Focus and the future: America’s Public Transit Dilemma

After spending a couple of years in Europe, I realized just how limited the public transit network is in the US. Some cities are better than others, but overall we are pretty behind. This is especially true in regards to interstate travel. In recent years, as energy costs have continued to rise, this issue has been pushed to the forefront of American political and environmental debates. So what happened? Why did America spend its time, money and energy building cars and roads while other nations focused on rail, bus and subways? The answer is simply really, it was a matter of choice.

In the post WWII era, America’s focus was clearly based on the belief that cars were the future of transportation. And they (cars) did become the future of transportation, because that's where the focus went. Get it? America believed cars were the answer, so accordingly, we built factories that built cars, started business to repair the cars, and built more roads etc. Our reality is a literal result of our focus, our energy and our actions. Other nations took a different approach. At varying levels, they chose to focus on building railroads, buses, and subway stations.

So here we are today, and after years of focusing on the car, America is struggling to catch up with other transportation infrastructures. Were we wrong to assume cars were the future? That’s a hard question, because we can’t know how everything would have played out, and I don’t think we need to know. But I believe there is an important business and life lesson here: The things we focus on today will become our reality. Accordingly, it is vital that we ask ourselves the following questions:

“Are there things I am focusing on today, that I will regret in the future?” and “What am I failing to focus on now that I will need in the future?”

Those are tough questions, because we can’t see the future, and in order to move forward, we have to make decisions, set goals, and work hard to achieve them--but there is always value in taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture.

Whuffie Bank

Last week, as part of the Tech Crunch 50, a new company called Whuffie Bank was launched. When I first read the name of the company, I thought it said Whiffle and that got me really excited—if it has to do with Whiffle, it's all right by me.

Its not Whiffle, though, its Whuffie, check our the article from Tech Crunch here

Essentially, the Whuffie bank is a sort of social media currency that people can earn by doing great things online. It's a pretty unique idea, but it will have to become widely accepted in order to have the impact the foudners are hoping for. I would also be interested to see what they will do to prevent fraud (setting up dummy accounts and giving yourself Whuffies). Here is what the Whuffie Bank founders have to say:

It’s a sad fact of life that many of the most insightful and helpful people on the web (and in real life, for that matter) aren’t financially rewarded for their efforts...The Whuffie Bank...wants to fix this by launching a new currency that rewards people for their positive contributions on the web.

I like where they are coming from, and I agree with the first line especially, but I am uncertain on how an intangible karma currency will reward people financially.

What do you think? Good idea? Will it work?

Pringles: Don't call me a potato chip!

In an interesting case, a British tax court ruled that Pringles are, in fact, not potato chips (or crisps as the British call them). Proctor and Gamble, the company behind Pringles fought for the ruling in order to avoid at 17.5% tax on “potato crisps, potato sticks, potato puffs and similar products made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch”.

Ok, so what are Pringles made of? Only 42% of the product is made from potatoes. And what makes a potato chip a potato chip?--Apparently more than just being made from potatoes. According to the high court’s decision, shape and crispness must also be considered.

Aside from the, ahem, deep soul-searching questions about what actually makes a potato chip a potato chip, the interesting thing here is that Proctor and Gamble fought to essentially prove that their product is not a potato chip. Now I don’t know all of the details about Pringles’ sales internationally (will the tax savings in the UK off-set any decline due to the new “we are not a potato chip” revelation?) or whether consumers already didn’t view the chip crisp potato flavored circular snack as a potato chip, but I certainly hope P&G considered the potential brand erosion by fighting this case.

What do you think? Was this good business strategy, or did Pringles just take a step toward being stuck between the pork rinds and yellow zingers on the bottom left hand corner of your grocer’s shelf?