Why I said "No" to the Cornell Fund

[howiem]

I think the pay per listen concept is fine for people who did not go to the particular university, but it is obscene gouging when applied to people who attended the university.  For instance, if the University of Alabama or Oklahoma or Ohio State charged to listen to its broadcasts, it might make sense, because my perception is that there are thousands of fans who support those teams who DID NOT EVEN GO TO THE SCHOOL--they are just from the particular state, and maybe they moved out of state later or somehow can't pick up the broadcasts on the radio.  Someone who did not go to the school does not have a right to listen for free.  Yet even Ohio State airs its games on the net for free!!  (I don't know about U. of O. or U. of A.)  But with respect to Cornell, the ONLY people who listen on the net are alumni-- and particularly the ones who [were] most loyal.  Maybe I am naive, but as a Cornell '88, do I get ANYTHING other than a diploma, for having spent a huge amount of $$ on tuition and other expenses for four years at Cornell?  The "whiny 22 year olds" of whom Mark speaks just shelled out (or owe) over $100,000 to Cornell.   Is that meaningless?  Don't we get to be part of the "Cornell community??"  A "community" doesn't nickel and dime its members.  Maybe they should install pay-toilets at the Cornell Club in Manhattan-- might generate a few extra quarters.

[Greg Berge]

It's a very good letter, Mark.

> Maybe they should install pay-toilets at the Cornell Club in Manhattan-- might generate a few extra quarters.

Exactly.  Maybe I should have to pay a 2 cent royalty to Cornell everytime I list it on my resume.

The corporation "Cornell" that owns the university assets, protects and builds the endowment, makes sure everybody gets paid, etc is a necessary part of university operations.  But it isn't all that "Cornell" stands for.  A university is a community not just of interests but also of people, and strategies that make sense from a dollar perspective often grind people underfoot.  The people making decisions now "know the price of everything and the value of nothing."

[The Turkeybone]

If you want to donate to specific departments.. the pepband is currently broke.. :`(

[CUlater \'89]

Note for Jim Hyla:  In my years of posting on this message board and Kyle's board, I have always posted as CUlater '89, so if you're implying that my anonymity is related to this issue and therefor cause for suspicion, forget about it.

Also, I certainly agree that protesting by holding back money can be an appropriate action -- I believe I mentioned that I took that route also in the past.  But I think it is inappropriate to withhold money needed for the rest of the University for what is ultimately an Athletics issue (sure, Day Hall likely has the authority to overrule on this point, but that necessitates a lengthy process that will be largely political).   Athletics is set up as a separate entity for many reasons, and largely it is expected govern itself.  Even assuming that Day Hall had approval over the concept of going to a pay service,  there has to be a line drawn as to how much independent digging the rest of the Administration needs to do on every issue presented for its approval.  At some point, a CEO or parent company has to trust the people it hired to run the subsidiary.

However the process was undertaken by Athletics, there were no doubt numerous justifications presented to Andy Noel and whomever at Day Hall needed to sign off on this.  You may disagree with the result (as do I), but it's too late to change the process.  I think it is unrealistic to expect, relatively few games into the season, that Athletics or the Adminstration will throw up their hands and say "this idea didn't work; let's scrap it".  Instead, they should be working to fix the problems and make the system better for the subscribers.  The earliest that one should expect them to do a full assessment of the whole pay service idea is after a full year, and even that time period is realistically too short for a fair evaluation.

Some people here have stated or implied that Athletics told everyone that it had or would consider all options and then failed to do so.  Jim indicates he would like Athletics to promise to consider all options for this year and going forward.  "Considering all options" doesn't necessarily mean reaching the result you want, or sitting down with all people who might be able to provide the product.   I have no idea what criteria Athletics used in making this decision, but if I had to guess, I would guess that demonstrating a degree of professionalism is one of them.  I'm not sure of the relative timing of Age's run-ins and the decisionmaking process, but those incidents may have had an impact on Athletics' desire to steer clear of one-man shows, and thus rule them out as a whole.  The idea of hiring a real company to run this service, one that is in the business of webcasting and contracts with other schools, probably seemed to be a classy move.  Obviously, the quality of the service is not where it should be, and the subscribers and Athletics should be pushing to have that remedied ASAP, but don't use that as an indictment of the process.  Back when they were making the decision, someone at Athletics probably said, "It's really important that all of the webcasts are heard properly.  If there's a problem, who is going going to have the desire, and capability, to fix the problem -- the proverbial guy in a garage or a company whose business and future revenue stream is dependent on providing good service?"  Now it is up to us, and Athletics, to call on that expertise.

I do agree with Jim that the silence from Athletics is a mistake, one I hope they remedy soon.  But all you should expect from them is to say "we're sorry there are problems with the service. We are working with OCSN to prevent them from occurring in the future. Thank you for your feedback."

[mha]

Apologies if I seemed snippy, Graham. Just trying to get the info out.

[Al DeFlorio]

Corporate bureaucracy-speak at its finest, CUlater.  Never admit to a bad decision.

[mha]

CUlater '89 wrote:

But all you should expect from them is to say "we're sorry there are problems with the service. We are working with OCSN to prevent them from occurring in the future. Thank you for your feedback."

That would be a fantastic start. What's most appalling about this, as Ken suggests, is that we haven't even heard that much.

Sadly, despite our common interest in the Big Red, we're sniping amongst ourselves, focusing our energies on this Athletics idiocy instead of on cheering.

[CUlater \'89]

"Never" is an awfully long time, Al.  If someone was having a rough first semester freshman year, does that mean they made a bad choice as to which college to attend?  Does that mean they should get their transfer applications started?

[CUlater \'89]

Well, we are between games right now...

I guess I don't find this discussion any sillier than the thread about whether Lenny should be leaving the team for four games (which debate, for the record, I find quite silly).  Anyway, you're right, it is Thursday, time to focus on the big road games this weekend.

[Jim Hyla]

CUlater '89 said:
[Q]If someone was having a rough first semester freshman year, does that mean they made a bad choice as to which college to attend? Does that mean they should get their transfer applications started?[/Q]

No, it doesn't, but I would hope that he/she would talk to some of the people who were upset with the performance, namely the profs, and seek advice or help.

You see we are on the same page if we think about it. Maybe the AD should listen alittle, but he doesn't have to even admit he was wrong. Rather say, "You guys are having a problem with my decision and how it has worked out. How about we get together and see if we can come up with a solution."

Novel idea, isn't it?

[Robb]

Excellent use of "Reflection" and "Invite" dialogue strategies, Jim.  You could teach the dialogue class my company just paid me to sit in...

Seriously, though, it was a great class, and made me stop and realize that pretty much every thread on every message board I've ever read could be used as examples of "how not to achieve meaningful dialogue" (and therefore real results).  If more people (including myself) actually talked (and posted) like your hypothetical AD, who knows what we could accomplish?  Maybe, just maybe, we'd be watching hockeycam sometime this season....

[jtwcornell91]

CUlater '89 wrote:

However the process was undertaken by Athletics, there were no doubt numerous justifications presented to Andy Noel and whomever at Day Hall needed to sign off on this.

And they have to live with the consequences of that decision, for example that when they call to ask for money from the people they needlessly inconvenienced, we're likely to tell them no.

The idea of hiring a real company to run this service, one that is in the business of webcasting and contracts with other schools, probably seemed to be a classy move.  Obviously, the quality of the service is not where it should be, and the subscribers and Athletics should be pushing to have that remedied ASAP, but don't use that as an indictment of the process.  Back when they were making the decision, someone at Athletics probably said, "It's really important that all of the webcasts are heard properly.  If there's a problem, who is going going to have the desire, and capability, to fix the problem -- the proverbial guy in a garage or a company whose business and future revenue stream is dependent on providing good service?"  Now it is up to us, and Athletics, to call on that expertise.

But isn't this whole argument given the lie by the end result, which is that even if RealPass were working as planned, they have replaced a free webcast with synced video for home games with a pay service with no video?  Then they even implied that one of the improvements we might see thanks to their fantastic professional outlet is an occasional video broadcast.  So the pie in the sky is to get back with the pay service a fraction of what we had--and could have had--for free?

Not to mention that because their contract is with RealNetworks, it will have to be a RealVideo feed, even if Quicktime would have given considerably better picture quality?  Of course that last part is technical, and we can't expect them to know that themselves, but that just brings up another disadvantage to their wonderful business decision: their outside professional authority has a vested interest in ignoring the relative merits of formats other than RealVideo.

[marty]

Hey TBone,

How is the pep band normally funded?  I am sad to hear that you don't have any money.  Does that mean the band will travel less this season?

A fan who anxiously awaits the new CD! ::twitch::

[The Turkeybone]

Usually through the SAFC and in part from (usually band) alumni donations. This year, for whatever reason, they slashed our budget in half. That coupled with the CDs being delayed (damn you, Weed High records) has left us quite put out until those things are pressed and moving off the shelves. And the CD production and NCAA trip sucked up a lot of reserves.

I think we'll be travelling about the same (as far as the scheduling goes). And we'll just have to stay with other bands instead of hotels. No matter.

[marty]

Hey more power to you.  I will be first in line for the CD.  My son joined the Yale pep band for a fun activity and hasn't regretted a moment.  Keep smiling and keep having fun fun fun fun fun!!:-D