Why I didn't renew my Pittsburgh Pirates Season Tix

Year after year, fans, and Pittsburgh’ers in general bemoan our child-star-gone-bad, the Pirates. Yet, the team puts enough butts in seats (mine included) that they don't feel compelled to do anything about it. This year, I'm showing tough love. I'm sad to do it, but I haven't renewed my season tickets. Sure, I'm just one person, but I'm hoping that there's enough people out there feeling the same way and send a message to the ownership that has sent so many mixed messages to us.

We’ve been assured by the ownership that they’re turning the ship, they’re building the team, they want to make us proud, but every move they make seems to indicate the opposite. Each year, the Pirates pick up a bunch of young, fresh faces. When you roll the dice this much, sure, sometimes some talent will come up. But, there’s a problem–at least as far as the Pirates’ business model is concerned. Talent requires money to keep around. Investing in the team is not a part of the ownership’s model. What is this model, well, at a glance it would seem like this:

• Bottom line: Don’t spend money on the team, leverage other available funds to put butts in seats.
• Leverage city/taxpayer funds into building a state-of-the art attraction for a field. This way, when the team doesn’t attract fans, the venue will.
• Promotions: Leverage promoter money to give away bobbles and sponsor fireworks, which Pittsburgh’ers can not resist
• Visiting Teams: Chicago fans travel well, other fans travel to see the venue, and the attraction of interleague and other strong contenders also put butts in seats
• Merchandising: build buzz around a mid-level player who is not hot enough to want a big contract elsewhere, but will be around for a while.
• Team: Keep bringing in fresh (inexpensive) faces that give a token impression that we’re building a team.

In short, the Pirate business model seems to be built around hoping that the combination of tradition, promotions, venue and blind faith will keep putting butts in seats while they keep costs down on the team–turning a profit on leveraging promotional dollars.

In a way it’s brilliant. They spend a little bit of cash to barely keep a team on the field and reap the profits from traffic resulting from the tails in seats for every reason but their team.

Why would they put a single other dollar into the team when they don’t have to? Well, I’ve got a question for the team. Why would I put a single more dollar into your team if you’re going to trade away any talent we have and reap the success of putting a sub-par team on the field?

It is for this very reason that I did not be renew my season tickets this year. Despite the three ring circus that the Pirates put on around the field, at heart, this is supposed to be a competitive sports team. If the Pirates ownership is not making an effort, neither am I.

Can I Just Say I Can't Wait for the NIN Tour?!

http://vimeo.com/3388630

The Steel Industry, Buy American and Wondering About the NYT and WSJ

So, like all of you, I now run on media overload. I am keeping up with my Twitter, my RSS feeds, blowing the headlines of most major news sites and trying to keep up with what’s going on around me. When it comes to the steel industry, I tend to pay a little more attention because my day job is impacted by the success of the industry.

So, on January 2nd when the New York Times published the article, "Steel Industry, in Slump, Looks to Federal Stimulus," naturally, I tuned in. When reading the article, I came across a paragraph that almost seemed to make it sound like the steel industry was asking for a $1 trillion bailout—as if the headline didn’t insinuate that enough. The paragraph was as follows:

"The industry itself is turning to government for orders that, until the September collapse, had come from manufacturers and builders. Its executives are waiting anxiously for details of President-elect Barack Obama’s stimulus plan, and adding their voices to pleas for a huge public investment program — up to $1 trillion over two years — intended to lift demand for steel to build highways, bridges, electric power grids, schools, hospitals, water treatment plants and rapid transit."

Sure enough, the Tweets and blogs started to buzz that the steel industry was looking for a $1 Trillion bailout. I guess you don’t know how fast a wildfire can spread until you watch it roll out live on TweetDeck!

I went to great lengths to discuss with the Tweeters and bloggers that the steel industry hadn’t asked for a single dollar. The steel industry voiced support for a movement to include a "Buy American" clause in Obama's proposed Infrastructure stimulus package that would rebuild bridges, highways and rapid transit. This move would benefit all American industry and their employees, whom the stimulus package is intended to benefit.American industry, a critical artery of the US economy, was urging Obama to include a buy American clause in his proposal. The steel industry has voiced its support for that plan and the buy American clause. The one trillion dollar figure was in no way related to any request by or on behalf of the steel industry. The number was a statement of estimation for Obama’s stimulus package by at least 5 US governors.

The trillion-dollar figure, suggested by the governors, was for the ENTIRE infrastructure package, most of which does not include steel directly or indirectly. There are portions of this package, bridges, rail systems, culverts, sewage, which could benefit the steel industry. But, it most certainly is not about the industry or for the steel industry.

Most people (Tweeple) I spoke with were surprised at the wording in the article upon learning the truth, and some even retweeted retractions. However, some folks, determined to find flaw with the industry’s approach wanted to further engage me on the economic impact and “protectionist” aspects of “Buy American.” Not a problem, we can discuss that as well.

I explained that all federal government projects used to have a buy American clause in them. This is not a new concept nor is voicing your opinion for programs that will benefit you. The lobbying profession wouldn't exist otherwise. So, in essence, the industry, at most is lobbying for a program and voicing support for aspects of that program that would benefit the industry. I would be shocked at any business-minded industry that didn't want to make sure that monies, intended to stimulate the US economy, went into the US economy. That's a logical survival strategy in these times.

But, now, today, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) floats an editorial called “Steel's 'Buy America' Ploy.” The editorial insinuates that adding a “Buy American” clause to an AMERICAN Economic Stimulus package would “inevitably come at the expense of the nation's overall economic health.” I thought WOW, the 1.2 million people with jobs generated by the steel industry might have something that say about that. Or, hey, the American steel industry pumps $350 billion into the US economy, keeping that going is probably a great idea when you’re trying to stimulate the economy.

My read on the article is that the WSJ, and others, feel differently. I know theories on economic philosophies are like noses, everybody has one. But, for the sake of argument, I’ll address this from the perspective that I believe that the WSJ and others, who consider “buy American” protectionist and damaging.

In a utopian world, there would be no trade restrictions and all currencies would be equal. If this were the case there would be no trade borders. We would have a flowery world economy where services and goods would float seamlessly from country to country, constantly growing this utopian world economy. But, the reality is quite different.

WSJ noted that at the G-20 summit in Washington, D.C., in November, world leaders agreed to a moratorium on protectionist measures. But in that same vein, in 2007 the WTO enacted the Fair Currency Act of 2007. Yet, as we discuss this, China undervalues its currency through exchange-rate misalignment which creates an export subsidy which is prohibited through existing trade laws, including the Fair Currency Act of 2007.

According to the American Iron and Steel Institute, China’s trade practices, including the currency manipulation, creates a $50billion subsidy for China—just in the steel sector! Other practices by China include debt-to-equity swaps, inadequate enforcement of environmental and worker safety rules and large-scale subsidies in the form or preferential loans from state-owned banks and tax incentives. These practices are direct manipulation of materials markets, including steel.
And, China, as an export economy, produces 140% of its country’s consumption, including the steel it exports to US markets. According to the American Iron and Steel Institute, the largest volume of imports of finished steel products was from China. Chinese steel imports have been over 500,000 tons for each of the last three months, followed in second by Korea.

So, essentially, the WSJ and others are saying, let’s put Obama’s stimulus monies into these foreign economies? They’re saying that the US shouldn’t try to level the playing field against manipulative practices? That Obama’s stimulus dollars, intended to revitalize our economy, should not be spent with US markets, where possible? I just really don’t understand that logic. And, yet people blindly accept it because foreign lobbyists have big budgets and have the ear of key media.

But the bottom line remains. The steel industry did not create Obama's Infrastructure stimulus package. They did not ask for money from our government or any other kind of bailout. The steel industry voiced support for “Buy American” in government programs and voiced their support for Obama’s stimulus package—much in the same way that the cement industry has via cement.org (see Podcast Highlights Importance of Infrastructure Package), and the aluminum industry, who saw stocks leap on the day Obama announced his package—not to mention numerous other industries (on down to the catfishing industry), who all hope their industries will be vitalized, along with the economy, by money invested by our government.

The Anti-Social Side of Social Media/Networking

I realize that most of my readers are unfamiliar with Social Media and/or Social Networking--even though they're unknowingly participating in it. According to Wikipedia, Social Networking is online communities of people who share interests and activities, or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others. By reading my blog, you are a member of my social network, learning about what I'm up to, or what's on my mind. Many of you participate in MySpace, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube and the like. You are social networking.

Social networking has lowered the barrier for people to be able to communicate and broadcast themselves. It's now easier than ever to say what you're thinking, show what you're doing or showcase your efforts to a virtually limitless audience. This is a huge pull to the untold millions who like to be seen or heard. But, people aren't the only ones that like to be heard and seen. More and more corporations are getting in on social networking to try to increase their visibility. The intent or effort of effectively communicating via the social networks is known as Social Media. News companies push headlines, bloggers push their blogs, corporations push agendas, associations push factoids and information. Direct communication via social networks is just too great an opportunity to mess up. And these opportunities grow exponentially each day with the implementation of new social networks.

On my own, I participate in Blogger (obviously), MySpace, MyRagan, MyManagersNetwork, Facebook, Plurk, Pownce, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr, Identi.ca, Jaiku, Xanga, FriendFeed, Last.fm and Utterz--as well as experimenting with many more. As you work your way around the social networks, you run into a lot of the same cast of characters who are all participating heavily in social networking. Managing your existence in any or all of these social networks could be a life-draining undertaking. So, it's only natural that tools begin to emerge to help you manage your social networking. Tools like Ping.fm have emerged which give you the ability to post to some (if not all) of your social networks via a single interface. WOW, are these types of tools useful in helping you spread your message to a number of networks with just a few keystrokes. But, I think this type of mass communication takes the social out of social networking.

Social is an operative word in these social networks. People like to feel like they are communicating with people. People don't want to be spammed. The appeal of social networking is an exchange of information. If you're only asking for funding or tossing out the corporate line, people will walk. Social networking and media is about getting to know the people, not just a canned public responce. But, as people join an increasing number of social networks and begin using tools like Ping, they're no longer communicating, they're only broadcasting. (And, I'm not picking on Ping. I love it and use it regularly). And, when people feel like you're only broadcasting to them and not listening to them, they'll eventually walk.

You have to remember, the people that are on these networks are there to be heard as well, and they want to know if you're listening--not to mention who you are that is listening.

This is a tough prospect for companies that are looking to use social "media." In fact, even with all my experience in social networking, my first dabble with corporate social media was met with a face slap by a blogger (http://tinyurl.com/5b6cyf).

I work for a steel industry trade association. By nature, associations are small and unsophistocated technically. The fact that we're using web 2.0 technologies and social media is a big step for an organization with a staff fewer than 10.

Our first go of social media was a tool that I am very familiar with, Twitter. I developed a profile for our association called, EnviroMetal. The entire purpose of this profile was to just provide fun facts about steel to people with an interest in the environment, journalists and bloggers. It wasn't meant to sell anything or otherwise spam. But, traditional communications instincts took over and I ended up being pointed out as a bad use of social media.

While the blogger was way off on a number of marks, he did make a few valid points about the feedback loop. And, if I was networking as a company, rather than my self, it was coming off like spam. Skimming the social networks, it's easy to spot a lot of intentional spam. This effort was not spam. But, I was fortunite, because of the topic area, there are a lot of people who are passionate about the environment and recycling. I was able to tap into their preferences and "fit in" to their social networks.

But, the fact that the blogger decided to run off and blog nastily about an introductory social media effort, rather than provide feedback, he was guilty of what he was accusing me of doing. The social networks are about opening up direct lines of communications, learning and teaching. There is no direct science to social media. There will always be different ways to be good at something. But, your social media efforts have a lot more credibility if you take time to learn as much about a topic as you can before you go off acting as the king of social media and spouting your expertise.

That is part of the allure of social networking, you can be as loud as the biggest company just by putting things out there. Slapping at people trying to make an enterance into social networking or simply shouting and not listening takes the social out of social media. And, while tools may make your efforts more efficient, and you may be able to cast your net a lot further, unless you are a personal, active participant in your media efforts, you will find a lot of resistance to your social media efforts.

I am learning and experimenting. I believe that there is a strong future for the world of social media to grow through social networks. But the one constant will have to be social.

Pittsburgh: Fast Becoming A Ghost Town

This summer is an exciting summer to be a music fan. There are some fantastic tours out there, including Tom Waits, The Cure, Radiohead, and Nine Inch Nails. What do these concerts have in common? None of them are coming to Pittsburgh.

This summer, I will be making several trips to Cleveland (concerts, flights, entertainment). When the hell did Pittsburgh become a suburb of Cleveland you might ask? Pittsburgh is a city that is now 250 years old. The city took about 20 years to recover from the fall of the steel industry. And, for a brief time, it looked like the city was turning things around. New hospitals, attracting IT talent and companies and even started to become a bit of a hub for real estate vendor management.

But, it seems success was not in the cards for the 'burgh. Right now the city is honestly tredding dangerous waters right now, and I'm not encouraged by what I'm seeing.

• The airport's major airline has downgraded us to a regional airport. We are hemmoraging flights. And, it's even more difficult to grab a direct flight from the area. Not to mention the cost difference flying out of Pittsburgh vs. other airports.
• Just try to walk outside and hail a cab in the city. It is difficult at best unless you are at the airport or the convention center. If you're at a dining facility or watering hole, you are out of luck unless you call. Even then, it's dicy.
• There is no major vein of transportation. Bus lines are in a constant state of reduction, and the T has no presence in the airport corridor.
  By some estimates, the office parks in the airport corridor are now down to 40% capacity.
• Try living in the city, people are moving out in droves due to inflated tax assessments--on top of the already inflated tax base in the city. Personally, I would've thought the 3% wage tax (which is triple what you'd pay to live in the suburbs) would've driven them out.
• So, we've established that there's no public transportation and the taxes prohibitive to live in the city, right? Well, why not drive in? I'l tell you why--the friggin city has a 45% parking tax!
• But, if you do decide to venture into the county to shop anyways you'll be subject to the city/county extra 1% sales tax for the privelage of patronizing the few businesses that have stuck around.
• Why haven't more businesses stuck around you ask? Well, Pittsburgh was once ranked the 2nd most brutal city in the nation for taxing businesses. We've slipped to 4th or 5th most brutal, but honestly why would you want to have a business in a city that is going to brutalize you with taxes?
• But, why would that discourage qualified professionals from seeking employment in Pittsburgh vs. other cities. Oh, well, ther's a $100 Occupational Tax that employees have to pay just to work in the city--on top of their wage tax.
• Pittsburgh is a city, right? (for now) So, there's got to be a night life. Well, the city has done their best to chase out the night life as well. The city has implemented a ten percent BEER TAX.
• Well, I guess the city is resting on the tourists that come in for conventions, right? I mean they've taxed rental cars and hotels. But, on top of that the city openly encourages making it difficult to have a trade show at its state of the art convention center. I've done trade shows across the nation and there are very few cities that make it less desirable to exhibit at their convention center. The convention center shuts off elevators and escalators during setup. They harass you about carrying too much in or out the door. Why? Because they want you to have to pay to use their union labor. You can't stand on a ladder to set up your booth. You can't buld a booth over 6 feet. They hate if you try to carry things in and charge you through the nose to ship things in.

So, you ask, why don't people come to the city? Why can't we get more concerts? Why is Pittsburgh a ghost town on nights that there aren't Steelers, Pirate or Penguin games? Why is Pittsburgh slowly becoming a suburb to Cleveland? From where I sit, it looks like bloated government and greed.

Gun Ban Overturned by Supreme Court

So, all the rage in the news has been all the armageddon that is about to come about because the Supreme Court has overturned DC's gun ban law by a vote of 5-4.

I'm honestly SHOCKED that the vote was that close on something that is explicitly stated in the second amendment of the constitution.

Now, before you go closing the blog and writing me off as some right wing pigeon, let me state that I do not own a gun. But, if you look at the Bill of Rights, I'm told that the government can not pass a law preventing me from doing so. I really don't know how much more clear that can be. Not to mention, I've yet to see a gun law that prevents crime.

Think about it. Pot is illegal. Has it ever stopped anybody from getting high that wanted to get high? Beer is illegal for persons below the age of 21. Did it ever stop you or your friends from getting a case for a party in high school? The same thing goes with guns. The people that want guns will always be able to get guns.

It isn't like we have prevented guns from ever being made, they're out there. They're widely available. The people that are going to use them for nefarious purposes are not going to be obtaining them through traditional channels--nor would they likely be concerned with a law banning them from the streets of DC.

So, who do these laws impact? I would guess these laws only impact the people that are going through traditional channels to legally purchase a firearm.

Let me just say, that I've got no problem with a "cooling off" period or a background check. But seriously, I don't think even these laws have put a dent in any gun crime or kept guns out of the hands of the people who are using them in crime, but, hey, let's not make it overly easy either.

I'm from Pennsylvania, most people have guns. Most people here hunt. Most people use their guns in legal activities. Now, you only need to look as far as the Middle East if you want to see what happens when everybody owns an AK-47. So, I'm not advocating everybody run out and buy an armory. But, what I'm sayin is that without a gun ban, I don't feel unsafe walking the streets here or when I'm in DC.

If the people demand it, there is a way to legally ban guns. It's called the constitution. And if it is the will of the people, it should be easy for congress to enact. The process is already in place for amending the constitution. But, I already have great concerns for the rights and power that are stripped from the people of this country. And it should concern you that laws are being passed in offense of your constitutional rights--not to mention a Supreme Court that narrowly affirmed your rights. Heads up people!

Three Days: Three Songs: Nine Inch Nails Live Rehersal Video: Echoplex

Nine Inch Nails is working tirelessly to show us the potential of the new CD, The Slip, as it will translate to their live performance.

This time, we are seeing Echoplex performed at rehersal thanks to Pitchfork and NIN. Making a slip over to the softer/pop side of the CD, Echoplex is a return to the feel and sound from an erlier release, The Fragile.

Kicking off the video with a glimpse as the drum loop is punched in, Echoplex is a smoother track set in minor harmonies and loops. Check it out for yourself.

NIN live rehearsal: Echoplex - Watch more Music Videos at Vodpod.