Seed NewsvineWhat’s in a name? Everything from A to Xe.
Feb 16, 2009 Commentary, Jake's Posts
By Jake Allen
As you will have certainly heard by now Blackwater Worldwide announced last week they are changing the name of their corporate holding company to Xe, pronounced ‘Zee’. It seems that even Blackwater has recognized President Obama’s call for change that can be believed in.
I fully support this decision and it is something I have been calling for, for a long time. Simply because as Xe spokesperson Anne Tyrell confirmed the events associated with the company’s operations in Iraq were fast becoming synonymous with everything the company was doing and that simply is not an accurate portrayal of the entire organization.
The way I see it there are two portions of this decision. First, was it necessary to make the change in the first place? Secondly, will it work?
As rule rebranding exercises have a mixed history with as many failing as succeeding. It’s a dicey business to change your company’s name, its image, its brand, really its entire persona. But given the alternatives there really weren’t any. It is certainly worth a try.
The cruel irony for Blackwater must be that they are the only private security firm in the world who has achieved single-word household recognition. I mean just test this out and ask someone who does not follow our industry and ask them if have heard of CRG, URG, EODT, SOC-SMG, MVM, etc, etc, etc. See how many you can name without any recognition and then ask them the control-question, “Have you heard of Blackwater?” It’s an interesting exercise and one not unlike what professional marketing and public relations firms perform in focus group testing when considering branding issues.
Think about what that means. Financially speaking that kind of notoriety is incalculable. Consider other brands that have spent decades and untold millions of dollars to achieve the same level of recognition. Companies such as Nike, Reebok, Avis, Hertz, Coke, Pepsi are simple examples of brands which in a single-word deliver immediate recognition for who they are and what they sell.
However, in the case of Blackwater that association was, over time, synonymous with an image that was almost entirely negative for the 95% of the general population. In this business being unknown to the average-guy-on-the-street is OK and some would argue preferable. Perhaps the next best thing is being known by name but conjuring a neutral response. But being associated with almost entirely with negativity is just bad for business. So to answer the first question; is a change like this warranted? I think the answer is decidedly, yes.
Will it work? That is harder to answer as it depends on so many factors. All sorts of companies rebrand themselves or their products when they feel that they are losing market share and need to create a new buzz in the market place. But as indicated this is a gamble.
Rebranding sounds easy but customers and the general public are fickle. A rebrand signifies change but simply changing the packaging will not suffice in meeting consumers’ expectations for ‘real change’. In consumer goods customers are looking for physical improvements in the product such as better taste, more appealing aroma, longer shelf-life, convenient features that improve use or performance. In a service business like security or training it’s not so immediately tangible. Changing the stationary, business cards, web site and corporate colors may gain some initial market attention but if the customer does not see or feel or ultimately believe that ‘real change’ has occurred they will not embrace the new image or the company behind it.
This reminds me of something I learned many years ago with respect to decision making. It’s not often the first decision that guarantees success or failure of a venture. It’s normally all the smaller decisions and actions taken after the fact which can lock in success or ensure doom.
There are some obvious exceptions to this rule such as making the initial decision to jump off a high building without aid of parachute or arresting gear. That decision would be poor and cannot be salvaged no matter how many other decisions you make on the way down to the ground. But I digress…
My point is that for this to work Xe is going to have to follow through on their commitment to change. That basically comes down to going quite operationally and not creating any bad press of their own doing. At the same time they need to engage the media about the other aspects of their business. For example, President Gary Jackson has indicated that they will not pursue close protection contracts as actively as before. Instead they will focus on their training products and services as well as other aspects of their portfolio. Fair enough, so since the majority of that business is training city, state and federal law enforcement staff there should be no reason why some aspects of this business cannot be communicated to the wider public about how or tax dollars are being spent at their facilities to keep the cops one step ahead of the crooks. Similarly, if they are going to continue with their anti-piracy work primarily in the Gulf of Aden then they should be making it clear the ways in which they are working in concert with navies and shipping carriers to be part of the solution. In other words the next 10 news stories we hear about Xe better be positive in tone. If we open the papers tomorrow and Xe contractors have mistakenly sunken a fishing vessel of the coast of Yemen killing all onboard….well it’s not going to go well for the company.
There are myriad of small choices and actions to be made in the coming months. The sum total of all of those decisions and actions will determine whether or not the rebranding is ultimately a success. So, like any other company they are going to have to seek the right kinds of contracts, staff them with the right people, manage their projects and do a good job. If they can do that then they will have a long and profitable run. If they continue to have breakdowns operationally they will continue to make the headlines and then the public will not embrace the name Xe or the company behind it.
I do wish Xe luck in the future and believe they are giving themselves their best chance for success by abandoning their old moniker. Not because I believe that Xe is necessarily better. That will take time to determine.
I am interested to hear your thoughts on this subject. Leave a comment giving your take on this.
February 16th, 2009 at 9:35 am
I crossed lot of operators from BW or “Xe”
99 % of time i had great professionnal relationship with them.
Good Luck to “Xe”
February 16th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
For all intent and purposes Xe, Blackwater, has only one customer, The U.S. Government. Even the training of police SWAT teams and State Troopers are most likely paid for by DHS funding.
It seems to me they have to get right with that customer. Blackwater has, rather arrogantly, been playing fast and loose on a lot of levels for a long time and I’m not sure a name change is going to do it.
Jake I really enjoy reading your ezine. All the available evidence so far makes me think that PSC are a really bad idea, at least in the way they have been used so far in Iraq and Afghanistan, but you make a lot of sense.
I am slowly beginning to come around to the idea that they can be useful in some situations. In spite of the black eye Blackwater’s poor management practices and reckless behavior have given the industry I now believe many, perhaps most, operators are responsible and professional. But this idea that a “product” that can kill and destroy, to say nothing of torpedo counterinsurgency efforts and foreign relations, should be so lightly regulated is nuts and has got to change.
February 16th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Thanks for your insightful input Marc. I think your very correct that at the end of the day Xe’s bills are paid by the government. It’s one of the main reasons why they must have recognized that their Iraqi ops were costing them at home on what really is their bread-and-butter of tactical training. You can just envision some police chief somewhere in Indiana submitting his purchase order request to the Procurement Officer at the Mayor’s office where he is asking to send 20 of his guys to Blackwater for some necessary annual training. What!! You want to send our guys where? And be trained by who??? There would be no need to try to make a case for the world class facilities and instructors and blah blah blah, that request would be DOA. Now, fast forward and imagine that same request being submitted to attend a 7-day course at U.S. Training Center. Totally different.
I never worked for BW but I know a lot of their people, and I’ve worked the same AOs with other companies and seen the wake of their presence.
PSCs may in fact be a bad idea, its a conversation worth having but at this stage it’s purely academic. The federal government decided back during the Reagan era that significant civilian support was the model they wanted and since then the die was cast. It’s not likely to reverse itself so we are left with doing what we can to bring some credibility to our existence.
I completely agree that regulations are required and it is something I personally am championing. We need it at all levels, from the client-side to the supplier side and at the operator level. We should aspire to make it like the accounting industry where not just anyone can work as an accountant. A minimum requirement must be met at the personal level. But beyond that accountants have GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) to serve as their guide. There are also a number of other checks and balances in place to assure transparency.
For me this is the biggest tragedy in this whole affair. That Blackwater got to be involved in the force structure at such an important level was an opportunity of a lifetime to demonstrate to everyone that a private military company could actually work in concert with State and DOD and coalition forces and make a positive impact. It was worse than a missed opportunity it was an opportunity completely destroyed and has set us back at least a decade. Just think of what we could be discussing now? Imagine if BW had grabbed the brass ring and done a stellar job. We’d be talking now about how this PMC phenomenon could be used in other parts of the world to add some stability. But obviously that won’t be happening anytime soon.
Jake
February 16th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Mr. V,
Your experience in terms of association with BW operators was, in my opinion, very common and one I also shared. Unfortunately the small % of guys in leadership roles did not fully grasp the damage they were doing to the big mission as they went about their little mission. The world is full of good-guys but that does not make them the ‘right guys’ for a particular job.
What they lacked desperately was strong operational leadership on their teams. It was as if they had a regiment without strong senior staff NCO leadership. Had they had a few dozen guys with your experience and level headed temperament it would have had a dramatic difference.
Men want to be lead. Most of their guys were ex-military and would have naturally and easily adapted to a more disciplined management style. Instead they continued to use the SEAL team approach which is more laid back and less authoritarian. That works fine when everyone on the team is a SEAL. But once they won the WPPS contract and had to meet those staffing numbers they quickly started allowing in people of another cut altogether. That was not a downgrade in quality because to be honest PSD work does not require an SF background. But they changed the mix of their teams dramatically without altering their management style to fit the makeup of the typical new arrivals.
Jake
February 16th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
sigh…I was at Blackwater for the active shooter course in early Feb. I’m glad I went. Great course, excellent instructors, and they have the best training facility I have seen outside of a military base. I highly recommend their training (28 year police officer/ex SWAT/ex narc). But I have to say, I’m happy my training certificate says “Blackwater” and not “US Training Center”…I’m gonna miss BLACKWATER. Best of luck to Xe.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:57 am
Jake, BW won’t be shooting any pirates anytime soon in HOA. They screwed up on their choice of vessel, economic model and rules of force currently in place. Secondly BW has always had the binos backwards. Anybody remember the Grizzly armored vehicle, a SUV that scared its users because it snapped trannies long before insurgents had a chance to blow them up. Do the numbers and you find that many of BW’s endeavors are powerpoint wet dreams not based in market needs. The only two that made sense were their “Extreme” PSDs and their STOL airlift gig in Central Asia (Star Wars anyone?)
But “xe” formerly known as” Tactisexual Village People Knuckle Draggers Spitbottle LLC” is as rooted in the “oughts” as neocons and Hummers.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:07 am
Jake, I agree with most of what you say but you brush off Blackwater’s PSD business a little too easily. It may have caused harm to the reputation of it’s other endeavors but it was also the cash cow that paid all the bills.
The target manufacturing business will likely remain a modest success as the products seem to be well thought of in the firearms community and they’re patentable but they will never throw off the kind of cash the big State Department gigs did. The supply airlifts for DOD in Afghanistan are probable the next most lucrative business after PSD but Blackwater does not do anything that any number of other companies can do without all of the PR baggage. Impeccable right wing Republican credentials are hitting the markdown bin right now so I don’t think they can rely on that to keep the contracts. As for police tactical training, every Podunk police force in the country now has a SWAT team courtesy of DHS but they are expensive to maintain. They divert funds from more effective programs like neighborhood policing and are increasingly being use inappropriately. At any rate I think the wave has crested on the growth opportunities in their training. I have to agree with RYP, The rest of Blackwater’s businesses are a grab bag of “high concept” low margin, even money loosing ideas, blimps, pirates, weapons training for pro athletes. Blackwater seems to be throwing a lot of shit against the wall hoping lightning will strike twice.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Your right Marc that the WPPS contract served as the cash cow for many of their other ventures. And both you and RYP correctly point out that many of those ventures are pretty wild. I cannot say if they are unprofitable as their books are closed and we’ll never know for sure.
I am not sure what I said to leave you with the opinion that I wrote off their PSD ops.
It is not atypical to see a company over extend themselves in this way. It happens all the time across all industries/sectors. A guy find success in one area (training in this case) then some unforeseen event happens (war in this case) and the company rapidly changes focus and expands to meet a new and usually more lucrative need (PSD in this case). If the organization does not have adequate leaders and infrastructure in terms of policies, guidelines, principles and a governance structure (to say nothing of a common ethos) to oversee these operations now taking place 5000 miles away they find themselves over committed and having to simply ‘do the best they can’. Nothing wrong with that provided the ‘best you can do’ is up to the task. In this case it was not.
Look, there is plenty of blame to go around here and a lot of it should be directed at DoS for not understanding what they were shopping for and then not managing it once they bought it. But nobody forced BW to even engage in WPPS I and certainly nobody forced them to take a higher percentage of the pie in WPPS II.
As I see it (or rather as I literally saw it) their PSD ops arrived in earnest with the transition fro Gen. Garner to Bremer and under the latter they served as his personal praetorian guard adopting his ethos and his personal and political views that the Iraqi people should be subservient to the U.S. A more professianally run outfit would have distanced themselves from their client and stuck to the job at hand, no more no less. Just quite professionalism. A military should avoid politics at all costs. I would say this goes double for private ones.
As I continue to say until I am blue in the face. I don’t and no one should fault the 24 year-old-kid-ex-corporal for getting out of the military and going back to Iraq to make 3X the money using some of the skills he learned in the military. I fault the government for needing so many of them in the first place and I fault the companies for not having a system to train, manage and lead these guys in a more professional and disciplined way. The irony of all of this is; that is precisely the environment that 24 y/o ex-Marine or soldier would have expected and in fact thrived in. Instead he showed up to a Rush event at the world’s largest fraternity party. There is always personal accountability for ones actions but overtime those actions are skewed by what you see others doing and getting away with.
OK, this rant is over. Will grab a coffee and get ready for my next one.
SF
Jake
February 17th, 2009 at 8:11 am
Larry,
I agree with you. Their facilities are impressive as is their staff in terms of knowledge and teaching skills. That part of the company really is world-class. I suspect they’ve always known this and are going to get back to the basics of what can be a very profitable business in its own right. It probably means less overall revenue but it carries with it a much more predictable level of operational risk.
Hey, at least your certification will be a collectors when they change their logo too.
Jake
February 17th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
My recent background (since 2003) has been armed security both domestically (anti gang) and internationally (Iraq and Afghanistan) with several different organizations…and I also have a Special Forces background.
The product you get is the “product” that is the result of leadership…good leadership means good “product”.
And blaming the operators for the lack of regulation is like blaming the peanut for an outbreak of salmonella.
Given the potential use of lethal force, it behooves everyone involved in the process to design, operate, maintain and reinforce : the rules of engagement, professional fire discipline and excellent judgment based upon solid training and experience.
Embracing these principles are good for business, good for the operators and good for the client as well as the fact that it may make very good foreign policy if these types of contracts are going to be a thing of the future.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Well said David. I would only amplify your comments by saying that ‘experience’ is really the critical element here and it is not something that can be manufactured. You can’t start replacing 30+ year old former SEAL/SF operators with 23 year-old ex-Marines and soldiers without adjusting the framework of the work environment and the oversight and mentorship required to be effective. Experience comes with time and that cannot be rushed. Lack of it can only be compensated for by leadership. You can take a solid kid who has the basics (shoot, move and communicate) but that says nothing about his decision making capability or his performance in combat or even intense pressure. There is no substitute for good leadership. Either an org has it or it doesn’t.
Jake
February 17th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Let me see if I can add to this, because this is a good little discussion.
I am a big fan of solid concepts that work–industry best practices if you will. I really like the concept of what Pete Blaber was talking about with 3M in his book, The Mission, The Men, and Me. Also, Pete made a cool comment on my ‘The Importance of Shared Reality’ article. You will find me referencing the concepts in his book a lot, because they are certainly inspirational and forged in the world of operational reality.
http://www.amazon.com/Mission-Men-Me-Lessons-Commander/dp/0425223728
3M is short for a priority list for leaders out in the field. The Mission comes first, the Men come second, and Me or that leader comes last in the order of priorities. And all of these are connected, and all should be given attention. This is a good starting point for contractor leadership in war zones.
So the Mission or Contract comes first, if we were to follow the logic. But is that contract written to reflect the other 2 elements of the 3M principle? Does it reflect the order of priorities for that leader out in the field? It is my belief that if a contract does not cover all aspects of the 3M, then it is lacking. I put that on the leadership of the company that signed on to that contract in the first place to emphasize this.
But even if the Mission part is the only thing covered in the contract, then it is still up to the leader in the field as well as the company, to ensure they are covering the Men and Me part, as well as the Mission part. The Mission part is vital, and is pretty self explanatory. It is on the company and the customer to come up with that contract or mission that meets the overall objectives of the war and of the 3M’s. That is the ideal scenario, but this part of the contracting world is highly dependent on the customer knowing what they want. It also must require a customer applying some form of quality control and management of those contracts. You guys are paying for it, care that it is being done properly. But back to the company, and the other two elements of the the 3M’s.
So how do you take care of the Men? First off, be a good leader. Know your stuff, have the courage to do what is right, and take care of your people. Then actually put action to words. Taking care of your men, means training them, drilling them on SOP’s, and actually doing the things necessary that will cover the Mission part and the Men part of the 3M Principle.
Taking care of your men also applies to every level of a company. The guy below you, wether in an office environment or out in the field, needs a good leader. And those leaders must have a good leader above them–so it always goes to the top. In the case of Xe, Erik Prince is the top of that chain of command.
So to me, it is Erik Prince’s job to ensure that every leader and contractor in his organization understands the 3 M principle or some philosophy of the company, and understands what is expected for good leadership. There should also be a shared reality throughout the entire organization. That goes back to learning organizations, and how important that is to the growth of a company. You can either depend on the few, to come up with the magic of the whole, or use your entire company’s creativeness and recommendations to get you to achieve the ultimate in customer satisfaction and Kaizen.
I bring that up, because I am so tired of being in companies where the head shed in DC, has no clue what the reality of the head shed in Baghdad is going through. And then that Baghdad group, usually falls in line with a lack of shared reality with the teams in the field. Everyone should know everyone’s reality, so that if a guy makes a decision at headquarters, then everyone in the company can at least understand the why. Or better yet, someone out in the field, could actually present an idea that would impact the company as a whole, just because they knew what was going on. Scary concept for some, but what is more scary is a company where the tail doesn’t know what the head is doing.
So how do you get a shared reality? Well that takes listening and asking the question ‘what is your recommendation’ a lot. I am sure within Xe, there are hundreds of employees with fantastic ideas, that kind of fall on deaf ears because the company is not open to that. But it takes that initiative at the top, to get that shared reality machine working well. It is all about changing the culture or mindset of a company to achieve the ultimate in Kaizen–constant improvement.
Finally, with the 3M principle, you have the Me. If you are making poor decisions, because you can’t think straight (a divorce, a death of a buddy, mental exhaustion, etc.) then how are you helping the company or team? This is a tough one, because leaders typical don’t like admitting that they are overworked or not as effective as they could be, for fear of losing their job. So I put this on the company to ensure they have programs that look out for the well being of their leaders in the field. Also, if leaders were more connected and open with their teams and assistant leaders, then they might have a better sensor for how they are doing.
Or, you could look at it another way. Enter CRM:
Crew (or Cockpit) Resource Management (CRM) training originated from a NASA workshop in 1979 that focused on improving air safety. The NASA research presented at this meeting found that the primary cause of the majority of aviation accidents was human error, and that the main problems were failures of interpersonal communication, leadership, and decision making in the cockpit. A variety of CRM models have been successfully adapted to different types of industries and organizations, all based on the same basic concepts and principles. It has recently been adopted by the fire service to help improve situational awareness on the fireground.
CRM fosters a climate or culture where the freedom to respectfully question authority is encouraged. However, the primary goal of CRM is not enhanced communication, but rather enhanced situational awareness. It recognizes that a discrepancy between what is happening and what should be happening is often the first indicator that an error is occurring. This is a delicate subject for many organizations, especially ones with traditional hierarchies, so appropriate communication techniques must be taught to supervisors and their subordinates, so that supervisors understand that the questioning of authority need not be threatening, and subordinates understand the correct way to question orders.
Cockpit voice recordings of various air disasters tragically reveal first officers and flight engineers attempting to bring critical information to the captain’s attention in an indirect and ineffective way. By the time the captain understood what was being said, it was too late to avert the disaster. A CRM expert named Todd Bishop developed a five-step assertive statement process that encompasses inquiry and advocacy steps[citation needed]:
* Opening or attention getter - Address the individual. “Hey Chief,” or “Captain Smith,” or “Bob,” or whatever name or title will get the person’s attention.
* State your concern - State what you see in a direct manner while owning your emotions about it. “We’re low on fuel,” or “I think we might have fire extension into the roof structure.”
* State the problem as you see it - “I don’t think we have enough fuel to fly around this storm system,” or “This building has a lightweight steel truss roof. I’m worried that it might collapse.”
* State a solution - “Let’s divert to another airport and refuel,” or “I think we should pull some tiles and take a look with the thermal imaging camera before we commit crews inside.”
* Obtain agreement (or buy-in) - “Does that sound good to you, Captain?”
These are difficult skills to master, as they require a change in interpersonal dynamics and organizational culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Resource_Management
This system was developed to put a checks and balances system within the decision making cycle of an aircraft to minimize human error. It is about a more efficient way of working with a co-pilot, so you as the captain or leader can make the best decisions for your team. I applied this principles when I was fire fighting and when I was contracting, and they work. You look at your assistant team leader as a vital element in your decision making system, and they are able to step up if you are killed or taken out of the fight with a wound. That ATL has a shared reality with you, both of you know the men and how they operate, and both of you are driven to achieve the same goal–make sound decisions. So in essence, the Me is more We. But all in all, it is still Me, because you are the one that has to decide how to use your ATL and if you are an effective leader or not.
So there you have it. These leadership concepts and the 3M thing are things that Special Forces and Infantry can all appreciate. To expect everything to work perfectly, without the kind of effort I am talking about up top, is idiotic. You don’t just hire people, and expect good management. You must create the philosophy, the mindset, and the DNA that you want to instill within all of your employees. The CEO also has to be the guy to sell this as a good thing for the company, for the customer, and for world/national opinion. Each person in his company, should be able to answer the two questions that will help them to buy off on the ideas. Can I do this? How will this benefit me?
Mr. Prince would do a lot to impress me and others, if he were to present ideas much like these in a public forum. It would go perfectly with this re-branding effort. He could explain how good leaders could prevent future incidents that could embarrass the company, the customer, and the nation. He could explain how good leaders that make sound decisions, are what keep good people around. And when good people stay and are happy, the company saves money and the contract continues to be properly fulfilled. And that also equates to the customer being happy, which means more contracts and then the company stays profitable. A profitable company, also means that you can pay your people what they are worth–that’s if you cared about the Men. So to go full circle on this, 3M all the way!
S/F -Matt
February 17th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Matt..how the hell are you able to type a response that’s longer than all the other comments and questions put together???? :)))
PSDs are an anomaly, an entirely preventable problem and a very short term fix to a problem that shouldn’t exist. Like selling aspirin to a client that keeps banging his head against the wall.
The Army has no way to execute all those “transformative” powerpoint presentations so they toss into the private sector and see what happens. Any solution adopted must be acceptable to all sides (even the “bad guys” who eventually become part of the political spectrum in a stable environment.
BW and some other companies have literally no ability to think along the entire 5 phase spectrum although they can hire anyone they want, they just don’t attract or engender the respect of certain governance, academic, infrastructure and NGO communities. When they gain that they can begin to engage and shape the endstate. Its not that difficult but BW on your CV is like traveling with the Green Mamba in the old apartheid days. They have expertise but it carries a stigma.
You will hear over and over from Petraeus, McKiernan, Odierno and other top kicks that any solution in these regions is both a political and indigenous one.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:45 am
Matt..how the hell are you able to type a response that’s longer than all the other comments and questions put together???? :))) -RYP
————-
Pure bloggification.
That’s what happens when you post daily on a blog–you write a lot.
As for the company now called Xe, I think they will fade out of the spot light pretty effectively once they have had some time. Then they will do exactly what the other obscure and abbreviated companies have been doing. Find a niche, make money, please the customer and stay off the skyline.
I would still like to hear Mr. Prince on Combat Operator Radio talk about some of this stuff.
February 21st, 2009 at 7:30 am
Congratulations for the blog Jake. It is the first time I read it, and I find it very interesting indeed. I will be back, for sure.
I have been working as a war correspondent for the last 15 years, and I find it fascinating to know about the debates that are taking place inside your industry.
I came back from Afghanistan a few months ago, where I was with the US troops, and now I am heading to Irak.
Even though I took several security courses with private firms in the UK, and I have seen many times private contractors in action, it has always been hard for me to know more about their work.
Once again, congratulations. HZ
PH: If I could give you one humble advice, as a professional journalist, is to make the posts shorter, more straight to the point. Nowadays, with so much information, we tend to feel discouraged when the texts are so long, specially, like in this case, when it is just trying to express one idea: that the company formerly known as BW (this sounds like Prince, the other one, the musician) should do more than just changing its name.
February 21st, 2009 at 7:51 am
Gracias Hernan! I’ll try to take your advice to heart.
Jake
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Great blog!
Any former BW operators want to talk to me about a story I am putting together relating to the company’s future, please contact: phinneydavid@yahoo.com
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:06 pm
David,
I hope you’ll at least provide full disclosure if anyone contacts you.
Jake
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Interesting blog post. What would you say was the most important marketing factor?
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:39 am
I found your blog on google and read a few of your other posts. I just added you to my Google News Reader. Keep up the good work. Look forward to reading more from you in the future.