It's no secret my favorite sport in the world is college basketball; which makes this time of year (the NCAA tournament) easily my favorite time for spectator sports.
I'm also a big fan of college football; but I like the setup of college basketball better -- too often, by the time Bowl Week is wrapping up, I'm burned out from watching games that don't really have a meaning. With college basketball, *every* game matters -- from the conference tournaments (the two weeks preceding) through the NCAA tournament. Win and continue; lose and go home.
I've been watching the NCAA tournament -- basically *every* moment of it -- for the past 30 years. I've taken vacation time to ensure I don't miss any of the games in the past. And, I still have great memories of some of the fantastic teams and tournaments I've seen in the past.
My favorite team, year-in, year-out has been Duke University. I became a fan back in 1986, when they lost to Louisville -- they had a great team of Johnny Dawkins, Tommy Amaker (now the coach at Harvard), Mark Alarie, Jay Bilas (an analyst on ESPN). Since then, I've rooted for Duke in every tournament (even when I haven't filled out my bracket to have the win).
So, today, Duke lost to Mercer 78-71. With four-and-a-half minutes to go, Duke led 63-58. Most smaller schools would wilt -- they would see Mighty Duke, with its multiple McDonalds All-Americans and future NBA players and they'd simply shudder. Instead, Mercer - the *only* school to start five seniors every game this year - did just the opposite, going on a 20-8 run to end the game, fully in control.
It's always sad, for me when Duke loses, because I have such respect for Mike Kryzewski (who, even after this loss, was incredibly gracious to the opposing coach ... he realized his team had been out-played and he was modest (and confident) enough to admit it). But, I have to admit, today; if Duke *had* to lose, I'm glad it was to a team like Mercer.
One of the biggest changes in the NCAA tournament (and college basketball, in general) has been the growing trend of players spending fewer than four years in college. For a while, several players jumped right to the NBA from high school (Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, among *many* others) -- and recently, that changed to mandate players *must* spend one year in college (or, more accurately, *out* of high school) before they're eligible to be drafted -- and many players have excelled in the NBA after spending only one year in college.
But, when I look back at the iconic figures in the history of the NCAA tournament, they all have something in common:
Ralph Sampson
Clyde Drexler
Hakeem Olajuwon
Patrick Ewing
Chris Mullin
Steve Alford
Danny Manning
Christian Laettner
Bobby Hurley
Grant Hill
Bo Kimble
Corliss Williamson
Mateen Cleaves
All of them played a MINIMUM of three years in college - with most playing four years.
Now, look at the NBA draft today ... for the most part, you'll see 2-5 seniors drafted in the first round. The last senior drafted in the NBA draft that is an impact player today (and we'll use "impact" liberally): Kenneth Faried and Chandler Parsons -- both drafted in 2011.
The last senior drafted that became an all-star? Roy Hibbert, drafted in 2008.
And, if you want to go back to the last player drafted, as a senior, that has even a *remote* chance of
ending in the Hall of Fame one day, you're probably going back to Shane Battier, drafted in 2001; Andre Miller/Jason Terry, drafted in 1999 ... or, more realistically, Tim Duncan, drafted in 1997.
Think about that. It's been 17 years since a probable Hall-of-Famer was drafted as a senior.
I'm not saying it's a bad decision for players to go to the NBA -- money is money; and why would you want to wait? But, for the purposes of *this* article, I'm lamenting the change in the NCAA tournament, which is *directly* attributable to the lack of seniors. When you spend four years in a program, with other players who have spent four years in the program, then you build up an amount of confidence and camaraderie.
It's that confidence that led a team of five seniors to look at the scoreboard, see themselves down by 5 with fewer than five minutes in the game, against Mighty Duke, and -- instead of wilting, somehow went on an offensive spurt (scoring 20 points) while holding a team comprised of former All-Americans to only 8 points.
I don't think today's loss will change anything. It proves that players need more time in college to win a championship (or, in some cases, get out of the first round); but -- ultimately, do I look at someone like Jabari Parker and think this loss will humble him? Or, will he bolt for the NBA and millions of dollars, looking back at Duke as nothing more than a one-year stop en route to potential fame and fortune? It's a shame -- he's 19 years old, and instead of getting to live like a god (like the people above, enjoyed, through their college careers), he has to miss out on that great experience so he can make his money (and, more importantly, probably, so the people who have *invested* in him can make their money, as well).
I'm sad Duke lost; but I'm happy it was to a team with five seniors. As someone who truly loves the NCAA tournament, and longs for the fantastic storylines (and rivalries!) of the past, I hope it does make a difference. I can dream.
Friday, March 21, 2014
Monday, February 17, 2014
Job Seeking? Leave Humility and Modesty at the Door, Please ...
Whew ... it's been a long time since I blogged. I had one topic in mind; but it's a little more pop-culture than business-focused; and I didn't want to return from such a hiatus with something as meaningless as pop culture.
This morning, I was thinking about the irony of job-seeking versus being a great employee. Those very traits that make someone an exceptional employee are not the ones that convince an organization to hire them in the first place.
What do I mean? Well, simply stated, most companies seek out employees that will always put the company's needs first. Even salespeople (who need to exude more confidence than the average worker) still should never lose sight of the company's mission and goals (although, again, with sales, many of those goals are achieved through sales goals).
And, I like to think I fit into that category. I've been fortunate to have the ear of several executives during my professional life, and none of them would ever say I ever recommended anything that benefited me, exclusively (or, more to the point, *didn't* benefit the company).
Yet, when it comes to interviewing and job-seeking, humility and modesty is not a welcomed trait. If you cannot speak effusively about yourself, your skills and your accomplishments, you're perceived as not being a strong candidate.
And, for someone like me (true story: I was asked in an interview what one word best described me and -- without hesitation -- I said "modest"), that can be a challenge.
Part of the difficulty stems from the fact that most of my "accomplishments," I simply considered to be "my job." To me, even if I do my job exceptionally well, it's still my job (and should be done to the best of my capabilities). So, to go into an interview and spew out all these great things I did, just feels insincere to me.
I'm not without confidence ... but, being confident doesn't necessarily mean talking yourself up. I leave most interviews convinced I can help the company achieve its goals and that I can handle the responsibilities of the position (and deliver exceptional results). Anecdotally, I can point to my previous positions: Look at where the company was before I got there; look where it got *while* I was there; and look at where it is now that I'm no longer there. I can assure you, the differences are stark.
The other difficulty comes from the fact that -- rightfully so -- interviewers want to learn what led to your accomplishments. And, again, I consider it just my job. I go into a company; learn the product/service or the culture (depending on my role and focus); and then I ensure messages reach the target audience in the way intended. Whether I'm creating the messaging or editing it or advising someone else; the important piece of the puzzle is making sure the audience *hears* the message the way it was intended. If they don't, the failure lies with the message and message sender (*not* the audience).
But, ask me to describe the minutiae of how I do that, and I'm probably going to be a little flustered. It's not something I've ever analyzed (despite the fact that I pride myself on being meticulous and methodical). In some ways (and I'm not comparing myself to him, necessarily), it's similar to the plight of Ted Williams.
Ted Williams is arguably the greatest baseball hitter of all time (I can make a case for Ty Cobb; but that's another blog!). After his playing career, teams wanted to hire Williams to teach *their* players how to hit; which was a great idea on paper. Problem is -- Ted couldn't explain how he hit, and he certainly couldn't teach anyone. To him, it was as simple as: see the ball; hit the ball; and it worked. Ask for more details than that, and you'd be sorely disappointed.
One of the reasons I've built up my network so much (and that I've tried to actually *meet* as many of the people in my network as I can), is because there are few things in the job search as powerful as having someone talk you up to the company to which you've applied. Sure, I can apply for a job online; but if I know someone who knows someone at that company, and my contact is able (and willing!) to tell the person what a fantastic addition I'd be; and how I can help transform their company ... well, that accomplishes two things: First, it's an incredibly meaningful recommendation (and, honestly, you can't have too many of those!); and second, it takes the pressure off of me.
Then, I can focus on simply being a modest and exceptional employee.
This morning, I was thinking about the irony of job-seeking versus being a great employee. Those very traits that make someone an exceptional employee are not the ones that convince an organization to hire them in the first place.
What do I mean? Well, simply stated, most companies seek out employees that will always put the company's needs first. Even salespeople (who need to exude more confidence than the average worker) still should never lose sight of the company's mission and goals (although, again, with sales, many of those goals are achieved through sales goals).
And, I like to think I fit into that category. I've been fortunate to have the ear of several executives during my professional life, and none of them would ever say I ever recommended anything that benefited me, exclusively (or, more to the point, *didn't* benefit the company).
Yet, when it comes to interviewing and job-seeking, humility and modesty is not a welcomed trait. If you cannot speak effusively about yourself, your skills and your accomplishments, you're perceived as not being a strong candidate.
And, for someone like me (true story: I was asked in an interview what one word best described me and -- without hesitation -- I said "modest"), that can be a challenge.
Part of the difficulty stems from the fact that most of my "accomplishments," I simply considered to be "my job." To me, even if I do my job exceptionally well, it's still my job (and should be done to the best of my capabilities). So, to go into an interview and spew out all these great things I did, just feels insincere to me.
I'm not without confidence ... but, being confident doesn't necessarily mean talking yourself up. I leave most interviews convinced I can help the company achieve its goals and that I can handle the responsibilities of the position (and deliver exceptional results). Anecdotally, I can point to my previous positions: Look at where the company was before I got there; look where it got *while* I was there; and look at where it is now that I'm no longer there. I can assure you, the differences are stark.
The other difficulty comes from the fact that -- rightfully so -- interviewers want to learn what led to your accomplishments. And, again, I consider it just my job. I go into a company; learn the product/service or the culture (depending on my role and focus); and then I ensure messages reach the target audience in the way intended. Whether I'm creating the messaging or editing it or advising someone else; the important piece of the puzzle is making sure the audience *hears* the message the way it was intended. If they don't, the failure lies with the message and message sender (*not* the audience).
But, ask me to describe the minutiae of how I do that, and I'm probably going to be a little flustered. It's not something I've ever analyzed (despite the fact that I pride myself on being meticulous and methodical). In some ways (and I'm not comparing myself to him, necessarily), it's similar to the plight of Ted Williams.
Ted Williams is arguably the greatest baseball hitter of all time (I can make a case for Ty Cobb; but that's another blog!). After his playing career, teams wanted to hire Williams to teach *their* players how to hit; which was a great idea on paper. Problem is -- Ted couldn't explain how he hit, and he certainly couldn't teach anyone. To him, it was as simple as: see the ball; hit the ball; and it worked. Ask for more details than that, and you'd be sorely disappointed.
One of the reasons I've built up my network so much (and that I've tried to actually *meet* as many of the people in my network as I can), is because there are few things in the job search as powerful as having someone talk you up to the company to which you've applied. Sure, I can apply for a job online; but if I know someone who knows someone at that company, and my contact is able (and willing!) to tell the person what a fantastic addition I'd be; and how I can help transform their company ... well, that accomplishes two things: First, it's an incredibly meaningful recommendation (and, honestly, you can't have too many of those!); and second, it takes the pressure off of me.
Then, I can focus on simply being a modest and exceptional employee.
Sunday, January 5, 2014
A Disconnect Maybe? (HR vs. Hiring)
I do quite a bit of reading, especially when I'm job-seeking, since I feel it's important to keep skills up-to-date. Most of my reading is professional-based -- in the communications arena -- but I also make a point of reading job-seeking and HR blogs (to get a better idea of what hiring managers are looking for).
I came across this blog from Careerealism a few weeks ago, and, although the topic line didn't pertain to me too much, I still wanted to look it over.
One thing struck me completely, as a disconnect:
"When you’re in an interview, you’re being evaluated on three things: Personality, Aptitude, and Experience. What is outdated about job application these days? You send a resume with your past experience on it! That has almost nothing to do with your personality or aptitude, because it’s very hard to have them shine through (even on a great resume)."
So, hiring managers and HR folks admit that personality is the most important aspect in hiring a new employee, yet, we've simultaneously seen a monumental growth in the usage of applicant tracking systems (and, more damning, scanning resumes for keywords to determine if the applicant should even be advanced to have his/her resume viewed by an actual human).
Wow.
I cannot blame the companies for this, entirely. With unemployment (and, more damning, *under*employment) at all-time highs (for my lifetime), what is the alternative? To interview hundreds (maybe thousands) of applicants, just to check on personality? The easiest way to cut down the number of interviews needed is to find some way to eliminate candidates; may as well be via something automated (so, I can set a filter that will eliminate 90 percent of the applicants, if they don't have a particular skillset or keywords on their resume).
I know the post says to use networking to pave the way; but I've found that's not necessarily a magic bullet. I know there have been situations where I've called upon my network to tap into their connections. That has rarely paid off the way this article suggests (even though my personality and aptitude are vouched for by my network). Ironically, I see those same positions re-posted repeatedly, so, perhaps ignoring the personality and aptitude and focusing entirely on what the computer scanning and tracking system advises isn't the best way to fill the role, either.
I came across this blog from Careerealism a few weeks ago, and, although the topic line didn't pertain to me too much, I still wanted to look it over.
One thing struck me completely, as a disconnect:
"When you’re in an interview, you’re being evaluated on three things: Personality, Aptitude, and Experience. What is outdated about job application these days? You send a resume with your past experience on it! That has almost nothing to do with your personality or aptitude, because it’s very hard to have them shine through (even on a great resume)."
So, hiring managers and HR folks admit that personality is the most important aspect in hiring a new employee, yet, we've simultaneously seen a monumental growth in the usage of applicant tracking systems (and, more damning, scanning resumes for keywords to determine if the applicant should even be advanced to have his/her resume viewed by an actual human).
Wow.
I cannot blame the companies for this, entirely. With unemployment (and, more damning, *under*employment) at all-time highs (for my lifetime), what is the alternative? To interview hundreds (maybe thousands) of applicants, just to check on personality? The easiest way to cut down the number of interviews needed is to find some way to eliminate candidates; may as well be via something automated (so, I can set a filter that will eliminate 90 percent of the applicants, if they don't have a particular skillset or keywords on their resume).
I know the post says to use networking to pave the way; but I've found that's not necessarily a magic bullet. I know there have been situations where I've called upon my network to tap into their connections. That has rarely paid off the way this article suggests (even though my personality and aptitude are vouched for by my network). Ironically, I see those same positions re-posted repeatedly, so, perhaps ignoring the personality and aptitude and focusing entirely on what the computer scanning and tracking system advises isn't the best way to fill the role, either.
Thursday, December 26, 2013
And *I'M* the One Who's Unemployed?
So, in the past week -- I guess, file this under the "people never learn" category -- the following news stories broke:
http://gothamist.com/2013/12/21/assemblyman_dennis_gabryszak.php
Huh? So, clearly, Anthony Weiner's troubles had so little impact on this person, that he went out of his way to up his game ...
And, then, this got national play, probably because the person *should* have known better:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/21/us/sacco-offensive-tweet/index.html
When you're *paid* to write and have people listen to you, it probably makes sense to pay attention to what you're writing. Admittedly, I can be a little bit risque on Facebook, but none of my humor branches into racist, anti-Semitic or any type of "hate" humor. In fact, most of my humor falls firmly in the self-deprecation camp.
With "professionals" like these, though, perhaps I shouldn't even have a resume any longer. Maybe I should just walk in and say, "I'm not going to embarrass you or your company." That seems like something a lot of companies are going to be concerned about in the future.
http://gothamist.com/2013/12/21/assemblyman_dennis_gabryszak.php
Huh? So, clearly, Anthony Weiner's troubles had so little impact on this person, that he went out of his way to up his game ...
And, then, this got national play, probably because the person *should* have known better:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/21/us/sacco-offensive-tweet/index.html
When you're *paid* to write and have people listen to you, it probably makes sense to pay attention to what you're writing. Admittedly, I can be a little bit risque on Facebook, but none of my humor branches into racist, anti-Semitic or any type of "hate" humor. In fact, most of my humor falls firmly in the self-deprecation camp.
With "professionals" like these, though, perhaps I shouldn't even have a resume any longer. Maybe I should just walk in and say, "I'm not going to embarrass you or your company." That seems like something a lot of companies are going to be concerned about in the future.
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Sorry Your Kid is Disappointed; But it Was Only $5
I don't think I'm unreasonable. I really don't.
But, there are certain situations that are easily avoided through simple, clear communication. Two such examples from this past weekend.
A number of months ago, we signed up our son for the "Kidgits" program at the SmithHaven Mall. He's too young for most of the programs -- he's not really an "arts and crafts" kinda kid, at this time. But, one -- in particular -- struck us as a "must-do." Saturday, December 7, 8:30am-10am -- Breakfast with Santa.
So, I dutifully drove to the mall the day they opened registration; signed up my son. Then, despite the fact that we were exhausted (still getting over my PMP midterm class project, that sucked most of my energy), we got up on Saturday; dressed my son, and drove to the mall, all the while telling him that he would be able to see Santa.
We got to the mall around 8:40am (which we didn't think anything of -- most of the programs are more 'open-house' than anything). We quickly saw the inefficiency -- rather than having people there to check you in; you had to find your own name on the poorly written registration list (which took quite a long time); then, you got hit up for a $1 donation (more paperwork); and then, you went down to get the child's breakfast -- your choice of a sugary cereal; milk, juice and a donut. We finally got seated around 8:50am.
And, Santa was gone. I immediately suspected something was up; my wife chastised me for being too negative ("He probably had to run to the bathroom," she said.). Twenty minutes later, I retorted that was starting to seem improbable, unless he had a prostate issue. She went to inquire, and learned he was gone. So I went up.
I said, "My wife tells me Santa is gone?" The useless lead worker, Joanne, said, "Yes, he had to go to take pictures in the center." I pointed to the listing -- and asked, "Um ... did no one think that a pivotal part of 'Breakfast with Santa' was, Santa?" And she shrugged ... "Santa was here until 9am." I said that was certainly not true, and she relented that he had left at 8:50. So, he made two-thirds of the one-third of the time he going to be there (which was still vastly less than the 90 minutes any of us had thought).
I told the woman she could keep my kid's membership card. She smiled at me, way too pompously for my liking and said, "It's only $5 a year." I said -- the money isn't the issue. The whole way here, we told my son he'd be seeing Santa; now he's not here. If someone went out of their way to disappoint YOUR kid, would you take solace in the fact that you'd only spent $5 for the privilege?"
She asked, "What can I do to make this better?" I said, "Get Santa back here ...." No, that wasn't an option. So, I started to say -- "Perhaps you could, I dunno, *MENTION* that Santa will only be present until 8:50 -- that after that it's just "breakfast" (and, in fact, a nutritionally inferior breakfast to what my wife would've made him if we'd stayed home)." But, I didn't get all of that out -- instead, Joanne interrupted me to condescendingly sneer, "We have a thousand Kidgits members, there'll always be some that are impossible to please."
I then asked if she was interested in hearing my recommendation, since she'd interrupted me, or, if her request for how she could make things better was just a thinly veiled offer so she could continue to sit there and insult me?
Fortunately, my son is two, and the heartbreak was short-lived, and I didn't have to go into details about poor advertising, corporate greed and the inappropriateness of having non people-persons in customer service roles. But, it doesn't change the fact that a *simple* fix would have been to (1) list the times that Santa WOULD be at the "Breakfast with Santa" (as poorly named as that turned out to be) and/or (2) to speed up the check-in process; there's no reason to hold me up to request a $1 donation, so that Santa can be on his way before we even see him.
Yes, it's only $5; but in the future, that's going to be $5 in my pocket; and not in Kidgits'.
*************************************************
Today was the Stony Brook Holiday Festival. And, I had great hopes for this, as well -- lots of events -- petting zoo, model train display, etc.
We went to the Winnie the Pooh play at St. Joseph's College earlier, and made our way up to Stony Brook by around 2:45pm, which seemed great, since everything was scheduled to end around 4pm. The operative word is "scheduled."
When we went to the "Inner Court," the Petting Zoo was GONE. When we made our way to the model train display, one had already been taken down and the other, larger one, was in the process of being dismantled. This is at 3:10.
Now, I have no real issue with the individuals -- although, really, show a little class; and don't start taking stuff apart while people are there. But, the organizers should be on top of this. Either *ask* the people, "how long do you want to be here?" or hold them to the times you've committed them to. No one should be seeing them pulling stuff apart an hour (or more!) before the scheduled event ends.
And, it's not as though the organizers are oblivious -- Santa was set up over by the Post Office, and he was scheduled to re-appear for the tree-lighting at 5:30. How do you ensure that happens?
It's really not that hard.
And, I think people can understand this a little more (especially since it's consistent with what's in the flyer). What's *not* in the flyer is the notice that (1) the Petting Zoo, scheduled for three hours, would barely last 90 minutes; and (2) the model train show, scheduled for four hours, would effectively be a show of watching the display being packed up.
Again - on both of these situations, I'm not suggesting that longer hours, etc. are needed. What I *am* saying is that clear communication needs to be the norm.
When I used to visit trade shows (as a magazine editor); there were occasions, during slower shows, when vendors would start packing up their booths earlier than the show end-time on the last day of the show. The organizers would come around and tell them to stop or don't bother signing up for next year. I'm starting to gain a far greater appreciation for that approach.
But, there are certain situations that are easily avoided through simple, clear communication. Two such examples from this past weekend.
A number of months ago, we signed up our son for the "Kidgits" program at the SmithHaven Mall. He's too young for most of the programs -- he's not really an "arts and crafts" kinda kid, at this time. But, one -- in particular -- struck us as a "must-do." Saturday, December 7, 8:30am-10am -- Breakfast with Santa.
So, I dutifully drove to the mall the day they opened registration; signed up my son. Then, despite the fact that we were exhausted (still getting over my PMP midterm class project, that sucked most of my energy), we got up on Saturday; dressed my son, and drove to the mall, all the while telling him that he would be able to see Santa.
We got to the mall around 8:40am (which we didn't think anything of -- most of the programs are more 'open-house' than anything). We quickly saw the inefficiency -- rather than having people there to check you in; you had to find your own name on the poorly written registration list (which took quite a long time); then, you got hit up for a $1 donation (more paperwork); and then, you went down to get the child's breakfast -- your choice of a sugary cereal; milk, juice and a donut. We finally got seated around 8:50am.
And, Santa was gone. I immediately suspected something was up; my wife chastised me for being too negative ("He probably had to run to the bathroom," she said.). Twenty minutes later, I retorted that was starting to seem improbable, unless he had a prostate issue. She went to inquire, and learned he was gone. So I went up.
I said, "My wife tells me Santa is gone?" The useless lead worker, Joanne, said, "Yes, he had to go to take pictures in the center." I pointed to the listing -- and asked, "Um ... did no one think that a pivotal part of 'Breakfast with Santa' was, Santa?" And she shrugged ... "Santa was here until 9am." I said that was certainly not true, and she relented that he had left at 8:50. So, he made two-thirds of the one-third of the time he going to be there (which was still vastly less than the 90 minutes any of us had thought).
I told the woman she could keep my kid's membership card. She smiled at me, way too pompously for my liking and said, "It's only $5 a year." I said -- the money isn't the issue. The whole way here, we told my son he'd be seeing Santa; now he's not here. If someone went out of their way to disappoint YOUR kid, would you take solace in the fact that you'd only spent $5 for the privilege?"
She asked, "What can I do to make this better?" I said, "Get Santa back here ...." No, that wasn't an option. So, I started to say -- "Perhaps you could, I dunno, *MENTION* that Santa will only be present until 8:50 -- that after that it's just "breakfast" (and, in fact, a nutritionally inferior breakfast to what my wife would've made him if we'd stayed home)." But, I didn't get all of that out -- instead, Joanne interrupted me to condescendingly sneer, "We have a thousand Kidgits members, there'll always be some that are impossible to please."
I then asked if she was interested in hearing my recommendation, since she'd interrupted me, or, if her request for how she could make things better was just a thinly veiled offer so she could continue to sit there and insult me?
Fortunately, my son is two, and the heartbreak was short-lived, and I didn't have to go into details about poor advertising, corporate greed and the inappropriateness of having non people-persons in customer service roles. But, it doesn't change the fact that a *simple* fix would have been to (1) list the times that Santa WOULD be at the "Breakfast with Santa" (as poorly named as that turned out to be) and/or (2) to speed up the check-in process; there's no reason to hold me up to request a $1 donation, so that Santa can be on his way before we even see him.
Yes, it's only $5; but in the future, that's going to be $5 in my pocket; and not in Kidgits'.
*************************************************
Today was the Stony Brook Holiday Festival. And, I had great hopes for this, as well -- lots of events -- petting zoo, model train display, etc.
We went to the Winnie the Pooh play at St. Joseph's College earlier, and made our way up to Stony Brook by around 2:45pm, which seemed great, since everything was scheduled to end around 4pm. The operative word is "scheduled."
When we went to the "Inner Court," the Petting Zoo was GONE. When we made our way to the model train display, one had already been taken down and the other, larger one, was in the process of being dismantled. This is at 3:10.
Now, I have no real issue with the individuals -- although, really, show a little class; and don't start taking stuff apart while people are there. But, the organizers should be on top of this. Either *ask* the people, "how long do you want to be here?" or hold them to the times you've committed them to. No one should be seeing them pulling stuff apart an hour (or more!) before the scheduled event ends.
And, it's not as though the organizers are oblivious -- Santa was set up over by the Post Office, and he was scheduled to re-appear for the tree-lighting at 5:30. How do you ensure that happens?
It's really not that hard.
And, I think people can understand this a little more (especially since it's consistent with what's in the flyer). What's *not* in the flyer is the notice that (1) the Petting Zoo, scheduled for three hours, would barely last 90 minutes; and (2) the model train show, scheduled for four hours, would effectively be a show of watching the display being packed up.
Again - on both of these situations, I'm not suggesting that longer hours, etc. are needed. What I *am* saying is that clear communication needs to be the norm.
When I used to visit trade shows (as a magazine editor); there were occasions, during slower shows, when vendors would start packing up their booths earlier than the show end-time on the last day of the show. The organizers would come around and tell them to stop or don't bother signing up for next year. I'm starting to gain a far greater appreciation for that approach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)