Category: Business

P.S. to Unpunishable Plagiarism


A few readers expressed strong disapproval of my recent post Warning: Unpunishable Plagiarism.  Not of the subject matter per se – they agree that gorging on other people’s creativity—whether in business, science, or arts—is despicable and the law that doesn’t protect it is fucked up. But they were upset with the examples I’ve chosen to illustrate the idea-snatching in pop-culture. 

Instead of picking on absorption of mythology, folklore, and literary inheritance in the beloved Harry Potter—they say—or making vague allegations about the possible origins of Hannah Horvath, why didn’t you talk about the simultaneous releases of Pixar‘s A Bug’s Life and DreamWorks‘ Antz (both in 1998), or of a superior Chris Nolan’s The Prestige and subpar Neil Burger’s The Illusionist (both 2006)?

The answer is simple: as peculiar and suspicious concurrent developments of very similar ideas by different production companies are, it is practically impossible to uncover the back stories behind these incidents, or make even vague attempts to point a finger at the alleged perpetrators.  So, I wrote about the instances that seemed somewhat obvious and transparent to me.  Otherwise, the post would consist of nothing more than just one anecdote from my own professional life and a non-descriptive list of dubious cultural references.  Maybe it would be more sanitary, but also boring.

Let’s take, for example, The Prestige/The Illusionist case.  What can we dig up?  Well, both screenplays were based on legitimate and independent literary sources.  

The first one is an adaptation of a novel with the same title written by an English novelist and science fiction writer Christopher Priest and published by Gollancz in 1995.  Priest is a well-known  and highly respected writer: the themes of his A Dream of Wessex, for example, were used as a framework for David Cronenberg’s fantastic eXistenZ.  The year The Prestige hit the book stores, it was nominated for four sci-fi and fantasy awards and won two of them.  While the movie differs from the book (the latter being darker and more complex) all the main ingredients and the plot turns were taken from the novel: the characters’ names and descriptions, Priest’s fictional practice of stage illusions (the setup, the performance, and the prestige), the nature of the competing teleportation uber-acts, and even the guest appearance of Nicola Tesla.

Various sources indicate that several Hollywood producers had approached Priest for an adaptation of the novel and it was Valerie Dean of Newmarket Films (they also produced Memento), who told Chris Nolan about the novel in 2000.  After he read it, Newmarket Films purchased the option.  I can see how adapting a novel constructed as shifts between entries of two diaries could be very difficult, especially considering that the work on Insomnia had already began.  Yet, the Nolan brothers had it finished in 2003 and were ready to start filming, but it wasn’t meant to be: Batman Begins production got escalated and The Prestige was postponed.  The pre-production didn’t start until October 2005 and the film was released by Touchstone exactly one year later.

The Illusionist is based on an even earlier short story by Pulitzer Prize winner Steven Millhauser Eisenheim the Illusionist – it was a part of his 1990 collection The Barnum Museum.  The Hollywood mythology has it that, even though Neil Burger’s debut Interview with the Assassin was a terrible flop, its producers desperately wanted to work with the said writer/director again.  In 2002 they asked Neil what would he like to do next and he said, “There is this short story I always wanted to adapt…”  I’m guessing it took a couple of years before the idea could be sold and budgeted (unlike Chris Nolan, Neil Burger had no other projects on his hands), and the movie didn’t go into production until early 2005.  It was released 10 months ahead of The Prestige.     

Thus, on the surface all facts point to the accidental concurrency of these two movies.  However, who the fuck knows how the little impulses that churn the Hollywood machine work?  You see, as soon as any creative property is optioned, the fact becomes a matter of public knowledge.  Ok, let me amend that: I don’t really think that the “general public” is following that kind of information.  But if you are in the trade or have some sort of a vested interest in filmmaking, you can and must know all tinseltown’s moves.                        

I mean, Variety, the oldest American entertainment-trade magazine, had been founded in 1905 (!).  Since then, its been reporting on every single production and celebrity move imaginable.  The Hollywood Reporter joined the action in 1930.  Nowadays, you can have paid subscriptions to both publications online.  However, the Internet access to filmmaking trade news is dominated by DoneDeal Pro ($24 a year), which delivers basically a live feed of every option, screenplay purchase, new project announcement, talent attachment, etc.;  and IMdB Pro ($125 a year) with its remarkable search capabilities allowing you to see what every producer has “in-production” and “in-development.”  And I know for a fact that all production companies and studios have staffers and interns, whose job is to deliver the digests of all these daily news to their bosses.   

So, it is easy to imagine that the knowledge of The Prestige waiting its turn since 2000 could’ve been a pressure point in The Illusionist pitch: “Look, we can beat their timing with our own movie about a magician…”  Is this a qualified example of the unpunishable plagiarism?  I really don’t know.  You decide for yourself.

Some readers also said that my post, by making a case that “everyone steals,” might give unsavory elements a carte blanche for encroaching on others’ creativity.  Well, first of all, I hope I was explicit enough in stating my position on the issue.  Secondly, I honestly don’t think that my two cents have the power to change the situation in either direction.  And finally, I am not Huffington fucking Post – I don’t have that kind of exposure!

Of course, I cannot just end this post without letting the movie critic in me to use this opportunity to make the following comment.  If somebody referred Christopher Nolan to Eisenheim the Illusionist, he wouldn’t care for it.  It’s a story of the “and I will do anything for love” kind, and this writer/director is not interested in that.  Think about his movies (including Man of Steel, which he only co-produced) – they are all about a Man and His Mission, a Hero and His Obsession.  Love, even if it’s present, is just a plot point; it is seated in the last row of the Nolan bus.            

Related articles:

Warning: Unpunishable Plagiarism

The Late Robb Stark, CEO of House Stark


Robb-Stark Let me say first that I mourn the death of Robb and Catelyn Stark just like the rest of the Game of Thrones fandom.  Yet, the sadness doesn't cloud my judgement; it doesn't prevent me from fully grasping the ironclad logic of good storytelling.  I am fully aware that the tragic events of the Red Wedding were not written for the sake of shock and gore.  They were consequences of the characters' actions and motivations, consistent with the specific circumstances and forces at play.  They had a lot to do with matters of executive responsibility, obligations of power,  burdens of leadership, i.e. with the "weight of the crown."  As the Bard said, "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown." (Henry IV, Part 2, Act 3, scene 1, 31).       

To those who read CFO Techniques I would like to offer my apologies for using the analogy from The King's Speech here again.  It's just that the Brits, who's been living under monarchy for over 1500 years, understand this royal-duty business better than anybody.  (Also, they seem to speak the same language as the Seven Kingdoms' folks.)  So, in the movie, Prince Albert (Colin Firth) tells King George V (Michael Gambon), "Father, we are not a family, we are a firm." And the king replies, "We are the oldest, most successful corporation in the world and sitting on thrones is our business."

Yes, ruling a nation is a family business, and that makes a king the Chief Executive Officer of his land and his people.  And in this position, just as it is in any company, he is responsible for

  • strategic development – expansion, contraction, restructuring, hostile takeovers,
  • foreign policies  – establishing or severing connections with external parties, forming partnerships and alliances,
  • tactical decisions – laws, decrees, rules, governing appointments, organizational infrastructure,
  • fiscal adequacy – financing day-to-day operations and all those strategic moves,
  • economic balance – most important for prevention of revolts, backstabbing moves of dissatisfied courtiers, and the fleeting of labor,
  • human relations – the adoration and support of one's subjects doesn't hurt.    

In fact, in George R. R. Martin's world, a king's enterprising is very entrepreneurial, very hands-on.  Nothing like the make-believe leadership we see in the dangerously large governing bodies of contemporary conglomerates/countries.  In the Seven Kingdoms, a true leader cannot be a mere token sitting on a throne (in King's Landing they have Joffrey for that, while Tywin rules).  A ruler's job requires a lot of personal involvement and micromanagement: from weaving intricate intrigues to beheading those you condemned; from charging in front of your troops to skinning a damn large deer – the one with the executive power cannot avoid rolling up the sleeves and getting his/her hands dirty.  

Most importantly, the king must take personal responsibility for doing the right thing by his nation.  He'd better have his priorities straight: the crown is so heavy because the burden of authority calls for selflessness and sacrifices.  Those few business owners that earned my personal respect over the years concentrated all their efforts on the prosperity and success of their companies.  They were acutely aware that business is nothing if not a continuous struggle for survival. 

So, what about Robb Stark?  How did he do as a CEO?  Not very well, I'm afraid.  He was like one of those young rich boys, who inherited his father's business too early due to an untimely death – full of great potential, brilliant ideas, and… illusions.  The childish sense of invincibility has not yet evaporated from his body.  He thought he could break and rebuild the word any way he wanted.  And so, he went and violated the millenia-old custom of building political alliances through marriages: he broke off his engagement with Lord Walder Frey's daughter.  His Love was above any rules.  How beautiful! 

How cheeky and irresponsible!  It was an unforgivable insult to House Frey.  It was disrespectful to the memory of his father who made an arrangement and himself inherited Catelyn as a bride after his older brother's death.  And, as far as the well-being of his land, his subjects, and his mission are concerned, it was plain reckless.  In the business environment, this would be the equivalent of breaking contractual obligations with your commercial partners or violating the terms of your financing agreements.  Actions of this kind result in companies loosing their reputation, market share, procurement resources, creditability, funding, and eventually going bankrupt, i.e. die.

As many young entrepreneurs, Robb Stark was a person of extremes: he was quick to break rules practically written in stone, yet many of his actions were marred by poor, hesitant decision-making.   Whether due to inexperience or a lack of talent for long-term strategic thinking (his military campaign proved him to be a good tactician), he was never quite sure what was the right thing to do.  It's bizarre, really: sometimes he neither followed the solid logic presented to him by his advisers, nor did he go with his own gut.  The foolish execution of Lord Rickard Karstark, which resulted in a loss of a huge chunk of allied troops is an obvious example.

I've been forever writing and talking about psycho-profiling as a key management skill.  One simply cannot succeed without it.  Robb's inability to read people and their motivations might be the main reason for his downfall.  What made him think that old Lord Frey will forgive the insult and tolerate Robb's wife being shoved into his face in his own home?  How could he forget that you cannot trust anybody and must always be on alert for betrayal?  If we think rationally about it, the probability of retaliation was very high.

In contrast, there is a reason why a few smart people reluctantly realize that Tyrion Lannister is King's Landing's only hope.  Not only that he is sharp, brave, incisive, and fair, but he also understands that if one wants that family business of ruling kingdoms to be successful, he must be ready to forsake a thing or two, including personal happiness.

It's great to find out that I'm not the only one who saw the parallels between the demise of Robb Stark and the small-business leadership.  The article below was prompted by TypePad as a related post.

Related articles

Cutthroat Leadership Lessons from Game of Thrones

Hard-Working CFO Is Not a Don Quixote


As we already discussed, people like me (not only CFOs and Controllers, but anyone of the same makeup) work hard because they cannot operate any other way.  We do it out of self-respect. If we undertake a job with its multitude of functions we try our best to adhere to our own high standards of work ethics.

Does this mean that we are idealists of the Don Quixote persuasion?  Will we sacrifice merit-based rewards for the sake of doing the job that makes us proud?  Will we let our bosses to take advantage of our self-drive and pay us peanuts?

No, no and no.  If that what you gathered from Why Do I Work So Hard?, you grossly misunderstood me.  Don’t forget that we first accept a job, but once we do, we start working hard.  And the compensation should be adequate.

The thing is, though, we know this about ourselves.  We know that we will do our best for the employer and we know that, unless something we cannot control ourselves happens, the company will benefit from our efforts tremendously.  So, don’t forget that: reflect it in your resumes, your cover letters, your conversations with hiring managers.

And if you made a conscious choice of working in a privately owned business, you actually have an opportunity to present yourself to the people who care about the company’s well-being the most – the owners.  Let them know that you adhere to high level of work ethics.  It will make a difference and it can be used as a negotiating point.

{Side note: my experience shows that stressing these points with recruiters or HR managers will be wasteful and frequently detrimental to your ability to move to the next level of interviewing process.  These people are employees, you don’t know their attitudes towards the job and they may feel threatened.}

A quick word of warning: never say, “I am the best thing that will ever happen to your company.”  First of all, you cannot guarantee that because there are a lot of circumstances that can negate your diligent efforts.  Secondly, I was told by many a psychologists that these types of statements are classified as “over-compensating” and usually signal lack of confidence.  Instead, present your case based on your prior achievements and relate them to your dedication.

Of course, the salary negotiations are tricky and influenced by many circumstances: the job market conditions, whether you are currently employed, whether this job is a real stepping stone in your career, etc.   Nevertheless, that would be true for all applicants, but if you are indeed a naturally hard-working person like me, you have an edge.

Hopefully, by the time a raise and/or a bonus discussion comes up, your reputation will be solidified and you will be rewarded for your efforts.  If you still need to negotiate, you will have a chance to talk about your present, not past, achievements.

And here I would like to refer you to the following The Ladders article, which directly addresses the issue of Salary Negotiation.

 

 

Quote of the Week: “Mad Men” Peggy Olson Describes Your Common Workplace Environment


Peggy+season1"I don't understand… I tried to do my job, I follow the rules; and people hate me.  Innocent people get hurt and other people, people who are not good, get to walk around doing whatever they want.  It's not fair!"

            Season 1, Episode 12

            Nixon vs. Kennedy

Written by Lisa Albert, Andre & Maria Jacquemetton

 

Marketplace Fairness (???) Act, or Lets Stomp on Small Businesses Again


ImagesCA3IO0HMBelieve it or not, but the Battle for (or against, if you will) the Internet Sales Tax has been going on for 20 years now. 

First, there were no online sales taxes at all.  Back in the early 90s, members of various legislative bodies thought that the World Wide Web was something that Al Gore invented and, therefore, didn't pay much attention to it, especially the Republicans.  Meanwhile, the online vendors (the term e-tailer didn't gain wide acceptance until 2000) and their customers justifiably acted like pioneers in the brave new world:  as far as they were concerned, they operated in the environment with no physical attributes, and no brick-and-mortar regulations were applicable to them. 

It didn't take too long, however, for the states to catch on and get all itchy on account of the missing revenues.  The first most obvious targets were those conventional retailers, who quickly added shopping carts to their websites: Godiva, Staples, Best Buy, Bloomingdale's, etc.  With them it was easy to enforce the guiding principle of sales taxation - the physical presence rule.  They have multiple locations practically in all states – collecting and remitting sales taxes are routine tasks for them.  A bit of code-writing and, voila, if your shipping address is in the state where the seller has a store, an office, or a warehouse, the tax will be applied.  

I was in the avant garde of the e-commerce consumers.  I bought my first book on Amazon in 1995.  I recall it was a new addition of Joy of Cooking: 1150 pages – too bulky to drag it with me from B&N.  A desire to own a one-of-a-kind Victorian coral bracelet sold by an antique dealer in Amsterdam trampled my inherent mistrust and led me to the conclusion of my first eBay purchase in 1996.  I had to fax my credit card info to the seller – we were still two years away from the inception of PayPal. And that same year I booked a room at Montreal's Ritz Carlton through Expedia.  I consider myself an Internet veteran.  Today, 90% of my consumer experience is managed online.  And I am not alone: in 2012 Internet sales amounted $226 billion.

And all these years, I've been kind of on the fence about this whole Internet taxation issue. On one hand, I LOVED not paying sales taxes for the items I bought from my home.  Plus, no state or city resources were utilized: I didn't use any public transportation, roads, or street parking; I didn't walk into any buildings; nor did I use any City utilities. The cost of my connectivity is taxed via my cable and power providers, while delivery services collect sales taxes from the shippers. I still remember how disappointed I was when Amazon opened a distribution center in NYC to facilitate same-day deliveries and started taxing my purchases.

On the other hand, the economist in me is fully aware of the importance of sales taxes for the state and municipal budgets. And, while I strongly believe that 70% of government employees are redundant and the rest are lazy, I do want all bridges to be repaired on time. Unlike other people, I understand that it's a capital-intensive process and money has to come from somewhere.  I knew only too well that Bluefly, with offices and employees in NYC, should've been taxing my purchases (they didn't) way before the CEO decided to launch a brick-and-mortar outlet.

I am a stickler for the rules that create common platforms for everyone involved: generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), international financial reporting standards (IFRS), international commercial terms (Incoterms), etc. Speaking the same language prevents misunderstanding. If we cannot avoid paying, collecting, and remitting sales taxes, let's at least stick to the simple rules of physical presence already in place. Even though, the interpretation of what constitutes "physical presence" in the Internet environment could be debatable. I kept pondering, for example, whether, besides the conventional criteria like leased or owned commercial property, payroll, and inventory, the location of web servers and interface workstations should be considered as well.

Yet, one thing has always been clear to me: If you don't have any type of presence in a state and don't use any of the state's resources in order to generate income, you cannot be made responsible for collecting sales taxes in that state. This is not medieval Europe, I thought: just because the governments want additional revenues, they should not just impose new tax-collecting laws like some Sheriff of Nottingham. This would destroy a lot of small businesses that were able to break out of their local boundaries and find their way into the national and even international markets through the web.

What a fool I was! Who cares about small businesses? Members of the government act according to their allegiances to a few Big Players with their big gains and losses at stake.  On one side, there are Wal-Mart, Target, COSTCO, and Amazon (boy, this alliance alone was unimaginable only a few years ago), who are literally everywhere on the ground and on the web. These "poor" leviathans complain that they are at the "price disadvantage," losing customers to those e-tailers (read: smaller businesses), who don't charge sales taxes. "All" they want is to level the playing field, i.e. for everyone to collect taxes everywhere.

On the other side of the barricade is eBay providing thousands of online shops and craftsmen with the means of offering their products to the world.  It stands to lose tons of fees if the members' business volumes contract.  Nobody represents the unaffiliated e-tailers.

Guess who tips the scales? In the beginning of this month, the Senate approved an Internet tax proposal (perversely named Marketplace Fairness Act), which is not based on e-tailers' physical presence at all and will force shoppers to pay sales taxes on the majority of online purchases. In basic terms: all online sellers will have to collect sales taxes and file returns for all states to which they ship their merchandise. 

The plight of small businesses, including the additional workload related to the new responsibilities, is almost an afterthought in the proposed legislature: the ones with less than $1 million in out-of-state sales will be exempt from sales-tax obligations.  What is this stupidly irrelevant number? Are they low-balling like some cheap hagglers?  Again, common ground, people! According to the Small Business Administration's definition, a retailer is considered "small" if the sales do not exceed $5 million to $21 million, depending on the product!

Why our various government bodies always have to be such opportunists and never think about the future impact of their decisions, I have no fucking clue. The e-customers have only this much disposable income: if they have to spend a portion of it on the Internet sales taxes, they will buy less goods.  Consumer market contraction anyone?  And in the long-run every time a small business is hurt, it affects the entire economy.  But who cares about the long run? The governments are more interested in grabbing whatever they can right now, whether they entitled to it or not.