Next Friday, Commerce Lexington is hosting a breakfast to unveil the Strategic Plan written by Angelou Economics to map Lexington’s future economic development strategy. I’ve written about this a few times before, and actually participated in one of the community focus groups almost a year ago.
Yesterday, ProgressLex was provided with a draft version of the recommendations.
Angelou Economics was paid $150,000 for this analysis and project: $75,000 from the city, and $75,000 from Commerce Lexington (which is partially funded from the city budget). Angelou was selected from a competitive RFP process, primarily due to Angelos Angelou’s continued involvement in the development of specific recommendations for Lexington. This is the fourth and final deliverable that Angelou is producing with the purpose of providing “actions to strengthen the linkages between businesses and economic and workforce development efforts and transform the Bluegrass Region into a more competitive region, predicated on innovation and a highly-skilled workforce.”
The document is indeed full of recommendations. And while I’m perhaps not qualified to evaluate the recommendations, I find myself extremely disappointed with the number of recommendations that Angelou has copied and pasted into this document from other documents (some that they created, some they found on the web). I understand many cities are facing similar problems, but with the amount of money spent, it seems like we’d get a document specifically addressed to our environment.
For example, our report contains the following (listed in the executive summary as the most important issue facing our community):
The first and most important finding in this process — a finding supported by survey responses, interviews, and focus groups — was that the Bluegrass Region must break down longstanding silos and work collaboratively towards a common economic vision. As a result of this conclusion, it became apparent that the plan itself would have to focus on those barriers that compromise regional economic vitality.
Funny enough, Colorado faces the same problem:
The first and most important finding in this process — a finding supported by survey responses, interviews, and focus groups — was that the Pikes Peak region must break down longstanding silos and work collaboratively towards a common economic vision. As a result of this conclusion, it became apparent that the plan itself would have to focus on those barriers that compromise economic vitality.
This is only one of many “copy and paste” jobs that we found in this document. Some are so horrible that they forgot to delete the spaces before the text when they replaced the previous city’s name with “Bluegrass region” for our report.
You can read the full report here.
You can read the full report, with the sections that are “copied and pasted” highlighted here (note that it was considered “copied and pasted” if only superficial items were changed — the name of the region, city, etc.). This is only from a superficial analysis of the document, based on google searches.
Similar reports for other areas can be found here, here, here, here and here.
If you’d like to attend the event, tickets are $15. It is at 8am on March 18th at the Hyatt Regency in Downtown, RSVP to rsvp@commercelexington.com.
This is the type of stance I’d like to see ProgressLex take. The city needs a watchdog to keep track of what Commerce Lexington is up to these days.
A plagiarized, $150,000 one-size-fits all, unoriginal document offers Lexington nothing. Maybe we’ll finally break our faith in outside gurus who come in and make money telling us what we need to do in this city–between Richard Florida (a true hack), Saul Kaplan, and now Angelou Economics, we’ve spent a lot of money on outside gurus who come in with their “this is what Lexington needs” spiel, only to deliver it the next week as “this is what _____ needs.”
Jeff,
I completely agree with your take on our city’s need to watch who we anoint, particularly when public dollars are used. Toward that, an important clarification – Saul was not paid anything for his visit to Lexington and Louisville. The small amount of dollars raised, by private citizens of their own volunteer will, were used for very minimal travel expenses and food for our reception (simply treating our state’s guest kindly).
Saul’s two-day visit was completely a volunteer effort – and was 100% organized by private citizens in both cities.
As always, you or anyone are welcome to contact me directly at 859-361-9811 or EricPatrickMarr@LeXenomics.org.
Eric and All,
I didn’t need to include Saul Kaplan in this. It’s more the Richard Florida and Angelou Economics types that concern me. $150K for a faulty report is bad spending. I’m not sure what Richard Florida was paid for his 2010 Lexington visit, but I know his appearance fee at one time soared to $35,000, which is far too much for someone who essentially says the same thing everywhere he visits. Plus, his creative class nonsense seems to have driven a lot of peoples’ thinking in Lexington in the wrong direction. When you pay for copy-and-paste speakers and reports, you get copy-and-paste results.
My reason for grouping Saul Kaplan on this list was because Tom Eblen, in a column about Kaplan’s SmartSeries visit, described Kaplan as a “guru” who loves “buzzwords.” I’m glad to hear that Saul Kaplan’s visit was a volunteer effort.
In Lexington’s search for answers, solutions, and ideas, we seem to be susceptible to the traveling guru; in some cases–Florida’s “creative class ruse”, as one writer has called it, and now this Angelou Economics report–we seem to be buying the proverbial snake oil.
I think Angelou has some explaining to do. I was especially disappointed when the raw data from the publicly funded survey wasn’t released. Many people including myself took the survey after we were assured that the data would be made public. If CommerceLex never saw the data or never asked for it then they wouldn’t question wether the report had anything to do with the survey. Angelou didn’t need a survey, they just need the correct spelling of “Bluegrass”, some stock photos and their out-of-towner perspective that we presume to be superior in matters like this. I will read this report but only to see if there is a verifiable thought process derived from our public inputs.
I’d like to see a focus on localizing our economy. Why chase after third world manufacturing jobs in publicly funded facilities when we can build small businesses that keep money in our local economy? We should be capitalizing on our close by rail proximity to large markets by growing value added businesses in kentucky that turn our resources into finished products. Put the creative class to work playing to our strengths in agriculture and wood products. As air travel becomes more expensive people will be looking for world class vacation destinations that are accessible by rail, let’s give it to them!
Jeff, I believe that you are correct that we need to protect ourselves from the buzzword spouting hired guns, whether they be from out of state or homegrown. Even some of the local consultants will act like they have answers but in reality, the old definition remains as a “grey haired, front man who will steal your watch and you pay him to tell you what time it is”. I was always told that the value of a consultant was inversely proportional to the distance that he had to travel to do the job. Angelou, since they are based in Austin, must know how things work since they watch it happening around them on a daily basis. If it can happen in Austin, then it can happen anywhere as long as the conditions are identical (which rarely happens). We need to localize our economy to what works for us, with our local conditions and not change the local condition to MAKE somebody’s solution work here.
++ to Russ – the raw data should be exposed from the report and provided to some of the local data hounds – *cough*RobMorris*cough* – spend some time looking at it.
++ with Rod – the rail project under discussion reminds me of Caltrain or BART – these services let you park, or bike, and jump on for a quick lunch meeting (working on the way there and back) and be back a few hours later. It took the work, and cost out of moving around.
On the positive side, the study talked a lot about the regional triangle. I think this is the big-payoff item that few are talking about. I wish the entire $150k had been spent on that regional exploration / cooperation effort. Lexington stands to gain most from success there as we can tap the energy of Lou and Cincy every day, while maintaining a high quality of life.
if you haven’t heard yet of the (very) recently growing work on a Lexington-Louisville connecting rail (“The Thoroughbred Rail Link”) it’s at http://www.state-journal.com/news/article/4963259.
Personally, I would LOVE this!
Great work ProgresLex.
I recall an earlier post on Angelou Economics that appeared here. Angelou reps were quick to chime in and be part of that earlier conversation (in fact, celebrating the very idea of conversation and openness). I would hope that their commitment and dialogue continues even now that some citizens have become critical of them. As an editor of another paper in Lexington, I speak from experience in saying how frustrating it is to be ignored on issues, particular by groups or people who make their living off a pretense of being open to dialogue.
So Angelou: do you stick by your report, or were all those proclamations of openness and engagement less than genuine? I for one would love to hear your voice. Speak.
I also echo Jeff’s statement, that perhaps Lexington shouldn’t worry so much about what well heeled, well-paid development celebrities have to say about the city. It’s not very difficult to figure out. We’re not credentialed experts, but we don’t need to be. We don’t need experts to identify problems or growth areas. Just live in the city, read the paper, think, talk, act. It’s much cheaper, it’s more direct, more democratic, and involves citizens in better ways than being survey participants.
I’d have loved to have that 75,000 as an investment in city farming on park-land, or in expanding access to farmer’s markets, or some other low-cost (read non-Rupp) idea that might benefit the city. What city leader is advocating for that kind of stuff, and what are they advocating for?
to add to the discussion, the report calls for a major expansion for commerce Lexington and substantial more money for them. This seems like a quid pro quo. Commerce Lexington commissions the study then the consultant pays them back by advocating for a major expansion of the commissioning group. Why should we trust an entrenched member of the old guard with handling economic development in the 21st century.
Strong work. It’s hard to imagine the gall it takes to produce a ripoff of this magnitude. Lexington should absolutely stand up for itself.
Really Cole? Should we tally up the costs for last year’s Richard Florida conference? How about WEG? Gall, indeed.
While I understand the concern about cut-and-paste reports, I read through it, and noted that the pasted portions were typically generic statements that would indeed be found in many, if not most communities who were grappling with economic development issues. Frankly, I would be more interested in hearing substantive critique of the recommendations in the report than critique of style or mechanics of the report. Are these recommendations relevant, applicable, and realistic for the Bluegrass region, or not? If not, what are the alternatives that might be considered? I share the concern that one of the recommendations is to give the commissioning agency more money. It appears to be more than a little self-serving, but is it possible that Commerce Lexington is the most appropriate recipient for those funds? If there are other groups who would also be appropriate, what resources do they have that would make them better qualified to administer additional funds, in comparison to Commerce Lexington? I don’t have the answers to these questions. I’m just a citizen and taxpayer who wants to be sure that our tax dollars are being well spent, and that, in spending our dollars well, the LFUCG and Commerce Lexington or other groups are going to follow through with the recommendations in the final report, and not just let it be another expensive report that nobody cares about a year after the final report is issued.
Nice work drawing attention to this obvious scam, Ben.
Angelou is paid $150,000 to deliver a document that consists essentially of a long series of empty marketing slogans and catch phrases, which furthermore is nothing more than the same copy-pasted marketing slogans he has used to scam other cities?
After taking a look, it is clear that there is ZERO data involved in the Angelou “report”. This document has nothing to do with Lexington, or any other city – it is merely an example of a mediocre exercise in marketing language that might be created by a student in some 2nd-rate business school as a class project. Angelou has not actually looked at any data for Lexington whatsoever. He instead suggests that although he has been paid to develop a plan that addresses Lexington’s specific situation, he doesn’t need to actually offer any Lexington-specific data, suggesting instead, apparently without irony, that “these data are easily found at state and national sources” (sic., p. 59). In other words, “Hey, you guys should go look up some statistics about (insert town name here). Then you could like put them on an “economic scorecard” or something. Can I have my $150,000, please?” This followed by an appendix that consists of copy-pasted press releases from various US small companies, none of which have anything to do with Lexington.
Here’s how it might be possible to actually develop a worthwhile strategic plan: 1) Collect data (for example sales figures, real estate price trends, tax burdens, manufacturing figures, tourism data, income and employment statistics, etc.) on the current economic situation of Lexington. 2) Demonstrate, based on that data and on the example of concrete steps taken by other municipalities, that specific actions of the LFUCG could bring about positive results.
However, actually implementing a plan, even it is researched and uses real data (unlike Angelou’s copypaste), there is no guarantee that it will accomplish anything. There is also no way to measure what the results would have been if no plan had been implemented. A wise mayor would simply not buy any more of these ridiculous reports, and also cut all funding to “Commerce Lexington”. Unless results can be empirically demonstrated, there is a high probability that this organization is simply a scam to redirect taxpayers’ money into private hands.
Oh, for this comment I’d like $15,000, or 10% of what was paid to Angelou. It is certainly just as effective in “positioning (insert name of city here) as a more competitive location for industries”.
[…] discovered that large passages had been cut-and-pasted from previous reports done for other cities. He detailed examples in a post Thursday morning on the blog of ProgressLex, a new grass-roots civic […]
[…] morning, Angelos Angelou is in town to try to clean up the mess that was started when we showed last Thursday that his employees had copied and pasted many of the recommendations from other cities into the […]
Lexington knows what direction to go. Going there takes leadership. Fortunately our mayor is retrieving that money and hopefully putting it where it will actually stimulate economic growth in our community. Lexington certainly has the talent, drive, ambition and pure genius to recreate our own community. Let’s roll!
When discussing any economic solutions for central Kentucky, we must overcome certain limitations imposed by the State and Federal Government specific to our region. Lexington should begin large scale, multifaceted lobbying in both the State House and Congress to re-legalize Industrial Hemp and increase support for expanded use and research . With soaring food and fuel prices, Hemp is a necessary component to future prosperity for the Commonwealth, and Lexington, being the Geographic center, is poised to benefit greatly from both expanded research and current industrial use for this valuable resource. Every moment we delay our entrance into this discussion is a moment lost, and we certainly do not want to become irrelevant in what will surely become the next significant agricultural windfall. That States have begun experimenting with both Hemp based building products, and Hemp for the Auto industry should be an indicator we are falling behind already. Kentucky once led the WORLD in Hemp production and it is imperative we return to the pinnacle of Hemp products, Technology and Research today. Lexington, with our wealth of technology and innovation, coupled with a ready and willing workforce, can be the engine that drives this bus… I realize this may not be the best forum for this subject, but this discussion needs to take place in public and now! Instead of paying Gurus loads of taxpayer money for rubbish, we need to ACT.
Thanks to Ben Self and ProgressLex for exposing Angelou. If this is work attributable to an underling who fell down on the job for personal reasons, it has been going on for years. The company’s reports routinely recycle a majority of their content. Angelou, along with a couple other Texas firms, are among the worst when it comes to delivering any original content. About the only thing they do well is market themselves, which is why they need to, and are able to charge fees twice what some more reputable consultants would charge.
To offer full disclosure here, I am myself a consultant. During my tenure in local economic development I was the victem of one of these “canned” plans from a different firm. I vowed when I started my own company that we would never lift old content from our work or others’. Hopefully, companies that do will be exposed and will suffer the consequences. I wish you the best of luck in getting the product you deserve.
[…] SELF/PROGRESSLEX. This was one of the biggest stories of the year in Lexington, as taxpayer funded Commerce Lexington’s taxpayer funded “Strategic Plan” for […]