Writing – Page 4 – Kristen Van Nest

Innovating Women: The Changing Face of Technology

As Research & Editorial Director for Innovating Women: The Changing Face of Technology , Van Nest acted as a contributing writer and project manager. She conducted research, fact-checked, and interviewed along with assisting in the management of a crowd-sourced discussion platform made up of over 300 female founders and tech professionals. To help the book launch, she also aided in the marketing and social media strategy. The book’s indiegogo page can be found here.

IndieGoGo Campaign

Innovating Women Press Release

Old-Fashioned Prostitutes (A True Romance)

viewimage_story.php — David Skeist, Alenka Kraigher and Stephanie Hayes in ’Old-Fashioned Prostitutes (A True Romance)’ (Source:Joan Marcus)

As published in EDGE on May 7, 2013.

The actors, positioned on stage, look off into the distance as someone states “Numero uno.” Suddenly the lights go out, there’s a sound of shattered glass, and a voice similar to the narrator in the horror films, “Saw” announces, “End of play.” This is the start of director Richard Foreman’s play, which follows young love between a coquette prostitute, Suzie, and a cerebral southerner, Samuel.

In a Brechtian form, the performance plays on the audience’s reflective detachment. With undimmed lights removing the fourth wall, a Michelin man smoking a cigar occasionally shining a mirror onto the crowd, and abrupt, unexpected flashbulbs directed at the masses, the audience is constantly on display and on edge.

The removal of melodrama demands a high level of acting skill, which is achieved by all the actors in “Old-Fashioned Prostitutes (A True Romance).” Dangling from a bar on the side of the stage like a prostitute on display through a window in a red-light district, Suzie, played by Alenka Kraigher, embodies her characters personal strength and yet constant discontent.

To read more, click here.

I’m a Stranger Here Myself

As published in EDGE on May 2nd, 2013.

“You are really beautiful, look at her,” a slick Mark Nadler, in a Paisley purple silk vest, grey striped button-down, and pinstripe suit coos, taking a woman from the audience’s hand and pulling her from her seat. Commanding her to twirl, she does, unsure what to expect, light upon her.

“Take your bag. Now hold it like this,” he states. As she turns to adjust it, he leaps into the seat next to her husband, and then into his lap. Nadler flirts with the unsuspecting gentleman as the audience laughs.

“I’m a Stranger Here Myself,” written and performed by Mark Nadler, discusses the expatriate experience during the Weimar Republic, recounting the worldwide cultural export as exiled Jews, stripped from their homes, joined creative and scientific communities elsewhere. Nadler parallels their experiences, relevant to his heritage, with his own childhood as an outsider. In a cabaret meets history lecture performance, he explains the context of relevant music of the time as a PowerPoint-style presentation displays black and white photographs of prominent Jewish exiles, popping out of geometric burgundy tiles. He jumps through the expat scenes – Hollywood, Bilbao, Paris, and Berlin – explaining how the Jewish artists established themselves in their forced new homes. At the piano, he sings in French or German, only to follow with a translation and an explanation of context. This string of descriptors makes it less of a concise, traditionally defined ’musical.’ The climax relates more to his personal life than a point in history. Within this framework, he discusses their (and his) difficulty in a want to assimilate, but a want to remain who they (and he) are.

To read more, click here.

Who’s Your Daddy?

As published in EDGE on April 22, 2013.

The room lightens from shades of blue to show a hooded form to the left of the stage as “The Lion Sleeps Tonight” plays in the background. With sudden motion, a blonde-haired, blue-eyed O’Callaghan pops out of his hood and screams, “I’m being haunted! By my mother and father — and they’re not even dead!”

After finding his boyfriend with twin lovers, having his beloved dog run away and losing his driving safety job when his rocker-bound boss propositions him, he finds himself without companion or purpose in L.A. Departing on a suicide mission to Uganda in search of a dramatic way to die, he is shepherded by Andrew, a local who runs an orphanage, and Stella, a promiscuous actress who needs a cameraman for her documentary.

Arriving at the orphanage, he is struck by the dire circumstances of the children, who hardly have any food to eat, mold growing in their hair, and multi-colored mucus dripping from their noses onto ashy, scabbed skin. Of the children, Benson takes an instant affection to him, and O’Callaghan, seeing a map of Ireland birthmark in the white of his eye, knows this is his son-to-be.

Written and performed by Johnny O’Callaghan, “Who’s Your Daddy?” is the true tale of the actor’s search for purpose and his adoption of a boy from Uganda. Using his fighting Irish attitude, he battles the obstacles of the U.S. adoption and citizenship process and Ugandan guardianship legalities.

To read more, click here.

Starbucks Former President: Why Same-Sex Marriage Support Matters

As published on brandchannel on April 17, 2013.

Last year, Starbucks declared its support of same-sex marriage, which resulted in a boycott by the National Organization for Marriage. The coffee chain hasn’t backed down one bit, however, as CEO Howard Schultz continues to blur the line between business and the personal lives of his millions of customers.

At a recent annual shareholders meeting, Tom Strobhar, a shareholder and founder of the Corporate Morality Action Center, an anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage organization, suggested the boycott had a negative impact on first quarter sales and earnings. The ever-outspoken CEO swiftly responded, “Not every decision is an economic decision… The lens in which we are making that decision is through the lens of our people. We employ over 200,000 people in this company, and we want to embrace diversity.”

Schultz then told Strobhar he was more than welcome to sell his stocks and take his money elsewhere. While the remarks seem brazen, Starbuck’s outspoken stance on hot-button political issues and support of equal rights for its employees has been a part of the brand’s long-term strategy to increase internal brand engagement and decrease turnover. What’s more, taking a stance on causes that affect its workforce has had a positive impact on its bottom line.

Historically, Starbucks has been a leader in prioritizing employee retention. It was the first American company to offer comprehensive health insurance and equity in the form of stock options to every single employee. Its pro-social, pro-diversity human resources policy has put it on Fortune‘s annual “100 Best Companies to Work For” list ever since it launched in 1999.

The strategy also has decreased costs and differentiated the company from its competitors in an industry where turnover rates are a major issue. According to the National Restaurant Association, there is a 75 percent turnover rate within the service industry, with the average cost of replacing an employee ringing in at $3,000.

John Richards, President of Starbucks North America from 1997 to 2001, aided in the company’s growth from 500 to 3,000 retail locations and worked closely with Schultz in the development of the company’s early-stage core strategy. Richards told brandchannel that the company consciously developed policies to not “churn and burn” employees through a strong benefits package and creating a place where employees were proud to work.

This included, he told us, a “comprehensive compensation program” for its “partners,” the company’s term for employees. The program includes: “competitive base pay, comprehensive health care for eligible full and part-time partners, with an average of 20 hours per week, equity in the company in the form of Bean Stock, a 401(k) savings plan with employer match, tuition reimbursement, short-term disability, paid vacation time, and product discounts,” according to ABC News.

Since its implementation in 1988, the company’s employee benefits package has been enhanced by ‘social benefits’ — a big retention tool for a workforce where the typical employee is around college-age.

“The company pays a lot of attention to causes,” Richards told us. “When you are in the middle of it, different things come and go, it seems like there is always a new cause, but for the typical employee who is college age or somewhere in that area, [Starbucks] seems like a place that from a spiritual and commitment perspective is kind of a better place to be. If they are going to work for a place, it is more consistent with their value system than some other corporate retail company that doesn’t pay attention to stuff like that.”

The most recent decision to support gay rights is an example of aligning with its employees’ core values. Nonetheless, the company still faces criticism for not supporting all causes, such as the negative publicity it received from a false email circulated online claiming that Starbucks would not provide troops with their coffee because the company does not support the Iraq War.

The company’s focus on going the extra mile to care about what matters to employees stems from Schultz’s experiences as a youth growing up in public housing in Brooklyn, NY.

When he was 7-years-old, Schultz’s father, a truck driver, fell on ice at work and was promptly fired, with no benefits or workman’s compensation. In an interview with CNN’s Mallika Kapur, Schultz said, “I think what I was trying to do early on was build the kind of company that my father never got a chance to work for.”

That lesson is part of the company’s DNA today, Richards told us. “Starbucks, in part, has proven that taking better care of employees can eventually help them, particularly in a very competitive business,” he said.

While the focus on employee retention is both a part of Starbucks’ core values and business plan, and the good vibes have extended well beyond its famed baristas to the legions of loyal Starbucks customers that believe the brand to be more about lifestyle than just coffee.

Despite stiffer than ever competition from the likes of McDonald’s and Dunkin’ Donuts, Starbucks remains a leader in brand loyalty, internal and external. The company’s mantra is best described in Schultz’s book Onward, where he says, “Starbucks never set out to be cool. We set out to be relevant!” Clearly, if it’s relevant to employees, it’s relevant to Starbucks’ senior leadership — and relevant to the brand and its stakeholders.

To read the original, click here.

Khmer Arts Ensemble “A Bend in the River”

As published in EDGE on April 10, 2013.

“A Bend in the River” is based on traditional Cambodian folklore, exploring issues of morality, specifically, as put by the performance’s choreographer, Sophiline Cheam Shapiro, “At what cost do we seek revenge?”

The Khmer Arts Ensemble (Source: Khvay Smanang)

The story is about Kaley, a young girl who is eaten (along with her father, mother and three brothers) by a giant crocodile, Moha, at a bend in a river near a Cambodian village called Kompong Vongkiri. Although Kaley is the main character, the story is told through the narration and point of view of her mother. Prior to her demise, Kaley promises to return in her next life as a larger and stronger crocodile to avenge the death of her mother.

Next, Vichek Moni, the local healer, finds a large egg in the reeds. The egg hatches into a crocodile, which Moni names, in honor of the original, Kaley, not knowing it is actually Kaley reborn. Moni teaches the creature how to transform into a human and swallow ‘him’ temporarily in order to easily transport the healer across the river to aid injured villagers. Once older, Kaley reveals her true identity to Moni, explaining her purpose of revenge. But Moni encourages Kaley to move on and enjoy her new life.

To read more, click here.

Hamburg Casino Esplanade

The casino is located across from Planten um Blamen park. When you pop up from the metro its vertical stature contrasts the green of the park. The outside is rather plain, except for overbearing columns and a touch of red.

Inside feels like the entrance to a hotel, coats checked to the left. Up the elevator you enter a sterile room: rough red carpet, parent’s basement (cheap attempt at extravagance) bar, people dressed in varying formality, a surprising lack of floozies, and equally spaced tables. A central hallway leads to the back where you can pick up chips from a bank cashier-style counter with two blonds sitting behind thick glass.

Most people are serious. One man, flat out of chips, throws down 500 Euros on the table with a grin. Consistently betting 150 Euros on 0, 7, and 36, he reminds me of a giant slug belching green 50 Euro pellets. He tells me he likes the color of my skirt, petting my hip, as if his overindulgence has bought him the right. Some people put down money and then, not even watching their play, run to another table as if luck has a dog whistle. Watching provides no excitement for jaded eyes.

The woman next to me is edged on by the staff, wanting to win for him as he repeats, “I know you will win this time, OK next time, next time.” On the way out, someone sees their lucky number win, “Oh, I knew I should have played one more time.” They think they can control luck despite the knowledge that odds are stacked against them.

La Cave: A bar in the basement of a Church in Paris

Walking down the icy Rue du Faubourg in the 8th, my hands tucked deep in the pockets of my East Village North Face puffer, I quickly pull one out to check my sticky-note with the address. Coming across ‘hôtel particulier’, I think the tall walls might hide a church. I see the number corresponds to a rather modern, white apartment complex. Peaking into the lobby and checking the door, I enter looking lost. There, through the corridor stands a beautiful old church. As instructed, I turn left, walk down a flight of stairs, through a lobby, take a right towards the room and there it is – a bustling bar.

Welcome to “La Cave,” started by a friend’s brother and some of the monks about 5 years ago, it was decided to create a space where people could hang out and chat. The place ended up being so successful, the monks opened up similar bars at their other monasteries across France.

At the entrance is a table, with two men and one computer in which they take all your information so you can become a remember and receive your membership ID card. The room is packed; people sit on stools and recline on sofas, clotted in circles to chat. The room is smoky (due to a technicality in French law, it is one of the few places you can still smoke indoors because it is considered “private” since everyone is a member). It’s where the next generation bourgeoisie come for cheap beer and to catch up after a long week of studying. A few monks line the walls, laughing and speaking with some of the members.

At midnight, the volunteer staff calls for all to be silent. A monk stands on a table facing the room. Everyone gathers around him and in unison repeats the Lord’s Prayer (I try to whisper along in English, unable to even start to translate into French to keep up with those around me). Following the prayer, he reads from the Bible a short passage about not coveting what your neighbor has, something of which everyone can relate. Once finished, everyone grabs the stools, creating a chain, passing them back into a small back room to close up shop, prior to a continued night of reveling including an end of Paris Fashion Week party and Carnival masks.

Kafka’s Monkey

As published in EDGE on April 4, 2013.

f4xRNtLaZ-T0a6chXXhNOTQ0Mm_0lOsgI2EnCrlCvBI — Source:Keith Pattinson

A bent-over Kathryn Hunter, dressed in tails and a bowler hat and swinging her arms like an ape, enters the stage. After assessing her surroundings, she reaches a white podium. Gripping the front edges of the podium with the tips of her fingers, she addresses the audience as “Esteemed members of the academy.”

“Kafka’s Monkey,” based on “A Report to an Academy” by Franz Kafka, adapted by Colin Teevan, humorously presents a monkey, Red Peter, describing to a group of academics its transformation from a wild jungle creature to the civilized being before them. In between swigs from a silver flask, the monkey describes being shot from a tree, sea vessel transportation, and its first encounters with humans.

Since it has been five years since the monkey departed from the “Gold Coast,” it apologizes for not remembering its “prior” life. Instead it focuses on its education in how to be a successful man. Thus, the play focuses more on what it means to be human than what it means to be ape.

To read more, click here.

What You Can Learn About Debating From Last Night’s Debate

Please note: If you are looking for yet another assessment of the content of last night’s debate, please look elsewhere. This focuses on tactic.

Here are the lessons we can learn from last night’s debate:

Be confident. This carries into many of the points below, but is the most essential trait. It is hard for others to trust in you, if you do not trust in yourself.
Have Passion. This is one of the strongest emotions. As put by Rochefoucauld (English translation) from his experience in the French court: “The simplest man with passion will be more persuasive than the most eloquent without.”
Always smile. You are a winner and should appear as such. Towards the end of the debate, it is very clear who is happy to be on stage and who is miserable. Do not appear defeated or the audience will consider you as such. Watch each candidate’s expressions as they listen to their opponent.
Be concise. Although stories can be very effective in speeches, with their appropriate timing and punctuation, in debates only keep relative details. Any other detail detracts from your point. We do not need to know you grew up with your grandmother or when she died, we need to know how hard she worked, how independent she was, and how Medicare today would impact her. Having one story to continually reference, as Obama later does, can be useful and make an issue relatable, but that story needs to be tailored to its purpose. Mitt Romney effectively uses concise story telling to support his argument on the affordable care act: “It comes from my experience. I was in New Hampshire and a woman came to me and said, ‘Look I can’t afford insurance for myself or my son. I met a couple in Appleton, Wisconsin and they said, ‘we’re thinking of dropping our insurance, we can’t afford it. And the number of small businesses that I have gone to that are saying they are dropping insurance because they can’t afford it. The cost of healthcare is just prohibitive.” Here he references only the relevant supporting details, showing that individuals and small businesses are impacted by healthcare costs.
Follow the rules. If you do not follow the rules, you are seen as a cheater. Listen to the mediator. If the mediator says you are out of time, you are out of time. If it is not your turn to speak, do not speak. Acting as if you are above the rules shows neither humility nor respect.
Vary eye contact. When you are at the punch line, look the camera right in the eye and say it with chutzpah. This was most effectively used in the closing speeches.
Organize your points. Take a deep breath. Gather your thoughts instead of jumping in unprepared and unorganized. Just because you have talking points does not mean they fit in this moment of the debate or in the context anymore. For instance, Romney states he supports well thought-through regulation and that he wants to repeal Dodd-Frank and replace it. Obama misaddresses this comment and references pre-debate statements about repealing Dodd-Frank as a way to show Romney’s disinterest in any regulation. This talking point needed to be modified in order to become an effective response.
Remain on message. In his discussion seven minutes into the debate, Obama addresses Medicaid, schools, oil, tax breaks, companies going overseas within his allotted two minutes. It is better to focus on one area and explain yourself fully than lose the audience in various topics. This leads to my next point on how to combat this tactic.
Stay Engaged. When Obama spoke of various subjects, Romney was able to address each point because he took notes, which he referenced in his rebuttal. As your opponent runs out of time, jot down a primitive outline of key topics you will discuss so you have some structure before your clock starts ticking.
Remember your audience. If you are going to talk about Bowles-Simpson, make sure you can briefly explain what it is and how it relates to your argument. How many people in the audience know the details of Bowles-Simpson? You want your audience to be able to follow your points. When Mitt Romney discusses his program for Medicare in which seniors can choose between public and private sector programs, he very simply lays out his views. Instead of bogging down the audience in technicalities, he holds their hand in understanding his philosophies. Make sure your audience can follow you.
Make comparisons. Help people relate to facts and statistics. For example, Obama mentions oil companies receive $2.8 billion in tax cuts every year. Romney successfully takes this number and makes it relative. He points out that Obama gave $90 billion to companies in green energy; that is 50 years of oil tax cuts or 2 million new teachers.
Use strong references to support your views. When discussing Medicare, Obama says he does not support Romney’s view, but strengthens his argument by saying AARP also disapproves of Romney’s plan. Furthermore, to show you are not buried in your party’s back pocket, referencing great ideas from the other side can be tactful, such as Ronald Reagan (by Obama) or Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff (by Romney). In addition, Romney also took the Cleveland Clinic, originally mentioned by Obama, to show his own point. If your opponent has already established the legitimacy of something, using it to describe your point is more effective.
Practice and prepare. Go in front of the mirror, no matter how awkward that may seem, you need to feel comfortable working through the twists and turns of your arguments, finding where there might be dead ends or missteps to your point. This will build your confidence and trust in yourself. On healthcare, Romney had a list of points; his presentation is smooth, without linguistic slipups. You can tell he knew this would be a key topic, prepared an outline, and practiced his two-minute presentation on the issue.

If anyone wants to improve their debate tactics, I would recommend reading “Getting to Yes: Negotiation Agreement Without Giving In” by Roger Fisher and William Ury.

Please post any thoughts/comments for discussion below: