That Other Manning

From Manning to Manning: The focus over the last few days has been on Eli Manning, with a little bit of spotlight on big brother Peyton and father Archie. When football and the Super Bowl are national, even international extravaganzas, it’s hard to escape the klieg lights and camera lenses, especially after you’ve engineered your second upset victory over the New England Patriots in the waning seconds of a nail-biting game, as Eli did on Sunday for the once again champion New York Giants.

But our collective attention as a nation and as a member of the family of nations might be better focused on that other Manning, Bradley Manning. He’s not a football player, not an NFL quarterback like the other Mannings. He’s not, as far as I know, related to Eli and his family.

For those who might have forgotten, Bradley Manning is the U.S. Army soldier suspected of providing hundreds of thousands of documents to the whistleblower website WikiLeaks. Pfc. Manning is to face a court martial shortly for his alleged transgression.

Some label Bradley a hero, even going so far as to suggest he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. Others call him a traitor for revealing classified government documents. Whatever your take on his alleged actions, there is no doubt publication by WikiLeaks of government secrets has enlightened the dialogue about our foreign affairs in a fashion not seen since publication of the Pentagon Papers revealed the behind the scenes drama that led to U.S. involvement in Vietnam and the loss of more than 58,000 America servicemen.

With all the facts not yet available, Bradley Manning is a figure to be neither prematurely reviled nor celebrated. But it is certain that the disposition of his court martial, and any subsequent action by or against WikiLeaks, will have a more lasting effect on our country and the world than Eli Manning’s triumphant march up the gridiron, no matter how exhilarated he made Giants fans feel and how sad he left Patriots fans.


The Blame Game: As the Giants and their fans celebrated through the Canyon of Heroes in lower Manhattan and later at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey today, it is worth remembering the Super Bowl easily could have been won by the Patriots. Equally worth consideration is the fame or shame that can rest on one’s shoulders, drawn there in an instant or taken away in a nanosecond.

Mario Manningham is being hailed for making “the catch” that helped transport the Giants to victory. Yet, had Big Blue not won, he easily could have been blamed for two muffed catches that prevented New York from getting within scoring distance. Five minutes before his claim-to-fame 38-yard catch, Super Mario failed to stay in bounds on a 28-yard heave from Eli Manning that would have given the Giants a first down inside the Pats’ five yard line. He was criticized by TV commentator Chris Collingsworth for repeatedly running too close to the sidelines throughout his career.

Earlier in the game, late in the second quarter, Manningham ran a deep post pattern. He did not catch a ball Manning put within his reach, right above his head. He whiffed on the ball with his left hand and couldn’t bring it in with his right. The Giants had to punt and New England quarterback Tom Brady then led his team to a go-ahead touchdown with eight seconds left in the first half.

With his spectacular catch on the Giants’ last drive, Manningham went from bum to hero. Such are the vagaries of sports.

But that doesn’t make me comprehend how any fan or member of the press could hang the loss by New England on Brady, as has been reported. Giselle Bundchen, Brady’s supermodel wife, might have been indelicate in how she said it after the game, but it's true his receivers let the team down. Wes Welker, Deion Branch and Aaron Hernandez should have caught four passes that were in their hands, two missed catches on each of the last two possessions. They weren't all picture perfect passes but they were good enough to be caught 98% of the time. These quality receivers, however, dropped 100% of them. And as I wrote Monday, had Rob Gronkowski's ankle been better he could have pushed off of it and dove for the tipped last-play-of-the-game-Hail-Mary-pass. I believe he would have caught it.

If you're going to blame Brady for anything it would be the blocked third down pass by Jason Pierre-Paul that forced the Pats to take a field goal in the second quarter, especially since the announcers said they had practiced the need for Brady to get the ball over the pass rushers. The four-point difference between a field goal and a touchdown with point after was the difference in the game. You could also fault him for the early first quarter safety, but New England had plenty time to recover from that two-point faux pas.

It’s important to remember football is a team sport. Individuals make key contributions, both negative and positive, but unlike sports such as singles tennis, boxing, golf, skiing, and most track & field events, one side wins because of the collective effort of a team. As Giselle said, "My husband cannot f--king throw the ball and catch the ball at the same time. I can't believe they dropped the ball so many times."


Gimme Some R-e-s-p-e-c-t, Part II: On January 25, 2011, I commented on a NY Times story of a few days earlier about ideas to rejuvenate suburbia. One suggestion was to transform “dead” malls into downtown areas that could be enjoyed by an increasingly aging society.

Not much has changed in a year, which puzzled me as to why on February 6, 2012, The Times chose to focus once more on the plight of shopping centers during these economically stressed times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/business/making-over-the-mall-in-rough-economic-times.html?_r=1). Aside from a snappy front page headline, “How About Gardening or Golfing at the Mall?”, there really was nothing new in this story.

Which means I once again can tell you that 16 years ago I editorialized in my magazine that excess shopping center space should be converted to alternate uses including turning the square footage into senior citizens apartments, low or moderate income housing, community centers, and my personal favorite, low-risk detention centers.

Stay tuned for next year’s edition...

Déjà Vu, Retail Edition

Amazon.com’s promotion last weekend suggesting customers walk into brick and mortar stores to price goods with a smartphone app and then buy them from Amazon with a 5% discount up to $5 has engendered an intense war of words, casting the online behemoth as anti-Main Street and a pox on the small business, national economy.

Naturally, Amazon rebuts the charges, but the brouhaha is just the latest iteration of a century-old battle between entrenched retail operations and newer, evolving, more efficient modes of consumer goods distribution. In this battle, only the most nimble, well-financed retailers survive, yet they, too, may be challenged by future concepts that convey products at less cost to the retailer and consumer.

One of my mentors, the late David Q. Mahler, used to say all revolutions in retailing reflected fundamental shifts in distribution practices. The department store concept that began in the mid-1800s aggregated diverse products under one roof. Five-and-dime stores brought products to the masses at affordable prices. The mail-order houses of Montgomery Ward and Sears, Roebuck and Co. extended the purchasing options of rural America. Supermarkets transformed the way households bought staples and necessities even as they initiated the self-service revolution by placing products within reach of each patron. Aided by the interstate highway system and the resultant migration of families to the suburbs, the regional mall shifted the nexus of shopping away from urban centers. Specialty stores thrived in the malls, while off-the-mall discount stores and category killers democratized distribution of name brands. As chain stores grew ever stronger, retailers grabbed power from manufacturers. Over the last 10 years power has changed hands once again—the Internet has placed it into the hands of every consumer.

Back in July 2008 I wrote in an editorial for Chain Store Age that QR Codes, coupled with the ubiquitous camera-equipped cell phone, may well change the way retailing is conducted in the future. Well, the future has arrived, with Amazon being one of the first to exploit its potential. Being a big advocate of in-store retailing, I don’t like what Amazon did, but holding back the tide of innovation is not a viable long-term strategy for store-based retailers.

This week I heard some merchants are considering charging consultation fees (good towards a purchase) should a customer mine them for information and then turn around and not buy a product. It might work for big ticket items such as electronics, housewares or furniture, but it’s hardly a prescription for extending a welcome to the public.

Coping with the next retail revolution segregates winners from losers. Traditional, full-price retailers such as Gimbels, Sage Allen and Herman’s Sporting Goods ranted against the discounts extended by the likes of E.J. Korvette, Caldor and Ames. Eventually, they folded, as did those very discounters that didn’t adapt to the fiercer competition from Wal-Mart and Target.

The next retail revolution has arrived. No amount of pouting at Amazon will reverse the sweep of change.