A somewhat new service is available in beta called "Scoop.it."
Scoop.it allows you to create a "newspaper" of sorts from things you find interesting on the web. I'm experimenting with the service and of course I thought of you, gentle reader.
I asked myself - "what would help my readers in their day-to-day life and business." And I answered - "a grouping of articles that someone else took the time to read and evaluate so that they can see what's hot and what's not in the incentive industry with little or no effort on their part."
That, is what Scoop.it facilitates. And that is what I'm offering to you. So, for the first (and possibly the last - but probably not) time I give you the...
I subscribe to over 350 different blogs, sites, what-have-yous on a variety of subjects from science and pyschology to how to build steam-punk watches. In addition, I monitor my twitter stream where I'm following 2,000+ people. I also get a lot via email. I have a lot of info coming in.
It's from all those input streams that I find ideas for posts on this blog, posts on the FistfulofTalent blog and posts for clients and friends. It's how I keep up with the industry and business in general.
And now you can have a subset of that firehouse, vetted and consolidated for your reading pleasure.
Many of the feeds I get are from incentive and reward companies. Some of their blogs have some interesting stuff you should be aware of. In fact - if you want to be sure you're at least included in the first pass shoot me a note and let me know where your site is and I'll take a look and add it to my reader list.
CAVEAT: If you have your feed set up to only show a "summary" or an excerpt so that I have to click through to the site - forget it. Don't bother sending me the site info. Feeds that only show a summary are simply padding their web page stats trading clicks for readers. I don't click through. I ignore the content ... period. No exceptions. A feed reader is for me to get info WITHOUT clicking out to your site. So don't suggest your site if it only offers a summary feed. (btw - none of your readers appeciate it either - it's a pain in the ass and it shows that the site is about you not them - they will remember that. Just sayin'.)
Hope you find it interesting and helpful. Let me know what you think in the comments. Continue or cut? Your call.
I get frustrated some times as I peruse the google alerts I’ve set up for incentives, rewards, recognition and other topics related to designing and delivering great influence programs. Mostly because I continue to see bad advice being doled out over and over again.
Specifically, I see incentive “professionals” telling potential clients that good incentive design requires that awards be tied to results. How else can you prove and ROI?, they state. While developing an ROI model is difficult when the outcomes from the incentive are not tied to specific metrics, like say, increased sales... it is not impossible.
If all you focus on is the “result” you will have bad program. #Fact.
I’ll let you read the full article here... but the points from his post that I think are critical to remember are:
"But having this single measure for performance placed so saliently in front of them, and knowing it’s just as important for their school and their students as it is for their own reputation and career, most likely motivates some teachers to look the other way when they have a chance to artificially improve those numbers."
And...
"The notion that we take something as broad as education and reduce it to a simple measurement, and then base teacher pay primarily on it, has a lot of negative consequences. And, sadly, I suspect that fudging test scores is relatively minor compared with the damage that this emphasis on tests scores has had on the educational system as a whole."
Now think about the various things in your own company that you have incentives layered upon (or you are planning to layer in an incentive ) – are they not complex?
Do the outcomes you want require people to do multiple activities and be skilled at multiple behaviors in order for those outcomes to be realized or improved?
Selecting a single measure – or a single outcome – influences people to put way too much emphasis on that outcome – the “what” – and not enough attention on the “how” and “why.”
The “what” becomes the goal - then come hell or high water your participants will achieve that outcome.
Ethics be damned.
Focusing more on behaviors means that your audience will be learning and practicing the things that will eventually lead to the outcomes you want. And those behaviors will begin to be internalized – reducing your need to run the incentive in the future.
And you’ll worry less that someone will go rogue in the organization in order to hit their “numbers.”
And... by the way... this issue is compounded when the award value is too rich for the behavior/outcome you're targeting.
I only ask for 5% of revenues when this idea is built. And it will be. By me or someone else ‘cuz it’s brilliant, infinitely doable, cool, and did I say brilliant?
But like all great ideas I can’t take full credit. If it weren’t for @chrisferdinandi and his blog "Go Make Things" I wouldn’t have thought of this the other day.
Chris uncovered an application using QRCodes, built by Tesco Korea (big global grocery company) that is simply brilliant as well. (I’m using brilliant a lot lately – makes me sound British, no?) From his blog...
"Tesco recreated an entire grocery store with signage in Korean subways. The layout and items were identical to those in their actual stores. Each item was labeled with a QR code. People waiting for their train could simply scan the QR codes to add items to their list, and have them delivered while they ride the train."
Also on his site is a video of how it works. It is, have I said, brilliant?
What’s in Your Catalog
So I’m thinking... one of things every incentive company deals with is developing a catalog for award point redemption. In the past it was paper-based and supported by a big staff of buyers and designers and printers. Back in the day we'd actually have catalog wars – “mine is bigger than yours” fights and delays in launching to see if we could get a copy of the competitor's catalog and make ours bigger and badder. We spent a lot of money on those things ($1 Million plus.) Then the internet came along and everything went online. Then Amazon.com got in (and then back out quickly) which changed our idea of what “lots of items” meant and now if an incentive company can’t say they have “millions” of items – well – they are just pikers aren't they?
But what if---- what if you could build your own individual and personal catalog simply by using the barcode scanner on your smart phone?
You can use both QRCodes and Barcodes - there already are apps that scan the barcode and then tell you the price of the item at different stores so this is not a stretch.
Think about it. Shopping in Kohls and you like that shirt? Whip out our smart phone – punch the “My Catalog” app and up pops your barcode reader software, takes a picture of the item/bar code and uploads it to your personal online catalog. As you earn points in your program (and this could be employee, channel or consumer) your app reminds you of what is in your catalog at various point levels and as you hit those levels it asks if you want to order it. If you say yes... then automagically (I’ll admit I don’t have this all worked out – but hey – I never said it was VC ready) behind the scenes the item is ordered and shipped to your house/work/mistresses' condo.
So... whadda ya think? Should I start looking for retirement homes in France?
I know we think autonomy, mastery and purpose are great – but what’s really great is setting goals (internal AND external) and working toward them and receiving the reward WE WANT when we hit those goals.
I think it is brilliant (I know, again.) But I think chip bag clips are the smartest thing I’ve seen in a while too...
PS... just to be trendy - we could also put a social sharing app in this that let's other people in the program see what you have made public in your catalog so they could add it to their catalog or share info on the item if they already have it (kind of a +1 for awards). Okay, now maybe it's 10% of revenues.
Hit me in the comments on via email and let me know when to expect the checks.
As I was putting together thoughts on a post for today it struck me that I've probably put out everything I know about incentives, rewards recognition over the past 6 years. But with the way we consume information these days - in real time versus consulting a static document or book - some of the old stuff, even though it may be out of sight and out of mind - is still valid.
So - reaching into the wayback machine I found a few "cheat sheets" on program rules and when to apply different program types depending on your objectives and created a new page on the site called "Reference Documents" - you can link to it from the sidebar.
Designing programs is hard and full of unintended consequences. You can help reduce the risk of that with the rules overview download. In the document we list out the various program types (hit and win, objective based, etc.) and show you the pros and cons of each kind of program. Not all-inclusive but good enough to help you decide which kind of program structue might work for your goal/audience.
Second...
Ever ask yourself - "how can I _____?" (insert your goal in the blank space.)
If so, then check out the two documents we included where we list some broad business challenges, the audiences that can affect those challenges and some general suggestions on the type of influence/reward program that could be considered to drive those results.
More and more I’m seeing posts with headlines like: “Ditch the Carrot – Use Recognition Instead” or “Employees Don’t Want Carrots.”
I’m here to tell you it isn’t true.
Yes, employees want more recognition.
Yes, recognition is a key component in your employee engagement strategy.
Yes, recognition has been ignored in the past.
Yes, the most recent generation of employees are more attuned to recognition based on their “everyone gets a trophy” upbringing.
But don’t listen to all those recognition gurus and trophy salespeople tell you to eliminate your incentive programs.
If I told you that you should abandon email in favor of Facebook would you? They are both communications platforms. They both allow you to connect and communicate with various people over the internet. You wouldn’t do it would you?
You know they serve very distinct purposes. So too, do recognition and incentives.
It’s Not About Either/Or – It’s About How Much of Each
The purpose of recognition AND incentives is to influence behavior in your organization so that your employees achieve their individual goals and you help your company hit its organizational targets.
I would never recommend you eliminate incentives any more than I’d tell you to eliminate recognition. Anyone who tells you to is doing you a disservice.
If you’re getting the hard sell to eliminate your incentive activity in favor of a “recognition” strategy you’re being sold – not counseled. You’re being manipulated not helped.
The right thing to do is create a mix of recognition, incentive, communication and training tailored to your organizational needs.
Blindly following a company riding the crest of one best seller advocating elimination of incentives (with bad rationale I might add...) is lemming behavior and further proof that just ‘cuz everyone is doing it doesn’t make it right.
What if you knew what the next big thing will be for your industry? What if you could almost predict where your new market will be? Wouldn’t it be great if you could figure out, before your competition, what your current customers (and a few non-customers) would be looking for 6 months, a year or 2 years from now? Yeah. That would be valuable information.
Early Warning Signals
One thing I’ve watched happen in the many different industries (including the incentive industry more than once) is that we get caught flatfooted on many changes (big and small.) We spend so much time worrying about how we’ll make money this week, this month, this quarter – we forget to pay attention to how we will make money in 5 years or 3 years or even 2 years.
But I know one way to help mediate this issue.
Recognize your vendors. Yup. Your vendors.
Outside the Wall
Employee recognition has fast become the initiative of the week. My google alerts are constantly pinging with a new blog post or article about recognizing employees to reduce turnover, increase recruiting effectiveness, cure the common cold. Employee recognition is now standard. And, if you’ve paid any attention at all here on this site you know we are firmly in the “pro recognition” camp.
But many companies still ignore a critical reference point for business success. Vendor relationships.
The Evil That Provides Insight
Vendors should be considered part of your recognition ecosystem and should be evaluated and recognized regularly.
“But, vendors aren’t real people. They are there for us to beat up for price concession and take advantage of when the bar bill comes around. Why should we spend anytime recognizing them? They’re just a necessary evil – they’re just, well, vendors.”
Vendors Are People Too – and Smart Ones
Here’s why your vendors should be part of your recognition strategy...
Many processes, products, sub-assemblies and services are being outsourced today. Companies are focusing on their “core competencies” and leaving the non-value add stuff to someone else (read “vendor”.) I’m sure you’ve got more vendors today than ever before. Your vendor performance is as critical to your success as your employees are. In fact – many vendors spend more time in you offices than your employees do. Keeping them focused on your goals and objectives is too important to leave to chance.
Vendors work with other companies. They see what you don’t. They see what many others are doing. They are an early warning system for new applications and ideas. They are working on a variety of opportunities that are probably adjacent to what you do and can provide interesting information on what is going on the space you occupy.
Vendors are people too. They will help those that help them. Treat them like crap – they probably won’t tell you a competitor is considering a new process or procedure that could shave millions off the cost of their service. Why should they? You’ve been taking advantage of them and treating them like a stray dog. They will simply let you continue to make mistakes, charge you for them and wield the specter of “out of scope” when the changes hit.
You spent time and money doing the due diligence to find the smartest, best vendors (or for those enlighten companies – partners) to help you be successful. Why spend that energy to get the best and brightest working for you and then treat them like crap? Doesn’t make sense for employees –doesn’t make sense for vendors either.
It’s the right thing to do. It’s just plain good manners my friend.
I’ve probably not spent as much time on vendor recognition and reward as I should. In fact one the largest engagements we did this year was all around how to best recognize vendors to drive future business.
Vendors Are Really Employees With W-9s Instead of W-2s
Vendors are a more important part of your business success than ever before and should be an active and important part of your recognition strategy. They will appreciate it – and when they appreciate you – they help you. Running an effective and visible vendor recognition and reward program will pay dividends for years to come.
So – next time when you meet with vendors for lunch or drinks – at least pick up the freakin’ tab.
In 1962 Everett Rogers came out with a book called Diffusion of Innovations. In that book he outlined the process he thought governed how new ideas are adopted by a population – specifically consumers. He also categorized people based on their “adoption” timing. Geoffrey Moore built on this concept and applied it to businesses in his books Crossing the Chasm and Dealing with Darwin (and others - highly recommend them all!)
Rogers outlined five different adoption categories as follows:
Innovators
Innovators are the first individuals to adopt an innovation, take risks, are the youngest, have the highest social class, are very social, have closest contact to scientific sources and interaction with other innovators.
Early Adopters
This is the second fastest category of individuals who adopt an innovation and they have the ighest degree of opinion leadership among the other adopter categories, typically younger in age, have advanced education, and are more socially forward than late adopters. They also are more picky with their choice of adoption than the early adopters.
Early Majority
Individuals in this category adopt an innovation after a varying degree of time. This time of adoption is significantly longer than the innovators and early adopters. They are waiting to see what the early adopters are doing.
Late Majority
Individuals in this category will adopt an innovation after the average member of the society. These individuals approach an innovation with a high degree of skepticism and after the majority of society has adopted the innovation.
Laggards
The last to adopt an innovation, show little to no opinion leadership, have an aversion to change-agent. Laggards typically tend to be focused on “tradition.”
For whatever reason, this idea popped into my head the other day and I started thinking about reward and recognition strategies and how we engage our employees (and channel partners for that matter.) I realized that companies also fall into an “adoption” curve when it comes to engaging and rewarding/recognizing their employees. Unfortunately, it’s a skewed curve – and that can be a problem not only for the employee – but for the company as well.
Technology Adoption Curve
The curve Rogers designed included what he thought was the percentage of the population that fell into each category. He used a “normal distribution and the curve looks like this:
I looked at that curve and asked myself – what strategies and techniques currently being used by companies to engage and drive employee performance would fall into each of the categories? In other words - which of the techniques being applied are innovative and which are old and tired. The chart below shows what I quickly came up with (feel free to argue/add to this list in the comments.)
But when I looked at the curve it just didn’t look right. When I think about the companies I talk to and the conversations I have with industry folks - companies are not following a normal distribution when it comes to adoption of engagement ideas.
In fact, based on my decidedly unscientific take on the industry, I would suggest that the curve for adoption skews heavily into the late stage adoption groups like the curve below. The red boxes show the percentage of companies I believe are in each of the categories. Again – argue/comment below – love to get your feedback.
Why?
Now the big question – why do you think the curve skews so far to late adoption? My take:
Too much to lose if they are wrong.
In consumer worlds, trying a bad idea rarely breaks the bank, but in the business world a company that invests a lot in untried and new ideas runs the risk of going out of business. Espeically in the HR world where either you can’t (or won’t) do some sort of pilot testing to see if the new idea has merit.
No Focus on Employees
Part of me thinks that too many companies just don’t get the idea that people are the new competitive advantage. They still think great marketing, great products, opaque pricing and asymmetric information is the path to success. Unfortunately, they forget there is no great product, great marketing, great conversations without people. And technology has eliminated the whole asymmetric info thing... just google it.
They Aren’t Desperate Yet
Desperation makes people do amazing, scary, unbelievable things (can you say 127 Days?.) While I don’t think any of the ideas that are “new” are scary – they are amazing – but many companies won’t change ANYTHING until they absolutely have too... and then it will be too late IMHO.
Find Yourself on the Curve
Check out the curve – check out the definitions. Are you a laggard, early adopter, or a late majority? Then go ask someone else. They will tell you the truth.
Remember – 90% of the people surveyed think they are above average – so does your company – so do you. But I’m suggesting being average is being behind.
Look at the left side of the graph – those are the things you should be talking about – not whether you should give Mary Employee of the Month because she hit the time-clock 19 out of 20 days on time.
Designing effective incentives, rewards, recognition and influence programs is 1/3rd Art, 2/3rds science and 1/3rd luck.
Unfortunately, many in the incentive industry believe they can pull the wool over the eyes of potential buyers by “standing next to Einstein” and hoping the buyer can’t tell the difference between them and a real thought leader. Or in the case of this post on Incentive Magazine - standing next to B.F. Skinner.
"We need to adjust our thinking about how we compensate and motivate our workforces. In short, we need to inspire our people in ways that are both effective and affordable.
A good way to start is to think less about rewarding results and more about reinforcement of positive behaviors required to produce the results. This is a simple and effective methodology that, when deployed properly, can create a positive and enthusiastic work environment."
I am in 100% agreement with those two paragraphs. Focus on behavior and look at ways to make the environment positive.
Then the author goes insane.
I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!
The article jumps from a good intro to a discussion on the concepts of operant conditioning.
Specifically, the various reinforcement schedules studied by B.F. Skinner in the late 1930’s and further refined through the 50’s and into the 70’s. If you have spent any time reviewing Skinner’s work you know this... Skinner really did not believe in free will.
Watch the first minute of this video on conditioning featuring an interview with Skinner. Pay attention to the comments made 26 seconds into the video... (email/rss readers will have to click through to the post to see video.)
Here's the important piece of information...
“So the pigeon isn’t acting independently. It’s behavior is shaped by it’s environment.”
The extension of this line of thinking is: the best program design for engagement is a program where your employees aren't thinking independently.
Let me ask this simple question? Do you really think applying operant conditioning to employees is the best way to get employees “inspired” and create a “positive and enthusiastic environment”?
Standing Next To, Isn’t Being
This article is simply a trick to make you think that because an incentive supplier quotes a famous scientist about behavior, they know what they are talking about. Standing next to Skinner doesn’t make you right.
I quote a lot of studies and scientific stuff, and in most cases, I will admit if I’m not sure they apply to program design. I’m always looking for ways to help companies increase the odds of influencing behavior ethically and in a way that benefits both the employee, the channel audience AND the company. So, I bring up ideas and thoughts based on those studies. I don't think I've ever recommended that you condition employees (can you say “A Clockwork Orange?”) I'll be the first one to tell you that the studies are directional - not dictatorial.
Studies and theories are simply jumping off points to help you determine how to best align your goals and your employees.
If you buy the idea that the best way to engage employees is through rote behavioral conditioning than you deserve the program you get – and you deserve the long-term employee problems you will experience.
Engagement Isn’t Conditioning
This article is not only demeaning to employees, it’s demeaning to buyers of incentive programs and frankly – continues to position those in the industry as snake oil sales people that will do anything to sell a toaster or a trip.
Quality influence programs signal the behaviors your company values. Quality programs reward and recognize behaviors that reinforce your company values, mission and culture. Properly designed incentive programs communicate direction and allow employees to choose to play and be rewarded.
Operant conditioning can and will drive a behavior. And that’s great if you want the dog to stay in the yard or get your employees to turn off their computers. However, if you want thinking, engaged, challenging, happy, innovative and ethical employees - this ain't the right path.
Forget the “conditioning” and worry about the “conditions”
Spend time finding out what is needed to get employees to WANT to contribute versus listening to this garbage about conditioning your employees like pigeons and rats. The last thing most companies need is a bunch of drones – pecking away at a dot in order to get a morsel of food or another crystal vase.
I don’t believe operant condition – no matter if it is effective or not – is a strategy you should NEVER consider. And frankly – I don’t think it will work anyway. We have free will, we have the ability to understand context and we can tell (usually) when we’re being manipulated. And when we smell manipulation – we start looking for a way out of that rat’s maze.
Don’t assume because someone is standing next to Einstein they are as smart as him.
Just approach employees ethically and honestly. That’s what they really want.
Probably the hardest thing I do on a daily basis is explaining why there isn’t a foolproof answer to the questions my clients ask.
“What works?”
“How do I motivate my people?”
“What’s the best way to craft a recognition program?”
“Who should be involved in the program?”
“What are the best practices in incentive design?”
“What’s The Frequency Kenneth?”
My goal when starting this company was to provide honest, unbiased, untainted by award, quality incentive and reward program design services. I wanted to give my clients what they weren’t getting – and combat what I saw as malpractice by many incentive and reward companies hell-bent for leather to sell you a toaster, a trip, a debit card. (btw - interesting connection to motivation and the REM song - check it here...)
Unfortunately, as Michael Corleone says in the Godfather Part III,
“Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in.”
I keep getting the same questions – questions that allow my clients to feel comfortable they are following a plan, a model, a formula. Formulas make us feel comfortable. Formulas give us a “foundation”, no matter how weak, for our decisions. My clients want an answer. And, unfortunately, the answer many times is “it depends.” No pat answer
2/3rds Science - 1/3rd Art - 1/3rd Stuff I can’t Control
My canvas is people. And, as I’ve said at many seminars, webinars, and meetings – people are infinitely variable and therefore don’t fit formulas perfectly. There are guidelines, generalities – things you can do to increase the odds of achieving your objectives, but there are no rules. Rules are for physics. Rules are for children. Rules won’t work when trying to guide behaviors and drive engagement. People are just too...different.
The best you can hope for is to know enough about what drives decision-making and leverage as many potential triggers as possible – and even then expect some interesting and unpredictable results.
Frameworks As Security Blankets
Dan Ariely – professor, author of “Predictably Irrational”, and “The Upside of Irrationality” (highly recommend both BTW) – has very interesting video on his blog – I’ve embedded below (email and RSS subscribers may need to click through to see the video.) I briefly describe the video below so if you want to watch first – go now – about 5 minutes.
It struck me that like the marketing Execs discussed in the video, many of my clients are looking for “THE MODEL” – the rule book. But as Ariely says – there aren’t really any models and any model you pick has “some” validity. Consultants are great at this – find a way to package a thought process – pick some letters – make it fit and viola – you’ve got a sellable solution to a client’s problem.
For those of you who haven't seen the video yet... Look at those frameworks – closely.
Remember the framework was designed and presented by Dan Ariely. Look again.
Ah... now you get it.
The “Incentive Model”
The incentive industry has used a few over the years:
Motivation = Communications x Training x Reward
Performance = Ability x Preparation x Effort x Will
Motivational Force (MF) = Expectancy x Instrumentality x Valance
Performance = Ability x Motivation
Effort = Drive x Habit x Incentive
Performance = ability X motivation X organizational support
Sometimes they go all mathy on you and add the “f(x)” at the beginning and maybe even raising it to a power of some sort – usually something to do with their unique and patentable award mix – making it look more like a “real” formula like this:
My point here is that don’t look for a formula... look for the generalities that explain as much of our human variance as possible. No formula, model, construct, will explain our behaviors. Relegating your motivation, engagement and reward discussion to a formula ensures you will be playing into the hands of the incentive supplier. Remember who wrote the formula. What do you think their real intent was? Drive performance or drive redemption? Just asking.
So What’s The Frequency Kenneth?
I don’t know – and neither do they. I do know this – a formula isn’t the right answer. A thorough understanding of your particular support systems, cultural history, brand identity, and talent make-up is what really drives program design.
Wait... is that a new model?
Coming soon to a four-square PowerPoint slide near you....
Recently I saw a post in one of my Linkedin Groups about travel incentives that made me embarassed for my industry. Which group and the author isn't important. What is important is the description of the program inclusions that made me go "huh?"
Here's the set up.
Client wanted to cut incentive travel program budget from $600K to $375K. Incentive designer/Planner presented a $1.6 million budget with busines case rationale that the new program/budget would drive business to the next level. The client bought the $1.6 million program and sales went way up. Sales were so good the CEO of the client company held a company-wide celebration that (to quote the post)...
"that included a video broadcast of the sales team, from their incentive travel destination, telling those employees how much they appreciated being able to exceed sales and margin objectives 'due to your support'.
The presentation concluded with the Senior Vice President telling the employees, 'No, we can't all be on that trip, but we are all celebrating growth in our business while our competition is meeting to try and figure out who to lay-off".
I'll let you read that again.
Here is one thing you can count on...
You Will Never Get That Recommendation From Us
I bring this to your attention for two reasons.
Reason One:
IMHO - It's a terrible idea.
We would never recommend that the sales people who earned a trip to some great travel location send a "video message" back home to say thanks for the support. It's one thing to send video messages back from the war - quite another to film 50 tanned, sunglassed, half-baked sales people toasting the folks back home with a 48 oz Hurricane in a logo-identified souvenier glass from Tropical Tommy's Bar, Grille and Tire Shop on some exotic island.
I'm pretty sure all the "little people" back home know they contributed to the sales person earning that trip. Some of them may even be a little happy they earned it. Some, not so much. Sending this message - from the trip participants back home - strikes me as a bit tasteless and elitest.
Now that's my opinion - and why you'll never see that as a recommendation from us.
However, we might recommend...
Each sales person send a personal, handwritten note outlining specifically what that individual did to assist that sales person, and the company, hit their goal. Better yet - make it from their manager with some quotes from various members of the sales team and the Sr. Execs. Maybe include a gift card as a kicker. But the note is the real thing.
Give everyone in the company some much needed extra vacation days (one or two - nothing weird like 30 extra days.)
Recommendations from their manager to the individuals LinkedIn profiles (if they have them.)
Reason Two:
I want to know what you think of it? Am I way off base? Does this makes sense to you all. Majority will rule.
Not really - regardless of what you all say I will still think it is crass and demeaning. But give it a shot in the comments.
Recent Comments