• Hi, I’m Brad Abare

  I'm a make-it-happen guy working with big idea people. I design teams and orchestrate strategy so that great ideas I believe in get done.
  
  I am Jamaica's husband, Foursquare's comm director, Personality's founder, and a catalyst for CFCC.
  
  
• Search for:

• Archives (by category)

  Select Category Abare News Big Ideal Brad Works God, Faith & Spirituality Hot Topic Inspiration Leadership Life’s Journey Media Politics Rant Reading Room Stuff I Like The City Wisdom

• Archives (by month)

  Select Month February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 October 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003

• Recent Comments

  • Joshua Cody on Self-Sacrifice Always Wins
  • abby on Unity to Begin, Not End
  • Bernie on What Business Are You In?
  • Brad Abare on Unity to Begin, Not End
  • abby on Unity to Begin, Not End

• Subscribe

  Add my RSS feed to your reader.

The last thing I’d expect to see from ad agency wonder boy Alex Bogusky, of Crispin Porter + Bogusky, is a dieting book. Bogusky and crew are responsible for some of the most notable ad campaigns for brands like Coca-Cola, IKEA, Microsoft and Burger King. Why would he write a book talking about why diets don’t work and that his 9-Inch “diet” is the only real path and plan for success?

Fortunately, The 9-Inch “Diet”: Exposing the Big Conspiracy in America is not your typical diet book. It’s 135 pages are easy-to-read with minimal text, lots of graphics and plenty of humor. It took me an hour to digest.

With colorful illustrations and plenty of sidebar fodder, Alex tells the story of America’s love affair with BIG, and how our plate size is directly responsible for our pant size. The idea and urgency for the book hit him when he bought a quaint 1940s lake house that had never been updated. “The whole place was original, including the kitchen.” After stocking up on all the basic things needed for a kitchen, they quickly learned that the plates would not fit in the cupboards. “What kind of idiot builds a cupboard that doesn’t hold a normal plate?”

Alex’s epiphany was that “there is no idiot.” “What had happened was that ‘normal’ must have changed in the 60 years since that cupboard was built.” Here’s an excerpt that captures a taste of what 9-Inch is about:

Now, before you start bashing McDonald’s you should know that it actually increased its portions reluctantly. The company’s founder, Ray Kroc, didn’t like the image of lowbrow, cheap food in huge portions. If people wanted more French fries, he would say, “They can buy two bags.” Ray made a lot of sense, and we can only wish today he had won that argument back then. But price competition had become so fierce that the only way to keep profits up was to offer bigger and bigger portions. Burger King, Wendy’s, and Taco Bell were all cutting their prices, selling more food, and making bigger profits while doing so. After all, it costs pennies to increase the size of a portion, but customers will pay at least a quarter more to buy it. Those quarters add up. By 1988, McDonald’s had introduced a 32-ounce “super-size” soda and “super-size” fries. To put that in perspective, a classic bottle of Coke is 6.5 ounces. So, we can now order one cup that contains five 1970 Coca-Cola portions. If you saw somebody with a burger and five bottles of Coke you might think it a bit odd, even today. But the big cup makes it “normal.”

This book is perfect for the coffee table. It’s loaded with eye candy and plenty of conversation-starters about how to get America eating off 9-inch plates. Come to think of it, it’s exactly the kind of book you’d expect from an ad agency wonder boy like Alex.

In addition to his two-year stint as a speechwriter for Vice President Al Gore, it was his 2002 book, Free Agent Nation: The Future of Working for Yourself, that really put Daniel H. Pink on the map.

I became a fan when I read Pink’s 2006 book, A Whole New Mind. I still reference it, and have used its content for many of my speaking engagements. Love it.

I’ll admit I was a little disappointed when I learned of Pink’s latest book, The Adventures of Johnny Bunko: The Last Career Guide You’ll Ever Need. I was expecting something with a little more depth, but nonetheless it will have to serve as a tide me over until his next book, rumored to be early 2010.

The Adventures of Johnny Bunko is a quick read. It’s done in the Japanese manga style, much like a comic book.

The six takeaways from Johnny Bunko are regurgitated reminders for everyone:

1. There is no plan.
2. Think strengths, not weaknesses.
3. It’s not about you.
4. Persistence trumps talent.
5. Make excellent mistakes.
6. Leave an imprint.

I’ve ordered a stack of these books for my staff. As the eighteenth-century moralist Samuel Johnson said, “People need to be reminded more often than they need to be instructed.” Here, here.

What do you do when your talent gets ahead of your character? I think for most of us, we assume the two go hand in hand. The better we become at something, the better we’ll be able to steward it. From athletes and actors to investors and evangelists, the world is full of people who are really good at what they do. They’ve got skills to pay bills. They’ve got drive that thrives. They’ve got enough focus to choke us.

But what do you do when your character has not caught up to your talent? When you can’t handle the success? When you can’t navigate the attention. When you can’t manage the money. When you can’t avoid the pitfalls? When you can’t prioritize the priorities?

The award-winning designer addicted to pornography.
The endowed professor with a temper.
The respected president whose family is falling apart.
The basketball star hooked on illegal drugs.
The rich executive who pays for sex.
The perfect PTA parents who have no self control.

It seems as though character and talent are really at war with each other.

Talent elevates us. Character grounds us.
Talent brings attention. Character comes when no one else is watching.
Talent is aspirational. Character is inspirational.
Talent requires practice. Character requires purpose.

Who are you going to let win?

I’ve been a TED fan for many years, a peripheral observer to the cult-like movement started back in 1984 “out of the observation by Richard Saul Wurman of a powerful convergence between Technology, Entertainment and Design.” In 2001, media entrepreneur Chris Anderson struck a deal with Wurman for the passing of the TED torch. The momentum has been gaining ever since.

Primarily an event-based movement—and not inexpensive to us common folk—TED has been making its mostly brilliant talks available in a variety of formats. This is where guys like me can benefit because I can experience the 18-minute talks (give or take) on my Apple TV, iPhone and online.

Go TED.

I’ve been a little giddy lately about the barrage of articles coming from mainstream press about living on less. I’ve excerpted several of my favorites below. The article titles alone are enough to weave a tapestry of titillating tales toward a generation in need of being tipped. Consider Scarcity Culture, Squeeze Play and Luxury Shame to name a few.

The De Beers ad to the right is one example of an advertiser’s attempt to ride this wave of conspicuous consumption and guilty pleasure. I’m not convinced it will work.

Jamaica and I have been on this life of less journey for a while now, and we’re convinced more than ever it’s a commitment, not a fad.

Excerpt from Newsweek’s Luxury Shame by Johnnie L. Roberts

Across America’s upper strata, rich folk like Hirtenstein are experiencing an unfamiliar emotion: luxury shame. The late Coco Chanel, doyenne of 20th century fashion, long ago said that luxury is “the opposite of vulgarity,” not of poverty. But in these recessionary times, it seems vulgar to flaunt one’s luxurious lifestyle. And so the wealthy are going blingless and eschewing the spending sprees of the recent Gilded Age, giving new meaning to the phrase “embarrassment of riches.” The trend is horrible news for the $175-billion global luxury market, which is already absorbing the blows of plummeting personal wealth. (Read full article)

Excerpt from Adweek’s Squeeze Play by Noreen O’Leary

American consumers have no recollection of life in the Great Depression. Not only are most simply too young to remember it, but for the last quarter century they’ve lived without extended economic hardship, becoming ever more acquisitive in a world of instant gratification and easy credit… This is not a normal recession. This is a tectonic, structural shift, a global realignment,” says Umair Haque, director of Havas Media Lab. “The post-war industrial era was the era of production. Now we’re seeing the birth of the real 21st-century economy and marketing has to adapt. We’ll see a world where consumption [will] slow — especially in developed countries where there will be a shift from consuming to saving — and production will slow.” (Read full article)

Excerpt from LA Times’s Scarcity Culture by Reed Johnson

We shopped. Then we dropped. Then we started making culture again — dancing on the rubble of our own excesses, stitching together art from the ragbag of our desires. Every generation or so, throughout modern American history, the culture of hardship has followed hard on the heels of the culture of consumption and prosperity. The financial shifts and shafts of the late 1800s spurred Mark Twain’s skeptical wit (“He is now fast rising from affluence to poverty”) and Thomas Nast’s savage caricatures. In the 1930s, the banks panicked, the Champagne bubbles burst and our ancestors went from black tie to bib overalls, dance crazes to down-home hootenannies, “Blue Skies” to “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?” and “decadent” modern art to the reassuring pictorial homilies of Grant Wood and Norman Rockwell. (Read full article)

Reed Johnson goes on to say that “In yearning for a ‘culture of restraint’ and a spirit of shared sacrifice, Americans really are yearning for national unity, i.e. community.” University of Texas professor Richard Pells points out that “the mass culture of the 1930s and ’40s (when 75% of all Americans went to the movies at least once a week) has been balkanized and splintered into a thousand niche markets. “We don’t have the sense of a shared common culture that we did in the ’30s or after World War II,” says Pells, author of Radical Visions & American Dreams: Culture and Social Thought in the Depression Years.

Here’s to Less.

Established in 1983, Martin Luther King Jr. Day is our newest U.S. holiday. It wasn’t until the year 2000 that every state recognized it (thanks Utah!) and besides George Washington, Dr. King is the only other American honored with a national holiday.

I love this day for many reasons, especially because it hasn’t been hijacked by consumption like so many other holidays. We don’t exchange gifts or over-eat. Stores don’t have sales. We don’t buy roses or watch fireworks. We don’t memorialize the past or wallow in national pride. Instead, we’re summoned to action. We honor the character of a man who believed “that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality.”

I’ve blogged a lot about Martin Luther King, Jr. I love reading his words and being inspired by the way he communicates. Jamaica and I took an entire road trip listening to his autobiography a few years back.

As Barack Obama comes into office tomorrow, it’s great to see how he has already been a part of championing the USA Service initiative. King would be proud!

This past week I’ve been reflecting on the trip to Haiti we took last year as a family. One year ago today was when we returned and, I must say, none of us have been the same since.

As I re-read my early reflections from the trip, my heart still goes out to the people we met and the experiences we shared. Since then, life for the family has been quite different. We talk differently. We prioritize differently. We think differently. From the way we do Christmas to our ongoing collective commitment of financial support, we may not be making a huge difference, but we’re trying to make a little dent.

The situation in Haiti is egregious.

A couple months ago I wrote about Wyclef Jean and his Yéle Haiti organization. (It was cool to see what happened in the comments on that post too.) Last week CBS’ 60 Minutes did a segment on Wyclef and Yéle that does a great job capturing the current situation in Haiti. The backstory of Wyclef Jean is also interesting, especially his relationship with his father and growing up in the church.

His nickname is Dr. Doom, but Nouriel Roubini is someone I’m adding to my list of people to pay attention to. He was making predictions about a U.S. economic collapse while the rest of us would hear nothing of it. He blogs regularly and is getting more and more press lately, including Newsweek and BusinessWeek. This makes sense because so much of what Nouriel has been warning us of is happening.

His latest forecast for 2009 is bleak, suggesting “that the U.S. economy is only half way through a recession that will be the longest and most severe in the post war period.”

I shared a meal recently with a friend of mine who has been working at the same company for the past 14 years. His entire adult life (he’s in his mid-30s), he’s grown up in—and grown the company to become—so much of what it is today. He’s doing well and continues to love his job.

For the past couple years, he’s been entertaining the idea about moving on or starting something new. Part way through our conversation, my friend leaned toward me and said that he’s come to realize that “leaving is just running from myself.”

Interesting.

I think about what I do and my thoughts every once in a while about what if there is something else I am supposed to be doing. It’s not wrong to switch careers or move on in life. I’m all for change.

However, I think my friend is on to something. If leaving what you’re doing could be an attempt to run away from yourself, maybe there are some other questions you should be asking.

• Looking for more money could be a cover for an inability to live within my means.
• Looking for more authority could be a cover for my insecurity with the authority in my life now.
• Looking for a new adventure could be a cover for my inability to risk with what I have now.

Again, I’m all for change and forward movement. But the next time I’m considering big change, I should first ask myself if there is anything I am running from.

Hopefully it’s not me.

In case you missed it, George F. Will’s Newsweek column from the December 1, 2008 issue is brilliant. As is typical with his articles, Will’s genius comes through his simplistic depth and linguistic smorgasbord. Will has a way with words. This article, “TARP and ADD” is no exception.

TARP stands for the Troubled Asset Relief Program and is more commonly referred to as the trillion dollar bailout. “The federal government’s blizzard of bail-outs is unconstitutional. At least that would be the correct judgment were the policy brought before the Supreme Court to be judged with reference to the doctrine of ‘nondelegation.’”

Will argues why “Congress has made bureaucrats into legislators; or perhaps it has made Hank Paulson into the fourth branch of government.”

Improper delegation is inherent in unlimited government, under which hyperkinetic legislators, for whom Attention-Deficit Disorder is an occupational hazard, are jacks of all trades and masters of none. Their expertise is inadequate to their pretensions of omnicompetence. Their desire to intrude government into every nook and cranny of life requires that their attentions be spread thin. So the “laws” they pass are often little more than endorsements of vague aspirations. If a law is a substantive rule that regulates private conduct or directs the operations of government, many laws are effectively written by the executive branch, exercising vast discretion in administration and rulemaking.

Will continues, referring to John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Civil Government” (1690), “which deeply influenced America’s Founders.”

“The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands: for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others.” And: “The power of the legislative … being only to make laws, and not to make legislators, the legislative can have no power to transfer their authority of making laws, and place it in other hands.”

Sure seems like we’re drifting.

Next Page →