Friday, July 25, 2008
Marketing Superheroes
Great article from AdAge analyzing the marketing efforts of two of the summer's biggest superhero movies: Iron Man and The Dark Knight. Click here to read it.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
The Tragedy of Greg Norman
This past weekend, Greg Norman began the final round of The Open Championship leading by two strokes. He ended the round six strokes off the lead after shooting a 7-over-par 77. It was yet another Sunday collapse for Norman, whose closing round close calls are epic, tragic and kind of sad.
After the tournament, conventional wisdom said this Norman loss did not feel like the others. He is 53 years old, after all, and hardly plays golf anymore. ABC golf analysts spotted a flaw in his swing from the beginning of the round, as he was staying back on his drives, which made them difficult to control.
All of this was true, of course. Norman was not expected to win and his performance through the first three rounds could be described as a minor miracle.
However, he could have completed one of the most improbable and legendary performances in professional golf history. In his prime, he was beloved almost on a Nicklausian level. His major collapses never let him achieve his position as Jack's heir.
So, was this year's collapse "okay"? Did Norman not mind so much? Will it not haunt him for the rest of his life, like his 1996 Masters performance? His attitude all week suggested it probably will not. He obviously does not have the passion for the game he once did, nor does golf define him like it did 15 years ago. His business interests, personal fortune and new love (tennis star Chris Evert) seem to be consuming his attention these days.
I suppose that's all well and good for Norman as a person. He's probably healthier this way. But as a golf fan, it is sad and disappointing. It would have been unbelievable to watch him redeem himself, grab that one last trophy and say to all his detractors, "See, I told you I was better than you all along." Jack Nicklaus would kill for one last major.
It's sad to see someone lose his passion, his drive. And as much as Norman contends that he is not all about golf anymore and that his new life and new successes satisfy him, I don't believe it. He's fooled himself into this mindframe because he's sustained losses like no other professional golfer. He's haunted and this is his coping mechanism.
After the tournament, conventional wisdom said this Norman loss did not feel like the others. He is 53 years old, after all, and hardly plays golf anymore. ABC golf analysts spotted a flaw in his swing from the beginning of the round, as he was staying back on his drives, which made them difficult to control.
All of this was true, of course. Norman was not expected to win and his performance through the first three rounds could be described as a minor miracle.
However, he could have completed one of the most improbable and legendary performances in professional golf history. In his prime, he was beloved almost on a Nicklausian level. His major collapses never let him achieve his position as Jack's heir.
So, was this year's collapse "okay"? Did Norman not mind so much? Will it not haunt him for the rest of his life, like his 1996 Masters performance? His attitude all week suggested it probably will not. He obviously does not have the passion for the game he once did, nor does golf define him like it did 15 years ago. His business interests, personal fortune and new love (tennis star Chris Evert) seem to be consuming his attention these days.
I suppose that's all well and good for Norman as a person. He's probably healthier this way. But as a golf fan, it is sad and disappointing. It would have been unbelievable to watch him redeem himself, grab that one last trophy and say to all his detractors, "See, I told you I was better than you all along." Jack Nicklaus would kill for one last major.
It's sad to see someone lose his passion, his drive. And as much as Norman contends that he is not all about golf anymore and that his new life and new successes satisfy him, I don't believe it. He's fooled himself into this mindframe because he's sustained losses like no other professional golfer. He's haunted and this is his coping mechanism.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
The King is Dead; Long Live the King
There are few brands more American than Anheuser-Busch, brewers of Budweiser, the self-proclaimed "king of beers." Add the Clydesdales, the "St. Louis, Missouri" tag at the end of their ads and their ubiquitous sports sponsorships, and you have a brand that is rivaled maybe only by Chevrolet as an "American" brand.
And so it is with more than a little sadness that the business world is marking the acquisition of Anheuser-Busch by InBev, the Belgian brewer owned by a South American group. Blame the weak dollar, inflated expenses and A-B's stodgy stock performance. Yeah, InBev says St. Louis will still be the North American headquarters for the new brand, which will be called Anheuser-Busch InBev, and that they will not diminish the sponsorships and marketing A-B has traditionally embraced.
But we all know it won't be the same. And if it is, it won't last long.
This comes on the heels of other reports that say General Motors is considering shuttling some of its classic brands, as well. They have publicly acknowledged that Hummer is on the block and Pontiac and Buick also seem in perilous positions. And who are the most likely buyers? As with legendary British brands Land Rover and Jaguar, Indian and Chinese companies are the top contenders.
Oh, and speaking of American car companies, Abu Dhabi investors just bought the historic Chrysler Building in New York City.
Globalization is great and brings many benefits to the U.S. economy. And the U.S. has gone through periods of foreign investors snatching up American icons before (Sony buying Paramount Pictures, for example). But this time around feels a little different and the U.S. needs to ensure that we are getting something out of the global economy besides larger credit limits.
And so it is with more than a little sadness that the business world is marking the acquisition of Anheuser-Busch by InBev, the Belgian brewer owned by a South American group. Blame the weak dollar, inflated expenses and A-B's stodgy stock performance. Yeah, InBev says St. Louis will still be the North American headquarters for the new brand, which will be called Anheuser-Busch InBev, and that they will not diminish the sponsorships and marketing A-B has traditionally embraced.
But we all know it won't be the same. And if it is, it won't last long.
This comes on the heels of other reports that say General Motors is considering shuttling some of its classic brands, as well. They have publicly acknowledged that Hummer is on the block and Pontiac and Buick also seem in perilous positions. And who are the most likely buyers? As with legendary British brands Land Rover and Jaguar, Indian and Chinese companies are the top contenders.
Oh, and speaking of American car companies, Abu Dhabi investors just bought the historic Chrysler Building in New York City.
Globalization is great and brings many benefits to the U.S. economy. And the U.S. has gone through periods of foreign investors snatching up American icons before (Sony buying Paramount Pictures, for example). But this time around feels a little different and the U.S. needs to ensure that we are getting something out of the global economy besides larger credit limits.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Obama's #1 Facebook Friend
The New York Times published a great story about Barack Obama's unprecedented success with online fundraising and social networking.
How is he doing it? By hiring a Facebook co-founder, of course.
Obama has harnessed the power of online campaigning like no one before and light years ahead of Republican rival John McCain. And 24-year-old Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes is leading the way.
How is he doing it? By hiring a Facebook co-founder, of course.
Obama has harnessed the power of online campaigning like no one before and light years ahead of Republican rival John McCain. And 24-year-old Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes is leading the way.
Obama in Fargo
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama visited Fargo last week, a day before the Independence Day holiday. Local news affiliates heavily covered the event because it is unusual for a presidential candidate to visit North Dakota during the general election campaign. Our state has a scant three electoral votes and we are pretty solidly Republican when it comes to presidential elections. So, Republicans take us for granted and Democrats write us off.
As a result, local media made a big deal about the visit and speculated that Obama was here because he believes the state may be in play this time around. The reality is Obama does not believe the state may go Democratic in November and not one of our local media outlets reported on the real motivation for Obama's visit.
He has an amazing fundraising apparatus and he plans to use it against Republican rival Senator John McCain by forcing McCain to spend money in states where he normally wouldn't need to. So, Obama is visiting and buying ads in North Dakota, Montana and other normally right-leaning states to force McCain to do the same. McCain uses his relatively fewer resources protecting his "home turf" and Obama can outspend him in battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.
Maybe Obama believes he can swing staunch Republican states his way and maybe he's right. But that seems unlikely, unless an Obama tidal wave sweeps the country and he achieves a Reagan-Mondale or Nixon-McGovern margin of victory. Absent that, his "red-state strategy" is just a shrewd use of resources.
As a result, local media made a big deal about the visit and speculated that Obama was here because he believes the state may be in play this time around. The reality is Obama does not believe the state may go Democratic in November and not one of our local media outlets reported on the real motivation for Obama's visit.
He has an amazing fundraising apparatus and he plans to use it against Republican rival Senator John McCain by forcing McCain to spend money in states where he normally wouldn't need to. So, Obama is visiting and buying ads in North Dakota, Montana and other normally right-leaning states to force McCain to do the same. McCain uses his relatively fewer resources protecting his "home turf" and Obama can outspend him in battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.
Maybe Obama believes he can swing staunch Republican states his way and maybe he's right. But that seems unlikely, unless an Obama tidal wave sweeps the country and he achieves a Reagan-Mondale or Nixon-McGovern margin of victory. Absent that, his "red-state strategy" is just a shrewd use of resources.
1776 - read it
If you're like me and don't want the Independence Day festivities to end, take a gander at 1776, a fantastic book by my favorite mainstream historian, David McCullough. McCullough's historical writing is accessible to anyone; it is not too academic.
From Truman to John Adams, McCullough continues to crank out vivid, lively accounts of historical figures and how they influenced their times. 1776 is special not because it brings to life perhaps the most important year in our nation's history (which it does amazingly well), but because it is relatively short (400 hardcover pages) and because it delivers a sobering message to Americans that the independence and freedom we enjoy after our victory over the British was not preordained and was, in fact, in dire jeopardy many times during that year alone.
While doing publicity for the book when it was published, McCullough said more than once that if cable news and embedded journalists had existed at the time, the American Revolution would have failed miserably. It was only because a committed band of revolutionaries stuck to their cause that independence was ultimately achieved. Public sentiment would surely have turned against them if information flowed as freely as it does today.
McCullough's account of the battle for New York City is especially stirring, as I would guess most Americans only vaguely associate that city with the Revolutionary War. He also describes how the hot war was well underway before the Declaration was signed in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776, and how many citizen-soldiers abandoned the Continental Army to tend to their farms and families. The soldiers were often cold, hungry and dispirited.
So, if you're looking for some summer reading with a little heft (but not too much), give 1776 a try. McCullough is a master.
From Truman to John Adams, McCullough continues to crank out vivid, lively accounts of historical figures and how they influenced their times. 1776 is special not because it brings to life perhaps the most important year in our nation's history (which it does amazingly well), but because it is relatively short (400 hardcover pages) and because it delivers a sobering message to Americans that the independence and freedom we enjoy after our victory over the British was not preordained and was, in fact, in dire jeopardy many times during that year alone.
While doing publicity for the book when it was published, McCullough said more than once that if cable news and embedded journalists had existed at the time, the American Revolution would have failed miserably. It was only because a committed band of revolutionaries stuck to their cause that independence was ultimately achieved. Public sentiment would surely have turned against them if information flowed as freely as it does today.
McCullough's account of the battle for New York City is especially stirring, as I would guess most Americans only vaguely associate that city with the Revolutionary War. He also describes how the hot war was well underway before the Declaration was signed in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776, and how many citizen-soldiers abandoned the Continental Army to tend to their farms and families. The soldiers were often cold, hungry and dispirited.
So, if you're looking for some summer reading with a little heft (but not too much), give 1776 a try. McCullough is a master.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Newsweek cover story on Economy and Recession
Once again, Newsweek delivers economic news with a little reality thrown in. Read this week's cover story. It does a good job explaining the root of our current recession, why it will last longer than most people think and how the U.S. is diminishing as a player in the global economy.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Happy Basketball Times
It made my heart happy last night to see the Lakers and Celtics once again squaring off for the NBA championship. The last time this happened was 1987, with the Lakers winning the best of three championship series against the Celtics in the 1980s.
Of course, things were much more magical the last time around ... pun fully intended, as Magic Johnson led the Lakers to the title. I've lost much interest in the Lakers and the NBA since then, never jumping on the Michael Jordan bandwagon as enthusiastically as I did the Showtime Lakers of Magic, Kareem, James Worthy, Byron Scott, Kurt Rambis and Pat Riley.
In fact, the best thing about this go-around is the attention being paid to the classic '80s rivalry. The other day they replayed one of the Celtics-Lakers championship games on ESPN. From that game and memory, I will argue several points that I will believe until the day I die:
Of course, things were much more magical the last time around ... pun fully intended, as Magic Johnson led the Lakers to the title. I've lost much interest in the Lakers and the NBA since then, never jumping on the Michael Jordan bandwagon as enthusiastically as I did the Showtime Lakers of Magic, Kareem, James Worthy, Byron Scott, Kurt Rambis and Pat Riley.
In fact, the best thing about this go-around is the attention being paid to the classic '80s rivalry. The other day they replayed one of the Celtics-Lakers championship games on ESPN. From that game and memory, I will argue several points that I will believe until the day I die:
- That style of basketball was far more entertaining than anything they're doing today.
- James Worthy could slash to the basket and finish a fast break better than anyone in NBA history.
- Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's sky hook was the only indefensible shot I've ever seen ... like the crane kick in the first Karate Kid (if done correctly, of course).
- Magic Johnson pushed the ball up the court harder and better than anyone. He also saw the court better than anyone ... yes, better than Larry Bird, John Stockton, Isaiah Thomas, Jason Kidd, etc.
It's not quite the same these days with people who aren't really Lakers or Celtics leading each team. Kevin Garnett, Pau Gasol and Ray Allen are all great players, but don't really belong to the teams whose uniform they currently wear. Free agency has ruined much of the former mystique of professional sports, as have the labor problems, contract disputes, inflated salaries and general whining from millionaires.
But yet all the happy feelings came flowing back last night when the Lakers in purple and the Celtics in white met on a parquet floor in Boston. Game 2 on Sunday night and then back to the Staples Center in L.A. for games 3-5. No Showtime, no Magic, no Kareem, not even the Great Western Forum or the real Boston Garden. But still Lakers and Celtics. Good stuff.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Budweiser going Brazilian?
Another iconic American brand is being threatened with a takeover attempt by a company based outside the U.S. This time it's Anheuser-Busch and the acquiring company is InBev, a Belgian and Brazilian beverage company that already owns LaBatt Blue (with its Canadian Maple Leaf logo), Bass, Beck's and Stella Artois.
Anheuser-Busch, of course, is the quintessential American beer company, purveyor of Budweiser, the "great American lager," as its current marketing campaign proclaims. Especially problematic for the brand is that A-B has been raking Miller and Coors over the coals as "non-American" the past several years after Miller was acquired by a South African brewery and Coors entered a partnership with the Canadian brewer that also creates Molson.
Advertising Age does a much better job explaining the details and implications of this potential takeover. Stay tuned.
Anheuser-Busch, of course, is the quintessential American beer company, purveyor of Budweiser, the "great American lager," as its current marketing campaign proclaims. Especially problematic for the brand is that A-B has been raking Miller and Coors over the coals as "non-American" the past several years after Miller was acquired by a South African brewery and Coors entered a partnership with the Canadian brewer that also creates Molson.
Advertising Age does a much better job explaining the details and implications of this potential takeover. Stay tuned.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Bloggers needed to police media
Recently, I have heard and read many traditional reporters complaining about bloggers. "They are not real reporters," they say. "They sit at home and comment on things with no real journalistic skills or techniques applied to their writing."
No doubt that is true, to some extent. But it also seems true that bloggers are increasingly playing the policing role in society that the media was intended to play.
As the "fourth branch of government" the media's job was to monitor government officials and call them on the carpet for their activities. Watergate is a classic example, but there are hundreds of others, as print, radio and television journalists worked to critically cover policy decisions and uncover corruption, lies and other misdeeds.
Scanning the current media world, however, it is obvious the media no longer plays this role. Media consolidation means there are fewer diverse outlets investigating and collecting news. And the media outlets that remain are all part of global corporations whose primary goal is to make money, not create quality news. So, news staffs are being cut and Britney Spears gets more coverage than Osama Bin Laden.
In addition, the country's most prominent journalists are more interested in creating their own celebrity than in creating quality journalism. The supposed top dog of the current campaign season, Tim Russert, is a shabby representative of hard-core journalism. He asks obvious questions, makes obvious observations and gets praised for it.
The reporter-as-celebrity phenomenon was nakedly exposed in the wake of the Don Imus episode, when all the supposed journalists who appeared regularly on his show found themselves backpeddling when Imus finally stuck his foot a little too far down his throat to successfully extract it. The media personalities were not appearing on his show to create great journalism; they appeared to further their celebrity.
The media is also trying to insert itself into the Democratic presidential nomination contest in an unprecedented way. First they pronounced Clinton dead in the water, then they said she had "found her voice," then they lavished praise on Obama and it took a Saturday Night Live skit - that's right, Saturday Night Live, that bastions of journalism - to slap the media from its Obama adoration. Then, to appear objective, they turned on Obama and fed on the Rev. Wright controversy. Finally, they fought to be the first to declare Clinton down for the count. Russert took home the honor by boldly(?) and solemnly proclaiming after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, "We now know who the Democratic nominee will be." A Walter Cronkite moment it was not.
Go to the news web sites for CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC or ABC. They all cover the same stories in the same way. Where is the diversity? The 24-hour news cycle has not given us more news; it's given us the same news over and over and over again.
And so there are the bloggers. Dan Rather, Cronkite's pompous and unworthy successor, felt the wrath of a real watchdog when the blogosphere combined forces to call him on the carpet for his bogus story on Bush's military service.
The traditional media is part of The Machine, The Man - together with the sports leagues, politicians, business barons and multinational corporations they are supposed to cover. They are the haves, attending the same power parties, trying to sell their books, fighting for the same screen time as everyone else.
Do I rely on bloggers for news? No. Do I rely on them for insightful analysis? Hardly ever.
But they provide one thing the traditional media has lost - honest cynicism. They hold people accountable, including the traditional media, when they spot a phony. Sometimes to the extreme and too often with vulgarity. But it is a function this country needs, as the watchdog function only works when it is rooted in the people. The traditional media no longer fits that description.
No doubt that is true, to some extent. But it also seems true that bloggers are increasingly playing the policing role in society that the media was intended to play.
As the "fourth branch of government" the media's job was to monitor government officials and call them on the carpet for their activities. Watergate is a classic example, but there are hundreds of others, as print, radio and television journalists worked to critically cover policy decisions and uncover corruption, lies and other misdeeds.
Scanning the current media world, however, it is obvious the media no longer plays this role. Media consolidation means there are fewer diverse outlets investigating and collecting news. And the media outlets that remain are all part of global corporations whose primary goal is to make money, not create quality news. So, news staffs are being cut and Britney Spears gets more coverage than Osama Bin Laden.
In addition, the country's most prominent journalists are more interested in creating their own celebrity than in creating quality journalism. The supposed top dog of the current campaign season, Tim Russert, is a shabby representative of hard-core journalism. He asks obvious questions, makes obvious observations and gets praised for it.
The reporter-as-celebrity phenomenon was nakedly exposed in the wake of the Don Imus episode, when all the supposed journalists who appeared regularly on his show found themselves backpeddling when Imus finally stuck his foot a little too far down his throat to successfully extract it. The media personalities were not appearing on his show to create great journalism; they appeared to further their celebrity.
The media is also trying to insert itself into the Democratic presidential nomination contest in an unprecedented way. First they pronounced Clinton dead in the water, then they said she had "found her voice," then they lavished praise on Obama and it took a Saturday Night Live skit - that's right, Saturday Night Live, that bastions of journalism - to slap the media from its Obama adoration. Then, to appear objective, they turned on Obama and fed on the Rev. Wright controversy. Finally, they fought to be the first to declare Clinton down for the count. Russert took home the honor by boldly(?) and solemnly proclaiming after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, "We now know who the Democratic nominee will be." A Walter Cronkite moment it was not.
Go to the news web sites for CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC or ABC. They all cover the same stories in the same way. Where is the diversity? The 24-hour news cycle has not given us more news; it's given us the same news over and over and over again.
And so there are the bloggers. Dan Rather, Cronkite's pompous and unworthy successor, felt the wrath of a real watchdog when the blogosphere combined forces to call him on the carpet for his bogus story on Bush's military service.
The traditional media is part of The Machine, The Man - together with the sports leagues, politicians, business barons and multinational corporations they are supposed to cover. They are the haves, attending the same power parties, trying to sell their books, fighting for the same screen time as everyone else.
Do I rely on bloggers for news? No. Do I rely on them for insightful analysis? Hardly ever.
But they provide one thing the traditional media has lost - honest cynicism. They hold people accountable, including the traditional media, when they spot a phony. Sometimes to the extreme and too often with vulgarity. But it is a function this country needs, as the watchdog function only works when it is rooted in the people. The traditional media no longer fits that description.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Zappos pays new employees to quit
The online shoe (etc.) company Zappos makes its new employees an offer after one week on the job ... $1,000 to quit. Crazy, you say? Maybe. But it's the way they ensure new employees are committed to their culture. Read the full article by Bill Taylor.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Bionic Age Begins
Oscar Pistorius, who was born without the tibia bones in his lower legs, is causing quite a stir in the track and field world as the Beijing Olympics approach. Pistorius is recording race times that no other disabled athlete has ever achieved and is primed to compete for a spot on the Olympic team.
His performance has prompted claims that the prosthetic blades he uses to run give him an unfair advantage over his competitors. The blades, they say, provide stronger propulsion than a natural human ankle. An MIT study disputed this claim and so the granddaddy of track and field adjudicating bodies gave Pistorius the okay to compete.
And so the bionic era is upon us. We've seen it coming for years. Genetic engineering. Digital implants. Steroids. Human growth hormone. And now an amputee with prosthetic legs may be superior to an athlete with "only" natural parts.
Science fiction has played this angle for decades, from Darth Vader to the Borg, from Steve Austin to Gattaca's genetic perfection, from HAL to The Matrix. All portrayed humans interacting with technology to integrate man and machine. Bigger, faster, stronger, indeed.
We're integrating our bodies with technology at the same time we're integrating our minds with technology. I've posted a couple items in this space about people's relationship with Facebook ... Who is the real you? What is the difference these days between real and digital?
How long will it be before kids are implanting chips in their brains that allow them to play video games using only their minds - no hand-eye coordination required? Or enter a virtual reality where they might be the person they've always wanted to be instead of the person they are? Second Life is just such an experience for millions of online users.
So, the next decade or two is going to be interesting. Technology and processing power may create a whole new being that makes us mere homo sapiens feel oh so inferior.
His performance has prompted claims that the prosthetic blades he uses to run give him an unfair advantage over his competitors. The blades, they say, provide stronger propulsion than a natural human ankle. An MIT study disputed this claim and so the granddaddy of track and field adjudicating bodies gave Pistorius the okay to compete.
And so the bionic era is upon us. We've seen it coming for years. Genetic engineering. Digital implants. Steroids. Human growth hormone. And now an amputee with prosthetic legs may be superior to an athlete with "only" natural parts.
Science fiction has played this angle for decades, from Darth Vader to the Borg, from Steve Austin to Gattaca's genetic perfection, from HAL to The Matrix. All portrayed humans interacting with technology to integrate man and machine. Bigger, faster, stronger, indeed.
We're integrating our bodies with technology at the same time we're integrating our minds with technology. I've posted a couple items in this space about people's relationship with Facebook ... Who is the real you? What is the difference these days between real and digital?
How long will it be before kids are implanting chips in their brains that allow them to play video games using only their minds - no hand-eye coordination required? Or enter a virtual reality where they might be the person they've always wanted to be instead of the person they are? Second Life is just such an experience for millions of online users.
So, the next decade or two is going to be interesting. Technology and processing power may create a whole new being that makes us mere homo sapiens feel oh so inferior.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Facebook: the web site of record
This weekend, a 24-year-old friend was talking about this really cool event she attended. Of course, she documented her fun time by taking lots of photos and said, "I can't wait to get these up on Facebook."
Again, I ask... if something is not on Facebook, did it really happen?
Again, I ask... if something is not on Facebook, did it really happen?
Saturday, May 10, 2008
The wisdom of Warren Buffett
In an interview published in the April 28, 2008, edition of Fortune magazine, Warren Buffett said this about the looming economic downturn...
"...it seems like everybody says it'll be short and shallow, but it looks like it's just the opposite."
Buffett went on to say that deleveraging the mortgage industry is "going to be painful." We've been stimulating the economy through debt, he said, and deconstructing the debt and creating more positive economic stimulation will not be easy. But he remains highly optimistic about the U.S. economy in the long-term.
"...it seems like everybody says it'll be short and shallow, but it looks like it's just the opposite."
Buffett went on to say that deleveraging the mortgage industry is "going to be painful." We've been stimulating the economy through debt, he said, and deconstructing the debt and creating more positive economic stimulation will not be easy. But he remains highly optimistic about the U.S. economy in the long-term.
"Scrubs" moving to ABC
Okay, so I'm not up on the latest TV chatter.
Yesterday, I said the "Scrubs" series finale was lame and seemed like just another episode - and a not very good one at that.
Well, apparently, it seemed like just another episode because it was ... ABC is picking up 18 episodes of "Scrubs" to run in its fall schedule. "Scrubs" is produced by ABC Studios and has apparently always had a rocky relationship with NBC, which is probably one of the reasons the show has gotten kicked around the NBC schedule so much.
My bad.
Yesterday, I said the "Scrubs" series finale was lame and seemed like just another episode - and a not very good one at that.
Well, apparently, it seemed like just another episode because it was ... ABC is picking up 18 episodes of "Scrubs" to run in its fall schedule. "Scrubs" is produced by ABC Studios and has apparently always had a rocky relationship with NBC, which is probably one of the reasons the show has gotten kicked around the NBC schedule so much.
My bad.
Friday, May 9, 2008
The wisdom of George Will
George Will is one of my favorite columnists. Here is an excerpt from his April 20 Washington Post column...
The Fed has no mandate to be the dealmaker for Wall Street socialism. The Fed's mission is to preserve the currency as a store of value by preventing inflation. Its duty is not to avoid a recession at all costs; the way to get a big recession is to engage in frenzied improvisations because a small recession, aka a correction, is deemed intolerable. The Fed should not try to produce this or that rate of economic growth or unemployment.
After the tech bubble burst in 2000, the Fed opened the money spigot to lower interest rates and keep the economy humming. And since the bursting of the housing bubble, which was partly caused by that opened spigot, the Fed has again lowered interest rates, which for now are negative — lower than the inflation rate, which the open spigot will aggravate.
A surge of inflation might mean the end of the world as we have known it. Twenty-six percent of the $9.4 trillion of U.S. debt is held by foreigners. Suppose they construe Fed policy as serving an unspoken (and unspeakable) U.S. interest in increasing inflation, which would amount to the slow devaluation — partial repudiation — of the nation's debts. If foreign holders of U.S. Treasury notes start to sell them, interest rates will have to spike to attract the foreign money that enables Americans to consume more than they produce.
Having maxed out many of their 1.4 billion credit cards, between 2001 and 2006 Americans tapped $1.2 trillion of their housing equity. Business Week reports that the middle-class debt-to-income ratio is now 141 percent, double that of 1983.
The Fed has no mandate to be the dealmaker for Wall Street socialism. The Fed's mission is to preserve the currency as a store of value by preventing inflation. Its duty is not to avoid a recession at all costs; the way to get a big recession is to engage in frenzied improvisations because a small recession, aka a correction, is deemed intolerable. The Fed should not try to produce this or that rate of economic growth or unemployment.
After the tech bubble burst in 2000, the Fed opened the money spigot to lower interest rates and keep the economy humming. And since the bursting of the housing bubble, which was partly caused by that opened spigot, the Fed has again lowered interest rates, which for now are negative — lower than the inflation rate, which the open spigot will aggravate.
A surge of inflation might mean the end of the world as we have known it. Twenty-six percent of the $9.4 trillion of U.S. debt is held by foreigners. Suppose they construe Fed policy as serving an unspoken (and unspeakable) U.S. interest in increasing inflation, which would amount to the slow devaluation — partial repudiation — of the nation's debts. If foreign holders of U.S. Treasury notes start to sell them, interest rates will have to spike to attract the foreign money that enables Americans to consume more than they produce.
Having maxed out many of their 1.4 billion credit cards, between 2001 and 2006 Americans tapped $1.2 trillion of their housing equity. Business Week reports that the middle-class debt-to-income ratio is now 141 percent, double that of 1983.
"Scrubs" finale fell flat
I've always liked "Scrubs," the NBC show about young doctors and their wacky hijinks. It is often a brilliant tongue-in-cheek, alternate-reality kind of experience. From Dr. Cox's arrogance (for which John McGinley should have won several Emmys by now) to J.D. and Turk's man-love, it's always been a show with a very unique comic flavor. Its brilliance is inconsistent, though, and "Scrubs" has never been a show for everyone, which explains why it's generally been disrespected by its network, the awards people and mass audiences.
The show takes chances - sometimes it hits, sometimes it misses. Last night's series finale with its fairy tale allegory was a big whiff. It was unfortunate. I was hoping "Scrubs" would go out with a bang. I suppose series finales are inevitably disappointing, but this one was especially so.
But there was one redeeming element in the "Scrubs" finale, although not enough to save the whole. The show refused to bring closure to the series-long, on-again, off-again relationship between J.D. and Elliot. The show stayed true to itself by not giving in to the kind of Ross-Rachel, schlocky, mad-dash-to-the-airport ending that ruins so many shows' finales ("Friends"). The "Scrubs" finale was ruined in other ways, but at least it was in ways that reflect the spirit of the show. I respect that.
In fact, now that I think about it, the "Scrubs" finale was not really a finale at all; more like just another episode ... albeit a bad one. Nothing changed; no one moved, got married, died, graduated, had a baby. If they were going to end their series with just another episode, it's too bad they couldn't have hatched one of their classics instead of one of their eggs.
The show takes chances - sometimes it hits, sometimes it misses. Last night's series finale with its fairy tale allegory was a big whiff. It was unfortunate. I was hoping "Scrubs" would go out with a bang. I suppose series finales are inevitably disappointing, but this one was especially so.
But there was one redeeming element in the "Scrubs" finale, although not enough to save the whole. The show refused to bring closure to the series-long, on-again, off-again relationship between J.D. and Elliot. The show stayed true to itself by not giving in to the kind of Ross-Rachel, schlocky, mad-dash-to-the-airport ending that ruins so many shows' finales ("Friends"). The "Scrubs" finale was ruined in other ways, but at least it was in ways that reflect the spirit of the show. I respect that.
In fact, now that I think about it, the "Scrubs" finale was not really a finale at all; more like just another episode ... albeit a bad one. Nothing changed; no one moved, got married, died, graduated, had a baby. If they were going to end their series with just another episode, it's too bad they couldn't have hatched one of their classics instead of one of their eggs.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
From Thomas Friedman...
From New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, author of The World is Flat...
Who Will Tell the People?
Traveling the country these past five months while writing a book, I’ve had my own opportunity to take the pulse, far from the campaign crowds. My own totally unscientific polling has left me feeling that if there is one overwhelming hunger in our country today it’s this: People want to do nation-building. They really do. But they want to do nation-building in America.
They are not only tired of nation-building in Iraq and in Afghanistan, with so little to show for it. They sense something deeper — that we’re just not that strong anymore. We’re borrowing money to shore up our banks from city-states called Dubai and Singapore. Our generals regularly tell us that Iran is subverting our efforts in Iraq, but they do nothing about it because we have no leverage — as long as our forces are pinned down in Baghdad and our economy is pinned to Middle East oil.
Our president’s latest energy initiative was to go to Saudi Arabia and beg King Abdullah to give us a little relief on gasoline prices. I guess there was some justice in that. When you, the president, after 9/11, tell the country to go shopping instead of buckling down to break our addiction to oil, it ends with you, the president, shopping the world for discount gasoline.
We are not as powerful as we used to be because over the past three decades, the Asian values of our parents’ generation — work hard, study, save, invest, live within your means — have given way to subprime values: “You can have the American dream — a house — with no money down and no payments for two years.”
That’s why Donald Rumsfeld’s infamous defense of why he did not originally send more troops to Iraq is the mantra of our times: “You go to war with the army you have.” Hey, you march into the future with the country you have — not the one that you need, not the one you want, not the best you could have.
A few weeks ago, my wife and I flew from New York’s Kennedy Airport to Singapore. In J.F.K.’s waiting lounge we could barely find a place to sit. Eighteen hours later, we landed at Singapore’s ultramodern airport, with free Internet portals and children’s play zones throughout. We felt, as we have before, like we had just flown from the Flintstones to the Jetsons. If all Americans could compare Berlin’s luxurious central train station today with the grimy, decrepit Penn Station in New York City, they would swear we were the ones who lost World War II.
How could this be? We are a great power. How could we be borrowing money from Singapore? Maybe it’s because Singapore is investing billions of dollars, from its own savings, into infrastructure and scientific research to attract the world’s best talent — including Americans.
And us? Harvard’s president, Drew Faust, just told a Senate hearing that cutbacks in government research funds were resulting in “downsized labs, layoffs of post docs, slipping morale and more conservative science that shies away from the big research questions.” Today, she added, “China, India, Singapore ... have adopted biomedical research and the building of biotechnology clusters as national goals. Suddenly, those who train in America have significant options elsewhere.”
Much nonsense has been written about how Hillary Clinton is “toughening up” Barack Obama so he’ll be tough enough to withstand Republican attacks. Sorry, we don’t need a president who is tough enough to withstand the lies of his opponents. We need a president who is tough enough to tell the truth to the American people. Any one of the candidates can answer the Red Phone at 3 a.m. in the White House bedroom. I’m voting for the one who can talk straight to the American people on national TV — at 8 p.m. — from the White House East Room.
Who will tell the people? We are not who we think we are. We are living on borrowed time and borrowed dimes. We still have all the potential for greatness, but only if we get back to work on our country.
I don’t know if Barack Obama can lead that, but the notion that the idealism he has inspired in so many young people doesn’t matter is dead wrong. “Of course, hope alone is not enough,” says Tim Shriver, chairman of Special Olympics, “but it’s not trivial. It’s not trivial to inspire people to want to get up and do something with someone else.”
It is especially not trivial now, because millions of Americans are dying to be enlisted — enlisted to fix education, enlisted to research renewable energy, enlisted to repair our infrastructure, enlisted to help others. Look at the kids lining up to join Teach for America. They want our country to matter again. They want it to be about building wealth and dignity — big profits and big purposes. When we just do one, we are less than the sum of our parts. When we do both, said Shriver, “no one can touch us.”
Who Will Tell the People?
Traveling the country these past five months while writing a book, I’ve had my own opportunity to take the pulse, far from the campaign crowds. My own totally unscientific polling has left me feeling that if there is one overwhelming hunger in our country today it’s this: People want to do nation-building. They really do. But they want to do nation-building in America.
They are not only tired of nation-building in Iraq and in Afghanistan, with so little to show for it. They sense something deeper — that we’re just not that strong anymore. We’re borrowing money to shore up our banks from city-states called Dubai and Singapore. Our generals regularly tell us that Iran is subverting our efforts in Iraq, but they do nothing about it because we have no leverage — as long as our forces are pinned down in Baghdad and our economy is pinned to Middle East oil.
Our president’s latest energy initiative was to go to Saudi Arabia and beg King Abdullah to give us a little relief on gasoline prices. I guess there was some justice in that. When you, the president, after 9/11, tell the country to go shopping instead of buckling down to break our addiction to oil, it ends with you, the president, shopping the world for discount gasoline.
We are not as powerful as we used to be because over the past three decades, the Asian values of our parents’ generation — work hard, study, save, invest, live within your means — have given way to subprime values: “You can have the American dream — a house — with no money down and no payments for two years.”
That’s why Donald Rumsfeld’s infamous defense of why he did not originally send more troops to Iraq is the mantra of our times: “You go to war with the army you have.” Hey, you march into the future with the country you have — not the one that you need, not the one you want, not the best you could have.
A few weeks ago, my wife and I flew from New York’s Kennedy Airport to Singapore. In J.F.K.’s waiting lounge we could barely find a place to sit. Eighteen hours later, we landed at Singapore’s ultramodern airport, with free Internet portals and children’s play zones throughout. We felt, as we have before, like we had just flown from the Flintstones to the Jetsons. If all Americans could compare Berlin’s luxurious central train station today with the grimy, decrepit Penn Station in New York City, they would swear we were the ones who lost World War II.
How could this be? We are a great power. How could we be borrowing money from Singapore? Maybe it’s because Singapore is investing billions of dollars, from its own savings, into infrastructure and scientific research to attract the world’s best talent — including Americans.
And us? Harvard’s president, Drew Faust, just told a Senate hearing that cutbacks in government research funds were resulting in “downsized labs, layoffs of post docs, slipping morale and more conservative science that shies away from the big research questions.” Today, she added, “China, India, Singapore ... have adopted biomedical research and the building of biotechnology clusters as national goals. Suddenly, those who train in America have significant options elsewhere.”
Much nonsense has been written about how Hillary Clinton is “toughening up” Barack Obama so he’ll be tough enough to withstand Republican attacks. Sorry, we don’t need a president who is tough enough to withstand the lies of his opponents. We need a president who is tough enough to tell the truth to the American people. Any one of the candidates can answer the Red Phone at 3 a.m. in the White House bedroom. I’m voting for the one who can talk straight to the American people on national TV — at 8 p.m. — from the White House East Room.
Who will tell the people? We are not who we think we are. We are living on borrowed time and borrowed dimes. We still have all the potential for greatness, but only if we get back to work on our country.
I don’t know if Barack Obama can lead that, but the notion that the idealism he has inspired in so many young people doesn’t matter is dead wrong. “Of course, hope alone is not enough,” says Tim Shriver, chairman of Special Olympics, “but it’s not trivial. It’s not trivial to inspire people to want to get up and do something with someone else.”
It is especially not trivial now, because millions of Americans are dying to be enlisted — enlisted to fix education, enlisted to research renewable energy, enlisted to repair our infrastructure, enlisted to help others. Look at the kids lining up to join Teach for America. They want our country to matter again. They want it to be about building wealth and dignity — big profits and big purposes. When we just do one, we are less than the sum of our parts. When we do both, said Shriver, “no one can touch us.”
Monday, May 5, 2008
Iron Man worth the money
I saw Iron Man last night, the new Robert Downey, Jr., movie based on the Marvel comic book. Two thumbs up. Four stars. Must-see. Good stuff. Name your superlative. Check it out if you like that sort of thing.
I've never read an Iron Man comic and am not familiar with the character and his history, but this movie was GOOD.
Oh, and stay for the credits. After they roll, there is an extra scene setting up the next movie that you won't want to miss. Very cool.
I've never read an Iron Man comic and am not familiar with the character and his history, but this movie was GOOD.
Oh, and stay for the credits. After they roll, there is an extra scene setting up the next movie that you won't want to miss. Very cool.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Tax Rebates a Political Ploy
Magically, a $600 deposit appeared in my bank account this morning. Aren't George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress great to have around?
While all of us like money from the sky, this "economic stimulus package" is going to do nothing to solve the underlying problems in our nation's economy. It's a short-term fix, and a weak one at that. Not surprising for our short-sighted and politically-motivated federal government. This rebate is nothing but a political ploy in an election year, to make voters think the federal government is "doing something." Reality paints a different picture.
This nation's economic growth in recent years has been driven to a large degree by consumer spending, which the rebates are intended to stimulate, and a grossly overvalued housing market. We don't need more economic growth by consumer spending. Why? Because it generally puts people further into debt by spending money on imported goods. We need growth driven by investment, real domestic productivity and exports.
Also, many people are applauding the Federal Reserve for lowering interest rates. Lower interest rates encourage people and businesses to go further into debt. This country does not need more debt - personal, business or government. We already have all the debt we need.
The federal government is working furiously to keep our economy out of a recession - again, for political reasons. No one wants to be in office during a recession, because after the next election, there's a good chance they won't be in office anymore. But they are doing it by going further into debt and by encouraging businesses and citizens to do the same. Sorry, but you cannot borrow your way out of a recession. Check that - you can in the short-term, but eventually your house of cards is going to crumble.
No one will admit this anymore, but a nation's economic growth cannot continue indefinitely, even in a global economy. Downturns are natural and even necessary. We are increasingly preventing economic downturns in this country through greater debt. What do we have to show for it? A negative consumer savings rate, a weak dollar, a mortgage crisis, an overvalued housing market and record federal debt and deficits. All this while our military is fighting a two-front war.
If the federal government would be going further into debt to fund the war by borrowing money from its own people - can anyone say, "war bonds"? - it would be a different story. But that's not what's happening. Our federal government is going further into debt by borrowing money - aka selling Treasury notes - from foreign governments while our citizens spend their money on TVs made in Asia. Combine this with skyrocketing energy prices and this witch's brew of economic calamity could make the late 1970s look like a picnic.
So, closed circuit to George W. Bush and the Congress: keep your tax rebates and take real steps to solve our problems or we're all going to need a lot more than $600.
While all of us like money from the sky, this "economic stimulus package" is going to do nothing to solve the underlying problems in our nation's economy. It's a short-term fix, and a weak one at that. Not surprising for our short-sighted and politically-motivated federal government. This rebate is nothing but a political ploy in an election year, to make voters think the federal government is "doing something." Reality paints a different picture.
This nation's economic growth in recent years has been driven to a large degree by consumer spending, which the rebates are intended to stimulate, and a grossly overvalued housing market. We don't need more economic growth by consumer spending. Why? Because it generally puts people further into debt by spending money on imported goods. We need growth driven by investment, real domestic productivity and exports.
Also, many people are applauding the Federal Reserve for lowering interest rates. Lower interest rates encourage people and businesses to go further into debt. This country does not need more debt - personal, business or government. We already have all the debt we need.
The federal government is working furiously to keep our economy out of a recession - again, for political reasons. No one wants to be in office during a recession, because after the next election, there's a good chance they won't be in office anymore. But they are doing it by going further into debt and by encouraging businesses and citizens to do the same. Sorry, but you cannot borrow your way out of a recession. Check that - you can in the short-term, but eventually your house of cards is going to crumble.
No one will admit this anymore, but a nation's economic growth cannot continue indefinitely, even in a global economy. Downturns are natural and even necessary. We are increasingly preventing economic downturns in this country through greater debt. What do we have to show for it? A negative consumer savings rate, a weak dollar, a mortgage crisis, an overvalued housing market and record federal debt and deficits. All this while our military is fighting a two-front war.
If the federal government would be going further into debt to fund the war by borrowing money from its own people - can anyone say, "war bonds"? - it would be a different story. But that's not what's happening. Our federal government is going further into debt by borrowing money - aka selling Treasury notes - from foreign governments while our citizens spend their money on TVs made in Asia. Combine this with skyrocketing energy prices and this witch's brew of economic calamity could make the late 1970s look like a picnic.
So, closed circuit to George W. Bush and the Congress: keep your tax rebates and take real steps to solve our problems or we're all going to need a lot more than $600.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Fargo mentioned in book
I am about halfway through economist Richard Florida's latest book, Who's Your City? The other night I came across this little nugget...
Dr. Florida (yes, like the state) is a professor at the University of Toronto and he asked some of his students where they would like to live when they graduate. Most responded they didn't care, as long as they had a good job, a lively social circle and opportunities for growth. Then, he got specific and asked if they would live in Fargo, North Dakota (that's where I live). The students said no. They were thinking more like northern California, Seattle, Boston.
Florida's basic premise is that the world is not flat, it is spiky - and increasingly so. Geographic areas that can make themselves attractive to what he has defined as the "creative class" will see economic growth. Other areas will see increasing decline. The gap between the growth areas and the declining areas is widening.
If you're at all intrigued, start with his seminal work, The Rise of the Creative Class and explore his Creative Class Group.
Dr. Florida (yes, like the state) is a professor at the University of Toronto and he asked some of his students where they would like to live when they graduate. Most responded they didn't care, as long as they had a good job, a lively social circle and opportunities for growth. Then, he got specific and asked if they would live in Fargo, North Dakota (that's where I live). The students said no. They were thinking more like northern California, Seattle, Boston.
Florida's basic premise is that the world is not flat, it is spiky - and increasingly so. Geographic areas that can make themselves attractive to what he has defined as the "creative class" will see economic growth. Other areas will see increasing decline. The gap between the growth areas and the declining areas is widening.
If you're at all intrigued, start with his seminal work, The Rise of the Creative Class and explore his Creative Class Group.
Detergent update
My mom - a certified laundry expert - told me this past weekend that the latest round of concentrated laundry detergents is actually in addition to the concentrating they did in the late 1980s-early 1990s.
I'm not sure I buy it, but who can argue with his mom?
I'm not sure I buy it, but who can argue with his mom?
Monday, April 21, 2008
Economic chickens coming home to roost
Debt - consumer, government and business - it turns out, has been driving our economic growth the past decade. Who knew? Anyone paying any attention at all, that's who.
Newsweek has a great article on how we became a debt-based economy, the consequences and the possibly bleak economic future it has wrought.
For those of you with short attention spans, don't worry, the article is short. But it's pretty much a downer, so if you're looking for a pick-me-up, don't click on the link.
Newsweek has a great article on how we became a debt-based economy, the consequences and the possibly bleak economic future it has wrought.
For those of you with short attention spans, don't worry, the article is short. But it's pretty much a downer, so if you're looking for a pick-me-up, don't click on the link.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Super-concentrated, round 2
All laundry detergents are suddenly in smaller bottles. They're all "ultra," they say, or "super concentrated." The point is that you can use less detergent with each load, reducing the quantity of detergent you use and the size of the bottle it comes in. It's all part of how we can all be more "green" and leave a smaller "carbon footprint."
Funny, I remember this same thing happened in the 1980s when the masses discovered recycling. Then, as now, detergent bottles were suddenly and dramatically downsized. They were labeled "ultra" and "super concentrated." Later, as recycling received less publicity, the bottles gradually grew again and the "concentrated" labeling disappeared.
As this happened, I assumed the detergent was still concentrated, but they were ramping up the bottle sizes again. Still concentrated detergent, just more of it. I mean, why wouldn't they concentrate detergent as much as they can?
But now that we have entered a second concentrated, smaller-bottle period, it has me wondering about this assumption. Is detergent now even more concentrated than it was in the 1980s or did they revert to less concentrated formulas after the public pressure to recycle either waned or became the norm? The new concentrated detergents do not seem any thicker than their immediate predecessors, which was not the case in the 1980s during the first concentrated detergent period. The detergents then were noticeably thicker and more gelatinous, less watery.
I suspect Wal-Mart may have had something to do with this. Wal-Mart was becoming a behemoth at the same time the first concentrated detergent period was ending. Maybe the price pressures they exerted on suppliers forced the detergent companies to put less concentrated formulas in bigger bottles. Maybe that's the only way the detergent companies could supply Wal-Mart with their product and still make money.
Okay, that's probably enough time spent writing about concentrated laundry detergents...
Funny, I remember this same thing happened in the 1980s when the masses discovered recycling. Then, as now, detergent bottles were suddenly and dramatically downsized. They were labeled "ultra" and "super concentrated." Later, as recycling received less publicity, the bottles gradually grew again and the "concentrated" labeling disappeared.
As this happened, I assumed the detergent was still concentrated, but they were ramping up the bottle sizes again. Still concentrated detergent, just more of it. I mean, why wouldn't they concentrate detergent as much as they can?
But now that we have entered a second concentrated, smaller-bottle period, it has me wondering about this assumption. Is detergent now even more concentrated than it was in the 1980s or did they revert to less concentrated formulas after the public pressure to recycle either waned or became the norm? The new concentrated detergents do not seem any thicker than their immediate predecessors, which was not the case in the 1980s during the first concentrated detergent period. The detergents then were noticeably thicker and more gelatinous, less watery.
I suspect Wal-Mart may have had something to do with this. Wal-Mart was becoming a behemoth at the same time the first concentrated detergent period was ending. Maybe the price pressures they exerted on suppliers forced the detergent companies to put less concentrated formulas in bigger bottles. Maybe that's the only way the detergent companies could supply Wal-Mart with their product and still make money.
Okay, that's probably enough time spent writing about concentrated laundry detergents...
Friday, April 18, 2008
The all-important lapel pin
Is this presidential election really going to be about lapel pins?
Barack Obama's opponents are peppering him with accusations of not being patriotic enough because he does not wear an American flag lapel pin. Seriously? You can criticize Obama for many things, if you like, but if all you have is some conformist fashion faux pas, don't waste my time.
From Ronald Reagan through the 1994 mid-term election, conservatism was on the move in this country, led by Republican calls for fiscal responsibility, a hearty defense and smaller government.
But for the past decade, Republicans have been squandering their surging position of power on impeachment proceedings, gay marriage, ensuring God remains in the pledge of allegiance (like God needs the Republican Party) and, now, Barack Obama's lapel pin. Give me a break.
After the 2002 mid-term elections, Karl Rove believed the Republicans were on their way to a permanent majority. But Rove did not consider that "permanent" majorities are not built by divisions, but by commonalities. And for the past decade, all the Republicans have been doing is dividing, by whatever goofy social agenda they can latch onto. Meanwhile, they spend money in Congress like a 21-year-old heiress who just got access to her trust fund.
I don't want to hear about lapel pins. I want to hear about the shrinking dollar, the debt we all owe China and Saudi Arabia, how we plan to stop American military deaths in Iraq, how we finally plan to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice, how we are going to curb carbon emissions and how we are going to decrease our reliance on fossil fuels.
I do not want to hear about lapel pins.
Barack Obama's opponents are peppering him with accusations of not being patriotic enough because he does not wear an American flag lapel pin. Seriously? You can criticize Obama for many things, if you like, but if all you have is some conformist fashion faux pas, don't waste my time.
From Ronald Reagan through the 1994 mid-term election, conservatism was on the move in this country, led by Republican calls for fiscal responsibility, a hearty defense and smaller government.
But for the past decade, Republicans have been squandering their surging position of power on impeachment proceedings, gay marriage, ensuring God remains in the pledge of allegiance (like God needs the Republican Party) and, now, Barack Obama's lapel pin. Give me a break.
After the 2002 mid-term elections, Karl Rove believed the Republicans were on their way to a permanent majority. But Rove did not consider that "permanent" majorities are not built by divisions, but by commonalities. And for the past decade, all the Republicans have been doing is dividing, by whatever goofy social agenda they can latch onto. Meanwhile, they spend money in Congress like a 21-year-old heiress who just got access to her trust fund.
I don't want to hear about lapel pins. I want to hear about the shrinking dollar, the debt we all owe China and Saudi Arabia, how we plan to stop American military deaths in Iraq, how we finally plan to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice, how we are going to curb carbon emissions and how we are going to decrease our reliance on fossil fuels.
I do not want to hear about lapel pins.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
The existential questions of Facebook
There are too many political considerations involved in maintaining a Facebook page. For example, let's say your friend Jane starts dating Richard and, as a result, Richard becomes your Facebook friend. But then one day Jane and Richard break up. Do you banish Richard as a Facebook friend?
And at what point do you declare yourself "in a relationship" in your Facebook profile? If you do it too early, you may scare off your new love interest. If you do it too late, you may offend him or her. It's a balancing act. It says something about your own psyche, as well, and how you are feeling about the burgeoning relationship. If you are giddy about it and want to tell the world, you'll declare it very quickly. If you are indifferent, at best, you'll avoid declaring it to the Facebook universe. So, until you feel comfortable posting it on Facebook, are you really "in a relationship?"
For all these reasons and more, I have not created a Facebook page for myself. And then this weekend, another issue asserted itself into my decisionmaking process.
What happens to a person's Facebook page when they die? Who has the power to delete them from the system?
Which leads to the existential question even more important than the dating issue ... if you still have a Facebook profile, are you really dead?
It's an unanswerable question, like if a tree falls in the woods and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? It's just all too much to comprehend.
And at what point do you declare yourself "in a relationship" in your Facebook profile? If you do it too early, you may scare off your new love interest. If you do it too late, you may offend him or her. It's a balancing act. It says something about your own psyche, as well, and how you are feeling about the burgeoning relationship. If you are giddy about it and want to tell the world, you'll declare it very quickly. If you are indifferent, at best, you'll avoid declaring it to the Facebook universe. So, until you feel comfortable posting it on Facebook, are you really "in a relationship?"
For all these reasons and more, I have not created a Facebook page for myself. And then this weekend, another issue asserted itself into my decisionmaking process.
What happens to a person's Facebook page when they die? Who has the power to delete them from the system?
Which leads to the existential question even more important than the dating issue ... if you still have a Facebook profile, are you really dead?
It's an unanswerable question, like if a tree falls in the woods and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? It's just all too much to comprehend.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
A tradition unlike any other...
Doesn't it just send chills down your spine to hear the familiar Masters theme on CBS? A peaceful piano playing over one of the dozens of classic Masters moments. Could be Nicklaus draining the bomb on #16 in 1975. Or Mickelson jumping for joy after making the birdie putt on #18 to win his first major. Or Nicklaus following the ball to the hole with his putter on #17 in 1986 while Verne Lundquist says, "Maybe ... yes, sir!" Best golf call of all time during the best sports moment of my lifetime.
Or it could be one of the many Tiger Woods highlights. The miraculous chip-in on #16 in 2005. Or the finishing fist pump on #18 in 1997, his inaugural major.
Whichever highlight they play, they're all classic. Then the announcer says, "A tradition unlike any other. The Masters on CBS."
Indeed.
Or it could be one of the many Tiger Woods highlights. The miraculous chip-in on #16 in 2005. Or the finishing fist pump on #18 in 1997, his inaugural major.
Whichever highlight they play, they're all classic. Then the announcer says, "A tradition unlike any other. The Masters on CBS."
Indeed.
Friday, April 4, 2008
For Dems, it's personal from now on
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both speaking at the North Dakota Democratic Convention tonight. The state is thrilled that two national political candidates are appearing. With just three electoral votes, North Dakota generally doesn't receive a whole lot of attention in national races.
But this year is different, of course, because it's April 4 and the Democrats still don't have their nominee for president. The eventual outcome of this race is being discussed endlessly online and in traditional media, so I'm not sure what I can add to the discussion. But this one observation sticks in my mind...
The policy discussion between these two candidates was over long ago. We know where each stands, inside and out, on all major campaign issues. After nearly 20 debates, there is nothing left to say about healthcare, Iraq, the economy.
Where does it go from here? The only place it can: personal. Expect to hear much more about Rev. Wright, Bosnia exaggerations, bowling scores and whatever other issues-of-the-day arise that have nothing to do with policy differences or even delegate counts. At this point, it's all on the table and it will be about character and habits and whether one can create a negative impression of the other.
The Democrats would do themselves a favor by resolving this thing sooner rather than later. But don't hold your breath. If anyone thinks Hillary Clinton will drop out, they are kidding themselves. And why should Obama drop out? He's ahead. Will Howard Dean step in and rescue his party? Not a chance. Doesn't have the clout. How about Al Gore? Maybe; he is the only one in this equation who could anoint the nominee. But that seems a long shot.
If we've learned anything this campaign season, it's that we shouldn't make predictions. But this one just feels like it's going to be a bloody battle all the way to the Democratic convention at the end of August. Over four long months from now.
But this year is different, of course, because it's April 4 and the Democrats still don't have their nominee for president. The eventual outcome of this race is being discussed endlessly online and in traditional media, so I'm not sure what I can add to the discussion. But this one observation sticks in my mind...
The policy discussion between these two candidates was over long ago. We know where each stands, inside and out, on all major campaign issues. After nearly 20 debates, there is nothing left to say about healthcare, Iraq, the economy.
Where does it go from here? The only place it can: personal. Expect to hear much more about Rev. Wright, Bosnia exaggerations, bowling scores and whatever other issues-of-the-day arise that have nothing to do with policy differences or even delegate counts. At this point, it's all on the table and it will be about character and habits and whether one can create a negative impression of the other.
The Democrats would do themselves a favor by resolving this thing sooner rather than later. But don't hold your breath. If anyone thinks Hillary Clinton will drop out, they are kidding themselves. And why should Obama drop out? He's ahead. Will Howard Dean step in and rescue his party? Not a chance. Doesn't have the clout. How about Al Gore? Maybe; he is the only one in this equation who could anoint the nominee. But that seems a long shot.
If we've learned anything this campaign season, it's that we shouldn't make predictions. But this one just feels like it's going to be a bloody battle all the way to the Democratic convention at the end of August. Over four long months from now.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Hillary as Rocky?
Earlier this week, Hillary Clinton was campaigning in Philadelphia and compared herself to one of the city's favorite fictional sons, Rocky Balboa. The Italian Stallion. The ultimate underdog.
Seriously? I know candidates are always trying to equate themselves with American icons and heroes and that's fine. But this one is too much of a stretch, even for presidential candidates.
Clinton is only an underdog because she underestimated her opponent and people are not convinced they know the "real Hillary." These two traits are exactly the opposite of what Rocky Balboa was all about. Balboa admitted to Adrian the night before his big fight against Apollo Creed that all he wanted to do was finish the fight; he had no illusions he could win. And he is all heart; he's instinct, not calculation. You can say a lot of things about Hillary Clinton, but that is not one of them.
Finally, does Clinton know that Rocky lost the fight in the movie that made him a legend?
Seriously? I know candidates are always trying to equate themselves with American icons and heroes and that's fine. But this one is too much of a stretch, even for presidential candidates.
Clinton is only an underdog because she underestimated her opponent and people are not convinced they know the "real Hillary." These two traits are exactly the opposite of what Rocky Balboa was all about. Balboa admitted to Adrian the night before his big fight against Apollo Creed that all he wanted to do was finish the fight; he had no illusions he could win. And he is all heart; he's instinct, not calculation. You can say a lot of things about Hillary Clinton, but that is not one of them.
Finally, does Clinton know that Rocky lost the fight in the movie that made him a legend?
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Richard Florida
Ever heard of Dr. Richard Florida? In 2002, he defined a cross-section of the American workforce that he dubbed the "creative class." He uses traditional statistics to draw his conclusions. His innovation is the analysis he applies to the numbers. In his seminal work, The Rise of the Creative Class, he concluded "creative" people are not defined by the traditional demographics of age, education or income. Rather, they are people who strive to be creative in their jobs. To do that, they choose to be hair stylists instead of computer code writers, even though code writers make considerably more money.
That's just one example. Here's another... he disagrees with Thomas Friedman's contention that The World is Flat. Instead, Florida says it is spiky, with sub-regions thriving while others decay. I see that in my home state of North Dakota. Select population centers thrive and bustle, while most of the rural areas crumble. But this phenomenom does not just apply to rural states like North Dakota. It is happening everywhere in the world. According to Florida, wherever the creative class congregates, economic prosperity follows. Through his analysis, he has identified the phenomena on a smaller sub-region level than any other economist I have seen.
His work has revolutionized the way I think about economic growth and decline, generational differences in the workforce, career choices and even politics. One of his blog postings is an excellent analysis of how the creative class has asserted itself in its support of Barack Obama because to them he represents a kind of post-partisanism that meshes with their worldview.
I encourage you to check out his work. Read his blog. Check out the web site for the Creative Class Group, a for-profit he founded to develop and promote his theories. I've seen him twice in person and he is like the rock star economist ... well-dressed, no pocket protector, dynamic. I've been reminded of him lately because his newest book, Who's Your City?, just hit the bookshelves last month. It explains why choosing where you live might be the most important decision you'll ever make, in terms of job, dating, hobbies, etc.
That's just one example. Here's another... he disagrees with Thomas Friedman's contention that The World is Flat. Instead, Florida says it is spiky, with sub-regions thriving while others decay. I see that in my home state of North Dakota. Select population centers thrive and bustle, while most of the rural areas crumble. But this phenomenom does not just apply to rural states like North Dakota. It is happening everywhere in the world. According to Florida, wherever the creative class congregates, economic prosperity follows. Through his analysis, he has identified the phenomena on a smaller sub-region level than any other economist I have seen.
His work has revolutionized the way I think about economic growth and decline, generational differences in the workforce, career choices and even politics. One of his blog postings is an excellent analysis of how the creative class has asserted itself in its support of Barack Obama because to them he represents a kind of post-partisanism that meshes with their worldview.
I encourage you to check out his work. Read his blog. Check out the web site for the Creative Class Group, a for-profit he founded to develop and promote his theories. I've seen him twice in person and he is like the rock star economist ... well-dressed, no pocket protector, dynamic. I've been reminded of him lately because his newest book, Who's Your City?, just hit the bookshelves last month. It explains why choosing where you live might be the most important decision you'll ever make, in terms of job, dating, hobbies, etc.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
The Best 48
This weekend, my friends and I are meeting for our 17th annual fantasy baseball draft. We've come to call it "The Best 48 Hours of the Year" or "The Best 48" for short.
We drink beer and eat Oreos for breakfast. We do not ask about kids or jobs, home improvement projects or spouses. In fact, I generally arrive home after draft weekend with no new information about my good friends ... except, of course, which third baseman they drafted in the third round. We do ask about girlfriends and potential girlfriends, however; those stories are still often interesting. We've held the draft in Los Angeles and Las Vegas, Phoenix and Fargo, Minneapolis and Mandan.
It is fun, frivolous and friendship at its finest. It is The Best 48 Hours of the Year.
We drink beer and eat Oreos for breakfast. We do not ask about kids or jobs, home improvement projects or spouses. In fact, I generally arrive home after draft weekend with no new information about my good friends ... except, of course, which third baseman they drafted in the third round. We do ask about girlfriends and potential girlfriends, however; those stories are still often interesting. We've held the draft in Los Angeles and Las Vegas, Phoenix and Fargo, Minneapolis and Mandan.
It is fun, frivolous and friendship at its finest. It is The Best 48 Hours of the Year.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Who woulda thought?
Today, Ford announced it is selling its Jaguar and Land Rover brands to Tata, an Indian company. It's been 60 years since India gained its independence from Great Britain. Now, two of the former empire's most legendary brands will be owned by an Indian company on the rise and striving to be a global player. This is not the last time we will hear of Indian companies acquiring brands from Europe and the U.S. The global political and business climates are changing in ways we cannot imagine.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Oprah, the Piano Man and his Wife
This past weekend, I saw a promo ad for Oprah's Monday show. Billy Joel was the guest and it said something about his wife and a visit to their New York home. All I really heard was the Billy Joel part because when the Piano Man is in the house, I am there. So, for the first time in my life, I recorded Oprah.
After starting the show with a rousing rendition of "Only the Good Die Young," Joel sat on Oprah's couch and to say he was reserved would be an understatement. He answered her inane questions with one-word responses and just seemed like he didn't want to be there. He clearly was not promoting anything, so why was he there?
After the first commercial break, it all became clear. Joel's wife Katie was now on the couch with Billy and Oprah and she was taking center stage. After some small talk about how they met, which would be embarassing for any self-respecting middle-aged man (more on that in a second), they played the videotaped Joel home tour. Billy did not participate in the tour and Katie used singular pronouns - I, me, my - to describe everything in the house. The tour included Katie showing us how to make meat loaf.
Back in the studio, Oprah unveiled a new cookbook that Katie had created. Ahhh, a new cookbook. Now, it was all coming together.
Billy Joel, rock-and-roll legend and 32 years older than his wife, agreed to be on Oprah to shill for his young wife's cookbook. It was embarassing for the guy and I actually pitied someone whose ex-wife is Christie Brinkley. Strange.
Even more embarassing, maybe, was the conversation about how they met. Apparently, they crossed paths in a bar and Billy started making small talk with Katie. She had no idea who he was and, when she found out, believed Billy Joel's only two hits were "Uptown Girl" and "Piano Man." Did I mention she is 32 years younger than Joel, who is approaching 60? Joel's daughter is five years younger than his wife.
Throughout this painful interview, Joel rarely spoke and made various facial expressions that seemed to say, "Eh, what are you going to do? Do I have to explain that I'm going through all this because she is smokin' hot?"
Classic line of the show came from Billy Joel: "I would have wanted to marry her if she was 30 years older than me." Uh-huh. Well, lucky for you, Billy Joel, that she just happens to be 30 years younger and gorgeous. Funny how things work out that way.
I was waiting for her to say she would have married him even if he wasn't fantastically rich. Didn't happen, though. The show was a bore and kind of pathetic. Note to self: Never record Oprah again.
After starting the show with a rousing rendition of "Only the Good Die Young," Joel sat on Oprah's couch and to say he was reserved would be an understatement. He answered her inane questions with one-word responses and just seemed like he didn't want to be there. He clearly was not promoting anything, so why was he there?
After the first commercial break, it all became clear. Joel's wife Katie was now on the couch with Billy and Oprah and she was taking center stage. After some small talk about how they met, which would be embarassing for any self-respecting middle-aged man (more on that in a second), they played the videotaped Joel home tour. Billy did not participate in the tour and Katie used singular pronouns - I, me, my - to describe everything in the house. The tour included Katie showing us how to make meat loaf.
Back in the studio, Oprah unveiled a new cookbook that Katie had created. Ahhh, a new cookbook. Now, it was all coming together.
Billy Joel, rock-and-roll legend and 32 years older than his wife, agreed to be on Oprah to shill for his young wife's cookbook. It was embarassing for the guy and I actually pitied someone whose ex-wife is Christie Brinkley. Strange.
Even more embarassing, maybe, was the conversation about how they met. Apparently, they crossed paths in a bar and Billy started making small talk with Katie. She had no idea who he was and, when she found out, believed Billy Joel's only two hits were "Uptown Girl" and "Piano Man." Did I mention she is 32 years younger than Joel, who is approaching 60? Joel's daughter is five years younger than his wife.
Throughout this painful interview, Joel rarely spoke and made various facial expressions that seemed to say, "Eh, what are you going to do? Do I have to explain that I'm going through all this because she is smokin' hot?"
Classic line of the show came from Billy Joel: "I would have wanted to marry her if she was 30 years older than me." Uh-huh. Well, lucky for you, Billy Joel, that she just happens to be 30 years younger and gorgeous. Funny how things work out that way.
I was waiting for her to say she would have married him even if he wasn't fantastically rich. Didn't happen, though. The show was a bore and kind of pathetic. Note to self: Never record Oprah again.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Best auto industry advertising campaign
A couple of people have commented on my claim that BMW's "the ultimate driving machine" is the best positioning statement in the auto industry. Despite their well-argued points, I'm sticking to my guns.
This time, I thought it would be fun to name the auto industry's all-time best advertising campaign. This distinction also goes to a German nameplate: Volkswagen.
Volkswagen's slice of life ads for its economy Golf featured guys in their early 20s doing what guys in their early 20s do while driving a Volkswagen Golf. In one ad, they unabashedly lip-sync to Styx's "Mr. Roboto." In the campaign's finest moment, "Sunday Afternoon," a twosome bops to the beat while they pick up a discarded chair and then return it to the curbside after they discover its offensive smell. They are hip, cool, laid back, cash-conscious ... and they drive a Volkswagen Golf.
Classics.
This time, I thought it would be fun to name the auto industry's all-time best advertising campaign. This distinction also goes to a German nameplate: Volkswagen.
Volkswagen's slice of life ads for its economy Golf featured guys in their early 20s doing what guys in their early 20s do while driving a Volkswagen Golf. In one ad, they unabashedly lip-sync to Styx's "Mr. Roboto." In the campaign's finest moment, "Sunday Afternoon," a twosome bops to the beat while they pick up a discarded chair and then return it to the curbside after they discover its offensive smell. They are hip, cool, laid back, cash-conscious ... and they drive a Volkswagen Golf.
Classics.
Obama takes Gen-X approach
Anyone who's been in the workplace in the last decade has heard at least one presentation on the differences between generations. Human resource people across the country preach about work ethic and reward systems in the context of the Greatest Generation, the Baby Boomers, Generation X and the Millennials.
Funny, then, how this issue has received little to no coverage in the presidential race. We have three distinct generations represented in this contest and we might be well-served to apply a little generational theory to it.
While Barack Obama chronologically skirts the line between Boomers and Xers (he was born in 1961), he is clearly running a campaign with a Gen-X mindset. His message of hope and change is in line with the worldview of those 40 and younger who desire a world in which differences in race, gender, religion and social class are transcended by a common vision of progress. His speech on race last week was just another example of how he recalibrates issues so that he can speak to them on his terms. It was a political speech unlike any I've heard in my lifetime.
His view is shaped by his diverse ethnic and geographic backgrounds. It resembles in many ways the non-traditional family situations that have evolved in this country, beginning with Generation X. Homogeneity is no longer the rule, which requires greater degrees of tolerance and acceptance than in generations past. Gen-Xers do not want to be constrained by the old rules. Their reality is different and they desire a culture that reflects that. Similarly, Obama does not want to be constrained by the old rules of politics and he, too, is attempting to break free.
Stay tuned for future posts on how John McCain represents the Greatest Generation and Hillary Clinton is a classic Boomer.
Friday, March 21, 2008
World War II impact lingers
Ken Burns is probably America's most famous documentary filmmaker (Michael Moore and Al Gore don't count). He has created seminal works on topics as diverse as the Civil War, baseball, The Corps of Discovery (Lewis & Clark and Sakakawea) and jazz.
So, when I heard he had created a seven-part series on World War II simply entitled, "The War," I knew it was something the history freak in me could not resist. The documentary aired on PBS, as all of Burns' works do, and I faithfully recorded all seven episodes.
After several months taking up space on my DVR, I decided I should dive in. It was 14 hours well spent. Although "The War" is not Burns' best work, it is impressive. A look at the History Channel's lineup during any given week made me wonder what material there was left for Burns to cover. World War II has already been documented probably more extensively than any event in American history.
Well, Burns came through. Not necessarily with new historical revelations or even with the very intimate stories of the series' primary sources, although those first-person accounts certainly left an impression. Most impressive, though, was the historical video footage he cobbled together into an amazing visual tableau of the times. Some images that stand out in my mind:
So, when I heard he had created a seven-part series on World War II simply entitled, "The War," I knew it was something the history freak in me could not resist. The documentary aired on PBS, as all of Burns' works do, and I faithfully recorded all seven episodes.
After several months taking up space on my DVR, I decided I should dive in. It was 14 hours well spent. Although "The War" is not Burns' best work, it is impressive. A look at the History Channel's lineup during any given week made me wonder what material there was left for Burns to cover. World War II has already been documented probably more extensively than any event in American history.
Well, Burns came through. Not necessarily with new historical revelations or even with the very intimate stories of the series' primary sources, although those first-person accounts certainly left an impression. Most impressive, though, was the historical video footage he cobbled together into an amazing visual tableau of the times. Some images that stand out in my mind:
- Japanese kamikaze planes slamming into American ships
- The brutal combat footage from Saipan, Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, the Philippines, etc.
- The industrial boom in Mobile, Alabama, and the racial tension that followed
- The relocation camps where Japanese-Americans were sent during the war
- The prison camps where the Japanese held American citizens in the Philippines
- European combat footage clearly taken from the German side of the line
- The horror of German-run concentration camps and what those images did to the GIs who found them
The imagery is amazing and made me think Time magazine got it wrong when they did not name the American GI their "Person of the Century" back in 2000.
The series also reminded me again of that war's lasting impact on the world in so many ways, including technology. The Germans and Americans, especially, pushed the human race forward in technological advancements during those years for the horrific purpose of fighting a war - a "necessary war," as the title of the first episode in Burns' film reminds us - but a war, nonetheless. As the film's finale makes clear, for the residents of this planet, there was a time before The War and a time after it.
If you have any interest in history and have 14 hours to spare, I highly recommend you rent or buy "The War," a film by Ken Burns. His next project is an exploration of the country's national parks. I can't wait!
Thursday, March 20, 2008
"Red State / Blue State" Fatigue
Can we please dispense with the "red state / blue state" phrase every politial commentator in the country fell in love with in 2000? These monikers originated in the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election as the outcome was being decided by hanging chads and argued by attorneys.
The political dynamics that created the rise of "red state / blue state" do not exist anymore, yet the phrases live on. Political commentators can't seem to do without. "Republicans are working to keep Florida red." "Minnesota is becoming increasingly blue."
Some commentators continue to evolve the phrases, wringing them for all they're worth. States are "purple" when they are a mixture of red and blue, or "light blue" or "dark blue" to describe how ardently Democratic a state may be.
What is so ridiculous is that the colors assigned to each party are the product of a random process driven by nothing more than television coverage of the election. Prior to 2000, the television networks alternated colors on their political maps. In 1996, Democrats were represented by the color red on election-night maps and Republicans were blue. In 1992, vice versa. But the colors that just happened to be used in 2000 stuck and no one wants to go back.
The media loves it because it is self-referential. Their maps, after all, started the oh-so-not-clever designations.
It's time to know when to quit. Drop the "red state / blue state" thing immediately. Please. It's so 2000.
The political dynamics that created the rise of "red state / blue state" do not exist anymore, yet the phrases live on. Political commentators can't seem to do without. "Republicans are working to keep Florida red." "Minnesota is becoming increasingly blue."
Some commentators continue to evolve the phrases, wringing them for all they're worth. States are "purple" when they are a mixture of red and blue, or "light blue" or "dark blue" to describe how ardently Democratic a state may be.
What is so ridiculous is that the colors assigned to each party are the product of a random process driven by nothing more than television coverage of the election. Prior to 2000, the television networks alternated colors on their political maps. In 1996, Democrats were represented by the color red on election-night maps and Republicans were blue. In 1992, vice versa. But the colors that just happened to be used in 2000 stuck and no one wants to go back.
The media loves it because it is self-referential. Their maps, after all, started the oh-so-not-clever designations.
It's time to know when to quit. Drop the "red state / blue state" thing immediately. Please. It's so 2000.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
The Accord is going where?
Last night, I saw a television ad for the newly redesigned Honda Accord. The ad's tagline was, "Beyond the road."
Something bothered me when the ad ended, but it took a couple of seconds before I realized what it was ... I don't know what that means. Where does the Accord go, exactly? So, I thought about it in a literal sense. What is "beyond the road?"
Does it fly?
Does it defy the laws of gravity and just sort of skid off the Earth at some point?
Is it a spaceship in car clothing?
I know it can't time-travel because it's not a 1980s DeLorean and they didn't mention a flux capacitor as standard equipment.
Now, I work in advertising, so I get the ad's tagline is trying to convey that the car will somehow allow its driver to transcend the usual driving experience and go to some esoteric and satisfying place "beyond the road." But as a car and as an ad, I don't want it. They can keep them both.
Postscript: BMW has the best positioning statement of all time in the auto industry: The ultimate driving machine.
Something bothered me when the ad ended, but it took a couple of seconds before I realized what it was ... I don't know what that means. Where does the Accord go, exactly? So, I thought about it in a literal sense. What is "beyond the road?"
Does it fly?
Does it defy the laws of gravity and just sort of skid off the Earth at some point?
Is it a spaceship in car clothing?
I know it can't time-travel because it's not a 1980s DeLorean and they didn't mention a flux capacitor as standard equipment.
Now, I work in advertising, so I get the ad's tagline is trying to convey that the car will somehow allow its driver to transcend the usual driving experience and go to some esoteric and satisfying place "beyond the road." But as a car and as an ad, I don't want it. They can keep them both.
Postscript: BMW has the best positioning statement of all time in the auto industry: The ultimate driving machine.
Monday, March 17, 2008
The Man in the Suit
Big props to Michael Schwab for the image and name I'm using to represent this blog ... The Man in the Suit. Schwab is a very talented graphic artist whose work is strong, iconic and powerfully nuanced. I never get tired of it. Check out his work here.
I have never met Schwab and do not have permission to use his illustration. I am hoping that by crediting his work I will not receive a cease and desist letter should he or his legal team ever be alerted to its use.
Thanks are also due to my colleague, a very talented graphic artist in his own right, who introduced me to Schwab's work. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.
I have never met Schwab and do not have permission to use his illustration. I am hoping that by crediting his work I will not receive a cease and desist letter should he or his legal team ever be alerted to its use.
Thanks are also due to my colleague, a very talented graphic artist in his own right, who introduced me to Schwab's work. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.
Everyone's 15 minutes
Andy Warhol was a prescient man in at least one sense. When he said, in the 1960s, "In the future everyone will be famous for 15 minutes," he obviously wasn't referring to blogs, MySpace, Facebook, or YouTube. None of those words even existed at the time. But he certainly had an inkling of what communication technology, human pride and the cult of fame would bring.
A couple of weeks ago, I attended a college basketball game. When a player accomplished something noteworthy on the court, his image was beamed 10 feet tall on the overhead video board. Notice I said "video" board. It's not just a still image of the player looking tough, mean or formidable. No, instead of intimidation, now the player's goal is to do something funny, clever or just goofy during his short video performance. Spinning a basketball, winking, pointing, flashing gang signs, dancing ... all very entertaining.
My point is that every player displayed on the video board knew how to perform, knew exactly the type of persona he wanted to create for the fans. Everyone under 25 years old in America in 2008 knows how to preen, pose and peak others' interest. They are creating their persona, their brand, their public identity. When the camera is on, they know what to do. It's go time.
I'm reminded of these things as I write my first blog. Does anyone care what I have to say? Maybe. Does that deter me? No. I can blog, and so I do blog. And, therefore, in early 21st century America, at least ... I am.
A couple of weeks ago, I attended a college basketball game. When a player accomplished something noteworthy on the court, his image was beamed 10 feet tall on the overhead video board. Notice I said "video" board. It's not just a still image of the player looking tough, mean or formidable. No, instead of intimidation, now the player's goal is to do something funny, clever or just goofy during his short video performance. Spinning a basketball, winking, pointing, flashing gang signs, dancing ... all very entertaining.
My point is that every player displayed on the video board knew how to perform, knew exactly the type of persona he wanted to create for the fans. Everyone under 25 years old in America in 2008 knows how to preen, pose and peak others' interest. They are creating their persona, their brand, their public identity. When the camera is on, they know what to do. It's go time.
I'm reminded of these things as I write my first blog. Does anyone care what I have to say? Maybe. Does that deter me? No. I can blog, and so I do blog. And, therefore, in early 21st century America, at least ... I am.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
