“I hate to lose.”

The sports world lost an icon this morning when George Steinbrenner passed away.  A few months back, when talking about the sports situation in DC,  I reflected on Steinbrenner’s ownership style:

Having been a Yankee fan for 31 years and nine months tomorrow, I’ve been spoiled in many ways by George Steinbrenner.  The once-mercurial owner has taken on a gradually lessened role in the pure baseball decisions and has relinquished much of the control of the team to his sons, but has never wavered in the Yankees’ larger organizational goal of winning championships.  That means that at baseball’s trade deadline, if the Yankees need a player, they’re going to be buyers and not sellers.

For all the controversy that Steinbrenner caused, the one big idea he kept following was the idea of victory.

He was the fan’s owner.  He recognized that Yankee tickets were and are expensive (and that New York is a pricey town).  He recognized that Yankee fans lived, breathed, ate, and slept the Yankees.  So he did the same.  Sometimes that meant acting impetuously and making bad baseball decisions.  But there was never a season in the Steinbrenner Era where the goal was anything less than a World Championship; from 1973 until 2010, Steinbrenner insisted that he owed the fans nothing less.  And even when players, executives, coaches and managers drew Steinbrenner’s ire, the fans were consistently recognized as the reason for the franchise’s existence.

To see Steinbrenner’s impact, look at the fate of other great franchises since he took the helm of the Yankees in 1973.  The Boston Celtics have been eclipsed as the NBA’s signature franchise by the LA Lakers.  Green Bay was “Titletown” after the Packers dominated football in the 1960s; the Super Bowl era has seen the Cowboys, 49ers, and Patriots each take a turn as the top team.  The Yankees could have suffered the same fate thanks to the losing teams that closed out the 1960’s and a the championship drought from 1978-1996.  The late-1970s “Bronx Zoo” Yankees and the dominant 1996-2001 dynasty (you could argue that the 2003 team should be included) re-established the franchise’s mark – and extended what has become a 90-year winning streak with a couple of hiccups.

The Yankees do have more resources than any other baseball team – thanks in large part to their success over the past 15 years.  They are currently worth $1.6 billion; Steinbrenner and his partners bought the Yankees for $10 million in 1973.  In 2002, unsatisfied with what local cable networks were offering for the rights to televise games, Steinbrenner’s Yankees launched their own network.  At it’s launch, the YES Network was valued at $850 million – or, to put it another way, about what the Mets are worth now.

This is not solely the product of a rich market or luck.  This is the result of a man – and, by extension, an organization – that pursued excellence as best he knew how.  The money, the new stadium, the cable network, and all the resources came because of that pursuit.

A politician chasing votes may say certain things to get elected; a company may say certain things to sell an inferior product.  Successes earned in such ways are short lived.  George Steinbrenner pursued a mission and let everything else take care of itself.  In 1980 it may not have seemed like it, but today Yankee fans can appreciate how lucky they are to have had a team owner who thought with such single-minded resolve – an owner who thought like they did.

When privacy policies evaporate

Privacy policies be damned, say lawyers looking to make a bankruptcy court liquidate a defunct GLBT website’s membership list of gay and lesbian teenagers.  The users, who presumably signed up thinking their personal information would not be used outside of the site’s terms of service, may find that their identifiable information is treated like an asset and their anonymity is breached.

It makes sense from a bankruptcy lawyer’s perspective: the site is belly up, and that list has value.  Whether or not that value is transferable will be one of the important tech policy issues that needs to be hashed out over the coming years.  It also underscores a pretty important lesson about internet activity: maybe on the internet no one knows you’re a dog, but you have to assume they’ll find out eventually.

Simplicity is timeless

Bob Sheppard’s passing last weekend received some deserved attention in the sports world.  His greatness was not limited to the genetics that gave him a deep, resonant voice.

Sheppard was great because he announced players, their numbers, and their position without embellishment.  He never tried to excite the crowd, and never had to.  With the same, even tone Sheppard announced, “Now batting… number five… Joe DiMaggio… number five” in 1951 and “Now batting… number nineteen… Bubba Crosby… number nineteen” in 2006.  Sheppard was like a good journalist – he presented facts and allowed those facts to speak for themselves.  The Yankee Stadium crowd knew when the starts were coming to the plate, and Sheppard didn’t insult the crowd by embellishing names to prompt wild cheers.

The strategy of simplicity may seem boring.  For his choice of simplicity, Sheppard wound up with a plaque on the outfield wall of Yankee Stadium, memorializing his voice along with the players who were announced by it.

Predictable: Apple gets sued, Google creates contrast

On the day that Apple is in the news as a co-defendant of an anti-trust class action lawsuit, Google is in the news for making its mobile device application process more open.

Whether it’s impeccable planning or dumb luck, it’s good news for Google, which is under heavy fire for its business practices across the pond.  Google is the enemy of several prominent technology companies: it’s Google vs. Facebook for how to organize and monetize personal information for ads; it’s Google vs. Microsoft for the share of our desktop applications and web browsers; and of course is Apple vs. Google for the smartphone operating system market.

Without overtly saying so, Google is trying to distance themselves from both the iPhone/iPad app store and their worries in Europe with today’s announcement. The open app builder is a nod to the legal and regulatory hurdles that any large company faces, but it’s also an important business and positioning strategy.

Computer nerds of yesteryear may begin to recognize Google’s strategy for taking down Apple.  In the 1980s, Apple computers were an island – Apple software only worked on Apple hardware.  IBM, the other major personal computer manufacturer,  built a platform that could be cloned, resulting in “IBM-compatible” computers.  As computers found their way into the home, the consumer had two choices – one computer that could run software built for multiple platforms, and one which could only run Apple-specific programs.  It didn’t kill off Apple’s computer business, but it’s the reason that Windows PC’s (the descendant of the IBM-compatibles) have the market share they have today.

Today, Google’s Android OS is available on multiple smartphones from multiple carriers, just like Microsoft’s MS-DOS was available on multiple types of computers by 1989.  And Apple’s iPhone only runs apps designed specifically for Apple’s iPhone.  And by democratizing their app process, Google is trying to remind us all of just that.

Co-stanza!

To follow up on the trend of politicians seeking to avoid YouTube, some – like Florida State Rep Mike Weinstein – have gone the other direction with a video Mediaite’s Steven Jessop has (rightfully) called the “Cheesiest Campaign Video Ever”:

Cringe-worthy, isn’t it?  Jessop compares it to Bruce Springsteen’s Dancing in the Dark video.  It took me back to syndicated Saturday-morning kids shows on independent stations like WPIX in the early 1990s, where kids dressed like stunt doubles for Screech would bop around on stage in neon orange t-shirts and denim overalls.  And, it turns out, the company that produced the video makes educational programming for kids, so that’s probably what they were going for.

So it’s a bad campaign tactic, right?  Not so fast.  I thought so at first, too, but then I sat down to make fun of it, and the song stuck in my head.  Jessop pointed it out in his post, and by gum he’s right: the song is pretty catchy.  Like a commercial jingle, it’s annoying at first, then you hear it a few times and you’re humming it in the shower.

Weinstein is an incumbent, so though it may make him seem a little out of touch with younger voters it probably won’t hurt – though they’ll probably lose Kenny Loggins’ vote.

LeBron James owns the message

Politicians are clamming up, Politico says, because they’re worried about becoming the next YouTube sensation.  Candidates are refusing to talk to camera-wielding activist journalists.  With more communications channels than ever, politicians are opting not to use them:

“The irony is that in an political environment in which voters are demanding authenticity, candidates find themselves in a technological environment that exploits authenticity,” lamented Mark McKinnon, a longtime political strategist and top adviser to George W. Bush and John McCain. “So rather than show more of themselves as voters want, candidates are showing less of themselves for fear of revealing too much.”

This is probably better than speaking off the cuff and apologizing for gaffes, but it isn’t a winning strategy.   These would-be-elected-officials would do well to take their advice from a monarch: King LeBron James, the most popular man in sports, and the subject of a much-criticized special on ESPN in a couple hours.

When James’ decision on where to play next year is finally revealed tonight, a new chapter will start in his professional life – not only as the signature star of the NBA, but as a player expected to win a championship.  Joel Sherman of the New York Post likens James’ situation to that of Alex Rodriguez, who used to be the best player ever to not win a championship. He’ll have plenty of questions, and will be the closest thing the sports world has to a politician for a week.

That’s why the ESPN special is a fantastic idea.

James is announcing his signing in an hour long special, and according to ESPN radio this morning, the big news will come in the first 15 minutes.  That means there will be 45 minutes where James will discuss his decision in the controlled, traditional, and respectful environment of ESPN.  That discussion will fuel tomorrow’s bloggers and drive-time hosts, and will extend into weekend coverage.

And most of it will echo the things James wants out there.  He’s answering demand by engaging in media overload.  In doing so, the King will rule over the message.

Now, if only LeBron would take control of the Knicks in the same way…

John Kerry back on the campaign trail

Sen. John Kerry emailed his campaign supporters yesterday imploring them to get to the polls… and cast their vote for Kevin Youkilis in MLB’s All Star Game Final Vote.  The senior Senator from Massachusetts used the occasion to take a swipe at the Yankees:

Youk deserves to be in the All-Star Game — while the team has grinded [sic] it out in spite of injury after injury, he’s been a rock. But now he needs to win a fan vote to make it to Anaheim next week.

“The stakes are also just a little personal: in the fan voting, currently Nick Swisher of the Yankees is in first place. Swisher’s having a fine year, but Youk is better in just about every category, batting average, slugging, home runs, everything, and he plays Gold Glove defense to boot. Please don’t let anyone say that Swisher beat Youkilis because Sox fans have gone a little soft after ’04 and ’07. Let’s show we’re still the most ravenous fans in baseball.

Give Kerry points for acknowledging Swisher’s year so far.  That’s the closest thing to real bipartisanship we’ve heard from Washington this year.  However, he may be a little insensitive – that “ravenous” fan base has caused problems in the past.

The fan voting has drawn some attention to MLB’s strides in advanced media (they wisely don’t call it “new media”).  Swisher has been active on Twitter for a while, and his 1.2 million followers offer a ready-made network for an online vote.  The voting by text message feature is available only to Sprint customers, making cell phone coverage maps an issue – which looks like a drawback for Texas’s Michael Young and Minnesota’s Delmon Young.

However, anyone handicapping the race must acknowledge that the excitable Red Sox Nation Kerry references is a study in how offline enthusiasm can turn into online action.  The tech-savvy city of Boston has done well in online All-Star balloting since Nomar Garciaparra edged out Derek Jeter in the fan vote to start the 1999 game.

But of course, like so many of the other pressing issues that face our nation, John Kerry is wrong (if only because Swish’s endorsement deals are more wholesome than Youk’s).   You can answer by casting your vote for Swisher – and like some Boston elections of yore, you can vote as many times as you like.

Burying the lede: Whitman’s tech strategy

Catching up on some news from this weekend… From the San Jose Mercury News (via TechRepublican): “Whitman campaign counting on tech to fidht Democrats’ boots on the ground.”  The article mostly recounts Meg Whitman’s advantage in technology spending and notes that Jerry Brown’s strategy relies heavily on union organizers making “workplace visits.”  (No word on whether those visits involve lead pipes or any other aggressive GOTV strategies.)

The headline and lede make it sound like Whitman is simply spending money, but the details show a bit more refined strategy than that:

Whitman has also made use of increasingly sophisticated database technology to “micro-target” voters through an aggressive mail program. First made popular by GOP strategist Karl Rove in the 2004 presidential election, micro-targeting goes far beyond using bare-bones demographic information such as age and income. Voters get targeted mailers and phone calls based on the kind of cars they drive, food they eat and magazines they buy.

During the primary campaign, many Whitman volunteers eschewed traditional “boiler rooms” and joined online phone banks so they could dial for dollars in their pajamas — or ask voters for their support and record information on them while sitting on a beach with their BlackBerrys.

The technology expenditures appear to be put toward the purpose of making GOTV tactics – like phone calls and mailings – more efficient and easier for volunteers.  And, the article points out that the union goons are doing the same thing – identifying non-union “red county” voters who share their outlook on political issues and reaching out to them.

Tellingly, the missing link here is the Brown campaign, and the article quotes Brown himself calling Whitman’s $2.7 million in online spending wasteful.  The reality, though, is that any campaign tactic costs money.  The fabled 2008 Obama  campaign – still the most prominent example of online organizing – outspent the McCain campaign online, making wise early investments.  The technology didn’t create excitement, but it gave the campaign a way to harness it and translate it into votes.

The article likens Brown’s website to the 1974 Plymouth that Brown used to drive around to demonstrate his working class street cred.  The comparison is apt if Brown really thinks there is a dichotomy between online organizing and “boots on the ground.”  A car made in 1974 and a car made in 2010 both operate basically the same way, but the 2010 model has newer, more effective parts that allow it to perform more efficiently.

Maybe he could take some of that Matlock money and apply it to his site?

Whitman campaign counting on tech to fight Democrats’ boots on the ground