“The nation's typical worker now retires at age 62, up from 60 a decade ago, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. About 60% of men between 60 and 64 are in the labor force, and 20% of men over 65, up from 55% and 17%, respectively, a decade ago, says the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The pattern is similar for women.
“But will employers want more older workers?
“‘There's a lot of happy talk around that we're going to have slowing in the rate of growth in young workers and, therefore, employers are going to want to hire older workers just at the time that older workers are going to want to work,’ says Boston College economist Alicia Munnell... ‘We think it's much less clear than that.’
“The ‘happy talk’ case relies on the demographic fact that the ranks of prime-age workers will shrink as the huge baby boom generation ages and on the logic that employers will have no alternative to older workers...
“At the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association in Chicago, 40% of 1,000 mainly professional employees are 50 or older and 25% are 55 or older. ‘We want to keep these people as long as we can. They know the business, the values, the customs. And recruitment is becoming more difficult,’ says William Colbourne, senior vice president for human resources...
“For all the heart-warming pictures such efforts produce, they appear to be exceptions. Buyouts of graying colleagues and early-retirement parties are common in many workplaces. ‘Relatively few companies thus far have fully positioned themselves for the coming work-force demographic shifts,’ consulting firm Towers Perrin said in a 2005 report...
“While employers are ‘reasonably comfortable’ with the older workers they currently employ, "they are not keen on retaining even half who want to stay on to age 67 or 69," the Boston researchers concluded. They predict ‘a messy and uncomfortable mismatch with large numbers of older workers wanting to stay on while employers prefer that they do not.’ …
“The image of companies loyally retaining scarce, seasoned workers is at odds with reality. Among male workers between 58 and 62, only 44% still work for the outfit that employed them at 50, down from 70% two decades ago. And even if labor shortages emerge, they argue, many employers will hire younger immigrants, shift work overseas or deploy labor-saving technology (like the cashier-less grocery-store checkout) instead of hiring older workers.”
(“Older Staffers Get Uneasy Embrace.” David Wessel. Wall Street Journal: May 15, 2008. A.2)
MOVE FORWARD today. Create tomorrow. Don't look back.
Employees and employers, we become what we choose to see.
Corny as it may sound, very few can build on the past, look toward the future, and thrive in the here and now.
"To every thing there is a season,
and a time to every purpose
under Heaven."
Added Value -- Turn, Turn, Turn
Interesting Times
“At around $125 a barrel, crude oil has more than doubled in price since the end of 2006. How is it possible that the vast majority of government forecasters, stock analysts, economists, traders, and journalists who follow the oil market failed to foresee this? Moreover, how can it be that even today, the bulls and bears on oil are extremely far apart, disagreeing not only on the oil outlook but even the present situation?
“The answer is simple. You can't predict what oil prices are going to do even in the short-to-medium term unless you have a good handle on the forces of supply and demand. And that requires thorough and reliable data -- which don't exist...
“The scarcity of good global data is a key reason why it's impossible to know for sure whether the next ‘super-spike’ in oil in the coming three or four years will be up to $200 or more or down to $80 or less. Even though the statistics aren't exact, they're all anyone has to go on, so they still have an enormous impact…
“What makes good information so important in the oil market is that both the supply and the demand for oil are extremely inflexible, especially in the short term. That means even a small, unanticipated shortfall in output… or a bigger-than-expected rise in consumption can send prices through the roof. On the other hand, prices can plummet if demand growth drops because of an economic slowdown or production jumps because some delayed project finally comes on line.
“One indication of uncertainty is the extreme range of bets being made in the oil options market. On May 13, bulls were willing to pay around $1.40 per barrel for a ‘call’ option that will pay off if oil goes over $200 a barrel by next February. Bears, meanwhile, were paying about the same amount for a ‘put’ option that will be in the money if oil goes below $84 by then…
“In other words, there's a big slab of unknown built into the price of oil. Lots of people will confidently predict where prices are headed next, but most of them, including the bulls, have been wrong more than once. Truth is, the world is almost as starved for information as it is thirsty for oil.”
(“Oil's Murky Math; Where are we headed: Up to $200 a barrel? Down to $80? With little good data on supply or demand, oil's next price move is anyone's guess.” Peter Coy. businessweek.com. April 14, 2008)
ONE'S UNCERTAINTY is another's opportunity.
Ambiguity appears to hinge upon where we stand.
1917, 1929, 1941, 1963, 1968, 1973, 1981, 1987, 2001...
Vision
“Circuit City is finally throwing in the towel. Confronted with weak sales, impatient shareholders, and a U.S. consumer pummeled by recession, the electronics chain capitulated on May 9 and retained Goldman Sachs to help negotiate a deal. The same day, Circuit City Stores agreed to allow three board nominees from activist shareholder Mark Wattles to stand for elections.
“The moves almost certainly presage a sale of the chain, likely to Blockbuster, where Carl Icahn has stepped up and agreed to finance a Circuit City acquisition. The billionaire -- Blockbuster's largest shareholder -- has bought into a ‘game-changing’ scheme announced last month in which the troubled electronics retailer would be combined with the troubled movie retailer to create a new national chain selling consumer hardware and software.
“Wall Street is dubious, and no other buyers have emerged wanting Circuit City…
“Last year, several electronics stores were decimated, CompUSA shuttered all its stores before being bought by a restructuring firm in December, and Tweeter Home Entertainment, Harvey Electronics, and Rex Stores all filed for bankruptcy. ‘This is the kind of mess the electronics business is in -- it's like buying a sinking Titanic,’ says Howard Davidowitz, chairman of Davidowitz & Associates...
“Blockbuster has its own litany of troubles. Blockbuster has been forced to reckon with a shift from on-site movie rentals to new venues, with increased competition from video rental models like the one from Netflix and downloads from Apple. ‘The question is will the combination of two crippled companies end up crippling both even further,’ says Burt Flickinger III, managing director of Strategic Resource Group…
“Almost all of Wall Street, and many in the tech community, are puzzled by [Blockbuster CEO Jim] Keyes' pursuit of Circuit City. Keyes envisions a new digital retail company that leverages complementary products and higher-quality, better-focused store sites.
“‘Combined, our companies would create a game-changing $18 billion global retail enterprise that is uniquely positioned to capitalize on the growing consumer appetite for content-enabled consumer devices,’ Keyes said…
“He also anticipates cross-merchandising opportunities, and the opportunity to sell electronics with access to personalized preloaded movies and digital subscriptions. ‘That is what I mean when I say game-changing entertainment retail concept,’ Keyes said. Yet Wall Street smells the potential for a very expensive flop.”
(“Circuit City Gives Up the Fight; The electronics chain puts out the "For Sale" sign, hiring Goldman Sachs to assist on a deal, most likely with Blockbuster.” Pallavi Gogoi. businessweek.com. May 12, 2008)
CHANGING THE RULES of the game, built upon imagined revenue synergies, disparate cultures and the anticipation of consumer shifts is only for the most robust and well-adjusted of firms.
Maybe they should call the Sears / K-Mart team...
"You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan.
"You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can."
Change Masters Twist and Shout
“It's not every day a titan of industry eats humble pie -- at least not in public. But Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's CEO, did just that this week, climbing down from his $45 billion bid to acquire Yahoo!.
“When Microsoft announced the deal in February, Ballmer hailed it as ‘the next major milestone in our companywide transformation to embrace online services, search, and advertising.’ ...
“So why did Ballmer have a change of heart about the deal? …
“If Ballmer thought he would be greeted as a ‘liberator’ in acquiring Yahoo, he was as misguided as the Bush Administration was about Iraq. Jerry Yang, CEO of Yahoo, wasn't just coy in response; he openly repudiated the offer, and his board backed him up...
“Ballmer prophesied that joining forces would yield a bounty of synergies: bringing two of the four highest-traffic Web portals under one roof; more plentiful engineering talent; enhancements in online services; and, of course, the elimination of redundant operations and staff... But then reality reared its ugly head. Antitrust considerations made it unlikely the combined company could unite the world's two top e-mail services... Ditto for instant messaging: The merged entity would control as much as 90% of that market.
“These issues paled in comparison with the lack of cultural fit between the two players. Many Yahoo employees regarded Microsoft as the enemy. And… Yang signaled he was prepared to damage the company rather than yield to the so-called evil empire. This included striking a preliminary deal with Google to deliver ads for Yahoo's search results, essentially installing an archrival's Trojan horse in the Yahoo boardroom.
“When Yahoo rebuffed Microsoft's opening bid, Ballmer huffed and puffed. He openly scorned the ‘deteriorating’ performance of Yahoo's business, only to see his prey perform above expectations in the first quarter. He threatened to ‘go hostile,’ as they say, but Yahoo's board yawned over his menacing imprecations. Yet none of this compared with the scorn he encountered among his own Microsofties, who saw the offer as yet another chapter in the continuing saga of overpriced acquisitions, sluggish innovation [Zune anyone?], and ineffective online strategies….
“So the grand gesture to secure Microsoft's status… as a major force on the Web… quickly became bogged down and unpopular, even among his own brethren...
“Leave aside that the largest acquisition Microsoft had ever made was last year's purchase of aQuantive for $6 billion... Consider that $45 billion would be enough to buy both Ford and General Motors with nearly $20 billion to spare. More pertinently, it would be enough for Microsoft to clear the market if it went shopping for other major Net assets.
“For the same money, Ballmer could roll up AOL at, say, $25 billion; either Facebook or MySpace at $15 billion; and ValueClick at $3 billion, again with a few billion left over.”
(“Why Ballmer Bailed on Yahoo; According to consultant Jeffrey F. Rayport, there are five reasons Microsoft's chief gave up on his bid for Yahoo, including its cost and its not making sense.” Jeffrey F. Rayport. businessweek.com. May 12, 2008)
WHEN YOU'RE NOT SURE what to do, why not shake things up a bit?
"You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world.
"You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know... "
We Will Survive
“When Sony Corp. announces what are expected to be improved earnings next Thursday, the results will highlight a new television set that wouldn't have been possible three years ago.
“Unlike traditional products that were designed entirely in Japan, this TV set was invented largely by Sony engineers in Mexico using off-the-shelf parts...
“The new line is one piece of a crucial culture shift needed to pull Sony out of a long downturn. In the year ended March 31, profit is expected to have doubled and sales to have risen by 25%, compared with three years earlier...
“It shows Sony managers are starting to get the hang of collaborating better, says Chief Executive Howard Stringer. ‘We're not in the bunker anymore. We're blinking in the sunlight,’ he says...
“Sony's consumer-electronics business still faces huge challenges. Competition from Samsung Group and upstarts such as Vizio Inc. has forced Sony to cut prices, and it is still struggling to earn consistent profits in the business. Meanwhile, the threat of a U.S. recession and a stronger yen, which diminishes the value of its overseas earnings, is threatening to derail much of the progress achieved so far...
“Though engineers at Sony tend to work on the same kind of products for their entire careers, [Katsumi] Ihara has set a goal of shuffling about 5% of consumer-electronics managers between products to encourage idea-sharing.
“The new cooperation has yielded other small results. Closer work between the television and camera units resulted in a feature on the television that automatically adjusts the picture to an optimal resolution for photos when a Sony single-lens-reflex camera is connected to it. Users can also get a single remote control for a Sony television and a Blu-ray disc player for the first time...
“‘We're showing signs of life everywhere, but I don't feel ready to celebrate,’ says Mr. Stringer. ‘We've got a long way to go.’”
(“Sony's Newest Display Is a Culture Shift -- A Low-Cost TV Shows the Way To Better Profits.” Yukari Iwatani Kane. Wall Street Journal: May 8, 2008. pg. B.1)
TWIN THREATS of stiffer competition and a shrinking market lend us the opportunity to revisit and renew our heart and soul -- our core competence.
Note: We cannot linger longer in Plato's cave (i.e., "the bunker"); we cannot go it alone.
O Hunger, My Hunger!
“The guru game is changing.
“Psychologists, journalists and celebrity chief executives crowd the top of a ranking of influential business thinkers compiled for The Wall Street Journal. The results, based on Google hits, media mentions and academic citations, ranked author and consultant Gary Hamel No. 1.
“But Dr. Hamel is the only traditional business guru in the top five, which includes two journalists, Thomas Friedman and Malcolm Gladwell, and a former CEO, Bill Gates. Mr. Gladwell is among three thinkers in the top eight who focus on psychology. His 2005 book ‘Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking’ examined the role of snap judgments in decision-making. Howard Gardner, a professor of education at Harvard best known for the theory of ‘multiple intelligences,’ is No. 5, while Daniel Goleman, a psychologist who has written about ‘emotional intelligence,’ ranks eighth.
“Thomas H. Davenport, a management professor at Babson College, compiled the ranking, employing the same methodology he used in a 2003 book, ‘What's the Big Idea?’ Several well-known business gurus fell lower in the updated list, including Michael Porter and Tom Peters, who topped the 2003 ranking and dropped to Nos. 14 and 18, respectively…
“Dr. Davenport says the changes show that time-strapped managers are hungry for easily digestible advice wherever they can find it. Today, the most pressing themes include globalization, motivation and innovation. Traditional business gurus writing ‘weighty tomes’ are in decline, he says.
“Managers say it's no coincidence they tap a broad range of thinkers. ‘The demands on all of us for decision-making have grown exponentially,’ says Susan Flygare, a sales-strategy executive at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota who has attended speeches by a Harvard-educated stand-up comic…
“No matter who's preaching, managers are wary of blindly embracing advice. ‘People have to use all these gurus with some caution,’ says Michael Mauboussin, chief investment strategist at Legg Mason Capital Management. He is a fan of Clayton Christensen, the Harvard professor known for his writings on ‘disruptive innovation,’ who ranks No. 17 on the list, up from 49 in 2003. Mr. Mauboussin says gurus often idolize certain companies during good times, and then chastise the same ones during bad. ‘The reality is, they were never so good, and they were never so bad,’ he says.”
(“New Breed of Business Gurus Rises --- Psychologists, CEOs Climb in Influence, Draw Hits, Big Fees.” Erin White. Wall Street Journal: May 6, 2008. pg. B.1)
"THE PORT IS NEAR, the bells I hear, the people all exulting,
While follow eyes the steady keel, the vessel grim and daring..."
So grant me food, any food that's easy for digesting.
Rules: Golden or Platinum?
“Shut down the headquarters of Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. Convert the landmark Wrigley Building into condos. Tear the Wrigley name off the Chicago Cubs' ballpark. Close the corporate wallet to local nonprofits. Fire a whole lot of people. This is the future many Chicagoans saw on learning that after 117 years here, the Wrigley family's company had been sold to Mars for $23 billion, to create the world's biggest candy producer. Holy Cow.
“Don't worry, Bill Wrigley assured one and all. The company's executive chairman and great-grandson of its founder insisted that the only thing that is changing is the owners; everything else would remain as it has long been. His namesake confectioner would remain in Chicago, run from the Wrigley Building... Right now, it looks as if everybody -- from the mayor to the media -- wants to believe him.
“It's a sweet sentiment. But I'll wager a king-size Milky Way bar that in a few years, Chicago won't recognize the old Wrigley as it is downgraded into just another regional office of a giant corporation based someplace else. Why the skepticism? For one, the deal itself will force this outcome. For another, previous takeovers of age-old companies by out-of-towners have all ended this way.
“Big premiums mean big cuts, and Mars is clearly paying a big premium. Its $80-a-share price is 34% higher than Wrigley's three-month average price before the deal was announced…
“That money will have to be paid back with interest, and Mars won't be able to do it just by selling packs of M&M's and Orbit. Instead, it'll require selling superfluous assets, consolidating redundant operations, and cutting costs, including labor.
“The chewing-gum company is sitting on one quick source of cash -- its North Michigan Avenue headquarters. The 1920s-era building is beautiful but expensive to maintain. In 2005, Wrigley explored the notion of turning the terra-cotta ‘wedding cake’ into luxury condos but tabled the idea. The Mars family would have no emotional ties about unloading it…
“The sad thing is we've heard assurances like these too many times before in Chicago. Amoco, Ameritech, and First Chicago are among homegrown institutions that have been bought by outsiders. At first, the acquirers swore that nothing would change. But before long, each was subsumed into the parent, greatly diminishing local management and operations, along with philanthropic and civic giving. Thousands of jobs were lost. Bill Wrigley insists that this acquisition will defy history. But when Mars wraps up the deal, the company will lose control of its fate. All else is sound and fury.”
(“Wrigley: Another Great One Soon Gone; With the takeover by Mars, Wrigley is about to follow Amoco and Ameritech into Chicago's ash bin.” Bob Reed. businessweek.com. May 5, 2008)
WHAT DO YOU SAY? 'Do unto others as they would have done unto you'? 'Do unto others as they have done unto you'?
What about, 'He who has the gold rules'?
What about, 'In the good old days...'?
Like Grandma in the Kitchen
“Steven A. Ballmer, Microsoft's chief executive, walked away from a Yahoo deal on Saturday still looking for an answer to his company's fundamental problem: its time-tested recipe for success isn't working against Google, the leader in the current wave of Internet computing.
“With a bid for Yahoo, Microsoft was trying to buy its way out of the problem. It was a controversial step and a gamble, but at least it was a big move. Now, there is no clear prospect of a quick fix for Microsoft, as the center of gravity in computing continues to move away from the personal computer, Microsoft's stronghold, and to the Internet.
“Microsoft remains a powerful company, and highly profitable, but its stock price has stagnated amid doubts about future growth. Years of antitrust scrutiny have tempered its competitive behavior in new markets.
“Mr. Ballmer, 52, must lead the Internet-era shift in strategy and corporate culture without the man who, to many, is still the public face of Microsoft: Bill Gates...
“‘Steve Ballmer will be defined by how he manages this tremendous Internet transformation over the next few years, and his record hasn't been distinguished so far,’ said George F. Colony, chief executive of Forrester Research…
“Though he became chief executive in 2000, Mr. Ballmer has typically been cast as a marketing dynamo: tireless, hyperkinetic and a booming orator, renowned for his uninhibited performances at Microsoft sales meetings. But Mr. Ballmer, colleagues say, has a deep mastery of strategy and finance. He is a math whiz who as a student scored a perfect 800 on the SAT math exam.
“Yet Mr. Ballmer's business skills have not yet helped Microsoft much in trying to catch Google, analysts say…
“Looking at Microsoft today, Mitchell Kapor, an elder statesman of modern computing, is reminded of another industry power that was chastened by a lengthy antitrust struggle and a seismic shift in the technology landscape -- I.B.M. in the 1980s and early 1990s, as the mainframe gave way to personal computing.
“‘I.B.M. came out of those years still large and enormously important to its customers, but I.B.M. was displaced by Microsoft,’ he said. ‘I.B.M. was no longer the defining company.’
“‘The irony is that what Microsoft did to I.B.M., Google is doing to Microsoft,’ said Mr. Kapor.”
(“A Step Back For Microsoft.” Steve Lohr. The New York Times. May 5, 2008. pg. 1)
YOU MAY HAVE the time-tested recipe for success, but Grandma had the touch, the sense, the feel, and her secret ingredient...
love.
Follow The Money
“Western firms are always complaining about the theft of intellectual property in China. From knock-off designs to copycat brand names, pirated music and fake drugs, China has a well-earned reputation as a free-for-all when it comes to patents and copyrights. Worse, there often seems little hope of redress: the courts are too distant and too incompetent; the laws are too weak or too vague; the culture is too resistant to the very idea of intellectual property. Yet help is at hand, in the form of Chinese firms with patents to defend.
“Since 2003 the number of trademark applications has grown by 60%; the number of patents has nearly doubled… and the number of lawsuits about intellectual property has more than doubled. The government is encouraging the trend in many ways, including signalling to the press to cheer it on.
“This enthusiasm marks a dramatic change. During the Maoist era, private property of any kind was seen as theft from the masses, and so subject to just expropriation. Only in 1985 did China begin to enact laws to protect patents. It did not enforce them much until 2001, when the authorities promised to crack down in order to win admission to the World Trade Organisation…
“Unsurprisingly, the main beneficiaries of the sudden interest in intellectual property are Chinese lawyers. Some reportedly earn more than $5M a year. Non-Chinese law firms sometimes provide advice on thorny cases. But they are not allowed to file patents or appear in court on behalf of a client — a proprietary process that Chinese lawyers are keen to defend.”
(“850,000 lawsuits in the making - Doing business in China.” The Economist. April 12, 2008)
WHAT MOVES deeply held ideologies, cultural values, and political stongholds?
What moves mankind?
What moves you?
World-wide Learning
“Oreos were first introduced in 1912 in the U.S., but it wasn't until 1996 that Kraft introduced Oreos to Chinese consumers. Nine years later, a makeover began. Shawn Warren, a 37-year-old Kraft veteran who had spent many years marketing the company's cookies and crackers around the world, arrived in Asia in 2005 and noticed that Oreo's China sales had been flat for the previous five years.
“Back then, Kraft was selling the U.S. version of Oreos in China. Albert Einstein's definition of insanity -- doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results – ‘characterized what we were doing,’ says Mr. Warren, vice president of marketing for Kraft Foods International…
“In China, Kraft began a grassroots marketing campaign to educate Chinese consumers about the American tradition of pairing milk with cookies…
“Students rode around Beijing on bicycles outfitted with wheel covers resembling Oreos and handed out cookies to more than 300,000 consumers. Others held Oreo-themed basketball games to reinforce the idea of dunking cookies in milk. Television commercials showed kids twisting apart Oreo cookies, licking the cream center and dipping the chocolate cookie halves into glasses of milk.
“[Chief Executive Irene] Rosenfeld calls the bicycle campaign ‘a stroke of genius that only could have come from local managers. The more opportunity our local managers have to deal with local conditions will be a source of competitive advantage for us.’
“Still, Kraft realized it needed to do more than just tweak its recipe to capture a bigger share of the Chinese biscuit market...
“So in China in 2006 Kraft remade the Oreo itself, introducing for the first time an Oreo that looked almost nothing like the original. The new Chinese Oreo consisted of four layers of crispy wafer filled with vanilla and chocolate cream, coated in chocolate…
“Kraft's Oreo efforts have paid off. In 2006, Oreo wafer sticks became the best-selling biscuit in China, outpacing HaoChiDian, a biscuit brand made by the Chinese company Dali. The new Oreos are also outselling traditional round Oreos in China, and Kraft has begun selling the wafers elsewhere in Asia, as well as in Australia and Canada.”
(“Kraft Reformulates Oreo, Scores in China.” Julie Jargon. Wall Street Journal: May 1, 2008. pg. B.1)
CLEARLY, WE CAN TEACH an old dog new tricks.
Get closely in touch; just listen...
Bust That Mantra!
“In another era at Time Warner, before a star-crossed Internet merger, the hard-held belief of Gerald M. Levin, then the chief executive, was that ‘content is and will remain king, but distribution is the power behind the throne.’
“These days the king seems to be losing his throne.
“On Wednesday, Jeffrey L. Bewkes, who became chief executive in January… said that Time Warner would completely spin off its cable company, essentially shedding the pipes that have underpinned much of the company's fortune.
“Although the announcement was largely anticipated by Wall Street… it still underscored a profound philosophical shift.
“For years, it was a widely held belief within Time Warner and the media business that there were real financial advantages to owning both the content -- television shows and films -- and the means of distributing it to people's homes.
“But Wednesday's cable announcement, which came as Time Warner reported first-quarter earnings, spotlighted the company's future as a pure content provider. From now on the media company will revolve around two core content businesses that have been out of the limelight in recent years: the Warner Brothers movie studio and Turner Networks, which includes the television channels TNT, TBS, HBO and CNN.
“Although those divisions have produced steady revenue and cash flow, investors and the media have focused instead on the debate over cable and the drama unfolding (still) at AOL.
“Without the cable business, the bulk of Time Warner's revenue will come from the movie studio and the cable networks…
“Time Warner is not the only big media company that has disavowed the industry mantra of marrying distribution and content. Rupert Murdoch, the controlling shareholder of News Corporation, recently agreed to give up control of the satellite company DirecTV in an asset swap with Liberty Media.
“Part of the rationale for the mantra in the first place was that owning both sides of the equation gave companies instant distribution when introducing new networks, as well as leverage with other cable companies.
“‘There is huge growth in further original programming,’ Mr. Bewkes said in an interview. ‘There's more money in putting resources into HBO, TNT and TBS to create hits than into a start-up channel.’”
(“Time Warner Refocusing With Move to Spin Off Cable.” Tim Arango. The New York Times: May 1, 2008. pg. 1)
OKAY, so our mantra was not so transcendental after all.
Now focus becomes our higher state of consciousness.
At least we're reassured that others are headed this way... ?
