For the last four months, I've been absolutely convinced it's Romney all the way. It seemed pretty obvious that Gingrich isn't electable, and the percentage of people who don't like him - his unfavorable rating - seemed just too high to overcome. And the prevailing attitude about Romney among Republican loyalists seemed to echo this sentiment. They may not really like Romney, but he's theirs, and they'll vote for him. Resigned acceptance. Even up to just three days ago, I sat with my brother-in-law and nephew providing the absolute scenario that Romney's victory was inevitable. But based on Romney's recent performances, I've changed my mind. Newt might just have a shot.
Occupy Wall Street may not be occuping much actual space anymore, and their supporters may never have completely coalesced around specific demands. But what they were able to articulate incredibly well, and quite succinctly in their "We are the 99%" is the unfairness of income inequality in this country. And this looming issue has deep hooks in the campaign. Although Romney has tried on the campaign trail to tell people he's one of them, one of the 99%, it's a tough argument to continue to make when we all know he is actually a super rich guy, whose tax rate is the same as someone who goes to work everyday making $80k.
It's not that making a lot of money is a bad thing. Americans are okay with wealth, they aspire to it, and in fact have always been okay with uber rich presidential candidates. Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan - all had a lot of money. But those candidates made people feel they cared about the middle class. Even after Romney released his tax returns, revealing he made close to 24 million last year, and paid a tax rate of less than 14%, he might have been alright - if he had been able to handle the issue well in the media. But he didn't. He fumbled at every juncture. He is awkward, clearly uncomfortable about the topic, doesn't come off as relaxed or warm - or human - and because of the way he "flip flopped" on whether or not he was even going to release his returns, or release years farther back than 2010, it makes everyone figure that he's got something bigger to hide.
When Romney tells a roomful of unemployed people he's unemployed like them, or makes a 10k bet with Perry in a debate, or says 360k, his earnings from appearances, isn't a lot of money, it's the same as when Bush Sr. went to the grocery store and was dumbounded by how a scanner worked. It shows he's out of touch - and absolutely not part of the 99%.
Romney's inability to handle this issue leaves him vulnerable on two fronts.The first is electability. Obama's big theme in the campaign will be about fairness. Making sure everyone gets a fair shot, everyone pays their fair share and plays by the same rules. It's beyond fairness in tax code - it will translate into fairness about entitlements, investment, education, etc. And there sits Romney who embodies the picture of unfairness. He is the poster child illustrating that the burden isn't being shared equally, that the system is inherently unfair. With Romney, Obama couldn't have a better opponent to help paint the picture so vividly. It's one thing to make a shitload of money off of your money - and not work - it's the American dream. It's another thing to make that money and say it's fair just because it happens to be legal. Beyond his tax returns, he'll have an even harder time handling this issue when it is pounded in the media that when a bi-partisan Congress tried to change the laws and repeal carried interest only 15%, Romney and Bain fought it big with lots of money and lots of lobbyists. Electability is one of the most important things to Republicans. If this issue becomes too big, one that leaves Romney too vulnerable, one that Obama can slam dunk, Republicans will start thinking maybe Gingrich is more electable. And they wouldn't necessarily be wrong.
The second, is that Romney clearly can't handle the stress. When he was running a laid back campaign, watching the "non-Romney" candidates rise and fall, he inched along just fine. But when pushed, when he has to play offense, he fumbles the ball every time. No one wants to vote for a guy who can't close the deal. And that is now Romney. He comes off as phoney, inauthentic and on this issue, nervous and untrusting. Those qualities are not qualities that get you elected in a national election. And with these flaws, it will be too easy for Obama to position Romney just where he wants him.
National elections are long, some say too long. But they do separate the boys from the men. The candidates live through extreme pressure on the campaign trail. Watching them live daily through that, handling the inbound and the outbound messaging, managing themselves and their staff, handling - and manipulating the media, proving their ability to build and lead an organized, well run campaign. Huge pressures. And if you crack on the campaign trail, it's a pretty sure sign you'll crack in the White House - if you actually make it there. Great line from Ryan Gossling in the Ides of March. "This is the big leagues. It's mean. When you make a mistake, you lose the right to play."
I'm not saying that Newt still doesn't have the ability and the time to make some monumental gaffe that would deliver the nomination to Romney. But while even a few days ago I was absolutely certain Romeny was the inevitable choice, I'm now thinking Gingrinch just might be able to pull it off. Another day, another 24 hour news cycle, I may change my mind again. But today, I'm at 60/40, giving Romney a slight edge. Time will tell.
I've been incredibly slow moving into 2012. Not sure what the cut off date is to wish someone you haven't seen since December a Happy New Year, or when a top 10 list for the previous year is old news. I imagine the expiration date has passed on both. But as I said, I've been moving slow... Might be because I've been busy reading/listening to everyone else's 'best of' lists from last year. Late or not, here's my "what I was liking in 2011" list - in no particular order.
Fleet Foxes - Helplessness Blues
The Decemberists - King Is Dead
Beirut - The Rip Tide
M83 - Hurry Up We're Dreaming
Girls - Father, Son, Holy Ghost
Real Estate - Days
Youth Lagoon - The Year Of Hibernation
J. Mascis - Several Shades of Why
James Vincent McMorrow - Early in the Morning
Yuck - Yuck
Blind Pilot - We Are The Tide
Cults - Cults
Wiz Khalifa - Rolling Papers
Growing up, my brother and I loved television. And we watched a lot of it. In some ways, looking back, I think we were studying the medium even back then - debating the characters, the shows, the plots. On Saturday mornings, I would torture Jerry (brother) by telling him Crusader Rabbit was my favorite cartoon - which is wasn't - just to get him riled, to then have the real debate about which really was the best.
At 10, I had dream that I had to tell Jerry about. In it, someone asked me what television shows I watched. And with a bit of arrogance, I recall responding with "the good ones." Even back then, I was somehow confident I knew what good TV was. Regardless of whether that fact is true or not, television has always been part of my world, and something I am passionate - and opinionated - about.
Only in the last 10-15 years, when cable networks multiplied and evolved, has television become respected. Before then, if you worked in TV or was an actor on a show instead of a feature film, you were looked down upon. HBO, being the leader in innovative television programming, changed this. Now, not only is television acceptable, it is sometimes preferred. Yet I continue to have an on-going debate on this topic with my friend, Jason, who doesn't understand the appeal - either on an emotional or artistic level. I've never really swayed him - which is okay with me. (As naturally, I know I'm right.)
Last night I happened upon America in Primetime, a four-hour series, part of PBS' American Experience. I caught hours 2 and 3 - Man of the House and the Misfits. (Both, quite well done - plan on watching parts 1 and 4.) In the first, Ron Howard gives a description of television that stayed with me. I went looking for the clip or the quote this morning, and found PBS thought it was worth highlighting too. I'm no Ron Howard, but essentially here's what I have been trying to share with Jason through the years. (Quote below, full length video here.)
"Television is a writer’s medium and an actor’s medium. You know, directors, executives, they make a difference. But it's really about developing those characters. And when it's really well done, it provides the most kind of depth. They used to say it's because those characters are coming into your living room. And, I never believed that, even as a kid. I always felt it’s because, week after week, hour after hour, really feeling like you're connecting with those characters and seeing them cope with things - that, whatever the tone, whatever the outcomes, whatever the choices the characters make, you really start to feel like you just know them." - RON HOWARD, Director
That pretty much says it all. Television provides a platform, a palette, to dive deeply into a character, to reveal nuances of their motivations and behavior slowly, as life happens. (The medium also provides "socialness" - the watercooler talk about these characters evolutions week after week, even in the DVR age, when we aren't really watching in sync - which is also what I find to be part of television's appeal and staying power.) Film is at its best when a character (and a story) can be fully realized in 2 hours, when in that time, the audience fully understands and empathsizes with the characters. In television, it's a slower build. And if done really well - like in the case of The Sopranos (Tony Soprano: arguably the best television character, ever), or Mad Men, or Six Feet Under or even Curb Your Enthusiasm - the impact is equal to, if not greater, than the finest film on the big screen.
Other than the fact that film and television are both platforms for story telling, it is really hard to compare television to film. I love film too, but I'm probably a better student of television. And I see it the way Ron Howard does, in that I don't believe our connection to TV characters is about them coming into our homes, but more about how often we hang out with them. The very best television creators (along the lines of Lynch, Bochco, Ball, Chase, Lear) develop shows and characters that keep us interested for years - and in the case of cable, sometimes keep us waiting that long just for a new season. But it's those shows, the ones beautifully crafted to reveal characters and plot lines slowly, strongly and authentically - and the ones I'll wait for with anticipation - that keep me loving television.
I was reading Thomas Friedman's Sunday's Op-Ed "One Country, Two Revolutions" and loved this portion, which described Marc Benioff, the founder of Salesforce.com, definition of the social world we now live in.
Marc Benioff, the founder of Salesforce.com, a cloud-based software provider, describes this phase of the I.T. revolution with the acronym SOCIAL. S, he says, is for speed — everything is now happening faster. O, he says, stands for open. If you don’t have an open environment inside your company or country, these new tools will blow you wide open. C is for collaboration because this revolution enables people to organize themselves within companies and societies into loosely coupled teams to take on any kind of challenges — from designing a new product to taking down a government. I is for individuals, who are able to reach around the globe to start something or collaborate on something farther, faster, deeper, cheaper than ever before — as individuals.
A is for alignment. “There has never been a more important time to have all your ships sailing in the same direction,” said Benioff. “The power of social media is that it is easier than ever to both articulate, and reinforce, the vision and values that create and inspire alignment.” And L is for the leadership that does that. Leadership in a SOCIAL world has to be a mix of bottom-up and top-down. Leaders need to inspire, enable and empower everything coming up from below in a company or a social movement and then edit and sculpt it with a vision from above into a final product.
What I find most compelling is that this description is true for all industries and all companies. Whether you're a consumer brand company, a retailer, a traditional agency, a media company, a communications company, a content developer or an agency (traditional or digital), the digital revolution has directly impacted your business in some way or another.
Brands are struggling to figure out how to connect with their consumers - the convergence of social media, the proliferation of mobile devices, the ability to access content and information quickly, seamlessly and easily through "the clouds." They're struggling how to create products, services and experiences (and communication strategies) that provide value, that are relevant to their consumers' daily and busy lives. And agencies are (or should be if they aren't already) figuring out how to support the brands (their clients) in their efforts. On both sides, it takes an understanding of the new technology realities, the connected experience that these new devices and content provide, the changing consumer and shopper behavior. It also takes companies that are transparent, innovative and design driven. It takes companies that "think like consumers." It takes companies that understand the convergence of brand, experience, design and technology. And it takes leadership that inspires all of this.
Apple is held up (and rightly so) as being one of the very best in delivering a consistently, authentic consumer experience - and there is no brand out there that wouldn't do anything to create the kind of brand loyalty that Apple has engineered. But it takes more than cracking the code of developing loyalty. It takes innovation - and leadership. (Whether you have a Steve Jobs at the helm or not.) Something I read from The Designful Company: How to build a culture of nonstop innovation by Marty Neumeier:
What if you focused on designing great customer experiences. That’s exactly what Apple has been doing, and the company’s stock price has risen 1,273% over a ten-year period, beating the averages of any given tech market. When The Wall Street Journal asked CEO Steve Jobs how Apple will stay on that trajectory, he replied, “We intend to keep innovating.” Apple can keep innovating because it has a CULTURE of innovation.
Clearly, not all brands can or will be Apple - but there's nothing wrong with aspiring for the ideal. So while brands strive to evolve by instilling a culture of innovation and more "design thinking" into their organization - some succeeding more than others - I wonder whether agencies are doing the same thing. And if they're not (and I don't think many are) - why not? Will an agency that doesn't inspire a culture of innovation be relevant - or even around - in 5, 10 or 15 years?
As is obviously clear, the world is changing at a rapid pace. And the faster it moves forward, the harder it will be to catch up. In the agency world, this is especially true for the traditional agencies who offer "commodity services," those that don't truly understand (or haven't embraced) the digital landscape and how this affects consumers' perception of brand, their decision to purchase a brand, their reason to choose to wear (or not) the "badge of brand" on their sleeve - or facebook page, as it may be. These same agencies that haven't embraced these new realities, or incorporated new services to reflect their clients evolving needs, seem to be the same ones that aren't creating a culture of curiosity, creativity or innovation. I think it goes hand in hand.
The agency landscape has been shifting for years, and in many ways it is still a land grab as agencies try to offer the new services that brands require to compete. As innovation, collaboration, design thinking and transparency have become the new realities for brands, I believe they also need to become the new realities for agencies, if they are to survive to the next phase of the digital revolution.
From NYTimes Op-Ed, Charles M. Blow, October 22, 2011
Last week I was hanging out with a few girlfriends discussing the shows we like - old and new. I realized how much I haven't seen. It really was a hell of a lot easier to keep up when there were only 3 networks (yes, I'm old) - though the DVR, and now viewing on demand, has certainly made it possible to try, if I actually wanted to spend all my time doing it.
So, during my TV chat with my friends, I realized I haven't seen everything - but I have seen alot. Most of it pretty shitty & most all from networks, as cable programming more on off-schedule. I'm sure I'm missing some, but here goes...
Blue Bloods - who cares.
Community - I know people love it. Can't get into it. Doesn't make me laugh..
Glee - Losing its charm. But I'm still watching.
House - It's been ridiculous for a while. But Hugh Laurie is too good, I watch for him.
New Girl - Cute, not terrible. But just a laugh track sitcom. Not worth the energy or time..
Parenthood - I put this in the same camp I used to put 30 Something. It's a show I love to hate, even when I'm watching it - which isn't consistently. Too painful. But if you like that kind of misery, it's well done.
Parks & Recreation - Another one I don't get.
The Good Wife - Great. Super well done.
Two and a Half Men - Had to watch out of curiosity. Once was enough.
Up All Night - Not awful. Christina Applegate and Wil Arnett have good chemistry - both seasoned television actors. Not on my 'must see tv' list, but done alright..
Whitney - Usually don't like to judge a show's merits based only on its pilot. But as this pilot was so mouth droppingly bad, I've decided to stop here, knowing I've only wasted 30 minutes of my life.
Grey's Anatomy - Considering how long its been on the air, it's not terrible. Actually been able to keep up the story lines and quality pretty well with changing aset.
Gossip Girl - Too ridiculous and embarrasing. But it's always been, which is the appeal.
Pam Am - Whatever.. well produced, decently acted. Just not compelling. Don't really care.
Louie - Fanstic. Genius. I love this guy.
Modern Family - Still funniest thing on air.
I keep thinking about Steve Jobs. It's not just because I spend a good part of my day looking at one of the many Apple screens I possess, nor wondering if their future releases will be ones I will covet in the same way I have in the past. Nor because, like many others, I have been reading the countless tributes and articles about his life the last few days. Nor that it is always sad when someone dies much too soon. Of course, all that's a part of it. But I think it's more than that. For me, it's what he did with the 56 years he had. I think about how at a very early age he knew what he loved to do, his laser focus to stay true to that passion, his ability to learn from his mistakes, his vision and leadership, and the insane confidence he must have possessed to bipass all consumer research and even, at times, those in his hand picked team who may have disagreed.
I've been an Apple fan forever. When the company was supposedly on the virge of bankruptcy and the only core users were artists and designers (neither of which I am), it was my computer of choice. The brains and logic behind Apple products made sense to me. Playing with and figuring out how to use my 270 Duo Dock brought out the techie geek in me. And ever since has made me curious about the convergence of technology, media and entertainment. But as much as I, like the rest of the world, am in awe of his amazing insight into what consumers wanted, the perfectly crafted products he created, and how he changed the business models for music, publishing and the mobile industries - it is his personal strength, conviction, passion and focus that keeps me thinking about him.
A Steve Jobs comes along once in a generation, if that. And I'm certain there are many who dream of filling his shoes - not just at Apple, or in the tech sector, but also the kid in the garage hoping to change the world and make as great an impact as he did. I am not in that camp. As much as I am inspired by his tremendous success at making a real difference in our world, and in our everyday lives, that isn't what keeps me thinking about his death and his legacy. While reading about his life and watching the clips on YouTube, what I think about us is his passion, his conviction and his strength in staying true to himself. His now famous Stanford commencement speech probably sums up his philosphy best. (And worth 15 minutes if you haven't seen.) Although most are quoting "your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life," what has stayed with me is this:
When I was 17, I read a quote that went something like. "If you live each day as it was your last, someday you'll most certainly be right." It made an impression on me, and since then, for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: "If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?" And whenever the answer has been "No" for to many days in a row, I know I need to change something.
If, when I look in the mirror every morning, I can honestly ask myself whether I will spend the day doing what I love, with as much focus and passion as Steve Jobs did - and actually do it - then I believe there is no greater tribute to his legacy. Other than continuing to wave the Apple banner.
Susan Solomon is a media, entertainment and news junkie who some days feels like writing about what she reads, hears and sees - this blog is those random thoughts.
Recent Comments