The Lens of Knowledge is Concave

The lens of knowledge is concave, the lens of experience is convex. Knowledge spreads and expands the light to endless possibilities which drive our dreams and expand our opportunities. But as we pursue those dreams and opportunities, the experience converges and focuses that light to reveal what is probable which shapes our lives, our thinking, and our risks. For some people that reality is painful, and for others it is liberating. In both cases, it is permanent. Confucius said: “By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest”.

I was a young executive at Kodak in my early thirties. My title was Director of Engineering and Operations for Digital and Applied Imaging. That sounds fancy and if I’m honest, it was kind of a big deal for me. I was the kid whose guidance counselor in high school recommended learning a trade and yet worked my way through an Electrical Engineering Degree at Syracuse University fixing bowling machines. This was still the early days of consumer digital cameras and they were being built in Japan by Chinon (who we purchased). Kodak knew digital photography was going to be a big deal, but the customers remained primarily an early adopter segment due to high price points and a lack of ubiquitous computers like we see today. Heck, The Blue Dress was still unstained, and USB was a dream discussed for Windows 95 that wouldn’t be seen until Windows 98B!

We had a product that was gaining popularity called the DC120. It was derived from the platform that included the Apple Quick Take (Built by Kodak) and the DC40. In those days, the camera could capture pictures using good old alkaline batteries for portability but also had an AC/DC Power supply for studio shooting and downloading the pictures over serial bus onto your computer. The concept of rechargeable batteries for such devices were a dream on a road-map. But as our friends in nearly every other consumer electronics field have learned, storing energy is not without risk. Rapid, unintended discharge of the batteries (aka, an explosion) is a risk. We still see it with Samsung most recently and airline carry-on restrictions to this day. Well the DC120 had a design where the power supply circuit was supposed to disable the battery circuit, but the mechanical connection could fail over time and unfortunately did, causing an explosion and a risk to customers. This was repaired urgently, and we did a recall and the actual harm to society was minimized. Kodak has always had a superior commitment to customer safety and satisfaction.

This experience led to a permanent change in my thinking. Not only professionally but also personally. While the risk to consumers from this event was low and it was quickly addressed, we knew announcing a recall was the closest thing to “man bites dog” analysts covering the emerging industry had seen. Kodak was threatened by digital substitution, Companies like Sony and Olympus were publicly vowing to destroy us and New Kodak Senior management, which had unquestioned credibility outside of Kodak had yet to prove they could do it at Kodak. Suffice to say, it was feeding time at the PR and Industry analyst zoo! Watching our PR people handle this was mesmerizing. I had never seen anything like this before but then they got THE CALL. It was the Wall Street Journal.

The WSJ (as the cool kids call it) didn’t want to talk to Sr management or PR people. They wanted to talk to the Engineering Director. They wanted to talk to me. I think our PR lead pooped a little at this point. I guess I was a good engineer, or I wouldn’t have been in that role, but I was young, sarcastic, and a loose cannon capable of telling the truth, unexpectedly at any moment. Realize That I would never knowingly lie to the media, but this wasn’t about truth or lies, it was about managing the messages we wanted the public to know about the situation to sell our product vs managing the message the media was hoping would sell their product; newspapers.

This request came in on a Tuesday and by that night, I was put on a plane to NYC to Ogilvy and Mather, our PR/Advertising partner. They had hired a 3rd party to give me a crash course on how to manage the media. It would be 10 hours of immersive training, practice, videotaping, and more practice in preparation for the interview, which would be held back in Rochester on Thursday. There were two key skills I learned from that. One was how to turn the answer to every question back into our key talking points. The other was methods and techniques to end a line of questioning. There are key words and phrases and concepts you can use which stops the path (that is now my personal trade secret). So back to Rochester and Thursday came and I was being interviewed by the WSJ. I used both methods like a boss and the PR team gave me an A++++, a positive WSJ article and a personal lesson for my experience tree.

After that experience, I never looked at the media again as anything more than ass holes just like me. I didn’t see the altruism, I saw people on a mission to accomplish a business goal vs. me, a person on a mission to accomplish a business goal. Shortly after that experience (a couple of years actually) was Gore vs Bush. As I heard Al speak, I could think of nothing but the first lesson of my training… “Al, how is the weather”? “The weather is nice, and the people are enjoying it, and those people should be counted”…

We live in a world today where people would like to inform me of the altruism and good intentions of the media. I believe in the free press and I also believe that the free market is a balance to the free press. Because of my experience with the media, I am skeptical, and cynical of their intent. My experience doesn’t make me bitter or angry, it makes me look for more correlation of data that I can tie to my experience and the experiences others share with me. There is a saying in behavioral science: I hear, I forget. I see, I remember. I do, I understand. It is why in a nation of 320ish million and counting, there is no real consensus. We are all basically good but in a different phase of our journey from knowing to doing, everyone has a story and experience that backs up their positions and that is a dimension of diversity worth understanding and exploring. 99 times out of 100, the differences we see in each other are not due to evil but rather different stories and experiences. Seek their stories and they will listen to yours.