Measuring Up

“Bring back the better days of capitalism”

As I was working out this morning, I watched a taped version of Bill Maher’s interview the other night with documentary guru Michael Moore. The interview and brief glimpse of his new documentary, “Capitalism: A Love Story” seems really entertaining. No doubt, each of Moore’s films does a valiant job of shedding a few rays of light on particular parts of our “American way” that are broken and need some real fixing. But, my overall feeling about Moore is that he is an entertainer (much like Rush Limbaugh is at the other end of the political spectrum), versus a truly informed subject matter expert. I believe that the good people of America really need to understand this.

Please understand that I have nothing against Moore. I am not one of those conservatives who looks at him as the anti-Christ. Instead, I try to maintain an objective viewpoint to truly understand his story lines, facts and where he is generally coming from. The problem I have with taking Michael seriously is that his commentary is often distorted and sometimes it’s just plain wrong as Bill Maher really pointed out in this interview. Although his sensationalistic way of making consumers feel the issue at hand is both witty and unique. (That’s why his films do so well.) They also tend to misrepresent the absolute truth of the matter, versus correctly illuminating what the real issue should be.

Let’s take his current documentary. He came onto Maher’s show with great fanfare and to huge applause. (No surprise, Bill’s show is a sanctuary for those left thinkers.) After a few softball questions and answers, Bill asked a very good question. He said something like, “Michael in your film, you actually depict capitalism as evil. I don’t think it’s evil and disagree with you on that. Is that what you are saying?”

Moore’s response was, “I don’t mean that capitalism is evil. I just believe that we need to bring back the better days of capitalism when it was about the ‘American Dream’ and a much fairer system for all.”

Hmmmm…..

Let’s see. I’d like to ask Michael a few (rhetorical) questions based on that response. Michael, do you mean that capitalism was much more fair for all Americans 20 years ago when junk bonds blew up on Wall Street? I seemed to remember that tens of thousands of people lost their jobs then (many who weren’t involved with Wall Street) and thousands of other innocent victims lost their life savings.

Right. You must mean that the “better days” were actually much deeper into our American past. OK. How about when capitalism treated everyone so fairly during that little episode known as the Great Depression (lasting almost a decade)? If memory serves, millions of average and below average ‘Joes’ lost their livelihoods, homes and pretty much all they owned in every town and city across America.

No? You actually mean earlier than that, Michael? Ok, let’s go back further into the 19th century. Michael, have you ever read about the depression of 1890? During this period, capitalism ran amok, as well.  You see, too many people attempted to redeem silver notes for gold. A panic ensued because the statutory limit for the minimal amount of gold in the Federal Reserve was reached and US Notes could no longer be successfully redeemed for gold. Everything was heavily financed through bond issues, which of course had extremely high interest payments that couldn’t be paid anymore. (Can you spell excess?) From there, banks everywhere failed, giant railroads shuttered and over 15,000 companies went bankrupt, creating 25 percent unemployment in our “fair capitalistic” America.

I could go on and on by discussing the 1819 depression or the 1837-1843 depression, or even the 1869 depression. But, I won’t. 

My point is that socialists like Michael Moore tend to be more about ideals than what’s really pragmatic. More to the point, our capitalistic society has never been fair to all (and in fact, has periodically broken down since its inception.) It simply wasn’t built that way. Instead, it’s a system that needs strong checks and balances to ensure that it can work reasonably well for most. But unfortunately, greed and the need for excess have caused the system to break down about every 10-20 years. This typically happens when the checks and balances aren’t really working all that well anymore because most everyone is living too fat and happy.  That’s not good. But, it is the nature of this beast. The ‘American Way’ is something special that our form of capitalism does offer many Americans, though. Although the odds are long, there is a tall list of business people and entrepreneurs who came from no money and sometimes little education to become successful because of hard work, very smart decisions and a little fortune.

Michael Moore’s point of view really isn’t based on reality. That’s why I treat his films as entertainment. He wants to create a pure, socialistic society. But, that can never happen in America (at least in our lifetime.) If he really wants to live his dream, the man should just move to Sweden, where every day (for him) will be better than the one before it because capitalism just doesn’t exist.

Where social media is not socially accepted yet

I've spent most of this week in London. This trip has been extremely interesting because
I've had the pleasure of having long discussions with many government experts.

Their specialties range from working directly in high level government communications/advisory positions, to corporate public affairs folks, to very senior agency practitioners.

I learned quite a bit more about the inner workings of Her Majesty's government. And, although the viewpoints on a variety of topical challenges and opportunities varied some, one constant remained through all these meetings: social media is rarely being leveraged to communicate/persuade or educate key stakeholders in the public affairs world.

Don't get me wrong— it's clear that a few of the more progressive political candidates leverage the Internet to frame their message/brand and woo consumers. But, when I asked about whether campaigns (focused on motivating consumers to act) now target the most obvious virtual places they communicate and socialize in (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, target blogs, etc.), the answer was generally— no.

I'm naturally inquisitive. So, I asked why? And, the responses weren't too surprising. In most cases I heard, "Most within our industry have yet to really understand how to harness and, more importantly, not be afraid of this new medium."

Those in the world of public affairs (whether in US or UK) tend to be much more about strategy and leveraging political connections than creativity (at least that's been my general experience.) But, on this side of the ocean there are countless examples of any number of dynamic association and/or corporate campaigns that have rallied consumer sentiment online to achieve lofty goals. I know of cases where a groundswell of online support came from consumers to push their Congressmen to vote down taxes, vote a certain way on a bill and even impact the new and progressive ways that legislators now communicate back to their constituents.

It's clear that this industry based in "the States" is much more savvy about leveraging the Internet and is probably a good two years ahead of their British counterparts. Success tends to breed more openness, familiarity and desire to take risk in previously unknown channels. What those who are still clearly afraid need to know is that it's impossible to control just about anything anymore. Once a good or bad story gets out, the buzz simply lets loose on the Internet. But, like anything else, if a client's story is positive, or the truth, and is communicated in the right, transparent (and maybe creative) way, this new medium called social media should become one of the most powerful and often used tools in a PA agency's tool belt.

On the reverse end, those who don't learn to adopt, accept and become ‘social’ will go the way of the British monarchs (who actually had power) very soon.

The Achilles Heel of Public Relations

Our industry group, the Public Relations Society of America, has formed a committee of high level thinkers

to solve one nagging pain point that continues to hurt our industry: develop a true industry-wide measurement standard. (PRSA Seeks To Establish Industry Wide Measurement Standards)

This is no easy task. In fact, many professionals in our industry have tackled this very challenge before with little to no consensus resulting from their efforts. More to the point, it’s safe to say that no two firms today conduct measurement that leverages the same verifiable and consistent standard.

I applaud the PRSA and especially this committee for its efforts. From what I see, their key strategy is right on target. Everything they will develop revolves around shifting the conversation away from the volume of media clips, social media activity and advertising equivalency value to outcomes that measure and show how PR drives business performance. I also love the fact that they are offering up specific economic models to do this (i.e. regression analysis and also isolating the effects of PR campaigns by isolating statistics, are two examples). No doubt, this will teach many PR practitioners that a true quantitative ROI on their campaigns can be measured and understood. This isn’t rocket science, after all.

Yes. I have a good feeling that this group (comprised of some very talented measurement professionals like Katie Paine) will provide us with a standard that the industry can be proud of.

What still concerns me (though) is that our industry is ill prepared for real metrics because of two realities that have nothing to do with creating a respectable industry standard:

1) Almost always (in my experience,) prospects talk big about wanting the agency they hire to measure a soon to be created/implemented campaign. But, once that business is actually won, it’s rare that a true metrics program is ever crafted at the onset of the relationship. Measurement isn’t that hard. But, it takes a number of meetings and some work to tailor a system/formula/process that should fit each individual client. Both client and agency have responsibility to make sure that this happens. In my experience, it’s typically the client who is so rushed (or excited) to begin the program, that measurement often just gets pushed aside.

2) Measuring true business outcomes can never actually happen unless the right mechanisms are in put in place to track and collect data and then conduct the precise type of analysis that is needed, (i.e. what sales leads data actually resulted from this campaign?). It’s not that difficult to arrange for this to transpire. But, if nothing materializes, then the end metrics result can only be the analysis of outputs (such as PR clips, and social media activity.) I simply don’t see too many companies spending time to create these valuable mechanisms. And, that’s a shame.

Kudos to this committee. But in my estimation, we’ve still got a lot of education that needs to take place.

Driving Incremental Growth through Brand Partnerships: Zipcar

Today's guest post is by Laura Mills, Account Executive, Peppercom’s Brand² Squared Licensing Division.

In the beginning, we are all taught to share our toys.  Then my generation grew up and learned to share musicfiles, which evolved into shared movies via Netflix.  Now car sharing is turning mainstream.  This week’s Fortune magazine cover story profiles Zipcar, the world’s largest car sharing club.  Focused in urban areas such as New York, Boston and San Francisco, custome

rs are signing up by the hundreds of thousands, and the company is growing at a rate of 30% a year. 

With this swift expansion, Zipcar’s rise is on par with Napster, whose name recognition spread quickly in the late ‘90s among the first generation of plugged in students.  While the two brands have their similarities (community sharing platform) and their differences (Zipcar’s service has been legal since day one,) the common denominator is that both are more than just a service.  They are a lifestyle phenomenon establishing a cult-like following among a consumer target with little (if any) brand loyalty to any car rental brand.  With Zipcar, there is a familiarity to the brand and customers feel like they’re borrowing a car from a friend, rather than leasing it from a ticket counter.  Fueled by a “zipster” culture (which includes fellow brand enthusiasts waving to each other on city streets,) the communities of customers appreciate the lack of hassle and paperwork associated with traditional car rental services. 

Too often we overlook these kinds of opportunities in licensing because our industry is too focused on the ‘rental’ of brands to non-branded categories.  Today, there are very few non-branded categories remaining, and the licensing industry needs to evolve with the concept of brand sharing in the same way that Zipcar has evolved the car rental industry with its concept of sharing.  Traditional licensing would involve Zipcar extending into key chains and floor mats.  How boring is that?  Instead, to expand its profile, Zipcar should ‘share’ its equity with other brands that have complementary strengths.  The low-hanging fruit here is the travel and hospitality industry, from airlines to hotels.  If I were advising Zipcar’s CEO, Scott Griffith, I would highlight the fact that his growing, loyal consumer base– along with the easy, friendly, headache-free qualities of his service– would create brand partnerships considered mutually beneficial by airlines or hotel chains.  These companies– from Continental and Delta (which can offer “zipflights”) to Starwood or Marriott (“ziprooms”) can share their longevity and marketing budget muscle with Zipcar, while Zipcar can help provide a new burst of relevance for mundane brands.

The opportunities for Zipcar are equally strong if the company were to leverage third party brands as part of its core car sharing service.  Observing marketplace trends– and successes we have had with our own clients– some of the most successful brand partnerships targeting my generation are cause-related brands.  These brands could deliver a broader consumer base to Zipcar, while allowing users to ‘share’ with those in need.  In execution, customers would choose specially painted vehicles with a portion of their rate going back to such chosen cause.  For example:
•    Pink for the Susan G. Komen Foundation
•    Yellow for Lance Armstrong’s Live Strong Campaign
•    Red for the (Red) Project to fight AIDS in Africa
•    Green for the Sierra Club
The most successful licensing concepts in the future will take a big step back from the traditional definition of a license agreement– and perhaps stem from new, unconventional brands helping longer-established partners create a fresh dose of relevance.  Zipcar certainly fills the bill for the former, and there are endless opportunities for partners with strong ‘share potential.  As marketing professionals, our charge is to think creatively to conceptualize and execute these opportunities. 

Rolls-Royce Unveils Its Economy Car

Oh no (I thought) as I read this story headline in today's Wall Street Journal.

The first thing that crossed my mind was the Mercedes blunder. Remember when this timeless luxury brand defined success and wealth? Then its management made a really awful decision by creating the C-Class, a Honda Accord-like car for the masses that most any middle income person can afford. The net result: Mercedes diluted its powerful brand equity and lost that status symbol that defined it, very quickly. And, the company has never been able to get it back.

Then I read the article referenced above and realized that Rolls-Royce made a completely different mistake.

You see, the starting price of a Rolls Royce is a whopping $380,000. Yes, these cars are only bought by the richest of the rich as the ultimate status symbol. Because of the last year, there are fewer of these ultra-high net worth consumers around and that means a whole lot fewer sales for this company which is now owned by BMW.

So, the Ghost, its newest ‘economy’ model was just rolled out. Before you get too excited (and believe it might be affordable for you,) let me deliver the sticker price: a mere $ 245,000.

Even though this car is sleeker, still has so many hand crafted interior details and is a more progressive looking car, Rolls Royce executives are very concerned about diluting their cherished brand.

Although in many ways, they are still targeting the same customer. The classic car company is also looking to steal some market share away from a different type of uber wealthy consumer audience who have been enjoying showing off their newest Bentleys (The Continental lines) for a number of years. You may have seen these cars on the HBO show Entourage. They are hip, cool and have been reinvented, representing a completely remade ‘cutting edge’ brand in the $200,000 range. That ain't cheap. Yet they've sold like hotcakes with sales rising over 10-fold since 2007.

Guess what? The Ghost is a big hit. Orders are rising quickly. To me, it feels like Rolls Royce should stop worrying about diluting its brand. After all, the company is now simply making its cars more affordable for (mostly) the same customer it always targeted.

Instead, someone over there should “take a bullet” for missing this enormous opportunity over the last 10 years that Bentley has so deftly capitalized on.

Companies live and die by trying to balance the need to maintain a brand promise and (many times) the necessity to sell new products which could jeopardize the brand promise or drive (sorry for the pun) enormous new successful business lines into the future.

In my opinion, Rolls-Royce's conservative or complacent decision (not sure which one it is) to not come to market faster, has cost hundreds of millions of dollars. It could have exploited an entirely different level of wealth and still maintained the global brand we all know and respect. But, it was risk adverse to do so until pressure mounted as the economy plunged into an abyss.

That's life in the world of business. Rolls-Royce's mistake became Bentley's innovation.

His Airness still has timeless appeal

This weekend, Michael Jordan entered the basketball Hall of Fame. Many feel that he is the best player to ever lace up a pair of basketball sneakers. With six championships, 10 NBA scoring titles, five league MVPs and two Olympic gold medals on his mantel, it’s hard to argue that he doesn’t deserve this honor. But, that’s something for fans to subjectively debate in years to come.

What can’t be argued though is how amazingly long His Airness’ marketing endorsement star has continued to brightly shine. Especially considering the fact that the man has been retired from the game he helped to make so popular for more than six years. That’s almost an eternity when it comes to the marketing staying power of this magnitude for celebrity endorsements.

For those old enough to remember, think back to March, 1985, when a sneaker company named Nike made the single smartest investment in its history by creating the Air Jordan basketball shoe. Remember those creatively artistic Spike Lee commercials? (“It’s got to be the shoe.”) Jordan’s universal appeal generated billions of $$$ in sales and fawned an entirely new industry of brands and products with his name and likeness on them, including sponsors such as Gatorade, Ball Park Franks, Ray-O-Vac, Wheaties, McDonald's, Upper Deck cards, as well as entire Nike Air Jordan apparel lines. Nike continued to ride the Jordan bandwagon for 12 more years when it finally launched the actual Jordan Brand to huge fanfare and success.

It’s easy to understand why he was so successful back then. Everyone wanted to “Be like Mike,” (as the 1990s Gatorade commercials so aptly showcased.)

Think about it. He was the first commercial superstar in a rising sport who represented everything our culture pushes us to be: Good looking, a supreme athlete, cool as ice, competitive beyond belief, charismatic and articulate, smart and funny, and most importantly- a winner (winning more games for more than a decade than anyone else.)

Today, Jordan is a mere memory for most. It’s sad to think that his greatness was entirely missed by today’s new generation of basketball and sports loving kids and teenagers. But, that makes no difference. He remains a marketing icon who still regularly appears on TV ads for such sponsors as Hanes underwear and Gatorade. And, Nike, PepsiCo and Upper Deck have all introduced products in recent months to commemorate Jordan’s NBA career in time for last weekend’s Hall of Fame ceremony. In fact, according to Nike, the Jordan Brand is now a $1 billion brand and still growing successfully.

Many of the most charismatic and successful retired sports celebrities continued to make money through endorsements, licensing and sponsorships long after their playing careers were over. There’s nothing novel about this fact. What’s extraordinary in the case of Michael Jordan is just how strong his magnetism still is, even as he settles well into middle age. Clearly, that famous Jordan smile certainly isn’t lost on companies looking to woo consumers.

Some may argue that players like Bill Russell, Magic Johnson, Wilt Chamberlain or even Kobe Bryant should be considered greater than Jordan. (I happen to disagree.) But, it’s hard to believe that any other basketball player will ever have the timeless marketing appeal of this living legend.

This isn’t your grandfather’s Holiday Inn

I’ve kind of noticed how Holiday Inn is now making a concerted effort to reshape its brand image. You may have seen it too. The 50+ year old global hotel chain has refreshed a very tired brand logo (hadn’t been touched in 50 years,) has a new advertising campaign and is supposedly going through a complete makeover to recast itself from being a lower end, shabby, inexpensive lodging to one that will be considered friendlier, higher scale and a much more vibrant hotel choice for the next decade.

Analogies typically work well in these cases. I think Holiday Inn’s management is doing its best to crawl out of the basement of lower end hotels (I.e., Days Inn, Comfort Inn, etc.) by attempting to nicely situate itself in the company of the mid to higher end Marriotts.

Frankly, I wasn’t buying it. Over the last 35 years, I’ve watched this chain fall from grace. To me, it takes a hell of a lot more than new marketing and service guarantees to make good on an entirely new brand promise.

Then, I actually stayed at a Holiday Inn in Boca Raton, Florida (sorry to show that I am a snob, but I never do this.) I was more than pleasantly surprised with the experience and have to say that I’m on my way to becoming a converted man.

For starters, let’s talk about how I was greeted in the lobby. The man behind the desk actually came out to grab my bag and meet me with a handshake and a very warm smile. The lobby (by the way) had clearly been remodeled. No more old 70ish décor. Now, it felt vibrant with bright colors, new furniture and the overall décor screamed, we are different! Next, to my room. I walked in expecting the typical double beds, old warn out comforters, small, ugly bathrooms, etc. That just wasn’t the case. Instead, I actually did feel like I was in a higher end Wyndham or Marriott. The room was larger, had signature new bedding, a stylish bathroom with real granite, central air (believe it or not, that’s a perk typically in these hotels), nice furniture and even a mini bar (which really shocked the socks off of me.) I was very impressed and would have been just fine at that stage, but they gave me even more. A fairly high end fitness center was located on the floor below (previously unheard of) and the restaurant food was very good (seafood of course.)

I left this hotel feeling pretty damn good. But, as I started to write about it in this post, I realized that this one Holiday Inn could be an anomaly. Before putting pen to paper, I thought it would be a smart idea to find out if others have had similar experiences (or not). Quite simply, is the new brand promise really living up to expectations? According to the minimal qualitative research (uh…those would be phone call conversations with friends), the answer is yes. Two friends have stayed at the Holiday Inn in Lake George, NY. They loved it. Said it felt like a resort (you just don’t hear that about Holiday Inn). Two other friends had very good experiences at the Holiday Inn in SoHo, NYC and in Philadelphia.  

There you have it. While my research is far from being scientific or verifiable, one thing is clear. Holiday Inn is changing for the better. This just isn’t your grandfather’s Holiday Inn any more.

 

 

When A Brand Stretches Partnership Potential Too Far

Guest post from Michael Dresner, CEO of Peppercom’s Brand² Squared Licensing Division

Lululemon, by so many accounts, is a brand success perhaps rivaled only by the iPod over the past decade. It entered a saturated category (fitness apparel) with an archaic cost-structure (traditional retail) charging super-premium prices (groove pants for $98) targeting consumers with declining discretionary income (North American female heads of household). Eight-years-old and the brand is generating $350 million annually with 113 store locations and a +6% growth rate while other specialty retailers fade into obsolescence. But, fate can turn rapidly. Lululemon has developed an odd brand partnership that may create demise faster than success.

The business model is so unique, and in retrospect, obvious. Instead of being an expensive health club attracting physically fit regulars while also hawking low-cost merchandise, Lululemon establishes “ambassadors,” aka Luluheads in each market - who promote a retailer that hawks high-priced, fashion forward fitness apparel while charging nothing for its classes. Buy the clothes, take a free yoga class, look great, come back for another class, befriend the Luluheads, buy more clothes. An average health club costs about $75.00 in monthly dues. Lululemon may not get $900 in annual sales from every customer – but in a lot of cases I bet it comes close.  Plus, the environment of the store makes consumers feel like they’re part of something bigger.  Part of a lifestyle of the moment, a statement that is at once aspirational and attainable, a brand relationship that for consumers nationwide justifies a substantive premium vis a vis similar goods sold elsewhere. This dynamic is nothing new – Ralph Lauren, Nike, Apple, and Starbucks have spent decades creating brand auras that transformed products they did not invent.

The passion of Lululemon’s founder, Chip Wilson, unquestionably guides success. A staunch advocate of self-improvement, he sees yoga as one of the many tools available to develop more enriching lives. He encourages his staff to espouse the same values. Can’t argue with that – the infusion of his passion into employees is among the most scalable assets he has. Here’s where it goes too far: Lululemon staff are given complimentary workshops to Landmark, and are “encouraged” to attend.

If you don’t know Landmark, it used to be called The Forum. And if you don’t know The Forum, it used to be called EST. Yep – that EST. The EST founded by “Dr.” Werner Erhard (born John Rosenberg, incidentally, with a former career as an encyclopedia salesman). Erhard offered coursework in human potential. Seminars would last 15-20 hours a day with “agreements” not to eat or visit the bathroom during sessions. To truly evolve, students were encouraged to return, spend more on dues, and bring recruits. Yes, hundreds of thousands of people went through the coursework, yet opponents consistently accused EST of brainwashing and fascism. (Erhard left the U.S. in 1991 following charges of tax evasion and sexual abuse. In absentia, he was ordered by a U.S. court to pay $500,000 in damages for mental injuries). If you ask people about Landmark, too many say “it’s a cult.”  Whether or not that’s true is debatable. The point is – why would one brand (Lululemon) with such skyrocketing potential create an alliance with another brand (Landmark) that has such controversial baggage it changes its name repeatedly to escape the past? 

Judging from people who have taken Landmark courses (I have declined repeated offers from “graduates” to join them for “free consults”), I’m sure the organization has evolved for the better.  And yes, this blog describes an internal program at Lululemon, focused on company employees.  But all too frequently as Lululemon is covered in the media, the alliance is raised. Chip Wilson discusses Landmark on YouTube. If you Google the phrase “Lululemon Landmark,” results covering the alliance go on for ten pages. I don’t know if licensing fees are exchanged between the two companies – but this is a brand partnership. The purpose of brand partnerships is to create an economic whole that’s greater than the sum of its parts, through a broader consumer base, additional media platforms, and cross-selling of products and services. I find it hard to believe that the publicly traded Lululemon will benefit economically from this alliance.

If I worked for the Lululemon brand, I would have called Clif Bar, creator of the Luna Bar. The combination seems perfect. Similar consumer, resolving similar need gaps, both convincing people to buy into enriching lifestyles (plus premium-priced goods and services). Like Lululemon, Luna Bar seems to have a cult-like following. But unlike Lululemon, Luna Bar is not cross-marketing with a cult.

What would Jesus do?

I always thought this was a cute phrase. Until last tonight.

The man sitting next to me on yesterday's flight had these words emblazoned on his t-shirt (I really didn't think much of it.) He seemed nice in an ordinary sort of way and we easily struck up a conversation.

He asked me what my profession is. So, I answered and asked the same. (He sells medical equipment.) He wanted to know if I had a wife and kids. I gave him the full download. After about 10 minutes of directionless small talk, I was ready to pull out a book, when he asked me if I am a religious man.

After I realized that he was serious, I knew that this discussion was going in the wrong direction. Still, I politely answered, no.

In hindsight, I should have just ignored the question or told him it was a personal issue. Because, this man then proceeded to explain to me how important it is to love God and believe in one's faith.  Although, my instincts were imploring me to end this conversation (no good ever comes from debating religion, especially with a zealot,) I decided to humor myself by turning the tables on him to become the interviewer.

I asked him what religion he prescribed to. The man in the Jesus shirt said he was a devout Baptist and he believed that Jesus is the most important thing in his life and brings complete bliss to him and his family. I explained that while I am Jewish and definitely believe in a higher being (God,) I don't need any sort of deep religious fulfillment to be happy. And, that's where the conversation fell off a cliff.

You see, this man just couldn't fathom how (as a Jew) I am not as religious as him (I guess because I'm from the "chosen" tribe.) He actually implored me to rethink my values because "God is real and He is the only glue that holds our society together.”

That was quite enough for me (it was time to go on the offensive.) I asked him a series of questions (in my opinion, none of which he answered well at all.) Are you saying that if I don't have deep religious faith I'm lacking values? Did you ever think about the reality that if I truly believed that my faith is the right one, then it means that all others are wrong (too bad for the tens of millions of Muslims and Christians who believe their path is different than mine, I guess?) What proof is there that your faith is real or that God exists? And, how do you know that God is a he?

Mr. Jesus Shirt (my new name for him) soon realized that he was falling mighty short on converting me. And although we did debate the Bible for a few minutes (naturally, its' 100 percent accurate to him,) he soon shifted his body to face the aisle and fell asleep about 15 minutes later. (I guess talking religion really tired him out.) There ended what could have clearly been a blossoming friendship.

On a serious note, I decided to write this post because the topic of religion has been on my mind lately. To me, religion is simply a belief. It's important to the masses because so many need to believe that there is a higher being watching over them (versus random chaos) and that life can always improve (thus praying for health, prosperity, etc.). It also does provide a moral compass to many and clearly bonds groups of people culturally (and that's the positive for me.) Quite simply, religion is a critical part of our world, and my feeling is that everyone should happily believe in whatever faith (or not) that they want.

What galls me though is just how foolish, naive and downright offensive Mr. Jesus Shirt and his followers can be. Let's start with foolish and offensive. He is happy. That's wonderful. No one is pushing him to change direction or do something else with his life to be happier. The man needs to realize that the same rule should apply to the countless unassuming travelers that he probably accosted just like me.

Naïve: Sorry, but the Bible was written hundreds of years after Jesus lived and died. Who knows what is real versus fiction. Even many scholars of the Old Testament question Abraham (whether he was one man or many,) Noah's ark, Sodom and Gomorrah and so many other morale stories. Should they be believed? Absolutely— by those who want to. But, there is absolutely no empirical data which shows that any of these stories are real. And, what about the question regarding whose religion is the right one? If he thinks that because I'm Jewish I should believe more in my faith, then he's also answering the question about whether Jesus was the son of God. Because Jews don't believe that.

I hope my Catholic friends aren't offended with the specific example I use here. This bizarre dude could have been peddling extreme Muslim fundamentalism, Judaism or any other religion. It all would have been the same to me. Religion is based on faith. It should bring people together. Not tear them apart as it has done in our society since the beginning of time.