Reported in today's Worcester Business Journal: The Worcester area's job market is expected to be "dull" in the second quarter, according to Wisconsin-based employment services firm Manpower Inc.
I have to ask: Does the word "dull" describe the dynamics of the job market or the quality of the employees?
Showing posts with label Worcester Business Journal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Worcester Business Journal. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Choose Worcester... Destination Worcester... "Discovering the Worcester Way"... And More Delusions of Grandeur
We now return to one of my most visited blog topics: Worcester bashing.
People not from heah really heap scorn on my adopted hometown (though for purposes of full disclosure I live in Auburn, NOT Worcester). The derisive remarks range from "the city is ugly" to "why did the city reject a Mass. Pike exit?" to "the city had its heyday more than 100 years ago." Yes, I've heard them all and often repeated them.
Sadly, to a great extent the derisiveness is earned and deserved. There are numerous examples of why bashing Worcester is so easy; today let's focus on three: Choose Worcester, Destination Worcester, and "Discover the Worcester Way."
1) Choose Worcester: A privately funded, public-private partnership formed to assist businesses to locate, grow and prosper in the city, Choose Worcester Inc. was amidst great fanfare established in late 2007 to market Worcester on a local, regional and international level.
With a budget of $1.2 million the staff of three embarked hopefully and optimistically on yet another economic development initiative in Worcester, whose recent history is marked by a series of marketing drives that went nowhere.
The verdict thus far? Let's hear from the venerable Worcester Telegram & Gazette. In a article on November 14, 2008 titled "Running in Place", the T&G reported: "Now in its second year of operation, Choose Worcester has shifted its focus, devoting its entire effort to courting new businesses... with developments such as improved commuter rail service between Worcester and Boston, Worcester is better placed than ever to persuade new companies to fill the vacant space."
Less than two years old and already a change in focus.
The reality is that CWI has placed its bet on the city's much-hyped (and unbuilt) CitySquare project, a $563 million initiative to revamp downtown Worcester. CitySquare is stalled four years after its conception, as project developer Berkeley Investments struggles to secure tenants. A daunting prospect in today's economy.
In fact, as we sink deeper into this recession, CWI's last news bulletin on November 19, 2008 was that the organization’s website has seen an average of over 7000 hits per month since September 1st. That's "a dramatic increase over the 2000 hits per month during the website’s first nine months in existence." That's it? That's all the news they have to report in three months?!
The silence from CWI rings loudly. Businesses aren't choosing Worcester.
CWI's grade thus far: D. (They're still operating and they have a website).
2) Destination Worcester: Started in June 2007, Destination Worcester is according to its website "a strategic investment in the hospitality industry, a focused endeavor to showcase and sell the destination to meeting & convention planners, and event & sports organizers. Acting as a single point of contact for the destination, Destination Worcester provides enhanced communications and a streamlined process for booking events in Worcester."
Worcester's FY09 budget (which allocates $500,000 to Destination Worcester) describes the organization as "first and foremost a sales organization whose goal is to increase definite room nights in the city by 22,500 by executing a targeted and proactive sales strategy."
What's the strategy? From the research I've conducted on DW, it's hire a Executive Director and two managers, produce a video using old footage (see the Daily Worcesteria blog for a great summary of this ill-conceived video), and get zero news coverage. As to the goal of increasing definite room nights in the city by 22,500? No results to be found.
DW's grade thus far: D+ (They're still operating, they have a robust website and a Facebook group.)
Before we get to the last of our three examples of why Worcester bashing is so damn easy, it shouldn't strike anyone as a coincidence that many of the same people serve on the Board of Directors of both CWI and DW.
Same old people = same old ideas = same old results.
3) "Discovering the Worcester Way": The Massachusetts Cultural Council's Adams Arts Program recently approved three Central Massachusetts organizations for funding in 2009, the largest of which was a $40,000 grant for the Worcester Cultural Coalition for a project called "Discovering the Worcester Way," a marketing campaign focused on the city's cultural opportunities.
It's true, there's a lot going in on Worcester culturally. The Worcester Cultural Coalition does a good job of promoting cultural opportunities on its website, and Executive Director Erin Williams is highly visible at Worcester events, be they cultural, political and/or business.
But as CWI and DW continue to fail to draw bodies to Worcester, the Worcester Cultural Coalition's strong promotional efforts will not be as successful as they deserve to be.
WCC's grade thus far: B- (Erin is a tireless advocate for a city whose aging veneer hides top-tier cultural offerings; the WCC's website is excellent; and they received a grant in a year when grants are scarce).
In summary, I've seen absolutely no indication of CWI, DW and the WCC working together, orchestrated by the Worcester Chamber of Commerce (which under Dick Kennedy should coordinate any and all outreach efforts).
The delusion of grandeur is that each organization will, on its own, hit upon some magical formula that will all of sudden convince hordes of people to choose Worcester or make Worcester a destination--rather than a city they simply miss (or drive by) as they derisively say, "what a pit."
People not from heah really heap scorn on my adopted hometown (though for purposes of full disclosure I live in Auburn, NOT Worcester). The derisive remarks range from "the city is ugly" to "why did the city reject a Mass. Pike exit?" to "the city had its heyday more than 100 years ago." Yes, I've heard them all and often repeated them.
Sadly, to a great extent the derisiveness is earned and deserved. There are numerous examples of why bashing Worcester is so easy; today let's focus on three: Choose Worcester, Destination Worcester, and "Discover the Worcester Way."
1) Choose Worcester: A privately funded, public-private partnership formed to assist businesses to locate, grow and prosper in the city, Choose Worcester Inc. was amidst great fanfare established in late 2007 to market Worcester on a local, regional and international level.
With a budget of $1.2 million the staff of three embarked hopefully and optimistically on yet another economic development initiative in Worcester, whose recent history is marked by a series of marketing drives that went nowhere.
The verdict thus far? Let's hear from the venerable Worcester Telegram & Gazette. In a article on November 14, 2008 titled "Running in Place", the T&G reported: "Now in its second year of operation, Choose Worcester has shifted its focus, devoting its entire effort to courting new businesses... with developments such as improved commuter rail service between Worcester and Boston, Worcester is better placed than ever to persuade new companies to fill the vacant space."
Less than two years old and already a change in focus.
The reality is that CWI has placed its bet on the city's much-hyped (and unbuilt) CitySquare project, a $563 million initiative to revamp downtown Worcester. CitySquare is stalled four years after its conception, as project developer Berkeley Investments struggles to secure tenants. A daunting prospect in today's economy.
In fact, as we sink deeper into this recession, CWI's last news bulletin on November 19, 2008 was that the organization’s website has seen an average of over 7000 hits per month since September 1st. That's "a dramatic increase over the 2000 hits per month during the website’s first nine months in existence." That's it? That's all the news they have to report in three months?!
The silence from CWI rings loudly. Businesses aren't choosing Worcester.
CWI's grade thus far: D. (They're still operating and they have a website).
2) Destination Worcester: Started in June 2007, Destination Worcester is according to its website "a strategic investment in the hospitality industry, a focused endeavor to showcase and sell the destination to meeting & convention planners, and event & sports organizers. Acting as a single point of contact for the destination, Destination Worcester provides enhanced communications and a streamlined process for booking events in Worcester."
Worcester's FY09 budget (which allocates $500,000 to Destination Worcester) describes the organization as "first and foremost a sales organization whose goal is to increase definite room nights in the city by 22,500 by executing a targeted and proactive sales strategy."
What's the strategy? From the research I've conducted on DW, it's hire a Executive Director and two managers, produce a video using old footage (see the Daily Worcesteria blog for a great summary of this ill-conceived video), and get zero news coverage. As to the goal of increasing definite room nights in the city by 22,500? No results to be found.
DW's grade thus far: D+ (They're still operating, they have a robust website and a Facebook group.)
Before we get to the last of our three examples of why Worcester bashing is so damn easy, it shouldn't strike anyone as a coincidence that many of the same people serve on the Board of Directors of both CWI and DW.
Same old people = same old ideas = same old results.
3) "Discovering the Worcester Way": The Massachusetts Cultural Council's Adams Arts Program recently approved three Central Massachusetts organizations for funding in 2009, the largest of which was a $40,000 grant for the Worcester Cultural Coalition for a project called "Discovering the Worcester Way," a marketing campaign focused on the city's cultural opportunities.
It's true, there's a lot going in on Worcester culturally. The Worcester Cultural Coalition does a good job of promoting cultural opportunities on its website, and Executive Director Erin Williams is highly visible at Worcester events, be they cultural, political and/or business.
But as CWI and DW continue to fail to draw bodies to Worcester, the Worcester Cultural Coalition's strong promotional efforts will not be as successful as they deserve to be.
WCC's grade thus far: B- (Erin is a tireless advocate for a city whose aging veneer hides top-tier cultural offerings; the WCC's website is excellent; and they received a grant in a year when grants are scarce).
In summary, I've seen absolutely no indication of CWI, DW and the WCC working together, orchestrated by the Worcester Chamber of Commerce (which under Dick Kennedy should coordinate any and all outreach efforts).
The delusion of grandeur is that each organization will, on its own, hit upon some magical formula that will all of sudden convince hordes of people to choose Worcester or make Worcester a destination--rather than a city they simply miss (or drive by) as they derisively say, "what a pit."
Thursday, February 21, 2008
You'd Think Worcester Would Make It More Affordable to Drink...
But, alas, no. In yet another sign that Worcester's elected representatives are utterly misguided and out of touch with those whom they purport to serve, we have this nugget from a recent edition of the Worcester Business Journal:
The Business of Booze: Worcester's Liquor License Fee Increases 38 Percent
Written by the clever and indefatigable Matt Brown (who manages to come up with pretty interesting stories in this desultory town), the article discusses how Worcester's license commission almost a year bumped up the annual liquor license cost from $2,000 to $2,750.
The increase is squeezing the purveyors of a substance that makes tolerable the fact that one is consigned to live in Worcester--that is, drink enough and you'll forget you're here.
The justification for the increase is laughable if you aren't familiar with the irrepressible attitude of Kevin O'Sullivan, chairman of the commission. I've met Kevin several times and he by God is a believer in Worcester. He's highly energetic, incredibly well connected, and believes strongly in Worcester's prominence as New England's second largest city.
His reasoning is that as New England's second largest city, Worcester should have liquor license fees similar to comparable cities like Boston, Hartford, and Providence. (Aside: I've been to Providence and I work near Hartford. The former is sufficiently attractive so as not to induce residents to want to drink themselves into a stupor to forget where they are; the latter closes down at 5:30 so there's no opportunity to do so.)
Quoted in the article, O'Sullivan says, "... I think Worcester has proven to be business-friendly." Let's review:
The Business of Booze: Worcester's Liquor License Fee Increases 38 Percent
Written by the clever and indefatigable Matt Brown (who manages to come up with pretty interesting stories in this desultory town), the article discusses how Worcester's license commission almost a year bumped up the annual liquor license cost from $2,000 to $2,750.
The increase is squeezing the purveyors of a substance that makes tolerable the fact that one is consigned to live in Worcester--that is, drink enough and you'll forget you're here.
The justification for the increase is laughable if you aren't familiar with the irrepressible attitude of Kevin O'Sullivan, chairman of the commission. I've met Kevin several times and he by God is a believer in Worcester. He's highly energetic, incredibly well connected, and believes strongly in Worcester's prominence as New England's second largest city.
His reasoning is that as New England's second largest city, Worcester should have liquor license fees similar to comparable cities like Boston, Hartford, and Providence. (Aside: I've been to Providence and I work near Hartford. The former is sufficiently attractive so as not to induce residents to want to drink themselves into a stupor to forget where they are; the latter closes down at 5:30 so there's no opportunity to do so.)
Quoted in the article, O'Sullivan says, "... I think Worcester has proven to be business-friendly." Let's review:
- Mass pike pass through Worcester? REJECTED
- Municipal government structure design? UNWIELDY
- Municipal services? REDUCED
- Main Street? HIDEOUSLY UNATTRACTIVE
- Opportunities for newcomers? MINIMAL
If the failure of well-intentioned initiatives to attract, bring and retain businesses Worcester (see "Destination Worcester", "Choose Worcester", etc.) is any indication, Worcester has proven repeatedly that it is NOT business friendly.
With respect to Mr. O'Sullivan, applying perfume to excrement makes the latter temporarily smell nicer. You look at it, it's still shit. Civic pride and blowsy rhetoric aside, the fact is Worcester has a long way to go before it can be considered either within or without the Commonwealth as "business-friendly."
Until Worcester has the kind of services that define world-class cities (like Providence and Boston), it's unfair to charge world class city license fees to hard-working restaurant owners. The increase represents precisely the kind of backward thinking that has relegated Worcester to joke status.
Now where's my drink?
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
More Business Blunders in Auburn
In my previous entry, you discovered two reasons why you should not establish or relocate your business in Auburn, Taxachusetts. I'm still incredulous that the Chairman of Auburn's Board of Selectmen simply "solved" the problem of excessive commercial taxes by encouraging businesses to "go to Millbury" (a neighboring town that is far more favorable to businesses).
There is another chapter to this story, though. This chapter is especially relevant to me and my profession (Public Relations and Marketing).
It starts a few months ago, with the Auburn Chamber of Commerce's search for a marketing communications firm to help it build awareness of the benefits of doing business in Auburn and increasing the Chamber's outreach and PR profile. My consultancy was one of three firms interviewed for this important contract, along with Penta Communications (a full-service firm in Westboro) and a firm in Sturbridge called Smith & Jones. The Chamber's Business Development Task Force--seven prominent Auburn businesspeople--interviewed each firm.
I prepared rigorously for the interview, recommending to the Task Force a series of PR and marketing initiatives designed to meet their goals as I understood them. Working to my advantage were the following factors: I live in Auburn; I know three people on the committee (one of whom is a client); and I addressed every single aspect of the RFP. I told them how many hours I felt the effort would require and my hourly rate. I assume Smith & Jones did the same. That's the way these interviews go in the normal world outside Worcester.
Penta Communications received the contract.
I later learned that Penta Communications received the contract because they offered to do the work pro bono. Well, you get what you pay for.
Penta Communications did what most of the firms in this area do when they give away or discount work: They redesigned the Chamber's logo, provided boilerplate guidelines on how to use the logo, and submitted some rudimentary marketing ideas. Nothing substantial, because they have to devote their resources to paying clients. The mentality: "We're the experts, we have all the answers, you should listen to us."
As far as I know from my sources, Penta didn't take the time necessary to understand Auburn's unique challenges. They didn't interview business leaders. They didn't provide a PR plan or suggest any concrete measures to address Auburn's core problems. They redesigned a logo. As if a simple redesign were the answer.
Penta hasn't responded to the unfavorable article in this week's Worcester Business Journal--not a letter to the editor, not an op-ed, nothing. I don't expect they will.
Why should they? They're not getting paid. You get what you pay for.
There is another chapter to this story, though. This chapter is especially relevant to me and my profession (Public Relations and Marketing).
It starts a few months ago, with the Auburn Chamber of Commerce's search for a marketing communications firm to help it build awareness of the benefits of doing business in Auburn and increasing the Chamber's outreach and PR profile. My consultancy was one of three firms interviewed for this important contract, along with Penta Communications (a full-service firm in Westboro) and a firm in Sturbridge called Smith & Jones. The Chamber's Business Development Task Force--seven prominent Auburn businesspeople--interviewed each firm.
I prepared rigorously for the interview, recommending to the Task Force a series of PR and marketing initiatives designed to meet their goals as I understood them. Working to my advantage were the following factors: I live in Auburn; I know three people on the committee (one of whom is a client); and I addressed every single aspect of the RFP. I told them how many hours I felt the effort would require and my hourly rate. I assume Smith & Jones did the same. That's the way these interviews go in the normal world outside Worcester.
Penta Communications received the contract.
I later learned that Penta Communications received the contract because they offered to do the work pro bono. Well, you get what you pay for.
Penta Communications did what most of the firms in this area do when they give away or discount work: They redesigned the Chamber's logo, provided boilerplate guidelines on how to use the logo, and submitted some rudimentary marketing ideas. Nothing substantial, because they have to devote their resources to paying clients. The mentality: "We're the experts, we have all the answers, you should listen to us."
As far as I know from my sources, Penta didn't take the time necessary to understand Auburn's unique challenges. They didn't interview business leaders. They didn't provide a PR plan or suggest any concrete measures to address Auburn's core problems. They redesigned a logo. As if a simple redesign were the answer.
Penta hasn't responded to the unfavorable article in this week's Worcester Business Journal--not a letter to the editor, not an op-ed, nothing. I don't expect they will.
Why should they? They're not getting paid. You get what you pay for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)