The Marshmallow Test

I have to confess, I only learned about this a few weeks ago. Apparently,sometime in the 1960s, a psychological study was started at Stanford University, which examined children's willingness and ability to delay gratification. A child, about 4 years old, is seated at a table with a giant marshmallow on a plate. The researcher tells the child, "You can eat this marshmallow now, or you can wait 10 minutes. If I come back, and the marshmallow is still there, I'll give you another marshmallow and you'll have TWO!"

The researcher leaves and the resulting agony/internal conflict is videotaped (and, eventually, placed up on YouTube).



As I watched this, I was fascinated. But, as I tend to do -- I started to think about the larger perspective. How interesting it is to watch these children agonize over something as simple (to us adults) as whether to eat the marshmallow. The stress and pressure they put on themselves is reminiscent of life-altering decisions adults have to make. And, you can't help but be envious of the children -- how great it would be, again, to have the most difficult decision in your life be simply holding out for 10 minutes, so you can double your marshmallow bounty.


Credit where credit is due -- I read about this for the first time on Bill Simmons' new Grantland website. His discussion on the phenomenon is far more detailed (and humorous) than mine.

What do YOU think about when you see this (especially if it's the first time you've seen it....)?

Why I Don't Really Like Baseball Anymore

For years, I was a huge baseball fan. More than any other sport, baseball has a robust history, and it was my sport of choice growing up.

Today, while I still appreciate the history and lore of the game, it’s nearly impossible for me to root for a team (or even watch a game on TV) anymore. I still enjoy going to games – minor league games more than professional; but that’s consistent with my overall sports interests (I prefer college basketball to pro basketball; college football to pro football, etc.).

And, this past week, a number of situations arose that caused me to become even more disillusioned with the sport. But, that got me thinking – what were the steps that started my fractured relationship?

Free agency – all sports have this, but baseball started it and is the worst culprit. Don’t get me wrong – I don’t necessarily have a problem with players moving teams, from a business-viewer perspective (i.e., the reserve clause probably WAS illegal on some levels). But, as a fan, I long for the days when players spent their entire careers with one or two teams. And, those days are long gone – there are but a handful of players who will do that (and, all too often, the loyalty isn’t returned by the team, either…)

But, even more than the loss of a player spending his career with one team (I mean, how do you root for a “team” when the roster makeup changes by 50-60 percent each year?), the impact really hit home when it came to money. Obviously, if you’re going to woo someone to play for your team, it’ll cost you, and the salaries in baseball (and all sports, admittedly) have increased at a pace that dwarfs any business in America. And, who gets to pick up the slack? The fans, of course.

Strike – I wasn’t even a teenager for the 1981 strike, which lasted 50 days. But I was a young adult for the 1994-95 strike, which really drove a strike through my heart. If I had to point to ONE situation that had caused me to fall out-of-love with baseball, it would be the 94-95 strike, which devastated the sport (even more than the steroids scandal, which, in the grand scheme of things, doesn’t even enter this list).

It’s reminiscent of how I was feeling last year, while I was looking for work. I decided, although I could do my job for ANY company, it was important for me to work for a company with a cause/mission/principal I could get behind. This came to a head when Cablevision began its litany of assaults on Scripps, causing viewers to miss many shows (same thing that happened with ABC and FOX). And, each time, Cablevision’s PR department had to craft message after message to show that they, in fact, weren’t the villains. It was all the other person’s fault. The viewers were the only losers. And, I thought to myself, how dismal it must be to come to work each day and craft passive-aggressive messages over what amounts to pennies.

And that brings us to this past week – first, the All-Star Game (being held tonight). A few years ago, the All-Star Game was revealed for its true purpose – effectively nothing – when a tie game was left as a tie, for the first time in history. The following year, the commissioner decided the winner of the All-Star Game would earn home-field advantage in the World Series. Now, the All-Star Game isn’t the festival it was when I was younger (interleague play killed that, too, which probably deserves its own entry here, but, quite honestly, I was disillusioned before that), but no fewer than 16 players – four from the NY area -- banged in “hurt” for the game (Mariano Rivera, Derek Jeter, Alex Rodriguez, Jose Reyes – the batters were actually voted as starters by the fans).

Again, the fans suffer.

But, the coup de grâce was this past weekend’s complete mishandling of Derek Jeter’s pursuit of 3000 hits.

The game on Friday evening was rained out – unfortunate, and certainly something that happens in July.

The game COULD have been rescheduled as a straight double-header (e.g., fans come in for the first game and stick around for the second) simply by the Yankees saying, “this is what we want to do.” The opposing team would have no say in that decision.

However, the Yankees decided, instead, to propose a split double-header, where the teams play one game; the stadium empties, and then fans are re-admitted for a second game in the evening. They did need the Devil Rays’ consent for this, which the Tampa team did not grant.

On the surface, this seems almost sensible – why have the teams play back-to-back when they could rest for an hour or two in between. But, the Yankees were quick to squash that misperception:

When asked why the Yankees chose not to play a straight doubleheader Saturday, general manager Brian Cashman said: "Gate. We're not interested in losing, going from 81 home games to 80."

Wow. So, once again, it all comes back to money. Doesn’t it always? So much for Ernie Banks’ great mantra – “Let’s Play Two!” and so much for the days of Ty Cobb, Nap Lajoie and Honus Wagner where they played each day because they had a calling and they thoroughly enjoyed the sport. The idea of sitting out a game – an all-star game, or even a “meaningless” regular season game, never occurred to those players, lest they end up like Wally Pipp.

Yes, a great deal of that mindset had to do with the fact that there was no free agency (as we covered before) and perhaps that bordered on the illegal from a business sense; but I’d fully support a move where players weren’t motivated to head to a team due to money; but rather, because a team was the best fit or offered the best chance for that player to succeed or win.

It’s not unprecedented; Greg Maddux did that in 1992, signing for $6 million less with Atlanta instead of choosing to play for the Yankees. "Greg, above all, wanted to win," said his agent, Scott Boras. “The Braves offered him the most substantial degree of assurance of taking the World Series.”

And, while that didn’t turn out the way Maddux had planned, entirely, the Braves did make three World Series during his tenure (half as many as the Yankees – but the Yankees of 1996 were a markedly different team than the one of 1992, when Maddux made his decision).

In the end, I’ll probably content myself with reading the history, playing Strat-O-Matic (where contracts and contentious negotiations don’t enter into the equation) and avoiding the game today – it’s far more interesting in the rearview mirror.

Facebook Killed the Blog, Part II

So, I found myself wondering the other day about Facebook's impact on blogs, again.

When blogs first hit the scene, some 13-15 years ago, they were really, the only gig in town. If you wanted to interact socially, it was blogs or forums or nothing.

Now, of course, Facebook (and Twitter, to a far lesser degree) is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Way too many people view Facebook and social media as completely synonymous (which, they're not).

So, here's an example.

My blog, obviously, is public-facing. Anyone can find it, read it, comment on it. I don't restrict the viewing of the blog to anyone.

But, when I promote the blog, I do it on Facebook, a lot of times. When my friends want to comment, they do that in response to my link post on Facebook; *NOT* on the blog. The net result is that 90 percent of the comments to my blog don't actually make it TO my blog; they're restricted to my circle of friends on Facebook. And, any other viewers might not see that a good deal of my posts actually generate a number of comments.

Now, ideally, blogs are meant to be viral -- viewers should read them, comment and share -- and by doing that, the readership grows. But, Facebook continues to make that less conducive. Now, in some cases, it's understandable that people don't want to post publicly (maybe they want to send something to me directly; and they don't want everyone to see what they've written). And, that's the bigger risk of social media -- the fact that the web makes things archivable and findable and permanent.

I thought about this a lot last year, while I was out of work -- ensuring that what I posted in various places made sense given the venue (in other words, public forums demanded one level of self-imposed privacy; Facebook demanded another; email conversations could be less concerning). I went back over my internet history and ensured that anything I had posted in a public setting was appropriate and suitable.

I basically subscribe to this version of internet privacy (something we all should follow), and I see the value in being more careful (even now that I'm no longer looking for a job). But, I think you need to know the setting you're in -- this doesn't mean you have to completely change your online personality, necessarily; it just means that, perhaps, that highly off-color joke is better served through email than on Facebook.

One of my favorite communications professionals, Shel Holtz, has a great saying -- "New media do not kill old media" -- and that's certainly true. All of these media work together -- email has a place; blogs have a place; and Facebook has a place. Unfortunately, I wonder if blogs have overstayed their welcome -- not really from a functional standpoint (I still think they're outstanding forms of communication); but from an audience perspective.

Should I Be a Vegetarian? (Your Thoughts -- warning, long post!)

A few months ago, a friend of mine revealed that he had become the Suffolk County head of an organization called Move On! – an anti-war movement. I was quite envious because there aren’t that many things I feel that passionately about, in my own life.

So, I started thinking about what issues I did feel that passionately about; and – around that time – I started noticing even more advertisements and news stories about animal abuse. And I realized, I feel that strongly about that issue.

In ascending order, here is my hierarchy of ‘heinousness’ in regards to animal abuse (and, sorry, ahead of time, for the non-communications bent this blog has taken, recently – I’ll actually have a professional-related piece for my next post … I promise!)

7. Slaughtering animals for food.

Make no mistake, I still think there’s something a little wrong with people who do this; but compared to some of the other entries on this list, this is fairly benign, I suppose. I cannot imagine spending EVERY SINGLE DAY killing animals. I simply cannot. It’s especially perplexing because, well, to be blunt, we don’t NEED animal protein to live – many, many people are vegetarians, and they live extremely healthy lives; in fact, the lack of red meat in your diet severely reduces several health issues.

And, now, Marc Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, has revealed that, for 2011, he will ONLY eat meat that he has personally killed.

What troubles me (apart from sadists, which comes later) is the barbaric ways we use to execute the animals. I can almost – ALMOST – accept humane, pain-free killing (almost); but in some cases, the killing is anything but. Crab legs, for example – we have established machines to slice off the legs, while leaving the animal writhing in pain. Then, it’s tossed into a bin to die (it takes too much time to kill it; so, instead, they just expire, eventually).

And don’t get me started on veal.

Still, there’s hope – scientists are already working on “growing” meat (similar to how we create yogurt). I had joked about this years ago; but now, it’s actually a reality.

6. Animal Neglect

I have to put this one this low because, in many cases, the individual is mentally ill. There are many stories about people who are found to have 27 cats, 6 dogs, a cheetah, a parrot and 4 gerbils – all running around loose. These people are ill. I have 3 cats and a dog, and I already think that’s close to too many.

So, this entry is just for the people who are mentally ill. Still, they’re not without blame; someone should be monitoring them, etc. – but, I think this failing is with everyone (if they don’t have family, then the government should be intervening – in  no way should you be able to amass that many pets).

5. Hunters

This isn’t a case of “wow, I think hunters aren’t that bad;” but more of a case of “wait til you see what follows.” Thankfully, we do have *some* laws that restrict hunters, and most hunters seem to be interested in eating what they hunt. Still, I bristle when this is referred to as a “sport.” When a thug kills a policeman, who has a bulletproof vest and a gun, we don’t say the criminal was “the better sportsman” – we call him a killer. Call it like it is. When we outfit animals with guns, armor and/or anything else to truly combat the hunter, I’ll call it a sport; until then, it’s killing. The biggest risk the hunter has is being shot by another hunter, or going home empty-handed. Boo-hoo.

4. Animal MEDICAL Research

This is a tricky one; but, I have to think, we’ve evolved our computers well enough to be able to emulate a human reaction to medicine, etc.

I can remember reading an article in my local paper years ago [stop reading this paragraph if you’re squeamish]: It outlined a method how they tested for stroke medication. Of course, to do this, they had to  CREATE a stroke; which they did, on chimpanzees, by removing its eyeball. While it was awake. OK – now they have a stroke victim, which they can operate on.

The fact that the story still sickens me, years later, speaks to the vulgarity of the story.

3. Luxury Items and Animal PRODUCT Research

Yeah, I’m looking at you – fur-wearers and consumers of makeup that performs animal testing. It’s one thing to eat meat. It’s another to say, “Thank God there’s penicillin,” but, there’s a whole different level of contempt for those who continue to purchase the goods made by massive killings. Harp seals, for instance; who are beaten – but not to death – then skinned alive, to be left bleeding on the ice – probably praying something will eat them to put them out of their misery.

2. General Savagery

In all of these cases, one prays that there are sane people operating in those fashions. Still, we constantly see stories about the truly deranged that delight in their jobs – those who take sick pleasure in being more vicious than necessary when it comes to slaughtering animals – kicking them, torturing them, etc. One can only hope there is a special, even-lower-level of Hell for these individuals.

1. Sport/Entertainment

Here, I’m referring to dog-fighting, cock-fighting. I’ve noticed an uptick in the last few weeks on advertising from the World Society for the Protection of Animals. Again, this is some horrifying stuff – bear baiting (where the teeth and claws are removed; the bear is tethered to the ground and dogs are encouraged to bite it until it dies – for spectators’ amusement). And, of course, bull-fighting (where, even if the bull DOES win (against the fighter and his SWORD), the bull is still put to death – hey, congrats on your win!).

And, of course, I find as much fault with the spectators of these events as the participants.

Whew – so, where does that leave me?

Years ago, I had a book – The Book of Questions – which asked thought-provoking questions. One question (if I recall correctly) was along these lines:

If someone offered to pay you $100, would you tear the wings off a butterfly to kill it? Would you step on a cockroach?

And, the answers are obvious (and so should be the point – life is life, yet we’ll step on a cockroach for free; and we’d probably decline the $100).

So, is that the case? Is life really life? If so, why do we not get equally upset at seeing a cow (or chicken) killed for our food, as we do watching a dog clubbed to death in Thailand (where it will also be food)?

It leaves me at a crossroads.

For years, I’ve avoided confronting the issue – I never read Fast Food Nation or visited a slaughterhouse. I chose the ostrich approach. I’m not quite as cavalier as my wife (who definitely subscribes to this mentality), but I’m definitely sensitive to it. Should I *be* a vegetarian? I do love the taste of chicken. Should I be more like Marc Zuckerberg? Probably not.

In the end, I think it comes down to humane treatment. If the in vitro meat was successful, I would eagerly switch; but, wouldn’t the animals still be killed? Sure they would.

When I was younger, I used to send money all the time to the harp seal charity; before learning – of course – that probably fewer than $.05 of each dollar I sent actually went to the cause. I like PETA’s mission; not-so-much a fan of their approach (since most are now labeled as lunatics); so where does that leave me, again?

I ask, legitimately, as I would like to do something to further the cause; but I know I’m weak-stomached enough to not want to immerse myself into the darkness that this subject presents.

Thoughts?

How NOT to Use Facebook

Obviously, as someone who works in communications, I’m pay special attention to the way various companies communicate with their customers. And, as someone who saw the value of social media long before there were such vehicles as Facebook or Twitter, it’s always both entertaining and disappointing when someone really doesn’t get it.

Take, for example, the Long Island Wine and Food Festival.

For a small, regional event, there are nearly 1700 people who like/follow it online. That’s good.

Last year was the first time the event was held, over a weekend in June. Not sure how many people actually attended; but starting last September, they started priming the pump for this year’s event. It started by asking people to vote for them for “Best North Fork Event.” And, by November, they were requesting recommendations for the 2011 event.

From then on, about once a month (or more frequently), they would post something on Facebook about “Hope everyone is looking forward to the festival,” or “The 2011 Festival is right around the corner.” Each time, you had an opportunity to head to their website.

Let’s visit, shall we?

That’s it – you can send them an email; or submit your email to get on their mailing list. No information on last year’s festival; nothing. And, the page has been like this for months. Each month, another post would go up on Facebook, directing visitors to their website.

Starting in mid-May, things start to spiral downhill:

May 14 – “Looking for information about the festival” – and a link to the page.

You won’t actually find any information; but you can send us an email or join our email list (which, by the way, why can’t the information in the email list *be* the information sent out via Facebook? I digress).

May 15 – the same link posted.

May 19 – the same link posted.

May 19 – “We would like to let you all know that it is confirmed, the festival has been postponed for this year! Hopefully we will see you all next year! Enjoy the summer! There are tons of great wineries to visit and restaurants to enjoy! Check back often for updated information. Don't forget to join our email list!”

 

Wow – so in nearly no time, everything is off (but, you can still join the email list).

 

So, I did what any other engaged customer would do – I posted a comment; basically asking what happened and how surprising it was, after the marketing blitz, to see the event canceled.

 

My comment was deleted.

 

So, I posted again; asking “when was it postponed until?”

 

I received back a response, “indefinitely.”

 

I posted again, “why?” And, then another 5-6 people posted after me, asking much the same thing, and expressing their disappointment.

 

That was 17 hours ago; so far, no response.

On so many levels, this is a complete failure from a communications standpoint. If there was an issue with the festival that could be addressed; you have 1700 people who have already said, “I want to see this happen” – tap into that network. Secondly, why the lack of transparency? This isn’t a cure for cancer or equally valuable trade secret; you’re putting together a weekend for tourists. Be honest with your audience – what’s the reason for it not happening? Is it lack of interest; is it lack of volunteers? Of course, posting through social media to ask people to go to your website to sign up for an email newsletter than will be delivered to my email periodically is so incredibly behind the times – you have 1700 fans on your facebook page … communicate with them directly!

But, then again, no one asked me.