text:
Q: Possible to compare COUNT(*) from multiple rows on MySQL? Hi I am working on a query that is using the below schema to find out how often users are doing searches by company (the app basically allowed you to do a search by company)
SEARCH_LOG
----------
date_of_search (DATETIME)
company_id (INT)

COMPANIES
---------
id (INT)
company_name (VARCHAR)

(there are more columns but these are the relevant ones)

So I am running the following query:
SELECT company_name,COUNT(*) FROM companies LEFT OUTER JOIN search_log ON search_log.company_id=companies.id GROUP BY companies.id

This is great as it returns each company and the number of search performed, however I want to express these numbers as a percentage.  My knee jerk reaction was to just run the following query seperately:
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM search_log

Grab that result and just do the division on the application side, however this seems really inefficient and I'd like to do it all in one query if possible (preferably without the use of a subquery) but have no idea how to get that information.
Any help or guidance would be appreciated.
EDIT: Maybe I wasn't totally clear about what I'm after.  Instead of getting results like:
COMPANY_NAME | COUNT(*)
-----------------------
CompanyA     | 1
CompanyB     | 3

I'd rather see:
COMPANY_NAME | COUNT(*)
-----------------------
CompanyA     | 25%
CompanyB     | 75%

Obviously the formatting isn't super important as 25,25%,0.25 are all usable.

A: Although not a single query, the following solution will do it in SQL using a variable:
select @total:=count(*) from search_log;
select company_id,count( * ) , count( * )/@total as percentage from search_log group by company_id;

A: I've done things like this with views and custom functions (I don't know if functions are available in mysql though).  To be honest with you, your best bet is to create a small data warehouse.  Reporting things like that will be much faster this way.  You'll also be able to find new ways of reporting your data.
The downside is that usually, you can't get a "live" report.  You generally aggregate all of your data at night.  An upside, you can look at trends over time this way.
Basically, during a low traffic hour, you'll take a snapshot of your data.  Then, you'll mutate them and stick them in a dimensional model.  After that, all of your reporting is very easy! :)
Other than that, you're best bet is to use a scalar function or subqueries.

A: This question has been asked before in a slightly different form, and I don't see any solutions that would avoid a second query - if you want to do it all in the database.
If you do it in your app, you don't actually need to do a second query.  Just iterate over all the results from the first query and add up the totals for each group.  That should give you the "grand total" without having to hit the db with a second query.
It would probably force you to iterate the results twice though - once to get the total, a second time to calculate the percentages.  But still likely faster than doing a second query.

A: How about this instead of
SELECT company_name,COUNT(*) FROM companies LEFT OUTER JOIN search_log ON search_log.company_id=companies.id GROUP BY companies.id

try
SELECT company_name,(COUNT(*)/(select count(*) from search_log) * 100) as percent FROM companies LEFT OUTER JOIN search_log ON search_log.company_id=companies.id GROUP BY companies.id

A: I've always done what your knee-jerk reaction was.
First, I'm more comfortable with writing math on the application side.
And second, I don't know how much I trust MySQL's math.
I don't think doing a count(*) is inefficient at all.

A: This will run the subquery just once and give you the proportions you're looking for.
SELECT company_name, COUNT(*)/t.total FROM companies
LEFT OUTER JOIN search_log ON search_log.company_id=companies.id
JOIN (SELECT count(*) as total FROM companies) AS t
GROUP BY companies.id

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Stampede Corral gets send off by Calgary hockey veterans | CBC News Loaded
Stampede Corral gets send off by Calgary hockey veterans
While the future of the iconic Stampede Corral venue isn't clear, some of the people who enjoyed it back in the day took a final tour this week ahead of a Calgary Hitmen tribute just days away.
'The building was alive. There was lots of people in it, cheering us on,' Jerry Holland says
David Bell · CBC News · Posted: Jan 25, 2019 4:14 PM MT | Last Updated: January 26, 2019
Jack MacDonald did colour commentary and play-by-play for the Calgary Wranglers at the Stampede Corral. He and other hockey veterans got a final tour of the venue this week. (Justin Pennell/hitmenhockey.com)
The Stampede Corral will be demolished to make way for the $500-million expansion of the BMO Centre. Although the timing isn't clear as to when that will happen, the iconic venue's place in history is well established.
Some of the people who enjoyed it back in the day took a final tour this week ahead of a Calgary Hitmen tribute just days away.
Tell us your favourite Corral memory in the comments below
Darren Loraas was a referee in the Western Hockey League for a decade starting in 1977.
"My first time refereeing in the Corral was 1981. I was 19 years old," Loraas said.
Darren Loraas was a referee with the Calgary Wranglers. (Justin Pennell/CBC)
"I'm doing my third playoff game of that season. Ten minutes before the game, the door opens. It's the president of the Western Hockey League, Ed Chynoweth. He said to me, 'Good to meet you. We are holding the game up 15 minutes. We got a lineup for tickets. Have a good game.' And then he walks out. It completely unnerved me. I am 19 years old. It completely threw my game off."
Blowing down the Saddledome and building a new Victoria Park
Jerry Holland was a forward for the Calgary Centennials in the early 1970s.
"For me, it was exciting. We made the playoffs that year, and for me, as a rookie, it was fantastic," he said, referencing his first year in 1971.
Jerry Holland was a forward for the Calgary Centennials in the early 1970s. (Justin Pennell/CBC)
"The building was alive. There was lots of people in it, cheering us on. It was a great place to play junior hockey. The next two years, we had the fans cheering us on all the way. It was a great place. We loved the Centennials back in the day. We were the only game in town," he said.
"I was disappointed when the Centennials left. But junior hockey is thriving again. It is nice to see."
The vice-president of the Calgary Hitmen says the upcoming Corral Series, a three-game tribute to the venue's history, is about honouring the past.
Stampede Corral to be demolished if $500M BMO Centre expansion goes ahead
Mike Moore is vice president of the Calgary Hitmen. (Justin Pennell/CBC)
"It's just an opportunity to go back to the roots of the Corral and the roots of junior hockey in Calgary. It's celebrating three teams: the Centennials, the Cowboys and the Wranglers. It's a great opportunity to just connect the dots on junior hockey today and what it was way back when, and tell some great stories of great times in the Corral," Mike Moore said.
It was and will be hockey at its roots.
The Stampede Corral was home to numerous hockey teams, including the Calgary Flames in the early 1980s. (Justin Pennell/CBC)
"The entertainment is going to be the hockey. At the Saddledome, with the stereo system and the replays, the entertainment is first class, but here it will be about the hockey. A score clock, little bit of entertainment live in the stands. But it's about the hockey on the ice and the atmosphere the crowd will create when we play."
The series is Feb. 1, Feb. 6 and Feb. 8. Here are all the details.
Jack MacDonald did colour commentary and play-by-play for the Calgary Wranglers. (Justin Pennell/CBC)
For born-and-raised Calgarian Jack MacDonald, the Corral was part of his upbringing, and he has many connections to it.
"I go back to the '50s when I was a little kid. My dad and grandpa and I would come to the Big 6 Hockey League. They had a triple header on Sundays," MacDonald said.
"It was some of the top amateur and ex-professional players. It was pretty high calibre. Back in those days, we had the pro Calgary Stampeders. I still remember many of the players from that era, including Fred Hucul and Lou Jankowski. The coach was Gus Kyle. They were a great team. They were the farm team of the Chicago Blackhawks."
MacDonald did colour commentary and play-by-play for the Calgary Wranglers, among other teams and times.
The iconic red seating of the Stampede Corral. (Justin Pennell/CBC)
$500M BMO Centre expansion gets provincial support after approval by Calgary city council
"As a broadcasting student at SAIT, I got to cover the Centennials a little bit. Then the Calgary Cowboys. I was a season ticket holder and watched Smokey McLeod, Danny Lawson. My cousin Bernie Lukowich played on that team as well," he said.
"In 1980, there was kind of a resurrection of the Canadian Men's Olympic team, and they played out of the Corral. That was an interesting period, just before the Flames came to Calgary from Atlanta. It was just thrilling when the Flames came to town. The whole city was so proud of the fact they had become an NHL city."
Last tour of the Stampede Corral
Last tour of the Stampede Corral 1:07
Arena talks reboot between city and Flames as councillors push project
'Ghost kitchen': How a plain storefront hides more than a dozen delivery restaurants
Read more articles by CBC Calgary, like us on Facebook for updates and subscribe to our CBC Calgary newsletter for the day's news at a glance.
With files from Justin Pennell

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
11 Exposure Opportunity 3 Radio Playlisting 2 Compilations 1 Podcast Inclusion 1 Sync Licensing: TV / Movies / Video Games
11 fully mastered 11 broadcast ready 2 rough mixes
11 submission only
11 under $10 11 under $20 11 under $30 11 under $40 11 any price
11 Non-Exclusive
11 Not Available
2 within 7 days 3 within 14 days 9 within 45 days 2 longer than 45 days
8 at least 10 at least 11 at least 11 at least 11 at least 11 all
New Channel and Revenue Opportunity
We have a brand new video channel - https://channel.newmusiclives.com to which we are seeking video submissions - if you have a great song and great video we want to see it - we specifically seek singer-songwriters, rock, country, and other genres - so please send us a video link to something that showcases you as an artist - perhaps a performance that tells the story of a song - perhaps a documentary style about you as an artist - or it could be from a live show but we want more than just the song. Submit the audio here but send us the youtube link to see the video in the reply)
We also have a unique new way for artists to make revenue from the support of their fans that we will be sending detail of to all videos that we select and trust me this is entirely new and original.
- Paul K Saunders - Co-Founder - New Music Lives
Uvarious Artists Compilation Series
"It all started 6 years ago with me asking my friends musicians to provide a compilation with one of their tracks. We continued to introduce you to the best promising artists from around the world ever since. " – Fudo Kazuki
Check out one of the latest compilations: http://bit.ly/2qkxq1d
- Fudo Kazuki - CEO - Ultra Vague
Deal Type: Compilation
Compensation: Exposure Opportunity
Similar Sounding Artists: Sylo Norza, The/Das, RY X, Sun Glitters, Kllo, Giraffage, Slow Magic
Get Your YouTube Video Promoted on FreeRockRadio.com
FreeRockRadio.com will post your YouTube Rock music video on our site in up to 3 categories based on the type of rock it is. We accept indie rock, alternative, pop rock, hard rock, psychedelic rock, punk rock, metal and roots / Americana. We will also include it in one of our YouTube Playlists located @ YouTube.com/FreeRockRadio1.
- Lionel White - FreeRockRadio.com - SPOIO LLC
Music webzine covering a wide range of artists
Please submit all kinds of music. Specializing in indie, electronic, wave and experimental. Please no covers. Music fan and music journalist. Last Day Deaf blog owner.
Music webzine covering a wide range of artists from indie to jazz and from electronic to metal...Few words...Let the music speak....
- CHRISTOS DOUKAKIS - Owner/Publisher - www.lastdaydeaf.com
Lyrical Hip-Hop Tracks Needed for Rotation at DRT Tracked Radio Station
Lyrical Hip-Hop Tracks Needed for Rotation at DRT Tracked Radio Station Independent radio station based in Houston, TX, looking for DOPE INDIE artists with #BARS and outstanding production! Please submit your best tracks for consideration.
- Levean Pinkston - CEO - Love2Jam Radio
Deal Type: Radio Airplay
Where is this radio station heard?: Online
Radio Format: Freeform Radio
Similar Sounding Artists: J COLE, KENDRICK LAMAR, BIG KRIT, 3D NATEE, TI, CHILDISH GAMBINO
Radio Blast to USA based radio stations [FM & Online]
It's very simple. We save time and reach more stations than artists could, on their own.
Our lists cover around 90% of radio station contacts worldwide. For example, in USA, there are approx. 14,500 FM and 4,400 online stations. We have around 14,000/4,000 contacts just in The States.
Artist sends a radio ready, mixed and mastered song, along with short biography, 4-5 pictures, and logo if possible.
We put together a nice looking e-mail, with pure facts about the artist, info on song that's being submitted and artists (or artists management contact information).
We believe that it's fair to keep artists direct contact public, so if radio stations want to reach out, they can reach out DIRECTLY to the artist.
Everything you need to know about our "Radio Blast": http://mad.ly/b947a2
- Avala DSF Music Group LLC
Similar Sounding Artists: Drake, Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber, Aerosmith, Adele, Jay-Z, Beyonce, Maroon 5, Limp Bizkit, One Direction, Jay Cole, John Legend, Led Zeppelin
Artist Partnership Deal With Video Streaming Platform
Searching for unique music video content to feature on TV. We are launching a new streaming platform that will be available in over 51 million homes worldwide on Apple TV, Amazon Fire, Roku, IOS, Smart TV's, XBox360, etc. We are searching for artists to partner with for a music video partnership deal. Your music video will be featured on our channel, and you will receive revenue from all ads run with your content.
- Lamar - Sr. A&R - Viral Music Media
Deal Type: Exposure Opportunity
Similar Sounding Artists: drake, rich the kid, childish gambino, rihanna, tory lanez, pharrell, nipsey hussle, alicia keys, beyonce, solange, sza, jhene aiko
Be a guest on popular podcast talk show
KGUP PRESENTS is seeking music artists to interview and feature during Season 2!
Interviews are conducted via Zoom (video or audio only). We are scheduling 30 minutes to 1 hour interviews, but in reality, there is no time limit, so it can go as long or short as desired. All interviews will be available on 11 major podcasting platforms including Anchor, Stitcher, Dezer, TuneIn, Apple podcasts, Google Podcasts, YouTube Music, Spotify, and more!
Direction of interview
The premise of these interviews is mostly about the artist and the artist's career as a musician, their craft, and where they are headed during the near future. We will of course do research and gear relevant questions about the artist, so we don't sound unprofessional and redundant. You are welcome to pre-arrange any questions you'd like for me (the host) to ask and we can add it to our list of questions ahead of time.
Tens of thousands of people will be listening, so we'd prefer our interview to appear as laid back, fun, and casual as possible. Fun and casual conversations seem to fare well with podcast audiences, rather than a fully structured Q&A interview. The more comfortable the artist is, the better this will sound.
First and foremost, this is to benefit the artist and entertain music lovers that have or have not heard your music before and hopefully get that audience to be more engaged, especially during this epidemic when touring is impossible.
If you have any new music you are releasing, videos, upcoming live events, other news you'd like me to announce, or ask you during our interview, please let me know ahead of time.
About KGUP PRESENTS
KGUP PRESENTS is a talk show based on the Los Angeles local Indie Radio station KGUP FM Emerge Radio. Established in 2012, KGUP has been supporting independent local artists and showcasing what's up-and-coming. KGUP's Alumni include artists including Big Data, LP, Teagan and Sara, Bleachers, The Neighbourhood, Cher Lloyd, Ed Sheeran, Pierce the Veil, Sleeping with Sirens, Lana Del Rey, London Grammer, and many more!
KGUP FM Emerge Radio is privately owned and operated and is a YouTubeMusic, YouTube, TuneIn, Universe Network, Spotify, and Google Play Music broadcast affiliate. All our music data and royalty and performance fees are reported and paid through YouTubeMusic, YouTube, TuneIn, Universe Network, Spotify, and Google Play Music.
All our episodes will also be available on your favorite podcast network including Spotify, Pandora, Google Play Music, iTunes, Stitcher, and everywhere you listen to podcasts!
KGUP PRESENTS | on Anchor.fm
Your music may also be selected for rotation on KGUP FM Emerge Radio at http://www.kgup1065.com 24 hours a day, 7 days a week! You can listen to the radio station via Amazon Alexa by saying "Alexa, play KGUP FM" or listen on Google or Android by saying, "Ask KGUP FM to play". KGUP FM can also be heard on 18 radio networks around the world. KGUP FM also has curator playlists on YouTube Music, Spotify, and YouTube. Just search, "KGUP PRESENTS" Where to listen to KGUP PRESENTS.
KGUP Audience Overview:
Core age demographic: age 25-34 (34%), age 18-24 (27.5%), 35-44 (15%), Other combined (23.5%)
KGUP's Listener Geographic Market:
US - 53.75%
Europe - 27.50% Australia - 16%
Others combined - 2.75%
Music Videos Worldwide Distribution Deal
We are a streaming network with a music focus that is changing the music industry. Launching on Apple TV, Roku, Amazon, Android, iOS, etc. We are the first video streaming outlet offering distribution deals to music artists of all genres for their music video content. We are searching for the dopest music videos in the categories of Hip Hop, Rnb, Edm, Pop, Reggae. Revenue share from commercials and ads will be negotiated.
- Luke - A&R - Viral Music Media
Deal Type: Music Video Distribution
Similar Sounding Artists: ariana grande, pink, Ed Sheeran, lady gaga, dj snake, buju banton, drake, rich the kid, childish gambino, rihanna, tory lanez, pharrell, nipsey hussle, alicia keys, beyonce, solange, sza, jhene aiko
Seeking Worship Music (Studio Recorded)
I am looking for some really inspiring Worship Music, and I am looking for some good Christian artists to work with.
Studio recorded music in this drop box, all genres but Country.
First, I want to compile a couple of albums of already existing music that artists want highlighted. Then, I'd like to create some original music with some of the artists I find. Please submit your best track(s) for consideration.
- Robin Blesch / WPMG ENT Ltd, WPMG Music & WPFG Studios
Deal Type: Compilation Project
Seeking Catchy Songs for Consideration for The Hookblast Podcast with Mike McCready
The Hookblast Podcast is a weekly, ten-minute, music discovery podcast that focuses on catchy songs. It is hosted by Music Xray co-founder & CEO, Mike McCready and began as a podcast to highlight some of the music that is trending among the music industry professional community on Music Xray and has gradually narrowed the focus to catchy songs discovered on via Music Xray.
While all catchy tunes are considered, most tend to be in the genres of pop, rock, country, urban, and singer-songwriter.
Learn more and hear the podcast trailer here:
https://soundcloud.com/mikemccready/hookblast-podcast-trailer


text:
Home > Labs > Concussion Research Lab > Research Team
Program Links
Dr. Barry A. Munkasy
Associate Professor of Kinesiology
Ph.D. Biomechanics, University of Southern California
M.S. Biomechanics, Arizona State University
B.S. Biomedical Engineering, Tulane University
Dr. Munkasy is a primary investigator in Georgia Southern University's concussion management research.
Dr. Tamerah Hunt, ATC
Assistant Professor and Coordinator of Graduate Athletic Training Program
Ph.D., University of Georgia
M.S.K., James Madison University
B.S., University of Delaware
Following completion of her doctoral work, Dr. Hunt worked as an assistant professor at the University of South Carolina where she instructed within the undergraduate and graduate athletic training programs. Before joining Georgia Southern, Dr. Hunt served as the director of research for the The Ohio State University Sports Concussion Program and assistant professor of clinical health and rehabilitation science. As a clinician, she has worked at every level of sports. She worked as a high school athletic trainer for four years obtaining first-hand experience with concussions and the lack of information available for allied health care professionals working in high schools. Her appreciation for this often medically neglected population triggered her research for concussion in high school athletes. As a researcher, she focuses on youth concussion assessment and has worked with high schools in Ohio, South Carolina, Georgia and Maryland examining high school recovery patterns, effort on concussion assessments, co-morbidities and the effect of socioeconomic status in incidence, management and recovery outcomes. Dr. Hunt is a former National Athletic Trainers' Association Research and Education Foundation Postgraduate Scholarship Recipient. She has published several articles, given numerous presentations, and has given numerous invited presentations regionally, nationally and internationally.
Ms. Brandy P. Clouse, ATC
Associate AD for Sports Medicine; Head Athletic Trainer
M.S. Cardiac Rehabilitation, Marshall University
B.S. Athletic Training, Georgia Southern University
Brandy Clouse is the Associate AD for Sports Medicine and Head Athletic Trainer at Georgia Southern University. In addition to providing athletic training services to the Eagles football team, Ms. Clouse is responsible for overseeing all athletic training services for Eagles athletics along with her 4 full-time staff athletic trainers and 11 graduate assistant athletic trainers. Ms. Clouse is a vital cog in the concussion research program as the liaison between intercollegiate athletics and the research team.
Dr. George Shaver
Post Doctoral Training in Neuropsychology, University of Virginia
Psy.D. Clinical Psychology, George Fox University
M.A. Clinical Psychology, George Fox University
B.S. Mathematics, University of Tennessee
Dr. Shaver is the Director of the Regents Center for Learning Disorders at Georgia Southern University. Prior to becoming director, he served for 2 years as the center's Licensed Psychologist. He also teaches courses related to clinical neuropsychology within the Department of Psychology. As a licensed neuropsychologist, Dr. Shaver consults with the Concussion Research team and Intercollegiate Athletics on the results and interpretation of post-concussion neuropsychological testing. Dr. Shaver is a co-investigator on a National Institute of Health research grant.
Dr. Shaver is a member of the National Academy of Neuropsychology, International Neuropsychological Society, and Administrative Committee on Learning Disorders for the University System of Georgia. Dr. Shaver has published research articles, textbook chapters, and provided professional presentations related to neuropsychology.
Nathan D'Amico, ATC – Second year athletic training masters student and concussion lab coordinator
Megan Mormile, ATC – Megan is a first-year research assistant in the Biomechanics Lab at Georgia Southern University, specifically focusing within concussion research. She is pursuing a master's degree in Kinesiology with a concentration in Athletic Training. Prior to her studies at Georgia Southern, Megan attended the State University of New York at Brockport where she earned a bachelor's in Athletic Training and Kinesiology. In addition, she worked as an Athletic Trainer at Binghamton University in upstate NY. Her research interests include concussive injury with regards to postural stability, adolescence, and rehabilitation methods in Athletic Training.
Klarie Ake – Klarie Ake is a first-year exercise science master's student in the Waters College of Health Professions at Georgia Southern University. She is also a research assistant in the University's Biomechanics Lab. Prior to her studies at Georgia Southern, she attended Campbell University and received her bachelor of exercise science degree. While at Campbell, she worked as a research assistant for Dr. Douglas Powell in the Advanced Interdisciplinary Movement Science Laboratory.
Katelyn Grimes, ATC – First year athletic training masters student and Sideline Response System research coordinator
Chaz Kilgore – Third year undergraduate research assistant in the Department of Health Sciences and Kinesiology
Graduates associated with this lab
Mr. Eric Shiflett
Master of Science Kinesiology
B.S. Athletic Training, University of Mt. Union
Ms. Kelsey Evans
B.S. Exercise Science, Elon University


The Austrade office in Germany is also responsible for Austria and Netherlands.
In these countries, Austrade services are primarily focused on attracting productive foreign direct investment into Australia and promoting the Australian education sector.
For international investors and buyers – see below for the location of Austrade's office in Germany and for links to further information.


text:
News & Resources: review – Cole: 'Engines of Liberty'
David Cole, Engines of Liberty: How Citizen Movements Succeed. (New York: Basic Books, 2016).
David Cole, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union and professor of law at Georgetown University, begins this book by quoting Margaret Mead: "Never underestimate the power of a small group of committed people to change the world. In fact, it is the only thing that ever has."
For activists who think that there is no hope that they can succeed in changing the current oppressive situation in society, Cole offers words of hope in his opening dedication of the book: "The struggle for justice is always worthwhile, even and especially where it appears most hopeless." Though he is realistic that change is difficult, and practically hopeless, he closes his dedication with the acknowledgment that "occasionally, justice prevails over hopelessness."
This is a book that offers hope, by analyzing successful social change movements to understand what they did right, what mistakes they made, and what lessons can be learned from their example. This book offers a blueprint to help activists succeed in producing change. Though he is a lawyer, Cole emphasizes that the law changes from the bottom up, by citizen action and public opinion changes, more than from the top down, by Supreme Court decisions. The law follows, not precedes, public opinion. It is citizens pushing for equal rights, not judges, who are the ultimate decision makers on both public opinion and the law.
In the introduction, Cole says that Americans' most fundamental values include "freedom to live our life the way we decide, equality, human dignity, fair process, and privacy." [p. 2] Appealing to these values is what activists must do. Activists must organize protests, recruit allies (including unlikely allies), file lawsuits, write reports, lobby legislators, leak documents that are embarrassing to the government and that reveal unpopular or illegal activities, and broadly condemn governmental actions whenever they violate constitutional rights and human rights.
The book is full of suggestions: Try to get investigative journalists and pro bono lawyers enlisted in the cause. Use grassroots efforts to adopt local referenda condemning present laws and abuses of power. Use the Freedom of Information Act to dislodge documents detailing abusive programs, and then disseminate the information to the wider public. Use both academic publications and the popular press to get the message across. [p. 3]
"The ultimate protection of liberty is not the independent judiciary, the separation of powers, or federalism. It is the citizenry." [p. 5] An example of citizen action is a guide to political resistance, titled "Indivisible," which was written by former congressional staffers and downloaded from the internet in 2017 in reaction to President Donald Trump. [p. 6] When Trump announced his ban on immigrants from Muslim nations, activists flew into action. The ACLU organized a national protest with a Yale Law School clinic, and encouraged thousands of people to do sit-down protests at airports. Presidents of many leading universities and scientific organizations condemned this limitation on international students and scientists. Even former leaders of the CIA and the National Security Administration wrote letters of condemnation. This is an example of looking for unlikely allies to support. [p. 6] "There is a direct link between the kind of public advocacy that greeted Trump's anti-Muslim executive orders and the reactions of the formal branches of government, including the courts." [p. 7]
"It is more critical than ever that we all take on the responsibility of defending liberty in the forums accessible to us. Citizen engagement is where our liberty lies." [p. 8] One of the book's main examples of an effective activist is Evan Wolfson. When he was a student at Harvard Law School in the 1980s, he attended a speech by two lawyers from the gay Lambda Legal Defense. This inspired him to devote himself to gay rights legal action. Being strongly committed to the idea of legalizing marriage for same sex couples, Wolfson decided to write his legal thesis on the subject. He could not find even one professor in constitutional law to agree to be his supervisor. At last he persuaded another professor to oversee his project. In 1983 he wrote a 141-page manifesto, "Same-sex Marriage and Morality: The Human Rights Vision of the Constitution," arguing that same-sex marriage should be constitutionally guaranteed. [p. 8] This seemed to be a hopeless cause. "At the time, a handful of brave gay and lesbian couples across the nation had filed quixotic lawsuits claiming the right to marry, but all the suits had been dismissed, in some cases with outright derision." In one case, a state supreme court cited the Bible in its decision unanimously rejecting the claim. [p. 8]
After finishing law school, Evan Wolfson was not deterred. He started volunteering for Lambda Legal Defense, and was later hired as a staff person. He gradually convinced Lambda Legal attorneys to allow him to take on marriage cases. There was great resistance by gay movement leaders, who felt that marriage was a side issue that would deflect from their larger effort to pass anti-discrimination laws. But Wolfson persevered, and eventually founded a separate advocacy group, Freedom to Marry. [p. 9]
Successful activists like Wolfson shared a deep-seated commitment to a cause, and a willingness to work for many years to accomplish it. They worked with groups that focus on particular rights, through multiple forms of advocacy within and outside the courts…. In turn, the work of each of these groups was supported by many others…. They include organizations dedicated to protecting the rights of the press, religious freedom, privacy, property, the freedom of contract, criminal defendants' rights, immigrants' rights, equality, rights of sexual freedom and intimacy, among many others."[p. 11] …. These robust groups in the USA are "stronger than anywhere else in the world." [p. 12]
Groups committed to the protection of rights must "ultimately turn to the federal courts…. But the vast majority of the work necessary to transform law took place outside the federal courts altogether. There is a simple reason for this. When existing federal law does not reflect your views, you cannot simply file a lawsuit to change it; the most likely result will be a prompt dismissal. Instead, you must look for other, more sympathetic forums…. state legislatures, state courts, the media, the academy, the public at large, Congress, the executive branch, and even foreign opinion…. They helped to change public opinion and the views of legal experts through work outside the federal courts…. Often, groups won constitutional victories without any formal judicial intervention at all…. Sustained advocacy by multiple groups of citizens, usually over many years and in a wide array of venues." [p. 12] Made up of "politically engaged citizens united by their devotion to a particular vision…. to safeguard and advance foundational values…. They carry the torch of constitutionalism." [p. 13]
The most important factor in "the defense of liberty depends as much or more on citizens engaging collectively to fight for the values they believe in than it does on the courts and the lawyers." [p. 13] People must "develop liberty in our own image, so that it reflects OUR deepest commitments, not just those of a privileged elite." [p. 14]
The reason why "members are so responsive to the organization's requests for political action [is] you've got to have a threat… that inspires them to act…. It requires commitment over the long haul. It also requires organization and coordination. That's why the right of association is so critical to preserving all our constitutional freedoms." [p. 14] [Thus, when ex-prisoners are prohibited from associating with other ex-prisoners, this is a fundamental violation of the constitutional protection of freedom of association.]
In the 1950s and 1960s, progress on gay rights seemed an impossibility. Churches taught that homosexuality was a grievous sin, worthy of eternal damnation. Sodomy laws made intimate relations between persons of the same sex illegal. "Psychiatrists labeled homosexuality a mental illness. Admitting publicly that one was gay or lesbian could result in ridicule, harassment, assault, isolation from one's family, the loss of a job, or worse. Most gays and lesbians understandably chose to keep their sexual orientation hidden. The invisibility of the closet made mobilizing for lesbian and gay rights all but impossible. Thus, the first strategic step toward achieving equality was a 'politics of protection.' The aim was to create space for gays and lesbians to come together without fear of official harassment. Gay and lesbian community centers, bars, and bathhouses all served this function…. [p. 18]. The next step was to make it safe—or at least, less costly—to come out by publicly identifying as lesbian or gay. Gay rights groups [p. 19] fought for legal protections that would make it more likely that they might feel sufficiently comfortable to identify themselves publicly. The ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, for example, invoked the First Amendment to protect the rights of students to form gay and lesbian student associations, first in colleges and later in high schools…. In the 1980s, prompted by the AIDS crisis, growing numbers of gays and lesbians proclaimed their sexual orientation publicly, joined political associations, and engaged in collective action to demand acceptance" [p. 19] ….
"The press ran many stories about the obstacles gays faced as they navigated life decisions…. Employees approached their employers about benefits for their partners. "Over time the concept of same-sex domestic partnerships took hold in a wide variety of private and public settings. [p. 19]…. The image of gays was changed from mindless promiscuity to devoted loving partnerships, which "became familiar to many straight Americans. As discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was more widely prohibited, gay men and lesbians were more free to come out. It became increasingly common for straight people to learn that a family member, friend, colleague, or acquaintance was gay or lesbian—and deeply human and vulnerable. That knowledge in turn made it less likely that straight people would demonize, and more likely that they would empathize with, gay men and lesbians. Some of the most important gay rights advocacy focused not on legal and political change but on cultural transformation." [p. 20]
Activists founded Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), to promote positive portrayals of gay men and lesbians in the news and entertainment media. They persuaded CBS to suspend a commentator for homophobic remarks he made on air, and they prevented a homophobic radio commentator from starting her own TV show. GLAAD also encouraged stars like Ellen DeGeneres (and her very supportive mother) to come out. "All this persuaded the media to shift their terminology from 'sexual preference' to 'sexual orientation.'" [p. 20] [This progress in LGBT rights makes it easier for other sexual minorities to build on those successes, by likewise influencing the mass media to reconceptualize their sexuality as an 'orientation' rather than as a perversion and a danger to society. All sexual minorities need to be out of the closet about themselves, to demonstrate that they are responsible persons who hold their jobs, care for their relatives and friends, and want only the best for others. Individual examples, either in person or as actors representing real persons, have an enormous influence.]
In the law, "the crucial constitutional points are: free choice, intimate values, absence of harm, no legitimate state interest in regulation, and finally, the inadmissability of government promotion of morality." [p. 23] [Other sexual minorities should make the same arguments, and cite evidence and research to show that these characteristics apply. This can be the basis for legal decisions.]
"The most important principle in the constitutional recognition of rights is that majority distaste or discomfort is no basis for the abridgment of protected human rights. Many laws have been founded on such moral disapproval, so rejection of that interest as an insufficient justification for differential treatment was a critical step. " [p. 23] The fact that the majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for a law. This principle was articulated by Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas (2003).
Evan Wolfson was hired by Lambda Legal Defense in 1989, after he had volunteered there for several years. In that year the group's legal director, Tom Stoddard, made a public stand in favor of pushing for same-sex marriage. But he was opposed by lawyer Paula Ettelbrick, who argued that marriage is a flawed patriarchal institution, central both to women's subordinate status and to the treatment of heterosexuality as compulsory. She criticized the marriage effort as assimilationist, writing, "I do not want to give the state the power to regulate my primary relationship. " [p. 25] In 1991, when the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force polled its members, asking for their opinion about which topics should be their primary issues, they did not even list marriage as an option.
Besides those who were opposed to marriage on ideological grounds, the majority of gay rights leaders felt there were other issues that were more pressing. They wanted to push for anti-discrimination laws, repeal of sodomy laws, and efforts to reduce anti-gay violence and police harassment. Marriage seemed a long way down the list of priorities. [p. 25] For this reason, when three couples in 1991 from Hawaii asked Lambda Legal to represent them in a state court challenge to the state's refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Lambda Legal turned down Wolfson's request to take the case. The ACLU also refused to get involved, deeming the case premature and not winnable.
Though Wolfson was bitterly disappointed, he was happy to learn that Dan Foley, a prominent civil liberties attorney in Honolulu, accepted the case. Foley was heterosexual, but he had a gay uncle who he adored, and as a Buddhist he did not share the antipathy toward homosexuality that many Christians promoted. Foley decided to pursue a strict line of argument that had nothing to do with federal law and nothing to do with gay rights. Though the case was based on two lesbian couples and one gay male couple, Foley argued that the case was very simple. The Hawaiian state constitution stated that "there shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex." Since the couples were denied marriage licenses solely because their intended spouse was of the same sex, that denial was "discrimination on the basis of sex." Foley did not want opponents to be able to appeal a decision in federal courts, because at that time the U.S. Supreme Court was still hostile to gay rights cases, so he directed his argument solely to the state supreme court. In 1991, no state in the U.S.A. allowed same-sex marriage, and no nation in the world allowed it. Hawaii would be the first. [pp. 26-27]
Though Lambda Legal was not officially involved, Wolfson worked secretly behind the scenes in support of Dan Foley. When the state attorney general argued that marriage has always been solely between a man and a woman, Foley brought in testimony by anthropologist Walter Williams that traditional Hawaiian culture allowed persons of the same sex to marry, and treated their relationships the same as other-sex couples. Foley brought in testimony by leading feminists that any kind of discrimination on the basis of sex is detrimental to women. But, most simply, the denial of marriage licenses is clearly a violation of the Hawaiian state constitution.
After losing at the district court level, Foley persevered and filed an appeal to the Hawaiian Supreme Court. In 1993 that court issued its verdict, saying that a refusal to issue marriage licenses on the basis of the sex of the partners was indeed unconstitutional. This decision made headlines in newspapers around the world. Wolfson was overjoyed, saying the decision was "a tidal wave out of Hawaii that will reach every corner of the country and affect every gay issue." [p. 28]
The state supreme court sent the case back to the lower court, which held hearings to determine if there was any compelling interest not to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The attorney general argued that marriage was for procreation, and that children are best raised by men and women. Foley refuted both claims, showing that many heterosexual couples (including those who are infertile) marry for other reasons than procreation. Since many women past age fifty get married, when they cannot get pregnant, Foley pointed out, the procreation claim is ridiculous. Foley brought in sociologists and psychologists to testify that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are just as well adjusted as those raised by heterosexual parents. After hearing all the testimony, the judge ruled that the state did not prove any compelling interest for restricting marriage, and that licenses should be issued to couples without regard to their sex. [pp. 28-29]
These court decisions sparked a huge backlash from the Catholic Church and the Latter Day Saints (the Mormon Church). Utah passed a law stating that only male-female couples are allowed to marry, and money from Utah Mormons flooded into Hawaii in opposition to the decision. With their major media campaign blanketing television, radio, and ads in Hawaiian newspapers, gay rights supporters were overwhelmed with negative publicity. The state legislature, with even liberal legislators intimidated by the churches' pressure, passed a bill condemning the court's decision.
Within the next four years, 22 state legislatures passed similar laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. This opposition campaign reached its height when Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, which declared that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. Democratic President Bill Clinton (who had gotten elected with strong support from the gay community) signed the act into law, weakly buckling to conservative pressure and betraying his LGBT supporters.
Meanwhile, in Hawai'i conservatives sponsored an amendment to the state constitution, specifically prohibiting same-sex marriage. Once this amendment was passed, the state supreme court was forced to rescind its decision, and no lesbian or gay marriages were recognized. A similar amendment was passed to the Alaska state constitution, disappointing LGBT activists there. It was a bitter defeat after so much hope was engendered by the courts' decisions. [p. 29]
The Hawaiian and Alaskan examples showed that winning court decisions was not enough to insure acceptance. It looked like the entire legal effort was a failure, because all it seemed to accomplish was to promote adverse legislation. In shock at this defeat, Evan Wolfson resigned from his job at Lambda Legal. But he did not give up. This time, though, he decided to lead a very different effort.
After taking a break, in 2003 Wolfson founded Freedom to Marry, an organization devoted solely to marriage equality. But instead of lawsuits "it concentrated on all the other work that it believed necessary to achieve its goal. It offered templates for ballot initiative campaigns in liberal states, social media strategies in more conservative states, and targeted fundraising. And it worked with local gay rights groups. It engaged the media to mold public opinion in its favor, educating the public, recruiting and training volunteers, managing websites, consulting on referendum campaigns, and lobbying legislators—in short, laying the ground for change and working to defend gains from those who would reverse them. Wolfson abandoned legal briefs in favor of writing articles and a book directed to the general public, and strategy papers aimed at activists about how to make progress and respond to defeats." [p. 30]
Wolfson knew from prior examples that court decisions take a long time. Though California allowed interracial marriages in 1948, it was not until 1967 that the U.S. Supreme Court declared prohibitions of interracial marriages to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court did not act until 34 states already permitted interracial marriages. The states led the way. A similar strategy was used in the effort for women suffrage. The 19th Amendment, giving women the vote nationally in 1920, was not passed until a majority of the states had already approved women voting. Rights for workers likewise were passed first on the state level in the first two decades of the 20th century, and were extended to the federal level only in the 1930s by the New Deal. [p. 31]
The negative reactions to the Hawaiian court case made it clear that the battle for marriage equality would have to be fought on multiple fronts. Local activists in Vermont and Massachusetts took advantage of lessons learned from Hawai'i, using the court lawsuits as only a small part of an overall effort. [p. 31]
In Vermont, some lesbian couples who were inspired by the news of the Hawaiian cases, appealed to some lawyers to gain them the right to marry. Vermont's state constitution stated that all benefits of government should be instituted "for the common benefit of the people … and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single person, family, or set of persons." [p. 34] This was a strong legal basis, to bring a suit on the basis that heterosexual couples were a "set of persons" who gained benefits of legal marriage, to the detriment of same-sex couples who were denied those same benefits. However, the lawyers told the couples that they must build local popular and political support in the state before bringing a lawsuit. Gay and lesbian Vermonters were divided over the marriage issue, but many met with their state assembly members, wrote letters to officials, and testified at multiple public hearings. [p. 34]
An anti-gay representative introduced a bill to take away second-parent adoption rights. This led people to become active in opposing that bill. They wrote letters and met with him and others. Eventually, they even persuaded the sponsor to change his mind and withdraw the bill. This effort led LGBT Vermonters to begin a campaign for marriage rights. They were influenced by an influential 1994 article by Kees Waaldijk, a Dutch scholar. He showed that gay rights successes followed "a standard sequence" in Scandinavia and other parts of Europe. First, they repealed sodomy laws criminalizing the behavior. Second, they added sexual orientation to anti-discrimination and hate-crimes laws. Third, they extended domestic partner benefits and parents' rights to foster, adopt, and raise children. Only after these measures paved the way did marriage rights stand a chance. [pp. 35-36; cites: Kees Waaldijk, "Standard Sequences in the Legal Recognition of Homosexuality" Australian Gay & Lesbian Law Journal 4 (1994): 50-52. Robert Wintemute and Mads Andenas, eds., Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Partnerships: A Study of National, European, and International Law (2001)].
Activists formed the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, which consisted only of 12 people. They promoted a message "that same-sex couples were just like other couples in their desires for stable, committed, and loving relationships." The group trained advocates in how to talk about marriage, and developed a set of speaking points. "It taught gay and lesbian couples how to tell their own stories effectively." After seeing opposition videos stereotyping LGBT as licentious, they made a video showing ordinary Vermonters, gay, lesbian, and straight, explaining why acceptance of same-sex marriage was important to them. It was plain and simple, with testimonies which showed people who looked like ordinary Vermonters. [p. 37]
Activists lobbied their state representatives. But instead of asking them to enact a marriage law, they asked only that the representative not interfere with a judicial process, and pledge not to support a constitutional amendment that would negate a judicial victory. "Many legislators were visibly relieved when they learned that they were being asked only to play defense…. When they got a majority of legislators to commit not to challenge a court decision, only then did they file a lawsuit. A Vermont lawyer argued the case of three carefully selected couples, who looked conservative and had raised children. Her presentation was broadcast on Vermont public television in 1998. In 1999 the Vermont Supreme Court ruled unanimously that denying same-sex couples the legal benefits of marriage violated the state constitution's "common benefits" clause. [p. 39]
Rather than impose marriage, however, the court directed the state legislature to "provide all the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples." This directive allowed the legislature to set up civil unions as an alternative to full marriage. But even this was a hard sell. Polls showed a majority of Vermonters opposed even to civil unions, with marriage being supported only by a third of the people. Activists carefully identified witnesses and prepared them, then held public hearings and gave interviews to the mass media. It was especially important for legislators to hear the stories of ordinary Vermonters. The strategy worked, and the legislature voted to establish civil unions, the first time same-sex couples gained all the rights and benefits of marriage. Activists accepted this result, but emphasized that civil unions were only a step toward their ultimate goal of marriage equality. [p. 40]
In the 2000 elections, conservatives targeted pro-gay legislators for defeat. LGBT activists campaigned strongly for those same legislators. Some won, but some lost. In 2007 the state senate set up a commission to study how the civil unions law was working. Activists prepared witnesses and did media outreach, to argue that civil unions were not truly equal to marriage. In 2009 activists pressed for full marriage. It passed the legislature, only to be vetoed by the governor. A bill to override the veto finally passed in the legislature, by only one vote. Thus, after 15 years of activism, Vermont became the first state to grant full marriage equality by vote of its legislature. [p. 41]
The Vermont case shows how long it may take to accomplish the goal, and that "patient incrementalism" works best. Also, having civil unions as a halfway alternative allowed activists in more conservative states to move forward, while allowing conservatives to keep "traditional marriage" for themselves. Some conservatives even came out in support of civil unions, as a better alternative to full marriage, which they would likely never have done if the marriage campaigns had not been done. [p. 43] Some activists worried that civil unions would entrench LGBT couples in a "second-class status. In hindsight, however, it's clear that civil unions were more a temporary way station than a final destination. Both Vermont and Hawai'i ultimately adopted marriage equality in 2013. Civil unions were important stepping stones along the path to marriage equality." [p. 43]
Hawai'i demonstrated that taking too large a step could have negative repercussions, but if that lawsuit had not been filed it is unlikely that the entire issue would have progressed as it did. Change will always be resisted, especially change that questions established traditions. But by patiently but persistently pursuing small steps, activists can reach their ultimate goals. [p. 43]
In Massachusetts, sexual orientation had been added to its statewide non-discrimination law in 1989, and to its hate crimes law two years later. In 1993 state employees were given domestic partner benefits, and its state court had recognized lesbian parenting rights. By 2000, GLAD leader Mary Bonauto decided the time was right to push for marriage equality. "If gay and lesbian couples began to marry, people would see for themselves that there were no negative effects on families, and fear of the unknown would dissipate." She felt that if couples who had been living together a long time would "come out" and tell their personal stories, those accounts would change attitudes. [p. 45]
When she learned that anti-gay conservatives planned to put an anti-gay ballot measure on the ballot in 2002, Bonauto thought that an affirmative suit would be better than reacting to an agenda set by their opponents. She filed a lawsuit using stable couples from across the state, to increase local media coverage, and who had personal stories that ordinary citizens could relate to, "focused on what you have in common—these are your neighbors." [p. 46]
Opponents argued that the purpose of marriage is for procreation and for the benefit of children. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of LGBT couples, turning the conservatives' arguments on their head by saying that same-sex couples can procreate, while some heterosexual couples do not, and the state never required procreation as a condition for getting married. Recognizing marriage for same-sex couples would not harm their children, the Court reasoned, but on the contrary denying marriage most certainly harmed those children being raised by LGBT parents. [p. 47] In 2004 Massachusetts became the first state to have full marriage equality.
To prevent the legislature from negating the ruling, MassEquality mobilized hundreds of volunteers and spent many thousands of dollars to campaign for candidates who supported equality. Legislators who supported equality all won reelection, while several who opposed it lost. By 2007 polls showed 56 percent of state residents supported marriage equality, and conservative attempts to overturn the ruling were defeated in the new pro-gay state legislature. [p. 49]
While activists won in Massachusetts, the court ruling provoked a backlash in conservative states. By the end of 2006, 45 states banned same-sex marriage either by constitutional amendment or by state statute. Gay scholar Professor John D'Emilio pronounced the campaign for same-sex marriage "an unmitigated disaster." [p. 49] "However, these criticisms seem short-sighted…. When one seeks to establish a right that is not recognized in existing constitutional law, setbacks should be expected. Court decisions granting rights not supported by the majority will prompt negative political reactions." [p. 50] Asking legislators to pass a bill that is unlikely to command majority, or powerful interest group, support is … simply not a viable alternative. Courts cannot ignore individuals who claim to have been denied an asserted constitutional right in some tangible way. Unlike executive officials or legislatures, courts must address the merits of the argument." [p. 50]
Even when activists lose a case, the process galvanizes more people to become activist and assert their rights. "In addition, backlash can be productive. Opponents arguably gave same-sex marriage more visibility than gay rights advocates could have given it themselves. In Evan Wolfson's view, the opposition in turn sparked a critically important counter-response, as more people lent their support, financial and otherwise, to the struggle." [p. 51] By carefully suggesting liberal states for lawsuits, leaders could gain victories that could later be replicated in other states.
In 2004, the Gill Foundation, the largest funder of marriage equality, was worried about the losses, and about division among activist leaders. Gill called activist leaders for a meeting in Denver, and asked Matt Coles, a leading ACLU attorney, to draft a working plan for the future. In 2005 the group approved a 15-page plan "Winning Marriage: What We Need to Do," that laid out a strategy for 15 years. It called for working in the states to establish a legal norm, and accomplish either marriage, civil unions, or some partner recognition in a critical mass of states. Only after that "tipping point" was reached would they pursue federal cases aimed toward the U.S. Supreme Court. The memo also called for more coordinated strategizing at the national level, with an umbrella organization to coordinate. Public education campaigns should be done at the local level. Volunteers and experts on gay rights issues should be nurtured in every state. Wolfson's Freedom To Marry would collaborate with existing gay rights groups, to provide strategic and tactical assistance, and funding, to local groups to carry out the battles in their states. This made a more unified national struggle. [p. 53]
NOTE REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCCESS: Success requires a clear vision of the end goal, a strategy how to make that vision a reality, a plan to coordinate at the national and local levels, and financial and organizational commitment for the long haul. [p. 53]
In California, activists had been working for years, in an incremental approach. In 1984 Berkeley became the first city to recognize domestic partnerships. In 1996, San Francisco did so. In 1999, California legislature passed a statewide measure, and in following years made it more inclusive. Couples gained the right to adopt, and to have inheritance rights. But in 2004 San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered San Francisco's city register to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. By doing this, he was going directly against state law. Four thousand longtime couples made their way to City Hall within a month, stood in long lines patiently waiting their turn, many celebrating with their parents and children, and declared their love for one another in a more dramatic way than any paid advertising campaign or gay rights spokesperson could ever get across. [pp. 56-57]
Newsom's bold stroke prompted anti-gay conservatives to bring suit in California Supreme Court. Newsom maintained that denial of marriage violated the California constitution, but the Court ordered him to cease issuing licenses, on the basis that he did not have the authority to issue marriages on his own. But the Court also made clear that it welcomed a lawsuit on same-sex marriage. The next day, gay rights advocates filed such a lawsuit. Previously they had decided not to take such a route, in fear that anti-gay forces would lead a repeal effort. But Newsom's actions forced them to act. [p. 57]
Four years later, the California Supreme Court issued a decision stating that the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws required equal access to marriage. It reasoned that the right to marry was fundamental, and treating same-sex couples differently was unconstitutional, and that the state had no compelling justification for differential treatment. [p. 58] But after this decision ensued the most hard-fought, expensive marriage ballot campaign in American history. Opponents of marriage equality gathered enough signatures (mostly in churches) supporting an amendment to the constitution that would limit marriage to one man and one woman. Each side raised and spent about $40 million, with the largest contributors supporting the amendment coming from the Catholic Church and the Latter Day Saints (LDS Mormons). Supporters paid for TV ads which played on fears that parents would lose control of the values their children were taught in school. [p. 58]
When the amendment passed by a 52 to 48 percent margin, this was the biggest loss for the entire marriage equality movement…. At the same time, however, the loss was the catalyst that pushed marriage equality down the road to what seemed like inevitable success. … It motivated activists to commit even more time and effort to the cause." It triggered massive popular protests that threw both the Catholic Church and the LDS Church on the defensive. And it prompted LGBT activists to develop a new united advocacy strategy, and redouble their efforts. [p59]
The defeat prompted Hollywood film director Rob Reiner to finance a new organization, the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), and hired two of the nation's top lawyers David Boies and Ted Olson (who was former solicitor general to President George W. Bush). Many gay rights advocates who had been working for years warned the new group that the nation was not yet ready to challenge marriage laws on the federal level. When the Supreme Court declared sodomy laws unconstitutional, in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, only four states still singled out homosexual sex as a crime. In 2009, however, only four states recognized same-sex marriage or civil unions, but over 40 states had explicit laws against them. The activists predicted the Supreme Court would be unlikely to make a ruling until a majority of states had approved marriage equality, and they feared a defeat would set back the movement for years. Lambda Legal, Wolfson, Bonauto, Coles, and others had been persuading lawyers and couples not to file lawsuits, in fear of defeat. [p. 60]
But they could not persuade Boies and Olson, who rejected the activists' advice. The two prominent lawyers thought the activists were being too cautious. [Perhaps the two lawyers did not mind taking a chance, since they were not gay and did not have a personal stake in the case. Or maybe they just knew that their prominence would itself give them a better chance at success, in a legal system that is rigged in favor of the establishment (of which they were a part).]
In an extraordinary development, when Boies and Olson filed their lawsuit against the Proposition which prohibited same-sex marriages, California's attorney general Jerry Brown (a longtime gay rights supporter) refused to defend the Proposition. This gave the federal court of appeals the excuse that no one was measurably harmed by same-sex marriage, and so the Proposition was overturned. The tortured reasoning of the court shows the arbitrariness of the legal field, but at least now LGBT couples could marry in California. However, this victory did not apply to other states, so the right to marry still was not established law. [pp. 62-63]
The next battleground was in Maine. A year after California voters approved the Proposition defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, Maine voters did the same. Gay activists now began the effort to overturn that vote. By studying what went wrong in California, they changed the approach. Rather than argue for equal rights and tangible benefits, now they focused on marriage as an expression of love and commitment. They used straight people in advertisements. In door-to-door conversations, they used open ended questions to engage and persuade voters. After several losses, in 2012 Maine voters approved of legalizing same-sex marriage. This was the first time gay rights won in a statewide ballot initiative. On the same election day, gay rights advocates won in Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota as well. Public opinion was clearly changing, as voters became more familiar with the issues, and LGBT persons were no longer being perceived as a threat to society. It was only by long sustained efforts that this change occurred. While the multiple losses before a final win show that the effort for change is difficult, the trend shows that eventually the change will be accepted by mainstream people. [pp. 64-67]
Activists won by campaigning for pro-gay state legislators, by identifying supportive voters and making sure they voted, by public advocacy that appealed to the heart, not the head. They established a religious coalition of churches in support of marriage equality, to counter religious arguments, and making sure the effort would not be seen as an attack on religion. [p. 68]
After the anti-gay Proposition was passed in California, Dave Fleischer, political analyst at the Los Angeles LGBT Center, sent out volunteers to ask people why they had voted against same-sex marriage. From this survey Fleischer proposed that instead of going door-to-door seeking supporters, volunteers should try to engage opponents and persuade them to change their minds. The canvasser asked open-ended questions designed to invite voters to share their experiences. Canvassers engaged people's concerns directly, and tried to change their views through extended discussion. Activists encouraged LGBT people to discuss marriage equality with their relatives, co-workers, and friends. [p. 69] Volunteers had over 200,000 extended conversations with voters.
Activists hired pollsters to learn why voters in California supported the anti-gay Proposition. In roundtable discussions with those who voted for the Proposition, a pollster concluded: "You have to pay attention to what is going on emotionally. You are unlikely to change anyone's mind with a purely rational argument. You need to understand what triggers their concerns." [p. 71] Many felt LGBT was contrary to their Christian convictions. But pollsters found that many people were not merely undecided, but conflicted. They had strong impulses in both directions. On the one hand, they wanted to be open-minded and fair to others. But they worried that same-sex marriage might upset the status quo in unpredictable ways. They had anxieties about the pace of social change. Some felt that supporting same-sex marriage would raise their taxes, or bring an economic meltdown. Those worries need to be addressed empathically, helping them get through their emotions, rather than dismissing them as bigots. "Activists wanted voters to not just allow same-sex marriage but to celebrate it. They wanted people to go from zero to 60. But human beings aren't wired that way; they can't go that far that fast. This is a step-by-step process, and we only need people to go so far as to win the election." [p. 72]
In the pollsters' view, the goal should be ONLY to get people to ALLOW same-sex marriage, not necessarily to APPROVE it. Instead of getting some people to vote against LGBT issues, the best that can be hoped for is that they stay home and not vote at all. One of the strongest factors in moral decision making is loyalty to one's own group. If they see LGBT as foreign and alien to their group, then they might be in opposition. But if they have a LGBT relative or friend, then they will see them within their group and be supportive. This is why it is so important for sexual minorities of all kinds to come out to their families and friends, to put a familiar human face on them as individuals, rather than a foreign threat. [p73]
Messages need to show a relative or friend being discriminated against, or harmed in specific ways, to appeal to this emotion of supporting someone within your own group. Appealing in the form of "rights" is not effective. "People do not think of marriage as a bundle of rights. They think of it as an expression of love and commitment. It is better to stress the importance of expressing and solemnizing one's commitment to another than to treat marriage as a bundle of rights. People need to hear that LGBT people want to get married for the same reasons that they do: to make a lifetime commitment to the person you love. The theme should be "love and commitment." [p. 73]
Evan Wolfson's Why Marriage Matters 2004 book says, "Marriage is the vocabulary to talk of love, family, dedication, self-sacrifice, equality, and inclusion." [p. 73] But this was drowned out by talk of equal rights, benefits, and protections. Love and commitment is a more effective emphasis, because it appeals to the emotions of someone who values those qualities. For example, one ad has a World War II veteran saying "I fought in World War II, but it takes as much guts as my lesbian granddaughter and her partner have to get through this." His wife said, "I really want in my lifetime to see my granddaughter married to the person she loves." He then says, "This isn't about politics. It's about family and how we as people treat one another." Another ad was the straight son talking about the love he feels for his two lesbian moms. Another a straight minister talking about his inclusiveness of all members of his congregation, and a squad of volunteer firemen being supportive of their gay male colleague. Those who were married spoke about what they valued in their own marriage, and their gay friend should have the same opportunity. Ads showed sympathy toward those who were conflicted, and how they overcame their doubts out of love and concern for their gay friends. [p. 74] [What the author says may be true, but these campaigns are about more than winning a specific election. They also strive to put LGBT people into the realm of normal. When spending the money for ads, it is good to show actual LGBT people in diversity, not all straight-acting white-picket-fence conformists.]
In a long-term campaign for social change, even the losses can be productive. By bringing more attention to the losing side, losses can inspire volunteers to come out and take action they might not have if they won. By learning from past mistakes and improving tactics, the losing side can be "losing forward." [p. 75] Instead of citing case law or the 5th Amendment, the ads appealed to empathy and emotion.
In 2013 the campaign got a big boost from the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in U.S. v. Windsor that the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional. Though the ruling was based on the narrow view that DOMA interfered in state laws, it was a shot in the arm for a federal effort. President Barack Obama, who had gotten elected with strong support from the gay community, took the extraordinary step of refusing to defend DOMA before the court. On the contrary, he spoke out against it as nothing more than prejudice. [pp. 83-86]
Immediately, more than 80 lawsuits were filed by LGBT couples across the country, and nearly all the district courts ruled in favor of the couples. When one federal court of appeals in Ohio ruled against James Obergefell and John Arthur, a gay couple, the Supreme Court agreed to hear their case. GLAD's longtime attorney Mary Bonauto argued the case. Obama's Solicitor General gave strong support, saying "It is emphatically the duty of this Court, in this case… to decide what the Fourteenth Amendment requires…. It is simply untenable, untenable, to suggest that they can be denied the right of equal participation in an institution of marriage…. They deserve equal protection of the laws, and they deserve it now." [p. 89]
On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, that denial of marriage to same-sex couples is unconstitutional. The decision was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who also wrote the decision in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, which ruled anti-gay sodomy laws to be unconstitutional. Kennedy acknowledged that he was inspired to write these decisions because, earlier in his life, his main mentor was a gay man whom he admired. Once again, this is evidence of the strong impact that personally knowing a person leads to attitude change. [pp. 77-78]
In Lawrence v. Texas, Kennedy wrote that moral disapproval of homosexuality could not justify a law that intruded into the "personal and private life of the individual" by restricting sexual intimacy. [Though Kennedy made a restriction of this right to "consenting adults," his reasoning can easily be applied to persons who are below age 18.] [p. 82] Kennedy wrote that "individual liberty" cannot be deprived without "due process of law," which protects fundamental rights central to private life.
"Many commentators remarked that the constitutional right to same-sex marriage had developed with blinding speed. In fact, the campaign took more than 20 years, and built on progress made on other gay rights issues over more than half a century before that. Still, constitutional law tends to move at a glacial pace, and especially at the end, the progress on marriage equality was anything but glacial." [p. 78]
"Constitutional law develops through public debate about fundamental principles and values, pressed by people with powerful commitments willing to make sustained efforts in multiple arenas—local, state, and federal, public and private, at home and at work. Gay rights advocates had pursued just such a debate over many decades, and it was their work and their commitment, not an abstract legal rationale, that was the foundation of their victory." [p. 91]
"The result was dictated by doctrinal argumentation as much as by a transformation in Americans' fundamental values…. The Constitution is designed to reflect the nation's deepest commitments. Those commitments have evolved over time, and will continue to evolve. Constitutional law has changed to reflect those developments, and will continue to do so." [pp. 92-93]
Gay rights won because they changed attitudes in "local governments, private businesses, state courts and legislatures, ballot initiatives, the media, and personal conversations… Progress was due to advocacy of small groups of committed individuals, countless state-based groups, and visionary leaders." [p. 03]
"Legal arguments once considered frivolous or hopeless can gain legitimacy if they are adopted by powerful constituencies, including intellectuals, social movements, political parties, or the public at large." [p. 254]…. "In fact constitutional law does evolve over time, and its content is determined not by the view of long-dead Framers, or by justices' personal preferences, but by ongoing public debates, informed and often driven by organizations dedicated to constitutional change." [p. 255] …. "Especially when constitutional rights are broadly defined, as in due process or equal protection, development over time is to be expected. This flexibility is a strength, not a weakness. It keeps the Constitution alive for each generation." [p. 255]
The Human Rights Campaign reported that in 1990 only about 25 U.S. corporations extended benefits to the same-sex partners of their employees. By 2000 the list had grown to 3,572 employers, and by 2005 it was up to 9,370. "Benefits for same-sex couples began as an exception, but over time became the norm…. By 2006, 430 of the nation's Fortune 500 companies prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." [p. 256]
An important movement which is not considered in this book is the movement for transgender recognition and rights. In the 1980s, many feminists were openly hostile to both male-to-female and female-to-male transgender people. Many leaders of gay rights organizations considered transgender issues to be a diversion, or an unimportant issue, which would slow down progress on acceptance of gay rights. Yet, by the 2000s, attitudes in both groups have changed drastically. The way this change came about was due to relentless pressure by trans activists, who sought out hostile feminists and gay leaders, and engaged in extended one-to-one conversations on the issue of transsexual, transgender, and gender fluidity. Gradually, they overcame resistance and converted enemies into allies. This campaign, waged on multiple fronts from universities to the mass media, is deserving of its own book, due to the astounding success in transforming attitudes. Certainly, discrimination against transgender people still exists, and rates of incarceration and of murder of trans people are horribly high. But trans people are publicly visible as never before in society, and their voices are finally being heard. Any group which feels that the potential for change is hopeless should examine the amazing transformation that a small group of trans activists have accomplished. Their work is truly inspiring.
Influential former leaders in the fight for same-sex marriage, whose endorsement should be sought in current struggles. Get addresses and write to them, asking to call for discussions and questions:
Evan Wolfson, founder and president, Freedom to Marry. and author of Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry (2004).
Jon W. Davidson, Paula Ettelbrick, Jennifer Pizer, Michael Adams, Lambda Legal Defense lawyers (and their successors)
Matthew Coles, legal director of the Center for Equality, ACLU.
James Esseks, director of LGBT Rights Project, ACLU.
Mary Bonauto, legal director, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, Boston.
Marc Solomon, director of MassEquality, of Freedom to Marry, and author of Winning Marriage: The Inside Story of How Same-Sex Couples Took on the Politicians and Pundits—and Won (2014).
Rea Carey and Sarah Reece of the National LGBTQ Task Force, Shannon Minter, director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Seth Kilbourn of Human Rights Campaign, Alexander Robinson of National Black Justice Coalition, Toni Broaddus of Equality Federation, Dave Fleischer of Los Angeles LGBT Center.
Michael Klarman, From the Closet to the Alter: Courts, Backlash, and the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage (2013).
Dan Foley, former director of the Hawai'i ACLU, legal counsel for Baehr v. Lewin (1993).
William N. Eskridge, professor of law, Georgetown University school of law, author of Equality Practice: Civil Unions and the Future of Gay Rights (2002) and The Case for Same-Sex Marriage: From Sexual Liberty to Civilized Commitment (1996).
John D. Emilio, professor of history, University of Illinois at Chicago, author of many books, and editor of Creating Change: Sexuality, Public Policy, and Civil Rights (2002).
Erwin Chermerinsky, dean of the school of law, University of California, Irvine.
David Lampo, A Fundamental Freedom: Why Republicans, Conservatives and Libertarians Should Support Gay Rights.
David Boies and Ted Olson, Redeeming the Dream: The Case for Marriage Equality (2014).
Jo Becker, Forcing the Spring: Inside the Fight for Marriage Equality (2013).
Martin Duberman, emeritus professor of history, Center for Gay and Lesbian Studies, Graduate Center of the City University of New York, and author of many books, especially Has the Gay Movement Failed? (2018)
Joan Garry, former director of Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD.
Anthony Kennedy, former U.S. Supreme Court justice, and author of the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas (2003, which is a model legal argument for legalizing all kinds of love and intimacy) and in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).
Also check out the reasoning in these U.S. Supreme Court decisions to see if these decisions are useful models: Griswold v. Connecticut (1965, the right to use contraceptives, showing that sex has other functions besides reproduction, and building the right to privacy). Loving v. Virginia (1967, establishing the right to marry a person of another race, showing that states cannot criminalize interracial sex). Roe v. Wade (1973, establishing the right of women to control their own reproduction, and legalizing abortions). Turner v. Safley (1987, the right of prisoners to marry).
Molly Ball, "How Gay Marriage Became a Constitutional Right" Atlantic July 1, 2015.
Thalia Zepatos and Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, "The Marriage Movement's Secret Weapon: Radical Cooperation," Huffington Post June 26, 2015.
William Baude, "Is Polygamy Next?" New York Times July 21, 2015.


UPDATE 7:55 AM: Hugh Jackman has uploaded a video to Instagram thanking fans for their suggestions, and promising to read as many as possible.
For what he's insisted will be his last turn as Wolverine, Hugh Jackman is turning to fans for a little help.
Last night on Twitter, the actor posted a somber teaser image for the 2017 sequel to "The Wolverine," accompanied by the hashtag #OneLastTime. "My last time putting on the claws," he wrote. "What do you want to see happen? 50 words or less. I'll read as many as I can."
The response was quick and varied, ranging from an adaptation of the "Old Man Logan" comic storyline by Mark Millar and Steven McNiven to an appearance in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, a la Spider-Man. An R rating, Wolverine's classic comic-book costume, and battles with the likes of the Hulk, Deadpool and Omega Red also received their share of votes.
Of course, not all of the suggestions were serious (or at least we don't think they were): among them, a Wolverine musical, Wolverine on vacation, Wolverine in space, Wolverine vs. ISIS, and ... the death of Cyclops.
Jackman, who's played the character in seven "X-Men" films (and counting) since 2000, recently revealed that a conversation with Jerry Seinfeld helped him to realize it's time to finally hang up the claws.
"He said he'd always had this feeling and belief that you never know when your energy or the audience's energy is gonna dip over and people are like, 'Please go,'" the actor recalled. "He said you should finish on a high. I've been doing it for 17 years. I love it. I think the movies are getting better. And all of a sudden as we was talking, I went, 'This is it.'"
Jackman is rumored to make appearances in "Deadpool" and "X-Men: Apocalypse" before taking his bow in "Wolverine 3" in 2017.


KPI's should be about understanding what you need to improve to be better at meeting your Customer's needs and desires. Designing a measurement framework, the metrics that go with that, and the cross-functional dashboards to ensure cross-silo understanding how improvement in one area effects another, should not be regarded lightly. At the same time putting together a Customer Experience Feedback Analytics team to keep tracking metrics, searching for new correlations and continuously increasing your understanding of what truly matters to Customers, as well as what you need to do about just that, I consider a must for every company.
Unfortunately, in the perception of many, KPI's seem to exist only to please "the boss" or to show "the boss" how well one is doing. KPI's or metrics are often not well designed, and are sometimes extremely well designed: Extremely well to suit an important purpose: Fool your Boss (e.g. for a bonus, for getting the money to launch that project you really want to do, or just to be able to not have to do anything).
A company understands that their customers desire a speedy turn-around time with regard to account-change-requests. They have asked their clients what they would consider a speedy turn-around time. On average the Customer has provided feedback that 10 business days would be fine. The manager therefore has put in place a metric: average turn-around time of account-change-requests. After a big ICT project (which they always wanted to do but did not have a sound business case for) they succeeded in getting it about right. Unfortunately Customer Satisfaction did not increase and the (complaint) volume in their Contact Center did not decrease either, it increased!
What happened: after analyzing the data on turn-around times it was discovered that the company has been successful in decreasing the turn-around time of requests, that were already being dealt with within 10 days before. They improved turning them around in 3 days. Great achievement, but clearly not in line with the desired outcome of their Customers. Worse even, the turn-around time of requests that were handled outside the 10 day limit, increased from 15 days to 18 days. A lot of money had been spend on reducing the average turn-around time (by system automation), only to find out it did not have any of the desired outcomes for the company. The manager is happy though, with a state of the art system and a good bonus for meeting the KPI-goals.
A company has analyzed that their Call Center First Contact Resolution-rate was too low, causing high levels of dissatisfaction among their Customers who contacted the Contact Center. They also analyzed that most of the repeat traffic occurred within 2 weeks after the first call. Hence the responsible contact center manager put in place a KPI to track and reduce the repeat volume that occurred within 2 weeks. After as little as one month they saw an increase in the new First Contact Resolution KPI and after 3 months they hit their target (95 % FCR). Unfortunately, and you feel it coming, dissatisfaction levels did not decrease, nor did call volume.
What happened: contact center management proved to be very effective. They implemented the new KPI all the way through to the level of Customer Services Representatives. They of course know exactly how to influence this, without structural improvements needed. The CSR's made a great effort in managing expectations of the calling Customers: it will take at least 2 weeks before your requests will be dealt with. No improvements were made on the actual turn-around time of the Customer requests, hence all Customers kept calling back after the two weeks had passed. A good example of: little effort maximum result!
What kind of (bad) examples do you have to share? Or: how did changing the way you measured really improve understanding, what mattered for your Customers, for you? Please share your stories here.
This entry was posted in Customer Experience, Customer Services, Performance Metrics and tagged Call Center, Contact Center, Customer Experience, Customer Service, Metrics. Bookmark the permalink.
Os dejo un link de una revista digital bastante interesante que trata de la Atención al cliente y contact center.
I throughly enjoyed this thread. A valuable learning in itself. Thank you all!
One of the best KPI's that I've come across was at JCB (www.jcb.com), a UK-based manufacturer of excavators. Joe Bamford was the founder, and in the 70's and 80's the vast majority (maybe 90%) of their tractors went to "owner/drivers", or small firms. Every day Joe would go round the senior managers asking what the VOR or vehicle off the road figure was for that day. The VOR figure was important in that if an owner/driver's vehicle was off the road then he couldn't earn a living – as simple as that. And with Joe walking round the business asking what that single number was, he was, in his own way, a walking one number dashboard.
But I've been reading around a bit, and the state that someone is in before, during and after any interaction, is the filter through they interpret it.
Where I totally agree with the comment you made about enabling the customer to make themselves happy, this might be customer experience management through the design and delivery of the service itself. It's something that we (at our company) think about a lot, and would love to be a lot better at. But when stuff breaks down (my bill is incorrect, your product didn't arrive), the customer doesn't Trust the company, they Trust a person to hold that concern, to look like/sound like, they will deliver that fix, and then, the customer wants to feel better.
Thx again for a great comment!
I was not indicating you do not understand "jobs" & "service dominant logic". I also like the "shake"-job. You might be off indeed, on the other hand, you also might not.
I agree with you that it is important to understand what emotions your Customers go through when experiencing your products or services, and Customer Services too.
I also highly recognize the silence when asking your question. Trust comes with consistent, great and mostly effective experiences of a company that meets Customer's needs. One should aim at meeting those needs effectively throughout the experience (including when something breaks down). When doing that, the Customer will feel better.
And, to understand if you met the needs, one should ask about meeting the need, not how safe he/she feels. Safety when driving can be influenced by a lot of other factors. I think the same applies for satisfaction.
Great thread. With a common theme. The metrics often stand in their own little walled garden, and many involved in the "programme" do not have direct cause and effect relationships explicitly lain out. Metrics/KPI's gone awry often happens because the cause effect relationships, and their relative importance, has gone uncommunicated.
On another note: the metrics that are imposed will always be gamed. It is human nature. It is a cultural obsession with measurement. Yet the very things that executives need to move are emotions. Now tell me, are you 3 out of 5 happy, or 4 out of 5 happy?
I'm not sure I agree. Emotions can well be overrated. If one thinks of consumption as a mean to do a job, one can take another view on metrics: How well does your product or service (or better: experience) enable the Customer to do the job.
To be able to measure that, one needs to understand what the desired outcome of such a job is. Measuring how effective you are at meeting those desired outcomes is what comes next.
My last note: moving emotions could be considered inside-out thinking: I can make you happy. Outside-in thinking is: How can I help you be happy? A company that understand that, does not need to move emotions, they can meet Customer's needs. Emotions will follow..
P.s. What's ur Twitter-name? Not sure I'm following you (which I should).
Hi Wim – one of the most common "Manipulate the measurement" tactics that I encounter is what I call "stop the clock".
The company puts in place a measurement – let's say: 90% of all applications for health will be processed within 10 days. Perhaps three departments are involved in processing an application – sales, underwriting, and enrollment. Each department starts the clock when they get the application – and each "stops" the clock whenever they encounter something that needs outside assistance. So, sales admin gets the application in from the field two days after the agent met with the client. Those two days aren't counted – the clock starts when the app is timestamped in sale admin. Sales admin records the app and sends it on to underwriting – it goes through interoffice mail, so the clock stops again until underwriting picks up the mail and clocks it in.
During the course of underwriting review, the need arises to ask for a medical record. The clock stops while waiting for a doctor to reply. If the doctor doesn't reply soon, a second request may follow. Finally the records come in, the clock starts again, and the application is underwritten.
Back to interoffice mail, and enrollment sets up the account and schedules the membership cards for printing and mailing.
Time on the clock? Three days – well within standard! Elapsed time to the applicant? 4 weeks. Now, management wonders why customers complain about slow processing time, but all management reports show everything is going great.
The same scenario illustrates another common problem – as long as the 90% goal is hit, noone tracks what happened to the outliers – so nobody knows that while most apps get processed in "10 days", some take 3 months of clock time!
There are so many examples of this you could write a book. One last one for now – the service level fallacy. Many organizations have requirements to meet certain service levels in the call center – say, 80% answered in 30 seconds. Assuming this is even a meaningful or important measure, very few organizations measure this by interval. Instead, they average out the servcie level over 24 hours or even a month… so they always make service level even though every Monday morning at 9 am service levels between 9 to 10 are at 15%.
Thanks for the opportunity to contribute – a good topic and a great example of what happens when metrics measure what management wants instead of what customers want.
I worked for many years in outsourced help desks as a call taker, team lead, supervisor and manager.
Unfortunately, in the industry it's all too common for managers and directors to not have any say in the metrics to be used.
The metrics are designed to make the outsourcer look good ("Look we improved the FCR of your Help Desk!") and give the client's management the feeling that they made the right choice to outsource.
Neither client management not the outsourcer's management care about the end customer. Worse, the outsourcer firmly believes that the corporate client is their ONLY customer. This is why outsourced call centres are so despised by callers (end customers); they aren't there for the end customers.
I think that, first and foremost, it is imperative to clearly define who your customers are. And, this needs to be done by everyone in an organisation and it needs to be done with a large, inclusive definition.
Realistically, if you can't really define your customers, even if you have great, well-defined metrics, they won't matter. Once this is done, then, and only then, can you go about defining metrics that will actually help you improve and not fool.
In my limited personal experience, call centre staff fit into one of 2 categories: those who genuinely like helping people or those that are looking for a stepping stone into a company or industry. The latter are rarely very helpful no matter what you measure since they " just don't get it".
The former, if left alone, will do a great job. However, if you force them to perform against useless metrics, they become disillusioned. Morale goes down and sick days go up.
So, too sum it up, if you hire the right people, you're better off measuring nothing than using "fool or be fooled" metrics.
I was delivering back the results of a customer satisfaction survey recently in one of our full day workshops (http://www.infoquestcrm.co.uk/pdfs/Workshop.PDF) when I noticed that one of the groups was getting really upset. A long story short, the customers were complaining about on-time deliveries and the production director was being paid monthly bonuses for getting everything out-the-door on time. A little research showed that the clients "on-time" was the despatched date, and the customers "on-time" was the received date – and both parties were using the SAME date (so no allowance was made for the time it took to deliver the parts). This was such an old fashioned basic issue that it was understandable for the managing director to be going balistic.
Whether this would be solved by having a dash-board (or even created in the first place by having overly simplistic measures!) is debateable.
You know that we sell B2B surveys Wim. Sometimes I am approached by B2C companies aking for help. My response is to tell them about my first job, over thirty years ago, working for a clothing manufacturer that supplied Marks & Spencer. The boss had a routine, where every Wednesday he and a team of designers would got to M&S's head office with upwards of 100 new designs. Efery other weekend he would go to New York or Paris or Rome (mainly New York and always on Concord) and look for the new fashions that were coming through. So, the guy had a big ego. BUT, every week he would spend several hours in the stores, listening to customers. He'd watch, and if he saw a customer pick up a blouse and buy it, he'd go over and ask "why". And if she looked at a blouse and put it back on the rail he'd also want to know why. He didn't hide away strategising or ask some market research firm to help out. He got off his arse, every week, and found out for himself. And that's what paid for his gold bath-taps and his Rolls Royces.
Often the root cause for the "please the boss" effect is a corporate environment that values numbers over real results and has a "shoot the messenger" mentality. To avoid this, orgs should encourage reporting of ALL results, and focus on "do nothing" behavior as the real danger to the business. If someone comes to me with bad numbers, a plan for addressing the problem and then executes to resolve the problem, to me, that person is a top performer. To be clear, just surfacing bad news and not doing anything about it is just as bad as producing useless KPIs as bad news without solutions can create a hugely demoralizing environment.
I realize at many orgs, this kind of open cultural is easy to pay lip-service to and rarely actually comes to fruition, but fundamentally, I see this cultural shift as the best way to fix the problem.
Recollection of these stories makes me feel depressed again and reminds me why I have left consulting field.
One of my previous clients decided to reduce cost per call in their Customer Support Call Center by moving calls traffic to self-serve forum. That move "optimized" their call cost dramatically, however they refused to correlate these KPI's with well synchronized drop in sales of formerly supported products.
It is even more interesting to watch the dynamics of poorly chosen KPIs for Sales organizations, particularly if they are not synchronized with compensation policies. Salespeople are exceptionally good in exploiting these gaps very fast.