Tuesday, February 6, 2007
We've Moved!
We've moved the blog over here. We've incorporated the blog into our website for your viewing pleasure. Enjoy. http://www.aquaterraeng.com/blog/
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Professional Geotechnical Engineers - An Endangered Species
I’m a geotechnical engineer. I’m proud to say that. I worked hard in school, interned under excellent engineers who taught me a lot about engineering judgment, took (and passed) the fundamentals of engineering and the engineering practice exams. Now, having held my P.E. license for over 23 years, I attend and present continuing education seminars every year, pay my fees and document to the powers that be that I should keep my license to practice geotechnical engineering.
I knew that I would be a geotechnical engineer since my junior year, when, in my first geotechnical engineering class, Mr. John Grosch, the managing partner at the time for the Baton Rouge office of Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Inc., visited our class and explained that the geotechnical profession required two specific things that much of civil engineering did not require. The first thing was: geotechnical engineers must get dirty. OK, no problem, I grew up getting dirty. The second thing was more daunting: geotechnical engineers must get an advanced degree. This one made me think a while, but the more I thought about the opportunities that would be afforded me as a geotechnical engineer, the more I realized that the additional education would be tolerable. From that moment on, I never looked back, and I thank the Lord that I stumbled into this profession.
I have come to realize, with the years of practice, that geotechnical engineers must use extensive judgment and is very much “art” as well as “science”. Young soils engineers, heed my words; find an intelligent, ethical and hardworking geotechnical engineer as your mentor, and listen to what he or she has to tell you. Then, enjoy the ride!
Now, I have a particular concern about our profession. We seem to be losing our grip on the professionalism side of our business. We seem to look the other way when non-engineers take it upon themselves to take technical data, make engineering calculations, render engineering opinions, and provide professional recommendations without so much as a college degree. We let our structural engineer friends tell us what to do, such as where to make borings, how deep to explore, what foundation system to use, etc. We even relegate ourselves to a contractor who provides no professional service by submitting price competitive “proposals” (a euphemism for bids) for geotechnical investigations associated with new construction. When questioned by the geotechnical engineer, many clients will say, “I would not let you bid if I didn’t think you were qualified”. The same clients would not dare choose their site development or their structural engineer based on lowest bid. The lowest price geotechnical will usually get the job. But does the client get the lowest price construction?
Let me present a hypothetical situation to make this point. Say the county is planning to build a new elementary school. The school, comprising approximately 20,000 square feet in usable classroom space, will cost about 2.5 million dollars to build. It’s time to get the geotechnical investigation done. The architect (on what basis was he/she hired?) contacts the structural engineer (same question) and says, “get me three bids for soil borings”. Well, the structural engineer is wary of the geotechnical firms who don’t seem to get things done quickly, or don’t seem to provide reasonable recommendations, so he works up a “request for proposal” for the work, and sends it out to three, “good” firms. He is a professional, fully cognizant of his limitations related to geotechnical engineering, so he makes no recommendation about the number of borings, the boring depths, the amount and type of laboratory sampling, or what aspects of the design that the geotechnical engineer must address.
Geotech no. 1, used to doing this work for decades, plans 5 borings to 25 feet for the work, a few classification tests, and gives the architect a price of $4,200 for the project. Geotech no. 2, is somewhat concerned about the expansive potential of the soils, and she plans to perform four relatively expensive swelling pressure tests. Other than that, the scope is about the same, and her price is $5,000. Geotech no 3, plans a program that includes soil borings with CPT testing, and plans to investigate 8 locations. He also thinks the soil may be expansive, and he plans swelling pressure tests. He also wants to make sure that the parking and driveway area will not provide a poor subgrade, and he plans 4 borings there, along with dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) tests to evaluate subgrade support conditions. His price is $5,750.
Mr. structural engineer gets the proposals back. He is concerned about the CPT testing, because he has little experience with this. He doesn’t know why DCP is needed. This proposal was too high anyway (the highest of all three), so he says “no” to this ”Cadillac” proposal. He thinks that the concern over swelling potential is probably unjustified. He has done many projects in this area, and can’t remember this being a problem, so he thinks that the additional $$ for swelling tests are not necessary. He thinks that the Geotech no 2 price would be lower than Geotech No. 1 so he emails Geotech No. 2 and asks for a deduct for swelling pressure tests if unnecessary. Geotech no 2 acquiesces, and resubmits the proposal, hopeful that this cooperative spirit will show that client just how easy she is to work with. So, after spending about a day preparing request for proposals, receiving and reviewing three proposals, and negotiating changes, the structural engineer recommends to the architect to select Geotech no. 2.
The project is done, the soils, in fact, appear to be expansive, so additional swelling pressure testing is performed (after fee revision requests) and the work is satisfactorily accomplished. A good design is forthcoming for the school.
During construction, the contractor encounters variable subgrade conditions in the parking lot. The testing lab ( ABC Testing - not the geotech who performed the work) is consulted, a few test pits are performed, and the contractor, with the “lab representative” there determines that three feet of soil must come out over an approximate 8,000 square foot area. The contractor submits a change order for $10,000 to overexcavate and replace the bad area (approximately twice the total price of the original geotechnical investigation). The architect again wonders why they even worry about getting geotechnical investigations done; it seems like each project has its own set of unknowns.
One day, about a year later Geotech no 2 drives by the school on her way to work and thinks, “here is another job that went well, because I never heard a word from anyone about problems”. She turns in to take a look at the construction, curiosity about her projects being the driving force. The structure looks great. Those architects really know what they are doing. However, much to her dismay, she notices several areas where the concrete in the parking lot is cracking, and fines are migrating to the surface. “Oh well, good pavement contractors are a thing of the past”, she thinks as she heads on to the office. She also wonders if anybody even tested the subgrade or the concrete for this segment of the pavement.
About 4 years later, after the main driveway had deteriorated to the point that it was completely removed and replaced, the school board looks into what went wrong. Things got ugly, and lawyers had to get involved. This repaving had cost the school board $15,000, and somebody needed to pay them back. The architect, the structural engineer, the civil engineer, and the geotechnical engineer all had to defend their actions. A separate geotechnical engineer was hired to sort out the issues. He could not define the source of the problem with certainty, although he did either see or suspect many design and construction issues that were at least contributors to the problem. The quality control records were inadequate to really understand if the construction had met all of the requirements of the specifications. Everyone spent a lot of their own money, but no one was satisfied that the problem was satisfactorily resolved.
Geotech no 2 looked back at her original invoice for $5,500 and thinks that any profit that may have been associated with that work went away very early in the parking lot inquisition process. She has no real complaint compared to the school board, however. They were out of pocket about $30,000 in repair and consulting fees, to no avail. The contractor and the testing lab didn’t really care, they only did what they were told, because they weren’t the experts, and they had gotten all of their invoices paid.
OK, this situation is not completely hypothetical. It is like many that I have seen in my practice. The reason that everyone is unhappy here is: all three geotechnical engineering firms are not adhering to the standards for professionalism in the manner that they should. There is NO REASON why we should provide a price competitive proposal in this manner, as we develop our unique scope for the work and submit this to a relatively uninformed client. When we do perform a geotechnical investigation for a project of this nature, we MUST impress upon the client, the owner, and all professionals involved, that our investigation has just begun with the geotechnical report. Our borings and CPT tests have sampled a small space on the ground of a large site, and we have made designs on the assumption that the soil and groundwater conditions have been completely defined by these few borings. When the construction starts, the clearing and grubbing process, combined with proof rolling and foundation construction will inform us in much greater detail about the site conditions, and this work will almost always uncover a variable condition. The geotechnical engineer must be there to understand the ramifications of the change, and to implement design and construction variations to address the changes. The geotechnical engineer has the education and the experience to represent the client’s best interests when these conditions are encountered.
At Aquaterra, we will do our very best to inform out clients of these misunderstandings that exist in the professional nature of geotechnical engineering. If we remain apathetic about this growing issue, we are doing our part to rid the civil engineering profession of geotechnical engineers and replace them with drillers and engineering technicians. People often tell me that geotechnical engineers can be “strange birds”. If we don’t begin to take our profession more seriously, our flock may also be on our way to extinction.
Victor R. Donald, P.E.
I knew that I would be a geotechnical engineer since my junior year, when, in my first geotechnical engineering class, Mr. John Grosch, the managing partner at the time for the Baton Rouge office of Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Inc., visited our class and explained that the geotechnical profession required two specific things that much of civil engineering did not require. The first thing was: geotechnical engineers must get dirty. OK, no problem, I grew up getting dirty. The second thing was more daunting: geotechnical engineers must get an advanced degree. This one made me think a while, but the more I thought about the opportunities that would be afforded me as a geotechnical engineer, the more I realized that the additional education would be tolerable. From that moment on, I never looked back, and I thank the Lord that I stumbled into this profession.
I have come to realize, with the years of practice, that geotechnical engineers must use extensive judgment and is very much “art” as well as “science”. Young soils engineers, heed my words; find an intelligent, ethical and hardworking geotechnical engineer as your mentor, and listen to what he or she has to tell you. Then, enjoy the ride!
Now, I have a particular concern about our profession. We seem to be losing our grip on the professionalism side of our business. We seem to look the other way when non-engineers take it upon themselves to take technical data, make engineering calculations, render engineering opinions, and provide professional recommendations without so much as a college degree. We let our structural engineer friends tell us what to do, such as where to make borings, how deep to explore, what foundation system to use, etc. We even relegate ourselves to a contractor who provides no professional service by submitting price competitive “proposals” (a euphemism for bids) for geotechnical investigations associated with new construction. When questioned by the geotechnical engineer, many clients will say, “I would not let you bid if I didn’t think you were qualified”. The same clients would not dare choose their site development or their structural engineer based on lowest bid. The lowest price geotechnical will usually get the job. But does the client get the lowest price construction?
Let me present a hypothetical situation to make this point. Say the county is planning to build a new elementary school. The school, comprising approximately 20,000 square feet in usable classroom space, will cost about 2.5 million dollars to build. It’s time to get the geotechnical investigation done. The architect (on what basis was he/she hired?) contacts the structural engineer (same question) and says, “get me three bids for soil borings”. Well, the structural engineer is wary of the geotechnical firms who don’t seem to get things done quickly, or don’t seem to provide reasonable recommendations, so he works up a “request for proposal” for the work, and sends it out to three, “good” firms. He is a professional, fully cognizant of his limitations related to geotechnical engineering, so he makes no recommendation about the number of borings, the boring depths, the amount and type of laboratory sampling, or what aspects of the design that the geotechnical engineer must address.
Geotech no. 1, used to doing this work for decades, plans 5 borings to 25 feet for the work, a few classification tests, and gives the architect a price of $4,200 for the project. Geotech no. 2, is somewhat concerned about the expansive potential of the soils, and she plans to perform four relatively expensive swelling pressure tests. Other than that, the scope is about the same, and her price is $5,000. Geotech no 3, plans a program that includes soil borings with CPT testing, and plans to investigate 8 locations. He also thinks the soil may be expansive, and he plans swelling pressure tests. He also wants to make sure that the parking and driveway area will not provide a poor subgrade, and he plans 4 borings there, along with dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) tests to evaluate subgrade support conditions. His price is $5,750.
Mr. structural engineer gets the proposals back. He is concerned about the CPT testing, because he has little experience with this. He doesn’t know why DCP is needed. This proposal was too high anyway (the highest of all three), so he says “no” to this ”Cadillac” proposal. He thinks that the concern over swelling potential is probably unjustified. He has done many projects in this area, and can’t remember this being a problem, so he thinks that the additional $$ for swelling tests are not necessary. He thinks that the Geotech no 2 price would be lower than Geotech No. 1 so he emails Geotech No. 2 and asks for a deduct for swelling pressure tests if unnecessary. Geotech no 2 acquiesces, and resubmits the proposal, hopeful that this cooperative spirit will show that client just how easy she is to work with. So, after spending about a day preparing request for proposals, receiving and reviewing three proposals, and negotiating changes, the structural engineer recommends to the architect to select Geotech no. 2.
The project is done, the soils, in fact, appear to be expansive, so additional swelling pressure testing is performed (after fee revision requests) and the work is satisfactorily accomplished. A good design is forthcoming for the school.
During construction, the contractor encounters variable subgrade conditions in the parking lot. The testing lab ( ABC Testing - not the geotech who performed the work) is consulted, a few test pits are performed, and the contractor, with the “lab representative” there determines that three feet of soil must come out over an approximate 8,000 square foot area. The contractor submits a change order for $10,000 to overexcavate and replace the bad area (approximately twice the total price of the original geotechnical investigation). The architect again wonders why they even worry about getting geotechnical investigations done; it seems like each project has its own set of unknowns.
One day, about a year later Geotech no 2 drives by the school on her way to work and thinks, “here is another job that went well, because I never heard a word from anyone about problems”. She turns in to take a look at the construction, curiosity about her projects being the driving force. The structure looks great. Those architects really know what they are doing. However, much to her dismay, she notices several areas where the concrete in the parking lot is cracking, and fines are migrating to the surface. “Oh well, good pavement contractors are a thing of the past”, she thinks as she heads on to the office. She also wonders if anybody even tested the subgrade or the concrete for this segment of the pavement.
About 4 years later, after the main driveway had deteriorated to the point that it was completely removed and replaced, the school board looks into what went wrong. Things got ugly, and lawyers had to get involved. This repaving had cost the school board $15,000, and somebody needed to pay them back. The architect, the structural engineer, the civil engineer, and the geotechnical engineer all had to defend their actions. A separate geotechnical engineer was hired to sort out the issues. He could not define the source of the problem with certainty, although he did either see or suspect many design and construction issues that were at least contributors to the problem. The quality control records were inadequate to really understand if the construction had met all of the requirements of the specifications. Everyone spent a lot of their own money, but no one was satisfied that the problem was satisfactorily resolved.
Geotech no 2 looked back at her original invoice for $5,500 and thinks that any profit that may have been associated with that work went away very early in the parking lot inquisition process. She has no real complaint compared to the school board, however. They were out of pocket about $30,000 in repair and consulting fees, to no avail. The contractor and the testing lab didn’t really care, they only did what they were told, because they weren’t the experts, and they had gotten all of their invoices paid.
OK, this situation is not completely hypothetical. It is like many that I have seen in my practice. The reason that everyone is unhappy here is: all three geotechnical engineering firms are not adhering to the standards for professionalism in the manner that they should. There is NO REASON why we should provide a price competitive proposal in this manner, as we develop our unique scope for the work and submit this to a relatively uninformed client. When we do perform a geotechnical investigation for a project of this nature, we MUST impress upon the client, the owner, and all professionals involved, that our investigation has just begun with the geotechnical report. Our borings and CPT tests have sampled a small space on the ground of a large site, and we have made designs on the assumption that the soil and groundwater conditions have been completely defined by these few borings. When the construction starts, the clearing and grubbing process, combined with proof rolling and foundation construction will inform us in much greater detail about the site conditions, and this work will almost always uncover a variable condition. The geotechnical engineer must be there to understand the ramifications of the change, and to implement design and construction variations to address the changes. The geotechnical engineer has the education and the experience to represent the client’s best interests when these conditions are encountered.
At Aquaterra, we will do our very best to inform out clients of these misunderstandings that exist in the professional nature of geotechnical engineering. If we remain apathetic about this growing issue, we are doing our part to rid the civil engineering profession of geotechnical engineers and replace them with drillers and engineering technicians. People often tell me that geotechnical engineers can be “strange birds”. If we don’t begin to take our profession more seriously, our flock may also be on our way to extinction.
Victor R. Donald, P.E.
Monday, January 29, 2007
What the Best Sales People Sell
I’ve been saying in posts throughout this blog that business is about relationships. Harry Beckwith in his book What Clients Love: A Field Guide to Growing Your Business has this to say about sales:
“What the best sales people sell in order:
“What the best sales people sell in order:
- Themselves,
- Their company,
- Their service or product, and last
- Their price.
- Their price,
- Their service or product,
- Their company, and last
- Themselves.”
Saturday, January 20, 2007
How to be successful at your profession
Check out this manifesto about "How to be a creative in architecture". When reading this manifesto, however, insert your profession where he has "architect". Josh's points about success are applicable to most any profession.
From my perspective, the key to success is to be the CrackerJack in a box of caramel corn, the cherry on top of the sundae, the olive in the Martini. That is, stand out! Be the "awe" in awesome! Be the "out" in outstanding! Be the "differ" in different.! Put the "serve" in service.! You get my point.
From my perspective, the key to success is to be the CrackerJack in a box of caramel corn, the cherry on top of the sundae, the olive in the Martini. That is, stand out! Be the "awe" in awesome! Be the "out" in outstanding! Be the "differ" in different.! Put the "serve" in service.! You get my point.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Effective Speakers Move Up
This is why we invite you guys to make presentations at conferences: "When people change behavior after hearing a presentation, they grant authority to you and appreciate the difference you've made in their lives. This is why effective speakers move up in the business world. "
This is from Tim Sanders' post entitled Give your speech to change the world. When you make technical presentations, you're seen as an authority on the subject -- an authority. But, like Tim says, try to change the world with your talk; even if you only change the world of one person. How do you do that? Prepare. Practice.
Push yourself to give at least one technical presentation at a conference this year. If you don't do that, try local entities like Rotary Club, local Chamber of Commerce, local Realtors, etc.
This is from Tim Sanders' post entitled Give your speech to change the world. When you make technical presentations, you're seen as an authority on the subject -- an authority. But, like Tim says, try to change the world with your talk; even if you only change the world of one person. How do you do that? Prepare. Practice.
Push yourself to give at least one technical presentation at a conference this year. If you don't do that, try local entities like Rotary Club, local Chamber of Commerce, local Realtors, etc.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Customer Service - Sentiment Matters
In a service industry, customer service is, of course, critical. While we strive to provide the ultimate in service, we will often fail to meet a customers expectations. Plan on it. What matters in these situations is how we handle that service shortcoming. Often, we are measured more on how we handle these issues, than on the service itself. Take a look at the following sentiments, both negative and its' positive converse, as provided in Customer Service for Dummies.
Clients (and people in general) want to know you care; so do. Using the right sentiments, you can take a service failure and turn it into a service success story. Now get out there and care.
Clients (and people in general) want to know you care; so do. Using the right sentiments, you can take a service failure and turn it into a service success story. Now get out there and care.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Business is about ...
I've always said that business is about relationships. Jeffrey Gitomer, world-class authority on selling and inspirational speaker, sums it up with this. "All things being equal, people want to do business with their friends. All things being not so equal, people STILL want to do business with their friends." So true.
So that begs the question, how good of a "friend" are you being? Are you nurturing friendships? Friendly is a key to your success that cannot be measured. Disney is lauded as on of the best customer service organizations in the world. Are they friendly? Uh, yea!
Don't just sell a client; become their friend. You'll truly enjoy working for friends (I do) and they'll repeat business.
Challenge for you -- see if you can make ten people smile today. :-) You don' t need to crack a joke. Just pay them a simple complement. Soon you'll begin to notice that smiles are contagious.
So that begs the question, how good of a "friend" are you being? Are you nurturing friendships? Friendly is a key to your success that cannot be measured. Disney is lauded as on of the best customer service organizations in the world. Are they friendly? Uh, yea!
Don't just sell a client; become their friend. You'll truly enjoy working for friends (I do) and they'll repeat business.
Challenge for you -- see if you can make ten people smile today. :-) You don' t need to crack a joke. Just pay them a simple complement. Soon you'll begin to notice that smiles are contagious.
Check out the iPhone!
Man, if you've been under a rock lately and haven't heard about the iPhone, go check it out. It's quite a revolutionary product from Apple. They have applied for 200 patents in this one device.
Here is some similar great technology related to touch screen applications. Wow, neat stuff coming for the future.
Aside from the neat phone though, take a look at Steve Jobs' keynote address at Macword where they launched the iPhone. It's a great presentation. Simple, clear use of presentation aides. Each slide had minimal text in a large font but really drove home the point. Presentation was well rehearsed and choreographed as well. At one point, Steve Jobs brought on stage CEOs from Google, Yahoo, and Cingular - these guys were not near as prepared as Jobs and were not near as inspirational.
This could be a "How To" for making presentations. Note, however, that even this great presentation was not without flaw. At one point, Jobs' remote stop working for a minute. He make a joke, went off-topic for a moment (while support back stage was scrambling, I'm sure), then went back to the presentation.
Here is some similar great technology related to touch screen applications. Wow, neat stuff coming for the future.
Aside from the neat phone though, take a look at Steve Jobs' keynote address at Macword where they launched the iPhone. It's a great presentation. Simple, clear use of presentation aides. Each slide had minimal text in a large font but really drove home the point. Presentation was well rehearsed and choreographed as well. At one point, Steve Jobs brought on stage CEOs from Google, Yahoo, and Cingular - these guys were not near as prepared as Jobs and were not near as inspirational.
This could be a "How To" for making presentations. Note, however, that even this great presentation was not without flaw. At one point, Jobs' remote stop working for a minute. He make a joke, went off-topic for a moment (while support back stage was scrambling, I'm sure), then went back to the presentation.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
10/20/30 Rule of Powerpoint
Hello all,
Check out Guy Kawasaki's 10/20/30 Rule of Powerpoint. Hmmm, interesting.
Here is some more info about "Fixing Your Pitch" (presentation)
Check out Guy Kawasaki's 10/20/30 Rule of Powerpoint. Hmmm, interesting.
Here is some more info about "Fixing Your Pitch" (presentation)
Sunday, January 7, 2007
ASCE President: What it takes to be successful
For those of you who don't know, ASCE President Bill Marcusen (a Vicksburg, MS resident) has a blog. Mr. Marcusen has a post where he addresses students and discusses the three capabilities that are necessary for a successful future in our field:
- technical capability,
- excellent skill in human relationships and team building, and
- leadership and vision.
What's in store for 2007?
From Jeffrey Gitomer – “Universal Truth – The only difference between where you are now and where you will be next year at this same time, are the people you meet and the books you read.” Quoted from Charlie “Tremendous” Jones, author of Life is Tremendous.
Who are you going to meet this year? Who can be influential to your success? If you don’t know, find out. If you do know, make a plan to meet them. If you’re waiting on chance and circumstance, you may have a long path to success.
What books are you going to read to make a difference in 2007? Here is my reading list for 2007 (no particular order):
Who are you going to meet this year? Who can be influential to your success? If you don’t know, find out. If you do know, make a plan to meet them. If you’re waiting on chance and circumstance, you may have a long path to success.
What books are you going to read to make a difference in 2007? Here is my reading list for 2007 (no particular order):
- Selling the Invisible, Harry Beckwith (done 1/07)
- The One Minute Manager, Ken Blanchard and Spencer Johnson
- Trading Up, Boston Consulting Group
- A Brand Called You, Peter Montoya
- The Little Black Book of Connections, Jeffrey Gitomer (done 1/07)
- Purple Cow: Transform Your Business by Being Remarkable, Seth Godin
- Creating Customer Evangelists, Ben McConnel and Jackie Huba
- Simplicity, Bill Jensen
- The Art of Happiness, Dalai Lama and Howard C. Cutler, M.D.
- The Big Moo: Stop Trying to Be Perfect and Start Being Remarkable, Seth Godin (done 1/07)
- How to Become a Great Boss, Jeffrey Fox
- The Proverbial Cracker Jack, Dale Henry
- Thinkertoys, Michael Michalko
- Creating Customer Evangelists: How Loyal Customers Become a Volunteer Sales Force, Ben McConnel, et al
- Life is Tremendous, Charlie “Tremendous” Jones
- Little Gold Book of Yes! Attitude, Jeffrey Gitomer
- How to Win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie (reread every year)
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
Happy New Year - a bit about marketing
Happy New Year everyone!
Check out this bit about marketing by Seth Godin.
... Jeff
Check out this bit about marketing by Seth Godin.
... Jeff
Electable vs. Marketable
It's easy to get the two confused, but if you do, you'll probably regret it.
To be marketable, you must be remarkable. Marketing isn't about getting more than 50% market share, it's about spreading your idea to enough people to be glad you did it... 3% of a market may be more than enough, especially if you have a local business or an expensive service.
The temptation of the marketer is to try to get elected. To be beloved by everyone. As a marketer, you hear from someone who doesn't love your product and you work to change it. Eventually, that strategy leads to boredom, to sameness and to stagnation.
I know it's tempting to create electable products, but it never works. All the tried and true warhorse successes (Nike, Starbucks, Apple... the NSA of marketing examples) didn't accomplish market share until long after they accomplished becoming remarkable. If the founders had set out to get elected, they would have failed in creating much of anything.
Contrast this with the plight of the typical politician. To her, 45% market share is total failure. In my opinion, remarkable politicians (using the word non-judgmentally) like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, David Duke and John Ashcroft are unelectable.
Not because there aren't some people who are passionate about them. Obviously, there are people who are quite passionate. And the media loves to feature politicians that generate passion on the cover of magazines. The challenge isn't coming up with a remarkable story... the challenge for a politician is ensuring that the story is both authentic and appealing enough to spread to the majority.
If I were a marketer, I'd forget about getting elected. I'd ignore the dissidents, even if they are in the majority. You don't need the most popular blog, the consulting firm with every single company as a client or the flavor of ice cream that almost every single person loves. What you need instead is a passionate minority, a minority so passionate that they spread the word. Jackie and Ben call these people the 1% and they exist in just about every community.
If I were a politician (heaven forfend), I'd studiously ignore the 1%. The 1% are the fringe, and they don't actually want you to get elected. They merely want you to make a point. I'd skip this group and pay attention to the next 3% of the population. These people still have passion but they also understand what it takes to get elected.
So, back to my original point: Who have you offended today? You're not running for anything exept perhaps Mayor of the Edges.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
