Seth Godin: Is it worthy?

Seth Godin is a marketing guru and the founder of Squidoo.com. He also writes a marketing blog, one of the world's most-read blogs.

Today's post is excellent and extends will beyond product development and product marketing - it's something that anyone could benefit from reading.
Read it here.

Excerpt:

Is cutting corners to make a buck appropriate when you consider what you could have done? What would someone with a bigger vision have done instead?

Is being negative or bitter or selfish within reason in face of how extraordinarily lucky we were to have been been born here and born now?

I take so much for granted. Perhaps you do as well. To be here, in this moment, with these resources. To have not just our health but the knowledge and the tools and the infrastructure. What a waste.

Hypermiling

If you aren't familiar with the subject of this post, it's a new technique that green and/or frugal drivers are employing to extend their fuel economy. Examples include very gentle acceleration, moderate highway speeds (wind resistance decreases fuel economy dramatically above 60mph or so), and more extreme measures such as drafting behind trucks or shutting off the engine whenever conditions permit coasting.

I confess, I've engaged in a sort of novice hypermiling from time to time. I've intentionally reduced the briskness with which I pull away from a stop. I've even been known to occasionally shut off the engine when coasting up to a stoplight - but only when it's a long-cycle stoplight that I'm familiar with, and traffic is light, and the weather is conducive to sitting a minute or two without windshield wipers, heat, or A/C. I don't encourage (or perform) this on a frequent basis - it really takes a toll on your alternator and starter if you stop-and-start your car dozens of times per day. (Hybrids, on the other hand, are designed with a more durable starter motor and are programmed to shut off the internal combustion engine whenever it's not in use.)

How far has hypermiling gone? Well, that bastion of energy conservationism, the tree-hugging organization known as NASCAR has embraced it. Or at least, they've awkwardly patted each other on the back.

For years, drafting behind another car has been standard practice in NASCAR, as you might remember Tom Cruise depicting on the thigh of his ex-wife in Days of Thunder. But last weekend, Dale Earnhardt, Jr. won the Lifelock 400 at Michigan International Speedway by making his gas tank last an unheard-of 55 laps, while all of his competitors pitted to take on more fuel. That's 110 miles on the standard NASCAR tank of 17.75 gallons, or a little better than 6mpg. Not exactly a Civic Hybrid, but pretty good for an 850hp V-8.

And how did he do it? Extreme hypermiling, of course:

[Crew Chief Tony] Eury told Earnhardt to shut the engine off and coast whenever he could under the caution flag in a desperate effort to save more gas.

The misery of flying

As if there weren't enough hassles associated with flying commercial airlines these days, United and American have found perhaps the single most efficient way to increase the misery of flying exponentially.

You've probably heard by now that both airlines will soon begin charging $15 to check a single bag. (And $40, total, to check two.) Sure, it hurts to be nickel-and-dimed for such goofy things, after they've taken away pretty much everything but window shades over the past few years. But frankly, the $15 isn't what I have a problem with.

My issue is how severely this policy will impact the flying experience. What will be the #1 result of this? Passengers trying to carry-on everything they own. What does this mean for average Joe Traveler?

• Slower lines at security, as more luggage needs to get screened
• Slower boarding at the gate, as everyone tries to find a nook for their 40lb suitcases
• A less comfortable flight, since you'll doubtless need to store your own carry-on items in the measly footspace under the seat in front of you once all the overheads are overloaded
• More flight delays due to the plethora of carry-on bags that need storage, and likely about half a plethora that need to be gate-checked

Will they charge for bags that get gate-checked? If not, seems like an obvious loophole. And if they do charge for those, what's it going to do to departure times if they have to collect $15 from dozens of passengers on every flight?

For these reasons, I will avoid American & United like the plague in my own future travels. It may seem illogical to pay $100 more for a ticket on an airline to save a $15 fee - but the difference, in my mind, will be more-than-made-up-for by the savings in hassles and delays outlined above.

If these fees are AA's & UAL's strategies for survival, maybe it's indeed time for some of the legacy carriers to disappear. I, for one, won't miss them.

New ballpark, please

In my lifetime, I've seen baseball games at eleven major league ballparks.

• Atlanta Fulton County Stadium
• Turner Field
• Fenway Park
• Yankee Stadium
• Oriole Park at Camden Yards
• Wrigley Field
• "New Comiskey" Park (officially US Cellular Field)
• Safeco Field
• RFK Stadium
• Nationals Park
• Busch Stadium (the new one)

Two of those are no longer used by MLB teams, RFK and Atlanta Fulton County. Next year, Yankee Stadium will be decommissioned, too. In fact, next season, the following will represent the distribution of major league ballparks by age:

1910's: 2 (Fenway, Wrigley)
1960's: 3 (Dodgers, Angels, Oakland - representing the rise of California baseball in that decade; note that Oakland plans to move into a new stadium in Fremont by 2012)
1970's: 1 (Kansas City)
1980's: 3 (Twins, Marlins, Blue Jays - the former two with new stadiums in the works to open in 2010-2011)
1990's and beyond: 19 (all the rest)

Essentially, by 2012, no baseball teams will play in a concrete bowl, cookie-cutter multi-purpose stadium. At that point, the distribution will be even further skewed, with only 6 teams playing in stadiums that predate 1990. Has the rash of new stadiums been worth it? There's certainly a strong argument to be made that it's revitalized the sport and contributed to urban renewal in many cities. On the flip side, the construction of all new MLB stadiums built since 1990 (including Tampa's multi-purpose stadium and Atlanta's Olympic stadium, but not including the ballparks currently in the works or Toronto's $570 Million SkyDome, which opened in 1989) have cost a little over $5.5 Billion.

It's a false comparison since the dollars are not inflation-adjusted, but just for kicks: Fenway (1912) and Wrigley (1914) combined were built for around $670,000.

My dream car.

I admit, I've always had a thing for Porsche 914/916's. They're a dorky pseudo-sports car built in the early 70's by Volkswagen. Only in the US was it sold as a Porsche - the rest of the world knew this car as only a VW.

There's something about the low-slung, tidy lines and tiny footprint that just says "street-legal go-cart". I've lusted for a 914 for years, and only self-restraint has prevented me from shelling out a pretty modest amount of cash for one. (One can be had in decent running condition for less than $5000.)

Of course, the problem with a car such as this isn't the purchase price; it's the maintenance costs. 914s are notorious for rust, especially on and around the battery tray. In addition, the mid-engine layout makes it difficult and expensive to do any significant engine work. The engine is located very low, just behind the seats - there are storage trunks both fore and aft, with only a small hatch granting access to the top of the engine for things like adding oil.

I'm happy to report that someone -- MIT engineers, no less -- had the vision to complete the perfect Porsche 914. They removed all the internal combustion bits, and converted this 914 to be 100% electric.
After a five hour charge from a standard wall-socket, this electric 914 would have a range of about 130 miles and a top speed of around 100mph - the latter probably as good or better than the original boxer-4 engine.

I think I'd have a hard time convincing MIT to gift this car to me, and being one-of-a-kind, I doubt it'll show up on eBay anytime soon. But if you, dear reader, have any connections at MIT, feel free to submit my name when they eventually look to dispossess this fine automobile.

Office move: Part I

My office is moving across town in two weeks. It's really only about a mile difference, but in a concentrated downtown area, that's a whole different part of town. Heck, Central Park and SoHo probably aren't separated by much more than a mile, but Manhattanites would consider them at opposite ends of the geographic spectrum (among other spectrums, perhaps).

So I thought I'd start a series on the Good and the Bad of the office move. Disclaimer: This could be the first in a series in the same way as Mel Brooks' History of the World Part I.

First, The Good

• The office itself. Modern facilities, maybe even a window!
• TONS of restaurants within walking distance, including the Flippish previously mentioned California Tortilla
• A slightly shorter trip by public transportation. Also, $0.05 cheaper! If I save up all those nickels for a whole year, I might be able to buy a sandwich!
  

The Bad

• Chief among the bad is the possible disintegration of my carpool. It's been a very effective way to get to work for all involved. But it probably doesn't make sense for them to go out of their way and sit in downtown traffic to drop me off, nor does it make sense to commute to the wrong part of town and then take public transportation (rather than just take transit the whole way)
• I will miss the Greek Deli, badly. In fact, I confess: the inspiration for this whole post was today's lunch, perhaps the first note of the swan song for my lunchtime affair. Oh, the deliciousness...
  

Skylights

Now that Hil's out of the race, the media's beat-a-topic-to-death du jour seems to be all about whether or not she was impacted by the "glass ceiling". I admit, I've never been much of a fan of this term. After all, isn't that just a skylight? (In the same way that "mirror" is a fancy city word for reversifyin' glass.)

So let's just put it out there. NO, no, a thousand times no, Hillary was not held back by the architectural oddity known as a glass ceiling. The fact that she was a woman hampered her candidacy no more than the fact that Obama is a black man with a funny name aided his. If she'd been the charismatic orator with the more clever campaign staff, she'd be the nominee.

The glass ceiling phenomenon does still exist in terms of pay inequalities between men and women. I suspect this is largely because of vestigial subconscious bigotry more than overt chauvinism. But when presented with a simple, fully transparent choice between two candidates, most rational human beings aren't voting based on what's between the candidate's legs. (for some, an intern... sorry, couldn't resist)

And keep in mind - we started this thing months ago with over half a dozen viable candidates. And all the white males ended up on the sidelines.

Interesting side note - the causes of Civil Rights and Women's Rights have historically had a loose linkage in terms of historical progression. How remarkable is the manner in which they've converged in this primary. It's as if the two were never really separate causes, but rather just an evolutionary enlightenment by white European males that hey, maybe we're not the only ones capable of intelligence.

How much do you love your car?

I know people who love their cars. I've loved some of the cars I've driven. Some, I loved so much that I'd just hop in and take a Sunday drive from time to time - of course, this was long before $4 gas.

Do you love your car? I mean, really, really love your car?

Enough to take it on a road trip?
Of over 10,000 miles?
With an 11-month old in the back seat?
And a 3-year old, too?

That's what Argentinian Diego Percivaldi did. And this was no Lexus. Not even a minivan with DVD player for the kids. Mr. Percivaldi drove his 1981 Ford Falcon wagon (an Argentine model not sold in the US) from his home in Argentina to Ford headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan. Edmunds Inside Line has the scoop - or see Mr. Percivaldi's blog if you retained enough of your high school Spanish.

An interesting note from his trip was the highest- and lowest-priced gasoline: $8 per gallon in Peru, but only $0.90 a gallon in Ecuador.

I'll trade you Chopper Jonze for Alburt Poohols

Thanks to the US Supreme Court, you may never have to make that offer to someone in your Fantasy Baseball league. But you should realize how close it came to being reality, and thank the men and women in black [robes] for that.

You see, Major League Baseball, which probably isn't above suing me for using that phrase on my blog, is always on the lookout for ways to take for itself a slice of revenue from every possible way in which human beings relate to professional sports. A number of years ago, a handful of baseball geeks started the first "rotisserie baseball" league, where they each pretended to have their own team of players. They followed "their" players by checking the box scores in the newspaper each day.

As you might have noticed, Fantasy Baseball caught on and is now a pretty significant subset of the American Pastime - and, as MLB argued, a pretty significant industry, too. So MLB claimed that Fantasy Baseball leagues needed to pay a licensing fee to "use" baseball players' names and statistics. (As the headline suggests, one way to get around this - as some early video games did - would be to come up with completely different [wink] player names and statistics.)

Well, the USSC refused to hear MLB's appeal of a lower court ruling that baseball players' names and statistics can be used without license from MLB. A triumph of common sense, if I do say so myself.

Think about it. MLB was suing to prevent its own biggest fans from keeping track, not only of the teams they like, but of specific players and the minutiae of those players' statistics. "Thank you for being such big fans of our product! You must now pay us even more of your hard-earned dollars for the privilege of being such a big fan!" The MLB Players Association showed just how bone-headed it could be by refusing, for years, to allow steroid testing. Was management just trying to beat the union in a game of moron one-upsmanship?