Category: Change

Response to “Stick To Your Strengths”

Response to “Stick To Your Strengths” on Creo Quality’s blog. Creo Quality assists life sciences organizations in, among other areas, product development.

Have you bought a candy bar recently? Let’s just look at Reese’s as an example. It used to be you had one choice: Reese’s peanut butter cups. Now they have several variations of peanut butter cups. They also have several other choices.

And what about soft drinks? How many varieties of Mountain Dew are there?

Why have these brands done this? They offer so many choices and seem to be straying from their strengths. It confuses me.

…Companies should stick to their strengths. Companies should have focus. Companies should try to deliver their products / services better than anyone else. Quit diluting your brand.

I think the answer is quite simple: Companies want to grow. Make more money. So one route is to make new products, and then see if it works. A “strength” wasn’t known as such until it was designed, introduced, marketed, and evaluated.

The McDonald’s Big Mac wasn’t always the most popular burger (or “strongest” sales leader) – it didn’t come out out 1967 and the first McDonald’s opened in 1940 (the corporation started 1955). Would you consider adding coffee or McCafé diluting the brand? McDonald’s is trying out new products. For all we know, Starbucks’ popularity could decline and coffee will be recognized as the fast food company’s second strength, behind cheap hamburgers.

I think brand dilution arises when companies don’t fully test their products before their release, or they don’t follow good marketing strategies. The brand isn’t diluted because they introduced new products. The failure of New Coke could have been averted if Coca Cola either A) paid closer attention to the results of the focus groups, or B) released New Coke as an additional product in the lineup. But Coca Cola has so many other “strengths” because it decided to stray from its main product line.

A different Coca Cola product tells an extremely different story: Fanta, the fruit-flavored soft drink. It was invented to deal with sales complications because of World War II and Nazi Germany. You can buy Fanta now in tens of flavors in almost 200 countries.

My advice: Companies should innovate and evaluate. The act of selling curly fries won’t weaken your good name.

There’s a connection to cities in all of this. Cities can’t always “stick to their strengths.” This year, Chicago lost two major conventions to Las Vegas and Orlando. Hosting conventions is still a strength of Chicago, Illinois, but it’s even more so true of Las Vegas, Nevada, and Orlando, Florida. If the Chicago tourism, special events, and marketing arms decided to stick with conventions, it may have never attempted a bid for the summer Olympics. Smaller cities who decide to increase incoming, regional tourism might create a restaurant district centered around their passenger train station. Detroit stuck with the automobile and look at it now.

Making cycling normal: Cycle chic movement

Making Cycling Normal is a three-part series about how to increase the rates of people riding their bikes for everyday trips. Increasing this rate, also called the “modal split” or bicycle’s “mode share,” is a common goal amongst bike plans in major cities around the United States. No city in the United States has a bike mode share higher than 5% of all trips, or even all trips to work, where the rate reaches 40% in some European cities.

Cycle chic is an internet-based movement to promote “normal” cycling. At the root of normal cycling is riding your bike in your everyday work, school, or wherever clothes. No lycra, spandex, or bringing a change of clothes. Some may say it’s bicycling in fashionable or elegant clothes, but the dress up concept is open to individual interpretation.

Cycle chic began with photographer Mikael Colville-Andersen’s website called Copenhagen Cycle Chic, a blog where he posts photos of bicyclists in the capital city of Denmark. The photos tend to be of women dressed in trendy and fashionable clothing. The goals are promoting the city of Copenhagen, and riding one’s bicycle is a completely normal activity and mode of transportation for any trip no matter its purpose (and the Danes ride their bikes in all weather, with the cycling rate apparently only dropping 20% through winter – see Mikael’s photo below).

Mikael travels around the world promoting cycling culture as part of a company called Copenhagenize Consulting and also as Danish individual. He also writes a blog called Copenhagenize where he discusses the issues prevalent to bicycle and motorist cultures.

The cycle chic blog model has been imitated by bicycling bloggers around the world. Amsterdamize does the job for that Netherlands city. There’s also Los Angeles, Chicago, London, and Moscow. Visit Los Angeles to find a list of plenty more cities. If you find your city, get to know your local Cycle Chic Ambassador. Check out this blog’s author (me) test riding a Dutch bike from a local retailer in some fashionable clothing at a party. A former coworker, Christy, inspired me to start adopting cycle chic.

I don’t think there’s a cycle chic blogger for Milwaukee, Wisconsin, yet, but I think this guy could start it up (sorry for the blur):

How will these blogs increase cycling rates?

The blogs and their authors promote cycling as something you can do without gear, special clothes, or a significant lifestyle change. In their own ways, and targeted to readers in their own cities, they discuss how people can incorporate bicycling into their lives where normally a bus, train, or car would transport them. They show that bicycling can be fashionable, popular, and not something that “other” people do.

However, this stylish promotion of cycling will only go so far. Bicycle trip rates will also increase when cycling is safer (part two of the Making Cycling Normal series) or when we educate people about bicycling (part three).

UPDATE: Dottie from Let’s Go Ride a Bike (Chicago’s local cycle chic blogger) has picked up on a similar topic, how to promote cycling (and part two), and Cyclelicious has reblogged the topic and Dottie’s article.

Obama’s promise for open government

I’m excited about Obama’s memorandum he wrote in his first week of office, on January 21st, 2009. In it, he calls for federal agencies to stop looking for legal ways to say no to requests for data, or in response to Freedom of Information Act requests.

He will help usher in a new American government, where “[a]ll agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure.” 

And the agencies shouldn’t be so passive about the distribution of their data. President Barack Obama continues with:

“…agencies should take affirmative steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests from the public. All agencies should use modern technology to inform citizens about what is known and done by their Government. Disclosure should be timely.”

The United States Government is probably the world’s largest collector and holder of data. It probably stores more data and information than the internet (minus what the government publishes there). I hope I can expect an onslaught of data, but it must be accessible in multiple formats and in ways we can use. Saving spreadsheets is NOT distributing data. That’s protecting it and trying to make it harder to manipulate. It means providing raw access to tables and databases, providing APIs for custom queries, and XML feeds for simple and broad presentation.

Perhaps we’ll need a White House Office of Data to coordinate with agencies about the formats and presentation and distribution methods they choose or will choose.

I’m glad Obama’s transition team took the advice from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on this one – they fight for, among many things, the rights of the internet and information and how access to both should be equalized and open. Read the EFF’s news article about this about-face from George Bush’s archaic information policies.

To Obama: When you create that office, please consult the geniuses at EveryBlock for the Office’s “Public Consumption” division. They know how to package data for quick and informative understanding.

Getting people out of cars

Gas prices are only one of the costs associated with car ownership. It comprises a large part of yearly expenses for one’s automobile, but it only accounts for 20% of the “true cost of ownership.”

Edmunds.com has figured that with a new 2007 Toyota Camry LE with automatic transmission, fuel will cost an average of $1676 per year in Chicago for the next five years. That’s 21.5% of the total amount of money the car’s owner will spend and lose for the next five years.

So why do people continue to let their cars ruin their personal financial stability, regardless of how well they can argue its necessity?

One reason is that people haven’t considered the alternatives or, if considered, believe taking the train or bus, walking, biking, carsharing, or vanpooling won’t work for them. But it obviously works for millions of people everyday. Do they know something we don’t? Do they live a block from the commuter train station at home and work one block away from the end station? Are their legs in better shape than others’?

I think that governmental and non-profit agencies that have the mandate and authority to reduce vehicular traffic, congestion, and ownership, can use better marketing tools that will assist car owners to find ways that make their vehicles less relied upon and less used, period. By having car owners drive less, they will become more financially secure, probably experience reduced emotional and physical stress, and reduce their impact on the earth and the atmosphere.

In return, infrastructure would improve because money for highways and roads would be spent on projects and systems that have a better return on investment; transit agencies are able to serve more people (riders) than can highways serve singular drivers and their vehicles. Simply put, driving is a very selfish act which, combined with millions of other selfish drivers, creates a dysfunctional and inequitable transportation arrangement.

I have one tool in mind that can sway people out of their cars. My idea goes beyond slinging simple to understand quotes and statistics that all fail to motivate (for example, and this is not totally accurate, “80% of all car trips are less than 2 miles from the point of origin.”). What we need are individuals who are passionate about the alternatives to car ownership, those who, themselves have chosen a car-free or reduced-car lifestyle. These people would be used to listen to drivers who express some interest in jettisoning their driving habits or reducing their dependence on cars and determine some personalized options to accomplish this.

It would all start with a website. This website would have two purposes: to inform and to connect. The information on car ownership costs and how to reduce one’s car dependence is already out there – that would just be copied. The connect section of the website would invite visitors to submit their name, and either an email address, IM name, or phone number. One of the passionate individuals I asked for above would contact this person and become familiar with their car routines and suggest small ways to meet the driver’s goals.

Obviously, connections would need to be made on a local scale so helpers can be more effective and knowledgeable about the advice they give.

Getting people out of cars and using alternative modes of transportation almost always starts with one-on-one dialogue. It’s a goal that requires a lot of knowledge and some planning. I’m sure there are many readers who have been able to design a plan for at least a few people they know; sometimes it’s just a personal example that is needed to show how easy the change can be and how beneficial it is for more than themselves.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

UIC development and expansion

UIC, in the past decade, has received quite some flack for its South Campus redevelopment. It’s only a redevelopment in the fact that the school took over some blighted land (the land and its used was worthless, whatever definition you try to apply) and made it active, good looking, and useful for living and learning in the 2000s.

What was it before:

Parking lots (disgusting)
Homeless people (not attractive)
Dilapidated buildings (dangerous)
Abandoned buildings (a turnoff)
A road in poor condition (also not attractive)
People selling things: open air market (neutral)

What is it now:

Local and chain restaurants
Parking garage
Restored buildings
Active nightlife
A road in better condition
People selling things: retail with physical stores to sell from
Dorms
Classrooms
Pharmacy
Doctor’s office
Administrative offices
Market-rate housing
A large recreational park
Insulation from the highway

If you open Google Maps with the address of Halsted and Maxwell Streets, and click on Satellite view, you will be able to see some of what the south campus used to look like. The official name for this area is now University Village. Some people are still used to the name Jewtown or Maxwell St. Market. The “market” has gotten larger, safer, and a new location – about 5 blocks to the east.

The redevelopment was vital for the University’s expansion plans and its goal to attract and keep students on campus. So far it’s working and far more numbers of people are enjoying University Village than its previous incarnation.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,