Fear, Greed and Popcorn

Greedy people really bug me these days. How can a person can talk about team, yet be entirely focused on his or her own agenda? What’s best for them is, well, all that matters. I’m not talking about taking care of your family or planning your retirement. I mean being solely focused, with maniacal passion, on one’s self-importance.

"It’s all about me, isn’t it?"

Maybe it’s a sign of the times, but it seems to me that in many of the negotiations I hear about or read about lately, greed plays a big part of why deals collapse. Remember the win-win scenario? Every deal doesn’t have to be perfectly balanced at 50-50. But the successful ones are fair and reasonable. Perspective seeks fairness.

Is it just ego that drives this, or is it fear? To be sure, these past few years have shaped and hardened us into a new reality that most of us didn’t see coming. And maybe this is part of the reason social networking has taken off so fast and changed our lives in ways we now are just discovering. Social games are a huge industry, and people are connecting and engaging in novel ways. They are creating
their own little worlds, cocooning with an iPad, connected to millions that populate the social platforms, 24/7.

Remember Faith Popcorn’s book in the early 1990’s called The Popcorn Report? It was about cocooning, doing more with less, and enjoying life's small indulgences. All true then during that 1990-1991 recession, and even more true today. Want proof? Have you been to Tokyo lately? Try to find a Versace store. They are nowhere to be found. Gianni Versace Spa closed its Japanese stores and reviewed its entire business strategy last year, as demand for luxury goods in Asia [and elsewhere] dried up.

But scarf sales are up! Faith was right 20 years ago. “America is a consumer culture”, she wrote, “and when we change what we buy – and how we buy it – we’ll change who we are”. What’s missing from
that quote is what drives purchasing behavior today and how powerful communities have become. What’s even more interesting is that @faithpopcorn has fewer than 1,800 followers on Twitter. I follow her, and so should you. She was a human Twitter machine in the late 1980’s and 1990’s, so why isn't she up to 3 million followers now? Well, trend gurus are seemingly one-step ahead of everyone. Maybe trends skip a decade, now and again.

Faith once said that "if your customers reach the future before you do, they’ll leave you behind." This statement exemplifies why I founded FohBoh in the first place. And this is also why team FohBoh is so
committed to delivering social web solutions to this industry. Restaurant Social Media, without any doubt, will enable you to stay ahead of your customers.

Now, imagine how powerful that is. Gotta have Faith.

Cheers!

@michaelatkinson

Tags: faith popcorn, michael atkinson, restaurant social media

0 members like this

Comment

You need to be a member of FohBoh to add comments!

Join FohBoh

Comment by Paul Green on May 14, 2010 at 7:56pm: 1) GET IT IN WRITING !!

I learned the hard way. It makes NO difference if it's a family member, or a close personal relationship.

2) Spell it all out so there are clearly set parameters and remedies.

3) Lawyer

Comment by Michael Biesemeyer on May 14, 2010 at 3:14pm: @ Michael A.: Ask anyone over the age of 40 what the #1 rule is when forming partnerships and they'll tell you.

Form a pre-nup?

Comment by Michael L. Atkinson on May 12, 2010 at 4:32pm: Ask anyone over the age of 40 what the #1 rule is when forming partnerships and they'll tell you. So, what are your top 10 rules?

Comment by Ivan Bowman on May 12, 2010 at 1:34pm: Please don't get me started. I have seen enough fear,greed and popcorn for a lifetime. I try my hardest to do right by people and i'm the bad guy. I cannot say any more because i need my paycheck. Free speech HA! I will say this. For a guy who graduated from The Culinary Institute of America and has been on all sides of the Restaurant business for over 30 years. If you don't go to their Church and pay your tidings your outcast regardless of your experience. I cannot believe this goes on in 2010 in The United States of America.

Comment by Doug Golden on May 12, 2010 at 8:56am: Paul... by the way. The folks at Public Knowledge... who produced the first video you posted. They also work closely with other organizations. Like.... I'm sure this is just a funnny coincidence... it's "Free Press".... the Marxist organization leading the push for Net Neutrality. I guess it would be a stretch to assume that there is an agenda behind this at all. So who do I believe more? The evil cable companies or a Marxist organization?

Comment by Doug Golden on May 12, 2010 at 8:36am: Stearns Counters FCC With Internet Bill
May 12, 2010

-By Katy Bachman

The battle lines over who in the government should regulate the Internet are being drawn.

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), ranking member of the Communications, Technology and the Internet Subcommittee Tuesday (May 11) countered the Federal Communications Commission's proposal to reclassify the Internet with a bill that puts oversight for any regulation back in Congress.

The Internet Investment, Innovation, and Competition Preservation Act, would require the FCC to conduct a rigorous market analysis before mandating new network regulations. In addition, the FCC would need to prove that there was a market failure that warranted regulatory intervention. Before the FCC could take any steps, the findings would need to be reported to Congress.

"I see no need for Internet regulation. Yet, if there is ever a cause for regulation, it is a decision to be made by Congress, not the FCC," Stearns said.

Last week, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski suggested that the Internet be reclassified as a Title II service, allowing the Commission to impose regulations in the wake of the recent Comcast court decision that ruled the FCC lacked authority. The case was seen as a major impediment to the FCC's plan to speed broadband access in the U.S.

Stearns and others have questioned the need and authority of the FCC to interfere in what they see is an already vibrant marketplace.

"It is important to note that broadband is an information service outside the reach of Title II," Stearns said in a statement. "Net regulation will discourage investment and innovation precisely when we need it most, especially in light of our push to increase broadband deployment. The FCC should not stand in the way of Internet innovation and expansion."

Comment by Doug Golden on May 12, 2010 at 8:31am: Paul - good to see you do your homework. Regardless of what either side says... do you want the FCC, a Government agency regulating the internet? Do you support the internet becoming a utility? Just like your power and water? Do you want your usage to be taxed on top of paying for a service? Do you want the governmentt to decide JUST LIKE ANY OTHER UTILITY what it's content and limitations can be. Do you believe that the internet should be a source of revenue for the government? Do not be naive. The actual organization that has speerheaded net neutrality...

Robert McChesney, the Marxist founder of Free Press, one of the leading groups begging for these regulations, explained:

"At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."

That sir...is disturbing. Don't just read. Read between the lines. Of course net neutrality is presented in such a noble way. Who could be against it? Please give me an example... I beg you.... of one thing... just one simple thing that government does better and more effecient than the free market. If you can I will forever bow down to you. Every endeavour that government has undertook to regulate or run anything is ALWAYS done under the guise of protecting us. Gee... who could be against that. After all... they know better than you or I.

Comment by Paul Green on May 12, 2010 at 8:06am: Network neutrality - Wikipedia " ......is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet Service Providers or governments on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as communication that unreasonably degrades other traffic."

Common Cause - ".........firmly believes in net neutrality -- the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content they want, post their own content, and use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service providers (ISPs)."

Comcast: FCC opening Net neutrality door 'scary' - A Comcast executive on Friday took aim at federal regulators' recen...

Google Public Policy Blog - "........what’s important to us is promoting an open Internet, and providing access for Americans to the best broadband possible................this has never been about regulatory rigidity but about protecting consumers and keeping the Internet open for innovators.

It's hard to know who to believe - but in light of the fact that the second video is from the National Communications & Telecommunications Association who represents cable operators serving more than 90 percent of the nation’s cable television households and more than 200 cable program networks, and lobbies on their behalf, I tend support neutrality.

Comment by Doug Golden on May 12, 2010 at 7:02am: Paul - you are dead right. The internet has given transparency to many things. But there are those who want to change that and have it regulated. Have you been following the "Net Neutrality" legislation? Well it was shot down by congress last month as it should have.

The arguments made by advocates of so-called net neutrality regulations have been proven false by nearly a decade of experience since their concerns were first raised. The Internet is a remarkable free market success story, and the vast majority of Internet users are not clamoring for regulation. Self-styled consumer groups asking for regulation actually represent an extreme left-wing ideology that is hostile to free-market capitalism and puts its trust in government. That is not the position of the "grassroots" or most American Internet users. With the resounding decision in Comcast v. FCC it is now clear that the Commission has no jurisdiction to proceed. Rather than contort the law and the democratic process to continue to pursue its regulatory ends, the Commission should leave the question of whether or not the Internet should be regulated to Congress.

Well... the powers that be are now under the FCC going to deem the internet as a "utility" completely going around the legislative process and once again what the majority of most Americans want. Our president just a few days ago said in a speech that the internet and all of this new technology can become a distraction and too confusing for us common folk. That it's hard to tell the truth from fiction. Well duh. That's been the case for a hundreds of years in all sorts of media. BUT... the internet is somehow different? It's the transparency and lightening fast access to information you speak of that is being targeted. When a sitting President (D, R, I, whatever) eludes to the fact that we need help in regulating what may be truth and what may not it should scare the living hell out of you!

The internet is good and the internet is bad. I like that balance. I will accept and deal with the bad to keep this wonderful freedom of information. It's an extension of our free speech. There are those I despise and do not agree with. But I will defend their right to free speech passionately. TELL THE GOVERNMENT TO KEEP THEIR HANDS OFF OUR INTERNET.

Comment by Paul Green on May 12, 2010 at 3:15am: Perspective seeks fairness.

GREED - You hammered it!

"........these past few years have shaped and hardened us into a new reality....."

I would have been astounded if even one of the three Execs would have stood up and taken responsibility yesterday at the hearings about the oil platform explosion instead of each blaming the other.

It will take some years, but the internet has opened us to greater transparency and accountability with our elected representatives, ( see OnTheIssues.org) and we can, once again, have connectivity with others of the same mind as ourselves.

Research that once took days to assemble can be found in minutes, and activism is given much greater visibility.

I believe that 100 years from now the times prior to 1992 will be looked at as the dark ages.