Silicon Valley Code Camp 2018

Welcome to Silicon Valley Code Camp, 2018!

I’ve been invited to speak at Silicon Valley Code Camp again – this time in the business management track.

I’m scheduled to speak at 5PM on Saturday Oct 13, 2018 in Fireside D. My talk is titled: A Developer’s Guide To Strategy

I hope to run an improved version of the simulation I ran with the MBA class at Saint Mary’s earlier this summer but I’m not sure I’ll have enough time during the presentation (or even between now and then).

Register here (giant red button).

Note: I wasn’t able to speak or attend last year so I haven’t seen the new space but I understand that there’s only room for about 800 people now (vs 3k previously). I don’t think they’ve sold out yet, but they definitely will.

“What is Strategy?” at Silicon Valley Code Camp 2018

I’ve been invited to speak at Silicon Valley Code Camp again – this time in the business management track. I’m not sure if I’ll be on the big stage live-streamed again but I’m excited to give my “What is Strategy?” talk for the 4th or 5th time and to continue to incorporate the incredible feedback I’ve been getting.

I hope to run an improved version of the simulation I ran with the MBA class at Saint Mary’s earlier this summer but I’m not sure I’ll have enough time during the presentation (or even between now and then).

The dates for the weekend are Oct 13-14, 2018 at PayPal Town Hall in San Jose, Ca. I’ll post my specific speaking slot and location once I have that info.

Register here (giant red button).

Note: I wasn’t able to speak or attend last year so I haven’t seen the new space but I understand that there’s only room for about 800 people now (vs 3k previously). I don’t think they’ve sold out yet, but they definitely will.

1992 Debate with Ross Perot, Bill Clinton, and George H. W. Bush

Controlling Outcomes by Controlling Table Stakes

Nielsen estimates that 84 million people watched the first presidential debate of the 2016 election. That was 36.4% of eligible voters and 60.5% of actual voters. Given how many US voters watch the presidential debates, participating in the televised debates is considered a table stake for having a shot at being elected president.

The official sounding ”Commission on Presidential Debates” decides who gets to be on the debate stage. It’s formation and stated purpose is interesting:

After studying the election process in 1985, the bipartisan National Commission on Elections recommended “turning over the sponsorship of Presidential debates to the two major parties”. The CPD was established in 1987 by the chairmen of the Democratic and Republican Parties to “take control of the Presidential debates”. The commission was staffed by members from the two parties and chaired by the heads of the Democratic and Republican parties… (wikipedia)

The League of Women Voters had been the previous host of the debates.

In 1988, the League of Women Voters withdrew its sponsorship of the presidential debates after the George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns secretly agreed to a “memorandum of understanding” that would decide which candidates could participate in the debates, which individuals would be panelists (and therefore able to ask questions), and the height of the lecterns. The League… released a statement saying that it was withdrawing support for the debates because “the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter.” (wikipedia)

Ross Perot’s 1992 bid for president as an independent was disruptive. Perot took 19% of the vote and many believe that had he not run, Republican incumbent George H. W. Bush would have been re-elected instead of Democrat candidate Bill Clinton.

The CPD excluded Perot from the televised debates in 1996.

Changing the Table Stakes

Four years later, the commission changed the rules of the game entirely, requiring that candidates have at least 15% in 5 national polls in order to get on the debate stage. Which polls count are consider to be “national polls”? The CPD decides.

The creation of the Commission on Presidential Debates (a cartel) and the 15% rule clearly benefit the candidates of the two major parties in the United States at the expense of all third-party (or independent) candidates and the voting populace. This legal collusion has been extremely effective at controlling who has a serious shot at running for president and who ultimately becomes president.

So not only is being on the debate stage a table stake, but having 15% in “5 national polls” approved by the CPD is considered a table stake as well.

When structured in this way, table stakes can be a form of moat or barrier to entry. So whoever controls the table stakes can have tremendous control over the outcome. Check out Jeffrey Pfeffer’s Power: Why Some People Have It and Others Don’t for a few great examples of establishing and controlling tables stakes in corporate environments – even if you’re at the bottom of the power hierarchy.

Lessons From Build-A-Bear’s Brilliant Blunder

DIY toy taxidermy shop Build-A-Bear had decreed that Thursday, July 12, was Pay Your Age Day in shops across the U.S., Canada, and the U.K. The self-explanatory event lets bear lovers make a furry friend, stuff it with love, and pay a dollar amount that matched their current age—a payment model that vastly favored spoiled 1-year-old knee-biters over 50-year-olds who just needed something to love.

What could go wrong‽

The 21 year old company was likely planning on leveraging nostalgia from grandparents and parents while building loyalty with a new generation of toy-lovers. Now was an especially great time for this campaign as Toys”R”Us has shut down hundreds of stores worldwide and there’s marketshare on the table to capture – especially for a focused, experiential brand like Build-A-Bear.

It was a good plan and a great marketing idea, save for one tiny little problem—the fans loved it too much. In fact, they loved it so much that they started lining up before Build-A-Bear Workshops opened in the U.S. The long lines made the company nervous about crowds and maybe bear riots, so they sent out a statement on social media saying it would limit the number of people who could take advantage of the deal due to safety concerns.

Customers were pissed – especially those who lined up around the block. Plus no one wants to hear you make excuses, blaming “safety concerns” and “local authorities.”

Sadly, all Build-A-Bear had to do was test this genius, goodwill generating campaign at a single store and then in increasingly larger markets to work out the kinks. To make matters worse, Build-A-Bear didn’t jump on the bad press and make anything of it.

Takeaway: Launch slowly – even if you have a great idea – so that any mistakes in your plan or missed assumptions don’t spiral out of control.