At this point, I'm about ready to throw in the towel and start a "Social Networking Idiot of the Month" post. I try not to get into the habit of using strong verbiage like this too often, but really…
A drunk-driving 17-year-old was involved in a vehicle crash that killed her 20-year-old passenger.
Quoting directly from the The Buffalo News article:
"The Buffalo News has learned that Sullivan went to Florida a month after the crash and
posted a photo on her Facebook Web page captioned, "Drunk in Florida."" (italics/bold added).
The judge found this conduct troubling, sentenced her to six months in jail and stated that posting the Facebook photo was the reason.
No further comment is necessary, especially since it would contain more strong verbiage…
[As much as I don't like to overuse 'dark humor' for something as egregious as this case, nevertheless, I have to pose the question: How many of you clued-in to my 'half-a-brain' illustration?]
I thought I'd take a moment to link you to an excellent assessment of the e-discovery universe from the August issue of the ABA Journal Magazine. I predicted (although not on this blog) that the proliferation of firms that were more interested in incorporating the term "e-discovery" into their business model as opposed to actually understanding client needs (ergo, my "toothbrush" post) would eventually result in these firms cannibalizing each other. Toss in a nasty economic downturn and that seems to have accelerated the issue.
A frustrated potential client said it best the other day. "I called you because I want a true consultant, and these firms promise this, then they start trying to sell me software!"
(It's obvious from the top-left sidebar of this blog that I work with software companies as well, but I only recommend software if my client asks me to do so).
Sometimes a litigation readiness program is just a litigation readiness program…
Half of you will think I've lost my mind and the other half will get
what I'm saying; but bear with me. I'm using my recent purchase of
toothbrushes at Costco to illustrate what happens when one over-thinks
or attempts to over-improve a concept.
If you've been following this blog from the beginning, you'll recall a post from November 2008 titled, "Listening: How a Dog became a Cat & other 'Tails'". It's a personal favorite, by the way. The gist of it was simple; what your customer requires is key – not what you think your customer requires. My damn Colgate toothbrushes illustrate this point beautifully!
When I buy toothbrushes I get the big pack at Costco – and usually the brand they carry is Colgate. It seems like every time I do, the toothbrush has been improved since my prior purchase. The two photos up top are examples of what I've gotten when I bought toothbrushes in the past.
Now, here's what I got the last time; the new, improved, Colgate 360! What's so great about this toothbrush? I don't know. What I do know is that it's perfectly round (they even call it "revolutionary" although I'm not sure they realized the pun they were making). What happens to a toothbrush that's perfectly round, gets wet and has toothpaste all over it? Well, if your fingers fit perfectly over the plastic grips, nothing. But my hand apparently doesn't match the hands of whoever designed it because my fingers don't fit perfectly over the plastic grips; ergo, my toothbrush constantly rotates in my hand when I use it. Frustrating.
Colgate, intent on constantly improving their 'dog' to make it more marketable to the consumer, has turned it into a 'cat'.
Well…I suppose there's always Oral-B?
Too many cooks…
Folks, I'm working on in-depth analyses of the new California Electronic Discovery Act. It's crucial you understand that the Act is not a mirror-image of the Federal rules. I've seen and heard several people make that claim and it's important to note that the California rules differ in crucial areas.
I'll try to get the material posted asap.
Am I the only one who sits through hour-long e-discovery webinars, only to ‘discover’ that some are low on content and high on marketing?
Don’t get me wrong – I understand we all have to make a living. This blog is no exception. Hopefully, I’m giving you content that’s useful and informative – and maybe a little bit entertaining (if there’s any way to make e-discovery entertaining…). Otherwise, I’d expect you not to return. Based on the fact that I’ve doubled my subscribers in the past month alone, I’d say people believe they’re getting something of value.
But man, am I getting tired of signing up to webinars and virtually all I get out of the hour is, “Start thinking about where all of your data might be…” mixed in with a sales pitch about a particular product. In some cases, everything discussed could have been covered on a single sheet of paper in about five minutes!
So, here’s the deal. As a Consultant, if I’m going to complain then I need to offer alternatives. My thoughts are, we either need some kind of good-faith rating system by the provider that designates a webinar as “novice”, “intermediate” or “expert”, or I’ll default to the method I use to weed them out now:
If most or all of the presenters are from your marketing and sales departments, I’m not signing up.