Author: John Hyde

Join a Growing Company!

Bullet Consulting is looking to hire a graphic designer with experience in website design. This position will offer you creative freedom and potentially the opportunity to take a leadership role at an agency that is starting to take off. You can get in on the ground floor and, if it interests you, play a guiding role in the future direction of the agency.

We’re seeking a talented and motivated graphic designer who can work part time to start – up to 20 hours per week. The position would evolve into full time, if that’s your goal. You would be hired initially as a 1099 contractor to evaluate whether we’re a good fit for each other.

What we’re looking for:
– Strong, confident design aesthetic
– Range of design experience, including web and print
– Experience designing and/or updating WordPress websites
– Basic knowledge of website coding (html and css)
– Familiarity with primary design tools: InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.
– Ability to work remotely and independently
– Desire for creative freedom
– Ability to work directly with clients and manage client meetings
– Online portfolio that we can review
– Experience in food & wine is a bonus but not required

To apply, respond by email and include a resume, link to online portfolio, and links to social media profiles (LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, etc).

Derek Seo is a financial planner with Ameriprise Financial, with an office in Sacramento. As a financial planner, he knows he needs to be acutely sensitive to the concerns his customers share with him. They are, after all, entrusting their financial future to him. Indeed his customers place a great deal of faith in him. It’s not the kind of relationship most people enter into lightly.

At a recent networking meeting at his office, Derek told me that before people become clients of his, they generally want him to address three questions. They may not articulate these questions in so many words, but whether they agree to work with him depends on how well he answers them, directly or indirectly. In fact, it’s probably true that most prospective clients are not really aware that they’re thinking about the questions. But they are.

Here are the three questions every customer wants Derek to answer:

1. How do I know I can trust you?
2. How do I know you have the expertise to do the job?
3. How do I know you have my best interests at heart?

It turns out, of course, that these are the questions every customer asks of every business that provides a service. Every consultant (like me) should be as aware as Derek is that clients are thinking about these questions. And this is precisely why he had my full attention when he explained this idea to me.

How do I know I can trust you? The answer to this question often comes from referrals and testimonials. That’s how Derek gets most of his business, and a referral is an implicit affirmation that he’s trustworthy. Clients wouldn’t recommend him if they weren’t happy with the service he provided.

A website can help in this area too. If a prospective client comes to the Bullet Consulting website, they can see other businesses we’ve worked with, and that helps foster trust.

How do I know you have the expertise to do the job? The answer to this question is experience. A customer wants to know you’ve done the work they’re looking for. For example, a prospect might want to know whether Bullet Consulting has developed marketing strategies, built websites on WordPress, or worked in financial services. That information is available in a portfolio of projects on our website.

How do I know you have my best interests at heart? To me, this is the most interesting question of the three. Derek says he can answer the first two questions over the phone, but to answer this question he says he needs to look his customer in the eye. Or rather, the customer needs to look him in the eye. Empathy and honesty are conveyed better through gestures, tone, expression, and body language, than through words on a page.

For me, this is particularly insightful. What it tells me is that the first two questions get us in the door, but the how well we answer the third question determines whether Bullet Consulting earns the customer’s business.

I am trying to take this lesson to heart and have thought about it a lot since my conversation with Derek Seo. If you’re in the consulting business — or indeed, in any service business — you may find the lesson as valuable as I have.

On Friday, January 10, a group representing the pro-arena camp did something that defies imagination – and common decency.

The4000 held a press conference at a cemetery to make a political point. Even diehard supporters of the group reacted strongly and negatively. “Abort! Abort! Abort!” tweeted one supporter prior to the event, according to the Sacramento Bee. Reporter Ryan Lillis tweeted that a high percentage of Kings fans opposed the idea.

And KCRA’s Kevin Oliver reported that the press conference was called “disgraceful.”

But it doesn’t end there. Oliver’s investigation also revealed that the mayor himself may have been involved and responsible for this ill-conceived PR stunt. According to cemetery officials, the mayor’s office set up the conference and “misrepresented” their plans.

Oliver reports that “the cemetery said it received assurances from the mayor’s office that the event wouldn’t interfere with services or be controversial in nature.” Moreover, cemetery officials believed that the mayor would hold the press conference and were more than a little miffed when he didn’t show up. “Surprisingly, and without prior notice, the officiant at the conference was Josh Wood with a pro-arena organization,” read a statement from the officials; “We are extremely disappointed and concerned with the misrepresentation that was provided to us pursuant to the event.”

Pattern of Bad Behavior

It has been argued that, while in bad taste, this press conference by The4000 doesn’t change anything with respect to the arena issue. “Cemetery presser dumb but not a game changer,” tweeted R.E. Graswich.

Fair enough. Setting aside the point that “dumb” ignores the utter cynicism and disrespect this press conference demonstrated, Graswich is right on one level: the press conference was a sad side show.

Except for one thing: For The4000, along with its predecessor, DowntownArena.org, and partner-in-crime, Crown Downtown, this was only the latest in a series of highly questionable and barely legal activities. These include:

1. Secret videotaping. Over the course of several months, these two groups were involved in videotaping signature gatherers and publishing those videos without permission. This may not be strictly illegal, but it’s certainly unethical.

2. Robocalls. On at least two separate occasions, DowntownArena.org paid to have automated calls placed to Sacramento households, discouraging people from signing STOP’s petition. If these calls were legal (and they may not have been according to the California Public Utilities Commission), that’s only because DowntownArena.org used a vendor in Nevada to place the calls. Legal? Maybe. Ethical? Hardly.

3. False accusations. In September 2013, Joshua Wood of DowntownArena.org made a public statement alleging illegal conduct by Momentum Political Services, which was operating STOP’s signature-gathering effort. However, Wood never once offered specific evidence. Nor did the media ever challenge him to. Nevertheless, the controversy itself was enough to cost MPS its largest private client – even though she demonstrated that these allegations were simply false. Wood’s fabricated accusation damaged her business, and he was never held accountable. In some circles this is called slander.

4. Public shaming. When the Sacramento Bee, for reasons known only to them, dredged up Monica Harris’s past (she’s the owner of MPS), Crown Downtown seized on this opportunity to highlight her history of mental health issues and publicly shame her on Twitter. Ethical? Classy? Graceful?

5. Flagrantly misleading claims. While STOP was busy collecting signatures for its initiative, DowntownArena.org was occupied collecting signatures of 15,000 people who, according to DtA, wanted to withdraw their signatures. DtA touted this number, 15,000, everywhere, including the media. The only problem: Less than 10% of these people had signed STOP’s petition – and both DtA and the signers themselves knew it.

6. Illegal release of private information. Crown Downtown was also busy during the petition drive – photographing petitions that STOP and its signature gatherers collected. After the petitions were turned in to the city, Crown Downtown published the photos on its website and Twitter. These photos contained names, addresses, and signatures of people who had signed STOP’s petitions. Legal? I doubt it.

7. Graveside chat. The cemetery press conference held by Joshua Wood and The4000 is more evidence of extraordinarily unethical actions.

Graswich: Stay Classy, Sacramento

I’m happy to report that my debate opponent, R.E. Graswich, was not involved in any of these shenanigans and PR stunts. Despite our differences on this issue, I know him to be a good man, a family man, a father of two, a concerned citizen. I admire his passion for this town and his concern for its future. Whatever else I might say about Graswich, I don’t question his ethics.

Nevertheless, I can’t say the same thing about the people who run the group he’s aligned with. The4000 has pushed the boundaries of law and ethics in their attempt to defeat STOP’s petition drive. It appears they are willing to do almost anything to prevent people from voting on the city’s arena expenditure.

Why? The answer will be obvious to anyone who looks at the history of this issue.

Whenever the question of public funding for a new arena has been put before the voters, most recently in 2006, the citizens of Sacramento have overwhelmingly voted no. Given the opportunity to vote on a subsidy for the new Entertainment and Sports Center, there’s a strong chance they would vote it down.

The mayor knows that, and he’s doing everything he can to push this project through before the people can vote on it. And his organization, The4000, is hard at work to undermine the efforts of the subsidy opponents so that a vote never happens.

Ed. note: This blog post was originally published on the Sacramento Arena Debate website.

An initial draft of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Sacramento’s proposed Entertainment and Sports Center (ESC) was released to the public this past Monday, December 16. If you’ve never read an environmental impact report (I confess, I had not), you might be surprised to find that this one is an absolute page turner, a thriller, a classic of the genre.

Or not.

For most of us the EIR would be an antidote to insomnia. Authors of reports like this seem determined to eliminate anything that could possibly be construed as controversial or surprising.

So reading through it, you find your eyes glazing over as you gloss passages like the following:

The [EIR] analysis also addressed the potential for the closure of Sleep Train Arena to adversely affect businesses in North Natomas, and concluded that the evidence suggests that there is little connection between Sleep Train Arena attendance and the level of economic activity in Natomas, leading to a conclusion that the closure of Sleep Train Arena would be unlikely to materially affect Natomas businesses or result in any business closures.

Buried in it, however, is this innocuous little statement: “there is little connection between Sleep Train Arena attendance and the level of economic activity in Natomas.” It’s actually quite revealing, and perhaps more controversial than you might think.

That assertion has the ring of a CYA statement: “Look, no harm will befall the good people and businesses in Natomas when we blow up the arena there,” suggests the EIR, “so they’ll have no reason to complain when their major tenant moves to a different community a few miles down the road.” Arena demolished. No repercussive effect. No impact. On to the next topic.

Yet that statement in the EIR also belies the promises made over and over by the same people who funded this study – that sports arenas are economic engines creating all manner of economic activity in the neighboring communities where they’re built.

The sad truth is, the EIR may be absolutely right. The arena in Natomas may make no difference one way or the other to nearby businesses.

But isn’t this what economists have been saying for years?

Economic studies, magazine articles, and newspaper reports reveal again and again the fact that sports arenas themselves do not create positive economic benefit for the region in which they’re built – this, despite the fact that arena proponents and lawmakers invariable claim that they do. Why the difference? As Forbes reports, “lawmakers selling stadiums as an engine of economic activity and job creation are engaging in sales, rather than economics.”

Economists Robert Baade and Victor Matheson address this point in their 2011 study, Financing Professional Sports Facilities: “Researchers who have gone back and looked at economic data for localities that have hosted mega-events, attracted new franchises, or built new sports facilities have almost invariably found little or no economic benefits from spectator sports.” [Emphasis added.]

Okay, so perhaps the arena in Natomas didn’t generate economic benefit for the community. But the downtown arena is different!

Unlike Sleep Train, this new arena, say proponents, will generate an astounding $7 billion in new economic activity and “create transformative economic and civic benefits for our entire region.” If you do the math, you’ll see that the new arena will supposedly create $27 dollars of economic activity for each $1 that the city invests. That’s nothing short of miraculous.

Perhaps like me you feel these promises are somewhat exaggerated. But twenty-five years from now, will anyone remember the economic claims made by the proponents of the new arena? And if so, will we dismiss those predictions with a bored yawn?

After all, hindsight is 20/20.

Ed. note: This blog post was originally published on the Sacramento Arena Debate website.

Claims about the economic benefits and regional impact of the proposed downtown arena in Sacramento approach the absurd. $7 billion dollars of economic activity! is an oft-heard refrain. It’s repeated so often that I’m beginning to think arena proponents have actually begun to believe their own fabrication.

For example, the executive director of Region Builders, Inc., an industry association that is funded by special interests in the building industry, recently said that the arena will “create transformative economic and civic benefits for our entire region.”

Strong words. Can he back them up?

To answer that question, I consulted the leading economists on the subject, people who have studied and written about the true economic impact of sports arenas: Dennis Coates, Brad Humphreys, John Siegfried, Andrew Zimbalist, Judith Long, Robert Baade, Victor Matheson, and Raymond Keating.

What follows are statements these economists have made on the topic. Their words, not mine.

And lest you think I went searching for economists that back a particular point of view, these are the leading experts on the subject. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find a credible economist whose views differ substantially from what you read below.

So I leave it to you, dear reader, to interpret what these economists say and draw your own conclusions about the potential economic impact of this arena.

“Local political and community leaders and the owners of professional sports teams frequently claim that professional sports facilities and franchises are important engines of economic development in urban areas. These structures and teams allegedly contribute millions of dollars of net new spending annually and create hundreds of new jobs, and provide justification for hundreds of millions of dollars of public subsidies for the construction of many new professional sports facilities in the United States over the past decade. Despite these claims, economists have found no evidence of positive economic impact of professional sports teams and facilities on urban economies.” ¹

“Independent work on the economic impact of stadiums and arenas has uniformly found that there is no statistically significant positive correlation between sports facility construction and economic development… These results stand in distinct contrast to the promotional studies that are typically done by consulting firms under the hire of teams or local chambers of commerce supporting facility development.” ²

“Researchers who have gone back and looked at economic data for localities that have hosted mega-events, attracted new franchises, or built new sports facilities have almost invariably found little or no economic benefits from spectator sports… These studies and a multitude of others generally find that the actual economic impact of sports teams or events is a fraction of that claimed by the boosters, and in some cases actually show a reduction in economic activity due to sports.” ³

“The evidence reveals a great deal of consistency among economists doing research in this area. That evidence is that sports subsidies cannot be justified on the grounds of local economic development, income growth or job creation, those arguments most frequently used by subsidy advocates.” ⁴

“Subsidy advocates — team owners, and associated industry interests including the news media, construction labor unions, and local business interests — then turned to economic development theory to sustain public funding for sports facilities. They argued that the benefits flowing back to the public — namely new jobs, and new tax revenues — would be many times the up-front cost, so facilities would “pay for themselves.’ This argument found a receptive audience among local governments and growth machines armed with discretionary federal funds and an agenda to revitalize declining urban areas. Upon closer examination, however, academics found the economic forecasts to be absurdly optimistic, and argued that most sports facilities provided little or no new economic benefits to its host city, once substitution effects were accounted for.” ⁵

“Our conclusion, and that of nearly all academic economists studying this issue, is that professional sports generally have little, if any, positive effect on a city’s economy… Rooting for the team might provide satisfaction to many local baseball fans. That is hardly a reason for the city government to subsidize the team.” ⁶

“The economic facts…do not support the position that professional sports teams should receive taxpayer subsidies. The lone beneficiaries of sports subsidies are team owners and players. The existence of what economists call the ‘substitution effect’ (in terms of the stadium game, leisure dollars will be spent one way or another whether a stadium exists or not), the dubiousness of the Keynesian multiplier, the offsetting impact of a negative multiplier, the inefficiency of government, and the negatives of higher taxes all argue against government sports subsidies. Indeed, the results of studies on changes in the economy resulting from the presence of stadiums, arenas, and sports teams show no positive economic impact from professional sports – or a possible negative effect.” ⁷

Quoted Economists

Dennis Coates, Professor, Department of Economics, University of Maryland
Brad R. Humphreys, Chair in the Economics of Gaming, University of Alberta
John Siegfried, Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics, University of Vanderbilt
Andrew Zimbalist, Professor of Economics, Smith College
Robert A. Baade, Professor of Economics and Business, Lake Forest College
Victor A. Matheson, Department of Economics and Accounting, College of the Holy Cross
Judith G. Long, Associate Professor of Urban Planning, Harvard University
Raymond J. Keating, Chief Economist with the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council)

Footnotes

¹ “Professional Sports Facilities, Franchises, and Urban Economic Development, by Dennis Coates and Bradley R. Humphreys.

² The Economics of Sports Facilities and Their Communities, by John Siegfried and Andrew Zimbalist.

³ Financing Professional Sports Facilities, by Robert A. Baade and Victor A. Matheson.

⁴ Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Subsidies for Sports Franchises, Stadiums, and Mega-Events? by Dennis Coates and Brad R. Humphreys.

⁵ “Public Funding for Major League Sports Facilities Data Series (5): A History of Public Funding, 1890 to 2005,” by Judith Grant Long.

⁶ Caught Stealing: Debunking the Economic Case for D.C. Baseball by Dennis Coates and Brad R. Humphreys.

⁷ Sports Pork: The Costly Relationship between Major League Sports and Government by Raymond J. Keating.

Ed. note: This blog post was originally published on the Sacramento Arena Debate website.

The debate over Sacramento’s proposed downtown arena is usually framed as a dichotomy between “pro-arena” and “anti-arena.” (Sometimes it’s also framed as “pro-Kings” or “anti-Kings.”)

Even this public debate between R.E. Graswich and me is positioned that way. It’s a false dichotomy, of course. One can be pro-Kings, pro-arena – and anti-subsidy.

But what’s often lost in the debate is the idea of opportunity cost. If the city of Sacramento commits $258 million (or hundreds of millions more by some accounts), that’s money it can’t spend on other services to the public (like police and fire). Or other construction projects (like light rail). Or other industries (like housing in the downtown region). And many people believe that providing needed services or investing that money in other ways could be far more beneficial to downtown and the citizens of Sacramento than a basketball arena.

For example, William Burg took up the challenge of how to spend $250 million to make downtown a more vibrant area. His article in Sacramento Press outlined a three-step approach:

Step 1: Build the Downtown/Riverfront Streetcar: $130 Million.
Step 2: Add market-rate housing along the right-of-way: $70 Million.
Step 3: Complete the 800 K Project: $30 Million.

He cites examples such as the Pearl District in Portland, as well as Tampa, Florida where a streetcar project “spurred $600 million in additional public projects and $700 million in private investment.”

Today (November 21, 2013) on the Zócolo Public Square website, writer Joe Matthews suggests another approach: Opening a new Cal Poly Sacramento campus. “Don’t build a money-pit arena for the second-rate Kings,” he writes; instead, “make an investment that will transform (and maybe save) California’s capital city”:

A new basketball arena might bring a few more fans to downtown Sacramento (although fewer people attend Kings games each year than visit the average Apple retail store), but not much else. A Cal Poly campus in the very same place would bring new high-paying jobs (via faculty and administration) and educated people to the region.

Underscoring the ideas in these two articles is this: An arena may satisfy the entertainment appetite of many Kings fans, and it may bring some excitement to downtown Sacramento, but it also comes with a cost more than the money itself. The cost is the lost opportunity to invest in projects that would have greater long-term impact in the region.

Ed. note: This blog post was originally published on the Sacramento Arena Debate website.