Okay, this is a test of my thick skin, but in the last few days I’ve come across two very funny lampoons of consultants. The first is a cute animated short put out by Association Forum, and the second is a hilarious website of a fictional consulting firm called Huh? (thanks to Ben Martin for the first pointer and the FCNow blog for the second).
If anyone spots language on my Notter Consulting or Association Renewal LLC sites that sound too close to the Huh? text, please let me know!
Well, you asked for it. The Long Tail article you and Jeff wrote back in the Feb 2006 Assns Now had me saying, “Huh?” at times. For example:
“The strategic implications of the long tail for associations are considerable, which is precisely why associations need to elevate their strategic thinking.”
“Associations are often charged with enforcing these orthodoxies, which leads to the development and delivery of mostly sanctioned and popular material–their version of the hits–through distribution channels such as meetings and conferences, magazines, research products, and official Web sites.”
“For 21st century associations, the future will not be a linear extrapolation of the past, and the problems faced surely will not be solved at the same level of thinking at which they were created.”
Ouch! How dare you! Okay, just kidding. But no fair, you chose an article, not a web site, technically (and one co-authored with Jeff, no less, so I might get in trouble now that I’ve dragged him into it).
Let me respond about the last one, though: that’s Einstein! He said that you cannot solve problems using the same level of thinking that was used to create them. I personally think that has profound implications (and wouldn’t be found on huh?!).
But hey, I appreciate the feedback.
Ben, can you say more about why these sentences are “huhs” to you? I’d be perfectly willing to go along with your view if I thought what Jamie and I wrote was too jargony, but I’m not seeing it. What isn’t clear about these excerpts?