The 12 habits of highly ineffective non-leaders

I've been thinking a lot about leadership lately.  I think about it a lot in connection with some volunteer work I do and in connection with my Star Trek podcast. 😀

Managers are people who have formal authority in a particular job or responsibility. Leaders are people who exert influence through social relationships and engagement.

Sometimes managers are leaders, but not always.  Sometimes leaders are also managers, but not always. Often the true "leader" in an organization is not the person with formal authority.

It is not hard to find lists of the habits of highly effective leaders.  

But here, from the Michael Marek Management Handbook, are 12 habits of highly ineffective non-leaders:

1. Come in late and leave early - keep them guessing
   
2. Manage by edict - asking people what they think might undermine your authority
   
3. Don't let them predict when you are going to micromanage and when they have discretion
4. Assume that people don't really want to work, so you have to be a taskmaster
5. Never admit you were wrong about anything
6. Don't give people feedback on their work before it is time to fire them
   
7. Take credit for everything (never give credit where credit is due)
   
8. Make sure YOU know what YOUR superior wants before you voice an opinion
9. Knee-jerk everything - planning takes critical thinking and that's HARD
10. Let your temper go - it will scare them into obeying
    
11. Never socialize with your subordinates
12. Review Machiavelli at least once a month 
    

Leadership when combined with management is both an art and a science. Leaders should never knee-jerk their reactions and always think their responses through for the secondary and tertiary ramifications is possible courses of action.

Why I Voted Against Trump in 2020

Note: I wrote this in October 2020, well before the January 6, 2021 riot and so-called insurrection in the US Capitol building. Trump's role in that fiasco is not reflected in my analysis.
     -----
I have returned my completed absentee ballots for the 2020 elections and I did not vote to reelect the president.

Conservatives like to characterize opposition to the president as "they hate Trump."

The truth is that people who are committed to voting against reelection have generally made well-thought-through decisions based on solid moral and ethical frameworks.  In addition, they're tired of the chaos, bluster, and incompetence.

For the record, I am not a member of any political party and have not been for 40+ years. I, however, have a well-developed framework of what I expect from a politician in terms of critical thinking, ethics, and public policy. My years in journalism led me to decide what I think about politicians in complex terms, judging their ethics, their words, their actions, and their behavior holistically. 

So, according to my evaluation, here are the fundamental reasons I voted against Trump.

1. Policy - I disagree with virtually every major policy position of the Trump Administration.

• Rejection of evidence-based decisionmaking and well-established science in favor of wishful thinking or profit motive
• Woefully mismanaging the US coronavirus response 
• Out-of-control spending and skyrocketing deficit
• Diverting Congressionally-allocated money to unrelated pet projects
• Unprecedented interference with private businesses that goes way beyond OSHA, FTC and FDA norms
• Withdrawing from the world climate agreement and WHO for petty reasons
• Fostering fear and intimidation among legitimate refugees, a massive violation of Christian teaching
• Trying to scale back the social safety net, as if the poor were not worthy of receiving help
• Abandoning allies and tacitly supporting enemies of the US, in violation of all recommendations from the military and intelligence agencies
• Encroaching on national parks and other anti-environmental decisions, in most cases to boost profits of corporate campaign contributors
• Regressive attitudes about health care policy, as if the poor were not worthy of receiving health care
• Interfering with military justice processes 
• Pardoning friends who are convicted of serious crimes
• Politicization of federal agencies that are not supposed to be political, particularly the Justice Department
• The high-pressure rush to seat a new supreme court justice less than a month before the election, so that the justice can vote on cases he brings before the court
• Even going to the Moon and Mars, which I like, is being forced at such a break-neck pace that safety may be compromised 

2. Management practices - No management class teaches doing things anywhere near the way Trump does, much less the prestigious Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania where he has a bachelor's degree (but no evidence of the MBA he claims)

• Continued bungling of COVID-19 crisis communication
• Appointing key people who have no relevant experience, or who were lobbyists for the industry they are now supposed to regulate 
• Reliance on unqualified ACTING leadership in important positions to avoid the Congressional confirmation process; never nominating permanent replacements
• Failure to give clear policy directives to subordinate agencies so that they misunderstand or are not properly prepared for implementation (this started almost from day one with his travel ban)
• Undercutting coordinated policy he previously approved
• Firing people by public tweet
• Non-disclosure agreements for public employees
• Failure to comply with legitimate subpoenas (which even Nixon did)

3. Morality and Ethics - We cannot tell what ethics are in the president's heart, but we can evaluate his morality (judgment of right and wrong) based on his public behavior.

• Suppressing vital information that has led to over 200,000 COVID-19 deaths
• Constant threats, bullying, intimidation, name-calling, insults, and general lack of civility
• Amplifying debunked conspiracy theories
• Constant false claims and superlatives that fail fact-checking
• Frequent appeals to racism; encouraging hate against minority groups
• General lack of respect toward anybody outside his inner circle
• Using HLS (or other unidentified federal personnel) as a secret police force
• Vindictive reprisals against political opponents
• Profiting from his government position 
• Intentional Hatch Act violations 
• Anti-democratic, authoritarian tendencies (compromise is the moral foundation of democracy, not strong-man tactics)
• Ordering violent assaults on peaceful protestors
• Misunderstanding or deliberately disregarding the law and Constitution
• Consuming focus on self-aggrandizement
• Highest criminal indictment rate of political appointees in a century
• His personal tax returns show huge ethical problems and national security vulnerabilities

4. Aptitude - Certainly, Trump came into office with no experience, but he hasn't gotten any better while in office.  The "give him a chance" argument didn't result in improvement.

• Lack of insightful leadership on critical issues like pandemic relief and climate change
• Little evidence of critical thinking and an apparent lack of ability to comprehend complex issues
• Mercurial, unstable temperament 
• Inability to stay on topic
• Inability to articulate his ideas and policies clearly when "live" on camera
• Inability to admit error
• Inability to be "presidential" i.e. injecting inappropriate partisanism in situations that should be nonpartisan
• Reliance on right-wing pundits for policy guidance
• Wasting hours each day on "rage tweeting"
• Almost daily conduct unbecoming a president

To be honest, I saw these things coming and did not vote for Trump the first time.  He has given me no reason to change my mind, and in fact, revalidates my original 2016 decision almost daily.

All Good Things 2: Accomplishments

On the occasion of my retirement, I have been thinking back over the past 16 years.

I have been the radio station advisor and Radio Workshop teacher for almost a third of the lifetime of KWSC-FM, which begins its 50th year this fall. When I inherited the station, it had a transmitter that was past its design lifetime, aging studio equipment, no AP service, bootlegged software on its production computers, and a programming automation system that somehow kept playing outdated things we tried time after time to remove. The station was also facing a $10,000 fine for FCC violations, committed before my time.  One of the main things I was charged with when hired was to "get things under control."

Today, the station has a new tower and transmitter site, audio consoles with years left in their lifetimes, a constantly updated production music library, a constantly updated on-air music service, and an automation system that works effectively (except for occasional glitch caused by human learning curves). We have recently-purchased BluTooth sports remote equipment, recently-purchased standardized studio microphones, and we are using a podcasting platform that I researched and brought to the table. My partner in all of these technology updates was our engineer, Tom Schmitz.

I have also been a leader for many curriculum updates.  What we now call "Electronic Media" was "Broadcasting' but the industry had moved beyond that "silo."  Collaborating with Maureen Carrigg and Max McElwain, we updated the name of the major and began the ongoing process of converging the student media to make them multi-platform, as the industry expects.  I also like to think that I helped find critical resources and the curriculum structure for the very popular digital film coursework of the "Hot Attic Film School", which is probably leading Mass Communication to a record enrollment, possibly as soon as this fall.

I have had multiple service roles at the school, including serving on the vital Academic Policies committee, the Institutional Review Board, chairing multiple hiring committees (they were all good hires), and some years ago chairing the Technology for Learning and Teaching (TLTC) committee as we revitalized it.  I also served on the WSC Centennial Committee.

There was a time recently, due to unexpected faculty changes, in which I was the ONLY full-time faculty member in mass communication. I do believe that I was an important part of holding things together during that challenging time.

For the record, there are things at WSC that only I know how to do, particularly involving the radio station, and I say that literally.  In anticipation of having Emeritus status, I am fully intending to assist and mentor whoever comes next teaching the classes that have been mine and in operating KWSC-FM.

Does The Wall really make sense?

As a college teacher, I avoid expressing political opinions in class.....but the new semester has not yet started yet, so, here are my comments on the proposed border wall, which is the consuming sticking point on the federal government shutdown.

1.  Big/long walls are not effective.  The full extent of the Berlin Wall required watch towers and guards, and people still got across.  The Great Wall of China (I've been there) is really a series of watch towers and an elevated road connecting them, not a barrier.  A good extension ladder would get people over The Great Wall pretty easily. 

2.  A border wall would require intensive guarding.  It would cost billions annually  for cameras, drones, aircraft, and ground patrols along nearly 2,000 miles of fence.  It would require hundreds of not thousands of guards.

3.  In spite of that, people WILL find a way over, under, around, or through the wall, when guards happen to NOT be looking. Humans are ingenious, particularly when their lives are in danger.  

4. The real cost of The Wall would be $30+ Billion, which that does not include the huge ongoing personal and programmatic costs mentioned in #2 above.  

5.  The wall would require condemnation of private property and destruction of wildlife sanctuaries.  In Texas, at least, one-third of the land needed for the border wall is owned by the federal government or Native American tribes. The rest is owned by states and private property owners, some of it owned before statehood. 

6.  The proposed wall would violate Christian teaching and whether or not you are Christian, it is hard to defend in terms of ethics and morality, particularly since the focus of stopping people is refugees seeking asylum because their lives are threatened back home.  

7. Drugs do not come in via refugees seeking asylum, but rather come hidden in luggage through legal checkpoints, or tunnels, drone flights, etc.  Any drug argument related to advocating for the wall is specious. 

8.  Illegal immigration has been down every year since 2007. I don't like the family separations and internment camps of the Trump administration, but what we have been doing for the last decade is working. 

9.  Most "illegal immigrants" have been in this country for more than a decade, such as overstaying their visas. A high percentage of them have children who are citizens by birthright.

10.  I am sorry, buy I do not trust the president to make wise decisions.  His constant logical fallacies, outright lies, and the way his actions reveal his morality have left me feeling that virtually everything he does lacks any semblance of critical thinking. So I am suspicious of his rationale. 

The conservative Cato Institute says, “President Trump’s wall would be a mammoth expenditure that would have little impact on illegal immigration.”

For the president and the current GOP, the Wall is a symbol of fear that would cost a huge amount of money and would not be effective, because it is not based on evidence or a solid plan.

The better solution is comprehensive and realistic immigration reform, period.

Facebook

There has been a lot of angst recently about how Facebook uses data from user profiles. But pretty much every organization that uses advertising does essentially what Facebook does, i.e. collecting information about customers and using it to target advertising messages to them.  So how do we make sense out of current events in social media?

Yes, Everybody does it

It is a standard postulate of advertising and marketing that we respond most favorably when the messages we receive are relevant to our interests. So ALL advertising companies do research to find out where their preferred customers (and prospects) hang out in the media, and they advertise in those locations.

They also do various kinds of research to understand us better.  For example, the bar code scanning in our favorite supermarket.  Everything goes into a database, and if we pay by credit card for check, they know a lot about us, personally.  Have you ever noticed that the coupons that print out while we're checking out are usually for something we already buy (or a competitor)?

Data collection about customers is not new, by any means.

• For centuries, newspapers and later radio and TV created interesting content in order to get people to also see advertisements.
• Starting in the 1970s there was an explosion of specialty magazines, allowing advertisers to reach audiences they knew was already interested in the specialty products the advertiser sells. 
• The hundreds of cable channels now provide this same pre-selection of specialty interests for advertisers.
• When businesses started using the WEB, the same thing happened -- specialty websites sprang up allowing advertisers to find the audience interested in their particular specialty products.

Modern mobile technology has certainly taken this way of doing business to new heights, like knowing your exact location so they can text you discount coupons when you are near a certain store. But it is more of the same and NOT something unprecedented.


How does Facebook Advertising work?

When you make a post on a Facebook business page, some people see the post "organically" because they already follow the page, or they see a friend comment or like the post.

But as page administrator, you also have the opportunity to pay money to extend the post so more people see it.  You can select friends of your current followers, or use a variety of other criteria, such as geographic area, age, and gender.  Facebook also watches what members post, like, and share, so you can select people based on a variety of interests which Facebook has identified, resulting from your history of posting.

In doing this, Facebook does NOT actually share your data.  The advertiser provides the criteria, and Facebook does the match internally in its system, and "serves" the post (advertisement) to the people who match the criteria.


So how did Cambridge Analytica get the data?

According to this article, the researcher, Dr. Kogan, made an agreement with Facebook which allowed collection of data for research purposes, but forbade transferring the data to third parties.

At face value, this is reasonable.  Academic researchers collect personal data all the time, but ethical research does not allow the identities of the participants to be known by anyone outside the study. Institutions have mechanisms in place to ensure this, called "Human Subjects Institutional Review Boards."  I have served on HSIRB at my school and have written proposals seeking approval for my research plans.

In keeping with this, Facebook prohibits collected data from being sold or transferred “to any ad network, data broker or other advertising or monetization-related service.” Dr. Kogan apparently collected the data, then violated the agreement with Facebook and transferred the data anyway.


What was the real failure here?

One can certainly argue that Facebook needs a stronger way of enforcing it's terms of service policy than simply trusting people to comply.

One can argue that websites and apps on which we post personal data should not be allowed to use that data, but this has been happening for 20 years or more on almost every commercial online platform you visit.  It is the REASON they exist, i.e. to make money (not to "serve the public.")

One can argue that users need more warnings about "the information you are about to post may be used for advertising, and delivered back to you in individually-targeted messages."  Most people will still ignore the messages, as they do the terms of service and other warnings.

One can argue that the people in Congress who are charged with regulating this stuff have no clue about what they are trying to regulate (a fact made clear by the questions from members of Congress to Mark Zuckerberg).

I wish I could boil this all down to a single failure with corresponding solution, but the social media environment is too complex.

The vast majority of these web and app systems are for-profit undertakings, meaning that they either need to charge fees, or depend on advertising.  The tried and true business model is to attract an audience with interesting content, and then expose them to advertising, ideally focused to the interests of the audience because what is advertised aligns with the content.

But most consumers conceptualize these content sources as "services" and do not understand that they, themselves, are an audience being sold to advertisers.  This makes them gullible and prone to impulse when they encounter memes, quizzes, and other means of data collection.

There is no simply way to change this paradigm, but public education is part of it.  Caveat Emptor (let the buyer beware) is critical.  Stop and think what information you are entering into the app or website.

If you don't want the entire world to know something, don't put it on the Internet (including ANY communication transmitted via technology).

No More "Like and Share" - Maybe

Facebook's new policy about keeping "Engagement Bait" out of the newsfeed is intended to eliminate posts with "like and share this post" calls to action.  But liking and sharing is part of the engagement that marketers really want.

So what do they do?

First, let's take a step back and analyze why "like and share this post" has been so common.  There are three things to consider:

1.  Some marketers do superficial planning and all they want is good numbers.  Liking and sharing does cause more people to see a post, although they may not be the best people, i.e. the ideal prospective customers or key stakeholders of the business/organization making the original post. 

2.  Facebook has also been downgrading the ability of a post to spread via organic sharing and liking.  Facebook is a business and they are incentivizing marketers to spend money to deliver their posts (which are really advertising messages) to constituents who are selected by various categories and interests. 

3.  Persuasion theory says that we get people to do big things by first getting them to do little things that build towards the big thing.  Liking and sharing our posts demonstrates support, and repeated small demonstrations of such support set the stage for larger acts of support, like buying our product or voting for our candidate.  So, getting people to like and share has a strategic role.

So how do we respond to the new Facebook rules?

Marketing communications is about brand persuasion, and brand persuasion requires engagement -- a two-way interactive relationship between our business/organization and our customers/constituents.

So, we still want people to like and share, but we'll have to use more creative language.  Language like "pass this along" and "tell us what you think" are likely to become more common.  And marketers will need to monitor their insights (statistical reports from Facebook) about performance of messages containing various calls to action, to see which work best.

But the reality is that as social media matures, it is going to cost more money to use it for marketing.

Up to now, the costs have been relatively hidden -- the staff time for people to create posts and maintain the page, and the costs to develop customized content, like graphics, photography, and video.

More and more, organizations are going to need to use paid reach to get their messages to the people they want to reach. A small business may be able to do this with only $15 or $20 a post, a handful of times a month, reaching a few thousand people. Bigger businesses, of course, will need more money to reach the hundreds of thousands or millions of people they need.

So, strategic planning, including budgeting, is a new reality of Social Media Marketing.

Why go to the Moon?

Going back to the Moon will be great -- if it's a means to an end and not an end in itself.

The Trump administration announced an initiative today to partner with private industry to return Americans to the Moon, and continue on to Mars.

I like the idea...if it's done right. But it could easily be done wrong.

First a confession

The starry-eyed idealist in me believes that we MUST establish a population of humans off the Earth, because there are SO many things that could destroy the Earth, or at least destroy civilization. I have thought this since I was old enough to understand the ramifications of the Cold War, and my ideas have been strengthened by the credible threats of climate change, big rocks from space, and even things like the Yellowstone super-volcano, not to mention epidemics, political stupidity, and other threats.

For the human race to insure that it will survive for the very long term, we have to distribute ourselves, in a way that is sustainable, on many different worlds, and eventually many different star systems.

Now back to today

Based on my logic above, having a significant human presence on the Moon, and eventually getting it to the point where it does not need resupply from Earth, would be a good thing. 

Having a significant human presence on MARS, and eventually getting it to the point where it does not need resupply from Earth, would also be a good thing, and possibly easier to sustain, in the long run, than the Moon.

There are other worlds in our solar system with lots of water and the possibility of sustainable colonies, as well.

Why return to the Moon now?

The biggest reason to go to the Moon now is to begin developing the technology we need to do the rest of this stuff.

A lander that can set down on Mars would also likely be able to set down on the Moon, which would be a good way to test it. The deep space outpost around the Moon, previously announced, can be the precursor of the orbit-to-orbit "mother ship" that takes people and landers to Mars, and maybe farther out.  We need to develop these things, step by step.

But we also need to start thinking not just in terms of reusable space vehicles, but also vehicles that can do lots of stuff.  Like the space opera fiction of the 1950s, our next generation of craft needs to be flexible enough to go many different places and land on many different worlds.

That's expensive, isn't it?

Yes, but the reusability brings the cost down a lot.  Partnering with private industry brings the cost down a lot.  Stable goals that do not get changed every time there is a new president would make a BIG difference. 

And remember -- every dollar spent on space is spent ON EARTH.  All the R&D and construction contracts go to companies and institutions on Earth which employ people, and have payrolls.  It would require a big push for STEM education, which would benefit lots of other technology programs and companies, also.  Face it, without the Apollo Program, you probably wouldn't have smartphones.

Is there a down side?

There is some concern that the Trump administration is pushing NASA to the Moon and Mars as a way of deemphasizing Earth resources programs and climate research.  It may be, and those programs will need protection in Congress. 

But going to the Moon, Mars, and beyond is still a wise investment in the future of the human species.

Why you SHOULDN'T watch your favorite shows on-the-air (or cable)

If you REALLY want to help a TV show you love, don't watch on the networks (including cable). Watch a (legal) streaming feed or DVR.  Why?

TV series live and die by the ratings, but many people do not realize that weekly ratings that lead to cancellation or renewal are only collected from the top 50 markets (cities) in the country.

On top of that, only a random sample of homes with "people meters" actually get counted, and then are project statistically.

So, if you live in a big city, but do NOT have a people meter, you don't get counted.  If you live anywhere else you do not get counted...if you watch your show over-the-air or on cable, that is.

On the other hand, ratings today take into account how many people streamed or DVRed the show in the seven days after the network/cable broadcast.  When you stream or DVR the show you DO get counted.

(Of course, this means streamed legally, or DVRed with a system that can "phone home" to report your viewing.  Bootleg copyright infringed streams, downloads, and old-style home video recorders don't get counted.)

The reality is, there are some shows that get twice or more as many views via legal streaming/DVRing than they do in the network/cable feeds. This is particularly true when you look at certain desirable demographics, like 18-49-year-olds. A three-times increase is not unheard of.

Because these streaming/DVR viewers still get commercials, the networks make money from every commercial you see, and profitability and return on investment is what gets a series renewed, or canceled if the return is too low. 

So the "broadcast plus seven" ratings are influential, and streaming/DVRing allows you to contribute to the ratings of the shows you like.  Or, if you still like the context of gathering for the broadcast at a specific time, watch the live feed but make sure you also stream it again, at least once, before seven days are up.

(Of course, this does not address original series from Netflix, etc, that are never on the broadcast and cable channels.  They are not counted in any ratings, other than the company's internal tracking of hits, downloads, and streams, which they rarely reveal.)

So again, of you REALLY want to help your favorite shows, make sure you stream them at least once in the seven days following the original network/cable feed and add your ratings into the renewal calculations.

"Deconstructing" Star Trek Discovery

There’s been a lot of talk about Star Trek Discovery, but I haven’t seen anybody yet really analyze the story.  Ergo, here is my “deconstruction” of the first two episodes.

First let me say that in 1990s, when The Next Generation was on the air, it was common for fans to go onto the message board and work through many fine details and nuances of the episodes.  As I said, I do not see that level of analysis as often today, which is why I am providing this example.

Many of my comments could come across as negative, or as complaints, but that it not what they are. They are observations concerning the many decisions made by the writers and producers. They are what they are, because Discovery is a completed work of art, which is unfolding week-by-week.  So I am looking at what the writers and producers did, how they did it, and why they did it.

There ARE spoilers below, for episodes 1 and 2.

About the Plot

T’Kuvma is a cult leader, having gathered together outcasts and those marginalized by Klingon society. He found his father’s crashed ship, repaired it, and has fixated on the Federation as the enemy of the Klingon people.

“They are coming. They will coil around us.  And take all that we are,” he says.

So, he lures the USS Shenzhou, NCC 1227, to the fringe of Federation space and provokes a conflict.  It is Stardate 1207.3, or May 11, 2256 on Earth.

Specifically, T’Kuvma ignites a huge beacon, both in visible light and subspace signals, that attracts representatives of the 24 “houses” of Klingon society.  He cites legendary Klingon leader Kahless, and essentially says, “Make Klingon great again.”  

Battle results between Klingon and Starfleet ships.  T’Kuvma is killed, and it is asserted in the episodes that killing him makes him a martyr that the Klingon people will rally around, setting the stage for the war storyline in the remainder of the series.

The main character of Discovery is Michael Burnham. This black female first officer of the Shenzhou was raised by Spock’s father after her parents were killed in a Klingon raid.  This is a little confusing because the episodes also establish that virtually nobody has heard from the Klingons in a century.  Maybe it will be clarified in future episodes.

Michael displays some Vulcan traits if employing logic and analysis, but emotions also influence her.  She is the one who actually kills T’Kuvma after he kills her captain, Philippa Georgiou.  Therefore, it is Michael who triggers the entire war, because she allows her emotions to overrule her logic, exacting revenge for her captain’s death.  Saving her captain and crew is more important to her than Starfleet’s principals, which appears to be a remarkably emotional reaction, for one trained by Vulcans.  

Apparently, they have never heard of setting phasers on stun.

Michael gets in big trouble, is court martialed, and sentenced to life in prison.


The Klingons

One of the biggest continuity issues is that Klingons in this era did not have head bumps. 

In Star Trek Enterprise, the Klingon people were infected with a deadly virus, and the cure removed their head bumps.  They only got them back after The Original Series.  This was done in Enterprise to rationalize why Klingons in The Original Series had no head bumps, but before and after, they did.

The Klingons in Discovery would not be as threatening and exotic, if they conformed to established continuity.  This is a question of design esthetics over rigid continuity, but it is one of the things long-term fans will grumble about.  

The assertions about “coming in peace” or firing on first contact were not persuasive to me.  If you fire on a Klingon, the Klingon will fire back.  I do not see that as leading to respect from the Klingons. Klingons respect honorable behavior, like the Enterprise-C defending innocent Klingon civilians from the Romulan raid.  Firing first and asking questions later would not fit Klingon ideas of honor, I believe.

A threat display MIGHT have impressed the Klingons. However, in a threat display, you would fire your weapons in different directions, not at the people you want to impress.  What Michael was advocating, firing first, would just make them mad and ready to defend their own honor against an unreasonable attack.  

Honor IS important to the current generation of Klingons. At one point, T’Kuvma talks about honor, but the other Klingons say he has not earned it. It is interesting that we see flashback scenes that show he had been bullied as a child, which appears to have been part of his stimulus to restore honor, as he saw it, to the entire Klingon people. 

The Klingon cloaking device is also troubling. It is a one-off technology developed by T’Kuvma, so I HOPE we will NOT see Klingon cloaking technology later in the in this series.  It is well established that the Klingons eventually obtain cloaking technology from the Romulans, a dozen years in the future after Discovery.


The Shenzhou

The Shenzhou, of course, is named after the current real-life Chinese manned spacecraft.  

The bridge of the Shenzhou is huge – much larger than a Galaxy Class bridge decades later.  I don’t mind the modern set design not being anything like the Pike/Kirk Enterprise, but to me the various workstations seem spread out too for effective teamwork and collaboration.

By the way, the bridge is on the bottom of the saucer, with real windows, or at least transparent view screens.  

The assertion that the Shenzhou has no shuttle maneuverable enough to navigate the accretion ring is a plot device. Going fast and dodging stuff is hard, but provides dramatic footage.  Going slow makes it not so hard to dodge stuff, but is more boring, even though a shuttle would give more protection from radiation, because it has shields.  

In addition, why didn’t Philippa move Shenzhou closer when they knew Michael was in critical condition?  Yes, there was some debris, but they have shields, and in one wide-angle scene, they were clearly well away from the debris, where they were parked.  It is a standard law of radio that if you cut the distance in half, you quadruple the signal strength between two locations.  They didn’t do this, again, to heighten the suspense.

It will be interesting to radio folks, like me, that a Shenzhou graphic shown while Michael is missing near the Klingon Ship says the transmitters are using 100 watts with an antenna length of 8 meters, but radiated power is a whopping 12,599 watts. In the radio business, we call that a lot of “gain.” 

Nevertheless, why are they using faster-than-light Subspace Radio (subspace frequency 1142) to talk to a ship that is within viewing range, at the most a light second or so away?  Plain old VHF or HF radio would have solved many of their problems. 


The Other Ships

Several Federation starship names had cool associations.  The T'Plana-Hath is named after a Vulcan philosopher mentioned in Spock’s testing at the beginning of The Voyage Home.  The Yeager is named for legendary test pilot Chuck Yeager.  The Ride is presumably for the astronaut Sally Ride.  Many people seem to think that the Edison was named for the inventor, but I think it was for the long-lost Balthazar Edison, a character in the third JJ Trek movie.  The Europa, NCC 1648, is a reference to either Europe, or the moon that may harbor life (and by Michael’s time, they will know whether Europa has life).

By the way, all the ships zapping at once does not make sense.  Surely they came from different distances.  Why would some fly extra fast and some unusually slow so they all arrived POP at the same time. It is a dramatic visual, evoking the new Battlestar Galactica fleet arrivals or departures, but not very likely in the Star Trek universe, where even decades in the future the Enterprise is often the “only ship in the quadrant.”


The Uniforms

I also don’t mind that the uniforms don’t look like Pike/Kirk Enterprise uniforms, again because of modern design expectations.  The uniform side panels appear to reflect position - gold for command, silver for science, and I think maybe bronze for positions like navigation and helm.  If you look closely, they are made of a mesh of very tiny Starfleet insignia.  The Starfleet insignia on the chest also has different colors to reflect divisions, and that is where the rank insignia pips are in this incarnation of Trek.  The space suit helmet liner also had Starfleet insignia fabric. Note that the admiral’s insignia is different and does not have pips.

Yes, I know that in this era, every starship has a different insignia, and what I call the Starfleet insignia is really only assigned to the Enterprise.  But I do like the visual continuity that its consistent use provides.  


Professionalism in Starfleet

The entire first officer nerve pinching the captain, mutinying, and then the captain pulling a phaser on the first officer doesn’t really work very well.  It is part of the set-up of Michael is a disgraced convict, about to be pulled into risky events, but it isn’t how Starfleet officers behave in MY Star Trek universe.  

Nobody in Starfleet would imagine themselves getting away with this.  Spock didn’t even imagine himself getting away with hijacking the Enterprise to Talos IV, although his plan allowed him to not get caught for longer.


The Galactic Vicinity

We’re told that the Andorian colony at Gamma Hydra is six light years away. Gamma Hydra is where the Enterprise was going in the Kobyashoi Maru exercise. This means that the double star setting of these two episodes is near the location of the future Klingon neutral zone. Gamma Hydra is also mentioned in passing in other past Trek episodes.

Really, the whole basis for the conflict in Discovery is a bit strained. 

“This is Federation space.  Retreat is not an option.”  Who says its Federation space?  

It’s an uninhabited binary system with stars still forming.  There is no indigenous species. The implication is that the Federation just out-and-out annexed it by fiat. 

I was also troubled by the Sarek-Michael telepathic conversation while they were 1,000 light years apart. Sarek says that part of his Katra is in her, which of the Vulcan consciousness.  Basically, Michael is apparently like one of Voldemort’s horcruxes?  

Oh, and 1,000 light years away, Sarek already knew that there was a “new star in the sky” after only a few minutes?  That is not a reference to invisible subspace signals, but rather to light, which would take, oh, 1,000 years to get to him.


Formula Plot Elements

There were several elements of this story that draw on common screen writing formulae that you see all over the place, if you know what to look for.  

Formula scenes include the opening scenes that set the tone of the story, the catalyst that changes everything, the main character making a choice that defines the “journey,” The Dark Night of the Soul in which the main character struggles with hopelessness (the brig scene), and others.

I can see many of these elements in episodes 1 and 2.  Of course, the story continues for 11 more episodes, so they may be stretched out, or we may see the formula being repeated time after time in the subsections of the story.

However...formula plot elements are not automatically bad.  Because they contain elements of familiarity, the audience relates to them easily, making it easy to engage with the story.  (For more information on a very widely-used formula, see this link.)    


Final Thoughts

There are plenty of additional things from these two episodes that could be mentioned.  But I think I have given an example of productions such as Discovery working on many levels, and having many factors that affect them.

Discovery plays fast and loose with certain points of Star Trek continuity.  The richly developed world defined by this continuity is what appeals to many long-term fans. Bit I think my many examples show that in every case where Discovery deviates, it is for a practical “works better for the audience” reason, and as I have shows here, the audience they are catering to is the newer fans they hope to attract, not the entrenched long-term fans.

Five strategies to get the most from your online marketing

I have worked and taught in the field of media all my life, so I know the important role that advertising plays in providing the profitability which allows content that serves the public.

But online advertising often isn't accomplishing what it should.

This article makes a couple of important points, showing that online advertising is far from a mature industry, and often does not accomplish the goals of the advertiser.

Procter & Gamble cut more than $100 million in digital marketing spending in the June quarter but there was little impact on its business, proving that their digital ads were largely ineffective. 

The two most common complaints about digital advertising are that 1) advertisers are paying for ads that are viewed and clicked on by bots, not humans; and 2) ads are placed by thousands of automated “ad exchanges” that are out of control of the advertiser on sites and pages that don’t match the advertiser’s products.

I have been teaching for almost 20 years that the Internet should be seen in terms of the relationships it facilitates, not in terms of the technology.  I am fully convinced that the Internet, websites, and social media can be used to foster beneficial relationships between businesses/organizations and their customers/constituents.  But I am not convinced that display advertising, inserted into websites and social media feeds, is the way to do it.

It is relatively easy to create an ad and then pay one of these ad exchanges to place the add in various sites and feeds THEY choose, based on the demographic information YOU specify. They later tell you how many users saw or clicked on the advertisement.  As the article explains, there is great potential for the advertiser to be deceived about effectiveness, due to automated click bots, or the ad exchange putting the ads in bogus (or shall we say suboptimal) locations.

So how SHOULD businesses and organizations use social media and the Internet to promote their brand?

Here are my five strategies to get the most value out of your online marketing communications:

1.  You have to engage in TWO-WAY interaction with your audience

Give them content that is relevant to their interests and when they respond, respond BACK to them to show them you are listening.  This takes time, planning, and smarts.

The social media, itself, may be free, but the bigger your organization is, the more people hours and budget it takes to plan and create the content, to listen around the clock, and to make replies and help solve problems, all while perfectly aligning with your brand image and brand promise.

This process doesn't work via one-way advertising.

2.  Use strong CONTENT MARKETING 

People respond positively when the messages they receive are relevant to them. Messages that are not relevant get ignored, and frequent irrelevant messages may result in unfollowing.  This is why businesses and organizations need to REALLY understand their customers -- who and where they are, their interests, and why they are or should be interested in what WE have to offer.

The highly-relevant content we create may be posted right in our social media feeds. It might be in a blog or other format that is linked to from our social media.  But is also needs to be well-optimized for search engines, because the specific topic of the one particular content piece may be what allows someone to find us and decide to like/follow us.

This content will surely include text, but also video, graphics, and photography custom-produced for your social media posts.

3.  Time of day you post is really important

Post your content at a time when YOUR people are most likely to be reading, so your content does not scroll down and get lost in the clutter.  Some platforms may TELL you when your people are on.  If not, you can experiment with posts in different day parts.

4.  Call to Action

Every post should be crafted to stimulate some kind of action, even as simple as liking the post.

In persuasion theory, the way to get people to do BIG things is to first get them to agree to little things, and to then lead them along, step-by-step, toward the bigger things. These little things, as simple as liking or sharing, gets their thinking aligned the way you want, so when the bigger need or opportunity arises, they are pre-disposed to take the important action steps you want.

So EVERY content post should include some form of call to action.

5.  Seek both frequency and reach

For decades, the dual emphases for advertising have been frequency and reach.

Reach means you DO want to get your message to as many people as possible, to help find prospects, i.e. people with whom you are not in contact.  Your goal in online reach should be to get people to like/follow your feeds, or otherwise make initial contact.

But for building and strengthening the relationship between you and your constituents, the frequency of interaction is vital. The more positive contacts your audience has with you, the more likely they are to buy (or do whatever the action goals of your organization are), and this is driven by the frequency of contacts.

Of course, don't overwhelm them with 147 posts a day.  Find the daily or weekly frequency that is right for you and them.

The balance between frequency and reach may be different for different businesses/organizations, but remember that they do different things and your online marketing content should never be only one or the other.

Reach is making initial contact.  Freqency is about cementing the relationship.


Final Thoughts

Lots of people think that if they USE social media, they will automatically be effective at marketing via social media.  Not really true.

There are many dimensions that must be accounted for and planned in social media marketing that go way beyond being a user.

I'll be teaching an online course on social media marketing in the spring semester through my school, Wayne State College. It will be regular tuition, but anyone anywhere can enroll, in a degree program or not, for undergraduate or graduate credit.

If you're interested, let me know.  Registration will be in October.

 

The Psychology of Colors

I tell my marketing communication students that every detail of the communication between a business or organization and its constituents must reinforce the fundamental positioning and brand promise of the organization. This includes the colors used in visual communication.

My friend and former student Rhea tweeted a link to the infographic at the bottom of this page, reminding me of a design course I previously taught in which we addressed the meaning conveyed by colors.  It shows why businesses select the colors used in their logos and marketing materials VERY carefully.

Take oil company logos, for example.  Many of them make strong use of red to signalled power, energy, and boldness. Blue represents trust and loyalty, and the white stands for cleanliness and purity.  Gulf's orange represents nature, confidence, and innovation. These colors support the image the company want to project, or at least did in years past, when the logos were created.



But British Petroleum uses green, signalling health, nature, and prosperity, with shades of yellow for optimism and happiness, and white for cleanliness and purity.

See also how the symbolism of these colors reflects how BP wants to be seen today? NOT as polluting and reaping windfall profits but rather as safe, clean, and worthwhile?

Colors are a powerful tool for conveying meaning in visual communications.  They are "subtext," or meaning below the surface, and connotations.  But the meaning is still there, serving the desired brand image of the company.

(The colors and meanings in the infographic are for Western culture.  In Eastern, culture, there are some differences.)

Next time you look at a favorite company's logo, check to see what meaning the color(s) convey.

The original post is at: 

https://iconicfox.com.au/2017/07/27/colour-in-branding-infographic/

Killjoys renewed, Dark Matter canceled - It's just business

Fans are scratching their heads because the Syfy Channel has announced the cancellation of Dark Matter, but the renewal of Killjoys.

This is a perfect example of the disconnect between how the fans see entertainment TV, and how the networks are actually run.

The simple truth is that every TV network, cable channel, and streaming service exists to make money.  Decisions about programming are always driven by considerations of profit.  Serving the audience with good programming is HOW they make money, but the business GOAL is making money, not serving the audience. It's just business.

I have been looking through the ratings information at tvseriesfinale.com and trying to understand the Syfy decision to renew one series but cancel the other.  Both were promoted in 2015 as the cable channel returning to its roots of space-based science fiction.  Both were outside acquisitions, not projects developed internally by Syfy.

Dark Matter averaged 614,000 viewers this season compared to 676,000 viewers last season. Killjoys averaged 627,000 viewers this season, down slightly from 644,000 last season. Industry-wide, declines of 25% are not unusual, as more and more people "cut the cord."

Those totals seem pretty close together, and it may seem bewildering that Syfy has renewed shows with considerably fewer total viewers, like The Expanse (562,000), Channel Zero (543,000), and Wynonna Erp (499,000).

But when we look at ratings from the 18-49 demographic, it makes a lot more sense. Advertisers love the 18-49 demographic because they are most likely to spend money. It's just business.

Killjoys captured an average of 17% of all television households in its timeslot this past season, which is down 5.56% from the previous season. Dark Matter got 15% of television households, down 12.67%, compared to the previous season.

Dark Matter WAS getting high viewership in online and time shifted viewing via DVRs and trackable (non-pirated) streaming views, sometimes doubling its audience or more, compared to the "live" cable feeds.  But such additional viewers may not be as valuable to the Syfy revenue stream.  

Syfy has renewed every current show getting 17% or higher of television households, and canceled every show with 16% or lower.  There is obviously some sort of threshold above which they consider a series to have profit potential, and below which there is not enough return on investment.  It's just business.

Television IS a business (broadcast, cable, and streaming). They spend money to develop and air series, or to purchase outside productions, and they need a return on investment from those expenditures. They make money by selling advertising. Advertisers spend their money on shows that will give them the best audience for their specific products, at appropriate cost. It's just business.

If the ratings of a show are too low, meaning not enough people watch, Syfy can't sell enough advertising in the program, because it's not a good enough deal for the advertisers. Or they have to charge less, meaning Syfy makes less money.  When Syfy makes less money, the investors also don't make as much money, and they consider firing the executives who didn't make enough money.  It's just business.

Syfy is owned by NBCUniversal, which also owns NBC, The Weather Channel, E!, Oxygen, Bravo, and the USA Network, among others.  Each one provides advertisers with a different demographic, not just in terms of age, but also in terms of interests that advertisers can match with their products.

Note that the network and advertiser analysis of ratings includes online viewing within a week of the cable broadcast (via legal DVR and streaming services).  But if your plan is to wait a few months and then binge-watch a series, your viewing is NOT part of the calculation about whether to renew or not.

Consumers generally to not understand these business considerations.  Cost versus revenue, and return on investment, however, are the primary considerations for which series are picked up and renewed, and which are not.  It's just business.

If you are interested in more about the Dark Matter decision, read this blog post from executive producer Joseph Mallozzi.

Tax cuts do not create new jobs

Federal tax reform is on the agenda for Congress again, and that means another round of the tried and true Republican goal of tax cuts for the rich (which never really works to help the economy).

The problem is that jobs are created when the current workforce of a company can't keep up with sales and operation of the business. Tax cuts are not what creates jobs.

Hiring employees you don't need is bad business. A smart manager wouldn't do this, because it increases expenses while not increasing profits.

Tax cuts mean more dividends or direct income for the investors, meaning more money for their lifestyles, and/or to invest in the stock of still more businesses.

If you really want to stimulate the economy, the way to do it is to increase middle and lower class consumer spending. Stimulating local spending percolates money up to the top of the economy as increased sales, in turn making more money for the rich AND requiring more jobs to fulfill demand. How do you do this?

• Increase minimum wage
• Reduce student loan debt
• Control against inflation
• Don't do stupid stuff that reduces consumer confidence
• There are plenty of other things, too.

(Let me note, by the way, that once a business HAS decided to expand, tax INCENTIVES are a great way to recruit new business to YOUR community, such as tax increment districts in which the company pays reduced taxes for a certain number of years, while their facility ramps up productivity. But that is different from "tax cuts for the rich.")

We have known for weeks that corporate tax cuts were on the conservative agenda for this winter, seeking more profits for owners and investors. It's certain rich people who push this through large campaign contributions and lobbying, like the Koch brothers, because it means more money in THEIR pockets.

Don't believe the rhetoric that if you are a conservative/Republican/patriot you MUST support tax cuts for the rich.  It doesn't stand up to critical thinking and doesn't benefit the economy much.

8+1 Life Hacks to help you Succeed in College

2020 edit:  I wrote this article in 2017, long before the COVID-19 pandemic.  Today, I add one more behavior that will lead to success - wear your masks faithfully, be meticulous about social distancing, and don't cheat on virus safety rules. Even if you only get a little bit sick, you could infect other people who are at much higher risk.

_____________________________

The school year is starting and every year, college freshmen have to figure out how to live their lives independently.  For many, it will be the first time they have been away from home for very long.

All college students need to figure out how to balance their school work, social lives, jobs, and sleep.  Some never figure it out by the time they graduate (or leave school without graduating). Some struggle and eventually figure it out.  A few are in great shape from the beginning.

College is about academic learning, certainly.  But it is also about learning life skills, like organization, work ethic, and how to balance multiple priorities and stay in control.

If you are a new college student or are close to someone who is, consider the following eight strong recommendations I make for new students.  They may seem obvious, but when you are newly on your own, sometimes they are harder to accomplish than you think.

1. Go to class and take notes

This seems like it would be most obvious, but many new college students are too casual about their classes.  Some only attend sporadically.

Don't fool yourself into thinking "nothing much is going on in that class, I can skip today."  

Class is where you learn the professional skills that will get you a good job down the road. But it is also where you make connections with teachers who will give you strong references (or not strong).   

If you often skip class, remember that a prospective employer is likely to ask me "is she dependable?"  I can't lie. 

2. Turn in assignments on time

This follows from point one.  In addition to the fact that your grade is likely to suffer from a late assignment, being late also speaks to your dependability, work ethic, and initiative.   

Late assignments are a big flashing red light over your head that says "do not hire me."

3. Do not procrastinate; be ahead of the curve

You don't learn much from hurry-up rush jobs on assignments.  You teacher has made the assignment because it will help you achieve the objectives of the class.   

Doing the minimum to get by on the theory of "a D still passes the course" means maybe you should not be in college. Why spend thousands of dollars that either you or your parents will have to pay back if you aren't ready to apply yourself to learning? 

The same advice also applies in everything else you do in college.  Take charge and be in control of all the various parts of your life.  If something seems beyond your power to control, don't allow yourself to be helpless - figure it out.  

4.  Don't be a drunk

To be blunt, most college students drink, including before they turn legal age. Some do pot or other drugs. But if you do, like everything else in this article, don't let it control your life. 

If alcohol, pot, or other controlled substances control you, rather than the other way around, you are tempting failure.

The typical college students would ignore me if I encouraged complete teetotaling, but that's not the real point.  The point is to be in control and don't let it take over your life. Which leads to the next point...

5. Ask for help when you need it

College and university campuses have all kinds of help available to you, from special meetings with your teachers, to tutors, to emotional counseling, and everything in-between. Absolutely do not be too proud or too nervous to ask for help if you need it, whatever the needed help is.  

6. Schedule your study time

Sure, college is complicated.  There is a lot going on.  But other people are not going to keeping you on target anymore.  YOU need to take control of your life and your schedule. 

I strongly recommend scheduling your study time, just like you schedule other things in your life.  For every hour you spend in the classroom, teachers are supposed to be assigning your TWO hours of homework.   

Make sure you set the time aside, and do not low ball how much time you really need.  If you DO get done early, so much the better, but don't skimp on study time. 

7. Work at making college friends

You are not going to be happy in college if you are isolated and have no friends.  If you make the effort to find friends and join in campus activities, it will help your school work and your overall learning (as long as you keep your social life in balance).  Hang out and do things with your roommate and dorm neighbors.  Join campus organizations to meet people with interests similar to yours. 

Sometimes taking these steps to make friends feels awkward and makes you a little nervous, but it is worth it. 

Plus, this is where boyfriends and girlfriends come from, which are part and parcel of college life for many students.  Such relationships are great, but remember the basic theme of keeping all parts of your life in balance.  Don't ignore the advice in this article, just because there is someone new in your life. 

8. Get enough sleep

Again, this seems obvious, but college students your age need at least seven hours of sleep a night, with a little more on weekends.   

Not getting enough sleep will tempt you to violate all of the other recommendations above. Plus you will have higher stress, more chance of mental health issues, and you will generally be more miserable. 

Like all of the other points above, take charge of your sleep schedule and remain in control.

As I said, these things may all be obvious, but each semester I have students who stop coming to class, fail to turn assignments, or otherwise get their lives off track. Some get their act together and get back on track.  Some don't.

It's true that college is a pretty desirable lifestyle, particularly if you don't worry about classwork. You have more independence than ever before and your lodging and food (most of it) are pre-paid.

But also remember that you are making decisions that will have consequences for years to come.  Be proactive and make them smart decisions.

Hate

Causing or advocating injustice is hate.

Opposing injustice is not hate.

We need to be prefectly clear about this.

Streaming video becomes the "surface streets" of the Internet superhighway

Disney has announced its own streaming video service, and it will pull much if its content from Netflix when the new service premiers.

This article asserts that the growing number if streaming sites (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, CBS All Access, Disney, ad infinitum) means that the video piracy industry will remain healthy.

I agree, and I think it is the result is clueless corporate executives.  But the growing number of streaming services is going to be a bigger and bigger problem for consumers.

The article above continues:

While legal streaming services work just fine, having dozens of subscriptions is expensive, and not very practical. Especially not compared to pirate streaming sites, where everything can be accessed on the same site.

The music business has a better model, or had initially. Services such as Spotify allowed fans to access most popular music in one place, although that’s starting to crumble as well, due to exclusive deals and more fragmentation.

I am often pretty hard on movie and TV studio/network executives. They do not generally come from the creative side of the industry.  Because of the way our capitalist free enterprise system works, their world revolves around quarterly profits reports for investors.

Such executives study success, and then look for ways to replicate that success. That's why there are vampire shows all over right now.  Every time a TV show is succesful, we tend to get clones.  And this is not just the 36 different CSI series. Vamires are all over the place in the media because of Twilight.  Harry Potter spawned Percy Jackson, Miss Peregrine, and The Magicians (yes I know about them being books first).

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has resulted in DC developing its common universe of individual hero movies plus team-ups.

It's why the X-Files and Stargate and Star Trek are back, or coming back.

Studio and network executives see past success as a path to future success.

So what does that say about streaming services?

Netflix and Hulu have been successful.

Studios/networks have shared in that success, via contract.

No doubt the executive think somewhat along these lines:

A lot of people watch our shows, but the streaming service takes a cut, so we don't make as much money as we could.  If we had our own, we wouldn't have to share.  But we'd better have something BIG to launch it and get people to subscribe (with automatic renewal if at all possible).

The problem is, as the article above says, people aren't going to pay for endless streaming services.

Making money from people watching TV and movies is marketing. Marketing is SUPPOSED to be about understanding the customer.  I think the studios and networks have failed to properly analyze their customers.

For decades, the consumer's model was "set your DVR or other recorder to get the program on cable."

Then it was "I pay for one or two places where I can catch the shows, if I mess them on cable).

Now for many people the home video model is "discontinue cable and subscribe to a couple of inexpensive services."  Or downloading copyright infringed video, of course.

The industry argues "piracy is unnecessary because pretty much everything is available inexpensively online."  But this breaks down if you REALLY understand your customer.

The five streaming services I mentioned above would cost more than my current cable bill, but the expectation is that I will subscribe to more and more, because I like one or two additional shows on each?

People with unlimited entertainment budgets probably will. The TYPICAL consumer will have to make value judgments.  Some will just say "____ sounds interesting, but I guess I won't be able to watch it because it's not available on my services."

Others will find the copyright infringed shows.  

I am NOT advocating piracy.  I teach copyright law in several of my classes and infringing other people's intellectual property is never a good idea.

I AM saying that the studios/networks are chopping up the superhighway into a bunch of less desirable surface streets.  Not in terms of bandwidth, but in terms of convenience and usability.

In my always humble opinion, I think that they would succeed better by consolidating their individual lanes into a single interface with feed equal to or less than cable.