Every empire eventually falls

Boy, what a mess Toyota is in. But history teaches us that being No. 1 often leads to disastrous results. Empires don't last forever.

In business, there are countless examples of how companies reach the top then fall from grace, often because of self-inflicted wounds. In certain cases, a top company can recover from turning out a bad product. Look at Microsoft. The Windows Vista operating system was a horrible product. It appears Windows 7 has fixed many of the glitches that Vista harbored, but how the heck did the faulty Vista ever make it to market? And don't people who bought Vista deserve a price break when purchasing Windows 7? Apparently not, according to Microsoft.

I worked for USA Today back in the glory days, when we worked ourselves into the No. 1 slot in terms of daily-newspaper circulation. But as soon as we got to be No. 1, things began to splinter. I first noticed it in the hiring. We weren't going after the best of the best anymore. As a result, the journalism got sloppy. Weak links began breaking. Some well-publicized scandals arose. Eventually, when the recession hit, the page-count went down. Then buyouts forced some of the best talent to leave. The company was further gutted by two rounds of layoffs. I was included in one of those rounds. The parent company, Gannett, got itself into deep debt by making some questionable decisions. When that happens, heads will roll and quality control will fall. Unfortunately, those heads are usually in the lower and middle ranks.

Now when I pick up USA Today, it doesn't resemble the product of 10 years ago. It's thinner. There are mistakes. It's also more expensive. It essentially has become the Toyota of newspapers. Not bad, but there are problems. And the reasons behind that can't all be attributed to the changing industry or the economic downturn. Like Toyota, it might be big enough to survive, but will it ever return to what it was in newsprint, online or some other form?

Read this article by Reuters if you want to learn more about the Toyota situation. It speaks of something called "big-company disease." I believe certain companies that make it to No. 1 begin doing things counter to what got them to the top. Maybe it's human nature to rest on one's laurels or to become corrupt with power. Look at the fall of the Roman Empire. History certainly raises enough red flags. Yet, businesses continue to falter soon after making it to the mountain top. Some fallen companies blame failure on the recession. But when you examine their businesses practices leading up to the recession, you begin to see a pattern of greed and self-destructive behaviors.

The big three automakers in Detroit were on top of the world, producing the best cars, feeding the local economy and wowing people at annual auto shows. Then they got complacent. Bonuses to executives were being handed out like candy. Leaner, more innovative companies came along, ones that placed a higher priority on reliability and fuel efficiency. Meanwhile, customer satisfaction with Detroit was hitting new lows. And to some degree, that continues today. If you go back and read my post from December about Chrysler/Jeep, well, that situation has still not been resolved despite receiving promises from the automaker. It's this type of thing that will steer me, and probably thousands of others, away from Chrysler for the rest of my life.

Then there are the AIGs and Enrons of the world. They take arrogance to a whole other level. Once on top, and nearing monopoly status, these companies not only bring themselves down, but they wreck entire economies, not to mention the financial lives of innocent people. The sense of entitlement at the the top in these types of companies should be, and in some cases is, criminal. Without strict oversight, these abuses will continue.

AOL was one of the most successful start-ups in Internet history. Many people got rich at AOL back in the day. It was a relatively small company that got the lion's share of the Internet-provider market. Then AOL decided to merge with Time-Warner, a media giant. From that day on, AOL started on a path of being a nominal player. They fell behind on broadband and other technologies. Once an innovator, they soon became stuck in a corporate muck. They went from being nimble to being trapped in bureaucracy. Now that they've recently freed themselves up from the corporate beast, it will be interesting to see if they can have a resurgence.

NASA, the premier space agency in the world, put men on the moon. But when pressured to push the envelope and produce more frequent space shuttle missions, the agency literally crashed and burned -- twice. The fault for the first space shuttle disaster was mechanically blamed on bad o-rings. But the real culprit for the disaster was the unreasonably ambitious pressure from above and the agency's desire to keep those who were trying to raise concerns from speaking out. The quest to silence those who were perceived to be obstructionists proved to be a fatal mistake that NASA has never truly recovered from.

If you've ever worked for a big company you might know what it's like to go against the grain. Just because you're in the right doesn't mean you'll be heard. In many places, in fact, you'll be punished for raising red flags. That's another strain of "big-company disease" and it too has a tangible cost.

If your company is No. 2 or 3, or maybe not even a major competitor yet, don't feel bad. It's likely that the work you're doing will be more appreciated. There probably will be more pride in your office and less bashing of those who refuse to stick their heads in the sand. Your company will probably be better situated to recover from this awful recession if it avoided the debt trap.

Avis car rentals had a slogan when they were No. 2. "We try harder," was catchy. I think I rather do business with folks trying harder and doing things correctly than companies who are living off their own fat or who act like they don't need my business.

Sorry, Toyota. You got too drunk on your successes and future ambitions. You cut corners to get to a place where there are no shortcuts. And then you didn't easily fess up to problems that cost lives. You aren't alone in acting badly, but you sure have a lot of work to do to restore your image.

Click here to read more about Toyota, Starbucks and other companies that go astray after reaching the top.

Online "news" intentionally misleading

I have touched on this before in this blog. And here is another example of what is wrong with the lack of real journalists working in online "news" environments.

A headline on AOL's home page today reads: "Is Tiger Woods Ready to Quit Golf?" The text below the headline says: "A report has surfaced that wife Elin has given him an ultimatum -- one that might not bode well for his career."

However, when you click on the story you find out that Woods quitting golf is just a rumor and a pretty far-fetched one at that, according to the writer. But in the online news world, the home-page headline and readout served its short-sighted purpose in that it got me to click to the full story, even if it did so by being blatantly misleading.

Unfortunately, AOL isn't the only site guilty of trickery disguised as real news. And just to be clear, I don't usually go to AOL, Yahoo or sites like that for news. However, I am beginning to see newspaper sites doing similar, unethical things in order to drive web traffic. And that's pretty disturbing to a lifelong editor such as myself. Ultimately, I think it will fail from a business standpoint.

My advice to these types of quasi-news web sites would be to hire professional journalists in order to increase credibility. People seeking legitimate news want to believe what they are reading. They don't want to read one thing on a home page and a completely different thing once they drill down into the site. Over the long haul, credibility is more important than tricking people to click headlines that are misleading. Solid, reliable and original content will build traffic, not juvenile gotcha headlines that refer to supermarket tabloid reports.

Update: Reports came out later in the day on numerous web sites stating that Tiger Woods is taking a temporary leave from golf. He's not quitting. I can't really understand why anyone would even speculate that he'd retire at a still relatively young age. Plenty of public figures, including athletes, entertainers and even politicians have been guilty of similar things that are alleged about Woods. Rarely does anyone ever quit over them unless they broke a law and are forced to. The money-making machine that is Tiger Woods will return to golf soon enough. Hopefully, the media won't glorify him quite as much when he gets back on the course. Athletes and others in powerful positions are often arrogant enough to think they can get away with anything and still maintain their public image. Yet few ever get through their various indiscretions without some exposure and scars ... just ask Bill Clinton, Wade Boggs, Gary Hart, Roger Clemens, Koby Bryant and a host of others.

Cheap thrills or getting stung?

A video clip accompanies the following caption on a web site called Asylum.com:

"We feel a bit guilty for laughing at this veteran reporter's unfortunate bee sting incident. Honestly though, is there anything quite as funny as seeing an old guy reel off a string of f-bombs?"

OK, so now a short clip of a TV reporter swatting a bee is news? It's funny, eh?

I stumbled upon this web site, caption and video because it was one of the "news" items being promoted on my AOL home page this morning as I sipped my coffee. Apparently, the video originates from another web site called LiveLeak.com, I think. It's often hard to tell where or how video clips are being obtained.

A few things rubbed me the wrong way with this:

1. Watching a guy get stung by a bee isn't compelling video, nor does it have any journalistic merit whatsoever. It's not even amusing in the least, in my opinion, and continues to contribute to the dumbing down of society that flocks to Olive Garden franchise restaurants while authentic, healthier mom-and-pop Italian eateries are driven out of business. At best, video clips like this provide a sense of mundane voyeurism, a cheap giggle, and put a few nickels in the pockets of those who are only concerned with making money and going viral.

2. There is so much crap on the Internet just as there is in music, dining and theater. Makes one wonder how something that is such a technological marvel and provides so much good, so much useful information, connectivity and entertainment, can also be used in trivial and mindless ways. When the most ordinary mishaps become highly visible and promoted on sites that consider themselves mainstream, general information providers, I have to question the judgment of the people running the show at AOL.

3. Asylum.com sells itself as a "weird news" provider for men (assuming they actually mean adolescent boys and college geeks), like the real news isn't weird enough these days. OK, at least it's not trying to compare itself with The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. However, what is so weird about a bee sting or how someone reacts to it? I and millions of others would probably react the same way. And why the snotty comment about the "old guy?" Who wrote the caption, a 15-year-old intern with authority issues?

4. This should not be on AOL's home page carousel of top news. It's not so much offensive as it is insulting to my intelligence, like many other trite items and the trickery used to get us to interact with some sites. I don't need to be directed by AOL to go check out this video for idiots. I would not otherwise seek out a site like that or spend 10 seconds watching this kind of clip. I know that AOL, like many online entities, is trying to get people to click on things for financial reasons, but c'mon, there has to be some sort of judgment applied to a mainstream site that is attempting to appeal to a larger general audience since it became a free service recently.

Is it now considered bad business to maintain reasonable standards on the Web? Is the NewYorkTimes.com going to begin promoting videos of "old guys" cutting themselves while shaving because that's what attracts traffic to the site?

AOL, like Google and Yahoo and many others, wants to be many things to many people. And that's part of the problem. One of those things is to be a news provider. When AOL or others promote stuff like this as news or as being worthy of our attention, they lose all credibility and I feel compelled to use another e-mail provider or search engine for my home page.

In the quest to make money and have a presence online, too many mainstream companies, like Time Warner, are losing sight of the fact that there is an audience that still prefers quality entertainment, smarter humor and satire (see theOnion.com) relevant news and information that sets the bar a little higher than bee-sting videos.

I think Google is a decent service and doesn't force stupidity down your throat. The silliness and raunchy material is there if you want to seek it out, but it doesn't greet you with your morning coffee. I am generally opposed to any kind of censorship, so I do believe the Internet should remain open to all forms of expression no matter how stupid I might think it is. I am simply asking those who make certain content decisions on the mainstream sites, particularly any that even hint of being a serious news provider, to be a bit more thoughtful in their choices.