Diversify? Divest? Let's call the whole thing off

Well, McDonald's has decided to divest Chipotle.  I at one point had been quite critical of McD's purchase of what has become one of my all-time favorite restaurants.  That is, until the (then) Marketing Director for the McDonald's New York Metro region told me that the only reason I had even been able to eat at one was because of the infusion of their capital and thus rapid expansion of the chain.  This is echoed in the news story:

"Since we made our initial investment in 1998, Chipotle has grown from 16 restaurants in the Denver area to a strong and popular restaurant concept with more than 500 locations throughout the U.S.," McDonald's Chief Executive Jim Skinner said in a statement.

"However, attracting more customers to McDonald's remains our greatest opportunity for long-term profitable growth," he said.

 I, for one, am pleased to see McDonald's has come out of their slump, and that they are focusing on their core business.  This does, of course, bring us back to a fairly common business theme, that we talk about often in class.  Firms "diversify" and then they divest... diversify.. divest...  Some even step outside the realm of what would seem to make sense.  Some diversifications make sense.  GMAC not only helped finance cars, but has become quite a strong entity in financing in general--and has helped float GM in these tough times.

Others make far less sense.  For instance, remember Phillip Morris buying Nabisco, and Planters Peanuts?  So a tobacco company sells food?  That was a mistake that if I remember correctly was identified, and divested... *smile*

I look forward to hearing/reading your examples of firms that have gone through the diversify/divest cycle.

The left doesn't believe itself!

^{*cross posted from my posting at my home away from home:  http://thelobbyists.blogspot.com/*}

 In perusing many of the blogs on the left, I have detected a recurring, although not ubiquitous, theme.  Specifically, a lack of faith in the system, and an overarching belief that elections have been stolen wholesale.  In fact, they are arguing that, with the voting machines being electronic, and with various other things done, that people no longer have a voice, and that democracy is dead.   They believe Corporate America has stolen the government.

Interestingly though, they must not really believe it, because the left is looking forward to the next elections.  Apparently they don't even believe their own rhetoric.  For some reason, they hold two contradictory views.  The first view is that elections are not fair, and the outcomes are "pre-determined."  The other view?  That we can change things by getting out the vote, and voting for change.

Hmmm... are they simply stupid?  While that would be a satisfying conclusion, I am not convinced of that.  For a long time now I have held the view that accusations and charges are more reflective of the attitudes and behaviors of the people making them than the subject of the accusations.  People see the world through their own lenses, and do not easily see alternative explanations.  Or to put it another way "Bush must have lied--how else could you explain what is  happening?!"

So here is MY theory (admittedly filtered through my lense--I understand I too am captive to my own paradigm).  Keep the news story out there that Democracy is threatened.  Let people know that our nation has been "stolen" as have elections.  Convince people that they have to take action NOW to take back our government--and you can do that by getting out and voting for liberals.  So, create fear, carefully drawing lines connecting unrelated information in a compelling story that implies connections, and get people to react to it.

Yup, that's my theory, and I am sticking to it.  Liberals are trying to "steal" elections the old fashioned way.  Lying and scaring the electorate.  Popularizing crazy conspiracy theories.  Making people feel fear, rage, and hopelessness.  And then, getting people to vote for them based on irrational fear. 

I could be wrong.  But it makes for a good story, and seems as plausible as any other.

Language Log: Who is the decider?

Language Log: Who is the decider?

I must say, I find this "episode" of the Language Log uniquely satisfying. Partially because I too have fallen prey to the odd grammatical error, now and again. But mostly because it serves as a humbling reminder that we all fail, and thus, as we point out each other's failings, we all contribute.

but perhaps I read too much into this.

The last sentence though, remains priceless. Sure, pick on the word "decider." Anyone want to guess what the other "obvious" error is?

Schools--Education or Business? Is this a dichotomy?

Confessions of a Community College Dean: Moral Dilemma: "No, brother bones, schools provide the opportunity to learn and experts to help students to do so. They are not businesses. "

The above quote comes out of a very lengthy thread on the Community College Dean's blog. There are many tangents that have come out of that thread, and this is the first one I have chosen to discuss.

This is not the first time I have heard the argument that "education is not a business." I would have to agree. Educators have a responsibility to provide an education, to convey material to learners in an environment, and with pedagogical approaches, that enhance the opportunity for the learners to actually grasp and internalize the material. I would then also argue that McDonalds (or, Lone Star Steak House, or any other restaurant), Barnes and Noble (and other perveyors of books), Bloomingdales... none of these are businesses either. They exist to meet a requirement, or satisfy a want, for people that have a need or want. In tfact, they too actually want people to "grasp" and (in the case of restaurants literally, and bookstores not so... ) internalize the materials.

In all these cases the contact person--the educator, the bookstore clerk, the customer specialist, or the counter-kid at McDonalds, needs to focus not on the business aspect of the firm, but on the customer's satisfaction. The "best" businesses do that--focus on the customer, understanding that the rest will follow.

Specifically, and this is the most critical point, if people see value in what they receive they will pay for it as they are able. If they don't--they won't!

Education, and other not-for-profit endeavours are a bit different, in that schools and public broadcasting, and often hospitals, are able to get people in general to see the benefit, and pay for services they themselves might not directly receive, but they do it because the see, and wish to encourage, the product to continue to be provided. (I wish it were possible to go to Barnes and Noble and have someone offer to subsidize my book purchases, but alas, that doesn't happen.)

So what wordplay am I conducting here? Well, business is, according to lawyerintl.com is "A continuous and regular activity that has income or profit as its primary purpose." Hmmm... so perhaps, either I am just creating a smoke-screen to obfuscate the point about education, or education has as its primary purpose making money. Or perhaps their is another option--the 'legal' definition of a business doesn't actually fit what we in business actually do.

Businesses most often are in the business of generating revenue. Without revenue no operation can continue. Be it public radio and televion, or the local university, or the local McDonalds, all need revenue to survive. But by the same token all businesses understand that they exist to satisfy some perceived want or need, and that they can only survive through providing that.

Here's the bottom line: yes, educators, you are not "business people." Your charter is to serve your institution by delivering the best educational experience possible to the students in your care, and doing all you can to ensure they grasp the material and are hopefully changed by it. That is just like a counter-kid at McDonalds has as their mission to keep the customer "lovin' it." It's the role of the administration, and the management, to ensure the revenue keeps coming in, and that the books either remain "balanced" (not for profits) or stay positive to satisfy the stakeholders.

So if it appears that a conflict exists, then I suggest you ask these simple questions:

1. Does the actions of the administration take the school/college/university away from it's mission of education?

(critical point here: do not ask yourself if it takes away specific areas of education, such as medieval studies, but rather if it has changed the mission--say to providing conferences and hotel space, without an educational element.)

2. Does the administration make clear the long-term strategic direction for this change?
(perhaps outlining either a) the fiscal need that perhaps ensures survival, such as at Tulane, or b) reaches an as yet untapped clientele with the educational mission, as the discussion at the Dean's blog has as its base.)

These are only two questions. Perhaps you have more.

I welcome a lengthy discussion here, as well.

The Professor