Menippean, collaboratively constructed, mashup. Political campaigns a la UCaPP!
[Technorati tags: john mccain | republican]
26 February 2008
24 February 2008
Toronto Subway Dance Party
Via Torontoist and my daughter, Julie, yesterday afternoon saw the Toronto Subway Dance Party. About two dozen people boarded a train at Museum station and rode southbound all the way around to Bloor station. Each had their own music, each their own rhythm and moves. The result is yet another example of collaborative construction of culture in our increasingly hip city, via performance in public space.
[Technorati tags: toronto subway dance party | improv everywhere | public performance]
[Technorati tags: toronto subway dance party | improv everywhere | public performance]
22 February 2008
Consumer Trends Forum in Boston - Notes from Generation Gap
I've just returned from a quick trip to Boston to give the opening keynote at the Consumer Trends Forum International conference. I truly appreciate the invitation, especially because it gives me the opportunity to expose some of the consequences of Valence Theory to people who actually have to develop and market products in the so-called real world.
Based on the overwhelming response I received yesterday morning (and through the break and later, during the lunch) I think they liked it.
For those who are interested, I've uploaded my talk notes here. These are more sketch notes rather than a completed essay - the earlier parts are very sketchy since I know the patter of the 3,000 years of the history of Western civilization according to the Toronto School of Communication. More fleshed out are the sections following the description of Valence Theory, that outline the evolution of the concept of mass media, the change in the relationships among employees, customers and suppliers, and the consequences for marketing. Especially important, I think, is my reconception of Brand, not as a manifestation of the company's vision - which I suggest is entirely the wrong sensory metaphor. Instead, I maintain that the dominant sensory metaphor in a UCaPP world is touch. Hence, it is the tactility statement - who are you going to touch, and how are you going to touch them, today - that is the basis of the contemporary Brand promise.
Thanks to the conference organizers for the invitation, for making all the arrangements, and for the very warm welcome you afforded me.
[Technorati tags: ctfi 2008 | consumer trends forum | tactility statement | marketing | branding]
Based on the overwhelming response I received yesterday morning (and through the break and later, during the lunch) I think they liked it.
For those who are interested, I've uploaded my talk notes here. These are more sketch notes rather than a completed essay - the earlier parts are very sketchy since I know the patter of the 3,000 years of the history of Western civilization according to the Toronto School of Communication. More fleshed out are the sections following the description of Valence Theory, that outline the evolution of the concept of mass media, the change in the relationships among employees, customers and suppliers, and the consequences for marketing. Especially important, I think, is my reconception of Brand, not as a manifestation of the company's vision - which I suggest is entirely the wrong sensory metaphor. Instead, I maintain that the dominant sensory metaphor in a UCaPP world is touch. Hence, it is the tactility statement - who are you going to touch, and how are you going to touch them, today - that is the basis of the contemporary Brand promise.
Thanks to the conference organizers for the invitation, for making all the arrangements, and for the very warm welcome you afforded me.
[Technorati tags: ctfi 2008 | consumer trends forum | tactility statement | marketing | branding]
20 February 2008
Requiem for a TV News Career, and Corporate Groupthink
Via Rob, this insightful entry from Chez Pazienza on his firing from CNN's American Morning for apparently blogging the wrong opinions.
One of the great myths of management in general (under the rubric of "transformative leadership") is that ideally, all employees of an organization should share the same vision and sense of purpose that has been established and handed down through the hierarchy by the leadership (who are seen to be the personification of the corporate consciousness, or some nonsense like that). The leaders hold the vision, inspire and lead the charge - corporate values become individual values in the transformative organization. People are then motivated to give their all, go above and beyond - you know, that whole 110% thing.
In a contemporary corporate landscape that is becoming increasingly dysfunctional, this translates operationally to such things as, being "asked to complete self-evaluations which pressed me to describe the ways in which I'd "increased shareholder value."" Or worse, as in Pazienza's case, being forced on pain of firing to vet anything he writes about any topic in any venue with the corporate "standards and practices department." Not that the issue is that he is writing. "It's also, you know, the nature of what you've been writing."
The extension beyond the limit of capability (not to mention reason) of this myth of tranformative leadership - hence forcing its reversal - comes from crossing it with BAH - Bureaucracy, Administrative controls, and Hierarchy. Although the company does end up with a goodly number of mindless drones, the most insightful, motivated and driven among their employees will take their motivation and drive elsewhere. What is left is truly a drone - clearly evident in the moribund, 24-hour, television-news-as-entertainment business:
More on this theme, and perhaps even on Celebrity Apprentice, and why Donald Trump doesn't know the first thing about management (which is different from simply making money).
[Technorati tags: chez pazienza | cnn | american morning | transformative leadership | television news | mass media]
One of the great myths of management in general (under the rubric of "transformative leadership") is that ideally, all employees of an organization should share the same vision and sense of purpose that has been established and handed down through the hierarchy by the leadership (who are seen to be the personification of the corporate consciousness, or some nonsense like that). The leaders hold the vision, inspire and lead the charge - corporate values become individual values in the transformative organization. People are then motivated to give their all, go above and beyond - you know, that whole 110% thing.
In a contemporary corporate landscape that is becoming increasingly dysfunctional, this translates operationally to such things as, being "asked to complete self-evaluations which pressed me to describe the ways in which I'd "increased shareholder value."" Or worse, as in Pazienza's case, being forced on pain of firing to vet anything he writes about any topic in any venue with the corporate "standards and practices department." Not that the issue is that he is writing. "It's also, you know, the nature of what you've been writing."
The extension beyond the limit of capability (not to mention reason) of this myth of tranformative leadership - hence forcing its reversal - comes from crossing it with BAH - Bureaucracy, Administrative controls, and Hierarchy. Although the company does end up with a goodly number of mindless drones, the most insightful, motivated and driven among their employees will take their motivation and drive elsewhere. What is left is truly a drone - clearly evident in the moribund, 24-hour, television-news-as-entertainment business:
During my last couple of years as a television news producer, I watched the networks try to recover from a six year failure to bring truth to power (the political party in power being irrelevant incidentally; the job of the press is to maintain an adversarial relationship with the government at all times) and what's worse, to pretend that they had a backbone all along. I watched my bosses literally stand in the middle of the newsroom and ask, "What can we do to not lead with Iraq?" -- the reason being that Iraq, although an important story, wasn't always a surefire ratings draw. I was asked to complete self-evaluations which pressed me to describe the ways in which I'd "increased shareholder value." (For the record, if you're a rank-and-file member of a newsroom, you should never under any circumstances even hear the word "shareholders," let alone be reminded that you're beholden to them.) I watched the media in general do anything within reason to scare the hell out of the American public -- to convince people that they were about to be infected by the bird flu, poisoned by the food supply, or eaten by sharks. I marveled at our elevation of the death of Anna Nicole Smith to near-mythic status and our willingness to let the airwaves be taken hostage by every permutation of opportunistic degenerate from a crying judge to a Hollywood hanger-on with an emo haircut. I watched qualified, passionate people worked nearly to death while mindless talking heads were coddled. I listened to Lou Dobbs play the loud-mouthed fascist demagogue, Nancy Grace fake ratings-baiting indignation, and Glenn Beck essentially do nightly stand-up -- and that's not even taking into account the 24/7 Vaudeville act over at Fox News. I watched The Daily Show laugh not at our mistakes but at our intentional absurdity.
More on this theme, and perhaps even on Celebrity Apprentice, and why Donald Trump doesn't know the first thing about management (which is different from simply making money).
[Technorati tags: chez pazienza | cnn | american morning | transformative leadership | television news | mass media]
14 February 2008
Why is Online Advertising So Effective?
Because it can be measured. Because the person paying for the ads can be presented with numbers that look big - doesn't quite matter what the numbers are, mind you, just that they're numbers. And they're big.
But certainly, for promoting brand awareness, for increasing offline sales, for "converting" clicks to credit card charges (unless you're in the identity theft business, which is a whole other story), online advertising is not very effective at all. A recent study on the behaviours of what it calls "natural born clickers," paints a gloomy picture for most conventional (that is, founded in a broadcast mentality by fogey marketers) digital branding strategies:
I won't spoil the surprise, but here's a hint: It's not about vision any more.
[Technorati tags: online advertising | brand | digital strategy]
But certainly, for promoting brand awareness, for increasing offline sales, for "converting" clicks to credit card charges (unless you're in the identity theft business, which is a whole other story), online advertising is not very effective at all. A recent study on the behaviours of what it calls "natural born clickers," paints a gloomy picture for most conventional (that is, founded in a broadcast mentality by fogey marketers) digital branding strategies:
The study illustrates that heavy clickers represent just 6% of the online population yet account for 50% of all display ad clicks. While many online media companies use click-through rate as an ad negotiation currency, the study shows that heavy clickers are not representative of the general public. In fact, heavy clickers skew towards Internet users between the ages of 25-44 and households with an income under $40,000. Heavy clickers behave very differently online than the typical Internet user, and while they spend four times more time online than non-clickers, their spending does not proportionately reflect this very heavy Internet usage. Heavy clickers are also relatively more likely to visit auctions, gambling, and career services sites – a markedly different surfing pattern than non-clickers.Time to rethink what branding is all about in the UCaPP world, boys and girls. And that, as it turns out, is one of the themes of the keynote I'll be giving at next week's Consumer Trends Forum International conference in Boston.
Further preliminary Starcom data suggests no correlation between display ad clicks and brand metrics, and show no connection between measured attitude towards a brand and the number of times an ad for that brand was clicked. The research presentation suggests that when digital campaigns have a branding objective, optimizing for high click rates does not necessarily improve campaign performance.
I won't spoil the surprise, but here's a hint: It's not about vision any more.
[Technorati tags: online advertising | brand | digital strategy]
13 February 2008
Morgentaler and the Order of Canada
“There are a lot of deserving people who don't have an Order of Canada. But among them Henry stands out as a giant. It's a monumental absence,” says lawyer, civil rights champion, and recipient of the Order of Canada, Clayton Ruby. "It's blasphemy that this hasn't happened, a national embarrassment,” says Cathie Colombo, Henry Morgentaler's long-time assistant. As reported in the Globe and Mail,
Although detractors like Andrea Mrozek, founding director of ProWomanProLife claim that legal access to safe, medical abortions have "done women irreparable harm," on balance, their position with respect to honouring Dr. Morgentaler is perhaps understandable, but regrettable. Irreparable harm is what was perpetrated on young Canadian women who once were forced to seek out back alley abortionists, or turn to self-mutilation with wire coat hangers. By enabling and providing a safe medical choice, Henry Morgentaler saved young women from ever having to face this sort of grim choice, and for that he deserves to be honoured with the Order of Canada.
Do you agree? Then vote in the Globe and Mail poll, calling for Dr. Morgentaler's investiture in Canada's highest honour.
[Technorati tags: henry morgentaler | abortion | order of canada]
In an unprecedented move, Dr. Morgentaler's supporters have decided to catalogue past rejections and spur a public debate about why one of Canada's iconic figures has never received its highest honour. ... “Clearly, Henry Morgentaler is one of the most courageous Canadians of our generation,” [Clayton Ruby] said... It has been 20 years since the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada's abortion law.It is because of the selfless struggle led by Dr. Henry Morgentaler - often putting his own life at risk - that countless Canadian women have been spared the butchery, shame, and often death that were often the prior results of a woman exercising the simple right of control over her own body.
The path to that decision arguably began in 1967, when Dr. Morgentaler presented a brief to the House of Commons health and welfare committee in which he urged that Canada's restrictive abortion law be repealed. The next year, he performed his first abortion and then, in 1969, he defied the law by opening a private abortion clinic. In 1970, the doctor was arrested and acquitted, but the acquittal was overturned and he served 10 months of an 18-month sentence in prison.
Legal battles multiplied until the issue made its way to the highest court. On Jan. 28, 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada's abortion law, ruling that Parliament had a legitimate interest in protecting human fetuses but that the existing prohibition on abortion was disproportionate in its means and failed to protect women's right to security of the person.
Although detractors like Andrea Mrozek, founding director of ProWomanProLife claim that legal access to safe, medical abortions have "done women irreparable harm," on balance, their position with respect to honouring Dr. Morgentaler is perhaps understandable, but regrettable. Irreparable harm is what was perpetrated on young Canadian women who once were forced to seek out back alley abortionists, or turn to self-mutilation with wire coat hangers. By enabling and providing a safe medical choice, Henry Morgentaler saved young women from ever having to face this sort of grim choice, and for that he deserves to be honoured with the Order of Canada.
Do you agree? Then vote in the Globe and Mail poll, calling for Dr. Morgentaler's investiture in Canada's highest honour.
[Technorati tags: henry morgentaler | abortion | order of canada]
11 February 2008
Good Quote on Power
Power is articulated through social practices that produce the “truths” that make up our self-concepts and the institutions in which our selves are embedded. Power is not exercised by sovereign individuals, but is located in social practices and the relationships on which such practices are built (Huzzard, 2004, p. 352).
Very Foucauldian.
[Technorati tags: power | social practices | social relationships]
Very Foucauldian.
- Huzzard, T. (2004). Communities of domination? Reconceptualising organisational learning and power. Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counselling Today, 16(6), 350-361.
[Technorati tags: power | social practices | social relationships]
09 February 2008
You Talking to Me? I'll Call an Election!
Friend Rob Hyndman posts on the parliamentary Afghanistan crisis, and I responded with the following comment that I think should be repeated here. In my view, the Tory position on Afghanistan has nothing to do with the issues of Afghanistan, and everything to do with the fact that they are champing at the bit to call an election over anything. If you don’t agree with Manley, we’ll call an election. If the Senate doesn’t pass the crime legislation within the next two weeks, we’ll call an election. Budget? Don’t get me started. What’s next in Stephen Harper's impersonation of Travis Bickle?
Today, a spokesman for Prime Minister Harper stated that if the Parliamentary Cafeteria does not serve Sloppy Joes on Tuesday, they will consider that Parliament no longer enjoys the confidence of the cafeteria staff, and they will take the menu issue to the people in a general election.
“Although we never considered him sloppy, we see the elimination of this dish named for a great Progressive Conservative Prime Minister, Joe Clark, as an affront to all Canadians, to our history and heritage, and to the parliamentary process itself,” said the spokesman. “The Prime Minster considers this a matter of confidence, and we are prepared to go the people.”
The Communications Director for the PMO, Sandra Buckler, was unavailable to provide further comment from the Prime Minister as she is still recovering from minor surgery to extricate her foot from her mouth.
In other news, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Michael Fortier, terminated the supply contract for hamburger for the Parliamentary Cafeteria, claiming that he no longer has confidence in the supplier, and that the cafeteria should elect to seek a new mandate for their menu.
[Technorati tags: stephen harper | election | canada | afghanistan | confidence motion]
Today, a spokesman for Prime Minister Harper stated that if the Parliamentary Cafeteria does not serve Sloppy Joes on Tuesday, they will consider that Parliament no longer enjoys the confidence of the cafeteria staff, and they will take the menu issue to the people in a general election.
“Although we never considered him sloppy, we see the elimination of this dish named for a great Progressive Conservative Prime Minister, Joe Clark, as an affront to all Canadians, to our history and heritage, and to the parliamentary process itself,” said the spokesman. “The Prime Minster considers this a matter of confidence, and we are prepared to go the people.”
The Communications Director for the PMO, Sandra Buckler, was unavailable to provide further comment from the Prime Minister as she is still recovering from minor surgery to extricate her foot from her mouth.
In other news, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Michael Fortier, terminated the supply contract for hamburger for the Parliamentary Cafeteria, claiming that he no longer has confidence in the supplier, and that the cafeteria should elect to seek a new mandate for their menu.
[Technorati tags: stephen harper | election | canada | afghanistan | confidence motion]
06 February 2008
Work-Life Balance for the UCaPP Generation
This is a short excerpt from one of my research conversations with the CEO of a for-profit (and profitable) corporation in an extremely competitive industry, based in New York City. Subjectively, I categorize this organization as being "more UCaPP," that is, having practices that are more consistent with what I would consider characteristic of the future of organization.
CEO: The question of work-life balance is a very different proposition for the more veteran people than it is for the younger generation. Their work-life balance has more to do with their contribution than it is about how many hours they’re not at work. It tends to get defined, at least in my experience, that for baby-boomers, work-life balance gets defined as how many hours you’re not at work. Theirs [the younger generation] is about what kind of contribution is it that I’m making.
Mark: So it sounds to me like for the boomer generation as you’ve identified it, there’s a clear distinction between work and life, and life is when you’re not in the office environment or workplace, and so you need to balance the time here and the time there.
CEO: Right.
Mark: For the younger generation, the more contemporary generation, they don’t see the distinction between work and life particularly, it’s all life. And it’s how well can I create this environment in which I’m living completely and totally.
CEO: Yes. I don’t know how broad-sweeping that is, but it’s my experience. It’s interesting. They’ll be the first ones out the door, if you’re assuming that they should know on their own that they should stay. And what I’ll hear routinely that I think is very powerful is, “yeah, I’m going to go home at five o’clock. I’ve been hear since nine o’clock. I’m going to go home at five unless you give me a reason to stay. But if you think that I’m going to stay because you think I should know to stay, because that’s the way the game is played until I get to a certain place, no, I’m not going to do that. But if you give me a reason to stay that is meaningful to me, that I know I’m making a contribution, I’m in.” It’s not about, I have to leave at five. It’s about, is it worth me being here?
Mark: And have you had any problem with this younger generation staying long hours when there is good reason? Any resistance?
CEO: No. There’s usually none. I think where the problem is, and I think not just our company but many companies have to work through, is how to get out of, “we paid our dues so you have to pay your dues.” [We have to be very conscious of] what is the value to them for them being here, not just, what is the value to me [as CEO of this company]? Because there can be a tendency, especially in this business, that someone can sit around for five hours waiting for you to get something off your desk, and traditionally, a lot of people will think nothing of that because, after all, “you’re a [junior, low-ranking worker] and don’t you know you have to pay your dues – I did it, you have to do it.”
Mark: So this is really about, not just what the company expects of you, what the company expects you to do, it’s what the individual expects of the company.
CEO: Yes. Absolutely.
Mark: It’s very much a reciprocal feeling that, it’s not that the company is demanding this, but the people themselves are putting demands on the organization.
CEO: Right. So that saying, you should be lucky to have a job?
Mark: Yes?
CEO: Totally needs to come off the table. That as soon as we go to this place of you should be lucky you have a job, that is, how much more can I get you to do for me.
Mark: Right. It sounds to me like the demand, the requirement of the organization is to truly have a respect and regard for the individuals.
CEO: Without a doubt.
[Technorati tags: work life balance | quality of work life | organization development | organizational behaviour]
CEO: The question of work-life balance is a very different proposition for the more veteran people than it is for the younger generation. Their work-life balance has more to do with their contribution than it is about how many hours they’re not at work. It tends to get defined, at least in my experience, that for baby-boomers, work-life balance gets defined as how many hours you’re not at work. Theirs [the younger generation] is about what kind of contribution is it that I’m making.
Mark: So it sounds to me like for the boomer generation as you’ve identified it, there’s a clear distinction between work and life, and life is when you’re not in the office environment or workplace, and so you need to balance the time here and the time there.
CEO: Right.
Mark: For the younger generation, the more contemporary generation, they don’t see the distinction between work and life particularly, it’s all life. And it’s how well can I create this environment in which I’m living completely and totally.
CEO: Yes. I don’t know how broad-sweeping that is, but it’s my experience. It’s interesting. They’ll be the first ones out the door, if you’re assuming that they should know on their own that they should stay. And what I’ll hear routinely that I think is very powerful is, “yeah, I’m going to go home at five o’clock. I’ve been hear since nine o’clock. I’m going to go home at five unless you give me a reason to stay. But if you think that I’m going to stay because you think I should know to stay, because that’s the way the game is played until I get to a certain place, no, I’m not going to do that. But if you give me a reason to stay that is meaningful to me, that I know I’m making a contribution, I’m in.” It’s not about, I have to leave at five. It’s about, is it worth me being here?
Mark: And have you had any problem with this younger generation staying long hours when there is good reason? Any resistance?
CEO: No. There’s usually none. I think where the problem is, and I think not just our company but many companies have to work through, is how to get out of, “we paid our dues so you have to pay your dues.” [We have to be very conscious of] what is the value to them for them being here, not just, what is the value to me [as CEO of this company]? Because there can be a tendency, especially in this business, that someone can sit around for five hours waiting for you to get something off your desk, and traditionally, a lot of people will think nothing of that because, after all, “you’re a [junior, low-ranking worker] and don’t you know you have to pay your dues – I did it, you have to do it.”
Mark: So this is really about, not just what the company expects of you, what the company expects you to do, it’s what the individual expects of the company.
CEO: Yes. Absolutely.
Mark: It’s very much a reciprocal feeling that, it’s not that the company is demanding this, but the people themselves are putting demands on the organization.
CEO: Right. So that saying, you should be lucky to have a job?
Mark: Yes?
CEO: Totally needs to come off the table. That as soon as we go to this place of you should be lucky you have a job, that is, how much more can I get you to do for me.
Mark: Right. It sounds to me like the demand, the requirement of the organization is to truly have a respect and regard for the individuals.
CEO: Without a doubt.
[Technorati tags: work life balance | quality of work life | organization development | organizational behaviour]
03 February 2008
Yes, We Can
An anthem for the Obama Campaign. And what America needs now: hope and inspiration.
It came from here.
[Technorati tags: obama | yes we can | dipdive]
It came from here.
[Technorati tags: obama | yes we can | dipdive]
On Superbowl Sunday, The NFL Can Go To Hell
28 January 2008
From King David's Thesis Defense
Psalms 35: 11-12
11. Ruthless witnesses come forward; they question me on things I know nothing about.
12. They repay me evil for good and leave my soul forlorn.
(Seen on a forum at PhD Comics)
[Technorati tags: phd comics | thesis defense]
11. Ruthless witnesses come forward; they question me on things I know nothing about.
12. They repay me evil for good and leave my soul forlorn.
(Seen on a forum at PhD Comics)
[Technorati tags: phd comics | thesis defense]
Kudos to Rx Canada
Some of you may have seen my previous posts about my confidential prescription information being released by Shoppers Drug Mart, apparently without my authorization, to a third party relationship marketing fulfilment organization, Rx Canada. I contacted their Privacy Officer, Wendy Nelson, (who is also the President of the company according to her voice mail message - an appropriate place for the role of Privacy Officer to reside). She informed me that there is supposed to be a procedure in place that required the pharmacist to obtain a written consent before enabling the transfer of prescription information. She also said that in the few cases she has seen previously, the pharmacy did indeed have a signed consent form, and that the patient had forgotten about. Ms. Nelson offered to follow up with my local Shoppers store and report back. She also said that my information was completely purged from their database, with no trace remaining. (She was most emphatic about the purge, as opposed to a mere deletion of index pointers, for example. Points for a good understanding of the technical issue.)
Today, I heard back from Wendy Nelson. I am apparently the first patient who has reported a concern about this program for whom there was not a signed consent. No big surprise to me - I wouldn't sign such a thing. But she did say that Shoppers (presumably corporate) is taking this breach very seriously as a procedural and systems problem in their organization. Apparently for most pharmacies that participate in the Rx Canada program, registering a patient is a two-step process, requiring extra work for the pharmacist, but necessitating the explicit systems entry of the informed consent information. In the Shoppers system, enabling the transfer of information is a one-step process that accompanies prescription order entry, making it easy to omit the necessity of obtaining the patient's consent. In a busy dispensary, or with inadequately trained staff, or in a moment of lapsed concentration... *poof* Confidential prescription information magically reappears on another company's computer, just like, well, magic.
Wendy Nelson lit a fire under Shoppers to address this problem, and to do it quickly. She takes this issue very seriously, as it potentially undermines both the basis of her business, and a useful mechanism to provide patient support and information to those who want it. She promises to follow up with Shoppers - including mounting an examination of other patients whose information may have been passed without consent - and to keep me informed on the progress, as she (correctly) perceives that my concern is systemic, and not merely personal. Kudos to a responsive, and responsible, organization.
[Technorati tags: rx canada | shoppers drug mart]
Today, I heard back from Wendy Nelson. I am apparently the first patient who has reported a concern about this program for whom there was not a signed consent. No big surprise to me - I wouldn't sign such a thing. But she did say that Shoppers (presumably corporate) is taking this breach very seriously as a procedural and systems problem in their organization. Apparently for most pharmacies that participate in the Rx Canada program, registering a patient is a two-step process, requiring extra work for the pharmacist, but necessitating the explicit systems entry of the informed consent information. In the Shoppers system, enabling the transfer of information is a one-step process that accompanies prescription order entry, making it easy to omit the necessity of obtaining the patient's consent. In a busy dispensary, or with inadequately trained staff, or in a moment of lapsed concentration... *poof* Confidential prescription information magically reappears on another company's computer, just like, well, magic.
Wendy Nelson lit a fire under Shoppers to address this problem, and to do it quickly. She takes this issue very seriously, as it potentially undermines both the basis of her business, and a useful mechanism to provide patient support and information to those who want it. She promises to follow up with Shoppers - including mounting an examination of other patients whose information may have been passed without consent - and to keep me informed on the progress, as she (correctly) perceives that my concern is systemic, and not merely personal. Kudos to a responsive, and responsible, organization.
[Technorati tags: rx canada | shoppers drug mart]
More Toronto Stupidity
Officials of the Miss Toronto Tourism pageant had better watch out or they could find themselves carrying a curse - and not just the curse of ignorance, bigotry, and religious intolerance that Karen Murray, Miss Toronto Tourism pageant director shamefully displays. As The Star reports today, Stephanie Conover, winner of the Miss Canada Plus Pageant last year, was first invited and then uninvited as a judge of this year's pageant. The reason? Over to you, Ms. Murray: "We just got her bio a week ago and we don't agree with it," said Karen Murray, Miss Toronto Tourism pageant director. "We want someone down to earth, not someone into the dark side or the occult. We need a judge who has an upright reputation and we would be proud to introduce to the audience," noted a Jan. 24 letter to the Miss Canada Plus group from Murray and another official with the Miss Toronto Tourism pageant.
"Our board of directors has eliminated her as a judge as tarot card reading and reiki are the occult and is not acceptable by God, Jews, Muslims or Christians. Tarot card reading is witchcraft and is used by witches, spiritists and mediums to consult the dark world."
The letter went on to quote a couple of passages from the Bible, including one from the book of Leviticus that warns, "Do not turn to mediums or seek out spirits for you will be defiled by them. We hope that Stephanie Conover will turn from these belief systems and will repent from her practice of them," the letter reads."
Turn from these belief systems? Repent? Repent?!!
Since when did Toronto turn into the Bible Belt? Since when is it the place for Toronto officials an independent group representing themselves as promoting Toronto tourism (Update: according to Torontoist, this group has no affiliation with any Toronto officials) to pass judgement on someone else's belief system (besides which, doesn't their good book claim that judgement belongs exclusively to the Lord? Look it up, Ms. Murray).
Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that Wicca is as valid a belief system as any of the Abrahamic religions, Tarot cards are a relatively harmless practice right up there with reading one's horoscope in the paper, or attributing personal traits according to the annual Chinese association with various animals. And reiki? Give me a break.
As much as beauty pageants are somewhat retrogressive, and don't quite rank with garbage as an issue, this bonehead move by Karen Murray, or any group claiming to promote Toronto tourism, is not only unacceptable, it is shameful, and brings ridicule and disrepute to Toronto. Mayor Miller, if you have a few minutes to spare after bringing down your first balanced budget (congratulations, by the way), please help Ms. Murray see the light, as it were. Anyone else is free to encourage Ms. Murray and her cabal to... ummm... repent for their own evil intolerance. And contacting their sponsors isn't a bad idea, either. And do the charities that this group claims to support really want to be affiliated with such intolerance?
After all, let she who is without fault cast the first stone.
[Technorati tags: stephanie conover | karen murray | toronto tourism | beauty pageant | tarot | reiki | wicca | religious intolerance]
"Our board of directors has eliminated her as a judge as tarot card reading and reiki are the occult and is not acceptable by God, Jews, Muslims or Christians. Tarot card reading is witchcraft and is used by witches, spiritists and mediums to consult the dark world."
The letter went on to quote a couple of passages from the Bible, including one from the book of Leviticus that warns, "Do not turn to mediums or seek out spirits for you will be defiled by them. We hope that Stephanie Conover will turn from these belief systems and will repent from her practice of them," the letter reads."
Turn from these belief systems? Repent? Repent?!!
Since when did Toronto turn into the Bible Belt? Since when is it the place for Toronto officials an independent group representing themselves as promoting Toronto tourism (Update: according to Torontoist, this group has no affiliation with any Toronto officials) to pass judgement on someone else's belief system (besides which, doesn't their good book claim that judgement belongs exclusively to the Lord? Look it up, Ms. Murray).
Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that Wicca is as valid a belief system as any of the Abrahamic religions, Tarot cards are a relatively harmless practice right up there with reading one's horoscope in the paper, or attributing personal traits according to the annual Chinese association with various animals. And reiki? Give me a break.
As much as beauty pageants are somewhat retrogressive, and don't quite rank with garbage as an issue, this bonehead move by Karen Murray, or any group claiming to promote Toronto tourism, is not only unacceptable, it is shameful, and brings ridicule and disrepute to Toronto. Mayor Miller, if you have a few minutes to spare after bringing down your first balanced budget (congratulations, by the way), please help Ms. Murray see the light, as it were. Anyone else is free to encourage Ms. Murray and her cabal to... ummm... repent for their own evil intolerance. And contacting their sponsors isn't a bad idea, either. And do the charities that this group claims to support really want to be affiliated with such intolerance?
After all, let she who is without fault cast the first stone.
[Technorati tags: stephanie conover | karen murray | toronto tourism | beauty pageant | tarot | reiki | wicca | religious intolerance]
26 January 2008
Toronto: "If Wishes Were Horses..."
If wishes were horses then beggars would ride, goes the old nursery saw. And, having made this city my home for my entire life, I would say that this sentiment characterizes the way planning is done in city hall here. And given that almost every case put before a council that seems to pride itself in its lack of collective grey matter is rife with wishful thinking, Toronto is awash in unintended - more correctly, un-thought-about - consequences.
The latest nonsense coming out of City Hall is courtesy of Geoff Rathbone, the city's head of solid waste management, and his Rath-bonehead plan for new garbage bins. According to an article in today's Star,
To add insult to the inevitable injuries that will occur with these new monster bins, many homeowners in the city core simply don't have space for the extra large bins. Rathbone's solution? Use the same bin, but alternate the contents on alternate weeks - one week fill it with recyclables, and the other week fill it with trash. And what are we supposed to do with the garbage and recyclables on alternate weeks? Did someone actually try to hire Marie Antoinette for this position?
And for all areas of the city, but again, particularly affecting the narrower downtown streets, what happens when it snows? How will the average homeowner negotiate the large bins to the curb? How will the automated arms fare through plowed windrows? In the presentation given by Mr. Rathbone to council, the identified "similar programs in North America" are located in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, San Jose, and Vancouver. Not exactly places known for narrow streets and snowbanks. Did it occur to anyone to critically question why this sort of program only exists on the west coast, and nowhere else on the entire continent?
As with any good bureaucratic sell-job, the presentation is filled with all sorts of flawed reasoning, errors in logic, and good, old-fashioned sophistry. Perhaps the best is the "Feedback from Pilot Areas" slide, that euphemistically compares "Positive" feedback (including "easier to use," "fewer trips to the curb," and "tidier") with "Challenges" such as "difficult to navigate" and "cumbersome for seniors." Three positive points, and two "challenges" - I guess it's a go! As with all city surveys that I've seen, I expect that this one, too, was conducted under the ideal conditions to obtain the desired result, and had questions framed more like a push poll.
I stand by my earlier observations on the products of our education system.
[Technorati tags: toronto | garbage | recycling | blue bins | geoff rathbone | solid waste management]
The latest nonsense coming out of City Hall is courtesy of Geoff Rathbone, the city's head of solid waste management, and his Rath-bonehead plan for new garbage bins. According to an article in today's Star,
Geoff Rathbone, Toronto's director of solid waste management services, confirmed that all households are expected to start using the new [large and too heavy for a person to actually carry] bin from day one, and provided some good explanations why everyone needs to get with the program.Brilliant. Plan for a fully automated garbage collection system that might work well in the suburbs. Cut back the budget so that all collection trucks have one operator/driver instead of two. Then go and try to collect trash, recyclables, and compostables in the old City of Toronto proper, with on-street parking. For half the year, cars park on one side of the street for two weeks each month, and on the other side for the other two weeks. No automated arm can negotiate around or over parked cars. And the new bins will be too large, heavy and unwieldy to be carried between parked cars, as are the current garbage receptacles. So much for time efficiencies and the theory that one driver/operator can run a garbage route.
The city is shifting to fully automated collections, Rathbone said, in which the worker driving a garbage truck never leaves its cab. Each year, the city replaces about one-eighth of its garbage fleet, with the most recent trucks coming equipped with mechanical arms that reach out to bins waiting at curbside, he said. The arms will pick a ban up, flip it upside down and empty the contents into the back before returning it to the boulevard.
Some of the older trucks have been retrofitted with arms, which means automated collections will soon become the norm across a fairly wide area of the city, said Rathbone. But the arms can't deal with bags, he said, and the efficiencies figured into automated pickups don't allow time for drivers climbing out.
To add insult to the inevitable injuries that will occur with these new monster bins, many homeowners in the city core simply don't have space for the extra large bins. Rathbone's solution? Use the same bin, but alternate the contents on alternate weeks - one week fill it with recyclables, and the other week fill it with trash. And what are we supposed to do with the garbage and recyclables on alternate weeks? Did someone actually try to hire Marie Antoinette for this position?
And for all areas of the city, but again, particularly affecting the narrower downtown streets, what happens when it snows? How will the average homeowner negotiate the large bins to the curb? How will the automated arms fare through plowed windrows? In the presentation given by Mr. Rathbone to council, the identified "similar programs in North America" are located in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, San Jose, and Vancouver. Not exactly places known for narrow streets and snowbanks. Did it occur to anyone to critically question why this sort of program only exists on the west coast, and nowhere else on the entire continent?
As with any good bureaucratic sell-job, the presentation is filled with all sorts of flawed reasoning, errors in logic, and good, old-fashioned sophistry. Perhaps the best is the "Feedback from Pilot Areas" slide, that euphemistically compares "Positive" feedback (including "easier to use," "fewer trips to the curb," and "tidier") with "Challenges" such as "difficult to navigate" and "cumbersome for seniors." Three positive points, and two "challenges" - I guess it's a go! As with all city surveys that I've seen, I expect that this one, too, was conducted under the ideal conditions to obtain the desired result, and had questions framed more like a push poll.
I stand by my earlier observations on the products of our education system.
[Technorati tags: toronto | garbage | recycling | blue bins | geoff rathbone | solid waste management]
25 January 2008
What Did They Know and When Did They Know It?
The Harper Administration is trying to have it both ways on this Afghanistan detainee torture file. For a government that is renowned for its tight control of information - everything including the lunch menu for the Parliament Hill cafeteria seems to go through the PMO - to deny knowledge of Canada's complicity in torture simply strains credulity. In trying to avoid the critical embarrassment of not acting as soon as the fact of torture was discovered by a Canadian diplomat, they conveniently hide behind the problematics of bureaucracy (which attracts my attention like a red flag attracts a bull):
One of the justifications for Canada's continued role in Afghanistan is that pulling out a year from now would damage Canada's reputation in the eyes of the world. Commissioning a sham panel that used its chair's preconceived opinion as the findings to inform public policy doesn't damage reputation? Attempting to sweep our complicity in torture under the chair in a dank dungeon (which is where the torture implements discovered by the Canadian diplomat were laying in plain sight - what additional signs of complicity do you need) doesn't damage reputation? Prime Minister Harper, hiding behind bureaucratic plausible deniability, hiding behind the PMO communications officer, who hides behind email doesn't damage our country's reputation?!
The White House could learn a few lessons from Stevie.
[Technorati tags: harper | manley | afghanistan | torture | detainee transfer]
When asked whether it was true that the military did not tell the government that the transfer of prisoners had been suspended, [the Prime Minister's communications director, Sandra] Buckler replied: “Yes. This is an operational matter and is the responsibility of the Canadian Forces. The military exercises discretion concerning the transfer policy and agreement.”... There was no need for approval from the high command because the ground commander in Kandahar had the authority. “The task force commander made his decision independently,” [senior military officer, Brigadier-General André Deschamps] said.All of this is compounded by the conspicuous-by-its-absence mention of torture practices by the Manley panel. But why should we be surprised at this? The panel's conclusions had been previously published last October in the journal, Policy Options, long before the panel was a realpolitik twinkle in the Prime Minister's cynically partisan eye. Manley didn't know about torture then, so clearly, the panel wouldn't know about it now.
One of the justifications for Canada's continued role in Afghanistan is that pulling out a year from now would damage Canada's reputation in the eyes of the world. Commissioning a sham panel that used its chair's preconceived opinion as the findings to inform public policy doesn't damage reputation? Attempting to sweep our complicity in torture under the chair in a dank dungeon (which is where the torture implements discovered by the Canadian diplomat were laying in plain sight - what additional signs of complicity do you need) doesn't damage reputation? Prime Minister Harper, hiding behind bureaucratic plausible deniability, hiding behind the PMO communications officer, who hides behind email doesn't damage our country's reputation?!
The White House could learn a few lessons from Stevie.
[Technorati tags: harper | manley | afghanistan | torture | detainee transfer]
Learning to Research vs. Learning to Think
Lots of interesting news today – the creation of so-called artificial life by the J. Craig Venter Institute, and an opinion piece in the Globe about research skills in the age of Google. And to me, (wouldn’t you know) the issues have an interesting, but complex, connection. (The other interesting piece of news, namely, the controversy over Canada’s military policy with respect to detainee transfer in Afghanistan and the government’s denial regarding knowledge of systemic torture, will wait for the next post.)
Let’s start with the research skills item. The column reports on a study conducted by the British Library in collaboration with University College London that,
There’s an old adage: seek and ye shall find. In the research game, this often means, ye shall find that which ye seek. Even those with admirable and well-honed research skills like those who conducted the study on behalf of the British Library and University College missed the larger context within which this question of understanding the world makes sense. An education system that teaches today's youth (and taught yesteryear's youth, as well) that finding a "right answer" and moving on to the next question is entirely culpable in fostering poor research and contextualizing skills, even among otherwise capable, professional researchers.
When history, for example, is taught as a collection of "right answers" set in a frame of winners and losers, when quantitative and post-positivist qualitative methods are overwhelmingly favoured among scholarly journals and policy makers alike, when the limitations of the scientific method are ignored, students are systemically trained that the world can be explained in a relatively straight-forward, deterministically causal manner, and that the name of the game is to efficiently find that answer. In an ironically reflexive way, there is little wonder that each new technology is embraced as a type of ultimate knowledge machine.
What the education system does relatively poorly is to train the critical thinking skills necessary to do proper and complete research. And for those who might jump to the conclusion that I'm anti-science, check out the John Ioannidis article from 2005 called “Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research” in the Journal of the American Medical Association (vol. 294, no. 2, pp. 218-228), or his companion article in Public Library of Science - Medicine called, ”Why most published research findings are false.” You might also want to have a look at my article, How do we know: the changing culture of knowledge. And speaking about critical, when will the education system begin to teach an introduction to critical theory - issues of voice, power, marginality, inclusion and exclusion? With all of these as base preparation, then having instant access to a wealth of information online becomes truly useful.
Which brings us to the growing debate over the creation of the artificial bacterium, m. genitalium (which sounds like a South Park punch line if there ever was one). There will undoubtedly be much sturm und drang over the ethicality of creating life, and the potential for terrorist use, counterbalanced by its potential for (finally!) creating utopia and solving all of the world’s problems (notably in the current reportage, cast as a replacement for fossil fuels and a cure for global warming). Notice how this is set up as a debate between two polarities, rather than as a more reasoned examination and understanding of contexts. One answer will have to be right (so that the other one is wrong) – we just have to find the right answer, and then we can move on to the next question, just like we’ve all been trained to do.
[Technorati tags: research | libraries | british library | artificial life | venter institute]
Let’s start with the research skills item. The column reports on a study conducted by the British Library in collaboration with University College London that,
...spent years poring over its online resources' visitor logs to determine how young users were behaving. They discovered that – surprise, surprise – kids might not make the best researchers, even with a Google assist.In fact, the study (and the column’s author) conclude that new technology doesn’t turn us all into information-seeking mavens, tacitly suggesting, as one would expect, that there is still an important role for libraries and people who are information-seeking mavens, namely, librarians.
“Digital literacies and information literacies do not go hand in hand,” the report says. “A careful look at the literature over the past 25 years finds no improvement (or deterioration) in young people's information skills.
There’s an old adage: seek and ye shall find. In the research game, this often means, ye shall find that which ye seek. Even those with admirable and well-honed research skills like those who conducted the study on behalf of the British Library and University College missed the larger context within which this question of understanding the world makes sense. An education system that teaches today's youth (and taught yesteryear's youth, as well) that finding a "right answer" and moving on to the next question is entirely culpable in fostering poor research and contextualizing skills, even among otherwise capable, professional researchers.
When history, for example, is taught as a collection of "right answers" set in a frame of winners and losers, when quantitative and post-positivist qualitative methods are overwhelmingly favoured among scholarly journals and policy makers alike, when the limitations of the scientific method are ignored, students are systemically trained that the world can be explained in a relatively straight-forward, deterministically causal manner, and that the name of the game is to efficiently find that answer. In an ironically reflexive way, there is little wonder that each new technology is embraced as a type of ultimate knowledge machine.
What the education system does relatively poorly is to train the critical thinking skills necessary to do proper and complete research. And for those who might jump to the conclusion that I'm anti-science, check out the John Ioannidis article from 2005 called “Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research” in the Journal of the American Medical Association (vol. 294, no. 2, pp. 218-228), or his companion article in Public Library of Science - Medicine called, ”Why most published research findings are false.” You might also want to have a look at my article, How do we know: the changing culture of knowledge. And speaking about critical, when will the education system begin to teach an introduction to critical theory - issues of voice, power, marginality, inclusion and exclusion? With all of these as base preparation, then having instant access to a wealth of information online becomes truly useful.
Which brings us to the growing debate over the creation of the artificial bacterium, m. genitalium (which sounds like a South Park punch line if there ever was one). There will undoubtedly be much sturm und drang over the ethicality of creating life, and the potential for terrorist use, counterbalanced by its potential for (finally!) creating utopia and solving all of the world’s problems (notably in the current reportage, cast as a replacement for fossil fuels and a cure for global warming). Notice how this is set up as a debate between two polarities, rather than as a more reasoned examination and understanding of contexts. One answer will have to be right (so that the other one is wrong) – we just have to find the right answer, and then we can move on to the next question, just like we’ve all been trained to do.
[Technorati tags: research | libraries | british library | artificial life | venter institute]
22 January 2008
In Valence Theory, Are There Really Third Parties?
My post on Creep-Out Marketing has attracted a lot of attention from the good folks at AstraZeneca, who have made that post the number one landing spot for my blog today (and number two after the main page, yesterday). Good to see that they're paying attention to what folks are saying about them among the blogs.
I have yet to receive any information from Rx Canada, the marketing organization that is in receipt of unethically obtained personal medical information. The opt-out phone number leads to a voice response system that invites the caller to enter the extension of the person I want to reach, or to access a corporate phone directory of names. Unfortunately, there's no entry for the Chief Creepiness Officer. The extension for the "Privacy Officer" (extension 222) listed on the website leads to a voicemail telling me that the person is away from their desk. Apparently all day long...
AstraZeneca, the company that seems to be paying the most attention to this, is perhaps the least culpable, since they are only a "partner" in Rx Canada's enterprise, providing what it thinks might be useful patient information. Somehow, I find it hard to believe that my local pharmacy staff went out of their way to release my personal information of their own accord. The dispensary staff are always keen to provide in-person counselling to customers, especially when filling a first-time prescription, so the need to take this initiative without first asking seems entirely out of character. Since this is clearly computer-driven, this seems most likely to be a corporate initiative, especially since it has the hallmarks of corporate marketing written all over it.
In a traditional BAH construction of organization, each party has plausible deniability for this infraction and violation of the College of Pharmacists Code of Ethics. Each distinct organization - AZ, Rx Canada, SDM Corporate, and My Local Pharmacy - is merely fulfilling its function. AZ supplies materials that are optionally available for patients. Rx Canada receives a supposedly vetted list of patients who supposedly opt in, with no responsibility for verifying that list. Indeed, RxC would have no way of verifying the list while staying within the bounds of confidentiality of medical records. SDM Corporate provides the infrastructure (and most likely the upload defaults), and My Local SDM Pharmacy Assistants, who hand me my filled 'script, are probably unaware of the defaults, or of the need to ask if I want the additional information, or any number of other excuses for how "the computer system" happened to pass my information up the marketing supply chain. In a BAH conception, each organization is distinct, each is doing its appropriate job, and the problems happen at the boundary interfaces.
As a valence organization, the emergent organization comprised of all of the above parties, and me, holds the responsibility for the systems-level screw-up. There are no so-called third parties, since the end customer is as much a part of the organization as the marketing department (and arguably, is a member of the marketing department), as are the others previously known as partners or suppliers. In a valence organization, you can't pass off responsibility because, by definition, you are all in the same boat and equally responsible for the effects. I must have missed seeing the invitation to the meeting at which the implementation plan for all of this was discussed. Damn spam filling up the inbox... One of these days I ought to go out and... Get off my lawn you hoodlums...
And what were the effects? An simple analysis of what happened according to Effect-ive Theory demonstrates that the principle of reversal has kicked in - the effect of the marketing initiative is precisely the opposite of what was intended. Instead of a post from an avid blogger saying, isn't the service and support from this drug manufacturer and this pharmacy retailer outstanding, you have a series of posts questioning the thinking of AstraZeneca's and Shopper's Drug Mart's marketing departments, and the ethicality of the intermediary third party's business endeavour.
Update (28 Jan 2008): Resolution of the issue is here.
[Technorati tags: astrazeneca | shoppers drug mart | rx canada | ethics | effective theory | valence theory | organization | reversal | marketing]
I have yet to receive any information from Rx Canada, the marketing organization that is in receipt of unethically obtained personal medical information. The opt-out phone number leads to a voice response system that invites the caller to enter the extension of the person I want to reach, or to access a corporate phone directory of names. Unfortunately, there's no entry for the Chief Creepiness Officer. The extension for the "Privacy Officer" (extension 222) listed on the website leads to a voicemail telling me that the person is away from their desk. Apparently all day long...
AstraZeneca, the company that seems to be paying the most attention to this, is perhaps the least culpable, since they are only a "partner" in Rx Canada's enterprise, providing what it thinks might be useful patient information. Somehow, I find it hard to believe that my local pharmacy staff went out of their way to release my personal information of their own accord. The dispensary staff are always keen to provide in-person counselling to customers, especially when filling a first-time prescription, so the need to take this initiative without first asking seems entirely out of character. Since this is clearly computer-driven, this seems most likely to be a corporate initiative, especially since it has the hallmarks of corporate marketing written all over it.
In a traditional BAH construction of organization, each party has plausible deniability for this infraction and violation of the College of Pharmacists Code of Ethics. Each distinct organization - AZ, Rx Canada, SDM Corporate, and My Local Pharmacy - is merely fulfilling its function. AZ supplies materials that are optionally available for patients. Rx Canada receives a supposedly vetted list of patients who supposedly opt in, with no responsibility for verifying that list. Indeed, RxC would have no way of verifying the list while staying within the bounds of confidentiality of medical records. SDM Corporate provides the infrastructure (and most likely the upload defaults), and My Local SDM Pharmacy Assistants, who hand me my filled 'script, are probably unaware of the defaults, or of the need to ask if I want the additional information, or any number of other excuses for how "the computer system" happened to pass my information up the marketing supply chain. In a BAH conception, each organization is distinct, each is doing its appropriate job, and the problems happen at the boundary interfaces.
As a valence organization, the emergent organization comprised of all of the above parties, and me, holds the responsibility for the systems-level screw-up. There are no so-called third parties, since the end customer is as much a part of the organization as the marketing department (and arguably, is a member of the marketing department), as are the others previously known as partners or suppliers. In a valence organization, you can't pass off responsibility because, by definition, you are all in the same boat and equally responsible for the effects. I must have missed seeing the invitation to the meeting at which the implementation plan for all of this was discussed. Damn spam filling up the inbox... One of these days I ought to go out and... Get off my lawn you hoodlums...
And what were the effects? An simple analysis of what happened according to Effect-ive Theory demonstrates that the principle of reversal has kicked in - the effect of the marketing initiative is precisely the opposite of what was intended. Instead of a post from an avid blogger saying, isn't the service and support from this drug manufacturer and this pharmacy retailer outstanding, you have a series of posts questioning the thinking of AstraZeneca's and Shopper's Drug Mart's marketing departments, and the ethicality of the intermediary third party's business endeavour.
Update (28 Jan 2008): Resolution of the issue is here.
[Technorati tags: astrazeneca | shoppers drug mart | rx canada | ethics | effective theory | valence theory | organization | reversal | marketing]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)