My Picture in the New York Times and My First Significant Encounter with the Government

Yesterday (Saturday December 23rd), a picture of my family appeared in the New York Times.

For those of you who still have a print copy laying around, turn to page A19.  Alternatively check out this link.

It all started 12 days ago when I emailed our local tax collector in Westchester to ask about pre-paying our 2018 property taxes.  Like many residents of New York, the recent GOP tax bill will effectively raise our taxes because the bill eliminates the ability to deduct state and local taxes from our federal taxable income.  As the world now knows (since it was published in the article), my family pays $21k per year in property tax – so losing the ability to deduct that from our federal taxes is pretty significant (on the order of $5k-$6k per year).  If we can pre-pay our 2018 property taxes in 2017 under current law (and deduct that payment from our 2017 federal taxes) – it would save us some money.

Sending the email to our local tax collector was really one of my first personal interactions with the government.  That is, of course, outside of the normal stuff like getting a passport or driver’s license.  Up until now, I haven’t really had any reason to contact the government.  I suppose I’ve lived a very fortunate life – this recent tax bill is really the first piece of legislation that has impacted me and my family on a direct and personal basis.

I did a quick internet search for who the tax collector for my town was and sent an email to Edye McCarthy (Assessor for the town of Greenburgh – which is technically where the Village of Tarrytown is located – where I live).  The email was short, just two lines.  I listed my address and asked very courtly if we could pre-pay our 2018 taxes now.

When I sent the email, I wasn’t really expecting much of a response.  To be honest, I wasn’t even sure if the email was going to go to Edye directly or if it was going to be redirected to some sort of government customer service center where I might get an automated response or have a to wait a few days to hear back.  In my head, I was expecting an experience similar to contacting Verizon or AT&T customer service.

To my surprise, I got an immediate response directly from Edye, who put me in touch with someone named Paul Feiner, the supervisor for the Town of Greenburgh.  For those of you, like me, who are really fascinated by New York local government structures – you can read this very informative Wikipedia page – for everyone else: Town Supervisor is like the CEO of our town.


A Roaring Economy, Easy Money, and a Bunch of Restaurants that are Going to Go Out of Business.

In the morning before work I go to the gym on the corner of 38th street and Broadway.  Here’s the intersection (above) – courtesy of Google Street View (at the very left of the picture above, on the second floor, are the windows to the gym).

This image is from just over one year ago (October 2016) – you can see directly ahead (on the northwest corner of the intersection) the large green plywood boards covering a construction site.

In place of those boards today exist five new quick service restaurants.

And finally, occupying the 1000+ square foot prime corner lot:

If you actually go to the Wichcraft website – you will see a picture of this new restaurant as the first image in their carousel.

(Look carefully and you’ll see the gym equipment across the street on the second floor.)

If five new restaurants weren’t already enough, if you turn around and look the other direction, you’ll see six more places to get lunch at this same intersection.  Pret a Manger, Hale and Hearty, Chipotle, Maison Kayser, Mr Broadway (Kosher), and Sweet Greens.

Eight out of the eleven restaurants on this corner have opened in the last five months.  And note – I’ve only highlighted the restaurants at this one intersection.  Look closely at the map above and you’ll see ANOTHER chipotle just one block west as well as Moe’s Southwest Grill (effectively the same thing as Chipotle) one block east.

Holy moly.

Ok – let’s do some napkin math here.


Lessons from the First Year of Being a Parent – and Almost Electrocuting Myself

Earlier today I was rushing to finish a small home project: re-locating the basement refrigerator.  We were expecting company in the afternoon and I had to finish moving the fridge so I could watch our son Jack while my wife cleaned up the house.  In my haste, I drove a nail directly through the extension cord I was using to power the fridge in the new location.  In an instant, a lightning bolt appeared in front of me.  The charge leapt from the head of the nail through the hammer and over into a (grounded) metal-cased electric line.


Fortunately, the handle of the hammer was fiberglass and the charge found its way to ground without going through me, but it was definitely a little bit of a wakeup call.

As I sat down this evening to write my post, having thankfully not been electrocuted earlier today, I thought I would take some time to reflect on the first year of being a parent – and the lessons I’ve taken away.

  • Lesson 1: Don’t try to squeeze things in.


Facebook, Twitter, and Google – Media Outlets or Just the Newsstand?

Pulling out of my driveway to head to the train station last week, I was surprised to hear a somewhat familiar voice came on the radio – hey wait a minute – that’s Randall Rothenberg’s voice.  I know that guy!

Randall was calling into NPR to talk about the testimony of Google, Facebook and Twitter before congress as part of the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election.  I personally find this topic to be incredibly interesting and the facts are just remarkable.

Russian backed social media accounts spread false negative information about Hillary Clinton, false positive information about Donald Trump – and even went so far as to encourage Clinton voters to say home on election day (to avoid the line) and “cast their vote” on social media- which of course wouldn’t be counted in the actual election.  You can see some examples of the fake content here.

(via –

One of the reasons why this is so interesting is because the digital ad industry has been working for the last 10 years to prevent fraudsters from taking people’s money online.  To the credit of the industry these money-based fraud schemes are much less prevalent than they were in the late 00’s– but even as some progress has been made protecting people’s wallets, the industry is still poorly prepared to protect people’s minds. (more…)

The Power of Google: My Story of Being Blacklisted

On or around April 22nd 2017, this blog ( was removed from the Google search index.

The impact was devastating.

(Daily sessions driven by Google Search to between October ’16 and October ’17)

As you can see, some days I was getting upwards of 50 sessions per day from Google (organic search).  When my site was delisted, that dropped to practically zero.

This is what a search for the term “andrew eifler” should look like:

(Screenshot of Bing search for “andrew eifler” taken 10-16-17)

Notice the deep linking, images – the whole nine yards.  This is almost exactly what Google looked like before I was blacklisted.

This is what a Google Search for “andrew eifler” returned after my site had been removed from the Google index:

(Screenshot of Google search for “andrew eifler” taken 8-12-17; this is what this search result looked like from mid-April to mid-August)

Neither Bing nor Yahoo (which is powered by Bing) removed me from their index at any time – yet still, just getting removed by Google was crushing.

You can see the overall impact on my monthly traffic below.

(Total sessions on between October ’16 and October ’17)

I first noticed that something was wrong in mid-June ‘17, about two months after this site had been removed from Google.  I’m a casual blogger, so I don’t often look at site analytics, but when I did, I saw that overall traffic had been decimated.  After poking around, I realized traffic from Google had dropped to near zero.

At the time, I had no idea why Google had delisted me, although my mind immediately jumped to the very critical article I had written about Google just a few months prior.


Whistling Vivaldi and Stereotype Threat

I’ve recently started reading Whistling Vivaldi by Claude M. Steele, a book about how stereotypes impact our identities and our lives.

The story is told from the perspective of Steele, a university professor and social psychologist studying (among other things) the underperformance of minority students at the university level.  At the core of his research are a series of studies on what he calls “stereotype threat” – that is – how the risk of confirming a stereotype affects our performance.

His findings can be roughly summarized as follows:

If you’re being given a test and:

1) The test is meant to be an evaluation of your skills in a specific area
2) The area in which you’re being tested is an area where your group (gender, ethnicity, etc.) stereotypically underperforms
3) You really care about being good at the area where you’re being tested (it’s meaningful to you)

You will probably perform below the level of your true ability.

Said differently – the threat of confirming a pre-existing stereotype by performing poorly will be sufficiently distracting to lower your performance on the test.

This was seen in his tests in a number of areas including:

  • Women taking advanced math tests
  • Racial minorities taking college admission tests

He even called out this same effect on white male students when being tested in the area of athletics (where white male students stereotypically perform worse than their African American peers).

I find these studies extremely interesting, especially because they somewhat confirm my hypotheses here:  It’s also very disturbing to think that stereotype-threat-induced-underperformance is probably most often viewed as stereotype confirming behavior – which is truly a tragedy.

I was thinking more about Steele’s work last week and how to describe stereotype threat in an accessible way.  Here’s what I came up with:


Great by Choice

I recently finished reading Jim Collins latest book, Great by Choice: Uncertainty, Chaos and Luck – Why Some Thrive Despite Them All

I like Jim Collins and think that he does excellent work, however I tend to be somewhat of a skeptic when it comes to his process.  I’ve read most of his books and they all share a similar formula:

  • Start with a research question that pertains to the theme: Why does one group of companies succeed while others fail?
  • Pick a group of companies to study that have succeeded
  • Pick a similar group of companies who have not succeeded
  • Study the differences between the two groups of companies and explain the results using catchy descriptors
  • Take a moment to defend the validity of the prior book (and quickly explain why the “successful” companies from the last book are now out of business)
  • Explain how the research lessons apply to non-business audiences (e.g. churches, schools, sports teams, etc.) in an effort to expand the target market for the book

What sets Collins apart from other business authors is his devotion to proper academic research methodologies.  His work is deeply data driven and he is constantly referencing the rigor of his research process.  He even includes sections for “limitations of research” and “methodology” alluding to the structure of an academic paper.

For those of you who think that most business books are pointless exercises in confirmation bias written by poorly informed charlatans looking to make a buck – Jim Collins is a good author for you.

In Great by Choice, there were a few different sections, but the part I liked best was the section where Collins analyzed the characterizes of people he called “10Xers” or leaders that produced results that were 10 times better than the “comparison” leaders (throughout the book, “comparison” is used as a euphemism for “unsuccessful”).

Collins found that there were three primary characteristics that separated 10X leaders from comparison leaders – which he represents with the following catchy descriptors:

  • Fanatic Discipline (in short – stay even keel, make a plan and stick to it; never over-extend)
  • Productive Paranoia (Never rest on your laurels and always work like there is someone out to take what’s yours)
  • Empirical Creativity (When faced with decisions, look to empirical data and never just follow convention)

The explanation here I found deeply compelling, however after reading Collins work, I always end up with two pretty strong reactions:

My first reaction is tends to be: All of this is bullshit.


Sapiens and the Recent Events in Charlottesville

I recently finished reading Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Hurari and it has safely earned a spot on the list of my favorite books.

The story follows a rough historical timeline starting millions of years ago with the evolution of homo sapiens and ending with Ray Kurzweil-esq predictions for the future of human technology.  I enjoyed the whole text, but the best part by far was the first 100 pages where Hurari addresses a question that I’ve never even thought to ask before:

Why are sapiens the only humans?

After all – there are many species of cats (the genus “Felis”), from house cats (felis catus) to jungle cats, (felis chaus) and there are many species of dogs (genus “canus”), from common domesticated dogs (cannis lupus familiaris) to coyotes (canis latrans), why aren’t there many species of humans (genus “homo”)?

The answer is: there were.  Once upon a time there were multiple species of humans.


How Price Sensitive is Your Customer

One of the biggest differences between successful and struggling businesses comes down to one question: has price sensitive is your customer?

It seems like common sense, but I didn’t fully understand what caused price sensitivity until recently.  Here are some of the main factors that I’ve seen contribute to price sensitivity (or lack there of):

  • How visible is your fee to your customer?

Is your fee one of just a few expenses that your customer has to manage or is it one of several dozen?  Does your fee have it’s own line item in your customer’s financial reporting, or is your fee non-transparently tucked into another larger category?  The more visible your fee is to your customer, the more price sensitive they will be.

  • What percentage of your customer’s budget is your fee?

Does your fee represent a small part of a large budget or does your fee represent a large part of a small budget?  The larger the proportion of your customer’s budget you take, the more sensitive your customer (regardless of the actual size of the budget).

  • Is your product or service seen as an expense or an investment?

For most people, buying a house is very visible and expensive, but people see it as an investment, so they are relatively less price sensitive.  Buying a car is more like an expense, and people tend to be much more price sensitive when shopping for cars.

Competition definitely has an impact on price sensitivity (the more providers that offer what you do, the more downward pricing pressure you will feel), but from what I’ve seen – this impact is muted compared to the three bullets above.  There are some very crowded industries where customers still lack price sensitivity (e.g. medical expenses).

A very price sensitive customer almost always makes for a very difficult business.  But, if you find yourself with sensitive customers, it’s not the end of the world.


Political Correctness

(Disclaimer: This is the third piece in a three part series on Diversity and Inclusion. I’m lucky to work at a company like AppNexus that values D&I and provides training for employees – however not all companies are as forward thinking as AppNexus.  The below post was inspired by a few different workplace stories I heard about through friends and family that I’ve combined into one fictitious case- enjoy.)

Consider this is case.

A manager is given a warning by HR that he said something insensitive on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, or gender identity to an employee.

To protect the employee, the manager is not given an explanation of the offense, nor the name of the employee – he’s just told that if he does it again, he’ll be fired.

The problem is: the manager legitimately does not know what he did.  He’s not a hateful person, just ignorant.  He doesn’t know what it feels like to be someone of a different gender, race, sexual orientation, or gender identity and probably has said things all his life that could be heard as slightly offensive.

Ultimately the manager repeats the offense and is fired. Still without explanation.

The manager is outraged.  He can’t believe what’s happening and can only conclude that the company has gotten too “politically correct.”

Two things are wrong here.