“6 Ways to Fix the NBA” by Stephen Fried (Parade.com, 20 June 2010). As luck (?) would have it, this article managed to come my way via Google Alerts. And yes, sports as an analogy for business is overdone. None the less there are some interesting observation here that apply to incentives, as well as cause and effect gone astray.
Here is a version of the comment that was submitted:
Dear Parade,
I read the six recommendations on improving the appeal of the NBA and would like to comment. My thoughts are as follows:
1) Change foul out rules — While it’s true people wish to see the star players, no one comes to see fouls either. In any sport fouls are the “ugly” side of the game. I find it hand to believe that what ultimately comes down to more fouls is going to be appealing for the fan. Is there any prescient for ugliness increasing a fan base of any sport?
2) Increase scoring — I would like to suggest there are two flaws here. One, accelerating scoring will only accelerate the gap in two mismatched teams. Does the NBA really need more blow outs? Two, it’s supposed to be a game and sport, the tit-for-tat approach of focusing on scoring is going to wear thin very fast. One could argue it’s the perceived (?) lack of strategy is actually what’s hurting the NBA today. Pass… Pass… Dunk. Followed by pass… Shoot… gets dull after a while. We know they can score, the question is, do they have game?
That said, an interesting idea might be just giving the team that’s leading less time to shoot? Or the team that’s down more time so they control the pace, can readjust, etc.
3) Raise the age limit — Again, two flaws. One, what if the stars-to-be opts out of the college route and decide to play in Europe instead. Two, does this not confirm the criticism that many already make about college basketball? That is, it’s not about education, sport and developing students into citizen, but instead it’s just the minor leagues for the NBA.
4) Encourage quirk — Ha! In this day and age?? Even at 140 characters Twitter is enough for some of these guys to hurt themselves and ruin their careers. In a society that expects perfection this recommendation is just an accident ready to happen. Furthermore, just because they are great athletes does mean they have “personality”. What’s does shooting a basketball have to do with anything other than that? Yes, let them be who they are. Just consider the classic, “Be careful what you wish for”.
5) Change the trade rules — Truth be told, there is already collusion between the agents and the front offices. The free market will be great as long as there is a way to ensure it is remains a free market.
6) Shortern the season — Finally something that makes sense. And please suggest the same for baseball and hockey too. The NFL has it right, as does European football (aka soccer). The irony here is this is a call for quality, yet more (read: quantity) scoring was recommended earlier.
The bottom line… More fans will pay attention when the NBA, or any brand for that matter, becomes a better entertainment value than other choices fans might already have. I’m not so sure most of the six recommendation listed really workt towards that goal. That is to consistently entertain to a level that exceeds expectations.
Thanks for listening.
Mark
p.s. I thought it was interesting that the woman’s league was not mentioned. It very well could be that the WNBA is cannibalizing fans from the NBA. Maybe this is because in the WNBA it ismore about “game” than about size, or should I say size of egos?Btw, when was the last time a fan got beat up at a WNBA game?
A colleague and I were fortunate to witness this first hand a couple weeks ago. Considering that this was part of the Web 2.0 Expo’s free seminars, is simply amazing. Rushkoff alone was worth the time and the cost of the train multiplied by a few thousand, at least. Cheers to O’Reilly for bringing that event together and having Rushkoff expand our minds. Challenging, brilliant and not to be missed.
“Apple The Outlier” by Rich Karlgaard (Forbes.com, 21 October 2009). In response to Mr. Kalgaard’s blog post the following comment (below) was submitted. Maybe you’ll find it entertaining, so it’s also being shared here.
While I didn’t read every comment in detail, with all due respect, I think the essential point has been missed… When it has been more successful, Apple has been the tortoise. There are plenty of cases of Apple and/or Jobs falling on their face. How many of you are using a Next computer :)
On the other hand, where Apple has done really well, is when it slows down while others rush in. The ipod and the iphone both being great examples. Neither were new ideas. What they were were still developing ideas done a bit better and more importantly, rolled out *after* “the tipping point”. Apple doesn’t feel the need to be first to market, they’d rather get it more right their first time. They’ve come to realize the value in learning from others’ mistakes. If there is an irony, it’s that Apple really isn’t a technolgy company (i.e., technology for technology’s sake). They understand that they are a solutions and services company, and that’s what they focus on providing.
When they get it right, Apple doesn’t waste resources trying to get to the tipping point, they let others do their bidding. In the meantime they’re using their resources (time and people) to build a better mouse trap as well as come up with the marketing spin to make it look new and exciting. I am not trying to belittle the iphone, I am only suggesting it is not the cure for cancer.
There is no doubt, Apple is a great outfit. But the reasons for that success are too often wrong and/or overstated. They have a great formula – look how their growth and market share has nudged up year by year (i.e., like a tortoise) – and at the moment it’s working quite well for them. But a smart competitor could duplicate their formula quite easily. Provided that competitor isn’t blinded by the hype, or fearful of a beast that isn’t even there.
The Last Shopping Mall? New Jersey Awaits Xanadu By Sean Gregory (Time Magazine, Monday, 09 March 2009 East Rutherford, NJ). It’s easy to fall victim to the mood of the moment and immediately jump into Mr Gregory’s (half-empty) pool of skepticism. But let’s hold that thought for the moment and try to see the light.
It’s true, the shopping landscape is saturated with me-too chains, cookie cutter malls, etc. Was there really any difference between Linens & Things and BB&B? Or what about Circuit City and Best Buy? Borders continues to struggle, etc. Needless to say Xanadu is attempting to make their destination about more than just shopping. They want to build an experience that stands out from the typical. Something that inspire people to take a 25 minute train ride out of the NYC to come visit. Have they put a lot of money down to test their theory? Obviously, yes. But their vision is their brand and their brand is their vision. It’s not going to be easy – it never is – but it beats being a developer who just finished up yet another strip mall and is now trying to find tenants. Just like every other developer in that same boat.
Bottom line… The last thing the world needs is just another run of the mill guest experience.
1) Accept and integrate RFID into the retail shopping experience by using them to trigger video and other images on large screen TVs around the store. Using RFID to help customers get more info about a product they’re interested in would also be a big plus. It would be like taking the web experience and turning it into a real life experience.
2) Similar to the article’s mention of Clubs using it, what about ski resorts? Why are they still using those silly barcode scanners? Yes a liftie would still have to police the line but getting rid of that handheld scanner should free them up to actually attend to the wants / needs of the guests.
The key bit is in the first article and comes from Mr Chris Martin (who is not the Coldplay guy):
Martin, though, is not entirely won over. “The bottom line is that the water running and training on the elliptical running machines were stopgap measures to limit the damage to my running fitness,” he wrote.
What’s mentioned earlier in the article is that after getting injured Mr Martin pursued an alternate approach to training that was less damaging to his body. In short… He PB’ed in an Ironman triathlon. Yet he dismisses that method? Shouldn’t he be rejoicing that he’s found a better way? Instead he insists on the superiority of an approach that injured him. Huh? The Radcliffe article is also about a different approach due to injury that also proved to be pretty effective.
Bottom line… There are other ways to train (or market, or sell, or advertise, etc.) that don’t entail hurting yourself. Sooner or later the (macho?) 70’s mindset to (over) training is going to have to change. But as with most change, people are slow to grasp the obvious when they are blinded with routine, habit, addiction, etc.
While we’re on the subject of working out also see “How Powerful Is Your Workout” by Linda Baker (NY Times, Thur 25 Sept 2008). Pretty cool. Makes sense, right? Why waste that spent energy when it can be put to use? Every little bit counts.
The Grill: Judy Estrin (www.ComputerWorld.com, late Sept 2008). To read the complete interview please click here. Great interview. Hardly a word wasted. What this interview brings to mind is that to most people innovation is really just a high class word for breaking the rules. Unfortunately, such a mind set scares a lot of people.
Simple put, the majority of corporations are not only anti-rule breaking but “corportate culture” (by its very nature) is about conformity. The carrot is typically for employees to fall in line. Not explore the unbeaten path. Unfortunately, HR won’t approve a dismissal based on someone being too homogenized. If they did it would certainly “inspire” the rest to reach a little further.
Unfortunately, if this whole Wall Street mess is any indication, we seem destined to continue to be a society of Management By Crisis (MBC). At this rate one has to wonder if a comet is going to hit the earth before we see it coming.
Btw, Dr. Richard H. Carmona served as the 17th surgeon general of the United States (2002-2006). He is national chairman of the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (www.FightChronicDisease.org) and president of the nonprofit Canyon Ranch Institute (www.canyonranchinstitute.org).
We need to stop thinking about healthcare as if it’s some sort foreign entity. We are people and we need to take care of ourselves. We work for companies as well as exist in a society and that must also make an effort take care of us. Without us there is no commerce / society – and vice versa. It doesn’t matter what came frist – the ill citizens, or the ill society. We need to find solutions that address the whole disease and not just mask the symptoms of particular body part.
Amazon Web Services (http://aws.amazon.com) has been around for over a couple years now. At this point you’d have to be pretty far out of the technology loop to not have heard of cloud computing, computing in the cloud, etc. There have been countless articles on cloud computing and how it can reduce costs, streamline organizations, etc. At the Web 2.0 Expo there was an afternoon session on AWS hosted by Amazon.
There was an overview of the various services. That was followed by speakers who talked about their company’s use of AWS. That was followed by a couple bits by some VCs. All of it very inspiring. Again and again the point was made that AWS (read: for the most part their computing and storage services) provided flexibility at a fraction of traditional costs. Amazing stuff.
There is no doubt this is the future. On the other hand instead of asking, what am I doing now that I can do more for less. Maybe an even better question would be, what can now be done that just couldn’t be done before? What is the clouds’ first killer app going to be? That is THE question.
“Laura Fitton, a social-media consultant who has become a minor celebrity on Twitter — she has more than 5,300 followers — recently discovered to her horror that her accountant had made an error in
filing last year’s taxes. She went to Twitter, wrote a tiny note explaining her problem, and within 10 minutes her online audience had provided leads to lawyers and better accountants. Fritton joked to me
that she no longer buys anything worth more than $50 without quickly checking it with her Twitter network.”
More and more often there’s a story about someone using their network cloud – so the same can be applied to Facebook to some extent – to solve a problem that prior to hyper-connectedness used to be solved by traditional search (e.g., Google). Granted, this could be one of the reasons why Google wants to exert influence on the cell phone market. Given that their biz model is built on search it makes sense that they are more than a little concerned. True there are already sites where one can post a question, and wait / hope for an answer. However, cloudsourced answer(s) can come almost instantly; from birds of your feather; and are probably more accurate and/or suitable.
The real story here… At this point, who needs Google?
“Targeting Search Engine Rankings” by Jonathon Love from Internet Retailer (www.InternetRetailer.com) not only aims to shine some light on the stepchild of search (i.e., organic search,not paid search) but it actually stumbles upon something very interesting that inspired a letter from AU to Jon and IR.
Good morning Jon
Interesting article. Thanks.
However, the other important story here seems to be… How ineffective search engines are at delivering the expected results (i.e., Wikipedia would looks to be the #1 “retailer” based on this study). At the very least a side bar article discussing this “shocking” find would have been nice. Also, to round out the topic some insight in how to adjusting marketing and other efforts to get to customers before they resort to what appears to be random searching.
Finally, how about some talk on the coming decline of search as the first step in the shopping process? As soc-nets grow it would seem only natural that we humans do what we used to do, ask our “friends” for recommendations. So unless the search engines can make major improvements, answers to questions such as “Where can I buy…” are going to best answered in the crowd-cloud. (Yeah, crowd-cloud, I said it first!)
Yes, there have been attempts at this (e.g., Yahoo! Answers) but none, that I know of, within the context of a MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Who needs Google when one’s Twitter followers can return the right answer faster?
Regards,
Mark Simchock
Chief Alchemist
Alchemy United
Princeton NJ
