Tag: rotman

• Why the Pan Am Games are good for Toronto

  The Pan American Games are coming to Toronto in 2 years – 559 days to be exact. While not as high profile as the Olympics, some of you may be surprised to learn that the Pan Am Games will involve three times as many athletes as the Vancouver Olympics did.

  However, the big question with these sorts of events is always whether or not they create a lasting economic boon for the host city. History is littered with examples of economic disasters and lingering Olympic debts. I’d love to see a full analysis of what it costs to bid for a game, how much public money has to go up, how much private investment it spurs, and so on.

  At the same time, I suspect that some of the positive externalities might be hard to measure. How do you attach a value to the brand equity you get from hosting a major international sporting event? It’s hard, but for many people around the world the 2015 Pan Am Games could be the event that embeds Toronto into their psyche. 

  But there is another big benefit to playing host. It creates a real deadline. When cities bid for games they make all sorts of promises about the kinds of things they’re going to build and provide. In the case of Toronto, it accelerated the creation of a new mixed-income neighbourhood called the West Don Lands (which will be used to house the athletes during the games).

  “Originally, build out of the 32 hectare (80 acres) West Don Lands was planned to unfold in three strategic phases and take between 10 and 12 years, subject to market conditions. With the Pan Am Games, more than half of the community will be in place for the Games in 2015.” -Waterfront Toronto

  So in effect, we’ve leveraged the games in order to expedite capital projects that were already in the pipeline. I like this, because without a hard and fast deadline, I can almost assure you that these publicly run projects would have fallen behind schedule. Deadlines and goals are good.

  Here’s an example why:

  When I first started my MBA program at Rotman, we did an interesting organizational behaviour exercise involving origami cranes. The class was split into groups and each group was asked to go away and build paper cranes. If you’ve ever built one of these, you’ll know that they can be tough at first.

  But what each group wasn’t aware of was that they were all given different instructions in terms of the number of cranes they were expected to build. Their goals were different. At the end of the exercise, all of the cranes were counted and each group wrote their “production” levels on the board.

  What was discovered was that each group more or less built the exact number of cranes that they were asked to build. This is interesting, because presumably every group had the raw ability to produce the same number of paper cranes. All that changed was the motivation.

  Returning to the case of the Pan Am Games, the mandate is clear: We need to house 10,000 athletes and officials by the summer of 2015, or else we’ll look utterly incapable in front of the world. We have a deadline. And that’s a good thing.

  2013.09.18

• TIFF + TORONTO

  During TIFF is an awesome time to be in Toronto. The city is buzzing, the bars are open until 4am (that should be standard), and everybody is talking about films. I used to go to a lot more movies when I was younger, but that’s sort of fallen off in recent years. Thankfully, my good friend Meg was kind enough to invite me out last night. We saw Blood Ties, which I really enjoyed. It’s about a good cop and a bad brother.

  Before the movie started we started talking about the history of TIFF and it’s impact on Toronto’s economy. Curious, I looked it up today and the estimated annual contribution in 2011 was approximately $170M (which appears to be comparable to Cannes). That’s pretty impressive given that, even though there’s technically programming all throughout the year, it’s really only an 11 day festival.

  I was also reminded of Roger Martin’s book the Opposable Mind, where he talks about the founding of the festival and the dichotomy the founders were faced with. He argues that, at the time (1970s), there were 2 predominate film festival models in place: the elitist jury driven Cannes model and the sort of grassroots model. The problem with the former was that it didn’t feel inclusive for festival goers and the problem with the latter was that it didn’t attract the buzz of say a Cannes.

  

  The solution was to do both – basically make the audience the jury. The solution was a People’s Choice Award. This made festival goers feel like they had a say and were a part of the process, and it served as an effective buzz machine. There were also a bunch of other benefits, including the fact that the industry could now get a clear sense of a movie’s commercial appeal prior to going to market. More insular festivals couldn’t do this as well.

  Here’s how Roger Martin put it:

  “The People’s Choice Award put the Toronto International Film Festival on the map. By 1999, Roger Ebert, America’s most influential film critic, was telling one reporter that “although Cannes is still larger, Toronto is more useful and more important.” By 2005, TIFF had booked the largest volume of sales in film festival history, and film critic Liam Lacey named it “the most important film festival in the world – the largest, the most influential, the most inclusive.””

  This is an incredible achievement and we’re lucky to have it in our city. Now let’s get out and create some more of the world’s best.

  2013.09.11

• Labour Day thoughts…

  Today is Labour Day (or Labor Day for my American friends).

  Many of us simply think of it as the official end of summer, but it’s also the day we’re supposed to celebrate the labour union movement and the achievements of workers. Given this, and the fact that yesterday’s post was about Detroit, it seems like an appropriate time to talk about jobs.

  In many ways, the woes of Detroit are simply an extreme example of what’s happening in many advanced economies. The loss of manufacturing based jobs is creating a void that is not being filled – or is being filled differently – by new industries.

  The first piece to this is what I mentioned yesterday: education.
  

  Manufacturing jobs allowed unskilled workers to make good middle class salaries. But other than a few remaining instances – such as in Fort McMurray, where high school graduates can make six figures working in the Canadian oil sands and the average price of a home is pushing $800,000 – I think it’s pretty clear that the opportunities for unskilled workers is on the decline.

  Therefore (and this is old news), we clearly need to figure out ways to retrain existing workers and ensure that the next generation is equipped with the skills and knowledge to compete in this new world. The problem though – and this is the second piece – is that I’m not sure the new economy will require the same raw number of people.

  What I mean by this is that scaling up production of an automative plant is quite different than scaling up an internet platform like Twitter or Tumblr. You just don’t need as many people, which is why the returns to being smart have grown massively for those few. And this is part of the reason we’re seeing rising income inequality across the board.

  Now, I don’t know what the answer is, but I think we’ve already shown that the transition to a new economy isn’t going to be a smooth one. To that end, I’ll leave you with one last thought which came from a former professor of mine at Rotman, Walid Hejazi.

  His argument is that it’s actually unethical for governments to subsidize unproductive sectors of the economy, such as a manufacturing, in order to sustain jobs. The reason being that you then have high school students telling themselves that they don’t need to go to University because they can simply go work at the local plant and make decent money. But what they don’t realize is that there’s a very real expiry date to those opportunities and, when it comes, it’ll be much harder for them to be retrained.

  What are your thoughts?

  Here’s what venture capitalist Fred Wilson had to say today.

  2013.09.02