Measuring Up

The Cadillac of Cardiac Care

I've spent the better part of the last three days in New York Presbyterian’s Cornell Hospital. Not a fun time. My mother  underwent surgery to fix leaking heart valves. Not to worry... her operation was a success and all the experts think she will be just fine.
 
Putting this main issue aside for my post, I want to focus on this hospital. More specifically, let's talk about its unique cardiac unit and heart institute. To sum it up quickly in four words– man, am I impressed.

This is not "your grandfather's hospital" (sorry for quoting an old Oldsmobile tag line, especially given this post’s headline). No, the Ronald O. Perelman Heart Institute feels like what the best hospitals will become over the next decade or two. The waiting area is a pristine, marble atrium where family and friends can sit comfortably watching flat screen TVs, connect to the Internet (through six computers), sit back and read a book or simply do nothing. There are special tutorials on monitors and along the walls which describe the various procedure's undertaking in this wing (great education), all while a casual Au Bon Pain serves coffee, sandwiches and desserts in the background.  To this blogger, it felt more like experiencing a new museum or the lobby of a Fortune 500 company versus being in any type of hospital setting.

Moving on to the staff, nurses and doctors, I've never been so enthralled. Every hospital talks the customer service mantra. My experience is that most don't really care and never deliver it. Cornell passes this test with flying colors. From the night before the operation, when a team of five surgeons came into my mother's room every hour to check on her and openly discuss any fears she had, to how these same people called us and then came to the atrium after the surgery to walk us through each and every detail... it was truly special. Whenever we had a question or needed help, someone came to my mother's bed very quickly.

Now, we're experiencing the aftercare in ICU.  ICU is a pretty scary place simply because all the patients there are just coming out of surgery and are dealing with 20 different pains and possible problems. That often creates a lot of chaos and confusion, with lots of nurses/doctors/families stressing out (at least that's what I've seen in other hospitals). That just isn't the case at Cornell. The round the clock nursing staff and attending doctors are firmly in control and create a very confident, peaceful setting which evokes calmness. And, that goes a long way in helping patients (like my mother) recover that much quicker.

Lots of Wall Street/ financing money was given to make this wing a truly special place. All one needs to do is look at the walls to see that the major benefactors were: Ronald Perelman (private equity), Maurice Greenberg (former AIG CEO) and John Mack (CEO of Morgan Stanley). Clearly all of this money came before the crash three years ago, which is a very good thing. Many ordinary folks might not think too highly of these and other Wall Street titans these days. Can't say I blame them. But, here's one tremendous example of a little good that greedy Wall Street sprinkled onto New York City's outdated hospital infrastructure. The results are magnificent.  And, that's worth writing about.

The lost art of interviewing

Had lunch with a friend the other day. He’s a top officer at one of Wall Street’s largest banks. Aside from lamenting about our woeful economy and the stock market for most of our meal, we somehow ended up on the topic of college graduates and their inability to understand the art of interviewing.

My friend (let’s call him Harold), interviews scores of Ivy League and other top international university graduates each month. While many of them are quite intelligent and some are technically proficient in their specific finance specialties, he complained that most don’t come into the interview with any real strategy to win the interviewer over. Often (he finds) that they are either lazy, over confident in their degree and innate intelligence or simply look like deer in the headlights who are about to be slaughtered.

Interestingly, the smaller percentage of those who really make good impressions do so because they understand how to take the interview over in the right way.  Meaning, those few crafty college grads actually switch roles with the interviewer by tactfully asking all the right questions, thus controlling the direction of the discussion.

I told Harold that we experience the exact same thing with our pool of graduates (who typically don’t have anything close  to the pedigrees of those looking for jobs at Wall Street’s biggest banks). I elaborated more by offering up my favorite line on this topic: Candidates need to understand that a good interview shouldn’t really be about or focus on him/her. Instead, it needs to be all about me, my company and what I care about. Although technically I’m supposed to ask a lot of questions, I’d much prefer to see a smart, ambitious candidate who has done his/her homework, asking me lots of focused questions so that I can  understand just how good this kid can be.

When that happens, it’s a beautiful thing. Magically, the interview always lasts longer than it should because our discussion flows so naturally. Did I mention that it actually becomes a two-way dialogue? (another key point) versus a deadly, one way monologue where I ask the question and receive in return an eight second one line response.
Harold and I both agreed that those great interviews just about always lead to very quick hires.

We both wondered why more colleges aren’t doing more to ensure their graduates are really prepared to win that interview. He told me that many of the schools they recruit from hold workshops or even courses on how to interview well.

My response was that someone clearly needs to train these trainers better, because it’s not paying dividends. That’s when we finished our last sip of coffee, paid the check and the conversation ended.

Frankly, I don’t get it. Maybe these bad habits are limited to only the candidates who Harold and I interview.

Hmm…somehow, I doubt it though. We’re in a terrible economy. More pressure is on colleges/universities than ever before to show parents that they are really preparing their kids for the workforce. Yet, this vital last step for success (interviewing well to be hired), is the one that seems to be most easily forgotten.

What a dilemma...

It's sad when credit companies haven't a clue about credit

Peppercom has always used American Express for our small business needs. The company has always given us the benefit we need. That's why it's sad that we were forced to TRY and change credit card companies recently.

You see, my business partner and I (and a lot of our other senior executives) fly a lot on Continental Airlines. AMEX had a great points partnership with Continental and we used those points to purchase free tickets or upgrade. But, to our dismay, that relationship is ending in September.

We recently switched over to a Chase Small Business Card because that's Continental's big partner now. What's sadder, and equally as frustrating, is that Chase has no idea how to service the small business market and doesn't know very much about its target customer either. That became apparent yesterday in an appalling call I had with a Chase Small Business representative.

The call only happened because Chase gave us a paltry $17 thousand limit on our cards. With upwards of 15 executives using these cards to travel for clients, we knew that at a minimum, we needed a limit of 250k. That's what we have with AMEX. The credit professionals there understand our needs, how we use it and they see how we easily pay the balance each month.

Chase told us they needed two years of our audited Peppercom financials to approve this level of credit. We told them no problem. We're profitable, pay our credit debt on time and have plenty of revenue to qualify for this amount.

Yesterday, a Chase Small Business analyst left me a voice mail telling me that our credit request was declined and we are stuck with the original $17 thousand limit. That made no sense at all. So, I called him to discuss the matter. Here was our basic conversation (paraphrased):

Ed: "Hi, you denied us the amount we are asking for. Can I ask why? AMEX has no problem approving this amount or even more."

Chase Rep: "This card is really only meant for one person. While we appreciate your business, we're not sure how you could need that much credit."

Ed: "This is a small business corporate card, right?"

Chase Rep: "Yes."

Ed: "Well then if it is, you'd understand that it isn't for one person's personal use, but instead will be used for travel, hotels, client campaign purchases, office needs, etc., by many senior Peppercom employees. Thus, we could be spending 100 or 200 thousand per month and just want to have a safe limit in case. Again, we've had a 16 year relationship with AMEX that we are now looking to transfer to you. But, you need to understand our needs."

Chase Rep: "Thank you. We do understand your needs. But, that limit is just much too high for one person doing business, sir."

Ed: "Do you understand that this is for my company’s business, not one person? Why did you ask for two years of financial records from Peppercom if you only care about my card? I am not asking for a personal credit card. This is for all Peppercom's needs."

Chase Rep: "I understand and appreciate that. It just seems that our credit analysts feel that 17 thousand, your current limit, should suffice to fill those needs."

Ed: "That's ludicrous. Do your credit people see any issues with our financials? Ok, what about if I lower the limit to maybe... 200 thousand?"

Chase rep: "Nothing on my documents shows any issues with your financial statements, Mr. Moed. That's not a problem. But, 17 thousand is all that we can approve."

Ed: "Ok. I'm getting nowhere. How long have you worked in the small business area for...because you clearly don't comprehend the difference between consumer and business needs."

Chase Rep: "This is my third week, Mr. Moed,"

Ed: "Good-bye."

Based on my experience, Chase should not be in the small business credit card market business. The company wasted my time and that of Peppercom's financial managers as well. Any bank or credit vehicle that understands small business credit would enthusiastically want Peppercom as a customer for that amount of credit.

The moral of this post is for companies to stick to the knitting they know versus trying to expand into areas where a lack of experience will only damage their reputation. I'm done with Chase and every time I see one of its ridiculous small business commercials it will remind me to tell this story again and again and again...

You’re the agency to beat

There’s very little Joy in Mudville when a client tells you that his/her account will be going up for review. That’s because in almost every circumstance, the agency is stuck in a no-win situation.

The simple fact is that once an account goes into review, it’s extremely rare for the incumbent agency to keep the business. Yet, what often transpires is that the agency receives very positive communications from the client about how it should definitely stay in the game and pitch the business because the odds are quite good that it will win. So, never wanting to lose a good piece of business, the agency spends countless hours and $$$ trying to show the client(s) just how well the team understands their business, the great results that have been achieved and a host of other positive factors that it believes should position it well above the bright eyed competition.

While I’m sure this isn’t the only reason why incumbents lose, the key reason why the agency is actually the underdog from the beginning of the pitch process (contrary to what the client says) is because everyone likes shiny, new objects in life. And, when the pitch review starts, those shiny new objects (as in the other competing agencies) represent a fresh look at the world. That, in itself, is very appealing to any client… even though he/she will never tell the incumbent that.

We recently found ourselves in just such a position. We’ve had this client for 9 years. It’s a pretty dysfunctional company. That might sound like sour grapes, but it isn’t. If you asked our client contacts there this question, they would agree. The company has had a revolving door of CEOs (probably 7-8 over the last nine years). And, as much as they wanted us to provide them with strategic communications, they never had the ability to let us do anything beyond tactical media relations… up until the last 9 months, that is.

Ironically at that time, a new CEO came into town to shake everything up. At first, we viewed this as a very scary new reality. He beat us up pretty badly (I still have the bruises to show for it), as well as our clients. He wanted to know why there hadn’t been more strategic work executed on the brand to set the company apart from the serious competition that exists in the marketplace. Those were anxiety ridden discussions because as much as we tried to push through new campaigns that could have delivered the type of results he screamed about not seeing, nothing ever happened due to the internal inertia that exists within this giant company. So, we assumed that our agency and some of the clients would be summarily terminated.

Instead, because we pushed so hard (for one more try) this CEO gave us a reprieve. For the first time, he provided the tools we needed (and senior level approval) to offer a strategic assessment of where the brand should be and then we implemented a nine month campaign to generate results. I tip my hat to our team because those results are simply phenomenal… and they keep on coming. Our client(s) gave us uber praise and this hard-nosed, tough CEO actually handed out a number of compliments as well.

Still, that wasn’t enough. This CEO decided that his marketing people needed to conduct an account review just to see what other firms are out there. According to the CEO, he wanted to make sure that his company had the right firm for the long run. We talked it over and decided not to enter this review. We felt that our work should speak for itself and understood that incumbents rarely every win. But, one of our clients told us that because of the great results achieved, we had a very good chance of keeping the account and it really was “ours to lose.”

So, we decided to compromise. We didn’t officially pitch the business, but still left our hat in the ring to potentially keep it. Of course, that never really mattered and we pretty much understood that from the beginning. Ironically, I think we won the CEO over. In our last meeting a few weeks ago, he said to me, “You are the agency to beat because you know us and have generated some really good results. We’ll make a decision very quickly.” Those words were his last to me, though. Last week he was ceremoniously let go. And yesterday, those marketing people decided to choose a shiny, new agency to take our place. The parting words we received were, “We just need to make a change.” Nothing more was said.

So, what’s the moral of this post? I’d say that there are actually a few:
    1)  Incumbents rarely win – regardless of what the client says. Keep your head about you and know that you     have very little chance of maintaining the business for all the reasons I explained above.
    2)  If your client organization is completely dysfunctional, know that it often takes more than a very strong     willed CEO to actually change the culture or your ability to really make a dent.
    3)  Don’t get upset or angry about being terminated. Use your experience as an advantage. We will – we’re     excited to leverage our knowledge of the industry to help a different competitor in the not so distant future.

“A true friend is with you on the way down as well as the way up”

I read this quote on a small Captiva monitor as I rode up the elevator to Peppercom’s offices the other day. It is quite strange, mainly because this is copy for a Chivas scotch advertisement. Since I was a captive audience in that elevator, I read the copy again and scratched my head trying to understand why Chivas would possibly use this line based on the product that it produces and distributes. 

Are you thinking the same thing? My most immediate reaction is that Chivas is making a connection to people who are crashing in life (that they need friends). And I’m thinking that it’s because they drink way too much. But, why in the world would a spirits maker want to tie its brand to such an awful concept? Especially considering how careful the entire industry needs to be about responsible drinking behavior.

So being the curious fellow that I am, I decided to check into this further: http://www.chivasbrotherhood.com.  The Chivas Brotherhood is a testosterone-driven, male bonding site. It aims to connect the Chivas brand with sophisticated and affluent men who clearly like the finer things in life, including relaxing in cigar smoke filled billiards rooms, sipping scotch and eating a tasty steak, all while telling chummy stories with their buddies.  The opening manifesto says it all:
     “There’s a certain bond that can only be attained by a group of men…These men belong to the brotherhood”

There’s a special concierge which offers specials, contests and giveaways to its members and an “Agenda” section that highlights upcoming events that its members could be interested in attending. And, the library is a real treat because the quotes and stories are made up of such macho content that just by reading them, members are sure to grow more hair on their chest as well.

Ok, I get it. I’m a marketer. This is Chivas’ cute approach to building a deeper relationship with target men drinkers. It’s also a smart means to generate lots of email addresses to enhance the beverage maker’s growing database. All of that makes total sense. But, the ad still doesn’t. I only went to this site because the advertisement was so bizarre and was curious. I also wondered if I did my homework, would I have new blog material. Clearly, that’s now a reality.

There’s no doubt that a good ad can and should lead the target audience to do something. But in this case, I just continued to connect Chivas with “on the way down.”  There is nothing enticing or remotely positive about that.

A fruit that has clearly soured

Yesterday’s financial reports from RIMS, manufacturer of Blackberry devices wasn’t pretty. The Canadian technology company missed its earnings projections by a lot. Probably more importantly, its immediate future is unclear and the company plans to lay off thousands of employees as it ponders its next move to compete in the ever competitive mobile device marketplace. Based on my recent experience, I can’t say that I’m surprised.

I am far from an expert on this type of technology, or the latest products that have emerged.  Like many business professionals, I listen to the advice of my company’s IT professionals and often try the latest product based on what they recommend and some of the hype that other technology leaders create.  As a matter of fact, I’d probably consider myself to be the opposite of an early adopter of new technologies. Instead, I just want a product that will serve its basic functions for me well. And, if I can have the added benefits of some new, cool bells and whistles, then I’m one happy customer.

Peppercom has always been a Blackberry loyal company. Because on our client serving needs, we thrive on immediate email on a 24/7 basis and from a business standpoint and the easy to type keyboards work well with our style. Each and every new model has been accepted enthusiastically by our professionals. Then in trying to break into Apple’s ownership of the lucrative consumer iPhone market, RIMS finally released the Torch late last year. From what I’ve read (and understand), this product was released very quickly so that RIMS could showcase its newest foray into the consumer marketplace. Our IT professionals were a little weary of recommending it. But, because Blackberry has such a proven track record with creating high quality products for professional audiences, they suggested I try it to find out if it could work for me.

At first, I really enjoyed the product and experience I was having.  That’s because the Torch tries to integrate the best of both worlds–  the touch screen and ability to maneuver very quickly through many apps and files (like the iPhone), with a real key board that is pretty easy to type on (a critical part of the Blackberry experience). Unfortunately, that experience only lasted two days though, because all of a sudden, half my emails only came through in bits and pieces. They were unintelligible and that created immediate problems for obvious reasons. As this continued, I found that the system actually became sluggish and it took quite a bit of time for some applications to open after I clicked on the icon.

To make a long story short, our IT whizzes spend hours on the phone with Blackberry trying to fix the email problem. It seems that countless other customers were also experiencing this frustrating problem. What really surprised me (though) is that the RIMS gurus had no idea how to fix it. That just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. After reading through numerous tech blogs on the topic and interviewing Peppercom’s IT professionals, it seems that one truism exists. RIMS was in such a hurry to enter the consumer market that the company didn’t create products that actually worked (or that they knew could work). The consumer experience failed and now we are seeing just how bad the fall out is (and will continue to be) for this once proud technology leader.

For me, well…I returned my Torch and actually decided to try an iPhone instead. So far, so good. I like it mainly due to most of those features that the Torch promised (but didn’t deliver on) are being realized with this product. The bad news for RIMS is that Blackberry loyalists (like me) will now think twice before using one of their new products in the future. Maybe more importantly, those in the know (like our IT professionals) feel much of the same. Deivis Baez, our Director of IT actually told me, “I feel let down because RIMS had plenty of time to come out with the right operating system for this product. Its failure to do quality control prior to launching is a real failure.”

Companies that are extending their brands into new areas need to understand that getting their first product launch right is so critical to ensuring that trust and confidence in their brand continue. The Blackberry failed to do this and its reputation has soured because of it.

Bring back the Pony Express…

The U.S Postal Service (USPS) is going broke. That’s not entirely new. Throughout the last few decades, our  official government mail carrier has faced a myriad of financial woes which almost put it under.

What I find interesting this time is that a complete lack of foresight and innovation is leading to this once proud institution’s downfall. And, because Americans still depend on their daily mail, we’re also going to see the Federal Government provide yet another bail out very soon. Truthfully, it’s too bad that we can’t take a laissez faire approach, and just let the USPS die a normal institutional death like other organizations which simply aren’t able to keep up with what the market needs, or their competitive set.

The main storyline behind this is that those eggheads who lead the USPS never had the ability to foresee a couple of key factors that impact business:
    1) The economy eventually goes down – When that happened, Americans stopped spending so much on first class mail. That’s one of the key ways the postal service makes money. Sending out tons of junk mail is the other money maker for the postal service. Our recent recession turned the junk mail spigot off. Everything else that the USPS sends out from daily letters to big packages, are money losers. In fact, because it charges only 44 cents per letter, regardless of how far that letter has to go, when volume increases, this organization loses money.
    2) We are moving towards an email, paperless society – Yet, our postal service is in the stone age when it comes to digital products (meaning: they have none) Ever hear of e-letters? Many national postal services throughout Europe (like Sweden, France and Norway) have.  Each has modernized its product offerings, making lots of money and profit because they innovated years ago when everyone saw the writing on the wall.

What’s amazing is that if the USPS was a real company, it would be the 29th largest on the Fortune 500 list. It employs 571,566 workers as well. It also is $15 billion in debt, owing $12 billion to the Federal government. And what’s really ironic is that it spends over $25 million on advertising to promote how mail should be used as a marketing tool (i.e. bring back demand for junk mail). Unfortunately, none of that seems to have helped because all the marketing in the world won’t make a dent in the bottom line when the business model has failed.

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. Many of the USPS’ senior management (including its current Post Master General) came up through the ranks of this governmental bureaucracy. Without any outside business training or real experience in running other behemoth organizations, it’s very difficult to bring in new ideas or perspectives that have worked elsewhere.

My take has always been to let the strong survive and the weak… well let them figure it out for themselves. Of course we know that FedEx, UPS and the others couldn’t readily step in and just take over the enormous daily mail needs that the post office provides (rumor has it that the USPS delivers 40 percent of the world’s mail). But, there certainly has to be a better solution than forcing the tax payer to pick up yet another bill to save an institution that hasn’t been right since the days of the Pony Express.

Are you receiving senior-level attention?

There’s an interesting debate in PR Week’s “Gloves Off” column this week. Two agency CEOs dispute whether senior executives should spend most of their time serving clients or focusing their efforts on other agency responsibilities.

Monty Hagler, CEO of RLF Communications, feels that agencies need to depend more on their dedicated account teams to handle the bulk of the work. He feels that these teams are seasoned and should be responsible for providing strategy, creativity, execution of programs… and results. Monty feels that senior folks should focus on bigger picture stuff like quality control processes and enhancing agency resources, because by raising the bar in those areas, clients across the board will receive more value and better results.

Amy Binder, CEO of RF Binder, argues the opposite. Her reasoning suggests that with the advance of all new factors (like social media and everything digital), we need to give our clients senior level thinking all the time to navigate through the challenges and take advantage of opportunities. That means senior level professionals need to be a dedicated part of each account team.

While this issue isn’t black and white and both of these smart leaders make good points, I tend to agree with Amy. In fact conceptually, her thinking is pretty much the way Peppercom was built 16 years ago (before this digital landscape even mattered).   In any consultative, professional services industry, clients want and need senior level thinking. And, it shouldn’t only be given at a monthly or quarterly update or planning meeting.
The world of communications has indeed changed greatly. Every single day, most companies can leverage or should be concerned about news that swells up in the media/blogosphere about it and/or its competitors.  Businesses are adapting new models, changing product lines and just assessing new strategies within their marketplaces quicker than ever before because they now have valuable information at their disposal through a push of the button.

Only very seasoned, senior communications practitioners have the experience to turn data into insightful strategies/approaches that are recommended to clients. That critical thinking is what clients typically want and pay us for. As good as most account teams are in executing programs, they don’t have the wherewithal to offer this value. And, they aren’t at a level where recommendations can be communicated with the conviction that is needed to provide clients with peace of mind.

Monty makes some valid points. The most senior agency people need to also step up to ensure that their firm is always improving resources, ensuring quality control and watching over a host of other critical factors to maintain agency sustainability. But in my eyes, that should never come at the expense of working with clients and our account teams week in and week out, to provide critical direction to their communications efforts. Our industry has a bad reputation for constant client turnover. There’s no doubt in my mind that the major reason why this occurs is because clients aren’t feeling enough love from our industry’s senior level folks. This reality will never change until this key aspect of client service does.

What's a college diploma truly worth these days?

… at least $23,000 of debt, according to a recent study which shows that the average student owes that amount  after graduating from a four year college or university. This same research also shows that the debt levels for graduates have increased upwards of 50 percent in the last decade.

Yahoo Finance decided to take an interesting direction in this article, asking the question, is it worth it? Should more high school kids forgo college because the return just isn't worth the debt accumulated? I say, no way Jose to that theory. Here's why...

I remember graduating more than 20 years ago with about $20,000 in loans. I worked like a dog for very little $$$ over the first few years to survive in Manhattan. I remember thinking just how hard it was to make those monthly payments when times were really tough. Back then (yes, even in the old days), going to college was viewed as a prerequisite into the white collar job market. Unless you were a complete freak of nature like Bill Gates, no diploma meant no real hope of staying away from a career in some type of manual labor.

Fast forward a few decades. Today, a college degree represents (even more) basic table stakes into the professional world.  The only difference is that the Internet has created all new opportunities for some to bypass traditional jobs that college graduates used to need to begin burgeoning careers. Although success rates are slim, entrepreneurs exist at the earliest of ages, setting up garage-based, venture projects and companies with the hopes of creating the next Facebook or Foursquare.  Even with that new reality though, most fail.

So, where is this all going? We all hate the rising price of college education. Hell, I've heard that top private schools might actually cost upwards of $75,000 a year by the time my 8-year old twins are old enough for college. That is downright scary. But, even with all of that, the right type of college education is worth far more than the piece of paper handed out at graduation. And, its benefits go well beyond just providing enough credentials to obtain an entry level white collar job.

For starters, research shows that over a lifetime career, those who have a Bachelor’s Degree earn on average $2.2 million. That's in sharp contrast to those with just a high school diploma who only take home about $1 million. It's hard to justify bypassing college because of a $23,000 IOU (versus) the $1.2 million more one should make with a college education.

Now to the actual part that really matters. As I watch, converse with and listen to so many graduates today, I see how their teachers have taught them to think creatively, in ways that just wouldn't be possible with only a high school degree. I've also encountered some pretty impressive problem solving in the most challenging of circumstances, from recent grads who've only been in the workforce for a year or two. Lastly, the maturity level and social skills that are developed through that four year period can't be duplicated through any other experience in life at that age. Take away those four years of growth, and you'll have a large part of our society who can't deal with the day to day opportunities and pressures that go along with being an adult.

One simply can't measure college debt as a straight pass through investment, like most do after 10 years of medical school. The comparison is truly apples to oranges.  The rising cost of college will become a more acute issue in the decade to come because at a certain point, there will be very few parents who can actually afford to pay full tuition without any financial assistance. But, that's a completely different issue to be taken up in another post. The college experience cannot be replaced.  That is just reality.

Redefining loyalty

Employers everywhere continue to discuss how employee loyalty towards their companies has changed over the   years. Many feel that employee loyalty simply doesn't exist anymore. And, it makes them mad.

This New York Times article tried to offer a new twist on this topic by asking the question: Should loyalty be redefined? Although the headline is catchy, this article offers almost no new insights. Instead, it focuses on many redundant topics that we already know and have heard dozens of times.

For example, we know that loyalties are completely different now versus during the 1950s when an employee could be assured of a job and career for life. Now, there is no real job security beyond feeling that most employers still reward based on merit and real results. Meaning: Do great work and you'll probably still have a job (and may just be promoted as well).

We also know that the Baby Boomers have had the toughest time acclimating to this new reality. The article interviews a number of experts (and Boomers) who feel compelled to tell us just how difficult life is as they've been forced to move from job to job over the last few recessionary years. Nothing new there. Once a person in his/her 50s or 60s loses a job, it can be incredibly difficult. Age matters to most and that's a tough pill to swallow.

Perhaps the point that I'm most sick of reading about though is that this new group of Generation Y workers simply have no interest in being loyal to any employer. These young 20-something new entrants to our workforce are accused of generally having few corporate loyalties, little patience and a tendency to complain  about too much work on their plate.

This article tries to redefine loyalty about the Millennials focusing on how they are more faithful to their teams, co-workers, clients and even causes versus the employers they earn a paycheck from. It also highlights how these employees now move quicker from job to job because very few loyalties ever exist.

I can't say that this point isn't true (I've seen it at my own company). But, I also believe that ever since I've been in the workforce (that's more than 20 years), employees have jumped from one company’s cubicle to another. And, it's because many of the same reasons remain consistently true: more money, better opportunities and a lack of interest or challenge in one's current job.

Sure, maybe it's even worse now. But, one thing hasn't changed and this New York Times reporter failed to capture it. Not sure a new definition of loyalty even matters. What's more relevant is whether employers are making sure that employees are really challenged in their jobs. On top of that, it's how they demonstrate growth paths, as well as financial rewards for them so they won't be tempted to leave.

Be it now or 20 years ago, that's what most employees care about. And, while each new generation might be apt to quit their job for another a little quicker than the last, employers can still keep most of their best performers longer by creating fulfillment at work that they can't easily find elsewhere.