I was just given a heads-up about a write-up on my presentation at the Mgmt. Clinic. There is already a write-up of my talk on the Landscape Management Blog, it was pretty interesting and pretty accurate read, except for one small thing that’s not quite accurate. Here’s a quote from the post about the little lady and the big guy.
A smallish lady, and as Anderson finds out, one with more than a little pluck, she stands straight out of her seat and tells him in no uncertain terms that she lives in the country, doesn’t have access to broadband or hi-speed internet connections and, to this point anyway, is no great fan of blogging. It’s pretty obvious she isn’t about to have somebody talk down to her, which, to my mind anyway, is pretty darn neat.
Just a little further down in the article.
As the presentation ends 10 minutes later or so, she and big Rick come to a friendlier meeting of the minds, not that they hug or anything.
The upset woman actually apologized for her ranting. I told her it was okay, I knew she was actually mad at the Telephone company, and not me but I was in front of her and had hit the nerve. So it was accepted (her apology), and I thanked her for contributing to the dialogue.
What was more than accurate in the post is that I was trying to get my audience involved/involvement. Too often in these seminars put on in any Green Industry Organization attendee’s are herded from one talk to another, to another. Then asked to digest a one-way talk in 45-75 minutes . . . getting viable, remember-able, usable information.
I have a problem with that, I will always have a problem with that. Now this is a old trend that needs to be broken. Attendees should be allowed to question and comment, and have the presenter reach to a new level. Or maybe some think that it’s okay to regurgitate the same talk and same PowerPoint show over and over.
Thanks to ANLA for letting me do something different and going beyond the norm. I realize it’s hard to get reaction in a room of 175 or so, but I thank the audience for what they did.
As much as I like to be provocative I think the rest of the article was pretty correct in evaluation. I was looking to get the audience charged, and to get them outside thinking by the numbers, and accepting what marketing people push as the gospel.
If I have any real complaint/wish about the post it is that more focus will be on the one exchange than the hope of mine to get people talking about what are, or are not actually trends in the business that we can/could actually focus on.
Concerning the little lady . . . well; she is one tough lady, I like her too.
p.s. Ron you need a feed link so we can subscribe to your Blog.