Jima story makes sense for the Marines. It’s a story of great courage. Of the 81 Congressional Medals of Honor (the nation’s highest honor) awarded to Marines in WWII, 22 were awarded for action on Iwo Jima. This is more than for any other battle in American history. The Naval commander Admiral Chester Nimitz said of the Marines on Iwo “uncommon valor was a common virtue.” When you read the citations for the Marines (and five sailors) who received the Medal of Honor on Iwo Jima you will see what he meant.

It also makes it clear that the Marines’ central mission is dangerous, sometimes brutal. During the six week battle for the eight square mile island (about the size of Pawtucket, R.I.) 6,800 Americans were killed. One out of three Americans who landed on the island was killed or wounded. All but a couple hundred of the 22,000 Japanese defenders fought to the death.

When I consider Iwo Jima it’s not long before I get to a sense of gratitude and pride. Gratitude towards the men who fought the battle – combined with the pride of knowing that despite all the distractions a prosperous democracy can create, thisnation still produces men and women who are worthy successors of the Marines on Iwo Jima.

A Therapeutic Moment

The Good News: I like iced tea, so I was glad when Dunkin’ Donuts started brewing it and selling it. The Bad News: Sunday night it took the chain four tries to get my order (medium, black, unsweetened) right. At the DD at 6166 Post Road in North Kingstown (where I made the mistake of driving away without taste testing first) the first try tasted like iced coffee. When I drove around again, the second did, too. The young lady at the window explained: Maybe it’s because we had trouble with the tea brew basket, so we took the coffee brew basket and made tea with it. Could be…

At my next stop, in Attleboro, their first try (3rd total) had sugar in it. I learned this in time because I’ve taken to protecting myself against missed orders by doing something that I hate doing, because it’s so obnoxious – I sit at the window and take a sip before I go. I hate to admit this, but it’s becoming the only way to make certain that you find out in time if you’re getting what you paid for. “No, I didn’t order Sweet n’ Low.” On try number four, I hit paydirt.

Why is service such a challenge for some places? I had breathtakingly bad experiences at Macy’s and Sears over the weekend as well. But then, I had a great experience with AAA’s East Providence office.

You can be sure I’ll renew my membership with AAA, and recommend them to others. Meanwhile, I’ll look for ways to shop around Macy’s and Sears, and I’ll get iced tea at Starbucks whenever I can.

The World Series, Ted Williams, and the Fine (Lost?) Art of the Graceful Finish

Another World Series win for the Red Sox, and a completely different experience from 2004. Three years ago the inevitable moment when the whole thing came crashing down (or dribbling through someone’s legs) always seemed just around the corner. In fact, the 2006 season was well under way before I finally felt comfortable that the 2004 title was not somehow going to be revoked. The Curse? Ancient history.

This year, it was almost like watching the Patriots – you may not have known they were going to win, but you almost expected it, and weren’t the least bit surprised when it happened. I went to Game 1 at Fenway (my first Series game ever), and the 13-1 shellacking the Sox handed the Rockies and their ace Jeff Francis set the tone. Game 3 was a good window into the “new” Sox – after blowing a 6-0 lead and letting the Rockies close to 6-5, the Sox roared back to win 10-5. And nobody was surprised. After that, the Game 4 win seemed inevitable.

Looking back, it’s easy to pinpoint the precise instant when ‘The Curse’ was broken: bottom of the 8th, Game 6, 2004 ALCS. Jeter was on first after his RBI single had cut the Sox lead to 4-2. A-Rod hit a grounder down the first-base line that was fielded by Bronson Arroyo, who tagged Rodriguez out, but A-Rod deliberately knocked the ball loose. The ball rolled down the right-field line, Jeter came around to score and Rodriguez was standing on first. Here we go again - the Yankees had cut the Red Sox lead to 4-3 with one out in the eighth inning and A-Rod was on second base.

Now in the Bad Old Days (i.e., September 12, 1918 to October 19, 2004), we know what would have happened – the umpires would have looked at each other, shrugged, issued a collective “We didn’t see anything” and the Sox, up 4-0 at the start of the inning, would have watched the Yankees go on to win the World Series. But the umps called A-Rod out, Jeter was sent back to first, Arroyo struck out Gary Sheffield, The Curse was broken and the Sox would be champs.
Now it’s a whole new ball game.

——-

Sitting at Fenway in the cold, drizzly Fall murk during Game 1 made me think of the best baseball pieces ever written – Updike’s Hub Fans Bid Kid Adieu’, his famous essay about Ted Williams’ last game and Hollywood-ending last at-bat. If you haven’t read it, you should – it’s a great combination of fantastic writing and heroic subject matter.

Forty seven years after his last at-bat, Williams’ numbers are still staggering. Everyone knows he’s the last guy to hit .400 (66 years ago, when he also had an incredible .574(!) on base percentage to go with the .406 average), but he’s also the only American Leaguer ever to win the Triple Crown twice. When he retired, he was third all-time in home runs, trailing only Jimmy Foxx and the Babe – both of whom, coincidentally, had also spent time in a Red Sox uniform.
With the team, Williams (who was born twelve days before the Sox won the 1918 Series), is still #1 All-Time in home runs and batting average, and second only to the great Carl Yastrzemski in runs, hits, doubles, total bases, RBIs and extra base hits.

Those are awe-inspiring numbers, made even more so by the fact that he spent five years in the prime of his career not at Fenway, but flying fighter planes in the Marines.

But for Updike the numbers are just the start. He describes Williams’ volatile relationship with the Boston fans and media – deftly characterized as a “marriage”, with all the attendant ups and downs. And finally – and most important - he presents Williams’ ability to have the sense, the grace, the self-discipline and self-knowledge to know when it was over and how to end on the most graceful note possible.

What makes a strong ending? One way to tell is when the audience, with some surprise, says “Wow. That was really good.” Read the Updike piece - you’ll see what I mean.