Ian@work

The Bold Strokes Matter, but the Real Action for Downtown Greensboro is in Third Places

Note: The following is a Business Journal op-ed I wrote in 2003. It's of particular interest as the development it addresses is going on today.

Action Greensboro's Center City Master Plan -- including its centerpiece, the nascent baseball stadium -- is the product of a philosophy that's taken root in many cities seeking the right formula for revitalization: think big, build big, and expect big things. To use an appropriate metaphor, the plan is a home run swing for the city, a bold stroke that some believe can change momentum in favor of Greensboro's center city. In this case, boldness has benefits. First, the plan is a serious statement of intent that focuses badly needed attention on the center city. Second, the plan addresses the center city's incoherent layout, creating districts that are more likely to develop distinct, attractive identities. Finally, the plan leverages the underutilized and underdeveloped assets of the center city and creates the possibility of synergy among them.

Conceptually, the plan is a positive step forward. But like many big ideas that have failed -- the rebuilding of Underground Atlanta and the 1983 Worlds Fair in Knoxville are a couple I've witnessed go awry -- the Plan has numerous gaps and makes questionable assumptions about the attitudes and behavior of the people it wishes to attract downtown. The plan's promoters seem to accept as an article of faith that if we build it then the people will come. The published evidence isn't convincing: a recent Action Greensboro fact sheet, Questions and Answers: Downtown Ballpark Construction Project, uses fuzzy numbers and even fuzzier logic to support the demand for building a new minor league stadium. The only statistical evidence cited: "Minor league baseball is expected to attract 40 million fans nationwide this summer." To be fair, this misleading number may call into question the depth of examination of its value, but it isn't an argument against the stadium itself.

Ignoring the brouhaha over the stadium and focusing on the bigger picture, I do think that there is an opportunity to create a compelling downtown community. It can be a place that attracts the creative class, one of the plan's objectives, and keeps families from fleeing to West Friendly Avenue after each game. Unfortunately, the Center City Master Plan and Greensboro Operational Economic Development Plan don't fully address "stickiness," or how you keep people downtown, beyond the bold strokes and initiatives involving large, public institutions. This is a shame because I think the most interesting and viable possibilities for Greensboro lie within the part of the plan that is implied, but not fully defined: the third places.

Third places are the informal, inclusive gathering places that sociologist Ray Oldenburg focused on in his book The Great Good Place. Third places (the first is home, second is work) build community, enrich relationships, create a sense of place, and foster civic pride. There are many third places in Greensboro Ð think of the Green Bean on South Elm Street, the Friendly Center Barnes & Noble, or Tate Street Coffee. They serve the community in myriad ways; they are meeting places, remote offices, study halls, and communal living rooms. It's not uncommon to spend an hour in one of these places and in that time discuss a business deal, catch up with an old friend, and do some work on a project. At the next table, there might be a book club meeting.

Because third places speak to interests and emotions of individuals and ad hoc groups, there's no "one-place-fits-all" model. Third places can be public or commercial, indoor or outdoor, large or small. They are hubs of art, commerce, and communication. They offer, to varying degrees, diversity of expression and activity. Often, they are shaped as much by the people that inhabit them as by the owners. Similar third place businesses may exist in close proximity to one another but as far as their customers feel they might as well be in different universes. Whatever shape they take, they provide environments for human interaction.

The business of creating third places isn't easily captured on a spreadsheet. Third places are often, but not always, lifestyle businesses that are not likely to offer a significant return on capital investment or create a lot of new jobs. Rather, they are labors of love that by many investment criteria would be considered bad bets. But, in terms of contribution to downtown's social fabric they offer rewards that are inestimable; as catalysts of stickiness, they provide value beyond that reflected by their balance sheets. And for that reason alone we should hope that Greensboro investors proactively support growing the number and density of third places in the center city as much as they get behind the stadium and other bold ideas. Otherwise, on Bats opening day in '05 the stadium might just be a lone monument in an otherwise quiet downtown.

Want to be more productive? Try doing nothing for a change

Business Journal of the Triad, 5/12/05

I'm sure that many of you can identify with how I spent my last week: I was in three cities, where I attended a series of meetings and events, huddled with clients, tried to keep up with voice- and e-mail, and put out the daily fires that come with any job.

In between, I was either in the car, at an airport or on a plane. "Spare time" was any moment when I could drag out the laptop and attempt to catch up on the growing list of projects in my queue. My briefcase of electronic timesavers constantly reminded me that there was more to do, and less time to spend doing any of it.

Plenty of my fellow travelers seemed to share this condition, living in a perpetual mode of movement and multitasking where people, cellphones, text messages and full calendars compete for attention.

In most places I was surrounded by people talking on cellphones. Meeting agendas made way for text messaging and answering urgent e-mails and phone calls. Everyone, myself included, seemed to always be running about five minutes late.

When my workweek suddenly came to a stop late Friday night, I found myself wondering: Is this what productivity looks like?

It all seems part and parcel of our cultural dynamic, the one that demands we keep moving from place to place and activity to activity. It's the inertia that carries us from one thing to another, and blurs the lines between work and vacation, office time and family time. That always justifies action over inaction. That causes us to fill any moment with another task, and any quiet with some form of noise.

It's what leaves too many people feeling like they never have enough time to accomplish what they should, and no time at all to think about what they're doing. It's the slippery slope from doing one's work well to just getting it done.

So no, it's hard to think of what I experienced the last week, and many others before, as a model of productivity.

Let me step back a moment and clarify something: I have no argument with being busy, nor am I a Luddite who wants to ban cellphones, instant messaging and e-mail.

But somewhere along the road to working more efficiently, there's a detour that encourages us to step away from being mindful of what is in front of us and to replace the quiet reflection we all need with -- well, whatever we can find to fill time.

So while I'm a strong advocate of technology, I'm an equally ardent believer in the benefits of quiet contemplation.

One of the most common phrases I hear from friends and business associates is, "I don't even have time to think." Not having time to think is a consequence -- I'll go further and say a harmful consequence -- of our cultural dynamic. Something is lost when we consistently rely on reflex in place of reflection.

Reflection is more than mere navel gazing. When we take time out to reflect, we engage in shutting out all the outside influences that tell us how to act and what to do. We allow the thoughts we've buried as we move through our day bubble to the surface, where we can consider each without the need to immediately act. We step away from the need to get things done, and consider the value of each thing we're doing.

Perhaps the most important benefit of active reflection is that it allows us to step off the treadmill for a moment and regain control of our time and our thoughts. Consider what it's like to move reflexively through each day as we're drawn into meetings and conference calls, or spending our time head down as we chase project deadlines.

Reflection moves us out of that mode, gives us a modicum of control over our time, and allows us to organize our thoughts, consider priorities (instead of allowing everything to become a priority), and rest for a moment.

For many, it's a moment of reordering; for the most harried, it's a way of pulling out of a tailspin that threatens to upset the day.

While writing this, I have in mind a particular man who I observed last week while waiting for a flight. Later, I saw him on the airplane. Over the course of a couple of hours he made several phone calls, all to the same person, each time providing an update on his whereabouts and reminding the person that the caller would call again once he had arrived.

Is this what productivity looks like? Or is it a reflexive waste of time? And, instead of repeatedly whipping out his cellphone to intrude on someone else's day with reminders that the caller wasn't there yet but would be soon enough, would he have been better off to switch off that phone and do nothing?

Technology enables collaboration, but relationships are key

Business Journal of the Triad, 2/24/05

My employer has its headquarters in Atlanta. That is where the majority of my colleagues work, while each day I commute to our office in Greensboro.

Many of the clients I consult with are a similar distance away from my office, if not farther. Some I've never met in person.

One of my responsibilities is managing corporate marketing. My marketing colleagues and our vendors and partners are mostly in Atlanta, as well as other cities, and we seldom meet face to face.

Yet, despite the physical distance that separates me from our corporate headquarters, I feel like an integral part of the company rather than an inhabitant of a lonely outpost. I have the resources I need to maintain relationships with clients and service their needs.

And, the management of our own marketing efforts happens with little awareness of the physical distance that's part of the equation.

This kind of working arrangement is common, and it's becoming more of the norm these days. The physical boundaries of business relationships are less rigid. The needs of companies, employees, customers, partners and vendors are more interdependent, though less dependent on shared geography, than they might have been in the past.

At the same time, there remains the need to satisfy many of the same diverse demands that are the norm for any business -- demands that typically revolve around the management of projects and relationships. So, the concept of collaboration -- the practices and technologies that help companies do business with often- distant customers, vendors, partners and employees -- is becoming more important than ever.

In the business world, collaboration is often spoken of in terms of technology. Technology can be an enabler of collaboration, and there is no shortage of products designed to facilitate collaboration among individuals and teams.

Web-based portals are virtual meeting points for individuals separated by physical distance. Portals can provide access to business intelligence software that offers structured ways of sharing information and management of critical business processes.

They can be home to sophisticated libraries, where access and modification of documents used across an enterprise can be controlled. And, they can be a place to gather for real-time meetings among participants who may not be in the same building, much less the same country.

Blogs, which don't always receive due consideration as business tools, can serve as common ground for sharing ideas and building knowledge bases. Flexible and collaborative by nature, blogs are ideal for collaboration among individuals and teams, or among ad hoc groups established for specific, short-term purposes.

Then there is everyday software: E-mail clients, instant messaging and Web-based calendars are simple tools that support collaboration. These applications are so ubiquitous that we often overlook them, but without them collaboration would be nearly impossible.

Tools matter, but the reality of successful collaboration is more complicated than software: The ability to collaborate is affected not only by distance, but by differing work styles, cultures, languages and other factors. To successfully collaborate, individuals and teams must bridge those divides.

Collaboration becomes not only about working together effectively, but about creating a culture that engages people in the organization, no matter where they live and work. It's about developing shared trust.

We all know the stereotype of the outside sales rep, on his own in his territory, supported only by his network of contacts, his wits and an expense account. That's an endangered stereotype, as businesses realize the value of strengthening ties with representatives in the field.

When you see a salesman pecking away at a Blackberry while waiting in an airport for a flight, that's collaboration. Information is shared and exchanged. The rep, who in the past might have had to be something of a Lone Ranger, can call on a team -- or create a team -- to solve problems.

Individuals who might have operated independently in the past find that they can contribute to shared solutions. And in the process the bonds between company and individuals are strengthened. There's a positive effect on relationships that also serves the bottom line.

Some companies excel at creating strong collaborative environments. Others try and fail. I've been fortunate to work for a company that is in the former camp. We have the tools to help us collaborate, but it's the content of our interaction -- the ways we use that interaction to help one another succeed -- that makes the whole enterprise go.

Software is the enabler, but it's relationships that power the collaborative experience.

A Case for Aligning Technology and Marketing

Business Journal of the Triad, 11/19/04

A recent Booz Allen Hamilton/Association of National Advertisers study contains some very good - and very bad - news for America's chief marketing officers. The good news: The CMO role is gaining in popularity among corporations, and the proportion of CMOs occupying seats in executive suites is on the rise. The bad news: The CMO role is often poorly defined by corporations, and as a result many in that role are out of step with CEO objectives. The report points out the following: Marketing is seen as a more important component of corporate success, and "is best positioned to orchestrate across corporate functions to create and promote new products and ideas."

Tactical concerns like best practices and branding guidelines distract CMOs from the CEO agenda, which is focused on growth, change, customers, and innovation.

CMOs are expected to provide measurable outcomes, but marketing metrics are insufficient to provide a realistic appraisal of marketing effectiveness. BAH/ANA quotes one survey respondent: "There is no consistent definition of ROI."

I sent a synopsis of the report around my office, expecting to hear a chorus of comments from our marketing team. Surprisingly, the most emphatic response came from our senior director of information technology. He noted that CMOs face almost the exact same situation as many CTOs, or chief technology officers. Both are in critical but sometimes ill-defined positions, and struggle to justify their value and gain credibility among more traditional roles.

So, CMOs and CTOs of corporate America have good reason to commiserate with one another, but that's a minor point. More important, these are two key roles in the corporate hierarchy - roles that are uniquely positioned to drive innovation and growth - that are not always as keenly defined as they should be. Moreover, those roles might best serve the CEO agenda - the one that mandates growth, flexibility to change, innovation, and attention to customers - if they were more closely aligned.

My colleague and I, despite our respective roles as technologist and marketer, spend a fair amount of time straddling the fence that separates these two domains. Ownership of technology initiatives, including those that support the corporate marketing function (in the case of, for example, a customer-facing web site), is an ongoing issue in our workday discussions. Should technologists have sole ownership over IT projects, from the infrastructure to the desktop, or does marketing have a critical role to play? And should marketers be the lone drivers of activities that are ostensibly marketing-focused, even if they have a technological component?

The reality is that these two functions often intersect, but only at the surface level. Pardon the generalizations, but marketers and technologists often tend to view one another in these ways: Marketers, from the technologist perspective, see technology as a toolset to be selectively applied to reinforce existing practices. Technologists detect in marketers a fundamental misunderstanding of the capabilities technology provides, along some fear that those capabilities might be simply deployed as replacements for known activities.

Technologists, from the marketing viewpoint, relate better to tools than customers, and bring to their work the assumption that users - who aren't always seen as people, with all their quirks, flaws, and ingrained habits - will always recognize and adopt a brilliant tool, even with little prompting or training.

Both perspectives contain some truth, and they also collectively overlook the possibility that together their roles comprise a powerful answer to the CEO mandate. Marketers, as the BHA/ANA report notes, occupy a unique position in corporations, from which they can champion innovation and flexibility and serve as advocates for the customer. In particular, they can drive the development of technology that supports the real needs of both internal and external customers and uses adoption as the centerpiece of the deployment strategy.

Technologists hold the keys to tools that facilitate improved decision making, higher productivity, flexibility, innovation, and customer empowerment. Their role presents an opportunity to move beyond the deployment and maintenance of technology and into the more visionary position of advocating ways that technology can alter the competitive landscape.

Of course, this maturation of the CMO and CTO roles won't happen if each remains in a silo and only selectively calls on the other for support. What's needed is a deeper and more fundamental interconnection of their activities. This means marketing and technology leaders participating in creating a shared understanding of where and how their independent objectives mesh, and how they should depend on one another to implement initiatives across the marketing, technology, and corporate spectrums. Imagine that: Marketers caring about the technology that underlies improved decision-making and productivity, and technologists focusing on the adoption of the tools they develop. It sounds like the kind of shared commitment to growth, flexibility, change, and the customer that just might bring a smile to CEOs' faces.

Where Big Media Falters, Bloggers Rush In

Business Journal of the Triad, 8/20/04

I have what I would describe as a layman's obsession with economics. Among my circle of friends and acquaintances this is in the same league as having an obsession with - say, train spotting or Soviet-era Russian cinema. Nothing wrong with any of these things, mind you, but they don't always leave a lot of common ground for conversation. So I have to spend time looking for information to feed my obsession.

One of the benefits of being a layman is that there is no requirement that I focus on becoming expert in a particular niche of economics. So I tend to follow my interests; given the political climate, that mostly means tax policy. Tax cut mania is the order of the day, and since our economic fortunes seem to be riding on those revenue numbers, I would have assumed that the mainstream media would be all over this, probing the implications and prognosticating the future of a government that is continually expected to do more with less.

Maybe the mainstream media have a collective nostalgia for the days before the word "voodoo" was linked to the phrase "trickle down;" perhaps market research shows that people just aren't that enamored of facts or analysis; or, maybe they're concerned that any critical analysis might appear to be partisan. Whatever the reason, media coverage of economic policy - that animal we want to complain about but not bother to understand - is, in a word, lacking. Instead, we're treated to an endless stream of pronouncements of economic reality, unsullied by research, fact checking, or any further vetting. We are left to assume that what a politician - or politically motivated consultant, lobbyist, or economist - says is far more important than any subtext.

The good news is that bloggers, or authors of Web logs, are rushing to fill the information vacuum. Don't believe the mainstream media's tendency to portray bloggers as simply diarists or gossipmongers. The reality is that there are many informed voices, across the political and ideological spectrum, who have gladly picked up the ball that "real" journalists have dropped. In the case of economics, there are countless economists, college professors, and moonlighting journalists who offer substantial commentary and insight.

Meanwhile, many established journalists look at bloggers in the same amused way that an anthropologist might observe "less civilized" societies, totally unaware that they are being sized up as a meal. Big media, as some bloggers call it, attempts to seize the ethical high ground, by pointing out the lack of editorial or partisan constraints that bloggers operate under. At a time when media consumers of all political stripes seem to find partisan bias in all media, this may not turn out to be a particularly compelling argument.

Here is the bottom line: There are many people like me who want a depth of economic information and analysis, and if established media outlets fail to offer meaningful, substantive information, bloggers are ready to rush in and fill the void. The barriers to entry are low, and the best writers in the blogosphere - that nebulous region where opinions fly free - have proven capable of building significant audiences. But, just in case mainstream media is paying attention and has any interest in getting back in the game, I'll throw them a couple of simple questions to chew on:

What, precisely, is the current administration's economic policy? Tax cuts are to policy as "more sales" is to a business plan - incomplete, at best. And while you're at it, can you tell us if there is even a credible administration spokesperson for economic issues? The most likely suspect, John Snow, seems to be auditioning for Tom Ridge's job, since the only ink he appears to get in mainstream media has to do with his pronouncements on homeland security. Or is it Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, whose opinions the administration in turn embraces and repudiates?

Next: If 1.5 million jobs are created and median income declines by 3.3%, is this a sign of economic progress? And for whom? No cheating - discussing average income doesn't count since we all know that if Bill Gates walks into a roomful of teachers, the average income in the room rises into the millions of dollars.

Big Media needs to offer this insight. I know it's already out there in the blogs.

To fight spam, focus on permission and not content

Business Journal of the Triad, 4/22/04

Last summer I wrote about the problem of spam email and predicted that newly-signed anti-spam legislation in the state of Virginia would have little impact on the problem (And before you brush this off because you think that our northern neighbor is just 1/50 of the solution, remember that they have unusual clout - more than 1/3 of all Internet traffic flows through commercial networks in the state and is thus subject to the law.). I noted that spammers can easily hide their identities; further prosecutors were unlikely to assign a high priority to pursuing them. It was a nice gesture designed to placate constituents, but not much more.

Since then we've seen the addition of the federal CAN-SPAM law, which took effect January first of this year, as well as a continuing raft of civil suits against spammers. CAN-SPAM is, on the surface, an encouraging measure. It seeks to define not only spam but legitimate email messages and the responsibilities of those who send them. CAN-SPAM is backed by stiff penalties - penalties that are only as good as the enforcement behind the law.

As you might expect the total effect of all this anti-spam activity has been - well, pretty underwhelming. The proof is in our inboxes; downloading one's email is likely to validate the lack of hard evidence that spam has been reduced. Meanwhile there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that it's on the rise. I'm not particularly surprised that the worst kinds of spam continue to pour into my inbox, but I am surprised  that companies that don't fit the profile associated with typical spammers are continuing to send email that is, under the spirit of state and federal laws, spam.

The letter of the CAN-SPAM law - to focus on the statute with the most reach - is fairly complex and many senders of commercial email are still trying to interpret how it affects their businesses. But one key provision - and this is the spirit of the law - is quite simple: Before you may legally send anyone a commercial email message, you must have their explicit permission to do so. No permission, no email.

Yet, while permission is at the heart of anti-spam regulation, many companies, or the individuals from those companies who market with email, are choosing to define spam by content, and not in terms of permission. The result is that many companies ignore the need to obtain permission from the recipient and continue to send messages that are spam, within both the letter and the spirit of the law. Their logic? As long as the email isn't selling pornography, prescription medication or something that offends them, it can't possibly be spam.

As I recently pointed out to a very nice local businessperson who used that logic to spam me with an unwanted mass solicitation, this is wrong. I hadn't asked to have her find or borrow my email address and add it to her database, so the fact that she was sending me offers by email made her, according to the CAN-SPAM law, a spammer. This message didn't go over particularly well, I'll note. Nobody wants to think of themselves as a - shudder - spammer.

However, I'm neither a lawyer nor an anti-spam zealot, so what interests me about this phenomenon is what is says about how some marketers view and misuse email. At its best, email is an interactive tool for building relationships. At its worst, it's simply a cheap replacement for other broadcast media. There's a tremendous difference in effectiveness between the two approaches.

Smart email marketers are scrupulous about getting and maintaining recipients' permission. They don't share email addresses with other companies. And they pay particular attention to what their customers value. This customer-centric view creates opportunities to engage in a dialogue with customers, incrementally gain a database of valuable information about them, and conduct trusted transactions. It's hard work, and the marketer's convenience and needs are secondary considerations. But the payoff can be excellent; in campaigns that my colleagues and I have managed, we've seen consistent increases in open rates and click-through rates of broadcast emails, while seeing rates throughout the industry continue to fall.

And then there are the folks who believe that their email cannot be spam. They generally ignore the need to gain permission, share list member data with other companies, and treat email as a cheap, convenient alternative to direct mail or broadcast media. As long as no one complains there's little incentive to reform, and since they are not measuring their use of email, they are blissfully unaware of whether the medium is working for them, or damaging relationships with potential customers. Meanwhile, they add to the inbox clutter that we all dislike.

If there is any surprise here, it is the fact that many in the business world seem to believe that anyone else is the cause of the spam problem. They would do well to think about what they're doing before sending that email that can't possibly be spam.

Building our economy means building better neighborhoods

Business Journal of the Triad, 11/28/03

H.G. Wells said, "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." Every evening that I sit on my bench in front of my house in Lindley Park I understand Well's point. Cyclists roll by on our street. Parents pushing strollers and folks walking their dogs join them. Kids run up and down the sidewalk looking for their playmates. My wife and I know many of these people (and their dogs) by name; most others we at least know by sight. Often, we're drawn down to the sidewalk or road to greet people we haven't seen in a while. This little streetscape, on display for us from early evening to dusk, is a sign of a healthy neighborhood at work.

The presence of bicyclists and pedestrians says a lot about a neighborhood or city's livability. When I travel to other cities I pay attention to signs of a healthy cyclist or pedestrian culture. Over time I've found this to be a reliable way to understand how a place values diversity in transportation, environmental quality, recreational opportunities, and other factors that contribute to healthy communities. People walking or riding bikes aren't merely on their way to somewhere else. They're not insulated from their surroundings by steel and glass; they're open to the landscape and people around them.

Piedmont Triad boosters promote the area's livability. On one hand, they're correct to argue against the perception that the Triad is a long stretch of crowded interstate bounded by strip malls. But as a friend who lives in one of many local planned communities recently complained, "I don't know my neighbors." Within that statement is a confession that we've lost some sense of how to create vital neighborhoods. Often, in newer developments there is no money for sidewalks, but plenty for "amenities." We've replaced notions of community with formal neighborhood associations. We accept housing development plans that are predicated on the need for every resident to drive somewhere else to obtain even the most basic goods and services. Even in our older neighborhoods we can often seem to place more emphasis more on preserving buildings - which I agree can be a critical component of creating sound communities - than preserving and building relationships with those who live around us. To a large extent, we have replaced social capital with concern for property values.

We should care about reversing this loss of community, because there is much at stake. In my own neighborhood, we have the added security that comes from knowing and watching out for one another. We have a safety net, in the form of assistance from one another, when minor crisis occur. We have economic opportunity in the form of small businesses that serve the neighborhood Ü businesses that are a short walk, and not a long drive, away. And, we have a feeling of empowerment over the future of our neighborhood, a feeling that comes from having people accountable to one another working toward common goals. Ultimately, if we want to retain our brightest people and attract new business - and the people those companies represent - then the benefits of social capital have to be evident in our neighborhoods.

There are opportunities to participate in community renewal. In my own neighborhood, we're working with the city of Greensboro to craft a model neighborhood plan, which focuses on determining what residents want Lindley Park to become. The plan identifies how we can work cooperatively with city government to make our plans a reality, and on the types of services that government will need to provide. This cooperative approach to neighborhood development is a significant step forward for Greensboro, and offers a template for other neighborhoods throughout the city to follow.

Another program of significance is the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress ( http://www.gnc-nc.org ). Comprising representatives from 109 Greensboro neighborhoods, the Congress is seeking to engage a diverse group of citizens in discussions and projects that focus on the future the city's future. This is a comprehensive and integrated approach to planning for the future of the city. Unfortunately, most Greensboro neighborhoods are not represented. For the Congress to truly be successful it must extend beyond the few communities that have chosen to get involved.

There need to be more of us who see our future in that bicyclist or suburban pedestrian. When they disappear, we're not just losing a quaint bit of Americana. Rather, we're watching our safety, prosperity, and civic power dissipate. I see it happening bit by bit. We have a chance to reverse this decline, but we've got to act.

Design is worthy of region's attention, but will we capitalize on it?

Business Journal of the Triad, 11/7/03

According to Angelou Economics, which was commissioned by the Northwest Piedmont Council of Governments to study potential growth industries for our regional economy, there are seven industries that deserve our attention. Aside from biotechnology, which comes as no surprise to anyone paying attention to developments in Winston-Salem over the past few years, there are six others that should be on our radar. Of these, the one that immediately grabbed my attention is design.

That's welcome news to my employer and others companies like ours. Our success depends to a large degree on our ability to find skilled graphic and multimedia artists -- a challenge in an area that is not known regionally as a strong design market, and where there is a lack of recognized design training programs. I'm also happy to see Angelou highlight the broad spectrum of design disciplines, many of which are lesser known but vital to creating a design-based industry.

I think Angelou is onto something. There is a strong argument to be made for cultivating a vital design industry in this region. Aside from some of the more obvious applications of design -- advertising, fine arts, and filmmaking -- a growing number of consumers are looking for products that reflect strong design values, or at least a greater sense of style. In her new book The Substance of Style, Virginia Postrel points out a growing trend: consumers are demanding, in almost every product category, more individualized, stylized goods. This movement isn't limited solely to luxury items, as in the past; at almost every price point, "designer" products are competing for consumers' shopping dollars. This trend implies a strong future demand for industrial designers capable of crafting those products.

Granted, the public reaction to Angelou's recommendations -- leaving aside the controversy that a prematurely released draft report caused -- has been lukewarm. The Business Journal noted Ü correctly, in my opinion -- that Guilford County's absence from the report is a glaring omission; the editorial pages also cautioned against losing focus on our growing biotech industry. And frankly, the report raises far more questions than it answers.

Drawing on an analogy of the Italian fashion industry's rise to prominence, Angelou implies a high standard for industry growth. That's a jolt to those of us who recognize the lack of a critical mass of talent, opportunities, and training in this area. It also seems naively ambitious, in that it doesn't fully acknowledge the wide and disparate range of design disciplines, nor the fact that design isn't simply the product of technical training -- not to mention the very limited dollars that are likely to be spent on this effort.

As an example, there is an argument in support of promoting filmmaking in the Piedmont. We have the North Carolina School for the Arts and the Piedmont-Triad Film Commission already in place to assist with this effort. And yet, there has been a lack of widespread enthusiasm, not to mention financial support, for leveraging the filmmaking industry for economic gain. That track record is daunting when you consider the difficulty of building the broader design industry from the ground up.

A key challenge we face is having a critical mass of talent and professional opportunities. One relies on the other; without a wealth of jobs, it is impossible to attract a high number of skilled design professionals. And unless the area has the talent pool to draw from, design work will migrate to other regions known for design.

Angelou Economics has pointed to a solution in the form of new training programs. While this has much long term merit, it is probably not the solution that our economy demands in the short run. The North Carolina School of the Arts might develop a digital design program, as Angelou Economics noted, that will create a critical mass of several hundred designers. However, the school will not immediately establish an elite reputation among companies who employ designers. That reputation is necessary if employers are to seek out the school's graduates.

A possibly more effective approach involves cooperatively identifying companies in this region that employ contract and staff designers, and working to establish relationships between those companies and key design school faculty and alumni across the country. Design programs have a strong interest in placing their graduates where they will have opportunities to excel. By tapping into this need we might attract the design professionals we need. And as with any established talent pool, a critical mass of designers will create new professional opportunities for these skilled individuals, increasing overall demand for designers and workers in related trades.

Specific recommendations for growing the design industry (as well as the other identified industries) are on the way from Angelou. I hope that they adequately reflect the challenge that's ahead. I also hope that regional economic development authorities embrace that challenge. The region has relied on too few industries for too long, leading us all to the seemingly obvious conclusion that diversification is good. Here is an excellent opportunity to take a step toward that goal.