Pinnacle CEO's 'Worst Comment Ever' Submission

A contender for 'Worst Comment of All Time' is today's quote from Pinnacle CEO Daniel Lee. In a Post-Dispatch story, Mr. Lee discusses the option to keep the President Casino, recently purchased by Pinnacle, open and operating right next door to the soon-to-be-opened Pinnacle Lumiere Place Casino. While many people see it as redundant and silly to have two casinos owned by the same company operating within a quarter-mile of each other, Mr. Lee sees it differently. He states, "it gives us a little bit of an edge that most people in the state don't have. You can lose $500 at Lumiere Place and walk two blocks away and start gambling again at the President."

Wow.

I'm so glad Mr. Lee is considering giving me the opportunity to come to his place of business and explaining how I can lose more money than by going to any other property in the state. Thanks for clearing that up, sir. If Pinnacle has a PR firm, they just got an "F" for media training.

The future of the Internet

At some point, we should sit down and think about the future of the Internet. What is the next evolution? How can it possible get better, not just faster? Speed will be a measuring stick for sure, but what about the experience and the functionality of the Web? Everything since the dawn of time has evolved and the Internet will be no different. A colleague told me she thought Second Life was the future of the Internet. Having people 'inside' the Web interacting and experiencing more than just a static two dimensional page was the future. In that future, we would no longer simply view a page, we would be inside it. Content meets experience meets interaction meets sharing.

I have to admit, it sounds great. But is that the future of the Internet? I don't think so. I can't picture my parents, barely able to navigate the most basic sites now, navigating their avatar around the 'new Web' in Second Life. The current Web is easy. Type and address, get the information. No moving parts. No flying. No trying to figure out how to walk around an island without getting stuck. The future Web in Second Life would confuse too many people.

However, that kind of thinking about the Internet of tomorrow is absolutely on the right track. I think it will be a blend of the current Internet and something like Second Life. Getting into the content, in some form, will make sense. Being able to experience the content, and engage other viewers while doing it, will be the future. The applications for learning and sharing are endless in an Internet like that. Making it easy enough for the masses will allow it to succeed.

Wanting to be here

Have you ever worked with someone that you knew didn't really want to be there? They showed up day in and day out, did their job more or less and went home. They'd occasionally make snide remarks and usually had a pretty bad attitude about the company in general. Their work was just good enough that you didn't want to see them go.

This kind of person can kill a company culture faster than you can blink. When things are good, they feel so-so. When things are bad, they go into overdrive with negativity. For management, it's sometimes hard to spot these people right away. Usually it takes that person's co-workers to come forward and either call them out, or help them change for the better. This is not dissimilar to the military. A drill instructor can identify the problem and as a result of the problem, the entire unit gets punished. It's then up to the unit to 'motivate' that person. It could work the same way in corporate America (minus the military forms of 'motivation' of course).

Final thought: When things are good, everyone takes credit. When things are bad, your best people work harder. You worst people complain.

Racing in circles

Word just came out that Barack Obama has raised more money in six months than any other candidate before him, pulling in approximately $58 million bucks. Not far behind, Hillary has accumulated something in the neighborhood of $53 million. It's predicted that both candidates will end up raising close to $100 million before it's over. That's a lot of money, but where does the bulk of it go? Advertising. What's the one thing advertising lacks? Credibility. Kind of ironic, isn't it?

Of course some money is spent on staff, travel, security, etc etc. But the bulk is spent on those lovely campaign TV spots that start out aspirational and end up combative and reactive to every other candidate's ads as election day gets closer.

I think we are starting to see a trend away from the traditional campaign -30 and -60 second TV spots, but they will still be heavily utilized, because let's face it, the majority of voting baby boomers and older still think social media is what happens in communist China.

You would think that running for the highest office in the land would be a call for communicating credibility and trust. Using the medium with the lowest level of credibility doesn't speak volumes for their common sense.

Thanks to Naomi Davis for the idea...