What the NYT teaches us, competitive analysts

The essence of reporting to management is to have a message. Sometimes it is a message they want to hear and sometimes it’s not. The question how to make it palatable is critical. Just reporting on what’s happening is journalism. A perspective is an analyst’s value add. We should all learn from the NY Times how to serve a cold dish hot.

The unprecedent storm that froze Texas electric grid in February of this year hasn’t even dried on paper – let alone on the solar panels- before the NY Times explained what caused it. (The year is 2021 if this article is found 1000 years from now under the warming/frozen Florida- choose whichever fits your narrative).

Just reporting on what’s happening is journalism. A perspective is an analyst’s value add

Serving NYT's loyal readers, the reporters didn’t just report on possible causes and alternative explanations (too early to determine conclusively), but immediately concluded with authority reserved for the perspective favored by the readers of the NY Times: “Part of the responsibility for the near-collapse of the state’s electrical grid can be traced to the decision in 1999 to embark on the nation’s most extensive experiment in electrical deregulation.”

I admire the NY Times even if I disagree with anything it has said in the past 171 years (that’s one year before it was founded. Even then I knew it’s full of, oh well, hot air). They know the art of delivering a consistent anti market message, and CI analysts should take heed.

I admire the NY Times even if I disagree with anything it has said in the past 171 years

The fact that Oregon – regulated to the level of Brussels-class type anti-market philosophy- suffered from collapse of its grid that same week should not be mentioned. In another story by MSN, about Oregon, the reporters made sure the distinction was clear: “The power outages experienced in the Willamette Valley over the past week are nothing like those experienced in Texas.” I don’t know, siting in the dark and shivering in Oregon seems very much similar. The fact that California has suffered rolling blackouts every year or so since re-regulating in 2002, was overlooked artfully by stating the opposite: California had to re-regulate in 2002 because of market manipulation.

As a personal note, in my beloved the Free State of Florida, the regulated state monopoly left us without electricity for 12 days when Wilma the Hurricane hit. Man, it was hot in the bunker (and unlike freezing blackout, there was no baby boom 9 month later. You try doing it in 100 degrees.)

The reason I admire NY Times’ artful presentation is that most reasonable readers may conclude – without the paper’s perspective- that the opposite was more valid. Texas, notable for devastating heat waves, actually demonstrated the strength of a market-based electric deregulation. During summer times, the system holds while California’s re-re-re-regulated utility seems to cause some fires itself. Once-in-a-lifetime freeze was not planned for in Texas. Neither is volcanic eruption or Chinese takeover of Texas or AOC’s economic fantasy. Wind turbines were not equipped with expensive de-icing like North Dakota’s. You wonder why. After all, N. Dakota is also in the Milky Way Galaxy.

Rest assured, the market will adjust not because of regulations but because customers will demand it. Independent minded Texans will get generators, solar panels, batteries to decouple from the grid, just as Texas itself always played it alone. And electricity will be cheaper than regulated rates. But the NY Time’s readers got what they wanted to hear. 

That's how you should deliver!

In competitive intelligence, you want to present a perspective, but not to be seen as obviously biased. Management will immediately tune off if it sees no silver ray. I admire good delivery that pretends to be balanced even if it is the opposite of my view. "Pros and cons" presentations are never objective. They are real art. Since competitive intelligence is never about the facts- those are reserved for lower level, tactical “good to know but useless” news items, the NY Times teaches us how to do it well. It buried the other perspective in one line: “The state’s entire energy infrastructure was walloped with glacial temperatures that even under the strongest of regulations might have frozen gas wells and downed power lines.” Move on, quickly.

I admire good delivery that pretends to be balanced even if it is the opposite of my view

Now no one can blame NY Times for lying to its readers. It didn’t- strictly speaking- lie. It’s just served them hot air, ooops, hot meal. 

Alternative perspective: There is no “truth” in competitive intelligence. There is no “truth” in “facts”. It’s not a cynical view, it’s an admission that everything is seen through some interpreter’s eyes. Even choosing what to collect and distribute is subjective. No, platforms are not the answer though I am all for platforms (some more than others but this is my subjective perspective) as they get rid of the nonsense of collecting noise. Instead of fighting to tell the “truth”, fight to be heard. When you are heard- via real intelligence not junk-data-cum-“intelligence” it means you give your perspective a chance to affect thinking. Everything else is busy work.

Instead of fighting to tell the “truth”, fight to be heard.

Admittedly, I met some “CI” people who excel at busy work and corporate has a lot of fat to burn so why not on them? But the party for expensive data and expensive vendors is over the minute you get a real analyst to deliver a message artfully.

Issuing a challenge- do respond:

Now to the main issue: Did you like my comic strip? I am thinking of publishing it as part of a book I call The Book of Woke. I need 20 million subscribers to get the attention of publishers. I have 3,000 subscribers. Some may say it's a dream. In the name of a generic influenzer (you know they are all clones, right), I say, follow your dream!

Some say it's a fantasy. In the name of AOC I say: it is fantasy but if you vote for it, I'll be rich!

And as Ben Gilad I say, get off you lazy behind, and get me 20 million subscribers. If not, I swear, I'll post a photo of me in bikini in the Caribbean, and you won't be able to ever un-see it.