7 Steps to making a Good Badger Video.

Not too much ambiguity with this title. 

To confirm an earlier post, about alcoholism and the Midwest…

Take a look at this map:

(Thanks to Flowing Data)

In this picture, the red dots represent the areas where bars out number grocery stores.  These dots nearly trace the Wisconsin state line perfectly.  Notice how Madison, WI appears to be at the epicenter of the sea of alcoholics red (probably no coincidence in their color selection).   I’d be willing to bet that in some areas of state, the bar per capita ratio reaches above 1.0, but unfortunately I have no science to back that up (only four years of experience). 

At least they haven’t named their professional sports teams after drinking.  Oh, wait….

Today Hulu launched their new concept reality television series, dubbed If I Can Dream.  The concept goes: five complete strangers will be living in a house in Hollywood under the constant surveillance of several cameras (50 to be exact) set up throughout their home, monitoring their actions 24/7.  If you’re thinking this sounds a lot like Big Brother, you’re right.  These 5 individuals share the heavily eclectic aspirations of becoming a musician, an actress, an actor, another actress, and a model.  If you’re thinking this sounds a lot like The Real World, you’re right.  To add a twist of new media and a healthy dose of creativity to the mix, these five twenty-somethings (am I allowed to say that as a 24-year-old?) will be actively working in conjunction with Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace (whatever that is) accounts.  What that means is, you can Tweet actress one asking her to wave to the camera, put more corn in the salsa, or give actress two a wet willy, and there’s a Twitter’s chance that she’ll do it in your honor.

I’m probably not the right person to be giving a review of any reality TV show, given a long history of disdain, but since this incorporates new media, I feel I’m more qualified to review the show and concept.  The concept is truly intriguing.  It’s  like The Sims in that you’re dedicating your free time to witnessing others accomplish mundane tasks.  The downside is you have no control over what’s happening.  On the upside, they’re real humans (well at least to the extent that anyone in Hollywood is real).   Additionally, you get to be one of 50,000 guys asking the Brazilian model on a date through Facebook.

As much as I knock the concept, I think it has potential.  You remember the movie, The Truman Show.  Truman Burbank was more than just a celebrity, he was a deity to his fans.  I know this because you don’t buy mouse pads of celebrities.  Imagine that scenario, only now the fans can make instant attempts at contact through a variety of social media tools.  I know what you’re saying, and yes, I do know what fiction means.  I also know that people love to interact with celebrities; Ashton Kutcher has more Twitter followers than Ireland has people.  Really.  I will say, the concept is a good one.

I will also say, the show, is total garbage.  The pilot episode (there are weekly 30 minute episodes, or “highlights”, on Hulu) was essentially a really bad episode of The Real World, which is already really bad by all by itself.  The steaming version of the show, seen at IfICanDream.com, has a similar effect on your brain as huffing paint.  I tried to watch it, but after 5 minutes I started feeling dizzy.  Imagine the non-scripted interaction of five malnourished (between the five of them, they maybe equal one Shaq), aspiring Hollywood stars, who’ve spent their entire lives squeaking by solely based on their appearances.  It sounds a lot like a kindergarten classroom, only quieter.

But my hating something doesn’t deem it unsuccessful (often it has the opposite effect).  With that said, my prediction says If I Can Dream will be a colossal failure.  Obviously there is an audience for the Real World type of programming.  Additionally, the novelty of the concept adds intrigue points.  Also, don’t overlook the effect of Hulu’s wide reach and heavy advertising.  However, I think the market  for a new idea like this, is the early-adopter, web-savvy crowd.  And frankly, they’re too smart to enjoy this.

Know your audience.

I have some good news and some bad.

This will be the first post not entirely written by The Good Badger.  Just in case you didn’t know it, that was the bad news.   The good news is, the co-author of this post, Alex Wysocki, is a good friend and an individual who’s at least two standard deviations funnier than the mean.

The topic for this post stems from a conversation the two of us had a couple months back. If caught having this dialogue in public, most guys risk losing their masculinity membership card (which is just a laminated picture of a caveman). Instead of confining this to private discourse, we’ve decided to take a more courageous alternative – nearly anonymous, defamatory, blogging. Oh yeah, and the topic: ESPN is for idiots.

Me: First off, Alex, let me thank you for taking a few minutes out of your day to contribute to something that is skimmed through by nearly dozens of people. Also, as previously mentioned, you must feel rather honored that you’re the first person not named Zach Davis to write for zrdavis.com (notice how that wasn’t a question but an assuming statement, no need to respond, we know you’re honored).

So, let’s get into this. How is it exactly that ESPN appeals to the lowest common denominator?

Alex:  Hellooooo World Wide Web!

I’m humbled and honored to be writing for this most prestigious blog. Surely this conversation will alter the lives of the tens and tens of Good Badger followers.

How is it that ESPN appeals to the lowest common denominator you ask?

This is how…

What a wordsmith.

Like most things produced for the masses, (Michael Bay movies, CBS programming, canned meats, Old Navy Performance Fleece) ESPN blows. For some reason they insist on treating every viewer like a 4-year-old with a learning disorder, using gimmicky garbage and ridiculous sensationalism to keep you coming back for more. I tune into ESPN, like most, to watch highlights and check out scores. Unfortunately what I get instead is spoken word poetry from Stuart Scott, NFL “analysts” saying “NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE” like they’re allergic to acronyms, and Dick Vitale screaming incoherently about Duke basketball in July.

Oh, you’re just looking for last nights NBA highlights? We’ll they’ll get to that right after this twenty minute debate over who’s more “Now” . That Billy Jean King bracket was stacked!

It’s impossible to find any original thoughts or opinions on that God forsaken network. It’s just a bunch of over-processed, watered down nonsense being shouted at you by some tool in a hyperbole-laced assault on your senses. BOO-YEAH!

The other night I tuned in looking for the score of the Badgers game, but instead I was subjected to a Tom Renaldi “My Wish” segment about a 13-year-old football player from Montana who survived eight types of cancer only to have terrorists beat him with Kendo sticks until he went blind. But it’s totally cool though; in the end he got to meet Ochocinco!

There are a few people/shows that I can tolerate (at times), but generally speaking, if you enjoy ESPN then you are a MO-RON.

I’ll take this opportunity to get you involved.

Me: I find it hard to intellectually give a reasoned, linear explanation of ESPN’s failings; there are too many aspects to take issue with. Tangential rant(s) will follow.

You hit the nail on the head with the “produced for the masses” bit.  I get the exact same dumbfounded look from people when I say that I don’t like Sportscenter as when I say I didn’t like Transformers.  “DUDE, are you retarded?!  The special effects were unbelievable!  Meghan Fox is totally hot!  Tons of stuff blows up and Meghan Fox is mega hot!” (I generalize that people who like the move Transformers are more prone to use words like “mega”).  If only they could figure a way to combine Meghan Fox, Steven A. Smith, over the top explosions, Lebron James, and Optimus Prime…

Unfortunately, I think a lot of people will interpret our ESPN bashing as hating on sports in general.  To clarify, this is just the opposite.  I love sports.  I work in sports, I spend my discretionary money on sports, I pretend like I can play sports, I invent new sports, I’ve even gotten my haircut at Sportclips (never again). We’re not attacking sports, ESPN is.  We’re attacking ESPN in sports’ defense.

Every time Sportscenter trots out another, washed up, former-athlete, “panelist” to regurgitate the content from a teleprompter at a 6th grade reading level, ESPN is testing how much garbage they can dump through your TV screen before you change the channel.  By the time you’ve seen the same narrative repeated by four consecutive shows (wouldn’t it be cheaper just to re-air Pardon the Interruption 4 times?) , your couch is sitting atop a landfill and Woody Paige is stuffing compost in your mailbox.  I realize filling content for a sports network 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, will result in inconsistent levels of quality, but if you can’t find different subject matters for different shows, at least give a new perspective.  Also,  if CNN can require their employees to be literate, ESPN should follow suit.

There are very few personalities left on ESPN who care to educate you anymore.  The Ron Jaworksi’s and Peter Gammons of the world are falling under the shadows of flashy graphics and “sports entertainers” aka clowns aka Lee Corso.  True, the E in ESPN stands for entertainment; maybe what I’m hitting on is a legitimate alternative network to ESPN.  ESPN is the male version of E!  You can hide E! behind a facade of sports, but I know crummy programming when I see it.  The sports network that I’m looking for is closer to the Discovery/HBO region of networks.   It should be both educational and provacative.

Alex, I now request two things of you:

1) An additional “what’s wrong with ESPN” rant and

2) What would our hypothetical Utopian sports network look like?

Alex:

So earlier today I was watching Sportscenter (strictly for research purposes) and I saw that Cardinals fans gave Mark McGuire a standing ovation in his first puplic appearance since he admitted to using steroids. This was utterly confusing and made me realize something profound…

My hatred lies more with sports fans themselves than with ESPN.

Remember way back to June, 2003, when Sammy Sosa’s bat exploded cork all over the faces of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays infield? (If you dont, I’m amazed you are still reading this.) Yeah, that was something. Sammy explained that he had mistakenly picked up one of his batting practice bats before heading to the plate. He also claimed this was something he had never, ever done before, especially not during his record breaking, Flinstone Vitamin-fueled homerun rampage of the previous few seasons. I assumed this shameful act would send Cubs fans into a Sosa-bashing frenzy. His legacy already tainted by steroid rumors (still only rumors at the time), now the guy was corking his bat too? He was a blatant cheater, and not even a good one. When the drugs stopped working he tried resorting to olde-timey cheating that totally doesnt work, according to, like, physics and stuff.

So where is this story going, you ask? Well I just happened to have tickets to the very next game. So there I am, it’s Sosa’s first plate appearance since the incident, and I’m ready to boo my loins out at this lying, cheating tool. I assumed the 40,000 others in attendance would join me in an opus of hatred that would make Richard Dreyfus proud. You can imagine my surprise when he walked to the plate and receieved an overwhelming standing ovation. I was appalled, and I’m still confused to this day. That’s like you finding out your spouse has been unfaithful for years, and then when you catch her in the act, instead of leaving/berating her, you give her a high five.

I realized something that day, something the Mark McGuire standing ovation reaffirmed for me…Sports fans are dumb.

Statistics? Strategy? Logic? These fancy words mean nothing to Joe Sportsfan. “Curses”, “magic”, and “destiny” are more his speed. Most sports fans live in a world of make-believe. A world where athletes are hero’s deseving of our warship. Don’t bother these people that most pros are simply fast, strong, tall dudes who are often as flawed personally as the worst of us. Fans will turn their heads to the most blatant truths just so they can go on believing the fairy tail.  They can’t just appreciate the game for the competition on the field, they need hollywood storylines and some deep character development to stay interested. I hate to burst your bubble guys, but Tim Tebow is not a comic book hero. He’s just another nerdy, annoying, churchy dude. It just so happens he was a really good college football player too – Though Thom Brennaman would have you believe otherwise (have a puke bucket ready).

As Mr Brenneman so disgustingly displayed, sportscasters on all networks love shoving hyperbole intensive narratives down our throats. In the case of ESPN, I think there are two main reasons why they continue to get away with it:
1) There are a lot of dumb people who eat it up. Like, A LOT.
2) They have no legitamite competition.

The worst part about ESPN is how much time I spend watching it. I’m obviously an extremely busy and important individual, but when im not authoring groundbreaking legislation or negotiating international peace treaties, I enjoy zoning out to touchdowns and alley-oops . The idea of a 24 hour sports network is totally awesome, but for some reason no one has stepped forward to challenge ESPN’s dominance in that department.

FSN/CSN is trash. Their flagship highlight show, Final Sore, is actually pretty decent (and usually poetry free), but I have no idea when it’s on, and it seems to lack a regular time-slot. That’s understandable though, I mean, their current programming schedule is chock full of high school field hockey, English darts championships, and infomercials. That’s a jam-packed line up, and as they say, if it aint broke dont fix it.

Until someone puts a legit alternative on the air I really have no option besides the World Wide Leader in Sports™. It’s not like I’m going to not watch sports.  Sure, there’s the internet, but typing is tedious and God made high-def for a reason.  Plus, laptops give you teste cancer, look it up.

I’m no television executive, but here are a few things my sports network would include…
First off, every market would have their own Local affiliate. ESPN started doing this recently with their ESPN Chicago/New York/Boston websites, but I would take it to the next level. I’m sick of hearing about the AL East, the Dallas Cowboys, or any other team that’s crammed down my cram hole. We lived in Wisconsin for 4 years, home to some of the most passioante sports fans in the country, but once Farve was gone ESPN spent about 6 minutes a year discussing sports from that state. WHAT’S UP LINDA COHN? THE BUCKS AREN’T COOL ENOUGH FOR YOU? HAVE YOU SEEN BRANDON JENNING’S HAIR?

Personnel notes:

• Kenny Mayne can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants.
• Scott Van Pelt needs to check his ego at the door, but I think without the ball-gag that is ESPN censorship he might be hilarious. He’s in.
• Chris McKendry can come aboard. She’s got an understated sexyness I can’t resist, plus she obviously has a great sense of humor.
• Barry Melrose can be in charge of the hockey department, simply because I dont know enough about hockey to judge whether or not his analysis is as awesome as his hair. I’ll assume it is.
• Jake Plummer handles all NFL/Handball analysis
• Stick with the trend of hot sideline reporters. Erin Andrews and Charissa Thompson come aboard and get raises.

Programming notes:

• Replace Around the Horn, Pardon the Interruption, 1st and 10, and Jim Rome is Burning, with ONE SHOW. I dont need 10 different morons giving me the same 20 second opinion on the same issues that I couldn’t care less about. I dont need 10 different sports puppets giving me the same 20 second opinion on the same issues that I care about. Instead put a long form radio-esque talk show on in there place. Get smart, funny, local guys to dissect local issues and give interesting original, relatively uncensored insight.
• No car racing, poker, pool, bowling, or women’s sports (sorry ladies, but you are boring).
• More soccer and MMA (not too much more, but these two can’t continue to be ignored).
• Only extremely important high school sports will be aired (state football championships and such).
  finally, and most importantly, my network will air a good sports trivia show daily. You know, a good one, like, the opposite of Stump the Schwab (Schwab and Stewart Scott were entirely hateable, and the format made it impossible to play along at home). Just straight trivia questions. I’m talking sports Jeopardy, or better yet, sports Cash Cab. And we wont have brain-damaged athletes read the questions (which ruined the otherwise satisfactory Two Minute Drill).

I’m not the smartest sports dude ever. I cant explain the hockey rulebook forward and back, I cant breakdown a zone blocking scheme. But there are people who can, and I want those people to be on TV. I want to learn from those people, I want them to give me a better understanding of the sports I love watching but am not gifted enough to play. I don’t necessarily need 24 hours of chalk-talk, that would be boring, but there has to be something better than what’s offered by ESPN.  I’m sick of the discourse on the sports I love being focused on irrelevant cliches and fabricated stoylines. Keep that stuff where it belongs…like pro wrestling.

The bottom line is that dumb sports fan need to go away. There are too many of you and you’re too easy to please for TV execs to ignore. It’s much easier to make a sports version of  The Hills than it is to do something smart or thought-provoking or deserving of my viewership.

What are your thoughts on sports fans? What would you put on TV?  Have you donated to Haiti yet or are you going to Hell?

Zach: Is there anything left to be said…? (no, but when has that ever slowed me down)

Although, I do think there are enough intelligent humans who enjoy sports for more than the story lines and annoying one-liners to make ZASU (Zach & Alex Sports Universe – yes that’s the best I could come up with) a viable and profitable venture.  Sure ESPN will still be the preferred network for halfwits (which NASCAR has proven is immensely profitable segment of the population) but most of the people I surround myself with share my anti- Chris Berman sentiment.  I think Michael Lewis’ Blindsided and Moneyball type of books are a perfect indicators that literate people do care about sports above and beyond their circus-like qualities.   Dear Mr. Lewis, if you’re reading, and I know you are, this is your open invitation to host your own nightly report on ZASU.  All financial issues will be handled by Alex.

Additional Network notes:

• Erin Andrews becomes the face of the network, literally and figuratively.   Jerry West : NBA Logo, Erin Andrews : ZASU
• All employees will not only not be restricted, but strongly encouraged to use social media.  (Are you listening Bill Simmons?)
• Interviews with athletes and coaches will be edited down to include only the non-cliche. Tune to ESPN for Substance-less press conferences.
• When more than one event is being covered by ZASU simultaneously, you will indicate online which game will be played on your television.  (Too often I’m caught watching the end of some blowout game I care nothing about and by the time they cut to The Bulls my game, we’re already 18 points down.)
• Our nightly sports highlight show will be a hybrid of Sportscenter (top plays, side menu revealing upcoming highlights, separate specialist panelists for each sport) and Inside the NFL (knowledgeable insight, better behind the scenes coverage, mic’ing the coaches berating their players and refs, copious amounts of slow motion)

Now that the ideas are in place, all we need is a few hundred million dollars, and our dream is realized.

Alex:  Choose the game you want to watch via the internet? Sounds like somone’s been watching too much Demolition Man.

I guess the only thing left to mention is that this whole “ESPN is drunk with power” idea isn’t a new one. There are a bunch of websites that have been ripping on ESPN for years now, and been doing a pretty damn good job. The popularity of sites like Deadspin is proof that there exists a market for an alternative sports network. So, if there are any maverick billionaires reading this who are tired of sports cliches, please get my beeper number from Zach. Let’s make this happen.

Thank you Zach for letting me vent to the world. I love you more than soccer stars love impregnating their teammates’ girlfriends.

Zach:  That’s a lot of love.  Thanks for the impassioned ESPN bashing, Alex.  You’re welcome back to zrdavis.com anytime.  Even more so, thanks to anyone who has actually made it through this entire post.

I’m sick of people not using Google Reader.  Why?  Because it’s underrated and it’s awesome.  And quite frankly I’m here to make you more awesome.  So help me help you become a better Internetter.

First, before we proceed, I suppose I’ll provide you with a little bit of the why you should do this.  In one sentence: Google Reader is the easiest and most efficient way to stay current with multiple websites.  Some people use Twitter for this, but with Twitter (a) you’re reduced to clicking on shortened links that could be sending you to anything (http://bit.ly/2ADzQr – you have no idea where that’s taking you) and (b) you don’t have to tolerate getting updates on what TV shows people are watching.  Some people enjoy the mixed bag of links they get fed through Facebook, but again you’re likely sifting through pictures of cats and updates that your aunt is now The Godfather of Mafia Wars.  You don’t have to be subjected to that.  Lastly, there are still some people who rely on their memory to cycle through the same dozen or so websites every day.  To you I say, “join me in the 21st century, won’t you?”.

Additionally, Google Reader gives you posts in a chronological order, so the most recent post, regardless of the source, will be posted at the top.  These posts easily expand and collapse so you can quickly navigate through articles and bypass the ones that are less appealing.

Okay.  The Good Badger Google Reader Tutorial shall commence.

Step 1)  Sign up for a Google account.  I’m guessing you likely already have one (if you use GMail, you have one), so meet me at step 2.

Step 2) Oh hi.  Next, go to the Google Reader homepage.  You should see this:

You probably won’t get the same adorable rabies infested Raccoon as pictured above, but not everyone can be so lucky.

You now have a Google Reader account, but no websites are synced to your account yet.  At this point you should take a few seconds to ponder what websites you regularly visit.

Step 3)  Oh, my website is what came to mind?  Ok good, let’s go ahead and get that set up for you.  Click on the add a subscription box at the top left portion of the screen (see: below)

I’ve made the arrow to be as blatant and obnoxious as possible.

Step 4)  In the search box, you can either type the exact website, or keywords for that website.  Type “The Good Badger”, since it’s easier to remember (not even The Good Badger’s own mother can remember zrdavis.com).

From there, a list of the relevant results will populate.  In this instance you’ll get my site for the first two results, and then less important, ignorable content below.  Click the blue “Subscribe” box (see: below)

Step 5) Repeat steps 3 and 4 for as many sites as you regularly check.  Feel free to suggest your website in the comments section down below.   I don’t mind shameless self promotion as long as your site is quality.

Also, take note that there’s a trade off between the number of sites you add on here and the sense of an overwhelming quantity of posts to wade through.  I enjoy the endless sea of information and am not bothered knowing that I won’t be able to read through it all.  Some people feel differently about that.  Play around with it for a while and see how you feel (that’s what he said).

Step 6) Optional but recommended Change your Google Reader over to list view.  This makes it easier to quickly bypass articles and posts that don’t interest you.  To do so, simply click the “Show – List” option on the top right corner of the page (see: below)

There are more advanced features involved with Google Reader, but that’s the essentials.  Like with anything else, it will take a little bit of forced practice to navigate over to your new Reader page, but in due time, it’ll be worked into your normal routine.

I will end today’s lesson with a quote from the infamous Yoggi Berra:

I’m not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did.

Perhaps I’ll regret saying this, but, there’s no reason any business should ever pay anyone to manage their social media accounts unless they:

1)  Have absolutely no clue how to operate Facebook/Twitter/YouTube/Flickr/Squidoo/WordPress/etc. (in which case they’d be better paying someone to teach them how to use it – or learn for free through online tutorials.  Give a man a fish and he eats for a day.  Teach a man to Tweet, and he’s annoying for life.)

or

2)  Simply have no time to learn and would rather pay someone to do it for them

In other words, either they’re too ignorant, too busy, or both.  In all other scenarios, if you’re in charge of your own business, or calling the shots in any way, I’m telling you to not pay someone to run your social media marketing.  This is coming from someone who makes a living running people’s social media sites.  That’s the equivalent of coffee salesmen telling you how great Red Bull is. 

I do my best to tell it like it is.  This isn’t law, this isn’t accounting, this isn’t neurology.  Those fields require someone who has spent years in specified education acquiring licenses to qualify themselves as capable in their specific practice.  Social media marketing is much closer to personal training.  Sure, there is a vast proportion of the population who might not have the first clue as to how to go about achieving their health goals, but the process it takes to educate yourself can be measured in hours.  Read a couple of good books, get your Men’s Fitness subscription, watch an Arnold DVD, and you’re qualified to manage your own health and nutrition.  Beyond that, when you pay for a personal trainer, you’re buying motivation.  If you need someone to motivate you on why your business is marketable, you need more help than a social media specialist can offer.  You need to hire someone to overhaul your entire marketing program.

Ok,  if it’s so easy, how do I go about managing these sites?

Let me answer my own question presented from a 3rd party perspective by explaining the types of social media users I encounter on a daily basis.

The Rookie  

This person has just recently discovered social media and has been convinced by at least one person half their age of its importance.  This combined with what is apparently too much free time equates to the most annoying of all social media users (aside from most businesses).  The result unfortunately is a steady stream of mundane updates mixed in with an endless barrage of Farmville, Mafia Wars, friend quizzes, their favorite charities (which they likely don’t contribute money to), and other updates from dangerously unimportant applications.  (By the way the only way to help these people is by ostracizing them.  Until you tell them how annoying they are, they hold the delusion that people find these bits of information important.)

The Drama Queen

This person thrives on social media because now they get to publicize their melodramatic qualities.  Often times this is merely a desperate cry for sympathy and attention.  A quick run through their updates will demonstrate that (at least in their eyes) nothing in their life is right.  My personal favorite variety of the drama queen is the “none of your business” variety.  This person will beg for attention, and when they receive it, will retract and act like nothing is wrong.  Their internal struggle is a spectacle for all to enjoy (or become nauseated by).

The Socialite

There are two very specific categories of The Socialite:

1. The Business variety:  The person in charge of this account makes every attempt to respond to every point of direct contact as a means of obtaining more business.  This is not necessarily a poor strategy, although it is very transparent.  They will often make direct references to each social interaction they can remember having with each member of their social network.  (“It was great to pass @billybob on the staircase”, “@LisaBibsby really knows how to buy diet coke at 7/11″).  To that person there is a momentary sense of importance.  To everyone else, you’ve taken time away from them that they will never get back.  NOTE: This has now gotten to the point where certain individuals will dedicate their lives to building their social network in this manner.  Eventually their endgoal is to essentially sell advertising (“hey guys, be sure to check out the Downtown Holiday Inn, it’s really great!”) to their “friends”.  Sadly this works.
2. The “look how popular I am” variety:  This person derives their self worth by how “cool” other people perceive them as.  Perpetual picture sharing, shoutouts for every instance of communication, and a need to become “Facebook friends” at the slightest hint of interaction are symptoms of this disease.  If you’ve ever heard anyone brag about how many Facebook friends or followers they have, odds are they fall into this category.

 The Jukebox

This person mostly uses song lyrics as their status updates.  This person sucks.

The Secondhand News Stand

I will go easier on this type, seeing as I most likely fall into this category (fair and balanced).  This person has the delusion that what they find important will also be deemed important by those in their social media circle.  They share what is funny, informative, important, educational, entertaining, despite how funny, informative, important, educational, or entertaining the source may actually be.  This is a sound approach for businesses to take to demonstrate their knowledge and timeliness within a particular niche. 

I could go on.  I won’t.  The point is not to ridicule people for their social media uses (except maybe The Rookie and The Drama Queen).  The point of the preceding over-simplifaction is to demonstrate, that everything you do on social media says something about you.  More accurately, it says something about how you want people to perceive you.  This is not at all unlike any other form of communication.  Every action you take says something about you.  Social media is not some bizarre world populated with giant, blue creatures who ride pterodactyl like birds, who only practice monogamy, and are best viewed through cheap 3D glasses (I should make that into the best selling movie of all time).  Social media is society through the use of a keyboard, mouse, and/or touchscreen.  Hiring someone to tell you what to put as a Facebook update or Tweet means you don’t know what differentiates your business.  It means you don’t know your customers.  It means you don’t know how to position yourself between your competition.  It means you don’t understand business.

Sure there are some advanced social media tactics which can help condense, repetitive actions.  There are some tools which will help better locate potential customers.  But there are amazing resources out there that can help you figure these methods out without paying someone to do that for you. 

However, if you do have the extra money to spend, don’t have the time, or the patience to learn the tricks of this trade, there are quality candidates out there who can master this for you (or educate you).  But, buyer be ware, there are snake oil salesmen, and there are people who know marketing.  Be careful to pick the latter. 

It’s not the length of the video that matters.  At least that’s what all the short videos say…

Please, correct me if I’m wrong, but am I the only person in America who fits these two conditions?

1. Is a fan of Conan “Coco” O’Brien
2. Is happy to see him leave the Tonight Show

Throughout high school and college, I was as big a Conan fan as it got.  Late Night with Conan O’Brien was an oasis in the desert of horrible programming that accompanied midnight television (I’m coming from the perspective of Central Standard Time – deal with it).  At that hour your options are between infomercials for a toaster/blender/ChiaPet hybrid, some crazy evangelist preaching that masturbation is a sign of the devil, and Girls Gone Wild commercials (an unfair combination if you ask me).  And then there was NBC, the home of Conan O’Brien.  A safe bet for a couple of C level celebrity guests, laughably cheap sketches, and of course Conan’s razor sharp wit and immature, animated charisma.  I don’t think I missed a single Monday through Wednesday show throughout my entire freshman year of college (I had other priorities Thursday and Friday, and occasionally Wed…and Tues…and Monday.  Okay maybe I missed a few).  Prior to 12:05 AM, my roommate, we’ll call him Jason (because that’s his name), and I typically had separate agendas.  He was usually studying (no surprise he later went on to score in the 98th percentile for the MCATs), I, was usually not (no surprise I later went on to write a blog about watching Conan O’Brien).  But as soon as the famed Max Weinberg drum-roll hit, Jason put down his book, I put down the Playstation controller, and it was Conan time.  Our room eventually became the unofficial Conan viewing room, attracting others throughout Ogg dormatory (that was the actual size of the room to be shared by two people – and sickly, I miss it).

The point for this reminiscent rant, is to convey my affinity for Coco.

When, in 2004, NBC decided to make Conan the host of the Tonight Show 5 years down the road (way past the year 2000), no one was more excited than me.  This is mostly because I was moving to Pacific Standard Time and not sleeping in til 10AM anymore; 1:30 AM and I have drifted apart.  Last year, this long awaited dream finally came true.

However, something seemed awry.  The prime-time, 11:30 PM, family-friendly NBC spot and Conan O’Brien didn’t quite gel.  It didn’t gel for me.  It definitely didn’t gel for NBC.  And I’m guessing if you were a fan of the likes of the Masturbating Bear, it didn’t gel for you either.  Don’t get me wrong it’s still good, anything that Conan hosts has no option but to be funny.  But it lost its edge.

I believe the Tonight Show + Conan experiment was a failure waiting to happen for two reasons:

1)  Conan replacing Leno is like having Metallica fill in at an Enya concert

The Tonight Show constituency in which Conan was going into had grown occustomed to Jay Leno for 17 years.  These two personalities could not further apart.  Conan is off-beat, intelligent, quick witted, interesting, etc.  Jay Leno, has none of these qualities.  Leno might excite you if  (a) you’re 60 years or older and/or (b) you’re only other hobby consists of watching paint dry.  Conan’s followers don’t meet this age requirement, so, unfortunately NBC misses out on the disproportionately large Baby Boomer population (when can we start referring to them as the Viagra generation? I believe I’ll start this now movement now).  Someone who had grown used to Jay Leno’s manila comedy and passive interview style was likely not going to jump on the bandwagon of, nipple rubbing, fake puppet string cutting, Conan O’Brien.  Additionally, Gen Y watches a good portion of their TV online.   Not good if you’re NBC and making a decision purely based on Nielsen ratings.

2)  When trying to please everyone, you appeal to no one

Conan was trying to please two different markets simultaneously.  His brand of humor was never going to stop appealing to his core audience (anyone under the age of 35), but it was obvious he now was also trying to please the older Tonight Show crowd.  If you paid attention, there have been several instances where Conan gets visibly uncomfortable when one of his guests brings up a “less than prime-time” topic during an interview.  Of course his interviewees would touch upon crude topics, they were talking to Conan.  His show used to be a breeding ground for such banter.  Now, since he’s the host of the Tonight Show, he has adopted the fallacy of the “Tonight Show legacy”.  Younger viewers don’t care about legacies.  Maybe those who are old enough to remember watching Johnny Carson care, but my generation doesn’t.  We don’t watch SNL because of what it used to be.  If it’s funny, we’ll watch.  If it’s not, the Internet, DVR, and Netflix puts the term “television legacy” on par with Alchemy.  In trying to cater to both of these audiences, he both missed the mark with the older generation and lost some of his luster with his original fan base.

Since Conan has found out that NBC is buying out his contract and releasing him, his show has started to return to form.  He even recently brought back our favorite self-pleasuring bear.  This is encouraging news for folks like myself.  Maybe the original Conan isn’t dead, but is merely lying dormant.  Put Conan into a setting where the lead-in is a half hour of animals viciously attacking people’s crotches (aka FOX), and I believe he can shine once again.

For those who feel bad for Conan, I have one word of advice: stop. Conan wasn’t right for the legacy.  Let the Johnny Carson/Jay Leno crowd have their old people’s program back.   NBC was trying to make Conan get behind the wheel of a classic Cadillac (or a Buick).  It didn’t work.  Now, once again, he has the opportunity to operate a monster truck that sprays licorice and nitrous oxide.  When Fox, FX, or some crazy alternative like Internet Television decides to give Conan his show back, his audience will be the beneficiaries.  After all, no matter how hard you try, you just can’t fit a square peg into a round hole.

About one year ago, one of the top stories in Major League Baseball involved the Los Angeles Dodgers offering Manny Rameriz $25 million for one year.  To play baseball.

That wasn’t the story.

He (and blood sucking agent Soctt Boras) rejected this offer citing that he was worth more (over a longer period).  This was during a time when the global economy was on the verge of imploding.  Taxpayer money was being used as a crutch to stabilize crumbling financial institutions, the companies that didn’t collapse were laying off workers in droves, even Santa Claus had his hours cut during the last two Christmi (plural of Christmas).

And this, the same Manny Rameriz, who doesn’t run out ground balls, who shoves the 60 year old traveling secretary to the ground, who’s known to fake injuries to get out of games he doesn’t want to play, demands more than $25 million for one year.  To play baseball.

Instances of an athlete’s greed is not isolated to Manny Rameriz.  Every year, in each of the major sports (and occasionally hockey), we hear of the year’s biggest free agents rejecting colossal sums of money from their current team to squeeze out a few million more on the open market.  To put things into perspective, the difference of what the superstar athlete is holding out for is usually just a few percent extra, yet the difference is still more than most Americans make in their entire lives.  That’s reason enough for Joe 6-pack to fill with rage and curse the likes of “Manny being Manny“.  Then you throw in the unemployment rate escalating over 10% (with the real unemployment rate being closer to 17%), and there breeds the real threat of a pitchfork to the neck courtesy of the blue collar mob.

Certainly the criticisms cast at these greed stricken athletes are fair, right?  (Do you really think I would’ve built it up this way for the sake of agreement?)

No.  It’s fair that someone who works 65 hour weeks and makes just enough money for the occasional night out at Applebees, feels some sort of animosity toward any individual who thinks that several million dollars isn’t enough money. The point I’d like to make is that these superstar athletes shouldn’t (and probably don’t) care what the common man thinks of their situation.

You’re probably thinking, “that’s pretty cold.”  That’s true.  But the same quality that makes an athlete hold out for the best possible contract also explains how they’ve gotten to where they are.  It’s an unrivaled sense of competitiveness.  It’s an incessant urge to be better than the person next to them.  It’s a determination to do more than the status quo (I’ll stop for the sake of sounding like a high school coach).

In other words, they got to where they are by not paying too much attention to what “the common man” was doing.  The common man went to basketball practice in high school, played a few extra pickup games on the weekend, worked out when their coach instructed them, and then proceeded onto their common life.  The budding megastar athlete did all of this, and then dedicated the remaining free time to further fine tuning their craft.  Whether their motives were to be the best, better than a particular rival, or to eventually become ultra-wealthy, their underlying sense of competitiveness is what has placed them atop of a very crowded hierarchy.

Similarly, our sense of bewilderment of “why are they holding out for the extra $2 million when they’ve already got more money then they could ever spend” should serve as our reminder as to why we’re not in their position.  I’m guessing for many of these athletes, it’s not about the money (as clichè as that sounds).  The money symbolizes a more qualitative sense of value.  The money represents their standing within their sport.  Athletes struggle for the extra 2 million dollars on a $150 million contract so they can look at the person next to them and say, “I’m $X million better than you”.  What we interpret as greed is the same quality which makes watching the sport enjoyable in the first place: competition amongst the world’s most elite.  I think the alternative to this would be reasonably paid athletes and mediocre talent (basically what sports were 40 years ago).  I like our current situation better.

The next time you hear someone complain about so-and-so holding out for more money, take it for what it is: a lack of competitive awareness.  Instead of joining in on their attack, take it as your reminder to find your domain of competition.  And when you find it, don’t feel bad about being the best.  Manny doesn’t.

A couple of days ago I fell upon an article in the USA Today that was detailing the destruction caused by the unseasonably cold weather in the southern part of the country  (don’t be alarmed, this is not a weather rant).  Apparently, the plummeting temperatures has more of an effect than making Floridians dust off their winter jackets.  The article exemplifies some of the less obvious consequences of such an anomaly: large scale losses of tropical fish, the closing of zoos that stay open year round, etc.

Then, toward the end of the article, it is mentioned that two teens outside of Atlanta died as a result of this weather system.  What may have caused such a tragedy?  Perhaps their car broke down, they were stranded in the middle of a rural area, and eventually fell victim to hypothermia.  Or their car hit a patch of ice, they slid into the wetlands and promptly became hors d’oeuvres for a congregation of alligators.  In fact, neither of these scenarios were the cause of death.  Instead, as a result of recreation, these two teenage boys fell through a semi-frozen pond.

I don’t want to seem more cold hearted than I am in reality (68°F), but this is not an act of mother nature.  This is an act of neglect on behalf of their mothers.  In the Midwest, people die from similar events on a fairly regular basis.  No one makes this an issue of bizarre external factors.  People don’t blame Climate Change or write nasty letters to chemists, dealing a diatribe for the properties H₂O.  Sure, ponds might not freeze as often in Georgia as they do in Minnesota, but when you put an ice tray in the freezer for 15 minutes, the result is partially frozen ice.  This is fairly universal.  When you pull out said ice tray, and a light bulb goes off saying, “if only there was more of this, I’d sure like to stand on it,” well, Darwin can explain the rest.

The older of the two kids was 15 years old.  True, this is young, but also old enough to be less than a year away from legally driving a two ton automobile at speeds heavily influenced by the NASCAR culture.  Still,  Mom and Dad have to take the heat (no pun intended) for this one.  Maybe these kids didn’t learn their “frozen pond lesson” from the The Good Son like the rest of us, but even if they had watched Macaulay Culkin chuck a child into the water of a semi-frozen pond, they’re just kids.  It’s their job to be curious.  It’s mom’s responsibility to say, “don’t play on that because you’ll die.”

Again, this doesn’t lessen the loss being experienced by those who knew and loved these kids.  Kids are kids, they didn’t deserve this fate.  The point is don’t tack this loss up to mother nature.  This one falls squarely on the shoulders of mom.